🔗 Share this article

Will European leadership finally stand up to the US administration and US big tech? Present lack of response is not just a regulatory or economic shortcoming: it constitutes a ethical collapse. This inaction throws into question the bedrock of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the authority to govern its own digital space according to its own laws.

Background Context

First, consider how we got here. In late July, the European Commission accepted a humiliating agreement with the US that established a permanent 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The indignity was all the greater because the commission also consented to provide well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and defense equipment. The deal exposed the fragility 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 territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

For decades Brussels has claimed that its market of 450 million rich people gives it significant sway in international commerce. But in the month and a half since the US warning, Europe has done little. Not a single retaliatory measure has been taken. No activation of the new trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its ultimate shield against external coercion.

Instead, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its yearly income for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in US courts, that enabled it to “exploit” its market leadership in Europe's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to support EU institutions. It seeks to weaken it. A recent essay published on the US Department of State's website, composed in alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric similar to Hungarian leadership, accused the EU of “systematic efforts against democratic values itself”. It criticized alleged limitations on authoritarian parties across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

What is to be done? Europe's anti-coercion instrument functions through calculating the extent of the pressure and applying counter-actions. If most European governments agree, the European Commission could remove US products out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and require compensation as a condition of readmittance to Europe's market.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a declaration of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that the EU 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.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the EU-US trade deal, several EU states talked tough in official statements, but failed to push for the instrument to be activated. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for a softer European line.

A softer line is the worst option that Europe needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are challenging. In addition to the trade tool, Europe should shut down social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that suggest content the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Broader Digital Strategy

The public – not the algorithms of foreign oligarchs beholden to foreign interests – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they view and share online.

Trump is putting Europe under pressure to weaken its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, Europe should make large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must hold certain member states accountable for failing to enforce Europe's online regulations on American companies.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “big tech” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

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 more profound the erosion of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that resistance is futile. The greater the tendency that its regulations are not binding, its institutions lacking autonomy, its political system not self-determined.

When that occurs, the path to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same decline. The EU must act now, not just to resist US pressure, but to create space for itself to exist as a independent and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In North America, Asia and East Asia, democratic nations are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will stand against external influence or surrender to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can endure when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Lula in Brazil, who faced down Trump and showed that the approach to address a bully is to hit hard.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to levy symbolic penalties, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.