BRUSSELS — The European Commission has opened an antitrust investigation into whether Google breached EU competition rules by using the content of web publishers, as well as video uploaded to YouTube, for artificial intelligence purposes. The investigation will examine whether Google is distorting competition by imposing unfair terms and conditions on publishers and content creators, or by granting itself privileged access to such content, thus placing rival AI models at a disadvantage, the Commission said on Tuesday. In a statement, the EU executive said it was concerned that Google may have used the content of web publishers to provide generative AI-powered services on its search results pages without appropriate compensation to publishers, and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content. Further, it said that the U.S. search giant may have used video and other content uploaded on YouTube to train Google’s generative AI models without compensating creators and without offering them the possibility to refuse such use of their content. The formal antitrust probe follows Google’s rollout of AI-driven search results, which resulted in a drop in traffic to online news sites. Google was fined nearly €3 billion in September for abusing its dominance in online advertising. It has proposed technical remedies over that penalty, but resisted a call by EU competition chief Teresa Ribera to break itself up.

A message from Brussels to Google: Would you break yourself up, please? The search giant faces an early November deadline to say how it intends to comply with a European Commission decision in September, which found that it had illegally maintained its grip on the infrastructure that powers online advertising. With a €2.95 billion fine in the rearview mirror, the Commission and Google find themselves in an unprecedented standoff as Brussels contemplates the once unthinkable: a structural sell-off of part of a U.S. company, preferably voluntary, but potentially forced if necessary. The situation is “very unusual,” said Anne Witt, a professor in competition law at EDHEC Business School in Lille, France. “Structural remedies are almost unprecedented at the EU level,” Witt added. “It’s really the sledgehammer.” In its September decision, the Commission took the “unusual and unprecedented step,” per Witt, to ask Google to design its own remedy — while signaling, if cautiously, that anything short of a sale of parts of its advertising technology business would fall foul of the EU antitrust enforcer. “It appears that the only way for Google to end its conflict of interest effectively is with a structural remedy, such as selling some part of its Adtech business,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief, said at the time. As the clock counts down to the deadline for Google to tell the Commission what it intends to do, the possibility of a Brussels-ordered breakup of an American tech champion is unlikely to go unnoticed in Washington, even as the Donald Trump administration pursues its own case against the search giant. (Google accounts for 90 percent of the revenues of Alphabet, the $3.3 trillion technology holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California.) Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Google has said that it will appeal the Commission’s decision, which in its view requires changes that would hurt thousands of European businesses. “There’s nothing anticompetitive in providing services for ad buyers and sellers, and there are more alternatives to our services than ever before,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, its vice president and global head of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post in September. PARALLEL PROBES The proposal for a voluntary break up of Google marks the culmination of a decade of EU antitrust enforcement in digital markets in which “behavioral” fixes achieved little, and a unique alignment in both timing and substance between the U.S. and the EU of their parallel probes into the firm’s ad tech empire. “It would have been unthinkable 10 years ago that there would be a case in the U.S.  and a sister case in Europe that had a breakup as a potential outcome,” said Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Tech Institute, which is advocating for a break-up. The Commission formally launched the investigation into Google’s ad tech stack in 2021, following a drumbeat of complaints from news organizations that had seen Google take control of the high-frequency exchanges where publishers and advertisers agree on the price and placement of online ads.  Google’s control of the exchanges, as well as infrastructure used by both sides of the market, was like allowing Goldman Sachs or Citibank to own the New York Stock Exchange, declared the U.S. Department of Justice in its lawsuit in 2023. It also created a situation in which cash-strapped news organizations on both sides of the Atlantic saw Google eating an increasing share of revenues from online advertising — and ultimately posing a threat to journalism itself. “This is not just any competition law case — this is about the future of journalism,” said Alexandra Geese, a German Green member of the European Parliament. “Publishers don’t have the revenue because they don’t get traffic on their websites, and then Google’s algorithm decides what information we see,” she said. The plight of publishers proved hefty on the other side of the Atlantic too. In April, the federal judge overseeing the U.S. government’s case against Google ruled that the search giant had illegally maintained its monopoly over parts of the ad tech market.   A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges. | Nurphoto via Getty Images The Virginia district court held a two-week trial on remedies in September. The Trump administration has advocated a sale of the exchanges and an unwinding of Google’s 2008 merger with DoubleClick, through which it came to dominate the online ad market. Judge Leonie Brinkema will hear the government’s closing arguments on Nov. 17 and is expected to issue her verdict in the coming months. STARS ALIGN Viewed by Google’s critics, it’s the ideal set of circumstances for the Commission to push for a muscular structural remedy. “If you cannot go for structural remedies now, when the U.S. is on the same page, then you’re unlikely to ever do it,” said Crider. The route to a breakup may, however, be both legally and politically more challenging. Despite the technical alignment, and a disenchantment with the impact that past fines and behavioral remedies have had, the Commission still faces a “big hurdle” when it comes to the legal test, should it not be satisfied with Google’s remedy offer, said Witt. The U.S. legal system is more conducive to ordering breakups, both as a matter of law — judges have a wide scope to remedy a harm to the market — and in tradition, said Witt, noting that the U.S. government’s lawsuits to break up Google and Meta are rooted in precedents that don’t exist in Europe. Caught in the middle is Google, which should file its proposed remedies within 60 days of being served notice of the Commission decision that was announced on Sept. 5. A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges, and therefore with the notion that structural remedies are necessary. The firm is expected to lodge its appeal in the coming days. While Google has floated asset sales to the Commission over the course of the antitrust investigation, only to be rebuffed by Brussels, the firm does not intend to divest the entirety of its ad tech stack, according to a person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case. Ultimately, what happens in Brussels may depend on what happens in the U.S. case. While a court-ordered divestiture of a chunk of Google’s ad tech business is conceivable, U.S. judges have shown themselves to be skeptical of structural remedies in recent months, said Lazar Radic, an assistant law professor at IE University in Madrid, who is affiliated with the big tech-friendly International Center for Law and Economics. “Behavioral alternatives are still on the table,” said Radic, of the U.S. case. The Commission will likely want to align itself with the U.S. should the Virginia court side with the Department of Justice, said Damien Geradin, legal counsel to the European Publishers Council — of which POLITICO parent Axel Springer is a member — that brought forward the case. Conversely, if the court opts for a weaker remedy than is being proposed, the Commission will be obliged to go further, he said. “This is the case where some structural remedies will be needed. I don’t think the [European Commission] can settle for less,” said Geradin.

A U.S. federal judge on Tuesday refused to break up Google for monopolizing the online search and ad markets, and instead imposed lesser restrictions on the tech company’s day-to-day operations. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington rejected the Justice Department’s request to force the $2.5 trillion company to spin off its Chrome browser and Android products. While Google dodged the most severe possible outcome, the judge ordered that the company must share some of its search data with competitors, a penalty that was still narrowed in scope from what the government asked for. Breaking up Google would have immediately made this the largest antitrust remedy in modern history, with the case drawing comparisons to the 1984 breakup of AT&T and the government’s failed bid to split Microsoft in the early 2000s. The decision offers a glimmer of hope for other tech companies facing potential breakups of their businesses, including Meta, Amazon and Apple. Mehta ruled last August that Google locked up 90 percent of the internet search market through a partnership with Apple to be the default search provider on its Safari web browser. Google had similar agreements with handset makers and mobile carriers like Samsung and Verizon. Mehta also found that Google illegally monopolized the market for ads displayed next to search results. That decision came after a 10-week bench trial, and set up what’s called a remedy trial, which took place in April. It was during that second trial that the Justice Department asked Mehta to break up the company to resolve its illegal monopoly. The case spanned two administrations, starting under President Donald Trump’s first term, going to trial under former President Joe Biden, and now Google has pledged to appeal in Trump’s second administration. Google also faces another remedy trial in September for maintaining what a federal judge ruled in April was an illegal monopoly in the almost $300 million U.S. market for digital ads. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia said Google maintained its monopoly by tying together its ad server business, used by online publishers to manage ad sales on their sites, and its ad exchange business, which auctions off digital advertising space on websites. Google claimed it won half the case and vowed to appeal the other half. Other major antitrust cases remain in the wings that could also drastically reshape the way the tech industry operates in America and across the globe. These cases and investigations come as lawmakers and regulators are worried about tech companies cornering the market for artificial intelligence in a similar fashion as what happened with e-commerce, social media and online search. Amazon is slated to go to trial in early 2027 over claims it squashes competition to rip off sellers and consumers while peddling a subpar shopping experience riddled with confusing advertisements. Apple faces claims its billions of iPhones sold since 2007 were designed to lock users into its products while raising costs for consumers, developers and artists, among others. Depositions and discovery in that case are scheduled through early 2027. And chipmaker Nvidia is the subject of a Justice Department investigation over its purchase of AI start-up Run:ai.

Federal agents searched the Maryland home of John Bolton, former national security adviser during President Donald Trump’s first administration, early Friday, according to two law enforcement officials. “The FBI is conducting court authorized activity in the area. There is no threat to public safety. We have no further comment,” a spokesperson for the FBI’s Washington Field Office said. A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment, but referenced Friday morning posts from FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi. “NO ONE is above the law… @FBI agents on mission,” Patel posted on X, to which Bondi replied: “America’s safety isn’t negotiable. Justice will be pursued. Always.” Bolton came under investigation in Trump’s first term over a tell-all book about his time as national security adviser, which officials said revealed classified government information. The Justice Department sued Bolton in 2020 in an attempt to block publication of the book. But a judge rejected that effort while also publicly faulting the former national security aide for proceeding without final sign-off from the government. DOJ also conducted a parallel criminal investigation into Bolton’s handling of classified information, but dropped the probe and the suit the following year, after President Joe Biden’s appointees took office. After his time in government, the former Trump adviser became an increasingly strident critic of Trump, attacking his foreign policy and national security moves. Bolton was among a group of former officials whose security details Trump revoked on the first day of his second term, despite active threats on Bolton’s life from Iran. A spokesperson and an attorney who represented Bolton in the earlier probe did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. Representatives of the publisher of Bolton’s 2020 book, Simon and Schuster, did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Eli Stokols contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — The EU should ensure fairer competition between news media and digital platforms as it considers a set of wide-ranging initiatives to protect democracy, EU countries propose in a draft document obtained by POLITICO. As part of the European Commission’s Democracy Shield, EU capitals should support an independent, pluralistic media landscape — with a strong emphasis on countering disinformation and Big Tech dominance, the draft says. These platforms act as “gatekeepers” and play a central role in distributing news content, without being directly involved in its production. The draft conclusions, written by the Danish presidency of the Council of the EU in consultation with other countries and the Commission, will be discussed at a July 11 meeting of the Council’s Audiovisual Working Party. The draft calls for a review of editorial responsibility and accountability, particularly for new media-like actors such as AI systems; fairer competition between news media and digital platforms; a possible exemption for media from certain regulations; and to ensure that media policy is part of broader geopolitical, digital, and security strategies. The Democracy Shield, a proposal for which is expected in the autumn, is a Commission initiative to strengthen democracy in the EU, including by fighting disinformation. EU countries previously backed stronger EU rules on prominence measures to promote a pluralistic media landscape, among other things, as the bloc revises its Audiovisual Media Services Directive. “Access to reliable news is a fundamental prerequisite for our democracies to function,” the document reads. “News media therefore play an important democratic role in safeguarding the information sphere, ensuring access to reliable news and upholding vibrant and resilient democracies.”

LONDON — It was never meant to be this hard. In the wake of Labour’s decisive election victory in July, ministers in the party’s tech team were determined to grip an issue they felt the previous Conservative government had failed to address: how to protect copyright holders from artificial intelligence companies’ voracious appetite for content to train their AI models. Instead, Labour’s handling of the issue has snowballed into a PR nightmare which has transformed a largely uncontroversial data bill into a political football. The Data (Use and Access Bill) has ricocheted between the Commons and the Lords in an extraordinarily long incidence of ping-pong, with both Houses digging their heels in and a frenzied lobbying battle on all sides. As one tech industry insider put it: “Everyone has fought dirty and everyone is going to walk away covered in shit.” OPTING OUT Many in the creative sector, which has long viewed Labour as its natural ally in Westminster, hoped the party’s July election victory would work in its favor.  In a manifesto for the creative sectors published while in opposition, the party had vowed to “support, maintain, and promote the U.K.’s strong copyright regime,” stating: “The success of British creative industries to date is thanks in part to our copyright framework.” Instead, just five months later, creatives’ worst fears were realized when ministers proposed allowing AI developers to scrape copyrighted content freely unless artists, publishers and creators “opt out” — putting the onus on creatives to protect their work. The ensuing backlash sparked broadsides from the likes of Paul McCartney and Elton John and a rearguard effort by peers to enshrine protections for creatives. On Monday, peers in the House of Lords voted overwhelmingly to defy the Commons for the fourth time by amending a data bill to enshrine protections for creators, despite Department for Science, Innovation and Technology minister Maggie Jones saying businesses want “certainty, not constitutional crises.” Perhaps more troublingly for Labour, the rancor has fed a perception that the party has allied itself too closely to foreign tech giants in its bid for economic growth — a narrative that could make it more difficult for the government to deliver its plans. HOW DID WE GET HERE? POLITICO spoke to several people familiar with discussions inside the government to understand how a complex — if fiercely contested — debate over intellectual property law became front page news. Many were granted anonymity to speak freely. They all agreed that significant missteps had turned a genuine attempt to resolve the matter into a political nightmare. Creative sector representatives pointed POLITICO to the outsized influence of Matt Clifford, a prolific tech investor who was tapped by Technology Secretary Peter Kyle to draft an “AI Opportunities Action Plan” within days of Labour taking office. Clifford had previously argued that the U.K. should reform its copyright laws to attract AI investment in a report for the previous government on “Pro-innovation regulation” authored with Patrick Vallance, now the U.K.’s science minister. The Tony Blair Institute, which had helped shape the incoming Labour government’s AI policy, also backed the idea. But it was Chris Bryant, a joint minister across the technology and culture departments, who was the driving force behind efforts to resolve a deadlock left behind by the previous government, according to two people close to the process. One creative sector lobbyist accused Bryant of “naiveté” for assuming the main problem was that the “other lot were rubbish,” rather than acknowledging the extent of the technical and political hurdles to a solution. They also argued that Bryant’s role meant there was no distinct voice from the culture department — which acted as a bulwark against reform in the previous government — on what was ostensibly a shared policy. Ministers and officials in the culture department were “slow to organize themselves,” the person said, allowing the technology department to own the issue. IT’S A STITCH-UP When POLITICO revealed in October that the government was planning to propose an “opt out” model, it seemed that creatives had been outmanoeuvred. A subsequent government consultation in December described an “opt out” system, alongside increased transparency obligations on AI firms, as its “preferred option.”  The consultation was “a pivotal opportunity to ensure that sustained growth and innovation for the U.K.’s AI sector continues to benefit creators, businesses and consumers alike,” Bryant said, adding: “We want to provide legal certainty for all.” For copyright holders, the suggestion that the law on AI training was unclear undermined their efforts to extract potentially lucrative licensing deals from AI firms, which partially relied on the threat of pursuing legal action. But by stating a “preferred option” — and accepting all the recommendations in Clifford’s AI plan, which called for copyright reform, one month later — the government created a “target” for itself, a tech industry figure said. The creative sector was able to portray itself as the victim of a stitch up. In a coordinated campaign that stretched from newspaper publishers to record labels, trade bodies called on their A-list networks and sympathetic lawmakers to concoct a steady stream of damning headlines for the government. In May, Elton John labeled Kyle a “moron” on the BBC’s Sunday news show. (“My family thought it was the best thing ever,” Kyle joked this week during an appearance at SXSW in London.) Briefings to the press from figures involved in the campaign highlighted Clifford’s personal AI investments, as well as Kyle’s refusal to meet creatives despite taking a bevy of meetings with Big Tech lobbyists. Kyle’s decision to paint the sector as trying to “resist change” in an interview with the Financial Times didn’t help. Campaigners also accused Kyle of only seeking advice from a small circle of advisers with strong views on AI. Kyle “refuses to go one inch” beyond what’s required in order not to imperil investment from AI firms, one said. Most importantly, the sector found a champion in Beeban Kidron, a former film director and crossbench peer in the House of Lords. A formidable campaigner, Kidron had previous form holding minsters’ feet to the fire over online safety. In coordination with the wider campaign, Kidron tabled a series of amendments to a data bill before parliament to push for immediate transparency duties on AI firms that would force them to disclose how they train their AI models. “What the government is doing is bad politics, bad economics and bad for the culture and reputation of the U.K.,” Kidron said. “They will live to regret their short-sighted awe and the failure to be adults in the room.” FACE THE MUSIC In private, ministers railed against what they felt was misleading and inflammatory coverage of their genuine attempt to resolve a knotty issue. But “there was no way we could have campaigned the way we did without the ‘preferred option,’” the creative sector lobbyist quoted at the top of the article said. Liberal Democrat peer Tim Clement-Jones, who has backed Kidron’s efforts, told POLITICO the government “put the cart before the horse.” “It completely destroyed trust,” he said. In response to Kidron’s campaigning, ministers have promised to publish technical reports on transparency, technical solutions to an “opt out,” licensing, and other subjects within nine months. Cross-industry working groups will be formed to weigh in on the questions and seek to cultivate consensus. Most significantly, ministers now say they no longer have a “preferred option” on the way forward, and insist the U.K.’s existing law is clear — though Kyle maintains the U.K.’s laws are “not fit for purpose” in the AI era. “We’re open-minded,” a DSIT official said. In May, Kyle told MPs he “regrets” the timing and framing of the government’s proposals, accepting they inflamed creatives and almost derailed the government’s legislative agenda. “We all should have done things differently,” a senior tech executive agreed. WHERE NEXT? The senior tech executive argued that an “opt out” with proportionate transparency duties on AI firms ultimately remains the best way forward. Getting there won’t be easy, however. It is unclear if, and when, technology will emerge that could allow rights holders to easily and effectively “opt out” of AI firms training new models on the full range of media spread across the web. And finding consensus on what constitutes adequate transparency — which ministers say will be “the foundation” of any legislation that could emerge within the next two years — will also be challenging. Leading AI companies OpenAI and Google have already made it clear that they view “disproportionate” transparency requirements as a threat to their business models. Tim Flagg, CEO of UKAI, which represents U.K. businesses adopting AI, said the trade body “has been on a journey” over the issue. After initially supporting liberalization of the law, he told POLITICO he now believes the U.K. stands to benefit most by carving out a niche developing smaller, more specialized AI systems using high quality, licensed content. But others in the tech world have only hardened their position. Some of the largest tech firms have responded to the creative sector’s campaign by adopting even more extreme positions in a bid to “balance” the debate, according to multiple people familiar with their thinking. It is understood that the vast majority of the 11,500 responses submitted to the government’s consultation are from creators opposed to the government’s plans. Industry bodies including TechUK, which previously advocated for reforms mirroring the government’s original “preferred option,” now describe it as a reluctant “compromise.” But rights holders may also struggle to sell any eventual compromise to artists and creators after taking such an uncompromising public position, the tech industry figure cited above said. “What people [in the creative sector] are saying in private is very different to what they are saying in public,” they said, noting that many of the groups involved in the campaign had been in discussions with tech firms until relations soured. Ahead of a near unprecedented fourth round of ping pong on the data bill, a tearful Chris Bryant on Tuesday begged peers to allow the data bill to “run its course,” saying he had “heard the concerns” and would address them in the round in future legislation. Lobbyists are rolling up their sleeves. In a statement to POLITICO, a DSIT spokesperson said: “We recognize how pressing these issues are and we truly want to solve them, which is why we have committed to bring forward the publication of our report exploring the breadth of issues raised in the AI and copyright debate, alongside an economic impact assessment covering a range of possible options.  “We have also been clear the way to arrive at a solution is to ensure we are meeting the needs of both sectors, rather than trying to force through piecemeal changes to unrelated legislation which could quickly become outdated. “As you would rightly expect, we are taking the time to consider the 11,500 responses to our consultation, but no changes to copyright law will be considered unless we’re completely satisfied they work for creators.”

One after another, a parade of the wealthiest and most elite institutions in American life since last November have found themselves confronted by unprecedented demands from President Donald Trump and his team of retribution-seekers. One after another, these establishment pillars have met these demands with the same response: capitulation and compliance. The details are varied but two themes are consistent. The first is an effort — far more organized and disciplined than any precedent from Trump’s first term — to bring institutions who have earned the president’s ire to heel. The second theme is even more surprising: The swiftness with which supposedly powerful and supposedly independent institutions have responded — with something akin to the trembling acquiescence of a child surrendering his lunch money to a big kid on the morning walk to school. Cumulatively, the cases represent an astonishing new chapter in the history of the American establishment: The Great Grovel. Prestigious law firms have cowered at his threats to tank their business; Paul, Weiss, which fought against Trump in his first term, pledged $40 million in pro bono legal services to issues Trump has supported. And Skadden Arps, one of the largest law firms in the world, reached a deal with Trump to provide $100 million in free legal work to administration-friendly causes — before Trump had taken any action against them. One of the country’s most storied news networks, ABC News, settled a defamation lawsuit with Trump for $15 million that will go to his future presidential library, and another, CBS News, appears poised to settle for millions more. The Washington Post and the LA Times, both legacy papers owned by Trump-friendly billionaires, have adjusted the content of their editorial pages in ways that pleased the White House. And Columbia University, alma mater to Alexander Hamilton, agreed to nine policy changes in an effort to unfreeze $400 million in federal funding. Other universities hired Republican lobbyists to stay on the president’s good side. A team of POLITICO reporters in recent days set out to illuminate the common threads between these diverse episodes. They interviewed key figures at institutions who have been targeted, as well as people in and around Trump’s circle. Here are four conclusions: A TRANSACTIONAL AGE Leaders of the institutions who have complied with Trump’s demands do not accept the White House’s idea that the basic premises of American governance have changed, and a New Normal has arrived. Quite the contrary, what people are yearning for is a return to the Old Normal, in which familiar revenue lines and profit margins stay intact. When Brad Karp, chair of Paul, Weiss sent a firm-wide letter on March 23 justifying his decision to make a deal with Trump, he emphasized “the need to ensure, above all, that our firm would survive.” Trump’s executive order, which mirrors ones he has issued about firms WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, stripped attorneys of security clearances and restricted their ability to do federal work. It was, in Karp’s own words, an “existential” threat to the firm. But there is deep concern among firm alumni that their former boss’s decision to make a deal with Trump will pave the way for other concessions to the administration. Last week, more than 100 alumni sent a letter to Karp calling the deal a “permanent stain on the face of a great firm that sought to gain a profit by forfeiting its soul.” Former attorneys at Paul, Weiss granted anonymity to speak candidly about the firm say Karp’s decision also reflects a shift in power and strategic focus over the last eight years. Paul, Weiss’s corporate practice has greatly expanded since the days of the first Trump administration. In 2017, when the firm was sending partners to work 12 hour shifts at airports as part of their response to Trump’s Muslim travel ban, revenue was just over $1 billion. Last year, the firm reported more than $2 billion in revenue, according to Law.com. “You bring people together on the corporate side, you’re not intent on fighting,” one person said. “Whereas on the litigation side you have to be a fighter.” Meanwhile Skadden’s executive partner Jeremy London shared details of his negotiation in a firm-wide email sent Friday and obtained by POLITICO. He had learned the Trump administration intended to issue an executive order aimed at the firm. “We chose to engage proactively and constructively with the Administration to align on a productive path forward without the issuance of an executive order,” he wrote. “We entered into the agreement the President announced today because, when faced with the alternatives, it became clear that it was the best path to protect our clients, our people and our Firm.” The firms seem to have made a calculated decision that going along with Trump’s demands would, like some sort of rubber-gloved procedure at the doctor’s office, be unpleasant for a moment but would lead swiftly to business as usual. There have been exceptions: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, Big Law firms targeted by Trump with similar punishment, have opted to fight him in court. But even Trump is surprised by the scale of the capitulation: “They’re all bending and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much,’” Trump said, speaking at a White House event for Women’s History Month Wednesday. “Nobody can believe it, including law firms that have been so horrible… and they’re just saying, where do I sign?” PRESSURE POINTS Trump’s actions have illuminated more vividly than ever just how many wealthy private institutions have their finances and policies enmeshed with the federal government — though it is hardly a new phenomenon. What is different is the willingness of Trump and his lieutenants to use this leverage so unabashedly. Along the way, he has revealed the institutions to be more vulnerable to intimidation than their leaders themselves may have recognized. Earlier this month Columbia moved to comply with nine demands by the Trump administration in order to potentially unfreeze $400 million in U.S. federal research funding — a major blow to the school, which relies on about $1.3 billion in government grants each year to support its $6.3 billion annual operating budget. The university, which has changed its policies to better support Jewish students after pro-Palestinian protests rocked the campus last year, had already considered many of the changes, according to a person with knowledge of the deliberations who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. Those included rules that would compel masked protesters to reveal their identities, and deputizing campus public safety officers to make arrests. “We have been advancing our work to address discrimination and harassment for months in a variety of ways, including engagement with government agencies to address ongoing concerns,” a Columbia spokesperson said in a statement to POLITICO. But leaders at the university also knew “lifesaving research” would be “seriously curtailed” without the $400 million in research funding, the person said. Taking the actions, the Trump administration made clear, would be the only path toward getting it back. The dynamics at work in the Great Grovel reveal a paradox. In theory, wealthy institutions with more diverse revenue lines should be more insulated from outside pressure. In practice, the opposite seems true, since these wealthy interests perceive more points of vulnerability — and, from the other perspective, potential profit — they therefore have more incentive to get along and go along. The decision to settle the libel case was deeply unpopular at ABC News, where many journalists thought an independent news entity needed to defend itself vigorously. But ABC is only a small part of the Walt Disney Corp., where executives apparently decided defending the suit risked embarrassment because of the legal discovery process and could harm the larger business. “It sent a chilling message to the newsroom that they could be sold out by the higher ups and by the corporate division” at Disney, said a person who works with Disney granted anonymity to speak candidly. A Disney spokesperson declined to comment. Likewise, it is hard to imagine an earlier generation of Washington Post publishers contributing $1 million to a president’s inaugural fund. But that is what Post owner Jeff Bezos did for Trump. And Amazon, the company he founded and where he remains a key shareholder, reportedly signed a $40 million deal with Melania Trump to distribute a documentary about her, along with other content projects. THE IMBALANCE OF POWER Much of the credit for Trump’s new sense of ideological purpose in the second term has focused on top advisors like Stephen Miller or budget director Russ Vought. Both have played roles in the administration’s effort to use executive branch leverage against institutions outside the government. But the retribution campaign is much more of a team effort, involving Trump allies across agencies and even outside advisors. “Retribution is an important component of justice,” said Mike Davis, a Trump ally who runs an outside judicial advocacy group. “It restores the victims and serves as a powerful deterrent.” Davis is one of a handful of outside Trump advisers developing strategies to go after the president’s political enemies. The push against the law firms is driven from the outside by longtime Trump aides Boris Epshteyn and Jason Miller, though Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has also been involved, two people familiar with the conversations, granted anonymity to discuss details of them, said. On the inside, Stephen Miller plays a role. While Trump enjoys a wide array of support, his targets typically have found themselves alone and isolated. “There’s a giant collective action problem because everybody’s looking out for number one,” said the person who works with Disney. There has been no effective effort so far by universities to work in concert to halt Trump’s actions at Columbia or other campuses. Kicking the Associated Press out of the White House pool prompted howls by other reporters, but most news organizations basically kept on with their ordinary business. Major law firms haven’t released a joint statement condemning Trump’s moves against their industry colleagues. “If law firms and businesses and others within the private sector choose not to stand up and front a resistance to this power that [Trump] is claiming, but which the Constitution does not give him, then he will have that power,” said Mary Spooner, who worked at Paul, Weiss for more than a decade. “But it becomes much, much harder to resist when individual organizations and institutions and corporations are forced to resist alone.” HUMILIATION IS THE POINT Trump’s campaign against institutions has some ideological origins—grounded in antipathy to what critics see as illegitimate government subsidies or the alleged “wokeness” of their internal practices on such matters as diversity, equity and inclusion. On equal footing with these motivations, however, is a psychological dimension. Trump targeted law firms that employed attorneys who have investigated him or fought him in court. He’s going after media organizations for perceived partisan bias or anti-Trump sentiment. His grudge against Columbia dates back to the 1990s, when he had attempted to sell the school property on the Upper West Side for upward of $400 million, the New York Times reported, and walked out of a meeting with trustees when they offered significantly less. Then, last spring, Columbia became the center of a global student protest movement of pro-Palestinian encampments — and an elite, urban, progressive school for Republicans to turn into an example. According to people near the negotiations, Trump and his supporters care as much or more about public rituals of self-abasement— as in the ABC and law firm settlements — as they do about the substantive details of the original disputes. In the eyes of critics, Trump has for a lifetime caressed his grievances as if he were supervillain Ernst Stavro Blofeld stroking his cat. “What you see here is a group of people who think they missed an opportunity the first time around — that they didn’t fully realize what they now believe to be the powers of the presidency and they didn’t maximize Trump’s indiscriminate, narcissistic, vengeful nature,” said Ty Cobb, a former White House lawyer during the first Trump administration. “They’re playing to Trump’s strengths, which is as a mob boss.” It is far from clear from the reporting, however, that Trump’s team would regard this as an insult. To the contrary, people in his orbit are pleased that the whole world can now see what they already knew: In Trump’s four years out of power, he and his allies were thinking hard about what they would use their power for if they got it back. Daniel Barnes, Dasha Burns, Daniel Lippman, Megan Messerly and Irie Sentner contributed to this report

LONDON — British officials are examining the national security implications of DeepSeek, whose AI model has caused panic in Silicon Valley and sparked fears China has stolen a march in the global tech race. The Chinese company released a model this month, called R1, to rival OpenAI’s ChatGPT, saying it was trained at a fraction of the cost. The free app has shot to the top of Apple’s App Store chart, ahead of ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini. Speaking to POLITICO from Brussels on Wednesday, Britain’s Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said: “We scrutinize every innovation of the size and scale and impact of DeepSeek and we will make sure that it goes through the right system. “We have a very mature intelligence and security apparatus in the United Kingdom. “It’s a very regular occurrence that new technologies, new products will emerge onto the global economy and I just want to reassure people in Britain … the system that we have will look at this as it does at every other innovation and make sure that safety is there from the onset.” Kyle did not detail the exact nature of the probe, but Britain’s National Cyber Security Center — a division of the GCHQ surveillance agency — is known to scan for future technological risks. The development has already sparked enquiries from data regulators in Italy, Ireland and Australia and drawn the attention of the U.S. national security apparatus. Italy’s data regulator said Tuesday it had sent DeepSeek requests to disclose what personal data it collects, where it comes from, how it’s used, what legal basis it has to process that data under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and whether that data is stored on servers in China. There are growing concerns amongst German data protection authorities over the app too, with Zeit reporting that authorities are investigating potential regulatory steps — starting with a formal inquiry into the company’s data processing practices. Research from NewsGuard, a U.S.-based company which provides publishers with accuracy ratings, placed DeepSeek one from bottom in its veracity tests of similar chatbots. It also found the chatbot acted as a “mouthpiece for China” in some of its responses.  But Kyle argued there were some positives to DeepSeek’s rise, saying it showed the importance of innovation — and linked it to his Cabinet colleague Rachel Reeves’ flurry of growth-focused announcements on Wednesday. “That’s why in the U.K. … we’ve launched the AI action plan, why we are building up our digital capacity, why we are… announcing a link between Cambridge and Oxford universities. We’re going to create one of the biggest clusters in the world of innovation,” he said. Chris Lunday contributed to this report.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk is attempting to interfere with Germany’s upcoming national election in February, a government spokesperson said Monday.  “It is indeed the case that Elon Musk is trying to influence the federal election,” a government spokesperson told reporters. While Musk was free to express his opinions, “freedom of opinion also covers the greatest nonsense,” she added.  The German government will stay on Musk’s platform X for the time being, she said. The warning comes a day after the Tesla CEO doubled down on his support for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in an opinion piece in the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag. He argued that the AfD was the “last spark of hope” for the country. While the conservative Christian Democratic Union is leading the polls with 30 percent, the far-right AfD is in second place with 19 percent, according to POLITICO’s Poll of Polls. Musk’s comments caused major political backlash. “Elon Musk is attempting nothing less than Vladimir Putin,” Lars Klingbeil, the leader of the ruling Social Democrats, said to German publisher Funke Mediengruppe. Both Putin and Musk want to see anti-democratic forces succeed in the elections, causing Germany to be “plunged into chaos,” he added.  The tech titan’s goal is to increase his wealth, another Social Democrat politician, Saskia Esken, said Monday. “He wants to become even richer. And everything he does, he does with precisely this goal in mind.”  Friedrich Merz, the lead candidate for the conservative Christian Democrats, criticized Musk’s comments as “intrusive and presumptuous.” He warned that the AfD’s anti-EU stance and their proposed exit from the European Union — which has been dubbed “Dexit” — would ruin the German economy. Musk should not forget, that “it was the AfD that voiced the strongest opposition to” building his Tesla factory in Germany, he added. The tech tycoon opened the company’s first European gigafactory in the German state of Brandenburg in 2022. Musk has not responded to the backlash. But he reposted a photo from the AfD’s chancellor candidate, Alice Weidel, who used Musk’s opinion piece for her party’s election campaign, and has previously called for Chancellor Olaf Scholz to resign. He has recently supported several European populist, right-wing politicians, such as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. 

LONDON — There wasn’t a great deal of time for reading in Westminster this year. Labour’s election supermajority, dramas over freebies and staff, war everywhere, a tax-hiking budget, and a heap of missions, milestones, foundations, pillars and steps kept Britain’s politicians on their toes. But, thankfully, some of Westminster’s finest still managed to steal a few hours off to bury their heads in a good book. POLITICO sent out the call to senior politicians, MP-slash-writers and political authors for the best book they read this year — old or new, fiction or non. Bored of your family? Disappointed with your stocking? Stock up your reading list here and see in 2025 curled up with a good book. Bridget Phillipson, education secretary: The Country Girls trilogy, a story of women’s sexual awakening by Irish writer Edna O’Brien, who died this summer. “Beautifully written, she was a true pioneer.” David Lammy, foreign secretary: A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara, a tale of four friends making their way in New York amid money worries, addiction and trauma. “Devastating portrait of friendship, love and shame.” Pat McFadden, chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: Truman by David McCullough, a biography of Harry Truman. “It’s an amazing story and a fantastic book. He was underestimated and has not been given the recognition he deserves.” Tony Blair, former prime minister: Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America by T.J. Stiles, a biography of American Civil War cavalry commander George Armstrong Custer. “I thought this was far too niche a subject to interest me, but it’s a fascinating book on many different levels and beautifully written.” Nigel Farage, Reform UK leader: Undertones of War, poet Edmund Blunden’s 1928 memoir. “I am a student of the Great War. Blunden’s beautiful use of the English language to describe such horror is fascinating.” John Major, former prime minister: The Restless Republic by Anna Keay, about Britain’s 11 years without a monarch. “History as it should be told.” Rishi Sunak, former prime minister: “The most thought-provoking book I read this year is Eric Schmidt, Henry Kissinger and Craig Mundie’s Genesis: Artificial Intelligence, Hope, and the Human Spirit, a superb guide to how artificial intelligence will change our world. The most moving novel I have read is Tomorrow, Tomorrow and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin. It is a wonderful exploration of the meaning of friendship.” Ian Dunt, writer on SW1’s broken politics: Also Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, the story of two video game designers and their relationship over many years. “A novel about the most underrated of all relationships — the one you have with your work colleagues.” Kim Leadbeater, MP and assisted dying legislator: How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t by Ian Dunt. “A thought-provoking analysis of [the] current political system which gives everyone, inside and outside politics, plenty to think about in terms of revitalizing our democratic system and giving hope for the future.” Wes Streeting, health secretary: Looked After, Ashley John-Baptiste’s childhood memoir of growing up in foster care. “Radicalizing, infuriating and inspiring in equal measure.” Jo Stevens, Wales secretary: Shrines of Gaiety by Kate Atkinson, a story of Soho nightlife in the 1920s. “She is a bloody genius writer — I’ve never read anything by her that’s been less than brilliant. The layers of storyline are deep and the female characters are fabulous.” David Cameron, former prime minister: JFK: Volume 1: 1917-1956 by Fredrik Logevall. “Although we have all read countless bios of this extraordinary man and know what ultimately happens, this biography is exceptional in its incredible detail, especially about Kennedy’s early life, his family upbringing and influences. The book ends at the Democratic National Convention in 1956 with Kennedy contemplating his future career. What happens next is yet to come in Volume 2!” Emily Thornberry, chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: “Since July I have been obsessively listening to cozy crime stories on Audible; probably heard about 50 of them. I have just finished Agatha Raisin and the Quiche of Death by M. C. Beaton read by Penelope Keith and am starting Murder under the Mistletoe by Richard Coles. They are strangely soothing.” Alex Burghart, historian and shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: Four Shots in the Night: A True Story of Stakeknife, Murder and Justice in Northern Ireland by Henry Hemming. “Remarkable insight into the Troubles’ labyrinthine complexities.” Graham Brady, tell-all former 1922 Committee chair: An Officer and a Spy by Robert Harris. “A gripping dramatisation of the Dreyfus scandal, a tale of antisemitism and bureaucratic cover-up.” Diane Abbott, mother of the House and memoirist: Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America by Maggie Haberman. “They have a personal, if mutually suspicious relationship. She also illustrates how self-centered, greedy and bullying Trump the national figure is,  and his continuing dishonesty on a countrywide scale.” Suella Braverman, Tory MP: Israelophobia by Jake Wallis Simons. “Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand antisemitism: what it is, where it came from and, crucially, what we can all do to tackle it.” Stephen Flynn, SNP Westminster leader: Inside the IndyRef by fellow SNP MP Pete Wishart. “I’ve not actually received a signed copy yet (hint) but the author assures me that in his unbiased opinion it is utterly unmissable.” Ed Davey, Lib Dem leader: Golden Hill by Francis Spufford, an entertaining ramble through 18th century Manhattan. “I mostly avoid political books and my best friend bought me this and it’s a real historical barnstormer. Proper escapism and wonderfully written.” Isabel Hardman, Spectator journalist and author: Julia by Sandra Newman. “I didn’t have very high expectations of this retelling of 1984 but it was proper stay-up-late-to-read-more stuff.” Patrick Maguire, Times journalist and Starmer kremlinologer: Killing for Company: The case of Dennis Nilsen by Brian Masters. “Writing a book on Labour’s revival and rocky entry into government meant I did less reading than I would have liked, but I managed to make time for this surprisingly tender psychological study of the serial killer, which I read in one sitting one night I couldn’t sleep. Please don’t lock me up.” James Cleverly, Conservative MP: Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir, a sci-fi novel about a teacher-turned-astronaut who wakes up with amnesia 12 light-years from earth. “I love [it]. It’s by the author of The Martian.” Grant Hill-Cawthorne, House of Commons librarian: A Gentleman in Moscow by Amor Towles. “As well as painting an incredibly moving picture of a key time in Russian history, the development of its main character alongside those of his fellow residents in the Metropol Hotel is beautifully described, with strong themes of what it is to be a parent, a citizen, a friend and a companion.” Cleo Watson, author of Whips, a satirical romp: Kingmaker by Sonia Purnell, the story of Pamela Churchill Harriman who helped rescue the U.S. Democrats after their 1980s wipeout. “Harriman’s life from [Winston] Churchill’s daughter-in-law to [Bill] Clinton’s ambassador to France is full of highs and lows, as she constantly reinvents herself with the one thing people underestimate and can’t teach — emotional intelligence and knockout sexual charisma.” Sonia Purnell, biographer of Boris Johnson (and Pamela Harriman): Screams! by Ysenda Maxtone Graham. “In a year of very bad big things across the globe, it was curiously comforting to read about tiny personal inconveniences — from podcasters’ chummy but not very funny banter to non-functioning PVC windows to the uselessness of a folding umbrella.” Nick Thomas-Symonds, Cabinet Office minister and biographer: Turning Points by Steve Richards, looking at the great moments of change in British politics since 1945. “I’m privileged to be part of a government delivering change, so there is much to learn here, as Steve has written a book full of insight about modern political history.” Dan Jarvis, security minister and military memoir writer: Harold Wilson by former Cabinet minister Alan Johnson. “I’ve heard about this book called Long Way Home. Some people have told me it’s worth a read… but this year, I really enjoyed Alan Johnson’s biography of Harold Wilson. A brilliant tribute to one of our greatest prime ministers by one of the greatest prime ministers we never had.” Andrew Mitchell, Tory MP and memoir-writer: Precipice by Robert Harris. “A brilliant account of British politics, scandal and Whitehall 110 years ago just before the First World War.” Angela Smith, leader of the House of Lords: “It has to be Robert Harris’ Precipice. The combination of history, politics and a (probably) love affair against the backdrop of the start of the Great War is an absolute gem.” Anthony Seldon, prolific prime ministerial biographer: Hitler, Stalin, Mum and Dad by Daniel Finkelstein, on how his parents lived through the Holocaust. “It’s beautifully written, deeply researched and profoundly moving.” Andrew Gimson, biographer of Boris Johnson: Disraeli by André Maurois. “A brilliant short biography, full of insights into English ways of thinking: Disraeli, the doctrinaire, prided himself on being an opportunist; Gladstone, the opportunist, prided himself on being a doctrinaire.” Chris Bryant, creative industries minister and writer: The Scapegoat by Lucy Hughes-Hallet, the story of King James I’s favorite and lover George Villiers. “A brilliant evocation of the life of a man who loved a king not wisely but too well.”  Ellie Chowns, Green MP: The Deluge by Stephen Markley. “A deeply engaging tale of assorted heroes and misfits fighting a rising tide of far-right extremism in the context of frighteningly realistic near-future climatic extremes. I listened to this during the short campaign and found it both sobering and galvanising.” Seb Payne, Times leader-writer and author: Caledonian Road by Andrew O’Hagan, a Dickensian portrait of modern London. “State of the nation novels are very hard to pull off, but once I picked up this I couldn’t stop. Having lived in and around Islington for much of the last decade, it completely captures the febrile mix of rich and poor slammed together.” Andrew Marr, New Statesman political editor: Caledonian Road. “A proper, big, multi-layered satire on London in our time.” Eluned Morgan, Welsh First Minister: There are Rivers in the Sky by Elif Shafak, about the politics of water in ancient Assyria, Iraq and Victorian London. “I saw her speak about the book at the Hay Literary Festival this year and found her really inspiring. I loved the history, the characters and the switching between different centuries but with a common thread.” Iain Dale, broadcaster and former head of SW1 publishers Biteback: Finding Margaret, the story of Andrew Pierce’s late-in-life search for his birth mother. “Given that I cry in every episode of Long Lost Family, this was bound to make the eyes moisten. And it did. Amanda Platell emerges as a bit of a heroine from the story.” Tom Baldwin, Keir Starmer biographer: “Failed State by Sam Freedman shows ‘how’ we can improve our democracy while Autocracy, Inc by Anne Applebaum is a powerful reminder of ‘why’ — or what’s at stake for this government and others like it.” Yuan Yang, new Labour MP and author: Samarkand, by the French-Lebanese writer Amin Maalouf. “It’s beautifully written historical fiction, and transports you to the 11th century courts of Persia and Central Asia. It was given to me as a present by my general election organizer.” Liam Laurence Smyth, senior Commons clerk: Advise and Consent by Allen Drury. “This year I re-read the 1959 novel about the U.S. Senate, which sparked my interest as a teenager in how politics works.” Natalie Bennett, Green Party peer and former leader: The West: A New History of an Old Idea by archaeologist Naoíse Mac Sweeney. “She entertainingly debunks the whole idea of ‘Western Civilization’ as a North Atlantic construct through mini-biographies, from the refugee Herodotus fleeing xenophobic Athens to 17th century Queen Njinga in what is now Angola, compared at the time to ‘the wise women in Greece and the chaste ones in Rome.’ Possibly not a book to read in front of choleric traditionalists.” Anushka Asthana, ITV deputy political editor and author of a book on the election: Sovereign Territory by fellow Lobby journalist Andy Bell, a fictional story based in the Brexit wars. “Pacy political thriller. I couldn’t put it down, even if reliving that period was occasionally traumatising!” Rachel Wearmouth, book on Labour’s election victory co-author: Long Island Compromise by Taffy Brodesser-Akner. “It’s about the traumatic fallout within a super wealthy family some years after the father was kidnapped for a ransom. It’s relentless and much funnier than that synopsis suggests.” Peter Knowles, convener of the Press Gallery Book Club: Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver. “Re-imagines David Copperfield in the opioid-soaked Appalachians. I’ve never come across two pieces of writing ‘speaking’ to each other with such resonance and conviction.” Tim Shipman, chronicler of the Tory downfall: The Power Broker by Robert Caro, about Robert Moses who was behind most of New York’s 20th century municipal construction. “What does the man who has published 1,600 pages on politics this year read as a treat when he’s finished? A 1,300-page book on politics, of course … It’s an epic tale of principle, ego, greed, corruption and political manipulation — and beautifully written. Caro is the greatest non-fiction writer I’ve ever read.”