Europäische Union

In einigen Orten der Vereinigten Staaten verbinden sich mit den Strafzöllen von Donald Trump nach wie vor Hoffnungen auf neuen Wohlstand. So auch in den ehemaligen Stahlstädten, die unter Deindustrialisierung und Arbeitsplatzverlust leiden.

Dauer des Videos : 60'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

The Commission should, MEPs say, propose EU legislation establishing a common definition of rape based on the concept of freely given, informed and revocable consent.
Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

SEDE-AFCO Joint Public Hearing on Institutional aspects of the Common European Defence Union - 24 February 2026

The Committee on Security and Defence jointly with the Committee on Constitutional Affairs held a hearing on "Institutional aspects of the Common European Defence Union" on 24 February. The Committees looked into the existing institutional framework supporting the Common European Defence Union. The hearing will help to identify the challenges and opportunities within current institutional arrangements, and it will propose recommendations for closer cooperation among Member States and EU's internal governance mechanisms.

Location : SPAAK 1A002
Programme
Poster
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

New laws seek to boost the competitiveness of EU so-called small “mid-cap” (SMC) enterprises as they grown beyond SME status with targeted measures.
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Dauer des Videos : 184'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

REPORT on flagship European defence projects of common interest
Committee on Security and Defence
Lucia Annunziata

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

REPORT on tackling barriers to the single market for defence
Committee on Security and Defence
Tobias Cremer

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

US-Präsident Donald Trump hat seine Rede zur Lage der Nation gehalten. US-Korrespondent Martin Ganslmeier fasst die vier wichtigsten Punkte zusammen. Politikwissenschaftler Johannes Thimm sagt: "Der Erkenntnisgewinn hält sich in Grenzen."

A delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), led by Committee Chair David McAllister (EPP, Germany), visited Podgorica and Tirana from 16 to 18 February.
The visit enabled AFET MEPs to evaluate the state of play of accession negotiations and outstanding reform priorities in each country and reaffirm Parliament's commitment to supporting both countries on their European paths.
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

A delegation of nine Members from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, led by Marta Temido, (S&D, Portugal), visited Belgrade on 23 January. During the visit MEPs met with representatives of the government and the National Assembly, political parties from both the majority and the opposition, as well as with representatives of media, civil society, think tanks, academia and students.
The delegation visit took place as a follow-up to EP resolution on Serbia adopted on 22 October 2025, asking ''to assess, on the ground, the state of democracy, the ongoing protests, attacks on demonstrators and repression targeting students, academics, educators and public-sector employees''.
Press release
Mission report
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Dauer des Videos : 30'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Dans le cadre de la commémoration du double anniversaire du 24 février, le Premier ministre, M. Sifi Ghrieb, a effectué ce mardi une visite de […]

L’article 7e mondial, 3e en Europe : Tebboune salue l’irrésistible ascension du gaz algérien est apparu en premier sur .

La commission mixte paritaire réunissant des membres des deux chambres du Parlement a tranché les points de désaccord relatifs au projet de loi sur la […]

L’article Nouveau code de la route : ce type d’infraction passe de 9000 à 2000 DA d’amende est apparu en premier sur .

Face à la multiplication des cas de tromperie sur l’origine des produits, les ministères du Commerce et de l’Agriculture durcissent le ton. Un nouveau système […]

L’article Viande locale ou importée ? Voici comment ne plus vous faire piéger chez le boucher est apparu en premier sur .

Le centre de collecte des visas BLS International à Oran a annoncé de nouvelles dispositions concernant le dépôt des dossiers de visa de résidence. À […]

L’article Visa pour l’Espagne : BLS annonce de nouvelles règles dès le 15 mars 2026 est apparu en premier sur .

Written by Gisela Grieger.

Background

Since his return to the White House in January 2025 until 20 February 2026, President Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on US trading partners after declaring several national emergencies under IEEPA on the grounds of the ‘influx of illegal aliens and illicit drugs‘ into the US and the persistent annual US trade in goods deficit. Trump declared Brazil’s actions against former Brazilian president Bolsonaro a national emergency under IEEPA to impose tariffs on Brazil. He also invoked IEEPA, on the grounds of Russian threats to the US, to impose tariffs against US imports from India because of India’s purchases of Russian oil.

The US Supreme Court tariff ruling

On 20 February 2026, a six to three majority of the nine US Supreme Court judges, including two Republican judges nominated during President Trump’s first term – in Learning Resources, Inc., versus Trump, President of the United States – ruled that, although IEEPA provides the US president with far-reaching powers, these do not include the authority to impose tariffs. They therefore ruled that President Trump’s use of IEEPA as an authority to levy tariffs on US trading partners is inconsistent with the US Constitution. The latter grants the power to impose tariffs solely to the US Congress, which, whenever it decided in the past to delegate tariff authority to the US president, stipulated that expressly in the respective legal act.

The Supreme Court ruling does not order the refunding of import tariffs already paid to the US government and thus does not impose an obligation on the US government to refund automatically the tariff revenue it has already collected. To be refunded, US importers will likely be compelled to take legal action individually against the US government at the US Court of International Trade. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, stated that there is ‘no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid’.

Implications of the US Supreme Court ruling for US tariff policy

As a result of the ruling, President Trump can no longer use IEEPA’s emergency authority to levy tariffs and is thus deprived of using the swiftest and most flexible tool in his tariff policy toolbox. IEEPA tariffs levied in 2025 are estimated at US$142 billion, with most of the tariff cost borne by US businesses and consumers.

However, the US Congress delegated the power to levy tariffs to the US president under alternative US legal bases, some of which President Trump has used during his first and second terms. The country-specific tariffs levied against China under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act and the national security-based sector-specific tariffs imposed on imports of aluminium, steel and other items under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act have not been challenged by the Court and will remain in place.

Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act authorises the US president to take ‘all appropriate action’, including tariffs, against trading partners engaging in unfair trade practices that cause harm to US trade. While the imposition of Section 301 tariffs and new investigations have focused on China, in July 2025 the US initiated investigations against Brazil and the first Trump Administration used Section 301 to investigate the use of digital services taxes by a number of countries, including EU Member States.

Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act authorises the President to impose tariffs or other restrictions on imports if they are considered a threat to national security. President Trump imposed steel and aluminium tariffs under Section 232 during his first term. In 2025, this legal basis was used for probes into items including cars, pharmaceuticals, trucks, robotics, drones, aircraft, medical equipment and chips.

The US strategy is to shift to the use of another untested legal basis under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act that allows the President to move fast to impose a blanket tariff of 15 % for a maximum of 150 days, unless Congress extends it or President Trump restarts the clock, to tackle a ‘large and serious’ US balance-of-payments deficit, that, experts argue, does not exist, and to a greater use of the tested legal bases above.

The Section 122 tariff of 15 %, effective from 24 February 2026, will allow the US government to bridge the time needed for more tariffs to be activated under legal bases that require several months of investigations. According to a Global Trade Alert estimate, the Section 122 tariff would lower the tariff burden on Brazil, China and India, but would increase it on the EU by 0.8 % to 12.5 % (US trade-weighted average: 13.2 %).

Table 1 – The shift in legal bases for US tariff policy in President Trump’s second term

2025 2026US legal basisIEEPASection 301Section 232Section 122Section 301Section 232Source: EPRS.

Another alternative legal basis, as untested as Section 122, is Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act (Smoot-Hawley Act) that allows the President to levy tariffs up to 50 % for discrimination against US commerce.

The change of the US legal basis is unlikely to alleviate the economic impact of the tariffs on businesses and consumers. US tariffs, uncertainty and unpredictability in trade with the US are here to stay.

Early reactions to the Supreme Court ruling

The Court ruling had been expected for a long time and the oral argument of 5 November 2025 already suggested scepticism among both Democratic and Republican Supreme Court judges as to whether President Trump’s use of IEEPA was consistent with the US Constitution. The Court decision was welcomed by Democrats, with California Governor Newsom, Illinois Governor Pritzker and Senator Cantwell calling for refunds, and by several Republicans who praised free trade or the separation of powers and had voted for bills to repeal tariffs. By contrast, it drew criticism from the US government and many other Republicans.

EU leaders have cautiously welcomed the ruling. A Commission spokesperson stated that the US Supreme Court ruling is being carefully analysed and that the EU remains in close contact with the US administration: ‘We therefore continue to advocate for low tariffs and to work towards reducing them.’ A later Commission statement called on the US to provide clarity on the next steps.

European businesses have reacted in a muted way, remaining clear-eyed that the ruling will merely lead to different US tools being applied and that it is unlikely to reduce the level of US import tariffs. It is seen as a new source of unpredictability, after European exporters had started to adjust to the US tariff policy before the judgment.

Several governments have signalled their interest in renegotiating past tariff arrangements with the Trump Administration, while the US has stated that the tariff deals negotiated under IEEPA remain in force.

Impact on the tariff provisions of the 2025 EU-US framework agreement

On 24 February 2026, Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) was set to adopt two legislative reports, drafted by the standing rapporteur for the US and INTA chair, Bernd Lange (S&D, Germany). These reports would feed into Parliament’s first reading position, which was originally due to be adopted during the March 2026 plenary, on two Commission proposals for implementing the EU’s tariff commitments under the 2025 EU-US framework agreement. Following the Supreme Court ruling, on 23 February 2026 Bernd Lange stated – after a meeting with the INTA shadow rapporteurs – that, given the new circumstances, a majority of political group representatives has agreed that the two legislative files ‘should be put on hold until clarity, stability and legal certainty in EU-US trade relations are re-established.’

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘What to expect after the landmark United States Supreme Court tariff ruling?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 47 - Draft report Global Gateway -– past impacts and future orientation
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Development
Hildegard Bentele, Chloé Ridel

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Durée de la vidéo : 120'

Clause de non-responsabilité : L'interprétation des débats facilite la communication mais ne constitue en aucun cas un enregistrement authentifié des débats. Seuls le discours original ou la traduction écrite révisée du discours original peuvent être considérés authentiques.
Source : © Union européenne, 2026 - PE