BERLIN — German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Tuesday condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for going to war with Iran, calling the conflict a violation of international law and warning of a transatlantic rupture comparable to Germany’s break with Russia. Steinmeier’s role in German politics is largely ceremonial, but his sharp criticism of the war and the U.S. president is likely to put additional pressure on German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has stopped short of other European leaders in calling the war illegal even as he has grown increasingly critical of what he sees as the lack of an exit strategy on the part of the U.S. and Israel. “This war violates international law,” said Steinmeier, who is a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which rules in a coalition with Merz’s conservatives and has been more critical of the ongoing attacks. “There is little doubt that, in any case, the justification of an imminent attack on the U.S. does not hold water,” he added. Steinmeier, speaking in front of an audience of German diplomats in Berlin, criticized Trump for withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term in office. The president, who served as Germany’s foreign minister from 2013 to 2017, had helped negotiate that deal. “This war is also — and please bear with me when I say this, as someone directly involved — a politically disastrous mistake,” said Steinmeier. “And that’s what frustrates me the most. A truly avoidable, unnecessary war, if its goal was to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” Despite the president’s largely symbolic role, his strident criticism is likely to fuel a growing domestic debate over Germany’s stance on the Iran war and its relationship with the U.S. Merz and his fellow conservatives were initially far more supportive of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran than many other EU countries, arguing that Germany shares the goal of regime change in Tehran. But as the conflict has expanded and the economic and security effects on the EU’s biggest economy have become clearer, the chancellor has become far more openly critical, saying the war has raised “major questions” about Europe’s security. Steinmeier, who refrained from criticizing Israel directly, also compared the transatlantic rift during Trump’s second term to Germany’s divorce from Russia in the wake of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. “Just as I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before February 24, 2022 in our relationship with Russia, so I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before January 20, 2025 in transatlantic relations,” Steinmeier said, referring to the day of Trump’s second inauguration. “The rupture is too deep.” Steinmeier then urged his country to become more independent of the U.S., both in terms of defense and technology, arguing that such autonomy is necessary to prevent Trump administration interference in his country’s domestic politics. The German military “must become the backbone of conventional defense in Europe,” he said. “In the technological sphere, our dependence on the U.S. is even greater. This makes it all the more important that we do not simply accept this situation.”

European countries should not rush into social media bans for children, human rights adviser Michael O’Flaherty told POLITICO. The comments come as many EU countries push to restrict minors’ access to social media, citing mental health concerns. In France, the parliament’s upper house is this week debating restrictions that President Emmanuel Macron has said will be in place as soon as September. Such bans are neither “proportionate nor necessary,” said O’Flaherty, the commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, the continent’s top human rights body, adding that there “are other ways to address the curse of abusive material online.” The debate on how to protect children from the harms of social media “goes straight to bans without looking at all the other options that could be in play,” he told POLITICO. Restricting access to social media presents “issues of human rights, because a child has a right to receive information just like anybody else.” O’Flaherty’s concerns come amid live discussions on the merits and effectiveness of bans in Europe. Australia became the first country in the world to ban minors under 16 from creating accounts on social media platforms like Instagram in late 2025, and Brazil moved forward with its own measures last week. Now France, Denmark, Spain and Greece are among the EU countries heading toward bans, albeit on different timelines. Proponents argue that age-related restrictions setting a minimum age for the most addictive social media platforms are vital to protect children’s physical and mental health. Critics say that bans are ineffective and are detrimental to privacy because they require users to verify themselves online. O’Flaherty argued that — while children’s rights to access information could be curtailed if that overall limited their risks — any restrictions need to be proportionate and necessary. That must follow a serious effort by the EU to tackle illegal and harmful content on social media, he said, which hasn’t happened yet. “We haven’t remotely tried hard enough yet to ensure effective oversight of the platforms.” The human rights chief praised the EU’s digital laws as world-leading, including the Digital Services Act, which seeks to protect kids from systemic risks on online platforms — but said it wasn’t being policed strongly enough. “We have a very piecemeal enforcement of the Digital Services Act and the other relevant rulebook right across Europe. It’s very much dependent on the goodwill and the capacity of the different governments to be serious about it,” he said. Governments have “an uneven record” in that regard, he said. The European Commission, in charge of enforcing the DSA on large social media platforms, is considering its own measures. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images EU countries must make sure they have exhausted all other solutions before heading for the extreme measures of bans, he said. “I don’t see much sign of that effort.” Still, Denmark, Spain and Greece are among the EU countries heading toward bans, although they are on vastly different timelines. The European Commission, in charge of enforcing the DSA on large social media platforms, is considering its own measures. Countries like Greece have called on the Commission to go forth with an EU-wide ban to avoid fragmentation across the bloc. President Ursula von der Leyen has convened a panel of experts to advise her on next steps, which is expected to give its results by the summer.

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

HOUSTON — The Trump administration reached a nearly $1 billion agreement with French energy giant TotalEnergies on Monday to cancel its offshore wind leases off the coasts of New York and North Carolina. The announcement marks the latest blow by the Trump administration against the U.S. offshore wind industry, particularly in the Northeast, after it faced a series of recent legal losses. “The era of taxpayers subsidizing unreliable, unaffordable and unsecured energy is officially over,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told reporters at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston. As part of the agreement, the Interior Department would terminate the leases for TotalEnergies’ Attentive Energy and Carolina Long Bay projects, worth $928 million, the department said. The lease sales occurred during the Biden administration. TotalEnergies committed to invest the value of those leases into oil and natural gas production in the United States, after which the United States will reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar for the amount they paid for the offshore wind leases, the department said. The company is poised to redirect the funds toward the Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas and the development of upstream conventional oil in the Gulf of Mexico and of shale gas production, according to the Interior Department. Burgum and TotalEnergies signed the agreements Monday from the conference. President Donald Trump has often attacked the U.S. offshore wind sector as unreliable and expensive. He’s repeatedly said he plans to have “no windmills built in the United States” under his tenure. Still, the settlement would suggest a new tack by the administration to target the sector. The Trump administration previously issued stop-work orders for offshore wind projects currently under construction on the East Coast, but judges lifted all five orders earlier this year. “Considering that the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest, we have decided to renounce offshore wind development in the United States, in exchange for the reimbursement of the lease fees,” TotalEnergies Chair and CEO Patrick Pouyanné said in a statement. Pouyanné previously said the company would halt development of the Attentive Energy project, off the New Jersey and New York coasts, following Trump’s return to the White House. Both the Attentive Energy and Carolina Long Bay projects were in the early stages of development. Pouyanné told reporters that the company continues to invest in solar, onshore wind and batteries. The deal is a major blow for New York’s offshore wind targets, although proposed projects in the lease area controlled by TotalEnergies and its partners never secured final contracts with the state. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) called the prospect of a deal “not helpful” last week. Attentive Energy dropped out of a bidding process for deals with New York in October 2024, even before Trump’s election. The state concluded that process last month with no awards amid the federal uncertainty and officials have struggled to determine next steps for the industry writ large. Hochul has pivoted to an “all of the above” energy strategy in the face of Trump’s opposition to offshore wind — including nuclear and fossil fuels. Further delays to the development of the technology off New York’s coast will likely further the state’s reliance on repowering fossil fuel plants to serve the New York City region. The deal also leaves New Jersey without any workable offshore wind projects at a time when Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill is already searching for more clean energy to combat a regional power crunch. The project was supposed to provide more than 1,300 megawatts of power. Sherrill’s predecessor, Phil Murphy, had lofty ambitions for the industry that were all for naught. His administration approved a series of offshore wind projects that all ran into financial or permitting challenges. The state approved Attentive Energy’s project in early 2024 as part of an attempted reset of the industry, which was already facing woe. The new affront could also prove problematic to permitting reform discussions on the Hill, as Democratic lawmakers have linked progress on those negotiations to whether or not the administration continues its attacks on renewable energy. ClearView Energy Partners said in a note last week the deal could also “re-raise concerns about the durability of federal approvals and therefore further erode, but not eliminate, the thin opportunity for bipartisan permitting reform on Capitol Hill.” So far, Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is staying the course on permitting talks, despite reports of the settlement agreement last week — a development he derided as “just more selling out the public for the fossil fuel industry.” His office did not immediately provide further comment Monday. Some Moderate New York Republicans last week also criticized the reported settlement. Marie French and Ry Rivard contributed to this report.

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

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.

When German historian Rainer Zitelmann reposted a photo of Adolf Hitler to warn against appeasing Russian President Vladimir Putin, he didn’t expect it to trigger a police probe. According to police, the problem was the image itself: Hitler was shown wearing a swastika armband — a banned symbol under Germany’s criminal code, which prohibits the public display of Nazi and other extremist insignia. Zitelmann was informed in February that authorities were examining the case. Zitelmann’s is just one of several recent investigations into online speech, which have raised questions about how far German authorities are going in enforcing strict speech laws — and whether efforts to curb extremism are colliding with satire and political criticism. Zitelmann said he posted the image as a warning, not an endorsement. Like Hitler, Putin cannot be trusted when he says he has no further territorial ambitions. “I’m usually against Hitler analogies,” he said. “They’re often inaccurate and used to discredit political opponents.”  But, he added, ”the parallels practically impose themselves.” A week earlier, a journalist found himself in a similar situation for mocking the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.  In a podcast, Jan Fleischhauer suggested the party’s youth wing, known as “Generation Germany,” might be better named “Generation Germany awake” — a reference to a banned Nazi slogan. Fleischhauer’s case comes after police had searched conservative commentator Norbert Bolz’s home in October for using the same slogan to mock a left-wing newspaper that had called for the AfD to be banned. “A good translation for ‘woke’: Germany awake!” Bolz had written. Fleischhauer reacted to his investigation with humor. “Maybe [the complaint was filed] … by an AfD supporter who was annoyed that I made fun of the AfD youth wing,” he said.  But, he warned, such cases risk chilling free speech. Jan Fleischhauer at the 69th Frankfurt Book Fair in Frankfurt am Main in October 2017. | Frank May/picture alliance via Getty Images “I come from the 1968 generation,” Fleischhauer said. “I thought the path of free speech had been cleared once and for all by the ’68 movement. But as we can see, all of that can be rolled back.” TRADEOFF The cases highlight a tension at the heart of Germany’s postwar legal order: how to guard against extremism without restricting free expression. After World War II, lawmakers — encouraged by the occupying Allied powers — moved swiftly to ban symbols of the country’s Nazi past, seeking to prevent fascism from reasserting itself. Critics now argue authorities are going too far. Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy leader of the pro-business Free Democrats, wants the law scrapped or narrowed. “If one wants to keep it, it would have to be limited strictly to explicit endorsement of National Socialist ideology,” he said. “At the moment, it has become vague and ill-defined. The legislature urgently needs to change that.” But others warn that loosening the rules could embolden extremists.  Lena Gumnior speaks to MPs in the plenary chamber of the German Bundestag on May 16, 2025. | Katharina Kausche/picture alliance via Getty Images “The point is not to allow governments to suppress political expression, but rather to protect the principles of our liberal constitution,” said Lena Gumnior, a Green lawmaker. “It is about strictly prohibiting the use of unconstitutional symbols, particularly those associated with National Socialism, in order to protect our democracy.” A separate provision of Germany’s criminal code — which designates it an offense to insult or belittle a politician — also sparked controversy recently. In January, a retiree came under investigation after posting a Facebook comment about Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s visit to his town: “Pinocchio is coming,” he wrote, adding a long-nose “lying” emoji.  That case drew the attention of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, prompting a a post by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has taken a strong stance against European laws that regulate online speech. “Most Germans I’ve talked to don’t want their laws applied this way,” she wrote. “When you’re regulating speech at scale, on platforms based in America (whose American users, especially, deserve First Amendment protection), this creates problems worth solving.” German authorities have dropped the probes into Fleischhauer and the Pinocchio emoji. The investigation into Zitelmann was still open as of Friday. For Matthias Cornils, a law professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, the outcome matters more than the investigations themselves. “Courts often reject criminal liability, even in quite harsh cases,” he said. “The strong constitutional protection of freedom of expression, developed over decades, remains intact.”

BRUSSELS — EU leaders were supposed to spend Thursday mapping out how to boost Europe’s economy. Instead, they were left scrambling to deal with two wars, a deepening transatlantic rift and a standoff over Ukraine. Twelve hours of talks, a few showdowns and many, many coffees later, here’s POLITICO’s rapid round-up of what we learned at the European Council. 1) Viktor Orbán’s not a man for moving … The most pressing question ahead of this summit was whether Hungary’s prime minister could be convinced to drop his veto to the EU’s €90 billion loan for Ukraine. He wasn’t. The European Commission had attempted to appease Orbán in the days running up to the summit by sending a mission of experts to Ukraine to inspect the damaged Druzhba pipeline, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia. Orbán has argued that Ukraine is deliberately not addressing the issue, and tied that to his blocking of the cash. Asked whether he saw any chance for progress on the loan going into the summit, Orbán’s response was simple: “No.” Twelve hours later, that answer was much the same. 2) … But he does like to stretch his legs. In one of the most striking images to have come out of Thursday’s summit, the Hungarian prime minister stands on the sidelines of the outer circle of the room while the rest of the leaders are in their usual spots listening to a virtual address from Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (on screen) speaks to EU leaders via video at the European Council summit in Brussels, March 19, 2026. | Pool photo by Geert Vanden Wijngaert/OL / AFP via Getty Images The relationship between the two has descended into outright acrimony after the Hungarian leader refused to back the EU loan and the Ukrainian leader made veiled threats — which even drew the (rare) rebuke of the Commission. Faced with Zelenskyy’s address, the Hungarian decided to vote with his feet. 3) The new kid on the block is happy to be a part of this European family, dysfunctional as it may be. This was the first leaders’ summit for Rob Jetten, the Netherland’s newly-installed prime minister. Ahead of the meeting, he said he was “very much looking forward to being part of this family.” His verdict after the talks? That leaders differ greatly in their speaking style, with some quite efficient while others take longer to get to the point — but he welcomed the jokes of Belgian’s Bart De Wever, “especially when the meeting has been going on for hours.” 5) Though not everyone was so charitable. Broadly speaking, Orbán digging in his heels did not go down well. Sweden’s prime minister told reporters after the summit that leaders’ criticism of the Hungarian in the room was “very, very harsh,” and like nothing he’d ever heard at an EU summit. Jetten said the vibe in the room with EU leaders was “icy” at points, with “awkward silences.”  6) The EU’s not giving up on the loan. Despite murmurs ahead of the talks of a plan B in the works, multiple EU leaders as well as Costa and Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen were adamant that the loan was the only way to go — and that it will happen, eventually. “We will deliver one way or the other … Today, we have strengthened our resolve,” von der Leyen. Costa added: “Nobody can blackmail the European Council, no one can blackmail the European Union.” Top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas arrives at the European Council summit on March 19, 2026. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images 7) Kaja Kallas wants to avoid a messy entanglement. In her address to the bloc’s leaders, Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, stressed the importance of not getting caught up in the conflict in the Middle East. “Starting war is like a love affair — it’s easy to get in and difficult to get out,” she said, according to two diplomats briefed by leaders on the closed-door talks. At the same time, Kallas reiterated the importance of the EU’s defending its interests in the region but said there was little appetite for expanding the remit of its Aspides naval mission, currently operating in the Red Sea. 8) But it was all roses with the U.N. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres joined the Council for lunch, thanking them for their “strong support for multilateralism and international law.” In an an exclusive interview with POLITICO on the sidelines of the summit, Guterres applauded the restraint shown by the Europeans, despite Donald Trump’s anger at their refusal to actively support the war or help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime artery that Iran has largely sealed off, driving up global energy prices. 9) Kinda. One senior EU official told POLITICO that the lunch meeting was “unnecessary.” “With all appreciation for multilateralism and its importance … considering the role the U.N. is not playing in international crises right now, it is unnecessary,” said the official, granted anonymity to speak freely. 10) Celery is a very versatile vegetable. Also on the table while they picked over the future of the multilateral world order was a pâté en croûte with spring vegetables and fillet of veal with celery three ways. Three ways! And for dessert? A mandarin tartlet with cinnamon. 11) Cyprus and Greece want the EU to get serious about mutual defense. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis asked the EU to think about a roadmap for acting on the bloc’s mutual defense clause, according to two EU diplomats and one senior European government official. The clause, Article 42.7, is the EU’s equivalent of NATO’s Article 5. Its existence and potential use has recently come into focus since British bases in Cyprus were attacked by drones. 12) And the Commission hopes it’s already got serious enough about migration. Von der Leyen said that while the EU has not yet experienced an increase in migrants as a result of the conflict in Iran, the bloc should be prepared. “There is absolutely no appetite … to repeat the situation of 2015 in the event of large migration flows resulting from the conflict in the Middle East,” said one national official. The Commission chief emphasized that the mistakes of the 2015 refugee crisis won’t happen again. 13) Von der Leyen likes to cross her Ts.   Speaking of emphasis — “temporary, tailored and targeted” was how von der Leyen described the EU’s short-term actions to minimize the impact on Europe of the recent energy price spikes after the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. The moves will impact four components that affect energy prices: energy costs, grid charges, taxes and levies and carbon pricing, she said. 14) The ETS is here to stay — with some modifications. While EU leaders agreed to make some adjustments to the Emissions Trading System — the bloc’s carbon market — most forcefully backed the continuation of the system itself. “This ETS is a great success. It has been in place for 20 years and is a market-based and technology-neutral system. So we are not calling the ETS into question,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters after the talks had concluded. While the Commission will propose some adjustments to the ETS by July, these are merely adjustments, not fundamental changes, the German leader said. In the run-up to the summit, some EU countries, including Italy, floated the idea of weakening the ETS to help weather soaring energy prices. 15) No matter what, EU leaders want to get home — ASAP. While Costa has so far ensured every European Council under his watch lasts only one day instead of the once-customary two, this time around, that goal was looking optimistic. However, at the end of the day, leaders’ dogged determination to get out of there prevailed (even if that meant kicking a discussion on the long-term budget to April). À bientôt!

Biotechnology is central to modern medicine and Europe’s long-term competitiveness. From cancer and cardiovascular disease to rare conditions, it is driving transformative advances for patients across Europe and beyond . 1         Yet innovation in Europe is increasingly shaped by regulatory fragmentation, procedural complexity and uneven implementation across  m ember s tates. As scientific progress accelerates, policy frameworks must evolve in parallel, supporting the full lifecycle of innovation from research and clinical development to manufacturing and patient access.  The proposed EU Biotech Act seeks to address these challenges. By streamlining regulatory procedures, strengthening coordination  and supporting scale-up and manufacturing, it aims to reinforce Europe’s position in a highly competitive global biotechnology landscape .2       Its success, however, will depend less on ambition than on delivery. Consistent implementation, proportionate oversight and continued global openness will determine whether the  a ct translates into faster patient access, sustained investment and long-term resilience.  Q: Why is biotechnology increasingly seen as a strategic pillar for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term growth?  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen:  Biotechnology sits at the intersection of health, industrial policy and economic competitiveness. The sector is one of Europe’s strongest strategic assets and a leading contributor to  research and development  growth . 3    At the same time, Europe’s position is under increasing pressure. Over the past two decades, the EU has lost approximately 25  percent of its global share of pharmaceutical investment to other regions, such as the  United States  and China.   The choices made today will shape Europe’s long-term strength in the sector, influencing not only competitiveness and growth, but also how quickly patients can benefit from new treatments.  > Europe stands at a pivotal moment in biotechnology. Our life sciences legacy > is strong, but maintaining global competitiveness requires evolution .” 4   > >  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Q: What does the EU Biotech Act aim to do  and why is it considered an important step forward for patients and Europe’s innovation ecosystem?  Marrache: The EU Biotech Act represents a timely opportunity to better support biotechnology products from the laboratory to the market. By streamlining medicines’ pathways and improving conditions for scale-up and investment, it can help strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem and accelerate patient access to breakthrough therapies. These measures will help anchor biotechnology as a strategic priority for Europe’s future  —  and one that can deliver earlier patient benefit  —  so long as we can make it work in practice.  Q: How does the EU Biotech Act address regulatory fragmentation, and where will effective delivery and coordination be most decisive? Marrache: Regulatory fragmentation has long challenged biotechnology development in Europe, particularly for multinational clinical trials and innovative products. The Biotech Act introduces faster, more coordinated trials, expanded regulatory sandboxes and new investment and industrial capacity instruments.   The proposed EU Health Biotechnology Support Network and a  u nion-level regulatory status repository would strengthen transparency and predictability. Together, these measures would support earlier regulatory dialogue, help de-risk development   and promote more consistent implementation across  m ember  s tates.   They also create an opportunity to address complexities surrounding combination products  —  spanning medicines, devices and diagnostics  —  where overlapping requirements and parallel assessments have added delays.5 This builds on related efforts, such as the COMBINE programme,6 which seeks to streamline the navigation of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation , 7 Clinical Trials Regulation8 and the Medical Device Regulation9 through a single, coordinated assessment process. Continued clarity and coordination will be essential to reduce duplication and accelerate development timelines .10 Q: What conditions will be most critical to support biotech scale-up, manufacturing  and long-term investment in Europe?  Marrache: Europe must strike the right balance between strategic autonomy and openness to global collaboration. Any new instruments under the Biotech Act mechanisms should remain open and supportive of all types of biotech investments, recogni z ing that biotech manufacturing operates through globally integrated and highly speciali z ed value chains.   Q: How can Europe ensure faster and more predictable pathways from scientific discovery to patient access, while maintaining high standards of safety and quality?   Marrache: Faster and more predictable patient access depends on strengthening end-to-end pathways across the lifecycle.  The Biotech Act will help ensure continuity of scientific and regulatory experti z e, from clinical development through post-authori z ation. It will also support stronger alignment with downstream processes, such as health technology assessments, which  are  critical to success.   Moreover, reducing unnecessary delays or duplication in approval processes can set clearer expectations, more predictable development timelines and earlier planning for scale-up.    Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Via Amgen. Finally, embedding a limited number of practical tools (procedural, digital or governance-based) and ensuring they are integrated within existing  European Medicines Agency and EU regulatory structures can help achieve faster patient access . 11 Q: What role can stronger regulatory coordination, data use and public - private collaboration play in strengthening Europe’s global position in biotechnology?  Marrache: To unlock biotechnology’s full potential, consistent implementation is essential. Fragmented approaches to secondary data use, divergent  m ember   state interpretations and uncertainty for data holders still limit access to high-quality datasets at scale. The Biotech Act introduces key building blocks to address this.   These include Biotechnology Data Quality Accelerators to improve interoperability, trusted testing environments for advanced innovation, and alignment with the EU AI Act ,12  European Health Data Space13 and wider EU data initiatives. It also foresees AI-specific provisions and clinical trial guidance to provide greater operational clarity.  Crucially, these structures must simplify rather than add further layers of complexity.   Addressing remaining barriers will reduce legal uncertainty for AI deployment, support innovation and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.  > These reforms will create a moderni z ed biotech ecosystem, healthier > societies, sustainable healthcare systems and faster patient access to the > latest breakthroughs in Europe .” 14 > > Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen.  Q: As technologies evolve and global competition intensifies, how can policymakers ensure the Biotech Act remains flexible and future-proof?  Marrache:  To remain future-proof, the Biotech Act must be designed to evolve alongside scientific progress, market dynamics and patient needs. Clear objectives, risk-based requirements, regular review mechanisms and timely updates to guidance will enhance regulatory agility without creating unnecessary rigidity or administrative burden.  Continuous stakeholder dialogue combined with horizon scanning will be essential to sustaining innovation, resilience and timely patient access over the long term. Preserving regulatory openness and international cooperation will be critical in avoiding fragmentation and maintaining Europe’s credibility as a global biotech hub.  Q: Looking ahead, what two or three priorities should policymakers focus on to ensure the EU Biotech Act delivers meaningful impact in practice?  Marrache: Looking ahead, policymakers should focus on three priorities for the Biotech Act:    First, implementation must deliver real regulatory efficiency, predictability and coordination in practice. Second, Europe must sustain an open and investment-friendly framework that reflects the global nature of biotechnology.  And third, policymakers should ensure a clear and coherent legal framework across the lifecycle of innovative medicines, providing certainty for the use of  artificial intelligence   —  as a key driver of innovation in health biotechnology.  In practical terms, the EU Biotech Act will be judged not by the number of new instruments it creates, but by whether it reduces complexity, increases predictability and shortens the path from scientific discovery to patient benefit. An open, innovation-friendly framework that is competitive at the global level will help sustain investment, strengthen resilient supply chains and deliver better outcomes for patients across Europe and beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/media/press-releases/2025/05/The_EU_Biotech_Act_Unlocking_Europes_Potential 2. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation to establish measures to strengthen the Union’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en 3. EFPIA, The pharmaceutical sector: A catalyst to foster Europe’s competitiveness, February 2026. Retrieved from https://www.efpia.eu/media/zkhfr3kp/10-actions-for-competitiveness-growth-and-security.pdf 4. The Parliament, Investing in healthy societies by boosting biotech competitiveness, November 2024. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/investing-in-healthy-societies-by-boosting-biotech-competitiveness#_ftn4 5. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   6. European Commission, combine programme, June 2023. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-topics-interest/combine-programme_en  7. European Commission. Medical Devices – In Vitro Diagnostics, March 2026. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-vitro-diagnostics_en 8. European Commission, Clinical trials – Regulation EU No 536/2014, January 2022. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/clinical-trials/clinical-trials-regulation-eu-no-5362014_en 9. European Commission, Simpler and more effective rules for medical devices – Commission proposal for a targeted revision of the medical devices regulations, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/new-regulations_en#mdr 10. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   11. AmCham, EU position on the Commission Proposal for an EU Biotech Act 12. European Commission, AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future, June 2024. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai 13. European Commission, European Health Data Space, March 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en 14. The Parliament, Why Europe needs a Biotech Act, October 2025. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/why-europe-needs-a-biotech-act -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Amgen Inc * The ultimate controlling entity is Amgen Inc * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on the EU Biotech Act. More information here.

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.