Trump's Trade War: What Answers for the European Union?
The announcement, on April 2, 2025, of “reciprocal tariffs” by the United States has opened a sequence of profound break with decades of established trade policy practices, where the administration behaviour has been marked by dogmatic blindness, amateurism, and self-serving interests.
Finding a coherent strategy behind the rapid succession of measures, suspensions, and purported agreements is challenging, and the successive policy reversals are best explained by the administration’s own inconsistencies. The damage is nonetheless real for partners. For the European Union, it calls for firm but measured responses, without seeking symmetrical retaliation. While division is a threat, the inherent slowness of European procedures could be an asset in this context, as the United States will be confronted with its own contradictions. Broad retaliatory measures should be considered, beyond trade in goods, and the hypothesis of a first activation of the anti-coercion instrument should not be ruled out at this stage, on the contrary.
This analysis is only available in French.
Available in:
Themes and regions
ISBN / ISSN
Share
Author(s)
Sébastien JEAN
Associate Director of Ifri's Geoeconomics and Geofinance initiative
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Geoeconomics and Geofinance Initiative
To analyze the impact of power rivalries and tensions on globalization, this initiative combines economic and political expertise. In the face of growing geopolitical risk, the goal is to decipher the dynamics of reconfiguration: protectionist pressures, sanctions, restrictions, industrial policies, and economic security concerns are redefining the rules of international trade. These tensions are also transforming international financial relations by undermining the foundations of trust and reshaping the global monetary system. They raise questions about the role of several key players: sovereign wealth funds, central banks, digital platforms, multilateral institutions, and financial infrastructure operators. In a context of profound disruption, simply refining existing approaches is no longer sufficient. The initiative is designed as a flexible model, drawing on diverse expertise to offer both broad overviews and targeted analyses. It also provides a platform for stakeholders and experts from various backgrounds to debate these issues freely.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
Manufacturing Risk: Geopolitical Doxa and the Corporate World
The evolving power dynamics between the United States, China, and Russia are creating new geopolitical realities that businesses can no longer evade. Geopolitical risk has become unavoidable, yet many companies remain unprepared to navigate its complexities. Corporate leaders can no longer afford to overlook its implications.
How Geopolitical Tensions Reshape Trade Patterns: Geoeconomic Fragmentation, or China’s Big Manufacturing Push?
A data-based analysis shows that widespread geoeconomic fragmentation of world trade is not visible, at least so far. In contrast, the geopolitically-motivated challenges to international coordination are striking, notably in relation with China's surging surplus in manufactured goods trade.
Multi-alignment and De-risking: The Global South Response to World Fragmentation
Turbulences and conflicts threaten the stability of the global order. What is the Global South’s response to these risks?
Power and Financial Interdependence
The link between financial self-reliance and geopolitical power has long been debated. The unbalanced Sino-American trade relationship has created asymmetric financial ties which generate potential sources of leverage for both parties and will not quickly disappear. Absent a clarifying major crisis, it will be difficult to definitively determine which party has greater leverage.