For several weeks now has been done nothing but talk about the economic and value damage (scarring to shared values, obstacles to the free market, betrayal of historical allies, etc.) caused by the duties that the President of the United States, Donald Trumphas decided to apply to many countries. In the case of Europe, the duties should have not only the function of rebalancing the US-EU commercial exchange, but also to contrast all those admitted commercial barriers that Europe erects, penalizing many American companies through the imposition of abstruse, expensive and unproductive obligations.
But where this perception of An attack on the free market On the part of the European Community against the USA, which causes these decisive reactions by the US Republicans (who, let’s not forget, won the elections)? One of the most controversial EU regulations for the current administration is the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), recently approved by the European Union. That this umpteenth castle of cards can give the coup de grace to this poor and ramshackle European community does not matter to our overseas allies; However, from the point of view of an American Republican, it represents an unacceptable commercial barrier And, at the same time, an equally intolerable interference in national sovereignty. Let’s see why.
The EU CSDDDD: a threat to America
The CSDDD obliges large companies, including non -European ones with a net turnover of more than 450 million euros in the EU, to conduct a two diligence on human rights and environmental impact along their global supply chains. Companies must identify, prevent and mitigate any negative effects, such as forced work or ecological damage, e adopt climatic transition plans in line with the Paris agreement. For a republican, this approach represents an unjustified intrusion into business freedom and an EU attempt to extend its jurisdiction beyond European borders, directly affecting the American companies that do business on the continent.
Obvious commercial barriers
- Prohibitive compliance costs: implementing the requirements of the CSDDDD means for US companies to deal with significant costs. Monitor and document every aspect of the global supply chain, often involving suppliers in countries with less stringent regulations, requires investments in personal, technology and legal consultancy. These financial charges reduce profit margins and put American companies in a disadvantage compared to competitors of other regions who must not undergo these obligations. For a republican, this is a classic example of how European “green” regulations suffocate economic growth.
- Extraterritoriality and sovereignty: The fact that the CSDDDD also applies to non -European companies with a significant presence in the EU market is seen as an affront to US sovereignty. Why should an American company regulated by the laws of the United States is forced to conform to European standards imposed by Brussels bureaucrats? This extraterritoriality is perceived as an attempt to impose a global progressive agenda, in contrast to the principles of autonomy and deregulation dear to the Republicans, especially under the Trump administration, which has made the “America First” a pillar of its economic policy.
- Market distortion and competitiveness: American companies that choose not to adapt to the CSDDD they risk being excluded from the European market, one of the largest in the world. This creates an indirect commercial barrier: either the EU costs and impositions are accepted, or you lose access to a crucial market. For a republican, this is equivalent to a masked protectionism, which promotes European companies already accustomed to similar regulations (and which pay this “habit” with a collapse of competitiveness) and penalizes the American ones, undermining their ability to compete on a global scale.
- Conflict with trustees: In the United States, company managers have the fiduciary duty to act in the interest of shareholders, maximizing the value of the company. The CSDDDD, with its focus on European stakeholders and climatic objectives, could force American managers to make decisions that favor foreign interests compared to those of their investors. This conflict is unacceptable for a republican, who sees the foundations of the American economy in market freedom and in the priority of shareholders.
A necessary answer
From a republican point of view, the EU should focus on the simplification of transatlantic trade, not on the imposition of ideological barriers. The ideal answer would be a decisive diplomatic action, accompanied, if necessary, by commercial countermeasures to restore a balance. With the Trump administration at the helm, It is unlikely that the United States passively accept this European interference. The CSDDD is not just a matter of sustainability: it is a battle for economic control and business freedom, and Republicans are ready to fight it.
This note does not intend to solicit a comparison between opposite fans, but aims to reflect the critical perspective of an US Republican – a vision often overlooked by our media – highlighting the commercial barriers received as the effect of the CSDDDD. This approach aligns with the positions expressed by republican legislators and commentators in the United States in 2025. To deal seriously with the problems related to the introduction of US duties, I consider it fundamental to understand first of all the reasons of the counterparty and, possibly, find a balance point. It would also be useful to take this opportunity to reconsider the CSDDDD and, more generally, the entire regulatory framework, which seems more and more oriented towards social democratic principles at the expense of the liberal ones.
For further information, I recommend reading the new study of the “The Heartland Institute” on the CSDDDD, which you can freely download: https://heartland.org/opinion/new-heartland-study- European-iis-on-verge-va-vassalizing-Through-new-global-law/