Trump Rejects EU's 'Zero for Zero' Tariff Proposal, Calls It "Bad For Us"

In a bold rejection of European efforts to ease transatlantic trade tensions, U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed the European Union’s “zero for zero” tariff proposal as inadequate and "bad for us," further escalating his administration's protectionist stance toward global trade partners. The proposal, made by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, was intended to forge a bilateral agreement eliminating tariffs on cars and other industrial goods between the U.S. and the EU, a move she described as a step toward fair and balanced trade. However, Trump remained unimpressed, citing deep imbalances in trade and energy dealings.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump criticized the European Union for what he sees as an unfair trade environment. "The European Union has been very, very bad to us, they don't take our cars, like Japan in that sense, they don't take our agricultural product. They don't take anything practically," he said, painting a picture of an unreciprocated economic relationship that disadvantages American industries.

The President's comments come on the heels of a new 20 percent tariff announcement on European goods, part of a broader protectionist offensive expected to go into effect on April 9. These new tariffs reflect Trump’s longstanding grievances with the U.S.–EU trade deficit and his “America First” economic policies, which aim to reduce reliance on imports and strengthen domestic production.

Von der Leyen’s proposal sought to eliminate tariffs on all industrial goods traded between the two economies, aiming for what she called “a fair and reciprocal deal.” Speaking in Brussels, she stated, "We have proposed zero tariffs on industrial products... Europe is always ready to strike a good deal with the United States." But she also issued a stern warning: “We are also ready to respond with countermeasures and defend our interests.”

Trump’s rejection of the proposal wasn’t just about tariffs. He emphasized that European countries must commit to purchasing American energy in large quantities to make any deal worthwhile. "They have to buy and commit to buy a like amount of energy (to this trade deficit)," he asserted. He also stated that any acceptable trade deal would need to be worth around $350 billion to counterbalance the U.S. trade deficit with the EU.

However, these figures appear to contradict official data. According to the U.S. Trade Representative office, the U.S. goods trade deficit with the European Union was $235.6 billion in 2024—significantly lower than Trump’s stated $350 billion figure. Nonetheless, Trump's administration continues to use the trade deficit as a key metric to justify increased tariffs and more aggressive trade tactics.

Trump's strategy of linking trade imbalances to energy purchases is part of a broader pattern of trying to reframe trade deals to include commitments that support American exports, particularly in fossil fuels like natural gas and oil. This is consistent with his previous calls for energy independence and the promotion of U.S. energy exports as a tool for economic diplomacy.

The EU’s proposed deal, had it been accepted, could have represented a landmark shift in the two sides’ trade relationship, particularly regarding the auto industry, which has long been a sticking point. The U.S. auto sector, heavily impacted by global competition and foreign tariffs, has been a frequent topic in Trump’s trade rhetoric. European manufacturers, especially from Germany, have significant exports to the U.S. and would have benefitted from tariff-free access to American consumers.

Trump’s rejection, therefore, signals continued turbulence in U.S.–EU trade relations. It not only heightens the risk of a tariff war but also threatens to strain diplomatic ties between two of the world’s largest economic blocs. The EU has indicated it will respond if the new tariffs go into effect, potentially with counter-tariffs on American products ranging from agriculture to consumer goods and tech products.

This tit-for-tat tariff dynamic raises concerns among economists, who warn that escalating trade wars can hurt both economies. Consumers are likely to face higher prices, industries may suffer from disrupted supply chains, and global markets could react with increased volatility. Moreover, international allies are watching closely, concerned that the U.S. may apply similar tactics to other trade partners.

As April 9 approaches and the new tariffs loom, all eyes are on how the European Union will respond. Whether this latest clash will push both sides back to the negotiating table or trigger a full-scale trade war remains to be seen. For now, Trump's message is clear: unless the deal overwhelmingly favors the U.S., it’s a no-go.