
Truth Social diplomacy, a shock court ruling and fashion magnate advice: A week inside the EU-US tariff talks
European Commission president
Ursula von der Leyen
is not short of advice about how to handle
Donald Trump.
Bernard Arnault, founder and chief executive of French luxury brand giant LVMH, which owns Louis Vuitton, Moët Hennessy and Dior, privately chipped in with his opinion in recent days.
The French businessman sat down with Ms von der Leyen late last week, the day before the US president threw European Union-US negotiations into another tailspin, by threatening to introduce blanket 50 per cent
tariffs
on June 1st.
Mr Trump was later persuaded to
push his sudden deadline out to July 9th
, the date an original 90-day pause on the higher rates of his 'liberation day' tariffs was due to end.
READ MORE
Mr Arnault, who runs one of Europe's biggest companies, met Ms von der Leyen in the European Commission's headquarters in Brussels to talk about how to avert a transatlantic trade war.
The commission, the European Union's (EU) executive branch that sets the bloc's trade policy, has been making little progress in talks with the Trump administration.
[
US federal court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs
Opens in new window
]
The LVMH executive told Ms von der Leyen he was concerned about the uncertainty caused by Mr Trump's tariffs on global trade. Mr Arnault singled out the champagne wing of his empire, Moët & Chandon, during the discussion.
In the May 22nd meeting, the details of which have not been reported before, Mr Arnault stressed the need to reach a deal on tariffs with Mr Trump. That is easier said than done.
Ford Chief Lisa Brankin on accelerating the switch to EVs
Listen |
41:35
For the last two months European businesses have been facing 10 per cent tariffs, which are import taxes, when selling goods into the US. Cars and steel products sold from the EU to the US have been subject to 25 per cent levies.
The threat of across-the-board tariffs of 20 per cent, or even 50 per cent, if negotiations failed, has caused growing alarm across European industries.
Separate duties targeting pharmaceutical imports are being considered, which would be a big economic blow to Ireland.
But the New York-based Court of International Trade on Wednesday struck down Mr Trump's sweeping 'liberation day' tariffs, ruling these were not legal. The US administration has said it will appeal.
'It's a very significant ruling by the court. It gives you some hope that the rule of law still applies in the United States. Let's see what happens,' said Ignacio Garcia Bercero, who was the commission's chief negotiator on an EU-US trade deal abandoned in 2016.
Current talks should pivot to focus on steel, aluminium and automobile tariffs, which are not affected by the ruling, the former senior official told The Irish Times.
Negotiators had been racing to hammer out a deal with Mr Trump and head off the worst of his damaging trade levies before July 9th. The court ruling may buy the EU side more time.
Sources in Dublin and in Brussels are optimistic the US president ultimately wants an agreement, despite the distance between negotiating positions at the moment.
[
Court tariffs bombshell should inspire trading partners to defy Trump
]
Mr Trump's post on Truth Social threatening 50 per cent tariffs took people by surprise last Friday, even if it was quickly walked back. 'It's all very volatile,' one Government source said.
The shopping list of demands put forward by the White House at one point or another is long. It includes the EU rolling back tech regulations, lowering food safety standards that bar US chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef and scrapping digital services taxes in France and other countries.
Mr Trump has also criticised value-added tax (VAT) charged on goods and services.
Working out what is negotiating bluster and what the US side is genuinely interested in has been difficult. 'Don't ask me to predict what a final deal will look like,' one commission official said.
The EU has offered to buy more US soybeans and liquefied natural gas (LNG) and to make it easier for the US to sell fish and lobster to the EU and for both sides to drop pre-Trump tariffs on industrial goods to zero.
Some easing or tweaks to EU laws have reportedly been mentioned as another possible concession, but a rollback of online guardrails or food safety standards is a red line the commission won't cross.
Before the New York court ruling there was a growing expectation the EU would have to stomach some baseline level of US tariffs, likely to be the global 10 per cent rate.
Irish businesses were concerned about a no-deal scenario that would leave exports, such as Jameson whiskey or Kerrygold butter, facing a 20 per cent tariff. Irish products would then be sitting on a US supermarket shelf beside Scotch whiskey or a UK butter brand subject to a lower 10 per cent levy.
Ms von der Leyen's top adviser, Bjoern Seibert, is right at the heart of the EU's response, directing the strategy behind the scenes. It is understood many of the decisions made inside the commission on this flow through him.
He briefed representatives from the 27 EU states at the start of this week. The influential adviser suggested a clearer picture of what the US wanted in a deal was starting to emerge, two people said. Exact details of the ongoing negotiations are being kept under wraps.
EU trade commissioner
Maros Šefčovič
and US commerce secretary
Howard Lutnick
had planned to focus their discussions on key sectors such as pharmaceuticals, cars, steel and computer chips. The pair speak on the phone regularly and have met several times.
Other contested points were being discussed by officials. A delegation of commission trade staff is scheduled to travel to the US next week for talks.
The two sides have been exchanging papers setting out their positions, something seen as a forerunner to intensive negotiations taking place in June.
The commission has a set of retaliatory tariffs ready to go, if talks stall.
These tariffs on US soybeans, Harley-Davidson motorbikes, oranges, steel and other products were paused until mid-July to signal to the US that Europe wanted to talk.
A second, larger package of counter-tariffs under consideration would hit US aircraft manufacturers, bourbon whiskey, the automobile industry and many other sectors.
'You need to have them ready ... You keep the gun on the table,' one EU official said of the measures.
[
Tariff threat undermines State's ability to deliver economic forecasts, says Donohoe
Opens in new window
]
The European aviation industry previously warned the commission against targeting Boeing and other US manufacturers, correspondence shows.
In an April 14th letter to Mr Šefčovič, Airlines for Europe, which counts Ryanair as a member, said import duties would have a 'severe impact' on European airlines.
Companies had placed 'significant' orders for US-made aircraft that they could not cancel, the correspondence seen by The Irish Times said.
The Government has objected to the inclusion of US bourbon, civil aircraft and medical devices on the commission's tariff list, which will be finalised next month.
EU officials have been drawing up a contingency plan to hit the US even harder, should negotiations collapse and steep tariffs kick in. This would focus on services, rather than goods and products.
One option is the EU's anti-coercion instrument (ACI), which has been dubbed the 'big bazooka'. This would allow the bloc to put a levy on US tech giants' digital ad revenues in Europe and restrict US firms from bidding on public contracts in the EU.
The Government here is fiercely opposed to tech multinationals being dragged into the thick of the tariff dispute, given the number of those US companies with bases in Dublin.
It is understood some commission officials believe there is a way to put tariffs on services without having to resort to the bazooka, which requires a months-long investigation first to confirm the EU is facing economic coercion.
The federal trade court ruling has certainly strengthened the EU's hand in negotiations.
However, if Mr Trump's blanket measures remain blocked, he may be more likely to pursue tariffs on targeted industries. Pharma could be top of the list.
A few weeks back a senior commission official said jokingly that if the EU landed a deal in July to suspend all US tariffs, he would head off on a holiday for the rest of the month, plus August. It's fair to say nobody is booking flights or hotels just yet.
Hashtags

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


Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Trump announces 50% steel tariffs and hails ‘blockbuster' deal with Japan
Donald Trump announced on Friday he was doubling foreign tariffs on steel imports to 50 per cent, as the US president celebrated a 'blockbuster' agreement for Japan-based Nippon Steel to invest in US Steel during a rally in Pennsylvania. Surrounded by men in orange hardhats at a US Steel plant in West Mifflin, Mr Trump unveiled the new levies, declaring that the dramatic rate increase would 'even further secure the steel industry in the United States'. 'Nobody is going to get around that,' Mr Trump said, of the tariff rate hike from what was 25 per cent. In a social media post after his remarks, Mr Trump announced that the 50 per cent tariffs on steel would also apply to imported aluminium and would take effect on June 4th. READ MORE 'This will be yet another BIG jolt of great news for our wonderful steel and aluminium workers,' he stated in the post. It was not immediately clear how the announcement would affect the trade deal negotiated earlier this month that saw tariffs on UK steel and aluminium reduced to zero. Mr Trump's Friday tariffs announcement came a day after a federal appeals court temporarily allowed his tariffs to remain in effect staying a decision by a US trade court that blocked the president from imposing the duties. The trade court ruling, however, does not impede the president's ability to unilaterally raise tariffs on steel imports, an authority granted under a national security provision called section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. The precise relationship between Nippon Steel and US Steel raised questions on Friday, even for some of Mr Trump's allies. The president has thrown his full support behind the deal, months after insisting he was 'totally against' a $14.9 billion bid by Nippon Steel for its US rival. [ Ireland cannot base its economic strategy on the 'Taco' theory – Trump Always Chickens Out Opens in new window ] The United Steelworkers union had previously urged Mr Trump to reject Nippon's bid, dismissing the Japanese firm's commitments to invest in the US as 'flashy promises' and claiming it was 'simply seeking to undercut our domestic industry from the inside'. Speaking to steelworkers, Mr Trump said that US Steel would 'stay an American company' after what he is now calling 'a partnership' with Nippon. But US Steel's website links to a stand-alone site with the combined branding of the two companies that features a statement describing the transaction as 'US Steel's agreement to be acquired by NSC'. On the website touting the deal, there were also multiple references to 'Nippon Steel's acquisition of US Steel' and the 'potential sale of US Steel to Nippon Steel'. Even pro-Trump commentators on Fox expressed bafflement over the exact nature of the deal. 'This is being described as 'a partnership', this deal between Nippon and US Steel – but then it's described as an acquisition on the US Steel website,' Fox host Laura Ingraham pointed out on her Friday night show. [ Trump and the 'nasty' Taco trade Opens in new window ] She asked a guest from another pro-Trump outlet, Breitbart: 'Who owns the majority stake in this company?' When the guest said he did not know, Ms Ingraham suggested Mr Trump might not be aware of the details. 'I don't know if he was fully informed about the terms of the deal. We just don't know.' Mr Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, had blocked Nippon's acquisition, citing national security concerns, during his final weeks in office. During his remarks at the rally, Mr Trump gloated that the Nippon investment would once again make the American steelmaker 'synonymous with greatness'. He said protections were included to 'ensure that all steel workers will keep their jobs and all facilities in the United States will remain open and thriving' and said Nippon had committed to maintaining all of US Steel's operating blast furnaces for the next decade. The president also promised that every US steelworker would soon receive a $5,000 bonus – prompting the crowd to start a round of 'U-S-A!' chants. Mr Trump told the steelworkers in attendance that there was 'a lot of money coming your way'. 'We won't be able to call this section a rust belt any more,' Trump said. 'It'll be a golden belt.' During the event, Mr Trump invited local members of United Steelworkers on to the stage to promote the Nippon deal, which saw its leader break with the union to support it. Praising the president, Jason Zugai, vice-president of Irvin local 2227, said he believed the investments would be 'life-changing'. But the powerful United Steelworkers union remained wary. 'Our primary concern remains with the impact that this merger of US Steel into a foreign competitor will have on national security, our members and the communities where we live and work,' United Steelworkers president David McCall said in a statement. 'Issuing press releases and making political speeches is easy. Binding commitments are hard.' Mr Trump framed the administration's drive to boost domestic steel production as 'not just a matter of dignity or prosperity or pride' but as 'above all, a matter of national security'. He blamed 'decades of Washington betrayals and incompetence and stupidity and corruption' for hollowing out the once-dominant US steel industry, as the jobs 'melted away, just like butter'. 'We don't want America's future to be built with shoddy steel from Shanghai. We want it built with the strength and the pride of Pittsburgh,' he said. In his remarks at a US steel plant, Mr Trump also repeated many of the false claims that have become a feature of his rallies including the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him. He gloated over his 2024 victory and, gesturing toward his ear that was grazed by a would-be assassin's bullet last year at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, said it was proof that a higher power was watching over him. He also called on congressional Republicans to align behind his 'one big, beautiful bill,' urging attendees to lobby their representatives and senators to support the measure. – Guardian service


Irish Times
8 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Macron shove is not a sign of a very French love story, but something more disturbing
The moment last Monday evening when aeroplane doors opened at Hanoi airport to reveal the French president being shoved in the face by his wife was not the first red flag in their relationship. The first red flag was the fact that, when they met, Emmanuel Macron was a 15-year-old schoolboy, and Brigitte a 39-year-old drama teacher directing a school production. For all they have waxed lyrical in interviews since about the special nature of their love ('when you're in love, you don't choose,' he says; 'little by little, I became completely subjugated by the intelligence of this young man,' she gushes); for all the media obligingly dance around their troubling origin story (note how often reports of this period in their lives refer to him not as a child but as 'the future president' and to her as his 'childhood sweetheart'); this was no mere age gap relationship, and only one of them was a child. Now he is 47 and she is 72, the appropriate response may well be to shrug and say good on them both. But back when they met in 1993, she was an adult woman, and he was a boy. If a 15-year-old girl enters a sexual relationship with a teacher 25 years her senior, the usual and correct response is outrage. When the genders are reversed, it's a very French love story. READ MORE But the story of how the Macrons met has always seemed to inspire an uncharacteristic reticence in the media – particularly the kind of outlets that usually relish nothing more than deconstructing every aspect of a first lady's existence. This conspiracy of coyness may be why the incident on the tarmac in Vietnam earlier this week was met with such an odd response. Sure, the split second of slightly blurred footage immediately went around the world and was thoroughly dissected: the force with which she shoved him in the face, using both of her hands. The way his head jerks back. His look of shock. The speed at which he recovered his composure and waved to the cameras. Her refusal to take his arm going down the aeroplane steps. Yet, for all the coverage, the reaction was weirdly muted. Much commentary opted for the strained, bemused tone you might use should you find yourself trapped at an uncomfortable dinner with a warring couple. The moment when aeroplane doors opened at Hanoi airport to reveal the French president being shoved in the face by his wife was not the first red flag in their relationship. The Elysée Palace responded at first by suggesting the video was a Russian deepfake, and then spun it as a 'moment of closeness', the couple 'decompressing'. Macron himself said they were 'bickering, or rather joking': 'The video becomes a sort of geoplanetary catastrophe. In the world we live in, we don't have a lot of time to lose. This is all a bit of nonsense,' he said, demonstrating himself to be not averse to spouting geoplanetary nonsense of his own. Those who thought otherwise were 'crazies', 'nuts' and clearly had 'sugar rushing to their heads'. So that's settled. Nothing to see here. Except, of course, anyone with a smartphone and a social media account did see it. And yet, just as they have always done where the Macrons are concerned, the media seemed to largely acquiesce to being told that they did not see what they saw. Politico characterised it a 'spat'. The New York Times led with Macron's dismissal of it as 'nonsense'. USA Today went with a translation of his words as 'horsing around'. The Sun called it 'embarrassing'. One commentator decided that it was not 'just a shove [but] a symbol, a barometer of a world out of sorts, reflexively violent, perpetually on edge'. Macron is, of course, entitled to his privacy and to our compassion – I can't imagine anyone looking at footage and not being struck, above all, by his humanity. But he is also a public figure, and his willingness to brush off a moment of aggressive physical contact from an intimate partner is, at best, a missed opportunity to address the stigma surrounding domestic abuse. [ Emmanuel Macron plays down video of shove from wife: 'It's nonsense' Opens in new window ] At worst, it sends a harmful message about what men are supposed to quietly put up with. The obvious question – and yet only a handful asked it – was whether we would be so willing to chalk this up as a moment of mild embarrassment if he was a woman and she was a man. Of course we wouldn't. When advertising mogul Charles Saatchi was photographed grabbing his then wife Nigella Lawson by the throat in a London restaurant in 2013, the reaction was swift and unequivocal. It amounted to (with a handful of notable exceptions, mostly involving older men in the media with social connections to Saatchi) horror and revulsion. The images were more graphic and left little room for ambiguity, but the context was similar: an unguarded moment that hinted at something disturbing beneath the glossy surface of the lives of an apparently happy power couple. Saatchi's first reaction was that it was a 'playful tiff' ; Lawson's was to pack up and leave with her children. The editor of the Sunday People, which first published the images, later explained the rationale for it: 'Our debate kept coming back to what was going on behind closed doors if Saatchi was able to behave like this in public. We concluded that there was a genuine public interest ... We couldn't think of any circumstances in which his behaviour could be justified.' [ The pictures of Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson were disturbing. But so too was the public rush to judgment Opens in new window ] Those same considerations ought to apply here – yet many commentators seem to have no trouble coming up with circumstances to justify Brigitte Macron's behaviour. Perhaps it's just that many of us are incapable of reconciling the idea that a man in a position of power can also be someone vulnerable to the possibility of domestic abuse. There are well-known reasons men underreport domestic violence – among them is the fear they won't be taken seriously. Based on events this week, they're probably right.


Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ireland cannot base its economic strategy on the ‘Taco' theory – Trump Always Chickens Out
The Trump tariff story rolls on and on. Even over the past week or so, we have had threats of 50 per cent tariffs on the EU to apply from this weekend, then a postponement of this deadline till July , then a court ruling that the US president did not have the authority to impose such blanket tariffs at all, followed by an appeal court decision which put a stay on this decision. Confused? Well, join the club. Even the finest legal and political minds are struggling to keep up and identify where, exactly, we are now and what might happen next. The financial markets have been operating on the basis of what has been dubbed the 'Taco trade' – with analysts arguing that investors should keep buying shares because 'Trump always chickens out' on his tariff threats. We can hope this continues and that the worst does not happen. But it would be most unwise to base Ireland's economic strategy on the Taco theory and the hope that all the transatlantic trouble will be sorted quickly. Donald Trump could as easily lash out as chicken out. We just don't know. The odds are that the rocky period we are now seeing is not going to end any time soon. Trump's talk of doing strings of trade 'deals' is based more on Maga promo than reality, judging by the flimsy details which have emerged to date. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent's comment late on Thursday that talks with China are 'stalled' is also significant. READ MORE And the negotiations with the EU do not seem to have made much progress, as a Brussels hierarchy driven by process meets the chaos of Washington. Smarter minds in Dublin worry that the EU may be in a dangerous place, being late in the queue of countries trying to reach some kind of accommodation with Trump. The extent to which Trump can use his tariffs weapons is now in question, after the federal trade court decision that he exceeded his powers with blanket tariffs. But he will appeal – and still has the legal option to use tariffs in specific sectors on national security grounds, like tech and, important for Ireland, pharma . His new budget bill also gives the US the power to target companies and individuals from countries seen to treat US companies unfairly with penal extra taxes. Tax wars could yet join trade wars. So where does this leave Ireland? The Government cannot be hypnotised into inaction by the White House and the risks from what Trump does next. It needs to be seen to get on with it and send out a message that it is going about its business amid the international chaos. And here the next couple of months will be crucial. A review of Ireland's massive State investment plan – the National Development Programme (NDP) – is due for publication over the summer. So is the so-called Summer Economic Strategy, which sets out the game plan for the Budget. After a shaky start, the Coalition needs to use these to try to shape a new narrative. The Government can't remove the uncertainty that has spread through the economy and is now stalling investment and, increasingly, hiring. But it can try to underpin confidence by focusing on doing a few important things. One is approaching the budget in a sane and strategic way – unlike last year's pre-election giveaway – and building Ireland's leeway for a possible hit to corporate tax revenues and what seems now an inevitable general economic slowdown. [ Truth Social diplomacy, a shock court ruling and fashion magnate advice: A week inside the EU-US tariff talks Opens in new window ] This will require a summer battle between the budget ministers Paschal Donohoe and Jack Chambers and the rest of the Cabinet, who will see extra billions and want to spend them. And, for now, extra billions are indeed likely. Ireland's growth figures, and quite possibly corporate tax revenues, are about to get another boost from huge exports to the US so far this year, as pharma and other sectors try to get product across the Atlantic there before tariffs hit. On paper, Ireland's economic boom is about to get boomier. In reality, this is a classic once-off boost which will reverse, sooner rather than later. The other key challenge for Ministers is to start to get to grips with the big infrastructural blockages facing the economy and building some kind of positive narrative, rather than continued talk of failure and a seeming inability to progress anything. This is now urgent. Big US investors here have projects on hold due to the tariff uncertainty. Sooner or later they will have to make a call on where to invest next. Ireland cannot control the impact of whatever Trump does on these decisions. But the State's infrastructural shortcomings are now a big factor in what they do next and here the mood music is poor. This will take years to fix, but the Government needs to get out the message that it has a plan and, crucially, that it can execute it. Of course, it also has to cope as best it can with swings of the Trump-driven agenda. The ongoing exceptionalism of Irish economic data – set to repeat this year – unfortunately keeps the State in the spotlight. There will be tricky territory to negotiate as the focus intensifies on the extent of pharma exports by US companies from their Irish bases to the American market – a big factor in the US trade deficit with the EU – and the tax boost Ireland gets from this, at the expense of Uncle Sam. And as the OECD corporate tax deal, which Ireland hoped would lead to some peace in this area, gradually falls apart, putting a lot back into play in another vital area for Ireland. [ Donald Trump's tariffs setback: the president's policies continue to unravel Opens in new window ] In turbulent times, you always look for the pressure points. Pharma and corporate tax are the key ones for Ireland. But it also has some economic and budgetary strengths to help in trying to pick a way through all this. Relying on a 'Taco' strategy and hoping the transatlantic threat falls away in the months ahead looks unrealistic. But the Government cannot just sit back and be hypnotised by what is happening in the White House – it needs to be seen to get on with it.