🔗 Share this article

Can European leadership ever stand up to the US administration and US big tech? The current passivity is not just a legal or economic failure: it constitutes a moral failure. This situation calls into question the core principles of Europe's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not only the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the right to regulate its own digital space according to its own rules.

Background Context

First, consider how we got here. During the summer, the EU executive accepted a one-sided deal with Trump that locked in a ongoing 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 purchases of energy and defense equipment. The deal exposed the vulnerability of Europe's reliance on the US.

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

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million rich people gives it significant leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since the US warning, Europe has done little. No retaliatory measure has been taken. No invocation of the new anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its primary protection against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for established market abuses, already proven in American legal proceedings, that enabled it to “abuse” its market leadership in Europe's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to support EU institutions. It aims to weaken it. An official publication published on the US Department of State's website, written in alarmist, bombastic language similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused the EU of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It criticized alleged limitations on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

What is to be done? Europe's trade defense mechanism works by calculating the degree of the pressure and imposing counter-actions. If EU member states agree, the EU executive could remove US goods and services out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, prevent their investments and require compensation as a requirement of re-entry to EU economic space.

The tool is not merely economic retaliation; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that Europe would always resist foreign coercion. But now, when it is most crucial, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in public, but failed to push for the mechanism to be used. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for a softer European line.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that suggest material the user has not asked for, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

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

The US administration is putting Europe under pressure to weaken its online regulations. But now especially important, the EU should make large US tech firms responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must hold certain member states responsible for failing to enforce EU online regulations on US firms.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. Europe must progressively replace all non-EU “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of the current situation 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 confidence in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its laws are not binding, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its democracy not self-determined.

When that happens, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence 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 exist as a independent and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the international community can see. In North America, South Korea and East Asia, democratic nations are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will resist foreign pressure or surrender to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who confronted US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to deal with a bully is to hit hard.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to issue polite statements, to levy symbolic penalties, to hope for a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.