Europe’s influence as a global digital regulator is under pressure from both Washington and internal doubts about competitiveness. The earlier momentum behind strict European technology rules has weakened as US policymakers push back against foreign constraints on American tech companies and European leaders question whether heavy regulation is undermining innovation. Bradford argues that Europe should not abandon its core strength in protecting privacy, online safety, competition, and user rights. She contends that Europe’s technology gap has deeper causes, including the lack of a unified digital market, weak capital markets, a cultural aversion to risk, and talent shortages, and says those structural issues matter more than regulation alone.
Technology governance is also shifting toward greater state intervention across all major models. The United States, Europe, and China remain distinct in their political values and regulatory instincts, but all are placing more emphasis on sovereignty, industrial policy, and control over strategic technologies. Bradford describes true end-to-end tech sovereignty as unrealistic because modern technology supply chains are deeply interdependent. Semiconductors illustrate that reality, with design, manufacturing equipment, chemicals, minerals, and production spread across multiple countries. The same logic applies to Artificial Intelligence. Full Artificial Intelligence sovereignty is not achievable, and the more realistic goal is to reduce vulnerabilities through partnerships, selective domestic investment, and careful management of dependencies across the stack.
For global companies, fragmented regulation is turning geopolitics into an operational challenge. Diverging rules in the US and EU on content moderation, data flows, and Artificial Intelligence oversight are making it harder to operate with a single global model. Companies may need separate products, policies, systems, or sovereign cloud arrangements for different markets, raising costs and complexity. Trust is becoming a strategic issue as governments and customers question whether foreign tech providers will follow local law or the demands of their home governments. Concerns about the US CLOUD Act, the treatment of TikTok, and the possibility of conflicting legal obligations are accelerating demand for localized data storage and jurisdiction-specific compliance models.
Bradford says boards should now treat geopolitical risk as a central management function and elevate it to the C-suite. Companies need dedicated teams that combine legal, economic, political, regional, and technology expertise, with scenario planning embedded across product, supply chain, compliance, and market strategy. She highlights three immediate priorities for business leaders: preparing for deeper US-China decoupling and Taiwan-related disruption, tracking changes in Europe’s regulatory posture and transatlantic tensions, and managing concentration and volatility in the Artificial Intelligence market. She also argues that companies need a clearer values-based framework for decision-making so they can navigate political pressure without appearing opportunistic or unprincipled.
