Ursula von der Leyen’s Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly criticized as a surrender and a humiliation for Europe. Believing this agreement would stop Donald Trump’s bullying tactics was either naive or a serious misjudgment. The EU must now stand firm and reject Trump’s demands.
Is the deal really that bad? Unfortunately, yes—for three key reasons.
First, it damages Europe’s global credibility. The world expects the EU to uphold fair trade and resist coercion, as countries like Canada, China, and Brazil have done—not to give in to it.
Second, the economic terms are one-sided. EU exporters lose access to the U.S. market while facing tougher competition from favored American companies. Key European industries like pharmaceuticals, steel, and aluminum suffer, while the U.S. gains an advantage in consumer goods, food, and agriculture. These tariffs will likely stay in place, causing long-term harm. Worse, the EU has even surrendered its right to retaliate against future U.S. pressure, such as through digital service taxes.
Third, von der Leyen’s unauthorized pledge of $600 billion in EU investment in the U.S. goes against Europe’s interests. At a time when Europe should be strengthening its own investment power, this move only worsens the outflow of capital.
How did this happen? While all EU members wanted to avoid Trump’s tariff threats, Germany and Ireland—backed by their carmakers and big tech firms—pushed hardest for a deal. But allowing sweetheart tax deals for U.S. tech giants or letting German automakers shift production to America cannot be Europe’s future.
EU governments failed to support a strong negotiating position, but ultimately, von der Leyen caved. Her team entered the final talks ready to accept Trump’s terms, making his victory inevitable.
Imagine if she had refused. Trump’s anger and market turbulence might have followed, but the result would likely have been a delay, new negotiations, and eventually a fairer deal—one that didn’t sacrifice Europe’s long-term interests. Instead, von der Leyen bowed to Trump’s demands.
This echoes her weak stance in the final Brexit talks five years ago, when she initially gave in to Boris Johnson’s unreasonable terms before being forced to backtrack.
Today, von der Leyen rules the European Commission with little internal opposition—but that shouldn’t mean weak, unprincipled deals on major challenges like Trump or Gaza.
The so-called “deal” is unstable and unsigned. Washington and Brussels are already arguing over its details, and EU governments will have to weigh in before it becomes binding. While Germany and Italy may reluctantly accept it, others must push back. Europe deserves better than this.The political landscape could shift their priorities. Opposition parties and right-wing rivals in Germany and France—who pose a real threat to current leaders—are already criticizing the deal.
Unless von der Leyen makes a questionable deal with member states, the European Parliament will also weigh in. Bernd Lange, the long-time head of its trade committee, has set the tone for how the agreement might be received, calling it “asymmetry set in stone” and even “a disaster.” As more details emerge about what von der Leyen has actually agreed to, what the U.S. expects from the EU, and the full consequences become clear, an already unpopular deal could become even harder to swallow.
Recent weak U.S. economic data and renewed stock market volatility show that Trump’s negotiating position is shaky. His latest tariff threats come with extended deadlines—up to 90 days in Mexico’s case—as his leverage is stretched thin.
For Europe, the lesson from Brexit—one von der Leyen should have learned by now—is that nothing is final until everything is settled. Now, EU governments and the European Parliament have a chance to steer this back on track and salvage something from this mess.
Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is a policy analyst at the European Policy Centre.
