U.S. President Trump has urged the European Union to impose tariffs up to 100% on imports from China and India, largely as leverage over those countries’ purchases of Russian oil. The idea is that such steep tariffs would pressure third countries economically, cutting off revenue streams to Russia.
But the EU is unlikely to agree to—or be able to implement—tariffs at that level. Here are the main reasons why.
Key constraints and considerations for the EU
1. WTO rules and legal limits
Under the World Trade Organization (WTO), all members have “bound tariffs” — the maximum tariff levels they commit to for different goods. To increase tariffs beyond those bound levels would violate those commitments, unless there is a formal renegotiation or specific exception.
The EU is also bound by principles like the Most-Favoured-Nation requirement, which generally means you can’t discriminate between trading partners except under specific treaty-based exceptions.
So, a sweeping 100% tariff would likely run afoul of WTO obligations unless very strong legal grounds are found—and even then, it could trigger dispute settlement proceedings.
2. Internal political division within the EU
The EU is not a single monolith. Major member states have differing economic interests, levels of exposure to Chinese markets, and domestic industry concerns. Even when imposing far more modest tariffs (such as on Chinese electric vehicles), there has been division between countries: some support, many abstain, and some oppose.
Countries with stronger trade relations with China—or whose industries depend heavily on Chinese supply chains—are more reluctant to push hard. Some fear retaliation. Some fear harm to their own exporters.
Thus, getting consensus for something as radical as 100% tariffs is very unlikely.
3. Risk of retaliation by China
History shows that China responds to Western tariffs or trade barriers by countermeasures. After the EU moved to impose tariffs on Chinese EVs, China initiated investigations and tariffs on EU exports like pork, dairy and brandy.
China also has strategic strengths (rare earths, key inputs) that it could restrict exports of, which could harm EU industries. That gives China leverage.
So, with high tariffs comes high risk of economic blow-back, especially for sensitive sectors.
4. Broader economic costs for the EU
Tariffs are a tax on imported goods; EU consumers and companies relying on Chinese inputs would face higher costs. That can lead to inflation, reduced competitiveness, higher costs for industries using parts or raw materials from China.
Trade diversion could also occur: if the EU erects high tariff barriers, trade flows might shift unfavorably, possibly hurting EU sectors more than helping them.
So there are real costs that need to be weighed, especially in a period of inflation and high energy costs.
5. Lack of political urgency / alternate tools
The EU tends to prefer multilayered, legally robust tools: trade defence instruments, anti-dumping or anti-subsidy investigations, and measures to reduce strategic dependencies, rather than sweeping punitive tariffs.
Also, the EU’s foreign policy approach is more incremental. Shifting relationships with China are complex not just economically but geopolitically (human rights, climate, technology, security). Moving immediately to 100% tariffs could burn bridges in ways the EU may not want.
Why Trump wants 100% tariffs, and why the proposal works differently in the U.S.
It helps to see why such a proposal might be plausible (or at least less constrained) in the U.S.:
- The U.S. has more direct unilateral power, especially with executive authorities, over certain trade measures.
- Steep tariffs are popular with certain constituencies, especially in industries that claim to be harmed by Chinese competition.
- U.S. trade policy may prioritize short-term leverage in geopolitical competition more aggressively than the EU does.
Still, even in the U.S., 100% tariffs across the board may run into legal, economic, and political complications.
Possible paths the EU might take instead
Rather than imposing 100% tariffs, the EU might pursue:
- Tariffs targeting specific sectors or goods, especially where evidence of subsidy or dumping is strong (e.g. EVs, rare earths, certain manufactured goods).
- Anti-subsidy or countervailing duties which precisely aim to offset unfair advantages, rather than blanket penal tariffs.
- Non-tariff measures: stricter rules on subsidies, requirements for transparency, restrictions on strategic technology transfer, export controls of critical materials.
- Diplomatic coordination with other partners to build pressure rather than acting unilaterally.
Overall assessment
Putting this all together, the reasons the EU almost certainly won’t impose 100% tariffs on China include:
- Legal constraints under WTO binding agreements
- Internal political disagreement and divergence of national economic interests
- Retaliation risk that could hurt EU exporters and strategic supply chains
- High economic cost within the EU, both to consumers and industry
- Preference for calibrated, legally sustainable tools over radical, sweeping measures
It’s not impossible (in an extremely escalated scenario), but for now, the costs and risks are so high that such a policy looks highly unlikely.
