EU Approves Turnberry Deal as Trump Threatens New Surtaxes

Strasbourg, France — The European Parliament voted on Tuesday to definitively approve the Turnberry trade agreement with the United States, a deal negotiated in July 2025 between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and U.S. President Donald Trump. Yet the approval comes under the shadow of new American tariff threats that could reignite transatlantic trade tensions.

According to RTBF, the European Parliament approved legislation eliminating most EU tariffs on U.S. industrial and agricultural goods in exchange for a 15% cap on U.S. tariffs on European imports. The vote was seen as a bid to stabilize transatlantic relations after months of upheaval.

The Turnberry Agreement: A Fragile Compromise

The Turnberry deal, struck at Trump’s golf resort in Scotland, was designed to de-escalate the trade war triggered by Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs of April 2025. Under the agreement, the EU agreed to eliminate tariffs on most U.S. industrial and agricultural imports, while the U.S. capped tariffs on European goods at 15%. Both sides also committed to cooperating on eliminating forced labor from supply chains.

The deal was controversial from the start, with critics arguing the EU had submitted to U.S. pressure. The European Parliament added safeguard clauses allowing suspension of the deal if the U.S. undermines its objectives or engages in economic coercion — a clause directly inspired by Trump’s threats against Greenland.

A New Tariff Threat Emerges

Just weeks before the final vote, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) proposed new tariffs of up to 12.5% on 60 economies — including the European Union — citing failures to combat imports of goods produced with forced labor. USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer stated on June 2 that “the failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable.”

The proposed tariffs are based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law that allows the USTR to investigate and respond to foreign trade practices deemed unfair or discriminatory. Legal experts note that Section 301 tariffs have a stronger legal foundation than the emergency powers Trump previously relied upon.

The Supreme Court Setback

The new tariff push follows a major legal defeat for Trump. In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, ruling he had exceeded his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court found that $166 billion in tariffs had been collected illegally between February 2025 and February 2026 from 330,000 importers. According to U.S. customs authorities, $22 billion has already been refunded, though the government has appealed the repayment order.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, Trump imposed a temporary 10% across-the-board tariff set to expire on July 24, 2026. The new Section 301 tariffs are designed to replace this interim measure.

EU Rejects the Justification

The European Commission has called the proposed tariffs “unjustified.” Olof Gill, Deputy Chief Spokesperson for the European Commission, stated on June 3 that “the EU considers tariffs imposed on these grounds to be unjustified.”

Bernd Lange, Chair of the European Parliament’s Trade Committee, was more blunt, calling the accusation that the EU does not do enough against forced labor “absurd.” Lange noted that “the EU has adopted the world’s most stringent rules against products made with forced labor.”

The EU’s own forced labor regulation, adopted in 2024, does not come into force until December 14, 2027 — a gap the USTR cites as evidence of the EU’s failure to effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.

Legal and Strategic Analysis

Legal experts have raised questions about the viability of the new tariffs. Desirée LeClerq, Assistant Professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, highlighted a contradiction in the USTR’s case: the agency had to argue both that forced labor goods are still entering the United States and that U.S. Customs and Border Protection is doing an effective job, in order to show that it is the lack of effectiveness in other countries that places the United States at a disadvantage.

Ryan Last and Daniel N. Anziska of Troutman Pepper Locke noted that “the novel legal theories underlying this Section 301 action — particularly the assertion that the mere absence of a foreign import prohibition constitutes an ‘unreasonable’ practice — will likely face judicial challenge.”

The EU now faces a difficult strategic choice: accept the tariffs and risk undermining the Turnberry deal’s credibility, retaliate and risk a full-scale transatlantic trade war, or negotiate and seek to demonstrate compliance on forced labor enforcement. French Trade Minister Nicolas Forissier has counseled caution, stating on June 3 that “we need to take some time first, we should not react impulsively.”

What’s Next

With the interim 10% tariffs set to expire on July 24, 2026, the Trump administration faces a deadline to finalize a permanent tariff mechanism. The new Section 301 tariffs, if implemented, would trigger a 60-day public comment period and could face immediate legal challenges.

The Turnberry deal’s safeguard clauses — allowing suspension if the U.S. undermines the agreement’s objectives — may now become relevant. Meanwhile, EU-US trade in goods and services was valued at approximately €1.7 trillion ($2 trillion) in 2024, meaning any escalation would carry significant economic consequences for both sides.

For now, the European Parliament has approved the Turnberry deal in the hope of stability. But with new tariff threats looming, the transatlantic trade relationship remains as fragile as ever.