The European Union (EU) and the USA recently signed a new trade agreement in Scotland.
At the heart of the deal is the EU’s commitment to import a total of $750 billion worth of US energy products over the next three years. This mainly involves LNG. For comparison: in 2024, the EU’s energy imports from the USA amounted to around USD 80 billion.
In addition, the agreements provide for significant investments by Europeans in the USA – without Washington making any additional commitments in return. An advantageous “deal” for Trump, whose government is once again dictating terms to the EU despite its economic strength.
In addition to existing EU investments of around USD 100 billion per year, the US side is now holding out the prospect of a further USD 600 billion as a binding investment commitment from Europe – including in the areas of energy and armaments.
However, the EU Commission rejects this claim. The sum only refers to potential commitments by private companies, not to binding commitments by the EU. Brussels points out that investment decisions are the responsibility of member states and companies and cannot be directly controlled by the Commission.
Meanwhile, industry observers consider the investment target of $600 billion to be overambitious and warn that it is hardly achievable without the mobilization of considerable private funds. Following the asymmetrical trade agreement, political observers are even questioning the legitimacy of the EU President.
ZDS boss: “Without an investment offensive in seaports, agreement remains a paper tiger”
Meanwhile, the Central Association of German Seaport Operators (ZDS) is expressing doubts about the feasibility of the agreement. Managing Director Florian Keisinger warns:
“If the EU promises to import $750 billion worth of US energy, then Germany must also be able to deliver. Without an investment offensive in our seaports, this agreement will remain a paper tiger.”
According to the ZDS, the existing LNG capacities of German ports are already fully utilized in the long term. Additional imports on the scale envisaged – around USD 170 billion per year – would not be feasible without considerable investment in port infrastructure.
“German seaports are systemically relevant for supply security and must be taken into account accordingly in the upcoming infrastructure investments,” emphasizes Keisinger. This is the only way to implement the agreements and avoid additional trade tariffs.
Hamburg Chamber of Commerce: Agreement as “damage limitation”
The Hamburg Chamber of Commerce also commented on the EU-US agreement. Although an acute trade conflict has been averted, the basic tariffs of 15% that are still in force are a burden on transatlantic trade, explained Chamber of Commerce President Norbert Aust. “The EU-US deal is not a breakthrough, but damage limitation,” said Aust.
Export-oriented locations such as Hamburg would be particularly affected by the new tariffs. Aust also warns of negative consequences for the US economy. Rules-based global trade requires reliability and fair competition – not one-sided power politics.
The Chamber of Commerce is therefore calling for better political framework conditions in Europe: less bureaucracy, competitive energy prices and investment in digitalization, education and infrastructure. In addition, new free trade agreements should open up new markets. As Germany’s largest foreign trade location, Hamburg should play a greater role in Berlin and Brussels.
“Economic sage” warns of enormous burden
Ulrike Malmendier, an economics expert, also believes that tariffs of 15% are an “enormous burden on the economy, not only here but also in the USA”. In contrast to a tariff rate of around one percent in recent years and decades, “this is already a drama”, said the German economist recently on ARD’s “Morgenmagazin”.
It is difficult to estimate what this means for the economy as a whole. Many countries would have less access to the US market due to the tariffs and would have to offer their goods elsewhere, for example in the EU. This could even have a positive effect on inflation in this country.
