Europe’s Growing Fear: How Trump Might Use U.S. Tech Dominance Against It

In February, when former U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigating alleged war crimes by Israel, Microsoft unexpectedly found itself caught in the crossfire of a complex international controversy.

The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, is an international body responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of serious crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. For many years, Microsoft had provided the ICC with essential digital tools—including email and cloud-based services—as part of its broader digital infrastructure. But with Trump’s executive directive prohibiting American firms from engaging with ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, the tech giant was forced to rethink its longstanding collaboration with the court.

Shortly after the executive order came into effect, Microsoft—based in Redmond, Washington—took the significant step of deactivating Mr. Khan’s ICC email account. The action left him unable to correspond through official channels, a particularly disruptive consequence given that this occurred only a few months after the court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the country’s military actions in Gaza.

The company’s swift adherence to the executive order, as initially reported by The Associated Press, sent shockwaves through Europe’s political and legal communities. What appeared on the surface as a single account being disabled quickly came to symbolize a much larger issue: the extent to which U.S. political directives could affect international institutions, even in friendly or allied nations.

Bart Groothuis, a former cybersecurity head for the Dutch Ministry of Defense and now a member of the European Parliament, said the ICC incident highlighted a very real risk. “This is not some abstract scenario. It just happened,” he noted. Once an advocate for collaboration with U.S. technology companies, Mr. Groothuis said the episode made him completely reconsider his stance. “Europe needs to take greater responsibility for its technological sovereignty,” he asserted.

Following the incident, some ICC personnel reportedly migrated to encrypted services offered by Proton, a Switzerland-based email provider known for prioritizing user privacy and independence from foreign political influence.

Microsoft stated that the suspension of Mr. Khan’s email account was a joint decision made in consultation with ICC officials. The company also clarified that it had since implemented internal policy changes—part of pre-existing plans—to better safeguard clients from geopolitical fallout in future incidents. Later, when additional ICC judges were sanctioned by the Trump administration, Microsoft opted not to suspend their accounts, citing these new protocols.

Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, described the situation as reflective of a deeper rift between the U.S. and Europe. “This was more than an isolated incident—it intensified an already growing sense of mistrust,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Mr. Khan has taken a leave of absence from his post amid an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, which he has publicly denied. The ICC has announced measures to protect its staff and ensure continued operation of its digital systems and services despite external political pressure.

This episode has significantly raised concerns among European leaders and policymakers about the continent’s overreliance on American technology providers. It underscored just how embedded U.S. firms like Microsoft are in European governmental and institutional operations—and how vulnerable that makes them to sudden disruptions. The Trump administration’s actions served as a catalyst, prompting renewed calls for developing indigenous alternatives to American digital infrastructure.

For some observers, the incident was the concrete proof—or “smoking gun”—they had been anticipating. Casper Klynge, a former Danish diplomat and EU official who later joined Microsoft, reflected that many Europeans feared exactly this kind of scenario: “The concern is that if the U.S. government targets certain individuals, companies like Microsoft will be compelled to follow orders, regardless of the international implications.”

This geopolitical technology issue comes at a time when the U.S.–EU relationship is already strained over trade disputes, regulatory differences, and military support for Ukraine. Former President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have criticized Europe’s regulations on American tech firms, while digital governance and taxation remain contentious issues in trade negotiations between the two blocs.

European authorities have long advocated for the right to regulate large digital platforms operating within their borders, free from undue foreign interference. “If we don’t build our own digital infrastructure, we risk losing the ability to make sovereign political decisions,” said Alexandra Geese, a member of the European Parliament.

Since the 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden about widespread U.S. surveillance programs, European leaders have tried to reduce their dependency on American digital providers. They have launched numerous investigations and regulatory actions targeting U.S. tech giants such as Google, Apple, Meta, and Amazon over issues including data privacy, anti-competitive practices, and misinformation.

Yet the dominance of American firms remains entrenched. According to research by Synergy Research Group, U.S. companies still hold more than 70% of the cloud computing market in Europe—a critical area for storing data, running applications, and managing sensitive information.

The ICC, in particular, has leaned heavily on Microsoft’s suite of tools, including Office software, digital storage, and cybersecurity services used to defend against hacking attempts, including those allegedly originating from Russia, which is currently under ICC investigation for war crimes in Ukraine.

After Trump’s executive order targeting Mr. Khan, Microsoft reportedly held discussions with the ICC to determine the most compliant and least disruptive course of action. It was eventually decided that while broader services would remain intact, Mr. Khan’s individual account would be deactivated. He later resumed communication via a different email platform, according to someone familiar with the situation.

Legal experts have noted that this case highlights a growing trend: the use of sanctions and executive powers by the U.S. government to exert influence over international institutions and even private organizations. Sara Elizabeth Dill, a lawyer specializing in sanctions law, remarked that such actions place multinational corporations in difficult positions. “They’re forced to navigate an extremely complicated legal and ethical landscape,” she said, adding that the far-reaching implications are what concern people the most.

In response to European worries, U.S. tech companies have attempted to reassure their clients. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella recently visited the Netherlands, where he unveiled new “sovereign solutions” designed for European institutions. These include legal protections and localized data governance tools meant to ensure service continuity in times of political uncertainty. Amazon and Google have also rolled out region-specific policies and infrastructure aimed at European customers.

Still, governments across Europe are actively seeking alternatives. The Dutch government has declared digital sovereignty a national priority and is collaborating with European vendors to build out more independent technology systems. In Denmark, officials are piloting replacements for Microsoft Office. And in Germany’s Schleswig-Holstein region, authorities are also scaling back reliance on Microsoft software.

The European Union itself has launched ambitious plans to invest billions of euros into artificial intelligence, cloud infrastructure, and data centers that do not depend on American providers. Lawmakers in Brussels are exploring new procurement policies that would favor tech solutions developed by EU-based firms.

Andy Yen, CEO of Proton, expressed confidence that this shift toward independence will only grow. “The current situation is unsustainable,” he said. “European governments are clearly moving toward greater self-reliance.”

This changing environment is creating new opportunities for European tech firms. Companies like Intermax Group in the Netherlands and Exoscale in Switzerland report a noticeable uptick in interest from clients seeking alternatives to U.S. cloud services.

“There’s been a major shift in perception,” said Ludo Baauw, CEO of Intermax. “A few years ago, people saw American firms as trusted allies. That trust has eroded.”

As Europe rethinks its digital future, the ICC email episode may well be remembered as a turning point—a moment when geopolitical reality collided with technological dependence, forcing institutions to take control of their own digital destiny.