ATHENS — Greece’s parliament is expected to pass double-edged legislation on Wednesday that will help recruit tens of thousands more South Asian workers, while simultaneously penalizing migrants that the government says have entered the country illegally. Greece’s right-wing administration seeks to style itself as tough on migration but needs to pass Wednesday’s bill thanks to a crippling labor shortfall in vital sectors such as tourism, construction and agriculture. The central idea of the new legislation is to simplify bringing in workers through recruitment schemes agreed with countries such as India, Bangladesh and Egypt. There will be a special “fast track” for big public-works projects. The New Democracy government knows, however, that these measures to recruit more foreign workers will play badly with some core supporters. For that reason the bill includes strong measures against immigrants who have already entered Greece illegally, and also pledges to clamp down on the non-government organizations helping migrants. “We need workers, but we are tough on illegal immigration,” Greece’s Migration Minister Thanos Plevris told ERT television. The migration tensions in Greece reflect the extent to which it remains a hot button issue across Europe, even though numbers have dropped significantly since the massive flows of 2015, when the Greek Aegean islands were one of the main points of arrival. More than 80,000 positions for immigrants have been approved by the Greek state annually over the past two years. There are no official figures on labor shortages, but studies from industry associations indicate the country’s needs are more than double the state-approved number of spots, and that only half of those positions are filled. The migration bill is expected to pass because the government holds a majority in parliament. Opposition parties have condemned it, saying it ignores the need to integrate the migrants already in Greece and adopts the rhetoric of the far right. Under the new legislation, migrants who entered the country illegally will have no opportunity to acquire legal status. The bill also abolishes a provision granting residence permits to unaccompanied minors once they turn 18, provided they attend school in Greece. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal, and when they are located they will be arrested, imprisoned for two to five years and repatriated,” Plevris told lawmakers. Human-rights groups also oppose the legislation, which they say criminalizes humanitarian NGOs by explicitly linking their migration-related activities to serious crimes.  The bill envisages severe penalties such as mandatory prison terms of at least 10 years and heavy fines for assisting irregular entry, providing transport for illegal migration, or helping those migrants stay. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal,” Thanos Plevris told lawmakers. | Orestis Panagiotou/EPA Wednesday’s legislation also grants the migration minister broad powers to deregister NGOs based solely on criminal charges against one member, and will allow residence permits to be revoked on the basis of suspicion alone — undermining the presumption of innocence. Greece’s national ombudsman has expressed serious concerns about the bill, arguing that punishing people for entering the country illegally contravenes international conventions on the treatment of refugees. Lefteris Papagiannakis, director of the Greek Council for Refugees, was equally damning. “This binary political approach follows the global hostile and racist policy around migration,” he said.

Veterans, people aging out of foster care, and parents of teenagers are just a few of the groups who will face dire consequences from new work requirements for people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Sunday, February 1.  Expected to impact millions of Americans and cause around two million recipients to stop receiving benefits altogether, these changes stem from President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” that passed in July. The GOP bill will reduce SNAP funding by approximately $186 billion over 10 years—a cut of around 20 percent.  SNAP currently helps provide food to more than 42 million Americans each month—more than two–thirds of whom are elderly, disabled, or children. To qualify for SNAP, households must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line —which, as of 2026, stands at $15,960 for a single person, $27,320 for a three-person household, and $38,680 for a five-person household. Typically, adults who are eligible for SNAP can receive benefits for three months within a 36-month period before needing to fulfill additional work requirements, such as getting employment or attending a work training program. Many groups of people are granted exceptions to the work requirements depending on their abilities and life circumstances. The new requirements, however, target some of these groups.  Starting Sunday, February 1, able-bodied individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 without dependents must be working or attending a work program for 80 hours or more per month to receive benefits. Before the GOP bill’s passage, the age limit for work requirements was 55. And, while parents and household members with dependents under the age of 18 were previously exempt from the requirements, those exceptions will now only apply to families with dependents under the age of 14.  Certain other groups facing unique challenges were also able to receive benefits without fulfilling certain requirements, but will now be forced to comply with the new rules. These groups include veterans, people ages 24 and under who recently aged out of foster care, and people who are unhoused.  According to a Congressional Budget Office report from August 2025, these new provisions could reduce participation in SNAP by roughly 2.4 million people in an average month from 2025 to 2034.  White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt took questions on the SNAP program on November 4, 2025.Andrew Harnik/GETTY The power of individual states to provide benefits during difficult hiring periods is also being affected. Moving forward, state leaders can only temporarily extend benefits beyond three months if the unemployment rate in an area is at least 10 percent. The national unemployment rate is, according to a January report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, around 4.4 percent. According to the Trump administration, these new rules are aimed at eliminating what they say is fraud and “reflect the importance of work and responsibility,” as detailed on the United States Department of Agriculture website. The USDA is the agency that funds SNAP. Yet, according to an April 2025 report from the Congressional Research Service, “SNAP fraud is rare.” Sometimes, an occasional error may occur through bureaucratic mistakes such as duplicate enrollments—though this does not constitute fraud, the report explained.  Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has lauded the new rules, saying in an interview with Fox Business on Friday that “the American dream is not being on [a] food stamp program.” She added, “That should be a hand up, not a handout.”  People who receive SNAP benefits repeatedly have faced uncertainty recently, including during the longest government shutdown in American history last year, when millions of Americans didn’t receive their food benefits. Unlike during other government shutdowns, the Trump administration opted not to use contingency funds to keep SNAP operating while Congress worked on a deal.  The administration last year also threatened to withhold federal funding for food stamps for more than 20 Democratic-led states that refused to hand over sensitive personal data—such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and home addresses—about their recipients, reportedly in an effort to root out fraud. Democratic leaders refused, in part, because they worried this data would be used for immigration enforcement.  Daytona Beach residents line up in their cars during a free food distribution for recipients of SNAP on November 9, 2025. The US Supreme Court said on November 7 that the Trump administration does not have to immediately pay SNAP food benefits defunded during the government shutdown. MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO/GETTY Some people who are legally in the country but are not citizens have had access to SNAP benefits. These rules have also changed in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” The GOP move will affect scores of people legally present in the US, including those who came to the country under asylum and refugee laws or had urgent humanitarian needs, such as being survivors of domestic violence or human trafficking. The new work guidelines risk adding more confusion to the mix. “These work requirements aren’t really about promoting work. They’re about dehumanizing people and attacking the ‘other,'” Joel Berg, CEO of the nonprofit Hunger Free America, told ABC News. “Most SNAP recipients are pro-work, and most SNAP recipients are already working, or children, or people with disabilities, or older Americans. So all this is sort of a diversionary debate.” And now, he explained, “more Americans will go hungry.”

The Senate passed a compromise spending package Friday, clearing a path for Congress to avert a lengthy government shutdown. The 71-29 vote came a day after Senate Democrats and President Donald Trump struck a deal to attach two weeks of Homeland Security funding to five spending bills that will fund the Pentagon, State Department and many other agencies until Sept. 30. Only five of 53 Republicans voted against it after Trump publicly urged lawmakers Thursday to approve the legislation. Democrats were split, with 24 of 47 caucus members opposing the package. The Senate’s vote won’t avert a partial shutdown that will start early Saturday morning since House lawmakers are out of town and not scheduled to return until Monday. During a private call with House Republicans Friday, Speaker Mike Johnson said the likeliest route to House passage would be bringing the package up under a fast-track process Monday evening. That would require a two-thirds majority — and a significant number of Democratic votes. The $1.2 trillion package could face challenges in the House, especially from conservative hard-liners who have said they would vote against any Senate changes to what the House already passed. Many House Democrats are also wary of stopgap funding for DHS, which would keep ICE and Border Patrol funded at current levels without immediate new restrictions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he had been in constant contact with Johnson “for better or worse” about getting the funding deal through the House, predicting that the Louisiana Republican is “prepared to do everything he can as quickly as possible.” “Hopefully things go well over there,” he added. If the Trump-blessed deal ultimately gets signed into law, Congress will have approved more than 95 percent of federal funding — leaving only a full-year DHS bill on its to-do list. Congress has already funded several agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs and Justice. “These are fiscally responsible bills that reflect months of hard work and deliberation from members on both parties and both sides of the Capitol,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said before the final vote. The Office of Management and Budget has issued shutdown guidance for agencies not already funded, which include furloughs of some personnel. Republicans agreeing to strip out the full-year DHS bill and replace it with a two-week patch is a major win for Democrats. They quickly unified behind a demand to split off and renegotiate immigration enforcement funding after federal agents deployed to Minnesota fatally shot 37-year-old U.S. citizen Alex Pretti last week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who helped negotiate the final deal, took a victory lap after the vote, saying “the agreement we reached today did exactly what Democrats wanted.” But Democrats will still need to negotiate with the White House and congressional Republicans about what, if any, policy changes they are willing to codify into law as part of a long-term bill. Republicans are open to some changes, including requiring independent investigations. But they’ve already dismissed some of Democrats’ main demands, including requiring judicial warrants for immigration arrests. “I want my Republican colleagues to listen closely: Senate Democrats will not support a DHS bill unless it reins in ICE and ends the violence,” Schumer said. “We will know soon enough if your colleagues understand the stakes.” Republicans have demands of their own, and many believe the most likely outcome is that another DHS patch will be needed. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), for instance, wants a future vote on legislation barring federal funding for cities that don’t comply with federal immigration laws. Other Republicans and the White House have pointed to it as a key issue in the upcoming negotiations. “I am demanding that my solution to fixing sanctuary cities at least have a vote. You’re going to put ideas on the floor to make ICE better? I want to put an idea on the floor to get to the root cause of the problem,” Graham said. The Senate vote caps off a days-long sprint to avoid a second lengthy shutdown in the span of four months. Senate Democrats and Trump said Thursday they had a deal, only for it to run into a snag when Graham delayed a quick vote as he fumed over a provision in the bill, first reported by POLITICO, related to former special counsel Jack Smith’s now-defunct investigation targeting Trump. Senate leaders ultimately got the agreement back on track Friday afternoon by offering votes on seven changes to the bill, all of which failed. The Senate defeated proposals to cut refugee assistance, strip out all earmarks from the package and redirect funding for ICE to Medicaid, among others. Graham raged against the House’s move to overturn a law passed last year allowing senators to sue for up to $500,000 per incident if their data had been used in former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the 2020 election. But he backed off his threats to hold up the bill after announcing that leaders had agreed to support a future vote on the matter. “You jammed me,” Graham said on the floor Friday. “Speaker Johnson, I won’t forget this.” Meredith Lee Hill and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Donica Brady lost her job after the Trump administration cut grant funding to bring solar power across the country, including to tribal nations. She picked up multiple jobs to make ends meet. That, in addition to caring for children, whittled down Brady’s free time. So she invited reporter Ilana Newman over when she found a quiet moment—while skinning a deer—to talk about what the loss of solar funding meant to her and her community.  “When the opportunity came up to work and help us get something established…it was huge,” she said. Brady was one of many Indigenous people working to build energy sovereignty for tribal nations—work that continues despite the administration clawing back federal funds.  Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app. This week on Reveal, we’re diving into how small communities across the country are navigating the current administration’s policies and how they show up in everyone’s lives, no matter where you are in this country. We’ve partnered with The Daily Yonder to share a story about the solar energy hopes of tribal nations; The Tributary in Jacksonville, Florida, to learn how local and state DOGE are complicating efforts to run the city; and Idaho-based reporter Heath Druzin to hear how the Trump administration’s immigration policy is rupturing the state’s Republican Party.

BEIJING — Keir Starmer wants to take the U.K. deeper into the European Union single market — if Brussels will let him. Speaking to reporters during a visit to China, the British prime minister said he wanted to “go further” in aligning with the European market where it is “in our national interest.” In May last year Starmer effectively agreed to take the U.K. back into Brussels’ orbit in two sectors: agriculture and electricity. Those agreements, which are currently being finalized, will see the U.K. follow relevant EU regulations — in exchange for more seamless market access. Seemingly buoyed by a positive reception and a smaller than anticipated Brexiteer backlash, Starmer is now doubling down. “I think the relationship with the EU and every summit should be iterative. We should be seeking to go further,” the prime minister told reporters. “And I think there are other areas in the single market where we should look to see whether we can’t make more progress. That will depend on our discussions and what we think is in our national interest. “But what I’m indicating here is — I do think we can go further.” The comments are a significant rhetorical shift for the Labour leader, whose 2024 election manifesto promised that “there will be no return to the single market” — as well as the customs union or free movement. While the Labour government has softened on the single market in office, it has arguably hardened on the customs union. Starmer told reporters that “the place to look is the single market, rather than the customs union,” arguing that joining the latter would require unpicking trade deals struck under Britain’s newly independent trade policy. GOING SWISS? While EU officials say they are always open to concrete U.K. proposals, rejoining the single market sector-by-sector might not be entirely straightforward. Brussels agreed to British access for agriculture and electricity in part because of pressure from European industry, which will arguably benefit from the new arrangements as much as the British side. But the dynamic is different in other sectors, where some European firms have been able to thrive at the expense of their locked-out British competitors. There will also be debates in Brussels about where the bloc should draw the line in granting single market access to a country that does not accept the free movement of people — a requirement other states like Norway and Switzerland must respect. Officials are also wary that the EU-U.K. relationship may come to resemble the worst aspects of the Swiss one, a complicated mess of agreements which is subject to endless renegotiation and widely disliked in Brussels. CHEMICAL ATTRACTION The prime minister would not elaborate on which sectors the U.K. should seek agreements with the EU on, stating only that “we’re negotiating with the EU as we go into the next summit.” British officials say that for now they are focused on negotiating the agreements promised at last May’s meeting. One senior business representative in Brussels, granted anonymity because their role does not authorize them to speak publicly, said alignment in sectors including chemicals, cosmetics, and medical devices could be advantageous to businesses on both sides of the English Channel. As well as the agreements on electricity and agriculture, the U.K. and EU last May agreed a security agreement to cooperate more closely on defense, and to link their emissions trading systems to exempt each other from their respective carbon border taxes. They also agreed to establish a youth mobility scheme, which will see young people get visas to live abroad for a limited period. Starmer reiterated the U.K.’s position that “there has got to be a cap” on the number of people who can take advantage of the scheme and “there has got to be a duration agreed.” “And it will be a visa-led scheme. All of our schemes are similar to that. We are negotiating,” he added. Dan Bloom reported from Beijing. Jon Stone reported from Brussels.

BRUSSELS — The jobs of president of the European Commission and president of the European Council should be merged so the EU can speak with one voice on the global stage, European People’s Party boss Manfred Weber said Wednesday. Reforming the EU’s leadership structure in such a way would not need changes to the bloc’s treaties, Weber argued at an event for business leaders in Brussels; it would simply mean giving one person both jobs. He said this could happen after the next EU election, in 2029. “We are blocked, we are speechless, we are voiceless, we have no say on the global stage, and that has to be stopped,” said Weber, the president of Europe’s largest political family. The European Commission president (currently Ursula von der Leyen) leads the bloc’s executive arm, which has power over trade, agriculture, the single market and other internal policy areas — although foreign affairs is handled by the EU’s top diplomat (Kaja Kallas) and the European Council president (António Costa), with both reporting directly to EU countries. This fragmented division of power is not “up to the task” at a time of geopolitical uncertainty, Weber said, with Donald Trump’s U.S. administration turning the international order upside down. Asked by POLITICO if he would be in the running for a future “president of Europe” role, Weber declined to rule it out, saying: “I don’t want to answer.” He later added that “the future of these questions are in the hands of the party structure and in the hands of the citizens of Europe.” Weber has led the EPP in the European Parliament since 2014, and in 2019 campaigned for the job of European Commission president, but EU leaders instead chose von der Leyen, then Germany’s defense minister. In his speech, Weber also said EU countries should switch to qualified majority voting on foreign and security policy issues rather than by unanimity. This idea has been floated for years, but some government leaders are firmly against further European integration, including Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico. If such reform is not possible, as it would require the backing of all current members, those countries willing to advance integration “should go forward with a special sovereignty treaty” on foreign policy, Weber said.

BRUSSELS — Pressure is mounting on the European Commission to exempt fertilizers from its new carbon tariff scheme, as national capitals side with farmers over industry to unpick one of the EU’s newest climate policies. During a discussion requested by Austria on Monday, 12 countries called for a temporary exclusion of fertilizers from the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), a levy on the greenhouse gas emissions of certain goods imported into the bloc. They argued that CBAM, which only became fully operational on Jan. 1, is sending already-rising fertilizer even higher, adding to economic difficulties for crop farmers. “European arable farmers are currently facing not just low producer prices, but also rising production costs. The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. Eleven countries backed Vienna in Monday’s meeting. Yet critics — which include fertilizer producers, environment-focused MEPs and several governments — warn that such an exemption would not only penalize the EU’s domestic producers but threaten the integrity of the carbon tariff scheme. “High prices of production inputs, including fertilizers, have a direct impact on the economic situation of farms… However, we want an optimal solution in order to maintain food security on one hand and on the other [avoid] possible negative impacts on the competitiveness of EU fertilizer producers,” said Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski, whose country is a major fertilizer producer.  Germany, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands expressed similar sentiments.  CBAM was phased in over several years and is supposed to protect European producers of heavily polluting goods — cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen — from cheap and dirty foreign competition. EU manufacturers of these products currently pay a carbon price on their planet-warming emissions, while importers didn’t before the CBAM came into force. By introducing a levy on imports from countries without carbon pricing, the EU wants to even out the playing field and encourage its trading partners to switch to cleaner manufacturing practices. (Those partners aren’t too happy.) The CBAM price is paid by the importers, which are free to pass on the cost to buyers — in the case of fertilizers, farmers.  Fertilizers make up a substantial share of farms’ operating costs, and EU-based companies do not produce enough to match demand. CBAM is therefore expected to push up fertilizer costs, though estimates on by how much vary greatly. A group of nine EU countries led by France mentioned a 25 percent increase in a recent missive, while Austria reckons it’s 10-15 percent.  The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA Carbon pricing analyst firm Sandbag, however, says it’s far lower for the next two years — less than 1 percent, or a couple of euros per ton of ammonia, a fertilizer component that costs several hundred euros per ton without the levy. Responding to governments on Monday, Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen noted that the EU executive already tweaked the policy to provide relief to farmers in December, and followed up in January with a promise to suspend some regular tariffs on fertilizer components to offset the additional CBAM cost. SUSPENSION SUSPENSE The Commission in December set in motion legislative changes that could allow it to enact such a suspension in the event of “serious and unforeseen circumstances” harming the bloc’s internal market — in effect, an emergency brake for CBAM. The suspension can apply retroactively, the EU executive said earlier this month. Yet EU governments and the European Parliament each have to approve this clause before the Commission could make such a move, a process expected to take the better part of this year. Environment ministers can vote on the changes in March or June, and MEPs haven’t even chosen their lead lawmakers to work on the Parliament’s position yet. That’s why Austria on Monday called on the Commission to “immediately” suspend CBAM until “the regular possibility to temporarily suspend CBAM on fertilisers is ensured.” The legal basis for such a move is unclear, as the legislation in force does not feature an exemption clause.  Vienna’s request for a debate came after a group of nine countries — Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania — wrote to the Commission requesting a suspension earlier this month. During Monday’s discussion, Croatia and Estonia also expressed support for such a move.  Ireland welcomed the Commission’s proposal of a suspension clause but asked for additional details.  Spain was ambivalent: “We need to strengthen our industrial capacity to contribute to the strategic autonomy of the European Union. But clearly, the decarbonisation of this sector mustn’t jeopardize farmers’ livelihoods,” said Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas.  Italy, which previously signaled its support for a suspension, did not explicitly endorse such a move — merely backing the Commission’s already-announced tweaks to normal fertilizer tariffs in its intervention on Monday.  Not all countries took to the floor. Czechia, for example — whose new government is opposed to large parts of EU climate legislation, but whose prime minister owns Europe’s second-largest nitrogen fertilizer producer — remained silent. The Czech agriculture ministry did not respond to a request for comment. INDUSTRY ALARMED While exempting fertilizers may win governments kudos from farmers, European fertilizer manufacturers would be irate. The producers’ association Fertilisers Europe warned that such a move would be “totally unacceptable” and “undermine the competitiveness” of EU companies. Yara, a major Norwegian fertilizer producer, said that “CBAM was designed to ensure a level playing field. Weakening it through tariff reductions or retroactive suspension sends the wrong signal to companies investing in Europe’s green transition.” Mohammed Chahim, the vice president of the center-left Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, said that EU companies “need regulatory stability.” “European fertilizer producers have spent precious time and significant resources, often with support from taxpayer money, to decarbonize,” said the Dutch MEP, who drafted the Parliament’s position on the original CBAM law. “Any exemptions for CBAM send a terrible signal — not just to our own industry, but to the world.”  It’s not only makers of fertilizer that are up in arms. Companies in the heavy industry sector — whose competitiveness CBAM is supposed to protect — are warning that granting an exemption once could produce a domino effect, encouraging buyers of all CBAM goods to lobby for relief.  German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “Once one sector gets an exemption, other sectors will want this too,” warned the Business for CBAM coalition, a lobby group of companies and industry groups. “We therefore call on the European Parliament and [ministers] to remove” the exemption clause, it added.  Similarly, German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. If we suspend it for fertilizers, there are immediately arguments to suspend it in other sectors as well.” 

NEW DELHI — The EU and India have concluded trade talks on a free trade agreement, a senior Indian official told POLITICO.  “Official-level negotiations are being concluded and both sides are all set to announce the successful conclusion of FTA talks on 27th January,” Commerce Secretary Rajesh Agrawal told POLITICO.  Under the deal, India is expected to significantly reduce tariffs on cars and machinery as well agricultural goods such as wine and hard alcohol. “This would be a very good story for our agriculture sector. I believe we are aiming to start a completely new chapter in the field of cooperation in the automotive sector, in machinery,” EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič told POLITICO. On trade in services, the trade chief said that sectors like telecoms, maritime and financial services were expected to benefit. “This is again something where also India is making groundbreaking steps to new levels of cooperation, because we are the first one with whom they’re ready to consider this cooperation,” he said.  The conclusion to the talks arrived as the EU leadership was on a three-day visit to India for a summit to boost trade and defense ties between New Delhi and Brussels.  With the talks between the two sides having been on and off since 2007, the pact comes at an ideal moment as New Delhi and Brussels battle steep tariffs from the U.S. and cheap goods from China. 

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has taken a major step to stabilize water use in the state’s rural desert, where a Saudi-owned company established a massive farming operation more than a decade ago. During her State of the State Address earlier this month, Hobbs announced she was placing the Saudi alfalfa farm within an “active management area,” a technical designation that allows Arizona to slow and possibly even reverse the growth of groundwater use in a remote desert area of western Arizona. The megafarm near Vicksburg—owned by the Riyadh-based dairy company Almarai—began pumping massive amounts of groundwater in 2014 to grow hay for export to feed the Kingdom’s dairy cows. The Center for Investigative Reporting first broke news about the desert farm in 2015, drawing attention to a growing trend: Companies connected to foreign governments—Almarai was founded and is currently chaired by a member of the Saudi Royal family—were effectively exporting massive amounts of American groundwater in the form of hay, a water-intensive crop, to help their own countries cope with severe shortages. But one country’s solution would become another’s problem, as the wells of Arizonans living in La Paz County near the farm began running dry. The situation attracted international news coverage as awareness grew about the increasing global competition for groundwater, and other Arizona megafarms exporting desert water in the guise of agricultural products. The water grab would become a key issue in the state’s 2022 gubernatorial election. The Grab, an Emmy-winning documentary based on our reporting, followed rural La Paz County supervisor Holly Irwin as she fought to protect residents’ precious water. Watch the trailer: After the film’s release, Hobbs canceled some of the Saudi farm’s contracts to grow hay on land owned by the state. Attorney General Kris Mayes then sued Fondomonte, a wholly owned subsidiary of Almarai, seeking compensation for the locals whose wells were kaput. Hobbs’ designation of the Ranegras Plain Groundwater Basin, located in western Arizona, as an “active management area,” allows regulators to curtail additional water use, effectively limiting the withdrawals to the people and entities pumping it today. In the short term, the designation by itself cannot reduce the amount of water being used by foreign megafarms, but it can at least stop new ones from coming in—and current ones from expanding their operations—in addition to encouraging farms to reduce their withdrawals. “This is huge,” said Irwin, the county supervisor. “It prevents any future companies from being able to purchase land and come here to extract water.” The global scramble for freshwater supplies is only increasing, according to a UN report released this week, which noted the world has entered an “era of water bankruptcy.”

STRASBOURG — Germany, the chief backer of the European Union’s Mercosur trade deal, called on Brussels to go ahead and implement it even after lawmakers voted on Wednesday to send the accord for judicial review, setting up a major clash between the bloc’s institutions and its two largest economies. The European Parliament voted by a razor-thin margin on Wednesday to pass a motion to seek a legal opinion from the Court of Justice of the EU on whether the Mercosur deal complies with the EU treaties. It was a blow for Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, who made a last-minute appeal hours earlier to MEPs to advance the deal. The vote widened a rift between France, which has fought an epic rearguard action against the Latin American megadeal to protect its farmers, and a Germany desperate to boost industrial exporters reeling from U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade aggression. “The European Parliament’s decision on the Mercosur Agreement is regrettable,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on X. “It misjudges the geopolitical situation. We are convinced of the agreement’s legality. No more delays. The agreement must now be applied provisionally.” In Paris, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu welcomed what he called “an important vote that has to be respected.” Foreign Minister Jean Noël Barrot chimed in: “France takes responsibility for saying no when it is necessary, and history often proves it right. The fight continues to protect our agriculture and ensure our food sovereignty.” Lawmakers will not vote on final consent to the deal until the Court of Justice issues its opinion, which could take 18 to 24 months. The court can “adjust the pace of the proceedings where institutional or political necessity makes a timely response especially important,” its press service said in a statement. DEMOCRACY VS REALPOLITIK In principle, the Commission would be allowed under the EU treaties to temporarily apply the provisions of the Mercosur deal, which would create a free-trade area spanning 700 million people and eliminate duties on more than 90 percent of goods. It’s a finely balanced, yet momentous, tradeoff between democratic accountability and realpolitik as the EU executive seeks ways to stand strong against Washington amidst the ongoing transatlantic rift over President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland. Manfred Weber, the pro-Mercosur leader of the European People’s Party, backed the call by his fellow countryman Merz, for provisional application. “The European Parliament did not take a substantive position on Mercosur today; it voted on a procedural motion instead. This is an attempt to delay a much-needed agreement for ideological reasons,” Weber said in a statement. “In the current geopolitical situation, Europe cannot afford a stalemate. The agreement must now be provisionally applied so that its benefits for our economy can take effect. The European Parliament will have the final say after review by the Court of Justice of the EU.” The Commission, in a strongly worded statement, said it “strongly regretted” the decision by EU lawmakers, calling the concerns raised in the motion “unjustified.” It did not precommit to taking any action, however, saying it would now engage with EU member governments and MEPs before deciding on next steps. Olof Gill, the Commission’s top trade spokesperson, did confirm to reporters last week that the EU treaties did allow for the possibility of provisional implementation.  EU countries withdrew a resolution pledging not to sidestep the legislative process when they backed the deal on Jan. 9, sparking uproar in the corridors of the Parliament.  POWER PLAY Lawmakers argue that the Parliament, as the EU’s only directly elected institution, has the democratic legitimacy to be involved in decisions on trade deals.  A new non-binding framework agreement governing relations between the Commission and the Parliament, still to be green-lit by lawmakers, states that if the Commission intends to pursue provisional application of the deal, it should first seek the Parliament’s consent. The move to bypass Parliament would also mark a departure from established practice. Although it’s possible to provisionally apply the trade deal before the European Parliament’s consent, it hasn’t been the practice for over 10 years.  “Provisional application doesn’t take effect before the consent of the European Parliament or before the European Parliament has had the chance to express its view — and that is standard practice since the EU-South Korea agreement [in 2011],” said David Kleimann, a senior trade expert.  Even if the Commission wants to expedite implementation of the deal, it will need to wait until the Mercosur countries ratify the agreement, Sabine Weyand said in an email sent to trade lawmakers less than two weeks ago, seen by POLITICO. “On the side of the Commission we very much wish the Mercosur agreement to become a reality as quickly as possible, given its importance for the EU’s strategic autonomy and sovereignty,” she said. Asking for the Parliament’s “swift consent” on the deal as a whole, she reminded lawmakers that Mercosur countries “need to have completed their respective ratification procedures, and then notify the other side thereof” before the Commission can implement the deal in Europe.  Max Griera reported from Strasbourg and Camille Gijs from Brussels. Giorgio Leali contributed to this report from Paris and Ferdinand Knapp from Brussels.