European Commission demands U.S. honor trade deal after tariff reversal
EU push for clarity after U.S. tariff moves
The European Commission publicly demanded that Washington explain next steps after a U.S. court decision narrowed one statutory route that had supported the administration’s global emergency levies, prompting the White House to roll out temporary, across‑the‑board duties that were first framed at 10% and subsequently cited in practice around 15% for many EU products.
Brussels’ complaint centers on last year’s EU‑U.S. arrangement, which both sides described as setting a defined ceiling for U.S. duties on most EU‑origin goods and preserving sectoral carve‑outs — notably zero‑duty treatment for specific aerospace components. The Commission says sudden departures from that framework threaten predictability underpinning investment and contracts across the transatlantic economy.
Legal and reporting accounts differ in emphasis: the court ruling curbed the principal emergency authority (widely tied to IEEPA) that underpinned an earlier 10% headline levy, but it did not automatically unwind all higher rates because the administration can and has shifted to statute‑based routes (for example, Section 122 of the Trade Act) and other administrative measures that carry different ceilings, review timelines and procedural safeguards. This legal pivot explains why some duties persist despite the ruling and why Brussels sees a practical breach of the spirit of the pact even where Washington frames actions as lawful under alternative authorities.
Commission officials say they have engaged U.S. trade and commerce counterparts seeking rapid clarification and assurances that the commitments in the bilateral deal will be respected. Public accounts of the Commission’s interlocutors include named contacts; some press reporting has cited individuals whose public roles do not align with traditional trade posts, a discrepancy that illustrates the patchwork of communications and the fast‑moving information environment around the episode.
The legal uncertainty has immediate market implications: procurement teams, exporters and trade lawyers must reassess pricing and contractual exposure as duties and administrative carve‑outs are re‑interpreted, potentially producing retroactive classification issues and refund disputes.
Practical consequences have already been visible in the wider economy. Customs receipts surged at earlier peaks — with monthly figures reported near $30bn and larger accounting windows showing fiscal‑year exposures in the low‑hundreds of billions — generating a transient revenue boost that complicates political incentives to roll back levies fully.
National and EU political responses are layered. French President Emmanuel Macron publicly welcomed the court’s narrowing of the emergency route while warning that Washington may pursue other, subtler statutory or administrative tools; Paris is pushing for coordinated EU contingency measures rather than unilateral retaliation.
Separately, behind‑the‑scenes diplomacy including a U.S. presidential reversal on Greenland removed a key stumbling block and allowed Brussels and Washington to resume technical talks on a bilateral trade arrangement. The European Parliament’s trade committee has accelerated consideration of a draft pact and inserted an automatic expiry (March 2028) alongside conditionality — including a six‑month demand that the U.S. materially reduce a broadly applied 50% surcharge on products incorporating steel and aluminium — as leverage to ensure performance.
Sector effects are uneven: large importers and regional substitute suppliers (notably in Southeast Asia) have been able to reallocate purchases or absorb costs, while smaller manufacturers and labour‑intensive firms face squeezed margins and higher compliance burdens. The episode thus favours well‑capitalised firms able to front‑load shipments or requalify suppliers, while smaller players bear disproportionate adjustment costs.
How Washington responds in the coming weeks — whether by clarifying reliance on statute‑based measures, matching commitments in the bilateral deal, or offering carve‑outs and timelines — will determine whether this episode becomes a contained legal and technical clarification or a prolonged policy rupture with wider supply‑chain and fiscal consequences.
Read Our Expert Analysis
Create an account or login for free to unlock our expert analysis and key takeaways for this development.
By continuing, you agree to receive marketing communications and our weekly newsletter. You can opt-out at any time.
Recommended for you
EU restarts effort to clear U.S. trade pact after Trump’s Greenland reversal
After a high-profile U.S. policy U‑turn over Greenland and a concentrated round of diplomacy between Washington, Copenhagen and Nuuk, EU institutions have resumed the formal ratification process for a bilateral trade framework with the United States. The diplomatic thaw removes an acute political obstacle but brings energy security and Greenlandic political sensitivities into the spotlight, creating new domestic and strategic conditions that could shape final terms and timing.
South Korea says trade deal intact after US court voids 15% tariff
A U.S. high-court ruling invalidated the emergency authority used to underpin a 15% reciprocal levy on some Korean exports, removing that specific surcharge. Washington has already pivoted to a temporary Trade Act route — a 10% Section 122 surchage with a built‑in 150‑day sunset — leaving legal and administrative uncertainty for exporters and prompting an urgent Seoul review led by Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan.
European Parliament Clears Path for US Trade Pact, Tying It to Tariff Rollback
A recent diplomatic thaw — prompted by a U.S. presidential reversal over Greenland — removed a political block and allowed Brussels to resume work on a transatlantic trade package. The European Parliament’s trade committee set a late‑February plenary vote and attached a six‑month compliance window for the U.S. to roll back a widely applied 50% surcharge on goods containing steel and aluminum, plus an automatic March 2028 sunset unless extended, while negotiators eye parallel commitments on labor, environment and investment screening.
U.S. Trade Shortfall Leaps as European Gap Widens Despite Tariff Strategy
The U.S. goods deficit surged to $56.8 billion in November, a near doubling from October driven largely by a larger gap with the European Union even as tariffs intended to curb imbalances were in place. Year-to-date through November the shortfall sits at $839.5 billion, about 4% higher than a year earlier, underscoring that recent tariff measures have not delivered an immediate narrowing of trade deficits.
Trump-era tariff shock reshaped global trade — what comes next
A recent court decision removed one statutory route the White House used to impose targeted emergency tariffs, trimming a subset of the additional levies that followed 2024 policy moves. But sizeable remaining duties, large fiscal receipts and unresolved legal and operational questions mean higher-than-normal import costs and continued trade volatility for businesses and partners.
Macron: US Court Decision Recasts Global Tariff Risk
President Macron welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 opinion that undercut the emergency statutory basis for a proposed 10% global tariff, calling it a check on executive power and short‑term relief for exporters. He warned that Washington can and likely will pivot to alternative statutory or administrative routes (notably Section 122 of the Trade Act) and pressed for coordinated Franco‑EU contingency plans across agriculture, luxury, fashion and aeronautics.
Indian opposition urges Modi to pause US trade pact after U.S. tariff move
India’s opposition has asked Prime Minister Modi to suspend work on a bilateral U.S. trade understanding after Washington moved on two fronts: a rapid, temporary 10% economy‑wide import surcharge announced under Section 122 of the Trade Act (with a 150‑day statutory sunset unless Congress acts) and, in parallel, a narrower bilateral compact that senior U.S. officials say cuts reciprocal tariffs on covered Indian goods to 18% (from 25%) and removes a prior 25% punitive surcharge. A U.S. high‑court ruling that voided one IEEPA‑based legal route, large contested customs‑refund exposures reported in filings (roughly $130 billion) and the need for CBP/Treasury guidance, MOUs and verification mechanisms have intensified calls in New Delhi for legally binding, sector‑specific safeguards before parliamentary endorsement.
India Postpones US Trade Visit After U.S. Supreme Court Tariff Ruling
India delayed a planned delegation to Washington after the U.S. Supreme Court stripped one legal basis for recent emergency tariffs, creating a split U.S. policy architecture—temporary economy‑wide surcharges under Section 122 and a narrower bilateral tariff carve‑out—that has muddied duty exposure, stalled an interim pact and raised urgent refund and implementation questions.