BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s top trade lawmakers failed on Wednesday to reach a common position on the EU-U.S. trade deal, in a move that risks fueling Washington’s impatience against the EU’s slow pace in finally implementing its side of a bargain struck last summer. Negotiations will continue until next week, two people who attended a meeting of the lawmakers told POLITICO. One said that committee vote was penciled in for Feb. 24 and a final plenary vote for March. Both were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door talks. The meeting failed to clear remaining hurdles regarding the Parliament’s position on the removal of tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and lobsters — a precondition for Washington to reduce its own tariffs on European cars.  Lawmakers from the international trade committee disagreed on the length of a sunset clause which would limit the proposals’ application to 18 to 36 months, as well as whether the EU should withdraw any tariff concessions until a solution is found between Brussels and Washington on the 50 percent tariff the Trump administration has put on steel derivatives. With the EU still processing the shock of Trump’s threats against the territorial sovereignty of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, the liberal Renew group and the Socialists & Democrats are pushing to Trump-proof the deal by inserting suspension clauses into enabling legislation in case the U.S. president turns hostile again.  The center-right European People’s Party has pushed to sign off the deal following calls from EU leaders to unfreeze the implementation of the deal.  Failure to reach an agreement on Wednesday throws into disarray the timeline for parliamentary approval, and further delays the start of negotiations with EU capitals and the European Commission.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Im März stehen die ersten zwei von insgesamt fünf Landtagswahlen an. Baden-Württemberg und Rheinland-Pfalz sind der Auftakt. In der CDU derweil sind Vorschläge zur Abschaffung der”Lifestyle-Teilzeit” und der Streichung von Kassenleistung für den Zahnarztbesuch derweil Anlass für Unruhe. Die einen äußern sich, die anderen sind verärgert und kassieren die Ideen so schnell ein, wie sie gemacht werden.  Eine Partei sucht öffentlich ihre Linie und das macht die Wahlkämpfer unglücklich. Rasmus Buchsteiner berichtet von der Flatterstimmung und dem Versuch, unter anderem vor und auf dem CDU-Parteitag in Stuttgart den Schaden zu begrenzen. Außerdem bespricht er mit Gordon, wie die ausbleibenden Fortschritte bei den versprochenen Reformen die Situation mit ausgelöst haben. Gleichzeitig geht es für die SPD in den Umfragen bergauf. Zumindest in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Dort ist die AfD der Hauptgegner für die amtierende Ministerpräsidentin Manuela Schwesig. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht sie darüber, wie sie den Moment für sich nutzen und für ihre Partei nutzen will. Außerdem: Der Kanzler bricht heute zu seiner ersten offiziellen Reise in die Golfregion auf. Tom Schmidtgen vom Pro-Newsletter ‘Industrie und Handel am Morgen’ über den neuen wichtigen Partner Saudi-Arabien, der sich nicht nur seiner strategisch guten Lage, sondern auch seiner wirtschaftlichen Stärke bewusst ist.  Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. 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

The Trump administration wants to work with traditional allies to secure new supplies of critical minerals. But months of aggression toward allies, culminating with since-aborted threats to seize Greenland, have left many cool to the overtures. While the State Department has drawn a lengthy list of participating countries for its first Critical Minerals Ministerial scheduled for Wednesday, a number of those attending are hesitant to commit to partnering with the U.S. in creating a supply chain that bypasses China’s current chokehold on those materials, according to five Washington-based diplomats of countries invited to or attending the event. State Department cables obtained by POLITICO also show wariness among some countries about signing onto a framework agreement pledging joint cooperation in sourcing and processing critical minerals. Representatives from more than 50 countries are expected to attend the meeting, according to the State Department — all gathered to discuss the creation of tech supply chains that can rival Beijing’s. But the meeting comes just two weeks since President Donald Trump took to the stage at Davos to call on fellow NATO member Denmark to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and that isn’t sitting well. “We all need access to critical minerals, but the furor over Greenland is going to be the elephant in the room,” said a European diplomat. In the immediate run-up to the event there’s “not a great deal of interest from the European side,” the person added. The individual and others were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic relationships. Their concerns underscore how international dismay at the Trump administration’s foreign policy and trade actions may kneecap its other global priorities. The Trump administration had had some success over the past two months rallying countries to support U.S. efforts to create secure supply chains for critical minerals, including a major multilateral agreement called the Pax Silica Declaration. Now those gains could be at risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants foreign countries to partner with the U.S. in creating a supply chain for the 60 minerals (including rare earths) that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “vital to the U.S. economy and national security that face potential risks from disrupted supply chains.” They include antimony, used to produce munitions; samarium, which goes into aircraft engines; and germanium, which is essential to fiber-optics. The administration also launched a $12 billion joint public-private sector “strategic critical minerals stockpile” for U.S. manufacturers, a White House official said Monday. Trump has backed away from his threats of possibly deploying the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark. But at Davos he demanded “immediate negotiations” with Copenhagen to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the U.S. That makes some EU officials leery of administration initiatives that require cooperation and trust. “We are all very wary,” said a second European diplomat. Rubio’s critical minerals framework “will not be an easy sell until there is final clarity on Greenland.” Trump compounded the damage to relations with NATO countries on Jan. 22 when he accused member country troops that deployed to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 of having shirked combat duty. “The White House really messed up with Greenland and Davos,” a third European diplomat said. “They may have underestimated how much that would have an impact.” The Trump administration needs the critical minerals deals to go through. The U.S. has been scrambling to find alternative supply lines for a group of minerals called rare earths since Beijing temporarily cut the U.S. off from its supply last year. China — which has a near-monopoly on rare earths — relented in the trade truce that Trump brokered with China’s leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October. The administration is betting that foreign government officials that attend Wednesday’s event also want alternative sources to those materials. “The United States and the countries attending recognize that reliable supply chains are indispensable to our mutual economic and national security and that we must work together to address these issues in this vital sector,” the State Department statement said in a statement. The administration has been expressing confidence that it will secure critical minerals partnerships with the countries attending the ministerial, despite their concerns over Trump’s bellicose policy. “There is a commonality here around countering China,” Ruth Perry, the State Department’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for ocean, fisheries and polar affairs, said at an industry event on offshore critical minerals in Washington last week. “Many of these countries understand the urgency.” Speaking at a White House event Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that 11 nations would sign on to a critical minerals framework with the United States this week and another 20 are considering doing so. Greenland has rich deposits of rare earths and other minerals. But Denmark isn’t sending any representatives to the ministerial, according to the person familiar with the event’s planning. Trump said last month that a framework agreement he struck with NATO over Greenland’s future included U.S. access to the island’s minerals. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure in its interior makes the extraction of those materials highly challenging. Concern about the longer term economic and geostrategic risks of turning away from Washington in favor of closer ties with Beijing — despite the Trump administration’s unpredictability — may work in Rubio’s favor on Wednesday. “We still want to work on issues where our viewpoints align,” an Asian diplomat said. “Critical minerals, energy and defense are some areas where there is hope for positive movement.” State Department cables obtained by POLITICO show the administration is leaning on ministerial participants to sign on to a nonbinding framework agreement to ensure U.S. access to critical minerals. The framework establishes standards for government and private investment in areas including mining, processing and recycling, along with price guarantees to protect producers from competitors’ unfair trade policies. The basic template of the agreement being shared with other countries mirrors language in frameworks sealed with Australia and Japan and memorandums of understanding inked with Thailand and Malaysia last year. Enthusiasm for the framework varies. The Philippine and Polish governments have both agreed to the framework text, according to cables from Manila on Jan. 22 and Warsaw on Jan. 26. Romania is interested but “proposed edits to the draft MOU framework,” a cable dated Jan. 16 said. As of Jan. 22 India was noncommittal, telling U.S. diplomats that New Delhi “could be interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding in the future.” European Union members Finland and Germany both expressed reluctance to sign on without clarity on how the framework aligns with wider EU trade policies. A cable dated Jan. 15 said Finland “prefers to observe progress in the EU-U.S. discussions before engaging in substantive bilateral critical mineral framework negotiations.” Berlin also has concerns that the initiative may reap “potential retaliation from China,” according to a cable dated Jan. 16. Trump’s threats over the past two weeks to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada for cutting a trade deal with China and 25 percent tariffs on South Korea for allegedly slow-walking legislative approval of its U.S. trade agreement are also denting enthusiasm for the U.S. critical minerals initiative. Those levies “have introduced some uncertainty, which naturally leads countries to proceed pragmatically and keep their options open,” a second Asian diplomat said. There are also doubts whether Trump will give the initiative the long-term backing it will require for success. “There’s a sense that this could end up being a TACO too,” a Latin American diplomat said, using shorthand for Trump’s tendency to make big threats or announcements that ultimately fizzle. Analysts, too, argue it’s unlikely the administration will be able to secure any deals amid the fallout from Davos and Trump’s tariff barrages. “We’re very skeptical on the interest and aptitude and trust in trade counterparties right now,” said John Miller, an energy analyst at TD Cowen who tracks critical minerals. “A lot of trading partners are very much in a wait-and-see perspective at this point saying, ‘Where’s Trump really going to go with this?’” And more unpredictability or hostility by the Trump administration toward longtime allies could push them to pursue critical mineral sourcing arrangements that exclude Washington. “The alternative is that these other countries will go the Mark Carney route of the middle powers, cooperating among themselves quietly, not necessarily going out there and saying, ‘Hey, we’re cutting out the U.S.,’ but that these things just start to crop up,” said Jonathan Czin, a former China analyst at the CIA now at the Brookings Institution. “Which will make it more challenging and allow Beijing to play divide and conquer over the long term.” Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

Yanmei Xie is senior associate fellow at the Mercator Institute for China Studies. After Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke at Davos last week, a whole continent contracted leadership envy. Calling the rules-based order — which Washington proselytized for decades before stomping on — a mirage, Carney gave his country’s neighboring hegemonic bully a rhetorical middle finger, and Europeans promptly swooned. But before the bloc’s politicians rush to emulate him, it may be worth cooling the Carney fever. Appearing both steely and smooth in his Davos speech, Carney warned middle powers that “when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness.” Perhaps this was in reference to the crass daily coercion Canada has been enduring from the U.S. administration. But perhaps he was talking about the subtler asymmetry he experienced just days before in Beijing. In contrast to his defiance in Switzerland, Carney was ingratiating during his China visit. He signed Canada up for a “new strategic partnership” in preparation for an emerging “new world order,” and lauded Chinese leader Xi Jinping as a fellow defender of multilateralism. The visit also produced a cars-for-canola deal, which will see Canada slash tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles from 100 percent to 6.1 percent, and lift the import cap to 49,000 cars per year. In return, China will cut duties on Canadian canola seeds from 84 percent to 15 percent. In time, Ottawa also expects Beijing will reduce tariffs on Canadian lobsters, crabs and peas later this year and purchase more Canadian oil and perhaps gas, too. The agreement to launch a Ministerial Energy Dialogue will surely pave the way for eventual deals. These productive exchanges eventually moved Carney to declare Beijing a “more predictable” trade partner than Washington. And who can blame him? He was simply stating the obvious — after all, China isn’t threatening Canada with annexation. But one is tempted to wonder if he would have needed to flatter quite so much in China if his country still possessed some of the world’s leading technologies. The truth is, Canada’s oil and gas industry probably shouldn’t really be holding its breath. Chinese officials typically offer serious consideration rather than outright rejection out of politeness — just ask Russia, which has spent decades in dialogue with Beijing over a pipeline meant to replace Europe as a natural gas market. The cars-for-canola deal also carries a certain irony: Canada is importing the very technology that makes fossil fuels obsolete. China is electrifying at dizzying speed, with the International Energy Agency projecting its oil consumption will peak as early as next year thanks to “extraordinary” electric vehicle sales. That means Beijing probably isn’t desperate for new foreign suppliers of hydrocarbons, and the ministerial dialogue will likely drag on inconclusively — albeit courteously — well into the future. This state of Sino-Canadian trade can be seen as classic comparative advantage at work: China is good at making things, and Canada has abundant primary commodities. But in the not-so-distant past, it was Canadian companies that were selling nuclear reactors, telecom equipment, aircraft and bullet trains to China. Yet today, many of these once globe-spanning Canadian high-tech manufacturers have either exited the scene or lead a much-reduced existence. Somewhere in this trading history lies a cautionary tale for Europe. Deindustrialization can have its own self-reinforcing momentum. As a country’s economic composition changes, so does its political economy. When producers of goods disappear, so does their political influence. And the center of lobbying gravity shifts toward downstream users and consumers who prefer readily available imports. Europe’s indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products | STR/AFP via Getty Images Europe already has its own version of this story: Its indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products over the span of two decades. Currently, its solar industry is dominated by installers and operators who favor cheap imports and oppose trade defense. Simply put, Carney’s cars-for-canola deal is a salve for Canadian consumers and commodity producers, but it’s also industrial policy in reverse. In overly simplified terms, industrial policy is about encouraging exports of finished products over raw materials and discouraging the opposite in order to build domestic value-added capacity and productivity. But while Canada can, perhaps, make do without industry — as Carney put it in Davos, his ambition is to run “an energy superpower” — Europe doesn’t have that option. Agri-food and extractive sectors aren’t enough to stand up the continent’s economy — even with the likes of tourism and luxury goods thrown in. China currently exports more than twice as much to the EU than it imports. In container terms, the imbalance widens to 4-to-1. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs estimates Chinese exports will shave 0.2 percentage point or more of GDP growth in Germany, Spain and Italy each year through 2029. And according to the European Central Bank, cars, chemicals, electric equipment and machinery — sectors that form Europe’s industrial backbone — face the most severe job losses from China trade shock. Europe shares Canada’s plight in dealing with the U.S., which currently isn’t just an unreliable trade partner but also an ally turned imperialist. This is why Carney’s speech resonates. But U.S. protectionism has only made China’s mercantilism a more acute challenge for Europe, as the U.S. resists the bloc’s exports and Chinese goods keep pouring into Europe in greater quantities at lower prices. European leaders would be mistaken to look for trade relief in China as Carney does, and bargain away the continent’s industrial capacity in the process. Whether it’s to resist an expansionist Russia or an imperial U.S., Europe still needs to hold on to its manufacturing base.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s increasingly overt attempts to bring down the Cuban government are forcing Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum into a delicate diplomatic dance. Mexico is the U.S.’s largest trading partner. It is also the primary supplier of oil to Cuba since the U.S. seized control of Venezuela’s crude. Now, Sheinbaum must manage her relationship with a mercurial Trump, who has at times both praised her leadership and threatened to send the U.S. military into her country to combat drug trafficking — all while appeasing her left-wing party Morena, factions of which have historically aligned themselves with Cuba’s communist regime. That balance became even more difficult for Sheinbaum this week following reports that Mexico’s state-run oil company, Pemex, paused a shipment of oil headed for Cuba, which is grappling with shortages following the U.S. military action earlier this month in Venezuela. Asked about the suspension, the Mexican president said only that oil shipments are a “sovereign” decision and that future action will be taken on a “humanitarian” basis. On Thursday, Trump ramped up the pressure, declared a national emergency over what he couched as threats posed by the Cuban government and authorized the use of new tariffs against any country that sells or provides oil to the island. The order gives the administration broad discretion to impose duties on imports from countries deemed to be supplying Cuba, dramatically raising the stakes for Mexico as it weighs how far it can go without triggering economic retaliation from Washington — or worse. “It’s the proverbial shit hitting the fan in terms of the spillover effects that would have,” said Arturo Sarukhán, former Mexican ambassador to the U.S., referring to the possibility of a Pemex tanker being intercepted. Sheinbaum still refuses to hit back too hard against Trump, preferring to speak publicly in diplomatic platitudes even as she faces new pressure. Her posture stands in marked contrast to Canada’s Mark Carney, whose speech at Davos, urging world leaders to stand up to Trump, went viral and drew a swift rebuke from the White House and threats of new tariffs. But the latest episode is characteristic of Sheinbaum’s approach to Trump over the last year — one that has, so far, helped her avoid the kinds of headline-grabbing public ruptures that have plagued Carney, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron. Still, former Mexican officials say Trump’s threats — though not specific to Mexico — have triggered quiet debate inside the Mexican government over how much risk Sheinbaum can afford to absorb and how hard she should push back. “My sense is that right now, at least because of what’s at stake in the counter-narcotics and law enforcement agenda bilaterally, I think that neither government right now wants to turn this into a casus belli,” Sarukhán added. “But I do think that in the last weeks, the U.S. pressure on Mexico has risen to such a degree where you do have a debate inside the Mexican government as to what the hell do we do with this issue?” A White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the administration’s approach, said that Trump is “addressing the depredations of the communist Cuban regime by taking decisive action to hold the Cuban regime accountable for its support of hostile actors, terrorism, and regional instability that endanger American security and foreign policy.” “As the President stated, Cuba is now failing on its own volition,” the official added. “Cuba’s rulers have had a major setback with the Maduro regime that they are responsible for propping up.” Sheinbaum, meanwhile, responded to Trump’s latest executive order during her Friday press conference by warning that it could “trigger a large-scale humanitarian crisis, directly affecting hospitals, food supplies, and other basic services for the Cuban people.” “Mexico will pursue different alternatives, while clearly defending the country’s interests, to provide humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people, who are going through a difficult moment, in line with our tradition of solidarity and respect for international norms,” Sheinbaum said. The Mexican embassy in Washington declined further comment. Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, in a post on X, accused the U.S. of “resorting to blackmail and coercion in an attempt to make other countries to join its universally condemned blockade policy against Cuba.” The pressure on Sheinbaum to respond has collided with real political constraints at home. Morena has long maintained ideological and historical ties to Cuba, and Sheinbaum faces criticism from within her coalition over any move that could be seen as abandoning Havana. At the same time, she has come under growing domestic scrutiny over why Mexico should continue supplying oil abroad as fuel prices and energy concerns persist at home, making the “humanitarian” framing both a diplomatic shield and a political necessity. Amid the controversy over the oil shipment, Trump and Sheinbaum spoke by phone Thursday morning, with Trump describing the conversation afterward as “very productive” and praising Sheinbaum as a “wonderful and highly intelligent Leader.” Sheinbaum’s remarks after the call point to how she is navigating the issue through ambiguity rather than direct confrontation, noting that the two did not discuss Cuba. She described it as a “productive and cordial conversation” and that the two leaders would “continue to make progress on trade issues and on the bilateral relationship.” With the upcoming review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade looming, even the appearance of defying Trump’s push to cut off Cuba’s oil lifelines carries the potential for economic and diplomatic blowback. It also could undo the quiet partnership the U.S. and Mexico have struck on border security and drug trafficking issues. Gerónimo Gutiérrez, who served as Mexican ambassador to the U.S. during the first Trump administration, described Sheinbaum’s approach as “squish and muddle through.” “She obviously is trying to tread carefully with Trump. She doesn’t want to irritate him with this matter,” Gutiérrez said, adding that “she knows that it’s a problem.” Meanwhile, Cuba’s vulnerability has only deepened since the collapse of Venezuela’s oil support following this month’s U.S. operation that ousted President Nicolás Maduro. For years, Venezuelan crude served as a lifeline for the island, a gap Mexico has increasingly helped fill, putting the country squarely in Washington’s crosshairs as Trump squeezes Havana. With fuel shortages in Cuba triggering rolling blackouts and deepening economic distress, former U.S. officials who served in Cuba and regional analysts warn that Trump’s push to choke off remaining oil supplies could hasten a broader collapse — even as there is little clarity about how Washington would manage the political, humanitarian or regional fallout if the island tips over the edge. Trump has openly suggested that outcome is inevitable, telling reporters in Iowa on Tuesday that “Cuba will be failing pretty soon,” even as he pushed back on Thursday that the idea he was trying to “choke off” the country. “The word ‘choke off’ is awfully tough,” Trump said. “It looks like it’s not something that’s going to be able to survive. I think Cuba will not be able to survive.” The administration, however, has offered few details about what would come next, and Latin American analysts warn that the U.S. and Mexico are likely to face an influx of migrants — including to Florida and the Yucatán Peninsula — seeking refuge should Cuba collapse. There is no evidence that the Trump administration has formally asked Mexico to halt oil shipments to Cuba. Trump’s executive order leaves it to the president’s Cabinet to determine whether a country is supplying oil to Cuba and the rate at which it should be tariffed — an unusual deferral of power for a president for whom tariffs are a favorite negotiating tool. But former U.S. officials say that absence of an explicit demand to Mexico does not mean the pressure is theoretical. Lawrence Gumbiner, who served as chargé d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Havana during the first Trump administration, believes Washington would be far more likely to lean on economic pressure than the kind of military force it has used to seize Venezuelan oil tankers. At the same time, the administration’s push on Venezuela began with a similar executive order last spring. “There’s no doubt that the U.S. is telling Mexico to just stop it,” Gumbiner said. “I think there’s a much slimmer chance that we would engage our military to actually stop Mexican oil from coming through. That would be a last resort. But with this administration you cannot completely discount the possibility of a physical blockade of the island if they decide that it’s the final step in strangling the island.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly backed Kevin Warsh as the next chair of the Federal Reserve on Friday, calling him a “fantastic choice,” in a rare point of alignment amid an escalating U.S.-Canada trade war. “Kevin Warsh is a fantastic choice to lead the world’s most important central bank at this crucial time,” Carney wrote on X shortly after President Donald Trump announced he will nominate the former Fed board member to replace current chair, Jerome Powell. Carney is an experienced central banker himself. He oversaw the Bank of Canada from 2008-2013, briefly overlapping with Warsh’s first tenure as a Fed governor, before leading the Bank of England from 2013-2020. The endorsement stood out as relations between the Trump administration and Canada continue to strain, with Canadian officials warning that Trump’s trade agenda and broader foreign policy are destabilizing both the U.S. and Canadian economies. On Saturday, Trump threatened to impose a 100 percent tariff on Canada if it follows through on a planned trade deal with China. In his latest threat Thursday, he said he would impose a 50 percent tariff on Canadian-made aircrafts after a dispute over aviation certification. “Canada is effectively prohibiting the sale of Gulfstream products in Canada through this very same certification process,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “If, for any reason, this situation is not immediately corrected, I am going to charge Canada a 50% Tariff on any and all Aircraft sold into the United States of America.” Earlier this week, the Bank of Canada said U.S. tariffs are expected to have a “lasting negative impact” on Canada’s economy, citing prolonged uncertainty tied to Trump’s trade policies. “It’s pretty clear that the days of open rules-based trade with the United States are over,” Bank of Canada Gov. Tiff Macklem said. “It’s not a good thing for Americans. It’s not a good thing for Canadians.” In an interview with Reuters on Wednesday, Macklem said Trump’s actions could derail the central bank’s economic forecasts, pointing to Trump’s repeated tariff threats against Canada and other actions abroad, including repeat pressure on Greenland and the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. “There is unusual potential for a new shock, a new disruption,” he said. “Geopolitical risks are elevated.” Macklem also voiced his support for Powell, telling Reuters that he told Powell in a private conversation that he was “doing a good job under difficult circumstances.” Several global central bank leaders, including Macklem, issued a joint statement earlier this month in support of Powell and the Federal Reserve after the Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation into the Fed chair. They warned that political pressure on central banks could undermine global financial stability. “We stand in full solidarity with the Federal Reserve System and its Chair Jerome H. Powell,” the statement said. “Chair Powell has served with integrity, focused on his mandate and an unwavering commitment to the public interest. To us, he is a respected colleague who is held in the highest regard by all who have worked with him.”

SHANGHAI — As Keir Starmer arrived for the first visit by a British prime minister to China for eight years, he stood next to a TV game show-style wheel of fortune. The arrow pointed at “rise high,” next to “get rich immediately” and “everything will go smoothly.” Not one option on the wheel was negative. Sadly for the U.K. prime minister, reality does not match the wheel — but he gave it a good go. After an almost decade-long British chill toward China, Starmer reveled in three hours of talks and lunch with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, where he called for a “more sophisticated” relationship and won effusive praise in return. Britain boasted it had secured visa-free travel for British citizens to China for up to 30 days and a cut in Chinese tariffs on Scotch whisky. Xi even said the warming would help “world peace.” His wins so far (many details of which remain vague) are only a tiny sliver of the range of opportunities he claimed Chinese engagement could bring — and do not even touch on the controversies, given Beijing’s record on aggressive trade practices, human rights, espionage, cyber sabotage and transnational repression. But the vibes on the ground are clear — Starmer is loving it, and wants to go much further. POLITICO picks out five takeaways from following the entourage. 1) THERE’S NO TURNING BACK NOW Britain is now rolling inevitably toward greater engagement in a way that will be hard to reverse. Labour’s warming to China has been in train since the party was in opposition, inspired by the U.S. Democrats and Australian Labor, and the lead-up to this meeting took more than a year. No. 10 has bought into China’s reliance on protocol and iterative engagement. Xi is said to have been significantly warmer toward Starmer this week (their second meeting) than the first time they met at the G20 in Rome. Officials say it takes a long time to warm him up. There is no doubt China’s readout of the meeting was deliberately friendlier to Labour than the Conservatives. One person on the last leader-level visit to China, by Conservative PM Theresa May in 2018, recalled that the meetings were “intellectually grueling” because Xi used consecutive translation, speaking for long periods before May could reply. This time officials say he used simultaneous translation. It will not end here — because Starmer can’t afford for it to. Many of the dozen or so deals announced this week are only commitments to investigate options for future cooperation, so Britain will need to now push them into reality, with an array of dialogues planned in the future along with a visit by Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper. As Business Secretary Peter Kyle told a Thursday night reception at the British Embassy: “This trip is just the start.” 2) BRITAIN’S STILL ON THE EASY WINS Deals on whisky tariffs and visa-free travel were top of the No. 10 list but — as standalone wins without national security implications — they were the lowest-hanging fruit. The two sides agreed to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement, which would make it easier for lawyers and accountants to use their professional qualifications across the two countries. In return, investment decisions in China were announced by firms including AstraZeneca and Octopus Energy. But many of the other deals are only the start of a dialogue. One U.K. official called them “jam tomorrow deals.” And Luke de Pulford, of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China campaign group, argued that despite Britain having a slight trade surplus in services “it’s tiny compared to the whole.” He added: “This trip to China seems to be based upon the notion that China is part of the solution to our economic woes. It’s not rooted in any evidence. China hasn’t done foreign direct investment in any serious way since 2017. It’s dropped off a cliff.” Then there are areas — particularly wind farms — where officials are more edgy and which weren’t discussed by Starmer and Xi. One industry figure dismissed concerns that China could install “kill switches” in key infrastructure — shutting down a wind turbine would be the equivalent of a windless day — but concerns are real. A second U.K. official said Britain had effectively categorized areas of the economy into three buckets — “slam dunks” to engage with China, “slam dunks” to block China, and everything in between. “We’ve been really clear [with China] about which sectors are accessible,” they said, which had helped smooth the path. Then there are the litany of non-trade areas where China will be reluctant to engage: being challenged on Xi’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the treatment of the Uyghur people and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai. Britain is still awaiting approval of a major revamp of its embassy in Beijing, which will be expensive with U.K. contractors, materials and tech, all security-cleared, being brought in. 3) STARMER AND HIS TEAM WERE GENUINELY LOVING IT After such a build-up and so much controversy, Starmer has … been having a great time. The prime minister has struggled to peel the smile off his face and told business delegates they were “making history.” Privately, several people around him enthused about the novelty of it all (many have never visited China and Starmer has not done so since before he went into politics). One said they were looking forward to seeing how Xi operates: “He’s very enigmatic.” Briefing journalists in a small ante-room in the Forbidden City, Starmer enthused about Xi’s love of football and Shakespeare. And talking to business leaders, he repeated the president’s line about blind men finding an elephant: “One touches the leg and thinks it’s a pillow, another feels the belly and thinks it’s a wall. Too often this reflects how China is seen.” So into the spirit was Starmer that he even ticked off Kyle for not bowing deeply enough. At the signing ceremony for a string of business deals, Kyle had seen his counterpart bend halfway to the floor — and responded with a polite nod of the head. The vibes were energetic. Britain’s new ambassador to Beijing, Peter Wilson, flitted around ceaselessly and sat along from Starmer in seat 1E. The PM’s No. 10 business adviser, Varun Chandra, jumped from CEO to CEO at the British embassy. The whole delegation was on burner phones and laptops (even leaving Apple Watches at home) but the security fears soon faded to the background for U.K. officials. CEOs on the trip queued up to tell journalists that Starmer was making the right choice. “We risk a technological gulf if we don’t engage,” said one. There is one problem. Carry on like this, and Starmer will struggle to maintain his line that he is not re-entering a “golden era” — like the one controversially pushed by the Tories under David Cameron in the early 2010s — after all. 4) BUSINESS WAS EVERYTHING The trip was a tale of two groups of CEOs. The creatives and arts bosses gave the stardust and human connection that such a controversial visit needed — but business investment was the meat. In his opening speech Starmer name-checked three people: Business Secretary Peter Kyle, City Minister Lucy Rigby and No. 10 business adviser Varun Chandra. It even came through in the seating plan on the chartered British Airways plane, with financial services CEOs in the pricey seats while creatives were in economy — although this was because they were all paying their own way. Everyone knew the bargain. One arts CEO confessed that, while their industry made money too, they knew they were not the uppermost priority. Starmer’s aides insist they are delighted with what they managed to bag from Xi on Thursday, and believe it is at the top end of the expectations they had on the way out. But that will mean the focus back home on the final “big number” of investment that No. 10 produces — and the questions about whether it is worth all the political energy — are even more acute. 5) STARMER’S STILL WALKING A TIGHTROPE British CEOs were taken to see a collection of priceless Ming vases. It was a good metaphor. Starmer and the No. 10 operation were more reticent even than usual on Thursday, refusing to give on-the-record comment about several basic details of what he raised in his meeting with Xi. Journalists were told that he raised the case of democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, but not whether he called directly for his release. The readout of the meeting from Communist China was more extensive (and poetic) than that from No. 10. Likewise, journalists were given no advance heads-up of deals on tariffs and visas, even in the few hours between the bilateral and the announcements, while the details and protocol were nailed down. There was good reason for the reticence. Not only was Starmer cautious not to offend his hosts; he also did not want to enrage U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened Canada with new tariffs after PM Mark Carney’s visit to Beijing this month. Even with No. 10 briefing the U.S. on the trip’s objectives beforehand, and Starmer giving a pre-flight interview saying he wouldn’t choose between Xi and Trump, the president called Britain’s engagement “very dangerous” on Friday. And then there’s the EU. The longer Trump’s provocations go on, the more some of Starmer’s more Europhile allies will want him to side not with the U.S. or China, but Brussels. “There’s this huge blind spot in the middle of Europe,” complained one European diplomat. “The U.K. had the advantage of being the Trump whisperer, but that’s gone now.” Starmer leaves China hoping he can whisper to Trump, Xi and Ursula von der Leyen all at the same time.

BEIJING — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s reengagement with China is “very dangerous,” Donald Trump said Friday. The U.S. president made the remarks after the British prime minister met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing Thursday, where Starmer called for a “more sophisticated” relationship between the two countries and secured visa-free travel for British citizens to China for up to 30 days and a cut in Chinese tariffs on Scotch whisky. Starmer has been at pains to stress that he will not choose between trade with the U.S. and China. Downing Street has pointed out that Trump himself plans to visit China in April, and that the American president has called Xi his friend. Starmer also contrasted his approach with that of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose visit to China this month — and subsequent speech in Davos declaring the old world order “ruptured” — prompted Trump to threaten a new wave of tariffs on Ottawa. Trump was asked about the U.K.’s pursuit of closer ties with Beijing as he attended the premiere of the film “Melania” in Washington. The U.S. president saved his harshest criticism for Carney but also warned Britain about its business dealings with China. “It’s very dangerous for them to do that,” Trump said. “And it’s even more dangerous, I think, for Canada to get into business with China. “Canada is not doing well. They’re doing very poorly, and you can’t look at China as the answer. “I know China very well. I know President Xi is a friend of mine. I know him very well. But that’s a big hurdle to go over.” On the plane to Beijing on Tuesday night, Starmer rebuffed questions about whether his trip would irk Trump. “The relationship we have with the U.S. is one of the closest relationships we hold, on defense, security, intelligence and also on trade and lots of areas,” he said. “We had a very successful state visit from President Trump last year which led to hundreds of billions of pounds being invested in each other’s economies so it’s a very important relationship. “It doesn’t make sense to stick our head in the ground and bury in the sand when it comes to China,” Starmer added. “It’s in our interests to engage and not compromise on national security, and that’s why we have been able to set out a consistent, comprehensive approach.”

LONDON — It’s a far cry from the ice age of U.K.-China relations that characterized Rishi Sunak’s leadership — and it’s not exactly David Cameron’s “golden era,” either.  As U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer embarks on his Chinese charm offensive against a turbulent economic backdrop, he has opted for a softly-softly approach in a bid to warm up one of Britain’s most important trading partners — a marked departure from his Tory predecessors. With the specter of U.S. President Donald Trump looming over the visit — not to mention national security concerns back home — Starmer’s cautious optimism is hardly surprising.  Despite reservations from China skeptics, Starmer’s trip — the first such visit by a British prime minister since 2018 — was peppered with warm words and a smattering of deals, some more consequential than others. Britain’s haul from the trip may be modest, but it’s just the beginning, Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle — who joined Starmer on the trip — told a traveling pack of reporters in Beijing. “This visit is a springboard,” the minister said. “This is not the last moment, it is a springboard into a future with far more action to come.” STEP-BY-STEP On the ground in Beijing, British officials gave the impression that the prime minister was focused on getting as many uncontroversial wins over the line as possible, in a bid to thaw relations with China. That’s not to say Starmer and his team don’t have a few tangible wins to write home about. Headline announcements include a commitment from China to allow visa-free travel for British tourists and business travelers, enabling visits of up to 30 days without the need for documents.   The provisions are similar to those extended to 50 other countries including France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan. The timings of the visa change have not yet been set out publicly, but one official — who, like others cited in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak freely — said they were aiming to get it nailed down in coming months. “From a business standpoint, it will reduce a lot of friction,” said a British business representative, adding it will make it easier for U.K. firms to explore opportunities and form partnerships. “China is very complicated. You have to be on the ground to really assess opportunities,” they said, adding visa-free travel “will make things a lot easier.” The commitment to visa-free travel forms part of a wider services package aimed at driving  collaboration for businesses in healthcare, financial and professional services, legal services, education and skills — areas where British firms often face regulatory or administrative hurdles.  The countries have also agreed to conduct a “feasibility study” to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement. If it goes ahead, this would establish clear and legally binding rules for U.K. firms doing business in China. Once again, the timeframe is vague. David Taylor, head of policy at the Asia House think tank in London, said “Xi’s language has been warmer and more expansive, signaling interest in stabilizing the relationship, but the substance on offer so far remains tightly defined.” “Beyond the immediate announcements, progress — particularly on services and professional access — will be harder and slower if it happens at all,” he added. WHISKY TARIFF RELIEF Another victory talked up by the British government is a plan for China to slash Scotch whisky tariffs by half, from 10 percent to 5 percent.  However, some may question the scale of the commitment, which effectively restores the rate that was in place one year ago, ahead of a doubling of the rate for whisky and brandy in February 2025. The two sides have not yet set out a timeframe for the reduction of tariffs.  Speaking to POLITICO ahead of Starmer’s trip, a senior business representative said the whisky and brandy issue had become “China leverage” in talks leading up to the visit. However, they argued that even a removal of the tariff was “not going to solve the main issue for British whisky companies in China and everywhere, which is that people aren’t buying and drinking whisky.” CHINA INVESTMENT WIN Meanwhile, China can boast a significant win in the form of a $15 billion investment in medicines manufacturing and research and development from British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca.  ING Bank’s global healthcare lead Stephen Farelly said that increasing investment into China “makes good business sense,” given the country is “now becoming a force in biopharma.” However, it “does shine a light on the isolation of Europe and the U.K. more generally, where there is a structural decline in investment and R&D.” AstraZeneca recently paused a £200 million investment at a Cambridge research site in September last year, which was due to create 1,000 jobs.  Britain recently increased the amount the NHS pays for branded, pharmaceutical drugs, following heavy industry lobbying and following trade negotiations with the Trump administration — all in the hopes of attracting new investment into the struggling sector.  Shadow Trade Secretary Andrew Griffith was blunt in his assessment. “AstraZeneca’s a great British company but under this government it’s investing everywhere in the world other than its U.K. home. When we are losing investment to communist China, alarm bells should be ringing in No 10 Downing Street.” Conspicuously absent from Starmer’s haul was any mention of net zero infrastructure imports, like solar panels, a reflection of rising concerns about China’s grip on Britain’s critical infrastructure. XI RETURNS So what next? As Starmer prepares to fly back home, attention has already turned to his next encounter with the Chinese leader.  On Thursday, Britain opened the door to an inward visit by Xi Jinping, with Downing Street repeatedly declining to rule out the prospect of welcoming him in future. Asked about the prospect of an inward visit — which would be the first for 11 years — Starmer’s official spokesperson told reporters: “I think the prime minister has been clear that a reset relationship with China, that it’s no longer in an ice age, is beneficial to British people and British business.” As Starmer’s trip draws to a close, one thing is certain: there is more to come. “This isn’t a question of a one-and-done summit with China,” Starmer’s spokesperson added. “It is a resetting of a relationship that has been on ice for eight years.”

The Chinese hoped President Donald Trump’s push for Greenland would help them peel Europe away from America. The Finns were desperate to prevent a trade war over the island. And Iceland was furious over a suggestion that it’s next on Trump’s target list — the “52nd state.” A batch of State Department cables obtained by POLITICO expose the deep reverberations of the president’s demands for Greenland as foreign officials vented their frustrations this month with American counterparts. The messages, which have not been previously reported, offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the thinking of allies and adversaries about the impact of Trump’s would-be land grab. They highlight a new point of tension in a transatlantic relationship already strained by Russia’s war in Ukraine, fights over tariffs and U.S. criticism of European policies. And they come just as Trump discusses a framework deal that stops short of allowing the U.S. to own Greenland, but which could expand U.S. military and mining activity in the Danish territory. The cables — perhaps most critically — underscore how important the U.S. remains to so many countries in Europe, even if Trump’s behavior is pushing that continent’s leaders to the edge. “Let’s not get a divorce,” Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said, according to one cable, “especially not a messy one.” A cable from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing on Jan. 21 suggests the Chinese government is eager to benefit from Trump’s moves against Greenland. The situation “offers China an opportunity to benefit from European hedging” and could “amplify trans-Atlantic frictions,” U.S. diplomats wrote in laying out the thinking in China. But the cable, which cites media and analysts affiliated with the ruling Chinese Communist Party, also notes that Chinese leadership was aware that a larger U.S. military footprint in Greenland could complicate their goals in the Arctic and “consolidate U.S. military and infrastructure advantages.” Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu didn’t address the content of the cable directly, but said any Chinese actions were in line with international law. “China’s activities in the Arctic are aimed at promoting the peace, stability and sustainable development of the region,” Liu said. Another cable, dated Jan. 20 from the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki, outlined the concern in the Finland foreign minister’s office over Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on European countries that had sent military advisers to Greenland to plan troop exercises. Valtonen came across as eager to calm tensions. She told visiting U.S. lawmakers that the arrival of a few soldiers in Greenland was a “misunderstanding,” according to the cable. Finland had no plans to do anything “against the Americans” and the officers — “a couple of guys” — were already back in Finland, she said. She downplayed European Union threats to retaliate over the threatened tariffs, calling it a negotiating tactic, and said she’d push the EU to “do anything to prevent a trade war.” The Finnish government did not respond to a request for comment. When asked about the cables, the State Department referred to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s testimony on Wednesday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He noted that talks between the U.S., Denmark and Greenland have started, and “will be a regular process,” though he didn’t offer any detail. “We’ve got a little bit of work to do, but I think we’re going to wind up in a good place,” he said. “And I think you’ll hear the same from our colleagues in Europe very shortly.” There was also drama in Iceland after Trump’s nominee for ambassador to that country, Billy Long, joked that Iceland could become the “52nd state” — presumably once Greenland became the 51st — and he would act as governor. Iceland’s Permanent Secretary of State Martin Eyjólfsson summoned U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Erin Sawyer to demand a high-level U.S. apology and tell her that such talk “has no place in international discourse,” according to a Jan. 23 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavík to Washington. Sawyer told him making Iceland a state was not U.S. policy, according to the cable, and pointed out that Long had apologized for the comments. There was no indication Sawyer delivered a high-level apology from the U.S. government as Iceland had requested. The Icelandic Embassy did not respond to a request for comment. Trump last week walked back months of threats about taking Greenland by force and launching a trade war against NATO allies over the issue. He and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte reached a “framework of a future deal” on Greenland at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump announced. The proposals Rutte and Trump have discussed include three main elements. One would allow the U.S. to have full sovereignty over its bases in Greenland, along the lines of Britain’s basing rights in Cyprus, according to a European diplomat and another person familiar with the planning. The U.S. would also be allowed to establish more bases, although Denmark would get a veto over where on the Arctic island, according to the person. They, like others interviewed, were granted anonymity to discuss internal planning. The framework includes the possibility of integrating Trump’s Golden Dome defense shield into plans for a framework as well as a NATO mission focused on the Arctic. The proposal would also give the U.S. first right of refusal on natural resource extraction projects. It’s not clear how long it will take to hash out details or bring Greenland and Denmark on board. Both insist that, whatever happens, they will not compromise on sovereignty. Despite that confident rhetoric, Trump’s threats about Greenland have posed an existential threat for NATO, which rarely sees such intra-alliance feuding. Rutte has moved fast in search of a compromise. He has used NATO’s machinery to his advantage, capitalizing on Europe’s eagerness to keep the alliance together to lobby allies in favor of stepping up work on Arctic security. Rutte was “persistent,” one senior NATO diplomat said. The NATO leader, armed with concrete options he could offer Trump, sought to align national positions. As the crisis escalated, he spent “many days” in calls with national security advisers and leaders, including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Britain’s Keir Starmer and Trump, according to a person familiar with the calls. His efforts led to the session in Davos, which Trump described as “very productive,” and appeared to defuse a potential NATO eruption. But European officials remain worried about the diplomatic situation and uncertain of what Trump seeks. “What we need right now in NATO is unity,” a European official said, “And what the United States is doing is a huge mistake by raising this Greenland topic.” Nette Nöstlinger in Berlin contributed to this report.