Europe is accelerating the reduction of its dependence on US technology. This isn’t just a political matter: the risk has become operational. When critical infrastructure depends on a non-European supplier, access, terms, and service continuity can change overnight, based on decisions made elsewhere. The cases gathered by Wired make this clear: digital sovereignty is no longer a slogan — it’s an infrastructure choice.
Until recently, the European debate on digital sovereignty stayed mostly at the level of rules, privacy, and competition. Today the question governments and businesses are asking is more concrete: who controls the tools we work with every day?
In most cases, the answer still runs through the United States: productivity software, cloud services, code repositories, search engines, AI models. It’s precisely this dependence that is pushing public bodies and European organizations to look for more controllable alternatives — often open source, often hosted in Europe. One case stands out: German domestic intelligence has chosen ArgonOS, developed by the French company ChapsVision, over Palantir — a significant shift, in a field where control over one’s own data is anything but negotiable.
According to Wired’s reporting, which has documented dozens of similar cases, the organizations involved include the city of Lyon, the Austrian Armed Forces, Schleswig-Holstein, the Dutch government, DNS Belgium, DINUM in France, and the European Parliament. These are very different entities — local administrations, EU institutions, research bodies, critical infrastructure operators — but they’re driven by the same motivation: regaining control over data, software, and essential infrastructure.
And this isn’t just about everyday office tools. In several cases, the issue runs deeper: where the data is stored, who controls the code, how easy it is to switch providers without disrupting operations. Digital sovereignty, in this sense, isn’t “replacing Word with LibreOffice” — it’s rethinking the entire stack a modern administration relies on, from the cloud to code repositories to collaboration platforms.
What does the Anthropic precedent teach us about AI sovereignty?
The issue isn’t limited to traditional software — it extends to the most advanced AI models as well. In June 2026, access to two frontier AI models was suspended for several weeks for non-US users, due to export controls imposed by the US government; once the controls were lifted, access was restored. An episode resolved quickly, but a precedent worth remembering: even a technology considered strategic can end up constrained by a decision made outside the control of those who use it. We covered this in more detail in our dedicated article on the case.
For Europe, the signal is clear: sovereign AI isn’t just a matter of rules, it’s also about infrastructure, computing power, proprietary models, distribution, and continuity of access.
Is open source enough to guarantee independence?
Among the cases gathered by Wired, open source keeps coming up as a practical way to move away from US platforms: LibreOffice, Nextcloud, Open-Xchange, Thunderbird, Linux, Forgejo, OnlyOffice, alongside various public initiatives built specifically for this purpose.
Choosing open source software isn’t enough on its own to claim independence, but it remains one of the most concrete paths currently available for gaining more control and transparency over what you use. The catch, if anything, is the cost: it takes migration, staff training, and interoperability work. This isn’t a matter of principle — it’s a real organizational investment.
Why digital dependence weighs more than before
The central point isn’t that Europe wants to replace every American technology with a local equivalent. The point is reducing the risk of depending on a handful of dominant suppliers in critical areas, in order to have more autonomy to choose. That’s why digital sovereignty is becoming an operational criterion in procurement and migration decisions. European initiatives don’t erase existing dependence, but they make it less rigid and, in some cases, less vulnerable.
Wired’s analysis confirms another important point: fully cutting ties with US technology is, in the short term, probably unrealistic. The European Parliament report cited by Wired notes that US-based companies still dominate nearly every level of Europe’s digital stack. From cloud to AI, from cybersecurity to mobile operating systems, Europe remains deeply intertwined with American Big Tech. That’s exactly why the changes underway matter: they don’t signal a total break, but a process of reducing dependence that is already in motion.
The new priority
Europe isn’t just wary of dependence on Big Tech — it’s wary of essential tools becoming less accessible or more constrained by decisions made elsewhere.
That’s why digital sovereignty is becoming a concrete priority for governments, institutions, and businesses: not to close off, but to stay open without losing control. In other words, it’s not about swapping one supplier for another — it’s about building a system where operational continuity doesn’t depend on the will of external actors.
Frequently asked questions
What does digital sovereignty mean? The ability of an organization or a state to maintain control over data, software, and critical infrastructure, without rigidly depending on a small number of external suppliers, so it can change course when needed.
Does digital sovereignty mean abandoning US technology? No. It means reducing dependence on a limited number of dominant suppliers in the most critical areas, not systematically replacing every American technology with a European alternative.
Does open source automatically guarantee more sovereignty? Not on its own. It helps increase control and transparency, but it requires real investment in migration, training, and governance to become a concrete advantage rather than just a matter of principle.
Sources:
