Europeans’ world-leading drinking habits are putting their health at risk, but governments are failing to use higher taxes to help curb consumption, warned the World Health Organization. Beer has become more affordable in 11 EU countries since 2022, and less affordable in six, the WHO report revealed Tuesday. There was a similar but even more dramatic trend for spirits, which became more affordable in 17 EU countries and less affordable in two. And for wine, 14 EU countries do not tax it at all, including big producers Italy and Spain, the report found. The EU includes seven of the 10 countries with the highest per-capita alcohol consumption globally, with Romania, Latvia and Czechia among the biggest drinkers. Alcohol is a major driver of cancer, with risk scaling alongside higher consumption. It’s also linked to a wide range of illnesses including cardiovascular disease and depression, all of which are adding pressure to stretched health systems. The WHO said governments should target alcohol consumption to protect people from its ill effects. Increasing the cost of booze through taxes is one of the most effective measures governments can take, the WHO said. Yet, some EU countries have minimal or no taxes on certain types of alcohol. The fact that more than half of EU countries don’t tax wine at all is “unusual” by international standards, WHO economist Anne-Marie Perucic said. She pointed out that the more affordable alcohol is, the more people consume. “Excluding a product is not common. It’s always for political reasons, socio-economic reasons [like] trying to protect the local industry. Clearly, it doesn’t make sense from a health perspective,” Perucic told POLITICO. Those 14 countries span the EU’s northern and central regions, such as Germany, Austria and Bulgaria. “More affordable alcohol drives violence, injuries and disease,” said Etienne Krug, director of the WHO’s department of health determinants, promotion and prevention. “While industry profits, the public often carries the health consequences and society the economic costs.” The EU has touted its plans to protect its wine industry from threats including declining consumption and climate change. EU institutions agreed a package of measures to prop up the sector in December. Meanwhile, the European Commission recently backed down from proposing an EU-wide tax on alcopops; the sweet, pre-mixed alcoholic drinks that taste like sodas, as part of its Safe Hearts plan.  In a separate report, the WHO reported that sugary drinks have also become more affordable in 13 EU countries since 2022, data published in a separate WHO report found. A diet high in sugar is linked to obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver disease and certain cancers.

Europe’s biggest ever trade deal finally got the nod Friday after 25 years of negotiating.  It took blood, sweat, tears and tortured discussions to get there, but EU countries at last backed the deal with the Mercosur bloc — paving the way to create a free trade area that covers more than 700 million people across Europe and Latin America.  The agreement, which awaits approval from the European Parliament, will eliminate more than 90 percent of tariffs on EU exports. European shoppers will be able to dine on grass-fed beef from the Argentinian pampas. Brazilian drivers will see import duties on German motors come down.  As for the accord’s economic impact, well, that pales in comparison with the epic battles over it: The European Commission estimates it will add €77.6 billion (or 0.05 percent) to the EU economy by 2040.  Like in any deal, there are winners and losers. POLITICO takes you through who is uncorking their Malbec, and who, on the other hand, is crying into the Bordeaux. WINNERS Giorgia Meloni Italy’s prime minister has done it again. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal.  The end result? In exchange for its support, Rome was able to secure farm market safeguards and promises of fresh agriculture funding from the European Commission — wins that the government can trumpet in front of voters back home. It also means that Meloni has picked the winning side once more, coming off as the team player despite the last-minute holdup. All in all, yet another laurel in Rome’s crown.  The German car industry  Das Auto hasn’t had much reason to cheer of late, but Mercosur finally gives reason to celebrate. Germany’s famed automotive sector will have easier access to consumers in LatAm. Lower tariffs mean, all things being equal, more sales and a boost to the bottom line for companies like Volkswagen and BMW. There are a few catches. Tariffs, now at 35 percent, aren’t coming down all at once. At the behest of Brazil, which hosts an auto industry of its own, the removal of trade barriers will be staggered. Electric vehicles will be given preferential treatment, an area that Europe’s been lagging behind on.  Ursula von der Leyen Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Since shaking hands on the deal with Mercosur leaders more than a year ago, her team has bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of the skeptics and build the all-important qualified majority that finally materialized Friday. Expect a victory lap next week, when the Berlaymont boss travels to Paraguay to sign the agreement. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal. | Ettore Ferrari/EPA On the international stage, it also helps burnish Brussels’ standing at a time when the bloc looks like a lumbering dinosaur, consistently outmaneuvered by the U.S. and China. A large-scale trade deal shows that the rules-based international order that the EU so cherishes is still alive, even as the U.S. whisked away a South American leader in chains.  But the deal came at a very high cost. Von der Leyen had to promise EU farmers €45 billion in subsidies to win them over, backtracking on efforts to rein in agricultural support in the EU budget and invest more in innovation and growth.   Europe’s farmers  Speaking of farmers, going by the headlines you could be forgiven for thinking that Mercosur is an unmitigated disaster. Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right?  The reality is a little bit more complicated. The deal comes with strict quotas for categories ranging from beef to poultry. In effect, Latin American farmers will be limited to exporting a couple of chicken breasts per European person per year. Meanwhile, the deal recognizes special protections for European producers for specialty products like Italian parmesan or French wine, who stand to benefit from the expanded market. So much for the agri-pocalpyse now.  Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Then there’s the matter of the €45 billion of subsidies going into farmers’ pockets, and it’s hard not to conclude that — despite all the tractor protests and manure fights in downtown Brussels — the deal doesn’t smell too bad after all.  LOSERS Emmanuel Macron  There’s been no one high-ranking politician more steadfast in their opposition to the trade agreement than France’s President Emmanuel Macron who, under enormous domestic political pressure, has consistently opposed the deal. It’s no surprise then that France joined Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary to unsuccessfully vote against Mercosur.  The former investment banker might be a free-trading capitalist at heart, but he knows well that, domestically, the deal is seen as a knife in the back of long-suffering Gallic growers. Macron, who is burning through prime ministers at rates previously reserved for political basket cases like Italy, has had precious few wins recently. Torpedoing the free trade agreement, or at least delaying it further, would have been proof that the lame-duck French president still had some sway on the European stage.  Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right? | Darek Delmanowicz/EPA Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. That’s all come to nought. After this latest defeat, expect more lambasting of the French president in the national media, as Macron continues his slow-motion tumble down from the Olympian heights of the Élysée Palace.  Donald Trump Coming within days of the U.S. mission to snatch Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and put him on trial in New York, the Mercosur deal finally shows that Europe has no shortage of soft power to work constructively with like-minded partners — if it actually has the wit to make use of it smartly.  Any trade deal should be seen as a win-win proposition for both sides, and that is just not the way U.S. President Donald Trump and his art of the geopolitical shakedown works. It also has the incidental benefit of strengthening his adversaries — including Brazilian President and Mercosur head honcho Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — who showed extraordinary patience as he waited on the EU to get their act together (and nurtured a public bromance with Macron even as the trade talks were deadlocked). China  China has been expanding exports to Latin America, particularly Brazil, during the decades when the EU was negotiating the Mercosur trade deal. The EU-Mercosur deal is an opportunity for Europe to claw back some market share, especially in competitive sectors like automotive, machines and aviation. The deal also strengthens the EU’s hand on staying on top when it comes to direct investments, an area where European companies are still outshining their Chinese competitors. Emmanuel Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/EPA More politically, China has somewhat succeeded in drawing countries like Brazil away from Western points of view, for instance via the BRICS grouping, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and other developing economies. Because the deal is not only about trade but also creates deeper political cooperation, Lula and his Mercosur counterparts become more closely linked to Europe. The Amazon rainforest  Unfortunately, for the world’s ecosystem, Mercosur means one thing: burn, baby, burn. The pastures that feed Brazil’s herds come at the expense of the nation’s once-sprawling, now-shrinking tropical rainforest. Put simply, more beef for Europe means less trees for the world. It’s not all bad news for the climate. The trade deal does include both mandatory safeguards against illegal deforestation, as well as a commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement for its signatories. 

BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is determined to travel to South America next week to sign the EU’s long-delayed trade pact with the Mercosur bloc, but she’s having to make last-minute pledges to Europe’s farmers in order to board that flight. EU countries are set to make a pivotal decision on Friday on whether the contentious deal with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — which has been more than a quarter of a century in the making — will finally get over the line. It’s still not certain that von der Leyen can secure the majority she needs on Friday; everything boils down to whether Italy, the key swing voter, will support the accord. To secure Rome’s backing, von der Leyen on Tuesday rolled out some extra budget promises on farm funding. The target was clear: Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose refusal to back the Mercosur agreement forced von der Leyen to cancel her planned signing trip in December. At its heart, the Mercosur agreement is a drive by Europe’s big manufacturers to sell more cars, machinery and chemicals in Latin America, while the agri powerhouses of the southern hemisphere will secure greater access to sell food to Europe — a prospect that terrifies EU farmers. While Germany and Spain have long led the charge for a deal, France and Poland are dead-set against. That leaves Italy as the key member country poised to cast the deciding vote. Von der Leyen’s letter on Tuesday was carefully choreographed political theater. Writing to the EU Council presidency and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, she offered earlier access to up to €45 billion in agricultural funding under the bloc’s next long-term budget, while reaffirming €293.7 billion in farm spending after 2027. POLITICO was the first to report on Monday that the declaration was in the works. She insisted the measures in her letter would “provide the farmers and rural communities with an unprecedented level of support, in some respects even higher than in the current budget cycle.” The money isn’t new — it’s being brought forward from an existing pot in the EU’s next long-term budget — but governments can now lock it in for farmers early, before it is reassigned during later budget negotiations. Von der Leyen framed the move as offering stability and crisis readiness, giving Meloni a tangible win she can parade to her powerful farm lobby. WILL MELONI BACK MERCOSUR? The big question is whether Italy will view von der Leyen’s promises as going far enough ahead of the crunch meeting on Friday. Early signs suggested Rome might be softening. Meloni issued a statement saying the farm funding pledge was “a positive and significant step forward in the negotiations leading to the new EU budget,” but conspicuously avoided making a direct link to Mercosur. (French President Emmanuel Macron also welcomed von der Leyen’s letter, but there’s no prospect of Paris backing Mercosur on Friday.) taly’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose refusal to back the Mercosur agreement forced Ursula von der Leyen to cancel her planned signing trip in December. | Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Nicola Procaccini, a close Meloni ally in the European Parliament, told POLITICO: “We are moving in the right direction to enable Italy to sign Mercosur.” Right direction, but not yet at the destination? The government in Rome would not comment on whether it was about to back the deal. Germany, the EU’s industrial kingpin, is keen to secure a Mercosur agreement to boost its exports, but is still wary as to whether sufficient support exists to finalize an accord on Friday. A German official cautioned everything was still to play for. “A qualified majority is emerging, but it’s not a done deal yet. Until we have the result, there’s no reason to sit back and relax,” the official said. Optimism is growing regarding Rome in the pro-Mercosur camp, however. After all, the pact is widely viewed as strongly in the interests not only of Italy’s engineering companies, but also of its high-end wine and food producers, which are big exporters to South America. Additional curveballs are being thrown by Romania and Czechia, said one EU diplomat, who expressed concern they could turn against the deal on Friday, reducing any majority to very tight margins. The diplomat said they believed Italy would back the deal, however. FINAL STRETCH? The maneuvering is set to continue on Wednesday, when agriculture ministers descend on Brussels for what the Commission is billing as a “political meeting” after December’s farm protests. Officially, Mercosur isn’t on the agenda. Unofficially, however, it’s expected to be omnipresent — in the corridors, in the side meetings, and in the questions ministers choose not to answer. Farm ministers don’t approve trade deals, but the optics matter. Von der Leyen needs momentum — and cover — ahead of Friday’s vote. France — the country most hostile to the deal — will be vocal. On Wednesday, French Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard is expected to open yet another offensive — this time for a lower trigger on emergency safeguards related to the deal. This would reopen a compromise already struck between EU governments, the Parliament and the Commission. It’s a familiar tactic: Keep pushing. “France is still not satisfied with the proposals made by the Commission,” a French agriculture ministry official told reporters on Tuesday, while acknowledging that there has been some improvement. “Paris’ strategy for this week is still to continue to look for a blocking minority.” “Italy has its own strategy, we have ours,” added the official, who was granted anonymity in line with the rules for French government briefings. France’s allies, notably Poland, are equally blunt. Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski said the priority was simply “to block this agreement.” If that failed, Warsaw would seek maximum safeguards and compensation. That means it’s all coming down to the wire on Friday. A second failure to dispatch von der Leyen to finalize the agreement would be deeply embarrassing, and would only stoke Berlin’s anger at other EU countries thwarting the deal. For now, it’s still unclear whether von der Leyen will board that plane. Bartosz Brzeziński reported from Brussels, Giorgio Leali reported from Paris, and Nette Nöstlinger reported from Berlin.

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: The year that was. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch’s last hurrah of 2025 saw everyone’s favorite duo row about the turkey Labour’s record over the last 12 months — and who caused the nightmare before Christmas. Pull the other one: Badenoch wished everyone a festive break in the season of goodwill — but then the gloves came off. She raised the PM’s own frustration at pulling levers but struggling to get change (Labour’s favorite word). “Does he blame himself or the levers?” Cutting. Starmer used the free airtime to rattle through his achievements, stressing “I’ve got a whole list … I could go on for a very long time.” Comparisons to Santa write themselves. Jobbing off:  “The Prime Minister promised economic growth, but the only thing that’s grown is his list of broken promises,” Badenoch hit back. This list analogy was really gaining momentum. She lambasted rising unemployment under Labour, yet the PM was able to point to lower inactivity under his watch and, of course, mentioned the boost of falling inflation this morning. Backhanded compliment: Starmer, no doubt desperate for a rest, used the imminent break to “congratulate” Badenoch for breaking a record on the number of Tories defecting to Reform UK. “The question is who’s next,” he mused, enjoying the chance to focus on the Conservatives’ threat to their right, rather than Labour’s troubles to its left. Clucking their tongues: Outraged at her Shadow Cabinet getting called non-entities, Badenoch kept the seasonal attacks going by labeling the Cabinet a “bunch of turkeys.” She said Starmer was no longer a caretaker PM but the “undertaker prime minister.” Bruising stuff. Last orders: Amid all the metaphorical tinsel and bells of holly, Starmer adopted a lawyerly tone on Labour’s support for pubs (even though many greasy spoons have banned Labour MPs) and condemned ongoing industrial action by resident doctors. But the Tory leader went out on (possibly) a new low by arguing Starmer “doesn’t have the baubles” to ban medical staff from striking and said all Labour MPs want “is a new leader.” Grab the mince pies: The prime minister’s speechwriters clearly did their homework with Starmer, not a natural on the humor front, comparing the Tories to “The Muppets Christmas Carol” and joking that all the defections meant Badenoch would be “left Home Alone.” Penalty shootout: Hold the homepage — PMQs actually delivered a news line. The PM confirmed the government issued a licence to transfer to Ukraine £2.5 billion of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich’s cash from his sale of Chelsea football club. Starmer told Abramovich to “pay up now,” or he’d be taken to court. Teal bauble: The end-of-year vibes allowed Starmer to deploy a festive jibe of advice to Reform UK: “If mysterious men from the East appear bearing gifts, this time, report it to the police!” Labour just won’t let ex-Reform UK Leader in Wales Nathan Gill’s conviction for pro-Russian bribery go. Even Nigel Farage, sat up above in the VIP public gallery, had a chuckle, admitting “that’s quite funny” to nearby hacks. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Tipton and Wednesbury MP Antonia Bance commended the government’s efforts to support the West Midlands by striking the U.S. trade deal, ripping into Reform. The PM just couldn’t resist another attack line against his party’s main opponent. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 8/10. Badenoch 5/10. The final PMQs exchange was never going to be a serious exchange, given the opportunity to make Christmas gags. The Tory leader followed a scattergun approach, highlighting the various broken promises, but none landed a blow. The PM, doubtless relieved to bag a few weeks away from the interrogation, brushed them off and used his pre-scripted lines to deliver a solid concluding performance.

PARIS — In France, getting rid of governments is now about as commonplace as complaining about them. François Bayrou is bracing to become the latest prime minister to get the chop on Monday ― primarily because of discontent over his spending plans for next year ― leaving President Emmanuel Macron on the hunt for a fifth PM in less than two years. The political crisis could have ramifications far beyond the halls of power in Paris if lawmakers can’t figure out how to rein in runaway public spending and a massive budget deficit. Here’s everything you need to know about the drama ahead: HE’S DEFINITELY GOING, RIGHT? Yes, it’s pretty much nailed on that Bayrou will fall. Anything else would need a last-minute U-turn from a big chunk of opposition lawmakers, and that would be a massive shock. His fate seem sealed in the hours after he unveiled his plan for a confidence vote late last month, when leaders from the far-left France Unbowed, far-right National Rally and center-left Socialist Party all announced they would vote to bring down the government. Neither Bayrou’s PR blitz nor his meetings with political leaders last week appear to have moved the needle. SO WHAT’S HAPPENING MONDAY? Bayrou is delivering what’s known as a d´eclaration de politique générale (general policy statement), a speech traditionally given at the outset of a prime minister’s tenure to lay out an incoming government’s platform and priorities. (It’s a bit like a state of the union.) The longtime centrist is using this one to make the case for his unpopular 2026 budget. Prime ministers often follow their addresses with a confidence vote to ensure support for their agendas, though they aren’t constitutionally obliged to do so. Bayrou didn’t hold a vote after his January DPG, nor did any of his predecessors during Macron’s second term. Christophe Petit Tesson/EPA This time, he will. Bayrou has tried to frame the vote as a referendum on the need for drastic action to balance the books and has quibbled with the French media’s framing of Monday’s drama as a confidence vote or censure. But in practice, that’s what it is. HOW WILL THE DAY UNFOLD? Bayrou’s speech will begin at 3 p.m. in the National Assembly in Paris, France’s more-powerful lower house of parliament. Representatives from each political party will follow, with each of their speaking times determined by how many seats they have. Then the prime minister will have the opportunity to deliver closing remarks. Voting should take place around 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. and should last about 30 minutes, after which the president of the National Assembly will announce the results. Macron’s office has not yet said whether he will speak following the vote. When ex-Prime Minister Michel Barnier was toppled in December, Macron waited 24 hours to deliver a primetime address. HOW DID WE GET HERE? Let’s rewind to June 9, 2024, when the far-right National Rally scored a huge win in the European election. Macron responded by dissolving parliament, a massive bet that backfired in spectacular fashion. In the ensuing vote, an alliance of left-leaning political parties won more seats than any other political force, but fell short of an absolute majority. After nearly two months without a proper government, Macron’s centrists and the center-right conservatives agreed to form a minority coalition led by former Brexit negotiator Barnier. Barnier lasted three months, taken down in December over his plan to trim the 2025 budget to help rein in runaway public spending. Macron replaced Barnier with Bayrou, who in July presented a plan to squeeze next year’s budget by €43.8 billion to get the budget deficit down from a projected 5.4 percent of gross domestic product this year to 4.6 percent of GDP in 2026. Opposition lawmakers howled in fury at the plan, which included axing two public holidays. In late August, as the French started to trickle back from their summer vacations, Bayrou stunned the country by announcing that he would hold a confidence vote on his spending plans before what were expected to be tense negotiations. SHOULD I CARE? Yes, because the ensuing crisis in the eurozone’s second-biggest economy could drag the entire bloc into a debt-fueled financial crisis, according to Bayrou. France was able to stave off an economic catastrophe during the pandemic and when energy prices shot up at the outset of the full-scale war in Ukraine, in part thanks to massive public spending. Finding a consensus on reining in expenditures has proven difficult, and lawmakers are loath to tighten their belts as aggressively as Bayrou wants. His plan would bring France’s budget deficit down from a projected 5.6 percent of GDP this year to 4.6 percent in 2026. The ultimate goal is to bring that figure down to 3 percent, as required by EU rules, by 2029. Financial institutions and rating agencies have repeatedly warned of consequences should France fail to act, some of which are no longer hypothetical. Borrowing costs are rising, with the yield on France’s benchmark 10-year bonds ― a useful indicator of faith in a country’s finances ― drifting away from historically safe Germany’s yields and toward those of Italy, a country long synonymous with reckless spending and unsustainable debt.   Getting the French to tighten their belts has so far proven to be Mission Impossible, but the situation is not yet so dire that it’s time to call in the IMF. Bayrou, however, is betting his political future that history will prove him right.

The European Union and the United States have issued a statement to formalize their tariff truce. Now the hard work begins. The framework agreement builds out the handshake trade agreement struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and U.S. President Donald Trump in Scotland in late July. The text sets out a roadmap for implementing the trade commitments they made. “This is not the end; it’s the beginning. This framework is a first step,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefcovič said. But the document, which runs to only four pages, skirts several issues. For one, it doesn’t mention U.S. calls for the EU to dilute its regulation of Big Tech. Nor does it refer to a call by Brussels for European wines and spirits to be exempted from the 15 percent U.S. baseline tariff that took effect this month. That’s one that Šefcovič still hopes to get a deal on. We break down the wins, the losses, the fudges — and the omissions — from the Framework on an Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade. CARS  Under the joint statement, the U.S. will lower its 27.5 percent tariffs on cars and automotive parts to match the baseline 15 percent.  But there’s a catch: The U.S. will only meet its lower tariff commitment after the EU eliminates “tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods,” including its own 10 percent tariff on vehicles. Šefčovič said the Commission will initiate legislation this month to ensure Washington lowers tariffs retroactively on cars and auto parts effective Aug. 1, as foreseen in the deal. A separate clause of the joint statement makes clear that the two governments will start collaborating in other areas around cars, including to “provide mutual recognition on each other’s standards.”  The joint statement doesn’t clarify which standards will be mutually recognized, but any change will have ripple effects across the sector. “By signing up to mutual recognition of vehicle standards with the United States, the European Union has waved the white flag on road safety,” said Antonio Avenoso, executive director of the European Transport Safety Council. “This is not a technical detail — it is a political choice that puts trade convenience ahead of saving lives.” — Jordyn Dahl DRUGS, SEMICONDUCTORS, STEEL These industries are at the heart of Washington’s efforts to relocate industry back to the United States and are covered by separate trade investigations, known as Section 232, which allow the U.S. president to restrict imports to protect national security.  The U.S. will cap tariffs on European pharmaceuticals, lumber and semiconductors at 15 percent regardless of the results of the ongoing investigations.  Steel and aluminum imports will continue to face a 50 percent tariff until the EU and the U.S. explore the possibility of joining forces to tackle overproduction. | Erik S. Lesser/EPA This ceiling doesn’t apply to steel and aluminum imports, however, which will continue to face a 50 percent tariff until the EU and the U.S. explore the possibility of joining forces to tackle overproduction — especially coming from China — and the possibility of setting tariff-rate quotas. The European pharmaceuticals industry warns that the outline trade deal could cost companies up to €18 billion. “We remain concerned for the future of patients and our sector in Europe,” said Nathalie Moll, director general at Europe’s EFPIA pharma lobby. Still, while branded pharmaceuticals could end up being subject to the tariffs, the EU did succeed in broadening an exemption for lower-priced generics. — Camille Gijs and Mari Eccles DIGITAL RULES  The European Union managed to keep its rules on digital competition and content moderation out of the U.S. trade deal, despite heavy pressure. For now.  The Commission has for months maintained that its ability to regulate U.S. Big Tech companies is not part of the trade negotiations.  The Trump administration has been on a campaign, attacking both rulebooks and claiming they amount to censorship of Americans (the Digital Services Act) and unfairly target U.S. companies (the Digital Markets Act). While Šefčovič confirmed to reporters on Thursday that the rules weren’t part of the talks, he didn’t rule out that the two sides would return to the issue in the future.  “We kept these issues out of the trade negotiations. We were focusing on what was very clearly the priority and therefore you won’t find it referenced in the joint statement,” he said. “Will it come later, will it be discussed? Our relationship is so vast that for sure there will be a lot of issues which will be discussed.” European Parliament lawmakers will continue to pressure the Commission not to treat the rules as a bargaining chip. “Tech legislation and tariffs are two distinct matters and should remain such,” said Bulgarian conservative lawmaker Eva Maydell. — Pieter Haeck WINES AND SPIRITS Wines and spirits won’t be exempted from tariffs, even though the European Union pushed hard to obtain relief for a sector that has been caught in the crossfire from both Washington and Beijing. This means they will be subject to a 15 percent U.S. tariff.  That’s a blow for European exporters, who long benefited from tariff-free access on most spirits until successive trade wars tore it up. Wines and spirits won’t be exempted from tariffs, even though the European Union pushed hard to obtain relief for a sector that has been caught in the crossfire from both Washington and Beijing. | Guillaume Horcajuelo/EPA Šefčovič admitted that the talks had fallen short — but insisted the fight isn’t over.  “The tariffs on wine and spirits was one of the very important offensive interests of the European Union. Unfortunately, here we didn’t succeed … but the doors are not closed forever,” he told reporters.  — Bartosz Brzeziński GREEN RULES  The EU made a vague promise to address U.S. concerns regarding EU laws on mandatory sustainability reporting (the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), supply chain oversight (the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) and deforestation (the EU Deforestation Regulation). Brussels mainly pitched ideas it already wants to implement, however.   The EU will ensure its rules “do not pose undue restrictions on transatlantic trade” by reducing the administrative burden on businesses in the CSDDD and by proposing changes to the EU’s civil liability regime, which holds companies legally accountable for human rights violations and environmental damage in their supply chains.   Scrapping the EU’s liability regime is already a major point in the Commission’s omnibus proposal announced last February, which rolls back many features of the CSRD and CSDDD among other files.  Crucially, those changes have not yet received the official green light from EU countries or lawmakers.   On deforestation, the EU says it recognizes that U.S. commodities production “poses negligible risk to global deforestation,” having already labeled the country as “low risk” in its classification system last May.  — Marianne Gros AVIATION Washington commits to exempting aircraft and parts from higher tariffs, applying its very low most favored nation duties to the industry. Irish lobbyists are breathing a collective sigh of relief. A trade war slapping American tariffs on Airbus and European tariffs on Boeing would have hit the industry’s key middleman, Dublin, particularly hard. The Irish capital is the world’s biggest hub for aircraft leasing with an ecosystem of lessors and financial advisers overseeing most of the world’s leased aircraft. Ireland’s Central Statistics Office values that Irish-managed fleet at €268 billion.  Small wonder, then, that Prime Minister Micheál Martin singled out aviation when welcoming the newly published details of the EU-U.S. agreement. “Given the significance of the airline sector to Ireland, a specific carve-out for aircraft and aircraft parts is welcome,” he said. — Shawn Pogatchnik DEFENSE  The EU promised to buy more American weapons under Thursday’s trade deal, although a senior official downplayed any impact on efforts to boost Europe’s military industrial complex. The EU “plans to substantially increase procurement of military and defence equipment from the United States, with the support and facilitation of the U.S. government,” the joint statement said.  That could deal a blow to the European defense industry, which Brussels has been trying to strengthen with initiatives like the €150 billion loans-for-weapons Security Action for Europe regulation to boost joint procurement, or the €1.5 billion European Defence Industry Programme still under discussion with the European Parliament. — Jacopo Barigazzi INVESTMENTS Although it’s unclear how exactly it will fulfill its promises, the EU “intends to” procure $750 billion worth of U.S. energy, including liquefied natural gas, oil and nuclear energy products, through 2028.  It will also buy “at least” $40 billion worth of U.S. artificial intelligence chips. Europe already relies heavily on U.S.-based AI chip suppliers such as Nvidia, since it has no own-production capacity in that space.  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. — Camille Gijs and Pieter Haeck

LONDON — Reform UK is winning over Gen Z women, a demographic that the right-wing populist party has struggled to attract in the past.  The party’s vote share among women aged 18 to 26 shot up in May — jumping from 12 percent to 21 percent after nationwide local elections, according to polling for the More in Common think tank shared with POLITICO. Most of the new recruits seem to have defected from the Conservative Party, according to the data. “In the general election, you could confidently say the median Reform voter is a middle-aged man who voted for Brexit,” said Louis O’Geran, research assistant at More in Common. “The gender gap is narrowing, but also that age distribution is spreading out.”  It’s a striking shift for a party long dogged by accusations it has a problem with women. Leader Nigel Farage has previously dismissed gender disparities in business as a result of men being more willing to “sacrifice family lives” — and once praised controversial far-right influencer Andrew Tate, who was later charged with rape by British prosecutors, as an “important voice” for “emasculated” men. The party’s manifesto includes a pledge to scrap the U.K.’s Equality Act, legislation meant to prohibit discrimination based on gender, disability, race, and more.  Reform is, however, finding clear traction with younger women, some of whom see the party as clearer on its policy aims than the alternatives. Young women point to a dissatisfaction with the opposition Conservatives and the governing Labour party — and “the sense that the two main parties just aren’t working,” O’Geran said. The poll, which is based on an average of four surveys conducted in May of roughly 9,000 adults in Great Britain, reflects a broader increase in Reform’s overall vote share, which moved from 24 percent of the national vote to 29 percent during the same period. “While the increase in support among Gen Z women is really significant, they started on a far lower base than any other age group … the increase is probably part of a wider expansion of Reform’s support following the election,” said O’Geran. JOINING UKIP AT AGE 14 Charlotte Hill, a 25-year-old Reform UK councillor in Derbyshire, joined Farage’s old party UKIP at the age of 14, around the time of the Brexit campaign. In doing so, she took after her father, who was a staunch Leave voter and “played a big part in [her] life lessons,” she told POLITICO. Hill followed Farage’s political journey — and eventually became a Reform UK supporter.  While she studied English literature at university with hopes of becoming a teacher, she felt alienated by the course’s “very Jeremy Corbyn positive and Nigel Farage negative” tone, a reference to the hard-left Labour leader who quit in 2019. Hill said she had grown disenchanted with being “the odd one out” amongst her peers, and changed her course into construction management — a “male-dominated space” where she has “fortunately never had a problem” with discrimination.  What attracts her to Reform is the party’s prowess in communicating its message, and its ability to start “tapping into the younger generation quickly” on social media platforms like TikTok. Farage has 1.2 million followers on TikTok. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch aren’t even on it.  “We look at Labour and Conservatives, and in my opinion, their values are quite similar now,” argued Hill. “You can’t ring fence either party’s values, whereas with Reform, I think you can.” Hill also believes Reform is offering direct policy support for young women. Pointing to Farage’s recent announcement that he wants to scrap a two-child cap on social security benefits, and bring in tax breaks for married people, Hill said Reform would enable women “to stay at home for longer or to go part-time.” SAFETY — AND SCRAPPING DEI  O’Geran notes that Gen Z women diverge from the rest of the population on key issues. Only five percent of those polled named immigration as a top concern — compared to 22 percent among the wider public. Instead, the issues that matter the most to this cohort are the cost of living, jobs, mental health and affordable housing. Still, some of Reform’s female politicians want to link immigration to women’s safety. “Once those illegal immigrants are in the community, that’s when women’s safety becomes a real issue,” Sarah Pochin, a new Reform MP for Runcorn and Helsby, said. “That’s when women feel that they can’t let their children play out on the streets.”  Sarah Pochin (L), Andrea Jenkyns (Centre), Charlotte Hill (R) | Photo-illustration by Aimee Rogers/POLITICO (Source Images from WikiCommons and Reform UK) Andrea Jenkyns, newly elected Lincolnshire mayor, similarly told POLITICO that “especially in coastal areas, young women were saying … that they feared for their safety, because especially on the coast there’s migrant hotels. I think if we’ve got this strong policy on illegal migration and safety, I think that would appeal to people.” Both Reform reps share the idea of people being promoted in the workplace based on ability, and reject diversity initiatives.  “I’m not a feminist, I’m a meritocrat,” said Jenkyns, a former Conservative MP. Although she is neurodiverse and has a son with autism, Jenkyns doesn’t believe laws like the Equality Act are necessary, saying support is “just showing kindness in society.”  “You don’t need policies for that,” she said. “It’s about creating the environment so everyone can thrive,” adding that she would like to see a “more blended learning environment” for neurodiverse people to thrive.  Section 20 of the Equality Act legally requires employers and public bodies to “make reasonable adjustments” for disabled people, including those who are neurodiverse.  POUR MY WINE, PLEASE  Even if it’s making inroads with women, representation remains a sore spot for Farage’s party. Fewer than a quarter of its local election candidates were women, according to data from the University of Exeter’s Election Center. That lags behind the Tories on 30 percent and the Green and Labour parties, both on roughly 40 percent.  But Pochin hopes her win last month, making her Reform’s first female MP, will make women “more interested in Reform.” Just don’t expect her to champion gender quotas anytime soon.  “Women only want meritocracy,” she told POLITICO. “That’s all I ever wanted. I’ve worked in a male-dominated world all my life, and I have never felt at a disadvantage once.”  “I still want a man to pour my glass of wine or whatever it is at night,” she added. “I still want a man to hold a door open for me. I still want a man to say, ‘oh, you look nice,’ when you come down to go out for the evening.” Society, she laments, has lost “the fun and banter” of the workplace. “Of course, we need to protect women. There’s times when it goes wrong or people overstep the mark, but generally speaking, I think we’ve become utterly paranoid.” 

President Donald Trump’s trade war could come to an abrupt halt this month — even without concessions from dozens of trading partners. It’s up to the U.S. Court of International Trade, an obscure, New York-based federal court that decides cases related to trade and customs law. The court is hearing oral arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping new tariffs last month, before suspending the highest ones on about 60 trading partners for 90 days. If the court grants the plaintiffs’ request for an emergency injunction it could upend the trade negotiations the Trump administration is now racing to complete with dozens of countries. Trump’s new measures include a 10 percent baseline tariff on imports from around the world, additional tariffs ranging up to 50 percent on a long list of trading partners (which he has since paused) and a sky-high tariff of 145 percent on China, which the administration just announced plans to lower to a still-substantial 30 percent. The president and his top economic officials have justified those duties by arguing the country’s soaring trade deficit with the rest of the world amounts to “a national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life.” The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined Monday to comment on the litigation. The tariffs’ challengers say Trump is violating the Constitution and hope the Court of International Trade will grant their request for a preliminary injunction before the end of the month. That’s vital because many businesses may not survive if the tariffs remain in place while the case is litigated potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a conservative constitutional rights group representing VOS Selections, a New York-based wine and spirits company, and other small businesses suing over Trump’s tariffs. An injunction would also threaten Trump’s efforts to use the threat of further country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs to negotiate new trade deals with dozens of countries. He announced the first of those agreements Thursday with the U.K., although many details remain to be worked out. His team also negotiated an agreement with China to deescalate tariffs and established a bilateral mechanism to try to tackle long-standing trade irritants. Trump also cited a national emergency over migrants and fentanyl crossing the borders to justify a previous round of tariffs on China as well as 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, which have largely been suspended. The VOS case, however, only challenges the reciprocal tariffs that Trump announced on April 2. The Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group representing manufacturers who favor import protection, has praised Trump’s decision to use the emergency law to enact his trade agenda, which it called “a bold and long-overdue reset of the global trade system.” But critics such as former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) contend Trump is using a flimsy excuse to usurp tax and trade powers that the Founding Fathers gave to Congress. “It really is the biggest issue that’s been before our country ever since its founding,” Danforth said in an interview. “It has to do with the concentration of power and the idea that James Madison had of trying to spread power out in various parts of government.” Danforth, along with fellow former GOP Sens. George Allen (Va.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and others including former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, have filed an amicus brief in the case arguing against Trump’s action and urging the CIT to grant a preliminary injunction that would bar the administration from collecting the duties while the cases proceed. “From the founding of the Republic, the power to impose tariffs — like the power to levy taxes — has belonged exclusively to Congress,” the brief reads. “This is no formality. This nation was born of the slogan ‘No taxation without representation,’ which means that the authority to tax, raise revenue and shape the public’s economic obligations must rest with the people’s elected representatives.” “The argument in our brief … just gets right to the heart of the matter,” Danforth elaborated. “It has nothing to do with the advisability of tariffs or some statutory issue. It’s constitutional. It’s ‘Can the president expropriate [from Congress] the power to tax?,’ but I’d also say the power to control foreign commerce.” Allen, who also was governor of Virginia from 1994 to 1998, emphasized he wholeheartedly supports Trump’s energy, border security and deregulatory efforts but draws the line at allowing the president to unilaterally impose “import taxes.” “This is a case to preserve and honor the clear, well-reasoned constitutional principle that taxation should be determined by Congress,” Allen said. “My position is based on the conscience of a conservative. I’m taking a stand for this significant constitutional protection for free people and free enterprise, rather than personalities or hypocritical situational principles.” Schwab, the lead lawyer in the V.O.S. case at the CIT on Tuesday, said they are making a number of arguments they think the court will find convincing. Fundamentally, “we don’t think IEEPA authorizes the president to issue tariffs or impose tariffs at all,” Schwab said, a point many opponents make since no previous president has used the legislation that way. “But even if the statute did allow tariffs, it’s not clear that it would allow the tariffs that he is imposing” since they are so broad-based and not in response to s specific event or international development, Schwab added Plaintiffs also challenge Trump’s assertion that the “large and persistent annual trade deficit in goods” constitutes a national emergency that justifies imposing tariffs since the United States has run a trade deficit for 50 years. That gave Congress ample time to take action if lawmakers felt it was necessary, Schwab said. They also raise a couple of more technical legal arguments, one known as the “major questions doctrine,” which requires a clear statutory delegation of power from Congress when an executive action exceeds an undefined threshold of “economic and political significance,” as plaintiffs contend that Trump’s tariffs clearly do. A somewhat related argument involves the “nondelegation doctrine,” which says Congress can’t delegate authority to the executive branch without imposing some sort of restriction on it. “Here, essentially what the Trump administration is saying is they have the power to tariff without any kind of oversight at all and he can do it at whatever rate he wants, whenever he wants,” Schwab said. “We think if that’s how the court would interpret [IEEPA, they would decide] that’s unconstitutional.” In its own brief, the Justice Department relies heavily on a 50-year-old decision from an appeals court that permitted then-President Nixon to impose a broad tariff under analogous language in the Trading With the Enemy Act, a predecessor to IEEPA. Since then, courts have been more reluctant to read broad grants of authority in arguably ambiguous language. But Thomas Beline, a partner at Cassidy Levy Kent, said he believed the CIT might accept many of the government’s arguments. “One of the things that I come back to with IEEPA is that there’s no prohibition in the law that says the president cannot use this authority for this purpose. Rather, it’s a fairly lengthy list of things that the President can do and it’s fairly broad,” Beline said. In addition, Congress retains the power to end a national emergency declared by the president if it thinks that’s appropriate. That gives the court the opportunity to say “that’s what Congress has determined to be the right balance of powers,” Beline said. Schwab said he thought the most “shocking” element of the Justice Department’s argument was its assertion that Trump’s actions fall under the “political question doctrine,” meaning they are not even subject to judicial review. “Obviously, if the president can just declare a national emergency whenever he wants, without any court oversight, then the president effectively has authoritarian control,” Schwab said, even if the Justice Department did not intend to go that far with its argument. Both former senators expressed disappointment that only a few Republicans have joined Democrats in efforts to reassert congressional authority over trade. “I would like to see members of Congress get off their hunches and stand up for their prerogatives. Because this is clear in the Constitution. This is Article I, Section 8,” Allen said. If Congress gives up a key power like controlling taxation, “why be in Congress?,” Danforth said. “What could they really do other than get themselves on the evening news?”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission Thursday upped the pressure in talks with U.S. President Donald Trump by putting forward retaliation worth nearly €100 billion of imports — including big-ticket items like aircraft — that could get tariffed. The catalog includes passenger cars, medical devices, chemicals and plastics, and a slew of agricultural products. Also back on the list are bourbon and other spirits, after wine-producing nations France and Italy pressured the Commission to remove them fearing Trump’s wrath.  These are part of a 200-page catalog of more than 4,800 goods compiled by EU trade officials. EU imports of these items exceeded €109 billion in 2024 according to Eurostat — aircraft are the biggest at more than €13 billion followed by autos at €7 billion. The EU is also considering restricting exports of scrap steel and chemical products worth €4.4 billion.  And, in a parallel measure, Brussels would launch a dispute at the World Trade Organization over Trump’s imposition of so-called reciprocal tariffs, as well as tariffs on cars and car parts. It is not clear yet when Brussels will officially start the case.  The real objective remains “negotiated outcomes with the US,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement. “At the same time, we continue preparing for all possibilities, and the consultation launched today will help guide us in this necessary work”. NO WAY BACK The European Commission is moving ahead with the new lists because it has realized there won’t be a return to the status quo in its relations with Washington.  It however expects the Trump administration to have more flexibility on lowering the 10 percent “reciprocal” tariffs, while the levies on cars, steel and aluminum are likely to stay as it pursues its “reindustrialization strategy goal,” a senior European Commission official said.  “If we don’t get down from 10 percent, there’s no negotiation, no deal,” they added.  The lineup is subject to change, as businesses and EU countries will have until June 10 to provide feedback and advocate for sensitive goods to be removed from the list to avoid being caught in Trump’s reprisals.  This happened when the Commission in April consulted with EU capitals for its retaliation against Trump’s earlier steel and aluminum tariffs, with bourbon whiskey being removed at the request of France, Italy and Ireland. In the end, these measures were announced, but not implemented, as Trump dialed back his tariffs in response to a stock market meltdown. “Boeing is very welcome to reply,” the senior official added, referring to the American plane maker that could be hit majorly if these tariffs are enacted. The total value of the listed products is much lower than the €379 billion of EU exports that is affected by U.S. tariffs. A second senior Commission official said there is some restraint on Brussels’ side, “to not shoot ourselves in the foot. We want to be prudent,” to avoid a spiralling tit-for-tat dynamic that would ultimately “hurt our industry.” The list adds to the bloc’s existing retaliation tactics, after several high-level meetings between Brussels and Washington failed to ease soaring trade tensions. Washington still imposes a 10 percent tariff on imports of most EU goods, as well as 25 percent levies on cars, steel and aluminum.  The Trump administration is also investigating sectors like pharmaceuticals, trucks, lumber and semiconductors along with semiconductor manufacturing equipment. But a higher “reciprocal” tariff of 20 percent, currently suspended, would kick back in from early July if no transatlantic deal is reached. This story has been updated.

BRUSSELS — Europe’s favorite bottle of red or white may come with an unwanted ingredient: toxic chemicals that don’t break down naturally. A new investigation has found widespread contamination in European wines with trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) — a persistent byproduct of PFAS, the group of industrial chemicals widely known as “forever chemicals.” None of the wines produced in the past few years across 10 EU countries came back clean. In some bottles, levels were found to be 100 times higher than what is typically measured in drinking water. The study, published on Wednesday by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe, adds fresh urgency to calls for a rapid phase-out of pesticides containing PFAS, a family of human-made chemicals designed to withstand heat, water and oil, and to resist breaking down in the environment. Wine production is among the heaviest users of pesticides in European agriculture, particularly fungicides, making vineyards a likely hotspot for chemical accumulation. Grapes are especially vulnerable to fungal diseases, requiring frequent spraying throughout the growing season, including with some products that contain PFAS compounds. Researchers found that while TFA was undetectable in wines harvested before 1988, contamination levels have steadily increased since then — reaching up to 320 micrograms per liter in bottles from the last three vintages, a level more than 3,000 times the EU’s legal limit for pesticide residues in groundwater. The study’s authors link this rise to the growing use of PFAS-based pesticides and newer fluorinated refrigerants over the past decade. “This is a red flag that should not be ignored,” said Helmut Burtscher-Schaden of Austrian NGO Global 2000, who led the research. “The massive accumulation of TFA in plants means we are likely ingesting far more of this forever chemical through our food than previously assumed.” The report, titled Message from the Bottle, analyzed 49 wines, including both conventional and organic products. While organic wines tended to have lower TFA concentrations, none were free of contamination. Wines from Austria showed particularly high levels, though researchers emphasized that the problem spans the continent. “This is not a local issue, it’s a global one,” warned Michael Müller, professor of pharmaceutical and medicinal chemistry at the University of Freiburg, who conducted an independent study that confirmed similar results. “There are no more uncontaminated wines left. Even organic farming cannot fully shield against this pollution because TFA is now ubiquitous in the environment.” The findings highlight the growing scrutiny on PFAS — a broad class of fluorinated compounds used in products from non-stick cookware to firefighting foams and agricultural pesticides. These substances are prized for their durability but have been shown to accumulate in the environment and in living organisms, with links to cancer, liver damage and reproductive harm. While the risks of long-chain PFAS have long been recognized, TFA had until recently been considered relatively benign by both regulators and manufacturers. That view is now being challenged. A 2021 industry-funded study under the EU’s REACH chemicals regulation linked TFA exposure to severe malformations in rabbit fetuses, prompting regulators to propose classifying TFA as “toxic to reproduction.” “This makes it all the more urgent to act,” said Salomé Roynel, policy officer at PAN Europe. She pointed out that under current EU pesticide rules, metabolites that pose risks to reproductive health should not be detectable in groundwater above 0.1 micrograms per liter — a limit TFA regularly exceeds in both water and, now, food. The timing of the report adds political pressure just weeks before EU member states are due to vote on whether to ban flutolanil, a PFAS pesticide identified as a significant TFA emitter. Campaigners argue that the EU must go further, pushing for a group-wide ban on all PFAS pesticides. Wine production is among the heaviest users of pesticides in European agriculture, particularly fungicides, making vineyards a likely hotspot for chemical accumulation. | Philippe Lopez/AFP via Getty Images “The vote on flutolanil is a first test of whether policymakers take this threat seriously,” Roynel said. “But ultimately, we need to eliminate the entire category of these chemicals from agriculture.” Industry groups are likely to push back, arguing that PFAS-based pesticides remain crucial for crop protection. But Müller counters that claim, saying alternatives are available: “There are substitutes. The idea that these chemicals are essential is simply not true.” With the EU’s broader PFAS restrictions currently under discussion, the wine study injects fresh urgency into debates over how to tackle chemical pollution and protect Europe’s food supply. “The more we delay, the worse the contamination becomes,” said Burtscher-Schaden. “And because we’re dealing with a forever chemical, every year of inaction locks in the damage for generations to come.” The European Commission declined to comment on the report. This story has been updated with a no comment from the European Commission.