🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels finally stand up to the US administration and American tech giants? Present inaction is not just a regulatory or financial shortcoming: it represents a ethical failure. This inaction throws into question the very foundation of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the future 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 regulations.

How We Got Here

To begin, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a one-sided agreement with Trump that established a permanent 15% tax on European goods to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The indignity was compounded because the EU also consented to direct well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. The deal exposed the fragility of the EU's reliance on the US.

Soon after, the US administration warned of crushing new tariffs if the EU implemented its laws against American companies on its own soil.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

For decades Brussels has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million affluent people gives it unanswerable leverage in trade negotiations. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, Europe has done little. No counter-action has been taken. No activation of the new trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its ultimate protection against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its yearly income for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in American legal proceedings, that enabled it to “exploit” its dominant position in the EU's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to strengthen European democracy. It seeks to weaken it. A recent essay released on the US Department of State's website, composed in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned supposed limitations on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? Europe's anti-coercion instrument functions through calculating the degree of the pressure and applying retaliatory measures. Provided most European governments agree, the EU executive could kick US products out of the EU market, or impose taxes on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, block their financial activities and demand reparations as a requirement of re-entry to Europe's market.

The tool is not merely financial response; it is a declaration of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that Europe would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is most crucial, it remains inactive. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a paperweight.

Political Divisions

In the period leading to the EU-US trade deal, many European governments talked tough in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Others, including Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are challenging. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “for you”-style algorithms, that suggest content the user has not requested, on European soil until they are proven safe for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

Citizens – not the automated systems of international billionaires beholden to external agendas – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they view and distribute online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, the EU should hold large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must ensure certain member states accountable for failing to enforce EU digital rules on US firms.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “big tech” platforms and computing infrastructure over the next decade with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not act now, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the deeper the decline of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its regulations are unenforceable, its governmental bodies lacking autonomy, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the path to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same decline. Europe must act now, not only to push back against US pressure, but to create space for itself to function as a free and sovereign entity.

International Perspective

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In North America, Asia and East Asia, democracies are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will resist foreign pressure or surrender to it.

They are asking whether representative governments can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who faced down US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to address a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to release polite statements, to levy token fines, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.