In the shadow of solemn speeches about transatlantic friendship, fresh proof of the European Union’s bureaucratic drift is emerging. At the very moment when the United States and Europe seemed ready to seal a modest but symbolic trade agreement, Brussels’ zealots of digital regulation chose to sabotage it.

The joint statement, which was supposed to formalize the tariff deal reached in July 2025, has been postponed indefinitely. The reason? A quarrel over digital “non-tariff barriers.”

In July 2025, after tense negotiations, the United States and the European Union announced a deal lowering tariffs on most European goods imported into the US, cutting them to 15%—a level far below those imposed on China, India, or Switzerland.

This modest step represented genuine progress toward easing trade tensions. A joint communiqué was expected to confirm the deal in mid-August. Yet, according to the Financial Times, corroborated by several sources, Brussels refuses to sign unless the text explicitly guarantees the preservation of its digital rules.

A US official has stated that the tariff cuts will not be implemented until the communiqué is finalized. In other words, months of negotiation are being thrown away—just so the EU can safeguard its ideological toy.
At the core of the dispute lie the notorious “non-tariff barriers.” The Americans, pragmatists as always, see European digital regulations—most notably the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA)—as such barriers (and they are right). These laws force tech giants, overwhelmingly American—Google, X, Amazon, Meta—to comply worldwide with the EU’s freedom-destroying rules.

The Costly Illusion of a Regulatory Reich

The DSA, in force since 2024, imposes draconian obligations on online platforms to hunt down so-called illegal content, “disinformation,” and “hate speech.” Translation: anything that isn’t left-wing or Islamist. Failure to comply means colossal fines, up to 6% of global turnover. In its arrogance, the EU pretends to legislate for the entire planet.
Brussels justifies this with its usual moralizing veneer: “ensuring a safer, fairer online environment” and shielding consumers from the “excesses” of freedom of expression.

Let’s be clear: behind the rhetoric hides ruthless predation, aimed squarely at American innovators while fattening up European parasites.

True to its French Jacobin tradition spiced with German authoritarianism, the EU multiplies regulatory crusades in the name of “sovereignty”—a mere pretext for ever-tighter centralization and the erosion of liberty. The DSA forces networks to sanction, in advance, opinions displeasing to EU elites, employing armies of censors paid by those very platforms.

These bureaucrats decide, without appeal or justification, which posts, books, or tweets to erase. Pure arbitrariness.The result? An avalanche of complaints and investigations against Big Tech, with record fines already imposed on Apple and Microsoft. When freedom-destroying zeal collides with protectionist greed, innovation is the first casualty.
Meanwhile, the United States demands that the communiqué acknowledge these rules as barriers to free trade, paving the way for potential retaliation. Brussels, obstinate, insists on excluding any critique of its regulatory crown jewels.

Europe’s Regulatory Hubris

This impasse will surprise no one familiar with EU history: a hypertrophied bureaucracy churning out norms at a frantic pace. In this world, individual freedom counts for nothing. Contemporary Europe, heir to continental absolutism, mistakes regulation for progress, strangling innovation and the vital market of ideas, services, and goods.

The United States, heir to creative capitalism, sees these delusional digital rules as obstacles to competition and as the latest avatar of creeping socialism infecting the Old Continent.

And so, while the July agreement promised a gust of fresh air for European exporters—cars, wine, cheese, $500 billion a year!—the EU chooses to sacrifice tangible gains for a digital utopia that serves only the whims, prejudices, and insecurities of Brussels’ regulators.

Consequences

The consequences could be severe. A prolonged delay will inevitably deepen transatlantic tensions, already fraught with disputes over AI and personal data (remember the GDPR, another European regulatory monster). Worse, it fuels America’s isolationist narrative: Europe as ungrateful, protectionist, authoritarian, and devious.

The United States, heir to creative capitalism, sees these delusional digital rules as obstacles to competition and as the latest avatar of creeping socialism infecting the Old Continent.

And so, while the July agreement promised a gust of fresh air for European exporters—cars, wine, cheese, $500 billion a year!—the EU chooses to sacrifice tangible gains for a digital utopia that serves only the whims, prejudices, and insecurities of Brussels’ regulators.

Consequences

The consequences could be severe. A prolonged delay will inevitably deepen transatlantic tensions, already fraught with disputes over AI and personal data (remember the GDPR, another European regulatory monster). Worse, it fuels America’s isolationist narrative: Europe as ungrateful, protectionist, authoritarian, and devious.

This is not a mere diplomatic skirmish. It is symptomatic of a Europe that, in the name of illusory “protection,” betrays the freedom that once made it great. The time has come to return to first principles: open markets, vigorous competition, and an Atlantic alliance based on reciprocity, not suspicion. Otherwise, Europe risks confirming once again that it is Rome after the Germanic conquest—eternal in past glory, sterile before the future.

Drieu Godefridi is a jurist (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain), philosopher (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain) and PhD in legal theory (Paris IV-Sorbonne). He is an entrepreneur, CEO of a European private education group and director of PAN Medias Group. He is the author of The Green Reich (2020).

New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Chris Luxon, recently made worldwide headlines and got his five minutes of “fame” after accusing Israel’s Prime Minister of “losing the plot.”

As far as being a contribution to defeating Hamas terror in Gaza and releasing the kidnapped hostages, it once again stands as a classic case of totally misguided and ignorant rhetoric.

It pleases all those Israel bashers represented in the NZ Parliament and the mindless mobs screaming their hateful invective.

It also prepares the ground and softens up the public for the inevitable recognition of a terror-supporting “Palestine.”

The signs and omens are clearly visible except to those who still think that the current delay in such recognition is really a genuine attempt to be balanced and unbiased.

As I have observed on more than one occasion, where Australia goes, New Zealand is bound to follow. A fake show of independent thinking may look good as far as the media is concerned, but at the end of the day, Wellington will fall into line with Canberra.

Once upon a time, antipodean statesmen stood on the side of democracy and the defence of liberty, freedom and the right of the Jewish People. The Anzacs fought to liberate Ottoman-occupied territory and enthusiastically supported the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the entirety of their historic homeland.

They defended Mandated Palestine from Nazi Germany’s invasion and an inevitable extension of the “final solution.”

Both Governments voted for a Jewish and an Arab State in 1947. Their support was greeted with grateful thanks by the beleaguered Jews and scornfully rejected by all Arab and Islamic nations who vowed that only the eradication of Israel and Jews would be agreeable.

The NZ Labour PM, Peter Fraser and Australia’s Labour Party leader and Minister of External Affairs, Dr Herbert Evatt, were cognizant of the Jewish historical connection to the territory. They were determined to right a historical wrong.

What a contrast to today’s craven capitulators who spout revisionist slogans, endorse fake claims and believe every word spoken by transparently supportive facilitators of hate and incitement.

Australia’s Foreign Minister visited Israel post 7 October but declined to travel to the sites of the pogrom and view the stark evidence for herself. Presumably, her reluctance had everything to do with not wanting to be confused by the facts. This became evident subsequently as she continues to parrot patently false and delusory claims about Israel’s sins.

Not one New Zealand Cabinet Minister has bothered to visit Israel.

Even though the PM and Foreign Minister have been in the region, neither of them has shown the slightest inclination to come and learn about the realities on the ground. Instead, they pontificate from “down under” taking their misinformation no doubt from the biased civil servants at the Foreign Ministry and a media dripping with anti Israel reporting.

It is no surprise that a former hard-left Labour NZ Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who is an exalted member of the anti-Israel “elders” group, visited Rafah and returned home with the usual diatribe of half-truths. Accusing Israel of preventing aid trucks from crossing into Gaza, she omitted to point out that the Rafah crossing is controlled by Egypt. Never mind the truth – the lies have already sprouted their poisonous harvest.

My prediction is that NZ will announce its recognition of a fictitious “Palestine” at the UN General Assembly meeting in September.

What do I base my assumption on?

Winston Peters, the NZ Foreign Minister, declared that a decision would be made after careful consideration and after consulting several countries for their opinion and advice.

This sounds eminently sensible and distinctly more balanced than the knee-jerk Australian pandering to far-left ideologies.

Unfortunately, there is a major factor lurking in the undergrowth that points to where the final outcome will be headed.

Which countries will NZ consult in order to ascertain its course of action?

It appears that the countries to be consulted are Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. The common denominator is that each and every one of them supports recognition of “Palestine” and delegitimises the Jewish State’s presence in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

Indonesia does not recognise Israel as a legitimate sovereign State.

Turkey has diplomatic relations, but its leader and Government hanker for the restoration of Ottoman hegemony and demonise Israel at every available opportunity.

Saudi Arabia does not recognise Israel and bans any religion other than Islam.

The UAE is a member of the Abraham Accords and recognises Israel. It, however, believes that “Palestine’s” borders must be the 1948 lines with the eastern part of Jerusalem as its capital.

Egypt has a frigid peace with Israel and likewise demands its withdrawal to indefensible borders.

All of them peddle the fake indigenous claims of Palestinian nationhood and revisionist versions of history.

Given these realities, one can imagine the advice that NZ will receive. It is therefore inevitable that, come September, NZ will fall into line and join those rewarding and facilitating terror. This whole charade is an exercise in transparent hypocrisy.

Abbas, the President for life of the corrupt PA, will likely take the opportunity to proclaim statehood unilaterally. His announcement will be met with rapturous enthusiasm and a standing ovation. He knows that he has already got it in the bag and this will be the ultimate seal of approval from dictators, tyrants and craven democrats alike.

It should be the perfect opportunity for Israel to make its own unilateral declarations, by formally annexing Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

This brings us to the situation of Jewish Diaspora communal groups and spokespersons who continue to issue cringing calls for a two-state solution. Despite seeing after 7 October what such a solution would look like, they articulate this banality no doubt in the hope that by being politically correct, they will deflect the hate mobs. No such result will occur, but like the hopelessly befuddled and naïve hallucinatory left, it is better to pretend than face reality.

Criticising the timing but still advocating the establishment of yet another terror-supporting Islamic country in Israel’s heartland is a woefully losing strategy.

Do those communal groups in Australia and New Zealand, for example, who promote these declarations actually stop to think about the implications?

Do they not realise that all the major political parties’ platforms in both countries demand that Israel withdraw to the 1948 armistice lines? These non-borders were described by the late Abba Eban as “Auschwitz lines.” Eban was no far-right, hard-line Israeli politician but a fully paid-up member of the now defunct Labour Party. If he had applied for a visa to visit Australia today, he would have been banned for articulating such “inciting” language.

Other parties, such as the Greens and the NZ Maori Party, demand the destruction of Israel and the denial of any sort of Jewish sovereignty.

By acquiescing to a two-state solution, Diaspora groups are in effect signing on to the dissolution of Israel. There is no point in pleading that the solution must come after peace negotiations because the agenda and the outcome have already been set. All those dreaming that a corrupt, Jew hating entity will miraculously morph into a democratic and tolerant state are suffering from DRS (delusional reality syndrome).

Those peddling these hallucinations from the illusory safety of Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland and elsewhere will not have to live with the consequences. If their wishes are fulfilled, Jerusalem will be divided, Jews will once again be banned from the Old City and holy sites, and terrorists will be within a stone’s throw of Ben Gurion airport.

That is what the UN demands, and given current realities, that is what Albanese and Luxon will vote for at the appropriate time.

Rejecting any Jewish sovereign legitimacy and inventing false history remain the aims of Abbas and his friends.

It is scandalous that the international community is enabling this to eventuate.

It is even more shameful that there are far too many who, by their silence or acquiescence, will allow it to happen.

That is really losing the plot.