ASML finance chief says EU AI rules push talent to Silicon Valley

Europe's most valuable technology company has delivered its sharpest warning yet that the continent's approach to artificial intelligence regulation is backfiring. Roger Dassen, chief financial officer of ASML, told a campaign event in Eindhoven on Monday evening that the European Union's decision to regulate first and innovate later is pushing the very people Europe needs toward the United States.

"Why is it so difficult to get AI done in Europe? Simply because we started with regulating, to keep AI under the thumb," Dassen said. "Someone who has a talent for artificial intelligence, the first thing they do with their hard-earned money ... is buying a ticket to Silicon Valley." The remarks, made at an event for the centre-right Christian Democratic Appeal ahead of the Dutch general election on 29 October, represent a direct challenge to the legislative framework the EU spent years negotiating.

The regulatory sequence that ASML opposes

The AI Act, which entered into force in August 2024, is being implemented in phases. Prohibitions on certain practices such as social scoring and real-time biometric identification in public spaces applied from February 2025. Rules for general-purpose AI models take effect from August 2025, with the remainder of the obligations for high-risk systems applying from August 2026. ASML's position is that the sequencing, regulation before the technology has matured, creates uncertainty that discourages investment and hiring in Europe.

In July, ASML executives were among the signatories of a letter from 46 European companies urging a two-year pause on the parts of the law not yet implemented. The letter argued that the regulatory burden falls disproportionately on European firms while non-EU competitors can develop equivalent technologies without the same constraints. The European Commission has not indicated any willingness to reopen the timeline.

A strategic investment that changes ASML's standing

The company's credibility in this debate shifted materially in September when it became the largest shareholder in Mistral AI, the French startup that has emerged as Europe's most prominent foundation model developer. The €1.3 billion investment gives ASML a direct commercial stake in the success of a company that will be subject to the general-purpose AI model obligations under the Act. It also gives ASML a seat at the table when the Commission consults on implementation details, a position the company did not occupy a year ago.

Mistral has itself lobbied for lighter requirements on open-weight models, arguing that overly strict rules would cement the advantage of US incumbents. With ASML now a major shareholder, the Dutch company's public criticism carries the weight of a direct investor, not merely a supplier of lithography equipment.

Geopolitical pressure and the protection gap

Dassen broadened the argument beyond regulation to the question of whether Europe can shield its strategic companies in an era of great-power competition. "You should ask the Airbuses, the Nokias, the ASMLs ... whether they feel protected by Europe at all times in this huge struggle of power that takes place between the United States and China. The answer won't always be yes," he said.

The Netherlands has been the primary theatre for this tension. Since 2019, the United States has pressed the Dutch government to restrict exports of ASML's most advanced extreme ultraviolet lithography systems to China. The Dutch government has gradually tightened licensing requirements, aligning with US-led export control frameworks, but ASML has consistently warned that overly broad restrictions damage its revenue base and R&D capacity without necessarily slowing Chinese semiconductor development.

In 2023, ASML derived roughly 15 per cent of its system revenue from China, down from nearly 30 per cent in 2022 after the first round of restrictions. The company has argued that each round of controls forces it to redesign products for a fragmented market, increasing cost and complexity. The Dutch government, for its part, has maintained that export policy is a sovereign national security decision, not a commercial one.

Access to power: Brussels versus Washington

The practical consequences of that dynamic were illustrated last week at the POLITICO Competitive Europe summit in Brussels. Frank Heemskerk, ASML's top lobbyist, said: "It's not always easy" to meet EU politicians. "It's easier to get a meeting in the White House with a senior official than to get a meeting with a commissioner," he added, quoting a previous company executive.

The observation reflects a structural difference. The US executive branch operates with a relatively small number of decision-makers who can be reached through established channels. The European Commission's college of 27 commissioners, each with a distinct portfolio and cabinet, requires navigation through multiple layers of policy officials before a file reaches the political level. For a company like ASML, which needs coordinated action on trade, research funding, talent visas and regulation simultaneously, the fragmentation is a practical obstacle.

The capital markets union that never arrived

Dassen returned to a familiar European refrain: the absence of a functioning capital markets union. "We are very good at startups, we're worthless at scale-ups," he said. The argument is that European venture capital markets remain fragmented along national lines, pension funds and insurers are restricted by solvency rules from allocating meaningful capital to high-growth equity, and public listing regimes in Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt lack the depth of Nasdaq.

The European Commission has pursued capital markets union since 2015. Progress has been made on prospectus regulation, securitisation frameworks and the European Single Access Point for financial data. But the core barriers, national insolvency laws, divergent tax treatments, and the reluctance of large institutional investors to cross borders, remain largely intact. Mistral's fundraising history illustrates the point: its €600 million Series B in June 2024 included significant participation from US investors such as General Catalyst and Lightspeed, alongside European backers.

Dutch election context and the national dimension

The Eindhoven event was not a neutral technology forum. It was a campaign rally for the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), a party that has governed the Netherlands for much of the post-war period but has seen its support erode. The party is polling around 5 to 6 per cent ahead of the 29 October election, fighting to remain relevant in a fragmented parliament. ASML, headquartered in Veldhoven near Eindhoven, is the region's largest employer and a symbol of Dutch high-tech success. Its executives rarely intervene so directly in electoral politics.

The CDA's platform includes calls for a "regulatory pause" on European technology legislation and stronger government support for strategic sectors. Dassen's appearance signals that ASML sees the national political debate as a lever to influence the European one. The Netherlands holds a seat on the Council of the EU and has historically been a liberalising voice on trade and digital policy. A shift in the Dutch government's tone could affect the Council's position on future digital legislation.