A Reuters exclusive reveals that the US State Department has directed diplomats to actively oppose data sovereignty laws being considered worldwide. The directive exposes growing tension between US tech companies' global operations and countries wanting local control over citizens' data.Data sovereignty - the principle that data should be subject to the laws of the country where it's collected - sounds reasonable on the surface. If you're a French citizen, shouldn't French laws govern how your data is stored and processed? But from the US tech industry's perspective, data sovereignty requirements are trade barriers that fragment the global internet and increase operational costs.The State Department's position is clear: data should flow freely across borders, subject to agreed-upon frameworks rather than national storage requirements. That position happens to align perfectly with the business interests of Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and other US cloud providers who built massive global infrastructure on the assumption that data could live anywhere.Countries pushing data sovereignty have their own legitimate concerns. They argue that data stored on US servers is subject to US surveillance laws, including the CLOUD Act which allows US law enforcement to access data regardless of where it's physically stored. They want data stored locally so their own laws and courts have jurisdiction.This is fundamentally about power and control disguised as a technical and legal dispute. The US wants to maintain its tech industry's dominant position. Other countries want more autonomy over their digital infrastructure. Both sides frame their positions in terms of privacy, security, and user rights, but really it's geopolitics.The technical arguments on both sides are somewhat disingenuous. US companies claim data sovereignty requirements hurt security because they can't implement unified security controls. But most already run region-specific infrastructure for performance reasons. Meanwhile, countries claiming data sovereignty enhances privacy are often the same ones implementing domestic surveillance programs.What's actually at stake is market access and economic control. If India, Brazil, Indonesia, and other large markets require local data storage, US cloud providers must build local infrastructure, which increases costs and reduces their competitive advantage. Local providers in those markets benefit enormously from data sovereignty requirements.From a user perspective, data sovereignty has both benefits and risks. Your data being subject to your country's laws means more local accountability and potentially easier legal recourse. But it also means your data is subject to whatever surveillance or censorship laws your government implements. Neither approach guarantees privacy or security.The State Department directive suggests the US is treating this as a serious trade issue, not just a technical policy dispute. When diplomats are instructed to actively oppose foreign regulations, it signals that significant economic interests are at play.My take: both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The current system where a few US companies control global data infrastructure is problematic. But fragmenting the internet into national data silos creates its own problems. The real question is whether we can find approaches that preserve user privacy and security while allowing for reasonable cross-border data flows.What's clear is that this issue won't be resolved by technical solutions alone. It's a geopolitical negotiation about digital sovereignty, economic power, and the future structure of the internet. The fact that US diplomats are being mobilized suggests the stakes are high and the outcome is uncertain.