Who decides on our freedom of speech: a Dutch court or the American president? Lately it has become painfully clear that both can block opinions they dislike. It is good that a Dutch court can do that — but let's all make sure White House whims cannot do the same.
The current US administration has a view of foreign policy that differs fundamentally from how we in Europe think about cooperation. We see other countries as partners to work with; US policy increasingly seems aimed at influencing us and supporting far-right parties such as AfD and Reform UK. This goes beyond America's own interests; they also have an opinion on how we live together in Europe. Read more about this policy
How much influence does the US really have?
The risk of surveillance has always been there. Microsoft stated under oath in the French Senate that it secretly shares data with US intelligence services. That means we do not know exactly how often this happens. This spring a concrete case was revealed: Microsoft emails of Dutch civil servants working on the Digital Services Act were handed over to US authorities (NL Times). We would hardly call them the most controversial people — so who knows what other data Americans are requesting.
The 'kill switch' and real threats
More openly, there is another danger: the 'kill switch'. That is why it has been in the news more often. Media occasionally cover International Criminal Court judges and prosecutors sanctioned by the US. So far the ICC as an organisation has not been fully shut down, but the tone has hardened and the risk is real (NOS).
In recent weeks, Autistici/Inventati was added to that picture. This is a small Italian foundation that provides website and email hosting to left-wing organisations. They were suddenly placed on the US sanctions list. It is highly questionable whether a US court would have approved this, because platforms there are typically not held responsible for the content of messages — Facebook and Twitter hide behind that principle. A US or Italian court turned out not to be needed at all: the White House decision had immediate effect. Their donation platform and .org domain stopped working within days — both provided by US companies. Their Italian bank, Banca Etica, also closed the account — virtually all payments still go through US companies such as Mastercard or Visa (NRC).
Not by the US government, but still connected to it: Meta censors advertising for a theatre production because it promotes feminism (The Guardian). And feminism is far less contested in the US than queer rights or even international cooperation.
Is this a trial run?
Autistici/Inventati was only a small foundation, so it may well have been a trial from the White House. If so, the trial succeeded. With relatively little fuss, the goal was reached. What if more organisations face this next? Will politics act if a larger organisation is hit? The risk is already so real that various ICT companies no longer want to supply the International Criminal Court.
Meanwhile, more US court rulings and precedents have given the president more power. The president can now dismiss the leaders of almost all previously independent regulators. It is an open question whether storing personal data with US companies is still safe — though our leaders keep kicking that can down the road. Read more
Why wait?
The International Criminal Court is highly visible — yet it remains conspicuously quiet because everyone thinks it will not happen to them. How sure are you that you will not be targeted if Trump and Vance openly support the AfD? Why a small Italian foundation hosting a left-wing website, and not a Dutch foundation defending LGBTQ+ rights? How many books banned by Republicans sit in your school library?
As an organisation it is almost impossible to work around the full set of sanctions. Without a bank account, operating in the twenty-first century is hard. There you depend on international payment systems. Beyond that, most organisations are heavily dependent on the US. What would happen to your organisation if Google, Microsoft and AWS blocked your account overnight?
What can we do?
That is why we need to move on every level:
- The European Central Bank is already working on an independent payment system
- The Dutch government can insure our companies against sanctions
- Organisations can make their ICT digitally sovereign
All three actions help ensure that White House decisions have less impact on us. That is true practically — and as a signal that we will not simply take it.
No surprise that we speak to more and more organisations that want to become digitally sovereign. More local businesses, schools and NGOs that want to reduce their dependence on the US. De Nederlandsche Bank — hardly a poster child for rapid change — is already bringing our gold back from the US (read more).
Alternatives exist
More alternatives are also emerging. DataOwn was founded because there were limited options in the Netherlands to move away from Power BI, especially for smaller organisations. That is often an easy first step toward digital sovereignty. We offer a ready-to-use Business Intelligence platform where data-driven work is central and more employees can answer their own data questions. We have also kept vendor lock-in as small as possible — even without us, you can continue without starting over as with big-tech BI platforms.
Digital sovereignty starts with awareness, but ends with action. The question is no longer whether we depend on the US — but whether we still want to.