MEPs back tweaks to US tariff deal – but want tougher line on Washington

MEPs rallied behind trade chair Bernd Lange’s bid to tighten the EU-US tariff deal, but several warned his plan still doesn’t go far enough to defend Europe’s interests.

The European Commission’s proposal is part of the agreement reached between Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump in Scotland this summer. It would cut tariffs to zero on hundreds of US industrial and agricultural imports, while EU products would face a 15% baseline tariff.

The text requires approval from both the European Parliament and EU countries in the Council.

Lange’s draft report, unveiled in Strasbourg last month, was discussed for the first time on Tuesday in the European Parliament’s international trade committee (INTA). The changes are summed up by Lange as the ‘five S’s’ – standing for steel, safeguard, standstill, suspension, and sunset clause.

Germany’s Anna Cavazzini, from the Greens, said the proposals go in the right direction, but that the deal remains “problematic and asymmetric.” “I will table amendments that go further than your approach,” she added, including the activation of the ‘trade bazooka‘ – the Anticoercion Instrument (ACI) – into the deal.

Martin Schirdewan, from The Left, also praised the changes, but said “they won’t make the deal any better.”

The steel conflict

In his text, the German Social Democrat proposes not to lift EU tariffs on US steel products unless Washington rolls back its own 50% duties on EU steel and aluminium derivatives.

Lange described the US steel tariffs as “a breach of the spirit of the Turnberry deal,” warning that European industry – notably small and medium-sized firms – is bearing the cost.

However, EPP MEP Celine Imart disagreed, urging continued dialogue. Removing these products from the zero-tariff list “might undermine mutual trust,” she said, calling for both sides to find a common solution.

Impact on dairy, budget

Lange also proposed a safeguard mechanism – similar to the one in the EU-Mercosur agreement – to protect the agricultural sector if US food imports were to surge under zero tariffs.

But Renew’s Karin Karlsbro was “sceptical” of the idea. “We question whether there is, in fact, a real need for them… We see a risk that they could actually undermine the agreement,” she said.

Defending the proposal, Lange noted that no impact assessment had been carried out before the Commission’s text was published, warning that the dairy sector – particularly infant formula producers – could suffer, as current tariffs on US imports remain high.

Concerns over the deal’s impact on European agriculture resurfaced throughout the debate, even if farm trade is much smaller in value than industrial goods.

“Yet another trade deal where we are sacrificing European agriculture,” said Anna Bryłka, from Patriots for Europe (PfE).

Beyond asymmetries, the proposed tariff reductions would also cut EU budget revenues by around €4 billion a year, Lange said. “Trade peace is important but shouldn’t come at the expense of Europe’s financial stability,” said budget MEP Danuše Nerudová.

Lange invited members to table amendments by 11 November, with a committee vote expected in January or February 2026, and an agreement with the Council by the spring.

“We will not slow down the process, but we must use our parliamentary obligations … to safeguard citizens, consumers and producers,” he said.

(adm, aw)