🔗 Share this article

Can European leadership ever stand up to the US administration and American tech giants? The current lack of response is not just a legal or financial failure: it constitutes a ethical failure. This situation throws into question the core principles of Europe's political sovereignty. The central issue is not only the future of firms such as 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

First, let us recount how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a one-sided agreement with the US that established a ongoing 15% tax on EU exports to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the EU also consented to provide well over $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of energy and defense equipment. The deal exposed the vulnerability of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, the US administration warned of severe additional taxes if Europe implemented its laws against US tech firms on its own soil.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it unanswerable leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, the EU has done little. Not a single counter-action has been implemented. No invocation of the recently created trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its primary protection against external coercion.

Instead, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for established market abuses, previously established in US courts, that enabled it to “exploit” its dominant position in the EU's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen EU institutions. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay released on the US Department of State's website, composed in paranoid, bombastic language similar to Hungarian leadership, accused Europe of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned supposed restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? Europe's anti-coercion instrument functions through assessing the degree of the coercion and applying counter-actions. Provided most European governments agree, the European Commission could remove US goods and services out of the EU market, or impose taxes on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and require compensation as a requirement of re-entry to EU economic space.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a declaration of determination. It was designed to signal that Europe would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is most crucial, it lies unused. It is not a bazooka. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the months leading to the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in public, but failed to push for the instrument to be used. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the last thing that the EU needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are challenging. In addition to the trade tool, the EU should shut down social media “for you”-style systems, that suggest material the user has not asked for, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

Citizens – not the algorithms of international billionaires beholden to foreign interests – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they see and share online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now especially important, Europe should make large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and preying on our children. Brussels must ensure Ireland responsible for not implementing EU online regulations on American companies.

Regulatory action is insufficient, however. The EU must gradually substitute all non-EU “big tech” 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 the EU does not act now, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the deeper the decline of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its regulations are unenforceable, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its democracy dependent.

When that occurs, the path to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If Europe continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not only to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a independent and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the international community can see. In North America, South Korea and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will stand against foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are asking whether representative governments can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who confronted Trump and demonstrated that the way to address a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to levy token fines, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have already lost.