Puzder in Luxembourg: business, investment and regulation

The US ambassador to the EU highlights cooperation between businesses and criticises European regulation. His assessment of Luxembourg’s industry remains nuanced.

American and European businesses continue to work together despite political disagreements: this is the message Andrew Puzder put forward during his visit to Luxembourg, reported by RTL on 12 November. The US ambassador to the European Union highlights the ties between suppliers, customers and investors. He also argues for less regulation in Europe, while qualifying his assessment of Luxembourg’s industry.

RTL reports that he came at the invitation of the American Chamber of Commerce. His remarks bring together two questions: what keeps a business relationship going despite diplomatic tensions, and what can persuade a company to invest.

Trade continues despite friction

Puzder refers to discussions between businesses about commercial projects, products to manufacture, supply-chain difficulties and competition from China. He presents this cooperation as a practical necessity: businesses must keep operating, protect jobs and find markets even when governments disagree over trade, immigration, defence or the regulation of large technology companies.

This perspective distinguishes between two levels that are often conflated. Tensions between states can weigh on expectations and investment decisions; they do not automatically interrupt relationships between suppliers, customers and industrial partners. But the existence of this cooperation does not measure its volume, profitability or effects on employment. In the interview, it is Puzder’s analysis, not the findings of an independent study.

The programme for the transatlantic event announced by AmCham and Deloitte for 11 November included a presentation of data on trade between the United States and Europe, as well as a section devoted to relations between Luxembourg and the United States. The programme brought together the European framework and Luxembourg’s interests. It announced a presentation of data, but was not itself an assessment of trade or investment.

The case for less regulation

Puzder argues that the European Union regulates too much and disputes the idea that rules alone can drive growth. He hopes that the political changes under way in Europe will have positive effects on the economy. He thus advocates a political preference for a less restrictive environment, without identifying a specific measure or its cost to businesses in this interview.

To assess the impact of easing a rule, it would be necessary to specify the obligation concerned, the compliance costs it entails and the expected effects of changing it. The question of costs is also distinct from that of the objectives being pursued. An assessment should examine both, sector by sector. That is what would make it possible to move from a general preference for fewer rules to a verifiable economic assessment.

This distinction matters to employers and employees alike. Simplification can ease certain procedures or speed up a project; on its own, it does not guarantee that a site will open or jobs will be created. Likewise, regulation does not necessarily mean that an investment is being prevented. To establish either effect, it would be necessary to examine a specific measure and observed outcomes, rather than infer an overall assessment from a political preference.

Luxembourg as an example, without an industrial diagnosis

Puzder believes that Luxembourg knows how to attract investors and that the European Union could benefit from learning from it. He describes the country as a destination for a company looking to invest in Europe to consider. This compliment is the ambassador’s assessment, not a ranking of the business climate or an announcement of a new project.

He himself adds an important qualification to his judgement: he says he does not know enough about the climate for manufacturing investment in Luxembourg to offer a precise assessment in this area. His remarks therefore do not allow us to conclude that the country is particularly attractive for every industrial activity, or to identify the factors that would determine a decision to set up there. For a company, choices also depend on its sector, staffing needs, suppliers, costs and intended markets.

Puzder’s assessment therefore invites us to look at the conditions for a project: access to skills and suppliers, costs, markets or the predictability of the framework. It is not accompanied by any announcement of a factory or new jobs. The interest of the Luxembourg case here lies in the question it raises about attracting investors, not in any newly announced industrial outcome.

Trade cooperation remains reversible

The European context also shows that cooperation and disagreement can coexist. On 31 July 2026, the European Commission announced that the suspension of its rebalancing measures targeting the United States would remain in place with no end date. The suspension means that these measures are not applied during this period; it does not repeal them. The Commission says it will continue to monitor the situation and may reactivate them if necessary.

This decision illustrates a trading relationship that is neither entirely broken off nor free of friction. Businesses can continue trading while the authorities keep response measures available. The Commission document concerns these European rebalancing measures: it is not a complete record of the duties applicable to all products, nor a guarantee that the disputes have disappeared.

The visit thus brings two levels of decision-making into view. Governments negotiate the terms of trade; businesses weigh up their projects within that framework. Puzder is counting on these relationships continuing and on investors receiving a warmer welcome. For Luxembourg, the practical question remains what conditions will enable a project to go ahead, beyond a generally favourable assessment of the country.