Subscribe
The EU Reaffirms Its Commitment to Rules-Based Commerce Amid Renewed U.S. Tariff Pressure
The European Union finds itself once again navigating turbulent transatlantic waters. Following a fresh escalation in U.S. tariffs—raised unilaterally from 10% to 15% by President Donald Trump—Brussels is demanding clarity, consistency, and respect for existing agreements. At stake is not merely a percentage point increase, but the credibility of the rules-based international trading system that the EU has long championed.
The European Commission’s message is firm and unequivocal: agreements must be honoured. “An agreement is an agreement,” EU officials stressed, calling on Washington to provide full clarity regarding the measures it intends to adopt following a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Commission emphasized that the current uncertainty does not foster “fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial” transatlantic trade and investment—principles both sides had pledged to uphold in their joint declaration.
The EU’s response reflects a dual priority: safeguarding economic stability while preserving diplomatic channels. European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič has maintained continuous contact with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Brussels insists that dialogue remains ongoing, and its stated objective is clear—reduce tariffs and restore predictability in transatlantic commerce.
Yet patience in Europe is not unlimited.
Within the European Parliament, concern is mounting. Bernd Lange, chair of the International Trade Committee, has announced that he will propose suspending legislative work related to the EU-U.S. tariff understanding until adequate legal clarification is provided. Lawmakers across several political groups, including Socialists, Greens, and Liberals, are calling for a temporary freeze of the agreement, arguing that Washington’s latest move risks undermining the fragile balance achieved in previous negotiations.
The potential use of the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument—sometimes described as Brussels’ “bazooka”—is no longer taboo. Designed to counter economic pressure from third countries, the instrument would allow the Union to adopt proportionate retaliatory measures if necessary. While no decision has been taken, the mere fact that it is openly discussed marks a shift in tone.
At the same time, Europe is careful not to act impulsively. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde underscored the broader economic implications, stating that it is “of fundamental importance to have clarity on trade.” Markets thrive on predictability, and prolonged uncertainty risks dampening investment flows, supply chain stability, and inflation management—areas already under pressure.
Across EU capitals, coordination is intensifying. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has indicated that tariff policy is a European competence, not a matter for individual member states, and promised a “very clear European position.” French President Emmanuel Macron has pointedly remarked that democracies function through checks and balances, subtly highlighting the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. Meanwhile, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is expected to play a coordinating role as discussions move to the Foreign Affairs Council and the G7 Trade meeting.
One flashpoint may soon involve regulation of American technology giants. The EU’s landmark Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act—legislation that has drawn criticism from Trump and business figures such as Elon Musk—could become entangled in broader trade negotiations. The Commission is under pressure not to dilute these regulatory frameworks in response to tariff threats. Indeed, Brussels may double down on its strategic autonomy agenda, including initiatives such as a “Buy European” clause within the forthcoming Industrial Accelerator Act.
Still, European leaders recognize the complexity of the relationship. The United States remains the EU’s largest extra-European market and its most important political and military ally. Italian Industry Minister Adolfo Urso cautioned against reacting “with the gut rather than the head,” emphasizing the need for a measured, consensus-driven approach. Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has likewise called for unity among European partners, underscoring that coordination with the Commission is essential.
Washington, for its part, has stated its intention to respect trade agreements. Jamieson Greer affirmed that the United States “intends to honour” commitments made with the EU, China, and other partners, while noting that Congress has historically delegated broad tariff authority to the president. The administration argues that the urgency of the situation justified the 15% ceiling, and that further legal avenues remain available under U.S. trade law.
Yet domestic U.S. sentiment appears divided. Recent polling suggests significant public disapproval of tariff increases and broader economic management, adding another layer of uncertainty to the policy outlook.
For Europe, the path forward rests on three pillars: unity, proportionality, and adherence to rules. The EU will continue to seek negotiated solutions, reduce tariff barriers, and expand free trade agreements with partners such as Mercosur, India, and Southeast Asian economies. At the same time, it is prepared to defend its interests should commitments not be respected.
The transatlantic relationship has weathered storms before. But as tariffs climb and legal interpretations shift, Europe’s message remains consistent: clarity is essential, agreements must be honoured, and the global trading system depends on predictability—not unilateral escalation.
Alessandro Fiorentino