EU PARLIAMENT’S MOST TOXIC DUO BRINGS TROUBLE FOR VON DER LEYEN Social Democrat chief Iratxe García and center-right boss Manfred Weber’s dire relationship is Brussels’ worst-kept secret. By MAX GRIERA in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO A confrontation six years ago poisoned a relationship at the heart of the EU that remains toxic to this day. Manfred Weber, the powerful German head of the center-right European People’s Party, the largest political family in Europe, knew something was wrong when Iratxe García walked into his office shortly after the 2019 EU election. García, a Spanish MEP who leads the center-left Socialists and Democrats group in the Parliament, was accompanied by Romanian former liberal chief Dacian Cioloș. The pair told Weber that they wouldn’t support his bid to become president of the European Commission, despite the Parliament’s longstanding position that the head of the party receiving the most votes in the election should get the job. While Cioloș is long gone from the EU political scene, García and Weber remain in post — and the animosity between them has only grown, especially now that the EPP is aligning with the far right to pass legislation.  García’s move killed Weber’s Commission ambitions, souring relations between the two and threatening Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen’s ability to deliver her second-term agenda, as she needs the support of senior MEPs to pass legislation. The pair are like “two toxic exes who had a good relationship, but Weber cheated on García with the far right, and this makes it hard for the Socialists,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group in the Parliament. Today, the dire relationship between Weber and García is the talk of the town. For decades, the EPP and S&D — the two largest political families in Europe — have worked hand in hand to provide stable majorities in the Parliament, including backing a second term for von der Leyen at a time of unprecedented crises facing the bloc. Now that stability is in doubt. POLITICO spoke to 12 officials and lawmakers who are or have been close to the pair. Some say the problem is personal, while others blame politics and argue that anyone in their position would have the same relationship issues. “Weber and García have become a problem for von der Leyen,” said a senior Commission official, granted anonymity to speak freely, as were others in this piece. That’s because disagreements between their two groups could lead to less predictable voting in the Parliament, as happened in November with the simplification bill on green reporting rules for businesses, when the EPP sided with the far right rather than with the centrists. Tensions have also spilled toward von der Leyen herself, with García accusing her of “buying into Trump’s agenda” by pushing deregulation. Center-left MEPs have urged the Commission president to rein in Weber over his cooperation with the far right. RELATIONSHIP TAKES A DOWNTURN Verbal attacks in the Parliament’s hemicycle, tensions over Spanish politics, opposing views on the EU’s green ambitions and migration policy, and the fact that the EPP is voting for laws with the far right have eroded what started as a promising relationship. Weber “will never get over the big treason when Iratxe backstabbed him on the Commission presidency,” said a senior EPP MEP. “Everyone needs to stay calm and keep emotions out of it,” said a senior Socialist MEP, noting that many lawmakers, including commissioners, often express concern about the emotional undertones of the relationship. Manfred Weber “will never get over the big treason when Iratxe backstabbed him on the Commission presidency,” said a senior EPP MEP. | Filip Singer/EPA Publicly, both insist relations are just fine. “I really appreciate the strong leadership of Iratxe, she’s a tough representative,” Weber told POLITICO, describing the relationship as in a “great state.” “I can confirm that we have good and regular talks to each other, but we also see our different political positioning,” he added. García also played down the perceived friction, saying the pair have a “working relationship” and “try to understand each other,” while stressing that despite their differences, it is “much more normalized than you might think from the outside.” The reality, according to MEPs and staffers close to the pair, is that six years of working side by side have eroded trust. Weber sees García as incapable of delivering on her promises due to the S&D’s internal divisions and weakness, as it has lost power and influence across Europe; García views Weber as power-hungry and willing to empower the far right at the expense of the center. PERSONAL ATTACKS In her September 2025 State of the Union address, von der Leyen tried to bridge the widening rifts between the EPP and the Socialists by giving policy wins to both sides and calling for unity. But her efforts came to nothing as Weber and García exchanged personal attacks on the hemicycle floor, each blaming the other for the instability of the pro-European coalition. Weber accused Garcia and the Socialists of “harming the European agenda.” During her remarks, the S&D chief shot back: “You know who is responsible for the fact that this pro-European alliance … does not work in this Parliament? It has a name and surname. It is called Manfred Weber.” The exchange reflected a relationship under strain, as the EPP pushed deregulation, weaker green rules, and a crackdown on migration backed by far-right votes after the 2024 election shifted the Parliament to the right. Sidelined by that new math, the Socialists have increasingly felt alienated and have hardened their attacks on von der Leyen for embracing a right-wing deregulation agenda, and on Weber for empowering the far right in general. “The only way for Iratxe to survive is to be more aggressive with EPP and with Manfred,” said a former centrist lawmaker, who argued that García is leaning on rhetoric to rally her base as concrete wins are in such short supply. For his part, Weber is unapologetic about sidelining traditional centrist allies, arguing that the end — tackling policy issues the far right has weaponized against the EU, notably migration and overregulation — justifies the means. “He could not be Commission president so he has been pushing to be a power broker from the Parliament, which means he needs to show he can push for whatever EPP wants, which includes using the far right,” a second senior EPP MEP said of Weber. BETRAYAL Weber and García started their collaboration after the election in 2019, when the latter was chosen as the group leader of S&D after serving as an MEP since 2004 and chair of the committee on women’s rights between 2014 and 2019. For the first two years they were united in their goals of delivering on the Green Deal and addressing the Covid-19 pandemic, but the relationship began to deteriorate in the second half of the term. In a mid-term reshuffle of the Parliament’s top posts, Weber struck a backroom deal with the liberals of Renew and The Left to keep the powerful position of the Parliament’s secretary-general in the hands of the EPP. García had wanted the job for S&D because the previous secretary-general was from the EPP, as is Roberta Metsola, who was about to become the Parliament’s president. Ursula von der Leyen tried to bridge the widening rifts between the EPP and the Socialists by giving policy wins to both sides and calling for unity. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “This was a moment of tension because she really thought she would get it … she took it very personally,” said the senior Socialist MEP. “Her position in the group was also affected by that; she got a lot of criticism.” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s reelection in 2023 further strained relations. Weber has for years been betting on the fall of Sánchez, backing Spain’s EPP-aligned opposition (the People’s Party, or PP) and giving them free rein in the Parliament to attack the Spanish Socialist Party, knowing that the EPP would be boosted with an EPP party in power in Madrid. “He does everything the People’s Party wants,” said a liberal Parliament official, who added that “every time Spain is on the agenda, it becomes a nightmare, everyone screaming.” The most recent example came in November, when the EPP sided with far-right groups to cancel a parliamentary visit to Italy to monitor the rule of law in the country, while approving one to Spain — sparking an outcry from García, whom EPP MEPs frame as Sánchez’s lieutenant in Brussels. “It generates a toxic dynamic,” echoed the first senior EPP MEP. BREAKING POINT The Spanish issue came to the fore during the 2024 hearings for commissioners, when MEPs grill prospective office-holders to see if they are up to the task. Under pressure from his Spanish peers, Weber and the EPP went in hard on Sánchez’s deputy Teresa Ribera, blaming her for deadly floods in Valencia in October 2024. While the EPP wanted to take down Ribera, the Socialists hoped to make life difficult for Italy’s Raffaele Fitto, who was put forward by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. While Fitto is not from the EPP (he’s from the European Conservatives and Reformists), his nomination was supported by Weber. In the end, the S&D went easier on Fitto in order to save Ribera from further attacks. After weeks of tensions — with both Weber and García visibly furious and blasting each other in briefings to the press — both Ribera and Fitto were confirmed as commissioners. The struggle highlighted that the old alliance between the EPP and the S&D was cracking, with Weber snubbing García and instead teaming up with the far right.   While they still meet to coordinate parliamentary business — often alongside Renew leader Valérie Hayer and von der Leyen — the partnership is far less effective than before. “It’s very clear they’re no longer running Parliament the way they used to,” said The Left’s Aubry. The breakdown has injected instability into the Parliament, with the once well-oiled duo no longer pre-cooking decisions, making outcomes more unpredictable. Aubry said meetings of group leaders used to take place with a deal already struck — “political theater,” as she put it. “Now we walk in and don’t know where we’ll end up,” Aubry added. “While they get along personally, the results of that cooperation are not that good,” said the second EPP MEP, adding that the alliance between the EPP and the S&D has “not really delivered.” LOOKING AHEAD TO YET MORE BATTLES The next reshuffle of top Parliament jobs is in 2027, and Weber and García are already haggling over who will get to nominate the next Parliament president. The EPP is expected to try to push for Metsola getting a third term, but the Socialists claim it’s their turn per a power-sharing agreement after the 2024 election. Officials from the EPP deny such an agreement exists while officials from Renew and the S&D say it does, although no one could show POLITICO any documentation. The EPP is expected to try to push for Roberta Metsola getting a third term, but the Socialists claim it’s their turn per a power-sharing agreement after the 2024 election. | Ronald Wittek/EPA That’s a major headache for García. The S&D’s Italian and German delegations are itching to get leadership positions, and if the Parliament presidency is off the table they could try to replace her as party chief. With tensions simmering, one Parliament official close to the pair half-joked that García and Weber should settle things over an after-work drink — but it seems the détente will have to wait. “I’d definitely go for a drink,” Weber said with a nervous laugh before noting that both are “so busy” it probably won’t happen. García, also laughing, was even less committal: “I’ve become a real homebody. I don’t go out for drinks anymore.”

Only a few days ago, President Donald Trump lashed out at Europe in an interview with POLITICO as a “decaying” group of countries with “weak” leaders. In public at least, it didn’t ruffle European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “I have always had a very good working relationship with the presidents of the United States, and this is also the case today,” von der Leyen said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist.” Now in her second term leading the EU’s lawmaking body, von der Leyen also acknowledged that Europe’s relationship with the United States is in flux, and not just because of Trump. “Of course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing,” she said. “And this is so important that we keep in mind: What is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe.” The question of European unity is front of mind as Russia’s war on Ukraine grinds on and Trump pushes harder for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal. In her interview with POLITICO, von der Leyen emphasized the need for a “just and lasting peace” with real security guarantees. “This peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately,” she said. The Russian threat also goes beyond Ukraine, of course. How long until Europe is fully able to defend itself? “That’s a good question,” von der Leyen said. “We have not the luxury of time.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with a question very much on the minds of the people in this room: Will there be a funding agreement by next week for Ukraine to keep the fight up against Russia? We’re working intensively towards a just and lasting peace. And I emphasize “just and lasting” because this peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately. In a new interview, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen discusses Russia’s war on Ukraine and Trump’s challenge to Europe. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gestures as she delivers a major state of the union speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, earlier this month. Only a few days ago, President Donald Trump lashed out at Europe in an interview with POLITICO as a “decaying” group of countries with “weak” leaders. In public at least, it didn’t ruffle European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “I have always had a very good working relationship with the presidents of the United States, and this is also the case today,” von der Leyen said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist.” Now in her second term leading the EU’s lawmaking body, von der Leyen also acknowledged that Europe’s relationship with the United States is in flux, and not just because of Trump. “Of course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing,” she said. “And this is so important that we keep in mind: What is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe.” The question of European unity is front of mind as Russia’s war on Ukraine grinds on and Trump pushes harder for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal. In her interview with POLITICO, von der Leyen emphasized the need for a “just and lasting peace” with real security guarantees. “This peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately,” she said. The Russian threat also goes beyond Ukraine, of course. How long until Europe is fully able to defend itself? “That’s a good question,” von der Leyen said. “We have not the luxury of time.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with a question very much on the minds of the people in this room: Will there be a funding agreement by next week for Ukraine to keep the fight up against Russia? We’re working intensively towards a just and lasting peace. And I emphasize “just and lasting” because this peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately.

Crops tailor-made using new gene-splicing techniques should face fewer regulations than genetically modified organisms, EU negotiators agreed Thursday.  Critics are calling it a GMO rebrand; proponents say they are bringing science back in style. The late-night negotiations — dragged across the finish line with the help of the European Parliament’s far right — capped years of haggling over how to ease the path for a new generation of gene-editing technologies developed since 2001, when the EU’s notoriously strict regulations on GMOs were adopted. The deal’s backers tout NGT’s potential to breed climate-resilient plants that need less space and fertilizers to grow, and they argue the EU is already behind global competitors using the technology. But critics fear the EU is opening the door to GMOs and giving too much power to major seed corporations.   The agreement opens the door to “unlabelled — yet patented — GM crops and foods, boosting corporate market power while undermining the rights of farmers and consumers,” warned Franziska Achterberg of Save Our Seeds, an NGO opposing GMOs, calling the deal a “complete sell-out.” INNOVATION VS. CAPITULATION European lawmakers, however, were responding to fears that outdated GMO rules were holding back progress on more recent genomic tweaks with a lighter touch — and throttling innovations worth trillions of euros.  Currently, most plants edited using new precision breeding technology — which can involve reordering their DNA, or inserting genes from the same plant or species — are covered by the same strict rules governing GMOs that contain foreign DNA.  The deal struck by the EU’s co-legislators creates two classes for these more recent techniques. “NGT1” crops — plants that have only been modified using new tech to a limited extent and are thus considered equivalent to naturally occurring strains — would be eligible for less stringent regulations. In contrast, “NGT2” plants, which have had more genetic changes and traditional GMOs will continue to face the same rules that have been in place for over 20 years.  Speaking before the final round of negotiations, Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen argued that the bloc needs to have NGTs in its toolbox if it wants to compete with China and the U.S., which are already making use of the new tech.  The deal “is about giving European farmers a fair chance to keep up” echoed center-right MEP Jessica Polfjärd, the lead negotiator on the Parliament’s side of the deal. She added that the technology will allow for the bloc to “produce more yield on less land, reduce the use of pesticides, and plant crops that can resist climate change.” Polfjärd had struggled to keep MEPs on the same page even as the bill advanced into interinstitutional negotiations. Persistent objections from left-wing lawmakers, including a key Socialist, forced her to embrace support of lawmakers from the far-right Patriots for Europe, breaking the cordon sanitaire.  Martin Häusling, the Green parliamentary negotiator, called the result miserable, saying it gives a “carte blanche for the use of new genetic engineering in plants” that threatens GMO-free agriculture.  DAVID AND GOLIATH In a hard-won victory for industry, the final legislation allows for NGT crops to be patented.  For Matthias Berninger, executive vice president at the global biotech giant Bayer, it’s just good business. “When we talk about startup culture in Europe … we also need to provide reasonable intellectual property protections,” he said in an interview. Yet safeguards meant to prevent patent-holders from accumulating too much market power don’t go far enough for Arche Noah. The NGO advocating for seed diversity in Europe, warned of a “slow-motion collapse of independent breeding, seed-diversity and farmer autonomy” if the deal makes it to law as is. They have MEP Christophe Clergeau, the Parliament’s Social-Democrat negotiator who led the last-ditch resistance.  In an interview on Thursday morning, he gave it five to 10 years before small breeders have disappeared from the bloc and farmers are “totally dependent” on the likes of Bayer and other huge companies. (Berninger said Bayer doesn’t want to inhibit small breeders by enforcing patents on them.) The deal now needs to be endorsed by the Parliament and the Council of the EU before the new rules are adopted. At the end of the day, it’s up to consumers to pass judgment, DG SANTE’s food safety and innovation chief Klaus Berend said Thursday, appearing at the POLITICO Sustainable Future Summit directly before the late-night negotiations began.  “We know that in Europe, the general attitude toward genetically modified organisms and anything around it is rather negative,” he cautioned. The key question for new genomic techniques is “how will they be accepted by consumers?” Their acceptance, Berend added, “is not a given.” Rebecca Holland contributed to this report.

The first 100 days of the new European Commission are behind us and we are seeing that the drive toward competitiveness, resilience, sustainability and growth is real. It will be pivotal that every business, sector and industry stay ahead of the curve when it comes to the development and adoption of emerging technologies, including the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) — a critical catalyst for progress. At PepsiCo, we’ve been leveraging AI for over a decade. From seed to shelf, and from farm to fork, we’ve taken an AI-first approach to fundamentally reshape how PepsiCo plans, makes, moves, sells and delivers our products. It’s been a powerful tool for our ongoing transformation, and we’ll continue to harness the power of AI — using it responsibly to benefit our business, our people and society. > we’ll continue to harness the power of AI — using it responsibly to benefit > our business, our people and society Promoting sustainable agriculture AI is a crucial enabler of productive agriculture. Every bag of Lay’s and Doritos chips or bowl of Quaker oats, begins with high-quality ingredients, grown by one of the tens of thousands of farmers in PepsiCo’s global supply chain. Across the globe we’ve partnered with farmers to capture over a million data points about crop yields, soil health, weather patterns and much more. With machine learning, data can be analyzed to identify improvements that help farmers conserve resources while increasing yields. Via Pepsico This data-driven approach empowers farmers to adopt more intelligent growing practices, driving both sustainable agriculture processes and long-term growth. Optimizing our end-to-end value chain AI has been deeply integrated across our supply chain to help us streamline production, enhance logistics and support proactive maintenance so that our products reach consumers reliably and sustainably. At our Walkers factory in the UK, we’ve implemented AI-powered sensors that monitor our machinery and equipment in real-time. By using advanced sound-based diagnostics, we’re able to decrease unplanned downtime. This allows us to deliver our products reliably and ensures our mechanics can focus on planned maintenance rather than reactive repair. Leveraging AI also enables more seamless and sustainable deliveries. We’re able to analyze traffic patterns, weather conditions and delivery schedules to quickly identify the most efficient routes for transportation. This reduces costs and minimizes the carbon footprint of our distribution network.  Empowering our workforce These are powerful examples of how AI technology complements the work and day-to-day lives of our talented teams. Our guiding principle is that AI must work hand-in-hand with human ingenuity, enhancing productivity and freeing our employees to have more time to think critically and creatively. Starting my career in academia impressed upon me the importance of remaining curious. To me, curiosity is the birthplace of creativity, which is why it’s essential to me that our people remain curious and that we provide them with opportunities to develop their skills and careers. For these reasons, we make it a priority to foster a culture of continuous learning at PepsiCo, where everyone can thrive. > Our guiding principle is that AI must work hand-in-hand with human ingenuity, > enhancing productivity and freeing our employees to have more time to think > critically and creatively. The Act highlights the importance of AI literacy, reinforcing the need for organizations to equip their employees with the knowledge and skills to leverage AI effectively. PepsiCo is already driving AI literacy internally, ensuring that our teams are ready to work alongside AI systems safely and responsibly. At PepsiCo we’re ensuring our employees are fluent in data and understand how the technologies we’re implementing work for them. This means reimagining workplace training for greater impact: PepsiCo’s Digital Academy offers more than 50,000 learning modules, covering everything from machine learning to cloud computing. And of course, it also leverages AI to deliver personalized training courses and degrees based on everyone’s role and experience.  As we continue to integrate AI into PepsiCo’s digital transformation, we recognize that it comes with some risks and are committed to deploying AI ethically and transparently. Our Responsible AI Framework is a rigorous governance process that ensures our use of AI is deployed in a way that is ethical, equitable and transparent. This commitment aligns with the principles of the EU AI Act, which emphasizes responsible AI deployment, governance and workforce upskilling. > As we continue to integrate AI into PepsiCo’s digital transformation, we > recognize that it comes with some risks and are committed to deploying AI > ethically and transparently. Looking ahead I believe it’s vital that every business adopts a proactive approach to upskilling its workforce to ensure that no one is left behind. As I travel across Europe to meet our teams, partners and stakeholders, it is encouraging to see the shared vision of how democratizing AI is key to achieving our shared goals — whether feeding the world sustainably or driving down emissions. Athina Kanioura As we continue to scale AI across PepsiCo, I believe we’re setting an example that others can follow when it comes to private-sector investment in this critical form of technology. We are eager to collaborate with the Commission and other stakeholders to unlock solutions that are practical, scalable, innovative and transformative, driving lasting impact for the communities we serve. I invite you to reach out and work with us to ensure the EU leads in the AI revolution.

The White House announced Tuesday that it had reached separate agreements with Russia and Ukraine to allow for “safe navigation” in the Black Sea, eliminating a major roadblock for peace talks between the two countries. The Trump administration, in two statements, said that technical-level talks between U.S., Russian and Ukrainian officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, resulted in agreements to “ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea.” The U.S. also said it would help restore Russia’s “access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports” and take steps to improve Moscow’s access to global shipping. Both sides, according to the U.S., also agreed to work toward the implementation of the energy infrastructure ceasefire Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to in calls with President Donald Trump earlier this month. And the U.S. reiterated its commitment to “helping achieve the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.” Neither the Kremlin nor Ukrainian government issued immediate statements, so it is unclear if the countries agreed to these exact terms. The Russian and Ukrainian embassies in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But an agreement along those lines would be a major breakthrough. The issue of shipping rights and safety in the Black Sea has vexed negotiators seeking to end Russia’s three-year invasion of Ukraine and shore up global supply chains that depend on grain, seed oil and fertilizer exports from both countries. The war has upended shipments of grain through the Black Sea, ratcheting up global fears about food shortages. Many countries in Africa and the Middle East depend on these exports to sustain their food supplies. An initial impasse was resolved in July 2022, when Turkey and the U.S. brokered the “Black Sea Grain Initiative,” which allowed vital food supplies to move through the Black Sea without threat of attack. But the deal broke down in 2023 after the Kremlin issued a new set of demands for renewing the agreement. Successive efforts by Turkey and others to restore the deal fell short, although some Ukrainian grain still manages to make it through.

The newly created [aclp.eu] Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform (ACLP) simplifies access to patented traits for European plant breeders, enabling them to leverage the latest technologies and help farmers to meet the challenges of sustainable food production. Europeans rightly expect safe food at affordable prices. But this is getting harder and harder for European farmers to do. Consumer expectations regarding quality and price keep rising, while farmers face increasing pressure to adopt sustainable practices, for example, by reducing their carbon emissions and the impact agriculture has on soil and water. Across the EU, arable farmers are increasingly confronted with drought conditions while the amount of cultivatable land is shrinking. At the same time, the EU is making trade agreements with exporters of agricultural produce that are exposing European farming to ever greater competition. European agriculture cannot afford to be left behind as producers in other parts of the world have access to the latest agricultural technologies. If farmers have access to the best available seed varieties, as well as other innovations, they can tackle these competing challenges. EU policymakers are currently negotiating new rules for developing innovative plant varieties through new genomic techniques (NGTs). These techniques allow plant breeders to introduce highly desirable characteristics such as improved drought tolerance or pest resistance, helping plants cope with challenges like water shortages or maintaining yields, without increasing the use of crop protection products or fertilisers. These sought-after traits can be enhanced by speeding up traditional plant breeding techniques, which, until now, have required long-term work crossing varieties to develop desired traits. Plant breeding can focus, for example, on developing varieties with shorter stems, that are more resistant to heavy rain. It can also improve plants’ resistance to common diseases, such as rhizomania, a common disease affecting sugar beet crops. NGTs use very precise genome-editing tools to target the traits breeders want to enhance in a plant’s own DNA. The precise targeting means that the desired characteristics can be boosted in a single generation rather than the dozens or hundreds that traditional plant breeding requires. Unlike genetic modification, NGTs do not introduce genetic material from other organisms. They work with the material that is already a natural part of the plant’s DNA. If we want European farmers to continue to produce safe, affordable food and farm in an environmentally sustainable way, we need to ensure that plant breeders have access to the latest plant technologies in their already shrinking toolbox. > If we want European farmers to continue to produce safe, affordable food and > farm in an environmentally sustainable way, we need to ensure that plant > breeders have access to the latest plant technologies(…) Currently, for many breeders across the EU, making the most of the latest varieties can involve navigating the complex world of patents. Intellectual property (IP) protection, which includes patents, is often portrayed as blocking access to an innovative technology. In actual fact, it’s not. IP protection plays a crucial role in ensuring access to and safeguarding scientific progress by securing a fair return on investment for researchers. In Europe, plant varieties can be protected under the Plant Breeders’ Rights system, which grants breeders the ability to market their innovations while allowing others to use them for further breeding. However, technological inventions, such as new traits or breeding techniques, may be protected by patents, provided they meet certain legal requirements, which include being genuinely inventive and having an industrial application. In this case, users have access to the patented technology through different mechanisms such as licensing. Effective IP protection ensures that innovators benefit from their inventions. This encourages healthy competition, which leads, in turn, to more innovation. > Effective IP protection ensures that innovators benefit from their inventions. > This encourages healthy competition, which leads, in turn, to more innovation. This can be a complex environment to navigate, especially for breeders who are not trained as IP specialists. Small businesses that want to use patented innovations can face obstacles such as lack of transparency regarding the existence of a patented trait, complexity in negotiating with a patent holder, and insecurity about fair terms and conditions. These time-consuming and expensive processes can lead some companies to refrain from breeding new varieties with the latest innovations or to fear they might be infringing patents when using a new variety released on the market. In order to reduce this complexity, plant breeders have launched several initiatives such as platforms to improve transparency around patented traits and to facilitate access to patents. These platforms strike a balance between rewarding innovation and ensuring fair availability so no single organization can monopolize critical patented inventions. For over a decade, the International Licensing Platform (ILP), has been providing access to patented traits in vegetable crops. Recognising the need for a similar system in other crops, European plant breeding companies sought to expand this model to a wider range of crops, including corn, sunflower, cereals, sugar beet, potatoes, fruit and flowers. In 2023, a group of European plant breeding companies came together to launch the Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform (ACLP), with the aim of facilitating fair access to patented traits and promoting innovation across multiple crop types. This new platform makes it easy for breeders to access current and future technologies. Instead of having to worry about complex patent rules, all they need to do is enter a standard licensing agreement and agree on a royalty fee with the patent holder. If they cannot reach an agreement within six months, they have the right to go to arbitration at the end of which they are guaranteed to get a license to use the patented variety. This system covers over 95% of all patented traits currently available on the market in Europe. The ACLP has been developed by plant breeders as a way to ensure that seed companies can offer their customers the best available varieties to deal with the competing challenges faced by European agriculture. > The ACLP has been developed by plant breeders as a way to ensure that seed > companies can offer their customers the best available varieties to deal with > the competing challenges faced by European agriculture.   If we want European farmers and Europe’s agriculture to remain competitive and produce food in a sustainable way, we must continue to enable access to the best plant varieties that the latest technologies can provide. #EnablingInnovation | www.aclp.eu | LinkedIn: ACLP – The Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform

KYIV — Donald Trump’s deeply controversial rare minerals deal with Ukraine got an unexpected backer Monday — former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Johnson — in office in the U.K. during Ukraine’s full-scale invasion by Russia in 2022 and a staunch supporter of Kyiv since then — said he had seen the latest draft of the proposals, and insisted it is more favorable to Ukraine than the first draft. The deal — openly criticized by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy amid a sharp downturn in United States-Ukraine relations — involves the U.S. gaining preferential access to hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Ukraine’s critical minerals. The Trump administration had demanded that access as payback for already-provided aid for Ukraine’s fightback against Russia, and has publicly declined to offer clear security guarantees or prospects of future aid for Kyiv in return. But signing it is, Johnson argued, the only way to move forward. His comments came amid signs Ukraine itself is now moving closer to an agreement with the U.S. “I look at this document, and I see positive things for Ukraine,” Johnson told the annual Yalta European Strategy conference, a political gathering organized by the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation. “I think it contains the seeds of hope and of progress.” LEND-LEASE Johnson drew parallels between the proposed agreement and Lend-Lease, the Second World War-era U.S. program aimed at resupplying allies — including with long-term loans. The former British leader said: “Yes, it’s extortionate looked at one way, but so was Lend-Lease in 1941, wasn’t it? Americans. Absolutely stiffed us. Stiffed us.” He added: “I understand how troubling it is to think that this deal might be rapacious for your country. But I really think that we need to move through this phase, recognize what this deal really is.” “This is something that Donald Trump can say to his right wing, to the Republican Ukraine skeptics, that he has secured. And I think it holds the prospect of progress.” Johnson said the current draft of the proposal now commits the United States to a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine. In a brief comment to POLITICO, Johnson seconded what Zelenskyy had claimed earlier Sunday — that $500 billion compensation demand to the U.S. is also no longer in the latest draft of the deal. “Ukrainians negotiated quite well,” Johnson said from the stage of the conference. It comes after a senior Ukrainian official said Monday that the contours of a deal were now coming into view. “Ukrainian and U.S. teams are in the final stages of negotiations regarding the minerals agreement,” Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Olga Stefanishyna said in a post on X. “The negotiations have been very constructive, with nearly all key details finalized. We are committed to completing this swiftly to proceed with its signature.” Back in London, the British government faced questions about the capacity Johnson — who is no longer an elected politician — was acting in as cheerleader for the agreement. Current Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s official spokesperson told journalists only that they did not have “any details of his engagements” and stressed that the U.K. is “focused on everything we can do” to support Ukraine. Since leaving office, Johnson has lobbied Trump — and fellow U.S. Republicans — to maintain U.S. support for Ukraine. More recently, Johnson has attacked “headless chicken-ism” among European capitals in response to Trump’s push to end the war, and downplayed the U.S. president’s more outlandish statements on the conflict as being designed to “shock” Europe into action.

President-elect Donald Trump isn’t ruling out using military force as he seeks to annex Greenland and regain control over the Panama Canal. The extraordinary remarks, which came during a wide-ranging press conference at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, represent the latest evolution of Trump’s “America First” agenda from the isolationist approach of his first term to a more interventionist one, seeking to annex new territory and stamp America’s name around the world. They foreshadow the dramatic and transformational effect that Trump’s second presidency could have globally — and have already forced other world leaders to respond. “Since we won the election, a couple of months since we won the election, the whole perception of the whole world is different. People from other countries have called me, ‘Thank you. Thank you,’” Trump said. “We’re going to have to settle some big problems that are going on right now.” The president-elect will enter office later this month with wars raging in Ukraine and in the Middle East, and with Russia and China continuing to ramp up their strategic positions on the global stage. He comes with promises of a robust set of tariffs likely to put the U.S. at odds with most of the rest of the world, including its neighbors in Mexico and Canada. Trump on Tuesday doubled down on his interest in annexing both Greenland and Canada, both for strategic and economic reasons. He promised that he wouldn’t use military force, only economic pressure, to make Canada the 51st U.S. state but didn’t make the same promise regarding Greenland. Tapping into his personal history of slapping his name on his buildings, Trump pledged in his press conference to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” Trump attributed his seemingly remarkable shift in worldview to the changed geopolitical landscape between his tenures as president. He claimed that in his first administration, he “defeated ISIS” and “had no wars.” Now, he said, he is returning to power with “a world that is burning.” While many of the president-elect’s foreign policy promises appear incongruous with his long-held domestic-first mentality, Trump argued repeatedly on Tuesday that these moves are all in the interest of national security and economic prosperity. His remarks come as members of his family and incoming administration are fanning out across the globe to sow the seeds of a more global MAGA agenda. Donald Trump Jr., the president-elect’s son, made an unofficial visit to Greenland on Tuesday with longtime Trump allies Segior Gor and Charlie Kirk to film content for a podcast. He is not scheduled to attend any meetings with Greenlandic government officials. Trump has long favored buying the autonomous territory — which is not only of strategic importance to the U.S. but comes with abundant natural resources, including rare earth minerals — from Denmark and last attempted to do so in 2019. “The people [of Greenland] are going to probably vote for independence or to come into the United States,” Trump predicted. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, in response to Trump Jr.’s visit, forcefully pushed back on the idea that the territory is for sale, saying Tuesday that “Greenland belongs to Greenlanders.” “On one hand, I am pleased regarding the rise in American interest in Greenland,” Frederiksen told Danish broadcaster TV 2. “But of course it is important that it takes place in a way where it is the Greenlanders’ decision, what their future holds.” Meanwhile, the president-elect threatened that “all hell will break out in the Middle East” if a hostage release is not negotiated between Israel and Hamas by the time he takes office in less than two weeks. “It will not be good for Hamas, and it will not be good, frankly, for anyone,” he added. Trump’s announced special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff — fresh off a trip to Doha, Qatar — said in a brief appearance alongside the president-elect that negotiators are “on the verge” of a deal to release Israeli hostages. Witkoff attributed that progress to Trump. “His stature, what he says he expects, the red lines he’s put out there — that’s driving this negotiation,” he said. Trump also reiterated his interest in retaking control of the Panama Canal and blasted former President Jimmy Carter’s decision to transfer control of the canal to Panama for $1. The remarks took on even greater significance this week as Carter lies in state in the Capitol Rotunda and as U.S. and foreign dignitaries gather for his funeral at the National Cathedral on Thursday. Trump said he “liked” Carter “as a man” but was “strongly against” the former president’s decision to relinquish control. Even as he flirted with a U.S. takeover of Canada, Trump weighed in with who he thinks should take over as the country’s next prime minister, with Justin Trudeau stepping aside, saying he suggested to hockey legend Wayne Gretzky that he should toss his hat into the ring. In Trump’s retelling of the conversation between the two men, Gretzky replied by asking whether he’d be running for prime minister — or governor. “Let’s make it governor,” Trump told him. “I like it better.”

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe. Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked about recasting the Middle East and he’s done much to do so, through the humiliation of Hezbollah and the uprooting of Hamas. But arguably the biggest factor reshaping the troubled region has come over the past 10 days with a stunning rebel offensive in Syria that’s ended the Assad family’s half-century-long rule. The rapid sweep by a coalition of armed opposition groups led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an al Qaeda breakaway designated a terror group by the United States, saw rebels at first burst out of an enclave in northwest Syria on Nov. 27. Then there was the capture in quick succession of Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city, Hama and then Homs, which in 2012 saw an epic battle between rebels and government forces. By Saturday, the rebels were in Damascus and Bashar Assad had fled, concluding the 10 days that shook the Middle East. All the more surprising — some might argue suspicious — is the ease with which the offensive unfolded and the absence of any serious government resistance. It wasn’t entirely a bloodless campaign and shots were fired — monitoring groups say 820 people have been killed since the start of the HTS-led offensive — but the lightning rapidity and ease of the offensive and the melting away of government forces raise questions, as does the failure of Assad’s allies Russia and Iran to do much to disrupt the rebels and save him. The questions include whether there was any rebel coordination with elements inside the Assad regime. Despite claims by Mohammad Khaled al-Rahmoun, Syria’s interior minister, that the Assad regime had built “a very strong security and military cordon,” rebel fighters arrived in Damascus on Saturday facing little if any opposition. And as thousands of people gathered in squares in the capital to celebrate the end of Assad’s rule, there was an almost scripted trading of announcements. The country’s prime minister, Mohammad Ghazi al-Jalali, said in a video message posted online that he remained at home and was prepared to cooperate with the transfer of power to “any leadership chosen by the Syrian people.” Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the 42-year-old leader of HTS, said Syria’s official institutions would remain under the control of the prime minister until they were in due course handed over. Or was the astonishing implosion of the Syrian regime exclusively the result of its rottenness and a sudden realization by Assad’s supporters that nothing could be done to save his corrupt and shabby government, whose main source of funding was from sales of the Captagon drug? Al-Jolani himself pointed to the rottenness of the regime to explain Assad’s speedy ouster. Just the day before Damascus fell, he sat down with CNN and argued “the seeds of the regime’s defeat have always been within it.” He added: “The Iranians attempted to revive the regime, buying it time, and later the Russians also tried to prop it up. But the truth remains: This regime is dead.” As the offensive unfolded others agreed with al-Jolani, who has seemingly now dropped his nom de guerre and is using his birth name Ahmed al-Sharaa. They noted how fragile the regime appeared. “The Syrian Arab Army is a hollowed-out shell, far weaker than its ostensible numbers and weapons would indicate,” said former U.S. diplomat Alberto M. Fernandez. “Syria is an economic basket case. Officers supplement their meager salaries by taking bribes for soldiers to take extended leave and work at other jobs back home. Some units seem to have broken and fled after losing their officers.” Nonetheless, al-Jolani’s role in the 10-day offensive shouldn’t be downplayed. His assembling of more than a dozen frequently fractious rebel factions, his securing of an apparent buy-in by the rebels’ patron Turkey, and the campaign’s effective execution speak volumes to his own formidable skills as military commander and political leader, which were also on display when he managed to engineer a formal split from al Qaeda in 2016 without violent consequences. At the time, he said the break had to be made because he didn’t want to give a “pretext” for the United States and Russia to conduct airstrikes against the wider rebel movement. Success indeed has many fathers and so too with this copy-book rebel advance. Turkey’s role should be seen as crucial. As the offensive unfolded, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his aides denied having any hand in it, with the Turkish leader coyly presenting himself as a spectator. But by Friday, as the rebels bore down on the Syrian capital, the tune changed and Erdoğan openly endorsed the rebel offensive, saying he wanted it to continue without incident. “Idlib, Hama, Homs, and the target, of course, is Damascus. The opposition’s march continues,” he told reporters, adding: “We made a call to Assad. We said: ‘Come, let’s determine the future of Syria together.’ Unfortunately, we did not receive a positive response to this.” Few observers believe the offensive could have gone ahead without Ankara’s knowledge and approval. According to Hadi al-Bahra, the head of a Syrian rebel opposition group recognized by the international community, preparations for the offensive had been in the making since last year — preparations that involved HTS, as well as more than a dozen militias in the Turkey-sponsored Syrian National Army, which has been mainly focused on fighting the Syrian Kurds alongside tens of thousands of Turkish troops encamped in northern Syria. And according to an intelligence briefing released by the Soufan Center, a research group founded by former U.S. and U.K. intelligence officers and diplomats, “the Aleppo offensive … was delayed when Turkey intervened, altering the timing.” The Turkish president and Assad were once allies, but Erdoğan backed the rebellion against the Syrian autocrat when it began in 2011. Since then, he has seized a strip of land along the border and has even toyed at times with annexing part of northern Syria, tauntingly suggesting publicly that Turkey has historical rights to do so. The final nails in Assad’s political coffin were hammered in not by foes but his allies — Iran and Russia. Their inaction eased the rebels’ advance, according to Syrian Kurdish leaders. “The size of the Russian response, will determine the course of developments,” said Syrian Kurdish activist Idris Nassan, as the offensive gathered steam. U.S. officials agreed that the collapse of Assad’s frontlines had much to do with the absence of any serious Iranian or Russian action — whether from inability or unwillingness because of Ukraine and Lebanon remains unclear. Amos Hochstein, U.S. envoy to the Middle East, noted at a regional conference in Qatar that Iran appeared to be “pulling out of Syria to some degree.”  And over the weekend, Russia appeared to be doing the same thing with reports that it was in the process of relocating warships from its naval base at Tartus.

At the start of the EU’s new mandate, we have the chance to reset the agenda for life sciences. Just imagine if the next generation of therapies were developed right here in Europe. Imagine if they could change the course of public health, helping Europeans to live longer and feel better. Over the last 20 years, Europe has lost a quarter of its share of global research and development (R&D) investment to other, more ambitious regions like the US and China. We believe now is the time to come together and build a strategy that can help address Europe’s competitiveness challenges in life sciences , while equipping member states with the tools they need to address their health concerns. > We believe now is the time to come together and build a strategy that can help > address Europe’s competitiveness challenges in life sciences. Mario Draghi’s report on competitiveness was a positive indicator that Europe is waking up to this crisis. EU productivity declined by 1.2 percent year on year in the last quarter of 2023 – while, in contrast, US productivity rose by 2.6 percent. This trend is mirrored in life sciences. Despite contributing more to Europe’s trade balance than any other sector, our share of global R&D investment, advanced manufacturing and clinical trials has been falling. The US now spends $25 billion more than Europe on medical R&D. Back in 2002, that figure was just $2 billion. Europe’s share of global R&D investments has dropped from 41 percent in 2001 to just 31 percent today, while China’s share has surged from 1 percent to 8 percent. As CEOs of global pharmaceutical companies, we regularly make decisions on where to locate research, development and manufacturing. These decisions are based on a range of factors that in combination, afford us the best chance of discovering, developing and delivering new medicines that can transform patients’ lives. The Covid-19 pandemic underscored, perhaps like never before, that our health and economic growth are inextricably linked . With over 9,000 medicines and vaccines in development, contributing €311 billion to the EU economy and supporting 2.3 million jobs in the EU, our sector is in a unique position to help Europeans live longer and feel better while driving EU growth and resilience. > The Covid-19 pandemic underscored, perhaps like never before, that our health > and economic growth are inextricably linked Europe has great potential, a highly skilled workforce, cutting-edge science and world-renowned academic institutions. Our companies have a strong footprint in Europe – and we are committed to working with the EU and its member states to address the issues that are standing in their way becoming a world leader in medical innovation. 1. It starts with leadership and accountability. 1. We were encouraged by President Ursula von der Leyen’s inclusion of a life sciences strategy for Europe in the political guidelines for the next mandate of the European Commission and its subsequent inclusion in the mission letters for commissioners-designates. Responsibility for policies that affect our sector sit across multiple commission directorates. This can lead to a fragmented legislative environment where contradictory and incoherent policies have real-life consequences for life sciences companies operating in Europe. Dedicated leadership, oversight and accountability for its successful delivery would give a European life sciences strategy the best chance of success. This must include a reality check on existing legislation to facilitate a new level of policy coherence, making Europe a more competitive place to discover, develop and manufacture new medicines. 2. And continues with collaboration. At Novo Nordisk, Bayer and Ipsen, we have generations of experience in discovering, developing and delivering new treatments that have transformed patients’ lives. As an industry, we invest a greater percentage of revenue back into R&D than any other sector. That experience has led to a deep understanding of the process of translating the seed of an idea into an innovative treatment and getting these to patients at pace and scale as well as what inspires, fosters and supports medical innovation in a region. We want European patients to benefit from these breakthroughs at the earliest possible opportunity. We are keen to offer this energy, experience and expertise and to work with the EU and member states to help define the content, deliverables and metrics of a European life sciences strategy that can really make a difference. 3. Recognition of health innovation as an investment rather than a cost If Europe is to be the engine room of new discoveries, our healthcare systems need to be able to adapt and integrate innovations quickly and efficiently. Health expenditure should not be viewed as simply a cost to the system but as a critical investment in Europe’s collective future. > If Europe is to be the engine room of new discoveries, our healthcare systems > need to be able to adapt and integrate innovations quickly and efficiently Only if we recognize this can we start a real conversation on how investing in prevention, digitalization and upgrading our health infrastructure can lead to savings for health systems. These savings can be used to invest in new breakthrough technologies, improve mental health care services, fund the green transition, or finance a stronger, more secure Europe for generations to come, all while attracting inward investment and driving growth. A call to action for a competitive, resilient and healthy Europe The holistic view of our sector taken from the Draghi report recognizes the industry’s strategic importance to European resilience, its economy and health. Our sector can be a driver for achieving the “first and most important” area of action identified by Draghi: “Europe must profoundly refocus its collective efforts on closing the innovation gap”. We have been making this case consistently – and if we can achieve this in pharmaceuticals, we will change lives across Europe and the world. Doing so will require wide-ranging reform, but as the leadership of EFPIA, we are ready for real dialogue on how to reality-check existing legislation and develop a truly transformative life sciences strategy for Europe. > The holistic view of our sector taken from the Draghi report recognizes the > industry’s strategic importance to European resilience, its economy and health