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 — The Trump administration has reassured the EU’s top trade lawmaker that it plans to shorten a list of items containing steel that are subject to high U.S. tariffs, in a concession that could finally persuade the European Parliament to back last year’s transatlantic trade deal.  The offer came in a call between U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer with Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s Trade Committee. It has helped win the support of Lange’s fellow socialists, enabling a key committee vote to go ahead on Thursday. But the fix is not yet fully in, with caucus leaders still to debate exactly when to schedule a final plenary vote on the accord reached at President Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf club in Scotland last July. One sticking point has been the subsequent addition by Washington of hundreds of items that contain steel — from cranes to furniture — to a list of products subject to a 50 percent U.S. tariff. That, in the view of the Europeans, violates the spirit of the Turnberry accord.  In their call last Saturday, Greer assured Lange that many of these items would go, said the German MEP, who is also steering the enabling legislation on the deal.  “Not everything, but a lot of them,” Lange told POLITICO’s Morning Trade newsletter, saying that there was “some movement” on that front. The enabling legislation, which would remove tariffs on U.S. industrial goods, has been stalled for weeks in the EU chamber, as lawmakers balked at approving a deal following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month to strike down President Donald Trump’s original tariffs. The Turnberry deal had set an “all-inclusive” tariff of 15 percent on most goods. Trump quickly replaced that with a temporary 10 percent global duty. With Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, cut off all trade with Spain, and his military campaign against Iran further undermining any vestigial confidence on the part of EU lawmakers that he will abide by his commitments, the path to final approval of the Turnberry accord is both rocky and narrow. NOT THE END OF THE ROAD  The next hurdle is holding a final plenary vote on the Turnberry deal, with political groups in the European Parliament still divided.  Lange’s Socialists & Democrats, the Left, Greens and Renew are in favor of scheduling it in April, arguing they still require clarity from Washington. The center-right, pro-business European People’s Party (EPP) is pushing to hold it next week, as currently scheduled.  A decision is expected this week. Political group chairs representing a majority of MEPs would be needed to change the plenary agenda. “We need to finish this in March because then we would have much more certainty for everything. We have promises from the White House on steel and aluminum derivatives,” said Željana Zovko, the EPP top negotiator on the file. Lange is meanwhile due to fly — after the Trade Committee vote on Thursday — to Washington and is expected to meet with Greer.  Only after the text is approved by the plenary can the European Parliament enter negotiations with EU capitals and the European Commission on a compromise to finally implement the deal. BEYOND EU  People close to the White House say officials have spent weeks exploring ways to streamline how the U.S. steel tariffs apply to downstream products that hit the EU and other trading partners, following industry pushback after the list of steel and aluminum derivatives expanded to cover hundreds of items last year.  The exchange between Greer and Lange marks the clearest signal yet that the administration may adjust its approach to derivatives tariffs — changes that could extend well beyond the EU.  But the Trump administration has not publicly confirmed any changes, or clarified what that plan would entail.  “We are always examining ways to ensure our sectoral tariffs are most effectively safeguarding our country’s national and economic security, but unless announced by the Administration, discussion about tariff or derivative adjustments is baseless speculation,” said a White House official.  Camille Gijs reported from Brussels and Ari Hawkins reported from Washington. Max Griera contributed to this report. 

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, author of the award-winning “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. Her new book, The Undersea War, is out later this year.   Since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow and crucial passage at the mouth of the Persian Gulf — has become extremely dangerous to pass. “Sanctioned tanker laden with flammable gas runs Hormuz gauntlet,” read one shipping headline just last week. And as the number of ships weighing whether to attempt this voyage grows, the escalating situation will have painful implications for global shipping as well as the world’s economies — and Europe won’t be immune. The ship in question was the Danuta I, a recently sanctioned LPG carrier likely “laden with Iranian LPG,” Lloyd’s List, a maritime news service, reported. Perhaps the ship’s owners felt they could take the risk precisely because the ship was transporting Iranian petroleum gas, and Iran — situated on one side of the strait, with Oman on the other — is the actor most likely to attack any ships sailing through. Indeed, the government in Tehran has vowed to attack any ship trying to transit the strait, through which some 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas passes on its way from the Persian Gulf to global markets. Large volumes of aluminum and fertilizer pass through the strait as well. Or rather, those are the transit volumes under ordinary circumstances. As of Feb. 28, conditions in the Strait of Hormuz have been decidedly extraordinary. “Right now, ships waiting to transit both on the inside and outside of the Hormuz are awaiting developments and not transiting,” said Svein Ringbakken, CEO of maritime war-risk insurer DNK. “Shipowners take the Iranian threats that ships will be attacked seriously and factor these into their risk assessments.” Even when covered by war-risk insurance (yes, it’s available in wars, including this one), shipowners are highly cautious when it comes to active war zones like the strait. “They’re primarily concerned about ensuring the safety of their crews. To await developments is natural in an early phase of the conflict with major combat operations ongoing,” Ringbakken explained. Only a few ships have been able and willing to transit the strait since clashes began, and like the Danuta I, most of them were shadow vessels transporting Iranian oil. Even if ships in the Gulf only continue to be hit by occasional drone and missile strikes, they, their crews and their cargoes will suffer. | Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2025 The obvious question now is how long the conflict will last. Five days in, nine ships had already been hit or directly targeted in the strait or surrounding waters, with three crew members killed. And while U.S. President Donald Trump has said the war may last up to four to five weeks, wars famously deliver no certainty. Furthermore, because shipping is global by its very nature, Europe will be affected as well. A Swedish-owned tanker, the Stena Imperative, which was transporting oil for the U.S. military, is among the vessels that have been struck. Meanwhile, many more ships waiting north and south of the strait are either owned or flagged in Europe, or are carrying cargo bound for the continent — mostly oil and gas, and possibly aluminum and urea, a nitrogen fertilizer crucial to global agriculture and thus food security. Fortunately, the EU and the U.K. import most of their aluminum and urea from other countries, but they do import significant amounts of diesel, gasoline, oil, jet fuel and kerosene from the Gulf states. Also, while many of the ships idling at the strait’s southern entrance (southeastern, to be precise) will likely leave if the war lasts longer than, say, the end of this week, it’s a different story for the several thousand ships still inside the Persian Gulf. They’re trapped there, and the dangers in the strait mean most don’t dare transit it to reach their next destinations — let alone get back to the Gulf to collect more. War insurance would cover damage to the ship and cargo, but no war insurance can bring lives back. “A prolonged suspension of ship transits, particularly oil and gas tankers, could have a profound effect on energy prices,” Ringbakken pointed out. Indeed, on March 6, Qatar’s Minister of State for Energy Affairs Saad Sherida al-Kaabi told the Financial Times that the war in the Middle East could “bring down the economies of the world.” All Gulf energy exporters would declare force majeure and shut down production within days, he said. Iran has already demonstrated that it’s willing to retaliate against U.S. and Israeli attacks by striking Gulf countries. If the war continues, it may well decide to launch a campaign against selected vessels in the Gulf. To be sure, targeting merchant vessels violates international law — but Iran has never been a stickler for international rules, and it’s unlikely to fully commit to them now, especially after Trump recently told journalists he doesn’t “need international law,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth openly dismissed “stupid rules of engagement” when speaking about the war against Iran. Imagine constant assaults on ships in the Persian Gulf — ships that represent virtually every country on the planet and are laden with cargo bound for worldwide destinations. If that comes to pass, European leaders wouldn’t be the only ones pleading with Trump to end the war. In fact, the whole world would join Qatar’s energy minister in sending distress signals. (Such strikes would also result in devastating oil spills.) Even if ships in the Gulf only continue to be hit by occasional drone and missile strikes, they, their crews and their cargoes will suffer. So would the economy — including America’s. While Trump may not care about international law, he does care about the stock market — and a large chunk of the world’s stock markets depend on the Strait of Hormuz. Let’s hope he heeds that call.

LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump has U-turned on his threat to raise new global tariffs to 15 percent, sparing Britain and the European Union from higher rates. Tariffs on exports to the United States will, for now, remain at 10 percent under the White House’s new regime, which took effect on Tuesday morning. Trump’s decision not to follow through on the threat means continuity for British businesses. U.K. exports already faced 10 percent duties, plus Most Favored Nation (MFN) rates, under Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. It also sees a similar level of tariffs applied to exports from the European Union. Products coming from the EU previously paid 15 percent, or the MFN rate, depending on which was higher. The European Parliament froze ratification of the EU’s trade deal with the U.S. on Monday amid concerns that Trump’s latest tariff broadside breaches the terms of the transatlantic accord struck last summer. Speaking with USTR Jamieson Greer over the weekend, U.K. trade chief Peter Kyle “underlined his concerns about further uncertainty for business” and reinforced “the need to honor the U.K.-U.S. deal” reached last May, a No. 10 spokesperson told reporters on Monday. The deal lowered Trump’s sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminum, autos and aerospace. Trump’s new duties will apply to exports not covered by the Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD). Trump’s latest tariffs will be imposed for 150 days from today under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act as Greer and his department carry out further investigations using tools like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose additional sectoral tariffs. After the 150 days expire, Congress could also vote to extend the 1duties. “What will happen when the 150-day period allowed by the act expires?” asked Duncan Edwards, CEO of BritishAmerican Business. Congress, he said, “will have to decide whether the trade policies promised by this administration during the election become enshrined in law. Given the narrow margins in both houses of Congress, a definitive answer looks unlikely, so business would be wise to expect continued uncertainty.”

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament froze ratification of the EU’s trade deal with the United States on Monday amid concerns that President Donald Trump’s latest tariff broadside breaches the terms of the transatlantic accord struck last summer. Senior trade lawmakers pulled the emergency brake after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down the main tariffs on which the deal, reached at Trump’s Turnberry Scottish golf resort last July, had been based. Trump said on Saturday he would impose a global tariff of 15 percent under a new legal authority — triggering alarm across the bloc.  “The decision to postpone the vote on the implementation of the U.S. deal is the right one. Given the current enormous uncertainty, a vote would be unjustifiable,” said Anna Cavazzini, who represents the Greens. A second lawmaker, Željana Zovko of the center-right European People’s Party, confirmed the delay but nonetheless called for the European Parliament to hold a final vote on the Turnberry accord next month. “We have to act as Team Europe and have one voice,” Zovko told POLITICO. “I agreed to postpone, but not unconditionally and not forever. We have to have a vote in March and we have to respect our side to the deal.” Trump’s latest tariffs, invoked under Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 and due to take effect on Tuesday, would appear to “stack” on top of any existing most-favored-nation rate.  This, in the view of Brussels, would be a direct breach of the Turnberry accord and of a subsequent joint statement locking down the deal that, the EU argues, set an “all-inclusive” tariff of no more than 15 percent on most goods. NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL The European Parliament’s International Trade Committee had been due on Tuesday to vote through legislation to enable the deal that included specific safeguards, after reaching a hard-fought compromise earlier this month. One of the safeguards foresaw a six-month review of the deal to ensure that tariffs on products containing steel were lowered to the baseline level. The second would have revoked the deal if Trump again threatened the EU’s territorial integrity, as he did when he proposed to annex Greenland in January. Cavazzini, a German MEP, said: “The top priority must be to find a solution for the remaining 50 percent tariffs on steel, aluminum, and derivatives. The ball is now in the U.S.’s court. Tariffs are extremely unpopular and have not led to the industrial jobs promised by Trump.” Croatian MEP Zovko, whose party favors the Turnberry deal, said MEPs should still hold a plenary vote to implement it next month. “If we stick to the deal, we can at least demand something from the Americans,” she said. Confirming the delay, Bernd Lange, the chair of the trade committee, said: “Business as usual is not an option.” Senior trade lawmakers, known as shadow rapporteurs, will meet again next week to reassess the situation, the German Social Democrat added in a statement. Only once the Parliament adopts a position would it be possible to hold talks with the other branches of the EU — the Commission and the Council representing its 27 member states — to finally implement the EU’s side of the bargain. This would mainly entail scrapping duties on U.S. industrial goods. EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič was due to brief ambassadors from EU member countries later on Monday and EU lawmakers on Tuesday, Olof Gill, the Commission’s deputy chief spokesperson, said earlier. Šefčovič spoke with Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Saturday. The EU executive, which negotiates trade deals on behalf of the bloc’s 27 member countries, has expressed dismay at Trump’s latest tariff move.  “The current situation is not conducive to delivering ‘fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial’ transatlantic trade and investment,” it said on Sunday, requesting full clarity from the Trump administration on the steps it intends to take after the Supreme Court ruling.

President Donald Trump announced he will enact a new 10 percent global tariff following the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down many of his original tariffs on Friday. Trump said at a press conference he will maintain many existing tariffs and impose the new tariffs under a different statute. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, rejected the administration’s authority to implement tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The announcement seeks to subvert the court’s decision and keep his tariff policies intact. “Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232, and existing Section 301 tariffs — they’re existing, they’re there — remain in place, fully in place, and in full force and effect,” Trump said. “Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged. And we’re also initiating several Section 301, and other investigations, to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.” While Trump could have gone as high as 15 percent under Section 122, the move will allow him to reimpose his sweeping global baseline tariffs for 150 days. It would take Congress to extend it beyond that time. In the short term, it would allow the president to at least temporarily reimpose some level of his tariffs that the high court struck down. Trump said Friday he believed the new tariffs would go into effect in three days. Yet, it won’t allow the president the kind of flexibility he has wielded under the emergency powers law. By statute, the tariff must be “nondiscriminatory,” meaning the U.S. can’t give breaks to certain trading partners and not others. Trump is also launching investigations into the trading practices of specific countries — though he declined to specify which ones — which would allow him to impose higher tariffs on trading partners, like Japan, the European Union and Canada. Trump said the investigations would take place over a period of months. In the meantime, Trump has maintained a swath of tariffs on specific industries, including automobiles and auto parts, steel and aluminum, copper and softwood lumber. Those tariffs have been a significant factor in pushing countries toward trade deals and could play a factor in keeping those deals intact. “We have a lot of tools out there,” said Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative. “You can look forward in the coming days and weeks to seeing all of that come out. And we’re going to keep continuity in the program.” Gregory Svirnovskiy contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — America’s trade partners expressed quiet relief at the Supreme Court’s rebuke of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Friday, but they are already bracing for his next trade salvo. In a bombshell 6-3 ruling, the top U.S. court struck down the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs Trump imposed on trading partners last year, when he imposed a 15 percent baseline tariff on most EU goods and a 10 percent duty on U.K. exports.  The decision — which applies to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — does not affect sector-specific duties on sectors like steel, aluminium and automotive. The European Union rushed to appeal for trade stability in the wake of the ruling, calling for “predictability in the trading relationship.”  Brussels said it was in touch with the Trump administration as it seeks “clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling,” European Commission Deputy Chief Spokesperson Olof Gill said in a statement. The U.K. — which, together with Australia, was hit by the lowest reciprocal tariff rate — downplayed the impact, saying it expected its “privileged trading position with the U.S. to continue,” despite the ruling.  “This is a matter for the U.S. to determine but we will continue to support U.K. businesses as further details are announced,” a U.K. government spokesperson said, adding that it was working with the Trump administration to “understand how the ruling will affect tariffs for the U.K. and the rest of the world.” Initial reactions from other capitals reflected a common desire to avoid any fresh escalation after Trump’s tariff offensive upended the postwar trade order and shook the trust of America’s closest allies. TRUMP’S PLAN B Trading partners, however, broadly expect that Trump will find a way to impose replacement tariffs by the legal means at his disposal — for instance via so-called Section 232 investigations, which in the past were used to impose tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum. “We were indeed monitoring this decision. However, we expect the U.S. administration to use other legal instruments to reinstate its tariffs,” a French diplomat told POLITICO. A Washington-based Asian diplomat said their government was eyeing warily the possibility that the administration will pivot to impose fresh tariffs under Sections 301 and 232. That view was shared by Bernd Lange, the top trade lawmaker in the European Parliament. “I’m sure that the administration is now looking for Plan B, so that they use other legal bases like Sections 232 or 301,” said the German Social Democrat, who chairs the chamber’s trade committee.  “I’m sure that the administration is now looking for Plan B, so that they use other legal bases like Sections 232 or 301,” said Bernd Lange, who chairs the chamber’s trade committee. | Jean-Christophe Verhaegen/AFP via Getty Images European negotiators, aware the sweeping tariffs imposed by Trump on “Liberation Day” last April were open to legal challenge, sought to make the trade deal struck at his Scottish golf resort last July resilient to legal jeopardy. This included a maximum, “all-inclusive” U.S. tariff of 15 percent on most exports. But uncertainty persists over the deaI, under which the EU would scrap duties on U.S. industrial goods. It is still stuck in the European Parliament — with a high-stakes vote expected early next week.  For Canada, the ruling reinforces its position that Trump’s tariffs are “unjustified,” said Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc. “While Canada has the best trade deal with the United States of any trading partner, we recognize that critical work lies ahead to support Canadian businesses and workers who remain affected by Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and automotive sectors,” LeBlanc said in a statement.  He added Canada’s relationship with America is currently going through a “period of transformation.” BUSINESS UNCERTAINTY For companies doing business in the United States, the greatest concern is uncertainty. For Canada, the ruling reinforces its position that Trump’s tariffs are “unjustified,” said Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc. | Yuri Cortez/AFP via Getty Images William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, which represents over 50,000 British businesses, said the ruling “does little to clear the murky waters for business,” pointing out that the president could theoretically use the 1974 Trade Act to impose even higher tariffs on the U.K. “The court’s decision also raises questions on how U.S. importers can reclaim levies already paid and whether U.K. exporters can also receive a share of any rebate depending on commercial trading terms,” he added. A lobby group representing the German engineering industry — a major exporter to the United States — welcomed the Supreme Court ruling but said uncertainty remained. “President Trump has several alternative legal bases at his disposal to impose global tariffs,” said Oliver Richtberg, head of foreign trade at the German Engineering Federation (VDMA).  “We therefore fear that a 15 percent tariff on EU imports will be reintroduced soon.” Camille Gijs reported from Brussels, Sophie Inge from London, Giorgio Leali from Paris, Zi-Ann Lum from Ottawa, Phelim Kine from Washington and Thorsten Mumme from Berlin.

BRUSSELS — The European Union called for stability in the transatlantic trade relationship after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs in a 6-3 ruling on Friday. “We remain in close contact with the U.S. Administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling,” European Commission Deputy Chief Spokesperson Olof Gill said in a statement. “Businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on stability and predictability in the trading relationship. We therefore continue to advocate for low tariffs and to work towards reducing them,” Gill added. The EU is broadly expecting that the Trump administration will reinstate tariffs through other means, for instance via its Section 232 investigations, which in the past imposed tariffs on European steel and aluminum. “We were indeed monitoring this decision. However, we expect the U.S. administration to use other legal instruments to reinstate its tariffs,” a French diplomat told POLITICO. Giorgio Leali contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Next up on Ursula von der Leyen’s trade to-do list: Australia. The EU’s ally Down Under is ready to tango again as Donald Trump’s tariffs push the rest of the world closer together. Both Brussels and Canberra worry about China. And they already see eye-to-eye on issues, ranging from research funding to defense cooperation. The EU and Australia came close to a deal in October 2023, on the sidelines of a G7 meeting in Osaka, Japan. But Aussie Trade Minister Don Farrell pulled out at the last minute under pressure from the beef lobby back home. Sticking points remain: access for Australian beef and lamb to the European market; EU trade protections on specialty foods; critical minerals; and an Australian tax on luxury cars. Farrell visits Brussels on Thursday to meet the EU’s trade and agriculture commissioners, Maroš Šefčovič and Christoph Hansen. Only if they resolve those differences would the Commission chief get to fly to Australia to finally conclude a formal agreement. “I don’t do bad deals,” Farrell said before heading to Brussels. Here are five issues that need to be sorted out for a good deal to happen: ANGRY FARMERS The biggest obstacle is whether the EU will grant more access to Australian farm produce, chiefly beef and lamb. Farrell needs a deal he can sell to vocal farmers back home who effectively blocked the deal just over two years ago. It’s not only meat but also sugar, rice and dairy — even though quotas for those are less sensitive. The Australian National Farmers’ Federation said this week that it’s still looking for “significantly increased access” on all of those fields. The crux here: Australia might want more, but if the EU gives more it risks the ire of European farmers ready to protest on the doorstep of the Berlaymont. The European Parliament’s referral of the EU’s agri-heavy deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc for judicial review adds to the uncertainty. PROTECTING PARMIGIANO While the matter of protected European products on the market down under was all but solved in 2023, it’s likely this chapter will return to haunt negotiators. Australia knows very well how to use anything the EU says against it: Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, after all. Canberra signaled it was ready to set up its own version of Europe’s system of geographical indications. These, for instance, denote that Champagne can only be called that when it’s made in the eponymous region of France. They are also some non-Greek supermarkets that have to resort to calling their feta imitations “white cheese.” Australia might want more, but if the EU gives more it risks the ire of European farmers ready to protest on the doorstep of the Berlaymont. | Geoffroy van der Hasselt/AFP via Getty Images Australia is a peculiar case because, for example, Italian-heritage farmers have made parmesan cheese for generations in the same way as around Parma. They could now face limits on what they can call their product — but probably not Parmigiano Reggiano. A likely solution would allow established brands to continue to use product names for a grace period. This is why prosecco, pecorino, parmesan and feta are still under discussion, the Australian Associated Press reports. On the flip side, the EU usually offers to protect some of the other side’s products on its own market. Let’s hope they don’t come after our flat whites. RAW MATERIALS (AND THEIR PRICE) Australia holds the world’s largest lithium reserves but lacks the refining capacity to monetize them. As a result, China processes virtually all of the raw lithium that Australia produces, enabling Beijing to dominate global supply. Brussels and Canberra continued talking on this topic after the Osaka debacle, concluding a memorandum of understanding in early 2024. Australia is also a partner in Europe’s RESourceEU program to reduce dependencies on a subset of critical raw materials. And the European Investment Bank is teaming up with Australia. Ideally, a trade deal would unlock exports from Australia to Europe and also boost the confidence of European companies to invest in local refining capacity. This is true not only for lithium, but also uranium, silver, bauxite used for aluminum, and a host of others. It cuts both ways: One example of an existing project getting a boost is the Australian-owned lithium producer Vulcan Energy in Germany. So is this really a hurdle? There’s a technical one: Europe wants to avoid a dual pricing system for critical raw materials (and energy sources like natural gas) that favors domestic customers. Australia hasn’t signaled it’s ready to end the practice, however. TAXING LUXURY CARS Australia still taxes luxury vehicle imports — a relic of a bygone era when it still had a car industry of its own. The tax is a 33 percent charge on models above a certain price threshold. There’s also a 5 percent import duty on all foreign cars. Trading partners that have deals with Canberra — like Korea and Japan — saw that removed but are still charged the luxury car tax. The potential is there: Japan sold $8 billion worth of vehicles to Australia in 2024, with German only in fifth position at $2 billion. While the EU would love to pave the way for more high-end German autos to be sold Down Under, the tax is domestic legislation and not formally part of the talks. Australia was rumored in 2023 to be willing to get rid of the tax, and Albanese hinted at it again late last year. That could be a sweetener for the EU to stomach a slightly higher beef quota. THE POLITICS OF IT ALL The EU is on a roll with new trade agreements: it has signed the Mercosur deal, closed talks with India and an Australian win is close. The streak serves von der Leyen’s geopolitical agenda for Europe to stand on its own two feet economically. On the other side of the world, Albanese is in more dire need of a win. He’s under pressure over his response to the Bondi Beach terror attack in December. And even though Trump only hit Australia with a 10 percent tariff, the country needs strong alliances if it wants to weather both Chinese and American pressure. The same is true for Europe, which sees the deal as underlining its cultural and historic ties with Australia, lifting an already-strong working relationship to the next level, as with Canada. And Australia is a key member of “the West” in the Indo-Pacific where Europe needs and wants to expand its attraction and influence. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump on Sunday predicted Cuba’s government could soon collapse and threatened Colombia’s president, a stark warning that underscored his administration’s increasingly aggressive posture toward leftist governments across Latin America. For good measure, he reiterated his desire to annex Greenland, as well. The comments made aboard Air Force One as the president returned to Washington came less than 48 hours after the American military conducted a brazen raid inside Caracas to arrest and detain Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife. “Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall,” Trump said. I don’t know if they’re going to hold out.” The president waved off the possibility that the administration might use American forces to hasten the Cuban government’s demise, explaining that Venezuela was Cuba’s primary economic backer. “Cuba only survives because of Venezuela,” Trump said. Many presidents have predicted the communist government’s fall and Havana survived the collapse of the USSR. And yet Trump’s remarks highlighted the extent to which his administration is not only expecting regime change in multiple countries but openly hoping for it, even amid uncertainty about the future of Venezuela. “Don’t ask me about who’s in charge [of Venezuela] because it will be controversial,” Trump said. “We’re in charge.” Trump said he wants to rebuild the country — particularly its oil infrastructure — before having an election so the people can elect their own leader. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick implied that steel and aluminum industries could be revived for U.S. benefit as well. For now, he said, he is willing to work with Delcy Rodriguez, the acting president and Maduro’s vice president. Trump said he expects Rodriguez and the new Venezuelan government will allow the U.S. unfettered access to their country so that American forces can help rebuild. But, he added, “if they don’t behave, we will do a second strike.” The administration maintains that targeting Maduro was, in large part, an effort to stop the drug trade. Trump also threatened Colombia President Gustavo Petro, a vocal critic of the U.S. operation in Venezuela. “Colombia is very sick too — run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and sending it to the United States, and he’s not going to be doing it very long,” Trump said. And just hours after the Danish Prime Minister blasted Trump for threatening to annex Greenland, the president said the United States “needs” the autonomous Danish territory. “We need Greenland from a national security situation,” Trump said. “The EU needs us to have Greenland.”