🔗 Share this article

Will the EU ever resist the US administration and US big tech? The current lack of response goes beyond a regulatory or economic failure: it represents a moral collapse. This inaction undermines the very foundation of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not only the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that Europe has the authority to regulate its own digital space according to its own laws.

The Path to This Point

First, consider the events leading here. In late July, the EU executive agreed to a humiliating deal with the US that established a permanent 15% tax on EU exports to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The indignity was compounded because the EU also consented to provide more than $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. This arrangement revealed the fragility of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump threatened severe additional taxes if the EU implemented its laws against US tech firms on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years Brussels has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million affluent people gives it significant sway in trade negotiations. But in the six weeks since the US warning, the EU has done little. Not a single counter-action has been taken. No invocation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its primary protection against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established anticompetitive behaviour, already proven in US courts, that enabled it to “exploit” its dominant position in Europe's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to strengthen EU institutions. It seeks to undermine it. An official publication published on the US State Department website, composed in alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It condemned supposed restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

What is to be done? Europe's trade defense mechanism functions through assessing the degree of the pressure and applying retaliatory measures. If most European governments consent, the EU executive could remove US goods and services out of the EU market, or impose taxes on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their financial activities and require reparations as a condition of re-entry to Europe's market.

The tool is not merely financial response; it is a statement of political will. It was designed to signal that Europe would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is most crucial, it lies unused. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the period leading to the transatlantic agreement, several EU states used strong language in official statements, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that recommend content the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Broader Digital Strategy

The public – not the algorithms of foreign oligarchs beholden to foreign interests – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they view and distribute online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now more than ever, the EU should hold American technology companies responsible for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. Brussels must hold certain member states responsible for failing to enforce EU online regulations on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. The EU must progressively replace all foreign “big tech” platforms and computing infrastructure over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of the current situation is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the deeper the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its regulations are not binding, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system not self-determined.

When that happens, the path to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of lies. If Europe continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. The EU must act now, not only to push back against US pressure, but to create space for itself to function as a free and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, South Korea and East Asia, democratic nations are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will resist external influence or yield to it.

They are asking whether representative governments can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who faced down Trump and demonstrated that the approach to address a bully is to respond firmly.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to issue polite statements, to levy symbolic penalties, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.