LONDON — The European Commission is looking into whether former British politician Peter Mandelson broke EU rules over his contact with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Even though the U.K. left the EU six years ago, Mandelson remains bound by obligations that he signed up to during his time as a commissioner, from 2004 to 2008. Newly released files suggest Mandelson in 2010, while he was a senior minister in the U.K. government, may have given Epstein advance notice of a €500 billion bailout to save the euro at the height of the spiraling Greek debt crisis. European finance ministers agreed the deal overnight amid fears that the failing Greek economy could trigger a wider crisis across the eurozone. According to the files released in the U.S., Epstein, who was a financier, sent Mandelson an email the previous night saying: “Sources tell me 500 b euro bailout , almost complete.” Mandelson replied: “Sd be announced tonight.” The cabinet minister then said he was just leaving 10 Downing Street and “will call.” The British government decided not to take part in the bailout for the euro but was part of the talks that paved the way for the emergency measure, so would have known how events were progressing. On Tuesday, Balazs Ujvari, a spokesperson for the Commission said: “We have rules in place emanating from the treaty and the code of conduct that commissioners, including former commissioners, have to follow.” When there is an indication that the rules may not have been followed, the Commission looks into any potential breaches, he said. “We will be assessing if, in light of these newly available documents, there might be breaches of the respective rules with regard to Peter Mandelson.” Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Friday announced an investigation into Slovakia over the dismantling of its whistleblower protection office. In its latest rule-of-law spat with Bratislava, the EU executive criticized leftist-populist leader Robert Fico for trying to replace the office with a new institution whose leadership would be politically appointed. “The Commission considers that this law breaches EU rules,” it wrote in an official note on Friday. Brussels’ move comes amid strong pressure from lawmakers and NGOs to act against Fico’s crackdown against independent institutions and suspected fraud involving EU farm funds. Zuzana Dlugošová, the head of the whistleblower protection office, said that she had repeatedly warned Slovak officials that the plans were in contradiction with EU law. “If expert feedback had been taken into account, Slovakia could have avoided EU infringement proceedings. Still, we believe that this process itself can help foster a more professional and substantive debate on how whistleblower protection should be properly set up in Slovakia,” Dlugošová said. Slovakia’s permanent representation in Brussels and interior ministry did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s requests for comment. Brussels has given Bratislava one month to respond to its queries before taking further action — which could potentially include cutting EU payouts to Slovakia after a multi-layered process. Since returning to power in 2023 for a fourth term, Fico’s Smer party has taken steps to dismantle anti-corruption institutions, including abolishing the Special Prosecutor’s Office, which handled high-profile corruption cases, and disbanding NAKA, an elite police unit tasked with fighting organized crime. “The European Commission’s decision … sends a clear message: protecting whistleblowers is not optional — it is a core obligation of every EU Member State,” Czech MEP Tomáš Zdechovský said in written remarks to POLITICO. Before launching the probe, the EU executive had pressed Slovakia to roll back on its anti-democratic crackdown. EU Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin encouraged Fico not to dismantle the whistleblower protection office during a meeting in Bratislava in December, according to two Commission officials with knowledge of proceedings who were not authorized to go on the record. Nevertheless, in December 2025, the Slovak parliament pushed through a bill that cut short the current director’s tenure and weakened protections for whistleblowers. It was set to enter into force in on Jan. 1 but Slovakia’s top court paused the disputed decision to review whether it complies with the constitution. German Green MEP Daniel Freund welcomed the Commission’s move but urged it to go even further. “The Commission needs to do more. Fico’s government has dismantled the special prosecutor for corruption, has dismantled the national crime agency and has changed the penal code to have hundreds of convicted corruption offenders walk free,” Freund told POLITICO. Slovakia is already subject to another infringement procedure, launched by the Commission in November, over a reform that enshrines only two genders in the constitution.

President Donald Trump is talking about taking over Greenland by any means necessary. Republicans in Congress are trying to scare him back to reality. As Trump continually threatens to bring the Danish territory into the U.S. over the objections of key global allies and the island’s elected representatives, some GOP lawmakers are stepping up their warnings and engaging in diplomacy as Democrats prepare to put the other party on record opposing a military invasion. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) predicted members on both sides of the aisle would lock arms and require congressional signoff if it became clear Trump was preparing imminent military action. “If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking … there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Tillis said. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) went further, predicting that it would lead to impeachment and calling Trump’s Greenland obsession “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” The blunt public messaging comes as lawmakers try to reassure U.S. allies, including Denmark, in private. A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers will be in Copenhagen Friday to try to drive home in person the message that military action does not have support on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is not joining the delegation but he largely endorsed the message the contingent plans to send in comments to reporters Thursday, saying “there’s certainly not an appetite here for some of the options that have been talked about or considered” — an apparent reference to military action. The pushback amounts to one of the most profound breaches yet seen between GOP lawmakers and the president in Trump’s second term. So far the Republican uneasiness over Trump’s brash foreign policy moves have not resulted in any successful steps to restrain him. Following the operation to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro earlier this month, five Republicans joined Democrats to advance a measure restraining Trump from future military incursions in the South American country. But on Wednesday, two of them reversed course and ended the threat after the administration made some commitments regarding future action. Democrats believe Greenland — sovereign territory belonging to a NATO ally — could be different. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who co-authored the Venezuela measure and signaled a raft of new war-powers legislation, acknowledged to reporters Wednesday that prospects were dim that a veto-proof number of GOP senators would join Democrats’ efforts. But “we might on Greenland,” Kaine added. Thune’s predecessor as Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, spoke out in a floor speech where he said military action against Greenland would be “an unprecedented act of strategic self-harm” that risks “incinerating” NATO alliances. Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), meanwhile, said he was “deeply concerned” about the administration’s Greenland message. “I don’t think it is productive, and I don’t think this is the way to treat an ally,” he said, adding that he “would be opposed to military action in Greenland.” But even as more Republicans speak out about Trump’s Greenland ambitions, it’s not clear they could put preemptive guardrails on his actions in this Congress even if they wanted to. Instead, they appear to be hoping that Trump will read the writing on the wall and realize he doesn’t have support on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Democrats are vowing to introduce a spate of war powers resolutions, including on Greenland, in the coming weeks and months. Yet even Tillis, who predicted overwhelming support for such a resolution in the case of “imminent” military action, said he would not currently support a measure to stop Trump from using force in the region because it would “legitimize” a threat he doesn’t think is now real. Instead, Tillis is using his megaphone as a retiring senator to launch broadsides against Trump’s top aides, whom he blames for some excesses of the administration. While a Greenland takeover might be supported by hard-line deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, Tillis said, “it’s not the position of the U.S. government.”That, he said, is “another reason I’m going to Copenhagen.” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who initially supported the Venezuela war powers resolution before backtracking, also said in an interview that he was not on board with a similar effort for Greenland. “Not prospectively,” Hawley said, adding that any such measure “needs to respond to really particular facts.” Any formal GOP pushback is likely to include Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — co-founder of the Senate Arctic Caucus — who introduced a nonbinding resolution Thursday with Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Bacon that would affirm the U.S. partnership with Greenland and Denmark. The resolution stresses the “mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity” and that any military action would need congressional authorization. Murkowski, who met with Danish diplomats this week and is also traveling to Copenhagen, said she would support a Greenland war powers resolution if it came to that. She also introduced a bill with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) that would prohibit the administration from using funding to unilaterally blockade, occupy, annex or assert control over Greenland or any other territory belonging to a NATO country. “We are operating in times where we’re having conversations about things that we never thought even possible,” Murkowski said. “To use the name Greenland in the context of a war powers resolution is absolutely stunning.” While a war powers resolution can be fast-tracked to the floor, Greenland’s allies in the Senate can’t easily force a vote on the NATO measure or even the nonbinding resolution. And some Senate Republicans expressed skepticism that party leaders would let those latter measures go anywhere. “I’m sure Thune will jump on it like a bad rash,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said. Meredith Lee Hill and Joe Gould contributed to this report.

The European Commission has lost access to its control panel for buying and tracking ads on Elon Musk’s X — after fining the social media platform €120 million for violating EU transparency rules. “Your ad account has been terminated,” X’s head of product, Nikita Bier, wrote on the platform early Sunday. Bier accused the EU executive of trying to amplify its own social media post about the fine on X by trying “to take advantage of an exploit in our Ad Composer — to post a link that deceives users into thinking it’s a video and to artificially increase its reach.” The Commission fined X on Thursday for breaching the EU’s rules under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to limit the spread of illegal content. The breaches included a lack of transparency around X’s advertising library and the company’s decision to change its trademark blue checkmark from a means of verification to a “deceptive” paid feature. “The irony of your announcement,” Bier said. “X believes everyone should have an equal voice on our platform. However, it seems you believe that the rules should not apply to your account.” Trump administration has criticized the DSA and the Digital Markets Act, which prevent large online platforms, such as Google, Amazon and Meta, from overextending their online empires. The White House has accused the rules of discriminating against U.S. companies, and the fine will likely amplify transatlantic trade tensions. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has already threatened to keep 50 percent tariffs on European exports of steel and aluminum unless the EU loosens its digital rules. U.S. Vice President JD Vance blasted Brussels’ action, describing the fine as a response for “not engaging in censorship” — a notion the Commission has dismissed. “The DSA is having not to do with censorship,” said the EU’s tech czar, Henna Virkkunen, told reporters on Thursday. “This decision is about the transparency of X.”

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: Grooming gangs. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch went toe-to-toe over whether the investigation into widespread child abuse was fit for purpose — or falling apart before it even started. Word of context: The government confirmed a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation would take place in June. Since then, four abuse survivors quit the inquiry’s victims and survivors liaison panel over their treatment. Former senior social worker Annie Hudson also withdrew from a shortlist of potential inquiry chairs. No confidence: Badenoch said the four victims had “lost all confidence” and were “dismissed and contradicted” by ministers. “What’s the point in speaking up if we’re just going to be called liars,” the Tory leader asked on behalf of one victim. Starmer condemned it as one of the “worst scandals of our time” and said the door “will always be open” if they wanted to return. Bookmark this: The PM insisted the inquiry will “never be watered down, its scope will not change, and it will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders.” Starmer confirmed crossbench peer and government troubleshooter Louise Casey (mooted as a future cabinet secretary), who wrote the initial grooming gangs audit, would support the inquiry. War of words: The Tory leader asked why victims would return when “the government has engaged in a briefing war against survivors.” That strong accusation drew cries of “shame” from Labour backbenchers before Badenoch referenced another survivor, accusing Labour of creating a “toxic environment.” Pushing on: Starmer conceded there were still “hard yards” to be done to put survivors at the heart of the inquiry, given their “difficult experiences” and “wide range of views.” Nonetheless, the PM insisted, “I want to press on and get this right.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, Badenoch mentioned Starmer’s previous opposition to a national inquiry. “The victims don’t believe them,” she declared. “They don’t like it, but it’s true.” Of course: This sensitive and horrifying chapter in Britain’s history descended into a political knockabout. The PM mentioned work on reopening historic sexual abuse and mandatory reporting, which “fell on deaf ears” from the Tories. He should know: Starmer, often pejoratively labeled a lawyer by Badenoch, was asked why the inquiry wasn’t judge-led, given victims would prefer this, rather than a police officer or social worker chairing proceedings. The PM said judge-led inquiries were “often held back until the end of the criminal investigation,” which he wanted to run alongside the inquiry. Ministerial matters: But Badenoch suggested the chair was not the only problem. Quoting one victim, who accused Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips of lying (which Speaker Linsday Hoyle frowned upon), the Tory leader asked if the PM still had confidence in her. Starmer answered in the affirmative, saying she “has probably more experience than any other person in this House in dealing with violence against women and girls.” The Tories, you won’t be surprised to learn, want Phillips gone. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Roz Savage, the, er, Lib Dem MP for South Cotswolds, initially made PMQs a bit easier for Starmer after the Political Pics X account snapped her question in a transparent folder heading into No 10 … on Tuesday. “There was a very, very serious breach of national security,” she joked. Keeping Starmer on his toes, Savage instead asked about digital ID and, aptly, the risk of data breaches. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 7/10. Badenoch 6/10. Choosing a winner and a loser seems trivial given the main topic this week. Badenoch understandably used the victims’ departure to ask if the inquiry could fulfill its purpose. But the Tory leader’s political points lost the room, with the PM — just about — retaining authority with promises about the inquiry’s scope and remit. The survivors, on and off the panel, will hope those words translate into action.

BRUSSELS — An EU plan to sanction Israel’s government ministers and cut back on trade ties has been put on ice as a leading group of member countries believes it’s no longer necessary in light of the U.S.-brokered peace agreement to end the war in Gaza. The original push is now unlikely to find sufficient support at meetings of foreign ministers and EU leaders this month, according to four European diplomats, granted anonymity to speak to POLITICO about the closed-door talks. An agreement among all 27 capitals would be needed to impose the penalties, and despite growing pressure on the EU to act, the deal announced by U.S. President Donald Trump has divided national governments on the way forward. Separate measures to restrict trade could be introduced with the backing of a smaller group of countries, but this too now looks unlikely, according to the diplomats. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used her State of the Union address in September to announce she would move to blacklist “extremist ministers,” impose restrictions on violent West Bank settlers and pause bilateral payments to Israel. Those proposals are due to be discussed at a Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on Oct. 20 and a summit of leaders in Brussels on Oct. 23. Despite that, draft documents reveal that no consensus has yet been achieved. In comments to POLITICO, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot — whose country has been pushing for a tougher stance on Israel — said it was “regrettable” the EU had taken more than two years to present measures. “The credibility of the EU’s foreign policy has been seriously shaken,” he said. “For many citizens, it is still difficult to understand why the EU is incapable of taking firm decisions.” Germany, Hungary and a handful of other delegations have consistently opposed the implementation of sanctions, even though there has been broad agreement at the political level and a joint EU declaration backing steps against settlers accused of human rights breaches. In the wake of the announcement that Hamas and Israel had “signed off on the first phase” of a pact to end the war, European Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho this week hinted the bloc could change its stance. The sanctions were “proposed in a given context, and if the context changes, that could eventually lead to a change of the proposal,” she said. According to the diplomats who spoke to POLITICO, the Commission currently doesn’t intend to withdraw the plan even if the prospect of a lasting ceasefire has cast it into uncertainty.

BRUSSELS ― The European Commission is set to tighten the screws on countries that breach democratic norms by linking billions of euros in payouts to adherence to European standards. It means that governments, notably Hungary, which have fallen foul of EU rule-of-law standards through crackdowns on judicial and media freedoms, risk losing substantial funding from the EU’s centralized budget. The EU’s 2028-2034 spending plan, scheduled to be published next Wednesday and marking the start of at least a couple of years of laborious negotiations, will extend the link between payments and democratic backsliding, according to a document seen by POLITICO. Previously, only parts of the €1.2 trillion budget have been linked. The move is likely to exacerbate tensions between the Commission and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who faces the very real prospect of losing power after 15 years in an election slated for 2026. He’s had a turbulent relationship with EU policymakers and fellow governments, which have criticized what they see as his Russia-friendly and authoritarian policies. While the EU has taken action against Hungary and already withheld some funding ― and Orbán has made life difficult by threatening to block European efforts to sanction Moscow ― the next budget “will provide for a streamlined and harmonized conditionality system for all EU funds allocated to member states,” according to the document. The Commission wants to move away from the current system where “member states with particular issues could be tempted to shift some investments between programs to avoid being subject to a particular condition,” it states. Several EU countries supported tightening the link between the rule of law and funding in their submissions to the Commission ahead of the budget proposal. After its publication, governments will begin negotiations with each other on a final text ― but this is a lengthy process that is not expected to conclude until 2027. “The Conditionality Regulation must be applied to all EU funding,” Finland wrote in its position paper on the new budget, seen by POLITICO. But Hungary retorted in its own document that these rules “allowed for exerting arbitrary political pressure in policy areas unrelated to the protection of the Union’s budget.” Slovakia, which has also been criticized over rule-of-law issues, echoed these arguments in its own submission. OUT OF OFFICE Hungary is already losing out on €18 billion in funding that was suspended over its breaches of European law in the past few years. Orbán, who is campaigning on an anti-EU platform, is unlikely to make moves to claim back the payments before he faces the public vote. According to an EU diplomat, the Commission is exploiting Orbán’s domestic weaknesses ― he is trailing behind his conservative pro-EU rival Péter Magyar in the polls ― to propose stricter rules. With national capitals not expected to vote on the new rules until 2027, there’s a chance Orbán might be out of office before the budget is approved. Commission officials are confident that a Magyar-led government would mend ties with Brussels and implement the EU-required reforms to access blocked funds. Viktor Orbán, who is campaigning on an anti-EU platform, is unlikely to make moves to claim back the payments before he faces the public vote. | Oliver Matthys/EPA Under the plan, the budget would contain a direct link between a government’s breach of the rule of law and the related payment that is put on hold, an EU official said. This means that while farmers’ subsidies will be untouched by a government’s authoritarian drift, a student exchange program might suffer if there have been breaches of academic freedom. The Commission wants to keep the money flowing to the recipients of EU funding ― such as NGOs or universities ― regardless of whether a government complies with the rule of law. The overall idea is that civil society shouldn’t bear the brunt of a leader’s misdoings. Renew, the European Parliament’s liberal group, wants to take this a step further. It supports directly handing the frozen EU funds to civil society, effectively bypassing the central government. This new system, known as “smart conditionality,” would mark a change from the current rules, where frozen funds are handed back to the EU’s 27 countries collectively after an expiration date. “We set clear conditions: No EU money for autocrats, but continued support for civil society,” Valérie Hayer, the chair of Renew, said on Thursday. “She [Commission President Ursula von der Leyen] made a commitment. Now it’s up to her to keep her word.” However, “smart conditionality” has been criticized on the grounds that it reduces the incentives for national governments to carry out the required reforms. Commissioners are expected to iron out this issue during emergency talks on the budget slated for the weekend.

BRUSSELS — Friedrich Merz’s arrival as German chancellor in May rekindled the fading Franco-German love affair — and the lovebirds have already found a shared interest: killing Europe’s ethical supply chain dream. Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron joined forces this month to hobble new European Union rules aimed at boosting supply chain transparency, agreeing to mutual concessions that critics say have left the bill toothless.  The bilateral deal highlights a new era for the historical Franco-German relationship focused on a sharp pro-business agenda, some argue, thanks to a budding bromance between the two leaders. Adopted last year, the EU’s supply chain oversight law requires companies to police their supply chains for possible environmental and human rights violations. But the bill has yet to be implemented, having been selected as part of a whole set of EU rules currently subject to a massive simplification effort to cut the regulatory burden for businesses.  EU countries on Monday agreed on a dramatically watered-down version of the revolutionary rules in record time. Initially presented by the European Commission in February 2022, the new version — if endorsed by the EU as a whole — will only apply to a fraction of the European companies initially targeted. The new text “is possibly one of the first policy [deliveries] that is going to be restarting the Franco-German alliance,” said Alberto Alemanno, an EU law professor at HEC Paris. Amid escalating trade tensions and geopolitical turmoil, the European Union is on a mission to reinvent itself as a prosperous, pro-business, anti-red tape powerhouse. Macron and Merz are leading the charge in that mission. “It is a first success for the Franco-German couple,” said a French economy ministry official who was granted anonymity in line with the French government’s communication practices after the agreement among EU countries was announced.  That’s because Macron, a staunchly pro-business liberal, and Merz, an equally pro-business conservative, agreed on mutual concessions to make the text more palatable for the two countries, the same official explained. The affinity the two leaders share has not gone unnoticed. “There’s a bit of a honeymoon between Macron and Merz,” Alemanno said. “They really get along well because they have a very similar style of leadership. They are both very charismatic. They also say things that are quite unpopular, but they just say it.”  Last month, Macron told an audience of business executives that the due diligence directive ought “not just to be postponed for one year, but to be put off the table.” Emmanuel Macron told an audience of business executives that the due diligence directive ought “not just to be postponed for one year, but to be put off the table.” | Pool Photo by Benoit Tessier via EPA His comments followed a similar statement from Merz, who had called for a “complete repeal” of the law during a visit to Brussels.  As their leaders were making bold public statements about scrapping the rules altogether, behind the scenes the French and German delegations in Brussels negotiated to effectively hollow out the file. After the agreement was reached, Paris hailed the outcome as a joint win for Europe’s most powerful leaders, while Berlin stayed mum. “The German government will not publicly comment on statements made by other governments or information based on anonymous sources,” a German government spokesperson said. Civil society groups, meanwhile, question whether Europe’s supply chain oversight rules still make a difference. “We’re getting to the point of, is it even worth having this law?” said Richard Gardiner, interim head of EU policy at the ShareAction NGO, arguing that if “badly written” rules are then enshrined in law, companies will have no incentive to do better. A LONG TIME COMING The French and German positions come on the back of a tumultuous start to Ursula von der Leyen’s second term as European Commission president, during which she pledged to answer EU leaders’ calls to cut red tape for business. One of the first concrete measures the new Commission took was an “omnibus” bill, an “unprecedented simplification effort” that watered down several green laws from the previous mandate, including the corporate sustainability reporting directive and the supply chain law. The Commission wanted these changes to be fast-tracked. “I have never seen them move this fast on a piece of legislation,” said ShareActions’s Gardiner, describing the policymaking process in Brussels as having gone from a “technocratic [process] to essentially a personality-based, knee-jerk reaction.” Among the key changes to the rules is the number of companies that will be impacted. While the Commission’s proposal was to exclude 80 percent of European companies from having to comply with both the sustainability reporting and the supply chain rules, EU countries ultimately backed a French proposal to limit the scope of the latter to companies with more than 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in net turnover. In other words, fewer than 1,000 European companies would be subject to them. Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron joined forces this month to hobble new European Union rules aimed at boosting supply chain transparency, agreeing to mutual concessions that critics say have left the bill toothless. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA And that’s what the French wanted. “I think that this alignment between France and Germany allowed [us] to progress,” said the French official quoted above. In particular, the French agreed to concessions on civil liability — a main concern of German companies, which did not want to be liable for breaches of the law at the EU level. In exchange, Berlin agreed to back the higher threshold that determines which companies are subject to the new rules to ensure they align with those that already exist in French law.  On the French side, there was a “prioritization of the topic of the threshold,” said a Parliament official familiar with the details. THE BACKSTORY Berlin especially has long been at the forefront of the political war against the supply chain oversight law, with liberal and conservative politicians turning their opposition into a core component of electoral politics at a time of economic downturn, warnings of de-industrialization and global trade wars.  Even well before the Commission presented its rules, Germany was pressing Brussels to follow its lead and exempt companies with fewer than 1,000 employees. Back in 2022 the bill was already falling short of what progressive lawmakers and green groups were requesting.  After all three EU institutions managed to clinch a deal in December 2023 — overcoming an attempt by center-right European People’s Party (EPP) lawmakers to kill the file, and having already agreed to carve out the financial sector to win France over — the horse-trading intensified. Germany’s liberals, back then the smallest party in the three-party coalition of former Chancellor Olaf Scholz, launched a last-ditch push to kill the heavily lobbied and controversial file altogether, despite major disagreements within the national coalition government. France and Italy both jumped on the bandwagon.  Despite all this, the measure made it through.   Now, the survival of EU supply chain oversight rules is part of the new coalition agreement between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats (SPD) in Berlin. In principle, the agreement binds the German chancellor to protect the bill, albeit with a promise to trim the bureaucratic burden in the text. But tensions are simmering beneath the surface. Now, the survival of EU supply chain oversight rules is part of the new coalition agreement between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats (SPD) in Berlin. | Filip Singer/EPA “Many people would have benefited from the law, but their voices were not loud enough — while the bureaucracy debate overshadowed the debate,” said one German government official, granted anonymity to speak freely about internal political dynamics.  THE FRENCH U-TURN Macron’s position was far less consistent than Merz’s. He performed a spectacular U-turn to become the No. 1 opponent of a text he and his governments had advocated, at least publicly. Having been one of the first countries to enact a national law banning human rights abuses and environmental breaches from supply chains, France initially cast itself as a top supporter of the text and made it a priority when it held the rotating Council presidency back in 2022. Then, last year, Paris piggybacked on Berlin’s opposition, requesting that the law apply to fewer companies. Fast forward to 2025, and the French have become fierce critics of the text. Earlier this year, POLITICO revealed that Paris had asked the European Commission to indefinitely delay the text. That was before Macron told a roomful of business CEOs gathered in Versailles from all over the world that the text should be thrown out altogether.  While the president’s shift is music to the ears of France’s industry lobbies, it has also triggered an internal revolt from his allies who warned against sacrificing green and anti-forced labor rules under pressure from business.  And unlike about a year ago, Berlin and Paris are facing barely any pushback.  Last year, the Greens and the Social Democrats in the former German coalition government voiced their opposition to Berlin’s attempts to kill the bill, before giving in to pressure from the liberals. Now, the Social Democrats co-governing with Merz’ conservative party are mostly quiet. On Wednesday, the SPD-led labor ministry finally broke its silence, saying it was in “favor of reducing the administrative burden on companies and at the same time effectively protecting human rights.” Calls to alleviate the burden for businesses, it seems, have become the new political consensus. “The whole narrative has gotten out of hand. And no one is still up against it,” Gardiner said. Marianne Gros and Antonia Zimmermann reported from Brussels, Giorgio Leali reported from Paris and Laura Hülsemann reported from Berlin.

BRUSSELS — The European Union is trying to stop space from turning into a junkyard. The European Commission on Wednesday proposed a new Space Act that seeks to dial up regulatory oversight of satellite operators — including requiring them to tackle their impact on space debris and pollution, or face significant fines. There are more than 10,000 satellites now in orbit and growing space junk to match. In recent years, more companies — most notably Elon Musk’s Starlink — have ventured into low-Earth orbit, from where stronger telecommunication connections can be established but which requires more satellites to ensure full coverage. “Space is congested and contested,” a Commission official said ahead of Wednesday’s proposal in a briefing with reporters. The official was granted anonymity to disclose details ahead of the formal presentation. The EU executive wants to set up a database to track objects circulating in space; make authorization processes clearer to help companies launch satellites and provide services in Europe; and force national governments to give regulators oversight powers. The Space Act proposal would also require space companies to have launch safety and end-of-life disposal plans, take extra steps to limit space debris, light and radio pollution, and calculate the environmental footprint of their operations. Mega and giga constellations, which are networks of at least 100 and 1,000 spacecraft, respectively, face extra rules to coordinate orbit traffic and avoid collisions. “It’s starting to look like a jungle up there. We need to intervene,” said French liberal lawmaker Christophe Grudler. “Setting traffic rules for satellites might not sound as sexy as sending people to Mars. But that’s real, that’s now and that has an impact on our daily lives.” Under the proposal, operators would also have to run cybersecurity risk assessments, introduce cryptographic and encryption-level protection, and are encouraged to share more information with corporate rivals to fend off cyberattacks. Breaches of the rules could result in fines of up to twice the profits gained or losses avoided as a result of the infringement, or, where these amounts cannot be determined, up to 2 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. Satellites exclusively used for defense or national security are excluded from the law. THE MUSK PROBLEM The Space Act proposal comes as the EU increasingly sees a homegrown satellite industry as crucial to its connectivity, defense and sovereignty ambitions. Musk’s dominance in the field has become a clear vulnerability for Europe. His Starlink network has showcased at scale how thousands of satellites can reach underserved areas and fix internet voids, but it has also revealed his hold over Ukraine’s wartime communication, highlighting the danger of relying on a single, foreign player. Top lawmakers in the European Parliament, including Grudler, earlier this month advocated for a “clearly ring-fenced budget of at least €60 billion” devoted to space policy, while French President Emmanuel Macron last week called for the next EU budget to earmark more money to boost Europe’s space sector. That’s crucial “if we want to stay in the game of the great international powers,” he said shortly after the French government announced it would ramp up its stake in Eutelsat, a Franco-British satellite company and Starlink rival. The Space Act proposal introduces additional requirements for players from outside the EU that operate in the European market, unless their home country is deemed to have equivalent oversight by the Commission, which could be the case for the U.S. They will also have to appoint a legal representative in the bloc. The proposal is set to apply from 2030 and will now head to the Council of the EU, where governments hash out their position, and the European Parliament for negotiations on the final law. Aude van den Hove contributed reporting.

Dutch authorities are investigating a major disruption to train traffic in the Netherlands on the opening day of the NATO summit — an incident that one senior official said could be sabotage. A power outage early on Tuesday has disrupted some traffic to and from the Netherlands’ main airport Schiphol, located 50 kilometers from where leaders of the Western defense alliance NATO are gathering today and tomorrow. Around 30 cables were damaged due to a fire, local media reported. The damaged cables have impacted the trains running from Amsterdam, Schiphol and Utrecht stations. Dutch Justice Minister David van Weel on Tuesday said the disruption “could be sabotage.” “[Sabotage] is one of the things we are now investigating,” he told broadcaster NOS at the Public Forum ahead of the NATO leaders’ meetings. “Then the question is: Who is behind it? It can be an activist group, it can be a country. It can be many things,” he said. Van Weel served as NATO’s most senior hybrid and cybersecurity official until the middle of last year. Officials at Dutch railway provider ProRail and public authorities are still investigating the incident. The train disruptions are the most recent disruption to events in the Netherlands, after Dutch municipalities on Monday already faced a series of low-level cyberattacks. A wave of distributed denial-of-service attacks hit a dozen Dutch organizations, including several municipalities, the National Cyber Security Centre confirmed. The attacks did not result in data breaches or intrusions, authorities said. Dutch cyber authorities pointed to the pro-Russian hacktivist group NoName057(16), which claimed the attacks. The group has targeted NATO countries including Belgium, Romania and others in the past year with such DDoS attacks, seeking to influence how countries position themselves toward NATO and the war in Ukraine. The attacks fit the description of threats outlined by Dutch authorities ahead of the NATO summit. While not very sophisticated, they appeared aimed at sowing confusion and stretching the capacity of public sector institutions involved in organizing the summit. Threat intelligence firm Recorded Future last week warned that the NATO summit in The Hague was expected to draw intense interest from Russian and Chinese threat operatives, with defense infrastructure and logistics providers likely to be top targets for espionage and sabotage.