KYIV — The U.S. operation to snatch Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro is breeding both joy and worry in Ukraine’s capital. On the angst side, President Donald Trump’s trampling of international rules to grab the leader of another country has Ukraine fearing for its own argument that Russia’s invasion is a clear violation of international law. “For us, morally, it always would be important to speak about international law and sovereignty, about the necessity to follow the rules,” said Hanna Shelest, director of security programs at the Foreign Policy Council Ukrainian Prism NGO. But Kyiv also takes great pleasure in seeing Maduro, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, being taken for trial to the U.S. — proof of the futility of previous Russian arms sales and security guarantees from the Kremlin. “The Maduro dictatorship helped Putin. Now, Putin lost his ally — this is a plus for us,” Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign relations committee and co-head of the Ukrainian parliament’s Free Venezuela friendship group, told POLITICO. “This situation could lead to a weakening of Russia on the international stage, a fall in oil prices and, accordingly, a decrease in revenues for the Russian military machine,” Merezhko added, noting that Ukraine could also benefit if Venezuela starts developing in a democratic direction under U.S. pressure. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has avoided saying much about Venezuela. His country hadn’t recognized Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president, and the Ukrainian leader is extremely gun-shy about criticizing Trump. Ukraine’s foreign ministry expressed hope for “further developments in accordance with the principles of international law, prioritising democracy, human rights, and the interests of Venezuelans.” But Zelenskyy did take a dig at Putin, who, like Maduro, is also clinging to power after running roughshod over democratic principles. “What can I say? If you can do this to dictators … the United States of America knows what to do next,”  Zelenskyy joked at a press conference in Kyiv on Saturday. The U.S. operation in Venezuela cast a shadow over Tuesday’s Paris meeting of Ukraine’s allies known as the “coalition of the willing.” A key issue for the grouping was Kyiv’s demand for ironclad security guarantees from the U.S. and other allies to prevent another Russian attack after a peace deal. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has avoided saying much about Venezuela. | Chris J Ratcliffe via Getty Images However, the recent U.S. actions in Venezuela will raise questions as to whether Kyiv can rely on Washington’s word. In an indication of his unease over the Trump administration’s credibility, Zelenskyy said after Tuesday’s meeting that he wanted American security guarantees to be made legally binding by the U.S. Congress. “The Trump administration is showing [the] Venezuela intervention was not about human rights or democracy in Venezuela, but about implementing U.S. dominance in the Western hemisphere,” said Mykola Bielieskov, research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and senior analyst at the NGO Come Back Alive. “And this can also be used by Russia to legitimize actions against Ukraine. Even post-factum. From Ukraine’s point of view, any use of force that undermines the primacy of international law and legitimizes the right of the strong is against our interests, even if the object of such actions is a bad autocrat,” Bielieskov said. Moscow has seized on the U.S. operation to attack Western countries criticizing its invasion of Ukraine. Russian Security Council Deputy Chair and former President Dmitry Medvedev called Trump’s actions a “clear violation of international law,” but praised the U.S. defense of “their country’s national interests.” The worry in Kyiv is that any erosion of the international order will help Russia and harm Ukraine. “If we start adhering to international law selectively, then it will also be applied selectively toward us,” Merezhko said. This article has been updated.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s top defense official issued an unusually sharp warning on Wednesday, arguing that the new U.S. National Security Strategy “surprises by its clear antagonism towards the European Union” and amounts to a geopolitical play to prevent Europe from ever becoming a unified power. In a strongly worded blog post published just days after Washington released its 2025 NSS, EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius argued that Washington’s framing of Europe’s supposed “civilizational erasure” is not rooted in genuine concerns about values or democracy, but in hard-edged U.S. geopolitical calculations.  “EU unity is against USA interests,” Kubilius wrote, summarizing the logic he said underpins the Trump administration’s document. He pointed to passages in the strategy urging Washington to “cultivate resistance” inside European countries and to work with nationalist parties opposed to deeper integration, language he interpreted as evidence the U.S. is ready “to fight against the European Union, against our strength through unity.” Trump’s view on Europe was underlined in an interview with POLITICO where he denounced European leaders as “weak” and that he would endorse candidates in European elections, even at the risk of offending local sensitivities. Kubilius wrote that the U.S. now sees a more cohesive EU as a potential challenger to American influence. “The US National Security Strategy’s antagonistic language on the European Union comes not from American sentimental emotions about ‘good old Europe,’ but from deep strategic considerations,” he wrote. Kubilius linked the strategy’s worldview to the ideas of Elbridge Colby — now a senior Pentagon official — whose book “The Strategy of Denial” argues that the U.S. must prevent any region from forming a dominant power capable of constraining American access to markets.  Kubilius noted that Colby identifies “the European Union or a more cohesive entity emerging from it” as being “capable of establishing regional hegemony and unduly burdening or even excluding US trade and engagement.” Kubilius argued that this strategic perspective, rather than ideological disagreements, explain the NSS’s unusually hostile tone toward Brussels. “Let’s hope,” he concluded, there “will be enough prudence on American soil not to fight against the emerging power of European unity.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has proposed rolling back several EU environmental laws including industrial emissions reporting requirements, confirming previous reporting by POLITICO. It’s the latest in a series of proposed deregulation plans — known as omnibus bills — as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tries to make good on a promise to EU leaders to dramatically reduce administrative burden for companies.   The bill’s aim is to make it easier for businesses to comply with EU laws on waste management, emissions, and resource use, with the Commission stressing the benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which make up 99 percent of all EU businesses. The Commission insisted the rollbacks would not have a negative impact on the environment. “We all agree that we need to protect our environmental standards, but we also at the same time need to do it more efficiently,” said Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall during a press conference on Wednesday.  “This is a complex exercise,” said Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a press conference on Wednesday. “It is not easy for anyone to try to identify how we can respond to this demand to simplify while responding to this other demand to keep these [environmental] standards high.”  Like previous omnibus packages, the environmental omnibus was released without an impact assessment. The Commission found that “without considering other alternative options, an impact assessment is not deemed necessary.” This comes right after the Ombudswoman found the Commission at fault for “maladministration” for the first omnibus.   The Commission claims “the proposed amendments will not affect environmental standards” — a claim that’s already under attack from environmental groups.   MORE REPORTING CUTS  The Commission wants to exempt livestock and aquaculture operators from reporting on water, energy and materials use under the industrial emissions reporting legislation.  EU countries, competent authorities and operators would also be given more time to comply with some of the new or revised provisions in the updated Industrial Emissions Directive while being given further “clarity on when these provisions apply.”  The Commission is also proposing “significant simplification” for environmental management systems (EMS) — which lay out goals and performance measures related to environmental impacts of an industrial site — under the industrial and livestock rearing emissions directive.  These would be completed by industrial plants at the level of a company and not at the level of every installation, as it currently stands.   There would also be fewer compliance obligations under EU waste laws.   The Commission wants to remove the Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database, for example, claiming that it “has not been effective in informing recyclers about the presence of hazardous substances in products and has imposed substantial administrative costs.”  Producers selling goods in another EU country will also not have to appoint an authorized representative in both countries to comply with extended producer responsibility (EPR). The Commission calls it a “stepping stone to more profound simplification,” also reducing reporting requirements to just once per year.  The Commission will not be changing the Nature Restoration Regulation — which has been a key question in discussions between EU commissioners — but it will intensify its support to EU countries and regional authorities in preparing their draft National Restoration Plans.  The Commission will stress-test the Birds and Habitats Directives in 2026 “taking into account climate change, food security, and other developments and present a series of guidelines to facilitate implementation,” it said.  CRITIQUES ROLL IN   Some industry groups, like the Computer & Communications Industry Association, have welcomed the changes, calling it a “a common-sense fix.” German center-right MEP Pieter Liese also welcomed the omnibus package, saying, “[W]e need to streamline environmental laws precisely because we want to preserve them. Bureaucracy and paperwork are not environmental protection.” But environmental groups opposed the rollbacks.  “The Von der Leyen Commission is dismantling decades of hard-won nature protections, putting air, water, and public health at risk in the name of competitiveness,” WWF said in a statement. The estimated savings “come with no impact assessment and focus only on reduced compliance costs, ignoring the far larger price of pollution, ecosystem decline, and climate-related disasters,” it added.   The Industrial Emissions Directive, which entered into force last year and is already being transposed by member countries, was “already much weaker than what the European Commission had originally proposed” during the last revision, pointed out ClientEarth lawyer Selin Esen.  “The Birds and Habitats Directives are the backbone of nature protection in Europe,” said BirdLife Europe’s Sofie Ruysschaert. “Undermining them now would not only wipe out decades of hard-won progress but also push the EU toward a future where ecosystems and the communities that rely on them are left dangerously exposed.” 

BRUSSELS — France and Italy can breathe a sigh of relief after the EU’s statistics office signaled that the financial guarantees needed to back a €210 billion financing package to Ukraine won’t increase their heavy debt burdens. Eurostat on Tuesday evening sent a letter, obtained by POLITICO, informing the bloc’s treasuries that the financial guarantees underpinning the loan, backed by frozen Russian state assets on Belgian soil, would be considered “contingent liabilities.” In other words, the guarantees would only impact countries’ debt piles if triggered. Paris and Rome wanted Eurostat to clarify how the guarantees would be treated under EU rules for public spending, as both countries carry a debt burden above 100 percent of their respective economic output. Eurostat’s letter is expected to allay fears that signing up to the loan would undermine investor confidence in highly indebted countries and potentially raise their borrowing costs. That’s key for the Italians and French, as EU leaders prepare to discuss the initiative at a summit next week. Failure to secure a deal could leave Ukraine without enough funds to keep Russian forces at bay next year. The Commission has suggested all EU countries share the risk by providing financial guarantees against the loan in case the Kremlin manages to claw back its sanctioned cash, which is held in the Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear. “None of the conditions” that would lead to EU liability being transferred to member states “would be met,” Eurostat wrote in a letter, adding that the chances of EU countries ever paying those guarantees are weak. The Commission instead will be held liable for those guarantees, the agency added. Germany is set to bear the brunt of the loan, guaranteeing some €52 billion under the Commission’s draft rules. This figure will likely rise as Hungary has already refused to take part in the funding drive for Ukraine. The letter is unlikely to change Belgium’s stance, as it wants much higher guarantees and greater legal safeguards against Russian retaliation at home and abroad. The biggest risk facing the Commission’s proposal is the prospect of the assets being unfrozen if pro-Russia countries refuse to keep existing sanctions in place. Under current rules, the EU must unanimously reauthorize the sanctions every six months. That means Kremlin-friendly countries, such as Hungary and Slovakia, can force the EU to release the sanctioned money with a simple no vote. To make this scenario more unlikely, the Commission suggested a controversial legal fix that will be discussed today by EU ambassadors. Eurostat described the possibility of EU countries paying out for the loan as “a complex event with no obvious probability assessment at the time of inception.”

BRUSSELS — It’s time for Europeans to stop trailing behind Donald Trump and instead draw up their own peace plan for Ukraine, Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius told POLITICO. The EU “needs to be independent or at least be ready to be strong in geopolitical developments, including to have our plans on how peace in Ukraine can be brought and to discuss them with our transatlantic partners,” Kubilius said. The EU is scrambling to respond after the U.S. president’s negotiators — real estate tycoon Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner — were in Moscow Tuesday to talk over the latest peace proposal with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Europe was caught off guard by the 28-point peace plan drafted by Witkoff and Russia’s Kirill Dmitriev, which included a ban on Ukraine’s membership of NATO and a limit on the size of the Ukrainian army. That draft was modified after a desperate intervention by European allies and Ukraine, but there is wariness about yet another Trump-led peace effort. European countries were not represented at the Kremlin during the meeting with Putin, despite Ukraine’s future being crucial to the continent’s security. EU officials worry that even if this new Trump plan doesn’t fly, in a few months, there’ll be a new one.  “Each six months, we’re getting new plans and in some way I feel that we are waiting here to know the plans that will come from Washington this year. The plans should come also from Brussels or from Berlin,” Kubilius said. The defense commissioner argued that it is “very much needed” for Europe to craft its own plan to end the war to secure a seat at the table. “We should have the possibility to discuss two plans: one that is European and another one, maybe, prepared by our American friends,” he said. The aim would be to “find synergies between these two plans and achieve the best outcome.” DEFENSE IS A TOP PRIORITY The former Lithuanian prime minister has been the bloc’s first defense commissioner for a year — a sign of how much has changed in the EU as it wakes up to the threat posed by Russia and ramps up its rearmament efforts, all while the Trump-led U.S. pulls back from the continent. The U.S. has been the linchpin of Europe’s security since the end of World War II, and Kubilius said, “We should always count on Article 5,” referring to NATO’s common defense provision. However, he argued that America’s shift toward the Pacific “is happening.” “The question is whether we need to have some kind of additional security guarantees and institutional arrangements in order to be ready — in case Article 5 suddenly is not implemented,” he said.   He also mentioned recent comments by U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker that Germany might take over NATO’s top military job, rather than keeping it in the hands of an American general. That “is a signal that really Americans are asking us to take care about European defense,” not only from a military point of view but also from an institutional perspective, Kubilius said. The geopolitical shift “pushed Europe to understand that defense is a clear strategic priority, which demands action from our side,” the commissioner said, mentioning some of the EU’s key legislative actions like the €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program aimed at boosting the bloc’s military production. Next year, “we are planning to spend a lot of our efforts on the development of industry,” he said, including a communication on the single market. Defense companies are currently not fully integrated into the single market as governments have an opt-out for national security interests, but that is a cause of the bloc’s fragmented defense industry and is hampering rearmament efforts. Kubilius also said he wants to open a discussion on “institutional defense readiness,” including revamping the bloc’s mutual defense provision — often overshadowed by NATO’s more muscular promise. The EU clause needs procedural language that spells out the actions member countries must take to protect each other.

Canada has reached a final agreement to join the EU’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe program, two EU diplomats told POLITICO, marking the first time a third country will formally participate in the bloc’s flagship joint procurement initiative. The breakthrough follows months of technically complex negotiations and was communicated directly to ministers taking part in Monday’s Foreign Affairs Council; Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius informed delegations that negotiations with Ottawa had concluded.  Canada’s accession to the loan-for-weapons SAFE scheme gives Ottawa access to jointly financed defense projects and allows Canadian companies to bid into EU-supported joint procurement projects. For Brussels, securing a G7 partner strengthens the credibility of SAFE as it seeks to coordinate long-term weapons demand and ramp up Europe’s defense industrial base. Under SAFE, third countries can account for a maximum of 35 percent of the value of a weapons system paid for by the scheme; Canada will be able to have a larger share but it will have to pay a fee “commensurate with the benefits the Partner Country and its entities are expected to derive,” factoring in GDP, industrial competitiveness and the depth of cooperation with European manufacturers. Other issues tackled in negotiations covered conditions on intellectual property control and limits on non-EU inputs for sensitive systems including drones, missile-defense assets and strategic enablers. Similar talks with the U.K. broke down on Friday. The timing aligns with a major SAFE milestone: Kubilius announced on X that all 19 participating EU countries had submitted their spending plans that will be financed by low interest SAFE loans. He added that 15 members included support for Ukraine in their plans, involving “billions, not millions” — something the Commission has been keen to encourage. This article has been updated.

BRUSSELS — Huawei was rushed back into the EU’s most influential solar panel lobby after threatening legal action in reaction to its earlier expulsion over its alleged involvement in a bribery and corruption scandal.   That’s outraging other solar power companies, worried that creating a special membership category for Huawei could undermine the ability of SolarPower Europe to effectively represent the industry in Brussels.  “The conduct reported … specifically the handling of Huawei’s membership has seriously undermined both my personal confidence and that of our organization in the governance of SPE,” Elisabeth Engelbrechtsmüller-Strauß, CEO of Austrian company Fronius, wrote in a letter to SPE, which was obtained by POLITICO.  Lawyers for Huawei and SolarPower Europe met at the end of May for negotiations, an industry insider told POLITICO, which culminated in SPE sending a final agreement to the Chinese company at the beginning of September.   Huawei argued that the European Commission’s decision to ban its lobbyists from any meetings with the executive or the European Parliament was unlawful and did not warrant a full expulsion from SPE, said the insider, who spoke on condition of being granted anonymity over fears of retaliation for speaking out.  The ban on Huawei lobbyists was put in place in March after Belgian authorities accused the company of conducting a cash-for-influence scheme and bribing MEPs to ensure their support of Huawei’s interests.  At the time, Huawei maintained it has a “zero-tolerance stance against corruption.”  During the Sept. 29 meeting to reinstate Huawei’s membership, SPE told its board of directors that the organization wanted to avoid a lawsuit and a potentially costly trial.  Instead, SPE proposed making Huawei a passive member that would not actively participate in the group’s workstreams — an option the board accepted, POLITICO reported earlier this month.   Huawei did not respond to a request for comment about its legal threat.  SPE acknowledged the threat in a letter to Fronius, one of its board members, on Thursday. “Based on legal advice and with the assistance of external lawyers, SolarPower Europe held discussions with Huawei with a view to avoiding litigation and protracted legal uncertainty regarding Huawei’s membership status, while preserving SolarPower Europe’s uninterrupted and unrestricted access to the EU Institutions and other relevant stakeholders,” reads the letter obtained by POLITICO.  The SPE’s letter was a response to an Oct. 20 letter from the Austrian solar panel manufacturer sent to the lobby after POLITICO’s story was published on Oct. 9. Fronius called for full transparency over the reinstatement of Huawei and action against any appearance of corruption.  The Austrian company’s concern is that SPE will be “unable to effectively represent” the sector given the EU’s ban on direct contact with Huawei or groups that lobby on its behalf, Engelbrechtsmüller-Strauß told POLITICO in an email.   Fronius is also raising questions about whether SPE can designate a company as a passive member — a status that does not exist in the organization’s bylaws.  “To our knowledge, SPE’s status do not include such a membership category,” Fronius’s letter to SPE reads. “We request a clear explanation of what this form of membership is based on.”  SPE did not raise the issue of member status in its response to Fronius.   The lobbying practices of Huawei and other Chinese companies are under a microscope over concerns around the influence they wield over crucial technologies, including renewable energy and 5G mobile data networks.  While it is better known as a telecom giant, Huawei is also a leader in manufacturing inverters, which turn solar panels’ electricity into current that flows into the energy grid.  Cybersecurity experts warn inverters offer a back door for bad actors to hack into the grid and tamper with or shut it down through remote access.  Two members of the European Parliament sent a letter to the European Commission earlier this month warning of such risks and urging the executive to restrict high-risk vendors like Huawei from investing in Europe’s critical infrastructure.  “Inverters are the brain of a [solar panel] system, connected to the internet and must be remotely controllable for updates. This applies regardless of who the manufacturer is,” Engelbrechtsmüller-Strauß said. “If European legislation does not address the ‘manufacturer risk,’ then energy security in Europe will be jeopardized, which I consider critical.” 

BERLIN — Friedrich Merz said the quiet part out loud back in May: Germany intends to build the Bundeswehr into “the strongest conventional army in Europe,” pledging to give it “all the financial resources it needs.” Five months later, the German chancellor aims to add the hardware to that ambition, according to new internal government documents seen by POLITICO.  The sprawling 39-page list lays out €377 billion in desired buys across land, air, sea, space and cyber. The document is a planning overview of arms purchases that will be spelled out in the German military’s 2026 budget, but many are longer-term purchases for which there is no clear time frame. Taken together, it’s a comprehensive roadmap for Germany’s long-overdue defense overhaul, anchored firmly in domestic industry. Politically, the timing tracks with Merz’s shift to a new financing model. Since the spring, Berlin has moved to carve out defense from Germany’s constitutional debt brake, allowing sustained multiyear spending beyond the nearly exhausted €100 billion special fund set up under former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s tenure. Items on the list will eventually appear, in smaller tranches, when they’re mature enough for a parliamentary budget committee vote. All procurements valued over €25 million need the committee’s sign-off. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS The documents show that the Bundeswehr wants to launch about 320 new weapons and equipment projects over the next year’s budget cycle. Of those, 178 have a listed contractor. The rest remain “still open,” showing that much of the Bundeswehr’s modernization plan is still on the drawing board. German companies dominate the identifiable tenders with around 160 projects, worth about €182 billion, tied to domestic firms.  Rheinmetall is by far the biggest winner. The Düsseldorf-based group and its affiliated ventures appear in 53 separate planning lines worth more than €88 billion. Around €32 billion would flow directly to Rheinmetall, while another €56 billion is linked to subsidiaries and joint ventures, such as the Puma and Boxer fighting vehicle programs run with KNDS. The document foresees a total of 687 Pumas, including 662 combat versions and 25 driver-training vehicles, to be delivered by 2035. Rheinmetall is by far the biggest winner. | Hannibal Hanschke/EPA In air defense, the Bundeswehr aims to procure 561 Skyranger 30 short-range turret systems for counter-drone and short-range protection — a program fully under Rheinmetall’s lead. Along with that come grenades and rifle rounds in the millions. Diehl Defence emerges as the Bundeswehr’s second major industrial anchor after Rheinmetall. The Bavarian missile manufacturer appears in 21 procurement lines worth €17.3 billion. The largest share comes from the IRIS-T family, which is set to form the backbone of Germany’s future air defense architecture. According to the document, the Bundeswehr aims to buy 14 complete IRIS-T SLM systems valued at €3.18 billion, 396 IRIS-T SLM missiles for about €694 million and another 300 IRIS-T LFK short-range missiles worth €300 million. Together, these lines alone amount to around €4.2 billion — making IRIS-T one of the most significant single air defense programs in the Bundeswehr’s planning. Drones are also gaining ground on the military wish list.  On the higher end, the Bundeswehr wants to expand its armed Heron TP fleet operated with Israel’s IAI, aiming to buy new munitions for around €100 million. A dozen new LUNA NG tactical drones follow at about €1.6 billion. For the navy, four uMAWS maritime drones appear in the plan for an estimated €675 million, which will include replacement parts, training and maintenance. Several of the Bundeswehr’s most expensive new projects sit not on land, sea or in the air — but in orbit. The list includes more than €14 billion in satellite programs, calling for new geostationary communications satellites, upgraded ground control stations and, most ambitiously, a low-Earth-orbit satellite constellation worth €9.5 billion to ensure constant, jam-resistant connectivity for troops and command posts. The push aligns with Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’ €35 billion plan to boost Germany’s “space security.” KEEPING THE CASH AT HOME One of the most politically charged plans on the Bundeswehr’s wish list is the potential top-up of 15 F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin, worth about €2.5 billion under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales system.  These would keep Germany’s nuclear-sharing role intact but also retain its reliance on American maintenance, software and mission-data access. It could also signal a further German convergence on American weaponry it cannot replace, just as political tensions deepen over the Franco-German-Spanish sixth-generation fighter jet, the Future Combat Air System. The same U.S. framework appears across other high-profile projects.  The Bundeswehr plans to buy 400 Tomahawk Block Vb cruise missiles for roughly €1.15 billion, along with three Lockheed Martin Typhon launchers valued at €220 million — a combination that would give Germany a 2,000-kilometer strike reach.  The navy’s interim maritime-patrol aircraft plan, worth €1.8 billion for four Boeing P-8A Poseidons, also sits within the foreign military sales pipeline. One of the most politically charged plans on the Bundeswehr’s wish list is the potential top-up of 15 F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin. | Kevin Carter/Getty Images All three tie Berlin’s future strike and surveillance capabilities to U.S. export and sustainment control. Together, about 25 foreign-linked projects worth roughly €14 billion appear clearly in the Bundeswehr’s internal planning — less than 5 percent of the total €377 billion in requested spending.  Yet they account for nearly all of Germany’s strategic, nuclear-related and long-range capabilities, from nuclear-certified aircraft to deep-strike and maritime surveillance systems. By contrast, nearly half of the list is anchored in German industry, spanning armored vehicles, sensors and ammunition lines. In financial terms, domestic firms dominate; politically, however, the few foreign systems define the country’s most sensitive military roles.

BRUSSELS — The head of Wall Street’s top watchdog is “absolutely not” concerned about the body’s independence from the White House. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins told POLITICO in an interview that President Donald Trump has the power to oust the head of the body and its commissioners. “It’s clear from the law and Supreme Court rulings that we’re part of the executive branch and the president can fire me and the other commissioners,” he said. “He’s [Trump] the head of the executive branch. So I think that goes without saying.” His comments come amid Trump’s repeated attacks on the head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, as well as his attempts to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the board. Asked whether he has concerns about the SEC’s independence, Atkins said: “No. Absolutely not.” But, he added: “As far as the SEC goes,” he is “confident we could do our job as we have been doing it now for 90 years.” Atkins declined to provide an opinion on Trump’s attacks on Powell — the president has described the Fed chair as a “moron” and a “numbskull” — saying: “That’s another agency altogether. They can — Jay Powell and the president — work out those sorts of things.” CRYPTO RESERVE Atkins praised Trump for his plans to set up a strategic Bitcoin reserve and digital assets stockpile following a presidential executive order. “The U.S. government has seized a lot of Bitcoin and other things. … I think it’s smart not to dump it on the market, frankly, and so I salute the efforts of the president and the Treasury Secretary [Scott Bessent] and others to address that issue.” The SEC chair has unveiled an ambitious agenda for stablecoin regulation known as “Project Crypto,” which he described as a move away from a “head-in-the-sand” approach from the regulator toward the digital technology. “The SEC needs to embrace change. And if you do the opposite … if you are not embracing it, then it goes offshore,” he said, citing the example of FTX, the crypto exchange which was headquartered in the Bahamas and collapsed in 2022. GREEN STANDARDS Atkins has made his dislike of EU rules for corporate sustainability reporting clear, criticizing them in a speech in Paris earlier this week. He has also threatened to withdraw U.S. recognition of international accounting standards over the inclusion of sustainability in their methodology. Asked whether he disagrees with the European Central Bank’s approach of factoring the risks posed by climate change into their policymaking, Atkins said: “Yes, in a word.” “We’re not here to be environmental police or social police or whatever. That’s not our job. And if others want to do that, then that’s up to them,” he said. Atkins said “it doesn’t matter what I believe” regarding his personal views on climate change, adding that the SEC’s position “long before me” was that climate change does not pose a risk to the orderly functioning of financial markets. “I’m just continuing with that. I agree with that position,” he said. ENFORCEMENT AGENDA Separately, Atkins defended the appointment of Meg Ryan, a judge, to the role of head of the SEC’s enforcement division. Her hire broke with a precedent of appointing someone with long experience in securities law. But Atkins said critics are “people who are ignorant, frankly, of how things work.” “Judges don’t come ready-made with knowledge of the securities world,” he said, adding that Ryan is “eminently qualified to take this position.” Judges “learn it on the job, they apply their experience and their knowledge to the case at hand, and they study up and they’re smart people and that’s their job,” Atkins said.

BRUSSELS — The United States will cap tariffs on European cars, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors at 15 percent, Washington and Brussels agreed in a joint statement on Thursday that locks in a deal struck last month and averts a full-blown transatlantic trade war. Hailing the deal, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefcovič said it was the result of “intense, essential work.” But, he told a news conference: “This is not the end; it’s the beginning. This framework is a first step.” The four-page text, obtained by POLITICO earlier, builds out the handshake agreement that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen when the two met at his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland on July 27. The two leaders’ account of the deal differed on the day, notably on pharma, causing concern that drug producers in Europe could end up being priced out of the U.S. market entirely. In another key clause, the joint statement confirms that the U.S. will lower tariffs on autos and auto parts in most cases to 15 percent from 27.5 percent — but only after the EU formally introduces legislation to “eliminate tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods.” The EU now has a 10 percent levy on car imports. The European Commission will initiate that legislation this month, Šefčovič said, ensuring that Washington will reduce tariffs on European autos effective Aug. 1. The reduction in U.S. tariffs on European autos would be retroactive, he added. MARKET ACCESS The bloc will expand market access for U.S. agricultural goods that are not sensitive for its own market. The U.S., meanwhile, commits to exempting aircraft and parts as well as cork and generic drugs from higher tariffs, applying its most-favored nation tariff to those imports.  Washington and Brussels will join forces to tackle overproduction on steel and aluminum, and will explore the possibility of setting tariff-rate quotas. This was a key request from the European side, to avoid its steel and aluminum exports facing a 50 percent tariff. The EU and the U.S. will also team up against countries — such as China — that are imposing export restrictions on critical minerals. The European Commission will also explore providing “additional flexibilities” in the implementation of the EU’s carbon border tax to American companies, as well as ensure that the EU’s sustainability reporting obligations (CSRD) or the supply chain oversight rules (CSDDD) “do not pose undue restrictions on transatlantic trade.”  Confirming verbal assurances made in Turnberry, the EU intends to procure $750 billion of U.S. energy, including liquified natural gas, oil and nuclear energy products, through 2028. It will also buy “at least” $40 billion worth of U.S. AI chips.  On top of that, “European companies are expected to invest an additional $600 billion across strategic sectors in the United States through 2028,” the document adds. Brussels and Washington have been haggling over the document since the handshake deal between von der Leyen and Trump averted the U.S. president’s threat to hit the EU with an across-the-board 30 percent tariff. Summing up, Šefčovič called the agreement a “serious, strategic deal.” The alternative, he said, would have been “a trade war with sky-high tariffs and political escalation.” This story has been updated.