
Beware of the bazooka!
This propensity has dramatically intensified since last Saturday, when Trump threatened to hike the baseline US levy on European exports from 10% to 30% from 1 August.
Indeed, reporters – many of whom appear to have spent their youths overindulging in explosion-filled Arnold Schwarzenegger films – now seem incapable of writing about US trade policy without mentioning the likely imminent activation of the 'anti-coercion instrument', or 'ACI'. (Full disclosure: I've also written about the ACI, and I also love Arnie.)
Typically, journalists are careful to couch their language in such a way as to ensure their claims are almost tautologically true: the Financial Times , for instance, recently claimed that the 'bazooka' tool [is] being considered ' by Brussels – an assertion that would, strictly speaking, be correct if Björn Seibert fleetingly pondered its use while tying his Asics sneakers.
Other, similarly vacuous ways of describing Brussels' attitude towards the ACI include 'floats' and 'mulls' ( Bloomberg ); the clunkier 'looking to use' (also the FT ); and the hilariously in correct 'agonises over' ( Politico ). (Arguably, the image of vapid Eurocrats 'agonising over' whether or not to fire a bazooka is reminiscent of George Carlin's joke about the inventor of flamethrowers: 'Gee, I'd sure like to set those people on fire over there – but I'm way too far away to get the job done.')
Jokes aside, there are three key questions for us to, er, consider. First, what is the ACI? Second, will it be used? And third, should it be?
Ironically, the ACI was actually conceived as a direct result of Trump's policies during his first term. In particular, the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 prompted EU officials to develop an instrument that would protect the bloc from US 'secondary sanctions', which Washington threatened against firms and countries that continued to trade with Tehran.
The efforts were subsequently turbocharged by China's imposition of export controls on strategically critical minerals on Lithuania in 2021, after the Baltic nation upgraded diplomatic ties with Taiwan, a self-governing island whose independence Beijing refuses to recognise.
According to experts, the instrument, which came into force in 2023 but has never actually been used, is undoubtedly Brussels' most powerful – and versatile – trade weapon.
'The term 'bazooka' is trendy in Brussels, but it's also pretty accurate,' said Tobias Gehrke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'The range of potential responses is unrivalled: hypothetically, you can do a lot of damage.'
This potential damage includes imposing investment restrictions, withdrawing intellectual property protections, suspending individual companies' licences, banning access to EU public procurement markets, and sanctions targeting specific individuals, he said.
Crucially, the ACI can legally empower the European Commission, which oversees EU trade policy, to impose countermeasures targeting not just a 'coercing' nation's goods but also its services .
This is important for two reasons. First, because the EU, which has already threatened to slap retaliatory levies on €93 billion worth of US goods, is now running out of goods to target.
Second, because unlike trade in goods, the bloc runs a substantial deficit in services with the US – thus in theory giving it 'escalation dominance' over Washington in this area.
Thus, it would seem that the ACI could be the perfect tonic for Brussels' transatlantic malaise: at a time when Trump is continuing to escalate his tariff threats, a bazooka blast might be just what the trade doctor ordered. Trigger-happy journalism Unfortunately – and unlike with an actual bazooka – there are numerous practical, political, and strategic obstacles standing in the way of the ACI's use.
The first is timing. The first stage of the ACI's activation involves a four-month investigation by the Commission to determine whether 'coercion' has actually taken place. Then, member states can take up to two and a half months before voting on the Commission's findings. Then, if member states approve, the Commission has six months to negotiate with the coercing party and outline potential countermeasures if talks fail.
In short: even if member states were keen on loading it, it would probably take a year, if not more, before the bazooka could fire. By that point, Trump may have succeeded in cowing the EU into submission – or, if we're lucky, market forces may already have forced him to back down.
Second, it is far from clear whether member states do , in fact, want the bazooka to be loaded.
Activation of the ACI requires the support of a 'qualified majority' of EU member states, or 15 of the bloc's 27 countries, which collectively represent at least 65% of the bloc's population. As it stands, however, no countries are currently in favour of triggering the ACI, according to three diplomats briefed on EU ambassadors' closed-door discussions this week.
Instead, only a handful of countries – including France, Spain, and Portugal – are open to more explicitly threatening to use the ACI during negotiations with the US. A couple more countries are similarly open to exploring the possibility of targeting services using other, less powerful trade defence tools (e.g. the Enforcement Regulation).
This, in turn, suggests that Bloomberg's 'scoop' earlier this week that a 'growing number' of member states 'want the bloc to activate' the ACI if trade talks with Washington fail is largely false, insofar as it conflates the threat of using the ACI with actually using it.
Moreover, it is similarly likely that Bloomberg confused invoking the ACI with the EU's increasing openness to targeting services – something the FT and Politico separately 'scooped' earlier this week and which, in fact, is true.
Unfortunately, it is also not a scoop: the Commission publicly admitted earlier this week that it is drawing up ways of targeting US services.
Leopoldo Rubinacci, a senior Commission official involved in US trade negotiations, told the European Parliament's International Trade Committee on Monday that Brussels 'is practically ready on also considering [trade] measures that do not cover goods ( sic )'. He also denied that these measures would be imposed under the auspices of the ACI.
'We will decide when the time comes whether we need to use, also, the anti-coercion instrument,' he said. (Interestingly, Rubinacci also denied that the Enforcement Regulation allows for retaliation against services – which raises the question of what the Commission's legal justification for targeting US services actually is.) 'A dangerous escalation'? In addition to legal and political difficulties, however, there are also huge geoeconomic risks associated with triggering the bazooka – namely, the possibility of massive US retaliation.
In a recent note, Deutsche Bank warned that triggering the ACI could constitute 'a dangerous escalation' of the EU-US trade war and 'has the potential for enormous self-harm if directed at US tech services in particular'.
'Europe is highly dependent on these service imports,' Deutsche added. 'Any counterresponse by the US to curb access to tech services would be massively disruptive to business in Europe. This is an escalation that only has downside for the EU.'
To further bolster Deutsche's point, it is possible – if not likely – that any EU push to target US service providers could prompt other forms of US retaliation.
Trump could, for instance, step up attempts to annex Greenland, threaten to withdraw US military support for Europe, or even pull out of NATO.
Other analysts, however, argue that such warnings are based on a fundamental misconception of the ACI's nature and purpose.
'You can't generalise that the ACI will massively backfire because you can take a million different measures,' said Gehrke.
'You can withdraw entire licenses and take away intellectual properties protections – that's obviously a nuclear bomb. Or you can be very limited and just crank up some regulatory hurdles here and there to make life more difficult or costly for these companies.'
Other analysts stress that the main goal of 'triggering' the ACI is precisely for the threat of countermeasures to boost the EU's chances of a trade deal during the six-month negotiation process.
'The ACI wasn't designed to be used, but rather to be threatened to be used,' said Arthur Leichthammer, a policy fellow at the Jacques Delors Centre.
The Commission appears to be thinking along similar lines. 'The anti-coercion instrument is not an end in itself,' Rubinacci said on Monday. 'The anti-coercion instrument is an instrument.'
In short: to journalists' likely dismay, use of the bazooka remains exceedingly unlikely. Moreover, even if it were used, only a worst-case scenario would see the bazooka eventually firing an explosion of trade countermeasures.
However, such countermeasures would not only take many months to be imposed, but would also carry risks of severe political and economic blowback.
This, of course, is a truth that all Arnie fans instinctively recognise: bazookas can cause enormous explosions – but they can also massively backfire. Economy News Roundup Brussels proposes largest long-term EU budget in the bloc's history. The post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) should amount to €1.98 trillion, or 1.26% of the bloc's gross national income (GNI), the European Commission said on Wednesday. This is well above the current budget, which was pitched at 1.11% and negotiated to 1.05% GNI. If implemented, the plan – which must be approved by all 27 member states – would also merge historically separate farming and regional spending programmes into country-specific national plans and create a €451 billion fund to boost ailing industry. Read more.
The Commission's plan was widely criticised, including by members of von der Leyen's own centre-right political family, the European People's Party. 'We, the [European Parliament], cannot accept that the budget of the European Union becomes the sum of 27 national, eventually conflicting different agendas,' Siegfried Mureșan, the EPP's lead rapporteur for the MFF, wrote on Twitter on Wednesday. Dutch Finance Minister Eelcon Heine also warned that the Commission's proposed MFF 'is too high' and that 'difficult choices' (i.e. cuts) must be made. See our must-read explainer.
Europe's wine sector condemns Brussels' plan to wine on €72 billion US retaliation list. Ignacio Sánchez Recarte, who runs CEEV, a Brussels-based lobby group, told Euractiv that US and EU wine groups have 'made it clear' that wine should be 'kept out of trade disputes'. Other American-made spirits, including bourbon, are also on the Commission's list, which must still be approved by member countries. The EU has also already drawn up a retaliatory package targeting €21 billion worth of US goods, including motorbikes, diamonds, and soybeans. Read more.
Donald Trump's threatened 30% tariff on European exports would "practically" end EU-US trade, warns EU trade chief. Maroš Šefčovič said the US president's latest tariff threat, announced on Saturday, would have 'super negative' consequences if it enters into force on 1 August by disincentivising EU exporters from shipping goods to the US. "30% or anything above 30%... it has more or less the same effect: practically, it prohibits trade," Šefčovič told reporters ahead of a meeting of EU trade ministers in Brussels. Read more.
US is urging EU to adopt Washington's more hawkish policy on China, says Brussels. Leopoldo Rubinacci, a European Commission official involved in US trade negotiations, said Washington has urged Brussels to 'follow us 100%' vis-à-vis Beijing, despite the EU's insistence on forging independent ties with the world's second-largest economy. The remarks amid growing speculation that the bloc could impose tougher measures on Beijing in order to clinch a trade deal with the US. Read more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Euractiv
24 minutes ago
- Euractiv
Germany to start air lifting aid into Gaza
BERLIN - Germany will start airlifting aid into the Gaza Strip to help improve the dire humanitarian situation, Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced on Monday, while also refusing to rule out the introduction of sanctions against Israel. The aid decision was made during an emergency session of senior members of the German cabinet, following intensified tensions with Israel over the deteriorating situation in the Israeli-occupied region. 'We know that this can only be very little help for the people in Gaza, but at least it's a contribution we'd like to make,' Merz told journalists. He said France and the UK – who form the informal E3 grouping together with Germany – were 'willing' to also take part in the aid operation, which would be carried out in cooperation with Jordan. Last weekend, the E3 leaders agreed to consider further steps to increase the pressure on Israel to initiate a ceasefire and allow more aid into the Gaza Strip after reports that civilians there were facing mass starvation. France's President Emmanuel Macron subsequently announced that Paris would unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in September, though Germany and Britain declined to follow his example. Merz said that the E3 would start preparing a reconstruction conference for the beleaguered region. That would help 'create leeway for a negotiated solution' to the conflict, Merz added. Notably, he did not rule out imposing sanctions on Israel, when asked whether the cabinet had considered measures such as halting weapon deliveries to Israel and supporting the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Germany would 'reserve the right' to take such steps, Merz said with regard to the latter. Berlin had previously refused to support a suspension after an internal EU review found Israel to be in breach of the agreement's human rights commitments. (jp, aw)


Euractiv
25 minutes ago
- Euractiv
The Brief – How Trump trounced Ursula
Perhaps the most humiliating aspect of the EU-US trade deal is that it's not even clear just how humiliating it actually is. The so-called 'framework agreement' – the EU's preferred euphemism for yesterday's Mafia-style shakedown – will likely see the average US tariff rate on EU exports increase from 13.5% to 16% on 1 August, according to Bloomberg Economics: about seven times higher than before Donald Trump's return to the White House in January. In exchange for America's beneficence, the EU pledged to reduce its already-minuscule levies on numerous products, including cars, chemicals, and food. Brussels will also boost purchases of US fossil fuels and weapons by more than $250 billion per year – an almost comically high figure that will soon turn the bloc's €50 billion net surplus with the US into a yawning deficit. Arguably, striking a deal this bad is something of an achievement in itself: the UK, a country with an economy and population less than a fifth as large as the EU, received considerably better terms – and was mercilessly mocked by European officials for doing so. Unfortunately for Europe, the deal – which EU chief Ursula von der Leyen preposterously claimed was 'the best we could get' – will probably end up being even worse than Brussels is alleging. This is for three reasons. First, the EU claims it has been granted a 'quota system' for steel and aluminium exports, in which a limited amount is taxed below Trump's 50% rate. (Somewhat pathetically, Brussels also says this provision is modelled on the UK's deal.) Trump, however, has explicitly denied that the agreement covers these metals – a claim corroborated by senior US officials. Similarly, the bloc alleges that pharmaceuticals are also included in the agreement, and in particular that pharma products will be hit by a maximum levy of 15% once Washington's so-called 'Section 232' investigation is concluded in a few weeks' time. Once again, however, Trump yesterday flatly denied that Europe's €120 billion worth of pharma exports are covered by the deal – a contradiction that EU officials, apparently, didn't believe was worth clarifying before proudly announcing the "biggest trade deal ever". (Adding to the confusion, a White House 'Fact Sheet' has since claimed that steel and aluminium are not included in the deal but that pharma products will be immediately hit with a 15% levy.) Finally, EU officials have offered virtually no details on the pledged $600 billion worth of 'additional' investments in US infrastructure – which come on top of the energy and weapons purchases – over the next few years. As it turns out, the deal that the EU is most closely modelled on, namely Japan's, offers worrying signs. The US has claimed, in true Godfather-fashion, that a staggering 90% of the profits from Japan's $550 billion worth of promised investments will accrue to the US taxpayer: a claim furiously rejected by Tokyo. Asked about the profit allocation of the EU's pledged investments, Commission officials refused to elaborate but instead sought to reassure reporters that, whatever happens, only private investors will be affected. 'From our side, it's private money,' said one official. 'From Japan, it's mostly public money.' There is a hint of comic (and perhaps cosmic) justice here. In her shambolic presentation of the EU budget earlier this month, von der Leyen clearly demonstrated that she didn't care about – or, really, understand – what she was planning to do with €2 trillion in public money. Demonstrating equal ambivalence about private cash is, in contrast to yesterday's agreement, only fair. But Sunday's events also offer wider political lessons. Indeed, upon reflection, the deal is the almost inevitable outcome of a declining great power placing its faith in an economically illiterate, mendacious, image-obsessed narcissist – and then asking that person to negotiate with Donald Trump. Roundup How bad can it get? – Barely a day after Ursula von der Leyen signed a trade pact with Donald Trump, it looks less like she averted a trade war and more like she surrendered in one. Trade isn't everything – The EU-US trade agreement is also "about Ukraine", Brussels' trade chief Maroš Šefčovič said on Monday, in an apparent admission that the much-criticised agreement with Washington was clinched to ensure continued American military support for Kyiv. How to spend tobacco tax – The Commission's plan to fund the bloc's next long-term budget with tobacco taxes could help reduce smoking, health experts say, while warning that the revenue should be deployed to support public health, rather than defence. Across Europe Belgian pharma looks for answers – 'President Trump stated that medicines are excluded from the agreement. However, the official statement from the European Union refers to a 'clear ceiling' of 15% on tariffs on pharmaceutical products,' told Euractiv. Curbing medicine fraud – Bulgaria has completed the full implementation of the European Union's medicines verification system, a milestone aimed at curbing the circulation of falsified pharmaceuticals and mitigating financial fraud. Give the man a break – Spanish premier Pedro Sánchez is beset by a corruption scandal that will likely haunt him his annual summer retreat. Despite his outer calm, the political crisis isn't going away.


Euractiv
29 minutes ago
- Euractiv
Brussels opens door to selected US food imports as tariff threat looms
'We stayed firm on agriculture,' says EU official after US trade concessions Euractiv is part of the Trust Project Sofia Sanchez Manzanaro Euractiv Jul 28, 2025 15:33 2 min. read News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Brussels will facilitate more imports of US agri-food products deemed "non-sensitive" for EU farmers – including nuts, soybeans, fish, and bison meat – under a trade deal struck on Sunday. A senior EU official said Monday that the agreement, reached by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump, also extends the so-called lobster deal, originally signed during Trump's first mandate in 2020. That deal has allowed duty-free US lobster exports to the EU ever since. While the US will continue to sell seafood and nuts to the EU, Brussels appears to have gained little in return for its agri-food sector, which remains exposed to Trump's 15% blanket tariff. American products – including pistachios, almonds, certain types of processed and raw fish, bison meat, some dairy products, and pet food – will enjoy greater market access to the EU, though final terms await a joint statement still being drafted. Notably, nuts and soybeans were among the products the EU had previously earmarked for retaliation in the event of new US tariffs. Tariff reductions could also extend to fertilisers, where the US could be an alternative supplier to Russia, the official said. More contentious items like beef, poultry, and sugar remain excluded from the concessions, they added. Brussels insists the move won't harm EU producers, as the goods are 'non-sensitive.' But European almond growers – especially in Spain, the world's second-largest producer – have long warned that cheaper Californian nuts threaten their survival. Meanwhile, Brussels is trying to salvage an exemption for spirits and wine – a highly lucrative export sector for the bloc that relies heavily on the US market – with negotiations still ongoing, the official said. The EU official maintained that the Commission 'stayed firm on agriculture' during talks with US counterparts.