Lawmakers and national security veterans reacted with shock on Friday to President Donald Trump’s decision to fire the head of one of the country’s most powerful intelligence agencies, describing it as a “chilling” action that would damage America’s cyber defenses and “roll out the red carpet” for attacks on critical networks by foreign adversaries. Gen. Timothy Haugh, a four-star general who served as head of both the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, was largely seen as an apolitical and uncontroversial appointee. He was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 2023 under then-President Joe Biden and had worked in signals intelligence for three decades. Haugh’s firing on Thursday evening leaves two of the nation’s top cyber and intelligence agencies without Senate-confirmed leadership and suggests that Trump is prioritizing loyalty over experience as he continues to fill senior roles in his administration. It also follows a massive breach of U.S. telecommunications networks by China-backed hacking group Salt Typhoon that allowed hackers to spy on the phones of senior U.S. officials, including Trump and Vice President JD Vance. “We’re under attack, and the president just irresponsibly removed our most important general from the field,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a member of both the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees. “This is an outrageous decision.” The Washington Post first reported on Haugh’s firing, which was detailed on X by far-right activist Laura Loomer. According to The New York Times, she met with Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday and presented him with materials critical of several national security staff. NSA Deputy Director Wendy Noble, who the Post reported been reassigned to a position in the Pentagon, was also fired, along with multiple members of the White House National Security Council. Loomer, in an X post, suggested the firings were politically motivated. “NSA Director Tim Haugh and his deputy Wendy Noble have been disloyal to President Trump,” she said. “That is why they have been fired.” Lawmakers are furious at the firings, which they say severely undermine the nation’s national security efforts. Cyber Command is the nation’s key organization for coordinating offensive cyberattacks, while the NSA collects intelligence that helps inform targeting — essential as China and other nations continue to target U.S. critical infrastructure. “He was fired with no public explanation,” Don Bacon (R-Neb.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee’s cyber subcommittee, posted to X on Friday, adding that Haugh was doing a superb job. “This action sets back our Cyber and Signals Intelligence operations.” Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) called the move “astonishing” in a statement Thursday night. “At a time when the United States is facing unprecedented cyber threats, as the Salt Typhoon cyberattack from China has so clearly underscored, how does firing him make Americans any safer?” Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), his counterpart in the House Intelligence Committee, demanded an explanation on Friday from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegesth as to why the leaders had been removed. “The notion that senior leadership at critical agencies protecting our nation could be dismissed based on the whims of an online influencer is chilling and demands immediate clarification,” he wrote. Those who worked closely with Haugh and Noble praised their leadership and expressed dismay at the decision. “They are non-partisan, very patriotic intelligence officers,” said John Sherman, who served as Chief Information Officer at the Department of Defense until last year and worked with both Haugh and Noble. “This is going to be just terrible for morale, and I think it’s going to send a terrible signal to our allies and others.” One former senior NSA official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about changes to agency leadership, described the move as disheartening. “It’s a gut punch to all of us that have worked there for decades and took pride in the fact that it was a non-partisan agency.” The NSA has expansive surveillance and eavesdropping capabilities, which provide a majority of the information contained in the president’s daily intelligence briefing. Strict guardrails are in place to prevent the agency from abusing the immense power at its disposal. “I worry that somebody comes in at the top who has no ideas about the different levels of oversight,” who “may want to use that system in a way that it shouldn’t be,” the former official said. It’s unclear why Haugh and Noble were abruptly fired and who might be in the running to fill their positions. The NSA declined to comment, and Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesperson, said Friday afternoon that the agency “thanks General Timothy Haugh for his decades of service to our nation, culminating as U.S. Cyber Command Commander and National Security Agency Director. We wish him and his family well.” A spokesperson for Cyber Command confirmed that Lt. Gen. William Hartman, the former deputy director of Cyber Command, is now the acting commander of the agency, but did not comment on Haugh’s dismissal. This is not the first sudden exodus of national security leaders under Trump’s second term. He purged top Pentagon leaders in February, including Joint Chiefs chair C.Q. Brown. Military officials warn that the firings of national security leaders send a demoralizing message to military personnel hoping to move up the ranks. “This is one in a series of firings of senior generals and admirals for outwardly political reasons,” said retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, who served for more than 30 years in the U.S. Navy. “What Colonel or Navy Captain worth a salt wants to work his or her ass off for flag rank if the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is subject to political litmus tests?” At least one lawmaker has vowed congressional action in response to Haugh’s dismissal. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, called the action “chilling” and labeled it a “distraction” from the other scandals plaguing the White House. “There have still been no consequences for anyone over the leaking of classified information over Signal — the real threat,” she said, referring to how several of Trump’s top national security officials recently used the publicly available messaging app Signal to relay sensitive information about military strikes in Yemen. “The American people deserve answers — now including why General Haugh was relieved of his duties. The case is not closed.”

President Donald Trump granted TikTok another 75-day reprieve on Friday, further prolonging the Washington drama over the ultra-popular video app owned by a Beijing-based company. In a post on Truth Social, the president said his administration “has been working very hard on a Deal to SAVE TIKTOK, and we have made tremendous progress,” but that he planned to sign an executive order giving a deal more time to come together. He added that his administration would work with China to close the deal. “We do not want TikTok to ‘go dark,’” Trump wrote. The president offered no clues as to which U.S. companies or investors could be part of a TikTok deal. But Trump’s tariff policy may have derailed an existing deal, according to two people close to the negotiations, granted anonymity to speak candidly. The White House had finalized a deal by Wednesday, they said, and President Donald Trump was planning to sign an executive order to approve that deal and initiate a 120-day closing period. The plan was to convert TikTok’s operations in the United States into a new, U.S.-based company owned and operated by a majority of American investors, with ByteDance maintaining a minority position, the people said. But on Thursday, the morning after the president raised tariffs on China another 34 percent as part of his sprawling reciprocal trade announcement, ByteDance representatives called the White House. Beijing, they said, would no longer approve the deal until there could be wider negotiations about trade and tariffs. In a rare public statement following Trump’s announcement, ByteDance acknowledged that it has been in talks with Washington over a “potential solution” to the TikTok ban, but that an agreement “has not been executed” and “there are key matters to be resolved.” It also said any agreement “will be subject to approval under Chinese law.” Trump recently suggested tariffs could be used as leverage to get Beijing to agree to a deal, and in his post, Trump invoked the tariffs he levied against China earlier this week, calling them “the most powerful Economic tool, and very important to our National Security!” The Chinese government has imposed export controls on TikTok’s algorithm, and would need to approve any deal between TikTok and U.S. companies. Software giant Oracle, which already has a data-sharing arrangement with TikTok, was in advanced talks with the White House last month for a deal that would likely see TikTok’s parent company ByteDance retain some control over the app’s algorithm. While such a deal likely defies the law, neither Congress nor other stakeholders would be well-positioned to challenge it. Other potential bidders reportedly include Amazon, Walmart and the investment firm Blackrock. Washington has long worried that TikTok, via its ties to ByteDance, acts as a Trojan horse for the Chinese government. Given the app’s tremendous popularity — the company claims more than 170 million Americans use it each month — officials in both parties fear Beijing could use TikTok to push propaganda and spy on Americans. The president’s announcement came one day before his self-imposed April 5 deadline for a TikTok deal. While a law went into effect on Jan. 19 requiring TikTok to cut ties with its Beijing-based parent firm or be banned, the president signed an executive order on his first day in office pushing back its enforcement by 75 days. Congress passed a law last year requiring ByteDance to give up control of TikTok’s algorithm and divest most of its financial stake in the app due to concerns about the Chinese government’s influence over the company. But Trump — who attempted to ban TikTok in 2020, during his last presidential term — bucked the Washington consensus and came out against the TikTok ban bill last spring. He told a conservative influencer last summer that he would “never ban TikTok.” Trump even credited TikTok for helping him win last year’s election, claiming the app helped his campaign make inroads with younger voters. TikTok worked to curry favor with Trump ahead of the original Jan. 19 deadline, including by sponsoring one of his inauguration parties. After a brief dark period just before Trump took office, the app sent a message to its users crediting the incoming president for its revival. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew was given a prominent seat at the president’s inauguration ceremony. The White House projected confidence up to the last minute that a TikTok deal would get done ahead of Saturday. Vice President JD Vance told Fox News Thursday that talks were “in a good place” and that a deal “will come out before the deadline.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Friday that he knew an extension was “probably coming.” He added it was “probably OK” as long as the administration can find “the right buyer and the right deal.” Republican lawmakers on the House China Committee struck a more cautious tone. In a joint statement led by committee Chair John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), they said any TikTok deal “must ensure that U.S. law is followed, and that the Chinese Communist Party does not have access to American user data or the ability to manipulate the content consumed by Americans.” They added they “stand firm in our position and look forward to more details from the Administration to ensure that any deal aligns with national security and U.S. law.” Some Democratic lawmakers said Trump’s TikTok punt is meant to distract Americans from the chaos around tariffs. “All he did is extend the 75 days,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters. “He didn’t make a decision one way or the other, but he knows the American people are so hostile to what he is doing that he always looks for a diversion. Sometimes it’s Greenland, sometimes it’s the Gulf of Mexico. The diversion today was TikTok.” Anthony Adragna, Jordain Carney and Myah Ward contributed to this report.

National security adviser Mike Waltz’s team regularly set up chats on Signal to coordinate official work on issues including Ukraine, China, Gaza, Middle East policy, Africa and Europe, according to four people who have been personally added to Signal chats. Two of the people said they were in or have direct knowledge of at least 20 such chats. All four said they saw instances of sensitive information being discussed. It’s a more extensive use of the app than previously reported and sheds new light on how commonly the Trump administration’s national security team relies on Signal, a publicly available messaging app, to conduct its work. “Waltz built the entire NSC communications process on Signal,” said one of the people. All four were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the private chats. Veteran national security officials have warned the practice potentially violates regulations on protecting sensitive national security information from foreign adversaries and federal recordkeeping laws if the chats are automatically deleted. “It was commonplace to stand up chats on any given national security topic,” said one of the people involved in the chats, adding that the groups often included Cabinet members and high- level staff. NSC spokesperson Brian Hughes noted that Signal is not banned from government devices and that some agencies automatically install it on employees’ phones. He also stressed that officials have used the app in both the Biden and Trump administrations. “It is one of the approved methods of communicating but is not the primary or even secondary, it is one of a host of approved methods for unclassified material with the understanding that a user must preserve the record,” Hughes said. “Any claim of use for classified information is 100 percent untrue.” None of the four individuals said they were aware of whether any classified information was shared, but all said that posts in group chats did include sensitive details of national security work.

A Pentagon lawyer also submitted a written declaration that the Defense Department was seeking to preserve the records as well but did not suggest it had recovered any. The administration suggested that the Atlantic’s publication of the full exchange, save for the deletion of the name of a CIA officer, had ensured that the messages would be preserved. Boasberg’s order came in response to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by pro-transparency group American Oversight, claiming that the messages were in danger of being deleted in violation of the Federal Records Act and that Trump administration officials appeared to be using the ephemeral messaging app to evade federal recordkeeping requirements. Richer did not concede Thursday that the messages were legally required to be preserved, saying government lawyers “have not fully evaluated that issue.” Federal law does not require that every email or app message sent or received by a federal employee be saved, even if it pertains to official business. In an unusual preface to the hearing, Boasberg responded to a social media post early Thursday in which President Donald Trump suggested without evidence that Boasberg had improperly taken control of the politically sensitive case. Trump called it “disgraceful” that the judge, an appointee of President Barack Obama, has been assigned several civil cases of interest to the White House in recent weeks. In addition to the Signal case, Boasberg is presiding over the case involving Trump’s efforts to swiftly deport people using the Alien Enemies Act. “Boasberg … seems to be grabbing the ‘Trump Cases’ all to himself,” Trump wrote. ”Is there still such a thing as the ‘wheel,’ where the Judges are chosen fairly, and at random?” Boasberg said obliquely he’d “come to understand that some questions have been raised” about how the court assigns cases. He said that in almost all instances cases are assigned randomly, in various categories, “to assure a more even distribution of cases” for the 15 active judges who serve on the court. Clerks use an electronic deck of cards in each of the various categories to determine which judge gets a newly filed case. “That’s how it works and that’s how all cases have continued to be assigned in this court,” said Boasberg, who has served as chief judge of the court since 2023. There has been a flood of litigation related to actions taken by the administration and Trump himself since he took office in January. More than 70 of the notable cases have been filed in D.C. federal court, and nearly all of that court’s judges now have one or more of the Trump-related cases. Trump and his allies have been in the midst of a public campaign of attacks against Boasberg, calling for his impeachment over his recent decision — which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals left in place Wednesday — barring the administration from carrying out deportations under Trump’s assertion of war powers. In that case, Justice Department lawyers have argued the government was not bound by an oral order that he issued, only a follow-up docket entry. Boasberg appeared to allude to that Thursday as he assured Richer she didn’t need to jot down every word of what he said about his order regarding the Signal messages. “Don’t worry, it’ll be in writing,” the judge said.

The stunning revelation that top administration officials accidentally included a reporter in a group chat discussing war plans triggered furious discussion inside the White House that national security adviser Mike Waltz may need to be forced out. Nothing is decided yet, and White House officials cautioned that President Donald Trump would ultimately make the decision over the next day or two as he watches coverage of the embarrassing episode. A senior administration official told POLITICO on Monday afternoon that they are involved in multiple text threads with other administration staffers on what to do with Waltz, following the bombshell report that the top aide inadvertently included Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg in a private chat discussing a military strike on Houthis. “Half of them saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,” said the official, who like others was granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberation. And two high-level White House aides have floated the idea that Waltz should resign in order to prevent the president from being put in a “bad position.” “It was reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be having that conversation on Signal. You can’t have recklessness as the national security adviser,” the official said. A person close to the White House was even more blunt: “Everyone in the White House can agree on one thing: Mike Waltz is a fucking idiot.” Goldberg got a request to join Signal, an encrypted messaging app, from a “Mike Waltz” on March 11, according to the publication. He was then included in a group chat dubbed “Houthi PC small group” with what appeared to be other top administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and others. A third person familiar with the fallout said Trump has spoken with Waltz about the matter — and the White House is, for now, standing by him. “As President Trump said, the attacks on the Houthis have been highly successful and effective. President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including national security adviser Mike Waltz,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Monday statement. The press office declined to comment further. A fourth White House official said they were aware of internal pressure for Waltz to own his mistake — which could mean a possible resignation. But that official said what happens to Waltz largely depends on how Trump personally feels about the matter, and noted the involvement of other administration officials in the Signal chat as well. Two of the officials said that while Trump may lay blame at the feet of Waltz for potentially compromising U.S. national security, he could just as easily be frustrated with Vance for stepping out of line from the administration’s foreign policy in the chat, or target Hegseth as the one who allegedly shared sensitive details with the group. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself,” Vance said, according to the Atlantic’s report. “But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.” It has also created an opening for longtime Waltz detractors suspicious of his neoconservative ties to push for his removal. Waltz once advised former Vice President Dick Cheney on counterterrorism but, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has in recent years shifted his foreign policy views to embrace a more “America First” approach. Those concerns were amplified on social media Monday by a contingent of isolationist conservatives who questioned why Waltz had the Atlantic editor-in-chief’s cell phone number in the first place — suggesting it was evidence of Waltz’s continued neocon sympathies. And while Congress has been reluctant to cross Trump in his first two months in office, some members on Monday voiced concerns about the incident. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said sending sensitive information over an unsecure network was “unconscionable,” while Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chair of the Armed Services Committee, told the New York Times that it was a “concern” and that his committee would “definitely be looking into it.” Defense hawks’ criticism of the incident is particularly noteworthy given their perception that Waltz is their guy in the administration, a sympathetic ear in a White House dominated by “America First” isolationists. Still, the person close to the White House who dubbed Waltz a “fucking idiot,” didn’t expect any widespread repercussions from the incident. “I don’t think there are any longterm political consequences for Trump or the Administration, outside of this potentially costing Waltz his job,” the person said. But many Republicans on the Hill are hoping Waltz survives. Indeed, while GOP lawmakers privately said they believed some White House official would have to take the blame, House Republicans in particular have defended their former colleague Waltz. Speaker Mike Johnson told POLITICO that Waltz should “absolutely not” resign. “He’s exceptionally qualified for the job. He is trusted — trustworthy,” Johnson said. “He was made for that job, and I have full confidence in him.” Megan Messerly, Meredith Lee Hill and Adam Wren contributed to this report.

The European Commission has put Apple and Google on notice: Change your products so they’re in line with the European Union’s digital competition rules, or face the consequences. The EU executive ruled Wednesday that the two U.S. tech giants may be in breach of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), throwing down a gauntlet to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has sought to pull the issue of tech regulation into Washington’s escalating trade dispute with the EU. Apple and Google will need to overhaul some of their key products if they are to escape an infringement decision or fines that could reach up to 10 percent of their global revenues, the Commission said. But — seemingly aware of the potential to inflame transatlantic tensions — Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera sought to depoliticize the rulings. “With these decisions, we are simply implementing the law,” Ribera said in a statement. Unlike previous non-compliance findings under the DMA, the EU executive did not hold a press conference to make its announcement. In recent weeks EU officials have sought to dial down the rhetoric on digital enforcement, appealing to the bloc’s common interest with the U.S. in enforcing competition rules. The Apple decision parallels a lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing against the company. However, Joseph Van Coniglio, a competition policy expert at Washington-based think tank Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said that while there are debates within the U.S. government on how to apply antitrust policy to Big Tech, a more mercantilist view on trade policy is likely to prevail when it comes to the DMA. He pointed to a February memo signed by Trump that promised to defend American companies from “overseas extortion,” citing the DMA and other digital policies. “I think the consensus is that the U.S. is going to be opposed [to the Commission’s decisions],” Van Coniglio said. The Apple decision parallels a lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing against the company. | Magali Cohen and Hans Lucas/Getty Images Wednesday’s decisions come ahead of a set of heftier non-compliance rulings from the Commission later this month — which may include fines. DMA DEMANDS In order to comply with the DMA, the Commission said Apple will need to give its competitors the same access to a range of existing iPhone functionalities, such as notifications and device-pairing, as it provides to its own devices like the Apple Watch. The EU executive also stated that the company must overhaul how it communicates with developers. For Apple, the decision amounts to a “micro-managing” of the future of the iPhone, said Dirk Auer of the International Center for Law & Economics. Others believe the decision doesn’t go far enough. “Third party developers will still not have real app freedom and interoperability can still be hindered by Apple,” said Jan Pefrat of advocacy group European Digital Rights. Google, in turn, needs to make further changes to its Play Store and Google Search service to stop promoting its own services over those of rivals, the Commission said. Google’s European policy lead Oliver Bethell said the company has engaged in good-faith negotiations resulting in changes that have diminished traffic for European airlines and hotels. But the findings concerning Google’s search result page, which follows almost 15 years of similar antitrust casework, should send a signal to parent company Alphabet that its approach “needs to change radically,” said Emmanuel Mounier, head of trade group eu travel tech.

There may be a more politically incendiary moment for the European Union to crack down on Big Tech. But it’s hard to think of one. Starting Wednesday, the European Commission is staring down a series of deadlines to decide whether Apple, Meta and Google are in breach of the EU’s digital competition laws; decisions which, at least on paper, could see the companies hit with fines of up to 10 percent of their worldwide revenues. The timing’s awkward. In recent weeks, the bloc’s Digital Markets Act has come under sustained fire from United States President Donald Trump, who said it amounts to “overseas extortion” of American companies. As Trump turns up the heat in a global trade war, the White House has gone so far as to threaten additional tariffs in response to the EU’s tech regulation. But the Commission’s hands are tied. An immovable deadline for the Commission to tell Apple exactly how it should open its products and services up to rivals runs out on March 19. Normally, this would be uncontroversial; a procedural step in getting a company to comply with a new law. But any decision to censure Big Tech under the DMA risks angering Trump, who last week called Apple “a great company.”  After that, things get serious, as the Commission starts butting up against deadlines to wrap up multiple year-long noncompliance investigations against Apple, Meta and Google. EU officials have repeatedly promised that decisions are coming soon, at least for Apple and Meta, spurred on by complaints from users like Epic Games and Spotify, which say compliance efforts by Big Tech to date fall short. “The Commission would face a lot of criticism if it was perceived to be taking a deliberately ‘soft’ approach for geopolitical reasons,” says Zach Meyers, director of research at the Centre on Regulation in Europe think tank. Mindful of fraught geopolitics, the executive’s leadership has sought in recent weeks to smooth over tensions by insisting that its approach is not anti-American. “[The DMA] does not target U.S. companies,”  European commissioners Teresa Ribera and Henna Virkkunen wrote to a U.S. lawmaker earlier this month, stressing that the EU’s aim “is to ensure compliance — not to issue fines.” APPLE OF THE EU’S EYE The EU currently has six open cases against Apple, Meta and Google for not complying with various parts of the DMA. While probes should technically be completed within a year, these timelines aren’t set in stone, according to Alba Ribera Martínez, a lecturer in law at Universidad Villanueva in Madrid. What is certain is that there are at least a few touch papers waiting to be lit. The main target is Apple, which faces three investigations over failing to comply with the DMA, on top of the order from the Commission to open up its devices to rivals. The main target is Apple, which faces three investigations over failing to comply with the DMA, on top of the order from the Commission to open up its devices to rivals. | Magali Cohen/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images Next week, the Commission is due to finalize one of these probes — into Apple’s rules for its app store. App developers claim that current rules unfairly prevent them from steering customers away from Apple’s payment system and fees that the company charges developers.  Two people familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they’re not allowed to disclose details, said that Apple would likely face a noncompliance decision on its anti-steering provisions, which could potentially come with a fine for past conduct. The next dominos to fall will be an investigation into Meta’s pay-or-consent rules, which the Commission should wrap up in the next few weeks, and a second Apple investigation into a broader set of issues concerning its app store, set to be completed this summer. Apple’s response to a third probe into its browser rules is currently being assessed by the Commission, with recent changes being welcomed by users, the Commission’s DMA lead Alberto Bacchiega said at a hearing on Monday. And Google is in the early stages of two probes into its vertical search service and its app store. The big question is what kind of action officials will take.  Each noncompliance decision will be accompanied with a cease-and-desist order and a proposal to remedy the infraction. The EU can also issue fines of up to 10 percent of a company’s worldwide revenue, rising to 20 percent for repeat infringements. But it isn’t required to — nor may fines be the most important measure the Commission can take. “The most consequential decisions that are going to be produced from the noncompliance proceedings are really the remedies,” said Ribera Martínez. MARKET IMPACT Lurking in the background is the reason that the DMA was designed in the first place: to stop Europe’s tech sector being sewn up by a handful of giants. Hundreds of developers and digital service providers — American and European alike — are waiting to see how rigorously the Commission will enforce the rules.  Many have products ready to roll out, but only once the Commission offers clarity around what the final app store changes will be, said one European game developer, granted anonymity because of their dependency on Apple and Google. Cologne-based Hubert Weid, whose firm Mobivention launched a small-scale app store last year, has yet to capitalize on the DMA’s promise to open up Apple’s hitherto-walled garden to rivals. “Our finding of success was quite limited,” he said. Coriell Wright, global public policy director at Epic Games — a larger U.S. firm — put it more bluntly. “We hope the Commission will come out swinging to put Apple and Google back into compliance,” she said.  Underlying it all is Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s overarching goal to strengthen the EU’s competitiveness to boost its economic performance. “It is difficult to see how a light-touch approach to DMA enforcement would help,” said Meyers of the Centre on Regulation in Europe. “Emasculating the DMA would undermine the EU’s promise of providing a more predictable and rules-based order than the U.S. does,” he said.

Albania will block TikTok in the coming days over concerns about children’s safety, the prime minister’s office told POLITICO. Edi Rama, Albania’s prime minister, announced the one-year ban in late December, following the fatal stabbing of a 14-year-old which followed arguments on social media. “We say what we do and we do what we say,” Rama said in a post on X on Thursday, confirming the ban would now take effect. The decision to block the app was taken in consultation with 65,000 parents and teachers and after its technical feasibility was studied, he said. Opposition figures have said that the ban is an “abuse of power to suppress freedom of speech in Albania,” raising alarm over the lack of due process. Back in December, Rama said the government would need six to eight weeks to enforce the ban. In the meantime, the government has had “very positive dialogue with the company,” which will come to Albania to demonstrate a series of child safety measures, including in Albania, the prime minister said. Edi Rama, Albania’s prime minister, announced the one-year ban in late December. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images TikTok could not be immediately reached for comment. Children’s safety online is increasingly a touchstone for European governments with efforts across the region to curb minors’ access to social media and devices.

Russian state-linked hacking groups have snuck into some Ukrainian military staffers’ Signal messenger accounts to gain access to sensitive communications, Google said in a report on Wednesday. Moscow-linked groups have found ways to couple victims’ accounts to their own devices by abusing the messaging application “linked devices” feature that enables a user to be logged in on multiple devices at the same time. In some cases, Google has found Russia’s notorious, stealthy hacking group Sandworm (or APT44, part of the military intelligence agency GRU), to work with Russian military staff on the front lines to link Signal accounts on devices captured on the battlefield to their own systems, allowing the espionage group to keep tracking the communication channels. In other cases, hackers have tricked Ukrainians into scanning malicious QR codes that, once scanned, link a victim’s account to the hacker’s interface, meaning future messages will be delivered both to the victim and the hackers in real time. Russia-linked groups including UNC4221 and UNC5792 have been sending altered Signal “group invite” links and codes to Ukrainian military personnel, Google said. Signal is considered an industry benchmark for secure, end-to-end encrypted messaging, as it collects minimal data and its end-to-end encryption protocol is open-source, meaning cybersecurity experts can continuously check it for glitches. The European Commission and European Parliament are some of the government institutions that have advised staff to use the application over competing messaging apps. Google’s research did not suggest the app’s encryption protocol itself was vulnerable, but rather that the app’s “linked devices” functionality was being abused as a workaround. Google is now warning the workarounds to snoop on Signal data could pop up beyond Ukraine too. “We anticipate the tactics and methods used to target Signal will grow in prevalence in the near-term and proliferate to additional threat actors and regions outside the Ukrainian theater of war,” said Dan Black, cyber espionage researcher at Google Cloud’s Mandiant group. Other messaging apps, including WhatsApp and Telegram, have similar functionalities to link devices’ communications and could be or become the target of similar lures, Google suggested. Signal did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

More than 1,000 artificial intelligence experts, thinkers, investors, regulators and doers are swarming Paris this week for two days of talks about what the technology can and should do. POLITICO runs down some of the big names shaping the debate. FRANCE’S AI HOPEFUL Arthur Mensch embodies France’s hopes for a breakthrough in the cutthroat world of AI. The 32-year-old, who co-founded and leads startup Mistral AI, has forged strong connections with the French public sector and French President Emmanuel Macron, working on the country’s AI strategy and voicing the concerns of AI companies about regulation. Mensch has repeatedly asked for European Union rules on AI to be more flexible, even after pushing for an “innovation-friendly” framework as the law was being agreed. That outreach seems to have had some success, with EU officials now agreeing to simplify some of their requirements. Trying to be a European AI success — with an eye toward an eventual initial public offering to raise funds from investors — involves a complicated balancing act. Mistral AI has tried to build partnerships in France with state-owned news agency AFP and with the French army. But Mensch, a former alumni of Google DeepMind, has also forged bonds across the Atlantic, with a growing team in the U.S. and with U.S. investment. Last year the company struck a distribution pact with Microsoft’s cloud business Azure, sparking a debate on whether European AI companies can or should remain independent of the Big Tech titans that lead AI. OPENAI’S EURO-FIXER: SANDRO GIANELLA Shortly after OpenAI stepped into the global spotlight with the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, the company knew it had to bring in a tech policy master and a safe pair of hands to run its operations in Europe.  They chose Sandro Gianella, who had learned the ropes at both a U.S. Big Tech firm (Google) and a European upstart (Irish-American payment handler Stripe).  Gianella started work in June 2023 at a critical moment, as European legislators were trying to land the EU’s AI Act, the globe’s first-ever binding AI rulebook, with calls to include specific rules for general-purpose AI models such as that of OpenAI.  Gianella is not your average suit-and-tie Brussels tech lobbyist. Having embraced the post-pandemic remote work culture, he can often be found in the picturesque Bavarian Alps near Munich. His social media feeds are about AI, to be sure, but he posts just as much about bike or ski trips in the Alps.  Those diverse interests might help him balance a frantic OpenAI work stream while juggling scrutiny from several European capitals. Brussels has been drafting a voluntary code of practice for general-purpose AI models, while Paris and London have also been keen to develop their own AI efforts and rein in potential risks, including scrutiny of OpenAI’s links to Microsoft. THE AI SEER: GEOFFREY HINTON Cited as one of the godfathers of AI for his work on artificial neural networks, Hinton shocked the AI world in May 2023 by quitting Google to speak about the existential risk of artificial intelligence. The computer scientist said he had changed his mind about the technology after seeing its rapid progress, and began touring the world to warn of the dire threats it posed to humanity. That mission included briefing U.K. government ministers on the societal impacts that would result if AI systems evolved beyond human control.  “He was very compelling,” said one person who was briefed. Hinton’s warnings helped convince then-U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to launch the world’s first AI Safety Institute and hold an AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park.  AI doomers have since lost the argument on trying to slow down the technology’s development, but the 77-year-old continues to beat the existential risk drum. The Nobel Prize winner (in physics) will be in Paris speaking at side events. THE AI OPEN-SOURCE ADVOCATE: YANN LECUN Even though he works for Silicon Valley giant Meta as its chief AI scientist, Yann LeCun is a pillar of the French AI ecosystem. An early AI pioneer, he’s been a lifelong advocate of open source, an open and collaborative form of software development that contrasts with closed proprietary models developed by AI star OpenAI and others . LeCun plays an influential role at Meta, with his hand visible in the company’s 2015 opening of the FAIR artificial intelligence laboratory in Paris. The launch was a first for France at the time, and was motivated by LeCun’s conviction that the French capital was home to a pool of untapped talent. Almost 10 years later, corporate alumni from that laboratory have seeded themselves across European AI. Antoine Bordes, who was the co-managing director of FAIR, works for the defense startup Helsing, while another former employee, Timothée Lacroix, is now Mistral AI’s co-founder and chief technology officer. LeCun is also an enthusiastic cheerleader for the technology, and could be seen walking around Paris with his AI-powered Ray Ban glasses even as Meta hesitated to release them in Europe due to regulatory concerns. LeCun has never been an AI doomer and argues that an open-source approach can ensure AI evolves in a way that benefits humanity, even if it’s also been viewed as beneficial to China, where open source helped fuel the creation of the DeepSeek chatbot. LeCun’s open-source advocacy has seen him joust with SpaceX founder Elon Musk on social media before Meta’s current turn to embrace the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. THE UK’S AI WHISPERER: MATT CLIFFORD Matt Clifford is the U.K. government’s go-to brain on all matters tech. He chairs the country’s moonshot funding agency ARIA, helped set up the U.K. AI Safety Institute under the last government, and is now advising the new government on implementing an “AI Opportunities Action Plan” that he authored. He played a crucial role in the first AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park in November 2023, jetting across the world as then-PM Sunak’s representative.  After that, the former McKinsey consultant returned to his day job as an early-stage investor in tech firms; when Sunak’s government fell at last year’s election, the new Labour administration came calling. The 39-year-old had several chats with the country’s technology secretary, Peter Kyle, which led to his being tasked with creating an AI Action Plan for them over the summer. That plan was finally released in January and will be the blueprint for British AI policy; the government accepted all 50 of its recommendations, and Kyle is now advising No.10 once a week on implementing it. With no other tech specialist close to No.10, Clifford’s star keeps rising. While the Bradford-born Clifford is affable and doesn’t take payment for his government work, he has been the subject of briefings against him for perceived conflicts of interest. His recommendation that the copyright regime be reformed has drawn particular ire from publishers and rights holders. THE AI REGULATOR: KILLIAN GROSS Last year the European Union became a global trendsetter by adopting its AI Act, a binding rulebook regulating the highest-risk AI systems. European Commission veteran Kilian Gross has been one of the key figures in ensuring the law is rolled out swiftly.  Gross leads the AI regulation and compliance unit inside the Commission’s AI Office, a key group that will determine the fate of the AI Act. While AI Office boss Lucilla Sioli is the Commission’s face to a broader audience on anything related to AI regulation, Gross is never too far away to jump in when things get technical.  Gross was trained as a competition lawyer, but in his quarter century at the EU executive he has also worked on policies such as digital, energy, taxation and state aid. He also advised Germany’s Energy and Housing Commissioner Günther Oettinger.  Tech lobbyists say Gross has been running around Brussels to meet with tech companies or industry lobby groups, either to explain the rules or to listen to their complaints about how burdensome they are. His nerves could be tested to the limit over the next 18 months as the EU’s AI rulebook gradually takes effect. THE AI SCIENTIST: YOSHUA BENGIO While policymakers regulate how AI companies deal with the risks of the technology, the step before that — identifying those risks — is the playground of Canadian computer scientist Yoshua Bengio.  One of the “godfathers of AI,” together with Hinton and LeCun, Bengio is an influential voice in the debate over the risks of AI and potential responses to them. In the lead-up to the Paris summit, Bengio led work on an AI safety report authored by 96 scientists, which will be a focus of debate in Paris. His message: Before we can start addressing the risks, we need to crack open the AI boxes and require that companies provide more transparency about how their AI models work.  Bengio is also being tapped for regulatory work. The European Commission’s AI Office has named him as one of the academic experts who will draft a set of voluntary rules for the most advanced general-purpose AI models. That initiative, however, is now in peril after Google and Meta attacked how the rules are drafted. THE AI DISSIDENT: MEREDITH WHITTAKER As an influential AI ethics researcher at Google, Meredith Whittaker urged that the company do more about AI’s potential harms. Now, as head of the non-profit foundation behind encrypted messaging app Signal and an adviser to the AI Now Institute, she remains a powerful voice calling Big Tech to account and countering some of the AI hype. Whittaker quit Google in 2019 after leading a series of walkouts to protest workplace misconduct. She has since warned that existing AI systems can include biased datasets that entrench racial and gender biases — an issue that requires immediate action by regulators. She also campaigned against attempts to break encryption and warned of the market power of a handful of U.S. companies over AI. Until recently she even had a role counseling regulators as a senior adviser on AI to Lina Khan, who chaired the U.S. Federal Trade Commission from 2021 to 2025. THE AI PRESIDENT: EMMANUEL MACRON French President Emmanuel Macron may be struggling to form a government but he hasn’t abandoned his ambition to be the brains behind France’s — and Europe’s — AI strategy. As host of the AI Action Summit in Paris, the French president has been hard at work pushing European countries to adopt a more aggressive innovation strategy that could help draw investment. He has also stepped up talks with French and European business leaders and researchers to show off what France can do for AI. Macron’s interest in AI is not new. Back in 2018 he launched a national AI strategy, entitled “AI for Humanity,” aimed at positioning France as a world leader and funding AI research, innovation and training. That ambition has now shifted up a gear, especially since Washington announced the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars in AI infrastructure. Macron is pushing hard to help French companies and above all the country’s great hope, Mistral AI, which Paris is counting on to rival OpenAI. At the same time, Macron also wants to make Paris a platform for global talks on universal access to AI, as Europe tries to find a space in a tech race dominated by the U.S. and China. Here he has tried to pull in new allies, even reaching out to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to co-chair the Paris AI Summit.