Subscribe
The recent trade agreement between the United States and the European Union, which reduced tariffs to 15% for a number of strategic sectors, was welcomed by EU institutions and national governments, who hailed the agreement as a diplomatic victory capable of averting a trade war with potentially devastating consequences. However, while the decision marks a turning point in transatlantic relations, it still does not represent a definitive solution to the structural problems that characterize economic relations between the two sides of the Atlantic. The agreement, reached in July between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump and formalized in August, constitutes more of an armistice than a lasting peace. It offers European businesses a more predictable framework, but leaves crucial issues unresolved, such as steel, aluminium and, above all, the agri-food sector, which is of fundamental importance to countries like Italy and France.
THE CONTENT OF THE AGREEMENT
The EU-US joint declaration establishes a significant reduction in customs tariffs, setting a maximum rate of 15% for the vast majority of European exports to the United States. Beneficiary sectors include automobiles, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and timber, which represent a significant portion of bilateral trade. The measure, retroactive to August 1, 2025, also stipulates that goods already subject to most-favoured-nation (MFN) tariffs exceeding 15% will not be subject to further increases. This mechanism ensures, at least on paper, greater stability for exporting companies, particularly the German automotive and pharmaceutical industries, which have a strong presence in several Member States. Another important aspect is the commitment to work in the future to extend the preferential regime to other sectors, an objective that remains crucial for the Union. However, the agri-food, wine, and alcohol sectors remain outside the agreement, despite pressure from some governments.
THE PROBLEMATIC EXCLUSIONS: STEEL, ALUMINIUM, AND AGRI-FOOD
The exclusions represent the most critical element of the agreement. The steel and aluminium sectors, still subject to 50% tariffs, remain a source of tension between Brussels and Washington. The issue of global overcapacity, particularly Chinese overcapacity, weighs on the possibility of a broader agreement: the United States insists on enhanced protection of its strategic sectors, while the EU fears a negative impact on the competitiveness of its companies. Equally significant is the failure to include the agri-food and wine sectors. For countries like Italy, where wine exports are one of the main economic and cultural assets, the lack of tariff exemptions is a clear limitation. Trade associations have expressed concern about an agreement that, while avoiding new tariffs, fails to open up real growth opportunities in already highly competitive markets.
THE ITALIAN PERSPECTIVE
The Italian government called the agreement “not ideal but useful,” emphasizing that its main merit was avoiding a trade war. Italy, heavily dependent on exports in sectors such as fashion, agri-food, and mechanical engineering, needs a clear and stable regulatory framework to plan its economic strategy. In this sense, the agreement offers predictability, but it still fails to meet the needs of domestic producers, who are demanding freer access to the US market.
THE ILLUSION OF STABILITY: A FRAGILE TRUCE
From an academic perspective, the agreement can be interpreted as a typical example of a “tariff truce.” The United States, historically oriented toward defending its domestic industry with protectionist policies, accepted a compromise for primarily geopolitical reasons: to consolidate its anti-China alliance with Europe and strengthen industrial cooperation in strategic sectors. The Union, for its part, has avoided a spiral of retaliation that would have affected sensitive sectors, such as the German automotive industry or the Swiss-German pharmaceutical industry. However, tensions over digital regulations (the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act) remain unresolved, as Brussels has kept them out of the negotiations to avoid compromising its regulatory autonomy. This means that the potential for future conflict is far from eliminated.
IMPACT ON THE EUROPEAN ECONOMY
The agreement, while welcomed, should not be interpreted as a panacea for the European economy. The benefits of the tariff reduction will be distributed unequally among member states: Germany and the Netherlands, with their heavy exposure to the automotive and pharmaceutical sectors, will benefit immediately, while Italy, France, and Spain remain penalized by the exclusion of the agri-food sector. Furthermore, the temporary and non-binding nature of the agreement introduces an element of uncertainty: European companies may hesitate to make long-term investments without guarantees that the tariff regime will remain stable. This “wait and see” effect risks reducing the agreement’s positive impact on the real economy.