EU’s tech independence push disappoints Brussels and irks the Americans
BRUSSELS — In crafting its so-called tech sovereignty package, the European Commission had two goals: to put in place a plan to wean Europe off U.S. tech, and not to anger the Americans. Judging by the early reactions, it risks disappointing on both.
“This long-delayed package finally recognizes the scale of Europe’s digital dependency, but ultimately falls short,” said Kim van Sparrentak, a Greens lawmaker in the European Parliament. “I am skeptical that this will be sufficient to ensure long-term independence from the U.S.”
“We’re not there yet,” she added.
The Commission presented a plan on Wednesday to curb Europe’s reliance on foreign tech providers, a response to fears that such dependencies could be weaponized — including by the U.S., whose companies dominate the digital services powering the modern economy.
Critics argue the proposed cure is heavy on wishful thinking and light on direct confrontation with tech giants like Google, Microsoft and Amazon, a showdown they believe is necessary for the plan to be effective.
“The proposal remains too permissive,” said Christophe Grudler, a French centrist member of the Parliament. He noted it would allow foreign companies to service some sensitive parts of the European economy.
The Cloud and AI Development Act, the package’s centerpiece, introduces a four-level certification scheme that public officials would be required to use to rate digital tools according to their vulnerability to foreign interference. In some cases, public bodies would be required to replace foreign services with European alternatives.
And yet, under the proposal, large swathes of the European market could still be left open to U.S. tech giants. Even blocking them from the most sensitive sectors of the economy would depend on whether the Commission or EU countries have the political will to risk angering Washington.
“I would have liked to hear more clearly from the Commission that the U.S. is not a trusted partner anymore for the European public sector, like China isn’t,” Aura Salla, a center-right member of the Parliament, told the EU’s tech commissioner, Henna Virkkunen, during a committee hearing after the package was presented.
Meanwhile, despite the Commission’s best efforts to frame the push as not specifically targeting the U.S., American firms are already complaining.
“The proposal’s focus on geographic and nationality-based criteria is not conducive to effective sovereignty outcomes,” said Guido Lobrano, director general for Europe at the Information Technology Industry Council, an industry lobby that counts Amazon, Meta, Google and Microsoft among its members.
Lobrano was echoed by Harry Staight, a spokesperson for Amazon: “European organizations deserve access to the best technology available from trusted providers, chosen on the basis of security, performance, verifiable controls and value.”
In the runup to the proposal the Commission tried hard to defuse criticism from Washington, insisting that U.S. companies were not the target even as it crafted a plan aimed at limiting their penetration of parts of the European market.
Even as Virkkunen was presenting the plan Wednesday, EU ambassadors meeting across the road were signing off on a Commission proposal for the EU to join Pax Silica, a new U.S.-led club aimed at securing artificial intelligence supply chains.
“Technological sovereignty does not mean protectionism,” Virkkunen told reporters as she presented the package Wednesday. “Europe remains grounded in openness, partnership and fair competition.”
“We are not planning to work in isolation and produce everything by ourselves in the future. It’s not realistic and not necessary,” she added.
Nonetheless, accusations of protectionism are already pouring in.
“The proposal is understandable, but the framework it would establish has a lot of holes that could lead to protectionism,” said Kay Jebelli, vice president for Europe at the American trade group Chamber of Progress.
Daniel Friedlaender, head of the Brussels office for tech lobby group CCIA, whose members include Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb, said the proposal “is effectively giving national capitals carte blanche to shut out trusted global vendors from every major technology-producing nation outside the Union.”
Whether the law becomes a tool to squeeze out U.S. tech giants or a springboard for European champions will depend on how far Brussels and EU capitals are willing to push its powers. But it faces a potentially long and bumpy road through negotiations between the Parliament and the EU’s national governments.
The EU’s digital ministers are expected to weigh in as they gather in Luxembourg next week — and may bristle at a proposal they could see as encroaching on their decision-making powers and national prerogatives.
Meanwhile, in the Parliament, lawmakers were already making clear their intention to try to reshape the proposal.
“While I welcome today’s announcements, we must raise our ambitions significantly,” Grudler said. “Europe must be able to operate and maintain our critical digital infrastructure independently from third countries, particularly for the public sector.”
“Environmental protections have been left out,” said Sergey Lagodinsky, a lawmaker from the German Green party. “There are no binding sustainability standards for data centers and no clear clean-energy obligations. That omission will only feed the techlash now building in the U.S., a backlash that is heading for Europe too.”
Eliza Gkritsi and Pieter Haeck contributed reporting for this article.
This article was updated on June 3 to correct the spelling of Daniel Friedlaender’s name.
