BRUSSELS — Cash-strapped Europeans are struggling to keep their homes cool as the continent’s summers get hotter, a major new survey has found.  More than 38 percent of the 27,000 respondents to a continent-wide poll published Wednesday said they couldn’t afford to keep their house cool enough in the summer. The problem was unevenly split down income lines: Only 9 percent of affluent Europeans said they struggled with overheating homes, while 66 percent of people experiencing financial difficulties reported being unable to afford adequate cooling. The survey, conducted by the European Environment Agency and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, comes as the European Commission drafts a plan for boosting the bloc’s resilience to climate impacts such as heat and extreme weather. The proposal is expected toward the end of the year.  Reacting to the findings, German Green MEP Jutta Paulus called for a “binding EU law on adaptation to natural disasters” that “could set clear rules, assess risks, and make strategies binding.” She added: “Only in this way can we ensure safe living conditions, a stable economy, and a natural environment that protects us.” The report underscores how global warming disproportionately affects those who have fewer resources to prepare.  Around half of respondents said they had installed shading or insulation in their homes, and nearly a third said they had invested in air-conditioning or ventilation. But while nearly 40 percent of well-off households invested in AC or fans, just over 20 percent of cash-strapped Europeans did the same. Accordingly, a larger share of low-income Europeans reported feeling too hot in their home at least once over the last five years. The divide is particularly stark between renters, which make up around a third of the EU’s population, and homeowners: Nearly half of renters said they were unable to afford to keep their home cool, compared to 29 percent of homeowners. As a result, some 60 percent of tenants said they had felt too hot at home at least once over the past five years, versus just over 40 percent of owners. Beyond heat, the survey looked at flooding, wildfires, water scarcity, wind damage and increasing insect bites. In total, 80 percent of respondents said they had been affected by at least one of these impacts over the past five years. But heat waves, which are made more frequent, longer and hotter by climate change, emerged as the top concern, with nearly half of respondents saying they had felt too hot in their home and 60 percent saying they had felt too hot outside. Income and property ownership aren’t the only dividing lines, however.  Europeans in poor health — many of whom may be homebound — are also more likely to be at risk from extreme heat, the polling found. More than half of people describing themselves as being in poor health reported being unable to afford to keep their homes cool, compared to just over a quarter of those who declared themselves to be in good health. Plus, Southern Europeans are far more vulnerable than those in northern Europe. While just 8 percent of respondents across Europe said they had been affected by wildfires, for example, that figure rose to 41 percent in Greece.  Anxiety over climate impacts is also far higher in southern countries: There, twice as many respondents worry about worsening heat, fires and floods compared to Northern Europeans.  Respondents in Central and Eastern Europe also reported high exposure to climate impacts. The highest share of households unable to keep their homes cool in the summer — 46 percent, compared to 37 percent in southern and western Europe and 30 percent in northern countries — was found in this region.  In general, the survey found Europeans to remain under-equipped to deal with extreme weather emergencies. Just 13.5 percent of respondents said they have an emergency kit at home, for example, and less than half have home insurance covering extreme weather.

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

The monster storm that’s threatening to dump snow across much of the U.S. could be a test of the Trump administration’s willingness to help states after natural disasters. With heavy snow, sleet and freezing rain forecast to begin falling Friday and continuing into Monday over a massive swath of the country, from the Rockies to the Atlantic, governors from dozens of states could be forced to navigate shifting policies under President Donald Trump, who has set efforts in motion to reduce the flow of disaster aid to states. As governors declare emergencies ahead of the storm, some are wondering whether the White House will reject their requests for federal funding to help pay for cleanup and repairs if predictions for over a foot of snow in some areas prove accurate. “They’re preparing for the worst,” said a former senior Federal Emergency Management Agency official who was granted anonymity to describe discussions with state officials. “They’re preparing for no grants, no money.” On Capitol Hill, lawmakers expressed concern Tuesday about Trump denying disaster aid for snowstorms in a report accompanying a proposed Department of Homeland Security spending plan for fiscal 2026. The report by House and Senate appropriators from both parties said the spending package “reaffirms Congress’ intent … that snowstorms shall be eligible for Federal relief.” A spokesperson for Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat, said in a statement that the willingness of Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “to turn even the weather into a partisan issue and play politics with people’s lives may make an already bad situation somehow even worse.” Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in an email, “Any notion that snowstorms don’t qualify as a disaster defies logic — and is unnecessarily cruel.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, in a statement, called the Democratic criticisms “fear-mongering” that “ignores reality.” “Under the President’s leadership, FEMA, and the entire Administration, has proactively mobilized significant resources to support states in the path of this storm, ensuring a rapid and well-coordinated response,” Jackson said. “President Trump responds to each request for federal assistance with great care and consideration to ensure American tax dollars are used appropriately to supplement, not substitute, state obligations to respond to disasters — he will do the same for any requests received.” The administration has pre-positioned supplies, equipment and personnel in hubs across the country, according to an administration official, granted anonymity to share details of the logistics. It has staged 250,000 meals, 400,000 liters of water, 30 generators and 12 shuttle drivers in Louisiana, with shuttle drivers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Georgia to move supplies as needed. It has also embedded 20 FEMA staff in State Emergency Operations Centers and deployed three incident management teams, with additional teams, including search and rescue, on standby to assist with storm response at governors’ requests. The agency is also helping with monitoring the storm and coordinating with federal partners to support impacted areas. The administration raised alarms last year when then-FEMA acting Administrator Cameron Hamilton suggested cutting off disaster aid for snowstorms in an internal memo. No action has been taken on the memo’s proposals. It came as Trump denied numerous gubernatorial requests for disaster aid, even though FEMA had confirmed that the damage exceeded the agency’s cost threshold for aid. The administration has given no explanation for the denials, creating uncertainty among state emergency managers. FEMA makes recommendations about disaster requests to the president, who has exclusive authority to approve disaster aid under federal law. In Maryland, Trump denied a request in July by Gov. Wes Moore (D) for disaster aid to help rural, Republican communities recover from extensive flood damage that FEMA found caused damage that was millions of dollars above the agency’s cost threshold. “Now they want to arbitrarily deny disaster assistance to communities hit by snowstorms regardless of the severity of the event,” Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D) said in a statement to POLITICO’s E&E News on Thursday. “As communities across the country prepare for this weekend’s snowstorm, this blanket policy is all the more alarming.” In one highly controversial decision last year, Trump approved some disaster aid for Michigan after a devastating ice storm in March damaged infrastructure including power lines in the northern part of the state. But at the same time, Trump denied a request by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) for $90 million to help two rural electric utilities repair their equipment. The utilities raised rates to cover the costs. Federal disaster law lists snowstorms among the events that qualify for disaster aid, along with extreme winds, wildfires, floods and others. But the law does not require any allocation of disaster aid. Since 2016, presidents have approved 18 disasters following snowstorms, costing FEMA $272 million altogether, according to Hamilton’s memo. Both numbers are a small fraction of the hundreds of approved disasters and tens of billions of dollars that have been spent. Craig Fugate, who ran FEMA during the Obama administration, said states often cut their funding for snowstorm-related programs after experiencing no snow for several years. Then they turn to FEMA to fill budget holes when storms hit. “When budgets are lean and you’re not having a lot of snow, you cut those snow removal operations and when you get caught short you say, ‘Oh, well, the federal taxpayer will bail us out,’” Fugate said in an interview Thursday. “We tried to set the thresholds to say, unless this is an extraordinary event, it should not be supplanting state and local responsibility to fund snow removal and treatment operations on their highways on the back of the federal taxpayers.” FEMA’s daily report Thursday showed that the agency was monitoring the storm at its regional offices across the country and at its Washington headquarters. The agency has nearly 4,200 employees available to be deployed to disaster areas, the report said. A year ago, FEMA had 2,400 disaster employees available. The number is higher this year because the Trump administration has been reassigning workers from state field offices to its Washington headquarters.

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the author of the award-winning “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. Seven years ago, Sweden made global headlines with “In Case of Crisis or War” — a crisis preparedness leaflet sent to all households in the country. Unsurprisingly, preparedness leaflets have become a trend across Europe since then. But now, Sweden is ahead of the game once more, this time with a preparedness leaflet specifically for businesses. Informing companies about threats that could harm them, and how they can prepare, makes perfect sense. And in today’s geopolitical reality, it’s becoming indispensable. I remember when “In Case of Crisis or War” was first published in 2018: The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, or MSB, sent the leaflet out by post to every single home. The use of snail mail wasn’t accidental — in a crisis, there could be devastating cyberattacks that would prevent people from accessing information online. The leaflet — an updated version of the Cold War-era “In Case of War” — contained information about all manner of possible harm, along with information about how to best prepare and protect oneself. Then, there was the key statement: “If Sweden is attacked, we will never surrender. Any suggestion to the contrary is false.” Over the top, suggested some outside observers derisively. Why cause panic among people? But, oh, what folly! Preparedness leaflets have been used elsewhere too. I came to appreciate preparedness education during my years as a resident of San Francisco — a city prone to earthquakes. On buses, at bus stops and online, residents like me were constantly reminded that an earthquake could strike at any moment and we were told how to prepare, what to do while the earthquake was happening, how to find loved ones afterward and how to fend for ourselves for up to three days after a tremor. The city’s then-Mayor Gavin Newsom had made disaster preparedness a key part of his program and to this day, I know exactly what items to always have at home in case of a crisis: Water, blankets, flashlights, canned food and a hand-cranked radio. And those items are the same, whether the crisis is an earthquake, a cyberattack or a military assault. Other earthquake-prone cities and regions disseminate similar preparedness advice — as do a fast-growing number of countries, now facing threats from hostile states. Poland, as it happens, published its new leaflet just a few days before Russia’s drones entered its airspace. But these preparedness instructions have generally focused on citizens and households; businesses have to come up with their own preparedness plans against whatever Russia or other hostile states and their proxies think up — and against extreme weather events too. That’s a lot of hostile activity. In the past couple years alone, undersea cables have been damaged under mysterious circumstances; a Polish shopping mall and a Lithuanian Ikea store have been subject to arson attacks; drones have been circling above weapons-manufacturing facilities; and a defense-manufacturing CEO has been the target of an assassination plot; just to name a few incidents. San Francisco’s then-Mayor Gavin Newsom had made disaster preparedness a key part of his program. | Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images It’s no wonder geopolitical threats are causing alarm to the private sector. Global insurance broker Willis Towers Watson’s 2025 Political Risk Survey, which focuses on multinationals, found that the political risk losses in 2023 — the most recent year for which data is available — were at their highest level since the survey began. Companies are particularly concerned about economic retaliation, state-linked cyberattacks and state-linked attacks on infrastructure in the area of gray-zone aggression. Yes, businesses around Europe receive warnings and updates from their governments, and large businesses have crisis managers and run crisis management exercises for their staff. But there was no national preparedness guide for businesses — until now. MSB’s preparedness leaflet directed at Sweden’s companies is breaking new ground. It will feature the same kind of easy-to-implement advice as “In Case of Crisis or War,” and it will be just as useful for family-run shops as it is for multinationals, helping companies to keep operating matters far beyond the businesses themselves. By targeting the private sector, hostile states can quickly bring countries to a grinding and discombobulating halt. That must not happen — and preventing should involve both governments and the companies themselves. Naturally, a leaflet is only the beginning. As I’ve written before, governments would do well to conduct tabletop preparedness exercises with businesses — Sweden and the Czech Republic are ahead on this — and simulation exercises would be even better. But a leaflet is a fabulous cost-effective start. It’s also powerful deterrence-signaling to prospective attackers. And in issuing its leaflet, Sweden is signaling that targeting the country’s businesses won’t be as effective as would-be attackers would wish. (The leaflet, by the way, will be blue. The leaflet for private citizens was yellow. Get it? The colors, too, are a powerful message.)

The Trump administration won’t tap emergency funds to pay for federal food benefits, imperiling benefits starting Nov. 1 for nearly 42 million Americans who rely on the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO. USDA said in the memo that it won’t tap a contingency fund or other nutrition programs to cover the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is set to run out of federal funds at the end of the month. The contingency fund for SNAP currently holds roughly $5 billion, which would not cover the full $9 billion the administration would need to fund November benefits. Even if the administration did partially tap those funds, it would take weeks to dole out the money on a pro rata basis — meaning most low-income Americans would miss their November food benefits anyway. In order to make the deadline, the Trump administration would have needed to start preparing for partial payments weeks ago, which it has not done. Congressional Democrats and anti-hunger groups have urged the Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits flowing into November, some even arguing that the federal government is legally required to tap other funds to pay for the program. But senior officials have told POLITICO that using those other funds wouldn’t leave money for future emergencies and other major food aid programs. Administration officials expect Democratic governors and anti-hunger groups to sue over the decision not to tap the contingency fund for SNAP, according to two people granted anonymity to describe private views. The White House is blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding due to their repeated votes against a House-passed stopgap funding bill. The Trump administration stepped in to shore up funding for key farm programs this week after also identifying Pentagon funds to pay active-duty troops earlier in the month. USDA said in the memo, which was first reported by Axios, that it cannot tap the contingency fund because it is reserved for emergencies such as natural disasters. The department also argues that using money from other nutrition programs would hurt other beneficiaries, such as mothers and babies as well as schoolchildren who are eligible for free lunches. “This Administration will not allow Democrats to jeopardize funding for school meals and infant formula in order to prolong their shutdown,” USDA wrote in the memo. The top Democrats on the House Agriculture and Appropriations committees — Reps. Angie Craig of Minnesota and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, respectively — lambasted the determination Friday, saying “Congress already provided billions of dollars to fund SNAP in November.” “It is the Trump administration that is taking food assistance away from 42 million Americans next month — including hungry seniors, veterans, and families with children,” they said in a statement. “This is perhaps the most cruel and unlawful offense the Trump administration has perpetrated yet — freezing funding already enacted into law to feed hungry Americans while he shovels tens of billions of dollars out the door to Argentina and into his ballroom.” Congress could pass a standalone bill to fund SNAP for November, but that would have to get through the Senate early next week and the House would likely need to return to approve it. Johnson said this week if the Senate passes a standalone SNAP patch, the House would “address” it. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said he would lean toward using the emergency funds to help keep some food benefits flowing. “I think the President and GOP should do what we can to alleviate harm done by the Democrats,” he said in a text message. Bacon also said he would support having the House return to approve a standalone bill should the Senate pass one next week: “I figure the Speaker would want to.” Some states, including Virginia and Hawaii, have started to tap their own emergency funds to offer some food benefits in the absence of SNAP. But it’s not clear how long that aid can last given states’ limited budgets and typical reliance on federal help to pay for anti-hunger programs. USDA, furthermore, said states cannot expect to be reimbursed if they cover the cost of keeping benefits flowing.

CLIMATEWIRE | A once-outlandish idea for reversing global warming took a major step toward reality Friday when Israeli-U.S. startup Stardust Solutions announced the largest-ever fundraising round for any company that aims to cool the Earth by spraying particles into the atmosphere. Its plan to limit the sun’s heat raised $60 million from a broad coalition of investors that included Silicon Valley luminaries and the Agnelli family, an Italian industrial dynasty. The disclosure, critics said, raises questions about involvement of venture capital firms in driving forward a largely untested, thinly researched and mostly unregulated technology that could disrupt global weather patterns and trigger geopolitical conflict. The investors were “putting their trust in the concept of, we need a safe and responsible and controlled option for sunlight reflection, which for me is [a] very important step forward in the evolution of this field,” Stardust CEO Yanai Yedvab said during an interview this week in POLITICO’s London office. He and co-founder Amyad Spector, who also flew in for the interview, are both nuclear physicists who formerly worked for the Israeli government. The startup’s fundraising haul was led by Lowercarbon Capital, a Wyoming-based climate technology-focused firm co-founded by billionaire investor Chris Sacca. It was also backed by the Agnellis’ firm Exor, a Dutch holding company that is the largest shareholder of Chrysler parent company Stellantis, luxury sports car manufacturer Ferrari and Italy’s Juventus Football Club. Ten other firms — hailing from San Francisco to Berlin — and one individual, former Facebook executive Matt Cohler, also joined Stardust’s fundraising round, its second since being founded two years ago. The firm has now raised a total of $75 million. It is registered in the U.S. state of Delaware and headquartered outside Tel Aviv but is not affiliated with the state of Israel. The surge of investor enthusiasm for Stardust comes amid stalled political efforts in Washington and other capitals to reduce the use of oil, gas and coal — the main drivers of climate change. Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to climb to new heights, worsening wildfires, floods, droughts and other natural disasters that some U.S. policymakers have baselessly blamed on solar geoengineering. The new influx of cash is four times the size of the startup’s initial fundraising round and, Yedvab argued, represents a major vote of confidence in Stardust and its strategy to land government contracts for deploying its technology at a global scale. It also shows that a growing pool of investors are willing to bet on solar geoengineering — a technology that some scientists still consider too dangerous to even study. Even advocates of researching solar geoengineering question the wisdom of pursuing it via a for-profit company like Stardust. “They have convinced Silicon Valley [venture capitalists] to give them a lot of money, and I would say that they shouldn’t have,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School and author of the book “Geoengineering: The Gamble.” “I don’t think it is a reasonable path to suggest that there’s going to be somebody — the U.S. government, another government, whoever — who buys Stardust, buys the [intellectual property] for a billion bucks [and] makes the VC investors gazillions. I don’t think that is, at all, reasonable.” Lowercarbon Capital did not respond to emailed questions. Stardust claims to have created a particle that would reflect sunlight in the same way debris from volcanic eruptions can temporarily cool the planet. The company says its powder is inert, wouldn’t accumulate in humans or ecosystems, and can’t harm the ozone layer or create acid rain like the sulfur-rich particles from volcanoes. It plans to seek government contracts to manufacture, disperse and monitor the particles in the stratosphere. The company is in the process of securing patents and preparing academic papers on its integrated solar geoengineering system. The startup would use the money it has raised to begin “controlled outdoor experiments” as soon as April, Yedvab told POLITICO. Those tests would release the company’s reflective particles inside a modified plane flying about 11 miles (18 kilometers) above sea level. The idea, Yedvab explained, is that “instead of displacing the particles out to the stratosphere and start following them, to do the other way around — to suck air from the stratosphere and to conduct in situ experiments, without dispersing essentially.” He said the company could have raised more money but only sought the funding it believes is necessary for the initial stratospheric testing. Stardust only took cash from investors who are aligned with the company’s cautious approach, he added. The fundraising round wasn’t conducted “from a point of view of, let’s get as much money as we can, but rather to say, this is what we need” to advance the technology, Yedvab said. Stardust’s new investors include the U.S. firms Future Ventures, Never Lift Ventures, Starlight Ventures, Nebular and Lauder Partners, as well as the British groups Attestor, Kindred Capital and Orion Global Advisors. Future Positive Capital of Paris and Berlin’s Earth.now also joined the fundraising round. Corbin Hiar reported from Washington. Karl Mathiesen reported from London.

BRUSSELS — Climate change is already costing Europe dearly. This summer’s droughts, heat waves and floods will cost the European Union an estimated €43 billion this year, knocking nearly half a percentage point off the region’s economic output, according to a study published Monday.  The same study estimated that the cumulative damage to the European economy will reach about €126 billion by 2029. “These estimates are likely conservative,” said the authors of the study, Sehrish Usman of the University of Mannheim, and Miles Parker and Mathilde Vallat, economists at the European Central Bank. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent as greenhouse gases warm the world. In 2024, natural disasters, including catastrophic flooding in Spain, destroyed assets worth $31 billion in Europe, according to the insurance company MunichRe. “Climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and all of this is contributing to the rising economic cost for the European regions,” Usman said at an event in Brussels on Monday. The study included physical damage to buildings and infrastructure as well as impact on worker productivity and efficiency, and spillover effects on other parts of the economy. It did not include damage from wildfires that burned more than 1 million hectares in Europe this year. “These events are not just temporary shocks,” said Usman. “They manifest their impacts over time.” Floods can disrupt supply chains. Droughts can cripple agricultural yields. “Initially, this is just a heat wave,” she said. “But it affects your efficiency, it reduces your labor productivity.” Droughts were the most damaging, causing an estimated €29.4 billion of loss to the EU this summer. Heat waves and floods caused damages of €6.8 billion and €6.5 billion, respectively. Southern Europe, a region particularly vulnerable to climate change, was hit hardest. Cyprus, Greece, Malta and Bulgaria suffered losses of more than 1 percent of their economic output. “Denmark, Sweden, Germany show relatively lower damages but the frequency and magnitude of these events, especially floods, are also increasing across these regions,” the researchers wrote. The findings come just after climate scientists reported that global warming made a heat wave in July in Norway, Sweden and Finland 2 degrees Celsius hotter than it would have otherwise been. Scientists have also calculated that wildfires in Spain and Portugal were made 40 times more likely by climate change.

The European Union’s top diplomat said Tuesday the bloc’s executive was helping EU countries to evacuate their citizens from Israel amid the country’s war with Iran. EU High Representative Kaja Kallas told reporters in Brussels that the European Commission had activated its civil protection mechanism, used to help coordinate the bloc’s response during wars, natural disasters and other crises. “We are assisting member states to evacuate their citizens that wish to leave [Israel],” she said. Israel and Iran have been exchanging rocket and drone fire for almost a week since Israel launched a surprise attack, killing several top-ranking Iranian officials in a bid to stop Tehran from developing its nuclear program. Iranian missiles have rained on Tel Aviv in response, killing dozens and destroying buildings in the heart of the country. Poland, Czechia, Latvia and Lithuania announced this week they were evacuating citizens from Israel amid the conflict. With Israeli airspace closed, the Polish foreign ministry said it would evacuate about 200 citizens by bus to Jordan, where they would fly to Warsaw. Israel’s National Security Council has issued a Level 4 travel warning for Israelis traveling across land from Sinai or Jordan to Israel, the same routes that the evacuees will have to take. Yurii Stasiuk contributed to this report.

The Baltic countries on Friday signed a deal pledging to jointly plan for mass evacuations as the specter of bellicose Russian President Vladimir Putin looms over the region. The interior ministers of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia committed to develop joint mass evacuation plans, streamline information exchange and ensure vulnerable groups are not left behind during evacuations. Data will be shared on evacuation capacity, possible evacuation corridors and the status of key border crossings, as fears grow over the security situation in the Baltic region as Putin continues to wage war on Ukraine.   “Clear procedures are crucial, as is the rapid exchange of information,” said Lithuania’s Interior Minister Vladislav Kondratovič in a press release, adding that this would ensure a quick roll out of measures and ensure there is no panic before and during a crisis. “It is important for the Baltic countries to maintain a unified approach and coordinate actions when threats arise in order to ensure the safety of our people — especially in the event of large-scale evacuation,” he said.   The move comes ahead of Zapad 2025 — the joint military exercise between Moscow and Minsk — set to take place in Belarus this September. Allied officials are increasingly uneasy about the drills, which some see as a potential prelude to aggression. Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya warned in a recent interview with Euronews that the exercises pose a real threat, noting that Zapad 2021 preceded Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.  The Baltic agreement follows a joint declaration made in late May by the interior and civil protection ministers from eight EU countries — Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden — calling for urgent additional measures to strengthen civil protection, preparedness and resilience both nationally and at the EU level. The statement underscored that national security is not only about military readiness but also hinges on civil preparedness. The capacity to maintain internal stability and respond to a wide range of crises, from natural disasters to hybrid threats, is vital “to protect our citizens and to help them protect themselves, now and in the future,” the ministers wrote in the joint statement.

Families should have enough cash set aside to last them three days in case of an emergency, the central bank of the Netherlands warned today. It advised people to keep €70 per adult and €30 per child safe in hard currency in case electronic payments systems go down. The bank cited the threat of cyberattacks — a growing risk given the increasingly fraught geopolitical situation — as one reason for consumers to stay prepared. In April, a power blackout in Spain and Portugal caused severe but ultimately short-lived problems with payments systems. The cash that’s set aside should be enough to cover “the minimum necessary expenses for a period of three days, such as for water, food, medicine, and transportation.” The Dutch central bank also had some advice for merchants: They should have alternative payment systems in place, like scannable QR codes, in case point-of-sale terminals don’t work. In March, the European Commission published a preparedness plan that recommended citizens stock three days’ worth of food to ensure supplies in case of emergencies like war or natural disasters.