The German government has cast doubt on the legally binding nature of the recently announced trade agreement between the United States and the European Union, revealing a potentially fragile foundation for the transatlantic deal. In a written response to a query from the Green Party parliamentary faction, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs, under the leadership of CDU politician Katharina Reiche, stated that the joint declaration represents a formalization of a previous political agreement, but carries no legal obligation.
The agreement, touted by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and former US President Donald Trump, involved a pledge from the EU to procure energy commodities – primarily oil and liquefied natural gas – valued at approximately €700 billion over a three-year period, in exchange for reduced tariffs from the United States. However, Berlin’s assessment indicates that the commitment is viewed more as an initial step towards expanding trade relationships rather than a firmly adopted requirement. According to the government’s statement, no further written agreements currently exist to solidify the understanding.
Data released alongside the response reveals that the EU imported coal, oil and gas worth roughly €73 billion from the United States last year. The government emphasized that the current accord cannot be utilized to impose legally binding stipulations on private energy companies.
The declaration has drawn criticism, particularly from within Germany’s Green Party. Michael Kellner, a Green Party energy expert, has cautioned against complacency, warning that Trump, or subsequent administrations, might leverage the promise of these energy imports as a bargaining chip, potentially reinstating higher tariffs if the EU’s commitment is perceived as insufficient. Kellner’s sentiment suggests a precarious situation where the relatively vague promises underlying the deal could become a source of geopolitical pressure, potentially undermining both European energy independence and transatlantic trade relations. The ambiguity surrounding the agreement raises serious questions about the underlying commitments and the potential for future trade disputes.