American tariffs threaten millions of jobs, the European automotive industry is crumbling under pressure from Washington and Beijing, and by 2035 the industry must go fully electric — but MEP Benoît Cassart says that is not realistic.
Cassart (Renew/BEL) sits on the European Parliament’s transport committee and has been watching the transatlantic trade tensions escalate with growing alarm. He spoke to EU Perspectives about what Brussels must do to protect European workers, whether the 2035 electric deadline can survive contact with reality, and what it means to build industrial strategy on a partner you can no longer trust.
How should the EU respond if the US imposes tariffs on European cars and trucks? Through negotiation, retaliation, or trade defence instruments?
The EU should pursue negotiations, but negotiations must be backed by credibility. This means that trade defence instruments should remain on the table and be ready to be deployed if necessary.
At the same time, our objective remains a negotiated solution. Renew strongly supports a robust transatlantic trade relationship and is not seeking escalation. However, such a partnership can only function if both sides act as reliable partners. The European Parliament must therefore follow the proper procedures and resist pressure from the US President. Decisions affecting European industries and workers must be taken in accordance with European interests, rules and democratic processes.
How exposed is the European automotive sector to potential US tariffs, and which segments or member states would suffer most?
The US is one of the most important export destinations for European vehicles, so the exposure is both real and significant. The impact would go far beyond major manufacturers. Suppliers, SMEs and workers across the entire automotive value chain would also be affected. Several member states would feel the consequences, albeit in different ways depending on the structure of their industries.
At the same time, we must also acknowledge that part of the challenge facing the European automotive sector is linked to its loss of competitiveness compared to Asian competitors. This underlines the need not only to respond to external trade pressures, but also to strengthen Europe’s industrial base, innovation capacity and long-term competitiveness.
You might be interested
What would be the broader impact of such tariffs on EU supply chains, mobility policy, and the competitiveness of European manufacturers?
The impact would be felt at multiple levels: on suppliers, on investment capacity, and ultimately on the industry’s ability to finance the transition it’s currently going through.
More broadly, the tariffs would further weaken the position of European manufacturers in an increasingly competitive global market. Asian competitors are already gaining market share in strategic segments such as electric vehicles and batteries. This is why Europe must both defend its economic interests externally and reinforce its industrial competitiveness internally.
Do you see this situation accelerating the EU’s push for strategic autonomy, particularly in the automotive and industrial sectors?
It certainly reinforces the argument. When a major trading partner acts with this level of unpredictability, the case for reducing dependencies becomes harder to ignore. You can’t build long-term industrial strategy on a foundation that shifts every few weeks based on a social media post.
You can’t build long-term industrial strategy on a foundation that shifts every few weeks based on a social media post.
— Benoît Cassart, Renew Europe (BEL)
That doesn’t mean protectionism. It means building resilience in supply chains, in critical inputs, in our capacity to act independently when we need to. I strongly welcome Commissioner Séjourné’s proposal under the “Industrial Accelerator Act”. It aims to promote the “Buy European” principle in public procurement in order to direct public funding towards companies that create jobs and manufacture within the European Union.
What would new tariffs mean for EU–US trade relations, and is there still room to avoid escalation?
There is still room, and we want to use it. Renew is genuinely in favour of a transatlantic deal. But a deal is a deal, and that framework matters to us. However, right now the conditions for a durable agreement aren’t fully there. Recent Supreme Court rulings raise real questions about the legal durability of executive trade commitments on the American side.
American trade courts have also raised doubts about the legality and justification of President Trump’s tariffs, highlighting the uncertainty and instability such measures create for international trade and economic relations. And the posture we’ve seen toward Greenland raises questions about reliability more broadly. We’re not obstructionist. We’re asking for proof that commitments will be honoured. That’s not an unreasonable ask.
From a TRAN committee perspective, what policy measures should the EU prioritise to support the automotive sector in this context?
From a TRAN committee perspective, the EU should prioritise policies that strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of the European automotive sector while maintaining technological openness.
Setting a de facto 100% full-electric target by 2035 is a mistake.
— Benoît Cassart
My first point — although it is not shared by all my colleagues in Renew — is the importance of technological neutrality. The future of the automotive sector will undoubtedly involve electrification. But setting a de facto 100% full-electric target by 2035 is a mistake. Innovation evolves rapidly, and we should avoid closing the door to alternative technologies that could also contribute to decarbonisation.
Biofuels, renewable fuels and other low-carbon solutions should remain part of the discussion. Moreover, the automotive sector is not limited to passenger cars. We must also consider heavy-duty vehicles and trucks, where full electrification remains technically challenging, extremely costly and economically difficult to implement.
The EU should therefore focus on supporting innovation across multiple technologies, investing in infrastructure, securing supply chains, reducing regulatory burdens and ensuring that climate objectives remain compatible with industrial competitiveness.
