BRUSSELS — Donald Trump blew up global efforts to cut emissions from shipping, and now the EU is terrified the U.S. president will do the same to any plans to tax carbon emissions from long-haul flights. The European Commission is studying whether to expand its existing carbon pricing scheme that forces airlines to pay for emissions from short- and medium-haul flights within Europe into a more ambitious effort covering all flights departing the bloc. If that happens, all international airlines flying out of Europe — including U.S. ones — would face higher costs, something that’s likely to stick in the craw of the Trump administration. “God only knows what the Trump administration will do” if Brussels expands its own Emissions Trading System to include transatlantic flights, a senior EU official told POLITICO. A big issue is how to ensure that the new system doesn’t end up charging only European airlines, which often complain about the higher regulatory burden they face compared with their non-EU rivals. The EU official said Commission experts are now “scratching their heads how you can, on the one hand, talk about extending the ETS worldwide … [but] also make sure that you have a bit of a level playing field,” meaning a system that doesn’t only penalize European carriers. Any new costs will hit airlines by 2027, following a Commission assessment that will be completed by July 1. Brussels has reason to be worried.  “Trump has made it very clear that he does not want any policies that harm business … So he does not want any environmental regulation,” said Marina Efthymiou, aviation management professor at Dublin City University. “We do have an administration with a bullying behavior threatening countries and even entities like the European Commission.” The new U.S. National Security Strategy, released last week, closely hews to Trump’s thinking and is scathing on climate efforts. “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threaten the United States, and subsidize our adversaries,” it says. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax to encourage commercial fleets to go green. The no-holds-barred push was personally led by Trump and even threatened negotiators with personal consequences if they went along with the measure. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax aimed at encouraging commercial fleets to go green. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images This “will be a parameter to consider seriously from the European Commission” when it thinks about aviation, Efthymiou said. The airline industry hopes the prospect of a furious Trump will scare off the Commission. “The EU is not going to extend ETS to transatlantic flights because that will lead to a war,” said Willie Walsh, director general of the International Air Transport Association, the global airline lobby, at a November conference in Brussels. “And that is not a war that the EU will win.” EUROPEAN ETS VS. GLOBAL CORSIA In 2012, the EU began taxing aviation emissions through its cap-and-trade ETS, which covers all outgoing flights from the European Economic Area — meaning EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland and the U.K. later introduced similar schemes. In parallel, the U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization was working on its own carbon reduction plan, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. Given that fact, Brussels delayed imposing the ETS on flights to non-European destinations. The EU will now be examining the ICAO’s CORSIA to see if it meets the mark. “CORSIA lets airlines pay pennies for pollution — about €2.50 per passenger on a Paris-New York flight,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. Applying the ETS on the same route would cost “€92.40 per passenger based on 2024 traffic.” There are two reasons for such a big difference: the fourfold higher price for ETS credits compared with CORSIA credits, and the fact that “under CORSIA, airlines don’t pay for total emissions, but only for the increase above a fixed 2019 baseline,” Van der Graaf explained. “Thus, for a Paris-New York flight that emits an average of 131 tons of CO2, only 14 percent of emissions are offset under CORSIA. This means that, instead of covering the full 131 tons, the airline only has to purchase credits for approximately 18 tons.” Efthymiou, the professor, warned the price difference is projected to increase due to the progressive withdrawal of free ETS allowances granted to aviation. The U.N. scheme will become mandatory for all U.N. member countries in 2027 but will not cover domestic flights, including those in large countries such as the U.S., Russia and China. KEY DECISIONS By July 1, the Commission must release a report assessing the geographical coverage and environmental integrity of CORSIA. Based on this evaluation, the EU executive will propose either extending the ETS to all departing flights from the EU starting in 2027 or maintaining it for intra-EU flights only. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration. | Pete Souza/White House via Getty Images According to T&E, CORSIA doesn’t meet the EU’s climate goals. “Extending the scope of the EU ETS to all departing flights from 2027 could raise an extra €147 billion by 2040,” said Van der Graaf, noting that this money could support the production of greener aviation fuels to replace fossil kerosene. But according to Efthymiou, the Commission might decide to continue the current exemption “considering the very fragile political environment we currently have with a lunatic being in power,” she said, referring to Trump. “CORSIA has received a lot of criticism for sure … but the importance of CORSIA is that for the first time ever we have an agreement,” she added. “Even though that agreement might not be very ambitious, ICAO is the only entity with power to put an international regulation [into effect].” Regardless of what is decided in Brussels, Washington is prepared to fight. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a letter to the Commission opposing its application to American airlines. During the same term, the U.S. passed the EU ETS Prohibition Act, which gives Washington the power to prohibit American carriers from paying for European carbon pricing. John Thune, the Republican politician who proposed the bill, is now the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is cracking down on two Chinese companies, airport scanner maker Nuctech and e-commerce giant Temu, that are suspected of unfairly penetrating the EU market with the help of state subsidies. The EU executive opened an in-depth probe into Nuctech under its Foreign Subsidies Regulation on Thursday, a year and a half after initial inspections at the company’s premises in Poland and the Netherlands. “The Commission has preliminary concerns that Nuctech may have been granted foreign subsidies that could distort the EU internal market,” the EU executive said in a press release.  Nuctech is a provider of threat detection systems including security and inspection scanners for airports, ports, or customs points in railways or roads located at borders, as well as the provision of related services.  EU officials worry that Nuctech may have received unfair support from China in tender contracts, prices and conditions that can’t be reasonably matched by other market players in the EU.  “We want a level playing field on the market for such [threat detection] systems, keeping fair opportunities for competitors, customers such as border authorities,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera said in a statement, noting that this is the first in-depth investigation launched by the Commission on its own initiative under the FSR regime.  Nuctech may need to offer commitments to address the Commission’s concerns at the end of the in-depth probe, which can also end in “redressive measures” or with a non-objection decision.   The FSR is aimed at making sure that companies operating in the EU market do so without receiving unfair support from foreign governments. In its first two years of enforcement, it has come under criticism for being cumbersome on companies and not delivering fast results.  In a statement, Nuctech acknowledged the Commission’s decision to open an in-depth investigation. “We respect the Commission’s role in ensuring fair and transparent market conditions within the European Union,” the company said. It said it would cooperate with the investigation: “We trust in the integrity and impartiality of the process and hope our actions will be evaluated on their merits.” TEMU RAIDED In a separate FSR probe, the Commission also made an unannounced inspection of Chinese e-commerce platform Temu.  “We can confirm that the Commission has carried out an unannounced inspection at the premises of a company active in the e-commerce sector in the EU, under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation,” an EU executive spokesperson said in an emailed statement on Thursday.   Temu’s Europe headquarters in Ireland were dawn-raided last week, a person familiar with Chinese business told POLITICO. Mlex first reported on the raids on Wednesday.  The platform has faced increased scrutiny in Brussels and across the EU. Most recently, it was accused of breaching the EU’s Digital Services Act by selling unsafe products, such as toys. The platform has also faced scrutiny around how it protects minors and uses age verification.  Temu did not respond to a request for comment.

High energy prices, risks on CBAM enforcement and promotion of lead markets, as well as increasing carbon costs are hampering domestic and export competitiveness with non-EU producers. The cement industry is fundamental to Europe’s construction value chain, which represents about 9 percent of the EU’s GDP. Its hard-to-abate production processes are also currently responsible for 4 percent of EU emissions, and it is investing heavily in measures aimed at achieving full climate neutrality by 2050, in line with the European Green Deal. Marcel Cobuz, CEO, TITAN Group  “We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in EU stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” However, the industry’s efforts to comply with EU environmental regulations, along with other factors, make it less competitive than more carbon-intensive producers from outside Europe. Industry body Cement Europe recently stated that, “without a competitive business model, the very viability of the cement industry and its prospects for industrial decarbonization are at risk.” Marcel Cobuz, member of the Board of the Global Cement and Concrete Association and CEO of TITAN Group, one of Europe’s leading producers, spoke with POLITICO Studio about the vital need for a clear policy partnership with Brussels to establish a predictable regulatory and financing framework to match the industry’s decarbonization ambitions and investment efforts to stay competitive in the long-term. POLITICO Studio: Why is the cement industry important to the EU economy?  Marcel Cobuz: Just look around and you will see how important it is. Cement helped to build the homes that we live in and the hospitals that care for us. It’s critical for our transport and energy infrastructure, for defense and increasingly for the physical assets supporting the digital economy. There are more than 200 cement plants across Europe, supporting nearby communities with high-quality jobs. The cement industry is also key to the wider construction industry, which employs 14.5 million people across the EU. At the same time, cement manufacturers from nine countries compete in the international export markets. PS: What differentiates Titan within the industry?  MC: We have very strong European roots, with a presence in 10 European countries. Sustainability is very much part of our DNA, so decarbonizing profitably is a key objective for us. We’ve reduced our CO2 footprint by nearly 25 percent since 1990, and we recently announced that we are targeting a similar reduction by 2030 compared to 2020. We are picking up pace in reducing emissions both by using conventional methods, like the use of alternative sources of low-carbon energy and raw materials, and advanced technologies. TITAN/photo© Nikos Daniilidis We have a large plant in Europe where we are exploring building one of the largest carbon capture projects on the continent, with support from the Innovation Fund, capturing close to two million tons of CO2 and producing close to three million tons of zero-carbon cement for the benefit of all European markets. On top of that, we have a corporate venture capital fund, which partners with startups from Europe to produce the materials of tomorrow with  very low or zero carbon. That will help not only TITAN but the whole industry to accelerate its way towards the use of new high-performance materials with a smaller carbon footprint. PS: What are the main challenges for the EU cement industry today?  MC: Several factors are making us less competitive than companies from outside the EU. Firstly, Europe is an expensive place when it comes to energy prices. Since 2021, prices have risen by close to 65 percent, and this has a huge impact on cement producers, 60 percent of whose costs are energy-related. And this level of costs is two to three times higher than those of our neighbors. We also face regulatory complexity compared to our outside competitors, and the cost of compliance is high. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) cost for the cement sector is estimated at €97 billion to €162 billion between 2023 and 2034. Then there is the need for low-carbon products to be promoted ― uptake is still at a very low level, which leads to an investment risk around new decarbonization technologies. > We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in the EU > stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” All in all, the playing field is far from level. Imports of cement into the EU have increased by 500 percent since 2016. Exports have halved ― a loss of value of one billion euros. The industry is reducing its cost to manufacture and to replace fossil fuels, using the waste of other industries, digitalizing its operations, and premiumizing its offers. But this is not always enough. Friendly policies and the predictability of a regulatory framework should accompany the effort. PS: In January 2026, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will be fully implemented, aimed at ensuring that importers pay the same carbon price as domestic producers. Will this not help to level the playing field? MC: This move is crucial, and it can help in dealing with the increasing carbon cost. However, I believe we already see a couple of challenges regarding the CBAM. One is around self-declaration: importers declare the carbon footprint of their materials, so how do we avoid errors or misrepresentations? In time there should be audits of the importers’ industrial installations and co-operation with the authorities at source to ensure the data flow is accurate and constant. It really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers. Also, and very importantly, we need to ensure that CBAM does not apply to exports from the EU to third countries, as carbon costs are increasingly a major factor making us uncompetitive outside the EU, in markets where we were present for more than 20 years. > CBAM really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully > mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers.” PS: In what ways can the EU support the European cement industry and help it to be more competitive? MC: By simplifying legislation and making it more predictable so we can plan our investments for the long term. More specifically, I’m talking about the revamping of the ETS, which in its current form implies a phase-down of CO2 rights over the next decade. First, we should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry stays competitive and its export market shares are maintained, so a policy of more for longer should accompany the new ETS. > In export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for > European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a > system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to > continue.” We should look at it as a way of funding decarbonization. We could front-load part of ETS revenues in a fund that would support the development of technologies such as low-carbon materials development and CCS. The roll-out of Infrastructure for carbon capture projects such as transport or storage should also be accelerated, and the uptake of low-carbon products should be incentivized. More specifically on export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to continue. PS: Are you optimistic about the future of your industry in Europe?  MC: I think with the current system of phasing out CO2 rights, and if the CBAM is not watertight, and if energy prices remain several times higher than in neighboring countries, and if investment costs, particularly for innovating new technologies, are not going to be financed through ETS revenues, then there is an existential risk for at least part of the industry. Having said that, I’m optimistic that, working together with the European Commission we can identify the right policy making solutions to ensure our viability as a strategic industry for Europe. And if we are successful, it will benefit everyone in Europe, not least by guaranteeing more high-quality jobs and affordable and more energy-efficient materials for housing ― and a more sustainable and durable infrastructure in the decades ahead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Titan Group * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around industrial competitiveness, carbon pricing, and decarbonization in the EU cement and construction sectors, including the EU’s CBAM legislation, the Green Deal, and the proposed revision of the ETS. More information here.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is dialing reform, but not everyone is picking up. Following years of talks, Brussels is almost ready to drop a long-awaited telecommunication blueprint designed to upgrade networks and support the industry. The Digital Networks Act, expected to land Dec. 16, will overhaul the current rulebook to make it easier for operators to roll out 5G and fiber, and boost investment in Europe’s digital infrastructure. But it’s likely to upset players from national governments to tech firms in the process. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits — and take European networks to the next level. “Never has connectivity been so important to the life of people” but “at the same time, our industry has trouble in many regions to achieve a decent return on capital,” said Vivek Badrinath, the boss of global mobile association GSMA. But not everyone is buying the crisis pitch — here are the battle lines ahead of the proposal. BIG TELCOS VS. BIG TECH Years of lobbying by Europe’s top telcos to have data-hungry platforms such as TikTok, Netflix and Google’s YouTube help foot the bill for network expansion seem to have paid off. The Commission is now weighing how to tackle “challenges in the cooperation” between tech and telecom players in its reforms. One of the options on the table is turning into a political minefield: Empowering regulators to settle potential disputes between the two groups over how they handle traffic. Opponents of regulatory intervention fear that it will give operators a way to pressure content providers for payments, akin to the unpopular proposal known as “fair share” that was floated under the last Commission. At worst, they say, it could even upend the internet as we know it by undermining net neutrality — the principle that service providers need to treat all traffic equally, without throttling or censoring. “This would have immediate and far-reaching consequences, harming European consumers, businesses, digital rights and the sustainability of the creative and cultural sectors, ultimately risking a fragmented Internet and single market,” a broad coalition, ranging from civil society and media organizations to audiovisual players, wrote earlier this month. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits. | Andy Rain/EPA Regulators themselves say they don’t see any market failure, or need for a legislative fix. “It’s increasingly hard for me to think that the Commission is approaching this in good faith because they cannot ignore the chaotic impact that something like this would have,” said Benoît Felten, an expert at Plum Consulting who authored a study on the topic commissioned by Big Tech lobby CCIA. Tech companies will fight tooth and nail against any move to hold them to the same obligations that telecom operators have to follow. “The same service, same rules principle should be a no-brainer,” said Alessandro Gropelli, the boss of telecom trade association Connect Europe. “You cannot have competitiveness if one party is playing the game with their hand tied behind their back and the other party is playing the same game with both hands.” INCUMBENTS VS. CHALLENGERS Brussels’ deregulatory mood is further deepening rifts between Europe’s top telecom providers and their challengers, who have long praised the existing rulebook that they say enables them to take on legacy players. “The Commission wants to deregulate dogmatically” in order “to boost the largest operators in Europe,” said Luc Hindryckx, the director general of the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, a trade body. “One way to do it is to weaken the competition to allow a few incumbents to make it through and pave the way for consolidation, because if the competitors are on the verge of bankruptcy, they will ask to be merged.” Telecom challengers are up in arms against the direction of travel, which could see the Commission dial down the regulatory pressure on Europe’s legacy telcos to open their ducts and fiber lines to competitors. The EU executive wants to move away from heavy, upfront rules and closer scrutiny of dominant players to prevent abuse, instead relying on standard law enforcement. It argues the current system worked to boost competition but has outlived its purpose. It is “alarming that the European Commission is now proposing to relax regulation on former fixed monopolies,” a coalition of nine network operators wrote in a letter this month. Signatories — including France’s Iliad and the U.K.’s Vodafone — called out the proposed “backwards step” and warned against the risk of “re-monopolisation.” This shift, the opponents say, could unravel years of progress by undermining market predictability, deterring investment and pushing up wholesale prices — costs that would inevitably be passed on to consumers. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said. | Robert Ghement/EPA “In Germany, it seems that people never run a red light. One could say that people no longer run red lights and then change the law that says running a red light is a major offense. What do you think is going to happen?” Hindryckx quipped. The legacy players don’t agree. “The current ex-ante system leads to low investments and harms roll-out of innovative networks,” said Gropelli from Connect Europe. “Reform is a must, or we’ll remain global laggards in roll-out of critical networks.” CAPITALS VS. BRUSSELS National governments also aren’t cheering the reforms, with EU capitals bristling at the idea of Brussels muscling in on territory they consider their own. That’s the case for the allocation of spectrum — the finite and very much in-demand resource powering wireless communications, which is auctioned at a national level for billions of euros. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said in September. “We have been sleeping and lost fifteen years in discussing … who should assign the frequencies,” he said. Still, the topic is largely off the table for national governments. “Spectrum harmonization is not the favorite topic of member countries,” Katalin Molnár, the ambassador for Hungary, said last year as the country chaired talks among EU governments on the issue. The current cooperation between countries “works well,” the 27 EU nations said in a joint position, emphasizing that spectrum management is a “key public policy tool” that falls under a “sustained significance of member states’ national competencies in that regard.” This will be a major red line for the Council of the EU, where capitals will eventually hammer out their position on the reforms. The industry, however, says reforms are essential for the economic benefits that the EU is craving. “The wind has never been as strong in the sails of the ship that goes towards a more efficient telecom market today,” GSMA’s Badrinath said. “Is that enough to get the right outcome? Well, that’s what we want to believe.”

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping about trade tensions and the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Macron asked Xi to give French companies greater access to the Chinese market and not to impose tariffs on French Cognac producers, which are the target of an ongoing Chinese trade probe. “Chinese investment is welcome in France. But our companies need a level playing field in both our countries,” Macron wrote in a social media post. “We have agreed to move forward as quickly as possible on the issue of Cognac, which is essential for our producers,” he added. Last week, Economy Minister Eric Lombard also raised the issue with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng during a meeting in Paris. Their six-hour discussion did not lead to a resolution of the Cognac spat, with He stressing that Chinese authorities would decide on the merits of the case. The alcohol probe is widely seen as retaliation to punish France for being the top sponsor of EU tariffs on Chinese electric cars imposed last October. It is due to end in July. Macron travels to Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore next week in a visit that an Elysée official described as an opportunity to increase influence in the Indo-Pacific region at a time in which “China is becoming increasingly assertive, especially in trade disputes and territorial disputes.” Macron also pledged to work with China to reach a “immediate and unconditional ceasefire” in Ukraine. Calling for peace and security in the Middle East, Macron said France and China would work together on the preparation of a June conference in New York for a two-state solution.

BRUSSELS — EU competition boss Teresa Ribera has defended the timing of the European Commission’s fines on Apple and Meta, waving off criticism that the penalties were delayed to avoid a further escalation of U.S. tariffs. On Wednesday, Brussels slapped the U.S. tech giants with penalties in the hundreds of millions of euros for violating the bloc’s digital rulebook, despite President Donald Trump threatening retaliatory tariffs should fines be imposed. “These are decisions that are not taken with passion,” but with “seriousness and evidence,” Ribera told POLITICO. “It’s law enforcement.” The Commission has been under pressure to deliver the verdicts in recent weeks after an indicative end-March deadline was missed. Neither Ribera nor digital chief Henna Virkkunen, who share responsibility for enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which sets the rules for how tech companies operate in the European market, were in Brussels today for the announcement. Ribera, who was speaking from Mexico, where she is on a week-long institutional trip, said it wouldn’t have made sense to delay the decisions because of her travels. “It was the right moment,” Ribera said, adding that today’s decisions show the Commission “is serious about the level playing field” and about giving a chance to companies and “those who would like to develop new business, innovators, users, and consumers.” “I have felt that there were many people willing to rush, even when the procedures were not finalized yet … because of [pressure] to react against the announcements being made by the White House.” But, the commissioner said, “I think it is not fair.”  Apple faces a €500 million fine for breaching the regulation’s rules for app stores, while Meta drew a penalty of €200 million for its “pay or consent” advertising model, which requires that European Union users pay to access ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram. Meta lashed out angrily at the decisions, calling them a “tariff” that creates a “handicap” on successful American companies. Apple claimed it was being “unfairly” targeted. Both said they will appeal the Commission’s decisions. “I haven’t heard these companies complaining against the U.S. antitrust authorities,” Ribera said, even though they have “very similar approaches” to those of the EU to the new digital reality. “So I don’t know why they think that we Europeans should be a target in terms of complaints.”

BRUSSELS — The European Union aims to host Chinese dignitaries in July for its annual summit with Beijing, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced after a call on Tuesday with Premier Li Qiang. Von der Leyen called Li to discuss EU-China relations amid U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff war against virtually the whole world. She “stressed the responsibility of Europe and China, as two of world’s largest markets, to support a strong reformed trading system, free, fair and founded on a level playing field,” the Commission said. The Commission almost hid the news of the July summit timing, mentioning it only at the bottom of a read-out of the Brussels-Beijing phone call. “President von der Leyen noted that the upcoming EU-China Summit in July would be a fitting opportunity to commemorate the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations,” it read. Earlier speculation had centered on a May summit date. The European Commission’s chief spokesperson Paula Pinho declined to confirm the date but, speaking at a regular briefing, confirmed that July “would be the idea.” POLITICO also requested comment from spokespeople for European Council President António Costa, who would co-host any summit. Gabriel Gavin contributed to this report.

It’s dawning on the world — and some Republicans on Capitol Hill — that sometimes President Donald Trump should be taken literally after all. Trump levied sweeping tariffs on key trading partners Mexico, Canada and China early Tuesday morning, sparking retaliation from Beijing and Ottawa, sending the stock market into a tailspin, and alarming government officials around the globe as they brace for potentially the worst trade war in a century. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau blasted the United States for launching “a trade war against Canada” while “they’re talking about working positively with Russia, appeasing Vladimir Putin — a lying, murderous dictator.” Target CEO Brian Cornell warned that Americans’ grocery prices would go up. John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said that car prices would spike as much as 25 percent. The Dow industrials, S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite slumped. And even local businesses are warning of the effects. Anderson Warlick, the CEO of Parkdale Mills, a yarn manufacturer in North Carolina, told a crowd outside the Capitol that it would be only weeks before he has to start furloughing his workers. Trump’s announcement took place hours before he was scheduled to give his first joint address to Congress in his second term, setting the stage for a dramatic spectacle at the Capitol and cementing the fact that the president has swiftly reordered the world in the six short weeks since he took office. The threat of Trump’s tariffs pushing up prices is even causing some Republicans to sound alarms. In an interview, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said there is “a place for tariffs” when used “selectively and in a targeted way,” but warned that such levies can have unintended effects. “I’m hoping they’re a means to an end and not an end itself. I think they’re hopefully temporary, designed to achieve a specific result,” said Thune, who hails from an agricultural-dependent state that was hard hit by retaliatory tariffs during Trump’s trade war with China in 2018. “I’m, you know, coming from an agricultural state. I see the tariff issue through a different lens. Nothing happens in a vacuum. There’s always reactions to actions that are taken.” GOP lawmakers from states with large agricultural industries said they were “uneasy” and “concerned” about the 25 percent tariffs Trump slapped on Canada and Mexico. Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), a member of the House’s Agriculture Committee, expressed concern about the impact of Trump’s levies on companies that do business with America’s immediate neighbors to the north and south. He said he has spoken with the White House legislative team about the tariffs. “It would be very difficult to make farmers completely whole,” he said. “You got some work to do there in order to make that better.” Trump’s moves come at a politically perilous moment for Republicans. Even before his levies, a backlash has been brewing over his efforts with billionaire adviser Elon Musk to slash the federal government. On Tuesday, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the head of the House Republicans’ campaign arm, told GOP lawmakers in a private meeting to stop holding in-person town halls after protesters disrupted meetings with lawmakers around the country. A recent CBS/YouGov poll found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of inflation, which was widely seen among both Democrats and Republicans as a top reason for his victory in last year’s presidential election. Trump’s levies, which went into effect just after midnight, put an end to weeks of will-he-or-won’t-he speculation in state and world capitals, where many believed that the president was only bluffing in hopes of reaching a deal with other countries. Even some of Trump’s allies were taken aback by the announcement. A former Trump administration official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation, said they were caught off guard, thinking the president would grant Canada and Mexico an extension. The former official read it as part of a broader geopolitical realignment on the heels of the Friday blow-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “It’s a lot to digest,” the person said. “Some things that have been fairly known knowns for a long time are now uncertain.” The former official added that the tariffs taking effect the day of the joint address “seems fairly predetermined” and it appears that there’s nothing Canada or Mexico could have done to stave them off. But in interviews on Tuesday, most GOP lawmakers stood by Trump’s decision to implement tariffs. As a party, Republicans have largely sought to treat the tariffs as part of a broader financial strategy, one that will reshape the economy with lower energy prices, lower taxes and an influx of domestic investment. They defended Trump’s levies as an effort to bring back jobs to America after they have streamed overseas for decades and painted the president as a savvy businessman restoring fairness to the United States after the nation has long been taken advantage of. “He is the greatest disruptor I’ve ever seen. He gets people to think in an altogether different vein than they were thinking before,” said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.). “Whatever it takes to get what we need to get so that America’s on the level playing field, I’m fine. I just hate like hell to watch us give up market share year after year.” As for the potential pain that tariffs could cause, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said farmers would be willing to weather the fallout. “They’re getting ripped off too on energy costs, they’re getting ripped off on their input costs,” he said. “It remains to be seen what actually is implemented and what is negotiation. But I think when you look at the entire economic agenda together, it will reduce costs.” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said he knew from being on the campaign trail recently that voters are frustrated with inflation. But he wasn’t concerned that the tariffs would cause higher prices and instead pinned the blame on the budget deficit and Federal Reserve, adding that balancing the budget would help lower costs. “Mexico, in particular, is dumping on Florida produce. They’ve been dumping on our tomato industry. They’ve been dumping on our blueberry industry,” he said. “And I think we’ve got to start holding countries that aren’t doing the right thing accountable.” Meanwhile, Democrats, who have been unsure of how to move forward after a devastating loss in November, sensed an opening. At a press conference in Washington on Tuesday, they sought to capitalize on Trump’s trade moves, arguing that his tariffs would hurt the economy. “You can’t get into a trade war with every single country expecting that you’re going to come out of that stronger,” said Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Ways and Means subcommittee on trade. “If one country has a trade war with the United States, they’re dealing with one country. But to try to go to trade war with multiple countries is only going to raise costs for consumers in this country.” Nick Taylor-Vaisey and Jordan Wolman contributed to this report.

Earlier this year, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni lamented that there was “no public alternative” to a US operator yet available to meet Italy’s needs on satellite communications. In fact, Europe has several secure satellite communication solutions already at its disposal. For a long time, Vodafone has deployed a dedicated team of volunteers in disaster areas to help restore connectivity through Wi-Fi hot spots via satellite. This team was recently on the ground in Valencia during the horrific mud slides, working side-by-side with emergency services to rescue lives. Together with UNHCR, we already use satellite links to connect schools in refugee camps across Africa where mobile networks are notoriously inadequate. In Ukraine itself, our Vodafone partner used Starlink to quickly restore some form of connectivity after Russian attacks on civil infrastructure. These technology solutions have been around for years and are being used with great success, especially to help citizens in times of emergencies and natural disasters. They have two practical limitations, however. Firstly, they all rely on dedicated devices, special dishes, terminals or expensive satellite phones to leverage space for connectivity. And secondly, they work far better in a clearly defined geographical area, with often limited mobility. So, if this is what Prime Minister Meloni meant, she is right. Or, rather, she was right. Because, in January this year, the world’s first space-based video call from a mobile ‘not spot’ was made using normal smartphones and commercial satellites built for a full mobile broadband experience. And it was done by Vodafone, in partnership with AST SpaceMobile. This marks a significant breakthrough in Europe’s future ability to deliver full mobile broadband connected to satellites in low Earth orbit — so-called direct-to-device. This solution is unique. It means mobile customers in Europe can stay connected no matter where they are, and their current phones will switch automatically between space and ground-based networks. And more widely, it represents the new frontier in the current race to better leverage space to benefit our citizens. > This solution is unique. It means mobile customers in Europe can stay > connected no matter where they are Just imagine what this could mean in scenarios like the one faced by the Irish people during their record-breaking storms a few weeks ago, which knocked out 900+ mobile sites and left over a million inhabitants without mobile coverage.  Or during the German floods in 2021, the floods in Poland, Czechia and Slovakia last fall, or the wildfires in Greece in 2023-24, to name just a few. With the ongoing climate crisis, these events are regrettably becoming more frequent and impacting much bigger geographical areas. Satellite direct-to-device will transform how communications are managed during these disasters. It can allow the rapid deployment of connectivity for first responders, aid organizations and affected communities. And it will provide essential national resilience, as well as a much-needed lifeline for all those impacted. It also has potential to eliminate — once and for all — Europe’s mobile not spots, especially in deep rural areas. It will end the geographical digital divide for the millions of European citizens who are not adequately covered by mobile networks, with profound implications for our economy and society. Rightly, Mario Draghi’s report therefore highlighted satellite as a key enabler to boost Europe’s competitiveness, and for critical sectors including transport, renewable energy, defense and the Internet of Things. There’s no doubt that satellite technology will also make an enormous contribution to achieving the EU’s Digital Decade 2030 targets. With Europe’s sovereignty at stake, it’s a no-brainer if the region wants to retain any degree of control over the future of space-based connectivity. And because Vodafone’s solution with AST is integrated with terrestrial telecoms networks, the service will also be fully compliant with Europe’s current security and telecom regulations. There will be no need to create bespoke rules or issue waivers for satellite communications. This matters hugely. Direct-to-device satellite solutions could cause significant interference unless they are designed and integrated correctly into the broader telecom ecosystem that most Europeans already rely on for their everyday lives. Although satellite will be a vital supplement and backup to terrestrial networks, mobile network performance would deteriorate if this is not done correctly. This defeats the purpose of having satellite in the first place. To ensure the rapid deployment of direct-to-device satellite solutions in the correct way, Europe’s leaders and regulators need to be crystal clear in their thinking around satellite policy. They will have to quickly define a policy framework for how to best manage this exciting opportunity in a way that maximizes synergies in the convergence of space and mobile technologies. > To ensure the rapid deployment of direct-to-device satellite solutions in the > correct way, Europe’s leaders and regulators need to be crystal clear in their > thinking around satellite policy In doing so, there are two key guiding principles and approaches to follow. Firstly, to allow the uptake of innovation in this field, European regulators should allow telecoms operators to share mobile frequencies with their satellite partners at a national level, as we have seen in the United States. The European Commission could also speed up deployment by harmonizing the rules on spectrum sharing at an EU level and encouraging member states to issue test licenses, as the UK regulator has done. Secondly, to tackle inherent risks, European governments should ensure that satellite direct-to-device services meet the same security, cybersecurity, resilience and compliance standards as terrestrial networks. If there isn’t a level playing field between satellite and telecom operators, this could create a whole range of issues, ranging from interference to undermining law enforcement, denial of service and data protection. The European Commission’s review of the European Electronic Communications Code this year is an opportunity to bring this into effect. At Vodafone, while there is still a lot more work to do, we are optimistic that this giant leap in connectivity access for all EU citizens can be supported and nurtured by the European Commission and national regulators. > We believe in the transformative potential of satellite technology, and > through our partnerships we are determined to bring this exciting technology > to as many people as possible Following further tests this spring, we aim to progressively introduce a direct-to-device broadband satellite service commercially in markets across Europe later this year and from 2026 onwards. We believe in the transformative potential of satellite technology, and through our partnerships we are determined to bring this exciting technology to as many people as possible. By working together, we can ensure that Europe has secure and resilient communications infrastructure that leverages satellite frontier technology, delivered by European operators to enhance European capabilities.

President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum Thursday moving the United States one step closer to a “reciprocal” tariff system that could dramatically raise duties on certain imports from around the world. The memo lays out a process for Trump to impose reciprocal tariffs on trading partners, effectively raising tariffs on a country’s exports to the U.S. based on the level of tariff and non-tariff barriers that country imposes on U.S. goods. “On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them – No more, no less!,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. ”America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS.” A White House official said top Cabinet officials would study the matter further before deciding on specific rates for each country. That process could take weeks or months, added the White House official, who was granted anonymity per the ground rules of the call with reporters. Howard Lutnick, Trump’s nominee to lead the Commerce Department, indicated the administration could move quickly after executive branch agencies deliver a number of trade reports to the White House. “Our studies should be all complete by April 1. So we’ll hand the president the opportunity to start on April 2,” Lutnick said at the White House. Ultimately, the new, higher tariff rates could result in steeper prices for countless goods Americans buy from abroad, something economists have warned will increase inflation. Trump and his top aides were quick to downplay the inflationary impact on Thursday, however. “Prices could go up short-term, but prices will also go down,” Trump said in remarks at the White House, according to the press pool. “Long-term it’s going to make our country a fortune.” Pressed in an interview on MSNBC about reciprocal tariffs driving up inflation, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said that while he expected that “prices will fluctuate,” he is confident that “there won’t be strong evidence of a price effect of tariffs.” The new memo builds off the executive order the president issued on trade on his first day in office, the White House said. That order set an April 1 deadline for federal agencies and departments to deliver reports to the president that could be the legal basis of new sweeping duties. The White House official said the president could ultimately use a mix of trade authorities including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which was used by both the first Trump and Biden administrations to impose tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese trade. As well as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which grants a president sweeping economic power in an emergency. The White House said Lutnick and Trump’s pick for U.S. trade representative, Jamieson Greer, are being tasked with delivering a report to the president on a country-by-country basis, which will be completed in consultation with the treasury secretary and Homeland Security secretary and other senior officials. Trump’s proposal would mark a radical departure from the tariff regime that the United States has long used and be unlike any other tariff system in the world. Currently, the United States has one primary set of tariffs — known as the “most-favored nation” rate — covering thousands of products. Although the tariff rates vary by product, the basic structure is the same for almost every country in the world. “If President Trump does move the United States to a reciprocity-based tariff system, that would arguably be a fundamental change to U.S. trade policy, and among the biggest in more than 75 years — since the creation of the current multilateral trading system,” said Tim Brightbill, a trade attorney at the law firm Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Under Trump’s proposal, the U.S. would develop different tariffs rates for different countries based on an overall assessment of their trade openness, the White House official said. That would include an examination of both tariffs and non-tariff measures, such as value-added taxes, subsidies for local industries, regulations, exchange rate actions and any other practice that U.S. trade officials determine to be unfair, the official added. The expected result is an individual additional tariff rate for each country or trading partner, rather than attempting to set corresponding tariff rates on every product the United States imports from the trading partner, the White House said. “There’s two things that this memorandum draws attention to. One is tariffs, which everybody is well familiar with, but the president also is focusing like a laser beam on what he calls non-monetary barriers, or non-tariff barriers,” the White House official said. “For example, Japan has relatively low tariffs, but high structural barriers.” The senior official also took aim at value-added taxes used by members of the 27-nation European Union, which he said effectively increases the EU’s tariff on autos to almost 20 percent from its nominal level of 2.5 percent. He also charged that VAT rebates that EU exporters receive “act as a significant export subsidy.” However, mainstream economists dispute the idea that VATs are a trade barrier, saying they are merely a tax on domestic consumption, regardless of where a product is made, similar to the sales tax imposed by most U.S. states. In another example, the White House noted the U.S. tariff on ethanol is only 2.5 percent, while Brazil charges an 18 percent rate. India, it said, charges a 100 percent tariff on motorcycles, while the U.S. rate is only 2.4 percent. A White House fact sheet also took aim at digital services taxes imposed by many European countries as well as Canada. Those are seen as discriminatory because they primarily affect large U.S. tech companies such as Alphabet and Meta. “Though America has no such thing, and only America should be allowed to tax American firms, trading partners hand American companies a bill for something called a digital service tax. Canada and France use these taxes to each collect over $500 million per year from American companies,” the White House fact sheet said.