Washington's ambition to transform its AI supply chain alliance, Pax Silica, into a broader economic security pact is running into resistance from European Union member states. The latest draft declaration, discussed by EU ambassadors on Wednesday, aims to secure American technological leadership by linking economic security to national security, but several EU capitals are wary of the implications.
The proposed text, seen by Euronews, states that “economic security is fundamental to national security” and that no nation can be secure without protecting its critical systems and technologies. The US wants members of Pax Silica—a coalition designed to secure supply chains for AI, semiconductors, and critical minerals—to endorse the declaration at a ceremony in San Francisco on Sunday.
The EU joined the initiative in June, despite initial reservations from France, after several member states had already signed up individually. But Washington's latest proposals have revived divisions within the bloc, with concerns ranging from vague definitions to a clash over the term “superintelligence” and the risk to the EU's regulatory autonomy.
Broad definitions and legal uncertainty
One sticking point is the declaration's broad definition of “sensitive technologies” and “critical infrastructure.” Some EU member states are demanding objective criteria, fearing that the current wording would give Washington considerable discretion to impose restrictions and pressure its allies to follow suit. The declaration calls for a “common understanding” on protecting these assets by diversifying supply chains and coordinating responses to economic coercion.
It goes further, arguing that “durable economic security among trusted partners rests not on professions of friendship alone, but on the vigilant protection of the foundations on which our economies depend.” This language, while diplomatic, masks a deeper unease in European capitals about the direction of US policy.
Brussels is particularly concerned about the terminology. The Trump administration is pushing the concept of “superintelligence,” while the European Commission has proposed an explanatory note clarifying that the EU understands the term to mean artificial intelligence. For Brussels, this is more than a semantic distinction—it is a question of legal certainty, given that AI is already defined in key EU legislation, notably the Artificial Intelligence Act.
Washington has long opposed the AI Act and is now proposing a Pax Silica working group to explore innovation-friendly regulatory approaches. This has raised alarms in European circles, where the AI Act is seen as a cornerstone of the bloc's digital sovereignty.
Export controls and trust deficit
The concerns are rooted partly in Washington's previous attempts to restrict access to advanced AI technology. In 2025, the Biden administration introduced export controls under its AI Diffusion Framework that would have limited access to the most advanced AI chips for several EU countries. The Trump administration scrapped the measures shortly before they were due to take effect, but they would have created serious problems for the EU's single market, which is built on the free movement of goods.
The restrictions were also seen as a signal that Washington did not consider some EU countries sufficiently aligned with its approach to China. The US has sought to curb China's growing technological capabilities by preventing Chinese companies from accessing the most advanced AI chips, largely designed by American firms such as Nvidia. This has created a trust deficit that the current negotiations are struggling to overcome.
On Wednesday, EU governments gave the Commission a mandate to represent the bloc and negotiate the content of the declaration with the US. But the Commission might not receive a mandate to sign it in time for the San Francisco ceremony. This uncertainty reflects the broader tensions in transatlantic relations, as Europe seeks to balance its security alliance with the US against its desire for strategic autonomy.
For now, the fate of Pax Silica's expansion remains uncertain. The EU's internal divisions, coupled with Washington's insistence on its own terminology and approach, suggest that the San Francisco ceremony may not deliver the unified front the US had hoped for. As one EU diplomat put it, “We need clarity, not vague promises.”
