Following the US’s imposition of tariffs, French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal has criticized the US-EU trade relationship, labeling a potential agreement as “submission.” Attal argued that the US tariffs are a threat to European sovereignty and economic interests. He emphasized the need for Europe to stand its ground and avoid being forced into a trade deal that would disadvantage the continent. The Prime Minister declared the current situation a difficult moment for Europe, signaling a clear stance against the US’s trade policies.
Read More
Following June’s announcement of a potential 50% tariff on European goods, President Trump declared he is not currently pursuing a trade agreement with the European Union. However, he indicated a willingness to alter or postpone these tariffs contingent upon European firms committing to establish manufacturing facilities within the United States. This suggests a potential pathway to avoiding the tariffs, albeit one dependent on specific actions from European businesses. The President’s statement leaves the future of US-EU trade relations uncertain.
Read More
Following praise for Ursula von der Leyen, President Trump’s rhetoric sharply shifted, reflecting strained US-EU trade relations. Von der Leyen’s condition for a meeting—a concrete trade package—remains unmet, despite the EU offering concessions and threatening retaliatory tariffs. This shift coincides with a temporary US-China tariff reduction, achieved after talks in Switzerland. Trump’s previously imposed “Liberation Day” tariffs globally, including on the EU, continue to pose a significant threat to international trade.
Read More
Briefings following a recent meeting between US and Irish officials reveal a US strategy to decouple from China, forcing the EU to choose sides in trade. This entails the EU potentially limiting trade barriers, including certain food standards, to secure a US trade deal. However, the EU shows resistance to altering its standards, while the US may still impose tariffs on pharmaceutical imports despite a temporary tariff reduction. Negotiations are ongoing, but the US’s demands present a significant challenge for the EU.
Read More
The European Union is considering imposing a tax on large American tech companies if trade negotiations with the United States falter. This isn’t a mere threat; the gravity of the situation is palpable, fueled by a growing frustration with the influence and practices of these tech giants. The potential for this tax is a significant escalation in the ongoing trade tensions.
This potential tax is driven by a confluence of factors, far beyond simple economic concerns. The EU feels American social media companies have wielded immense power, fostering the spread of misinformation and extremism, undermining democratic processes. This is viewed as an unacceptable consequence of unchecked influence.… Continue reading
President Trump rejected the European Union’s offer to eliminate tariffs on industrial goods, citing insufficient action to rectify the US-Europe trade imbalance. He accused the EU of unfairly limiting US agricultural and automotive exports, characterizing its formation as a deliberate attempt to harm US trade. Trump announced a 20% tariff on European goods, effective April 9th, and demanded the EU purchase more American energy to mitigate the trade deficit. Despite the EU’s willingness to negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement, Trump deemed their offer inadequate.
Read More
Washington has reportedly informed the European Union to prepare for additional tariffs before any trade negotiations can even begin. This preemptive threat of higher tariffs, potentially reaching 25%, throws a significant wrench into any potential diplomatic solutions. The sheer audacity of this approach—to impose further economic pain before even sitting down to discuss the issues—speaks volumes about the current state of transatlantic relations.
This aggressive tactic ignores established agreements and undermines the principles of good-faith negotiations. It’s a clear sign that Washington isn’t interested in a collaborative resolution, but rather in forcing concessions through economic pressure. This “attack first, negotiate later” strategy is deeply concerning and could easily escalate into a full-blown trade war.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood