France and Germany have sharply criticized the EU‑U.S. trade deal, calling it a concession that weakens European negotiating power. The agreement introduces a 15 percent tariff on most European goods exported to the United States. While it avoids the higher 30 percent threat that previously loomed, critics say it still imposes heavier burdens on Europe than many expected.
French leaders described the deal as a form of submission to U.S. pressure. For them, accepting increased tariffs represented a significant diplomatic setback. The deal sparked public anger in France, especially after the prime minister called it a “dark day for Europe.” By contrast, Germany expressed guarded support while warning of substantial economic damage.
Despite the backlash from France and Germany, several EU leaders welcomed the trade accord. German officials highlighted that the deal removed uncertainty and prevented escalation. They argued that facing 30 percent tariffs would have inflicted grave economic harm. Many EU states believed the deal, though imperfect, was preferable to a full-blown trade war.
The EU-U.S. trade deal applies a uniform 15 percent tariff to most goods. However, exemptions will apply to key sectors like pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and aircraft components. The higher tariffs remain in place for steel and aluminum unless new agreements are made. These distinctions reflect ongoing negotiations and the deal’s incomplete status.
Since the agreement’s announcement, European markets have reacted sharply. Investor confidence in the EU dropped significantly, with indices in Germany, France, and across the continent showing early gains that quickly reversed. The euro also weakened against the dollar, reflecting concerns over the deal’s long-term economic implications.
Leaders in both France and Germany emphasized the need to strengthen Europe’s trade position going forward. They argued that EU decision-makers must develop greater negotiating unity and assertiveness. German voices among them proposed that future talks should include quota systems or tighter rules to better safeguard sensitive industries.
The trade deal is seen as asymmetric, critics argue, because most benefits are skewed toward U.S. interests. As part of the agreement, the EU agreed to invest heavily in U.S. energy and industrial goods. Critics say this illustrates how the U.S. secured concessions while offering limited reciprocal guarantees.
Observers say the EU-U.S. trade deal sets a precedent for future international negotiations. The fact that most member states accepted the terms highlights divisions within the EU. Some now believe Brussels may have prioritized crisis avoidance over principled bargaining.
Although the deal averts tariffs of up to 50 percent in steel and 30 percent in autos, analysts warn that the deal remains fragile. Key sectors like wine, spirits, and agriculture still await clarity on their tariff status. Any future U.S. investigation could trigger higher rates on these goods too.
France and Germany’s criticism reflects broader European concern. Their stance echoes arguments that the deal trades long-term competitiveness for short-term stability. Critics now urge the EU to explore alternative trade partnerships, reduce dependency on U.S. markets, and invest in strategic autonomy.
Ultimately, the EU-U.S. trade deal avoided the worst-case scenario but fell short of expectations for many European leaders. Despite relief from some quarters, doubts remain over whether the agreement serves Europe’s economic interests well. France and Germany’s opposition underscores the ongoing challenge of finding unity within the EU on big strategic decisions.
About The Author
