logo
Europe's growing fear: How Trump might use US tech dominance against it

Europe's growing fear: How Trump might use US tech dominance against it

Miami Herald4 hours ago

LONDON -- When President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February against the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for investigating Israel for war crimes, Microsoft was suddenly thrust into the middle of a geopolitical fight.
For years, Microsoft had supplied the court -- which is based in The Hague in the Netherlands and investigates and prosecutes human rights breaches, genocides and other crimes of international concern -- with digital services such as email. Trump's order abruptly threw that relationship into disarray by barring U.S. companies from providing services to the prosecutor, Karim Khan.
Soon after, Microsoft, which is based in Redmond, Washington, helped turn off Khan's ICC email account, freezing him out of communications with colleagues just a few months after the court had issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for his country's actions in the Gaza Strip.
Microsoft's swift compliance with Trump's order, reported earlier by The Associated Press, shocked policymakers across Europe. It was a wake-up call for a problem far bigger than just one email account, stoking fears that the Trump administration would leverage America's tech dominance to penalize opponents, even in allied countries like the Netherlands.
'The ICC showed this can happen,' said Bart Groothuis, a former head of cybersecurity for the Dutch Ministry of Defense who is now a member of the European Parliament. 'It's not just fantasy.'
Groothuis once supported U.S. tech firms but has done a '180-degree flip-flop,' he said. 'We have to take steps as Europe to do more for our sovereignty.'
Some at the ICC are now using Proton, a Swiss company that provides encrypted email services, three people with knowledge of the communications said.
Microsoft said the decision to suspend Khan's email had been made in consultation with the ICC. The company said it had since enacted policy changes that had been in the works before the episode to protect customers in similar geopolitical situations in the future. When the Trump administration sanctioned four additional ICC judges this month, their email accounts were not suspended, the company said.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, said concerns raised by the ICC episode were a 'symptom' of a larger erosion of trust between the United States and Europe. 'The ICC issue added fuel to a fire that was already burning,' he said.
Khan has been on leave from the ICC since last month, pending a sexual misconduct investigation. He has denied the allegations.
An ICC spokesperson said it was taking steps to 'mitigate risks which may affect the court's personnel' and 'taking extensive measures to ensure the continuity of all relevant operations and services in the face of sanctions.'
The episode has set off alarms across Europe about how dependent European governments, businesses and citizens are on U.S. tech companies like Microsoft for essential digital infrastructure -- and how hard it will be to disentangle themselves. Concerns about how else Trump might leverage technology for political advantage has jump-started efforts across the region to develop alternatives.
Casper Klynge, a former Danish and European Union diplomat who worked for Microsoft, said the episode was in many ways the 'smoking gun that many Europeans had been looking for.'
'If the U.S. administration goes after certain organizations, countries or individuals, the fear is American companies are obligated to comply,' said Klynge, who now works for a cybersecurity company. 'It's had a profound impact.'
The tech debate adds to an increasingly fractious U.S.-European relationship over trade, tariffs and the war in Ukraine. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have criticized how Europe regulates U.S. tech companies, and U.S. officials have made digital oversight and taxation part of ongoing trade negotiations.
European regulators have argued that they need to be able to police the biggest digital platforms in their own countries without worrying that they will face political pressure and punishment from a foreign government.
'If we don't build adequate capacity within Europe, then we won't be able to make political choices anymore,' said Alexandra Geese, a member of the European Parliament.
Since Edward Snowden's leak of scores of documents in 2013 detailing widespread U.S. surveillance of digital communications, Europeans have sought to diminish their reliance on U.S. tech. Lawmakers and regulators have targeted Apple, Meta, Google and others for anticompetitive business practices, privacy-invading services, and the spread of disinformation and other divisive content.
Yet without viable alternatives, institutions across the region have turned to U.S. digital services. Amazon, Google, Microsoft and other U.S. firms control more than 70% of the cloud computing market in Europe, which is the essential way for storing files, retrieving data and running other programs, according to Synergy Research Group.
The ICC has been a longtime customer of Microsoft, which provides the court with services including the Office software suite and software for evidence analysis and file storage, according to an ICC lawyer who declined to be identified discussing internal procedures. Microsoft has also provided cybersecurity software to help the court withstand digital attacks from adversaries like Russia, which is being investigated for war crimes in Ukraine.
In February, after Trump issued penalties against Khan, Microsoft met with ICC officials to decide how to respond. They concluded that Microsoft's broader work for the court could continue but that Khan's email should be suspended. He switched his correspondence to another email account, said a person who has communicated with him.
Sara Elizabeth Dill, a lawyer who specializes in sanctions compliance, said the Trump administration was increasingly using sanctions and executive orders to target international institutions, universities and other organizations, forcing companies to make hard choices about how to comply.
'This is a quagmire and places these corporations in a very difficult position,' she said. How tech companies with global services respond is especially important, she added, 'as the broad repercussions are what people and organizations are primarily worried about.'
Microsoft and other U.S. companies have sought to reassure European customers. On Monday, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella visited the Netherlands and announced new 'sovereign solutions' for European institutions, including legal and data security protections for 'a time of geopolitical volatility.' Amazon and Google have also announced policies aimed at European customers.
Still, many institutions are exploring alternatives. In the Netherlands, the 'subject of digital autonomy and sovereignty has the full attention of the central government,' Eddie van Marum, the state secretary of digitalization in the Ministry of Interior Affairs, said in a statement. The country is working with European providers on new solutions, he said.
In Denmark, the digital ministry is testing alternatives to Microsoft Office. In Germany, the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein is also taking steps to cut its use of Microsoft.
In the European Union, officials have announced plans to spend billions of euros on new artificial intelligence data centers and cloud computing infrastructure that rely less on U.S. companies. Groothuis, the Dutch member of the European Parliament, said lawmakers in Brussels were discussing policy changes that would encourage governments to favor buying tech services from EU-based companies.
'The situation is not tenable, and we see a big push from European governments to become more independent and more resilient,' said Andy Yen, CEO of Proton.
European tech companies see an opportunity to win customers from their U.S. rivals. Cloud service providers like Intermax Group, based in the Netherlands, and Exoscale, based in Switzerland, said they had seen a jump in new business.
'A few years ago, everyone was saying, 'They're our trusted partners,'' Ludo Baauw, Intermax's CEO, said of U.S. tech companies. 'There's been a radical change.'
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Copyright 2025

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Charter upgraded to Peer Perform from Underperform at Wolfe Research
Charter upgraded to Peer Perform from Underperform at Wolfe Research

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Charter upgraded to Peer Perform from Underperform at Wolfe Research

Wolfe Research upgraded Charter (CHTR) to Peer Perform from Underperform without a price target President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' seems likely to reinstate 100% bonus depreciation, the analyst tells investors in a research note. Wolfe estimates the five major connectivity providers could cumulatively gain $10.5B of cash tax relief in 2025 alone . Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>> See today's best-performing stocks on TipRanks >> Read More on CHTR: Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue Charter price target raised to $425 from $400 at UBS Nucor, Charter, Senseonics, Shake Shack, Altimmune: Trending by Analysts Boeing upgraded, PayPal initiated: Wall Street's top analyst calls Charter downgraded to Market Perform from Outperform at Bernstein Charter Communications: Hold Rating Amidst Growth and Competitive Challenges Sign in to access your portfolio

Which Vanguard ETFs Have Beaten Warren Buffett's Favorite ETF Since Inception?
Which Vanguard ETFs Have Beaten Warren Buffett's Favorite ETF Since Inception?

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Which Vanguard ETFs Have Beaten Warren Buffett's Favorite ETF Since Inception?

Only two Vanguard ETFs have outperformed Buffett's favorite ETF over the long run. Both of these winners focus on large-cap growth stocks. 10 stocks we like better than Vanguard Scottsdale Funds - Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF › Warren Buffett has dropped enough hints to ascertain that his favorite exchange-traded fund (ETF) is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO). This ETF has been a huge winner historically, but which Vanguard ETFs have beaten Buffett's favorite ETF since inception? Only two make the list: the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund ETF (NASDAQ: VONG) and the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF (NYSEMKT: VOOG). Of Vanguard's 94 ETFs, the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF has been the best performer over the long run. This fund's average annual return since its inception on Sept. 20, 2010, is an impressive 16.4%. By comparison, the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF's average annual return since its inception on Sept. 7, 2010, is 14.24%. This Vanguard ETF attempts to track the return of the Russell 1000 Growth Index. The index includes growth stocks in the large-cap Russell 1000 index. The Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF currently owns 392 stocks. Its largest positions are Microsoft, Nvidia, Apple, Amazon, and Meta Platforms. Not so coincidentally, these are also the five largest holdings of the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. Many of the stocks in the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund ETF are also in the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, so how has it delivered such a higher average annual return? One key is that the ETF's focus on growth stocks eliminates some of the S&P 500 members that don't typically generate outstanding returns. Granted, there is at least one way that the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF beats the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF. Its annual expense ratio of 0.03% is lower than the latter's expense ratio of 0.07%. Of course, that small difference doesn't matter much with the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF's higher returns. Also, if you're interested in income, you'll probably prefer the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. Its 30-day SEC yield (which reflects a fund's projected annual dividend yield over a trailing-30-day period) is 1.24%, versus only 0.53% for the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF. Since the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF has outperformed the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF over the long term, it isn't surprising that the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF has also been a bigger winner. This Vanguard ETF has delivered an average annual return since its inception on Sept. 7, 2010, of 16.01%. Like the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF only includes stocks in the S&P 500. However, it's even more exclusive by limiting the pool to growth stocks. The fund currently owns 212 stocks. Its top holdings are similar to those of the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, but not exactly alike: Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta Platforms, Apple, and Broadcom. The main disadvantages of the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF compared to the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF are the same as those mentioned for the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF. The fund's annual expense ratio of 0.07% is a little higher. Its 30-day SEC yield of 0.55% is lower. If you wanted to beat Buffett's favorite ETF in the past, the only Vanguard ETFs to have pulled it off since inception are the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund ETF and the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF. However, there's a more important question: Which Vanguard ETFs are most likely to outperform the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF over the long term? I think the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF and the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF would likely make the list again. Their focus on stocks that deliver strong growth could give these ETFs an edge. It's important to note, though, that over multiple decades, small-cap value stocks have typically outperformed other asset classes. With this in mind, the top Vanguard ETFs to own in the future just might include the Vanguard S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF (NYSEMKT: VIOV) and the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (NYSEMKT: VBR). Only time will tell. Before you buy stock in Vanguard Scottsdale Funds - Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Vanguard Scottsdale Funds - Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Keith Speights has positions in Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, and Microsoft. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool recommends Broadcom and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Which Vanguard ETFs Have Beaten Warren Buffett's Favorite ETF Since Inception? was originally published by The Motley Fool

California will do anything to protect immigrants — except build them housing
California will do anything to protect immigrants — except build them housing

San Francisco Chronicle​

timean hour ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

California will do anything to protect immigrants — except build them housing

Over the past several weeks, hundreds of thousands of Californians have taken to the streets to protest the Trump administration's increasingly authoritarian efforts to deport the state's undocumented population. There's a moral imperative behind these protests; the vast majority of the people being targeted by federal agents are law-abiding workers with no criminal records. There's a practical one, too: This state cannot function without its migrant workers, particularly our agricultural sector. It isn't just that undocumented workers will accept lower wages than their American counterparts. Farming is hard, skilled labor. Absent changes to federal immigration policy that would allow and incentivize more migrants to come here legally, California doesn't have the trained workforce it needs to feed itself and the nation. (We accounted for 41% of the country's vegetable sales in 2022.) And so, Californians and our politicians have rightly gone to battle with President Donald Trump. Yet as supportive as this editorial board is of these efforts, we'd be remiss if we didn't call something out: This state needs to become as passionate about housing our essential workers as it is about fighting Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It's been just over two and a half years since the deadly shootings in Half Moon Bay put the Dickensian living conditions of California's farmworkers — the vast majority of whom are undocumented — on the national radar. For decades, California had allowed its migrant workers to live in overcrowded, mold-filled housing with bacteria-ridden drinking water. That's if it housed them at all. What's changed? Not nearly enough, according to San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, whose district includes the site of the 2023 massacre. Building housing on farmland in his district has proven to be a logistical challenge amid drainage issues, sewage concerns and access to drinkable water. Yet trying to build worker housing off-site hits an even more intractable roadblock. 'The coastal community is, by a large majority, supportive of farmworkers,' he said. 'The opposition you run into is around density.' San Mateo County is hardly unique in this regard. In Marin County, for instance, an effort to build housing for the workers, many undocumented, being displaced by the closure of ranches in the Point Reyes National Seashore has been met with a lawsuit by NIMBY groups. This is, of course, unacceptable. And yet, state and local rules still too often empower obstructionism. Mueller said the arduous progress San Mateo County has made in building farmworker housing was mostly achieved using emergency powers that streamlined the usual permitting processes. 'The state was wonderful in getting our project moving,' Mueller said. 'We just need to do that at scale across the state.' We're nowhere close. In 2024, California lawmakers passed a measure to exempt farmworker housing up to 150 units from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. However, this streamlining applied to only two counties: Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. A bill in the state Legislature, AB457 from Assembly Member Esmerelda Soria, D-Merced, would expand those streamlining measures to Fresno, Madera and Merced counties. Over 40% of the state's land is used for agriculture. We're never going to get anywhere with a drip-drop of county-by-county CEQA carve-outs. Assembly Member Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, told the editorial board he'd be supportive of an effort to expand CEQA streamlining to his district and perhaps even statewide. But even that wouldn't be enough, Mueller said. For many Bay Area farming communities, the California Coastal Commission has its own separate and arduous permitting process. Without streamlining bills to cover this and CEQA, little progress will be made. And now an even greater challenge comes from the Trump administration. Farmworker-specific housing makes easy pickings for federal raids. Mueller says he fears his efforts to build new farmworker housing may have inadvertently 'put a target on the back' of the people he's spent years trying to help. This fear isn't theoretical. Gov. Gavin Newsom's office recently issued a press release saying that federal deportation authorities requested and received the addresses and immigration status of Medi-Cal recipients after the state expanded health insurance benefits to low-income undocumented workers. Tailored government efforts for the undocumented risk creating a paper trail that puts them in danger. 'It is clear that we must reassess our programs to ensure we are doing all we can to protect the personal information of our community,' incoming state Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, D-Santa Barbara, told the editorial board. We don't have the answer to this quandary on the health care front. But California can do something for migrant workers as it relates to housing — something Limón and too many other California politicians have been reluctant to do. Make it easier to build. AB457 is an admission from legislators that CEQA creates onerous and unnecessary impediments to development. Yet housing streamlining bills such as SB79 from San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener, which would exempt developments near transit from CEQA review, provided they comply with local affordable housing mandates and other criteria, are receiving immense political pushback. Undocumented renters in California have virtually the same rights as everyone else in the private rental market under the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act. And landlords are prohibited from disclosing, or typically even asking about, immigration status. But without an adequate housing supply, those protections go to waste. Can most undocumented workers afford to buy a shiny new condo? Almost certainly not. But they could potentially move into older units that open up when other renters decide to buy. And they certainly could benefit from the development of new mother-in-law units — such as those that might have been built had cities like San Diego not just rolled back their accessory dwelling unit laws in the face of community opposition. If California is willing to fight the federal government to keep its undocumented residents here, it should also be willing to fight to ensure they don't live in squalor.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store