Sections

Commentary

Are tariffs Big Tech’s new tool against EU regulation?

January 30, 2025


  • President Donald Trump has consistently expressed his preference for tariffs as a strategic tool, describing them as “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.”
  • Big Tech companies have strongly opposed EU digital regulations, particularly the Digital Services Act, framing these measures as institutionalized censorship that stifles innovation and free expression.
  • The alignment of Big Tech’s aims with the Trump administration’s tariff approach suggests a potential shift in U.S. policy, utilizing tariffs to challenge the EU’s regulatory framework and safeguard American digital companies from perceived European overreach.
Priscilla Chan, Meta and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Lauren Sánchez attend the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Priscilla Chan, Meta and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Lauren Sánchez attend the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Pool via REUTERS

Big Tech may have found their response to the European Union’s (EU) digital competition and content moderation policies: tariffs. “We’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in his announcement eliminating the company’s fact-checkers. President Trump, of course, has described himself as a “Tariff Man.”

Europe’s “ever-increasing number of laws, institutionalizing censorship” were number one on the Zuckerberg target list. The only way Meta “can push back on this global trend is with the support of the U.S. government,” he explained, adding, “that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years when even the U.S. government has pushed for censorship.”

The semantic conflation of curatorial responsibility and censorship, a familiar domestic political gambit, has been internationalized and weaponized to attack the expectation—at least in Europe—that media platforms like Meta should practice responsible content curation.

Tariffs and truth

Thanks to intensive lobbying by Big Tech, the U.S. Congress has done little to provide meaningful oversight of the digital platform companies. The tech CEOs invited to the Trump inaugural lead companies that dominate the free flow of information, invade personal privacy, and pervert the competitive marketplace. Yet, these companies have been able to avoid meaningful domestic oversight for their entire existence.

The void created by American inaction has been filled by EU regulations despite the companies’ strong objections. Combining claims of censorship with Donald Trump’s affinity for tariffs just might be the leverage Big Tech seeks against the EU’s digital policies. Mark Zuckerberg appears ready to spearhead the effort.

By framing the EU’s actions as “institutionalizing censorship,” and asserting that the EU is “going after American companies and pushing to censor more,” Zuckerberg presses all the right MAGA buttons to provide a rationale for the Trump administration to fight the EU’s decisions. It is not a surprising strategy, and is made even more significant because it reverses previous corporate policy.

After the January 6 insurrection, Facebook along with Twitter suspended Donald Trump’s account. “They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing,” President Trump said at the time. Accusing Zuckerberg of plotting against him, Trump wrote in a 2024 book that the Meta CEO could, “spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Meta’s 2025 policy switch, however, has been met with the new president’s approval. Asked if Meta was responding to his earlier threats, Trump replied, “probably,” adding, “I think they have come a long way.” 

What’s the fuss over EU regulation?

The EU has enacted multiple laws to try and provide oversight of the previously unsupervised activities of Big Tech. It started in 2018 with privacy protection under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In 2022, the European Parliament passed the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to deal with the lack of digital marketplace competition. Twenty-twenty-four saw the AI Act (AI) establishing a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence.

All these actions were aggressively fought by Big Tech. But for social media companies, the EU legislation that is the biggest challenge is the 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA). This law covers a handful of online platform companies deemed pervasive enough to be “gatekeepers” with a new style of regulation.

Instead of the traditional form of regulatory oversight that micromanages how a company operates, the DSA establishes expectations for what the company will deliver.  These expectations include content moderation and transparency. The law does not specify how moderation is achieved, but that it is being done in a meaningful and significant manner. Far from regulatory micromanagement of corporate operations, the companies are required to self-certify that they are delivering on the law’s expectations. If they are not, then there are penalties.

While Meta has eliminated fact-checking in the U.S., it has not done so in the EU. It is hard to certify content moderation, as the DSA requires, when you’ve fired all the moderators. This has created a conflict between the company’s U.S. practices and EU requirements. Even if it represents a legal problem, the decision is good for the company since social media platforms, such as Meta, thrive on engagement-stimulating, unedited rage, and bottom-line profits should increase with the elimination of fact-checking jobs.

Elon Musk and NATO—a signal?

Comments by Vice President Vance during the 2024 campaign hinted at leveraging the power of the federal government to deal with DSA requirements. Asked in an interview whether American support of NATO could hinge on whether the EU regulated Elon Musk’s social media platform X, Vance responded affirmatively.

“So, what America should be saying is, if NATO wants us to continue supporting them and NATO wants us to continue to be a good participant in this military alliance, why don’t you respect American values and respect free speech?” Vance said. “It’s insane that we would support a military alliance if that military alliance isn’t going to be pro-free speech. I think we can do both. But we’ve got to say American power comes with certain strings attached. One of those is respect free speech, especially in our European allies.”

These comments reveal a willingness to link trade and security to digital regulation. A tariff-based response to EU policies seems plausible under such a mindset.

A regulation vs. trade crusade?

On his first day as President of the United States, Donald Trump said “tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” A few days later, he threatened the EU with tariffs unless they bought more U.S. oil and gas.  

The U.S. has a trade deficit with the EU when it comes to goods such as oil and gas but a favorable trade balance when it comes to services such as those of Big Tech. The challenge, therefore, is not to use tariffs to force the EU to buy more, but, as Zuckerberg told the Joe Rogan podcast, “the United States should be defending its companies.”

Caught between a U.S. Congress that has done little to protect against misinformation and hate, and the world’s second largest trading block which has tried to combine freedom of expression and the expectation of curatorial responsibility, Big Tech faces a dilemma. The combined arguments of censorship and defending American companies is a powerful elixir served to an audience of one man.

Wall Street analysts hail Mark Zuckerberg as “the best CEO of our time” for his ability to align Meta’s self-interest with prevailing political winds. The emerging narrative of “censorship vs. trade” is a powerful, if calculated, political move. Threatening tariffs in response to EU digital regulations could be a strategy that appeals to “Tariff Man.”

Ironically, this push comes at a time when artificial intelligence offers low-cost tools for fact-checking and content moderation. Yet, the political calculus behind the “censorship vs. trade” strategy may overshadow technical realities.

Mark Zuckerberg’s maneuvering is a shrewd effort to redefine the debate about European digital regulation. The question now becomes whether President Trump will add relaxed enforcement of the EU’s digital laws—all of them—to his list of trade demands.

  • Acknowledgements and disclosures

    Meta is a general, unrestricted donor to the Brookings Institution. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions posted in this piece are solely those of the authors and are not influenced by any donation.

The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).