🔗 Share this article

Will European leadership finally confront Donald Trump and American tech giants? Present passivity is not just a legal or financial failure: it represents a moral failure. This situation throws into question the bedrock of Europe's democratic identity. What is at stake is not only the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the authority to govern its own online environment according to its own rules.

How We Got Here

To begin, consider the events leading here. In late July, the European Commission accepted a one-sided deal with Trump that locked in a permanent 15% tax on EU exports to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the EU also agreed to direct well over $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of energy and defense equipment. This arrangement revealed the fragility of the EU's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, Trump threatened crushing new tariffs if Europe implemented its laws against American companies on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years EU officials has claimed that its market of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since the US warning, Europe has done little. Not a single retaliatory measure has been implemented. No invocation of the new trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its primary shield against external coercion.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its yearly income for established market abuses, previously established in US courts, that enabled it to “exploit” its dominant position in Europe's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to support EU institutions. It seeks to weaken it. An official publication published on the US Department of State's platform, composed in alarmist, bombastic rhetoric similar to Hungarian leadership, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It criticized alleged limitations on authoritarian parties across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? Europe's anti-coercion instrument works by calculating the degree of the pressure and applying retaliatory measures. Provided most European governments agree, the European Commission could remove US products out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and require reparations as a requirement of readmittance to Europe's market.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a statement of determination. It was created to demonstrate that the EU would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it lies unused. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the EU-US trade deal, several EU states used strong language in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Others, including Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the last thing that the EU needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that suggest content the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the algorithms of foreign oligarchs beholden to external agendas – 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 more than ever, Europe should hold American technology companies responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. EU authorities must ensure Ireland responsible for not implementing Europe's digital rules on US firms.

Regulatory action is insufficient, however. Europe must gradually substitute all foreign “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of this moment is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the more profound the decline of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its laws are unenforceable, its governmental bodies lacking autonomy, its democracy not self-determined.

When that happens, the path to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If Europe continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not only to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a independent and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In North America, Asia and Japan, democracies are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will stand against foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who faced down US pressure and showed that the way to deal with a bully is to respond firmly.

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