Trump’s Trade Deal With Europe Is Already Unraveling

The commercial deal for the European states announced to Fanfare this summer is already signs of collapse. The most surprising side may be that this is barely surprising.

The European Union signed a “framework on an agreement on mutual, fair and balanced trade” in late July, in the hope that it will be very fears among European companies about a comprehensive trade war with the United States. But this month, it seemed that US President Donald Trump eliminates this understanding because he threatened to impose more definitions on Europe if Brussels did not reject its rules and regulations that are explained by information online, election interference, and hate speech.

“We cannot let this happen to the wonderful and unprecedented American creativity,” wrote on Truth Social after the European Union fined from Google approximately 3 billion euros ($ 3.4 billion) for violating the anti -pregnancy laws. European Union spokesman reduced the turmoil – but they may try to get rid of a big problem.

The biggest challenge facing the deal is Trump’s billions of dollars in energy from Europe. The European Union said it “intends to buy natural energy products, oil and nuclear energy concerned with power with an expected proposal worth $ 750 billion” during the remaining Trump period in his position. But it seems that the White House sees it as a commitment – a deal to be made.

This inconsistency in intentions and expectations can hinder the deal.

Emery Baker, the director of Europe at the Eurasia Group, told CNBC that the key to maintaining the “European Union’s commercial deal on the right track will show the high energy and investment purchases in the United States in the United States.”

This week, while US Energy Minister Chris Wright is visiting Europe to meet the Energy Commissioner of the European Union and demands the mass to accelerate the purchase of energy, experts issued a set of warnings.

Wright invitations to increase our purchases of LNG [liquefied natural gas] Enricko Dunda, a gas and water campaign, said that fossil fuel products are a intimidation tactic that distracts his attention from real climate work and urgently move to clean energy solutions.

Although there is clear concern among environmental activists that the European Union may reduce the goals of carbon disposal and build more infrastructure of liquefied natural gas that will impede its way to zero zero, according to many energy experts. Foreign policyIt is not wise for the European Union to increase the purchases of gas when the demand is expected to decrease.

“There is a lot of liquefied natural gas capacity in the United States that reaches Europe to absorb,” said Ann Sobby Corbo, a former head of gas analysis at BP, who is now working as a global researcher at the World Energy Policy Center. She added, “There is also a possibility that it is not distinguished that the United States will export more LNG more than Europe consumes,” most likely by the early thirties of the twentieth century.

Experts feel confused in the intentions of the European Union expressed because the numbers do not add.

“I was looking at the numbers over and over again, I still do not understand how the European Union can buy energy of $ 750 billion.” Corbo said Foreign policy.

Last year, the European Union spent 375 billion euros (440 billion dollars) on energy imports, and although the United States turned into the largest liquefied natural gas source to the European Union – where it was provided with 45 percent of the total needs of the imported mass in 2024 – it still pays the United States with a total amount of about 76 billion euros ($ 89). In order to buy energy worth $ 250 billion annually from the United States, the European Union will have three times its purchases and abandoning current service providers – such as Norway – which provides better prices.

There are other complications as well. Tatiana Mitrova, a research colleague at the World Energy Policy Center, said the European Union cannot force European companies to conduct such purchases. The United States currently does not have the ability to sell the most oil or LNG as required to meet the pace.

“The United States will have to export 4.5 to 5.5 million barrels [of crude oil and petroleum products to Europe] On one day, he sends [Europe] 1.6 to 2.2 million [barrels] Mitrova said: “In LNG – it must reach 200 [billion]-300 billion cubic meters annually; Currently, shipments to Europe are about 58 to 70 billion cubic meters. “

In order to export such large sizes, Mitrova said, the United States will have to increase its widespread oil and gas production in a very short period of time, which seems unrealistic.

“Some of the capacity additions are continuing – the new liquefied natural gas plants, etc., but most of these volumes have already been contracted,” said Mitrova. Moreover, she added that liquefied natural gas is a globally circulating commodity, so “if Japan is offered better prices, American companies prefer to sell there instead to the European Union.”

Moreover, many experts rejected the European Union claiming that it was mainly trying to search for alternatives to Russian gas. Last year, the European Union imported fossil fuels nearly 22 billion euros ($ 25.8 billion) from Russia – and this number is small compared to $ 250 billion a year expected by the United States.

It is not logical to rely on Trump for such a strategic commodity. “We are already importing more than half [the continent’s] “There is a risk to rely on one source of natural gas, similar to the dependency that we had on Russia,” Corbo added.

Corbo said that the only way in which the European Union can buy such large amounts of energy from the United States through a platform called the European Union, which motivates European buyers to buy liquefied natural gas from the United States over a long period of time. “But it will not be delivered between 2026-2028, but for several years to decades,” said Corbo.

Julian Bubov-colleague is older than him, strategic views, climate work research tank, as well as the Bulgarian Minister of Environment twice- Foreign policy The item related to the Energy purchases in the European Union in the agreement was “a great political by its nature”, with a little support in reality.

“No Trump sells such large quantities of oil and gas, and no Errosola von der Layen [the European Commission president] Purchase. He said this was a political “in order to appease Trump and get a deal on definitions.

Although the Europeans may have been in their intentions, Trump is following a confusing policy. Whereas, on the one hand, Trump increased the pressure on the Europeans to stop buying Russian gas, on the other hand, it rehabilitates Russian President Vladimir Putin – which could enhance the argument in Europe in favor of resuming Russian energy purchases.

Meanwhile, Brussels is facing an internal violent reaction, as European Socialists oppose the second largest coalition in the European parliament.

The group said in a statement published on September 3.

Bernd Lang, head of trade in the European Parliament, released the condition of energy purchases as “completely unrealistic.”

The European people are the most displeasure.

According to a recent poll, conducted by Cluster17 in five European countries, including France, Germany and Spain, the respondents said they felt “insulting” by the European Union’s commercial deal. Nearly 70 percent said that they were ready to boycott American goods as long as Trump was in power, 44 percent and 47 percent, respectively, they said he sees that he was the “enemy of Europe” with “authoritarian tendencies.”

This may be spent on Trump’s main motivation – for sale more than buying from Europe. But at the present time, European policy is interactive – the movement of the Trump administration while commercial delegations are rushing around the world and searching for deals.