Two new polls released Wednesday show that most voters do not want the U.S. to take military action against Iran and think President Donald Trump is overstepping abroad. A Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters found that 70 percent oppose U.S. military involvement in Iran, even if protesters there are killed while demonstrating against the Iranian government, compared to 18 percent who support military action. Opposition was mostly along party lines, with 79 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of independents opposing military involvement. Republicans were more supportive, with a majority — 53 percent — saying the U.S. should not get involved. The poll also found that 70 percent of voters think the president should receive congressional approval first before taking military action. Trump did not receive congressional approval prior to capturing Maduro, prompting criticism from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Five GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri, joined Democratic lawmakers to advance legislation forcing Trump to obtain Congress’ approval before taking any further military steps in Venezuela. Trump scolded the senators in a post on Truth Social, saying Republicans should be “ashamed” of them and they should “never be elected to office again” as the vote “greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security.” Voters were less supportive of other aggressive foreign policy moves by the Trump administration to expand U.S. influence abroad. Trump argued that the push for U.S. control over Greenland was for national security purposes and to benefit NATO. Regardless, 86 percent opposed using military force to take over Greenland, and 55 percent opposed buying it. The results mirror growing resistance among voters against U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts amid a slew of executive efforts. A separate poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that a growing number of Americans want the U.S. to take a “less active role” in global affairs. Following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, the poll revealed that 56 percent of Americans think Trump has “gone too far” in using military power abroad, and 45 percent say they want the country to be less involved in solving global problems — up from 33 percent in September 2025. Despite broad skepticism of foreign military action, many Americans still seem optimistic about the effects of U.S. intervention in Venezuela. About half of adults think Maduro’s capture and military action in Venezuela will be “mostly a good thing” for halting the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S., and 44 percent believe it will benefit the people of Venezuela more than harm them. The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 12, 2025, by phone and surveyed 1,133 self-identified registered voters. The AP-NORC poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 11, 2025, and surveyed 1,097 by web and 106 by phone.

LONDON — Donald Trump has triggered turmoil at the BBC at exactly the time its upstart right-wing rival is feeling bullish. Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Britain’s public service broadcaster — finally filed late Monday after weeks of build-up — continues a drama that has already cost the BBC two of its most senior leaders.  But even if the legal action over a controversial edit of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech before the Capitol riot fails in extracting the U.S. president’s $10 billion demand from the BBC, it’s offering a boost to a newcomer Trump’s MAGA movement sees as ideologically aligned: GB News. The outlet, which boasts Trump ally Nigel Farage among its hosts, has defied a shaky start by building a loyal audience, snagging big political interviews, and branching out to include a Washington bureau which now broadcasts a nightly show.  The channel pitches itself as a break from the liberal consensus — and Trump’s fresh attack on the BBC’s reputation offers GB News another chance to flaunt its wares. “In the past, the BBC retained relevance through a moral authority derived from a sense of total objectivity,” said James Frayne, a former British government adviser who gave evidence on trust in broadcasters to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee in 2024. “That authority just doesn’t exist anymore. This row with Trump is just another nail in the BBC’s coffin and it ensures that the likes of GB News are now viewed as channels of perfectly equivalent legitimacy.”  ON THE MARCH GB News launched in June 2021 to great fanfare — and plenty of skepticism. There were doubts it would survive after a rocky start beset by technical problems and the departure of star presenter Andrew Neil, a highly-respected veteran of BBC broadcasting who lasted just eight shows before quitting. Almost five years on, and the channel is making steady viewership inroads in some key slots. It boasted a ratings success against its rivals on budget day, one of the big political moments of the year, and has a growing online audience. Politicians are taking note. Center-left Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is routinely interviewed by Political Editor Christopher Hope, a veteran Westminster lobby journalist who traveled with the PM for a migration-focused trip to Albania in May. Starmer’s ministers usually speak to GB News during a morning broadcast round, and GB News’ relationship with Trump’s team has also stepped up rapidly since the channel launched a shoestring U.S. operation in the summer. Host Bev Turner landed a place in the press pool for the U.S. president’s trip to his Scottish golf course at Turnberry over the summer, and charmed him with questions critical of the U.K. government. “Who are you with?” Trump asked. “Because you’re asking such nice questions.” Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Britain’s public service broadcaster — finally filed late Monday after weeks of build-up — continues a drama that has already cost the BBC two of its most senior leaders.  | Andy Rain/EPA Four months later she was granted an interview with Trump. Hope says the channel has aspirations to grow further, and argues that it has a strong sense of its audience. “We know who they are, and how we can serve them,” he says. “I think these are people who feel overlooked by the political main parties. They feel let down. They feel Brexit was something they voted for, hasn’t been done properly, and these are all people I think, were Trump a U.K. politician, he’d be appealing to them.” And that’s helped GB News grow quickly in tandem with popular support for Farage’s Reform Party. Former GB News producer Liam Deacon, who is now consultant at London public affairs firm Pagefield, said: “Trump taking GB News seriously has been useful in that it’s made them feel like a prestigious brand. But they also thrive as an underdog, so it’s not critical.”  STIRRING THE POT  Criticism of the BBC is nothing new, but the broadcaster has been under pressure in recent months over more than just its Trump edit, with its coverage of the war in Gaza coming under particular criticism. That’s allowed GB News to position itself as a fresh alternative, even though television viewers in the UK have other options, including Sky News, and radio stations such as LBC. “It’s hard to appreciate what a phenomenon GB News is if your life is mostly London-based,” said Frayne. “It’s becoming the channel of choice for working-class England. It’s not just in people’s homes, you see it on in the background in countless pubs and small businesses in every town you go to.” He added: “The BBC has become non-existent in many of these places.”  Center-left Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is routinely interviewed by Political Editor Christopher Hope, a veteran Westminster lobby journalist. | Pool photo by Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images Others are watching the outlet with skepticism and alarm. Tom Chivers of the Media Reform Coalition, a non-partisan research group which campaigns for public interest media, acknowledged that outlets like GB News “matter a lot to politicians” — but pointed out that it still has a relatively small audience share. “I think what we come back to is why these kinds of outlets are established in the first place,” he argued. “It’s not about providing alternative sources of news, or about catering to audiences that feel underserved. It’s actually about powerful political elites — whether that’s Nigel Farage or [senior Conservative] Jacob Rees-Mogg or all these other people connected with GB News — who already have quite significant power across politics and media, ensuring that their place at the table, their voice on your screens and on your radio and so on, is permanent, is entrenched.” “I think GB News has achieved what it set out to do, which is to become this kind of focal point of political influence for a particular element of the right wing in the U.K.,” he added. “And really it’s up to politicians to decide if they want to be led by that kind of agenda, or if they want to make sure that there is a source like the BBC which provides a more well-rounded, accurate, impartial, objective approach to news and so on.” GB News, which counts hedge fund manager Paul Marshall among its backers, is yet to make money. GB News Limited made a post-tax loss of £33.4 million in 2024, down from a £42.4 million loss in 2023, according to its latest accounts. The channel — which has at times been rapped on the knuckles by the country’s broadcast regulator over impartiality concerns — has also faced an organized advertising boycott campaign. This may in part explain its push for U.S. eyeballs. One person with knowledge of the channel’s strategy, granted anonymity to speak freely, said : “Even a tiny slice of the American market would be massive. If they can get any advertising from the American side, they’ll be winning.” The outlet, which boasts Trump ally Nigel Farage among its hosts, has defied a shaky start by building a loyal audience, snagging big political interviews, and branching out to include a Washington bureau which now broadcasts a nightly show. | Tolga Akmen/EPA The rival outlet has avoided gloating about the BBC’s current woes. Hope said GB News does “believe in the BBC” — even if it thinks the public broadcaster should do things differently.  “Where I sit as a political editor, there’s no jubilation [about the BBC’s woes.] It’s another story. It’s a story which we ask other politicians about.”  But Jennifer Nadel, a former BBC journalist who now leads the U.K. think tank Compassion In Politics, thinks the BBC’s rivals will seek to exploit its current Trump-inflicted disarray. “It represents an opportunity for the BBC’s enemies to capitalize and further undermine it, and I think they’re doing it for two reasons — aside from the commercial advantages of weakening their main competitor, it also serves their political ends, and it should really be of concern for us all, because when trust in the BBC weakens, it isn’t replaced by something better,” she argued.  Yet Conservative peer Tina Stowell, who chaired a House of Lords inquiry into the future of news, argued that the BBC — which has apologized for its initial coverage but vowed to defend itself against the U.S. president’s lawsuit — should be more open about its own shortcomings, regardless of where its rivals sit. “The BBC created the situation in which it now finds itself,” she argued. “The bigger danger isn’t President Trump’s lawsuit, but the BBC’s unwillingness to accept the systemic cause of this and other editorial failings; and a misplaced belief that the broadcaster is a victim distracting it from understanding and addressing the reasons why it is pushing some audiences away.”  Noah Keate contributed reporting.

LONDON — The self-styled “eco-populist” leader of Britain’s Green Party couldn’t be ideologically further from right-wing firebrand Nigel Farage. But, as Zack Polanski presides over a leap in his party’s poll ratings, he’s actively channeling the Reform UK leader’s media strategy, and putting himself front and center of the argument for change. It’s a high-stakes gamble that, like Farage, could see him accused of turning the outfit into a one-man band. But so far, it appears to be working. “I don’t want everyone to agree with what I or the Green Party is saying,” Polanski told POLITICO in an interview. “What I do want everyone to know is, I’ll always say what I mean.” ‘REACHING THE CEILING’ Polanski won a landslide victory in the Greens’ heated summer leadership election, handing him the reins of a party that made strong inroads at the last election — but still has just four Members of Parliament. Though the Greens stress many spokespeople will continue to represent the organization, he undoubtedly dominates media appearances, and the party is pushing him as an electoral asset. “We were reaching a ceiling of where you could get to by [the] ground game alone,” Polanski reflects of the Greens’ past performance. “What maybe was holding us back was not being heard in the national media.”  Next month, he’ll walk a well-trodden path for British politicians wanting to raise their profile with an appearance on “Have I Got News for You,” the BBC’s long-running satirical quiz show poking fun at politicians. Despite the cheeky reputation, it’s a national institution and a firm part of the establishment with a large national viewership. Previous guests include Farage himself — and Boris Johnson. Polanski says he wants to “make sure that the media have an easy access point” to the party, and the Green leader seems willing to go to places where he’ll have to put up a fight, too — including a colorful on-air battle with Piers Morgan. He’s even launched his own podcast, currently ranked ninth in the U.K. Apple Podcasts charts for politics shows. Some of the numbers lend credence to the Green leader’s theory of the case. The party now has more than 150,000 members, according to its own estimates, compared to 68,500 when Polanski took over. That puts it ahead of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in membership numbers. As Nigel Farage bids to eclipse the Conservatives as a right-wing force in British politics, he has used regular defections to Reform UK to show he’s on the march. | Carl Court/Getty Images Polanski also appears to have overseen a steady polling uptick for the left-wing outfit, as borne out in POLITICO’s Poll of Polls. “There’s a definite and obvious increase,” says YouGov’s Head of European Political and Social Research Anthony Wells.  “He’s already far better known than [predecessors] Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay were.” Wells cautions: “It’s not like the public are in love with him, but the public do … dislike him less than most of the party leaders,” Wells adds. CONVICTION POLITICS As Farage bids to eclipse the Conservatives as a right-wing force in British politics, he has used regular defections to Reform UK to show he’s on the march. Polanski has tried similar, crowing about defections by ex-Labour councilors from the left. In video campaigning, too, Polanski has taken a leaf out of Reform’s book. He peppered his leadership run with arresting monologues to camera, and he has opted to weigh in on — rather than duck — the divisive issue of immigration. A video by the coast urged voters to “hold that line together” against the “super rich” rather than attacking asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats. “The biggest draw for those films is the fact that Zack is prepared to speak about these things — like a lot of other politicians aren’t,” argues the film’s creator Jeremy Clancy, who leads a creative agency making films for progressive outlets. Clancy used to serve as senior communications manager for ex-Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. Praising the contribution of migrants when polling shows the public want lower levels is a risky bet. The Green leader argues voters will respect a clear stance, even if they disagree. “People who know that their politicians are telling the truth and are speaking with conviction are always preferred,” he says. Like Reform, Polanski’s team has so far tried to paint in populist, primary colors. His first party political broadcast — a convention by which parties are given guaranteed five-minute TV slots — was filmed in the early hours as a metaphor about billionaires sleeping comfortably while others struggle. “Both were efforts to visualize things that you can’t see and to consciously make them as simple as possible,” Clancy says. Those short videos racked up millions of views. Whether this translates into electoral success, however, remains a wide open question. Next May’s local elections will offer the first real ballot box test of Polanski’s pitch. Ipsos’ Research Director for Public Affairs Keiran Pedley says the Greens are “still waiting for that breakthrough moment” and now need to “seal the deal” with voters. He cautioned against assuming cut-through for a leader will lead to electoral success. Pedley compared Polanski to ex-Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg — who lost seats at the 2010 general election despite a major polling bounce mid-campaign off the back of strong televised debate performances. For now, those who’ve joined the movement seem bullish. “The Greens have gone from being a one-issue party, which is the environment, to basically being the broad left party,” said Swindon Borough Councilor Ian Edwards, who joined the Greens in October after resigning the Labour whip earlier this year. But he added: “We can’t rely on just a leader. We’ve got to prove ourselves.”

LONDON — In a much-hyped split-screen Oval Office phone call a month ago, U.S. President Donald Trump promised Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer that the two had struck an “historic” trade deal. The agreement would lower Trump’s punishing 25 percent tariffs on key U.K. exports, including cars, steel and aluminum, the White House said. The pact meant tariffs would be “immediately slashed,” No. 10 trumpeted. A month later, those duties remain in place. There is still no clear timeline for when they’ll lift. “Both countries sold their announcement as if [the deal] was done,” said a senior British business representative. And while there’s “no evidence” yet to suggest the tariffs won’t eventually be lifted, they explained, “until it’s done, it’s not done.” Multiple business representatives told POLITICO it could be the end of this month before the duties finally lift. They and others were granted anonymity to speak candidly. STEP BY STEP “Our negotiated deal with the United Kingdom is working out well for all,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on May 23. But in parliament last week, Starmer conceded it could be “just a couple of weeks” more before the U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal, struck May 8, actually comes into effect. “I’m sure the U.K. government feels enormously frustrated about this,” said the senior British business representative. “I don’t think the U.K. government knows” when the deal will finally take effect, they added. “I don’t think their trade negotiators know.” Negotiations over the pact’s implementation are “all on course,” said one senior U.K. official, but added: “But one step at a time.” Executives from Jaguar Land Rover and Tata Steel told lawmakers this week that they’re getting pummeled by U.S. tariffs. | Adam Vaughan/EPA During a meeting in Paris on Tuesday, Britain’s Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds pressed U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to set out timelines for implementing the deal. The two have a “shared desire,” according to a U.K. readout, to lower “sectoral tariffs as soon as possible.” STEEL WAITING The same day, Industry Minister Sarah Jones met with steel and aluminum companies and senior industry figures to discuss next steps. According to one industry insider briefed on the discussion, firms were told it could be the end of June before rates go to zero. Later that night, the U.K. won a reprieve after Trump raised his tariffs on global steel and aluminum imports to 50 percent. The White House announced the U.K. would instead remain at 25 percent … for now. Starmer said the reprieve is “a result of our landmark deal with the U.S.” Yet the executive order spelled out that the president could still hit London with 50 percent steel tariffs “on or after 9 July” if he “determines that the U.K. has not complied with relevant aspects” of their deal. That means tariffs could go up if Britain doesn’t make good on the raft of promises it made in the deal, including scrubbing China from its supply chains in steel and other industries, and giving American beef farmers a bigger bite of Britain’s market. “We’re pleased that, as a result of our agreement with the U.S., U.K. steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs,” said a government spokesperson. “We will continue to work with the U.S. to implement our agreement, which will see the 25 percent U.S. tariffs on steel removed.” “We support an agreement, but it is time the government came clean,” said Conservative Shadow Trade Secretary Andrew Griffith, noting: “The only issue is that tariffs continue exactly as before and no deal has come into effect.” PAY IT BACK? Lowering the steel tariffs “could take several months,” said Laurence McDougall, owner and managing director of All Steels Trading. In the meantime, the firm is being forced by its customers in the U.S. to pay the duties, McDougall said. They usually export between two and six shipping containers filled with steel products to the U.S. every month. British firms expect a “dribble of legal text” firming up different aspects of the deal in the coming weeks, said a second senior business representative. “There is still a lot of uncertainty regarding when the U.S. will bring into force the automotive tariff-rate quota, and what the rules of origin requirements for accessing it will be,” said Sam Lowe, a partner and automotive trade expert at Flint Global, referencing rules governing the countries from which a product’s supply chain is drawn. Cutting China from the list would be a blow for many British automakers, many of which source electric vehicle batteries there. Keir Starmer conceded it could be “just a couple of weeks” more before the U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal, struck on May 8, actually comes into effect. | Pool Photo by Andy Rain via EPA “Given the original document implied the deal would come into force shortly after the announcement, I think there is a reasonable expectation that the benefits will be backdated once they are eventually put on the books,” Lowe said. “But this isn’t 100 percent guaranteed.” GETTING PUMMELED Executives from Jaguar Land Rover and Tata Steel told lawmakers last week that they’re getting pummeled by U.S. tariffs. The duties have hit Britain’s steel exporters since early March, while carmakers have faced the sectoral duties since early April. “The deal is not implemented as it stands at the moment,” Murray Paul, public affairs director at Jaguar Land Rover, told the U.K. parliament’s Business and Trade Committee. The firm, he said, is “working under the assumption” that it will be reimbursed for any tariffs that it has paid the U.S. government backdated to May 8. “We need to know when the [Executive Order] will be signed for implementation.” “There’s … a limit [to] how much we can do in the background to absorb some of that pricing,” JLR’s Paul said, noting that price rises have been passed on to customers. The firm had paused its exports after Trump imposed the 25 percent tariffs in early April, but restarted U.S. shipments the weekend before Downing Street announced the deal. The 25 percent tariffs on British steel exports have proven “extraordinarily difficult,” Russell Codling, Tata Steel’s director of markets and business development, told members of parliament. The company does between £100 million and £150 million-worth of business in the U.S. each year. Even with just the 25 percent tariff, Codling said, “at the moment we’re extremely exposed.” Stefan Boscia contributed reporting.

LONDON — You know you’re on the way up when the lobbyists come knocking. Nigel Farage’s burgeoning Reform UK is spooking Britain’s Labour government — and now a triumphant showing at regional elections in England has Westminster’s influence-peddlers racing to catch up. After Reform UK piled up votes, council seats and mayoralties, Farage’s right-wing outfit is seeing a big uptick in interest from SW1 lobbyists wanting a piece of the action. “We are certainly of interest to lobbyists and public affairs agencies,” one Reform staffer, granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal matters, said days after the party’s elections victory. “They’re keen to get to know us and sound us out on what our positions are on various subjects.” Reform UK Deputy Leader Richard Tice said he saw the increase in lobbying activity as a “sign of success.” “Fundamentally we know what we want to achieve, we know what needs to be done,” he told POLITICO. CASHING IN While Westminster is awash with former Labour and Conservative staffers looking for post-politics employment, Reform UK’s newcomer status means it short on alumni. Farage’s former communications chief Gawain Towler, who recently set up public affairs outfit Oak Insight with Tory ex-minister Chris Heaton-Harris, said he is reaping the benefits of his long association with the Reform UK leader. “Somebody phones you up and says: ‘Gawain, I’d like to bring you in for dinner with some of our clients because they are starting to ask about Reform. How does this sound? We’ll take you to [swanky restaurant] Rules. We’ll give you a nice three-course meal, get you properly watered with decent wine, and you talk about politics for 20 minutes, and we’ll pay you a grand.’” “I can do that,” Towler deadpanned. Reform UK doesn’t have “a bunch of superannuated old farts sitting in the House of Lords looking for an expensive lunch,” Towler said — leaving the field clear for the likes of him. TREATING WITH RESPECT But lobbyists with connections are at risk of overstating their importance, Liam Deacon, a former head of press for Farage’s previous political outfit the Brexit Party, and now a senior consultant at Pagefield, said.  “Any campaigner or lobbyist who’s good at their job, and understands the way that politics works, can be effective if they engage with those parties with respect,” he said. Nigel Farage’s right-wing outfit is seeing a big uptick in interest from SW1 lobbyists wanting a piece of the action. | Adam Vaughan/EPA-EFE Deacon has long been engaged with Reform, and said he had been “trying to show companies that you don’t need to be populist, or aggressive” when dealing with the party. There’s plenty of intel to gather without the need for a swanky consultancy, too. Tice urged lobbyists hoping to understand Farage’s outfit to simply look at what’s already out there. “Read our Contract [with voters] from last year, then they will probably understand where we are coming from,” Tice suggested. “Look at our energy policy announcement earlier this year. Look at Nigel’s speech at the launch of our local election campaign setting out some of our key national priorities. It’s all out there and it hasn’t actually changed.” LABOUR LANGUAGE Understanding Reform is not just about directly influencing the Farage outfit, lobbyists say. The electoral threat of the party is also now being factored into how campaigners talk to the under-fire Starmer government. “We have a Labour government, and ministers are obviously Labour Party, but those ministers listen to Reform,” Deacon said. “They’re watching the polls. They know that a lot of their key voters, those hero voters, are going over to Reform. So we always just make sure that there’s a Reform perspective in the room when we’re planning a campaign.” Other lobbyists are urging a little caution given Reform’s still small parliamentary presence, with just five MPs in the House of Commons. Christine Quigley, vice president at Crestview Strategy, said her outfit is “certainly seeing organizations asking about whether — and how — to engage with Reform,” but said there is “less immediate impetus to engage for many sectors” given Reform’s distance from the actual levers of power. Still, “I’m going to have to buy much wider trousers and replace my waistcoat collection with much bigger ones,” Fowler, the ex-Reform comms chief, quipped.

BRUSSELS — One of Huawei’s most senior executives in Europe is a suspect in the Belgian investigation into alleged corruption at the European Parliament benefitting the Chinese technology company, POLITICO can reveal.  The senior executive was represented in a Belgian court on Tuesday, documents relating to the hearing showed. He is charged with “active corruption of a person holding a public office, criminal organization and money laundering,” said one of the documents, which were disclosed as part of the preparation of a hearing at Brussels’ Chamber of Accusation.  The senior executive is listed as a vice president for the Europe region at Huawei and previously held a position as chief representative to the European Union leading the firm’s public affairs office in Brussels. He can only be identified as Yong J. Tuesday’s hearing, held behind closed doors, was part of proceedings where defense teams engage with senior judges to discuss procedural matters, including potential custody decisions.  The senior executive could not be reached for comment and his lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A Huawei spokesperson also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.  The charges followed a series of police raids of premises in Belgium and Portugal, including Huawei’s Brussels lobbying headquarters and several European Parliament offices. | Frederick Florin/AFP via Getty Images Belgian investigators are probing whether illegal payments were made to secure political backing for an open letter supporting the Chinese company’s interests and signed off by eight members of the European Parliament, according to an arrest warrant seen by POLITICO.  The Belgian prosecutor said Friday it had charged eight people. The charges followed a series of police raids of premises in Belgium and Portugal, including Huawei’s Brussels lobbying headquarters and several European Parliament offices. Aside from Yong J., three other Huawei employees were among the suspects in the corruption probe who first faced Belgian judges last week as part of procedural hearings, including a lobbyist and a senior executive for the firm, who can only be described as Valerio O. and Han W. They are also facing charges related to corruption, money laundering and participation in a criminal organization.  All suspects are presumed innocent.  Huawei fired two employees and suspended a third for their alleged involvement in the bribery investigation, a spokesperson said Monday. The spokesperson did not disclose the identities or roles of the employees affected. It is unclear whether the employees fired and suspended by Huawei are the same as the Huawei officials who were preliminarily charged. Huawei said in a previous statement: “The company maintains a zero-tolerance stance against corruption. As always, we are fully committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations.”  Mathieu Pollet contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Since war arrived on Europe’s doorstep in February 2022, defense companies have been making hay — by significantly increasing their presence in Brussels. The lobbying budgets of the largest European defense companies surged around 40 percent between 2022 and 2023, a data investigation by POLITICO found. Most have expanded their Brussels-based teams over the past three years to meet the growing demand for influence in the capital of European Union power. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago sent shock waves through the continent — over both its ability to support Kyiv’s war effort, and its own resources should the bloc itself come under direct military threat. As traditional ally the United States reneges on support for Ukraine, the European Commission is searching for ways to drastically increase the EU’s own defense spending — and the industry is making sure it’s well-positioned to influence the EU policy agenda. “We see an unprecedented interest driven by the stark reality of the security landscape,” said Line Tresselt, partner and group director of defense and security at Rud Pedersen, a public affairs consultancy that has been advising the defense sector for two decades. Traditionally, national governments are by far the largest military spenders — meaning it made sense to focus lobby efforts there. At stake is an old-fashioned battle over money: European arms-makers want to ensure EU cash goes to local companies, while foreign contractors also want a slice of the pie.  “It’s more than a response to the full-scale invasion in Ukraine: with EDIP [the €1.5 billion European Defence Industry Programme], but also the European Defense Fund, the upcoming EU defense white paper, the newly appointed defense commissioner, coupled with NATO’s evolving posture … there’s a massive increase of EU-made policies for the sector,” said Tresselt.   EVERYONE WANTS A PIECE The top 10 EU defense firms — Airbus, Leonardo, Thales, Rheinmetall, Naval, Saab, Safran, KNDS Deutschland, Dassault and Fincantieri — have to declare their lobbying efforts in the EU Transparency Register when they lobby in member countries. Archives from the NGO-driven database LobbyFacts also allow a comparison with previous entries from early 2022 and early 2023. In 2022, cumulative spending for the top 10 ranged between €3.95 million and €5.1 million; by 2023, that figure had risen to between €5.5 million and €6.7 million. Working off the lower ends of the brackets, that would equate to a 40 percent increase in just one year. The trend is particularly evident with Swedish defense giant Saab, which doubled its spending — followed by Airbus and Dassault, both of which significantly ramped up their lobbying efforts. Alongside increasing budgets, the majority of these companies have bolstered their teams. In 2024, 90 percent of the firms surveyed reported hiring additional full-time staff to represent their interests in Brussels. Thales led the charge, expanding its lobbying team from 3.5 to 10 employees. Leonardo followed by growing its team from three to five employees. Companies once focused on national markets like Germany and Poland, due to the U.S. military presence there, are now establishing a foothold in Brussels too, added Tresselt. U.S. defense giant Lockheed Martin, for example, signed on the EU lobbying register for the first time last May, and has already deployed two lobbyists to the European Parliament. Meanwhile, U.S. aerospace firm RTX has two full-time lobbyists and four external representatives advancing its interests in Brussels. BIG APPETITE Donald Trump has added another element of uncertainty to European defense. Countries don’t know whether to appeal to the transactional U.S. president by buying more American weapons, or shift to European arms independent of U.S. influence. Regardless, both options mean work for defense lobbyists. Brussels-based consultancies are racing to meet the increased demand. Tresselt said that Rud Pedersen has expanded its practice, driven by an influx of IT companies entering the defense market. “Banks and investment funds, which historically saw reputational risk in entering defense, also seek specialized advice now,” said Jean-Marc Vesco, CEO of C&V Consulting, a consultancy dedicated to the defense sector. He added that the growing demand led to his company doubling in size. In terms of consulting firms, Brussels’ lobbying scene remains largely dominated by a handful of established players. Only Forward and Logos Public Affairs — working with Airbus — and trade associations EUTOP Europe and Euralia are listed in the EU register as the lobbyists that the top EU defense companies rely on. But the picture is incomplete, since companies don’t always disclose who they’re working with. “The new entrants [to the defense industry consultancy market] are still adjusting, but for the time being, we’re still dealing with historical players,” said Vesco. “We know that some of our employees may be courted by the competition, but we believe our commitment to EU values is what keeps us competitive. We’re not selling socks or cans of Coca-Cola.”

MUNICH — Vice President JD Vance has his first major chance to present himself as Donald Trump’s proxy on the world stage this week in Europe, as he attempts to build the case that he is the natural heir to the America First movement. But he faces the perennial question: Can anyone really speak for Trump? The question goes beyond Vance’s personal ambition. Allies and adversaries are watching closely amid a thicket of thorny questions facing the Trump administration. Trump has been pushing at home to end the war in Ukraine, announcing new talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin Wednesday. He’s prompted additional questions over his actions on tariffs, tech deregulation in the European Union and Trump’s repeated demands to expand U.S. territorial domain over Greenland, Panama and Gaza. For Vance, the challenge later this week at the Munich Security Conference — a global security confab — will be not only articulating Trump’s mercurial pronouncements but also carving space for his own interpretation of America First, and the broader MAGA agenda. His allies say they believe his task will be easier than Mike Pence’s. Trump’s first vice president had to navigate between the establishment and MAGA worlds at the infancy of a movement that became increasingly hostile to Europe. “The first Munich conference in his first administration, we didn’t know what MAGA was, really,” said one person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak freely. “It’s quite different with JD Vance, because he’s considered our spokesman.” Vance attended last year’s Munich Security Conference as a freshman senator from Ohio who had made a name for himself chafing with Senate Republican leadership by opposing Ukraine aid. “I can’t speak for Donald Trump,” Vance said at the time. “I can speak for myself, and I think he agrees with what I’m going to say.” Nevertheless, Vance caused a major stir at the conference by opting out of a bipartisan Senate meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, POLITICO was first to report. And at the podium, he insisted the U.S. didn’t have the military bandwidth to support Ukraine while trying to deter China, a position that was then at odds with the views of many in his party but came to define the GOP. This time around, Vance will face more scrutiny, not just because of his rapid ascension, but because his message is one many in Munich don’t want to hear. Trump, meanwhile, has been moving further away from Ukraine as he seeks to end the war started by Russia’s invasion. “It’s a challenging assignment both because he’s new to the vice presidency and to international diplomacy, and because the Trump administration’s approach is one that is very different from what the allies have been accustomed to hearing and what they want to hear,” said Joel Goldstein, an emeritus law professor at Saint Louis University and expert on the vice presidency. Vance is scheduled to meet with Zelenskyy Friday, two days after Trump announced he would work “very closely” with Putin to end the war in Ukraine. On Wednesday, Trump announced he had convened a negotiating team led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of the CIA John Ratcliffe, national security adviser Michael Waltz and Ambassador and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff. Vance is likely to speak to Zelenskyy about striking a deal in which Ukraine trades natural riches for continued U.S. military aid. Trump in an interview that aired Monday demanded that the country send the U.S. $500 billion in rare earth resources — and Zelenskyy has said he would be open to such a deal. “The coming weeks could be very busy in diplomacy,” Zelenskyy said Saturday on social media, adding that he valued “cooperation with President Trump.” While Vance’s use of the bully pulpit at Munich may carry weight, it’s not clear how much clout he has with European officials on key issues when he’s not in the spotlight. Leading up to Munich, Ukrainian officials have been working behind the scenes to try to sway the Trump administration, including Waltz, on getting long-term U.S. security guarantees if there is a peace deal with Russia, according to a person close to the talks granted anonymity to describe the sensitive situation. “They want to engage with Waltz,” that person said of the Ukrainian position. “They don’t think Vance has much influence at this point.” A spokesperson for Vance declined to comment. Like any vice president would be, Vance is in a tough position on the trip. Even though he’s a heartbeat from the presidency, he can’t outshine the boss, and communicating a coherent message of the Trump administration’s vision of the world could prove tricky as Vance tries to strike a balance between his own style of restraint and the president’s calls for interventionist land grabs everywhere from Gaza to Greenland. Marc Short, Pence’s former chief of staff, told POLITICO that speaking for Trump as a vice president “is not without challenges.” “There can be a lack of clarity” for how Trump “communicates issues beyond his priorities,” he said. Still, he said, the vice president can be an effective mouthpiece for Trump. “There would be occasions where he would say, ‘Mike, deliver this message for me,’” Short said. European officials and experts will be trying to divine what of Trump’s message Vance will deliver at Munich. “They’ll take him more seriously than last year, especially since he is not traveling alone but with [Ukraine peace envoy Keith] Kellogg,” said Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations who is attending the conference. “They understand that his more restrained positions on world affairs do not necessarily line up with other camps in the administration. That said, there is less infighting than in Trump 1.0.” Leading into the conference, America’s message, from Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is also traveling through Europe this week, was a mix of bonhomie and tough talk. Vance was well-received during his conversations with leaders in Paris, where Vance attended an AI summit, according to one European official with knowledge of the visit. “The tone seems to be ‘Okay, Europe. This belongs to you, now,’” said Jim Townsend, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO, referring to both Ukraine and European security as a whole. “You’re going to have to take care of the security and the U.S, seems to be taking itself out of the equation.” Hegseth calls Ukraine’s return to old borders ‘unrealistic’Share https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.685.0_en.html#fid=goog_1752897897Play Video Other European officials fear that Vance’s tough talk could divide America’s allies on the continent. “They will take him seriously but I am afraid of [their] reaction,” said one Eastern European official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Europeans do not want to hear [a] different approach. They block themselves from reality.” “Anti-American feelings are growing,” the official added. People close to the administration say Vance exerts more influence in the White House than Pence, in part because Trump sees the two of them as more politically aligned, according to three people familiar with the dynamic, two of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity. “He speaks for all of us,” one White House ally said of Vance. “At this point in the first administration, we didn’t know whether Mike Pence did.” “He’s a true believer,” said Garrett Ventry, Trump ally and public affairs executive. “Pence never was.” A third person familiar with their dynamic noted that Trump and Vance have a closer personal relationship: “They chum it up in a way Trump and Pence did not.” One telling moment, two of the people said, came last week, when Vance called for an employee at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to be re-instated after he resigned over racist social media posts. During an unrelated news conference, a reporter asked Trump if the staffer should be re-hired. “Well, I don’t know about the particular thing, but if the vice president said that — did you say that?” the president said, turning to Vance. “I’m with the vice president,” Trump said. Yet Trump is still not ready to call Vance the GOP’s heir. In an interview that aired Monday with Fox News, Trump was asked if he considered Vance to be his successor. “No,” the president said. “But he’s very capable.”

BRUSSELS — A European Union plan to rein in the most advanced artificial intelligence models is in peril after Google and Meta executives criticized the draft rules. The EU has been drafting a set of voluntary rules called a “code of practice” that companies running the most advanced AI models (called general-purpose AI models), such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and Microsoft, could sign up to. But the plan is a “step in the wrong direction” at a time when Europe seeks to restore its competitiveness, Kent Walker, Google’s most senior public affairs official, told POLITICO. Walker’s comments added pressure, after Meta’s top lobbyist Joel Kaplan opened fire on the code, saying the rules established “unworkable and technically unfeasible requirements.” The code of practice is a follow-up to the EU’s AI rulebook adopted last summer. The final code is meant to give substance to what was said in the law. It touches on thorny topics such as how to disclose which data was being used to train models and how companies should deal with “systemic” risks. Big Tech’s criticism falls just ahead of the AI Action Summit in Paris, where European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and tech boss Henna Virkkunen want to show the EU is open for business. The EU is having to fight increasingly fierce criticism of its tech regulations since United States President Donald Trump took office and backed American tech giants in their message that EU laws and fines equate to “tariffs.” Meta’s Kaplan indicated to a Brussels audience in a video interview that the social media giant wouldn’t sign the code in its current form. He said it went “beyond the requirements” of the AI Act. Big Tech’s criticism falls just ahead of the AI Action Summit in Paris. | Pool Photo by Gonzalo Fuentes via Getty Images Walker said that, for Google, it’s “too soon to tell” whether the company will sign the code, hinting that the AI summit in Paris could be a pivotal moment. Google’s president of global affairs argued that the code threatens to introduce several requirements, such as in copyright or third-party model testing, that go beyond the scope of the exercise, were already addressed elsewhere, or put a burden on the industry. Work on the code of practice is expected to wrap up in April, but its success hinges on whether companies like Google and Meta sign up.

Business leaders watched with growing frustration as Donald Trump pushed the Republican Party toward a kind of populism they fear will threaten their bottom lines. Now, they’re worried about JD Vance. The Ohio senator represents a new kind of conservative right that is skeptical of corporations and eschews the GOP’s old free trade ideology. And he has done little in office or as the vice presidential nominee to quell their concerns. Vance has consistently bashed big business, expressed antipathy toward corporate merger activities, sided with labor and emphasized his support for costly tariffs. He’s spoken favorably of the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission chair, Lina Khan, who is universally viewed as a thorn in the side of major businesses, and forged unlikely alliances with progressives including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. With Vance by Trump’s side, some corporate leaders worry a second Trump administration would be even more hostile to their interests than the first was. While he would have little agenda-setting power of his own, Vance would likely reinforce Trump on key economic issues — trade policy, labor issues, market power — unlike former Vice President Mike Pence, who acted more as a check on Trump’s populist leanings. “[Vance] has taken a tack that big business, particularly some of the big tech stuff, is by definition bad,” said William H. Strong, a Republican donor and financial executive. “Just because you’re big doesn’t mean you’re bad … I don’t like those broad characterizations that he alludes to that big business is somehow bad. It’s just not.” Vance isn’t raising concern among business leaders only because of specific policies he might push. They also fear Vance would help turn the party more broadly even further away from the pro-business, small government conservatism that defined its policies for decades, accelerating the years-long change. Gone are the days of the free-market approaches of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman. “That orthodoxy has definitely changed, which is there’s much more an open discussion about tariffs, there’s much more an open discussion about antitrust, there’s much more of a discussion about like appealing to union — to rank and file union members,” said a partner at a major investment firm who has given to both Republicans and Democrats and who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “That’s a huge change over the past decade that we’ve seen, and Trump has ushered in … Maybe that’s where the whole party is moving.” While many business leaders and GOP donors see a Trump administration as still better for business than a Harris one, the GOP’s ongoing ideological realignment has made the party an increasingly uncomfortable fit. “It’s more of a grin and bear it strategy,” said energy executive Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor. “Overall, a Trump administration is better for the economy, better for business. I don’t see people sliding to the Harris administration but I see them as no longer a perfect fit for the Republican Party — but it’s what they have.” Some people are particularly concerned about Vance’s isolationist philosophy, Eberhart said. He himself would not have picked Vance to be Trump’s next vice president, he said. Still, the business community needed to come to terms with the change of the party, Eberhart said, and he emphasized that he was among the people who are “coming to terms with” Vance. He recalled how the Ohio senator had assured some at a fundraiser in Oklahoma City that he would support drilling from the energy sector. “The anti-corporate populist strain of the Republican Party is here to stay,” said Justin Sayfie, a Republican corporate consultant and former appointee during the Trump administration. “JD Vance is the next iteration of that.” But the party might not be done changing. Corporate America’s relationship with Trump has been fraught since he became a mainstay of national politics in 2016. The corporate world favors stability, and Trump’s tenure brought anything but. Business leaders were quick to distance themselves from him, and those who found themselves in Trump’s crossfire paid a price. The distance between big business and the GOP grew even more apparent in 2020. Major companies embraced principles around diversity, equity, and inclusion in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, and Republicans blasted those businesses for going “woke.” After the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, many big businesses altogether disavowed the Republicans who had refused to certify the results of the election, choosing to withhold campaign funds. But Trump is once again unavoidable, and much of corporate America is not sure what to expect from his second White House term with a new vice presidential pick. “The days of corporate lobbyists controlling Washington through weak, ineffective politicians like Kamala Harris are over,” said Vance spokesperson William Martin in a statement. Many Republicans — even the former president himself — acknowledge that a vice president has little real power. But Trump is notoriously persuadable, and some fear what impact Vance could have on Trump’s positions in a seat of unfettered access. For those perturbed by Trump’s tumultuousness, Pence quelled some of those concerns during the first Trump administration. He was a Washington insider who previously chaired the House Republican Conference, and he was strategic in his battles in a Trump White House, working to steer the debate when Trump veered off course. The fear now around Vance is that it’s not clear how or whether the potential next vice president would shape Trump’s views in those situations, said one Republican lobbyist and Trump White House alum. “The thinking now of the business community is that Vance will not be a check on some of the more populist ideas that Trump has, so I think that primarily is where the focus is,” the person said, pointing to, for example, Vance’s praise of Khan. At the helm of the consumer protection agency, Khan has aggressively gone after corporate juggernauts, to the chagrin of technology giants, grocers, and healthcare companies. Despite pressure to the contrary, it’s unclear if even Kamala Harris, if elected, would keep her on and risk upsetting financial allies. Vance has praised Khan’s antitrust actions, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board fretted that Vance could push Trump to reappoint her. “Do Republicans want to rein in the regulatory state or unleash it?” asked the longtime conservative allies on the Journal’s editorial board. Vance does have his defenders in the business community. Some point to his time in Silicon Valley as a venture capitalist as evidence of his ties to business leaders. His links to tech financiers have helped the GOP forge ties with big donors who’d previously given heavily to Democrats. And while Vance has been a populist on certain economic policy issues, there is still widespread belief that he is in lockstep with Trump’s overall vision to cut taxes and slash regulations for big businesses. But it can be hard to nail down exactly where Vance stands on key issues. He was one of Trump’s most vocal critics before becoming one of his most effective attack dogs. As one media CEO put it, Vance was “generally quite effective” in the vice presidential debate. “Why he acts like a buffoon at other times is puzzling. But it clearly reflects at least his view of what one has to do to appeal to the broader Republican electorate, and of course of Trump himself.” During Vance’s time in the Senate, the Ohio senator has proven to be an unpredictable firebrand. He has praised Hungary’s authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán and worked with Warren and other Democrats on legislation to punish leaders of big banks when their businesses fail. “You got a guy who you can’t count on to be a solid yes or a solid no on kind of shirts and skins votes in Congress — what do you think they will do when they have the power of the administrative state?” questioned one Republican lobbyist. “So I think there’s a lot of fear.” Amid the realignment of business and partisanship, the Harris campaign has sought to brandish its support from business leaders and sell itself as a ticket backed by the corporate class. Billionaire entrepreneur and television personality Mark Cuban has been a top emissary of the campaign, telling his followers that Harris is listening to the business community. But business leaders are still broadly with the GOP. They concede that their fortunes would still be better during a Trump presidency than a Harris one. He has promised to extend his tax bill and reduce the corporate tax rate. Even with some headaches among the Republican donor class, Harris is perceived as a graver threat to the bottom line in the short term. Republican donor Eric Levine, a lawyer who works closely with large corporations, said that he hoped some more traditional Republicans would surround the former president. He would not have picked Vance for vice president and would have preferred “virtually anybody else on that stage” from the Republican primary debates. He likened some elements of Vance’s speech at the Republican National Convention to remarks that could have been given by Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator and progressive champion, and said “that doesn’t make me warm and fuzzy.” But, Levine contended, Trump’s ticket was still stronger than the alternative. “I just don’t know who’s going to have his ear this time,” Levine said of Trump. “I’m not a populist, and most of the people I know are not populists, and we’re not isolationists.” And if they are, for the most part, backing Republicans now, some GOPers said that the business community would simply need to come to terms with the changing politics of the time. “There are folks within the Republican Party who want to go back to the pre-2016 mindset. I think that it’s just not possible,” said Jonathan Baron, a Washington-based public affairs advisor. The reason, he suggested, should be obvious. “The success of figures as unconventional and new as Donald Trump and JD Vance,” he said, “is the best evidence that the change is unavoidable.”