So Donald Trump chose – very inconveniently JUST after I published my previous note đ – not to ignore today’s European Commission fine on Google, despite as I argued earlier that his own Department of Justice just won remedies against Google for doing pretty much the same thing against US consumers. Double standards weren’t a hindrance in the end, as the President’s Trust Social postings make clear.
Europe today “hit” another great American company, Google, with a $3.5 Billion Dollar fine, effectively taking money that would otherwise go to American Investments and Jobs. This is on top of the many other Fines and Taxes that have been issued against Google and other American Tech Companies, in particular. Very unfair, and the American Taxpayer will not stand for it! As I have said before, my Administration will NOT allow these discriminatory actions to stand. Apple, as an example, was forced to pay $17 Billion Dollars in a Fine that, in my opinion, should not have been charged â They should get their money back! We cannot let this happen to brilliant and unprecedented American Ingenuity and, if it does, I will be forced to start a Section 301 proceeding to nullify the unfair penalties being charged to these Taxpaying American Companies. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In addition to my previously posted TRUTH concerning Google, please let this Statement serve to represent that Google has also paid, in the past, $13 Billion Dollars in false claims and charges for a total of $16.5 Billion Dollars. How crazy is that? The European Union must stop this practice against American Companies, IMMEDIATELY!
This does still not, however, suggest that a renewed full-blown trade transatlantic trade war is imminent, or that it was a political mistake by the European Commission to impose the fine.
First of all, it is striking that President Trump is here threatening the EU not with what have previously been more or less immediate retaliatory IEEPA tariffs (often for rather flimsily national security justifications), but rather Section 301 retaliatory tariffs, levied under Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 301-310, 19 U.S.C. §§2411-2420), titled âRelief from Unfair Trade Practices”. Such tariffs, however, typically take between 12-18months, including investigations to determine whether “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign government (1) violates, is inconsistent with, or denies benefits to the United States under a trade agreement; or (2) is âunjustifiableâ and âburdens or restrictsâ U.S. commerce.”
In other words, President Trump is not threatening immediate retaliation against the Google fine, but only actions coming into force well into 2026 at a time when the political situation in the U.S. might be different, the war in Ukraine also in a different place, and hence the transatlantic relationship fundamentally changed. Hence, it is not an unreasonable political risk taken by the European Commission in levying this fine, despite Donald Trump’s immediate reaction, as the evoked retaliation is quite far into the future and hence uncertain and subject to a political and practical “discount rate”. That Section 301 is relied upon here seems to follow from the nature of the Google fine – an unjustifiable burden on U.S. commerce – but could of course also indicate a reduced faith with Donald Trump in the ultimate credibility of his to date preferred IEEPA tool.
Lastly, it is conceivable that the Commission has reasoned that the August trade arrangement was focused on responding to Trump’s IEEPA tariffs and Section 232 tariffs on especially steel, aluminum and autos. Section 301 tariffs were not really included in this deal, and hence since it might have been expected that Section 301 would be utilized against this fine, the Commission will indeed be encouraged that Trump’s choice of this as “retaliation vehicle” may not unravel the earlier deal. More cynically, it is likely also the belief in Brussels that Donald Trump would in any case eventually try to alter the “terms of the August deal in his favor”, so Brussels might therefore just as well take the opportunity to “alter transatlantic trade relations at the margin” at a time of its opportune choosing, rather than wait for Donald Trump to inevitably take the initiative.
In sum, Trump’s threat to impose Section 301 tariffs on the EU in retaliation for the new fine on Google does not alter the implication that this fine is not likely to undo the U.S.-EU trade arrangement from early August. A renewed transatlantic trade war remains a relatively low risk.
Jacob
