Full transcript of my interview with France Info public radio on 18 January 2026.

France Info: Hello, Rémi Bourgeot, thank you for joining us on France Info. In just 24 hours, do you think we have crossed all the thresholds that lead to a trade war, an economic war with the United States?

Yes, in fact, we’ve been in this situation for quite some time. You’ll recall that last year, headlines were dominated by Donald Trump’s threats—threats of escalating tariffs—which ultimately led to a so-called “agreement” that was really just a series of demands accepted by the European Commission, including blanket tariffs of 15%, and, on top of that, Europe’s acceptance of very strict constraints, particularly to avoid over-regulating or challenging Californian tech giants. So that’s where we’re coming from. Things had quieted down a bit in recent months.

So, yes, the end of this agreement was extremely unfavorable to the European Union, not only because of the tariffs but also because of the constraints that came with it, and Europe simply accepted the American demands?

Absolutely. This agreement was extremely unfavorable to the European Union, not just because of the tariffs but also because of the constraints that accompanied them. Europe simply accepted the American demands. There wasn’t really any negotiation on the part of Ursula von der Leyen, who was later criticized by several European countries. We thought that was the end of it, but in reality, we’re seeing a much broader deterioration in relations between Europe and the United States—a genuine explosion within the Western bloc.

This is particularly tied to the issue of Ukraine. We can see that the trade measures are targeting countries within the so-called “coalition of the willing.” So this is a much broader escalation. It seems that Trump actually wants to blow up NATO. This is a very aggressive show of force, which today goes far beyond trade—now a secondary issue. We’re in a frankly absurd situation with this Greenland issue. If there were a genuine strategic interest—and perhaps there is for the United States—they could achieve the same benefits through cooperation with Denmark, a country that is extremely close to the United States. Here, we’re seeing broader patterns in Donald Trump’s approach. It’s a much deeper, more long-term deterioration.

The fracturing of the Western block—isn’t that exactly what Donald Trump wants? How can we respond? By activating the anti-coercion mechanism, for one. Emmanuel Macron and his team have indicated that he will call for this instrument to be activated among his European partners. Concretely, Rémi Bourgeot, this is being called an economic “bazooka.” What would it actually look like if this mechanism were triggered?

Well, first of all, we should have threatened and entered into this showdown with Donald Trump from the very beginning, during the negotiations this summer, to avoid being crushed. We needed to understand that this was just the beginning. Today, we’re facing a much broader and more serious aggravation, so we can’t just defend ourselves on the trade front. We have to respond. These measures are part of a fairly broad framework. People talk about a “bazooka,” but it was originally designed to be used against other countries, particularly China. It requires a very large majority in Europe to implement, so it’s not a done deal. But at the very least, we must consider a response. Trump’s counter-response will be escalation, with the threat of economically crushing the Europeans, because his logic is one of humiliation. He has no respect for European leaders, and there are deep disagreements on burning geopolitical issues like Ukraine.

Rémi Bourgeot, you’re describing a catastrophic scenario. How can Europe resist such escalation?

The catastrophic scenario is war, which is unthinkable between Europe and the United States. But what we’re going to see now is escalation. This current escalation, with threats of additional 10% tariffs on the countries involved, was triggered because Europe sent a few soldiers—almost symbolically—to Greenland. On the surface, it’s almost nothing, but Trump tolerates no opposition, even to demands as extraordinary and absurd as acquiring Greenland. The relationship is in a dynamic of fracture. We’re going to see all kinds of escalations. But Trump does tend to back down when faced with firm resistance. China, for example, threatened further escalation and deployed its own “bazooka”—restricting the export of rare earth minerals—which created massive industrial problems for the United States. India, threatened with secondary sanctions to limit its trade with Russia, also reacted strongly. So Trump is sensitive to pushback.

We need to understand this context of deteriorating relations with Europeans over the central issue of Ukraine, which is at the heart of this escalation.

Thank you very much, Rémi Bourgeot, for your analysis as an economist and associate researcher at IRIS. This trade war has existed in reality since Trump’s return, but it seems to be taking a more concrete form in the last 24 hours, with these new tariffs announced by the American president and Europe’s announcement that it intends to retaliate.