KYIV — The Russian army attacked Ukraine with more than 90 killer drones in the early hours of Thursday morning, causing complete blackouts in the key industrial regions of Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia, Kyiv’s energy ministry reported. “While energy workers managed to restore power in the Zaporizhzhia region in the morning, some 800,000 households in the nearby Dnipro region were still without electricity and heating on Thursday morning,” Artem Nekrasov, acting energy minister of Ukraine, said during a morning briefing. In Dnipro, eight coal mines stopped working because of a power outage. All the miners were safely evacuated to the surface, Nekrasov added. Power outages were also reported in Chernihiv, Kyiv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Poltava and other regions. Freezing weather is coming to Ukraine over the next three days, with temperatures forecast to drop to minus 20° C during the night, when Russia often launches massive missile and drone attacks. Precipitation and cold could cause additional electricity supply disruptions due to snow accumulating on power lines, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said Wednesday evening. “Ukraine’s energy system is under enemy attack every day, and energy workers work in extremely difficult conditions to provide people with light and heat. Deteriorating weather conditions create additional stress on critical infrastructure. We are working to minimize the consequences of bad weather,” Svyrydenko added. Local governors in the eastern regions of Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro reported that hospitals and other critical infrastructure had to turn to emergency power supplies because of the latest Russian attack. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked Ukrainian energy workers for the speedy power restoration in Zaporizhzhia, and used the opportunity to remind Kyiv’s partners around the world they need to respond “to this deliberate torment of the Ukrainian people by Russia.” “There is absolutely no military rationale in such strikes on the energy sector and infrastructure that leave people without electricity and heating in wintertime. This is Russia’s war specifically against our people, against life in Ukraine — an attempt to break Ukraine,” Zelenskyy added.

Thousands rallied in the Albanian capital of Tirana on Monday as the opposition demanded Prime Minister Edi Rama’s resignation over corruption charges against his deputy, Belinda Balluku, whose parliamentary immunity has so far blocked her arrest. The political crisis in the Balkan nation has been building for weeks since anti-corruption prosecutors accused Balluku of interfering in major state contracts. It reached its tipping point Monday night after Molotov cocktails were hurled at Rama’s office. Four protesters were arrested during clashes and seven more put under investigation. Two police officers were injured, and one protester accidentally set himself on fire, local media reported. The protest, organized by veteran opposition leader Sali Berisha and his Democratic Party, followed scenes of chaos in Albania’s parliament last week, when police intervened after lawmakers brawled and set off flares inside the chamber. “We do not condone any form of violence — especially violence exercised by those in power. There is no more blatant form of violence than the extortion and systematic looting carried out by Edi Rama and his ministers against the Albanian people,” Berisha told POLITICO Tuesday via his spokesperson, saying the protests were intended to “stop this violence.” Prosecutors and opposition lawmakers are pushing to lift Balluku’s immunity so that anti-corruption prosecutors can arrest and try her. Rama and his ruling Socialist Party have so far stalled the vote, saying they will wait for a Constitutional Court ruling that is expected in January. Balluku is accused, along with several other officials and private companies, of manipulating public tenders to favor specific companies on major infrastructure projects, including Tirana’s Greater Ring Road and the Llogara Tunnel. She has called the allegations against her “insinuations,” “half-truths” and “lies,” and agreed to cooperate with the judicial process fully. Balluku is also minister of infrastructure, overseeing some of the country’s largest public projects. Rama has also defended Balluku amid the corruption charges, accusing the anti-corruption agency, known as SPAK, of normalizing pre-trial arrests, saying they amount to “arrests without trial” and fall short of European democratic standards. The prime minister told POLITICO in an interview Wednesday that it was “normal” for SPAK to make errors as it is a “newborn institution with a newborn independent power” that has made “plenty of mistakes.” When asked for a statement Tuesday about the protests’ violent turn, Rama refused to comment. He said he did not want to impugn his political opponents, “because in the end they are not enemies to be exposed to the world, but just desperate fellow Albanians, to be confronted and dealt with within the bounds of our own domestic political life.” Berisha hit back, accusing Rama of stealing elections and telling him it was time to go. “He has no legitimacy to remain in government for even one more day,” Berisha told POLITICO. Rama was reelected in May for a fourth term.

A fair, fast and competitive transition begins with what already works and then rapidly scales it up.  Across the EU commercial road transport sector, the diversity of operations is met with a diversity of solutions. Urban taxis are switching to electric en masse. Many regional coaches run on advanced biofuels, with electrification emerging in smaller applications such as school services, as European e-coach technologies are still maturing and only now beginning to enter the market. Trucks electrify rapidly where operationally and financially possible, while others, including long-haul and other hard-to-electrify segments, operate at scale on HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) or biomethane, cutting emissions immediately and reliably. These are real choices made every day by operators facing different missions, distances, terrains and energy realities, showing that decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones.  Building on this diversity, many operators are already modernizing their fleets and cutting emissions through electrification. When they can control charging, routing and energy supply, electric vehicles often deliver a positive total cost of ownership (TCO), strong reliability and operational benefits. These early adopters prove that electrification works where the enabling conditions are in place, and that its potential can expand dramatically with the right support. > Decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones chosen > daily by operators facing real-world conditions. But scaling electrification faces structural bottlenecks. Grid capacity is constrained across the EU, and upgrades routinely take years. As most heavy-duty vehicle charging will occur at depots, operators cannot simply move around to look for grid opportunities. They are bound to the location of their facilities.  The recently published grid package tries, albeit timidly, to address some of these challenges, but it neither resolves the core capacity deficiencies nor fixes the fundamental conditions that determine a positive TCO: the predictability of electricity prices, the stability of delivered power, and the resulting charging time. A truck expected to recharge in one hour at a high-power station may wait far longer if available grid power drops. Without reliable timelines, predictable costs and sufficient depot capacity, most transport operators cannot make long-term investment decisions. And the grid is only part of the enabling conditions needed: depot charging infrastructure itself requires significant additional investment, on top of vehicles that already cost several hundreds of thousands of euros more than their diesel equivalents.  This is why the EU needs two things at once: strong enablers for electrification and hydrogen; and predictability on what the EU actually recognizes as clean. Operators using renewable fuels, from biomethane to advanced biofuels and HVO, delivering up to 90 percent CO2 reduction, are cutting emissions today. Yet current CO2 frameworks, for both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, fail to recognize fleets running on these fuels as part of the EU’s decarbonization solution for road transport, even when they deliver immediate, measurable climate benefits. This lack of clarity limits investment and slows additional emission reductions that could happen today. > Policies that punish before enabling will not accelerate the transition; a > successful shift must empower operators, not constrain them. The revision of both CO2 standards, for cars and vans, and for heavy-duty vehicles, will therefore be pivotal. They must support electrification and hydrogen where they fit the mission, while also recognizing the contribution of renewable and low-carbon fuels across the fleet. Regulations that exclude proven clean options will not accelerate the transition. They will restrict it.  With this in mind, the question is: why would the EU consider imposing purchasing mandates on operators or excessively high emission-reduction targets on member states that would, in practice, force quotas on buyers? Such measures would punish before enabling, removing choice from those who know their operations best. A successful transition must empower operators, not constrain them.  The EU’s transport sector is committed and already delivering. With the right enablers, a technology-neutral framework, and clarity on what counts as clean, the EU can turn today’s early successes into a scalable, fair and competitive decarbonization pathway.  We now look with great interest to the upcoming Automotive Package, hoping to see pragmatic solutions to these pressing questions, solutions that EU transport operators, as the buyers and daily users of all these technologies, are keenly expecting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is IRU – International Road Transport Union  * The ultimate controlling entity is IRU – International Road Transport Union  More information here.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is cracking down on two Chinese companies, airport scanner maker Nuctech and e-commerce giant Temu, that are suspected of unfairly penetrating the EU market with the help of state subsidies. The EU executive opened an in-depth probe into Nuctech under its Foreign Subsidies Regulation on Thursday, a year and a half after initial inspections at the company’s premises in Poland and the Netherlands. “The Commission has preliminary concerns that Nuctech may have been granted foreign subsidies that could distort the EU internal market,” the EU executive said in a press release.  Nuctech is a provider of threat detection systems including security and inspection scanners for airports, ports, or customs points in railways or roads located at borders, as well as the provision of related services.  EU officials worry that Nuctech may have received unfair support from China in tender contracts, prices and conditions that can’t be reasonably matched by other market players in the EU.  “We want a level playing field on the market for such [threat detection] systems, keeping fair opportunities for competitors, customers such as border authorities,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera said in a statement, noting that this is the first in-depth investigation launched by the Commission on its own initiative under the FSR regime.  Nuctech may need to offer commitments to address the Commission’s concerns at the end of the in-depth probe, which can also end in “redressive measures” or with a non-objection decision.   The FSR is aimed at making sure that companies operating in the EU market do so without receiving unfair support from foreign governments. In its first two years of enforcement, it has come under criticism for being cumbersome on companies and not delivering fast results.  In a statement, Nuctech acknowledged the Commission’s decision to open an in-depth investigation. “We respect the Commission’s role in ensuring fair and transparent market conditions within the European Union,” the company said. It said it would cooperate with the investigation: “We trust in the integrity and impartiality of the process and hope our actions will be evaluated on their merits.” TEMU RAIDED In a separate FSR probe, the Commission also made an unannounced inspection of Chinese e-commerce platform Temu.  “We can confirm that the Commission has carried out an unannounced inspection at the premises of a company active in the e-commerce sector in the EU, under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation,” an EU executive spokesperson said in an emailed statement on Thursday.   Temu’s Europe headquarters in Ireland were dawn-raided last week, a person familiar with Chinese business told POLITICO. Mlex first reported on the raids on Wednesday.  The platform has faced increased scrutiny in Brussels and across the EU. Most recently, it was accused of breaching the EU’s Digital Services Act by selling unsafe products, such as toys. The platform has also faced scrutiny around how it protects minors and uses age verification.  Temu did not respond to a request for comment.

President Donald Trump’s latest round of Europe-bashing has the U.S.’s allies across the Atlantic revisiting a perennial question: Why does Trump hate Europe so much? Trump’s disdain for America’s one-time partners has been on prominent display in the past week — first in Trump’s newly released national security strategy, which suggested that Europe was suffering from civilizational decline, and then in Trump’s exclusive interview with POLITICO, where he chided the “decaying” continent’s leaders as “weak.” In Europe, Trump’s criticisms were met with more familiar consternation — and calls to speed up plans for a future where the continent cannot rely on American security support. But where does Trump’s animosity for Europe actually come from? To find out, I reached out to a scholar who’d been recommended to me by sources in MAGA world as someone who actually understands their foreign policy thinking (even if he doesn’t agree with it). “He does seem to divide the world into strength and weakness, and he pays attention to strength, and he kind of ignores weakness,” said Jeremy Shapiro, the research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Trump’s strained relations with the continent. “And he has long characterized the Europeans as weak.” Shapiro explained that Trump has long blamed Europe’s weakness on its low levels of military spending and its dependence on American security might. But his critique seems to have taken on a new vehemence during his second term thanks to input from new advisers like Vice President JD Vance, who have successfully cast Europe as a liberal bulwark in a global culture war between MAGA-style “nationalists” and so-called globalists. Like many young conservatives, Shapiro explained, Vance has come to believe that “it was these bastions of liberal power in the culture and in the government that stymied the first Trump term, so you needed to attack the universities, the think tanks, the foundations, the finance industry, and, of course, the deep state.” In the eyes of MAGA, he said, “Europe is one of these liberal bastions.” This conversation was edited for length and clarity. Trump’s recent posture toward Europe brings to mind the old adage that the opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference. Do you think Trump hates Europe, or does he just think it’s irrelevant? My main impression is that he’s pretty indifferent toward it. There are moments when specific European countries or the EU really pisses him off and he expresses something that seems close to hatred, but mostly he doesn’t seem very focused on it. Why do you think that is? He does seem to divide the world into strength and weakness, and he pays attention to strength, and he kind of ignores weakness. And he has long characterized the Europeans as weak for a bunch of different reasons having to do with what seems to him to be a decadence in their society, their immigration, their social welfare states, their lack of apparent military vigor. All of those things seem to put them in the weak category, and in Trump’s world, if you’re in the weak category, he doesn’t pay much attention to you. What about more prosaic things like the trade imbalance and NATO spending? Do those contribute to his disdain, or does it originate from a more guttural place? I get the impression that it is more at a guttural level. It always seemed to me that the NATO spending debate was just a stick with which to beat the NATO allies. He has long understood that that’s something that they felt a little bit guilty about, and that’s something that American presidents had beat them about for a while, so he just sort of took it to an 11. The trade deficit is something that’s more serious for him. He’s paid quite a bit of attention to that in every country, so it’s in the trade area where he takes Europeans most seriously. But because they’re so weak and so dependent on the United States for security, he hasn’t had to deal with their trade problems in the same way. He’s able to threaten them on security, and they have folded pretty quickly. Does some of his animosity originate from his pre-presidency when he did business in Europe? He likes to blame Europeans for nixing some of his business transactions, like a golf course in Ireland. How serious do you think that is? I think that’s been important in forming his opinion of the EU rather than of Europe as a whole. He never seems to refer to the EU without referring to the fact that they blocked his golf course in Ireland. It wasn’t even the EU that blocked it, actually — it was an Irish local government authority — but it conforms to the general MAGA view of the EU as overly bureaucratic, anti-development and basically as an extension of the American liberal approach to development and regulation, which Trump certainly does hate. That’s part of what led Trump and his movement more generally to put the EU in the category of supporters of liberal America. In that sense, the fight against the EU in particular — but also against the other liberal regimes in Europe — became an extension of their domestic political battle with liberals in America. That effort to pull Europe as a whole into the American culture war by positioning it as a repository of all the liberal pieties that MAGA has come to hate — that seems kind of new. That is new for the second term, yeah. Where do you think that’s coming from? It definitely seems to be coming from [Vice President] JD Vance and the sort of philosophers who support him — the Patrick Deneens and Yoram Hazonys. Those types of people see liberal Europe as quite decadent and as part of the overall liberal problem in the world. You can also trace some of it back to Steve Bannon, who has definitely been talking about this stuff for a while. There does seem to be a real preoccupation with the idea that Europe is suffering from some sort of civilizational decline or civilization collapse. For instance, in both the new national security strategy and in his remarks to POLITICO this week, Trump has suggested that Europe is “decaying.” What do you make of that? This is a bit of a projection, right? If you look at the numbers in terms of immigration and diversity, the United States is further ahead in that decay — if you want to call it that — than Europe. There was this view that emerged among MAGA elites in the interregnum that it wasn’t enough to win the presidency in order to successfully change America. You had to attack all of the bastions of liberal power. It was these bastions of liberal power in the culture and in the government that stymied the first Trump term, so you needed to attack the universities, the think tanks, the foundations, the finance industry and, of course, the deep state, which is the first target. It was only through attacking these liberal bastions and conquering them to your cause that you could have a truly transformative effect. One of the things that they seem to have picked up while contemplating this theory is that Europe is one of these liberal bastions. Europe is a support for liberals in the United States, in part because Europe is the place where Americans get their sense of how the world views them. It’s ironic that that image of a decadent Europe coexists with the rise of far-right parties across the continent. Obviously, the Trump administration has supported those parties and allied with them, but at least in France and Germany, the momentum seems to be behind these parties at the moment. That presents them with an avenue to destroy liberal Europe’s support for liberal America by essentially transforming Europe into an illiberal regime. That is the vector of attack on liberal Europe. There has been this idea that’s developed amongst the populist parties in Europe since Brexit that they’re not really trying to leave the EU or destroy the EU; they’re trying to remake the EU in their nationalist and sovereigntist image. That’s perfect for what the Trump people are trying to do, which is not destroy the EU fully, but destroy the EU as a support for liberal ideas in the world and the United States. You mentioned the vice president, who has become a very prominent mouthpiece for this adversarial approach to Europe — most obviously in his speech at Munich earlier this year. Do you think he’s just following Trump’s guttural dislike of Europe or is he advancing his own independent anti-European agenda? A little of both. I think that Vance, like any good vice president, is very careful not to get crosswise with his boss and not contradict him in any way. So the fact that Trump isn’t opposed to this and that he can support it to a degree is very, very important. But I think that a lot of these ideas come from Vance independently, at least in detail. What he’s doing is nudging Trump along this road. He’s thinking about what will appeal to Trump, and he’s mostly been getting it right. But I think that especially when it comes to this sort of culture war stuff with Europe, he’s more of a source than a follower. During this latest round of Trump’s Euro-bashing, did anything stand out to you as new or novel? Or was it all of a piece with what you had heard before? It was novel relative to a year ago, but not relative to February and since then. But it’s a new mechanism of describing it — through a national security strategy document and through interviews with the president. The same arguments have achieved a sort of higher status, I would say, in the last week or so. You could sit around in Europe — as I did — and argue about the degree to which this really was what the Trump administration was doing, or whether this was just a faction — and you can still have that argument, because the Trump administration is generally quite inconsistent and incoherent when it comes to this kind of thing — but I think it’s undoubtedly achieved a greater status in the last week or two. How do you think Europe should deal with Trump’s recurring animosity towards the continent? It seems they’ve settled on a strategy of flattery, but do you think that’s effective in the long run? No, I think that’s the exact opposite of effective. If you recall what I said at the beginning, Trump abhors weakness, and flattery is the sort of ultimate manifestation of weakness. Every time the Europeans show up and flatter Trump, it enables them to have a good meeting with him, but it conveys the impression to him that they are weak, and so it increases his policy demands against them. We’ve seen that over and over again. The Europeans showed up and thought they had changed his Ukraine position, they had a great meeting, he said good things about them, they went home and a few weeks later, he had a totally different Ukraine position that they’re now having to deal with. The flattery has achieved the sense in the Trump administration that they can do anything they want to the Europeans, and they’ll basically swallow it. They haven’t done what some other countries have done, like the Chinese or the Brazilians, or even the Canadians to some degree, which is to stand up to Trump and show him that he has to deal with them as strong actors. And that’s a shame, because the Europeans — while they obviously have an asymmetric dependence on the United States, and they have some weaknesses — are a lot stronger than a lot of other countries, especially if they were working together. I think they have some capacity to do that, but they haven’t really managed it as of yet. Maybe this will be a wake-up call to do that.

BRUSSELS — Postponing the start of the EU’s new carbon levy for building and road transport emissions by one year to 2028 is going to cost European governments lots of money, according to a top Danish official. Denmark, for instance, is estimated to lose half a billion euros in future revenues from the delay of the new carbon market (known as ETS2), said Christian Stenberg, deputy permanent secretary of state at the Danish climate ministry, at POLITICO’s Sustainable Future Summit. “The delay will mean that we will lack that tool for one year,” he told a panel discussion. “It will cost us quite a bit of revenue that we could have gotten,” he added. “About €0.5 billion.” “For the Danish economy [it] is not little.” To bring more skeptical EU countries on board, like Poland, Italy and Romania, and reach a deal on the EU’s new climate target for 2040, environment ministers pushed the European Commission to agree to postpone the new carbon pricing mechanism by one year. Stenberg explained that, as the talks over the 2040 climate target stretched overnight, he “had to go back to my finance ministry in the middle of the night and say the compromise will cost us this in revenue.” But the ETS2, which has raised concerns in a majority of EU governments that it will increase energy bills, is “the most cost effective way of reaching our targets within transportation and buildings,” Stenberg argued. “And cost effectiveness, at the end of the day, is to the benefit of the economy.” Chiara Martinelli, director of the NGO Climate Action Network Europe, also said on the panel that the delay of the new carbon market is “problematic,” and called on the EU to ensure that social measures to support people in the green transition come with the ETS2.

Hours after witnessing his party’s worst electoral drubbing in at least six years, President Donald Trump hosted Senate Republicans at the White House and demanded they ditch their chamber’s supermajority rules. “If you don’t terminate the filibuster, you’ll be in bad shape,” he told them over breakfast in the State Dining Room. It was classic Trump dominance theater, like many other occasions this year where he successfully muscled recalcitrant Republicans to confirm controversial nominees, support divisive policies and enact sweeping domestic policy legislation. But upon returning to the Capitol, the senators made it very clear: They planned to blow Trump off. One GOP senator, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, laughed out loud when asked about the anti-filibuster push. Welcome to the dawn of Trump’s lame duck era. Don’t expect an immediate stampede away from the president, according to interviews with GOP lawmakers and aides Wednesday — he remains overwhelmingly popular with GOP voters and is the party’s most dominant leader in a generation. Trump’s top political aide signaled Monday that the White House is not worried about a messy “family conversation” about the filibuster. But with Tuesday’s stunning election losses crystallizing the risks to downballot Republicans in 2026 and beyond, there are growing signs that lawmakers are contending with the facts of their political lives: He’ll be gone in just over three years, while they’ll still be around. The danger for the president is that if Trump can’t run roughshod over the thin GOP congressional majorities, it would leave him few legislative options given his scant interest in compromising with Democrats. One Republican already liberated from reelection concerns openly vocalized frustrations Wednesday as Trump pushed for the end of the filibuster — something many in the GOP fear would backfire soon enough once Democrats regain power. Retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Democrats’ victory margins Tuesday “a red flag to the GOP” and blasted Trump’s refusal to engage with the other party. “He has zero ability to work across the aisle,” he added. “He needs to face reality and learn how to talk to Democrats he can reason with.” Other House Republicans more quietly aired frustration with Trump’s approach to the record 37-day shutdown, which headed into the end of the congressional workweek with no clear end in sight. Many are privately signaling they’re prepared to break with Trump if he doesn’t allow Republicans to negotiate on an extension of the Obamacare insurance subsidies Democrats are demanding. Others blamed the president and his top budget aide, Russ Vought, for favoring hardball moves such as canceling blue-state transportation projects and firing federal employees that only served to cause Democrats to dig in further. One irate senior House Republican granted anonymity to speak candidly blamed Trump and Vought for spurring the shutdown with their unprecedented move to unilaterally rescind congressional funding over the summer through a so-called pocket rescission. “That decision is why we’re in this mess,” the Republican said. Democrats who on Wednesday finally found a bounce in their step after a year of infighting said it was no secret why Republicans were finally standing up to Trump over the filibuster after folding so many times before. “Last night’s results look like a recipe for them to lose the House and the Senate next fall,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “And they’re going to hand us a 50-vote majority gift-wrapped when we show up Day 1?” Trump on Wednesday night moved to buck up his faithful. “OUR MOVEMENT IS FAR FROM OVER — IN FACT, OUR FIGHT HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN!” he wrote in a Truth Social post with an upbeat video. That followed a day on defense, where GOP leaders conspicuously split with Trump on the reasons for the stunning Republican losses. Both Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune played down the Democratic victories, casting them as expected losses in blue states — never mind that the margins in New Jersey and Virginia far outstripped expectations and that Democrats also won big in Georgia, Mississippi and Pennsylvania. Trump, on the other hand, told senators at the breakfast that the shutdown played a “big role” in the GOP losses. Asked about that assessment, Johnson replied, “I don’t think the loss last night was any reflection about Republicans at all.” What GOP lawmakers do know is that there is a dramatic difference in their party’s performance in elections where Trump appears on the ballot versus the midterm and off-year contests where he’s not — no matter how many rallies he does or endorsements he doles out. They also know, third-term musings of questionable constitutionality aside, Trump will never run for office again — which had many acknowledging that, if not fully reckoning with, the fact it might not be a great idea to hew so closely to Trump’s agenda. “Trump drives turnout, and if he’s not on the ballot, the turnout is way down,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. Cornyn questioned whether the Tuesday elections “prove very much” and was one of the few GOP senators who said Wednesday he was newly open to considering changes to the filibuster after meeting with Trump. He could be considered the exception who proves the rule: Cornyn needs to stay in Trump’s good graces amid a fierce primary battle for reelection next year. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said voter dropoff in non-Trump years is “an issue for Republicans” and suggested the party should consider changing the filibuster to “do things that benefit the American public … secure the border, repair the damage done by Obamacare, transition to a system that works, secure elections.” But with Thune making clear the Senate’s rules aren’t changing — “I just know where the math is on this issue,” the majority leader said — Johnson put the focus on GOP voter behavior. “People need to understand: If you want to keep Trump’s agenda moving forward, you’ve got to come out in midterms,” he added. Discussion has ramped up among senators about not only changing the filibuster but also trying to pass a new party-line reconciliation bill under the budget rules the GOP used to enact their megabill this summer. The suggestion came up at the White House breakfast, according to senators. But there are huge obstacles to going down that road. The GOP still has a super-tight margin in the House, four senators can kill any party-line effort, Senate rules restrict what initiatives can be passed under budget rules and Republicans are far from united on what they would want to do with a reconciliation bill in the first place. James Blair, political director for Trump’s 2024 campaign and the RNC who now serves as a deputy White House chief of staff, rejected the notion that lawmakers will treat Trump as a lame duck in an interview for POLITICO’s “The Conversation.” “I don’t think Republicans are going to do that at all,” he said. “The president, you know, sort of has his way of communicating, but the senators have their way, and it’s a family at the end of the day.” Some GOP senators, he added, “have long relationships, and they hope somehow the Democrat fever will break one day. And I think the president’s view is, it’s not breaking.” Dasha Burns, Mia McCarthy and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.

Andrej Babiš, the right-wing populist who on Monday formed Czechia’s next government, wants to derail EU plans on curbing emissions, according to the government’s coalition program, seen by POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook. Babiš and his ANO movement formed a coalition with the right-wing Motorists for Themselves party and the nationalist Freedom and Direct Democracy. Babiš is expected to make his return to the European Council table at the next gathering of EU leaders in Brussels on Dec. 18-19. Critics fear that Czechia could become a new bête noire for the EU alongside Viktor Orbán’s Hungary and Robert Fico’s Slovakia. “I believe that if we look at his statements and his allies in Europe — like Viktor Orbán and what he has done with Hungary — he [Babiš] will start pushing the Czech Republic toward the margins,” Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský told POLITICO. While Babiš still needs to be formally nominated as prime minister by the Czech president, he already has grand plans for his EU comeback: unraveling the bloc’s green policies. “The Green Deal is unsustainable in its current form, which is why we will promote its fundamental revision,” the draft coalition program reads.   The new government plans to push back against the implementation of a new market that would put a price on heating and fuel emissions (dubbed ETS2). The new emissions trading system is a cornerstone of the EU’s efforts to slash planet-warming emissions from the building and transport sectors and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. The Czech plan also states the government “will initiate a European-level reassessment” of the original emissions trading scheme, ETS1, which covers pollution from heavy industries and the energy sector. EU governments have already voted in favor of ETS2 and it is due to come into effect in 2027. However, the draft Czech government program includes a threat not to enact the rules: “In the case of ETS2 emission allowances for households and transport, we are prepared not to implement this system into Czech legislation and to prevent highly negative social impacts on society.” The draft also reveals that a future Babiš government views an EU ban on the sale and production of cars with combustion engines from 2035 as “unacceptable.” “The European Union has its limits — it does not have the right to impose decisions on member states that interfere with their internal sovereignty,” the draft reads. The ban was approved in 2023 by all member countries (despite last-minute resistance from Germany) but has proven controversial. Babiš is not alone in wanting to challenge EU Green Deal rules. The previous Czech government also requested a delay in ETS2 implementation, and Estonia called for it to be scrapped. Babiš may find an ally in Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who trumpeted his success in inserting a “revision clause” into the EU plans to extend a carbon-trading system at a leaders’ gathering last month.  While the revision clause demanded by EU leaders does not explicitly call for a weaker ETS2, Tusk believes it will open the door to a delay of the measure. Babiš intends to personally oversee EU policy — abolishing the role of minister for European affairs and placing responsibility for EU matters in a department “subordinate” to the prime minister. The parties in the coalition will be expected to sign off on the government program. Then comes a period of wrangling as Babiš is expected to try to install Filip Turek, the controversial honorary president of the Motorists’ party, as foreign minister — a move President Petr Pavel may oppose, according to an EU diplomat.  Czech news outlet Deník N reported last month that Turek — a former member of the European Parliament and racing driver — had made racist, sexist and homophobic comments on Facebook before entering politics. Turek denied being behind the posts in a video posted on Facebook.

BUSAN, South Korea — President Donald Trump on Thursday said he had “an amazing meeting” with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, appearing to tamp down tensions that had been building for months. “Zero, to 10, with 10 being the best, I’d say the meeting was a 12,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, shortly after he left South Korea on his way back to Washington. “A lot of decisions were made … and we’ve come to a conclusion on very many important points.” The agreement, according to Trump, includes a commitment from China to purchase soybeans from American farmers, curb the flow of fentanyl and postpone its export restrictions on rare earths, which are used in everything from iPhones to military equipment. “There is no road block at all on rare earth,” Trump said. “Hopefully, that will disappear from our vocabulary for a little while.” Trump said he intended to immediately lower tariffs on Chinese exports to 47 percent from 57 percent. The result pulls the two nations back from the brink and should induce a significant sigh of relief from capital markets around the world. Details remain sparse and there have been false starts and resets before, but Trump said he could sign an agreement “pretty soon” and that few stumbling blocks remained. Trump also said he plans to visit China in April and that Xi would travel to the United States after that. This was Trump and Xi’s first face-to-face meeting since the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan in June 2019, when the two countries were also in the middle of a trade war. Thursday’s summit in South Korea followed months of renewed tensions that have impeded trade between the two countries, despite several announced truces. While Trump has ratcheted up tariffs on China — at one point as high as 145 percent — and tightened export controls on high-tech goods, Beijing has responded with its own devastating pressure campaign. That includes reducing purchases of American farm goods, which fell by more than 50 percent in the first seven months of 2025. U.S. soybeans farmers, who exported a record $18 billion worth of their crop to China in 2022, have been hit particularly, with just $2.4 billion in shipments to China in January through July. Beijing also imposed new export controls on rare earth materials. Earlier this month, China added five more rare earth elements to its control list and, much more controversially, outlined a plan requiring foreign companies that use even tiny amounts of Chinese-sourced rare earths to obtain a license from Beijing to export their finished products. U.S. officials described that move as an intolerable attempt by China to control global supply chains, and Trump threatened new 100 percent tariffs to take effect on Nov. 1. But it appears both sides wanted to avoid that kind of escalation. During the weekend, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, after meeting with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in Malaysia, said they believed Beijing was prepared to delay its rare earth restrictions for a year, make “substantial” purchases of American farm goods and attempt to curb shipments of fentanyl precursor chemicals to the U.S.

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: The economy. Though it’s one of the most important issues in politics, Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch’s finance-focused grilling of Prime Minister Keir Starmer was a curious choice, considering that the Home Office is facing disaster after disaster. Nevertheless: Rachel Reeves’ budget is under a month away, so speculation about what the chancellor will pull out of her red box is at fever pitch. The Tory leader asked if the PM “stood by” his promises not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT? These, of course, were in Labour’s landslide election-winning manifesto just last year. Watch and wait: The PM, you won’t be surprised to read, skirted around the query, stressing the government would “lay out their plans” next month. “Well, well, well, what a fascinating answer,” Badenoch cried after leaping to her feet. She asked the same question in July and, back then, got a one-word answer in the affirmative. “What’s changed in the past four months?” Expectation management: Quite reasonably, Starmer said that “no prime minister or chancellor will ever set out their plans in advance.” But the PM laid the groundwork for Reeves’ pledge possibly being breached — and blaming the Tories. The economic figures, he said, “are now coming through and they confirm that the Tories did even more damage to the economy than we previously thought.” Expect this claim to be repeated. Lightbulb moment: Badenoch mentioned a number of the policies she announced at Conservative conference earlier this month. “We have some ideas for him,” she said about improving the economy, to cries of horror from Labour backbenchers, calling for the abolition of stamp duty.  “Why didn’t they do it then in 14 years in office?,” Starmer shot back, briefly forgetting he was meant to be answering the questions. Broken record: When the economy’s the topic of the day, familiar lines come out to play. The PM condemned the Tories’ record on austerity, their “botched Brexit deal,” and, you’ve guessed it, Liz Truss’ mini-budget. “We’ll take no advice or lectures on the economy,” the PM cried. “They won’t be trusted on the economy for generations to come.” The originality here is exceptional. Cross-party consensus: Badenoch ensured she wasn’t left out, claiming the last government reduced inflation and improved growth. “The truth is they have no ideas,” the Tory leader crowed, as she called for the parties to work together on welfare spending. Starmer didn’t accept that definite request in good faith, stressing that the Tories broke the economy and “they have not changed a bit.” Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney MP Nick Smith slammed off-road bikers running riot under the Tories and asked the PM to praise Labour’s support for the police. Starmer did exactly that. The men and women in blue have never been so grateful. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 7/10. Badenoch 6/10. The Tory leader’s economic focus in a week when a man deported to France returned across the English Channel and a sex offender due for deportation was mistakenly released from jail for 48 hours remains an odd decision. Despite the government’s numerous economic challenges, the carnage over the U.K.’s border presented an open goal for the Tories. Though the Tory leader forced Starmer not to repeat his previous economic pledges, she wasn’t able to capitalize on that weakness — meaning no clear winner emerged.