Europe would need to spend approximately $3 trillion over the next decade to achieve digital independence and phase out US and Asian technology providers, according to a report by Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Analyst Mandeep Singh.

This projected capital outlay encompasses the development of cloud infrastructure, the construction of artificial intelligence data centers, the training of large language models, and investments across other technological domains.

Singh’s report noted that guaranteed demand generated through a “Buy European” mechanism could serve as the single most powerful leverage point for the EU to achieve its software sovereignty objectives.

A prominent example of this shift centers on Palantir, the US-based technology firm founded in 2003 by Peter Thiel. In June, French Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu announced that France would terminate its partnership with Palantir, despite having three years remaining on its contract with the French domestic intelligence service, the DGSI. Lecornu stated: “France must possess its own tools.”

The announcement followed a decision by US President Donald Trump to restrict access to leading AI models belonging to Anthropic. Lecornu identified ChapsVision, a domestic competitor, as the replacement for Palantir.

Palantir executives were caught off guard by the development, according to Bloomberg. One company official accused Lecornu of turning critical security decisions into a “Hollywood feud.” The official noted that the contract with the DGSI, France’s internal intelligence agency, had only recently been renewed for a three-year period.

In the UK, Member of Parliament Chi Onwurah proposed terminating Palantir’s £330 million ($440 million) contract with the National Health Service (NHS).

“They have a political agenda,” Onwurah said. “Palantir represents an unacceptable vulnerability in our digital infrastructure.”

Bloomberg reported that Palantir’s position in Europe is weakening, with security agencies in Germany and Poland actively seeking local providers. The Dutch Defense Minister pledged to replace Palantir with European vendors. In July, two British startups founded by former Palantir employees secured funding aimed directly at challenging their former employer.

At the center of these developments, ChapsVision has secured contracts across French government ministries and public institutions. According to Bloomberg Intelligence estimates, the DGSI contract alone is worth at least €100 million. Politico reported in May that Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the BfV, selected ChapsVision to replace its existing arrangement with Palantir.

In an interview, ChapsVision Chief Executive Officer Silvano Sansoni said: “Our objective is to become a European champion.”

Sansoni stated that the company is currently in talks with all sensitive clients in Poland, adding that Germany represents its primary strategic focus in the near term. Acknowledging that ChapsVision cannot immediately replace Palantir’s full capabilities for French intelligence, Sansoni said: “The technology is complex, so we will not replace Palantir tomorrow.”

Industry experts interviewed by Bloomberg highlighted potential risks associated with the sovereign push. Retired General Richard Barrons, former commander of the UK’s Joint Forces Command, remarked: “Locking Palantir out would be madness. You cut yourself off from world-leading capability.”

Nick Patience, an analyst at The Futurum Group, observed that achieving 100% sovereignty in an interconnected world is unlikely. Patience pointed to ChapsVision’s partnership with Alcatel Lucent Enterprise, a company majority-owned by the Chinese state-owned enterprise China Huaxin.

Bloomberg reported that following Trump’s decision to ban foreign access to the Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models, Europe and Canada resolved to urgently develop sovereign AI capabilities to avoid dependency on foreign policy decisions.

In early June, the Financial Times reported, citing sources, that the US National Security Agency (NSA) could deploy Anthropic’s Claude Mythos model to execute cyber operations.

One source noted that the system could be utilized to penetrate network infrastructure in countries such as China or Iran.

The British government is refusing to disclose how much a pharmaceutical pricing agreement struck with Donald Trump will cost the National Health Service (NHS).

A letter obtained by Politico and sent by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to the Nuffield Trust, an independent healthcare think tank, reveals that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) accepted that releasing its impact assessment was “in the public interest,” given the “potential impacts on NHS spending.”

However, the department argued that releasing this information would “prejudice ongoing policy development, international relations, and commercial interests.”

As part of the agreement signed in December, the UK committed to doubling its spending on new medicines as a proportion of its gross domestic product in exchange for three years of tariff-free access to the US pharmaceutical market.

The deal included a 25% increase in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) annual cost threshold.

This has resulted in the NHS paying more for certain new medicines.

Reviewing the DHSC’s refusal to publish the assessment, the ICO sided with the Health Ministry, agreeing that keeping the cost information confidential better served the interests of taxpayers.

A DHSC spokesperson said:

“This government has made clear that the UK-US pharmaceutical pricing agreement will cost around £1 billion over the current Spending Review period, and that this cost will be met through the record settlement agreed for the Department of Health and Social Care.”

In its letter, the ICO stated that “key aspects of implementation are still under active consideration… meaning any impact assessment may well change as policy development progresses.”

The ICO disclosed that ongoing discussions extend beyond pharmaceutical pricing and rebate arrangements.

Officials are still negotiating how the deal will interact with the Trump administration’s forthcoming most-favored-nation (MFN) drug pricing policy.

The UK believed it had secured an exemption from the MFN policy, under which the US will match the prices of a basket of wealthy nations.

Pharmaceutical companies have warned that rather than accepting lower prices in the US, they could delay the launch of new medicines in those countries.

Diarmaid McDonald, executive director of Just Treatment, a campaign group for medicine access, said: “By the very nature of these deals with the White House, the goalposts keep moving, and it is deeply concerning that there are differences between the US and the UK over the interpretation of what has been agreed.”

According to an analysis published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ), some economists estimate that the agreement could lead to up to £45 billion being diverted from existing NHS services to fund additional pharmaceutical spending.

“DHSC argued that disclosure would undermine the safe space needed for ministers and officials to probe assumptions, test scenarios, and refine policy options while relevant discussions are ongoing,” the ICO said.

Sally Gainsbury, a policy analyst at the Nuffield Trust, said: “The risk to the NHS and the cost to public health in this deal are now indisputable. This is a very compelling reason for the public, through our elected MPs, to be able to scrutinize whether this deal aligns with the government’s assumptions regarding broader economic benefits.”

“The fact that this is an agreement we can walk away from makes it even more important,” Gainsbury added, noting that either party could withdraw from the deal with six months’ notice.

Figures across the health sector hope that the new administration led by Andy Burnham will scrutinize the deal, particularly given the prime minister’s emphasis on devolution.

“He [Burnham] said he wants to see good growth in every postcode,” Gainsbury of the Nuffield Trust said. “Can a deal that imposes such heavy costs on population health and on what the NHS can deliver to patients be considered good growth? That is my question to Andy Burnham.”

McDonald of Just Treatment argued that devolved administrations had been excluded from the negotiations:

“Nobody in the Scottish government, the Welsh government, or at Stormont in Belfast knows the details of this deal, even though their health systems will be directly affected by its outcome. Therefore, if Andy Burnham stands by his word, he must commit to opening up this negotiation process and transferring all agreed details to these devolved administrations, shifting power away from this tightly guarded negotiation in Westminster.”

The European Commission on Thursday fined Google €890 million for anti-competitive practices in breach of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The world’s leading search engine routinely displays results that primarily benefit its own enterprise in prime positions, while links belonging to rival companies appear further down the page.

In some instances, Google presents an in-house “AI-powered overview” designed to inform the user directly.

In other searches, the engine responds first with its proprietary mapping service, Google Maps, or with “sponsored products”—advertisements paid for by businesses seeking top-tier placement in search results.

While this structure serves Google’s commercial interests, it can disadvantage consumers and competing firms. Alternative mapping services or shopping portals, for example, are denied privileged access to Google’s vast user base.

The EU principally accuses Google of favoring its own digital offerings, such as Google Shopping, within Google Search.

“Similar third-party services do not enjoy the same visibility,” the Commission stated, calling for greater fairness in search indexing.

EU Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera emphasized: “The best products should stand out because they are superior, not because they belong to the company operating the search engine.”

Brussels further accuses the tech giant of restricting developers from offering applications—some of which are less expensive—on alternative app stores outside of Google Play.

Through the imposition of this fine, the Commission is demanding that Google cease both infractions of the DMA.

Google sharply criticized the financial penalty on Thursday. Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, argued that “this enforcement of the DMA once again undermines services that people rely on every day.”

The ruling, according to the company, will force it to strip away search features that European users value, such as integrated hotel price comparisons.

“This is not fair competition; it is a degradation of product quality driven by a small group of self-interested complainants,” Walker asserted.

Google contended that when users search for flights, for instance, they expect to enter specific dates and instantly review real-time pricing and availability.

The company plans to examine the decision thoroughly and stated that it retains the option to appeal.

In principle, Google holds the legal right to challenge the fine in court. Theoretically, the litigation could reach the Court of Justice of the European Union following a prolonged legal procedure.

The “gatekeeper problem”—arising when dominant platforms such as Google or Apple serve as primary entry points to the internet—has long driven concern among policymakers and consumer advocates.

“When gatekeepers prioritize their own services, it causes direct harm to rivals and consumers alike,” said Miika Blinn of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations.

The consumer advocate also drew attention to the extensive volume of personal data users are compelled to surrender to dominant digital gatekeepers.

Enacted in 2023, the DMA aims to prevent systemic tech gatekeepers from favoring their own proprietary products over comparable third-party services.

The legislation is also designed to guarantee that consumers can freely select their preferred web browsers and search engines, whether they operate an Apple device or a smartphone running Google’s Android operating system.

Through these measures, the EU seeks to prevent tech conglomerates from leveraging market dominance in one segment to expand control over adjacent sectors, continuously compounding their market power.

The regulatory framework has drawn fierce criticism from US corporations and President Donald Trump.

Apple, for instance, mounted a legal challenge contesting its designation as a “gatekeeper,” but recently lost the case before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, urged US President Trump to take international action against governments attempting to impose regulatory restrictions on technology firms.

Following an EU fine imposed on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, the US administration went so far as to threaten retaliatory measures.

Trump warned Brussels that he would view financial penalties levied against US tech companies as tariffs and would respond with retaliatory tariffs.

Reports indicate that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen repeatedly delayed the DMA fine against Google to avoid alienating the US, a key and challenging trade partner.

Consequently, many industry observers view the €890 million penalty against Google as a critical litmus test of whether the EU can enforce its digital regulations despite intense foreign resistance.

The Google proceeding also illustrates the lengthy timeline of EU enforcement actions. Two years and approximately four months elapsed between the formal initiation of the case and the announcement of the fine.

For this reason, civil society groups including LobbyControl and Corporate Europe Observatory had voiced complaints prior to the announcement, alleging that the EU had “significantly delayed” enforcement of the DMA.

In 2017, under a separate antitrust proceeding, the European Commission fined Google and its parent company Alphabet €2.4 billion for favoring its Google Shopping service over rival aggregators such as Idealo.

That legal dispute subsequently advanced to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which upheld the €2.4 billion penalty in late 2024.