Shipping containers stacked at the Rhine-Neckar commercial port in Mannheim, Germany, 29 July 2025. Photo: VCG

The US and the EU have reached a trade deal after high-stakes meetings, but the deal — announced after talks in Scotland between US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen — has triggered a wave of concern across Europe, with critics warning that it reflects an increasingly one-sided approach to global trade.

The US trade strategy leverages its hegemonic power and market size to impose unequal rules on the global economic order, a Chinese expert said, describing this approach as a form of "neo-economic colonialism," which serves "American First" interests at the expense of others, including its close allies such as the EU.

Under the agreement, the US will impose a 15 percent tariff on most exports from the 27-nation EU, including cars, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. In return, the EU has agreed to purchase $750 billion worth of energy from the US and make an additional $600 billion in investments in the American economy. 

"All of the countries will be opened up to trade with the United States at zero tariffs, and they're agreeing to purchase a vast amount of military equipment," the US president added.

While von der Leyen said the deal would bring "stability," and some European leaders have cautiously assessed the development, others questioned whether the agreement had come at too high a cost.

The US trade deal with Brussels marks a "dark day" for Europe, the French Prime Minister has said, amid growing anger that the bloc will be left worse off than Britain, the Telegraph reported.

Writing on the social media platform X, French Prime Minister Fran?ois Bayrou said: "It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission."

French European Affairs Minister Benjamin Haddad wrote on X that "The trade agreement negotiated by the European Commission with the United States will bring temporary stability to economic actors threatened by the escalation of American tariffs, but it is unbalanced." 

The view was echoed by France's industry minister Marc Ferracci, who called for further talks before the deal is formally concluded.

"This is not the end of the story," he told French radio station RTL.

Others in the bloc echoed the sentiment. Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin noted that the fact that tariffs would still be higher than before makes trade "more expensive and more challenging." Among EU countries, Ireland is the most reliant on the US as an export market.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán went further, saying Ursula von der Leyen was a "featherweight" who had been "eaten for breakfast" by the US president.

Marine Le Pen, leader of France's far-right National Rally party, said on the social media platform X that the trade agreement between the EU and the US is a political, economic, and moral fiasco.

Ville Tavio, Finnish Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, said the agreement provides some relief but falls short of expectations, Helsinki Times reported.

"It has calmed the situation but there's absolutely no reason for celebration," Tavio said, noting that the 15 percent tariff level remains too high, though the agreement removed uncertainty in the short term.

The strong reactions from various parties within the bloc to the trade deal are entirely understandable, Zhou Mi, a senior researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, told the Global Times, noting that despite the agreement, the average tariff level on EU exports has increased significantly, causing many European companies to face tighter profit margins when exporting to the US.

Meanwhile, the 27 EU member states will reportedly open their markets to the US with "zero tariffs" on American goods, meaning the impact on EU-made products in their own markets is foreseeable, the expert added.

Jian Junbo, director of the Center for China-Europe Relations at Fudan University's Institute of International Studies, said that the agreement may temporarily help stabilize transatlantic trade ties and prevent further escalation of bilateral tensions; However, it is still expected to place pressure on the EU side, particularly in terms of industrial development.

Jian told the Global Times that while it is too early to fully gauge the impact, a 15 percent tariff marks a significant increase from the EU's current average export tariff rate to the US. This sharp rise could pose a considerable challenge to the competitiveness of EU goods in the US market, he noted.

US tactic of economic coercion 

The EU is not alone. On July 22, the US president announced that tariffs on Japanese-made vehicles imported into the US would be lowered to 15 percent from the previous 25 percent — still a higher level than expected. "I'd hesitate to call it good news," said Stefan Angrick, head of Japan and frontier market economics at Moody's, noting that "A 15 percent US import tariff is still significantly higher than where Japan started. And a 15 percent tariff is certainly a higher rate than most had expected."

Zhou said that the US and Japan, though allies, have long maintained an unequal economic relationship, with a history of the US exerting pressure on Japan — most notably from the Plaza Accord to the present day.

"Under the latest agreement, although the US has lowered tariffs on car imports from 25 to 15 percent, the rate still exceeds market expectations. This outcome will further erode the competitiveness of Japanese companies in the US market, particularly in key sectors such as automobiles," Zhou said.

Countries such as South Korea and Brazil also face the threat of tariffs ranging from 30 to 50 percent. Experts said that this reflects a broader pattern in which Washington exerts extreme pressure and attempts to extract major commercial and strategic concessions from both developed and developing countries at the excuse of addressing trade deficits.

The growing reliance on tariffs as leverage in trade talks has prompted some observers to describe the US approach as a form of "neo-economic colonialism" — using market access and punitive duties to extract disproportionate concessions from other countries.

"The US trade strategy leverages its hegemonic power and market size to impose unequal rules on the global economic order," Zhou said, describing this approach as a form of 'neo-economic colonialism,' that serves "America First" interests at the expense of others, including close allies like the EU and Japan.

The deeper damage of such actions lies not just in disrupted supply chains or market losses, but in the erosion of trust in global trade rules, the expert warned, noting that this also weakens the credibility of multilateral systems and makes stable, long-term business partnerships harder to sustain. "Even US companies risk being seen as 'high-risk partners' under such unilateral policies, damaging their reputation and global prospects," Zhou said.

To many, the trade deals pushed by the US resemble modern-day unequal treaties, forged not through mutual benefit, but through pressure. As more countries reassess the costs of these arrangements, the durability of such deals and the trust they depend on remains uncertain, experts said.

Responding to a media inquiry about whether China would be willing to accept a suboptimal deal—similar to what the EU described as "not ideal" but "the best" they could get in their recent deal with the US—or walk away from the talks if necessary, China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said that regarding the trade deal between the US and the EU, China, as always, believes that all parties should resolve economic and trade differences through equal-footed dialogue, uphold a sound environment for international trade and economic cooperation, and observe the WTO rules. 

"That said, we firmly oppose any party's move to strike a deal at the cost of China's interests," Guo said.

In a commentary published Sunday under the byline "Zhong Sheng," People's Daily stated that China came to Sweden with sincerity—but not at the cost of its principles. Talks must respect bottom lines and be based on mutual respect and reciprocity. The article emphasized China's opposition to unilateralism and protectionism, not only in defense of its own interests, but also to uphold the foundations of global development.