President Donald Trump has linked his desire to own Greenland with the development of his nascent missile defense shield, Golden Dome. Except that he doesn’t need to seize the Danish territory to accomplish his goal. Golden Dome, Trump’s pricey vision to protect the U.S., is a multi-layered defense shield intended to block projectiles heading toward the country. The president announced a $175 billion, three-year plan last year, although gave few details about how the administration would fund it. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said Wednesday in a Truth Social post. “It is vital for the Golden Dome we are building.” But the country already has the access it needs in Greenland to host interceptors that could knock down enemy missiles. And the U.S. has other locations it could place similar defense systems — think New York or Canada — if many of the interceptors are even based on land, instead of space as envisioned. “The right way for the U.S. to engage with an ally to improve our homeland defense — whether through additional radars, communication antennas or even interceptor sites — is to engage collaboratively with that ally,” said a former defense official. “If strengthening homeland defense is the actual goal, this administration is off to a truly terrible start.” Here are three reasons why Golden Dome has little to do with Trump’s desire to take Greenland: HE COULD HAVE JUST ASKED DENMARK The U.S. military’s presence in Greenland centers on Pituffik Space Base, which operates under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark that grants the U.S. regular access to the island. The base is a key outpost for detecting threats from the Arctic, although it doesn’t host any interceptor systems. If the Pentagon wanted to station interceptors or more sensors on the island, the U.S. could simply work with Denmark to do so, according to the former official and a defense expert. Greenland has been part of the U.S. homeland missile defense and space surveillance network for decades and it would continue that role under Golden Dome, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “We already have unfettered access to what we need for Golden Dome in Greenland, but the president talks as if he’s not aware of that,” Harrison said. “His statements about Greenland are detached from reality.” The White House, when asked for comment, pointed to Trump’s post. HE COULD CHOOSE SOMEWHERE ELSE — THAT THE U.S. OWNS Greenland could prove a good location for ground-based interceptors that block missiles launching from Russia and the Middle East towards the U.S. But the U.S. has other options for interceptor locations, and none would necessitate taking another country (a seizure that could threaten to destroy the NATO alliance). The Pentagon has examined potential locations for interceptor sites and Fort Drum, an Army base in upstate New York, has routinely survived deep dive analysis by the Missile Defense Agency, said the former defense official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions. “Compared to Fort Drum, Greenland does not appear to be a better location for such interceptors,” the person said. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Ala.) has also said his state could play a “critical role” in housing interceptors. MUCH OF THE DEFENSE SHIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED IN SPACE Trump’s assertion about needing Greenland for Golden Dome also raises questions about what the multibillion-dollar architecture will actually look like. The Pentagon has largely avoided discussing the price tag publicly. And officials originally envisioned most of it located above the Earth. A key part of Golden Dome is space-based interceptors — weapons orbiting the planet that can shoot down incoming missiles. But moving missile defense systems to space would require fewer ground-based systems, negating the importance of acquiring more land for the effort. “If Golden Dome’s sensor network and defenses are primarily space-based — as per the current plan — Greenland might still be of value,” said a former defense official. “But less so than it would be for terrestrial architecture.”

PARIS — Europe and the U.S. presented a united front for Ukraine in Paris on Tuesday, hailing security guarantees with American backing and laying out a detailed plan for bolstering Kyiv long-term. In a notable show of support, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner praised European work to hash out a plan that would provide a security guarantee to ongoing peace talks with Russia.  “We have largely finished the security protocols,” said Witkoff, standing alongside the leaders of France, Germany, the U.K. and Ukraine at the Elysée Palace. “This is important so that when this war ends, it ends forever,” he added, after praising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his “outstanding team.” Europeans, Americans and Ukrainians had agreed on “robust” security guarantees for Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron said. Those guarantees include the U.S.-led monitoring of a ceasefire and the deployment of a multinational force in Ukraine in case of a peace deal with Russia, according to the joint statement put out by the so-called coalition of the willing — a loose group of Ukraine allies that doesn’t include Washington. Security guarantees are “the key to ensuring that a peace agreement can never mean a Ukrainian surrender and that a peace agreement can never mean a new threat to Ukraine,” Macron said.  But the upbeat declarations in Paris will not allay the doubts swirling over the U.S. commitment to supporting Ukraine and the European continent. While it was initially hoped that Washington would commit to a joint statement on the security guarantees, the final declaration was ultimately only signed by the coalition of the willing. Details of American participation in the multinational force for Ukraine were removed from an earlier draft, seen by POLITICO. That version had stipulated the U.S. would commit to “support the force if it is attacked” and assist with intelligence and logistics. Leaders also did not want to be drawn on the credibility of U.S. commitments in the wake of the capture by U.S. forces of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and President Donald Trump’s threat to seize Greenland.  Europeans, Americans and Ukrainians had agreed on “robust” security guarantees for Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron said. | Ludovic Marin/Getty Images Witkoff refused to comment on Greenland, instead turning his focus to Kyiv and insisting that Trump “strongly stands behind security protocols.” “The president does not back down from his commitments … we will be there for Ukraine,” he said.   Responding to a question on Washington’s credibility, Zelenskyy said the security guarantees must be backed by the U.S. Congress. “We are counting a lot on that, the documents are ready,” he said. A PLAN FOR UKRAINE The statement from Kyiv’s European allies says they stand ready to commit to “legally binding” security guarantees to support Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia. Crucially, the monitoring and verification of a future ceasefire would be led by the U.S., with contributions from countries including the U.K. and Germany.  The plan also sets out security guarantees that would include long-term support for the Ukrainian armed forces, the deployment of a European-led multinational force in Ukraine in case of a peace settlement, and “binding” commitments to support Ukraine should there be a future Russian attack.  “The coalition of the willing declaration for a solid and lasting peace … for the first time recognizes an operational convergence between the 35 countries, Ukraine and the U.S. to build robust security guarantees,” Macron told reporters. Washington will participate in those guarantees, including with the “backstop” that Europeans wanted, he added.  British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that after a ceasefire, the U.K. and France will set up military hubs across Ukraine and “build protected facilities for weapons and military equipment to support Ukraine’s defense needs.” France, the U.K. and Ukraine signed a separate declaration on Tuesday laying out these commitments. The European-led multinational force will cover land, air and sea and will be stationed in Western Ukraine, far from the contact line, Macron said. France and the U.K. have previously said they would be willing to put boots on the ground — but most other coalition members, including Germany, have so far shied away from joining that commitment. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Berlin was open to deploying its troops in a neighboring NATO country that would act in case of Russian aggression. | Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Other nations have suggested deploying aircraft based in neighboring NATO countries to monitor Ukrainian skies, and Turkey has agreed to lead the coalition’s maritime segment to secure the Black Sea.  German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Berlin was open to deploying its troops in a neighboring NATO country that would act in case of Russian aggression, telling reporters “we are not ruling anything out.” But he stressed that the final decision would be up to Germany’s parliament. “I will only make proposals to the Bundestag once there is a ceasefire and the coalition of the willing has agreed on the procedure to be followed,” he told reporters. “The prerequisite is a ceasefire.” Some European countries, however, remain reluctant to deploy military assets in a post-war Ukraine. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis repeated that Greece will not participate in a European military force in Ukraine. However, Greek government officials said Mitsotakis has not ruled out other forms of assistance, such as in maritime surveillance. Nektaria Stamouli contributed reporting.

The Netherlands has pulled out of U.S.-led counter-drug missions in the Caribbean, a reaction to the rising death toll from American military attacks on vessels suspected of being used to smuggle narcotics. Speaking Monday evening in Aruba, Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said Dutch forces would continue drug interdiction within Dutch territorial waters, but would not take part in U.S. operations on the high seas linked to Operation Southern Spear. The operation, launched in September, has killed more than 100 people in over 20 attacks on boats that the U.S. says  were ferrying drugs. “We have worked together with the Americans on counter-narcotics for many years, but in a different way,” Brekelmans said. “When we see drug smuggling, we try to arrest and prosecute those responsible. Not by shooting ships.” The move was first reported by the Dutch daily Trouw. The decision marks a break with past practice. For years, the Netherlands, which controls six islands in the Caribbean, cooperated closely with the United States and other partners in the region, including through the Joint Interagency Task Force South. Dutch defense forces and the coast guard worked with U.S. counterparts on surveillance, interdiction, arrests and extraditions. What has changed, Brekelmans said, is the method adopted by the Donald Trump administration. “Outside our territorial waters, we see that the Americans have now chosen a national route again,” he said. “The method and the operation the United States is carrying out now, they are really doing that themselves. We are not participating in that.” The move comes amid heightened tensions after the United States used military force to detain Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and escalate pressure on Caracas, prompting international criticism over violations of sovereignty and international law. Brekelmans said Dutch defense planners were closely watching developments between Washington and Caracas, but stressed there is currently no military threat from Venezuela toward the Dutch Caribbean islands. “We must always be prepared for different scenarios,” he said, noting that rising tensions can affect airspace and regional stability. “But you also have to look realistically at what the actual threats are.” Brekelmans made clear the Netherlands would not provide facilities, helicopters or other support if requested for Southern Spear. “If it is part of that operation, then that is not something we agree to,” he said. “For this operation, we are not making our facilities available.” CNN reported in November that London had suspended some intelligence sharing with the United States after Washington began launching lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

Ukraine’s latest peace plan proposes a demilitarized “free economic zone” in the Donbas region where American business interests could operate — an attempt to bring President Donald Trump on board, according to two people familiar with the matter. Trump, who sounded skeptical about the prospects for a breakthrough in Oval Office comments on Wednesday, “is aware of” the latest 20-point plan Ukraine sent to the White House Wednesday, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Thursday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also spoke to reporters about the proposal Thursday, suggesting that control of the buffer zone in eastern Ukraine still needs to be worked out but that, under the new proposal, troops from both Russia and Ukraine would be barred. That, Zelenskyy said, marked “a compromise” from the original 28-point peace plan authored by the U.S. with Russian input, under which Russian troops would control the region. But, he noted that Ukraine would only withdraw its forces after receiving meaningful security guarantees from allies against future aggression from Moscow. The two people familiar with the proposal, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the press, both expressed skepticism that Russia would back the plan, crafted this week with input from European leaders. Trump, they suggested, still views Ukraine as the weaker, more malleable party in the conflict, especially in the wake of a corruption scandal that forced Zelenskyy’s longtime chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, to step down. “The White House is using this latest corruption scandal to pressure Zelenskyy,” one of the people said. While European leaders have asked Trump to go to Berlin next week to continue talks, the person added that was highly unlikely unless there are substantial changes in the joint Ukrainian-European plan. Leavitt did not elaborate on what Trump thinks about the revised proposal, or if he would send aides to take part in additional conversations with European and Ukrainian officials scheduled for this weekend in Paris. “If there is a real chance of signing a peace agreement, if we feel like those meetings are worthy of someone on the United States’ time this weekend, then we will send a representative,” she said. “It’s still up in the air if we believe real peace can be accomplished … [but] he’s sick of meetings for the sake of meetings.” According to officials from two of the countries involved, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff intends to take part in talks with national security officials this weekend. Trump has suggested that the security guarantees Ukraine is seeking, aimed at deterring Russia from attacking Ukraine again, would have to come primarily from Europe. Zelenskyy said Thursday that he and his team had “a constructive and in-depth conversation” about security guarantees with U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, along with military officials and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. One European defense official, granted anonymity to discuss internal discussions, said that allies on the continent have been planning to move troops and surveillance equipment to Ukraine. Coalition troops would fly drones inside Ukraine to monitor whatever peace plan is agreed to, and while there will be boots on the ground they “will not serve on the front line.” The official said that the Europeans are stressing to the Americans that they need deeper political coordination with Washington on the talks, reflecting frustration about not having a seat at the table up to this point. During a visit to Washington this week, U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey told reporters that the so-called Coalition of the Willing is “ready to do the heavy lifting in Europe, alongside the contribution to security guarantees that President Trump has talked about from the U.S. But we’re ready to step in, and we will help secure that peace long-term and protect the deal that President Trump is looking to negotiate.” He sketched an outline of some of the work being done, including some 200 military planners from more than 30 nations who have already participated in “reconnaissance visits to Ukraine, and we have the troops ready. “ Over the last several months, Trump has repeatedly ruled out Ukraine’s future membership in NATO, the longstanding transatlantic security alliance that deems an attack on any member nation an attack on all. The revised Ukraine peace plan, however, removed language from an initial version barring Ukraine from ever joining the alliance, according to the two people familiar with the proposal. It also calls for elections in Ukraine, something Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have been pushing for, the two people said. But Zelenskyy’s new commitment to hold elections shortly after a peace is secured may not be enough to satisfy Moscow, which has demanded that Russia control all of the contested Donbas region and guarantees that Ukraine will be denied future accession to NATO.

BERLIN — Germany will launch a new federal counter-drone unit as concerns mount over a surge of suspicious drones overflying military sites and critical infrastructure, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said Tuesday. The formation will be part of the federal police’s national special operations arm, and will be trained and certified specifically for drone detection and neutralization, Dobrindt said at an event outside Berlin. The unit will eventually grow to 130 officers, deployed across Germany and moved quickly to hot spots when needed. Germany has over €100 million budgeted this year and next for counter-drone technology, the minister said. The systems include sensors and jammers designed to disrupt hostile drone signals, with the capability to intercept or shoot them down if necessary. “It is an important signal that we are confronting hybrid threats,” Dobrindt said. “We are creating a clear mission to detect, intercept and, yes, also shoot down drones when necessary. We cannot accept that hybrid threats, including drones, become a danger to our security.” Dobrindt said Germany will procure systems from both German and Israeli manufacturers, with further purchases expected in the coming months. This week, Germany’s state interior ministers are also due to decide whether to establish a joint federal-state counter-drone center, bringing together federal and state police forces and the military to coordinate detection and response. Berlin’s new unit marks its most significant move so far toward a standing national counter-drone capability. German security agencies have tracked hundreds of suspicious drone flyovers this year, including near barracks, naval facilities and critical infrastructure. Officials warn that small, commercially available drones are increasingly deployed in Europe for espionage, probing defenses and hybrid operations. Some European governments have pointed the finger of blame at Russia, but so far proof is lacking. Airports across Europe have also been forced to close thanks to overflying drones. Last month, the U.K., France and Germany sent staff and equipment to help Belgium counter drone incursions around sensitive facilities. Many countries are trying to figure out how to deal with the drones in a safe and legal way, as shooting them down could endanger people on the ground.

Europe’s security does not depend solely on our physical borders and their defense. It rests on something far less visible, and far more sensitive: the digital networks that keep our societies, economies and democracies functioning every second of the day. > Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a > halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. A recent study by Copenhagen Economics confirms that telecom operators have become the first line of defense in Europe’s security architecture. Their networks power essential services ranging from emergency communications and cross-border healthcare to energy systems, financial markets, transport and, increasingly, Europe’s defense capabilities. Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. This reality forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: Europe cannot build credible defense capabilities on top of an economically strained, structurally fragmented telecom sector. Yet this is precisely the risk today. A threat landscape outpacing Europe’s defenses The challenges facing Europe are evolving faster than our political and regulatory systems can respond. In 2023 alone, ENISA recorded 188 major incidents, causing 1.7 billion lost user-hours, the equivalent of taking entire cities offline. While operators have strengthened their systems and outage times fell by more than half in 2024 compared with the previous year, despite a growing number of incidents, the direction of travel remains clear: cyberattacks are more sophisticated, supply chains more vulnerable and climate-related physical disruptions more frequent. Hybrid threats increasingly target civilian digital infrastructure as a way to weaken states. Telecom networks, once considered as technical utilities, have become a strategic asset essential to Europe’s stability. > Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, > pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO > interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of > sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Our allies recognize this. NATO recently encouraged members to spend up to 1.5 percent of their GDP on protecting critical infrastructure. Secretary General Mark Rutte also urged investment in cyber defense, AI, and cloud technologies, highlighting the military benefits of cloud scalability and edge computing – all of which rely on high-quality, resilient networks. This is a clear political signal that telecom security is not merely an operational matter but a geopolitical priority. The link between telecoms and defense is deeper than many realize. As also explained in the recent Arel report, Much More than a Network, modern defense capabilities rely largely on civilian telecom networks. Strong fiber backbones, advanced 5G and future 6G systems, resilient cloud and edge computing, satellite connectivity, and data centers form the nervous system of military logistics, intelligence and surveillance. Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Fragmentation has become one of Europe’s greatest strategic vulnerabilities. The reform Europe needs: An investment boost for digital networks At the same time, Europe expects networks to become more resilient, more redundant, less dependent on foreign technology and more capable of supporting defense-grade applications. Security and resilience are not side tasks for telecom operators, they are baked into everything they do. From procurement and infrastructure design to daily operations, operators treat these efforts as core principles shaping how networks are built, run and protected. Therefore, as the Copenhagen Economics study shows, the level of protection Europe now requires will demand substantial additional capital. > It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to > emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. This is the right ambition, but the economic model underpinning the sector does not match these expectations. Due to fragmentation and over-regulation, Europe’s telecom market invests less per capita than global peers, generates roughly half the return on capital of operators in the United States and faces rising costs linked to expanding security obligations. It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. A shift in policy priorities is therefore essential. Europe must place investment in security and resilience at the center of its political agenda. Policy must allow this reality to be reflected in merger assessments, reduce overlapping security rules and provide public support where the public interest exceeds commercial considerations. This is not state aid; it is strategic social responsibility. Completing the single market for telecommunications is central to this agenda. A fragmented market cannot produce the secure, interoperable, large-scale solutions required for modern defense. The Digital Networks Act must simplify and harmonize rules across the EU, supported by a streamlined governance that distinguishes between domestic matters and cross-border strategic issues. Spectrum policy must also move beyond national silos, allowing Europe to avoid conflicts with NATO over key bands and enabling coherent next-generation deployments. Telecom policy nowadays is also defense policy. When we measure investment gaps in digital network deployment, we still tend to measure simple access to 5G and fiber. However, we should start considering that — if security, resilience and defense-readiness are to be taken into account — the investment gap is much higher that the €200 billion already estimated by the European Commission. Europe’s strategic choice The momentum for stronger European defense is real — but momentum fades if it is not seized. If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to support advanced defense applications. In that scenario, Europe’s democratic resilience would erode in parallel with its economic competitiveness, leaving the continent more exposed to geopolitical pressure and technological dependency. > If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it > risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic > underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to > support advanced defense applications. Europe still has time to change course and put telecoms at the center of its agenda — not as a technical afterthought, but as a core pillar of its defense strategy. The time for incremental steps has passed. Europe must choose to build the network foundations of its security now or accept that its strategic ambitions will remain permanently out of reach. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Connect Europe AISBL * The ultimate controlling entity is Connect Europe AISBL * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU digital, telecom and industrial policy, including initiatives such as the Digital Networks Act, Digital Omnibus, and connectivity, cybersecurity, and defence frameworks aimed at strengthening Europe’s digital competitiveness. More information here.

Microsoft’s CEO said Monday that his company is increasingly looking to Europe as a key region for its artificial intelligence strategy, as the continent seeks to bolster digital independence from the United States and China. “We are investing in Germany, in the European Union with our capital, putting it at risk,” Satya Nadella said during an interview on the MD Meets podcast, hosted by Mathias Döpfner, the chair and CEO of Axel Springer, the German media group that owns POLITICO. “These are not AI factories or cloud factories that sit in the United States. They are in the continent and in the country,” he added. In the conversation, Nadella stressed that digital sovereignty is a critical consideration for any nation. “I think that every country, whether it’s at the European Union level or at the country level, like in Germany, I think sovereignty is an important consideration,” he said. “So every country would like to ensure that there is continuity of their supply, there is resilience in their supply. And there’s agency in which they operate. And that’s one of the reasons why we have made all these commitments.” Nadella said that true sovereignty goes beyond infrastructure. “The new chapter of sovereignty is … what is a German automaker or a German industrial company? How are they going to have their own AI factory and foundation model that is unique to them?” he said. “That is, to me, the true definition of sovereignty.” Nadella’s comments come as European leaders increasingly warn that the continent cannot afford to cede the “digital sphere” to the global superpowers of the U.S. and China without serious consequences. At the Digital Sovereignty Summit in Berlin on Nov. 18, Germany and France unveiled a series of initiatives aimed at strengthening European technological independence, spanning cloud services, AI and public procurement. Among the measures were commitments to favor European solutions in public contracts, safeguard European data from foreign surveillance and confront the market dominance of major U.S. cloud providers. “If we let the Americans and the Chinese have all of the champions, one thing is certain: we may have the best regulation in the world, but we won’t be regulating anything,” French President Emmanuel Macron warned. Nadella acknowledged China’s strength in human capital and open-source innovation but stressed the continued leadership of the U.S. “The United States still continues to lead, whether it’s on the AI systems or whether it is the frontier models or the AI products around the world,” he said. “It is not just the ingenuity of the American tech sector, but also the American tech stack being the most trusted tech stack in the world.” Nadella argued that Europe could emerge as a major winner in the global AI landscape if it focuses on actually implementing and spreading the technology across industries. “Quite frankly, the country that is going to really win is going to be the one that can scale up broadly on AI, use AI broadly in their economy, in their health sector, in their manufacturing sector, in the education sector, and grow their economy,” he said. “Germany or Europe could be the big winner as long as they do the hard work of actually getting the technology in, re-skilling, using that technology,” he added.

LONDON — Staff who protect the U.K.’s Houses of Parliament are locked in a dispute with their bosses about how they’re treated — and are considering downing tools in a fresh strike on New Year’s Eve. Members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) in the Parliamentary Security Department are considering the last day of the year as a strike day, two people involved in the dispute told POLITICO. That would present an awkward moment for many working in the Palace of Westminster. Passholders — who include members of the House of Commons and House of Lords as well as their staff — often bring guests in to watch the capital’s show-stopping New Year’s fireworks from the parliament’s riverside terrace. Since September, the union has carried out regular strikes after changes to staff work patterns. They have frequently targeted Wednesdays for industrial action, when Westminster has a high media presence thanks to Prime Minister’s Questions, in a bid to generate attention. More than 300 employees walked off the job during Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ budget this week. From Nov. 24 until the end of 2025, security staff are engaged in action short of a strike, in which they follow strictly contracted hours. As one of the world’s most high-profile landmarks, the U.K. parliament requires 24/7 surveillance. Hundreds of security officers leaving their checkpoints invariably makes that trickier and requires contingency planning with London’s Metropolitan Police.  The long-running saga between the PCS and house authorities shows no sign of a resolution, meaning further strikes are likely — and that it could become harder for the public to fully access the estate. ‘LIVES ON THE LINE’  Around 400 officers currently work in the Parliamentary Security Department, most of whom are employed by the Palace of Westminster. Those who guard the location where Britain’s laws are made say their job had become harder even before the latest dispute. “It’s gone downhill,” said security officer Gary Harvey, who was striking outside the parliament on budget day. Harvey has worked in Westminster for more than 20 years and has been a PCS union rep for just over three years. “I found one of my wage slips from 15 years ago. I’m now getting paid the same as I was then,” he said. “People are really starting to get frustrated and feeling the pinch.”  Staff say the situation worsened after Covid-19. During the pandemic, staff agreed to work 12-hour shift patterns, up from their usual eight, so there would be fewer people on site at any one time.  Around 400 officers currently work in the Parliamentary Security Department, most of whom are employed by the Palace of Westminster. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images However, this temporary change became permanent after restrictions ended, with guards also losing six days of paid annual leave or rest days. Although members voted to reject the changes and support strike action, prospective strikes in 2023 were averted to avoid disrupting King Charles’ first state opening of parliament as monarch.  In July, an overwhelming 98 percent of members backed industrial action, giving them a six-month mandate to leave their workplace. “We put our lives on the line,” said Harvey. Security staff check all people, vehicles and items entering the estate, and patrol areas to ensure MPs, peers, staff and other visitors are kept safe. “We just want to be appreciated for it.”  Harvey raised the case of the late police officer Keith Palmer, who was fatally wounded by a terrorist outside the Palace of Westminster in 2017: “He got up, kissed his wife goodbye [and] never made it home.” BARRIERS TO ENTRY  When strikes take place, reinforcements are called in from the Met Police to ensure the parliamentary grounds are protected. But the temporary departure of hundreds of staff undoubtedly has an impact. During the budget day strikes, the entry of guests was severely restricted as school visits, tours and various commercial events were canceled.  A former senior parliamentary official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said “the usual conundrum is at play” between balancing the security of parliament and its staff while also ensuring the public can access their legislature. Both, they said, are an “absolute imperative.” They add: “You want to give openness and access and, on the other hand, you want to have an absolutely watertight security system.”  The dispute between the PCS and house authorities has already been referred to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service public body, which mediates on workplace disagreements. So far, no compromise is in sight. Harvey said more strike action would take place before the union’s mandate expires in January, and that a re-ballot of members is expected. A U.K. parliament spokesperson said “parliamentary security staff are valued colleagues” and that further strike action is “disappointing, particularly given the continued engagement undertaken to try to resolve outstanding concerns.” They added: “We remain committed to working closely with staff and unions to address the issues raised and to reach a resolution.”  

The European Union’s law enforcement agency wants to speed up how it gets its hands on artificial intelligence tools to fight serious crime, a top official said. Criminals are having “the time of their life” with “their malicious deployment of AI,” but police authorities at the bloc’s Europol agency are weighed down by legal checks when trying to use the new technology, Deputy Executive Director Jürgen Ebner told POLITICO. Authorities have to run through data protection and fundamental rights assessments under EU law. Those checks can delay the use of AI by up to eight months, Ebner said. Speeding up the process could make the difference in time sensitive situations where there is a “threat to life,” he added. Europe’s police agency has built out its tech capabilities in past years, ranging from big data crunching to decrypting communication between criminals. Authorities are keen to fight fire with fire in a world where AI is rapidly boosting cybercrime. But academics and activists have repeatedly voiced concerns about giving authorities free rein to use AI tech without guardrails. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to more than double Europol’s staff and turn it into a powerhouse to fight criminal groups “navigating constantly between the physical and digital worlds.” The Commission’s latest work program said this will come in the form of a legislative proposal to strengthen Europol in the second quarter of 2026.  Speaking in Malta at a recent gathering of data protection specialists from across Europe’s police forces, Ebner said it is an “absolute essential” for there to be a fast-tracked procedure to allow law enforcement to deploy AI tools in “emergency” situations without having to follow a “very complex compliance procedure.” Assessing data protection and fundamental rights impacts of an AI tool is required under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and AI Act. Ebner said these processes can take six to eight months.  The top cop clarified that a faster emergency process would not bypass AI tool red lines around profiling or live facial recognition. Law enforcement authorities already have several exemptions under the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). Under the rules, the use of real-time facial recognition in public spaces is prohibited for law enforcers, but EU countries can still permit exceptions, especially for the most serious crimes. Lawmakers and digital rights groups have expressed concerns about these carve-outs, which were secured by EU countries during the law’s negotiation. DIGITAL POLICING POWERS Ebner, who oversees governance matters at Europol, said “almost all investigations” now have an online dimension.   The investments in tech and innovation to keep pace with criminals is putting a “massive burden on law enforcement agencies,” he said. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to more than double Europol’s staff and turn it into a powerhouse to fight criminal groups. | Wagner Meier/Getty Images The Europol official has been in discussions with Europe’s police chiefs about the EU agency’s upcoming expansion. He said they “would like to see Europol doing more in the innovation field, in technology, in co-operation with private parties.”  “Artificial intelligence is extremely costly. Legal decryption platforms are costly. The same is to be foreseen already for quantum computing,” Ebner said. Europol can help bolster Europe’s digital defenses, for instance by seconding analysts with technological expertise to national police investigations, he said. Europol’s central mission has been to help national police investigate cross-border serious crimes through information sharing. But EU countries have previously been reluctant to cede too much actual policing power to the EU level authority.  Taking control of law enforcement away from EU countries is “out of the scope” of any discussions about strengthening Europol, Ebner said. “We don’t think it’s necessary that Europol should have the power to arrest people and to do house searches. That makes no sense, that [has] no added value,” he said.   Pieter Haeck contributed reporting.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Europe faces a growing dilemma: how to protect children online without breaking digital privacy for everyone.  A new report from the Internet Watch Foundation found that 62 percent of all child sexual abuse material discovered online last year was hosted on EU servers. It’s a shocking statistic that has left Brussels locked in a heated debate over how far new regulations should go — and whether scanning encrypted messages could be justified, even at the cost of privacy and the risk of mass surveillance.  Host Sarah Wheaton is joined by POLITICO’s Sam Clark, Eliza Gkritsi and Océane Herrero to unpack Europe’s child safety regulations — and the balance between protecting kids, protecting privacy and policing platforms. The conversation also touches on the latest controversy out of France, involving Shein — the fast-fashion giant caught selling childlike sex dolls online.   Then, from Europe’s digital dilemmas to Albania’s digital experiment: Gordon Repinski, host of POLITICO’s Berlin Playbook podcast, sits down with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, who has appointed the world’s first artificial intelligence minister — a virtual woman named Diella. Rama explains why he believes Diella could help fight corruption, cut bureaucracy and speed up Albania’s path toward EU membership.