European policymakers are quietly assembling a toolkit that could turn the continent’s digital rulebook into a powerful lever against Washington. What began as a push to rein in Big Tech and shield Europe from economic coercion is now colliding with a worsening trade dispute over Greenland and fresh tariff threats from President Donald Trump, raising the prospect that Europe’s own tech sector becomes a weapon in a broader geopolitical contest. I see a fragile balance emerging, where laws written in the name of “fair competition” and “strategic autonomy” risk being repurposed as instruments of retaliation against the United States.
At the center of this shift is a cluster of new regulations and trade defenses that give Brussels unprecedented reach into the business models of American platforms and the supply chains that underpin them. As officials in Brussels talk up their readiness to respond to any U.S. move on tariffs or debt, investors and executives on both sides of the Atlantic are starting to treat Europe’s digital policy not just as compliance risk, but as a potential front line in a transatlantic economic confrontation.
From digital rulebook to geopolitical lever
Europe’s regulatory push began as a technocratic project to curb the market power of global platforms, but it has evolved into something far more strategic. The flagship Digital Markets Act, promoted by the European Commission as a way of ensuring “fair and open digital markets,” gives regulators sweeping powers over the largest online “gatekeepers,” many of them American, and embeds the idea that Brussels can unilaterally reshape how these firms operate inside the single market. The same logic is now being extended into network infrastructure, with the Digital Markets Act framed as part of a broader push to make Europe “fit for the digital age.
Earlier this year, the European Commission went further by unveiling its proposal for a new Digital Networks Act, or DNA, which would tighten oversight of critical connectivity and cloud infrastructure. The Commission’s DNA Propo is explicitly about security and cross border operation, but in practice it would give Brussels another channel to scrutinize and potentially constrain U.S. cloud and telecom providers that underpin European data flows. When I look at these measures together, I see a regulatory architecture that can be justified on competition or security grounds, yet is flexible enough to be deployed in response to political pressure from member states seeking leverage over Washington.
The Anti-Coercion “bazooka” and the Greenland trigger
Alongside the regulatory rulebook, the European Union has armed itself with a new trade defense known as the Anti Coercion Instrument, a measure that officials and analysts have already nicknamed a “bazooka.” The Anti-Coercion Instrument, described as Combining security policy and trade policy, is designed to deter economic coercion by allowing the bloc to impose penalties on countries that pressure its members. The ACI is a tool that could allow the bloc to retaliate with tariffs, procurement bans or restrictions on investment, and it entered into force with the explicit aim of discouraging tactics previously associated with China.
Yet the political mood has shifted so quickly that, as one analysis put it, this so called “bazooka” was designed to thwart China, but Instead, Europeans are thinking first of using it against the U.S. in the event of a full blown trade clash. The immediate flashpoint is Greenland, where a dispute over resource access and shipping routes has already prompted scenario analysis about how a Greenland crisis could morph into a Big Tech problem. Here, Wilson, a strategist cited in one such assessment, warned that the more notable risk is tied to whether the EU activates its anti coercion powers in response to U.S. pressure over Greenland.
How Europe could hit U.S. platforms where it hurts
If the Anti Coercion Instrument is the legal chassis, the real payload lies in how Brussels could target the U.S. tech ecosystem. The ACI is a tool that could allow the bloc to retaliate by restricting market access for specific sectors, and analysts have already sketched out scenarios in which the EU focuses on cloud services, app stores and digital advertising dominated by American firms. One detailed breakdown of the trade bazooka notes that it was adopted in late 2023 with the explicit purpose of responding to economic coercion, and that it can be triggered after an investigation to determine if coercion exists, giving Brussels wide discretion over which industries to hit through The ACI.
In a Greenland trade war scenario, European officials are already gaming out how to focus retaliation on the digital economy rather than traditional goods. One widely cited analysis of How Europe might respond argues that Europe could bar U.S. cloud providers from sensitive public contracts, slow walk approvals for American data center expansions, or even block certain app store payments, moves that would ripple from Silicon Valley to the broader American economy. Outlook assessments of transatlantic trade defense warn that While de escalation remains possible, any U.S. tariffs on EU members would prompt reciprocal action, and The EU stands ready to use its new instruments in ways that could force U.S. companies to unpick their supplier relationships in Outlook scenarios.
Washington cries foul as Brussels digs in
Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration is treating this emerging toolkit as a direct threat to U.S. commercial interests. A senior U.S. official has already accused the EU of trying to “throttle” U.S. tech companies, with those comments landing just as a high level EU technical team arrived in Wash for talks on digital regulation. The criticism coincides with a broader clash over the digital rulebook, where Brussels Refuses to soften its approach or carve out exemptions for American firms, and instead insists that its enforcement agenda will apply to all companies regardless of origin, a stance that has hardened perceptions in Washington that Europe is deliberately targeting U.S. champions through Wash.
On the European side, officials argue that they are simply leveling the playing field, but critics counter that the European Union has turned tech regulation into a revenue and power tool that disproportionately hits American firms. One detailed critique notes that Brussels insists it is “leveling the playing field,” yet in reality the European Union has created a system where if you are big and successful, Brussels will punish you for it, a dynamic that risks backfiring strategically, economically and geopolitically. The same analysis warns that by overusing its regulatory clout, Brussels could encourage the U.S. to respond with its own forms of weaponization, from tariffs to tighter scrutiny of European acquisitions, deepening the sense that the digital economy has become a battleground rather than a shared growth engine, as highlighted in Brussels.
Tariffs, debt and the risk of mutual self harm
All of this is unfolding against a fraught macro backdrop in which both sides are already testing each other’s red lines. Trump’s latest E.U. tariff threats have prompted market strategists to warn that even “idiosyncratic rather than broad based” measures could accelerate a shift in capital away from Europe, with one assessment noting that They said fresh tariff potential is “idiosyncratic rather than broad-based,” with just around 2.2% of MSCI Europe revenues directly exposed to the U.S. market. That figure, 2.2%, may sound small, but it masks the outsized role of U.S. demand for Europe’s most globally integrated sectors, including autos, luxury goods and advanced manufacturing, as flagged in analysis of They.
More from Morning Overview