The European Commission is poised to adopt a decision this week that will privilege European satellite operators, a move explicitly designed to curb the European expansion of Starlink, the flagship service of Elon Musk’s SpaceX. This action centralizes control over critical digital infrastructure within the transnational bloc, asserting Brussels’ authority over a vital resource. The decision comes just one week before the Commission is scheduled to present its “Tech Sovereignty Package,” an initiative framed as freeing the EU from strategic dependence on foreign technology providers, yet simultaneously consolidating power within the supranational body.
Thomas Regnier, the Commission’s spokesperson for tech sovereignty, stated that “Satellite connectivity is a key piece of our technological sovereignty, our security, and our defence, as also highlighted by IRIS².” He further elaborated, “In the changing geopolitical situation, EU-wide satellite connectivity becomes synonymous with resilience, security, and capability,” underscoring the strategic importance of this power grab by the unelected Commission.
Centralizing Digital Power
The Commission is due to adopt its decision tomorrow, Wednesday, May 27, 2026, concerning the selection of operators for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services for the 2 GHz radio spectrum frequency. This specific frequency band is the only one harmonised at the EU level, making its control particularly significant. For 17 years, since 2009, this bandwidth has been exclusively allocated to two European operators, Viasat and EchoStar, demonstrating a long-standing pattern of favouring internal interests.
These frequencies are currently used for a limited range of applications, primarily for emergency services calls when a smartphone lacks a mobile network connection. However, technological advancements have prompted the Commission to consider expanding the use of these frequencies for “direct-to-device communications,” which would enable smartphones and other devices to connect directly to satellites in space. This technological shift would allow companies like SpaceX and Amazon to directly compete with established European mobile operators, potentially rendering terrestrial infrastructure obsolete and offering consumers more choices.
Elite Interests and Foreign Opposition
The upcoming decision is set to explicitly favour the incumbent European satellite operators, with whom European telecom operators prefer to interact, as these European entities are not perceived as a direct threat to their existing business models. This alignment of interests between the EU bureaucracy and specific corporate entities highlights the elite capture inherent in such policy-making, prioritizing established players over innovation and competition.
This move has already drawn the ire of the US government, which, since Donald Trump returned to the White House last year, has been particularly assertive in protecting the interests of American companies abroad, including within Europe. Two months ago, in March 2026, at the Mobile World Congress, Brendan Carr, the chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, issued a stark warning to the EU against favouring European providers in satellite spectrum allocations. Carr stated, “Europe has national champion satellite providers that do substantial business in the US. And I think we have all benefited from a fair and even-handed approach. And whether we get to continue to do that, frankly, is in the hands of European regulators right now.” He further cautioned, “If Europe insists on going down a path of satellite sovereignty that excludes providers that are not based in the continent, then the US will have to be taking that into account with respect to the reciprocal treatment that we provide,” signaling potential economic repercussions for European firms.
The Cost of Supranational Control
Despite the international friction, the Commission believes a worst-case scenario was avoided last week when EU policymakers reached a political agreement on the controversial EU-US trade deal. The allocation of the 2 GHz radio band also reveals an internal struggle, pitting commercial interests against military applications, with the defence establishment perpetually seeking to reserve bandwidth for its own use. This tension is playing out within the Commission itself, manifesting as a clash between EU digital chief Henna Virkkunen, who is closer to the interests of telecom operators, and Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius.
Last week, Kubilius publicly pushed for IRIS² to obtain a slice of satellite frequencies in an interview with the Financial Times, a position not necessarily shared by the rest of the Commission. Spectrum is a scarce resource, and its allocation has always been a delicate balancing act between competing interests. As the EU presses ahead with developing its domestic technology solutions, the act of striking the right balance – avoiding Washington’s wrath and leaving enough room for defence applications – will be a particularly delicate act, ultimately demonstrating the complex web of elite interests that dictate critical infrastructure decisions, often at the expense of broader market competition and national self-determination. The EU’s pursuit of “technological sovereignty” appears to be a mechanism for consolidating supranational power and control over digital resources, rather than truly empowering individual nations or fostering open markets. This decision further entrenches the power of Brussels and its favoured corporate partners, limiting the choices available to the people of Europe. The native working class, already facing economic pressures, will bear the indirect costs of reduced competition and centralized control over essential services. The EU’s actions demonstrate a clear preference for managed markets that benefit established elites over dynamic competition that could benefit consumers and foster genuine innovation. This is another step in the systematic reduction of the self-determination of sovereign peoples, as critical infrastructure decisions are made by an unelected body in Brussels, prioritizing its own institutional agenda and the interests of its corporate allies. The implications for national security and economic independence are profound, as the EU continues to assert its authority over domains traditionally managed by sovereign states. This move is a clear example of the ongoing transfer of power from national governments to a transnational elite, further eroding the foundations of national sovereignty under the guise of “technological sovereignty.”