The trade deal between the European Union and the United States is off to a rocky start.
The preliminary agreement, announced at the end of a face-to-face meeting of Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump in Scotland, has prompted a massive wave of criticism over its heavily lopsided nature in favour of American interests.
On Monday, the European Commission spent the day briefing journalists to defend the deal as an anchor of stability and predictability in troubled times, a pill that is hard to swallow but necessary to avoid a havoc-wreaking tariff war across the Atlantic.
Then the story took a new twist when the White House published a fact sheet about the agreement with multiple claims that mismatched or downright contradicted the version of events presented by the Commission just hours earlier.
On Tuesday, Brussels replied with its own statement, sowing further confusion.
Euronews takes a closer look at the clash of narratives.
Pharmaceuticals
What the White House says: Pharmaceuticals will be subject to the across-the-board 15% tariff that will apply to the majority of EU-made products as of 1 August.
What the Commission says: Pharmaceuticals will, for the time being, be spared from the 15% tariff and instead remain under the current 0% rate until the Trump administration completes its Section 232 investigation into the sector.
“There will be no tariffs on pharmaceuticals this Friday,” a senior official said.
While the US’ Section 232 investigation could lead to a tailor-made, painfully high tariff, as was the case for steel and aluminium, the Commission expects the 15% will act as the maximum ceiling, blocking the imposition of any additional duties on top.
“I believe that this commitment will be honoured and respected in this case,” said Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commissioner for Trade.
Energy purchases
What the White House says: The EU will “double down” on its purchases of American energy, buying $750 billions’ worth by the end of Trump’s second term. In practice, this will amount to $250 billion each year.
What the Commission says: The Commission, which negotiated the deal on behalf of all 27 member states, lacks the competence to determine the amount, the type and the origin of the energy supplies acquired by governments and companies. Therefore it cannot legally bind the bloc to the goal of spending $750 billion on American energy.
The announced number is an indication based on the needs the EU will face in the coming years to phase out the consumption of Russian fossil fuels, an arduous effort that has boosted the role played by American liquefied natural gas (LNG).
“It’s important to remember that the European Commission is not buying any of these commodities and neither is the US government selling any of this,” a Commission spokesperson said. “These are all commercial decisions made by the companies: those companies that buy and those companies that sell.”
The spokesperson noted the annual figure of $250 billion would be all-encompassing, covering ordinary purchases of American fuel, which currently range from $92 to $100 billion, as well as technology and investments.
Investment pledge
What the White House says: The EU will invest $600 billion in the US by the end of Trump’s second term. “This new investment is in addition to the over $100 billion (that) EU companies already invest in the United States every year,” the fact sheet says.
What the Commission says: As with the energy purchases, the Commission is unable to design and implement investments on behalf of the private sector. The $600 billion is another indication based on the executive’s contacts with industry.
“It’s not something the EU, as a public authority, can guarantee – it’s something based on the intention of private companies,” a senior official said.
The aggregated $600 billion figure might shrink once the impact of the EU-US trade deal, which is disadvantageous for the bloc, begins to take effect.
Despite the uncertainty, the White House is portraying the energy and investment pledges as a fait accompli.
Weaponry
What the White House says: The EU “agreed to purchase significant amounts of US military equipment”, the fact sheet says, without citing any financial figure.
What the Commission says: Absolutely not. The Commission has resolutely denied making any pledge to ramp up purchases of American-made weaponry.
This is a highly sensitive matter for Brussels, given that defence is a strictly national competence that member states zealously guard. While Ursula von der Leyen has promoted ambitious initiatives to boost defence spending, the final decision of how this money is spent – or if it is spent at all – rests exclusively in the hands of capitals.
“Arms procurement is not a matter for the Commission,” the senior official said.
“I think this was more an expression of expectation on the part of President Trump that the increased defence expenditure (in Europe) would benefit US defence companies because of the quality of the US defence equipment, but it was not calculated in any way in the figures we talked about.”
Steel and aluminium
What the White House says: The sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminium will remain “unchanged”, meaning the EU will continue to pay the 50% rate imposed by the Trump administration as a result of the Section 232 investigation.
“This new tariff regime will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue annually and help to close the longstanding trade imbalance between the United States and Europe by encouraging local sourcing, reshoring production and ensuring that foreign producers contribute their fair share to the American economy,” the fact sheet says.
What the Commission says: The EU insists the deal will establish a specific quota system to settle the long-standing dispute over steel and aluminium. Under the system, the volume of EU exports that fall within the quota will benefit from a lower tariff rate. Once the quota is exceeded, the 50% will apply, senior officials explained.
Due to the embryonic state of the agreement, the Commission is still unable to provide technical details on how the quota will work in practice. Its press release simply says the system will be based on “historic levels” of steel and aluminium exports.
The White House’s fact sheet mentions a commitment to provide “meaningful quotas” for several products, but only in the context of US products bound for the EU market, not vice versa, as the Commission has stated.
Digital and agricultural barriers
What the White House says: As part of the new deal, the US and the EU will address “non-tariff barriers” in food and agricultural trade, “including streamlining requirements for sanitary certificates for US pork and dairy products”. The two sides will also address “unjustified digital barriers”, the White House adds, with commitments to maintain network usage fees and zero duties on electronic transmissions.
What the Commission says: Yes, the EU is willing to streamline sanitary certificates, which are forms, and discuss network fees, but that’s as far as it goes.
The bloc will retain its “right to regulate autonomously” at all stages, said Olof Gill, the Commission’s spokesperson for trade, in reply to the White House’s claims.
“We’re not moving on our regulations. We’re not moving on our rules. We’re not moving on the system that we built up over many decades that our citizens trust,” Gill said.
“That will not form part of this agreement with the US.”
Throughout the negotiations that preceded the deal, US officials consistently denounced the bloc’s regulatory framework, calling for the abolition of its digital rules, food safety standards and value-added tax (VAT) as top irritants.
