Brussels – Trade, innovation and competitiveness, health: Donald Trump in all his declinations plus one, the latest: the US president’s attack on the International Criminal Court. The White House occupant disrupts the work of a European Parliament that ends up shaping its agenda around Trump, the subject of three different Chamber debates. The plenary session includes the issue of tariffs (Tuesday, Feb. 11 at 9 a.m.), restriction on chip exports to the EU (Tuesday, Feb. 11 at 6 p.m.), withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), and the climate agreement (Wednesday, Feb. 12 at 4 p.m.): the European Parliament revolves around the statements and threats of the US president.

The tariffs issue is clearly in the spotlight, with widespread fear among the different groups of a trade war that would benefit no one. The general and shared approach among the individual groups in the House is to try as much as possible to avoid getting to the point of having a US surcharge on European goods but to be ready to respond. In particular, the Socialists would like the European Commission to already have countermeasures in place so that they have a “timely and decisive” response in case of a worst-case scenario.

For the Populars (EPPP) and the Conservatives (ECR), the priority remains cooperation for what continues to be considered a strategic and long-standing partner. “On Trump, we wait. We know that he is a great mediator,” said Denis Nesci (FdI/ECR), who confirms how “we are in the debate phase,” and, therefore, “we have to be ready for what can happen but wait.” The Greens would like a united response and not to proceed in short order, as Ignazio Marino (Green Europe/Greens) explains. “On Trump, unfortunately, Europe is proving to be weak and divided,” and therefore, “the bully prevails.”

However, the Feb. 12 debate – without resolutions – is the one that is likely to become even more inflamed because, in addition to the WHO issue, there are also the threats of sanctions against the International Criminal Court. These statements already inflame a future debate. “Trump is inviting ethnic cleansing in Gaza, and now he is attacking the International Criminal Court, with Ursula von der Leyen doing nothing,” is criticism from The Left against the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. “The International Criminal Court is an almost sacred place that must be protected,” thunders Valentina Palmisano (M5S), convinced of the need for the “protection of international law even in light of Trump’s latest statements.”

While the spokeswoman for the Socialist Group points out that despite an agenda with strong foreign policy connotations (there is also talk of the third year of the Russian-Ukrainian war, unrest and protests in Serbia, and the deteriorating situation in Georgia), she criticizes the absence of the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas. “It would have been nice to have her in the House,” she said.

Finally, there is the issue of US restrictions on the export of chips for the twin transition. The new regime sought by Trump will affect 17 out of 27 member states (Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia), making it necessary to hold a debate to organize a response. Resolutions are not planned even in this case. One wants to censure Trump without actually censoring Trump, who imposes his agenda on the agenda of the European Parliament.

English version by the Translation Service of Withub