🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels finally confront the US administration and US big tech? The current passivity is not just a regulatory or financial shortcoming: it represents a ethical failure. This inaction throws into question the bedrock of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not merely the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that Europe has the right to govern its own online environment according to its own rules.

The Path to This Point

To begin, let us recount how we got here. In late July, the European Commission accepted a one-sided agreement with the US that established a ongoing 15% tax on EU exports to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the EU also consented to provide well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and purchases of resources and military materiel. This arrangement revealed the fragility of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump warned of severe new tariffs if Europe implemented its laws against American companies on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

For decades Brussels has asserted that its economic zone of 450 million affluent people gives it significant sway in trade negotiations. But in the six weeks since the US warning, Europe has done little. Not a single counter-action has been implemented. No activation of the new anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its primary shield against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for longstanding market abuses, already proven in US courts, that allowed it to “abuse” its market leadership in Europe's advertising market.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen European democracy. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay published on the US State Department website, written in paranoid, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, charged Europe of “an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself”. It condemned alleged limitations on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

What is to be done? The EU's trade defense mechanism works by assessing the degree of the coercion and applying counter-actions. Provided most European governments agree, the European Commission could kick US products out of Europe's market, or impose tariffs on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, block their financial activities and require compensation as a requirement of re-entry to EU economic space.

The instrument is not merely economic retaliation; it is a declaration of determination. It was designed to signal that the EU would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is most crucial, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Political Divisions

In the period preceding the transatlantic agreement, several EU states used strong language in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be activated. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated 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 “recommended”-style systems, that recommend material the user has not requested, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

Citizens – not the automated systems of international billionaires serving foreign interests – should have the freedom to decide for themselves about what they see and distribute online.

Trump is pressuring the EU to weaken its online regulations. But now especially important, the EU should make large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. EU authorities must ensure certain member states responsible for failing to enforce Europe's online regulations on US firms.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “big tech” platforms and cloud services over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the deeper the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The increasing acceptance that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its laws are not binding, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system not self-determined.

When that occurs, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If Europe continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not only to resist Trump, but to create space for itself to exist as a free and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the international community can see. In Canada, Asia and Japan, democracies are watching. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will stand against external influence or surrender to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world turns its back on them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who faced down Trump and showed that the approach to address a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if Europe delays, if it continues to issue polite statements, to levy symbolic penalties, to hope for a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.