🔗 Share this article

Will European leadership finally resist the US administration and American tech giants? Present inaction goes beyond a legal or financial failure: it represents a ethical collapse. This inaction calls 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 regulate its own online environment according to its own laws.

Background Context

First, consider how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a humiliating agreement with the US that established a permanent 15% tax on EU exports to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The embarrassment was all the greater because the EU also agreed to direct more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and defense equipment. This arrangement exposed the fragility of the EU's reliance on the US.

Soon after, Trump warned of severe additional taxes if Europe implemented its regulations against US tech firms on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years EU officials has asserted that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it significant leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, Europe has done little. No retaliatory measure has been implemented. No activation of the new trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its primary protection against external coercion.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of less than 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.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to strengthen European democracy. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay published on the US State Department platform, composed in alarmist, bombastic rhetoric similar to Hungarian leadership, accused the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned supposed restrictions on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument functions through assessing the degree of the pressure and imposing retaliatory measures. If EU member states agree, the EU executive could remove US products out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can remove their intellectual property rights, prevent their investments and require compensation as a requirement of re-entry to Europe's market.

The instrument is not only financial response; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to signal that the EU would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the period leading to the EU-US trade deal, several EU states talked tough in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be activated. Others, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

A softer line is the worst option that Europe needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are challenging. Along with the trade tool, the EU should disable social media “for you”-style algorithms, that recommend material the user has not requested, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

Citizens – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs serving foreign interests – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they see and share online.

Trump is pressuring the EU to weaken its digital rulebook. But now especially important, Europe should hold large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. EU authorities must ensure certain member states responsible for failing to enforce Europe's online regulations on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must progressively replace all non-EU “big tech” services 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 longer it waits, the deeper the erosion of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its regulations are unenforceable, its institutions lacking autonomy, its democracy not self-determined.

When that happens, the route to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If the EU continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not only to resist US pressure, but to create space for itself to exist as a free and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the international community can see. In North America, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will stand against external influence or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who confronted US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to deal with a bully is to hit hard.

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.