However, this overlooks a third — and probably better — option: shrugging off Trump’s threats.
Truth is, there are a whole host of flaws to both the negotiation and retaliation strategies. When it comes to negotiating, for example, the EU would need to know U.S. demands in order to ink a deal. But this a problem because no one has a clue what Trump really wants from Europe. Current hypotheses include a revamp of VAT systems, EU pledges to import more U.S. LNG or defense kit, and promises to decouple from China — though it may well be something else entirely.
This lack of clarity around Washington’s asks points to another obvious issue with negotiating as well: Trump seems to enjoy bullying both allies and foes alike. This means, there’s every reason to believe that if the U.S. and the EU were sign a deal, he could walk away from it at any time to ask for more. And if the bloc can’t even guarantee Trump will leave Europeans in peace afterward, it’s unclear why it should bother negotiating with him in the first place.
The retaliation scenario isn’t any more promising. U.S. firms and consumers will bear the brunt of Trump’s tariffs, which are a tax on U.S. imports. So, other than political posturing, it’s hard to understand why Europeans would want to add insult to injury and penalize their own economies with retaliatory tariffs against the U.S.
If Trump wants to harm the U.S. economy, so be it. The EU doesn’t need to follow suit.
Besides, EU capitals would probably struggle to agree on a retaliation package, which would fuel the risk of EU fragmentation. EU countries that source a huge share of their imports from the U.S. — Belgium, France, Ireland and the Netherlands come to mind — would worry that the bloc’s retaliatory tariffs could fuel inflation. Meanwhile, countries with a huge number of firms that rely on the U.S. as a key export market, like Germany and Italy, would fear triggering an unpredictable escalation in the trade war.