LONDON — Prime Minister Keir Starmer usually goes out of his way not to annoy Donald Trump. So he better hope the windmill-hating U.S. president doesn’t notice what the U.K. just did. In a fillip for the global offshore wind industry, Starmer’s government on Wednesday announced its biggest-ever down payment on the technology. It agreed to price guarantees, funded by billpayers to the tune of up to £1.8 billion (€2.08 billion) a year, for eight major projects in England, Scotland and Wales. The schemes have the capacity to generate 8.4 gigawatts of electricity, the U.K. energy department said — enough to power 12 million homes. It represented the biggest “wind auction in Europe to date,” said industry group WindEurope. It’s also an energy strategy that could have been tailor-made to rankle Trump. The U.S. president has repeatedly expressed a profound loathing for wind turbines and has tried to use his powers to halt construction on projects already underway in the U.S. — sending shockwaves across the global industry. Even when appearing alongside Starmer at press conferences, Trump has been unable to hide his disgust at the very sight of windmills. “You are paying in Scotland and in the U.K. … to have these ugly monsters all over the place,” he said, sitting next to Starmer during a visit to his Turnberry golf course last year. The spinning blades, Trump complained, would “kill all your birds.” At the time, the prime minister explained meekly that the U.K. was seeking a “mix” of energy sources. But this week’s investments speak far louder about his government’s priorities. The U.K.’s strategy — part of a plan to run the British power grid on 95 percent clean electricity by 2030 — is a clear signal that for all Starmer’s attempts to appease Trump, the U.K. will not heed Washington’s assertions that fossil fuels are the only way to deliver affordable bills and secure supply. “With these results, Britain is taking back control of our energy sovereignty,” said Starmer’s Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, a former leader of the Labour party. “With these results, Britain is taking back control of our energy sovereignty,” said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. | Pool photo by Justin Tallis via Getty Images While not mentioning Trump or the U.S., he said the U.K. wanted to “stand on our two feet” and not depend on “markets controlled by petrostates and dictators.” WIND VS. GAS The goal of the U.K.’s offshore wind drive is to reduce reliance on gas for electricity generation. One of the most gas-dependent countries in Europe, the U.K. was hit hard in 2022 by the regional gas price spike that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The government ended up spending tens of billions of pounds to pay a portion of every household energy bill in the country to fend off widespread hardship. It’s a scenario that Miliband and Starmer want to avoid in future by focusing on producing electricity from domestic sources like offshore wind that are not subject to the ups and downs of global fossil fuel markets. Trump, by contrast, wants to keep Europe hooked on gas — specifically, American gas. The U.S. National Security Strategy, updated late last year, states Trump’s desire to use American fossil fuel exports to “project power.” Trump has already strong-armed the European Union into committing to buy $750 billion worth of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a quid pro quo for tariff relief. No one in Starmer’s government explicitly named Trump or the U.S. on Wednesday. But Chris Stark, a senior official in Miliband’s energy department tasked with delivering the 2030 goal, noted that “every megawatt of offshore wind that we’re bringing on is a few more metric tons of LNG that we don’t need to import.” The U.K.’s investment in offshore wind also provides welcome relief to a global industry that has been seriously shaken both by soaring inflation and interest rates — and more recently by a Trump-inspired backlash against net zero and clean energy. “It’s a relief for the offshore sector … It’s a relief generally, that the U.K. government is able to lean into very large positive investment stories in U.K. infrastructure,” said Tom Glover, U.K. country chair of the German energy firm RWE, which was the biggest winner in the latest offshore wind investment, securing contracts for 6.9 gigawatts of capacity. A second energy industry figure, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, said the U.K.’s plans were a “great signal for the global offshore wind sector” after a difficult few years — “not least the stuff in the U.S.” The other big winner was British firm SSE, which has plans to build one of the world’s largest-ever offshore wind projects, Berwick Bank — off the coast of Donald Trump’s beloved Scotland.

BRUSSELS — On the same day world leaders arrived at the COP30 summit in Brazil to push for more action on climate change, Greece announced it will start drilling for fossil fuels in the Mediterranean Sea — with U.S. help. Under the deal, America’s biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, will explore for natural gas in waters northwest of the picturesque island of Corfu, alongside Greece’s Energean and HELLENiQ ENERGY. It’s the first time in more than four decades that Greece has opened its waters for gas exploration — and the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is claiming it as a victory in its push to derail climate action and boost the global dominance of the U.S. fossil fuel industry. It comes three weeks after the U.S. successfully halted a global deal to put a carbon tax on shipping, with the support of Greece. “There is no energy transition, there is just energy addition,” said U.S. Interior Secretary and energy czar Doug Burgum, who was present at the signing ceremony in Athens on Thursday, alongside U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and the new U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle. “Greece is taking its own natural resources, and we are working all together toward energy abundance,” Burgum added, describing Greece’s Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis as a leader who “bucks the trend.” Only a few hours later, U.N. secretary-general Antonio Guterrez made an impassioned plea for countries to stop exploring for coal, oil and gas. “I’ve consistently advocated against more coal plants and fossil fuel exploration and expansion,” he said at a COP30 leaders’ summit in Belém, Brazil. Donald Trump was not among the many world leaders present. NOT LISTENING “America is back and drilling in the Ionian Sea,” said Guilfoyle, the U.S. ambassador, at the Athens ceremony. Drilling for natural gas — a fossil fuel that is a major contributor to global warming — is expected to start late next year, or early 2027. Greece’s Minister of Environment and Energy, Stavros Papastavrou, hailed the agreement as a “historic signing” that ends a 40-year hiatus in exploration. Last month, Greece and Cyprus — both major maritime countries — were the only two EU countries that voted to halt action for a year on a historic effort to tax climate pollution from shipping. Greece claimed its decision had nothing to do with U.S. pressure, which several people familiar with the situation said included threats to negotiators. Thursday’s ceremony took place on the sidelines of the sixth Partnership for Transatlantic Energy Cooperation (P-TEC) conference, organized in Athens by the U.S. and Greek governments, along with the Atlantic Council. Greece aims to showcase its importance as an entry point for American liquefied natural gas (LNG), bolstering Europe’s independence from Russian gas. LNG from Greece’s Revithoussa terminal is set to reach Ukraine this winter through the newly activated “Vertical Corridor,” an energy route linking Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova.

President Donald Trump is no longer content to stand aloof from the global alliance trying to combat climate change. His new goal is to demolish it — and replace it with a new coalition reliant on U.S. fossil fuels. Trump’s increasingly assertive energy diplomacy is one of the biggest challenges awaiting the world leaders, diplomats and business luminaries gathering for a United Nations summit in Brazil to try to advance the fight against global warming. The U.S. president will not be there — unlike the leaders of countries including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, who will speak before delegates from nearly 200 nations on Thursday and Friday. But his efforts to undermine the Paris climate agreement already loom over the talks, as does his initial success in drawing support from other countries. “It’s not enough to just withdraw from” the 2015 pact and the broader U.N. climate framework that governs the annual talks, said Richard Goldberg, who worked as a top staffer on Trump’s White House National Energy Dominance Council and is now senior adviser to the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “You have to degrade it. You have to deter it. You have to potentially destroy it.” Trump’s approach includes striking deals demanding that Japan, Europe and other trading partners buy more U.S. natural gas and oil, using diplomatic strong-arming to deter foreign leaders from cutting fossil fuel pollution, and making the United States inhospitable to clean energy investment. Unlike during his first term, when Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement but sent delegates to the annual U.N. climate talks anyway, he now wants to render them ineffective and starved of purpose by drawing as many other countries as possible away from their own clean energy goals, according to Cabinet officials’ public remarks and interviews with 20 administration allies and alumni, foreign diplomats and veterans of the annual climate negotiations. Those efforts are at odds with the goals of the climate summits, which included a Biden administration-backed pledge two years ago for the world to transition away from fossil fuels. Slowing or reversing that shift could send global temperatures soaring above the goals set in Paris a decade ago, threatening a spike in the extreme weather that is already pummeling countries and economies. The White House says Trump’s campaign to unleash American oil, gas and coal is for the United States’ benefit — and the world’s. “The Green New Scam would have killed America if President Trump had not been elected to implement his commonsense energy agenda — which is focused on utilizing the liquid gold under our feet to strengthen our grid stability and drive down costs for American families and businesses,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.” ‘WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PARIS AGREEMENT DIE’ The Trump administration is declining to send any high-level representatives to the COP30 climate talks, which will formally begin Monday in Belém, Brazil, according to a White House official who declined to comment on the record about whether any U.S. government officials would participate. Trump’s view that the annual negotiations are antithetical to his energy and economic agenda is also spreading among other Republican officials. Many GOP leaders, including 17 state attorneys general, argued last month that attending the summit would only legitimize the proceedings and its expected calls for ditching fossil fuels more swiftly. Climate diplomats from other countries say they’ve gotten the message about where the U.S. stands now — and are prepared to act without Washington. “We have a large country, a president, and a vice president who would like to see the Paris Agreement die,” Laurence Tubiana, the former French government official credited as a key architect of the 2015 climate pact, said of the United States. “The U.S. will not play a major role” at the summit, said Jochen Flasbarth, undersecretary in the German Ministry of Environmental Affairs. “The world is collectively outraged, and so we will focus — as will everyone else — on engaging in talks with those who are driving the process forward.” Trump and his allies have described the stakes in terms of a zero-sum contest between the United States and its main economic rival, China: Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they say, are a complete win for China, which sells the bulk of the world’s solar, wind, battery and electric vehicle technology. That’s a contrast from the approach of former President Joe Biden, who pushed a massive U.S. investment in green technologies as the only way for America to outcompete China in developing the energy sources of the future. In the Trump worldview, stalling that energy transition benefits the United States, the globe’s top producer of oil and natural gas, along with many of the technologies and services to produce, transport and burn the stuff. “If [other countries] don’t rely on this technology, then that’s less power to China,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who served in the U.S. Transportation Department during Trump’s first term and is now director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. TRUMP FINDS ALLIES THIS TIME Two big developments have shaped the president’s new thinking on how to counteract the international fight against climate change, said George David Banks, who was Trump’s international climate adviser during the first administration. The first was the Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed and Biden signed in 2022, which promised hundreds of billions of dollars to U.S. clean energy projects. Banks said the legislation, enacted entirely on partisan lines, made renewable energy a political target in the minds of Trump and his fossil-fuel backers. The second is Trump’s aggressive use of U.S. trading power during his second term to wring concessions from foreign governments, Banks said. Trump has required his agencies to identify obstacles for U.S. exports, and the United Nations’ climate apparatus may be deemed a barrier for sales of oil, gas and coal. Trump’s strategy is resonating with some fossil fuel-supporting nations, potentially testing the climate change comity at COP30. Those include emerging economies in Africa and Latin America, petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, and European nations feeling a cost-of-living strain that is feeding a resurgent right wing. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright drew applause in March at a Washington gathering called the Powering Africa Summit, where he called it “nonsense” for financiers and Western nations to vilify coal-fired power. He also asserted that U.S. natural gas exports could supply African and Asian nations with more of their electricity. Wright cast the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by 2050 — the target dozens of nations have embraced — as “sinister,” contending it consigns developing nations to poverty and lower living standards. The U.S. about-face was welcome, Sierra Leone mining and minerals minister Julius Daniel Mattai said during the conference. Western nations had kneecapped financing for offshore oil investments and worked to undercut public backing for fossil fuel projects, Mattai said, criticizing Biden’s administration for only being interested in renewable energy. But now Trump has created room for nations to use their own resources, Mattai said. “With the new administration having such a massive appetite for all sorts of energy mixes, including oil and gas, we do believe there’s an opportunity to explore our offshore oil investments,” he said in an interview. TURNING UP THE HEAT ON TRADING PARTNERS Still, Banks acknowledged that Trump probably can’t halt the spread of clean energy. Fossil fuels may continue to supply energy in emerging economies for some time, he said, but the private sector remains committed to clean energy to meet the U.N.’s goals of curbing climate change. That doesn’t mean Trump won’t try. The administration’s intent to pressure foreign leaders into a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance was on full display last month at a London meeting of the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization where U.S. Cabinet secretaries and diplomats succeeded in thwarting a proposed carbon emissions tax on global shipping. That coup followed a similar push against Beijing a month earlier, when Mexico — the world’s biggest buyer of Chinese cars — slapped a 50 percent tariff on automotive imports from China after pressure from the Trump administration. China accused the U.S. of “coercion.” Trump’s attempt to flood global markets with ever growing amounts of U.S. fossil fuels is even more ambitious, though so far incomplete. The EU and Japan — under threat of tariffs — have promised to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on U.S. energy products. But so far, new and binding contracts have not appeared. Trump has also tried to push China, Japan and South Korea to invest in a $44 billion liquefied natural gas project in Alaska, so far to no avail. In the face of potential tariffs and other U.S. pressure, European ministers and diplomats are selling the message that victory at COP30 might simply come in the form of presenting a united front in favor of climate action. That could mean joining with other major economies such as China and India, and forming common cause with smaller, more vulnerable countries, to show that Trump is isolated. “I’m sure the EU and China will find themselves on opposite sides of many debates,” said the EU’s lead climate negotiator, Jacob Werksman. “But we have ways of working with them. … We are both betting heavily on the green transition.” Avoiding a faceplant may actually be easier if the Trump administration does decide to turn up in Brazil, said Li Shuo, the director of China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute in Washington. “If the U.S. is there and active, I’d expect the rest of the world, including the EU and China, to rest aside their rhetorical games in front of a larger challenge,” Li wrote via text. And for countries attending COP, there is still some hope of a long-term win. Solar, wind, geothermal and other clean energy investments are continuing apace, even if Trump and the undercurrents that led to his reelection have hindered them, said Nigel Purvis, CEO of climate consulting firm Climate Advisers and a former State Department climate official. Trump’s attempts to kill the shipping fee, EU methane pollution rules and Europe’s corporate sustainability framework are one thing, Purvis said. But when it comes to avoiding Trump’s retribution, there is “safety in numbers” for the rest of the world that remains in the Paris Agreement, he added. And even if the progress is slower than originally hoped, those nations have committed to shifting their energy systems off fossil fuels. “We’re having slower climate action than otherwise would be the case. But we’re really talking about whether Trump is going to be able to blow up the regime,” Purvis said. “And I think the answer is ‘No.’” Nicolas Camut in Paris, Zia Weise in Brussels and Josh Groeneveld in Berlin contributed to this report.

The Trump administration is ramping up the pressure on the European Union to repeal or overhaul a regulation on corporations’ greenhouse gas pollution — in the latest example of the United States’ willingness to wield its economic might against an international climate initiative. It comes less than a week after the U.S. scored a surprising victory over a proposed United Nations climate fee on shipping, in what one Trump Cabinet member described Wednesday as an “all hands on deck” lobbying blitz. In its newest effort, the Energy Department joined the government of Qatar in warning the EU that it’s risking higher prices for “critical energy supplies” unless it alters or deletes its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. “It is our genuine belief, as allies and friends of the EU, that the CSDDD will cause considerable harm to the EU and its citizens, as it will lead to higher energy and other commodity prices, and have a chilling effect on investment and trade,” the department and the Qataris said in an open letter Wednesday to European heads of state and EU members. During a press conference later in the day, European Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert declined to discuss the European Parliament’s negotiations over the climate directive. The new pressure on the EU comes after months of attempts by President Donald Trump and his appointees to blunt climate regulations at home and abroad that threaten to impinge on U.S. “dominance” in fossil fuels. And lately he’s succeeded in drawing some countries to the United States’ side. ‘WIN FOR THE WORLD’ On Friday, U.S. pressure succeeded in thwarting a proposal by U.N.’s International Maritime Organization to impose the first worldwide tax on climate pollution from shipping. The maritime body had been widely expected to adopt the shipping fee at a meeting in London, but instead it postponed the initiative for at least a year. Fellow petro-giants Russia and Saudi Arabia lobbied for the pause, and EU members Greece and Cyprus helped that effort by abstaining from the final vote. The aftermath of that vote continued to affect European climate diplomacy this week, temporarily upending internal EU discussions about the bloc’s negotiating position for next month’s COP30 summit in Brazil. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins were exultant Wednesday in outlining the pressure they had brought to bear to block the maritime fee. Wright said he phoned 20 countries while Rollins handled nations such as Antigua and Jamaica in what she characterized as an “all hands on deck” effort. The effort also included Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Wright said. Wright added that he had personally written a Truth Social message that Trump posted the night before the vote, in which the president warned that the “United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping.” (Trump changed “three or four words on it,” the secretary said.) “We’re going to come back to realistic views on energy,” Wright said at an event hosted by America First Policy Institute. “That’s a win not just for America, that’s a win for the world.” EUROPEAN CLIMATE PRESSURE The EU has already said it will not scrap its corporate climate directive, though it may dismantle a civil liability provision in a bid to simplify the law. But revising the directive has been a challenge for Europe because lawmakers are divided on how far to roll back sustainability reporting obligations for companies. The rule, which the EU put into force last year but still needs to be adopted by member states, would require companies to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts of their actions inside and outside Europe. Europe’s move to wean itself off Russian energy supplies since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has forced the continent to increase its reliance on U.S. liquefied natural gas imports. But U.S. gas producers have warned that the climate directive will increase the cost of doing business with customers in the EU. In the letter, DOE and Qatar said the climate directive “poses a significant risk to the affordability and reliability of critical energy supplies for households and businesses across Europe and an existential threat to the future growth, competitiveness, and resilience of the EU’s industrial economy.” The governments also advise the EU to repeal the directive or, barring that, rewrite key provisions dealing with the penalties and civil liabilities for companies that don’t comply with the regulation. The U.S. and Qatar also want the Europeans to change language requiring companies to provide transition plans for climate change mitigation. Marianne Gros contributed to this report from Brussels.

BRUSSELS — A weeks-long stalemate holding up the latest package of sanctions against Russia was ended Wednesday night after Slovakia lifted its veto, the Danish presidency of the Council of the EU confirmed. The bulk of the package — the 19th to be imposed on Moscow since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago — focuses on sapping the Kremlin’s war chest by imposing restrictions on energy traders and financial institutions, many of them in third countries. Companies helping the Russian war effort will be targeted, in addition to 117 new tankers considered to be part of the shadow fleet that ships Russian fossil fuels in violation of the oil price cap. Earlier this week, energy ministers from 27 member countries agreed by qualified majority to a landmark phaseout of Russian gas, against the objections of Slovakia and Hungary. Slovakia had vowed to hold up the sanctions package unless it was given assurances on how to combat high energy prices and aid heavy industries like car making. Austria and Hungary had also expressed concerns over the sanctions package but lifted their veto in recent days. Slovakia was the last country blocking the new restrictions — and had sought concessions in the statement to be agreed at Thursday’s summit of EU leaders in Brussels. “All our demands … were included [in the statement],” a Slovak diplomat confirmed to POLITICO. The summit will seek to stress the EU’s support of Ukraine, in light of U.S. President Donald Trump’s pressure on Kyiv to cede territory to Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to join parts of the meeting in Brussels. Leaders are expected to emphasize the need to further hit Moscow with hefty sanctions over its war against Ukraine. Defense spending as well as the use of frozen Russian assets to support Kyiv are all on the agenda. The sanctions package will also significantly expand the number of non-Russian companies banned from doing business with the bloc in a bid to prevent Moscow from circumventing the restrictions. Defense spending as well as the use of frozen Russian assets to support Kyiv are all on the agenda. | Sergey Shestak/EPA Specifically, the bloc seeks to add export controls on another 45 companies that are deemed to be working together to evade sanctions. Those include 12 Chinese, two Thai and three Indian entities that have enabled Russia to circumvent the bloc’s sanctions. The package also restricts the movement of Russian diplomats within the EU. They will have to notify other EU governments of their movements before crossing the border of their host country. The package will now go through a so-called written procedure, where capitals have until Thursday morning to speak up. If no one does, the text is approved.

BRUSSELS — U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has called on the EU’s remaining buyers of Russian fossil fuels to drop their campaign against the bloc’s efforts to end dependency on Moscow and buy from America instead. Speaking on Friday at an event in Brussels, where he has held meetings this week with officials on how to increase imports of American liquefied natural gas and cut off the flow of funds for Russia’s war on Ukraine, Wright said it would be preferable for Europe to get its supplies from “its friends.” Asked by POLITICO whether countries like Hungary and Slovakia, which have opposed the European Commission’s efforts to phase out Russian gas, should finally end their dealings with the Kremlin, Wright said “absolutely.” “We want to displace all Russian gas. President Trump, America, and all the nations of the EU, we want to end the Russian-Ukraine war,” said Wright. “The more we can strangle Russia’s ability to fund this murderous war, the better for all of us. So the answer to your question is absolutely.” At the same time, Wright called for European countries to find alternatives to Russian atomic power, saying “we want to see nuclear technology coming from the United States or within the EU itself.” On Thursday, the EU’s top court ruled that the Commission was wrong to have allowed Hungary to give state aid to fund a major expansion of its nuclear power facilities with `Russian support. The Court of Justice said that officials should have determined whether construction of the Paks II plant, in partnership with Russian state firm Rosatom, breached procurement rules. Hungary’s populist prime minister and Trump ally, Viktor Orbán, has long campaigned in favor of the Paks II project — and against EU sanctions on Russia, including a plan from Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen to phase out all imports of gas from the country by 2027.

BRUSSELS — A coalition of European leaders has convinced U.S. President Donald Trump that Russia is not interested in ending its war in Ukraine and must be forced to the negotiating table. Now they have to persuade an unpredictable White House to agree on how to make that happen. A flurry of diplomatic visits over the past week has seen top officials on both sides of the Atlantic meet to talk about new financial restrictions and plans to cut off the flow of Russian oil and gas. A high-level EU technical team was even dispatched to Washington to work on the details of the proposals, whose core aims enjoy mutual agreement, officials and diplomats told POLITICO.  “Trump is finally on our side. The question now is how do you reconcile the two approaches?” said one EU diplomat, who was granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door discussions.   While the bloc is putting the finishing touches on a new package of sanctions — the 19th to be imposed on Russia since Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 — negotiators say privately that the most effective action needs to be taken in partnership with the Americans.  And although there is a broad consensus on the need to pressure Putin to come to the table, the Trump administration prefers to use trade tools like tariffs to drain the Kremlin’s war chest while the EU pushes for formal sanctions on the businesses and financial institutions that deal with Moscow.  A second EU diplomat said they expected “heated discussions” with the U.S. on how to actually go about hitting Russia.  RED LINES The U.S. president told EU officials this week that he wanted to impose a 100 percent tariff on India and China for buying Russian energy, provided Brussels follows suit. That, however, is an economic and political impossibility for the EU.   Such a move would go against the EU’s core principles, particularly after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reiterated her opposition to tariffs, insisting that “tariffs are taxes” on domestic consumers. Slapping tariffs on India, with whom Brussels is nearing a major trade deal, and on China, to which its open economy is heavily exposed, would amount to colossal acts of self-harm.  “We don’t do tariffs. We are a trading bloc. We are exporters. Exports are the engine of the EU economy. This is our DNA,” said Agathe Demarais, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.   Such a move would go against the EU’s core principles, particularly after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reiterated her opposition to tariffs, insisting that “tariffs are taxes” on domestic consumers. | Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images “This is simply a way for the Trump administration to make an unrealistic demand from partners,” Demarais added. “The partners will say no, because there is no way on earth that the EU is going to impose tariffs, especially at that level, on China and India, and then say, OK, so our partners refuse to go forward, and so we cannot move forward.”   A recent discussion paper floated by the Danish presidency of the Council of the EU, seen by POLITICO, explored whether capitals would be open to imposing tariffs on Moscow as part of the bloc’s 19th sanctions package. That idea, according to several diplomats briefed on the talks, won little traction among ministers when it was discussed last month.   PUMP FOR TRUMP  The U.S. president has also called on Europe to stop buying Russian fossil fuels — the Kremlin uses the proceeds to pay for its tanks and troops — providing helpful leverage to EU leaders already pushing for a total end to imports from the country.  Energy Secretary Chris Wright landed in Brussels for meetings on Thursday, where he hoped to cement the details of an agreement struck between Trump and von der Leyen for the bloc to buy an additional $750 billion worth of American gas, oil and nuclear fuel.  “These are ambitious energy import targets,” Wright told reporters on a conference call. “Certainly the U.S. can supply that, but that’s a framework that’s expecting energy trade to grow significantly from our country … the U.S.’s liquefied natural gas exports growing to displace the rest of Russian natural gas that is still imported into Europe.”  At a press conference following the meeting with his American counterpart, Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen said he intended to accelerate the bloc’s commitment to end all imports of Russian natural gas by the end of 2027 — potentially bringing the deadline forward if it can be agreed as part of a compromise with member countries.  “I have put forward a proposal to ban the import of Russian gas,” he said. “For that to … happen in a way that doesn’t lead to increases in prices and security of supply problems in Europe, we need help from our American friends. We need to import more LNG from the U.S.” Aside from being a major commercial opportunity for the U.S., the proposal also gives Brussels a stronger hand in dealing with Kremlin-friendly countries like Hungary and Slovakia, which have been holding out against the plans to sever ties with Russia.

BERLIN — Canadian liquefied natural gas will be ready to flow to Europe by 2032, Energy Minister Tim Hodgson told POLITICO. The idea is to build a pipeline that funnels LNG from the west coast of Canada to a port on the east coast, like the port of Churchill. From there, it would be shipped to Europe from a terminal that has yet to be constructed. “I think you’re probably talking about five to seven years,” said Hodgson in an interview in Berlin on Wednesday after talks with four LNG suppliers and multiple German companies. The idea was initially floated back in 2022 when Germany’s then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz tried to persuade Canada’s then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to find a way to ship LNG to Europe to help wean the continent off Russian oil. But the project floundered due to a lack of infrastructure, namely a pipeline to bring the LNG some 8,000 kilometers from east to west. Now, amid U.S President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which have hit both Germany and Canada hard, both countries are scrambling to deepen ties in areas such as defense, critical minerals and energy. Hodgson took the opportunity to throw shade across the border, stating that Canada is keen to find people who “share our views and share our values” and increase trading with them. “In a perfect world, we would maintain our relationships with the U.S. We would maintain openness, but we’re going to do what’s right for us, which is make sure we trade more with like-minded countries like Germany.” Trump has in the past months repeatedly threatened his northern neighbor’s sovereignty in a string of comments about annexing Canada as the U.S.’s “51st state.” Both countries have also been at odds over trade, although Prime Minister Mark Carney has recently changed course by scrapping some retaliatory tariffs. Hodgson said he was surprised by the long-term demand for LNG — typically seen as climate-unfriendly and a “transition fuel” — by German industry, but attributed this to increased demand, including from artificial intelligence. “They believe that there will be more LNG required and for longer as a transition fuel,” he added. Berlin also wants to shift its industry away from reliance on Russia and China. While no official announcement has been made, Carney on Tuesday said Ottawa is two weeks away from announcing major investments, including “a new port, effectively,” on Hudson Bay in Churchill, Manitoba. He said it would open up “enormous” opportunities to ship LNG and critical minerals from Canada’s east coast. Mike Blanchfield contributed to this report from Ottawa.

BRUSSELS — The EU should consider ending its Russian gas imports in 2026, a year earlier than planned, the European Parliament’s chief negotiator for Brussels’ phaseout bill told POLITICO. The European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, last month unveiled a landmark legal proposal to end the bloc’s Russian gas imports by 2027, seeking to sever the EU’s final energy ties to Moscow. But “we would be interested in looking at” a 2026 deadline, said Ville Niinistö, a Greens MEP who will helm the Parliament’s work on the bill in the coming months. “The Parliament’s role here is to scrutinize the proposal and make sure that it’s as rigid as possible,” he added. “Legally speaking, we are going to check … [whether] those timetables are strict enough or can they be hastened.” The bill comes as the EU strains to quit Russian energy imports more than three years after Moscow’s all-out invasion of Ukraine. So far, the bloc has slashed its Russian pipeline gas supplies by around two-thirds and banned imports of seaborne coal and oil — but has struggled to wean itself off remaining pipeline flows and is still buying large volumes of liquefied natural gas. It is also facing calls to return to Moscow’s cheap energy as its economy falters. If successful, the new proposal would force EU energy firms to gradually break off their long-term deals with Moscow, starting this year and ending in 2027. It also includes measures that bolster monitoring of Russian gas entering the bloc and asks EU capitals to submit plans detailing how they will quit Moscow’s energy. But for Niinistö, that doesn’t go far enough — notably in omitting Russian oil from the ban. “We are also interested in … [the] potential possibility of including oil more strictly in the legal language as well,” the former Finnish environment minister said, with a phaseout date of 2027 “at a minimum.” Amid ongoing fears the bill could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits from Russian energy firms, Niinistö also said he would “look at” its legal basis “to make sure that there are no undue legal consequences for European companies.” The Commission declined to comment. Before the proposal becomes law, the MEP will have to forge a compromise among the Parliament’s various political groups — a feat he hopes to accomplish by “early fall” and by talking “with everyone,” including Russia-friendly far-right and far-left lawmakers.  Then, he will have to hash out a deal with EU countries, where the bill faces stiff opposition from Hungary and Slovakia, who remain deeply reliant on Russian oil and gas. The bill doesn’t need their backing to pass, but sidelining them risks torpedoing other related laws in process where they hold vetoes. While both countries have demanded money in exchange for switching suppliers, the proposal currently offers no financial incentives for shifting away from Moscow. Niinistö, though, acknowledged that cash to bring them on board will inevitably come under “discussion.” In the meantime, he urged countries and MEPs to put national interests aside and make the bill a reality.  “We should have a broader European interest in mind,” he said.

BRUSSELS — The European Union will soon have new powers to gradually restrict and ultimately ban the flow of Russian gas across the continent within the next three years as part of an unprecedented push against reliance on Moscow. Speaking in Strasbourg on Tuesday, Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen will unveil detailed proposals designed to eliminate imports of fossil fuels from Russia by 2027, following sign-off from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s top team. A draft document, seen by POLITICO ahead of its publication, pledges to remove “the Union’s exposure to the significant risks for trade and security, resulting from gas trade with the Russian Federation by laying down a stepwise prohibition of imports of natural gas,” and to “introduce rules to effectively implement and monitor that prohibition.” From Jan. 1, 2026, the import of natural gas via pipelines or as seaborne liquefied natural gas will be prohibited, except in specific circumstances, which would include short-term contracts struck prior to June 17, 2026. Exceptions are also built into the text for landlocked countries that have struck long-term agreements with Moscow. The terms of the text also leave open the possibility that some European firms could continue importing Russian gas under long-term contracts until Jan. 1, 2028. In an unprecedented move, gas that arrives in the EU via Russia, such as through interconnection points through Serbia, will be considered Russian gas unless it has clear documentation demonstrating it has originated elsewhere. Countries will also have to publish new “diversification plans” showing how they will end reliance on both Russian oil and gas. The legal mechanisms were promised as part of the REPowerEU Roadmap on ending reliance on Russian energy last month, which set ambitions for a blanket ban on fossil fuel purchases that fund the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. Companies will have new requirements to report on the origin of their energy imports, while its sights are also set on nuclear fuel. At the same time, Brussels has shifted into gear on a range of new sanctions, proposing a moratorium on buying petrol, diesel and jet fuel refined from Russian crude and backing lowering a G7 price cap on its oil from $60 a barrel to just $45. However, Hungary and Slovakia have continued to buy Russian oil and gas since the start of the full-scale war, and even used what were supposed to be temporary derogations to cash in on cheap supplies. The two Kremlin-friendly governments have voiced fury at the plans to cut them off, threatening to veto key measures if Brussels pushes ahead regardless. Under the plans presented by Jørgensen on Tuesday, they would be given additional time to exit Russian energy given their comparative lack of progress so far. While these measures are trade and taxation changes, which can be passed by qualified majority vote, both the introduction of new sanctions and the rollover of existing ones will require unanimous support of all 27 countries.