European Union ambassadors met in Brussels on short notice after President Donald Trump threatened 10% tariffs on eight European countries over a dispute linked to Greenland. The session, convened to review Washington’s announced tariff policy, produced no consensus on activating the EU’s strongest countermeasures and exposed deep divides between member states over how far to push back.
Delegates agreed in principle that the U.S. action is “unacceptable” and damaging to transatlantic relations, and they revived a tariff schedule worth roughly €93 billion as a potential response. Yet the list is not new: it was drawn up last year and deliberately suspended until 6 February to avoid immediate escalation, leaving Brussels with a partially scripted but politically fraught option rather than a clear, united course of action.
Paris pushed hardest for the EU to deploy its so‑called “anti‑coercion” mechanism — a toolbox critics and supporters alike have nicknamed the bloc’s trade “bazooka” — which would permit retaliatory tariffs, investment curbs and other restrictive steps against coercive third‑country behaviour. The mechanism has never been activated; its legal and political procedures are complex and require broad member support, which proved elusive at the emergency meeting.
Differences are now stark: France and several other capitals favoured a muscular response to deter further U.S. pressure, while Italy and other more cautious governments warned that rapid retaliation could spiral into a damaging transatlantic trade war. European Commission officials and member states signalled a preference for preserving space for high‑level diplomacy, notably a planned face‑to‑face encounter between EU leaders and President Trump at the Davos World Economic Forum.
For the moment Brussels appears to be buying time. Officials said draft retaliatory measures are still being worked on so that European leaders will have leverage should they need it in bilateral talks with the White House. That approach reflects an effort to balance deterrence with de‑escalation — but it also underscores how constrained the EU’s options are when its members are not aligned.
The dispute carries wider implications. If implemented by Washington, tariffs on Europe could mark the most serious rupture in transatlantic economic relations in decades, complicating NATO cooperation and unsettling global markets and supply chains. The emergency meeting showed that while the EU has institutional tools to respond, political unity — not legal instruments — will determine whether those tools are used and how costly any ensuing trade confrontation becomes.