Former business leader Andrew Puzder believes an economically strong Europe benefits America as well.
Leaving his home in Tennessee, former business executive Andrew Puzder has taken up residence in Brussels as the new U.S. ambassador to the European Union.
He’s working to find common ground with America’s largest trading partner and longstanding ally, despite recent disputes on issues like tariffs, censorship and military spending.
Puzder was confirmed in August and formally began his service on Sept. 11. As the retired CEO of CKE Restaurants and an outspoken advocate for free markets, his business savvy may serve him well, as trade and economics are at the top of the issues being hammered out.
“We need a Europe that is strong economically because we want a strong trading partner. We want a Europe that can defend itself and we want a Europe that maybe is able to help the United States in various trouble spots around the world,” Puzder told The Epoch Times.
First on his agenda is finalizing trade and business agreements between the United States and the EU, based on the framework that was negotiated in July. That includes a 15 percent tariff ceiling on most EU exports, with special treatment for aircraft components and select chemicals, drugs and natural resources, as well as an agreement to jointly protect the American and European steel, copper, and aluminum industries from predatory competition.
The deal also includes a pledge by the EU to invest $600 billion in U.S. industries.
“It was a very good trade agreement for both sides,” Puzder said. “How it was good for us is very obvious … but I think they did a good job negotiating and got a good deal.”
Beyond tariffs, Puzder said, the United States is pushing back on EU laws that American officials say target U.S. companies unfairly.
These include elements of the Digital Services Act, that restrict online “hate speech” and “disinformation,” and the Digital Markets Act, which has imposed antitrust fines on American tech companies including Meta, Apple, and Google.
“The way the law is written, it looks facially neutral because it says it applies to companies with over a certain level of revenue,” Puzder said. “But the reality is that those are primarily American companies, and so the regulations hit American companies hard.”
