The 21st century is more likely to belong to Beijing than to Washington — at least that’s the view from four key U.S. allies. Swaths of the public in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. have soured on the U.S., driven by President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions, according to recent results from The POLITICO Poll. Respondents in these countries increasingly see China as a more dependable partner than the U.S. and believe the Asian economic colossus is leading on advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence. Critically, Europeans surveyed see it as possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. but harder to reduce reliance on China — suggesting newfound entanglements that could drastically tip the balance of global power away from the West. Here are five key takeaways from the poll highlighting the pivot from the U.S. to China. The POLITICO Poll — in partnership with U.K. polling firm Public First — found that respondents in those four allied countries believe it is better to depend on China than the U.S. following Trump’s turbulent return to office. That appears to be driven by Trump’s disruption, not by a newfound stability in China: In a follow-up question, a majority of respondents in both Canada and Germany agreed that any attempts to get closer to China are because the U.S. has become harder to depend on — not because China itself has become a more reliable partner. Many respondents in France (38 percent) and the U.K. (42 percent) also shared that sentiment. Under Trump’s “America First” ethos, Washington has upended the “rules-based international order” of the past with sharp-elbowed policies that have isolated the U.S. on the global stage. This includes slow-walking aid to Ukraine, threatening NATO allies with economic punishment and withdrawing from major international institutions, including the World Health Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Council. His punitive liberation day tariffs, as well as threats to annex Greenland and make Canada “the 51st state,” have only further strained relationships with top allies. Beijing has seized the moment to cultivate better business ties with European countries looking for an alternative to high U.S. tariffs on their exports. Last October, Beijing hosted a forum aimed at shoring up mutual investments with Europe. More recently, senior Chinese officials described EU-China ties as a partnership rather than a rivalry. “The administration has assisted the Chinese narrative by acting like a bully,” Mark Lambert, former deputy assistant secretary of State for China and Taiwan in the Biden administration, told POLITICO. “Everyone still recognizes the challenges China poses — but now, Washington no longer works in partnership and is only focused on itself.” These sentiments are already being translated into action. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney declared a “rupture” between Ottawa and Washington in January and backed that rhetoric by sealing a trade deal with Beijing that same month. The U.K. inked several high-value export deals with China not long after, while both French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have returned from recent summits in Beijing with Chinese purchase orders for European products. Respondents across all four allied countries are broadly supportive of efforts to create some distance from the U.S. — and say they’re also more dependent on China. In Canada, 48 percent said it would be possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. and believe their government should do so. In the U.K., 42 percent said reducing reliance on the U.S. sounded good in theory, but were skeptical it could happen in practice. By contrast, fewer respondents across those countries believe it would actually be possible to reduce reliance on China — a testament to Beijing’s dominance of global supply chains. Young adults may be drawn to China as an alternative to U.S. cultural hegemony. Respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 were significantly more supportive than their older peers of building a closer relationship with China. A recent study commissioned by the Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences — a Beijing-based think tank — suggests most young Europeans get their information about China and Chinese life through social media. Nearly 70 percent of those aged 18 to 25 said they rely on social media and other short-form video platforms for information on China. And the media they consume is likely overwhelmingly supportive of China, as TikTok, one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, was built by Chinese company ByteDance and has previously been accused of suppressing content deemed negative toward China. According to Alicja Bachulska, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, younger generations believe the U.S. has led efforts to depict China as an authoritarian regime and a threat to democracy, while simultaneously degrading its own democratic values. The trend “pushes a narrative that ‘we’ve been lied to’ about what China is,” said Bachulska, as “social sentiment among the youth turns against the U.S.” “It’s an expression of dissatisfaction with the state of U.S. politics,” she added. There’s a clear consensus among those surveyed in Europe and Canada that China is winning the global tech race — a coveted title central to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s grand policy vision. China is leading the U.S. and other Western nations in the development of electric batteries and robotics, while Chinese designs have also become the global standard in electric vehicles and solar panels. “There has been a real vibe shift in global perception of Chinese tech and innovation dominance,” said Sarah Beran, who served as deputy chief of mission in the U.S. embassy in Beijing during the Biden administration. This digital rat race is most apparent in the fast-paced development of artificial intelligence. China has poured billions of dollars into research initiatives, poaching top tech talent from U.S. universities and funding state-backed tech firms to advance its interests in AI. The investment appears to be paying off — a plurality of respondents from Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is more likely to develop the first superintelligent AI. But these advancements have done little to change American minds. A majority of respondents in the U.S. still see American-made tech as superior to Chinese tech, even in the realm of AI. As Washington and its allies grow more estranged, the perception of the U.S. as the dominant world power is in retreat — though most Americans don’t see it that way. About half of all respondents in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is rapidly becoming a more consequential superpower. This is particularly true among those who say the U.S. is no longer a positive force for the world. By contrast, 63 percent of respondents in the U.S. believe their nation will maintain its dominance in 10 years — reflecting major disparities in beliefs about global power dynamics between the U.S. and its European allies. This view of China as the world’s power center may not have been entirely organic. The U.S. has accused Beijing of pouring billions of dollars into international information manipulation efforts, including state-backed media initiatives and the deployment of tools to stifle online criticism of China and its policies. Some fear that a misplaced belief among U.S. allies in the inevitability of China surpassing the U.S. as a global superpower could be helping accelerate Beijing’s rise. “Europe is capable of defending itself against threats from China and contesting China’s vision of a more Sinocentric, authoritarian-friendly world order,” said Henrietta Levin, former National Security Council director for China in the Biden administration. “But if Europe believes this is impossible and does not try to do so, the survey results may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.” METHOLODGY The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Feb. 6 to Feb. 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.

NEW DELHI — After a hot, high-stakes week in New Delhi, the India AI Impact Summit closed with big ambitions and a host of unanswered questions. Leaders sparred over who will shape the rules of artificial intelligence, U.N. officials warned against billionaire dominance, U.S. voices urged less “AI doomerism,” and India pitched itself as a serious counterweight to the U.S.–China tech axis. That was the official script. Offstage, the mood was messier: headline speakers dropped out, security cordons tangled with Delhi traffic, calendars clashed with global politics, and one demonstration turned into instant meme material. And in between security checks and summit fatigue, there were unexpectedly charming moments — including the French president prepping for his summit trip by jogging along Marine Drive as if he’d just popped out for a vada pav, the deep-fried potato sandwich that powers much of Mumbai. Here are a few moments that capture the summit’s real atmosphere. STAR POWER, MINUS THE STARS Bill Gates pulled out of his keynote appearance hours before he was due to speak, following renewed scrutiny over his past association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The Gates Foundation said the decision was made to ensure the summit’s focus remained on its agenda, with Ankur Vora, president of the foundation’s Africa and India offices, stepping in instead. Jensen Huang, CEO of American tech firm Nvidia, was also absent, reportedly sidelined after catching a bug following weeks of travel. For a gathering meant to showcase global AI leadership, the empty spots were hard to miss — and quietly shaped the question of who was, and wasn’t, steering the conversation. TIMING WASN’T ON THE SUMMIT’S SIDE Was this really the best week to organize an AI summit? The question came up repeatedly, with several reasons cited for why key delegations were not present in full force. The gathering coincided with Chinese New Year, meaning Beijing ended up without top-level representation. On top of that, U.S. President Donald Trump launched his Board of Peace on Thursday — forcing former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair to cancel his summit appearance. There was also plain exhaustion. January and the first half of February already bring the World Economic Forum in Davos and the Munich Security Conference, with the AI summit closing out the diplomatic marathon. “I’m gonna put a blanket over my head when I’m home,” said one attendee who made the rounds in both Munich and New Delhi, granted anonymity to speak candidly. THE ROBO-DOG FIASCO One of the summit’s most viral moments came from a demo that wasn’t quite what it seemed. India’s Galgotias University drew backlash after presenting a robotic dog as its own innovation. But the expo showcase quickly attracted online fact-checkers, who zeroed in on a curious detail: the dog was in fact … Chinese. More specifically, it was the Unitree Go2, sold by China’s Unitree Robotics for about $2,800. AN AWKWARD GROUP PHOTO After the inaugural session, a cluster of top AI executives joined Indian Prime Minister Modi onstage for the customary summit photo-op … and briefly looked out of sync. As cameras flashed and leaders raised clasped hands to signal unity, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei appeared momentarily unsure how to join in, undecided between handshake, arm-raise and regular pose before settling on raised, clasped fists. The hesitation was fleeting but noticeable — and was quickly mocked online. For two executives whose companies are increasingly framed as rivals with dueling visions for AI’s future, the body-language blip drew outsized attention. “There’s rarely an incident at a high-profile, onstage international conference like this that literally makes me burst out laughing,” Hudson Institute senior fellow Bill Drexel said, calling it “a very visible representation of a rift.” Altman later said he “didn’t know what I was supposed to do.” Amodei did not respond to a request for comment. WHEN GETTING IN WAS THE MAIN EVENT Navigating the summit sometimes felt like its own endurance test. A mix of heavy security around Prime Minister Narendra Modi, organizational confusion, and unforgiving Delhi traffic made even basic planning difficult. At points, attendees were warned not to come at all or abruptly told to leave. One POLITICO reporter arrived at the designated entrance only to find it closed — and was then redirected to another closed entrance. Inside, signage was poor, crossing the venue could mean multiple security checks, and everyday items like car keys or laptops were occasionally treated as potential hazards. Then again, several Delhi regulars noted that, by local standards, summit week was comparatively well organized. THE AVIATORS ARE BACK Away from the conference halls, Emmanuel Macron delivered the week’s most unexpectedly down-to-earth moment, as he squeezed in some sunrise cardio. Before heading to New Delhi for the summit, the French president was spotted on an early-morning jog along Mumbai’s swanky Marine Drive, dressed in athletic gear and his now-signature aviator sunglasses; the same pair that drew attention in Davos weeks earlier. Bodyguards kept pace as he ran along the waterfront promenade, drawing curious glances from morning walkers. Not everything about the future of AI happens onstage.

A man who allegedly stole a computer and iPad belonging to a NATO official visiting Lisbon has been charged with attempted espionage, Portugal’s Public Prosecution Service confirmed Thursday. The defendant, a 23-year-old Portuguese citizen, is alleged to have committed the theft in February 2025 during a NATO planning conference for the world’s largest military robotics exercise at Lisbon Naval Base on Portugal’s Atlantic coast. Prosecutors say the defendant devised a plan to target attendees, reasoning they might be carrying sensitive material that could be “attractive to foreign intelligence services outside of NATO, such as those of the Russian Federation.” Using a fake name, the man checked into a hotel where NATO personnel were staying and convinced a staff member to let him into a room assigned to a Swedish naval official temporarily assigned to the Alliance. He was apprehended by Portuguese police after the devices were reported stolen — but the Swedish official’s computer and iPad were nowhere to be found. According to prosecutors, the defendant offered to lead police investigators to the “agents” he claimed had hired him to steal the goods. But just as the meeting with his alleged handlers was due to take place, the man escaped. Hours later he was seen arriving at the Russian Embassy in Lisbon, where he allegedly tried to sell what was on the devices to an embassy employee. The man “was unsuccessful in achieving this goal,” prosecutors noted, and coughed up the missing devices when police detained him shortly thereafter. Under interrogation, the man claimed to belong to “a criminal organization dedicated to acts of espionage and violation of state secrets,” and named 11 individuals — among them a police inspector — as members of the spy ring. But a yearlong criminal probe has now concluded the alleged espionage network doesn’t exist, and that the defendant invented it to “divert the focus of the investigation” from himself. In addition to attempted espionage, prosecutors accused the defendant of aggravated theft, making false statements and possession of child pornography. Two other men have been accused of aiding in the theft but haven’t been charged with espionage.

A new EU-backed study sheds light on the gender gap in investments across Europe, with a particular focus on deep tech — a category of innovation that is central to Europe’s long-term competitiveness, security and economic resilience. Deep tech refers to companies built on scientific breakthroughs and advanced engineering, often emerging from research laboratories and universities. These include firms working in areas such as artificial intelligence, advanced materials, semiconductors, robotics, quantum technologies, climate and energy systems, health and biotech, and industrial technologies. Unlike many consumer-facing digital startups, deep-tech companies typically require long development timelines, specialized talent and significant upfront capital before reaching market. For the EU, deep tech is strategic. It underpins the green and digital transitions, strengthens industrial leadership, and reduces dependence on external technologies in critical areas such as energy, health and security. Ensuring that talent can access capital in these sectors is therefore not only a question of fairness — it is a question of Europe’s ability to compete globally. > Gender equality isn’t just a fairness goal. It’s a competitiveness goal. > Europe can’t afford to waste talent — especially in deep tech. > > Katerina Svíčková, Head of Gender Sector, DG RTD, European Commission Two objectives: Measure the gap — and understand how to close it The project was designed around two complementary goals. First, to identify and consolidate data that can be used to measure the gender investment gap in a consistent and transparent way across Europe. Second, to engage directly with founders, investors and policymakers to understand why the gap persists — and what could help bridge it, particularly in deep tech. While gender-disaggregated data exist, they are often fragmented, based on different definitions or not publicly comparable. This makes it difficult for policymakers, investors and ecosystem actors to assess progress or design targeted interventions. A prototype repository: The Gender Gap in Investments Dashboard A central output of the project is the Gender Gap in Investments Dashboard, developed by Dealroom. The dashboard is a prototype repository that already presents a clear picture of the current state of the gender investment gap using Dealroom data. It brings together information on company founding teams and venture funding outcomes across Europe in a single, accessible interface. The dashboard is not an endpoint. It is designed as a foundation that can, over time, incorporate additional data sources, improve coverage, and offer a more nuanced view of how gender, sector, funding stage and geography interact. The long-term ambition is to support the development of a credible, shared European data infrastructure on gender and investment. What the data show: Deep tech remains highly skewed Even at this early stage, the dashboard reveals persistent imbalances. Across Europe, startups with at least one woman founder raise just 14.4 percent of all venture capital (VC) rounds and 12 percent of total VC funding. In deep tech, the imbalance is even starker. Around 80 percent of deep-tech companies are founded by all-male teams, which receive nearly 90 percent of venture funding. > Investing through diverse teams helps unlock deal flow that would otherwise > remain invisible. > > Ulrike Kostense, Investment Principal, Invest-NL Given the capital intensity of deep tech, these disparities matter. Who receives early and follow-on funding today shapes which technologies Europe brings to scale tomorrow. Listening to the ecosystem: Evidence beyond the numbers To complement the data work, the project placed strong emphasis on qualitative research and ecosystem engagement. Over 11 months, the team conducted: * 81 in-depth interviews with founders, investors, fund managers, public banks and EU policymakers * 12 ecosystem events across Europe, engaging more than 1,000 participants Across countries and sectors, participants consistently pointed to structural barriers, including difficulties accessing early and scale-up capital, credibility gaps in fundraising — particularly in deep tech — fragmented support landscapes, and limited diversity in investment decision-making roles. From insight to action: Priorities for Europe Drawing on both the data and the ecosystem input, the report highlights several areas for action: * Build a permanent European data hub on gender and investment, starting with the Dealroom dashboard and gradually adding more public and private data sources. * Make investment data easier to compare and understand, by using shared definitions and reporting standards across EU and national funding programs. * Close the gap between early support and growth funding, so that startups — especially deep-tech companies that take longer to develop — are not lost before they can scale. * Use public investment to shape the market, drawing on the EU’s role as a major investor — including the European Innovation Council (EIC) and its investment arm, the EIC Fund, which provide public funding and equity to high-potential startups — to attract private capital and set better incentives. * Improve connections across the ecosystem, helping founders find the right funding routes and reach key decision-makers. A foundation for long-term change The central conclusion of the study is clear: Europe does not lack women innovators — it lacks the systems needed to measure, fund and scale them consistently. By combining a shared data foundation with direct engagement across the ecosystem, the project lays the groundwork for more informed policymaking, better investment decisions and a stronger, more inclusive European deep-tech ecosystem. Final Report: Gender Gap in InvestmentsDownload -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is EISMEA – European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency * The ultimate controlling entity is EISMEA – European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency More information here.

BRUSSELS — Chinese goods continue to flood into the European Union as the bloc’s manufacturing base struggles to cope. The EU’s trade deficit in goods with China widened to €359.3 billion in 2025, up nearly a fifth from €304.5 billion in 2024, according to data published by Eurostat on Friday. The figure is the total value of all goods imported from China, minus the goods exported to the country. The widening deficit was the driven both by a 6.3 percent increase in imports from China, and a 6.5 percent decline in EU exports to China. The widening deficit exposes Europe’s inability to compete in industries ranging from basic chemicals to cars. In 2025, China’s global trade surplus in goods hit a record of nearly $1.2 trillion — with Donald Trump’s U.S. tariffs redirecting its export glut to more open economies like Europe. China has been on an inexorable economic ascent since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001. Neither the 2008 financial crisis, nor the recent deflation of a vast real estate bubble, has been enough to knock it off course. While Chinese businesses used to occupy the bottom of the value chain — assembling electronics, producing basic chemicals, or manufacturing low-end consumer goods — they’ve steadily moved to the technology frontier. Chinese champions operate in everything from electric vehicles to artificial intelligence and robotics. EU leaders are alert to the threat. Speaking at an EU industry summit in Antwerp on Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron called on the European Commission to act more swiftly to erect trade protections when China uses subsidies to give an unfair leg-up to its industry. “We have a big issue today. We are too slow,” said the French leader talking about the Commission’s lengthy probe into Chinese electric vehicles that resulted in the imposition of duties in late 2024. It was useless, Macron said, if the European Commission takes two years to find out that a Chinese company was relying on state aid to undercut its European competitors. “I mean, thank you, happy I was right, but it’s over. So we have to accelerate much more swiftly the process for these inquiries, clearly,” Macron added. France’s High Commission for Strategy and Planning estimates that a quarter of the country’s exports are “directly threatened” by Chinese competition. For Germany, that number rises to a third. The advisory body has recommended that the EU retaliate with a weaker euro — which would give exporters a boost — and across-the-board tariffs. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng seemed to offer an olive branch at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last month. In a speech made in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to annex Greenland, He promised that China would uphold the international trade order and “open its door still wider to the world.” He also said that the government would move to fix economic imbalances that had sapped domestic demand and added to the export glut. But policymakers, both in EU capitals and the Berlaymont, are skeptical that China is serious about any shift toward household consumption. French Finance Minister Roland Lescure said this week that Chinese officials have been “saying the right things” with talk of “rebalancing of the Chinese economy with more consumption.” But, he told reporters: “We feel that so far, there’s been a lot of talk, but not many results yet.” It’s an attitude shared by top Commission trade official Joanna Szychowska who, at a conference last month, said the EU should not “all of a sudden become friends with China today because we have a shift in U.S. policy.” “China is very much focused on transactions. Now we have to ask ourselves the question of what transactions we can make — so what is our leverage, what is our strength?” added Szychowska, who is director for Asia, services and digital trade. Additional reporting by Zia Weise and Geoffrey Smith.

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron made an energetic appeal for Europe to launch a joint borrowing scheme and boost investment in strategic sectors, framing it as a economic necessity if the continent is to keep up with the United States and China. In an interview with six European media outlets published Tuesday, Macron said Europe must seize on the unity it showed during its transatlantic rift with Washington over the Trump administration’s threat to annex Greenland. “We think it’s over. But don’t believe it for a single second,” Macron said, arguing that Europe must continue to stand firm and united against any threats from the White House. Macron predicted that Europe is going to need to get tough with Washington over European digital regulation and with Beijing as Chinese companies continue to flood Europe with cheap goods. “The U.S. will, in the coming months — that’s certain — attack us over digital regulation,” Macron said. Given Europe faces a constricted budget to confront those challenges, French president argued that to finance its future, it is “the moment to launch a common borrowing capacity, for these eurobonds for the future.” Macron argued the moment was especially right with diminishing faith in the stability of the U.S. dollar. “The global market … is more and more afraid of the American greenback. It’s looking for alternatives. Let’s offer it European debt,” he said.  Macron also denied in the interview that the long-troubled Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project between France, Germany and Spain was on the verge of collapse. “I believe that things must move forward,” Macron said. An Elysée official told reporters on Thursday that joint borrowing could cover sectors spanning from AI, to quantum, defense, space, semiconductors and robotics. The official said France could find allies in its call for more joint debt, arguing that Nordic countries could be open to that option when it comes to defense while southern countries would be interested in it to finance investments in new technologies.  “Europe today has become an adjustment market for China and an object of coercion for the United States,” said the same official. “If we stick to the traditional European recipes, we will see the acceleration of the slow death” foreseen by former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi. But it’s unclear how much traction the call will gain, given that Macron’s term ends next year and his influence is on the wane in Brussels. EU leaders have in the past agreed on joint borrowing in extraordinary circumstances, such as to finance a loan for Ukraine and to help with the pandemic recovery. But a permanent facility for joint borrowing has long been viewed with skepticism by Europe’s frugal nations, who are worried about assuming the risks of highly indebted countries — like France itself. Still, the French president is forging ahead with his sales pitch, which also includes enforcing European preference in public tenders and local content rules: first on Wednesday at a summit in Antwerp with European industry, then at an informal gathering of EU leaders on Thursday in the Belgian countryside.  German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, however, are pushing a much softer and less radical agenda.

The Radio Spectrum Policy Group’s (RSPG) Nov. 12 opinion on the upper 6-GHz band is framed as a long-term strategic vision for Europe’s digital future. But its practical effect is far less ambitious: it grants mobile operators a cost-free reservation of one of Europe’s most valuable spectrum resources, without deployment obligations, market evidence or a realistic plan for implementation. > At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital > infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision > amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The opinion even invites the mobile industry to develop products for the upper 6-GHz band, when policy should be guided by actual market demand and product deployment, not the other way around. At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The cost of inaction is real. Around the world, advanced 6-GHz Wi-Fi is already delivering high-capacity, low-latency connectivity. The United States, Canada, South Korea and others have opened the 6-GHz band for telemedicine, automated manufacturing, immersive education, robotics and a multitude of other high-performance Wi-Fi connectivity use cases. These are not experimental concepts; they are operational deployments generating tangible socioeconomic value. Holding the upper 6- GHz band in reserve delays these benefits at a time when Europe is seeking to strengthen competitiveness, digital inclusion, and digital sovereignty. The opinion introduces another challenge by calling for “flexibility” for member states. In practice, this means regulatory fragmentation across 27 markets, reopening the door to divergent national spectrum policies — precisely the outcome Europe has spent two decades trying to avert with the Digital Single Market. > Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular > networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. Equally significant is what the opinion does not address. The upper 6-GHz band is already home to ‘incumbents’: fixed links and satellite services that support public safety, government operations and industrial connectivity. Any meaningful mobile deployment would require refarming these incumbents — a technically complex, politically sensitive and financially burdensome process. To date, no member state has proposed a viable plan for how such relocation would proceed, how much it would cost or who would pay. Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. There is, however, a pragmatic alternative. The European Commission and the member states committed to advancing Europe’s connectivity can allow controlled Wi-Fi access to the upper 6-GHz band now — bringing immediate benefits for citizens and enterprises — while establishing clear, evidence-based criteria for any future cellular deployments. Those criteria should include demonstrated commercial viability, validated coexistence with incumbents, and fully funded relocation plans where necessary. This approach preserves long-term policy flexibility for member states and mobile operators, while ensuring that spectrum delivers measurable value today rather than being held indefinitely in reserve. > Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that > must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum underpins Europe’s competitiveness, connectivity, and digital innovation. But its value is unlocked through use, not by shelving it in anticipation that hypothetical future markets might someday justify withholding action now. To remain competitive in the next decade, Europe needs a 6-GHz policy grounded in evidence, aligned with the single market, and focused on real-world impact. The upper 6-GHz band should be a driver of European innovation, not the latest casualty of strategic hesitation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Wi-Fi Alliance * The ultimate controlling entity is Wi-Fi Alliance More information here.

Businesses from Wall Street to main street are struggling to comply with President Donald Trump’s byzantine tariff regime, driving up costs and counteracting, for some, the benefits of the corporate tax cuts Republicans passed earlier this year. Trump has ripped up the U.S. tariff code over the past year, replacing a decades-old system that imposed the same tariffs on imports from all but a few countries with a vastly more complicated system of many different tariff rates depending on the origin of imported goods. To give an example, an industrial product that faced a mostly uniform 5 percent tariff rate in the past could now be taxed at 15 percent if it comes from the EU or Japan, 20 percent from Norway and many African countries, 24 to 25 percent from countries in Southeast Asia and upwards of 50 percent from India, Brazil or China. “This has been an exhausting year, I’d say, for most CEOs in the country,” said Gary Shapiro, CEO and vice chair of the Consumer Technology Association, an industry group whose 1,300 member companies include major brands like Amazon, Walmart and AMD, as well as many small businesses and startups. “The level of executive time that’s been put in this has been enormous. So instead of focusing on innovation, they’re focusing on how they deal with the tariffs.” Upping the pressure, the Justice Department has announced that it intends to make the prosecution of customs fraud one of its top priorities. The proliferation of trade regulations and threat of intensified enforcement has driven many companies to beef up their staff and spend what could add up to tens of millions of dollars to ensure they are not running afoul of Trump’s requirements. The time and expense involved, combined with the tens of billions of dollars in higher tariffs that companies are paying each month to import goods, amount to a massive burden that is weighing down industries traditionally reliant on imported products. And it’s denting, for some, the impact of the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts that companies will receive over the next decade via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act championed by the White House. “Every CEO survey says this is their biggest issue,” said Shapiro. A recent survey by KPMG, a professional services firm, found 89 percent of CEOs said they expect tariffs to significantly impact their business’ performance and operations over the next three years, with 86 percent saying they expect to respond by increasing prices for their goods and services as needed. Maytee Pereira, managing director for customs and international trade at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, another professional services firm, has seen a similar trend. “Many of our clients have been spending easily 30 to 60 percent of their time having tariff conversations across the organization,” Pereira said. That’s forced CEOs to get involved in import-sourcing decisions to an unprecedented degree and intensified competition for personnel trained in customs matters. “There’s a real dearth of trade professionals,” Pereira said. “There isn’t a day that I don’t speak to a client who has lost people from their trade teams, because there is this renewed need for individuals with those resources, with those skill sets.” But the impact goes far beyond a strain on personnel into reducing the amount of money that companies are willing to spend on purchasing new capital equipment or making other investments to boost their long-term growth. “People are saying they can’t put money into R&D,” said one industry official, who was granted anonymity because of the risk of antagonizing the Trump administration. “They can’t put money into siting new factories in the United States. They don’t have the certainty they need to make decisions.” A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. However, the administration has previously defended tariffs as key to boosting domestic manufacturing, along with their overall economic agenda of tax cuts and reduced regulation. They’ve also touted commitments from companies and other countries for massive new investments in the U.S. in order to avoid tariffs, although they’ve acknowledged it will take time for the benefits to reach workers and consumers. “Look, I would have loved to be able to snap my fingers, have these facilities going. It takes time,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview this week on Fox News. “I think 2026 is going to be a blockbuster year.” For some companies, however, any benefit they’ve received from Trump’s push to lower taxes and reduce regulations has been substantially eroded by the new burden of complying with his complicated tariff system, said a second industry official, who was also granted anonymity for the same reason. “It is incredibly complex,” that second industry official said. “And it keeps changing, too.” Matthew Aleshire, director of the Milken Institute’s Geo-Economics Initiative, said he did not know of any studies yet that estimate the overall cost, both in time and money, for American businesses to comply with Trump’s new trade regulations. But it appears substantial. “I think for some firms and investors, it may be on par with the challenges experienced in the early days of Covid. For others, maybe a little less so. And for others, it may be even more complex. But it’s absolutely eating up or taking a lot of time and bandwidth,” Aleshire said. The nonpartisan think tank’s new report, “Unintended Consequences: Trade and Supply Chain Leaders Respond to Recent Turmoil,” is the first in a new series exploring how companies are navigating the evolving trade landscape, he said. One of the main findings is that it has become very difficult for companies to make decisions, “given the high degree of uncertainty” around tariff policy, Aleshire said. Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs — imposed on most countries under a 1977 emergency powers act that is now being challenged in court — start at a baseline level of 10 percent that applies to roughly 100 trading partners. He’s set higher rates, ranging from 15 to 41 percent, on nearly 100 others, including the 27-member European Union. Those duties stack on top of the longstanding U.S. “most-favored nation” tariffs. Two notable exceptions are the EU and Japan, which received special treatment in their deals with Trump. Companies also could get hit with a 40 percent penalty tariff if the Trump administration determines an item from a high-tariffed country has been illegally shipped through a third country — or assembled there — to obtain a lower tariff rate. However, businesses are still waiting for more details on how that so-called transshipment provision, which the Trump administration outlined in a summer executive order, will work. The president also has hit China, Canada and Mexico with a separate set of tariffs under the 1977 emergency law to pressure those countries to do more to stop shipments of fentanyl and precursor chemicals from entering the United States. Imports from Canada and Mexico are exempt from the fentanyl duties, however, if they comply with the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a trade pact Trump brokered in his first term. That has spared most goods the U.S. imports from its North American neighbors, but also has forced many more companies to spend time filling out paperwork to document their compliance. Trump’s increasingly baroque tariff regime also includes the “national security” duties he has imposed on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks under a separate trade law. But the administration has provided a partial exemption for the 25 percent tariffs he has imposed on autos and auto parts, and has struck deals with the EU, Japan and South Korea reducing the tariff on their autos to 15 percent. In contrast, Trump has taken a hard line against exemptions from his 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, and recently expanded the duties to cover more than 400 “derivative” products, such as chemicals, plastics and furniture, that contain some amount of steel and aluminum or are shipped in steel and aluminum containers. And the administration is not stopping there, putting out a request in September for further items it can add to the steel and aluminum tariffs. “This is requiring companies that do not even produce steel and aluminum products to keep track of and report what might be in the products that they’re importing, and it’s just gotten incredibly complicated,” one of the industry officials granted anonymity said. That’s because companies need to precisely document the amount of steel or aluminum used in a product to qualify for a tariff rate below 50 percent. “Any wrong step, like any incorrect information, or even delay in providing the information, risks the 50 percent tariff value on the entire product, not just on the metal. So the consequence is really high if you don’t get it right,” the industry official said. The administration has also signaled plans to similarly expand tariffs for other products, such as copper. And the still unknown outcomes of ongoing trade investigations that could lead to additional tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, commercial aircraft, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, medical products and robotics and industrial machinery continue to make it difficult for many companies to plan for the future. Small business owners say they feel particularly overwhelmed trying to keep up with all the various tariff rules and rates. “We are no longer investing into product innovation, we’re not investing into new hires, we’re not investing into growth. We’re just spending our money trying to stay afloat through this,” said Cassie Abel, founder and CEO of Wild Rye, an Idaho company which sells outdoor clothing for women, during a virtual press conference with a coalition of other small business owners critical of the tariffs. Company employees have also “spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours counter-sourcing product, pausing production, restarting production, rushing production, running price analysis, cost analysis, shipping analysis,” Abel said. “I spent zero minutes on tariffs before this administration.” In one sign of the duress small businesses are facing, they have led the charge in the Supreme Court case challenging Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose both the reciprocal and the fentanyl-related tariffs. Crutchfield Corp., a family-owned electronics retailer based in Charlottesville, Virginia, filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the litigants in the case, in which the owners detailed its difficulties in coping with Trump’s erratic tariff actions. “If tariffs can be imposed, increased, decreased, suspended or altered … through the changing whim of a single person, then Crutchfield cannot plan for the short term, let alone the long run,” the company wrote in its brief, asking “the Court to quell the chaos.”

Opponents of President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are finally getting their day in the U.S. Supreme Court. And while the justices may not rule for some time, their lines of questioning could offer hints about which way they are leaning in the blockbuster case. On Wednesday, the high court will hear from the plaintiffs — a dozen Democratic-run states and two sets of private companies — and the Trump administration. Each side will have 40 minutes to make their arguments and then get peppered with questions from the nine justices. The court then has until the end of its term next July to issue a ruling, although some of the lawyers who brought the initial cases hope it will move faster given the real-world impact the decision will have. “It’s very reasonable to expect that this will be decided before the end of the year, if not much, much more before that,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a constitutional rights law firm representing companies in the case.  Advertisement Three federal courts have ruled against Trump’s use of a 50-year-old emergency law to impose broad “reciprocal” duties that he then deployed to strike trade deals with the EU, Japan and other partners. The case does not address sectoral tariffs on products like steel, aluminum or autos, which have also been part of negotiations, but were imposed under a different legal authority that is not in dispute. If the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs Trump announced in April are illegal, will those deals fall apart? We analyze the risks: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States European Union United Kingdom China Canada Mexico -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES Risk assessment: Many legal experts think there is a strong chance the Supreme Court will strike down the duties that Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 sanctions law that empowers Trump to “regulate” imports but does not specifically authorize tariffs. Not all agree, arguing the conservative-led court is likely to back the Trump administration’s view that the president has broad authority to conduct foreign affairs and that imperative  outweighs any concerns about executive branch overreach that the court has expressed in previous cases. Coping strategy: In the worst-case scenario for the administration, the Supreme Court would strike down all the duties and order it to repay hundreds of billions of dollars in duties paid by companies and individuals.  But even in that scenario, Trump may be able to use other authorities to recreate the tariffs, including Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. That provision could allow the president to impose a 15 percent global import “surcharge” for up to 150 days, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Trump would have to get congressional approval to keep any Section 122 tariffs in place for longer — a tall order even in a Republican-led Congress. However, he might be able to use the provision as a stopgap measure while he explores other options.  Those include Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which he used in his first term to impose extensive tariffs on Chinese goods and recently deployed against Brazil. Unlike IEEPA, which Trump believes merely allows him to declare an international emergency to impose tariffs, Section 301 requires a formal investigation into whether the United States has been harmed by an unfair foreign trade practice.  However, Trump could also just use those investigations — and the implied threat of tariffs — to pressure trading partners like the EU into reaffirming the trade deals they have already struck with him.  Trump could also launch additional sectoral investigations under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, a provision that allows the president to restrict imports determined to pose a threat to national security. He has employed that measure in his first and second term to impose duties on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks. In one variation, he’s used an ongoing investigation into pharmaceutical imports to pressure companies to invest more in the United States and to slash drug prices. He has also used the threat of semiconductor tariffs to prod countries and companies into concessions, without yet imposing any duties. The Commerce Department has other ongoing Section 232 investigations into processed critical minerals, aircraft and jet engines, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, robotics and industrial machinery, and medical supplies. And, as Trump’s lumber and furniture duties demonstrate, the administration’s expansive definition of national security provides it with broad leeway to open new investigations into a variety of sectors. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EUROPEAN UNION Risk assessment: The European Union isn’t counting on the Supreme Court to save it from Trump’s 15 percent baseline tariff — knowing full well that if U.S. tariffs don’t come through the front door, they’ll come through the window. “Even a condemnation or a ruling by the Supreme Court that these reciprocal tariffs are illegal does not automatically mean that they fall,” the EU’s top trade official, Sabine Weyand, told European lawmakers recently. “There are other legal bases available.” Trump invoked IEEPA to impose the baseline tariff on the 27-nation European bloc. But Brussels is more worried about sectoral tariffs that Trump has imposed on pharmaceuticals, cars and steel using other legal avenues — chiefly Section 232 investigations — that aren’t the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. Advertisement Coping strategy: Brussels is in full damage-control mode, trying not to stir the pot too much with Washington and focusing on implementing the deal struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in July — and baked into a bare-bones joint statement the following month.  Crucially, the EU asserts that it has locked in an “all-inclusive” tariff of 15 percent on most exports — so even if the Supreme Court throws out Trump’s universal tariffs it would argue that the cap should still apply. “Even if all IEEPA tariffs are eliminated, the EU would have an interest in keeping the deal,” Ignacio García Bercero, who used to be the Commission’s point person for its trade talks with the U.S., told POLITICO. The Commission is also still in negotiations with the Trump administration to secure further tariff exemptions for sensitive sectors such as wines and spirits.  The European Parliament, which will need to approve the Turnberry accord, is taking a more hawkish line over what many lawmakers have criticized as the one-sided trade deal with the U.S.: It wants to add a “sunset” clause that would effectively limit the EU’s trade concessions to Trump’s term in office. EU countries have given that idea the thumbs down, however, saying deals that have been agreed must be respected. The EU has invited Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to a meeting of its trade ministers in Brussels on Nov. 24. The focus there will be on reassuring him that the legislation to implement the trade deal will pass, and on fending off U.S. charges that EU business regulation is discriminatory. By Camille Gijs Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED KINGDOM Risk assessment: Should the Supreme Court strike down Donald Trump’s universal tariffs, Britain won’t be off the hook. London may have secured a favorable, 10 percent baseline rate with Washington back in May — but that only goes so far.   That protection does not extend to Trump’s Section 232 steel and auto levies, which remain in place. Under the current deal, Britain gets preferential tariffs on its car exports, as well as a 50 percent reduction to the global steel tariff rate.  If Britain tried to renegotiate its baseline tariffs, the U.S. could quickly retaliate by withdrawing those preferential deals, and take a harder line in ongoing negotiations covering pharma and whisky tariffs. Coping strategy: The U.K. is pressing ahead with its negotiations with the Trump administration on other parts of the deal — despite the ongoing court case. British officials fly out to D.C. in mid-November to push forward talks, shortly before Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is due in London on Nov. 24. “I don’t think the U.K. or others would attempt to renegotiate in the first instance — we might even see some public statements saying we plan to honour the deal,” said Sam Lowe, British trade expert and partner at consultancy firm Flint Global. “There’s too much risk in trying to reopen it in the first instance, given it could antagonise Trump.” Meanwhile the U.K. is seeking to strengthen its trade ties with other nations. It struck a free trade agreement with India over summer, is renegotiating aspects of its trading relationship with the European Union and hopes to close a trade deal with a six-nation Gulf economic bloc including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the coming weeks. The U.K. is expected to maintain its current deal with the U.S., even if legal challenges were to weaken Trump’s wider tariff regime. By Caroline Hug Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINA Risk assessment: Chinese leader Xi Jinping exited his meeting with Trump in South Korea last week with a U.S. commitment to cut in half the 20 percent “emergency” tariff imposed in March to punish Beijing for its role in the U.S. opioid epidemic. A possible ruling by the Supreme Court that overturns the residual “emergency” tariffs on Chinese imports — the remainder of the fentanyl tariff and the 10 percent “baseline” levy added in April — would leave Beijing with an average 25 percent tariff rate. The judges will test the administration’s position that its IEEPA tariffs are legally sound because they constitute a justified regulation of imports. But a blanket ruling on the levies on Chinese imports isn’t guaranteed. “The Supreme Court is likely to make a binary ruling — the court might decide the trade deficit tariffs are illegal, but the fentanyl tariffs are lawful,” said Peter Harrell, former senior director for international economics in the Joe Biden administration. The Chinese embassy declined to comment on how Beijing might respond to a SCOTUS ruling in China’s favor. But it would mark a symbolic victory for the Chinese government whose Foreign Minister Wang Yi has described them as an expression of “extreme egoism.”    Coping strategy: Celebration in Beijing about a possible revocation of any of these tariffs may be short-lived. That’s because Trump can wield multiple other trade weapons even if the Supreme Court deems the tariffs unlawful. His administration signaled that it’s priming potential replacements for the IEEPA tariffs with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s announcement last week of Section 301 probes of Beijing’s adherence to the U.S.-China Phase One trade deal in Trump’s first term. It is also undertaking Section 232 probes — geared to determine national security threats — of Chinese-dominated imports including pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and wind turbines. “There’s ample opportunity for the Trump administration to use other legal instruments in the event that the IEEPA tariffs get struck down,” said Emily Kilcrease, a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative during Trump’s first term and under Biden. The 301 investigation into the Phase One deal is already active, and “will allow them to be fairly quick in responding in the event that the Supreme Court rules against the administration,” Kilcrease said at a Center for a New American Security briefing. By Phelim Kine Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CANADA Risk assessment: It’s a bit of a lose-lose situation for Canada.  Trump pre-emptively blamed a Canadian provincial government for weaponizing Ronald Reagan in an ad to influence the SCOTUS ruling. The 60-second spot launched on U.S. networks on Oct. 16 to bring an anti-trade war message to Republican districts rather than to nine Supreme Court justices. It riled Trump enough that he ended trade talks eight days later. Then he vowed to increase tariff levels by 10 percent in retribution. If the court sides with Trump, it will justify an impulse to use IEEPA to raise rates higher without a need for findings or an investigation. And if the court rules against the president — Ottawa will have to prepare for more of Trump’s fury over the ad. The U.S. increased the IEEPA tariff rate on Canada to 35 percent from 25 percent in July, citing a failure to crack down on fentanyl trafficking across the northern border. This 35-percent rate excludes the promised 10-percent retributive increase — an executive order hasn’t been released. It’s unclear which legal authority Trump will use if his stated reasoning is to punish Canada over an ad about Reagan’s warning about protectionism.  Advertisement Prime Minister Mark Carney has called the IEEPA tariffs “unlawful and unjustified.” And he’s been able to play down the threat, for now, by reminding Canadians that these “fentanyl tariffs” have a carve-out for goods covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Carney regularly says 85 percent of Canadian exports enter the U.S. tariff free. Section 232 tariffs on industry have hit the economy harder than the IEEPA tariffs. Coping strategy: Canada is frantically pursuing trade diversification coupled with a high-level charm offensive while its trade negotiators try to limit the scope of the upcoming review of the USMCA to minimize U.S. tariff exposure. “Our priorities are to keep the review as targeted as possible, to seek a prompt renewal of the agreement, while securing preferential market access and a stable and predictable trading environment for Canadian businesses and investors,” Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman recently told a parliamentary committee. Carney has, meanwhile, apologized to Trump for the Reagan ad. By Zi-Ann Lum Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEXICO Risk assessment: Trump has hit Mexico, the largest U.S. trading partner, with multiple tariffs since taking office. Those include a 25 percent duty imposed under IEEPA to pressure the country to do more to stop fentanyl and precursor chemicals — as well as illegal immigrants — from entering the United States.  Trump softened the blow by excluding goods that comply with terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement from the new IEEPA duties. That has encouraged more and more companies to fill out paperwork to claim the exemption.  About 90 percent of Mexican goods entering the U.S. now have the necessary USMCA documentation, compared to around 60 percent last year, said Diego Marroquín, a fellow in the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Still, U.S. customs officials report collecting $5.7 billion in IEEPA duties on Mexican goods between Mar. 4 and Sep. 23, according to the most recent data available. Trump also has threatened to raise the IEEPA tariff on Mexico to 30 percent, but reportedly recently agreed to delay that move for several more weeks to allow time for talks. Coping strategy: President Claudia Sheinbaum has stayed on Trump’s good side by declining to retaliate and working with the U.S. on fentanyl and illegal immigration concerns. She has kept that forbearance while Trump has piled new tariffs on Mexico’s exports of autos, auto parts and certain other products using Section 232. Mexico’s ultimate goal is to maintain the preferential access it enjoys to the U.S. market under the USMCA, which is up for review next year, when countries have to say if they want to continue the pact past July 1, 2036, its current expiration date.  Sheinbaum told reporters on Oct. 27 that she hopes to resolve U.S. concerns over 54 Mexican non-tariff trade barriers in coming weeks. While a return to tariff-free trade with the U.S. seems unlikely while Trump is in office, Mexico hopes to be treated better than most other trading partners, or at least no worse. That drama will play out in the first half of 2026. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Palmer and Phelim Kine reported from Washington, Camille Gijs from Brussels, Caroline Hug from London and Zi-Ann Lum from Ottawa. Advertisement

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is in talks with eight of Europe’s top investors to involve them in a fund to support homegrown companies working on critical technologies. Representatives from the private investors are in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss their involvement, according to a planning note seen by POLITICO. The fund has been in the works since the spring and will combine EU money with private investment to fill a late-stage financing gap for European tech startups — buying stakes to support companies ranging from artificial intelligence to quantum. It could range from €3 billion to €5 billion, depending on how much investors contribute. The investors invited to meet with the Commission on Tuesday are Danish investment company Novo Holdings, the Export and Investment Fund of Denmark, Spanish CriteriaCaixa and Santander, Italian Intesa Sanpaolo, Dutch pension fund APG Asset Management, Swedish Wallenberg Investments, and Polish Development Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, according to the planning note. The fund will focus on “strategic and enabling technologies,” the note read, including advanced materials, clean energy, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum technology, robotics, space and medical technologies. The Commission is seeking to address the issue of companies struggling to scale in Europe. Many turn to investors from the U.S. or elsewhere for late-stage financing, after which they often relocate. The goal of the fund is to make sure that startups that have completed their early funding rounds can “secure scaleup financing while maintaining their headquarters and core activities in Europe,” the note said.  The fund follows an earlier effort to take direct equity stakes in companies through the European Innovation Council Fund. Investments under the EIC Fund are capped at €30 million, while the new fund would invest €100 million or more. The fund will launch in April. Other investors could still come in at a later date. In November, the Commission plans to begin the search for an investment adviser — a process that should be wrapped up by January, according to the planning note.