EU-US Joint Trade Statement Fails to Relieve Pressure on US Tech

The partnership between the United States and Europe—the most prosperous in the world—has long been hampered by protectionist sentiment. Late last month, following an hour-long meeting between European Commission President Von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump, the two announced a framework agreement to bolster the transatlantic partnership. Now, the EU and US have released a joint statement, formalizing the agreement and offering details on the landmark deal.

Motivated by a strong desire to combat a history of discriminatory trade policy, the deal negotiated by President Trump was meant as a reset of the US-EU trade relationship, removing barriers to trade in European markets. The statement succeeded in addressing some existing tension points, while committing the two groups to continued negotiation on persisting challenges.

Headlining the statement was the discussion of future tariff rates. The deal sets a baseline tariff rate of 15% on European goods, while committing the EU to eliminate all tariffs on US industrial products. The deal also aims to spur capital flows, acknowledging the scope of transatlantic investments and committing to promoting mutual investment.

The statement sought to address some of the non-tariff issues disrupting US-EU trade, implying exemptions on American commodities subject to the European Union’s “Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products” (EUDR), a ban on products resulting from recent deforestation. Packaged as part of Europe’s broader ‘Green Deal’, EUDR follows a pattern of extraterritorial legislation from Brussels, driven by a sense of regulatory exceptionalism and lacking consideration for local law and logistical realities.

The framework also addressed another significant barrier, securing commitments to mutual standard recognition. European health and safety regulations prevent American auto, pork, dairy, and many other exports from accessing European markets. These barriers are often more restrictive than tariffs; acknowledging the equivalence of American health and safety standards removes them, further connecting European and American markets.

Although the deal addresses some non-tariff barriers for commodities and industrial goods, it neglects the significant barriers faced by US tech companies in Europe. By creating complex, difficult-to-satisfy requirements, the EU has created a regulatory environment that forces American companies to change their day-to-day business practices while leaving them vulnerable to extortionary fines. Meanwhile, European firms are left to benefit under separate rules.

For example, Laws such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) set ill-defined “competitiveness” thresholds that are tailored to justify launching lengthy investigations against American companies. Similarly, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has set costly technical standards for data management. Apple has already faced several multibillion-euro fines in EU cases, while Meta was forced to pay fines as high as $200 million under GDPR. Currently, every major U.S. digital service provider faces some form of lawsuit—justified under either the DMA or DSA. 

Reports suggest that the one-month delay between the deal’s signing and the statement’s release was caused by a misunderstanding over the EU’s digital policy, with the US wanting it eliminated as a non-tariff barrier, but European leaders attempting to preserve language in a formal joint statement that would protect Europe’s digital trade policies. With these policies avoiding direct mention, it seems the EU succeeded in preserving the digital trade policies plaguing American businesses.

For a true reciprocal trade relationship between the EU and the US, Europe’s history of discrimination must be addressed. Allowing the EU to maintain its digital trade policies only limits the potential of the transatlantic partnership, hindering competitive markets and mutual prosperity. While the deal in its entirety represents a welcome step back from hostility, as it unfolds, it must address the persistent discrimination facing one of America’s largest industries.