Monthly Archives: April 2025

Europe, European Commission, Government, Politics, Society, Technology, United States

The EU must lay down the law on big tech

DIGITAL MARKETS

Intro: Donald Trump’s administration is seeking to bully its way to the deregulation of US digital giants. In the interests of EU citizens, these attempts must be resisted

HENNA VIRKKUNEN, the European Union’s most senior official on digital policy, has fired a broadside when she said: “We are very committed to our rules when it comes to the digital world”. Such sentiments bring with it the near certainty of a future confrontation with Elon Musk. Ms Virkkunen , who is the EU vice-president responsible for tech sovereignty, also added that: “We want to make sure that our digital environment … is fair and it’s safe and it’s also democratic.”

In recent days, these words were followed by deeds. In the first sanctions handed down since the establishment of the EU’s Digital Markets Act, the European Commission fined Apple Euros500m and Meta Euros200m, after finding them guilty of unfair business practices that exploited their entrenched online “gatekeeper” position. Apple, for example, was judged to have unfairly restricted developers from distributing apps outside its own App Store, where it takes a cut from sales.

Are we to perceive these fines as being a form of tough action or nothing more than tokenism? It is safe to say these fines will not overly concern either company’s accountants. Apple’s revenue last year was Euros344bn. There are also indications that, in other areas, Brussels may be seeking to dial down tensions with the US tech giants as it seeks to avoid a full-on trade war with Washington.

A separate investigation into X (formerly Twitter) under the auspices of the Digital Services Act – which deals with content moderation – found it in preliminary breach of EU rules, following Mr Musk’s takeover in 2022. No fine has yet been issued. Meanwhile there are growing fears that EU regulations on artificial intelligence, intended to reduce the risk of disinformation and political manipulation, are in danger of being diluted under pressure from the Trump administration.

Given the current volatility of transatlantic relations, it is understandable that a degree of cautious restraint is needed. But US bullying of Brussels over its regulation of big tech on behalf of EU citizens must be robustly resisted. Trump’s senior adviser for trade and manufacturing, Peter Navarro, has mischaracterised European digital regulation as a non-tariff barrier and form of “lawfare” against American companies. The reality, though, is more mundane: US market dominance means its tech giants will inevitably be the most affected by efforts to govern a space that is now part of the architecture of everyday life.

That task, vital to maintaining a healthy public sphere, should be kept distinct from fraught trade negotiations with the White House. Easier said than done perhaps, given the US President’s all-embracing mercantilism. Nonetheless, EU politicians – and British ones – must not be intimidated into an ill-judged deregulatory path with potentially damaging implications for democracy.

These fines might have been financially small given the size of the revenues they generate but they do at least represent a necessary statement of intent. Alongside its investigation into X, the commission has inquiries ongoing into TikTok and Meta, also relating to content moderation. MEPs are now calling for those too to be pushed to a conclusion.

This may be the acid test. The US vice-president, JD Vance, has made it clear that the White House intends to act as the political wing of US big tech, and has compared European attempts to combat online disinformation and illegal content to Soviet-era censorship. Ms Verkkunen should remain adamant and stick to her guns – and ignore the flak flying from Washington.

Standard
Education, Politics, United States

The US administration’s attack on universities is an affront to democracy

AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

IN the authoritarian playbook, enfeebling universities is an early move in the state seizing control. It has been studied eagerly by the likes of Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Authoritarians and one-party states centrally target universities with the aim of restricting dissent. There are instances now, too, where scholars of influential universities in America, such as Yale, are leaving the US for other countries such as Canada because of the political climate and the battle that is escalating over higher education.

It is not merely because universities are often bastions of liberal attitudes and hotbeds for protest. They also constitute one of the critical institutions of civil society; they are a bulwark of democracy. The Trump administration is taking on judges, lawyers, NGOs, and the media: it would be highly surprising if universities were not on the list. They embody the importance of knowledge, rationality, and independent thought.

The evidence is now clear to see. In a typically brazen move, Donald Trump has accused Harvard of being a threat to democracy, and has become one of his administration’s top targets. The US government is attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and says it is tackling the failure of universities to root out antisemitism – a claim that is widely challenged. While most Trump supporters are unlikely to take issue with cutting billions of dollars of public spending on wealthy elite institutions, it has to be recognised that much of that money goes to scientific and medical research that enriches the US as a nation and benefits vast numbers of people who have never ventured near an Ivy League university.

The administration’s shocking demands of Harvard include federal oversight of admissions, the dismantling of diversity programmes, the curtailment to recruitment of international students “hostile to American values”, and the compelled hiring of “viewpoint diverse” staff.

Harvard has commendably chosen to fight back. Its president, Alan Garber, insists the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. It is suing the government over the freeze on $2.2bn in federal funding, part of a threat to withhold $9bn. That is encouraging others to speak out. More than 150 university presidents have signed a joint letter denouncing “unprecedented government overreach and political interference”.

Many have pointed out that the world’s richest university can afford to stand firm thanks to its unrivalled $53bn endowment and sympathetic billionaire alumni. Nonetheless, that same prestige and power is what has made it the primary target: force it to fold, and weaker institutions will follow. It’s worth noting that Harvard toughened its position after faculty, students, and alumni pushed hard for it to do so, warning that concessions would only encourage the administration. Columbia acquiesced to an extraordinary list of demands but some $400m of withheld funding has yet to be restored, and the administration is reportedly seeking to extend control over the university.

Troubling, because whatever comes of Harvard’s lawsuit, this is an administration that has already chosen to ignore court rulings. It may step up its assault, by revoking charitable status and clamping down on international students. Still, Harvard is fighting back not just because it can, but because it must. In doing so, it is defending not only academic freedom, but democracy more broadly. It will inspire others to do the same.

Standard
Europe, Russia, Ukraine, United States

US-Russian bilateral talks on Ukraine: Europe is alarmed

UKRAINE

DONALD Trump’s latest attack on Volodymyr Zelensky, and the US administration’s last-minute snub of London peace talks, is the clearest evidence yet that what matters to Mr Trump is not Ukrainian sovereignty and safety, nor the transatlantic alliance, but a deal with Vladimir Putin. The US president says an agreement is close, with Washington recognising annexed Crimea as Russian with Moscow conceding little if anything in return. For Mr Trump, it is Ukraine’s president who is once again harming negotiations by saying he will not recognise Russia’s control.

Putin is fervent in his desire to maximise Russian interests, attentive to every detail, adept in negotiations, and strongly believes that time is on his side. Trump does not care about the outcome as long as he can claim he has ended the war. He has little interest in the detail and has a habit of handing over the prize at the start of the process.

Just prior to the 2022 full-scale invasion, Trump described Russian aggression towards Ukraine as “genius”. His administration is also now abandoning efforts to hold Moscow accountable for war crimes. He holds a grudge against Mr Zelensky, and believes Putin would “keep his word” on a peace deal. Above all else, Trump is in a hurry. Having pledged before coming to the White House for his second presidency that he could end the war “in 24 hours”, he wants something to boast about as he nears the end of his first 100 days in office.

After so many deaths and so much devastation, no one wants peace more than Ukrainians. Kyiv understands that there will be no magical restoration of territorial integrity, but the indications are that it is ready to negotiate, not to surrender.

JD Vance, the US vice-president, has a simple answer: it is time for the two sides to “either say yes or for the US to walk away from this process”. US military aid to Ukraine is already reaching its end, intelligence could soon follow, and Washington could also restrict arms purchases even if Europe was willing and able to fund them to the extent needed.

Putin has played an expert hand so far, throwing expediency to the cause at opportune moments – as with the offer of an “Easter truce”, which did not halt attacks. His most recent gambit is reportedly to offer to cede claims on Ukrainian land that Russia does not actually control – concessions that Trump will undoubtedly laud. He does not want a European “reassurance force” in Ukraine, said to be part of the US proposal, but may also conclude that its significance would be limited without a US security guarantee.

The timing of the US plans, as well as demeaning Europe’s diplomatic efforts – meaning London’s discussions were downgraded – reinforces the European understanding that a US-brokered deal may be a beginning, not the end, for Russian ambitions. But such a grotesquely one-sided, imposed agreement would encourage territorial aggression elsewhere too. It isn’t surprising that Putin sees Europe as an obstruction and prefers bilateral talks. It should continue to alarm and appal us that the US, too, now sees its old allies as the problem, and not part of any solution.

Standard