🔗 Share this article

Will the EU ever resist the US administration and US big tech? Present lack of response goes beyond a regulatory or economic shortcoming: it represents a moral failure. This situation undermines the core principles of the EU's democratic identity. The central issue is not merely the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the right to regulate its own digital space according to its own regulations.

Background Context

To begin, let us recount how we got here. During the summer, the EU executive accepted a humiliating agreement with the US that locked in a ongoing 15% tariff on European goods to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The embarrassment was all the greater because the commission also consented to provide more than $1tn to the US through investments and purchases of resources and military materiel. The deal exposed the vulnerability of Europe's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump threatened crushing new tariffs if the EU implemented its regulations against American companies on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years EU officials has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million affluent people gives it significant sway in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has taken minimal action. No retaliatory measure has been implemented. No activation of the new trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its primary protection against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of under 1% of its annual revenue for established market abuses, already proven in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “exploit” its market leadership 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 support EU institutions. It seeks to weaken it. A recent essay released on the US Department of State's website, written in alarmist, bombastic rhetoric similar to Hungarian leadership, charged Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It criticized supposed limitations on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

What is to be done? Europe's anti-coercion instrument works by assessing the extent of the coercion and applying counter-actions. Provided EU member states consent, the European Commission could remove US products out of Europe's market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and require compensation as a condition of re-entry to EU economic space.

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

Internal Disagreements

In the months leading to the transatlantic agreement, several EU states talked tough in public, but did not advocate the instrument to be activated. 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 regulations, even when they are challenging. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “for you”-style systems, that recommend content the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the algorithms of international billionaires beholden to external agendas – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they see and distribute online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its online regulations. But now more than ever, the EU should hold large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. Brussels must ensure certain member states responsible for not implementing EU online regulations on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. The EU must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” platforms and cloud services over the coming years with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of this moment is that if Europe does not act now, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the deeper the erosion of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its regulations are not binding, its institutions lacking autonomy, its political system not self-determined.

When that occurs, the route to authoritarianism becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of lies. If the EU continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same decline. Europe must take immediate steps, not just to push back against US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a independent and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In Canada, South Korea and Japan, democracies are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, 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 turns its back on them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who faced down US pressure and showed that the approach to address a bully is to respond firmly.

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