🔗 Share this article

Can the EU ever stand up to the US administration and American tech giants? Present passivity is not just a legal or financial failure: it constitutes a ethical collapse. This inaction throws into question the core principles of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not merely the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that Europe has the authority to govern its own digital space according to its own rules.

Background Context

To begin, consider the events leading here. In late July, the EU executive accepted a one-sided agreement with the US that established a ongoing 15% tax on EU exports to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The indignity was compounded because the commission also agreed to provide well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and purchases of energy and defense equipment. The deal exposed the vulnerability of Europe's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, the US administration threatened crushing new tariffs if the EU enforced its laws against American companies on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it significant sway in trade negotiations. But in the six weeks since the US warning, Europe has done little. Not a single retaliatory measure has been implemented. No activation of the recently created trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its primary protection against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, already proven in US courts, that enabled it to “exploit” its dominant position in the EU's advertising market.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to support European democracy. It aims to weaken it. An official publication published on the US Department of State's platform, composed in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, accused the EU of “systematic efforts against democratic values itself”. It criticized alleged restrictions on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to Polish organizations.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? Europe's anti-coercion instrument works by calculating the degree of the coercion and imposing retaliatory measures. Provided EU member states agree, the EU executive could kick US products out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, block their financial activities and require reparations as a condition of re-entry to EU economic space.

The tool is not only financial response; it is a declaration of political will. It was created to demonstrate that the EU would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the months leading to the transatlantic agreement, several EU states talked tough in public, but failed to push for the instrument to be used. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

A softer line is the worst option that the EU needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are challenging. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should disable social media “for you”-style systems, that suggest content the user has not asked for, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

Citizens – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs serving foreign interests – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they see and share online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now especially important, Europe should make large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and preying on our children. EU authorities must ensure certain member states accountable for failing to enforce EU online regulations on US firms.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. Europe must gradually substitute all foreign “big tech” services and cloud services over the next decade with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of this moment is that if Europe does not act now, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the more profound the erosion of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its laws are not binding, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the acceptance of lies. If the EU continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. The EU must take immediate steps, not only to resist Trump, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a free and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, Asia and Japan, democracies are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will stand against foreign pressure or surrender to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the model of Lula in Brazil, who faced down US pressure and showed that the way to deal with a bully is to hit hard.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to release polite statements, to levy token fines, to hope for a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.