EU braces for US tariff escalation as Parliament presses Commission

The state of play

The European Parliament held a tense exchange with European Commission officials on Monday, July 14, focused on rising transatlantic trade tensions. Just over the weekend, US President Donald Trump threatened to impose sweeping new tariffs on EU imports, while the Commission held back the implementation of their  first wave of countermeasures that were expected this week. The Commission’s retreat came in response to a strongly worded letter from Washington, which had been anticipated.

In the European Parliament, however, MEPs voiced concern over both the economic impact of the US measures and the Commission’s decision to delay action. While Deputy Director-General of DG Trade Leopoldo Rubinacci defended the pause as a strategic move to preserve negotiating space, lawmakers across the different groups questioned whether diplomacy alone could succeed, and how the EU intends to protect its legislative sovereignty amid growing pressure from their transatlantic partners.

Parliament’s discontent

Members of the European Parliament expressed growing frustration and skepticism over the Commission’s decision to delay countermeasures against the United States. Many viewed the weekend letter from Washington, warning of escalating tariffs unless the EU refrained from retaliation, as an act of pressure bordering on provocation, as a stance of power instead of partnership. 

Bernd Lange, chair of the International Trade Committee, questioned the Commission’s restraint, and argued that the EU should have gone ahead with its initial response, rather than stepping back under pressure. Lange also demanded clarity on how Parliament would be involved in any eventual trade agreement, particularly if legislative changes or ratification processes are required.

Others supported Lange’s skepticism, fearing that this cooperative stance that the Commission chose might be perceived by the Washington counterpart as weakness. Green MEP Anna Cavazzini suggested that the EU had reached a turning point and should abandon the assumption that dialogue alone could resolve the negotiation blockade. Similar sentiments came from members of Renew and S&D, who urged the Commission to adopt a more assertive front, including consideration of anti-coercion instruments or a digital tax in response to US pressure tactics.

Martin Schirdewan of The Left accused the Commission of under-communicating its plans and failing to stand up to what he called “economic bullying.” , while Anna Brylka stated that the Commission had once again demonstrated its inability to lead trade negotiations effectively. 

Still, some MEPs defended the Commission’s caution. Iuliu Winkler and Barry Cowen both praised the measured response and warned against prematurely closing the door to a negotiated solution. Their main reason being that the US administration has a track record of walking back threats, and the EU should therefore prioritize de-escalation through dialogue.

Commission’s response 

Leopoldo Rubinacci, Deputy Director-General for Trade, from his corner defended the Commission decision to wait and emphasized that the goal was to “keep the space for negotiations” while still being ready to apply a broader €95 billion package of countermeasures if needed. While rejecting any possibility of accepting a tariff baseline, whether 10% or 30%, he confirmed that the EU is also exploring measures in services and energy. 

The dilemma

This Parliament session laid out the EU’s internal dilemma: to be firm or not to be firm? While Rubinacci reiterated that negotiations remain the priority, many MEPs interpreted the Commission’s delayed response as a sign of weakness, especially in the face of what they see as President Trump’s coercive tactics.

The US letter and new tariff threats have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the EU’s “strategic patience.” MEPs argued it emboldens the Trump administration. In response, the Commission insisted that the delay was tactical, not timid, yet it didn’t seem convincing enough to switch the political mood in Parliament back to support the Commission’s decisions. 

Rather, there is growing consensus that unity must be paired with assertiveness. If no deal is reached by August, von der Leyen’s team may face pressure to act decisively or risk losing the confidence of both Parliament and industry. A luxury that the Commission and its President cannot afford having survived a no-confidence vote tabled against von der Leyen’s leadership just last week.It is clear that despite differing views among political groups, Parliament expects to be treated as a strategic partner in shaping the EU’s response -not merely informed after decisions are made. Rubinacci’s assurance that Parliament would be involved “at the appropriate stage” is unlikely to reassure MEPs, at a time when the Commission needs allies, not critics.