The Future of Transatlantic Digital Collaboration with EU Commissioner Michael McGrath

This transcript is from a CSIS event hosted on March 13, 2025. Watch the full video here.

Laura Caroli: These are, to say the least, difficult times for transatlantic relations, in particular on digital topics. What is Europe’s stance on privacy, data flows, digital services, and AI in this renewed international context?

I am Laura Caroli, senior fellow at the Wadhwani AI Center here at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS. And to answer this question, today I’m honored to host EU Commissioner Michael McGrath, commissioner for democracy, justice, the rule of law, and consumer protection. Welcome, Commissioner McGrath, and thank you for being here.

Michael McGrath: Thank you, Laura. And delighted to meet you. And I look forward to our chat.

Dr. Caroli: Great. Prior to joining the Commission, just in December of 2024, you have been a member of the Irish parliament for 17 years, and also minister for public expenditure for two years, and minister for finance for another two years. So that’s quite an impressive resume. And now you oversee a very broad portfolio, spanning, as we said, justice, rule of law, democracy, consumer protection, privacy, and product safety for a single market that, let’s recall, it is not small. It’s 450 million citizens. So, first of all, before we dive into more specific questions, can you walk us through the powers of the EU justice commissioner, as we may call you?

Mr. McGrath: Sure. Thank you very much, Laura for the opportunity. It’s great to be on.

As you know, the European Commission is the guardian of the treaties, as such. And in essence, we propose new laws which then we hope would be agreed by the European Parliament and by the member states, the co-legislators. And once laws are adopted, it is our job to oversee the implementation of those laws across the European Union, and to enforce those laws. So my role, as EU commissioner, is – it’s quite a broad portfolio, as you can imagine from the title. In the justice area I have responsibility for criminal law, company law, and civil law.

Our real focus there will be on improving cooperation in criminal justice with countries outside of the European Union, building on the excellent work of Eurojust, for example. And we have some very important justice files going through at the moment, including a victim’s rights directive. And I also then have overall responsibility within my title for democracy and bringing forward a democracy shield to strengthen democracy within the European Union.

On rule of law, we insist on the respect for and compliance with rule of law because it is, of course, in Article Two of the treaty. And every year we do a report on every single member state, assessing them under a number of different headings such as the independence of their judiciary. Is there a free and pluralist media sector? Is there a good anticorruption regime in place, for example? And as you’ve acknowledged, I have lead responsibility for consumer protection, including product safety and bringing forward a new Digital Fairness Act to protect consumers within the European Union, and also then for GDPR. So data privacy is, of course, a fundamental right within the European Union, so the implementation of GDPR and then overseeing the international data flows such as are provided for in the Data Privacy Framework agreement we have between the EU and U.S. – so that’s a very quick whistlestop tour of what is a broad portfolio.

Dr. Caroli: Well, thank you. Indeed, very broad. So now that you mentioned GDPR, I want to stay on this for a little bit. Then we will talk about other topics.

Mr. McGrath: Sure.

Dr. Caroli: Currently the Commission has embarked on an endeavor to try and simplify a bit some of the existing legislation to encourage competitiveness and innovation. Do you think that the GDPR that is considered by many as a very complex piece of legislation will undergo any kind of simplification or modification?

Mr. McGrath: So, it is a real focus of the European Commission to improve the competitiveness of the European economy and to bring forward a whole range of simplification measures, and we have started that process with a number of omnibus packages already focused on sustainability reporting, sustainability due diligence. And yes, GDPR will feature in a future omnibus package, particularly around the recordkeeping for SMEs and other small and medium-sized organizations with less than 500 people. So we will be examining what ways in which we can ease the burden on smaller organizations in relation to the retention of records while at the same time preserving the underlying core objective of our GDPR regime.

So we’re working through that process at the moment, but it will feature within a future omnibus package that will come before the College of Commissioners.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you for that. I think we will all be watching very closely about this process.

Mr. McGrath: Yeah.

Dr. Caroli: Staying on data protection, so, you mentioned the Data Privacy Framework. I wanted to indeed talk about the other quasi-decision that the Commission made towards the U.S., giving the opportunity for personal data of EU citizens to be transferred to the U.S. because they respect a certain level of safeguards.

Mr. McGrath: Yeah.

Dr. Caroli: Can you walk us through that, and do you envisage any possible modifications given current developments in transatlantic relations?

Mr. McGrath: Yeah, the exchange of data is something we need to obviously be very careful about, and it needs to be done within certain guardrails and within an agreed framework. But it is fundamental to the conduct of commerce – the ability of companies to exchange personal data that underpins, we estimate, over a trillion euro in transatlantic trade and investment, and the Department of Commerce here in the U.S. recognized that that is approximately the value of it. So it’s enormously beneficial to have an established system. And having an adequacy decision, which then alongside our Data Privacy Framework is a recognition on the part of the EU of the standards that are being upheld here in the United States, which give us the comfort to allow for the exchange of personal data. And of course it is reciprocal in nature as well.

So since 2023 we have the Data Privacy Framework in place. It is vital for facilitating transatlantic trade and investment. We are committed to it. Clearly the safeguards on which it is built have to be maintained and have to be respected on both sides of the Atlantic, and it is an objective of the European Union to continue with the full implementation and enforcement of the Data Privacy Framework. And it is my expectation that because of the mutual benefits that it provides for European companies, for American companies, that there is a willingness on both sides of the Atlantic to continue with this.

And just earlier on today I had a very good meeting with the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Andrew Ferguson, and he reassured me of his support for the DPF, so that was encouraging to hear.

Dr. Caroli: Well, thank you for this very fresh piece of news. I think it’s very important for us to hear that from your own mouth. So that’s promising, given the current context.

But I want to say a bit on this competitiveness and innovation topic, talking now about our core focus at the Wadhwani AI Center, which is AI. So very recently at the Paris AI Action Summit, during the summit the Commission announced the withdrawal of the AI Liability Directive, which was supposed to complement the EU AI Act in defining some liability aspects. Can you explain to us why the decision was made to announce this possible withdrawal? And why that specific moment was chosen?

Mr. McGrath: It was a matter that we gave very careful consideration to because it was a Commission proposal to bring forward the AI Liability Directive. But we can only proceed on the basis of a realistic pathway to agreement with the co-legislators. So, going back to what I said at the very beginning, we propose and then the co-legislators decide. We act as an honest broker. We try to support the co-legislative process. But it was our assessment that there was no realistic pathway to an agreement being reached on the AILD. Now, under the arrangements that we have across the different EU institutions there is an opportunity for the Council, for the Parliament to express a view on our intention to withdraw the proposed file. And so we will consider the views of the European Parliament and the Council, should they wish to express them, before giving effect to our proposal.

The reason why it was done when it was done is because we were bringing forward a work program for the Commission for 2025. And that was an opportunity for us to do a complete stock take. Some files had been, let’s say, in the pipeline for many years, proposed by the Commission but not really going anywhere. So a number of those were withdrawn. And it was our assessment that there wasn’t a prospect of getting agreement on the AILD. But we will continue to keep the matter under consideration and assess the need for a proposal on AI liability in the future. We’re not – we’re not closing the door on that for that particular file. In our view, it’s not one that was likely to reach an agreement.

Dr. Caroli: So, if I understand correctly, you are saying this was not a coincidence. Like, it was not because the Paris Action Summit was taking place that you chose suddenly that day.

Mr. McGrath: No. No, certainly not. Because at the exact same time the work program for 2025 was coming before the college of commissioners. And that was the appropriate time where a decision had to be made because the files that we intended to withdraw, we had to provide for that within our work program and our accompanying statements. So that is why it happened at that time. It wasn’t a response to any event or any geopolitical context. It was the assessment of the Commission, and one that I support, that there wasn’t a basis for agreement in respect of that file. And now we await the views of the Parliament and the Council. And then we will take the next step.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you so much for clarifying that, because I feel there was a lot of confusion among observers, commentators on this. A lot of people thought –

Mr. McGrath: Yeah. And, but, of course, we still have the AI Act. And I know, from your previous work in the European Parliament, you’ll be very familiar with that, and the process. And it is world leading. And it is very much risk-based in its nature. So we’re focused now on the full implementation of that, while at the same time doing all that we can to harness the extraordinary potential of AI in every walk of life, and right across our economy, and, indeed, in the provision of public services – not least in my own area of justice, where we are going to bring forward a plan for the digitalization of the justice systems across the European Union.

And part of that will involve the role of AI, of what can we do using the immense potential and power of AI to make our justice systems far more efficient, more cost effective, more timely in terms of decisions, and also improving access to justice for our citizens. So we’re really excited about the potential of AI across so many different areas. But that file was not – was not going to come to fruition, in our view. And we felt there was no point in just leaving it sit there.

Dr. Caroli: OK. As you know, the Parliament is still very – there are very mixed views on that decision. But, I mean –

Mr. McGrath: Yeah. The opposition was more on the Council side.

Dr. Caroli: Yes.

Mr. McGrath: And you know, we did – we did engage extensively. I discussed it with my team, and we came to that considered view based on the assessment of what had been said by member states and what positions they had adopted in discussions up to that point.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you for that clarification. Very useful.

Staying on – you mentioned the AI Act and its attempt to set a global standard for responsible AI. This also has to deal with AI safety. At the AI Action Summit in Paris, we had the impression that the concept of AI safety of frontier AI models was more or less sidelined and became a background topic, almost, for motivated stakeholders, civil society, but not on the center stage. There was no mention of concrete commitments in the final declaration to it. So I wanted to ask you: Is AI safety still relevant for the EU Commission? And what are you doing on that?

Mr. McGrath: It absolutely is. And I would point anyone to the speech that President von der Leyen gave at the summit in Paris, which I think was a very comprehensive and a very balanced statement on behalf of the European Commission about how we view AI. And we view it very positively.

We have adopted the AI Act. That provides the overall framework. We do believe there is a need for such a framework to be in place when we think about the risks that the misuse of AI can lead to when it comes to impersonation, inbuilt bias for example, the prospect of deepfakes being used in democratic elections and the implications of that. So there is a need for a set of guardrails, and we have provided those.

But our overall focus is, yes, on making sure that AI is used in a safe way, but we are determined to maximize the advantage and the benefits that it can provide across so many different areas of our economy and society in Europe. And I know it’s, of course, a huge topic of conversation and action here in the United States as well. And you know, the president outlined a very large financial package to really drive forward the push now for innovation and harnessing that potential of AI.

Dr. Caroli: Yes, indeed. And in that – in that context, the White House also issued a memorandum on removing barriers of any kind and also protecting American companies from foreign extortion on setting fines.

So this gives me a hook to talk now about another piece of legislation that is very scrutinized here, which is the Digital Services Act. So, together with the Digital Markets Act and the competition component of our action towards digital services, it can be construed as – the DSA can be construed as being anti-American companies. But I know that the Commission is also talking action against Chinese companies.

Mr. McGrath: Yeah.

Dr. Caroli: So can you walk us through that – what you are doing at the moment, what investigations are currently taking place there?

Mr. McGrath: Yeah. There are quite a few, and I think it’s important to underline that very point that is implicit in your question. It’s not about American companies, European companies, Chinese companies; it’s blind as to the origin or nationality of a company concerned. It is our digital rulebook. And in the same way that the U.S. administration would expect European companies trading within the United States to comply with the rules here, the same applies within the European Union.

It is a very clear and transparent piece of legislation. It is not about content moderation, for example. Yes, it is about taking down illegal content, which I think almost everybody would agree with, but it is not about taking down legal content. It does provide for the fundamental right of freedom of expression, which of course is a right within our Charter of Fundamental Rights. And it falls to me as a commissioner to make sure that that right is fully protected within the European Union.

So the DSA is a very important instrument that we have. My colleague the executive vice president, Henna Virkkunen, is in charge of digital regulation, and her team in DG CONNECT are very focused on fair, balanced, and consistent application of the digital rulebook. But it is not about targeting companies from one particular country or another. And it is not about content moderation. We do now have a code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online, which, of course, is a crime. And that is now assimilated within the Digital Services Act. So that is important progress. But it is about an overall balance that respects the fundamental right of freedom of expression. And that is in-built within the DSA itself. And various actions are at different stages of progression against very large online platforms, including in respect of some consumer protection matters as well.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you. And so let me ask you now, because it directly links to this following question, we had the opportunity to host just two weeks ago the rapporteur of the Digital Services Act, Ms. Christel Schaldemose. And I asked her the same thing that I want to ask you now. You more or less already answered, but I want to have it really from your own words. Do you think that the EU is pursuing digital censorship? How do you respond to this criticism from the U.S.?

Mr. McGrath: I completely reject it. It is not about censorship. It is not about content moderation. It does put an obligation on the very large online platforms to be transparent with the users of the platform about their content moderation procedures, and to make sure that users have a right to the information that they need, including if their content is removed by the platform. So it is absolutely not about censorship. It is, in many respects, the opposite. It is to ensure that there is a platform there that fully respects the freedom of expression of all of the citizens who use the service.

And, you know, we’ve heard those criticisms. And we will set out the facts and continue to be clear and transparent about what the DSA is. But equally, what the DSA is not. And I think when you look at the action that has been taken against different online platforms, and the reasons for that action, I think it supports the facts that I’m putting forward.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you. That’s a very clear message. I hope they are listening here in D.C. to what you’re saying. So now, to stay on the topic of democracy that you mentioned and is also in the realm of your portfolio, and talking about AI, which is also our focus, do you think that AI has an impact on security of elections, besides deepfakes? Because that’s the main topic of conversation that we often hear. But is there something else that you are – you have under your radar as to what AI can do to manipulate elections?

Mr. McGrath: Well, there are risks. And I think we should be open and honest and clear-eyed about the risks, alongside recognizing all of the positives and all of the potential that AI has for our economies. We are going to develop a new European democracy shield. It’s going to look at a number of different strands, including foreign information manipulation and interference, the question of disinformation. It will also look at the conduct of elections in the European Union, recognizing that it is a competence of member states. But there are areas where we can cooperate and share information and best practice. But it will also look at how we empower our citizens to themselves decide what is real, and perhaps what is not real.

And that does include, for example, more resources around factchecking, investing in digital literacy, so that people themselves will have the tools and the capability of differentiating between what is fake and what is real. So we hope to bring forward the proposal for democracy shields in quarter three of this year. So the work is well underway. And there’s a project group that I’m leading at the moment. And it will consider, in the context of our democracy and protecting and preserving the integrity of our democracy, the issues around AI as part of that.

Dr. Caroli: Great. That’s very interesting. We will also be watching that. I want to come back a bit to another area you’re working on that has a lot to do with innovation, that I didn’t have the chance to ask before. You’re also working on developing a framework for the so-called 28th regime. Can you explain to us what it is, and how it would work?

Mr. McGrath: Sure. We’ve got a lot of feedback from entrepreneurs, from business owners, that setting up a company in Europe is, in itself, straightforward, but you have different systems in the different member states – different legal systems. And so there has long been a call for a form of company – so, a legal form of company that would be recognized throughout the 27 member states of the European Union, and would allow that company to trade seamlessly across markets with 450 million people. And so what we’re going to bring forward as part of our Justice for Growth Strategy is a proposal for a 28th regime – 28th because we’ve 27 different regimes at the moment. But the 28th regime is one that will apply uniformly across the European Union. And the idea is to break down barriers to ensure we can integrate and deepen the single market even further, and allow entrepreneurs, people setting up companies, people involved in innovation to get the maximum benefit from our fantastic single market that we have.

The question of how ambitious we will be – will it include taxation aspects, labor law, insolvency law, for example – are issues that we will consider. But in its purest form, it’s a change to company law. It’s a new legal form of company that can be set up anywhere online, within the European Union, and will be recognized equally throughout the European Union. So that is, in essence, what it is. And we look forward to bringing forward that proposal. We’re going to do a consultation on it, but I’ve already met with a number of different groups who have been pushing for this. And I’ve been trying to understand what is the problem that we’re trying to resolve. And I think we do now understand the net issue. And I believe it is one that we can address with this proposal. So really looking forward to bringing it forward.

Dr. Caroli: That’s great to hear. So, basically, it would mean that if I want to open a startup in Malta I will have to do exactly the same thing as if I wanted to open one in Denmark, for example, right?

Mr. McGrath: So you will only have to set it up once, in Malta, and you can trade freely in Denmark. That’s the basic idea. Whereas, at the moment, you have 27 different systems, different requirements. And you may have to set up a new company, or you may have to change some of your arrangements to respect the member-state rules that are there in that country. So this is an attempt to really simplify the process, to make it much more efficient, and to give all companies, particularly the innovative space, the opportunity to benefit from the entirety of the single market through one legal form of company. So that is the essence of what it is. And we’re looking forward to developing that concept.

Dr. Caroli: It sounds great. Have you estimated more or less the economic impact it can have on companies?

Mr. McGrath: We think it will be very significant. We haven’t put a number on it yet, because we are in the early stages. We will develop the proposal due to consultation in advance of that. And we will need to do a regulatory impact analysis where we will consider what we think will be the benefits and the implications of the proposal. But it does – it does represent an effort by the European Union, by the Commission, to bring about greater integration of the single market. We do think it will result in more capital staying within Europe. I’m also on the project group that is focused on the savings and investments union. We want to see capital be much more mobile within the European Union, and for different mechanisms and channels to get funding into early stage and innovative businesses as well. And we think having the new legal form of company will facilitate and will enable that. And I think that is undoubtedly one of the benefits of this proposal, once it comes into fruition.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to hear that Europe is very, very seriously acting on – acting on its lagging behind of its companies. And, I mean, regulation is always indicated as the main obstacle by some, but there’s also a lack of investment. And I think, with that, we can indeed help that.

Mr. McGrath: Yeah. And the capital markets within Europe are far less deep compared to America, for example. That has impacts on the ability of companies to attract capital. There is a huge amount of money sitting in low-yield current accounts within financial institutions in the European Union. We want to get at least some of that money put into the productive capacity of the economy and get it to work. And I think improving those structures; having more dynamic, more innovative companies trading around the European Union; and then setting up through the Savings and Investment Union opportunities to get that capital to businesses when they need it we think would really help to improve the competitiveness of the European Union and the attractiveness of the EU as a place where innovation is genuinely fostered and supported.

There are really two overarching objective and priorities for the new European Commission. One is security and defense, recognizing the new geopolitical landscape and reality that we face. And the second one is simplification, improving the competitiveness of the European Union by reducing the burden on companies and ensuring that we can make much more advantage of a single market of 450 million people.

Dr. Caroli: Yeah. That’s very interesting to hear. Thank you.

Of course, this comes – this new draw towards competitiveness comes at a time where with the U.S. there is a constant war of messaging on tariffs and counter tariffs. Today, we heard President Trump’s reaction to European tariffs that were announced. That is pretty strong at the – today.

Mr. McGrath: Yeah.

Dr. Caroli: So how do you react to that?

Mr. McGrath: Well, I think the first point to make is to recognize the importance of the EU-U.S. transatlantic economic and investment partnership; 1.6 trillion euro per annum in transatlantic trade, goods and services. Combined, we represent about 30 percent of global trade. European companies employ about 3 ½ million Americans. So this is a very deep and a mutually beneficial economic relationship.

And our view within the European Union is that a trade war, tit-for-tat tariffs only result in losers. And President Trump’s statement today, which was very critical of the European Union – but that European Union move was in response to the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum and associated products. So this is what happens when you get into tit-for-tat tariffs. We need to move away from that.

We are available for dialogue and for negotiation. Where there are issues such as overcapacity in the steel and aluminum industry globally, then the EU is part of the solution. And we need to work with our partners in the United States rather than damaging each other’s economies, because that’s what the imposition of tariffs will do.

Tariffs are taxes. They’re taxes that are paid by consumers – by European consumers and by American consumers. That’s not what any of us want.

So we are available for dialogue, for an exchange. We’re available to negotiate. But we have been very clear at the same time that where we see unjustified tariffs being imposed on European businesses we will respond swiftly and firmly, and in a proportionate way. And what we have set out in our statement yesterday matches in overall value what the United States administration announced, so it doesn’t go beyond that. So it is proportionate, but it is a response.

But this is what happens when you get into a tit-for-tat tariff-based trade war. It’s not the way to go, because international rules have served us very well when it comes to global trade. And what businesses want is certainty. They want predictability.

Dr. Caroli: Right.

Mr. McGrath: They want stability of policy. They don’t want sudden shifts in policy from one day to the next. That’s not a conducive environment for making business and investment decisions. So the sooner we sit down together and have a proper conversation about the issues that are at play here, then we can come to, hopefully, an acceptable settlement and bring an end to these tariffs.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you. That’s a very clear message.

And it leads me to the last question that I wanted to ask. You’re here now in D.C. to meet with government officials and other important stakeholders. What is the message that you want to convey through your visit here?

Mr. McGrath: The message is to underline the mutually beneficial relationship that we currently have. So much is good about the EU-U.S. relationship. When I think about the area under my own portfolio, on the justice side, for example, there is excellent cooperation in place between the United States and member states of the European Union on mutual assistance, on extradition, for example. The benefits of the Data Privacy Framework that we have just discussed, which really is the foundation of a very close and strong trade and investment relationship between the EU and the U.S. In the consumer protection area we face many of the same challenges of e-commerce, where about 12 million small packages are coming into the European Union every single day, primarily through Chinese platforms. It’s an issue here in the U.S. as well. So we can cooperate on issues like consumer protection. We can continue to cooperate in justice. We need to protect the Data Privacy Framework as well.

So right across the portfolio there are opportunities to cooperate more, to continue to build a good relationship which, you know, has been there for many, many decades, and we’re anxious to continue. So it’s really to reaffirm and underline that this is a relationship that has worked will, it brings benefits for both the EU and the U.S. What we offer to the U.S. is access to our single market, and it has been extraordinarily positive for so many American companies, a very profitable market for them, including tech companies who have done really well in Europe and will continue to. So let’s engage, let’s dialogue, let’s respect each other, and where there are differences, let’s seek to iron them out around the table.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you so much for all your answers and for concluding on a positive note this brief conversation.

Now I’m going to read a couple of questions from the audience.

Mr. McGrath: Sure.

Dr. Caroli: So the first one is on the Data Privacy Framework.

Mr. McGrath: Yeah.

Dr. Caroli: Of course it’s a very sensitive topic for many of our viewers. Do you – let me read it. In recent weeks it became increasingly apparent that the U.S. executive branch removed key safeguards for the Data Privacy Framework. When will the Commission act, either by stopping DPF or requesting immediate improvements to prior agreed levels?

Mr. McGrath: Well, the Commission monitors ongoing developments and is always assessing public statements and policy decisions and the implementation of them. And the word safeguards was used there in the question that you called out, and of course that is the pillar on which we have the Data Privacy Framework. And so we’ll continue to work with our American partners who I believe do understand the very clear two-way benefits of the Data Privacy Framework. And I take encouragement from my conversation with the chair of the FTC earlier on today, where there seems to be shared recognition of the benefits of it.

That said, of course there are obligations on both sides, and from our perspective it is important that the safeguards are protected here on the U.S. side, that there’s a continued commitment to enforcement of the DPF because that is fundamental to its successful operation and underpins trust within the framework. And so we’ll continue to assess ongoing developments, but from a European perspective we’re deeply committed to it and we’ll continue to engage with our European – with our American partners.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you. And sorry I didn’t specify the question came from Thomas.

Now I’m going to ask a question from James: Will the EU Commission help U.S. companies comply to future EU legislation like the Digital Fairness Act, in giving guidance and support?

Mr. McGrath: We absolutely will. This is a proposal that will take some time to fully develop because it is complex, and it’s not about an additional layer of regulation. It is about addressing any gaps that may be there in consumer protections for consumers online, because the vast majority of the consumer protection legislation that we have in the EU was not designed for the digital age, which is becoming more and more prevalent. So it will be looking at issues like addictive design and dark patterns, the need for transparency around social media influencers, looking at subscription traps. I think we all have the experience, as consumers, of signing up to free trials and then getting rolled on automatically to annual subscriptions and finding it difficult to get out of them. So issues like that will be examined.

But we will do a proper consultation, which will start very, very shortly. And we will do the impact analysis. And we aim around the middle of next year to bring forward that proposal. But there will be ample opportunity for engagement and consultation with American companies, European companies, and all of those that will be impacted. And I’m taking it on myself to make sure I meet many of them. That’s what I hear directly, what their – what their thoughts are. And I’ll be meeting a number of very large U.S. tech companies on my visit here in the next couple of days.

Dr. Caroli: Good to know. And we wish the – we wish you the best of luck with these meetings. Another question, last one I’m asking, from James, as well. Are you optimistic about the future of the EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council?

Mr. McGrath: I think it’s a very important forum for addressing issues. I think that in the current geopolitical environment, where we have a new U.S. administration, much will depend on what the attitude is of both the European Union and the U.S. to continue to invest in a structure like that. From our perspective, it is very beneficial. And it’s important that we continue to engage, that we have dialog on issues of mutual interest. And the Trade and Technology Council, I think, has played a very important role. I think it can play an important role in the future. It’s a very useful structure to have there. And in our view, it should continue.

But it remains to be seen what is the approach of the new U.S. administration to that kind of bilateral forum. But, again, the benefits are clear. And I think the more we sit down and discuss issues of common interest or common concern, or indeed issues we have with each other on different policy areas, it is the only way to ultimately achieve progress. And I would hope that the Trade and Technology Council will be – will be the basis of much of that dialog into the future as well.

Dr. Caroli: Thank you. Well, a lot of things to be watching from your side. And a lot of opportunities for dialog with the U.S. So I hope they are really listening here today to our conversation. I want to thank you really, so, so much, Commissioner McGrath, for taking the time to speak to us today. This concludes now our event. So you’re off the hook now. Thank you so much, again.

Please keep connecting with us through CSIS.org, our website, and subscribe to The AI Policy Podcast. And have a good rest of the day.

(END.)