European Commission

Published on
24/07/2026 – 15:03 GMT+2

The European Commission said on Friday it would engage with the US to de-escalate tensions after the EU executive fined Google on Thursday over its dominance in the EU’s digital market, sparking an angry reaction from Washington.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the EU’s fine jeopardised dialogue between the two sides of the Atlantic on digital regulation, as well as the trade deal that the US and EU struck last year after tough negotiations.

The Trump administration has persistently railed against the EU’s digital rules, accusing Brussels of imposing non-tariff barriers on US companies and disproportionately targeting American Big Tech.

However, the Commission’s chief spokesperson, Paula Pinho, said on Friday that the US had left the door open for talks.

“There’s a call for dialogue which we fully embrace,” she said, adding that Brussels would engage while making sure to preserve the EU’s regulatory “autonomy”.

‘The EU undermines dialogue’

Earlier this week, 25 US lawmakers wrote to US President Donald Trump calling for a US investigation into EU trade practices in advance of the anticipated fine against Google.

The fine was duly announced on Thursday, penalising the tech giant to the tune of €890 million under the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which Washington has relentlessly criticised over the past year, along with the Digital Services Act – an EU regulation targeting illegal content on large online platforms.

“We are trying to resolve our concerns with the EU’s Digital Markets Act and other actions through responsible, constructive dialogue,” Greer said in a statement after the fine was announced. “The EU’s recent actions undermine these efforts and pose a real risk to the continuation of transatlantic stability with respect to trade,” he added.

German Socialist MEP Bernd Lange, the European Parliament’s trade chief, told Euronews that he feared further escalation in transatlantic relations and expected additional action from the US.

The EU lawmaker was at the forefront of the negotiations to implement the EU-US agreement struck in July 2025 by Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after weeks of trade disputes. Yet despite the deal, EU officials still consider transatlantic relations volatile.

On Thursday, the White House announced a new tariff regime targeting its trading partners, including the EU, over forced labour allegations. While insisting it has stringent rules to combat products made with forced labour, Brussels chose not to retaliate, arguing that the new tariffs respected the 15 percent cap on EU goods set out in the trade deal.

Paramount Skydance has notched a needed win as it continues to pursue its $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

On Wednesday, the European Commission gave its consent, allowing tech scion David Ellison’s industry-reshaping merger to move forward in the countries that make up the European Union.

Europe joins 64 other regulatory entities that have either approved the deal or chosen not to challenge it, Paramount said in a statement.

“These clearances recognize that the combination of Paramount and WBD will enhance consumer choice and enable a creative-first company to invest in more projects and bring stories to audiences worldwide,” Paramount said. “It will create a scaled media and entertainment company capable of competing with the tech companies that have come to dominate the industry.”

European regulators added just one condition: Paramount must end a partnership with Universal Pictures to share distribution of movies in Europe. Beyond that, regulators concluded that even with the proposed Paramount-Warner consolidation there were enough producers to avoid competitive harms.

“The Commission found that, at film production level, enough film studios remain as competitors,” the European Commission said in a statement. “These include other major US studios like Disney, NBC Universal … and Sony, along with smaller US studios such as Amazon MGM, A24 and Lionsgate, as well as European studios.”

But the merger would result in a “high concentration” of film distribution, the commission said, so Paramount would have 13 months to end its joint venture, United International Pictures, which distributes Paramount and Universal films to cinema owners in Europe.

Paramount must not “directly or indirectly … enter into any agreement or understanding with Universal to jointly co-distribute films” in the European countries for 10 years, the commission said.

Despite early concerns about potential dominance in the children’s television market, Paramount will not be required to divest Cartoon Network, a Warner asset, because of its ownership of Nickelodeon.

“The Commission found that streaming platforms offering children’s content will continue to act as a competitive constraint on the merged entity’s TV channels,” the agency said.

The European Commission joins regulators in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and South Africa that have found the deal would not crush competition in their respective markets. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority is still investigating the merger’s impacts.

Paramount secured the approval of the U.S. Justice Department last month. The company was hoping to close its blockbuster acquisition of Warner Bros., which owns HBO, CNN and the Burbank studios behind such popular characters as Batman, Superman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo, by the end of September to avoid a larger payout to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders.

The European Commission’s approval came two days after Ellison’s firm was dealt a substantial setback.

A federal judge in Oakland on Monday issued a temporary restraining order preventing Paramount from finalizing the acquisition for at least 14 days as that antitrust case heats up. The decision came after 12 state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, filed a lawsuit last week alleging the merger would violate U.S. antitrust rules.

District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín scheduled an Aug. 3 hearing to determine whether a longer-term pause is warranted. The states are expected to seek a preliminary injunction, which would tie up Paramount’s merger for months.

Paramount, in its statement, noted the European Commission’s conclusions “directly refute key assumptions that underpin the state AGs’ complaint seeking to block the transaction,” including whether big-budget or blockbuster films should be considered a market.

Wednesday’s approval “marks another significant milestone in bringing Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery together,” Makan Delrahim, Paramount’s chief legal officer said in the statement. “We appreciate the Commission’s constructive engagement and thorough analysis throughout its review.”

Deal critic Alvaro Bedoya, a former Federal Trade Commission member who is now a senior adviser at the American Economic Liberties Project, offered a conflicting view.

“This is not remotely over. The United States is not Europe,” Bedoya said in a statement.

The Writers Guild of America joined the legal fray last week by filing its own antitrust complaint against Paramount, alleging the proposed union of two of Hollywood’s biggest studios would lead to fewer jobs and lower pay for writers. The WGA is also seeking an injunction.

The 37-page lawsuit filed by the state attorneys general alleges that Paramount’s proposed takeover — the largest Hollywood deal in decades — would violate the U.S. Clayton Antitrust Act, a century-old law to prevent mergers that weaken competition and raise costs for consumers.

In her order granting the states’ request for a temporary restraining order, Martínez-Olguín wrote: “The Transaction would also be difficult, if not impossible, to unwind if permitted to proceed given the anticipated consolidation of operations, sharing of business-sensitive information, and potential termination or reassignment of employees.”

Paramount faces a potential $7 billion payment to Warner Bros. should the company fail to close the transaction by next summer.

Published on
22/07/2026 – 12:17 GMT+2

The European Union is preparing to accept new tariffs the United States is expected to impose in the coming days over forced labour, as long as they do not exceed the 15 percent cap agreed under the Turnberry agreement, the European Commission said.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The White House said in early June that it would impose fresh duties on its global trading partners, arguing that insufficient efforts to curb trade in goods produced using forced labour were harming US commercial interests.

The current US tariff regime expires on Friday, and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on Tuesday that implementation of the forced labour duties was imminent.

European officials are closely monitoring the level of the new tariffs, as an EU-US trade agreement signed in July 2025 in Turnberry, Scotland, by US President Donald Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen caps US duties on EU goods at 15 percent.

“Of course we do not agree with the findings on forced labour, and we’ve made that very clear to our United States counterparts,” an EU senior official said.

“But the main objective is to make sure that the agreement is respected and that our companies can benefit from the stability and predictability that was set out there.”

EU rules against forced labour

The Trump administration imposed 10 percent duties on its global trading partners last February after a US Supreme Court ruling declared its 2025 tariffs illegal. Added to the pre-existing Most-Favoured-Nation duties, those tariffs mean the EU is currently paying average duties close to the 15 percent ceiling set by the Turnberry agreement.

However, the current legal basis for the US tariff regime does not allow it to remain in force for more than 150 days – that is, until 24 July – unless Congress approves an extension, which is considered unlikely ahead of the US midterm elections.

As part of its effort to replace the current regime, the US Trade Department launched an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into forced labour in global supply chains, which is due to be concluded in the coming days.

“We expect to see some action soon,” Greer said on Tuesday on CNBC. “I can’t really specify a timeline right now – I have a responsibility to brief Congress and other stakeholders before I really reveal that kind of thing. But we do expect action soon on that front.”

In early June, the Commission defended its regulations, saying it had strict rules against products made with forced labour.

“The EU considers tariffs imposed on these grounds to be unjustified,” Olof Gill, the Commission’s deputy chief spokesperson, said in a statement at the time.

And yet, the Commission now appears to consider there is no better option than ensuring the Turnberry agreement is respected.

The EU’s Entry/Exit System (EES) has sparked massive airport queues across Europe – with people complaining that they’ve had to wait hours to enter countries after landing

Brits looking forward to a European getaway this summer have been issued a major travel warning by an airport boss after the EU implemented its new border system.

Officials implemented the new passport control system, named the Entry/Exit System (EES), on October 12 last year, requiring British citizens travelling to the Schengen area to register biometric details – including fingerprints and a photo – on arrival. The arrangements have caused massive pileup queues in airports across the area, and the system itself is reportedly plagued with bugs.

A boss at one of the busiest airports in the EU, located in one of the most visited cities on the continent, has warned that the system has nearly tripled the amount of time it is taking Brits to travel through passport control.

Ivan Bassato, the Chief Aviation Officer at Rome’s Fiumicino airport, told the BBC that large numbers of passengers are using the €12 million (£10.2 million) self-service “kiosks”. While recent updates to the system have “improved things significantly” with the e-gates, issues remain for UK nationals, who are now taking much longer to get through the border.

He said the average time has extended from seven to 20 minutes, and the process is still taking much longer than it would have before the EES rollout.

Mr Bassato said: “We are not at the point where you have the same quality of the process [as] before the EES.” The official added that the airport was “absolutely not okay with” waits lasting between one to two hours, urging: “I think that we need to fix urgently certain aspects of the system.”

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has previously warned Brits travelling into the Schengen area that they should be “prepared to wait” as the EES is implemented, especially if it is their first visit.

The Government’s portal advises: “On your first visit to the Schengen area, you may be asked to create a digital record at the port or airport on arrival. You may be asked to submit your fingerprints and have your photo taken at dedicated booths. You don’t need to provide any information before travelling to a Schengen area country.

“The checks may take slightly longer than previously, so be prepared to wait during busy times.” Brits travelling into Rome have encountered lengthening wait times lasting hours.

Speaking to the BBC, Carl, who had travelled to the Italian capital with his family, said he was bowled over by the amount of time it took to enter the country. He said: “It was two hours queuing, from getting off the plane to getting through with children. I knew it was going to be bad, but not as bad as that.”

One traveller entering from outside the EU said in a post on Reddit that, on entry to Fiumicino, they encountered a non-EU immigration line that wrapped through duty free.

They wrote: “Flight was at 11:15 today. Arrived at FCO at 8:45. Checking in and security was a breeze. Immigration line was extremely long for non-EU passports. Wrapped through duty free into the domestic terminal. The line finally moved enough that was I was on gate side of duty free at 9:30. Made it through immigration around 9:55.

“Worth noting that we had fast pass in security and priority check in for bags. Much more time needed if we didn’t.” The European Commission has insisted that disruption in EU airports is limited, and that member states would receive continued EES support.

Many holiday hotspots have seen anti-tourism protests thanks to overcrowding and the issues it causes for locals. But the European island that’s the most overcrowded wants to pack more visitors in

The most overcrowded island in Europe has seen no over-tourism protests – and bosses want more visitors.

A study has named the Continent’s most packed island, based on tourism density, and it’s not in the Balearics or Canaries.

In fact, the local tourism board wants to bring more visitors to the island and triple the tourism sector’s contribution to the economy. The plans would see the island’s visitor numbers rise from just over four million last year to 4.5 million by 2035.

With a total area of 316 km², Malta is roughly a fifth of the size of London and has a population of around 575,000, about a third of which are foreign residents. This means there’s a ratio of roughly seven tourists for each resident, so locals are already outnumbered.

The study was carried out by BookRetreats.com, which “analysed the latest data from the European Commission, focusing on overnight stays in tourist accommodation per square kilometre (km²)—a measure of tourism density.”

While Mallorca (Majorca) had the most visitors out of the islands in the study, nearly 14 million last year, Malta’s mainland came on top as the most overcrowded island due to its relatively small size. Brits account for the largest number of visitors year-round, and the island has long been a winter sun destination thanks to its 16C days in January and a majority of the island being fluent in English.

The capital, Valletta, has become a popular spot for sun-soaked city breaks thanks to its colourful 16th-century architecture, and the ancient walled city of Mdina is also a hit with tourists thanks to its winding medieval streets. It’s also famous for its beaches, especially in the north of the island, which has turquoise blue seas and calm, shallow waters.

But there have been some measures put in place on Malta’s islands to help ease overcrowding. For example, the Blue Lagoon on Comino used to get daily crowds of up to 12,000 in the summer, and in response, authorities capped tourist numbers to the white sand beach at 4,000 a day. There have since been calls to halve this number to protect the delicate ecosystem.

The islands of Gozo and Comino came 14th on the list, meaning while they’re still overcrowded, they don’t have the same tourism density as Malta’s mainland.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Spanish islands dominated much of the list of the most overcrowded spots, with Lanzarote, Ibiza, Tenerife, and Gran Canaria ranking highly. Greek islands including Corfu and Zakynthos (Zante), also made the top ten, as well as the Portuguese island of Madeira, which is also a winter sun favourite with Brits.

Europe’s Most Overcrowded Islands – full list

1. Malta (mainland)
2. Lanzarote, Spain
3. Ibiza and Formentera, Spain
4. Tenerife, Spain
5. Gran Canaria, Spain
6. Corfu, Greece
7. Zakynthos, Greece
8. Mallorca, Spain
9. Madeira, Portugal
10. Dodecanese Islands, Greece (Kalymnos, Karpathos, Kasos, Kos, Rhodes)
11. Menorca, Spain
12. Fuerteventura, Spain
13. Cyclades Islands, Greece (Andros, Santorini, Kea, Milos, Mykonos, Naxos, Paros, Syros, Tinos)
14. Gozo and Comino, Malta
15. Lefkada, Greece

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Published on
02/07/2026 – 15:24 GMT+2

European car suppliers and manufacturers are divided over Brussels’ “Made in Europe” strategy, an effort to shield the EU market from Chinese competition.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The EU car industry is facing fierce competition from China, threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs across the bloc. To address the issue, the EU is preparing the so-called Industrial Accelerator Act, which is designed to favour electric vehicles constructed mostly with European components in public procurement and public support schemes.

However, EU car suppliers and manufacturers disagree over the proposed law, currently under discussion by EU countries and the European Parliament, which sets a 70 percent local content threshold for electric vehicles.

According to the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), the Commission’s proposal is a step in the right direction. Based on a study commissioned from management consultancy Roland Berger that Euronews has seen, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery-electric vehicles manufactured in Europe already contain between 80 percent and 90 percent made-in-Europe components.

Consequently, it considers the Commission’s 70 percent threshold to be achievable.

But the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) is pushing for a different methodology, under which regulators would assess finished vehicles instead of the local content in vehicle components.

“A vehicle is far more than the sum of its parts. Its value also lies in the R&D, advanced engineering and highly skilled workforce behind it,” ACEA said in a position paper published on 1 July.

CLEPA responded that under this methodology, a finished vehicle would require only 50 percent EU-made parts and components, with the remaining 20 percent coming from R&D, design and other activities.

This 20 percentage-point dilution of the requirement for EU-made parts “could result in the loss of 350,000 jobs”, CLEPA warned, saying the Commission’s component-level approach would “safeguard the existing manufacturing base”.

“What we are looking at right now is significant competition from best-cost countries, and the dragon in the room is China,” CLEPA Secretary General Benjamin Krieger told Euronews.

“A ‘Made in Europe’ threshold that ignores where the actual parts are built is a label that ignores the European worker,” he said.

Published on
30/06/2026 – 12:27 GMT+2

The EU has allocated import quotas for steel to its trading partners on Tuesday in an attempt to fight growing overcapacity from foreign producers.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The measure comes amid rising tensions between the EU and china China, where most of the global steel surplus originates.

Seeking to shield its market from global overcapacity, EU legislators agreed last April to increase existing tariff-free steel quotas to 18.3 million tonnes per year while doubling tariffs beyond those quotas to 50 percent

The EU’s closest allies, such as the UK, Switzerland and Ukraine, are concerned that their own exports to the EU could be drastically affected by the new measures, and have heavily lobbied the European Commission in recent weeks for preferential access to the EU market.

“We are providing market participants with predictability through clear and transparent quota distribution rules, while applying a fair and objective methodology,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said in a statement.

Protectionist move

The protectionist move comes as global steel overcapacity is expected to grow to 721 million tonnes by 2027, according to the OECD, a volume that could threaten jobs across the entire EU steel sector.

The EU came under even greater pressure last year when the US imposed 50 percent tariffs on steel imports, rerouting the global surplus to the European market.

“They built a wall around their market, steel was hitting that wall and was coming back to our market in greater numbers,” a senior EU official said. “That is why we introduced a safeguard measure which followed an investigation.”

The EU is also fighting unfair trade practices across the board with 80 other measures already in place, among them anti-dumping duties, most of which target cheap steel imports from China.

Pressed by its closest allies to ease the measures to their benefit, the Commission announced on Tuesday that half of the 18.3 million tonnes allowed to enter its market each year will be allocated to partners bound by free trade agreements with the bloc, including India, Switzerland and the UK.

Many of the countries that have clinched a trade deal with the EU will be allocated country-specific quotas proportionate to the volumes traded with the EU between 2022 and 2024.

A special status has also been granted to Ukraine to support the country while it remains at war and ensure a certain level of exports to the EU.

Millions of Brits are planning to go to Spain this summer

As the summer peak draws near, Brits travelling to Spain are facing a frustrating double blow.

Not only are there long border queues caused by the EU’s new Entry/Exit System (EES), but data has uncovered a huge a dramatic surge in flight delays. New research from AirAdvisor shows that Spanish routes are currently the worst affected for UK travellers, with two popular holiday destinations experiencing a sharp decline in reliability compared to last year. Overall delay rates have more than doubled at Palma in Mallorca, leaping from 3.66% to 7.60%.

Meanwhile, at Alicante Elche airport, delays have nearly tripled, rocketing from 4.39% to 11.73%. This means approximately one in nine departures is running at least an hour late, according to the Majorca Daily Bulletin.

For passengers stuck in the Alicante backlog, the average wait for an already-delayed flight stands at a punishing 124 minutes. This frequently pushes arrival times beyond the crucial three-hour threshold, automatically entitling passengers to claim UK261 compensation.

The travel disruption comes amid a sharp rise in short-haul cancellations across 18 European airports, predominantly affecting budget routes under pressure from climbing oil prices. However, airlines attempting to use market volatility as an excuse to avoid compensation payouts have just been firmly shut down.

The European Commission has made clear that fluctuations in fuel prices are a standard commercial risk, rather than an “extraordinary circumstance.” Should an airline cancel or delay a flight purely because operating costs have become too high, they remain fully liable for passenger compensation.

This method of transport is a cheap and easy way to get around the city, but it has caused hundreds of accidents in the past year. Now there are calls for a ban across the European Union

A European city has banned a mode of transport that’s popular with tourists on day trips, after a huge number of accidents were reported in the past year alone.

Brussels will rid its streets of shared e-scooters as of January 2027, with authorities in the Brussels-Capital Region announcing the move last week. Currently, the Belgian capital has two remaining scooter operators offering shared e-scooters, Bolt and Dott, and once their licences expire at the end of 2026, they will not be renewed, according to the Brussels Times.

Authorities voiced their safety concerns around the use of e-scooters and the nuisance they can cause to local residents. The move means Brussels follows other European cities who’ve removed shared e-scooters, including Paris, Madrid, and Prague.

Brussels mobility minister Elke Van den Brandt and minister-president Boris Dilliès made a shared statement about the ban, calling shared e-scooters a “growing nuisance to other road users”, and pointing out that 666 accidents involved e-scooters in 2025, a year on year increase of 26%.

They also highlighted that rental scooters were often used for criminal purposes, and were involved in the cases of 25 shootings in Brussels last year.

Boris Dilliès said: “The decision to exclude self-service scooters from the Brussels urban landscape is part of a clear and consistent policy. Often synonymous with disorder, self-service scooters are a source of nuisance, cause serious injuries, clutter the streets and are, unfortunately, increasingly being used by organised criminals. Self-service bicycles, on the other hand, remain for us an essential part of a mobility policy.”

However, in a statement, e-scooter rental firm Bolt argued: “When scooters are the subject of public debate, whether regarding road safety or parking, private and shared scooters are almost always lumped together, even though they are fundamentally different.

“Banning [shared scooters] will not stop people from getting around. It will drive users towards private, unregulated, untraceable and genuinely dangerous scooters, or towards more polluting modes of transport. Neither of these scenarios serves Brussels’ objectives regarding safety, congestion or the climate.”

Since the ban was announced in Brussels, the Benelux Union, a partnership between Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, has called for the European Commission to create a single framework for all EU countries, which could make it easier for other countries to make their own regulations.

Benelux pointed out there are inconsistent safety standards among member states, and not all vehicles on the market were safe and suitable to be used on public roads. The lack of guidelines also make it difficult to prevent unsafe vehicles from being put out for hire.

The UK has banned privately owned e-scooters from public roads and pavements, meaning the only legal place to ride your own e-scooter is on private land. There are a handful of legal rental schemes in some areas of London, Birmingham, and other cities, with strict criteria such as limiting the e-scooters to 12.5mph, banning riders under 18, and requiring a provisional licence to hire one.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Tensions between China and the EU have intensified in recent months, prompting the European Commission to convene most of its commissioners for a strategic rethink during an “orientation debate” on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

“China is a critical partner, and engagement and dialogue will continue,” the commission said in a readout following the debate. “At the same time the current state of the trade and investment relationship is not sustainable.”

Calling the relationship “not sustainable” may understate the depth of the rupture.

Relations have steadily deteriorated since European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen branded Beijing a “systemic rival” in a landmark 2023 speech. But tensions surged to a new level once EU policymakers finally settled their differences over the EU-US trade deal that had consumed Brussels for months, freeing the bloc to sharpen its focus on China.

Last year, according to the commission, the bloc registered a record-high €359.9 billion trade deficit with Beijing, fuelling growing calls in Brussels to better protect the EU market from cheap Chinese imports that threaten entire sectors — metals, chemicals and the car industry among them.

“We are seeing a panic attack in the last few weeks on China,” an EU official told Euronews, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak candidly. The official added that the China issue had been “overlooked for too long.”

A total of 200,000 European jobs were lost in EU industry — particularly in the energy-intensive and automotive sectors — since 2024, with a further 600,000 job losses projected this decade in carmaking alone.

On Friday, the commission readout specified that its “overarching approach remains de-risking, not decoupling,” signalling that the bloc is still pursuing targeted efforts to reduce its dependence on China rather than sever economic ties altogether. Yet the risk of a full-scale trade war has never felt so real.

Here are five key points on how the situation has escalated to this point — and where it may be headed next :

1. Fines and regulatory pressure

During the previous legislative term, the EU passed legislation that drew Beijing’s anger — notably measures to screen foreign direct investment. And it has stepped up its fight against so-called dumping, whereby public subsidies are used to undercut competitors through exports sold below market prices in China.

The European Commission has grown increasingly assertive in countering China’s subsidy-driven approach, including by imposing duties on imports of battery electric vehicles. Several product-specific investigations are also ongoing.

Earlier this week, the Commission fined Chinese e-commerce giant Temu €200 million for selling unsafe products and opened a full-scale investigation into JD.com’s acquisition of e-commerce retailer MediaMarkt.

EU lawmakers and governments are also discussing the Industrial Accelerator Act, a legislative proposal that would impose strict conditions on investments in batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels and critical raw materials from countries controlling 40% of the global market share in a given sector.

A separate proposal — a revamped Cybersecurity Act — could push out Chinese equipment suppliers such as Huawei and ZTE from critical infrastructure.

2. A more systemic approach

To counter Chinese overcapacities, the EU agreed in April to double tariffs on steel imports that exceed EU quotas. The measure is a so-called “safeguard” — a tool backed by some of the EU’s largest economies, including France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Lithuania, which called for it to be extended to sectors beyond metals.

In a non-paper, those countries argued that safeguards were more “agile” than other EU instruments targeting cheap export products. The paper also calls for economic security to be factored into assessments of the EU’s interests when deciding on trade defence measures.

The European industry is also ramping up pressure to crack down on Chinese cheap imports calling on the Commission to use trade defence measures “more flexibly, faster, and preventively.”

A major wake-up call for EU policymakers has been the recent case of Nexperia, a Dutch-based chipmaker acquired by Chinese giant Wingtech, which was caught in the crossfire of US-China trade tensions, causing significant disruption in the automotive sector.

The Commission is now set to require sectors such as the car industry to diversify chip suppliers in certain cases, taking supply-chain risks into account in procurement decisions.

Despite these various initiatives, EU policymakers have grown wary that the current rules are too slow-moving for a fast-moving adversary. After duties were imposed on electric vehicle batteries, China’s focus simply shifted to hybrid vehicles.

Brussels is now moving towards a more systemic approach, treating trade defence as a toolbox to rebalance relations with China. One potential addition is a so-called overcapacity instrument to cap imports in specific sectors.

3. China’s threats of retaliation

In recent weeks, China has repeatedly threatened retaliation if the EU presses ahead with closing its market to Chinese goods.

Both the “Made in Europe” legislation and the Cybersecurity Act have drawn Beijing’s ire, prompting intensified lobbying of Brussels and EU member states, with warnings that implementation will trigger a response.

The Europeans are walking a tightrope, acutely aware that their decisions could spark a trade war. After the EU imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, Beijing imposed tariffs on EU pork, brandy and dairy products.

“International trade is a two-way street. There’s no forced trade. The China-EU trade relations are win-win in nature. China does not aim for trade surplus,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a press briefing on Thursday.

“The EU needs to put trade ties with China in perspective and honour its commitment to free trade. China will closely follow the EU’s moves and take all measures necessary to safeguard legitimate rights and interests,” Ning added.

Some argue it is already too late for the Europeans, who depend on China for key components of their supply chains — components Beijing can weaponize at will.

In 2025, China blocked exports of rare earths, which are vital for EU green technology and defence, as well as chips essential to the European car industry. Beijing can also leverage operating licences for EU companies and restrict access to its market at any time.

4. European divisions

Europe is far from united on China.

Germany, despite a troubling trade deficit with Beijing, has been slow to shift away from its cooperative approach, which prioritises securing market access for German companies in China.

Berlin did not endorse last weekend’s non-paper backed by other major EU economies. Instead, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche repeated this week that Germany’s overriding priority is to avoid jeopardising exports to China.

Yet the economic cost of dependence on Beijing might be forcing Berlin to reconsider its stance. The German government is reportedly weighing a tougher line that would mark a significant shift in its China policy.

For years, the German industry had a relationship with the Chinese market that critics described as toxic — one that blocked any meaningful attempt to rebalance the trade deficit out of fear of losing commercial access to the vast Asian market.

Spain has emerged as the other major EU country reluctant to act against China. With relatively cheap energy costs, Spain has become attractive to foreign investors, of which Beijing accounts for a growing share.

Its position caused embarrassment for Madrid this week, after it initially appeared to support the France-led non-paper before retreating and claiming it had merely participated in discussions.

“There has been no specific political support for any ‘non-paper’,” Spanish trade minister Carlos Cuerpo said, adding that the EU should “engage” with Chinese authorities through “dialogue.”

5. What happens now?

Brussels’ reassessment of its China stance has been long in the making, rooted in decades of deepening economic dependence. But the latest acceleration was also prompted by a shift in US posture, most visibly the recent visit to Beijing by President Donald Trump.

The Commission’s orientation debate on Friday was just a first step in what could become a broader repositioning. Where that leads — given internal divisions and the threat of retaliation — remains deeply uncertain.

The conclusions of that exercise are expected to feed into a discussion on economic security at the next European Council meeting on 18-19 June. China has appeared on EU leaders’ agenda several times in recent years, only to be pushed aside by more pressing crises.

While Brussels considers adding new instruments to its policy toolbox, political will remains the key determining factor. Nowhere is that gap more stark than in the EU’s handling of the anti-coercion instrument, also known as the “trade bazooka,” which was designed to push back against economic pressure and unfair trade restrictions.

“The anti-coercive instrument was never used, even though we have been coerced quite a lot,” the EU official said. “We need tools that we are actually willing to use.”