April Newsletter
Welcome back to the CODE Newsletter, your window into the drama, dilemmas and developments at the intersection of geopolitics and technology (#GeoTech).
Midway through April, we take a closer look at how deregulation is being reimagined as a tool of industrial strategy – less about cutting corners, and more about clearing the path for geopolitical competitiveness.
Plus: A glimpse into the CODE universe in motion.
Have a sharp-minded network? Forward this their way. We don’t bite; we just decode!
Want to challenge us, cheer us or nerd out in the comments? We’re all ears (and eyes).
✏️📘 When the Rulebook Becomes a Sketchpad
A wave of deregulation is sweeping through the corridors of power on both sides of the Atlantic. From Brussels to Washington, policymakers are turning to regulatory loosening as a geopolitical tool, linking competitiveness and strategic autonomy more tightly than ever before.
In his April 1 address to the European Parliament, European Council President António Costa highlighted a new sense of urgency among EU leaders. Amid fears of lagging productivity and an accelerating global tech race, the European Council endorsed a 25% cut in bureaucratic requirements for all companies and 35% for SMEs, paired with plans to mobilize savings into productive investment. The message was clear: competitiveness now means less red tape and more capital velocity, even as the EU tries to preserve its commitment to values and cohesion.
At the heart of this new economic doctrine is a shift toward policy instruments that actively remove friction for innovation. The AI Continent Action Plan, unveiled by Commission Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on April 9, is a prime example. It pairs bold investment promises – €20 billion to build AI Gigafactories across the EU – with deregulatory signals. Implementation of the AI Act will come with “minimal burden,” aided by an AI Service Desk to help businesses avoid costly legal consultations. For the EU, this marks a pragmatic turn: if Europe wants to compete in the age of AI, it can no longer afford to regulate first and innovate later.
Across the Atlantic, deregulation is no longer just a domestic policy tool; it’s fast becoming a cornerstone of America’s geopolitical tech strategy. On February 11, 2025, in his first foreign policy speech at the AI Action Summit in Paris, U.S. Vice President JD Vance delivered a clear signal in Paris: regulatory caution is a luxury the AI race cannot afford. His remarks echoed the Trump administration’s wider posture: full-throttle pursuit of dominance in emerging technologies, even if that means leaving hesitant partners behind.
This rhetoric was swiftly backed by institutional action. On March 31, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing the United States Investment Accelerator, a new federal body tasked with shepherding large-scale investments – domestic and foreign – through a streamlined, fast-tracked regulatory process. Designed to handle projects over $1 billion (€920 million), the Accelerator aims to coordinate federal agencies, speed up permitting, and reduce bureaucratic friction. With CHIPS Act funds already flowing, this signals an industrial strategy that fuses economic nationalism with deregulatory pragmatism.
Crucially, the U.S. is not abandoning state capacity; it’s reorienting it. The Investment Accelerator represents a state willing to act not by building barriers, but by clearing them. Much like the EU’s AI Service Desk, the U.S. model is evolving into a concierge-style interface between government and capital – a proactive enabler rather than a passive rule-setter.
Yet, the implications stretch far beyond investment flows. This emerging U.S. model seeks to undercut rivals not just through technological speed, but through regulatory agility. In a world where supply chains are contested and semiconductors are strategic assets, deregulation is being wielded as a competitive weapon – one that lowers transaction costs, attracts capital, and accelerates deployment timelines.
Still, there are trade-offs. The U.S. approach is unlikely to prioritize long-term safeguards or multilateral alignment, especially if those are seen as friction points. The result may be a growing transatlantic divergence: while the EU cautiously aligns its innovation ecosystem with values-based regulation, the U.S. is opting for lean governance and geopolitical edge. For Europe, the risk isn’t just falling behind in innovation – it’s becoming structurally slower in a race where speed now shapes sovereignty.
Whether this deregulation-led model will deliver sustainable innovation remains to be seen. But what’s clear across both sides of the Atlantic is that the regulatory state is being reimagined – not diminished. In both Brussels and Washington, the rulebook is becoming a sketchpad, where new tools of industrial strategy are being drawn with urgency, ambition, and increasingly, geopolitical intent.
Deregulation as industrial strategy is one of the themes I’m keeping an eye on in the CODE Newsletter. What do you think? Is this a smart recalibration or a slippery slope? Drop a comment. I’d love to hear your perspective.
Generated with Sora (AI video)
🏃♂️💨🗞️ Headlines on the Move
Jared Cohen, co-head of the Goldman Sachs Global Institute, has warned that the AI revolution depends not only on semiconductors but also on the fragile infrastructure beneath it – rare-earth minerals (most of which are processed in China), energy-intensive data centers, and undersea cables. According to Cohen, with the U.S. struggling to meet rising power demands and recent cable disruptions linked to Chinese vessels, the real contest may be less about algorithms and more about who controls the global backbone of the AI economy.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX is increasingly central to U.S. space and defense policy. Amid budget pressures, the Pentagon is considering shifting a major missile-tracking satellite program toward greater reliance on SpaceX – raising concerns about market dominance and political influence, especially given Musk’s advisory role in the current administration. Meanwhile, SpaceX-affiliated entrepreneur Jared Isaacman has been nominated to lead NASA, prompting scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest. With SpaceX dominating military launches and lunar ambitions, the lines between private enterprise and U.S. government power are blurring – raising broader questions about global competition, access, and influence in the emerging space economy.
The European Commission has launched a public consultation to gather feedback on the forthcoming Cloud and AI Development Act and a unified EU-wide cloud policy for public administrations and procurement. This initiative seeks insights from a broad spectrum of stakeholders to assess Europe's capabilities in cloud and edge computing, especially amid the rising data volumes driven by AI services. The consultation is open until June 4, 2025, offering an opportunity for interested parties to influence the EU's strategic direction in cloud and AI technologies.
🧑🔬💬🚀 What We at CODE Have Been Up To
It’s that time – CODE goes public for the first time. On May 12th at 5 p.m. in Brussels, Antonio Calcara, our geopolitical mechanic-in-chief, will deliver a feature lecture, unpacking the nuts and bolts of CODE. It’s a rare behind-the-scenes look at how geopolitics and tech are being decoded in real time. Registration details are coming soon to your inbox, but if you’re in town, mark your calendar and bring your curiosity.
Just days before Antonio’s big debut, the brilliant Thao Pham will be presenting her research at the “Emerging Technologies and Global Governance” workshop in Québec City, May 8–10. Thao’s paper explores EU–Africa space technology cooperation and how it navigates the growing shadow of Chinese influence. A timely, sharp take on orbital geopolitics. Canada, get ready.
Riccardo Bosticco – pen sharp, arguments sharper, espresso always double – just dropped a crisp take with Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung on March 30, 2025. In it, Riccardo argues that Europe doesn’t just need more digital skills – it needs a mindset shift. From AI adoption gaps to STEM brain drain, Riccardo makes the case that the EU must rethink education to stay relevant in the age of algorithms. Not every student needs to code, but they do need to think. A fast, punchy read with big implications.
On April 9, the CODE team had the pleasure of welcoming Ms. Marleena Makkonen, Analyst at the China Office of Finnish Industries, to our Brussels office, aka the CODE nerve center. In true Finnish style – calm, clear, and straight to the point – we dove into a rich exchange on Europe’s role in the Chinese market, China’s presence in Europe, and everything in between. No sauna involved, but plenty of heat in the conversation.
📖☕😌 Two Reads Worth Your Coffee
In Driven to Self-Reliance: Technological Interdependence and the Chinese Innovation Ecosystem (International Studies Quarterly, 2025), Yeling Tan, Mark Dallas, Henry Farrell, and Abraham Newman explore how China shifted from tech interdependence to security-driven self-reliance. The authors argue this wasn’t just about rising US–China tensions but stemmed from internal learning triggered by “knowledge shocks” – notably the Snowden revelations and US export controls on Huawei and ZTE. These shocks gave Chinese policymakers the clarity (and urgency) to coordinate across a fragmented bureaucracy and pivot toward a centralized, state-led innovation strategy. The paper offers a fresh take on interdependence, pushing beyond realist vs. liberal debates by focusing on state learning and coordination. While compelling, the theory may overestimate how cleanly bureaucracies converge around shocks. Still, this piece is highly relevant in today’s world of semiconductors, cloud controls, and techno-sovereignty debates. It helps explain why tech decoupling isn’t just politics – it’s strategy, informed by hard lessons. A sharp, timely read for any GeoTech watcher. Open-access, no paywall!
The NATO Science & Technology Trends 2025–2045 report (publicly released April 9) is a bold forecast of six macro trends that will reshape the strategic tech landscape for decades to come. From the race for AI and quantum superiority to the biotechnology boom and the challenge of fragmenting public trust, the report captures how technology has become the terrain of geopolitics. It's not just about tools – it’s about who shapes the rules, owns the infrastructure, and anticipates the next shock. Three takeaways stand out for GeoTech watchers: First, emerging tech is now central to strategic competition – space, cyber, and AI are the new frontlines. Second, military innovation is increasingly powered by private-sector platforms, raising serious questions about dependency and control. Third, interoperability is the new sovereignty challenge – and it’s going to get messier. Whether you salute NATO or simply admire its acronym game from afar, this report is a must-read for anyone trying to decode the geopolitics of technology.
🐣🌞🌷 Whether you're easing out of spring break or still enjoying it, we wish you a restful pause and renewed energy—and the CODE Team wishes you a joyful Easter in advance (preferably with chocolate). See you next issue!