Europe

A government backed push to replace U.S. payment networks in Europe is less about consumer benefit and more about reducing reliance on American firms, risking economic harm to the U.S. and opening the door for Chinese competitors in a fragmented market.

Europe once led the world in biopharmaceutical innovation, but it lost ground after adopting policies that weakened incentives for R&D and innovation. America must learn from Europe’s experience to preserve its own biopharma leadership and the related economic benefits and access to the most innovative drugs.

Together, the transatlantic alliance can shape the rules of the digital age. Divided, neither side stands a chance.

The inconsistent and flawed theories of harm on both sides of the Atlantic reflect, to borrow from former FTC Chair Lina Khan, a real “Amazon’s antitrust paradox,” if there ever was one.

The European Parliament has disabled built-in AI features on corporate tablets and phones issued to MEPs and staff over concerns that data sent to cloud services by these features presented a security risk. This decision is misguided because it does not address security risks, drives AI use into the shadows, disrupts everyday productivity tools, and imposes disproportionate costs on the Parliament’s smaller delegations.

The European Commission is challenging Meta’s decision to restrict third party AI assistants on WhatsApp, arguing it may violate competition rules. The argument here is that forcing Meta to open its platform would undermine its vertically integrated AI model, weaken incentives for continued investment, and introduce security and operational risks. At a critical moment in global AI competition, such regulatory actions could slow innovation at a leading American firm and advantage foreign competitors.

Global trade is evolving into a form of mercantilist economic warfare where foreign nations use discriminatory regulations to target the U.S. tech sector, draining its wealth and undermining American innovation.

European calls for “payment sovereignty” misdiagnose the problem: Visa and Mastercard lead through competition, not coercion, and a state-backed alternative would entrench protectionism instead of enabling regulatory reforms that would let European firms scale and compete globally.

The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes the heaviest regulatory burdens on large platforms in a way that overwhelmingly targets U.S. technology companies, exposing them to disproportionate compliance costs and fines while largely sparing European firms. This discriminatory model functions as a non-tariff attack that risks weakening U.S. innovation and competitiveness, and is now being replicated globally, amplifying the strategic challenge for American tech leadership.

In a letter to the Financial Times, Daniel Castro argues that Europe’s push for “digital sovereignty,” exemplified by France replacing Zoom and Teams with a domestic platform, risks fragmenting the transatlantic digital ecosystem and weakening security and efficiency, and that true resilience comes from interoperable systems, shared rules, and cooperation among allied countries.