STRASBOURG — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen returned to the European Parliament here on Wednesday for her first State of the Union address since her re-election last year, knowing that one theme would overshadow much of the debate: the lopsided EU-US trade deal she struck with US President Donald Trump back in July.
The Commission president touched on a wide array of priorities in her back-to-school speech, but it was the transatlantic pact that drew the most fire — and the one she seemed most ready to defend.
“We have put our companies at a relative advantage because some of our direct competitors face much higher US tariffs,” she told MEPs. “Yes, their baseline may be lower, but when you account for the exceptions that we secured and the additional rates which others have on top, we have the best agreement,” she said.
But as expected, her words failed to sway disgruntled political leaders.
“Where is Europe? Where is Europe when you sign an unfair deal with Trump, accepting tariffs without any retaliation?” asked Spanish MEP Iratxe García Pérez, leader of the centre-left Socialists & Democrats (S&D) parliamentary group. “Our position is clear, we want to amend the agreement,” she said.
But analysts argue that the criticism is less about reopening the deal than about posturing ahead of an October vote on the pact.
“I don’t think there’s political room to amend a legislative text that is essentially a copy-and-paste of a sui-generis political deal negotiated in an unusual manner,” Alberto Alemanno, professor of EU law at HEC Paris Business School and founder of the advocacy group The Good Lobby, told The Parliament.
The Commission has yet to table the legislative proposal to enshrine the deal in law, but once it does, both the Parliament and Council will need to approve it swiftly, with October floated as the target date.
Far-right claims 'democratic betrayal'
Von der Leyen insisted the deal was about more than tariffs. “The deal provides crucial stability in our relations with the US at a time of grave global insecurity,” she said, urging MEPs to “think of the repercussions of a full-fledged trade war with the US.”
“Picture the chaos and then put that image next to the one from China just last week,” she said, pointing to the renewed cooperation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping and the risks of Europe being left without a major ally.
But these arguments also largely failed to find an empathetic ear among lawmakers. French far-right leader Jordan Bardella, an MEP, branded the agreement a “democratic betrayal" and accused the Commission chief of failing to defend European interests. His Patriots for Europe group on Wednesday launched a censure motion aimed at ending the “Europe of Von der Leyen,” the second such attempt in recent months.
The Left is working on a separate motion of censure to topple the Commission president, expected to be tabled in the coming weeks when enough signatures have been collected.
Criticism also came from the Greens. Co-chair Bas Eickhout lamented that the EU-US deal would undermine Europe's bid to wean its dependency on foreign energy by locking in €750 billion of US energy purchases. “This is really a crazy part of the deal with the United States, and it needs to change,” he said.
Yet despite the political posturing, the Parliament’s actual room for maneuvering is limited.
To David Kleimann, a senior research associate at the ODI think tank, lawmakers can veto the agreement outright or attach conditions — such as reinforcing the suspension clause or obliging the Commission to trigger its anti-coercion instrument if Trump imposes further tariffs. But rewriting the text is not on the table.
And in practice, a full veto remains highly unlikely. With the risks of blowing up transatlantic relations too high, most groups are expected to settle for symbolic amendments or side assurances rather than pulling the plug on the deal altogether.
Von der Leyen's fragile majority
Alemanno points out the critique over the deal might be less about tariffs than leverage, with the pro-EU majority — the S&D, the liberal Renew group, and the Greens — reminding Von der Leyen that she depends on their backing.
The message carries real weight. Despite a coalition agreement with S&D and Renew, the EPP, Von der Leyen’s political family, has routinely sided with parties to its right on key pieces of legislation — a pattern dubbed the “Venezuela majority” after a symbolic ballot last year to recognise Venezuelan opposition leader Edmundo González Urrutia as president. Those strategic alliances may help the EPP get through a key part of its agenda, notably on deregulation, but they don’t stabilize the coalition she needs to govern.
“It’s all a political game in the end,” said Thomas Thaler, a longtime EPP insider at the European Parliament who now works with consultancy APCO. “Now they [the pro-EU majority] see that Von der Leyen needs their support and that she needs to give something in exchange.” Smaller groups, he added, will seize any chance to win concessions: “it’s the nature of being in the opposition.”
But for Von der Leyen, that game has very real consequences. Her second term hinges on the fragile pro-EU alliance. If the centre-left pulls its support, her majority will crumble, along with any certainty of surviving another confidence vote, like the one the far left and far right are pushing this week.
To Alemanno, Wednesday’s debate more than anything showed how dependent Von der Leyen has become on her pro-EU allies. The trade deal may be the immediate flashpoint, but all the other priorities she unveiled in Strasbourg — from social policy to defence spending — will require the same coalition to hold.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.