EU-US Trade and Technology Council: The Last Hurrah?

American and European leaders met in Belgium for the final TTC summit before elections. Despite some successes, the forum’s future remains uncertain.

Expectations were low. At January’s summit in Washington, US and European ministers failed to publish a joint statement. If new nationalist leaders come to power after upcoming elections on both sides of the Atlantic, many wonder whether the Belgium TTC summit will prove the last one. 

Amid the dark clouds, the summit delivered some potentially successful commitments. But beyond the political fanfare, it ignored the biggest transatlantic trade and tech irritants and made no plans for much-needed structural reforms to the beleaguered forum. 

At a fireside chat in Belgium, US and EU leaders insisted on the importance of maintaining the forum, even after the elections. They expanded their work to include biotechnology and solar energy and agreed to extend existing information-sharing agreements in areas such as semiconductors. Overall, the two sides have worked well to make their ambitious CHIPS Acts complimentary, not competitive. 

Artificial intelligence took center stage at the TTC meeting. The allies updated cooperation on AI terminology and taxonomy and signaled progress in research on AI for the Public Good. Although the EU has gone ahead with its own AI Act while the US has failed to legislate so far, the two seem determined to work together to stake out global leadership. 

Other advances are worth noting. The allies published a Joint 6G vision and established a quantum task force. On trade, a new Mineral Security Partnership Forum aims to foster diversification of critical minerals, and a Joint Catalogue of best practices for Green Procurement marks the first step in implementing the Transatlantic Initiative for Sustainable Trade (TIST).  

Despite these achievements, disappointment and doubts remain. These deliverables of the TTC fail to bring concrete commercial benefits. Roadmaps and principles are light touch. They may have a positive long-term benefit but little short-term impact.  

Huge gaps remain. The two sides again failed to reach a mutual recognition agreement on green goods and offered little clarity on the next steps for the TIST work program. No major trade outcome was announced, beyond a declaration on e-invoicing interoperability. The biggest disappointment in the TTC was the failure to reach a Critical Minerals Agreement, much needed to solve barriers created by local content requirements included in the US Inflation Reduction Act. 

Stakeholder engagement remains weak. High-level executives were not involved. Parliamentarians were kept distant. Stakeholders were invited only to watch the public fireside chat. No stakeholder workshop nor roundtable was organized and no formal consultation took place.  

At their meetings, leaders avoided discussing structural reforms. No mention was made of continuing the TTC after this political cycle, nor of potential changes to its unwieldy structure such as reducing the number of working groups or creating a formal secretariat.  

Since its launch three years ago, the TTC has helped repair and strengthen the transatlantic relationship. But it must be boosted. A permanent platform needs to be constructed. Stakeholder engagement should be expanded and real commercial benefits delivered. Is this possible? It’s far from sure. We will need to wait for the next elections and see if a TTC can survive and be reinvigorated. 

Micol Bertolini is an Associate Policy Manager at the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union. 

Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis.