🔗 Share this article The EU's Secret Instrument to Counter Trump's Trade Coercion: Moment to Activate It Can Brussels ever stand up to the US administration and American tech giants? The current lack of response goes beyond a legal or financial failure: it constitutes a ethical collapse. This inaction throws into question the core principles of Europe's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that the European Union has the authority to govern its own online environment according to its own rules. Background Context To begin, it's important to review the events leading here. In late July, the EU executive agreed to a humiliating agreement with the US that locked in a permanent 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 more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and military materiel. The deal revealed the fragility of Europe's reliance on the US. Less than a month later, Trump threatened crushing additional taxes if Europe implemented its regulations 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 rich people gives it significant leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since the US warning, Europe has done little. No retaliatory measure has been taken. No invocation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its ultimate protection against external coercion. By contrast, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its yearly income for established market abuses, previously established in US courts, that enabled it to “exploit” its market leadership in the EU's advertising market. American Strategy The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to strengthen European democracy. It aims to weaken it. A recent essay published on the US Department of State's website, written in paranoid, bombastic language reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged Europe of “systematic efforts 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 How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument works by calculating the degree of the pressure and applying retaliatory measures. If EU member states agree, the European Commission could kick US products out of the EU market, or apply tariffs on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, block their investments and demand reparations as a condition of re-entry to EU economic space. The tool is not merely economic retaliation; it is a statement of political will. It was designed to demonstrate that Europe would always resist foreign coercion. 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 preceding the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in official statements, but failed to push for the instrument to be used. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach. Compromise is the worst option that Europe needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are challenging. Along with the trade tool, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that recommend material the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies. Comprehensive Approach The public – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs beholden to external agendas – should have the autonomy to make independent choices about what they see and share online. The US administration is putting Europe under pressure to water down its digital rulebook. But now especially important, the EU should hold large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. Brussels must ensure Ireland accountable for not implementing EU digital rules on American companies. Regulatory action is insufficient, however. The EU must gradually substitute all foreign “big tech” services and cloud services over the next decade with homegrown alternatives. The Danger of Inaction The significant risk of the current situation is that if Europe does not act now, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the deeper the decline of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The greater the tendency that its regulations are unenforceable, its institutions not sovereign, its political system not self-determined. When that happens, the path to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If the EU continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must take immediate steps, not only to push back against US pressure, but to create space for itself to exist as a independent and sovereign entity. International Perspective And in taking action, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In North America, South Korea and Japan, democracies are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will resist foreign pressure or yield to it. They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who faced down US pressure and showed that the approach to address a bully is to respond firmly. But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to release polite statements, to levy symbolic penalties, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.