EU Approves Turnberry Deal as Trump Threatens New Surtaxes

The European Parliament voted on Tuesday to approve the Turnberry trade agreement with the United States, nearly a year after it was negotiated at Donald Trump’s Scottish golf resort — but the approval came as the Trump administration simultaneously proposed new tariffs of up to 12.5% on EU goods, creating a deeply paradoxical moment in transatlantic trade relations.

A Deal Born of Crisis

The Turnberry deal, struck in July 2025 between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, was designed to de-escalate the trade war triggered by Trump’s “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs on April 2, 2025. Under the agreement, the US capped tariffs on most EU exports at 15%, while the EU eliminated tariffs on most US industrial and agricultural goods.

However, the ratification process was anything but smooth. According to The Guardian, MEPs suspended ratification twice this year — first in protest over Trump’s threat to impose higher tariffs in January, and then over his push to take over Greenland. The deal was finally approved just days before a July 4 deadline, after which the US had threatened to increase tariffs.

The Supreme Court Shake-Up

The trade landscape shifted dramatically in February 2026 when the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose reciprocal tariffs, ruling that the 1977 law did not grant the president authority to impose such broad trade measures. As RTBF reported, some $166 billion in tariffs were collected without legal basis between February 2025 and February 2026, with $22 billion already refunded to importers.

Trump responded by imposing a temporary 10% global tariff set to expire on July 24, 2026, creating a ticking clock for his administration to find a permanent legal mechanism.

Section 301: A New Legal Strategy

On June 2, the US Trade Representative (USTR) announced a new approach: Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. As detailed by Al Jazeera, the administration has proposed tariffs of up to 12.5% on imports from 60 economies, arguing those nations have failed to adequately prevent trade in goods produced with forced labor. The EU faces a 10% surcharge under this proposal.

Unlike the IEEPA approach, Section 301 requires investigations, public comment periods, and formal determinations — making it more legally durable but slower to implement. Madeline Chalecki of the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center told Al Jazeera that the administration is “essentially trading speed and discretion for durability and legal certainty,” adding that Section 301 tariffs are “much harder to change” than those imposed under IEEPA.

EU’s Conditional Approval

The European Parliament’s approval of the Turnberry deal came with robust safeguards designed to protect European interests. According to the European Parliament’s official press release, the deal includes:

• A sunset clause: The tariff preferences expire on March 31, 2028, unless renewed through a new legislative proposal
• A sunrise clause: US must fully respect its commitments — including reducing tariffs on EU steel and aluminum products to 15% — before the deal takes effect
• A suspension clause: The EU can withdraw tariff preferences if the US imposes additional tariffs, threatens member states’ territorial integrity, or engages in economic coercion

Bernd Lange, the European Parliament’s rapporteur for the deal, stated: “MEPs will only be able to sign up to the trade terms of the deal if the regulation contains very strong and clear safeguards, and only after the US has fully respected the terms of the deal.”

A Paradox of Cooperation and Conflict

The timing of these developments creates an extraordinary paradox. The EU is implementing a deal meant to stabilize transatlantic trade relations even as Washington proposes new tariffs that Brussels considers a violation of the deal’s spirit. The EU’s suspension clause was specifically designed to respond to exactly such scenarios.

Olof Gill, the EU’s deputy chief spokesperson for trade, told Al Jazeera: “The Commission will carefully analyse the preliminary findings of the investigation and will continue engaging with the US Administration. That said, the EU considers tariffs imposed on these grounds to be unjustified.”

Broader Economic Implications

Analysts broadly agree that the direct impact of the proposed Section 301 tariffs (10-12.5%) is limited compared to the earlier IEEPA regime. However, the long-term consequences may be more significant. Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative, warned that “more tariffs mean higher import costs, greater uncertainty for businesses, disrupted supply chains, and higher prices for American consumers and manufacturers.”

Chalecki noted that the US move could “accelerate the reorientation of global trade away from the US,” with businesses shifting supply chains and governments expanding trade ties with alternative partners. The EU has already been pursuing this strategy: the EU-Mercosur deal took provisional effect on May 1, creating a trading zone of 700 million people, and the EU-India trade agreement signed in January creates a free trade zone of two billion people.

What’s Next

Several critical deadlines loom. The temporary 10% global tariff expires on July 24, creating pressure for a permanent mechanism. Written comments on the proposed Section 301 tariffs are due by July 6, with USTR hearings scheduled for July 7. EU leaders are expected to formally adopt the Turnberry deal at a Brussels summit on June 18.

The central question remains whether the EU will activate its suspension clause if the US proceeds with Section 301 tariffs on European goods — a move that could effectively unravel the very deal the European Parliament just approved.