By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The European Union clarified that its pledge to invest over a trillion dollars in US energy and infrastructure is not legally binding, according to Brussels. This follows President Trump’s threat of a 35% tariff if the EU didn’t fulfill its commitment, which is a key component of the recent EU-US trade deal. The deal also includes an EU agreement to purchase $750 billion in US energy by 2028. While a 15% tariff “ceiling” has been agreed upon, tariffs on EU cars and parts remain at 27.5%, and the timeline for reducing them is unclear.
Read the original article here
EU says $1.4 trillion spending pledge to US ‘in no way binding’
So, let’s get this straight: the EU’s stance on that supposed $1.4 trillion spending commitment to the US? It’s apparently “in no way binding.” Now, that’s something, isn’t it? Seems like the EU is playing a different game here, a game where promises can be, well, flexible.
It appears this “deal” was more of a headline grab than a solid agreement. We’re talking about a framework, an outline, or perhaps, to use a term often associated with certain former US leaders, a bunch of hot air. The “up to $1.4 trillion” phrasing? It’s a classic move. It’s like saying the number zero is *also* up to a trillion, right? Makes you wonder if the intended audience, at least on the US side, really understood the nuances. This kind of agreement is more about optics, about giving the impression of a win, rather than actually committing to any concrete action.
The EU, as a whole, isn’t some corporation you can strong-arm. They have their own processes and procedures. They can’t simply force a member state, like Hungary, to buy US goods, even if a promise had been made. It’s just not how things work. If you think about it, the details of any actual “deal” would have to be hashed out and agreed upon by the EU, and ultimately, it’s up to the individual companies to decide whether or not to buy US goods. So, despite the headlines, any actual transactions are far from guaranteed.
The whole charade, it seems, was more about creating a favorable narrative for a specific audience. The kind of narrative where the focus is on the headline, and the details are, shall we say, less important. It was about getting some positive publicity, while ignoring the actual complexities and requirements of international trade agreements. Like the EU’s view on the situation, that’s also not how they handle trade negotiations. There’s no need to aggressively push back. The EU just quietly doesn’t do it, which is apparently a lot easier.
Think back to when Trump would meet with global leaders and then declare a great success, based solely on the fact that “we talked.” Remember the press conferences, where the only outcome was an agreement to “have further conversations”? It’s all about headlines, right? The illusion of progress, and the ability to say you achieved something is the key.
This alleged pledge appears to have been nothing more than a play to avoid a trade war. The EU found a way to appease and to placate, avoiding any need for conflict, but also ensuring that no real commitments were made. In the short term, this benefits both sides. In the long term, however, the EU might find itself at a disadvantage because the US will be able to create a competitive advantage without having to impose tariffs or face retaliation.
The EU’s approach seems to be a strategy of waiting. They’re probably hoping to renegotiate a more sensible deal once a different US administration takes office. It’s like saying, “Okay, we’ll play along for now, but let’s revisit this later.”
Let’s not forget, this kind of situation really highlights the power dynamics. There are the ones who benefit from keeping certain information secret, like the coastal elites and European moguls. And those who want certain things released. It’s a dance of power, influence, and, as usual, political strategy.