OPINION: The digital sovereignty trap

ADVERTISEMENT Filtered By: Topstories News By US UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS JACOB HELBERG Published June 25, 2026 6:39am + Add GMA on Google Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google. Greg Wood/AFP/File These days, few words flatter a government like “digital sovereignty.” It carries the music of independence, the dignity of self-rule, the promise that a nation holds its own destiny in its hands.

So it is no surprise that the expression has been pressed into the service of a fashionable, fast-spreading policy debate.Many countries have looked to the United Nations to be the great evangelist of that idea. Through its Global Digital Compact and the funds and machinery that some are trying to assemble around it, the organization presses toward a world in which every country commands what the Secretary-General’s own reports call an “irreducible minimum” of artificial intelligence—its own computers, its own data, its own models, raised at home and owned at home.

A secretariat-proposed multibillion-dollar fund would help pay for the building. And a growing number of governments, persuaded that independence requires duplication, are drafting national AI strategies to match—each resolved to rebuild, inside its own borders, a stack that already exists somewhere else.It is a seductive vision.

It is also backward and counterproductive.Silicon Valley leaders have built fortunes on a heresy that traditional industry leaders still resist: that competition for existing products and methods, far from being the engine of prosperity, is more often the graveyard of growth and the path to stagnation. The company that copies an existing product and follows traditional methods walks into a crowded market and watches its margins bleed toward zero because a hundred rivals are selling the same thing.

The company that builds something genuinely new—something that did not exist the day before—faces no competition at all and keeps the profits to show for it. The second company sees its profits go from zero to one, as it is has created a new market. The first reduces both the profits of the first and its own.

Only the innovators create new wealth for societies.Now apply the heresy to nations. Picture the conference—there is always a conference—where forty governments rise in turn to pledge a sovereign cloud, a sovereign model, a national champion of their very own.

They will applaud one another’s independence. Then they will go home and pour billions into companies built to do precisely what thirty-nine others are doing, in markets too small to sustain even one of them, chasing margins that thin asymptotically toward nothing the moment the next champion is announced. They will have achieved not so-called “digital sovereignty” but a kind of synchronized mediocrity—a planet of subscale clones, each heroically reconstructing last year’s breakthrough while the breakthrough itself moves on without them.

While others rebuild the present, American firms will be inventing the future. They will not be defending yesterday’s platform; they will be shipping tomorrow’s—the products that do not yet exist, that no committee in Geneva has thought to subsidize, that will define the coming decade before the clones have finished cloning the last one. And because they will stand alone at the frontier, they will keep what the frontier pays: the fat margins, the soaring valuations, the commanding heights of the global economy.

That is not an accident of American luck. It is the iron arithmetic of zero to one.This is the distinction the sovereignty evangelists miss, and it is the whole game.

A nation is not digitally sovereign because it can reproduce yesterday’s breakthroughs—half the world can do that. It is digitally sovereign because it can contribute to tomorrow’s. Call it innovation sovereignty: the power not to copy what exists, but to create what does not.

The autarkist measures his strength by how much he can wall off and rebuild. The innovator measures his by how much he can invent that which no one else can. One ends the decade with a museum.

The other ends it owning the future.America learned the lesson the easy way. When the world moved to 5G, the United States had no national champion to build the radios and base stations at the network’s core.

It could have declared a digital sovereignty emergency and burned a fortune standing up a domestic equipment maker from scratch. It did nothing of the kind. Instead, American companies bought the gear from trusted allies and turned their genius loose on the layer above: the cloud, the software, the artificial intelligence that now runs the world.

America did not win the future by manufacturing the antenna. It won by building everything that travels through it.This is the logic behind Pax Silica.

We did not build it as a fortress. We built it as a coalition of capabilities—a way for nations that trust one another to find the best technology whereve