BRUSSELS — Ursula von der Leyen has summoned her team of European commissioners to a meeting to try to defuse mounting tensions and improve the way they work. The meeting is set for Feb. 4 in Leuven and is open to all members of the College, though attendance is not mandatory, according to a Commission official involved in organizing the event. The idea for such a meeting was conceived after tense exchanges between commissioners and frustration at the repeated late arrival of files on the desks of top officials, Commission officials said. POLITICO spoke to eight officials from different commissioners’ cabinets, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak candidly about the internal dynamics. While the meeting will focus on competitiveness and will feature a special guest — IMF Managing Director and former Commission Vice President Kristalina Georgieva — also on the agenda are discussions on “geopolitics in the current context and the working methods of the European Commission,” Commission deputy chief spokesperson Arianna Podestà told POLITICO. The latter element was prompted by what staffers inside the Berlaymont, the Commission’s HQ, describe as an unusually tense atmosphere. The spark for the idea of the meeting, according to four of the Commission officials, was a tense exchange in early December in which Dan Jørgensen, the energy commissioner, confronted Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a meeting of the College of Commissioners — as first reported in Brussels Playbook. Jørgensen will be attending the Feb. 4 meeting, his team said. Ribera’s team did not respond. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Both commissioners declined to comment on the incident but one official said Jørgensen had raised his voice when confronting Ribera, while another said the Danish commissioner “made a point toward Ribera that was unusually forceful by College standards” as they discussed a key environmental file. Jørgensen will be attending the Feb. 4 meeting, his team said. Ribera’s team did not respond. Meetings of the full College in the new year are not unusual, and in fact have been a regular practice since 2010, Podestà told POLITICO. However, this one features a session explicitly dedicated to finding better working methods and preventing differences of opinion between commissioners from getting out of hand. Descriptions of the meeting varied, with one official calling it “talks” rather than a formal team-building exercise, and another describing it as “a working group on working methods.” Several Cabinets are growing frustrated with files arriving on their desk just hours before College meetings, or late at night, on the weekend, or on the eve of the presentation of legal proposals. “This prevents us from working professionally,” one official said. “Of course emergencies happen but this can’t be the norm.” The frustration peaked during the presentation of the EU’s long-term budget plan last July, when official figures were reportedly shared with commissioners only hours before the presentation. According to officials close to von der Leyen’s Cabinet, the late arrival of the budget figures was justified as a tactic to prevent leaks. But the approach has only deepened irritation inside the College. According to one official, the “altercation” between Jørgensen and Ribera also concerned fast-tracking files. To get a file presented to the College, an executive vice president must “push the button” (Berlaymont jargon for putting something on the agenda). Faced with a tight deadline to examine the details of a file — the environmental omnibus, designed to simplify green rules — Ribera decided to wait before pushing the button, as she is entitled to do, according to her team. This led to tensions with Jørgensen, a fellow member of the socialist family. One Commission official noted that both center-left commissioners lead teams “with strong views,” making friction likely. “There’s a lot more infighting in [the] College than one might think,” a Commission official said. Some of these frictions reflect genuine differences of opinion but are magnified by a highly centralized system, in which many decisions must get approval on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont — home to von der Leyen’s Cabinet. “The way it works now creates situations that are avoidable and some problems where there aren’t any,” another official said. Jørgensen and Ribera are not the only pair under strain. Tensions have surfaced between Executive Vice President Stéphane Séjourné and Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, for example, particularly over the Biotech Act. Várhelyi has long objected to the package’s non-health elements, and insiders say his resistance has only hardened as Séjourné pushes a broader industrial strategy. Two officials also said Várhelyi’s behavior is sometimes interpreted as provocative — keeping his phone ringtone on or sprawling in his chair. According to the same officials, Várhelyi has even insisted that only von der Leyen, not fellow commissioners, may substitute for him at events. Neither Séjourné nor Várhelyi responded to requests for comment. Séjourné will not be present at the seminar, as he is taking part in ministerial discussions in Washington on critical raw materials, but will submit written contributions, according to his team. Várhelyi did not confirm if he would be attending the Feb. 4 meeting. Commission officials say that friction between EVPs and other commissioners is almost built into the system. EVPs are meant to coordinate and oversee the work of others, whereas under EU law all commissioners are supposed to be equal. That ambiguity, one official said, is manageable on good days, but doesn’t help when tempers flare. Von der Leyen did not respond to requests for comment. The meeting comes ahead of an EU leaders’ retreat on competitiveness scheduled for Feb. 12.

BRUSSELS — EU countries shouldn’t be afraid of integrating at different speeds if that’s what it takes to gain crucial leverage on the world stage, Mario Draghi said Monday. “We must take the steps that are currently possible, with the partners who are actually willing, in the domains where progress can currently be made,” said the former European Central Bank president and ex-prime minister of Italy during a ceremony at the University of Leuven in Belgium, where he was awarded an honorary doctorate. “Power requires Europe to move from confederation to federation,” said Draghi, stressing that only in domains where EU countries have pooled their competences has the bloc gained clout on the global stage.  “Where Europe has federated, [such as] on trade, on competition, on the single market, on monetary policy, we are respected as a power and negotiate as one,” he said, citing trade agreements recently negotiated with India and Latin America. Draghi’s call comes as Europe struggles to keep pace with the U.S. and China, and is facing Russian aggression in Ukraine plus a transatlantic ally that no longer acknowledges the benefits of its historic European ties. “This is a future in which Europe risks becoming subordinated, divided and de-industrialized at once, and a Europe that cannot defend its interests will not preserve its values for longer,” Draghi warned. In the face of those challenges, areas of weakness are those where EU capitals continue to maintain a grip, such as defense, industrial policy or foreign affairs, Draghi said. In these, he added, “we are treated as a loose assembly of middle-sized states to be divided and dealt with accordingly.” The former top official praised the bloc’s recent stance on Greenland, where it decided to resist rather than accommodate threats coming from the U.S. “By standing together in the face of direct threat, Europeans discovered the solidarity that had previously seemed out of reach,” he said.  Draghi will take part in an informal gathering of European leaders next week aimed at discussing the direction for the bloc’s competitiveness, together with another former Italian prime minister, Enrico Letta. Both have laid out their economic visions in reports that form the building blocks of President Ursula von der Leyen’s second term atop the European Commission.

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

LONDON —  Keir Starmer lands in China trying to do everything at once. As his government searches desperately for economic growth, the prime minister’s policy is to cooperate, compete with, and, where appropriate, challenge the Asian superpower. That’s easier said than done. POLITICO asked five China analysts — ranging from former government ministers to ex-diplomats — to give their honest take on how the British PM should handle the days ahead. DON’T LECTURE — VINCE CABLE, FORMER BUSINESS SECRETARY Vince Cable, who visited China three times as U.K. business secretary between 2010 and 2015, says Starmer must not give Chinese President Xi Jinping public lectures. It will be tempting, given China’s human rights record. U.K. lawmakers are particularly concerned about Beijing’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims and Hong Kongers. “From experience, that just antagonizes people. They’ll respond in kind and will remind us about all the bad things the British have done throughout our history. You’ll get absolutely nowhere,” Cable, a former Liberal Democrat leader who wrote “The Chinese Conundrum: Engagement or Conflict” after leaving office, said.  Raising concerns in private is more likely to get a positive result, he thinks. “Although I’m by no means an admirer of President [Donald] Trump … his approach, which is business-like and uses actually quite respectful language in public, has actually had far more success in dealing with the Chinese than the traditional missionary approach of some Western European countries,” Cable adds.  LISTEN AND SPEAK UP — BEN BLAND, CHATHAM HOUSE ASIA-PACIFIC PROGRAM DIRECTOR Ben Bland, director of the Chatham House think tank’s Asia-Pacific program, warns there can’t be a return to the “naive optimism” of the “golden era” under Cameron. Britain should “listen to the Chinese leadership and try and understand more about how [Chinese President] Xi Jinping and other senior communist leaders see the world, how they see China,” the former Financial Times South China correspondent says. “The U.K.’s ability to influence China directly is quite limited, but it’s really important that we understand what they’re trying to do in the world.” Starmer should be clear about the U.K.’s red lines on espionage, interference in British society, and the harassment of people living in this country, Bland says. Vince Cable, who visited China three times as U.K. business secretary between 2010 and 2015, says Starmer must not give Chinese President Xi Jinping public lectures. | Andy Rain/EPA TREAT TRADE CAUTIOUSLY — CHARLES PARTON, FORMER DIPLOMAT “The Chinese are adept at the propaganda of these visits, and ensuring that everything seems wonderful,” Charles Parton, an ex-diplomat who was First Counsellor to the EU Delegation in Beijing between 2011 and 2016, warns.   “There’s an awful lot of strange counting going on of [investment] deals that have already been signed, deals that are on the cards to be signed [and] deals that are glimmers in the eye and almost certainly won’t be signed,” Parton, now an adviser to the Council on Geostrategy think tank, says. “Trade is highly fungible. It’s not political,” Parton, who is also a senior associate at the Royal United Services Institute, adds. “We shouldn’t be saying to ourselves ‘oh my gosh, we better knuckle down to whatever the Chinese want of us, because otherwise our trade and investment will suffer’,” he believes. “If you can push through trade investment which is beneficial — excellent. That’s great, but let’s not think that this is the be-all and end-all,” he warns. SEE CHINA AS IT IS — LUKE DE PULFORD, INTER-PARLIAMENTARY ALLIANCE ON CHINA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR  Luke De Pulford, executive director of the hawkish global cross-party Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, is skeptical about the timing of Starmer’s China trip —  a week after ministers gave planning approval for Beijing’s controversial mega embassy in London. “Going to China against that backdrop, to look as if you’re going to make national security concessions in the hope of economic preferment, is unwise,” he says. He is also doubtful that closer ties with Beijing will improve the British economy. “All of the evidence seems to point towards China investing in the U.K. only in as far as it suits their strategic interests,” De Pulford says. “There’s a lot to lose and not very much to gain.”  Prioritizing the U.K. agenda will be paramount for Starmer. “There’s nothing wrong at all with visiting China if you’re going to represent your interests and the United Kingdom’s interests,” he says, while remaining doubtful that this will be achieved. SET OUT A CHINA STRATEGY — EVIE ASPINALL, BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY GROUP DIRECTOR  Securing a “symbolic, long-term relationship” with China should be a priority for Starmer, Evie Aspinall, who leads the non-partisan British Foreign Policy Group think tank, says. She wants the U.K.’s China Audit to be published in full, warning businesses “don’t have a strong understanding of what the U.K.’s approach is.”  The audit was launched in late 2024 to allow the government to understand Beijing’s threats and opportunities, but its findings have not been published in detail because much of its content is classified. “I think that’s a fundamental limitation,” Aspinall says, pointing out it is businesses which will generate the growth Starmer wants.  U.K. businesses need to know they “will be supported around some of those risks if they do decide to engage more closely with China,” she says.   

It seems impossible to have a conversation today without artificial intelligence (AI) playing some role, demonstrating the massive power of the technology. It has the potential to impact every part of business, and European policymakers are on board. In February 2025, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, said, “We want Europe to be one of the leading AI continents … AI can help us boost our competitiveness, protect our security, shore up public health, and make access to knowledge and information more democratic.” Research from Nokia suggests that businesses share this enthusiasm and ambition: 84 percent of more than 1,000 respondents said AI features in the growth strategy of their organization, while 62 percent are directing at least 20 percent of ICT capex budgets toward the technology. However, the equation is not yet balanced. Three-quarters of survey respondents state that current telecom infrastructure limits the ability to deliver on those ambitions. Meanwhile, 45 percent suggest these limitations would delay, constrain or entirely limit investments. There is clearly a disconnect between the ambition and the ability to deliver. At present, Europe lags the United States and parts of Asia in areas such as network deployment, related investment levels and scale. > If AI does not reach its full potential, EU competitiveness will suffer, > economic growth will have a ceiling, the creation of new jobs will have a > limit and consumers will not see the benefits. What we must remember primarily is that AI does not happen without advanced, trusted and future-proofed networks. Infrastructure is not a ‘nice to have’ it is a fundamental part. Simply put, today’s networks in Europe require more investments to power the AI dream we all have. If AI does not reach its full potential, EU competitiveness will suffer, economic growth will have a ceiling, the creation of new jobs will have a limit and consumers will not see the benefits. When we asked businesses about the challenge of meeting AI demands during our research, the lack of adequate connectivity infrastructure was the fourth common answer out of 15 potential options. Our telecom connectivity regulatory approach must be more closely aligned with the goal of fostering AI. That means progressing toward a genuine telecom single market, adopting a novel approach to competition policy to allow market consolidation to lead to more investments, and ensuring connectivity is always secure and trusted. Supporting more investments in next-generation networks through consolidation AI places heavy demands on networks. It requires low latency, high bandwidth and reliability, and efficient traffic management. To deliver this, Europe needs to accelerate investment in 5G standalone, fiber to enterprises, edge data centers and IP-optical backbone networks optimized for AI. > As industry voices such as Nokia have emphasized, the networks that power AI > must themselves make greater use of automation and AI. Consolidation (i.e. reducing the number of telecom operators within the national telecom markets of EU member states) is part of the solution. Consolidation will allow operators to achieve economies of scale and improve operating efficiency, therefore encouraging investment and catalyzing innovation. As industry voices such as Nokia have emphasized, the networks that power AI must themselves make greater use of automation and AI. Policy support should therefore extend to both network innovation and deployment. Trust: A precondition for AI adoption Intellectual property (IP) theft is a threat to Europe’s industrial future and only trusted technology should be used in core functions, systems and sectors (such as energy, transport and defense). In this context, the underlying connectivity should always be secure and trusted. The 5G Security Toolbox, restricting untrusted technology, should therefore be extended to all telecom technologies (including fiber, optics and IP) and made compulsory in all EU member states. European governments must make protecting their industries and citizens a high priority. Completing the digital single market Although the single market is one of Europe’s defining projects, the reality in telecoms — a key part of the digital single market — is still fragmented. As an example, different spectrum policies create barriers across borders and can limit network roll outs. Levers on top of advanced connectivity To enable the AI ecosystem in Europe, there are several different enabling levers European policymakers should advance on top of fostering advanced and trusted connectivity: * The availability of compute infrastructure. The AI Continent Action Plan, as well as the IPCEI Compute Infrastructure Continuum, and the European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking should facilitate building AI data centers in Europe.   * Leadership in edge computing. There should also be clear support for securing Europe’s access to and leadership in edge solutions and building out edge capacity. Edge solutions increase processing speeds and are important for enabling AI adoption, while also creating a catalyst for economic growth. With the right data center capacity and edge compute capabilities available, European businesses can meet the new requirements of AI use cases.  * Harmonization of rules. There are currently implications for AI in several policy areas, including the AI Act, GDPR, Data Act, cybersecurity laws and sector-specific regulations. This creates confusion, whereas AI requires clarity. Simplification and harmonization of these regulations should be pursued.  * AI Act implementation and simplification. There are concerns about the implementation of the AI Act. The standards for high-risk AI may not be available before the obligations of the AI act enter into force, hampering business ambitions due to legal uncertainty. The application date of the AI Act’s provisions on high-risk AI should be postponed by two years to align with the development of standards. There needs to be greater clarity on definitions and simplification measures should be pursued across the entire ecosystem. Policies must be simple enough to follow, otherwise adoption may falter. Policy needs to act as an enabler, not a barrier to innovation.  * Upskilling and new skills. AI will require new skills of employees and users, as well as creating entirely new career paths. Europe needs to prepare for this new world.  If Europe can deliver on these priorities, the benefits will be tangible: improved services, stronger industries, increased competitiveness and higher economic growth. AI will deliver to those who best prepare themselves. We must act now with the urgency and consistency that the moment demands. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author biography: Marc Vancoppenolle is leading the geopolitical and government relations EU and Europe function at Nokia. He and his team are working with institutions and stakeholders in Europe to create a favorable political and regulatory environment fostering broadband investments and cross sectoral digitalization at large. Vancoppenolle has over 30 years of experience in the telecommunication industry. He joined Alcatel in 1991, and then Alcatel-Lucent, where he took various international and worldwide technical, commercial, marketing, communication and government affairs leadership roles. Vancoppenolle is a Belgian and French national. He holds a Master of Science, with a specialization in telecommunication, from the University of Leuven complemented with marketing studies from the University of Antwerp. He is a member of the DIGITALEUROPE Executive Board, Associate to Nokia’s CEO at the ERT (European Round Table for Industry), and advisor to FITCE Belgium (Forum for ICT & Media professionals). He has been vice-chair of the BUSINESSEUROPE Digital Economy Taskforce as well as a member of the board of IICB (Innovation & Incubation Center Brussels).

A senior German football executive has urged Europe to consider boycotting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, as U.S. President Donald Trump’s escalating rhetoric over Greenland and broader foreign policy moves spark unease across the continent. Oke Göttlich, president of Bundesliga club St. Pauli and a vice president of the German Football Association, said in an interview with German media that the time had come to “seriously consider and discuss” a boycott, comparing the current moment to the Cold War-era Olympic boycotts of the 1980s. “What were the justifications for the boycotts of the Olympic Games in the 1980s?” Göttlich told the Hamburger Morgenpost. “By my reckoning, the potential threat is greater now than it was then. We need to have this discussion.” Göttlich also took aim at FIFA President Gianni Infantino — widely seen as a close ally of Trump — accusing football’s leadership of applying double standards. “Qatar was too political for everyone, and now we’re completely apolitical?” he said. “That really, really bothers me.” His comments add momentum to a growing debate in Europe over whether global sport can remain insulated from politics as Trump ramps up pressure on allies — from threats surrounding Greenland to U.S. military action in Venezuela — while treating the World Cup as a major soft-power trophy of his second term. Not all governments are receptive. France’s sports minister said this week there was “no desire” in Paris to boycott the tournament, which will be co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico, arguing that sport should remain separate from politics. Still, several European football leaders have already shown a willingness to wade into political disputes. The president of Norway’s football federation, Lise Klaveness, has repeatedly criticized human rights issues tied to major tournaments, while Ireland’s football association pushed to exclude Israel from international competition before the Gaza peace agreement last year. Göttlich also dismissed concerns that a boycott would unfairly punish players, including St. Pauli’s international stars. “The life of a professional player is not worth more than the lives of countless people in various regions who are being directly or indirectly attacked or threatened by the World Cup host,” he said.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Europa steht wirtschaftlich und technologisch unter Druck. Im Gespräch am Rande des World Economic Forums in Davos macht Christian Klein, CEO von SAP, deutlich, warum die eigentliche Bewährungsprobe nicht bei Energiepreisen oder Hardware liegt, sondern bei der konsequenten Anwendung von Künstlicher Intelligenz. Er erklärt, weshalb Europa seine industrielle Stärke nur halten kann, wenn Unternehmen und Politik jetzt gemeinsam auf KI setzen und warum Software und hochwertige Unternehmensdaten dabei der entscheidende Hebel sind. Klein erläutert, was er von der Bundesregierung und von Brüssel erwartet, warum wirtschaftliches Wachstum Voraussetzung für den Erhalt sozialer Standards ist und weshalb eine Koalition der Willigen in Europa nötig wäre, um Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zurückzugewinnen.  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

STRASBOURG — Ursula von der Leyen comfortably survived a no-confidence vote in the European Parliament on Thursday. A large majority of members of the European Parliament backed the center-right European Commission president in a confidence motion brought by the far-right Patriots for Europe group. Of the 720 EU lawmakers, 565 showed up to vote. Only 165 backed toppling the Commission, with 390 voting against and 10 abstaining. Von der Leyen was not in Strasbourg for the vote. The motion’s proponents argued that von der Leyen and her team of commissioners should be dismissed over their handling of the EU–Mercosur trade deal, which they claim undermines European farmers by opening up the European market to unfair competition. Three similar motions had already been defeated over the past seven months. The threshold needed to trigger a motion of censure debate and vote — 72 out of 720 — has prompted repeated attempts to bring the Commission down. Monday’s censure debate ahead of the vote took place in an almost empty chamber, with lawmakers boycotting in protest against the repeated attempts by the far right and far left to topple the EU executive. Even the chair of the Patriots group, Jordan Bardella, missed the event. “How many times do we need to vote on hopeless censure motions until the extremists are satisfied or accept the democratic will?” asked Billy Kelleher, representing the Renew Europe group in the debate.

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

STRASBOURG ― European trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič faced an almost empty European Parliament on Monday evening to defend the European Commission’s signing of the Mercosur trade deal. Many backers of the motion of no-confidence in the Commission over the issue failed to turn up, suggesting that the trend of calling them ― this was an unprecedented fourth in seven months ― has run out of steam. Supporters of the motion argued that the Mercosur trade deal will open the door to unfair competition from south American countries, with European farmers subject to higher environmental standards than their peers. “The safeguard clauses from the Commission are simply empty promises which don’t actually provide proper protection for European farmers“ said the Patriots first vice president Kinga Gal, Hungarian Prime Minster Viktor Orbán’s right-hand in the European Parliament. She added that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s failure to attend the debate “shows contempt for the thousands of farmers protesting in the streets and several millions of voters who are represented by the Patriots.” But it was the Patriots own far-right lawmakers and other signatories of the motion who also didn’t turn up. Out of more than 110 lawmakers who signed the motion, less than a quarter attended. “Looking in this room, apparently it was not important enough to actually change some dinner plans and to be at the debate,” said Jeroen Lenaerts, chief whip of EPP ― von der Leyen’s center-right political family. The no-confidence motion, backed by the Patriots for Europe group and lawmakers from the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), will now be put to a vote on Thursday, though it is widely expected to fail. Three similar motions have already been defeated over the past seven months, dampening lawmakers’ interest in Monday’s debate. The low threshold of 72 out 720 lawmakers required to trigger a motion of censure debate and vote has prompted repeated attempts. “This motion is not about accountability, it is about headlines,” said Lenaerts. Some lawmakers are calling to change the threshold and make it more difficult to launch a motion of censure. Others describe that as censorship. The Parliament’s centrist and left-wing factions — including the center-right EPP, the center-left Socialists and Democrats, and the liberal Renew group — boycotted the debate with only 10 of their lawmakers attending the debate. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola also skipped chairing the debate, instead sending one of her deputies, vice president Katarina Barley. These moves followed the Commission’s decision not to send either President Ursula von der Leyen, nor the full college of 26 Commissioners to stand beside her, as has been the case on previous occasions. “How many times do we need to vote on hopeless censure motions until the extremists are satisfied or accept the democratic will?,” asked Billy Kelleher, representing the Renew Europe group. Only one political group leader showed up to the debate. It was not Jordan Bardella, Patriots for Europe chair, who first announced the motion on X, but the von der Leyen’s party chief, EPP’s Manfred Weber.