The EU court’s approval of the new data transfer pact may offer short-term stability for global commerce—but it comes at the cost of democratic control, legal accountability, and individual autonomy.

The Consequences of the EU Court’s Backing of the New US-EU Data Transfer Deal – Through the Lens of Trump-Era Policies, Palantir’s Role, and European Data Privacy

by ChatGPT-4o

Introduction

On September 3, 2025, the EU’s General Court gave its legal blessing to the latest data transfer framework between the United States and the European Union. This pact—designed to replace its two annulled predecessors, Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield—was meant to reestablish trust and legal clarity for transatlantic data flows. But while thousands of companies are celebrating the “certainty” this ruling provides, European citizens, privacy advocates, and legal experts remain deeply skeptical.

In light of what we know about the Trump administration’s prior approach to surveillance, the expansive role of U.S. government contractors like Palantir, and the historic vulnerabilities exposed by Max Schrems and others, the General Court’s ruling could have significant real-world consequences for EU citizens’ privacy, autonomy, and legal recourse.

Background: What Was Approved?

The 2023 agreement—now judicially endorsed—was the third attempt at establishing a data bridge between the U.S. and EU. The first two were invalidated by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) due to U.S. surveillance overreach and lack of redress mechanisms for EU citizens. The new deal adds a U.S.-based Data Protection Review Court (DPRC) as a supposed independent channel for complaints.

Yet French MEP Philippe Latombe, who sued to annul the deal, argued the DPRC lacks genuine independence and that the framework fails to meet the EU's standards for privacy and family life protection under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Consequences in the Context of Trump, Palantir, and Surveillance Culture

1. Normalizing Mass Surveillance and “Bulk Collection”

The court dismissed concerns over U.S. intelligence collection, stating that "signals intelligence activities... are subject to ex post judicial oversight." However, this overlooks how programs like PRISM, XKEYSCORE, and others (revealed by Edward Snowden) relied on broad, indiscriminate data sweeps—often using commercial platforms. With Donald Trump signaling potential retaliation against EU digital regulations and a possible return to office in 2025-2026, many fear a rollback of existing U.S. protections and a revival of aggressive state surveillance policies.

Palantir’s partnerships with ICE, DHS, and other U.S. agencies demonstrate how private contractors are deeply embedded in federal data operations. These companies, exempt from meaningful democratic oversight, can aggregate, analyze, and exploit personal data at unprecedented scale. EU citizens whose data is transferred—through payroll systems, app activity, or cloud platforms—may unknowingly become part of these intelligence databases.

2. Erosion of GDPR as a Gold Standard

The ruling effectively permits the U.S. to operate under a lower data protection threshold than the EU, weakening GDPR’s authority. This asymmetry could become entrenched, with EU regulators under pressure to accommodate U.S. practices to preserve trade and tech cooperation—undermining both citizen rights and regulatory independence.

3. Precedent for Future Agreements with Less Democratic Regimes

If the EU can justify data transfers to the U.S. under questionable surveillance conditions, it sets a precedent for deals with other countries—like India, Brazil, or Gulf states—where data protection laws are weak or surveillance practices opaque. The same rationale used here could be repurposed to enable transnational data flow arrangements that leave citizens exposed.

4. Corporate Leverage over Individuals

Multinationals like Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft (the primary beneficiaries of this ruling) now have clear legal cover to resume or expand data flows. But the asymmetry between these corporate giants and individual citizens means that redress mechanisms—even when available—are functionally out of reach for most. The burden of proof falls on the individual, navigating foreign legal systems and unfamiliar procedures.

Financial, Legal, and Social Consequences

A. For European Citizens

• Privacy Breaches: Personal data (biometrics, health records, location data) could be used by U.S. agencies or subcontractors without consent.

• Legal Vulnerability: EU citizens must rely on the DPRC—a U.S. body whose independence is disputed—rather than their home courts.

• Chilling Effects: Awareness of potential surveillance may reduce freedom of expression, political engagement, or use of digital services.

B. For EU Institutions

• Legal Uncertainty Returns: If this framework is invalidated again by the CJEU (upon appeal), regulators and companies will face another legal vacuum.

• Credibility Damage: Continued reliance on flawed transatlantic arrangements could weaken public trust in EU institutions and the GDPR regime.

C. For U.S.-EU Relations

• Tensions Ahead: Trump's combative stance against European tech regulation could escalate if the EU exercises enforcement or blocks data access again.

• Asymmetrical Power Dynamics: The U.S., with superior tech leverage and a surveillance-oriented national security model, may continue to dictate terms.

How Can Citizens Protect Themselves?

1. Use of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies

• Encrypted Messaging Apps (Signal, Threema)

• VPNs and Tor Browsers to obfuscate IP addresses

• Decentralized or EU-Based Cloud Services like ProtonDrive, Tresorit, or NextCloud

Effectiveness: Moderately effective. While these tools can obscure user data from commercial surveillance, they offer little protection against state surveillance at the infrastructure level (e.g., undersea cables, ISP-level interception).

2. Localized Digital Services

Citizens can choose EU-based platforms that store data locally, minimizing exposure to transatlantic transfers.

Effectiveness: Useful in theory, but many digital services rely on U.S.-based infrastructure (e.g., AWS, Google Cloud), making full isolation difficult.

3. Rights Advocacy and Legal Challenges

Support NGOs (e.g., NOYB, EDRi, Privacy International) that litigate systemic breaches of EU privacy laws.

Effectiveness: Long-term impact possible, especially if the CJEU invalidates the current framework. However, this is slow, underfunded, and dependent on public pressure.

4. Political Engagement

Citizens can support parties or candidates who defend digital sovereignty and push back against uncritical data-sharing with foreign powers.

Effectiveness: Politically impactful but requires sustained civic awareness, which is often lacking for technical or abstract issues like data flows.

Conclusion: A Faustian Bargain in Plain Sight

The EU court’s approval of the new data transfer pact may offer short-term stability for global commerce—but it comes at the cost of democratic control, legal accountability, and individual autonomy. In effect, it accepts a Faustian bargain: sacrificing citizen privacy for the convenience of streamlined transatlantic business.

If the past is any guide—from Trump’s disregard for civil liberties to Palantir’s data-mining prowess—the risks are not theoretical. They are imminent, systemic, and increasingly normalized.

Citizens may deploy tools and advocacy to protect themselves, but these measures are stopgaps at best. The real solution lies in holding both governments and corporations accountable—through law, policy, and a renewed commitment to fundamental rights in the digital age.

Further Reading & Resources

• Max Schrems / NOYB: https://noyb.eu/

• European Data Protection Board: https://edpb.europa.eu/

• Privacy International: https://privacyinternational.org/

• Official Case Summary (Latombe v. Commission): https://curia.europa.eu/