Friedrich Merz Presses Washington Over US Tariff Plan
Context and Chronology
Chancellor Friedrich Merz is travelling to Washington to press the White House for concrete, timebound commitments after an abrupt U.S. tariff shift that has raised duties on a swathe of European exports — with cheese, dairy and several thin‑margin farm commodities among the most exposed. Berlin frames the trip as an effort to secure operational assurances, carve‑outs or contingency remedies to prevent immediate market dislocations and to preserve the predictability that underpins transatlantic supply chains.
Brussels’ technical review has concluded that the practical effect of the U.S. measures will push applied duties above levels the EU considers protected under the bilateral understanding, creating legal grounds for challenge and immediate commercial stress for exporters whose contracts and shipping windows are tight. The Commission has formally sought clarification and warned that sudden departures from agreed ceilings threaten investment and long‑term contracting behavior.
Reporting around the U.S. action has varied because Washington shifted legal bases after a U.S. court narrowed one emergency authority. Early White House messaging described a headline surcharge as a uniform 10% levy, while industry and customs practice have cited effective applied rates nearer to the 10–15% range on many products; that gap reflects the layering of multiple statutory tools and administrative duties rather than a simple arithmetic error. The choice of legal authority matters for remedies, review timetables and refund rules.
Technical distinctions are consequential: authorities such as Section 122 carry particular procedural windows (public discussion has referenced roughly a 150‑day statutory review window for some proclamations), while other statutory routes imply different ceilings, refund practices and legislative oversight. Those differences explain why U.S. officials can claim legal compliance even as Brussels views the measures as breaching the spirit — and in some instances the letter — of the bilateral framework.
On the ground, traders, processors and importers are reacting now — front‑loading shipments, renegotiating contracts and exploring re‑routing — with smaller, labour‑intensive suppliers most at risk. Larger firms and well‑capitalized buyers can absorb or hedge the shock, but uneven transmission is increasing political pressure inside EU capitals to secure rapid mitigation for vulnerable constituencies.
Political dynamics in Brussels have moved beyond technical notes: Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has urged EU‑level ratification of a transatlantic pact as a means to stabilise trade, and the European Parliament’s trade committee accelerated a plenary timetable in late February that inserts conditionality and performance tests — including automatic expiry and reassessment points — into any treaty path. Draft parliamentary amendments discussed a built‑in sunset (cited in public reporting as March 2028) and a six‑month rollback performance test, converting immediate relief into a time‑bound political commitment rather than a permanent lock‑in.
Fiscal feedback loops complicate diplomacy: public accounts cited surging customs receipts during peak months — industry and public figures referenced monthly receipts near $30 billion in some windows — which creates domestic incentives in Washington that make wholesale retroactive refunds or rollbacks politically costly. That reality narrows the space for purely technical fixes and raises the premium on enforceable administrative exemptions, targeted refund mechanisms, or narrowly negotiated timelines.
Because agricultural shipments are time‑sensitive, the next 30–90 days are decisive: short harvest and shipping windows magnify price and margin volatility, and delayed remedies can crystallize supply‑chain reallocation as buyers shift to alternative suppliers. Over a longer horizon, persistent uncertainty and a sequence of time‑bound treaty tests would encourage structural rerouting of trade flows and expedited trade‑defence filings against the U.S. measures.
Merz will therefore press for specific remedies — clear lists of covered products, timelines for review, targeted carve‑outs for perishable lines, administrative mechanisms for refunds or exemptions, and assurances that any U.S. measures will be subject to predictable review timelines — while signalling that failure to deliver prompt, enforceable clarifications could push the EU toward coordinated legal responses, calibrated retaliation or accelerated dispute settlement steps. French and other EU leaders have urged a coordinated, calibrated approach rather than unilateral national measures.
In sum, Merz’s visit is a high‑stakes diplomatic test: a contained, administratively managed clarification from Washington could limit market disruption, but the combination of legal complexity, fiscal incentives and overlapping political timetables in Brussels means the episode risks evolving into a broader policy rupture with lasting commercial consequences if concrete, timebound commitments are not secured.
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
Merz Leans on Xi to Reassert Rules-Based Trade on First China Trip
Chancellor Merz travels to Beijing to press President Xi for fair, transparent trade rules while saying Europe must strengthen competitiveness and resilience — part of a wider, pragmatic Western uptick in engagement that pairs conditional market openings with tighter safeguards.
Europe’s Leverage: How Disposing of U.S. Treasuries and Legal Countermeasures Could Pressure Washington
European capitals are discussing financial and legal options that could be used to pressure the United States, including reducing holdings of U.S. government debt and deploying regulatory or trade responses. While these tools carry symbolic weight, practical and economic constraints limit how much damage they could inflict without harming Europe itself.
Christine Lagarde: ECB Priorities Amid US‑EU Tariff Uncertainty
ECB President Christine Lagarde warned that opaque U.S. tariff actions—framed historically at a 10% headline and implemented in practice with a 15% ceiling plus carve‑outs—undermine predictability and could shift costs onto consumers. She urged defending central‑bank independence, strengthening euro liquidity and payment rails, and will give EU leaders a technical checklist to close coordination gaps and reduce fragmentation, while EU institutions press Washington for rapid legal and procedural clarity.
European Commission demands U.S. honor trade deal after tariff reversal
The European Commission has pressed Washington for immediate clarity after a U.S. judicial ruling removed one legal route for broad emergency levies while the administration has relied on alternative tools and announced temporary tariffs that moved from 10% to 15%. Brussels says last year’s EU‑U.S. understanding — including a 15% ceiling for most EU goods and duty‑free carve‑outs for select aerospace items — must be respected to preserve market predictability and investor confidence.
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.
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.
Japan Trade Minister Warns U.S. Over New Tariffs, Seeks Protection for $550B Investment Projects
Japan’s trade minister pressed Washington to ensure new U.S. tariffs do not erode benefits negotiated under last year’s bilateral trade framework, while both sides pledged to protect a joint $550 billion investment mechanism. Reports vary on interlocutors and meeting length — Tokyo cites a 40‑minute call with Howard Lutnick; other sources describe a longer session with the U.S. commerce secretary — underscoring friction and fast-moving coordination over project protections.
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.