Each September, the President of the European Commission delivers the State of the Union address (SOTEU) before the European Parliament. First introduced in 2010, this annual speech takes stock of the EU’s progress over the past year and sets out the Commission’s priorities, flagship initiatives and responses to challenges for the year ahead. The 2025 address, delivered by President Ursula von der Leyen on 10 September, marked her fifth and the second of her new term in office.
In a Fight or Up for a Fight?
Framed against a backdrop of geopolitical instability, democratic backsliding and technological disruption, this year’s SOTEU was a call for unity, independence, and resilience. Throughout, von der Leyen not only acknowledged conflicts, economic pressures, and social conflicts, but also the goal of strengthening the EU’s position in the world. With a rather direct opening, she remarked that the EU must defend its values and self-determination from “ambivalent” and “hostile” powers, pursuing imperialistic paths by turning global interconnections into sources of vulnerability.
Interestingly, her recount of events and, more importantly, her plans were wrapped in a particular narrative, namely that of the EU – “a peace project” – under siege or “in a fight”. However, as the address marked a notable shift from crisis response to agenda setting, it rather seems that von der Leyen’s Commission is up for a fight to guarantee EU independence.
Besides pressing topics such as international armed conflicts, defence, and EU enlargement, von der Leyen gave notable attention to the digital realm, ranging from the twin transition and disinformation to digital sovereignty and child online safety. This piece discusses these last two aspects.
Changing Tides: the Digital Sovereignty Imperative
The references to “technological independence” and tech sovereignty in the 2025 SOTEU come as no surprise, after all, these have been main political targets for the Commission since 2019. In fact, against the backdrop of unexpected turns in international politics, mostly on the part of the US, the EU’s desire for digital sovereignty is not only logical but acquires an almost existential importance. Recently, Trump threatened to raise tariffs on those countries whose regulations “target” and “harm” American Big Tech companies, despite having reached a Framework Agreement with the EU.
Now, von der Leyen’s references to innovation and digital sovereignty could be interpreted as technosolutionist rhetoric, as if controlling emerging technologies would guarantee the Union’s economic growth, security, and wellbeing; however, leaving this aside, the intervention highlighted the advent of new strategies to achieve technological independence.
The More the Merrier: the EU Needs New Allies
One of these new strategies is the diversification of the EU’s partnerships. Indeed, this is closely related to the crescent unreliability of EU-US relations and the bonding of political adversaries such as Russia and China. Thus, the Commission confirmed its intentions of furthering new alliances with nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Recent progress made with Mexico and Mercosur, a potential adequacy decision with Brazil, and the continued development of the Global Gateway are expressions of the EU’s commitment to building a new axis of like-minded partners to bring forth digital sovereignty. Of course, “like-mindedness” is a vague concept, and it is yet to be seen which nations fall within this definition in the eyes of the Commission.
Still, this strategy is a welcome nuance in EU strategic autonomy and digital sovereignty discourse, acknowledging that the EU must embrace global interconnections and that, consequently, it cannot accomplish these goals in isolation. Such openness also shows awareness that the EU otherwise lacks the resources needed to achieve digital sovereignty.
The Missing Pieces in EU Tech Independence
A second strategy entails directing attention towards infrastructure and departing from the EU’s role of a legal “trend-setter” in the digital field. Von der Leyen front loads the need for and importance of initiatives like the EU Cloud and AI Development Act, as well as significant investment in EU Gigafactories as an ecosystem to develop “European AI”. This goes hand in hand with projects like the Eurostack, which pushes for EU capacity in developing all layers required to achieve digital sovereignty. The EU is trying to address foundational shortcomings in the EU AI sector by working on issues of fragmentation, overreliance on foreign suppliers and investment gaps.
In addition, von der Leyen promoted the simplification of regulation through the “Digital Omnibus” in response to concerns of overregulation expressed in the Draghi report as well as in order to boost the competitiveness of EU companies in AI, quantum or biotech. Just a few days later, former Italian Prime Minister Draghi called for a halt on the application of AI High Risk provisions of the AI Act. This prompts the question whether advancement of the European Tech Industry will require compromising the high protection standards that have defined the EU’s agenda so far. Overall, digital sovereignty remains a complex enterprise in this year’s to-do list of the Commission.
Child Online Safety
Ursula von der Leyen further spoke about the challenges parents face in keeping children safe online. Citing concerns around addiction, harmful content, and manipulative algorithms, she announced plans to explore age-based restrictions for social media access, drawing inspiration from recent developments in Australia. Speaking as “a mother of seven and a grandmother of four”, her speech struck an emotional chord, but in policy terms, what does this framing mean for children’s digital rights in the EU, and how does it sit with existing regulation and the wider research?
The Emperor’s New Clothes
Von der Leyen’s comments come at a time when the EU has already adopted social media regulation. In line with the EU’s broader turn away from a liberal, market-oriented approach and towards a constitutional framework aimed at limiting private power and protecting fundamental rights in the algorithmic society, the Digital Services Act (DSA), in force since 2024, amongst other things, places binding obligations on very large online platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks to minors. Recent ‘Guidelines on measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security for minors online’ go even further, outlining how the EU expects platforms to ensure age-appropriate experiences, prioritize safety by design, and avoid burdening children with intrusive verification methods. Both make clear that the EU has sought to hold platforms accountable for protecting children online. Yet, von der Leyen did not refer to these developments and instead focused on the parents’ burden.
Two Sides of the Same Coin?
This is not unique to von der Leyen. Scholars have observed that political discourse on child online safety often centres on parents’ concerns, foregrounding their role as guardians. Von der Leyen’s appeal, “parents, not algorithms, should be raising our children”, echoes this framing. But treating children solely as vulnerable not only obscures their right to participation, privacy and protection in ways that respect their evolving capacities but also the fact that “parents can be as much part of the problem as the solution”. This becomes especially important in debates over age assurance and social media bans. While von der Leyen alludes to potential age restrictions modelled on smoking and drinking laws, others caution against such simplistic analogies. “There is no right age” that suits all children, and blunt bans both risk excluding vulnerable youth from positive online experiences and potentially leaving them at the hands of parents who are poor representatives of their rights. Scholars warn that bans may provide symbolic reassurance while in effect placing even more responsibility (read burden) onto families. Meanwhile, research on parental mediation suggests that collaborative, trust-based approaches outperform restrictive control. Thus, while von der Leyen’s recognition of parental concerns is critical, her impulse to listen to them should not replace consultation with children as the very stakeholders these policies will affect.
The Elephant in the Room
Seen in the light of ongoing transatlantic tensions, von der Leyen’s rhetoric in this section of the address might also serve a diplomatic function: by shifting the focus onto parental concerns, she avoids re-opening discussions over the DSA following her earlier comments on the EU setting its own standards and regulations. Instead, it seems like she utilizes child online safety to re-emphasize that the EU’s goal is to “empower parents and build a safer Europe for our children”, not to harm U.S. technology.
Conclusion
Overall, besides the overarching geopolitical priorities, the 2025 SOTEU points to a range of tensions in digital policy: between empowering parents and upholding children’s digital rights, between diplomacy and regulatory enforcement, between digital independence and the need to establish new partnerships, and between industrial competitiveness and the safeguarding of fundamental rights. These are not new dilemmas, but von der Leyen’s address shows how they remain unresolved and politically sensitive. As the EU starts this legislative term, the challenge will be to avoid symbolic gestures and instead deliver policies that balance protection with participation, rights with responsibilities, and independence with interdependence. In other words, the Union’s credibility will hinge less on being “up for a fight” and more on whether it can build a digital future that is secure, sustainable, and rights-respecting.
Suggested citation:
Karolin Rippich and Victor Henriquez Diaz, ‘Tales of Digital Sovereignty and Child Online Safety: Von der Leyen’s State of the Union Address’ (Comparative Digital Law Blog, 25 September 2025) <https://lawandtech.ie/tales-of-digital-sovereignty-and-child-online-safety-von-der-leyens-state-of-the-union-address>.
About the authors:
Karolin Rippich is a PhD researcher at DCU Anti-Bullying Centre & DCU Law & Tech Research Cluster, investigating the influence of anti-gender ideologies on the EU’s child online safety framework. She holds a dual Bachelor of Science in Information Science and an International Master in Security, Intelligence and Strategic Studies. Beyond her experience in different IT-Governance, Data Protection and Cybersecurity roles, Karolin has contributed to research projects on “Young Women in STEM” and Games and Gaming within Education. She is the Co-Editor of the Journal of Intersectional Social Justice and Communications Coordinator for the Digital Constitutionalism Network.
Victor Henriquez Diaz is a PhD Researcher at the School of Law and Government of Dublin City University, where he explores the interaction between critical raw materials and digital sovereignty in the EU context. Victor is the Deputy Coordinator of the DCU Law and Tech Research Cluster, acting as co-Editor of Comparative Digital Law Blog and co-producer of the DCU Digital Law Perspectives podcast.
