OK, then we will come back to you, Barbara later on.

So we had a question from Suzanne on on the US announced measures.

Maybe very briefly can just repeat your question so that we're all on the same page,

Suzanne, and this will be essentially for Thomas.

Thomas, any reaction to Donald Trump's threatened retaliation against any tech taxes or rules or regulation, and also, is this going to impact the European Commission's plan to come

forward with legislation formalizing the EU US joint agreement that was agreed last week,

given this last minute intervention by Donald Trump on the issue of trade and tech?

Just before giving the floor to Thomas, I think it's useful to recall that what we've been saying a number of times that it is the sovereign right of the EU and

its Member States to regulate economic activities on our territory, which are consistent with our democratic values,

and to come to the second part of your question, this is also why this.

It was not part of our agreement with the US, our recent agreement with the US, so these are separate questions,

and we will proceed with the implementation of the Framework Agreement,

which does not and rightly so does not cover this question. On the broader context, Thomas. I said it all. Yes, Jorge. Hello Paula. Two questions.

The first one, do you consider the all-inclusive tariff as a legally binding

protection against a retaliatory tariff of this kind as Donald Trump is currently threatening? And second more for Thomas.

Has the Commission provided its officials working for the DSA with any guidance

or parameters in case of any sanctions imposed by the United States government? Thank you. Thank you, Jorge.

I'll take the second part of the question.

Yes, of course, EU officials working on the DSA and the

DMA and tech legislation generally speaking have clear guidance from the institution. Why?

Because they work on extremely market sensitive cases.

They have extremely sensitive information that touches upon these platforms at their disposal.

So this is more guidance on how we treat this information and not

guidance on the hypothetical announcement made on the other side of the Atlantic.

And on the question of the tariffs, we have an all-inclusive tariff indeed which applies to the products.

So, to clarify, yes,

they're still on this topic, I assume.

Reuters, Commissioner Šefčovič last week was saying that the Commission planned to introduce or present its proposals

on industrial tariffs with regard to the US in August,

which means obviously this week, so can we confirm.

That it will happen, that the presentation will be this week.

Could you say when, and do you have a sense of what the approval process will be,

i.e. just Member States or Member States and Parliament as well?

Yes, so on the, on the legislative proposal that we have committed to putting forward in August,

I can confirm this is in the making and we are precisely doing all the necessary.

To table this proposal still in the course of this month.

Now we're not going into the details of the internal procedure,

but I can confirm indeed that we are advancing in this sense.

Yes, here, and just to confirm, it's still a question to Thomas.

From Euractive,

maybe I want to ask another question on on Trump's tweet.

Because The threat has been going on for quite some time and now it's becoming real.

He says really clearly that he wants to impose additional digital tax and bans on US tech and chips if the EU implement the DMA,

the DSA, and also on countries with a digital tax.

So the threat is getting really concrete.

You, you still believe there's nothing to be said and, and that, the EU-US trade deal will continue,

the way it's been the way Ursula von der Leyen and Trump shook hands in Scotland.

I mean, maybe this is time to consider to use the anti-corrion mechanism. Possible hypothetical measures.

I can just add on your reference to President Trump's statements on the fact that we're targeting US companies.

This is something that we can firmly rebut.

However, the TSA does not look at the color of a company, at the jurisdiction of a company, nor at the owner of a company.

The DSA and the DMA both apply to all platforms and companies operating in the EU irrespective of their place of establishment, and let me maybe you're talking about the DSA,

let me maybe mention the last three enforcement decisions that we took were against AliExpress,

or against Temu, and against TikTok.Thank you still to Thomas.

Hi, so, last week you announced the US-EU joint statement

with the main selling point that this created predictability and stability.

This is now already out the window with the new threats.

There are new tariff threats, we don't know how much and when, so industry cannot plan.

And you tell us that you are still going ahead with the industrial tariff reduction.

So what is the reason, if the main selling point, predictability and stability, is gone,

what is the reason to still stick to

the agreement and to still unilaterally decrease the tariffs?

Allow me to disagree with your premise.

We believe that this deal indeed has provided for predictability and stability.

We have a clear framework on which we are working and on which we are working out the implementing details,

as I mentioned before,

we are preparing the proposal to really put in practice and implement the framework agreement and.

Any other measures which fall out of the scope of this framework agreement at this stage are merely speculative,

so we're not going into those. Yes, please.

It is Edith Hancock with Dow Jones.

Just to follow up on that, I wanted to talk about the wording of the joint statement where we talk about digital trade barriers.

It goes on to talk about network usage fees,

but the fact remains that the Trump administration is not very happy with the DSA or the DMA.

That kind of pressure has been ongoing for months and months and months,

so I wonder how confident and why are you so confident that what you have in the joint statement.

Protects you from further pressure and eventually having to cede ground on those laws.

I think we are still in the same type of questions, right, so I'll just repeat,

yes, we are confident that we have a good basis which provides for predictability, stability.

We're working on both sides of the Atlantic to implement it and anything else beyond what is.

This agreement is merely speculative at this stage.

I can just add on the digital part on the DSA and the DMA, you know it very well.

We have much needed legislation in this sector in the digital sector,

be it on the societal risks of the DSA, be it on the more competition aspects of the DMA. We share views with our.

Counterparts on a lot of these issues, be it terrorist content online when we talk about the DSA, be it protection of kids online, be it protection of election integrity online,

there we have a lot of points where we are actually working hand in hand with the US,

so the disagreements that you're touching upon are on very tiny aspects of this legislation. OK, we can.

Another subject, so just let's make sure that we answer all the questions first.

I see a waving hand there behind Magnus, yes, please. Laura Coston from ARD German television.

A question for Thomas still, so the US administration is considering the DSA to be a threat for,

the free speech of American citizens.

How concerned are you of these allegations?

Do you think that the democratic values of the US and the EU are

drifting further apart at this stage when the US is actually threatening EU actors?

To be, yeah, put under punitive measures for implementing the DSA. Thank you.

I'll not be speaking about the democratic processes in the US.

What I can tell you, however,

is that the claims that the DSA is a censorship tool are completely wrong and completely unfounded.

I can give you some concrete elements regarding this.

First, freedom of expression is a fundamental right in the EU.

It's a core value, and it's fully embedded in the DSA.

Let me give you a figure, maybe let's stay on facts, not to fuel a debate, but let's stay on facts. What is the DSA asking?

The DSA is asking platforms to enforce their own terms and conditions.

That's what we're asking platforms to do.

They define themselves in their terms and conditions, a lot of things that should not be on their own platforms,

and when we're talking about this, more than 99% of content moderation decisions taken here in the EU online.

Are based proactively done by platform based on their own terms and conditions.

So we're not asking platforms to remove content, we're asking them to enforce their own terms and conditions.

Now you're referring to the US, let's speak about one platform, maybe, let's speak about meta.

We're even concerned that they are taking this too far, that they're removing too much content.

And here we have opened an investigation last year and we're still actively looking into it, so no, the censorship claims are completely unfounded.

The DSA is fully respecting freedom of expression, and we should work hand in hand with

the US to tackle other things like disinformation campaigns coming from other parts of the world. Still to Thomas, yes, please.

Hello, hello, hi, thank you so much.

So my first question is, last week when you were presenting the trade deal,

the fact that digital regulations stay out of it was, something of a win for you.

This is sort of what we heard.

Now it seems like maybe it's not that much of a win because the story is still being written.

Should we still consider it a win or should we just consider it a,

it was just a TBD later, during the trade negotiations? That's my first question.

My second question is, have you really not given any guidance to DSA staff about traveling to the US,

given that there are, I mean there is a bill being considered like the State Department has a new policy on visas.

Have you not given any specific guidance about traveling to the US, not about how to handle sensitive information?

And my third question is about the investigations because it's great to Stand by your right to regulate,

which you have, but now,

don't we need some enforcement to see that regulation in practice?

So what is an update on that? Thank you so much.

Maybe first on your second question on the guidance, you're saying it yourself in the question, this is a potential visa restriction.

We are taking action and giving guidance to staff members once we have something really on the table.

So here, the only thing we have on the table is market sensitive information at our disposal,

hence the guidance to our staff members, how to treat this, how to treat this carefully. Why?

Because in the EU we are always following due process,

respecting companies and respecting their sensitive information.

Now on the enforcements on your third question.

We are actively working on all these DSA investigations.

I mean, we have adopted recently decisions under the DMA when it comes to Apple and then when it comes to meta, more recently,

under the DSA when it comes to TikTok, when it comes to AliExpress,

I also mentioned, just a minute ago, Temu, so work is going on. We have.

We have more than 150 people working on the DSA on a daily basis.

They will continue to keep working on that.

Why are certain decisions taking more time than others, precisely because again we're following due process.

We will not shoot at a company from the hip.

We will make sure that we have an evidence based and solid case at our disposal. Why?

Because we need to win this in court.

On your first question, yes, I confirm it was absolutely the right decision not to have tech legislation,

our tech legislation as part of the discussions with the US.

On the back thank you for taking our questions,

Gina Smili with the New York Times.

I wonder, you know, have you been in touch, has the commission been in touch with the State

Department over this potential pending policy about DSA enforcement

and the potential sanctions against people who are implementing it?

We are in regular contact with our counterparts in the US, in particular in light of the implementation of the joint statement that was issued last week,

and so anything that is relevant in that sense is brought up,

is discussed, we are in regular contact with our US counterparts. Yes, I see, David. Thank you, Paula, for the opportunity.

Since you are in regular contact with the Trump administration and the US administration, have you already reached out to them on the post

on Truth by President Trump tonight to clarify if the EU will

be targeted by the tariffs and export restrictions that Trump put forward.

Or are you going to do to reach out to the

administration or the President called President Trump to clarify that point?

I would have a second question on, on, on the legislative process.

Apologies, I wasn't there for some weeks, so maybe you have answered already to that question,

but how, how can, without, FTA,

so a free trade agreement.

How can you respect,

abide to the WTO rule on most favored nation?

It's not clear to me how it's possible because if I remember well, you need an FTA,

and I've read some experts saying that you need an FTA

to respect WTO rule and put tariff on the US to zero. Thank you.

On your first question, David, I'm not aware of any specific contact since the post last

night on this on the question that you raised on trade,

and indeed this has been exhaustively

covered in the various press events that we've had over the past weeks and notably also

with the presence of Commissioner Šefčovič last week

and on the very concrete question on the WTO.

Here, as I said, the framework agreement and then the joint statement is a first step.

We are working with the US also in view of further exempting

other products other than those which are already foreseen, and this is precisely.

Our objective is to further reduce the tariffs on the wider scope of products as much as

possible and indeed to also abide by the WTO

and by the principles that we have always defended. Yes, Sylvia.

Hi, it's Nacia from the Spanish newspaper confidential.

You've always said that, you will react to any tariff in the past during the last months,

that you will react to any tariffs.

This has been always your, your speech.

So if Trump is real and they finally take measures in form of tariffs against dictions that they have digital taxes,

or for example the DCA, the DCA, the DMA.

Would you consider then to react on the service side, because we have always talked about good sides, so if they take measures against, for example,

the European Union in the form of tariffs, I'm not talking about possible sanctions,

but not tariffs, would the European Union in their reaction, consider the services?

I think we're coming in circles and the questions are now being repeated.

We will not go into what if questions.

We're doing our work, we remain in contact with our counterparts also to to to make sure that,

as I said before, that we have stability, we have predictability.

Guess who yes,Thank you, El Pais, on this issue, President Trump also has threatened not because of DSA,

but also the countries that also put all countries with digital taxes, legislation and rules and regulations.

He's threatening countries like Spain or France that have applied this called Google tax,

which was agreed in.

In the framework of OCDE, so my question is technical, I mean if the US attacks one of the EU countries on this tax that was agreed,

could the Commission or could the European Union do something about it, or would that have to be that bilaterally?

And second, you've just said that it was the right decision to not include.

The digital regulation in the agreement, but last week, for example, on pharmaceuticals, the It was praised the fact that it was included

as an insurance policy if the US would do anything in those

sectors and we haven't guarantee that it's not going to affect Europe.

So in hindsight, maybe we knew that something like that on digital was coming, wouldn't have been a good idea to get

any kind of insurance policy as well on regulation,

that this was not going to be a new attack from the US.

So your first question again is a what if question will not go into that, and on the second,

we covered in the agreement all those subjects that

had been put forward already very concretely by President Trump.

So that's what defined the scope of the framework

agreement which was then translated in the joint statement.

I see a colleague has not asked the question yet. Hi, Marie Colle from Context. I have two questions.

So the first one is the commitment to purchase 40 billion US AI chip is in danger.

Following the Trump statement, if not,

can we have some details on how this commitment will be fulfilled?

Is the commitment is the Commission going to encourage the Member states to buy those US chips,

or is the Commission going to buy those chip themselves?

And my second question, given the situation of with the Trump statement,

that the Commission is paying to clarify what is in the scope of the unjustified digital trade barrier,

or no? Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you, I don't think we'll go into your second question into the first one with the, with the chips,

the microprocessors, of course we rely also on our partners when it comes to advanced chips.

Why we have been very clear, you know it very well, Marie. You're following AI also.

We're working currently on the upcoming AI giga factories.

What do we need for the upcoming AI giga factories? We need advanced chips. Do we produce them in-house? Not yet. Not enough. We're working on that. This is a parallel track.

It's the chips act, but In parallel, we need to still buy them from reliable partners,

and the US is producing advanced chips.

We will buy them indeed as it's also laid out in the joint statement,

we'll buy them from the US and the export restrictions were also.

Imposed in the past based on concerns that some of our

Member States could potentially forward them to other partners around the world.

We have always rebutted this and been very clear about the fact that

we represent an economic opportunity for the US and not a security risk.

So again, our technological independence and the work we're doing on chips in the EU is ongoing and on the same,

and in a parallel track, we are indeed relying on the US for advanced chips. To to Yep, please.

Thanks, Is the Commission still coming forward with the

Digital Networks Act before the end of the year?

And a second question, since you say that the predictability of the trade deal is still there,

can you predict for us what a German industrial machine producer what kind of

tariff it will face in 3 months' time when he exports to the US?

On your first question in the upcoming Digital Networks Act,

again we have presented a white paper in February of last year.

We have opened a consultation, stakeholder consultation that we have closed just before the summer.

We're still analyzing the input received, but yes, the Digital Networks Act is still on the table and

we will present it as soon as we can once we have analyzed the input received in this consultation.

And on your question, the 15% all inclusive tax rate is what is now our reference in terms of the products and the

tariffs to be applied unless there are exemptions foreseen and you

know there are exemptions foreseen also in our agreement with the US.

Karl, Yeah, another topic that is trade, related, it's about the end of the,

tariff exemption for small parcels from from going to the United States.

So I wonder if the Commission has an estimation of the economic impact on the European economy and, second question,

does the Commission have figures on the potential surge

of small parcels coming from China to the EU.

That could be a response from the end of the exemption in the US. Thank you, Carla.

Only little information I can provide you on this currently.

Indeed this is a well known phenomenon when you're talking about small valued parcels coming from China to the EU. They represent more than 90%. These were the latest figures.

I know that there was still an increase this year compared to last year,

but I don't have the precise figure at hand.

I will send it to you bilaterally after the midday. OK. Yes, please.

Yes, hi, Clara for Asian Shimbun.

Sorry, I'm gonna jump back to DMA because, Thomas mentioned it, the decisions from April on the, on Meta.

I would like to have an update on it because they were supposed to comply by June.

They did some changes, considered minor, supposed to be talking to the Commission,

so I wanna know, is the Commission actively talking to Meta about that?

Has Meta changed anything to the model since June?

And is there any deadline that the Commission has to comply with?

And then a second part, Meta launched an appeal of the April decision.

So I wanna know if whether this judicial procedure means it's not possible

to apply any financial penalties or take any further decisions in the meantime. Thanks.

We take note of the appeal and will of course defend our position.

Hence also the reply I gave to Elisa. We need solid cases. Why? Because they will be challenged.

This is not something that we're not aware of.

Of course companies will try to challenge our decisions, and this is why it takes time sometimes to take decisions. Why?

Because we need to win these cases in court on your first question and our dialogue with META,

I can confirm that the dialogue is of course continuing with Meta They have indeed offered an alternative.

Now again, we will follow due process.

We will give the time to the companies to defend themselves in these cases,

and once we will be ready, we will take the next decisions. And still to Thomas. I have one final there. Angelo Mambre, from Euractive.

When you say, the legislative proposal on the US, joint statement is in the making by the end of the week or the month,

week or month is the same, you mean the one foreseen in the first paragraphs of the Jo statement,

the one of the lobster.

One on the lobster, I'm looking, I'm looking in as,

as you may have noticed, all of us not here with us today.

So yes, I confirm it refers to the first paragraph of the joint, statement.

We're here with help from, from, Arianna and the colleagues.