The Trump administration wants to work with traditional allies to secure new supplies of critical minerals. But months of aggression toward allies, culminating with since-aborted threats to seize Greenland, have left many cool to the overtures. While the State Department has drawn a lengthy list of participating countries for its first Critical Minerals Ministerial scheduled for Wednesday, a number of those attending are hesitant to commit to partnering with the U.S. in creating a supply chain that bypasses China’s current chokehold on those materials, according to five Washington-based diplomats of countries invited to or attending the event. State Department cables obtained by POLITICO also show wariness among some countries about signing onto a framework agreement pledging joint cooperation in sourcing and processing critical minerals. Representatives from more than 50 countries are expected to attend the meeting, according to the State Department — all gathered to discuss the creation of tech supply chains that can rival Beijing’s. But the meeting comes just two weeks since President Donald Trump took to the stage at Davos to call on fellow NATO member Denmark to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and that isn’t sitting well. “We all need access to critical minerals, but the furor over Greenland is going to be the elephant in the room,” said a European diplomat. In the immediate run-up to the event there’s “not a great deal of interest from the European side,” the person added. The individual and others were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic relationships. Their concerns underscore how international dismay at the Trump administration’s foreign policy and trade actions may kneecap its other global priorities. The Trump administration had had some success over the past two months rallying countries to support U.S. efforts to create secure supply chains for critical minerals, including a major multilateral agreement called the Pax Silica Declaration. Now those gains could be at risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants foreign countries to partner with the U.S. in creating a supply chain for the 60 minerals (including rare earths) that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “vital to the U.S. economy and national security that face potential risks from disrupted supply chains.” They include antimony, used to produce munitions; samarium, which goes into aircraft engines; and germanium, which is essential to fiber-optics. The administration also launched a $12 billion joint public-private sector “strategic critical minerals stockpile” for U.S. manufacturers, a White House official said Monday. Trump has backed away from his threats of possibly deploying the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark. But at Davos he demanded “immediate negotiations” with Copenhagen to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the U.S. That makes some EU officials leery of administration initiatives that require cooperation and trust. “We are all very wary,” said a second European diplomat. Rubio’s critical minerals framework “will not be an easy sell until there is final clarity on Greenland.” Trump compounded the damage to relations with NATO countries on Jan. 22 when he accused member country troops that deployed to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 of having shirked combat duty. “The White House really messed up with Greenland and Davos,” a third European diplomat said. “They may have underestimated how much that would have an impact.” The Trump administration needs the critical minerals deals to go through. The U.S. has been scrambling to find alternative supply lines for a group of minerals called rare earths since Beijing temporarily cut the U.S. off from its supply last year. China — which has a near-monopoly on rare earths — relented in the trade truce that Trump brokered with China’s leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October. The administration is betting that foreign government officials that attend Wednesday’s event also want alternative sources to those materials. “The United States and the countries attending recognize that reliable supply chains are indispensable to our mutual economic and national security and that we must work together to address these issues in this vital sector,” the State Department statement said in a statement. The administration has been expressing confidence that it will secure critical minerals partnerships with the countries attending the ministerial, despite their concerns over Trump’s bellicose policy. “There is a commonality here around countering China,” Ruth Perry, the State Department’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for ocean, fisheries and polar affairs, said at an industry event on offshore critical minerals in Washington last week. “Many of these countries understand the urgency.” Speaking at a White House event Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that 11 nations would sign on to a critical minerals framework with the United States this week and another 20 are considering doing so. Greenland has rich deposits of rare earths and other minerals. But Denmark isn’t sending any representatives to the ministerial, according to the person familiar with the event’s planning. Trump said last month that a framework agreement he struck with NATO over Greenland’s future included U.S. access to the island’s minerals. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure in its interior makes the extraction of those materials highly challenging. Concern about the longer term economic and geostrategic risks of turning away from Washington in favor of closer ties with Beijing — despite the Trump administration’s unpredictability — may work in Rubio’s favor on Wednesday. “We still want to work on issues where our viewpoints align,” an Asian diplomat said. “Critical minerals, energy and defense are some areas where there is hope for positive movement.” State Department cables obtained by POLITICO show the administration is leaning on ministerial participants to sign on to a nonbinding framework agreement to ensure U.S. access to critical minerals. The framework establishes standards for government and private investment in areas including mining, processing and recycling, along with price guarantees to protect producers from competitors’ unfair trade policies. The basic template of the agreement being shared with other countries mirrors language in frameworks sealed with Australia and Japan and memorandums of understanding inked with Thailand and Malaysia last year. Enthusiasm for the framework varies. The Philippine and Polish governments have both agreed to the framework text, according to cables from Manila on Jan. 22 and Warsaw on Jan. 26. Romania is interested but “proposed edits to the draft MOU framework,” a cable dated Jan. 16 said. As of Jan. 22 India was noncommittal, telling U.S. diplomats that New Delhi “could be interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding in the future.” European Union members Finland and Germany both expressed reluctance to sign on without clarity on how the framework aligns with wider EU trade policies. A cable dated Jan. 15 said Finland “prefers to observe progress in the EU-U.S. discussions before engaging in substantive bilateral critical mineral framework negotiations.” Berlin also has concerns that the initiative may reap “potential retaliation from China,” according to a cable dated Jan. 16. Trump’s threats over the past two weeks to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada for cutting a trade deal with China and 25 percent tariffs on South Korea for allegedly slow-walking legislative approval of its U.S. trade agreement are also denting enthusiasm for the U.S. critical minerals initiative. Those levies “have introduced some uncertainty, which naturally leads countries to proceed pragmatically and keep their options open,” a second Asian diplomat said. There are also doubts whether Trump will give the initiative the long-term backing it will require for success. “There’s a sense that this could end up being a TACO too,” a Latin American diplomat said, using shorthand for Trump’s tendency to make big threats or announcements that ultimately fizzle. Analysts, too, argue it’s unlikely the administration will be able to secure any deals amid the fallout from Davos and Trump’s tariff barrages. “We’re very skeptical on the interest and aptitude and trust in trade counterparties right now,” said John Miller, an energy analyst at TD Cowen who tracks critical minerals. “A lot of trading partners are very much in a wait-and-see perspective at this point saying, ‘Where’s Trump really going to go with this?’” And more unpredictability or hostility by the Trump administration toward longtime allies could push them to pursue critical mineral sourcing arrangements that exclude Washington. “The alternative is that these other countries will go the Mark Carney route of the middle powers, cooperating among themselves quietly, not necessarily going out there and saying, ‘Hey, we’re cutting out the U.S.,’ but that these things just start to crop up,” said Jonathan Czin, a former China analyst at the CIA now at the Brookings Institution. “Which will make it more challenging and allow Beijing to play divide and conquer over the long term.” Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump backed down from the most extreme “Liberation Day” tariffs after bond traders revolted at the prospect of economic upheaval. Now, his push to coerce Denmark into ceding Greenland has threatened to trigger a similar market rout. Bond yields spiked and stocks sank on Tuesday as investors reckoned with how Trump’s threat to impose new tariffs on Europe could hammer alliances that are critical to the global economy. That reignited fears that the “Sell America” trade that dominated market narratives last spring could reemerge, undercutting Wall Street’s hopes for U.S. assets in 2026. As global leaders and top financial CEOs gathered in Davos for the World Economic Forum, where Trump is scheduled to speak on Wednesday, the blowback from bond traders threatened to undermine the president’s bullish case for both the U.S. economy and its market outlook. “The narrative just won’t go away,” said Paul Christopher, head of global investment strategy at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute. Foreign investors flooded back into U.S. assets as tensions eased during the latter half of 2025, but now “they’re hedging because they’re not sure what Trump is going to do with tariffs next.” Trump has historically been highly sensitive to how the bond market responds to his policies, and he regularly cites the stock market’s surge as evidence of how his agenda is working. The latest turmoil has echoes of the volatility that hit global bond markets shortly after he announced eye-popping tariffs last April on dozens of trading partners at a White House press conference. The president later announced a temporary pause on the new import duties after the bond market started “getting a little bit yippy,” in his words. His threat on Saturday to impose more tariffs on Europe sparked a similar response. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than 870 points on Tuesday. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 both closed down by more than 2 percent — erasing the gains notched through the first three weeks of the year. Yields on the 10-year and 30-year Treasury securities — which are benchmark rates for consumer and corporate lending products — jumped to their highest levels since last September, and the dollar sank. The president warned that he would impose additional 10 percent tariffs on eight European countries that have sought to block his ambitions to acquire Greenland, the sparsely populated Danish territory that’s been a fixation of the president since his first term. French President Emmanuel Macron has said he’s planning to activate the EU’s so-called trade bazooka — the Anti-Coercion Instrument — to respond to Trump’s saber rattling. That would allow the EU to impose restrictions on investment and access to public procurement schemes, as well as limits on intellectual property protection. The White House pushed back on the notion that the markets were rejecting Trump’s policies. “The S&P 500 is up over 10 percent and 10-year Treasury bond yields are down nearly 30 basis points over the past year because the markets have confidence in the Trump administration’s pro-growth, pro-business policies,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. “Accelerating GDP growth, cooled inflation, and over a dozen historic trade deals all prove that this Administration continues to deliver for American workers and companies.” Banking leaders — including Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, Citi’s Jane Fraser and State Street’s Ron O’Hanley — signaled optimism at the U.S.’s economic outlook in separate media appearances in Davos as they urged government leaders to find a resolution. “Let the people go to work,” Moynihan told CNBC. “They’re here in this beautiful place, and they’ve got a week to a few days to work on it. So, give them 48 hours and see if they can come up with solutions.” Throughout his first year back in the White House, Trump’s costly tariffs and insistence that Europe do more to finance its own defense have caused economic disruption and forced leaders across the continent to reckon with the possibility that the U.S. is no longer as strong a partner as it once was. And while markets have grown increasingly confident that the president’s frequent escalations result in policies that are far less severe than his initial threats, finding an off-ramp in the fight over Greenland’s future could prove challenging. “The market’s very complacent to the idea that this is just a negotiating tool,” said Brij Khurana, a fixed-income portfolio manager at Wellington Management. “I’m more nervous about it because I don’t, I don’t see what the middle ground is here.” In an appearance on Fox Business from Davos on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it’s “very difficult to disaggregate” the market’s reaction to Trump’s Greenland push from a massive sell-off in Japanese bonds that was triggered by mounting concerns about the country’s fiscal trajectory. As European leaders consider taking steps to retaliate against Trump, Bessent urged caution. “Sit back, take a deep breath, do not retaliate,” he said. “The president will be here tomorrow, and he will get his message across.” Aiden Reiter contributed to this report.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Der Kanzler ist zu seiner ersten Asienreise im Amt in Indien. In Gujarat trifft er Narendra Modi. Es geht um Rohstoffe, Rüstung, Fachkräfte und die strategische Abgrenzung von China. Hans von der Burchard ordnet ein, warum Indien für diese Bundesregierung an Bedeutung gewinnt und wo die politischen und wirtschaftlichen Fallstricke liegen. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview erklärt Sebastian Roloff, wirtschaftspolitischer Sprecher der SPD, welche Erwartungen die Koalition an die Indienreise knüpft und warum Deutschland bei Rüstungsdeals und Russlandfragen nur begrenzt Druck ausüben kann. Die Machthaber-Folge über Narendra Modi findet ihr hier. Parallel reisen Außen- und Finanzminister in die andere Richtung. Johann Wadephul und Lars Klingbeil sind in Washington. Dort geht es um Grönland, erneut Russland und vor allem um Seltene Erden. Rasmus Buchsteiner erläutert, warum die Gespräche über Rohstoffe für die deutsche Industrie strategisch entscheidend sind und wie schwierig der Versuch ist, Abhängigkeiten von China zu reduzieren. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Donald Trump wants the U.S. to own Greenland. The trouble is, Greenland already belongs to Denmark and most Greenlanders don’t want to become part of the U.S. While swooping into Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, and taking over Venezuela-style seems fanciful ― even if the military attack on Caracas seems to have provided a jolt to all sides about what the U.S. is capable of ― there’s a definite pathway. And Trump already appears to be some way along it. Worryingly for the Europeans, the strategy looks an awful lot like Vladimir Putin’s expansionist playbook. POLITICO spoke with nine EU officials, NATO insiders, defense experts and diplomats to game out how a U.S. takeover of the mineral-rich and strategically important Arctic island could play out. “It could be like five helicopters … he wouldn’t need a lot of troops,” said a Danish politician who asked for anonymity to speak freely. “There would be nothing they [Greenlanders] could do.” STEP 1: INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN TO BOOST GREENLAND’S INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT Almost immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration began talking up independence for Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. An unshackled Greenland could sign deals with the U.S., while under the status quo it needs Copenhagen’s approval. To gain independence, Greenlanders would need to vote in a referendum, then negotiate a deal that both Nuuk and Copenhagen must approve. In a 2025 opinion poll, 56 percent of Greenlanders said they would vote in favor of independence, while 28 percent said they would vote against it. Americans with ties to Trump have carried out covert influence operations in Greenland, according to Danish media reports, with Denmark’s security and intelligence service, PET, warning the territory “is the target of influence campaigns of various kinds.” Felix Kartte, a digital policy expert who has advised EU institutions and governments, pointed to Moscow’s tactics for influencing political outcomes in countries such as Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. “Russia mixes offline and online tactics,” he said. “On the ground, it works with aligned actors such as extremist parties, diaspora networks or pro-Russian oligarchs, and has been reported to pay people to attend anti-EU or anti-U.S. protests. “At the same time, it builds large networks of fake accounts and pseudo-media outlets to amplify these activities online and boost selected candidates or positions. The goal is often not to persuade voters that a pro-Russian option is better, but to make it appear larger, louder and more popular than it really is, creating a sense of inevitability.” Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, told CNN on Monday that “nobody is going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland.” | Joe Raedle/Getty Images On Greenland, the U.S. appears to be deploying at least some of these methods. Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, told CNN on Monday that “nobody is going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland.” Last month, Trump created the position of special envoy to Greenland and appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry to the role. He declared his goal was to “make Greenland a part of the U.S.”  Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, on a visit to the territory in March, said “the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination.” He added: “We hope that they choose to partner with the United States, because we’re the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security.” STEP 2: OFFER GREENLAND A SWEET DEAL Assuming its efforts to speed up Greenland’s independence referendum come to fruition, and the territory’s inhabitants vote to leave Denmark behind, the next step would be to bring it under U.S. influence. One obvious method would be to fold Greenland into the U.S. as another state — an idea those close to the president have repeatedly toyed with. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was on Monday forced to say that “the U.S. has no right to annex” Greenland after Katie Miller — the wife of Stephen Miller — posted to social media a map of the territory draped in a U.S. flag and the word “SOON.” A direct swap of Denmark for the U.S. seems largely unpalatable to most of the population. The poll mentioned above also showed 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose the territory becoming part of the U.S., and even Trump-friendly members of the independence movement aren’t keen on the idea. But there are other options. Reports have circulated since last May that the Trump administration wants Greenland to sign a Compact of Free Association (COFA) — like those it currently has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Under the deals, the U.S. provides essential services, protection and free trade in exchange for its military operating without restriction on those countries’ territory. The idea resurfaced this week. Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Greenlandic opposition MP who attended Trump’s inauguration and met with Republican Congressman Andy Ogles last year, said he tries to “explain to [the Americans] that we don’t want to be like Puerto Rico, or any other territory of the United States. But a Compact of Free Association, bilateral agreements, or even opportunities and other means which maybe I can’t imagine — let them come to the table and Greenlanders will decide in a plebiscite.” Compared to Nuuk’s deal with Copenhagen, things “can only go upwards,” he said.  Referring to Trump’s claim that the U.S. has a “need” for Greenland, Fencker added: “Denmark has never said that they ‘needed’ Greenland. Denmark has said that Greenland is an expense, and they would leave us if we become independent. So I think it’s a much more positive remark than we have ever seen from Denmark.” But Thomas Crosbie, an associate professor of military operations at the Royal Danish Defense College that provides training and education for the Danish defense forces, warned that Greenland is unlikely to get the better of Trump in a negotiation. “Trump’s primary identity as a deal-maker is someone who forces his will on the people he’s negotiating with, and someone who has a very long track record of betraying people who he’s negotiated deals with, not honoring his commitments, both in private and public life, and exploiting those around him … I really see zero benefits to Greenlandic people other than a very temporary boost to their self esteem.” And, he added, “it would be crazy to agree to something in the hope that a deal may come. I mean, if you give away your territory in the hopes that you might get a deal afterwards — that would be just really imprudent.” STEP 3: GET EUROPE ON BOARD Europe, particularly Denmark’s EU allies, would balk at any attempt to cleave Greenland away from Copenhagen. But the U.S. administration does have a trump card to play on that front: Ukraine. As peace negotiations have gathered pace, Kyiv has said that any deal with Putin must be backed by serious, long-term U.S. security guarantees. Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, on a visit to the territory in March, said “the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination.” | Pool photo by Tom Brenner vis Getty Images The Americans have prevaricated on that front, and in any case, Kyiv is skeptical about security guarantees, given those it has received from both Russia and the West in the past have amounted to nothing. One potential scenario an EU diplomat floated would be a security-for-security package deal, under which Europe gets firmer assurances from the Trump administration for Ukraine in exchange for an expanded role for the U.S. in Greenland. While that seems like a bitter pill, it could be easier to swallow than the alternative, annoying Trump, who may retaliate by imposing sanctions, pulling out of peace negotiations — or by throwing his weight behind Putin in negotiations with Ukraine. STEP 4: MILITARY INVASION But what if Greenland — or Denmark, whose “OK” Nuuk needs to secede — says no to Trump? A U.S. military takeover could be achieved without much difficulty.  Crosbie, from the Royal Danish Defense College, said Trump’s strategists are likely presenting him with various options. “The most worrisome would be a fait accompli-type strategy, which we see a lot and think about a lot in military circles, which would be simply grabbing the land the same way Putin tried to grab, to make territorial claims, over Ukraine. He could just simply put troops in the country and just say that it’s American now … the United States military is capable of landing any number of forces on Greenland, either by air or by sea, and then claiming that it’s American territory.” According to Lin Mortensgaard, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies and an expert on Greenlandic security, Washington also has around 500 military officers, including local contractors, on the ground at its northern Pituffik Space Base and just under 10 consulate staff in Nuuk. That’s alongside roughly 100 National Guard troops from New York who are usually deployed seasonally in the Arctic summer to support research missions.  Greenland, meanwhile, has few defenses. The population has no territorial army, Mortensgaard said, while Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in the capital includes scant and out-of-date military assets, largely limited to four inspection and navy vessels, a dog-sled patrol, several helicopters and one maritime patrol aircraft. As a result, if Trump mobilizes the U.S. presence on the ground — or flies in special forces — the U.S. could seize control of Nuuk “in half an hour or less,” Mortensgaard said. “Mr. Trump says things and then he does them,” said Danish Member of European Parliament Stine Bosse. “If you were one of 60,000 people in Greenland, you would be very worried.” Any incursion would have no “legal basis” under U.S. and international law, said Romain Chuffart, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Arctic Institute, a security think tank. Any occupation beyond 60 days would also require approval from the U.S. Congress.  Meanwhile, an invasion would “mean the end of NATO,” he said, and the “U.S. would be … shooting itself in the foot and waving goodbye to an alliance it has helped create.” Beyond that, a “loss of trust by key allies … could result in a reduction in their willingness to share intelligence with the U.S. or a reduction in access to bases across Europe,” said Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. troops in Europe. “Both of these would be severely damaging to America’s security.” Reports have circulated since last May that the Trump administration wants Greenland to sign a Compact of Free Association (COFA) — like those it currently has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images NATO would be left unable to respond, given that military action must be approved unanimously and the U.S. is the key member of the alliance, but European allies could deploy troops to Greenland via other groupings such as the U.K.-Scandinavian Joint Expeditionary Force or the five-country Nordic Defence Cooperation format, said Ed Arnold, a senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. But for now, NATO allies remain cool-headed about an attack. “We are still far from that scenario,” said one senior alliance diplomat. “There could be some tough negotiations, but I don’t think we are close to any hostile takeover.” Max Griera, Gerardo Fortuna and Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.

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

U.S. President Donald Trump’s top envoy to the EU told POLITICO that overregulation is causing “real problems” economically and forcing European startups to flee to America. Andrew Puzder said businesses in the bloc “that become successful here go to the United States because the regulatory environment is killing them.” “Wouldn’t it be great if this part of the world, instead of deciding it was going to be the world’s regulator, decided once again to be the world’s innovators?” he added in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “You’ll be stronger in the world and you’ll be a much better trade partner and ally to the United States.” Puzder’s remarks come as the Trump administration launched a series of blistering attacks on Europe in recent days. Washington’s National Security Strategy warned of the continent’s “civilizational erasure” and Trump himself blasted European leaders as “weak” and misguided on migration policy in an interview with POLITICO. Those broadsides have sparked concerns in Europe that Trump could seek to jettison the transatlantic relationship. But Puzder downplayed the strategy’s criticism and struck a more conciliatory note, saying the document was “more ‘make Europe great again’ than it was ‘let’s desert Europe’” and highlighted Europe’s potential as a partner.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Außenminister Wadephul sagt seine China-Reise kurzfristig ab. Ein Vorgang, der zeigt, wie sehr sich die Machtverhältnisse verschoben haben. Hans von der Burchard analysiert, wie China Deutschland die Grenzen aufzeigt, warum die EU zum Vermittler wird  und welche Folgen die Eskalation hat. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Markus Frohnmaier, außenpolitischer Sprecher der AfD, über Pekings Rolle in der Welt, deutsche Interessen und warum er die Regierung für „hypermoralisch“ hält. Danach: Innenminister Alexander Dobrindt will Deutschland besser gegen Cyberangriffe wappnen und erlaubt künftig auch digitale Gegenschläge. Rixa Fürsen erklärt, wie schwierig das Konzept der Abwehr ist und warum Zuständigkeiten zwischen Bund, Ländern und Bundeswehr so unklar sind. Zum Schluss: Ein Blick auf die SPD, die in Bielefeld gegen den Kanzler und damit die eigene Regierung demonstriert. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

President Donald Trump this week insisted Americans are experiencing the “best economy we’ve ever had.” Privately, White House officials acknowledge people just aren’t feeling it. The economy grew faster in the second quarter than initially anticipated, productivity was revised upwards, inflation hasn’t surged despite new tariffs and gas prices have fallen to levels not seen in decades. Republicans also avoided what would have amounted to a major tax increase with Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill earlier this year. But polls show Americans remain anxious about high prices, and there are signs the economy’s resilience is starting to fray, making it harder for the administration to close the delta between how the economy looks on paper and how people feel. The Congressional Budget Office also said Friday that the megalaw will have little effect on economic growth before the 2028 election, its gains blunted by the president’s tariffs and immigration crackdown. “That’s a thing that I know the White House political team is nervous about because there’s a reality and there’s a perception. And the reality is the economy is doing fine and the perception is people are still worried about things like grocery prices, which are still high, and still growing,” said Stephen Moore, an outside economic adviser to Trump who the president featured in an impromptu Oval Office press conference last month. Trump, in an interview on “Fox & Friends” Friday, pointed to the trillions of dollars of investments in the U.S. that companies have promised since he took office and the record high stocks hit on Thursday, insisting that Americans are experiencing the “best economy we’ve ever had.” Trumpeting positive economic statistics in the face of sagging sentiment is a political trap that has ensnared many administrations, including, most recently, the Biden White House. During former President Joe Biden’s term, the president and his aides insisted that economic statistics vindicated their policies even as that data failed to move frustrated voters. Republicans could face a similar problem as they head into what is expected to be a difficult fight for control of the House. “There’s a new recognition certainly among White House folks, some GOP folks on the Hill, and elsewhere that we have a problem, and that lecturing the American people and telling them, ‘No, things are actually fine,’ is just not going to work,” said Steve Cortes, a former Trump campaign adviser. “Trust us, trust the plan. Trump’s done it before, he’s doing it again — all that would be good, but don’t dismiss their concerns.” Privately, White House aides are clear-eyed about the reality of Americans’ economic anxieties. But they believe their policies will turn things around by next fall. “Inflationary cycles don’t erase themselves in six months or a year,” said a senior White House official, granted anonymity to share the administration’s thinking. “You’ve got to turn the ship around, and I think we are making progress on that.” A recent CBS News poll found that just 36 percent of Americans say the economy is “good,” while the New York Federal Reserve said Monday that people believe there is a 45 percent chance they can find a new job if unemployed — the weakest reading since the survey began in 2013. Together, the numbers sketch a picture of an American electorate more jittery than jubilant. The August jobs report also came in weaker than expected, inflation remains above the Fed’s target and jobless claims just hit their highest level since late 2021. “I think the economy is weakening,” JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon told CNBC on Tuesday. “Whether it’s on the way to recession or just weakening, I don’t know.” White House officials continue to blame Biden for handing over a weak economy, pointing to Tuesday’s jobs revisions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealing that U.S. hiring from April 2024 to March 2025 was overestimated by 911,000 jobs — the largest downward revision on record — as the latest example. Allies hope those Tuesday numbers give the White House additional cover as it works to address voters’ perceptions. The Federal Reserve is poised to lower interest rates at its meeting next week — a move made more likely after wholesale prices ticked down in August, even as consumer prices have begun creeping up under tariff pressure. Inflation was decreasing early this year but has been steadily increasing since May, with the latest numbers putting inflation roughly where it was in January. The interest rate reduction, which Trump has called for for months, makes it cheaper for consumers and businesses to borrow and spend, which, in theory, stimulates the economy. White House aides expect multiple rate cuts before next year’s election and believe those along with continued increases in real wages and the effects from the megalaw’s tax cuts will give people a sense that their economic situations are improving. “If anything, we feel bullish, relatively, because we got the tax cuts done so early, we got them retroactive, we’re going to enter a rate cut cycle,” the senior White House official said. “Now we’re in what I call the grind.” Still, the White House has struggled to message its signature domestic policy legislation, with a Pew survey last month finding that 46 percent of Americans disapprove of the law, while 32 percent approve. In an attempt to reverse those figures, as well as economic concerns, the White House has rebranded its so-called One Big Beautiful Bill as the “Working Families Tax Cut.” Aides acknowledge it’s less about reality than voters’ perceptions. They’re paying less attention to economic indicators and more to voter sentiment, whether that’s shaped by the stock market, consumer prices or inflation headlines. “Right now, people know the price of gas is down, they know some things are down and more stable, but it’s going to take some time before they really feel the benefit, because you’re going to have to grow your way out of this,” said Trump pollster John McLaughlin. “It’s going to take some time, but as those policies percolate, it’ll be a sense of relief compared to what the last four years were like.” Aides say inflation-adjusted wages aren’t back to where they were before the cost of living spike at the beginning of Biden’s presidency and they don’t expect them to catch up by Election Day. But they do believe Americans’ economic situations will improve enough by November 2026 that voters feel the economy is headed in the right direction. “Most voters are pretty sophisticated. They understand that there’s not a magic wand here,” the senior official said. “If there’s a sustained directionality of people feeling like their economic situation is improving between now and a year from now, then we’ll be in pretty good shape.” Worker pay, adjusted for inflation, is up from where it stood before the pandemic and has been increasing since early 2023, according to Labor Department data. White House officials also believe there are reasons to think they are starting from a better position than other recent administrations heading into midterm elections, though they understand the situation could change. The gap between the percentage of people who think the nation is headed in the right direction instead of the wrong direction is about 15 percentage points today, compared to about 31 points at the same point in Biden’s 2022 cycle and nearly 28 percent at this point in Trump’s first term, according to Real Clear Politics. Republicans’ voter registration advantage is also expanding nationwide, while Democrats’ favorability remains 27 points under water compared to 13 percent for Republicans. Privately, they are also eyeing a silver lining should the Supreme Court strike down the president’s tariffs: Market analysts may hail such a move as a win for the economy as billions of dollars collected in recent months are infused back into businesses. And, if the court upholds them, aides believe price increases are mostly baked in and that markets will respond positively to any deficit reductions the government makes as a result of the tariffs. And, if all else fails, Trump can pivot to other issues like crime and immigration. The National Guard and other federal law enforcement officials have spent the last month cracking down on crime in Washington, and Trump announced on Friday that his next target will be Memphis, Tennessee. The shift is deliberate: broadening the voters’ aperture so the economy isn’t the only focus. “If all you’re thinking about is the economy, then you live by the sword, die by the sword,” said Sean Spicer, former White House press secretary. “They’re talking about crime. They’re talking about tariffs. There’s so much going on that they’re making sure that it’s not just one issue.” Victoria Guida contributed to this report.

A slim majority of EU citizens think European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen should resign, a survey published Tuesday shows. When asked about von der Leyen’s future, 39 percent said they were “very favorable” to her resignation, 21 percent “somewhat favorable,” and just 8 percent “very against.” Much of the criticism stems from the EU-U.S. trade agreement finalized this summer. The deal came after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to impose 30 percent tariffs on European exports if no agreement was reached. While the final compromise capped tariffs at 15 percent — far below Trump’s threat but still much higher than the previous average of 1.47 percent — the outcome left many Europeans disillusioned. According to the survey, 52 percent of respondents said they felt “humiliated” by the deal, with the sentiment particularly strong in France (65 percent) and Spain (56 percent). Three-quarters believe von der Leyen failed to defend European interests, while only 19 percent gave her a positive rating. A further 77 percent said the trade agreement primarily benefits the U.S. economy, and 42 percent think European companies will be hit hardest. The Eurobazooka survey was conducted by Cluster17 between late August and early September across five major EU countries — France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Poland — representing more than 60 percent of the EU’s population. The poll surveyed around 1,000 people in each country.

JACKSON HOLE, Wyoming — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell hinted Friday that the Fed might cut interest rates soon but added a subtle bit of context: It’s not because President Donald Trump is pressuring him. Powell, delivering a closely watched speech at the central bank’s annual conference in Grand Teton National Park, said the U.S. economy faces two competing risks: that inflation could get worse, which would call for more elevated rates, and that the labor market could weaken, which would call for lower rates. It’s “a challenging situation,” he said. But he indicated that he’s more worried about economic weakening than a sustained increase in inflation and then used key central banker wording to suggest that he’s leaning toward a rate cut: “The shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.” The decision, though, will be “based solely on [Fed officials’] assessment of the data and its implications for the economic outlook and the balance of risks,” he said. “We will never deviate from that approach,” he added. Those comments are an oblique acknowledgment of the political firestorm that Trump and his fellow officials have sparked for the central bank in recent months. The president has called Powell a “numbskull” and a “total and complete moron” for refusing to lower interest rates. Earlier this week, Trump called on another Fed board member, Lisa Cook, to resign after the president’s housing finance regulator referred her to the Justice Department on allegations of criminal mortgage fraud, saying she had named two different properties as her primary residence on loan applications in 2021. If Cook were to depart from the board, it would give Trump another opening to nominate an ally to the central bank to implement his vision of lower rates. Two board members, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, called for rate cuts at the Fed’s most recent rate-setting meeting in July, dissenting from the broader decision to hold borrowing costs steady. But the president’s sweeping tariffs on all U.S. trading partners have led most Fed officials to hesitate on easing borrowing costs for fear that the levies could lead to a series of price increases. Now though, Powell suggested he sees this scenario as less likely than economic weakening. Workers facing higher prices could demand higher wages, leading to a spiral where prices and income push each other up, but in his speech, the Fed chair said “that outcome does not seem likely” because hiring has slowed, giving employees less wage-setting power. He also expressed confidence that investors and households still understood that the Fed’s intention over the long term is to return inflation to its 2 percent target. To help clarify how the central bank approaches inflation and the labor market, Powell also announced updates to the Fed’s framework document, designed to be a durable, high-level explanation of how the Fed intends to set policy over time. Those updates underscore the Fed’s commitment to price stability. The Fed makes its next rate decision in mid-September.