🔗 Share this article

Will Brussels ever confront Donald Trump and US big tech? Present lack of response is not just a legal or financial shortcoming: it constitutes a ethical failure. This situation undermines the very foundation of Europe's democratic identity. The central issue is not merely the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that the European Union has the right to regulate its own online environment according to its own regulations.

The Path to This Point

To begin, consider the events leading here. During the summer, the EU executive agreed to a one-sided deal with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tax on European goods to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was all the greater because the commission also agreed to direct more than $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of resources and military materiel. This arrangement exposed the vulnerability of Europe's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, Trump warned of crushing new tariffs if Europe enforced its laws against US tech firms on its own soil.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

For decades EU officials has asserted that its market of 450 million rich people gives it significant leverage in international commerce. But in the month and a half since the US warning, the EU has taken minimal action. No counter-action has been implemented. No activation of the recently created trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its ultimate shield against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “abuse” its market leadership in the EU'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 weaken it. A recent essay published on the US Department of State's website, composed in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, accused the EU of “systematic efforts against democratic values itself”. It condemned alleged limitations on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? Europe's trade defense mechanism works by calculating the degree of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. Provided most European governments consent, the European Commission could remove US goods and services out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and demand reparations as a requirement of readmittance to EU economic space.

The instrument is not only financial response; it is a declaration of political will. It was created to signal that Europe would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it lies unused. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a paperweight.

Political Divisions

In the months preceding the transatlantic agreement, several EU states used strong language in public, but failed to push for the mechanism to be used. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

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 disable social media “for you”-style systems, that recommend material the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democratic societies.

Broader Digital Strategy

The public – not the automated systems of international billionaires serving external agendas – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they see and share online.

Trump is putting Europe under pressure to water down its digital rulebook. But now especially important, Europe should hold American technology companies accountable for distorting competition, surveillance practices, 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 insufficient, however. The EU must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of the current situation is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the more profound the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its regulations are unenforceable, its institutions lacking autonomy, its democracy dependent.

When that happens, the path to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same decline. The EU must act now, not only to resist Trump, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a free and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In North America, South Korea and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will resist external influence or surrender to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world turns its back on them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who confronted US pressure and showed that the way to deal with a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to issue polite statements, to impose symbolic penalties, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.