On September 11, 2025, as the world paused to mark the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the mood in the corridors of transatlantic power was anything but unified. In Strasbourg, Maroš Šefčovič, the European Union’s trade chief, stood before Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and made an impassioned plea: support the bloc’s latest trade agreement with the United States, or risk plunging into a full-blown trade war with Washington. The stakes, he warned, could not be higher.
“We… stand at a crucial democratic moment,” Šefčovič declared, urging lawmakers to endorse the proposal to slash tariffs on American industrial and agricultural exports, as outlined in the July 2025 framework agreement with the US. The deal, he argued, was the only viable path forward for the EU’s relationship with its powerful ally across the Atlantic. But even as he spoke, dissent simmered on all sides of the political spectrum.
The crux of the controversy? While the agreement would lower barriers for American goods entering Europe, most EU exporters would still face a steep 15% US levy—a sore point for lawmakers who saw the arrangement as lopsided and fraught with unenforceable commitments. The deal obliges the EU to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American energy and weapons, yet offers little legal recourse if Washington fails to reciprocate.
Bernd Lange, chair of Parliament’s trade committee, minced no words in his criticism. He called the deal a form of “blackmail” that took advantage of Europe’s security dependence on the US, and suggested it should be “amended” to comply with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules—specifically, the Most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle, which requires equal treatment for all trading partners. Lange’s concerns found echoes among left-wing, centrist, and right-wing lawmakers alike, illustrating just how broadly skepticism runs.
Yet, even among critics, pragmatism prevailed for some. “I don’t particularly like the outcome of this deal, but I think the most responsible thing to do at this moment is to go through with the deal and then continue to negotiate,” said Jörgen Warborn, a Swedish lawmaker from the center-right European People’s Party, according to EURACTIV. The sense of resignation was palpable: it was, in their view, the least-bad option in a world where the alternatives might be far worse.
Šefčovič, visibly frustrated, doubled down on his defense. “We got the best deal in the world with the US,” he insisted. “Ask the countries that got the agreement with the US, and ask those that didn’t, if they wouldn’t trade places with us. And show me one who wouldn’t. Show me one who wouldn’t!” He also took a pointed swipe at the Commission’s Director General for Trade, Sabine Weyand, who had previously claimed that no genuine negotiations took place before the deal was struck. “Only the person who was not in the room can say something like that,” Šefčovič retorted. “If somebody says there was no negotiation, that’s simply not true.”
But why all this urgency now? The answer lies in the shifting sands of global alliances and economic power. In the two and a half decades since the September 11 attacks, the world’s political landscape has been upended. According to USA TODAY, the outpouring of solidarity that followed 9/11—when nearly every nation, from Argentina to the former Yugoslavia, declared its support for the US—has given way to fractured allegiances and mounting distrust. The NATO alliance, which invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after 9/11, now finds itself rethinking its own cohesion and purpose.
Donald Trump’s presidency, with its unapologetic “America First” stance and the imposition of the steepest US tariffs in nearly a century, has accelerated trends that were already underway. Transactional diplomacy has replaced the lofty rhetoric of shared democratic values, and tariffs—like the 50% levy imposed on India—have strained even the closest partnerships. “Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China,” Trump quipped on Truth Social ahead of a high-profile meeting in Shanghai between Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It was a sarcastic acknowledgment of the gravitational pull China now exerts on the world stage, and a stark reminder of the challenges facing the US and its allies.
It’s not just India. Canada, a steadfast friend since the early 19th century, now finds itself in a bitter trade war with its southern neighbor. Relations have soured to the point where Canadian bars have reportedly removed Kentucky bourbon from their shelves in protest. Meanwhile, European nations are scrambling to increase their own defense spending and assert greater leadership in backing Ukraine against Russia, no longer certain that the US will remain a reliable partner.
Back in Brussels, the EU Commission is not standing still. In addition to the US deal, it has unveiled final texts for trade agreements with Mexico and the Mercosur bloc—comprising Brazil, Argentina, and other South American nations. These, too, must be approved by both the European Parliament and a qualified majority of the EU’s 27 member states. Šefčovič has announced plans to travel to Indonesia later this month to finalize a free trade agreement, and reiterated the EU’s ambition to clinch a deal with India before the year’s end.
Yet, as the EU seeks to hedge against American and Chinese protectionism by deepening ties with other partners, the shadow of 9/11—and all that has followed—looms large. The long war in Iraq, upheaval in the Middle East, and the resurgence of great-power competition have left many traditional alliances battered. As USA TODAY notes, the Taliban is back in control of Afghanistan, Rudy Giuliani—once “America’s mayor”—has been disbarred for spreading misinformation, and terrorism remains an ever-present threat.
On the morning of September 11, 2025, President Trump was slated to participate in an observance at the Pentagon, one of the sites attacked in 2001, before traveling to New York for a Yankees game commemorating the anniversary. The Yankees, as fate would have it, are once again in the hunt for the American League pennant, just as they were in the autumn of 2001—a small echo of continuity in a world transformed.
In his closing remarks to Parliament, Šefčovič tried to drive home the gravity of the moment. “I was just trying to imagine what our debate would look like if we were in a full trade war,” he said. “I am sure I would not get any praise from you for hundreds of jobs lost, billions of euros of investment disappeared, and thousands of SMEs gone bust.” His message was clear: the choices made now will reverberate for years to come, shaping not just the EU’s economic fortunes, but its place in a rapidly changing world.
As leaders on both sides of the Atlantic grapple with new realities, the echoes of past alliances—and the lessons of hard-won deals—remain as relevant as ever.