🇪🇺Europe Must Stop Paying Tribute to Washington
The EU’s $1.35 trillion trade and energy concessions to Donald Trump cement Europe’s junior‑partner status. Unless leaders endure short‑term pain, they will sacrifice long‑term power and sovereignty.
👋Hey guys, Julien here. The French Dispatch is a reader-supported publication, and both our coverage of current affairs as well as our ability to bring you more news and information on the world around us is entirely funded by paid subscriptions and donations.
If you enjoy reading articles written by high-level experts, then make sure to support the publication by liking, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends and colleagues, and consider taking a paid subscription.
The European Union is one of the most powerful economies and the largest consumer market in the world, benefitting from being a bloc of 450 million people with an economy comparable in size to that of the United States and China.
Yet on 27 July 2025, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stood before cameras in Scotland and described a poor trade agreement with Donald Trump as “the best we could get”. She praised the deal for bringing “stability and predictability”, while every trade and political expert with eyes on the matter decried it as a capitulation.
It was a damning admission of her failure and our weakness. We as Europeans cannot accept being dictated to by anybody, let alone Donald Trump’s tariff mafia in Washington. Yet that is precisely what von der Leyen signed: an arrangement that enshrines Europe as the junior partner in transatlantic trade, rewarding Trump’s tariff threats with sweeping concessions.
As Prime Minister François Bayrou said on Twitter: “It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, gathered to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission.”
A deal built on asymmetry
Under the agreement, a flat 15% tariff will apply to the majority of European exports to the United States. A limited set of sectors, including aircraft components, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and selected agricultural products, will be exempt and subject to zero‑for‑zero mutual tariffs. For US goods entering Europe, many will be covered by these same zero‑for‑zero arrangements, while others will continue to face the EU’s existing MFN tariffs, which are typically lower than 15%. The precise scope of these categories remains unclear, fuelling uncertainty about the real balance of the deal.
Europe also pledged to direct up to $600 billion in investment into the United States and to purchase $750 billion in American energy over the next five years. These are commitments rather than guaranteed outflows and would be unenforceable in a market economy. But the headline number is striking: a one-way pledge of $1.35 trillion to the United States, with no reciprocal American commitments to invest in Europe.
Now, aside from the fact that this is unenforceable in a market economy, it would be an absurd increase in expenditure on American energy, and is unenforceable in a structure like the European Union with individual Member States, there is one very important question here:
Why on earth is there a one-way investment of $1,350,000,000,000 over five years towards the United States of America, and nothing going to the European Union?
Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called 27 July “Europe’s Declaration of Dependence”. He asked how “an unequal treaty in which one side pays tariffs of 15 % but the other pays none. How can that not be called a tribute?”. He went on to warn that it is “illusory to believe Donald Trump will stop his demands faced with a Europe whose sovereignty he despises” or that “a future, more reasonable American president will reverse these tariffs without further conditions once they are accepted.”
The Commission argues the deal was the lesser of two evils. Trump had threatened to raise tariffs to 30% on 1 August. Avoiding that escalation brought relief to markets: the euro strengthened modestly, European equities gained ground and exporters escaped the worst‑case scenario. But the price of that relief was long‑term weakness.
And on the American side, they have managed to develop a completely different view of what was agreed that has created a whole other discussion.
Reactions from European capitals were revealing. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz cautiously welcomed the agreement, admitting he “would have wished for more relief”. France’s European Affairs Minister, Benjamin Haddad, called it “temporary stability” at best and openly described it as “unbalanced.” Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán dispensed with diplomatic niceties, saying, “Donald Trump did not reach an agreement with Ursula von der Leyen, but rather Donald Trump ate Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast.”
And most damning of all, French President Emmanuel Macron highlighted the problem:
"Europe does not yet see itself sufficiently as a power…To be free, you have to be feared. We have not been feared enough”
Markets may have celebrated, but industrial sectors saw little to cheer. A German industrial lobby warned of “immense negative effects on export‑oriented German industry”. Chemical producers described the new tariffs as “too high”. Export-driven industries, such as automotive manufacturing, will feel the squeeze, and higher costs will be passed on to European consumers.
The systemic failure behind the deal
This political defeat is not just von der Leyen’s. It is structural. Every opportunity the EU encounters where it can use the leverage it has, it does the complete opposite and capitulates at every opportunity rather than employing any geopolitical strategy. We remain a collection of 27 disparate interests rather than a strategic actor. France pushes for toughness and strength, albeit while lobbying for tariff‑free access for French alcohol; Germany prioritises its car industry above all else. Other states fear retaliation on niche exports.
The result is paralysis.
This time, Von der Leyen became the lightning rod for national leaders desperate to avoid domestic pain, particularly with elections looming in France, Hungary and the Netherlands. The calculation was simple: sign a bad deal and claim a partial victory, or hold the line and risk a trade war. National politicians have a low threshold for pain. They will almost always choose the short‑term fix over a longer‑term strategy.
This explains why von der Leyen’s defenders argue that the 15% tariff, while painful, is manageable. It is similar to Japan’s level, with the same level of technical mess, slightly higher than the UK’s, and significantly lower than the tariffs China faces. US manufacturers are in no position to replace European imports wholesale, and American firms themselves face 25% tariffs on parts from Mexico and Canada, as well as 50% duties on steel and aluminium.
But that logic ignores the wider costs.
It accepts that the EU will concede leverage to avoid confrontation. And it downplays the deal’s most glaring flaw: the investment and purchase commitments do nothing to strengthen European sovereignty. The EU was already shifting away from Russian energy and investing in US assets and, rebadging existing flows as “concessions”, granted Trump political capital while leaving Europe weaker.
Because the agreement is mainly political, with little binding legal text, Trump retains the ability to reopen negotiations if he deems European investments or purchases insufficient. We have seen this movie before: his administration tore up previous agreements with Japan and the UK to demand more. There is every reason to expect he will do the same with the EU.
The lesson Europe refuses to learn
This is the fundamental problem. Europe talks endlessly about “strategic autonomy” but flinches at the first sign of pressure. We celebrate short‑term stability even when it comes at the expense of long‑term strength, whether that is in trade, foreign or domestic policy. Von der Leyen insisted that this deal “delivers stability”.
But stability for whom? For a US president who thrives on destabilising others? For European leaders who could not bear to explain to voters why it was worth enduring a tariff war in order to defend Europe’s leverage?
This deal will embolden Washington and all of Europe’s competitors to demand more. It sends a message to Beijing, Moscow and every other capital that Europe will fold when threatened. The EU’s vast economic weight counts for nothing if its leaders refuse to use it.
This is not only about Ursula von der Leyen’s lacklustre leadership, though her time as Commission President has been questioned for more than a little while now. It is about a deeper failure of political courage, a failure of political nous and a failure to understand what we are. Europe’s leaders cannot continue to treat the Commission as a shield against domestic pain while refusing to confront the reality that power requires sacrifice. We cannot keep wallowing in weakness and refusing to take the painful decisions that would make our continent what it can and should be.
The EU cannot afford another “tribute” payment for momentary calm. Unless it changes course, it will continue to exchange our freedom and sovereignty for pocket change, and Europe must stop comforting itself with the language of stability. It must wake up to the fact that the United States, under Trump or any other president, will always exploit European division if given the opportunity.
To become the geopolitical power that we can be, to leverage our economic and normative strengths and to become the Union that we should be, we need three essential things that Ursula von der Leyen and our Union currently lack.
We have to learn to endure economic pain when necessary. We need to forge a genuine strategic culture that replaces this chaotic mix of 27 competing agendas. And we must actually use our strong market and normative leverage rather than surrendering at the faintest whiff of conflict when we sit at the negotiating table.
But until we move past the current suicidal pêle-mêle of 27 competing agendas, this will never happen.
Von der Leyen’s defenders will argue she saved Europe from disaster, but authentic leadership is not about avoiding immediate discomfort. It is about building and deploying the power, leveraging our immense influence, to shape outcomes to our advantage.
Europe has this power, with our vast market, immense economic weight, and high-level innovating ability, which we have despite our less-than-ideal internal structure.
Ursula von der Leyen just failed to use it.
The lesson from July 27 2025 is brutal: if Europe continues to exchange sovereignty for short‑term relief, it will continue to lose. The next time Washington applies pressure, the EU will fold even faster, and the world will treat it accordingly.
Europe must stop paying tribute and start acting like the power it is. Anything less is a surrender dressed up as diplomacy.
There is a big problem, however, and Former French Ambassador to the United States, Gérard Araud said it very clearly this morning: the majority of European Member States don’t want to be strategically autonomous; they don’t want to be independent; they just want to be a part of a transatlantic community that makes them feel warm and safe.
Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission has reflected this mindset by prioritising the positions of individual states that seek to avoid transatlantic tensions at any cost and continue to focus on short-term results at the expense of long-term strategic success.
True leadership is not about avoiding discomfort. It is about building the power to shape outcomes. Europe already has that power, with its vast market, immense economic weight and industrial potential. Our leaders must learn to wield it, or the world will continue to see us as a subordinate actor rather than the power we truly are.
Yet they continue to refuse.
We cannot think for a second that the world isn’t watching this and won’t expect the same when they deal with us. We in Europe must stop paying tribute and start acting like the power we are and the ally we should be.
Anything less is surrender dressed up as diplomacy.
Thank you for reading The French Dispatch! If you liked what you read, you should like this post and subscribe to the newsletter by clicking/tapping the button below:
And if you’d like to contribute a coffee or two to help fuel my coverage of the wild world of politics, feel free to click on the picture below:
Oh my. Just the first photo made me want to throw up. The "thumbs up" pose. ...... I noticed that the other two women were giving the "no thanks" pose.
I read your article with a mixture of disappointment and puzzlement. On the face of the reports it looks as though you're fears are justified but, thinking about the practicality of the terms, I think Trump was played as the expenditure he expects from the EU is mostly already committed or impractical. As usual with Trump, it is all about the initial impact of his announcement in praise of himself. The EU administration doesn't buy for member states so the reality is very different. The USA also could not supply the quantities it claims to have agreed and Trump himself is unlikely to be in office full term due to his health. Also it is not a finalised detailed agreement yet and Trump has a record of ignoring agreements that he doesn't like. My impression is that this is all smoke and mirrors that is very unlikely to happen as currently projected by the media. In the circumstances, the condemnation is not justified. However, politics is a hazardous business where 24 hours can be a long time to navigate.