On July 27th, at the Trump International Golf Links in Scotland, what was supposed to be a tension-relieving meeting between the US and Europe turned into a Pandora's box for European unity. On this unexpected day, after just an hour-long closed-door meeting, Trump and von der Leyen announced a \"framework\" trade agreement described as pivotal for US-EU relations.
Little did anyone anticipate that behind this agreement lay a heavy blow to the European economy and a stark example of bare-knuckle \"bone-picking\" trade. Within 24 hours, political, financial, and media circles across Europe were in uproar, with the Euro plunging against the dollar, marking its largest single-day drop since May.
Von der Leyen had intended to extend an olive branch of peace but ended up leaving \"laden with burdens.\" Instead of reaping the fruits of victory, she carried the weight of internal EU division, market panic, and uncertainty about the future.
Upon the agreement's disclosure, Europeans were thrown into anger and panic almost overnight. According to Trump, the EU would invest a total of $600 billion in the US and import $250 billion worth of energy products annually over the next three years, totaling $750 billion. This figure hit European nerves hard.
French Prime Minister angrily denounced the EU's \"humiliating surrender of dignity,\" labeling the day as \"Europe's darkest.\" German Chancellor Merkel, no longer silent, openly warned that a 15% tariff would inflict \"considerable damage\" on Germany and Europe.
With almost no substantial cost to the US, this \"political agreement\" managed to extract hundreds of billions of dollars from Europe. Moreover, immediately after announcing the agreement, Trump and von der Leyen disagreed on tariff details. Trump insisted on maintaining a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum, while von der Leyen insisted on a quota system instead, exposing a rift in their supposed deal.
Bernd Lange, Chairman of the European Parliament's Trade Committee, bluntly called the agreement \"biased,\" predicting severe damage to EU interests. Meanwhile, Finland's Minister for Foreign Trade argued that such high-tariff agreements were unsustainable.
Internally, opposition voices in Europe became increasingly vocal, sparking a political storm. Orbán was the first to criticize, mocking von der Leyen for becoming \"Trump's breakfast.\" Right-wing parties in Europe seized the opportunity to criticize the EU for being \"weak\" in negotiating independently.
The Financial Times of London also unusually weighed in, arguing that any compromise by Europe was tantamount to appeasing Trump and suggesting that \"bullies won't keep their promises,\" implying that only firm action could force concessions.
The euro's exchange rate plummeted amid market panic. On July 28th, the euro fell sharply by 0.6gainst the dollar, reaching a low of 1.1671. This wasn't just a numerical game but a true reflection of investors losing confidence in Europe's economic future.
Many economists pointed out that the structural imbalance behind the agreement would exacerbate Europe's economic vulnerability. On one hand, massive investments in the US would drain funds needed for domestic welfare and industrial upgrades. On the other hand, purchasing high-cost energy from the US would significantly increase production costs for European exporters, directly undermining their global competitiveness.
Trump's move against the EU had precedents. During his earlier Middle East visits, he similarly announced $3.2 trillion in investment commitments from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, yet whether these investments will materialize remains a mystery.
This \"extortion\" of the EU was another carefully orchestrated \"investment feast.\" Given Europe's energy demand and US export capabilities, $750 billion in energy purchases seemed unrealistic.
In the face of such unrealistic procurement figures, von der Leyen still nodded and signed, raising doubts about whether this agreement was truly in Europe's best interest or a move to salvage her own political career.
The rift within the EU deepened. France bluntly stated that the agreement should be called the \"von der Leyen-Trump Agreement\" and did not represent the will of the entire EU. Germany, despite its discontent, faced the threat of either signing or facing a 30% tariff imposition, reluctantly accepting the former.
More frustratingly, this agreement was not a formal legal document but a \"high-level political agreement,\" lacking detailed enforcement and legal safeguards. Reuters warned that such agreements were prone to multiple interpretations and could be overturned at any time.
The European Parliament strongly questioned the agreement, viewing it as unreliable due to its reliance solely on verbal commitments. Many European media outlets described Trump's negotiation tactics as \"extortion,\" \"hostage-taking,\" and \"blackmail.\" This naked exchange of interests left Europe without any semblance of \"discourse power.\"
Initially, the EU's goal was to achieve \"zero tariffs.\" In April, EU officials proposed mutual zero tariffs, only to be coldly rejected by Trump. Later, seeing countries like the UK and Singapore receiving a 10% tariff treatment, the EU lowered its expectations and sought tariffs not exceeding 10%.
However, Trump played by his own rules. In mid-July, he suddenly announced that if no agreement was reached, he would impose a punitive 30% tariff on the EU in August. This pushed the EU to the negotiation table, and von der Leyen hurried to Scotland, hoping for one last chance.
During the negotiations, Trump's conditions were extremely harsh: $600 billion in investments, $750 billion in purchases, and 15% tariffs in \"reciprocity.\" Faced with criticism, he refused to back down and even demanded a list of specific companies to verify the authenticity of investment commitments. European officials could only reluctantly disclose company names, even promising that the amount of investment would increase further.
Ultimately, this negotiation turned into a humiliation game. Europe had hoped to exchange money for lower tariffs but ended up spending money while tariffs remained high at 15%.
This 15% was three times higher than the average tariff imposed by the US on the EU. For European manufacturing, this was tantamount to a blow to the vital organs. Many companies were already on the brink of profit under a 10% tariff, and now, with an increase to 15%, more factories faced shutdowns, layoffs, or even bankruptcies.
Despite this, von der Leyen claimed that \"this is the best result.\" She even argued that this figure was more favorable than that given to Japan. However, Japan had not made such massive investment and procurement commitments.
Immediately after the agreement was signed, Europe began to \"rebel\" internally. Not only did right-wing parties criticize, but even pro-EU figures in Germany and France could not contain their anger. Media, parliament, and academia collectively questioned the legality and rationality of the agreement.
In this global economic game, China remained calm and restrained, unlike the emotional reactions of the US and Europe. Faced with US tariff policies, China consistently advocated dialogue to uphold the global multilateral trading order. In contrast, Europe's compromises and concessions undoubtedly put itself in a more passive position.
Whether the EU will overturn this agreement, whether it will deepen internal rifts, whether the euro can stop its decline and rise again—all remain unknown. But one thing is certain: this \"extortionate\" deal by Trump has deeply buried hidden dangers in Europe's political and economic system. This storm is far from over.
Sources:
1. New US-EU Trade Regulations: 15% Tariffs, $1.35 trillion, European Officials: This is a biased agreement, People's Daily
2. Import $750 billion worth of energy products from the US in 3 years? The EU's purchasing commitment is criticized as \"absurd,\" Observer Network
