DUBLIN — The Irish capital, which doubles as Europe’s de facto tech capital, hosted two very different AI summits in the past week. Most eyes were on the International AI Summit, the signature tech event of Ireland’s six-month presidency of the Council of the EU, where top brass from the world’s biggest tech firms discussed ways to harness artificial intelligence and minimize safety risks. But the weekend before, a very different conversation was taking place at the Workers’ AI Counter Summit, as Ireland’s tech workers demanded a say in how the burgeoning technology reshapes the workplace and society. Ireland’s lucrative tech sector has been rattled by waves of AI-driven layoffs — and the country’s fledgling tech union has seen an exponential spike in sign-ups from workers who are worried about their future.   There’s an “awakening” happening right now among workers in Ireland’s tech sector, and a growing “awareness that they’re not bulletproof,” said Sinéad Gibney, a social democrat lawmaker who previously worked for Google.   “I do think what we will see is that parts of roles will be automated, which means that people will be competing more heavily for the same roles,” she said. “They won’t have the same labor power and therefore we’re going to see a drop in quality of work, we’re going to see more zero-hour contracts, in more places than we already see it.” The labor movement brewing in Ireland, where many of the world’s tech giants have their EU bases, is part of a wider trend among tech workers globally, who have seen their work disrupted by rapidly evolving AI. RISE IN LAYOFFS Ireland’s dedicated union for tech workers, the Digital and Techworker Alliance (DATA), has seen a five-fold increase in membership since it was first founded in 2023.   In its first year and a half of existence, membership hovered around 270 people. In the past year-and-a-half, it’s jumped to more than 1,350 members, DATA organizer John Bohan told POLITICO.  He added that this number tends to spike around layoffs and other actions. “The tech industry was founded on the idea that it would never have a union, because they’re making people rich, and treat them really well,” Bohan said.  “But post-Covid, workforce adjustments happened again and again, with layoffs and declining conditions in the sector. We started to see more people wanting to get organized around redundancies.”   The spike in sign-ups coincides with a wave of layoffs in Ireland’s tech bubble (and the tech sector globally), as companies corrected pandemic-era overhiring, and diverted investment to AI.   Ireland hosts the EU headquarters of most of the world’s largest tech companies, and more than 170,000 people are employed in the tech sector, according to the country’s statistics institute. Social media giant Meta has roughly halved its workforce in Ireland since the pandemic, axing well over 1,000 roles to offset AI investment and boost efficiency. Separately, Meta subcontractor Covalen also announced massive layoffs earlier this year, cutting more than 700 people.   Video-sharing platform TikTok announced this year it would shed around 300 Irish jobs, mostly from its trust and safety team, shifting the work to other countries, outsourced vendors or automated AI solutions.   A report by the IMF earlier this year warned that Ireland’s labor market is “relatively more exposed” to AI than many advanced economies, partly due to its concentration of tech workers.   The AI race is also creating new jobs on the Irish market – as AI firms like Anthropic and OpenAI are setting up Irish bases and trying to lure Big Tech workers with even bigger salaries.   Amid the uncertainty and volatility of the AI boom, tech workers are turning to unions for the first time as a safety net. One tech worker who used to work in trust and safety at a big tech firm told POLITICO that there used to be a feeling that as a “pampered” tech worker you “can’t ask for your rights, because you already have it so much better.”  But as layoffs continue and teams get leaner, workers in fields like trust and safety “now have to deal with these issues with fewer and fewer resources”, and face a “constant threat of being chopped,” the worker said.   That’s causing an “undoing of a certain perspective that we have of ourselves as tech sector workers,” they said, “because of undeniable experiences that now put us in situations where we clearly see our rights being violated, even if we may have it so much or somewhat better than most people.”  A different tech worker who currently works for Covalen told POLITICO that there is a sense that “if they believe they can replace you with AI, they will do that.”   “All these Big Tech firms only care about profit, and what I have realized is the Irish government protects that Big Tech capital [rather than workers],” the Covalen worker said. “But the question is, what’s the government going to do when the tech bros change their mind and move elsewhere?”   WORKERS AT THE CENTER The speaker list at this week’s AI summit was a flex of the country’s strength as a tech hub, as top names from the world’s biggest companies like Google and Microsoft took to the stage. Fionnuala Ní Bhrógáin, head of organizing and campaigning at Ireland’s Communications Workers’ Union (DATA’s parent union), was the only union voice on the line-up. “The fact that 36 executives and industry bosses featured on the program, compared with just one trade union speaker — invited at the last minute after attention was drawn to the absence of workers’ voices — says a lot about the value the Irish government places on AI’s impact on workers,” she told POLITICO. “The reality is that a meaningful conversation about AI’s future can only happen through genuine engagement with workers and collective bargaining,” Ní Bhrógáin added. “Without that voice, we risk deepening mistrust and resistance rather than creating the conditions for workers to shape these changes collectively.” DATA organized its counter-AI summit the previous weekend, to put “workers at the center of the debate about power, AI, technology and the future of work.”  The event cut through the “hype and futurism of politicians and industry figures to focus on the real present harms faced by ordinary workers and communities,” DATA’s Bohan said.   The union is pushing for stronger legal protections for tech workers caught up in AI-driven layoffs in Ireland, including making it mandatory for employers to recognize unions during collective bargaining. It is also calling for a ban on cooling-off clauses that prevent laid-off workers from moving between Big Tech subcontractors.   A spokesperson for Ireland’s department for enterprise told POLITICO in a written statement that the government is “committed to strengthening collective bargaining and industrial relations” and has published an action plan to do so between now and 2030.   They said that employers already have to comply with obligations under Irish employment law, including consultation and notification procedures for collective redundancies, and workers who feel those rules have been broken can complain to the Workplace Relations Commission.  Firefighting to future-proofing  Naoise Ó Cearúil, a center-right Fianna Fáil lawmaker who chairs the AI committee, pointed out that while there have been high-profile job cuts in Ireland’s tech sector, “the actual net is that there has been an increase [in jobs], particularly over the past year and even five years.”  According to Ireland’s central statistics office, total employment in tech and related sectors surpassed 177,000 in the second quarter of this year, up from around 144,000 at the same time in 2021.   Ó Cearúil pointed out that many job losses were in trust and safety jobs like content moderation that are “very difficult mentally,” and now tech firms are able to “utilize AI and software to be able to do a lot of detection, rather than using humans.”   He has called for a national program to be established, to support workers whose jobs are at risk due to AI and automation.   A spokesperson for Ireland’s department of enterprise acknowledged that the country’s tech sector has “experienced significant adjustment in recent years,” but said the changes were generally part of wider global restructuring “rather than reflecting any Ireland-specific weakness.”  They said the Irish government is currently focused on “ensuring workers and businesses are equipped to adapt to technological change through investment in education, training, lifelong learning and digital skills.”  

ATHENS — Greece’s parliament is expected to pass double-edged legislation on Wednesday that will help recruit tens of thousands more South Asian workers, while simultaneously penalizing migrants that the government says have entered the country illegally. Greece’s right-wing administration seeks to style itself as tough on migration but needs to pass Wednesday’s bill thanks to a crippling labor shortfall in vital sectors such as tourism, construction and agriculture. The central idea of the new legislation is to simplify bringing in workers through recruitment schemes agreed with countries such as India, Bangladesh and Egypt. There will be a special “fast track” for big public-works projects. The New Democracy government knows, however, that these measures to recruit more foreign workers will play badly with some core supporters. For that reason the bill includes strong measures against immigrants who have already entered Greece illegally, and also pledges to clamp down on the non-government organizations helping migrants. “We need workers, but we are tough on illegal immigration,” Greece’s Migration Minister Thanos Plevris told ERT television. The migration tensions in Greece reflect the extent to which it remains a hot button issue across Europe, even though numbers have dropped significantly since the massive flows of 2015, when the Greek Aegean islands were one of the main points of arrival. More than 80,000 positions for immigrants have been approved by the Greek state annually over the past two years. There are no official figures on labor shortages, but studies from industry associations indicate the country’s needs are more than double the state-approved number of spots, and that only half of those positions are filled. The migration bill is expected to pass because the government holds a majority in parliament. Opposition parties have condemned it, saying it ignores the need to integrate the migrants already in Greece and adopts the rhetoric of the far right. Under the new legislation, migrants who entered the country illegally will have no opportunity to acquire legal status. The bill also abolishes a provision granting residence permits to unaccompanied minors once they turn 18, provided they attend school in Greece. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal, and when they are located they will be arrested, imprisoned for two to five years and repatriated,” Plevris told lawmakers. Human-rights groups also oppose the legislation, which they say criminalizes humanitarian NGOs by explicitly linking their migration-related activities to serious crimes.  The bill envisages severe penalties such as mandatory prison terms of at least 10 years and heavy fines for assisting irregular entry, providing transport for illegal migration, or helping those migrants stay. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal,” Thanos Plevris told lawmakers. | Orestis Panagiotou/EPA Wednesday’s legislation also grants the migration minister broad powers to deregister NGOs based solely on criminal charges against one member, and will allow residence permits to be revoked on the basis of suspicion alone — undermining the presumption of innocence. Greece’s national ombudsman has expressed serious concerns about the bill, arguing that punishing people for entering the country illegally contravenes international conventions on the treatment of refugees. Lefteris Papagiannakis, director of the Greek Council for Refugees, was equally damning. “This binary political approach follows the global hostile and racist policy around migration,” he said.

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

German industrial giant Bosch on Friday confirmed plans to cut 20,000 jobs after profits nearly halved last year, underlining the mounting strain on Germany’s once-dominant manufacturing sector and increasing the pressure on politicians in Berlin to find a solution. Official data released Friday also showed Germany’s unemployment rate, unadjusted for seasonal factors, rising to 6.6 percent — the highest level in twelve years. The number of unemployed people surpassed three million in January. “Economic reality is also reflected in our results,” Bosch CEO Stefan Hartung said, describing 2025 as “a difficult and, in some cases, painful year” for the company, which is a leading supplier of parts for cars. The move lands amid a deepening slump in the country’s automotive industry, long the backbone of German manufacturing. The sector has been shedding jobs rapidly: A 2025 study by EY found that more than 50,000 automotive positions were cut in Germany last year alone. Germany’s automotive downturn has become a wider political test for the government in Berlin and Europe more widely. Once the economy’s crown jewel, the industry is now being challenged by current policy on electric vehicles, energy costs and aggressive competition from Chinese manufacturers. As suppliers weaken, the risk is shifting from lower profits to a lasting loss of competitiveness. With layoffs rising and investment decisions being delayed, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government is coming under growing pressure from workers, unions and industry leaders to rethink Germany’s industrial strategy — as doubts spread domestically and across Europe about the country’s ability to remain an economic powerhouse.

“No work. No school. No shopping. Stop funding ICE.” That’s the rallying cry behind the campaign for a nationwide general strike on Friday, seeking to galvanize opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. This week, I went to the University of Minnesota, my alma mater, to speak to some of the students behind the effort that lists hundreds of endorsements from organizations and celebrities like Pedro Pascal and Hannah Einbinder. Events are planned across the country, from New York to San Francisco, where businesses are announcing they won’t open their doors. “We can do even more,” said Austin Muia, the vice president of the Black Student Union. “We want to bring it to the national stage and see it happen all over the country. We want everyone to feel that solidarity that we felt last week.” “Let’s try to get people from the East Coast, West Coast, from the South,” said Pamela Gray, founder and president of the university’s Liberian Student Association. Federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse and U.S. citizen, a day after the first general strike that sent thousands of Minnesotans marching in the frigid Minneapolis winter. Students began organizing almost immediately for a second general strike, using their website to call on other states to join Minnesota in protesting Trump’s violent and increasingly unpopular immigration crackdown.

“Alex Pretti was one of us,” an NIH worker who asked not to be named told me over the phone. That’s a phrase I’ve been hearing a lot since Saturday, when the 37 year-old Veterans Affairs nurse was assaulted and then fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis. The circumstances of the killing—called an execution by many observers—has rattled government workers. They’re distraught for the same reason many Americans are. There were numerous witnesses, for one. Donald Trump and his minions Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem thoughtlessly disparaged the victim. Ample video evidence directly contradicted the government’s narrative. And it was the second killing in a month by federal agents in Minneapolis, adding to DHS’s recent death toll—including many more who have died in ICE custody. But to many federal workers, Pretti also was a colleague. The civil service was generally fragmented prior to Trump’s reelection. But his administration’s ruthless assault on the rights and livelihoods of career government employees has strengthened ties among workers from completely unrelated agencies, who have banded together to organize protests and share resources. > “There’s been so much fear being a federal employee about saying anything, but > now the fear is going away.” “I didn’t know Alex personally, but it does feel like a lot of federal workers right now are standing in solidarity with one another, and have been over the last year,” says Anna Culbertson, a former NIH employee who was terminated in the DOGE onslaught. It’s not hard for civil servants to imagine what Pretti might have been going through over the past year. “The large majority of us have been suffering a great deal under this administration,” notes Justin Chen, an EPA employee and union president. The already chronically understaffed VA lost more than 30,000 workers in 2025, about 10 percent of them nurses like Pretti. Those still there “walk around the hallways and it’s doom and gloom,” says Doug Massey, who works at the VA central office and serves as president of his union. He’s seen an uptick this past year in hostile work environment complaints—the animosity fueled by VA Secretary Doug Collins, who has so far said nothing to his staff about Pretti’s death, conciliatory or otherwise. “That could have been me,” Massey told me, noting how Pretti was killed after he tried to help a woman the amped-up agents had shoved to the ground. “I like to think I’d be someone who stepped in.” Of course, the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents who shot Pretti were also federal workers. “In theory, these two people should be driven by the same oath, which is to the Constitution,” says Jenna Norton, an NIH employee who was put on administrative leave after criticizing Trump—both then and now she was speaking in her personal capacity. Under Trump, a chasm has widened between the majority of federal workers and ICE/CBP personnel. While most agencies are scraping by on diminished budgets, Congress promised ICE $75 billion without restriction, and its leaders appear willing to hire just about anyone with very little scrutiny. Immigration enforcement officers spent 2025 in a parallel universe, one with minimal training and $50,000 sign-on bonuses, while other agencies hemorrhaged veteran employees in the name of “government efficiency.” The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest federal workers’ union, has been one of the most vocal entities in combatting the firing of civil servants. But when one of its own was shot to death, the union’s initial statement was rather muted. AFGE leadership acknowledged that Pretti’s unnamed killer might be in the union as well. (It now appears that two CBP agents shot Pretti.) This revelation has led to calls, including from VA workers, for AFGE to ditch CBP on the grounds that the union cannot advocate for its members while representing people who are harming them. “That’s an internal conversation we need to have,” says Chen, whose union chapter, along with Massey’s, is part of AFGE. “Right now, we’re mourning.” Individual AFGE chapters have made strong statements about Pretti’s death, calling for a response from Collins, and for ICE to leave Minnesota. “There’s been so much fear being a federal employee about saying anything, but now the fear is going away,” Massey says. “It’s being replaced by anger.” Other federal workers are taking aim at ICE’s funding. A bill headed to a Senate vote on Friday lumps together funding for Health and Human Services (HHS)—which includes the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA—with yet more money for ICE and CBP. Norton and Culbertson were among the current and former HHS employees urging Congress to reject the bill. “Obviously no one wants the government to shut down, but it’s deciding which is the lesser evil,” says the NIH worker who requested anonymity. “As health care providers, it’s our duty to make sacrifices.” HHS employees have joined the nation’s largest nurses’ union in calling ICE a public health crisis. “If the administration were so concerned about making America healthy again,” the NIH employee says, “they’d be with us.”

“Laws that exist only on paper achieve nothing.” This is not a slogan. It reflects the reality described by small-scale fishers and points to a wide gap between European Union commitments and delivery on the water. More than a decade after the last reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the EU is once again debating whether to rewrite this policy, even though the CFP’s framework is fit for purpose and delivers sustainable fisheries — when properly applied. What continues to fail is its implementation. The clearest example is the legal commitment to end overfishing by 2020, a deadline still unmet. > If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing > the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Nowhere is this gap more visible than in the Mediterranean, and particularly in Cyprus and Greece, where stocks are further weakened by the accelerating effects of the climate crisis and the spread of invasive species. The Mediterranean remains the most overfished sea in the world, and small-scale fishers feel these consequences directly. Yet, Cypriot fishers are not asking for weaker rules or a new policy. They are asking for effective enforcement of existing legislation, and support from national authorities. Without these, the future of fisheries as a profession is at stake. If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Photo by A.S.S. The experience of Cypriot and Greek fishers mirrors a broader European issue. Before reopening the CFP, Europe should take stock of the real gap, which lies not in the law itself, but in its uneven implementation and enforcement. Calls for reform are driven by familiar pressures: environmental safeguards are increasingly framed as obstacles to economic viability and fleet renewal. Reform is presented as a way to modernize vessels and cut red tape. But this framing overlooks lessons from the past. Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public money and livelihoods. For small-scale fishers in the Mediterranean, these impacts are not theoretical. They are experienced daily, through declining catches, rising costs and increasing uncertainty. The Common Fisheries Policy delivers when implemented Evidence shows that where the CFP has been implemented, it delivers. According to European Commission assessments, the share of stocks subject to overfishing in the North-East Atlantic fell from around 40 percent in 2013 to just over 22 percent by 2025. In the Mediterranean, the figure dropped from 70 percent to 51 percent over the same period. These improvements are closely linked to the application of science-based catch limits, effort restrictions and capacity controls under the CFP. > Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish > stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public > money and livelihoods. Economic and social data tell the same story. EU fishing fleets have become more efficient and more profitable over the past decade. Vessels now generate higher average incomes, with wages per full-time fisher rising by more than a quarter since 2013. In its 2023 policy communication, the Commission concluded that the CFP remains an adequate legal framework, with the real gap lying in its application and enforcement. Those involved in the 2013 reform understand why this matters. The revised policy marked a clear shift away from overcapacity and short-term decision-making toward a science-based approach. The European Commission’s own assessments show that this approach delivered results where it was applied. Parts of the EU fleet became more profitable, labor productivity improved and several fish stocks recovered. The CFP remains the EU’s strongest tool for reversing decline at sea. Implementation results in progress; reform leads to instability and uncertainty Strengthening the CPF’s implementation would deliver tangible benefits, including greater stability for fishers and coastal communities, avoiding years of legislative uncertainty, and allowing faster progress toward sustainability objectives. Firm and consistent implementation can enhance economic resilience while restoring ocean health, without the delays and risks that come with reopening the legislation. Given the time and resources required, another round of institutional reform is neither efficient nor necessary. Priority should instead be given to effectively delivering the agreed CFP commitments. Photo by A.S.S. Cypriot Presidency of the Council: a moment for delivery This debate unfolds as Cyprus assumes the EU Council Presidency, at a moment when choices made in Brussels carry immediate consequences at sea. Holding the Presidency brings responsibility as well as opportunity. It offers a chance to help frame the discussion toward making existing rules work in practice, while addressing current implementation challenges. This is where the credibility of the CFP will be tested. > Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. Reopening the CFP now may send the wrong signal. It may suggest that missed deadlines carry no consequence and that agreed-upon rules are optional. For fishers, it would prolong uncertainty at a time when stability is already fragile. For Europe, it would undermine trust in its ability to deliver. The EU was not conceived to generate endless processes or delay action through repeated legislative cycles. Its purpose is to deliver common solutions to shared problems, and to support people and communities where national action falls short. The last reform of the CFP was built on a simple principle: healthy fish stocks are the foundation of viable fisheries. Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. This principle is already reflected in Europe’s agreed framework. The task now is to act on it. Fisheries are a clear test of that promise. The law is already in place. The tools already exist. What Europe needs now is the political resolve to deliver on the commitments it has already made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is OCEANA * The ultimate controlling entity is OCEANA More information here.

urope has spent the last week rummaging around for leverage that would force U.S. President Donald Trump to back off his threats to seize Greenland from Denmark. While Trump now says he will not be imposing planned tariffs on European allies, some politicians think they’ve found the answer if he changes his mind again: boycott the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The quadrennial soccer jamboree, which will be hosted in the U.S., Mexico and Canada this summer, is a major soft-power asset for Trump — and an unprecedented European boycott would diminish the tournament beyond repair. “Leverage is currency with Trump, and he clearly covets the World Cup,” said Adam Hodge, a former National Security Council official during the Biden administration. “Europe’s participation is a piece of leverage Trump would respect and something they could consider using if the transatlantic relationship continues to swirl down the drain.” With Trump’s Greenland ambitions putting the world on edge, key political figures who’ve raised the idea say that any decision on a boycott would — for now, at least — rest with national sport authorities rather than governments. “Decisions on participation in or boycott of major sport events are the sole responsibility of the relevant sports associations, not politicians,” Christiane Schenderlein, Germany’s state secretary for sport, told AFP on Tuesday. The French sport ministry said there are “currently” no government plans for France to boycott. That means, for the moment, a dozen soccer bureaucrats around Europe — representing the countries that have so far qualified for the tournament — have the power to torpedo Trump’s World Cup, a pillar of his second term in office like the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. (Another four European countries will be added in spring after the European playoffs are completed.) While they may not be household names, people like Spain’s Rafael Louzán, England’s Debbie Hewitt and the Netherlands’ Frank Paauw may now have more leverage over Trump than the European Commission with its so-called trade bazooka. “I think it is obvious that a World Cup without the European teams would be irrelevant in sports terms — with the exceptions of Brazil and Argentina all the other candidates in a virtual top 10 will be European — and, as a consequence, it would also be a major financial blow to FIFA,” said Miguel Maduro, former chair of FIFA’s Governance Committee. Several of the European soccer chiefs have already shown their willingness to enter the political fray. Norwegian Football Federation president Lise Klaveness has been outspoken on LGBTQ+ issues and the use of migrant labor in preparations for the 2022 World Cup. The Football Association of Ireland pushed to exclude Israel from international competition before the country signed the Gaza peace plan in October. “Football has always been far more than a sport,” Turkish Football Federation President Ibrahim Haciosmanoglu, whose team is still competing for one of the four remaining spots, wrote in an open letter to his fellow federation presidents in September calling for Israel’s removal. Trump attempted Wednesday in Davos to cool tensions over Greenland by denying he would use military force to capture the massive, mineral-rich Arctic island. But during the same speech he firmly reiterated his desire to obtain it and demanded “immediate negotiations” with relevant European leaders toward that goal. Later in the day, in a social media post, Trump said he reached an agreement with NATO on a Greenland framework. His Davos remarks are unlikely to pacify European politicians across the political spectrum who want to see a tougher stance against the White House. “Seriously, can we imagine going to play the World Cup in a country that attacks its ‘neighbors,’ threatens to invade Greenland, destroys international law, wants to torpedo the UN, establishes a fascist and racist militia in its country, attacks the opposition, bans supporters from about 15 countries from attending the tournament, plans to ban all LGBT symbols from stadiums, etc.?” wondered left-wing French lawmaker Eric Coquerel on social media. Influential German conservative Roderich Kiesewetter also told the Augsburger Allgemeine news outlet: “If Donald Trump carries out his threats regarding Greenland and starts a trade war with the EU, I find it hard to imagine European countries participating in the World Cup.” Russia’s World Cup in 2018 faced similar calls for a boycott over the Kremlin’s illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, as did Qatar’s 2022 tournament over the Gulf petromonarchy’s dismal human rights record. While neither mooted boycott came to pass — indeed, the World Cup and the Olympics haven’t faced a major diplomatic cold shoulder since retaliatory snubs by countries for the Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 Summer Olympics — Trump’s seizure of Greenland would put Europe in a position with no recent historical parallel. Neither FIFA, the world governing body that organizes the tournament, nor four national associations contacted by POLITICO immediately responded to requests for comment. Tom Schmidtgen and Ferdinand Knapp contributed to this report.

In a continent of SPAs and GmbHs, what’s the value of an Inc.? A “freedom fries”-style linguistic argument has broken out over the naming of a corporate law proposal for startups, highlighting anti-American sentiment in Europe amid Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, during a speech in Davos, suggested using the name “EU Inc.” instead of the somewhat dry “28th regime.” Her suggestion has drawn disdain from the lead lawmaker on the proposal. An American abbreviation like “Inc.” — short for the U.S.-specific “incorporated” legal entity — is “maybe not the right way to call this one” in the current geopolitical context, said René Repasi, a German Social Democrat. The row reflects deeper resistance to the Americanization of language and culture in Europe. In a continent of French Sociétés Anonymes and German GmbHs, Brussels’ embrace of U.S. corporate terminology may be a bridge too far. Some lawmakers have been rankled by the rise of “Acts” — from the Digital Markets Act to the AI Act — which mirror the punchy legislative branding of Capitol Hill, abandoning traditional European “directives” and “regulations” when used in the EU executive’s primary communication method, English. Von der Leyen has also come under fire for rolling back her green agenda during her current, second mandate. Critics have said her drive to cut red tape is a poorly disguised attempt to appease President Donald Trump, who has criticized EU regulation for discriminating against U.S. business. This latest geopolitically flavored semantic squabble summons memories of 2003, when an American lawmaker — upset with France’s refusal to join the invasion of Iraq — renamed “French fries” as “freedom fries” in three congressional cafeterias. Repasi’s proposal for the 28th regime rebrand? Societas Europaea Unificata (S.EU), a Latin-derived term that translates to “unified European company.” Parliament voted in favor of his choice of name, which echoes past proposals like the 2008 Societas Privata Europaea. “We go back to the roots of our continent’s languages,” said Repasi, explaining Parliament’s choice of a Latin-derived term rather than an American abbreviation. “I cannot be the only one who struggles to pronounce the proposed name of the new corporate form,” Kim van Sparrentak said in Monday’s debate on the proposal. (The Dutch Greens MEP still voted for the proposal with the Latin-rooted name.) COVERING THE BASIS Beyond the naming spat, there are more profound ideological splits over the regime to create a single EU window for registering companies, which Commissioner Michael McGrath is expected to unveil in late March. The idea is to create a flourishing startup landscape, and stem a flight of talent and ideas across the Atlantic. Repasi warned that the regime must not become a vehicle for “charlatans” to escape labor standards, echoing a complaint from Lukas Mandl, of the European People’s Party, that the proposal should not give rise to a “gold digger mentality” that could destabilize the European social partnership model. “If there is no credible solution how employee participation … can be secured, I see difficulties that the progressive side of the House can support such a 28th regime,” he said, citing the failure of previous attempts like the SPE and SUP due to the same issue. Another substantive issue may prove to be its legal basis, on which lawmakers haven’t yet agreed. It’s on this issue that the creators of the “EU Inc.” naming proposal — who were delighted to see von der Leyen endorse it — are really hoping to make an impact. The “EU Inc.” movement, led by founders who have taken their roadshow to capitals across the bloc, is pushing for a regulation to ensure a single, directly applicable rulebook that prevents member states from “gold-plating” the law with national quirks. If von der Leyen “chooses a title that’s very dear to pressure groups, that guarantees applause,” said Repasi, worrying that the Commission may put forward a proposal that would impinge on national labor rules. The new name in particular “sends a wrong signal,” said Repasi. The Parliament’s report steers towards what Repasi describes as a more pragmatic directive, a choice rooted in what he says is Council arithmetic. A regulation on corporate law would require the unanimous consent of all 27 member countries, a high bar that Repasi fears would create a “Frankenstein’s monster” as each capital demands its own specific national carve-outs .  By opting for a directive, the EU can move forward via qualified majority voting, bypassing the “unanimity trap” that famously saw previous attempts at corporate law harmonization languish for decades. “If we want to have a regulation which ends up in unanimity … we can wait for Godot,” said Repasi.

The first pilot episode of Reveal exposed how the Department of Veterans Affairs was overprescribing opioids to veterans and contributing to an overdose crisis. Journalist Aaron Glantz explained how he received—surprisingly quickly—a decade’s worth of opioid prescription data from the federal government.  “Sometimes, you have to sue to get the records,” he said. “I have to think that there were some people over there in DC who were as concerned as we were about this.” After that first show was made, host Al Letson didn’t know what to expect. “We weren’t sure if any public radio stations would even air it,” he said.  Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app. Reveal’s VA investigation sparked outrage. Congress held hearings during a government lockdown, and there’s been a sea change in the way veterans are prescribed painkillers. And today, the show is on more than 500 stations.  This week on Reveal, we celebrate our 10-year anniversary with a look back at some of our favorite stories, from investigations into water shortages in drought-prone California to labor abuses in the Dominican Republic. And we interview the journalists behind the reporting to explain what happened after the stories aired.   This is a rebroadcast of an episode that originally aired in March 2025.