Views: 17
The digital transition is actively proceeding on both sides of the Atlantic; though with a varied speed and different substantial ideology, as well. For example, the US-type process leans to liberal and free-market system, while the EU-type approach is more regulatory and security in essence. This article concentrates on some of the European digital regulatory means and governance.
Background
The US’s approach has shown that “the path forward is deregulation and collaboration on AI and chips”; the EU believes that it is “a trusted partner, not a security risk”, but not ruling out that the issue of foreign access to AI models could be discussed.
The European “digital initiatives” date back to the beginning of this century, although the main regulatory efforts are taking place just the last two-three years. The European approach explores the so-called civilizational drive: the digital transformation – and the AI particularly – is no longer a question of technological progress alone. It represents a structural transformation of how knowledge is produced, decisions are made, the governance is exercised, the responsibilities understood and human rights secured.
The EU executive institution (mainly, the Commission) recently unveiled a long-awaited legislative package designed to reduce Europe’s years-long reliance on the US technology, which is increasingly seen as a strategic vulnerability. The plan is a long game: boosting European tech champions while giving governments new ways to shut US players out of the most sensitive parts of the public-sector digital market.
So far, the future of digital transition and the AI models -globally- are, generally, controlled by the US and China technology companies: these two countries employ 70 percent of the world’s top machine learning researchers, command 90 percent of global computing power, and attract the vast majority of AI investment—more than twice the combined total of every other region in the world.
It has to be noted that in the past technological revolutions, powers that were not at the frontier could gradually adopted new capabilities and managed to catch up; but the AI “revolution” is different by locking all other countries into a strategic trap that could consign much of the rest of world to a sort of “technological vassalage”.
Source: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/ai-divide
Growing divide…
President Donald Trump recently “threatened Europeans” with a 100 percent tariff on the EU states that impose digital service taxes on American corporations.
In a post to social media, the US President said “numerous European countries” are discussing or “close to actually doing this”: “any country that imposes such a tax will immediately be met with a 100% tariff on any and all Goods sent to the US”, Trump said. Taxes on online services are frequently imposed to combat the outside influence of Big Tech and frequently target large U.S. companies such as Apple, Amazon and Meta.
Trump’s promise to raise tariffs threatens to complicate trade talks with the EU; Trump’s threat comes after the EU approved an agreement that would slash tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and some agricultural products. In return, the U.S. would cap most tariffs on the European Union at 15 percent.
Outside of proposed taxes, the EU has in place various measures designed to crack down on outsized influence from big tech companies, such as the Digital Markets Act, which allows regulators to set strict operating rules and fine large platforms.
In a statement, the European Commission defended its “sovereign right” to regulate its own economic activity. “Unilateral measures targeting such legitimate policies are unjustified. If pursued, the EU will respond swiftly and decisively to defend its rights and regulatory autonomy,” it said. “The EU has consistently supported a global solution to the fair taxation of the digital economy, in line with the G7 finance ministers’ conclusions. That remains our preferred path, and we are ready to engage constructively to get there.”
More in: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2025/11/04/the-tech-taxes-at-the-heart-of-trumps-tariff-war-00635898
Several countries, including many states outside the EU, have also imposed digital services taxes and the Trump administration has repeatedly used tariff threats to pressure them to change their behavior.
Source and citation from: “Trump threatens additional tariffs on European countries using digital service taxes”, in: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/26/trump-digital-service-taxes-europe-tariff-00978339; 6 June, 2026.
The US State Department acknowledged in Jun 2026, that “protectionist measures in upcoming EU tech sovereignty laws risk undermining our partnership”. The US partners, at the same time, recalled recent EU-US trade deal that “required eliminating non-tariff barriers to trade”.
Internal preparatory document showed that further talks would involve artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, the online protection of minors, connectivity, chips and digital trade. As Politico notes, “the discussion is currently ongoing”, which shows that both sides want a mutually satisfied solution.
Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-claps-back-trumps-tech-threats/ 29 June,2026.
Digital policies as part of political economy
The European integration model is based on the so-called “social market economy” principles, and regulatory component is becoming a vital element in this political economy’s structure. Hence, the backlog of the European digital regulatory facilities already includes over 50 various directives and regulations, united into the so-called “big digital acts”. The digital “regulatory burden” covers numerous socio-economic and corporate sectors; hence, it is both quite complicated and controversial for consumers and governance: e.g. to navigate in the “sea of digital rules”, and – at the same time – requiring a sort of simplification of the regulatory means.
There are, presently, at least eight the so-called “big digital acts” in the European digital regulatory framework – united, generally, into already over 50 EU-wide “digital rules”, including: = Data Governance Act (from 2023); = Cyber and Data Protection Act (2023); = Digital Market Act (DMA, 2023) and the Digital Services Act (DSA, from 2022); = Data Act (2023), 6. Digital Company Act (expected to become law by 31 July 2027); = Digital Company Law Directive (adopted in 2024, to be transposed to the member states by July 2027), and = European Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act, 2024 in 113 articles, partially delayed in full implementation until December 2027, coped with the AI Liability Directive).
Two landmark EU-wide digital regulations – the DMA and the DSA – codify principles and create processes for digital services providers and ensure a wide choice of safe digital services and derivative products.
More on DMA/DSA in: https://eizpublishing.ch/artikel/euz/03-2024/digital-regulation-in-the-european-union/
Present trade-restrictive economic security measures by some states are forcing the EU to adopt “balanced means” against reduced economic benefits: the EU is to combine a medium-term strategy to reduce dependencies on both China and the US in critical areas with the capacity to react in the short term to threats of coercion. This approach requires the supply chain re-assessments, as identified by Commission research group.
More in the joint communication on “Strengthening EU economic security” (December 2025) in:
https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/7fc51410-46a1-4871-8979-20cce8df0896/library/777b1ecb-e7ce-4774-a92c-53f81e64ce76/details?open=true
The US strategy approaches the EU as “a second-order consideration”; i.e. placing major attitudes on other global regions -mainly in the Indo-Pacific part- preceding that of the Western Hemisphere. Hence, the strategy is positioning China as a competitor while underscoring the importance of avoiding direct conflict with a nuclear power. Therefore, the Indo-Pacific region “will continue to be among the US next century’s key economic and geopolitical battlegrounds”; and the “geo-economic might of the Indo-Pacific places an infinite opportunity” for the modern US administration.
Source and citation from: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/trumps-power-paradox