I collect topics for the newsletter every day; when I scroll through my phone I take screenshots of interesting things, on my laptop I copy-paste links to a folder, and if I’m out and about, listen to the radio or otherwise come across something interesting, I dictate a note on it.

Somehow, lately, I stare at all of these ideas, and feel …. nothing. No excitement, no curiosity, if anything, fatigue. I also find myself collecting less and less ideas because of this.

These past few weeks I’ve had less screen time than before, less podcasts, less news.

Instead, I’ve spent more time with the family, dogs, chicken and gardening. I’ve been cooking a lot, trying out new French recipes, and some traditional Finnish favorites (makaroonilaatikko, anyone!). I’ve worked at our winery, La Robina, helping with the weekly tasting events, coordinating social media and hosting guests. I feel lighter, happier.

I’ve worked hard to get this newsletter and podcast to this point, and I’m so grateful that you are following me, so I feel really bad that I’m going through this.

What is Common Knowledge and what needs to be Reinforced

Since you are reading this fresh newsletter, I obviously found something worth writing about. I went back to why I felt the need to write, back to the very beginning.

During Covid lockdown when people suddenly had a lot more time to be online, I started to see a phenomenon I had not spotted before; many of the things I take for granted as common knowledge, settled science, or simple truths could be ignored, misunderstood, or purposefully twisted.

I started seeing a few themes emerge, topics that, when miscommunicated, gave me a sudden urge to go into some random person’s comments and correct them. Now, we all know this is not the way to impact anyone’s thinking or create change, so I decided to write a book, start a podcast and eventually this newsletter.

When you line up topics that you have some authority over, it draws your life story in a surprising way and makes you look at yourself from a new angle. My lived experience in the corporate world, as a startup founder, as a public policy and economic development expert, having lived and worked in two continents, three countries, several states and in multiple languages, does give me a certain type of voice.

My goal is to use this voice in support of truth, science, and an inclusive, multidisciplinary worldview that promotes innovation, international business, and well-being.

What happens next?

Since I re-launched this Newsletter as Deep Tech, promising to put more thought into the letters, offering the big picture and connecting the dots, I’ve put out 28 well researched articles and podcasts delivering on that promise. Each article and podcast episode takes multiple days to process, and unfortunately I’ve run out of juice to continue like this.

I will take a summer break from the format, but not the newsletter.

During the summer I will use this platform more as a blog, writing notes and observations on wider topics. You will no doubt be getting updates on emerging technologies and policy when I get the inspiration, but also on our life in France, and life in general. Maybe more pictures. I need to be less serious for a bit, more fun, more sunshine.

All payments are paused until I return to the format that you are paying for.

What happens after?

I have a couple of new and exciting projects bubbling under, that have to do with Generative AI and quantum hardware, and I can’t wait to be talking about them in public. You will be the first ones to know, that’s for sure.

Please keep reading, let’s enjoy the summer sunshine together.

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co Advisory Services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here. The views in this newsletter and subsequent social media posts are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Quantum Strategy Institute.

My recent conversation on Deep Pockets with Joe Ghalbouni about technology and the finance industry made clear that scale, trust, and resilience depend on rules that are shared, predictable, and interoperable. Whether in finance, digital infrastructure, or media, no technology can exist in a vacuum.

In the financial sector, as Joe explained, institutions today operate within dense webs of suppliers, cloud services, and cross‑border systems under international laws. Security is no longer just a matter of firewalls or encryption; it is a systems problem, deeply tied to regulation, integration, and shared standards.

Financial Security as a Systems Problem

When rules diverge across jurisdictions or change mid‑stream, institutions cannot plan, integrate, or protect themselves effectively. What looks like a technical vulnerability often turns out to be an organizational or regulatory one. Just think of the recent events with the U.S. Department of War and Anthropic.

This is precisely why international frameworks like the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) matter. While often discussed in technical terms, DORA’s underlying logic is simple: financial stability depends on resilience across the entire ecosystem, not just within individual firms. That includes third‑party vendors, shared infrastructure, and cross‑border operations. Regulation here is not about restricting new features or functionalities; it is about making modern finance function at all.

Interoperability: Where Regulation Meets Reality

A recurring theme in my conversation with Joe was integration. Legacy systems, new digital tools, compliance obligations, and operational security must all work together without breaking existing architectures.

This is where many innovation efforts fail. Not because the technology is immature, but because interoperability was never treated as a first‑order concern. Regulation, standards, and governance frameworks may arrive late, when systems are already entrenched. The result is costly retrofitting, fragmentation, and risk.

When regulation is aligned early and applied consistently, it becomes an enabler of integration rather than an obstacle. A good example of this is how Europe’s GSM became the global de-facto standard for telecommunications over American competitors due to their focus on interoperability, international roaming agreements and eventually massive economies of scale.

A Parallel Case From Media: Predictability Over Deregulation

This same logic emerged this week in a very different industry. In a recent Politico interview, Netflix co‑CEO Ted Sarandos made a pointed case to European regulators: he is not opposed to regulation, but to fragmentation and unpredictability.

Sarandos emphasized that Netflix can operate under regulation as long as the rules are simple, predictable, and consistent across EU member states. What undermines investment and long‑term planning, he argued, is a patchwork of national mandates that erode the benefits of the single market and introduce uncertainty mid‑production.

This argument will sound familiar to anyone working in finance, cloud services, or critical digital infrastructure.

Why Predictable Rules Enable Innovation

The common thread across finance and media is not the specific technology, but the operating environment. Global businesses can adapt to rules. What they struggle with is regulatory inconsistency, unclear obligations, and shifting requirements.

Innovation at scale requires:

• shared assumptions

• stable interfaces

• and frameworks that allow systems and organizations to interoperate across borders

When these conditions are met, regulation is not a brake on progress. It is part of the infrastructure that makes innovation durable.

Translating Across Domains

Joe described his role as a translator between technologists, financial institutions, and regulators, and that translation function is becoming essential across sectors. Technologies today are collaborative by design. They depend on shared infrastructure, shared data flows, and shared trust models.

Public policy, when done well, becomes invisible. When it is misaligned or fragmented, it becomes the single largest source of friction.

Also, alignment can take place simultaneously. Public policy need not always come first. In the early days of of TCP/IP vs. OSI standard, governments and standards bodies initially favored OSI, but the market chose TCP/IP because it worked across heterogeneous networks, interoperated easily, and scaled without waiting for regulatory perfection. Today, every digital service relies on TCP/IP, and every government has gone along with it.

The Real Mandate Going Forward

The takeaway is not that we need less regulation, but better alignment. In finance, in media, and across digital industries, the new mandate is clear: security, interoperability, and innovation rise - or fall - together.

The challenge for governments is not whether to regulate, but how to do so in a way that preserves cohesion, predictability, and long‑term resilience in an increasingly interconnected world.

Reach out to Joe Ghalbouni or me (petra@petrasoderling.com) to discuss further.

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co Advisory Services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here. The views in this newsletter and subsequent social media posts are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Quantum Strategy Institute.

Resources:

EU's Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/digital-operational-resilience-act-dora_en

Joe Ghalbouni LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/joeghalbouni/

Ghalbouni consulting https://ghalbouniconsulting.com/

Support the show

This topic, unfortunately, is perhaps more current now than ever.

There’s the ongoing story about private, commercial use of government data, either legally or illegally sourced, there’s the use of social media algorithms for shaping how people view certain cultures, with real or fabricated stories and images, there’s the use of AI chatbots to analyze intelligence and help generate military plans, either with a capable, intelligent human analyst in charge of actual decisions, or not, there' is the story about how warfare has completely changed after 2022, and how governments around the world are taking a hard look at their expensive, potentially outdated equipment, and many more.

My premise when I started to write the book in 2021, was to uncover the critical role governments play in paying for the core scientific research, then help the private industry commercialize it in order to create entire new industries. There are many cases in history where a military technology ultimately trickles down to consumers, making the original public investment many times more valuable than its first use case intended. Your typical examples include nuclear, radar, vaccines, space travel, GPS, or the internet.

With the modern war, we’re talking about AI, drones, material sciences, biotech and quantum. What is the relationship of these technologies with the military? Let’s explore below.

If you are not a paid subscriber please consider joining. I spend a lot of time writing these articles and every bit of support helps.

Read more

Resources:

Camille Georges, LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camillemjgeorges/

WEF article 'Why the quantum revolution risks leaving women behind – and what to do about it' https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/03/quantum-revolution-gender-divide/

Petra's Deep Policy article 'How to talk about Women and Technology'
https://petrasoderling.substack.com/p/how-to-talk-about-women-and-technology

Support the show

Also last week, I wrote a guest blog post for The Quantum Spin on export controls and trade agreements in the quantum industry. In that post, I describe how the quantum industry, much like most deeptech industries, rely on global supply chains for acquiring tools, parts, and materials, and also rely on a global market place to sell their final products and services.

As a dual use technology, a technology that can be used both for military or for civilian purposes, quantum falls under export controls. Export controls are a set of restrictions and licensing regulations set by governments to control the exporting of these technologies to other countries. This could be an issue for international deeptech companies if a country they buy materials from suddenly restricts the sale of that material to you, or your own government restricts the sale of your products to your international clients.

As I put these two ideas together, I came up with the topic for this newsletter; for U.S. deeptech companies to expand to Europe in order to minimize the risks from tightening export controls and volatile trade agreements, and for selected key employees of that company to move themselves and their families to Europe to set the subsidiary up.

How I left the U.S.

Life is what happens when you make other plans, and that’s how I moved to France.

My husband and I bought a summer home in South of France during Covid - without seeing it first - at the same time we bought a new home in Arvada, Colorado. We drove our moving van from New Orleans to Arvada in a snowstorm in March, and flew to France to check out our new summer house in June.

The house turned out to be much bigger than expected, with amazing tiled floors and funky bourgeois details, a garden with a goldfish pond and climbing roses, even private access to a river with a waterfall. Oh, and it’s built in 1631 and located in a town with three boulangeries, five restaurants, post office, pharmacy, supermarket … anything you need.

By the end of that first summer we had decided to move here permanently. The following two years we renovated the house in Colorado and sold it to kick off our life in France. But as life does it, I had just started to work for the World Bank, so instead, I moved to Washington DC. Surprise!

We somehow managed to do a long distance relationship for a year until it didn’t really work out, so I also ended up moving to France permanently.

If you would like to get tips and stories on how to buy a house in France, especially what not to do, I’ve got the goods. I can also recommend groups and websites that help expats find support and advise.

Make most of EU for your company

Having a presence in the EU will not only affect your business in terms of export licenses and trade agreements. You also have direct access to a market of 450 million consumers, 5.5% of the world’s population. It’s also a fast growing market. In 2024, 4.2 million people moved into the EU in and 1.6 million moved out.

EU has over 33 million enterprises, with 1.7 million companies operating in the “information and communication services sector”, these are Europe’s tech companies. The EU’s generous public, and public-private R&D funding program Horizon Europe helps these companies build products in nascent deeptech fields such as quantum.

There’s also the European Investment Bank’s accelerator, and venture debt programs for startups and scaleups, again available to European companies in varying degrees of foreign ownership.

If your company would like to investigate these options, I’ve spent the last two years working with the European Commission and the European Investment Bank on these exact programs, and I’m happy to help.

Considering an EU Presence? I Can Offer Perspective

Expanding your business to another country is always a big decision. What’s the right time, where to go, and what kind of commitment are we talking about. During the four years that I worked for Invest in Finland I helped American companies find these answers about Finland. After working for the EU in Luxembourg and France, I have a good understanding where to look for answers.

Moving yourself and your family is another issue. Do we need to learn a new language, how’s the climate, how to organize school and healthcare, will my spouse find work, should we rent or buy, the questions are endless. Having done that move myself, and being surrounded by fellow expats, I’m here to help.

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co Advisory Services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here. The views in this newsletter and subsequent social media posts are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Quantum Strategy Institute.

Throughout that year, Soviets had been given increasing amounts of visas to travel west. They had very little money, so they tried to extend their travel budgets by selling small items, often cheap cigarettes - makhorka - around the R-Kiosks. Between customers, Russian men would approach the window and ask for the international men’s magazines they could see on the shelves.

I would hand them the glossy western magazines, material they had never seen before, and they would frantically flip through the pages. I would then ask, which one would they buy, as a line was forming behind them. They never bought any. They didn’t have enough money. Instead, they spat on the window and called me a whore for taking their precious magazines away.

On one of these cold winter days, I heard on the radio that there was a new political party forming, the Women’s Party. Their meeting would be held just two blocks from the kiosk. I went, joined the party, and three years later became the Chairwoman of the Finnish Women’s Party.

Tech Bros and “masculine energy”

Reading through the Epstein files is horrifying but not completely surprising. Silicon Valley and the Financial World have long been open about, even celebrated their misogyny, but 2025 has truly solidified where the industry stands. Technology companies flocked to far right, removing DEI language and practices from their companies and platforms, actively making women’s lives more dangerous. Today, there’s even a story on Wired about the Gay Tech Mafia (lesbians not invited).

The Epstein files are drawing up a map of a world through the eyes of people who consider women less human. According to the United Nations Human Rights office, “these acts could amount to sexual slavery, reproductive violence, enforced disappearance, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and femicide”, even crimes against humanity.

I don’t know how many of my readers have known the existence and the prevalence of these people before, but most women have some idea.

The gruesome map that the Epstein files are laying in front of us is of course foreign to the vast majority of men and women in the tech industry, but it is not completely alien. Pushing out women, or exploiting women is not consistent in the tech industry, but it has multiple pain points. There is a pattern of retaliation against women who speak out, NDAs and quiet settlements, and the rhetoric of meritocracy used as a mask for gatekeeping.

Conference tracks ‘Women in Technology’

We’re approaching March 8th, the International Women’s Day. We will again see companies celebrate their female employees, some even promoting products that “empower” women (cringe - please don’t do this).

Celebrating women’s contributions is nice, and so is discussing the important role that women play in tech. Yet, even as the former Chairwoman of the Finnish Women’s Party, I rarely attend the conference track “Women in …”. Why?

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, the track is often in parallel with something more interesting, since, together with ‘education’ and ‘public policy’, the track ‘women in’ get shuffled around landing in the most inconvenient slot of the week. Second, looking around the room, you only see women. It’s women talking to other women. While, again, it’s nice and cozy, is that going to solve any real issues?

Also, whenever I got invited to speak at this panel I didn’t feel celebrated, I felt degraded. I felt like I wasn’t invited for my expertise but for my gender.

But now, in this moment of time, something has shifted.

So, how to talk about Women and Technology

Recently, I was invited to the Women in Quantum by ImpactQuantum podcast. As I looked at the topics that Candace had suggested, I realized I actually don’t have a lot to say about what it’s like to be a woman in the quantum industry, and that really bothered me.

Until fairly recently I had thought that the best way for me to encourage and inspire younger women was to become successful myself, and lift other women around me.

However, gradually over the past years, witnessing Silicon Valley accumulate social, political, and economic influence that far exceeds its share of GDP or its proportion of the workforce, I’ve had a change of heart. I no longer think it’s enough to lift the women in my sphere of influence, I think I need to widen the sphere of influence.

I still think that ‘Women in Technology’ tracks in conferences serve a limited purpose, but they are important showcases for younger women that those of us with decades in this industry still recognize the challenges that younger women face (we now face ageism but that’s another story). It’s important to get together as a group and discuss the situation. But if we want to make actual structural changes, we should call those tracks ‘Men in Technology’ and have all male panels commit to solutions to diversify the workforce and decision making.

I think it’s important to show younger women and men that the gender balance in industries are a social and economical construct, and not a question of capability or intellect.

Talking Points

It’s important to demonstrate how things used to be, and what it could look like again. Some of my favorite examples are from the early history of computing with examples like Ada Lovelace, Hedy Lamarr, Grace Hopper, Henrietta Leavitt, Marie Curie, Radia Perlman, and historical examples of using women as “computers”, cheap labor to do mathematical calculations.

Image: At 28-years-old in 1969, JoAnn Morgan was the only woman in the control room for the launch of the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon. Morgan was the instrumentation controller - responsible for 21 channels of communications and the health and welfare of all the monitoring systems for the Saturn 5 rocket that carried the Apollo spacecraft into space.

Another point that doesn’t get enough attention is what the tech industry looked like in the 1970s and 1980s, before the era of Personal Computers, and more specifically before the industry decided that PCs are marketed as gaming devices - for boys.

In 1984, women earned approximately 37% of U.S. bachelor’s degrees in computer science, the highest share on record. By 2010, that figure had fallen to around 18%. Today, women receive roughly 22–24% of computer science degrees, depending on the dataset. The decline that began by excluding girls from PC ads, making them feel unwelcome in the gaming world, has never recovered.

Another point that is often discussed but rarely moves the needle, are statistics that show that diverse tech teams perform better. Including people from groups who will use your products make a better product, including people with diverse backgrounds in decision making improves your decision making, including people with varying levels of risk taking tolerance improve your risk taking.

Speaking of risk taking, it has also been demonstrated that women may be better business leaders than men. Unfortunately the science and the data is not turning into action as women continue to be underrepresented in corner offices and startup hubs.

With empathy

Lastly, women’s experience in the tech world is different from men’s. But both of these are huge buckets. There are many nuances, and many individuals in both buckets who thrive or face challenges for multiple reasons. When we discuss a topic where personal and public interests overlap this much, it’s always a good idea to consider yourself in the other guys shoes before opening your mouth.

There are many fantastic, supporting men and women who make it enjoyable for women to thrive in tech, as there are many fantastic, creative and smart women and men who don’t feel the need to enter the tech world.

It’s all good. Keep calm and Carry on Fighting Bias.

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co Advisory Services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here. The views in this newsletter and subsequent social media posts are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Quantum Strategy Institute.

In this case, the search at X’s Paris office is part of a preliminary investigation into a range of alleged offenses, which in turn are a part of a year long regulatory conversation about EU’s regulations and American tech giants.

As a side note, it’s unfortunate that Elon Musk renamed Twitter “X” as news outlets now feel the need to bring his persona into the headline. Editors don’t trust that readers would understand a headline that says “Paris prosecutors raid French offices of X”. If Twitter would still be Twitter, the headlines would not say “Jack Dorsey’s Twitter”. It would just be Twitter.

Anyways, back to the topic of the day.

The French investigation, which also involves the EU wide police agency Europol, began in January 2025 over allegations that X's algorithm was used to interfere in French politics, now also includes a probe into Grok's dissemination of Holocaust denials from November 2025 and sexual deepfakes from January 2026. All of these are crimes in France, and in the European Union.

There is precedent, in 2024 France arrested Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram app, for enabling fraud, drug trafficking, organized crime, promotion of terrorism and cyberbullying on the Telegram platform.

Separately, the UK has opened investigations to X’s violations of internet safely laws, unlawful data extraction, and complicity in the possession of child sexual abuse materials. Additionally, several European countries, including UK, France, Spain and Greece are looking to follow Australia’s lead on restricting social media use from young children and teenagers.

EU Enforcing its Digital Laws; Top Actions taken in 2025

2025 was an eventful year for the European Union in enforcing its data protection laws; the AI Act, Digital Services Act (DSA), and Digital Markets Act (DMA).

This list from Euronews:

1. In April, Apple and Meta were fined €500 million and €200 million, respectively, for not complying with the Digital Markets Act. The fines came after the European Commission had concluded that Apple was preventing app developers from freely communicating with consumers, and that Meta’s “pay or consent” advertising model violated European users’ rights.

2. In September, Commission fined Google €2.95 billion over abusive practices in online advertising technology, this was the fourth penalty EU competition regulators have levied against Google over the past decade.

3. In December, the European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation into Google's use of web publishers’ content without their knowledge or consent to train its AI models and produce AI overviews on search results pages.

4. In December, Meta commits to give EU users choice on personalized ads under the Digital Markets Act, Europeans now have the option to see less personalized ads on Facebook and Instagram if they want to

5. In December, following a two-year investigation, EU fined X €120 million for breaking the Digital Services Act rules on transparency. Breaches include the company’s deceptive use of its blue “verified” checkmark, the lack of transparency regarding its ads, and its failure to provide access to public data for research purposes.

There’s also the December 2025 lawsuit brought by the copyright collective GEMA in Munich, Germany, against Open AI. There is no sign of Europe letting these cases go, on the contrary.

In January 2026, the Commission launched an investigation against Grok and extended its ongoing investigation from December 2023 into X’s compliance with its recommender systems risk management obligations.

European nation states and the European Union are serious about protecting the freedom and rights of their citizens, and enforcing the laws that their democratically elected parliaments have passed.

U.S. relies on First Amendment and Section 230

The U.S. has a completely different philosophy when it comes to the freedom and rights of their citizens. Americans believe in a ‘Speech First, Regulation Later’ approach, while Europeans look at the platforms as infrastructures that must align with democratic norms. There are, however, many Americans who question the tech companies’ influence on the American society.

To understand the history of these ideals, and the history of the internet, we need to go back to 1996 when the U.S. Congress passed a law, Section 230, that protects Americans’ freedom of expression online by protecting the online intermediaries we all rely on.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)).

This means that anyone can say anything in social media, secured by their first amendment right, and the social media platform is not held accountable, only the individual person might be.

Section 230(c)(2)(A) does, however, state that service providers and users may not be held liable "for voluntary, "good faith" actions "to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. This means that the platforms can moderate in good faith and will not held liable for restricting free speech.

Section 230 allows for platforms to do content moderation, but it does not require it. Platforms do it, because even Section 230 cannot protect them from being in violation of other laws if they are seen to amplify illegal content. With the addition of native AI tools, the platforms themselves are also creating content which is a new legal aspect for them to consider.

Section 230 is increasingly debated, with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers bringing forward arguments why the internet and social media would be better without it, while others oppose the repeal.

Why This Matters Now

I started writing here in Substack in January 2024, thinking I would mostly cover how governments around the world enable the birth of new deeptech industries, and how those industries could be used by governments for economic growth. Unfortunately, since 2025, I find myself writing less and less about those topics, and more and more about the affects of the U.S. administration’s decisions on the global tech industries.

Why?

Because of the unpredictable and inconsistent way those decisions come about, and the dramatic effect that those decisions have both in the U.S. and abroad.

As an American living in Europe I’m trying to understand and communicate both sides, while reflecting my personal, lived experience in the technology industry since the time before Facebook, Twitter, or smartphones existed, and Google was just two years old.

Most people on social media criticizing or defending Elon Musk have no idea they are doing it protected and enabled by their local governments. Most people in these conversations also do not understand that the ability for Google, Apple, X, or Meta to break laws (EU) or enable their users to break laws (US) has led, and will increasingly lead to erosions in election security, national security, defence and economic autonomy, and transatlantic trust.

If the American tradition asks ‘how do we protect individuals from government overreach’, and the European tradition asks ‘how do we protect democratic society from systemic harm’, they are both precious values.

The question in front of us may look like who is going to control the digital public square, Europe or America, and in the short term we cannot avoid confrontation. But the underlying debate should be whether sovereign actors can design rules that preserve both individual freedom and social and democratic stability.

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co Advisory Services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here. The views in this newsletter and subsequent social media posts are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Quantum Strategy Institute.

As I’m typing this in South of France, a fighter jet is roaring over my house. There’s nowhere to hide from what’s going on in the world.

I try not to write about quantum too much as I know my audience is wider, but as an industry that’s just forming, few presets, few standards, it’s an interesting benchmark on geopolitics and global supply chains.

The global race in quantum computing is often framed around scientific milestones: who achieves fault tolerance first, who scales qubit counts fastest, who unlocks commercial advantage. This is what my LinkedIn feed looks like. It’s an easy topic, as companies get to brag about their breakthroughs and progress. But behind the scenes lies another contest, one shaped by supply chains, export controls, and geopolitical trust. This is not something that Corporate PR teams support posting on LinkedIn.

Quantum computing is not just about labs, fabs, and algorithms. It is a story of dilution refrigerators built in Finland, ultra-stable lasers engineered in Japan, semiconductor tools designed in the Netherlands, and control electronics manufactured in the United States. These, and other components make quantum systems possible, and they are needed by anyone, anywhere, who wants to build a quantum computer. They are also increasingly seen as strategic assets which means they increasingly fall under export regulations.

The Infrastructure Behind Quantum Breakthroughs

Quantum computing is not one technology but several competing approaches, each with its own hardware dependencies. These are called “technologies”, “modalities” or “platforms”. You can think of them as sort of proprietary “operating systems”, a Microsoft system is not going to run on Apple OS and vice versa. Superconducting qubits, trapped ions, photonics, and neutral atoms all require distinct materials and tools. What they share is a reliance on specialized components produced by a small number of global suppliers.

Superconducting quantum systems developed by companies such as IBM, Google and IQM, operate at temperatures colder than outer space. They depend on dilution refrigerators capable of reaching millikelvin ranges. Only a handful of firms globally manufacture these systems, with European companies, Finland’s Bluefors being one, playing an outsized role. These refrigerators are not interchangeable commodities; they are precision-engineered platforms that can take years to design and deploy.

Trapped-ion systems rely on ultra-stable lasers and high-vacuum environments to manipulate individual atoms. Here, supply chains are concentrated in the United States, Europe, and Japan, where decades of investment in photonics and precision optics have built specialized industrial ecosystems.

Photonic and neutral atom platforms shift the dependency profile toward semiconductor fabrication tools, integrated photonics, and optical control systems. These, in turn, connect quantum computing to the broader geopolitics of semiconductor manufacturing, where capacity and expertise are already tightly concentrated.

Regardless of the modality, quantum computing advances depend not only on scientific discovery or startup investments, but on access to a narrow set of enabling technologies.

Supply Chains as Strategic Leverage

For decades, advanced research equipment circulated relatively freely among trusted partners. That assumption is now under pressure.

Export control regimes in the United States and the European Union increasingly target upstream technologies rather than finished products. Cryogenic systems, advanced semiconductor manufacturing tools, specialized lasers, and certain control electronics now fall under stricter licensing requirements, especially when exports involve countries perceived as strategic competitors.

This reflects a shift in how policymakers understand technological advantage. Rather than restricting knowledge directly, governments are focusing on the tools that enable progress. If a nation cannot easily acquire or reproduce these inputs, its innovation trajectory slows.

The logic is familiar from semiconductors, where lithography tools became focal points of global trade tensions. Quantum technologies now appear to be entering a similar phase.

It’s also important to remember that export regulations are a two-way street. If your country does not allow you to sell technology to another country, that other country likely is not going to sell to you. Product creators need to buy tools, materials and equipment, but they also need to sell the finished product.

A Comparative Lens: The US, EU, and Canada

While often grouped together as part of a Western technology ecosystem, the United States, the European Union, and Canada approach quantum supply chains from distinct positions of strength and vulnerability.

The United States: System Integrator and Standards Setter

The U.S. retains leadership in quantum system design, software, and venture investment. Its strength lies in integration combining hardware, algorithms, and commercialization pathways. American firms dominate in superconducting and trapped-ion platforms, and U.S. universities remain magnets for global talent.

However, the U.S. is not self-sufficient. It depends heavily on European suppliers for cryogenic systems and on Asian and European partners for semiconductor fabrication tools. Export controls allow Washington to shape the global landscape, but they also highlight domestic gaps in advanced manufacturing infrastructure.

The European Union: Precision Manufacturing Powerhouse

Europe’s comparative advantage lies in high-precision engineering. From cryogenic refrigeration to photonics and lithography, EU firms occupy critical nodes in the quantum hardware supply chain. These capabilities give Europe quiet but substantial leverage in shaping global technology flows.

The EU’s policy response increasingly emphasizes strategic autonomy, reducing dependencies while maintaining openness to collaboration. Investments in research, coordinated industrial policy, and updated dual-use regulations reflect an understanding that Europe’s strength is not only in invention but in enabling others to innovate.

Canada: Bridging Research and Alliances

Canada plays a unique role as both a research leader and a diplomatic bridge-builder. Its strength in photonics, quantum communications, and academic excellence positions it as a trusted partner across alliances.

Canada’s strategy has focused less on control and more on coalition-building. By aligning with both U.S. and European partners while maintaining open research networks, Canada seeks resilience through diversification rather than dominance. This approach may become increasingly valuable in a fragmented global landscape.

The Risks of Fragmentation

Export controls can slow adversaries, but they can also accelerate duplication. If countries perceive that access to critical technologies may be restricted, they invest in domestic alternatives. Over time, this can lead to parallel supply chains that are less efficient, more costly, and less collaborative.

Quantum computing remains a field where breakthroughs often arise from cross-border partnerships. Excessive fragmentation risks reducing the pace of discovery, increasing costs, and limiting interoperability. The challenge for policymakers is to protect security without undermining the collaborative foundations of innovation.

Innovation in an Era of Strategic Interdependence

Quantum supply chains reveal a deeper truth about emerging technologies: no country operates alone. Even technological leaders depend on ecosystems that span borders. Managing these interdependencies requires new frameworks that balance openness with resilience.

For companies, this means supply chain diversification and regulatory foresight are becoming as important as technical performance.

For governments, it means aligning industrial policy with diplomatic strategy. For researchers, it means navigating a landscape where collaboration and competition increasingly coexist.

The Quiet Contest That Will Shape the Deeptech Future

The future of quantum computing may hinge less on who achieves the next technical milestone and more on who secures access to the tools that make progress possible. Cryogenic systems, lasers, semiconductor tools, and precision materials are not glamorous, but they form the backbone of the quantum ecosystem.

The United States, the European Union, and Canada each bring different strengths to this landscape. Their ability to coordinate policies, maintain trust, and preserve openness will influence not only their own competitiveness but the global trajectory of quantum innovation.

Quantum computing promises transformative capabilities, but it does not work in a tech silo. The first commercial quantum computing uses will be hybrid quantum-classical supercomputer solutions, enhancing the development of AI, and in turn being enhanced by AI.

Realizing the promise of quantum+supercomputing+AI will require more than scientific brilliance. It will demand careful stewardship of the supply chains that underpin discovery and a recognition that in the quantum era, cooperation may prove just as strategic as control.

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co Advisory Services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here. The views in this newsletter and subsequent social media posts are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Quantum Strategy Institute.

The next day, in his Davos speech, the President of the United States said that “We have never gotten anything from helping NATO. We were paying their bills, for what?” and that "the United States was paying for virtually 100% of NATO". He also said that NATO troops in Afganistan “stayed a little off the frontlines”, and for all of these sacrifices the U.S. should now obtain Greenland from Denmark, a "small ask”.

All of his claims false, of course.

In relation to Greenland, NATO and tariffs, the U.S. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent tells European leaders to ‘sit back, take a deep breath’ and ‘let things play out’.

But Europeans - and Canadians - are done with sitting back. In his much quoted Davos speech, the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, said:

Carney laid out a strategy for building coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture. He said, the middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.

What Carney called a rupture, the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calls a permanent state. According to her, it is time to seize this opportunity and build a new independent Europe.

So Canada adapting to a rupture, not a transition, by calling for the middle powers to work together and the EU is changing permanently to be more independent. What does this mean for global technology industries?

Raw Power rules, OK?

As Van den Leyen put it in the opening speech of the European Parliament on January 21st, we now live in a world of raw power whether it’s economic, military, technological, or geopolitical. The EU is now speeding up its independence in security, technology, economy and democracy, adding resources to strong innovation and technology capacity, education and talent, “above all a real capacity to defend ourselves”.

Europe is quickly and permanently breaking up its structural foreign dependencies in energy, raw materials, and digital technologies.

Diversifying supply chains with the Mercosur deal, a breakthrough after 25 years of trade negotiations, creating the largest free trade zone in the world, lessens both Europe’s and Latin America’s dependencies in the U.S. Other countries that the EU is negotiating with, or already signed agreements with in 2025, include Mexico, Indonesia, Switzerland, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, UAE, and India.

Share Deep Policy

Within the Union, EU is introducing something called EU Inc. a new corporate type that adheres to a joint set of rules across all 27 member states. People will be able to set up this company in 48 hours and operate in any EU country. This is hoped to attract and generate more innovation, investment, and technology growth in the region.

The EU is planning to do the same with financial markets, creating a seamless EU wide, deep and liquid, capital market union. This is hoped to direct funds to scaleups, SMEs, innovation, and industry.

In defence, Europe has done more in 2025 than in the decade before, budgeting 800 billion euros to be invested until 2030. Member States are stepping up investments at record levels which has tripled the market value of European defence companies since January 2022. In context with Arctic Security, the EU is forming regional defence partnerships with Canada, UK, Iceland, and Norway.

EU’s new Security Architecture is coming out later in 2026, it will no doubt address the changing landscape of alliances and allies.

Security and economy go hand in hand, and technology is smack in the middle of both.

“Companies and Countries, time to take the sign down”

The sign that Canadian PM Carney refers to in his speech is from a 1978 essay by the Czech dissident - later president - Vaclav Havel, the Power of the Powerless. In it, Havel asks the question, how did the Communist system sustain itself. His answer began with the greengrocer.

Every morning the greengrocer would place a sign on the window that said ‘Workers of the World - Unite’. He didn’t believe it, and neither did the other shopkeepers on all the streets that all placed the same sign. They did it to show compliancy, to avoid trouble. A systems power does not come from its truth, but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source. When even one shopkeeper takes their sign down, the system starts to crumble.

When Mark Carney is asking for countries, and companies, to take the sign down, he is saying that the old system with its trade rules, technology standards, and American hegemony is over. It’s over permanently, because this is a rupture, trust is broken, and subordinates are no longer willing to participate in their sub-ordinance.

As the United States has withdrawn from international organizations and strongly and continuously signal to other countries that it is not willing to work with them on standards, on interoperability, on harmonized legislation, on prices, American technology companies are not only looking at shrinking markets to sell their products to, but an increased competition from regions they used to call allies.

Consumers are increasingly wary of buying American products that have remote software control capabilities, countries are re-evaluating their reliance on American software and military products, coming up with local and regional alternatives.

This is happening within strong markets such as Canada and the EU, but also across the new alliances that are quickly forming across the globe, issue by issue, among the middle powers as they grapple with the death of the American hegemony.

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co advisory services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here.

It’s hard.

There is so much noise, there’s always been much noise, but the past months the volume is amped up so that it’s harder than ever to focus, connect the dots, and produce a coherent perspective.

US National Security Strategy (NSS) was “poorly received” in Europe

This is how Sam Freedman, the writer of the most popular UK Substack Comment is Freed, author of Sunday Times bestselling book “Failed State”, and a Senior fellow at the Institute for Government put it in his blog post on December 10th.

At the time of its launch, many in Europe ignored or dismissed the NSS because it was badly written, full of contradictions, a hodgepodge of ideas, actions and non-actions written obviously by different people and put together unedited.

But as months go by, Europeans are seeing that JD Vance’s speech in the Munich security conference, and Trump’s comments of Greenland are not one-offs but a clear execution of the section on Europe in the strategy document.

Freedman points out two concerns for Europe.

“First, it directly interferes in European affairs by explicitly siding with ‘Patriotic Parties’ and picking up on their themes of ‘civilisational erasure’. It is ‘more than plausible,’ the document says, ‘that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European’ (which we can assume to mean non-white).”

“Second, it fails to discuss Russia as an adversary that poses a direct threat to freedom in Europe and is currently waging an aggressive war against a sovereign country.”

Europe is moving troops to Greenland

Today is Thursday, January 15, 2026, a bit more than a month since Freedman’s newsletter. “Poorly received” strategy messaging has turned into Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, France, possibly others moving actual troops to Greenland, in preparation to deter the U.S. from taking over the country, or in the worst case, respond to military aggression with a military response.

Yesterday, the Foreign Ministers of Denmark and Greenland tried to negotiate with the White House, and came out saying it is 'clear that the president has this wish of conquering Greenland.'

It is extremely difficult to understand how the U.S. policy makers are allowing for this to happen.

The Consequences

For NATO to weaken, or fall apart, will only benefit Russia and China. China will feel free to take over Taiwan, possibly other regions in Asia, and Russia will be emboldened to take over regions in Europe.

What would this mean?

Let’s look at Taiwan first. I have written extensively about the U.S.-China semiconductor trade deals, which have been, to put it mildly, confusing and unpredictable. Unpredictability is not good for business, so China has been seeking ways to be independent when it comes to (AI) semiconductors. American chip manufacturers need Chinese customers, but they also need Taiwan’s manufacturing capacity. For example, Apple’s and Nvidia’s GPUs are designed in the U.S. but manufactured by TMSC in Taiwan. If China takes over TMSC, China controls large parts of the American semiconductor industry. Not Good (NG).

Closer to home for me, Europe and Russia. With a weak NATO, Russia will be emboldened to attack the Baltic countries, which would likely lead to Finland, Poland, possibly other NATO countries coming to defend our Baltic friends. Would Russia do this? Absolutely. As I wrote in September, Russia has always had only one (political) goal - to expand territory. Mother Russia can never be too big, to have a too comfortable cushion around Moscow. Putin famously said the collapse of the Soviet empire was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and he is doing everything in his power to correct this mistake.

Europe would fight Russia - without any help from the U.S. - on multiple fronts. The EU is not a country, it is a stack of contracts and legislation holding together the economic interests of 27 nation states. It’s easy to imagine how slow and inadequate EU’s response could be. Also NG.

The Worst Case Scenario

It’s hard to conceive that Europe, together with NATO allies, would be fighting a war against the United States. It’s truly unfathomable that we are here, but here we are. I live in South France, and people here are already talking about how to survive if things get really bad, not to mention the mood in my Finnish social media. People are scared.

Europe would need to decide what to do with the U.S. military bases here.

Read more

Join the IYQ Closing Ceremony here https://quantum2025.org/iyq-closing-ceremony-information-2/

Previous recording with Claudia https://petrasoderling.com/s4e2

Substack from UNESCO opening https://petrasoderling.substack.com/p/unesco-paris-quantum?r=1rijxn

Recording with Jesús Sánchez Herrero https://petrasoderling.com/s5e5

Support the show

December 2024

Our story starts when Joe Biden closed some loopholes in the U.S. export control framework in December 2024. This export control framework had been in place since October 2022.

According to CSIS, the purpose of closing the loopholes was to (1) choke off China’s access to the future of AI and high performance computing by restricting China’s access to advanced AI chips; (2) prevent China from obtaining or domestically producing alternatives; and (3) mitigate the revenue impacts on U.S. industry by continuing to allow Chinese sales for less advanced, less threatening, technologies.

This last category included Nvidia’s H20 chip, a less advanced semiconductor that Nvidia specifically designed in 2022 to match Biden’s earlier export control regulations, and had been allowed to sell to China.

Although designed against China, the Biden rule sorted more than 100 other countries in different tiers of export restrictions, including selected countries within the EU, and Middle Eastern countries. American chip manufacturers including Nvidia and AMD were not happy with this because it restricted their sales.

January - April 2025

Then came January 2025 and two things happened. Donald Trump became the president of the United States, and Chinese Deepseek announced that it was able to develop an AI model at a fraction of the cost relative to estimates of major players in the industry. DeepSeek claimed it could operate as effectively as ChatGPT using less advanced chips.

All of a sudden, there is increasing demand for Nvidia’s H20 chips among Chinese technology companies such as Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang understands this could be a problem, and starts courting the White House and dining in Mar a Lago. Unfortunately this does not help, as on April 15, 2025 the administration stops the free sales of H20 to China, by introducing a mandatory license.

May 2025

Then, on May 14, 2025 the Trump administration suddenly cancels the Biden mandate from 2024, including restrictions to sell chips to the EU and to Middle East. Now it would be ok to sell the chips overseas again. The reason for this, as stated by the Commerce Department, was that the requirements would have “stifled American innovation and saddled companies with burdensome new regulatory requirements”.

The announcement also coincided with President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, where the U.S. agreed to sell $142 billion worth of jets, missile defense and other weapons systems to Saudi Arabia, and said that “chip giant Nvidia will build some of the world’s most advanced chips in Saudi Arabia. It’s designed to tie the kingdom to American technology and exclude Chinese technology.”

Needless to say, Saudi Arabia and Europe were very happy to be able to buy American chips again.

August 2025

Then, on August 11, 2025 under new, unusual agreement, the administration agreed a revenue share deal with Nvidia and AMD for the U.S. government to get a 15% cut of Nvidia and AMD chip sales to China. The president had wanted 20% but Jensen Huang negotiated it down to 15%. Huang was happy to ship H20 again because “we haven’t shipped H20 to China for months”.

Having the U.S. government strike a revenue share deal with a private company was completely unheard of. Both Republican and Democratic law makers, and multiple scholars and institutes raised concerns for the actual outcome, and for precedent.

If revenue share was controversial, there was more to follow. On August 22, 2025 the government took a roughly 10% stake in the chipmaker Intel, becoming its biggest single shareholder. This equity was taken in exchange for the grants awarded to Intel via the Biden ear CHIPS and Science Act. The news pushed Intel’s stock price to a 50% gain. If the revenue share deal had raised eyebrows, the government forcing itself as the main shareholder of a private tech company was from another planet altogether.

September 2025

Just weeks later, on September 18, 2025, Nvidia announces it will take a 4% stake in Intel by investing $5 billion. Nvidia would become one of the largest shareholders of Intel, now together with the U.S. government. Intel’s stock price increased 23%.

September was a busy month for Nvidia, as they also announced to invest up to $100bn in OpenAI, the firm behind ChatGPT.

October 2025

On October 6, 2025, AMD and OpenAI announce they signed a multibillion-dollar chip deal that would also give the ChatGPT creator the option to buy a large stake in the chipmaker for .

“The deal offers OpenAI an opportunity to buy 10% in AMD and marks a major vote of confidence in the company’s AI chips and software. Shares of AMD surged more than 30% and added about $80bn to its market capitalization after the announcement.”

If it’s hard to keep up, don’t worry you are not alone. This looks like an AI bubble of the worst kind. If you are interested in following the AI bubble news in particular, I recommend following Ed Zitron’s podcast Better Offline.

This is the part of the story where we introduce the energy concerns. Just this one agreement alone, the agreement between AMD and OpenAI, covers the deployment of hundreds of thousands of AMD’s AI chips, or graphics processing units, equivalent to six gigawatts, over several years beginning in the second half of 2026. This is roughly equivalent to the energy needs of 5m US households, or the electricity produced yearly by the Hoover Dam three times over.

December 2025

Welcome to December. On Monday the 8th, President Trump wrote on his Truth Social that he has informed President Xi of China that Nvidia can now sell its H200, the more advance chip to China and other countries. AMD and Intel would also be allowed to sell their advanced technologies.

But there’s a catch. China will need to pay a 25% fee to the U.S. government.

As said by Rush Doshi, the Director of the Initiative on China Strategy at the Council on Foreign Relations and an Assistant Professor at Georgetown University:

But December is not over, there’s more.

On December 18th, Truth Social, President Trump’s social media company Trump Media & Technology announced its merger with TAE Technologies, a fusion energy company, in an all-stock deal that the companies said Thursday is valued at more than $6 billion.

The combined company says it plans to find a site and begin construction next year on the “world’s first utility-scale fusion power plant,” with aims to provide the electricity needed for Artificial Intelligence.

What a year!

What is this story about and does it matter?

This story is about insider trading and corruption, greed, the AI bubble, environmental sustainability, and rapidly shifting geopolitical polars. But most importantly, the story tells us that we’re now living in an era where anything goes.

The beacon of democracy is no longer considered a democracy, the cradle of capitalism is starting to introduce socialist ownership strategies, and any learnings of Enron, the dotcom bubble, or the great recession appears to have been forgotten.

But these developments need not to continue like this. Voters and consumers are taking notice and pushing back. The economy belongs to all of us, workers, families, young people and children. We don’t need to accept wrongdoings as given. I’m doing my share by writing these letters. Let’s all inject our own small contribution to the society when and where we see wrongdoing.

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co advisory services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here.

So, let’s go.

Immigration and Wages

The Chapter on immigration in my book begins with a premise “On one hand, the US economy needs these workers for jobs that the existing population of Americans isn’t willing to do. On the other hand, having a class of workers on the border of legal status brings down wages and creates an unfair advantage for those businesses choosing to employ migrant workers.”

The argument that immigrants bring down wages - or steal jobs from the native population - is one repeated in media, so I wanted to find out supporting evidence.

Long story short, there isn’t much there.

There is the Brookings Institute paper from 2012 that says

“Based on a survey of the academic literature, economists do not tend to find that immigrants cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens (Card 2005), and instead may raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate (Ottaviano and Peri 2008; Ottaviano and Peri 2010; Cortes 2008).”

In the Ottaviano and Peri paper from 2010, they looked at the effects of immigration on the wages of native US workers of various skill levels. This study concludes that “in the period from 1990 to 2006 immigration had a small effect on the wages of native workers with no high school degree (between 0.6% and + 1.7%). It also had a small positive effect on average native wages (+ 0.6%)”.

The Cato Institute argued in 2017 that if immigration was further restricted, two things would follow.

1. First, certain low-skilled jobs would be automated. Automation would have a number of other economic consequences, but it certainly would not raise wages in those same low-skilled jobs.

2. Second, the number of high-skilled women in the workforce would decline, as there would no longer be immigrant-dependent low-cost childcare available.

Following this line of thought, restricting immigration could result in automated work places that offer jobs to a few men. The rest of the men and the women currently working in low-skilled jobs would either become unemployed or train for higher paid jobs.

Cato Institute concludes that “restricting immigration will not have a substantial positive impact on native wages, at least in real terms.”

I did find one study that supports the argument that immigration brings down wages. This is the paper by Steven A. Camarota, The Wages of Immigration: The Effect on the Low-Skilled Labor Market, The Center for Immigration Studies, January 1, 1998.

This study looked at effect of immigration to low-skilled labor markets. It found that in general, a one percent increase in the immigrant composition of an individual low-skilled occupation reduces the weekly wages of natives in the same occupation by about 0.5 percent. According to this paper, since roughly ten percent of the labor force at the time of this study was composed of immigrants, these findings suggest that immigration may reduce the wages of the average native worker by perhaps five percent.

This 1998 study is directly at odds with the 2010 study that says “in the period from 1990 to 2006 immigration had a small effect on the wages of native workers with no high school degree (between 0.6% and + 1.7%).”

Increased immigration in low-skilled labor markets would therefore at worst lower wages 5% but it could also increase them 1.7%. Increased immigration in all skill levels would increase all average native wages by 0.6%.

Mirroring this study to what the Cato Institute and the Brookings Institute argue, if immigration was restricted, rather than the wages in low-skilled labor markets rising back up, those jobs would be automated.

What about the highly skilled?

Let’s look at the H1-B Visa case. Since its introduction in 1990, there have been many studies on its affect on the US tech industries and the overall economy.

There is this Cato Institute story from 2022, titled “H‑1B Wages Surge to the Top 10% of All Wages in the US”.

“Opponents of the H‑1B visa often claim that H‑1B employers “pay low wages.” This has never been true, but the latest wage data prove how ridiculous this claim is. H‑1B workers are highly paid: their wages are in the 90^th percentile of all wages in the United States, meaning that they have wages in the top 10 percent of U.S. wage earners. H‑1B workers are not low wage or “cheap” workers in any honest assessment of the meaning of those words.”

Figure 1 below is from the article, demonstrating how in 2021 the H1-B salaries surpassed the 90th percentile of all U.S. wages.

But as the diagram suggests, this wasn’t always the case. In the past immigrants in certain tech jobs were indeed paid less than their native colleagues.

This 2017 paper Understanding the Economic Impact of the H-1B program on the U.S. by National Bureau of Economic Research focused on H1-B computer scientists working between 1994-2001. It concludes that

“In the absence of immigration, wages for US computer scientists would have been 2.6% to 5.1% higher and employment in computer science for US workers would have been 6.1% to 10.8% higher in 2001. On the other hand, complements in production benefited substantially from immigration, and immigration also lowered prices and raised the output of IT goods by between 1.9% and 2.5%, thus benefiting consumers. Finally, firms in the IT sector also earned substantially higher profits due to immigration.”

To put it in plain English, immigrants came to Silicon Valley and helped it launch the tech giants that have in part made America the absolute success story it is. The immigrants that remain in those tech jobs are paid higher wages than natives, which indicates they are here because companies cannot replace them with home grown talent.

Half Of The 2025 U.S. Nobel Prize Winners In Science Are Immigrants

Of course, the H‑1B program has its problems. In any large scale program like this, you will find people who will find a way to misuse it.

However, the biggest flaw isn’t that someone is misusing the program. The biggest flaw is that we as a nation don’t fully utilize the resources ourselves.

According to the Cato Institute, “H‑1B workers should be able to receive promotions, change jobs, and start businesses without onerous government restrictions. DHS should automatically send them green cards shortly after their arrival without needing to undergo yet another bureaucratic and expensive effort that is often delayed by ridiculously low and outdated caps, both overall and on immigrants from specific countries.”

We invite highly skilled people over, and then as their visa runs out, do not allow them to stay, change jobs or start new companies and benefit the society.

Share

Mass Deportation - Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy

I read about this study last week, pitched it to you, but only now realized it was from 2024.

Nevertheless, it’s a solid calculation what would happen to the U.S. economy if the planned Mass Deportation of 11 million people would take place, as was Tom Homan’s campaign promise last year. And to be fair, we don’t have the economic numbers from this year to draw any fresh conclusions of 2025 yet.

So, in October 2024, The American Immigration Council calculated that the cost of a one-time mass deportation operation would cost at least $315 billion, emphasizing that this figure is a highly conservative estimate.

In order to estimate the costs of a longer-term mass deportation operation, they calculated the cost of a program aiming to arrest, detain, process, and deport one million people per year—paralleling the more conservative proposals made by mass-deportation proponents in 2024.

Even assuming that 20 percent of the undocumented population would “self-deport” under a years long mass-deportation regime, the institute estimates the ultimate cost of such a longer operation would average out to $88 billion annually, for a total cost of $967.9 billion over the course of more than a decade.

Cost to the Economy

Beyond the direct financial cost of mass deportation, the American Immigration Council also estimated the impact on the U.S. economy.

“Due to the loss of workers across U.S. industries, we found that mass deportation would reduce the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by 4.2 to 6.8 percent. It would also result in significant reduction in tax revenues for the U.S. government. In 2022 alone, undocumented immigrant households paid $46.8 billion in federal taxes and $29.3 billion in state and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants also contributed $22.6 billion to Social Security and $5.7 billion to Medicare.

Mass deportations would cause significant labor shocks across multiple key industries, with especially acute impacts on construction, agriculture, and the hospitality sector. We estimate that nearly 14 percent of people employed in the construction industry are undocumented. Removing that labor would disrupt all forms of construction across the nation, from homes to businesses to basic infrastructure. As industries suffer, hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born workers could lose their jobs.”

A year later we are already seeing signs of this.

And then, of course there is the human cost in all of this. Separating family members, families living in fear, afraid to go to work, to school, or to their court hearings has a massive, unimaginable unnecessary cost to our communities.

What about Brexit then?

For my book I consulted Jonathan Portes who looked at how immigration policies and migration flows have changed starting from before the EU referendum in 2016 and up until early 2021 when the UK passed a new post-Brexit migration policy.

Today, it has been almost a decade since the 2016 referendum for the UK to leave the European Union, and there is much more post-Covid data available.

This CEPR study - fresh from the oven published December 5th, 2025 - by Nicholas Bloom, Philip Bunn, Paul Mizen, Pawel Smietanka, Gregory Thwaites combine simulations based on macro data with estimates derived from micro data. These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. Investment, employment, and productivity were all affected, reflecting a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources. Investment was 12–18% lower, employment 3–4% lower, and productivity 3–4% lower.

This study does not single out changes in immigration as the cause for the economic hardship, but if we compare it to what actually happened to immigration in the UK post Brexit we get a clearer picture.

The reasons for Brits to vote to leave the European Union were mainly related to sovereignty, they felt that the EU is dictating too much of what the UK can and cannot do, and the biggest pain point was immigration. Since the EU expanded in 2004 to include more Eastern European countries, many in those countries used the opportunity to search for a better life in the UK.

According to this 2025 European Parliament Think Tank piece, post-Brexit immigration to the UK actually increased. Only now it was not EU citizens, but people from other countries.

“The free movement of people between the EU and the UK ended on 1 January 2021, with the conclusion of the transitional period outlined in the withdrawal agreement signed in January 2020. Leaving the EU in 2016 allowed the UK to implement a points-based system that treats EU citizens and non-EU citizens equally. In the following years, there was a significant increase in the number of migrants arriving in the country. The sharp rise in the number of regular migrants can be attributed to the liberalisation of migration laws, making it easier for non-EU migrants to work in the UK, a campaign aimed at attracting more foreign students, and the high number of visas granted to people from Ukraine and Hong Kong on humanitarian grounds. Additionally, there has been a notable shift in the composition of these migrants in terms of age and nationality. Prior to 2016, most migrants came from the EU, but now most come from outside the EU.”

What’s next for Britain?

This Economics Observatory article How might the UK’s new approach to migration affect the economy? writes that in May 2025 the Labour government announced further measures to restrict migration (Migration Observatory, 2025). It shortened the list of occupations eligible for work visas, closed the care route for overseas recruitment, and said it would seek to reduce employers’ reliance on overseas workers while boosting the supply of domestic skills.

“The first five years of the post-Brexit immigration system have been a rollercoaster ride. Policy liberalisations enabled net migration to reach a record high, followed by a record fall. They also shifted the source of migrant arrivals from EU to non-EU countries. Academic research suggests that house prices are where the effects of migration are most noticeable, while its impact on the UK’s labour market and public finances is likely to be small. The government is hoping to bring down net migration further by reducing employers’ demand for overseas workers, but without the right incentives it will find it difficult to influence employers’ behaviour.”

Conclusions

• In the U.S. immigration in low skilled sectors had a small effect on the wages of native workers with no high school degree (between 0.6% and + 1.7%). Construction, agriculture, and the hospitality sector are especially reliant on immigrants.

• In the U.S. immigration in high skilled sectors enabled the growth of its tech industry giants, which continue to rely on immigrants in highly paid innovation jobs. In 2025 half of American Nobel laureates were immigrants.

• The UK cut itself off of the EU, which in turn stopped European immigration, then GDP dropped 6-8%. Getting back to growth traction is proving difficult.

Immigration policies need to be carefully crafted so they benefit the economy, produce an upside to the native population, and are humane. The perceived negative effects of immigration possibly rising wages in the low-skilled sectors in the U.S. or the potentially higher housing prices in the UK are problems that can be addressed with wage and housing policies. The vast amount of data from many industrialized countries support the idea of smart immigration policies.

(I don’t have time to cover Canada here, but listen to the chapter below from my audiobook to get the Canadian experience).

As Dr. Nancy Allbritton, Dean of the Frank and Julie Jungers Dean College of Engineering, University of Washington voiced in the Senate Commerce Committee hearing of the CHIPS and Science Act in the Fall of 2022:

America, look at Brexit as a cautious tale. Breaking the social, industrial and economical fabric of a country is fast, but rebuilding will take decades.

Free sample of my audiobook - Chapter on Immigration:

Thank you and enjoy the rest of your week, wherever you are <3

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co advisory services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here.

This Thanksgiving I’m grateful for You. Every time I publish an article of an episode and look at the open rate increase, I think of each one of my readers and podcast listeners. I hope you are well, I hope you will have the time and the intrest to read or listen to what I have to share that day. I always wonder how you liked it.

I’m writing this on a train going home from Luxembourg. Tomorrow, Friday, is the last day of a two year assignment at the European Investment Bank. Yesterday I walked out of the EIB Luxembourg office knowing I may never return. Even though I always knew this was a temporary assignment, it felt emotional to say goodbyes. But I’m grateful I had the opportunity to be there, to meet those people, and learn that trade.

I’m also immensely grateful for my family, my children who are each thriving in the world independently. And my husband, Ismo, who is fearlessly building a new business in one of the most difficult industries in the world.

How about you? What are you up to? I’m always looking for interesting stories to explore. If you have something you’d like to share, please get in touch to see if we could have you on the podcast, or use your story in the newsletter.

It’s been an unusually busy week so I haven’t had much time to work on the weekly newsletter. So, instead of a longer piece, I’m going to test Substack’s polling function and put some ideas in front of you to choose my next week’s topic.

Please vote below!

A) Ukraine works with Nvidia to Defend its Tech Sovereignty

Ukraine’s Ministry of digital transformations has partnered with Nvidia to develop infrastructure and human capital for AI. The goal is to make Ukraine an AGENTIVE STATE. The first initiative is to develop LLM tailored to Ukrainian legislation, public services and citizen needs.

Ukraine will get access to Nvidia’s specialized software stack for AI development, from infrastructure to applications. Nvidia will provide technical expertise to accelerate model training and reduce cost, and consulting and support from Nvidia experts including workshops and architecture review sessions.

I could explore what kinds of risks there are for Ukraine, and whether USA’s plans to own parts of Nvidia and other tech companies play a role.

B) Made in America Smartphones

Back in June the Trump Organization launched a Made in the USA smartphone, but have now quietly edited the website to tone down the promise. Now, instead of MADE IN AMERICA, the model T1 would be “brought to life right here in the USA” with “American hands behind every device”.

I could use my experience and networks from Nokia to break down what it takes to build a phone, and more importantly, masses of them. Why is it so difficult to build phones in the U.S. but would it be impossible?

C) Russia Must Surrender

We are witnessing yet another “peace plan”, negotiations driven by Russia’s interests, brought forward by the U.S. administration. What historians and policy professionals know, there is no dealmaking with Russia regarding land. They have historically not honored peace deals negotiated in cabinets. The only borders that have not been touched by new Russian leaders are those borders that were secured by force in the past.

I could look into this in more detail, referencing my previous long article on Russia’s history.

D) Immigration

As I was writing my book in 2021-2022 I did extensive research on how immigration affects innovation. I used Canada and Brexit-UK as examples, but because of Covid the Brexit statistics were not reliable. Now, there’s been new information coming out from the UK, and also the U.S.

The new Republic writes that “Trump’s mass deportation scheme is estimated to reduce the GDP by between 4.2 to 6.8 % according to the American Immigration council.” Should I revisit the Brexit statistics and try to find out real numbers on how immigration affects the economy, especially the tech industry?

Please vote for your favorite topic

Thank you and enjoy the rest of your week, wherever you are <3

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co advisory services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here.

Last week I attended the European Quantum Tech Conference, which was fun but also stressful. I’m not an extrovert by nature, so there’s that, plus the traveling, not sleeping, eating carbs and drinking alcohol. Stressful. Also, as a consultant, you’re always looking for new clients so you put on your best performance. Stressful.

Then came the Epstein emails, which I should not have read but of course I read them all in detail. As a woman and a mother, thinking about the individuals involved in these cases, their suffering, and how the society is built on these kinds of structures, where money and power can buy the right to be cruel. Not good.

Luxembourg Art Week

As I was sitting in the tram on my way to work this morning - I’ve been at the European Investment Bank offices this fall - I saw the Luxembourg Art Week is opening this week. This is the break I need.

“Luxembourg Art Week brings together a variety of exhibitors where internationally renowned galleries coexist with artist collectives, artist-run spaces, and regional art centers. This inclusive approach embraces both a strong local presence and a geographic reach that extends across Europe.”

Juliette Lemontey, Enfant , 2022, Signed and dated, Huile fusain brou de noix sur toile brute

26 galleries and other art events are scattered around the city, guided sculpture trails, “capsules”, and performances. Exactly what I need now, can’t wait until Friday.

Why do we need Art?

Typing this question - Why do we need Art - into a search bar brings up a number of reasons, such as

• Art is a shared experience

• Art connects you with others

• Art fuels creativity

• Art Heals

• Art soothes the mind

• Art is therapeutic

• Art makes you think

• Art comes in many forms

• Art encourages making mistakes

• Art enhances memory and focus

• Art gives you freedom

• Art has cultural importance

• Art is a different language

• Art is good for our health

• Arts relieves stress

• Art creates beauty

• Art evokes emotions from people

• Expression and communication

• Self-expression

The bolded ones - art encourages making mistakes, art gives you freedom, art is a different language - resonate especially strong. There’s so much demand for perfection in this world, there is pressure to be beautiful, successful and happy. With art, you can safely experience and produce something that is not perfect, for a while be someone who is not perfect and it’s ok.

The freedom part, and being a different language, have similar attributes. When you are allowed to make mistakes you are free. You are free from external pressure, but most importantly internal pressure. When you create something by yourself, like I’m typing on this computer and producing creative text, I don’t feel pressure at all. I’m telling my story my way, so it is always correct.

Art being a different language is also an important point. Here in Luxembourg we speak and hear all the languages from the 27 EU member countries. People who speak multiple languages know that you communicate differently in different languages. It’s not just translated sentences, language affects the way you express yourself, and the way that you express yourself affects your relationship with the world. When you change your language, your whole personality changes. So when you create, when you speak art, you become an artist, a person that looks at the world differently than when you speak your native language.

But WHY do we need to do and be these things? Couldn’t we just, as Oscar Wilde says, make useful things and then just not admire them? As it happens, we cannot.

Behind the paywall I make the connection between art, innovation, and policy.

Read more

Joining me on this episode are guests from across the quantum ecosystem, sharing their insights on Europe’s high-stakes moment:

• Oscar Diez, Head of Sector for Quantum Computing at European Commission

• Cecile M. Perrault, Vice President at the European Quantum Industry Consortium QuIC

• Yasser Omar, President of PQI – Portuguese Quantum Institute

• Salil Gunashekar, Deputy Director and Senior Research Leader, Science and Emerging Technology, RAND Europe

• Roman Pašek, R&D Project Conception & Management, Quantum Technology, Amires

• Samira Nik, Programme Manager for Quantum Tech and Electronics, EIC

• Jan Goetz, CEO & Co-Founder, IQM Quantum Computers

• Michael Baczyk, VC at Heartcore

• Tommi Hakulinen, Product Manager, Vexlum

• Corban Tillemann-Dick, Founder & CEO of Maybell Quantum Industries

Support the show

Thanks to Gemini for describing today’s New York Post cover so intuitively and dramatically.

So yes, a democratic socialist Zoran Mamdani is going to be the next Mayor of New York City and it seems to scare some people.

What is Democratic Socialism?

Bernie Sanders has long talked about socialism, how to make America a country where tax dollars are used to help the poor instead of lining the pockets of the 1%.

A Georgetown University article from 2015 describes Bernie Sanders’ visit to the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service like this:

Democratic socialism means creating a just society in America that provides the kind of rights spelled out in 1944 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said today at Georgetown.

“He saw one-third of the nation ill-housed, ill-clad and ill-nourished,” explained Sanders to a packed audience of Georgetown students, faculty and staff in Gaston Hall. “And he acted, against the ferocious opposition of the ruling class of his day. … Roosevelt implemented a series of programs that put millions of Americans back to work, took them out of dire poverty and restored their faith in government.”

“Almost every program he produced, every idea he introduced, was called socialist”

FDR’s use of tax dollars to pull people out of poverty, the “New Deal” that ran between 1933 and 1938 as a remedy to the 1929 recession, was called socialist at the time, but he himself never called it socialism, or identified as a socialist.

On the contrary, he said he was saving capitalism.

In a same way, president Obama was saving capitalism when he bailed out Wall Street banks and car companies after 2008 recession. I don’t remember many people calling that socialism, though. How funny! (this was sarcasm)

Also, President Trump’s recent intrusion and interference of Intel, Nvidia, AMD, and quantum companies has not been called out as socialism. Funny indeed! (more sarcasm)

Bringing American Socialism to the Mainstream

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) emerged in the early 1970s against a backdrop of global political shifts to the right. You may remember how the right chased and persecuted people suspected of communism in the 1950s, the era of the “Red Scare” and “McCarthyism”.

DSA, the organization, was founded in 1982 through the merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (est. 1973) and the New American Movement (socialist and feminist organization est. 1971). This merger was notable for uniting the American left, emphasizing a commitment to democratic, pluralist socialism.

DSA membership was 6,000 at the 1982 merger, but the conservative 1980s proved difficult. Despite challenges, DSA contributed to Jesse Jackson’s multiracial 1988 Rainbow Coalition bid and played a key role in anti-apartheid and Central America solidarity movements. In the 1990s, DSA championed the Medicare for All single-payer system and actively opposed what they called neoliberal policies like NAFTA and “the welfare reform” driven by the Democrats. DSA didn’t think the Democrats were making a real change that benefits the majority.

After the 2008 Great Recession, frustration with stagnant inequality fueled the Occupy movement, which DSA chapters joined. However, the organization truly exploded following the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign, which the Georgetown appearance was part of.

Share

Sanders’ refusal to abandon his democratic socialist identity, coupled with young people seeking alternatives to oligarchy, led to the the DSA becoming an institution.

With 24,000 members in 2017, DSA became the largest socialist organization in the U.S. since 1956, dedicated to making socialism a mainstream part of American politics. After Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s election to congress in 2028, and Zoran Mamdani’s success in New York in 2025, DSA had over 80,000 paying members in June 2025.

I don’t call this Socialism

Despite of the language used in America the past century, I have always thought of socialism through Marxist theory, being a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

(I’ve started to quote and link to Wikipedia, you may have noticed. In the past it seemed like the lazy person’s choice, now I consider it a show of support to hard working humans seeking and maintaining the truth.)

From wikipedia:

Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.

This is what I saw in the Soviet Union, and this what the communists in Europe were/are working towards. Socialism aims to end private ownership on the path to communism, were people own all means of production.

This version of socialism has very little to do with the social democratic politics in the Nordic countries, nor with the manifest of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Wikipedia does recognize this, as it continues

Although the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world’s first nominally socialist state led to the widespread association of socialism with the Soviet economic model, it has since shifted in favour of democratic socialism. Academics sometimes recognised the mixed economies of several Western European and Nordic countries as “democratic socialist”, although the system of these countries, with only limited social ownership (generally in the form of state ownership), is more usually described as social democracy.

What is Social Democracy

Social Democracy is my lived experience growing up in Finland.

Social democracy is a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy and a gradualist, reformist, and democratic approach toward achieving social equality. In modern practice, social democracy has taken the form of democratic socialism, a robust welfare state, policies promoting social justice, market regulation, and a more equitable distribution of income.

It means higher taxes that fund universal healthcare and education, infrastructure that covers the entire country, and a democratic governance model. Nordic countries, some of the most prosperous, most innovative, and happiest countries in the world, have their flaws1 but the underlying system works.

They don’t have the richest of the rich, the 1%, but they also don’t have the poorest of the poor. Everyone has access to food, housing, and medication. The system values its free libraries, free sports venues, free schools and universities. I tell in my book how my father was part of a generation of architects who designed housing complexes, suburbs, public and commercial spaces so that they would be equally inviting, equally beautiful and accessible to all people.

I mean, just look at this public library in Helsinki:

The Nordic model, it’s a really good idea.

Conclusion

Conclusion #1 is that I’m an old fart and my vocabulary and beliefs are obviously outdated. Socialism “can” refer to a movement that just wants to reduce poverty and provide universal healthcare. It doesn’t “only” refer to the central party seizing private shops, farms, and factories in the name of shared ownership.

Note taken, happy to learn new things.

Conclusion #2, Are democratic socialists the same as social democrats? I guess yes, kind of, maybe. If American’s have been using the term for Nordic style governance for a hundred years, who am I to argue. If it works, great.

But I will never call myself a socialist for supporting universal healthcare, free education, trains, libraries, public indoor swimming pools, and tax payer assisted food for hungry children.

It’s just a really good idea that works.

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co advisory services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here.

“If taxpayers Fund Innovation, they should also Share in its Success.”

No, this was not the Economist Mariana Mazzucato, the author of Entrepreneurial State, the Value of Everything, and Mission Economy.

This was President Donald J. Trump.

Last week the Wall Street Journal published how the Commerce Department is in talks with several quantum-computing companies for them to give equity stakes in exchange for federal funding, a direct continuum on the Trump administration’s moves to take equity in the semiconductor and AI industries.

Companies including IonQ, Rigetti Computing and D-Wave Quantum are discussing the government becoming a shareholder as part of agreements to get funding earmarked for promising technology companies, according to people familiar with the matter. Other companies such as Quantum Computing and Atom Computing are considering similar arrangements. *)

According to WSJ, the quantum companies are discussing minimum funding awards from Washington of $10 million each, and other technology companies are also expected to vie for the funding.

Quantum Companies follow Intel, Nvidia, and AMD in striking financial deals with the administration for activities that used to be lobbied in the Congress.

On August 11, 2025 it was announced that “Nvidia and AMD have agreed to share 15% of their revenues from chip sales to China with the U.S. government, as part of a deal to secure export licenses for the semiconductors.”

On August 22, 2025, Intel agreed to sell equity in exchange for government grants. From NPR: “President Trump said on Friday he had asked Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan for a 10% stake in the company during a recent meeting at the White House. “He agreed, and they’ve agreed to do it, and I think it’s a great deal for them,” Trump told reporters. “He walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States,” Trump said.

Then, September 18, 2025, less than a month from the administration’s announcement to acquire 10% of Intel, Nvidia announces it will take a $5 billion stake in Intel. According to Reuters, this offers a new lifeline to the struggling chipmaker. Intel shares jumped nearly 23% after markets closed, making it the largest one-day percentage gain for the company since 1987. Nvidia stock also rose more than 3%.

So, to summarize, what the administration did there was to agree with the semiconductor industry a shared revenue deal, to own part of this industry, then making sure the industry stays strong to ensure the administration’s revenue and shareholder value.

Now it looks like they are looking to do a similar round with the quantum industry.

Brilliant - or is it?

Public Investment is a Good Investment

When I was doing research for my book Government and Innovation, I wanted to understand the role government’s play in creating innovations and launching new industries. I found several pretty mind-blowing statistics about the Return on Investment (ROI) on public investments (source Economic Policy Institute):

• 17% ROI established by Bom and Lightart (2008)

• 30% ROI established by De Haan and Jong-A-Ping (2008)

• 45% ROI established first by Ascheaur (1989) and then by Isaksson’s (2007)

Then just yesterday, October 30, 2025, the UK government published a study ‘The value of public R&D’ where they present that “based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, DSIT’s assessment is that, on average, £1 of civil public R&D investment generates £8 in net economic benefits for the UK over the long term.”

According to 'Private markets: A slower era - McKinsey Global Private Markets Review 2024’, for VC funds launched between 2011-2020, the median net Internal Rate of Revenue (IRR) was 16.4%.

The S&P 500, on average, has grown by about 11.4% annually between 2015 and 2025.

Public investments, be it in infrastructure, direct SME support, or government funded R&D, yield better returns than most VC funds or the stock exchange.

Great Idea but not Like This

So, is it a good idea for the U.S. government to invest in quantum? Yes, absolutely.

The government has single handedly created the entire industry, first by funding the scientific research, then educating talented workforce and granting H1-B visas so the early pioneering companies were able to create prototypes and products, possibly there has been some state funded IP spin-offs here and there, and also by buying the equipment and services directly from the private market.

Other ways the government supports the creation of innovation and new industries are by favorable laws and regulations, interest rates, taxes, and trade agreements. All of these are tools in their portfolio to favor one industry, possibly at the expense of another.

Governments choose winners and losers every day. It’s literally the job.

In the U.S. these decisions have traditionally followed careful conversations between the industry representatives, relevant Departments, State Governors, and State and Federal level Members of Congress and Senators.

Quick unprepared decisions to require equity in exchange for grants, or to request revenue share in exchange for exceptions to regulations, is not the way.

It’s pure common sense for companies and consumers to expect predictability, stability and the rule of law from their own government. If you need to be convinced by research, there’s good reading here here here and here.

Share Deep Policy

*) EDIT: As I was doing research for images for this story, I ran across a Fox News piece that disputed their earlier reporting, and said “The Trump administration is not in talks to take equity stakes in U.S. quantum computing firms, the Commerce Department confirmed to FOX Business Thursday, pushing back on a Wall Street Journal report that suggested the government was exploring investments in companies, including IonQ, Rigetti Computing and D-Wave Quantum.”

“The Commerce Department is not currently negotiating equity stakes with quantum computing companies,” a Commerce spokesperson told FOX Business.

Whether the original WSJ article was correct or not - which I think it was if you read this and this article citing multiple credible people from the industry - just proves the point to expect predictability and stability from your government.

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co advisory services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here.

I’ve spent most of the fall at the EIB office in Luxembourg, with the occasional stint at the European Commission’s DG CONNECT, that’s the Directorate-General (DG) for Communications Networks, Content, and Technology. The DGs are kind of like departments in the U.S. administration, or ministries in European countries. DG CONNECT includes all quantum and AI activities.

You may remember that I drafted the EU’s quantum strategy last summer, and this week saw the AI Finance Lab that I’ve organized for the Commission and the EIB. The Quantum and AI Finance Labs are part of Europe’s ecosystem-building efforts to ensure startups and growth companies make the most of the available EU funding.

There are so many places to look for public, or public-private, funding that we create these labs to promote transparency and clarity.

Europe was created for Peace — now prepares for War

The European Union was created through a gradual process of economic and political integration among European countries after World War II, with the goal of securing lasting peace, stability, and prosperity in Europe. The idea was - and still is - to create a European internal market that brings prosperity to all Europeans, while building economic bridges across the world to create geopolitical stability.

The rapid, recent geopolitical shifts have resulted in scales falling from the eyes: Europe needs to defend itself, and it needs to re-assess its friends.

Here are just a few recent announcements that depict the change:

6 March 2025: European Council Conclusions on European Defence

• EU leaders reaffirmed urgency of strategic autonomy, called for accelerating instruments & financing to bolster defence readiness, address capability gaps and strengthen the defence technological & industrial base.

19 March 2025: Readiness 2030 (formerly “ReArm Europe”)

• The European Commission presented a sweeping plan to mobilise up to €800 billion in defence investment across the EU over coming years as part of readiness-by-2030 ambition.

1 April 2025: EU proposals to allow cohesion funds & budget flexibility for defence

• Proposal to allow Member States to redirect ~€392 billion in EU cohesion funds towards defence readiness on a voluntary basis; defence spending might be exempted from fiscal limits to generate ~€650 billion extra.

17 June 2025: Defence Readiness Omnibus Proposal

• The European Commission proposed a set of regulatory simplifications to speed up defence investments: fast-track permitting, single points of contact, streamlined funding, clarifying rules on procurement, supply chain, civil-military dual use.

23 June 2025: European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) – Council negotiating mandate

• The Council adopted a mandate for negotiations on EDIP: grants up to ~€1.5 billion (2025-2027) aimed at boosting the defence industrial base, supply chains, cross-border cooperation, support for Ukraine’s defence industry.

16 October 2025: Provisional agreement on EDIP & Roadmap “Preserving Peace – Defence Readiness Roadmap 2030”

• Political agreement reached between EU Parliament and Council on EDIP; roadmap sets flagship defence projects (e.g., drone defence, eastern flank, air & space shield) with budget, timelines and industrial rules (65% EU-made content).

16 October 2025: EU proposes flagship defence projects (drone defence, eastern flank watch, etc.)

• The European Commission proposed four major defence initiatives to 2030: European Drone Defence Initiative, Eastern Flank Watch, European Air Shield, European Space Shield. Initial deployment targeted 2026-2027.

23 October 2025 European Council: Leaders endorse Readiness-by-2030 plan

• EU heads of state formally endorsed the readiness plan to ensure Europe can defend itself against external attack by the end of the decade; emphasised joint procurement, increased spending, drone defence priority.

Technology is Key and Money will help

If you scroll through the EU Funding and Tenders Portal and punch in keywords for your favorite technology, be it quantum, AI, cybersecurity, semiconductors, space, or defence tech, you will find a lot of open tenders to bid for.

Most of the billions and billions of euros mentioned in the articles above will be funneled through these tenders and proposals, and awarded to European companies and consortia that can deliver the technologies, the products, the vision, and the integration and implementation of technologies into everyday solutions and services that Europeans use in civilian and military contexts.

If you need help navigating the landscape, I’m here to help.

Share Deep Policy

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co advisory services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here.