🔗 Share this article

Will European leadership finally resist the US administration and US big tech? Present inaction is not just a legal or financial shortcoming: it constitutes a ethical collapse. This inaction calls into question the very foundation 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 authority to regulate its own digital space according to its own rules.

Background Context

To begin, consider the events leading here. During the summer, the EU executive accepted a one-sided agreement with Trump that locked in a ongoing 15% tax on European goods to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The indignity was compounded because the EU also consented to provide well over $1tn to the US through investments and purchases of resources and defense equipment. The deal exposed the vulnerability of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump threatened crushing additional taxes if the EU enforced its laws against US tech firms on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years EU officials has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since the US warning, the EU has taken minimal action. No counter-action has been taken. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its ultimate protection against external coercion.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for established market abuses, already proven in US courts, that allowed it to “exploit” its market leadership in the EU's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under Trump's leadership, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to support EU institutions. It aims to weaken it. An official publication released on the US Department of State's platform, written in paranoid, bombastic language reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned supposed limitations on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to Polish organizations.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? Europe's anti-coercion instrument functions through calculating the degree of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. If EU member states agree, the European Commission could remove US products out of Europe's market, or impose taxes on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, block their financial activities and require compensation as a condition of re-entry to Europe's market.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a statement of political will. It was created to signal that the EU would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it lies unused. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the period leading to the transatlantic agreement, several EU states talked tough in official statements, but failed to push for the mechanism to be activated. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

A softer line is the last thing that the EU needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are challenging. In addition to the trade tool, the EU should shut down social media “recommended”-style systems, that recommend content the user has not requested, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

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

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its digital rulebook. But now especially important, the EU should make American technology companies accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must hold certain member states responsible for not implementing Europe's online regulations on US firms.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. Europe must gradually substitute all foreign “major technology” 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 take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the deeper the decline of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The greater the tendency that its laws are not binding, its institutions lacking autonomy, its democracy dependent.

When that occurs, the path to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If the EU continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must act now, not just to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a free and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in taking action, 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 wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will stand against external influence or surrender to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can endure when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who faced down Trump and showed that the approach to deal with a bully is to respond firmly.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to levy token fines, to hope for a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.