On the trade front, at least, a second Trump administration could provide opportunities, not just pose threats, to the European Union. By adopting a pragmatic approach to trade negotiations, European manufacturers may even emerge as the main beneficiaries of Trump’s proposed import tariffs.
MILAN – American voters have decided to give former President Donald Trump a second chance. The rest of the world must now accept this reality and adjust accordingly. This is especially true for Europe, which has long depended on the United States’ security umbrella and, more recently, on access to its vast consumer market.
Europe’s most pressing security concern is the deteriorating military situation in Ukraine. But having failed to ramp up its own military production, there is little that the European Union can do at this point except wait for the outcome of Trump’s promised negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
While the situation in Ukraine appears bleak, the outlook is far more optimistic on the trade front. The EU is the world’s largest exporter, with exports accounting for roughly 25% of its GDP – a significantly higher share than the US. Given that the US is the bloc’s largest export market, the return of Trump – a self-declared “tariff man” – seems like a serious threat.
But with skillful EU diplomacy, the Trump administration could present Europe with some valuable opportunities. Trade policy remains one of the few areas where the bloc can act as a unified entity, enabling European countries to coordinate a strategic response.
The question now is how the EU should respond to potential Trump tariffs. Economic analysis suggests that responding to tariffs with tariffs does more harm than good. The usual argument for adopting a tit-for-tat strategy is that it may deter the other side from starting a trade war while signaling to domestic industries that policymakers will defend their interests. This reasoning may have made sense when governments used such tools sparingly to protect specific industries, but times have changed.
Trump’s tariff fixation partly stems from his belief that America is losing ground in global trade because other countries have much higher tariffs. Whether US tariffs are truly lower than those of the EU or China is debatable, but what matters is that Trump perceives European tariffs as being 50% higher than in the US.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
While “50% higher” sounds dramatic, the actual difference is between an average tariff rate of 3.5% in the US and 5% in the EU. Not too long ago, when European and American policymakers were negotiating a transatlantic investment and free trade agreement, that gap was hardly a point of contention.
Given Trump’s emphasis on reciprocity, the EU should consider reducing some of its remaining tariffs. In particular, European policymakers could propose lowering the 10% import duty on cars, including electric vehicles (EVs), to the 2.5% tariff imposed by the US – or even eliminate it entirely.
To be sure, European leaders would have to set aside their pride to make such an offer. But they should take a page from the playbook of Jean-Claude Juncker, Ursula von der Leyen’s predecessor as European Commission president, who successfully defused a transatlantic trade war during Trump’s first term.
By embracing Juncker’s diplomatic approach, Europe could actually benefit from Trump’s tariffs. In fact, Trump’s plan to impose tariffs of up to 60% on Chinese goods and 10-20% on other countries could give European producers a competitive edge. This dynamic is already evident in the US car market, where EU-based companies are thriving while Chinese EVs have been effectively shut out by President Joe Biden’s prohibitive 100% tariffs.
Keeping EU-US trade relations relatively calm should therefore be a top priority for European policymakers over the next four years. Of course, these efforts would be futile if other countries were to follow America’s lead. In the 1930s, for example, the US exacerbated the Great Depression by hiking tariffs and sparking a trade war that sent the global economy into a tailspin.
But this time may very well be different. Most countries appear uninterested in adopting Trump’s approach, which conflicts with the interests of the many small, open economies that form the backbone of global trade. Even China might respond to US tariffs, but it has little incentive to impose sweeping import tariffs against other countries. Consequently, the tariff war Trump hopes to escalate may remain a Sino-American affair. Importantly, although the US and China are the world’s two largest economies, trade between them represents a fraction of international trade: US imports of Chinese goods amount to approximately $500 billion, equivalent to just 0.5% of global GDP and 2% of world trade.
Thus, rather than lamenting the end of the rules-based international system, EU policymakers should focus on the pragmatic task of defusing trade tensions with the US while keeping European markets open to the rest of the world.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Since Plato’s Republic 2,300 years ago, philosophers have understood the process by which demagogues come to power in free and fair elections, only to overthrow democracy and establish tyrannical rule. The process is straightforward, and we have now just watched it play out.
observes that philosophers since Plato have understood how tyrants come to power in free elections.
Despite being a criminal, a charlatan, and an aspiring dictator, Donald Trump has won not only the Electoral College, but also the popular vote – a feat he did not achieve in 2016 or 2020. A nihilistic voter base, profit-hungry business leaders, and craven Republican politicians are to blame.
points the finger at a nihilistic voter base, profit-hungry business leaders, and craven Republican politicians.
MILAN – American voters have decided to give former President Donald Trump a second chance. The rest of the world must now accept this reality and adjust accordingly. This is especially true for Europe, which has long depended on the United States’ security umbrella and, more recently, on access to its vast consumer market.
Europe’s most pressing security concern is the deteriorating military situation in Ukraine. But having failed to ramp up its own military production, there is little that the European Union can do at this point except wait for the outcome of Trump’s promised negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
While the situation in Ukraine appears bleak, the outlook is far more optimistic on the trade front. The EU is the world’s largest exporter, with exports accounting for roughly 25% of its GDP – a significantly higher share than the US. Given that the US is the bloc’s largest export market, the return of Trump – a self-declared “tariff man” – seems like a serious threat.
But with skillful EU diplomacy, the Trump administration could present Europe with some valuable opportunities. Trade policy remains one of the few areas where the bloc can act as a unified entity, enabling European countries to coordinate a strategic response.
The question now is how the EU should respond to potential Trump tariffs. Economic analysis suggests that responding to tariffs with tariffs does more harm than good. The usual argument for adopting a tit-for-tat strategy is that it may deter the other side from starting a trade war while signaling to domestic industries that policymakers will defend their interests. This reasoning may have made sense when governments used such tools sparingly to protect specific industries, but times have changed.
Trump’s tariff fixation partly stems from his belief that America is losing ground in global trade because other countries have much higher tariffs. Whether US tariffs are truly lower than those of the EU or China is debatable, but what matters is that Trump perceives European tariffs as being 50% higher than in the US.
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
While “50% higher” sounds dramatic, the actual difference is between an average tariff rate of 3.5% in the US and 5% in the EU. Not too long ago, when European and American policymakers were negotiating a transatlantic investment and free trade agreement, that gap was hardly a point of contention.
Given Trump’s emphasis on reciprocity, the EU should consider reducing some of its remaining tariffs. In particular, European policymakers could propose lowering the 10% import duty on cars, including electric vehicles (EVs), to the 2.5% tariff imposed by the US – or even eliminate it entirely.
To be sure, European leaders would have to set aside their pride to make such an offer. But they should take a page from the playbook of Jean-Claude Juncker, Ursula von der Leyen’s predecessor as European Commission president, who successfully defused a transatlantic trade war during Trump’s first term.
By embracing Juncker’s diplomatic approach, Europe could actually benefit from Trump’s tariffs. In fact, Trump’s plan to impose tariffs of up to 60% on Chinese goods and 10-20% on other countries could give European producers a competitive edge. This dynamic is already evident in the US car market, where EU-based companies are thriving while Chinese EVs have been effectively shut out by President Joe Biden’s prohibitive 100% tariffs.
Keeping EU-US trade relations relatively calm should therefore be a top priority for European policymakers over the next four years. Of course, these efforts would be futile if other countries were to follow America’s lead. In the 1930s, for example, the US exacerbated the Great Depression by hiking tariffs and sparking a trade war that sent the global economy into a tailspin.
But this time may very well be different. Most countries appear uninterested in adopting Trump’s approach, which conflicts with the interests of the many small, open economies that form the backbone of global trade. Even China might respond to US tariffs, but it has little incentive to impose sweeping import tariffs against other countries. Consequently, the tariff war Trump hopes to escalate may remain a Sino-American affair. Importantly, although the US and China are the world’s two largest economies, trade between them represents a fraction of international trade: US imports of Chinese goods amount to approximately $500 billion, equivalent to just 0.5% of global GDP and 2% of world trade.
Thus, rather than lamenting the end of the rules-based international system, EU policymakers should focus on the pragmatic task of defusing trade tensions with the US while keeping European markets open to the rest of the world.