BERLIN — A German parliamentary delegation visiting Washington late last month saw center-left MPs frozen out by the U.S. State Department, people familiar with the matter told POLITICO. German MPs refused to take part in the meeting after their colleagues were blocked — a highly unusual step. U.S. authorities insisted there had been no effort to favor right-leaning parties and that they speak to a “wide spectrum” of politicians during such visits. In a separate encounter, an MP with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), Peter Felser, who was also part of the delegation, arranged a meeting at the Pentagon where he talked with a U.S. official about Germany’s defense posture. The clash over the visit comes in the wake of a new National Security Strategy from December that harshly criticized U.S.-allied nations in Europe for their efforts to rein in far-right parties; denounced their high rates of migration; and called for the continent to “correct its current trajectory.” The German lawmakers were supposed to be on a routine visit, during which they would take part in the German-American Dialogue on China. The delegation included two senior lawmakers from Germany’s governing coalition — Norbert Röttgen with the center-right Christian Democrats and Siemtje Möller for the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), as well as MPs from the opposition center-left Greens and the AfD. The plan had been for lawmakers from all parties to attend a meeting with Brendan Hanrahan, a senior official at the State Department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, on Jan. 21 before the China event. Five people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, said the planned meeting collapsed after State Department officials told the German Embassy in Washington that it was prepared to receive only Christian Democratic and AfD lawmakers, excluding the SPD and the Greens. Röttgen rejected that format, saying he would not proceed without his coalition partner, four people familiar with the matter said.  It’s unclear, however, who ultimately cancelled the appointment. In response to POLITICO’s request for comment, Germany’s foreign ministry declined to explain the cancellation, saying only that the State Department had called off the meeting for “scheduling reasons.” The State Department denied any preference for particular parties during delegation visits, saying in a statement that “senior State Department officials engage regularly with representatives from a wide spectrum of political parties and leaders, and we do not comment on private diplomatic meetings.” Norbert Röttgen, who rejected the meeting format, saying he would not proceed without his coalition partner, four people familiar with the matter said. | Elisa Schu/picture alliance via Getty Images Such parliamentary trips are normally built around engagement with both sitting governments and opposition — and the episode left German officials privately uneasy about how parts of the Trump administration are approaching Europe. Möller and Röttgen nonetheless went on to hold meetings with U.S. lawmakers and officials at the National Security Council during their visit. Röttgen’s office did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.  In a statement to POLITICO, Möller said the episode showed that “even a year into office, parts of the U.S. administration still lack clear coordination and reliable alignment,” but stressed that talks with administration officials and Republican members of Congress nevertheless took place. PENTAGON BRIEFING In the separately arranged Pentagon visit, the AfD’s Felser held a one-on-one meeting with David A. Baker, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy.  Felser had requested the appointment roughly two weeks earlier through the German embassy, people familiar with the arrangements on both the U.S. and German side said. The conversation focused on the new U.S. National Security Strategy and Washington’s expectations that Germany take on a greater leadership role in European defense. The AfD has surged in popularity and is now Germany’s most popular party, according to POLITICO’s poll of polls. Last year, Vice President JD Vance sharply criticized European centrists for excluding the far right and later met with AfD national co-leader Alice Weidel.  Felser told POLITICO that Washington’s willingness to meet him showed the U.S. was not “falling for” what he called the coalition’s attempt to sideline the AfD, adding that the “channel of conversation” the U.S. had opened amounted to “important support” for his party. Speaking about the Pentagon meeting, a Department of Defense official said that its officials “meet with allied parliamentarians regularly to discuss defense issues of mutual concern.” Both Felser and Gerald Otten, the other AfD politician who was present in Washington with the parliamentary delegation, said that U.S. officials had over the last months actively reached out to their party to establish whether future cooperation would be viable. For now, the conversations revolved around pinning down the AfD’s positions on a range of issues that included the EU, NATO, and the promise of NATO member countries to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP.  Back in Berlin, Röttgen told reporters he had been surprised at what he described as the “entrenched, virtually impenetrable worldview” of members of the pro-Trump MAGA camp — including the diplomats, politicians and lobbyists the German delegation had met over a lunch in the U.S. That was something, Röttgen said, he had “never encountered in all the years I have traveled to Washington.”

Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has only four months to save his premiership. After the U.K. parliament’s return from Christmas recess, Starmer marked his first 18 months in Downing Street with a speech touting his Labour party’s efforts to ease the cost-of-living crisis. But behind the scenes, anxiety is growing that voters won’t feel any meaningful relief before the decisive regional and local elections on May 7, which could seal the prime minister’s political fate. And the outlook is bleak: After placing third in the Welsh Parliament elections behind Plaid Cymru and far-right leader Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, failing to unseat the Scottish National Party in Scotland, and bleeding support to both the Greens and Reform UK in English council contests, Labour risks humiliation across the U.K. And national polling only underscores the danger, with Reform UK now averaging close to 30 percent, and Labour languishing in the teens alongside the Greens and the Conservatives. Still, Starmer’s advisers privately argue that “less bad than expected” results might be enough to save him. But many Labour MPs expect a leadership challenge regardless, as it would require only 81 out of 404 MPs to initiate one — and Starmer is hardly popular with the wider party. Then there’s the unfolding scandal over Labour stalwart and former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson. Mandelson was appointed by Starmer before being removed from his position in September once the extent of his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein became clear. Under mounting pressure, Starmer has been strong in his criticism and push for transparency — but that may not be enough, as Mandelson’s now under investigation for misconduct while in public office. A challenge may not come immediately, or even right after polling day in May. But the sense that Starmer’s authority is waning is unmistakable. For one, the prime minister is already preparing his defense. A King’s speech designed to reset the agenda ,outlining proposals on special education needs and digital ID, is now penciled in for mid-May. A cabinet reshuffle may follow, and some in Labour believe Starmer might even sacrifice his chancellor if he thinks it would placate restive backbenchers. He’s also expected to recall former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to the cabinet, hoping her return could blunt any leadership ambitions. Labour’s traditions may offer Starmer only limited protection.While the party prides itself on avoiding the “regicide” that’s plagued the rival Conservatives, this instinct will weaken if electoral defeat looms. Labour MPs may dread a destabilizing leadership contest, but many have already concluded Starmer won’t lead them into the next general election. And privately, some ministers believe it’s no longer a question of if the prime minister falls, but when. Their concerns are understandable: Energized by new leadership, the Greens are siphoning some progressive voters, while Reform UK is eroding Labour’s traditional working-class base. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have stabilized enough under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership to reduce the likelihood of another revolt — a development that leaves Starmer more exposed. So, if a contest is triggered, he’s unlikely to survive it. Party members — roughly 250,000-strong — tend to favor the soft left. And that dynamic would advantage Rayner, should she stand. Last week’s events in Greater Manchester only further crystallized this perception of Starmer’s weakness. His decision to block Mayor Andy Burnham from contesting a parliamentary by-election was a lose-lose proposition: Either deny Burnham a Westminster platform and risk a party backlash, or enable a future leadership challenger. And Starmer chose the former, provoking fury while reinforcing the perception that he’s defensive and frail. Then came news of Mandelson. Starmer was elected on the promise of ending the chaos of government sleaze, and this saga will only foment questions about his judgement when appointing Mandelson ambassador. And the prime minister may well end up having to sacrifice his beloved advisor Morgan McSweeney, who lobbied for Mandelson to be picked for the plum Washington post. Labour MPs may dread a destabilizing leadership contest, but many have already concluded Starmer won’t lead them into the next general election. | Lukas Coch/EPA Meanwhile, foreign policy — the one area where Starmer’s performance has proven more assured — is offering Number 10 no relief either. U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has distracted him from and sometimes undermined his domestic agenda, particularly in the case of tariffs. And the latest crisis over Greenland was no exception. Managing relations with the U.S. under Trump has forced Starmer into awkward contortions, attempting to respond to provocations while trying to preserve his strategy of staying close to both Washington and Brussels, where his government is trying to reset relations. As it stands, the debate inside Labour over whether to pivot toward the EU is intensifying, and there’s now growing support within the party for a customs union with the bloc. But Starmer’s preference for incremental sector-by-sector alignment risks satisfying no one, viewed in Brussels as cherry-picking and at home as timid. Even loyalists concede a damaging story has taken hold: A prime minister unable to impose a vision or discipline, haunted by his early decisions, buffeted by U-turns and trapped by his own party. Starmer wanted to avoid a Tory-style drama. Instead, he’s now heading one of Labour’s own — slower, quieter but no less brutal. And four months isn’t long to change the narrative, especially when so many in his own party have already turned the page.

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s top trade lawmakers failed on Wednesday to reach a common position on the EU-U.S. trade deal, in a move that risks fueling Washington’s impatience against the EU’s slow pace in finally implementing its side of a bargain struck last summer. Negotiations will continue until next week, two people who attended a meeting of the lawmakers told POLITICO. One said that committee vote was penciled in for Feb. 24 and a final plenary vote for March. Both were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door talks. The meeting failed to clear remaining hurdles regarding the Parliament’s position on the removal of tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and lobsters — a precondition for Washington to reduce its own tariffs on European cars.  Lawmakers from the international trade committee disagreed on the length of a sunset clause which would limit the proposals’ application to 18 to 36 months, as well as whether the EU should withdraw any tariff concessions until a solution is found between Brussels and Washington on the 50 percent tariff the Trump administration has put on steel derivatives. With the EU still processing the shock of Trump’s threats against the territorial sovereignty of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, the liberal Renew group and the Socialists & Democrats are pushing to Trump-proof the deal by inserting suspension clauses into enabling legislation in case the U.S. president turns hostile again.  The center-right European People’s Party has pushed to sign off the deal following calls from EU leaders to unfreeze the implementation of the deal.  Failure to reach an agreement on Wednesday throws into disarray the timeline for parliamentary approval, and further delays the start of negotiations with EU capitals and the European Commission.

Domènec Ruiz Devesa is a senior researcher at Barcelona Centre for International Affairs and a former member of the European Parliament. Emiliano Alessandri is an affiliated researcher at Austrian Institute for International Affairs. When NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told the European Parliament the continent can’t defend itself without the U.S., and that those who think otherwise should “keep dreaming,” he did more than just describe Europe’s military dependence — he turned that dependence into a political doctrine. He also positioned himself not so much as the head of an alliance of would-be equals but as the spokesperson of Europe’s strategic resignation. Rutte’s view of European defense follows a familiar but increasingly untenable logic: Nuclear deterrence equals U.S. protection; U.S. protection equals European security; therefore, European strategic sovereignty is an illusion. But this chain of reasoning is far more fragile than it sounds. First of all, even though Europe’s overall strategic stability does depend on nuclear deterrence, most real-world security challenges in the Euro-Atlantic space — from hybrid operations to limited conventional scenarios — have and will continue to develop well below the nuclear threshold. This is something NATO’s own deterrence posture recognizes. And overstating the nuclear dimension risks overlooking the decisive importance of conventional mass, resilience, logistics, high-quality intelligence, air defense and industrial depth — areas where Europe is weak by political choice. Moreover, the nuclear debate in Europe isn’t binary. The continent isn’t condemned to choose between total dependence on the U.S. umbrella and total vulnerability. A serious discussion regarding the role of the French and British deterrents within a European framework — politically complex, yes, but strategically conceivable — is no longer taboo. And by pointing at the prohibitively high cost of developing a European nuclear force from scratch, Rutte’s sweeping dismissal of Europe’s strategic agency in the nuclear field sidesteps this evolution instead of engaging with it. Plus, the NATO chief is being too hasty in his dismissal of the increasingly accepted notion of a “European pillar” within NATO. Sure, the EU added value is, at present, best exemplified in the creation of a more integrated and dynamic European defense market, which the European Commission is actively fostering. But Rutte is underestimating existing European military capabilities. European countries already collectively field advanced air forces, world-class submarines, significant naval power, cutting-edge missile and air-defense systems, cyber expertise, space assets and one of the largest defense-industrial bases in the world. And when it comes to the defense of Ukraine, European allies — including France — have significantly expanded their intelligence contributions. The problem, therefore, isn’t so much scarcity but national and industrial fragmentation, coupled with the risk of technological stagnation and insufficient investment in key enablers like munitions production, military mobility, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, satellites, air-to-air refueling and integrated command structures. As demonstrated by satellite projects like the EU’s Governmental Satellite Communications and IRIS² Satellite Constellation, these are areas that can be improved in the space of months and years rather than decades. But telling Europeans that sovereignty is a fantasy can easily kill the political momentum needed to fix them. Regardless of what one may think of Trump and his disruptive politics, the direction of travel in U.S. foreign policy is unmistakable. | Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Finally, Rutte’s message is oddly out of sync with Washington too. U.S. presidents have long demanded Europe take far greater responsibility for its own defense, and in his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has taken this message to new heights, from burden-sharing to burden-shifting. But to simultaneously tell Europe it must take care of itself, provided it continues purchasing U.S.-manufactured weapons, and that it can never truly succeed isn’t strategic clarity, it’s cognitive dissonance. Europe can no longer ignore political reality. Regardless of what one may think of Trump and his disruptive politics, the direction of travel in U.S. foreign policy is unmistakable: Europe is no longer a priority. The center of U.S. strategic gravity now lies in the Indo-Pacific, and U.S. dominance in the Western hemisphere ranks higher than Europe’s defense. In this mutated context, placing all of Europe’s security eggs in the U.S. basket isn’t sensible. However, none of this means Europe abandoning NATO or actively severing transatlantic ties. Rather, it means recognizing that alliances between equals are stronger than those built on dependence. A Europe that can militarily, industrially and politically rely on itself makes a more credible and valuable ally. And the 80-year transatlantic alliance will only endure if the U.S. and Europe strike a new bargain. So, as transatlantic allies grapple with a less straightforward alignment of interests and values, Rutte needs to be promoting a more balanced NATO with a strong European pillar — not undermining it.

Leaders of Europe’s most powerful political family want to make better use of the EU’s mutual defense clause amid growing concerns about Donald Trump’s commitment to NATO. The push came during a weekend dinner at a European People’s Party leaders’ retreat in Zagreb, Croatia featuring the likes of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, as reported in Brussels Playbook. The EPP will task two as-yet-unnamed heads of state or government with looking at how to implement the EU Treaty’s Article 42.7 (which obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked). The EPP top brass did not make clear by when the leaders will have to deliver this plan or what exactly it will address. However, a policy paper published by the EPP on Sunday pointed to nine areas where the EU needs to develop military capacity if it’s to become independent of the U.S., including drones, space and missile defense. The EPP’s policy paper still makes mention of NATO as the cornerstone of European defense. The push to use the EU’s mutual defense clause comes amid the worst transatlantic crisis in decades, with Trump’s claim to Greenland shaking belief in the U.S. commitment to NATO. During a press conference in Zagreb, EPP President Manfred Weber praised French President Macron for his offer to extend France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU states. “Having the new U.S. developments in mind,” said Weber, “I am totally in favor that the leaders are … considering how this option of a French nuclear weapon can be used for European security.”

Yanmei Xie is senior associate fellow at the Mercator Institute for China Studies. After Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke at Davos last week, a whole continent contracted leadership envy. Calling the rules-based order — which Washington proselytized for decades before stomping on — a mirage, Carney gave his country’s neighboring hegemonic bully a rhetorical middle finger, and Europeans promptly swooned. But before the bloc’s politicians rush to emulate him, it may be worth cooling the Carney fever. Appearing both steely and smooth in his Davos speech, Carney warned middle powers that “when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness.” Perhaps this was in reference to the crass daily coercion Canada has been enduring from the U.S. administration. But perhaps he was talking about the subtler asymmetry he experienced just days before in Beijing. In contrast to his defiance in Switzerland, Carney was ingratiating during his China visit. He signed Canada up for a “new strategic partnership” in preparation for an emerging “new world order,” and lauded Chinese leader Xi Jinping as a fellow defender of multilateralism. The visit also produced a cars-for-canola deal, which will see Canada slash tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles from 100 percent to 6.1 percent, and lift the import cap to 49,000 cars per year. In return, China will cut duties on Canadian canola seeds from 84 percent to 15 percent. In time, Ottawa also expects Beijing will reduce tariffs on Canadian lobsters, crabs and peas later this year and purchase more Canadian oil and perhaps gas, too. The agreement to launch a Ministerial Energy Dialogue will surely pave the way for eventual deals. These productive exchanges eventually moved Carney to declare Beijing a “more predictable” trade partner than Washington. And who can blame him? He was simply stating the obvious — after all, China isn’t threatening Canada with annexation. But one is tempted to wonder if he would have needed to flatter quite so much in China if his country still possessed some of the world’s leading technologies. The truth is, Canada’s oil and gas industry probably shouldn’t really be holding its breath. Chinese officials typically offer serious consideration rather than outright rejection out of politeness — just ask Russia, which has spent decades in dialogue with Beijing over a pipeline meant to replace Europe as a natural gas market. The cars-for-canola deal also carries a certain irony: Canada is importing the very technology that makes fossil fuels obsolete. China is electrifying at dizzying speed, with the International Energy Agency projecting its oil consumption will peak as early as next year thanks to “extraordinary” electric vehicle sales. That means Beijing probably isn’t desperate for new foreign suppliers of hydrocarbons, and the ministerial dialogue will likely drag on inconclusively — albeit courteously — well into the future. This state of Sino-Canadian trade can be seen as classic comparative advantage at work: China is good at making things, and Canada has abundant primary commodities. But in the not-so-distant past, it was Canadian companies that were selling nuclear reactors, telecom equipment, aircraft and bullet trains to China. Yet today, many of these once globe-spanning Canadian high-tech manufacturers have either exited the scene or lead a much-reduced existence. Somewhere in this trading history lies a cautionary tale for Europe. Deindustrialization can have its own self-reinforcing momentum. As a country’s economic composition changes, so does its political economy. When producers of goods disappear, so does their political influence. And the center of lobbying gravity shifts toward downstream users and consumers who prefer readily available imports. Europe’s indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products | STR/AFP via Getty Images Europe already has its own version of this story: Its indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products over the span of two decades. Currently, its solar industry is dominated by installers and operators who favor cheap imports and oppose trade defense. Simply put, Carney’s cars-for-canola deal is a salve for Canadian consumers and commodity producers, but it’s also industrial policy in reverse. In overly simplified terms, industrial policy is about encouraging exports of finished products over raw materials and discouraging the opposite in order to build domestic value-added capacity and productivity. But while Canada can, perhaps, make do without industry — as Carney put it in Davos, his ambition is to run “an energy superpower” — Europe doesn’t have that option. Agri-food and extractive sectors aren’t enough to stand up the continent’s economy — even with the likes of tourism and luxury goods thrown in. China currently exports more than twice as much to the EU than it imports. In container terms, the imbalance widens to 4-to-1. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs estimates Chinese exports will shave 0.2 percentage point or more of GDP growth in Germany, Spain and Italy each year through 2029. And according to the European Central Bank, cars, chemicals, electric equipment and machinery — sectors that form Europe’s industrial backbone — face the most severe job losses from China trade shock. Europe shares Canada’s plight in dealing with the U.S., which currently isn’t just an unreliable trade partner but also an ally turned imperialist. This is why Carney’s speech resonates. But U.S. protectionism has only made China’s mercantilism a more acute challenge for Europe, as the U.S. resists the bloc’s exports and Chinese goods keep pouring into Europe in greater quantities at lower prices. European leaders would be mistaken to look for trade relief in China as Carney does, and bargain away the continent’s industrial capacity in the process. Whether it’s to resist an expansionist Russia or an imperial U.S., Europe still needs to hold on to its manufacturing base.

TOKYO — Britain’s prime minister has urged Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, to answer questions in the U.S. about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Keir Starmer suggested Mountbatten-Windsor would not be sufficiently focused on Epstein’s victims if he did not accept an invitation to testify before the U.S. Congress about his past exchanges with the convicted sex offender, who died in 2019. An email exchange dated August 2010, released by the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday, showed Epstein offered the then-Duke of York the opportunity to have dinner with a woman he described as “26, russian, clevere beautiful, trustworthy.” Mountbatten-Windsor replied: “That was quick! How are you? Good to be free?” The exchange happened a year after Epstein was released from jail following a sentence for soliciting prostitution from a person under 18. Another newly released file appears to show Mountbatten-Windsor crouching on all fours over an unknown woman. Mountbatten-Windsor missed a November deadline to sit for a transcribed interview that was set by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. During a visit to China and Japan this week, Starmer was asked by reporters whether Mountbatten-Windsor should now apologize to Epstein’s victims and testify to Congress about what he knew. The prime minister replied: “I have always approached this question with the victims of Epstein in mind. Epstein’s victims have to be the first priority,” he said. “As for whether there should be an apology, that’s a matter for Andrew,” Starmer added. “But yes, in terms of testifying, I have always said anybody who has got information should be prepared to share that information in whatever form they are asked to do that because you can’t be victim-centered if you’re not prepared to do that,” Starmer said. In 2019, Mountbatten-Windsor was accused in a civil lawsuit of sexually assaulting Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers, but he denied all allegations. Mountbatten-Windsor has faced a backlash for his friendship with Epstein, but has not been charged with a crime in either the U.K. or the U.S. Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his royal titles in October amid continued scrutiny of his past friendship with Epstein.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Today’s angry and discombobulating geopolitical landscape is giving rise to noticeably more acrimonious diplomatic exchanges than seen in preceding decades — even sharper than during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first term. This is likely just a reflection of the times we live in: Roiled by shocks and uncertainty, even world leaders and their envoys are on edge. And social media doesn’t help keep exchanges calm and respectful either. Measured speech doesn’t go viral. If you want attention, be disparaging and abrasive. Let’s take Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s carefully crafted speech at Davos last week. Carney earned a standing ovation from global and corporate leaders as he bewailed the unfolding great-power rivalry, urging “middle powers” to act together “because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.” Yet, it was Trump’s free-wheeling, sharp-edged speech with its personal criticism of fellow Western leaders — including a jab at French President Emmanuel Macron — that roared on social media. This shift away from traditional diplomatic etiquette toward more confrontational, seemingly no-nonsense and aggressive public-facing communication is very much in keeping with populist styles of leadership. And it’s now shaping an era where antagonistic communication isn’t just tolerated but celebrated and applauded by many. Trump is very much a man of his times. And it’s time Europe finally caught on. Aside from Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin is also often known to use colloquial and crude language to attack Western and Ukrainian leaders — though noticeably, he never uses such language with Trump. In an address last month, Putin referred to European leaders as podsvinki — little pigs. And before invading Ukraine in February 2022, he used a vulgar Russian rhyme to insinuate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy needed to be raped. China, too, has been noticeably more menacing in its diplomatic speech in recent years — though it tends to eschew personal invective. The shift began around 2019, when Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi instructed envoys to display a stronger “fighting spirit” to defend Beijing from supposed Western bullying. The abrasive style led to the more aggressive envoys being dubbed “wolf warriors,” after a blockbuster movie in which Chinese commandos vanquish American mercenaries. But driving the trend are Trump and his aides, who can go toe-to-toe with anyone when it comes to put-downs, slurs or retaliation. And if met with pushback, they simply escalate. Hence the avuncular counsel of U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to Europeans on the Greenland-related tariff threats last week: “Sit back, take a deep breath, do not retaliate.” But here’s the curious thing: While the Russians and Chinese use such language to target their foes, Trump and his senior aides reserve much of their invective for supposed allies, namely Europe with Canada thrown in for good measure. And they’re utterly relentless in doing so — far more than during his first term, when there were still some more traditionally minded folks in the White House to temper or walk back the rhetoric. This all seemed to reach its pinnacle in Davos last week, where it seemed belittling European allies was part of virtually everything the U.S. delegation said in the Swiss ski resort. Bessent couldn’t even restrain himself from insulting Swiss-German fare. And U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik appeared almost gleeful in infuriating Europe’s leaders with his combative remarks at a VIP dinner which, according to the Financial Times, not only sparked uproar but prompted European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde to leave the event early. “Only one person booed, and it was Al Gore,” said the U.S. Commerce Department in a statement to media. But others at the event — around 200 people — said there was, indeed, some heckling, though not so much because of the content of Lutnik’s criticism, some of which Europeans have also made about net zero, energy policy, globalization and regulation. According to two attendees, who asked to be granted anonymity to speak freely, it was in reaction to the contemptuous tone instead. Likewise, Trump’s delegation — the largest ever brought from Washington to Davos — didn’t miss a beat in pressing America First themes, making it clear the U.S. would prioritize its own economic interests regardless of how it affects allies. “When America shines, the world shines,” Lutnik said. China, too, has been noticeably more menacing in its diplomatic speech in recent years — though it tends to eschew personal invective. | Pool photo by Vincent Thian/EPA As the forum unfolded, however, U.S. Vice President JD Vance insisted that what was fueling such criticism wasn’t hatred for the old continent, but that it was more a matter of tough love. “They think that we hate Europe. We don’t. We love Europe,” he said. “We love European civilization. We want it to preserve itself.” That in itself seems pretty condescending. Tough love or not, Europe-bashing plays well with the MAGA crowd back home who feel Europeans are the haughty ones, lacking gratitude, freeloading and in dire need of subordination — and squeals of complaint merely incite more of the same. To that end, Zelenskyy made a telling a point: European leaders shouldn’t waste their time trying to change Trump but rather focus on themselves. Time to stop complaining about America First and get on with putting Europe First.

Initial talks between Denmark, the U.S. and Greenland over the Arctic island’s fate “went well” but the dispute is not over, the Danish foreign minister said Thursday.   Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt met with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington on Jan. 14 and agreed to establish a “working group” to discuss Greenland and Arctic security amid U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands to take over the self-ruling Danish territory. “After that there was a huge derailment,” Rasmussen said, apparently referring to Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on several European countries unless they agreed to hand over Greenland — a threat that he eventually walked back after saying he’d reached a “framework” toward a deal with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, the details of which have not been made public. “Things escalated, but now we are back on track,” Rasmussen told reporters at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels. The first meeting of the working group on Wednesday “went well and took place in a constructive atmosphere and tone.” “I’m a little more optimistic today than I was a week ago,” he added, but warned the dispute has not been “resolved” and more talks are planned. Trump’s threats to seize Greenland roiled Europe and fractured transatlantic relations, leading to calls from leaders for the EU to become more unified and independent to ensure its own security. France and Germany went so far as to call for the EU to explore deploying its “trade bazooka,” the Anti-Coercion Instrument, before Trump backed down. Rasmussen credited Trump’s climbdown from launching a trade war to a “very strong European signal of solidarity” over Greenland. “It has become clear that the price for going down that path has been too high,” he said.

BRUSSELS ― Slovakia’s prime minister told EU leaders at a summit last week that a meeting with Donald Trump left him shocked by the U.S. president’s state of mind, five European diplomats briefed on the conversation said. Robert Fico, one of the few EU leaders to frequently support Trump’s stance on Europe’s weaknesses, was concerned about the U.S. president’s “psychological state,” two of the diplomats said. Fico used the word “dangerous” to describe how the U.S. president came across during their face-to-face meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Jan. 17, according to two of the diplomats. The conversation between Fico and his European counterparts took place in Brussels on Jan. 22 on the sidelines of an emergency EU summit arranged to discuss transatlantic relations in the wake of Trump’s threats to seize Greenland. Leaders used that gathering to try to calm tensions after the U.S. president walked back his threat to slap tariffs on some European countries over the issue a day earlier. The Slovak prime minister made his remarks in a separate informal huddle between some leaders and chief EU officials rather than during the formal roundtable talks, the diplomats said. While none of the diplomats who spoke to POLITICO were present, individual leaders briefed them separately on the content of the conversation shortly after it. All the diplomats were granted anonymity by POLITICO to allow them to discuss the confidential exchanges between leaders. They come from four different EU governments. The fifth is a senior EU official. All of them said they didn’t know the details of what Trump had said to Fico that had triggered his reaction. Fico’s comments are especially pertinent because he’s among Europe’s most pro-Trump politicians, touting his access to the U.S. president in a Facebook video after the Mar-a-Lago meeting and voicing support for Washington’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine war. A year ago, Fico spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference and told Americans “your president is doing Europe a great service.” Spokespeople for Fico did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said: “This is absolutely total fake news from anonymous European diplomats who are trying to be relevant. The meeting at Mar-a-Lago was positive and productive.” A senior administration official who was in the meeting with Trump and Fico, granted anonymity to describe the conversation, said they couldn’t recall any awkward moments or off-key exchanges. They said the meeting, which Fico had requested, was pleasant, normal and included some lighthearted exchanges that were captured by a White House photographer. Fico seemed to be “traumatized” by his encounter with Trump, one of the European diplomats said. Fico characterized Trump as being “out of his mind,” a diplomat said, using the words briefed to them by their leader, who was directly involved in the conversation. DEEP CRISIS Fico’s private concerns contrast with the public account of his Mar-a-Lago visit that he gave via his official Facebook post. In that video, Fico said his invitation to Trump’s Florida residence was a sign of “high respect and trust” from the U.S. president. The two leaders discussed Ukraine as well as their shared view that the EU was in “deep crisis” during what Fico called “informal and open talks.” Fico, who signed a civil nuclear cooperation deal with Washington while on his trip to the U.S., did not mention Trump’s claims on Greenland or his operation to seize Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro earlier in January in the video. He said discussions had focused on issues including Ukraine, asserting that Washington sought his view because Slovakia is “not a Brussels parrot” — meaning that it does not echo the positions of EU institutions. Robert Fico characterized Donald Trump as being “out of his mind,” a diplomat said, using the words briefed to them by their leader, who was directly involved in the conversation. | Shawn Thew/EPA Even without Fico’s remarks, Europe’s leaders and senior officials are increasingly concerned about the U.S. president’s “unpredictability,” according to a sixth EU diplomat, who was not briefed directly by a leader on last week’s conversation. Fears about the U.S. president’s health are “rapidly becoming a more conversed topic at all levels,” said an EU official who is involved in political discussions in Brussels and between capitals. Trump, 79, has repeatedly and forcefully denied that he suffers from any condition affecting his cognition, telling New York Magazine this week that he doesn’t suffer from Alzheimer’s disease. ‘I WON’T DO THAT, OK?’ Ever since Trump returned to office a year ago, European governments have been grappling with how to deal with his positions on issues such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, his administration’s apparent backing for far-right politicians, barriers to free trade, and the U.S. role in the continent’s defense. Earlier this month, Trump threatened new tariffs on eight European countries, including France, Germany and the U.K., which he said were blocking his efforts to take over Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory belonging to Denmark, an EU and NATO member. He also didn’t rule out taking the island by force. In a speech in Davos, Switzerland last Wednesday, the U.S. president demanded “immediate negotiations” to obtain Greenland, but ruled out the use of military action. “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be frankly unstoppable. But I won’t do that, OK?” Trump said in the speech. After the speech, he said he’d agreed on a framework of a deal on Greenland with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and withdrew his threat, although the details of the apparent agreement have still not been made public. At last week’s summit, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the EU’s two most powerful leaders, warned their counterparts that despite that apparent deal, the bloc needed to become less dependent on the U.S. for its security. Speaking after the gathering, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen suggested the leaders had learned the lesson that standing up to Trump in a “firm” but “non-escalatory” way was an effective strategy that they should continue.  Jacopo Barigazzi, Camille Gijs and Tom Nicholson contributed reporting.