The linked article clearly states the export ban is the result of the US convincing other countries, such as ASML's host country the Netherlands, to join their export controls.

I'm not sure why European countries signed this deal, given that the US still started trade wars a few months later. Maybe they had more faith in the American electorate than they should've had.

There is no need to convince. It's probably diplomatic language/misunderstanding by the journalist.

U.S export controls have a foreign direct product rule. If your product directly depends on US IP/tech then US export controls apply to you too. ASML's EUV machines depend on a lot of U.S ip and tech. These range from patents from the EUV consortium days, all the way to today where a lot of the components are designed or patented by the US (intel, ibm, applied materials, lam, KLA, [1]). Thus, export controls apply whether netherlands likes it or not.

In EUV litho, the strategic I.P - and what IP is a strategic chokepoint is subjective, so IMHO - is 50% EU, 40% U.S and 10% Japan. More than enough for FDPR.

See ECCN 3B090 (2022) for lots of extra restrictions placed beyond this, specifically targeting semicon manufacturing exports to PRC, such as the presumption of denial clause.

[1] and cymer. Altho they were acquired by asml their IP remains san diego based aiui.