Faced with a barrage of American threats to grab Greenland, Denmark’s foreign minister and his Greenlandic counterpart flew to Washington for — they hoped — sympathetic talks with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. But their plan for a soothing diplomatic chat escalated into a tense White House head-to-head with the EU’s nemesis, JD Vance. Over the past year the U.S. vice president has earned a reputation for animosity toward the old continent, and many governments in Europe fear his hardline influence over President Donald Trump when it comes to seizing territory from a longstanding ally. Among the 10 ministers and officials who spoke anonymously to POLITICO for this article, none regarded Vance as an ally — either in the Greenland talks or for the transatlantic relationship in general.  “Vance hates us,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to give a candid view, like others quoted in this article. The announcement that the vice president would be helming the Washington talks on Greenland alarmed the European side. “He’s the tough guy,” the same diplomat said. “The fact that he’s there says a lot and I think it’s negative for the outcome.”  Trump says he wants “ownership” of Greenland for reasons of U.S. national security and will get it either by negotiation or, if necessary, perhaps through military means. At stake is much more than simply the fate of an island of 57,000 inhabitants, or even the future of the Arctic.  The bellicose rhetoric from the White House has dismayed America’s NATO allies and provoked warnings from Denmark that such a move would destroy the post-war Western alliance. Others say it is already terminal for the international order on which transatlantic relations rely.  In the event, the talks in Washington on Wednesday went as well as could be expected, officials said after: The Americans were blunt, but there was no declaration of war. Nor did the occasion descend into a public humiliation of the sort Vance unleashed against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a White House visit last year. The two sides clearly argued their cases with some force but resolved to keep talking. A high-level working group will explore whether any compromise can be reached between the Danes and Greenlanders, and Trump.  ‘FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT’ The discussion “wasn’t so successful that we reached a conclusion where our American colleagues said, ‘Sorry, it was totally a misunderstanding, we gave up on our ambitions,’” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen quipped to reporters after what he described as a “frank” exchange with Vance and Rubio. “There’s clearly a disagreement.”  “The president has this wish of conquering over Greenland,” Rasmussen added. “For us, ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark, or the right of self determination of the Greenlandic people, are of course totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. And we agree to disagree.” Talks in future must, he said, respect the “red lines” set by Greenland and Denmark. It is hoped that the working group will help lower “the temperature” on the issue when it begins its work in the coming weeks, Rasmussen added.  While Donald Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, JD Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. | Aaron Schwartz/EPA The small win, for the Danes, is that the question of Greenland has — for now — moved from wild social media images of the island dressed in the American flag to a proper diplomatic channel, giving everyone time to calm down.  If it holds, that would be something. A stream of X posts from Trump’s allies — alongside uncompromising statements from the president himself — have left European officials aghast. In one that the White House posted this week, Trump can be seen peering out of his Oval Office window at a scene depicting the icy map of Greenland.  Behind him, looking on, is Vance. “It was terrible,” the first diplomat cited above told POLITICO.  NO FRIEND Few Europeans will forget Vance’s attacks on Zelenskyy in last February’s Oval Office showdown. Vance also left Europeans shocked and horrified when he savaged them for refusing to work with the far right, and complained bitterly how much he resented America paying for European security.  By contrast, Rubio is often described as “solid” by European officials, and is generally seen as someone who is more aligned with the priorities of the European mainstream especially on security and the war in Ukraine.  At the time of writing, Vance had not given his account in public of Wednesday’s talks on Greenland. In response to a request for comment, Vance’s deputy press secretary pointed to previous remarks in which the vice president had said “I love Europe” and European people — but also said European leaders had been “asleep at the wheel” and that the Trump administration was frustrated that they had failed to address issues including migration and investment in defense. One EU official, speaking after the meeting, suggested it was actually a good thing Vance was involved because he “calls the shots” and holds sway with Trump.  Elsewhere, however, the skepticism remains deep — and turns to alarm at the prospect that when Trump’s second term ends, it could be Vance who takes over in the White House.  While Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. That would be a risk not just for Greenland but also for NATO and Ukraine. Some EU diplomats see Trump’s territorial ambitions as part of a pattern that includes Vance’s attacks and the new White House national security strategy, which sets out to redirect European democracy toward the ends of Trump’s MAGA movement. When it comes to the dispute over Greenland, many in Brussels and European capitals are pessimistic. Even Rasmussen, the Danish foreign minister, didn’t pretend a deal was in sight and confessed one may never come. “Trump doesn’t want to invest in something he doesn’t own,” one EU diplomat said. The U.S. has wide access to Greenland for military deployments under existing agreements, and could easily invest in further economic development, according to the Danes and their allies.  “It’s not clear what there is to negotiate because the Americans can already have whatever they want,” another diplomat said. “The only thing that Denmark cannot give is to say Greenland can become American.”  It may not be a question of what Greenland can give, if in the end the president and his eager deputy decide simply to take it.  Victor Goury-Laffont and Nicholas Vinocur contributed reporting.

President Donald Trump has linked his desire to own Greenland with the development of his nascent missile defense shield, Golden Dome. Except that he doesn’t need to seize the Danish territory to accomplish his goal. Golden Dome, Trump’s pricey vision to protect the U.S., is a multi-layered defense shield intended to block projectiles heading toward the country. The president announced a $175 billion, three-year plan last year, although gave few details about how the administration would fund it. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said Wednesday in a Truth Social post. “It is vital for the Golden Dome we are building.” But the country already has the access it needs in Greenland to host interceptors that could knock down enemy missiles. And the U.S. has other locations it could place similar defense systems — think New York or Canada — if many of the interceptors are even based on land, instead of space as envisioned. “The right way for the U.S. to engage with an ally to improve our homeland defense — whether through additional radars, communication antennas or even interceptor sites — is to engage collaboratively with that ally,” said a former defense official. “If strengthening homeland defense is the actual goal, this administration is off to a truly terrible start.” Here are three reasons why Golden Dome has little to do with Trump’s desire to take Greenland: HE COULD HAVE JUST ASKED DENMARK The U.S. military’s presence in Greenland centers on Pituffik Space Base, which operates under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark that grants the U.S. regular access to the island. The base is a key outpost for detecting threats from the Arctic, although it doesn’t host any interceptor systems. If the Pentagon wanted to station interceptors or more sensors on the island, the U.S. could simply work with Denmark to do so, according to the former official and a defense expert. Greenland has been part of the U.S. homeland missile defense and space surveillance network for decades and it would continue that role under Golden Dome, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “We already have unfettered access to what we need for Golden Dome in Greenland, but the president talks as if he’s not aware of that,” Harrison said. “His statements about Greenland are detached from reality.” The White House, when asked for comment, pointed to Trump’s post. HE COULD CHOOSE SOMEWHERE ELSE — THAT THE U.S. OWNS Greenland could prove a good location for ground-based interceptors that block missiles launching from Russia and the Middle East towards the U.S. But the U.S. has other options for interceptor locations, and none would necessitate taking another country (a seizure that could threaten to destroy the NATO alliance). The Pentagon has examined potential locations for interceptor sites and Fort Drum, an Army base in upstate New York, has routinely survived deep dive analysis by the Missile Defense Agency, said the former defense official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions. “Compared to Fort Drum, Greenland does not appear to be a better location for such interceptors,” the person said. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Ala.) has also said his state could play a “critical role” in housing interceptors. MUCH OF THE DEFENSE SHIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED IN SPACE Trump’s assertion about needing Greenland for Golden Dome also raises questions about what the multibillion-dollar architecture will actually look like. The Pentagon has largely avoided discussing the price tag publicly. And officials originally envisioned most of it located above the Earth. A key part of Golden Dome is space-based interceptors — weapons orbiting the planet that can shoot down incoming missiles. But moving missile defense systems to space would require fewer ground-based systems, negating the importance of acquiring more land for the effort. “If Golden Dome’s sensor network and defenses are primarily space-based — as per the current plan — Greenland might still be of value,” said a former defense official. “But less so than it would be for terrestrial architecture.”

BRUSSELS — On Greenland’s southern tip, surrounded by snowy peaks and deep fjords, lies Kvanefjeld — a mining project that shows the giant, barren island is more than just a coveted military base. Beneath the icy ground sits a major deposit of neodymium and praseodymium, rare earth elements used to make magnets that are essential to build wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-tech military equipment. If developed, Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, would become the first European territory to produce these key strategic metals. Energy Transition Minerals, an Australia-based, China-backed mining company, is ready to break ground. But neither Copenhagen, Brussels nor the Greenlandic government have mobilized their state power to make the project happen. In 2009, Denmark handed Greenland’s inhabitants control of their natural resources; 12 years later the Greenlandic government blocked the mine because the rare earths are mixed with radioactive uranium. Since then the project has been in limbo, bogged down in legal disputes. “Kvanefjeld illustrates how political and regulatory uncertainty — combined with geopolitics and high capital requirements — makes even strategically important projects hard to move from potential to production,” Jeppe Kofod, Denmark’s former foreign minister and now a strategic adviser to Energy Transition Minerals, told POLITICO. Kvanefjeld’s woes are emblematic of Greenland’s broader problems. Despite having enough of some rare earth elements to supply as much as 25 percent of the world’s needs — not to mention oil and gas reserves nearly as great as those of the United States, and lots of other potential clean energy metals including copper, graphite and nickel — these resources are almost entirely undeveloped. Just two small mines, extracting gold and a niche mineral called feldspar used in glassmaking and ceramics, are up and running in Greenland. And until very recently, neither Denmark nor the European Union showed much interest in changing the situation. But that was before 2023, when the EU signed a memorandum of understanding with the Greenland government to cooperate on mining projects. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act, proposed the same year, is an attempt to catch up by building new mines both in and out of the bloc that singles out Greenland’s potential. Last month, the European Commission committed to contribute financing to Greenland’s Malmbjerg molybdenum mine in a bid to shore up a supply of the metal for the EU’s defense sector.  But with United States President Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. “The EU has for many years had a limited strategic engagement in Greenland’s critical raw materials, meaning that Europe today risks having arrived late, just as the United States and China have intensified their interest,” Kofod said. In a world shaped by Trump’s increasingly belligerent foreign policy and China’s hyperactive development of clean technology and mineral supply chains, Europe’s neglect of Greenland’s natural wealth is looking increasingly like a strategic blunder. With Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images A HOSTILE LAND That’s not to say building mines in Greenland, with its mile-deep permanent ice sheet, would be easy. “Of all the places in the world where you could extract critical raw materials, [Greenland] is very remote and not very easily accessible,” said Ditte Brasso Sørensen, senior analyst on EU climate and industrial policy at Think Tank Europa, pointing to the territory’s “very difficult environmental circumstances.”  The tiny population — fewer than 60,000 — and a lack of infrastructure also make it hard to build mines. “This is a logistical question,” said Eldur Olafsson, CEO of Amaroq, a gold mining company running one of the two operating mines in Greenland and also exploring rare earths and copper extraction opportunities. “How do you build mines? Obviously, with capital, equipment, but also people. [And] you need to build the whole infrastructure around those people because they cannot only be Greenlandic,” he said.  Greenland also has strict environmental policies — including a landmark 2021 uranium mining ban — which restrict resource extraction because of its impact on nature and the environment. The current government, voted in last year, has not shown any signs of changing its stance on the uranium ban, according to Per Kalvig, professor emeritus at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, a Danish government research organization. Uranium is routinely found with rare earths, meaning the ban could frustrate Greenland’s huge potential as a rare earths producer. It’s a similar story with fossil fuels. Despite a 2007 U.S. assessment that the equivalent of over 30 billion barrels in oil and natural gas lies beneath the surface of Greenland and its territorial waters — almost equal to U.S. reserves — 30 years of oil exploration efforts by a group including Chevron, Italy’s ENI and Shell came to nothing. In 2021 the then-leftist government in Greenland banned further oil exploration on environmental grounds.  Danish geologist Flemming Christiansen, who was deputy director of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland until 2020, said the failure had nothing to do with Greenland’s actual potential as an oil producer. Instead, he said, a collapse in oil prices in 2014 along with the high cost of drilling in the Arctic made the venture unprofitable. Popular opposition only complicated matters, he said. THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT From the skies above Greenland Christiansen sees firsthand the dramatic effects of climate change: stretches of clear water as rising temperatures thaw the ice sheets that for centuries have made exploring the territory a cold, costly and hazardous business. “If I fly over the waters in west Greenland I can see the changes,” he said. “There’s open water for much longer periods in west Greenland, in Baffin Bay and in east Greenland.” Climate change is opening up this frozen land. Climate change is opening up this frozen land. | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images Greenland contains the largest body of ice outside Antarctica, but that ice is melting at an alarming rate. One recent study suggests the ice sheet could cease to exist by the end of the century, raising sea levels by as much as seven meters. Losing a permanent ice cap that is several hundred meters deep, though, “gradually improves the business case of resource extraction, both for … fossil fuels and also critical raw materials,” said Jakob Dreyer, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen.   But exploiting Greenland’s resources doesn’t hinge on catastrophic levels of global warming. Even without advanced climate change, Kalvig, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, argues Greenland’s coast doesn’t differ much from that of Norway, where oil has been found and numerous excavation projects operate.     “You can’t penetrate quite as far inland as you can [in Norway], but once access is established, many places are navigable year-round,” Kalvig said. “So, in that sense, it’s not more difficult to operate mines in Greenland than it is in many parts of Norway, Canada or elsewhere — or Russia for that matter. And this has been done before, in years when conditions allowed.”    A European Commission spokesperson said the EU was now working with Greenland’s government to develop its resources, adding that Greenland’s “democratically elected authorities have long favored partnerships with the EU to develop projects beneficial to both sides.” But the spokesperson stressed: “The fate of Greenland’s raw mineral resources is up to the Greenlandic people and their representatives.” The U.S. may be less magnanimous. Washington’s recent military operation in Venezuela showed that Trump is serious about building an empire on natural resources, and is prepared to use force and break international norms in pursuit of that goal. Greenland, with its vast oil and rare earths deposits, may fit neatly into his vision. Where the Greenlandic people fit in is less clear.

The U.S. government may head up Venezuela for years, President Donald Trump told The New York Times in an Oval Office interview Wednesday, as the White House works to sell its plans for the future of the country after a successful operation to capture Nicolás Maduro in Caracas over the weekend. On the agenda, Trump said, is funneling sales of oil into meaningful development in Venezuela. “We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” Trump told the Times in the interview, which was published Thursday morning. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.” In the interview, Trump said “only time will tell” how long the administration would oversee Venezuela. But when asked for a time frame — three months, six months, a year or longer — Trump replied “I would say much longer.” American forces captured Maduro on Saturday and brought him to the U.S., where he faces narco-terrorism charges. In the days since, the administration has been in touch with interim leader Delcy Rodríguez to plan what will come next for the oil-rich South American country. Venezuela is far from the only Caribbean country on the president’s mind, as Trump pushes what he called the “Donroe Doctrine,” a play on the Monroe Doctrine that declares the U.S. as the dominant power in the hemisphere. Trump on Wednesday spoke with Colombian President Gustavo Petro and invited him to the White House, appearing to cool tensions between the two leaders that have spiked since the Venezuela strike. The call took place with The New York Times reporters in the Oval Office, the paper reported, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. Trump on Sunday suggested Colombia could be next on his agenda. Petro had remained defiant on social media, urging Colombians to “defend our national sovereignty” and defending his government’s role in prosecuting international drug trafficking in several posts on X. Petro, the president wrote on Truth Social, “called to explain the situation of drugs and other disagreements that we have had.” “I appreciated his call and tone, and look forward to meeting him in the near future,” Trump said.

KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has appointed Chrystia Freeland, a former deputy prime minister of Canada, as his new adviser on Ukraine’s economic development, according to a presidential decree published Monday. “Chrystia is highly skilled in these matters and has extensive experience in attracting investment and implementing economic transformations,” Zelenskyy said in a post on X. Freeland will be working on a freelance basis. “Right now, Ukraine needs to strengthen its internal resilience — both for the sake of Ukraine’s recovery if diplomacy delivers results as swiftly as possible, and to reinforce our defense if, because of delays by our partners, it takes longer to bring this war to an end,” Zelenskyy added. Freeland, 57, served as deputy PM of Canada under former leader Justin Trudeau. More recently, she resigned from her post as transport and internal trade minister in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Cabinet in September to become Canada’s special envoy on the reconstruction of Ukraine. Freeland has Ukrainian roots through her mother, Halyna Chomiak, and is a prominent pro-Ukraine advocate. Freeland has not commented publicly on the announcement. When contacted, POLITICO received an out-of-office reply, saying she would be back at work later today. Freeland’s appointment is the latest step in Zelenskyy’s reboot of his office. The president recently appointed former military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov as his new chief of staff, and former Ukrainian deputy foreign minister and long-term ambassador to the U.N. Sergiy Kyslytsya has been appointed deputy head of the president’s office. The Ukrainian leader explained the reboot was needed to strengthen the country’s negotiating stance and resilience in the face of what’s coming. “Our country has two paths. The first path is peaceful, diplomatic, and it is a priority for us today. We want to end the war. At some point, if Russia blocks it and the partners do not force Russia to stop the war, there will be another path — to defend ourselves. And at this point, fresh forces will be needed. I will go through a parallel reboot of all structures. Just in case,” Zelenskyy told reporters during a press briefing on Saturday.

American oil companies have long hoped to recover the assets that Venezuela’s authoritarian regime ripped from them decades ago. Now the Trump administration is offering to help them achieve that aim — with one major condition. Administration officials have told oil executives in recent weeks that if they want compensation for their rigs, pipelines and other seized property, then they must be prepared to go back into Venezuela now and invest heavily in reviving its shattered petroleum industry, two people familiar with the administration’s outreach told POLITICO on Saturday. The outlook for Venezuela’s shattered oil infrastructure is one of the major questions following the U.S. military action that captured leader Nicolás Maduro. But people in the industry said the administration’s message has left them still leery about the difficulty of rebuilding decayed oil fields in a country where it’s not even clear who will lead the country for the foreseeable future. “They’re saying, ‘you gotta go in if you want to play and get reimbursed,’” said one industry official familiar with the conversations. The offer has been on the table for the last 10 days, the person said. “But the infrastructure currently there is so dilapidated that no one at these companies can adequately assess what is needed to make it operable.” President Donald Trump suggested in a televised address Saturday morning that he fully expects U.S. oil companies to pour big money into Venezuela. “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure and start making money for the country,” Trump said as he celebrated Maduro’s capture. DECAYED INFRASTRUCTURE It’s been five decades since the Venezuelan government first nationalized the oil industry and nearly 20 years since former President Hugo Chávez expanded the asset seizures. The country has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, but its petroleum infrastructure has decayed amid years of mismanagement and meager investment. Initial thoughts among U.S. oil industry officials and market analysts who spoke to POLITICO regarding a post-Maduro Venezuela focused more on questions than answers. The administration has so far not laid out what its long-term plan looks like, or even if it has one, said Bob McNally, a former national security and energy adviser to President George W. Bush who now leads the energy and geopolitics consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group. “It’s not clear there’s been a specific plan beyond the principal decision that in a post-Maduro, Trump-compliant regime that the U.S. companies — energy and others — will be at the top of the list” to reenter the country, McNally said. He added: “What the regime looks like, what the plans are for getting there, that has not been fully fleshed out yet.” A central concern for U.S. industry executives is whether the administration can guarantee the safety of the employees and equipment that companies would need to send to Venezuela, how the companies would be paid, whether oil prices will rise enough to make Venezuelan crude profitable and the status of Venezuela’s membership in the OPEC oil exporters cartel. U.S. benchmark oil prices were at $57 a barrel, the lowest since the end of the pandemic, as of the market’s close on Friday. The White House did not immediately reply to questions about its plan for the oil industry, but Trump said during Saturday’s appearance at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that he expected oil companies to put up the initial investments. “We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure, which requires billions of dollars that will be paid for by the oil companies directly,” Trump said. “They will be reimbursed for what they’re doing, but it’s going to be paid, and we’re going to get the oil flowing.” However, the administration’s outreach to U.S. oil company executives remains “at its best in the infancy stage,” said one industry executive familiar with the discussions, who was granted anonymity to describe conversations with the president’s team. “In preparation for regime change, there had been engagement. But it’s been sporadic and relatively flatly received by the industry,” this person said. “It feels very much a shoot-ready-aim exercise.” ‘WHOLESALE REMAKING’ Venezuela’s oil output has fallen to less than a third of the 3.5 million barrels per day that it produced in the 1970s, and the infrastructure that is used to tap into its 300 billion barrels of reserves has deteriorated in the past two decades. “Will the U.S. be able to attract U.S. oilfield services to go to Venezuela?” the executive asked. “Maybe. It would have to involve the services companies being able to contract directly with the U.S. government.” Talks with administration officials over the past several days also involved the fate of the state oil company, which is known as PdVSA, this person added. “PdVSA will not be denationalized in some way and broken,” this person said. “Definitely it’s going to be wholesale remaking of PdVSA leadership, but at least at this point, there is no plan for denationalization or auctioning it off. It’s in the best position to keep production flowing.” Chevron, the sole major oil company still working in Venezuela under a special license from the U.S. government, said in a statement Saturday that it “remains focused on the safety and wellbeing of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets. “We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations,” Chevron spokesperson Bill Turenne said in a statement. Evanan Romero, a Houston-based oil consultant involved in the effort to bring U.S. oil producers back to Venezuela, said in a text message that Saturday’s events laid the groundwork for American oil companies to return “very soon.” Romero is part of a roughly 400-person committee, mostly made up of former employees of the Venezuelan state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, that formed about a year ago to strategize about how to revive the country’s oil industry under a new government. The committee, which is not directly affiliated with opposition leader María Corina Machado’s camp, is debating the role any new government should have in the oil sector. Some members favor keeping the industry under the control of the government while others contend that international oil majors would return only under a free market system, Romero said. ‘ABOVE-GROUND RISK’ Ultimately, the “orderliness” in any transition will determine U.S. investment and reentry in Venezuela, said Carrie Filipetti, who was deputy assistant secretary for Cuba and Venezuela and the deputy special representative for Venezuela at the State Department in Trump’s first administration. “If you were to see a disorderly transition, obviously I think that would make it very challenging for American companies to enter Venezuela,” said Filipetti, who is now executive director of nonpartisan foreign policy group The Vandenberg Coalition. “It’s not just about getting rid of Maduro. It’s also about making sure that the legitimate opposition comes into power. ” Richard Goldberg, who led the White House’s National Energy Dominance Council until August, said the Trump administration could offer financial incentives to coax companies back into Venezuela. That could include the Export-Import Bank and the U.S. International Development Finance Corp., whose remit Congress expanded in December, underwriting investments to account for political and security risks. Promoting U.S. investment in Venezuela would keep China — a major consumer of Venezuela’s oil — out of the nation and cut off the flow of the discounted crude that China buys from Venezuela’s ghost fleets of tankers that skirt U.S. sanctions. “There’s an incentive for the Americans to get there first and to ensure it’s American companies at the forefront, and not anybody else’s,” said Goldberg. It’s unclear how much the Trump administration could accelerate investment in Venezuela, said Landon Derentz, an energy analyst at the Atlantic Council who worked in the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. Many consider Venezuela a longer-term play given current low prices of $50 per barrel oil and the huge capital investments needed to modernize the infrastructure, Derentz said. But as U.S. shale oil regions that have made the country the world’s leading oil producer peter out over time, he said, it would become increasingly economical to export Venezuelan heavy crude to the Gulf Coast refineries built specifically to process it. “Venezuela would be a crown jewel if the above-ground risk is removed. I have companies saying let’s see where this lands,” said Derentz, who served in Trump’s National Security Council during his first term. “I don’t see anything that gives me the sense that this is a ripe opportunity.”

Venture capitalist Finn Murphy believes world leaders could soon resort to deflecting sunlight into space if the Earth gets unbearably hot. That’s why he’s invested more than $1 million in Stardust Solutions, a leading solar geoengineering firm that’s developing a system to reduce warming by enveloping the globe in reflective particles. Murphy isn’t rooting for climate catastrophe. But with global temperatures soaring and the political will to limit climate change waning, Stardust “can be worth tens of billions of dollars,” he said. “It would be definitely better if we lost all our money and this wasn’t necessary,” said Murphy, the 33-year-old founder of Nebular, a New York investment fund named for a vast cloud of space dust and gas. Murphy is among a new wave of investors who are putting millions of dollars into emerging companies that aim to limit the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth — while also potentially destabilizing weather patterns, food supplies and global politics. He has a degree in mathematics and mechanical engineering and views global warming not just as a human and political tragedy, but as a technical challenge with profitable solutions. Solar geoengineering investors are generally young, pragmatic and imaginative — and willing to lean into the adventurous side of venture capitalism. They often shrug off the concerns of scientists who argue it’s inherently risky to fund the development of potentially dangerous technologies through wealthy investors who could only profit if the planet-cooling systems are deployed. “If the technology works and the outcomes are positive without really catastrophic downstream impacts, these are trillion-dollar market opportunities,” said Evan Caron, a co-founder of the energy-focused venture firm Montauk Capital. “So it’s a no-brainer for an investor to take a shot at some of these.” More than 50 financial firms, wealthy individuals and government agencies have collectively provided more than $115.8 million to nine startups whose technology could be used to limit sunlight, according to interviews with VCs, tech company founders and analysts, as well as private investment data analyzed by POLITICO’s E&E News. That pool of funders includes Silicon Valley’s Sequoia Capital, one of the world’s largest venture capital firms, and four other investment groups that have more than $1 billion of assets under management. Of the total amount invested in the geoengineering sector, $75 million went to Stardust, or nearly 65 percent. The U.S.-Israeli startup is developing reflective particles and the means to spray and monitor them in the stratosphere, some 11 miles above the planet’s surface. At least three other climate-intervention companies have also raked in at least $5 million. The cash infusion is a bet on planet-cooling technologies that many political leaders, investors and environmentalists still consider taboo. In addition to having unknown side effects, solar geoengineering could expose the planet to what scientists call “termination shock,” a scenario in which global temperatures soar if the cooling technologies fail or are suddenly abandoned. Still, the funding surge for geoengineering companies pales in comparison to the billions of dollars being put toward artificial intelligence. OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, has raised $62.5 billion in 2025 alone, according to investment data compiled by PitchBook. The investment pool for solar geoengineering startups is relatively shallow in part because governments haven’t determined how they would regulate the technology — something Stardust is lobbying to change. As a result, the emerging sector is seen as too speculative for most venture capital firms, according to Kim Zou, the CEO of Sightline Climate, a market intelligence firm. VCs mostly work on behalf of wealthy individuals, as well as pension funds, university endowments and other institutional investors. “It’s still quite a niche set of investors that are even thinking about or looking at the geoengineering space,” Zou said. “The climate tech and energy tech investors we speak to still don’t really see there being an investable opportunity there, primarily because there’s no commercial market for it today.” AEROSOLS IN THE STRATOSPHERE Stardust and its investors are banking on signing contracts with one or more governments that could deploy its solar geoengineering system as soon as the end of the decade. Those investors include Lowercarbon Capital, a climate-focused firm co-founded by billionaire VC Chris Sacca, and Exor, the holding company of an Italian industrial dynasty and perhaps the most mainstream investment group to back a sunlight reflection startup. Even Stardust’s supporters acknowledge that the company is far from a sure bet. “It’s unique in that there is not currently demand for this solution,” said Murphy, whose firm is also supporting out-there startups seeking to build robots and data centers in space. “You have to go and create the product in order to potentially facilitate the demand.” Lowercarbon partner Ryan Orbuch said the firm would see a return on its Stardust investment only “in the context of an actual customer who can actually back many years of stable, safe deployment.” Exor, another Stardust investor, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Other startups are trying to develop commercial markets for solar geoengineering. Make Sunsets, a company funded by billionaire VC Tim Draper, releases sulfate-filled weather balloons that pop when they reach the stratosphere. It sells cooling credits to individuals and corporations based on the theory that the sulfates can reliably reduce warming. There are questions, however, about the science and economics underpinning the credit system of Make Sunsets, according to the investment bank Jeffries. “A cooling credit market is unlikely to be viable,” the bank said in a May 2024 note to clients. That’s because the temperature reductions produced by sulfate aerosols vary by altitude, location and season, the note explained. And the warming impacts of carbon dioxide emissions last decades — much longer than any cooling that would be created from a balloon’s worth of sulfate. Make Sunsets didn’t respond to a request for comment. The company has previously attracted the attention of regulators in the U.S. and Mexico, who have claimed it began operating without the necessary government approvals. Draper Associates says on its website that it’s “shaping a future where the impossible becomes everyday reality.” The firm has previously backed successful consumer tech firms like Tesla, Skype and Hotmail. “It is getting hotter in the Summer everywhere,” Tim Draper said in an email. “We should be encouraging every solution. I love this team, and the science works.” THE NEXT FRONTIER One startup is pursuing space-based solar geoengineering. EarthGuard is attempting to build a series of large sunlight deflectors that would be positioned between the sun and the planet, some 932,000 miles from the Earth. The company did not respond to emailed questions. Other space companies are considering geoengineering as a side project. That includes Gama, a French startup that’s designing massive solar sails that could be used for deep space travel or as a planetary sunshade, and Ethos Space, a Los Angeles company with plans to industrialize the moon. Both companies are part of an informal research network established by the Planetary Sunshade Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for the development of a trillion-dollar parasol for the globe. The network mainly brings together collaborators on the sidelines of space industry conferences, according to Gama CEO Andrew Nutter. “We’re willing to contribute something if we realize it’s genuinely necessary and it’s a better solution than other solutions” to the climate challenge, Nutter said of the space shade concept. “But our business model does not depend on it. If you have dollar signs hanging next to something, that can bias your decisions on what’s best for the planet.” Nutter said Gama has raised about $5 million since he co-founded the company in 2020. Its investors include Possible Ventures, a German VC firm that’s also financing a nuclear fusion startup and says on its website that the firm is “relentlessly optimistic — choosing to focus on the possibilities rather than obsess over the risks.” Possible Ventures did not respond to a request for comment. Sequoia-backed Reflect Orbital is another space startup that’s exploring solar geoengineering as a potential moneymaker. The company based near Los Angeles is developing a network of satellite mirrors that would direct sunlight down to the Earth at night for lighting industrial sites or, eventually, producing solar energy. Its space mirrors, if oriented differently, could also be used for limiting the amount of sun rays that reach the planet. “It’s not so much a technological limitation as much as what has the highest, best impact. It’s more of a business decision,” said Ally Stone, Reflect Orbital’s chief strategy officer. “It’s a matter of looking at each satellite as an opportunity and whether, when it’s over a specific geography, that makes more sense to reflect sunlight towards or away from the Earth.” Reflect Orbital has raised nearly $28.7 million from investors including Lux Capital, a firm that touts its efforts to “turn sci-fi into sci-fact” and has invested in the autonomous defense systems companies Anduril and Saildrone.” Sequoia and Lux didn’t respond to requests for comment. The startup hopes to send its first satellite into space next summer, according to Stone. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose aerospace company already has an estimated fleet of more than 8,800 internet satellites in orbit, has also suggested using the circling network to limit sunlight. “A large solar-powered AI satellite constellation would be able to prevent global warming by making tiny adjustments in how much solar energy reached Earth,” Musk wrote on X last month. Neither he nor SpaceX responded to an emailed request for comment. DON’T CALL IT GEOENGINEERING Other sunlight-reflecting startups are entering the market — even if they’d rather not be seen as solar geoengineering companies. Arctic Reflections is a two-year-old company that wants to reduce global warming by increasing Arctic sea ice, which doesn’t absorb as much heat as open water. The Dutch startup hasn’t yet pursued outside investors. “We see this not necessarily as geo-engineering, but rather as climate adaptation,” CEO Fonger Ypma said in an email. “Just like in reforestation projects, people help nature in growing trees, our idea is that we would help nature in growing ice.” The main funder of Arctic Reflections is the British government’s independent Advanced Research and Invention Agency. In May, ARIA awarded $4.41 million to the company — more than four times what it had raised to that point. Another startup backed by ARIA is Voltitude, which is developing micro balloons to monitor geoengineering from the stratosphere. The U.K.-based company didn’t respond to a request for comment. Altogether, the British agency is supporting 22 geoengineering projects, only a handful of which involve startups. “ARIA is only funding fundamental research through this programme, and has not taken an equity stake in any geoengineering companies,” said Mark Symes, a program director at the agency. It also requires that all research it supports “must be published, including those that rule out approaches by showing they are unsafe or unworkable.” Sunscreen is a new startup that is trying to limit sunlight in localized areas. It was founded earlier this year by Stanford University graduate student Solomon Kim. “We are pioneering the use of targeted, precision interventions to mitigate the destructive impacts of heatwave on critical United States infrastructure,” Kim said in an email. But he was emphatic that “we are not geoengineering” since the cooling impacts it’s pursuing are not large scale. Kim declined to say how much had been raised by Sunscreen and from what sources. As climate change and its impacts continue to worsen, Zou of Sightline Climate expects more investors to consider solar geoengineering startups, including deep-pocketed firms and corporations interested in the technology. Without their help, the startups might not be able to develop their planet-cooling systems. “People are feeling like, well wait a second, our backs are kind of starting to get against the wall. Time is ticking, we’re not really making a ton of progress” on decarbonization, she said. “So I do think there’s a lot more questions getting asked right now in the climate tech and venture community around understanding it,” Zou said of solar geoengineering. “Some of these companies and startups and venture deals are also starting to bring more light into the space.” Karl Mathiesen contributed reporting.

HOW DO BULGARIANS FEEL ABOUT JOINING THE EURO? The Balkan nation is sharply divided about bidding farewell to the lev.  Text by BORYANA DZHAMBAZOVA Photos by DOBRIN KASHAVELOV in Pernik, Bulgaria Bulgaria is set to adopt the EU’s single currency on Jan. 1, but polling shows the Balkan nation is sharply divided on whether it’s a good thing. POLITICO spoke to some Bulgarians about their fears and hopes, as they say goodbye to their national currency, the lev. Their comments have been edited for length. ANTON TEOFILOV, 73 Vendor at the open-air market in Pernik, a small city 100 kilometers from Sofia What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? We are a different generation, but we support the euro. We’ll benefit hugely from joining the eurozone. It will make paying anywhere in the EU easy and hassle-free. It would be great for both the economy and the nation. You can travel, do business, do whatever you want using a single currency — no more hassle or currency exchanges. You can go to Greece and buy a bottle of ouzo with the same currency. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? I don’t expect any turbulence — from January on we would just pay in euros. No one is complaining about the price tags in euros, and in lev at the moment. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? The lev is a wonderful thing, but its time has passed; that’s just how life works. It will be much better for the economy to adopt the euro. It will be so much easier to share a common currency with the other EU countries. Now, if you go to Greece, as many Bulgarians do, you need to exchange money. After January – wherever you need to make a payment – either going to the store, or to buy produce for our business, it would be one and the same. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? The state needs to explain things more clearly to those who are confused. We are a people who often need a lot of convincing, and on top of that, we’re a divided nation. If you ask me, we need to get rid of half the MPs in Parliament – they receive hefty salaries and are a burden to taxpayers, like parasites, without doing any meaningful work. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? There are 27 member states, and we will become one with them. There will be no difference between Germany and us—we’ll be much closer to Europe. I remember the 1990s, when you needed to fill out endless paperwork just to travel, let alone to work abroad. I spent a year working in construction in Germany, and getting all the permits and visas was a major headache. Now things are completely different, and joining the eurozone is another step toward that openness. Advertisement PETYA SPASOVA, 55 Orthopedic doctor in Sofia What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? It worries me a lot. I don’t think this is the right moment for Bulgaria to join the eurozone. First, the country is politically very unstable, and the eurozone itself faces serious problems. As the poorest EU member state, we won’t be immune to those issues. On the contrary, they will only deepen the crisis here. The war in Ukraine, the growing debt in Germany and France … now we’d be sharing the debts of the whole of Europe. We are adopting the euro at a time when economies are strained, and that will lead to serious disruptions and a higher cost of living. I don’t understand why the state insists so strongly on joining the eurozone. I don’t think we’re ready. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? Even now, when you go to the store and look at the price of bread or other basic foods, we see prices climbing. I’m afraid many people will end up living in extreme poverty. We barely produce anything; we’re a country built on services. When people get poorer, they naturally start consuming less. I’m not worried about myself or my family. We live in Sofia, where there are more job opportunities and higher salaries. I’m worried about people in general. Every day I see patients who can’t even afford the travel costs to come to Sofia for medical check-ups. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? I’m extremely worried. I don’t want to relive the economic crisis of the 90s, when the country was on the verge of bankruptcy. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? No one cares what people think. Many countries held referendums and decided not to join the eurozone. I don’t believe our politicians can do anything at this point. I’m not even sure they know what needs to be done. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? I feel offended when I hear this question. We’ve been part of Europe for a very long time, long before many others. We can exchange best practices in culture, science, education, and more, but that has nothing to do with the eurozone. Joining can only bring trouble. I remember years ago when I actually hoped Bulgaria would enter the eurozone. But that was a different Europe. Now things are deteriorating; the spirit of a united Europe is gone. I don’t want to be part of this Europe. Advertisement SVETOSLAV BONINSKI, 53 Truck driver from Gabrovo, a small city in central Bulgaria What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? I’m against Bulgaria joining the eurozone. We saw how Croatia and Greece sank into debt once they adopted the euro. I don’t want Bulgaria to go down the same path. Greece had to take a huge loan to bail out its economy. When they still had the drachma, their economy was strong and stable. After entering the eurozone, many big companies were forced to shut down and inflation went through the roof. Even the German economy is experiencing a downturn.. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? I worry that there will be speculation and rising inflation. Five years ago, I used to buy cigarettes in Slovakia at prices similar to Bulgaria. Now I can’t find anything cheaper than €5 per pack. They saw their prices rise after the introduction of the euro. We’ll repeat the Slovakia scenario. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? We can already feel that things won’t end well — prices have gone up significantly, just like in Croatia. I’m afraid that even in the first year wages won’t be able to compensate for the rise in prices, and people will become even more impoverished. I expect the financial situation to worsen. Our government isn’t taking any responsibility for that. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? I hope they will make an effort. We are completely ill-equipped to adopt the euro—all the stats and figures the government presents are lies. We must wait until the country is ready to manage the euro as a currency. We’re doing fine with the lev. We should wait for the economy to grow and for wages to catch up with the rest of Europe. The only thing the state could do to ease the process is to step down. The current government is interested in entering the eurozone only to receive large amounts of funding, most of which they will probably pocket themselves. The Bulgarian lev is very stable, unlike the euro, which is quite an unstable currency. All the eurozone countries are burdened with trillions in debt, while those outside it are doing quite well. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? I don’t think so. We’ve been part of Europe for a long time. The only difference now will be that Brussels will tell us what to do and will control our budget and spending. Brussels will be in charge from now on. No good awaits us. Elderly people won’t receive decent pensions and will work until we drop dead. Advertisement NATALI ILIEVA, 20 Political science student from Pernik What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? I see it as a step forward for us. It’s a positive development for both society and the country. I expect that joining the eurozone will help the economy grow and position Bulgaria more firmly within Europe. For ordinary people, it will make things easier, especially when traveling, since we’ll be using the same currency. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? The transition period might be difficult at first. I don’t think the change of currency will dramatically affect people’s daily lives – after all, under the currency board, the lev has been pegged to the euro for years. Some people are worried that prices might rise, and this is where the state must step in to monitor the situation, prevent abuse, and make the transition as smooth as possible. As part of my job at the youth center, I travel a lot in Europe. Being part of the eurozone would make travel much more convenient. My life would be so much easier! I wouldn’t have to worry about carrying euros in cash or paying additional fees when withdrawing money abroad, or wondering: Did I take the right debit card in euros? Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? I’m more concerned that the issue will be politicized by certain parties to further polarize society. Joining the eurozone is a logical next step – we agreed to it by default when we joined the bloc in 2007. There is so much disinformation circulating on social media that it’s hard for some people to see the real facts and distinguish what’s true from what’s not. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? The state needs to launch an information campaign to make the transition as smooth as possible. Authorities should explain what the change of currency means for people in a clear and accessible way. You don’t need elaborate language to communicate what’s coming, especially when some radical parties are aggressively spreading anti-euro and anti-EU rhetoric. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? Yes, I think it will help the country become better integrated into Europe. In the end, I believe people will realize that joining the eurozone will be worth it. Advertisement YANA TANKOVSKA, 47 Jewelry artist based in Sofia What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? If you ask me, the eurozone is on the verge of collapse, and now we have decided to join? I don’t think it’s a good idea. In theory, just like communism, the idea of a common currency union might sound good, but in practice it doesn’t really work out. I have friends working and living abroad [in eurozone countries], and things are not looking up for regular people, even in Germany. We all thought we would live happily as members of the bloc, but that’s not the reality. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? I expect the first half of next year to be turbulent. But we are used to surviving, so we will adapt yet again. Personally, we might have to trim some expenses, go out less, and make sure the family budget holds. I make jewelry, so I’m afraid I’ll have fewer clients, since they will also have to cut back. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? I’m terribly worried. The state promises there won’t be a jump in prices and that joining the eurozone won’t negatively affect the economy. But over the past two years the cost of living has risen significantly, and I don’t see that trend reversing. For example, in the last three years real estate prices have doubled. There isn’t a single person who isn’t complaining about rising costs. What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? There is nothing they can do at this point. Politicians do not really protect Bulgaria’s interests on this matter. The issue is not only about joining the eurozone but about protecting our national interests. I just want them to have people’s well-being at heart. Maybe we need to hit rock bottom to finally see meaningful change. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? Not really. That’s up to us, not to Europe. I just want Bulgarian politicians to finally start creating policies for the sake of society, not just enriching themselves, to act in a way that would improve life for everyone. Advertisement KATARINA NIKOLIC, 49, AND METODI METODIEV, 53 Business partners at a ‘gelateria’ in Sofia What do you think about Bulgaria joining the eurozone? Metodi: For a small business like ours, I don’t think it will make much difference, as long as the transition to the new currency is managed smoothly. I can only see a positive impact on the economy if things are done right. I’m a bit saddened to say farewell to the Bulgarian lev — it’s an old currency with its own history — but times are changing, and this is a natural step for an EU member. Katarina: I have lived in Italy which adopted the euro a long time ago. Based on my experience there, I don’t expect any worrying developments related to price increases or inflation. On the contrary, joining the eurozone in January can only be interpreted as a sign of trust from the European Commission and could bring more economic stability to Bulgaria. I also think it will increase transparency, improve financial supervision, and provide access to cheaper loans. What do you think will change in your everyday life once the euro replaces the lev? Metodi:  I don’t think there will be any difference for our business whether we’re paying in euros or in leva. We’ve been an EU member state for a while now and we’re used to working with both local and international suppliers. It will just take some getting used to switching to one currency for another. But we are already veterans — Bulgarian businesses are very adaptive — from dealing with renominations and all sorts of economic reforms. I’m just concerned that it might be challenging for some elderly people to adapt to the new currency and they might need some support and more information. Katarina: For many people, it will take time to get used to seeing a new currency, but they will adapt. For me, it’s nothing new. Since I lived in Italy, where the euro is used, I automatically convert to euros whenever Metodi and I discuss business. Are you more hopeful or worried about the economic impact of switching to the euro? Why? Metodi: The decision has already been taken, so let’s make the best of it and ensure a smooth transition. I haven’t exchanged money when traveling in at least 10 years. I just use my bank card to pay or withdraw cash if I need any. Katarina: I remember that some people in Italy also predicted disaster when the euro was introduced, and many were nostalgic about the lira. But years later, Italy is still a stable economy. I think our international partners will look at us differently once we are part of the eurozone. Advertisement What would you like politicians and institutions to do to make the transition easier for ordinary people? Metodi: I think the authorities are already taking measures to make sure prices don’t rise and that businesses don’t round conversions upward unfairly. For example, we may have to slightly increase the price of our ice cream in January. I feel a bit awkward about it because I don’t want people to say, “Look, they’re taking advantage of the euro adoption to raise prices.” But honestly, we haven’t adjusted our prices since we opened three years ago. I’m actually very impressed by how quickly and smoothly small businesses and market sellers have adopted double pricing [marking prices in lev and euros]. I know how much work that requires, especially if you’re a small business owner. Katarina: It’s crucial that the state doesn’t choke small businesses with excessive demands but instead supports them. I believe that helping small businesses grow should be a key focus of the government, not just supervising the currency swap. My hope is that the euro will help the Bulgarian economy thrive. I love Bulgaria and want to see it flourish. I’m a bit more optimistic than Metodi, I think the best is yet to come. Do you think joining the eurozone will bring Bulgaria closer to Europe culturally or politically? Metodi: I think so. Despite some criticism, good things are happening in the country, no matter who is in power. We need this closeness to truly feel part of Europe. Katarina: The euro is a financial and economic instrument. Adopting it won’t change national cultural identity, Bulgarians will keep their culture. I’m a true believer in Europe, and I think it’s more important than ever to have a united continent. As an Italian and Serbian citizen, I really appreciate that borders are open and that our children can choose where to study and work. In fact, our gelateria is a great example of international collaboration: we have people from several different countries in the team.

A group of 19 EU countries is pushing the European Commission to take a tougher line on migration beyond the bloc’s borders, arguing that last week’s EU deal on asylum and returns has changed the political weather in Brussels. In particular, they want the Commission to increase cooperation with non-EU countries to tackle what they see as unacceptably high levels of migration into the bloc. “The conclusion of the negotiations on the recent legislative proposals … is an important step,” the ministers of home and foreign affairs of the signatory countries write in a joint letter seen exclusively by POLITICO, adding that “the further development of a coherent EU strategy on the external dimension of migration, including new and innovative solutions, is paramount.” The reference to recent proposals refers to the package agreed on Dec. 8, which includes sweeping new rules to reform how the EU deals with migration, including setting up asylum processing centers in non-EU countries. Governments want the EU executive to put even more weight on the external dimension of migration by cooperating with countries of origin and countries they travel through to stop them reaching the EU. That means accelerating what they called “innovative solutions,” a catch-all term for measures such as so-called return hubs and new partnerships with non-EU countries, which supporters say could make EU migration policy more effective. The appeal is set to feature prominently at this week’s informal “migration breakfast” ahead of Thursday’s EU summit. The breakfasts, launched in June 2024 by Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen and the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof, have become highly influential on the narrative around migration in Brussels. In their letter, the ministers call for expanding the use of “new and innovative solutions” to counter irregular migration and for stronger cooperation among EU agencies, international organizations, and EU countries. While the letter avoids naming specific models, it references tools already embedded in EU law, such as “safe third country arrangements and return hubs,” and calls for their operationalization through partnerships along migration routes. The model of “return hubs,” to which individuals whose asylum claims have been rejected can be sent, has been championed by Italy. The country has built and operates — in a different legal context — two such facilities in Albania, which are expected to serve as the first concrete implementation of this model from mid-2026. Money is a central concern. The signatories argue that the innovative solutions will remain theoretical without clearer funding pathways. “The efficient use of financial resources is necessary for the establishment and operationalisation of innovative forms of cooperation,” the letter states, urging the Commission to issue guidelines on how existing and future EU funds can be mobilized. The ministers also want EU agencies to be more deeply involved, including a possible expansion of the role of the border agency Frontex. They call on the Commission and agencies to explore “necessary legislative and policy changes,” including, “where relevant, revision of the mandate and competences of Frontex, to ensure effective support and sufficient capacity” in cooperation with third countries. Beyond institutions and funding, the letter makes a clear political ask for a single EU voice. “A common narrative and joint diplomatic outreach by Member States and the EEAS … is necessary,” the ministers write, urging Brussels to hard-wire migration into summits and dialogues with partner countries.