In response, the European Union has expressed concern over the impact of these measures on the European economy and has indicated the possibility of countermeasures. European Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic stated that the EU is prepared to defend its interests and could impose tariffs on a range of U.S. products in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs.

Beyond potential tariff countermeasures, the EU is also considering legal action against the

U.S. at the WTO, seeking a ruling that declares Trump’s protectionist measures unlawful. Additionally, European leaders are working to strengthen trade ties with other strategic markets, such as China and Latin America, to reduce reliance on trade with the U.S. The European Commission is also examining financial support mechanisms for the most affected industries to cushion the economic impact and promote export diversification.

This situation could trigger a new trade war, leading to complex legal disputes for both sides. Cases may be brought before the WTO, and companies could become entangled in lengthy and costly legal proceedings. Furthermore, the uncertainty arising from these trade tensions could negatively impact investment decisions and strategic planning for businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.

European companies must prepare to navigate this complex legal landscape. It is advisable for businesses to conduct a thorough review of their contracts and supply chains, assess the potential impact of the new tariffs, and consider legal strategies to mitigate risks. Additionally, companies should closely monitor legal and regulatory developments in both the United

States and the European Union to adapt swiftly to the evolving international trade environment.

In conclusion, the Trump administration’s tariff imposition raises fundamental questions about a nation’s right to protect its economy at the expense of global trade equilibrium. International law, under WTO agreements, permits tariff measures under specific circumstances, but their application must be proportionate and non-discriminatory. However, increasing economic interdependence highlights the risks of such policies: trade restrictions can trigger retaliation, distort global markets, and disrupt international supply chains.

A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics revealed that tariffs imposed by the U.S. in 2018 led to increased costs for American businesses, directly affecting consumer prices and reducing industrial competitiveness. Similarly, according to the OECD, the imposition of trade barriers could shrink global GDP by approximately 0.4% in the medium term due to trade contraction and production inefficiencies.

Another risk is the “snapback effect”: while protectionist measures may offer short-term advantages to certain sectors, they tend to reduce domestic demand in the long run, as higher costs are passed on to consumers and businesses reliant on imports for production. For instance, the rise in U.S. steel prices following the 2018 tariffs harmed the American automotive industry, diminishing its competitiveness against foreign manufacturers.

Within the European context, the debate also revolves around balancing economic sovereignty with adherence to free trade principles. The EU’s response goes beyond mere tariff retaliation, forming part of a broader strategy to strengthen its global market position. However, the potential escalation of trade tensions underscores the need for effective legal solutions, both at the corporate and institutional levels, to protect economic interests without compromising the stability of the international system. European businesses, in this scenario, must adapt to a new normal characterized by uncertainty and a heightened focus on legal safeguards in global trade.