The recently concluded trade agreement between the United States and the European Union has elicited mixed reactions among economists and analysts. Niclas Potiers, an economist at the Bruegel think tank, views the deal not as a capitulation by Europe but as part of a broader strategy aimed at reducing European dependence on market access. Despite conceding ground to the U.S. administration under President Donald Trump, Europe sought to secure commercial peace, even if it meant sidelining certain strategic priorities. However, some experts criticize European leaders for handling the negotiations too weakly, suggesting the EU possesses tools to better resist U.S. pressure. Questions have also been raised about the feasibility of the energy-related commitments within the agreement. The deal has been described as imbalanced, with Brussels accepting terms influenced by multiple motivating factors. Additionally, there is concern that the EU’s focus on this deal sidelines its economic relationship with China, potentially reflecting a lack of long-term perspective. The agreement has also exposed divisions within the EU, with some advocating for institutional reforms, including changes to the EU Treaty, to address underlying challenges. Broader economic concerns persist, including stagnant GDP per capita in the Eurozone over the past 17 years and debates over economic growth strategies in major member states like France and Germany.