(Commonwealth_Europe) US President Donald Trump’s tariff blitz in April may have seemed reckless at the time—infuriating allies, rattling financial markets, and denting his approval ratings at home. The abrupt rollout, followed by a quick pause, looked like another chapter in America’s recurring tendency to reshape the global order with sweeping force, only to backtrack when the consequences bite.
Now, several months later, attention is shifting to how Europe is responding, and a different pattern is emerging. The European Union, often criticized for its internal divisions, is once again at risk of appearing more like a patchwork of small, self-interested players than a unified bloc. With a deadline for compromise approaching, it’s becoming more likely that the EU will have to accept what’s known as an “asymmetric” trade deal with the United States.
This kind of deal would leave many of Trump’s tariffs intact, most notably a baseline 10 per cent tariff on certain goods. The UK’s earlier deal, which also left a 25 per cent levy on steel and aluminium unresolved, now looks like a potential template. That deal delivered a few exceptions, a flattering tweet from Trump, and a hope that the issue might be dropped. Canada’s experience offers another precedent. It dropped its digital services tax in response to U.S. pressure, clearing a key hurdle in its negotiations.
Financial markets are reacting with cautious optimism, sensing a possible de-escalation in the trade standoff. But there’s a broader question Europe must answer: if the EU doesn’t respond,
Recent actions indicate that the EU’s allies are prioritizing rewards over penalties. NATO members have agreed to double their defence spending targets, allocating a portion to infrastructure, thereby addressing long-standing U.S. concerns and paving the way for more American arms contracts. At the same time, G7 nations have reportedly made concessions around the taxation of American tech firms, seeking to avoid a retaliatory “revenge tax.”
Europe has also spent months reaching out, increasing its purchases of U.S. goods, aligning more closely with Washington on China, and demonstrating a willingness to cooperate. Still, voices within Europe are calling for firmer action. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen recently hinted it might soon be time to “respond in kind.”
That kind of retaliation would require serious unity, especially if it extends beyond goods to the services dominated by U.S. giants like Alphabet and Amazon. Despite the European Commission’s hard stance, the broader political climate among member states remains far from cohesive. Faced with global instability and sluggish economic growth, the will to coordinate a strong response seems limited.
Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz appears more focused on domestic priorities and economic reform than international trade conflicts. Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni may be reluctant to jeopardize her growing rapport with Trump, as shown during the recent NATO summit. Eastern European countries, with their proximity to the Ukraine war, remain more preoccupied with securing American military support than engaging in trade battles. France’s Emmanuel Macron, while often eager to position himself as Europe’s strategic voice, is likely calculating what’s best for France’s key industries, particularly aerospace. Meanwhile, Spain, recently criticized by Trump, has found little solidarity from other member states.
During Brexit, Britain’s catchphrase was that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” That kind of hardline stance is notably absent in Brussels today, even as negotiators try to maintain some boundaries around regulatory standards and enforcement mechanisms. The reality is, Europe is facing a formidable power in the United States—one on which it still relies heavily for defense, innovation, and technological infrastructure.
None of this means the EU is powerless. It remains a major player in global trade and has deepened ties with countries like Japan and Canada, which could pave the way for new trade alliances. And while there’s still hope that a more balanced agreement with the U.S. could emerge in the final stages of talks, the bigger takeaway is becoming clear.
To truly shift the balance, Europe must confront the dependencies that allow such pressure to succeed in the first place. That means building a stronger, more unified defense industry, investing in innovation that reduces fragmentation, creating capital markets capable of scaling startups, and closing the technology gaps that make declarations of “digital sovereignty” feel hollow. Without this kind of collective action, Europe will remain vulnerable to pressure and struggle to define its terms in a rapidly changing world.
