Poland scrambled fighter jets and placed its air defense systems on heightened alert overnight as Moscow launched one of its heaviest air assaults on Ukraine in recent weeks.  The Russian attack sent shockwaves across NATO’s eastern flank just a day before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is due to meet U.S. President Donald Trump to discuss a newly revised peace proposal. Poland’s Operational Command posted Saturday on X that military aviation operations were launched in Polish airspace “in connection with the activity of long-range aviation of the Russian Federation carrying out strikes on the territory of Ukraine.”  Fighter jets were scrambled and ground-based air defense and radar reconnaissance systems were put on readiness as a preventive measure to protect Polish airspace. The move came as Russia attacked Ukraine overnight with nearly 500 drones — many of them Iranian-designed Shaheds — and around 40 missiles, including Kinzhal hypersonic weapons, according to Ukrainian authorities. “Another Russian attack is still ongoing,” Zelenskyy wrote on X at mid-morning Saturday, saying the primary target was Kyiv, where energy facilities and civilian infrastructure were hit. He said residential buildings were damaged and rescue teams were searching for people trapped under rubble, while electricity and heating were cut in parts of the capital amid freezing temperatures. Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said at least one person was killed and more than 20 others were injured in Kyiv, with multiple civilian sites damaged and search-and-rescue operations continuing. Zelenskyy said the barrage underscored Russian President Vladimir Putin’s lack of seriousness about ending the war. “Russian representatives engage in lengthy talks, but in reality, Kinzhals and Shaheds speak for them,” Zelenskyy wrote. The attack came one day before Zelenskyy is expected to meet Trump in Florida to present a revised 20-point peace plan, including proposals on security guarantees and territorial arrangements, talks Trump has publicly framed as contingent on his approval. Several hours later, Poland’s military said the air operation had ended and that no violation of Polish airspace had been detected.

DUBLIN — Neutral and poorly armed Ireland — long viewed as “Europe’s blind spot” — announced Thursday it will spend €1.7 billion on improved military equipment, capabilities and facilities to deter drones and potential Russian sabotage of undersea cables. The five-year plan, published as Defense Minister Helen McEntee visited the Curragh army base near Dublin,  aims in part to reassure European allies that their leaders will be safe from attack when Ireland — a non-NATO member largely dependent on neighboring Britain for its security — hosts key EU summits in the second half of next year. McEntee said Ireland intends to buy and deploy €19 million in counter-drone technology “as soon as possible, not least because of the upcoming European presidency.” Ireland’s higher military spending — representing a 55 percent increase from previous commitments — comes barely a week after a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy exposed Ireland’s inability to secure its own seas and skies. Five unmarked drones buzzed an Irish naval vessel supposed to be guarding the flight path of Zelenskyy’s plane shortly after the Ukrainian leader touched down at Dublin Airport. The Irish ship didn’t fire at the drones, which eventually disappeared. Irish authorities have been unable to identify their source, but suspect that they were operated from an unidentified ship later spotted in European Space Agency satellite footage. The Russian embassy in Dublin denied any involvement. Ireland’s navy has just eight ships, but sufficient crews to operate only two at a time, even though the country has vast territorial waters containing critical undersea infrastructure and pipelines that supply three-fourths of Ireland’s natural gas. The country has no fighter jets and no military-grade radar and sonar. Some but not all of those critical gaps will be plugged by 2028, McEntee pledged. She said Ireland would roll out military-grade radar starting next year, buy sonar systems for the navy, and acquire up to a dozen helicopters, including four already ordered from Airbus. The army would upgrade its Swiss-made fleet of 80 Piranha III armored vehicles and develop drone and anti-drone units. The air force’s fixed-wing aircraft will be replaced by 2030 — probably by what would be Ireland’s first wing of combat fighters. Thursday’s announcement coincided with publication of an independent assessment of Ireland’s rising security vulnerabilities on land, sea and air. The report, coauthored by the Dublin-based think tank IIEA and analysts at Deloitte, found that U.S. multinationals operating in Ireland were at risk of cyberattacks and espionage by Russian, Chinese and Indian intelligence agents operating in the country.

BERLIN — Germany’s Bundestag budget committee is planning to sign off on over €2.6 billion in new military programs, according to a confidential list seen by POLITICO. The approvals, set for next week, mark another broad procurement round as Berlin ramps up defense spending and reenergizes its arms industry. The 11-item package includes almost every capability area: drones, long-range missiles, soldier systems, logistics vehicles and critical radar upgrades.  For Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government, it’s another step toward making the Bundeswehr a war-ready force while giving German manufacturers a steadier pipeline of long-term orders. Some of the biggest checks are being written for drones. MPs will clear about €68 million for Uranos KI, an AI-enabled reconnaissance network built in competing versions by Airbus Defence and Space and German defense-AI company Helsing. Another €86 million will keep the German Heron TP, operated by Airbus DS Airborne Solutions and based on Israel’s Heron TP, flying into the 2030s. Roughly €16 million will go to Aladin, a short-range reconnaissance drone developed by Munich-based start-up Quantum Systems. Air power also gets a significant boost. MPs are set to approve around €445 million for a new batch of Joint Strike Missiles, produced by Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace and integrated for Germany’s incoming Lockheed Martin F-35A fleet. Separate contracts worth €37 million will replace obsolete radar components on Eurofighter jets.  NH90 naval helicopters, built by NHIndustries — a consortium of Airbus Helicopters, Leonardo and Fokker — will receive a parallel radar upgrade, as the model returned to headlines after Norway settled a long-running availability dispute with the manufacturer. At the soldier level, the Bundeswehr will move forward with close to €760 million for new G95 assault rifles from Heckler & Koch, nearly €490 million for laser-light modules supplied by Rheinmetall Soldier Electronics, and about €140 million for headset-based communications systems produced by Rheinmetall Electronics with major subcontractors 3M and CeoTronics. And in a sign of Berlin’s effort to rebuild military logistics at scale, MPs will approve roughly €380 million for off-road military trucks from Mercedes-Benz and around €175 million for heavy tank-transport trailers built by DOLL. These contracts directly feed Germany’s defense-industrial base as Berlin pushes industry to deliver at wartime speed.

A threat from President Donald Trump to impose “substantial” tariffs on countries that regulate U.S. tech companies is riling up Europe. But the continent’s digital regulations were not Trump’s primary target. Trump’s Aug. 25 post threatening to penalize “all countries with Digital Taxes, Legislation, Rules, or Regulations,” did not specify any territory by name. However, four people familiar with the White House’s conversations on digital trade policy say it was largely a response to several pieces of tech-focused legislation under consideration in South Korea’s parliament. The people were granted anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations. Trump’s threat is poised to complicate the talks between Seoul and Washington to nail down the details of the preliminary trade agreement their governments reached in July. At the same time, it has alarmed leaders in the European Union and United Kingdom, who worry Trump’s new demand could upend tentative trade agreements they have reached. “Trump’s post was a warning shot to South Korea and other countries weighing new rules on digital trade not to follow the European Union’s approach,” according to a person who spoke with Trump the day of his Truth Social post. Trump’s missive came shortly after he met with new South Korean President Lee Jae Myung at the White House, and after Lee’s government refused to sign onto a joint statement on the preliminary trade agreement that included a pledge to block legislation to regulate large tech companies operating in the country. While the South Korean government did not officially respond to the post, it drew an immediate response from EU officials, who declared it their “sovereign right” to oversee economic activities on their soil. Several EU leaders vigorously refuted the Trump administration’s claim that European restrictions unfairly target American tech companies. And EU Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said its regulation “does not look at the color of a company, at the jurisdiction of a company, nor the owner of a company.” But while Europe’s digital regulations are despised by U.S. tech giants, the White House is more focused on countries like South Korea, India, Turkey and Brazil, which are currently considering draft rules loosely modeled on Europe’s laws. Senior White House officials see South Korea’s response as a litmus test on whether they will be able to pressure other trading partners to abort pushes for new digital restrictions, three of the people said. “Part of it was the frustration that Europe hasn’t budged,” said another person close to the White House on Trump’s post. “But there was more a recognition … that South Korea was probably among three or four other jurisdictions potentially looking to be first followers of the EU — to mirror or mimic that approach. So he was like, ‘Okay, South Korea is here, their new president has said this is a priority, and we’ve got to nip this in the bud.’” A White House official told POLITICO that Trump has “consistently opposed” digital regulations from countries that target American tech companies. Those discussions are “part of almost every trade negotiation we’re having,” the official added. South Korean lawmakers in recent years have floated a series of proposals that could classify major U.S. tech companies as monopolies or gate-keepers, and open them up to steep fines, including the Platform Competition Promotion Act proposed in 2023. Those and similar proposals are drawing growing criticism from Trump allies in the U.S., including lawmakers like Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), who co-led a letter sent in late July warning that Seoul’s proposed rules could give Chinese tech companies an edge there. Leading MAGA voices have also taken note: conservative activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk shared a post on X on Aug. 24 complaining that South Korea’s government “still targets U.S. industry with regulations while giving Chinese companies a free pass.” “Only Trump can fix this, no more free passes for China while we get punished,” Kirk wrote. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has brought up the legislation in trade talks with his South Korean counterparts, but digital trade wasn’t addressed in the limited trade agreement the two countries announced late July. The announcement — which Trump posted on social media — was scant on details, saying only that South Korea had agreed to a 15 percent tariff on its exports in exchange for a pledge of more than $350 billion in investment and an additional $100 billion in energy purchases. Ahead of the president’s meeting with Lee, however, senior Trump administration officials pressed the South Korean government to sign a joint statement on the deal that included language pledging to abandon proposals for digital trade restrictions, according to three people familiar with the discussions. South Korea rejected that draft language. Seoul insists it will press ahead with some form of digital regulation, though it has adjusted its approach to address expectations from the Trump administration. As a result of trade talks with Washington, South Korea’s liberal party will give up on at least one proposal, known as the Online Platform Regulation Act, according to a senior official quoted in local reports, and will instead consider pared back digital rules. Some South Korean officials say they would be willing to ease digital proposals that the Trump administration claims discriminate against American companies, and the Trump administration believes they are making progress toward convincing Lee’s administration to reject any digital legislation that hits American companies. “A lot is on the table and a lot of those demands are far tougher for South Korea than the digital issues,” said a person close to the White House. While South Korea’s legislation has long been on Big Tech’s radar, it only recently came to Trump’s attention, following days of briefings that highlighted Lee’s pledges to tighten digital regulations during the country’s presidential campaign earlier this year. High-profile Trump supporters have also recently taken note of the tech debate taking place in South Korea. Kirk’s X post was also shared with the president during a briefing ahead of the summit, as was an op-ed from former Trump national security adviser Robert O’Brien warning South Korea’s digital legislation, if passed, would be a “gift” to the Chinese government. Trump echoed that language in his Truth Social post, suggesting that other countries’ digital regulations “outrageously, give a complete pass to China’s largest Tech Companies.” “If Trump wants to go after Amazon, Google, or other U.S. tech firms here at home, that’s his prerogative, but other countries shouldn’t be messing with American tech firms. That’s clearly how folks like Charlie Kirk feel, and I think that’s how the president feels too,” said a former Republican official, who frequently meets with the president and senior White House officials. White House aides also presented Trump with letters from Republican lawmakers asking the administration to address the digital dispute as part of trade negotiations with South Korea, the people said. Ahead of Lee’s visit, House Ways and Means Republicans Adrian Smith (Neb.) and Carol Miller (W.Va.) released public statements calling on the administration to address the country’s digital proposals, and led a letter from more than 40 House Republicans warning that South Korea’s measures would disproportionately target U.S. tech firms. Said Miller: “President Trump is a known dealmaker, and I am confident that he will help secure fair market access for our digital companies operating abroad.”

BRUSSELS — The European Union is trying to stop space from turning into a junkyard. The European Commission on Wednesday proposed a new Space Act that seeks to dial up regulatory oversight of satellite operators — including requiring them to tackle their impact on space debris and pollution, or face significant fines. There are more than 10,000 satellites now in orbit and growing space junk to match. In recent years, more companies — most notably Elon Musk’s Starlink — have ventured into low-Earth orbit, from where stronger telecommunication connections can be established but which requires more satellites to ensure full coverage. “Space is congested and contested,” a Commission official said ahead of Wednesday’s proposal in a briefing with reporters. The official was granted anonymity to disclose details ahead of the formal presentation. The EU executive wants to set up a database to track objects circulating in space; make authorization processes clearer to help companies launch satellites and provide services in Europe; and force national governments to give regulators oversight powers. The Space Act proposal would also require space companies to have launch safety and end-of-life disposal plans, take extra steps to limit space debris, light and radio pollution, and calculate the environmental footprint of their operations. Mega and giga constellations, which are networks of at least 100 and 1,000 spacecraft, respectively, face extra rules to coordinate orbit traffic and avoid collisions. “It’s starting to look like a jungle up there. We need to intervene,” said French liberal lawmaker Christophe Grudler. “Setting traffic rules for satellites might not sound as sexy as sending people to Mars. But that’s real, that’s now and that has an impact on our daily lives.” Under the proposal, operators would also have to run cybersecurity risk assessments, introduce cryptographic and encryption-level protection, and are encouraged to share more information with corporate rivals to fend off cyberattacks. Breaches of the rules could result in fines of up to twice the profits gained or losses avoided as a result of the infringement, or, where these amounts cannot be determined, up to 2 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. Satellites exclusively used for defense or national security are excluded from the law. THE MUSK PROBLEM The Space Act proposal comes as the EU increasingly sees a homegrown satellite industry as crucial to its connectivity, defense and sovereignty ambitions. Musk’s dominance in the field has become a clear vulnerability for Europe. His Starlink network has showcased at scale how thousands of satellites can reach underserved areas and fix internet voids, but it has also revealed his hold over Ukraine’s wartime communication, highlighting the danger of relying on a single, foreign player. Top lawmakers in the European Parliament, including Grudler, earlier this month advocated for a “clearly ring-fenced budget of at least €60 billion” devoted to space policy, while French President Emmanuel Macron last week called for the next EU budget to earmark more money to boost Europe’s space sector. That’s crucial “if we want to stay in the game of the great international powers,” he said shortly after the French government announced it would ramp up its stake in Eutelsat, a Franco-British satellite company and Starlink rival. The Space Act proposal introduces additional requirements for players from outside the EU that operate in the European market, unless their home country is deemed to have equivalent oversight by the Commission, which could be the case for the U.S. They will also have to appoint a legal representative in the bloc. The proposal is set to apply from 2030 and will now head to the Council of the EU, where governments hash out their position, and the European Parliament for negotiations on the final law. Aude van den Hove contributed reporting.

The Pentagon is poised to shift its oversight of Greenland by putting it under U.S. Northern Command, a symbolic gesture that would more closely align the island territory with the U.S. as President Donald Trump continues to show interest in taking control over the Arctic landmass. The shift in oversight, which could come as soon as this week, could also help the U.S. broaden its Golden Dome missile shield by providing more radars for coverage. Under the plan, Greenland would shift from European Command’s jurisdiction to Northern Command, which is responsible for overseeing the security of North America, according to a DOD official and two people familiar with the planning. The people were granted anonymity to discuss the move ahead of its announcement. The switch is the most concrete step yet in the Trump administration’s months-long effort to gain ownership over Greenland, an autonomous island aligned with Denmark. Trump briefly brought up buying Greenland during his first term, but has talked about it repeatedly since winning the election last November, alarming the island’s 58,000 inhabitants and frustrating the Danish government, which says it has no interest in selling. Making Greenland part of Northcom will be heavily scrutinized in Denmark and throughout NATO, which has been uneasy over Trump’s months-long campaign to take control over the island and his refusal to rule out military action to seize territory. Denmark and the semi-autonomous Faroe Islands will remain under European Command, creating a symbolic and operational split between those territories and Greenland. “From the perspective of geography, the move makes some sense,” said one of the people familiar. “From a political perspective, however, this clearly is going to worry Europe,” the official added. The switch in jurisdiction is part of the Pentagon leadership’s review of the Unified Command Plan, which outlines the areas of responsibility for the department’s six geographic combatant commanders. While the Greenland split doesn’t involve any major shifts in leadership, other proposals — including combining Northern Command and Southern Command and pulling the Africa Command back under the Germany-based European Command — would have deep impacts on the number of three- and four-star officers serving in the military, and on how many assets are assigned to different areas of the globe. The Trump administration has for months talked about the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security, pointing out that its location in the North Atlantic makes American control critical for stepped-up missile defense programs and monitoring Russia and Chinese shipping in the Arctic. The change opens the possibility of adding more Golden Dome radar systems on Greenland and expanding that network of sensors, while more closely aligning the island with Canadian and American regional defense plans. The Danish embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. A DOD official deferred to the White House, which did not respond to a request for comment. Northern Command is chiefly responsible for protecting U.S. territory and oversees missions such as the southern border, air and missile defense, and working with Canada and Mexico on joint security matters. Putting Greenland under Northern Command would, in effect, cleave Greenland from Denmark when it comes to how the island is prioritized in policy discussions at the Pentagon and the White House. The second person familiar with the planning said the Danish government has not been formally briefed on the upcoming move. The U.S. has long had a military presence on the island. In March, Vice President JD Vance and then-national security adviser Mike Waltz visited the Pituffik Space Base, which boasts the Pentagon’s northernmost deepwater port and has long functioned as a strategic location to watch Russia and China. In Greenland, Vance urged the Arctic island to “cut a deal” with Washington, saying, “I think that you’d be a lot better coming under the United States security umbrella than you have been under Denmark’s security umbrella.” In January, the Danish government pledged to spend an extra $2 billion on Greenland security initiatives, in part to placate Trump’s security concerns. But NATO and European officials have been cautious about the American president’s interest in the island. Trump’s comments on the importance of the Arctic have caught the attention of NATO leaders. The alliance’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, said last week that “for NATO, we’re getting more involved” in Arctic security issues. He added that Trump calling attention to Russian and Chinese moves in the region marked a positive development. In an interview with NBC last month, Trump said he would not rule out taking Greenland by military force. “I don’t say I’m going to do it, but I don’t rule out anything,” he said. “We need Greenland very badly.”

A British man has been indicted in the United States on charges of attempting to pass “sensitive American technology” to China. John Miller, 63, was indicted by U.S. federal juries on Friday along with Chinese national Cui Guanghai for allegedly trying to export a device used for encryption and decryption to Beijing, according to a statement from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. The two men, who were arrested in Serbia, discussed ways to smuggle the device to China via Hong Kong in a blender, according to the statement. The pair “solicited the procurement of U.S. defense articles, including missiles, air defense radar, drones and cryptographic devices with associated crypto ignition keys for unlawful export from the United States to the People’s Republic of China,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. The case comes amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and China, as the two engage in an escalating trade war. On Sunday, Beijing warned Washington to not “play with fire” after U.S. defense chief Pete Hegseth said China could be gearing up to invade Taiwan. Both men are also accused of attempting to “harass” a Chinese-American artist and known critic of Beijing by trying to install a tracking device on the victim’s car and slashing his tires. The U.S. is seeking to extradite the pair from Serbia. The two men could face up to 20 years in prison under the U.S. Arms Export Control Act if found guilty, and 10 years for smuggling. U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche called the plot a “blatant assault” on the country’s national security, adding the American government would not “allow hostile nations to infiltrate or exploit our defense systems.” Miller, who lives in Kent in the U.K. and describes himself as a recruitment specialist, reportedly referred to Chinese President Xi Jinping as “the boss” in intercepted phone calls. He was caught in a sting operation after discussing his plans with FBI agents posing as arms dealers, according to media reports. Britain’s Foreign Office said it was providing consular assistance to Miller following his arrest in Serbia on April 24.

Moscow sent 273 drones to Ukraine in a record-breaking attack early Sunday, two days after Russian President Vladimir Putin snubbed ceasefire talks with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Turkey. The attack was the single largest since the Kremlin started its full-scale invasion in 2022, the Ukrainian air force said. A woman died in the Kyiv region, while the assault also targeted the eastern Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions, officials said. The number of casualties might rise, the Kyiv Independent reported. Russia seemingly used a lot of decoy drones, the Ukrainian air force said, because almost half of the attacking vehicles simply disappeared from the radar systems. Some 88 of them were intercepted, it said. U.S. President Donald Trump late Saturday said he will call both Putin and Zelenskyy on Monday as he looks to broker an end to the conflict. Although Zelenskyy attended a meeting in Turkey last week to discuss a ceasefire, Putin didn’t even send a minister. Europe, meanwhile, is far from discussing peacekeeping troops for Ukraine, new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said as he was visiting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in Rome. A ceasefire is the necessary first step, he said. “There is no reason to talk about [troops] at the moment; we are far from that. We want the weapons to stop, the killing to end,” Merz said on Saturday.   At a meeting in the Albanian capital of Tirana on Friday, European leaders discussed further sanctions threats to pressure Russia.

BRUSSELS — For decades, global finance has operated on a peculiar kind of authority — one without armies, enforcement powers, or a democratic mandate. Instead, the officials who govern the sprawling, interconnected financial system rely on something more intangible: trust, consensus, and the quiet credibility of technocracy. But now, under the Donald Trump administration, the U.S. — long a major voice in international rulemaking — is threatening to take a wrecking ball to that system.  Until now, these global bodies have generally flown below the radar, leveraging good relationships with governments and the technical obscurity of their work to avoid public scrutiny. But in the age of increased politicization of regulators and TV adverts bashing bank regulations, that way of doing business may no longer hold true.  America’s move to reject global standards and its threat to withdraw from the bodies that draft them risks pulling the rug out from global standard-setting as a whole. For such a seemingly technical topic, the stakes are high. With markets roiling from the U.S. government’s tariff bomb, the risks of financial turmoil are closer than ever — a message Wall Street titans have been trying to impress upon Trump, with figures such as JP Morgan head Jamie Dimon warning of diminished U.S. credibility and even a recession in response to U.S. policies. Yet, without the firepower of the U.S., global regulators would be hamstrung in their efforts to contain a crisis. AMERICA FIRST The U.S. will review its membership of “all international organizations” within 180 days to decide whether support or membership should be withdrawn, following a Feb. 3 executive order from Trump. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the U.S. wants a “sustainable international economic system” that better serves its interests, announcing on Wednesday that the U.S. will seek reforms rather than withdrawing outright from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Yet, it remains unclear whether that position will extend to global bodies like the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, whose standards are toothless unless accompanied by national laws. The same applies to the Financial Stability Board, which was set up in the wake of the 2008 crisis to prevent another one from happening. Domestically, Trump has rolled out a major deregulation agenda for the finance sector. And while the U.S.’ plans to roll out global banking reforms agreed after the 2008 crisis, known as Basel III, were paused amid heavy lobbying during the Biden administration, the future of the package in the U.S. looks all but dead now under Trump, with industry players expecting a much lighter rewrite. Donald Trump has rolled out a major deregulation agenda for the finance sector. | Ken Cedeno/EPA If the U.S., a founding member of many of the bodies and the major player in the capitalist system, doesn’t put stock in the global rules anymore, their legitimacy comes into question. America’s approach to the Basel III standards has already sparked a race to the bottom with other major jurisdictions. The U.K, for example, has delayed its rollout of the standards until it knows what the U.S. will do, while the EU is delaying the application of some parts of the rules. STIFF UPPER LIP Publicly, global finance watchdogs are bullish about the U.S.’ continued participation. Jean-Paul Servais, chairman of the board of IOSCO, the global standard-setter for financial markets regulation, told POLITICO in March that he is “at ease about the capacity to work together” with the U.S. in future. “Frankly speaking, it’s not a problem or an issue for me, because I’m used to having excellent contact with my American colleagues,” Servais said. But behind the scenes, the mood isn’t so confident. In background conversations with POLITICO, three top officials at global standard-setters expressed their concerns and fears for the future if the U.S. decides to take a wrecking ball to international financial rulemaking.  One expressed frustration that global watchdogs have no enforcement power, and are reliant on the goodwill of member countries to roll out the rules that are created. That means that even when the vast majority of their members support and implement the rules, foot-dragging from one major jurisdiction can spark a race to the bottom from other members. The official said the situation is less an indictment of specific global bodies and more of the dwindling credibility of the U.S.-led international order. Another painted a picture of standard-setters in survival mode, aiming to preserve existing commitments from being watered down while acknowledging that future work on politically sensitive areas like climate risk will be more difficult. A third indicated that rules would likely be less ambitious to garner support of all members, as they said there would be no point agreeing to standards which are then not implemented by certain jurisdictions. But the existential threat of a full U.S. pullout appears to be too loaded an issue to address. None of the standard-setters POLITICO spoke with would comment directly, either on the record or on background, on whether they thought the U.S. would pull out, or what it would mean for their organizations. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the U.S. wants a “sustainable international economic system.” | [PHOTO BY Drago/EPA LIMPING ON For now, global watchdogs are waiting for the 180-day deadline for a decision on U.S. withdrawals to pass.  “It’s a guessing game right now,” said Thorsten Beck, an economist who heads the Florence School of Banking and Finance at the European University Institute. Although Beck did not predict a full U.S. withdrawal from the bodies, he said America is likely to “take less of an interest in being part of these discussions” and instead “concentrate more on what is supposedly best for them.”   If so, that would point to more regulatory fragmentation, meaning cross-border finance firms will have to contend with different rules in different countries. In a situation where the U.S. remains a member of these bodies, but no longer actively participates in creating and following global finance rules, “you do not have development of global regulatory standards anymore. Everybody does their own thing,” Beck said. If the U.S. does pull out, the global bodies would become “more of a social club, a talking club and not relevant anymore,” Beck added. Emerging powers like the BRICs, and in particular China, would likely play a larger role in global talks on finance regulation — a trend one of the top officials POLITICO spoke with echoed.  The difference would mainly be felt in a future financial crisis, Beck said. Without the U.S., the world’s regulators would be far less effective at coordinating and acting quickly — both actions which rely on trust and good relationships — to contain a crisis. “If you disengage from the world, then this trust cannot be built up anymore.” Ben Munster contributed reporting.

An apparent setback for the U.S. tech sector — nearly $800 million in European Union fines against Apple and Meta — could be just what the industry needs to get its global anti-regulation campaign back onto President Donald Trump’s radar. Tech lobbyists have long wanted Washington to push back forcefully on the European Commission’s 2022 Digital Markets Act, a package of antitrust rules that lobbyists claim unfairly targets American tech companies. On Wednesday the first penalties came down under the act: €500 million against Apple and €200 million against Meta, along with significant requirements for both companies to change their business practices. Now that the EU’s tech competition rules have finally hit U.S. companies directly, “we’re starting to see the rubber hit the road,” said Katie Harbath, a longtime former public policy director at Meta. Just hours after the penalties were announced, lobbyists for Meta and top tech groups attacked the fines — notably referring to them as “tariffs,” a legally debatable point seemingly designed to get Trump’s attention. In a Wednesday statement, Joel Kaplan, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, said the EU’s €200 million fine — along with required changes to Meta’s advertising model — “effectively imposes a multi-billion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service.” The EU’s fines mark an “escalation” in the transatlantic trade conflict, said Kay Hazemi-Jebelli, senior director for Europe at tech lobbying group Chamber of Progress, which is funded in part by Apple. He said the new penalties against Apple and Meta “should focus the U.S. administration’s attention on the DMA in particular.” The Trump administration appears ready to take the bait: In a statement to POLITICO, National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes called Wednesday’s fines against Apple and Meta a “novel form of economic extortion” that “will not be tolerated by the United States.” “Extraterritorial regulations that specifically target and undermine American companies, stifle innovation, and enable censorship will be recognized as barriers to trade and a direct threat to free civil society,” said Hughes, calling for an end to “the EU’s regulatory death spiral.” Harbath called Kaplan’s invocation of tariffs a “very clear” attempt to tie Europe’s tech regulations — including the DMA, which passed in 2022 and took effect in 2024 — into Trump’s 2025 trade war. The tech industry’s record with Trump so far is mixed at best. While top tech CEOs have publicly cozied up to the administration — and in some cases appealed directly to the president — the Trump administration continues to press forward its antitrust cases against Meta, Apple and other tech giants. “For Trump, it’s all about what’s in the best interest for Trump and the administration,” Harbath said. “All these companies are just trying to do whatever they can around the edges to sort of impact that.” Asked whether Meta wanted Trump to target the DMA in upcoming trade negotiations, spokesperson Andy Stone did not comment directly, but flagged a report released last month by the U.S. Trade Representative that called the law a non-tariff trade barrier. He also pointed to Kaplan’s February claim that Meta “won’t shy away” from asking the Trump administration to defend the U.S. tech sector against EU rules. Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU’s top economic minister, is slated to meet on Friday with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. An Apple spokesperson declined to comment when asked if the DMA should be a negotiating point in U.S.-EU trade negotiations. The spokesperson called the bloc’s €500 million fine against Apple, and mandated behavioral changes, “bad for the privacy and security of our users” and said they “force us to give away our technology for free.” Harbath said the EU may need to target additional tech companies, perhaps with higher penalties, before Trump threatens the bloc with tariffs specifically over the DMA. “I think there’s going to need to be potentially more,” she said. Harbath suggested the White House won’t really start to pay attention until the EU comes down on companies like X — the Elon Musk-owned social media platform that conspicuously avoided DMA fines on Wednesday.