Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have aligned with Donald Trump in his libertarian crusade. This presents a significant challenge for the EU. Is it enough for the EU to merely act as referee of the digital space, or must it evolve into an active player in this new game?
The truth is that as the digital and green transformations intersect – or collide – with geopolitics, global power dynamics are taking shape, and impacting economic competitiveness, financial and monetary sovereignty, information control, cybersecurity, and modern warfare.
“The rapid pace of technological change triggered by the digital revolution has left [the European Union] trailing behind,” noted ECB President Christine Lagarde in her recent speech at Collège des Bernardins in Paris. “We need to adapt quickly to a changing geopolitical environment and regain lost ground in competitiveness and innovation.” At present, Europe is indeed losing the global tech race – and the warnings are not only coming from Lagarde. In Mario Draghi’s report, “The Future of European Competitiveness – A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe”, he details the widening innovation gap between the EU and its main competitors: the United States and China.
Europe’s position in this contest, however, could be seen as having unique potential. While it may lag in pure technological innovation, the EU’s socio-economic approach offers distinct characteristics that could serve as an asset, provided they are effectively leveraged and further developed.
In fact, in this high-stakes race, three distinct governance models have emerged, each reflecting different visions of how technology should serve society, including institutional frameworks, economic influence, regulatory standards, and ideological preferences: American market-driven capitalism and techno-optimism, Chinese state capitalism and techno-authoritarianism, and Europe’s social-market capitalism and human-centered approach to technology.
The US champions a market capitalism model rooted in free enterprise and minimal regulation – an approach that has fuelled the rise of global tech giants and spurred innovation. This model places significant faith in tech companies’ ability to self-regulate (see the community notes in X and Meta), a faith reflected in weakly enforced antitrust laws, the absence of a federal data privacy framework, and permissive (indeed, now evaporating) content moderation rules that shield platforms from liability.
The second Trump Administration may very well reinforce this deregulatory trend while amplifying the trade and tech war with China and increasing tension with the EU, particularly over digital regulation. This tension is already evident as the EU intensifies its enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), launching investigations and charges against platforms like Elon Musk’s X for violating content moderation and transparency rules.
China, on the other hand, employs a state-driven model with a dual purpose: driving economic growth and reinforcing state control. The transition from a lax governance regime at the beginning of the century to stricter oversight mechanisms began with the implementation of China’s national AI strategy in 2017, a pivotal step that laid the groundwork for enhanced regulation across data and algorithms. By 2020, the party’s crackdown on big tech emerged under the banner of achieving “Common Prosperity.”
This control extends through detailed regulations like the Internet Information Service Algorithmic Recommendation Management Provisions (2022), which requires companies to promote content aligned with party values – patriotic and family-friendly – while discouraging behaviors deemed undesirable. The state further maintains influence through mixed ownership models, acquiring stakes in private tech companies through government-run equity funds and placing Chinese Communist Party members on corporate boards to align businesses with national priorities.
The EU pursues a third way: a rights-driven, human-centric model of digital governance grounded in the principles of the social market economy. This approach seeks to balance innovation with ethical principles, protecting individual rights while promoting fair distribution of digital economy benefits. Through landmark regulations – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the DMA, DSA, and the Data Governance and AI Acts – the EU has positioned itself as a global standard-setter.
However, while crucial for ensuring compliance and protecting rights, this regulatory focus has not sufficiently fostered innovation and economic growth. As Henna Virkkunen, Commissioner for Tech Sovereignty, remarked during her confirmation hearing, “An Act is not always the answer for everything.” While the EU effectively leverages its regulatory influence – the so-called “Brussels effect” – to champion a more balanced and democratic approach, questions remain about whether this referee role is sufficient to secure Europe’s future.
China maintains a dominant lead in this race for critical technologies, particularly in those classified as high-risk by ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker. The US still retains an edge in a select number of strategic fields, while the EU, as a bloc, ranks among the top global performers but leads in only a handful of these technologies.
The EU continues to focus on balancing technological innovation with societal interests.
The Joint Research Centre’s “International Benchmarking of the Digital Transformation” report reflects a similar landscape, in which China asserts dominance, the US retains a competitive edge, and the EU tries to keep pace. In digital infrastructure, China leads with unparalleled 5G coverage, the US remains strong with diversified technologies (fiber and cable), and the EU lags behind, showing disparity in 5G adoption across Member States (20%-100%) despite leading globally in fiber broadband (47%). In digital public services, the EU excels with widespread eID and e-health systems in most Member States, although their quality varies, while China and the US focus more on private-sector-driven digital solutions.
The EU’s challenges become more apparent in digital skills and business transformation. China’s strategic focus on ICT education and the US’s ability to attract global talent leave Europe behind. In business digitalization, the EU is a “moderate adopter” with low digital intensity in SMEs and limited venture capital. This contrasts with the US’s leadership in commercializing AI and quantum technologies and China’s aggressive state-led adoption strategy. As Enrico Letta’s “Much More than a Market” report highlights, the EU’s fragmented financial markets and limited industrial scalability compound these disadvantages.
The interplay between regulatory standards and competitiveness will determine which regions lead in the 21st-century digital economy. In crafting regulatory frameworks that prioritize consumer protection, the EU continues to focus on balancing technological innovation with societal interests. However, as Draghi’s report suggests, these sophisticated yet bureaucratic governance frameworks may be what is hindering European businesses’ ability to compete at the scale of China or the US.
Recent political shifts, such as Donald Trump’s presidential election in the US, raise new concerns about deregulated competition that bypasses transparency and oversight, while allowing tech giants to thrive by prioritizing rapid development and commercialization. Trump’s preference for tariffs and favoritism toward certain companies could disrupt global supply chains and spark trade wars.
China’s state-led model presents its own challenges. While heavy subsidies and limited transparency risk distorting global markets and undermining fair competition, Beijing’s centralized oversight allows for rapid deployment of technologies like 5G and AI, circumventing the bureaucratic delays or political disputes common in the EU or US. This tight integration of regulation with industrial policy serves China’s efforts towards strategic dominance.
These three approaches reflect broader ideological divides: the US prioritizes innovation over oversight, China aligns regulation with state objectives, and the EU seeks a balance between innovation and protection. Each region must balance short-term competitiveness with long-term sustainability and social trust – choices that will shape not only the global digital economy but also geopolitical stability and technological ethics.
Europe faces a pivotal moment. The paths forward each carry distinct opportunities and risks. Aligning closely with the American tech ecosystem could leverage its more innovative and competitive strength. Yet, navigating both the American and Chinese tech ecosystems simultaneously, albeit tempting, risks fragmented development and compromised (geo)political coherence.
A more ambitious path of building an independent European tech ecosystem would require unprecedented coordination and investment from member states. A fourth way might prove more feasible: pursuing a hybrid strategy that shapes external ecosystems, particularly America’s, to embrace European principles including data privacy, ethical AI, and sustainability.
The choice is before Europe. The question is: can Europe afford to be a mere referee in a game dominated by others? The path forward requires more than just establishing the rules – Europe must unite its member states’ efforts and make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. While experts agree on the need to strengthen Europe’s governance model and preserve its sovereignty, the critical question is whether political will and public support will go in this direction.
© IE Insights.
