EurActiv · September 2026

• institutional action framing ('Commission backs out', 'EU mulls', 'EU capitals weigh') without evaluative praise
• critical/scrutinising headlines on EU policy ('running out of easy targets', 'less attention', 'raise access fears')
• external actors pressuring or defying the EU ('Trump's deep-sea mining push', 'Greece breaks EU ranks', 'Musk's fight against EU fine')
• occasional positive/neutral items on EU enlargement and Ukraine support ('Canada welcomes EU membership-lite', 'unblock €6.6bn')

Coverage is genuinely mixed: some headlines are neutral/factual (ECB rate hike, EPF funds), some mildly critical of EU policy competence or access, and a few frame the EU as a geopolitical actor being courted (Canada, Ukraine). No consistent delegitimising vocabulary ('regime', 'brutal') nor promotional lionising. Stance is best read as neutral with a routine critical-newsroom edge rather than a clear directional stance toward the EU as an entity.

• Trump framed as disruptive force acting on Europe ('threatens EU', 'destructive chapter', 'Europe counts Trump's drug costs')
• US tech firms (OpenAI, Google, Meta) framed as regulatory evaders or safety risks under EU rules
• US actions reported through EU-impact lens, foregrounding friction rather than cooperation
• Neutral-to-positive notes only when US concessions align with EU interests (Greenland deal, Russia sanctions)

Coverage is largely transactional and EU-centric rather than uniformly hostile; some headlines (5, 8, 17, 24) report US actions neutrally or even favourably when they align with European priorities. The negative tilt is driven by selection of friction points (trade threats, tech regulation, diplomatic summons) rather than overt editorial denunciation. Entity is 'US' as a whole, so mixed signals across sub-actors (Trump vs. tech firms vs. envoys) reduce confidence.

• Attribution verbs are neutral-reporting ('says', 'signs', 'threatens', 'discuss') rather than distancing ('claims', 'alleges')
• Selection foregrounds friction points for Europe (threats over Canada, drug pricing clash, Iceland summons, Greenland 'control') without the outlet's own evaluative framing of Trump
• Quoted European reactions ('destructive chapter', 'binding deal', 'hails') are attributed to EU/Danish actors, not voiced by EurActiv itself
• Trump is treated as a consequential actor whose actions are reported, not as a credibility problem or a favoured ally

Bundle is genuinely mixed: some headlines are neutral action reports (1, 2, 7, 10), some imply European anxiety (4, 8, 13, 15/16), and some are mildly favourable to outcomes Trump brokered (5, 6). No consistent evaluative vocabulary from the outlet itself; stance is best read as neutral/transactional rather than either hostile or promotional. Headlines 14-16 are duplicates/translations, reducing effective sample size.