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. 

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen hailed Hungary’s Viktor Orbán for blocking a €90 billion EU loan for Ukraine. “I’d prefer it if we didn’t have to wait for other countries to take good decisions,” Le Pen told reporters on a trip to Budapest for a meeting of the Patriots for Europe group, of which her National Rally and Orbán’s Fidesz are members. Le Pen argued that France could no longer afford to support Ukraine’s war effort due to its high deficit and debt levels. “France is ruined, our public finances don’t allow us today to make loans we know won’t be reimbursed,” she said. “France has to become reasonable … and keep the money for French citizens.” Also in Hungary for the meeting are Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders and Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini. Hungary goes to the polls on April 12, and the National Rally leader lent Orbán her firm backing on Monday on X, saying she was “very honored” to support him. On Saturday, Hungary held a European edition of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), which included a video message from U.S. President Donald Trump, who reiterated his “complete and total” backing for Orbán. Le Pen was not present at the CPAC gathering and said she wanted France to stay at a “distance” from the world’s great powers. “It doesn’t mean we don’t respect them, it just means we defend our interests and they defend theirs,” she said, adding that Trump’s tariff war against Europe proved why she needed to take this stance.

BRUSSELS — America’s ambassador to the EU called on the European Parliament to back the trade deal struck with President Donald Trump, arguing it would unlock deeper transtlantic cooperation on energy, tech and AI. Speaking to POLITICO on Monday, Andrew Puzder cautioned that it would be a mistake to allow a further delay of the deal reached last July at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, but has still to be implemented on by the EU side. “All of the signals are good, but you never know. We’re hopeful, but we want to be careful and make sure that we don’t take anything for granted,” Puzder said in an interview at the U.S. mission in Brussels.  “It’s in the best interest of the European Union and the United States that it passes,” he added. “Some people might think that politically, it might give them an advantage to vote against. I hope that’s not the case. But economically, it’d be malpractice not to vote for this in the EU.” Puzder highlighted the importance of the EU’s commitment to spend $750 billion on U.S. energy under the Turnberry deal.  “Europe’s going to need that energy,” he said. “So we need to cut back on the regulatory restrictions to our shipping them the energy and also the regulatory restrictions that make that energy more expensive once it gets here.” IT’S BEEN LONG ENOUGH Puzder, a former fast food executive nominated by Trump, started the role last September and made an early impression in Brussels with his plain speaking. He told POLITICO in December that the EU should stop trying to be the world’s regulator and get on instead with being one of its innovators.  His latest remarks came amid mounting U.S. frustration over the EU’s slow pace in keeping its side of the bargain, under which it would scrap import duties on U.S. industrial goods. The enabling legislation is now up for a plenary vote in the European Parliament on Thursday. If it passes, talks between EU lawmakers, governments and the Commission would then begin on finally implementing the tariff changes. “We’re anxious to get this through the process. We understood they had to go through a process, but it’s been long enough. And hopefully we’ll get through it on Thursday and we can both move on to more economically beneficial endeavors,” Puzder stressed.  Trade lawmakers backed amendments at the committee stage to strengthen the EU’s protections in case Washington doesn’t respect its side of the deal.  They for instance introduced a suspension clause if Trump threatens the EU’s territorial sovereignty, as he did earlier this year when he pushed to annex Greenland. MEPs also added another provision that foresees that the deal would expire in March 2028.  Puzder declined to speculate on whether the deal could unravel altogether if the U.S. president were to launch any renewed threats.  “I hate to prejudge where this is going to go,” he said. “What everybody’s been saying on both sides is a deal is a deal. We had a deal; hopefully we still have a deal.” The ambassador stressed there had been a “very good two-way communication” between Trump’s team of Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and the European Commission, as well as with Bernd Lange, who chairs the European Parliament’s Trade Committee.   “I’ve also had a number of meetings with Bernd Lange and members of parliament on these issues. So the communication has been very good and very open throughout this process,” Puzder said.

The Trump administration is telling foreign officials and others that it will not reschedule a summit between the U.S. president and Chinese leader Xi Jinping until the Iran war ends. A Washington-based diplomat privy to U.S.-China summit planning confirmed that the administration has made clear “the next dates for the Trump-Xi summit will only be proposed after the active part of the Iran conflict is over.” A Washington-based individual close to the administration also briefed on White House summit planning confirmed the administration shared that timeline. POLITICO granted both the people anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about sensitive diplomatic discussions. The U.S. State Department directed queries to the White House. The White House denied the summit timeline was tied to the Iran war. “This is fake news. The United States and China are having productive discussions about rescheduling President Trump’s visit — announcements are forthcoming,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said. The Chinese embassy said it had “no information to provide” about the possible delay in summit scheduling. The long-anticipated meeting between Trump and Xi had originally been planned for the end of March, but Trump said Monday the meeting would be pushed back “a month or so” because “we’ve got a war going on.” On Thursday, he said it would happen in “about a month and a half.” Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt suggested the meeting might not take place until after May. “The president has some things here at home in May that he has to attend to, and I’m sure President Xi is a very busy man, as well, so we’ll get the dates on the books as soon as we can,” Leavitt said. Tying the summit preparations to the end of the Iran conflict could mean additional delays to a meeting intended to maintain stability in a fragile U.S.-China trade truce. As the war on Iran enters its fourth week, the Trump administration appears to be preparing for a longer conflict. The U.S. has made detailed plans for the deployment of ground troops onto Iranian soil, CBS News reported Friday. The administration is also moving to dispatch thousands of troops to the region. Trump told reporters Thursday he’s “not putting troops anywhere” but then added: “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.” “There are operational constraints to managing a war from a foreign country — particularly a hostile one like China,” said the person close to the administration. “It would be terribly awkward for Trump and Xi to transact in this climate.” On Friday, Trump signaled a potential wind-down in the Iran conflict in a Truth Social post, suggesting the U.S. could scale back its role while pushing allies to take on more responsibility in securing the Strait of Hormuz, the major commercial waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. “We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great military efforts in the Middle East,” Trump wrote. Trump and Xi made progress toward heading off an intensified trade war in an October meeting in South Korea. During that meeting, Xi committed to Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products like soybeans and the elimination of many of Beijing’s restrictions on critical minerals exports. In return, Trump agreed to extend a pause on triple-digit tariffs on Chinese goods. Wendy Cutler, a former negotiator in the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, argued this work can continue even if Trump and Xi don’t meet again in person. “The stabilization part of this won’t necessarily be jeopardized without a meeting,” she said. “Now, if something happens in the war, either foreseen or unforeseen, there’s just lots of flash points that can threaten this truce, which are unforeseeable at this period.” Rush Doshi, former senior director for China and Taiwan in the Biden administration, said a meeting between the two leaders is important to strengthening and maintaining the bilateral relationship. “Without leader-to-leader communication to manage a relationship of this complexity until the war is over — and there’s no sense of when the war is going to be over — there’s a real risk the relationship is going to be less stable than people might have expected,” said Doshi, now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Der EU-Handelsausschuss hat für den Zolldeal mit den USA gestimmt, doch das Tauziehen ist noch nicht vorbei: Zwei Abgeordnete kämpfen als Delegation aus Brüssel in Washington um letzte Garantien. Joana Lehner und Jürgen Klöckner sprechen über das Finale und beleuchten zusammen mit einem US-Kollegen, ob Donald Trump den Deal als politischen Sieg im Inland verkaufen kann oder ob die deutsche Industrie weiterhin Milliarden an Zöllen verliert. Im Policy Talk begrüßen die beiden VDA-Präsidentin Hildegard Müller. Sie spricht über das „weinende und lachende Auge“ der Branche, die aktuelle Milliardenbelastung durch US-Zölle und die schwindende Wettbewerbsfähigkeit des Standorts Deutschland. Müller warnt: Wenn Europa wirtschaftlich schwach wird, verliert es im Spiel der Großmächte an Relevanz. In Berlin tobt derweil ein Ökonomen-Streit: Neue Studien vom ifo-Institut und dem IW Köln werfen der Regierung vor, große Teile des bisher eingesetzten Sondervermögens für Haushaltslöcher statt für neue Investitionen zu nutzen. Rasmus Buchsteiner berichtet Off the Record über das anfängliche Kommunikationsdebakel im Finanzministerium und die Frage, warum die versprochenen Bagger in den Kommunen noch immer nicht rollen. „Power & Policy“ zeigt jede Woche, wo und wie die Entscheidungen in der Wirtschaftspolitik fallen. ⁠Jürgen Klöckner⁠ und ⁠Joana Lehner⁠ von POLITICO sprechen mit Top-Entscheidern und liefern Off-the-Record-Einblicke aus der Redaktion und Machtzentren. Präzise Analysen, lange bevor Gesetze beschlossen sind. Der Podcast für alle in Wirtschaft und Politik, die einen Wissensvorsprung brauchen — immer donnerstags. Für Policy-Profis: Abonnieren und die Pro-Newsletter ⁠Industrie & Handel⁠, ⁠Energie & Klima ⁠und ⁠Gesundheit⁠. Jetzt kostenlos testen. Fragen und Feedback gern an ⁠powerandpolicy@politico.eu⁠ POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

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. 

The European liberal political family is urging EU leaders to form a pact with Japan, Canada, and South Korea to deter U.S. President Donald Trump and China from exerting undue pressure on trade partners, according to a paper seen by POLITICO. In what is dubbed a “Geoeconomic Deterrence Pact” addressed to EU leaders ahead of a summit in Brussels on Thursday, the liberal Renew Europe group in the European Parliament asks the Commission “to identify and negotiate joint export control agreements” by the end of 2026. The paper will be published late Wednesday and sent to EU leaders. “This pact will map shared critical dependencies (e.g., semiconductors, rare earths) and propose mutual response clauses in trade deals to deter coercion from the US or China. If one country is attacked by aggressive tariffs, all countries should react,” the paper reads. Renew Europe is home to French President Emmanuel Macron as well as the leaders of Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia and the Netherlands. The idea is the liberal group’s response to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s call for what he called “middle powers” to come together to “build something bigger, better, stronger, more just” during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation,” Carney said. Thursday’s summit was meant to discuss European ways to boost the bloc’s economy but that has been sidelined by the war in Iran driving up energy costs, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán continuing to veto a €90 billion EU loan for Ukraine.

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament will hold a committee vote on the EU-U.S. trade deal this week, top lawmakers decided on Tuesday, in a step that will be met with relief in Washington.  Lawmakers from the Parliament’s trade committee will vote on Thursday on legislation to scrap tariffs on U.S. industrial goods — representing the backbone of the EU’s pledge in the trade deal reached at President Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland last summer. Bernd Lange, chair of the trade committee, said Tuesday’s discussion had been “quite smooth” and had achieved a broad understanding. “Therefore we will go for the vote on Thursday,” he told POLITICO. The decision unblocks a weeks-long deadlock, as EU lawmakers balked at approving a deal that appeared at risk of unraveling. First, the U.S. Supreme Court in February struck down most of the tariffs on which the Turnberry accord was based. Then Trump’s threats to annex Greenland and slap an embargo on Spain further soured sentiment. Lawmakers from Socialists & Democrats, liberals and Greens have pushed for reassurances from Washington before moving to a vote, while the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) is adamant that the deal must be approved quickly to avoid retaliation by Trump and bring stability to businesses. “We have a big majority today,” said EPP negotiator Željana Zovko.  A date for a final plenary vote will be determined on Wednesday, said Lange, adding that this could take place in March or April. Only then would the European Parliament enter negotiations with EU capitals and the European Commission on a compromise that would finally implement the deal.  Lange, a veteran German Social Democrat who is also the lead lawmaker on the file, proposed new amendments to the legislation that won the backing of the EPP. He has said that his changes mainly included stronger language on the EU’s own protections in case Washington fails to keep its side of the deal. “Sunrise clause, and sunset, and suspension, and so on, some fine-tuning,” Lange had told POLITICO on Monday.  Lange will travel to Washington after the vote on Thursday, and is expected to meet Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Friday, along with a delegation of EU lawmakers.

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives in Brussels on Tuesday with a clear message for EU regulators ahead of a looming review of Europe’s streaming rules: Don’t overcomplicate them. In an exclusive interview with POLITICO, Sarandos said Netflix can live with regulation — but warned the EU not to fracture the single market with a patchwork of national mandates as officials prepare to reopen the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. “It doesn’t make it a very healthy business environment if you don’t know if the rules are going to change midway through production,” Sarandos said. He also warned regulators are underestimating YouTube as a direct competitor for TV viewing, too often treating it like a social media platform with “a bunch of cat videos” than a massive streaming rival. Sarandos’ effort to win over European regulators comes soon after the collapse of Netflix’s bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — but Sarandos maintained that the political dynamics around the deal only “complicated the narrative, not the actual outcomes.” He added that there was no political interference in the deal, and he shrugged off President Donald Trump’s demand to remove Susan Rice, a former national security adviser under President Barack Obama, from the Netflix board. “It was a social media post,” Sarandos said. “It was not ideal, but he does a lot of things on social media.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What’s bringing you back to Brussels now? Well, we have ongoing meetings with regulators around Europe all the time. We have so much business in Europe, obviously, and so this has been on the books for quite a while. Can you give me a little bit of a sense of who you’re meeting with, and what is the focus? I think one of the things to keep in mind is that we’ve become such an important part, I’d think, of the European audiovisual economy. We’ve spent, in the last decade, over $13 billion in creating content in Europe. It makes us one of the leading producers and exporters of European storytelling. First of all, we’ve got a lot of skin in the game in Europe, obviously. We work with over 600 independent European producers. We created about 100,000 cast and crew jobs in Europe from our productions. So we talk to folks who are interested in all the elements of that — how to keep it, how to maintain it, how to grow it and how to protect it. In terms of regulation in the EU, Netflix is governed by a directive here. The commission is looking to reopen that this year. There seems to be a sense here from regulators that the current rules don’t create a level playing field between the broadcasters, the video on demand, the video sharing, and so they may look to put more requirements on that. How steeped in the details are you there? And how would Netflix react to more rules put on Netflix at this moment? Well, first and foremost, we comply with all the rules that apply to us in terms of how we’re regulated today. We have seen by operating around the world that those countries where they lean more into incentives than the strict regulatory scheme, that the incentives pay off. We’ve got multibillion dollar investments in Spain and the UK, where they have really leaned into attracting production through incentives versus regulatory mandates, so we find that that’s a much more productive environment to work in. But the core for me is that obviously they’re going to evolve the regulatory models, but as long as they remain simple, predictable, consistent — the single market, the benefit of the single-market is this — as long as these rules remain simple, predictable and consistent, it’s a good operating model. I think the more that it gets broken up by individual countries and individual mandates, you lose all the benefits of the single market. There’s a lot of talk in Brussels right now about simplification, getting rid of a lot of red tape. Do you think the rules that you’re governed by would benefit from a similar kind of effort to simplify, of pulling back on a lot of these patchwork of rules, even at the EU? Look, I think it doesn’t make it a very healthy business environment if you don’t know if the rules are going to change midway through production, so for me, having some stability is really important, and I understand that we’re in a dynamic market and a dynamic business, and they should reflect the current operating models that we’re in too. We want to work closely with the regulators to make sure that what they’re doing and what we’re doing kind of reflect each other, which is trying to protect the healthy work environment for folks in Europe. When you meet with regulators here, is there a message you’re going to be delivering to them or what do you want them to walk away with in terms of the bottom line for you in terms of your business at this moment in the EU? I think some things are well understood and other things I think are less so. I think our commitment to European production is unique in the world. Both in our original production but also in our investment in second right’s windows that we pre-invest in films that compel production. Tens of millions of dollars’ worth of film production is compelled by our licensing agreements as well beyond our original production. And the fact that we work with local European producers on these projects — I think there’s a misconception that we don’t. And the larger one is the economic impact that that brings to Europe and to the world with our original program strategy that supports so many, not just the productions themselves but even tourism in European countries. Think about President [Emmanuel] Macron pointing out that 38 percent of people who went to France last year cited “Emily in Paris” as one of the top reasons they went. We’ve seen that in other countries. We saw it in Madrid with the “Casa de Papel.” And so it’s one of those things where it really raises all boats across the economies of these countries. Regulators often focus on the competition between streaming services, but as you know very well, younger audiences are spending more time on platforms like YouTube. Do you think policymakers are underestimating that shift? Would you like to see that taken into account more in the regulatory landscape? One of the things that we saw in recent months with the Warner Brothers transaction is a real deep misunderstanding about what YouTube is and isn’t. YouTube is a straightforward direct competitor for television, either a local broadcaster or a streamer like Netflix. The connected television market is a zero-sum screen. So whichever one you choose, that’s what you’re watching tonight. And you monetize through subscription or advertising or both, but at the end of the day, it’s that choosing to engage in how you give them and how, and how that programming is monetized is a very competitive landscape and it includes YouTube. I think what happens is people think of YouTube as a bunch of cat videos and maybe some way to, to promote your stuff by putting it on there for free. But it turns out it is a zero-sum game. You’re going to be choosing at the expense of an RTL or Netflix. I think in this case it’s one of these things where recognizing and understanding that YouTube is in the same exact game that we are. Do you feel like you’re on different planes though, in the eyes of regulators at this moment? I don’t think that they see them as a direct competitor in that way. I think they think of that as an extension of social media. And the truth is when we talk about them as a competitor, we’re only talking about them on the screen. I’m not talking about their mobile usage or any of that. You know, about 55 percent of all YouTube engagement now is on the television through their app. So to me, that’s the thing to keep an eye on. As you get into this, it’s a pretty straightforward, competitive model and we think probably should have a level playing field relative to everybody else. Who do you view as Netflix’s main competitors today? Look, our competitive space is really the television screen. When people pick up the remote and pick what to watch, everyone is in that mix. We identified YouTube — this isn’t new for us — we identified YouTube as a competitor in the space 10 years ago, even before they moved to the television. And I think, for the most part, TikTok forced their hand to move to the television because they were kind of getting chased off the phone more or less by TikTok. I think that’s the other one that regulators should pay a lot of attention to is what’s happening with the rise of TikTok engagement as well. It’s not directly competitive for us, but it is for attention and time and to your point, maybe the next generation’s consumer behavior. Last question on regulation: With the EU looking at the rules again, there’s a tendency always to look to tinker more and more and do more. Is there a point at what regulation starts affecting your willingness to invest in European production? Well, like I said, those core principles of predictability and simplicity have really got to come into play, because I think what happens is, just like any business, you have to be able to plan. So, if you make a production under one set of regs and release it under another, it’s not a very stable business environment. The topic that dominated a lot of your attention in recent months was obviously the merger talks with Warner Brothers Discovery. I know you’ve said it didn’t work for financial reasons. I want to ask you a little bit about the political dynamics. How much did the political environment, including the Susan Rice incident, how much did that complicate the calculus in your mind? I think it complicated the narrative, not the actual outcomes. I think for us it was always a business transaction, was always a well-regulated process in the U.S. The Department of Justice was handling it, everything was moving through. We were very confident we did not have a regulatory issue. Why would that be? It’s because it was very much a vertical transaction. I can’t name a transaction that was similar to this that has ever been blocked in history. We did not have duplicated assets. We did have a market concentration issue in the marketplace that we operate in. And I think that’s the feedback I was getting back from the DOJ and from regulators in general, which was, they understood that, but I do think that Paramount did a very nice job of creating a very loud narrative of a regulatory challenge that didn’t exist. But looking back to those early days of the merger discussions, did you have an appreciation for what might follow in terms of that complicated narrative? Yeah. Look, I think it opens up the door to have a lot of conversations that you wouldn’t have had otherwise, but that’s okay. A lot great things came out of it, the process itself. I would say in total, we had a price for where we thought this was good for our business. We made our best and final offer back in December and it was our best and final offer. So that’s all. But what came out a bit that’s positive is, we’ve had really healthy conversations with folks who we hardly ever talked to, theater operators, as a good example. I had a great meeting in February with the International Union of Cinemas, and the heads from all the different countries about what challenges they have, how we could be more helpful, or how they could be helpful to us too. I think we’ll come out of this with a much more creative relationship with exhibitions around the world. And by way of example, doing things that we haven’t done before. I don’t recommend testifying before the Senate again, but it was an interesting experience for sure. Probably a good learning experience. Hopefully not in the future for anything that you don’t want to be there for, but yes. Yeah, exactly. We’ve always said from the beginning, the Warner transaction was a nice-to-have at the right price, not a must-have-at-any-price. The business is healthy, growing organically. We’re growing on the path that we laid out several years ago and we didn’t really need this to grow the business. These assets are out there through our growth period and they’re going to be out there and for our next cycle growth as well and we’ve got to compete with that just like we knew we had to at the beginning. This was I think something that would fortify and maybe accelerate some of our existing models, but it doesn’t change our outcome. Are there regrets or things you might have wished you’d done differently? I mean honestly we took a very disciplined approach. I think we intentionally did not get distracted by the narrative noise, because we knew, we recognized what it was right away, which is just narrative noise. This deal was very good for the industry. Very good for both companies, Warner Brothers and Netflix. Our intent was obviously to keep those businesses operating largely as they are now. All the synergies that we had in the deal were mostly technologies and managerial, so we would have kept a big growth engine going in Hollywood and around the world. The alternative, which we’ve always said, is a lot of cutting. I think regulators in Europe and regulators in the U.S. should keep an eye on horizontal mergers. They should keep a close eye on [leveraged buyouts]. They typically are not good for the economy anywhere they happen. What were you preparing for in terms of the EU regulatory scrutiny with Warner Brothers? What was your read on how that might have looked? I think we’re a known entity in Europe. Keep in mind, like in Q4 of last year, we reported $3.5 billion or $3.8 billion in European revenues. So 18 percent year-on-year growth. The EU is now our largest territory. We’re a known entity there. The reason we didn’t take out press releases, we had meetings in Europe as we know everybody. We talked to the regulators, both at the EU and at the country level. And I do think that in many of the countries that we operate in, we’re a net contributor to the local economy, which I think is really important. We’ve got 12 offices across Europe with 2,500 people. So we’re members of the local ecosystem, we’re not outsiders. With President Trump, he demanded that Netflix remove Susan Rice from the board or pay the consequences. Did that cross a line for you in terms of political interference? It was a social media post, and we didn’t, no, it did not. It was not ideal, but he does a lot of things on social media. So you didn’t interpret it as anything bigger than that. I mean, he does that one day, he could obviously weigh in on content the next day. How does somebody like you manage situations like that? I think it’s really important to be able to separate noise from signal, and I think a lot of what happens in a world where we have a lot of noise. There was so much attention to you going to the White House that day. And we didn’t learn until several days later that you didn’t actually have the meetings that were predicted. Before you arrived in Washington that day, had you already made the decision not to proceed? Not before arriving in Washington, but we knew the framework for if this, then that. So, yeah, I would say that it was interesting, but again, we don’t make a big parade about our meetings with government and with the regulators. I had a meeting on the books with the DOJ scheduled several weeks before, meeting with Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff, scheduled several months before, unrelated to the Warner Brothers deal. And that was just the calendar that lined up that way. We didn’t know when Warner Brothers would make the statement about the deal. It’s all very dramatic, like it belongs on Netflix as a movie. There was paparazzi outside of the White House waiting for me when I came out. I’ve never experienced that before. Yeah, it’s a remarkable story. I would tell you, and I’m being honest with you, there was no political interference in this deal. The president is interested in entertainment and interested in deals, so he was curious about the mechanics of things and how things were going to go or whatever, but he made it very clear that this was under the DOJ. So it’s just like we all spun it up from the media? How do you explain it all? First of all, Netflix is clickbait. So people write about Netflix and it gets read. And that’s a pretty juicy story. And [Trump] said, and by the way, like I said, he makes statements sometimes that lead to the beliefs of things that do and sometimes that don’t materialize at all. But I found my conversations with him were 100 percent about the industry, protecting the industry. And I think it’s very healthy that the president of the United States speaks to business leaders about industries that are important to the economy. To what degree did the narrative or the fact that David Ellison had a relationship or seemed to have a relationship with people in Washington who were in power, that that might have swayed or changed the dynamic at the end with where Warner Brothers went though? I can’t speak to what their thinking is on it. I feel like for me, it’s very important to know the folks in charge, but I wouldn’t count on it if you’re doing something that is not in the best interest of the country or the economy. You talked with Trump in the past about entertainment jobs. Were there specific policies you’ve advocated to him or anything that he brought up on that point? He has brought up tariffs for the movie and television industry many times. And I’ve hopefully talked to him the way out of them. I just said basically the same thing I said earlier. I think that incentive works much better. We’re seeing it in the U.S. things like the states compete with each other for production incentives and those states with good, healthy incentive programs attract a lot of production, and you’ve seen a lot of them move from California to Georgia to New Jersey, kind of looking for that what’s the best place to operate in, where you could put more on the screen. And I do think that having the incentives versus tariffs is much better. Netflix is now buying Ben Affleck’s AI company. What areas do you see AI having the most potential to change Netflix’s workflow? My focus is that AI should be a creator tool. But with the same way production tools have evolved over time, AI is just a rapid, important evolution of these tools. It is one of those. And the idea that the creators could use it to do things that they could never do before to do it. Potentially, they could do faster and cheaper. But the most impact will be if they can make it better. I don’t think faster and cheaper matters if it’s not better. This is the most competitive time in the history of media. So you’ve gotta be better every time out of the gate. And faster and cheaper consumers are not looking for faster and cheaper, they’re looking for better. I do think that AI, particularly InterPositive, the company we bought from Ben, will help creators make things better. Using their own dailies, using their own production materials to make the film that they’re making better. Still requires writers and actors and lighting techs and all the things that you’d use to make a movie, but be able to make the movie more effective, more efficient. Being able to do pick up shots and things like this that you couldn’t do before. It’s really remarkable. It’s a really remarkable company. As AI improves, do you see the role of human voice actors shrinking at Netflix? What’s interesting about that is if you look at the evolution of tools for dubbing and subtitling, the one for dubbing, we do a lot of A-B tests that people, if you watch something and you don’t like it, you just turn it off. The one thing that we find to be the most important part of dubbing is the performance. So good voice actors really matter. Yeah, it’s a lot cheaper to use AI, but without the performance, which is very human, it actually runs down the quality of the production. Will it evolve over time? Possibly, but it won’t evolve without the cooperation and the training of the actual voice actors themselves too. I think what will happen is you’ll be able to do things like pick up lines that you do months and months after the production. You’ll be able to recreate some of those lines in the film without having to call everybody back and redo everything which will help make a better film. You’re in the sort of early stages of a push into video podcast. What have you learned so far about what works and what doesn’t? It’s really early. The main thing is we’ve got a broad cross-section of podcasts. It’s nowhere near as complete as other podcast outlets yet. But the things that we leaned into are the things that are working. We kind of figured they would. You’ve got true crime, sports, comedy, all those things that we do well in the doc space already. And I really am excited about things where people can develop and deepen the relationship with the show itself or the [intellectual property] itself. Our Bridgerton podcast is really popular, and people really want to go deeper and we want to be able to provide that for them. I think a video podcast is just the evolution of talk shows. We have tried to and failed at many talk shows over the years, and for the most part it’s because the old days of TV, when 40 million people used to tune in to the Tonight Show every night, [are over]. What’s happened now is that it’s much smaller audiences that tune into multiple shows in the form of a podcast every day. And then they come up to be way bigger than the 40 million that Johnny Carson used to get. They’re all individual, and it’s a deeper relationship than it is a broad one. So instead of trying to make one show for the world, you might have to make hundreds or thousands of shows for the whole world.

India wants to “dramatically” deepen its partnership with the European Union, including by striking defense deals, as the Iran war and global crises push New Delhi closer to Brussels, the country’s foreign minister told POLITICO. In January, the EU inked what’s been described as the “mother of all” trade deals with India during a bilateral summit where Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa, the top two officials in the EU, were welcomed as official state guests during Republic Day celebrations. As that deal snakes its way toward approval in the European Parliament, India sees potential for further upgrading EU-India ties, notably by inking a security of information deal that could pave the way for much closer cooperation on defense armament agreements, per Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. “In my career, I have seen some of our relationships really change, dramatically change. And I am convinced that we are poised at that moment where Europe is concerned,” he said during a visit to Brussels where he attended a gathering of EU foreign ministers. “We are aware of the strategic nature of what we’re doing … This is not just one more trade deal. It’s something much much bigger,” he added. Jaishankar went on to cite potential deals for the EU to procure weapons from India’s armaments industry, including via the purchase of ammunition and drone and counter-drone technology, citing a deal with Airbus to construct in India as an example of deals to come. Such deals should occur within “an enabling environment where Indian companies and European companies have the ability to work with each other without any regulatory or political restriction,” he said, adding that he was “bullish” about prospects for EU-India relations. On trade, Jaishankar said he did not expect the Parliament to get in the way of the EU-India deal. “I think on India, frankly, there is a unity of purpose, and even in the European Parliament the overwhelming sentiment is very much, very much in favor.” Before the EU-India deal was signed, New Delhi had hoped to be exempted from the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, an exemption that was not granted. Jaishankar said that the two sides would “continue our discussions to see how any issues pertaining to that can be addressed.” GLOBAL MEDIATOR But there’s a dark cloud on the EU-India horizon: Russia. New Delhi has maintained its relations with Moscow, including purchasing its energy exports despite U.S. and EU sanctions on Russian oil. Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in December of last year, amid other ongoing contacts. The Indian minister — who cited the term “values-based realism” to describe India’s foreign policy outlook — said he expected to hear criticism from some EU counterparts about India-Russia ties during his stay in Brussels, but that this would be outweighed by desire for “mutual de-risking” in a time of turmoil. “I would certainly assume that I will hear views … which will be based on the European Union’s experience of dealing with Russia,” he said. “I think our position has been frankly very balanced and very objective. If you look at how many world leaders from 2022 have been to both Moscow and Kyiv, there are not that many. And my prime minister [Modi] happens to be one of them.” Jaishankar’s visit coincided with growing concerns about the impact of a U.S.-Israeli war against Iran — which the Indian foreign minister described as “deeply concerning.” “We have really enormous stakes there,” he said, referring to Iran. India had “very early on expressed deep concern because … when you see instability, when you [see] conflict in a contiguous area, that has consequences for a lot of people, and if on top of it your trade and energy are impacted, it matters a lot.” While U.S. President Donald Trump is pressing EU countries to help clear the Strait of Hormuz, India has avoided taking any sides. Jaishankar maintains regular contact with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, including a phone call late last week. Another conversation is expected to take place in coming days. Asked what sort of message he was relaying to Tehran, Jaishankar cited “the need to de-escalate,” “concern at the widening of the conflict,” the “energy implications for us,” as well as concern for the roughly 10,000 Indians residing in Iran and millions living across the wider region. “Our hope is that there is a decision made that heads toward an end to the conflict, certainly toward de-escalation, and then an end to the conflict,” he said, adding: “We only see a downside to this conflict.” As for India’s relationship with the United States, Jaishankar — who met with his counterpart, Marco Rubio, on Feb. 3 — steered clear of critical comments on Washington. Asked if he welcomed Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on exports of Russian energy firms Lukoil and Rosneft, he sidestepped, saying: “If you want the global economy to grow, if you want to see stability, predictability in the markets, then let the markets be the focus.” The U.S. and India are negotiating their own trade deal, which has stalled following a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court against Trump’s tariff policy. Asked if the delay had to do with the U.S. campaign against Iran, he added: “Well, I want to be very clear: what’s happening in the Middle East has nothing to do with that.”