Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is SAP SE * The advertisement is linked to advocacy on strengthening Europe’s digital sovereignty by promoting trusted cloud and AI adoption under EU law, harmonized regulation, accountable governance and openness to global innovation to enhance security, competitiveness and strategic autonomy. More information here.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es morgens um 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team bringen euch jeden Morgen auf den neuesten Stand in Sachen Politik — kompakt, europäisch, hintergründig. Und für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Unser Berlin Playbook-Newsletter liefert jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Hier gibt es alle Informationen und das kostenlose Playbook-Abo. Mehr von Berlin Playbook-Host und Executive Editor von POLITICO in Deutschland, Gordon Repinski, gibt es auch hier:   Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die Bundesregierung legt ihren Jahreswirtschaftsbericht vor und der Ton ist ungewöhnlich ernüchternd. Erwartet wird nur ein Prozent Wachstum, getragen vor allem von staatlichen Sonderausgaben für Infrastruktur. Von Aufschwung oder Befreiungsschlag keine Spur. Rixa Fürsen spricht mit Rasmus Buchsteiner über einen Bericht, der vor allem Probleme beschreibt. Zugleich bleibt offen, welche konkreten Reformen daraus folgen sollen. Im Fokus stehen Infrastruktur, Arbeitskosten, Fachkräftemangel und Sozialreformen. Doch klar wird auch: Ohne weitere Entscheidungen im Koalitionsausschuss bleibt der wirtschaftspolitische Neustart Stückwerk. Für Kanzler Friedrich Merz wächst damit der Druck, das Versprechen vom Reformjahr 2026 einzulösen. Newsletter-Hinweis: POLITICO Pro – Energie & Klima POLITICO Pro – Industrie & Handel Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Friday insisted they would have been ready to join U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” but were prevented by constitutional barriers. Their rejection of Trump’s controversial Board of Peace — an integral part of his plan for post-conflict governance in Gaza — appeared to be a strategic way of not offending the U.S. president. Meloni and Merz are considered two of Trump’s closest allies in the EU and are at the forefront of trying to defuse transatlantic tensions. Within the EU, only Hungary and Bulgaria signed up to Trump’s initiative, with many countries worried by the invitations issued to dictatorships such as Russia and Belarus. Seeking a diplomatic way out, Rome and Berlin both turned to their constitutions. “We are ready. But of course there are objective problems with the way the initiative is structured,” Meloni said in Rome on Friday during a joint press conference with Merz. “I have also spoken to the American president about this. Perhaps we can try to resolve these issues,” she added. Meloni argued that Trump’s peace board would contravene a provision of the Italian constitution that precludes the country from joining international bodies in which one entity — in this case the U.S. president — would have more power than its peers. Merz, who was in Rome for consultations aimed at strengthening German and Italian cooperation within the EU, backed up Meloni’s comments. “I would personally be willing to join a peace board,” Merz said. He then added, however, that: “We cannot accept the governance structures, also for constitutional reasons in Germany. But we are, of course, willing to try other forms, new forms of cooperation.” Germany had previously welcomed Trump’s invitation, while remaining on the fence. German officials said Berlin’s aim was to formulate a united response to Trump’s peace board plan, while stressing that the U.N. should remain the main multilateral forum to resolve conflicts. Merz and Meloni spoke a day after EU leaders met for an emergency summit in Brussels —organized earlier this week amid Trump’s threats to seize the Arctic territory of Greenland and to impose new tariffs on European countries. During the meeting, European leaders agreed the post-World War II order was slipping away, but diverged on the best strategy for dealing with Trump. Carlo Martuscelli and Giorgio Leali contributed to this report.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Lars Klingbeil spricht mit Gordon Repinski über den Moment, in dem das World Economic Forum endgültig geopolitisch wird. Die Rede von Donald Trump, der europäische Schulterschluss – und die Frage, warum sich Europa jetzt nicht zurücklehnen darf. Außerdem geht es beim Spaziergang am Rande des Weltwirtschaftsforums um Fragen der Krisenfestigkeit des deutschen Wirtschaftsmodells. Ist Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ein sozialdemokratisches Thema? Klingbeil erklärt, warum sichere Arbeitsplätze, Investitionen und Resilienz für ihn keine Gegensätze sind. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

President Donald Trump revoked Canada’s invitation to participate in his “Board of Peace” initiative, in the latest blow to the increasingly frosty relations between the North American neighbors. Trump said in a social media post on Thursday that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney would no longer be welcome on the board, which his administration initially created to oversee the end of the war in Gaza but has since said would have a broader mission. The president did not specify why he was withdrawing the invitation to Carney, but his social media post came after the prime minister raised concerns about the board and pushed back sharply at Trump’s remark that “Canada lives because of the United States” in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday. “Canada doesn’t live because of the United States. Canada thrives because we are Canadian,” Carney said earlier Thursday. The Canadian prime minister’s office had no immediate comment on Trump’s announcement. The withdrawn invitation deepens the fracture in the relationship between Trump and Carney, who stood with other NATO allies in opposition to the president’s campaign to wrest control of Greenland from Denmark. The two leaders appear to be working towards opposing geopolitical goals: Carney travelled to China to negotiate a trade deal as part of a mission of ramping up trade with non-U.S. partners to decrease reliance on its neighbor. The tension sets the table for a potentially tense review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement later this year. In announcing the U.S. plan for governance of Gaza, Trump said he expects over 50 countries to sign on to the plan. Some Middle Eastern nations, including Israel and the United Arab Emirates, have agreed to join the board. But many Western allies have yet to sign on, and France and the United Kingdom have said they will not participate in the plan. Yvette Cooper, the U.K.’s top diplomat, cited Trump’s invitation to Russian President Vladimir Putin as part of the reason the U.K. won’t sign on.

LONDON — European leaders rushed to praise Donald Trump’s announcement of a peace deal in the Middle East. Now they’re not so sure they want anything to do with it.  Trump promoted his “Board of Peace” as an integral part of his plan for post-conflict governance in Gaza from the start, sparking jockeying for position on the panel.  Now that details of the board’s operation have come into focus, they have triggered alarm among some key European allies who were due to be part of it.  In particular, skeptics point out that the board’s charter makes no direct reference to Gaza and appears to hand it a broad mandate to resolve global conflicts which some fear could effectively create a shadow United Nations. The decision to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to participate has in particular unnerved America’s traditional allies on the continent, and countries seeking a permanent seat on the peace board have been asked to contribute at least $1 billion to participate, creating another political obstacle. The decision to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to participate has in particular unnerved America’s traditional allies on the continent. | Pool photo by Ramil Sitdikov/EPA These terms are proving too much for some European leaders to bear, with misgivings even among those seen as friendly with the White House such as Italy’s Georgia Meloni and Poland’s Karol Nawrocki — just as Trump’s effort to acquire Greenland has driven a wedge between him and his most fervent political supporters in Europe. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk summed up the mood among Trump’s detractors when he posted on X: “We will not let anyone play us.” HOLD-OUTS ABOUND Proposals for the Board of Peace have been greeted with consternation in a number of countries, deepening the transatlantic rift opened by the U.S. administration’s designs on Greenland. Meloni is considering declining participation in the Gaza Board of Peace despite her close relationship with Trump, according to Italian media reports, and said Wednesday that she needs more time to review. The Italian prime minister is facing splits inside her government coalition, with senior figures from the center-right Forza Italia publicly urging Meloni to refuse the U.S. plan while the right-wing League is more favorable. In a further complication for Meloni, there are concerns that joining the new supranational body could violate the Italian constitution.  Britain’s Keir Starmer, who has until recently been extremely reluctant to directly criticize Trump, also appears to be cooling on the idea. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk summed up the mood among Trump’s detractors when he posted on X: “We will not let anyone play us.” | Albert Zawada/EPA He gave his strongest rebuke to Trump yet as he said he “would not yield” over Greenland in remarks to the House of Commons — words which, while addressing a separate matter, hinted at a new robustness in the British posture. A spokesman for Starmer said the U.K. was “still looking at the terms” and expressed “concern” about Putin and Lukashenko’s inclusion. His foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, is skeptical about Trump’s plan, according to U.K. officials, and has been at pains to discuss Palestinians’ role and “global cooperation” during meetings at Davos. French President Emmanuel Macron rejected the offer outright, with his office saying the board’s charter “goes beyond the framework of Gaza” and “raises serious questions” about undermining the U.N. The Dutch have also declined to take part, while a Danish diplomat, like others granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic, told POLITICO that Copenhagen was not even invited to join. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is considering whether to take part, said Tuesday it was “very difficult to imagine how we and Russia would be together on a board.” Britain’s Keir Starmer, who has until recently been extremely reluctant to directly criticize Trump, also appears to be cooling on the idea. | Neil Hall/EPA Putin’s potential role has also provoked Poland, where President Karol Nawrocki, a Trump ally, said in an interview with Republika on Thursday, “If I were to sit in the same format with Vladimir Putin, I would have no difficulty telling him exactly what I think.” CLAMBERING ABOARD However, Nawrocki has not yet made an official decision. MPs from the rightwing PiS party with which he’s closely linked have argued that it is better for Poland to have a seat at the table than not, and that the U.N. is a spent force. Nawrocki said Wednesday after meeting with Trump that he had explained to the U.S. president that he would require government and parliamentary approval before he could commit. “Trump understands this perfectly,” he added. Germany has welcomed an invitation from Trump but is currently on the fence. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is still considering her options, with the topic due to be discussed at a European Council summit Thursday. While London may not have accepted, Britain will have a voice on the executive committee of the Board of Peace in the form of Tony Blair, the former prime minister who will sit alongside U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The White House confirmed Trump would “highlight” the Board of Peace at Davos Thursday, noting that around 35 world leaders had accepted out of the 50 or so invitations that went out. Countries that have publicly accepted the offer of a seat on the board so far include Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan, and Vietnam. Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Indonesia announced Wednesday that they would join Egypt, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates in accepting seats. The list also includes Albania, where the government voted Wednesday to join — just as Kushner met with Edi Rama about his huge multi-billion dollar luxury resort investment on the country’s only island. Trump’s postwar organization may be getting a mixed reception, but there’s no sign it has deterred the man himself. Anne McElvoy, Gregorio Sori, Gabriel Gavin, Nicholas Vinocur, Alice Taylor and Bartosz Brzeziński contributed to this report.

urope has spent the last week rummaging around for leverage that would force U.S. President Donald Trump to back off his threats to seize Greenland from Denmark. While Trump now says he will not be imposing planned tariffs on European allies, some politicians think they’ve found the answer if he changes his mind again: boycott the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The quadrennial soccer jamboree, which will be hosted in the U.S., Mexico and Canada this summer, is a major soft-power asset for Trump — and an unprecedented European boycott would diminish the tournament beyond repair. “Leverage is currency with Trump, and he clearly covets the World Cup,” said Adam Hodge, a former National Security Council official during the Biden administration. “Europe’s participation is a piece of leverage Trump would respect and something they could consider using if the transatlantic relationship continues to swirl down the drain.” With Trump’s Greenland ambitions putting the world on edge, key political figures who’ve raised the idea say that any decision on a boycott would — for now, at least — rest with national sport authorities rather than governments. “Decisions on participation in or boycott of major sport events are the sole responsibility of the relevant sports associations, not politicians,” Christiane Schenderlein, Germany’s state secretary for sport, told AFP on Tuesday. The French sport ministry said there are “currently” no government plans for France to boycott. That means, for the moment, a dozen soccer bureaucrats around Europe — representing the countries that have so far qualified for the tournament — have the power to torpedo Trump’s World Cup, a pillar of his second term in office like the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. (Another four European countries will be added in spring after the European playoffs are completed.) While they may not be household names, people like Spain’s Rafael Louzán, England’s Debbie Hewitt and the Netherlands’ Frank Paauw may now have more leverage over Trump than the European Commission with its so-called trade bazooka. “I think it is obvious that a World Cup without the European teams would be irrelevant in sports terms — with the exceptions of Brazil and Argentina all the other candidates in a virtual top 10 will be European — and, as a consequence, it would also be a major financial blow to FIFA,” said Miguel Maduro, former chair of FIFA’s Governance Committee. Several of the European soccer chiefs have already shown their willingness to enter the political fray. Norwegian Football Federation president Lise Klaveness has been outspoken on LGBTQ+ issues and the use of migrant labor in preparations for the 2022 World Cup. The Football Association of Ireland pushed to exclude Israel from international competition before the country signed the Gaza peace plan in October. “Football has always been far more than a sport,” Turkish Football Federation President Ibrahim Haciosmanoglu, whose team is still competing for one of the four remaining spots, wrote in an open letter to his fellow federation presidents in September calling for Israel’s removal. Trump attempted Wednesday in Davos to cool tensions over Greenland by denying he would use military force to capture the massive, mineral-rich Arctic island. But during the same speech he firmly reiterated his desire to obtain it and demanded “immediate negotiations” with relevant European leaders toward that goal. Later in the day, in a social media post, Trump said he reached an agreement with NATO on a Greenland framework. His Davos remarks are unlikely to pacify European politicians across the political spectrum who want to see a tougher stance against the White House. “Seriously, can we imagine going to play the World Cup in a country that attacks its ‘neighbors,’ threatens to invade Greenland, destroys international law, wants to torpedo the UN, establishes a fascist and racist militia in its country, attacks the opposition, bans supporters from about 15 countries from attending the tournament, plans to ban all LGBT symbols from stadiums, etc.?” wondered left-wing French lawmaker Eric Coquerel on social media. Influential German conservative Roderich Kiesewetter also told the Augsburger Allgemeine news outlet: “If Donald Trump carries out his threats regarding Greenland and starts a trade war with the EU, I find it hard to imagine European countries participating in the World Cup.” Russia’s World Cup in 2018 faced similar calls for a boycott over the Kremlin’s illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, as did Qatar’s 2022 tournament over the Gulf petromonarchy’s dismal human rights record. While neither mooted boycott came to pass — indeed, the World Cup and the Olympics haven’t faced a major diplomatic cold shoulder since retaliatory snubs by countries for the Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 Summer Olympics — Trump’s seizure of Greenland would put Europe in a position with no recent historical parallel. Neither FIFA, the world governing body that organizes the tournament, nor four national associations contacted by POLITICO immediately responded to requests for comment. Tom Schmidtgen and Ferdinand Knapp contributed to this report.

Mario Monti is a former prime minister of Italy and EU commissioner. Sylvie Goulard is vice president of the Institute for European Policymaking at Bocconi University and a former member of the European Parliament. In just the last few days, U.S. President Donald Trump has reiterated his determination to take over Greenland, announced a 10 percent tariff on NATO allies who disagree with his will and threatened a 200 percent tariff on French wine because French President Emmanuel Macron refused a seat on his “Board of Peace” meant to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction. But for once, the EU isn’t chasing behind events. Indeed, the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) that the EU may use in response to Trump’s repeated threats over Greenland is ready. Introduced in 2023 with the support of all 27 member countries, the ACI — although nicknamed the “bazooka” — is a framework for negotiation in situations where a third country seeks to pressure the EU or a member country into a particular choice by applying — or threatening to apply — measures affecting trade or investment. It enables the EU to deter coercion and, if necessary, respond to it. Before any action is implemented, the EU will first engage in consultations with the coercing third country — in this case, the U.S. And at any rate, whatever steps the bloc may eventually introduce will be compatible with international law. So, nothing as abrupt, unpredictable and arbitrary as some decisions the current U.S. administration has taken in relation to Europe. It is unlikely that when crafting this instrument, EU legislators had such a variety of coercion cases in mind — or that they would come from the American president. It is worth noting, however, that Trump’s actions and threats meet all five of the conditions set out in the ACI to determine if economic coercion is taking place. And having for once been prescient in endowing itself with a policy instrument in line with the times, it would be irresponsible and cowardly if the EU were to give up just because the coercion at hand is heavy and, unexpectedly, comes from the most powerful third country in the world — whether friend or foe, only history will tell. In line with the ACI, the countermeasures the EU may decide to take after consultations could involve tariffs — including suspending the ratification of last July’s trade agreement — restrictions on trade in services and certain aspects of intellectual property rights, or restrictions on foreign direct investment and public procurement. In view of the potential impact of current U.S. financial policy, it would also make sense for the bloc’s financial institutions to review their resilience with respect to  developments that might intervene in the U.S. financial landscape as a result of current economic policies and the relaxation of supervisory rules. The fact of the matter is, if the EU sidesteps the ACI and genuflects, Trump will feel encouraged to be even more disrespectful toward Europe than he already is. | Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images The regulation has another interesting feature: It can create links between the EU and other countries affected by the same or similar coercion. The idea being that when a dominant power tends to follow the principle of divide et impera, it may be wise for its designated prey, both within and outside the EU, to seek a coordinated response. The fact of the matter is, if the EU sidesteps the ACI and genuflects, Trump will feel encouraged to be even more disrespectful toward Europe than he already is; the EU will lose all credibility as a moderate but forceful player in a world of autocrats; and European citizens will be even more disillusioned with European institutions unwilling to protect them and their dignity. It could also make them more likely to seek protection from nationalist parties and governments — those that may well be against triggering the ACI in the first place, devout as they are to Trump’s hostility toward the EU. Many in Europe are, indeed, adopting an attitude of subordinate acceptance when it comes to Trump’s wishes, either because of ideological affinities or because they feel more comfortable being close to those in power — as political theorist Etienne de La Boétie stated in the 16th century, servitude is generally based on the “voluntary” acceptance of domination. Then there are those who are ready to align with Trump invoking Realpolitik — a group that seems to have forgotten that 80 years of peace since World War II provide a clear reading of reality in which peace and prosperity are better safeguarded through cooperation than the use of force. History’s judgement on that is clear. Finally, there are also EU leaders who, when siding with the U.S. over European interests, are driven by the intention of preserving the West’s or NATO’s unity. But while this may be a laudable intention, they’re falling blind to the fact that, in the last year, most of the breaches of this unity have come from the American side. To be sure, much of Europe’s reluctance to engage with Trump in a less subordinate manner has a lot to do with the continent’s weakness in defense and security. The U.S. is right in asking Europe to bear a higher proportion of that burden, and Europe does need to step up its preparedness. But the readiness of many to accept virtually any demand, or coercion, because the U.S. may otherwise withdraw its security umbrella from Ukraine or EU countries is no longer convincing. Much is made of the NATO Treaty’s Article 5 providing a collective security guarantee. However, the credibility of this guarantee relies on shared values and mutual respect. And with Trump constantly displaying his adversarial and contemptuous feelings toward Europe — seemingly more aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin — how much can the continent really count on the U.S. umbrella in case of Russian intervention? What price should the EU be ready to pay, in terms of foregone sovereignty, to hold onto a guarantee that may no longer exist? Moreover, a Europe less acquiescent to Trump’s requests would be a strong signal to the many Americans who still believe in rule of law and the multilateral order. When Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to the U.S. in the 1830s to study the young democracy, he was impressed by the strength of its civil society and institutions — at the same time, he feared “the tyranny of the majority.” And one might wonder whether a system where the winner of an election can govern with no respect for the country’s institutions, violating the independence of its judicial system and central bank, is still a model of democracy. After World War II, the U.S. contributed generously to the relaunch of the European economy. It also massively influenced new democratic institutions in Germany and the nascent European Community. Maybe now it’s Europe’s turn to give something back and defend these values — and that means taking action. This is, after all, what the ACI was meant for.

U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to impose 200 percent tariffs on French wine and Champagne late Monday in response to Emmanuel Macron rejecting his offer to join the “Board of Peace” tasked with overseeing the next steps in Gaza. Informed by a reporter that the French president had said he wouldn’t join the board because of concerns about its powers, Trump dismissed Macron as lacking influence and said he would be “out of office in a few months.” “I’ll put a 200 percent tariff on his wines and Champagnes, and he’ll join, but he doesn’t have to join,” Trump said during a huddle with the media. In response, a French official close to Macron who was granted anonymity as they are not authorized to speak on the record, told POLITICO: “We have taken note of Mr. Trump’s statements on wines and Champagnes. As we have always emphasized, tariff threats to influence our foreign policy are unacceptable and ineffective.” Trump announced the establishment of the board — which he touted as “the Greatest and Most Prestigious Board ever assembled at any time, any place” — on Friday as a key part of his 20-point plan to end the war between Israel and Hamas. An assortment of world leaders have been invited to join, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko. Bloomberg reported Tuesday that Trump wants the board’s full constitution and remit to be nailed down at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday — but some countries are uneasy about the details of the proposal. France’s decision to reject the offer was taken over concerns that the board, chaired by Trump, would have extensive powers beyond transitional governance of the Gaza Strip and undermine the United Nations framework. A statement from Macron’s office noted that the board’s charter “goes beyond the framework of Gaza and raises serious questions, in particular with respect to the principles and structure of the United Nations, which cannot be called into question.” Clea Caulcutt and Benjamin Johansen contributed to this report.