But several guiding principles were increasingly clear, said two of the diplomats, the result both of work by the commission’s task force and of experience gleaned from Trump’s first term. The diplomats requested anonymity to discuss politically sensitive matters.
The first idea is that tariffs would most likely be targeted, whether that means placed on certain industries or geography-tied products. In 2018, for instance, Europe reacted to steel and aluminium tariffs by hitting American whiskey with a large tariff, which hurt Kentucky’s bourbon industry and, thus, a constituency critical to Republican Mitch McConnell, who was then the Senate majority leader.
A second idea was to stagger the response, kicking in or ratcheting up retaliation only if certain triggers were met or dates passed, two of the diplomats said. Moving deliberately provided more leverage, one diplomat said, and avoided an immediate and painful trade effect.
The third is that responses would not necessarily be tit-for-tat, according to all three diplomats. If Trump orders a 20 per cent across-the-board tariff on Europe, that does not mean that Europe must respond with a 20 per cent across-the-board tariff on the US. The EU still wants to abide by global trade rules upheld by the World Trade Organisation, which could suggest a more surgical approach.
One option on the table is the use of an “anti-coercion instrument”, a relatively new legal framework that would allow the bloc to rapidly target large American service providers – such as big technology companies – with tariffs.
In force since 2023, the tool allows the EU to use “a wide range of possible countermeasures” such as higher customs duties or import limits when another country harms European industry in an attempt to put pressure on the government and bring about political or policy change. The idea is to allow the bloc to respond to manipulative political pressure swiftly and sternly.
Loading
The Financial Times initially reported that the commission could use the tool to hit service providers, including large Silicon Valley technology companies, in response to US tariffs. Two of the diplomats confirmed that using the tool was being discussed, though far from a sure plan.
They said that moving forward with the tool might be too drastic of an option because Europe’s ultimate goal was not to inflame an all-out trade war.
For now, it is impossible for Europe to solidify a reaction plan. The simple reason: nobody knows what Trump is going to do.
“They want to do a deal – I think they’re very uncertain still about what the true objectives are,” said Jörn Fleck, senior director with the Europe Centre at research group The Atlantic Council.
Loading
Also, EU leaders have at times struggled to get Washington on the phone. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been invited to meet with foreign ministers but has not done so, though he has had a call with the bloc’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas. Von der Leyen has not met with Trump since he returned to office.
Even though Trump has not said what tariffs on Europe would look like, he has repeatedly said he wants Europe to buy more American cars and farm products, in addition to gas.
That has left Europe offering incentives to fend off the trade war before it begins. Officials have been clear that they are willing – even poised – to buy more American fuel. Officials are already trying to find a way to diversify their energy sources as the Continent weans itself off Russian gas.
“We still get a lot of LNG from Russia, and why not replace it by American LNG,” von der Leyen said in the days after Trump was elected, referring to liquefied natural gas.
European officials have also said they were likely to buy more American defence products as they ramp up bloc-wide military spending. Higher military expenditures are, in part, a response to Trump, who has insisted that European nations spend more on NATO.
Ilulissat Icefjord near the mouth to Disko Bay in Greenland. Danish authorities have repeatedly said the island is not for sale.Credit: Getty
And when it comes to Greenland – an autonomous territory of Denmark, an EU member, that Trump wants to annex for its strategic importance – Europeans have emphasised that they are open to investing more in the island.
“I totally agree with the Americans that the High North, that the Arctic region, is becoming more and more important when we’re talking about defence and security and deterrence,” Mette Frederiksen, the prime minister of Denmark, said in Brussels last week. “And it is possible to find a way to ensure stronger footprints in Greenland.”
Loading
Above all, European leaders have been trying to remind America of how important the relationship between the EU and the US is, both economically and for global peace.
Not only is the EU, when treated as a bloc, America’s most important trading partner. It is also a major importer of American services, and, as officials have repeatedly emphasised in recent days, European companies employ millions of Americans.
“A lot is at stake for both sides,” von der Leyen said.
But she added that “we will always protect our own interests – however and whenever that is needed.”
Ana Swanson contributed reporting.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.
