BRUSSELS — The European Union needs to draft in Mario Draghi, the mastermind behind reforms to revive its single market, to ensure that member countries rally behind efforts to boost growth and prosperity, a senior European lawmaker said Tuesday. Member countries should “mandate Draghi” to build political consensus for reform and pierce through national “deep state” resistance to force a radical rethink of the single market project, Pascal Canfin, a French Renew MEP, told POLITICO’s Competitive Europe Summit in Brussels. “We need somebody that could do so at the very top level, with heads of state and government and quite deep state level,” Canfin said, arguing that the bloc has reached a “historical crossroads” where it must choose between deeper integration or economic irrelevance. In 2024, the former Italian Prime Minister and head of the European Central Bank delivered a report on Europe’s competitiveness deficit that one commissioner has referred to as the “bible” for Ursula von der Leyen’s second Commission. EU leaders backed a plan to relaunch the 30-year old single market — with its freedoms in the movement of goods, capital, services and people — at a summit earlier this month. According to Canfin, Draghi’s work is not yet done, and the former Italian leader could build a “coalition of the willing” of member states willing to integrate their economies. Canfin also suggested that the requirement for consensus among all 27 member states has become a challenge.  “It’s not an objective not to do it at 27, but maybe at the end, we will not be able to do it for political reasons,” Canfin said, specifically citing the frequent vetoes and disruptions caused by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.  The move toward a multi-speed Europe is increasingly viewed by proponents of integration as the only way to compete with the massive industrial subsidies and streamlined decision-making of the United States and China. Canfin described a recurring cycle of political failure where national leaders travel to Brussels and make commitments, only to see them disassembled at home. “They go to Brussels … then they go back home, and there are all the people locally, in Paris, in Berlin, in Rome, in Madrid, saying the opposite,” Canfin said. “Including in the deep state, including in some companies that have built the knowledge to manage and navigate complexity.” Canfin identified three obvious candidates for accelerated integration: defense, energy, and finance.  “The political will has always been in the hands of the capitals,” Canfin said. “Technical, yes, but today, would we be politically able?”

LONDON — Countries focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz will meet for a security summit in the near future, which the U.K. has offered to host. More than 30 nations including United Arab Emirates, the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands have now signed a joint statement agreeing to work on “appropriate efforts” to safeguard the major trade route. A British official, granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record, said Tuesday the U.K. wanted to help “build this coalition and develop momentum” in order to “open a route safe through the Strait of Hormuz, and provide that reassurance to merchant shipping.” They added that cooperation between like-minded partners would include a security conference on the topic, which could be hosted in London or Portsmouth, the home of the Royal Navy on the south coast of England. NATO chief Mark Rutte and British PM Keir Starmer now appear to be leading the push to restart traffic through the Strait, despite skepticism from other allies. The same British official discussed options for securing the channel, such as deploying autonomous minehunting systems from a mothership in the Gulf, while conceding this would not be possible while the current level of hostilities continue. They expressed confidence that “we will see different nations coming forwards with different offers to support us”and “we will be able to find in the right conditions a coalition that will be able to provide that assurance to the merchant shipping industry.”

The European Union and Australia have concluded talks on a free trade deal that could boost export volumes by as much as one third, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced in Canberra. Von der Leyen shook hands on the agreement with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese Tuesday, on the second of her three-day visit to Australia — finally sealing the accord after a previous attempt collapsed amid acrimony in 2023.  The Commission president told the Australian parliament the trade deal was necessary to build resilience to economic shocks.  “None of us is immune to the shocks, both geopolitical and economic, that the war in Iran brings to our populations,” von der Leyen said. Von der Leyen told the special parliamentary sitting of MPs and senators — she was the first woman to address a joint sitting in Australian history — that the deal would send a message that “when it comes to trade, Europe is open for business.”  “We are rearming. We are decarbonizing. We are preparing. We are becoming an independent Europe. And this means a more outward Europe. And this is why I am here today. Because showing up matters,” she said.  With U.S. President Donald Trump slamming tariffs on allies globally, Brussels and Canberra rekindled their negotiations last year. EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who was in Canberra for the signing of the free-trade deal, stressed both countries’ commitment to a rules-based world order when he briefed journalists on Monday ahead of the final talks. “We are sending a strong signal that we prefer a low tariff — or in this case: no tariffs — and that we want to work on rules-based mechanisms,” Šefčovič said. Sensitive market access for Australian beef and sheep meat, plus sugar, rice and some dairy was the last point of discussion.  The two sides are believed to have agreed that Australia will be able to export between 30,000 and 35,000 tonnes of beef to Europe a year, up from the current 3,389 tons. Brussels had held firm to 30,000 metric tons during talks in recent weeks. In an earlier joint press conference, Albanese also suggested that Australia had extracted some concessions from the EU on the issue of geographic indicators, which could enable Australian producers to continue using names including feta, halloumi and Parmesan.  The issue was politically sensitive, with Australia’s European communities arguing they should be allowed to continue producing their food products under their original names.  “Whether it’s Greeks coming here and creating feta, or Italians coming and doing Parmesan [cheese], or people from Eastern Europe doing Kransky sausages … It’s a connection with Europe. It’s part of our strength,” Albanese said.   Australia will agree to protect the names of 165 European food products and 237 spirits. The two sides also agreed to modernize an existing wine agreement, which covers 50 new ones and includes — in a win for Brussels — prosecco as well.  Coming just two months after the EU signed a deal with the Latin-American Mercosur bloc — also a major beef producer — the Australian agreement is meant to deliver benefits for farmers, Šefčovič said.  “I believe that we are bringing very good news to our farmers,” he said, arguing that wine, sparkling wine, chocolate, sugar, confectionery, ice cream, some fruits and vegetables and many processed agricultural products will all “go down to zero from Day 1.” Cheeses, which are more sensitive for the Australians, will see tariffs phased out in three years. The trade chief also underlined EU agrifood exports to Australia already enjoy a surplus of €2.3 billion.  EU exports to Australia totalled €37 billion in goods and €28 billion in services in 2024, with the deal set to eliminate tariffs on almost all EU goods and many services. The agreement could boost that by one third in 10 years, the Commission estimates. A major win for the EU will be easier access to Australia’s natural resource wealth and incentives for European investments for Australian mining and refining. “Australia has almost all the critical minerals we need,” Šefčovič said. Speaking of the EU’s need for critical minerals, von der Leyen told lawmakers that a new partnership with Australia would be “crucial” to the EU, which ran the risk of becoming over-dependent on Chinese supplies. “That is precisely why we need each other,” she said.  Brussels also won a pledge from Australia to raise the threshold for its luxury car tax by almost 50 percent. Canberra currently charges a 33 percent levy on foreign-made cars above A$80,000 (or A$92,000 for a fuel-efficient one). Šefčovič said that will rise to A$120,000.  Koen Verhelst reported from Brussels; James Panichi reported from Melbourne.

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. 

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.

U.S. regulators this week proposed easing capital rules on big U.S. banks in a package of proposals that departs from globally agreed-upon standards. Now, it’s sparking calls from European trade groups to loosen the EU’s own version of the rules. On Thursday, U.S. bank regulators released a number of potential rule changes intended to align U.S. policy with a 2017 global agreement known as Basel III. Its provisions imply a 2.4 percent decrease in capital held by the largest U.S. banks and bigger cuts for smaller banks. European regulators, anticipating the U.S. move, had already been discussing loosening their own requirements, which currently call for raising the capital that banks must have on hand by around 8 percent by 2033. But the breadth of the U.S. proposal has prompted trade groups in Europe to push officials to move faster. Taken together, the moves could weaken the global regulatory framework instituted on both sides of the Atlantic after the 2008 financial crisis. “The U.S. proposal appears to mark a clear shift toward easing capital constraints to support lending and growth, while Europe seems to continue moving in a different direction,” said Sébastien de Brouwer, deputy CEO of the European Banking Federation, a trade group. The United States’ pullback is “making it more urgent than ever to review the EU framework to preserve competitiveness and financing capacity of European banks,” he said. Over the past few months, European regulators had started to reevaluate the competitiveness of the bloc’s banking sector, especially as major European economies have struggled to keep pace with U.S. growth. EU heads of government called Thursday night, in a statement agreed upon before the release of the U.S. proposal, for the European Commission “to propose targeted amendments to the prudential framework in order to enhance the capacity of the banking sector to finance the European economy.” The Commission is also authoring a report on the competitiveness of its banking sector, due after the summer, which will pave the way for legislative proposals. This is set to be a wide-ranging report that could relate to bank capital requirements or other policies. The European Central Bank has already made recommendations for simplifying the bloc’s banking rules ahead of the report, including calling for lighter Basel rules for small banks and for capital buffers to be merged. None of its recommendations were as sweeping as what the U.S. has proposed, however. The U.S. proposal departs from the intent of the original Basel accords, a long process in which global regulators worked to address the root causes of the global financial crisis, critics say. Regulators in 2017 reached an agreement around the framework for jurisdictions to mitigate risks. “This definitely goes against not just the ethos but the intent, spirit and goal of Basel III,” said Dennis Kelleher, CEO of Better Markets, an advocacy group that supports stronger financial regulation. “This proposal when finalized will inevitably ignite another global race to the regulatory bottom” One of the biggest departures relates to the unwinding of the “output floor,” which sets a minimum capital threshold for banks’ trading activities. The new proposal uses a new risk-weighting approach that would do away with the threshold. “This will encourage other jurisdictions to do the same, undermining a key reform and cornerstone of the Basel III agreement,” Federal Reserve board member Michael Barr said Thursday. In the 2017 international talks, the U.S. had argued in favor of a restrictive output floor. Major European banks argued that would hike their capital requirements above and beyond those of the U.S., given the makeup of European banks’ trading books, stymieing lending to the real economy. The threshold was ultimately set at a lower rate than what American negotiators wanted. European regulators had recently moved to delay implementation of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book, the portion of Basel focused specifically on so-called market risk, or rules governing how to capitalize banks’ trading activities. “Removing the output floor for market risk is a divergence from international standards, and we will carefully assess the impact on internationally active banks, in particular, with respect to the ongoing discussions on EU FRTB implementation and banking competitiveness in Europe,” said Caroline Liesegang, head of prudential regulation and research at the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, which represents large banks. In the past, U.S. regulators had tended to “gold plate” the country’s rules for big banks, meaning they put in provisions above and beyond what Basel requires in order to acknowledge the United State’s central role in the global financial system and push for stricter global standards. In 2023, U.S. regulators failed to pass a capital proposal that would have raised aggregate capital by 16 percent and would have adhered more strictly to the international framework. On Thursday, U.S. regulators said the international standards should not be an unnecessary barrier to the needs of the U.S. financial system. “We should not seek to punish U.S. consumers and businesses by imposing higher costs of credit, or forcing credit availability outside of the banking system, particularly if this is done only to show greater alignment with Basel or any other international standard,” said Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, who led the U.S. central bank’s crafting of the proposal. The dilution of the agreement and its pullback on capital “will make it more challenging for the U.S. to use Basel, as it so often has, to further its own agenda,” said Kathryn Judge, professor at Columbia Law School. In the U.K., which has since left the bloc, the capital rules are expected to have less of an impact on banks than EU peers. A spokesperson for the Prudential Regulation Authority, the U.K.’s main banking regulator, said that the thinking remains the same as in its final rules, which will see the market risk rules apply from 2028. The European Commission declined to comment. The Basel Committee said it doesn’t comment on individual jurisdictions. The Federal Reserve declined to comment. Bjarke Smith-Meyer and Elliot Gulliver-Needham contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission wants Budapest to explain explosive allegations that the Hungarian foreign minister shared information from confidential talks with other EU member countries with Moscow. The reports are “greatly concerning” as trust between member countries and the bloc’s institutions is fundamental to the EU’s functioning, Commission foreign affairs spokesperson Anitta Hipper said Monday. The Commission is waiting for “clarifications” from the Hungarian government, she added. A report over the weekend by the Washington Post claimed Budapest maintained close contacts with the Kremlin throughout the war in Ukraine and that Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó even used breaks during meetings with other EU countries to update his Russian counterpart.  Szijjártó has denied the report. Hungary’s Europe Minister János Bóka told POLITICO: “It is fake news that is now being spread as a desperate reaction to [Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s] Fidesz gaining momentum in the election campaign. But the Hungarian people won’t be deceived.” Hungarians head to the polls for a crunch election on April 12. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has not yet commented on the claims. Asked whether von der Leyen was aware, Commission’s Deputy Chief Spokesperson Arianna Podestà said: “The president is in Australia, so I’m not sure she’s seen reports yet.” Von der Leyen is visiting Australia to shore up a long-awaited trade deal. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the allegations “shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.”  “We’ve had our suspicions about that for a long time,” he wrote on X on Sunday. “That’s one reason why I take the floor only when strictly necessary and say just as much as necessary.”  Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, who frequently attended Council meetings where Szijjártó was present, told POLITICO he was warned as early as 2024 that the Hungarian side could be passing on information to the Kremlin.  Suspicion of leaks has driven the proliferation of other talking formats that exclude Budapest, five European officials and diplomats told POLITICO. “This has been a given for a while,” said a sixth official, who, like the others, was afforded anonymity to discuss the sensitive claims.   Nicholas Vinocur, Gabriel Gavin and Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this story.

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.

YOKOSUKA, Japan — Germany is seeking to deepen defense ties with Japan, with Defense Minister Boris Pistorius proposing a new agreement to make it easier for troops from both countries to operate on each other’s territory. Speaking at Japan’s Yokosuka naval base after talks with Japanese Defense Minister Shinjirō Koizumi on Sunday, Pistorius said Berlin had floated a so-called Reciprocal Access Agreement — a framework designed to “ease the exchange of soldiers in each other’s countries and significantly reduce bureaucratic hurdles.” Such agreements allow partner countries to deploy troops on each other’s soil more easily for training, exercises or operations by streamlining legal and administrative procedures. Japan has signed similar deals with countries like the United Kingdom and Australia as it deepens its own security ties amid rising regional tensions. The proposal marks a step beyond Germany’s recent Indo-Pacific engagements, which have largely focused on joint exercises and short-term deployments. It signals a shift toward more structured military cooperation with Berlin’s partners in the region. Pistorius framed the move as part of a broader response to growing global instability. “How close our partnership is has become clear in light of the current developments in Iran and the Middle East,” he said, pointing to Japan’s heavy reliance on energy imports through the Strait of Hormuz. “The freedom of sea routes must be guaranteed and protected.” Germany and Japan share an interest in securing global trade routes, he added, stressing that both countries remain committed to the rules-based international order. “We are united by the conviction that the strength of the law must prevail,” Pistorius said. The initiative also reflects a broader strategic shift in Berlin and Tokyo. As both governments face rising pressure from authoritarian powers — from Russia’s war in Ukraine to China and North Korea in East Asia — they are increasingly treating their security challenges as interconnected, translating those shared concerns into closer bilateral defense cooperation.

U.S. President Donald Trump warned late Saturday that the United States will “obliterate” energy plants in Iran if the government doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz, giving the country a 48-hour deadline to comply. “If Iran doesn’t fully open, without threat, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 hours from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various power plants, starting with the biggest one first,” Trump said in a post on Trust Social. Iran warned in reply that any strike on its energy facilities would prompt attacks on U.S. and Israeli energy and infrastructure facilities — specifically information technology and desalination operations — in the region, the Associated Press reported, citing a statement by an Iranian military spokesperson carried by state media and semiofficial outlets. The warnings of escalation in the Mideast conflict come after the British government on Saturday confirmed that Tehran launched an unsuccessful attack on Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean. Media reports said Iran fired two ballistic missiles at the base but missed. Meanwhile, Israel claimed that Iran has missiles with a range of about 4,000 kilometers, capable of hitting London, Paris and Berlin. “The Iranian terrorist regime poses a global threat. Now, with missiles that can reach London, Paris or Berlin,” the Israel Defense Forces said in a post on X. Iran’s targeting of the base on Diego Garcia occurred before Britain on Friday confirmed that U.S. use of its bases includes defensive operations against “missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz,” a permission that includes the Indian Ocean island.