In the desolate Arctic desert of Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, Europeans are building defenses against a new, up-and-coming security threat: space hacks. A Lithuanian company called Astrolight is constructing a ground station, with support from the European Space Agency, that will use laser beams to download voluminous data from satellites in a fast and secure manner, it announced last month.  It’s just one example of how Europe is moving to harden the security of its satellites, as rising geopolitical tensions and an expanding spectrum of hybrid threats are pushing space communications to the heart of the bloc’s security plans. For years, satellite infrastructure was treated by policymakers as a technical utility rather than a strategic asset. That changed in 2022, when a cyberattack on the Viasat satellite network coincided with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.   Satellites have since become popular targets for interference, espionage and disruption. The European Commission in June warned that space was becoming “more contested,” flagging increasing cyberattacks and attempts at electronic interference targeting satellites and ground stations. Germany and the United Kingdom warned earlier this year of the growing threat posed by Russian and Chinese space satellites, which are regularly spotted spying on their satellites.  EU governments are now racing to boost their resilience and reduce reliance on foreign technology, both through regulations like the new Space Act and investments in critical infrastructure. The threat is crystal clear in Greenland, Laurynas Mačiulis, the chief executive officer of Astrolight, said. “The problem today is that around 80 percent of all the [space data] traffic is downlinked to a single location in Svalbard, which is an island shared between different countries, including Russia,” he said in an interview. Europe’s main Arctic ground station sits in Svalbard and supports both the navigation systems of Galileo and Copernicus. While the location is strategic, it is also extremely sensitive due to nearby Russian and Chinese activities. Crucially, the station relies on a single undersea cable to connect to the internet, which has been damaged several times. “In case of intentional or unintentional damage of this cable, you lose access to most of the geo-intelligence satellites, which is, of course, very critical. So our aim is to deploy a complementary satellite ground station up in Greenland,” Mačiulis said. THE MUSK OF IT ALL A centerpiece of Europe’s ambitions to have secure, European satellite communication is IRIS², a multibillion-euro secure connectivity constellation pitched in 2022 and designed to rival Elon Musk’s Starlink system. “Today, communications — for instance in Ukraine — are far too dependent on Starlink,” said Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the founding chairman of political consultancy Rasmussen Global, speaking at an event in Brussels in November. “That dependence rests on the shifting ideas of an American billionaire. That’s too risky. We have to build a secure communications system that is independent of the United States.” The European system, which will consist of 18 satellites operating in low and medium Earth orbit, aims to provide Europe with fast and encrypted communication. “Even if someone intercepts the signal [of IRIS² ], they will not be able to decrypt it,” Piero Angeletti, head of the Secure Connectivity Space Segment Office at the European Space Agency, told POLITICO. “This will allow us to have a secure system that is also certified and accredited by the national security entities.” The challenge is that IRIS² is still at least four years away from becoming operational. WHO’S IN CHARGE? While Europe beefs up its secure satellite systems, governments are still streamlining how they can coordinate cyber defenses and space security. In many cases, that falls to both space or cyber commands, which, unlike traditional military units, are relatively new and often still being built out. Clémence Poirier, a cyberdefense researcher at the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich, said that EU countries must now focus on maturing them. “European states need to keep developing those commands,” she told POLITICO. “Making sure that they coordinate their action, that there are clear mandates and responsibilities when it comes to cyber security, cyber defensive operations, cyber offensive operations, and also when it comes to monitoring the threat.” Industry, too, is struggling to fill the gaps. Most cybersecurity firms do not treat space as a sector in its own right, leaving satellite operators in a blind spot. Instead, space systems are folded into other categories: Earth-observation satellites often fall under environmental services, satellite TV under media, and broadband constellations like Starlink under internet services. That fragmentation makes it harder for space companies to assess risk, update threat models or understand who they need to defend against. It also complicates incident response: while advanced tools exist for defending against cyberattacks on terrestrial networks, those tools often do not translate well to space systems. “Cybersecurity in space is a bit different,” Poirier added. “You cannot just implement whatever solution you have for your computers on Earth and just deploy that to your satellite.”

Venture capitalist Finn Murphy believes world leaders could soon resort to deflecting sunlight into space if the Earth gets unbearably hot. That’s why he’s invested more than $1 million in Stardust Solutions, a leading solar geoengineering firm that’s developing a system to reduce warming by enveloping the globe in reflective particles. Murphy isn’t rooting for climate catastrophe. But with global temperatures soaring and the political will to limit climate change waning, Stardust “can be worth tens of billions of dollars,” he said. “It would be definitely better if we lost all our money and this wasn’t necessary,” said Murphy, the 33-year-old founder of Nebular, a New York investment fund named for a vast cloud of space dust and gas. Murphy is among a new wave of investors who are putting millions of dollars into emerging companies that aim to limit the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth — while also potentially destabilizing weather patterns, food supplies and global politics. He has a degree in mathematics and mechanical engineering and views global warming not just as a human and political tragedy, but as a technical challenge with profitable solutions. Solar geoengineering investors are generally young, pragmatic and imaginative — and willing to lean into the adventurous side of venture capitalism. They often shrug off the concerns of scientists who argue it’s inherently risky to fund the development of potentially dangerous technologies through wealthy investors who could only profit if the planet-cooling systems are deployed. “If the technology works and the outcomes are positive without really catastrophic downstream impacts, these are trillion-dollar market opportunities,” said Evan Caron, a co-founder of the energy-focused venture firm Montauk Capital. “So it’s a no-brainer for an investor to take a shot at some of these.” More than 50 financial firms, wealthy individuals and government agencies have collectively provided more than $115.8 million to nine startups whose technology could be used to limit sunlight, according to interviews with VCs, tech company founders and analysts, as well as private investment data analyzed by POLITICO’s E&E News. That pool of funders includes Silicon Valley’s Sequoia Capital, one of the world’s largest venture capital firms, and four other investment groups that have more than $1 billion of assets under management. Of the total amount invested in the geoengineering sector, $75 million went to Stardust, or nearly 65 percent. The U.S.-Israeli startup is developing reflective particles and the means to spray and monitor them in the stratosphere, some 11 miles above the planet’s surface. At least three other climate-intervention companies have also raked in at least $5 million. The cash infusion is a bet on planet-cooling technologies that many political leaders, investors and environmentalists still consider taboo. In addition to having unknown side effects, solar geoengineering could expose the planet to what scientists call “termination shock,” a scenario in which global temperatures soar if the cooling technologies fail or are suddenly abandoned. Still, the funding surge for geoengineering companies pales in comparison to the billions of dollars being put toward artificial intelligence. OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, has raised $62.5 billion in 2025 alone, according to investment data compiled by PitchBook. The investment pool for solar geoengineering startups is relatively shallow in part because governments haven’t determined how they would regulate the technology — something Stardust is lobbying to change. As a result, the emerging sector is seen as too speculative for most venture capital firms, according to Kim Zou, the CEO of Sightline Climate, a market intelligence firm. VCs mostly work on behalf of wealthy individuals, as well as pension funds, university endowments and other institutional investors. “It’s still quite a niche set of investors that are even thinking about or looking at the geoengineering space,” Zou said. “The climate tech and energy tech investors we speak to still don’t really see there being an investable opportunity there, primarily because there’s no commercial market for it today.” AEROSOLS IN THE STRATOSPHERE Stardust and its investors are banking on signing contracts with one or more governments that could deploy its solar geoengineering system as soon as the end of the decade. Those investors include Lowercarbon Capital, a climate-focused firm co-founded by billionaire VC Chris Sacca, and Exor, the holding company of an Italian industrial dynasty and perhaps the most mainstream investment group to back a sunlight reflection startup. Even Stardust’s supporters acknowledge that the company is far from a sure bet. “It’s unique in that there is not currently demand for this solution,” said Murphy, whose firm is also supporting out-there startups seeking to build robots and data centers in space. “You have to go and create the product in order to potentially facilitate the demand.” Lowercarbon partner Ryan Orbuch said the firm would see a return on its Stardust investment only “in the context of an actual customer who can actually back many years of stable, safe deployment.” Exor, another Stardust investor, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Other startups are trying to develop commercial markets for solar geoengineering. Make Sunsets, a company funded by billionaire VC Tim Draper, releases sulfate-filled weather balloons that pop when they reach the stratosphere. It sells cooling credits to individuals and corporations based on the theory that the sulfates can reliably reduce warming. There are questions, however, about the science and economics underpinning the credit system of Make Sunsets, according to the investment bank Jeffries. “A cooling credit market is unlikely to be viable,” the bank said in a May 2024 note to clients. That’s because the temperature reductions produced by sulfate aerosols vary by altitude, location and season, the note explained. And the warming impacts of carbon dioxide emissions last decades — much longer than any cooling that would be created from a balloon’s worth of sulfate. Make Sunsets didn’t respond to a request for comment. The company has previously attracted the attention of regulators in the U.S. and Mexico, who have claimed it began operating without the necessary government approvals. Draper Associates says on its website that it’s “shaping a future where the impossible becomes everyday reality.” The firm has previously backed successful consumer tech firms like Tesla, Skype and Hotmail. “It is getting hotter in the Summer everywhere,” Tim Draper said in an email. “We should be encouraging every solution. I love this team, and the science works.” THE NEXT FRONTIER One startup is pursuing space-based solar geoengineering. EarthGuard is attempting to build a series of large sunlight deflectors that would be positioned between the sun and the planet, some 932,000 miles from the Earth. The company did not respond to emailed questions. Other space companies are considering geoengineering as a side project. That includes Gama, a French startup that’s designing massive solar sails that could be used for deep space travel or as a planetary sunshade, and Ethos Space, a Los Angeles company with plans to industrialize the moon. Both companies are part of an informal research network established by the Planetary Sunshade Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for the development of a trillion-dollar parasol for the globe. The network mainly brings together collaborators on the sidelines of space industry conferences, according to Gama CEO Andrew Nutter. “We’re willing to contribute something if we realize it’s genuinely necessary and it’s a better solution than other solutions” to the climate challenge, Nutter said of the space shade concept. “But our business model does not depend on it. If you have dollar signs hanging next to something, that can bias your decisions on what’s best for the planet.” Nutter said Gama has raised about $5 million since he co-founded the company in 2020. Its investors include Possible Ventures, a German VC firm that’s also financing a nuclear fusion startup and says on its website that the firm is “relentlessly optimistic — choosing to focus on the possibilities rather than obsess over the risks.” Possible Ventures did not respond to a request for comment. Sequoia-backed Reflect Orbital is another space startup that’s exploring solar geoengineering as a potential moneymaker. The company based near Los Angeles is developing a network of satellite mirrors that would direct sunlight down to the Earth at night for lighting industrial sites or, eventually, producing solar energy. Its space mirrors, if oriented differently, could also be used for limiting the amount of sun rays that reach the planet. “It’s not so much a technological limitation as much as what has the highest, best impact. It’s more of a business decision,” said Ally Stone, Reflect Orbital’s chief strategy officer. “It’s a matter of looking at each satellite as an opportunity and whether, when it’s over a specific geography, that makes more sense to reflect sunlight towards or away from the Earth.” Reflect Orbital has raised nearly $28.7 million from investors including Lux Capital, a firm that touts its efforts to “turn sci-fi into sci-fact” and has invested in the autonomous defense systems companies Anduril and Saildrone.” Sequoia and Lux didn’t respond to requests for comment. The startup hopes to send its first satellite into space next summer, according to Stone. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose aerospace company already has an estimated fleet of more than 8,800 internet satellites in orbit, has also suggested using the circling network to limit sunlight. “A large solar-powered AI satellite constellation would be able to prevent global warming by making tiny adjustments in how much solar energy reached Earth,” Musk wrote on X last month. Neither he nor SpaceX responded to an emailed request for comment. DON’T CALL IT GEOENGINEERING Other sunlight-reflecting startups are entering the market — even if they’d rather not be seen as solar geoengineering companies. Arctic Reflections is a two-year-old company that wants to reduce global warming by increasing Arctic sea ice, which doesn’t absorb as much heat as open water. The Dutch startup hasn’t yet pursued outside investors. “We see this not necessarily as geo-engineering, but rather as climate adaptation,” CEO Fonger Ypma said in an email. “Just like in reforestation projects, people help nature in growing trees, our idea is that we would help nature in growing ice.” The main funder of Arctic Reflections is the British government’s independent Advanced Research and Invention Agency. In May, ARIA awarded $4.41 million to the company — more than four times what it had raised to that point. Another startup backed by ARIA is Voltitude, which is developing micro balloons to monitor geoengineering from the stratosphere. The U.K.-based company didn’t respond to a request for comment. Altogether, the British agency is supporting 22 geoengineering projects, only a handful of which involve startups. “ARIA is only funding fundamental research through this programme, and has not taken an equity stake in any geoengineering companies,” said Mark Symes, a program director at the agency. It also requires that all research it supports “must be published, including those that rule out approaches by showing they are unsafe or unworkable.” Sunscreen is a new startup that is trying to limit sunlight in localized areas. It was founded earlier this year by Stanford University graduate student Solomon Kim. “We are pioneering the use of targeted, precision interventions to mitigate the destructive impacts of heatwave on critical United States infrastructure,” Kim said in an email. But he was emphatic that “we are not geoengineering” since the cooling impacts it’s pursuing are not large scale. Kim declined to say how much had been raised by Sunscreen and from what sources. As climate change and its impacts continue to worsen, Zou of Sightline Climate expects more investors to consider solar geoengineering startups, including deep-pocketed firms and corporations interested in the technology. Without their help, the startups might not be able to develop their planet-cooling systems. “People are feeling like, well wait a second, our backs are kind of starting to get against the wall. Time is ticking, we’re not really making a ton of progress” on decarbonization, she said. “So I do think there’s a lot more questions getting asked right now in the climate tech and venture community around understanding it,” Zou said of solar geoengineering. “Some of these companies and startups and venture deals are also starting to bring more light into the space.” Karl Mathiesen contributed reporting.

NASA on Thursday pushed back against comments from U.S. celebrity Kim Kardashian suggesting that the 1969 moon landing was faked. During an episode of The Kardashians TV series that aired Thursday, the Skims founder questioned whether the space mission ever took place, and noted her fascination with conspiracy theories. “There’s no gravity on the moon. Why is the flag blowing?” Kardashian said. “The shoes that they have in the museum that they wore on the moon is a different print in the photos. Why are there no stars?” she continued. “They’re gonna say I’m crazy no matter what, but like, go to TikTok. See for yourself … ” Hours after the episode aired, acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy responded to Kardashian in a post including a clip of her remarks. “Yes, we’ve been to the Moon before … six times!” Duffy wrote. “And even better: NASA Artemis is going back under the leadership of POTUS [U.S. President Donald Trump]. We won the last space race and we will win this one too.” Kardashian has said her doubts stem from alleged past comments by Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon after Neil Armstrong, which have long circulated online in edited or misleading form, and that those videos led her to question the official account of the landing. (Aldrin, for his part, once punched a man who questioned whether the moon landings were real or not.) After Duffy’s post, Kardashian replied with a change of subject: “Wait … what’s the tea on 3I Atlas?!?!!!!!!!?????,” referencing an interstellar comet recently spotted passing through the solar system. Duffy, who was selected by Trump in July as acting boss of the space agency, responded that it was a “Great question!” said NASA’s current observations show that this is the third interstellar comet to pass through our solar system. “No aliens. No threat to life here on Earth,” he said, adding that he appreciated Kardashian’s excitement about the Artemis moon mission and invited her to attend the upcoming Artemis launch at Kennedy Space Center. The exchange comes amid growing tension between NASA and the Trump administration, which has proposed deep budget cuts and agency restructuring even as it touts a renewed focus on lunar exploration. Conspiracy theories claiming the moon landing was staged have circulated for decades. According to the Institute of Physics, “every single argument claiming that NASA faked the Moon landings has been discredited.” The institute points to photographic, radiation and physical evidence, including 382 kilograms of lunar rock brought back by Apollo astronauts, all of which have been independently verified by laboratories worldwide.

BRUSSELS — Romania wants Europe’s rearmament push to benefit all EU nations, not just the largest ones. The massive increase in defense spending and weapons orders that is foreseen in the coming years should translate into new factories and jobs in his country, Romania’s Defense Minister Liviu-Ionuț Moșteanu told POLITICO. “If we spend people’s money on defense, it’s important for them to see that part of it is coming back to their country, for example via factories. It’s not just about buying rockets abroad,” he said in an interview at NATO headquarters. “We aim to have a part of the production in the country. We want to be part of the production chain,” he added. “Every country wants to have a big share, but so far only a few do.” Western nations such as France, Germany, Italy and Sweden have the bloc’s best-developed arms industries and are grabbing the majority of lucrative arms contracts. Former eastern bloc countries like Romania tend to have smaller defense companies without the technological know-how to produce the full array of weapons needed to rearm, meaning they are more dependent on external suppliers. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has opened the money taps for defense. NATO countries agreed this summer to boost their defense spending target from 2 percent of gross domestic product to 5 percent by 2035. According to the European Commission, reaching the new target will require an additional €288 billion spent on defense each year. Romania is spending 2.3 percent of its GDP on the military this year and plans to raise that to 3.5 percent by 2030. One of its main challenges is to modernize its armed forces, which have operated for decades largely with obsolete Soviet-era military kit. The country, which borders Ukraine, Moldova and the Black Sea as well as EU countries, is key to regional security in southeastern Europe and hosts a NATO battlegroup led by France that also includes American troops. LOANS FOR WEAPONS Bucharest is set to be the second-largest user of the EU’s €150 billion SAFE scheme, and is asking for €16.7 billion in low interest loans for defense. Moșteanu said two-thirds of that money will be spent on military equipment and the remaining third on infrastructure; it also includes military aid to Ukraine and Moldova. The condition for any procurement under SAFE — which is open mostly to European companies — would be industrial returns in Romania, the minister told POLITICO. The condition for any procurement under SAFE — which is open mostly to European companies — would be industrial returns in Romania, the minister told POLITICO. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images In one example of the country’s push to ensure some defense cash stays at home, an ongoing €6.5 billion tender for more than 200 tanks sets a condition that final assembly happen in the country. “It’s very important for the years to come that when we talk about spending money, we spread [the industrial return] evenly throughout the continent,” the minister said, referring also to countries further from the frontlines such as Portugal. “It’s a negotiation with the producers,” he said, adding that if European manufacturers don’t accept domestic production requirements, Bucharest will take its money to companies outside the EU that are willing to do so. “If some programs don’t look good under SAFE, we’ll move them under the national budget,” he stressed. The Romanian government is already a big customer of foreign weapons manufacturers, especially from the U.S., Israel and South Korea. It recently purchased American-made Patriot air defense systems and F-35 warplanes, as well as K9 self-propelled howitzers from South Korea’s Hanwha Aerospace. Last year, Hanwha Aerospace executives told POLITICO that Romania could become a weapons production hub for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. WHAT ROMANIA BRINGS TO THE TABLE Romania, which is one of Europe’s most industrialized countries, has assets to offer arms-makers, Moșteanu argued. Romania, which is one of Europe’s most industrialized countries, has assets to offer arms-makers, Moșteanu argued. | Andreea Campeanu/Getty Images It’s already luring in some of Europe’s largest defense companies: Bucharest and German giant Rheinmetall signed an agreement earlier this year to build an ammunition powder plant that will be partly funded by EU money under the Act in Support of Ammunition Production scheme. In the near future, manufacturers will need to open new factories to meet demand, and Romania could easily host some of them, Moșteanu said: “We have defense production facilities with all the necessary approvals. They’re not up-to-date but it’s a good starting point.” Another strength of the country is its robust automotive sector, which could help weapons manufacturers swiftly ramp up manufacturing. Defense companies across the bloc are teaming up with carmakers to benefit from their mass production expertise. “We have a very strong automotive industry in Romania that can switch to the defense industry,” the minister said, adding that the machinery, production lines, expertise and supply chains are already in place. Romania is also looking to cut red tape. “We’re looking to change the legislation to speed investments in the defense industry. I know there is the defense omnibus in Brussels,” Moșteanu said, referring to the European Commission’s simplification package, “but I don’t know when it’ll come, I prefer to have something quick.”

There was no breakthrough on trade at the G7 this week. It isn’t bothering President Donald Trump. While expectations for trade agreements were low heading into this week’s G7 summit, the confab of world leaders in the Canadian Rockies yielded no apparent progress between the U.S. and major trading partners like the European Union and Japan. The lack of movement has left foreign leaders and domestic businesses on edge with a little less than three weeks until Trump’s July 8 deadline for striking trade accords. While trade conversations may continue on the sidelines of the NATO summit next month, G7 was widely seen as the best opportunity for Trump and world leaders to break through deadlocks that have persisted for weeks. But Trump is operating on his own timeline. He insists he can unilaterally set tariffs for any country whenever he pleases, delay them as he desires and use that cudgel to negotiate from a position of strength, even as critics warn his stance threatens global economic uncertainty. “I don’t think there’s much urgency,” said one person close to the White House, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the trade talks. “For the president, it doesn’t matter. He’s fine ending up with tariffs.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who stayed behind to represent the U.S. at G7 after the president departed early amid escalating conflict in the Middle East, has said it’s likely Trump will grant countries an extension so long as they continue to negotiate in “good faith,” but that has done little to ease fears of U.S. trading partners and businesses who are begging for certainty. The hopes for G7 were always modest. Trump, perhaps, would leave Canada telegraphing positivity about ongoing trade talks, aides and allies said, even as the actual negotiations are facing stumbling blocks, from auto tariffs to the U.S.’s baseline 10 percent levy. They didn’t even get that far, with Trump departing the summit after spending just a few hours with his counterparts in a secluded mountain lodge. “Expectations were obviously high because the chance to interact with the decider-in-chief on trade is rare and valuable,” said Everett Eissenstat, a former Trump trade official. “I’m sure a lot of leaders were interested in doing that and may be disappointed that the president had been diverted by other matters.” Still, Eissenstat added that he would be “a little” surprised if the U.S. failed to notch a trade framework with even just one other country by the July 8 deadline, suggesting that the president’s top lieutenants will be under significant pressure to do so. “If you’ve got a deadline out there, it drives interest among those working to deliver an agreement to the president that he’s going to like,” Eissenstat said. “It’s a good incentive to do it.” Juxtaposed against a very real conflict between Israel and Iran, some Trump allies note that the administration’s brewing trade war is a crisis of his own making — and one that he has immense power to ratchet up or down. White House aides downplayed the lack of movement on trade out of the G7, acknowledging that principal-level discussions can be helpful but saying that neither the U.S. nor other countries went into Canada thinking trade deals would be hashed out there. Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, called the discussions in Canada “productive” and “substantive.” “The Administration’s trade and economic team continues to work around the clock … to strike more deals that will finally level the playing field for American industries and workers,” Desai said in a statement. Trump during his brief time in Canada repeatedly told reporters that he was pressing for a quick succession of trade deals, expressing optimism that several would come together by July 8. “A lot of them,” he said when asked if there were more announcements on deck following his signing of the U.S.-U.K. trade deal. “We’re very far down the line with a lot of deals,” he said later without providing specifics. But in a series of private meetings with other G7 leaders, Trump appeared to make little progress, with the foreign delegations indicating afterward that much of the details of the negotiations remained up in the air. Trump didn’t even discuss tariffs during a one-on-one meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Monday, said German officials granted anonymity to discuss the private session, with the two leaders instead spending much of the 20-minute pull-aside talking about the Middle East and other security issues. “Trump listens, he asks questions, we don’t agree on all the answers, but it is a real dialogue. And this dialogue took place here, over several hours over the course of yesterday, including yesterday evening, and that alone is a value in itself,” Merz said in an interview with POLITICO. “We understand each other better, we exchange arguments and we will also find solutions.” Trump eventually acknowledged as much, saying on Air Force One after abruptly leaving the summit a day early that while there was a “chance” for a deal with Japan, key sticking points like auto tariffs remained unresolved. As for the European Union, Trump complained hours after a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that the bloc isn’t “offering a fair deal yet,” accusing it instead of being “formed in order to hurt the United States on trade.” And he reiterated threats to slap levies of his own choosing on any country he feels isn’t doing enough to negotiate on trade, like he did with the EU last month. “We’re actually finished with every deal if you really think about it,” Trump said, indicating that even he felt the discussions were little more than formalities. “All I have to do is say this is what you’re going to pay. But, it’s nice to be nice.” Trump’s abrupt departure was a surprise to foreign leaders clamoring to meet with the president. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum touted a “very good” phone call with Trump, in lieu of a meeting that was planned for the confab. The country had hoped to use the face-to-face meeting to finalize a deal to remove U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, before Trump left the summit early. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was muted in his Tuesday assessment of the progress made during a pull-aside with Trump in Canada, telling reporters the two countries remain divided over the issue of the U.S.’s 25 percent tariffs on auto imports. “We’ve been exploring the possibility of a deal down to the wire,” Ishiba said. “But there are still points where our views remain divided.” And while European leaders, including Merz, left Canada sounding an optimistic note, trade experts note that the hopeful tenor likely has more to do with the particular friction between the U.S. and the EU — after Trump threatened to slap the bloc with 50 percent tariffs last month. “I don’t think there was real progress of any kind,” said one EU official. “Trump has been made aware of that reality many, many times.” The president did, however, manage to finalize a trade agreement with the U.K., after preliminary details were announced in May. Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed the deal in Canada on Tuesday, which will lower tariffs on British autos from 25 percent to 10 percent by the end of June and carve out U.K. aerospace products, like engines and similar aircraft parts, from the U.S.’s 10 percent baseline tariff. Still, even that agreement highlighted the work left to be done. The signed papers, some of which ended up scattered on the ground as Trump tried to display them to reporters gathered at the G7, omitted a key part of the original deal announced last month — keeping steel and aluminum tariffs at 25 percent for now, instead of 0 percent as originally agreed. The one other sign of progress on trade out of the G7 was even less substantive. Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney set a 30-day clock for trade negotiations between the two countries, although Canadian officials acknowledged at the summit that the countries have much more work to do before a deal is set. Carney earlier this month committed to meeting the NATO security alliance’s current spending target of 2 percent in 2025, addressing a long-standing irritant for the Trump administration. Canada also recently proposed legislation that will give law enforcement new powers on the border, potentially influenced by Trump’s focus on illegal migration. “The defense spending and border bill seem important starts that have them in a friendly mood. We will see,” a Canadian official said. Meanwhile, businesses are clamoring for certainty that will allow them to make forward looking decisions about where to invest and expand their operations. That means Trump can’t kick the can down the road on tariffs forever. “I don’t think the Trump administration has any idea how challenging this is for businesses,” said one representative of a major industry group that works closely with the administration. Jan Philipp Burgard and Maximilian Lembke contributed to this report.

KANANASKIS, Alberta — U.S. President Donald Trump has agreed to lower tariffs on British autos from 25 percent to 10 percent by the end of June, after signing a U.K.-U.S. trade deal with Keir Starmer. Brandishing the signed copy of the deal, after originally dropping the papers on the ground, Trump said the deal would “produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income.” However, the final agreement — signed at the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Canada — has omitted a key part of the original deal. Steel and aluminum tariffs will, for now, remain at 25 percent instead of dropping to 0 percent as originally agreed. British officials say the two sides will continue to negotiate on cutting these tariffs. Standing beside Trump, Starmer said: “This now implements on car tariffs and aerospace of our really important agreement, and so this is a very good day for both of our countries.” Trump also appeared to suggest Britain will be protected from further universal tariffs. He said: “The U.K. is very well protected, you know why? Because I like ‘em, that’s why. That’s their ultimate protection.” Outlined in a U.S. order, the deal will see the Trump administration commit to carving out exemptions for U.K. aerospace goods, such as engines and similar aircraft parts, from the baseline 10 percent tariff on most U.S. imports. U.K. aerospace parts are also set to be excluded from any further tariffs imposed on the sector following a national security review by the Trump administration. U.K. Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds signaled last week that negotiations to lower U.S. tariffs on U.K. steel and aluminum could take longer. The focus of current discussions is “not about who owns it — it’s the melt and pour rules,” he told reporters, referring to rules which would mean that steel must be melted and poured in the U.K. to qualify for tariff relief. Both countries will also remain focused on securing preferential outcomes for further tariffs the White House might impose on pharmaceuticals as part of Section 232 investigations. Reynolds said: “Bringing trade deals into force can take several months, yet we are delivering on the first set of agreements in a matter of weeks. And we won’t stop there.”

PARIS —  Israel slammed France’s decision to cover displays of Israeli offensive weapons at the Paris Air Show, one of the world’s largest aerospace and defense fairs. The show’s organizers concealed the booths with black panels at the French state’s request, after the Israeli defense ministry refused to comply with France’s decision to ban Israeli offensive military equipment from the show. “This outrageous and unprecedented decision reeks of policy-driven and commercial considerations,” the Israeli defense ministry said in a statement. “The French are hiding behind supposedly political considerations to exclude Israeli offensive weapons from an international exhibition — weapons that compete with French industries.” The Paris Air Show kicked off Monday amid a hot conflict between Israel and Iran, as well as Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza, where Israel is accused of war crimes. Israeli weapons-makers have previously been banned from other French arms shows including Eurosatory and Euronaval. Last week, a French court dismissed a petition by NGOs to ban Israeli companies from the Paris Air Show because of what they said was the country’s participation in “international crimes.” However, French authorities told their Israeli counterparts weeks ago that no offensive weapons could be showcased, a French official told POLITICO, adding that the Israeli ambassador to France agreed to the rules. Monday’s row comes amid increasingly strained relations between the French and Israeli governments. Out of nine Israeli exhibitors, four complied with the requirements while five others — Elbit, Israel Aerospace Industries, Rafael, UVision and Aeronautics — haven’t. They will be able to exhibit once they respect the rules, the French official said. Tommaso Lecca and Jamie Dettmer contributed to this report.

LONDON — Keir Starmer plans to formally sign the U.K.-India trade deal with Narendra Modi on a visit to India this summer. Starmer has touted the deal as part of his success on the international stage since it was agreed in early May after three years of talks. At the G20 summit late last year, Britain’s leader accepted an invitation from Modi to visit India. Britain’s PM is planning to travel to New Delhi this summer to finalize the pact, two people close to the planning process told POLITICO. Starmer hailed a “new era for trade and the economy” as a result of the deal, while Modi said it would “catalyze trade, investment, growth, job creation, and innovation in both our economies.” Britain’s Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds is meeting Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal Tuesday to discuss implementing the pact and pushing forward with talks on the as-yet-unfinished investment treaty that goes with it. The two are meeting in Paris on the sidelines of the OECD trade ministers meeting. India’s parliament is “very fond” of the deal, said Indian MP Ravi Shankar Prasad. “It shows the depth of our relationship,” Prasad, who is leading a delegation of parliamentarians visiting the U.K. this week, told reporters at the Indian High Commission in London Tuesday. The pact is the most valuable trade deal the U.K. has struck since leaving the EU, and could increase the U.K.’s GDP by £4.8 billion by 2040, according to British estimates. The deal aims to cut through high tariffs on U.K. goods in India with 85 percent becoming tariff-free within a decade. The effect will be equivalent to slashing £1 billion in tariffs after 10 years.  Measures include immediately slashing India’s 150 percent tariff on Scotch whisky in half before it is cut to 40 percent after ten years. Duties on the auto sector will drop from 100 percent to 10 percent with quotas on both sides for the sensitive sector. Indian duties will also be lowered on cosmetics, aerospace, medical devices, electrical machinery and agriculture and food. Britain will lower tariffs on textiles, footwear, frozen prawns and other food products. While U.K. negotiators resisted granting more visas for Indian students studying in the U.K., the Indian side has talked up an ““unprecedented” win on its workers being exempt from employee tax contributions in Britain — triggering some pushback from U.K. opposition parties. The official text of the agreement has not yet been published and will only be delivered to parliaments in both countries once Starmer and Modi sign the pact. Indian officials have said the deal is currently undergoing legal scrubbing so that it can be signed within three months of its agreement, which took place on May 6. Downing Street declined to comment.

China is stepping up espionage on Dutch semiconductors, the Netherlands’ Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said on Saturday. “The semiconductor industry, which we are technologically leading, … to get that intellectual property — that’s interesting to China,” Brekelmans told Reuters on Saturday at the Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in Singapore. Dutch intelligence services have previously warned of Chinese spying on the semiconductor, aerospace and maritime industries. Asked about the threat, Brekelmans said: “It’s continuing. In our newest intelligence reports, our intelligence agency said that the biggest cyber threat is coming from China.” “That was the case last year, but that’s still the case. So we only see this intensifying,” Brekelmans said. Brekelmans also expressed concern over Europe’s dependence on China for critical raw materials. China is “using their economic position for geopolitical purposes and also to pressure us,” the minister said. “Both on the European Union level, but also on the national level, we need to make bigger steps in order to reduce those dependencies,” Brekelmans said. Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch raised the point at the EU Competitiveness Council earlier this month, warning: “The dependency on Russian gas will seem like a warm, sunny day compared to the dependencies on the raw material sector.”

Europe could survive without United States military support — but it would take a quarter century to replace the Americans and cost as much as $1 trillion, according to a new report. A study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies published Thursday found that a hypothetical U.S. withdrawal from Europe would leave the continent’s NATO members vulnerable to a Russian threat and faced with “stark choices” on how to fill the immense gaps. The costs of like-for-like replacement of U.S. equipment and personnel would add up to approximately $1 trillion over 25 years, the study found. That includes one-off procurement costs ranging from $226 billion to $344 billion — depending on the quality of the equipment purchased — and additional expenses associated with military maintenance, personnel and support. The most expensive line item on the shopping list would be 400 tactical combat aircraft, followed by 20 destroyers and 24 long-range surface-to-air missiles. The IISS also estimated that in the event of a large-scale military operation to counter a Russian attack, the cost to replace U.S. personnel (estimated at 128,000 troops) would exceed $12 billion. The assessment does not include other glaring gaps, the cost of which is harder to quantify. These include command and control, coordination, space, intelligence and surveillance, as well as the cost of nuclear weapons. Europeans would also need to fill certain top jobs, like the position of supreme allied commander in Europe — NATO’s commander on the continent and its second-highest-ranking military position. With the U.S. out of the picture, they would also have to step up diplomatic coordination efforts. EASIER SAID THAN DONE Filling the gap left by the U.S. in Europe would require a mix of time, long-term political commitment and more ambitious investment. But even with unlimited political goodwill and the cash to match it, European industry would in the short term lack the capability to meet increased demand, according to the IISS. Arms manufacturers would be faced with supply chain bottlenecks, a shortage of skilled workers, and financing and regulatory constraints. Most likely, the “buy European” dream touted by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen would not materialize for a while. Even if procurement picks up in the land sector, other sectors like naval and aerospace have seen very little investment. In some areas like rocket artillery or low-observable fighter aircraft, buying local is simply not an option. Still, despite Europe’s continued dependency on U.S. military suppliers, there are signs of progress. The institute’s analysis of selected procurement efforts tendered between February 2022 and September 2024 found that 52 percent of their value was awarded to European suppliers, compared to 34 percent for the United States. The “buy European” trend is likely to gain traction, according to the authors of the report. Europe is also spending more than before to defend itself. In the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, several NATO countries stepped up their efforts to meet or exceed the alliance’s goal of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Donald Trump’s return to the White House was also an unexpected boon to proponents of European defense. The president’s demands that European allies contribute more to NATO — and his suggestion that the U.S. might abandon its defense commitments to the continent — have cast doubt on America’s reliability as an ally. That makes the idea of “genuinely European defense,” as championed by French President Emmanuel Macron, more appealing.  But cash-strapped governments only have so much wiggle room to spend more on defense while keeping their national debts under control. Moreover, tensions in countries like Spain and Italy, which are struggling with squeezed public finances, suggest public opposition to greater military spending could also be an obstacle if Europe is left on its own.