# OPINION: Trump, Tariffs and Allies — the Day Washington Declared a Trade War on Its Own Friends

> On June 26, 2026, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social an announcement that sent chills through European and Asian capitals: he threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on imports from any country that had introduced a Digital Services Tax (DST) targeting American companies. Franc

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Note
- Published: 2026-06-27
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/trump-tarifs-et-allies-le-jour-ou-washington-a-declare-la-guerre-commerciale-a-s

## Key takeaways

- On June 26, 2026, Trump threatened 100 percent tariffs on countries with a Digital Services Tax targeting American companies, less than 24 hours after a June 25 EU-U.S. framework capping reciprocal tariffs at 15 percent.
- France has applied a 3 percent DST since 2019, which the author says is a matter of fiscal sovereignty, while Washington sees it as discriminatory.
- The author notes the Supreme Court limited emergency tariffs in April 2026, and Section 122 tariffs are limited to 150 days without congressional renewal.
- Allies such as Germany and France responded to January 2026 tariffs over Greenland with concessions, and European firms have announced US investments, such as BMW's 1.7 billion dollar Spartanburg investment.
- The author argues that linking NATO defense to trade concessions erodes Article 5 and that abandoning DSTs would weaken Europe's credibility with emerging economies facing China's influence.

## Introduction: One Post, One Hundred Percent, and Allies Left Gasping

### The Truth Social Bombshell of June 26, 2026

On **June 26, 2026**, **Donald Trump** posted on **Truth Social** an announcement that sent chills through European and Asian capitals: he threatened to impose **100 percent tariffs** on imports from any country that had introduced a **Digital Services Tax (DST)** targeting American companies. France, India, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain — all in his crosshairs. The timing was all the more staggering because it came **less than 24 hours** after the conclusion of an EU-U.S. trade agreement that had capped tariffs at **15 percent**. With a single post, Trump had potentially torpedoed months of diplomatic negotiations.

### France in the Eye of the Storm

**France** has applied since **2019** a digital services tax of **3 percent** on companies whose global turnover exceeds **750 million euros** and French revenues **25 million euros**. This tax primarily targets the **GAFAMs** — Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft. For Paris, it is a matter of **fiscal sovereignty** and fairness. For Washington, it is a discriminatory attack against American companies. The gap between these two readings is exactly the chasm into which the **transatlantic** alliance has been falling for seven years.

*Trump knows exactly what he is doing. A 100 percent threat post costs nothing and forces a negotiation. His allies rush to apologize before he even signs anything. This is diplomatic judo — using the adversary's fear as a lever. Brilliant. Exhausting. Dangerous for Western unity.*

## The June 25 EU-US Agreement: A Victory Shattered in 24 Hours

### Fifteen Percent — a Painful but Real Compromise

On **June 25, 2026**, the European Commission and the U.S. Trade Representative announced a **trade framework agreement** capping reciprocal tariffs at **15 percent** on a range of industrial and agricultural products. For Brussels, this was a major concession: the EU had initially refused any unilateral tariff, considering that only the WTO had authority to regulate trade practices among its members. Accepting the 15 percent cap principle marked a **pragmatic capitulation** in the face of the power dynamic imposed by the Trump administration.

### Less Than 24 Hours to Undo Everything

But Trump's post the following day on **digital taxes** plunged Brussels into confusion. European negotiators spent the first hours after the post trying to determine whether the **100 percent threat applied on top of the 15 percent cap** or as a replacement, and whether it concerned only countries with active DSTs or all trading partners. **No official clarification** came from the White House in the 48 hours that followed — a calculated uncertainty that is one of the hallmarks of the Trump method.

Markets reacted immediately: the **euro lost 0.4 percent** against the dollar in the hours following the post, and shares of European companies exposed to American markets fell 1 to 2.5 percent at the Wall Street opening. **Markets anticipate Trump better than diplomats do**: they know the threat is real even if not immediately executed.

*The June 25 agreement was fragile. I knew it when I read it. Any agreement with the Trump administration is fragile by definition — because it hinges on a post, not on an institution. This is not trade policy. It is a performance of dominance.*

## The Legal Precedent: The Supreme Court and Section 122

### When Judges Constrain the President

Trump's tariff strategy runs into a significant legal obstacle: the **U.S. Supreme Court** handed down in April **2026** a decision limiting the use of emergency tariffs — **national emergency tariffs** had been ruled unconstitutional in the specific case of application to allies without documented national security threat declarations. At the same time, **Section 122 of the Trade Act** of 1974, invoked by Trump for certain tariffs, is time-limited to **150 days** without congressional renewal.

### Congress as a Brake — in Theory

These legal constraints mean that the threat of **100 percent on digital taxes** should theoretically require an explicit legal basis — either new legislation, or a national security threat declaration, or recourse to the authority of the **Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232**). In practice, the Trump administration has demonstrated considerable legal creativity to circumvent these limits, and the Republican Congress has shown little inclination to firmly oppose it since **2025**.

The American paradox: the same democratic system that produces **institutional checks** — Supreme Court, Congress — is paralyzed when political actors lack the will to activate them. American democracy rests on **unwritten norms as much as on laws**, and the Trump administration has precisely identified and exploited this space.

*The Supreme Court said no. Congress hesitates. And Trump posts anyway. Because the threat of an illegal action is sometimes more effective than the action itself. This is international law as told by Machiavelli.*

## NATO Allies in the Crosshairs: Denmark, Norway, France

### January 2026: The Greenland Tariffs

The June 26 trade threat did not come from nowhere. In **January 2026**, Trump had already applied punitive tariffs to several NATO allies in the context of the **Greenland** controversy: **Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland** had all been targeted by various tariff measures. The message was clear: being a NATO ally guarantees no commercial immunity in Trump's world. **Security and trade are two separate files** — and both can be used as leverage simultaneously.

### The Berlin and Paris Calculus

Germany and France, the two economic powers of the European bloc, responded to the January **2026** tariffs with a combination of **rhetorical firmness and practical concessions**. Germany agreed to increase its NATO defense spending faster than planned — in part to remove that argument from Trump's hand. France opened bilateral discussions on exports of French wines and agricultural products to the United States, hoping to create an **American economic interest** in maintaining good commercial relations with Paris.

These strategies reveal the fundamental deadlock facing European allies: they cannot retaliate symmetrically — an all-out trade war with the United States would destroy Europe more than it would hurt Washington. They cannot ignore the tariffs — the economic impact is real. They cannot accept without conditions — the **fiscal and commercial sovereignty of the EU** would be drained of all meaning. The only option is **permanent negotiation**, in a structurally unfavorable balance of power.

*Being Trump's ally is being Trump's client. You pay the price he sets, when he sets it, for reasons he chooses. And you smile because the alternative is worse. That is what it means to be a Western ally in 2026.*

## Digital Taxes: The Heart of the Sovereignty Debate

### DSTs: Fiscal Sovereignty or Disguised Protectionism?

The debate over **digital services taxes** is fundamentally a debate about fiscal sovereignty in a digital world. American technology companies — Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon — generate **substantial profits in Europe** by locating their tax structures in low-tax countries like Ireland and Luxembourg, thereby avoiding tax where they actually create value. DSTs aim to correct this fiscal arbitrage, imposing a tax where revenues are generated.

### The OECD Project and Its Partial Shipwreck

The **OECD Inclusive Framework** had developed between 2019 and 2021 an international agreement on **minimum taxation of multinationals (Pillar Two)** and on the allocation of taxing rights (Pillar One). The Biden administration had supported these agreements. The Trump administration **torpedoed them** in 2025, withdrawing the United States from negotiations and threatening tariffs on any country maintaining a DST — seen as a unilateral discrimination against American companies.

This American position reveals a **fundamental hypocrisy**: the United States defends free markets globally, but opposes any international tax rule that would limit the advantage of its technology companies. This is **selective multilateralism** — you pick the rules you like and bomb-tweet the rest.

*Digital taxes are not protectionism. They are the logical response of democratic states to companies that use their territory, their infrastructure, their citizens — and pay their taxes in Ireland. Trump defends Google's tax bill harder than any Silicon Valley lobbyist.*

## The Impact on Exposed European Industries

### Auto, Agriculture, Pharma: Three Sectors Under Pressure

Trump's real and threatened tariffs weigh particularly on three European sectors: the **auto industry** (**Volkswagen**, **Stellantis**, BMW exposed to a 25 percent tariff already in force), **agriculture** (French wines, cheeses, spirits; Italian Parmesan and Prosecco), and **pharmaceuticals** (Trump raised in May **2026** the prospect of tariffs on imported medicines, a threat directly affecting Swiss, Irish and German exporters). These sectors employ millions of Europeans and sit at the heart of the continent's economic competitiveness.

### The Industry Response: Intense **Lobbying** in Washington

The European industry response has been pragmatic: delegations of major industrial groups take turns in Washington, offering **additional American investments** in exchange for tariff exemptions. BMW announced an investment of **1.7 billion dollars** in its **Spartanburg**, South Carolina plant. Airbus decided to **shift part of its A320 assembly line** to Mobile, **Alabama**. These moves are driven by economic survival as much as by ideological conviction.

**Partial industrial relocation to the United States** under **tariff pressure** is exactly what Trump is after — and he is getting it, at the cost of weakening the European industrial base and increasing dependence on American markets. This is a **structural reorganization of the Atlantic economy** under unilateral duress.

*European companies are investing in the United States not out of conviction, but out of fear. This is extortion well dressed up as trade policy. And it works — which is the most troubling part.*

## NATO and Trade: The Toxic Mix

### When Security Becomes a Commercial Bargaining Chip

The real danger of the Trump strategy is not economic — tariffs hurt but European economies adapt. The real danger is **political and strategic**: by explicitly linking NATO's collective defense obligations to bilateral commercial concessions, Trump **erodes the credibility of Article 5**. If European allies must pay a commercial tribute to maintain the American security umbrella, NATO ceases to be an alliance founded on shared values and becomes a **protection racket**.

### Zelensky Watches the Mechanics of Fear

**Volodymyr Zelensky** watches this dynamic with particular anxiety. Ukraine depends on Western support — military, financial, diplomatic. If that support can be conditioned on commercial concessions by the next American administration, **Ukrainian security** is as fragile as the next Truth Social post. This is why Ukraine actively pushes for an **autonomous European security guarantee architecture** — less dependent on the will of a single man in Washington.

Europe must build its defense capacity not because Trump is right to neglect it, but because **dependence on an unpredictable protector is a strategic vulnerability**. If Trump forces Europe to defend itself by threatening tariffs, the paradoxical result could be exactly what the West needs: a strategically autonomous Europe, capable of holding without waiting for Washington.

*If Trump forces Europe to defend itself by cutting off its commercial lifeline, he may do the most useful thing the United States has done for NATO since its founding. By accident. Out of pure selfishness. But useful nonetheless.*

## Emerging Markets and the Signal Sent to the Rest of the World

### When Allies Suffer, Adversaries Watch

**China watches** the transatlantic trade war with a mix of strategic interest and calculated satisfaction. Every hour Europe spends negotiating tariff exemptions with Washington is an hour diverted from building a **coherent trade policy toward Beijing**. The fragmentation of the transatlantic alliance on economic questions precisely weakens the Western capacity to speak with one voice in international trade forums — **WTO, G20, OECD** — where U.S. and EU positions now diverge on fundamental issues.

### India, Brazil and the Temptation of Commercial Non-Alignment

The **major emerging economies** — India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa — watch the US-EU trade tensions with interest. Several of them apply **digital services taxes** themselves and are waiting to see whether the EU capitulates to American pressure before deciding their own position. If Europe caves on its DSTs to avoid 100 percent American tariffs, the message sent to India will be clear: **Washington can impose its tax rules on the entire world** through economic threat alone.

This **precedent of fiscal capitulation** would be far more damaging in the long term than the tariffs themselves. It would establish that the fiscal sovereignty of states is negotiable as soon as the United States waves the trade threat. And in a world where China seeks to present itself as the **defender of the sovereignty of Global South nations** against American unilateralism, this European capitulation would hand Beijing a golden propaganda argument.

*If Europe abandons its digital taxes under American pressure, it does not just lose a tax. It loses the argument that democracies respect the rules they have themselves established. And in the influence competition with China, that argument is worth billions.*

## Conclusion: The Necessary Evil and Its Collateral Damage

### Trump as Revealer of Western Fragilities

Donald Trump did not invent transatlantic trade tensions. He **exacerbated, accelerated and weaponized them**. Digital tax imbalances, insufficient European defense spending, dependence on American markets — all of this existed before him. What he did was use these realities as **pressure levers without any qualms**. A post threatening 100 percent tariffs is not policy — it is negotiation by intimidation. And it works because Europe has not yet found the right response to a **diplomacy based on fear rather than rules**.

### The West Holds — But at What Cost?

The EU-U.S. agreement at 15 percent of June 25, **2026** still holds, despite the turbulence. **Atlantic institutions survive**, even battered. But every episode like this leaves marks: in mutual trust, in the political will of European partners to invest in the alliance, and in the perception that nations worldwide have of the reliability of the United States as a long-term partner. The West remains the center of the world — but it will need to rebuild its institutional foundations in the post-Trump era, whatever the outcome of the next American elections.

*Trump is a necessary evil — I said it, I stand by it. But a necessary evil is still an evil. And the wounds he inflicts on the Atlantic alliance will not heal on their own. Someone, someday, will have to repair what he breaks.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [CNBC — Trump threatens 100% tariffs on countries with digital taxes — June 26, 2026](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/26/trump-tariff-trade-tech-tax.html)

- [European Commission — EU-U.S. trade agreement 15% cap — June 25, 2026](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1234)

- U.S. Supreme Court — Emergency tariffs ruling — April 2026

### Secondary sources

- Peterson Institute — Digital Services Taxes and U.S. Trade Policy — 2026

- Bruegel — EU-U.S. Trade Tensions Tracker — June 2026

- Politico Europe — Trump tariffs on NATO allies — 2026

-

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/trump-tarifs-et-allies-le-jour-ou-washington-a-declare-la-guerre-commerciale-a-s