Euractiv: ASD calls for €50bn Securing Europe Facility to cut tech dependency

Writing in Euractiv on 15 July, journalist Aurélie Pugnet reveals how Europe's technological dependency is threatening the critical infrastructure that keeps the continent functioning.

As geopolitical tensions escalate and incidents of sabotage multiply, the European Union faces an uncomfortable truth: approximately 80% of its digital security products, services, infrastructure, and intellectual property originates from suppliers in the United States and China. Against this backdrop of vulnerability, ASD highlighted in the interview with Euractiv, the critical adjustments Europe needs to make in security technology procurement.

The crux of ASD's argument is stark: Europe has sleepwalked into a dangerous dependency on foreign security technology that leaves critical infrastructure vulnerable. ASD’s Security Business Unit has worked to quantify this vulnerability with sobering precision, revealing that the dependencies "are most evident in the digital domain – where the EU depends for approximately 80% of all products, services, infrastructure, and intellectual property on third country suppliers, mainly from the US and China.

The Euractiv article quotes from ASD’s recent position paper on security infrastructure: “Europe must protect its security interest against suppliers which could represent a persistent security risk due to the potential interference from third countries as well as their cybersecurity practices.”
David Luengo, who chairs ASD's Security Business Unit is also quoted in the Euractiv article: "the Europeans lack a coherent security industry policy" due to Brussels' failure to provide clear direction on security technology procurement. 

This assessment cuts to the heart of what ASD sees as a fundamental policy gap that leaves Europe's railway systems, energy networks, telecommunications infrastructure, and traffic management systems exposed to potential risks from foreign suppliers whose cybersecurity practices or susceptibility to third-country interference may compromise European security interests.

The solution ASD proposes is ambitious; the creation of a "Securing Europe Facility" (SEF) – a substantial new EU fund that would not merely invest in innovation but actively incentivise the procurement of European-made security solutions over foreign alternatives. This approach mirrors the treatment of military technology in EU budgeting, where grants flow toward innovation, production, and government procurement to strengthen domestic industrial capacity in strategically important sectors.
David Luengo is quoted further, saying that a security industrial policy, combined with a SEF fund, would allow the Commission to “incentivise the whole cycle, including market uptake, the predeployment of the technologies, [and] the procurement of the technologies”. He draws a parallel with NATO's newly adopted 5% of GDP defence spending targets, which include 1.5% for security-related investments. A similar logic should apply to the EU budget, where a large security fund should complement the core defence budget.

ASD argues that the proposed SEF should consolidate existing EU security investment schemes under a single umbrella, bringing together funding from the Horizon Europe research programme, the Internal Security Fund, and the Integrated Border Management Fund to create a more coherent and powerful instrument for building European security capabilities.

The article points out that the broader implications of ASD's position extend well beyond the immediate question of funding mechanisms. ASD is essentially arguing for a fundamental reorientation of European industrial policy toward security technology – a shift that would position the EU as a more self-reliant actor in an increasingly fragmented global technology landscape.