This blog post is based on an article published in El País on the 6th of July 2025. The original article can be found here.
On 9 July – or maybe later who knows – Donald Trump is expected to decide whether to reimpose his so-called reciprocal tariffs on countries currently “benefiting” from a reduced 10 percent rate. Among the potential beneficiaries are the European Union and 56 other nations that run a trade surplus with the United States – in other words, those that export more to the US than they import from it. Whatever the outcome, Europe has a chance to respond not with retaliation, but with restraint – putting its economic interests and commitment to open trade above the temptation for payback.
For months, countries have been negotiating with the White House in a bid to avoid the escalation of trade barriers. Some have already secured a deal – the United Kingdom, for instance, agreed to lock tariffs at 10 percent – while others will continue talks until the last possible moment. The starting point is the same for all: no country wants to bear the extra costs of trade friction, which ultimately harm economies and citizens alike. What is most striking, however, is that the tariff hikes will hurt the US economy and its own consumers first.
Underlying America’s trade policy is a mercantilist worldview. One that seeks a favourable trade balance by exporting more than it imports. In this framework, exports are treated as inherently good, and imports as something to be avoided. Yet, counterintuitive as it may seem, countries export in order to import.
A useful analogy lies in everyday life: for most people, their job is effectively an “export” in exchange for income which then enables “imports” in the form of goods and services such as clothing, food or a haircut. In much the same way, the true benefits of international trade lie in imports, not exports. Exports are merely the means to access what others produce.
Faced with this dilemma, the starting point is clear: the tariff hikes proposed by the Trump administration would primarily harm the US economy and its own citizens. Tariffs function as a tax on consumption. Although initially paid by the importer, the additional cost is typically passed on, in full or in part, to the final price paid by consumers.
There is no denying that a measure like raising tariffs on European goods would, regrettably, have negative consequences, for EU businesses and workers. Faced with such provocation, the instinctive reaction is to respond in kind, embracing a tit-for-tat approach.
But if Europe were to follow that path, its trade policy would be driven more by a desire to punish the United States than by a rational assessment of costs and benefits. The paradox is striking: in seeking revenge, Europe could end up prioritising the US, and, in the process, inflicting harm on its own economy, companies, and citizens.
In moments like these, the European Union would do well to recall a timeless piece of wisdom – not from economists or diplomats, but from one of the deepest sources of common sense: the Iberian mother. The well-known phrase, “If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?”, offers a simple yet powerful reminder. It calls for critical, independent thinking and warns against blindly copying the decisions of others, especially when doing so may cause more harm than good.
If the United States chooses to raise tariffs on European goods, Europe must find a way to respond. But that response should be strategic, targeting sectors that are commercially sensitive for the US, and always with the aim of bringing Washington back to the negotiating table. What Europe must avoid is the temptation to retaliate with measures that end up damaging its own economy and citizens merely to punish the White House. In the face of an unpredictable and shifting US trade policy, Europe must think for itself, remain anchored in its core trade principles, and respond with calm, not by adopting strategies that are not in its interest.