March 2025 in Retrospect
Dear readers,
March was relatively quiet compared to the first two months of the year, which reshaped global tech geopolitics. The Trump administration’s cyber ceasefire with Russia drew criticism from the EU and its allies. At the UN, countries agreed on the way forward for discussions on AI governance and the future of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
In the business sphere, Google made its largest acquisition to date by purchasing Wiz, an Israeli cloud cybersecurity firm. Meanwhile, Ghibli-style AI-generated images overwhelmed OpenAI’s servers, sparking debates on AI copyright and system resilience.
Trends in the AI field continued, with a steady stream of announcements about new large language models (LLMs) and other AI innovations. At the same time, there are signs of cooling in the AI sector, with Microsoft scaling back investments in AI processing centres and Nvidia’s share price dropping—a key indicator of market interest in AI hardware.
The TikTok saga continued, as the US administration considered potential buyers for the platform. Content governance also came into focus: X (formerly Twitter) banned over 700 accounts in Türkiye, while EU pressure on the platform intensified, with a French prosecutor launching an investigation into potential algorithmic bias.
Diplo’s analysis and reporting in an exceptional time
In a world where history unfolds at breakneck speed, the real challenge isn’t just keeping up—it’s making sense of it all. Every day brings a flood of information, but the bigger picture often gets lost in the noise. How do today’s developments shape long-term trends? How do they impact us as individuals, communities, businesses, and even humanity?
At Diplo, we bridge the gap between real-time updates and deeper insights. Our Digital Watch keeps a pulse on daily developments while connecting them to weekly, monthly, and yearly trends as illustrated bellow.
For example, AI risks have shifted from last year’s alarmist “existential threats” to this year’s more pragmatic “existing risks.”
Meanwhile, the race for more powerful AI has moved beyond simply stacking Nvidia GPUs to a growing emphasis on high-quality data as the true fuel of AI innovation. From cybersecurity to e-commerce to digital governance, we track these shifts from daily fluctuations to long-term industry pivots.
In the March monthly issue, you can follow: AI and tech TRENDS | Developments in GENEVA | Dig.Watch ANALYSIS
Best regards,
DW Team
Trends
Content governance and platform accountability
The year began with a transatlantic tug-of-war, with US tech giants scaling back content moderation efforts, while the EU doubled down on regulatory measures. By March 2025, this tension erupted into high-stakes legal battles, reshaping how platforms navigate free speech, misinformation, and state power.
- EU’s Threat of Fine Against X: In March 2025, the EU threatened X with a record 1 billion euro fine under the DSA for alleged “systemic failures” in tackling disinformation and hate speech, particularly around elections. This action stemmed from an investigation launched in 2023, focusing on X’s content moderation practices post-acquisition by Elon Musk. Musk responded by calling it “political censorship” and vowed to fight it in court, highlighting a core controversy over whether platforms should prioritize free speech or societal safety EU Seeking to Fine X $1B for DSA Violations. As of April 2025, the EU is finalizing plans for this penalty, with reports indicating potential demands for product changes alongside the fine X faces $1 billion fine from EU over DSA violations.
- German Court Ruling on Data Transparency: In February 2025, a German court ordered X to provide data to researchers studying election-related misinformation ahead of the national election on February 23, 2025. This ruling, seen as a significant step for platform transparency, required X to disclose information such as post reach, shares, and likes, enabling analysis of how misinformation circulates during elections German court orders X to give data access to democracy researchers ahead of federal elections. X challenged this order in February, citing concerns over due process and user privacy rights, indicating ongoing legal battles X challenges German court order granting data access to election researchers.
- French Investigation into Algorithmic Bias: French prosecutors initiated an investigation into X in February 2025 over concerns about algorithmic bias, following a complaint from a lawmaker in January 2025. The probe focuses on whether X’s algorithms unfairly prioritize or suppress content, potentially skewing user information exposure French prosecutors probe Musk’s X over alleged algorithmic bias. This investigation, ongoing as of April 2025, adds another layer to the debate on content moderation, raising questions about fairness, equality, and diversity of perspectives on the platform.
Regulatory and Legal Framework
The DSA, effective since November 2022, is a cornerstone of the EU’s approach, requiring large online platforms to mitigate risks of disinformation, remove illegal content, and cooperate with researchers. The EU’s actions against X, including the potential fine and data-sharing orders, are part of formal proceedings opened in December 2023, focusing on risk management, content moderation, and advertising transparency Commission investigating X for alleged violations of EU content moderation rules. These proceedings have intensified in 2025, with the EU requesting further information on X’s algorithms and content moderation resources in January and February European Commission seeks more information from X on algorithms.
These developments open several controversial developments including:
- Free Speech vs. Safety: Platforms like X argue that regulatory actions, such as the EU’s fine, constitute political censorship, limiting free expression. Musk’s X post on the matter emphasized this view, framing it as an overreach X post. Conversely, the EU and civil society groups advocate for safety, citing the need to protect users from harmful content, especially during elections.
- Transparency vs. Privacy: The German court ruling and French investigation highlight demands for transparency, but X’s resistance, including challenges to the court order, raises privacy concerns for users, creating a delicate balance between public interest research and individual rights.
- Regional Divergence: The EU’s approach contrasts with the US, where tech giants have scaled back moderation efforts. This transatlantic divide could lead to tensions, especially if the US government responds to EU actions, potentially affecting international tech policy Enforcement spotlight – Spring 2025.
Global Implications and Future Trajectory
The trend is likely to influence global standards, with the EU’s actions setting a precedent for other nations, who are not comfortable with relaxed content moderation by tech platforms.
The involvement of the US government remains a possibility, given the transatlantic tensions and the potential for reciprocal regulatory actions. This could lead to a broader geopolitical debate on digital governance, with implications for tech companies operating globally.
Time context
To organize the timeline and impact, the following table summarizes the key events and their significance:
For more information on cybersecurity, digital policies, AI governance and other related topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Snapshot: The developments that made waves
TECHNOLOGY
March 2025 has been a month of high-stakes moves, innovative breakthroughs, and growing competition in the technology sector.
Microsoft’s retirement of Skype in favour of Teams marks the final bow of a once-revolutionary communication platform.
Ghibli-style AI-generated images recently overwhelmed OpenAI’s servers, triggering debates on AI copyright and system resilience.
The AI race continued to intensify. China’s DeepSeek launched its V3 model, aiming to directly compete with OpenAI and Anthropic. What’s different about DeepSeek? Its transparent approach to profit and compute cost reporting sets it apart in an industry often criticised for opacity. Meanwhile, Foxconn entered the AI arena with its FoxBrain model, trained on Meta’s Llama 3.1 and tailored for Chinese and Taiwanese users — a strategic regional move that underscores the localisation of generative AI tools.
In what became Google’s largest acquisition ever, Alphabet sealed a $32 billion deal to acquire Wiz, an Israeli cloud cybersecurity firm. This move signals Google’s aggressive push to catch up with Amazon and Microsoft in cloud computing, while simultaneously tightening control over critical cybersecurity assets amid rising US-China tech tensions.
While scaling back the development of new AI data centres worldwide, Microsoft doubled down on Asia, announcing a $2.2 billion cloud investment in Malaysia, including the launch of three new data centres. This reflects an emerging pattern of major Western cloud providers seeking influence in Southeast Asia’s digital infrastructure and AI ecosystem.
GOVERNANCE
AI and digital governance took centre stage on the global stage this month, as international and domestic developments reshaped regulatory discussions.
Global dialogue on AI governance advanced with countries agreeing on the zero draft resolution for the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance. Led by Costa Rica and Spain, this intergovernmental effort is part of the Global Digital Compact process and aims to anchor AI governance in inclusive, science-driven mechanisms.
In South Korea, industry groups lobbied against the AI Basic Act, arguing that strict EU-style safety regulations could stifle innovation. This reflects a broader trend of regulatory divergence between regions — with some nations favouring innovation-first approaches, while others prioritise safety and accountability.
The Trump administration’s cyber ceasefire with Russia raised eyebrows globally. While pitched as a diplomatic de-escalation, critics warn it could weaken US cyber deterrence and risk exposing allies to unchecked threats. The shift underscores how cyber policy is increasingly entangled with broader diplomatic and security strategies.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Google’s acquisition of Wiz is not just about cybersecurity — it’s also a strategic bet on cloud security infrastructure. With Wiz’s tools compatible across major cloud platforms, the move strengthens Google’s position in securing digital infrastructure against rising threats.
Microsoft’s $2.2 billion investment in Malaysia includes building three data centres in Kuala Lumpur. This expansion boosts telecom infrastructure and cloud capacity in Southeast Asia, reinforcing Malaysia’s role as a regional digital hub.
The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launched a national security unit focused on telecom cybersecurity, aiming to reduce dependence on foreign supply chains and address escalating cyber threats in the sector.
LEGAL
The EU softened its AI copyright enforcement rules, striking a balance between innovation and protection. Meanwhile, Meta faces a lawsuit from authors alleging copyright violations during AI training — highlighting ongoing tensions between creative rights and data scraping.
A German court ordered Elon Musk’s platform X to provide researchers with data to track misinformation ahead of national elections. This decision reinforces the growing expectation that tech platforms cooperate with regulatory and academic oversight.
China announced mandatory AI labelling rules, pushing for greater transparency and user awareness around generative AI outputs — a step that may shape global standards in AI safety and disclosure.
ECONOMY
SoftBank led a major funding round for OpenAI, signalling strong investor confidence as generative AI continues to expand its market dominance.
Alphabet’s $32 billion acquisition of Wiz marks a landmark deal in the cybersecurity economy.
The EU ordered Apple to open its technology stack to rivals, introducing new economic pressures on closed-platform business models.
The US-China trade war escalated, with new tariffs impacting the prices of tech components and devices. Apple and Samsung already announced higher smartphone prices as a result.
Cryptocurrency adoption surged globally, with over 824 million people now owning digital assets. Yet, the market saw instability due to a rise in crypto-related crimes, with Bitcoin dropping from $106,000 to $83,000.
The fate of TikTok remains in limbo, as the US administration considers various buyers. President Trump’s suggestion to reduce tariffs to secure a TikTok sale illustrates the blending of economic negotiations with platform geopolitics.
SECURITY
In a bid to enhance national preparedness, Switzerland introduced mandatory cyberattack reporting for critical infrastructure operators, effective from 1 April. This regulation aims to ensure faster responses and improved cyber resilience.
In a highly controversial move, the Trump administration ordered a halt to offensive cyber operations against Russia, shifting from confrontation to cyber-diplomatic engagement. The move has sparked intense debate in Washington and among NATO allies, with critics warning of weakened cyber deterrence and intelligence blind spots.
Elon Musk claimed that platform X was hit by a massive cyberattack, allegedly traced to IPs from the ‘Ukraine area.’ While attribution remains questionable, the incident spotlighted vulnerabilities in high-profile digital infrastructure.
The US indicted Chinese hackers and sanctioned a tech firm involved in espionage and selling stolen data — another sign of escalating cyber tensions in the US-China tech rivalry.
Scale AI secured a Pentagon contract, igniting discussions around the ethics and security implications of AI in military applications. As AI tools become part of national defence strategies, questions of accountability and safety will only grow more urgent.
DEVELOPMENT
Microsoft’s $2.2 billion cloud expansion in Malaysia and Alibaba’s $52.4 billion commitment to AI and cloud infrastructure signal a shift in digital development efforts toward Southeast Asia.
Amgen, a US pharmaceutical giant, is investing $200 million into an AI and data science hub in southern India to support health tech R&D — further blending biotech and digital innovation for development gains.
SOCIO-CULTURAL
In Türkiye, protests erupted after the arrest of opposition figure Ekrem İmamoğlu. Social media platform X faced backlash for suspending over 700 accounts, many of which were sharing protest details. The incident raised serious questions about platform content policy, freedom of speech, and state influence over digital platforms.
Meta, in partnership with UNESCO, launched a new initiative to improve AI language recognition for underserved languages, reinforcing efforts to enhance multilingualism and cultural inclusion online.
A German court ruled that X must share data with researchers studying election-related misinformation — a step toward increased platform transparency and support for democratic processes.
In a separate case, French prosecutors launched an investigation into X over potential algorithmic bias — adding another legal layer to ongoing content moderation debates.
China announced expanded university enrolment in AI-related fields to build a robust STEM workforce, enhancing national capacity for innovation. Similarly, UK teachers embraced AI in classrooms, reflecting global efforts to integrate digital skills into education systems.
For more information on cybersecurity, digital policies, AI governance and other related topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
Geneva in March
Dialogues on AI and Global Security
March 2025 was ‘quiet’ in International Geneva compared to the month before or the busy spring ahead of us. The city hosted two important events that drew diplomats, experts, and stakeholders to tackle AI’s growing impact on security and ethics.
From 27 March to 28, the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) held its inaugural Global Conference on AI, Security, and Ethics 2025 (#AISE25) at the Palais des Nations. This flagship event, open to all, brought together diplomats, military experts, industry leaders, and academics to discuss AI implications in areas such as security and defence. Key sessions included a deep dive on leveraging AI for UN peacekeeping and a panel on trust-building in AI deployment, underscoring Geneva’s pivotal role in shaping responsible AI policies.
On 26 March, Diplo, alongside the Permanent Missions of Kenya, the Netherlands, Pakistan, South Korea, Switzerland, and France, held a diplomatic dialogue titled ‘AI and International Peace and Security: Key Issues and Relevance for Geneva.’ This was part of a series on AI governance that explored AI’s role in military applications and its broader implications for global security.
These events spotlighted Geneva’s unique position as a hub for multilateral dialogue on AI and international peace and security. There were calls for member states and stakeholders to contribute to the UN Secretary-General’s upcoming report on AI’s opportunities and challenges for peace and security and to contribute to upcoming events such as the Responsible AI in the Military Domain (REAIM) Summit to be hosted by Spain in September 2025.
dig.watch Analyses
Ghibli trend as proof of global dependence on AI: A phenomenon that overloaded social networks and system
It is rare to find a person in this world (with internet access) who has not, at least once, consulted AI about some dilemma, idea, or a simple question.
The wide range of information and rapid response delivery has led humanity to embrace a ‘comfort zone’, allowing machines to reason for them, and recently, even to create animated photographs.
This brings us to a trend that, within just a few days, managed to spread across the planet through almost all meridians – the Ghibli style emerged spontaneously on social networks. When people realised they could obtain animated versions of their favourite photos within seconds, the entire network became overloaded.
Since there was no brake mechanism, reactions from leading figures were inevitable, with Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, speaking out.
He stated that the trend had surpassed all expectations and that servers were ‘strained’, making the Ghibli style available only to ChatGPT users subscribed to Plus, Pro, and Team versions.
Besides admiring AI’s incredible ability to create iconic moments within seconds, this phenomenon also raises the issue of global dependence on AI.
Why are we all so in love with AI?
The answer to this question is rather simple, and here’s why. Imagine being able to finally transform your imagination into something visible and share all your creations with the world. It doesn’t sound bad, does it?
This is precisely where AI has made its breakthrough and changed the world forever. Just as Ghibli films have, for decades, inspired fans with their warmth and nostalgia, AI technology has created something akin to the digital equivalent of those emotions.
People are now creating and experiencing worlds that previously existed only in their minds. However, no matter how comforting it sounds, warnings are often raised about maintaining a sense of reality to avoid ‘falling into the clutches’ of a beautiful virtual world.
Balancing innovation and simplicity
Altman warned about the excessive use of AI tools, stating that even his employees are sometimes overwhelmed by the progress of artificial intelligence and the innovations it releases daily.
As a result, people are unable to adapt as quickly as AI, with information spreading faster than ever before.
However, there are also frequent cases of misuse, raising the question – where is the balance?
The culture of continuous production has led to saturation but also a lack of reflection. Perhaps this very situation will bring about the much-needed pause and encourage people to take a step back and ‘think more with their own heads’.
Ghibli is just one of many: How AI trends became mainstream
AI has been with us for a long time, but it was not as popular until major players like OpenAI, Gemini, Azure, and many others appeared. The Ghibli trend is just one of many that have become part of pop culture in recent years.
Since 2018, we have witnessed deepfake technologies, where various video clips, due to their ability to accurately recreate faces in entirely different contexts, flood social networks almost daily.
AI-generated music and audio recordings have also been among the most popular trends promoted over the past four years because they are ‘easy to use’ and offer users the feeling of creating quality content with just a few clicks.
There are many other trends that have captured the attention of the global public, such as the Avatar trend (Lensa AI), generated comics and stories (StoryAI and ComicGAN), while anime-style generators have actually existed since 2022 (Waifu Labs).
Are we really that lazy or just better organised?
The availability of AI tools at every step has greatly simplified everyday life. From applications that assist in content creation, whether written or in any other format.
For this reason, the question arises – are we lazy, or have we simply decided to better organise our free time?
This is a matter for each individual, and the easiest way to examine is to ask yourself whether you have ever consulted AI about choosing a film or music, or some activity that previously did not take much energy.
AI offers quick and easy solutions, which is certainly an advantage. However, on the other hand, excessive use of technology can lead to a loss of critical thinking and creativity.
Where is the line between efficiency and dependence if we rely on algorithms for everything? That is an answer each of us will have to find at some point.
A view on AI overload: How can we ‘break free from dependence’?
The constant reliance on AI and the comfort it provides after every prompt is appealing, but abusing it leads to a completely different extreme.
The first step towards ‘liberation’ is to admit that there is a certain level of over-reliance, which does not mean abandoning AI altogether.
Understanding the limitations of technology can definitely be the key to returning to essential human values. Digital ‘detox’ implies creative expression without technology.
Can we use technology without it becoming the sole filter through which we see the world? After all, technology is a tool, not a dominant factor in decision-making in our lives.
Ghibli trend enthusiasts – the legendary Hayao Miyazaki does not like AI
The founder of Studio Ghibli, Hayao Miyazaki, recently reacted to the trend that has overwhelmed the world. The creator of famous works such as Princess Mononoke, Howl’s Moving Castle, Spirited Away, My Neighbour Totoro, and many others is vehemently opposed to the use of AI.
Known for his hand-drawn approach and whimsical storytelling, Miyazaki has addressed ethical issues, considering that trends and the mass use of AI tools are trained on large amounts of data, including copyrighted works.
Besides criticising the use of AI in animation, he believes that such tools cannot replace the human touch, authenticity, and emotions conveyed through the traditional creation process.
For Miyazaki, art is not just a product but a reflection of the artist’s soul – something machines, no matter how advanced, cannot truly replicate.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
X’s Türkiye tangle, between freedom of speech, control, and digital defiance
In the streets of Istanbul and beyond, a storm of unrest swept Türkiye in the past week, sparked by the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, a political figure whose detention has provoked nationwide protests. Amid these events, a digital battlefield has emerged, with X, the social media platform helmed by Elon Musk, thrust into the spotlight.
Global news reveals that X has suspended many accounts linked to activists and opposition voices sharing protest details. Yet, a twist: X has also publicly rebuffed a Turkish government demand to suspend ‘over 700 accounts,’ vowing to defend free speech.
This clash between compliance and defiance offers a vivid example of the controversy around freedom of speech and content policy in the digital age, where global platforms, national power, and individual voices collide like tectonic plates on a restless earth.
The spark: protests and a digital crackdown
The unrest began with İmamoğlu’s arrest, a move many saw as a political jab by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government against a prominent rival. As tear gas clouded the air and chants echoed through Turkish cities, protesters turned to X to organise, share live updates, and amplify their dissent. University students, opposition supporters, and grassroots activists flooded the platform with hashtags and footage: raw, unfiltered glimpses of a nation at odds with itself. But this digital megaphone didn’t go unnoticed. Turkish authorities pinpointed 326 accounts for the takedown, accusing them of ‘inciting hatred’ and destabilising order. X’s response? X has partially fulfilled the Turkish authorities’ alleged requests by ‘likely’ suspending many accounts.
The case isn’t the first where Türkish authorities require platforms to take action. For instance, during the 2013 Gezi Park protests, Twitter (X’s predecessor) faced similar requests. Erdoğan’s administration has long wielded legal provisions like Article 299 of the Penal Code (insulting the president) as a measure of fining platforms that don’t align with the government content policy. Freedom House’s 2024 report labels the country’s internet freedom as ‘not free,’ citing a history of throttling dissent online. Yet, X’s partial obedience here (selectively suspending accounts) hints at a tightrope walk: bowing just enough to keep operating in Türkiye while dodging a complete shutdown that could alienate its user base. For Turks, it’s a bitter pill: a platform they’ve leaned on as a lifeline for free expression now feels like an unreliable ally.
X’s defiant stand: a free speech facade?
Then came the curveball. Posts on X from users like @botella_roberto lit up feeds with news that X had rejected a broader Turkish demand to suspend ‘over 700 accounts,’ calling it ‘illegal’ and doubling down with a statement: ‘X will always defend freedom of speech.’ Such a stance paints X as a guardian of expression, a digital David slinging stones at an authoritarian Goliath.
Either way, one theory, whispered across X posts, is that X faced an ultimatum: suspend the critical accounts or risk a nationwide ban, a fate Twitter suffered in 2014.
By complying with a partial measure, X might be playing a calculated game: preserving its Turkish foothold while burnishing its free-speech credibility globally. Musk, after all, has built X’s brand on unfiltered discourse, a stark pivot from Twitter’s pre-2022 moderation-heavy days. Yet, this defiance rings hollow to some. Amnesty International’s Türkiye researcher noted that the suspended accounts (often young activists) were the very voices X claims to champion.
Freedom of speech: a cultural tug-of-war
This saga isn’t just about X or Türkiye; it is an example reflecting the global tussle over what ‘freedom of speech’ means in 2025. In some countries, it is enshrined in laws and fiercely debated on platforms like X, where Musk’s ‘maximally helpful’ ethos thrives. In others, it’s a fragile thread woven into cultural fabrics that prizes collective stability over individual outcry. In Türkiye, the government frames dissent as a threat to national unity, a stance rooted in decades of political upheaval—think coups in 1960 and 1980. Consequently, protesters saw X as a megaphone to challenge that narrative, but when the platform suspended some of their accounts, it was as if the rug had been yanked out from under their feet, reinforcing an infamous sociocultural norm: speak too loud and you’ll be hushed.
Posts on X echo a split sentiment: some laud X for resisting some of the government’s requests, while others decry its compliance as a betrayal. This duality brings us to the conclusion that digital platforms aren’t neutral arbiters in free cyberspace but chameleons, adapting to local laws while trying to project a universal image.
Content policy: the invisible hand
X’s content policy, or lack thereof, adds another layer to this sociocultural dispute. Unlike Meta or YouTube, which lean on thick rulebooks, X under Musk has slashed moderation, betting on user-driven truth over top-down control. Its 2024 transparency report, cited in X posts, shows a global takedown compliance rate of 80%, but Türkiye’s 86% suggests a higher deference to Ankara’s demands. Why? Reuters points to Türkiye’s 2020 social media law, which mandates that platforms appoint local representatives to comply with takedowns or face bandwidth cuts and fines. X’s Istanbul office opened in 2023, signals its intent to play on Turkish ground, but the alleged refusal of government requests shows a line in the sand: comply, but not blindly.
This policy controversy isn’t unique to Türkiye. In Brazil, X faced a 2024 ban over misinformation, only to backtrack after appointing a local representative. In India, X sues Modi’s government over content removal in the new India censorship fight. In the US, X fights court battles to protect user speech. In Türkiye, it bows (partly) to avoid exile. Each case underscores a sociocultural truth: content policy isn’t unchangeable; it’s a continuous legal dispute between big tech, national power and the voice of the people.
Conclusions
As the protests simmer and X navigates Türkiye’s demands, the world watches a sociocultural experiment unfold. Will X double down on defiance, risking a ban that could cost 20 million Turkish users (per 2024 Statista data)? Or will it bend further, cementing its role as a compliant guest in Ankara’s house? The answer could shape future digital dissents and the global blueprint for free speech online. For now, it is a standoff: X holds a megaphone in one hand, a gag in the other, while protesters shout into the fray.
America’s Bitcoin gamble: A power play for financial dominance
For years, the US government has maintained a cautious stance on cryptocurrency, often treating it as a regulatory challenge rather than an economic opportunity. Recent policy moves under President Donald Trump suggest that a dramatic shift is underway—one that could redefine the nation’s role in the digital asset space. During his pre-election campaign, Trump promised to create a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, a move that generated significant excitement among crypto advocates. In the post-election period, a series of measures have been introduced, reflecting a deeper recognition of cryptocurrency’s growing influence. But are these actions bold steps towards financial innovation, or simply political manoeuvres designed to capture a rising economic trend? The answer may lie in how these policies unfold and whether they translate into real, lasting change for Bitcoin and the broader crypto ecosystem.
Digital Asset Stockpile: Has the promise of Bitcoin as a reserve been betrayed?
The first major step in this shift came on 23 January, when Trump signed an executive order promoting cryptocurrency and paving the way for the establishment of the US Digital Asset Stockpile. At first glance, this move appeared to be a groundbreaking acknowledgement of cryptocurrencies as valuable national assets. However, a closer look revealed that the stockpile was not focused on Bitcoin alone but included a mix of digital assets, all sourced from government seizures in criminal and civil procedures. This raised immediate concerns among Bitcoin advocates, who had expected a more direct commitment to Bitcoin as a reserve asset, as promised. Instead of actively purchasing Bitcoin to build a strategic reserve, the US government chose to rely solely on confiscated funds, raising questions about the long-term sustainability and intent behind the initiative. Was this a step towards financial innovation, or simply a way to repurpose seized assets without committing to a larger crypto strategy?
The ambiguity surrounding the Digital Asset Stockpile led many to doubt whether the US government was serious about adopting Bitcoin as a key financial instrument. If the goal was to establish a meaningful reserve, why not allocate funds to acquire Bitcoin on the open market? By avoiding direct investment, the administration sent mixed signals—recognising digital assets’ importance while hesitating to commit real capital. This move, while significant, seemed to fall short of the expectations set by previous pro-crypto rhetoric.
Strategic Bitcoin Reserve: A step towards recognising Bitcoin’s unique role
Just when it seemed like the US was betraying its promises to the crypto community, a new executive order emerged, offering a glimmer of hope. Many were initially disillusioned by the creation of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which was to be built from confiscated assets instead of fresh, direct investments in Bitcoin. This approach raised doubts about the administration’s true intentions, as it seemed more focused on repurposing seized funds than on committing to Bitcoin’s long-term role in the financial system. However, the following executive order signalled a shift in US policy, opening the door to broader recognition of Bitcoin’s potential. While it might not have met the bold expectations set by early promises, it was still a significant step towards integrating cryptocurrency into national and global financial strategies. More importantly, it signalled a move beyond viewing all cryptocurrencies as the same, recognising Bitcoin’s unique position as a digital asset with transformative potential. This was a step further in acknowledging Bitcoin’s importance, distinct from other cryptos, and marking a pivotal moment in the evolution of digital finance.
White House Crypto Summit: Bringing legitimacy to the table
As these initiatives unfolded, the White House Crypto Summit added another layer to the evolving policy content. As the first event of its kind, it brought together industry leaders and policymakers in an unprecedented dialogue between government officials and crypto giants. This move was not just about discussing regulations—it was a strategic effort to strengthen the foundation for future pro-crypto actions. Consulting industry insiders provided a crucial opportunity to grasp the true nature of cryptocurrency before finalising legislative measures, ensuring that policies would be informed rather than reactive. By involving key industry players, the administration ensured that upcoming measures would be shaped by those who understand the technology and its potential. It was a calculated step towards framing future policies as collaborative rather than unilateral, fostering a more balanced approach to crypto regulation.
Bitcoin Act Unveiled: America is ready to HODL
And then, the moment the crypto community had been anticipating finally arrived—a decisive move that could reshape global crypto adoption. Senator Cynthia Lummis reintroduced the Bitcoin Act, a proposal to solidify Bitcoin’s place within the US financial system. Unlike executive orders that can be overturned by future administrations, this bill aimed to establish a permanent legal framework for Bitcoin’s adoption.
What made this proposal even more historic was its bold mandate: the US government would be required to purchase one million BTC over the next five years, a colossal investment worth around $80 billion at the time. To finance this, a portion of the Federal Reserve’s net earnings would be allocated, minimising the burden on taxpayers. Additionally, all Bitcoin acquired through the programme would be locked away for at least 20 years before any portion could be sold, ensuring a long-term commitment rather than short-term speculation. It seems like America is ready to HODL!
Trump’s crypto plan: Bringing businesses back to the US
Not just that—President Trump revealed plans to sign an executive order reversing Biden-era crypto debanking policies, a move that could significantly reshape the regulatory landscape if enacted. These policies have made it increasingly difficult for crypto businesses to access banking services, effectively cutting them off from the traditional financial system and driving many firms to relocate offshore.
If implemented, the reversal could have profound repercussions. By removing banking restrictions, the USA could become a more attractive destination for blockchain companies, potentially bringing back businesses that left due to regulatory uncertainty. Easier access to banking would give crypto businesses the stability they need, cutting out the risky loopholes they have had to rely on and making the industry more transparent.
For now, this remains a plan, but its announcement alone has already garnered strong support from the crypto community, which sees it as a critical step towards re-establishing the USA as a leader in digital asset innovation. Senator Cynthia Lummis stated, ‘By transforming the president’s visionary executive action into enduring law, we can ensure that our nation will harness the full potential of digital innovation to address our national debt while maintaining our competitive edge in the global economy.’
Global impact: How US measures could accelerate worldwide crypto adoption
This is not just a story about the USA; it has global implications. The effect of these measures goes beyond American borders. By officially recognising Bitcoin as a strategic asset and rolling back restrictive banking policies, the USA is setting an example that other nations may follow. If the world’s largest economy begins accumulating Bitcoin and incorporating it into its financial framework, it will solidify Bitcoin’s standing as a global reserve asset. This could prompt other countries to rethink their positions, fostering broader institutional adoption and possibly triggering a wave of regulatory clarity worldwide. Moreover, the return of crypto businesses to the USA might spark competition among nations to establish more attractive regulatory environments, speeding up innovation and mainstream adoption.
Simultaneously, these moves send a strong signal to global markets: the uncertainty surrounding the role of Bitcoin in the financial system is decreasing. With the USA taking the lead, institutional investors who were once cautious may gain more confidence to allocate substantial funds to Bitcoin and other digital assets. This could drive broader financial integration, positioning Bitcoin not just as a hedge against inflation or a speculative investment, but also as a central element in the future financial systems.
As nations compete to define the future of money, the true test will be whether the world can embrace a decentralised financial system or whether it will ultimately remain tethered to the traditional power structures. One thing is certain: it all comes down to who holds the power in the rise of cryptocurrency, as it will shape the economic relations of the future.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The future of digital regulation between the EU and the US
Understanding the DMA and DSA regulations
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)
- Alternative social media platforms and search engines to challenge US dominance
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.
