Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Der Kanzler ist zu seiner ersten Asienreise im Amt in Indien. In Gujarat trifft er Narendra Modi. Es geht um Rohstoffe, Rüstung, Fachkräfte und die strategische Abgrenzung von China. Hans von der Burchard ordnet ein, warum Indien für diese Bundesregierung an Bedeutung gewinnt und wo die politischen und wirtschaftlichen Fallstricke liegen. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview erklärt Sebastian Roloff, wirtschaftspolitischer Sprecher der SPD, welche Erwartungen die Koalition an die Indienreise knüpft und warum Deutschland bei Rüstungsdeals und Russlandfragen nur begrenzt Druck ausüben kann. Die Machthaber-Folge über Narendra Modi findet ihr hier. Parallel reisen Außen- und Finanzminister in die andere Richtung. Johann Wadephul und Lars Klingbeil sind in Washington. Dort geht es um Grönland, erneut Russland und vor allem um Seltene Erden. Rasmus Buchsteiner erläutert, warum die Gespräche über Rohstoffe für die deutsche Industrie strategisch entscheidend sind und wie schwierig der Versuch ist, Abhängigkeiten von China zu reduzieren. 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. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Donald Trump started his second term by calling the European Union an “atrocity” on trade. He said it was created to “screw” Americans. As he imposed the highest tariffs in a century, he derided Europe as “pathetic.” And to round off the year, he slammed the continent as “weak” and “decaying.” In the midst of all this, Ursula von der Leyen, the EU’s top official, somehow summoned the composure to fly to Trump’s Scottish golf resort to smile and shake hands on a one-sided trade deal that will inflict untold pain on European exporters. She even managed a thumbs up in the family photo with Trump afterwards. Yes, it’s been one hell of a year for the world’s biggest trading relationship. The economic consequences will take years to materialize — but the short-term impact is manifest: in forcing Europe to face up to its overreliance on the U.S. security umbrella and find new friends to trade with. With a warning that the following might trigger flashbacks, we take you through POLITICO’s coverage of Europe’s traumatic trade year at the hands of Trump: JANUARY As Trump returns to the White House, we explore how America’s trading partners are wargaming his trade threats. The big idea? Escalate to de-escalate. It’s a playbook we later saw unfold in Trump’s clashes with China and Canada. But, in the event, the EU never dares to escalate. Trump’s return does galvanize the EU into advancing trade deals with other partners — like Mexico or Latin America’s Mercosur bloc. “Europe will keep seeking cooperation — not only with our long-time like-minded friends, but with any country we share interests with,” von der Leyen tells the World Economic Forum the day after Trump is sworn in. FEBRUARY As Trump announces that he will reimpose steel and aluminum tariffs, von der Leyen vows a “firm and proportionate response.” The bloc has strengthened its trade defenses since his first term, and needs to be ready to activate them, advises former top Commission trade official Jean-Luc Demarty: “Especially with a personality like Trump, if we don’t react, he’ll trample us.” That begs the question as to whether trade wars are as easy to win, as Trump likes to say. The short answer is, of course, “no.” Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, meanwhile, packs a suitcase full of concessions on his first mission to Washington. At the end of the month, Brussels threatens to use its trade “bazooka” — a trade-defense weapon called the Anti-Coercion Instrument — after Trump says the European Union was created to “screw” America. MARCH We called it early with this cover story by Nicholas Vinocur and Camille Gijs: Trump wants to destroy the EU — and rebuild it in his image. As Trump’s steel tariffs enter force, Brussels announces retaliatory measures that far exceed those it imposed in his first term. And, as he builds up to his “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, the EU signals retaliation extending beyond goods to services such as tech and banking. (None of these are implemented.) APRIL “They rip us off. It’s so sad to see. It’s so pathetic,” Trump taunts the EU as he throws it into the sin bin along with China, Japan, Taiwan and Korea. In his Liberation Day announcement in the White House Rose Garden, Trump whacks the EU with a 20 percent “reciprocal” tariff. Von der Leyen’s response the next morning is weak: She says only that the EU is “prepared to respond.” That’s because, even though the EU has strengthened its trade armory, its 27 member countries can’t agree to deploy it. The bloc nonetheless busies itself with drawing up a retaliation list of goods made in states run by Trump’s Republican allies — including trucks, cigarettes and ice cream. MAY The EU’s hit list gets longer in response to Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs — with planes and automobiles targeted in a €100 billion counterstrike that looks scary on paper but is never acted on.  We report exclusively that Brussels is ramping up contacts with a Pacific trade group called the CPTPP. And we assess the chances of Trump pressuring the EU into a big, beautiful trade deal by threatening to raise duties on European exports to 50 percent. The verdict? Dream on!  JUNE The setting shifts to the Canadian Rockies — where a G7 summit takes on a G6 vs. Trump dynamic as other leaders seek ways to cooperate with him on Russia and China even as he pummels them with tariffs. Von der Leyen tries her best, turning hawkish on China in a bid to find common ground. Back in Brussels, at a European leaders’ summit, von der Leyen announces her pivot to Asia — floating the idea of a world trade club without the U.S. JULY As the clock counts down to Trump’s July 9 deal deadline, the lack of unity among the EU’s 27 member countries undermines its credibility as a negotiating partner to be reckoned with. There’s still hope that the EU can lock in a 10 percent tariff, but should it take the deal or leave it? The deadline slips and, as talks drag on, it looks more likely that the EU will end up with a 15 percent baseline tariff — far higher than Europe had feared at the start of Trump’s term. Brussels is still talking about retaliation but … yeah … you already know that won’t happen. With Trump in Scotland for a golfing weekend, von der Leyen jets in to shake hands on a historic, but one-sided trade deal at his Turnberry resort. Koen Verhelst also flies in to get the big story. “It was heavy lifting we had to do,” von der Leyen said, stressing that the 15 percent tariff would be a ceiling. AUGUST Despite the thumbs-up in Turnberry, recriminations soon fly that the EU has accepted a bad deal. EU leaders defend it as the best they could get, given Europe’s reliance on the U.S. to guarantee its security. The two sides come out with a joint statement spelling out the terms — POLITICO breaks it down. Not only does the EU come off worse in the Turnberry deal, but it also sacrifices its long-term commitment to rules-based trade in return for Trump’s uncertain support for Ukraine. The realization slowly dawns that Europe’s humiliation could be profound and long-lasting. With the ink barely dry on the accord, Trump takes aim at digital taxes and regulation that he views as discriminatory. It’s a blast that is clearly aimed at Brussels. SEPTEMBER The torrent of trade news slows — allowing Antonia Zimmermann to travel to Ireland’s “Viagra Village” to report how Trump’s drive to reshore drug production threatens Europe’s top pharmaceuticals exporter. OCTOBER EU leaders resist Trump’s pressure to tear up the bloc’s business rules, instead trying to present a red tape-cutting drive pushed by von der Leyen as a self-generated reform that has the fringe benefit of addressing U.S. concerns.    NOVEMBER Attention shifts to Washington as the U.S. Supreme Court hears challenges to Trump’s sweeping tariffs. The justices are skeptical of his invocation of emergency powers to justify them. Even Trump appointees on the bench subject his lawyer to tough questioning.  A row flares on the first visit to Brussels by U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Lutnick presses for concessions on EU digital regulation in exchange for possible tariff relief on steel. “Blackmail,” is the counterblast from Teresa Ribera, the EU’s top competition regulator. DECEMBER The year ends as it started, with another Trump broadside against Europe and its leaders. “I think they’re weak,” he tells POLITICO. “They don’t know what to do on trade, either.”

The Trump administration is lashing out at foreign laws aimed at clamping down on online platforms that have gained outsized influence on people’s attention — while trying to avoid launching new trade wars that could threaten the U.S. economy. Over the past month, U.S. officials have paused talks on a tech pact with the United Kingdom, canceled a trade meeting with South Korean officials and issued veiled threats at European companies over policies they believe unfairly penalize U.S. tech giants. Several tech policy professionals and people close to the White House say the recent actions amount to a “negotiating tactic,” in the words of one former U.S. trade official. As talks continue with London, Brussels and Seoul, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is pressing partners to roll back digital taxes on large online platforms and rules aimed at boosting online privacy protections — measures U.S. officials argue disproportionately target America’s tech behemoths. “It’s telegraphing that we’ve looked at this deeply, we think there’s a problem, we’re looking at tools to address it and we’re looking at remedies if we don’t come to an agreement,” said Everett Eissenstat, who served as the director of the National Economic Council in Trump’s first term. “It’s not an unprecedented move, but naming companies like that and telegraphing that we have targets, we have tools, is definitely meaningful.” But so far, the administration has shied away from new tariffs or other aggressive actions that could upend tentative trade agreements or upset financial markets. And the new tough talk may not be enough to placate some American tech companies, who are pressing for action. One possible action, floated by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, would be launching investigations into unfair digital trade practices, which would allow the administration to take action against countries that impose digital regulations on U.S. companies. “I would just say that’s the next level of escalation. I think that’s what people are waiting for and looking for,” said a representative from a major tech company, granted anonymity to speak candidly and discuss industry expectations. “What folks are looking for is like action over the tweets, which, we love the tweets. Everyone loves the tweets.” Trump used similar investigations to justify raising tariffs on hundreds of Chinese imports in his first term. But those investigations take time, and it can be years before any increases would go into effect. Greer has also been careful to hedge threats of new trade probes, stressing they are not meant to spiral into a broader conflict. Speaking on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last week, he floated launching a trade investigation into the EU’s digital policies, but said the goal would be a “negotiated outcome,” not an automatic path to higher tariffs. “I don’t think we’re in a world where we want to have some renewed trade fight or something with the EU — that’s not what we’re talking about,” Greer said. “We want to finish off our deal and implement it,” he continued, referring to the trade pact the partners struck over the summer. Greer also raised the prospect of a trade probe in private talks with South Korea earlier this fall, saying the U.S. might have to resort to such action if the country continues to pursue legislation the administration views as harmful to U.S. tech firms. But a White House official clarified that the U.S. was not yet considering such a “heavy-handed approach.” Even industry officials aren’t certain how aggressive they want the Trump administration to be, acknowledging that if the U.S. escalated its fight with the EU over their tech regulations, it could spark a digital trade war that would ultimately end up harming all of the companies involved, according to a former USTR official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. President Donald Trump has long criticized the tech regulations — pioneered by the European Union and now proliferating around the globe. But he’s made the issue a much more central part of his second-term trade agenda, with mixed results. While Trump’s threat to cut off trade talks with Canada got Prime Minister Mark Carney to rescind their three percent tax on revenue earned by large online platforms, his administration has struggled to make headway with the EU, UK and South Korea in the broader trade negotiations over tariffs. The tentative trade deal the administration reached with the EU over the summer included a commitment from the bloc to address “unjustified digital trade barriers” and a pledge not to impose network usage fees, but left the scope and direction of future discussions largely undefined. The agreement fleshed out with South Korea this fall appeared to go even further, spelling out commitments that regulations governing online platforms and cross-border data flows won’t disadvantage American companies. But none of those governments have so far caved to U.S. pressure to abandon their digital regulations entirely, and the canceled talks and threatening social media posts are a sign of Trump’s growing frustration. “You won’t be surprised to know that what we think is fair treatment and what they think is fair treatment is quite different and I’ve been quite frankly disappointed over the past few months to see zero moderation by the EU,” Greer said Dec. 10 at an event at the Atlantic Council. Last week, Greer’s office amped up the rhetoric further, threatening to take action against major European companies like Spotify, German automation company Siemens and Mistral AI, the French artificial intelligence firm, if the EU doesn’t back off enforcement of its digital rules. The threat came a week after the EU fined X, the company formerly known as Twitter, $140 million for failing to meet EU transparency rules. Greer’s office also canceled a meeting planned for last Thursday with South Korean officials, as South Korean lawmakers introduced new digital legislation and held an explosive hearing on a data breach at Coupang, an American-headquartered e-commerce company whose largest market is in South Korea. The South Korean Embassy denied any relationship between the Coupang hearing and the cancellation of the recent meeting. “Neither Coupang’s data breach, the subsequent investigation by the Korean government, nor the National Assembly’s hearing played a role in the scheduling of the KORUS Joint Committee,” said an embassy official. The canceled meetings and frozen talks are significant — delaying implementation of bare bones trade agreements and investment pledges inked in recent months. But the Trump administration has shown little interest in blowing up the deals its reached and reapplying the steep tariffs it threatened over the summer, which could trigger significant retaliation and, as concerns about affordability and inflation continue to simmer in the U.S., prove politically dicey. Launching trade investigations at USTR or fining specific foreign companies could be a less inflammatory move. “What is happening is that these issues are starting to come to a head,” said Dirk Auer, a Director of Competition Policy International Center for Law & Economics, who focuses on antitrust issues and recently testified before Congress on digital services laws. “At some point the administration has to put up or shut up. They need to put their money where their mouth is. And I think that’s what’s happening right now.” Gabby Miller contributed to this report.

The top American basketball league has a megabucks plan to take over the European market. But it’s no slam dunk. European officials and major sports leagues are trying to hamstring the National Basketball Association — home to global superstars including LeBron James and Steph Curry — before it can get off the ground ahead of a mooted 2027 launch in key cities around the continent. Proponents of the NBA-backed European competition reckon it will be an essential investment for a widely popular sport that doesn’t turn a massive profit in Europe across smaller domestic tournaments. Opponents say the global behemoth’s entry across the continent would stifle national basketball leagues and instead funnel cash to American companies. The divide comes at a moment of major commercial and political tension, with U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration attempting to bend European legislators and regulators to its America-first agenda. Basketball also marks the latest clash in a broader debate over the European sports model, which is based on promotion and relegation between leagues, and solidarity payments across a pyramidal structure. The NBA operates under the American sports model, in which franchises maintain permanent places in closed leagues, generating significant revenues for team owners and creating highly paid superstars matched only by top European football clubs. For this account of the backroom negotiating currently taking place between some of the world’s most powerful sports officials, POLITICO spoke to several European political figures, sports executives and industry heavyweights with direct knowledge of talks, some of whom were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations.   NBA executives have already been sounding out Europe’s biggest multi-sport club owners and team officials about backing the project, triggering unease from other parts of the continent’s sports establishment. “The main reason we don’t support NBA Europe is that closed leagues and competitions benefit only the top percent of the commercially successful clubs, but cause significant harm to the sport at national level,” one senior European government official told POLITICO.  While the EU doesn’t run sports in Europe, it does police the marketplace in which sports operate — and officials were quick to defend the values the EU seeks to uphold.  “As policymakers, including at EU level, there is a clear duty to uphold the competition acquis, but also to give full weight to the wider EU values repeatedly underlined in court judgments, such as solidarity, openness, and fairness,” EU Sports Commissioner Glenn Micallef told POLITICO.  He added: “The current debate suggests that this balance requires recalibration, placing greater emphasis on those values to safeguard the integrity of European sport and its pyramidal model.” PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS Business titans have long eyed the European sports market as an attractive commercial proposition, buying clubs and even moving to upend existing competitions. Proponents of the NBA-backed European competition reckon it will be an essential investment for a widely popular sport that doesn’t turn a massive profit in Europe across smaller domestic tournaments. | Gray Mortimore/Getty Images A previous attempt to set up a semi-closed American-style football league in Europe — the ill-fated Super League bid by a group of 12 leading clubs in 2021 — hit a wall of political and public resistance. Basketball is a slightly different case as the continent’s flagship Euroleague is already a semi-closed competition — a design that has faced significant blowback since its launch around the turn of the century. But NBA critics are sounding the alarm as crunch talks intensify about the potential launch in 12 proposed cities including Rome, Berlin and Madrid. Senior officials from the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) met with Micallef and key EU sports figures in Brussels earlier this month, where they pressed the case that the new league — with its semi-closed structure but pathway to Europe for clubs that perform well in their domestic leagues — would be a European success story. “Current developments in European basketball highlight long-standing concerns around closed league models,” Micallef said after the meeting, in remarks that may be interpreted as a subtle warning about the American sports model. “They also invite reflection on the growing role of investment in sport, recognising that such investment can be welcome and beneficial provided it respects sound governance principles and remains aligned with Europe’s sporting values, traditions, and structures.” He added: “While breakaway competitions usually promise growth and stability, restricting open competition comes at the expense of national leagues and the wider sporting pyramid: a lesson other sports should consider carefully.” A previous attempt to set up a semi-closed American-style football league in Europe — the ill-fated Super League bid by a group of 12 leading clubs in 2021 — hit a wall of political and public resistance. | Erica Denhoff/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images Two industry officials told POLITICO that Spain’s La Liga — the domestic football league — held a meeting with the NBA to emphasize that the format presented is contrary to the European sports model and that, if implemented, it would be met with staunch opposition from EU institutions and other sporting organizations from across Europe.  NBA officials have been approaching major European football and multi-sports club owners over the past year about joining the basketball project, according to one executive with direct knowledge of negotiations. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver and his deputy Mark Tatum have been talking regularly to Paris Saint-Germain owner Nasser al-Khelaifi, a powerful sports leader from Doha, to try and convince Qatar Sports Investments to own a new franchise in Paris — as part of the PSG group of sports clubs. The American sports bosses have also conducted talks with Barcelona and Real Madrid, the executive said. “Our conversations with various stakeholders in Europe have reinforced our belief that an enormous opportunity exists around the creation of a new league on the continent,” Silver said in a statement. “Together with FIBA, we look forward to engaging prospective clubs and ownership groups that share our vision for the game’s potential in Europe.” In an announcement Monday that the two parties were pressing ahead with the European expansion, FIBA Secretary-General Andreas Zagklis said: “The format of the league respects European sport model principles by offering any ambitious club in the continent a fair pathway to the top. The project is conceived in a way that will improve the sustainability of the entire European basketball ecosystem, including players, clubs, leagues and national federations, by generating a knock-on effect that will strongly benefit basketball fans throughout Europe.” Keen to assuage EU regulatory concerns, the NBA and FIBA added that they plan to dedicate financial support and resources to development throughout Europe’s basketball ecosystem. NO DOMINATION The announcement by the NBA and FIBA of some “permanent spots” in the league is central to the looming resistance in Brussels, which is also skeptical about the economic benefits for Europe. “What about the governance and economic value?” said Bogdan Zdrojewski, an MEP from the conservative European People’s Party group in the European Parliament. “It seems that with the NBA Europe these risk being siphoned out of Europe, leading to a lack of accountability on governance and a staggeringly high loss of economic value if we look at how the economic return — TV rights, sponsorships — generated in Europe will be systematically funneled to U.S.-based holding entities.” Zdrojewski added, “We need to look carefully at how the economic model is likely to lead to a corporate shift with traditional clubs being excluded in favor of global investment funds and state-backed clubs, who will be the only ones able to afford the prohibitive costs like the estimated $500 million to $1 billion founding franchise fees.”  At a meeting of EU sports ministers in Brussels last month, several countries — including Italy, France and Slovenia — spoke out against the NBA’s plans. Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nausėda also recently urged “basketball organizations on both sides of the Atlantic to cooperate, not compete, to take into account and appreciate the deep traditions of European basketball, and not to forget that values come before commercial interests.” Those who have built up European basketball in its current form agree.  “European basketball is built on history, identity and community. Fans here are not a market to be conquered; they are the people who have sustained clubs for decades, across generations,” said Paulius Motiejunas, CEO of the existing top competition Euroleague Basketball. “Any new project should start by respecting that and by strengthening the entire pyramid: elite competition, domestic leagues, and grassroots.” But, he added, collaboration is possible “if the goal is genuinely to grow basketball in Europe.” His terms, he said, were simple: “It has to be a partnership, not a takeover or, as they have mentioned, domination.”

BRUSSELS — If you ordered Christmas presents from a Chinese web shop, they are likely to be toxic, unsafe or undervalued. Or all of the above. The EU is trying to do something about the flood but is tripping over itself 27 times to get there. “It’s absolutely crazy…” sighs one EU official. The official, granted anonymity to discuss preparations to tackle the problem, said that at some airport freight hubs, an estimated 80 percent of such inbound packages don’t comply with EU safety rules. The numbers are dizzying. In 2024, 4.6 billion small packages with contents worth less than €150 entered the EU. That all-time record was broken in September of this year. Because these individual air-mail packages replace whole containers shipping the same product, the workload for customs officials has increased exponentially over recent years. Non-compliant, cheaply-made products — such as dangerous toys or kitchen items — bring health risks. And a growing pile of garbage. It’s a problem for everyone along the chain. Customs officers can’t keep up; buyers end up with useless products; children are put at risk; and EU makers of similar items are undercut by unfair and untaxed competition. With the situation on the ground becoming unmanageable, the EU agreed this month to charge a €3 fixed fee on all such packages. This will effectively remove a tax-free exemption on packages worth €150 — but only from July of next year. It’s a crude, and temporary, fix because existing customs IT systems can’t yet tax items according to their actual value. ALL I WANT … Which is why all European lawmaker Anna Cavazzini wants for next year’s holiday season is “better rules.” Cavazzini is a key player in a push to harmonize the EU’s 27 national customs regimes. A proposed reform, now being discussed by the EU institutions, would create a central data hub and an EU Customs Agency, or EUCA, with oversight powers. As is so often the case in the EU, though, the customs reform is only progressing slowly. The EUCA will be operational only from late 2026. And the data hub probably won’t be up and running until the next decade. “We need a fundamental discussion on the Europeanization of customs,” Cavazzini told POLITICO. As chair of the European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO), the lawmaker from the German Greens has been pushing the Council, the EU’s intergovernmental branch, to allow the customs reform to make the bloc’s single market more of a unified reality. European lawmaker Anna Cavazzini. | Martin Bertrand and Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images EU capitals worry — as always — about handing over too much power to the eurocrats in Brussels. But the main outstanding issue where negotiators disagree is more prosaic: it’s about whether the law should include an explicit list of offences, such making false declarations to customs officers. While the last round of negotiations in early December brought some progress on other areas, the unsolved penalties question has kicked the reform into 2026. With the millions of boxes, packages and parcels inbound, regardless, individual countries are also considering handling fees, beside the €3 tax that all have agreed on. France has already proposed a solo fee with revenues flowing into its national budget, and Belgium and the Netherlands will probably follow suit. RACE TO THE BOTTOM Customs reform is what’s needed, not another round of fragmented fees and a race to the bottom, said Dirk Gotink, the European Parliament’s lead negotiator on the customs reform. “Right now, the ideas launched by France and others are not meant to stem the flow of packages. They are just meant to earn money,” the Dutch center-right lawmaker told a recent briefing. To inspect the myriad ways in which they are a risk, Gotink’s team bought a few items from dubious-looking web shops. “With this one, the eyes are coming off right away,” he warned before handing a plush toy to a reporter. The reporter almost succeeded in separating the head from the creature’s body without too much effort. And thin, plastic eyes trailed the toy as it was passed around the room. “On the box it says it’s meant for people over 15 years old…” one reporter commented. But the cute creature is clearly targeted at far younger audiences. Adding to the craze, K-pop stars excitedly unbox new characters in online promotional videos. The troubles aren’t limited to toys. A jar of cosmetics showed by Gotink had inscriptions on its label that didn’t resemble any known alphabet. Individual products aside, the deluge of cheap merchandise also creates unfair competition, said Cavazzini: “A lot of European companies of course also fulfill the environmental obligations and the imports don’t,” she said. “This is also creating a huge unlevel playing field.” After the holidays, Gotink and Cavazzini will pick up negotiations on the customs reform with Cyprus, which from Jan. 1 takes over the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU from Denmark. “This file will be a priority during our presidency,” a Cypriot official told POLITICO, adding that Denmark had completed most of the technical work. “We aim to conclude this important file, hoping to reach a deal with the Parliament during the first months of the Cyprus Presidency.” Despite the delays, an EU diplomat working on customs policy told POLITICO that the current speed of the policy process is unprecedented: “This huge ecommerce pressure has really made all the difference. A year ago, this would have been unimaginable.”

LONDON — Standing in Imperial College London’s South Kensington Campus in September, Britain’s trade chief Peter Kyle insisted that a tech pact the U.K. had just signed with the U.S. wouldn’t hamper his country’s ability to make its own laws on artificial intelligence.   He had just spoken at an intimate event to celebrate what was meant to be a new frontier for the “special relationship” — a U.K.-U.S. Technology Prosperity Deal.  Industry representatives were skeptical, warning at the time the U.S. deal would make the path to a British AI bill, which ministers had been promising for months, more difficult.   This month U.K. Tech Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed ministers are no longer looking at a “big, all-encompassing bill” on AI.   But Britain’s shift away from warning the world about runaway AI to ditching its own attempts to legislate frontier models, such as ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, go back much further than that September morning.   GEAR CHANGE In opposition Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised  “stronger” AI regulation. His center-left Labour Party committed to “binding regulation” on frontier AI companies in its manifesto for government in 2024, and soon after it won a landslide election that summer it set out plans for AI legislation.   But by the fall of 2024 the view inside the U.K. government was changing. Kyle, then tech secretary, had asked tech investor Matt Clifford to write an “AI Opportunities Action Plan” which Starmer endorsed. It warned against copying “more regulated jurisdictions” and argued the U.K. should keep its current approach of letting individual regulators monitor AI in their sectors.  In October 2024 Starmer described AI as the “opportunity of this generation.” AI shifted from a threat to be legislated to an answer to Britain’s woes of low productivity, crumbling public services and sluggish economic growth. Labour had came to power that July promising to fix all three.   A dinner that month with Demis Hassabis, chief executive and co-founder of Google DeepMind, reportedly opened Starmer’s eyes to the opportunities of AI. Hassabis was coy on the meeting when asked by POLITICO, but Starmer got Hassabis back the following month to speak to his cabinet — a weekly meeting of senior ministers — about how AI could transform public services. That has been the government’s hope ever since. In an interview with The Economist this month Starmer spoke about AI as a binary choice between regulation and innovation. “I think with AI you either lean in and see it as a great opportunity, or you lean out and think, ‘Well, how do we guard ourselves against the risk?’ I lean in,” he said.  ENTER TRUMP The evolution of Starmer’s own views in the fall of 2024 coincided with the second coming of Donald Trump to the White House. In a letter to the U.S. attorney general the month Trump was elected influential Republican senator Ted Cruz accused the U.K.’s AI Security Institute of hobbling America’s efforts to beat China in the race to powerful AI. The White House’s new occupants saw AI as a generational competition between America and China. Any attempt by foreign regulators to hamper its development was seen as a threat to U.S. national security. It appeared Labour’s original plan, to force largely U.S. tech companies to open their models to government testing pre-release, would not go down well with Britain’s biggest ally. Instead, U.K. officials adapted to the new world order. In Paris in February 2025, at an international AI Summit series which the U.K. had set up in 2023 to keep existential AI risks at bay, the country joined the U.S. in refusing to sign an international AI declaration.  The White House went on to attack international AI governance efforts, with its director of tech policy Michael Kratsios telling the U.N. that the U.S. wanted its AI technology to become the “global gold standard” with allies building their own AI tech on top of it.  In opposition Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised  “stronger” AI regulation. | Jonathan Brady/PA Images via Getty Images The U.K. was the first country to sign up, agreeing the Technology Prosperity Deal with the U.S. that September. At the signing ceremony, Trump couldn’t have been clearer. “We’re going to have a lot of deregulation and a tremendous amount of innovation,” he told a group of hand-picked business leaders.   The deal, which was light on detail, was put on ice in early December as the U.S. used it to try to extract more trade concessions from the Brits. Kratsios, one of the architects of that tech pact, said work on it would resume once the U.K. had made “substantial” progress in other areas of trade.   DIFFICULT HOME LIFE While Starmer’s overtures to the U.S. have made plans for an AI bill more difficult, U.K. lawmakers have further complicated any attempt to introduce legislation. A group of powerful “tech peers” in the House of Lords have vowed to hijack any tech-related bill and use it to force the government to make concessions in other areas they have concerns about like AI and copyright, just as they did this summer over the Data Use and Access Bill. Senior civil servants have also warned ministers a standalone AI bill could become messy “Christmas Tree” bill, adorned with unrelated amendments, according to two officials granted anonymity to speak freely.   The government’s intention is to instead break any AI-related legislation up into smaller chunks. Nudification apps, for example, will be banned as part of the government’s new Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, AI chatbots are being looked at through a review of the Online Safety Act, while there will also need to be legislation for AI Growth Labs — testbeds where companies can experiment with their products before going to market.   Asked about an AI bill by MPs on Dec. 3, Kendall said: “There are measures we will need to take to make sure we get the most on growth and deal with regulatory issues. If there are measures we need to do to protect kids online, we will take those. I am thinking about it more in terms of specific areas where we may need to act rather than a big all-encompassing bill.” The team in Kendall’s department which looks at frontier AI regulation, meanwhile, has been reassigned, according to two people familiar with the team. Polling by the Ada Lovelace Institute shows Labour’s leadership is out of sync with public views on AI, with 9 in 10 wanting an independent AI regulator with enforcement powers.   “The public wants independent regulation,” said Ada Lovelace Director Gaia Marcus. “They prioritize fairness, positive social impacts and safety in trade-offs against economic gains, speed of innovation and international competition.”  A separate study by Focal Data found that framing AI as a geopolitical competition also doesn’t resonate with voters. “They don’t want to work more closely with the United States on shared digital and tech goals because of their distrust of its government,” the research found.  Political leadership must step in to bridge that gap, former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair wrote in a report last month. “Technological competitiveness is not a priority for voters because European leaders have failed to connect it to what citizens care about: their security, their prosperity and their children’s futures,” he wrote.   For Starmer, who has struggled to connect with the voters, that will be a huge challenge.

BERLIN — A high-ranking German lawmaker belonging to Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservative bloc issued a simple warning to countries holding up the EU-Mercosur trade agreement: Without such deals, Germany won’t be able to pay more into EU coffers. “Germany is an export nation, from which, incidentally, all other EU countries also benefit,” Sepp Müller, deputy chairman of Merz’s conservative parliamentary group in the Bundestag, said on Wednesday when asked about the leverage Germany has in ongoing negotiations over the trade deal with the Latin American bloc. “If Germany does not return to being a strong export nation, then we will not be able, economically and financially, to bear any further additional burdens for an increasing multi-year financial framework,” he added, referring to the European Commission’s €2 trillion 2028-2034 budget proposal that is now under discussion. “Now Europe must decide: Does it want to put the German economy back on the path to growth and thus support and grow the largest net contributor to the European coffers?” he said. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, speaking in the German Bundestag ahead of an EU summit, exhibited frustration over persisting disagreements that are holding up the Mercosur trade agreement. The agreement, in the works for over 25 years, is within sight of the finish line, but France and Italy are calling for a delay to finalize additional safeguards to protect European farmers from heightened South American competition. Only if they come round will European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen be able to fly to Brazil on Saturday, the day after the EU summit, to sign the deal. “The European Union’s ability to act is also measured by whether, after 26 years of negotiations, we are finally in a position to conclude this trade agreement and thus also to swiftly move forward with the trade agreements negotiated in Mexico and Indonesia,” Merz said. “If in the situation we find ourselves in today, in the times we live in today, we are still haggling over the details of major trade agreements that we as Europeans want to conclude with large economic areas around the world, then those who are doing so still do not properly understand the priorities we are setting now.” Asked about Müller’s comments, the chancellor’s spokesperson, Stefan Kornelius, said: “The government’s policy is to implement Mercosur. The budget is a different matter. A budget only works if we have growth.” Germany contributes around €47 billion to the EU budget annually, corresponding to around 23.6 percent of its funding and over 1 percent of Germany’s gross domestic product. If Germany maintains roughly its current share of the budget, its annual contribution would rise to around €67.3 billion in the next fiscal cycle. Hans von der Burchard contributed to this report.

Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * This is sponsored content from AstraZeneca. * The advertisement is linked to public policy debates on the future of cancer care in the EU. More information here. Europe has made huge strides in the fight against cancer.[1] Survival rates have climbed, detection has improved and the continent has become home to some of the world’s most respected research hubs.[2],[3] None of that progress came easy — it was built on years of political attention and cooperation across borders. However, as we look to 2026 and beyond, that progress stands at a crossroads. Budget pressures and tougher global competition threaten to push cancer and health care down the EU agenda. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan — a flagship initiative aimed at expanding screening, improving early detection and boosting collaboration — is set to expire in 2027, with no clear plan to secure or extend its gains.[4],[5] “My [hope is that we can continue] the work started with Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan and make it sustainable… [and] build on the lessons learned, [for other disease areas] ” says Antonella Cardone, CEO of Cancer Patients Europe. A new era in cancer treatment Concern about the lapsing initiative is compounded by two significant shifts in health care: declining investment and increasing scientific advancement. Firstly, Europe has seen the increased adoption of cost-containment policies by some member states. Under-investment in Europe in cancer medicines has been a challenge — specifically with late and uneven funding, and at lower levels than international peers such as the US — potentially leaving patients with slower and more limited access to life-saving therapies.[6],[7],[8] Meanwhile, the U.S., which pays on average double for medicines per capita than the EU,[9] is actively working to rebalance its relationship with pharmaceuticals to secure better pricing (“fair market value”) through policies across consecutive administrations.[10] All the while, China is rapidly scaling investment in biotech and clinical research, determined to capture the trials, talent, and capital that once flowed naturally to Europe.[11] The rebalancing of health and life-science investment can have significant consequences. If Europe does not stay attractive for life-sciences investment, the impact will extend beyond cancer patient outcomes. Jobs, tax revenues, advanced manufacturing, and Europe’s leadership in strategic industries are all at stake.[12] Secondly, medical science has never looked more promising.[7] Artificial intelligence is accelerating drug discovery, clinical trials, and diagnostics, and the number of approved medicines for patients across Europe has jumped from an average of one per year between 1995 and 2000 to 14 per year between 2021 and 2024.[13],[14],[15], [7] Digital health tools and innovative medtech startups are multiplying, increasing competitiveness and lowering costs — guiding care toward a future that is more personalized and precise.[16],[17] Europe stands at the threshold of a new era in cancer treatment. But if policymakers ease up now, progress could stall — and other regions, especially the U.S. and China, are more than ready to widen the innovation gap. Recognizing the strategic investment Health spending is generally treated as a budget item to be contained. Yet investment in cancer care has been one of Europe’s smartest economic bets.[18],[19] The sector anchors millions of high-skilled jobs (it employs around 29 million people in the EU[11]) and attracts global life sciences investment. According to the European Commission, the sector contributes nearly €1.5 trillion to the EU economy.[12] Studies from the Institute of Health Economics confirm that money put into research directly translates into better survival outcomes.[20] The same report shows that although the overall spend on cancer is increasing, the cost per patient has actually decreased since 1995, suggesting that innovative treatments are increasing efficiency.[20] Those gains matter not only to patients and families, but to Europe’s long-term stability: healthier populations mean fewer costs down the line, stronger productivity, and more sustainable public finances.[20] Fixing Europe’s access gap Cancer medicines bring transformative value — to patients, to society and to the wider economy. [21] However, even as oncology therapies advance, patients across Europe are not benefiting equally. EFPIA’s 2024 Patients W.A.I.T. indicator shows that, on average, just 46 percent of innovative medicines approved between 2020 and 2023 were available to patients in 2024.[22] On average, it takes 578 days for a new oncology medicine to reach European patients, and only 29 percent of drugs are fully available in all member states.[23] This is not caused by a lack of breakthrough medicines, but by national policy mechanisms that undervalue innovation. OECD and the Institute for Health Economics data show that divergent HTA requirements, rigid cost-effectiveness thresholds, price-volume clawbacks, ad hoc taxes on pharmaceutical revenues and slow national reimbursement decisions collectively suppress timely access to new cancer medicines across the EU.[24] These disparities cut against Europe’s long-standing reputation as a collection of societies that values equitable, high-quality care for all of its citizens. It risks eroding one of the EU’s defining strengths: the commitment to fairness and collective progress. Cancer policy solutions for the EU Although this is ultimately a matter for member states, embedding cancer as a permanent EU priority — backed by funding, coordination, and accountability — could give national systems the incentives and strategic direction to buck these trends. These actions will reassure pharmaceutical companies that Europe is serious about attracting clinical trials and the launch of new medicines, ensuring that its citizens, societies and economies enjoy the benefits this brings. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan delivered progress, but its expiry presents a pivotal moment. 2026 and beyond bring a significant opportunity for the EU to build on this by ensuring that member states implement National Cancer Control Plans and have clear targets and accountability on their national performance, including on investment and access. To do this, EU policymakers should consider three actions as an immediate priority with lasting impact: * Embed cancer and investment within EU governance. Build it into the European Semester on health with mandatory indicators, regular reviews, and accountability frameworks to ensure continuity. This model worked well during Covid-19 and should be adapted for non-communicable diseases starting with cancer as a pilot. * Secure stable and sufficient funding. The Multiannual Financial Framework must ensure adequate funding for health and cancer to encourage coordinated initiatives across member states. * Strengthen EU-level coordination. Ensure that pan-EU structures such as the Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Mission Hubs are adequately funded and empowered. These are the building blocks of a lasting European commitment to cancer. With action, Europe can secure a sustainable foundation for patients, resilience and continued scientific excellence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission, OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. 2023. State of Health in the EU: Synthesis Report 2023. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/state_2023_synthesis-report_en.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [2] Efpia. 2025. Cancer care 2025: an overview of cancer outcomes data across Europe. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/ihe-cancer-comparator-report-2025/ [Accessed December 2025] [3] Cancer Core Europe. 2024. Cancer Core Europe: Advancing Cancer Care Through Collaboration. Available at: https://www.cancercoreeurope.eu/cce-advancing-cancer-care-collaboration/ [Accessed December 2025] [4] European Commission. 2021. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan. Available at:https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [5] European Parliament. 2025. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Implementation findings. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2025/765809/EPRS_STU(2025)765809_EN.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [6] Hofmarcher, T., et al. 2024. Access to Oncology Medicines in EU and OECD Countries (OECD Health Working Papers, No.170). OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/09/access-to-oncology-medicines-in-eu-and-oecd-countries_6cf189fe/c263c014-en.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [7] Manzano, A., et al. 2025. Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2025 – Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines and Molecular Diagnostics (IHE). Available at: https://ihe.se/app/uploads/2025/03/IHE-REPORT-2025_2_.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [8] Efpia. [no date]. Europe’s choice. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/europes-choice/ [Accessed December 2025] [9] OECD. 2024. Prescription Drug Expenditure per Capita. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&pg=0&snb=1&vw=tb&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_SHA%40DF_SHA&df[ag]=OECD.ELS.HD&df[vs]=&pd=2015%2C&dq=.A.EXP_HEALTH.USD_PPP_PS%2BPT_EXP_HLTH._T..HC51%2BHC3.._T…&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&lb=bt [Accessed December 2025] [10] The White House. 2025. Delivering most favored-nation prescription drug pricing to American patients. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/delivering-most-favored-nation-prescription-drug-pricing-to-american-patients/ [Accessed December 2025] [11] Eleanor Olcott, Haohsiang Ko and William Sandlund. 2025. The relentless rise of China’s Biotechs. Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/c0a1b15b-84ee-4549-85eb-ed3341112ce5 [Accessed December 2025] [12] European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication. 2025. Making Europe a Global Leader in Life Sciences. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/making-europe-global-leader-life-sciences-2025-07-02_en [Accessed December 2025] [13] Financial Times. 2025. How AI is reshaping drug discovery. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/8c8f3c10-9c26-4e27-bc1a-b7c3defb3d95 [Accessed December 2025] [14] Seedblink. 2025. Europe’s HealthTech investment landscape in 2025: A deep dive. https://seedblink.com/blog/2025-05-30-europes-healthtech-investment-landscape-in-2025-a-deep-dive [15] European Commission. [No date]. Artificial Intelligence in healthcare. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/artificial-intelligence-healthcare_en [Accessed December 2025] [16] Codina, O. 2025. Code meets care: 20 European HealthTech startups to watch in 2025 and beyond. EU-Startups. Available at: https://www.eu-startups.com/2025/06/code-meets-care-20-european-healthtech-startups-to-watch-in-2025-and-beyond [Accessed December 2025] [17] Protogiros et al. 2025. Achieving digital transformation in cancer care across Europe: Practical recommendations from the TRANSiTION project. Journal of Cancer Policy. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538325000281 [Accessed December 2025] [18] R-Health Consult. [no date]. The case for investing in a healthier future for the European Union. EFPIA. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/media/xpkbiap5/the-case-for-investing-in-a-healthier-future-for-the-european-union.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [19] Pousette A., Hofmarcher T. 2024.Tackling inequalities in cancer care in the European Union. Available at: https://ihe.se/en/rapport/tackling-inequalities-in-cancer-care-in-the-european-union-2/ [Accessed December 2025] [20] Efpia. 2025. Comparator Report Cancer in Europe 2025. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/media/0fbdi3hh/infographic-comparator-report-cancer-in-europe.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [21] Garau, E. et al. 2025. The Transformative Value of Cancer Medicines in Europe. Dolon Ltd. Available at: https://dolon.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/EOP_Investment-Value-of-Oncology-Medicines-White-Paper_2025-09-19-vF.pdf?x16809 [Accessed December 2025] [22] IQVIA. 2025. EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator 2024 Survey. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf [Accessed December 2025] [23] Visentin M. 2025. Improving equitable access to medicines in Europe must remain a priority. The Parliament. Available at: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/improving-equitable-access-to-medicines-in-europe-must-remain-a-priority [Accessed December 2025] [24] Hofmarcher, T. et al. 2025. Access to novel cancer medicines in Europe: inequities across countries and their drivers. ESMO Open. Available at: https://www.esmoopen.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2059-7029%2825%2901679-5 [Accessed December 2025]

STRASBOURG — The European Parliament voted Tuesday to tighten additional protections on the EU’s trade agreement with the South American Mercosur bloc, opening the way for talks with member countries that will need to find a rapid compromise to finally get the deal done. Lawmakers voted by a wide margin to approve additional safeguard measures to shield European farmers should local markets be destabilized by a glut of cheaper agricultural produce from Mercosur. Out of the 662 lawmakers attending, 431 MEPs voted in favor, 161 against and 70 abstained. The safeguards represent a key concession for France and Italy to back the overall deal in a separate vote by member countries, and will determine whether European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen can fly to Brazil to sign the controversial deal in Brazil this weekend. A lightning round of talks with EU countries is expected Wednesday afternoon to finalize a common position on the additional instrument. The talks are expected to be prickly, given the time pressure and the fact that the Council of the EU, which represents governments, adopted the original Commission proposal as its position. Final haggling over the agreement with Mercosur — which groups Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — may run into a summit of European leaders being held in Brussels on Thursday and Friday of this week. Overall, lawmakers backed lower thresholds for Brussels to look into unfair competition and to carry out investigations more quickly. Their position would require the Commission to investigate surges of beef or poultry from Mercosur countries as soon as imports rise by more than 5 percent compared to the previous three-year average, and if those imports are priced at least 5 percent below comparable EU products. In the original Commission proposal, both thresholds were set at 10 percent. Further turning the screws on the safeguards, the lawmakers also added a “reciprocity obligation” that would require Mercosur countries to apply EU production standards in order to access the continent’s market of 450 million people. This last tweak is set to be one of the most difficult points in the negotiation with the Council and the Commission.

BERLIN — Chancellor Friedrich Merz is mounting an unusually assertive effort to project German leadership at the heart of the EU, positioning himself as the defender not only of Ukraine but, by his own account, of Europe as a whole. This represents a stark shift in Germany’s approach to world affairs. Merz’s predecessors, Olaf Scholz and Angela Merkel, were reluctant to put the country in such an outspoken lead role internationally or within the EU. Rather, Germany tended to hang back and avoid undue risk. Germans even coined a slang verb — “to Merkel,” or Merkeln — to connote dithering. Merz has taken a far more active stance inside the EU — assuming a role more traditionally played by France’s now weakened President Emmanuel Macron. He has placed himself as Europe’s most visible advocate of a risk-laden EU plan to replenish Ukraine’s war chest with a €210 billion loan backed by Russian frozen assets. Earlier this month he visited Belgium’s prime minister, Bart De Wever, who has rejected the plan, along with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in an effort to convince the Belgian to drop his opposition. “When it comes to managing European issues, Merz is truly the polar opposite of Merkel,” an Italian diplomat said of that effort. Outside of EU affairs, the Trump administration’s wavering on military aid for Ukraine and the erosion of the transatlantic alliance have compelled Merz to push Germany beyond long familiar limits when it comes to foreign policy. Given this seismic realignment, Merz has repeatedly vowed that Germany will play a “leading role” internationally. “Ukraine’s fate is the fate of all of Europe,” Merz said on Monday alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “And in this respect, it is a key task, and I have taken it upon myself to closely support Ukraine in the negotiations that are currently taking place here in Berlin.” IS EUROPE CAPABLE OF ‘STANDING TOGETHER?’ Merz’s attempt to make good on the promise to lead has been on full display this week. While praising Donald Trump for pressing for a peace deal, the chancellor has in many ways set himself in direct opposition to the U.S. president, working to ensure that Washington doesn’t impose an unfavorable deal. The Trump administration has also opposed the EU proposal on Russia’s frozen reserves, hoping instead to turn a profit on those assets as part of a potential peace agreement. “Washington is now exerting tremendous pressure here, which is why it is also a question of asserting ourselves against Washington,” Norbert Röttgen, a senior German lawmaker belonging to Merz’s conservatives, told POLITICO.  Ahead of a key meeting of European leaders on Thursday, Merz is depicting the looming decision on whether to leverage frozen Russian central bank assets in the EU as a test of whether Europe can still stand up for itself. “Let us not deceive ourselves. If we do not succeed in this, the European Union’s ability to act will be severely damaged for years, if not for a longer period,” Merz said on Monday. “And we will show the world that, at such a crucial moment in our history, we are incapable of standing together and acting to defend our own political order on this European continent.”  Friedrich Merz’s predecessors, Olaf Scholz and Angela Merkel, were reluctant to put the country in such an outspoken lead role internationally or within the EU. | Maja Hitij/Getty Images In a reflection of his government’s new assertiveness, Merz has made Berlin a nexus of diplomacy over a potential peace deal. On Sunday and Monday he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. On Monday evening, many of Europe’s most powerful leaders converged over dinner in Berlin to discuss the outlines of a possible deal. “Berlin is now at the center of very important diplomatic talks and decisions,” Zelenskyy said Monday. “These talks are always complex, never easy, but they were very productive.” Merz, too, standing alongside the Ukrainian leader, appeared to play up the role Germany has assumed in recent negotiations. “We have seen great diplomatic momentum — perhaps the greatest since the start of the war,” he said. “We now have the chance for a genuine peace process for Ukraine. This seedling is still small, but the opportunity is real.” MERZ OVERSTEPS But Merz’s efforts to put Germany forward as a key EU leader on Ukraine and other matters, from defense to trade, are also replete with risk. European leaders have largely welcomed Merz’s willingness to take on a greater leadership role — particularly the chancellor’s decision, even before he took office, to unlock hundreds of billions of euros in borrowing to bolster Germany’s military. But as Europe’s biggest economy, Germany’s exercise of power within a union of 27 countries requires a delicate balancing act, and at times of late, Merz has appeared to overstep. After the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, which depicted the EU as a transnational body that “undermines political liberty and sovereignty,” Merz condemned the document as “unacceptable.” At the same time he offered Trump a workaround that seemed to undermine the EU even more: “If you can’t get on board with Europe, then at least make Germany your partner.” Merz has tried to assert German interests in EU trade negotiations as well as on the issue of the EU’s proposed combustion engine ban, successfully watering it down. However, the greater risk for Merz lies in whether his latest efforts succeed or fail. By depicting European leaders’ looming decisions on Russian assets this week as a make-or-break moment for the EU and for Ukraine, Merz may be setting himself up for embarrassment given Belgian and Italian opposition to the plan. “It is a very active role that [Merz] is playing,” Röttgen told POLITICO. “Not because there is great competition for a leadership role, but because, in my view, Germany is currently best suited to take this initiative.” “This also has something to do with the fiscal possibilities that exist in Germany. We are by far the biggest supporter of Ukraine at the moment. But this should not take the form of national support, but rather European support. It needs to be organized, and in my view, that is a task for Merz.” Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report from Brussels.