
Small Firms, Big Trouble: The Quiet Losers of The EU–US Trade Deal
These firms, which account for 99 percent of EU non-financial companies and around two-thirds of employment across the bloc, were largely absent from the negotiating table. And now, they are poised to absorb a disproportionate share of the costs from the new agreement. A Flat Tariff, a Heavy Price
The deal imposes a flat 15 percent tariff on nearly all EU goods entering the U.S., with few exceptions. As reported by Reuters, high-profile sectors such as aerospace, rare earths and defense manufacturing received carve-outs or zero-duty terms. But most everyday exports—ranging from specialty foods to consumer products—now face a sudden cost increase.
According to AP News, both European and American businesses are bracing for price hikes. For large corporations, that cost may be absorbed or passed on. But small firms with limited pricing power and razor-thin margins are far more vulnerable. The View from the Ground: Soap, Cheese and Lost Orders
Take, for instance, a small cosmetics exporter in Provence, or a cheesemaker in Normandy. These are the kinds of businesses that rely on modest volumes, strong customer loyalty, and niche positioning. A 15 percent tariff on goods that were previously exported tariff-free is not just a challenge—it can be a market killer.
Sophie Leclerc, owner of a mid-sized skin care company, told reporters that the deal leaves her few options. "We can either raise prices and risk losing our American distributors, or we pull out of the U.S. altogether," she said in an interview cited by France 24. "Either way, we lose." Regulatory Complexity Adds to the Burden
The new agreement also introduces expanded compliance requirements. Rules of origin provisions, stricter labeling regulations, and dual documentation standards are expected to add significant administrative costs. These burdens are magnified for smaller businesses that lack in-house legal or logistics departments.
A recent policy study from the European Parliament warned that non-tariff barriers—not tariffs themselves—represent the greatest obstacle to international expansion for SMEs. The current deal, critics argue, does little to simplify that environment. Asymmetry in Adaptability
Large companies with diversified supply chains may be able to adjust production or distribution to reduce exposure to tariffs. For example, a multinational carmaker can shift assembly lines to the United States or route parts through zero-tariff jurisdictions. But small businesses do not have this kind of flexibility. Many operate from a single facility and export directly to clients abroad.
According to Euractiv, some small producers are already cutting shipments to the United States and reconsidering their investment in transatlantic partnerships. What Could Have Been Done Differently
Economists and SME advocates say the EU missed an opportunity to secure more targeted relief. Proposals that were discussed but ultimately excluded from the final deal included phased tariffs for small-scale exporters, simplified customs procedures for low-volume shipments, and transitional assistance funding for vulnerable sectors.
Politico Europe reported that the urgency of reaching a macro-level political accord likely sidelined more granular negotiations. "The politics of diplomacy eclipsed the practicalities of real-world trade," one unnamed EU official told the outlet. Numbers Tell the Story
According to Eurostat, small and medium-sized enterprises: Represent 99 percent of EU businesses
Employ more than 100 million people
Account for roughly 40 percent of EU exports to the United States
Before the agreement, the average tariff on EU consumer goods imported to the U.S. was between 1.3 and 2.1 percent. That figure has now jumped to a flat 15 percent across most categories, based on terms outlined by The Guardian.
The EU–US trade deal was designed to bring stability and predictability to transatlantic commerce after years of tariff threats and retaliatory measures. But for Europe's small exporters, it brings neither.
The agreement may offer political wins and stock market reassurance, but it does so at the expense of thousands of businesses that had no seat at the table—and now face a steeper climb to survive.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


DW
an hour ago
- DW
North Korea says US should abandon denuclearization push – DW – 07/29/2025
US President Donald Trump is seeking fresh talks with North Korea on its nuclear program, returning to the direct engagement seen during his first term. Kim's powerful sister has said denuclearization is off the table. North Korea on Tuesday urged the US to abandon any attempts to persuade it to abandon its nuclear weapons program. US President Donald Trump, who began his second term in January, is interested in resuming talks with North Korea on denuclearization. During his first term in the years of 2018 and 2019, Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times in Singapore, Vietnam and at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that separates the two Koreas. Although the Trump administration wanted North Korea to give up its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, no deal was struck between the two sides and Pyongyang continues to advance its nuclear aspirations. Kim's powerful sister, Kim Yo Jong, said Trump's personal relationship with the North Korean leader is "not bad." However, she said if the US administration were to use the Trump-Kim relationship to push for North Korean denuclearization, Pyongyang would consider it "nothing but a mockery." "If the US fails to accept the changed reality and persists in the failed past, the DPRK-US meeting will remains as a 'hope' of the US side," Kim Yo Jong said, using the acronym for North Korea's formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Kim Yo Jong's remarks suggest that North Korea is ruling out complete denuclearization as an option if talks are relaunched with the US. A White House official told Reuters news agency that Trump is still seeking the same objectives in regards to North Korea as he did in the first term. "The president retains those objectives and remains open to engaging with Leader Kim to achieve a fully denuclearized North Korea," the unnamed US official told Reuters. During Trump's first term, the president had sometimes a unusually friendly relationship with Kim after a tense start, with Trump saying the two leaders "fell in love." After nuclear negotiations broke down in October 2019, the two leaders began exchanging insults, with North Korea in December of that year threatening to call him a "dotard." Since Trump's first term from 2017 to 2021, US and North Korea ties have grown more fraught. Trump's successor, Joe Biden, did not continue the flashy diplomatic engagements with Kim that were a feature of Trump's first administration. Instead, the Biden administration chose to deepen ties with South Korea and Japan in a bid to further isolate Pyongyang. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video North Korea, meanwhile, has been growing closer with Russia since it launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. North Korea has sent weapons and troops to assist Russia's assault, with Moscow in turn backing North Korea's nuclear program. The US firmly opposed the invasion of Ukraine during Biden's term, with Trump in his second term also pushing Russia to commit to a ceasefire and end the conflict.


Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
Chinese, US Officials Meet For 2nd Day Of Trade Talks In Stockholm
Chinese and US delegations met for their second day of trade negotiations in Stockholm, with both sides said to be aiming to extend a truce due to end in two weeks' time. AFP journalists saw officials from both sides, led respectively by Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, enter the Swedish government building serving as the talks venue. Neither side has so far made public any information about what has gone on in the talks, which started on Monday. The negotiations are happening in the wake of a US-EU trade deal struck over the weekend that set US tariffs on most EU imports at 15 percent, but none on US goods going to the EU. The truce between China and the United States, the countries with the worlds two top economies, has temporarily set US duties on Chinese goods at 30 percent, and Chinese levies on US ones at 10 percent. That accord, reached in Geneva in May, brought down triple-digit tariffs each side had levelled at the other after a trade war sparked by US President Donald Trump spiralled into a tit-for-tat bilateral escalation. The 90-day truce is meant to end on August 12. But there are indications both delegations want to use the Stockholm talks to push the date back further. The South China Morning Post, citing sources on both sides, reported on Sunday that Washington and Beijing are expected to extend their tariff pause by a further 90 days. Trump has threatened to hit dozens of other countries with stiffer tariffs from Friday this week unless they agree to trade deals with Washington. Among them are Brazil and India, which he has warned could be targeted for 50-percent tariffs. The US leader has already announced deal outlines with five countries -- Britain, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines -- as well as the one with the 27-nation EU. Beijing says it wants to see "reciprocity" in its trade with the United States. Foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said dialogue was need "to reduce misunderstandings". The previous round of of China-US talks was held in London. Analysts said many of the trade deals Trump has been publicising were leaning more on optics than on details. Stephen Innes, managing partner at SPI Asset Management, a firm that advises on currency exchange and commodities, said an extension of the 90-day truce between China and the United States could reinforce that view. "That truce could set the stage for a Trump - (President) Xi (Jinping) handshake later this year -- another risk-on carrot for markets to chew," he said.


DW
2 hours ago
- DW
In Georgia, press freedom and survival are on the line
The ruling party is steadily undermining independent media with restrictive funding. Editor and reporter Lika Zakashvili discusses solidarity and political imprisonment. Thirty years ago, the Republic of Georgia drafted a constitution in a hopeful gesture toward political pluralism. Today, the post-Soviet republic is steadily rolling back that liberalization, and perhaps nowhere is that more clear than in its relations with the country's independent press. In May, the ruling populist political party, Georgian Dream, passed the controversial "Foreign Agents" law , requiring organizations receiving more than 20 percent of their funding from abroad to register as foreign agents. Like Russian laws designed to stifle dissent and media freedom, Georgia's law also hampers the country's independent media, as well as its application toward European integration, which the majority of Georgian citizens support. Since the law's passage, anti-government protests have regularly erupted throughout the country, and journalists and photographers have been imprisoned. Since 2013, Lika Zakashvili has reported for and is now its editor-in-chief. In this interview, she discusses solidarity among independent journalists, how decreased funding has endangered independent media, and why all eyes are on Georgia's courts and judges. DW Akademie: Lika, you yourself have participated in the anti-government protests. You have colleagues who are in jail. You're trying to figure out how to keep afloat. These are all huge challenges. Let's start with funding. What exactly is happening? Lika Zakashvili: Our current government is building a large infrastructure around media, using laws to cancel funding. They know Georgia is a small country, with a small economy, and that various businesses will remain loyal to the government. It's often very difficult here for media outlets with independent editorial policies to find the resources necessary to continue their work. For us, international support, or grants, was the only way for us and others. They know this. They adop ted three different laws with just one goal: to destroy the opportunity to get funding. The law is simple: if you get international monies, you are a target. The requirements are difficult and you have to say, "I'm a foreign agent." It's a way to demonize the media. And if a donor wants to send money to us, first it has to ask the government. They will use this to block funding, both for the media and the civic sector. And what has been the media's response? When the Georgian Dream party enacted the foreign agents law, independent media organizations in Georgia declared that they would not register as agents. These organizations maintain that they are independent, have their own editorial policies, and have never operated under external influence. The Georgian Dream's intention appears to be to tarnish their reputation. These media outlets reject the new rules. As independent organizations, they are prepared to use all available legal means to urge Georgian Dream to suspend and ultimately repeal these laws. It is a very challenging situation. We can't plan long-term. If we get public financial support and we can continue working, this will really matter to us. What we do know is that we are not going to collaborate with the government. We are not agents, we will never be agents. And h ow is the government responding? Independent media are unable to access information from state agencies. There is a strong suspicion that the Georgian Dream has created a media outlet blacklist that it refuses to provide information to. Additionally, numerous studies indicate that the transparency and accountability of public agencies to the public have significantly declined in recent years. And they've restricted our coverage of the courts, which are the most important government bodies today. We can't get video, audio or photographs. We can't cover the trials of political prisoners, which is of much public interest. Georgians want to know what is happening there. There's a lot of empathy among Georgians for these people who have been arrested. Before the restrictions, we were showing readers the lack of evidence in these – well, let's call them what they are: political arrests. There are no juries, just judges. Are you scared for your safety? Yes. During the anti-government demonstrations, my colleagues were beaten by police. A photographer colleague was working. [He] was very visible. He was wearing a mask and also a press identification. Police intentionally beat him, and he ended up needing facial surgery. This was seven months ago at a big demonstration, and it wasn't until afterward that we recognized that we were in fact being targeted. Since then, when we go to protests, we leave all of our ID behind, and we've started reporting with our phones. Miza Amaghlobeli, the founder of two news websites in Georgia, is in failing health and relatives fear for her life. She remains in pre-trial detention. Image: You've mentioned your friend Mzia Amaghlobeli. She's been in jail since January. Mzia's pre-trial detention is disproportionate to the offense she is accused of committing, as outlined in the indictment. If the court finds her guilty, she could face a prison sentence of up to seven years. According to Georgia's Supreme Court, slapping a police officer is not regarded as an attack, especially when there is minimal physical harm involved. Therefore, we assert that Mzia's case is politically motivated. She is being punished for her professional activities. And we simply see this for what it is – intimidation – which they hope leads to a chilling effect. But it won't. Not for us. DW Akademie receives funding from both the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the European Union to work wi th journalists from Georgian media organizations on projects related to fact-checking and recognizing propaganda and disinformation.