The U.S. and Europe agree to a trade deal.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 13 minutes.

Tangle Live in Southern California.

We’ve got a star-studded lineup coming to the Irvine Barclay Theatre for the third installment of our Tangle Live series on October 24. Executive Editor Isaac Saul, Editor-at-Large Kmele Foster, Axios’s Alex Thompson, and The Young Turks’s Ana Kasparian will be taking the stage to discuss the biggest stories in U.S. politics, offering the distinct and incisive views that Tangle specializes in sharing. 

Tickets are on sale now — please join us!

Clarification.

In response to yesterday’s reader question on the Social Security Fairness Act (SSFA), we wrote that “beneficiaries who did not have portions of their salaries pay into the Social Security trust fund” would now be exempted from a provision that garnished their Social Security benefit. That wording created confusion by not clarifying that these beneficiaries had paid into the funds through other jobs that they worked; only those who have contributed to Social Security can receive benefits for themselves (or their surviving family).

The Social Security Administration has more information on the SSFA here.

Quick hits.

1. A gunman opened fire at an office building in midtown Manhattan, killing four people and critically injuring another. The shooter died of a self-inflicted gunshot. (The latest) Separately, a gunman killed three people and critically injured two others in a shooting outside a casino in Reno, Nevada. Police officers shot the gunman, who is currently hospitalized. (The shooting)
2. President Donald Trump said he would shorten the 50-day deadline he set two weeks ago for Russia to reach a deal to end the war in Ukraine, remarking that Russian President Vladimir Putin has 10–12 days before the U.S. imposes a series of sanctions and tariffs. (The comments)
3. A federal judge granted Planned Parenthood's request for a nationwide preliminary injunction over a Trump administration policy that ends federal Medicaid reimbursements for Planned Parenthood clinics. (The ruling)
4. Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) entered the state’s 2026 Senate race, announcing his candidacy to replace outgoing Sen. Thom Tillis (R). (The announcement)
5. Over 168 million Americans are under heat advisories on Tuesday, with extreme heat continuing across the Midwest, the Southeast, and parts of the Northeast. (The advisories)

Today’s topic.

The EU trade deal. On Sunday, President Donald Trump announced that the United States and the European Union (EU) had reached a trade deal following a meeting between Trump and the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The U.S. and the EU agreed to a 15% tariff on most European goods imported to the U.S., as well as a commitment from EU members to buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy and increase investments in the U.S. by $600 billion, including through the purchase of military equipment. The deal comes just days before the August 1 deadline Trump set for countries to negotiate a trade deal with the U.S. or face increased tariffs. 

Back up: The EU and the U.S. have the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship in the world, exchanging an estimated $975.9 billion worth of goods in 2024. The sides have been in talks over a trade deal since President Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, which included 20% tariffs on EU products. Trump initially paused implementing the duties until July 9, then extended the deadline again to August 1. On July 12, Trump threatened a 30% tariff rate on EU imports if the two sides could not come to an agreement.

Europe is not imposing a tariff on U.S.-made goods in return, but the 15% rate is significantly lower than the 30% rate President Trump had threatened to impose by August 1 (though higher than the 10% blanket rate currently applied to most U.S. imports). The U.S. and the EU also agreed to exempt some trade materials from the import duties, including aircraft components, semiconductor fabrication materials, and some chemicals and pharmaceuticals. The sides said they would create a quota system for EU steel and aluminum exports, with the terms of that system still to be negotiated; in the immediate term, the 50% tariff on these products is expected to remain in place.

Both President Trump and President von der Leyen promoted the deal after their meeting. Trump called it “the biggest of all the deals,” and von der Leyen said the agreement was “a good deal… a huge deal” that came from “tough negotiations.” 

After the trade deal’s announcement, European leaders expressed mixed feelings about its terms. Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said, “Of course, no tariffs would have been better, but this agreement provides more clarity for our businesses and brings more market stability.” French officials, including Prime Minister Francois Bayrou and Trade Minister Laurent Saint-Martin, sharply criticized the EU for not retaliating with tariffs of its own.

The deal still requires approval from EU member states and scrutiny from the European Parliament, which is expected to take several weeks. Separately, on Thursday, a U.S. appeals court will hear arguments in a case challenging the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. The outcome could determine whether these duties — and the trade deals they prompted — remain in place. 

Below, we’ll take a look at what the right, left, and European writers are saying about the deal, then my take.

What the right is saying.

• The right praises Trump for the recent slew of deals, suggesting they are unequivocally good for the United States.
• Many say Trump has proven the experts wrong again. 

The New York Post editorial board said the deal “proves Trump’s a great dealmaker.”

“Make no mistake: These were no easy negotiations; Trump reached terms with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after talks in Scotland she described as ‘very difficult.’ On Friday, Trump put the chances of agreement at 50-50,” the board wrote. “But Von der Leyen praised the prez as a tough dealmaker; Trump said he thought both sides ‘wanted to make a deal,’ and that it would ‘bring us very close together.’ Hmm: Just a few months ago, his critics blasted his tariff program — predicting practically every disaster but the full collapse of the worldwide economy.”

“Trump has now secured key trade deals with Japan, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, China (at least partially) — and now the EU. That’s going to bring much stability to the markets and relief for businesses trying to plan ahead,” the board said. “Sure, there’s more work to be done: Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs kick in Friday for nations that lack a deal. But his accomplishment in rebalancing international trade to America’s benefit are already enormously impressive.”

In Hot Air, David Strom argued “Trump’s tariff strategy is working.”

“Almost every economist got it wrong. Not because the underlying theory that trade barriers are dangerous, but because they failed to see the bigger picture. As is so often the case, expertise is a two-edged sword: you may know your subject well while simultaneously missing the outside variables that shape the ultimate outcomes,” Strom wrote. “Since the end of the Cold War, momentum and a level of indifference have prevailed in Washington, which was accustomed to subsidizing Europe and allowing the continent to run roughshod over our interests. Trump decided enough was enough, and bullied everybody into deals that are asymmetrically good for America instead of our allies.”

"Trump is cutting deals where our trading partners pay to access US markets, while the US gets free access to theirs. After all the threats of crushing tariffs and counterthreats of retaliation, it turns out that access to US markets is so valuable that everybody is willing to pay a substantial tax to get in the door,” Strom said. “For all the brave talk, our trading partners realized that their economies would be devastated if the US made accessing our markets more difficult. European countries, if forced to choose between being in Europe and being in the US, would choose the latter.”

What the left is saying.

• The left is mixed on the impact of the deal, though many acknowledge the short-term benefits for the U.S.
• Some say Trump’s tactics hurt our alliances but are relieved that a trade war seems averted.

In Bloomberg, Lionel Laurent wrote “Europeans, not Trump, ended up chickening out.”

“The US is the EU’s biggest trade partner and a dominant defense and technology supplier — a spiral of tit-for-tat tariffs is something Europeans simply can’t afford,” Laurent said. “Sealing the deal before the Aug. 1 deadline at a level big companies say they find ‘manageable’ is market positive, lifting the tariff fog and avoiding a worst-case scenario drag on euro zone gross domestic product of 1.2%, according to Barclays Plc. From German autos to French aerospace, transatlantic trade is looking a little less stuck.

“Yet it’s hard to fully reconcile the we-dodged-a-bullet rhetoric with the reality that Europe’s 27-country single market faces a real hit. The combination of a 15% tariff rate and the euro’s 13% rise against the US dollar year-to-date represents a competitiveness double-whammy with little in return,” Laurent wrote. “Of course, tariffs cut both ways. The US consumer will, all things being equal, suffer as protectionist levies are passed on and the global economy suffers a $2 trillion hit that saps investment. A lot now depends on the strategies of multinationals and industries; some will choose to absorb the tariff impact themselves, others will try to keep negotiating with the promise of new factories to come.”

In CNN, David Goldman suggested “Trump’s EU deal averts disaster. But few are cheering.”

“The details remain murky. Europe will increase its investment in the United States by $600 billion and commit to buying $750 billion worth of US energy products. It eliminates tariffs on a variety of items, including aircraft and plane parts, semiconductors, generic drugs and some chemicals and agricultural products,” Goldman said. “But the 15% baseline tariff applies to most goods, so the EU member states – and American importers — will have to come to terms with the fact that higher tariffs will raise prices for European goods in America.”

“The agreement also deals another blow to Detroit automakers, which objected to a similar deal the Trump administration reached with Japan. The 15% auto tariff on EU cars imported to the United States undercuts the 25% tariff American automakers pay if their cars are built in Mexico,” Goldman said. “Still, in the eyes of the hard-working negotiators — and for the sake of the global economy — a deal is better than no deal.”

What writers in Europe are saying.

• Many European writers say the deal is a clear loss for the EU but note their disadvantage in negotiations. 
• Others argue the deal could have long-term consequences for the entire bloc.

Le Monde’s editorial board called the deal “a bittersweet compromise for the EU.”

“The outcome of the talks, with its ambiguities, leaves a bitter aftertaste. Given the size of its market (450 million consumers) and its status as the US's second-largest supplier of goods, Europe seemed at first to have stronger leverage than Japan in seeking a rate lower than 15%,” the board said. “The uneven compromise advocated by the Commission underscored how difficult it was for the 27 member states to assert themselves against a former ally who not only seeks to impose its own rules on the rest of the world, but is pursuing a political agenda to weaken the EU.”

“Deeply involved in transatlantic trade, Germany – and even more so Italy – were not ready for confrontation. The need to secure US support in Ukraine and America's contribution to European defense also weighed heavily in the decision,” the board wrote. “Presented as the lesser evil, the 15% tariff followed previous increases imposed by Trump on steel and aluminum (50%), as well as on automobiles and auto parts (25%). These measures are bound to affect the competitiveness of the companies involved and drive prices higher. In exchange, von der Leyen and the business world are clinging to the hope of stabilizing the economic environment. In reality, they have no such guarantee.”

In UnHerd, Thomas Fazi said the deal is “a capitulation to America.”

“The 15% tariff on EU goods entering the US is significantly higher than the 10% that Brussels had hoped to negotiate. Meanwhile, as Trump himself boasted, the EU has ‘opened up [its] countries at zero tariff’ to American exports. Crucially, EU steel and aluminium will continue to face a crushing 50% tariff when sold into the US market,” Fazi wrote. “This asymmetry places European producers at a severe disadvantage, raising costs for strategic industries such as automotive, pharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing — sectors that underpin the EU’s $1.97 trillion transatlantic trade relationship..”

“Trump is not entirely wrong when he accuses the EU of engaging in unfair trade practices. Over the past two decades, Brussels has embraced a hyper-mercantilist, export-driven growth model which systematically suppresses domestic demand in order to bolster price competitiveness on the global stage while keeping imports low,” Fazi said. “A rebalancing was indeed long overdue. But this agreement represents the worst possible kind of rebalancing. Instead of using this moment as an opportunity to rethink its fundamentally flawed economic strategy — by raising European wages, boosting internal demand, and accepting that exports might become less competitive as a result — the EU has doubled down on the very model that hollowed out its own economic resilience.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Under Trump’s worldview, this deal is an enormous win.
• It also comes with costs, in our relationship with Europe and likely higher consumer prices here.
• I’m waiting to see more specifics and follow through from both sides.

You can look at this deal from several different angles.

For champions of Trump’s trade agenda, this is a pretty big win. After months of talk about Trump’s tariff disorganization, including in our own pages, Trump has now secured trade deals with Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. This deal with our biggest trading partner was obviously the crown jewel, and Trump seems to have gotten a lot of what he wanted out of it. He’s keeping tariffs on most European imports at 15%, higher than the global baseline 10% that’s still in effect, while also getting a commitment for some major investments from the EU into the U.S. — and all without suffering any meaningful, immediate repercussions that I can discern. A picture can speak a thousand words, and this photo of U.S. negotiators (smiling) and EU negotiators (very mixed feelings) is a nice illustration of where the mood is:

If you subscribe to Trump’s zero-sum trade philosophy, what, exactly, did the EU “win?” If you believe that tariffs are a good way to raise revenue and reshore jobs — and won’t meaningfully jack up prices — what, exactly, did the U.S. “lose?” 

I really don't want to understate this point. This deal may be the administration’s biggest win on trade so far, especially since it looked completely dead in the water just a few weeks ago. Trump continues to teach U.S. politicians that tough love with our allies is an effective avenue to get what you want: Getting the EU to materially pay not just for access to the U.S. market but for the protection the U.S. offers Europe militarily is a total vindication of how Trump saw that relationship as out of balance. This has potential downsides, which I’ll get to, but in striking this deal Trump got a lot of what he has said he wanted out of Europe.

Now, for the many people on both sides who do not subscribe to the Trump administration’s economic vision, this is a hard development to celebrate. If you fall into that camp, it may feel like having someone tell you they can grab an electric fence, insisting to them that they can’t, and then watching them actually do it. 

Personally, I have been critical of Trump’s tariff agenda for a few reasons: 1) I believed (and still believe) that tariffs are going to end up raising prices for Americans. 2) The rollout was shoddy and disorganized, and caused a great deal of market turmoil. 3) I was skeptical that Trump would land the major trade deals he said he would land.

Concerns #2 and #3 are basically off the table now: The market has recovered, the U.S. trade policy is stabilizing, and Trump is starting to land meaningful deals with some major players. Concern #1, however, is still in play. Domestic prices are just starting to show signs being impacted by tariffs, and U.S. consumers are still upset about prices even as inflation eases. Even if the U.S. “won” this deal, it’s still going to be disruptive for businesses on both sides of the Atlantic who depend on stable costs of the goods or materials they are importing. And remember, most countries have not reached a trade deal with the U.S., and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are supposed to kick in on August 1 for any country without a deal. What’s more, the appeals court (or the Supreme Court) may still rule that the president’s tariff orders are not enforceable, making the situation even more unstable.

This deal also brings about a fresh set of concerns and questions. First, the concerns: It’s intangible, but there are going to be some hard feelings about how all this played out across Europe — that could complicate diplomatic relationships, tourism, and more. In particular, I’m skeptical that Europe’s concessions will make the U.S. a more steadfast partner in Ukraine (as some have argued). Every relationship that involves counterparts working together will have some strain, and when we come to the table on major global issues now, it will likely be against a backdrop of frustration and distrust.

As for the questions, let’s start with what exactly the deal is committing Europe to in terms of “investments.” Each side is describing aluminum, steel, and other metal tariffs differently: The White House said they’d be tariffed at 50%, while President von der Leyen said metal imports would be cut and quota systems would be put into place. Also, what exactly is exempted from the tariffs? According to von der Leyen, they include “aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, certain generics, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, natural resources and critical raw materials. And we will keep working to add more products to this list.” That sounds pretty vague to me.

On the financial commitments, we should think critically about how meaningful they are and wait to see what Europe follows through on. The commitments are not contractually binding, and they may not have differed from what would have happened anyway. The position The Wall Street Journal editorial board took was that the difference was negligible: Europe’s direct investment in the U.S. increased $200 billion from 2023 to 2024, so how big of a deal is a $600 billion investment over an indeterminate period? 

I’m personally skeptical that tariffs can drive revenues in the long term without hurting U.S. industry, shrinking our economy, and ultimately raising prices for consumers (even if U.S. businesses are, for now, eating the costs themselves). But I was also skeptical Trump could secure a deal like this — one that aligned on his priorities and tilted what he’s described as an imbalanced relationship with Europe greatly to our favor. His critics, at the least, have to eat some crow on the tactics; and many of my initial fears about the disorganized rollout of tariffs are receding. That said, for this deal to be as big or meaningful as Trump claims, revenues will have to continue to rise, inflation continue to ease, and Europe actually follow through on its commitments. Until then, we’re mostly analyzing verbal agreements and waiting for some tangible, written details.

Take the survey: What do you think of the trade deal between the U.S. and EU? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: I’ve noticed a story that there were more than 50 immigration judges fired so far this year and with retirements we are down 108 judges. I also remember that more immigration judges has been one of Isaac’s key tenets to improving immigration. Is this turnover unusual? What’s going on?

— James from Wayzata, MN

Tangle: Earlier this month, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), the union that represents federal judges, claimed that the Trump administration had fired 17 immigration court judges without cause. Those firings added to a surge in immigration judges leaving their positions since January.

In February, the administration fired 20 judges who were on probationary status or had not yet been sworn in. In April, eight other judges were placed on leave and told their positions would be terminated. When totaling those fired with the judges who took the government’s deferred resignation or early retirement offer, the IFPTE says that 106 judges have left their positions since the beginning of Trump’s second administration. Out of the roughly 700 existing federal immigration judgeships, this is a decrease of about 15% in the past six months.

Yes, it’s an unusually high turnover rate — especially considering that Trump greatly increased the number of immigration judges in his first term. Yes, Isaac has repeatedly said that adding more immigration judges will help process the backlog and bring order to our immigration system, and Republicans seemed to agree when they appropriated $3.3 billion for immigration courts to hire new judges and staff. The new budget bill caps the number of immigration judgeships at 800, which is likely too low to address the current immigration backlog, but it at least allows for 100 new immigration judges to be hired (in addition to the new vacancies).

What’s going on? In one sense it’s easy to say: This administration is tangling with federal courts and trying to work around many judges who might slow its policy implementation through executive action, and it is trying to cull the judges it sees as too lenient on immigration. In another way, it’s maddening — removing veteran judges is just going to make it harder to fill the roster that Congress just enlarged, and will slow the process of adjudicating a lot of the immigration cases the administration wants adjudicated.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

On Friday, the European Union (EU) said it would withhold $1.7 billion in Ukrainian aid — roughly a third of a non-military aid package whose disbursement is dependent on good governance standards. The decision follows President Volodymyr Zelensky’s support of a law to curtail the independence of two anticorruption agencies, which had been investigating high-level officials in the government. The law prompted large protests, and Zelensky has since submitted a new bill that restores the agencies’ independence, but the EU’s aid cut remains in place. The EU can still reverse the pause if Ukraine completes additional reforms. The New York Times has the story.

Numbers.

• 116. The number of days between President Donald Trump’s announcement of “Liberation Day” tariffs and the trade agreement reached by the U.S. and European Union (EU).
• 6. The number of trade agreements reached between the Trump administration and trading partners. 
• $975.9 billion. The United States’s estimated total goods trade with the EU in 2024.
• $235.6 billion. The United States’s estimated trade deficit with the EU in 2024, a 12.9% increase from 2023.
• $127 billion. The value of EU pharmaceutical products the U.S. imported in 2024, the single largest product category for EU imports. 
• 4.9%. The percentage of U.S. gross domestic product attributable to goods and services traded with the EU in 2024, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
• 2.2%. The percentage of U.S. gross domestic product attributable to trade in goods and services with China in 2024.

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered Netanyahu’s address to Congress.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the stabbing attack in Michigan.
• Nothing to do with politics: A combination of two summer classics: the banana boat s’more.
• Yesterday’s survey: 3,447 readers responded to our survey on the nutrition crisis in Gaza with respondents scoring Hamas as most responsible, with an averaged total of 4.51 out of 5. “Remember, Hamas started the war,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Orcas, also known as killer whales, have earned their deadly reputation by hunting sharks and attacking boats. However, researchers in Canada, New Zealand, and Mexico have found that the apex predator has a friendlier side. Over two decades of observations from oceans across the world, the researchers found 34 instances of orcas offering food to humans. “Orcas often share food with each other — it’s a prosocial activity,” study lead author Jared Towers, of Bay Cetology in British Columbia, Canada, said. “That they also share with humans may show their interest in relating to us as well.” The American Psychological Association has the story.

Don’t forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.