The United States is pressuring the European Union to ease its digital regulations on major technology firms as a condition for lowering tariffs on European steel and aluminum, amid ongoing trade negotiations in Brussels.
On November 24, 2025, high-level trade talks resumed in Brussels as US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer met with EU trade ministers, including Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič. The discussion, hosted by the Danish EU Council Presidency, centered on the ongoing implementation of the trade agreement forged in July, with a particular focus on unresolved issues surrounding tariffs and digital regulations. This meeting underscored the persistent tensions between the two economic powers over market rules and trade barriers.
During the meeting, Lutnick made it clear that the US expects the EU to reassess its digital rules, such as the Digital Markets Act, in return for potential reductions in the 50% tariffs imposed on European steel and aluminum. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, he stated, ‘They would like to have steel and aluminium as part of this package and we think it is very, very important that they understand our digital companies and they reconsider their digital regulations to be more inviting to our big companies.’ This direct linkage highlights the US strategy to leverage trade concessions for regulatory changes.
Greer echoed these sentiments, highlighting US concerns that EU regulations disproportionately impact American firms. He explained that the administration wants to ensure that ‘aggressive’ enforcement does not harm the global revenues of US companies, emphasizing the need for a ‘balanced approach’ that addresses mutual concerns without eliminating the rules entirely. The US argues that laws like the Digital Markets Act and digital services taxes unfairly target American tech giants, stifling innovation and competitiveness in the global market.
In response, Šefčovič defended the EU’s stance, asserting that the digital regulations are designed to promote fair competition and are not targeted at any specific country. He pointed to the significant economic exchanges between the two blocs, noting that the EU has purchased $200 billion worth of energy from the US in 2025 and European investments in the US economy amount to €254 billion since January, arguing that these figures demonstrate a strong partnership. Despite this, the EU remains firm that its digital policies are non-negotiable and essential for consumer protection and market fairness.
The trade agreement from July had set US tariffs on European goods at 15%, but steel and aluminum exports were excluded, remaining at higher rates. European officials had anticipated relief on these metals as part of the deal, but the US is using them as leverage to push for changes in digital policies, which include not only the DMA but also digital services taxes that US companies find burdensome. This stalemate reflects broader disagreements over how to balance trade interests with regulatory sovereignty.
The Digital Markets Act, implemented last year, aims to curb the power of large tech firms by imposing rules like mandatory interoperability, which US officials claim unfairly singles out American companies such as Apple and Meta. This dispute is part of a broader tension, with the Trump administration taking a more confrontational approach compared to its predecessor, raising stakes in transatlantic relations. The re-election of Donald Trump has emboldened US tech firms hoping for stronger advocacy against EU regulations, contrasting with the Biden era’s more hands-off stance.
Looking ahead, the outcome of these negotiations could shape future US-EU trade dynamics. If the EU compromises on digital rules, it might secure tariff concessions but risk undermining its regulatory autonomy. Alternatively, a deadlock could exacerbate trade conflicts, affecting sectors beyond tech and metals, with potential repercussions for global economic stability. Both sides are likely to continue dialogues, but finding common ground will require careful balancing of economic interests and regulatory principles.
