Donald Trump wants the U.S. to own Greenland. The trouble is, Greenland already belongs to Denmark and most Greenlanders don’t want to become part of the U.S. While swooping into Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, and taking over Venezuela-style seems fanciful ― even if the military attack on Caracas seems to have provided a jolt to all sides about what the U.S. is capable of ― there’s a definite pathway. And Trump already appears to be some way along it. Worryingly for the Europeans, the strategy looks an awful lot like Vladimir Putin’s expansionist playbook. POLITICO spoke with nine EU officials, NATO insiders, defense experts and diplomats to game out how a U.S. takeover of the mineral-rich and strategically important Arctic island could play out. “It could be like five helicopters … he wouldn’t need a lot of troops,” said a Danish politician who asked for anonymity to speak freely. “There would be nothing they [Greenlanders] could do.” STEP 1: INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN TO BOOST GREENLAND’S INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT Almost immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration began talking up independence for Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. An unshackled Greenland could sign deals with the U.S., while under the status quo it needs Copenhagen’s approval. To gain independence, Greenlanders would need to vote in a referendum, then negotiate a deal that both Nuuk and Copenhagen must approve. In a 2025 opinion poll, 56 percent of Greenlanders said they would vote in favor of independence, while 28 percent said they would vote against it. Americans with ties to Trump have carried out covert influence operations in Greenland, according to Danish media reports, with Denmark’s security and intelligence service, PET, warning the territory “is the target of influence campaigns of various kinds.” Felix Kartte, a digital policy expert who has advised EU institutions and governments, pointed to Moscow’s tactics for influencing political outcomes in countries such as Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. “Russia mixes offline and online tactics,” he said. “On the ground, it works with aligned actors such as extremist parties, diaspora networks or pro-Russian oligarchs, and has been reported to pay people to attend anti-EU or anti-U.S. protests. “At the same time, it builds large networks of fake accounts and pseudo-media outlets to amplify these activities online and boost selected candidates or positions. The goal is often not to persuade voters that a pro-Russian option is better, but to make it appear larger, louder and more popular than it really is, creating a sense of inevitability.” Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, told CNN on Monday that “nobody is going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland.” | Joe Raedle/Getty Images On Greenland, the U.S. appears to be deploying at least some of these methods. Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, told CNN on Monday that “nobody is going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland.” Last month, Trump created the position of special envoy to Greenland and appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry to the role. He declared his goal was to “make Greenland a part of the U.S.”  Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, on a visit to the territory in March, said “the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination.” He added: “We hope that they choose to partner with the United States, because we’re the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security.” STEP 2: OFFER GREENLAND A SWEET DEAL Assuming its efforts to speed up Greenland’s independence referendum come to fruition, and the territory’s inhabitants vote to leave Denmark behind, the next step would be to bring it under U.S. influence. One obvious method would be to fold Greenland into the U.S. as another state — an idea those close to the president have repeatedly toyed with. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was on Monday forced to say that “the U.S. has no right to annex” Greenland after Katie Miller — the wife of Stephen Miller — posted to social media a map of the territory draped in a U.S. flag and the word “SOON.” A direct swap of Denmark for the U.S. seems largely unpalatable to most of the population. The poll mentioned above also showed 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose the territory becoming part of the U.S., and even Trump-friendly members of the independence movement aren’t keen on the idea. But there are other options. Reports have circulated since last May that the Trump administration wants Greenland to sign a Compact of Free Association (COFA) — like those it currently has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Under the deals, the U.S. provides essential services, protection and free trade in exchange for its military operating without restriction on those countries’ territory. The idea resurfaced this week. Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Greenlandic opposition MP who attended Trump’s inauguration and met with Republican Congressman Andy Ogles last year, said he tries to “explain to [the Americans] that we don’t want to be like Puerto Rico, or any other territory of the United States. But a Compact of Free Association, bilateral agreements, or even opportunities and other means which maybe I can’t imagine — let them come to the table and Greenlanders will decide in a plebiscite.” Compared to Nuuk’s deal with Copenhagen, things “can only go upwards,” he said.  Referring to Trump’s claim that the U.S. has a “need” for Greenland, Fencker added: “Denmark has never said that they ‘needed’ Greenland. Denmark has said that Greenland is an expense, and they would leave us if we become independent. So I think it’s a much more positive remark than we have ever seen from Denmark.” But Thomas Crosbie, an associate professor of military operations at the Royal Danish Defense College that provides training and education for the Danish defense forces, warned that Greenland is unlikely to get the better of Trump in a negotiation. “Trump’s primary identity as a deal-maker is someone who forces his will on the people he’s negotiating with, and someone who has a very long track record of betraying people who he’s negotiated deals with, not honoring his commitments, both in private and public life, and exploiting those around him … I really see zero benefits to Greenlandic people other than a very temporary boost to their self esteem.” And, he added, “it would be crazy to agree to something in the hope that a deal may come. I mean, if you give away your territory in the hopes that you might get a deal afterwards — that would be just really imprudent.” STEP 3: GET EUROPE ON BOARD Europe, particularly Denmark’s EU allies, would balk at any attempt to cleave Greenland away from Copenhagen. But the U.S. administration does have a trump card to play on that front: Ukraine. As peace negotiations have gathered pace, Kyiv has said that any deal with Putin must be backed by serious, long-term U.S. security guarantees. Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, on a visit to the territory in March, said “the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination.” | Pool photo by Tom Brenner vis Getty Images The Americans have prevaricated on that front, and in any case, Kyiv is skeptical about security guarantees, given those it has received from both Russia and the West in the past have amounted to nothing. One potential scenario an EU diplomat floated would be a security-for-security package deal, under which Europe gets firmer assurances from the Trump administration for Ukraine in exchange for an expanded role for the U.S. in Greenland. While that seems like a bitter pill, it could be easier to swallow than the alternative, annoying Trump, who may retaliate by imposing sanctions, pulling out of peace negotiations — or by throwing his weight behind Putin in negotiations with Ukraine. STEP 4: MILITARY INVASION But what if Greenland — or Denmark, whose “OK” Nuuk needs to secede — says no to Trump? A U.S. military takeover could be achieved without much difficulty.  Crosbie, from the Royal Danish Defense College, said Trump’s strategists are likely presenting him with various options. “The most worrisome would be a fait accompli-type strategy, which we see a lot and think about a lot in military circles, which would be simply grabbing the land the same way Putin tried to grab, to make territorial claims, over Ukraine. He could just simply put troops in the country and just say that it’s American now … the United States military is capable of landing any number of forces on Greenland, either by air or by sea, and then claiming that it’s American territory.” According to Lin Mortensgaard, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies and an expert on Greenlandic security, Washington also has around 500 military officers, including local contractors, on the ground at its northern Pituffik Space Base and just under 10 consulate staff in Nuuk. That’s alongside roughly 100 National Guard troops from New York who are usually deployed seasonally in the Arctic summer to support research missions.  Greenland, meanwhile, has few defenses. The population has no territorial army, Mortensgaard said, while Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in the capital includes scant and out-of-date military assets, largely limited to four inspection and navy vessels, a dog-sled patrol, several helicopters and one maritime patrol aircraft. As a result, if Trump mobilizes the U.S. presence on the ground — or flies in special forces — the U.S. could seize control of Nuuk “in half an hour or less,” Mortensgaard said. “Mr. Trump says things and then he does them,” said Danish Member of European Parliament Stine Bosse. “If you were one of 60,000 people in Greenland, you would be very worried.” Any incursion would have no “legal basis” under U.S. and international law, said Romain Chuffart, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Arctic Institute, a security think tank. Any occupation beyond 60 days would also require approval from the U.S. Congress.  Meanwhile, an invasion would “mean the end of NATO,” he said, and the “U.S. would be … shooting itself in the foot and waving goodbye to an alliance it has helped create.” Beyond that, a “loss of trust by key allies … could result in a reduction in their willingness to share intelligence with the U.S. or a reduction in access to bases across Europe,” said Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. troops in Europe. “Both of these would be severely damaging to America’s security.” Reports have circulated since last May that the Trump administration wants Greenland to sign a Compact of Free Association (COFA) — like those it currently has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images NATO would be left unable to respond, given that military action must be approved unanimously and the U.S. is the key member of the alliance, but European allies could deploy troops to Greenland via other groupings such as the U.K.-Scandinavian Joint Expeditionary Force or the five-country Nordic Defence Cooperation format, said Ed Arnold, a senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. But for now, NATO allies remain cool-headed about an attack. “We are still far from that scenario,” said one senior alliance diplomat. “There could be some tough negotiations, but I don’t think we are close to any hostile takeover.” Max Griera, Gerardo Fortuna and Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Außenminister Wadephul sagt seine China-Reise kurzfristig ab. Ein Vorgang, der zeigt, wie sehr sich die Machtverhältnisse verschoben haben. Hans von der Burchard analysiert, wie China Deutschland die Grenzen aufzeigt, warum die EU zum Vermittler wird  und welche Folgen die Eskalation hat. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Markus Frohnmaier, außenpolitischer Sprecher der AfD, über Pekings Rolle in der Welt, deutsche Interessen und warum er die Regierung für „hypermoralisch“ hält. Danach: Innenminister Alexander Dobrindt will Deutschland besser gegen Cyberangriffe wappnen und erlaubt künftig auch digitale Gegenschläge. Rixa Fürsen erklärt, wie schwierig das Konzept der Abwehr ist und warum Zuständigkeiten zwischen Bund, Ländern und Bundeswehr so unklar sind. Zum Schluss: Ein Blick auf die SPD, die in Bielefeld gegen den Kanzler und damit die eigene Regierung demonstriert. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

ATHENS — Greek authorities made dozens of arrests on Wednesday related to Greece’s spiraling farm fraud case, in an investigation led by European prosecutors. Some 37 people suspected of being members of an organized criminal group involved in large-scale agricultural funding fraud and money laundering activities were arrested, and searches were carried out throughout the country, according to a statement by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. In a snowballing scandal, the EPPO is pursuing dozens of cases in which Greeks allegedly received agricultural funds from the European Union for pastureland they did not own or lease, or for agricultural work they did not perform, depriving legitimate farmers of the funds they deserved. POLITICO first reported on the scheme in February. Several ministers and deputy ministers have resigned over their alleged involvement in the scandal. The EU has already fined Athens €400 million after finding evidence of systemic failings in the handling of farm subsidies from 2016 through to 2023. Greece also risks losing its EU farm subsidies unless it provides an improved action plan on how it will stop funds being siphoned off into corruption. The original deadline was Oct. 2, but this has now been pushed back to Nov. 4. “The Commission is awaiting the submission of the revised action plan and in the meantime, it continues to be in contact with the Greek authorities,” a European Commission spokesperson told POLITICO earlier this month. Wednesday’s operation centered on a criminal network accused of illegally obtaining EU farm subsidies through false declarations submitted to the organization in charge of distributing EU farm funds in Greece, OPEKEPE. According to the EPPO, in the course of the preliminary investigation, 324 individuals were identified as subsidy recipients, causing an estimated cost of more than €19.6 million to the EU budget. Of these, 42 are believed to be involved in this case and are considered current members of the criminal group, says the EPPO. Most of them appear to have no actual connection to farming or producing, according to the Greek and EU authorities. The EPPO said that, at least since 2018, the group “allegedly exploited procedural gaps” in the submission of applications using falsified or misleading documents to claim agricultural subsidies from OPEKEPE. They are suspected of fraudulently declaring pastureland that did not belong to them or did not meet eligibility criteria. They allegedly inflated livestock numbers to increase their subsidy entitlements. To conceal the illicit origin of the proceeds, they are believed to have issued fictitious invoices, routed the funds through multiple bank accounts, and mixed them with legitimate income. Part of the misappropriated money was allegedly spent on luxury goods, travel and vehicles, to disguise the funds as lawful assets. Greece’s anti-money laundering authority is investigating Giorgos Xylouris, a farmer from Crete and until recently member of ruling New Democracy. Xylouris is one of the key characters mentioned in EPPO case files, under the nickname Frappé (“Iced Coffee”), regarding the OPEKEPE scandal. Some €2.5 million was discovered in his bank accounts during a random inspection, the Greek officials said. Authorities found that Xylouris had failed to submit the required financial documentation and could not justify the large sum. Eight vehicles were also identified in his possession, including a Jaguar luxury car. The case file has been sent to the prosecutors to examine possible violations of anti-bribery laws and an investigation is ongoing regarding whether money laundering has occurred.

The Czech government is demanding that the business owned by former Prime Minister and election favorite Andrej Babiš return more than €200 million in farm subsidy payments, raising the stakes ahead of a national vote in October. Giving an overall figure for the first time, Agriculture Minister Marek Výborný said that the Agrofert conglomerate should repay 5.1 billion koruny (€208 million) — of which 4.24 billion koruny were EU direct payments, with the remaining 860 million koruny made up of national subsidies. The decision follows a series of court defeats suffered by Agrofert in recent months, relating to subsidies the conglomerate received back when Babiš was prime minister from 2017 to 2021. Despite putting Agrofert into two trusts, the courts found that he continued to control the business, meaning that the company was not eligible for the subsidies. “Based on the facts known to me and the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision, which was confirmed by the Constitutional Court at the end of April, we are moving forward with proceedings to reclaim payments made during that period to companies ultimately owned by Andrej Babiš,” said Výborný. Babiš accused the center-right government, which polls show faces defeat in the Oct. 3-4 polls, of pursuing a political vendetta. “Minister Výborný has been abusing his position and officials for political battles and only wants to gain visibility before the elections. The whole coalition is obsessed with Babiš and Agrofert,” said Babiš. Babiš’s populist ANO party has long been the election front-runner, with support reaching 33 percent this week, despite a dog-slaying hitman scandal that rocked his party. The tycoon campaigns on messaging often associated with the far right and has vowed to scrap ammunition deliveries to Ukraine — but has not unveiled the official election program yet. His main opponent, the Spolu coalition, which includes three out of four governing parties, lags on 20 percent. The bloc’s ratings have suffered from unpopular decisions such as a pensions reform, poor communication and internal friction — along with factors like high inflation and energy costs. In a separate but related ruling, Prague’s High Court has overturned an earlier decision clearing Babiš of wrongdoing in a €2 million EU subsidy fraud. That case is now with the same Prague District Court that in February 2024 acquitted Babiš and his former adviser and current Patriots for Europe Member of the European Parliament Jana Nagyová of fiddling ownership documents so the former leader’s agriculture holding qualified for the subsidies. The High Court said the lower court had not evaluated the evidence properly — and obliged it to follow its legal opinion. That essentially means that the lower court cannot acquit Babiš again unless new evidence is found. If he takes power after the elections, the court will need to ask the newly elected deputies to waive his immunity. Both Babiš and Nagyová have pleaded not guilty on numerous occasions, claiming the case is politically motivated.

CARDIFF, Wales — At the edge of a sprawling wheat field on the outskirts of Cardiff, arable farmer Richard Anthony sticks a shovel in the ground and offers up a fistful of soil for a sniff.  “The first thing [I do when] I walk into a field: I catch a handful of soil,” he says. “[The] first thing I do is smell it, to see if it smells healthy.” His mind is on climate change. The clump in his palm is indeed healthy — but it’s dry. It comes at the tail end of an unusually hot spring. Anthony and his wife, Lyn, are planting crops in increasingly short “weather windows,” dodging the wet days of the previous fall. “It does worry me,” he told POLITICO, acres of wheat plants swaying behind him. “But we, as farmers, have always had to adapt. And we’re having to adapt to climate change.” Farmers like the Anthonys are looking for guidance from the Senedd — the Labour-led devolved Welsh parliament down the road in Cardiff Bay. “Farming is seen as the biggest problem with climate change, and we’re not. We’re the only industry that can actually do something about it,” Anthony said. But Welsh ministers’ key environmental plans are in disarray, delayed for over a year after farmers angrily rejected proposals they say would hit jobs and livelihoods. Annoying farmers is bad news for Labour in Wales, a country where 90 percent of land is given over to agriculture. And it has consequences in Westminster, too, for a U.K. government that can’t afford another political bloody nose. Welsh national elections next May will be a crucial mid-term litmus test for the appeal of Keir Starmer’s embattled Labour. The 2026 Senedd vote is seen by party leaders in London “as a staging post between now and [the general election in] 2029,” said one Welsh union boss in February. Labour is going backward in Wales.  Welsh polls published Tuesday show Labour, in charge at the Senedd since 1999, dropping to third place, losing support to both populists Reform UK and nationalists Plaid Cymru. The party is being punished, experts say, for its own perceived inertia and a far too cozy relationship with Westminster. “The Welsh government are in a very difficult situation, in that both they are unpopular as incumbents and they’re also paying a price for the unpopularity of the U.K. Labour government,” said Jac Larner, a politics lecturer at Cardiff University. “So at the moment there is a general resistance, I think, to taking any tough decisions.”  THE CLIMATE MOMENT Faltering climate policy contributes to the sense that Welsh ministers are “losing perceptions of competence,” Larner argued. The challenge is substantial. Within the next decade, agriculture could become Wales’ largest source of emissions. To hit a U.K.-wide target of net zero by 2050, most emissions cuts will have to come from high-polluting sectors like farming. The Welsh government’s solution is the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS) — a program designed to help farmers adopt low-carbon activities like planting more trees. The thinking is that with the offer of cash, farmers will dedicate more of their land to mopping up planet-wrecking emissions, making the most of its natural potential to sequester carbon and store it deep in the soil. Wales should reap the benefits of these “natural carbon sinks,” says the U.K.’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee.  But ministers paused the SFS roll-out after initial plans, published in December 2023, provoked protests and a backlash over a draft 10 percent tree-planting target, which farmers said would cost thousands of agricultural jobs. The Welsh government says details will now be finalized this summer, with the scheme up and running in 2026. With 90 percent of its land used for farming, Wales is seeing instability over climate and agriculture policy. | Abby Wallace/POLITICO “I think we’ve come from such a bad place, it’s going to be quite hard to lift it back up,” said Abi Reader, a dairy farmer and deputy president of the National Farmers Union Cymru.  Behind Reader, on her farm in the Cardiff town of Wenvoe, a large shed groans as rows of cattle diligently shuffle into the parlour, waiting to be hooked up to clinking machines for milking. “It’s difficult to say whether we should be signing up to it [the SFS] or not, because we’ve got no details of any of the costings,” Reader said.  “We’re all business people at the end of the day and, you know, we’ve all already done our budgets for next year. And there’s nothing to go to a bank manager with and say: ‘I want to borrow this, or can you support me for that?’” ‘BANG, BANG, KICK A MAN’ The SFS has caused unrest on another politically sensitive topic: livestock. A Welsh government estimate suggested the scheme could reduce livestock numbers by as much as 120,000. If ministers in Cardiff follow separate CCC advice published in May — on how to hit climate goals by 2033 — cattle and sheep numbers in Wales need to fall by nearly a fifth. Some of this will come from wider trends toward lower meat and dairy consumption — but it will also be driven by policies like the SFS, which incentivize farmers to rely less on livestock. The Welsh government must “engage with farmers and their communities, and support them to diversify their incomes,” the CCC said. This advice has spooked farmers, who see a threat to years of family-owned businesses. “Would that mean I’d have to move away from here?” asked third-generation beef farmer Tom Rees in his kitchen in Cowbridge, gesturing to the fields beyond the window where his father and grandfather also farmed. His farm slopes downhill toward a patch of land that often floods when a neighboring river overflows. It’s sliced up into rectangular fields by colorful hedgerows that act as corridors for local wildlife and as shelter for his cows on sunny days — but planting hedges isn’t how Rees wants to earn a living. “I went to college to study agriculture, to come on the farm because I wanted to produce food,” he said. “I don’t want to plant a woodland.” Rees hopes to pass the farm on to his 15-month-old son Henry — but is worried about uncertainty over the SFS, as well as issues around bovine tuberculosis and inheritance tax changes. He said: “Dad’s left the farm in a better place than when he took it on. We want to take it on a bit further, so we could leave it for Henry. … [But] with the government in Westminster and the government in the Senedd — you just really feel, Why are we bothering? “It’s bang, bang, kick a man while you’re down. That’s what it feels like, and that’s what a lot of farmers feel like in Wales.” The Welsh government refused to comment on the SFS, confirming only that details will be published this month. A spokesperson said the government is “reviewing” the CCC’s advice, which will inform decisions on a new climate goal for Wales before the end of the year. “We’re trying to take forward a future for agriculture in Wales, which is to do with thriving, living businesses and communities within Wales,” Huw Irranca-Davies, Wales’ cabinet secretary for climate change and rural affairs, told POLITICO in an interview last year. ANNOYING VOTERS Labour’s support has traditionally been low in rural Wales, where votes flow instead to the Conservatives or Plaid Cymru. But the mess over agricultural policies is deepening Labour’s woes, argued Cardiff University’s Larner. “By annoying these people, you kind of block off the possibility that any of these people at all will vote Labour,” he said, “So it’s just a kind of narrowing of the vote pool in which you can fish for extra voters come other elections.” Meantime, Plaid Cymru and Reform are making their pitches to rural voters. “You have to take the farmers with you on this journey. And that’s one lesson, I think, that the Welsh government has learned the hard way,” said Llyr Gruffydd, Senedd member for North Wales and Plaid’s agriculture and rural affairs spokesperson. Plaid will “reassess” the SFS when more details are published, Gruffydd said. His party is not about to announce plans to “plow a different furrow,” he said, but he didn’t rule out ditching the unpopular scheme either. When Plaid sees the plans, Gruffydd argued, it can decide “whether this is something that we can pursue, whether we feel we need to amend it — or, God forbid, whether we have to say, let’s get back to the drawing board.” Nigel Farage’s Reform, riding high in the polls and fresh from smashing Labour in local elections in May, wants to scrap net-zero targets altogether. “Farmers want lower costs to stay afloat. Net stupid zero adds costs for no benefit,” said Deputy Leader Richard Tice. Reform is set to benefit, too, from anger over the fate of Welsh steelmaking. Thousands of job losses loom at the Port Talbot plant as it shifts to a lower-emitting electric arc furnace, a political gift to Farage when he argues that climate-friendly policies wreck traditional industries. “That’s the one big example we’ve seen of net-zero related policy, and is one of loss of jobs with not very much put in place to support workers to do anything different,” said Joe Rossiter, co-director at the Institute of Welsh Affairs. “When it all shakes out, I do think the fight will be Labour vs. Reform for the top spot,” said one Labour insider who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The U.K. government “has been completely focused on making sure the transition to green steelmaking is as good as it can be.” Asked about the example of Port Talbot, Reader, the dairy farmer, was nervous about the precedent it set for other climate policies. “If they damage Welsh agriculture in the same way [as steel], I think that’s really letting down Wales,” she said.  ALL IN IT TOGETHER The Welsh government’s other big problem? It has cuddled up so tightly to Westminster that Labour’s performance in Cardiff will rebound in London and vice-versa. “There’s no ‘other’ for them to blame, because they’ve tied themselves very closely, rhetorically as well, to the U.K. government,” Larner said. Some Welsh Labour MPs defend the U.K. government’s record. “If you look at the amount of money that the Labour Party is investing in the agricultural sector, that shows a huge commitment to the industry,” said Henry Tufnell, Labour MP for Pembrokeshire. After months spent arguing the benefits of having Labour governments in both Cardiff and London, Senedd First Minister Eluned Morgan in May pivoted to emphasize the divide between them. Expect more attempts to put “clear red water” between the two camps, Larner said. Yet when Starmer addressed the Welsh Labour conference in north Wales last month, the old closeness was back. “Next year it’s a clear choice. Two Labour governments working together for the people of Wales … or risk rolling back all the progress we are making,” the prime minister said. As Starmer spoke, a clutch of farmers protested outside. ‘Starmer: farmer harmer,’ read one placard. Voters will say soon enough what they make of that bond between Labour in Wales and Westminster.

Brussels and Beijing got 99 problems — but an upcoming high-level summit ain’t gonna solve a single one. When EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa travel to China in two weeks, they will have several concerns in their travel bags — from market access to China’s chokehold over strategic raw materials. America’s lurch into protectionism under President Donald Trump is disturbing trade flows, meanwhile, making it harder to resolve those thorny issues. Von der Leyen reeled off a litany of political and economic complaints on Tuesday — from China’s state-subsidized overproduction to price gouging, “systematic” discrimination against foreign companies, export restrictions and more — setting the tone for a contentious summit.  “China has an entirely different system,” she said in an address to European lawmakers. The country has “unique instruments at its disposal to play outside the rules,” allowing it “to flood global markets with subsidized overcapacity — not just to boost its own industries, but to choke international competition.” And the pain points are multiplying: The latest is a move by Beijing to restrict government purchases of EU medical devices, in retaliation for a similar ban on Chinese medical equipment imposed by Brussels last month. Those come on top of a lingering dispute over the EU’s imposition of duties on Chinese-made electric vehicles last year and retaliatory duties slapped by Beijing on European liquor. Despite the milestone it’s supposed to celebrate — the 50th anniversary of EU-China diplomatic ties — the summit is shaping up to be more symbolic than substantive. With both sides entangled in trade spats, expectations are at a new low. Officials are bracing for a summit that’s going to be more about saving face than achieving concrete results. While Brussels and Beijing usually alternate as summit hosts, Chinese President Xi Jinping snubbed EU leaders earlier this year by declining an invitation to come to Brussels. The summit — originally planned to run for two days — will now only take place on July 24 in Beijing. It’s still unlikely that Xi will attend the gathering, which will be chaired by Premier Li Qiang, China’s second-ranked leader. Xi might yet meet bilaterally with von der Leyen and Costa, but that is TBC. “Not only doesn’t he [Xi] show up in Brussels, he doesn’t even attend in Beijing … it’s so embarrassing, I would not take it over my dead body, I swear,” said Alicia García-Herrero, chief economist for Asia-Pacific at French investment bank Natixis and a senior fellow at Bruegel, a think tank. “As a European I would say: Do not go, do not accept this shit.” MOOD SHIFT What’s more, the EU and the U.S. are scrambling to seal a provisional trade deal ahead of Trump’s (newly postponed) deadline to reimpose sweeping tariffs on Aug. 1. Should that happen before the EU-China summit, it’s bound to spell further trouble for the meeting. “If the EU and the U.S. are going to seal a similar deal to [the deal the U.S. sealed with the U.K.], other trading partners will be put at a disadvantage and China will retaliate,” said a person from the Chinese business sector who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. In an attempt to find common ground with Trump, von der Leyen has hardened her tone toward Beijing, accusing China at a G7 summit in Canada last month of “weaponizing” its leading position in producing and refining critical raw materials.  Unsurprisingly, those comments didn’t land well. Guo Jiakun, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hit back at von der Leyen’s remarks on raw materials. Beijing “fully considered the reasonable needs and concerns of various countries, and reviewed export license applications in accordance with laws and regulations,” Guo said. Von der Leyen’s remarks were “quite hawkish and unsettling,” said the person from the Chinese business sector quoted above. “If [von der Leyen] was trying to charm Trump, she may have done so at the cost of credibility — reminding China that the EU can talk cooperation with China one day and posture like a Cold Warrior the next,” they added. In short: The mood is sour — at a time when neither side, and especially the EU, can afford it. In a sign of its concerns over trade imbalances with China, Brussels launched a tool in April to monitor the diversion of trade flows toward the bloc after Trump imposed tariffs of up to 145 percent on Chinese goods (later lowered to 30 percent). While it’s too early to identify a clear trend, Chinese exports to Europe are sharply up in sectors including chemicals, textiles and machinery. HUGE UNCERTAINTY When the summit was announced — days before Trump’s inauguration in January — the EU struck an amicable tone, broadcasting its willingness to rekindle its relationship with China amid uneasy transatlantic relations. Nearly six months on, however, there has been scant progress toward resolving bilateral disputes. And the Chinese commerce ministry has warned “any country” against sealing trade deals with the U.S. that “undermine Chinese interests.” “The situation is not good. The European Union has 70 percent of its exports to the United States aimed at new tariffs. We are facing trade diversion because of some of the actions being taken, and there’s a huge uncertainty in the trade world,” Maria Martin-Prat De Abreu, a senior official at the Commission’s trade department who is in charge of the EU’s China policy, told an event last month. On top of rifts over electric vehicles, medical devices, spirits and pork, China has imposed — as part of its retaliation against Washington — additional controls on exports of rare earths. Those are inevitably hitting EU countries as well. Although EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič has managed to negotiate faster permitting procedures for European companies, industry continues to sound the alarm over threats to supply chains for the manufacture of everything from smartphones to car engines. China provides almost 99 percent of the EU’s supply of the 17 rare earths. In a reflection of the frosty relations between Brussels and Beijing, the two sides don’t plan to issue a joint statement summing up their mutual commitments, departing from the usual practice in international diplomacy. The EU and China are instead looking at publishing a mere press release, two EU officials said, just like they did in 2023. “There’s a huge amount of work that needs to be done between now and the summit,” said Martin-Prat De Abreu, adding that Brussels and Beijing were focusing on both “general, structural issues” and more specific issues such as market access for agricultural goods and cosmetics. “It is very difficult,” she added. What’s more, the usual high-level trade dialogue that typically precedes the summit won’t be held due to the lack of progress on trade issues, according to a person from the Chinese business sector and a European official. And Brussels is refusing to sign a joint declaration on climate action unless China pledges greater efforts to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told the Financial Times. “It’s not that we shut the door,” a third EU official said. “It’s more that we never opened it. We’re sending a signal to both China and the United States.” This story has been updated.

President Donald Trump threatened Tuesday to sic Elon Musk’s own Department of Government Efficiency against him, and would not rule out deporting the world’s wealthiest man. “DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” the president told reporters outside the White House before departing to the “Alligator Alcatraz” immigration detention center in Florida. The comments are the latest escalation of Trump’s feud with his one-time top political benefactor and demonstrate how serious a threat the administration considers Musk, who has spent the last few days railing against the president’s chief domestic priority. Asked if he was considering deporting Musk to his native South Africa, Trump said “I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look.” Musk, in a post to his social media site X shortly after Trump’s comments, said, “Physics sees through all lies perfectly.” He followed with another post claiming “the crux” of Trump’s so-called “One Big, Beautiful Bill” is “Removal of funding for enforcement of federal contempt of court orders.” “This is nominally aimed at removal of illegal immigrants, but obviously also enables many other abuses of power by the President,” added Musk, who as recently as March, when he was on good terms with Trump, had warned that “tyranny of the judiciary” was undermining democracy by blocking the president’s actions. The head of X, Tesla and SpaceX on Monday threatened to use his immense wealth to start a new political party if the “One Big Beautiful Bill” secures congressional approval, and his persistence threatens to upend months of delicate negotiations in the House and Senate. He added that conservative lawmakers who support the bill “will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth” and said he “will” support Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the bill’s staunchest Republican holdout. As he was en route to Florida Tuesday morning, Trump called Massie “a very bad guy” and said anyone he endorsed would beat the congressman by 25 points. In another Tuesday post, shortly before 1 a.m., Trump fired back at Musk, suggesting that DOGE, the sprawling cost-cutting program that had once given the billionaire unprecedented power over the federal government, should be used to look at the myriad government subsidies his companies receive. “Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa,” Trump said. “No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE,” the president added. “Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this?” The post appeared to be in response to a post from Musk on Monday calling the GOP the “PORKY PIG PARTY” and floating “a new political party that actually cares about the people.” Trump and Musk had a similar blowup last month, which quickly devolved into personal attacks. Musk, seeming contrite, then held his fire for a couple weeks — but as the legislation appeared on track in the Senate, he let loose again. Musk has repeatedly slammed the bill because it would increase the federal deficit. Trump says the disagreement is over the bill’s slashing of an electric vehicle subsidy, which would undermine Tesla. Trump reiterated Tuesday that Musk was angry about the cut EV subsidy — but added “Elon can lose a lot more than that, I can tell you right now.” Musk in 2024 shattered fundraising records for the GOP, and before the blowup had reportedly vowed to give an additional $100 million to Trump’s political operation as the midterms approach.

PARIS — French taxpayers footed a nearly €6 billion bill to host the 2024 Paris Olympics, the country’s highest audit authority said in a report published Monday. France’s Court of Auditors found state and local authorities spent €2.77 billion to help organize the Games and an additional €3.19 billion on infrastructure. The French government had initially promised that public funding for the Games would cost around €1 billion. Tony Estanguet, the president of the 2024 Paris Organizing Committee, disputed the auditors’ figures in a response included in their report and said the true public cost attributable to the event “does not exceed €2 billion.” He also noted that the projected economic benefits linked to the Olympics are “three to five times that amount.” Both Estanguet and Prime Minister François Bayrou, whose response was also included in the report, stressed that the Court of Auditors had failed to adequately quantify the long-term benefits of the Games, including the infrastructure investments that will benefit Parisians long after the Olympics finished, and focused solely on tallying up expenditures. For example, the French government spent an additional €214 million to extend the Paris metro network to make Olympic sites accessible via public transport by the time the Games began. The president of the Court of Auditors projected before the Olympics began that they would cost €3 to €5 billion. The report notes that the Games’ organizing committee was “largely self-funded,” but that public funds were used to ensure the event’s success. Securing the Games ended up being particularly expensive. France spent some €665 million to deploy 35,000 police and gendarmes each day near the various events

Russian President Vladimir Putin cautioned his officials to make sure their efforts to cool down an economy driven to overheating by military spending don’t overshoot and drive it into recession. “Some specialists and experts are pointing to the risks of stagnation or even recession. This, of course, is not to be allowed under any circumstances,” Putin told the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, an annual conference to showcase the Russian economy that he had once used to attract investment from the West. The experts that Putin was referring to are led by Economy Minister Maxim Reshetnikov, who made just that warning on the first day of the conference on Thursday. Reshetnikov had said that while all the economic numbers suggest the economy is still growing, they are “just a rear-view mirror.” By contrast, he noted, business sentiment suggested very strongly that the economy is “on the brink of a recession.” Putin pointed to statistics showing that gross domestic product is still growing — by 1.5 percent in the first four months of the year. However, analysts have pointed out that that is due entirely to ever-higher volumes of output from the defense sector to fight the war in Ukraine. Civil sectors of the economy have slowed sharply, as the government has ended various subsidy programs over the past year, notably for residential mortgages. The government is being squeezed harder than at any time since the invasion by the fact that global prices for crude oil, exports of which generate a third of its revenue, have slumped to their lowest in over three years as Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies opened a battle to win back global market share from higher-cost producers in the United States and elsewhere. Putin’s public comments are often aimed at settling disputes between the various agencies, businesses and cliques that vie for influence in the Kremlin. In recent months, tension has become more obvious between big business and the central bank, which has had to raise interest rates to more than 20 percent to rein in the inflation caused by excessive government spending. Putin, who has supported the central bank throughout, again referred to its policy as “responsible” on Friday. But he warned that bringing down inflation, which is still running at nearly 10 percent, was “far from the whole picture.” “Our most important task this year is to transition the economy to balanced growth,” he said. “That is moderate inflation, and low employment, and the continuation of a positive economic dynamic. It’s important to keep in focus all the indicators of how our [various] sectors and companies are feeling.” Putin gave no indication at the conference that economic problems were about to force any kind of conciliation with the West over the fate of Ukraine. “I’ve often said that Russians and Ukraine are the same people,” he said in a panel discussion. “In that sense, all of Ukraine is ours.”

ATHENS — European Chief Prosecutor Laura Kövesi is vowing to press ahead with a probe into major alleged fraud involving the EU’s massive farm budget in Greece despite what she describes as “attacks” and “intimidation” against her staff. In dramatic scenes last week, EU officials from the European Public Prosecutor’s Office met physical resistance from employees of the Greek state agency OPEKEPE, which is responsible for doling out farm funds and lies at the heart of the investigation. On Friday, the Greek government was forced to fire OPEKEPE’s president for failing to cooperate with the EU probe. EPPO is pursuing dozens of cases in which Greek citizens received EU agricultural funds for pastureland they did not own or had not leased, or for agricultural work they never did, depriving real farmers of the cash they deserved. The multi-year, multimillion-euro scam was the subject of a POLITICO investigation earlier this year. “I welcome the Greek authorities’ response to recent developments at OPEKEPE, with the aim to preserve effective cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office,” Kövesi told POLITICO. “I would like to reassure the general public that the EPPO will continue its work diligently and impartially to establish the truth, no matter the attacks and intimidation against its prosecutors,” she said. “I consider that the immediate purpose of these attempts is to deviate the attention of the general public from what is really at stake in this case: Was there organized agricultural subsidy fraud and corruption, yes or no?” Last Monday, European prosecutors raided the headquarters of OPEKEPE, confiscating digital data stored locally and in the cloud, as well as hard disks and mobile phones, according to officials in EPPO and OPEKEPE. At the same time, other raids took place at OPEKEPE’s regional directorate on Crete as well as at the houses of four high-ranking officials and the residence of a former vice president of the organization, according to the same officials. The raid in Athens snowballed into a tense standoff. Two prosecutors, along with 20 police officers, arrived at OPEKEPE at 9:30 a.m. on May 19 but were obstructed from accessing the data requested, according to EPPO. OPEKEPE employees said they were unable to provide the data owing to the absence of technical advisers. After several hours, the prosecutors requested affidavits from employees confirming their inability to comply, which they refused to sign. The prosecutors asked OPEKEPE’s President Nikos Salatas to sign an affidavit or face arrest for obstructing justice, EPPO said. He ultimately cooperated, and the prosecutors finally left OPEKEPE at 4 a.m. the next day with everything they needed, according to EPPO. While this clash was under way in the building, OPEKEPE issued a statement asserting full cooperation with the investigation. The next day EPPO issued a strongly worded statement accusing the agency of not cooperating and suggested possible systematic fraudulent practices that involved OPEKEPE officials. EPPO is pursuing dozens of cases in which Greek citizens received EU agricultural funds for pastureland they did not own or had not leased, or for agricultural work they never did, depriving real farmers of the cash they deserved. | Alexandros Vlachos/EPA-EFE “Gathering digital evidence at the headquarters of OPEKEPE proved particularly challenging and was significantly delayed until 4:00 this morning,” EPPO said. In response, OPEKEPE demanded that EPPO retract its allegations within 48 hours, threatening legal action to protect its reputation. Shortly afterward, the Ministry of Rural Development announced Salatas’ dismissal, citing the public interest. Salatas, who had been in his post since January, publicly refused to resign, claiming he was defending the organization’s integrity. He was sacked late on Friday. Still, in a TV interview on Monday morning he claimed “everything was done perfectly” during the raid. He singled out one of the prosecutors, Nikos Paschalis (who wasn’t actually present in the building during the raid), as having written the harsh statement against OPEKEPE, accusing him of “heavy slander” that was “directed against our country.” OPEKEPE has been under EU supervision since September 2024 because of noncompliance with operational standards. It now risks losing its certification to manage EU funds, which could happen in July when EU authorities visit Athens to monitor progress.