Chinese technology giant Huawei is participating in 16 projects funded by the European Commission’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program despite being dubbed a high-risk supplier. The Commission restricted Huawei from accessing Horizon projects in 2023 after saying that it (and another Chinese telecom supplier, ZTE) posed “materially higher risks than other 5G suppliers” in relation to cybersecurity and foreign influence. However, public data reviewed by POLITICO’s EU Influence newsletter shows that Huawei still takes part in several projects, many of which are in sensitive fields like cloud computing, 5G and 6G telecom technology and data centers. These projects mean Huawei has been working alongside universities and tech companies in Spain, France, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Finland and Italy. It also has access to the intellectual property generated by the projects, as the contracts require the sharing of information as well as joint ownership of the results between partners. A Commission spokesperson confirmed that of the 16 projects, 15 were signed before the restrictions took place. The remaining project “was signed in 2025 and was assessed as falling outside the scope of the existing restrictions.” Many of the projects started in January 2023, with the contracts running out at the end of this year, while others will last until 2027, 2028 and 2030. “Huawei participates in and implements projects funded under Horizon Europe in a lawful and compliant manner,” a company spokesperson said. One of the projects is to develop data privacy and protection tools in the fields of AI and big data, along with Italy’s National Research Council, the University of Malaga, the University of Toulouse, the University of Calabria, and a Bavarian high-tech research institute for software-intensive systems. Huawei received €207,000 to lead the work on “design, implementation, and evaluation of use cases,” according to the contract for that project, seen by POLITICO. COMMISSION CRACKDOWN Last month the Commission proposed a new Cybersecurity Act that would restrict Huawei from critical telecoms networks under EU law, after years of asking national capitals to do so voluntarily. “I’m not satisfied [with] how the member states … have been implementing our 5G Toolbox,” the Commission’s executive VP for tech and security policy, Henna Virkkunen, told POLITICO at the time, referring to EU guidelines to deal with high-risk vendors. “We know that we still have high-risk vendors in our 5G networks, in the critical parts … so now we will have stricter rules on this.” The Commission is also working on measures to cut Chinese companies out of lucrative public contracts. Bart Groothuis, a liberal MEP working on the Cybersecurity Act, told POLITICO that the Commission should “honor the promises and commitments” it made “and push them out.” “They should be barred from participating. Period.” Huawei was also involved in an influence scandal last year, with Belgian authorities investigating whether the tech giant exerted undue influence over EU lawmakers. The scandal led to Huawei’s being banned from lobbying on the premises of the European Commission and the European Parliament.

MUNICH, Germany — U.S. officials have countered Europe’s push for technology sovereignty from America with a clear message: It’s China you should worry about, not us. The European Union is rolling out a strategy to reduce its reliance on foreign technology suppliers. Donald Trump’s return to office has put the focus on American cloud giants, companies like Elon Musk’s Starlink and X and others — with European officials increasingly concerned that Washington has too much control over Europe’s digital infrastructure. As political leaders and security and intelligence officials met in Germany for the Munich Security Conference, Washington sought to calm nerves. The idea that Trump can pull the plug on the internet is not “a credible argument,” the United States’ National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross told an audience Thursday. Europe and the U.S. “face the same sort of threat and the same threat actors,” said Cairncross, who advises Trump on cybersecurity policy. Rather than weaning off America, wean off China, he said: “There is a clean tech stack. It is primarily American. And then there is a Chinese tech stack.” Claiming that U.S. tech is as risky as Chinese tech is “a giant false equivalency,” according to Cairncross. “Personal data doesn’t get piped to the state in the United States,” he said, referencing concerns that the Beijing government has laws requiring firms to hand over data for Chinese surveillance and espionage purposes. The attempt to quell concerns is notable even if it may not change the direction of travel in Europe. The European Commission wants to boost homegrown technology with a “tech sovereignty” package this spring. It presented a cybersecurity proposal in January that, if approved, could be used to root out suppliers that pose security risks — including from America. “We want to ensure that we don’t have risky dependencies when it comes to critical sectors,” the Commission’s Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen told POLITICO in an interview in Munich on Friday. “We see this in AI, quantum technologies and semiconductors — we must have a certain level of capacity ourselves.” Europe’s attempt to pivot away from U.S. dependencies, while not new, has gained support in past months as the transatlantic alliance creaked. The POLITICO Poll conducted in February showed far more people described the U.S. as an unreliable ally than a reliable one across four countries, including half the adults polled in Germany and 57 percent in Canada. “The leadership claim of the U.S. is being challenged, perhaps already lost,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told the conference Friday. REBALANCING ACT Europe is still working out what a forceful attempt to build technology sovereignty would look like, as it reforms everything from industrial policy programs to procurement rules and data and cybersecurity requirements on companies and governments. Top European cyber officials in Munich told POLITICO that technological sovereignty does not mean cutting ties with trusted partners. Vincent Strubel, director of France’s cybersecurity agency ANSSI, said sovereignty means avoiding being bound by rules set elsewhere. “It’s about identifying what leverage non-European countries may have based on the technology they provide,” Strubel said in an interview. “It’s not about being friendly or unfriendly with any country — it’s about recognizing that we [currently] have no say in how that leverage might be used.” Claudia Plattner, head of Germany’s cybersecurity agency BSI, said, “We need to become more independent. We need to strengthen our local and European industries … We need to become digitally successful — that is essential to economic strength and to security.” The BSI plans to test sovereign cloud offerings from several large tech companies, including AWS and Google. The testing will examine whether European services can operate independently from parent systems and will help inform Germany’s national cloud strategy. Critics of Europe’s efforts to turn away from the U.S. say it is bound to lead to worse security. Christopher Ahlberg, the CEO of threat intelligence firm Recorded Future, said he understood that things like military command and control must remain national, “but if you start choosing sub-par cyber products just to achieve sovereignty, you’re going to be target No. 1 because threat actors will discover the vulnerabilities.” COMMON GROUND ON CHINA While tensions persist over the U.S.’s dominant position, Washington and European capitals have common ground when it comes to caution over Chinese tech. The EU is drafting legal requirements to cut out Chinese tech from critical supply chains including telecom networks, energy grids, security systems and railways. That move drew the ire of the Chinese government, which called it “blatant protectionism.” Many of the measures mirror what U.S. authorities have done in the past decade. “The U.S. understands what national security is. They don’t want to hear: ‘The U.S. is a threat.’ But they understand resilience,” said Sébastien Garnault, a prominent French cyber policy consultant. Trump “is putting America first, and the same goes in cyberspace,” Cairncross said. But, he added, “we don’t want it to be America alone. We want that partnership.” Laurens Cerulus contributed reporting.

China’s foreign ministry on Wednesday said a new European Commission proposal to restrict high-risk tech vendors from critical supply chains amounted to “blatant protectionism,” warning European officials that Beijing will take “necessary measures” to protect Chinese firms. Beijing has “serious concerns” over the bill, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters, according to state news agencies’ reports. “Using non-technical standards to forcibly restrict or even prohibit companies from participating in the market, without any factual evidence, seriously violates market principles and fair competition rules,” Guo said. The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled its proposal to revamp the bloc’s Cybersecurity Act. The bill seeks to crack down on risky technology vendors in critical supply chains ranging across energy, transport, health care and other sectors. Though the legislation itself does not name any specific countries or companies, it is widely seen as being targeted at China. 5G suppliers Huawei and ZTE are in the EU’s immediate crosshairs, while other Chinese vendors are expected to be hit at a later stage. European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier responded to the Chinese foreign ministry, saying Europe has allowed high-risk vendors from outside the EU in strategic sectors for “far too long.” “We are indeed radically changing this. Because we cannot be naive anymore,” Regnier said in a statement. The exclusion of high-risk suppliers will always be based on “strong risk assessments” and in coordination with EU member countries, he said. China “urges the EU to avoid going further down the wrong path of protectionism,” the Chinese foreign ministry’s Guo told reporters. He added the EU bill would “not only fail to achieve so-called security but will also incur huge costs,” saying some restrictions on using Huawei had already “caused enormous economic losses” in Europe in past years. European telecom operators warned Tuesday that the law would impose multi-billion euro costs on the industry if restrictions on using Huawei and ZTE were to become mandatory across Europe. A Huawei spokesperson said in a statement that laws to block suppliers based on their country of origin violate the EU’s “basic legal principles of fairness, non-discrimination, and proportionality,” as well as its World Trade Organization obligations. The company “reserve[s] all rights to safeguard our legitimate interests,” the spokesperson said. ZTE did not respond to requests for comment on the EU’s plans.

BRUSSELS — First it was telecom snooping. Now Europe is growing worried that Huawei could turn the lights off. The Chinese tech giant is at the heart of a brewing storm over the security of Europe’s energy grids. Lawmakers are writing to the European Commission to urge it to “restrict high-risk vendors” from solar energy systems, in a letter seen by POLITICO. Such restrictions would target Huawei first and foremost, as the dominant Chinese supplier of critical parts of these systems. The fears center around solar panel inverters, a piece of technology that turns solar panels’ electricity into current that flows into the grid. China is a dominant supplier of these inverters, and Huawei is its biggest player. Because the inverters are hooked up to the internet, security experts warn the inverters could be tampered with or shut down through remote access, potentially causing dangerous surges or drops in electricity in Europe’s networks. The warnings come as European governments have woken up to the risks of being reliant on other regions for critical services — from Russian gas to Chinese critical raw materials and American digital services. The bloc is in a stand-off with Beijing over trade in raw materials, and has faced months of pressure from Washington on how Brussels regulates U.S. tech giants. Cybersecurity authorities are close to finalizing work on a new “toolbox” to de-risk tech supply chains, with solar panels among its key target sectors, alongside connected cars and smart cameras. Two members of the European Parliament, Dutch liberal Bart Groothuis and Slovak center-right lawmaker Miriam Lexmann, drafted a letter warning the European Commission of the risks. “We urge you to propose immediate and binding measures to restrict high-risk vendors from our critical infrastructure,” the two wrote. The members had gathered the support of a dozen colleagues by Wednesday and are canvassing for more to join the initiative before sending the letter mid next week.   According to research by trade body SolarPower Europe, Chinese firms control approximately 65 percent of the total installed power in the solar sector. The largest company in the European market is Huawei, a tech giant that is considered a high-risk vendor of telecom equipment. The second-largest firm is Sungrow, which is also Chinese, and controls about half the amount of solar power as Huawei. Huawei’s market power recently allowed it to make its way back into SolarPower Europe, the solar sector’s most prominent lobby association in Brussels, despite an ongoing Belgian bribery investigation focused on the firm’s lobbying activities in Brussels that saw it banned from meeting with European Commission and Parliament officials. Security hawks are now upping the ante. Cybersecurity experts and European manufacturers say the Chinese conglomerate and its peers could hack into Europe’s power grid.  “They can disable safety parameters. They can set it on fire,” Erika Langerová, a cybersecurity researcher at the Czech Technical University in Prague, said in a media briefing hosted by the U.S. Mission to the EU in September.  Even switching solar installation off and on again could disrupt energy supply, Langerová said. “When you do it on one installation, it’s not a problem, but then you do it on thousands of installations it becomes a problem because the … compound effect of these sudden changes in the operation of the device can destabilize the power grid.”  Surges in electricity supply can trigger wider blackouts, as seen in Spain and Portugal in April. | Matias Chiofalo/Europa Press via Getty Images Surges in electricity supply can trigger wider blackouts, as seen in Spain and Portugal in April. Some governments have already taken further measures. Last November, Lithuania imposed a ban on remote access by Chinese firms to renewable energy installations above 100 kilowatts, effectively stopping the use of Chinese inverters. In September, the Czech Republic issued a warning on the threat posed by Chinese remote access via components including solar inverters. And in Germany, security officials already in 2023 told lawmakers that an “energy management component” from Huawei had them on alert, leading to a government probe of the firm’s equipment. CHINESE CONTROL, EU RESPONSE  The arguments leveled against Chinese manufacturers of solar inverters echo those heard from security experts in previous years, in debates on whether or not to block companies like video-sharing app TikTok, airport scanner maker Nuctech and — yes — Huawei’s 5G network equipment. Distrust of Chinese technology has skyrocketed. Under President Xi Jinping, the Beijing government has rolled out regulations forcing Chinese companies to cooperate with security services’ requests to share data and flag vulnerabilities in their software. It has led to Western concerns that it opens the door to surveillance and snooping. One of the most direct threats involves remote management from China of products embedded in European critical infrastructure. Manufacturers have remote access to install updates and maintenance. Europe has also grown heavily reliant on Chinese tech suppliers, particularly when it comes to renewable energy, which is powering an increasing proportion of European energy. Domestic manufacturers of solar panels have enough supply to fill the gap that any EU action to restrict Chinese inverters would create, Langerová said. But Europe does not yet have enough battery or wind manufacturers — two clean energy sector China also dominates. China’s dominance also undercuts Europe’s own tech sector and comes with risks of economic coercion. Until only a few years ago, European firms were competitive, before being undercut by heavily subsidized Chinese products, said Tobias Gehrke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. China on the other hand does not allow foreign firms in its market because of cybersecurity concerns, he said. The European Union previously developed a 5G security toolbox to reduce its dependence on Huawei over these fears. It is also working on a similar initiative, known as the ICT supply chain toolbox, to help national governments scan their wider digital infrastructure for weak points, with a view to blocking or reduce the use of “high-risk suppliers.” According to Groothuis and Lexmann, “binding legislation to restrict risky vendors in our critical infrastructure is urgently required” across the European Union. Until legislation is passed, the EU should put temporary measures in place, they said in their letter.  Huawei did not respond to requests for comment before publication. This article has been updated.

A major outage of Amazon Web Services servers affecting multiple websites Monday morning prompted immediate calls for Europe to boost its tech sovereignty. Slack, Snapchat, Signal and Perplexity were among the affected sites. Amazon Web Services (AWS) offers cloud servers that allow these services and millions of other websites and platforms to run. Brussels is in the midst of a debate on how to achieve digital sovereignty, and what that means exactly, with cloud services at the center of the conversation. EU leaders are expected to take a position during a high-level summit meeting later this week. “Today’s outage shows how concentrated power makes the internet fragile and this lack of resilience hits our economies as a result,” technologist Robin Berjon said in an email. Berjon co-founded the Eurostack project — an initiative campaigning to make Europe self-reliant in digital services. “Europe’s dependency on monopoly cloud companies like Amazon is a security vulnerability and an economic threat we can’t ignore,” Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Technology Institute, said in an email. According to AWS’s health dashboard, which shows a “running log of AWS service interruptions for the past 12 months,” the outage originated with servers in North America and specifically Virginia. That prompted reaction including from Ulrike Franke, senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations: “My robot vacuum cleaner no longer works and can someone explain why a robot in Paris is linked to U.S. East? Talk about European digital sovereignty…” she posted on Bluesky. “These disruptions are not just technical issues, they’re democratic failures,” said Corinne Cath-Speth, head of digital at civil society group Article 19. “When a single provider goes dark, critical services go offline with it — media outlets become inaccessible, secure communication apps like Signal stop functioning, and the infrastructure that serves our digital society crumbles.” “We urgently need diversification in cloud computing,” she added. Transcription service Trint said in an email that it had experienced disruption but “customers on our EU servers should be largely unaffected.” In a statement shared with media outlets, Amazon Web Services said: “We continue to observe recovery across most of the affected AWS Services. We can confirm global services and features that rely on US-EAST-1 have also recovered. We continue to work towards full resolution and will provide updates as we have more information to share.” Asked at a briefing of reporters in Brussels on Monday, European Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert said the outage “would be a question for the companies, this is not for us to comment on.” With regard to how it had affected the Commission’s own operations, Paula Pinho, chief spokesperson for the European Commission, said: “We were more using for instance e-mails. We go back to our traditional methods.” Pieter Haeck contributed reporting.

The European Commission has opened a door marked danger. In July it issued a guidance letter blessing the creation of what is known as an Automotive Licensing Negotiation Group (Auto LNG). In doing so, it gave the green light to rival carmakers to form a cartel-like entity to negotiate licenses for patents that underpin standardized technologies (standards essential patents, or SEPs).   > SEPs are vital in many industries because they enable devices and services to interoperate seamlessly across different manufacturers, platforms and geographies. They cover technologies such as Wi-Fi, 5G and video coding, and are integral to the Internet of Things.   > SEPs are vital in many industries because they enable devices and services to > interoperate seamlessly across different manufacturers, platforms and > geographies. For decades, EU competition law treated the collective bargaining among competitors that LNGs of any kind represent as off-limits. The timing of the change was not incidental.   In September the Commission also released draft revisions of its Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and Technology Transfer Guidelines (TTG). Together, these texts shape how Europe manages its innovation economy, including its SEP licensing market.  A success story at stake  On the positive side, the drafts reaffirm the importance of transparent patent pools. Such pools bring together complementary SEPs owned by multiple parties and make them available through a single license. Pools cut transaction costs, create efficiencies and provide clarity to technology implementers.    SEP owners who contribute technology to a standard promise to license their patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Pools put that commitment into practice by offering a single license that the market can accept or reject.   The draft TTG strengthens requirements for transparency and governance in pools by emphasizing the importance of essentiality checks, published terms, open participation and safeguards against collusion. These measures codify practices many pools already follow. In doing so, the Commission is rightly cementing transparent pools’ role as trusted intermediaries in SEP licensing.  LNGs and FRAND cannot co-exist  Properly structured pools only succeed if implementers view their terms as balanced; they cannot ‘enforce’ acceptance into existence. When the market pushes back, pools adjust. That responsiveness makes them both pro-competitive and self-correcting.   LNGs invert that logic. As coalitions of buyers, their explicit objective is to aggregate purchasing power to secure discounts from the prevailing FRAND rate — all while their members continue to use the technology. However, the non-discrimination limb of FRAND makes across the board ‘group discounts’ very hard to square with commitments owed to all implementers, including those that have already taken licenses, directly or through a pool. This distorts competition by enabling buyers to exert undue pressure on licensors.  The draft TTG seeks to allay concerns by requiring LNG participation to be open and internally non-discriminatory, yet it does not grapple with the external effect on the SEP holder’s non-discrimination duty. That omission risks forcing a de facto “LNG rate” onto the whole market.   Asymmetry and holdout risk  The asymmetry here is striking. If price talks fail for tangible inputs, suppliers can simply stop shipments. Not so with SEPs: once standardized, the technology is embedded and keeps being used unless long, costly litigation is pursued. This reality gives coordinated buyers leverage to delay or avoid paying – a textbook recipe for holdout and cartel-like behavior.  Some argue that if licensors can license jointly through pools, licensees should be able to do so in LNGs. This is false logic. Pools aggregate non-competing assets to make complementary patents accessible. LNGs aggregate competing buyers to dictate price, a monopsony dynamic that competition law has long treated with suspicion. Pools, by contrast, have no such power. They live or die by market acceptance. Their incentive is to align with existing demand.  Process shortcuts, shaky justifications  Equally troubling is how the Commission chose to act. The July letter was issued under an ‘informal guidance’ procedure, an opaque tool usually used to clarify cutting-edge cases. SEP holders and smaller innovators were not consulted, despite being directly affected.  The substantive justification is no better. Both the Commission and Germany’s Bundeskartellamt, which had previously authorized the ALNG in June 2024, leaned on a market-share threshold, finding automakers represent less than 15 percent of the ‘general mobile communications’ market.   However, connected cars represent a completely separate vertical, with distinct technical features like vehicle-to-vehicle communication, and the market threshold should apply to it specifically. Furthermore, in licensing markets, a coordinated 15 percent holdout can freeze dealmaking across the board. That risk is ignored.  > Connected cars represent a completely separate vertical, with distinct > technical features. Meanwhile, the invocation of decarbonization as a reason to tolerate cartel-like structures conflates policy domains. Climate objectives, however worthy, cannot excuse weakening competition law guardrails.  Keep the back door closed  Pools already deliver the benefits LNGs claim — lower transaction costs, broader access, transparent terms, market efficiencies — without cartel risks. Most importantly, the FRAND framework, tested in courts and practice, continues to support rapid technology rollouts across the EU and is fully compatible with pools. It is utterly incompatible with LNGs. To adhere to FRAND principles that are the cornerstone of SEP licensing worldwide, LNGs cannot exist.  > Pools already deliver the benefits LNGs claim — lower transaction costs, > broader access, transparent terms, market efficiencies — without cartel risks. If the Commission wants to modernize SEP policy, it should do so openly and only when market failures are identified. This involves consultation to establish clear criteria and evidence of consumer benefit. By contrast, its current approach threatens to disrupt efficient markets, squeeze royalties that fund research and development, and slow Europe’s pace of innovation.  In reinforcing transparent pools, the Commission got one big thing right with its draft TTG. It should not squander that by blessing LNGs.  Roberto Dini has more than 40 years’ experience in patent licensing and is recognized as one of the global market’s most respected experts.    For a detailed analysis of the legal, economic and procedural defects in the Auto LNG approach — and a fuller comparison between pools and LNGs — see: Auto Licensing Negotiation Groups are a Bad, Anticompetitive Idea.