The European Parliament has opened debate on amendments to the EU–U.S. tariff framework agreed with Washington in late July, with senior lawmakers seeking to insert an expiry date and a series of safeguards before granting approval.
The discussion, led by Bernd Lange, chair of the Parliament’s International Trade (INTA) committee, focuses on conditioning the legislation that would implement the deal on both sides of the Atlantic.
Under the framework, the United States applies a flat 15% tariff to most EU goods. In return, the EU removes many of its duties on U.S. industrial imports and extends preferential access to a range of U.S. agri-food products. The Commission has presented the arrangement as the least disruptive option compared with an earlier U.S. threat to set tariffs at 30% on EU exports. The Parliament and the Council must still approve the enabling EU legislation.
At the committee session on Tuesday, 4 November, Mr Lange outlined five conditions for the Parliament’s position, including an 18-month sunset clause and a rapid safeguard to respond to import surges in specific product lines. He said infant formula producers had flagged concerns about a possible spike in shipments from the United States if EU tariffs are unilaterally lifted. Several political groups indicated support for adding both a time limit and stronger suspension powers to the text. A plenary vote is expected in late January, with any final compromise with member states likely in March or April.
A central point of contention is a separate U.S. decision in August to raise tariffs to 50% on the “metal content” of 407 products, covering items such as wind turbines and motorcycles. Mr Lange has proposed that the EU retain its existing tariffs on U.S. products in these lines until Washington aligns them with the 15% baseline. The Commission, while defending the overall balance of the July framework, has urged the United States to cap its metal-related duties at 15%.
The July agreement, announced after negotiations aimed at averting a wider trade conflict, reorganises U.S. tariff treatment of EU goods into a single 15% rate for almost all product categories, with notable sectoral exceptions (steel and aluminium remain at 50%). EU officials argue the arrangement preserves market access relative to earlier threat scenarios and offers more predictability than ad hoc measures, particularly for capital goods and industrial inputs. Automotive tariffs on EU exports, previously at 27.5%, would fall to 15% under the framework once implemented.
The Commission’s line has been that the package is the “best on offer”. Sabine Weyand, the Commission’s director-general for trade, told MEPs in September that transatlantic trade volumes were holding up at the 15% level, and pressed Parliament to proceed with the EU legislative track that removes duties on U.S. industrial goods. Critics in the chamber, however, point to the metal-content increase announced after the framework was struck as evidence that the legal text must contain clearer rebalancing and suspension triggers.
Mr Lange’s draft would codify several such levers. Alongside the 18-month expiry, it envisages a safeguard mechanism modelled on provisions used in other EU trade texts, allowing the EU to act swiftly if preferential access for U.S. producers results in a sharp rise in imports of a given product. He has also proposed more explicit language enabling the EU to suspend tariff cuts if the United States introduces new measures or raises existing ones in covered sectors.
Procedurally, the INTA committee is steering the Parliament’s position, with the item placed on this week’s agenda in Brussels. After a committee vote, currently pencilled in for January, the file would move to a plenary decision before trilogue talks with the Council. If institutions agree on a common text, formal adoption could occur in early spring. The Commission has maintained that prompt passage would lock in tariff certainty and avoid a reversion to higher U.S. rates.
The United States has framed the 15% baseline as a uniform rate not added to existing duties, but replacing and capping them in most cases. Exceptions, including existing higher statutory rates and the metal-sector measures, remain a source of friction. EU stakeholders most exposed to U.S. competition—selected food categories, steel-intensive manufactures and some machinery segments—are pressing for automatic safeguards rather than discretionary ones. MEPs across several groups have echoed these concerns in calling for robust rebalancing clauses and an easier suspension path.
Next steps will hinge on whether Washington signals movement on the 50% metal-content tariffs and related carve-outs. If the United States agrees to limit those measures to the 15% ceiling set by the framework, support in Parliament may widen for a time-limited EU tariff suspension on U.S. goods. If not, the Parliament appears likely to insist on the sunset clause and stronger safeguards as conditions for approval. For the Commission, the calculation remains that a 15% regime, even time-bound, would keep transatlantic trade flowing and avoid a renewed tariff escalation.
Majorities in EU’s largest states say tariff deal favours US, survey indicates
