Lisbon, March 22, 2026 (Lusa) - Joao Leitao Figueiredo, a lawyer at CMS Portugal, one of the country's leading law firms, said in an interview with Lusa that Europe, being away from power centres, had specialised in regulation, and its silence on the Anthropic case reflected its positioning.
On 9 March, US artificial intelligence (AI) firm Anthropic sued the US government after the Pentagon classified the tech firm as a supply chain risk, following its refusal to allow unrestricted military use of its technology.
"We have the United States, where technological development is an absolute priority, where we then see these moments of tension, like the one we are discussing between Anthropic and the Trump presidency," he said.
China is "also very closely linked to its government, and we have a Europe very focused on regulating".
He noted that Europe's "alleged silence, or not being more vocal", was not closely linked to strategic prudence or institutional maturity.
"It is a reflection of Europe's positioning on these issues. Europe is not at the centre of tension because it does not control the main power vectors in this matter. It does not lead the development of frontier models, does not dominate critical computational infrastructure and lacks geopolitical weight in terms of military and technological capacity," he said.
Therefore, "as Europe is very far from these power centres, it has specialised, by choice or necessity, for several years in regulation".
The lawyer argued that regulating did not mean it was negative. However, he warned of the "constant risk of reaching ultra-regulation which, somehow, stifles and prevents development".
Europe has the AI Act, which defines limits, classifies risks, and establishes obligations, but does not regulate defence issues, which is what is under debate in the Anthropic case.
"There is a fundamental difference between regulating and determining. Currently, those who determine the material conditions of AI development and use are, above all, the United States, and in parallel, or in competition with, China," he said.
He added that "Europe is reacting, it has placed itself in a position where it can only keep reacting, which, with all due respect, ends up being very little for Europe".
He emphasised that "saying Europe is silent is a way of avoiding an uncomfortable conclusion that should force us to reflect that our margin of intervention in this conflict is highly limited, if not zero".
This might be "even politically comfortable," because the problem is in the US, "allowing us to keep observing and understand the best policies and the best way to try to regulate situations when they become analogous here." The issue, he pointed out, was that, by that time, "decisions have already been made by others".
He believes that "the way the power relationship between private entities and the US government is consolidated (...) will influence Europe, and it will be very difficult to change it later," particularly regarding security, defence, and military use of the tool.
Figueiredo also said that big tech companies would continue to consolidate power over governments.
"If we talk about small or medium-sized countries, we will certainly have big tech companies that have much more power in the international context. There is little doubt about that nowadays. And in the future, we feel that this gap could widen even further, clearly in favour of big tech," he concluded.
ALU/LYT // ADB.
Lusa
