A new technology alliance aimed at securing AI supply chains has exposed deepening divisions between the United States and Europe over technology governance, regulatory philosophy, and geopolitical alignment. The initiative, announced in December 2025, has attracted signatories from Asia and the Middle East while notably excluding European Union participation—including the Netherlands, home to critical semiconductor manufacturing capabilities.
The alliance represents an attempt to secure access to technologies powering artificial intelligence, from raw materials and energy to semiconductors and AI software. Signatories include Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Qatar, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates, with India expected to join. China is not explicitly mentioned, but the pact appears designed to prevent control over AI supply-chain bottlenecks.
The conspicuous European absence raises questions about whether deliberate exclusion, voluntary non-participation, or some combination explains the gap. The omission proves particularly significant given the Netherlands hosts the only company globally capable of producing lithography systems required for advanced chip manufacturing.
According to Science|Business, Jacob Helsberg, the US official leading the initiative, acknowledged "some real material policy and philosophical differences" between the US and EU "on how to approach cutting-edge technologies, particularly software and artificial intelligence." This hints at fundamental disagreements over AI regulation.
Brussels has implemented comprehensive AI legislation establishing guardrails and compliance requirements, while Washington resists regulatory constraints on technology development. These opposing approaches create incompatible frameworks that complicate collaborative initiatives requiring aligned governance standards.
Julia Hess, who researches the semiconductor industry and AI at Berlin-based think tank Interface, told Science|Business that "the US is basically exerting pressure on the EU to relax regulatory constraints in order to qualify for inclusion in this elite group." This suggests participation may require regulatory concessions that European policymakers find unacceptable.
Helsberg has also indicated that joining requires being "fundamentally aligned with the United States on broader geopolitical issues." With transatlantic relations strained over territorial disputes and defense commitments, the prerequisites for geopolitical alignment create additional barriers to European participation.
The absence of European participation—particularly Dutch involvement—undermines the alliance's stated objective of securing comprehensive access to the AI supply chain. Advanced semiconductor manufacturing depends on specialized equipment that is available nowhere else in the world. Any initiative that claims to secure access to AI technology while excluding these capabilities faces structural limitations.
Dutch and EU officials reportedly attended the alliance's launch in December, and Helsberg has acknowledged the critical European role in semiconductor supply chains. "We want Europe to have a seat at the AI table," he said in recent briefings, according to Science|Business. Yet European participation has not materialized, suggesting obstacles beyond technical coordination challenges.
Cole Donovan, a former US science diplomat and now associate director at the Federation of American Scientists, told Science|Business he can "see a lot of reasons why the EU might be cautious about such an initiative, particularly given the imperial-coded language of the initiative, other major EU foreign policy developments such as Mercosur [a trade pact with South America], and the general posture of the US government toward Europe."
The terminology matters. Language suggesting hierarchical relationships rather than collaborative partnerships signals approaches to international coordination that European officials may find inconsistent with multilateral norms they typically prefer.
Despite initial fanfare, observers question whether the alliance will produce concrete operational changes beyond symbolic declarations. When pressed about specific obligations for signatory countries, Helsberg provided limited details beyond information-sharing commitments. "We're still in the process of mapping different lines of efforts," he said, according to Science|Business.
When asked whether participation would mean curtailing exports to certain countries, he avoided direct response—a telling omission given export controls represent the most significant lever for supply chain security. The vagueness suggests either incomplete planning or deliberate ambiguity about enforcement mechanisms.
Hess told Science|Business that "the more I review the underlying documents, the more this appears to be a largely symbolic gesture." Even if signatories take commitments seriously, investments would only bear fruit in five to ten years, well beyond current political timelines. Donovan agrees, noting that declarations from participating countries remain "relatively high level with very loose specificity."
This timeline disconnect between announcement fanfare and implementation reality reflects common patterns in technology alliance formation. Political leaders announce ambitious initiatives that generate headlines, while operational details remain undefined and implementation timelines extend beyond electoral cycles that determine leadership continuity.
The fundamental challenge facing AI supply chain security initiatives: critical capabilities exist in jurisdictions with incompatible regulatory frameworks and divergent geopolitical priorities. Organizations and governments seeking comprehensive supply chain access cannot simply bypass regions that control essential technologies.
European semiconductor equipment manufacturing, advanced materials production, and precision engineering capabilities represent non-negotiable components of AI infrastructure. Initiatives excluding these capabilities may achieve regional coordination among aligned partners but cannot deliver the comprehensive supply chain security they claim as objectives.
For supply chain executives, the fragmentation creates planning complexity. Organizations building AI infrastructure must navigate multiple regulatory regimes, incompatible governance standards, and geopolitical tensions that shape access to technology. The simplifying assumption that allied democracies will coordinate seamlessly on technology governance no longer holds.
Hess argues that the EU should develop new technological strengths over medium and long-term horizons that provide "genuine geopolitical leverage" rather than replicating existing technologies already dominated by others. This suggests a strategy of building unique capabilities that create mutual dependencies rather than attempting self-sufficiency across entire technology stacks.
The alliance formation and European absence highlight a broader reality: AI supply chains will remain globally distributed across jurisdictions with divergent priorities. Organizations planning infrastructure investments must account for persistent fragmentation rather than assuming coordination will emerge through political declarations that lack operational specificity or enforcement mechanisms.
Ready to transform your supply chain with AI-powered freight audit? Talk to our team about how Trax can deliver measurable results.