HELSINKI — Europe’s easternmost countries have a blunt message for Brussels: Russia is testing their borders, and the EU needs to start paying for the response. Leaders from eight EU states bordering Russia will use a summit in Helsinki on Tuesday to press for dedicated defense funding in the bloc’s next long-term budget, arguing that frontline security can no longer be treated as a national expense alone, according to three European government officials. “Strengthening Europe’s eastern flank must become a shared responsibility for Europe,” Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal said Monday. The first-of-its-kind summit, spearheaded by Finnish Premier Petteri Orpo, underscores a growing anxiety among the EU’s so-called Eastern flank countries about Russia’s increasingly brazen efforts to test their defenses and stir panic among their populations. In recent months Russia has flown fighter jets into Estonian airspace and sent dozens of drones deep into Polish and Romanian territory. Its ally Belarus has repeatedly brought Lithuanian air traffic to a standstill by allowing giant balloons to cross its borders. And last week, Moscow’s top envoy Sergey Lavrov issued a veiled threat to Finland to exit NATO.  “Russia is a threat to Europe … far into the future,” Orpo told Finnish daily Helsingin Sanomat on Saturday. “There is always a competition for resources in the EU, but [defense funding] is not something that is taken away from anyone.” Tuesday’s confab, attended by Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, comes during a critical week for Europe. On Monday several EU leaders met with U.S. officials as they strain to hammer out a peace deal in Ukraine, just three days before all 27 EU countries reconvene for a crucial summit that will determine whether they unlock €210 billion in frozen Russian cash for Kyiv. OPEN THE VAULTS At the heart of Tuesday’s discussion will be unblocking EU money.  The frontline countries want the EU to “propose new financial possibilities for border countries and solidarity-based financial tools,” said one of the government officials. As part of its 2028-2034 budget proposal, the European Commission plans to raise its defense spending fivefold to €131 billion. Frontline countries would like some of that cash to be earmarked for the region, two of the government officials said, a message they are likely to reiterate during Thursday’s European Council summit in Brussels. “Strengthening Europe’s eastern flank must become a shared responsibility for Europe,” Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal said. | Hendrik Schmidt/Getty Images In the meantime, the EU should consider new financial instruments similar to the bloc’s €150 billion loans-for-weapons program, called the Security Action For Europe, the same two officials said. European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen told POLITICO last week she had received calls to set up a “second SAFE” after the first iteration was oversubscribed. The frontline countries also want to throw their political weight behind two upcoming EU projects to buttress the bloc’s anti-drone and broader defenses, the two officials said. EU leaders refused to formally endorse the Eastern Flank Watch and European Drone Defense Initiative at a summit in October amid opposition by countries like Hungary, France and Germany, who saw them as overreach by Brussels on defense, two EU diplomats said at the time. A request to reserve part of the EU budget for a specific region may also face opposition from other countries. To get around this, Eastern flank countries should link defense “infrastructure improvements to overall [EU] economic development,” said Jamie Shea, a senior defense fellow at the Friends of Europe think tank and a former NATO spokesperson. Frontline capitals should also look at “opening up [those infrastructure projects] for competitive bidding” to firms outside the region, he added. DIFFERENT REGION, DIFFERENT VIEW Cash won’t be the only divisive issue in the shadows of Tuesday’s gathering. In recent weeks Donald Trump’s administration has repeatedly rebuked Europe, with the U.S. president branding the continent’s leaders “weak” in an interview with POLITICO. Countries like Germany and Denmark have responded to growing U.S. admonishments by directly rebutting recent criticisms and formally branding Washington a “security risk”.  But that approach has rankled frontline countries, conscious of jeopardizing Washington’s commitment to NATO’s collective defense pledge, which they see as a last line of protection against Moscow. This view also reflects a growing worry inside NATO that a peace deal in Ukraine will give Moscow more bandwidth to rearm and redirect its efforts toward frontline countries. “If the war stops in Ukraine … [Russia’s] desire is to keep its soldiers busy,” said one senior NATO diplomat, arguing those troops are likely to be “relocated in our direction.” “Europe should take over [its own] defenses,” the diplomat added. But until the continent becomes militarily independent, “we shouldn’t talk like this” about the U.S., they argued. “It’s really dangerous [and] it’s stupid.” Jacopo Barigazzi contributed to this report from Brussels.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Over the past few days, Ukraine has been hitting Russia back as hard as it can with long-range drone strikes, and it has three objectives in mind: lifting Ukrainian spirits as the country suffers blackouts from Russia’s relentless air attacks; demonstrating to Western allies that it has plenty of fight left; and, finally, cajoling Moscow into being serious about peace negotiations and offering concessions. However, the latter is likely to be a forlorn endeavor. And at any rate, amid the ongoing diplomatic chaos, which negotiations are they aiming for? U.S. President Donald Trump’s negotiators have been talking up the prospects of a peace deal — or at least being closer to one than at any time since Russia’s invasion began nearly four years ago. But few in either Kyiv or Europe’s other capitals are persuaded the Kremlin is negotiating in good faith and wants a peace deal that will stick. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz certainly doesn’t think so. Last week, he argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin is just spinning things out, “clearly playing for time.” Many Ukrainian politicians are also of a similar mind, including Yehor Cherniev, deputy chairman of the Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence of Ukraine’s Rada: “We see all the signals they’re preparing to continue the war, increasing arms production, intensifying their strikes on our energy infrastructure,” he told POLITICO.  “When it comes to the talks, I think the Russians are doing as much as they can to avoid irritating Donald Trump, so he won’t impose more sanctions on them,” he added. Indeed, according to fresh calculations by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs’ Janis Kluge, Russia has increased its military spending by another 30 percent year-on-year, reaching a record $149 billion in the first nine months of 2025. The war effort is now eating up about 44 percent of all Russian federal tax revenue — a record high. And as social programs are gutted to keep up, some Western optimists believe that Russia’s anemic growing economy and the staggering cost of war mean Putin soon won’t have any realistic option but to strike an agreement. But predictions of economic ruin forcing Putin’s hand have been made before. And arguably, Russia’s war economy abruptly unwinding may pose greater political and social risks to his regime than continuing his war of attrition, as Russian beneficiaries — including major business groups, security services and military combatants — would suffer a serious loss of income while seeking to adapt to a postwar economy. The war also has the added bonus of justifying domestic political repression. War isn’t only a means but an end in itself for Putin, and patriotism can be a helpful tool in undermining dissent. Nonetheless, the introduction of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner as a key negotiator is significant — he is “Trump’s closer” after all, and his full engagement suggests Washington does think it can clinch a deal with one last heave. Earlier this month, U.S. Special Envoy Gen. Keith Kellogg had indicated a deal was “really close,” with a final resolution hanging on just two key issues: the future of the Donbas and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. The negotiations are in the “last 10 meters,” he said. But again, which negotiations? Those between Washington and Moscow? Or those between Washington and Kyiv and the leaders of Europe’s coalition of the willing? Either way, both have work to do if there is to be an end to the war. Putin has refused to negotiate with Kyiv and Europe directly, in effect dispatching Trump to wring out concessions from them. And no movement Trump’s negotiators secure seems to satisfy a Kremlin that’s adept at dangling the carrot — namely, a possible deal to burnish the U.S. president’s self-cherished reputation as a great dealmaker, getting him ever closer to that coveted Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, for Putin, it all has the added benefit of straining the Western alliance, exploiting the rifts between Washington and Europe and widening them. All the frenzied diplomacy underway now seems more about appeasing Trump and avoiding the blame for failed negotiations or for striking a deal that doesn’t stick — like the Minsk agreements. For example, longtime Putin opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s New Eurasian Strategies Center believes the Russian president remains “convinced that Russia retains an advantage on the battlefield,” and therefore “sees no need to offer concessions.” “He prefers a combination of military action and diplomatic pressure — a tactic that, in the Kremlin’s view, the West is no longer able to resist. At the same time, any peace agreement that meets Russia’s conditions would set the stage for a renewed conflict. Ukraine’s ability to defend itself would be weakened as a result of the inevitable political crisis triggered by territorial concessions, and the transatlantic security system would be undermined. This would create an environment that is less predictable and more conducive to further Russian pressure,” they conclude. Indeed, the only deal that might satisfy Putin would be one that, in effect, represents Ukrainian capitulation — no NATO membership, a cap on the size of Ukraine’s postwar armed forces, the loss of all of the Donbas, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and no binding security guarantees. But this isn’t a deal Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy can ink — or if he did, it would throw Ukraine into existential political turmoil. “I don’t see the Parliament ever passing anything like that,” opposition lawmaker Oleksandra Ustinova told POLITICO. And if it did, “it might lead to a civil war” with many patriots who have fought, seeing it as a great betrayal, she added. “Everybody understands, and everybody supports Zelenskyy in doing what he’s doing in these negotiations because we understand if he gives up, we’re done for.” Not that she thinks he will. So, don’t expect any breakthroughs in the so-called peace talks this week. Putin will maintain his maximalist demands while sorrowfully suggesting a deal could be struck if only Zelenskyy would be realistic, while the Ukrainian leader and his European backers will do their best to counter. And they will all be performing to try and stay in Trump’s good books.  

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Friedrich Merz hat ein internationales Spitzentreffen zusammengebracht, bei dem es um einen möglichen Weg zu einem Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine geht. Wolodymyr Selenskyj ist in der Hauptstadt, ebenso die amerikanischen Unterhändler Jared Kushner und Steve Witkoff. Europa verhandelt mit, unter hohem Zeitdruck und mit offenen Fragen zu Sicherheitsgarantien und der Zukunft des amerikanischen Vorschlags für einen Frieden-Rahmen.  Gordon Repinski berichtet, warum dieser Tag zu einem Wendepunkt werden könnte, oder zu einem weiteren gescheiterten Versuch. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Andrij Melnyk, ukrainischer Botschafter bei den Vereinten Nationen und früherer Botschafter in Berlin, über die Erwartungen an die Gespräche. Er erklärt, warum Europa eine stärkere Rolle einnehmen muss, welche Garantien für die Ukraine unverzichtbar sind und wie weit sein Land bereit ist, in den Verhandlungen zu gehen, ohne seine territoriale Integrität aufzugeben. Danach richtet sich der Blick in die USA. Pauline von Pezold analysiert den Auftritt des AfD-Außenpolitikers Markus Frohnmaier beim Young Republican Club in New York. Dort wurde sichtbar, wie eng sich Teile der AfD an das Umfeld von Donald Trump anbinden und welche strategische Bedeutung dieser Schulterschluss für kommende Wahlen in Deutschland hat. Zum Schluss geht es nach Baden-Württemberg. Maximilian Stascheit berichtet vom Grünen Parteitag in Ludwigsburg. Cem Özdemir setzt im Wahlkampf auf Bekanntheit und Kontinuität, um das Staatsministerium zu verteidigen. Ein Parteitag zwischen Aufholjagd, Personalisierung und der Frage, ob dieses Konzept im Autoland aufgeht. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

Europe’s chemical industry has reached a breaking point. The warning lights are no longer blinking — they are blazing. Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out before our eyes. Consider the energy situation: this year European gas prices have stood at 2.9 times higher than in the United States. What began as a temporary shock is now a structural disadvantage. High energy costs are becoming Europe’s new normal, with no sign of relief. This is not sustainable for an energy-intensive sector that competes globally every day. Without effective infrastructure and targeted energy-cost relief — including direct support, tax credits and compensation for indirect costs from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) — we are effectively asking European companies and their workers to compete with their hands tied behind their backs. > Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire > industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out > before our eyes. The impact is already visible. This year, EU27 chemical production fell by a further 2.5 percent, and the sector is now operating 9.5 percent below pre-crisis capacity. These are not just numbers, they are factories scaling down, investments postponed and skilled workers leaving sites. This is what industrial decline looks like in real time. We are losing track of the number of closures and job losses across Europe, and this is accelerating at an alarming pace. And the world is not standing still. In the first eight months of 2025, EU27 chemicals exports dropped by €3.5 billion, while imports rose by €3.2 billion. The volume trends mirror this: exports are down, imports are up. Our trade surplus shrank to €25 billion, losing €6.6 billion in just one year. Meanwhile, global distortions are intensifying. Imports, especially from China, continue to increase, and new tariff policies from the United States are likely to divert even more products toward Europe, while making EU exports less competitive. Yet again, in 2025, most EU trade defense cases involved chemical products. In this challenging environment, EU trade policy needs to step up: we need fast, decisive action against unfair practices to protect European production against international trade distortions. And we need more free trade agreements to access growth market and secure input materials. “Open but not naïve” must become more than a slogan. It must shape policy. > Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in > the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported > products meet those same standards. Europe is also struggling to enforce its own rules at the borders and online. Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported products meet those same standards. This weak enforcement undermines competitiveness and safety, while allowing products that would fail EU scrutiny to enter the single market unchecked. If Europe wants global leadership on climate, biodiversity and international chemicals management, credibility starts at home. Regulatory uncertainty adds to the pressure. The Chemical Industry Action Plan recognizes what industry has long stressed: clarity, coherence and predictability are essential for investment. Clear, harmonized rules are not a luxury — they are prerequisites for maintaining any industrial presence in Europe. This is where REACH must be seen for what it is: the world’s most comprehensive piece of legislation governing chemicals. Yet the real issues lie in implementation. We therefore call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text. Industry is facing too many headwinds already. Simplification can be achieved without weakening standards, but this requires a clear political choice. We call on European policymakers to restore the investment and profitability of our industry for Europe. Only then will the transition to climate neutrality, circularity, and safe and sustainable chemicals be possible, while keeping our industrial base in Europe. > Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular > future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. In this context, the ETS must urgently evolve. With enabling conditions still missing, like a market for low-carbon products, energy and carbon infrastructures, access to cost-competitive low-carbon energy sources, ETS costs risk incentivizing closures rather than investment in decarbonization. This may reduce emissions inside the EU, but it does not decarbonize European consumption because production shifts abroad. This is what is known as carbon leakage, and this is not how EU climate policy intends to reach climate neutrality. The system needs urgent repair to avoid serious consequences for Europe’s industrial fabric and strategic autonomy, with no climate benefit. These shortcomings must be addressed well before 2030, including a way to neutralize ETS costs while industry works toward decarbonization. Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. Europe must ensure that chemical recycling, carbon capture and utilization, and bio-based feedstocks are not only invented here, but also fully scaled here. Complex permitting, fragmented rules and insufficient funding are slowing us down while other regions race ahead. Decarbonization cannot be built on imported technology — it must be built on a strong EU industrial presence. Critically, we must stimulate markets for sustainable products that come with an unavoidable ‘green premium’. If Europe wants low-carbon and circular materials, then fiscal, financial and regulatory policy recipes must support their uptake — with minimum recycled or bio-based content, new value chain mobilizing schemes and the right dose of ‘European preference’. If we create these markets but fail to ensure that European producers capture a fair share, we will simply create new opportunities for imports rather than European jobs. > If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and > beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. The Critical Chemicals Alliance offers a path forward. Its primary goal will be to tackle key issues facing the chemical sector, such as risks of closures and trade challenges, and to support modernization and investments in critical productions. It will ultimately enable the chemical industry to remain resilient in the face of geopolitical threats, reinforcing Europe’s strategic autonomy. But let us be honest: time is no longer on our side. Europe’s chemical industry is the foundation of countless supply chains — from clean energy to semiconductors, from health to mobility. If we allow this foundation to erode, every other strategic ambition becomes more fragile. If you weren’t already alarmed — you should be. This is a wake-up call. Not for tomorrow, for now. Energy support, enforceable rules, smart regulation, strategic trade policies and demand-driven sustainability are not optional. They are the conditions for survival. If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  * The ultimate controlling entity is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  More information here.

Germany is sending soldiers to strengthen Poland’s eastern border with Belarus and Russia, multiple media reported on Saturday. Several dozen German soldiers will join Poland’s East Shield from April 2026, with the mission initially running until the end of 2027, Deutsche Welle reported, citing Berlin’s defense ministry. German troops will focus on engineering work, according to a ministry spokesperson quoted in the report. The spokesperson described this as building positions, digging trenches, laying barbed wire and constructing anti-tank obstacles. The East Shield is a €2.3 billion program announced by Warsaw last year to bolster security along its eastern border.

LONDON — Britain’s Trade Secretary Peter Kyle told POLITICO he is “not in the business of criticizing other countries” amid President Trump’s plan to require tourists to the United States to hand over their social media data. According to a proposal by the Trump administration published Wednesday, visitors to the U.S. — including from Britain — would have to submit five years of social media activity before being allowed through the border. The plans, which come shortly before hundreds of thousands of football fans are expected to travel to the U.S. to watch their teams compete in the World Cup this summer, have generated concern among some European politicians. “Every country takes very seriously the way that it protects its borders and makes sure that it has a grip on people who come into the country that are aligned with its own values and principles,” Kyle said when asked if he was worried about the plans. “I’m not in a business of criticizing other countries in the way that they do it, because we are certainly taking it very seriously for our own country.” Kyle spoke to POLITICO in California as part of a visit to advance trade talks and drum up investment alongside U.K. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall. Both Kendall and Kyle previously expressed criticism of Trump on social media before entering government. Kendall said “the American government is rightly passionate about freedom of speech and will follow its own values and principles there.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Europa muss sich sicherheitspolitisch neu sortieren. Gordon Repinski spricht mit der Politikwissenschaftlerin Florence Gaub darüber, warum die Debatten über europäische Eigenständigkeit seit Jahrzehnten immer wiederkehren und weshalb der aktuelle Moment dennoch eine andere Qualität hat. Gaub erklärt, wie sehr die Reaktionen Europas weniger von amerikanischen Entscheidungen als von einem eigenen Gefühl der Schwäche geprägt sind und warum dieser Kontinent lernen muss, strategisch zu denken und langfristig zu planen. Im Zentrum stehen grundlegende Fragen: Warum gelingt es Europa trotz wachsender Bedrohungen so schwer, den entscheidenden Schritt zu mehr Handlungsfähigkeit zu gehen. Welche politischen Entscheidungen fehlen und was braucht es, damit Gesellschaften Resilienz entwickeln. Gaub beschreibt die strukturellen Ursachen für langsame militärische Prozesse, die kulturellen Besonderheiten Deutschlands und die verbreitete Annahme, dass Konflikte Europa nicht mehr betreffen könnten. Der Podcast blickt außerdem auf konkrete Szenarien. Von Sabotage bis Cyberangriff, von Desinformation bis zur Frage, wie man überhaupt erkennt, dass ein Angriff stattfindet. Gaub macht deutlich, wie sehr Unsicherheit inzwischen Teil moderner Konflikte ist und warum Demokratien in der Defensive häufig stärker reagieren als in der Offensive. Und es geht um mögliche Wege nach vorn. Eine engere europäische Zusammenarbeit, flexible Formate jenseits des Einstimmigkeitsprinzips und eine neue Ehrlichkeit in der Frage, wofür Europa bereit ist, einzustehen. Gaub zeichnet ein Bild, das nüchtern ist, aber auch zeigt, welches Potenzial Europa hätte, wenn es bereit wäre, diese Rolle anzunehmen. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is cracking down on two Chinese companies, airport scanner maker Nuctech and e-commerce giant Temu, that are suspected of unfairly penetrating the EU market with the help of state subsidies. The EU executive opened an in-depth probe into Nuctech under its Foreign Subsidies Regulation on Thursday, a year and a half after initial inspections at the company’s premises in Poland and the Netherlands. “The Commission has preliminary concerns that Nuctech may have been granted foreign subsidies that could distort the EU internal market,” the EU executive said in a press release.  Nuctech is a provider of threat detection systems including security and inspection scanners for airports, ports, or customs points in railways or roads located at borders, as well as the provision of related services.  EU officials worry that Nuctech may have received unfair support from China in tender contracts, prices and conditions that can’t be reasonably matched by other market players in the EU.  “We want a level playing field on the market for such [threat detection] systems, keeping fair opportunities for competitors, customers such as border authorities,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera said in a statement, noting that this is the first in-depth investigation launched by the Commission on its own initiative under the FSR regime.  Nuctech may need to offer commitments to address the Commission’s concerns at the end of the in-depth probe, which can also end in “redressive measures” or with a non-objection decision.   The FSR is aimed at making sure that companies operating in the EU market do so without receiving unfair support from foreign governments. In its first two years of enforcement, it has come under criticism for being cumbersome on companies and not delivering fast results.  In a statement, Nuctech acknowledged the Commission’s decision to open an in-depth investigation. “We respect the Commission’s role in ensuring fair and transparent market conditions within the European Union,” the company said. It said it would cooperate with the investigation: “We trust in the integrity and impartiality of the process and hope our actions will be evaluated on their merits.” TEMU RAIDED In a separate FSR probe, the Commission also made an unannounced inspection of Chinese e-commerce platform Temu.  “We can confirm that the Commission has carried out an unannounced inspection at the premises of a company active in the e-commerce sector in the EU, under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation,” an EU executive spokesperson said in an emailed statement on Thursday.   Temu’s Europe headquarters in Ireland were dawn-raided last week, a person familiar with Chinese business told POLITICO. Mlex first reported on the raids on Wednesday.  The platform has faced increased scrutiny in Brussels and across the EU. Most recently, it was accused of breaching the EU’s Digital Services Act by selling unsafe products, such as toys. The platform has also faced scrutiny around how it protects minors and uses age verification.  Temu did not respond to a request for comment.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to require tourists to hand over their social media data ahead of next year’s World Cup generated outrage on Wednesday.  An elected European official, human rights groups and fan organizations condemned the move and urged the world football governing body, FIFA, to pressure the Trump administration to reverse course.   Visitors to the U.S. — including those from visa-free countries such as France, Germany and Britain — would have to submit five years of social media activity before being allowed through the border, according to a proposal by the Trump administration published Wednesday.  The new rules, which would also require travelers to provide emails, phone numbers and addresses used in the last five years, would come into effect early next year — shortly before hundreds of thousands of football fans are expected to travel to the U.S. to watch their teams compete in the World Cup, which begins in June. The U.S. is co-hosting the tournament with Mexico and Canada.  “President Trump’s plan to screen visitors to the U.S. based on their past five-year social media history is outrageous,” Irish Member of the European Parliament Barry Andrews of the centrist Renew group said in a statement.   “Even the worst authoritarian states in the world do not have such an official policy,” he added. “The plans would of course seriously damage the U.S. tourist industry as millions of Europeans would no longer feel safe … including football fans due to attend next year’s World Cup.”  The Trump administration has stepped up social media surveillance at the border, vetting profiles and denying tourists entry or revoking visas over political posts, prompting rights groups to make accusations of censorship and overreach.  Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch — which has repeatedly warned FIFA about its interactions with the Trump administration — called the new entry requirements “an outrageous demand that violates fundamental free speech and free expression rights.”  “This policy expressly violates [football governing body] FIFA’s human rights policies, and FIFA needs to pressure the Trump administration to reverse it immediately,” she added. “The World Cup is not an opportunity for the U.S. to exclude and harass fans and journalists whose opinions Trump officials don’t like.”  FIFA directed POLITICO to the U.S. State Department when asked for comment. The State Department and Customs and Border Protection, the agency that authored the proposal, did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s requests for comment.   The prospect of turning over years of social media data to American authorities also sparked fury from football supporters, who turned their fire on FIFA.  Fan organizations condemned the move and urged FIFA to pressure the Trump administration to reverse course. | Mustafa Yalcin/Getty Images “Freedom of expression and the right to privacy are universal human rights. No football fan surrenders those rights just because they cross a border,” said Ronan Evain, executive director at Football Supporters Europe, a representative group for fans. “This policy introduces a chilling atmosphere of surveillance that directly contradicts the welcoming, open spirit the World Cup is meant to embody, and it must be withdrawn immediately. “This is a World Cup without rules. Or at least the rules change every day. It’s urgent that FIFA clarifies the security doctrine of the tournament, so that supporters can make an informed decision whether to travel or stay home,” he added.  Aaron Pellish contributed to this report. 

BRUSSELS — Britain’s chief foreign minister praised Donald Trump’s role in trying to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, despite fears he may lose interest in finding a settlement that is acceptable to Kyiv. In an interview with POLITICO after attending a conference with European partners on curbing illegal migration on Wednesday, Yvette Cooper denied that Trump’s unpredictability is making her job harder.  “Actually, it’s only because of the work that President Trump and the U.S. system have done that we have reached the ceasefire in Gaza,” the U.K. foreign secretary said, while also crediting nations including Egypt and Turkey. Her comments came after Trump attacked efforts by European leaders to end the war, saying in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for her podcast The Conversation: “They talk, but they don’t produce, and the war just keeps going on and on.” Trump also renewed his call for Ukraine to hold new elections, ratcheting up pressure on President Volodomyr Zelenskyy as he seeks to turn the page on a corruption scandal. Cooper insisted the U.S. is “very serious” about making progress in the current set of peace talks, following a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday. “The work that the U.S. is doing to pursue a peace process is incredibly important, and the work that Marco Rubio has been doing as part of those discussions is also hugely important,” she added. Cooper suggested the U.S. would deliver on security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire, a key element of negotiations which have so far proved hard to pin down. “It can’t just be an agreement that means that Putin can just pause and then come again, and I think the U.S. are very clear about that,” she said. Trump’s virulent attack on European leaders — who he said were “weak” and presiding over “decaying” nations due to mass migration — did not come up during her meetings on Wednesday, which included talks with European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner and Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot, Cooper said. Cooper announced earlier Wednesday that the U.K. Foreign Office will double the size of its migration unit, which is involved in discussions around the return of migrants to other countries. The U.K. foreign secretary did not rule out taking up an offer by Jordan Bardella, the leader of France’s far-right National Rally, to conduct “pushbacks” of migrant boats in the English Channel. Such a move, never previously accepted by France, would involve British Border Force boats directing laden dinghies, bound for the U.K., to turn around at sea. Cooper suggested the U.K.’s focus is on French police, rather than pushback powers for the U.K. Border Force. “You’re seeing those boats set off. Once they’re in the water, then the previous rules have meant that the French police have not been able to actually take action. We need that to happen. That’s been agreed in principle. We need to see that in force,” she said. However, she declined to directly criticize the idea of pushback, which opponents argue could cause more migrants to drown in the Channel. “Everything has to be safely done,” Cooper told POLITICO, “but there are ways of making sure that the French authorities and the U.K. authorities are always cooperating on making sure that things are safe. “The U.K. will always do its bit to help those who fled persecution and conflict, but we also have to be able to do more returns and more law enforcement, and we’ll always look at different ways to do that.” Asked again if pushback was not “totally off the table,” Cooper — who was until recently Britain’s interior minister — replied: “We will look at any mechanism that can work effectively and also can work safely. “Because what we want to see is action that prevents these dangerous boat crossings — because lives are being put at risk every time people get into those dangerous small boats and criminal gangs are making hundreds of millions of pounds of profit.” Cooper spoke as U.K. Justice Secretary David Lammy attended parallel talks in Strasbourg with European allies on reforming the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to remove some legal hurdles to deporting migrants. European foreign ministers are due to meet in May 2026 to take “the next steps forward” on ECHR reform, Cooper said. Illegal immigration is “deeply damaging” and causes a “deep sense of injustice that people feel if the law are not enforced,” Cooper said. but insisted: “Legal migration, on the other hand, has been part of our history for generations and will always be important.”