An overt confrontation between the US and the EU feels closer than ever, and Ireland looks set to find itself on the faultline. A further step towards the brink came from the US’s 33-page new National Security Plan, a document released last week by the Donald Trump administration which claims that the United States has to save the European continent from the “civilisation erasure” it faces because of migration, while it is governed by “unstable minority governments” who “trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition”.
If a more direct conflict erupts, as seems increasingly inevitable in 2026, it will play out through battles over speech and internet governance, and Ireland will find itself caught squarely in the middle
The National Security Plan fuses disparate strands of the Trump administration’s worldview into a new sweeping definition of security. At its core are the twin tenets of free speech absolutism and nationalist ideology. The plan spins a story of Europe sliding into decline and places blame on “censorship”, shrinking birth rates and the fact that “within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European”. It frames Europe’s real vulnerability not as enemies gathering along its borders, but in its willingness to “police” speech and marginalise political extremists.
The plan set off alarm bells across Europe, which was already struggling to bolster its defences without its once‑reliable ally. More immediately concerning is the prospect that this redefinition of national security could give more legitimacy to Trump’s aggressive promotion of two sets of allies: his contacts in nationalist political groups across the continent, and Big Tech companies, who have found the US government to be a willing ally in their push back against the EU’s attempt to regulate them. As the country charged with enforcing Europe’s tech rules, Ireland may soon find itself directly in the line of fire.
READ MORE
What executives and the US administration routinely call “censorship” is, in reality, the EU attempting to limit the power and harm of tech companies through more systemic regulation. This is not to say that all tech regulation is unambiguously good. Plans here in Ireland to link online age verification to government ID have rightfully been met with pushback from civil liberties campaigners. Minister for Media Patrick O’Donovan acknowledged that this measure is needed only because of the “regrettably” slow pace of internet protection measures at EU level.
But while the Digital Services Act (DSA) is not perfect, it is designed to force real accountability on tech companies for the design of their products. If implemented well, rules like the DSA can make intrusive verification schemes less necessary in the first place. Coimisiún na Meán, for example, announced last month that it was investigating whether Elon Musk’s X contravened the DSA. It claims X is failing to give users the opportunity to challenge the platform when it removes or bans their content and accounts, a move designed specifically to reduce the power of platforms to censor speech. Musk was granted permission to challenge the basis of that investigation in court, and we can expect more developments when it resumes in January.
The European Commission announced last week that it had concluded a separate investigation into X for violating the DSA. In this case, the company was fined €120 million for failing to be transparent with its ads and content, and for allowing fraud to permeate the site via bogus “verification”. Musk responded with characteristic outrage, calling for the abolition of the EU and for retribution against the individuals involved. The response was even stronger from administration officials who backed Musk. US secretary of state Marco Rubio called it “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments”, while vice-president JD Vance claimed the commission was fining X “for not engaging in censorship”.
The branding of these rules as an attack on freedom is bad faith public relations, and it is routinely amplified by Big Tech’s allies in Washington.
Throughout this year, the US government periodically threatened to use its power to hurt countries and individuals holding tech companies accountable. In May, Marco Rubio announced plans to revoke visa permissions for officials working on tech policies, which includes Irish public servants working for Coimisiún na Meán. In August, Trump threatened to impose “substantial additional tariffs” on countries that enforce EU rules on American tech companies. These warnings of retaliation will likely only escalate now that speech governance has worked its way into the US definition of national security.
[ Trump says Europe is ‘destroying itself’ through immigrationOpens in new window ]
This leaves Ireland in a highly precarious position as we head into 2026, on the faultline between our allies in the EU and the US and its aligned tech companies. The tariff machinations earlier this year exposed just how existentially shifts in US economic policy threaten Ireland’s economy, and the US administration has shown that it is willing to lean on this lever to get what it wants for its friends.
The second half of 2026 will see the State assume the presidency of the Council of the EU, giving Ireland a rare chance to take centre stage in European politics. This will coincide with difficult midterm elections for the US president, who may find it advantageous to pick fights abroad that distract from issues in the domestic economy, and that bolster his support among some of his biggest financial backers.
The Government and our regulators won’t be able to avoid finding themselves backed into a corner, having to take decisions for which there is no good outcome, forced to choose between a rapacious and capricious US administration and our long-standing allies in Europe.
Liz Carolan writes about technology and democracy at TheBriefing.ie
