U.S.-EU trade deal in doubt after tariffs invalidated

The U.S.-EU trade deal is now in doubt after the U.S. Supreme court invalidated President Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs.

The court decision not only undercuts the tariffs themselves, but also strikes a blow against Trump’s ability to use tariff threats as a coercive tool in trade negotiations. A series of bilateral trade deals were predicated on the ability of President Trump to unilaterally set tariff rates on individual countries.

The decision raises serious questions about the viability of the U.S.-EU trade agreement, and by extension, the European commitment to buy massive volumes of American LNG.

“We take note of the ruling by the US Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully,” said Olof Gill, European Commission spokesperson for trade. “We remain in close contact with the US Administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling.”

In July 2025, at the Trump Turnberry resort in Scotland, the U.S. and the EU agreed to a trade deal that included a commitment from Europe to buy $750 billion worth of energy products over a three-year period. At the time, experts and energy analysts panned the figure as delusional and unrealistic. European imports of U.S. oil and gas are mere fractions of that total.

Following the Supreme Court decision, there are more fundamental questions about the viability of the entire agreement. The Turnberry deal called for a 15 percent tariff on European goods heading to the U.S., a figure that the U.S. framed as a concession to Brussels after Trump previously threatened much higher levies.

Now that the President’s authority to issue such tariffs has been shot down, it’s not clear if or whether Europe will feel compelled to live up to the terms of the Turnberry deal. The European Parliament was previously scheduled to vote on the agreement in just a few days’ time.

Bernd Lange, a member of the European Parliament, called for an emergency meeting of the Parliament’s trade negotiating team on Monday.

“Tariff Ruling #SCOTUS is a positive signal for the rule of law. Judges have shown that even an US president does not operate in a legal vacuum,” MEP Lange posted on X. “Legal barriers have been set, the era of unlimited, arbitrary tariffs impossible by the President might now be coming to an end.”

The Trump administration has signaled for weeks that it has backup options in the event that the Supreme Court invalidated his broad tariff authority. He may turn to other statues that offer narrower tariff authority.

MEP Anna Cavazzini, who sits on the Parliament’s trade committee, said passage of the trade deal should be “paused until we have clarity” on the implications of the Supreme Court decision, according to Euractiv.

As it stands, Europe has become highly dependent on American gas, where it sources 57 percent of its imported LNG. But fulfilling the commitments of the Turnberry trade deal would mean that Europe’s dependence on U.S. LNG would deepen over time, with the EU importing as much as 80 percent of its LNG from the U.S. by 2030, according to an IEEFA analysis.

In light of the U.S. threats to Greenland, there had already been some small steps in Europe to begin to look for a way out from U.S. dependence, including finding alternative LNG suppliers and also ways to accelerate the energy transition.

“These are very turbulent times,” the European Union’s commissioner for energy and housing Dan Jørgensen told reporters in Brussels a few weeks ago. “What has made the situation more serious and complex is the strained relationship to the U.S. and the fact that we have an American president that does not exclude using force against Greenland,” he said.

Even before the Supreme Court decision, some American officials took note that the EU could pivot away from U.S. LNG.

“I think, Commissioner Jørgensen’s comments are very unfortunate. The United States is a rock-solid supplier of energy. You can’t have a better partner,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told journalists after an International Energy Agency summit in Paris on February 18.

“We’ve never used energy as a political weapon. Never,” he said.