BRUSSELS — The European Commission’s chief AI adviser, Jim Hagemann Snabe, told commissioners on September 4 that artificial intelligence offers Europe its best chance to accelerate growth in sectors including “defense.” This statement, made during a private briefing to the bloc’s 27 commissioners, signals a clear direction for EU AI policy: prioritizing military and security applications, which inevitably includes the further militarization of Europe’s borders.
Snabe, the EU’s new special envoy for industrial AI, emphasized that the technology could boost productivity in health, agriculture, transport, defense, and manufacturing. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed this focus, stating last week that Europe should aim to “be the ones who draw the greatest value from it” while managing its dangers. This pursuit of economic gain through AI, particularly in “defense,” raises urgent questions about the deployment of surveillance technologies and predictive policing systems against migrants and asylum seekers, further entrenching the Fortress Europe border regime.
AI for Fortress Europe
The focus on “defense” growth means more resources will flow into technologies that facilitate the criminalization of movement. While the EU discusses managing AI’s risks to jobs and society, the most immediate and deadly risks are those faced by people attempting to cross borders. The thousands who die in the Mediterranean are not a malfunction of the system; they are the intended deterrent effect of policies that prioritize “defense” over human lives. The EU’s AI strategy, as articulated by its top adviser, appears to be another pillar in the architecture of border enforcement, rather than a tool for human development or solidarity.
This approach stands in stark contrast to the EU’s stated values of human rights. It suggests that AI’s potential for surveillance, biometric identification, and automated decision-making will be harnessed to strengthen Frontex operations, pushbacks, and the vast network of detention centres. The economic gains touted by Snabe will undoubtedly benefit the burgeoning migration industry, where private companies profit from border tech and the suffering of those seeking safety.
Transparency for Property, Opacity for Borders
Meanwhile, the EU has introduced new AI transparency rules, applicable since early August, under Article 50 of the EU AI Act. These rules require AI-generated or modified content to be labeled, specifically targeting practices like “housefishing” in the real estate sector. An image of an apartment “furnished using AI,” for example, must now carry an AI transparency icon. Claudio Teixeira, head of digital policy at the European Consumer Organization, highlighted the need for clear warnings, stating, “Not everyone has the capability to see at first glance that this is indeed not real.”
David Rappenglück, a CMS senior law associate, noted that Article 50 is an “expression of this protection of fundamental rights” for consumers. He explained that customers should be informed if a picture “might be AI generated or manipulated.” Akvilė Šikšniūtė, also from the European Consumer Organization, acknowledged that consumers still face uncertainty regarding enforcement and the scope of labeling. Those who fail to comply with the act face fines of up to €15 million or 3% of their worldwide turnover, with enforcement handled by national authorities. This rigorous focus on consumer protection in online marketplaces stands in stark contrast to the profound lack of transparency and accountability surrounding the use of AI in border management, where the “fundamental rights” of migrants are systematically denied.
Corporate Power vs. Regulation
The European Commission is also prepared to defend a €120 million fine against X, issued late last year, for breaches of the bloc’s digital protections. The fine, the first under the EU’s digital regulations governing online content, targeted X for allowing users to pay for “verified” status “without the company meaningfully verifying who is behind the account.” European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier asserted the EU’s “sovereign right” to draft such legislation, stating, “We are ready to defend our position in court.”
However, the US Justice Department has supported Elon Musk’s effort to annul the fine, with Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate criticizing the European Commission for “inappropriately attempted to expand its regulatory authority to reach American companies.” He warned that upholding the fine “may have significant implications” for US online platforms. This clash highlights the EU’s willingness to assert regulatory power against tech giants for issues like online transparency, yet its AI strategy for “defense” remains largely unchallenged in its potential to fuel the border regime. The EU’s selective application of its regulatory might reveals its true priorities: protecting consumers and asserting digital sovereignty, while the technologies that enable the criminalization of human movement continue to expand with little scrutiny.