La “pace” tra Thailandia e Cambogia che Donald Trump rivendica tra i successi della propria amministrazione rischia di andare definitivamente in frantumi. Dopo gli scontri di lunedì, sono cominciate le evacuazioni di massa di cittadini thailandesi residenti nelle regioni di confine. “Oltre 400 mila persone sono state trasferite nei rifugi – ha noto è il ministero della Difesa di Bangkok-. I civili sono stati fatti evacuare in maniera massiccia a causa di quella che abbiamo valutato come una minaccia imminente per la loro sicurezza”. Phnom Penh, da parte sua, ha affermato che “101.229 persone sono state evacuate in rifugi sicuri e presso le case dei parenti in cinque province”. I due paesi si accusano a vicenda di attaccare i civili nelle aree a ridosso della frontiera. Martedì sera, il ministero della Difesa della Cambogia ha dichiarato che da lunedì sono state uccise 9 persone e 20 sono rimaste gravemente ferite, mentre funzionari thailandesi hanno affermato che 4 soldati hanno perso la vita e 68 sono rimasti feriti. Questa mattina, ha affermato l’esercito di Bangkok, le forze cambogiane hanno lanciato razzi BM-21 nei pressi dell’ospedale Phanom Dong Rak, nel distretto di Surin, costringendo i pazienti e il personale a evacuare. Inoltre droni, razzi BM-21 e carri armati sono stati utilizzati in altri punti di confine, tra cui il contestato tempio di Preah Vihear. Secondo l’esercito di Phnom Penh, invece, la Thailandia ha utilizzato fuoco di artiglieria e droni per lanciare attacchi nella provincia di Pursat, sparando anche colpi di mortaio contro residenze civili nella provincia di Battambang . Alcuni caccia F-16 thailandesi, poi, sarebbero entrati nello spazio aereo cambogiano e hanno sganciato bombe vicino alle aree civili. Dall’altra parte dell’oceano, Trump ha dichiarato di voler salvare il cessate il fuoco raggiunto a luglio. “Mi dispiace dirlo, questa è una guerra tra Cambogia e Thailandia, è iniziata oggi e domani dovrò fare una telefonata – ha detto ieri il capo della Casa Bianca in un comizio in Pennsylvania -. Chi altri potrebbe dire che farò una telefonata e fermerò una guerra tra due paesi molto potenti, Thailandia e Cambogia?”. Se dalla Thailandia sembra esserci più scetticismo sulla mediazione di negoziati, un importante consigliere del primo ministro cambogiano ha dichiarato a Reuters che il suo paese è “pronto a parlare in qualsiasi momento”. L'articolo Thailandia-Cambogia, oltre 500mila evacuati dopo gli scontri al confine. Trump: “Farò una telefonata per fermare la guerra” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. “It must be a policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure,” said former U.S. President Harry Truman during a speech to Congress in 1947. The Truman Doctrine, as this approach became known, saw the defense of democracy abroad as of vital interest to the U.S. — but that’s not a view shared by President Donald Trump and his acolytes. If anyone had any doubts about this — or harbored any lingering hopes that Vice President JD Vance was speaking out of turn when he launched a blistering attack on Europe at the Munich Security Conference earlier this this year — then Washington’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) should settle the matter. All U.S. presidents release such a strategy early in their terms to outline their foreign policy thinking and priorities, which in turn shapes how the Pentagon’s budget is allocated. And with all 33 pages of this NSS, the world’s despots have much to celebrate, while democrats have plenty to be anxious about — especially in Europe. Fleshing out what the Trump administration means by “America First,” the new security strategy represents an emphatic break with Truman and the post-1945 order shaped by successive U.S. presidents. It is all about gaining a mercantilist advantage, and its guiding principle is might is right. Moving forward, Trump’s foreign policy won’t be “grounded in traditional, political ideology” but guided by “what works for America.” And apparently what works for America is to go easy on autocrats, whether theocratic or secular, and to turn on traditional allies in a startling familial betrayal. Of course, the hostility this NSS displays toward Europe shouldn’t come as a surprise — Trump’s top aides have barely disguised their contempt for the EU, while the president has said he believes the bloc was formed to “screw” the U.S. But that doesn’t dull the sting. Over the weekend, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas sought to present a brave face despite the excoriating language the NSS reserves for European allies, telling international leaders at the Doha Forum: “We haven’t always seen eye-to-eye on different topics. But the overall principle is still there: We are the biggest allies, and we should stick together.” But other seasoned European hands recognize that this NSS marks a significant departure from what has come before. “The only part of the world where the new security strategy sees any threat to democracy seems to be Europe. Bizarre,” said former Swedish Prime Minister and European Council on Foreign Relations co-chair Carl Bildt. He’s right. As Bildt noted, the NSS includes no mention, let alone criticism, of the authoritarian behavior of the “axis of autocracy” — China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. It also rejects interventionist approaches to autocracies or cajoling them to adopt “democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories.” For example, the 2017 NSS framed China as a systemic global challenger in very hostile terms. “A geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order is taking place in the Indo-Pacific region,” that document noted. But the latest version contains no such language amid clear signs that Trump wants to deescalate tensions; the new paramount objective is to secure a “mutually advantageous economic relationship.” All should be well as long as China stays away from the Western Hemisphere, which is the preserve of the U.S. — although it must also ditch any idea of invading Taiwan. “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority” the NSS reads. Likewise, much to Moscow’s evident satisfaction, the document doesn’t even cast Russia as an adversary — in stark contrast with the 2017 strategy, which described it as a chief geopolitical rival. No wonder Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov welcomed the NSS as a “positive step” and “largely consistent” with Russia’s vision. “Overall, these messages certainly contrast with the approaches of previous administrations,” he purred. While Beijing and Moscow appear delighted with the NSS, the document reserves its harshest language and sharpest barbs for America’s traditional allies in Europe. “The core problem of the European continent, according to the NSS, is a neglect of ‘Western’ values (understood as nationalist conservative values) and a ‘loss of national identities’ due to immigration and ‘cratering birthrates,’” noted Liana Fix of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The alleged result is economic stagnation, military weakness and civilizational erasure.” The new strategy also lambasts America’s European allies for their alleged “anti-democratic” practices,accusing them of censorship and suppressing political opposition in a dilation of Vance’s Munich criticism. Ominously, the NSS talks about cultivating resistance within European nations by endorsing “patriotic” parties — a threat that caused much consternation when Vance made it, but is now laid out as the administration’s official policy. Regime change for Europe but not for autocracies is cause for great alarm. So how will Europe react? Flatter Trump as “daddy,” like NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte did in June? Pretend the U.S. administration isn’t serious, and muddle through while overlooking slights? Take the punishment and button up as it did over higher tariffs? Or toughen up, and get serious about strategic autonomy? Europe has once again been put on the spot to make some fundamental choices — and quickly. But doing anything quickly isn’t Europe’s strong point. Admittedly, that’s no easy task for a bloc that makes decisions by consensus in a process designed to be agonizingly slow. Nor will it be an easy road at the national level, with all 27 countries facing critical economic challenges and profound political divisions that Washington has been seeking to roil. With the assistance of Trump’s ideological bedfellows like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, the impasse will only intensify in the coming months. Trump 2.0 is clearly a disorienting step change from the president’s first term — far more triumphalist, confident, uncompromisingly mercantilist; and determined to ignore guardrails; and more revolutionary in how it implements its “America First” agenda. The NSS just makes this clearer, and the howls of disapproval from critics will merely embolden an administration that sees protest as evidence it’s on the right track. Europe’s leaders have had plenty of warnings, but apart from eye-rolling, hand-wringing and wishful thinking they failed to agree on a plan. However, trying to ride things out isn’t going to work this time around — and efforts to foist a very unfavorable “peace” deal on Ukraine may finally the trigger the great unraveling of the Western alliance. The bloc’s options are stark, to be sure. Whether it kowtows or pushes back, it’s going to cost Europe one way or another.

President Donald Trump intends for the U.S. to keep a bigger military presence in the Western Hemisphere going forward to battle migration, drugs and the rise of adversarial powers in the region, according to his new National Security Strategy. The 33-page document is a rare formal explanation of Trump’s foreign policy worldview by his administration. Such strategies, which presidents typically release once each term, can help shape how parts of the U.S. government allocate budgets and set policy priorities. The Trump National Security Strategy, which the White House quietly released Thursday, has some brutal words for Europe, suggesting it is in civilizational decline, and pays relatively little attention to the Middle East and Africa. It has an unusually heavy focus on the Western Hemisphere that it casts as largely about protecting the U.S. homeland. It says “border security is the primary element of national security” and makes veiled references to China’s efforts to gain footholds in America’s backyard. “The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity — a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region,” the document states. “The terms of our alliances, and the terms upon which we provide any kind of aid, must be contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence — from control of military installations, ports, and key infrastructure to the purchase of strategic assets broadly defined.” The document describes such plans as part of a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The latter is the notion set forth by President James Monroe in 1823 that the U.S. will not tolerate malign foreign interference in its own hemisphere. Trump’s paper, as well as a partner document known as the National Defense Strategy, have faced delays in part because of debates in the administration over elements related to China. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pushed for some softening of the language about Beijing, according to two people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Bessent is currently involved in sensitive U.S. trade talks with China, and Trump himself is wary of the delicate relations with Beijing. The new National Security Strategy says the U.S. has to make challenging choices in the global realm. “After the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country. Yet the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests,” the document states. In an introductory note to the strategy, Trump called it a “roadmap to ensure that America remains the greatest and most successful nation in human history, and the home of freedom on earth.” But Trump is mercurial by nature, so it’s hard to predict how closely or how long he will stick to the ideas laid out in the new strategy. A surprising global event could redirect his thinking as well, as it has done for recent presidents from George W. Bush to Joe Biden. Still, the document appears in line with many of the moves he’s taken in his second term, as well as the priorities of some of his aides. That includes deploying significantly more U.S. military prowess to the Western Hemisphere, taking numerous steps to reduce migration to America, pushing for a stronger industrial base in the U.S. and promoting “Western identity,” including in Europe. The strategy even nods to so-called traditional values at times linked to the Christian right, saying the administration wants “the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health” and “an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes.” It mentions the need to have “growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.” As POLITICO has reported before, the strategy spends an unusual amount of space on Latin America, the Caribbean and other U.S. neighbors. That’s a break with past administrations, who tended to prioritize other regions and other topics, such as taking on major powers like Russia and China or fighting terrorism. The Trump strategy suggests the president’s military buildup in the Western Hemisphere is not a temporary phenomenon. (That buildup, which has included controversial military strikes against boats allegedly carrying drugs, has been cast by the administration as a way to fight cartels. But the administration also hopes the buildup could help pressure Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to step down.) The strategy also specifically calls for “a more suitable Coast Guard and Navy presence to control sea lanes, to thwart illegal and other unwanted migration, to reduce human and drug trafficking, and to control key transit routes in a crisis.” The strategy says the U.S. should enhance its relationships with governments in Latin America, including working with them to identify strategic resources — an apparent reference to materials such as rare earth minerals. It also declares that the U.S. will partner more with the private sector to promote “strategic acquisition and investment opportunities for American companies in the region.” Such business-related pledges, at least on a generic level, could please many Latin American governments who have long been frustrated by the lack of U.S. attention to the region. It’s unclear how such promises square with Trump’s insistence on imposing tariffs on America’s trade partners, however. The National Security Strategy spends a fair amount of time on China, though it often doesn’t mention Beijing directly. Many U.S. lawmakers — on a bipartisan basis — consider an increasingly assertive China the gravest long-term threat to America’s global power. But while the language the Trump strategy uses is tough, it is careful and far from inflammatory. The administration promises to “rebalance America’s economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence.” But it also says “trade with China should be balanced and focused on non-sensitive factors” and even calls for “maintaining a genuinely mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing.” The strategy says the U.S. wants to prevent war in the Indo-Pacific — a nod to growing tensions in the region, including between China and U.S. allies such as Japan and the Philippines. “We will also maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait,” it states. That may come as a relief to Asia watchers who worry Trump will back away from U.S. support for Taiwan as it faces ongoing threats from China. The document states that “it is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine,” and to mitigate the risk of Russian confrontation with other countries in Europe. But overall it pulls punches when it comes to Russia — there’s very little criticism of Moscow. Instead, it reserves some of its harshest remarks for U.S.-allied nations in Europe. In particular, the administration, in somewhat veiled terms, knocks European efforts to rein in far-right parties, calling such moves political censorship. “The Trump administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the [Ukraine] war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition,” the strategy states. The strategy also appears to suggest that migration will fundamentally change European identity to a degree that could hurt U.S. alliances. “Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European,” it states. “As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter.” Still, the document acknowledges Europe’s economic and other strengths, as well as how America’s partnership with much of the continent has helped the U.S. “Not only can we not afford to write Europe off — doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve,” it says. “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory,” it says. Trump’s first-term National Security Strategy focused significantly on the U.S. competition with Russia and China, but the president frequently undercut it by trying to gain favor with the leaders of those nuclear powers. If this new strategy proves a better reflection of what Trump himself actually believes, it could help other parts of the U.S. government adjust, not to mention foreign governments. As Trump administration documents often do, the strategy devotes significant space to praising the commander-in-chief. It describes him as the “President of Peace” while favorably stating that he “uses unconventional diplomacy.” The strategy struggles at times to tamp down what seem like inconsistencies. It says the U.S. should have a high bar for foreign intervention, but it also says it wants to “prevent the emergence of dominant adversaries.” It also essentially dismisses the ambitions of many smaller countries. “The outsized influence of larger, richer, and stronger nations is a timeless truth of international relations,” the strategy states. The National Security Strategy is the first of several important defense and foreign policy papers the Trump administration is due to release. They include the National Defense Strategy, whose basic thrust is expected to be similar. Presidents’ early visions for what the National Security Strategy should mention have at times had to be discarded due to events. After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush’s first-term strategy ended up focusing heavily on battling Islamist terrorism. Biden’s team spent much of its first year working on a strategy that had to be rewritten after Russia moved toward a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

After more than three decades in the pharmaceutical industry, I know one thing: science transforms lives, but policy determines whether innovation thrives or stalls. That reality shapes outcomes for patients — and for Europe’s competitiveness. Today, Europeans stand at a defining moment. The choices we make now will determine whether Europe remains a global leader in life sciences or we watch that leadership slip away. It’s worth reminding ourselves of the true value of Europe’s life sciences industry and the power we have as a united bloc to protect it as a European good. Europe has an illustrious track record in medical discovery, from the first antibiotics to the discovery of DNA and today’s advanced biologics. Still today, our region remains an engine of medical breakthroughs, powered by an extraordinary ecosystem of innovators in the form of start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises, academic labs, and university hospitals. This strength benefits patients through access to clinical trials and cutting-edge treatments. It also makes life sciences a strategic pillar of Europe’s economy. The economic stakes Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. The EU is already home to some of the world’s most talented scientists, thriving academic institutions and research clusters, and a social model built on universal access to healthcare. These assets are powerful, yet they only translate into future success if supported by a legislative environment that rewards innovation. > Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a > source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. This is also an industry that supports 2.3 million jobs and contributes over €200 billion to the EU economy each year — more than any other sector. EU pharmaceutical research and development spending grew from €27.8 billion in 2010 to €46.2 billion in 2022, an average annual increase of 4.4 percent. A success story, yes — but one under pressure. While Europe debates, others act Over the past two decades, Europe has lost a quarter of its share of global investment to other regions. This year — for the first time — China overtook both the United States and Europe in the number of new molecules discovered. China has doubled its share of industry sponsored clinical trials, while Europe’s share has halved, leaving 60,000 European patients without the opportunity to participate in trials of the next generation of treatments. Why does this matter? Because every clinical trial site that moves elsewhere means a patient in Europe waits longer for the next treatment — and an ecosystem slowly loses competitiveness. Policy determines whether innovation can take root. The United States and Asia are streamlining regulation, accelerating approvals and attracting capital at unprecedented scale. While Europe debates these matters, others act. A world moving faster And now, global dynamics are shifting in unprecedented ways. The United States’ administration’s renewed push for a Most Favored Nation drug pricing policy — designed to tie domestic prices to the lowest paid in developed markets — combined with the potential removal of long-standing tariff exemptions for medicines exported from Europe, marks a historic turning point. A fundamental reordering of the pharmaceutical landscape is underway. The message is clear: innovation competitiveness is now a geopolitical priority. Europe must treat it as such. A once-in-a-generation reset The timing couldn’t be better. As we speak, Europe is rewriting the pharmaceutical legislation that will define the next 20 years of innovation. This is a rare opportunity, but only if reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, Europe’s ability to compete in life sciences. To lead globally, Europe must make choices and act decisively. A triple A framework — attract, accelerate, access — makes the priorities clear: * Attract global investment by ensuring strong intellectual property protection, predictable regulation and competitive incentives — the foundations of a world-class innovation ecosystem. * Accelerate the path from science to patients. Europe’s regulatory system must match the speed of scientific progress, ensuring that breakthroughs reach patients sooner. * Ensure equitable and timely access for all European patients. No innovation should remain inaccessible because of administrative delays or fragmented decision-making across 27 systems. These priorities reinforce each other, creating a virtuous cycle that strengthens competitiveness, improves health outcomes and drives sustainable growth. > Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class > science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most > sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. Despite flat or declining public investment in new medicines across most member states over the past 20 years, the research-based pharmaceutical industry has stepped up, doubling its contributions to public pharmaceutical expenditure from 12 percent to 24 percent between 2018 and 2023. In effect, we have financed our own innovation. No other sector has done this at such scale. But this model is not sustainable. Pharmaceutical innovation must be treated not as a cost to contain, but as a strategic investment in Europe’s future. The choice before us Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. What we need now is an ambition equal to those assets. If we choose innovation, we secure Europe’s jobs, research and competitiveness — and ensure European patients benefit first from the next generation of medical breakthroughs. A wrong call will be felt for decades. The next chapter for Europe is being written now. Let us choose the path that keeps Europe leading, competing and innovating: for our economies, our societies and, above all, our patients. Choose Europe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The ultimate controlling entity is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to the Critical Medicines Act. More information here.

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the author of the award-winning “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. Russia’s shadow fleet just won’t go away. Countries in the Baltic Sea region have tried virtually every legal means of stopping this gnawing headache for every country whose waters have been traversed by these mostly dilapidated vessels — and yes, sinking them would be illegal. Now, these rust buckets are starting to cause an additional headache. Because they’re usually past retirement age, these vessels don’t last long before they need to be scrapped. This has opened a whole shadow trade that’s bound to cause serious harm to both humans and the environment. Earlier this month, the globally infamous Eagle S ship met its end in the Turkish port of Aliağa. The bow of the 229-meter oil tanker was on shore, its stern afloat, with cranes disassembling and moving its parts into a sealed area. The negative environmental impact of this landing method “is no doubt higher than recycling in a fully contained area,” noted the NGO Shipbreaking Platform on its website. But in the grand scheme of things, the Eagle S’s end was a relatively clean one. The 19-year-old Cook Islands-flagged oil tanker is a shadow vessel that had been transporting sanctioned Russian oil since early 2023. It then savaged an astonishing five undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland on Christmas Day last year, before being detained by the Finnish authorities. People are willing to own shadow vessels because they can make a lot of money transporting sanctioned cargo. However, as the tiny, elusive outfits that own them would struggle to buy shiny new vessels even if they wanted to, these ships are often on their last legs — different surveys estimate that shadow vessels have an average age of 20 years or more. Over the last few years, Russia’s embrace of the shadow fleet for its oil export has caused the fleet to grow dramatically, as tanker owners concluded they can make good money by selling their aging ships into the fleet. (They’d make less selling the vessels to shipbreakers.) Today, the shadow fleet encompasses the vast majority of retirement-age oil tankers. But after a few years, these tankers and ships are simply too old to sail, especially since shadow vessels undergo only the most cursory maintenance. To get around safely rules, less-than-scrupulous owners often sell their nearly dead ships to “final journey” firms, which have the sole purpose of disposing of them. | Ole Berg-Rusten/EPA For aged ships, the world of official shipping has what one might call a funeral process: a scrapping market. In 2024, 409 ships were scrapped through this official market, though calling it “official” makes it sound clean and safe, which, for the most part, it isn’t. A few of the ships scrapped last year were disassembled in countries like Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, which follow strict rules regarding human and environmental safety. A handful of others were scrapped in Turkey, which has an OK record. But two-thirds were scrapped in Southeast Asia, where the shipbreaking industry is notoriously unsafe. To get around safely rules, less-than-scrupulous owners often sell their nearly dead ships to “final journey” firms, which have the sole purpose of disposing of them. These companies and their middlemen then make money by selling the ships’ considerable amount of steel to metal companies. But in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh — the latter is the world’s most popular shipbreaking country — vessels are disassembled on beaches rather than sealed facilities, and by workers using little more than their hands. Of course, this makes the process cheap, but it also makes it dangerous. According to the NGO Shipbreaking Platform, last year, 15 South Asian shipbreaking workers lost their lives on the job and 45 were injured. Just one accident involving an oil tanker claimed the lives of six workers and injured another six. This brings us to the shadow fleet and its old vessels, as they, too, need to be scrapped. But many of them are under Western sanctions, which presents a challenge to their owners since international financial transactions are typically conducted in U.S. dollars. Initially, I had suspected that coastal nations would start finding all manner of shadow vessels abandoned in their waters and would be left having to arrange the scrapping. But as owners want to make money from the ships’ metal, this frightening scenario hasn’t come to pass. Instead, a shadow shipbreaking market is emerging. Open-source intelligence research shows that shadow vessel owners are now selling their sanctioned vessels to final-journey firms or middlemen in a process that mirror the official one. Given that these are mostly sanctioned vessels, the buyers naturally get a discount, which the sellers are more than willing to provide. After all, selling a larger shadow tanker for scrap value and making something to the tune of $10 to $15 million is more profitable than abandoning it. And how are the payments made? We don’t know for sure, but they’re likely in crypto or a non-U.S. dollar currency. These shady processes make the situation even more perilous for the workers doing the scrapping, not to mention for the environment. “Thanks to a string of new rules and regulations over the past five decades, shipping has become much safer, and that has reduced the number of accidents significantly in recent decades,” explained Mats Saether, a lawyer at the Nordisk legal services association in Oslo. “It’s regrettable that the shadow fleet is reversing this trend.” It certainly is. Indeed, the scrapping of shadow vessels is a practice that demands serious scrutiny. Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch and other NGOs could do a good deed for the environment and unfortunate shipbreaking workers by conducting investigations. And surely the Bangladeshi government wouldn’t want to see Bangladeshi lives lost because Russia needs oil for war? Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch and other NGOs could do a good deed for the environment and unfortunate shipbreaking workers by conducting investigations. | Ole Berg-Rusten/EPA There’s an opportunity here for Western governments to help too. They could offer shadow vessel owners legal leniency and a way to sell their ships back into the official fleet — if the owners provide the authorities with details about the fleet’s inner workings and vow to leave the business. Does that sound unlikely to succeed? Possibly. But that’s what people said about Italy’s pentiti system, and they were proven wrong. Besides, the shadow fleet is such a tumor on the shipping industry and the world’s waterways that almost any measure is worth a try.

President Donald Trump has yet to follow through on his threat to impose an additional 10 percent tariff on Canadian imports, four weeks after he halted “all trade negotiations” over an anti-tariff ad the province of Ontario ran during the Major League Baseball World Series. “Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Oct. 25, after announcing two days earlier that he was terminating trade talks over the the ”egregious” ad. Trump’s announcement had Canadian exporters preparing for a worst-case scenario: a sweeping levy layered on top of existing double-digit duties, which would have been particularly painful for industries like autos, where components cross the border multiple times before reaching their final form. But to date, the Trump administration hasn’t sent any official documentation ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection to enforce the new, higher duty, and U.S. importers have not received any new regulatory guidance. “We monitor the federal registry and follow executive order activity on a regular basis and haven’t seen any changes,” said Flavio Volpe, the president of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, which controls over 90 percent of independent parts production in Canada. The White House did not say whether it still plans to impose the tariff when asked for comment. But a separate U.S. official suggested the Trump administration had opted to hold off on additional duties — which would have sent tariffs on Canadian goods to 45 percent — and instead continue to dangle the threat as the two sides gear up for future talks. “The Canadians know what’s on the table,” said the official, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Volpe said a personal intervention by Carney in Asia last month may have helped matters, too. “We understand that the prime minister spoke with the president directly about the ads, it may very well be that they settled the matter between them,” he said. Trump told reporters he had “a very nice” conversation with Carney while the two leaders were in Gyeongju, South Korea, in late October for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, and that Carney “apologized for what they did with the commercial.” Carney later confirmed the apology and said he had told Ontario Premier Doug Ford not to air the ad, in the first place. The spot, which the province spent about $53 million to air during the Toronto Blue Jays’ playoff run, stitched together portions of a 1987 Reagan radio address about the harms of tariffs — a move the Trump administration has seized on to argue the ad misrepresented the former president’s stance. “Canada was caught, red handed, putting up a fraudulent advertisement on Ronald Reagan’s Speech on Tariffs,” Trump complained in the Oct. 25 post. “Their Advertisement was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD.” The Ontario government stopped airing the ad soon after. Speaking to Canadian business leaders in Ottawa on Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra continued to blast the Ontario ad. “You do not come into America and start running political ads, government-funded political ads, and expect no consequences or reaction from the United States of America and the Trump administration,” Hoekstra said during remarks at the 2025 National Manufacturing Conference. Hoekstra said trade talks with Canada will restart eventually, but warned “it’s not going to be easy.” He did not mention the additional 10 percent tariff and whether it was still in the works. One Canadian official told POLITICO they have not received any documentation from the administration related to the additional tariff. The U.S. and Canada have a free trade agreement under a deal Trump negotiated during his first term. But the president still hiked tariffs on Canadian imports earlier this year, citing the country’s supposed role in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, and also hit the North American neighbor and other countries with double-digit duties on various sectors including steel, aluminum, autos and lumber. The administration, however, has exempted shipments that meet the terms of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement — the trade deal the president negotiated in his first term — which covers the vast majority of goods now being exported from Canada to the U.S. Carney and Trump projected optimism about the state of talks to lower those duties when the prime minister visited the White House in October. But administration officials have privately complained that Carney’s government is slow-walking the negotiations and refusing to make concessions. The White House has taken particular umbrage at Canadian efforts to secure exemptions from the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs. Canada U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc told reporters in Montreal last week he’s willing to go back to the negotiating table when Trump is ready, in order to get a deal that’s good for both Canadian and American workers. “We remain ready and willing to do that work, but we’re not going to wait around and look at our phones and turn up the notifications to make sure we don’t miss a ding because somebody sent us a text message at 9:30 at night,” LeBlanc said.

Businesses from Wall Street to main street are struggling to comply with President Donald Trump’s byzantine tariff regime, driving up costs and counteracting, for some, the benefits of the corporate tax cuts Republicans passed earlier this year. Trump has ripped up the U.S. tariff code over the past year, replacing a decades-old system that imposed the same tariffs on imports from all but a few countries with a vastly more complicated system of many different tariff rates depending on the origin of imported goods. To give an example, an industrial product that faced a mostly uniform 5 percent tariff rate in the past could now be taxed at 15 percent if it comes from the EU or Japan, 20 percent from Norway and many African countries, 24 to 25 percent from countries in Southeast Asia and upwards of 50 percent from India, Brazil or China. “This has been an exhausting year, I’d say, for most CEOs in the country,” said Gary Shapiro, CEO and vice chair of the Consumer Technology Association, an industry group whose 1,300 member companies include major brands like Amazon, Walmart and AMD, as well as many small businesses and startups. “The level of executive time that’s been put in this has been enormous. So instead of focusing on innovation, they’re focusing on how they deal with the tariffs.” Upping the pressure, the Justice Department has announced that it intends to make the prosecution of customs fraud one of its top priorities. The proliferation of trade regulations and threat of intensified enforcement has driven many companies to beef up their staff and spend what could add up to tens of millions of dollars to ensure they are not running afoul of Trump’s requirements. The time and expense involved, combined with the tens of billions of dollars in higher tariffs that companies are paying each month to import goods, amount to a massive burden that is weighing down industries traditionally reliant on imported products. And it’s denting, for some, the impact of the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts that companies will receive over the next decade via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act championed by the White House. “Every CEO survey says this is their biggest issue,” said Shapiro. A recent survey by KPMG, a professional services firm, found 89 percent of CEOs said they expect tariffs to significantly impact their business’ performance and operations over the next three years, with 86 percent saying they expect to respond by increasing prices for their goods and services as needed. Maytee Pereira, managing director for customs and international trade at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, another professional services firm, has seen a similar trend. “Many of our clients have been spending easily 30 to 60 percent of their time having tariff conversations across the organization,” Pereira said. That’s forced CEOs to get involved in import-sourcing decisions to an unprecedented degree and intensified competition for personnel trained in customs matters. “There’s a real dearth of trade professionals,” Pereira said. “There isn’t a day that I don’t speak to a client who has lost people from their trade teams, because there is this renewed need for individuals with those resources, with those skill sets.” But the impact goes far beyond a strain on personnel into reducing the amount of money that companies are willing to spend on purchasing new capital equipment or making other investments to boost their long-term growth. “People are saying they can’t put money into R&D,” said one industry official, who was granted anonymity because of the risk of antagonizing the Trump administration. “They can’t put money into siting new factories in the United States. They don’t have the certainty they need to make decisions.” A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. However, the administration has previously defended tariffs as key to boosting domestic manufacturing, along with their overall economic agenda of tax cuts and reduced regulation. They’ve also touted commitments from companies and other countries for massive new investments in the U.S. in order to avoid tariffs, although they’ve acknowledged it will take time for the benefits to reach workers and consumers. “Look, I would have loved to be able to snap my fingers, have these facilities going. It takes time,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview this week on Fox News. “I think 2026 is going to be a blockbuster year.” For some companies, however, any benefit they’ve received from Trump’s push to lower taxes and reduce regulations has been substantially eroded by the new burden of complying with his complicated tariff system, said a second industry official, who was also granted anonymity for the same reason. “It is incredibly complex,” that second industry official said. “And it keeps changing, too.” Matthew Aleshire, director of the Milken Institute’s Geo-Economics Initiative, said he did not know of any studies yet that estimate the overall cost, both in time and money, for American businesses to comply with Trump’s new trade regulations. But it appears substantial. “I think for some firms and investors, it may be on par with the challenges experienced in the early days of Covid. For others, maybe a little less so. And for others, it may be even more complex. But it’s absolutely eating up or taking a lot of time and bandwidth,” Aleshire said. The nonpartisan think tank’s new report, “Unintended Consequences: Trade and Supply Chain Leaders Respond to Recent Turmoil,” is the first in a new series exploring how companies are navigating the evolving trade landscape, he said. One of the main findings is that it has become very difficult for companies to make decisions, “given the high degree of uncertainty” around tariff policy, Aleshire said. Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs — imposed on most countries under a 1977 emergency powers act that is now being challenged in court — start at a baseline level of 10 percent that applies to roughly 100 trading partners. He’s set higher rates, ranging from 15 to 41 percent, on nearly 100 others, including the 27-member European Union. Those duties stack on top of the longstanding U.S. “most-favored nation” tariffs. Two notable exceptions are the EU and Japan, which received special treatment in their deals with Trump. Companies also could get hit with a 40 percent penalty tariff if the Trump administration determines an item from a high-tariffed country has been illegally shipped through a third country — or assembled there — to obtain a lower tariff rate. However, businesses are still waiting for more details on how that so-called transshipment provision, which the Trump administration outlined in a summer executive order, will work. The president also has hit China, Canada and Mexico with a separate set of tariffs under the 1977 emergency law to pressure those countries to do more to stop shipments of fentanyl and precursor chemicals from entering the United States. Imports from Canada and Mexico are exempt from the fentanyl duties, however, if they comply with the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a trade pact Trump brokered in his first term. That has spared most goods the U.S. imports from its North American neighbors, but also has forced many more companies to spend time filling out paperwork to document their compliance. Trump’s increasingly baroque tariff regime also includes the “national security” duties he has imposed on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks under a separate trade law. But the administration has provided a partial exemption for the 25 percent tariffs he has imposed on autos and auto parts, and has struck deals with the EU, Japan and South Korea reducing the tariff on their autos to 15 percent. In contrast, Trump has taken a hard line against exemptions from his 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, and recently expanded the duties to cover more than 400 “derivative” products, such as chemicals, plastics and furniture, that contain some amount of steel and aluminum or are shipped in steel and aluminum containers. And the administration is not stopping there, putting out a request in September for further items it can add to the steel and aluminum tariffs. “This is requiring companies that do not even produce steel and aluminum products to keep track of and report what might be in the products that they’re importing, and it’s just gotten incredibly complicated,” one of the industry officials granted anonymity said. That’s because companies need to precisely document the amount of steel or aluminum used in a product to qualify for a tariff rate below 50 percent. “Any wrong step, like any incorrect information, or even delay in providing the information, risks the 50 percent tariff value on the entire product, not just on the metal. So the consequence is really high if you don’t get it right,” the industry official said. The administration has also signaled plans to similarly expand tariffs for other products, such as copper. And the still unknown outcomes of ongoing trade investigations that could lead to additional tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, commercial aircraft, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, medical products and robotics and industrial machinery continue to make it difficult for many companies to plan for the future. Small business owners say they feel particularly overwhelmed trying to keep up with all the various tariff rules and rates. “We are no longer investing into product innovation, we’re not investing into new hires, we’re not investing into growth. We’re just spending our money trying to stay afloat through this,” said Cassie Abel, founder and CEO of Wild Rye, an Idaho company which sells outdoor clothing for women, during a virtual press conference with a coalition of other small business owners critical of the tariffs. Company employees have also “spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours counter-sourcing product, pausing production, restarting production, rushing production, running price analysis, cost analysis, shipping analysis,” Abel said. “I spent zero minutes on tariffs before this administration.” In one sign of the duress small businesses are facing, they have led the charge in the Supreme Court case challenging Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose both the reciprocal and the fentanyl-related tariffs. Crutchfield Corp., a family-owned electronics retailer based in Charlottesville, Virginia, filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the litigants in the case, in which the owners detailed its difficulties in coping with Trump’s erratic tariff actions. “If tariffs can be imposed, increased, decreased, suspended or altered … through the changing whim of a single person, then Crutchfield cannot plan for the short term, let alone the long run,” the company wrote in its brief, asking “the Court to quell the chaos.”

BELÉM, Brazil — Germany is scrambling to solve a diplomatic dispute between Australia and Turkey for fear it becomes the default host of next year’s UN climate talks. Turkey and Australia remain deadlocked, with both adamant they want to host the annual conference in 2026.  Intense diplomacy is happening on the margins of this year’s edition, a two-week summit that began Monday in Brazil. If no resolution is found, Germany, as host of the UN climate organization, is obligated to step in under the rules of the treaty. “We would have to, but we do not want to,” said German State Secretary in the Environment Ministry Jochen Flasbarth on Monday. He said preparing a host site within 12 months of the talks would stretch Germany’s rigid bureaucracy.  “These are not easy things to do. Germany needs more time for a conference. That’s why all the signals we’re sending out are, for heaven’s sake, get Australia and Turkey to agree so that this technical solution doesn’t come into play,” he said.   German representatives have approached British officials in recent days to seek their help to resolve the standoff between Ankara and Canberra, according to one person with direct knowledge of the talks and one person briefed on their nature. Both were granted anonymity to disclose details of confidential conversations. The relevant German and U.K. departments said no such approach was made. According to one of the people, Germany has also told the UN climate secretariat it does not want to host the conference. The UN body declined to comment.  The UN secretariat is housed in the former West German capital Bonn, which played host to talks in 1999 and 2017. If the conference defaults there, Germany would host. However, the presidency and running of the talks would technically remain with the current hosts, Brazil. Flasbarth said Germany could host UN talks with more notice. “We would have no concerns whatsoever about hosting a conference, but it would have to be part of an orderly process and not a stopgap measure.” The location of the talks rotates through five groups of countries. Turkey, Germany, the U.K. and Australia are all in the same group, which needs to arrive at a decision by consensus. Australia’s bid, which is being made in conjunction with Pacific island nations, has been publicly supported by Germany, France and the U.K. Britain has found itself embroiled in the standoff because Turkish diplomats insist the U.K. promised to support their bid for the 2026 talks, known as COP31, in return for Turkey dropping its attempts to host the 2021 version, POLITICO earlier reported. The conference was held in Glasgow after Turkey abandoned its bid in return for several diplomatic favors.  “We would have to, but we do not want to,” said German State Secretary in the Environment Ministry Jochen Flasbarth on Monday. | Thierry Monasse/Picture Alliance via Getty Images Ankara insists Britain has broken its promise by backing the Australians. British diplomats insist the U.K. only ever agreed to consider the bid.  This week, German officials queried whether Britain could make a peace offering to Turkey that might convince them to allow Australia to host COP31 in the South Australian city of Adelaide. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan offering to allow the Turks to host the section of the talks reserved for world leaders’ speeches, said the two people familiar with the discussions, who said Erdoğan had not responded. Albanese’s office did not respond to a request to comment. The Turkish government similarly did not respond. The demands from Turkey fit a pattern, said Richie Merzian, a former Australian climate diplomat, now CEO of the Melbourne-based Clean Energy Investor Group. Turkey’s ability to veto decisions in the UN group of wealthy potential host nations has given it the power to bid for talks and gain concessions from rival hosts. “Their sole interest is their self-interest, which is always just to push for more finance from their end,” Merzian said, also noting that western Asia has hosted two of the past three climate talks in Azerbaijan and the United Arab Emirates. “The last thing the world needs is another COP in that corner of the world that doesn’t actually go anywhere.” Merzian said he expected the issue to be resolved in the final days of the conference currently underway in Brazil.  Due to the standoff, whichever country hosts the 2026 conference will have limited time to prepare. This potentially hampers efforts to lay diplomatic groundwork for talks required to confront shortfalls in funding and policy that have left the world far off track from addressing climate change. 

The Chinese government has agreed to resume exports of key chips for the European auto sector, according to Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof. “We were informed by China that they will enable the resumption of supplies from Chinese factories from Nexperia,” Schoof told Bloomberg Friday on the sidelines of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil. The crisis was sparked in October when the Netherlands seized control of the Dutch-based chipmaker, a subsidiary of Chinese chip giant Wingtech, prompting Beijing to impose retaliatory export restrictions. Schoof told the newswire that the resolution was the result of cooperation between the Netherlands, Germany and the European Commission, as well as recent Dutch-Chinese diplomatic talks, alongside a trade detente between the U.S. and China. German auto firm Aumovio disclosed on an earnings call on Friday that it had been informed that it had received the necessary permissions to begin importing Nexperia’s chips.

President Donald Trump is no longer content to stand aloof from the global alliance trying to combat climate change. His new goal is to demolish it — and replace it with a new coalition reliant on U.S. fossil fuels. Trump’s increasingly assertive energy diplomacy is one of the biggest challenges awaiting the world leaders, diplomats and business luminaries gathering for a United Nations summit in Brazil to try to advance the fight against global warming. The U.S. president will not be there — unlike the leaders of countries including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, who will speak before delegates from nearly 200 nations on Thursday and Friday. But his efforts to undermine the Paris climate agreement already loom over the talks, as does his initial success in drawing support from other countries. “It’s not enough to just withdraw from” the 2015 pact and the broader U.N. climate framework that governs the annual talks, said Richard Goldberg, who worked as a top staffer on Trump’s White House National Energy Dominance Council and is now senior adviser to the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “You have to degrade it. You have to deter it. You have to potentially destroy it.” Trump’s approach includes striking deals demanding that Japan, Europe and other trading partners buy more U.S. natural gas and oil, using diplomatic strong-arming to deter foreign leaders from cutting fossil fuel pollution, and making the United States inhospitable to clean energy investment. Unlike during his first term, when Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement but sent delegates to the annual U.N. climate talks anyway, he now wants to render them ineffective and starved of purpose by drawing as many other countries as possible away from their own clean energy goals, according to Cabinet officials’ public remarks and interviews with 20 administration allies and alumni, foreign diplomats and veterans of the annual climate negotiations. Those efforts are at odds with the goals of the climate summits, which included a Biden administration-backed pledge two years ago for the world to transition away from fossil fuels. Slowing or reversing that shift could send global temperatures soaring above the goals set in Paris a decade ago, threatening a spike in the extreme weather that is already pummeling countries and economies. The White House says Trump’s campaign to unleash American oil, gas and coal is for the United States’ benefit — and the world’s. “The Green New Scam would have killed America if President Trump had not been elected to implement his commonsense energy agenda — which is focused on utilizing the liquid gold under our feet to strengthen our grid stability and drive down costs for American families and businesses,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.” ‘WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PARIS AGREEMENT DIE’ The Trump administration is declining to send any high-level representatives to the COP30 climate talks, which will formally begin Monday in Belém, Brazil, according to a White House official who declined to comment on the record about whether any U.S. government officials would participate. Trump’s view that the annual negotiations are antithetical to his energy and economic agenda is also spreading among other Republican officials. Many GOP leaders, including 17 state attorneys general, argued last month that attending the summit would only legitimize the proceedings and its expected calls for ditching fossil fuels more swiftly. Climate diplomats from other countries say they’ve gotten the message about where the U.S. stands now — and are prepared to act without Washington. “We have a large country, a president, and a vice president who would like to see the Paris Agreement die,” Laurence Tubiana, the former French government official credited as a key architect of the 2015 climate pact, said of the United States. “The U.S. will not play a major role” at the summit, said Jochen Flasbarth, undersecretary in the German Ministry of Environmental Affairs. “The world is collectively outraged, and so we will focus — as will everyone else — on engaging in talks with those who are driving the process forward.” Trump and his allies have described the stakes in terms of a zero-sum contest between the United States and its main economic rival, China: Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they say, are a complete win for China, which sells the bulk of the world’s solar, wind, battery and electric vehicle technology. That’s a contrast from the approach of former President Joe Biden, who pushed a massive U.S. investment in green technologies as the only way for America to outcompete China in developing the energy sources of the future. In the Trump worldview, stalling that energy transition benefits the United States, the globe’s top producer of oil and natural gas, along with many of the technologies and services to produce, transport and burn the stuff. “If [other countries] don’t rely on this technology, then that’s less power to China,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who served in the U.S. Transportation Department during Trump’s first term and is now director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. TRUMP FINDS ALLIES THIS TIME Two big developments have shaped the president’s new thinking on how to counteract the international fight against climate change, said George David Banks, who was Trump’s international climate adviser during the first administration. The first was the Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed and Biden signed in 2022, which promised hundreds of billions of dollars to U.S. clean energy projects. Banks said the legislation, enacted entirely on partisan lines, made renewable energy a political target in the minds of Trump and his fossil-fuel backers. The second is Trump’s aggressive use of U.S. trading power during his second term to wring concessions from foreign governments, Banks said. Trump has required his agencies to identify obstacles for U.S. exports, and the United Nations’ climate apparatus may be deemed a barrier for sales of oil, gas and coal. Trump’s strategy is resonating with some fossil fuel-supporting nations, potentially testing the climate change comity at COP30. Those include emerging economies in Africa and Latin America, petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, and European nations feeling a cost-of-living strain that is feeding a resurgent right wing. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright drew applause in March at a Washington gathering called the Powering Africa Summit, where he called it “nonsense” for financiers and Western nations to vilify coal-fired power. He also asserted that U.S. natural gas exports could supply African and Asian nations with more of their electricity. Wright cast the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by 2050 — the target dozens of nations have embraced — as “sinister,” contending it consigns developing nations to poverty and lower living standards. The U.S. about-face was welcome, Sierra Leone mining and minerals minister Julius Daniel Mattai said during the conference. Western nations had kneecapped financing for offshore oil investments and worked to undercut public backing for fossil fuel projects, Mattai said, criticizing Biden’s administration for only being interested in renewable energy. But now Trump has created room for nations to use their own resources, Mattai said. “With the new administration having such a massive appetite for all sorts of energy mixes, including oil and gas, we do believe there’s an opportunity to explore our offshore oil investments,” he said in an interview. TURNING UP THE HEAT ON TRADING PARTNERS Still, Banks acknowledged that Trump probably can’t halt the spread of clean energy. Fossil fuels may continue to supply energy in emerging economies for some time, he said, but the private sector remains committed to clean energy to meet the U.N.’s goals of curbing climate change. That doesn’t mean Trump won’t try. The administration’s intent to pressure foreign leaders into a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance was on full display last month at a London meeting of the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization where U.S. Cabinet secretaries and diplomats succeeded in thwarting a proposed carbon emissions tax on global shipping. That coup followed a similar push against Beijing a month earlier, when Mexico — the world’s biggest buyer of Chinese cars — slapped a 50 percent tariff on automotive imports from China after pressure from the Trump administration. China accused the U.S. of “coercion.” Trump’s attempt to flood global markets with ever growing amounts of U.S. fossil fuels is even more ambitious, though so far incomplete. The EU and Japan — under threat of tariffs — have promised to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on U.S. energy products. But so far, new and binding contracts have not appeared. Trump has also tried to push China, Japan and South Korea to invest in a $44 billion liquefied natural gas project in Alaska, so far to no avail. In the face of potential tariffs and other U.S. pressure, European ministers and diplomats are selling the message that victory at COP30 might simply come in the form of presenting a united front in favor of climate action. That could mean joining with other major economies such as China and India, and forming common cause with smaller, more vulnerable countries, to show that Trump is isolated. “I’m sure the EU and China will find themselves on opposite sides of many debates,” said the EU’s lead climate negotiator, Jacob Werksman. “But we have ways of working with them. … We are both betting heavily on the green transition.” Avoiding a faceplant may actually be easier if the Trump administration does decide to turn up in Brazil, said Li Shuo, the director of China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute in Washington. “If the U.S. is there and active, I’d expect the rest of the world, including the EU and China, to rest aside their rhetorical games in front of a larger challenge,” Li wrote via text. And for countries attending COP, there is still some hope of a long-term win. Solar, wind, geothermal and other clean energy investments are continuing apace, even if Trump and the undercurrents that led to his reelection have hindered them, said Nigel Purvis, CEO of climate consulting firm Climate Advisers and a former State Department climate official. Trump’s attempts to kill the shipping fee, EU methane pollution rules and Europe’s corporate sustainability framework are one thing, Purvis said. But when it comes to avoiding Trump’s retribution, there is “safety in numbers” for the rest of the world that remains in the Paris Agreement, he added. And even if the progress is slower than originally hoped, those nations have committed to shifting their energy systems off fossil fuels. “We’re having slower climate action than otherwise would be the case. But we’re really talking about whether Trump is going to be able to blow up the regime,” Purvis said. “And I think the answer is ‘No.’” Nicolas Camut in Paris, Zia Weise in Brussels and Josh Groeneveld in Berlin contributed to this report.