BRUSSELS — Italy is throwing its weight behind Belgium in opposing the EU’s plan to send €210 billion of Russia’s frozen state assets to Ukraine, according to an internal document seen by POLITICO. The intervention by Rome, the EU’s No.3 in terms of population and voting power — less than a week before a crucial meeting of EU leaders in Brussels — undermines the European Commission’s hopes of finalizing a deal on the plan. The Commission is pushing for EU member countries to reach an agreement in a European Council summit on Dec.18-19 so that the billions of euros in Russian reserves held in the Euroclear bank in Belgium can be freed up to support Kyiv’s war-battered economy.  Belgium’s government is holding out over fears it will be on the hook to repay the full amount if Russia claws back the money, but has so far lacked a heavyweight ally ahead of the December summit. Now Italy has shaken up the diplomatic dynamics by drafting a document with Belgium, Malta and Bulgaria urging the Commission to explore alternative options to using the Russian assets to keep Ukraine afloat over the coming years. The four countries said they “invite the Commission and the Council to continue exploring and discussing alternative options in line with EU and international law, with predictable parameters, presenting significantly less risks, to address Ukraine’s financial needs, based on an EU loan facility or bridge solutions.” The four countries are referring to a Plan B to issue joint EU debt to finance Ukraine over the coming years. However, this idea has its own problems. Critics note it will add to the high debt burdens of Italy and France, and requires unanimity — meaning it can be vetoed by Hungary’s Kremlin-friendly Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The four countries — even if joined by pro-Kremlin Hungary and Slovakia — would not be able to build a blocking minority but their public criticism erodes the Commission’s hopes of striking a political deal next week. While Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has always supported sanctions against Russia, the government coalition she leads is divided over supporting Ukraine. Hard-right Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has embraced a Russia-friendly stance and endorsed U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Ukraine. EMERGENCY RULE Offering a further criticism, the four countries expressed skepticism toward the Commission seizing on emergency powers to overhaul the current sanctions rules and keep Russia’s assets frozen in the long-term. Despite voting in favor of this move to preserve EU unity, they said they were wary of then progressing to use the Russian assets themselves. “This vote does not pre-empt in any circumstances the decision on the possible use of Russian immobilised assets that needs to be taken at Leaders’ level,” the four countries wrote. The legal mechanism for long-term freeze is meant to reduce the chance that pro-Kremlin countries in Europe, such as Hungary and Slovakia, will hand back the frozen funds to Russia. Officials claim this workaround undermines the Kremlin’s chances of liberating its assets as part of a post-war peace settlement — and therefore strengthens the EU’s separate plan to make use of that money.   However, the four countries wrote that the legal clause “implies very far reaching legal, financial, procedural, and institutional consequences that might go well beyond this specific case.”

The Trump administration has ordered State Department employees to report on any instances of coworkers displaying “anti-Christian bias” as part of its effort to implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting employees of Christian faith working in the federal government. The department, according to a copy of an internal cable obtained by POLITICO, will work with an administration-wide task force to collect information “involving anti-religious bias during the last presidential administration” and will collect examples of anti-Christian bias through anonymous employee report forms. The cable was sent out to embassies around the world under Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s name. The instructions also were released in a department-wide notice. The document says the task force, which was established by the executive order, will meet around April 22 to discuss its initial findings. The cable encourages State Department employees to report on one another through a tip form that can be anonymous. “Reports should be as detailed as possible, including names, dates, locations (e.g. post or domestic office where the incident occurred,” the cable reads. Some State Department officials reacted to the cable with shock and alarm, saying that even if well-intentioned, it is based on the flawed premise that the department harbors anti-Christian bias to begin with, and warning it could create a culture of fear as the administration pushes employees to report on one another. “It’s very ‘Handmaid’s Tale’-esque,” said one State Department official, who was granted anonymity because the individual was not allowed to speak openly about internal department affairs. The department instructions say that examples of anti-Christian bias will be collected to meet the requirements of the executive order but that the department also will collect examples of anti-religious bias of all forms for its internal purposes. “Although the E.O. focuses on anti-Christian bias, targeting anyone for their religious beliefs is discriminatory and is contrary to the Constitution” and various federal laws, the notice states. A State Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The executive order Trump issued in February tasks all federal agencies to root out “anti-Christian bias” from the government. The Interfaith Alliance, a left-leaning NGO on religious freedom, condemned the executive order at the time, arguing that “this effort may appear to address certain forms of stigma against Christians, particularly against Catholics. In reality, it will weaponize a narrow understanding of religious freedom to legitimize discrimination against marginalized groups like the LGBTQ community.”

LONDON — Boris Johnson urged European leaders not to take Donald Trump’s blaming of the Ukrainians for their country’s own invasion too literally. Trump on Tuesday mocked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a poor negotiator and “grossly incompetent,” inaccurately questioned his poll ratings, and appeared to point the finger at Kyiv for Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. It followed the U.S. and Russia starting direct talks on ending the war — without Ukraine’s involvement. Johnson, the former British prime minister who has been a staunch ally of Ukraine while also praising Trump, leapt to the U.S. president’s defense Wednesday. He challenged some of Trump’s latest claims — but said European nations should see them as part of a negotiating gambit rather than a serious position. Writing on X, Johnson said: “When are we Europeans going to stop being scandalised about Donald Trump and start helping him to end this war? “Of course Ukraine didn’t start the war. You might as well say that America attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor. “Of course a country undergoing a violent invasion should not be staging elections. There was no general election in the UK from 1935 to 1945. Of course Zelenskyy’s ratings are not 4 percent. They are actually about the same as Trump’s.” But the former PM added: “Trump’s statements are not intended to be historically accurate but to shock Europeans into action.” Since leaving office in 2022, Johnson has lobbied top Republicans to stay the course in their support for Ukraine. He dined with Trump to discuss Ukraine and met the U.S. president at the Republican National Convention. Last week he accused European leaders of “headless chicken-ism” in response to the Russia-U.S. talks and urged them to “man up and step up” in the latest stage of the conflict. Johnson on Wednesday argued that Trump’s intervention should prompt pan-European action on using frozen Russian assets “to pay Ukraine and compensate the U.S. for its support.” He asked: “Why is Europe preventing the unfreezing of Putin’s cash?”

The White House is finalizing plans to spend Joe Biden’s last months in office putting the finishing touches on his legacy — even as it welcomes a successor determined to tear it all down. Senior Biden aides mapping out the remaining 65 days are prioritizing efforts to cement key pillars of the president’s agenda by accelerating manufacturing and infrastructure investments. They’re placing fresh emphasis on the major health and energy policies most at risk of repeal, while coordinating a Senate sprint to fill judicial vacancies. And in a move that could mark the last gasp of tangible American support for Ukraine, officials are rushing out $6 billion of remaining aid and preparing a final round of sanctions against Russia. New measures targeting the nation’s lucrative energy industry are among the sanctions under consideration, a White House official granted anonymity to describe internal deliberations said, now that the administration is freed from pre-election anxieties over the potential impact on domestic gas prices. The final flurry of work has provided a renewed sense of purpose within a White House unmoored by Donald Trump’s pending return to power, according to interviews with more than a half-dozen administration officials and outside advisers. Yet there’s also open acknowledgment that for all the activity, little they do in the next two months may matter after Inauguration Day. Trump is poised to take a sledgehammer to much of what the administration leaves behind — and no amount of tending to Biden’s own reputation can stop it. “The bottom line,” said Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy expert close to senior Biden officials, “is there just isn’t anything Biden can do today that isn’t reversible in 10 weeks.” The administration’s emerging lame duck strategy comes as aides simultaneously lay the groundwork for a presidential transition that Biden views as critical to reinforcing Americans’ faith in elections — and that he’s stressed must go smoothly. Biden met with Trump at the White House for two hours on Wednesday, reviving a courtesy that Trump denied him four years ago amid the then-president’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Rather than resistance, White House aides granted anonymity to discuss private conversations described a sense of resignation that voters had roundly rejected the principles of Biden’s presidency in favor of a return to the freewheeling, transactional politics that Trump represents. Biden won’t shrink from the chance to make a final case for his worldview, aides said. But he’s also hardly the one Democrats are looking toward to lead the fights of the next four years. “To be frank, we’re spending a lot of time thinking about his legacy and those kinds of things,” said one of the administration officials, who was granted anonymity to describe internal discussions. In that vein, White House aides are seeking more opportunities for Biden to publicly tout his accomplishments — including sitting for more interviews or potentially delivering another major address. It remains unclear how intensive those interviews would be. Biden and his team have shied away from extended-format discussions with journalists throughout his term, preferring more tightly controlled sessions with friendly interviewers. Biden officials harbor deep worries in particular about the fate of their work abroad, where Trump is expected to abruptly shift the U.S.’ priorities. The administration is racing to ship a last batch of aid to Ukraine before Jan. 20, for fear Trump will immediately cut off support for the country’s defense against Russia. The U.S. and its G7 allies also finalized a deal struck earlier this year to loan Ukraine funds backed by profits from seized Russian assets, with the first $50 billion set to go out next month. Crucially, aides said, that arrangement is not solely subject to Trump’s whims — though he could still disrupt the plan by pulling the U.S.’ participation. The White House will also layer on new sanctions against Russia that could target its oil and gas industry, though the specifics are still under discussion, the White House official said. The move, which could garner some support from Republicans, would force Trump into a decision over whether to lift them. Biden is planning to devote a significant part of his final weeks to personally meeting with foreign leaders preparing for the repercussions of Trump’s presidency. He’s also likely to join the next virtual gathering of the 50-plus nations allied behind Ukraine, an administration official said, to encourage them to hold together even after he’s left office. Aides in the meantime are trying to clinch a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon, though hopes are waning they can do much more to ease tensions in the Middle East — or improve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza — before Trump takes over. “Anything farther than that on Gaza or Iran, they’ve got no shot,” said Ian Bremmer, president of risk assessment firm Eurasia Group. On Capitol Hill, the Senate’s Democratic majority is expected to spend its final weeks speeding through judicial confirmations, in a final bid to shape the courts before Republicans take full control of Congress. And after cutting back on his appearances during the closing stages of Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign, Biden is now likely to show up more frequently at White House events. Aides are also planning a final push to highlight the administration’s investments across the country. “He wants to just be out there getting things done and traveling,” another administration official said of Biden’s post-election focus. White House officials have focused in particular on accelerating a raft of grants to chipmakers authorized by the CHIPS and Science Act, in an effort to cement investments that Biden credits for helping revive American manufacturing on his watch. The Commerce Department has allocated more than 90 percent of the $39 billion tied to the law, but is still in negotiations with the vast majority of the companies slated to receive the awards, which need to be finalized before money can start flowing. On Friday, the administration clinched what officials hope will be the first in a series of deals before the end of the year, coming to terms on a $6.6 billion injection for an Arizona chipmaking project launched by manufacturing giant Taiwan Semiconductor. The White House is also privately recruiting allies to amplify public support for components of the chips law and Inflation Reduction Act that are at risk of repeal in a Republican-controlled Congress. Biden’s team has circulated examples of GOP support for certain elements, including Trump’s own attempt to take credit for provisions like a cap on the price of insulin. “I fully expect that a Trump administration will try to reverse a lot of the regulatory changes that Biden put in place,” said Tobin Marcus, a former Biden aide who is now head of U.S. Policy and Politics at Wolfe Research. “But that stuff doesn’t turn on a dime.” Those efforts will preserve at least some of Biden’s domestic footprint, even if it means giving Trump the opportunity to reap the rewards of programs the current White House put in place. But even as Biden swallowed his pride and devoted two hours on Wednesday to providing counsel to his nemesis about the myriad challenges to come, there was little hope that any of it would stick once Trump takes office. “Biden and Trump don’t see the world in the same way,” Daalder said. “Trump will say, thank you very much but I don’t need your advice. I’m in charge.”

BORITI, Georgia — Two neighbors, Murman and Natela, sit together sipping coffee as the early autumn sun sets over the village of Boriti, in Georgia. Just a few kilometers away, the newly built East-West Highway roars with traffic. The question — whether the new highway is European or Chinese — is met with confusion. “The road is built by those who pay, so it’s European,” argues Murman, 47, who has been working on the construction of the road since day one. “But it’s built by the Chinese, so it’s Chinese,” replies Natela, 52. The debate may be a local one, but it has international implications.  As Brussels gears up to challenge Beijing in the funding and construction of global infrastructure, it’s running up against an uncomfortable truth: Not only do its efforts sometimes overlap with its rival’s; many of the projects it is funding are being built by Chinese state-owned companies. Since the beginning of 2019, Chinese companies have been awarded more than €1 billion worth of contracts for EIB-funded projects in countries outside the EU, such as Georgia, Senegal, and Tunisia. This represents roughly 13.1 percent of the total value of third-country contracts attributed to the EIB on the EU’s Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) portal. By comparison, companies from the EU have won 15.7 percent of the total value of contracts, including tenders won by consortiums that involve EU companies.  In some years, such as 2019 and 2024, Chinese firms won a greater share of EIB-funded contract value than EU companies. Chinese firms win around a third as many contracts as EU companies, but these contracts are typically high-value. Take the road outside Boriti, part of the E60 European Transit Road which links Europe with Asia. The stretch near the village, known as the Rikoti Road, navigates steep, mountainous terrain and is one of the most challenging sections of the highway.  Funding for its construction came from the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and the EIB, which contributed €399 million. But the contracts went to five construction firms — all of them Chinese state-owned enterprises. In 2018, for example, the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) signed a €300 million contract to build the Ubisa-Shorapani section near Boriti, which is almost entirely funded by an EIB loan. The numbers above do not reflect the full scope of EIB-funded contracts. For instance, a €154 million contract secured by CRBC earlier this year for an EIB-funded rail bypass in Serbia is listed on the TED portal, but not included in TED’s aggregated data for EIB-funded contracts.  “There’s a tension between the rhetoric that this is a European offer and the fact that Chinese companies are building some of these projects,” said Chloe Teevan, the head of digital economy and governance at the European Centre for Development Policy Management, a think tank. The CRBC did not respond to a request for comment. GLOBAL GATEWAY VS. BELT AND ROAD INITIATIVE When European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled Global Gateway in September 2021, it was a direct response to China’s international infrastructure ambitions. Beijing’s effort, the Belt and Road Initiative, had set off alarm bells in the West, where it was seen as locking in Chinese strategic interests and creating debt dependence in the countries where the infrastructure was being built. “We want to create links and not dependencies!” von der Leyen announced during her 2021 State of the Union address. “We are good at financing roads,” she added. “But it does not make sense for Europe to build a perfect road between a Chinese-owned copper mine and a Chinese-owned harbor.” Today, the bigger challenge is that it’s very often Chinese firms that are building the roads the EU is paying for. In addition to the EIB, the EU funds infrastructure through the bloc’s national governments, as well as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). While the EBRD isn’t technically a part of the EU, 54 percent of its shares are held by the EU, the EIB and EU national governments. The rest is divided among 44 other countries. The U.S., the U.K., Japan, and Switzerland combined hold 33 percent. Russia holds 4 percent, and China less than 0.1 percent. Over the last five years, however, Chinese firms have won 13 percent of the total value of public-sector projects funded by the EBRD. EU contractors were awarded 35 percent of total value across the 38 countries in which the EBRD operates, 13 of which are EU member states.  In addition to this, Chinese firms have been awarded contracts for private-sector development projects funded by the EBRD.  In Uzbekistan, for example, the EBRD is providing at least €500 million in financing for seven wind and solar projects being developed by Saudi ACWA Power or Emirati firm Masdar, but which have been contracted to Chinese state-owned enterprises. Though the majority of EBRD’s operations are geared toward the private sector, the development bank does not publish the results for these tenders. “The EBRD permits participants from all countries to provide on equal terms goods, works, services or consultancy services for an EBRD-financed public sector project regardless of whether such country is a member,” the EBRD’s Balkan office said in a statement to POLITICO.  UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD  China’s involvement in EU-funded projects hasn’t gone unnoticed by the European construction industry.  In 2020, the European Chamber of Commerce in China highlighted a “profound lack of European involvement” in Chinese-financed Belt and Road projects, which are often contracted to Chinese firms without tender. The EIB, on the other hand, requires its promoters to award contracts through a competitive procurement process.  “We are not afraid of competition on a level playing field,” said Frank Kehlenbach, director of European International Contractors, an industry group. “But we will never be able to compete with these huge state-owned enterprises that work under the control and with the funds of the Chinese Communist government.” In a statement, the EIB said “all companies, irrespective of their geography and without discrimination, are eligible and free to participate in EIB-led tender processes, which award contracts on the basis of a number of criteria, such as price offer and quality for end users.” The EU has developed several instruments to address unfair competition in procurement. One of these is the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), which empowers the European Commission to investigate public procurement bids by foreign companies suspected of benefiting from state aid. Since the regulation entered into force at the beginning of 2023, it has been used four times, all but one targeting Chinese companies. One of the major catalysts for the development of the FSR was the awarding of a contract in 2018 to CRBC for the construction of the EU-funded Pelješac bridge in Croatia. “The Pelješac Bridge scenario was one of the key moments for evolving the EU’s thinking about its competitiveness and economic security vis-à-vis China,” says Matej Šimalčík, executive director of the Central European Institute of Asian Studies. The Austrian firm Strabag, which also bid for the contract, accused CRBC of price dumping and filed a complaint, but courts found no proof of illegal subsidies.  However, experts argue that state-owned firms like CRBC benefit from indirect state subsidies. CRBC, for example, has established a large portfolio of projects in Europe that are tied to loans from the Export-Import Bank of China. The introduction of the FSR makes a repeat of the Pelješac case unlikely within the EU, but the regulation does not extend to EU-funded projects outside of the EU, including those that might be built as part of the Global Gateway. A Commission spokesperson said there was a recognition of the issue. “The EU is a firm supporter of equal opportunities and open competition,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “However there is a need to ensure a level playing field.” “The European Commission is discussing these issues with the EIB and is working actively — also in the context of the Global Gateway initiative — to increase the engagement of European companies,” the spokesperson said. They added that the Commission was “exploring” options that would “ensure best price/quality ratio instead of a lowest price as an award criterion.” However, Teevan cautioned that simply raising the bar may not be enough to deter Chinese companies. “There’s an effort to make it more complicated for Chinese companies to comply, but Chinese companies are getting better and they are investing a lot in ESG,” she said.  Meanwhile, said Teevan, the visible involvement of Chinese companies in the construction of its infrastructure project is undermining the bloc’s ability to take credit for the project it funds. The Pelješac Bridge is once again a good example. While Brussels saw the bridge as an EU-driven development, Beijing advertised it as a “key strategic project” of the Belt and Road Initiative.  Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, attended the project’s opening ceremony virtually to describe it as “a new bridge to promote friendship between [China and Croatia].” The confusion, as to whether the bridge was built thanks to Brussels or Beijing, would be instantly recognizable to villagers of Boriti in Georgia.  “How is this road European?” asks Omar, 67, who is being paid €11 per day to control traffic on the soon-to-be-finished East-West highway.  “Everything here is Chinese,” he adds. “The Europeans are paying, but the Chinese are building it.” Reporting for this article was supported by a grant from Investigative Journalism for Europe (IJ4EU).

LONDON — Donald Trump thinks “tariff” is the most beautiful word in the English language. Britain’s new trade chief doesn’t see it that way. Four months after taking on the trade portfolio in July’s landslide election, U.K. Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds is already facing the prospect of a transformed landscape should Trump triumph in the U.S. election Tuesday. “Any G7 trade minister like myself would be concerned about the talk of tariffs,” he told POLITICO. It’s something of an understatement. The trade secretary could soon find himself fighting a trade war on multiple fronts if Donald Trump retakes the White House. The Republican nominee has promised to impose a flat tariff of up to 20 percent on all U.S. imports, as well as 60 percent tariffs on goods from China, sparking fears of high inflation and a global economic slowdown. The international impact of these trade policies is “incalculable,” according to a Peterson Institute analysis. But the blanket tariffs would hit billions of pounds of U.K. automotive, pharmaceutical and liquor exports. While Reynolds stressed that the presidential election was “a decision for the American people” and the Labour government would “work with whoever wins,” he accepted the vote would be “a significant event for the global economy.” And he hinted that if Britain was threatened with a trade war, it would be prepared to fight back. ‘EXTREMELY WELL PREPARED’ In Whitehall, government officials have been busily preparing for different eventualities for months. “We model every potential outcome as to what some of the campaign pledges might mean for an economy like ours,” Reynolds said. U.K. officials were “extremely well prepared,” he added. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s top team has spent the period both before and after the U.K. election attempting to woo Trump and his team. If Trump starts a trade war, “I don’t think the U.K. has a choice but to retaliate,” the senior U.S. business representative said. | Ryan M. Kelly/AFP via Getty Images Days after Labour swept to power, Foreign Secretary David Lammy jetted off to meet Trump’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill as part of a plan to engage “with both sides of the aisle.”   And Starmer and Lammy dined with Trump for two hours during their visit to New York for a United Nations summit in late September. But diplomacy and Britain’s perceived “special relationship” with the U.S. would likely have little impact on Trump’s tariffs plans, said a senior U.S. business representative, granted anonymity to speak freely. While Trump’s complaints about the perceived unfairness of China and the European Union’s trade surpluses with the U.S. do not extend to post-Brexit Britain in the same way, the U.K. could still find itself in the firing line, the business rep said. “I hope that the Starmer government doesn’t rest too firmly on the laurels of the strength of the relationship and think ‘well, it’s not gonna apply to us — we don’t have to worry about it,’” they added. “They’re going to need to worry about it.” A BARGAINING CHIP Trump would use tariffs “to force other nations to the negotiating table,” wrote Brandon Barford, a former Republican U.S. Senate Committee on Banking staffer, in a July op-ed for POLITICO. “It’s a bargaining chip,” Howard Lutnick, co-chair of Trump’s presidential transition team, told CNBC in September. Ministers in Britain’s previous Conservative government prepared their own bargaining chip, laying the groundwork for a second Trump presidency by preparing to return to negotiations for a U.K-U.S. trade deal started under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Talks broke off after Joe Biden entered the White House in 2021. “There has been work going on in the background about what would happen if Trump wanted to restart trade talks and how that would look,” a former government official, also granted anonymity to speak freely, said. The Conservative government’s push for non-binding trade promotion pacts with individual U.S. states “was about that too, if, after Biden, there was once again an appetite to re-enter trade talks,” they added. But the U.K. government’s red lines on U.S. access to the British healthcare system and refusal to accept American exports of chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef were stumbling blocks to a deal — even under Johnson. If Trump starts a trade war, “I don’t think the U.K. has a choice but to retaliate,” the senior U.S. business representative said, adding that Starmer should be drawing up a list of tariffs to hit back to bring to the negotiating table. EU diplomats told POLITICO the bloc had prepared “substantial retaliation” if Trump initiated a trade war. Other U.S. allies, including Canada, have also signaled they are prepared to draw up retaliatory measures. FEARING ESCALATION It is “prudent and appropriate to prepare for those scenarios,” British trade chief Reynolds said, adding he did not want to be “specific” when asked if his department had prepared retaliatory tariffs. “In any situation where you might be facing a difficult negotiation with any partner you need reciprocal things to be engaged in that conversation,” he said. Reynolds doesn’t need to look too far back to see how events might play out. After the first Trump administration slapped steel and aluminum tariffs on the EU in 2018, when Britain was still a member, Brussels retaliated with tariffs on everything from Harley Davidson motorcycles to Levi jeans and bourbon. But firms on both sides of the Atlantic fear retaliation, said Duncan Edwards, CEO of the transatlantic business group BritishAmerican Business. “Even if one side imposes [tariffs], in my view, the other side should not,” he said. Retaliation would punish British consumers “by making things more expensive than they otherwise would be.” Nevertheless, Trump’s moves would “be immediately felt by U.K. exporters,” said Aline Doussin, partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells and head of its international trade team in London. “The U.K. government, in coordination with stakeholders here in the U.K, should prepare for all scenarios possible.” At the moment there is “no firm plan” that companies and the public have heard from the government about how it would respond, Doussin said. But retaliation from the U.K. could make things worse, she added. “We have seen some trade escalation in the context of the previous [Trump] administration,” she added, warning that “the market agrees that mostly everybody loses in escalating tariff increases.”