EU digital sovereignty should not be for sale

The pressure from the Trump Administration, partly fueled by allied tech oligarchs, to force the European
Union (EU) into accommodating American companies' demands to avoid regulation, appears to be
reaching a pressure point. Recent indications suggest that the European Union may be preparing to cede
to Washington's demands as part of tariff negotiations, with the European Commission signaling flexibility
to grant exceptions to American companies within the scope of the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

‍
This started ominously enough then Vice-Presidential candidate Senator JD Vance stated in a podcast
that continued NATO support for the European Union (EU) hinged on its respect for 'American values'
and 'free speech'. While initially dismissible as campaign rhetoric, Vance, now elected and vested with
responsibility for transatlantic alliances, escalated his criticism at the Munich Security Conference. There,
he lambasted EU regulations designed to combat online disinformation and hate speech, likening them to
Soviet-era censorship laws and equating EU Commissioners to the repressive regime's commissars.

‍
This pressure isn't confined to the Executive Branch. In the House of Representatives, Judiciary
Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter to Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, demanding information regarding
the enforcement of EU social media rules. This represents a clear attempt to coerce the EU into ceasing
content moderation under the Digital Services Act (DSA), thereby preventing fines and proceedings
against platforms like X and Meta. This sentiment was echoed by Trump in Davos, who equated EU
regulations to a 'form of taxation' on these companies. All this unfolds as Elon Musk faces scrutiny from
the European Commission for DSA breaches (while simultaneously interfering in European elections),
and Mark Zuckerberg expresses intentions not to comply with EU fact-checking requirements, despite
Meta already incurring significant fines: €1.2 billion for privacy violations and €797 million for breaching
antitrust laws.

‍
The argument from these politicians and tech oligarchs that DSA regulations violate American rights is
ludicrous and should be treated as such. EU regulations apply solely within Member States, are standard
for any external operator, and specifically protect free speech, dissemination, and political debate. It is
obvious that Musk and Zuckerberg seek to allow racist, extremist hate speech, and political
misinformation and disinformation to proliferate on their platforms within the EU, unchecked by
regulation. This is defended as preventing censorship or promoting freedom of speech, but it is, in reality,
injecting poison into the bloodstream of EU democracies.

‍
This contentious situation highlights a major concern for the future of the European project: digital
sovereignty as a cornerstone of strategic autonomy. Like security concerns, reliance on digital solutions
from American companies was once considered benign, so long as the US remained an ally sharing
values with EU liberal democracies. However, with the Trump Administration now acting as an adversary,
if not a foe, there is a significant price to pay for the lack of European digital alternatives. As in defense,
being held hostage by structural dependence is a perilous position. During the push for Kyiv to accept a
Moscow/Washington 'peace plan' and attempts to extort Ukrainian minerals, Musk notably threatened to
shut down Starlink across the country. For Europeans, a legitimate question arises: what will be next?
AWS? Azure? Google? WhatsApp?
‍
European alternative digital solutions exist, and the EU is continuously working to enhance data and
privacy protection, shore up cybersecurity, and strengthen cloud services and 5G network security. Still,
there is a pressing need for true pan-European standards and practices, providing digital products and
services that ensure the safety of European users within an environment built on European values and
principles. If this necessitates more stringent rules when dealing with products and services from outside
the bloc, then so be it. We must make it clear to anyone wishing to operate in the European single
market that these are our (digital) house rules, and they must be obeyed to operate within the EU. This
imperative extends from the GDPR and the DSA to the control of digital gatekeepers, the development of
open digital systems, cybersecurity directives, and the standardization of networks and devices.

‍
The mirage of benign transatlantic interdependence has dissipated. External technological dominance
has transformed into a lever of geopolitical influence, and the line between commercial dependence and
strategic control has become perilously thin. If the European Union hesitates now to cement its digital
sovereignty through decisive action, prioritising European services for European users and imposing its
'house rules' on all operators, it will open the door to future extortion and compromise its capacity to
defend its own values and interests. The time to act to secure our digital resilience and strategic
autonomy is now.