EU to Suspend €93B US Trade Retaliation
EU to Suspend €93B US Trade Retaliation
Brussels, Jan 23, 2026 – The European Commission has announced plans to extend the suspension of a massive €93 billion ($109 billion) retaliatory trade package against the United States for another six months. The measures, originally scheduled to take effect on February 7, were first put on hold last year as Brussels and Washington worked on a joint trade agreement.
This move signals a continued effort to maintain trade stability while keeping a backstop in place should tensions escalate.
Why the EU Retaliation Was Put on Hold
The €93 billion package was initially drafted in early 2025 during tense trade negotiations with the U.S. In August of the same year, the EU and U.S. agreed on a joint trade statement, which led to a six-month suspension of the package.
Olof Gill, a spokesman for the European Commission, explained:
"The measures will remain suspended, but if necessary, they can be reactivated at any point in the future."
The suspension comes after a recent U.S. decision not to impose new tariffs over Greenland, removing an immediate trigger for the EU’s retaliatory measures.
Business Leaders Push for Long-Term Climate Action
Meanwhile, top business executives continue to emphasize the importance of climate action amid short-term economic pressures. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Allianz CEO Oliver Bäte criticized the idea that Europe might abandon its net-zero ambitions.
Bäte, said:
"Anyone with children will have to worry about the planet’s future. Short-term thinking on this is just bulls---."
He highlighted Allianz’s own climate efforts, noting that the company has already cut energy consumption by over 40% while maintaining realistic long-term targets for net-zero emissions by 2050.
Net Zero vs. “Real Zero” Debate
The conversation around climate targets took another turn when Australian mining mogul Andrew Forrest challenged the concept of “net zero.” Forrest argues for “real zero,” which he defines as completely stopping fossil fuel use by a set date.
"Net zero has become an excuse with carbon credits and offsets," "Real zero is simple: stop burning fossil fuels, and shareholders will benefit from lower energy costs."
Fortescue, Forrest’s iron ore company, aims to eliminate fossil fuel use across its Australian operations by 2040, encouraging other hard-to-abate industries to do the same.
China’s Strategy vs. U.S. Policy
Both Bäte and Forrest pointed to China’s strategic energy investments as a model. By backing both renewable and conventional energy sources, China positions itself as a global leader in the energy transition.
In contrast, U.S. policy under the Trump administration prioritized fossil fuels, making renewable energy projects politically risky. Forrest called this approach shortsighted, especially when considering the long-term competitiveness of energy costs.
What This Means for Investors and Businesses
For European businesses, the EU’s six-month suspension provides breathing room. Companies can continue trade relations with the U.S. without fear of immediate tariffs, while governments and industries navigate both geopolitical tensions and climate commitments.
The decision reflects a growing recognition that trade tools, like retaliatory tariffs, are not just punitive, they’re also strategic safeguards. Meanwhile, climate policy continues to be a balancing act between ambition and realism, with business leaders advocating for smart, achievable goals rather than reactive politics.
Key Takeaways
- The EU is suspending a €93 billion trade retaliation package against the U.S. for six months.
- The suspension follows the removal of U.S. tariff threats over Greenland.
- Allianz CEO and other business leaders emphasize long-term climate action over short-term political reversals.
- The “net zero” vs. “real zero” debate highlights differing approaches to reducing fossil fuel dependence.
- China’s dual investment strategy in energy contrasts with the U.S. focus on fossil fuels.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial or investment advice. Always consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions.
Read Next
All Categories
Tags
