The Radio Spectrum Policy Group’s (RSPG) Nov. 12 opinion on the upper 6-GHz band is framed as a long-term strategic vision for Europe’s digital future. But its practical effect is far less ambitious: it grants mobile operators a cost-free reservation of one of Europe’s most valuable spectrum resources, without deployment obligations, market evidence or a realistic plan for implementation. > At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital > infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision > amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The opinion even invites the mobile industry to develop products for the upper 6-GHz band, when policy should be guided by actual market demand and product deployment, not the other way around. At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The cost of inaction is real. Around the world, advanced 6-GHz Wi-Fi is already delivering high-capacity, low-latency connectivity. The United States, Canada, South Korea and others have opened the 6-GHz band for telemedicine, automated manufacturing, immersive education, robotics and a multitude of other high-performance Wi-Fi connectivity use cases. These are not experimental concepts; they are operational deployments generating tangible socioeconomic value. Holding the upper 6- GHz band in reserve delays these benefits at a time when Europe is seeking to strengthen competitiveness, digital inclusion, and digital sovereignty. The opinion introduces another challenge by calling for “flexibility” for member states. In practice, this means regulatory fragmentation across 27 markets, reopening the door to divergent national spectrum policies — precisely the outcome Europe has spent two decades trying to avert with the Digital Single Market. > Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular > networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. Equally significant is what the opinion does not address. The upper 6-GHz band is already home to ‘incumbents’: fixed links and satellite services that support public safety, government operations and industrial connectivity. Any meaningful mobile deployment would require refarming these incumbents — a technically complex, politically sensitive and financially burdensome process. To date, no member state has proposed a viable plan for how such relocation would proceed, how much it would cost or who would pay. Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. There is, however, a pragmatic alternative. The European Commission and the member states committed to advancing Europe’s connectivity can allow controlled Wi-Fi access to the upper 6-GHz band now — bringing immediate benefits for citizens and enterprises — while establishing clear, evidence-based criteria for any future cellular deployments. Those criteria should include demonstrated commercial viability, validated coexistence with incumbents, and fully funded relocation plans where necessary. This approach preserves long-term policy flexibility for member states and mobile operators, while ensuring that spectrum delivers measurable value today rather than being held indefinitely in reserve. > Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that > must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum underpins Europe’s competitiveness, connectivity, and digital innovation. But its value is unlocked through use, not by shelving it in anticipation that hypothetical future markets might someday justify withholding action now. To remain competitive in the next decade, Europe needs a 6-GHz policy grounded in evidence, aligned with the single market, and focused on real-world impact. The upper 6-GHz band should be a driver of European innovation, not the latest casualty of strategic hesitation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Wi-Fi Alliance * The ultimate controlling entity is Wi-Fi Alliance More information here.

Opponents of President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are finally getting their day in the U.S. Supreme Court. And while the justices may not rule for some time, their lines of questioning could offer hints about which way they are leaning in the blockbuster case. On Wednesday, the high court will hear from the plaintiffs — a dozen Democratic-run states and two sets of private companies — and the Trump administration. Each side will have 40 minutes to make their arguments and then get peppered with questions from the nine justices. The court then has until the end of its term next July to issue a ruling, although some of the lawyers who brought the initial cases hope it will move faster given the real-world impact the decision will have. “It’s very reasonable to expect that this will be decided before the end of the year, if not much, much more before that,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a constitutional rights law firm representing companies in the case.  Advertisement Three federal courts have ruled against Trump’s use of a 50-year-old emergency law to impose broad “reciprocal” duties that he then deployed to strike trade deals with the EU, Japan and other partners. The case does not address sectoral tariffs on products like steel, aluminum or autos, which have also been part of negotiations, but were imposed under a different legal authority that is not in dispute. If the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs Trump announced in April are illegal, will those deals fall apart? We analyze the risks: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States European Union United Kingdom China Canada Mexico -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES Risk assessment: Many legal experts think there is a strong chance the Supreme Court will strike down the duties that Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 sanctions law that empowers Trump to “regulate” imports but does not specifically authorize tariffs. Not all agree, arguing the conservative-led court is likely to back the Trump administration’s view that the president has broad authority to conduct foreign affairs and that imperative  outweighs any concerns about executive branch overreach that the court has expressed in previous cases. Coping strategy: In the worst-case scenario for the administration, the Supreme Court would strike down all the duties and order it to repay hundreds of billions of dollars in duties paid by companies and individuals.  But even in that scenario, Trump may be able to use other authorities to recreate the tariffs, including Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. That provision could allow the president to impose a 15 percent global import “surcharge” for up to 150 days, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Trump would have to get congressional approval to keep any Section 122 tariffs in place for longer — a tall order even in a Republican-led Congress. However, he might be able to use the provision as a stopgap measure while he explores other options.  Those include Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which he used in his first term to impose extensive tariffs on Chinese goods and recently deployed against Brazil. Unlike IEEPA, which Trump believes merely allows him to declare an international emergency to impose tariffs, Section 301 requires a formal investigation into whether the United States has been harmed by an unfair foreign trade practice.  However, Trump could also just use those investigations — and the implied threat of tariffs — to pressure trading partners like the EU into reaffirming the trade deals they have already struck with him.  Trump could also launch additional sectoral investigations under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, a provision that allows the president to restrict imports determined to pose a threat to national security. He has employed that measure in his first and second term to impose duties on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks. In one variation, he’s used an ongoing investigation into pharmaceutical imports to pressure companies to invest more in the United States and to slash drug prices. He has also used the threat of semiconductor tariffs to prod countries and companies into concessions, without yet imposing any duties. The Commerce Department has other ongoing Section 232 investigations into processed critical minerals, aircraft and jet engines, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, robotics and industrial machinery, and medical supplies. And, as Trump’s lumber and furniture duties demonstrate, the administration’s expansive definition of national security provides it with broad leeway to open new investigations into a variety of sectors. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EUROPEAN UNION Risk assessment: The European Union isn’t counting on the Supreme Court to save it from Trump’s 15 percent baseline tariff — knowing full well that if U.S. tariffs don’t come through the front door, they’ll come through the window. “Even a condemnation or a ruling by the Supreme Court that these reciprocal tariffs are illegal does not automatically mean that they fall,” the EU’s top trade official, Sabine Weyand, told European lawmakers recently. “There are other legal bases available.” Trump invoked IEEPA to impose the baseline tariff on the 27-nation European bloc. But Brussels is more worried about sectoral tariffs that Trump has imposed on pharmaceuticals, cars and steel using other legal avenues — chiefly Section 232 investigations — that aren’t the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. Advertisement Coping strategy: Brussels is in full damage-control mode, trying not to stir the pot too much with Washington and focusing on implementing the deal struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in July — and baked into a bare-bones joint statement the following month.  Crucially, the EU asserts that it has locked in an “all-inclusive” tariff of 15 percent on most exports — so even if the Supreme Court throws out Trump’s universal tariffs it would argue that the cap should still apply. “Even if all IEEPA tariffs are eliminated, the EU would have an interest in keeping the deal,” Ignacio García Bercero, who used to be the Commission’s point person for its trade talks with the U.S., told POLITICO. The Commission is also still in negotiations with the Trump administration to secure further tariff exemptions for sensitive sectors such as wines and spirits.  The European Parliament, which will need to approve the Turnberry accord, is taking a more hawkish line over what many lawmakers have criticized as the one-sided trade deal with the U.S.: It wants to add a “sunset” clause that would effectively limit the EU’s trade concessions to Trump’s term in office. EU countries have given that idea the thumbs down, however, saying deals that have been agreed must be respected. The EU has invited Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to a meeting of its trade ministers in Brussels on Nov. 24. The focus there will be on reassuring him that the legislation to implement the trade deal will pass, and on fending off U.S. charges that EU business regulation is discriminatory. By Camille Gijs Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED KINGDOM Risk assessment: Should the Supreme Court strike down Donald Trump’s universal tariffs, Britain won’t be off the hook. London may have secured a favorable, 10 percent baseline rate with Washington back in May — but that only goes so far.   That protection does not extend to Trump’s Section 232 steel and auto levies, which remain in place. Under the current deal, Britain gets preferential tariffs on its car exports, as well as a 50 percent reduction to the global steel tariff rate.  If Britain tried to renegotiate its baseline tariffs, the U.S. could quickly retaliate by withdrawing those preferential deals, and take a harder line in ongoing negotiations covering pharma and whisky tariffs. Coping strategy: The U.K. is pressing ahead with its negotiations with the Trump administration on other parts of the deal — despite the ongoing court case. British officials fly out to D.C. in mid-November to push forward talks, shortly before Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is due in London on Nov. 24. “I don’t think the U.K. or others would attempt to renegotiate in the first instance — we might even see some public statements saying we plan to honour the deal,” said Sam Lowe, British trade expert and partner at consultancy firm Flint Global. “There’s too much risk in trying to reopen it in the first instance, given it could antagonise Trump.” Meanwhile the U.K. is seeking to strengthen its trade ties with other nations. It struck a free trade agreement with India over summer, is renegotiating aspects of its trading relationship with the European Union and hopes to close a trade deal with a six-nation Gulf economic bloc including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the coming weeks. The U.K. is expected to maintain its current deal with the U.S., even if legal challenges were to weaken Trump’s wider tariff regime. By Caroline Hug Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINA Risk assessment: Chinese leader Xi Jinping exited his meeting with Trump in South Korea last week with a U.S. commitment to cut in half the 20 percent “emergency” tariff imposed in March to punish Beijing for its role in the U.S. opioid epidemic. A possible ruling by the Supreme Court that overturns the residual “emergency” tariffs on Chinese imports — the remainder of the fentanyl tariff and the 10 percent “baseline” levy added in April — would leave Beijing with an average 25 percent tariff rate. The judges will test the administration’s position that its IEEPA tariffs are legally sound because they constitute a justified regulation of imports. But a blanket ruling on the levies on Chinese imports isn’t guaranteed. “The Supreme Court is likely to make a binary ruling — the court might decide the trade deficit tariffs are illegal, but the fentanyl tariffs are lawful,” said Peter Harrell, former senior director for international economics in the Joe Biden administration. The Chinese embassy declined to comment on how Beijing might respond to a SCOTUS ruling in China’s favor. But it would mark a symbolic victory for the Chinese government whose Foreign Minister Wang Yi has described them as an expression of “extreme egoism.”    Coping strategy: Celebration in Beijing about a possible revocation of any of these tariffs may be short-lived. That’s because Trump can wield multiple other trade weapons even if the Supreme Court deems the tariffs unlawful. His administration signaled that it’s priming potential replacements for the IEEPA tariffs with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s announcement last week of Section 301 probes of Beijing’s adherence to the U.S.-China Phase One trade deal in Trump’s first term. It is also undertaking Section 232 probes — geared to determine national security threats — of Chinese-dominated imports including pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and wind turbines. “There’s ample opportunity for the Trump administration to use other legal instruments in the event that the IEEPA tariffs get struck down,” said Emily Kilcrease, a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative during Trump’s first term and under Biden. The 301 investigation into the Phase One deal is already active, and “will allow them to be fairly quick in responding in the event that the Supreme Court rules against the administration,” Kilcrease said at a Center for a New American Security briefing. By Phelim Kine Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CANADA Risk assessment: It’s a bit of a lose-lose situation for Canada.  Trump pre-emptively blamed a Canadian provincial government for weaponizing Ronald Reagan in an ad to influence the SCOTUS ruling. The 60-second spot launched on U.S. networks on Oct. 16 to bring an anti-trade war message to Republican districts rather than to nine Supreme Court justices. It riled Trump enough that he ended trade talks eight days later. Then he vowed to increase tariff levels by 10 percent in retribution. If the court sides with Trump, it will justify an impulse to use IEEPA to raise rates higher without a need for findings or an investigation. And if the court rules against the president — Ottawa will have to prepare for more of Trump’s fury over the ad. The U.S. increased the IEEPA tariff rate on Canada to 35 percent from 25 percent in July, citing a failure to crack down on fentanyl trafficking across the northern border. This 35-percent rate excludes the promised 10-percent retributive increase — an executive order hasn’t been released. It’s unclear which legal authority Trump will use if his stated reasoning is to punish Canada over an ad about Reagan’s warning about protectionism.  Advertisement Prime Minister Mark Carney has called the IEEPA tariffs “unlawful and unjustified.” And he’s been able to play down the threat, for now, by reminding Canadians that these “fentanyl tariffs” have a carve-out for goods covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Carney regularly says 85 percent of Canadian exports enter the U.S. tariff free. Section 232 tariffs on industry have hit the economy harder than the IEEPA tariffs. Coping strategy: Canada is frantically pursuing trade diversification coupled with a high-level charm offensive while its trade negotiators try to limit the scope of the upcoming review of the USMCA to minimize U.S. tariff exposure. “Our priorities are to keep the review as targeted as possible, to seek a prompt renewal of the agreement, while securing preferential market access and a stable and predictable trading environment for Canadian businesses and investors,” Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman recently told a parliamentary committee. Carney has, meanwhile, apologized to Trump for the Reagan ad. By Zi-Ann Lum Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEXICO Risk assessment: Trump has hit Mexico, the largest U.S. trading partner, with multiple tariffs since taking office. Those include a 25 percent duty imposed under IEEPA to pressure the country to do more to stop fentanyl and precursor chemicals — as well as illegal immigrants — from entering the United States.  Trump softened the blow by excluding goods that comply with terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement from the new IEEPA duties. That has encouraged more and more companies to fill out paperwork to claim the exemption.  About 90 percent of Mexican goods entering the U.S. now have the necessary USMCA documentation, compared to around 60 percent last year, said Diego Marroquín, a fellow in the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Still, U.S. customs officials report collecting $5.7 billion in IEEPA duties on Mexican goods between Mar. 4 and Sep. 23, according to the most recent data available. Trump also has threatened to raise the IEEPA tariff on Mexico to 30 percent, but reportedly recently agreed to delay that move for several more weeks to allow time for talks. Coping strategy: President Claudia Sheinbaum has stayed on Trump’s good side by declining to retaliate and working with the U.S. on fentanyl and illegal immigration concerns. She has kept that forbearance while Trump has piled new tariffs on Mexico’s exports of autos, auto parts and certain other products using Section 232. Mexico’s ultimate goal is to maintain the preferential access it enjoys to the U.S. market under the USMCA, which is up for review next year, when countries have to say if they want to continue the pact past July 1, 2036, its current expiration date.  Sheinbaum told reporters on Oct. 27 that she hopes to resolve U.S. concerns over 54 Mexican non-tariff trade barriers in coming weeks. While a return to tariff-free trade with the U.S. seems unlikely while Trump is in office, Mexico hopes to be treated better than most other trading partners, or at least no worse. That drama will play out in the first half of 2026. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Palmer and Phelim Kine reported from Washington, Camille Gijs from Brussels, Caroline Hug from London and Zi-Ann Lum from Ottawa. Advertisement

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is in talks with eight of Europe’s top investors to involve them in a fund to support homegrown companies working on critical technologies. Representatives from the private investors are in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss their involvement, according to a planning note seen by POLITICO. The fund has been in the works since the spring and will combine EU money with private investment to fill a late-stage financing gap for European tech startups — buying stakes to support companies ranging from artificial intelligence to quantum. It could range from €3 billion to €5 billion, depending on how much investors contribute. The investors invited to meet with the Commission on Tuesday are Danish investment company Novo Holdings, the Export and Investment Fund of Denmark, Spanish CriteriaCaixa and Santander, Italian Intesa Sanpaolo, Dutch pension fund APG Asset Management, Swedish Wallenberg Investments, and Polish Development Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, according to the planning note. The fund will focus on “strategic and enabling technologies,” the note read, including advanced materials, clean energy, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum technology, robotics, space and medical technologies. The Commission is seeking to address the issue of companies struggling to scale in Europe. Many turn to investors from the U.S. or elsewhere for late-stage financing, after which they often relocate. The goal of the fund is to make sure that startups that have completed their early funding rounds can “secure scaleup financing while maintaining their headquarters and core activities in Europe,” the note said.  The fund follows an earlier effort to take direct equity stakes in companies through the European Innovation Council Fund. Investments under the EIC Fund are capped at €30 million, while the new fund would invest €100 million or more. The fund will launch in April. Other investors could still come in at a later date. In November, the Commission plans to begin the search for an investment adviser — a process that should be wrapped up by January, according to the planning note.

President Donald Trump on Saturday celebrated his birthday at the massive military parade he’s dreamed of for eight years. It was a fête befitting of the approach Trump has taken as commander-in-chief, using military iconography to telegraph strength to opponents, foreign and domestic. “Time and again America’s enemies have learned that if you threaten the American people, our soldiers are coming for you,” Trump said. “Your defeat will be certain. Your demise will be final, and your downfall will be total and complete.” His speech, which focused on lauding the Army’s history, was a more disciplined and marked departure from the more campaign rally-like events Trump presided over in recent weeks at Fort Bragg and West Point. Still, across the nation, hundreds of thousands saw Saturday’s events in the nation’s capital in a more ominous light, marching in “No Kings” protests aimed at highlighting the ways in which demonstrators argue Trump has acted more like a dictator than a president. But in Washington it was mostly calm. At the parade, people in MAGA gear and Army veteran garb looked on as soldiers in modern-day and historical uniforms, tanks, drones and other military vehicles — even a robotic dog — paraded down Constitution Avenue. Trump and other top officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were stationed at a viewing stand near the end of the parade route. Attack helicopters and historic military planes soared overhead at points during the parade. Still, Trump has moved the country away from its decadeslong role of global policeman. But recent incidents are testing whether that approach can hold, with Israel and Iran trading strikes since Thursday night — and no clear plan for a ceasefire to the war between Russia and Ukraine. “Tonight, we affirm with unwavering certainty that in the years ahead … the American soldier will be there,” Trump said, without mentioning any ongoing conflicts. “No matter the risk, no matter the obstacles, our warriors will charge into battle.” The president’s remarks capped a daylong celebration of the Army’s 250th birthday — which also included the parade and a fireworks show. Saturday also happened to be Trump’s 79th birthday — with attendees at one point singing him “Happy Birthday” along the parade route. It was the display of military might Trump has long wanted — especially after he accompanied French President Emmanuel Macron to a 2017 Bastille Day parade where troops marched down the Champs-Élysées and military jets left trails of red, white, and blue smoke. Though officials looked into the possibility during his first term, aides advised him against following through on those plans. Critics questioned the cost in the run-up to the event — which Army officials have said will be between $25 million and $50 million — and slammed it as an unnecessary and authoritarian show of force. In addition to France, China, Russia and North Korea also routinely hold military parades. Several dozen GOP lawmakers also told POLITICO this week they planned to skip the parade. “I wouldn’t have done it,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told NBC News this week. “ I’m not sure what the actual expense of it is, but I’m not really, you know, we were always different than, you know, the images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that.” Plans for the Army’s birthday celebration were in the works well before Trump won the 2024 election, but they took on new life under his administration. Before the parade, thousands of people — mostly families — milled around the National Mall where the Army positioned artillery, armored vehicles and other hardware for the public to admire and stand beside for photos. It was more like a July 4th celebration or county fair than the prelude to the largest military parade Washington has seen in decades. Any protests or dissent felt remote as the crowd — some wearing hats and t-shirts proclaiming their veteran status — ambled in the heat between helicopters and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. It was a far cry from scenes in Los Angeles where police used flash bangs and tear gas to disperse crowds protesting federal immigration raids. And it comes amid a tense political climate after two Minnesota state lawmakers were shot, and one of them killed, early Saturday morning. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz described the shootings — which also claimed the life of one of the lawmaker’s spouses — as a “politically motivated assassination.” The attacks rattled political leaders in both parties and left them calling for a deescalation of political rhetoric. Minnesota’s congressional delegation — including Republican Rep. Tom Emmer, the House GOP whip, and Democratic Sens. Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar — put out a joint statement condemning the attack. “Today we speak with one voice to express our outrage, grief, and condemnation of this horrible attack on public servants,” they said.There is no place in our democracy for politically-motivated violence.”

BRUSSELS — Were you thinking of sending your artificial intelligence helper to an online meeting with the European Commission? Think again. The European Union’s executive institution has a new ground rule that bars virtual assistants powered by artificial intelligence from participating in its meetings. It imposed the rule for the first time on a call with representatives from a network of digital policy support offices across Europe earlier this month. “No AI Agents are allowed,” said a slide on e-meeting etiquette at the start of the presentation. The Commission acknowledged it had imposed the ground rule for the first time last week, declining to give more details on the policy and reasons why it took the decision. It’s a weird twist to a recent development in artificial intelligence technology: the rise of said “AI agents.” AI’s most popularized application so far seems to be chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which can generate text or information or perform one single task when asked by a human. | Sebastien Bozon/AFP via Getty Images AI’s most popularized application so far seems to be chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which can generate text or information or perform one single task when asked by a human. But AI agents push that boundary: They are assistants that can tackle several tasks autonomously and interact in a virtual environment. They act on users’ behalf to conduct a series of tasks helping people in their jobs or daily life. One of those tasks is joining an online meeting, taking notes or even reciting certain information. Quietly, Brussels has been gearing up for an era in which AI agents participate in daily life and business. The technology was mentioned in a wider Commission package on virtual worlds published March 31. “AI agents are software applications designed to perceive and interact with the virtual environment,” the text read. Agents can “operate autonomously,” but their work is set by “specific predefined rules.” Leading AI companies have all been experimenting with their own AI agent applications. In January, OpenAI launched Operator, a research version of an AI agent that can carry out several tasks in a separate web browser. Microsoft has also been rolling out the possibility of creating agents in its AI “companion” Copilot. French AI company Mistral also offers a platform to build agents. So far, the technology isn’t covered by any specific legislation, but the AI models that power the agents will have to abide by the EU’s binding AI Act. The technology could also come into focus when the Commission explores specific legislation on algorithmic management, the idea that employees are being managed by algorithms, later this mandate.

The Trump administration’s support for Tesla may be backfiring on the electric car company. And there are signs it could get worse. Tesla posted a far steeper than expected decline in first-quarter deliveries Wednesday, a sign that CEO Elon Musk’s political activities are hitting the company’s fortunes. The manufacturer announced it had delivered 336,681 electric vehicles globally, a decline of about 13 percent from the same period last year and a result that fell below even pessimistic Wall Street forecasts. The drop came on the heels of declining Tesla sales in Europe, surging U.S. sales by rival EV-makers, and widespread protests among liberals because of the work that Musk has done for President Donald Trump and his agenda. On Wednesday, Wall Street analysts largely blamed Musk’s role with the Trump administration for Tesla’s newest troubles, even as the company attributed the decline to production issues with its popular Model Y. In short, Tesla is in the middle of a “crisis tornado,” according to Dan Ives, a Wedbush Securities analyst and longtime Tesla booster. A key reason, he said, is the alliance of Musk and Trump. Musk spent $277 million in support of Trump and other Republicans during the 2024 election. And since Trump took office, Musk has led an across-the-board effort to cut the federal workforce and shrink the U.S. government — a campaign that’s enraged many liberals — while dumping big money into an unsuccessful effort to flip Wisconsin’s Supreme Court to the conservatives. At the same time, the Trump administration has gone all-out for Musk and Tesla. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently told Fox News viewers to buy Tesla stock. Attorney General Pam Bondi said last week that a Democratic congresswoman should “tread very carefully” when talking about Musk and Tesla protests. The FBI last week announced the formation of a Tesla threats task force. And Trump’s new round of auto tariffs could hurt Tesla’s rivals. Yet none of those examples compare with Trump’s decision last month to shop for a new Tesla on White House grounds. That public display turned the company’s challenges into “more of a political lightning rod,” Ives wrote in an investor note last month. On Wednesday, Ives called Tesla’s delivery numbers a “disaster on every metric.” He wrote in a note to investors that Musk faced a “fork in the road moment” — a reference to a January email in which Musk’s team offered federal workers a chance to quit their jobs — to either continue with Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency or return his focus to his company. “The brand crisis issues are clearly having a negative impact on Tesla … there is no debate,” he wrote. Broadly speaking, the blowback against Tesla makes sense. Electric vehicles have long appealed to liberal and Democratic consumers because driving them doesn’t contribute to climate change. So Musk’s association with Trump — a divisive Republican politician who has described global warming as a hoax — naturally would chill support for Tesla among liberal drivers, observers said. “If you decide to willingly alienate your customer base, you’re not going to be able to sell your product,” said Alexander Edwards, president of Strategic Vision, an automotive research and consulting firm. But it doesn’t end there. Trump also spent much of the 2024 campaign vilifying electric vehicles and vowing to end federal support for them. The rhetoric hasn’t done much to endear electric vehicles to conservatives, observers said — despite Musk’s support for Trump. “People that are most likely to buy an electric vehicle are less likely than ever to purchase a Tesla as an electric vehicle,” said K.C. Boyce, vice president of Escalent, an auto market analysis firm. “And while conservatives may like Tesla more, they’re not really all that much more likely to purchase an electric vehicle.” Boyce’s data shows a widening political chasm for Tesla since Election Day. His company found that 53 percent of liberals are less likely to consider purchasing a Tesla than they were six months ago. At the same time, 31 percent of conservatives are more likely to consider purchasing the car. These attitudes are reflected in U.S. auto sales. Though Tesla still dominates the American electric vehicle market — accounting for 42 percent of EV sales in January, according to S&P Global Mobility — it’s seen its share of the pie shrink. Just a year earlier, Tesla made up more than half of all new American electric vehicle purchases. The used-car market has seen movement too. Americans are ditching their Teslas at a higher rate than before, according to Edmunds. The automotive research group found that 1.4 percent of used cars are Tesla, compared with just 0.4 percent at this time last year. Europe too appears to have fallen out of love with Tesla. Last week, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association released data showing that Tesla sales for January and February declined by 43 percent compared with last year. That loss came as overall sales of EVs in Europe increased by 30 percent. And those losses could grow. A majority of people in France, or 57 percent, are now preparing to boycott Tesla and other American brands in response to Musk and Trump, according to a survey released last week. Tesla did not respond to a request for comment from POLITICO’s E&E News. Musk, meanwhile, used his social media company X to highlight good news for Tesla, including sales numbers in Norway and China as well as its advances in robotics. The White House, when asked to respond, took aim at Democrats for their criticism of Musk’s company. In particular, they blasted former vice presidential nominee Tim Walz for saying that he enjoyed watching Tesla stock drop in value, a comment Walz later walked back. “While deranged Democrats like Tim Walz are openly calling for the ruin of an iconic American company that employs tens of thousands of everyday Americans, the Trump administration is committed to unleashing prosperity for all of our companies, industries, and workers,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai. But it’s clear that frustration with Tesla is building among both investors and activists. On Wednesday, Ross Gerber, a major Tesla investor who owns about $100 million in company stock, wrote on X that “Tesla needs a real CEO.” “The brand is broken and may not be fixable,” he wrote. Perhaps in response to such criticisms, Musk recently held an all-hands meeting with Tesla employees and encouraged them to “hold on to your stock” even as top Tesla board members and a senior executive offloaded their holdings. After that meeting, Wall Street fears temporarily eased, and Tesla’s stock rose more than 12 percent in a day, marking the company’s biggest rally since Election Day. That bounce was quickly erased last week after it was revealed that the Chinese company BYD — Tesla’s top rival — reported $107 billion in sales in 2024. That’s about $9 billion more than Tesla posted. On Wednesday, Tesla stock dipped again in pre-market trading on the news of weak deliveries but began to rise shortly after POLITICO broke the news that Musk would soon leave Trump’s inner circle. Musk suffered a brutal political loss Tuesday evening in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, where he had invested more than $20 million and traveled to the state to boost the conservative candidate who lost by 10 points. Democrats won the race by making it all about Musk, a signal that his continued involvement in politics will remain a potent political cudgel that can be used against Trump. But some potentially good news for Tesla will come later Wednesday, when Trump is expected to levy a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and parts. That shouldn’t do much to Tesla’s bottom line, as the company domestically manufactures all of its cars sold in the United States. But it could mean a number of Tesla’s competitors will have to raise prices by thousands of dollars. Trump told reporters gathered in the Oval Office last week that Musk did not weigh in on the tariffs “because he may have a conflict.” Adding to Tesla’s headaches are widespread protests and acts of vandalism against the company. Tesla vehicles have been burned and defaced with graffiti nationwide. And protests at the company’s dealerships and chargers have intensified by the week. A major round of protests occurred throughout the country Saturday. A growing number of Democratic politicians also are encouraging boycotts of Musk’s companies. At a recent “Tesla Takedown” rally, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) told the crowd that the only language Musk and other top Trump administration officials understood is the “language of money.” “On March 29, it’s my birthday, and all I want to see happen on my birthday is for Elon to be taken down,” Crockett said. After those comments, Bondi warned Crockett to “tread very carefully.”

BARCELONA — When it comes to 5G, your smartphone is fooling you. Many Europeans today might see a 5G icon when unlocking their phone, but are most likely still riding on a lower-grade connection of boosted 4G. Europe is lagging behind China and the United States on rolling out top-level mobile internet known as 5G standalone (SA), so much so that some research suggests only 2 percent of Europeans are connecting to it. The lack of full-fledged 5G threatens to stall European innovation, keeping the bloc’s industry stuck in the slow lane while other parts of the world speed ahead. Industry officials warn the lag is aggravating Europe’s competitive decline and the bloc’s ability to attract investment. “At the start of the 5G cycle, vendors and operators put up huge promises about how it is going to enable robotic surgeries, autonomous cars, all this different stuff,” but none of that can be delivered until standalone architecture is in place, said Luke Kehoe, an industry analyst at connectivity intelligence firm Ookla. European companies are missing out on faster speeds and game-changing capabilities that were supposed to take the industry to the next level — making factories smarter and more automated. Ultra-connected, robot-packed plants are still a work in progress, partly because operators haven’t fully upgraded networks, especially right down to the core parts, to the full 5G standard. Trade association Connect Europe estimated that only 40 percent of the European population was covered by 5G standalone by the end of last year, behind North America (91 percent) and Asia-Pacific (45 percent). But Ookla, which is behind the online tool Speedtest, crunched the data and found that fewer than 2 percent of Europeans are actually connecting to it today. “We did see very, very clearly that Europe is markedly behind,” Kehoe said. SIGNAL FOR INVESTMENTS IS WEAK 5G non-standalone (NSA) — which Europeans mostly have today — is like putting a turbo engine in an old car. It boosts the speed but still relies on the previous 4G infrastructure. 5G standalone, on the other hand, is like building a new high-speed train system from scratch. It requires time and money to optimize and upgrade the full network. If anything, the sluggish roll-out “is an indication that we do not have the investment environment to compete,” according to John Giusti, the chief regulatory officer for GSMA, the global association of mobile operators. The bloc’s biggest telcos have warned for years that the regulatory landscape, market fragmentation and restrictive merger policy in Europe have been squeezing profits and stretching their wallets thin. “We don’t have the return on capital coming in to the sector to further invest and strengthen our networks. That is the core issue,” Giusti claimed. Meanwhile, China — with more than twice as many robots in its factories as the EU — has made 5G standalone a policy priority, Kehoe said. The country has a “huge base of enterprises that are using 5G SA in a manufacturing context for very, very low latency,” the critical time that data takes to travel to a server and back. “That’s where I think Europe would miss out now.” India is also thriving, driven by its largest operator Reliance Jio, which leapfrogged the non-standalone phase and rolled out standalone infrastructure from day one. But all hope is not lost for the old continent, as Ookla’s Kehoe underscored. “Fiber is particularly important in terms of competitiveness and, on that matter, Europe is doing very, very well.” CHICKEN AND EGG It’s not just about the money, or lack thereof, going into next-gen infrastructure. “What you see in Europe is actually very rational investors’ behavior,” said Robert Mourik, chair of the BEREC group of European telecom regulators. It’s a classic “chicken-and-egg” problem, he argued. “We are not investing too far ahead of the demand” — noting the industry’s timid appetite for something new — while also recognizing that struggling operators need to focus on clear revenue opportunities. Connect Europe reported nine new commercial launches of 5G SA networks last year. It acknowledged that slow adoption “is largely due to operator concerns that the return on investment is unclear, the technology is immature and the migration from 5G to 5G SA is disruptive.” For manufacturers selling the 5G kits, Europe needs to step on the gas. “I think the risk is we fall even further behind on both the existing industries but also missing out” on the ones “we don’t see yet,” said Jenny Lindqvist, Ericsson’s head of market for Europe. Europe needs to play catch-up, she emphasised. “We have other markets outside of Europe where the infrastructure is there and we start seeing the new use cases.”

LONDON — Keir Starmer has spent much of his premiership taking brickbats from the populist right. On Tuesday, he tried to get ahead of the fight. In a carefully choreographed series of announcements meant to maximize the United Kingdom prime minister’s impact, Starmer promised a full and unflinching look at the state’s failure to protect three schoolgirls, who were stabbed to death last July at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in the town of Southport. The horrific killings were followed by a wave of disorder across the U.K., with far-right groups seizing on claims — pushed on social media — that British authorities had deliberately avoided identifying the killer, 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana in the aftermath of the attack. Elon Musk, the X owner and Donald Trump ally, even waded into the row, boosting false claims about the government’s policing of the riots and its disclosure of Rudakubana’s identity. It is not standard practice in the U.K. to name a suspect before charges are laid, but into that immediate vacuum about the killer’s identity poured claims that the suspect was a newly arrived refugee — helping to turbocharge the far-right response. A police decision not to declare the incident terror-related also raised a host of questions about the state’s treatment of the crime. That narrative continued Monday night as Nigel Farage, leader of the insurgent Reform UK party, responded to Rudakubana’s guilty plea — a surprise move at the start of his murder trial — by accusing the state of “the most astonishing cover-up.” He pointed to Rudakubana’s possession of an al Qaeda training manual, a fact not revealed until October, when further terror charges were brought against him. “I think that we need an apology from the home secretary and an explanation as to why we have been denied the basic truth,” Farage said. FLURRY OF ACTIVITY And so on Monday night and Tuesday morning, just hours after Rudakubana’s guilty plea, came a flurry of government activity. In an early morning Downing Street press conference framed by Union Jacks, Starmer promised a probing public inquiry into the state’s handling of the case, vowing not to “let any institution of the state deflect from their failure, failure which in this case, frankly, leaps off the page.” In a detail disclosed since Rudakubana’s conviction, the prime minister pointed out that the killer had been referred three times to the British government’s de-radicalization Prevent program, only for it to be deemed that “he did not meet the threshold for intervention, a judgment that was clearly wrong and which failed those families.” Known for a generally robotic delivery style, the prime minister spoke emotively about the state of mind of British parents as news of the attack broke last year. “It could have been anywhere, it could have been our children, but it was Southport,” he said. “It was Bebe, six years old. Elsie, seven. Alice, nine.” And Starmer tried to challenge the status quo, too. He acknowledged public confusion about why the murders had not been deemed a terror case under Britain’s existing definition, and saying that, in a world where the U.K. faces a “a new threat” from “loners, misfits” and “young men in their bedroom accessing all manner of material online,” he had ordered a review of Britain’s terror laws. “We can’t have a national security system that fails to tackle people who are a danger to our values, our security, our children, we have to be ready to face every threat,” he said. The British government’s attempt to get on the front foot — and pitch Starmer as a change agent, leaning on his record as a reforming director of public prosecutions — marks a clear shift for an administration that has at times seemed buffeted by external events. Starmer’s government, elected on a landslide last year, is struggling in the polls and acutely aware of the threat from the populist right represented by Farage. By pitching the administration as proactive investigators of wrongdoing, and Starmer as a man personally angered by state failings, the government will be looking to see off charges from the likes of Musk that the Labour government represents the failed establishment. The pressure is now on for that inquiry to deliver. Still, Starmer rebutted one of the central charges from critics of the government’s response — countering that only revealing crucial details amid a police probe and ahead of a verdict would have seen the “vile” Rudakubana walk free. “I would never do that and nobody would ever forgive me if I had,” he said. “That is why the law of this country forbade me or anyone else from disclosing details sooner.” The U.K. prime minister is gambling that, on this highly charged issue at least, a restive British public will be content with due process over the sound and fury of his loudest critics.

Europe is falling behind other regions in having robots take on services and chores, according to a draft EU report obtained by POLITICO. The European Commission is estimating there are on average 22 robots per 1000 employees across the bloc, which is less than the United States (29). South Korea is outpacing all other world regions, the paper showed, with 101 robots per 1,000 employees. The report adds an extra layer of urgency for Europe to get its act together if it doesn’t want to fall too far behind its global peers. It is expected to be released soon as part of a new so-called Competitiveness Compass to help make the EU economy compete with other world regions but was pushed back last week due to President Ursula von der Leyen’s bout of severe pneumonia. The text, called the 2025 Annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report, was first reported by Bloomberg. The EU executive raised concerns about its tech sector in the draft, flagging that the EU’s share of the global market in tech and digital services has halved over the past decade (to 10.8 percent) while the U.S. share has increased by a third (to 38 percent). The EU has only 263 unicorns — a company valued at over $1 billion — which is a fraction of the number in the United States (1,539) and also trails China’s number (387). The figures spell trouble for Europe, as “businesses struggle to scale up” and “the role of venture capital remains far smaller than in competing economies,” the text read, drawing heavily from Mario Draghi’s blueprint to fight Europe’s competitive decline. Digitalization is progressing “but not yet at sufficient pace,” it warned.

LONDON — The U.K., along with the rest of the world, may be on the brink of climate disaster. If the worst happens, Whitehall is going to want a little bit of warning.  So it is turning to scientific experts for help — and to a government-backed center for innovative research which also happens to be the legacy left by one of the most controversial figures in recent U.K. political history. Scientists, assisted with millions in government funding, are about to embark on a mission to set up an “early warning system” for two so-called climate change ‘tipping points’: critical thresholds which, if breached, could plunge Britain and much of the world into a new reality of extreme weather and food insecurity. The £81 million, multi-year scheme could deploy robots — dubbed WALL-E by some experts, in honor of Pixar’s robotic environmental hero — to monitor the impact of climate change in the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic. The cash would also be used for supercomputer models of historic climate data. It will all be led by the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), an independent body funded by the government and founded at the instigation of former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s top aide until he was forced out of Downing Street in a swirl of ignominy in 2020. ARIA has a remit to carry out research considered “too speculative, too hard, or too interdisciplinary to pursue elsewhere,” according to its own mission statement. This includes work on prospective climate disasters. “It is incumbent on governments to think the unthinkable about what might happen,” said Laurie Laybourn, a researcher on climate and security at the Institute for Public Policy Research, a think tank.  CLIMATE MONITOR Full details of the project will be announced in early 2025.  But the aim is to monitor for changes in ocean circulation, temperature, and ice melt — driven by global warming — that could herald the collapse of the subpolar gyre (SPG.)  The U.K., along with the rest of the world, may be on the brink of climate disaster. | Benjamin Cremel/Getty Images That system of marine currents plays a critical role in maintaining northern Europe’s temperate climate. The project will also assess the linked risk of the Greenland ice sheet collapsing. If there are signs the SPG is about to collapse, it would tell anyone paying attention that potentially existential changes to global conditions could be on on their way. There is still significant scientific uncertainty, but some climate models anticipate that SPG collapse could happen as soon as 2040, resulting in colder, snowier winters and hotter summers in the U.K. and Europe, while potentially disrupting monsoon rains that are vital for food security in west Africa. Ultimately, the goal is to create a permanent monitoring system that would alert policymakers if a tipping point was coming — buying governments and their populations vital time to prepare. Sarah Bohndiek, one of the two scientists leading the climate change program at ARIA, warned the world was less prepared for climate tipping points than it had been for COVID-19. “We saw the devastating societal and economic consequences [of the coronavirus], but also the speed with which we were able to respond and start delivering vaccination and delivering medical care,” Bohndiek told POLITICO. “What would happen if we cross one of these climate tipping points? Well, actually, we don’t have the same level of preparedness that we had for the pandemic.” ‘CATASTROPHIC LOSSES’ But warning signs over the SPG could be just the first stage of a still bigger tipping point: the breakdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) ocean current. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers an abrupt collapse of the AMOC unlikely this century. But if it did occur, scientists predict catastrophic global consequences. A recent IPPR report, written by Laybourn, the climate and security specialist, concluded that AMOC collapse would lead to such extreme cold that it “would effectively wipe out crop-growing in the U.K.” Its wider effects could cause “catastrophic losses to key crops globally,” the report said. The paper criticized the government for failing to take account of climate tipping points when assessing national security risks and strategy. Laybourn welcomed the idea of an early warning system. If a tipping point is approaching “we need as much warning as we can,” he said. A government spokesperson said: “We continue to support fundamental research into climate risks, such as the work being conducted by both the Met Office and ARIA, as part of our record-breaking £20.4 billion backing for U.K. research and development.” There is still significant scientific uncertainty, but some climate models anticipate that SPG collapse could happen as soon as 2040. | Carl Court/Getty Images Gemma Bale, Bohndiek’s co-director on the early warning system project, described the research as “edge-of-the-possible stuff.” “What we want to do over the five years of our program is to demonstrate that it could be possible,” said Bale. “Maybe we’ll have something that looks like an early warning system at the end of five years. But maybe we’ll have just changed the conversation so people are thinking: ‘This is what we need to do to actually build that system — and take these risks really seriously.’” The challenges are technical as well as scientific, said Bohndiek. Robotic measuring instruments — the ones she likens to WALL-E — would have to operate for years in the depths of the ocean or out on the wastes of the Greenland ice sheet in the middle of an Arctic winter.   Bohndiek and Bale, both founding directors at ARIA, have a background in medical physics, not climate science. They have asked top climate scientists already working on the problem for proposals to design the early warning system, as well as specialists in sensor technology. The agency also wants to work with social scientists who can then help convert the findings into policy recommendations. BE PREPARED The chosen “creators” — ARIA speak for researchers — will take the project forward early next year. Tim Lenton, professor of climate change at the University of Exeter, is one of those who has submitted a proposal. An SPG collapse, if it happened, could unfold “quite quickly … in the space of a decade,” he said. The costs of government investing in an early warning system now is “trivial compared to what you can save in terms of damages,” he added. But if the unthinkable happened, and the SPG early-warning system was triggered, what could Whitehall actually do? “You’d start with the basics,” said Lenton. “So, snowier, harsher winters — let’s get some more salt. Let’s think more like British Columbia and how they cope with their winters. How do we make the rail network more resilient? How do we cope with more heating demand?” The £81 million, multi-year scheme could deploy robots to monitor the impact of climate change in the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images In more extreme scenarios, ministers would have to ask, “What kind of agriculture we can credibly maintain and how do we support farmers to keep doing it?” Lenton said. “Forewarned is forearmed.” In the more unlikely scenario of a full-scale AMOC collapse, those early warnings would demand even more drastic action from governments around the world. Laybourn describes AMOC collapse — and its knock-on effects on agriculture and society — as a “planetary-scale cataclysm.” “Hyperbole is a feature of our age — but these are appropriate words for this,” he said.