The tax benefits that come with the new Trump Account investment initiative are so skimpy that many are already predicting the program could be a bust. But as the administration gears to up to create the savings accounts for tens of millions of children, it has a not-so-secret weapon: President Donald Trump. At a time when many are eager to curry favor with the president, or avoid his wrath, the administration is imploring corporate chieftains, philanthropists and governors to give generously to Trump’s eponymous accounts, which are designed to create investment nest eggs for kids. “The president is calling on our nation’s business leaders and philanthropic organizations to help us make America great again by securing the financial future of America’s children,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday. And the administration is already racking up wins. Dell Technologies founder Michael Dell has pledged to spend $6.25 billion doling out $250 each to the accounts of millions of children. Hedge fund manager Ray Dalio followed that up with a promise to give $75 million to accounts for children in Connecticut, where he lives. At the same time, the White House is pressing companies to contribute to their employees’ kids accounts, and a small but growing number have pledged to participate. Among them: Visa, Mastercard, Uber, Charter Communications and Blackrock. Governors too are being pressed into action, and Bessent said almost two dozen states are now considering various ways to contribute. The campaign is something of a wild card that could at least partly compensate for shortcomings with the program, one of Trump’s signature initiatives in Republicans’ domestic policy megabill signed into law this summer. Many experts have been skeptical about how many families will participate because the tax breaks are not particularly generous, especially compared to other savings vehicles like 529 accounts. Trump and congressional Republicans have a lot riding on the program, which is set to formally launch in July — just months before the midterm elections — and has already become a talking point in their bid to convince voters they are addressing concerns about affordability. The program will set up accounts to which people can set aside money for children, generally up to $5,000 annually, that will be invested in index funds. When the child turns 18, they can withdraw money for specified purposes, including going to college or buying a home. Babies born in the next four years will also get $1,000 from the government in seed money under a pilot program. Republicans hope it will allow more families to experience first-hand the benefits of investing. But even advocates acknowledge the tax benefits associated with the plan are not great, a result of lawmakers trying to keep its budgetary cost down when they were devising the legislation. Unlike 529s, money taken out of the accounts is taxable. Contributions are taxable too, though, in a surprise move, the Treasury Department said people can potentially put in up to $2,500 in pre-tax dollars if they do it through their jobs. When Congress’s official scorekeepers analyzed the program, they figured it would cost about $15 billion — a fraction of what Trump’s new breaks for tips and overtime are expected to cost — which implied they didn’t see much uptake. A unique thing about the plan, though, is that it is designed to accept contributions from not just parents and other family members, but also employers, nonprofits, philanthropists and state governments. “One of the most promising things about Trump accounts is that they encourage multiple investors” in the accounts, said Ray Boshara, a senior policy adviser at the Aspen Institute who has advised lawmakers on similar initiatives. He noted that both Dell and Dalio are limiting their donations to kids who live in zip codes where the median income is less than $150,000. “Not only are philanthropists taking advantage of this unique provision” but “the fact that they’re doing it progressively is even better,” said Boshara. Bessent, a former hedge fund manager, says he is pushing other wealthy people to follow Dell and Dalio —and appears so confident that others will that he’s given the campaign a name: “The 50 State Challenge.” “We are inviting every philanthropist in every state across the country to partner with us,” said Bessent, adding that Dalio would represent Connecticut. Trump has said he too will give to the accounts, though details are still TBA. At the same time, the administration is pressing companies to contribute to accounts for their employees’ kids, much like they do with 401(k)s. On that score, the White House got an assist from Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) who cosigned a letter with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to the CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies urging them to participate. “Many companies have already pledged support and we encourage your company to explore how you might contribute at a level aligned with your mission and capacity,” they wrote in a recent letter. Blackrock and BNY both said they would match the government’s $1,000 contributions to the children of their employees. The administration has released some details about how the plan will work, stipulating for example that the $2,500 employers can give to the accounts tax-free is per employee, not per child for those who have more than one. But many companies are in wait-and-see mode. Meantime, the administration is also looking to states to pitch in. “The administration has been working closely with a number of governors to determine the best way states can work with the federal government to expand access to Trump accounts,” said Bessent. “Thus far, 20 states are considering topping-up the accounts.”

LONDON — Nigel Farage’s second-in-command called for a rethink of the U.K.’s interest rate-setting committee in a fresh sign that a Reform UK government could intervene in Britain’s independent central bank. Richard Tice, the deputy leader of the populist-right party that’s surging in U.K. polls, told POLITICO in an interview that there should be a debate over potentially sweeping changes to the make-up and role of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC).  “It’s not unreasonable to check whether or not we’ve got the membership of the MPC right. I mean, it’s almost 30 years,” he said, referencing the 1997 establishment of the MPC. “So you could say, well, have we got the membership right? Have we got the number of government representatives right? Should they or shouldn’t they have a vote? Have we got the mandate right?”  He added: “Should it have a growth mandate? We should have that debate.”  The BoE’s rate-setting committee is made up of nine members, including Governor Andrew Bailey, four senior central bank executives, and four independent external members appointed by the chancellor. A representative from the U.K. Treasury joins MPC meetings but is not allowed to vote.   Monetary policy has become increasingly politicized since the Covid-19 pandemic, after which inflation soared to double digits and the BoE raised rates to their highest levels in 15 years. The International Monetary Fund has warned the U.K. faces the highest inflation in the G7 this year and next.   Tice’s comments come ahead of a speech in the City of London Wednesday, where he is expected to set out a wide-ranging aspiration for financial services deregulation should Reform UK enter government in Britain’s 2029 general election. The deputy leader said the U.K. needs a “complete sea change” in how risk is approached in the City, and called for further red tape cutting on banks, hedge funds and other City giants. “No one’s stepping back and asking big, philosophical questions,” he said.   Tice told POLITICO his party is “happy” with the BoE’s independence, but said it is “ridiculous” that “no one dares to” question the performance of the central bank despite the U.K. “outsourcing all responsibility for massive issues that affect ordinary people.”  He argued the BoE had “failed” under Conservative Liz Truss, who was forced out as prime minister after bond yields spiked in the wake of a tax-cutting budget, leading banks to increase their lending rates. Tice accused City regulators of “missing” the issue of liability-driven investments (LDIs), which increased the strain on pension funds during that period, and said the Bank of England “could have actually stepped in and prevented the carnage.”  Truss has repeatedly blamed the Bank of England for failing to anticipate the market consequences of her budget. The central bank intervened after her mini-budget to calm the markets by implementing an emergency bond buying scheme.  WIDER REFORM Reform leader Farage, who is set to give a speech in the City Monday on his broader vision for the economy, has gone further, saying Bailey has “had a good run” and he “might find someone new” if the party wins the next election.  Bailey’s term is due to end in 2028, before the election. Tice did not rule out the prospect of a Reform government forcing out an underperforming central bank governor in future, saying: “At the end of the day, any public official has to be accountable for their performance.”  However, he declined to liken Reform’s stance to Donald Trump’s approach to the Federal Reserve, after the U.S. president repeatedly attempted to get rid of chair Jerome Powell.  Reform UK is currently ahead in the polls, as Britain’s Labour government continues to struggle with its messaging on the economy, immigration and frustration within Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s top ranks. Reform leader Nigel Farage, who is set to give a speech in the City Monday on his broader vision for the economy. | Mark Kerrison/Getty IMages Tice argued Labour — which has made growth its primary objective by rolling back 2008 financial crisis legislation — is adding rather than removing regulation, and accused it and the opposition Conservatives of “tinkering around the edges.”  “We’re not going to create any form of meaningful growth under the current trajectory of this government, or under the trajectory of any Conservative plans,” he said. “We are heading towards impoverishment and growth has relentlessly declined as borrowing has relentlessly increased, particularly if you look per head. And it requires a complete sea change in the way that we think about risk and reward.”  Asked whether a Reform government would go further than Labour on deregulation, Tice said: “Yes. We want to ask some very big questions about how we do things.”  Tice also argued that regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority — which Farage hopes to strip of its role regulating banks — have “utterly failed to do their job.”  Asked if he believes Britain has now moved on enough since the 2008 financial crisis to strip away “protections,” he replied: “There are all sorts of different reasons why the ’08 crash happened. But we supposedly had all the mechanisms of protection there, and they failed. No one was properly held to account.” 

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for a former Trump-appointed banking regulator to be dismissed from the global financial watchdog, warning he is putting the world’s economic stability at risk. Randal Quarles, who was vice chair of supervision at the U.S. Federal Reserve from 2017 to 2021 where he oversaw a wave of deregulation, was last month chosen to lead a worldwide review of post-2008 financial crisis reforms for the Financial Stability Board. In a letter addressed to FSB Chair Andrew Bailey, obtained by POLITICO, Warren blamed Quarles’ deregulatory measures for the collapse of three U.S. banks including Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 and warned he would bring the same mindset to global standards. “Mr. Quarles spent his tenure as a top financial regulator in the United States weakening safeguards for megabanks at the expense of financial stability and the American public,” said Warren, a former U.S. presidential hopeful who is the most senior Democrat on the Senate banking committee. “It would be deeply troubling if this FSB review became a mechanism to coordinate the easing of post-2008 rules across the globe.” She said Quarles’ background “demonstrates that he is the wrong person to lead such a review.” She called on Bailey to “consider terminating the appointment and conduct your own search for a suitable replacement.” Bailey, who is governor of the Bank of England, became FSB chair after Quarles’ appointment. The warning came as the FSB, a global body that monitors and coordinates national financial regulations, issued new guidance on the regulation of nonbank financial groups, such as hedge funds. The guidance recommended capping the amount of borrowing these groups can do, but left up to national regulators to determine the details. ROLLING BACK SAFEGUARDS In the years following the 2008 global financial crisis, countries clubbed together and tasked the FSB with coordinating national regulators to prevent a similar crisis happening again. But in 2017, with momentum shifting back to deregulation, newly-elected U.S. president Donald Trump nominated Quarles to head up the Fed’s banking supervision arm. Warren’s main criticism of Quarles relates to his implementation of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which gave the Fed discretion to apply tougher regulatory standards to large banks with assets of between $100 billion and $250 billion. “Under the law, Mr. Quarles had discretion to apply these rules … [but] he and other Trump-installed regulators refused to do so,” she said. She said Quarles also led the rollback of rules prohibiting banks from making “risky proprietary bets with customer deposits and from investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds.” Both of these contributed to the collapse in 2023 of Silicon Valley Bank, she said. As well as calling for Quarles’ termination, the letter asks whether his appointment is an indication that the FSB sees “this review as an opportunity to coordinate the easing of post-2008 financial safeguards.” Neither Quarles nor the FSB immediately responded to a request for comment.

United States President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to change course on his tariff plan came “from the heart” and was done without consulting lawyers, he said. Trump announced on Wednesday, in a surprise Truth Social post, that the U.S. would be dropping its so-called reciprocal tariffs on numerous trading partners that had entered into force earlier in the day, and would instead charge only the 10 percent levies that came in last week. “Over the last few days, I’ve been thinking about it,” Trump mused at the Oval Office on Wednesday. “I think it probably came together early this morning, fairly early this morning,” Trump said, adding: “Just wrote it up, I didn’t — we didn’t have the use of — we didn’t have access to lawyers … We wrote it up from our hearts, right? It was written from the heart, and I think it was well written too.” Trump wrote his Truth Social post together with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, according to Lutnick. The announcement appeared to come as a surprise to other Republican lawmakers. Bond markets reacted negatively following the implementation of Trump’s tariffs, raising the specter of higher costs on government borrowing. Markets worldwide endured days of mayhem, which will not have been lost on billionaire Wall Street exec Lutnick and hedge fund manager Bessent. Markets instantly responded positively to Trump’s tariff about turn, with stocks of the “Magnificent Seven” top U.S. tech companies set to gain more than $1 trillion — roughly the size of the economy of the Netherlands — on Wednesday. Bessent, who was first out to bat in front of the media after Trump’s unanticipated announcement, said the change of tack wasn’t driven by market volatility, and was instead about a desire to tailor new trade deals with affected trading partners that have been flooding the White House with requests to negotiate. “It is just a processing problem,” said Bessent. “Each one of these solutions is going to be bespoke, it is going to take some time, and President Trump wants to be personally involved, so that’s why we’re giving the 90-day pause.” Trump contradicted this in later comments. “I was watching the bond market,” he said at the White House. “I saw last night where people were getting a little queasy.” “Over the last few days, it looked pretty glum — to, I guess they say it was the biggest day in financial history. That’s a pretty big change,” Trump said. “No other president would have done what I did.”

BRUSSELS — In a city where even the curve of a banana can spark rulemaking, the mere whisper of “deregulation” has long posed an existential quandary. But shifting political tides across the Atlantic may finally force Brussels to confront this taboo. Thanks in no small part to the election of Donald Trump, those yearning to rewrite — or torch — the financial rulebooks now have an excuse to reframe the debate. Just don’t call it deregulation. The preferred European euphemism is “competitiveness.” With Trump reportedly considering shrinking, merging, or removing banking regulators in the U.S. altogether, and ally Elon Musk calling for the elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as part of sweeping government cuts, the stage is set for a frenzy of deregulation on Wall Street — if not beyond. In November, many were caught off guard when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signaled a similar gear shift for Europe with her red-tape-slashing agenda for her second five-year term. European institutions now have little choice but to pay close attention. The head of the French central bank, François Villeroy de Galhau, warned in November that “a wind of deregulation” was blowing from across the Atlantic, cautioning that it could reshape the global regulatory landscape. Wim Mijs, head of EU banking lobby the European Banking Federation, told POLITICO that EU banks were alert to Trump’s “aggressive deregulation agenda” and his potential distancing of America from multilateral institutions where global finance rules are agreed.   Yet in Europe it’s competitiveness, not deregulation, that has become the catch-all term for such responses, thanks in large part to the publication of two landmark reports this year by former Italian prime ministers Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi. François Villeroy de Galhau warned in November that “a wind of deregulation” was blowing from across the Atlantic, cautioning that it could reshape the global regulatory landscape. | Gabriel Bouys/Getty Images Responding to President Joe Biden’s massive spending programs — dubbed Bidenomics — both reports called for a radical shakeup in how Europe’s financial markets operate to better compete with the United States and China. Trump’s renewed push for deregulation has only added substance to their findings, putting further pressure on Europe to adapt or risk falling behind. BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE All of this poses an awkward conundrum for the bloc’s financial regulators, none of whom wish to be held responsible for another financial crisis, but who risk looking out of touch amid the industry-pleasing push for lighter regulations. On one hand, loosening rules could help Europe stay competitive; on the other it risks undermining safeguards meant to prevent another financial crisis.  The EU’s new finance commissioner, Maria Luís Albuquerque, highlighted the dilemma when she revealed during her confirmation hearing that she doesn’t “like the word deregulation.” “[The finance sector] needs regulation because of the consequences when it fails,” Albuquerque said. But she appealed to both sides, saying the EU needs to “put the brakes on legislation temporarily” and to think carefully about how to make future legislation more fit for purpose. Thus far, despite the eagerness of industry, Albuquerque has proved more regulatorily hawkish than hoped. In political negotiations she has criticized the dilution of new rules to the point they no longer deliver on the goals of original proposals. Hence, some say, the appeal of the “competitiveness” moniker: It’s direct enough to be impactful, but vague enough to be plausibly deniable. “The beauty of a political buzzword is that it is used in every political speech without attaching any meaning,” Mijs said, adding that often “nobody knows [what meaning is intended], but it feels good.” Those worried about a deregulation cycle triggering a destabilizing race to the bottom should look to the bigger picture, finance executives say. Many have quietly worried for some time about the complexity of the EU regulatory environment. Frédéric de Courtois, deputy CEO of French insurer AXA and president of the EU insurance lobby, told POLITICO that complexity stood to make the bloc “too risk-averse, too cautious.” “I’m not saying that we should compete with the U.S. on deregulation. I’m saying that we are not isolated and that we need to have good regulation that doesn’t impact negatively our competitiveness,” de Courtois said. Sandro Pierri, CEO of BNP Paribas’ asset management wing, said for asset managers, who are bound by fiduciary duty — a commitment to provide the best returns for their clients — the current regulatory burden obliges them to invest elsewhere whether they like it or not. | Philippe Huguen/Getty Images To his mind, Trump’s return could be a positive trigger if it encourages Europe to change. “We just need to stop regulating,” he said. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR For Mijs, regulatory simplification of this kind is urgently needed to make finance rules more workable. “[In the EU] we die by beautiful intentions because we start with something that is simplifying and it’s good,” he said. “At the end of the process, we have built something that is like a spaghetti of rules that is incomprehensible.” Regulatory fatigue is also top of mind. In total, about 50 new financial services laws have been passed in the last five years, many of these being positioned for secondary rulemaking in the years to come. For instance, the latest rules on the use of outside IT providers by finance firms have the industry bracing for a deluge of follow-up technical rules, legitimizing industry claims that compliance will hinder corporate investment. Sandro Pierri, CEO of BNP Paribas’ asset management wing, said for asset managers, who are bound by fiduciary duty — a commitment to provide the best returns for their clients — the current regulatory burden obliges them to invest elsewhere whether they like it or not. “Our job is to simply make sure that we deploy the capital in the best possible way for the clients. … It’s a policy job to create the conditions for us to allocate more to Europe,” he said. EU countries have also been calling on the Commission to slash red tape. In October, France, Germany and Italy co-wrote a letter asking for a pause on finance rules, saying the EU should “shift gears and regain its capacity to compete in the global arena” and “put stronger emphasis on the competitiveness of the financial sector, particularly banking.”  To the surprise of many — especially those who drafted the original legal texts now on the chopping block — finance executives may be about to get what they want. Since coming out in favor of simplification in November, von der Leyen has announced a plan to consolidate three of the EU’s flagship environmental disclosure laws in a sweeping legal text scheduled to be published in February. THE BASEL DILEMMA And yet, regulators are not the only ones who are worried about putting the profitability of the finance sector ahead of its safety. Thierry Philipponnat, chief economist at the NGO Finance Watch, said the “competitiveness” agenda was increasingly being used as an excuse to avoid completing the crucial work necessary to prevent another financial crisis. “Recent moves to delay and dilute vital regulatory protections reflect a worrying trend where ‘competitiveness’ is repeatedly used as a pretext to weaken essential safeguards against financial risks,” he said. Now, with Donald Trump returning to the White House in a matter of weeks, the future of the rules looks uncertain — which creates a dilemma for the EU. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images This applies especially to global banking rules known as the Basel 3 standards. While the EU, U.K. and other countries have enacted the global rules in national legislation, the U.S. has delayed doing so following massive lobbying from the banking industry. Now, with Trump returning to the White House in a matter of weeks, the future of the rules looks uncertain — which creates a dilemma for the EU. Should the bloc push ahead with Basel 3 for the sake of banking stability and risk giving U.S. banks a competitive edge in the process? Or should it change direction and contribute to a broader weakening of standards? In a sign that regulators may be looking to stay the course, the EU and U.K. have hinted at a coordinated response if the proposals are ripped apart in the U.S. Villeroy de Galhau, speaking in Paris in November, called for a compromise that would simplify EU rules without necessarily upending global standards, explaining that “simplifying does not mean deregulating.” The Commission’s job will be “to find the fine line between a race to the bottom and the objective to stay competitive,” said AXA’s de Courtois. The industry, as a whole, is not opposed to such an outcome. No matter how onerous the EU’s suite of incoming rules may be — from the Basel package to clearing updates to cyber rules for finance — industry more often than not prefers certainty over uncertainty. In this case, compliance with well-forecast rules is preferable to the limbo of new rules being torn up and renegotiated. One thing everyone can be sure of is that even if things end up getting substantially watered down, nobody will be keen to call the move deregulation.

LONDON — Peter Mandelson looks set for a new life in the United States after a long and sometimes-controversial career in British public life. An announcement confirming him as the government’s choice for next U.K. ambassador to Washington is expected from No.10 Downing Street Friday. It’s a remarkable next chapter for Mandelson, who is staunchly anti-Brexit and supports more cooperation with China. Those factors alone could make him a tough sell in Donald Trump’s Washington. Yet his political savvy, deep trade experience and outsize character are all being talked up as assets when it comes to dealing with the U.S. president-elect and his team. As rumors swirled about Mandelson’s potential appointment last month, POLITICO spoke to key figures on both sides of the Atlantic to find out how a Labour veteran might fare with the Make America Great Again crowd. ESTABLISHMENT OPERATOR A savvy political operator who helped return the center-left Labour Party to power in the 1990s, Mandelson is firmly part of the British political establishment, with a seat in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the British parliament. After helping new Prime Minister Keir Starmer enter Downing Street last summer, ending another long stretch in in the cold for the party, the former Cabinet minister in Tony Blair’s government is now set to succeed Karen Pierce — current inhabitant of the lavish ambassador’s residence in the exclusive Embassy Row enclave in the north west of the city. A bête noire of the Labour left, the pro-business and well-connected Mandelson has had a storied career so far — and he’s no stranger to the headlines. Mandelson was forced to resign twice from government over scandals and has a reputation for saccharine politeness in public but ruthless political maneuvering behind the scenes, winning him the nickname “the Prince of Darkness.” Despite his media prowess — he is known in Westminster for taking acerbic tones with reporters who cross him. In 2023 Mandelson’s past links with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who referred to him as “Petie,” were revealed. And a similarly close relationship with the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska caused him headaches when it was revealed in 2008, as have other dealings with the global super rich. But it’s Mandelson’s views on Europe, China and trade that could make his anticipated new role courting the Trump administration in Washington a tricky one. For a start, Donald Trump enthusiastically backed Brexit. Peter Mandelson did not. The Labour peer sat on the board of the official Remain campaign during the EU referendum in 2016, then advocated for a second referendum to overturn the decision after Brexit won. He understands well how the political institutions in Brussels work, having served as a European Commissioner for trade between 2005 and 2008, and having covered the trade role in government beforehand. After Trump won the U.S. presidential election last month, Mandelson told the Times Britain can “have our cake and eat it” on trade, building closer ties with both the EU and U.S. rather than choosing between them. It’s a policy area the next ambassador to the U.S. will spend much of their time negotiating, with U.K. hopes of finally securing a trade deal balanced by fears Trump will carry out his threats to impose tariffs. Dan Mullaney, a former assistant U.S. trade representative under Trump and other presidents, who crossed paths with Mandelson in Brussels, agreed with his analysis that the U.K. would not necessarily need to choose between closer ties with Washington or Brussels. “I don’t think it’s necessarily a binary choice,” he said. “You can have deeper integration with the U.S. that is consistent with a deeper integration with the EU.” Mullaney, now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank, argued the Labour peer could be well placed as a middle-man between the U.K. and U.S. on trade. “Having someone from the U.K. here in Washington who knows all three systems — the EU system, the U.K. system, and knows the United States and knows trade — I think that’s a very useful skill set for the challenges that are to come,” he said. He added that Mandelson was “pragmatic” despite being a free trader at heart, and described him as “a good interlocutor on sometimes tense trade issues.” However, for Mandelson to make progress, Trump would have to forgive him for condemning the past and future president’s America First approach to trade in a 2018 article. In the piece, the peer said it was “necessary to recognise Mr Trump’s behavior for what it is: he is a bully and a mercantilist who thinks the U.S. will gain in trade only when others are losing.” PETER AND THE DRAGON Another awkward conversation between Mandelson and the MAGA crowd would be on China, after Trump picked hardcore China hawks for senior positions, including his choice for secretary of state, Marco Rubio. Mandelson has advocated fresh economic dialogue between Britain and Beijing, using a speech at the University of Hong Kong earlier this year to call on China to reciprocate the new Labour government’s desire to mend the relationship. He spent seven years as president of the Great Britain-China Center, a non-departmental Foreign Office body dedicated to U.K. relations with China, and was the sole Labour peer to vote against an amendment aimed at calling out alleged genocide in Xinjiang province. “It is absurd to imagine putting a country of such weight in the naughty corner,” Mandelson wrote in 2018 of relations between China and the U.S. during Trump’s first spell in the White House. “What’s truly absurd is to think someone as pro-Beijing as Mandelson is a good pick to be our man in D.C.”, said Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, a global network opposing Chinese government practises. But Eddie Lister, a Conservative former Downing Street adviser who dealt with Trump during the Boris Johnson administration, said sending Mandelson to Washington could work as a useful “balancing act” with the U.S. “Britain’s interests aren’t to be a hawk on China,” said Lister, who has his own controversial links to Beijing. “Britain’s interests are to work with China. But we’ve also got to work with America. So there’s a real balancing act here.” Reform U.K. Leader Nigel Farage — a close British friend of Trump — had once talked himself up for the job. But he has described Mandelson as “an intelligent figure who knows his brief well, as I saw when he worked with the European Commission.” He told his GB News show last month: “While I’m not certain he’s the ideal fit for dealing with Trump directly, his intellect would at least command respect.” Most of the Trump supporters POLITICO approached last month had never heard of Mandelson, although he is said to have relations with Scott Bessent, a hedge fund manager reportedly in the running to be Trump’s treasury secretary. “Mandelson ticks a lot of boxes: his U.K. government position; his Labour affiliation and strong links with the U.S,” said one Washington-based business figure. “The question is whether he has the network and access to a Trump administration.” But Myron Brilliant, a former executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which took Mandelson and Global Counsel on as a client in Europe, said most people in Washington were in the same boat when it came to contact-building with team Trump. “Even those of us who live in Washington have to have that muscle,” he said. “Peter is a pro. He will know he has to build bridges with president Trump and his team.” Dan Bloom contributed reporting.