Brussels has avoided a trade war with the United States, but at a high political and economic cost. The agreement reached between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and U.S. President Donald Trump imposes a 15% tariff on most European products exported to the American market. Brussels has described the deal as “the best possible agreement under the circumstances,” which has caused discontent both in the agri-food sector and across much of the European Parliament.
Von der Leyen has found herself cornered. The American ultimatum was clear: without a deal before August 1, tariffs would rise to 30%. Faced with an imminent threat, the Commission President opted for a quick agreement—finalized in just an hour—at Trump’s residence in Scotland. However, the speed of the negotiation, lacking an explicit parliamentary mandate or in-depth consultation with Member States, has triggered a wave of criticism over the lack of transparency and sense of improvisation.
The Commission has defended the deal as a way to preserve trade and geopolitical stability with the U.S. According to Vice President Maroš Šefčovič, the agreement “saves trade flows, protects European jobs, and maintains strategic cooperation with Washington during a time of great international volatility.” However, these arguments have failed to convince key sectors and many MEPs, who demand greater clarity and accuse Von der Leyen of acting alone.
The most controversial aspect has been the direct impact on Europe’s agri-food sector, particularly in countries like Spain, France, and Italy. The olive oil industry, highly dependent on the U.S. market, has been among the most vocal. Asoliva warned that the 15% tariff represents a severe market distortion and puts recent years of investment at risk. The Spanish Wine Federation estimates that exports could fall by up to 10%, directly affecting key export regions.
Organizations like FIAB and Cooperativas Agro-Alimentarias consider the agreement unbalanced and call for support measures for the most vulnerable businesses. COAG and UPA acknowledge that the scenario could have been worse, but warn that this deal does not eliminate uncertainty. José Luis Miguel, COAG’s technical director, expressed “moderate relief,” while emphasizing that “we still need to see the fine print.” Ignacio Huertas of UPA was more blunt: “This is a capitulation of European interests to the U.S.”
Beyond the tariff impact, the agreement includes significant political and economic commitments. The EU has pledged to purchase American energy—gas, oil, and nuclear—worth $750 billion through 2029 and to encourage European investments in the U.S. totaling $600 billion. These commitments, announced without going through ordinary legislative channels, have raised concern even within the European People’s Party. Several MEPs have demanded explanations about the agreement’s exact content and legal basis.
Other sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, remain outside the general tariff for now but are subject to ongoing investigations by the U.S. government. The lack of legal guarantees has raised fears that the situation may worsen if Washington decides to impose additional duties. Steel and aluminum will continue to face 50% tariffs, although both blocs have agreed to work on an undefined quota system.
Political parties have been outspoken in France, where the government has remained silent. Prime Minister François Bayrou called the deal an act of “submission,” while the business group Medef and the French SME confederation labeled it “disastrous.” In Germany, criticism has been more measured, but the BDI lamented that the agreement sends “a very negative signal” for the future of transatlantic trade.
What was supposed to be a show of European negotiating strength has instead exposed its structural weaknesses. The Commission had tools, such as the Anti-Coercion Instrument, but never activated them. Divided Member States failed to provide firm backing, and von der Leyen opted for the fast and pragmatic route, even at the risk of political isolation.
Barely two weeks after surviving a vote of confidence, the Commission president now faces a political storm: questions from within her own parliamentary group, a Parliament demanding more oversight of international commitments, and an agricultural sector accusing Brussels of abandoning its production model in exchange for a poor deal.
The question now is not whether Europe has yielded—but how much more it is willing to yield to avoid conflict.
