By Jorge Liboreiro

Welcome back to The Briefing, right where we left off: the EU-US trade deal.

Brussels – perhaps naively, perhaps desperately – had hoped the summer break, and the string of dramatic events that unfolded on the global stage, would have diffused the outrage over the agreement and shifted the political attention somewhere else, miles away.

Alas, the rentrée wasn’t so generous. The fury over the deal’s lopsided nature is alive and well. It is, in fact, overflowing.

Reminder: under the deal, which is already in effect, the vast majority of EU-made goods bound for the US market are subject to a 15% tariff, while the vast majority of US-made goods bound for the EU market are exempt from all duties. 

A select group of products, such as aircraft, critical raw materials and semiconductor equipment, do benefit from a “zero-for-zero” scheme. But Washington has so far refused to include wines and spirits, a strategic sector for Europeans, in the list.

Additionally, the bloc has committed to spending $750 billion on American energy, investing $600 billion in the American economy and buying $40 billion worth of American AI chips by the end of Trump's mandate. (Note: The US didn’t make any similar pledges.)

It’s the perfect recipe for uproar, as a hearing at the European Parliament’s trade committee bore witness this week. From the right to the left, MEPs took turns to excoriate the deal. 

“I had hoped for a European moment,” said Anna Cavazzini, a German member of the Greens. “The deal is quite bad, unbalanced, not only when it comes to the different tariff lines, but also when it comes to increasing our dependency (on fossil fuels).”

“We need to draw a red line to what we can expect when it comes to transatlantic relationships,” said Karin Karlsbro, a Swedish liberal. “How can we ensure that enough is enough (and) that the deal actually delivers on what it intends to do?”

The cross-party opposition spells bad news for the European Commission, which recently introduced the legislation needed to eliminate the remaining tariffs on US goods. In exchange for this step, the House is expected to publish an executive order updating the tariffs on EU cars, lowering them from 27% to 15%, which European manufacturers are eagerly anticipating. 

This update, mind you, has not yet happened, despite the Commission insisting it would happen after the presentation of the legislation.

Is the White House holding back, believing the law will fall? It’s not a far-fetched theory. The Commission's proposal requires the approval of both member states, which have accepted the deal with muted resignation, and the Parliament, which has opposed it with vociferous dislike.

Striking down the legislation would be a high-stakes gamble. On the one hand, it would send a strong signal of determination against Trump’s maximalist demands. On the other hand, though, it could immediately backfire and unleash a barrage of even higher tariffs as retaliation.

The Commission is betting the Parliament, faced with Trump’s scorching-earth tactics, will keep complaining until the very moment of the vote, when a razor-thin majority of MEPs will relent and give their endorsement through clenched teeth. The Commission is equally banking on the low appetite among leaders to unleash a tit-for-tat escalation at a time when securing the White House’s good graces is essential to respond to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

The state of things, as you can see, is extremely precarious. Brussels fears that any little step taken in the wrong direction, or any little word placed in the wrong sentence, could dynamite the agreement and send negotiators back to square one.

Just this week, MLex reported that Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commissioner for Trade, intervened in the last minute to delay an antitrust fine that the executive had prepared against Google’s advertising technology. The bombshell report came days after Trump threatened “substantial additional tariffs” against countries that enforce regulations on America’s tech companies, a warning that many linked to Silicon Valley’s behind-the-scenes lobbying.

“This is a complex case that requires a thorough assessment, and every step has been taken in a collegial manner,” Šefčovič said about the accusation, which he neither confirmed nor denied. “I can assure that my priority is, and always will be, in the European interest.”

Asked about whether the EU could hold its ground against Trump’s latest threat and defend its regulatory sovereignty after having made so many concessions, Šefčovič struck a defiant tone and resorted to what’s now the Commission’s go-to line to defend the deal: schadenfreude.

“Tell me: who got a better deal than the European Union?” he said. “Just tell me. I would like to read it. Show me.”