BRUSSELS — The European Commission has done everything in its power to accommodate the concerns of member countries over the EU’s trade deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc and get it over the finish line, Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told POLITICO. “I hope we will pass the test this week because we really went to unprecedented lengths to address the concerns which have been presented to us,” Šefčovič said in an interview on Monday.  “Now it’s a matter of credibility, and it’s a matter of being strategic,” he stressed, explaining that the huge trade deal is vital for the European Union at a time of increasingly assertive behavior by China and the United States. “Mercosur very much reflects our ambition to play a strategic role in trade, to confirm that we are the biggest trader on this planet.” The commissioner’s remarks come as time is running short to hold a vote among member countries that would allow Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Brazil on Dec. 20 for a signing ceremony with the Mercosur countries — Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. “The last miles are always the most difficult,” Šefčovič added. “But I really hope that we can do it this week because I understand the anxiety on the side of our Latin American partners.”  The vote in the Council of the EU, the bloc’s intergovernmental branch, has still to be scheduled. To pass, it would need to win the support of a qualified majority of 15 member countries representing 65 percent of the bloc’s population. It’s not clear whether France — the EU country most strongly opposed to the deal — can muster a blocking minority. If Paris loses, it would be the first time the EU has concluded a big trade deal against the wishes of a major founding member. France, on Sunday evening, called for the vote to be postponed, widening a rift within the bloc over the controversial pact that has been under negotiation for more than 25 years. Several pro-deal countries warn that the holdup risks killing the trade deal, concerned that further stalling it could embolden opposition in the European Parliament or complicate next steps when Paraguay, which is skeptical toward the agreement, takes over the presidency of the Mercosur bloc from current holder Brazil. Asked whether Brussels had a Plan B if the vote does not take place on time, Šefčovič declined to speculate. He instead put the focus on a separate vote on Tuesday in the European Parliament on additional farm market safeguards proposed by the Commission to address French concerns. “There are still expectations on how much we can advance with some of the measures which are not yet approved, particularly in the European Parliament,” he stressed.  “If you look at the safeguard regulation, we never did anything like this before. It’s the first [time] ever. It’s, I would say, very, very far reaching.” 

Europe prides itself on being a world leader in animal protection, with legal frameworks requiring member states to pay regard to animal welfare standards when designing and implementing policies. However, under REACH — Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) — the EU’s cornerstone regulation on chemical safety, hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a ‘last resort’. With REACH’s first major revamp in almost 20 years forthcoming, lawmakers now face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to drive a genuine transformation of chemical regulation.  When REACH was introduced nearly a quarter of a century ago, it outlined a bold vision to protect people and the environment from dangerous chemicals, while simultaneously driving a transition toward modern, animal-free testing approaches. In practice, however, companies are still required to generate extensive toxicity data to bring both new chemicals and chemicals with long histories of safe use onto the market. This has resulted in a flood of animal tests that could too often be dispensed, especially when animal-free methods are just as protective (if not more) of human health and the environment.  > Hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, > despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a > ‘last resort’. Despite the last resort requirement, some of the cruelest tests in the books are still expressly required under REACH. For example, ‘lethal dose’ animal tests were developed back in 1927 — the same year as the first solo transatlantic flight — and remain part of the toolbox when regulators demand ‘acute toxicity’ data, despite the availability of animal-free methods. Yet while the aviation industry has advanced significantly over the last century, chemical safety regulations remain stuck in the past.   Today’s science offers fully viable replacement approaches for evaluating oral, skin and fish lethality to irritation, sensitization, aquatic bioconcentration and more. It is time for the European Commission and member states to urgently revise REACH information requirements to align with the proven capabilities of animal-free science.   But this is only the first step. A 2023 review projected that animal testing under REACH will rise in the coming years in the absence of significant reform. With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally bring chemical safety into the 21st century by removing regulatory obstacles that slow the adoption of advanced animal-free science.   If REACH continues to treat animal testing as the default option, it risks eroding its credibility and the values it claims to uphold. However, animal-free science won’t be achieved by stitching together one-for-one replacements for legacy animal tests. A truly modern, European relevant chemicals framework demands deeper shifts in how we think, generate evidence and make safety decisions. Only by embracing next-generation assessment paradigms that leverage both exposure science and innovative approaches to the evaluation of a chemical’s biological activity can we unlock the full power of state-of the-art non-animal approaches and leave the old toolbox behind.  > With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a > choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally > bring chemical safety into the 21st century. The recent endorsement of One Substance, One Assessment regulations aims to drive collaboration across the sector while reducing duplicate testing on animals, helping to ensure transparency and improve data sharing. This is a step in the right direction, and provides the framework to help industry, regulators and other interest-holders to work together and chart a new path forward for chemical safety.   The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public trust. In 2021, the European Parliament urged the Commission to develop an EU plan to replace animal testing with modern scientific innovation. But momentum has since stalled. In the meantime, more than 1.2 million citizens have backed a European Citizens’ Initiative calling for chemical safety laws that protect people and the environment without adding new animal testing requirements; a clear indication that both science and society are eager for change.   > The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out > animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public > trust. Jay Ingram, managing director, chemicals, Humane World for Animals (founding member of AFSA Collaboration) states: “Citizens are rightfully concerned about the safety of chemicals that they are exposed to on a daily basis, and are equally invested in phasing out animal testing. Trust and credibility must be built in the systems, structures, and people that are in place to achieve both of those goals.”  The REACH revision can both strengthen health and environmental safeguards while delivering a meaningful, measurable reduction in animal use year on year.  Policymakers need not choose between keeping Europe safe and embracing kinder science; they can and should take advantage of the upcoming REACH revision as an opportunity to do both.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Humane World for Animals * The ultimate controlling entity is Humane World for Animals More information here.

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.

From Lisbon to Tallinn, Europeans are overwhelmed by soaring home prices. This week, Brussels intends to do something about it. “This is a real crisis,” said European Commissioner for Housing Dan Jørgensen in an interview with POLITICO, ahead of the approval of the bloc’s first-ever Affordable Housing Plan. “And it’s not just enough to talk about it.” To that end, the package will seek to free up public cash for the construction of new homes, track speculation in the housing market, and give regional and local governments tools to rein in the short-term rentals contributing to the housing shortage. “The plan will be a mix of concrete actions at the EU level and recommendations that member states can apply,” Jørgensen said, adding that the European Commission wants to give national, regional and local governments ways to make real changes on the ground — while not overstepping its role in an area over which it has no official competence. “This is a real problem affecting millions of people, and the inaction is playing right into the playbook of right-wing populists,” Jørgensen noted, citing the ultranationalist parties that have stoked discontent over sky-high home prices to score major victories in countries like the Netherlands and Portugal. “Normally the EU has not played a big role here,” he added. “That needs to change.” CASH, TOOLS AND TRANSPARENCY The most concrete action set to be announced this week is a revision of state aid rules to make it easier for national governments to build affordable housing. Member countries have long complained they can only use public cash to provide homes for low-income families. Reflecting the fact that even middle-class earners are now struggling to pay for shelter, the new regulations will allow funds to be used for all groups priced out of the housing market. The package will also give national, regional and local authorities tools to target the tourist flats exacerbating the housing shortage in cities like Barcelona, Florence and Prague. “I’m not on the side of the people who call for banning short-term rentals,” Jørgensen clarified, adding that such platforms have offered travelers the ability to experience Europe differently, and provided some families with a needed source of income. But the model has grown at a rate “no one could have imagined, with short-term rentals accounting for 20 percent of homes in some very stressed areas,” he noted. It has turned into a “money machine instead of what it was intended to.” The commissioner stressed that national, regional and local leaders would ultimately be the ones deciding whether to use the tools to rein in short-term rentals. “We’re not going to force people to do anything,” he said. “If you think the status quo is fine, you can keep things as they are.” In another first, a more abstract section of the package will also aim to address speculation in the housing market. “This is a real crisis,” said European Commissioner for Housing Dan Jørgensen in an interview with POLITICO. | Lilli Förter/Getty Images While insisting he’s “not against people making money,” Jørgensen said Europe’s housing stock was being treated like “gold or Bitcoin and other investments made for the sole purpose of making money” — an approach that ignores the vital role of shelter for society at large. “Having a roof over your head, a decent house … is a human right,” he argued. As an initial step, this week’s package will propose the EU track speculation and determine the scope of the problem. However, Jørgensen acknowledged that using the resulting data for concrete action to tackle the market’s financialization might prove difficult. “While no one is really arguing this problem doesn’t exist, there’s a political conflict over whether it’s a good or a bad thing.” But regulation is essential for the proper functioning of the internal market, he added. THE COMPETENCE QUESTION The Commission’s housing package will also include a new construction strategy to cut red tape and create common standards, so that building materials manufactured at competitive prices in one member country can be easily used for housing projects in another. Additionally, there will be a bid to address the needs of the over a million homeless Europeans, many of whom aren’t citizens of the countries in which they are sleeping rough. “We want to look at what rights they have and how these are respected,” Jørgensen said. “We’re talking about humans with needs, people who deserve our help and compassion.” The commissioner explained the complexity of the housing crisis had required a “holistic” approach that led him to work in tandem with Executive Vice Presidents Teresa Ribera and Roxana Mînzatu, as well as internal market boss Stéphane Séjourné and tech chief Henna Virkkunen, among others. He also stressed the package didn’t constitute a power grab on the Commission’s part, and that national, regional and local governments are still best positioned to address many aspects of the crisis. “But,” he said, “there are areas where we haven’t done anything in which we can do something.” While much of the plan will consist of recommendations member countries won’t be required to implement, Jørgensen warned against ignoring them. The Commission is providing solutions, he said, and “policymakers need to answer to their populations if they don’t do something that’s pretty obvious they could do.” “Normal citizens will use every opportunity to make their demands known, be it in local, national or European elections,” Jørgensen explained. “I’m respectfully telling decision-makers all over Europe that either they take this problem seriously, or they accept that they’ll have to hand over power to the populists.”

BRUSSELS — The French government called on Sunday to postpone a crucial vote by countries on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement, widening a rift within the bloc over the controversial pact. “France is asking for the December deadlines to be pushed back so we can keep working and get the legitimate protections our European agriculture needs,” the office of Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said Sunday evening. The statement confirmed a POLITICO report on Thursday that Paris was pushing for a delay. It comes within sight of the finish line for the European Union to finally close the agreement with Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay that has been in negotiations for over 25 years and would create a common market of over 700 million people. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU, has vowed to hold the vote in time for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Brazil on Dec. 20 to sign the deal. Several countries warn that the holdup risks ultimately killing the trade deal, concerned that further stalling it could embolden opposition in the European Parliament or complicate next steps when Paraguay, which is skeptical toward the agreement, takes over the presidency of the Mercosur bloc from current holder Brazil. Pro-deal countries, including Germany, Sweden and Spain, argue that France’s concerns have already been accommodated, pointing to proposed additional safeguards designed to protect European farmers in the event of a surge in Latin American beef or poultry imports. But with those safeguards still not finalized, France says it still can’t back the deal, wary that it could enrage the country’s politically powerful farming community. Brussels also announced this month it was planning to strengthen its border controls on food, animal and plant imports. “These advances are still incomplete and must be finalized and implemented in an operational, robust and effective manner in order to produce and appreciate their full effects,” Lecornu’s office said. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU, has vowed to hold the vote in time for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Brazil on Dec. 20 to sign the deal. | Wagner Meier/Getty Images Despite Denmark’s resolve to hold the vote in time, final talks among EU member countries may not be wrapped up before a summit of European leaders on Thursday and Friday this week. A big farmers’ protest is planned in Brussels on Thursday. The Commission declined to comment.

BRUSSELS — Europe needs to get its “act together” and unleash its potential in the pharmaceutical sector, supporting it with better incentives and ensuring access to innovation for patients, urged Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s pharmaceuticals division. “Europe used to be the pharmacy of the world. Nine out of 10 new medicines were discovered in Europe. That’s no longer the case,” Oelrich, who is also president of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), said at the POLITICO 28 Gala Dinner. “We’re losing competitiveness rather than gaining.” China and the U.S. are pulling ahead on pharmaceutical innovation and clinical trials. About one third of medicines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) don’t make it to Europe, Oelrich said. And amid the U.S. tariffs threat, companies are increasingly looking outside of Europe for investments. But there is hope — both for the pharmaceutical industry and beyond. Per Franzén, CEO and managing partner at EQT, a global investment organization, said he is seeing “an unprecedented interest to invest into Europe.” “It’s a real window of opportunity, a unique moment in time for Europe,” he said. “In order to make the most out of that opportunity, what we need to do is really to drive a more business-friendly, more innovation-friendly agenda,” he said. But with the pace of change, driven by artificial intelligence, “time is of the essence,” he added. Over-regulation isn’t holding Europe back in medicines innovation, it’s a lack of substantial incentives for companies to invest in Europe, Oelrich said. But it doesn’t have to be this way, he said: “We have some of the best universities in the world that publish some of the coolest science in the world. So there is no reason why this wouldn’t work. And we need to get our act together,” he said. “Instead of trying to complicate our lives and come up with a new bureaucratic idea, we should come up with with ways of how we unleash our forces.”

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.

BRUSSELS — EU lawmakers have clinched a long-awaited agreement on the bloc’s overhaul of its two decades-old pharmaceutical rules — one of the EU’s biggest health files. The revamp is designed to restore Europe’s competitive edge and give companies more certainty that the EU remains an attractive market, while also pushing for more equal access to medicines across member countries. The deal between the Parliament and the Council was struck at 5 a.m. on Thursday, more than two years after the Commission tabled the proposal, which consists of directive and regulation, in spring 2023.  It marks a major victory for the Danish presidency, which pledged to wrap up the file before the end of the year, and for Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, who has pushed to seal the reform amid growing geopolitical uncertainty.

President Donald Trump’s latest round of Europe-bashing has the U.S.’s allies across the Atlantic revisiting a perennial question: Why does Trump hate Europe so much? Trump’s disdain for America’s one-time partners has been on prominent display in the past week — first in Trump’s newly released national security strategy, which suggested that Europe was suffering from civilizational decline, and then in Trump’s exclusive interview with POLITICO, where he chided the “decaying” continent’s leaders as “weak.” In Europe, Trump’s criticisms were met with more familiar consternation — and calls to speed up plans for a future where the continent cannot rely on American security support. But where does Trump’s animosity for Europe actually come from? To find out, I reached out to a scholar who’d been recommended to me by sources in MAGA world as someone who actually understands their foreign policy thinking (even if he doesn’t agree with it). “He does seem to divide the world into strength and weakness, and he pays attention to strength, and he kind of ignores weakness,” said Jeremy Shapiro, the research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Trump’s strained relations with the continent. “And he has long characterized the Europeans as weak.” Shapiro explained that Trump has long blamed Europe’s weakness on its low levels of military spending and its dependence on American security might. But his critique seems to have taken on a new vehemence during his second term thanks to input from new advisers like Vice President JD Vance, who have successfully cast Europe as a liberal bulwark in a global culture war between MAGA-style “nationalists” and so-called globalists. Like many young conservatives, Shapiro explained, Vance has come to believe that “it was these bastions of liberal power in the culture and in the government that stymied the first Trump term, so you needed to attack the universities, the think tanks, the foundations, the finance industry, and, of course, the deep state.” In the eyes of MAGA, he said, “Europe is one of these liberal bastions.” This conversation was edited for length and clarity. Trump’s recent posture toward Europe brings to mind the old adage that the opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference. Do you think Trump hates Europe, or does he just think it’s irrelevant? My main impression is that he’s pretty indifferent toward it. There are moments when specific European countries or the EU really pisses him off and he expresses something that seems close to hatred, but mostly he doesn’t seem very focused on it. Why do you think that is? He does seem to divide the world into strength and weakness, and he pays attention to strength, and he kind of ignores weakness. And he has long characterized the Europeans as weak for a bunch of different reasons having to do with what seems to him to be a decadence in their society, their immigration, their social welfare states, their lack of apparent military vigor. All of those things seem to put them in the weak category, and in Trump’s world, if you’re in the weak category, he doesn’t pay much attention to you. What about more prosaic things like the trade imbalance and NATO spending? Do those contribute to his disdain, or does it originate from a more guttural place? I get the impression that it is more at a guttural level. It always seemed to me that the NATO spending debate was just a stick with which to beat the NATO allies. He has long understood that that’s something that they felt a little bit guilty about, and that’s something that American presidents had beat them about for a while, so he just sort of took it to an 11. The trade deficit is something that’s more serious for him. He’s paid quite a bit of attention to that in every country, so it’s in the trade area where he takes Europeans most seriously. But because they’re so weak and so dependent on the United States for security, he hasn’t had to deal with their trade problems in the same way. He’s able to threaten them on security, and they have folded pretty quickly. Does some of his animosity originate from his pre-presidency when he did business in Europe? He likes to blame Europeans for nixing some of his business transactions, like a golf course in Ireland. How serious do you think that is? I think that’s been important in forming his opinion of the EU rather than of Europe as a whole. He never seems to refer to the EU without referring to the fact that they blocked his golf course in Ireland. It wasn’t even the EU that blocked it, actually — it was an Irish local government authority — but it conforms to the general MAGA view of the EU as overly bureaucratic, anti-development and basically as an extension of the American liberal approach to development and regulation, which Trump certainly does hate. That’s part of what led Trump and his movement more generally to put the EU in the category of supporters of liberal America. In that sense, the fight against the EU in particular — but also against the other liberal regimes in Europe — became an extension of their domestic political battle with liberals in America. That effort to pull Europe as a whole into the American culture war by positioning it as a repository of all the liberal pieties that MAGA has come to hate — that seems kind of new. That is new for the second term, yeah. Where do you think that’s coming from? It definitely seems to be coming from [Vice President] JD Vance and the sort of philosophers who support him — the Patrick Deneens and Yoram Hazonys. Those types of people see liberal Europe as quite decadent and as part of the overall liberal problem in the world. You can also trace some of it back to Steve Bannon, who has definitely been talking about this stuff for a while. There does seem to be a real preoccupation with the idea that Europe is suffering from some sort of civilizational decline or civilization collapse. For instance, in both the new national security strategy and in his remarks to POLITICO this week, Trump has suggested that Europe is “decaying.” What do you make of that? This is a bit of a projection, right? If you look at the numbers in terms of immigration and diversity, the United States is further ahead in that decay — if you want to call it that — than Europe. There was this view that emerged among MAGA elites in the interregnum that it wasn’t enough to win the presidency in order to successfully change America. You had to attack all of the bastions of liberal power. It was these bastions of liberal power in the culture and in the government that stymied the first Trump term, so you needed to attack the universities, the think tanks, the foundations, the finance industry and, of course, the deep state, which is the first target. It was only through attacking these liberal bastions and conquering them to your cause that you could have a truly transformative effect. One of the things that they seem to have picked up while contemplating this theory is that Europe is one of these liberal bastions. Europe is a support for liberals in the United States, in part because Europe is the place where Americans get their sense of how the world views them. It’s ironic that that image of a decadent Europe coexists with the rise of far-right parties across the continent. Obviously, the Trump administration has supported those parties and allied with them, but at least in France and Germany, the momentum seems to be behind these parties at the moment. That presents them with an avenue to destroy liberal Europe’s support for liberal America by essentially transforming Europe into an illiberal regime. That is the vector of attack on liberal Europe. There has been this idea that’s developed amongst the populist parties in Europe since Brexit that they’re not really trying to leave the EU or destroy the EU; they’re trying to remake the EU in their nationalist and sovereigntist image. That’s perfect for what the Trump people are trying to do, which is not destroy the EU fully, but destroy the EU as a support for liberal ideas in the world and the United States. You mentioned the vice president, who has become a very prominent mouthpiece for this adversarial approach to Europe — most obviously in his speech at Munich earlier this year. Do you think he’s just following Trump’s guttural dislike of Europe or is he advancing his own independent anti-European agenda? A little of both. I think that Vance, like any good vice president, is very careful not to get crosswise with his boss and not contradict him in any way. So the fact that Trump isn’t opposed to this and that he can support it to a degree is very, very important. But I think that a lot of these ideas come from Vance independently, at least in detail. What he’s doing is nudging Trump along this road. He’s thinking about what will appeal to Trump, and he’s mostly been getting it right. But I think that especially when it comes to this sort of culture war stuff with Europe, he’s more of a source than a follower. During this latest round of Trump’s Euro-bashing, did anything stand out to you as new or novel? Or was it all of a piece with what you had heard before? It was novel relative to a year ago, but not relative to February and since then. But it’s a new mechanism of describing it — through a national security strategy document and through interviews with the president. The same arguments have achieved a sort of higher status, I would say, in the last week or so. You could sit around in Europe — as I did — and argue about the degree to which this really was what the Trump administration was doing, or whether this was just a faction — and you can still have that argument, because the Trump administration is generally quite inconsistent and incoherent when it comes to this kind of thing — but I think it’s undoubtedly achieved a greater status in the last week or two. How do you think Europe should deal with Trump’s recurring animosity towards the continent? It seems they’ve settled on a strategy of flattery, but do you think that’s effective in the long run? No, I think that’s the exact opposite of effective. If you recall what I said at the beginning, Trump abhors weakness, and flattery is the sort of ultimate manifestation of weakness. Every time the Europeans show up and flatter Trump, it enables them to have a good meeting with him, but it conveys the impression to him that they are weak, and so it increases his policy demands against them. We’ve seen that over and over again. The Europeans showed up and thought they had changed his Ukraine position, they had a great meeting, he said good things about them, they went home and a few weeks later, he had a totally different Ukraine position that they’re now having to deal with. The flattery has achieved the sense in the Trump administration that they can do anything they want to the Europeans, and they’ll basically swallow it. They haven’t done what some other countries have done, like the Chinese or the Brazilians, or even the Canadians to some degree, which is to stand up to Trump and show him that he has to deal with them as strong actors. And that’s a shame, because the Europeans — while they obviously have an asymmetric dependence on the United States, and they have some weaknesses — are a lot stronger than a lot of other countries, especially if they were working together. I think they have some capacity to do that, but they haven’t really managed it as of yet. Maybe this will be a wake-up call to do that.

By Kathryn Kranhold and Jason McLure of The Examination and Rory O’Neill and Antonia Zimmermann of POLITICO. This article was reported in collaboration with The Examination, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates global health threats. BRUSSELS — When the world’s largest tobacco company needed help lifting international restrictions on its products, it enlisted an unlikely ally: the European Union, a leader in tobacco control.  EU officials met with Philip Morris International representatives at least six times from September 2022 through 2024, according to documents released through public records requests. The tobacco giant’s agenda: Enlist EU officials’ help in loosening restrictions or setting favorable tax rates on its products — including IQOS, a heated tobacco device key to the company’s future — in 10 countries outside the EU. Officials with the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, took action at least three times that would have benefitted the company, The Examination and POLITICO found. They published a notice saying Mexico’s ban on new nicotine products was a possible barrier to free trade. They asked Turkish officials whether they planned to maintain the country’s requirement that cigarettes contain a minimum amount of local tobacco. And in a high-level report for EU officials, they flagged that rule and Turkey’s cigarette tax rate as issues that could affect ties between it and the EU.  The Commission’s actions regarding Turkey were “of great help for us,” a PMI representative wrote to staffers at the Commission. “We would like to express our gratitude in regard of (sic) the actions that you took.”  A Philip Morris International representative thanked European Commission trade officials for flagging Turkey’s cigarette tax and a rule on domestic tobacco as possible trade issues. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) The revelations, contained in documents released through public information requests by the French anti-tobacco group Contre-Feu, raise questions about whether the EU breached its commitment to a global treaty to combat smoking signed by the EU and member countries. Guidelines to implement that treaty — the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) — say that when setting and implementing public health policies, governments should restrict their dealings with the tobacco industry and disclose any meetings whenever possible. None of the meetings with PMI or other industry groups cited in the documents were disclosed, according to The Examination and POLITICO’s review of the EU’s disclosure websites. The “fact that EU officials acted upon PMI’s requests signals a troubling willingness to give the tobacco industry privileged access. That is precisely what the FCTC was designed to prevent,” said Tilly Metz, a member of the European Parliament with the Greens. “It undermines both public trust and the EU’s credibility as a global leader in tobacco control.” A spokesperson for the European Commission told The Examination and POLITICO  that it “strictly follows” the treaty guidelines. But tobacco products are covered by EU trade policy, and the Commission can negotiate tariffs and trade rules, the spokesperson said.  “The Commission does not shape, influence or lobby for specific health policies in third countries on behalf of any industry,” the spokesperson said.  While industry associations and companies can share concerns on market access in non-EU countries with the Commission, and the Commission may meet with complainants to get more information, the spokesperson said such meetings are “strictly related to trade facilitation and market access.” European parliamentarians appeared divided over whether the dealings were improper.  Vytenis Andriukaitis with the Socialists and Democrats and a former EU health commissioner said the European Commission “cannot represent the interests of tobacco companies,” nor “press other countries to weaken” their tobacco controls. Barry Andrews, a member of the centrist Renew Europe Group, said: “These regular meetings with big tobacco lobbyists and the flurry of emails should not have happened.” By contrast, Stine Bosse, a member of the same political group, said: “The tobacco industry has every right to employ lobbyists.” However, Bosse added: “Morally, I stand in a very different place. While they constantly try to reinvent new products to get people hooked on nicotine and tobacco, I am fighting for precisely the opposite.”  Philip Morris International did not answer questions from The Examination and POLITICO about its dealing with EU officials. On its website, the company said it shares its perspectives with policymakers and it is “particularly active with respect to policies regarding less harmful alternatives to cigarettes, trade and fiscal matters, and intellectual property.” (The company is separate from Philip Morris USA, which is part of Altria Group.) The Examination and POLITICO have not found evidence that any of the 10 countries targeted by PMI altered their tobacco taxes or regulations following meetings with EU officials, including where the EU took action with regard to Mexico and Turkey. Most of PMI’s entreaties focused on IQOS, which it says is better than cigarettes because heating tobacco releases fewer toxins than burning it. Public health experts say the long-term risks of heated tobacco are unknown and products like IQOS could increase tobacco use. IQOS devices with heated tobacco sticks. Philip Morris International says IQOS is better than cigarettes because heating tobacco releases fewer toxins than burning it. Public health experts say the long-term risks of heated tobacco are unknown. | Roberto Pfeil/picture alliance via Getty Images Public health advocates said Commission officials’ actions were especially surprising because the EU has been one of the strongest supporters of the FCTC.  This year, the Commission proposed hiking EU-wide taxes on most tobacco products and setting minimum taxes for vapes and heated tobacco for the first time. Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has pledged to drive e-cigarette taxes even higher; his tax counterpart, Wopke Hoekstra, has called vapes the “revenge of the tobacco industry.” The countries that PMI sought help with were outside the EU. Nearly all of them — Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam — had banned heated tobacco. Taiwan had what PMI described as a burdensome approval process. Japanese leaders were in discussions to raise taxes on heated tobacco to the same rate as cigarettes. Philip Morris International asked for the EU’s help in loosening restrictions or setting favorable tax rates on its IQOS product in 10 countries outside the EU. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) PMI officials wanted people in those countries to be able to buy IQOS as easily as cigarettes. The company calls IQOS part of its “dream team” of alternative nicotine products, including e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, that are meant to offset declining cigarette consumption.  So the company sought help in the EU’s distinctive 15-story glass trade building, the Charlemagne, in Brussels. PMI SEEKS HELP IN MEXICO Mexico was the first country that PMI sought help with, according to the documents. That country was a key market for IQOS, but a ban on vapes and heated tobacco was set to go into effect in December 2022.  In an investor meeting on Sept. 6, 2022, an analyst asked about IQOS’ “lack of success” in the Americas. Emmanuel Babeau, the company’s chief financial officer, blamed “some restrictions” in Mexico but said, “it’s going to be a very successful market for IQOS once we can really sell the device really without any issue.” That same day, company staff had an online meeting with EU officials to discuss the ban. It was one of several discussions about Mexico. After the ban went into effect, PMI sought more help from EU officials. In an April 3, 2023, email, an executive at the company’s Swiss office asked for another meeting, explaining that Mexico’s “business environment is still marked by uncertainty, judicial processes, interpretations, and doubtful, temporary and unclear administrative acts.”    After a ban on vapes and heated tobacco went into effect in Mexico, Philip Morris International sought more help from EU officials. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) Soon after the email, European trade officials issued what is known as a barrier to trade notice, reporting Mexico’s IQOS ban as a potential trade treaty violation. PMI representatives and trade officials met later that month, when the company contended similar bans in Argentina, Brazil and Vietnam were trade barriers, according to a Commission report summarizing the meeting. The Commission spokesperson said it had acted in response to a formal complaint that “involved discriminatory treatment of like products” and that it did not undertake any further action regarding Mexico. Mexico’s Supreme Court struck down the ban in November 2024, allowing PMI to continue selling IQOS there.  The correspondence shows how PMI leveraged its status as a major European employer and exporter. The company employed more than 21,500 people in Europe as of 2023 and had 20 manufacturing sites there. In one email, a PMI representative told a European trade official that a meeting would be a “good opportunity to update you [on] the most recent data on EU exports in the tobacco sector and PMI’s investments in the EU.” OFFICIALS QUESTION TURKEY’S TAXES, RULES ON LOCAL TOBACCO EU officials also assisted PMI in trying to change rules on cigarettes.  In July 2023, a company representative complained to EU officials about Turkey’s cigarette tax, saying in an email that Turkey had “one of the highest ad valorem duty levels in the world.” The representative also flagged Turkey’s “local content” rule, which required that cigarettes made and sold in the country contain a certain amount of domestic tobacco. The PMI representative wrote that the company had “prepared a few suggestions” for the Commission’s upcoming report on Turkey’s economic and diplomatic relationships with the EU.  That report, which came out in November 2023, flagged Turkey’s taxes and the local content rule. That elicited the email from PMI thanking EU officials for their help. Meanwhile, the company was pushing European Commission officials to raise the local content rule again, but in a different forum: an upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) review of Turkey’s trade policies. PMI provided EU trade officials with questions to ask Turkey. EU officials then submitted a question prior to the review, asking whether the local content requirement for tobacco and other industries would continue, according to meeting minutes. The Commission spokesperson did not directly answer questions from The Examination and POLITICO about its actions regarding Turkey. Turkey has not changed its requirements on local tobacco or its tax rate.  MEETINGS PART OF A MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR LOBBYING EFFORT The meetings are part of an industry lobby that spends $16.2 million (14 million euros) a year in the EU, according to a report by Contre-Feu and STOP, another anti-tobacco group, released Wednesday. Contre-Feu mapped a network of 49 organizations and companies, including Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco, that lobbied the European Commission and Parliament to weaken tobacco regulations and set lower taxes on new nicotine products, both within and outside the EU. (British American Tobacco did not respond to requests for comment.) The interactions between the tobacco industry and EU officials appear to be extensive, according to the documents. They include several dozen email exchanges and refer to at least nine meetings between EU officials and tobacco companies or industry-supported groups.  In addition to the six meetings with PMI, there were three other meetings with tobacco representatives. Trade staff met with three other companies and a tobacco trade group in March 2024 to hear their requests for more favorable tariff rules for new nicotine products. In a separate video conference, British American Tobacco asked trade staff to intervene at a WTO hearing over Saudi Arabia’s proposed tax hike on e-cigarette cartridges. (The EU did not take action, according to the documents.) And in a third meeting, the EU’s former agriculture commissioner, a Polish member of the EU parliament and two tobacco farming lobby groups discussed tobacco subsidies and the Commission’s position on the global tobacco treaty. Nathalie Darge, secretary general of Tobacco Europe, the trade group included in one of those meetings, said its input focused on technical requirements and that it wanted to “ensure legal certainty for operators and customs authorities.” One European Commission report recapping a meeting with PMI was sent to 32 trade department officials and staff, including EU representatives assigned to Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Vietnam and division directors. Contre-Feu wrote that the dealings between government officials and tobacco representatives showed that “current rules to limit industry influence are falling short and European policymakers continue to be heavily lobbied by the tobacco industry and those working on its behalf.” PMI’s efforts are part of a long history of the tobacco industry using trade and investment pacts to expand markets and undermine health policies, said Suzanne Zhou, who works for the World Health Organization FCTC Knowledge Hub on Legal Challenges and a senior fellow at the Melbourne Law School in Australia. “Tobacco companies have lost the argument from a health perspective,” Zhou said. “So they are reframing the issue as a trade issue in the hopes that they can advance their interests in that forum instead.”  In the 1980s, the U.S. Trade Representative threatened sanctions if Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand didn’t open their markets to U.S. cigarette companies. A study later concluded that cigarette consumption in those four markets was nearly 10 percent higher than it would have been if they had remained closed to U.S. companies.  More recently, Australia and Uruguay faced trade litigation from the industry or industry-aligned governments over their tobacco control policies.  COMMISSION CRITICIZED FOR UNDISCLOSED MEETINGS Contre-Feu contended that the documents also show that EU officials didn’t disclose meetings with the industry when they should have. To aid countries in implementing the tobacco treaty, delegates wrote a set of guidelines. They state that when setting and implementing public health policies, interactions with the tobacco industry should be limited to what is strictly necessary for effective regulation. Interactions should be conducted in public and disclosed whenever possible. And the guidelines emphasize that “all branches of government” should be made aware of industry efforts to interfere with policies. The Commission spokesperson said that’s exactly what it does: “Meetings with the tobacco industry are avoided, unless they are strictly necessary. If the applicable conditions are met, meetings are held in a fully transparent manner and are appropriately documented.” But EU trade officials did not disclose any of these meetings on the website where the trade department reports such contacts. One batch of documents was released through a request for access; another batch was obtained by Contre-Feu. One of the meetings not disclosed by trade officials occurred in July 2023. Global health leaders were scheduled to meet that November to update the FCTC. The European Commission was considering supporting strict limitations on heated tobacco products.  A Commission report summarizing a July 19, 2023, meeting with PMI said that the company had “alerted” the Commission about language “calling on WHO members to adopt import bans on heated tobacco products.” The company asserted that EU tobacco policy should take into account WTO agreements, which the company has contended would preclude countries from banning IQOS.  Philip Morris International met with European Commission trade officials in July 2023 to discuss a proposed change to a global tobacco control treaty that would have banned heated tobacco. Though such meetings are supposed to be disclosed, this one wasn’t. (Redactions by the European Commission. Highlighting by The Examination) The documents don’t say anything about whether the Commission took action, and tobacco-friendly countries in the EU such as Italy and Greece pushed back against restrictive guidelines. But in the end, the Commission took no position on heated tobacco— a victory for the industry.  During the period covered by the documents, the EU required only high-ranking Commission officials to report meetings with companies or special-interest groups. In December 2024, the Commission tightened rules to require disclosure by additional staff. It’s unclear whether those rules would’ve required disclosure of these meetings.  Former EU ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, found other instances in which the Commission didn’t disclose meetings with the tobacco industry, which she concluded failed to meet transparency rules required under international law.  Contre-Feu has urged the EU to tighten transparency guidelines even further by extending disclosure requirements to all staff, among other things. The group said in its report that the extensive lobbying and lack of disclosure “reveal either a repeated violation of the FCTC by the European Commission or, at the very least, an insufficient implementation of the treaty’s measures.” Mathieu Tourliere of Proceso contributed reporting. STOP has received support from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which also provides financial support to The Examination. The Examination operates independently and is solely responsible for its content. Correction: This story has been corrected to say that the report on tobacco industry lobbying was jointly published by Contre-Feu and STOP, and that STOP has received support from Bloomberg Philanthropies.