BRUSSELS — The EU needs to change its rules to enable a new wave of countries to join, the bloc’s enlargement chief said Tuesday, calling on capitals to present their own plans after they rejected proposals by the Commission to streamline the process. Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos said the EU’s executive arm had already presented three options to countries and “without … the decision of the member states, we cannot move on,” speaking at POLITICO’s Competitive Europe Summit. Those three options include maintaining the status quo, changing the current system to ensure candidate countries don’t languish for years, or the reverse enlargement proposal put forward by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her team, where applicants would join before completing key reforms. The accession process has been complicated by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s persistent refusal to ensure the unanimous support needed for Ukraine to proceed in its candidacy. Reverse enlargement was envisioned by Brussels as a way for Kyiv and others to begin to get access to the single market and investment schemes before becoming a full EU member. “From the first exchange with the member states [it’s clear] the number three option is not okay … this would be a revolution,” Kos said in an onstage interview, adding that “the number one option, the status quo, is also not an option.” While a redesign of the system is likely, the Slovenian commissioner went on, “now we are debating into [which] direction. How can we make the process faster in the sense of enhanced gradual integration?” At a dinner with ambassadors earlier this month, von der Leyen’s chief of staff Björn Seibert was warned that the reverse enlargement proposal was seen as unworkable by capitals. Envoys cite both arduous legal requirements around how new countries can join and fears that new countries could backslide democratically and end up blocking the EU agenda, as Hungary has done. “We think only one or two countries are supportive of the proposals from the Commission so it’s not a great success,” said one of the diplomats, cautioning that capitals want to ensure enlargement proceeds in a way that fits their own legal requirements. “There is great support for accession of Ukraine to the European Union,” said a second diplomat. “But it is also true that almost no member state supports accession before the negotiations will have been finished in a regular way.” A DIFFERENT WAY Four diplomats, granted anonymity to speak frankly about the sensitive talks, told POLITICO that countries are now in the process of developing their own proposals to share with the Commission. These would set out alternative mechanisms, likely focusing on how candidate countries can feel the benefits of alignment with the EU’s market and access to its investment schemes. “If member states don’t like ‘reverse enlargement,’ that is fine,” said one EU official, “but they can put their proposals on the table too.” In a rare show of unity last month, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama and Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić penned an op-ed in Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that bemoaned the slow pace of efforts to get the benefits of closer alignment with the bloc. This was the result of “internal reforms, geopolitical tensions, institutional constraints, and legitimate concerns within member states,” they wrote. Instead, they said, their countries want to join the Single Market, as well as the borderless Schengen area, without getting the political rights and veto power of full members. The plan, which would create a two-tier EU of rule makers and rule takers, has been backed by some smaller candidate countries, and met with skepticism from Moldova and Ukraine which aim to be admitted on an equal basis as others have. However, Kos dismissed the call, saying she was unsure if the leaders “know how much you have to deliver if you want to be a part of Schengen or common market,” and that the process of reforms is arduous for economic integration as well as EU membership. No country has become a member since Croatia in 2013. Ukraine’s aspiration to join the bloc by Jan. 1, 2027, she went on, would be “impossible.” Iceland, by contrast, could be a “special case” and “really go quick” if voters decide to reopen negotiations in a referendum to be held this summer amid geopolitical insecurity and tensions with the United States. President Donald Trump repeatedly mistook Iceland for Greenland in a speech in January, as he insisted his country should take control of Arctic territories. “Iceland is so much integrated already through the EEA that the Common Market is there. Schengen is there,” Kos said. “So the most difficult topics, if I speak about the necessary reforms or, being integrated in the EU, they already are [there]. If we speak about the development of democracy, they are very high. European values, they are very high.”

Danes head to the polls on Tuesday, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen having called early parliamentary elections after her ruling Social Democrats received a big boost from U.S. President Donald Trump. Frederiksen could have waited until October 2026 to call the vote, but moved early after standing up to Trump’s aggressive threats to annex Greenland earlier this year. Her defiance generated a surge of support for the party just months after it suffered a historic defeat in local elections last October.  But foreign policy won’t carry the day in this election. Voters are focused on domestic issues, while Denmark’s fracturing coalition government — with two other party leaders challenging the prime minister — has turned Tuesday’s vote into a cliffhanger.  WHAT WILL DECIDE THE VOTE?  While Denmark may have come together to resist the pressure from the White House, voters are most concerned about what’s happening at home. Ahead of the vote Danish parties debated a plethora of divisive issues, none of which proved decisive. A poll published by Epinion on Monday suggested almost one in five Danes still didn’t know who they’d vote for.   Everything suggests that Frederiksen’s center-left party, the Social Democrats, will prevail in the vote. Her big talking point has been the revival of a wealth tax that hasn’t been enforced in Denmark for 30 years, and whose reinstatement would thrill left-wing voters. But her main challenger, Deputy Prime Minister Troels Lund Poulsen, leader of the center-right Venstre party, argues the measure will prompt the richest Danes to emigrate, weakening the country’s competitiveness.  Politicians have also debated whether to reinstate the country’s “Great Prayer Day” holiday that Frederiksen’s government abolished in 2024, or to step up efforts to clean polluted drinking water, improve animal welfare, lift the ban on nuclear power, increase defense spending, and tighten migration rules.   RED OR BLUE?  Denmark’s political spectrum has long been divided between a red bloc of left-leaning parties and a blue bloc on the right. In 2022, however, Frederiksen broke with tradition by forming a broad centrist government. The current coalition brings together her Social Democrats with the conservative Venstre party and the liberal Moderates led by former Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen.  Polls suggest the red and blue blocs are running almost even, with Rasmussen’s Moderates poised to play kingmaker. Support for the red bloc currently translates into 83 seats, while the blue bloc would get 80 — with 90 seats needed for a parliamentary majority. With Frederiksen and Poulsen heading in different directions politically, a repeat of the current coalition government appears unlikely.   That means Rasmussen will likely decide which direction the country goes in if the elections transpire as forecast. Frederiksen has warned that if Rasmussen doesn’t decide to work with her, “then we will, with a very high possibility, get a right-wing government in Denmark.”  Rasmussen has removed himself from contention to become the next prime minister, and has offered instead to mediate the formation of the incoming government. COCAINE-GATE  In the leadup to the vote, the blue bloc’s largest party, the Liberal Alliance, sparked a media frenzy after leader Alex Vanopslagh — a candidate for PM — admitted to using cocaine during his early days as party leader in the mid-2010s. Some 42 percent of Danes said the 34-year-old politician’s drug use had left them less able to see him as the country’s leader.   The parties in the blue bloc have thrown their support behind Venstre’s Poulsen. But with the Liberal Alliance primed to win the most votes on the right, Vanopslagh is insisting the party should be the one to lead if Denmark ends up with a conservative government.  Liberal Alliance leader Alex Vanopslagh arrives for a debate in Copenhagen on Feb. 26, 2026. | Ida Marie Odgaard/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images At the same time, he says, he won’t stand in Poulsen’s way. “It won’t be me who ends up derailing a right-wing alliance after the election,” Vanopslagh said on Sunday.  GREENLAND IN THE SPOTLIGHT  For all the domestic focus, Greenland still has a key role to play in Denmark’s election — just not the one you might expect. Greenland and Denmark’s other autonomous territory, the Faroe Islands, each hold two seats in the country’s parliament, and those could prove decisive given how tight the race is.   That could prove a major obstacle for a right-leaning government. According to Lasse Lindegaard, Greenland correspondent at public broadcaster DR, those who represent the islands would be highly unlikely “to back a government that includes or relies on support from the [far-right] Danish People’s Party,” whose leader Morten Messerschmidt has dismissed the idea of Greenland’s independence as “immature and absurd.”  Then there’s the Faroe Islands, which will hold their own parliamentary election just two days after Denmark. Politicians in both self-governing territories are questioning whether to scrap the requirement that they send representatives to the Danish parliament.  “We should enter negotiations with Denmark on an equal partnership — and at that point, we would no longer need our seats in the Danish parliament,” said Beinir Johannesen, leader of the Fólkaflokkurin party and a likely contender for prime minister of the Faroe Islands. THE LOGISTICS  Polls in Denmark open at 8 a.m. on Tuesday and close at 8 p.m. The country uses a proportional representation system, meaning the number of seats that parties win is proportional to their share of the national vote. Exit polls will be published shortly after the polls close, but given how close the race is a definitive outcome may not be clear until late Tuesday evening after all votes have been counted, or even early Wednesday morning.   Then comes the hard part: forming a government. With the two sides so closely matched, the process will almost certainly take weeks. Denmark’s next government is certain to be a coalition, but whether it commands majority or minority support in the parliament remains to be seen. The latter scenario has been the norm in Denmark for decades, but often produces weak prime ministers who must constantly seek the support of other parties under the threat of no-confidence motions. 

BRUSSELS — The United States wants to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Brussels on reducing European tech regulation, its Ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder told POLITICO. The U.S. administration and its allies have been vocal critics of the EU’s tech rules, saying they unfairly target American companies and hurt freedom of speech. The European Commission has repeatedly denied such allegations, saying it is merely trying to rein in Big Tech and protect the online space from harmful behavior. In an interview Monday, Puzder said he hoped that this week’s vote in the European Parliament to advance last year’s transatlantic trade deal would set the scene for talks to loosen constraints on business. “I’ve had talks with individuals within the EU about moving this discussion forward. I haven’t, as yet, experienced the concrete steps we need to make that happen,” Puzder said. He was referring to the EU’s tech rulebook — and the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act in particular — that Washington sees as barriers to trade. “Hopefully, we’ll continue to talk. Once this trade agreement is approved, in the spirit of moving forward with these non-tariff trade barriers, we’ll be able to break down some of these walls,” he added.  Discussions are still in their very early stages and “there’s nothing formal,” Puzder clarified. The next steps between Brussels and Washington should be “diplomatic engagement followed by political engagement,” he added.  RECALIBRATION NEGOTIATION The envoy’s comments follow a heated series of exchanges between senior American and European officials over whether the EU’s tech rules should even be part of the transatlantic trade discussion. In November 2025, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick tied a potential easing of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs to a “recalibration” by the EU of the bloc’s digital regulations. European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera responded that tying tariff relief to European tech rules amounted to “blackmail.” Ribera, the EU’s top competition official, told POLITICO at the time that the EU would not accept such attempts to strong-arm it on a topic that it considers to be a matter of sovereignty. She is currently visiting the U.S. and is due to meet tech industry bosses in San Francisco this week. Transatlantic ties took another turn for the worse when the Donald Trump administration in December barred former Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton from traveling to the U.S. over his role in creating and implementing the EU’s tech rules.  Puzder explained that Washington doesn’t think “that Europe shouldn’t have regulation,” but that it shouldn’t be “regulating in such an extreme manner that companies feel they can’t innovate — which is why … most of the tech startups in Europe end up moving to Silicon Valley.” European Commission Vice President Teresa Ribera attends a press conference in Brussels on Feb. 25, 2026. | Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu via Getty Images Responding, the European Commission stressed there is “continued engagement” between the EU and the U.S.  “Executive Vice President [Henna] Virkkunen has held several meetings with U.S. Representatives, both in Europe and in the U.S. At technical level, our teams also engage on a continuous basis with their American counterparts,” spokesperson Thomas Regnier said in a statement to POLITICO.  Virkunnen’s remit covers technology policy. Before Trump’s return to the White House, the two sides held held a structured dialogue under the auspices of the now-defunct EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council.  The occasional forum, launched by former U.S. President Joe Biden, sought to establish a structured dialogue around regulatory cooperation. Yet in the view of observers it under-delivered, failing for instance to resolve a long-running steel dispute. The TTC has not met since Trump returned to the White House in early 2025. 

President Donald Trump said Monday the United States would pause “any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure” for five days as Tehran and Washington engage in diplomatic negotiations. In a social media post, Trump wrote that the U.S. and Iran have had “very good and productive conversations” in the past two days and that the pause on strikes against energy infrastructure came as a direct result of the “in depth, detailed, and constructive conversations.” Trump added that the talks “will continue throughout the week.” The move indicates that a diplomatic off-ramp to the conflict between the U.S. and Iran could be in reach. It also followed increasing unease from the U.S.’s allies in the Middle East and Europe over the conflict continuing to spiral. Ferdinand Knapp contributed to this report. This is a breaking news story that will be updated.

Many describe our geopolitical moment as one of instability, but that word feels too weak for what we are living through. Some, like Mark Carney, argue that we are facing a rupture: a break with assumptions that anchored the global economic and political order for decades. Others, like Christine Lagarde, see a profound transition, a shift toward a new configuration of power, technology and societal expectations. Whichever perception we adopt, the implication is clear: leaders can no longer rely on yesterday’s mental models, institutional routines or governance templates. Johanna Mair is the Director of the Florence School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute in Florence, where she leads education, training and research on governance beyond the nation state. Security, for example, is no longer a discrete policy field. It now reaches deeply into energy systems, artificial intelligence, cyber governance, financial stability and democratic resilience, all under conditions of strategic competition and mistrust. At the same time, competitiveness cannot be reduced to productivity metrics or short-term growth rates. It is about a society’s capacity to innovate, regulate effectively and mobilize investment toward long-term objectives — from the green and digital transitions to social cohesion. This dense web of interdependence is where transnational governance is practiced every day. The European Union illustrates this reality vividly. No single member state can build the capacity to manage these transformations on its own. EU institutions and other regional bodies shape regulatory frameworks and collective responses; corporations influence infrastructure and supply chains; financial institutions direct capital flows; and civic actors respond to social fragmentation and governance gaps. Effective leadership has become a systemic endeavour: it requires coordination across these levels, while sustaining public legitimacy and defending liberal democratic principles. > Our mission is to teach and train current and future leaders, equipping them > with the knowledge, skills and networks to tackle global challenges in ways > that are both innovative and grounded in democratic values. The Florence School of Transnational Governance (STG) at the European University Institute was created precisely to respond to this need. Located in Florence and embedded in a European institution founded by EU member states, the STG is a hub where policymakers, business leaders, civil society, media and academia meet to work on governance beyond national borders. Our mission is to teach and train current and future leaders, equipping them with the knowledge, skills and networks to tackle global challenges in ways that are both innovative and grounded in democratic values. What makes this mission distinctive is not only the topics we address, but also how and with whom we address them. We see leadership development as a practice embedded in real institutions, not a purely classroom-based exercise. People do not come to Florence to observe transnational governance from a distance; they come to practice it, test hypotheses and co-create solutions with peers who work on the frontlines of policy and politics. This philosophy underpins our portfolio of programs, from degree offerings to executive education. With early career professionals, we focus on helping them understand and shape governance beyond the state, whether in international organizations, national administrations, the private sector or civil society. We encourage them to see institutions not as static structures, but as arrangements that can and must be strengthened and reformed to support a liberal, rules-based order under stress. At the same time, we devote significant attention to practitioners already in positions of responsibility. Our Global Executive Master (GEM) is designed for experienced professionals who cannot pause their careers, but recognize that the governance landscape in which they operate has changed fundamentally. Developed by the STG, the GEM convenes participants from EU institutions, national administrations, international organizations, business and civil society — professionals from a wide range of nationalities and institutional backgrounds, reflecting the coalitions required to address complex problems. The program is structured to fit the reality of leadership today. Delivered part time over two years, it combines online learning with residential periods in Florence and executive study visits in key policy centres. This blended format allows participants to remain in full-time roles while advancing their qualifications and networks, and it ensures that learning is continuously tested against institutional realities rather than remaining an abstract exercise. Participants specialize in tracks such as geopolitics and security, tech and governance, economy and finance, or energy and climate. Alongside this subject depth, they build capabilities more commonly associated with top executive programs than traditional public policy degrees: change management, negotiations, strategic communication, foresight and leadership under uncertainty. These skills are essential for bridging policy design and implementation — a gap that is increasingly visible as governments struggle to deliver on ambitious agendas. Executive study visits are a core element of this practice-oriented approach. In a recent Brussels visit, GEM participants engaged with high-level speakers from the European Commission, the European External Action Service, the Council, the European Parliament, NATO, Business Europe, Fleishman Hillard and POLITICO itself. Over several days, they discussed foreign and security policy, industrial strategy, strategic foresight and the governance of emerging technologies. These encounters do more than illustrate theory; they give participants a chance to stress-test their assumptions, understand the constraints facing decision-makers and build relationships across institutional boundaries. via EUI Throughout the program, each participant develops a capstone project that addresses a strategic challenge connected to a policy organization, often their own employer. This ensures that executive education translates into institutional impact: projects range from new regulatory approaches and partnership models to internal reforms aimed at making organizations more agile and resilient. At the same time, they help weave a durable transnational network of practitioners who can work together beyond the programme. Across our activities at the STG, a common thread runs through our work: a commitment to defending and renewing the liberal order through concrete practice. Addressing the rupture or transition we are living through requires more than technical fixes. It demands leaders who can think systemically, act across borders and design governance solutions that are both unconventional and democratically legitimate. > Across our activities at the STG, a common thread runs through our work: a > commitment to defending and renewing the liberal order through concrete > practice. In a period defined by systemic risk and strategic competition, leadership development cannot remain sectoral or reactive. It must be interdisciplinary, practice-oriented and anchored in real policy environments. At the Florence School of Transnational Governance, we aim to create precisely this kind of learning community — one where students, fellows and executives work side by side to reimagine how institutions can respond to global challenges. For policymakers and professionals who recognize themselves in this moment of rupture, our programs — including the GEM — offer a space to step back, learn with peers and return to their institutions better equipped to lead change. The task is urgent, but it is also an opportunity: by investing in transnational governance education today, we can help lay the foundations for a more resilient and inclusive order tomorrow.

Moscow proposed a quid pro quo to the U.S. under which the Kremlin would stop sharing intelligence information with Iran, such as the precise coordinates of U.S. military assets in the Middle East, if Washington ceased supplying Ukraine with intel about Russia. Two people familiar with the U.S.-Russia negotiations said that such a proposal was made by Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev to Trump administration envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner during their meeting last week in Miami. The U.S. rejected the proposal, the people added. They, like all other officials cited in this article, were granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions. Nevertheless, the sheer existence of such a proposal has sparked concern among European diplomats, who worry Moscow is trying to drive a wedge between Europe and the U.S. at a critical moment for transatlantic relations. U.S. President Donald Trump has voiced anger over the refusal of allies to send warships in the Strait of Hormuz. On Friday, he lambasted his NATO allies as “COWARDS“ and said: “we will REMEMBER!” The White House declined to comment. The Russian Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. One EU diplomat called the Russian proposal “outrageous.” The suggested deal is likely to fuel growing suspicions in Europe that the Witkoff-Dmitriev meetings are not delivering concrete progress toward a peace agreement in Ukraine, but are instead seen by Moscow as a chance to lure Washington into a deal between the two powers that leaves Europe on the sidelines. On Thursday, the Kremlin said that the U.S.-mediated Ukraine peace talks were “on hold.” Russia has made various proposals about Iran to the U.S., which has rejected them all, another person familiar with the discussions said. This person said the U.S. also rejected a proposal to move Iran’s enriched uranium to Russia, which was first reported by Axios. Russia has expanded ‌intelligence-sharing and military cooperation with Iran since the war started, a person briefed on the intelligence said. The Wall Street Journal first reported the increase and wrote that Moscow is providing satellite ⁠imagery and drone technology to help Tehran target U.S. forces in the region. The Kremlin called that report  “fake news.” Trump hinted at a link between the intelligence-sharing with Iran and Ukraine during a recent interview with Fox News, saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin “might be helping them [Iran] a little bit, yeah, I guess, and he probably thinks we’re helping Ukraine, right?” The U.S. continues to share intelligence with Ukraine, even as it has reduced other support. Washington briefly paused the exchanges last year after a disastrous Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. That abrupt halt to U.S. intelligence sharing triggered a chaotic scramble among allies and exposed deep tensions in the partnership with Kyiv. One European diplomat sought to downplay the risk of the Russian proposal, noting that French President Emmanuel Macron had said in January that “two-thirds” of military intelligence for Ukraine is now provided by France. Still, intelligence-sharing remains a last crucial pillar of American support for Ukraine after the Trump administration stopped most of its financial and military aid for Kyiv last year. Washington is still delivering weapons to Ukraine but under a NATO-led program where allies pay the U.S. for arms. Deliveries of critical air defense munitions, however, are under strain amid the U.S.-Israel war with Iran.  Most recently, the Trump administration decided to ease sanctions on Russian oil to alleviate pressure on oil markets, causing strong concern and criticism from  European leaders like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Hans von der Burchard reported from Berlin, Felicia Schwartz and Diana Nerozzi from Washington and Jacopo Barigazzi from Brussels.

LONDON — Britain will reduce its aid sent to Africa by more than half, as the government unveils the impact of steep cuts to development assistance for countries across the world. On Thursday the Foreign Office revealed the next three years of its overseas development spending, giving MPs and the public the first look at the impact of Labour’s decision to gut Britain’s aid budget in order to fund an increase in defense spending. Government figures show that the value of Britain’s programs in Africa will fall by 56 percent from the £1.5 billion in 2024/25 when Labour took office to £677 million in 2028/9. It follows the move to reduce aid spending from 0.5 to 0.3 percent of gross national income. However, the government did not release the details of the funding for specific countries, giving Britain’s ambassadors and diplomats time to deliver the news personally to their counterparts across the world ahead of any potential backlash from allies. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told MPs that affected countries want Britain “to be an investor, not just a donor” and “want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid,” as she pointed to money her department had committed to development banks and funds which will help Africa raise money. The decision shows a substantial shift in the government’s focus, moving away from direct assistance for countries, and funneling much of the remaining money into international organizations and private finance initiatives. Chi Onwurah, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Africa, told POLITICO that she was “dismayed at the level and extent of the cuts to investment in Africa and the impact it will have particularly on health and economic development.” She added: “I hope the government recognizes that security of the British people is not increased by insecurity in Africa and increased migration from Africa, quite the opposite.” Ian Mitchell from the Center for Global Development think tank noted the move was “a remarkable step back from Africa by the U.K.” NEW PRIORITIES Announcing the cuts in the House of Commons, Cooper stressed that the decision to reduce the aid budget had been “hugely difficult,” pointing to similar moves by allies such as France and Germany following the U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to dramatically shrink America’s aid programs after taking office in January 2025. She insisted that it was still “part of our moral purpose” to tackle global disease and hunger, reiterating Labour’s ambition to work towards “a world free from extreme poverty on a livable planet.” Cooper set out three new priorities for Britain’s remaining budget: funding for unstable countries with conflict and humanitarian disasters, funneling money into “proven” global partnerships such as vaccine organizations, and a focus on women and girls, pledging that these will be at the core of 90 percent of Britain’s bilateral aid programs by 2030. A box with the Ukrainian flag on it awaits collection in Peterborough, U.K. on March 10, 2022. | Martin Pope/Getty Images Only three recipients will see their aid spending fully protected: Ukraine, the Palestinian territories and Sudan. Lebanon will also see its funding protected for another year. All bilateral funding for G20 countries will end. Despite the government’s stated priorities, the scale of the cuts mean that even the areas it is seeking to protect will not be protected fully. An impact assessment — which was so stark that ministers claimed they had to rethink some of the cuts in order to better protect focus areas such as contraception — published alongside the announcement found that there will likely be an end to programs in Malawi where 250,000 young people will lose access to family planning, and 20,000 children risk dropping out of school. “These steep cuts will impact the most marginalized and left behind communities,” said Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, adding: “The U.K. is turning its back on the communities that need support the most.” Last-minute negotiations did see some areas protected from more severe cuts, with the BBC World Service seeing a funding boost, the British Council set to receive an uplift amid its financial struggles, and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) — the aid spending watchdog that had been at risk of being axed — continuing to operate with a 40 percent budget cut. GREEN THREAT Though the move will not require legislation to be confirmed — after Prime Minister Keir Starmer successfully got the move past his MPs last year — MPs inside his party and out have lamented the impact of the cuts, amid the ongoing threat to Labour’s left from a resurgent Green Party under new leader Zack Polanski. Labour MP Becky Cooper, chair of the APPG on global health and security said that her party “is, and always has been, a party of internationalism” but today’s plans would “put Britain and the world at risk.” Sarah Champion, another Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons international development committee said that the announcement confirmed that there “will be no winners from unrelenting U.K. aid cuts, just different degrees of losers,” creating a “desperately bleak” picture for the world’s most vulnerable. “These cuts do not aid our defense, they make the whole world more vulnerable,” she added. Her Labour colleague Gareth Thomas, a former development minister, added: “In an already unsafe world, cutting aid risks alienating key allies and will make improving children’s health and education in Commonwealth countries more difficult.” The announcement may give fresh ammunition to the Greens ahead of May’s local elections, where the party is eyeing up one of its best nights in local government amid a collapse in support for Labour among Britain’s young, progressive, and Muslim voters. Reacting to the news that Britain will cut its aid to developing countries aimed at combatting climate change, Polanski said: “Appalling and just unbelievably short-sighted. Our security here in the U.K. relies on action around the world to tackle the climate crisis.”

Talks between Russia and Ukraine on ending their war have stalled, the Kremlin said, appearing to confirm Kyiv’s fears that the war in Iran could derail the peace process. “The three-way group is on hold,” Dmitry Peskov, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, told the Izvestia newspaper Thursday, referring to U.S.-mediated negotiations between the two sides.  He added, however, that the economic cooperation talks happening in parallel between Moscow and Washington are still ongoing. The Kremlin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev has previously suggested the two sides were eyeing joint projects worth up to $14 trillion. Russia has also long been lobbying for the United States to lift economic sanctions. Negotiations on prisoner swaps would also continue, Peskov said.  He did not provide a reason for why the peace negotiations, which U.S. President Donald Trump launched soon after he entered the White House, have hit a roadblock.  The last time the three parties met was in February in Geneva. A new round of talks scheduled for March 5 in Abu Dhabi was postponed indefinitely, days after the U.S. and Israel launched an attack on Iran, which has spilled over into the wider region. In an interview with the BBC earlier this week, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he had a “very bad feeling” about the effect of the events in Iran on the war in Ukraine.  Negotiations, he said, were “constantly being postponed. There is one reason: [the] war in Iran.”  The Ukrainian president was backed by  British Prime Minister Keir Starmer who, after hosting Zelenskyy in London earlier this week, cautioned that, as the conflict in Iran and the Middle East unfolds, “we can’t lose focus on what’s going on in Ukraine and the need for our support.” Russia, meanwhile, is already reaping some benefits from the Iran crisis, as higher oil prices are boosting its energy revenues while shifting international attention away from its onslaught against Ukraine.

BRUSSELS — An EU summit once billed as a chance to boost the bloc’s economy is now a full-blown stress test. Leaders gathering Thursday face a combustible agenda: Ukraine’s financial survival, Middle East escalation, transatlantic tensions, and deep internal rifts over energy and climate policy. Thursday’s meeting has been dramatically reshaped in recent days by the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran and a standoff with Hungary over a €90 billion lifeline for Kyiv — turning what had been meant to be a forward-looking discussion into a scramble to manage multiple crises at once. Leaders will still try to push ahead on plans to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, from deepening the single market to easing the burden on businesses. But those longer-term ambitions risk being overshadowed by more immediate geopolitical fires, alongside intense discussions on continent’s energy, defense and migration policies, according to a draft version of the post-summit joint statement obtained by POLITICO.   Expect a packed — and likely fractious — day in Brussels. Here’s POLITICO’s cheat sheet of the five biggest clashes to look out for at the European Council. THE €90B QUESTION: HUNGARY VS. EVERYONE  A €90 billion lifeline for Ukraine — which will determine Kyiv’s ability to continue defending itself against Russian aggression — hangs on whether Hungary lifts its veto. EU leaders agreed in December to provide the funding. But Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán later reneged and blocked the deal over a dispute with Ukraine about a damaged pipeline carrying Russian oil to Central Europe. Budapest has accused Kyiv of trying to engineer an energy crisis in Hungary by cutting off Russian oil supplies and says it won’t approve the cash disbursement until flows resume. The European Commission said Tuesday it had offered to help repair the pipeline and that Ukraine had accepted, raising hopes of a breakthrough. The move could prompt Hungary to lift its veto, one diplomat familiar with Budapest’s thinking said, speaking on condition of anonymity like others in this article to discuss sensitive negotiations. But Orbán struck a defiant tone in a video posted after the Commission’s announcement, saying: “If there is no oil, there is no money.” That leaves him isolated from almost all other leaders, aside from Slovakia’s Robert Fico. “The behavior from Hungary is a new low,” Sweden’s Europe Minister Jessica Rosencrantz told POLITICO ahead of the meeting. Another diplomat said that “if we fail on the loan, [Ukrainian leader Volodymyr] Zelenskyy will rightly be furious.” The latest draft conclusions still point to disbursement by early April — a timeline leaders will be endeavoring to rescue in their negotiations. HORMUZ DILEMMA: IRAN’S THREATS VS. A RELUCTANT EUROPE Tehran’s attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz — a vital oil transit point — have jacked up the global price of oil and forced Europe to weigh whether to get involved. One idea was to expand the mandate of the EU’s Middle East naval mission, Aspides, to allow European warships to patrol the waterway. That was quickly ruled out by the bloc’s foreign ministers on Monday. “Nobody wants to go actively in this war,” the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said after the foreign envoys met. Instead, leaders will call for the reinforcement of existing naval missions, Aspides and Atalanta, with “more assets” (read: ships) — while stopping short of extending their reach to Hormuz, according to the draft summit conclusions. The text stresses that operations must remain “in line with their respective mandates.” A diplomat from the Gulf region said they were watching closely but did not expect any major shift from EU leaders, such as expanding the Aspides mandate or launching joint operations with third countries. TRANSATLANTIC TREMORS: TRUMP VS. EUROPEAN CAPITALS  Europe’s refusal to step in around the Strait of Hormuz has angered U.S. President Donald Trump, who said it would be “very bad for the future of NATO” if EU countries failed to act. That frustration is only growing. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he had spoken to Trump about Europe’s unwillingness to provide assets to keep the strait open and had “never heard him so angry in my life.” The flare-up comes with EU-U.S. ties already under strain. Spain has openly defied Trump over the Iran conflict, refusing to allow the U.S. to use its bases and drawing threats of trade retaliation from Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron has stepped in to back Madrid and signal European solidarity, while other leaders have taken a more cautious or mixed line on how far to push back. Trump may not be on the formal agenda, but his pressure will loom over the summit — and sharpen already fraught debates over defense, trade and Europe’s reliance on the U.S. ETS BRAWL: ITALY, POLAND AND OTHERS VS. THE COMMISSION  A major brawl is brewing over the EU’s Emissions Trading System between a cadre of member countries and the EU’s executive.  Ten EU member countries sent a letter to the Commission ahead of Thursday’s summit asking to speed up a planned review of the ETS, a cornerstone of the bloc’s climate policy that forces big polluters to cough up.  Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Austria and Croatia are urging the EU executive to reexamine the scheme by the end of May at the latest, arguing it harms their industries and is contributing to rising energy prices.  But not everyone agrees, with two EU officials from ETS-supporting countries saying the cap-and-trade system must remain in place. The first official argued it is not contributing to the energy crisis and is actually helping Europe’s economy, with its revenues needed for the green transition.   On the topic of energy, the Commission’s proposed gas price cap is also likely to be raised, though not all countries are likely to get on board with that either, according to a senior German government official. According to the draft conclusions, EU leaders will instruct the Commission to “present without delay a toolbox of targeted temporary measures” to bring down energy prices.  COMPETITIVENESS, ANYONE? EU VS. ITSELF Despite the crises crowding the agenda, leaders will still try to push forward plans to revive Europe’s economy, building on talks at a February summit at Alden Biesen in Belgium. Most of the proposals fall under the “One Europe, One Market” push to deepen the single market — easing the movement of goods, services, capital and people across the bloc. The draft conclusions say leaders will back new corporate rules, dubbed “EU Inc.,” to help startups scale across borders, as well as a “simple, unified and voluntary e-declaration system” to make it easier to work across countries. The aim is to move from talk to delivery, with concrete steps and deadlines, another EU diplomat said. But while there is broad agreement on the need for reform, divisions persist over whether EU energy and climate policies — particularly the Emissions Trading System — are holding back growth. That split, with Central, Eastern and Southern European countries pushing for changes and others, including the Nordics, resisting, will likely be the main battleground on competitiveness. Nick Vinocur contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The Trump administration has reassured the EU’s top trade lawmaker that it plans to shorten a list of items containing steel that are subject to high U.S. tariffs, in a concession that could finally persuade the European Parliament to back last year’s transatlantic trade deal.  The offer came in a call between U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer with Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s Trade Committee. It has helped win the support of Lange’s fellow socialists, enabling a key committee vote to go ahead on Thursday. But the fix is not yet fully in, with caucus leaders still to debate exactly when to schedule a final plenary vote on the accord reached at President Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf club in Scotland last July. One sticking point has been the subsequent addition by Washington of hundreds of items that contain steel — from cranes to furniture — to a list of products subject to a 50 percent U.S. tariff. That, in the view of the Europeans, violates the spirit of the Turnberry accord.  In their call last Saturday, Greer assured Lange that many of these items would go, said the German MEP, who is also steering the enabling legislation on the deal.  “Not everything, but a lot of them,” Lange told POLITICO’s Morning Trade newsletter, saying that there was “some movement” on that front. The enabling legislation, which would remove tariffs on U.S. industrial goods, has been stalled for weeks in the EU chamber, as lawmakers balked at approving a deal following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month to strike down President Donald Trump’s original tariffs. The Turnberry deal had set an “all-inclusive” tariff of 15 percent on most goods. Trump quickly replaced that with a temporary 10 percent global duty. With Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, cut off all trade with Spain, and his military campaign against Iran further undermining any vestigial confidence on the part of EU lawmakers that he will abide by his commitments, the path to final approval of the Turnberry accord is both rocky and narrow. NOT THE END OF THE ROAD  The next hurdle is holding a final plenary vote on the Turnberry deal, with political groups in the European Parliament still divided.  Lange’s Socialists & Democrats, the Left, Greens and Renew are in favor of scheduling it in April, arguing they still require clarity from Washington. The center-right, pro-business European People’s Party (EPP) is pushing to hold it next week, as currently scheduled.  A decision is expected this week. Political group chairs representing a majority of MEPs would be needed to change the plenary agenda. “We need to finish this in March because then we would have much more certainty for everything. We have promises from the White House on steel and aluminum derivatives,” said Željana Zovko, the EPP top negotiator on the file. Lange is meanwhile due to fly — after the Trade Committee vote on Thursday — to Washington and is expected to meet with Greer.  Only after the text is approved by the plenary can the European Parliament enter negotiations with EU capitals and the European Commission on a compromise to finally implement the deal. BEYOND EU  People close to the White House say officials have spent weeks exploring ways to streamline how the U.S. steel tariffs apply to downstream products that hit the EU and other trading partners, following industry pushback after the list of steel and aluminum derivatives expanded to cover hundreds of items last year.  The exchange between Greer and Lange marks the clearest signal yet that the administration may adjust its approach to derivatives tariffs — changes that could extend well beyond the EU.  But the Trump administration has not publicly confirmed any changes, or clarified what that plan would entail.  “We are always examining ways to ensure our sectoral tariffs are most effectively safeguarding our country’s national and economic security, but unless announced by the Administration, discussion about tariff or derivative adjustments is baseless speculation,” said a White House official.  Camille Gijs reported from Brussels and Ari Hawkins reported from Washington. Max Griera contributed to this report.