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. 

LONDON — Trade Secretary Peter Kyle is expected to announce the U.K.’s steel strategy at Tata Steel UK’s mill in Port Talbot on Thursday. The strategy will set out new protections for Britain’s steel sector, slashing quotas on imports of many products from overseas while raising duties outside those caps to 50 percent, two people familiar with the announcement told POLITICO. “The tariff will be doubled to 50 percent in line with what the Europeans have done, the Canadians have done, the Americans have done,” a senior business representative familiar with the plans said. There will “be some exemptions” for products British steelmakers don’t make, they added. British officials have told both U.K. steel producers and downstream importers, who use steel in everything from construction to automotive manufacturing, to expect a 50 percent duty outside of new quotas in a move “likely to be similar to the EU,” said a second industry figure. Both industry figures were granted anonymity as they were not authorized to speak publicly. Last October, the EU announced plans to reduce its quotas on foreign steel imports by almost half and levy a 50 percent tariff on goods exceeding the cap. The move is part of an overhaul of so-called safeguard protections that expire in both the EU and U.K., under World Trade Organization rules, at the end of June. The U.K.’s strategy setting out the future of the sector has been repeatedly delayed. On Thursday, Kyle will set out a new scheme of trade protections to replace the so-called steel safeguards scheme. A Tata Steel UK executive told lawmakers in early February that the government “had eight weeks to save the British steel industry” by shielding it with new protectionist measures from a glut of cheap imports from countries like China. Steel importers, however, are unlikely to get the full gamut of exemptions under the scheme they had hoped for, said the second industry figure, noting they’re “prepared for the worst.” The government will “jeopardize downstream manufacturers if they make the import restrictions too prohibitive,” they said. “There will be some exemptions, but not as many as they hoped for,” said the senior business representative. “This government has been crystal clear in committing to a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel jobs in the U.K., and we will publish a steel strategy shortly setting out how we can achieve a sustainable future for the sector,” said a government spokesperson.

STRASBOURG — European and American officials are scrambling to avoid a return to their transatlantic trade war, amid increasing frustration in Washington over the EU’s failure to implement the transatlantic trade deal they agreed last summer. A trio of senior European lawmakers will travel to Washington next week, hoping to meet U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who accuses the EU of implementing “zero percent” of the trade accord reached at President Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland last July 27. The mission to the U.S. comes amid of flurry of diplomatic contacts between EU and U.S. officials ahead of a high-stakes vote by European lawmakers expected on March 26 that will determine whether Brussels can implement last year’s accord. That vote is at risk of being delayed, yet again, after a series of previous hold ups. U.S. patience is wearing thin, raising the prospect that the tariff conflict could flare up again. “The EU has done approximately zero percent of what they were supposed to do for their trade deal with us. We quickly after the Turnberry deal came into compliance with that deal,” Greer said during a press call on Wednesday.  “The European Union has had their legislation for their tariffs pending for many, many, many, many months,” he added.  Top EU parliamentary negotiators will meet on March 17 to decide whether to push back their vote again. The Turnberry agreement is widely seen in Europe as a one-sided pact. In it, the EU accepted a 15 percent U.S. tariff on most exports, while itself pledging to scrap all tariffs on U.S. industrial goods. Many EU lawmakers fear that Trump could yet renege on the deal to make more tariff threats, as he has done over Greenland and Spain.  In the Parliament, the center-right European People’s Party — the political family of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — wants to see the deal approved to avoid retaliation by Trump and bring stability to businesses.  The Socialists & Democrats, liberals and Greens have voted against moving forward, however, after balking at the U.S. president’s latest tariff menaces against Spain, his strikes on Iran and his threats to stage a “friendly takeover” of Cuba. CRACKS IN TRUST Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has sought to reassure the Europeans that the U.S. will stick by the deal. Yet skepticism persists. “How can we get clarity with Trump [who] doesn’t respect the deals? I think that, for now, what we would need is some public statement on the willingness to respect the deal,” Brando Benifei, an Italian Socialist who is the Parliament’s point person for relations with the U.S., said on Tuesday.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has sought to reassure the Europeans that the U.S. will stick by the deal. | Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images Benifei will be one of the three MEPs traveling to meet Greer. The others are Bernd Lange, the German Social Democrat who chairs the European Parliament’s trade committee, and Polish center-right lawmaker Michał Szczerba, who sits on the foreign and security committees. They hope to meet Greer on March 20, but the EU lawmakers could already have delayed the vote by then. “I hope that we can find some common ground,” Lange said. Karin Karlsbro, a Swedish liberal who is skeptical on the trade pact, is also expected to meet with representatives of the U.S. mission to the EU, her office said. And Željana Zovko, the top negotiator on the file from the EPP, the biggest grouping in Parliament, will meet with U.S. Ambassador Andrew Puzder on Monday, she told POLITICO. Despite the worries from the U.S. side, Anna Cavazzini, the lead lawmaker on the file in the Greens group who is spearheading opposition to the deal, said she had not been contacted by the Americans. UNRELIABLE PARTNER Despite Bessent’s pledge on the Turnberry pact, the EU remains wary over what Trump will do next. The U.S. has, only this week, launched new investigations into unfair trade practices that could trigger more tariffs against the EU. That has redoubled concerns in Brussels that Trump plans to plow on with his aggressive trade agenda against Europe, undeterred by a Supreme Court ruling last month that substantially overturned his original tariff agenda. On top of the latest investigations, people close to the file say the White House will not shy away from imposing tariffs on national security grounds, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Washington’s double-sided approach is not lost on European lawmakers.  “‘We’ll stick to the deal.’ And less than 24 hours later, they are already threatening us with new tariffs. It is impossible to work with the Trump administration like this,” the Socialist group’s vice president for trade policy, Kathleen Van Brempt, said in a post on X Thursday.  The EPP’s top trade lawmaker, Jörgen Warborn, last week pitched a “sunrise clause,” meaning the deal would only finally kick in if Washington upheld its side of the bargain. “That would give clarity because what the sunrise clause is doing, it’s making sure that the deal doesn’t kick in before it is confirmed that all the elements of the deal are upheld,” Warborn told POLITICO on Tuesday. Željana Zovko, the top negotiator on the file from the EPP, the biggest grouping in Parliament, will meet with U.S. Ambassador Andrew Puzder on Monday, she told POLITICO. | Martin Bertrand/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images Benifei said the sunrise clause could enable his group to support the pact. Still, he explained, this would require provisions allowing the Commission not to implement the EU-U.S. agreement until Washington stops threatening the EU’s digital rules, and until the U.S. lowers tariffs on EU steel derivatives. “We are not there,” he said, expressing skepticism that the EPP would be willing to place such tough demands on the Commission. “They [EPP lawmakers] are a bit worried about the situation that is not moving,” he said. “I need to see what they are actually ready to do, because to be frank, my impression is that they are a bit in the mood [of saying] …‘Just let’s not make Trump angry.’” Carlo Martuscelli contributed to this report.

When U.S., Mexican and Canadian soccer officials fanned out across the globe nearly a decade ago to sell the 2026 World Cup, they traveled in threes — one representative from each country — to underscore a simple message: North America’s three largest countries were in lockstep. “It was so embedded into everything we did that this was a united bid. Our success was tied to the joint nature of the bid. That was the anchor regarding the premise of what we were trying to do,” said John Kristick, former executive director of the 2026 United Bid Committee. The pitch worked. In 2018, FIFA members awarded the tournament to North America, marking the first time three countries would co-host a men’s World Cup. Bid strategists were delighted when The Washington Post editorial page approvingly called it ”the NAFTA World Cup.” The North American Free Trade Agreement is no more, a victim of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw during his first term, and the successor U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is now teetering. At almost exactly the midway point of the 39-day tournament, trade ties that link the three countries’ economies will expire. The trilateral relationship is more frayed than it has ever been, tensions reflected in this year’s World Cup itself. Instead of one continental showcase, the 2026 World Cup increasingly resembles three distinct tournaments, with different immigration regimes, security plans and funding models, all a function of different policy choices in each host country. Soccer governing body FIFA “is the only glue that’s holding it together,” said one person intimately involved in the bid who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the sensitive political dynamics. The “United” in the United Bid, once the anchor of the entire project, now competes with three national agendas, each running on its own track. POLITICO spoke to eight people involved in developing a World Cup whose path from conception to execution reflects the crooked arc of North American integration. “When these events are awarded, they’re concepts. They’re ideas. They feel good,” said Lee Igel, a professor of global sport at NYU who has advised the U.S. Conference of Mayors on sports policy. “But between the award and the event itself, the world changes. Politics change. Leaders change.” THE TRUMP TOURNAMENT At the start of the extravagant December event that formally set the World Cup schedule, Trump stood next to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to ceremonially draw the first lottery ball. FIFA officials touted the moment at the Kennedy Center as a milestone: the first time the three leaders had appeared together in person, united by soccer. The trio also met for 90 minutes off stage in a meeting — facilitated by FIFA as part of World Cup planning. That novelty was notable. While each national government has named a “sherpa” to serve as its lead, those officials — including Canadian Secretary of State for Sport Adam van Koeverden and Mexican coordinator Gabriela Cuevas — have met only a handful of times in formal trilateral settings. At a January security summit in Colorado Springs, White House FIFA Task Force director Andrew Giuliani did not mention Canada or Mexico during his remarks. Only when FIFA security officer GB Jones took the stage was the international nature of the tournament acknowledged. “We have been and continue to work very closely with officials from all three host countries on topics including safety, security, logistics, transportation and other topics related to hosting a successful FIFA World Cup,” a FIFA spokesperson wrote via email. “This is one World Cup presented across all three host countries and 16 host cities, while showcasing the uniqueness of each individual location and culture.” The soccer federations behind the United Bid have been largely sidelined, with FIFA — rather than national governments — serving as the link between them. It has brought personnel of local host-city organizing committees for quarterly workshops and other meetings, and situated nearly 1,000 of its own employees across all three countries, according to a FIFA spokesperson who says they are “working seamlessly in a united effort.” (The number will swell to more than 4,000 when the tournament is underway.) But those FIFA staff are forced to navigate wildly varied fiscal conditions depending on where they land. Mexico, which will have matches in three cities, has imposed a tax exemption to stimulate investment in the World Cup and related tourist infrastructure in its three host cities. The Canadian government has dedicated well over $300 million to tournament costs, with more than two-thirds going directly to host-city governments. “The federal government are contributing significantly to both Vancouver and Toronto in terms of funding,” said Sharon Bollenbach, the executive director of the FIFA World Cup Toronto Secretariat, which unlike American host committees is run directly out of city hall. American cities, however, have been left to secure their own funding, largely through the pursuit of commercial sponsorships and donations to local organizing committees. Congress has allocated $625 million for the federal government to reimburse host cities in security costs via a grant program. But the partial government shutdown and an attendant decision by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to stop approving FEMA grants is exacerbating a logjam for U.S. states and municipalities — including not only those with World Cup matches but hosting team training camps — that rely on federal funds to coordinate counterterrorism and security efforts. That has left American host cities in very different financial situations just months before the tournament starts. Houston and Dallas-area governments can count on receiving a share of state revenue from Texas’ Major Events Reimbursement Program. The small Boston suburb of Foxborough, Massachusetts, however, is refusing to approve an entertainment license for matches at Gillette Stadium because of an unresolved $7.8 million security bill. Because of the budget squeeze, American cities have cut back on “fan festival” gatherings that will run extend during the tournament’s full length in Canadian and Mexican cities. Jersey City has canceled the fan fest planned at Liberty State Park in favor of smaller community events, and Seattle’s fan fest will be scaled down into a “distributed model” spread cross four locations. The tournament has become tightly intertwined with Trump, as FIFA places an outsized emphasis on courting the man who loves to be seen as the consummate host. Public messaging from the White House has focused almost exclusively on the United States’ role, and Trump rarely mentions Canada or Mexico from the Oval Office or on Truth Social. Since returning to office, Trump has had eight in-person meetings with FIFA President Gianni Infantino — besides the lottery draw at the Kennedy Center — whereas Sheinbaum and Carney have only had one each. While taking questions from the media during a November session with Infantino in the Oval office, Trump did not rule out the use of U.S. military force, including potential land actions, within Mexico to combat drug cartels. Guadalajara, which is set to host four World Cup matches, this weekend erupted in violence after Mexican security forces killed the head of a cartel that Trump last year labeled a “foreign terrorist organization.” A White House spokesperson wrote in a social-media post that the United States provided “intelligence support” to the mission. It is part of a more significant set of conflicts than Trump had with the United States’ neighbors during his first term. In January, Trump claimed that Sheinbaum is “not running Mexico,” while Carney rose to office promising Canadians he would “stand up to President Trump.” Since then, Trump has regularly proposed annexing Canada as the 51st state, as his government offers support to an Alberta separatist movement that could split the country through an independence vote on the province’s October ballot. The July 1 renewal deadline for the five-year-old USMCA has injected urgency into relations among the three leaders. Without an extension, the largely tariff-free trade that underpins North America’s economy would come into question, and governments and businesses would begin planning for a rupture. Trump, who recently called the pact “irrelevant,” has signaled he would be content to let it lapse. Suspense around the free trade zone’s future will engulf preparations for the World Cup, potentially granting Trump related in unrelated negotiations. “In the lead-up to mega-events, geopolitical tensions tend to hover in the background,” Igel said. “Once the matches begin, the show can overwhelm everything else, unless something dramatic like a boycott intervenes. But in the months before? That’s when you see the friction.” THE ORIGINS OF THE UNITED BID It was not supposed to be this way. When North American soccer officials first decided, in 2016, to fuse three national campaigns to host the World Cup into one, they saw unity as the strategic advantage that would distinguish their bid from any competitors. Each country had considered pursuing the World Cup on its own. Canada, looking to build on its success as host of the 2015 Women’s World Cup, wanted to host the larger men’s competition. Mexico, the first country to host it twice, wanted another shot. The United States dusted off an earlier bid for the 2022 tournament, which was awarded to Qatar. Sunil Gulati, a Columbia University economist serving as the U.S. Soccer Federation’s president, envisioned an unprecedented compromise: Instead of competing with one another they would work together — with the United States using its economic primacy and geographical centrality to ensure it remained the tournament’s focal point. The three countries’ economies had been deeply intertwined for nearly a quarter-century. Their leaders signed NAFTA in 1992, lowering trade barriers and snaking supply chains across borders that had previous isolated economic activity. But the trade pact triggered a broad backlash in the United States that allied labor unions on the left and isolationists on the right. That political disquiet exploded with the candidacy of Donald Trump, who called NAFTA “the worst trade deal” and immediately moved to renegotiate it upon taking office. Gulati, meanwhile, was pitching Emilio Azcárraga Jean, CEO and chair of Mexican broadcaster Grupo Televisa, and Canada Soccer President Victor Montagliani, on his own plan for regional integration. They agreed to sketch out a tournament that would have 75 percent of the games held in the U.S. with the remainder split between Canada and Mexico. “I’d rather have a 90 percent chance of winning 75 percent of the World Cup than a 75 percent chance of, you know, winning all of it,” Gulati told the U.S. Soccer board, according to two people who heard him say it. Montagliani and Mexico Football Federation President Decio de María joined Gulati to formally announce the so-called United Bid in New York in April 2017. The three federation presidents knew that the thrust of their pitch had to be more emotional and inclusive than “we are big, rich and have tons of ready-built stadiums,” as one of the bid organizers put it. Kristick laced a theme of “community” through the 1,500-page prospectus known to insiders as a bid book. “In 2026, we can create a bold new legacy for players, for fans and for football by hosting a FIFA World Cup that is more inclusive, more universal than ever,” declared a campaign video that the United Bid showed to the organization’s voting members. “Not because of who we are as nations, but because of what we believe in as neighbors. To bid together, countries come together.” It was a sentiment increasingly out of sync with the times. The same month that Gulati had stood with his counterparts in New York announcing the joint bid, Trump was busy demanding that Congress include funding for a wall along the border with Mexico. He told then-Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto and then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, using aluminum and steel tariffs as a cudgel. Carlos Cordeiro, who displaced Gulati as U.S. Soccer president during the bid process in 2018, became the driving force of the lobbying effort to sell the idea to 211 national federations that would vote on it. In Cordeiro’s view, according to two Americans intimately involved in the bid at the time, the bid’s biggest challenge was assuring voters that the tournament would be more than a U.S. event dressed up with the flags of its neighbors. Teams fanned out across each of soccer’s six regional confederations to make their pitch, each presentation designed to paint a picture of tri-national cooperation, and returned to a temporary base in London to debrief. “It was very pragmatic. It was like Carlos, or another U.S. representative, would say this and talk about this. The Canada representative will then talk about this. The Mexico representative will talk about this. And it was very much trying to be even across the three in terms of who was speaking,” one person on the traveling team said. When the United Bid finally prevailed in June 2018, defeating a rival bid from Morocco, Trump celebrated it as an equal triumph for the three countries. “The U.S., together with Mexico and Canada, just got the World Cup,” he wrote on Twitter, now known as X. “Congratulations — a great deal of hard work!” THREE DIFFERENT TOURNAMENTS What began with a united bid is turning into parallel tournaments: with different fan bases, security procedures and off-field programs, all a function of different policy choices in each host country. Fans from Iran and Haiti are barred from entering the United States under travel restrictions imposed by Trump, while other World Cup countries are subject to elevated scrutiny that could block travel plans. (Official team delegations are exempt.) Canada and Mexico do not impose the same restrictions, creating uneven access across the tournament: fans traveling from Ivory Coast will likely find it much easier to reach Toronto for a June 20 match against Germany than one in Philadelphia five days later against Curaçao. “FIFA recognizes that immigration policy falls within the jurisdiction of sovereign governments,” read a statement provided by the FIFA spokesperson. “Engagement therefore focuses on dialogue and cooperation with host authorities to support inclusive tournament delivery, while respecting national law.” A fan who does cross borders will encounte a patchwork of security régimes depending on which government is in charge. Mexican authorities draw from deep experience policing soccer matches, with a mix of traditional crowd-control tactics and advanced technology like four-legged robots. The United States is emphasizing novel drone defenses and asked other countries for lists of its most problematic fans. Ongoing immigration enforcement actions in the U.S. have also prompted concern among the international soccer community and calls for a boycott of the tournament. The White House this month issued clarifying talking points to host cities to buttress the “shared commitment to safety, hospitality, and a successful tournament experience for all.” The document confirms that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement “may have a presence” at the tournament to assist with non-immigration-related functions like aviation security and anti-human trafficking efforts. No where is the fragmentation more glaring among countries than on human rights. After previous World Cups were accused of “sportswashing” autocratic regimes in Qatar and Russia, the United Bid made “human rights and labor standards” a centerpiece of its proposal to FIFA. The bid stipulated that each host city by August 2025 must submit concrete plans for how the city would protect individual rights, including respect for “indigenous peoples, migrant workers and their families, national, ethnic and religious minorities, people with disabilities, women, race, LGBTQI+, journalists, and human rights defenders.” “Human rights were embedded in the bid from the beginning,” said Human Rights Watch director of global initiatives Minky Worden, who worked closely with Mary Harvey, a former U.S. goalkeeper and soccer executive who now leads the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, on the language. Harvey consulted with 70 civil-society groups across the three countries while developing the strategy. That deadline passed without a single U.S. city submitting their plan on time. Now just months before the kickoff, host cities have finally started to release their reports, creating a patchwork of approaches. While Vancouver’s report makes multiple references to respecting LGBTQ+ populations, Houston’s has no mention of sexual orientation and identity at all. The FIFA spokesperson says the organization has embedded inclusion and human rights commitments directly into agreements signed by host countries, cities and stadium operators, and that dedicated FIFA Human Rights, Safeguarding and Anti-Discrimination teams will monitor implementation and hold local organizers to account for violations. “All of these standards were supposed to be uniform across these three countries,” said Worden. “It wasn’t supposed to be the lowest common denominator with the U.S. being really low.”

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.

EUROPE’S VANISHING CARS ARE JEOPARDIZING ITS RAW MATERIALS SECURITY Used cars are a treasure trove of metals essential in energy technology, but the EU is letting them vanish without a trace. By MARIANNE GROS in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO EU decision-makers don’t have to look far to find cheap critical raw materials: Just 5 kilometers away from the EU quarter, car dealers up and down Heyvaert Street are scooping them up and shipping them to Africa. Dealerships in this industrial precinct in southwest Brussels send European used vehicles — many too polluting to be allowed on the continent’s roads — to African countries like Senegal, Sierra Leone and Nigeria, where the market for Europe’s unwanted automobiles is thriving. That one street intimately connects the capital of the EU — where some 10 million new cars hit the roads each year — to a global supply chain of used vehicles that sustains road transport in developing markets. One day these cars will end up in junkyards far away, and with them tons of valuable metals that the EU could recycle and reuse to run its economy. But Europe’s age-old habit of exporting unwanted goods is coming back to bite it as the bloc looks to recycle its way out of its reliance on raw materials imported from China.  The EU is scrambling to secure new sources of critical metals and minerals necessary for clean energy and military technology — a task of increasing urgency as geopolitical tensions disrupt traditional supply chains. For a small continent like Europe that is poor in natural resources but rich in consumer goods, old cars are a promising source of these materials. The vehicles are full of metals such as copper, platinum and steel that are essential in a long list of critical industries such as clean energy and military technology. And they’ll become even more valuable as early generations of electric vehicles — full of battery metals like lithium, cobalt and nickel — reach the end of their lifespans. But the EU isn’t close to taking advantage of this prospect. Along with those that are legally exported, between 3 million and 4 million end-of-life cars disappear without a trace from the EU each year. That’s a third of all cars that get deregistered. Some go missing because of a gap in the paper trail. Others get exported through obscure trade routes. Many are dismantled illegally, with the more valuable parts sold online or in non-compliant dealerships — while the rest are dumped, creating a pollution risk. “We see big and currently unused potential in recycling, reuse and also substitution” of critical raw materials, said Keit Pentus-Rosimannus, a member of the European Court of Auditors who last month co-authored a report on the EU’s difficulties in securing a supply of critical raw materials.  But that recycling and reuse can only happen if the waste products, e.g. cars, make it to recycling hubs in the first place.  The market for Europe’s unwanted automobiles is thriving in cities like Lagos in Nigeria. | Olympia De Maismont/AFP via Getty Images “The illegal dismantling and export of [end-of-life vehicles] is mainly motivated by profits from the sale of spare parts and metals,” the German Environment Agency wrote in a study on the topic back in 2020. Unauthorized dismantlers are “neglecting proper depollution, to avoid additional costs,” the study explained.  In a separate paper published in 2022, the agency estimated that 20 percent of all German vehicles that “go missing” — over 72,000 cars — are exported illegally.  According to Interpol data, nearly 3.6 million vehicles and vehicle parts from Europe — not just EU countries — were registered in the Stolen Motor Vehicles database as of Dec. 31, 2025. EUROPE’S MISSED OPPORTUNITY  The EU has made materials recycling a strategic pillar of its mission to reduce reliance on imports from China in an increasingly hostile geopolitical environment. Europe’s economy runs on importing critical raw materials, such as nickel, copper and lithium, as well as rare earths and so-called platinum group metals like palladium or platinum. It needs them to build car engines, weapons and products that contribute to the bloc’s green tech transition, including batteries, chips and solar panels.   While the metals are mined all over the world, China overwhelmingly dominates the processing and refining of these critical raw materials.  To address this, the European Commission says it wants to launch new mining projects, sign deals with other countries to diversify its supply, and promote recycling projects.  With the introduction of the Critical Raw Materials Act in 2024, EU governments are required to adopt national circularity measures to boost the recovery of critical raw materials and simplify permitting processes for recycling and recovery projects. The law says that 25 percent of the EU’s annual strategic raw material consumption should come from domestic recycling by 2030. Last December, the Commission announced additional measures as part of a new plan called RESourceEU.  But many argue that progress is too slow. “Most EU targets that are in place do not incentivize the recycling of specific individual materials. High processing costs, limited availability of materials, technical and regulatory issues also make the use of the recycling sector less competitive,” the Court of Auditors’ Pentus-Rosimannus said. Others say the EU is doing little to reduce consumption in the first place. Policymakers need to be “addressing [materials] consumption aspects to accelerate this process in addition to everything else that is being done on the recycling part” said the European Environment Agency’s head of the clean and circular economy group, Daniel Montalvo. EU policies should tackle “how we can change this upstream part of the material cycle so that we use products more intensively and for longer,” he added. RECYCLERS NEED HELP  End-of-life vehicles should all end up in one of Europe’s 13,000 authorized treatment facilities like the one in Menen, Belgium, which straddles the country’s border with France and is run by recycling company Galloo.   Running a recycling center is expensive and illegal dismantlers create unfair competition because they avoid regulatory and compliance costs. | Sebastian Kahnert/picture alliance via Getty Images “We can dismantle 17 cars at once here. Usually, we treat 10 to 15 thousand cars a year, but this year we’re around 3 or 4 thousand on this site,” said Emmanuel Katrakis, the company’s director of public and regulatory affairs. Galloo set up Valorauto, a joint venture with French-Italian automaker Stellantis, in 2023. Valorauto runs a vehicle take-back and recycling service through 300 authorized treatment facilities in Western Europe. The low turnover in Europe’s car fleet — a result of stagnating sales since the Covid pandemic due to Europe’s weaker economy — means fewer cars end up in recycling centers. Once the vehicles reach what can only be described as a cemetery for cars, the vehicles get scrubbed of polluting substances and taken apart. Most of the plastic, rubber, glass and iron can be recycled. Crucially, the more precious resources in their engines, catalytic converters and electrical systems can be collected. Two thirds of vehicles that reach end-of-life status end up in this system.  But running a recycling center is expensive. Illegal dismantlers create unfair competition because they avoid regulatory and compliance costs, which drives the price down, while also diverting some of the end-of-life-vehicle flow — and therefore revenue — away from authorized centers.  “We’re tired of having bad actors in our sectors who are willing to work with a completely illegal market,” Katrakis said.  Cars also get dropped off with missing parts.”We’re going to buy their car for €150, maybe €200, but they know they can sell their catalytic converter separately for €60. They do the math,” he added.  For Valorauto’s general manager, Thomas Delgado, online marketplaces should be held responsible for enabling the car dismantling grey market, saying they don’t monitor the sellers properly. “There are several marketplaces that should do their part to help [us] fight this system” he said, by preventing individual sellers from selling a car part unless they can prove they are registered as an authorized treatment facility.   Then there are Europe’s faulty registration systems. A lot of these cars go missing because they are sold second-hand in another country but are never deregistered in their country of origin. “Today we have national computer systems that are supposed to track things, but they’re totally overwhelmed,” Delgado said.  There are also gaps between the car registries and the database of insured vehicles. Responsibility for monitoring these systems is often shared by several national ministries.  National governments have tried to address the issue by creating incentives for car owners to drop their vehicles off at authorized centers. In Denmark, for example, owners can get a “scrapping premium” when their vehicle is dropped off at an approved dealer.  A new regulation on end-of-life vehicles aims to clarify when a car is legally considered waste.  | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images At the EU level, a new regulation on end-of-life vehicles aims to address the issue with “clearer rules on the distinction between a used vehicle and an end-of-life vehicle” and “a strict framework for transfers of ownership,” but some of the technical aspects of the law are still being discussed. The law also aims to clarify when a car is legally considered waste.  The automotive sector is glad to see the EU will “implement an EU-wide registration/deregistration system and regulate the export of ELVs outside the EU, preventing valuable raw materials from leaving the European market,” according to ACEA, the sector’s main lobby.  GETTING A SECOND LIFE  Over 800,000 used vehicles are exported from the EU each year, mainly to African countries, according to EU data. The revised end-of-life vehicle regulation states that only roadworthy cars can be exported from the EU.   Just because a car isn’t allowed on the streets of a European city doesn’t mean it should be dismantled immediately, however.   “It’s important to make the distinction because they are not necessarily at the end of life everywhere,” said Pierre Hajjar, chief executive officer of Socar Shipping Agencies, a vehicle shipping company on Brussels’ Heyvaert St. Last December local police raided the street, seizing 45 vehicles and forcing several dealerships to close for not complying with national rules on cash payments or for not having the right environmental permits.   With the revised end-of-life-vehicle regulation, the EU wants to increase traceability so “only high-quality, technically fit European vehicles will be exported.” But for African markets, Hajjar says that’s already the case.  “For Africa, everything goes by boat, everything is extremely traceable,” he said, because port authorities and maritime shipping companies have high thresholds for the kind of vehicles that can be exported. “Whereas in Eastern countries it’s road transport … there isn’t really any traceability, they cross the borders quite easily,” he added.  

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.