The European Parliament’s most senior trade lawmakers have failed to agree on a common stance on the long-awaited EU-U.S. trade agreement, which has laid bare the deep-seated political divisions and could cause further delays that might test the patience of Washington with Brussels.
This comes despite extensive negotiations and mounting economic pressure to stabilize the transatlantic trade relationship in the face of rising geopolitical uncertainty. Although the lawmakers have decided to unfreeze the implementation of the trade agreement in principle, they have not been able to iron out their differences on the removal of tariffs on U.S. industrial products and lobster, which are seen as crucial to the agreement by Washington.
A Deal Already Out of Sync
The impasse is especially delicate because the United States has already made a move. Washington lowered tariffs on European automobilies last year when the EU passed enabling legislation—the legislation that is now stuck in parliamentary squabbles.
The imbalance could perpetuate a longstanding U.S. grievance: that the EU’s decision-making process is slow, disjointed, and prone to domestic politics, even after agreements are reached at high levels.
As per the trade statistics of the EU, the volume of transatlantic trade in goods and services is over €1.6 trillion every year, supporting millions of jobs on both sides. Even small disruptions caused by tariffs can have a huge impact on areas such as automobile manufacturing, agri-food exports, and industrial machinery.
Calls for Unity Amid Geopolitical Turmoil
Bernd Lange, the European Parliament’s trade committee chief and lead lawmaker on the case, said internal conflicts are damaging the EU’s credibility.
“We need a strong united Europe in this geopolitical context,”
Lange said.
“This is not a question of tactics, political preferences, or national reflexes—it’s a European question.”
Lange confirmed that lawmakers will take up the case again with a committee vote scheduled for 24 February, followed by a possible plenary vote on 11 March, if outstanding amendments can be agreed.
‘Trump-Proofing’ the Agreement
The political tensions have escalated after U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed threats against the territorial sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark, which have undermined confidence in the reliability of Washington as a trade partner.
The liberal group Renew Europe, the Socialists & Democrats, and the Greens are now calling for the agreement to be “Trump-proofed” by incorporating suspension clauses into the legislation. These provisions would enable the EU to suspend the agreement if the U.S. imposes new tariffs, increases trade pressure, or threatens the security interests of the EU.
Most importantly, the proposal would include the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), which is the strongest trade defense tool of the EU, aimed at retaliating against economic coercion.
“To move forward, we need a Trump-proofed agreement,”
said Renew’s lead negotiator Karin Karlsbro.
“If the U.S. threatens new tariffs or the EU’s security interests, the agreement will be suspended.”
Center-Right Resistance and Business Pressure
The European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group in the European Parliament, has been strongly opposed to the deal being linked to the Anti-Coercion Instrument, as it may lead to escalating tensions and a lack of legal certainty for companies. The EPP lawmakers are calling for swift approval to restore predictability for exporters and manufacturers.
“I am disappointed we didn’t reach a deal today,”
said Željana Zovko, the EPP’s lead lawmaker on the file.
Business groups warn that prolonged uncertainty could deter investment and weaken Europe’s industrial competitiveness, particularly as U.S. firms benefit from faster decision-making and large-scale industrial subsidies under Washington’s economic strategy.
Steel Tariffs and Sunset Clauses Complicate Talks
Additional points of contention remain unresolved. Lawmakers are divided over:
- The length of a sunset clause, which would limit the agreement’s application to between 18 and 36 months
- Whether the EU should withhold tariff concessions until the U.S. lifts its 50 percent tariff on steel derivatives, imposed under the Trump administration
The steel dispute is especially sensitive. EU steel exports to the U.S. have already been hit hard by safeguard measures and national-security tariffs, contributing to plant closures and job losses in several member states.
Risk of Further Institutional Delays
Wednesday’s inability to come to a consensus may end up postponing the onset of so-called “trilogue” talks between the European Parliament, member states of the EU, and the European Commission, thereby further postponing the eventual adoption of the legislation for the rest of the year.
Each postponement not only adds to the complications in relations with Washington but also reveals the internal divisions of the EU at a time when trade policy is becoming increasingly entwined with security, industry, and geopolitics.
A Test of Europe’s Strategic Credibility
At its core, the dispute reflects a broader dilemma: how to balance economic pragmatism with strategic caution in dealing with an unpredictable U.S. administration.
While most political groups agree on the importance of stabilizing transatlantic trade, the inability to agree on safeguards underscores how fragile consensus has become within the EU itself.
Unless lawmakers can bridge their differences quickly, the EU risks sending a damaging signal—that even limited, narrowly scoped trade agreements can become casualties of internal paralysis at a time when global trade is growing more confrontational and less forgiving.
