As drug violence and organized crime strain cities, Belgian officials call on technology companies to work more closely with law enforcement, feeding a wider EU reckoning over privacy, security, and digital power.

Belgian national officials are stepping up calls for deeper cooperation between technology companies and law enforcement, placing the country at the center of a renewed European debate over encrypted communications, digital responsibility, and public security.

The push comes amid growing concern over organized crime networks that rely on encrypted messaging platforms to coordinate drug trafficking, money laundering, and violence. Belgian authorities, long on the front line of Europe’s cocaine trade through the port of Antwerp, argue that current technological safeguards are increasingly shielding criminal activity from investigators.

Senior figures in Belgium’s justice and interior ministries have framed the issue not as an attack on privacy, but as a question of balance. In public remarks and private briefings to European partners, they have emphasized that law enforcement is struggling to keep pace with criminals who exploit end‑to‑end encryption, anonymous accounts, and rapidly evolving digital tools.

Belgium’s stance resonates beyond its borders. Across the European Union, policymakers are reassessing the relationship between politics and technology at a time when digital platforms wield unprecedented influence over daily life. While earlier debates focused on market power, content moderation, and data protection, security concerns are now pushing encrypted services into the political spotlight.

Drug policy officials have been among the most vocal. According to several European drug chiefs, encrypted apps have become essential infrastructure for criminal networks, replacing traditional hierarchies with fluid, decentralized systems that are harder to dismantle. They warn that without some form of structured cooperation from tech companies, investigations risk becoming slower, more expensive, and less effective.

Belgian officials insist they are not calling for blanket surveillance or the weakening of encryption for ordinary users. Instead, they advocate targeted mechanisms that would allow authorities, under judicial oversight, to access data linked to serious crimes. In their view, cooperation frameworks already exist in areas such as financial regulation and counterterrorism, and similar principles should apply in the digital realm.

Technology companies, however, remain wary. Many firms argue that creating access for law enforcement, even in limited cases, could introduce vulnerabilities that threaten user security worldwide. They also point to the risk of setting precedents that authoritarian governments could exploit to justify repression.

Civil liberties groups echo these concerns, warning that any erosion of encryption could undermine fundamental rights. They stress that strong encryption protects journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens from surveillance and cybercrime, and caution that once technical safeguards are weakened, they cannot easily be restored.

The European Union finds itself navigating between these competing pressures. Recent regulatory efforts have shown Brussels willing to assert authority over technology companies, but security‑driven demands test the limits of that approach. Unlike competition or consumer protection, encryption touches core questions of state power and individual freedom.

Belgium’s advocacy has added urgency to internal EU discussions. Diplomats and officials describe an atmosphere of cautious engagement, with member states divided over how far cooperation should go. Some governments quietly support Belgium’s position, citing similar challenges at home, while others urge restraint, fearing political backlash and legal challenges.

What is clear is that the debate is no longer theoretical. Rising violence linked to drug trafficking has pushed public security higher on the political agenda, particularly in urban centers. Belgian leaders argue that citizens expect the state to adapt to technological realities, not be outpaced by them.

As Europe weighs its next steps, Belgium’s message is blunt: technology has transformed crime, and policy must evolve accordingly. Whether that evolution can reconcile security needs with Europe’s strong commitment to digital rights will shape the next chapter of EU tech regulation — and redefine the boundaries between privacy and protection in the digital age.