🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels ever confront Donald Trump and American tech giants? The current passivity goes beyond a regulatory or financial shortcoming: it constitutes a ethical failure. This situation calls into question the core principles of Europe's democratic identity. The central issue is not only the future 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.

How We Got Here

To begin, it's important to review the events leading here. During the summer, the European Commission accepted a one-sided deal with the US that established a permanent 15% tax on European goods to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the EU also consented to provide more than $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. This arrangement exposed the vulnerability of Europe's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, the US administration threatened severe additional taxes if the EU implemented its regulations against American companies on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million rich people gives it significant sway in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, Europe has taken minimal action. No counter-action has been implemented. No invocation of the recently created trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its ultimate protection against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its yearly income for longstanding market abuses, previously established in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “abuse” its market leadership in Europe's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it no longer seeks to support EU institutions. It aims to weaken it. An official publication released on the US Department of State's platform, written in alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It condemned supposed restrictions on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument works by assessing the degree of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. Provided most European governments agree, the EU executive could remove US products out of Europe's market, or impose tariffs on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, block their investments and demand compensation as a requirement of readmittance to EU economic space.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a declaration of determination. It was created to signal that the EU would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is most crucial, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Political Divisions

In the months preceding the transatlantic agreement, several EU states used strong language in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should disable social media “for you”-style algorithms, that suggest material the user has not asked for, on European soil until they are proven safe for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the algorithms of foreign oligarchs serving external agendas – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they see and share online.

The US administration is putting Europe under pressure to weaken its online regulations. But now more than ever, Europe should make large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. EU authorities must hold Ireland responsible for failing to enforce Europe's online regulations on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must progressively replace all non-EU “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the next decade with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of the current situation is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the deeper the decline of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its regulations are unenforceable, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its democracy not self-determined.

When that occurs, the path to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of lies. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. The EU must act now, not only to resist US pressure, but to create space for itself to function as a independent and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In North America, South Korea and East Asia, democracies are watching. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will stand against foreign pressure or surrender to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments 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 US pressure and showed that the approach to address a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if Europe delays, if it continues to issue polite statements, to levy symbolic penalties, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have already lost.