EU brainstorms on how to brace for US tariffs as 90-day window opens
By Jan Strupczewski
WARSAW (Reuters) - With higher U.S. tariffs postponed by 90 days, European Union finance ministers will brainstorm on Friday how to use that time to get a trade deal with Washington and how to coordinate their efforts to handle higher tariffs if they do not.
U.S. President Donald Trump suspended on Wednesday for 90 days the reciprocal tariffs of 20% he imposed on Europe on April 2, though a 10% rate is in place as it is with most other countries globally. He also said he expected Europe to buy more U.S. oil and gas as part of the rebalancing of the trade relationship.
"The fact that we will have 90 days respite is, quite frankly, very helpful, because this means that we can now strategise and we'll have 90 days to prepare ourselves in case there is no trade to deal with the Americans," said one senior EU official involved in preparing the ministerial talks.
Negotiations with Washington on how to avoid higher tariffs altogether are handled by the European Commission, which is in charge of trade policy for the whole 27-nation EU.
If there is a deal with the U.S. on trade within the next three months, possibly along the lines of the EU's zero-tariff proposal on all industrial goods, the problem would be solved.
But a no-deal outcome is also possible, which would leave the response in the hands of the 27 EU governments that will have to help the industrial sectors hit hardest. The most affected industries are steel, aluminium, cars, timber and pharmaceuticals. U.S. tariffs of 25% are already in place on steel, aluminium and cars.
The European Central Bank and the European Commission estimate the impact of the U.S. tariffs on the EU economy would be substantial and total 0.5% to 1.0% of GDP. Given the EU economy as a whole is forecast to grow 0.9% this year, according to the ECB, the U.S. tariffs could put the EU in recession.
Coordination of industry support will be key because some governments have stronger public finances and can afford to help their companies while others cannot. Such inequality would distort fair competition in the single EU market.
"Ministers will share their view as to how one could react at the national level, but then the idea is to coordinate, because we wouldn't like to see a race to flood national markets with money in an uncoordinated way," the official said on condition of anonymity.
"Not every member state has the same fiscal space. So that's why we have this discussion on national reactions and the coordination of our national responses in a way that would not be harmful to the single market," the official added.
The EU's single market of 450 million consumers is one of the biggest assets the bloc has in any trade disputes, but to make it really effective, the EU must reduce the regulatory constraints that effectively act as tariffs.
The International Monetary Fund estimates intra-EU trade barriers are equivalent to a 44% tariff on goods and a 110% tariff on services. EU ministers are likely to focus on reducing these obstacles to EU trade as a key response to U.S. tariffs.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's Xi meets with Lukashenko of 'all-weather' partner Belarus
BEIJING (Reuters) -Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday met with President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus in Beijing, the official Xinhua news agency reported, as the two "all-weather" partners looked to further deepen strategic ties and cooperation. Lukashenko's visit to Beijing was his first to the Chinese capital since he was declared a winner of a presidential election in January, extending his 31-year rule of the former Soviet republic.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bulgaria hoping for EU Commission's green light to use euro
Bulgaria's hopes of joining the euro may receive a critical boost on Wednesday when the European Commission gives its view on whether the country has met the conditions for joining the common currency. The government in Sofia announced at the beginning of the year that it was carrying out a new push to join the eurozone by January 2026. Bulgaria has been a member of the European Union since 2007 and had previously planned to replace its national currency, the lev, with the euro in 2024, but the adoption was postponed due to a comparatively high inflation rate of 9.5% at the time. The commission recently said it expects an inflation rate of 3.6% for Bulgaria in the current year and 1.8% in 2026, raising hopes that Sofia is ready to join the eurozone. The criteria for joining the euro include price stability, sound public finances and stable exchange rates, among other conditions. If the commission concludes that Bulgaria is ready to become the 21st EU country to use the common currency, the other EU countries and the European Parliament will still have to give their consent. Within Bulgaria itself, the possible introduction of the euro has been accompanied by fierce protests. The pro-Russian nationalist opposition party Vazrazhdane (Revival) called for a referendum on keeping the lev. Activists collected 604,000 signatures in favour of a referendum. The Bulgarian parliament however has twice rejected a referendum on the currency issue - in 2023 and recently in May 2025.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness
Last week, a federal court ruled that President Donald Trump had exceeded his statutory authority by imposing a raft of tariffs based on the "national emergency" supposedly caused by the longstanding U.S. trade deficit. Those tariffs are part of an alarming pattern: In his rush to enact his agenda, Trump frequently treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat. The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes he announced in February and April. The three-judge panel said that 48-year-old law, which does not even mention tariffs and had never been used this way before, does not authorize the president to "impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world." That decision did not affect tariffs that Trump has imposed or proposed under different statutes, such as his taxes on cars, steel, and aluminum. But by invoking the IEEPA, Trump hoped to avoid the specific rationales and sometimes lengthy procedures those laws mandate. Trump's immigration crackdown features similar legal shortcuts. After he asserted the power to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang as "alien enemies," for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they had a due process right to contest that designation. That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements. Something similar happened when Immigration and Customs Enforcement suddenly terminated thousands of records in the database of foreign students with visas authorizing them to attend American universities. Although that move was described as part of a "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," it affected many people without disqualifying criminal records—in some cases, without any criminal records at all. Those terminations "reflect an instinct that has become prevalent in our society to effectuate change: move fast and break things," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote when he issued a preliminary injunction against the initiative on May 22. "That instinct must be checked when it conflicts with established principles of law." The same instinct is apparent in Trump's conflict with Harvard University. The administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, ostensibly because the university, by tolerating antisemitism on campus, had failed to meet its "responsibility to uphold civil rights laws." That decision ignored the legal process for rescinding federal funding based on such alleged violations. The process includes "a lot of steps, but they're important," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes. "They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right." Trump's disregard for the law is coupled with angry dismay at judicial review. As he sees it, any judge who dares to impede his will is a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!" After the tariff ruling, a White House spokesman argued that the court charged with interpreting and applying trade laws had no business doing that. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," he insisted. Contrary to that take, "it is emphatically the province and duty" of the judicial branch to "say what the law is," as Chief Justice John Marshall put it 222 years ago. Especially when the executive branch is headed by someone who does not seem to care. © Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc. The post Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness appeared first on