Couldn't LE have a branch in Europe or anywhere outside the USA and its minions?

Because they're betraying their own goals, as stated in their About page: “It is a service run for the public’s benefit. [...] Anyone who owns a domain name can use Let’s Encrypt to obtain a trusted certificate at zero cost. [...] Let’s Encrypt is a joint effort to benefit the community, beyond the control of any one organization.” Now they own they are under the control of a political organization.

Here is the paragraph Let's Encrypt added to their Subscription Agreement on 2026-06-04:

> You are not a person or entity that is:

> (a) located in, organized under the laws of, or ordinarily resident in any country or territory that is the target of comprehensive U.S. sanctions;

> (b) a prohibited or restricted party under U.S. or other applicable sanctions and export control laws and regulations;

> or (c) owned or controlled by or acting on behalf of anyone described in (a) or (b).

> You agree to use Let’s Encrypt Certificates and any services provided by or on behalf of ISRG in compliance with applicable U.S. export control and sanctions laws and regulations.

▲

cassianoleal 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They could, but if the branch didn’t follow these laws, the main US branch would still be liable.

▲

cromka 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's about time SOME entities start moving from US entirely.

▲

mikeyouse 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

RISC-V Foundation did.. though they go out of their way to talk about it in terms that try not to piss anyone off..

> "Across 2018-2019, the RISC-V community has reflected on the geo-political landscape and we have heard concerns from around the world that investment in RISC-V must come with IP access continuity to ensure a long-term strategic investment. We first mentioned our intentions to move at the December 2018 summit. Incorporation in Switzerland has the effect of calming concerns of political disruption to the open collaboration model. RISC-V International does not maintain any commercial interest in products or services as a non-profit, membership organization. There have not been any export restrictions on RISC-V in the US and we have complied with all US laws. The move does not circumvent any existing restrictions, but rather alleviates uncertainty going forward.

> In March 2020, the RISC-V International Association was incorporated in Switzerland. Along with this, we shifted to a new, more inclusive membership structure. Members of RISC-V International have access to and participate in the development of the RISC-V ISA specification and extensions as well as related hardware and software. RISC-V has a Board of Directors composed of member representatives as well as a Technical Committee of work group leaders."

> RISC-V International has not incorporated in Switzerland based on any one country, company, government, or event. This move is reflective of community concern and managing strategic risk for our community investing in RISC-V for the next 50+ years.

> The IP contributed and produced by RISC-V International is held under industry and global standard licenses that are already open to leverage by any company regardless of jurisdiction. This licensing is a common open source approach to foster collaboration that is not tied to any geographic regulation. IP in the public domain has not been subject to export control.

https://riscv.org/about/

▲

naturalmovement 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

rafram 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Other countries sanction each other too.

▲

cassianoleal 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

This is not about countries sanctioning each other. This is the US sanctioning a local company because a foreign company doesn’t follow certain US laws in foreign soil, where such laws don’t apply.

It’s a bit like the US arresting your mom at home in Texas because you ate a baggie of magic truffles in Amsterdam.

	▲	rafram 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're being very vague. Please explain what you mean? I don't see anything here about the US "sanctioning a local company," and I'm not aware of that being possible under US law.

▲

mfuzzey 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Just close down completely in the US and move to the EU

▲

PunchyHamster 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

completely independent entity would be far better option. Protocol is open after all, just need pointing to different vendor