The agreement between the European Union and the United States has begun with some challenges.
The initial agreement, revealed following a direct meeting between Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump in Scotland, has triggered a significant reaction.wave of criticismregarding its strongly biased character in favor of American interests.
On Monday, the European Commission spent the day informing journalists, aiming to present the agreement as a source of stability and predictability during uncertain times, a difficult choice that is essential to prevent a destructive tariff conflict between the Atlantic partners.
Then the narrative took an unexpected turn when the White Housepublished a fact sheetregarding the agreement, there were several claims that did not align or directly opposed the account provided by the Commission only hours prior.
On Tuesday, Brussels responded withits own statement, sowing further confusion.
Euronews examines the conflict of viewpoints.
Pharmaceuticals
What the Oval Office statesPharmaceuticals will face a uniform 15% tax that will be imposed on most products manufactured in the EU starting from 1 August.
What the Commission saysPharmaceuticals will, for now, avoid the 15% tax and continue to be subject to the existing 0% rate until the Trump administration finishes its Section 232 review of the industry.
"No tariffs on pharmaceuticals will be imposed this Friday," stated a senior official.
Although the US Section 232 inquiry might result in a specifically designed, extremely high duty, similar to what happened with steel and aluminum, the Commission believes the 15% will serve asthe maximum ceiling, preventing the application of any extra taxes on top.
"I am confident that this pledge will be upheld and acknowledged in this instance," stated Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commissioner for Trade.
Energy purchases
What the presidential residence statesThe EU plans to "double down" on acquiring American energy, aiming to purchase $750 billion worth by the conclusion of Trump's second term. In reality, this translates to $250 billion annually.
What the Commission saysThe Commission, which was responsible for negotiating the agreement on behalf of all 27 member states, does not have the authority to decide the quantity, kind, and source of energy supplies purchased by governments and businesses. As a result, it cannot legally obligate the union to commit $750 billion to American energy.
The stated figure reflects an estimate derived from the EU's anticipated requirements over the next few years to reduce the use of Russian fossil fuels, a challenging task that has increased the significance of American liquefied natural gas (LNG).
It's crucial to keep in mind that the European Commission is not purchasing any of these goods, and the US government is not selling any of them," stated a spokesperson from the Commission. "All of these are business choices made by the companies involved: both those that purchase and those that sell.
The representative mentioned that the annual amount of $250 billion would be comprehensive, including regular purchases of American fuel, which now fall between $92 and $100 billion, along with technology and investments.
Investment pledge
What the Oval Office statesThe EU plans to invest $600 billion in the US by the conclusion of Trump's second term. "This new investment comes on top of the more than $100 billion (that) EU firms already invest in the United States annually," the fact sheet states.
What the Commission saysSimilarly to energy acquisitions, the Commission cannot develop and carry out investments on behalf of the private sector. The $600 billion serves as further evidence derived from the executive's interactions with industry representatives.
"It's not something the EU, as a governmental body, can ensure – it's dependent on the intentions of private enterprises," a high-ranking official stated.
The total of $600 billion could decrease when the effects of the EU-US trade agreement, which is unfavorable for the bloc, start to be felt.
Despite the ambiguity, the White House is presenting the energy and funding commitments as afait accompli.
Weaponry
What the presidential residence states: The EU "agreed to buy large quantities of US military equipment," the fact sheet states, without providing any monetary amount.
What the Commission says: Definitely not. The Commission has firmly rejected any commitment to increase the acquisition of U.S.-made military equipment.
This is a very delicate issue for Brussels, as defence is a matter that remains strictly under the control of individual nations, which member states protect fiercely. While Ursula von der Leyen has advocatedambitious initiativesto increase military expenditure, the ultimate choice of where this funding is allocated – or whether it is used at all – lies solely with the capitals.
"The Commission is not responsible for arms procurement," stated the senior official.
I believe this was more about President Trump's expectation that higher defense spending in Europe would benefit American defense companies due to the quality of U.S. defense equipment, but it wasn't factored into the numbers we discussed.
Steel and aluminium
What the presidential residence states: The tariffs on steel and aluminum by sector will stay "the same," indicating that the EU will keep paying the 50% charge that was set bythe Trump administrationas a consequence of the Section 232 review.
The fact sheet states that this new tariff system will create tens of billions of dollars in yearly income and address the long-standing trade deficit between the United States and Europe by promoting local procurement, bringing manufacturing back to the country, and making sure foreign companies pay their fair share to the American economy.
What the Commission saysThe EU states that the agreement will create a defined quota system to resolve the ongoing conflict regarding steel and aluminum. According to this system, the amount of EU exports that remain within the quota will be subject to a reduced tariff rate. After the quota is surpassed, a 50% rate will come into effect, as senior officials clarified.
Because the agreement is still in its early stages, the Commission cannot yet offer specific technical information about how the quota will function in practice. Its press statement only mentions that the system will be based on "historic levels" of steel and aluminum exports.
The White House's fact sheet outlines a dedication to offer "significant quotas" for various items, however, this applies exclusively to US goods heading to the EU market, not the other way around, as the Commission has clarified.
Digital and agricultural barriers
What the Oval Office statesAs part of the new agreement, the United States and the European Union will tackle "non-tariff barriers" in food and agricultural trade, "such as simplifying the requirements for sanitary certificates for US pork and dairy products." The White House further notes that both parties will also deal with "unwarranted digital barriers," including pledges on network usage charges and zero tariffs on electronic transmissions.
What the Commission says: Indeed, the EU is open to simplifying health certificates, which are documents, and to talk about network charges, but that is where the matter ends.
The group will maintain its "right to regulate independently" at every stage, stated Olof Gill, the Commission's trade spokesperson, in response to the White House's assertions.
"We will not be altering our regulations. We will not be changing our rules. We will not be modifying the system we have developed over many decades that our citizens have confidence in," Gill stated.
That will not be included in this agreement with the United States.
During the discussions leading up to the agreement, US representatives repeatedly criticized the group's regulatory system, urging the removal of its digital regulations, food safety requirements, and value-added tax (VAT) as major points of contention.