Digital sovereignty has been discussed for years, mostly as a theoretical ideal. But the geopolitical situation has made the issue an existential business condition in 2026. Today, digital sovereignty is much more than just an IT standard or data protection compliance. It is the ability to remain operational as an organisation when global supply chains break down or political tensions interrupt the flow of digital data.

For companies and public authorities, the issue is now imperative, as software dependencies are increasingly being used as political leverage. Anyone who builds critical infrastructure on systems whose technological core and legal access are located in third countries accepts a creeping dependency – the so-called ‘cyber dominance’ of foreign actors. This form of digital dependency has long since developed into a massive business risk that threatens innovative strength and entrepreneurial freedom of decision-making.

The current initiative by the Federal Ministry (BMDS) to redefine sovereignty over the ‘place of value creation’ marks the end of technological naivety. It is no longer enough to apply German terms and conditions to US software or to park data in local data centres as long as administrative control remains abroad. True sovereignty means designing digital processes in such a way that they are legally and technically immune to non-European access. Against the backdrop of NIS-2 and DORA, digital independence is thus evolving from an IT task to a central management discipline. The experts at FTAPI see three central pillars on which digital sovereignty rests.

The three pillars of true digital sovereignty:

1. Software ‘Made in Europe’

True sovereignty requires control on two levels: technological expertise and architectural responsibility for the source code must lie within the European legal area. Only those who control the core of the software themselves can rule out administrative backdoors and guarantee the integrity of the system.

In addition, the operation of the software must be within the user’s control. Sovereignty ends where maintenance interfaces (‘admin access’) from third countries are operated. This is because foreign laws (such as the Cloud Act) can directly intervene in European infrastructures via this administrative access – regardless of where the servers are physically located.

2. Sovereignty by design

A contractual promise against data access (keyword: Cloud Act) is often ineffective in serious cases if national laws in the provider’s home country can override legal agreements abroad. True sovereignty requires an architecture that makes access technically impossible.

Consistent end-to-end encryption is the only reliable protection against three risks simultaneously:

• Legal access: No data disclosure to third countries without a key.
• Industrial espionage: Protection against data theft by external attackers.
• Internal risk: Protection against errors or misuse by administrators at the service provider.

Sovereignty is therefore not a legal promise, but a technical standard.

3. Avoidance of ‘vendor lock-in’

Sovereignty becomes apparent at the moment of change. A system is only sovereign if there is no permanent dependency. If, for example, migration costs make it economically impossible to change providers, freedom of choice is lost. Independence therefore requires open interfaces (APIs) and standardised processes so that organisations can retain control over their own IT strategy at all times.

‘True independence arises when we in Europe regain control over our technological substance,’ says Ari Albertini, CEO of FTAPI. ‘Those who delegate their digital freedom to international monopolies will lose their entrepreneurial freedom of choice tomorrow. Sovereignty is not a nice-to-have, but the most important investment in the future viability of our economy.’