A potential European–American trade accord could be within reach, but Brussels remains wary as it prepares for the possibility of no deal and the prospect of retaliatory moves. The path to a formal agreement has become a tense balancing act, with negotiators weighing a base-case 15% tariff on EU imports to the United States, while still negotiating exemptions and trying to manage the political dynamics in Washington. A crucial deadline looms on August 1, after which the risk of higher duties is back on the table, even as both sides explore ways to pare back potential costs and avoid a sharp shock to businesses and economies on both sides of the Atlantic. The EU’s stance is cautious but proactive: if a deal stalls, Brussels is prepared to move swiftly with countermeasures that could sting key sectors, while also signaling a willingness to soften some of its own levies on U.S. goods if a broader agreement is within reach. In short, the next few weeks could determine whether a narrowly tailored tariff regime settles into a lasting framework or whether the talks drift into a protracted period of uncertainty that unsettles markets and rearranges supply chains across multiple industries.
Negotiating a EU-U.S. Trade Deal: Tariff Baseline, Exemptions, and the Aug 1 Deadline
The discussions over a potential EU–U.S. trade agreement have broached a central question for both blocs: what is the most workable tariff framework that preserves economic openness while offering political clarity for leaders who must respond to domestic constituencies and lobbying groups? The less-than-ideal backdrop is the threat of more punitive tariffs if the parties cannot converge on a credible plan in time. The base-case scenario now circulating within EU diplomatic circles contemplates a baseline tariff of about 15% on EU imports to the United States. This figure sits atop the approximately 4.8% duty that is already in place in several sectors, creating a cumulative effect that could be substantial for European exporters and U.S. importers alike. Yet even this 15% baseline is not a fixed line in the sand; negotiators are actively working on possible exemptions and carve-outs that would soften the impact for specific products or industries where a broader agreement might be difficult to secure quickly. The idea is to construct a tariff architecture that is robust enough to deter what policymakers fear could become a significantly higher punitive regime, while flexible enough to accommodate sector-specific concessions that would preserve cross-border trade flows and investment incentives.
On the European side, there is also a potential for reciprocal moves, with Brussels signaling that it could reduce its own levies on U.S. goods if a comprehensive agreement is achieved. This reciprocal approach reflects the broader logic of a reciprocal trade deal, in which both sides would align tariff structures to minimize frictions and maximize the economic upside of a settled framework. However, the precise calculus behind any cut in European tariffs hinges on the negotiation outcome, the scope of concessions on both sides, and the political viability of such reductions within EU member states. The diplomacy surrounding these discussions emphasizes the balance between safeguarding strategic sectors and maintaining credible incentives to pursue a broader agreement rather than reverting to a protectionist posture.
Despite the forward momentum in talks, there remains a very real sense that the deal is not done and could still unravel. An EU diplomat emphasized that the ultimate decision rests in the hands of President Donald Trump, a reminder that U.S. political dynamics can be volatile and highly responsive to domestic considerations, electoral calculations, and shifting coalition pressures. A second EU official echoed the sentiment that media narratives suggesting rapid progress toward a deal were overly optimistic, arguing that the process remains open and fluid until concrete commitments are publicly articulated by the Trump administration. In the United States, the administration has been careful to describe the possibility of a 15% tariff framework as speculative rather than a formal agreement, underscoring a careful and deliberate approach to communications around the negotiations. The White House, for its part, characterized talks about any potential trade deal as speculative, reinforcing the cautious tone that pervades the discussions as both sides navigate political sensitivities and strategic priorities.
The possibility of a 15% baseline also raises questions about the August 1 deadline, a milestone after which the risk of higher and more comprehensive tariffs could crystallize. In the event that a deal remains elusive by that date, a 30% tariff could come into play for imports from the European Union, a rate that is notably lower than the 50% rate that had at times been floated in rhetoric during the Trump presidency, but one that would still carry significant consequences for businesses, supply chains, and broader economies in both the EU and the United States. Analysts have noted that while a 30% levy would be painful, it would still be more manageable than the maximum threats that had been on the table in the past. The assessment from economists remains that any outcome which avoids a sudden and broad 50% levy would be preferable to the worst-case scenarios, as it would provide a more stable environment for planning and investment even if it remains disruptive.
From a market psychology perspective, the prospect of any tariff framework—particularly one involving the EU—has immediate implications for risk pricing, currency movements, and corporate strategies. Some economists have suggested that a 15% baseline, even with exemptions, could be significant but not catastrophic. They emphasize that the impact would be something markets have learned to price in gradually, allowing businesses to adjust over time rather than facing an abrupt, uniform shock. Others caution that even a partial tariff regime could introduce volatility as traders reassess supply chains, reprice risk, and reallocate sourcing and production where feasible. The central tension remains whether the negotiations will deliver enough clarity and credibility to prevent a broader escalation, or whether lingering ambiguities will keep markets in a state of heightened sensitivity to every public statement by negotiators or policymakers.
The negotiation dynamic also features a strong element of real-time signaling and signaling risk. EU officials have underscored that even if a 15% baseline is the working assumption in some circles, there are still many moving parts, including the exact list of exempt products, sectoral carve-outs, and the sequencing of tariff reductions or eliminations. The possibility of exemptions suggests a modular approach to the tariff framework, one that could allow tariffs to be adjusted in a piecemeal, data-driven manner as confidence grows and as mutual assurances are codified in formal commitments. The EU’s willingness to consider reducing its own levies hints at a reciprocal negotiation logic that could be critical to unlocking other areas of regulatory alignment—such as standards, digitization, and investment protections—that often accompany tariff discussions in modern trade deals.
The overarching message from observers is that while there is cautious optimism about a potential agreement, the path to a lasting settlement remains uncertain and highly contingent on political signals, the framing of exemptions, and the ability to deliver a credible, enforceable framework that satisfies stakeholders in both blocs. The August deadline acts less as a binding timetable and more as a pressure point that can illuminate the relative strength of each side’s negotiation position. It is precisely the presence of such pressure points that has kept markets and policymakers focused on the possible outcomes, ensuring that every development in the talks is analyzed for its potential to shift incentives and alter risk profiles across industries, regions, and global supply chains.
Market Pulse: Analysts’ Read on the 15% Scenario and Implications for Markets
Analysts have offered a blend of cautious optimism and measured concern about the 15% tariff baseline and the broader trajectory of EU–U.S. trade talks. They identify the 15% figure as a potentially meaningful but controllable adjustment to trade flows, one that could be designed to deter a return to higher punitive measures while preserving enough openness to sustain commercial activity and investment. The recognition that exemptions may be available introduces a degree of flexibility that can be leveraged to address sector-specific frictions. From a risk-management perspective, the possibility of exemptions could act as a stabilizing mechanism, allowing negotiators to isolate the most sensitive areas where political or economic pressures are greatest, while gradually expanding the pact’s coverage as confidence grows.
Holger Schmieding, the chief economist at Berenberg, framed the situation in a way that highlights the relative advantage of a 15% baseline compared with much higher potential tariffs. He suggested that moving away from the threat of 30% or even 50% tariffs would constitute a positive outcome, given the scale of disruption those higher levies would unleash on supply chains, pricing, and competitiveness. Schmieding’s assessment points to a scenario where the most severe economic damage is avoided, providing a pathway for the two sides to negotiate a more durable and less disruptive framework. In other words, the 15% baseline could be viewed as a strategic compromise—enough to deter reckless tariff escalation while leaving room for incremental, value-creating concessions that both sides can defend politically.
John Plassard, who leads investment strategy at a global firm, described the 15% rate as “significant but not devastating” for markets. He suggested that while this level of tariff would inject volatility and uncertainty into near-term trading, it would not spell the end of the world for markets or for the global economy. Plassard’s characterization implies a boundary condition in which market participants can adapt through hedging and diversification without triggering a full-blown crisis. He further noted that developments in the talks appeared more constructive than the earlier round of discussions had previously suggested, hinting at a latent optimism that a more stable framework could emerge even if the exact terms remain unsettled. The emphasis on a measured improvement in tone and content of negotiations is important, because it signals the possibility that negotiators are moving toward a more disciplined and predictable negotiation script, rather than engaging in episodic, high-stakes bargaining that could yield abrupt market reratings.
Despite the optimistic readings on some aspects, there is a clear acknowledgment that any deal is not guaranteed in the short term. Analysts have stressed that while markets should brace for a potential improved trajectory, the likelihood of continued uncertainty remains high. The presence of ongoing talks means there is room for fresh developments to shift expectations, but there is also a risk that a lack of tangible progress could provoke renewed volatility. The dynamic is further complicated by the broader political environment in both Brussels and Washington, where domestic considerations can quickly alter the calculus of what leaders are willing to concede or demand. In this sense, the market narrative around the EU–U.S. deal is less about a fixed outcome and more about a range of plausible scenarios, each with distinct implications for equities, currencies, and trade-sensitive sectors such as technology, manufacturing, automotive, and agriculture.
Market participants also pay attention to the signals that emerge from both sides regarding the potential sequencing of concessions and the types of protections that might be included in a final agreement. The prospect of sector-specific exemptions implies a granular negotiation that can shift the risk profile for particular industries rather than the entire economy at once. For investors and corporate strategists, these nuanced distinctions matter because they determine where supply chains may be restructured, where near-shoring or friend-shoring considerations come into play, and how tariff exposure changes as a formal agreement is progressively implemented. As talks continue, market watchers expect a pattern of incremental disclosures, testing of commitments, and careful calibration of rhetoric to avoid triggering unnecessary alarms or over-optimism.
The political dimension adds another layer of complexity. The dynamic described by EU officials—where the final decision rests with the U.S. president—introduces an element of timing risk. Markets respond to the cadence of official statements and ceremonial gestures as if they are signaling the likelihood of substantive policy shifts. The tension between cautious optimism and persistent skepticism creates a trading environment in which investors seek to balance price discovery with risk management. Even as some observers highlight that constructive statements have emerged in recent days, the persistent caveat remains: until the negotiations yield concrete, verifiable commitments, the risk of sudden policy reversals cannot be dismissed. In this context, the 15% baseline serves as both a potential compromise and a hinge point, whose ultimate form will be determined through ongoing diplomacy, domestic political calculations, and the evolving strategic priorities of both the European Union and the United States.
The EU’s Contingency Planning: Countermeasures, 93 Billion Euros, and the Anti-Coercion Instrument
While negotiators pursue a path toward a stable framework, the European Union is hardening its readiness for a no-deal scenario by preparing a robust set of countermeasures designed to deter or mitigate the impact of U.S. tariff actions. The current plan envisions retaliatory tariffs that could be deployed within days of the United States’ duties taking effect. The approach is methodical and organized, consolidating previously prepared lists of potential countermeasures into a single, comprehensive package with a total value of about 93 billion euros. This figure, calculated to approximate the economic scale of the targeted sectors, provides Brussels with a credible and calibrated toolkit to respond in a way that protects European industries and jobs while aiming to preserve multilateral norms of trade.
The EU’s broader contingency shelf includes discussions around the so-called Anti-Coercion Instrument, which has often been described as the “nuclear option” in trade policy. This instrument represents a more dramatic and strategic tool that could, if activated, restrict U.S. suppliers’ access to the European market in a number of ways. Specifically, it could limit participation by U.S. firms in public tenders within the bloc, curtail certain export and import activities, and impose restrictions on foreign direct investment that would limit capital flows and strategic investments from American entities. The instrument is designed to provide the EU with a credible means of signaling its willingness to escalate in the face of coercive trade measures and to defend its autonomy over economic policy in the face of external pressure.
France has emerged as a prominent advocate for the early establishment of coercive measures as part of the EU’s response toolkit, arguing in favor of a prompt and definitive stance if the U.S. and EU fail to reach an agreement. While Paris has been the most vocal among EU capitals in calling for the immediate deployment of a coercive response, there is an observable momentum within the EU’s broader institutional framework toward a consensus that a coercive regime could be warranted if negotiations stall. If a large majority of EU member states coalesces around this approach, the bloc would possess the political legitimacy to implement coercive measures with cross-border support, thereby increasing the likelihood that a no-deal scenario would still operate under a structured, predictable, and legally defensible set of policies. The broader question is not simply whether such measures should be used, but under what exact conditions and with what safeguards to ensure that responses are proportionate, targeted, and designed to preserve the EU’s economic and strategic interests without triggering an unnecessary spiral of retaliation.
In practice, the EU’s countermeasures would target sectors and products that are particularly sensitive to tariff shifts, drawing on a carefully curated list that reflects the bloc’s industrial strengths and vulnerabilities. The aim is to apply pressure in a way that discourages excessive U.S. tariff retaliation while maintaining the ability to negotiate from a position of strength if and when shared interests realign. This approach also reflects the EU’s broader strategy of continuity and resilience: by preparing a comprehensive set of measures in advance, European policymakers seek to avoid paralysis in the face of unexpected policy moves and to ensure that any eventual response can be executed rapidly and coherently.
The debate over the Anti-Coercion Instrument also underscores a fundamental tension within EU trade policy: the desire to project firmness and demonstrate resolve while avoiding unnecessary escalation that could derail cooperation on other fronts, including energy security, climate policy, and strategic competition in next-generation technologies. The instrument’s potential use would be a signal that the EU is willing to defend its market access through credible and targeted actions, but it would also require careful legal and diplomatic justification to withstand possible challenges in international forums. As discussions proceed, Brussels and member states will weigh the timing, scope, and sequencing of any coercive measures against the probability of achieving a de-escalation or a negotiated settlement that could avert the worst-case economic consequences.
The role of national capitals in shaping and approving these contingency measures cannot be overstated. While France has championed the case for rapid coercion, other member states will assess the political optics, the economic costs, and the long-term strategic implications of deploying such tools. The EU’s decision-making machinery—comprising the European Commission, the Council, and member states’ ministries—must reach a consensus that reflects both shared economic interests and the diverse priorities of a union with a broad range of industries, regional dependencies, and political cultures. The dialog between Brussels and its partners in Washington is ongoing, and the EU’s readiness to implement countermeasures would be tempered by the progress of negotiations, the nature of U.S. concessions, and the broader geopolitical environment in which these trade discussions occur. In this sense, the 93 billion euro plan and the Anti-Coercion Instrument function not merely as punitive options but as strategic levers intended to bring both sides to a recognition of shared interests and a path toward formalized, durable cooperation.
The Political Puzzle: Who Holds the Final Word in the EU–U.S. Trade Talks?
A central theme in the ongoing narrative of EU–U.S. trade talks is the uncertain locus of ultimate decision-making, particularly on whether to move forward with a tentative agreement, implement countermeasures, or escalate with new tariffs. EU diplomats have consistently highlighted that, while negotiations continue, the “final decision” rests with the President in the United States. This framing underscores the reality that any agreement beyond a preliminary understanding must endure the test of U.S. executive confirmation and, potentially, legislative review or political endorsement. The line between a negotiated framework and a formal treaty is significant, and the political calculus in Washington—ranging from the White House to Congress and within relevant committees—will influence how commitments are framed, codified, and implemented.
From Brussels’ perspective, the continuity of talks is a function of procedural timelines, domestic political calendars, and the degree of trust that can be established between the two negotiating teams. The sense of caution in Brussels is not merely about optics; it reflects a fundamental consideration of how to preserve EU economic sovereignty and the ability to enforce trade commitments across a diverse union. The EU’s negotiators must balance the need to deliver credible assurances to member states and strategic industries with the desire to secure a framework robust enough to withstand political and economic shocks in both Europe and North America.
The hesitancy expressed by several EU officials, including a second diplomat who cautioned that media reports suggesting convergence on a deal were overly optimistic, highlights the fragility of expectations. This dual narrative—optimism tempered by skepticism—helps explain the careful, incremental approach that many EU policymakers advocate. The American side, as represented by the White House, has likewise urged caution, describing discussions about specific tariff rates as speculative while leaving open the possibility of future accords that could change the incentives and risks for both sides. This mutual caution reflects a strategic recognition that the final architecture of any agreement must be credible, enforceable, and politically sustainable in two different governance contexts.
Another layer of complexity arises from the way the deal is communicated publicly. The domestic political environment in the United States can transform a private understanding into an issue of public debate, especially in an era when trade policy is highly salient for manufacturing, agriculture, and technology sectors. The perception of a deal’s potential benefits—or lack thereof—can influence how lawmakers and stakeholders respond, shaping future policy choices long after any final text is agreed upon. Consequently, the negotiations are as much about signaling and negotiation leverage as they are about concrete text. The interplay between domestic political considerations and international diplomacy weighs heavily on the timing and content of any prospective agreement, making the outcome inherently uncertain and dependent on a delicate calibration of incentives, concessions, and strategic messaging.
In this environment, communication practices become a strategic asset. The parties must clearly articulate what they can deliver, what remains open, and how any agreements will be monitored and enforced. The risk of misinterpretation is nontrivial, given the high stakes and the potential for domestic political shifts to reinterpret or reinterpret again the same words. Therefore, both sides tend to favor slow, deliberate, and meticulously staged announcements that can withstand scrutiny and provide a stable basis for subsequent regulatory and legislative actions. The inherent uncertainty around where the final decision resides underscores the caution with which stakeholders on both sides proceed, recognizing that even if a consensus emerges in the negotiation room, it may still require a broader political settlement to become operational.
The Ripple Effects Across Industries and Economies: Sectoral Impacts and Global Trade Signals
Beyond the political and strategic dimensions, the potential EU–U.S. tariff framework and the prospect of countermeasures carry profound implications for both economies and the global trading system. A 15% tariff baseline, even with exemptions, would alter relative costs for a wide range of goods and services, prompting companies to adjust pricing, sourcing, and production networks. Industries that are highly exposed to cross-Atlantic trade—such as automotive, machinery, chemicals, agriculture, and technology components—could experience shifts in competitive dynamics, with some firms redirecting supply chains to minimize tariff exposure or to capitalize on any preferential access that a negotiated deal might provide. At the margins, these adjustments could influence investment decisions, deployment of capital assets, and even the geographic distribution of manufacturing capacity within and outside the EU and the United States.
From a macroeconomic standpoint, tariffs in this range could influence inflation dynamics, exchange rates, and the trajectory of growth in a manner that varies across member states and sectors. If the EU responds with retaliatory measures totaling around 93 billion euros in potential tariffs, the direct impact would be felt by exporters and suppliers in the targeted sectors, while downstream industries and consumer prices could experience ripple effects. The risk of price shifts in consumer goods and intermediate inputs could, in turn, influence monetary policy considerations in both blocs, potentially complicating central bank management of inflation and growth objectives. The balance between short-term disruption and long-term gains from a credible trade framework becomes a central governance challenge, as policymakers must weigh near-term costs against the prospect of more predictable and rules-based trade relations in the medium to long term.
Market sentiment would be closely tied to the speed and clarity with which countermeasures are deployed if needed. The 93-billion-euro retaliation plan serves a signaling purpose, signaling that the EU is prepared to act decisively if U.S. measures threaten European economic interests. The precise targeting of sectors within such a plan is critical: it must avoid indiscriminate harm to broader consumer welfare while signaling seriousness and resolve. In practice, the implementation details—such as the specific product lists, tariff rates, and the legal basis for the measures—will determine how effective the EU’s response can be and how quickly it can be calibrated to shift incentives back toward negotiation and compromise.
The geopolitical dimension cannot be ignored. A potential EU–U.S. trade framework is not a vacuum; it intersects with other strategic priorities, including Europe’s energy security, technology competition, and the broader U.S. approach to shaping the rules of global trade in a multipolar world. The prospect of a no-deal outcome that triggers a swift and sizable retaliation would also send signals to other trading partners about the resilience of the U.S. and EU to policy shocks, and would shape how other regions approach their own trade negotiations with either of the blocs. As the world watches the dynamics between Washington and Brussels, the broader implications for global supply chains, regional blocs, and the architecture of international trade become more pronounced. The potential for a stable, rules-based agreement that reduces friction, protects critical industries, and preserves strategic autonomy is balanced against the risk that an unresolved dispute could escalate into a broader protectionist cycle with ambiguous consequences for global growth and cooperation.
The Road Ahead: Scenarios, Negotiation Tacing, and Risk Management
Looking forward, the negotiation trajectory between the United States and the European Union will likely unfold along a spectrum of possible outcomes, each with its own operational and strategic implications. The best-case scenario envisions a negotiated framework that secures a 15% tariff baseline with well-defined exemptions for sensitive sectors, a credible path for reciprocal reductions in European levies, and an enforcement mechanism that ensures compliance without triggering a full-blown trade war. In this favorable scenario, progress would be measured not only by the text of the agreement but by the clarity and predictability of its implementation timeline, the speed with which sectoral exemptions are settled, and the degree to which both sides can coordinate on standards and regulatory alignment to reduce compliance costs for businesses.
A more moderate scenario could see an extension of negotiations beyond August, a partial agreement that covers some sectors with exemptions, and a staged approach to tariff reductions. In this case, the 30% tariff risk would still loom, but negotiators would aim to minimize the time during which elevated duties apply and would work to lock in clearer commitments across key policy areas beyond tariffs, such as digital trade, investment protection, and regulatory cooperation. The uncertainty would remain a pressure point for markets and firms that rely on cross-border supply chains, and policy makers would need to maintain open channels of communication to prevent a misinterpretation of shifts in rhetoric as signals of imminent policy reversals.
The worst-case scenario, of course, involves no agreement and the rapid deployment of countermeasures that could compound the economic strain on both sides of the Atlantic. In such a world, tariff escalations could disrupt global trade flows, lead to volatile commodity prices, and prompt a rethinking of long-term investment strategies by multinational firms that operate in Europe and North America. The risk of a broader protectionist cycle would be heightened, with potential ripple effects across global markets, including the risk of retaliation by other economies and the emergence of alternative supply chains that circumvent traditional trade routes. In this environment, policy coordination at the international level would face increased tension, and the tools available to policymakers—ranging from targeted tariffs to strategic subsidies and investment screening—would be deployed with greater caution and more intense scrutiny.
To navigate these scenarios, both sides will need a robust, transparent, and accountable negotiation process. This includes clarifying the scope and terms of any exemptions, establishing a credible enforcement mechanism, and articulating clear rules for what constitutes a violation and how it would be addressed. It also requires an explicit, publicly communicated timeline that helps business leaders, investors, and workers understand when and how changes could take effect, allowing for forward planning and risk mitigation. Comprehensive stakeholder engagement will be essential, with input from industry associations, labor representatives, state and regional governments, and the broader public to ensure that the final framework reflects a broad consensus rather than a narrow political bargain. In addition, a credible resolve to maintain open channels of communication, regular updates, and iterative negotiations can help manage expectations and reduce the likelihood of sudden shocks to markets or supply chains.
The strategy going forward should also incorporate scenario planning that contemplates not only tariff levels but also complementary policy tools that could support a smooth transition if an agreement is reached. For example, the negotiation could include commitments to regulatory harmonization in key areas, mechanisms for fast-track dispute resolution, and provisions that protect sensitive industries while ensuring non-discriminatory access to markets. This broader approach would increase the durability of any agreement by linking tariffs to a broader package of structural reforms and governance mechanisms that are easier to defend politically and more likely to withstand future political changes in either bloc. In this sense, the next steps are not merely about setting tariff rates but about building a comprehensive framework that supports predictable trade, sustained investment, and shared economic growth for both the European Union and the United States.
Conclusion
As the EU and the United States chart the path toward a possible trade accord, a careful balance between openness and protection, certainty and flexibility, and immediate political liabilities and long-term strategic gains becomes essential. The contention around a 15% tariff baseline, the potential for exemptions, and the looming August 1 deadline all illustrate the high-stakes nature of modern trade negotiations where economic interests intersect with political imperatives. The EU’s readiness to retaliate with a substantial 93-billion-euro program and the potential deployment of the Anti-Coercion Instrument underscore Brussels’ willingness to defend its market access and to deter coercive measures from Washington, signaling that both sides are prepared to escalate if necessary while still seeking a path to a negotiated settlement. The dynamic remains fluid, with statements from EU officials and U.S. policymakers indicating a mix of cautious pragmatism and political caution. The ultimate outcome will likely hinge on the ability of both sides to translate political will into verifiable commitments, to delineate exemptions with precision, and to establish an enforcement framework that satisfies domestic constituencies while preserving the benefits of a more stable, rules-based, and mutually reinforcing economic relationship.
If a deal is reached, the most immediate effect will be a reduction in the uncertainty that has clouded cross-border trade and investment cycles. Businesses will gain a clearer horizon for planning, sourcing strategies, and capital allocation, while policymakers can focus on implementing complementary reforms that reinforce the agreement’s gains. If negotiations fail, the EU’s countermeasures will come into play, and the specter of 30% tariffs—or more—in specific contexts will require a rigorous, methodical response from industry and government alike. In either scenario, the stakes extend beyond bilateral trade to the broader system of global commerce, where the EU–U.S. relationship remains a central pillar. The coming weeks will be decisive, and the world will watch closely as leaders navigate the delicate balance between protecting national interests and fostering a more open, cooperative, and innovative global economy.