Britain’s chief foreign minister plans to make a standalone visit to China, a move designed to further boost economic and diplomatic engagement with Beijing in the wake of an imminent trip by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Yvette Cooper said she “certainly will” travel to the country after Starmer moved her to the role of foreign secretary in September. She declined to comment on a possible date or whether it would be this year. Cooper’s aim will be unsurprising to many, given Cabinet ministers including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Cooper’s predecessor David Lammy and the former Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds all visited China last year in a drumbeat that will culminate in Starmer’s visit, widely expected around the end of January. However, they indicate that Britain’s ruling Labour Party has no intention of cooling a courtship that has generated significant opposition — including from some of its own MPs — due to concerns over China’s human rights record and espionage activity. Cooper herself said Britain takes security issues around China “immensely seriously,” adding: “That involves transnational repression, it involves the espionage threats and challenges that we face.” Speaking to POLITICO ahead of a visit Thursday to the Arctic, where China is taking an increasing strategic interest, Cooper added: “There are also some wider economic security issues around, for example, the control of critical minerals around the world, and some of those issues.  “So we’re very conscious of the broad range of China threats that are posed alongside what we also know is China’s role as being our third-largest trading partner, and so the complexity of the relationship with China and the work that needs to done.” SECURITY TAKEN ‘VERY SERIOUSLY’ Labour officials have repeatedly emphasised their desire to engage directly with the world’s second-largest economy, including frank dialogue on areas where they disagree. Starmer said in December that he rejected a “binary choice” between having a golden age or freezing China out. However, the timing is acutely sensitive for the Labour government, which is likely to approve plans for a new Chinese “mega-embassy” in London in the coming days. The site near Tower Bridge is very close to telecommunications cables that run to the capital’s financial district. Cooper declined to answer directly whether she had assured U.S. counterparts about the embassy plans, after a Trump administration official told the Telegraph newspaper the White House was “deeply concerned” by them. Keir Starmer said in December that he rejected a “binary choice” between having a golden age or freezing China out. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA The foreign secretary said: “The Home Office, the foreign office, also the security agencies take all of those security issues very seriously, and we also brief our allies on security issues as well.” However, Cooper appeared to defend the prospect of approving the plans — which have run parallel to Britain’s aim to rebuild its own embassy in Beijing.  “All countries have embassies,” she said. “We have embassies all around the world, including in Beijing.” She added: “Of course, security is an important part of the considerations around all embassies. So we need to have those diplomatic relationships, those communications. We also have to make sure that security is taken very seriously. The U.K. and the U.S. have a particularly close security partnership. So we do share a lot of information intelligence, and we have that deep-rooted discussion.” Asked if she plans to make her own visit to China, Cooper responded: “I certainly will do so.”

BRUSSELS — Elon Musk has denied that X’s artificial intelligence tool Grok generates illegal content in the wake of AI-generated undressed and sexualized images on the platform. In a fresh post Wednesday, X’s powerful owner sought to argue that users — not the AI tool — are responsible and that the platform is fully compliant with all laws. “I[‘m] not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok,” he said. “Literally zero.” “When asked to generate images, [Grok] will refuse to produce anything illegal, as the operating principle for Grok is to obey the laws of any given country or state,” he added. “There may be times when adversarial hacking of Grok prompts does something unexpected. If that happens, we fix the bug immediately.” Musk’s remarks follow heightened scrutiny by both the EU and the U.K., with Brussels describing the appearance of nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes on X as “illegal,” “appalling” and “disgusting.” The U.K.’s communications watchdog, Ofcom, said Monday that it had launched an investigation into X. On Wednesday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the platform is “acting to ensure full compliance” with the relevant law but said the government won’t “back down.” The EU’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen warned Monday that X should quickly “fix” its AI tool, or the platform would face consequences under the bloc’s platform law, the Digital Services Act. The Commission last week ordered X to retain all of Grok’s data and documents until the end of the year. Just 11 days ago, Musk said that “anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content” in response to a post about the inappropriate images. The company’s safety team posted a similar line, warning that it takes action against illegal activity, including child sexual abuse material.

FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson on Wednesday as part of a probe into a Maryland government contractor accused of taking home classified intelligence reports. The Post wrote that authorities were looking for information as part of a probe into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a systems administrator who holds a top secret security clearance. They seized a cellphone and Garmin watch from Natanson’s home but told her she is not the target of the investigation. Natanson has been at the Post since 2019, working first as an education reporter before shifting beats to cover Trump and his dramatic reshaping of the federal workforce early last year. A spokesperson from the Post confirmed the search and said the publication was reviewing and monitoring the situation.

Meta named former Trump adviser Dina Powell McCormick to serve as president and vice chair Monday, further cementing the company’s growing ties to Republicans and President Donald Trump’s White House. In addition to a long career on Wall Street, Powell McCormick served as Trump’s deputy national security adviser during his first term. She was also a member of the George W. Bush administration. She first joined Meta’s board last April, part of a broader play by the social media and artificial intelligence giant to hire Republicans following Trump’s election. In a statement, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg praised Powell McCormick’s “experience at the highest levels of global finance, combined with her deep relationships around the world, [which] makes her uniquely suited to help Meta manage this next phase of growth.” Rightward trend: Powell McCormick’s time in global finance — she spent 16 years as a partner at Goldman Sachs and was most recently a top executive at banking company BDT & MSD Partners — could be a major asset to Meta as it raises hundreds of billions of dollars to build out data centers and other AI-related infrastructure. But her GOP pedigree and proximity to Trump likely played a significant role in her hiring as well. Since Trump’s election, Meta has worked to curry favor with Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill. The company elevated former GOP official Joel Kaplan to serve as global affairs lead last January, simultaneously tapping Kevin Martin, a former Republican chair of the Federal Communications Commission, as his No. 2. Under pressure from Republicans, last year Meta also rolled back many of its former rules related to content moderation. In 2024, the company apologized to congressional Republicans — specifically Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee — for removing content that contained disinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic. A Meta spokesperson declined to comment when asked whether Powell McCormick’s ties to Trump and Republicans played a role in her hiring. Trump thumbs up: In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump congratulated Powell McCormick and said Zuckerberg made a “great choice.” The president called her “a fantastic, and very talented, person, who served the Trump Administration with strength and distinction!”

BRUSSELS — Nothing to see here. That was the message from NATO chief Mark Rutte on Monday, just days after U.S. President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to take Greenland by force — a move that Denmark cautioned would spell the end of the transatlantic military alliance. NATO is “not at all” in crisis, Rutte told reporters during a visit to Zagreb, brushing off the standoff and saying: “I think we are really working in the right direction.” Trump on Friday warned the U.S. “may” have to choose between seizing Greenland and keeping NATO intact, marking the latest escalation of his long-running campaign to grab the giant Arctic island. Controlling Greenland is “what I feel is psychologically needed,” he added. The U.S. president’s bellicose rhetoric has put the alliance on the brink of an existential crisis, with the prospect of a military attack against an alliance member jolting NATO into largely uncharted waters.  EU defense chief Andrius Kubilius on Monday echoed those concerns. Any military takeover would be “the end of NATO,” he said, and have a “very deep negative impact … on our transatlantic relations.” Alongside its oil and critical mineral deposits, Trump has previously cited swarms of Russian and Chinese vessels near Greenland as driving the U.S.’s need to control the island.  Experts and intelligence reports largely dismiss those claims. But Rutte said there was “a risk that Russians and the Chinese will be more active” regionally.  “All allies agree on the importance of the Arctic and Arctic security,” he said, “and currently we are discussing … how to make sure that we give practical follow-up on those discussions.” On Wednesday, NATO countries asked the alliance to look into options for securing the Arctic, including shifting more military assets to the region and holding more military exercises in Greenland’s vicinity. The U.K. and Germany are reportedly in talks to send troops to the self-ruling Danish territory in an attempt to assuage Washington’s concerns. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen on Monday also said the territory “increase its efforts to ensure that the defense of Greenland takes place under the auspices of NATO.” Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković, speaking alongside Rutte, said that “allies have to respect each other, including the U.S. as the largest NATO member.” But Rutte also heaped praise on the U.S. president, underscoring the near-impossible tightrope he continues to tread as he attempts to speak for all 32 members of the alliance. “Donald Trump is doing the right things for NATO by encouraging us all to spend more to equalize this,” he said, referencing the alliance’s defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP, agreed last year after intense pressure from Trump. “As [NATO] secretary-general, it is my role to make sure that the whole of the alliance is as secure and safe as possible,” he said. NATO has previously survived the 1974 Turkish invasion of Greek-allied Cyprus, a series of naval confrontations between the U.K. and Iceland over cod and several territorial disputes in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey climaxing in 1987. But an outright attack by its biggest and most well-armed member against another would be unprecedented.  “No provision [in the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty] envisions an attack on one NATO ally by another one,” said one NATO diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. It would mean “the end of the alliance,” they added.

Nordic governments are rejecting U.S. President Donald Trump’s assertions that Russian and Chinese vessels are operating near Greenland, warning that the claims are not supported by intelligence and are fueling destabilizing rhetoric, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. Two senior Nordic diplomats with access to NATO intelligence briefings told the FT there is no evidence of Russian or Chinese ships or submarines operating around Greenland in recent years, directly contradicting Trump’s justification for U.S. control of the Arctic territory. “I have seen the intelligence. There are no ships, no submarines,” one diplomat told the paper. Trump has claimed that Greenland is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships” and argued that the U.S. must take control of the island for national security reasons — rhetoric that has intensified in recent weeks. Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide also told Norwegian broadcaster NRK that there was “very little” Russian or Chinese activity near Greenland, despite ongoing Russian submarine movements closer to Norway itself. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, meanwhile, said at an annual security conference in northern Sweden that Stockholm was “highly critical” of what the Trump administration was doing and had done in Venezuela, in regards to international law. “We are probably even more critical of the rhetoric that is being expressed against Greenland and Denmark,” Kristersson added, explaining that the rules-based international order is under greater strain than it has been in decades. Kristersson said the U.S. should recognize Denmark’s long-standing role as a loyal ally, instead of agitating about Greenland. “On the contrary, the United States should thank Denmark,” he said. Leaders of all five parties in Greenland’s parliament reiterated that stance late Friday, saying in a joint statement: “We do not want to be Americans, we do not want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders.”

BRUSSELS — European governments have launched a two-pronged diplomatic offensive to convince Donald Trump to back away from his claims on Greenland: by lobbying in Washington and pressing NATO to allay the U.S. president’s security concerns. The latest moves mark an abrupt change in Europe’s response to Trump’s threats, which are fast escalating into a crisis and have sent officials in Brussels, Berlin and Paris scrambling to sketch out an urgent way forward. Until now they have attempted to play down the seriousness of Trump’s ideas, fearing it would only add credence to what they hoped was mere rhetoric, but officials involved in the discussions say that has now changed. As if to underscore the shift, French President Emmanuel Macron became the most powerful European leader so far to starkly set out the challenges facing the continent. “The United States is an established power that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the international rules that it used to promote,” Macron said in his annual foreign policy address in Paris on Thursday. Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric this week, telling reporters on Sunday night “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” The president has repeatedly refused to rule out military intervention, something Denmark has said would spell the end of NATO ― an alliance of 32 countries, including the U.S., which has its largest military force. Greenland is not in the EU but is a semi-autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark, which is an EU member. Most of the diplomacy remains behind closed doors. The Danish ambassador to the U.S., Jesper Møller Sørensen, and the Greenlandic representative in Washington, Jacob Isbosethsen, held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The two envoys are attempting to persuade as many of them as possible that Greenland does not want to be bought by the U.S. and that Denmark has no interest in such a deal, an EU diplomat told POLITICO. In an unusual show of dissent, some Trump allies this week publicly objected to the president’s proposal to take Greenland by military force. Danish officials are expected to provide a formal briefing and update on the situation at a meeting of EU ambassadors on Friday, two EU diplomats said. RUSSIAN, CHINESE INFLUENCE At a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Thursday, NATO ambassadors agreed the organization should reinforce the Arctic region, according to three NATO diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions. Trump claimed the Danish territory is exposed to Russian and Chinese influence, and cited an alleged swarm of threatening ships near Greenland as a reason behind Washington’s latest campaign to control the territory. Experts largely dispute those claims, with Moscow and Beijing mostly focusing their defense efforts — including joint patrols and military investment — in the eastern Arctic. But U.S. Vice President JD Vance told reporters Thursday that Trump wants Europe to take Greenland’s security “more seriously,” or else “the United States is going to have to do something about it.” Europeans see finding a compromise with Trump as the first and preferred option. A boosted NATO presence on the Arctic island might convince the U.S. president that there is no need to own Greenland for security reasons. The Danish ambassador to the US and the Greenlandic representative in Washington held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. | Kevin Carter/Getty Images The NATO envoys meeting Thursday floated leveraging intelligence capabilities to better monitor the territory, stepping up defense spending to the Arctic, shifting more military equipment to the region, and holding more military exercises in the vicinity.  The request for proposals just days after the White House’s latest broadside reflects how seriously Europe is taking the ultimatum and the existential risk any incursion into Greenland would have on the alliance and transatlantic ties. NATO’s civil servants are now expected to come up with options for envoys, the alliance diplomats said. Thursday’s meeting of 32 envoys veered away from direct confrontation, the three NATO diplomats said, with one calling the mood in the room “productive” and “constructive.” Denmark’s ambassador, who spoke first, said the dispute was a bilateral issue and instead focused on the recent successes of NATO’s Arctic strategy and the need for more work in the region, the diplomats said — a statement that received widespread support. The Greenland issue was also raised at a closed-door meeting of EU defense and foreign policy ambassadors on Thursday even though it wasn’t on the formal agenda, the two EU diplomats said. The bloc’s capitals expressed solidarity with Denmark, they added. Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — NATO countries asked the alliance to beef up its presence in the Arctic after the U.S. ramped up threats to seize Greenland, three NATO diplomats told POLITICO. At a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Thursday, the alliance’s ambassadors agreed the organization should reinforce its Arctic flank, according to the diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions. U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed the Danish territory is exposed to Russian and Chinese influence. Envoys floated leveraging intelligence capabilities to better monitor the territory, stepping up defense spending to the Arctic, shifting more military equipment to the region, and holding more military exercises in the vicinity.  The flurry of ideas underscores a growing European concern around U.S. intentions on Greenland. This week, the White House ratcheted up its claims on Greenland, and repeatedly refused to rule out a military takeover.  Europe is scrambling to placate the latest Trump threats and avoid a military intervention that Denmark has said would mean the end of the alliance. A compromise with the U.S. president is seen as the first and preferred option. The request for proposals just days after the White House’s latest broadside reflects how seriously Europe is taking the ultimatum and the existential risk any incursion onto Greenland would be on the alliance and transatlantic ties. NATO’s civil servants are now expected to come up with options for envoys, the alliance diplomats said. Alongside its wealth of raw material and oil deposits, Trump has cited an alleged swarm of threatening Russian and Chinese ships near Greenland as a reason behind Washington’s latest campaign to control the territory.  Experts largely dispute those claims, with Moscow and Beijing mostly focusing their defense efforts — including joint patrols and military investment — in the eastern Arctic. Thursday’s meeting of 32 envoys veered away from direct confrontation, the three NATO diplomats said, with one calling the mood in the room “productive” and “constructive.” Denmark’s ambassador, who spoke first, said the dispute was a bilateral issue and instead focused on recent successes of NATO’s Arctic strategy and the need for more work in the region, the diplomats said — a statement that received widespread support. The Greenland issue was also raised at a closed-door meeting of EU defense and foreign policy ambassadors on Thursday, despite it not being on the formal agenda, two EU diplomats said. The bloc’s capitals then expressed their solidarity for Denmark, they added. Denmark is expected to provide a formal briefing and update at a meeting of EU envoys on Friday, the same diplomats said. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

LONDON — The union representing British nurses is under fire from some of its own members over what they say is an opaque investment strategy linked to companies investing in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories. A report sent to Royal College of Nursing (RCN) management by activist group Nurses for Palestine and NGO Corporate Watch, and obtained by POLITICO, argues that the union’s choice of investment managers Legal & General and Sarasins is at odds with its own ethical investment policy. Members of the group say they don’t know exactly which shares the union holds in its portfolio, because the union’s management hasn’t informed them. The report points to a list of companies held by the RCN’s fund managers, including U.S. tech firm Palantir and Israeli arms-maker Elbit Systems, which activists say should be enough for the union to put its money elsewhere. A spokesperson for the RCN declined to say which companies were in its portfolio when contacted by POLITICO. The group said it was “committed to social responsibility” and stressed that it did not invest in weapons manufacturing or any “ethically unacceptable practices.” ‘TRUE ETHICAL INVESTMENT’ The Nurses for Palestine and NGO Corporate Watch report draws on a United Nations investigation into what its human rights council calls Israel’s “Economy of Genocide” to identify companies that activists say link fund managers to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories. The International Court of Justice is currently considering allegations of genocide against Israel, while an independent U.N. inquiry found Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinians. Israel has adamantly rejected those allegations and argued it upholds its obligations under international law. The companies named in the UN report include U.S. tech firms that provide Israel with cloud and artificial intelligence technology. These are among the most widely held shares in the world and are mainstays in the portfolios offered by popular fund managers, which often track the performance of the stock market. A Palantir spokesperson told POLITICO the company rejected its inclusion in the U.N. report and referred to previous statements clarifying its partnership with the Israeli military. The report — which follows two open letters whose signatories include 100 RCN members — does not present evidence that the union directly holds shares in companies more directly involved in the arms trade. But it argues that “true ethical investment” should look beyond investors’ own portfolios and at their fund managers’ “wider practices.” The RCN spokesperson said: “Despite the globalised nature of investments, our indirect exposure — to companies that we may not directly invest in — is a fraction of a single percentage.” According to its latest annual report, the RCN Group (including the union and its charitable foundation) had a combined investment portfolio worth £143.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2024. Sarasins said in a statement that it takes a “rigorous approach to identifying and assessing any potential exposure to human-rights risks across the many companies we invest in on behalf of our clients.”  “The situation in Gaza is evolving, and we are in the process of considering targeted engagement approaches and discussing these with expert contacts and stakeholders,” the firm said. A spokesperson for L&G said all of its investments were in line with international laws and regulations and that any holdings in the companies named in the report were part of “broad, global market indices.”

LONDON — Britain stepped up a promise to send troops into Ukraine — and left open a host of questions about how it will all work in practice. At a meeting of the “coalition of the willing” in Paris this week, the U.K. and France signed a “declaration of intent” to station forces in Ukraine as part of a multinational bid to support any ceasefire deal with Russia. It builds on months of behind-the-scenes planning by civil servants and military personnel eager to put heft behind any agreement. Despite promising a House of Commons vote, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has so far shared very little information publicly about how the operation might work and what its terms of engagement will be, at a time when Britain’s armed forces are already under significant strain. This lack of transparency has begun to raise alarm bells in defense circles. Ed Arnold of think tank the Royal United Services Institute has described the U.K. as being in “a really dangerous position,” while retired commander Tim Collins said any peacekeeping mission would not be credible without higher defense spending. Even Nigel Farage was in on the action Wednesday — the populist leader of Britain’s Reform UK party said he couldn’t sign up to the plan in its current form, and predicted the country could only keep its commitments going “for six or eight weeks.” Here are the key questions still lingering for Starmer’s government. HAS THE UK GOT ENOUGH TROOPS? In France, Emmanuel Macron is at least starting to get into the numbers. The French president gave a televised address Tuesday in which he said France envisaged sending “several thousands” of troops to Ukrainian territory. But Starmer has given no equivalent commitment. Under pressure in the House of Commons, the British prime minster defended that position Wednesday, saying the size of the deployment would depend on the nature of the ceasefire agreed between Russia and Ukraine. However, analysts say it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a deployment does not place a genuine strain on the U.K.’s military. The country’s strategic defense review, published last year, stressed that the Britain’s armed forces have dwindled in strength since the Cold War, leaving “only a small set of forces ready to deploy at any given moment. The latest figures from the Ministry of Defence put the number of medically-deployable troops at 99,162. Figures including former head of the army Richard Dannatt and Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, have warned that a new deployment in Ukraine would mean pulling away from existing operations. There is also a hefty question mark over how long troops might be deployed for, and whether they might be taking on an open-ended commitment of the kind that snarled Britain for years in Afghanistan. RUSI’s Arnold said positioning troops in Ukraine could be “bigger” than deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Libya, “not necessarily in numbers, but in terms of the consequences… This mission absolutely can’t fail. And if it’s a mission that can’t fail, it needs to be absolutely watertight.” WHAT HAPPENS IF RUSSIA ACTUALLY ATTACKS? Ministers have refused to be drawn so far on the expectations placed on troops who might be stationed in Ukraine as part of the plan. They have instead placed an emphasis on the U.K.’s role as part of a “reassurance” force, providing air and maritime support, with ground activity focused on training Ukrainian soldiers, and have not specified what would happen if British troops came under direct threat. The latest figures from the Ministry of Defence put the number of medically-deployable troops at 99,162. | Pool photo by Jason Alden/EPA That’s already got Kyiv asking questions. “Would all the COW partners give a strong response if Russia attacks again? That’s a hard question. I ask all of them, and I still have not gotten a clear answer,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters via WhatsApp chat on Wednesday. “I see political will. I see partners being ready to give us strong sanctions, security guarantees. But until we have legally binding security guarantees, approved by parliaments, by the U.S. Congress, we cannot answer the question if partners are ready to protect us,” Zelenskyy added. Richard Shirreff, former deputy supreme commander of NATO in Europe, told LBC: “This can’t be a lightly armed ‘blue beret’-type peacekeeping force … enforcing peace means being prepared to overmatch the Russians, and that means also being prepared to fight them if necessary.” A U.K. military official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said: “There is no point in troops being there if they’re not prepared to fight.” Asked if British troops could return fire if they came under attack from Russia, a Downing Street spokesman said Wednesday afternoon that they would not comment on “operational hypothetical scenarios.”  Ministers have refused to be drawn so far on the expectations placed on troops who might be stationed in Ukraine as part of the plan. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Returning fire might even be one of the simpler possibilities for the army to contemplate, with less clarity over how peacekeeping forces could respond to other types of hostile activity designed to destabilize a ceasefire, such as drone incursions or attempted hacking. WILL THE US REALLY PROVIDE A BACKSTOP? Starmer has long stressed that U.K. military involvement will depend on the U.S. offering back-up. John Foreman, a former British defense attaché in Moscow and Kyiv, said it was right for the multinational force to focus on support for Ukraine’s own forces, pointing out: “It was never going to be able to provide credible security guarantees — only the U.S. with perhaps key allies can do this.” While Washington has inched forward in its apparent willingness to provide security guarantees — including warm words from Donald Trump’s top envoys in Paris Tuesday — they are by no means set in stone.  The final statement, which emerged from Tuesday’s meeting, was watered down from an earlier draft, removing references to American participation in the multinational force for Ukraine, including with “U.S. capabilities such as intelligence and logistics, and with a U.S. commitment to support the force if it is attacked.” This will only add to fears that the U.K. is talking beyond its capabilities and is overly optimistic about the behavior of its allies. Government officials pushed back against the accusation that British military plans lack substance, arguing that it would be “irresponsible” to share specific operational details prematurely. That position could be difficult to maintain for long.