Safeguarding EU sovereignty: challenging Trump’s coercive tariffs 

By Ricardo Silvestre, Associate Fellow at ELF 

Why are some of the European Union (EU) institutions holding back on robust pushback against an increasingly erratic, authoritarian, and bullying White House? Are we going to stand by while the Trump administration interferes with the EU’s sovereign choices through trade and investment measures, simply because the European Commission refuses to bend Single Market rules for US-based digital platforms, to the frustration of America’s tech oligarchs? 

For some time now, the Trump Administration, including the Vice President and the Secretary of State, has adopted a belligerent attitude towards the EU regarding what they erroneously claim to be censorship and a prohibition of free speech by Americans on digital platforms operating in Europe. Now, we have the return of extortion via tariffs, with a baseline 30%, demands for “full access for American companies”, including digital ones, and calls for the “elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers” to the ESM. Unfortunately, instead of the European Commission calling Trump’s bluff, we continue to give concessions under the threadbare excuse of “we want to negotiate fair agreements”. 

Missing from the debate 

Strangely absent from the European debate and responses is the ongoing judicial process in the U.S., where the White House’s imposition of tariffs via unilateral decree under (imaginary) emergencies can be rescinded by court decision. This was affirmed by the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), a federal court specialising in all matters pertaining to international trade. In a decision on 28 May, the CIT ruled that the President had usurped Congress’s power to impose tariffs, and that a trade deficit does not constitute an emergency, thereby deligitimising Trump’s decision to “impose the tariffs he desires”. 

And if a more blatant example of the fallacy of the urgency-driven deficit for tariffs argument was needed, Trump’s letter to Brazilian President Lula, sent on 9 July, serves as one. The White House determined that Brazil would be subject to 50% tariffs, despite there being no trade deficit for the US with the South American country. However, in the letter we can see one of the main reasons:  former President Bolsonaro, a Trump ally and insurrectionary kindred spirit, is being tried for his crimes of attempting to overturn an election result. The letter reads: ‘The way Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, (…) is an international disgrace. This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!’. 

However, it’s a section further on that deserves particular attention: “Due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans (as lately illustrated by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which has issued hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines)”. This has also been one of the primary engines of animosity from the Trump Administration to the EU.  

Therefore, the pressure of high tariffs has, reportedly, opened space for eventual cracks in the protective shield of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA). This includes the openness from the European Commission to create exceptions for American companies from the rules enshrined in the DMA, or from taxing American digital companies, something Apple and Meta have repeatedly asked the US President to demand of Europeans. Not that Trump needs much prompting; after all, he was the one who stated in Davos that European regulations were a “form of taxation”. 

Adult versus toddler 

Instead of presenting a robust response, such as reciprocal tariffs, increased taxation on American digital services in the EU, or even, as President Macron volunteered, activating its Anti-Coercion Instrument to impose economic countermeasures, the European Commission continues to act reactively, hesitantly, and submissively. As it attempts to appear as the adult at the table, on the other side we have what can, generously, be described as a toddler throwing tantrums. 

The mirage of productive, serious, and non-zero-sum transatlantic interdependence has evaporated. It will not return as long as Trump occupies the White House and, under Republican control, Congress remains subservient. The EU would do well to act accordingly and not let the White House determine the terms of our digital markets and, fundamentally, our sovereignty.