EU's "exorbitant bill" sparks public outrage: 600 billion investment in exchange for a 15% tariff—has Europe become America's "ATM"?

On August 1, the chairman of the German Alternative for Germany party, Weidel, shouted into the camera: “The EU and von der Leyen have both been deceived by the US!”

She presented a set of figures: the EU has invested 600 billion dollars in building factories in the US, spent 750 billion dollars on purchasing American natural gas and oil, and voluntarily increased tariffs on exports to the US to 15%. These remarks immediately sparked public outrage, with netizens exclaiming, “Europe is essentially giving money to the US and acting as a sucker.”

On July 27 local time, Trump and von der Leyen announced a new trade agreement at a golf course in Scotland. The core provisions include the EU investing 600 billion dollars in the US, purchasing 750 billion dollars worth of energy, while the US imposes a 15% tariff on EU goods exported to the US.

While it appears to be a “mutual compromise,” there are hidden complexities. According to CCTV News, the EU has directly reduced tariffs on U.S. automobiles to zero, while the U.S. has raised the rate from 2.5% to 15%. This move has left the German automotive industry exclaiming, “Our hearts can't take it.”

Under the agreement, the EU must purchase $750 billion worth of energy from the U.S. over the next three years, averaging $250 billion annually. However, data from The Paper shows that the EU's total energy imports from the US in 2024 amounted to only $70 billion, meaning imports would need to increase by over three times.

Analysts from ING directly criticized: “The global liquefied natural gas market is only $200 billion annually—is the EU trying to monopolize US energy supplies?”

A more practical issue is that Europe has already signed long-term supply agreements with countries like Norway and Qatar. If it suddenly shifts to the US, who will bear the risks and costs of breaching those agreements?

Currently, the EU's 600 billion investment is primarily focused on the pharmaceutical, automotive, and nuclear energy sectors. For example, Swiss companies Roche and Novartis have already announced plans to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the US to build research and development centers, while German automakers are expanding factories in Tennessee and Alabama.

However, the issue is that these investments are largely corporate initiatives. Why should the EU use taxpayers' money as a “dowry”? According to calculations by the German Economic Institute, U.S. tariffs could cost Germany 290 billion euros over the next three years, equivalent to 1.6% of annual GDP. This money could have been used to subsidize domestic industrial upgrading.

What angers Europeans the most is the inequality of the agreement. The average tariff on EU exports to the US is only 1.45%, but the US has raised its rate to 15%, a tenfold increase.

Marine Le Pen, leader of France's National Rally, harshly criticized this as a “political, economic, and moral defeat,” while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán bluntly stated it was “worse than Brexit.”

Ironically, von der Leyen defended the deal as “the best possible outcome,” but it is clear to anyone with eyes that the US is playing the “tariffs for investment” game to perfection, both fleecing Europe and consolidating its energy hegemony.

The ripple effects of this agreement are already evident. German Vice Chancellor Habeck warned that US tariffs could lead to Germany's economy stagnating for a third consecutive year, with the automotive industry bearing the brunt of the impact.

While BMW and Volkswagen's factories in the US are well-established, a 15% tariff would still eat into most of their profits. More critically, energy costs are a major concern, as US liquefied natural gas prices are 30% higher than those in Russia, prompting European industry to voice concerns about accelerated “deindustrialization.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov bluntly criticized the situation, stating, “Europe is cutting off its own lifeline; capital is fleeing to the United States.”

European public opinion is now divided into two camps. Supporters of the agreement argue that it avoids a trade war and brings “stability” to the economy; opponents condemn it as a “surrender agreement” that undermines Europe's sovereignty.

Weidel's outburst reflects the sentiments of many citizens, as the 600 billion euro investment equates to each EU citizen contributing 1,200 euros, yet the outcome is higher tariffs and more expensive energy. One netizen joked: “The EU isn't negotiating; it's writing a IOU to the US.”

The controversy continues to simmer. The German Alternative for Germany party has launched a petition demanding a parliamentary investigation into potential conflicts of interest behind the agreement. Shortly thereafter, opposition parties in France and Italy also took action, calling for a reassessment of the agreement's impact on their countries.

Meanwhile, in the US, shares of liquefied natural gas exporters have skyrocketed, with Cheniere Energy's market value surging by 15% over two days.

It can only be said that whether this “deal” is Europe's reluctant compromise or the US's calculated move, time will provide the answer. But one thing is clear: when Europe puts its neck in the noose, the first thing to be tightened may be its own economic lifeline.