Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

European Parliament disables built‑in AI on MEPs’ work devices — move taken amid cybersecurity concerns

The European Parliament has disabled AI assistants on lawmakers’ tablets and phones after its IT service concluded it cannot guarantee data security. What does this mean for democracy, cyber strategy and for Ukraine — briefly and to the point.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 16, 2026 · 2 min read

European Parliament disables built‑in AI on MEPs’ work devices — move taken amid cybersecurity concerns
Фото: CHRISTOPHE PETIT TESSON/ EPA

The European Parliament has disabled built-in AI functions on work devices

Politico reported on an internal email to MEPs: the European Parliament’s IT department has disabled built-in AI functions on corporate tablets and phones, explaining the decision by an inability to guarantee the data security of these tools. This does not affect mail, calendars and documents, but it does impact writing assistants, summarization tools and other automated services on mobile devices.

What exactly was done

The institution disabled built-in assistants and automatic summarization tools for the tablets and phones of MEPs and their staff. The letter also suggested considering similar precautionary measures for private devices used for work tasks. Specific feature names and operating systems were not disclosed due to the "sensitivity" of cybersecurity matters.

"We constantly monitor cyber threats and promptly implement measures to prevent them"

— Press service of the European Parliament

Why this matters

The decision is not about technophobia, but about the realities of data protection. In recent years the EU has tightened security rules: from recommendations to remove TikTok in 2023 to calls in 2025 to abandon some software in favor of European alternatives. In March the European Parliament adopted some of the world’s first laws on AI regulation — and is now applying their logic operationally where infrastructure vulnerabilities are concerned.

What experts say

Cybersecurity analysts point out that built-in AI assistants can send fragments of work data to external services for processing, creating risks of information leaks or third‑party use. Such risks are especially critical for legislative institutions, where strategies, legislative initiatives and confidential communications circulate.

What this means for Ukraine

The signal for us is twofold. First, it is a reminder: digital security is a matter of national security. Second, the EU is demonstrating a practical approach — not just declarations about data protection, but concrete operational decisions. Ukrainian authorities, the parliament and partners should take this experience into account when shaping their own policies for using AI on official devices.

Short practical checklist

- Limit AI services' access to official email and documents. - Implement segregation of work and private devices. - Vet suppliers and require transparent terms of data processing. - Improve cyber-hygiene among civil servants and MPs.

Conclusion

The European Parliament’s decision is not rhetoric, but a pragmatic step toward minimizing risks. It is part of a broader trend: EU lawmakers are moving from rules on paper to operational security in daily work. For Ukraine it is important not only to monitor such signals, but to transform them into its own working procedures so that digital vulnerability does not become a weak point of security and democracy.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026