The United States and the European Union have concluded what is being described as the largest trade agreement in history, following negotiations in Scotland. While only the framework was initially disclosed, subsequent details reveal a complex set of sectoral winners and losers across both economies. Trump – Winner President Donald Trump can claim a major political victory. After promising a wave of new trade agreements, he has now secured the most significant of them all. Early economic assessments suggest the EU may have conceded more than the US, with Capital Economics estimating a 0.5% reduction in European GDP. The agreement also guarantees substantial revenue flows into the US treasury through new import tariffs. Yet, while the headlines favor Trump, critics argue that domestic inflation, stagnant growth, and falling consumer confidence could soon undermine perceptions of success. US Consumers – Losers American households are likely to experience increased costs. The deal establishes a uniform 15% tariff on European imports—lower than some feared, but still a meaningful barrier compared to pre-2025 levels. As tariffs function as consumption taxes, the additional costs will be passed on, at least partially, to consumers, exacerbating an already fragile cost-of-living environment. Financial Markets – Winners Equity markets responded positively to the announcement. Despite the relatively high tariff rate, investors welcomed the predictability and clarity provided by the agreement. Analysts, such as Chris Weston of Pepperstone, described the framework as “market-friendly,” with potential upside for the euro. European Solidarity – Loser The deal must still be ratified by all 27 EU member states, many of which hold divergent economic priorities. Early reactions highlight fractures within the bloc. France’s Prime Minister, Francois Bayrou, condemned the pact as a betrayal of shared values, while Hungary’s Viktor Orbán declared that Trump had “eaten von der Leyen for breakfast.” These tensions underscore the difficulty of maintaining unity as the EU simultaneously faces other geopolitical crises, including the ongoing war in Ukraine. German Carmakers – Losers Automobiles, a central pillar of European exports, will remain burdened by tariffs—albeit reduced from 27.5% to 15%. Germany, home to Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz, stands to lose billions annually, according to the VDA trade body. While Chancellor Friedrich Merz cautiously welcomed the agreement, he also acknowledged the need for deeper liberalization of transatlantic trade. US Carmakers – Mixed Outcome American automakers secured a reduction of EU tariffs on US vehicles, from 10% to 2.5%, which could enhance export prospects in Europe. However, structural complexities in US auto production undermine this advantage. Vehicles assembled abroad—particularly in Canada and Mexico—remain subject to a 25% tariff upon re-entry to the US, a rate notably higher than the 15% applied to European imports. Consequently, US firms risk being undercut by European competitors in their own domestic market. EU Pharmaceuticals – Losers The pharmaceutical sector had sought exemption from tariffs altogether but instead faces a 15% levy, the same rate imposed on most other goods. Given the industry’s heavy reliance on US markets—exemplified by Denmark’s blockbuster diabetes drug Ozempic—the decision represents a significant setback. Political opposition in Ireland, where the industry is a major employer, has already criticized the outcome as damaging. US Energy – Winner One of the most consequential outcomes lies in energy trade. The EU committed to purchasing $750 billion in US liquified natural gas (LNG), oil, and nuclear fuels, while also pledging $600 billion in additional investment. This deepens Europe’s reliance on the US for energy security at a time when the continent continues to reduce dependence on Russian supplies. Aviation Industry – Winner Aircraft, aerospace components, and certain chemicals were excluded from tariffs, ensuring continued frictionless trade in these sectors. Von der Leyen indicated that further “zero-for-zero” agreements, potentially covering wines and spirits, remain under discussion. The US–EU trade agreement illustrates the asymmetrical distribution of benefits and burdens inherent in large-scale negotiations. The United States appears to have secured clear strategic wins, particularly in energy and automotive exports, while the EU faces internal divisions and sectoral vulnerabilities. Consumers on both sides may face higher prices, yet markets have welcomed the certainty of the deal. The longer-term political sustainability of this agreement, however, may depend less on its immediate economic impact and more on its ability to withstand mounting domestic and geopolitical pressures.