Croatian President Zoran Milanović has slammed France for selling Zagreb secondhand fighter jets while providing its rival Serbia with a brand-new fleet. “We look like fools,” he raged last week, “because the French sell new Rafales to the Serbs and used ones to us.” Zagreb finalized a government-to-government deal with Paris in 2021 to modernize its air force by purchasing a dozen Rafale fighters valued at €999 million. The final aircraft, which were procured from France’s own stocks, were delivered last April, replacing Croatia’s outdated Soviet-era MiG-21 fleet. In August 2024, Serbia signed a deal to buy 12 Rafale jets from French manufacturer Dassault Aviation fresh from the factory. That transaction has enraged the Croatian president. Croatia fought Serbia in the 1990s in the bloody wars that followed Yugoslavia’s disintegration. While relations between the two countries have improved dramatically since then, non-NATO Serbia’s close ties with Moscow are a worry to Zagreb, which joined the Atlantic alliance in 2009 and the EU in 2013. Serbia’s own EU candidacy has largely stalled, with Belgrade ditching a Western Balkans summit in Brussels last month. Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos called on Serbia in November to “urgently reverse the backsliding on freedom of expression.” French Europe Deputy Minister Benjamin Haddad, who was in Zagreb on Monday to discuss defense cooperation, defended the Serbia contract, saying Croatia should be pleased Belgrade was “gradually freeing itself from dependence on Russia and strengthening its ties with Western countries.” But Milanović hit back that the deal was “implemented behind Croatia’s back and to the detriment of Croatia’s national interests,” and showed “that every country takes care of its own interests, including profits, first and foremost.” The left-wing president added that the Croatian government, led by center-right Prime Minister Andrej Plenković, had erred by not confirming “whether France would sell the same or even more advanced aircraft models to one of our neighboring countries outside NATO.” DOMESTIC SQUABBLES Croatian officials are split over whether the president was right to react the way he did. One Croatian diplomat told POLITICO that Milanović had a point and that France was wrong to sell the newer jets to Serbia after fobbing off Croatia with an older model. But a second Croatian official said the deal was a good one for Zagreb and noted that the Croatian government had signed a letter of intent in December with Paris to upgrade its Rafale jets to the latest F4 standard. “From France’s point of view, the signing of the letter of intent on December 8 in France by the minister [Catherine Vautrin] and her Croatian counterpart aims to support the partner in modernizing its Rafale fleet to the highest standard currently in service in France,” an official from the French armed forces ministry echoed. “The defense relationship with Croatia is dynamic and not set in stone in 2021.” Croatia’s defense ministry said Milanović’s remarks “show elementary ignorance of how the international arms trade works.” “Great powers — the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, China — have been selling the same or similar weapons to countries that are in tense and even openly antagonistic relations for decades,” the ministry added. “The USA is simultaneously arming Israel and Egypt, Russia [is arming] India and Pakistan, while the West is simultaneously arming Greece and Turkey. This is the rule, not the exception.” In Croatia, the president is also the commander-in-chief of the military but shares jurisdiction over defense policy with the government, which is responsible for the budget and the day-to-day management of the armed forces. Milanović and Plenković are often at odds, a third Croatian official said, arguing the president was using the issue to hammer his political rival. DIRT-CHEAP FIGHTER JETS France has looked to strengthen defense ties with Croatia, which spends over 2 percent of its GDP on defense and is transitioning its Soviet-era military stocks to Western arms. Some of those purchases are coming from France. Plenković was in Paris in December to sign a separate deal with KNDS France for 18 Caesar self-propelled howitzers and 15 Serval armored vehicles, with the equipment to be purchased with the EU’s loans-for-weapons SAFE money.  In the original fighter jet deal, Croatia bought airplanes that were being used by the French air force, meaning they were cheaper than new stock and were available quickly. At the time the decision was criticized in Paris by parliamentarians arguing France was weakening its own air force to seal export contracts. Serbia, meanwhile, reportedly paid €2.7 billion for the same number of jets, which are expected to be delivered as of 2028. China and Russia provide the vast majority of Belgrade’s weapons, with France a distant third.

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s leading trade lawmakers on Wednesday postponed a decision on whether to freeze a U.S. trade deal over Donald Trump’s threat to annex Greenland.  MEPs are due to hold a vote on Jan. 26, laying out the European Parliament’s position on lifting tariffs on U.S. industrial goods — one of the key planks of a deal struck between Brussels and Washington last summer. But some MEPs, angry at Trump’s behavior, don’t want the vote to go ahead, thereby freezing the decision on lifting the tariffs.  But at a meeting of lawmakers leading on the topic, they decided to delay taking a decision on whether to postpone or go ahead with the vote, awaiting the outcome of high-stakes meetings between Washington, Nuuk and Copenhagen taking place later Wednesday. “We are not in a position to move the agreement to a vote today,” lead trade lawmaker Karin Karlsbro, of the liberal Renew Europe, told POLITICO, adding that clarity from the U.S. on Greenland was essential.  Discussions will continue next Wednesday, the chair of the international trade committee, Bernd Lange, told POLITICO as he left the room. Political groups are divided over what to do in response to Trump’s threats to annex European territory. The Socialists and Democrats, of which Lange is a member, are leaning toward freezing the vote on the trade agreement. “One camp is more like, OK, let’s cooperate with the U.S. in order to get the maximum out, and there’s the other camp that says, OK we also need to show teeth and not give in on everything,” explained Green lawmaker Anna Cavazzini, who is also the chair of the internal market committee.  Cavazzini, who is in favor of freezing the deal, added that lawmakers agreed to delay the decision to “observe the global situation,” adding that the groups also need to agree on specific clauses in the final Parliament text.  The U.S. deal “will not be postponed,” assured EPP lawmaker Željana Zovko, telling POLITICO on Wednesday that any delay would hurt businesses as it would bring instability to transatlantic relations, while only Russia and China would benefit from it.  Under the deal struck in July, the EU committed itself to legislation lifting tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and lobsters, in exchange for Washington reducing tariffs on European cars. The deal is seen as lopsided in favor of Washington across party lines, but lawmakers were willing to put up with it in exchange for having Trump commit to protecting European security. As Greenland annexation threats continue, some no longer see the point of the deal. While the U.S. has upheld its end of the bargain on the car tariffs; the EU, so far, has not, because its institutions must still approve their positions on the Commission’s proposal. The lengthy process has already tested Washington’s patience, with Trade Representative Jamieson Greer telling POLITICO in December that the U.S. wouldn’t grant further tariff exemptions unless the EU keeps its end of the bargain. After the Council of the EU agreed on its position in late November, pressure is rising on the European Parliament to vote on its own stance.

LONDON — The U.K. government must “dare to have principles” and help Greenland repel threats by Donald Trump, a senior minister in Greenland’s government told lawmakers in London.  Speaking after a briefing with MPs in the U.K. parliament Tuesday, Greenland’s Business and Energy Minister Naaja Nathanielsen said: “Dialogue is really, really what is needed at this point. And … even though problems in this world [are] complex, this should not be a reason not to go into these complex dialogues. They can be solved through dialogue instead of violence and force.”  Nathanielsen held the meetings amid growing pressure from the White House, where Trump is ramping up his threats to take control of Greenland — a minerals-rich, semi-autonomous territory within Denmark — including by military force.  The region is essential to securing U.S. security against threats from Russia and China, Trump claims. The U.S. will take over Greenland “the easy way” or “the hard way,” he said last week.  Nathanielsen said: “We feel betrayed. We feel that the rhetoric is offensive, as we have stated many times before — but also bewildering, because we have done nothing but support the notion that Greenland is a part of the American national self-interest.”  Nathanielsen made her plea to politicians in London after Denmark warned U.S. aggression would cripple the NATO military alliance. The leaders of Denmark and Greenland both say Greenland is “not for sale”.  DEAR KEIR Asked about the message she was bringing to U.K. politicians and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Nathanielsen said: “To insist on having the dialogue, even though it’s difficult, to dare to have principles and belief in international law. I think we will all be asked about that in the next couple of years.”  She said she would “like to repeat my gratitude” for Starmer’s support of Greenland, and said the U.K. must “insist upon the global community upholding international law” and “stress the relevance of NATO as a relevant and important alliance.” Starmer has warned Trump that Greenland’s future must be decided by Denmark and Greenland alone. Danish PM Mette Frederiksen has told the U.S. it has no right to the Arctic territory.  But the U.K. leader is also keen not to get into fights with Trump on too many fronts, at a time when his government is trying to both secure a favorable U.S. trade deal and influence the White House’s approach to striking peace between Russia and Ukraine.  Trump says that securing Greenland is essential for bolstering U.S. security. But Nordic governments have rejected his claims that Chinese and Russian vessels are operating in waters near Greenland.   Nathanielsen said Greenland did not “detect an actual threat” but was “quite content” with increased monitoring around the Arctic.  Leaders in Greenland are clear that “we have no intention of becoming American” and are “quite happy with being part of the Kingdom of Denmark,” she stressed.   She would not be drawn on whether Greenland would expect backing from NATO allies, including the U.K. if the U.S. were to invade Greenland.  Keir Starmer has warned Trump that Greenland’s future must be decided by Denmark and Greenland alone. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA “If this scenario was to happen, I think everybody in this room and everybody in your countries would have to figure out: What is this new world order about?” she said.   In that scenario “we would all be under attack,” she added.  END OF APPEASEMENT One British MP who helped organized Nathanielsen’s visit said it was time for the U.K. government to take a firmer line on Trump’s aggression in the region.  “I have a huge sympathy, because I know and I can understand it. If you’re sitting in a foreign office right now, then this is a problem which would keep you awake at night,” said Brendan O’Hara, a Scottish National Party MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Greenland.   But the time for “trying to keep this guy [Trump] on board” has gone, O’Hara added.  “I don’t blame them for trying. But when you appease somebody to this extent, and then they still openly talk about invading a NATO ally — it’s incredible,” he said.   Dywne Ryan Menezes, founder of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative think tank, which also helped organize Tuesday’s briefing, said the U.K. could do more to show its support for Greenland.   “I’ve been saying for years now: With Greenland, we can’t see it as a small country. 
It might be a small country population-wise, but it is a geopolitical giant that’s getting hotter by the day,” he said.  Menezes urged ministers to prioritize free trade talks with Greenland. “It’s one thing we can do to demonstrate that, you know, we take it seriously. It is action, and not just words.”  Nathanielsen said she was meeting a trade minister from the Labour government, Chris Bryant, later on Tuesday, as part of “very early discussions” on a possible free trade agreement between the two countries.  “Of course, when hopefully all of this cools down a bit, that you continue your collaboration investments in Greenland, we are quite happy about your partnerships,” she added.  BIG DAYS But the future of Greenland, she acknowledged, may not lie in its own hands. Foreign ministers from Greenland and Denmark are set to meet U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington Wednesday. Greenland officials hope the meeting will allow them a better understanding of the “actual wishes from the American side,” Nathanielsen said.   Asked whether a deal proposing U.S. control should be put to a vote inside Greenland, she agreed this was essential.   “I think we should be able to have a say ourselves in the future of our lives. For others, this might be a piece of land, but for us it’s home.” 

BRUSSELS — On Greenland’s southern tip, surrounded by snowy peaks and deep fjords, lies Kvanefjeld — a mining project that shows the giant, barren island is more than just a coveted military base. Beneath the icy ground sits a major deposit of neodymium and praseodymium, rare earth elements used to make magnets that are essential to build wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-tech military equipment. If developed, Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, would become the first European territory to produce these key strategic metals. Energy Transition Minerals, an Australia-based, China-backed mining company, is ready to break ground. But neither Copenhagen, Brussels nor the Greenlandic government have mobilized their state power to make the project happen. In 2009, Denmark handed Greenland’s inhabitants control of their natural resources; 12 years later the Greenlandic government blocked the mine because the rare earths are mixed with radioactive uranium. Since then the project has been in limbo, bogged down in legal disputes. “Kvanefjeld illustrates how political and regulatory uncertainty — combined with geopolitics and high capital requirements — makes even strategically important projects hard to move from potential to production,” Jeppe Kofod, Denmark’s former foreign minister and now a strategic adviser to Energy Transition Minerals, told POLITICO. Kvanefjeld’s woes are emblematic of Greenland’s broader problems. Despite having enough of some rare earth elements to supply as much as 25 percent of the world’s needs — not to mention oil and gas reserves nearly as great as those of the United States, and lots of other potential clean energy metals including copper, graphite and nickel — these resources are almost entirely undeveloped. Just two small mines, extracting gold and a niche mineral called feldspar used in glassmaking and ceramics, are up and running in Greenland. And until very recently, neither Denmark nor the European Union showed much interest in changing the situation. But that was before 2023, when the EU signed a memorandum of understanding with the Greenland government to cooperate on mining projects. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act, proposed the same year, is an attempt to catch up by building new mines both in and out of the bloc that singles out Greenland’s potential. Last month, the European Commission committed to contribute financing to Greenland’s Malmbjerg molybdenum mine in a bid to shore up a supply of the metal for the EU’s defense sector.  But with United States President Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. “The EU has for many years had a limited strategic engagement in Greenland’s critical raw materials, meaning that Europe today risks having arrived late, just as the United States and China have intensified their interest,” Kofod said. In a world shaped by Trump’s increasingly belligerent foreign policy and China’s hyperactive development of clean technology and mineral supply chains, Europe’s neglect of Greenland’s natural wealth is looking increasingly like a strategic blunder. With Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images A HOSTILE LAND That’s not to say building mines in Greenland, with its mile-deep permanent ice sheet, would be easy. “Of all the places in the world where you could extract critical raw materials, [Greenland] is very remote and not very easily accessible,” said Ditte Brasso Sørensen, senior analyst on EU climate and industrial policy at Think Tank Europa, pointing to the territory’s “very difficult environmental circumstances.”  The tiny population — fewer than 60,000 — and a lack of infrastructure also make it hard to build mines. “This is a logistical question,” said Eldur Olafsson, CEO of Amaroq, a gold mining company running one of the two operating mines in Greenland and also exploring rare earths and copper extraction opportunities. “How do you build mines? Obviously, with capital, equipment, but also people. [And] you need to build the whole infrastructure around those people because they cannot only be Greenlandic,” he said.  Greenland also has strict environmental policies — including a landmark 2021 uranium mining ban — which restrict resource extraction because of its impact on nature and the environment. The current government, voted in last year, has not shown any signs of changing its stance on the uranium ban, according to Per Kalvig, professor emeritus at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, a Danish government research organization. Uranium is routinely found with rare earths, meaning the ban could frustrate Greenland’s huge potential as a rare earths producer. It’s a similar story with fossil fuels. Despite a 2007 U.S. assessment that the equivalent of over 30 billion barrels in oil and natural gas lies beneath the surface of Greenland and its territorial waters — almost equal to U.S. reserves — 30 years of oil exploration efforts by a group including Chevron, Italy’s ENI and Shell came to nothing. In 2021 the then-leftist government in Greenland banned further oil exploration on environmental grounds.  Danish geologist Flemming Christiansen, who was deputy director of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland until 2020, said the failure had nothing to do with Greenland’s actual potential as an oil producer. Instead, he said, a collapse in oil prices in 2014 along with the high cost of drilling in the Arctic made the venture unprofitable. Popular opposition only complicated matters, he said. THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT From the skies above Greenland Christiansen sees firsthand the dramatic effects of climate change: stretches of clear water as rising temperatures thaw the ice sheets that for centuries have made exploring the territory a cold, costly and hazardous business. “If I fly over the waters in west Greenland I can see the changes,” he said. “There’s open water for much longer periods in west Greenland, in Baffin Bay and in east Greenland.” Climate change is opening up this frozen land. Climate change is opening up this frozen land. | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images Greenland contains the largest body of ice outside Antarctica, but that ice is melting at an alarming rate. One recent study suggests the ice sheet could cease to exist by the end of the century, raising sea levels by as much as seven meters. Losing a permanent ice cap that is several hundred meters deep, though, “gradually improves the business case of resource extraction, both for … fossil fuels and also critical raw materials,” said Jakob Dreyer, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen.   But exploiting Greenland’s resources doesn’t hinge on catastrophic levels of global warming. Even without advanced climate change, Kalvig, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, argues Greenland’s coast doesn’t differ much from that of Norway, where oil has been found and numerous excavation projects operate.     “You can’t penetrate quite as far inland as you can [in Norway], but once access is established, many places are navigable year-round,” Kalvig said. “So, in that sense, it’s not more difficult to operate mines in Greenland than it is in many parts of Norway, Canada or elsewhere — or Russia for that matter. And this has been done before, in years when conditions allowed.”    A European Commission spokesperson said the EU was now working with Greenland’s government to develop its resources, adding that Greenland’s “democratically elected authorities have long favored partnerships with the EU to develop projects beneficial to both sides.” But the spokesperson stressed: “The fate of Greenland’s raw mineral resources is up to the Greenlandic people and their representatives.” The U.S. may be less magnanimous. Washington’s recent military operation in Venezuela showed that Trump is serious about building an empire on natural resources, and is prepared to use force and break international norms in pursuit of that goal. Greenland, with its vast oil and rare earths deposits, may fit neatly into his vision. Where the Greenlandic people fit in is less clear.

BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plan to shake up how the EU spends its almost €2 trillion budget is rapidly being diluted. Von der Leyen’s big idea is to steer hundreds of billions in funds away from farmer subsidies and regional payouts — traditionally the bread and butter of the EU budget — toward defense spending and industrial competitiveness. But those modernizing changes — demanded by richer Northern European countries that pay more into the budget than they receive back from it — are difficult to push through in the face of stern opposition from Southern and Central European countries, which get generous payments for farmers and their poorer regions. A coalition of EU governments, lawmakers and farmers is now joining forces to undo key elements of the new-look budget running from 2028 to 2034, less than six months after the European Commission proposed to focus on those new priorities. Von der Leyen’s offer last week to allow countries to spend up to an extra €45 billion on farmer subsidies is her latest concession to powerful forces that want to keep the budget as close as possible to the status quo. Northern European countries are growing increasingly frustrated by moves by other national capitals and stakeholders to turn back the clock on the EU budget, according to three European diplomats. They were particularly irritated by a successful Franco-Italian push last week to exact more concessions for farmers as part of diplomatic maneuvers to get the long-delayed Mercosur trade deal with Latin America over the line. “Some delegations showed up with speaking points that they have taken out of the drawer from 2004,” said an EU diplomat who, like others quoted in this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy was worth 46 percent of the bloc’s total budget in 2004. The Commission’s proposal for 2028-2034 has reserved a minimum of roughly 25 percent of the total cash pot for farmers, although governments can spend significantly more than that. The Commission had no immediate comment when asked whether the anti-reform camp was successfully chipping away at von der Leyen’s proposal. THE ANTI-REFORM ALLIANCE The Commission’s July proposal to modernize the budget triggered shockwaves in Brussels and beyond. The transition away from sacred cows consolidated a ramshackle coalition of angry farmers, regional leaders and lawmakers who feared they would lose money and influence in the years to come. “This was the most radical budget [ever proposed] and there was resistance from many interested parties,” said Zsolt Darvas, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank. A protest by disgruntled farmers in Brussels during a summit of EU leaders on Dec. 18 was only the latest flashpoint of discontent. | Bastien Ohier/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images The scale of the Commission’s task became apparent weeks before the proposal was even published, as outspoken MEPs, ministers and farmers’ unions threatened to dismantle the budget in the following years of negotiations. That’s exactly what is happening now. “The Commission’s proposal was quite radical so no one thought it could go ahead this way,” said a second EU diplomat.   “We knew that this would be controversial,” echoed a Commission official working on the file. A protest by disgruntled farmers in Brussels during a summit of EU leaders on Dec. 18 was only the latest flashpoint of discontent. The terrible optics of the EU’s signing off on Mercosur as farmers took to the streets on tractors was not lost on national leaders and EU officials. Commission experts spent their Christmas break crafting a clever workaround that allows countries to raise agricultural subsidies by a further €45 billion without increasing the overall size of the budget. The extra money for farmers isn’t new — it’s been brought forward from an existing rainy-day fund that was designed to make the EU budget better suited to handling unexpected crises. By handing farmers a significant share of that financial buffer, however, the Commission is undermining its capacity to mobilize funding for emergencies or other policy areas. “You are curtailing the logic of having a more flexible budget for crises in the future,” said Eulalia Rubio, a senior fellow at the Jacques Delors Institute think tank. At the time, reactions to the budget compromise from frugal countries such as Germany and Netherlands were muted because it were seen as a bargaining chip to win Italy’s backing for the Mercosur deal championed by Berlin. The trouble was instead postponed, as it reduces budget flexibility. Darvas also argued that the Commission has not had to backtrack “too much” on the fundamentals of its proposal as countries retained the option of whether to spend the extra cash on agriculture. In a further concession, the Commission proposed additional guarantees to reduce the risk of national governments cutting payments to more developed regions. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images ANOTHER MONTH, ANOTHER CONCESSION This wasn’t the first time von der Leyen has tinkered with the budget proposal to extract herself from a political quagmire. The Commission president had already suggested changes to the budget in November to stem a budding revolt by her own European People’s Party (EPP), which was feeling the heat from farmers’ unions and regional leaders. At the time, the EU executive promised more money for farmers by introducing a “rural spending” target worth 10 percent of a country’s total EU funds. In a further concession, the Commission proposed additional guarantees to reduce the risk of national governments cutting payments to more developed regions — a sensitive issue for decentralized countries like Germany and Spain. “The general pattern that we don’t like is that the Commission is continuing to offer tiny tweaks here and there” to appease different constituencies, an EU official said. The Commission official retorted that national capitals would eventually have made those changes themselves as the “trend of the negotiations [in the Council] was going in that direction.” However, budget veterans who are used to painstaking negotiations were surprised by the speed at which Commission offered concessions so early in the process. “Everyone is scared of the [2027] French elections [fearing a victory by the far-right National Rally] and wants to get a deal by the end of the year, so the Commission is keen to expedite,” said the second EU diplomat. Nicholas Vinocur contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — A coalition of European left parties has launched a call for signatures to force the European Commission to suspend the EU’s association agreement with Israel over Gaza. Despite a U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement in October, Israel has kept attacking targets in the Gaza Strip with airstrikes, drones and tanks, prompting the pro-Palestinian movement to renew its calls for the EU to take action against Israel. The coalition — led by France’s La France Insoumise, Spain’s Podemos, Portugal’s Bloco de Esquerda, and Nordic left parties — has launched a European Citizens Initiative titled “Justice for Palestine” calling on the EU executive suspend ties with Israel over its “genocide against the Palestinian population, and its ongoing violations of international law and human rights.” If the initiative receives a million signatures from at least seven EU counties — a likely outcome given the popularity of the issue — the Commission will be forced to state which actions, if any, it will take in respond to the initiative. “The EU pretends everything is back to normal, but we will not turn a blind eye to what is happening in Gaza,” said MEP Manon Aubry, the leader of La France Insoumise, adding the “EU is helping to finance genocide” by not suspending trade relations with Israel. More than 100 children have been killed since the ceasefire agreement was signed in March, UNICEF said Tuesday. The Commission already proposed in November to suspend some parts of the association agreement and to sanction some “extremist ministers” in the cabinet of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But parts of the package were never implemented because they required unanimous approval from EU countries. After the ceasefire was reached the Commission proposed withdrawing the measures; the issue has remained frozen ever since. Foreign ministers from numerous EU countries as well as the U.K., Norway, Canada and Japan sharply criticized an Israeli decision to bar 37 international non-governmental organizations from providing aid to Gaza. The humanitarian situation in the besieged territory remains dire, with many living outdoors in winter weather. Four people were killed on Tuesday when a storm caused buildings that had been damaged in the war to collapse, according to local media.

President Donald Trump threatened Monday to impose a 25 percent tariff on “any country” doing business with Iran, potentially affecting U.S. trade with China, India, the United Arab Emirates, the European Union and others. “Effective immediately, any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the United States of America,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “This Order is final and conclusive. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” However, Trump does not appear to have issued an executive order to back up his statement as of late Monday afternoon. A White House spokesperson also did not immediately respond to questions about Trump’s social media post. The threat follows reports from human rights groups that hundreds of people have been killed in a brutal crackdown on protests against the Iranian regime that intensified over the weekend. Trump has previously warned that the U.S. could intervene if Iran’s government uses violence against the protesters. “For President Trump this seems like a pretty mild response to a very significant situation in Iran and so this will probably disappoint many in the Iranian American community,” said Michael Singh, former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council under President George W. Bush, now the managing director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The problem is that we have sanctions in place against Iran that are quite tough, but they’re not being enforced — I mean Iran is selling lots of oil, and so I think the question will be what’s new here and is it going to be enforced, unlike the other sanctions that are already in place.” The U.S. has little direct trade with Iran because of its steep sanctions on the country, imposed in recent decades to punish Tehran for its nuclear program. Last year, it imported just $6.2 million worth of goods from the country and exported slightly more than $90 million worth of goods to Iran in return, according to Commerce Department statistics. However, the United States does substantial trade with countries that do business with Iran, including China, India, the United Arab Emirates and the EU. Earlier this year, Trump threatened to impose tariffs on any country that buys Russian oil but so far has only taken that action against India, sparing China in the process. He also threatened in March to impose a 25 percent tariff on any country that buys oil or gas from Venezuela, but doesn’t appear to have followed through on that threat. Phelim Kine contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Even after most member countries backed the EU’s landmark trade accord with Latin America, opponents of the deal in France, Poland and the European Parliament are still determined to derail or delay it. As a result, even after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen flies to Paraguay this Saturday to sign the accord with the Mercosur bloc after over 25 years of talks, it could still take months before we finally find out when, or even whether, it will finally take effect. The culprit is the EU’s tortuous decision-making process: After the curtain came down on Friday on deliberations in the Council, the intergovernmental branch of the bloc, a new act will now play out in the European Parliament. Ratification by lawmakers later this year is the most likely outcome — but there will be high drama along the way. “It has become irrational,” said an EU diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “If the European Parliament refuses, we will have a European crisis.” Proponents argue that the deal with Mercosur — which groups Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — is the bloc’s best shot at rallying friends across the world as the EU tries to counter Donald Trump’s aggressive moves (the latest being the U.S. president’s threats to annex Greenland). But more than 140 lawmakers are already questioning the legal basis of the agreement, concerned that it breaches the EU treaties. They want it sent to the Court of Justice of the EU for a legal review, which could delay it for as long as two years. Political group leaders agreed before the Christmas break to submit this referral to a vote as soon as governments signed off on the deal. That vote is now expected at next week’s plenary, a official with the Parliament said.  Yet while the rebel MEPs have enough votes to call a floor debate, they likely lack the majority needed in the 720-seat Parliament to pass the resolution itself.  “I don’t think that the substance of the legal challenge is going anywhere. This is fabricated, it’s a lot of hot air — both in terms of environmental [and] health provisions, in terms of national parliaments. All of this has been tried and tested,” said David Kleimann, a senior trade expert at the ODI Europe think tank in Brussels. LEGAL ROADBLOCKS  The challenge in the Parliament is only one front. The deal’s biggest opponents, Poland and France, are also fighting back. Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski said Friday he would push for the government to also submit a complaint to the Court of Justice.   “We will not let the deal go any further,” he said, adding that Poland would ask the court to assess whether the Mercosur pact is legally sound. On the same day, protesting farmers spilled manure in front of his house. “We will not let the deal go any further,” said Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Polish MEP Krzysztof Hetman, a member of the center-right European People’s Party and a political ally of Krajewski, said the referrals of the Parliament and of member states would play out separately with the same aim in mind. “If one succeeds, the other might not be necessary,” he said, adding that while the court considers the complaint, the deal would effectively be on ice. French President Emmanuel Macron, meanwhile, is under huge pressure from his political opponents to do more to stall the deal. France, Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary voted against the deal last week while Belgium abstained. That left the anti-Mercosur camp shy of the blocking minority needed to kill the deal. On Wednesday, the National Assembly will vote on two separate no-confidence motions submitted by the far-right National Rally and the far-left France Unbowed. Even if opposition to the Mercosur deal remains unanimous, the two motions have little to no chance of toppling the French government: The left is unlikely to back the National Rally text, while the center-left Socialists are withholding support for the France Unbowed motion. But nothing can be ruled out in France’s fragmented parliament.  REALITY CHECK Even some of the rebel MEPs admit their challenge is unlikely to succeed — and that the Parliament might still back the overall deal in a vote later this year.  “It will be very difficult now that the Council has approved it,” said Hetman, the Polish MEP. “The supporters of the agreement know this, which is why they sabotaged the vote on the referral in November and December.” Others opponents still see a chance to topple it, and are optimistic that the legal challenge can gather enough support.  “We want to delay the Mercosur adoption process as long as possible,” Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group, told POLITICO before the Christmas break. She also saw signs that a majority of MEPs could come out against the deal: “I bet there are even more MEPs willing to make sure that the agreement is fully in line with the treaties.” If the judicial review is rejected, the Parliament would hold a yes-no vote to ratify the trade agreement, without being able to modify its terms.  Such a vote could be scheduled in the May plenary at the earliest, Bernd Lange, the chair of the chamber’s trade committee, told POLITICO. Lange, a German Social Democrat, said he was confident of a “sufficient” majority to pass the deal.  Pedro López de Pablo, a spokesperson for the EPP — von der Leyen’s own political family and the EU’s largest party — vowed there was a majority for the agreement in the EPP and dismissed the legal maneuvering.  “It is clear that such a move is politically motivated to delay the implementation of the deal rather than the product of a legal analysis,” he said.  Giorgio Leali contributed to this report. 

LONDON — U.K. ministers are warning Elon Musk’s X it faces a ban if it doesn’t get its act together. But outlawing the social media platform is easier said than done. The U.K.’s communications regulator Ofcom on Monday launched a formal investigation into a deluge of non-consensual sexualized deepfakes produced by X’s AI chatbot Grok amid growing calls for action from U.K. politicians. It will determine whether the creation and distribution of deepfakes on the platform, which have targeted women and children, constitutes a breach of the company’s duties under the U.K.’s Online Safety Act (OSA).   U.K. ministers have repeatedly called for Ofcom, the regulator tasked with policing social media platforms, to take urgent action over the deepfakes. U.K. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall on Friday offered her “full support” to the U.K. regulator to block X from being accessed in the U.K., if it chooses to. “I would remind xAI that the Online Safety Act Includes the power to block services from being accessed in the U.K., if they refuse to comply with U.K. law. If Ofcom decide to use those powers they will have our full support,” she said in a statement. The suggestion has drawn Musk’s ire. The tech billionaire branded the British government “fascist” over the weekend, and accused it of “finding any excuse for censorship.”   With Ofcom testing its new regulatory powers against one of the most high-profile tech giants for the first time, it is hard to predict what happens next. NOT GOING NUCLEAR — FOR NOW   Ofcom has so far avoided its smash-glass option. Under the OSA it could seek a court order blocking “ancillary” services, like those those processing subscription payments on X’s behalf, and ask internet providers to block X from operating in the U.K.   Taking that route would mean bypassing a formal investigation, but that is generally considered a last resort according to Ofcom’s guidance. To do so, Ofcom would need to prove that risk of harm to U.K. users is particularly great.  Before launching its investigation Monday, the regulator made “urgent contact” with X on Jan. 5, giving the platform until last Friday to respond. Ofcom stressed the importance of “due process” and of ensuring its investigations are “legally robust and fairly decided.”   LIMITED REACH   The OSA only covers U.K. users. It’s a point ministers have been keen to stress amid concerns its interaction with the U.S. First Amendment, which guarantees free speech, could become a flashpoint in trade negotiations with Washington. It’s not enough for officials or ministers to believe X has failed to protect users generally.   The most egregious material might not even be on X. Child sexual abuse charity the Internet Watch Foundation said last week that its analysts had found what appeared to be Grok-produced Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on a dark web forum, rather than X itself — so it’s far from self-evident that Ofcom taking the nuclear option against X would ever have been legally justified.   X did not comment on Ofcom’s investigation when contacted by POLITICO, but referred back to a statement issued on Jan. 4 about the issue of deepfakes on the platform. “We take action against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary. Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content,” the statement said. BIG TEST   The OSA came into force last summer, and until now Ofcom’s enforcement actions have focused on pornography site providers for not implementing age-checks.  Online safety campaigners have argued this indicates Ofcom is more interested in going after low-hanging fruit than challenging more powerful tech companies. “It has been striking to many that of the 40+ investigations it has launched so far, not one has been directed at large … services,” the online safety campaign group the Molly Rose Foundation said in September.   That means the X investigation is the OSA’s first big test, and it’s especially thorny because it involves an AI chatbot. The Science, Innovation and Technology committee wrote in a report published last summer that the legislation does not provide sufficient protections against generative AI, a point Technology Secretary Liz Kendall herself conceded in a recent evidence session.  POLITICAL RISKS  If Ofcom concludes X hasn’t broken the law there are likely to be calls from OSA critics, both inside and outside Parliament, to return to the drawing board. It would also put the government, which has promised to act if Ofcom doesn’t, in a tricky spot.  The PM’s spokesperson on Monday described child sexual abuse imagery as “the worst crimes imaginable.” Ofcom could also conclude X has broken the law, but decide against imposing sanctions, according to its enforcement guidance. The outcome of Ofcom’s investigation will be watched closely by the White House and is fraught with diplomatic peril for the U.K. government, which has already been criticized for implementing the new online safety law by Donald Trump and his allies. Foreign Secretary David Lammy raised the Grok issue with U.S. Vice President JD Vance last week, POLITICO reported.  But other Republicans are readying for a geopolitical fight: GOP Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, a member of the U.S. House foreign affairs committee, said she was drafting legislation to sanction the U.K. if X does get blocked. 

Officially, the EU’s Mercosur trade deal is a defeat for Europe’s farmers. In reality, farm lobbies just can’t stop winning. EU countries endorsed the bloc’s long-delayed agreement with South American nations on Friday, clearing the way for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Paraguay later this week and close a deal that has haunted Brussels for more than two decades. The agreement is going through despite tractor protests, border blockades and fierce opposition from farm groups and capitals including Paris and Warsaw. But the price of getting Mercosur over the line was steep. In the run-up to the endorsement, Brussels quietly stacked the deck in farmers’ favor. Import safeguards were hardened. Controls tightened. And last week, the Commission unveiled a €45 billion budget maneuver allowing governments to shift more money to farmers under the EU’s next long-term budget. Taken together, the concessions mean Mercosur will enter into force wrapped in protections and paired with a farm budget settlement that leaves the sector stronger than before. “Other sectors complain,” said one Commission official involved in agricultural policy. “Farmers block roads.” The official, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely. The blunt assessment captures a familiar reality inside the EU institutions. Farmers may represent a shrinking share of Europe’s economy, but they remain one of its most powerful political constituencies, capable of reshaping trade deals, budgets and reform agendas even when they fail to block them outright. Ultimately, to get Mercosur over the line, Brussels had to back away from plans to loosen farmers’ grip on the EU budget and shift money to other priorities. PRESSURE THAT WORKS The leverage farm leaders wield rests on more than theatrics. Few officials in Brussels dispute that large parts of the sector are under real strain. Farm incomes are volatile. Costs for fuel, fertilizer and feed have surged. Weather has become harder to predict. Working days are long and isolation is common in hollowing rural communities. “I understand the anger,” Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen told POLITICO in an interview last month, as Brussels prepared for tractors to roll into the EU quarter. Christophe Hansen said the Commission had “heard the concerns of farmers” and responded with “strong and unprecedented support measures.” | Photo by Omar Havana/Getty Images Sympathy for farmers runs high across much of Europe, tied not just to economics but to culture, place and identity. That has always made farm subsidies one of the most politically sensitive lines in the EU budget — and one the Commission knew would be hardest to touch. That sensitivity was on display again last week, when agriculture ministers traveled to Brussels for a hastily convened meeting outside the formal calendar, called in response to farmer protests only weeks earlier. Inside, the language was ritualistic. Praise for farmers. Assurances they were being listened to. Repeated references to unprecedented safeguards and financial backing. Hansen summed it up afterward, saying the Commission had “heard the concerns of farmers” and responded with “strong and unprecedented support measures.” REFORM MEETS REALITY This outcome marks a sharp reversal of earlier ambitions inside the Commission. It’s also a reminder of just how high the stakes are when farm subsidies are in play. The Common Agricultural Policy remains the single largest line in the EU budget, absorbing roughly a third of total spending and anchoring a political contract that dates back to the bloc’s postwar foundations. Public money, in exchange for food security and rural stability, has long been one of Europe’s core bargains. That bargain has survived decades of reform. The CAP has been trimmed, greened and made more market-oriented. But its central promise — that farming would be protected — has never disappeared. After von der Leyen’s re-election in 2024, officials quietly explored loosening how tightly farm spending is locked into the EU budget. Draft ideas for the post-2027 budget would have made farm funds more flexible and easier to redirect to priorities such as defense, climate transition or industrial policy. It was a technocrat’s answer to a crowded budget. It did not survive contact with politics. The proposal landed as farm incomes came under pressure from rising costs, climate volatility and disease outbreaks. Tractors returned to Europe’s streets. Agriculture ministers closed ranks, warning of political fallout in rural heartlands. Farm lobbies mobilized in force. Hansen spent much of his first year in office traveling to farms and meeting unions, describing agriculture as a strategic asset and warning of a “convergence of pressures” hitting the sector. Behind closed doors, he fought to keep large chunks of farm funding protected. Tractors park in front of the Arc de Triomphe during a demonstration of the French agricultural union Coordination Rurale (CR) in Paris, France, on January 8, 2026. | Jerome Gilles/NurPhoto via Getty Images Those efforts didn’t calm farmers’ anger. Instead, pressure became constant, feeding into a series of concessions that steadily narrowed the scope for reform. First came assurances that most farm spending would remain ring-fenced in the post-2027 budget. Then came a new rural spending target, designed to funnel more money back into countryside projects. Last week, to get the Mercosur deal over the line, the Commission went further, proposing that farmers get early access to up to €45 billion from a broader cash pot the EU would have been saving for a rainy day. In effect, much of the post-2027 EU farm budget is on track to be sealed at levels approaching today’s, before negotiations have even begun in earnest. LOSING THE TRADE FIGHT, WINNING THE POLITICS The €45 billion now being front-loaded was originally conceived as crisis insurance. After the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Brussels concluded that future EU budgets needed more flexibility to respond quickly to shocks. Money reserved for incremental spending reviews was meant to be the first line of defense in the next crisis. If national capitals embrace the Commission’s proposal, much of that money would be locked in for farmers before the cycle even starts, leaving less for other priority areas. Mercosur became the perfect vehicle for that pressure. Long championed by industrial exporters, the deal turned into shorthand for everything farmers fear about global competition and loss of control. The reality is more uneven. Some EU farmers, particularly in high-end food, wine and dairy, stand to gain from better access to Mercosur markets. Others, especially in beef and poultry, face tougher competition. Yet even there, trade analysts have long dismissed fears of South American goods flooding the EU as exaggerated. But nuance rarely survives a protest banner, and even the unprecedented concessions haven’t stopped farmers from protesting. The EU’s largest farm lobby, Copa-Cogeca, said Friday that the process of getting the Mercosur deal across the line “erodes trust in European governance, democratic processes and parliamentary scrutiny at a time when institutional credibility is already under strain.” The group said it would continue mobilizing farmers. Privately, Commission officials express frustration about the farm lobbies’ hardening demands.  One said that even though Brussels bends over backwards to meet farmers’ demands, every concession still falls short for farm leaders. Another pointed to Commissioner Hansen’s efforts to engage in direct dialogue with farmers across the EU. “And still, they talk as if we had done nothing,” the official said, referring directly to Copa-Cogeca. For now, farm leaders are winning.  Von der Leyen might be boarding that plane to South America. But when she returns to Brussels, they will already be gearing up for the next fight, confident they can lose the trade battle and still bend Europe’s policy in their favor.