LONDON — The BBC will attempt to have Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit over the way it edited a 2021 speech thrown out of court. Filings in the southern district of Florida published Monday said the BBC would “move to dismiss” the case because the October 2024 documentary for the flagship Panorama program which carried the edited speech was not made, produced or broadcast in the state. The court lacks “personal jurisdiction” over the BBC, and the U.S. president “fails to state a claim on multiple independent grounds,” the filing says. In a lawsuit filed last month Trump demanded more than $5 billion after accusing the corporation of misleadingly editing his Jan. 6, 2021 speech, delivered ahead of the storming of the U.S. Capitol during the 2020 presidential election certification process. Trump’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami, claims the BBC “maliciously” strung together two comments Trump made more than 54 minutes apart to convey the impression that he’d urged his supporters to engage in violence. The corporation apologized to Trump when the botched edit became public but said it did not merit a defamation case. The broadcaster said the episode of its Panorama current affairs program was not shown on the global feed of the BBC News Channel, while programs on iPlayer, the BBC’s catchup service, were only available in the U.K.  Public figures claiming defamation in the U.S. have to demonstrate “actual malice,” meaning they have to show there was an intent to spread false information or some action in reckless disregard of the truth. The BBC filing says Trump “fails to plausibly allege” this. It said the documentary included “extensive coverage of his supporters and balanced coverage of his path to reelection.” BBC Director General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness announced their resignations in November after the very public row with the U.S. president hit the headlines. A BBC spokesperson said: “As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”

Europe’s biggest ever trade deal finally got the nod Friday after 25 years of negotiating.  It took blood, sweat, tears and tortured discussions to get there, but EU countries at last backed the deal with the Mercosur bloc — paving the way to create a free trade area that covers more than 700 million people across Europe and Latin America.  The agreement, which awaits approval from the European Parliament, will eliminate more than 90 percent of tariffs on EU exports. European shoppers will be able to dine on grass-fed beef from the Argentinian pampas. Brazilian drivers will see import duties on German motors come down.  As for the accord’s economic impact, well, that pales in comparison with the epic battles over it: The European Commission estimates it will add €77.6 billion (or 0.05 percent) to the EU economy by 2040.  Like in any deal, there are winners and losers. POLITICO takes you through who is uncorking their Malbec, and who, on the other hand, is crying into the Bordeaux. WINNERS Giorgia Meloni Italy’s prime minister has done it again. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal.  The end result? In exchange for its support, Rome was able to secure farm market safeguards and promises of fresh agriculture funding from the European Commission — wins that the government can trumpet in front of voters back home. It also means that Meloni has picked the winning side once more, coming off as the team player despite the last-minute holdup. All in all, yet another laurel in Rome’s crown.  The German car industry  Das Auto hasn’t had much reason to cheer of late, but Mercosur finally gives reason to celebrate. Germany’s famed automotive sector will have easier access to consumers in LatAm. Lower tariffs mean, all things being equal, more sales and a boost to the bottom line for companies like Volkswagen and BMW. There are a few catches. Tariffs, now at 35 percent, aren’t coming down all at once. At the behest of Brazil, which hosts an auto industry of its own, the removal of trade barriers will be staggered. Electric vehicles will be given preferential treatment, an area that Europe’s been lagging behind on.  Ursula von der Leyen Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Since shaking hands on the deal with Mercosur leaders more than a year ago, her team has bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of the skeptics and build the all-important qualified majority that finally materialized Friday. Expect a victory lap next week, when the Berlaymont boss travels to Paraguay to sign the agreement. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal. | Ettore Ferrari/EPA On the international stage, it also helps burnish Brussels’ standing at a time when the bloc looks like a lumbering dinosaur, consistently outmaneuvered by the U.S. and China. A large-scale trade deal shows that the rules-based international order that the EU so cherishes is still alive, even as the U.S. whisked away a South American leader in chains.  But the deal came at a very high cost. Von der Leyen had to promise EU farmers €45 billion in subsidies to win them over, backtracking on efforts to rein in agricultural support in the EU budget and invest more in innovation and growth.   Europe’s farmers  Speaking of farmers, going by the headlines you could be forgiven for thinking that Mercosur is an unmitigated disaster. Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right?  The reality is a little bit more complicated. The deal comes with strict quotas for categories ranging from beef to poultry. In effect, Latin American farmers will be limited to exporting a couple of chicken breasts per European person per year. Meanwhile, the deal recognizes special protections for European producers for specialty products like Italian parmesan or French wine, who stand to benefit from the expanded market. So much for the agri-pocalpyse now.  Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Then there’s the matter of the €45 billion of subsidies going into farmers’ pockets, and it’s hard not to conclude that — despite all the tractor protests and manure fights in downtown Brussels — the deal doesn’t smell too bad after all.  LOSERS Emmanuel Macron  There’s been no one high-ranking politician more steadfast in their opposition to the trade agreement than France’s President Emmanuel Macron who, under enormous domestic political pressure, has consistently opposed the deal. It’s no surprise then that France joined Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary to unsuccessfully vote against Mercosur.  The former investment banker might be a free-trading capitalist at heart, but he knows well that, domestically, the deal is seen as a knife in the back of long-suffering Gallic growers. Macron, who is burning through prime ministers at rates previously reserved for political basket cases like Italy, has had precious few wins recently. Torpedoing the free trade agreement, or at least delaying it further, would have been proof that the lame-duck French president still had some sway on the European stage.  Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right? | Darek Delmanowicz/EPA Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. That’s all come to nought. After this latest defeat, expect more lambasting of the French president in the national media, as Macron continues his slow-motion tumble down from the Olympian heights of the Élysée Palace.  Donald Trump Coming within days of the U.S. mission to snatch Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and put him on trial in New York, the Mercosur deal finally shows that Europe has no shortage of soft power to work constructively with like-minded partners — if it actually has the wit to make use of it smartly.  Any trade deal should be seen as a win-win proposition for both sides, and that is just not the way U.S. President Donald Trump and his art of the geopolitical shakedown works. It also has the incidental benefit of strengthening his adversaries — including Brazilian President and Mercosur head honcho Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — who showed extraordinary patience as he waited on the EU to get their act together (and nurtured a public bromance with Macron even as the trade talks were deadlocked). China  China has been expanding exports to Latin America, particularly Brazil, during the decades when the EU was negotiating the Mercosur trade deal. The EU-Mercosur deal is an opportunity for Europe to claw back some market share, especially in competitive sectors like automotive, machines and aviation. The deal also strengthens the EU’s hand on staying on top when it comes to direct investments, an area where European companies are still outshining their Chinese competitors. Emmanuel Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/EPA More politically, China has somewhat succeeded in drawing countries like Brazil away from Western points of view, for instance via the BRICS grouping, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and other developing economies. Because the deal is not only about trade but also creates deeper political cooperation, Lula and his Mercosur counterparts become more closely linked to Europe. The Amazon rainforest  Unfortunately, for the world’s ecosystem, Mercosur means one thing: burn, baby, burn. The pastures that feed Brazil’s herds come at the expense of the nation’s once-sprawling, now-shrinking tropical rainforest. Put simply, more beef for Europe means less trees for the world. It’s not all bad news for the climate. The trade deal does include both mandatory safeguards against illegal deforestation, as well as a commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement for its signatories. 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

The Trump administration won’t tap emergency funds to pay for federal food benefits, imperiling benefits starting Nov. 1 for nearly 42 million Americans who rely on the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO. USDA said in the memo that it won’t tap a contingency fund or other nutrition programs to cover the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is set to run out of federal funds at the end of the month. The contingency fund for SNAP currently holds roughly $5 billion, which would not cover the full $9 billion the administration would need to fund November benefits. Even if the administration did partially tap those funds, it would take weeks to dole out the money on a pro rata basis — meaning most low-income Americans would miss their November food benefits anyway. In order to make the deadline, the Trump administration would have needed to start preparing for partial payments weeks ago, which it has not done. Congressional Democrats and anti-hunger groups have urged the Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits flowing into November, some even arguing that the federal government is legally required to tap other funds to pay for the program. But senior officials have told POLITICO that using those other funds wouldn’t leave money for future emergencies and other major food aid programs. Administration officials expect Democratic governors and anti-hunger groups to sue over the decision not to tap the contingency fund for SNAP, according to two people granted anonymity to describe private views. The White House is blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding due to their repeated votes against a House-passed stopgap funding bill. The Trump administration stepped in to shore up funding for key farm programs this week after also identifying Pentagon funds to pay active-duty troops earlier in the month. USDA said in the memo, which was first reported by Axios, that it cannot tap the contingency fund because it is reserved for emergencies such as natural disasters. The department also argues that using money from other nutrition programs would hurt other beneficiaries, such as mothers and babies as well as schoolchildren who are eligible for free lunches. “This Administration will not allow Democrats to jeopardize funding for school meals and infant formula in order to prolong their shutdown,” USDA wrote in the memo. The top Democrats on the House Agriculture and Appropriations committees — Reps. Angie Craig of Minnesota and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, respectively — lambasted the determination Friday, saying “Congress already provided billions of dollars to fund SNAP in November.” “It is the Trump administration that is taking food assistance away from 42 million Americans next month — including hungry seniors, veterans, and families with children,” they said in a statement. “This is perhaps the most cruel and unlawful offense the Trump administration has perpetrated yet — freezing funding already enacted into law to feed hungry Americans while he shovels tens of billions of dollars out the door to Argentina and into his ballroom.” Congress could pass a standalone bill to fund SNAP for November, but that would have to get through the Senate early next week and the House would likely need to return to approve it. Johnson said this week if the Senate passes a standalone SNAP patch, the House would “address” it. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said he would lean toward using the emergency funds to help keep some food benefits flowing. “I think the President and GOP should do what we can to alleviate harm done by the Democrats,” he said in a text message. Bacon also said he would support having the House return to approve a standalone bill should the Senate pass one next week: “I figure the Speaker would want to.” Some states, including Virginia and Hawaii, have started to tap their own emergency funds to offer some food benefits in the absence of SNAP. But it’s not clear how long that aid can last given states’ limited budgets and typical reliance on federal help to pay for anti-hunger programs. USDA, furthermore, said states cannot expect to be reimbursed if they cover the cost of keeping benefits flowing.

LONDON — Donald Trump’s ambassador to the U.K. on Monday joined mounting criticism of a “death to the IDF” chant which took place at Britain’s Glastonbury music festival over the weekend. Warren Stephens, the U.S. ambassador to the U.K., hit out at the “antisemitic” chant against the Israel Defense Forces. It was kicked off by punk act Bob Vylan during the weekend festival, and broadcast live on the BBC. “The antisemitic chants led by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury were a disgrace,” he said on X Monday. “There should be no place for this hateful incitement or tolerance of antisemitism in the U.K.” The row has already heaped cross-party pressure on the BBC, Britain’s publicly-funded broadcaster. On Sunday night, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the BBC “needs to explain” why the “appalling hate speech” was broadcast. The corporation has since admitted it should have pulled the broadcast. London Mayor Sadiq Khan — who has been sharply critical of Israel’s continued bombardment of Gaza — warned Monday that the chants would not help people in Gaza or the West Bank.” “It’s possible to be critical — as I am — of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and [the] IDF while recognising Jewish people feel very scared and distinguish between them,” he told LBC Radio. Opposition politicians have already been piling in. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said Vylan was “inciting violence and hatred” and even suggested the BBC should be prosecuted for broadcasting the footage. A spokesperson for the BBC said Monday afternoon that the organization would look again at its editorial guidelines so staff knew when output could remain on air. They said in a statement: “The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly unacceptable and have no place on our airwaves. We welcome Glastonbury’s condemnation of the performance.” The broadcaster said its team had been “dealing with a live situation but with hindsight we should have pulled the stream during the performance. We regret this did not happen.”

Dalibor Rohac is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. As the transatlantic alliance braces for this week’s NATO summit in the Hague, its defenders are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, anyone can see that relations with Washington are as bad as ever — from U.S. President Donald Trump’s musings about Russia at the hastily shortened G7 summit in Alberta to the vacuous so-called trade deal with the U.K. that still hits the country with 10 percent tariffs. It is increasingly hard for Europeans to find common ground with the Trump administration. But saying it out loud carries the risk of worsening relations and turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy, much like when France’s President Emmanuel Macron called NATO “braindead” back in 2019. However, to feed false hopes and unrealistic expectations of constructive engagement with the second Trump administration is both dishonest and irresponsible. What the British and the Europeans need is less talk and more action: on defense, on Ukraine, on trade, and other priorities, without either waiting for strategic direction from Washington or agonizing about Trump’s possible reactions. Clarity about facts is a necessary first step. With shrewd diplomacy, the upcoming NATO summit may avoid being a complete embarrassment. But that will not change the fact that as community that shares a common strategic perspective, the alliance may not be braindead yet — but it is certainly on life support. To be fair, due to recent — and ongoing — increases in defense spending by allies, NATO’s joint capabilities are becoming impressive. But what matters for the alliance is the collective willingness to use them. There, U.S. leadership is acutely failing. The planned withdrawals of U.S. troops from Europe will inevitably cast a long shadow on the summit’s proceedings. Worse yet, at a recent congressional hearing, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth struggled to answer a simple question about the U.S. commitment to NATO’s Article 5. Likewise, he failed to rule out planning for a U.S. invasion of Greenland. Even the debate about increasing defense spending to 3.5 or 5 percent has to be read against the background that the United States is unwilling to increase its own defense budget to such levels — quite the contrary. Then, there’s Ukraine. We are past the two-week deadline set by President Trump to assess Russia’s willingness to engage constructively in peace negotiations, to which the Kremlin responded by pounding Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure with massive drone and ballistic missile attacks. The “coalition of the willing” appears to be sitting in the sidelines, waiting for Washington to make a move. That’s a mistake. No disinterested observer, after all, can avoid the impression that the administration’s preferred policy is — well — to do nothing. “I’m very disappointed in Russia,” Trump said at a press conference earlier this month, before adding that he was also “disappointed in Ukraine” and appearing to give credit to Vladimir Putin for Russia’s sacrifices in World War II. The same day, June 12, Secretary of State Marco Rubio congratulated Russia on its National Day — a step not taken by a U.S. administration since 2022. Meanwhile, Hegseth assiduously dodged answering the question of whether Russia is the aggressor in the war. The Russian rhetoric indicates the direction of travel is toward normalizing the U.S.-Russian relationship. | Maxim Shipenkov/EFE via EPA The Trump administration might be constrained by the fact that many of the sanctions against Russia are mandated by Congress and thus hard to reverse. The Russian rhetoric indicates the direction of travel is toward normalizing the U.S.-Russian relationship, not toward Senator Lindsey Graham’s punitive bill penalizing countries buying Russian oil with a de-facto trade embargo. All of these facts are unpleasant — but they are part of the reality that the U.K. and Europeans have to deal with. The best way to do so is with stoicism and determination — and with a European version of Teddy Roosevelt’s dictum about being quiet and carrying a big stick. The EU is a $20-trillion economy. The U.K. adds another $4 billion, give or take. With a leadership that understands what is at stake — and it appears that Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, Poland’s Donald Tusk, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen do, among others, do — it can re-arm itself and bankroll Ukraine to eventual membership in the European bloc. Both the U.K. and the EU should be also pursuing, jointly, an ambitious agenda of trade liberalization, working around America’s arbitrary protectionism rather than trying to accommodate Trump’s every whim. Talk of “special relationship” notwithstanding, Trump’s commitment to protectionism should provide a straightforward impetus for likeminded and geographically close economies to huddle. On all of those fronts, the British and the Europeans need action – and definitely fewer high-stake summits at which Trump tries to épater les bourgeois. The current moment in transatlantic relations shall pass and we will see a day when the United States will be ready to be a constructive partner again, one hopes. Until then, however, both the U.K. and the EU are committing an act of self-harm by letting the parameters of the American political debate frame the conversations on security, Ukraine, and trade that the old continent needs to have.

Vast amounts of valuable thermal energy are slipping through the fingers of Europe’s critical industries and institutions every day, as the heat escapes from their operations or remains untapped from natural ambient sources like nearby land, air or water. Today, some businesses and communities are harnessing this heat using innovative heat pump technologies to dramatically cut costs and CO2 emissions. As Europe races to revitalize key industries and accelerate growth, deploying heat pumps at scale is a key strategy for success. Consider this: in 2024 alone, Johnson Controls’ heat pumps cut energy costs for customers by 53 percent and emissions by 60 percent. > in 2024 alone, Johnson Controls’ heat pumps cut energy costs for customers by > 53 percent and emissions by 60 percent. Sound too good to be true? Let’s look at organizations realizing this powerful win-win every day. A hospital in Germany put a heat pump to work to tap heat energy 200 meters below the facility and realized a 30 percent cut in energy costs while producing enough heat to cover 80 percent of the hospital’s demand. The Aalborg hospital in Denmark is close to zeroing out carbon emissions, achieving an 80-90 percent cut while driving energy costs down by 80 percent. And in the UK, Hounslow Council transitioned from gas boilers to air source heat pumps, cutting its energy costs and CO2 emissions by 50 percent across more than 60 schools and public buildings. Natural and waste heat energy resources can be put to work for industry as well. Take, for example, a leading food company in Spain. Installing heat pumps at two of their manufacturing facilities enabled them to save €1.5 million per year and reduce CO2 emissions by nearly 2,000 tons, the equivalent annual emissions of around 400 homes. Nestle’s Biessenhofen plant in Germany also significantly cut energy costs for hot water production while lowering CO2 emissions by 10 percent.   The heat pumps powering these successes? Made by Johnson Controls here in Europe. So, the opportunity at hand is magnified as Europe can lead in cutting-edge energy technologies while putting the machines to work to boost core, centuries-old and critical legacy industries. To put the potential of industry heating needs and excess industrial heat in context, heat accounts for more than 60 percent of energy use in European industries, according to the European Heat Pump Association. Meanwhile, a leading European industrial company estimates that wasted heat in the European Union would just about meet the bloc’s entire energy demands for central heating and hot water. > To put the potential of industry heating needs and excess industrial heat in > context, heat accounts for more than 60 percent of energy use in European > industries, The fact is that untapped heat energy is everywhere. It’s critical that we put it to work now.  A catalyst for a competitive, energy-secure and sustainable Europe   Today EU companies pay 2-3 times more for their electricity than competitors in the United States and China — a disparity that puts a constraint on the competitiveness of European industries, according to analysis by the Draghi Report on the future of Europe’s competitiveness. The report calls for immediate action to lower energy costs and emissions as a combined competition and climate strategy.  With the visionary Clean Industrial Deal, European leaders are moving to do just that. Heat pumps can be front and center in this agenda. Heat pumps quickly bolster the bottom line: they are state-of-the-art, so they ensure the reliability and uptime of critical operations; and they are essential in driving every euro to growth and innovation instead of going out the door in excess energy bills. As leaders turn the Clean Industrial Deal into legislation this year, they can ensure essential industries and organizations prosper by including incentives for heat pumps, while also reforming electricity pricing so the full magnitude of savings can be realized. It is estimated that in Germany in 2024, for example, extraneous taxes on the electric bill represented 30 percent of cost — artificially increasing the cost of electricity and narrowing instead of increasing choices to meet critical energy needs with clean electricity.  Expansive troves of natural and wasted energy represent a huge opportunity for growth and competitiveness. Heat pump technologies are the enablers. They tap into this ‘free energy’ and transform it into the fuel that drives industrial processes, heats spaces, and delivers the higher temperature water and energy that’s essential for processing, pasteurizing, bulking and sterilizing. Natural and waste heat: a natural resource for companies   Seen at scale, our natural and escaping industrial heat are a new natural energy resource to be put to work, and a powerful economic catalyst to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.   Visualization of the Hamburg Dradenau site where four 15-MW heat pumps will tap into treated wastewater to supply green heat to around 39,000 homes from 2026. Natural and waste energy is all around us. Recovering heat from a city’s wastewater treatment plant represents a powerful example. In Utrecht, the Netherlands, for example, a heat pump extracts residual heat from treated wastewater to provide heat to around 20,000 homes. And from 2026 in Hamburg, Germany, four large-scale heat pumps will extract heat from treated wastewater and feed it into the central district heating network, heating around 39,000 homes. Pharmaceutical companies, chemical facilities, and food and beverage enterprises are among the industries that can tap into energy they generate as a byproduct of the processes that produce the medicines and products we rely on every day.  In our modern data and information technology economy, data centers are among the biggest new sources of excess heat. The International Energy Agency notes that reused heat from data centers could meet around 300 TWh of heating demand by 2030, equivalent to 10 percent of European space heating needs. As artificial intelligence leads to increasingly more computing power in data centers, those numbers will grow significantly. The fact that up to half of the energy consumed by a data center is needed for cooling demonstrates how much heat is available. With heat pumps, we can capture that heat and put it to productive use. A trifecta for competitiveness, energy security and carbon neutrality Heat pump systems are key for Europe’s competitiveness, its energy security and tackling climate change. Tapping into the vast energy resources that are available everywhere and right now, heat pumps have the potential to become one of the continent’s next biggest industrial success stories. Let’s seize the moment for a future of economic strength and security, environmental health, and having pride in them being made right here. > Heat pump systems are key for Europe’s competitiveness, its energy security > and tackling climate change.

LONDON — When Rachel Reeves was Britain’s shadow chancellor she liked to repeat an anecdote during interviews. The Labour frontbencher would often quote the advice she received from the party’s longest-ever serving chancellor, Gordon Brown. “Prudence is really important Rachel, but it’s got to be for a purpose. You’ve got to have a purpose,” Brown is said to have told her. “Prudence for a purpose” was the unofficial title of Brown’s 1998 Budget, which saw his infamous “great clunking fist” keep a tight hold of the nation’s finances — while also announcing policies to raise living standards of the working poor.   Now Reeves is chancellor herself, she has been quick to adopt the first part of Brown’s advice amid deteriorating economic projections and surging government borrowing costs. The chancellor has already brought forward £14 billion of spending cuts this year, with more set to follow in June and autumn. One minister, granted anonymity like others in this piece to speak frankly, said next month’s government-wide spending review will be “very tough” as Reeves prepares to announce real-terms cuts to a number of departments. They said this had left many ministers infuriated with the process. Some Labour MPs, aides and strategists are also concerned the chancellor has not been able to carve out a convincing political narrative which explains the coming cuts and how they feed into a long-term economic plan. It’s left them asking: what is the purpose of her prudence? LABOUR’S FISCAL STRAITJACKET Reeves’ comprehensive spending review, unveiled June 11, will allocate government funding for each department from 2026 to 2029. It may sound like a dry exercise, exciting perhaps only for Treasury bean counters or Westminster policy wonks.  Rachel Reeves’ comprehensive spending review, unveiled June 11, will allocate government funding for each department from 2026 to 2029. | Pool photo by Adam Vaughan via EFE/EPA But the politics of it is absolutely crucial for a historically unpopular first term government. Donald Trump’s tariffs have darkened Britain’s economic forecasts, but the reality is that indicators were already pointing south after Reeves unleashed £40 billion of tax hikes in October. Recent polling shows the chancellor is now one of the least liked politicians in the country and some of her early decisions, designed to project fiscal discipline, are already being overturned. The insurgent right-wing Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, is also growing its lead over Labour by the month, even hitting double digits in some recent polls. Despite these difficult circumstances, Reeves’ self-imposed fiscal straitjacket — a set of debt and deficit rules meant to signal credibility to the markets but already maxed-out — means she cannot splash the cash to boost short-term economic growth or pour money into day-to-day public services. Gemma Tetlow, chief economist at the Institute for Government think tank, said things may be about to get even more difficult for the chancellor. “Because they didn’t take into account Trump’s tariffs, the OBR [budgetary watchdog] looks to be at the optimistic end of the spectrum for growth forecasts over the next five years,” she said.                                              “If they came more in line with the average of other forecasters, then that could make for an even worse forecast at the autumn Budget and the chancellor would have to deal with that.” The tight fiscal situation has created tensions and infighting within the Cabinet in the lead-up to June 11, according to a government aide. “The way Rachel has operated has caused massive rivalries because everyone is fitting for their political life. It’s really stupid,” they said. “Because everyone is fighting for a limited amount of money in this very long, drawn-out process.” A Treasury official said “negotiations are ongoing, as you would expect, but two weeks out the vast majority of departments have already settled.” “At the spending review we will be prioritising that investment on the priorities of the British people and securing long-term economic growth,” they said. WHAT’S THE STORY? Others in government complain Reeves is not bringing the public along with her by crafting a political story about why these cuts are necessary. So far, she has spoken about making “tough decisions” due to external economic shocks and the need to stick to her fiscal rules. Labour’s difficulties in communicating a clear political narrative have been a constant criticism under the leadership of Prime Minister Keir Starmer. | Pool photo by Andy Rain via EFE/EPA However, this is a message which has not resonated with a British electorate still grappling with the effects of a cost of living crisis and seeing the strains in multiple public services. Labour’s difficulties in communicating a clear political narrative have been a constant criticism under the leadership of Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Former Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg — veteran of a controversial coalition with the Conservatives that took an ax to public spending in the 2010s — last week advised Starmer that “storytelling matters enormously for the success of any government.” “If you are running a government you must, above all, have a clear story about where the country has come from, where it is and where you want it to go,” he said. A senior Labour MP said “the spending review is the single most important moment to get Labour’s story straight.” They added: “Labour MPs simply won’t understand a plan that strips money from the social insurance of the poorest before we’ve exhausted every single last option to restore fairness to the tax system.” The uncertainty in Reeves’ messaging is in stark contrast to David Cameron and Clegg’s coalition government, which brought in years of austerity after the global financial crisis ballooned Britain’s debt pile. Cameron and his chancellor George Osborne argued Britain’s government debt levels were constraining economic growth and that a bloated public sector was crowding out private sector activity. Despite facing years of unpopularity, the Tories managed to win an outright majority at the 2015 election and were seen by the public as competent economic managers. A second government aide said Reeves should take a leaf from Elon Musk’s book in the U.S., pitching her own cuts as “about emulating DOGE and boosting efficiency and putting money back into the service of working people.” “There was a genuine theory of state reform under Osborne that is clearly lacking now,” they added. A Labour strategist said: “The spending review will not be a game-changer or something that really turns the gears — there won’t be a sugar rush.” The chancellor has already brought forward £14 billion of spending cuts this year, with more set to follow in June and autumn. | Andy Rain/EFE via EPA They added: “People will see it as a political failure in the short-term. But in the long term, it may set us up for year five when we can say ‘it’s all been worth it’.” There are also questions about the broader purpose of Reeves’ chancellorship, after all but junking a “securonomics” economic platform cultivated for nearly two years in opposition. This was centered around a Joe Biden-inspired package of heavy state spending on green infrastructure to build the industries of the future and ensure Britain is not over-reliant on China for critical technology. However, the backlash against the Democrats at the 2024 presidential election, combined with tight domestic fiscal conditions, means that Reeves doesn’t talk about securonomics anymore. Now the government is left with individual economic policies — like infrastructure investment, pensions reform and environmental deregulation— but no coherent narrative to thread it all together, critics charge. A second Labour strategist, close to No. 10 Downing Street, said: “Bidenomics showed that this model of economic policy can create lots of jobs and economic growth, but clearly people in the U.S. … didn’t feel it.” “The government is putting a narrative together about working people and about putting more money in their pockets. But it’s just not always cutting through or getting to the top level for voters,” they added. A No. 10 official waved away claims there was no economic narrative, saying the government was making “hard decisions for our long-term future that put money back in people’s pockets.” However, they did concede that “we do need to get better at explaining the ‘why’ of what we are doing.” LOOKING TO THE LONG-TERM One area where the government should have a positive story to tell next month is on long-term capital spending. The chancellor has a fiscal bazooka to invest in infrastructure projects, after changing her fiscal rules to free up an extra £50 billion. This is because Reeves’ rules make allowances for extra borrowing to spend on capital projects. She is expected to allocate more than £100 billion on capital projects spread across things like housing, hospitals, transport and energy. The same minister quoted at the top of the piece said that “the public won’t tolerate cuts after austerity” and that “I don’t think any narrative around cuts will work.” “The first budget showed we are a pro-investment, expansionary government and this is where we need to focus our attention,” they said. However, the problem for Reeves is that the benefits of this long-term infrastructure spending won’t be felt for years to come. And as John Maynard Keynes once said: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” This Labour government may learn this the hard way, if it can’t communicate what it’s doing in the here and now to make Brits feel better off.

The executive director of the U.N. World Food Programme is urging that more aid be allowed into Gaza as Israel continues its renewed offensive on the territory. “Right now, we have 500,000 people inside of Gaza that are extremely food insecure, and could be on the verge of famine if we don’t help bring them back from that,” Cindy McCain told CBS’ Margaret Brennan on Sunday on “Face the Nation.” “We need to get in, and we need to get in at scale, not just a few dribble of the trucks right now, as I said, it’s a drop in the bucket,” she said. Israel launched an 11-week block on aid to Gaza after the collapse of negotiations to extend an early 2025 ceasefire. But even though food is now coming back in, McCain told Brennan that it isn’t enough. 600 aid trucks a day entered Gaza during the ceasefire. Now, that number is at around 100 trucks a day, she said. And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s revived military offensive into Gaza to root out Hamas only further complicates matters, while threatening to deteriorate a worsening humanitarian situation on the ground. “The roads that are the better roads, the ones that can get us further along, aren’t open at all,” McCain said. “It’s complicated right now and again, I will tell anybody who will listen, we need to get in and get in at scale and be allowed to feed these people before further catastrophe occurs.” McCain disputed the notion that Hamas is behind a recent spate of lootings of aid trucks, chalking that up to “poor souls” that “are really, really, really desperate.” McCain, the widow of former Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said she has not seen details of a purported U.S.-Israeli plan that would replace the U.N. with hubs run by American companies and security contractors. Israel has pushed to assert more control over aid distribution in Gaza. But McCain maintained that her organization is best placed to lead operations. “I’ve not seen a plan from anybody,” McCain told Brennan. “We continue to operate, doing what we do best, and we are the largest and the best at what we do, I might add.” She added: “We really don’t know what’s coming around the bend. We will continue to operate. We will work with anybody, if it will feed people.”