The battle for digital sovereignty in Europe has just gained an influential player in the debate. Google, through its top legal and global affairs executive, Kent Walker, has warned the European Union that an overly restrictive approach—aimed at reducing external technological dependence by erecting barriers—could end up being “counterproductive.” The message arrives as Brussels prepares a “technological sovereignty” package scheduled for spring 2026, while at the same time, various European public institutions are accelerating their shift toward local and open-source alternatives.
The warning was issued in an interview published on February 13, 2026, where Walker described a “competitive paradox”: Europe seeks to promote growth and productivity, but risks limiting access to cutting-edge technologies that could actually help achieve those goals. According to his argument, the issue isn’t that the EU is seeking more control and resilience, but how that sovereignty is interpreted—as a barrier to global providers and tools.
Digital sovereignty: from regulation to infrastructure (and software)
The European Union has been strengthening its regulatory role over the digital ecosystem for years. Regulations like the DMA (Digital Markets Act) and the DSA (Digital Services Act) have increased demands for transparency, competition, and accountability for major platforms. But the 2026 debate goes beyond regulation: it touches on the very architecture of Europe’s digital economy, from cloud and data to the software used by administrations and sectors deemed critical.
At its core, the issue is twofold. On one hand, dependence: if essential services rely on external providers, there’s concern over disruptions, political pressures, or contractual changes beyond European control. On the other, industry: if Europe wants to develop its own technological champions, it needs to create domestic demand, build capabilities, and foster a more sustainable ecosystem.
This tension has intensified in recent months due to the geopolitical climate and fears of a transatlantic “tech disconnect.” Simultaneously, concrete movements are emerging where administrations replace American commercial tools with European or open-source alternatives, emphasizing security and data protection as key priorities.
The economic argument for open-source software (with figures on the table)
Europe’s pivot toward open-source software is supported not just by political or cultural narratives. The European Commission has explicitly cited the economic impact of open code: a study commissioned by the EU estimates that companies in the union invested around 1 billion euros in open-source software in 2018, with a positive impact of between 65 billion and 95 billion euros on the European economy. The same report states that a 10% increase in open-source contributions could generate an additional 0.4% to 0.6% of GDP annually and create more than 600 new ICT startups across the EU.
Within this framework, Brussels isn’t just talking about “using local software”: it also emphasizes avoiding vendor lock-in, reducing total cost of ownership in the public sector, and gaining autonomy over critical digital components. This vision of sovereignty isn’t limited to buying “European,” but in being able to audit, control, and switch without being trapped.
Google’s response: “Open Sovereignty” and hybrid alliances
Google doesn’t openly challenge Europe’s desire for more control. Its disagreement lies in the “how.” Walker proposes a concept that the company calls “open digital sovereignty”: a hybrid model combining local control over data, regulatory compliance, and operation with the ability to continue using global technology when necessary.
According to his statements, this approach involves alliances between U.S. and European companies, so that data storage and governance can be maintained under European rules—including localization when applicable—without abandoning cutting-edge tools, especially as AI advances rapidly. Walker also argued that “building walls” that hinder access to “the world’s best technology” could ultimately harm European companies and consumers.
This isn’t a minor point: if sovereignty frameworks effectively translate into bans or rapid, rigid substitution of technologies, the transition could become more expensive, slower, and less competitive. Google also seeks to reinforce its position by highlighting its longstanding presence in Europe: Walker publicly noted that the company has been active in Europe for over 25 years and employs more than 30,000 people across 42 offices.
The debate widens: “total sovereignty” versus “layered sovereignty”
The discussion isn’t limited to Google. Meanwhile, voices within Europe’s tech sector are also questioning the idea of “total” sovereignty. Capgemini CEO Aiman Ezzat dismissed the notion of absolute technological sovereignty, arguing that no country controls the entire value chain needed to deliver full digital services. His proposal is to view autonomy as a set of layers—data, operations, regulation, and technology—where Europe can be stronger in some areas than others, and tailor strategies based on use cases.
This “layered” approach reflects an uncomfortable reality: even with open-source software, much of the market still depends on infrastructures, chips, cloud services, supply chains, and a global developer ecosystem. In 2026, sovereignty resembles less an on/off switch and more a control dashboard with degrees of independence.
What next? Digital sovereignty enters its most practical phase
Spring 2026 will be a turning point, as the EU must translate its “technological sovereignty package” into operational decisions: requirements, certifications, public procurement, sovereign cloud, interoperability standards, and criteria for critical infrastructure.
If Brussels prioritizes open-source software, it will also need to address another major challenge: funding and sustainability. Open source may be “free” in licensing, but it’s not free to maintain, audit, or secure. In fact, the European Commission has already emphasized that its strategy involves encouraging reuse, sharing solutions, and strengthening open source policies moving forward. The debate here isn’t just ideological; it involves industrial, budget, and security considerations.
Meanwhile, Google advocates for a balanced approach: sovereignty yes, but without isolation. Europe aims to avoid dependence becoming a vulnerability. And companies—from SMEs to large operators—are watching the landscape with a simple question: which model offers the most certainty, least risk, and better capacity to innovate?
Frequently Asked Questions
What does “open digital sovereignty” mean according to Google?
It’s a hybrid approach aiming to maintain local data control and regulatory compliance within Europe, without fully excluding global technologies. The idea relies on partnerships between European and U.S. companies to blend control with access to innovation.
Where does the figure of 65 to 95 billion euros linked to open-source software come from?
It derives from a study published by the European Commission on the economic impact of open hardware and software in Europe, estimating that this range of annual contribution results from investments and reuse of open code.
Can a large-scale migration to open-source software improve cybersecurity?
It depends. Open source facilitates auditing and transparency, but real security requires ongoing maintenance, rapid patching, dependency review, and skilled teams to operate and monitor systems. Without proper funding and governance, risks remain.
Which European sectors could be most affected by decisions around digital sovereignty?
Primarily sectors managing critical infrastructure or sensitive data: public administration, healthcare, energy, telecommunications, defense, banking, and large platforms dependent on cloud, collaboration tools, and large-scale productivity software.