A European Commission spokesperson<\/a> tried to put a positive spin on the US action:\u00a0\u201cThe EU notes\u2026that this outcome is in line with the US tariff commitments agreed under the EU-US joint statement.\u201d But you can\u2019t make a silk purse out of a sow\u2019s ear.<\/p>\n The Trump administration argues that US exports to Europe and to the rest of the world are harmed by the EU\u2019s failure to police imports based on forced labour. <\/p>\n The US trade representative\u2019s office, for example, cites Poland\u2019s declining importation of US tobacco while Warsaw has increased tobacco imports from Malawi, tobacco allegedly produced by forced labour. The US has indeed lost tobacco market share in Poland. But in 2025 such American exports accounted for a small share of total American exports to Poland and an infinitesimal share of total US exports.\u00a0<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s forced labour cases against the EU are a solution in search of a problem.\u00a0<\/p>\n Moreover, the hypocrisy of the Trump administration\u2019s action is breathtaking. <\/p>\n There are two International Labor Organization agreements banning forced labour. 61 countries have ratified these accords. The United States is not one of them, perhaps in part because American states often subcontract<\/a>\u00a0the use of prison labour to private companies.<\/p>\n So, what may be the Trump administration\u2019s real game plan?<\/p>\n The forced labour cases are the stalking horse for a broader strategy: extraterritorial application of US law. If Washington deems another nation\u2019s laws or its enforcement insufficient, or simply violative of American interests, on any issue, the Trump administration appears to be claiming the right to impose tariffs to coerce change that is beneficial to the United States.\u00a0<\/p>\n If these duties pass muster in American courts (and some experts<\/a> think they may not), longstanding US grievances against EU laws and regulations may be the next target.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Disputes over digital regulation<\/p>\n Washington has long argued that the EU\u2019s Digital Markets Act unfairly targets American technology companies. <\/p>\n Two dozen<\/a> US members of congress recently urged president Trump to launch a 301 investigation of the DMA comparable to the administration\u2019s forced labour actions.<\/p>\n And in a Truth Social post<\/a> in the wake of the EU\u2019s \u20ac890m fine of Google<\/a> for allegedly violating the DMA, Trump threatened: \u201cwe will immediately initiate a 301 Investigation into the practice of \u201cROBBING\u201d American Companies and, in turn, the American Taxpayer\u2026we anticipate, a substantial TARIFF to be placed on them at the earliest possible moment.\u201d <\/p>\n The EU\u2019s carbon border adjustment mechanism and member nations\u2019 digital services taxes could soon be other targets.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Helms-Burton dispute between Washington and Brussels in the late 1990s is about to return. That contretemps began when Congress extended the territorial application of the US embargo on trade and investment with Cuba to apply to foreign firms trading with\u00a0the Castro regime and threatened to penalise any companies allegedly “trafficking” in property formerly owned by US citizens.\u00a0 <\/p>\n After three US presidents blocked such suits, in 2019 Trump allowed these cases to go forward. And in May of this year the US Supreme Court ruled<\/a> that Cuba-related claims against foreign companies, many of them European, can proceed.<\/p>\n But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.\u00a0<\/p>\n The EU-US Data Privacy Framework<\/a> enables American firms to move highly valuable personal consumer data from the EU to the US without violating EU law. In return, Washington promised \u201cindependent supervision\u201d of European data. <\/p>\n The European Commission initially defended the agreement, arguing that the US Federal Trade Commission, which would oversee the deal, was an independent authority. <\/p>\n But the recent US Supreme Court decision that the president may remove FTC Commissioners calls that assumption<\/a> into question.\u00a0 <\/p>\n The framework is now being challenged<\/a> in court by European data privacy advocates.\u00a0If they prevail, American companies that derive immense economic benefit from European consumer data may find they pay a high price.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/54469220809_86926581c1_o-600x400.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Bernd](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/HAUUFhqWIAAT1V8-600x399.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/christin-hume-hBuwVLcYTnA-unsplash-600x400.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n