EU Parliament looks to amendments to rewrite US tariff deal

Brussels – The EU-US trade agreement signed at the end of July is unpopular, but the European Parliament does not intend to force it through. Not now, at least. Instead of confronting the European Commission, which negotiated this agreement, Parliament is opting for a parliamentary amendment path, through modifications that can meet any political need. Rewriting the agreement by modifying it, forcing the EU executive to renegotiate it with the other party, sending an implicit message of censure without triggering a new vote of no-confidence against the college of commissioners, the outcome of which would be uncertain. 

Outlining the strategy of the Parliament is Bernd Lange, a socialist and president of the Committee on International Trade, which has convened in an extraordinary session to discuss the tariff agreement that is currently unacceptable. As it stands, this agreement “produces neither certainty nor predictability,” Lange argues. “Nobody knows who set the thresholds for agricultural products,” he criticises. “It is an unbalanced agreement,” since the tariffs are only for European exports and for Europeans, there are obligations to buy and invest in the US, he added. “Certainly, Parliament can block legislation, but that is not the goal. We want the best possible deal for our citizens and businesses,” he admits.

https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/08/04/eu-us-tariff-deal-under-fire-renewed-risk-of-censure-motion-against-von-der-leyen/

The idea is therefore “to submit amendments,” the chairman of the parliamentary committee confirms. It is undoubtedly a more feasible hypothesis than a new no-confidence motion, which the radical left group (the Left) is working on anyway. The group wants to present a motion of censure against the EU Commission, but it is not clear whether and how far it will be possible to take it forward. Meanwhile, at least 72 signatures are needed, and the Left has 46 MEPs. Some 30 signatures are required to have a text on which the main parties are, however, holding back. 

The line of the Popular Party (EPP) is that the EU-US agreement is not the best possible, but is, in fact, a necessary deal. Even though the Socialists (S&D) are very much on the warpath, they consider a head-on collision as premature at this point. Of course, they do not rule out challenging von der Leyen, but neither do they openly confirm it. The way of amendments is perhaps considered the most effective way to produce results and to put von der Leyen in a difficult position, and to find the support of the Liberals (Re) and Greens, who are troubled and doubtful about an agreement they neither like nor find convincing, but are reluctant to push for a new vote of no confidence. 

Von der Leyen already survived a vote of no confidence in early July, coming out of the plenary vote even stronger. At the moment, the numbers to bring the Commission down are not there,  and passing a second motion of censure would strengthen the EU executive and its president even more. Conversely, bringing down the EU “government” would mean opening an institutional crisis at a time of uncertainty, exposing the EU to Russia and to US President Donald Trump himself.

International trade commission president, Bernd Lange [photo: Alain Rolland/European Parliament]

“Fortunately, we are not in the United States, where only one person decides,” Lange said. “Here we have a democratic process,” with a parliament that decides and intends to do so, without making concessions.” In this sense, “we do not intend to speed up” the debate process, the chairman of the Committee on International Trade added.

In the meantime, all eyes are on von der Leyen. Next week (10 September), in Strasbourg, the president of the EU executive will deliver her State of the Union address, a valuable moment to understand how she intends to move forward in the legislature. This is where “we expect her to provide clarity on trade policy,” Lange admits — using a plural that refers not only to his entire group, the Socialists, but to the whole political spectrum represented in the committee he chairs, and more broadly, to a Parliament eager for answers.