Donald Trump’s tariffs against Europe: expert warns of consequences

According to a trading expert, the customs dispute between the United States and the EU threatens to develop a far -reaching conflict with serious consequences for Europe. “For the first time since the Second World War, Americans and Europeans could not only face themselves as an economic competitor, but as an opponent with incompatible geopolitical ideas,” writes Laura von Daniels from the Science and Politics Foundation (SWP) in a scenario paper that is available to the German Press Agency.

The customs dispute with US President Donald Trump mountains enormous gap potential, emphasizes the head of the SWP working group America. The costs of the US tariffs are unevenly distributed in the EU. Some members such as Germany, Ireland or Italy are more export -oriented and are therefore more affected. “If these countries were carried away to enter into individual bilateral agreements with Trump, the power of the internal market would be reduced and the future of the EU would be threatened.”

Trump will also not stop mixing economic policy to split the EU, the expert writes. “While countries on the eastern flank see a potential withdrawal from the United States from Europe as an existential threat, other Member States rate the security policy implications than less dramatic.” This also weakens European reaction ability to Trump’s threats.

Most recently, US President postponed the deadline for new tariffs on August 1st. In April Trump had already introduced a base tariff of ten percent to almost all imports from the EU. In addition, special tariffs apply to certain products, such as steel and aluminum and auto imports. With his customs policy, Trump wants to achieve, among other things, that more is being produced in the United States. The EU has laid threatened counter -duties on hold as long as the negotiations are ongoing.

From Daniels, a solution in which the USA completely withdraw its tariffs considers it unrealistic. For this, the EU would have to make huge concessions. Other scenarios are more realistic.

For example, for a quick “deal” with Trump, a general US import duty from ten percent could accept most goods. In return, the US government could offer fixed quotas for duty-free importing certain goods, for example in special steel and aluminum products.

“From a US perspective, from the US perspective, that Trump could signal a moderate policy against the financial markets,” writes the expert with regard to the increased credit risk of the United States and the weak US dollar. At the same time, she warns: “For the EU there is no low risk that a deal with Trump could only be of a very short duration.” In autumn, other US tariffs threatened to be in certain industries.

“This combines the concern to signal Trump that the EU will continue to bend in front of him in the future,” said Daniels. Rather, an early deal is an “economic -political ceasefire” that gives time and saves immediately high costs of an escalation.

In the second scenario, the expert will continue to negotiate without a solution, the costs rose due to tariffs that have already been issued. Trump will put the EU under pressure with security policy provocations – a dispute over the right negotiation tactic could collect the initially uniform attitude of the EU.

Finally, according to the third scenario, a full trade and economic war could break out between the USA and the EU, warns of Daniels. It does not rule out that Trump then puts NATO under pressure by deducting even far-reaching US troops from Europe than previously being adopted in security circles.

Possible countermeasures from the EU, which also affect digital services and property rights in the EU, would again counter Trump with financial sanctions, a delivery freezer of liquid gas or export controls for US software.

What Trump’s true goals are remains unclear for the trading partners, writes from Daniels. It is only clear: “The EU and Germany as the most economically important member country and political heavyweight must be prepared in the event that an agreement is not available.”