The Trump administration assault on US development aid poses Europe with a steep challenge to limit China’s attempt to dominate developing world infrastructure. Its answer is the Global Gateway, a massive plan for €300 billion in global investments by 2027.
At its best, Global Gateway could foster equitable connectivity: robust labor and environmental standards. At its worst, it risks being little more than a paper tiger. The potential US withdrawal leaves the EU on its own against authoritarians, supported only by Japan and a few other democracies.
Until now, the US has played a leading role. Its Blue Dot Network, announced with much fanfare in 2019, aims to assert itself as a countervailing force against Chinese infrastructure projects. Although the Trump administration has made no formal announcement about the network’s future, it has frozen foreign aid. Analysts say the freeze could allow China to expand its influence.
In contrast, the EU is plowing ahead with its efforts to counter China. Historically, the EU has taken a regulation-heavy approach, often slow and methodical. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, while criticized for opaque lending, is recognized for speed. If Brussels fails to streamline procedures, many may still go with Beijing’s rapid, if riskier, financing.
The Global Gateway pools grants from EU institutions, the European Investment Bank, and private capital, all under the Team Europe banner. Nearly 100 flagship projects have been launched. One example delivers free high-speed internet across 500 municipalities in the Balkans Other 2025 digital ventures include Boosting Digital Connectivity in the Pacific, the EU-Africa-India Digital Corridor, and the Somalia Connectivity Expansion.
The EU, as the world’s largest trading bloc, hopes to embed high labor standards, tough environmental safeguards, and transparency in its connectivity projects – offering an alternative to authoritarian models. Many African and Asian governments that hopped on Belt and Road now find themselves weighed down by massive debts to Beijing, forcing cutbacks in social spending or risking a handover of critical assets. If the EU can deliver significant infrastructure without hidden strings, it may earn trust in a global environment where US outreach is receding.
Digital infrastructure tops the priority list. Although traditional roads and bridges remain vital, 21st-century influence hinges increasingly on who builds broadband lines, data centers, and cybersecurity systems. Authoritarian players push “cyber sovereignty,” tightening online control. Europe pledges instead to preserve a free, open internet. The Africa-EU space partnership programme, which aims to bolster climate, agriculture, and disaster management data, or the newly proposed expansions of last-mile connectivity in Kenya, can signal a different path than surveillance-heavy alternatives.
Energy represents another big priority. Brussels wants green deals to fuel Europe’s own decarbonization, from Moroccan hydrogen to wind farms in sub-Saharan Africa. But locals worry renewables will get shipped off to Europe while their own grids stay weak. Real technology transfers on mutually agreed terms, hands-on training, and reliable power for host communities must be part of the bargain – or else Global Gateway risks repeating old colonial patterns.
European bureaucracy adds complications. The Commission, member states, and development banks each juggle varied priorities. Some capitals want funds to address migration flows; others see a chance to lock in access to critical minerals. Team Europe tries to unify these agendas, but it can become cumbersome. Building a clear, consistent approach that partner countries trust is crucial. Civil society groups in Africa, for instance, are eager for a seat at the table during major negotiations – a necessary step toward fulfilling the promise of an equal partnership.
Yet Global Gateway holds a critical edge: Europe’s record of predictable, rules-based engagement. Many countries chafe at paternalism but want a partner that avoids hidden debt and political arm-twisting. That approach nourishes European soft power, especially if it invests in digital projects that resonate with younger generations. But some developing world leaders will inevitably recoil at Europe’s insistence on free speech and democracy.
At the United Nations’ upcoming 20 year review negotiations of the World Summit on the Information Society, governments will hammer out new rules on data flows, platform oversight, and online freedoms. If Europe shows tangible progress on connectivity, it can push an open, human rights-based approach that resonates with the Global South.
Done right, Europe’s Global Gateway can show that big, bold digital projects thrive on transparency and real local input. Tangible European successes could tip the scales toward an open, human rights-based vision of connectivity, building real trust with the Global South and gaining credibility in negotiations to outmaneuver authoritarian threats.
Anda Bologa is a non-resident Fellow with the Tech Policy Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).
Anda is an artificial intelligence and digital policy expert and one of the '35 under 35' tech leaders recognized by the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs. During her tenure at the European Union Delegation to the United Nations, she was responsible for high-level negotiations on artificial intelligence resolutions and the United Nations Global Digital Compact.
Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions expressed on Bandwidth are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
Tech 2030
A Roadmap for Europe-US Tech Cooperation
