🔗 Share this article

Can the EU finally confront Donald Trump and US big tech? The current lack of response goes beyond a legal or economic shortcoming: it constitutes a moral failure. This situation calls into question the bedrock of the EU's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not only the fate 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.

Background Context

To begin, it's important to review the events leading here. During the summer, the EU executive accepted a one-sided agreement with the US that locked in a permanent 15% tax on EU exports to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The indignity was all the greater because the EU also agreed to provide well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and military materiel. This arrangement exposed the vulnerability of Europe's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, the US administration warned of severe new tariffs if the EU enforced its regulations against American companies on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years EU officials has asserted that its economic zone of 450 million affluent people gives it significant sway in international commerce. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, Europe has taken minimal action. Not a single counter-action has been implemented. No invocation of the new trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its ultimate protection against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for established anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in US courts, that allowed it to “abuse” its market leadership in the EU's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to support European democracy. It seeks to undermine it. A recent essay released on the US State Department website, composed in paranoid, inflammatory language reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, charged Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It criticized alleged restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? Europe's anti-coercion instrument functions through assessing the extent of the pressure and applying counter-actions. Provided most European governments consent, the EU executive could kick US goods and services out of Europe's market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their financial activities and demand compensation as a requirement of re-entry to EU economic space.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to signal that Europe would always resist foreign coercion. But now, when it is most crucial, it lies unused. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the months leading to the EU-US trade deal, many European governments talked tough in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be activated. Others, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the worst option that Europe needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the trade tool, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that suggest content the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

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

Trump is pressuring the EU to water down its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, the EU should make American technology companies accountable for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. EU authorities must hold certain member states responsible for not implementing EU digital rules on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must gradually substitute all foreign “big tech” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The real danger of this moment is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the more profound the erosion of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its regulations are not binding, its institutions lacking autonomy, its political system not self-determined.

When that happens, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of lies. If Europe continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same decline. Europe must act now, not only to resist Trump, but to create space for itself to exist as a free and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In Canada, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will stand against external influence or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who faced down US pressure and demonstrated that the way to deal with a bully is to hit hard.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to issue polite statements, to levy token fines, to anticipate a better future, it will have already lost.