The US-EU commerce battle is gathering tempo. Following the imposition of 25% US import tariffs on metal and aluminium from March 12, President Trump has announced further plans to introduce “reciprocal” tariffs on all international locations on or after April 1. Which means the US would match different international locations’ import duties in a tit-for-tat method, or as Trump put it, “they charge us, we charge them”.
Such measures would have a devastating impression on the EU’s auto business, as Trump additionally goals for the brand new tariffs to reflect the EU’s Worth Added Tax (VAT) and subsidies, doubtlessly resulting in a de facto 30% tariff on European automobiles getting into the US.
Trump has repeatedly voiced his grievances towards the EU, stating “they don’t take our automobiles, they don’t take our farm merchandise, they take virtually nothing, and we take every thing from them. Hundreds of thousands of automobiles, large quantities of meals and farm merchandise… the European Union, it’s an atrocity what they’ve finished”.
However how justified are Trump’s grievances? Is the US actually being handled unfairly? And why is there a commerce deficit between the 2 powers within the first place?
Trump overlooks service exports
Over the previous 15 years, the EU has constantly exported extra items to the US than it has imported. Based on Eurostat data, the US items commerce deficit with the EU stood at $158 billion in 2023. Between 2013 and 2023, the EU’s surplus in commerce in items with the US diversified from €81 billion in 2013 to €166 billion in 2021.
Nevertheless, in companies, the US had a surplus of exports over imports with the EU amounting to €104 billion in 2023. This considerably reduces the general commerce deficit to “solely” €54 billion, a comparatively small quantity in comparison with the US economic system’s whole worth of $27 trillion.
Regardless of this, Trump focuses completely on the deficit in traded items and threatens to match tariffs raised by different international locations to attain a degree taking part in discipline. Nevertheless, total tariff charges between the 2 blocs are pretty related, with a median of three.95% for US merchandise and three.5% for EU merchandise. However, there are important variations in sure sectors.
Trump’s issues about tariffs on automobiles, agriculture and meals should not utterly unfounded. For instance, the EU tariff fee on imported automobiles is 10%, in comparison with 2.5% within the US, and EU tariffs are round 3.5 share factors larger on meals and drinks. Moreover, tariffs on chemical compounds are on common 1 share level larger within the EU than within the US.
In these areas, the EU might certainly encounter important tariff threats and tough negotiation periods forward.
Learn extra:
Trump tariffs: there may be silver linings in the trade war storm clouds
EU rules might rein in US tech
The EU has promised a “agency and proportionate” response, stating that it’s ready to retaliate towards the 25% tariffs on metal and aluminium and any additional tariffs. EU member states have already authorised tariffs of up to 50% on €4.8 billion value of US imports, and will swiftly finalise a vote to implement them.
The targeted products embody bourbon whisky, Harley-Davidson bikes, motorboats, and sure metal and aluminium gadgets. These tariffs are set to routinely take impact on the finish of March, except a majority of EU international locations determine to implement them earlier.
One other potential leverage level is the EU’s regulatory energy, notably over Large Tech. It is a important concern for Washington, with corporations like X and Meta below EU scrutiny over content material regulation and knowledge sharing with authorities.
Because the world’s largest exporter of companies, the US might face appreciable EU retaliation. Brussels would possibly impose extra restrictions on American consulting and monetary companies, improve digital taxes on US platforms or revoke mental property rights.
Regardless of having the higher hand on this enviornment, the EU has insisted that it prefers negotiation over confrontation. In a current assembly with US Vice President JD Vance, EU President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed the EU’s “dedication to a good commerce relationship [with the US].” She advised that the EU might purchase extra US merchandise, resembling liquefied pure fuel, to slim the commerce deficit.
Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s commerce committee, recently told the press that the bloc was open to lowering its 10% import tax on automobiles to align extra intently with the two.5% fee imposed by the US. One other potential providing might be to extend defence spending and purchase US arms and weaponry.
Nevertheless, past tariff variations, there are different main elements that designate the longstanding commerce deficit between the US and the EU, and these should not as simple to repair.
Learn extra:
The EU was built for another age – here’s how it must adapt to survive
The EU doesn’t belief US items – particularly meals
Client behaviour and preferences – on either side of the Atlantic – play an enormous half within the US-EU commerce relationship. A commerce deficit typically displays variations in manufacturing prices and product high quality. This means that American customers usually favor European merchandise over home options, whereas European customers favour their very own merchandise over American ones. The result’s a commerce deficit in favour of the EU.
One main contributing issue, notably in meals exports to the EU, is the bloc’s stringent rules on agriculture, which the US has repeatedly challenged. These embody guidelines on hygiene and pesticides (generally known as sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, SPS) and geographical indications (GIs). Longstanding and unresolved commerce disputes involving agricultural merchandise have restricted US exports to the EU, notably in beef, poultry, and dairy merchandise.
The EU’s SPS guidelines can even hinder commerce in meals merchandise that utilise biotechnology and different manufacturing strategies generally used within the US. A notable instance is the EU-US beef hormone dispute, which lasted from 1996 to 2009.
For 13 years, the EU imposed a complete ban on US beef imports citing well being issues associated to hormones, below the EU’s precautionary principle (“higher protected than sorry”). The US repeatedly challenged this ban, and even took it to the World Commerce Group. In 2009, the EU agreed to import a quota of hormone-free US beef.
The dispute resurfaced when the US alleged the EU was not honouring this quota, ultimately resulting in a deal in 2019 the place the EU agreed to import 35,000 tons of hormone-free US beef.
The EU’s geographical indication (GI) rules additionally limit commerce in sure meals, wines, and spirits labelled with EU-protected names that US producers think about generic. As an illustration, US cheeses labeled as parmesan or asiago can’t be offered within the EU, as solely cheeses produced in areas with GI registrations can use these names.
Whereas the US contends that these rules are a type of protectionism, the EU maintains that its well being and sanitary requirements are stricter than these within the US and apply uniformly to all non-EU merchandise, not simply these from the US.
Learn extra:
Four ways EU laws affect the daily lives of European citizens today
Commerce battle appears inevitable
No matter whether or not the US’s grievances are justified or unfounded, the fact is that the EU and the US are on a commerce warpath ad infinitum. The EU asserts that it’s higher ready for Trump 2.0, boasting an expanded retaliatory toolkit that features the Anti-Coercion Instrument and an updated EU Enforcement Regulation for commerce disputes. Whether or not these measures might be enough to discourage the US stays unsure.
What is obvious, nonetheless, is that we’re witnessing a exceptional reversal of historical past. The US, which has championed free commerce for the previous 80 years, is now actively difficult the foundations and rules that underpin the multilateral buying and selling system, with doubtlessly catastrophic penalties for the EU, the US, and the remainder of the world.
