Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will call for “swift entry into force” of the EU trade agreements with South American countries of the Mercosur bloc and with Mexico in a joint declaration to be signed by the two leaders in Rome on Friday, seen by POLITICO. Earlier this week, Merz called on the European Commission to implement the controversial trade deal on a provisional basis despite lawmakers voting Wednesday to send the accord for judicial review, stalling its ratification for up to two years. After an informal meeting of the EU’s 27 leaders in Brussels on Thursday evening, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said there was “clear interest” in implementing the EU’s trade deal with Mercosur as soon as possible. “The question of provisional application was raised by several leaders tonight,” von der Leyen said, adding it was important to push forward the trade pact’s “benefits” as soon as possible. More than 20 ministers from Italy and Germany are meeting today at Rome’s opulent Villa Doria Pamphilj to discuss closer cooperation in areas including security and defense and resilience. Meloni and Merz will also call for “the finalization of agreements with important partners in the Indo-Pacific,” just as EU and India could sign a trade deal next week. In what sounded like a reference to tariff threats by U.S. President Donald Trump, the two leaders will say they “oppose the unilateral use of trade measures as well as the impact of non-market policies disrupting global trade.” Seb Starcevic 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

After two weeks of escalating threats toward Europe, President Donald Trump blinked on Wednesday, backing away from the unthinkable brink of a potential war against a NATO ally during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Trump’s vow not to use military force to seize Greenland from Denmark eased European fears about a worst-case scenario and prompted a rebound on Wall Street. And his declaration hours later after meeting with NATO’s leader that he may back off of his tariff threat having secured the “framework” of an agreement over Greenland continued a day of backpedaling on one of the most daring gambits of his presidency to date. But his continued heckling of allies as “ungrateful” for not simply giving the U.S. “ownership and title” of what he said was just “a piece of ice” did little to reverse a deepening sentiment among NATO leaders and other longtime allies that they can no longer consider the United States — for 80 years the linchpin of the transatlantic alliance — a reliable ally. “The takeaway for Europe is that standing up to him can work. There is relief, of course, that he’s taking military force off the table, but there is also an awareness that he could reverse himself,” said a European official who attended Trump’s speech and, like others interviewed for this report, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Trump’s promises and statements are unreliable but his scorn for Europe is consistent. We will have to continue to show resolve and more independence because we can no longer cling to this illusion that America is still what we thought it was.” Trump’s abrupt about-face after weeks of refusing to take military intervention off the table comes a day after Greenland shock waves sent global markets plunging, wiping out over $1.2 trillion in value on the S&P 500 alone. The president’s policy shift mirrored a similar moment in April, when he quickly reversed sweeping tariffs after a market downfall tied to his policies. If Trump’s refusal to use the military to threaten Greenland and the U.S.’s NATO allies holds, it would represent a win for administration officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who on Tuesday counseled the Davos set not to overreact or escalate the fight with Trump, assuring concerned Europeans that things would work out soon. The threat of force appeared to have the strong backing of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who offered the most forceful articulation of those desires in an interview this month where he claimed that America was the rightful owner of Greenland and insisted the “real world” was one “that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” But Miller aside, most saw the threat of force as an attempt to create leverage for an eventual negotiation. If Trump were to have pursued using military force, there could have been pushback from his closest allies like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, said a person close to the administration and granted anonymity to describe the private dynamics. “Do some senior administration people talk to their best friends in conservative world and media and basically say, ‘Yeah, I don’t know why we’re doing this?’ Sure, but I think those are all in confidence,” the person said. Increasingly, Europeans have been voicing their growing fears aloud. When Trump arrived in the snowy Swiss Alps Wednesday afternoon for this annual confab of business and political titans, the West remained on edge after the president announced last weekend that he intended to increase tariffs on several European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for military exercises. As they contemplated the fact that an American president was threatening the territorial sovereignty of one ally and turning to economic coercion tactics against others, European leaders strategized openly about retaliating in kind. That posture marked a major shift from Trump’s first year back in office, when European leaders put up a fight but ultimately and largely accepted his terms — NATO begrudgingly agreeing to spend more on defense, taking on all of the financial burden for Ukraine aid and the European Union accepting a 15 percent tariff on all exports to the U.S. — in order to keep the president from breaking with the alliance and abandoning Ukraine. But the president’s brazen challenge to Denmark over Greenland and shocking disregard for Europe’s territorial sovereignty amounted to a disruption that is orders of magnitude more concerning. Demanding that Denmark, a steadfast NATO ally, allow him to purchase Greenland — and, until Wednesday, holding out the prospect of using military force to seize it — threatened to cross a red line for Europe and effectively shatter 80 years of cooperation, upending an alliance structure that America largely built to avoid the very kind of imperialistic conquest Trump suddenly seems fixated on pursuing. “We’ve gone from uncharted territory to outer space,” said Charles Kupchan, the director of European studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to President Barack Obama. “This is not just strange and hard to understand. It borders on the unthinkable, and that’s why you’re seeing a different response from Europe than before Greenland was center stage.” Trump’s social media posts last weekend announcing that he intended to increase tariffs on the European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for training exercises drew harsh public responses from heads of state across Europe and prompted a flurry of private phone calls and even text messages — some of which the president shared on social media — urging him to work with them more constructively to address security in the Arctic. That didn’t stop Trump on Wednesday from continuing to assert an intention to acquire Greenland through negotiations, despite an overwhelming majority of Greenlanders being opposed to living under U.S. control. “Let’s not be too cheerful on him excluding violence, as that was outrageous in the first place,” said a second European official in Davos. “And his narrative on Greenland is BS. It should be called out.” Trump, who met with European leaders to discuss Greenland on Wednesday afternoon, suggested in his remarks that the U.S. acquiring the massive island between the Arctic and North Atlantic was in the best interests of Europe as well as America’s. “It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant, massive land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe,” he said. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember,” Trump continued. Those words did not appear to fully allay the growing anxieties of democratic leaders that the world is spinning in a new and frightening direction, away from decades of relative peace and stability and back to a prewar era of global conquest. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, addressing Davos on Tuesday ahead of Trump’s arrival, was emphatic in declaring that there is no going back. “Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry,” Carney said. “That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” Calling for democratic nations to take steps to lessen their reliance on the U.S. and their vulnerability to pressure from this White House, Carney urged other leaders to accept a new reality that, in his view, the longstanding postwar order was already gone. “Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” Trump made it clear on Wednesday that he saw Carney’s remarks, alluding to Canada’s reliance on the U.S. and going as far to suggest that its safety continues to depend on American defense technology. “They should be grateful to us,” he said. “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, next time you make your statement.” The implied threat, in a way, may have underscored the Canadian leader’s point. With persistent threats of higher tariffs from the White House even after Trump backed off his saber rattling over annexing the country, Canada has looked to rebalance its trade relationships with other countries, including China, to reduce its economic dependence on the U.S. In Europe, leaders may be following suit. Just last week, Brussels approved a landmark free trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries, a long-sought deal that took on greater urgency in recent months to provide Europe with a bulwark against Trump’s protectionism and coercive economic measures. There is still hope in Europe that Trump will eventually accept something less than U.S. ownership of Greenland, especially after his apparent walkbacks Wednesday on the threats of tariffs and military force. That could include accepting a standing offer from Denmark to boost America’s military presence on the island, not to mention economic cooperation agreements to develop natural resources there as climate change makes mineral deposits more accessible. But European leaders increasingly seem to accept that there are limits to their ability to control Trump — and are looking to hedge their reliance on the U.S. as urgently as possible. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister and secretary general of NATO, wrote this week that it’s time for Europe to shift its posture toward the U.S. from one of close allies to a more self-protective stance defined by a stronger military and reciprocal tariffs. “Mr. Trump, like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, believes in power and power only,” he wrote, likening the U.S. president to the leaders of Russia and China. “Europe must be prepared to play by those same rules.” Trump’s threats against Denmark have obliterated the long-held view about the U.S., that after 80 years of standing up to imperialist conquerors from Adolf Hitler’s Germany to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Washington would always be the tip of the spear when it came to enforcing a world order founded on shared democratic ideals. Suddenly, that spear is being turned against its longtime allies. “The jewel in the crown of our power and of our role in the world has always been our alliance system,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a veteran of the State Department under the President Barack Obama administration who is now a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Shapiro noted that the U.S. has at times still employed hard power since the end of World War II, especially in its own hemisphere. But overall, American foreign policy has largely been defined by its reliance on soft power, which he said “ is much less expensive, it is much less coercive, it is much more moral and ethical, and it’s more durable.” Returning to the law of the jungle and a world where larger powers gobble up smaller ones, Shapiro continued, will make the U.S. more like Russia and China — the two countries he claims threaten U.S. interests in Greenland — and weaker over the long term. “Moving from our trusted methods to Putin’s methods is worse than a crime,” he said. “It’s an idiocy.”

China’s foreign ministry on Wednesday said a new European Commission proposal to restrict high-risk tech vendors from critical supply chains amounted to “blatant protectionism,” warning European officials that Beijing will take “necessary measures” to protect Chinese firms. Beijing has “serious concerns” over the bill, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters, according to state news agencies’ reports. “Using non-technical standards to forcibly restrict or even prohibit companies from participating in the market, without any factual evidence, seriously violates market principles and fair competition rules,” Guo said. The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled its proposal to revamp the bloc’s Cybersecurity Act. The bill seeks to crack down on risky technology vendors in critical supply chains ranging across energy, transport, health care and other sectors. Though the legislation itself does not name any specific countries or companies, it is widely seen as being targeted at China. 5G suppliers Huawei and ZTE are in the EU’s immediate crosshairs, while other Chinese vendors are expected to be hit at a later stage. European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier responded to the Chinese foreign ministry, saying Europe has allowed high-risk vendors from outside the EU in strategic sectors for “far too long.” “We are indeed radically changing this. Because we cannot be naive anymore,” Regnier said in a statement. The exclusion of high-risk suppliers will always be based on “strong risk assessments” and in coordination with EU member countries, he said. China “urges the EU to avoid going further down the wrong path of protectionism,” the Chinese foreign ministry’s Guo told reporters. He added the EU bill would “not only fail to achieve so-called security but will also incur huge costs,” saying some restrictions on using Huawei had already “caused enormous economic losses” in Europe in past years. European telecom operators warned Tuesday that the law would impose multi-billion euro costs on the industry if restrictions on using Huawei and ZTE were to become mandatory across Europe. A Huawei spokesperson said in a statement that laws to block suppliers based on their country of origin violate the EU’s “basic legal principles of fairness, non-discrimination, and proportionality,” as well as its World Trade Organization obligations. The company “reserve[s] all rights to safeguard our legitimate interests,” the spokesperson said. ZTE did not respond to requests for comment on the EU’s plans.

The Italian government is satisfied with new funding promised by Brussels to European farmers and is signaling that it may cast its decisive vote in favor of the EU’s huge trade deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc. Ahead of Friday’s vote by EU member countries, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Rome was happy with the European Commission’s efforts to make the deal more palatable. Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida also said the accord represented an opportunity — especially for food exporters. “Italy has never changed its position: We have always supported the conclusion of the agreement,” Tajani said on Wednesday evening. Yet they stopped short of saying outright that Italy would vote in favor of the deal. Instead, within sight of the finish line, Rome is pressing to tighten additional safeguards to shield the EU farm market from being destabilized by any potential influx of South American produce. Rome’s endorsement of the accord, which has been a quarter century in the making and would create a free-trade zone spanning more than 700 million people, is crucial. A qualified majority of 15 of the EU’s 27 countries representing 65 percent of the bloc’s population is needed. Italy, with its large population, effectively holds the casting vote. France and Poland are still holding out against a pro-Mercosur majority led by Germany — but they lack the numbers to stall the deal. If it goes through, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen could fly to Paraguay to sign the accord as soon as next week. The bloc’s other members are Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. ‘AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY’ Italy praised a raft of additional measures proposed by the Commission — including farm market safeguards and fresh budget promises on agriculture funding — as “the most comprehensive system of protections ever included in a free trade agreement signed by the EU.” Tajani, who as deputy prime minister oversees trade policy, has long taken a pro-Mercosur position. He said the deal would help the EU diversify its trade relationships and boost “the strategic autonomy and economic sovereignty of Italy and our continent.” Even Lollobrigida, who has sympathized in the past with farmers’ concerns on the deal, is striking a more positive tone. At a meeting hosted by the Commission in Brussels on Wednesday, Lollobrigida described Mercosur as “an excellent opportunity.” The minister, who is close to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and is from her Brothers of Italy party, also said its provisions on so-called geographical indications would help Italy promote its world-famous delicacies in South America. It would mean no more ‘Parmesão,’” he said, referring to Italian-sounding knockoffs of the famed hard cheese. ONE MORE THING … Lollobrigida said Italy could back the deal if the farm market safeguards are tightened. The EU institutions agreed in December to require the Commission to investigate surges in imports of beef or poultry from Mercosur if volumes rise by 8 percent from the average, or if those imports undercut comparable EU products by a similar margin. Even Francesco Lollobrigida, who has sympathized in the past with farmers’ concerns on the deal, is striking a more positive tone. | Fabio Cimaglia/EPA “We want to go from 8 percent to 5 percent. And we believe that the conditions are there to also reach this goal,” Lollobrigida told Italian daily IlSole24Ore in an interview on Thursday. Meloni pulled the emergency brake at a pre-Christmas EU summit, forcing the Commission to delay the final vote on the deal while it worked on ways to address her concerns around EU farm funding. In response Von der Leyen proposed this week to offer earlier access to up to €45 billion in agricultural funding under the bloc’s next long-term budget. Giorgio Leali reported from Paris and Gerardo Fortuna from Brussels.

PARIS — Parisian voters will in March choose a new mayor for the first time in 12 years after incumbent Anne Hidalgo decided last year against running for reelection. Her successor will become one of France’s most recognizable politicians both at home and abroad, governing a city that, with more than 2 million people, is more populous than several EU countries. Jacques Chirac used it as a springboard to the presidency. The timing of the contest — a year before France’s next presidential election — raises the stakes still further. Though Paris is not a bellwether for national politics — the far-right National Rally, for example, is nowhere near as strong in the capital as elsewehere — what happens in the capital can still reverberate nationwide. Parisian politics and the city’s transformation attract nationwide attention in a country which is still highly centralized — and voters across the country observe the capital closely, be it with disdain or fascination. It’s also not a winner-take-all race. If a candidate’s list obtains more than 10 percent of the vote in the first round, they will advance to the runoff and be guaranteed representation on the city council. Here are the main candidates running to replace Hidalgo: ON THE LEFT EMMANUEL GRÉGOIRE Emmanuel Grégoire wants to become Paris’ third Socialist Party mayor in a row. He’s backed by the outgoing administration — but not the mayor herself, who has not forgiven the 48-year-old for having ditched his former job as her deputy to run for parliament last summer in a bid to boost his name recognition. HIS STRENGTHS: Grégoire is a consensual figure who has managed, for the first time ever, to get two key left-wing parties, the Greens and the Communists, to form a first-round alliance and not run their own candidates. That broad backing is expected to help him finish first in the opening round of voting. Emmanuel Grégoire. | Thomas Samson/AFP via Getty Images His falling-out with Hidalgo could also turn to his advantage given her unpopularity. Though Hidalgo will undoubtedly be remembered for her work turning Paris into a green, pedestrian-friendly “15 minute” city, recent polling shows Parisians are divided over her legacy. It’s a tough mission, but Grégoire could theoretically campaign on the outgoing administration’s most successful policies while simultaneously distancing himself from Hidalgo herself. ACHILLES’ HEEL: Grégoire can seem like a herbivorous fish in a shark tank. He hasn’t appeared as telegenic or media savvy as his rivals. Even his former boss Hidalgo accused him of being unable to take the heat in trying times, a key trait when applying for one of the most exposed jobs in French politics. Polling at: 32 percent Odds of winning: SOPHIA CHIKIROU Sophia Chikirou, a 46-year-old France Unbowed lawmaker representing a district in eastern Paris, hopes to outflank Grégoire from further to the left. HER STRENGTHS: A skilled political operative and communications expert, Chikirou is one of the brains behind left-wing populist Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s last two presidential runs, both of which ended with the hard left trouncing its mainstream rival — Grégoire’s Socialist Party. Sophia Chikirou. | Joel Saget/AFP via Getty Images She’ll try to conjure up that magic again in the French capital, where she is likely to focus her campaign on socially mixed areas near the city’s outer boundaries that younger voters, working-class households and descendants of immigrants typically call home. France Unbowed often performs well with all those demographics. ACHILLES’ HEEL: Chikirou is a magnet for controversy. In 2023, the investigative news program Cash Investigation revealed Chikirou had used a homophobic slur to refer to employees she was feuding with during a brief stint as head of a left-wing media operation. She also remains under formal investigation over suspicions that she overbilled Mélenchon — who is also her romantic partner — during his 2017 presidential run for communications services. Her opponents on both the left and right have also criticized her for what they consider rose-tinted views of the Chinese regime. Chikirou has denied any wrongdoing in relation to the overbilling accusations. She has not commented on the homophobic slur attributed to her and seldom accepts interviews, but her allies have brushed it off as humor, or a private conversation. Polling at: 13 percent Odds of winning: ON THE RIGHT RACHIDA DATI Culture Minister Rachida Dati is mounting her third bid for the Paris mayorship. This looks to be her best shot. HER STRENGTHS: Dati is a household name in France after two decades in politics. Culture Minister Rachida Dati. | Julien de Rosa/AFP via Getty Images She is best known for her combative persona and her feuds with the outgoing mayor as head of the local center-right opposition. She is the mayor of Paris’ 7th arrondissement (most districts in Paris have their own mayors, who handle neighborhood affairs and sit in the city council). It’s a well-off part of the capital along the Left Bank of the Seine that includes the Eiffel Tower. Since launching her campaign, Dati has tried to drum up support with social media clips similar to those that propelled Zohran Mamdani from an unknown assemblyman to mayor of New York. Hers have, unsurprisingly, a right-wing spin. She’s been seen ambushing migrants, illicit drug users and contraband sellers in grittier parts of Paris, racking up millions of views in the process. ACHILLES’ HEEL: Dati is a polarizing figure and tends to make enemies. Despite being a member of the conservative Les Républicains, Dati bagged a cabinet position in early 2024, braving the fury of her allies as she attempted to secure support from the presidential orbit for her mayoral run. But the largest party supporting President Emmanuel Macron, Renaissance, has instead chosen to back one of Dati’s center-right competitors. The party’s leader, Gabriel Attal, was prime minister when Dati was first appointed culture minister, and a clash between the two reportedly ended with Dati threatening to turn her boss’s dog into a kebab. (She later clarified that she meant it jokingly.) If she does win, she’ll be commuting from City Hall to the courthouse a few times a week in September, when she faces trial on corruption charges. Dati is accused of having taken funds from French automaker Renault to work as a consultant, while actually lobbying on behalf of the company thanks to her role as an MEP. Dati is being probed in other criminal affairs as well, including accusations that she failed to declare a massive jewelry collection. She has repeatedly professed her innocence in all of the cases. Polling at: 27 percent Odds of winning: PIERRE-YVES BOURNAZEL After dropping Dati, Renaissance decided to back a long-time Parisian center-right councilman: Pierre-Yves Bournazel. HIS STRENGTHS: Bournazel is a good fit for centrists and moderate conservatives who don’t have time for drama. He landed on the city council aged 31 in 2008, and — like Dati — has been dreaming of claiming the top job at city hall for over a decade. His low profile and exclusive focus on Parisian politics could also make it easier for voters from other political allegiances to consider backing him. Pierre-Yves Bournazel. | Bastien Ohier/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images ACHILLES’ HEEL: Bourna-who? The Ipsos poll cited in this story showed more than half of Parisians said they “did not know [Bournazel] at all.” Limited name recognition has led to doubts about his ability to win, even within his own camp. Although Bournazel earned support from Macron’s Renaissance party, several high-level Parisian party figures, such as Europe Minister Benjamin Haddad, have stuck with the conservative Dati instead. Macron himself appears unwilling to back his party’s choice, in part due to Bournazel being a member of Horizons, the party of former Prime Minister Édouard Philippe — who turned full Brutus and publicly called on the president to step down last fall. “I don’t see myself putting up posters for someone whose party has asked the president to resign,” said one of Macron’s top aides, granted anonymity as is standard professional practice. Polling at: 14 percent Odds of winning: ON THE FAR RIGHT THIERRY MARIANI Thierry Mariani, one of the first members of the conservative Les Républicains to cross the Rubicon to the far right, will represent the far right National Rally in the race to lead Paris. Though the party of the Le Pen family is currently France’s most popular political movement, it has struggled in the French capital for decades. Thierry Mariani. | Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images HIS STRENGTHS: The bar is low for Mariani, as his party currently holds no seats on the city council. Mariani should manage to rack up some votes among lower-income households in Parisian social housing complexes while also testing how palatable his party has become to wealthier voters before the next presidential race. ACHILLES’ HEEL: Mariani has links to authoritarian leaders that Parisians won’t like. In 2014, he was part of a small group of French politicians who visited then-President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. He has also met Russia’s Vladimir Putin and traveled to Crimea to serve as a so-called observer in elections and referendums held in the Ukrainian region annexed by Russia — trips that earned him a reprimand from the European Parliament. Polling at: 7 percent Odds of winning: SARAH KNAFO There’s another candidate looking to win over anti-migration voters in Paris: Sarah Knafo, the millennial MEP who led far-right pundit-turned-politician Éric Zemmour’s disappointing 2022 presidential campaign. Knafo has not yet confirmed her run but has said on several occasions that it is under consideration. HER STRENGTHS: Though Zemmour only racked up around 7 percent of the vote when running for president, he fared better than expected in some of Paris’ most privileged districts. The firebrand is best known for popularizing the “great replacement” conspiracy theory in France — that white populations are being deliberately replaced by non-white. She appeals to hardline libertarian conservatives whose position on immigration aligns with the far right but who are alienated by the National Rally’s protectionism and its support for the French welfare state. Sarah Knafo. | Bastien Ohier/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images Knafo, who combines calls for small government with a complete crackdown on immigration, could stand a chance of finishing ahead of the National Rally in Paris. That would then boost her profile ahead of a potential presidential bid. If she reaches the 10 percent threshold, she’d be able to earn her party seats on the city council and more sway in French politics at large. ACHILLES’ HEEL: Besides most of Paris not aligning with her politics? Knafo describes herself as being “at an equal distance” from the conservative Les Républicains and the far-right National Rally. That positioning risks squeezing her between the two. Polling at: 7 percent Odds of winning: EDITOR’S NOTE: Poll figures are taken from an Ipsos survey of 849 Parisians released on Dec. 12.

The EU will on Thursday unveil plans to supercharge its finance industry, tearing up swathes of rules in a bid to take on Wall Street. The package, which is massive in scope and ambition, would amend at least 10 financial laws to crack down on protectionism and unclog the EU’s financial plumbing. But Brussels’ ambitions to create a U.S.-style financial market will reopen political wounds, especially its plan to create a powerful EU watchdog for financial markets. Despite the bloc’s urgent need for private investment, progress could be bogged down by political divisions over the strategy. “If we’re stuck in a never-ending discussion about how to organize supervision … that will not take us closer to our objective,” Swedish Minister for Financial Markets Niklas Wykman said. The Commission’s overarching goal is to remove barriers to investment in the bloc, allowing more money to flow to struggling businesses so the EU can better keep up with economic powerhouses like the U.S. and China. With national budgets under strain from a bruising pandemic and years of inflation, Brussels is hoping to unlock €11 trillion in cash savings held by EU citizens in their bank accounts to breathe life into the economy. It plans to do that by breaking down technical barriers and busting protectionism between the EU’s 27 national money markets, as well as by changing rules that create national barriers to finance flows and by creating a powerful EU watchdog for financial markets. The EU’s finance chief, Maria Luís Albuquerque, who has led work on the revamp, told POLITICO in an interview: “It’s going to be a difficult discussion, of course, but these are the ones worth having, right?” | Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu via Getty Images Some capitals, though, view the proposal as a power grab and are determined to keep oversight of financial markets at the national level. And there are other tweaks in the package that will dredge up painful recent debates over issues like crypto rules or trading data. Countries are already warning that the Commission should keep its nose out of their business. Sweden, the EU’s best-in-class country for financial markets, has warned the EU executive not to interfere with any rules but instead to focus on boosting the appetite of EU citizens to invest in products like stocks and bonds, rather than parking their cash in savings accounts. Supervision is “not the problem and it’s not the solution to the problem,” Wykman told POLITICO. Among other ideas the Commission was mulling ahead of the official publication — according to documents seen by POLITICO — are a stronger EU-wide public ‘ticker tape’ of trading data, an expanded pilot program for decentralized finance to include all products and crypto firms, and a reduction in paperwork to make it easier to sell investment funds across the EU. The plans are sure to please some industry players, like stock exchanges or central securities-depositary groups that operate in multiple EU countries. But they will also inevitably be opposed by others, such as asset managers who are reluctant to be subject to increased EU oversight, or stock exchanges that don’t want to see their pricey trading data services undercut by a stronger public EU ticker tape. The technical shifts, plus the idea of an EU-wide watchdog, are ambitious but are also reminders of how limited the Commission’s powers are compared those deployed by EU countries at the national level. The Commission can’t make game-changing reforms in areas like national pensions, taxation or insolvency law for businesses, all of which are major obstacles to a single money market. Nor will many national governments spend the political capital needed to make domestic reforms for the sake of the EU economy. Nonetheless, the Commission is sticking to its guns. The EU’s finance chief, Maria Luís Albuquerque, who has led work on the revamp, told POLITICO in an interview: “It’s going to be a difficult discussion, of course, but these are the ones worth having, right?”

EU parliamentarians, capitals and policymakers agreed on new rules on the treatment of cats and dogs on Tuesday, dodging the political limbo plaguing other laws on animal welfare. The new rules create uniform standards for how cats and dogs can be treated and housed in the EU, and introduce measures to trace them to combat illegal trade.  Proposed by the Commission in 2023, the new standards have now been provisionally agreed after political negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council — the EU’s co-legislators. In contrast, rules to update animal welfare standards during their transport, proposed in the same year, have not yet reached political negotiations between the institutions. Instead the file is drowning under thousands of amendments in the Parliament while member countries struggle to reach an agreement in the Council.  Nonetheless, Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen celebrated Tuesday’s agreement as “the first of its kind” and “an important step in the right direction for animal welfare in Europe.”  Similarly, European Conservatives and Reformists MEP Veronika Vrecionová, the Parliament’s lead negotiator, said the rules will “make it harder for abusive and illegal operators to hide” and will push back against “those who see animals as a means of quick profit.” MEP Tilly Metz, the Greens negotiator for the Parliament on the new rules, said the EU is now “finally reversing the trend of growing illegal trade and taking an important step forward.”  But getting to this point was not free of political dysfunction. Last-minute amendments made changes to the committee position on the new rules before it was put to a full vote in the legislature. While a huge majority of MEPs then voted in favor of the Parliament’s negotiating position, the lead negotiator’s own political group questioned how realistic the approach was going into talks. EU parliamentarians, capitals and policymakers agreed on new rules on the treatment of cats and dogs today, dodging the political limbo plaguing other laws on animal welfare. | Neill HallEPA Plans to make microchipping and registration mandatory for all dogs and cats across the bloc then ran into legal troubles in the Council — although the proposal eventually made it into the final agreement with minor caveats. Regardless, animal welfare activists are taking the win and lauding what Georgia Diamantopoulou, head of the European policy office of the Four Paws animal welfare organization, described as the “beginning of the end of the illegal trade in dogs and cats in the EU.”

Opponents of President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are finally getting their day in the U.S. Supreme Court. And while the justices may not rule for some time, their lines of questioning could offer hints about which way they are leaning in the blockbuster case. On Wednesday, the high court will hear from the plaintiffs — a dozen Democratic-run states and two sets of private companies — and the Trump administration. Each side will have 40 minutes to make their arguments and then get peppered with questions from the nine justices. The court then has until the end of its term next July to issue a ruling, although some of the lawyers who brought the initial cases hope it will move faster given the real-world impact the decision will have. “It’s very reasonable to expect that this will be decided before the end of the year, if not much, much more before that,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a constitutional rights law firm representing companies in the case.  Advertisement Three federal courts have ruled against Trump’s use of a 50-year-old emergency law to impose broad “reciprocal” duties that he then deployed to strike trade deals with the EU, Japan and other partners. The case does not address sectoral tariffs on products like steel, aluminum or autos, which have also been part of negotiations, but were imposed under a different legal authority that is not in dispute. If the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs Trump announced in April are illegal, will those deals fall apart? We analyze the risks: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States European Union United Kingdom China Canada Mexico -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES Risk assessment: Many legal experts think there is a strong chance the Supreme Court will strike down the duties that Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 sanctions law that empowers Trump to “regulate” imports but does not specifically authorize tariffs. Not all agree, arguing the conservative-led court is likely to back the Trump administration’s view that the president has broad authority to conduct foreign affairs and that imperative  outweighs any concerns about executive branch overreach that the court has expressed in previous cases. Coping strategy: In the worst-case scenario for the administration, the Supreme Court would strike down all the duties and order it to repay hundreds of billions of dollars in duties paid by companies and individuals.  But even in that scenario, Trump may be able to use other authorities to recreate the tariffs, including Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. That provision could allow the president to impose a 15 percent global import “surcharge” for up to 150 days, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Trump would have to get congressional approval to keep any Section 122 tariffs in place for longer — a tall order even in a Republican-led Congress. However, he might be able to use the provision as a stopgap measure while he explores other options.  Those include Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which he used in his first term to impose extensive tariffs on Chinese goods and recently deployed against Brazil. Unlike IEEPA, which Trump believes merely allows him to declare an international emergency to impose tariffs, Section 301 requires a formal investigation into whether the United States has been harmed by an unfair foreign trade practice.  However, Trump could also just use those investigations — and the implied threat of tariffs — to pressure trading partners like the EU into reaffirming the trade deals they have already struck with him.  Trump could also launch additional sectoral investigations under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, a provision that allows the president to restrict imports determined to pose a threat to national security. He has employed that measure in his first and second term to impose duties on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks. In one variation, he’s used an ongoing investigation into pharmaceutical imports to pressure companies to invest more in the United States and to slash drug prices. He has also used the threat of semiconductor tariffs to prod countries and companies into concessions, without yet imposing any duties. The Commerce Department has other ongoing Section 232 investigations into processed critical minerals, aircraft and jet engines, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, robotics and industrial machinery, and medical supplies. And, as Trump’s lumber and furniture duties demonstrate, the administration’s expansive definition of national security provides it with broad leeway to open new investigations into a variety of sectors. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EUROPEAN UNION Risk assessment: The European Union isn’t counting on the Supreme Court to save it from Trump’s 15 percent baseline tariff — knowing full well that if U.S. tariffs don’t come through the front door, they’ll come through the window. “Even a condemnation or a ruling by the Supreme Court that these reciprocal tariffs are illegal does not automatically mean that they fall,” the EU’s top trade official, Sabine Weyand, told European lawmakers recently. “There are other legal bases available.” Trump invoked IEEPA to impose the baseline tariff on the 27-nation European bloc. But Brussels is more worried about sectoral tariffs that Trump has imposed on pharmaceuticals, cars and steel using other legal avenues — chiefly Section 232 investigations — that aren’t the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. Advertisement Coping strategy: Brussels is in full damage-control mode, trying not to stir the pot too much with Washington and focusing on implementing the deal struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in July — and baked into a bare-bones joint statement the following month.  Crucially, the EU asserts that it has locked in an “all-inclusive” tariff of 15 percent on most exports — so even if the Supreme Court throws out Trump’s universal tariffs it would argue that the cap should still apply. “Even if all IEEPA tariffs are eliminated, the EU would have an interest in keeping the deal,” Ignacio García Bercero, who used to be the Commission’s point person for its trade talks with the U.S., told POLITICO. The Commission is also still in negotiations with the Trump administration to secure further tariff exemptions for sensitive sectors such as wines and spirits.  The European Parliament, which will need to approve the Turnberry accord, is taking a more hawkish line over what many lawmakers have criticized as the one-sided trade deal with the U.S.: It wants to add a “sunset” clause that would effectively limit the EU’s trade concessions to Trump’s term in office. EU countries have given that idea the thumbs down, however, saying deals that have been agreed must be respected. The EU has invited Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to a meeting of its trade ministers in Brussels on Nov. 24. The focus there will be on reassuring him that the legislation to implement the trade deal will pass, and on fending off U.S. charges that EU business regulation is discriminatory. By Camille Gijs Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED KINGDOM Risk assessment: Should the Supreme Court strike down Donald Trump’s universal tariffs, Britain won’t be off the hook. London may have secured a favorable, 10 percent baseline rate with Washington back in May — but that only goes so far.   That protection does not extend to Trump’s Section 232 steel and auto levies, which remain in place. Under the current deal, Britain gets preferential tariffs on its car exports, as well as a 50 percent reduction to the global steel tariff rate.  If Britain tried to renegotiate its baseline tariffs, the U.S. could quickly retaliate by withdrawing those preferential deals, and take a harder line in ongoing negotiations covering pharma and whisky tariffs. Coping strategy: The U.K. is pressing ahead with its negotiations with the Trump administration on other parts of the deal — despite the ongoing court case. British officials fly out to D.C. in mid-November to push forward talks, shortly before Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is due in London on Nov. 24. “I don’t think the U.K. or others would attempt to renegotiate in the first instance — we might even see some public statements saying we plan to honour the deal,” said Sam Lowe, British trade expert and partner at consultancy firm Flint Global. “There’s too much risk in trying to reopen it in the first instance, given it could antagonise Trump.” Meanwhile the U.K. is seeking to strengthen its trade ties with other nations. It struck a free trade agreement with India over summer, is renegotiating aspects of its trading relationship with the European Union and hopes to close a trade deal with a six-nation Gulf economic bloc including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the coming weeks. The U.K. is expected to maintain its current deal with the U.S., even if legal challenges were to weaken Trump’s wider tariff regime. By Caroline Hug Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINA Risk assessment: Chinese leader Xi Jinping exited his meeting with Trump in South Korea last week with a U.S. commitment to cut in half the 20 percent “emergency” tariff imposed in March to punish Beijing for its role in the U.S. opioid epidemic. A possible ruling by the Supreme Court that overturns the residual “emergency” tariffs on Chinese imports — the remainder of the fentanyl tariff and the 10 percent “baseline” levy added in April — would leave Beijing with an average 25 percent tariff rate. The judges will test the administration’s position that its IEEPA tariffs are legally sound because they constitute a justified regulation of imports. But a blanket ruling on the levies on Chinese imports isn’t guaranteed. “The Supreme Court is likely to make a binary ruling — the court might decide the trade deficit tariffs are illegal, but the fentanyl tariffs are lawful,” said Peter Harrell, former senior director for international economics in the Joe Biden administration. The Chinese embassy declined to comment on how Beijing might respond to a SCOTUS ruling in China’s favor. But it would mark a symbolic victory for the Chinese government whose Foreign Minister Wang Yi has described them as an expression of “extreme egoism.”    Coping strategy: Celebration in Beijing about a possible revocation of any of these tariffs may be short-lived. That’s because Trump can wield multiple other trade weapons even if the Supreme Court deems the tariffs unlawful. His administration signaled that it’s priming potential replacements for the IEEPA tariffs with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s announcement last week of Section 301 probes of Beijing’s adherence to the U.S.-China Phase One trade deal in Trump’s first term. It is also undertaking Section 232 probes — geared to determine national security threats — of Chinese-dominated imports including pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and wind turbines. “There’s ample opportunity for the Trump administration to use other legal instruments in the event that the IEEPA tariffs get struck down,” said Emily Kilcrease, a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative during Trump’s first term and under Biden. The 301 investigation into the Phase One deal is already active, and “will allow them to be fairly quick in responding in the event that the Supreme Court rules against the administration,” Kilcrease said at a Center for a New American Security briefing. By Phelim Kine Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CANADA Risk assessment: It’s a bit of a lose-lose situation for Canada.  Trump pre-emptively blamed a Canadian provincial government for weaponizing Ronald Reagan in an ad to influence the SCOTUS ruling. The 60-second spot launched on U.S. networks on Oct. 16 to bring an anti-trade war message to Republican districts rather than to nine Supreme Court justices. It riled Trump enough that he ended trade talks eight days later. Then he vowed to increase tariff levels by 10 percent in retribution. If the court sides with Trump, it will justify an impulse to use IEEPA to raise rates higher without a need for findings or an investigation. And if the court rules against the president — Ottawa will have to prepare for more of Trump’s fury over the ad. The U.S. increased the IEEPA tariff rate on Canada to 35 percent from 25 percent in July, citing a failure to crack down on fentanyl trafficking across the northern border. This 35-percent rate excludes the promised 10-percent retributive increase — an executive order hasn’t been released. It’s unclear which legal authority Trump will use if his stated reasoning is to punish Canada over an ad about Reagan’s warning about protectionism.  Advertisement Prime Minister Mark Carney has called the IEEPA tariffs “unlawful and unjustified.” And he’s been able to play down the threat, for now, by reminding Canadians that these “fentanyl tariffs” have a carve-out for goods covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Carney regularly says 85 percent of Canadian exports enter the U.S. tariff free. Section 232 tariffs on industry have hit the economy harder than the IEEPA tariffs. Coping strategy: Canada is frantically pursuing trade diversification coupled with a high-level charm offensive while its trade negotiators try to limit the scope of the upcoming review of the USMCA to minimize U.S. tariff exposure. “Our priorities are to keep the review as targeted as possible, to seek a prompt renewal of the agreement, while securing preferential market access and a stable and predictable trading environment for Canadian businesses and investors,” Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman recently told a parliamentary committee. Carney has, meanwhile, apologized to Trump for the Reagan ad. By Zi-Ann Lum Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEXICO Risk assessment: Trump has hit Mexico, the largest U.S. trading partner, with multiple tariffs since taking office. Those include a 25 percent duty imposed under IEEPA to pressure the country to do more to stop fentanyl and precursor chemicals — as well as illegal immigrants — from entering the United States.  Trump softened the blow by excluding goods that comply with terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement from the new IEEPA duties. That has encouraged more and more companies to fill out paperwork to claim the exemption.  About 90 percent of Mexican goods entering the U.S. now have the necessary USMCA documentation, compared to around 60 percent last year, said Diego Marroquín, a fellow in the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Still, U.S. customs officials report collecting $5.7 billion in IEEPA duties on Mexican goods between Mar. 4 and Sep. 23, according to the most recent data available. Trump also has threatened to raise the IEEPA tariff on Mexico to 30 percent, but reportedly recently agreed to delay that move for several more weeks to allow time for talks. Coping strategy: President Claudia Sheinbaum has stayed on Trump’s good side by declining to retaliate and working with the U.S. on fentanyl and illegal immigration concerns. She has kept that forbearance while Trump has piled new tariffs on Mexico’s exports of autos, auto parts and certain other products using Section 232. Mexico’s ultimate goal is to maintain the preferential access it enjoys to the U.S. market under the USMCA, which is up for review next year, when countries have to say if they want to continue the pact past July 1, 2036, its current expiration date.  Sheinbaum told reporters on Oct. 27 that she hopes to resolve U.S. concerns over 54 Mexican non-tariff trade barriers in coming weeks. While a return to tariff-free trade with the U.S. seems unlikely while Trump is in office, Mexico hopes to be treated better than most other trading partners, or at least no worse. That drama will play out in the first half of 2026. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Palmer and Phelim Kine reported from Washington, Camille Gijs from Brussels, Caroline Hug from London and Zi-Ann Lum from Ottawa. Advertisement

The European Union is “struggling” to respond to the changing world order, former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi said late Friday, promoting “pragmatic federalism” as a way to overcome the bloc’s difficulties. “Almost all the principles on which the Union was founded are under strain,” Draghi said in a speech in Oviedo, Spain, after receiving the Princess of Asturias Award for International Cooperation. “We built our prosperity on openness and multilateralism, but now we are faced with protectionism and unilateral action” and the “return of hard military power,” he continued, arguing that the EU as it currently works is not equipped to address these challenges. The problem, Draghi said, is that “our governance has not changed for many years” and the European structure that exists today “simply cannot meet such demands.” To overcome the economic, social and security challenges facing the bloc, the EU urgently needs to reform itself and change its treaties, argued the former president of the European Central Bank and author of a landmark report on the EU’s competitiveness in 2024. “A new pragmatic federalism is the only viable path,” Draghi stressed. Such federalism would be “built through coalitions of willing people around shared strategic interests, recognizing that the diverse strengths that exist in Europe do not require all countries to advance at the same pace,” Draghi explained. “All those who wanted to join could do so, while those trying to block progress could no longer hold others back.” Concretely, that would mean a multi-speed Europe. Such coalitions could support the emergence of European champions in industrial sectors such as semiconductors or network infrastructure, cutting energy costs and pulling innovation efforts across the bloc, according to Draghi. But this federalist leap would require national governments to give up their veto power, something that has historically drawn resistance from smaller EU member countries which fear being sidelined by their larger counterparts. It’s not the first time Draghi has advocated for a more federal Europe. He made a similar push in 2022 while prime minister of Italy, calling on his EU colleagues to embrace “pragmatic federalism” and to put an end to national vetoes in order to speed up the bloc’s decision-making process.