Recent developments have sparked controversy among EU agencies over the dangers of relying extensively on digital infrastructure based in the United States. The problem became critical when it was learned that U.S.-imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim Khan had cut off access to his Microsoft account, therefore interfering with the functioning of an international court.
Following the ICC’s release of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, former US President Donald Trump implemented sanctions through an executive order. American businesses—including tech behemoths like Microsoft—were ordered to stop providing services to Khan as part of enforcement actions, therefore denying him access to important communication tools.
Maltese MEP Alex Agius Saliba brought this event to the European Parliament recently and submitted official inquiries to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. He described the event not as a one-off occurrence but as an instance of “digital sabotage,” cautioned about more consequences for European sovereignty, international law, and democratic integrity.
Agius Saliba worried that American-based tech companies might be used to further Washington’s foreign policy goals, which could have quite negative impact on organizations outside of American control. He pointed out that the event emphasizes Europe’s institutional sensitivity to outside political pressure should important digital infrastructure be under non-EU control.
In his written inquiry, the MEP wondered if the Commission had engaged in any diplomatic activity in reaction to the sanctions and if Microsoft had discussed the disruption of services to the ICC. He asked further if current EU laws contain clauses that might force a non-European tech company to keep services vital for world justice.
Underlying his involvement was a greater worry about the EU’s digital reliance. Agius Saliba pointed out that most of the cloud and communication services used by European institutions are provided by companies based outside the Union. He claimed that this reliance creates strategic weaknesses—particularly in cases when those businesses could be obligated to follow foreign political orders.
He urged a coordinated and rapid push toward EU digital sovereignty in closing his comments. He cautioned that the situation with the ICC should not be considered in isolation but rather as a warning spent on how geopol conflicts may directly influence the functioning of international and European legal organizations. He emphasized that preserving the digital independence of the EU is essential for upholding democratic values, legal autonomy, and institutional resilience; not only a technical or economic concern.
