🔗 Share this article

Will European leadership ever confront Donald Trump and US big tech? The current passivity goes beyond a regulatory or financial failure: it constitutes a ethical failure. This situation undermines the very foundation of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that the European Union has the authority to govern its own digital space according to its own rules.

How We Got Here

To begin, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the EU executive accepted a one-sided deal with the US that locked in a permanent 15% tax on EU exports to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the EU also agreed to provide more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and defense equipment. The deal exposed the vulnerability of the EU's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, the US administration warned of crushing additional taxes if the EU enforced its regulations against American companies on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million rich people gives it significant leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has done little. No counter-action has been taken. No activation of the recently created trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its ultimate shield against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in American legal proceedings, that enabled it to “abuse” its dominant position in the EU's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to strengthen EU institutions. It seeks to weaken it. A recent essay published on the US State Department platform, composed in alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, accused the EU of “systematic efforts against democratic values itself”. It criticized supposed restrictions on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument works by calculating the extent of the pressure and applying counter-actions. Provided most European governments agree, the European Commission could remove US products out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, block their financial activities and demand reparations as a requirement of re-entry to Europe's market.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a declaration of political will. It was designed to signal that the EU would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is most crucial, it lies unused. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the transatlantic agreement, several EU states talked tough in official statements, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the last thing that the EU needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the trade tool, the EU should disable social media “for you”-style systems, that suggest material the user has not requested, on European soil until they are proven safe for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs serving external agendas – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they see and share online.

Trump is putting Europe under pressure to weaken its digital rulebook. But now especially important, the EU should make American technology companies accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. EU authorities must hold certain member states responsible for not implementing EU digital rules on US firms.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. The EU must progressively replace all foreign “big tech” platforms and cloud services over the next decade with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not act now, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the more profound the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The increasing acceptance that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its regulations are unenforceable, its governmental bodies lacking autonomy, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the path to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, 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 abyss. The EU must take immediate steps, not just to resist US pressure, but to create space for itself to function as a independent and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, South Korea and East Asia, democracies are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will resist external influence or surrender to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can endure when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who confronted US pressure and showed that the approach to address a bully is to hit hard.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to issue polite statements, to levy symbolic penalties, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.