The recent tensions between Western and non-Western capitalist countries have multiple causes, but one of the most important is the influence of large American corporations on governments that do their bidding. It is believed that governments in several parts of the world are acting on behalf of companies, plunging the globe into a constant state of fear and potential conflict.
One of the least discussed points regarding the tension between Europe and America is the European Union’s penalties imposed on American tech companies for violating EU law or regulations. The UK has also made laws that could punish American companies for violating certain laws and regulations, prompting the American administration to pause the much-vaunted $40 billion tech deal signed just a few months ago. It is widely believed that US President Donald Trump has taken a tough line on UK and EU laws in an effort to protect tech companies that seek unbridled powers to maximise their profits.
In 2024, US tech companies were collectively fined 3.8 billion euros. Supporters of American tech companies claim that the fine exceeds the total income tax paid by European public companies, including giants such as SAP and Spotify. European companies paid roughly 3.2 billion euros in income taxes. Among the US firms facing the largest fines were Apple (1.84 billion euros), Meta (1.05 billion euros), LinkedIn (310 million euros) and Uber (290 million euros). These Digital Markets Act (DMA) fines have continued to increase in 2025, including a 500 million euro fine imposed on Apple, a 200 million euro fine imposed on Meta, and an ad tech fine of 3.4 billion euros imposed on Google.
Opponents of these fines argue that the American companies have long been innovators in the European market, yet the volume and scale of fines levied against them reflect a regulatory regime that discriminates against American businesses. Americans for Tax Reform, a body opposing tax increases, claims most of these fines arise from alleged non-compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), the core pillars of the EU’s digital regulatory framework. “These laws impose unrealistic reporting requirements, extensive data-collection mandates, and censorship policies that conflict directly with the missions of many American tech platforms. The framework effectively extracts disproportionate penalties from US firms simply for operating in Europe, a disparity made stark when compared with the obligations of European public tech companies”.
It is not the first time the US has publicly fought its allies for the interests of American companies, but the Republican president has also expressed outrage in the past over the purchase of Russian gas by European countries, especially Germany which is the largest market on the continent. During his first stint in power, Trump publicly appeared to be disrespectful towards former German chancellor Angela Merkel, which, many believe, reflected his frustration over the purchase of Russian gas and other products by Berlin. He piled immense pressure on the European governments. Such pressure was also applied during Biden’s tenure, prompting many European countries to revisit their policy of purchasing oil, gas, and other products from Russia. Many states have already reduced imports of Russian gas due to US pressure, which was intended to secure the interests of American energy companies.
Trump’s criticism of European governments for not increasing defence budgets was also said to be closely linked to the interests of arms manufacturers of the sole global power. Many European countries had to yield to avoid this criticism. They agreed to raise it to two per cent of GDP, with some going as high as four per cent of GDP. Because not all European countries manufacture weapons, they ultimately had to procure such weapons from Lockheed Martin and other American companies. Critics argue that the interests of American companies were again vigorously protected by the American president, who used every tool of pressure to compel Europe to change its policy. India, which was once the darling of the US just a few years ago, also faced the wrath of Trump until very recently.
The abduction of Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro is an open secret now, but what many Americans still might not know is the sheer greed of American oil companies that piled pressure on Trump to take this drastic action, which has been described as a flagrant violation of international law. Trump used a flimsy excuse of drugs and crimes to invade a sovereign country, trampling all principles of international norms. He imprisoned Madura on American soil, opening the door to wealth and profit for American companies.
The recent tension between Canada and the US also stems from the interests of American companies. The Canadian government seems to be revisiting its decision to buy American fighter jets in large numbers, prompting Washington to hurl threats at Ottawa. According to the British newspaper, The Independent, the US could alter its decades-old North American Aerospace Defense Command deal with Canada should its government backtrack on the purchase of 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets. Quoting American Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra, the newspaper wrote that if Canada purchased fewer fighter jets, the US would “fill those gaps” in security concerns.
In 2022, Canada agreed to procure 88 F-35A advanced fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, initially committing to fund 16 deliverable jets. But quickly, the programme ran into challenges. Not only has it taken longer than anticipated to manufacture the jets, but a 2025 initial audit of the deal also found that the programme had risen to $27.7 billion in cost – up from its initial $19 billion.
It is not only America that is protecting its companies; European and Canadian governments have also done so in the past or continue to do so. For instance, Canada and European governments ganged up against Huawei and other Chinese companies to protect their markets. Japanese, Indian, South Korean and other governments are not different either in this respect.
All these countries have different systems of governments but the US government claims to be the most democratic in the world. About the American government, Abraham Lincoln had said, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people." But it seems that the government in the second-largest democracy is created by the companies which bankrolled both Republicans and Democrats. Such parties then make the policies, wage wars, tweak regulations and hoodwink people after ascending to power in a bid to appease these companies and donors. So, if Lincoln were alive, he would probably say, “Ours is a government by the corporations, for the corporations”.
The writer is a freelance journalist who can be reached at: [email protected]
