LONDON — Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is set to take up a role in making decisions on Gaza’s future, according to three people familiar with the plans. The ex-leader is being lined up for a seat on an executive committee attached to the larger “Board of Peace,” the body that will oversee the transitional governance of Gaza under the deal negotiated with U.S. President Donald Trump last year for a truce in the war that followed the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. Blair had been discussed as a candidate to serve on the Board of Peace, but POLITICO has learned he is instead in line for a place on the executive committee, while the larger Board of Peace effort will be led by Bulgarian diplomat Nikolay Mladenov. The FT reported that the executive committee will also include U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The White House, Witkoff and Kushner did not immediately reply to questions. The Board of Peace is now expected to consist of the heads of state of at least nine countries, according to one person familiar with the matter: the U.S., U.K., Italy, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Jordan. The Sunday Times reported this past weekend that Keir Starmer had been offered a place on the board, but U.K. officials said Wednesday that no formal invite for the British PM has yet been received, and no decision has been made about his future role. Starmer’s spokesman told reporters: “Engagement with the U.S. to support the implementation of the 20-point peace plan continues. The board of peace is one element of the plan. Conversations about the exact shape of that are ongoing.” Witkoff posted on X: “Today, on behalf of President Trump, we are announcing the launch of Phase Two of the President’s 20-Point Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” When he announced his 20-point peace plan, Trump said he himself would chair the Board of Peace. The only other potential member he named was Blair, who was closely involved in drafting the U.S.-led deal. Since then, British officials have stressed that while Blair had played a valuable role he had not been put forward as a broker by the U.K. government, and that the E3 group of Britain, France and Germany would seek their own representatives on the board. Middle Eastern leaders had reportedly voiced concerns about the involvement of Blair because of his role in the invasion of Iraq. The FT reported that the executive committee will also include U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA The executive committee is separate from the Palestinian-led committee responsible for managing reconstruction, security and political transition. On Wednesday, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey announced in a joint statement that Ali Shaath, a former Palestinian Authority official, had been chosen to head the Palestinian technocratic committee charged with administering the Gaza Strip. Nahal Toosi, Dan Bloom and Emilio Casalicchio contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — EU leaders are scrambling to come up with a deal on Greenland’s future that would allow Donald Trump to claim victory on the issue without destroying the alliance that underpins European security.  From proposals to using NATO to bolster Arctic security to giving the U.S. concessions on mineral extraction, the bloc’s leaders are leaning heavily toward conciliation over confrontation with Trump, three diplomats and an EU official told POLITICO. The race to come up with a plan follows the U.S. president’s renewed claims that his country “needs” the island territory — and won’t rule out getting it by force. “In the end, we have always come to a common conclusion” with Washington, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said after meeting U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, adding that their talks on the Arctic territory were “encouraging.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he hopes “a mutually acceptable solution” will be found within NATO. The foreign ministers of Greenland and Denmark will meet U.S. Vice President JD Vance alongside Rubio at the White House on Wednesday. They are hoping for “an honest conversation with the administration,” according to another EU diplomat familiar with plans for the meeting. THE ART OF THE DEAL Asked to describe a possible endgame on Greenland, the first EU diplomat said it could be a deal that would give Trump a victory he could sell domestically, such as forcing European countries to invest more in Arctic security as well as a promise that the U.S. could profit from Greenland’s mineral wealth. Trump is primarily looking for a win on Greenland, the diplomat said. “If you can smartly repackage Arctic security, blend in critical minerals, put a big bow on top, there’s a chance” of getting Trump to sign on. “Past experience” — for example when EU allies pledged to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense — showed “this is always how things have gone.” On defense, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte laid the groundwork for a deal when on Monday he said countries in the alliance were discussing ways of bolstering Arctic security. While the shape of the “next steps” touted by Rutte remain to be defined, a ramped-up investment by European NATO members is one possibility that could fit with Trump’s desire to see Europe shoulder greater responsibility for its security. On mineral extraction, details are blurrier. But a deal that guarantees the U.S. a share of profits from extraction of critical raw materials is one possibility, said the EU official. For now, capacity to extract critical raw materials from Greenland is limited. Denmark has spent years seeking investment for long-term projects, with little luck as countries have preferred obtaining minerals at a much cheaper rate on global markets. The EU is planning to more than double its investment in Greenland in its next-long term budget — including funds oriented toward critical raw materials projects. This could be a hook for Trump to accept a co-investment deal. Yet, if Trump’s real aim is the island’s minerals, Danes have been offering the U.S the chance to invest in Greenland for years — an offer refused by American officials, several diplomats said. If Trump’s push on Greenland is about China and Russia, he could easily ask Copenhagen to increase the presence of U.S troops on the island, they also say. A third EU diplomat questioned whether Trump’s real aim was to get into the history books. Trump’s Make America Great Again slogan “has become a geographical concept; he wants to go down in history as the man who has made America ‘greater’ — in geographical terms,” they said. PRESERVING NATO Above all, governments are trying to avoid a military clash, the three diplomats and EU official said. A direct intervention by the U.S. on Greenland — a territory belonging to a member of the EU and NATO — would effectively spell the end of the postwar security order, leaders have warned.  “It would be an unprecedented situation in the history of NATO and any defense alliance,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Tuesday, adding that Berlin is talking with Copenhagen about the options at Europe’s disposal if the U.S. launches a takeover. EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius and Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen both said a military intervention would be the end of NATO. “Everything would stop,” Fredriksen said. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte laid the groundwork for a deal when on Monday he said countries in the alliance were discussing ways of bolstering Arctic security. | Paul Morigi/Getty Images “No provision [in the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty] envisions an attack on one NATO ally by another one,” said a NATO diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. It would mean “the end of the alliance,” they added. Trump said “it may be a choice” for the U.S. between pursuing his ambition to take control of Greenland and keeping the alliance intact. Preserving NATO remains the bloc’s top priority, the first EU diplomat said. While both privately and publicly officials have forcefully rejected the idea Europe might “give up” Greenland to the U.S., the comments underscore how desperate governments are to avoid a direct clash with Washington. “This is serious – and Europe is scared,” said a fourth EU diplomat involved in discussions in Brussels on how the bloc responds. A fifth described the moment as “seismic,” because it signaled that the U.S. was ready to rip up a hundred years of ironclad relations.  STILL REELING While European leaders are largely on the same page that a military conflict is unconscionable, how to reach a negotiated settlement is proving thornier. Until the U.S. military strike on Venezuela on Jan. 3, and Trump’s fresh claims the U.S. needs to “have” Greenland, the Europeans were very conspicuously not working on a plan to protect Greenland from Trump — because to do so might risk making the threat real. “It’s been something we’ve anticipated as a potential risk, but something that we can do very little about,” said Thomas Crosbie, a U.S. military expert at the Royal Danish Defense College, which provides training and education for the Danish defense force. “The idea has been that the more we focus on this, and the more we create preparations around resisting this, the more we make it likely to happen. So there’s been anxiety that [by planning for a U.S. invasion] we may accidentally encourage more interest in this, and, you know, kind of escalate,” Crosbie said. But the problem was that, having spent six years studiously avoiding making a plan to respond to Trump’s threats, Europe was left scrabbling for one. Europeans are now faced with figuring out what they have in their “toolbox” to respond to Washington, a former Danish MP aware of discussions said. “The normal rulebook doesn’t work anymore.” Officials consider it the biggest challenge to Europe since the Second World War and they’re not sure what to do.  “We know how we would react if Russia started to behave this way,” the fourth diplomat said. But with the U.S, “this is simply not something we are used to.” Victor Jack, Nette Nöstlinger, Chris Lunday, Zoya Sheftalovich and Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.

ROME — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Friday called on Europe to appoint a special envoy to talk to Russia, as efforts continue to end the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. Meloni said that she agreed with French President Emmanuel Macron, who last month called for new dialogue with the Kremlin. Russian President Vladimir Putin “expressed readiness to engage in dialogue” with Macron, Moscow said in response. “I believe the time has come for Europe to also speak with Russia,” Meloni told a press conference in Rome on Friday. “If Europe speaks to only one of the two sides on the field, I fear that the contribution it can make will be limited.” Meloni warned that Europe needs a coordinated approach or “risks doing Putin a favor.” Since the beginning of negotiations over a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, “many voices have been speaking out, and that’s why I’ve always been in favor of appointing a European special envoy on the Ukrainian issue,” Meloni said. Peace talks aimed at ending the all-out conflict, which Russia launched in February 2022, have accelerated with U.S. President Donald Trump back in the White House, but Moscow has not indicated that it is willing to make concessions. The U.S. in November proposed that Russia be readmitted to the Group of Seven leading nations. But Meloni said it was “absolutely premature” to talk about welcoming Russia back to the G7 fold. Meloni also emphasized that Italy would not join France and the U.K. in sending troops to Ukraine to guarantee a potential peace deal, because it was “not necessary” if Ukraine signed a collective defense agreement with Western allies modeled on NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense provision. She suggested that a small contingent of foreign troops would not be a serious deterrent against a much larger Russian force. Reacting to Trump’s recent aggressive rhetoric toward Greenland, Meloni said that she “would not approve” of a U.S. military takeover of the vast Arctic island. “I don’t believe that the USA will carry out military action on Greenland, which I would not approve of and would not do anyone any good,” she told reporters. Meloni said she believed the Trump administration was using “very assertive methods” to draw attention to the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. interests and security. “It’s an area where many foreign actors are carrying out activity and I think that the message of the USA is that they will not accept excessive interference by foreign actors,” she said.   Meloni also countered Trump’s remarks Thursday that he does not need international law, stressing that “international law must be defended.” But she added that it was normal to disagree with allies, “as national interests are not perfectly aligned.” “When I don’t agree with Trump, I say so — I say it to him.”

The first American pope is on a collision course with U.S. President Donald Trump. The latest fault line between the Vatican and the White House emerged on Sunday. Shortly after Trump suggested his administration could “run” Venezuela, the Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of the “country’s sovereignty.” For MAGA-aligned conservatives, this is now part of an unwelcome pattern. While Leo is less combative in tone toward Trump than his predecessor Francis, his priorities are rekindling familiar battles in the culture war with the U.S. administration on topics such as immigration and deportations, LGBTQ+ rights and climate change. As the leader of a global community of 1.4 billion Catholics, Leo has a rare position of influence to challenge Trump’s policies, and the U.S. president has to tread with uncustomary caution in confronting him. Trump traditionally relishes blasting his critics with invective but has been unusually restrained in response to Leo’s criticism, in part because he counts a large number of Catholics among his core electorate. “[Leo] is not looking for a fight like Francis, who sometimes enjoyed a fight,” said Chris White, author of “Pope Leo XIV: Inside the Conclave and the Dawn of a New Papacy.” “But while different in style, he is clearly a continuation of Francis in substance. Initially there was a wait-and-see approach, but for many MAGA Catholics, Leo challenges core beliefs.” In recent months, migration has become the main combat zone between the liberal pope and U.S. conservatives. Leo called on his senior clergy to speak out on the need to protect vulnerable migrants, and U.S. bishops denounced the “dehumanizing rhetoric and violence” leveled at people targeted by Trump’s deportation policies. Leo later went public with an appeal that migrants in the U.S. be treated “humanely” and “with dignity.” Leo’s support emboldened Florida bishops to call for a Christmas reprieve from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. “Don’t be the Grinch that stole Christmas,” said Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami. As if evidence were needed of America’s polarization on this topic, however, the Department of Homeland Security described their arrests as a “Christmas gift to Americans.” Leo also conspicuously removed Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Trump’s preferred candidate for pope and a favorite on the conservative Fox News channel, from a key post as archbishop of New York, replacing him with a bishop known for pro-migrant views. This cuts to the heart of the moral dilemma for a divided U.S. Catholic community. For Trump, Catholics are hardly a sideshow as they constitute 22 percent of his electorate, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center. While the pope appeals to liberal causes, however, many MAGA Catholics take a far stricter line on topics such as migration, sexuality and climate change. To his critics from the conservative Catholic MAGA camp, such as Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon, the pope is anathema. U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of Venezuela’s “sovereignty.” | Stefano Costantino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Last year the pope blessed a chunk of ice from Greenland and criticized political leaders who ignore climate change. He said supporters of the death penalty could not credibly claim to be pro-life, and argued that Christians and Muslims could be friends. He has also signaled a more tolerant posture toward LGBTQ+ Catholics, permitting an LGBTQ+ pilgrimage to St Peter’s Basilica. Small wonder, then, that Trump confidante and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer branded Leo the “woke Marxist pope.” Trump-aligned Catholic conservatives have denounced him as “secularist,” “globalist” and even “apostate.” Far-right pundit Jack Posobiec has called him “anti-Trump.” “Some popes are a blessing. Some popes are a penance,” Posobiec wrote on X. PONTIFF FROM CHICAGO There were early hopes that Leo might build bridges with U.S. hardliners. He’s an American, after all: He wears an Apple watch and follows baseball, and American Catholics can hardly dismiss him as as foreign. The Argentine Francis, by contrast, was often portrayed by critics as anti-American and shaped by the politics of poorer nations. Leo can’t be waved away so easily. Early in his papacy, Leo also showed signs he was keen to steady the church after years of internal conflict, and threw some bones to conservatives such as allowing a Latin Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica and wearing more ornate papal vestments. But the traditionalists were not reassured. Benjamin Harnwell, the Vatican correspondent for the MAGA-aligned War Room podcast, said conservatives were immediately skeptical of Leo. “From day one, we have been telling our base to be wary: Do not be deceived,” he said. Leo, Harnwell added, is “fully signed up to Francis’ agenda … but [is] more strategic and intelligent.” After the conclave that appointed Leo, former Trump strategist Bannon told POLITICO that Leo’s election was “the worst choice for MAGA Catholics” and “an anti-Trump vote by the globalists of the Curia.” Trump had a long-running feud with Francis, who condemned the U.S. president’s border wall and criticized his migration policies. Francis appeared to enjoy that sparring, but Leo is a very different character. More retiring by nature, he shies away from confrontation. But his resolve in defending what he sees as non-negotiable moral principles, particularly the protection of the weak, is increasingly colliding with the core assumptions of Trumpism. Trump loomed large during the conclave, with an AI-generated video depicting himself as pope. The gesture was seen by some Vatican insiders as a “mafia-style” warning to elect someone who would not criticize him, Vatican-watcher Elisabetta Piqué wrote in a new book “The Election of Pope Leo XIV: The Last Surprise of Pope Francis.” NOT PERSONAL Leo was not chosen expressly as an anti-Trump figure, according to a Vatican official. Rather, his nationality was likely seen by some cardinals as “reassuring,” suggesting he would be accountable and transparent in governance and finances. But while Leo does not seem to be actively seeking a confrontation with Trump, the world views of the two men seem incompatible. “He will avoid personalizing,” said the same Vatican official. “He will state church teaching, not in reaction to Trump, but as things he would say anyway.” Despite the attacks on Leo from his allies, Trump himself has also appeared wary of a direct showdown. When asked about the pope in a POLITICO interview, Trump was more keen to discuss meeting the pontiff’s brother in Florida, whom he described as “serious MAGA.” When pressed on whether he would meet the pope himself, he finally replied: “Sure, I will. Why not?” The potential for conflict will come into sharper focus as Leo hosts a summit called an extraordinary consistory this week, the first of its kind since 2014, which is expected to provide a blueprint for the future direction of the church. His first publication on social issues, such as inequality and migration, is also expected in the next few months. “He will use [the summit] to talk about what he sees as the future,” said a diplomat posted to the Vatican. “It will give his collaborators a sense of where he is going. He could use it as a sounding board, or ask them to suggest solutions.” It’s safe to assume Leo won’t be unveiling a MAGA-aligned agenda. The ultimate balance of power may also favor the pope. Trump must contend with elections and political clocks; Leo, elected for life, does not. At 70, and as a tennis player in good health, Leo appears positioned to shape Catholic politics well after Trump’s moment has passed. “He is not in a hurry,” the Vatican official said. “Time is on his side.”

President Donald Trump is withdrawing the United States from the world’s overarching treaty on climate change in a move that escalates his attempts to reverse years of global negotiations toward addressing rising temperatures. The announcement to sever ties with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change came as Trump quit dozens of international organizations that the White House says no longer serve U.S. interests by promoting radical climate policies and other issues. It was outlined in a memo by the White House. Trump has called on other countries to abandon their carbon-cutting measures, and the move appears to be his latest attempt to destabilize global climate cooperation. The 1992 UNFCCC serves as the international structure for efforts by 198 countries to slow the rate of rising climate pollution. It has universal participation. The U.S. was the first industrialized nation to join the treaty following its ratification under former President George H.W. Bush — and it will be the only nation ever to leave it. The move also marks Trump’s intensifying efforts to topple climate efforts compared to his first term, when he decided against quitting the treaty. “Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength,” stated a White House fact sheet. The move comes as Trump tears down U.S. climate policies amid the hottest decade ever recorded and threatens other nations for pursuing measures to address global warming, which Trump has called a hoax and a “con job.” The U.S. did not send a delegation to Brazil for the climate talks, known as COP30, late last year. Instead, Trump officials have been working to strike fossil fuels deals with other nations. Trump captured Venezuela’s strongman president, Nicolás Maduro, in an assault using U.S. commandos on Saturday and said he would control the country’s vast oil resources. The plan to leave the UNFCCC stems from Trump’s order last February requiring Secretary of State Marco Rubio to identify treaties and international organizations that “are contrary to the interests of the United States” and recommend withdrawing from them. Trump has also pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, the landmark 2015 pact that’s underpinned by the UNFCCC. “This is a shortsighted, embarrassing, and foolish decision,” Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator under former President Barack Obama, said in a statement. “As the only country in the world not a part of the UNFCCC treaty, the Trump administration is throwing away decades of U.S. climate change leadership and global collaboration.”

BERLIN — Germany’s military planners are warning that recent cyberattacks, sabotage and disinformation campaigns could be the opening salvo in a new war, according to a confidential government document seen by POLITICO. That assessment is set out in the Operational Plan for Germany (OPLAN), a blueprint for how Berlin would organize the defense of German territory in a major NATO conflict. The planning reflects a broader shift in Germany — which has assumed a central role in logistics and reinforcement planning for the alliance — as Russia has grown increasingly belligerent toward European NATO countries following the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine almost four years ago. The document states that hybrid measures “can fundamentally serve to prepare a military confrontation.” Rather than treating cyber operations or influence campaigns as background pressure, the plan places them directly within the logic of military escalation. The assumption has concrete consequences for how Germany plans its role in a future conflict. The document frames Germany as an operational base and transit corridor for NATO troops that would come under pressure early, particularly because of its role as the alliance’s main hub for moving and sustaining forces. The 24-page document is classified as a so-called light version of the plan, which aims to coordinate civilian and military actors to define Germany’s role as a transit hub for allied forces.  In a conflict scenario, Germany would become “a prioritized target of conventional attacks with long-range weapon systems” directed against both military and civilian infrastructure, the document states. OPLAN lays out a five-phase escalation model, ranging from early threat detection and deterrence to national defense, NATO collective defense and post-conflict recovery. The document notes that Germany is currently operating in the first phase, where it is focused on building a shared threat picture, coordinating across government, and preparing logistics and protection measures. The plan also assigns a significantly expanded role to domestic military forces. Homeland security units are tasked with protecting critical infrastructure, securing troop movements across German territory, and supporting the maintenance of state functions while combat forces deploy elsewhere. Civilian structures are treated as essential to military success, with transport networks, energy supply, health services and private contractors repeatedly cited as required enablers. The document states that “numerous tasks require civilian support,” without which the plan can’t be implemented. In recent months, Germany and its allies have faced a stream of hybrid attacks that mirror the scenarios the planners describe in OPLAN. Federal authorities have documented rising Russian espionage, cyberattacks and influence efforts targeting political institutions, critical infrastructure and public opinion, with Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt describing the country as a “daily target of hybrid warfare.”

The Trump administration is lashing out at foreign laws aimed at clamping down on online platforms that have gained outsized influence on people’s attention — while trying to avoid launching new trade wars that could threaten the U.S. economy. Over the past month, U.S. officials have paused talks on a tech pact with the United Kingdom, canceled a trade meeting with South Korean officials and issued veiled threats at European companies over policies they believe unfairly penalize U.S. tech giants. Several tech policy professionals and people close to the White House say the recent actions amount to a “negotiating tactic,” in the words of one former U.S. trade official. As talks continue with London, Brussels and Seoul, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is pressing partners to roll back digital taxes on large online platforms and rules aimed at boosting online privacy protections — measures U.S. officials argue disproportionately target America’s tech behemoths. “It’s telegraphing that we’ve looked at this deeply, we think there’s a problem, we’re looking at tools to address it and we’re looking at remedies if we don’t come to an agreement,” said Everett Eissenstat, who served as the director of the National Economic Council in Trump’s first term. “It’s not an unprecedented move, but naming companies like that and telegraphing that we have targets, we have tools, is definitely meaningful.” But so far, the administration has shied away from new tariffs or other aggressive actions that could upend tentative trade agreements or upset financial markets. And the new tough talk may not be enough to placate some American tech companies, who are pressing for action. One possible action, floated by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, would be launching investigations into unfair digital trade practices, which would allow the administration to take action against countries that impose digital regulations on U.S. companies. “I would just say that’s the next level of escalation. I think that’s what people are waiting for and looking for,” said a representative from a major tech company, granted anonymity to speak candidly and discuss industry expectations. “What folks are looking for is like action over the tweets, which, we love the tweets. Everyone loves the tweets.” Trump used similar investigations to justify raising tariffs on hundreds of Chinese imports in his first term. But those investigations take time, and it can be years before any increases would go into effect. Greer has also been careful to hedge threats of new trade probes, stressing they are not meant to spiral into a broader conflict. Speaking on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last week, he floated launching a trade investigation into the EU’s digital policies, but said the goal would be a “negotiated outcome,” not an automatic path to higher tariffs. “I don’t think we’re in a world where we want to have some renewed trade fight or something with the EU — that’s not what we’re talking about,” Greer said. “We want to finish off our deal and implement it,” he continued, referring to the trade pact the partners struck over the summer. Greer also raised the prospect of a trade probe in private talks with South Korea earlier this fall, saying the U.S. might have to resort to such action if the country continues to pursue legislation the administration views as harmful to U.S. tech firms. But a White House official clarified that the U.S. was not yet considering such a “heavy-handed approach.” Even industry officials aren’t certain how aggressive they want the Trump administration to be, acknowledging that if the U.S. escalated its fight with the EU over their tech regulations, it could spark a digital trade war that would ultimately end up harming all of the companies involved, according to a former USTR official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. President Donald Trump has long criticized the tech regulations — pioneered by the European Union and now proliferating around the globe. But he’s made the issue a much more central part of his second-term trade agenda, with mixed results. While Trump’s threat to cut off trade talks with Canada got Prime Minister Mark Carney to rescind their three percent tax on revenue earned by large online platforms, his administration has struggled to make headway with the EU, UK and South Korea in the broader trade negotiations over tariffs. The tentative trade deal the administration reached with the EU over the summer included a commitment from the bloc to address “unjustified digital trade barriers” and a pledge not to impose network usage fees, but left the scope and direction of future discussions largely undefined. The agreement fleshed out with South Korea this fall appeared to go even further, spelling out commitments that regulations governing online platforms and cross-border data flows won’t disadvantage American companies. But none of those governments have so far caved to U.S. pressure to abandon their digital regulations entirely, and the canceled talks and threatening social media posts are a sign of Trump’s growing frustration. “You won’t be surprised to know that what we think is fair treatment and what they think is fair treatment is quite different and I’ve been quite frankly disappointed over the past few months to see zero moderation by the EU,” Greer said Dec. 10 at an event at the Atlantic Council. Last week, Greer’s office amped up the rhetoric further, threatening to take action against major European companies like Spotify, German automation company Siemens and Mistral AI, the French artificial intelligence firm, if the EU doesn’t back off enforcement of its digital rules. The threat came a week after the EU fined X, the company formerly known as Twitter, $140 million for failing to meet EU transparency rules. Greer’s office also canceled a meeting planned for last Thursday with South Korean officials, as South Korean lawmakers introduced new digital legislation and held an explosive hearing on a data breach at Coupang, an American-headquartered e-commerce company whose largest market is in South Korea. The South Korean Embassy denied any relationship between the Coupang hearing and the cancellation of the recent meeting. “Neither Coupang’s data breach, the subsequent investigation by the Korean government, nor the National Assembly’s hearing played a role in the scheduling of the KORUS Joint Committee,” said an embassy official. The canceled meetings and frozen talks are significant — delaying implementation of bare bones trade agreements and investment pledges inked in recent months. But the Trump administration has shown little interest in blowing up the deals its reached and reapplying the steep tariffs it threatened over the summer, which could trigger significant retaliation and, as concerns about affordability and inflation continue to simmer in the U.S., prove politically dicey. Launching trade investigations at USTR or fining specific foreign companies could be a less inflammatory move. “What is happening is that these issues are starting to come to a head,” said Dirk Auer, a Director of Competition Policy International Center for Law & Economics, who focuses on antitrust issues and recently testified before Congress on digital services laws. “At some point the administration has to put up or shut up. They need to put their money where their mouth is. And I think that’s what’s happening right now.” Gabby Miller contributed to this report.

Christmas is still more than a week away but Spanish parents working for the EU in Brussels are already furious about next year’s school holidays. They’re angry because the European school system is planning to change its Christmas holiday dates for 2026-27, meaning children would have to go to class on Jan. 6, one of the biggest holidays of the year, when the Three Magic Kings (Reyes Magos) bring gifts. The European Schools have told parents that the holidays will run from Dec. 18, 2026 to Jan. 4, 2027, meaning children will be at school on Jan. 6. The parents want the holidays to run from Dec. 23 to Jan. 6 inclusive. But those calls have been in vain. The secretariat general that manages the European School system “has minimized the impact of the conflict, pointing out that the holiday could be addressed in the classroom as cultural content,” according to a note circulated among parents.  The secretariat general of the European Schools did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication. “These celebrations form part of our cultural and educational identity, and eliminating them sends a message of disconnection from deeply ingrained traditions with undeniable emotional value for families,” said a parent, who asked to be identified only by the initials A.J.C.  “This decision has a direct and very negative impact on work-life balance, as it drastically reduces the actual time our children, as expatriate families, can spend in Spain, Italy or Portugal with their grandparents and relatives. It unjustifiably limits one of the few periods of the year when it is possible to strengthen these essential family bonds.” Spanish parents have sent a letter to the country’s permanent representation to the EU asking for help, and gathered signatures from MEPs this week to send a letter to Piotr Serafin, the European commissioner for budget and public administration. The letter, seen by POLITICO and bearing 38 signatures, asks Serafin to officially recognize “the special relevance of Three Kings Day for Spanish families” and to “adopt a solution consistent with the founding principles of cultural diversity and mutual respect between Member States.”

The U.K. government issued the sanctioned Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich, a final warning to pay £2.5 billion to Ukraine or face court action. In a statement, British Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said a license had been issued to permit the £2.5 billion proceeds from Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea Football Club to be transferred to humanitarian causes in Ukraine. If he fails to comply, the government is prepared to take the matter to court, they said. The multi-billion-pound proceeds of Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea Football Club are frozen in a bank account, where they have been since 2022, when the government sanctioned Abramovich over his ties to Vladimir Putin. Chelsea was sold by Abramovich to an American consortium after the U.K.’s sanctions watchdog permitted the sale. Abramovich had to demonstrate he would not personally benefit from the transaction — but the proceeds have remained untouched in a bank due to uncertainty over how exactly they will be used to support Kyiv. Previously, Abramovich said he would use the funds to help “all victims of the war.” This had been interpreted as help for both Russians and Ukrainians. Today, the government said it would consider any proposal toward humanitarian causes in Ukraine, as long as the funds do not benefit Abramovich or other sanctioned individuals. It added that any future gains earned by the funds can be spent more broadly, on “victims of conflict worldwide.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the government is “prepared to enforce” the commitment for the funds to reach Ukraine, “so that every penny reaches those whose lives have been torn apart by Putin’s illegal war.” Seizing the assets from Abramovich has presented a legal minefield. He has never been charged with a crime related to his sanctioned assets, which means the British government needs Abramovich’s consent to use the money as it remains his property. In both the U.K. and the European Union, the profits on sanctioned assets have been used to guarantee loans for Ukraine. Recently, European allies have drawn up plans to use the assets themselves to guarantee loans for Ukraine, though they have yet to reach a deal on frozen assets worth around €210 billion. Ukraine faces a projected budget shortfall of €71.7 billion next year.

BRUSSELS — When it comes to support for Ukraine, a split has emerged between the European Union and its English-speaking allies. In France and Germany, the EU’s two biggest democracies, new polling shows that more respondents want their governments to scale back financial aid to Kyiv than to increase it or keep it the same. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, meanwhile, respondents tilt the other way and favor maintaining material support, according to The POLITICO Poll, which surveyed more than 10,000 people across the five countries earlier this month. The findings land as European leaders prepare to meet in Brussels on Thursday for a high-stakes summit where providing financial support to Ukraine is expected to dominate the agenda. They also come as Washington seeks to mediate a peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv — with German leader Friedrich Merz taking the lead among European nations on negotiating in Kyiv’s favor. Across all five countries, the most frequently cited reason for supporting continued aid to Ukraine was the belief that nations should not be allowed to seize territory by force. The most frequently cited argument against additional assistance was concerns about the cost and the pressure on the national economy.  “Much of our research has shown that the public in Europe feels the current era demands policy trade-offs, and financial support for Ukraine is no exception,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London that carried out the survey for POLITICO.  “In a time where public finances are seen as finite resources, people’s interests are increasingly domestic,” he added.  WESTERN DIVIDE Germans were the most reluctant to ramp up financial assistance, with nearly half of respondents (45 percent) in favor of cutting financial aid to Kyiv while only 20 percent wanted to increase it. In France 37 percent wanted to give less and 24 percent preferred giving more. In contrast to the growing opposition to Ukrainian aid from Europe, support remains strikingly firm in North America. In the U.S., President Donald Trump has expressed skepticism toward Kyiv’s chances of defeating Moscow and has sent interlocutors to bargain with the Russians for peace. And yet the U.S. had the largest share of respondents (37 percent) in favor of increasing financial support, with Canada just behind at 35 percent. Support for Ukraine was driven primarily by those who backed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 election in the U.S. Some 29 percent of Harris voters said one of the top three reasons the U.S. should support Ukraine was to protect democracy, compared with 17 percent of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. “The partisan split in the U.S. is now quite extreme,” Wride said. In Germany and France, opposition to assistance was especially pronounced among supporters of far-right parties — such as the Alternative for Germany and France’s National Rally — while centrists were less skeptical. “How Ukraine financing plays out in Germany in particular, as a number of European governments face populist challenges, should be a particular warning sign to other leaders,” Wride said. REFUGEE FATIGUE Support for military assistance tracked a similar divide. Nearly 40 percent of respondents in the U.S., U.K. and Canada backed higher levels of military aid, with about 20 percent opposed. In Germany 26 percent supported increased military aid to Ukraine while 39 percent opposed it. In France opinions were evenly split, with 31 percent favoring an increase and 30 percent favoring cuts. Germany was also the only country where a majority of respondents said their government should accept fewer Ukrainians displaced by the war.  In a country that has taken in more than a million Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, 50 percent of Germans said Berlin should admit fewer.  Half of respondents also said Germany should reduce support for Ukrainians already settled in the country — a sign that public fatigue is extending beyond weapons and budgets to the broader social and political pressures of the conflict. The softer support for Ukraine in France and Germany does not appear to reflect warmer feelings toward Moscow, however. Voters in all five countries backed sanctions against Russia, suggesting that even where publics want to pare back aid they remain broadly aligned around punishing the aggressor and limiting Russia’s ability to finance the war. This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Dec. 5 to Dec. 9 and surveyed 10,510 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Germany. The results for each country were weighted to be representative in terms of age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error. The survey is an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com.