🔗 Share this article

Can the EU finally confront Donald Trump and US big tech? Present passivity goes beyond a regulatory or economic failure: it represents a ethical collapse. This inaction throws into question the very foundation of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the authority to regulate its own digital space according to its own laws.

Background Context

First, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a humiliating agreement with the US that locked in a permanent 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The indignity was all the greater because the commission also agreed to direct well over $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of resources and military materiel. This arrangement exposed the vulnerability of Europe's dependence on the US.

Less than a month later, Trump warned of severe new tariffs if the EU enforced its laws against US tech firms on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years Brussels has asserted that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, Europe has taken minimal action. No counter-action has been implemented. No invocation of the new anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its primary shield against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding market abuses, already proven in American legal proceedings, that enabled it to “abuse” its dominant position in Europe's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to strengthen EU institutions. It aims to undermine it. An official publication released on the US State Department platform, composed in alarmist, bombastic language similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It criticized supposed limitations on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

What is to be done? Europe's anti-coercion instrument works by assessing the degree of the pressure and imposing retaliatory measures. If most European governments agree, the EU executive could kick US goods and services out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, prevent their investments and demand compensation as a requirement of re-entry to EU economic space.

The tool is not merely economic retaliation; it is a declaration of determination. It was designed to signal that the EU would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a paperweight.

Political Divisions

In the period leading to the transatlantic agreement, many European governments talked tough in public, but did not advocate the instrument to be used. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are challenging. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that recommend material the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

Citizens – not the algorithms of foreign oligarchs serving external agendas – should have the autonomy to make independent choices about what they view and distribute online.

Trump is putting Europe under pressure to weaken its online regulations. But now more than ever, Europe should hold large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. Brussels must ensure Ireland responsible for failing to enforce EU digital rules on US firms.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of the current situation is that if Europe does not act now, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the more profound the decline of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its laws are unenforceable, its institutions not sovereign, its democracy dependent.

When that occurs, the path to authoritarianism becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same decline. The EU must take immediate steps, not only to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a free and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the international community can see. In Canada, South Korea and Japan, democracies are watching. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will stand against foreign pressure 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 model of Lula in Brazil, who confronted Trump and demonstrated that the approach to address a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to levy token fines, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have already lost.