The tariffs imposed by the United States on 24 July against 60 countries, including European Union members, signal an emerging phase of protectionist measures. Brussels could find itself compelled to counter this challenge to its authority, ushering in a more perilous period for transatlantic trade relations.

When declaring the tariffs, the US trade representative's office stated that the United States stands alone in enacting and upholding a prohibition on imports produced with forced labor. Although the EU maintains similar restrictions, the effectiveness of enforcement appears subject to interpretation by the current US administration.

A European Commission spokesperson sought to frame the US move positively, noting alignment with prior tariff understandings from EU-US discussions. Yet this framing struggles to mask the underlying tensions.

The Trump administration contends that its exports suffer due to insufficient EU action against forced-labor imports. Officials point to Poland's reduced purchases of American tobacco alongside rising imports from Malawi, where production allegedly involves forced labor. While US tobacco has lost ground in that market, such shipments represent only a minor fraction of overall American exports to Poland and a negligible portion of total US trade.

These forced-labor arguments from the Trump team seem to address an issue that barely exists in practice.

The inconsistency in the administration's position stands out sharply. Two International Labor Organization conventions prohibit forced labor, with 61 nations having endorsed them. The United States has not joined these pacts, possibly because several American states permit prison labor arrangements with private enterprises.

What appears to drive the strategy?

The forced-labor actions serve as an opening for wider extraterritorial reach of US rules. Should Washington judge another country's laws or their application inadequate or contrary to American interests, the administration seems prepared to apply tariffs as leverage for changes favoring US economic goals.

If these tariffs withstand US judicial review, existing complaints about EU regulations could face similar pressure next.

Conflicts surrounding digital oversight

US officials have long maintained that the EU Digital Markets Act singles out American tech companies unfairly. A group of two dozen US lawmakers recently called on President Trump to open a Section 301 probe into the DMA, mirroring the forced-labor approach.

Following the EU's 890 million euro penalty against Google for alleged DMA breaches, Trump posted on Truth Social that an investigation would begin promptly into practices seen as harming American companies and taxpayers, with substantial tariffs expected soon after.

The EU carbon border adjustment mechanism and digital services taxes in member states may face comparable scrutiny.

The long-standing Helms-Burton disagreement is also resurfacing. It originated when Congress broadened the US Cuba embargo to cover foreign companies dealing with the Castro government and to penalize those involved in property once held by US citizens. After three presidents had suspended such actions, the Trump administration permitted them in 2019, and the US Supreme Court ruled in May that related claims against foreign firms, many European, can advance.

Reciprocal measures remain available.

The EU-US Data Privacy Framework allows American companies to transfer valuable consumer data from Europe without breaching EU rules, provided Washington ensures independent oversight. The European Commission initially supported this setup, citing the Federal Trade Commission as sufficiently independent. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling permitting presidential removal of FTC commissioners has raised doubts about that independence.

European privacy advocates are now contesting the framework in court. Should they succeed, US firms benefiting from European data flows could encounter significant costs.

The EU might also tighten enforcement of rules requiring major global corporations, many American, to address environmental risks throughout their operations and supply chains.

Such steps risk escalating tensions sharply.

Differences in legal and regulatory approaches have long strained transatlantic ties and resisted easy resolution. Yet extending domestic law beyond borders to advance narrow economic interests poses a serious risk to international trade.