EU lawmakers struck a provisional deal Wednesday to implement the EU-US trade agreement, but left several of its most contentious disputes unresolved. Among the measures dropped was a European Parliament-backed clause that would have suspended the agreement if Washington threatened the sovereignty of EU territory.
The agreement, reached almost a year after the original framework was signed, brings about concessions between the European Parliament and member states over how to deal with the unpredictable Trump administration.
What the deal does
The EU will begin lifting tariffs as agreed under the Turnberry framework, but Brussels retains the right to suspend those reductions if Washington is deemed not to be honouring the agreement. The implementing regulation will also expire automatically on December 31, 2029 unless renewed.
Steel and aluminium remain the sharpest point of friction. US duties on EU derivatives — spanning hundreds of product categories from industrial machinery to consumer goods — currently reach 50 percent in some cases, well above the 15 percent Turnberry ceiling. If Washington has not brought those tariffs into line by the end of 2026, Brussels can suspend the tariff preferences.
“Despite turbulence, the deal holds,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told reporters. He described the steel negotiations as “probably the most difficult.” Šefčovič added that US officials, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, had welcomed the outcome.
What didn’t make it
Several key EP demands were stripped out during negotiations. The Parliament pushed for a sunrise clause that would have delayed EU tariff cuts until Washington moved first on steel and aluminium. But member states, eager to push the agreement forward, ultimately rejected the proposal.
Governments also blocked language that would have thrown out the agreement if Washington threatened the sovereignty of EU territory. The demand gained traction after Trump’s efforts to take Greenland. Capitals argued the issue had no place in trade legislation, stripping the agreement of an explicit security and geopolitical dimension.
You might be interested
The outcome reflects Europe’s growing accommodation of Trump’s confrontational approach. “The question is no longer whether an escalation will occur, over Greenland again or another issue. It likely will, in some form or another,” wrote Grégoire Roos, director of the Europe and Russia and Eurasia Programmes at Chatham House. “The question is how the EU reacts to the fact that coercion seems to have been normalized as a legitimate tool inside the transatlantic relationship.”
Driven by threats
The deal was driven more by threat than opportunity. Trump warned this month that he would hit European cars with a 25 percent tariff if implementing legislation wasn’t approved by July 4, while claiming that Europe alone is to blame for the delays.
The underlying economics of the deal remain unchanged. No independent modelling has demonstrated a clear economic benefit for Europe from Turnberry implementation. The positive case rests rests largely on avoiding a worse outcome. For now, the €1.7 trillion transatlantic relationship remains intact.
Chair of the INTA committee Bernd Lange (S&D/DE) called it a “rocky journey, but worth it,” arguing Parliament had substantially strengthened the Commission’s original proposal. The lead negotiator for the EP’s largest faction Željana Zovko (EPP/HR) framed it differently: “This is not a deal about the Trump administration. It is a deal to protect European businesses from further uncertainty.”
Protection from uncertainty and benefit from trade are not the same thing. But for now, Europe has settled for the former.
