A Dublin Voice in Washington: When Bytes, Trade and Geopolitics Collide
There are moments in diplomacy that feel less like stiff protocol and more like a late-night conversation in a kitchen — half policy, half human worry. Last week in Washington, as winter light slanted across the Potomac, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence, Helen McEntee, found herself in one of those conversations.
Her interlocutor was Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative; the subject was the Digital Services Act (DSA), a European rulebook that has been rippling through boardrooms, courtrooms and congressional hearings on both sides of the Atlantic. But the talk did not stop there. Tariffs, the specter of Greenland in political rhetoric, and the battered infrastructures of Ukraine threaded through the meeting — reminding everyone that digital rules sit squarely inside a much larger map of trade, security and human consequence.
Digital safety or digital censorship? The debate at the heart of the DSA
The Digital Services Act — first agreed in Brussels in 2022 and rolled out in stages with obligations for the largest platforms kicking in during 2024 — is Europe’s answer to the yawning gaps in rules for Big Tech. It sets transparency requirements, demands risk assessments from very large online platforms (those serving at least 45 million EU users), and creates duties to mitigate systemic harms while protecting consumers and children.
Yet when a House Judiciary Committee hearing opened in Washington, some lawmakers framed the DSA not as protection, but as a potential curb on freedom of speech. “We have to be careful,” one U.S. congressperson was quoted as saying to reporters, “that foreign regulation doesn’t chill speech for Americans.”
Minister McEntee, speaking after her meeting, pushed back on that framing. “This is about protecting consumers and children,” she said, summing up Ireland and the EU’s posture. “We have strong laws in Ireland and in the EU to protect free speech. These regulations strengthen safety — they don’t undermine the right to speak.”
“There are elements we dispute,” she added, acknowledging the friction. “But what we agree on is simple: whatever happens offline that is illegal should be illegal online as well.”
A Dublin-based digital rights campaigner, Máire Ó Síocháin, told me over coffee: “In Ireland, we see teenagers groomed through anonymous channels. We see disinformation that corrodes public debate. The DSA tries to give tools to hold platforms accountable. That’s not censorship; it’s responsibility.”
Why this matters beyond Europe
Because the internet is borderless. Because platforms built in Silicon Valley host most of the conversations of a global public square. And because policy choices made in Brussels now echo in state capitols and corporate boardrooms worldwide.
Consider the scale: the EU is home to roughly 447 million people; platforms defined as “very large” under the DSA touch tens of millions of users each. The rules these companies must follow in Europe — transparency of content moderation; risk assessments; protections for minors — set a precedent that many other jurisdictions will emulate or react against.
Tariffs, Greenland and the brittle diplomacy of trade
The conversation with Greer was never only about algorithms. Minister McEntee also raised concerns about the U.S. tariff posture toward the EU, a thorny subject after last year’s agreement that left some sectors anxious about new levies and non-tariff barriers.
“We want to work with the U.S.,” McEntee said. “But we will respond if threats re-emerge.” Her message was firm, diplomatic and blunt: Europe wants a stable transatlantic trading relationship that grows both sides’ economies, and threats of punitive tariffs do more harm than good.
Outside the formal exchanges lurked another awkward note: President Trump’s public musings on Greenland — and reported threats to use tariffs as leverage. “The tone of coercion is completely unacceptable,” the minister told her American hosts, stressing Ireland’s support for Denmark and for Greenlanders’ right to decide their own future.
An Irish beef farmer in County Cork, Kevin O’Leary, who exports to Europe and watches U.S.-EU politics with a wary eye, summed up the local mood: “Tariffs are not something you talk about in a pub — they’re something you fear. One wrong move and prices spike, buyers look elsewhere.”
Ukraine, cables and the fragile arteries of modern life
Then there was Ukraine. McEntee’s talks with the Deputy National Security Advisor turned to the devastating damage wrought by years of bombardment — power stations, heating plants and civilian infrastructure pounded in a winter where temperatures plunge far below zero.
“People are left without heat, light, food or water,” she said. “That is simply unacceptable.”
The conversation moved north to another vulnerability: subsea cables. These steel-and-fiber arteries carry more than 95% of transcontinental internet traffic. A single cut — whether accidental or deliberate — can sever commercial, governmental and private communications across whole regions.
“Securing critical infrastructure is now as important as securing borders,” said Elena Novak, a maritime security analyst in London. “We are entering an era where geopolitics and cyber-physical systems intersect. That calls for new strategies, not just new words.”
Between red tape and competitiveness: Ireland’s EU presidency ambitions
As Ireland prepares to take up the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, McEntee said competitiveness and simplification will be priorities. “We’re open to looking at how to remove unnecessary red tape without removing protections,” she told the U.S. trade team. The aim: make the economy supple enough to innovate while remaining safe for citizens.
That balancing act will not be easy. Tech companies often complain of regulatory fragmentation; consumer groups warn about unchecked power; farmers and med-tech firms worry about tariffs and barriers; security experts demand resilient infrastructure. Each of these constituencies brings real livelihoods into the equation.
“We’re talking about lives, about jobs, about the dignity of people who rely on this work,” McEntee said. “Policy can’t be an abstract exercise.”
So what should we ask ourselves?
As readers, as citizens and as participants in an increasingly interlinked world: are we prepared to accept a trade-off between safety and openness, or can we insist on both? How do we design laws that reflect the messy realities of human speech while protecting children, victims and the vulnerable?
These questions don’t have easy answers. But sitting in a Washington meeting room, a small Irish delegation did what diplomats do best: they listened, pushed where necessary, and tried to build common ground.
“If we want a future where digital innovation flourishes and people are protected,” McEntee said to close, “we have to work together — across the Atlantic, across sectors, across politics.”
That, perhaps, is the simplest truth: regulation isn’t only about rules. It’s about what kind of world we want to build — and whether we have the courage to build it together.
