Can European leadership ever stand up to the US administration and American tech giants? The current passivity goes beyond a legal or economic shortcoming: it represents a moral failure. This situation calls into question the core principles of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not only the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that the European Union has the authority to regulate its own online environment according to its own regulations.
How We Got Here
To begin, let us recount the events leading here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a one-sided deal with Trump that locked in a ongoing 15% tariff on EU exports to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the commission also consented to direct well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and defense equipment. This arrangement exposed the fragility of Europe's dependence on the US.
Less than a month later, the US administration warned of severe additional taxes if Europe implemented its regulations against American companies on its own territory.
The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action
For decades EU officials has claimed that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it significant leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since the US warning, Europe has taken minimal action. No retaliatory measure has been taken. No invocation of the recently created trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its primary shield against foreign pressure.
Instead, we have polite statements 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 dominant position in Europe's digital ad space.
US Intentions
The US, under Trump's leadership, has made its intentions clear: it no longer seeks to strengthen EU institutions. It seeks to undermine it. An official publication published on the US State Department website, composed in alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself”. It criticized supposed limitations on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to Polish organizations.
Available Tools for Response
What is to be done? Europe's anti-coercion instrument works by calculating the degree of the coercion and applying retaliatory measures. If EU member states consent, the EU executive could remove US goods and services out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, block their financial activities and require reparations as a condition of re-entry to EU economic space.
The instrument is not merely economic retaliation; it is a statement of political will. It was designed to demonstrate that the EU 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 symbolic object.
Internal Disagreements
In the period preceding the EU-US trade deal, several EU states talked tough in official statements, but did not advocate the instrument to be used. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for a softer European line.
Compromise is the worst option that Europe needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the trade tool, the EU should disable social media “for you”-style systems, that recommend content the user has not requested, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure 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 view and distribute online.
The US administration is putting Europe under pressure to water down its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, the EU should make American technology companies accountable for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and preying on our children. EU authorities must ensure certain member states responsible for not implementing Europe's digital rules on US firms.
Enforcement is not enough, however. The EU must gradually substitute all non-EU “big tech” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.
The Danger of Inaction
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 more profound the erosion of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its regulations are unenforceable, its institutions not sovereign, its political system dependent.
When that occurs, the route to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If Europe continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not just to resist Trump, but to create space for itself to function as a free and sovereign entity.
International Perspective
And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, 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 yield to it.
They are inquiring whether representative governments can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world turns its back on them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who confronted Trump and showed that the way to address a aggressor is to hit hard.
But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to impose symbolic penalties, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.
