Mathias Döpfner is chair and CEO of Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. America and Europe have been transmitting on different wavelengths for some time now. And that is dangerous — especially for Europe. The European reactions to the new U.S. National Security Strategy paper and to Donald Trump’s recent criticism of the Old Continent were, once again, reflexively offended and incapable of accepting criticism: How dare he, what an improper intrusion! But such reactions do not help; they do harm. Two points are lost in these sour responses. First: Most Americans criticize Europe because the continent matters to them. Many of those challenging Europe — even JD Vance or Trump, even Elon Musk or Sam Altman — emphasize this repeatedly. The new U.S. National Security Strategy, scandalized above all by those who have not read it, states explicitly: “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” And Trump says repeatedly, literally or in essence, in his interview with POLITICO: “I want to see a strong Europe.” The transatlantic drift is also a rupture of political language. Trump very often simply says what he thinks — sharply contrasting with many European politicians who are increasingly afraid to say what they believe is right. People sense the castration of thought through a language of evasions. And they turn away. Or toward the rabble-rousers. My impression is that our difficult American friends genuinely want exactly what they say they want: a strong Europe, a reliable and effective partner. But we do not hear it — or refuse to hear it. We hear only the criticism and dismiss it. Criticism is almost always a sign of involvement, of passion. We should worry far more if no criticism arrived. That would signal indifference — and therefore irrelevance. (By the way: Whether we like the critics is of secondary importance.) Responding with hauteur is simply not in our interest. It would be wiser — as Kaja Kallas rightly emphasized — to conduct a dialogue that includes self-criticism, a conversation about strengths, weaknesses and shared interests, and to back words with action on both sides. Which brings us to the second point: Unfortunately, much of the criticism is accurate. Anyone who sees politics as more than a self-absorbed administration of the status quo must concede that for decades Europe has delivered far too little — or nothing at all. Not in terms of above-average growth and prosperity, nor in terms of affordable energy. Europe does not deliver on deregulation or debureaucratization; it does not deliver on digitalization or innovation driven by artificial intelligence. And above all: Europe does not deliver on a responsible and successful migration policy. The world that wishes Europe well looked to the new German government with great hope. Capital flows on the scale of trillions waited for the first positive signals to invest in Germany and Europe. For it seemed almost certain that the world’s third-largest economy would, under a sensible, business-minded and transatlantic chancellor, finally steer a faltering Europe back onto the right path. The disappointment was all the more painful. Aside from the interior minister, the digital minister and the economics minister, the new government delivers in most areas the opposite of what had been promised before the election. The chancellor likes to blame the vice chancellor. The vice chancellor blames his own party. And all together they prefer to blame the Americans and their president. Instead of a European fresh start, we see continued agony and decline. Germany still suffers from its National Socialist trauma and believes that if it remains pleasantly average and certainly not excellent, everyone will love it. France is now paying the price for its colonial legacy in Africa and finds itself — all the way up to a president driven by political opportunism — in the chokehold of Islamist and antisemitic networks. In Britain, the prime minister is pursuing a similar course of cultural and economic submission. And Spain is governed by socialist fantasists who seem to take real pleasure in self-enfeeblement and whose “genocide in Gaza” rhetoric mainly mobilizes bored, well-heeled daughters of the upper middle class. Hope comes from Finland and Denmark, from the Baltic states and Poland, and — surprisingly — from Italy. There, the anti-democratic threats from Russia, China and Iran are assessed more realistically. Above all, there is a healthy drive to be better and more successful than others. From a far weaker starting point, there is an ambition for excellence. What Europe needs is less wounded pride and more patriotism defined by achievement. Unity and decisive action in defending Ukraine would be an obvious example — not merely talking about European sovereignty but demonstrating it, even in friendly dissent with the Americans. (And who knows, that might ultimately prompt a surprising shift in Washington’s Russia policy.) That, coupled with economic growth through real and far-reaching reforms, would be a start. After which Europe must tackle the most important task: a fundamental reversal of a migration policy rooted in cultural self-hatred that tolerates far too many newcomers who want a different society, who hold different values, and who do not respect our legal order. If all of this fails, American criticism will be vindicated by history. The excuses for why a European renewal is supposedly impossible or unnecessary are merely signs of weak leadership. The converse is also true: where there is political will, there is a way. And this way begins in Europe — with the spirit of renewal of a well-understood “Europe First” (what else?) — and leads to America. Europe needs America. America needs Europe. And perhaps both needed the deep crisis in the transatlantic relationship to recognize this with full clarity. As surprising as it may sound, at this very moment there is a real opportunity for a renaissance of a transatlantic community of shared interests. Precisely because the situation is so deadlocked. And precisely because pressure is rising on both sides of the Atlantic to do things differently. A trade war between Europe and America strengthens our shared adversaries. The opposite would be sensible: a New Deal between the EU and the U.S. Tariff-free trade as a stimulus for growth in the world’s largest and third-largest economies — and as the foundation for a shared policy of interests and, inevitably, a joint security policy of the free world. This is the historic opportunity that Friedrich Merz could now negotiate with Donald Trump. As Churchill said: “Never waste a good crisis!”

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

President Donald Trump ratcheted up his threats against Colombia on Wednesday, telling reporters Colombian President Gustavo Petro is “next” in the White House’s regional campaign against drug trafficking. While initially, Trump told reporters “I haven’t really thought too much about” Petro, his comments quickly swerved into serious saber-rattling against the Colombian leader. “Colombia is producing a lot of drugs,” Trump said. “So he better wise up or he’ll be next. He’ll be next soon. I hope he’s listening, he’s going to be next.” Trump’s comments mark a sharp escalation of Trump’s threats against the Colombian leader. In a conversation with POLITICO earlier this week, the U.S. president floated expanding his anti-drug trafficking military operation — which have so far been focused on Venezuela — to Mexico and Colombia. Trump has overseen a slate of strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean since September and launched a massive buildup of military power off the coast of Venezuela in an attempt to pressure the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, to leave office. Tensions between Trump and Petro escalated this fall amid the U.S.’s aggressive campaign against drug trafficking in the region. The Trump administration decertified Colombia as a drug control partner and revoked Petro’s visa in September, slashing aid to the country and bashing its leader as an “illegal drug dealer” the following month. Though Trump has made clear he wants Petro out of office, he could get his wish without having to follow through on his threats. The Colombian leader is term-limited — and the country is set to head to the polls for its presidential election in May. The Colombian embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

French President Emmanuel Macron said Brussels is too slow in its handling of probes into American Big Tech companies due to U.S. pressure over the EU’s digital laws. “We have cases that have been before the Commission for two years. It’s much too slow,” Macron said Friday in reference to the EU’s content moderation rule book, the Digital Services Act (DSA). The debate around the matter is “not gaining momentum,” Macron told a local town hall event in the Vosges region, and “many in the Commission and member states are afraid to pursue it because there’s an American offensive against the application of directives on digital services and markets.” Macron promised to push for action at the EU level, adding: “We have a geopolitical battle to fight. This is not Russian interference, it is clearly American because these platforms do not want us to bother them.” Macron’s remarks follow a week that saw renewed pressure from the U.S. over the EU’s two tech rulebooks, the DSA and the Digital Markets Act. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick urged EU ministers on Monday to “reconsider” the rulebooks in exchange for lower U.S. steel and aluminium tariffs, in line with the American playbook of treating the EU’s tech rules as a bargaining chip in a transatlantic trade war. The rules have been a target for the U.S. administration and tech executives ever since President Donald Trump returned to office. Both the EU’s tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, and her competition colleague, Teresa Ribera, came out against the U.S. pressure this week, with the latter accusing Washington of “blackmail.” The European Commission is also under pressure from European Parliament lawmakers, with the Socialists and Democrats group moving to set up an inquiry committee to investigate the EU’s enforcement of digital rules. Responding to Macron’s remarks, European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said: “We have been very clear since the very beginning: We are fully behind our digital legislation and are enforcing it.” He argued that “some cases take a bit more time than others, because the DSA investigations are broad.” “The Commission services are building solid cases, because we have to win them in court,” he said. The EU has investigations open under the DSA into X, Meta, AliExpress, Temu and TikTok. The probes could lead to fines of 6 percent of a company’s annual global turnover, but none have been levied so far.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will ask the Donald Trump administration to exempt a list of sensitive EU goods ranging from whiskies through to medical equipment from U.S. tariffs, according to a 27-page list seen by POLITICO. Pasta, cheese, wines and spirits, as well as olive oil and sunglasses, are among the priority sectors that Brussels wants Washington to shield from higher tariffs, along with diamonds, tools, metal pipes, ship engine parts, industrial equipment, fabrics, shoes, hats, ceramics and industrial robots.  The wish list was finalized Friday by EU countries and will be presented to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer at a meeting with the bloc’s trade ministers on Monday, POLITICO previously reported.  These sensitive export sectors were not covered under the trade deal struck in July by Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland.  The deal, detailed in a joint statement the following month, exempted some items, such as aircraft and generic drugs, but imposed a 15 percent tariff on most other European exports, while the EU committed to scrap its tariffs on U.S. industrial goods entirely. The EU’s pitch for tariff relief comes just as Trump is pivoting away from the across-the-board tariffs he imposed on U.S. trading partners earlier this year, following a string of off-year election defeats for Republican candidates in which the rising cost of living swayed voters.  A week ago, he struck down “reciprocal tariffs” on more than 200 goods worldwide, including products used in fertilizer, tropical fruits like bananas and pineapples, coffee and several spices like cocoa, cinnamon and coriander. In his latest move, Trump on Thursday eliminated tariffs on a large swath of Brazilian agricultural goods, including beef and coffee, dropping the additional, punitive tariffs he imposed this summer as he feuded with Brazil’s government and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The EU’s ask to lift tariffs on pasta is particularly sensitive in Italy, where the industry is reeling from the Trump administration’s threat to impose 92 percent tariffs from January in an anti-dumping case, on top of the 15 percent already in force — a level so high as to prohibit exports to the United States. This story has been updated.

Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. Three hundred days into U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term, how is the world faring? According to the president and his supporters, the answer is clear: never better — at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. This isn’t a judgement I personally share, but let’s take a closer look at the case that Trump and his defenders are making for the success of his foreign policy to date — and whether it tells the whole story. By forcing Europe and other allies to pay more for defense, to take on a bigger share of the burden of helping Ukraine, and to buy more weapons from the U.S., Trump has boosted the collective strength of America and its allies to unprecedented heights. Or so the argument goes. This year, the U.S. increased defense spending by about 13 percent to reach $1 trillion. And its NATO allies — perennial spending laggards — have now committed to spending 5 percent of their GDP on defense. That’s a bigger share than the U.S. will spend. Building on this growing strength, according to Robert O’Brien, Trump’s first-term national security adviser, the U.S. president has “positioned himself as the indispensable global statesman by driving efforts to bring peace to other, often far-flung and long-standing disputes.” Trump himself frequently touts this peacemaking prowess, boasting that he has “ended 8 wars in 8 months.” And to be fair, in some of these cases he did teach a masterclass in using leverage to get what he wants. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Middle East, where, as one seasoned diplomat told me: “No one can say no to him.” The result was the ceasefire in Gaza, the return of all living hostages to Israel, and an end to Israel’s longest, most devastating war. Finally, both Trump and his officials argue, he has remade the global trading order to the benefit of the U.S. He has used tariffs and threats to force open markets long closed to American goods, to reap revenues by charging for the privilege of access to the world’s greatest consumer market, and to strong-arm other countries into paying for America’s reindustrialization. Taken at face value, all of this adds up to quite a record — but an incomplete one, to say the least. Looking at the specifics, the picture becomes much more complicated, uneven and often quite different. Take alliances, for example. It’s true, of course, that many NATO allies have now committed to spending much more on defense. It’s even true that Trump “will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done” — as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte texted Trump shortly before the NATO summit last June where that commitment was agreed. Many NATO allies have now committed to spending much more on defense. | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images But what Rutte didn’t say is that this is because no other U.S. president has ever threatened to walk away from the alliance, or to abandon the solemn commitment to collective defense enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO charter. Led by Germany, NATO allies are boosting their defense spending, but the main reason is because they no longer believe they can rely on the U.S. ( Another one is that they fear Russia — an anxiety Trump doesn’t share.) Trump’s approach to Ukraine clearly underscores this change. He ended all military and economic assistance to the country, forcing it into an agreement to share its natural resources in return for U.S. aid that was previously provided cost-free. He then sought to force Ukraine’s president to sign a deal that would effectively mean Kyiv’s capitulation to Russian aggression, and only agreed to ship weapons if Europe paid for them. None of this is the behavior of an ally who believes their mutual alliance reflects shared interests or common threat perceptions. It’s the behavior of someone who has turned security alliances into a protection racket. As for Trump’s self-declared peacemaking prowess, there’s much less than meets the eye. Yes, the U.S. president skillfully maneuvered Israel and Hamas into a ceasefire and the return of hostages — but this is hardly the lasting peace he proclaimed. The divide between Israelis and Palestinians is deeper now than at any time in recent history, and the prospect of renewed violence is vastly greater than any enduring peace. Many of the other conflicts Trump claims to have ended suffer from similar shortcomings. India and Pakistan are one incident away from a return to cross-border fighting. Cambodia and Thailand suspended their agreement less than 30 days after Trump presided over its signing. And neither Rwanda nor the Congo are implementing the terms of the agreement they initialed in Washington earlier this year. Peace, it turns out, is not the same as stopping the shooting. As for trade, Trump has indeed upended the global system. But to what end? The escalating tariff war with China has settled into an uncomfortable truce akin to the situation that existed when he first returned to office. Meanwhile, many big agreements — including with the EU — have yet to be finalized, as Trump has always been more interested in declaring a win than in negotiating the details. In fact, it’s highly uncertain whether Europe, Japan or Korea will actually make the kinds of new investments Trump has touted. And just last week, Trump abandoned tariffs on hundreds of food and other items in order to address a growing domestic political backlash stemming from rising prices on groceries and other basics. Overall, Trump has been much more skillful at wrecking things than building them. He has destroyed a global order that was painstakingly built by his predecessors over many decades; an order that produced more prosperity, greater security and broader freedom for Americans than at any time in history. To be sure, the system had its flaws and needed reform. But to abandon it without considering what will take its place is the height of folly. Folly for which Americans, no less than others, will pay the ultimate price.

China suspended a ban on exporting some dual-use materials to the U.S., the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced on Sunday, following the easing of trade tensions between the two sides. The move covers exports of gallium, germanium and antimony, which are used in the production of advanced semiconductors used in smartphones and computing. The materials are also used in military technologies such as electronic warfare and surveillance systems, and, in the case of antimony, also missile systems and ammunition. Beijing suspended a measure introduced last year that restricted exports of those materials and imposed stricter checks on dual-use items that include graphite. The suspension will be in effect “from now until Nov. 27, 2026,” the ministry said in a statement. China’s President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump recently agree to lower tariffs and ease other trade measures for one year, providing relief to global value chains after a trade war that threatened to escalate. Beijing has relaxed checks on exports of rare earths and lithium battery materials and agreed to resume shipping key chips for Europe’s manufacturers.

BRUSSELS — Europe isn’t popping the champagne corks just yet even after U.S. Supreme Court judges cast doubt on the future of Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.  In a highly anticipated hearing on Wednesday, both conservative and progressive judges sharply questioned the U.S. president’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on the rest of the world — including the European Union.  Yet officials and observers across the Atlantic know full well that should the court strike down the tariffs, in cases brought by a dozen Democratic-run states and two sets of private companies, Trump will find a way to replace them. “The president’s authority is not limited,” German lawmaker Bernd Lange, who chairs the European Parliament’s international trade committee, told POLITICO. “New legal bases will be sought, which will again entail significantly greater effort and perhaps further uncertainties for certain product groups.”  Trump imposed his duties — including a 15 percent baseline tariff on the 27-nation bloc — under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 sanctions law that empowers the president to “regulate” imports but does not specifically authorize tariffs.  A key question now is whether Trump, in imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, grabbed power that is constitutionally bound to Congress. During the hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why Trump believed he had the authority to impose tariffs under a law that has never been used for that purpose.  Tariffs are a form of taxation and “that has always been the core power of Congress,” Roberts said. “So, to have the president’s foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power.” The skeptical tone struck by judges from both U.S. political camps has led some observers to predict a majority ruling by the nine-judge bench to kill the tariffs. For that to happen, some or all of Trump’s own conservative appointees on the bench — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — would need to vote against them.  “Not only the Court’s liberal judges but also key conservative judges such as Justice Roberts, Coney Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh advanced a deeply skeptical line of questioning,” said David Kleimann, a senior researcher at think tank ODI Global.  The hearing, Kleimann said, “will certainly give rise to hopes among international stakeholders that the Court will annul the tariff orders, which will, however, remain a matter of first seeing and then believing.” FIXING A ‘GLOBAL PROBLEM’  Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, Brussels wouldn’t be out of the woods.  Trump’s sectoral tariffs on pharmaceuticals, cars and steel using other legal avenues — chiefly Section 232 investigations into specific industrial sectors — aren’t the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. And it is those measures that are inflicting the most pain on European exporters. Precisely because of that, former EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy cautioned his fellow Europeans to “not rejoice too quickly.”  “If Trump loses this case, he will use other legal grounds, albeit more complicated ones,” Lamy told POLITICO, referring to the sectoral tariffs.  “It would be great if they were overturned and they had trouble reinstating the latest tariffs, but we’re not counting on it,” agreed an EU trade diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.  One argument made by the Trump administration — including by the government’s lawyer, Dean John Sauer — is that the tariffs are needed because America’s trade deficits with many of its trading partners are, in fact, a genuine emergency. Sauer argued that the trade deficits the tariffs are intended to address are “a global problem.” Countries hit by tariffs “haven’t disputed … that the president has correctly identified that virtually every major trading partner has this longstanding, so asymmetric, unfair treatment of our trade.” In Europe’s case, that is true: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen admitted, as she struck the EU’s trade deal with Trump, that it was “actually about rebalancing. So you can call it fairness, you can call it rebalancing. We have a surplus, the U.S. has a deficit, and we need to rebalance it.”  By buying into Trump’s narrative, von der Leyen handed his team a victory — allowing Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to boast about a new trading era, dubbed the “Turnberry system” after the Scottish golf course where Trump and von der Leyen shook hands on their deal in July.  HOW FIRM IS A HANDSHAKE?  For the EU, the question now is how solid a foundation it has built with the Turnberry accord, which was baked into a bare-bones joint statement the following month.  EU officials assert that the 15 percent tariff cap on most exports should hold even if the Supreme Court throws out Trump’s tariffs. A decision is expected by the end of this year, but could come much sooner. The European Commission declined to comment on legal proceedings in another country as a matter of policy. “But I can say that the Commission’s focus is on implementing the commitments spelled out in the EU-U.S. joint statement,” deputy chief spokesperson Olof Gill said Thursday. Ultimately, however, the court’s decision could have knock-on effects on legislation to implement the EU’s side of its deal with Washington. The European Parliament, which needs to pass the enabling legislation, has taken a critical view of the U.S. deal. Many lawmakers fault the EU executive for agreeing to a humiliating one-sided deal by agreeing to abolish all tariffs on U.S. industrial goods. A Supreme Court verdict striking down the U.S. tariffs could swell the camp of lawmakers determined to vote down the procedure.  “It would be very unlikely that the EU Parliament [would] continue its work on lowering EU tariffs on U.S. products in case the Court declares the U.S. tariffs illegal,” said Brando Benifei, a Spanish Socialist who chairs the Parliament body responsible for strengthening ties with the U.S.  “It would be absurd.”

BUSAN, South Korea — President Donald Trump on Thursday said he had “an amazing meeting” with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, appearing to tamp down tensions that had been building for months. “Zero, to 10, with 10 being the best, I’d say the meeting was a 12,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, shortly after he left South Korea on his way back to Washington. “A lot of decisions were made … and we’ve come to a conclusion on very many important points.” The agreement, according to Trump, includes a commitment from China to purchase soybeans from American farmers, curb the flow of fentanyl and postpone its export restrictions on rare earths, which are used in everything from iPhones to military equipment. “There is no road block at all on rare earth,” Trump said. “Hopefully, that will disappear from our vocabulary for a little while.” Trump said he intended to immediately lower tariffs on Chinese exports to 47 percent from 57 percent. The result pulls the two nations back from the brink and should induce a significant sigh of relief from capital markets around the world. Details remain sparse and there have been false starts and resets before, but Trump said he could sign an agreement “pretty soon” and that few stumbling blocks remained. Trump also said he plans to visit China in April and that Xi would travel to the United States after that. This was Trump and Xi’s first face-to-face meeting since the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan in June 2019, when the two countries were also in the middle of a trade war. Thursday’s summit in South Korea followed months of renewed tensions that have impeded trade between the two countries, despite several announced truces. While Trump has ratcheted up tariffs on China — at one point as high as 145 percent — and tightened export controls on high-tech goods, Beijing has responded with its own devastating pressure campaign. That includes reducing purchases of American farm goods, which fell by more than 50 percent in the first seven months of 2025. U.S. soybeans farmers, who exported a record $18 billion worth of their crop to China in 2022, have been hit particularly, with just $2.4 billion in shipments to China in January through July. Beijing also imposed new export controls on rare earth materials. Earlier this month, China added five more rare earth elements to its control list and, much more controversially, outlined a plan requiring foreign companies that use even tiny amounts of Chinese-sourced rare earths to obtain a license from Beijing to export their finished products. U.S. officials described that move as an intolerable attempt by China to control global supply chains, and Trump threatened new 100 percent tariffs to take effect on Nov. 1. But it appears both sides wanted to avoid that kind of escalation. During the weekend, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, after meeting with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in Malaysia, said they believed Beijing was prepared to delay its rare earth restrictions for a year, make “substantial” purchases of American farm goods and attempt to curb shipments of fentanyl precursor chemicals to the U.S.

BRUSSELS — Wednesday’s election in the Netherlands should surely go down as one of the best days Europe’s centrists have enjoyed in years. Geert Wilders, the far-right populist who touted leaving the EU on his way to a shock victory in the 2023 election, lost nearly a third of his voters after 11 chaotic months for his Party for Freedom (PVV) in coalition.  At the same time, the fervently pro-European liberal Rob Jetten surged in the final days of the campaign and stands a good chance of becoming prime minister. At 38, he would be the youngest person to hold the office since World War II and the first openly gay candidate ever to do so.  “Many in the Brussels bubble will welcome the rise of a mainstream, pro-governing and reform-oriented party,” said one EU diplomat, granted anonymity because the subject is politically sensitive. “The Dutch have a lot to contribute to the EU.” But even as they exhale with relief at the end of the Wilders interlude, the inhabitants of Europe’s dominant liberal center-ground — those Brussels officials, diplomats and ministers who run the EU show — would be well advised not to celebrate too hard. If previous years are any guide, the final shape of the next government and its policy plans will not become clear for months. Who knows what will have happened in Ukraine, the Middle East, or in Donald Trump’s trade war with China in that time? “It is essential for European cooperation that a new government is stable and able to make bold decisions, given the current geopolitical challenges that Europe is facing,” the same diplomat said. Even when the new coalition finally begins its work, this election should worry Europe’s liberal centrists almost as much as it delights them. JETTEN INTO EUROPE  Jetten’s Democracy 66 party has never done so well at a Dutch election: Assuming he gets the job he wants, he’ll be the party’s first prime minister. This week he told POLITICO he wanted to move the Netherlands closer to the EU.  Last night, officials in Brussels privately welcomed the prospect of the Dutch and their highly regarded diplomats returning to their historic place at the center of EU affairs, after two years in which they lost some influence. It was always going to be tough for the outgoing PM Dick Schoof, a 68-year-old technocrat, to follow the long-serving Mark Rutte, an EU star who now runs NATO. Domestic divisions made his job even harder.  But pro-European spirits also rose because the disruptive Wilders had wanted to keep the EU at arm’s length. Jetten’s position could hardly be more different. In fact, he sounds like an EU federalist’s dream.  “We want to stop saying ‘no’ by default, and start saying ‘yes’ to doing more together,” Jetten told POLITICO this week. “I cannot stress enough how dire Europe’s situation will be if we do not integrate further.”  STAYING DUTCH In Brussels, officials expect the next Dutch administration to maintain the same broad outlook on core policies: restraint on the EU’s long-term budget; cracking down on migration; boosting trade and competitiveness; and supporting Ukraine, alongside stronger common defense. One area where things could get complicated is climate policy. Jetten is committed to climate action and may end up in a power-sharing deal with GreenLeft-Labor, which was led at this election by former EU Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans.  How any government that Jetten leads balances climate action with improving economic growth will be key to policy discussions in Brussels. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has been trimming climate measures amid center-right complaints that they are expensive for consumers and businesses. But she wants to secure backing for new targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.  Elsewhere, housing and migration — two areas often linked by far-right politicians — were central issues in the Dutch campaign. Both will continue to feature on the EU’s agenda, too.  For many watching the results unfold in Brussels, the biggest concerns are practical: Will the next Dutch government be more stable than the last one? And how long will it take to for the coalition to form? Seven months passed between the last election in November 2023 and Schoof taking office as prime minister in July 2024. “This is a historic election result because we’ve shown not only to the Netherlands but also to the world that it’s possible to beat populist and extreme-right movements,” Jetten told his supporters. “I’m very eager to cooperate with other parties to start an ambitious coalition as soon as possible.”  WILDERS Beneath the rare good news of a pro-European triumph and a far-right failure lurk more worrying trends for EU centrists.  First of all, there’s the sheer volatility of the result. Most voters apparently made up their minds at the last moment.  Wilders went from winning the popular vote and taking 37 of the 150 seats in the Dutch lower house in 2023 to a projected 26 seats this time. Jetten’s D66 party, meanwhile, went from just nine seats two years ago to a projected 26, according to a preliminary forecast by the Dutch news agency ANP. The center-right Christian Democratic Appeal took just five seats in 2023 but now stands to win 18, according to the forecast. With swings this wild, anything could happen next time. Most major parties say they won’t work with Wilders in coalition now, making Jetten the more likely new PM if the projections hold. But Wilders says he is a long way from finished. “You won’t be rid of me until I’m 80,” the 62 year-old told supporters. In fact, Wilders might find a period in opposition — free from the constraints and compromises required in government — the perfect place to resume his inflammatory campaigns against Islam, immigration and the EU.  Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage had all been written off before storming back into their respective political front lines. “We had hoped for a different outcome, but we stood our ground,” Wilders wrote on X. “We are more determined than ever.”  TIMM’S UP  The other cloud on the pro-European horizon is the fate of Timmermans.  His center-left ticket was expected to do well and had been polling second behind Wilders’ Freedom Party in the months before the vote. But per the preliminary forecast, GreenLeft-Labor will fall from 25 seats to 20. Timmermans — who also stood in 2023 — resigned as leader.  It wasn’t just a defeat for the party, but also in some ways for Brussels. Timmermans had served as the European Commission’s executive vice president during von der Leyen’s first term, and was seen by some, especially his opponents, as a creation of the EU bubble.  Others point to the fact the center-left is struggling across Europe.  “It’s clear that I, for whatever reason, couldn’t convince people to vote for us,” Timmermans said. “It’s time that I take a step back and transfer the lead of our movement to the next generation.” Jetten’s pro-Europeanism could also come back to haunt him by the time of the next election. If he fails to deliver miracles to back up his optimistic pitch to voters, his Euroskeptic opponents have a ready-made argument for what went wrong. Recent history in the Netherlands, and elsewhere, suggests they won’t be afraid to use it.  Eva Hartog, Hanne Cokelaere, Pieter Haeck and Max Griera contributed reporting.