By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump has threatened the European Union with tariffs unless it significantly increases its purchases of American oil and gas, citing a large trade deficit. This threat follows Trump’s first post-election trip abroad, and comes as the EU has strengthened its trade defenses against such coercive practices. The EU is already a major importer of US LNG and crude oil, but Trump’s “America First” approach signals potential significant trade disruptions. His past actions involving tariffs on steel and aluminum demonstrate his willingness to pursue protectionist policies. The EU has vowed a unified response to any aggressive trade actions from the incoming US administration.
Read the original article here
Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on European Union goods if the EU doesn’t increase its purchases of American oil and gas is a bold, and some might say, reckless gambit. The core of the issue lies in a perceived trade imbalance, with a significant deficit in the US’s favor. Trump’s suggested solution: force the EU to buy more American energy products, irrespective of market dynamics or existing supply chains. This forceful approach isn’t winning him many friends.
The EU’s response has been largely dismissive, suggesting that their energy purchasing plans are already in place and that Trump’s threat won’t materially impact them. This nonchalance underscores the reality that the EU has diverse energy suppliers and isn’t entirely reliant on the US. The fact that the EU has expressed no intention to alter its energy policy adds weight to this assessment.
The reaction from various quarters reveals a deep-seated frustration and disbelief at this seemingly simplistic solution to a complex economic problem. Many observers see Trump’s tariff threat as a blunt instrument, poorly calibrated and potentially damaging to global trade relations. Some criticize it as classic Trumpian “faux populism,” a strategy designed to appeal to his base without addressing underlying economic realities. The idea that increased oil and gas exports automatically translate to a more competitive and prosperous America is widely disputed.
The criticism isn’t confined to the left; even some of Trump’s supporters express weariness with his tariff-first approach. The sentiment suggests a sense of déjà vu, a recognition that this is a tactic Trump has employed repeatedly, to mixed results at best. Concern grows that the constant threat of tariffs is eroding US credibility and trust among its allies, undermining vital international partnerships.
Several commentators draw parallels to previous instances where tariff threats failed to deliver the intended outcome. For example, the allusion to Bush’s steel tariffs suggests a pattern of short-sighted protectionism that ultimately backfires. The notion that this approach risks damaging US credibility is frequently raised. This time, though, the scale of the potential damage to the global economy may be significantly larger than before, given the significant roles of both the US and the EU in international markets.
The idea that the US could unilaterally dictate energy purchases to the EU is seen as a display of outdated power dynamics, reminiscent of past imperial behaviors. The comments reveal a palpable sense of disillusionment; some suggest the US is clinging to outdated notions of dominance as its global influence wanes. The use of tariffs as the primary – indeed, seemingly only – response to economic challenges is seen as simplistic and dangerous.
Concerns arise that this approach could be counterproductive, pushing the EU towards alternative energy suppliers, potentially benefiting countries like Russia or further empowering China’s economic dominance. The suggestion of a deliberate reduction in Russian oil and gas production through indirect means, albeit darkly humorous, highlights a broader concern about a potential escalation of tensions that could have far-reaching geopolitical consequences.
Underlying the economic debate is a strong emotional component. There’s a pervasive feeling of embarrassment, disappointment, and even anger. Many express their frustration with Trump’s perceived incompetence and reckless disregard for global stability. This undercurrent of emotion underscores how this issue extends far beyond mere economic concerns, touching upon fundamental questions of international leadership and responsibility. Ultimately, the lasting effects of Trump’s threat may well exceed the immediate outcome of the EU’s oil and gas purchases. The damage done to US alliances and its global reputation may be far more significant.