🔗 Share this article

Can the EU ever confront Donald Trump and US big tech? The current passivity goes beyond a regulatory or financial failure: it constitutes a ethical collapse. This situation throws into question the core principles of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not only the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that the European Union has the right to regulate its own online environment according to its own laws.

The Path to This Point

First, let us recount the events leading here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a one-sided deal with the US that established a ongoing 15% tax on European goods to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The indignity was compounded because the commission also consented to direct more than $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of resources and military materiel. This arrangement revealed the vulnerability of the EU's dependence on the US.

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

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

For decades Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it unanswerable leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, the EU has done little. No counter-action has been implemented. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its ultimate shield against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in US courts, that allowed it to “exploit” its market leadership in the EU's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen EU institutions. It aims to weaken it. A recent essay published on the US Department of State's platform, composed in alarmist, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It condemned 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? The EU's anti-coercion instrument works by assessing the extent of the pressure and imposing retaliatory measures. If EU member states consent, the European Commission could kick US products out of Europe's market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, block their investments and require compensation as a requirement of re-entry to Europe's market.

The tool is not merely financial response; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to signal that Europe would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is most crucial, it lies unused. It is not a bazooka. It is a paperweight.

Political Divisions

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

A softer line is the worst option that the EU needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should shut down social media “for you”-style algorithms, that recommend content the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs beholden to external agendas – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they view and share online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its online regulations. But now especially important, the EU should hold large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. Brussels must ensure certain member states accountable for failing to enforce EU online regulations on US firms.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “big tech” platforms and computing infrastructure over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of this moment is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the deeper the decline of its self-belief in itself. The increasing acceptance that resistance is futile. The greater the tendency that its laws are unenforceable, its governmental bodies lacking autonomy, its democracy dependent.

When that happens, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of lies. If Europe continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same decline. Europe must act now, not just to push back against US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a free and autonomous power.

Global Implications

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

They are asking whether democratic institutions can endure when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who faced down US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to address a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to issue diplomatic communications, to impose symbolic penalties, to hope for a better future, it will have already lost.