Making the Case for a Third AI Technology Stack: Europe’s Pursuit of Sovereign AI
By Brooke Tanner and Andrew W. Wyckoff, Governance Studies, Center for Technology Innovation (CTI), Brookings Institution
Published September 12, 2025
In the global race to dominate artificial intelligence (AI) development, the U.S. and China have emerged as the two primary powerhouses, each cultivating advanced AI technology stacks that span the entire spectrum from semiconductor design and manufacturing to cloud infrastructure and advanced AI models. However, an influential discussion is forming around the necessity and feasibility of a “third AI technology stack”—one championed by Europe and aligned with democratic norms, transparency, and accountability.
This third path, led by the European Union (EU) in collaboration with other like-minded democracies potentially including the United States, intends to diversify the global AI ecosystem, stoking market competition, increasing technological and ethical innovation, and providing countries an alternative to the dominant U.S. and Chinese AI paradigms.
The Current AI Tech Stack Landscape
The AI technology stack consists of multiple highly specialized layers—from sourcing rare earth minerals, to precision chip manufacturing, cloud computing infrastructure, data centers, and advanced AI training models. Proficiency and control at each stage confer considerable economic, political, and security power.
Today, the U.S. and China command sway across almost every layer of this AI stack. The U.S. boasts a complete AI ecosystem and has emphasized AI sovereignty through initiatives like America’s AI Action Plan, driven by efforts to maintain technological leadership and safeguard national security. China, meanwhile, advances its own ambitious AI infrastructure and governance strategies, asserting greater state control over its digital ecosystem.
The dominance of these two nations’s AI stacks forces other countries into a precarious position: either align with one of these hegemonies or risk technological marginalization in an increasingly AI-driven world.
Europe’s Drive Towards AI Sovereignty
Europe, facing strategic vulnerabilities including heavy reliance on imported microchips (accounting for 90% of the global supply outside Europe), cloud services supplied predominantly by U.S. firms, and a persistent talent drain to U.S. or Chinese tech ecosystems, has become increasingly vocal about establishing its own sovereign AI capability.
European digital sovereignty has been a long-standing concern magnified by:
- Privacy and Data Governance: The 2013 Edward Snowden revelations exposed sensitive information flows that fueled skepticism toward U.S. data practices.
- Legal and Regulatory Responses: Landmark rulings invalidating key transatlantic data frameworks (Safe Harbor, Privacy Shield), coupled with legislation like the Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the AI Act, manifest Europe’s desire to set global digital standards.
- Shifting U.S. Policy: Recent American trade and foreign policy shifts, semiconductor export controls, and fluctuating commitments to alliances like NATO have increased EU worries about overdependence on U.S. AI infrastructure.
Prominent European policymakers such as Axel Voss have underscored the diminishing reliability of the U.S. as a partner, emphasizing the urgent need for a secure, sovereign AI stack to control critical infrastructure.
The Global Rationale for a Third AI Stack
The case for a European-led third AI stack transcends sovereignty concerns. It addresses the broader necessity for diversity in the global AI market, fostering competition and innovation that is grounded not only in technical excellence but also democratic values and ethical standards.
A European AI stack could:
- Serve as a values-based alternative emphasizing privacy, transparency, trustworthiness, and accountability.
- Implement rigorous data governance, monitoring, and environmental standards that set a higher global benchmark.
- Provide a blueprint for democracies to collaborate on AI development that respects fundamental human rights and democratic governance.
- Challenge the current binary geopolitical AI landscape dominated by the U.S. and China, offering countries fearful of technological dependence a viable and attractive option.
Is a Sovereign European AI Stack Realistic?
Despite the compelling arguments, the vision of a fully sovereign European AI stack remains challenging.
- Technical and Economic Complexity: Building complete capabilities across the AI stack—from rare earths to high-end chips and cloud infrastructure—is immensely resource-intensive.
- Market Dynamics: Europe’s technology market currently accounts for only a small fraction of global microchip production and cloud services. Despite initiatives like Gaia-X aimed at fostering homegrown cloud services, uptake has been limited.
- Talent and Capital: The ongoing emigration of AI talent and startups to the established U.S. and Chinese tech ecosystems further complicates Europe’s ambitions.
- Geopolitical Realities: Despite aspirations, Europe’s technological strategies must navigate complex interdependencies with global supply chains and geopolitical alliances.
Nevertheless, efforts are underway in the EU, the African Union, India, Brazil, and beyond to advance sovereign AI capabilities, reflecting growing momentum for responsible AI innovation anchored in diverse geopolitical contexts.
Conclusion
A third AI technology stack championed by Europe and democratic allies offers an urgent, strategic opportunity to shape the future of global AI development. By fostering innovation founded on transparency, democratic principles, and rigorous governance, it could counterbalance current tech hegemonies and inspire a more inclusive and ethical AI ecosystem.
While the challenges are substantial, Europe’s persistent push for AI sovereignty underscores the importance of technological autonomy in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.
Contact: Governance Studies Media Office, [email protected], 202.540.7724
Subscribe: Center for Technology Innovation Newsletter at Brookings Institution
Photo credit: SIMON LEE on Unsplash
For more detailed analysis and policy recommendations, refer to the full commentary by Brooke Tanner and Andrew W. Wyckoff at Brookings.
