Brussels – What is there, what is still missing and needs to be defined, but, above all, how to interpret what has been agreed upon. The EU-US tariff agreement is an open construction site, intended to provide certainty to operators, markets, and the economy, but it ends up generating doubts and chaos. The statements released by the White House and the European Commission offer two different readings of the deal, with things said only by one side, never mentioned by the other, and room for interpretation that, in perspective, may represent a real obstacle not only to the application of the agreement, but to its definitive sealing, considering the unpredictability of US President Donald Trump and his inclination to change his mind and the rules of the game. In the meantime, starting from 1 August, there will be 15% tariffs on EU goods. The rest will have to be clarified in the process.
Nature of the agreement and further negotiations: two different versions
It starts with the nature of the understanding reached. The accompanying note produced by the European Commission clearly states that “the political agreement of 27 July 2025 is not legally binding.“ That is why “beyond taking the immediate actions committed, the EU and the US will further negotiate, in line with their relevant internal procedures, to fully implement the political agreement.” This clarification is not present in the White House statement, where there is no reference to further negotiations. Reading the American version, the message that gets through is that negotiations are closed, while the Europeans claim the opposite.
Agrifood, different lists on US products entering the EU
The agri-food sector is sensitive for both parties to the agreement. The United States secures a European commitment to allow entry into the single market, particularly for US pork and dairy products. The Trump administration officially flaunted this element, while the von der Leyen Commission was silent on this. The EU executive speaks instead of “improved access to the EU market for limited quantities of US seafood” (Alaskan pollock, Pacific salmon, and shrimp), which “benefits the EU processing industry.”
Defense, American contracts on which Europeans remain silent
A significant difference, perhaps one of the most conspicuous, was the defense sector. “The European Union agreed to purchase significant amounts of US military equipment,” the White House claims. The European Commission is silent on this point, not mentioning it in its official note. To those who ask for clarification, the EU executive says that the Commission cannot buy in this area, which is the responsibility of the member states, and that it is therefore up to the national governments to buy what is related to security and defense. Moreover, European officials argue that the agreement on military procurement is not part of the EU-US bilateral agreement on tariffs but is in line with NATO commitments. Two contrasting versions, on which the margins for interpretation and doubt are rather broad.
Investments in the US, Washington takes them for granted, but Brussels doesn’t
Another difference in the versions of the deal concerns European investments of USD 600 billion in the US. The White House takes them for granted: “By 2028, the EU will make new investments of $600 billion in the United States.” The formula used by the European Commission to explain this particular element of the agreement is instead more open-ended and less categorical: “EU companies have expressed interest in investing at least $600 billion (ca. €550 billion) in various sectors in the US by 2029.” In the EU version, there is no certainty that these investments will eventually reach the agreed figure, because the private sector may be encouraged to invest in the US, but not forced, and the time horizon also changes.
Different views on e-commerce
“The United States and the European Union intend to address unjustified digital trade barriers,” the US announced. “The European Union confirms that it will not adopt or maintain network usage fees. Furthermore, the United States and the European Union will maintain zero customs duties on electronic transmissions.” There is no trace of “digital trade” in the EU statement. It has to be the European Commission’s trade spokesman, Olof Gill, who clarifies: “The White House statement says that we have confirmed that we will not adopt or maintain network usage fees and that we will maintain zero tariffs on electronic transmissions. This is correct. But that does not interfere with our rules or regulatory space.” It means that “we do not change our rules. We do not touch our right to regulate the digital space ourselves.”
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
