BRUSSELS — European banks and other finance firms should decrease their reliance on American tech companies for digital services, a top national supervisor has said. In an interview with POLITICO, Steven Maijoor, the Dutch central bank’s chair of supervision, said the “small number of suppliers” providing digital services to many European finance companies can pose a “concentration risk.” “If one of those suppliers is not able to supply, you can have major operational problems,” Maijoor said. The intervention comes as Europe’s politicians and industries grapple with the continent’s near-total dependence on U.S. technology for digital services ranging from cloud computing to software. The dominance of American companies has come into sharp focus following a decline in transatlantic relations under U.S. President Donald Trump. While the market for European tech services isn’t nearly as developed as in the U.S. — making it difficult for banks to switch — the continent “should start to try to develop this European environment” for financial stability and the sake of its economic success, Maijoor said. European banks being locked in to contracts with U.S. providers “will ultimately also affect their competitiveness,” Maijoor said. Dutch supervisors recently authored a report on the systemic risks posed by tech dependence in finance. Dutch lender Amsterdam Trade Bank collapsed in 2023 after its parent company was placed on the U.S. sanctions list and its American IT provider withdrew online data storage services, in one of the sharpest examples of the impact on companies that see their tech withdrawn. Similarly a 2024 outage of American cybersecurity company CrowdStrike highlighted the European finance sector’s vulnerabilities to operational risks from tech providers, the EU’s banking watchdog said in a post-mortem on the outage. In his intervention, Maijoor pointed to an EU law governing the operational reliability of banks — the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) — as one factor that may be worsening the problem. Those rules govern finance firms’ outsourcing of IT functions such as cloud provision, and designate a list of “critical” tech service providers subject to extra oversight, including Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Microsoft and Oracle. DORA, and other EU financial regulation, may be “inadvertently nudging financial institutions towards the largest digital service suppliers,” which wouldn’t be European, Maijoor said. “If you simply look at quality, reliability, security … there’s a very big chance that you will end up with the largest digital service suppliers from outside Europe,” he said. The bloc could reassess the regulatory approach to beat the risks, Maijoor said. “DORA currently is an oversight approach, which is not as strong in terms of requirements and enforcement options as regular supervision,” he said. The Dutch supervisors are pushing for changes, writing that they are examining whether financial regulation and supervision in the EU creates barriers to choosing European IT providers, and that identified issues “may prompt policy initiatives in the European context.” They are asking EU governments and supervisors “to evaluate whether DORA sufficiently enhances resilience to geopolitical risks and, if not, to consider issuing further guidance,” adding they “see opportunities to strengthen DORA as needed,” including through more enforcement and more explicit requirements around managing geopolitical risks. Europe could also set up a cloud watchdog across industries to mitigate the risks of dependence on U.S. tech service providers, which are “also very important for other parts of the economy like energy and telecoms,” Maijoor said. “Wouldn’t there be a case for supervision more generally of these hyperscalers, cloud service providers, as they are so important for major parts of the economy?” The European Commission declined to respond.

This article is also available in French and German. President Donald Trump denounced Europe as a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people in an interview with POLITICO, belittling the traditional U.S. allies for failing to control migration and end the Russia-Ukraine war, and signaling that he would endorse European political candidates aligned with his own vision for the continent. The broadside attack against European political leadership represents the president’s most virulent denunciation to date of these Western democracies, threatening a decisive rupture with countries like France and Germany that already have deeply strained relations with the Trump administration. “I think they’re weak,” Trump said of Europe’s political leaders. “But I also think that they want to be so politically correct.” “I think they don’t know what to do,” he added. “Europe doesn’t know what to do.” Trump matched that blunt, even abrasive, candor on European affairs with a sequence of stark pronouncements on matters closer to home: He said he would make support for immediately slashing interest rates a litmus test in his choice of a new Federal Reserve chair. He said he could extend anti-drug military operations to Mexico and Colombia. And Trump urged conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, both in their 70s, to stay on the bench. Trump’s comments about Europe come at an especially precarious moment in the negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, as European leaders express intensifying alarm that Trump may abandon Ukraine and its continental allies to Russian aggression. In the interview, Trump offered no reassurance to Europeans on that score and declared that Russia was obviously in a stronger position than Ukraine. Trump spoke on Monday at the White House with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of The Conversation. POLITICO on Tuesday named Trump the most influential figure shaping European politics in the year ahead, a recognition previously conferred on leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Trump’s confident commentary on Europe presented a sharp contrast with some of his remarks on domestic matters in the interview. The president and his party have faced a series of electoral setbacks and spiraling dysfunction in Congress this fall as voters rebel against the high cost of living. Trump has struggled to deliver a message to meet that new reality: In the interview, he graded the economy’s performance as an “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” insisted that prices were falling across the board and declined to outline a specific remedy for imminent spikes in health care premiums. Even amid growing turbulence at home, however, Trump remains a singular figure in international politics. In recent days, European capitals have shuddered with dismay at the release of Trump’s new National Security Strategy document, a highly provocative manifesto that cast the Trump administration in opposition to the mainstream European political establishment and vowed to “cultivate resistance” to the European status quo on immigration and other politically volatile issues. In the interview, Trump amplified that worldview, describing cities like London and Paris as creaking under the burden of migration from the Middle East and Africa. Without a change in border policy, Trump said, some European states “will not be viable countries any longer.” Using highly incendiary language, Trump singled out London’s left-wing mayor, Sadiq Khan, the son of Pakistani immigrants and the city’s first Muslim mayor, as a “disaster” and blamed his election on immigration: “He gets elected because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.” The president of the European Council, António Costa, on Monday rebuked the Trump administration for the national security document and urged the White House to respect Europe’s sovereignty and right to self-government. “Allies do not threaten to interfere in the democratic life or the domestic political choices of these allies,” Costa said. “They respect them.” Speaking with POLITICO, Trump flouted those boundaries and said he would continue to back favorite candidates in European elections, even at the risk of offending local sensitivities. “I’d endorse,” Trump said. “I’ve endorsed people, but I’ve endorsed people that a lot of Europeans don’t like. I’ve endorsed Viktor Orbán,” the hard-right Hungarian prime minister Trump said he admired for his border-control policies. It was the Russia-Ukraine war, rather than electoral politics, that Trump appeared most immediately focused on. He claimed on Monday that he had offered a new draft of a peace plan that some Ukrainian officials liked, but that Zelenskyy himself had not reviewed yet. “It would be nice if he would read it,” Trump said. Zelenskyy met with leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom on Monday and continued to voice opposition to ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of a peace deal. The president said he put little stock in the role of European leaders in seeking to end the war: “They talk, but they don’t produce, and the war just keeps going on and on.” In a fresh challenge to Zelenskyy, who appears politically weakened in Ukraine due to a corruption scandal, Trump renewed his call for Ukraine to hold new elections. “They haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said. “You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.” Latin America Even as he said he is pursuing a peace agenda overseas, Trump said he might further broaden the military actions his administration has taken in Latin America against targets it claims are linked to the drug trade. Trump has deployed a massive military force to the Caribbean to strike alleged drug runners and pressure the authoritarian regime in Venezuela. In the interview, Trump repeatedly declined to rule out putting American troops into Venezuela as part of an effort to bring down the strongman ruler Nicolás Maduro, whom Trump blames for exporting drugs and dangerous people to the United States. Some leaders on the American right have warned Trump that a ground invasion of Venezuela would be a red line for conservatives who voted for him in part to end foreign wars. “I don’t want to rule in or out. I don’t talk about it,” Trump said of deploying ground troops, adding: “I don’t want to talk to you about military strategy.” But the president said he would consider using force against targets in other countries where the drug trade is highly active, including Mexico and Colombia. “Sure, I would,” he said. Trump scarcely defended some of his most controversial actions in Latin America, including his recent pardon of the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a decades-long sentence in an American prison after being convicted in a massive drug-trafficking conspiracy. Trump said he knew “very little” about Hernández except that he’d been told by “very good people” that the former Honduran president had been targeted unfairly by political opponents. “They asked me to do it and I said, I’ll do it,” Trump acknowledged, without naming the people who sought the pardon for Hernández. HEALTH CARE AND THE ECONOMY Asked to grade the economy under his watch, Trump rated it an overwhelming success: “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.” To the extent voters are frustrated about prices, Trump said the Biden administration was at fault: “I inherited a mess. I inherited a total mess.” The president is facing a forbidding political environment because of voters’ struggles with affordability, with about half of voters overall and nearly 4 in 10 people who voted for Trump in 2024 saying in a recent POLITICO Poll that the cost of living was as bad as it had ever been in their lives. Trump said he could make additional changes to tariff policy to help lower the price of some goods, as he has already done, but he insisted overall that the trend on costs was in the right direction. “Prices are all coming down,” Trump said, adding: “Everything is coming down.” Prices rose 3 percent over the 12 months ending in September, according to the most recent Consumer Price Index. Trump’s political struggles are shadowing his upcoming decision on a nominee to chair the Federal Reserve, a post that will shape the economic environment for the balance of Trump’s term. Asked if he was making support for slashing interest rates a litmus test for his Fed nominee, Trump answered with a quick “yes.” The most immediate threat to the cost of living for many Americans is the expiration of enhanced health insurance subsidies for Obamacare exchange plans that were enacted by Democrats under former President Joe Biden and are set to expire at the end of this year. Health insurance premiums are expected to spike in 2026, and medical charities are already experiencing a marked rise in requests for aid even before subsidies expire. Trump has been largely absent from health policy negotiations in Washington, while Democrats and some Republicans supportive of a compromise on subsidies have run into a wall of opposition on the right. Reaching a deal — and marshaling support from enough Republicans to pass it — would likely require direct intervention from the president. Yet asked if he would support a temporary extension of Obamacare subsidies while he works out a large-scale plan with lawmakers, Trump was noncommittal. “I don’t know. I’m gonna have to see,” he said, pivoting to an attack on Democrats for being too generous with insurance companies in the Affordable Care Act. A cloud of uncertainty surrounds the administration’s intentions on health care policy. In late November, the White House planned to unveil a proposal to temporarily extend Obamacare subsidies only to postpone the announcement. Trump has promised on and off for years to unveil a comprehensive plan for replacing Obamacare but has never done so. That did not change in the interview. “I want to give the people better health insurance for less money,” Trump said. “The people will get the money, and they’re going to buy the health insurance that they want.” Reminded that Americans are currently buying holiday gifts and drawing up household budgets for 2026 amid uncertainty around premiums, Trump shot back: “Don’t be dramatic. Don’t be dramatic.” SUPREME COURT Large swaths of Trump’s domestic agenda currently sit before the Supreme Court, with a generally sympathetic 6-3 conservative majority that has nevertheless thrown up some obstacles to the most brazen versions of executive power Trump has attempted to wield. Trump spoke with POLITICO several days after the high court agreed to hear arguments concerning the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, the automatic conferral of citizenship on people born in the United States. Trump is attempting to roll back that right and said it would be “devastating” if the court blocked him from doing so. If the court rules in his favor, Trump said, he had not yet considered whether he would try to strip citizenship from people who were born as citizens under current law. Trump broke with some members of his party who have been hoping that the court’s two oldest conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, might consider retiring before the midterm elections so that Trump can nominate another conservative while Republicans are guaranteed to control the Senate. The president said he’d rather Alito, 75, and Thomas, 77, the court’s most reliable conservative jurists, remain in place: “I hope they stay,” he said, “’cause I think they’re fantastic.”

The Dutch government has quietly removed Google tracking tools from job listings for its intelligence services over concerns that the data would expose aspirant spies to U.S. surveillance. The intervention would put an end to Google’s processing of the data of job seekers interested in applying to spy service jobs, after members of parliament in The Hague raised security concerns. The move comes at a moment when trust between the Netherlands and the United States is fraying. It reflects wider European unease — heightened by Donald Trump’s return to the White House — about American tech giants having access to some of their most sensitive government data. The heads of the AIVD and MIVD, the Netherlands’ civilian and military intelligence services, said in October that they were reviewing how to share information with American counterparts over political interference and human rights concerns. In the Netherlands, government vacancies are listed on a central online portal, which subsequently redirects applicants to specific institutions’ or agencies’ websites, including those of the security services. The government has now quietly pulled the plug on Google Analytics for intelligence-service postings, according to security expert Bert Hubert, who first raised the alarm about the trackers earlier this year. Hubert told POLITICO the job postings for intelligence services jobs no longer contained the same Google tracking technologies at least since November. The move was first reported by Follow the Money. The military intelligence service MIVD declined to comment. The interior ministry, which oversees the general intelligence service AIVD, did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication. In a statement, Communications Manager for Google Mathilde Méchin said: “Businesses, not Google Analytics, own and control the data they collect and Google Analytics only processes it at their direction. This data can be deleted at any time.” “Any data sent to Google Analytics for measurement does not identify individuals, and we have strict policies against advertising based on sensitive information,” Méchin said. ‘FUTURE EMPLOYEES AT RISK’ Derk Boswijk, a center-right Dutch lawmaker, raised the alarm about the tracking of job applicants in parliamentary questions to the government in January. He said that while China and Russia have traditionally been viewed as the biggest security risks, it is unacceptable for any foreign government — allied or not — to have a view into Dutch intelligence recruitment. “I still see the U.S. as our most important ally,” Boswijk told POLITICO. “But to be honest, we’re seeing that the policies of the Trump administration and the European countries no longer necessarily align, and I think we should adapt accordingly.” The government told Boswijk in February it had enabled privacy settings on data gathered by Google. The government has yet to comment on Boswijk’s latest questions submitted in November. Hubert, the cybersecurity expert, said the concerns over tracking were justified. Even highly technical data like IP addresses, device fingerprints and browsing patterns can help foreign governments, including adversaries such as China, narrow down who might be seeking a job inside an intelligence agency, he said. “By leaking job applications so broadly, the Dutch intelligence agencies put their future employees at risk, while also harming their own interests,” said Hubert, adding it could discourage sought-after cybersecurity talent that agencies are desperate to attract. Hubert previously served on a watchdog committee overseeing intelligence agencies’ requests to use hacking tools, surveillance and wiretapping.  One open question raised by Dutch parliamentarians is how to gain control over the data that Google gathered on aspiring spies in past years. “I don’t know what happens with the data Google Analytics already has, that’s still a black box to me,” said Sarah El Boujdaini, a lawmaker for the centrist-liberal Democrats 66 party who oversees digital affairs. The episode is likely to add fuel to efforts to wean off U.S. technologies — which are taking place across Europe, as part of the bloc’s “technological sovereignty” drive. European Parliament members last month urged the institution to move away from U.S. tech services, in a letter to the president obtained by POLITICO. In the Netherlands, parliament members have urged public institutions to move away from digital infrastructure run by U.S. firms like Microsoft, over security concerns. “If we can’t even safeguard applications to our secret services, how do you think the rest is going?” Hubert asked. The country also hosts the International Criminal Court, where Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan previously lost access to his Microsoft-hosted email account after he was targeted with American sanctions over issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ICC in October confirmed to POLITICO it was moving away from using Microsoft Office applications to German-based openDesk.

When the Franco-German summit concluded in Berlin, Europe’s leaders issued a declaration with a clear ambition: strengthen Europe’s digital sovereignty in an open, collaborative way. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s call for “Europe’s Independence Moment” captures the urgency, but independence isn’t declared — it’s designed. The pandemic exposed this truth. When Covid-19 struck, Europe initially scrambled for vaccines and facemasks, hampered by fragmented responses and overreliance on a few external suppliers. That vulnerability must never be repeated. True sovereignty rests on three pillars: diversity, resilience and autonomy. > True sovereignty rests on three pillars: diversity, resilience and autonomy. Diversity doesn’t mean pulling every factory back to Europe or building walls around markets. Many industries depend on expertise and resources beyond our borders. The answer is optionality, never putting all our eggs in one basket. Europe must enable choice and work with trusted partners to build capabilities. This risk-based approach ensures we’re not hostage to single suppliers or overexposed to nations that don’t share our values. Look at the energy crisis after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Europe’s heavy reliance on Russian oil and gas left economies vulnerable. The solution wasn’t isolation, it was diversification: boosting domestic production from alternative energy sources while sourcing from multiple markets. Optionality is power. It lets Europe pivot when shocks hit, whether in energy, technology, or raw materials. Resilience is the art of prediction. Every system inevitably has vulnerabilities. The key is pre-empting, planning, testing and knowing how to recover quickly. Just as banks undergo stress tests, Europe needs similar rigor across physical and digital infrastructure. That also means promoting interoperability between networks, redundant connectivity links (including space and subsea cables), stockpiling critical components, and contingency plans. Resilience isn’t theoretical. It’s operational readiness. Finally, Europe must exercise authority through robust frameworks, such as authorization schemes, local licensing and governance rooted in EU law. The question is how and where to apply this control. On sensitive data, for example, sovereignty means ensuring it’s held in Europe under European jurisdiction, without replacing every underlying technology component. Sovereign solutions shouldn’t shut out global players. Instead, they should guarantee that critical decisions and compliance remain under European authority. Autonomy is empowerment, limiting external interference or denial of service while keeping systems secure and accountable. But let’s be clear: Europe cannot replicate world-leading technologies, platforms or critical components overnight. While we have the talent, innovation and leading industries, Europe has fallen significantly behind in a range of key emerging technologies. > While we have the talent, innovation and leading industries, Europe has fallen > significantly behind in a range of key emerging technologies. For example, building fully European alternatives in cloud and AI would take decades and billions of euros, and even then, we’d struggle to match Silicon Valley or Shenzhen. Worse, turning inward with protectionist policies would only weaken the foundations that we now seek to strengthen. “Old wines in new bottles” — import substitution, isolationism, picking winners — won’t deliver competitiveness or security. Contrast that with the much-debated US Inflation Reduction Act. Its incentives and subsidies were open to EU companies, provided they invest locally, develop local talent and build within the US market. It’s not about flags, it’s about pragmatism: attracting global investments, creating jobs and driving innovation-led growth. So what’s the practical path? Europe must embrace ‘sovereignty done right’, weaving diversity, resilience and autonomy into the fabric of its policies. That means risk-based safeguards, strategic partnerships and investment in European capabilities while staying open to global innovation. Trusted European operators can play a key role: managing encryption, access control and critical operations within EU jurisdiction, while enabling managed access to global technologies. To avoid ‘sovereignty washing’, eligibility should be based on rigorous, transparent assessments, not blanket bans. The Berlin summit’s new working group should start with a common EU-wide framework defining levels of data, operational and technological sovereignty. Providers claiming sovereign services can use this framework to transparently demonstrate which levels they meet. Europe’s sovereignty will not come from closing doors. Sovereignty done right will come from opening the right ones, on Europe’s terms. Independence should be dynamic, not defensive — empowering innovation, securing prosperity and protecting freedoms. > Europe’s sovereignty will not come from closing doors. Sovereignty done right > will come from opening the right ones, on Europe’s terms. That’s how Europe can build resilience, competitiveness and true strategic autonomy in a vibrant global digital ecosystem.

Europe’s security does not depend solely on our physical borders and their defense. It rests on something far less visible, and far more sensitive: the digital networks that keep our societies, economies and democracies functioning every second of the day. > Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a > halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. A recent study by Copenhagen Economics confirms that telecom operators have become the first line of defense in Europe’s security architecture. Their networks power essential services ranging from emergency communications and cross-border healthcare to energy systems, financial markets, transport and, increasingly, Europe’s defense capabilities. Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. This reality forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: Europe cannot build credible defense capabilities on top of an economically strained, structurally fragmented telecom sector. Yet this is precisely the risk today. A threat landscape outpacing Europe’s defenses The challenges facing Europe are evolving faster than our political and regulatory systems can respond. In 2023 alone, ENISA recorded 188 major incidents, causing 1.7 billion lost user-hours, the equivalent of taking entire cities offline. While operators have strengthened their systems and outage times fell by more than half in 2024 compared with the previous year, despite a growing number of incidents, the direction of travel remains clear: cyberattacks are more sophisticated, supply chains more vulnerable and climate-related physical disruptions more frequent. Hybrid threats increasingly target civilian digital infrastructure as a way to weaken states. Telecom networks, once considered as technical utilities, have become a strategic asset essential to Europe’s stability. > Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, > pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO > interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of > sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Our allies recognize this. NATO recently encouraged members to spend up to 1.5 percent of their GDP on protecting critical infrastructure. Secretary General Mark Rutte also urged investment in cyber defense, AI, and cloud technologies, highlighting the military benefits of cloud scalability and edge computing – all of which rely on high-quality, resilient networks. This is a clear political signal that telecom security is not merely an operational matter but a geopolitical priority. The link between telecoms and defense is deeper than many realize. As also explained in the recent Arel report, Much More than a Network, modern defense capabilities rely largely on civilian telecom networks. Strong fiber backbones, advanced 5G and future 6G systems, resilient cloud and edge computing, satellite connectivity, and data centers form the nervous system of military logistics, intelligence and surveillance. Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Fragmentation has become one of Europe’s greatest strategic vulnerabilities. The reform Europe needs: An investment boost for digital networks At the same time, Europe expects networks to become more resilient, more redundant, less dependent on foreign technology and more capable of supporting defense-grade applications. Security and resilience are not side tasks for telecom operators, they are baked into everything they do. From procurement and infrastructure design to daily operations, operators treat these efforts as core principles shaping how networks are built, run and protected. Therefore, as the Copenhagen Economics study shows, the level of protection Europe now requires will demand substantial additional capital. > It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to > emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. This is the right ambition, but the economic model underpinning the sector does not match these expectations. Due to fragmentation and over-regulation, Europe’s telecom market invests less per capita than global peers, generates roughly half the return on capital of operators in the United States and faces rising costs linked to expanding security obligations. It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. A shift in policy priorities is therefore essential. Europe must place investment in security and resilience at the center of its political agenda. Policy must allow this reality to be reflected in merger assessments, reduce overlapping security rules and provide public support where the public interest exceeds commercial considerations. This is not state aid; it is strategic social responsibility. Completing the single market for telecommunications is central to this agenda. A fragmented market cannot produce the secure, interoperable, large-scale solutions required for modern defense. The Digital Networks Act must simplify and harmonize rules across the EU, supported by a streamlined governance that distinguishes between domestic matters and cross-border strategic issues. Spectrum policy must also move beyond national silos, allowing Europe to avoid conflicts with NATO over key bands and enabling coherent next-generation deployments. Telecom policy nowadays is also defense policy. When we measure investment gaps in digital network deployment, we still tend to measure simple access to 5G and fiber. However, we should start considering that — if security, resilience and defense-readiness are to be taken into account — the investment gap is much higher that the €200 billion already estimated by the European Commission. Europe’s strategic choice The momentum for stronger European defense is real — but momentum fades if it is not seized. If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to support advanced defense applications. In that scenario, Europe’s democratic resilience would erode in parallel with its economic competitiveness, leaving the continent more exposed to geopolitical pressure and technological dependency. > If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it > risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic > underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to > support advanced defense applications. Europe still has time to change course and put telecoms at the center of its agenda — not as a technical afterthought, but as a core pillar of its defense strategy. The time for incremental steps has passed. Europe must choose to build the network foundations of its security now or accept that its strategic ambitions will remain permanently out of reach. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Connect Europe AISBL * The ultimate controlling entity is Connect Europe AISBL * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU digital, telecom and industrial policy, including initiatives such as the Digital Networks Act, Digital Omnibus, and connectivity, cybersecurity, and defence frameworks aimed at strengthening Europe’s digital competitiveness. More information here.

Microsoft’s CEO said Monday that his company is increasingly looking to Europe as a key region for its artificial intelligence strategy, as the continent seeks to bolster digital independence from the United States and China. “We are investing in Germany, in the European Union with our capital, putting it at risk,” Satya Nadella said during an interview on the MD Meets podcast, hosted by Mathias Döpfner, the chair and CEO of Axel Springer, the German media group that owns POLITICO. “These are not AI factories or cloud factories that sit in the United States. They are in the continent and in the country,” he added. In the conversation, Nadella stressed that digital sovereignty is a critical consideration for any nation. “I think that every country, whether it’s at the European Union level or at the country level, like in Germany, I think sovereignty is an important consideration,” he said. “So every country would like to ensure that there is continuity of their supply, there is resilience in their supply. And there’s agency in which they operate. And that’s one of the reasons why we have made all these commitments.” Nadella said that true sovereignty goes beyond infrastructure. “The new chapter of sovereignty is … what is a German automaker or a German industrial company? How are they going to have their own AI factory and foundation model that is unique to them?” he said. “That is, to me, the true definition of sovereignty.” Nadella’s comments come as European leaders increasingly warn that the continent cannot afford to cede the “digital sphere” to the global superpowers of the U.S. and China without serious consequences. At the Digital Sovereignty Summit in Berlin on Nov. 18, Germany and France unveiled a series of initiatives aimed at strengthening European technological independence, spanning cloud services, AI and public procurement. Among the measures were commitments to favor European solutions in public contracts, safeguard European data from foreign surveillance and confront the market dominance of major U.S. cloud providers. “If we let the Americans and the Chinese have all of the champions, one thing is certain: we may have the best regulation in the world, but we won’t be regulating anything,” French President Emmanuel Macron warned. Nadella acknowledged China’s strength in human capital and open-source innovation but stressed the continued leadership of the U.S. “The United States still continues to lead, whether it’s on the AI systems or whether it is the frontier models or the AI products around the world,” he said. “It is not just the ingenuity of the American tech sector, but also the American tech stack being the most trusted tech stack in the world.” Nadella argued that Europe could emerge as a major winner in the global AI landscape if it focuses on actually implementing and spreading the technology across industries. “Quite frankly, the country that is going to really win is going to be the one that can scale up broadly on AI, use AI broadly in their economy, in their health sector, in their manufacturing sector, in the education sector, and grow their economy,” he said. “Germany or Europe could be the big winner as long as they do the hard work of actually getting the technology in, re-skilling, using that technology,” he added.

A major five-year effort to build a technology base for Europe free of U.S. influence foundered amid conflicting national strategies and powerful corporate lobbying. As Europe’s leaders once again discuss tackling American tech dependence, those involved in the project to build a European cloud warn against repeating past mistakes. The Gaia-X initiative was “a crushing failure, a colossal waste of time, and just as many years gained for the hyperscalers — in other words, an industrial disaster,” said Yann Lechelle, a former CEO of French cloud champion Scaleway and one of the founding members of the initiative who quit in frustration in 2021, describing it as the “best decision ever.” The industry-led project was born in 2019 from a Franco-German drive to forge a “European industrial policy fit for the 21st Century” — a rallying cry that brought German and French companies together with top political backing to create a data infrastructure. The endgame goal of Gaia-X, named after the Greek goddess of Earth, was to “establish data sovereignty in Europe” and “counteract monopolistic tendencies.” As political momentum once again swings behind digital sovereignty, leaders will gather in Berlin on Tuesday to talk about how to become less dependent on foreign-owned technology. POLITICO spoke to both current and former Gaia-X officials, both on and off the record, about the lessons they learned that could prove valuable. Those conversations illuminated an initiative that failed to help Europe’s own digital ecosystem take root because it was weighed down by politics, bureaucracy and the interference of precisely the American and Chinese tech titans it was meant to challenge. Despite a fast-growing market for cloud computing services that underpin the internet, the global share of European cloud providers has continued to fall, dwarfed by the dominance of Amazon, Microsoft and Google. One of Gaia-X’s initial success stories, called Agdatahub, which was touted as a triumph for farming data, went bankrupt last year. “I joined Gaia-X because I believed in the original mission. I left Gaia-X because I didn’t believe it was going in the original direction,” said its former CEO, Francesco Bonfiglio. FRANCO-GERMAN DIVIDES Misalignment among the founding companies on the mission of Gaia-X became apparent early on, consistent with the traditional divergence in Paris and Berlin over tech sovereignty. In Paris, sovereignty was about backing local champions and breaking reliance on the U.S., while Berlin focused on protecting Europe without severing important trade ties. “The influence of political happenings inside the association was evident. Sometimes they were clashing,” said Bonfiglio, describing how it pitted a “historically more protectionist” France against a “fluctuating” Germany. American cloud giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google, as well as Chinese tech giants Huawei and Alibaba, are all members of Gaia-X. | Jonas Roosens/Getty Images Everybody “interpreted” Gaia-X as they wanted to, he said. The former CEO described how this divergence in expectations and a lack of a “clear or common” definition of sovereignty — let alone a shared understanding of what it would take to get there — made his task extremely difficult. “France turned it into a very political issue, whereas the Germans treated it more as a technical matter,” said another founding member of Gaia-X, who is still part of the initiative and was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The interests were at odds from day one, founding member Lechelle recalled, which was part of the reason the initiative would never deliver “the fantasy of a European cloud Airbus.” The Germans came on board with the idea to create data sovereignty, by shielding the data of their citizens and industries from foreign snooping and legal control, he said, adding: “Atlanticist as they may be, they were totally fine with the idea of depending on Microsoft.” Meanwhile, the French pushed a more self-serving vision, hoping to see Europe become self-reliant, from infrastructure all the way to software. That’s how the mission to create a “federated cloud infrastructure” came to life. But that “staggering complexity” would soon turn into an “unmanageable mess,” said Lechelle. Current CEO Ulrich Ahle, who joined in 2023, pushed back — saying Gaia-X is far from a “failure.” It has united the industry — both large and small players — around tangible deliverables, such as federated data spaces and compliance labels, he said. “At the beginning, some people thought that Gaia-X would be the European hyperscaler as the competition to Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Alibaba and so on,” he said, but in fact, “it is more about creating a way to handle data in a European way.” “The results we’re providing and the real business benefits these interoperable data spaces are creating are more and more visible,” he said, highlighting the example of a data space based on Gaia-X standards that French energy company EDF will use to securely coordinate the construction of new nuclear sites. BACK-DOOR LOBBYING As Gaia-X grew and set out to define Europe’s blueprint for secure data sharing, it opened its doors to industry participants from beyond Europe in a bid to push new standards on the global stage. While board seats remained reserved for EU companies and industry groups, alarm bells grew louder that the project was being hijacked by the very players it was meant to take on. Those firms “steered the entire roadmap,” Lechelle said, throwing money and people at it. “The committees were drowning. They [global players] had the capacity, the bandwidth, but we were already underwater … Americans have full-time lobbyists and massive budgets. Their job is basically to derail any initiative they don’t like.” American cloud giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google, as well as Chinese tech giants Huawei and Alibaba, are all members of Gaia-X. In 2021, the annual summit in Milan was sponsored by Huawei and Alibaba, prompting backlash. Some interviewees expressed criticism that the European industry associations and companies on the board were representing the interests of business partners abroad. “I was struggling against many, many forces that were trying to dilute the rules of verification, dilute the efforts,” said Bonfiglio, stressing he was “the CEO of a consensus-based organization where consensus couldn’t be achieved most of the time.” Bonfiglio said he didn’t regret opening up the initiative to foreign players. “The problem is not America vs. Europe,” he said, but “trust” or lack thereof. Letting non-EU providers in was supposed to force them to become more transparent, he argued. “You think you’re good, show us what you have,” was his mantra at the time, he said. He now acknowledges the unavoidable influence of corporate giants in the cloud space. “You don’t need Microsoft, Amazon and Google on the board, because they would be represented by people sitting on the board from European companies. It’s an indirect lobby,” he said. The current member of the association interviewed for this story said the bylaws of Gaia-X should be changed to kick out industry associations from the board, as they play into the hands of tech giants. In response, Gaia-X’s Ahle said that “the strategic directions are given and the strategic decisions are taken in the board of directors.” He touted the initiative’s top-tier certification label — which excludes non-EU companies — as proof that it took decisions that went against U.S. interests. This was something “members like Amazon, Google and Microsoft didn’t like at all,” yet it happened. WHERE NOW As leaders prepare to meet at the high-profile summit in Berlin to debate how far to go in pivoting away from Big Tech, several of the people interviewed for this piece cautioned against repeating past mistakes. While European countries have not yet aligned on a common definition of digital sovereignty — something many see as crucial for real progress — there are signs that Paris and Germany are closer on positioning than they were five years ago. “I admit, I struggled with the term [digital sovereignty] before. I didn’t think it was necessary, but the global situation has changed so dramatically that we Europeans now have to become more sovereign,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Thursday. At the summit, Merz said, “We’ll explore all the possibilities, together with industry representatives, of what we can do not only to become more independent from China, but also, for example, less dependent on the U.S., less dependent on the Big Tech companies. We want to catch up, we want to improve.” Friedrich Merz said, “We’ll explore all the possibilities, together with industry representatives, of what we can do not only to become more independent from China, but also, for example, less dependent on the U.S.” | Harald Tittel/Getty Images And yet — with Germany this month celebrating Google’s decision to invest more than €5 billion in building data centers in the country, a move that Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil described as “exactly what we need right now” — the reality of corporate interests may be hard to address. For Bonfiglio, the lesson from Gaia-X is that ”it is obvious that everybody sitting in the boardroom of an association with such a big and impactful objective tries to protect the interests of their own company.” While Gaia-X may have missed its shot at delivering on its big, original ambitions, Lechelle insists the upcoming Franco-German summit is “a chance to put a finger on the sore spots.” In the meantime, “those who wanted to maintain the status quo have won.”

LONDON — Donald Trump’s war against the media has gone international.  Britain’s public service broadcaster has until 10 p.m. U.K. time on Friday to retract a 2024 documentary that he claims did him “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” — or potentially face a $1 billion lawsuit (nearly £760 million). It’s the U.S. president’s first notable battle with a non-American media organization. The escalation from Trump comes as the BBC is already grappling with the double resignations this past weekend of two top executives, Director General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness, amid the growing furor sparked by the release last week of an internal ombudsman’s report criticizing the Trump program as well as the BBC’s coverage of the Gaza war. Trump told Fox News he believes he has “an obligation” to sue the corporation because “they defrauded the public” and “butchered” a speech he gave. POLITICO walks you through the possible road ahead — and the potential pitfalls on both sides of the Atlantic.  WHY IS TRUMP THREATENING TO SUE?  The U.S. president is objecting to the broadcaster’s reporting in a documentary that aired on Panorama, one of the BBC’s flagship current affairs shows, just days before the U.S. presidential election.  The program included footage from Trump’s speech ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, which was selectively edited to suggest, incorrectly, that he told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.”   But those lines were spoken almost an hour apart, and the documentary did not include a section where Trump called for supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”  “I really struggle to understand how we got to this place,” former BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman told POLITICO. “The first lesson almost you’re taught as a broadcast journalist is that you do not join two bits of footage together from different times in a way that will make the audience think that it is one piece of footage.” The U.S. president’s legal team claimed the edit on the footage was “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory” and caused him “to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”  BBC Chair Samir Shah apologized on Monday for the “error of judgment” in the edit. Trump’s lawyers said in their letter that they want a retraction, an apology and appropriate financial compensation — though their client’s subsequent comments suggest that may not satisfy him at this point. DO TRUMP’S CLAIMS STAND A CHANCE?  Trump’s lawyers indicated in their letter that he plans to sue in Florida, his home state, which has a two-year statute of limitations for defamation rather than the U.K.’s one-year limit — which has already passed.  The U.S. president is objecting to the broadcaster’s reporting in a documentary that aired on Panorama, one of the BBC’s flagship current affairs shows, just days before the U.S. presidential election. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images To even gain a hearing, the U.S. president would first need to prove the documentary was available there. The broadcaster confirmed the Panorama episode was not shown on the global feed of the BBC News Channel, while programs on iPlayer, the BBC’s catchup service, were only available in the U.K.  The Trump team’s letter to the BBC, however, claimed the clip was “widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums” reaching tens of millions of people worldwide — a key contention that would need to be considered by any judge deciding whether the case could be brought.  U.S. libel laws are tougher for claimants given that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. In U.S. courts, public figures claiming to have been defamed also have to show the accuser acted with “actual malice.”  The legal meaning doesn’t require animosity or dislike, but instead an intent to spread false information or some action in reckless disregard of the truth — a high burden of proof for Trump’s lawyers.  American libel standards tend to favor publishers more than those in Britain, so much so that in recent decades public figures angry about U.S. news reports have often opted to file suit in the U.K. That trend even prompted a 2010 U.S. law aimed at reining in so-called libel tourism. Yet Trump’s legal team is signaling it will argue that since the full video of Trump’s 2021 speech was widely available to the BBC, the editing itself amounted to reckless disregard and, therefore, actual malice.  BBC Chair Samir Shah apologized on Monday for the “error of judgment” in the edit. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images “The BBC’s reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements,” his lawyers wrote.  However, a court battle wouldn’t be without risks for Trump. Prateek Swaika, a U.K.-based partner with Boies Schiller Flexner, said pursuing litigation “could force detailed examination and disclosure in connection” with Trump’s Jan. 6 statements —  potentially creating “more reputational damage than the original edit.”  COULD THE BBC SETTLE?  Trump has a long history of threatening legal action, especially against the press, but has lately had success in reaching out-of-court agreements with media outlets — including, most notably, the U.S. broadcasters ABC and CBS.  Trump’s latest claim is the flipside of his $20 billion suit against CBS’s “60 Minutes” over an interview with then-Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, which Trump claimed was deceptively edited to make Harris look good and therefore amounted to election interference.  CBS settled for $16 million in July, paying into a fund for Trump’s presidential library or charitable causes, though the network admitted no wrongdoing. The settlement came as CBS’ parent company, Paramount, was pursuing a corporate merger that the Trump administration had the power to block — and after Trump publicly said he thought CBS should lose its broadcast license, which is also granted by the federal government. The president doesn’t hold that same sway over the BBC, though the organization does have some U.S.-based commercial operations. Some news organizations have also opted to fight rather than settle past Trump claims, including CNN, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Some news organizations have opted to fight rather than settle past Trump claims, including CNN, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images “Litigation is always a commercial decision and it’s a reputational decision,” said Coleman, suggesting settlement talks may look appealing compared to fighting a case that could “hang over the heads of the BBC for many, many years, like a dark cloud.”  COULD THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT STEP IN?  Despite the BBC’s standing as a state broadcaster, the Labour government has so far taken a hands-off approach, perhaps unsurprisingly given Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ongoing efforts to woo Trump on trade. No. 10 said on Tuesday that the lawsuit threat was a matter for the BBC, though Starmer subsequently reiterated his support for it generally. “I believe in a strong and independent BBC,” Starmer said at prime minister’s questions Wednesday. “Some would rather the BBC didn’t exist … I’m not one of them.” Perhaps eager to stay in Trump’s good books, the PM’s ministers have also avoided attacking the president and instead walked a diplomatic tightrope by praising the BBC in more general terms. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy on Tuesday reiterated the government’s vision of the BBC as a tool of soft power. The BBC documentary did not include a section where Trump called for supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” | Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images “At a time when the line between fact and opinion, and between news and polemic, is being dangerously blurred, the BBC stands apart,” Nandy told MPs Tuesday. “It is a light on the hill for people here and across the world.”  WHO WOULD FUND ANY PAYOUT?  The BBC is funded by the country’s license fee, which requires any household that has a TV or uses BBC iPlayer to pay £174.50 a year (some people are exempt from paying). In the year ending March 2025, this accounted for £3.8 billion of the corporation’s overall £5.9 billion in income. The remaining £2 billion came from activities including commercial ventures. Any licence fee revenue that funded a settlement with Trump would likely go down very poorly as a political matter, given looming tax increases in the U.K. as well as the U.S. president’s significant unpopularity with British voters. The corporation lost a €100,000 (£88,000) libel case earlier this year against former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams after a Dublin jury found the broadcaster falsely connected him to a 2006 Irish Republican Army killing, showing there is a precedent for politicians winning cases.  Responding to a question as to whether license fee payers would fund any legal sum, Starmer said Wednesday: “Where mistakes are made, they do need to get their house in order and the BBC must uphold the highest standards, be accountable and correct errors quickly.” Singer Cliff Richard also received £210,000 in damages and around £2 million in legal costs from the BBC in 2019 over a privacy case, though those payments were within the scope of its legal insurance. MIGHT AN ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT WORK?  The BBC has paid damages to a foreign head of state before, including compensating then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2019 for an incorrect report. But Trump technically faces rules on accepting foreign payments. There’s every chance that a settlement to Trump could pass through another vehicle, as the with the CBS agreement. ABC’s settlement involved $15 million to a Trump-related foundation alongside $1 million for his legal fees.  Trump’s former attorney Alan Dershowitz suggested just that on Tuesday, saying if the corporation made a “substantial” contribution to a charity “that’s relevant to the president might put this thing behind them.” 

BRUSSELS — Wednesday’s election in the Netherlands should surely go down as one of the best days Europe’s centrists have enjoyed in years. Geert Wilders, the far-right populist who touted leaving the EU on his way to a shock victory in the 2023 election, lost nearly a third of his voters after 11 chaotic months for his Party for Freedom (PVV) in coalition.  At the same time, the fervently pro-European liberal Rob Jetten surged in the final days of the campaign and stands a good chance of becoming prime minister. At 38, he would be the youngest person to hold the office since World War II and the first openly gay candidate ever to do so.  “Many in the Brussels bubble will welcome the rise of a mainstream, pro-governing and reform-oriented party,” said one EU diplomat, granted anonymity because the subject is politically sensitive. “The Dutch have a lot to contribute to the EU.” But even as they exhale with relief at the end of the Wilders interlude, the inhabitants of Europe’s dominant liberal center-ground — those Brussels officials, diplomats and ministers who run the EU show — would be well advised not to celebrate too hard. If previous years are any guide, the final shape of the next government and its policy plans will not become clear for months. Who knows what will have happened in Ukraine, the Middle East, or in Donald Trump’s trade war with China in that time? “It is essential for European cooperation that a new government is stable and able to make bold decisions, given the current geopolitical challenges that Europe is facing,” the same diplomat said. Even when the new coalition finally begins its work, this election should worry Europe’s liberal centrists almost as much as it delights them. JETTEN INTO EUROPE  Jetten’s Democracy 66 party has never done so well at a Dutch election: Assuming he gets the job he wants, he’ll be the party’s first prime minister. This week he told POLITICO he wanted to move the Netherlands closer to the EU.  Last night, officials in Brussels privately welcomed the prospect of the Dutch and their highly regarded diplomats returning to their historic place at the center of EU affairs, after two years in which they lost some influence. It was always going to be tough for the outgoing PM Dick Schoof, a 68-year-old technocrat, to follow the long-serving Mark Rutte, an EU star who now runs NATO. Domestic divisions made his job even harder.  But pro-European spirits also rose because the disruptive Wilders had wanted to keep the EU at arm’s length. Jetten’s position could hardly be more different. In fact, he sounds like an EU federalist’s dream.  “We want to stop saying ‘no’ by default, and start saying ‘yes’ to doing more together,” Jetten told POLITICO this week. “I cannot stress enough how dire Europe’s situation will be if we do not integrate further.”  STAYING DUTCH In Brussels, officials expect the next Dutch administration to maintain the same broad outlook on core policies: restraint on the EU’s long-term budget; cracking down on migration; boosting trade and competitiveness; and supporting Ukraine, alongside stronger common defense. One area where things could get complicated is climate policy. Jetten is committed to climate action and may end up in a power-sharing deal with GreenLeft-Labor, which was led at this election by former EU Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans.  How any government that Jetten leads balances climate action with improving economic growth will be key to policy discussions in Brussels. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has been trimming climate measures amid center-right complaints that they are expensive for consumers and businesses. But she wants to secure backing for new targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.  Elsewhere, housing and migration — two areas often linked by far-right politicians — were central issues in the Dutch campaign. Both will continue to feature on the EU’s agenda, too.  For many watching the results unfold in Brussels, the biggest concerns are practical: Will the next Dutch government be more stable than the last one? And how long will it take to for the coalition to form? Seven months passed between the last election in November 2023 and Schoof taking office as prime minister in July 2024. “This is a historic election result because we’ve shown not only to the Netherlands but also to the world that it’s possible to beat populist and extreme-right movements,” Jetten told his supporters. “I’m very eager to cooperate with other parties to start an ambitious coalition as soon as possible.”  WILDERS Beneath the rare good news of a pro-European triumph and a far-right failure lurk more worrying trends for EU centrists.  First of all, there’s the sheer volatility of the result. Most voters apparently made up their minds at the last moment.  Wilders went from winning the popular vote and taking 37 of the 150 seats in the Dutch lower house in 2023 to a projected 26 seats this time. Jetten’s D66 party, meanwhile, went from just nine seats two years ago to a projected 26, according to a preliminary forecast by the Dutch news agency ANP. The center-right Christian Democratic Appeal took just five seats in 2023 but now stands to win 18, according to the forecast. With swings this wild, anything could happen next time. Most major parties say they won’t work with Wilders in coalition now, making Jetten the more likely new PM if the projections hold. But Wilders says he is a long way from finished. “You won’t be rid of me until I’m 80,” the 62 year-old told supporters. In fact, Wilders might find a period in opposition — free from the constraints and compromises required in government — the perfect place to resume his inflammatory campaigns against Islam, immigration and the EU.  Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage had all been written off before storming back into their respective political front lines. “We had hoped for a different outcome, but we stood our ground,” Wilders wrote on X. “We are more determined than ever.”  TIMM’S UP  The other cloud on the pro-European horizon is the fate of Timmermans.  His center-left ticket was expected to do well and had been polling second behind Wilders’ Freedom Party in the months before the vote. But per the preliminary forecast, GreenLeft-Labor will fall from 25 seats to 20. Timmermans — who also stood in 2023 — resigned as leader.  It wasn’t just a defeat for the party, but also in some ways for Brussels. Timmermans had served as the European Commission’s executive vice president during von der Leyen’s first term, and was seen by some, especially his opponents, as a creation of the EU bubble.  Others point to the fact the center-left is struggling across Europe.  “It’s clear that I, for whatever reason, couldn’t convince people to vote for us,” Timmermans said. “It’s time that I take a step back and transfer the lead of our movement to the next generation.” Jetten’s pro-Europeanism could also come back to haunt him by the time of the next election. If he fails to deliver miracles to back up his optimistic pitch to voters, his Euroskeptic opponents have a ready-made argument for what went wrong. Recent history in the Netherlands, and elsewhere, suggests they won’t be afraid to use it.  Eva Hartog, Hanne Cokelaere, Pieter Haeck and Max Griera contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Call it a digital love triangle. When EU leaders back a “sovereign digital transition” at a summit in Brussels this Thursday, their words will mask a rift between France and Germany over how to deal with America’s overwhelming dominance in technology. The bloc’s founding members have long taken differing approaches to how far the continent should seek to go in detoxing from U.S. giants. In Paris, sovereignty is about backing local champions and breaking reliance on U.S. Big Tech. In Berlin the focus is on staying open and protecting Europe without severing ties with a major German trading partner. The EU leaders’ statement is a typical fudge — it cites the need for Europe to “reinforce its sovereignty” while maintaining “close collaboration with trusted partner countries,” according to a near-final draft obtained by POLITICO ahead of the gathering.    That plays into the hands of incumbent U.S. interests, even as the bloc’s reliance on American tech was again brought into sharp focus Monday when an outage at Amazon cloud servers in Northern Virginia disrupted the morning routines of millions of Europeans.   As France and Germany prepare to host a high-profile summit on digital sovereignty in Berlin next month, the two countries are still seeking common ground — attendees say preparations for the summit have been disorganized and that there is little alignment so far on concrete outcomes. When asked about his expectations for the Nov. 18 gathering, German Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger told POLITICO he wanted “to have an open debate around what is digital sovereignty” and “hopefully … have some great announcements.”  In her first public appearance following her appointment this month, France’s new Digital Minister Anne Le Hénanff, by comparison, promised to keep pushing for solutions that are immune to U.S. interference in cloud computing — a key area of American dominance.   CONTRASTING PLAYBOOKS   “There are indeed different strategic perspectives,” said Martin Merz, the president of SAP Sovereign Cloud. He contrasted France’s “more state-driven approach focusing on national independence and self-sufficiency in key technologies” with Germany’s emphasis on “European cooperation and market-oriented solutions.”  A recent FGS Global survey laid bare the split in public opinion as well. Most French respondents said France “should compete globally on its own to become a tech leader,” while most Germans preferred to “prioritize deeper regional alliances” to “compete together.” The fact that technological sovereignty has even made it onto the agenda of EU leaders follows a recent softening in Berlin, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz becoming increasingly outspoken about the limits of the American partnership while warning against “false nostalgia.” The coalition agreement in Berlin also endorsed the need to build “an interoperable and European-connectable sovereign German stack,” referring to a domestically controlled digital infrastructure ecosystem.  The fact that technological sovereignty has even made it onto the agenda of EU leaders follows a recent softening in Berlin, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz becoming increasingly outspoken about the limits of the American partnership while warning against “false nostalgia.” | Ralf Hirschberger/AFP via Getty Images Yet Germany — which has a huge trade deficit with the U.S — is fundamentally cautious about alienating Washington.   “France has been willing to accept some damage to the transatlantic relationship in order to support French business interests,” said Zach Meyers, director of research at the CERRE think tank in Brussels.   For Germany, by contrast, the two are “very closely tied together, largely because of the importance of the U.S. as an export market,” he said.   Berlin has dragged its feet on phasing out Huawei from mobile networks over fears of Chinese retaliation, against its car industry in particular.   The European Commission itself is walking a similar tightrope — dealing with U.S. threats against EU flagship laws that allegedly target American firms, while fielding growing calls to unapologetically back homegrown tech. STUCK ON DEFINITION  “Sovereignty is not a clearly defined term as it relates to technology,” said Dave Michels, a cloud computing law researcher at Queen Mary University of London.   He categorized it into two broad interpretations: technical sovereignty, or keeping data safe from foreign snooping and control, and political sovereignty, which focuses on strategic autonomy and economic security, i.e safeguarding domestic industries and supply chains.  “Those things can align, and I do think they are converging around this idea that we need to support European alternatives, but they don’t necessarily overlap completely. That’s where you can see some tensions,” Michels said.  Leaders will say in their joint statement that “it is crucial to advance Europe’s digital transformation, reinforce its sovereignty and strengthen its own open digital ecosystem.” “We don’t really have a shared vocabulary to define what digital sovereignty is. But we do have a shared understanding of what it means not to have digital sovereignty,” said Yann Lechelle, CEO of French AI company Probabl. Berlin isn’t the only capital trying to convince Europe to ensure its digital sovereignty remains open to U.S. interests.   Austria, too, wants to take “a leading role” in nailing down that tone, State Secretary Alexandre Pröll previously told POLITICO. The country has been on a mission to agree a “common charter” emphasizing that sovereignty should “not be misinterpreted as protectionist independence,” according to a draft reported by POLITICO. That “will create a clear political roadmap for a digital Europe that acts independently while remaining open to trustworthy partners,” Pröll said.   Next month’s Berlin gathering will be crucial in setting a direction. French President Emmanuel Macron and Merz are both expected to attend. “The summit is intended to send a strong signal that Europe is aware of the challenges and is actively advancing digital sovereignty,” a spokesperson for the German digital ministry said in a statement, adding that “this is not about autarky but about strengthening its own capabilities and potential.” “One summit will not be enough,” said Johannes Schätzl, a Social Democrat member of the German Bundestag. “But if there will be an agreement saying that we want to take the path toward greater digital sovereignty together, that alone would already be a very important signal.” Mathieu Pollet reported from Brussels, Emile Marzolf reported from Paris and Laura Hülsemann and Frida Preuß reported from Berlin.