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.”

Donald Trump started his second term by calling the European Union an “atrocity” on trade. He said it was created to “screw” Americans. As he imposed the highest tariffs in a century, he derided Europe as “pathetic.” And to round off the year, he slammed the continent as “weak” and “decaying.” In the midst of all this, Ursula von der Leyen, the EU’s top official, somehow summoned the composure to fly to Trump’s Scottish golf resort to smile and shake hands on a one-sided trade deal that will inflict untold pain on European exporters. She even managed a thumbs up in the family photo with Trump afterwards. Yes, it’s been one hell of a year for the world’s biggest trading relationship. The economic consequences will take years to materialize — but the short-term impact is manifest: in forcing Europe to face up to its overreliance on the U.S. security umbrella and find new friends to trade with. With a warning that the following might trigger flashbacks, we take you through POLITICO’s coverage of Europe’s traumatic trade year at the hands of Trump: JANUARY As Trump returns to the White House, we explore how America’s trading partners are wargaming his trade threats. The big idea? Escalate to de-escalate. It’s a playbook we later saw unfold in Trump’s clashes with China and Canada. But, in the event, the EU never dares to escalate. Trump’s return does galvanize the EU into advancing trade deals with other partners — like Mexico or Latin America’s Mercosur bloc. “Europe will keep seeking cooperation — not only with our long-time like-minded friends, but with any country we share interests with,” von der Leyen tells the World Economic Forum the day after Trump is sworn in. FEBRUARY As Trump announces that he will reimpose steel and aluminum tariffs, von der Leyen vows a “firm and proportionate response.” The bloc has strengthened its trade defenses since his first term, and needs to be ready to activate them, advises former top Commission trade official Jean-Luc Demarty: “Especially with a personality like Trump, if we don’t react, he’ll trample us.” That begs the question as to whether trade wars are as easy to win, as Trump likes to say. The short answer is, of course, “no.” Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, meanwhile, packs a suitcase full of concessions on his first mission to Washington. At the end of the month, Brussels threatens to use its trade “bazooka” — a trade-defense weapon called the Anti-Coercion Instrument — after Trump says the European Union was created to “screw” America. MARCH We called it early with this cover story by Nicholas Vinocur and Camille Gijs: Trump wants to destroy the EU — and rebuild it in his image. As Trump’s steel tariffs enter force, Brussels announces retaliatory measures that far exceed those it imposed in his first term. And, as he builds up to his “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, the EU signals retaliation extending beyond goods to services such as tech and banking. (None of these are implemented.) APRIL “They rip us off. It’s so sad to see. It’s so pathetic,” Trump taunts the EU as he throws it into the sin bin along with China, Japan, Taiwan and Korea. In his Liberation Day announcement in the White House Rose Garden, Trump whacks the EU with a 20 percent “reciprocal” tariff. Von der Leyen’s response the next morning is weak: She says only that the EU is “prepared to respond.” That’s because, even though the EU has strengthened its trade armory, its 27 member countries can’t agree to deploy it. The bloc nonetheless busies itself with drawing up a retaliation list of goods made in states run by Trump’s Republican allies — including trucks, cigarettes and ice cream. MAY The EU’s hit list gets longer in response to Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs — with planes and automobiles targeted in a €100 billion counterstrike that looks scary on paper but is never acted on.  We report exclusively that Brussels is ramping up contacts with a Pacific trade group called the CPTPP. And we assess the chances of Trump pressuring the EU into a big, beautiful trade deal by threatening to raise duties on European exports to 50 percent. The verdict? Dream on!  JUNE The setting shifts to the Canadian Rockies — where a G7 summit takes on a G6 vs. Trump dynamic as other leaders seek ways to cooperate with him on Russia and China even as he pummels them with tariffs. Von der Leyen tries her best, turning hawkish on China in a bid to find common ground. Back in Brussels, at a European leaders’ summit, von der Leyen announces her pivot to Asia — floating the idea of a world trade club without the U.S. JULY As the clock counts down to Trump’s July 9 deal deadline, the lack of unity among the EU’s 27 member countries undermines its credibility as a negotiating partner to be reckoned with. There’s still hope that the EU can lock in a 10 percent tariff, but should it take the deal or leave it? The deadline slips and, as talks drag on, it looks more likely that the EU will end up with a 15 percent baseline tariff — far higher than Europe had feared at the start of Trump’s term. Brussels is still talking about retaliation but … yeah … you already know that won’t happen. With Trump in Scotland for a golfing weekend, von der Leyen jets in to shake hands on a historic, but one-sided trade deal at his Turnberry resort. Koen Verhelst also flies in to get the big story. “It was heavy lifting we had to do,” von der Leyen said, stressing that the 15 percent tariff would be a ceiling. AUGUST Despite the thumbs-up in Turnberry, recriminations soon fly that the EU has accepted a bad deal. EU leaders defend it as the best they could get, given Europe’s reliance on the U.S. to guarantee its security. The two sides come out with a joint statement spelling out the terms — POLITICO breaks it down. Not only does the EU come off worse in the Turnberry deal, but it also sacrifices its long-term commitment to rules-based trade in return for Trump’s uncertain support for Ukraine. The realization slowly dawns that Europe’s humiliation could be profound and long-lasting. With the ink barely dry on the accord, Trump takes aim at digital taxes and regulation that he views as discriminatory. It’s a blast that is clearly aimed at Brussels. SEPTEMBER The torrent of trade news slows — allowing Antonia Zimmermann to travel to Ireland’s “Viagra Village” to report how Trump’s drive to reshore drug production threatens Europe’s top pharmaceuticals exporter. OCTOBER EU leaders resist Trump’s pressure to tear up the bloc’s business rules, instead trying to present a red tape-cutting drive pushed by von der Leyen as a self-generated reform that has the fringe benefit of addressing U.S. concerns.    NOVEMBER Attention shifts to Washington as the U.S. Supreme Court hears challenges to Trump’s sweeping tariffs. The justices are skeptical of his invocation of emergency powers to justify them. Even Trump appointees on the bench subject his lawyer to tough questioning.  A row flares on the first visit to Brussels by U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Lutnick presses for concessions on EU digital regulation in exchange for possible tariff relief on steel. “Blackmail,” is the counterblast from Teresa Ribera, the EU’s top competition regulator. DECEMBER The year ends as it started, with another Trump broadside against Europe and its leaders. “I think they’re weak,” he tells POLITICO. “They don’t know what to do on trade, either.”

President Donald Trump promised that a wave of emergency tariffs on nearly every nation would restore “fair” trade and jump-start the economy. Eight months later, half of U.S. imports are avoiding those tariffs. “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs,” Trump said in April when he rolled out global tariffs based on the United States’ trade deficits with other countries, “I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate your currencies.” But in the time since the president gave that Rose Garden speech announcing the highest tariffs in a century, enormous holes have appeared. Carveouts for specific products, trade deals with major allies and conflicting import duties have let more than half of all imports escape his sweeping emergency tariffs. Some $1.6 trillion in annual imports are subject to the tariffs, while at least $1.7 trillion are excluded, either because they are duty-free or subject to another tariff, according to a POLITICO analysis based on last year’s import data. The exemptions on thousands of goods could undercut Trump’s effort to protect American manufacturing, shrink the trade deficit and raise new revenue to fund his domestic agenda. In September, the White House exempted hundreds of goods, including critical minerals and industrial materials, totaling nearly $280 billion worth of annual imports. Then in November, the administration exempted $252 billion worth of mostly agricultural imports like beef, coffee and bananas, some of which are not widely produced in the U.S. — just after cost-of-living issues became a major talking point out of Democratic electoral victories — on top of the hundreds of other carveouts. “The administration, for most of this year, spent a lot of time saying tariffs are a way to offload taxes onto foreigners,” said Ed Gresser, a former assistant U.S. trade representative under Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s first term, who now works at the Progressive Policy Institute, a D.C.-based think tank. “I think that becomes very hard to continue arguing when you then say, ‘But we are going to get rid of tariffs on coffee and beef, and that will bring prices down.’ … It’s a big retreat in principle.” The Trump administration has argued that higher tariffs would rebalance the United States’ trade deficits with many of its major trading partners, which Trump blames for the “hollowing out” of U.S. manufacturing in what he evoked as a “national emergency.” Before the Supreme Court, the administration is defending the president’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact the tariffs, and Trump has said that a potential court-ordered end to the emergency tariffs would be “country-threatening.” In an interview with POLITICO on Monday, Trump said he was open to adding even more exemptions to tariffs. He downplayed the existing carveouts as “very small” and “not a big deal,” and said he plans to pair them with tariff increases elsewhere. Responding to POLITICO’s analysis, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “The Trump administration is implementing a nuanced and nimble tariff agenda to address our historic trade deficit and safeguard our national security. This agenda has already resulted in trillions in investments to make and hire in America along with over a dozen trade deals with some of America’s most important trade partners.” To date, the majority of exemptions to the “reciprocal” tariffs — the minimum 10 percent levies on most countries — have been for reasons other than new trade deals, according to POLITICO’s analysis. The White House also pushed back against the notion that November’s cuts were made in an effort to reduce food prices, saying that the exemptions were first outlined in the September order. The U.S. granted subsequent blanket exemptions, regardless of the status of countries’ trade negotiations with the Trump administration, after announcing several trade deals. Following the exemptions on agricultural tariffs, Trump announced on Monday a $12 billion relief aid package for farmers hurt by tariffs and rising production costs. The money will come from an Agriculture Department fund, though the president said it was paid for by revenue from tariffs (by law, Congress would need to approve spending the money that tariffs bring in). In addition to the exemptions from Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, more than $300 billion of imports are also exempted as part of trade deals the administration has negotiated in recent months, including with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan and more recently, Malaysia, Cambodia and Brazil. The deal with Brazil removed a range of products from a cumulative tariff of 50 percent, making two-thirds of imports from the country free from emergency tariffs. For Canadian and Mexican goods, Trump imposed tariffs under a separate emergency justification over fentanyl trafficking and undocumented migrants. But about half of imports from Mexico and nearly 40 percent of those from Canada will not face tariffs because of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. Last year, importers claimed USMCA exemptions on $405 billion in goods; that value is expected to increase, given that the two countries are facing high tariffs for the first time in several years. The Trump administration has also exempted several products — including autos, steel and aluminum — from the emergency reciprocal tariffs because they already face duties under Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The imports covered by those tariffs could total up to $900 billion annually, some of which may also be exempt under USMCA. The White House is considering using the law to justify further tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and several other industries. For now, the emergency tariffs remain in place as the Supreme Court weighs whether Trump exceeded his authority in imposing them. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s use of emergency authority was unlawful — a decision the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld in August. During oral arguments on Nov. 5, several Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism that the emergency statute authorizes a president to levy tariffs, a power constitutionally assigned to Congress. As the rates of tariffs and their subsequent exemptions are quickly added and amended, businesses are struggling to keep pace, said Sabine Altendorf, an economist with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “When there’s uncertainty and rapid changes, it makes operations very difficult,” Altendorf said. “Especially for agricultural products where growing times and planting times are involved, it’s very important for market actors to be able to plan ahead.” ABOUT THE DATA Trump’s trade policy is not a straightforward, one-size-fits-all approach, despite the blanket tariffs on most countries of the world. POLITICO used 2024 import data to estimate the value of goods subject to each tariff, accounting for the stacking rules outlined below. Under Trump’s current system, some tariffs can “stack” — meaning a product can face more than one tariff if multiple trade actions apply to it. Section 232 tariffs cover automobiles, automobile parts, products made of steel and aluminum, copper and lumber — and are applied in that order of priority. Section 232 tariffs as a whole then take priority over other emergency tariffs. We applied this stacking priority order to all imports to ensure no double-counting. To calculate the total exclusions, we did not count the value of products containing steel, aluminum and copper, since the tariff would apply only to the known portion of the import’s metal contentand not the total import value of all products containing them. This makes the $1.7 trillion in exclusions a minimum estimate. Goods from Canada and Mexico imported under USMCA face no tariffs. Some of these products fall under a Section 232 category and may be charged applicable tariffs for the non-USMCA portion of the import. To claim exemptions under USMCA, importers must indicate the percentage of the product made or assembled in Canada or Mexico. Because detailed commodity-level data on which imports qualify for USMCA is not available, POLITICO’s analysis estimated the amount that would be excluded from tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports by applying each country’s USMCA-exempt share to its non-Section 232 import value. For instance, 38 percent of Canada’s total imports qualified for USMCA. The non-Section 232 imports from Canada totaled around $320 billion, so we used only $121 billion towards our calculation of total goods excluded from Trump’s emergency tariffs. Exemptions from trade deals included those with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, Brazil, Cambodia and Malaysia. They do not include “frameworks” for agreements announced by the administration. Exemptions were calculated in chronological order of when the deals were announced. Imports already exempted in previous orders were not counted again, even if they appeared on subsequent exemption lists.

LONDON — The British government is working to give its trade chief new powers to move faster in imposing higher tariffs on imports, as it faces pressure from Brussels and Washington to combat Chinese industrial overcapacity. Under new rules drawn up by British officials, Trade Secretary Peter Kyle will have the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) to launch investigations and give ministers options to set higher duty levels to protect domestic businesses. The trade watchdog will be required to set out the results of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations within a year, better monitor trade distortions and streamline processes for businesses to prompt trade probes. The U.K. is in negotiations with the U.S. and the EU to forge a steel alliance to counter Chinese overcapacity as the bloc works to introduce its own updated safeguards regime. The EU is the U.K.’s largest market and Brussels is creating a new steel protection regime that is set to slash Britain’s tariff-free export quotas and place 50 percent duties on any in excess. The government said its directive to the TRA will align the U.K. with similar powers in the EU and Australia, and follow World Trade Organization rules. It is set out in a Strategic Steer to the watchdog and will be introduced as part of the finance bill due to be wrapped up in the spring. “We are strengthening the U.K.’s system for tackling unfair trade to give our producers and manufacturers — especially SMEs who have less capacity and capability — the backing they need to grow and compete,” Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said in a statement. “By streamlining processes and aligning our framework with international peers, we are ensuring U.K. industry has the tools to protect jobs, attract investment and thrive in a changing global economy,” Kyle added. These moves come after the government said on Wednesday that its Steel Strategy, which plots the future of the industry in Britain and new trade protections for the sector, will be delayed until next year. The Trump administration has been concerned about the U.K.’s steps to counter China’s steel overcapacity and refused to lower further a 25 percent tariff carve-out for Britain’s steel and aluminum exports from the White House’s 50 percent global duties on the metals. Trade Secretary Kyle discussed lowering the Trump administration’s tariffs on U.K. steel with senior U.S. Cabinet members in Washington on Wednesday.  “We are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU safeguard,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant told parliament Thursday, after meeting with EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Wednesday for negotiations. “We will do everything we can to make sure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the U.K.,” Bryant said. The TRA has also launched a new public-facing Import Trends Monitor tool to help firms detect surges in imports that could harm their business and provide evidence that could prompt an investigation by the watchdog. “We welcome the government’s strategic steer, which marks a significant milestone in our shared goal to make the U.K.’s trade remedies regime more agile, accessible and assertive, as well as providing greater accountability,” said the TRA’s Co-Chief Executives Jessica Blakely and Carmen Suarez. Sophie Inge and Jon Stone contributed reporting.

The European Commission has lost access to its control panel for buying and tracking ads on Elon Musk’s X — after fining the social media platform €120 million for violating EU transparency rules. “Your ad account has been terminated,” X’s head of product, Nikita Bier, wrote on the platform early Sunday. Bier accused the EU executive of trying to amplify its own social media post about the fine on X by trying “to take advantage of an exploit in our Ad Composer — to post a link that deceives users into thinking it’s a video and to artificially increase its reach.” The Commission fined X on Thursday for breaching the EU’s rules under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to limit the spread of illegal content. The breaches included a lack of transparency around X’s advertising library and the company’s decision to change its trademark blue checkmark from a means of verification to a “deceptive” paid feature. “The irony of your announcement,” Bier said. “X believes everyone should have an equal voice on our platform. However, it seems you believe that the rules should not apply to your account.” Trump administration has criticized the DSA and the Digital Markets Act, which prevent large online platforms, such as Google, Amazon and Meta, from overextending their online empires. The White House has accused the rules of discriminating against U.S. companies, and the fine will likely amplify transatlantic trade tensions. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has already threatened to keep 50 percent tariffs on European exports of steel and aluminum unless the EU loosens its digital rules. U.S. Vice President JD Vance blasted Brussels’ action, describing the fine as a response for “not engaging in censorship” — a notion the Commission has dismissed. “The DSA is having not to do with censorship,” said the EU’s tech czar, Henna Virkkunen, told reporters on Thursday. “This decision is about the transparency of X.”

BRUSSELS — U. S. Vice President JD Vance has hit out at the EU’s digital rules enforcement, saying the EU should not be “attacking American companies over garbage.” “Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage,” Vance wrote on X overnight. X owner Elon Musk immediately thanked the U.S. official, commenting, “Much appreciated.”  The European Commission opened formal proceedings against X under its Digital Services Act in December 2023, roughly a year after Musk bought Twitter and rebranded it as X. But the EU has yet to finalize its probe, after accusing X of breaching its obligations around transparency and blue checkmarks in preliminary findings in July 2024. A decision could come as early as Friday, according to media reports Thursday. Under the EU rules, companies can be fined up to 6 percent of their annual global turnover. French President Emmanuel Macron last week voiced concerns about the slow pace of Brussels’ probes into American tech giants, adding to a growing chorus of criticism that the bloc has been too slow to enforce its flagship Digital Services Act amid U.S. pressure. Washington has repeatedly asked the EU to roll back its digital rule book as part of trade negotiations, and last week U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick put this on the table again as an explicit exchange for scrapping tariffs on steel and aluminum in ongoing talks. Asked earlier Thursday how she feels about a looming diplomatic showdown if she slaps a fine on a U.S. tech giant, Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen told POLITICO: “I’m quite calm in different situations. I’m not surprised about anything. I’m protecting our laws. But at the same time we are going to make Europe faster and simpler and easier for businesses.” Asked if she’s afraid of the U.S.’s reaction to a fine under the DSA, Virkkunen responded with a single word: “No.”

BRUSSELS — Europe’s most energy-intensive industries are worried the European Union’s carbon border tax will go too soft on heavily polluting goods imported from China, Brazil and the United States — undermining the whole purpose of the measure. From the start of next year, Brussels will charge a fee on goods like cement, iron, steel, aluminum and fertilizer imported from countries with weaker emissions standards than the EU’s. The point of the law, known as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, is to make sure dirtier imports don’t have an unfair advantage over EU-made products, which are charged around €80 for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. One of the main conundrums for the EU is how to calculate the carbon footprint of imports when the producers don’t give precise emissions data. According to draft EU laws obtained by POLITICO, the European Commission is considering using default formulas that EU companies say are far too generous. Two documents in particular have raised eyebrows. One contains draft benchmarks to assess the carbon footprint of imported CBAM goods, while the second — an Excel sheet seen by POLITICO — shows default CO2 emissions values for the production of these products in foreign countries. These documents are still subject to change. National experts from EU countries discussed the controversial texts last Wednesday during a closed-door meeting, and asked the Commission to rework them before they can be adopted. That’s expected to happen over the next few weeks, according to two people with knowledge of the talks. Multiple industry representatives told POLITICO that the proposed estimated carbon footprint values are too low for a number of countries, which risks undermining the efficiency of the CBAM. For example, some steel products from China, Brazil and the United States have much lower assumed emissions than equivalent products made in the EU, according to the tables. Ola Hansén, public affairs director of the green steel manufacturer Stegra, said he had been “surprised” by the draft default values that have been circulating, because they suggest that CO2 emissions for some steel production routes in the EU were higher than in China, which seemed “odd.” “Our recommendation would be [to] adjust the values, but go ahead with the [CBAM] framework and then improve it over time,” he said. Antoine Hoxha, director general of industry association Fertilizers Europe, also said he found the proposed default values “quite low” for certain elements, like urea, used to manufacture fertilizers. “The result is not exactly what we would have thought,” he said, adding there is “room for improvement.” But he also noted that the Commission is trying “to do a good job but they are extremely overwhelmed … It’s a lot of work in a very short period of time.” Multiple industry representatives told POLITICO that the proposed estimated carbon footprint values are too low for a number of countries, which risks undermining the efficiency of the CBAM. | Photo by VCG via Getty Images While a weak CBAM would be bad for many emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries in the EU, it’s likely to please sectors relying on cheap imports of CBAM goods — such as European farmers that import fertilizer — as well as EU trade partners that have complained the measure is a barrier to global free trade. The European Commission declined to comment. DEFAULT VERSUS REAL EMISSIONS Getting this data right is crucial to ensure the mechanism works and encourages companies to lower their emissions to pay a lower CBAM fee. “Inconsistencies in the figures of default values and benchmarks would dilute the incentive for cleaner production processes and allow high-emission imports to enter the EU market with insufficient carbon costs,” said one CBAM industry representative, granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks. “This could result in a CBAM that is not only significantly less effective but most likely counterproductive.” The default values for CO2 emissions are like a stick. When the legislation was designed, they were expected to be set quite high to “punish importers that are not providing real emission data,” and encourage companies to report their actual emissions to pay a lower CBAM fee, said Leon de Graaf, acting president of the Business for CBAM Coalition. But if these default values are too low then importers no longer have any incentive to provide their real emissions data. They risk making the CBAM less effective because it allows imported goods to appear cleaner than they really are, he said. The Commission is under pressure to adopt these EU acts quickly as they’re needed to set the last technical details for the implementation of the CBAM, which applies from Jan. 1. However, de Graaf warned against rushing that process. On the one hand, importers “needed clarity yesterday” because they are currently agreeing import deals for next year and at the moment “cannot calculate what their CBAM cost will be,” he said. But European importers are worried too, because once adopted the default emission values will apply for the next two years, the draft documents suggest. The CBAM regulation states that the default values “shall be revised periodically.” “It means that if they are wrong now … they will hurt certain EU producers for at least two years,” de Graaf said.

BRUSSELS — Europe’s antitrust chief Teresa Ribera has unleashed a blistering attack on the Trump administration, accusing Washington of using “blackmail” to strong-arm the EU into watering down its tech rulebook. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Monday in Brussels that the U.S. could modify its approach on steel and aluminum tariffs if the EU reconsidered its digital rules. European officials interpreted his remarks as an attack against the EU’s flagship tech regulations, including the Digital Markets Act (DMA). “It is blackmail,” the Spanish commissioner told POLITICO in an interview on Wednesday. “[This] being their intention does not mean that we accept that kind of blackmail.” Ribera — who as executive vice president of the Commission ranks second to President Ursula von der Leyen — said the EU’s digital rulebook should have nothing to do with trade negotiations. Donald Trump’s team is seeking to overhaul the framework trade agreement he struck with von der Leyen at his Scottish golf resort in July. The intervention lands at a sensitive time in ongoing trade talks. Washington views the DMA as discriminatory because the large technology platforms it regulates — like Microsoft, Google or Amazon — are nearly all American. It also takes exception to the Digital Services Act, which seeks to curb illegal online speech, seeing it as designed to restrict social networks like Elon Musk’s X. Ribera said the rules were a matter of sovereignty and should not be brought into the scope of a trade negotiation. “We respect the rules, whatever rules, they’ve got for their market: digital market, health sector, steel, whatever … cars, standards,” she said referring to the U.S. “It is their problem. It is their regulation and their sovereignty. So it is the case here.”  Ribera, along with EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen, oversees the DMA, which polices the behavior of large digital platforms and seeks to uphold fair competition. She weighed in forcefully on comments Lutnick made after he met EU officials and ministers on Monday, saying “the European digital rulebook is not up for negotiation.” Virkkunen echoed that view on Tuesday. On Monday she presented the EU’s simplification package, including the digital omnibus proposal, to her American counterparts. The package has been presented as an EU-centric push to reduce red tape, but interpreted by some as an attempt to address the concerns of U.S. Big Tech around regulation. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Monday in Brussels that the U.S. could modify its approach on steel and aluminum tariffs if the EU reconsidered its digital rules. | Nicolas Tucat/Getty Images Asked why she had made such a strong statement, Ribera answered that Lutnick’s remarks were “a direct attack against the DMA.” She added: “It is under my responsibility to defend a well-functioning digital market in Europe.”  CRACKS ARE SHOWING Despite the uncompromising response from Ribera, solidarity over the DMA is starting to show subtle cracks among EU countries.  Lutnick said after Monday’s meeting that some EU trade ministers weren’t as resistant as the Commission to the idea of reviewing the bloc’s digital rules. “I see a lot of ministers … some are more open-minded than others,” he told Bloomberg TV, saying that if Europe wants U.S. investment it should change its regulatory model. At least one European participant appeared to agree. Germany’s Katherina Reiche, speaking on the sidelines of the meeting, told reporters that she was in favor of a further loosening of the EU’s digital rules.  “Germany has made it clear that we want opportunities to play a part in the digital world,” said Reiche, specifically citing the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. Washington’s lobbying effort to weaken the EU’s digital rulebook comes amid a broader global push by the U.S. to weaken digital laws in foreign jurisdictions.  This month, South Korea caved to lobbying efforts by the Trump administration and walked back its own proposed digital competition regime.  The U.S. Trade Representative is preparing its 2026 report and launching another round of consultations in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, the Commission is trudging forward with an assessment of the rules under its “Digital Fairness Fitness Check” and the ongoing DMA review. But with Washington lobbing grenades and EU countries breaking ranks, the question isn’t just what the review says — it’s whether the DMA can survive the trade war.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s push for the U.S. to scrap its tariffs on steel and aluminum has opened the door to an old demand from Washington: Loosen your digital rulebook, and we’ll meet you halfway. Brussels raised its concerns over Washington’s expanded list of goods covered by high steel and aluminum tariffs at meetings on Monday between Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and EU trade ministers and, from the U.S. side, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The Commerce Department in August subjected over 400 products containing steel and aluminum to a 50 percent tariff — a list the EU feels is so broad it goes against the spirit of a framework trade deal struck in July. That trade deal, which President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clinched at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, sets a baseline tariff of 15 percent on most EU imports to the U.S., while the EU committed to cutting most of its own tariffs to zero. At the time, the EU and the U.S. pledged to work together to reduce tariffs on steel and aluminum — but remained vague on the details. After the Europeans raised the steel tariffs on Monday, Lutnick responded by calling on the EU to “analyze their digital rules, trying to come away with a balance … not put them away, but find a balanced approach that works with us.” “And if they can come up with that balanced approach, which I think they can, then we will, together with them, handle the steel and aluminum issues and bring that on together,” he added. Lutnick’s remarks signal a departure from the previous U.S. position, which threatened to retaliate against the bloc’s digital laws, while advocating for light-touch artificial intelligence regulation.  Lutnick sold the loosening of the bloc’s digital rules as an “opportunity” for the EU, offering U.S. investment in return, mainly through data centers that could power artificial intelligence.   “If the European Union can find a way to have a balanced digital set of rules, I think the European Union can see $1 trillion of investment,” he said. PUSHING BACK — SORT OF In response, Šefčovič reiterated the bloc’s commitment to its regulatory autonomy and its belief that its rules are not — contrary to what Washington asserts — discriminatory.  The EU side, he added, “explained how our legislation is working, we explained that this is not discriminatory. It’s not aimed at American companies. And I think that we just simply need to do more of the explanation in that regard.”  A Commission official, speaking on condition of anonymity, was more direct: “Steel and digital are completely unrelated. Steel has always been part of the discussions with the U.S. and has been formalized in the joint statement. Our sovereign digital legislation is not up for negotiations.” The EU’s digital rules are a major concern for the Donald Trump administration, and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick raised the matter on a visit to Brussels. | Pool photo by Aaron Schwartz/EPA The EU executive has already moved to simplify its tech rules through a digital omnibus presented last week, an effort that the EU’s tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, raised with Lutnick and Greer at an earlier meeting that day. That omnibus brought major changes to the EU’s GDPR data protection regulation, and also proposed to pause the rollout of a key part of the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act — a controversial move championed by U.S. Big Tech companies and lobby groups.  European lawmakers and civil society groups have expressed concerns in recent weeks that the Commission’s digital simplification push is meant to placate Washington, a claim the Commission has vehemently denied.   Lawmakers are due to discuss the digital simplification package with the Commission on Tuesday. Last week, the Commission also kicked off a process to review all of its tech rulebooks, which could lead to further simplification efforts.  STEEL TALKS  Washington’s earlier decision to widen the list of steel products facing the 50 percent tariff caused uproar in Brussels, with some European lawmakers arguing that the EU should refrain from lowering its own tariffs on steel until the issue is resolved. In a bid to cozy up to the White House, the EU side on Monday pushed the idea that Brussels and Washington should jointly face up to a common enemy — China — rather than dwelling on their differences.  Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said the two sides had addressed “some of the challenges we are facing together,” such as “overcapacity” and “China’s role in the global economy.” Asked about joint work on overcapacity, Lutnick said such issues are “easy for us to work together, and those don’t take up a lot of time when we’re talking, because when everybody just agrees right away, it’s not very difficult.” Behind closed doors, however, the U.S. stressed to its European counterparts that cooperation on China didn’t mean they would simply give the EU a pass on steel and aluminum tariffs. Šefčovič said a team from Brussels would travel to Washington in the coming weeks to address these issues.

In a luxury Saudi hotel some 3,000 miles away from her economic woes, Britain’s Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered a plucky pitch to some of the wealthiest people on the planet. “I believe that countries are successful when they are open and trading — I think that’s good for productivity because competition spurs productivity, growth,” she told business leaders at the Fortune Global Forum last month. “And in a small and open economy like Britain’s … we want our businesses to be able to access global markets.” With this in mind, the chancellor said, Britain was striking trade deals with the EU, the U.S., as well as fast-growing economies like India, as she teased “big opportunities” from an upcoming free trade agreement with Gulf countries. With a difficult budget looming, the chancellor has increasingly turned her gaze overseas in her elusive search for economic growth. And with the Office for Budget Responsibility expected to downgrade the U.K.’s productivity outlook before the budget, Reeves is urging the fiscal watchdog to positively “score” new trade deals according to how much growth they might deliver. But her efforts may be in vain. Far from being the magic bullet that will reinvigorate the economy, the benefits of trade deals may take years to materialize — and some government claims appear to be overstated, experts have told POLITICO. EU ‘RESET’ HOPES By the government’s estimation, its plans to “reset” its relationship with the European Union will add nearly £9 billion to the U.K. economy by 2040, equivalent to a GDP boost of 0.3 percent. Key elements include deals on agrifood, energy trading, and a youth mobility scheme.  Separate analysis by John Springford, an associate fellow at the Centre for European Reform in London, is more optimistic, predicting a GDP boost of between 0.3 and 0.7 percent over ten years as a result of the agreement. The biggest uplifts, he claims, would come from a youth mobility deal.  But negotiations on key elements of the deal have only just begun, and Springford admits details are still “a bit sketchy.” As a result, he says, it would be difficult for the OBR to accept Reeves’ ask to score these deals, which would also take a long time to play out. Even if the government’s estimates are met, he added, the deal will do little to reverse the overall damage caused by Brexit, which the OBR estimates will reduce the U.K.’s long-run productivity by 4 percent. “The damage caused by Brexit can never be significantly repaired without getting rid of one or all of the government’s ‘red lines’,” he continued, in reference to Labour’s refusal to rejoin the single market or customs union.  In recent months the chancellor has talked about the impact of Brexit on the economy, but has suggested this impact can be offset by the reset deal, as well as by trade deals with non-EU countries. “There is no doubting that the impact of Brexit is severe and long lasting,” she said in an interview with Sky News in October, “and that is why we are trying to do trade deals around the world, with the U.S., India, but most importantly with the EU, so that our exporters here in Britain have a chance to sell things made here all around the world.” Guests at the Fortune Global Forum 2025 Gala Dinner. | Cedric Ribeiro/Getty Images for Fortune Media But Ahmet Kaya, principal economist at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said the EU deal was “more symbolic than transformative.”  “It slightly eases checks on agri-food products, which should help certain sectors, but the macroeconomic effect is minimal considering that the government’s impact estimate is just £9 billion — which is cumulative gain over time — relative to the size of the £3.6 trillion economy.” INDIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT Reeves will also be pinning her growth hopes on the U.K.’s recently completed free trade agreement with India, which the government predicts will boost U.K. GDP by 0.13 percent, worth £4.8 billion a year.  The deal will ultimately see India remove tariffs on up to 90 percent of U.K. exports and cut India’s average effective tariffs on U.K. goods from roughly 15 percent to 3 percent, with significant benefits for Britain’s automotive and Scotch whisky exports. But Sophie Hale, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, said it could take 10 to 15 years for the full effects of the deal to be felt, partly because many tariff reductions will be introduced gradually and are subject to quotas. “Given the OBR is looking over a five-year window, we really aren’t going to expect a big impact,” she said. “Even if it was spread evenly, you’re maybe getting less than half of that by the end of the forecast, because it has to actually be implemented.” The deal is “definitely worth having,” Hale added. “But in terms of … OBR productivity growth forecasts or shifting the dial on U.K. growth, it’s pretty small and a lot of those impacts are going to be delayed.”  TARIFF TERRORS Reeves will also be hoping that the U.K.’s Economic Prosperity Deal with the U.S. — announced with much fanfare in May — will have gone some way in cushioning the impact of President Donald Trump’s punitive tariff regime. The deal saw the U.K. hit with 10 percent baseline tariffs on most goods, with reduced duties for automotives, steel and aluminum, and increased market access for agricultural exports.  While this gave Britain a comparative advantage over most other countries, it has still left the U.K. in a weaker trade position with the U.S. than a year ago. According to NIESR’s latest forecast, U.S. tariffs have reduced U.K. growth by around 0.1 percentage points this year and 0.2 percentage points next year.  “That’s a smaller drag than expected in March, reflecting the more moderate global spill-overs from tariffs, but the overall impact remains negative,” said Kaya. But even this remains uncertain. Like the EU deal agreed earlier this year, much of the EPD remains under negotiation, including pharmaceutical tariffs, which makes it difficult to “score” in terms of its economic impact. MAKING TRADE DEALS WORK Even when trade deals are fully agreed and implemented, their economic impacts are not guaranteed, and it is sometimes an uphill struggle to get businesses to actually make use of them.  “Trade deals have the potential to support economic growth, but their impact does not appear overnight and needs time and support to make it happen,” noted George Riddell, managing director of the Goyder trade consultancy.  “Businesses need to make connections with local customers, understand local regulatory requirements and establish partnerships to help with relevant legal, tax and customs procedures.” In the government’s trade strategy, published over the summer, the Department for Business and Trade committed to overhauling how it supports U.K. businesses and provides export advice through a “one-stop-shop.”  “While the new website is a substantial improvement on what was there before, more needs to be done to get businesses using it,” said Riddell.  Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves will be hoping that the U.K.’s Economic Prosperity Deal with the U.S. will have gone some way in cushioning the impact of President Donald Trump’s punitive tariff regime. | Pool photo by Jordan Pettitt/AFP via Getty Images Trade Minister Chris Bryant acknowledged this issue in a recent speech, telling businesses the estimates of the economic impact of trade deals could only be realized “if businesses are ambitious enough to exploit these opportunities.”  “It’s not just about signing free trade agreements,” he said at a pitching event for exporters earlier this month. “We can sign FTAs, we can do all that negotiating … But it’s exploiting those FTAs once they’ve been signed that is really important and will actually drive growth.” Looking back at the U.K.’s first post-Brexit trade deals, David Henig, director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy think tank, says there is little sign of material impact. “There is currently no evidence that the new trade deals with Australia and New Zealand have affected the U.K. economy in any meaningful sense,” he said, adding there was “nothing that indicates any permanent increase in trade so far.” ‘BEATING THE FORECASTS’ As the budget approaches, Reeves’ growth ambitions look increasingly uncertain. The OBR has downgraded the U.K.’s productivity outlook, potentially increasing government borrowing by £14 billion and £20 billion. Just last week, figures from the Office for National Statistics show that U.K. GDP fell unexpectedly by 0.1 percent in September. Publicly, at least, the chancellor has remained upbeat. “My job as chancellor is to try and beat those forecasts,” she said last month, “and what we’re doing with those trade deals with India, the U.S. and the EU, the investments that we’ve secured, including from big tech companies in the U.K., shows that we have a huge amount to offer as a place to grow a business, to start and scale a business.  “We’ll continue to secure those investments in all parts of Britain, to create those good jobs, paying wages and to boost our productivity, which means that we will start to see those numbers coming through in economic growth and prosperity for working people.” James Fitzgerald contributed to this report.