Pietro Andrea Podda

pietroandreapodda@papodda.eu

Last week’s meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and U.S. President Donald Trump, held in Scotland, concluded without a satisfactory agreement on customs duties for the European Union. Despite diplomatic optimism, the outcome left many EU officials uneasy and critics warning of a one‑sided outcome.

A 15 % Tariff Instead of Resolution

Under intense pressure from the U.S., EU exports—spanning cars, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and other industrial goods—were ultimately subjected to a 15 % tariff, rather than avoiding tariffs or securing reciprocal duty relief for Americans exporting . While this rate was lower than Trump’s threatened 30 %, it represented a notable concession, particularly because U.S. goods continue to enter the EU duty‑free.

The EU framed the pact as a pragmatic compromise—“better than the worst‐case scenario”—while Trump hailed the outcome as a major win, pointing to the apparent imbalance of concessions. Observers note that the deal includes vague commitments from the EU to invest in U.S. infrastructure and energy, but these pledges lack enforceability.

Discontent from European Voices

European reactions ranged from cautious acceptance to outright criticism. German and French lawmakers, alongside moderate and progressive factions, described the accord as disproportionately favorable to the U.S. and damaging to European sovereignty and trade interests.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz condemned the agreement as a “considerable burden” on the German economy, warning that it could cost up to €6.5 billion in GDP within a year. Analysts argued that the deal lacked robust negotiation—suggesting Europe effectively capitulated under Trump’s aggressive tariff threats.

Critics also spotlighted the discrepancy between EU and U.S. versions of the agreement—particularly over product coverage and tariff timelines—with European officials offering tighter clarifications than the White House fact sheet.

Technical Concessions Mask Broader Concerns

The negotiated arrangement includes selective exemptions—such as zero‑duty treatment on aircraft and equipment, semiconductor hardware, certain chemicals, and agricultural goods—but many critical sectors remain under the new 15 % tariff regime, casting doubt on the deal’s broader benefits.

Additionally, Brussels’ promise to buy $750 billion in U.S. energy products within three years and invest $600 billion in U.S. military and economic assets lacks clarity and enforceability, further fueling skepticism about the deal’s substance.

Looking Ahead: A Fragile Compromise

In essence, last week’s accord prevented a steep escalation in tariffs—but fell short of securing meaningful duty relief or mutual equilibrium. For the EU, it was a stabilizing but imperfect outcome; for Trump, a demonstration of coercive leverage. As critics voice concerns over lost leverage and weak negotiation, internal EU divisions are growing broader.

The lingering question: has the EU gained long‐term trade stability, or simply conceded too much to diffuse a short‑term threat?

*this article has been developed through AI support