The Trump administration warned the European Union about its regulations on American companies

The administration of President Donald Trump increased pressure on the European Union to further reduce its corporate and environmental regulations, considering that Brussels has not yet fully met the commitments made during the trade negotiations held in 2025.

The U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Andrew Puzder, stated on Friday that the bloc must move forward with the promised reforms during the talks with Trump in Turnberry, Scotland, last July. According to Washington, those negotiations included commitments aimed at reducing non-tariff barriers that hinder U.S. companies' access to the European market.

''Now it is time for the EU to deliver,'' Puzder wrote on X.

A statement from the U.S. government published alongside the message acknowledged that Brussels had implemented ''some positive reforms'', but maintained that the changes made so far do not fully address Washington's concerns.

''The United States will take all necessary actions to address unreasonable burdens on U.S. trade in the absence of a solution that addresses these concerns,'' the government warned.

The confrontation mainly centers on two regulations related to the European Union's environmental agenda: the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, known as CSDDD, and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, or CSRD.

The CSDDD requires certain large companies to identify and address potential negative impacts on human rights and the environment arising from their operations and business relationships. The CSRD, in turn, requires certain companies to disclose information about their environmental and social impacts.

One of Washington's main concerns is that both regulations could affect companies based outside the European Union when they develop a sufficient volume of business within the bloc.

During the trade framework agreed upon last year, Brussels committed to working to ensure that the two directives did not represent undue restrictions on transatlantic trade. The EU also agreed to address U.S. concerns related to the application of the CSDDD to non-European companies.

Since then, European institutions have narrowed the scope of both regulations as part of a campaign aimed at reducing bureaucracy and simplifying business obligations.

The changes approved by European lawmakers in December 2025 and subsequently ratified by the Council in February significantly raised the requirements for a company to be included in the CSDDD. The regulation shifted to focus on companies with more than 5,000 employees and an annual net turnover exceeding 1.5 billion euros. For non-European companies, the threshold is set at more than 1.5 billion euros in turnover within the EU.

The CSRD was also limited. The new provisions cover certain non-European parent companies when they generate more than 450 million euros in annual turnover within the bloc and have a subsidiary or branch that exceeds 200 million euros.

Although these reforms reduced the number of companies subject to the regulations compared to their original design, the Trump administration believes that they still represent a considerable burden for U.S. companies.

Puzder argued that the extraterritorial scope of the directives and the requirements related to supply chains could harm the ability of U.S. companies to compete on equal terms within the European market.

The concern is also shared by U.S. business groups. The National Association of Manufacturers, which represents about 14,000 companies from various sectors, has warned that due diligence obligations could indirectly extend to smaller companies, private firms, and non-European businesses that are part of the supply chains of large corporations.

The group also states that U.S. manufacturers already face costs exceeding 350 billion dollars annually to comply with domestic regulations, so new European obligations could further increase the burden on companies seeking to compete internationally.

Brussels, however, does not seem willing to accept that trade talks with Washington dictate its regulatory policy. A spokesperson for the European Commission stated that the EU has made ''considerable efforts'' to explain its rules and reiterated its willingness to work with the United States to expand trade.

At the same time, the official made the bloc's position clear: ''Our regulatory framework and our regulatory autonomy are not subject to negotiation.''

The dispute is part of a broader conflict between Washington and Brussels over non-tariff barriers. Puzder also recently criticized the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, calling it a ''tariff by another name'' due to the costs it may impose on U.S. exporters.

Additionally, a report from the White House published this week included the European Union among more than 40 economies allegedly linked to an international transshipment network used to divert products related to China and avoid U.S. tariffs.

According to the central scenario used by Washington, about 75 billion dollars in goods could be involved annually in illegal transshipment operations, potentially resulting in losses of between 19 billion and 26 billion dollars in U.S. federal revenue.

The new pressure from Trump thus reflects a broader strategy to reduce obstacles that harm U.S. companies. Washington argues that trade agreements must translate into more balanced conditions and that foreign regulations should not become disguised barriers against U.S. products and companies.

Brussels' response anticipates new tensions. While Trump seeks to use the trade commitments of 2025 to obtain greater concessions, the European Union insists on retaining its ability to set its own environmental and corporate standards.

The confrontation could become one of the main friction points in the transatlantic economic relationship, especially if Washington decides to adopt new measures to pressure Brussels to modify the regulations it considers excessive.