The European Union’s 15% blanket tariff agreement with the United States, once criticized by some MEPs and industry figures as a “bad deal,” is now under renewed scrutiny in the face of Donald Trump’s latest trade offensive. The new threats are forcing a reassessment of the deal’s merits, with arguments emerging on both sides of the debate.
On one side, critics can point to the new tariff threats as proof that the deal was indeed weak. They can argue that a “good deal” would have prevented the US from targeting specific sectors like trucks or from opening new investigations into areas like medical devices. From this perspective, the agreement failed to provide the comprehensive, long-term security that European businesses need.
On the other side, supporters of the deal can now hold it up as a vital, if imperfect, shield. They can point to the dire situation of the United Kingdom, which lacks such a deal and is now facing a catastrophic 100% tariff on a key industry. From this viewpoint, the EU’s 15% “insurance policy” looks very good in comparison, proving its worth as a crucial defensive measure that prevents the worst-case scenario.
The EU’s official position reflects this defensive stance. A spokesperson’s statement that the agreement “represents an insurance policy that no higher tariffs will emerge” is a clear attempt to frame the deal as a success in a difficult environment.
This renewed debate highlights the complexity of trade negotiation in the current era. A deal can be simultaneously criticized for its concessions and praised for the protection it offers. As the US continues to apply pressure, the argument over whether the EU got a “bad deal” or a necessary one is likely to intensify.
