The EU-USA 2025 trade agreement, hastily signed in July 2025, is presented by the White House as a strategic victory, but described as a political capitulation by some on the European left. Behind the impressive figures – $750 billion in energy purchases, $600 billion in European investment in the United States – lies a murkier reality: a negotiation conducted under pressure, asymmetrical concessions, and two narratives that don’t add up.
For Donald Trump, it is the culmination of his “America First” policy. For Ursula Von Der Leyen, it is a “lesser evil” to avoid a trade war. But for a growing section of the European Parliament, notably The Left and the trade unions, it is an unbalanced agreement that sacrifices European economic sovereignty to American energy and industrial interests.
Negotiations under pressure: when Trump imposes his law
Throughout the negotiations, the United States set a brutal pace. After several threats of tariff increases of up to 30%, the European Commission, in difficulty on the post-Ukraine energy front, quickly gave in. Dependence on Russian gas, the lack of reciprocity in customs tools and the disunity of the Member States have reduced the Union’s room for manoeuvre.
Faced with a united and aggressive America, Europe had to come to terms with its internal contradictions: Berlin defended its cars, Paris its aeronautics and Rome its industrial machinery. Some southern countries had little direct strategic interest. As a result, European unity was fragile, and Brussels found itself isolated in a defensive position.
An unbalanced EU-US trade agreement for 2025, confirming American domination
The new EU-US 2025 trade agreement, signed in a climate of tension and political pressure, constitutes a series of major concessions on the part of the European Union, with no real reciprocity on the American side. If we analyse the commitments made line by line, it is easy to see why many observers are condemning the agreement as a European capitulation rather than a balanced compromise.
The first key measure: standard customs duties of 15% for a large proportion of European products exported to the United States. This rate represents a sharp break with the previous regime, where the average tariff was around 4.8%. The Trump administration, true to its protectionist doctrine, has succeeded in imposing this increase as a new standard, justifying this “cap” by the need to “protect American industrial interests in the face of unfair competition”. However, in return, no lowering of duties for American products exported to Europe has been obtained: the latter retain their previous treatment, without any significant revision. There is therefore no principle of reciprocity, which is fundamental to modern international treaties.
The second commitment is the massive purchase of American energy by the European Union, to the tune of 750 billion dollars over three years. This energy agreement, although presented as a response to the gradual withdrawal of Russian gas, raises a number of questions. Firstly, the precise terms of this commitment have not been defined. It is not a binding intergovernmental contract, but a “market objective”, in other words a political guideline given to the private sector. Secondly, the size of the sum is questionable: it is equivalent to more than three times current annual purchases. There are no guarantees on prices, ecological impact or strategic independence. For many economists, this transfer of energy dependence from the Russians to the Americans is simply a shift in vulnerability, with no structural benefits for the EU.
The third pillar of the text is European investment in the United States, announced at 600 billion dollars over three years, mainly in the sectors of high technology, infrastructure and strategic American industries. Here again, the legal nature of these investments remains unclear: the European Commission has no decision-making power over the choices made by private companies, but it has nonetheless validated a figure over which it has no control. In fact, these investment flows are strengthening the American industrial fabric, contrary to repeated calls for European reindustrialisation. Several analysts point out that this commitment is more akin to organised capital flight than to equitable economic cooperation.
The only part of the EU-USA 2025 trade agreement that has really been “preserved” concerns a number of sectoral exemptions: aeronautics (Airbus in particular) and certain sensitive chemical products are temporarily exempt from customs duty increases. But these one-off measures appear to be concessions snatched up as a matter of urgency, to avoid a total rupture with key Member States such as France. Germany, for its part, has obtained no protection for its automotive sector, which will be one of the worst affected. Manufacturers such as Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes will now have to face a 15% tax on their exported vehicles, without any compensation net. This differentiated treatment between European countries is fuelling internal tensions and further weakening the EU’s commercial unity.
Another critical point is the maintenance of punitive tariffs on steel, aluminium and pharmaceutical products. Whereas we might have expected a concerted review of these tariffs imposed under Trump via Section 232, the text ratifies their maintenance, and even their toughening. Washington has categorically refused any relief, even though the EU was advocating a solution based on quotas or targeted exemptions. This is an admission of failure, which the Commission is trying to play down by referring to “possible further negotiations”, without any timetable or guarantees.
Finally, there is no reciprocity clause on agricultural, digital or social issues. The United States will retain its freedom to subsidise its agriculture and defence industry on a massive scale, without the EU being able to protect its strategic sectors in return. Similarly, no progress has been made on the mutual recognition of standards, or on social and environmental rights. Worse still, some observers are worried that the EU will have to relax its standards in the areas of food safety and digital regulation in order to meet future US demands.
In short, what some are calling a “trade agreement” looks, in broad terms, like a text dictated by Washington and rammed through by Brussels. The promise of “transatlantic stability” came at the price of considerable economic sacrifice, with no clear commitment to ecological transition, social justice or industrial sovereignty. The word “capitulation”, which some left-wing MEPs and the CGT no longer hesitate to use, is a blunt but clear-sighted way of interpreting the reality of this EU-USA 2025 trade agreement.
| Part | Earnings | Losses |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Captive energy market, influx of investment, economic stability, political success for Trump | No |
| European Union | Stable exports, partial protection for aeronautics | Loss of sovereignty, higher taxes on key sectors, energy dependency |
| Germany | – | Big loss for the automotive sector |
| France | Airbus relatively safe | Pharmaceutical loss |
| Italy, Spain | Limited impact | No tangible gains |
Two stories, two truths: diplomatic confusion in Brussels
The White House and the European Commission are providing divergent versions of the signed text. The Trump administration claims that European pharmaceutical products will be taxed at 15% from 1 August. Brussels insists that they will remain at 0%, pending the results of a US investigation. On energy, the White House presents the 750 billion as a firm commitment; the Commission replies that it cannot impose any purchases on behalf of the Member States, and that these figures are indicative.
This duality of rhetoric casts a shadow over the credibility of the agreement. European journalists have pointed out the contradictions: how can an agreement be signed without a mutual guarantee, without a clear mandate, and without transparency on quotas? The absence of an official common version reinforces the idea of an assumed imbalance.
The winners and losers of the 2025 EU-US trade agreement
For the United States, the gains are clear: outlets for its energy, an influx of foreign investment and political stability in a key election year. Donald Trump is capitalising on this diplomatic victory in the media, extolling the “overwhelming superiority of American interests”.
For the EU, the picture is more mixed: some sectors have been spared, but others, such as the German car industry and machine tools, have been directly hit by the duty increases. German employers speak of an “industrial betrayal”, while French trade unions denounce a “Europe on its knees”. In Italy, the situation is incomprehensible: sectoral demands have been ignored.
The European Left sounds the alarm
Manon Aubry (The Left) condemns the “submission without response” of the EU-USA 2025 trade agreement. The European Parliament, which was marginalised during the discussions, finds itself faced with an agreement that is ready-made and difficult to amend. In its view, “this agreement protects neither workers, nor the climate, nor our sovereignty”. For The Left, the EU is submitting to a game dictated by Trump, abandoning its levers of power.
The Socialists and Greens are also critical of the lack of social or ecological clauses. But their criticisms are less radical. They call for tighter monitoring, but do not rule out voting in favour of the text under certain conditions.
And after this EU-US trade agreement 2025? What next for the agreement and its consequences?
A number of key points about the EU-USA 2025 trade agreement remain unclear. Will pharmaceutical products be spared? Will European export quotas to the USA be capped? Who will actually buy the $750 billion in energy?
Technical discussions still need to continue to establish the precise volumes, the sectors concerned and the monitoring procedures. One thing is certain: the balance of power is not in Europe’s favour. The Commission may talk of “progressive commitments” or “stability”, but there are few concrete elements to protect European industries in the medium term.
What’s more, disagreements between the White House and Brussels over the actual wording of the agreement are likely to poison trade relations in the months to come.
Towards a rethink of transatlantic free trade?
The EU-USA 2025 trade agreement highlights the flaws in a free trade system based on reciprocity. America is now imposing its trade policy. Europe is reacting, trying to adapt, but remaining defensive.
For the European Left, it is urgent to build an alternative. This means :
- Strengthening social and environmental clauses in international agreements.
- The creation of a public energy cluster to reduce dependency.
- Balanced commercial alliances, with partners who share the same standards.
- The development ofoffensive European customs tools.
This agreement could be theelectroshock needed to rethink Europe’s role in world trade. Not as a mere adjustment variable, but as a sovereign player.
