China’s Industrial and Commercial Bank (ICBC), the world’s largest commercial lender by assets, has launched an 80 billion yuan ($11.04 billion) technology and innovation fund to bolster the private sector.
The state-owned bank announced that the fund will focus on ‘hard technology’ fields such as semiconductors and advanced manufacturing rather than ‘soft’ technology like internet services.
ICBC chairman Liao Lin emphasised that the initiative aligns with central leadership directives, aiming to turn supportive policies into tangible benefits for private enterprises. The bank described the fund as ‘patient capital,’ indicating a long-term investment strategy rather than a rush for quick profits.
The launch follows China’s recent policy priorities for 2025, unveiled at its annual parliamentary meeting, which stress boosting consumption and achieving technological advances amid ongoing tensions with the US.
Additionally, the government plans to establish a state-backed fund to raise 1 trillion yuan from private investment to support technology startups.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) are two major regulatory frameworks introduced by the EU to create a fairer and safer digital environment. While both fall under the broader Digital Services Act package, they serve distinct purposes.
The DMA focuses on ensuring fair competition by regulating large online platforms, known as gatekeepers, which have a dominant influence on digital markets. It prevents these companies from engaging in monopolistic practices, such as self-preferencing their own services, restricting interoperability, or using business data unfairly. The goal is to create a more competitive landscape where smaller businesses and consumers have more choices.
On the other hand, the DSA is designed to make online spaces safer by holding platforms accountable for illegal content, misinformation, and harmful activities. It imposes stricter content moderation rules, enhances transparency in digital advertising, and ensures better user rights protection. Larger platforms with significant user bases face even greater responsibilities under this act.
The key difference in regulation is that the DMA follows an ex-ante approach, meaning it imposes strict rules on gatekeepers before unfair practices occur. The DSA takes an ex-post approach, requiring platforms to monitor risks and take corrective action after problems arise. This means the DMA enforces competition while the DSA ensures online safety and accountability.
A key component of the DSA Act package is its emphasis on transparency and user rights. Platforms must explain how their algorithms curate content, prevent the use of sensitive data for targeted advertising, and prohibit manipulative design practices such as misleading cookie banners. The most powerful platforms, classified as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) or Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs), are also required to assess and report on ‘systemic risks’ linked to their services, including threats to public safety, democratic discourse, and mental well-being. However, these reports often lack meaningful detail, as illustrated by TikTok’s inadequate assessment of its role in election-related misinformation.
Enforcement is critical to the success of the DSA. While the European Commission directly oversees the largest platforms, national regulators, known as Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs), play a key role in monitoring compliance. However, enforcement challenges remain, particularly in countries like Germany, where understaffing raises concerns about effective regulation. Across the EU, over 60 enforcement actions have already been launched against major tech firms, yet Silicon Valley’s biggest players are actively working to undermine European rules.
Together, the DMA and the DSA reshape how Big Tech companies operate in the EU, fostering competition and ensuring a safer and more transparent digital ecosystem for users.
Trump and Silicon Valley’s fight against EU regulations
The close relationship between Donald Trump and the Silicon Valley tech elite has significantly influenced US policy towards European digital regulations. Since Trump’s return to office, Big Tech executives have actively lobbied against these regulations and have urged the new administration to defend tech firms from what he calls EU ‘censorship.’
Joel Kaplan, Meta’s chief lobbyist, has gone as far as to equate EU regulations with tariffs, a stance that aligns with the Trump administration’s broader trade war strategy. The administration sees these regulations as barriers to US technological dominance, arguing that the EU is trying to tax and control American innovation rather than foster its own competitive tech sector.
Figures like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have aligned themselves with Trump, leveraging their influence to oppose EU legislation such as the DSA. Meta’s controversial policy changes and Musk’s X platform’s lax approach to content moderation illustrate how major tech firms are resisting regulatory oversight while benefiting from Trump’s protectionist stance.
The White House and the House Judiciary Committee have raised concerns that these laws unfairly target American technology companies, restricting their ability to operate in the European market.
Brendan Carr, chairman of the FCC, has recently voiced strong concerns regarding the DSA, which he argues could clash with America’s free speech values. Speaking at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Carr warned that its approach to content moderation might excessively limit freedom of expression. His remarks reflect a broader criticism from US officials, as Vice President JD Vance had also denounced European content moderation at a recent AI summit in Paris, labelling it as ‘authoritarian censorship.’
These officials argue that the DMA and the DSA create barriers that limit American companies’ innovations and undermine free trade. In response, the House Judiciary Committee has formally challenged the European Commission, stating that certain US products and services may no longer be available in Europe due to these regulations. Keep in mind that the Biden administration also directed its trade and commerce departments to investigate whether these EU laws restrict free speech and recommend countermeasures.
Recently, US President Donald Trump has escalated tensions with the EU threatening tariffs in retaliation for what he calls ‘overseas extortion.’ The memorandum signed by Trump on 21 February 2025, directs the administration to review EU and UK policies that might force US tech companies to develop or use products that ‘undermine free speech or foster censorship.’ The memo also aims at Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), claiming that foreign governments unfairly tax US firms ‘simply because they operate in foreign markets.’
EU’s response: Digital sovereignty at stake
However, the European Commission insists that these taxes are applied equally to all large digital companies, regardless of their country of origin, ensuring fair contributions from businesses profiting within the EU. It has also defended its regulations, arguing that they promote fair competition and protect consumer rights.
EU officials see these policies as fundamental to Europe’s digital sovereignty, ensuring that powerful tech firms operate transparently and fairly in the region. As they push back against what they see as US interference and tensions rise, the dispute over how to regulate Big Tech could shape the future of digital markets and transatlantic trade relations.
Eventually, this clash could lead to a new wave of trade conflicts between the USA and the EU, with potential economic and geopolitical consequences for the global tech industry. With figures like JD Vance and Jim Jordan also attacking the DSA and the DMA, and Trump himself framing EU regulations as economic warfare, Europe faces mounting pressure to weaken its tech laws. Additionally, the withdrawal of the EU Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive (AILD) following the Paris AI Summit and JD Vance’s refusal to sign a joint AI statement raised more concerns about Europe’s ability to resist external pushback. The risk that Trump will use economic and security threats, including NATO involvement, as leverage against EU enforcement underscores the urgency of a strong European response.
Another major battleground is the AI regulation. The EU’s AI Act is one of the world’s first comprehensive AI laws, setting strict guidelines for AI transparency, risk assessment, and data usage. Meanwhile, the USA has taken a more industry-led approach, with minimal government intervention.
This regulatory gap could create further tensions as European lawmakers demand compliance from American AI firms. The recent withdrawal of the EU Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive (AILD) under US pressure highlights how external lobbying can influence European policymaking.
However, if the EU successfully enforces its AI rules, it could set a global precedent, forcing US firms to comply with European standards if they want to operate in the region. This scenario mirrors what happened with the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), which led to global changes in privacy policies.
To counter the growing pressure, the EU remains steadfast – as we speak – in enforcing the DSA, the DMA, and the AI Act, ensuring that regulatory frameworks are not compromised under US influence. Beyond regulation, Europe must also bolster its digital industrial capabilities to keep pace. The EUR 200 billion AI investment is a step in the right direction, but Europe requires more resilient digital infrastructures, stronger back-end technologies, and better support for its tech companies.
Currently, the EU is doubling down on its push for digital sovereignty by investing in:
Cloud computing infrastructure to reduce reliance on US providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure)
AI development and semiconductor manufacturing (through the European Chips Act)
These efforts aim to lessen European dependence on US Big Tech and create a more self-sufficient digital ecosystem.
The future of digital regulations
Despite the escalating tensions, both the EU and the USA recognise the importance of transatlantic tech cooperation. While their regulatory approaches differ significantly, there are areas where collaboration could still prevail. Cybersecurity remains a crucial issue, as both sides face growing threats from several countries. Strengthening cybersecurity partnerships could provide a shared framework for protecting critical infrastructure and digital ecosystems. Another potential area for collaboration is the development of joint AI safety standards, ensuring that emerging technologies are regulated responsibly without stifling innovation. Additionally, data-sharing agreements remain essential to maintaining smooth digital trade and cross-border business operations.
Past agreements, such as the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, have demonstrated that cooperation is possible. However, whether similar compromises can be reached regarding the DMA, the DSA, and the AI Act remains uncertain. Fundamental differences in regulatory philosophy continue to create obstacles, with the EU prioritising consumer protection and market fairness while the USA maintains a more business-friendly, innovation-driven stance.
Looking ahead, the future of digital regulations between the EU and the USA is likely to remain contentious. The European Union appears determined to enforce stricter rules on Big Tech, while the United States—particularly under the Trump administration—is expected to push back against what it perceives as excessive European regulatory influence. Unless meaningful compromises are reached, the global internet may further fragment into distinct regulatory zones. The European model would emphasise strict digital oversight, strong privacy protections, and policies designed to ensure fair competition. The USA, in contrast, would continue to prioritise a more business-led approach, favouring self-regulation and innovation-driven policies.
As the digital landscape evolves, the coming months and years will be crucial in determining whether the EU and the USA can find common ground on tech regulation or whether their differences will lead to deeper division. The stakes are high, affecting not only businesses but also consumers, policymakers, and the broader future of the global internet. The path forward remains uncertain, but the decisions made today will shape the structure of the digital world for generations to come.
Ultimately, the outcome of this ongoing transatlantic dispute could have wide-reaching implications, not only for the future of digital regulation but also for global trade relations. While the US government and the Silicon Valley tech elite are likely to continue their pushback, the EU appears steadfast in its determination to ensure that its digital regulations are enforced to maintain a fair and safe digital ecosystem for all users. As this global battle unfolds, the world will be watching as the EU and USA navigate the evolving landscape of digital governance.
Coinbase has officially registered with India’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), allowing it to offer crypto trading services in the country, the company announced on Tuesday. The US-based exchange plans to launch its initial retail services later this year, followed by further investments and product rollouts. While a specific timeline has not been disclosed, Coinbase sees India as a key market with strong growth potential.
Interest in cryptocurrency has surged in India, particularly among young investors looking to supplement their incomes. Despite a 30% tax on crypto trading gains—one of the highest globally—the sector remains largely unregulated. Other major exchanges operating in the country include CoinDCX, Binance, and KuCoin.
India requires virtual asset service providers to register with the FIU and comply with anti-money laundering regulations. The government is currently reviewing its stance on crypto, influenced by global regulatory trends and recent policy shifts in the US. As the regulatory landscape evolves, Coinbase aims to establish a strong foothold in the Indian market while adhering to local compliance standards.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
ServiceNow has struck a significant deal, acquiring AI firm Moveworks for $2.85 billion in cash and stock, marking its largest-ever acquisition. This move comes as companies are increasingly investing in generative AI to streamline operations. ServiceNow, which is based in Santa Clara, California, US, plans to integrate Moveworks’ AI technology into its own platform, further enhancing its IT operations offerings.
Moveworks, known for its AI solutions that help resolve employee issues through chat, has a strong customer base, including companies like Broadcom, Palo Alto Networks, and Pinterest. The deal will bring more than 500 employees from Moveworks into ServiceNow, with no layoffs anticipated.
Despite the deal’s size, ServiceNow does not expect regulatory challenges to hinder the transaction, which is expected to close in the second half of 2025. Following the announcement, ServiceNow’s shares saw a 7% dip. Moveworks had previously raised $315 million, reaching a valuation of $2.1 billion before this acquisition.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Chinese electric vehicle maker Xpeng is making a long-term push into humanoid robots, with potential investments reaching up to 100 billion yuan ($13.8 billion), according to CEO He Xiaopeng. Speaking at the annual parliamentary session, He described the company’s current investment as conservative but signalled a willingness to scale up significantly over the next two decades. Xpeng, which entered the humanoid robotics sector in 2020, unveiled its Iron humanoid robot last November, positioning it as a rival to Tesla’s Bot.
Chinese automakers are increasingly venturing into robotics, encouraged by policymakers aiming for breakthroughs in the field. Stellantis-backed Leapmotor has also joined the race, forming a robotics team to develop machines for industrial applications such as factory assembly lines. CEO Zhu Jiangming stated that these robots are intended to enhance efficiency by replacing human labour in production processes.
Xpeng’s CEO suggested that automakers could invest between 1-2 billion yuan per year in developing and deploying humanoid robots in real-world scenarios. As the industry shifts towards automation, carmakers are betting that advanced robotics will play a crucial role in future manufacturing and mobility solutions.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Poland’s deputy prime minister reaffirmed plans to introduce a new tax on big tech firms despite warnings from the incoming US ambassador, intensifying tensions between Warsaw and Washington. Deputy Prime Minister Krzysztof Gawkowski dismissed Ambassador Thomas Rose’s remarks as interference, calling it ‘sick’ for another country to dictate Poland’s legislation.
The dispute adds to growing friction between the two allies, fueled by a recent online clash involving US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Elon Musk, and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski over Poland’s funding of Ukraine’s Starlink services. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also weighed in, cautioning against ‘arrogance’ from Poland’s allies.
While Gawkowski has not provided specifics on the proposed tax, he suggested it would target the profits of major tech companies operating in Poland and support local tech development. However, some within Poland’s coalition government question the timing, warning of potential trade consequences. Meanwhile, the nationalist opposition party Law and Justice (PiS) argues that the move risks straining relations with Washington.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Chinese retail investors are rapidly embracing AI tools like DeepSeek to navigate the stock market, marking a striking shift from last year’s government crackdown on computer-driven quantitative trading.
Online courses and packed training rooms reflect a growing eagerness among small-time traders to use AI-powered models, with many seeing them as essential in the digital age.
DeepSeek, developed by a hedge fund in Hangzhou, has not only boosted Chinese stocks but also reshaped perceptions of the country’s $700 billion hedge fund industry.
Despite the initial backlash against quant funds, which were previously blamed for market volatility, investors are now paying thousands of yuan to attend AI trading seminars.
Social media is flooded with courses teaching traders how to use DeepSeek to analyse companies, pick stocks, and even code their own trading strategies.
While major US funds like BlackRock and Renaissance Technologies have long used AI for investments, DeepSeek’s open-source model makes these tools accessible to China’s smaller asset managers and individual traders.
Financial institutions are also adapting to the AI-driven shift. Brokers are rushing to integrate AI models into their platforms, with industry leaders predicting a complete transformation in how Chinese investors make decisions.
Many now seek trading advice from DeepSeek instead of human wealth managers, reflecting a deep trust in the technology. However, experts warn that AI models still have limitations and could create market risks, especially if large numbers of traders act on the same signals.
While some remain cautious about AI’s role in investing, DeepSeek has undeniably changed public attitudes towards quant fund managers.
Many now view them as contributors to market efficiency rather than as culprits behind retail losses. As China’s stock market continues to evolve, AI looks set to play an increasingly dominant role in shaping investor behaviour.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is testing its first in-house chip designed for training AI systems, sources told Reuters.
The social media giant has started a limited rollout of the chip, planning to scale up production if testing delivers positive results. The move represents a crucial step in Meta’s strategy to lessen dependence on external suppliers like Nvidia and lower substantial infrastructure costs.
The company has projected expenses between $114 billion and $119 billion for 2025, with up to $65 billion dedicated to AI infrastructure.
The chip, part of Meta’s Meta Training and Inference Accelerator (MTIA) series, is a dedicated AI accelerator, meaning it is specifically designed for AI tasks rather than general processing. This could make it more power-efficient than traditional GPUs.
Meta is collaborating with Taiwan-based chip manufacturer TSMC to produce the new hardware. The test phase follows Meta’s first ‘tape-out’ of the chip, a crucial milestone in silicon development where an initial design is sent to a chip factory.
However, this process is costly and time-consuming, with no guarantee of success, and any failure would require repeating the tape-out step.
Meta has previously faced setbacks in its custom chip development, including scrapping an earlier version of an inference chip after poor test results. However, the company has since used another MTIA chip for AI-powered recommendations on Facebook and Instagram.
The new training chip aims to first enhance recommendation systems before expanding to generative AI applications like the chatbot Meta AI.
Meta executives hope to implement their own chips for AI training by 2026, although the company continues to be one of Nvidia’s biggest customers, investing heavily in GPUs for its AI operations.
The development comes as AI researchers increasingly question whether scaling up large language models by adding more computing power will continue to drive progress. The recent emergence of more efficient AI models, such as those from Chinese startup DeepSeek, has intensified these debates.
While Nvidia remains a dominant force in AI hardware, fluctuating investor confidence and broader market concerns have caused turbulence in the company’s stock value.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has decided to drop its earlier proposal to force Alphabet, Google’s parent company, to sell its investments in AI companies, including its stake in Anthropic, a rival to OpenAI.
The proposal was originally included in a wider initiative to boost competition in the online search market. The DOJ now argues that restricting Google’s AI investments might lead to unintended consequences in the rapidly changing AI sector.
While this move represents a shift in the government’s approach, the DOJ and 38 state attorneys general are continuing their antitrust case against Google. They argue that Google holds an illegal monopoly in the search market and is distorting competition.
The government’s case includes demands for Google to divest its Chrome browser and implement other measures to foster competition.
Google has strongly opposed these efforts, stating that they would harm consumers, the economy, and national security. The company is also planning to appeal the proposals.
As part of the ongoing scrutiny, the DOJ’s latest proposal mandates that Google notify the government of any future investments in generative AI, a move intended to curb further concentration of power in the sector.
This case is part of a broader wave of antitrust scrutiny facing major tech companies like Google, Apple, and Meta, as US regulators seek to rein in the market dominance of Big Tech.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
NHS is investigating allegations that a software flaw at private medical services company Medefer left patient data vulnerable to hacking.
The flaw, discovered in November, affected Medefer’s internal patient record system in the UK, which handles 1,500 NHS referrals monthly.
A software engineer who found the issue believes the vulnerability may have existed for six years, but Medefer denies this claim, stating no data has been compromised.
The engineer discovered that unprotected application programming interfaces (APIs) could have allowed outsiders to access sensitive patient information.
While Medefer has insisted that there is no evidence of any breach, they have commissioned an external security agency to review their systems. The agency confirmed that no breach was found, and the company asserts that the flaw was fixed within 48 hours of being discovered.
Cybersecurity experts have raised concerns about the potential risks posed by the flaw, emphasising that a proper investigation should have been conducted immediately.
Medefer reported the issue to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC), both of which found no further action necessary. However, experts suggest that a more thorough response could have been beneficial given the sensitive nature of the data involved.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
