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

LONDON — Civil servants in Britain’s business department are testing AI-enabled toys to determine their safety ahead of potential new restrictions. The testing is being carried out by the little-known Office for Product Safety & Standards, part of the Department for Business and Trade, and involves officials putting the toys through real-life scenarios to see how they respond, according to one person involved granted anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the work. AI toys integrate chatbots, which can engage in human-like conversations with the user, into physical toys designed for children — and many are already on the market, even as researchers warn we don’t know much about the risks they might pose to kids. If a toy were determined to be unsafe, the government could intervene through the Product Safety and Metrology Act passed last year, which grants it increased powers to impose regulations on consumer products put on the U.K. market, including those sold online. The government has also said it will consult shortly on “major reforms” to the U.K.’s product safety framework to tackle the prevalence of unsafe products sold to Brits and increase the regime’s enforcement powers. In a written statement in December, Digital Economy Minister Liz Lloyd said the government was committed to reviewing the regulations for toys, which would “examine whether changes are needed to detailed safety requirements to reflect modern challenges, such as the use of AI in toys.” It comes amid warnings from researchers and consumer and parent groups over the safety of AI toys and their impact on children. A study by University of Cambridge researchers this month warned that AI toys are already being marketed to children despite a lack of robust studies about how they could impact early years development. The researchers called for stricter regulation and labeling requirements to help inform parents. Testing one toy, the researchers found that it often misunderstood children and reacted inappropriately to emotions. In one instance a toy reacted to a five-year-old boy saying “I love you” with “please ensure interactions adhere to the guidelines provided.” In an open letter issued before Christmas, U.K.-based campaign group set@16 declared the marketing of AI toys to British toddlers a “national and international emergency” and demanded an “immediate moratorium on sales and an urgent product recall.” Some experts have suggested that a “product safety” approach — whereby the onus is on those marketing a product to demonstrate that it meets consumer safety standards — could provide a blueprint to regulate AI more broadly. Some within Labour have heard that message. Speaking at a conference in London last week, Labour MP Tom Collins argued that a product safety approach could provide a more familiar framework for regulating the novel technology than sweeping regulation. Product safety is “a really good benchmark that we can all agree on,” he said.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music From ChatGPT-written speeches to constituents flooding MPs with AI-generated emails, artificial intelligence has arrived in Westminster. In this episode of Westminster Insider, host Patrick Baker explores how politicians and ministers are scrambling to respond, balancing fears about deepfakes, bias and online harms with a determination to harness AI for economic growth. The UK’s first AI minister, Kanishka Narayan, says he believes that an artificial intelligence more capable than humans (so-called AGI) could arrive in five years’ time, and explains how he is trying to balance the risks of AI with its economic potential. Labour MP Mike Reader, dubbed the “ChatG-MP” after being spotted using the model to respond to constituents on a train, describes how AI is changing the day-to-day work of politicians. Conservative MP Luke Evans reflects on delivering the first AI-generated speech in the House of Commons. Labour MP Dawn Butler, who served on Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee, sets out her concerns about AI perpetuating racial discrimination and why she believes it must be tightly controlled. POLITICO’s Tech Editor Isobel Hamilton traces the twists and turns of the UK’s AI policy, including the influence of a pivotal meeting between the Prime Minister and a leading tech CEO. And Andrea Miotti, CEO of Control AI, explains why he believes urgent action is needed to guard against the existential risks posed by increasingly powerful systems.

The FBI is buying up information that can be used to track people’s movement and location history, Director Kash Patel said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. It is the first confirmation that the agency is actively buying people’s data since former Director Christopher Wray said in 2023 that the FBI had purchased location data in the past but was not doing so at that time. “We do purchase commercially available information that’s consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us,” Patel told senators at the Intelligence Committee’s annual Worldwide Threats hearing. The U.S. Supreme Court has required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant for getting people’s location data from cell phone providers since 2018, but data brokers offer an alternative avenue by purchasing the information directly. Many lawmakers want to end the practice. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Government Surveillance Reform Act on March 13, which would require federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant to buy Americans’ personal information. “Doing that without a warrant is an outrageous end run around the Fourth Amendment, it’s particularly dangerous given the use of artificial intelligence to comb through massive amounts of private information,” Wyden said at Wednesday’s hearing. The bill has a House counterpart introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio). Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) defended the practice at the hearing. “The key words are commercially available. If any other person can buy it, and the FBI can buy it, and it helps them locate a depraved child molester or savage cartel leader, I would certainly hope the FBI is doing anything it can to keep Americans safe,” he said. Defense Intelligence Agency Director James Adams told senators at the hearing that his agency also purchases commercially available information.

The 21st century is more likely to belong to Beijing than to Washington — at least that’s the view from four key U.S. allies. Swaths of the public in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. have soured on the U.S., driven by President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions, according to recent results from The POLITICO Poll. Respondents in these countries increasingly see China as a more dependable partner than the U.S. and believe the Asian economic colossus is leading on advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence. Critically, Europeans surveyed see it as possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. but harder to reduce reliance on China — suggesting newfound entanglements that could drastically tip the balance of global power away from the West. Here are five key takeaways from the poll highlighting the pivot from the U.S. to China. The POLITICO Poll — in partnership with U.K. polling firm Public First — found that respondents in those four allied countries believe it is better to depend on China than the U.S. following Trump’s turbulent return to office. That appears to be driven by Trump’s disruption, not by a newfound stability in China: In a follow-up question, a majority of respondents in both Canada and Germany agreed that any attempts to get closer to China are because the U.S. has become harder to depend on — not because China itself has become a more reliable partner. Many respondents in France (38 percent) and the U.K. (42 percent) also shared that sentiment. Under Trump’s “America First” ethos, Washington has upended the “rules-based international order” of the past with sharp-elbowed policies that have isolated the U.S. on the global stage. This includes slow-walking aid to Ukraine, threatening NATO allies with economic punishment and withdrawing from major international institutions, including the World Health Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Council. His punitive liberation day tariffs, as well as threats to annex Greenland and make Canada “the 51st state,” have only further strained relationships with top allies. Beijing has seized the moment to cultivate better business ties with European countries looking for an alternative to high U.S. tariffs on their exports. Last October, Beijing hosted a forum aimed at shoring up mutual investments with Europe. More recently, senior Chinese officials described EU-China ties as a partnership rather than a rivalry. “The administration has assisted the Chinese narrative by acting like a bully,” Mark Lambert, former deputy assistant secretary of State for China and Taiwan in the Biden administration, told POLITICO. “Everyone still recognizes the challenges China poses — but now, Washington no longer works in partnership and is only focused on itself.” These sentiments are already being translated into action. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney declared a “rupture” between Ottawa and Washington in January and backed that rhetoric by sealing a trade deal with Beijing that same month. The U.K. inked several high-value export deals with China not long after, while both French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have returned from recent summits in Beijing with Chinese purchase orders for European products. Respondents across all four allied countries are broadly supportive of efforts to create some distance from the U.S. — and say they’re also more dependent on China. In Canada, 48 percent said it would be possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. and believe their government should do so. In the U.K., 42 percent said reducing reliance on the U.S. sounded good in theory, but were skeptical it could happen in practice. By contrast, fewer respondents across those countries believe it would actually be possible to reduce reliance on China — a testament to Beijing’s dominance of global supply chains. Young adults may be drawn to China as an alternative to U.S. cultural hegemony. Respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 were significantly more supportive than their older peers of building a closer relationship with China. A recent study commissioned by the Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences — a Beijing-based think tank — suggests most young Europeans get their information about China and Chinese life through social media. Nearly 70 percent of those aged 18 to 25 said they rely on social media and other short-form video platforms for information on China. And the media they consume is likely overwhelmingly supportive of China, as TikTok, one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, was built by Chinese company ByteDance and has previously been accused of suppressing content deemed negative toward China. According to Alicja Bachulska, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, younger generations believe the U.S. has led efforts to depict China as an authoritarian regime and a threat to democracy, while simultaneously degrading its own democratic values. The trend “pushes a narrative that ‘we’ve been lied to’ about what China is,” said Bachulska, as “social sentiment among the youth turns against the U.S.” “It’s an expression of dissatisfaction with the state of U.S. politics,” she added. There’s a clear consensus among those surveyed in Europe and Canada that China is winning the global tech race — a coveted title central to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s grand policy vision. China is leading the U.S. and other Western nations in the development of electric batteries and robotics, while Chinese designs have also become the global standard in electric vehicles and solar panels. “There has been a real vibe shift in global perception of Chinese tech and innovation dominance,” said Sarah Beran, who served as deputy chief of mission in the U.S. embassy in Beijing during the Biden administration. This digital rat race is most apparent in the fast-paced development of artificial intelligence. China has poured billions of dollars into research initiatives, poaching top tech talent from U.S. universities and funding state-backed tech firms to advance its interests in AI. The investment appears to be paying off — a plurality of respondents from Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is more likely to develop the first superintelligent AI. But these advancements have done little to change American minds. A majority of respondents in the U.S. still see American-made tech as superior to Chinese tech, even in the realm of AI. As Washington and its allies grow more estranged, the perception of the U.S. as the dominant world power is in retreat — though most Americans don’t see it that way. About half of all respondents in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is rapidly becoming a more consequential superpower. This is particularly true among those who say the U.S. is no longer a positive force for the world. By contrast, 63 percent of respondents in the U.S. believe their nation will maintain its dominance in 10 years — reflecting major disparities in beliefs about global power dynamics between the U.S. and its European allies. This view of China as the world’s power center may not have been entirely organic. The U.S. has accused Beijing of pouring billions of dollars into international information manipulation efforts, including state-backed media initiatives and the deployment of tools to stifle online criticism of China and its policies. Some fear that a misplaced belief among U.S. allies in the inevitability of China surpassing the U.S. as a global superpower could be helping accelerate Beijing’s rise. “Europe is capable of defending itself against threats from China and contesting China’s vision of a more Sinocentric, authoritarian-friendly world order,” said Henrietta Levin, former National Security Council director for China in the Biden administration. “But if Europe believes this is impossible and does not try to do so, the survey results may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.” METHOLODGY The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Feb. 6 to Feb. 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.

By Anna Wiederkehr and Erin Doherty Many Americans give their country positive reviews. Some of the United States’ closest allies give far less flattering ratings. The POLITICO Poll, conducted across five countries, reveals a stark disconnect between how Americans see their country and how several top allies do. As the Trump administration’s aggressive posture abroad disrupts the longstanding world order, the United States’ global reputation appears far worse than Americans realize. In the U.S., the divergence is especially sharp along partisan lines. Americans who voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 overwhelmingly give the country high marks on the world stage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article is part of an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com. Those who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris, however, offer negative assessments far closer to America’s allies. The results paint a lopsided picture, with Americans — driven by the president’s own supporters — increasingly on an island in how they view the country. It’s not just The POLITICO Poll that reveals this growing mismatch. Leaders across Europe and Canada are increasingly voicing their concern about Trump’s efforts to upend longtime alliances. The poll was conducted Feb. 6 to Feb. 9 in the United States, Canada and the three largest economies in Europe: France, Germany and the United Kingdom. We’ve turned the results from several key questions into ratings, comparing answers across countries. Here’s America, reviewed: “THE US PROTECTS DEMOCRACY” U.S. 4.9/10 About half of Americans, 49 percent, said the U.S. protects democracy, including three in four who backed Trump in 2024. On the contrary, just 35 percent of voters who backed Harris agreed. Featured review GERMANY 1.8/10 “I see no need for the Americans to now want to save democracy in Europe. If it would need to be saved, we would manage on our own.” —German Chancellor Friedrich Merz Dec. 9, 2025 Other reviews U.K. 3.4/10 CANADA 2.5/10 FRANCE 2.1/10 Question: “Thinking about the US, do you agree or disagree with the following? The US protects democracy.” The U.S. has long seen itself as a defender of democracy — both at home and abroad. But that reputation may be fraying amid growing unease among longtime allies about whether the U.S. still protects the democratic principles it once championed. When U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro earlier this year, Trump pointed to Maduro’s disputed election as part of the rationale for the operation, even as some allies and international experts questioned the legality of Washington’s intervention. “THE US IS MOSTLY A FORCE FOR STABILITY IN THE WORLD” U.S. 3.6/10 A 36 percent plurality of Americans said the U.S. is mostly a force for stability — more than double the share of adults in the other countries who said the same. Featured review FRANCE 1.5/10 “We have the Chinese tsunami on the trade front, and we have minute-by-minute instability on the American side. These two crises amount to a profound shock — a rupture for Europeans.” — French President Emmanuel Macron February, 2026 Other reviews U.K. 1.8/10 CANADA 1.4/10 GERMANY 1.3/10 Question: “Which of the following comes closest to your view on the US’s role in the world?” Options: The US is “mostly a force for stability in the world”, “sometimes a force for stability, sometimes a threat,” “mostly a threat to global stability,” “not very important to global stability either way,” or “don’t know.” The surveyed nations have been among the hardest hit by Trump’s sweeping trade agenda, resulting in strained economic and diplomatic relationships. The steep levies — and Trump’s repeated broadsides against U.S. allies — have left them doubting Washington’s reliability as both a partner and a stabilizing force. It’s not just that allies no longer see the United States as a force for stability. Sizable shares, including a 43 percent plurality in Canada, say the country is mostly a threat to global stability. At the Munich Security Conference last month, a number of global leaders openly questioned the United States’ standing in the international order. “THE US CAN BE DEPENDED UPON IN A CRISIS” U.S. 5.7/10 A 57 percent majority of Americans said the U.S. can be depended on in a crisis, more than double the share of adults in Canada, Germany and France who agree. Featured review CANADA 2.7/10 “It is clear that the United States is no longer a reliable partner. It is possible that, with comprehensive negotiations, we will be able to restore some trust, but there will be no turning back.” —Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney March 28, 2025 Other reviews U.K. 3.8/10 FRANCE 2.7/10 GERMANY 2.5/10 Question: “How would you rate The US on the following scales? Can be depended upon in a crisis | Can not be depended upon in a crisis” with the option to choose two levels of agreement on either side or a middle point between the two. The ratings displayed are a sum of the agreement of the levels on either side. The most common view among the close allies surveyed, in fact, was that the U.S. cannot be depended on in a crisis. That’s the opinion of a 57 percent majority in Canada, 51 percent majority in Germany, and pluralities in France (47 percent) and the U.K. (42 percent). Their concerns come as the Trump administration has clashed with allies over defense spending, trade and the scope of collective security agreements. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt over America’s commitments in Europe, fueling questions about whether Washington can be relied upon. “HAS THE MOST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY” U.S. 5.3/10 Most Americans — 53 percent — said their country has the most advanced technology in comparison to the European Union and China. But top NATO allies disagree. Featured review U.K. 3.5/10 “China is a vital player on the global stage, and it’s vital that we build a more sophisticated relationship. … “Our international partnerships help us deliver the security and prosperity the British people deserve, and that is why I’ve long been clear that the UK and China need a long term, consistent, and comprehensive strategic partnership.” — UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer January, 2026 Other reviews CANADA 3.7/10 FRANCE 3.6/10 GERMANY 3/10 Question: “Comparing China, the EU, and The US, if you had to choose, which would you say…: Has the most advanced technology” with the option to choose China, the EU or the U.S. Trump sees the U.S. in close competition with China on technological advancements, repeatedly touting America as the global leader in artificial intelligence and chip production. But a majority of respondents in the other countries said China, not the United States or the European Union, has the most advanced technology: 54 percent in Canada, 55 percent in Germany, 53 percent in the U.K. and 50 percent in France. That perception gap could have real-world consequences. If longtime allies view Beijing as the technological leader, it could complicate Trump’s ability to rally partners around policies to try to curb China’s growth. ABOUT THE SURVEY The POLITICO Poll was conducted by Public First from Feb. 6 to 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography. The overall margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.

BRUSSELS — Artificial intelligence systems that can generate sexualized deepfakes of real people would be banned in the EU under proposals seen by POLITICO. The push comes after X’s AI tool Grok allowed users to generate millions of images of real people in bikinis or fully nude, including images of children. A proposal set to be approved by EU ambassadors on Friday would make it illegal to market in Europe any artificial intelligence system that can generate non-consensual sexualized videos, images or audio files involving real people. European Parliament lawmakers backed a ban in separate talks on Wednesday. The plans — which could kick in as early as this summer after negotiations between EU countries and the Parliament — raise questions about the future of a host of apps that allow users to create fake nude images of people from real-life pictures, including Elon Musk’s tool. The EU is already looking into whether X properly mitigated the risks of integrating Grok into its platform to prevent harm from sexually explicit images. “This is not only about Grok,” said German Greens Member of Parliament Sergey Lagodinsky, one of multiple lawmakers who backed a ban. “It is about how much power we are willing to give AI to degrade people.” PULLING THE TRIGGER The image-generating capabilities of Grok went viral at the end of 2025. The chatbot may have generated as many as 3 million non-consensual sexual images and 20,000 child sexual abuse images in the 11 days before changes were made to stop the spread of such photos, an estimate by civil society found. The platform took steps to restrict the feature on Jan. 9 and again on Jan. 14. Announcing those changes, X said: “We remain committed to making X a safe platform for everyone and continue to have zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content.” The EU is investigating whether these steps were sufficient. Dozens of lawmakers first called for a ban on AI nudification apps and tools in mid-January. EU legislators now intend to make that a reality through a plan to amend the EU’s AI rulebook. The proposal was presented by the European Commission in November. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Presented by the European Commission in November, the proposal was originally intended to scale back restrictions on artificial intelligence companies and reduce the regulatory burden. That changed after the discovery that Grok users were undressing women and children, putting the issue top of mind among EU legislators and surpassing items originally seen as sensitive, including plans to delay restrictions on high-risk artificial intelligence. Cyprus, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU and is charged with finalizing a common position among EU countries, for weeks did not include a ban on AI nudification systems in several rounds of drafting. That changed Tuesday when the Cypriots floated a near-final text that backs a ban on AI systems that can generate images, video or audio “of an identifiable natural person’s intimate parts or of an identifiable natural person engaged in sexually explicit activities.” The inclusion of a ban is a win for countries such as Spain that had strongly pushed for it. EU ambassadors are set to greenlight the text on Friday. European Parliament lawmakers agreed Wednesday to include language to ban an “Al system that alters, manipulates or artificially generates realistic images or videos so as to depict sexually explicit activities or the intimate parts of an identifiable natural person, without that person’s consent.” However, the agreement reached in a political meeting Wednesday notes a ban would not apply to companies “who have put effective safety measures [in place] to prevent the generation of such depictions and to avoid misuse.” The text is not yet final, with the Parliament’s lead committees set to vote on it March 18. The Parliament and Council will then meet to agree a final version before a ban becomes law. On Tuesday the Parliament also called upon the Commission to “investigate measures to protect individuals against the dissemination of manipulated and AI-generated digital image, audio or video content” as part of a separate report on AI and copyright. “What is maybe a joke for one for 10 seconds, can bring lasting damage to a victim,” said Dutch Greens lawmaker Kim van Sparrentak on Monday. “High time to ban all of these apps.”

LONDON — Keir Starmer wants the public to know he’s going to move fast and fix things.  Speaking to an audience of young people last month, the U.K. prime minister said that unlike the previous Conservative government, which took eight years to pass the country’s Online Safety Act, Labour will legislate fast enough to keep up with the breakneck speed of technological change and its associated harms.  “We’ve taken the powers to make sure we can act within months, not years,” he said.   His words came after the government decried Elon Musk’s X for allowing deepfaked nude images to flood its platform. “The action we took on Grok sent a clear message that no platform gets a free pass,” Starmer said.  Labour showcased its bold new approach last week, tabling two legislative amendments that seek to grant ministers sweeping powers to change the U.K.’s online safety regime without needing to pass primary legislation through Parliament — meaning MPs and peers would have next to no opportunity for scrutiny.  While Labour argues this is necessary to deal with the onslaught of online harms brought about by technology — particularly AI — digital rights activists and civil liberties campaigners fear executive overreach, and say Labour is confusing fast action for good policy, especially as it mulls the possibility of a social media ban for under-16s.  GOVERNMENT HANDS ITSELF NEW POWERS The first amendment, to the Crime and Policing Bill, would empower any senior government minister to amend the Online Safety Act near unilaterally for the purposes of “minimizing or mitigating the risks of harm to individuals” presented by illegal AI-generated content.   The second amendment, to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, looks to go even further, giving ministers the ability to alter any piece of primary legislation to restrict children’s access to “certain internet services.”   The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has said it wants to act “at pace” in response to the findings of its consultation, the “key focus” of which is whether to ban social media for under-16s, a policy idea which has picked up momentum in multiple countries since Australia introduced a ban at the end of last year.  Amendments like those tabled this week are commonly referred to as Henry VIII clauses, which allow ministers to largely bypass Parliament. They are not entirely new: successive governments since the 1980s have increasingly relied on statutory instruments for lawmaking, according to the Institute for Government.   But such clauses bring problems that could last long after Starmer’s premiership. The government may have good intentions when it comes to online safety, but the measures proposed are “storing up trouble for years to come at a very worrying moment where anti-democratic parties [around the world] are gaining traction,” Anna Cardaso, policy and campaigns officer at civil liberties organisation Liberty told POLITICO.  “When you create a law, you have to think about what a future government could do with those powers. A future government might not be motivated purely by reducing harms to children, or might have a very different view of what counts as harm,” agreed James Baker, advocacy manager at digital rights organisation Open Rights Group.   Baker pointed to steps taken by the Trump administration in the U.S. to target websites hosting LGBTQ+ content and reproductive health advice.   There are also questions to be asked about proportionality under the Human Rights Act, he argued, not least because the evidence base on how children are affected by social media is muddy at best — a DSIT-commissioned study published in January found little high-quality evidence of a correlation between time spent on social media and poorer reported mental health, for example.   Although the government hopes its use of Henry VIII powers will speed things up, the move is vulnerable to challenge in the courts — not only from human rights campaigners concerned about the impact on privacy and freedom of expression, but also from tech companies navigating any new regulations.   “The inevitable consequence of such broad regulatory discretion is an explosion in litigation,” Oliver Carroll, legal director at law firm Bird & Bird, said.   ‘FIRE-FIGHTING’ The government has backed away from plans to introduce primary legislation dedicated to artificial intelligence, with ministers instead looking to regulate AI at the point of use on a sector-by-sector basis.   Primary legislation on AI would have allowed parliamentarians and other stakeholders to “debate and hammer out the fundamental principles and a framework of regulation,” Liberty’s Anna Carsado said. “But instead, they’ve dodged the hard thing, and they’re just firefighting emergency by emergency by statutory instrument.”   The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill amendment gets its first outing in the House of Commons today, where it stands a good chance of surviving thanks to Labour’s 158-seat majority. Both amendments will also have to pass the House of Lords, where they could meet more resistance.  DSIT did not respond when contacted by POLITICO for comment.  

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Wirtschaftswende auf dem Prüfstand: Kanzler Friedrich Merz trifft heute auf der Internationalen Handwerksmesse in München eine Art „Verbandsquartett“. Er ist zum Gespräch mit den Spitzen der Verbände aus Industrie, Arbeitgebern, Handel und Gewerbe sowie dem Handwerk verabredet. Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert das Standing des Kanzlers bei den Verbandschefs und die harten Erwartungen der Industrie, während der Frust über aufgeschobene Reformen im Mittelstand wächst. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview dazu: Handwerkspräsident Jörg Dittrich über „brennende Hütten“ in den Betrieben und seine klaren Forderungen an den Kanzler vor dem heutigen Spitzengespräch. „Mehr Warken wagen“: Im Bundestag soll heute die angepasste Krankenhausreform das Parlament passieren. Gesundheitsministerin Nina Warken verbucht einen Etappensieg, allerdings nicht ohne Preis: Die Länder haben dem Bund auf den letzten Metern mehr Mitspracherecht und Zeit abgerungen. Unser POLITICO-Gesundheitsexperte Louis Westendarp ordnet ein, ob die Reform wirklich wirken kann oder nur die nächste Milliarden-Finanzlücke im System kaschiert. Insights zur Gesundheitspolitik gibt es von uns bei POLITICO bald auch zu lesen. Nächste Woche starten wir mit unserem PRO-Newsletter „Gesundheit“ – ⁠hier zum kostenlosen Probeabo anmelden⁠. KI-Party im Regierungsviertel: Während in München über die schwächelnde Wirtschaft gesprochen wird, feiert Berlin die Eröffnung eines neuen AI Centers. Mittendrin zwischen Tech-Milliarden und Techno-Beats: Digitalminister Karsten Wildberger und Forschungsministerin Dorothee Bär. Unsere neuen Formate „Inside AfD“ gibt es hier und „Power & Policy“ hier. 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 **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht der PKV: Wir sind die Fair-zu-Jugendlichen-Versicherung. Warum? Weil wir die wachsende Zahl älterer Menschen versorgen können, ohne die Jüngeren damit zu belasten. Dafür bilden wir von Versicherungsbeginn an Rücklagen, die stetig Zinsen einbringen. Für unsere Versicherten haben wir so bereits über 350 Milliarden Euro zurückgelegt, um ihre mit dem Alter steigenden Behandlungskosten abzusichern. Mehr auf pkv.de**

Across Europe, governments are moving quickly to harness the potential of artificial intelligence (AI). National strategies are being announced, innovation hubs funded and pilot programs launched. From healthcare to taxation, I have seen how AI is emerging as a powerful lever to enhance public services and safeguard digital resilience. Europe’s population is aging and economic pressure is being felt across the continent. At the same time, citizens expect faster, simpler services. In this context, departments are looking for targeted AI uses that reduce manual workload and improve service quality without adding risk or cost. > In order for AI to add value to an organization, it needs up‑to‑date data, > clear ownership and simple routes to information sharing across teams. However, progress is uneven. Many organizations are still at the trial stage. Capgemini research shows that nearly 90 percent plan to explore, pilot or implement agentic AI within the next two to three years, while EU institutions and member states are committing billions to digital transformation centered around AI. Only 21 percent of public sector organizations have advanced beyond experimentation to pilots or actual deployment of generative AI. The practical blocker is not enthusiasm: it is whether data is accurate, shared when needed and safe to use. A reality check for AI maturity In order for AI to add value to an organization, it needs up‑to‑date data, clear ownership and simple routes to information sharing across teams. Less than one in four organizations globally report high maturity in these fields. For civil servants, this often translates into small teams juggling operational delivery with transformation agendas, learning new tools on the job and managing risk without clear playbooks. > More than half of public sector organizations are concerned about AI > sovereignty, which is becoming central to safeguarding digital resilience. This gap matters. AI initiatives built on fragile data foundations may face risks such as inefficiency, bias and security vulnerabilities, which can erode trust in automated decisions, both internally and with citizens. Strengthening public sector data is therefore not only key to enabling AI, but also essential for improving the accuracy, efficiency and reliability of government decision-making. Getting the basics right also helps deliver ‘once‑only’ service patterns so citizens no longer need to repeatedly provide the same information to different authorities. By creating greater interoperability and portability, governments can reduce lock-in and strengthen long-term resilience. The readiness gap Europe is not lacking in ambition. Progress is underway, but common challenges remain; data silos between agencies, varying quality standards, unclear governance for data sharing and legacy systems that limit interoperability. Cultural hesitancy toward data-driven decision-making adds complexity, but it is not insurmountable. The good news is that these issues can be addressed with a strategic focus on data foundations and practical steps that reflect how government works: small, safe changes; clear owners; and visible benefits to users and staff. When data is accessible, trusted, and well managed, civil servants can share information confidently, driving innovation while maintaining compliance and security. > Setting clear targets, aligning strategy with operational reality, and > encouraging collaboration and shared behaviors across teams helps embed data > use into everyday work rather than treating it as an added burden. Through engagement with industry and public-sector stakeholders, I see growing momentum around these priorities and an opportunity for Europe to lead the way in scaling AI responsibly to deliver smarter, more efficient public services for citizens. Building the foundations of public sector AI Governments cannot buy their way into AI readiness, but can work to build it through sustained investment in four interconnected pillars. First, data sharing. Solving complex public sector challenges with AI depends on information flowing safely across organizational boundaries. In practice, this means making it easier for departments and agencies to reuse data that already exists. While most public sector organizations have initiatives underway, only 35 percent have rolled out or fully deployed data-sharing methods. Second, data control and sovereignty. Concerns about compliance and control are a daily reality for public sector leaders, and they are slowing AI adoption. More than half of public sector organizations are concerned about AI sovereignty, which is becoming central to safeguarding digital resilience. Compliance with data-localization laws and control over sensitive information become more complex when AI services are hosted in foreign jurisdictions. A 2024 European Commission report found that 80 percent of Europe’s digital technologies and infrastructure are imported. Third, a data-driven culture. This is a critical pillar of AI readiness. Setting clear targets, aligning strategy with operational reality, and encouraging collaboration and shared behaviors across teams helps embed data use into everyday work rather than treating it as an added burden. Fourth, data infrastructure. Robust, cloud-based data infrastructure is essential for storing, processing and analyzing data at scale, while respecting sovereignty requirements. Today, the lack of such infrastructure is the primary obstacle to effective data use. Only 41 percent of public sector executives say they can access data at the speed required for decision-making. Budget constraints are a real barrier, but they need not be paralyzing. By focusing on gradual, outcome-driven improvements rather than costly overhauls, organizations can demonstrate value and realize business outcomes. Public sector organizations such as the City of Tampere illustrate this four-pillar approach. By building data foundations gradually and strategically, while addressing data sharing, sovereignty, culture and infrastructure together, Tampere has shown how thoughtful investment can deliver tangible results without losing sight of long-term ambition. Achieving digital maturity AI can transform the public sector, but only if data readiness becomes the true measure of digital maturity. With sustained focus on governance, interoperability, culture, and infrastructure, governments can start to turn ambition into impact and deliver smarter, more trusted public services for every citizen.