The EU-US trade agreement is not a negotiation but “a surrender”; signing it would be one of the greatest acts of submission of this century, Belgian MEP Yvan Verougstraete (Renew Europe) noted in an interview with Euractiv.
For Verougstraete, Vice-Chair of the Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) and substitute member of the Public Health Committee (SANT), the deal sells off European agriculture, undermines environmental standards, and locks Europe into dependence on the United States.
He warns that the 15% tariff on innovative medicines will slow patient access, divert billions in R&D investment to the US, and weaken one of Europe’s most strategic industries: pharmaceuticals, which sustains 45,000 direct jobs in Belgium alone.
You spoke of a European “surrender” to the United States. Regarding innovative medicines, which will be subject to a 15% tax, is this the most striking example of this submission for you?
YV: Indeed, this agreement is not an opening; it is a surrender. It sells off our agriculture, weakens our environmental standards, and locks us into massive dependence on the United States.
Signing it would be committing one of the greatest acts of submission of this century. Regarding the more specific aspect of medicines, I regret that the rate did not simply remain at 0% as per the WTO agreement, which excludes medicines from import duties.
This decision to apply a 15% tariff is seen as a strategic compromise to avoid more restrictive measures initially considered by the United States, while maintaining a framework for transatlantic cooperation.
It is nonetheless one of the acts of Europe’s current submission, and that is serious. Europe must remain sovereign in its industrial and commercial choices, whether Trump or the pro-US like it or not.
In all honesty, I would not have negotiated in the same way. Just because Trump threatens us does not mean we must kneel. Trump plays the feudal lord with Europe, demanding his tithe under threat of reprisals; we must not give in, because if you accept this time, you will accept the next times; and yes, there will be next times, there is not a shadow of a doubt about that.
Other striking examples are the agricultural, military, and energy parts of this agreement: it is a surrender with respect to our principle of European strategic autonomy, to our environmental, social, and health standards.
A pure and simple surrender of our values. It is quite simply unacceptable.
Belgium is one of the world’s largest exporters of pharmaceutical products, and the sector represents an essential part of our economy. What do these tariffs concretely mean for the competitiveness of our companies and for employment in Belgium?
YV: Belgium is a major player in global pharmaceutical exports. The sector represents nearly 45,000 direct jobs and is a pillar of our economy, ahead of beer exports (€1.58 billion in 2024) and chocolate (€4.4 billion in 2024). These tariffs risk reducing companies’ margins, slowing investment, and weakening employment in a highly strategic sector.
I can already hear some saying that we must accept this agreement to avoid angering Trump and facing harsher constraints. I say it and repeat it: this is a bad calculation; when you let yourself be extorted once, the thug will come back again and again to demand more each time.
EFPIA and pharma.be say that these tariffs risk causing delays in patient access and diverting billions of euros away from research. Do you share this analysis?
YV: I do. These 15% tariffs on innovative medicines will inevitably weigh on supply chains and logistics, with the direct consequence of lengthening access times for European and American patients. In a sector where every month counts, especially for treatments against cancer or rare diseases, this is a decision with concrete health repercussions.
Moreover, EFPIA estimates that more than €16 billion in investments could leave Europe in the coming months and be redirected towards the United States, with a total of more than €100 billion at risk by 2029. This is not hypothetical: already, some laboratories have announced that they are strengthening their industrial capacities on US soil to get around these tariffs.
For a country like Belgium, where pharmaceuticals account for nearly 45,000 direct jobs and are our leading export sector, this is a double blow: fewer investments, less innovation, and patients waiting longer to access the latest treatments.
That is precisely why I speak of surrender: not only are we yielding to American pressure, but we are also endangering our health and industrial sovereignty.
Do you think the European Union sufficiently defended public health and access to treatments during this trade negotiation?
YV: As it stands, from what we know, the European Commission did not do its job.
Every revelation about these negotiations, marked by rare opacity, is a setback for Europe and bad news for our citizens. We must force the European Commission to change course, stop this infernal machine, and dare to propose something different.
I have requested that the issue be debated urgently in the European Parliament and that the Commissioners from the affected parliamentary committees be summoned to give account. I intend to carry this voice within the committees for which I am responsible.
The automobile sector exports much less than pharmaceuticals, but it obtained better protection. Did Brussels sacrifice the pharmaceutical sector to save the automobile industry?
YV: I would say that the European Commission sacrificed Europe.
I also note that the priorities of the negotiators are not always based on the general interest. We see this with Mercosur, where agriculture, in particular, has been used as an adjustment variable, to the detriment of a majority of European farmers and livestock breeders, and ultimately, consumers. The general interest should always be the compass, always!
You are calling for “resistance” within the European Parliament. Specifically, what measures do you want to protect the European pharmaceutical sector from these tariffs?
YV: It is imperative to strengthen the resilience of the European pharmaceutical sector through a structured and strategic dialogue with the European institutions to ensure a simple, stable, coherent, and competitive regulatory framework.
[Also], stimulating innovation through strong intellectual property measures and tax incentives. [As well as] enhancing the value of pharmaceutical innovation by strengthening the internal market, recognising the added value of innovation, committing to pay according to demonstrated value, and ensuring sufficient funding for medicines without untimely budget clawbacks.
More generally, what I am saying is that accepting this agreement would be to set our dependence in stone and renounce European emancipation. History will judge us on our ability to say no. Today, we must choose submission or independence.
In your view, should the European Life Sciences Strategy or the future Biotech Act be redirected to compensate for this competitive disadvantage?
YV: A genuine European Strategy for Life Sciences and the future Biotech Act is necessary. These instruments must integrate the new realities of international trade and compensate for competitive disadvantages. The goal is to ensure rapid access to treatments, support innovation, and strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy.
I would add that the health sector must never be the adjustment variable of a trade agreement. But can we even call this a trade agreement when, in this case, it is, in fact, a holdup?
(VA, BM)
