BRUSSELS — The European Union needs to draft in Mario Draghi, the mastermind behind reforms to revive its single market, to ensure that member countries rally behind efforts to boost growth and prosperity, a senior European lawmaker said Tuesday. Member countries should “mandate Draghi” to build political consensus for reform and pierce through national “deep state” resistance to force a radical rethink of the single market project, Pascal Canfin, a French Renew MEP, told POLITICO’s Competitive Europe Summit in Brussels. “We need somebody that could do so at the very top level, with heads of state and government and quite deep state level,” Canfin said, arguing that the bloc has reached a “historical crossroads” where it must choose between deeper integration or economic irrelevance. In 2024, the former Italian Prime Minister and head of the European Central Bank delivered a report on Europe’s competitiveness deficit that one commissioner has referred to as the “bible” for Ursula von der Leyen’s second Commission. EU leaders backed a plan to relaunch the 30-year old single market — with its freedoms in the movement of goods, capital, services and people — at a summit earlier this month. According to Canfin, Draghi’s work is not yet done, and the former Italian leader could build a “coalition of the willing” of member states willing to integrate their economies. Canfin also suggested that the requirement for consensus among all 27 member states has become a challenge.  “It’s not an objective not to do it at 27, but maybe at the end, we will not be able to do it for political reasons,” Canfin said, specifically citing the frequent vetoes and disruptions caused by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.  The move toward a multi-speed Europe is increasingly viewed by proponents of integration as the only way to compete with the massive industrial subsidies and streamlined decision-making of the United States and China. Canfin described a recurring cycle of political failure where national leaders travel to Brussels and make commitments, only to see them disassembled at home. “They go to Brussels … then they go back home, and there are all the people locally, in Paris, in Berlin, in Rome, in Madrid, saying the opposite,” Canfin said. “Including in the deep state, including in some companies that have built the knowledge to manage and navigate complexity.” Canfin identified three obvious candidates for accelerated integration: defense, energy, and finance.  “The political will has always been in the hands of the capitals,” Canfin said. “Technical, yes, but today, would we be politically able?”

BRUSSELS — The United States wants to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Brussels on reducing European tech regulation, its Ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder told POLITICO. The U.S. administration and its allies have been vocal critics of the EU’s tech rules, saying they unfairly target American companies and hurt freedom of speech. The European Commission has repeatedly denied such allegations, saying it is merely trying to rein in Big Tech and protect the online space from harmful behavior. In an interview Monday, Puzder said he hoped that this week’s vote in the European Parliament to advance last year’s transatlantic trade deal would set the scene for talks to loosen constraints on business. “I’ve had talks with individuals within the EU about moving this discussion forward. I haven’t, as yet, experienced the concrete steps we need to make that happen,” Puzder said. He was referring to the EU’s tech rulebook — and the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act in particular — that Washington sees as barriers to trade. “Hopefully, we’ll continue to talk. Once this trade agreement is approved, in the spirit of moving forward with these non-tariff trade barriers, we’ll be able to break down some of these walls,” he added.  Discussions are still in their very early stages and “there’s nothing formal,” Puzder clarified. The next steps between Brussels and Washington should be “diplomatic engagement followed by political engagement,” he added.  RECALIBRATION NEGOTIATION The envoy’s comments follow a heated series of exchanges between senior American and European officials over whether the EU’s tech rules should even be part of the transatlantic trade discussion. In November 2025, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick tied a potential easing of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs to a “recalibration” by the EU of the bloc’s digital regulations. European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera responded that tying tariff relief to European tech rules amounted to “blackmail.” Ribera, the EU’s top competition official, told POLITICO at the time that the EU would not accept such attempts to strong-arm it on a topic that it considers to be a matter of sovereignty. She is currently visiting the U.S. and is due to meet tech industry bosses in San Francisco this week. Transatlantic ties took another turn for the worse when the Donald Trump administration in December barred former Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton from traveling to the U.S. over his role in creating and implementing the EU’s tech rules.  Puzder explained that Washington doesn’t think “that Europe shouldn’t have regulation,” but that it shouldn’t be “regulating in such an extreme manner that companies feel they can’t innovate — which is why … most of the tech startups in Europe end up moving to Silicon Valley.” European Commission Vice President Teresa Ribera attends a press conference in Brussels on Feb. 25, 2026. | Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu via Getty Images Responding, the European Commission stressed there is “continued engagement” between the EU and the U.S.  “Executive Vice President [Henna] Virkkunen has held several meetings with U.S. Representatives, both in Europe and in the U.S. At technical level, our teams also engage on a continuous basis with their American counterparts,” spokesperson Thomas Regnier said in a statement to POLITICO.  Virkunnen’s remit covers technology policy. Before Trump’s return to the White House, the two sides held held a structured dialogue under the auspices of the now-defunct EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council.  The occasional forum, launched by former U.S. President Joe Biden, sought to establish a structured dialogue around regulatory cooperation. Yet in the view of observers it under-delivered, failing for instance to resolve a long-running steel dispute. The TTC has not met since Trump returned to the White House in early 2025. 

BRUSSELS — America’s ambassador to the EU called on the European Parliament to back the trade deal struck with President Donald Trump, arguing it would unlock deeper transtlantic cooperation on energy, tech and AI. Speaking to POLITICO on Monday, Andrew Puzder cautioned that it would be a mistake to allow a further delay of the deal reached last July at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, but has still to be implemented on by the EU side. “All of the signals are good, but you never know. We’re hopeful, but we want to be careful and make sure that we don’t take anything for granted,” Puzder said in an interview at the U.S. mission in Brussels.  “It’s in the best interest of the European Union and the United States that it passes,” he added. “Some people might think that politically, it might give them an advantage to vote against. I hope that’s not the case. But economically, it’d be malpractice not to vote for this in the EU.” Puzder highlighted the importance of the EU’s commitment to spend $750 billion on U.S. energy under the Turnberry deal.  “Europe’s going to need that energy,” he said. “So we need to cut back on the regulatory restrictions to our shipping them the energy and also the regulatory restrictions that make that energy more expensive once it gets here.” IT’S BEEN LONG ENOUGH Puzder, a former fast food executive nominated by Trump, started the role last September and made an early impression in Brussels with his plain speaking. He told POLITICO in December that the EU should stop trying to be the world’s regulator and get on instead with being one of its innovators.  His latest remarks came amid mounting U.S. frustration over the EU’s slow pace in keeping its side of the bargain, under which it would scrap import duties on U.S. industrial goods. The enabling legislation is now up for a plenary vote in the European Parliament on Thursday. If it passes, talks between EU lawmakers, governments and the Commission would then begin on finally implementing the tariff changes. “We’re anxious to get this through the process. We understood they had to go through a process, but it’s been long enough. And hopefully we’ll get through it on Thursday and we can both move on to more economically beneficial endeavors,” Puzder stressed.  Trade lawmakers backed amendments at the committee stage to strengthen the EU’s protections in case Washington doesn’t respect its side of the deal.  They for instance introduced a suspension clause if Trump threatens the EU’s territorial sovereignty, as he did earlier this year when he pushed to annex Greenland. MEPs also added another provision that foresees that the deal would expire in March 2028.  Puzder declined to speculate on whether the deal could unravel altogether if the U.S. president were to launch any renewed threats.  “I hate to prejudge where this is going to go,” he said. “What everybody’s been saying on both sides is a deal is a deal. We had a deal; hopefully we still have a deal.” The ambassador stressed there had been a “very good two-way communication” between Trump’s team of Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and the European Commission, as well as with Bernd Lange, who chairs the European Parliament’s Trade Committee.   “I’ve also had a number of meetings with Bernd Lange and members of parliament on these issues. So the communication has been very good and very open throughout this process,” Puzder said.

Many describe our geopolitical moment as one of instability, but that word feels too weak for what we are living through. Some, like Mark Carney, argue that we are facing a rupture: a break with assumptions that anchored the global economic and political order for decades. Others, like Christine Lagarde, see a profound transition, a shift toward a new configuration of power, technology and societal expectations. Whichever perception we adopt, the implication is clear: leaders can no longer rely on yesterday’s mental models, institutional routines or governance templates. Johanna Mair is the Director of the Florence School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute in Florence, where she leads education, training and research on governance beyond the nation state. Security, for example, is no longer a discrete policy field. It now reaches deeply into energy systems, artificial intelligence, cyber governance, financial stability and democratic resilience, all under conditions of strategic competition and mistrust. At the same time, competitiveness cannot be reduced to productivity metrics or short-term growth rates. It is about a society’s capacity to innovate, regulate effectively and mobilize investment toward long-term objectives — from the green and digital transitions to social cohesion. This dense web of interdependence is where transnational governance is practiced every day. The European Union illustrates this reality vividly. No single member state can build the capacity to manage these transformations on its own. EU institutions and other regional bodies shape regulatory frameworks and collective responses; corporations influence infrastructure and supply chains; financial institutions direct capital flows; and civic actors respond to social fragmentation and governance gaps. Effective leadership has become a systemic endeavour: it requires coordination across these levels, while sustaining public legitimacy and defending liberal democratic principles. > Our mission is to teach and train current and future leaders, equipping them > with the knowledge, skills and networks to tackle global challenges in ways > that are both innovative and grounded in democratic values. The Florence School of Transnational Governance (STG) at the European University Institute was created precisely to respond to this need. Located in Florence and embedded in a European institution founded by EU member states, the STG is a hub where policymakers, business leaders, civil society, media and academia meet to work on governance beyond national borders. Our mission is to teach and train current and future leaders, equipping them with the knowledge, skills and networks to tackle global challenges in ways that are both innovative and grounded in democratic values. What makes this mission distinctive is not only the topics we address, but also how and with whom we address them. We see leadership development as a practice embedded in real institutions, not a purely classroom-based exercise. People do not come to Florence to observe transnational governance from a distance; they come to practice it, test hypotheses and co-create solutions with peers who work on the frontlines of policy and politics. This philosophy underpins our portfolio of programs, from degree offerings to executive education. With early career professionals, we focus on helping them understand and shape governance beyond the state, whether in international organizations, national administrations, the private sector or civil society. We encourage them to see institutions not as static structures, but as arrangements that can and must be strengthened and reformed to support a liberal, rules-based order under stress. At the same time, we devote significant attention to practitioners already in positions of responsibility. Our Global Executive Master (GEM) is designed for experienced professionals who cannot pause their careers, but recognize that the governance landscape in which they operate has changed fundamentally. Developed by the STG, the GEM convenes participants from EU institutions, national administrations, international organizations, business and civil society — professionals from a wide range of nationalities and institutional backgrounds, reflecting the coalitions required to address complex problems. The program is structured to fit the reality of leadership today. Delivered part time over two years, it combines online learning with residential periods in Florence and executive study visits in key policy centres. This blended format allows participants to remain in full-time roles while advancing their qualifications and networks, and it ensures that learning is continuously tested against institutional realities rather than remaining an abstract exercise. Participants specialize in tracks such as geopolitics and security, tech and governance, economy and finance, or energy and climate. Alongside this subject depth, they build capabilities more commonly associated with top executive programs than traditional public policy degrees: change management, negotiations, strategic communication, foresight and leadership under uncertainty. These skills are essential for bridging policy design and implementation — a gap that is increasingly visible as governments struggle to deliver on ambitious agendas. Executive study visits are a core element of this practice-oriented approach. In a recent Brussels visit, GEM participants engaged with high-level speakers from the European Commission, the European External Action Service, the Council, the European Parliament, NATO, Business Europe, Fleishman Hillard and POLITICO itself. Over several days, they discussed foreign and security policy, industrial strategy, strategic foresight and the governance of emerging technologies. These encounters do more than illustrate theory; they give participants a chance to stress-test their assumptions, understand the constraints facing decision-makers and build relationships across institutional boundaries. via EUI Throughout the program, each participant develops a capstone project that addresses a strategic challenge connected to a policy organization, often their own employer. This ensures that executive education translates into institutional impact: projects range from new regulatory approaches and partnership models to internal reforms aimed at making organizations more agile and resilient. At the same time, they help weave a durable transnational network of practitioners who can work together beyond the programme. Across our activities at the STG, a common thread runs through our work: a commitment to defending and renewing the liberal order through concrete practice. Addressing the rupture or transition we are living through requires more than technical fixes. It demands leaders who can think systemically, act across borders and design governance solutions that are both unconventional and democratically legitimate. > Across our activities at the STG, a common thread runs through our work: a > commitment to defending and renewing the liberal order through concrete > practice. In a period defined by systemic risk and strategic competition, leadership development cannot remain sectoral or reactive. It must be interdisciplinary, practice-oriented and anchored in real policy environments. At the Florence School of Transnational Governance, we aim to create precisely this kind of learning community — one where students, fellows and executives work side by side to reimagine how institutions can respond to global challenges. For policymakers and professionals who recognize themselves in this moment of rupture, our programs — including the GEM — offer a space to step back, learn with peers and return to their institutions better equipped to lead change. The task is urgent, but it is also an opportunity: by investing in transnational governance education today, we can help lay the foundations for a more resilient and inclusive order tomorrow.

STRASBOURG — European and American officials are scrambling to avoid a return to their transatlantic trade war, amid increasing frustration in Washington over the EU’s failure to implement the transatlantic trade deal they agreed last summer. A trio of senior European lawmakers will travel to Washington next week, hoping to meet U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who accuses the EU of implementing “zero percent” of the trade accord reached at President Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland last July 27. The mission to the U.S. comes amid of flurry of diplomatic contacts between EU and U.S. officials ahead of a high-stakes vote by European lawmakers expected on March 26 that will determine whether Brussels can implement last year’s accord. That vote is at risk of being delayed, yet again, after a series of previous hold ups. U.S. patience is wearing thin, raising the prospect that the tariff conflict could flare up again. “The EU has done approximately zero percent of what they were supposed to do for their trade deal with us. We quickly after the Turnberry deal came into compliance with that deal,” Greer said during a press call on Wednesday.  “The European Union has had their legislation for their tariffs pending for many, many, many, many months,” he added.  Top EU parliamentary negotiators will meet on March 17 to decide whether to push back their vote again. The Turnberry agreement is widely seen in Europe as a one-sided pact. In it, the EU accepted a 15 percent U.S. tariff on most exports, while itself pledging to scrap all tariffs on U.S. industrial goods. Many EU lawmakers fear that Trump could yet renege on the deal to make more tariff threats, as he has done over Greenland and Spain.  In the Parliament, the center-right European People’s Party — the political family of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — wants to see the deal approved to avoid retaliation by Trump and bring stability to businesses.  The Socialists & Democrats, liberals and Greens have voted against moving forward, however, after balking at the U.S. president’s latest tariff menaces against Spain, his strikes on Iran and his threats to stage a “friendly takeover” of Cuba. CRACKS IN TRUST Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has sought to reassure the Europeans that the U.S. will stick by the deal. Yet skepticism persists. “How can we get clarity with Trump [who] doesn’t respect the deals? I think that, for now, what we would need is some public statement on the willingness to respect the deal,” Brando Benifei, an Italian Socialist who is the Parliament’s point person for relations with the U.S., said on Tuesday.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has sought to reassure the Europeans that the U.S. will stick by the deal. | Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images Benifei will be one of the three MEPs traveling to meet Greer. The others are Bernd Lange, the German Social Democrat who chairs the European Parliament’s trade committee, and Polish center-right lawmaker Michał Szczerba, who sits on the foreign and security committees. They hope to meet Greer on March 20, but the EU lawmakers could already have delayed the vote by then. “I hope that we can find some common ground,” Lange said. Karin Karlsbro, a Swedish liberal who is skeptical on the trade pact, is also expected to meet with representatives of the U.S. mission to the EU, her office said. And Željana Zovko, the top negotiator on the file from the EPP, the biggest grouping in Parliament, will meet with U.S. Ambassador Andrew Puzder on Monday, she told POLITICO. Despite the worries from the U.S. side, Anna Cavazzini, the lead lawmaker on the file in the Greens group who is spearheading opposition to the deal, said she had not been contacted by the Americans. UNRELIABLE PARTNER Despite Bessent’s pledge on the Turnberry pact, the EU remains wary over what Trump will do next. The U.S. has, only this week, launched new investigations into unfair trade practices that could trigger more tariffs against the EU. That has redoubled concerns in Brussels that Trump plans to plow on with his aggressive trade agenda against Europe, undeterred by a Supreme Court ruling last month that substantially overturned his original tariff agenda. On top of the latest investigations, people close to the file say the White House will not shy away from imposing tariffs on national security grounds, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Washington’s double-sided approach is not lost on European lawmakers.  “‘We’ll stick to the deal.’ And less than 24 hours later, they are already threatening us with new tariffs. It is impossible to work with the Trump administration like this,” the Socialist group’s vice president for trade policy, Kathleen Van Brempt, said in a post on X Thursday.  The EPP’s top trade lawmaker, Jörgen Warborn, last week pitched a “sunrise clause,” meaning the deal would only finally kick in if Washington upheld its side of the bargain. “That would give clarity because what the sunrise clause is doing, it’s making sure that the deal doesn’t kick in before it is confirmed that all the elements of the deal are upheld,” Warborn told POLITICO on Tuesday. Željana Zovko, the top negotiator on the file from the EPP, the biggest grouping in Parliament, will meet with U.S. Ambassador Andrew Puzder on Monday, she told POLITICO. | Martin Bertrand/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images Benifei said the sunrise clause could enable his group to support the pact. Still, he explained, this would require provisions allowing the Commission not to implement the EU-U.S. agreement until Washington stops threatening the EU’s digital rules, and until the U.S. lowers tariffs on EU steel derivatives. “We are not there,” he said, expressing skepticism that the EPP would be willing to place such tough demands on the Commission. “They [EPP lawmakers] are a bit worried about the situation that is not moving,” he said. “I need to see what they are actually ready to do, because to be frank, my impression is that they are a bit in the mood [of saying] …‘Just let’s not make Trump angry.’” Carlo Martuscelli contributed to this report.

STRASBOURG — A top Trump administration official has reassured Brussels that Washington remains committed to its trade deal with the European Union, amid mounting fears in Europe and the U.S. that the agreement could unravel. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the EU’s trade chief Maroš Šefčovič in a call Monday evening that the United States intends to stick to the deal, three people familiar with the conversation told POLITICO. Bessent and Šefčovič “regularly discuss a range of trade-related issues. The ambition to fulfill the commitments set out in the joint statement was again reiterated on both the EU and U.S. sides,” a member of Šefčovič’s cabinet told POLITICO. The trade commissioner also spoke with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer this week, they added.  The outreach came as the European Commission scrambles to convince skeptical lawmakers in the European Parliament to back legislation implementing the EU’s side of the pact struck at the U.S. president’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland last summer. The Parliament has been slow-waking its deliberations on the agreement since the start of the year. Following a Supreme Court decision in late January that overturned much of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda, lawmakers have been pushing for guarantees from the Trump administration that European exports would not face higher tariffs than the 15 percent ceiling set out in the EU-U.S. trade deal. Center-right and right-wing lawmakers want to fast-track the deal and approve it as soon as possible — but the Social Democrats, liberals and Greens have voted against moving forward, citing the U.S. president’s latest attacks against Spain, strikes on Iran and threats to stage a “friendly takeover” of Cuba. With the Parliament expected to vote on the deal next week, Šefčovič on Tuesday launched a last-ditch attempt in Strasbourg to convince lawmakers to throw their weight behind the pact, briefing top EU lawmakers on his talks with the Trump administration. After the trade commissioner’s briefing, Bernd Lange, who hails from the S&D and helms the Parliament’s trade committee, appeared relatively reassured. Lange said that the lead lawmakers on transatlantic relations would on March 17 assess whether to move ahead to a committee vote on March 19. This would then pave the way for a plenary vote on March 26. The center-right European People’s Party also sought to convince the centrist majority in the Parliament to go ahead with the vote by proposing a “sunrise clause,” which would ensure that preconditions must be respected by the Trump administration before the trade deal can kick in.

BRUSSELS — An industry petition criticizing the European Union’s core climate policy implied its demands were supported by some 1,350 companies and associations. Now some firms deny they signed up. Last month, a number of EU leaders — including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron — joined hundreds of industry representatives for a get-together in Antwerp.  There, they were presented with a letter that demanded, among other things, lower “carbon costs” — a call widely interpreted as asking for a weaker price signal under the Emissions Trading System, the bloc’s main tool for reducing planet-warming emissions.  Merz jumped on the demands to suggest he was open to weakening the policy, comments he later rowed back on but not before they crashed the carbon price. Ever since, attacks on the ETS, which obliges factories to pay for their pollution, have escalated, with Italy recently calling for a suspension pending an upcoming reform.  The letterhead on top of the petition, which asked the EU to “bring energy and carbon costs down,” read: “Presented to EU leaders at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp on 11 February 2026 on behalf of the signatories of the Antwerp Declaration.” The 2024 Antwerp Declaration, which called for a European “Industrial Deal” and did not mention carbon costs, was backed by nearly 1,350 signatories, including more than 900 companies ranging from steel giant ArcelorMittal to fertilizer producer Yara.  An emailed press release linking to the petition similarly stated that “the Antwerp Declaration Community — representing more than 1,300 companies, associations and trade unions across Europe — called on EU Heads of State and Government to take urgent and bold action.”  But some of those companies now say they didn’t support the missive — and even the organizers admitted to POLITICO that they do not know the actual number of backers for this year’s petition, dubbed the Antwerp Call to Alden-Biesen in reference to the Belgian chateau where EU leaders met the day after the industry summit.  The findings throw a spotlight on a lobbying practice starting to spread through Europe: Letters demanding controversial policy changes in the name of companies loosely associated with the organizers to boost their influence.  Last October, two CEOs demanded the EU scrap or weaken key environmental laws while claiming to speak on behalf of 46 companies, some of which later distanced themselves.  The European chemicals lobby association Cefic, which organizes the annual Antwerp summits, did not directly respond to a question asking whether describing the letter as sent “on behalf of” the original signatories was misleading.  A spokesperson insisted all signatories of the 2024 declaration were invited to give input into this year’s petition and that the text was shown to companies that joined consultation calls ahead of the summit.  But Cefic acknowledged that there was no specific number of backers. “As the text builds on the existing Antwerp Declaration, signatories were not asked [to] sign, and no additional signatory list was created,” the spokesperson said, adding: “The Call was a political reminder, not a new Antwerp Declaration, as the text itself specifically states.”  DEFENDING THE ETS The discrepancies in support for the Antwerp Call were first noticed by NGO Finnwatch, which checked with Finnish companies that signed the 2024 declaration. Of the seven that responded, three distanced themselves from the call for slashing the carbon price. Finnwatch also writes that after it published a blogpost with the companies’ responses, the summit website’s Antwerp Call page started returning an error, and a different PDF deleting the “on behalf of” language was uploaded.  The new document only lists 16 industry lobby groups as backers for this year’s call. Cefic acknowledged that the website had been “updated.” POLITICO this week contacted 20 companies listed as signatories of the 2024 declaration. Of the 12 that responded, seven said they did not support this year’s petition.  Among the companies that distanced themselves were French energy major EDF, Norwegian aluminum and energy company Norsk Hydro, fertilizer giant Yara, and Holcim, one of the world’s largest cement producers.  Holcim supported the original declaration but said that it was “not involved in the Alden-Biesen call for action.” A spokesperson said that “Holcim remains steadfast in its commitment to decarbonization” and that it welcomed “long-term predictability” in EU policy, including a “stable” carbon price. Norsk Hydro said it did not even participate in this year’s Antwerp summit, adding: “Hydro supports the EU ETS, but the system needs reform.”  EDF said it supported “the continuity” of the ETS. A spokesperson wrote: “To our knowledge the final Antwerp statement was not shared with past signatories before the day of the event, so it was not possible to assess its content beforehand.”  Swedish mining company LKAB also said that “there was no signing process” for the petition, adding that the company does “not support an ask [to] ‘bring carbon cost down’ — energy prices yes, but carbon costs no.”  DEFENDING THE PETITION Similarly, Yara “does not call for lower carbon prices,” the company’s vice president for European government relations, Tiffanie Stephani, said in an email. “Carbon prices provide the most suitable market signal to drive decarbonization of production and products.”  But, she added, “carbon prices and carbon costs are not one and the same… A high carbon cost without enabling conditions to decarbonize, and without demand for the more sustainable products, is destructive to industrial competitiveness.”  Cefic made a similar argument. “Please note that the text on purpose references the impact of carbon costs, not on the ETS as a tool, nor on the carbon price itself,” the association’s spokesperson said.  The companies that told POLITICO they supported this year’s call were paper manufacturer Sappi and Belgian oil and gas infrastructure provider Fluxys, as well as two Cefic members: chemicals giants Bayer and Solvay.  Steel giant ArcelorMittal also said they did support this year’s call as a whole, but that they weren’t asking for a lower carbon price.  Solvay insisted it was in favor of “long‑term clarity and predictability” of the ETS, adding: “European industry currently faces significantly higher energy and carbon‑related costs than global competitors operating under less stringent frameworks. Our support for the call should be read in that context: It is not about reducing ambition, but about ensuring Europe can deliver both decarbonization and industrial resilience.”  Cefic said that the petition presented to EU leaders last month “reflects the many opinions” heard in consultation calls.  At an EU leaders’ meeting on March 19-20, energy costs and carbon pricing are once again on the agenda, draft conclusions show.

BRUSSELS — President Donald Trump’s threat to impose a trade embargo on Spain has delivered yet another jolt to the European Union, forcing European leaders to rally around Madrid. Trump launched his broadside on Tuesday after Madrid declined to allow U.S. warplanes to use its air bases to attack Iran. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stood firm on Wednesday, describing the five-day-old war launched by the U.S. and Israel on Iran as illegal. French President Emmanuel Macron rushed to Sánchez’s side, expressing solidarity against “recent threats of economic coercion” made against Spain. European Council President António Costa doubled down and stressed that “the EU will always ensure that the interests of its Member States are fully protected.” Trump’s latest showdown with an EU country comes weeks after he vowed to annex Greenland — a self-governing Danish territory. That bust-up tested the transatlantic relationship to the limit, and led European lawmakers to hit the brakes on implementing the bilateral trade deal struck last summer at Trump’s golf resort in Scotland. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — who was present in the Oval Office as Trump launched his tirade — said: “There is no way that Spain will be treated particularly badly” on trade as a member of the EU, and insisted that he wanted to avoid correcting Trump in public.  He was more forthright in comments later to the German press. “Here in Washington, they know that we on the European side have reached a limit in terms of what we are willing to accept,” Merz said. “I have gained the impression that the president and his staff see it that way too.” STEADY HAND During the Greenland standoff, the EU avoided rushing into a forceful response, patting itself on the back for remaining united as it succeeded in defusing the crisis.  Now, the bloc is dealing with a Trump riled up by a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month that overturned his core tariff agenda. Importantly, even though the court struck down his broad “reciprocal” tariffs, his aides argue that it reaffirmed his right to impose an economic embargo against another country. Instead of threatening an Arctic island with a population of less than 60,000, Trump is this time venting his ire at a nation of 50 million with a $1.7 trillion economy.  The EU’s fourth-largest economy is a big buyer of U.S. liquefied natural gas, which covered an estimated 30 percent of its gas needs last year. On the export ledger, Spain sells olives, wines and cosmetics to the U.S. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said: “There is no way that Spain will be treated particularly badly” on trade as a member of the EU, and insisted that he wanted to avoid correcting Trump in public. | Kay Nietfeld/picture alliance via Getty Images Yet the U.S. accounts for only 4 percent of Spain’s total global exports, according to the Ministry of Economy. It also ran a bilateral trade deficit of €16 billion in 2025, meaning that, in principle, that the U.S. would stand to lose more if commercial relations were completely blocked. FIRST CRACKS  Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares said he had conveyed his “surprise” to his German counterpart Johann Wadephul that Merz didn’t show solidarity in the face of Trump’s attacks. “A few weeks ago Trump aimed his threats against Denmark and Germany and others over Greenland. Today, it is against Spain. Tomorrow it could be Germany again or any other EU member. It’s more important now than ever to remain united,” said a national official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.  The European Commission also took the threat seriously, vowing on Wednesday to “ensure that the interests of the European Union are fully protected.”  “We stand in full solidarity with all Member States and all its citizens and, through our common trade policy, stand ready to act if necessary to safeguard EU interests,” said Olof Gill, deputy chief spokesperson of the European Commission.  ALL FOR ONE It’s not immediately clear how Trump could, even if he wanted to, impose a watertight embargo on Spain — since the EU functions as a barrier-free common market of 27 nations it would in practice be quite easy to circumvent it. But, even after his sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs were struck down, he would have the legal means at his disposal to inflict serious measures on Spain — as he did when he jacked up tariffs against Brazil over its jailing of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares said he had conveyed his “surprise” to his German counterpart Johann Wadephul that Merz didn’t show solidarity in the face of Trump’s attacks. | Eduardo Parra/Europa Press via Getty Images Trump could order an investigation under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, which covers trade trade discrimination. An alternative would be a probe under Section 232 under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, into imports that threaten national security. “From a legal perspective, yes, it is possible,” said Charles Julien, a partner at White & Case’s international trade practice group. “There are of course limitations.”  “Under Section 301, there’s a possibility for the U.S. Trade Representative to impose a number of measures. These include duties and restrictions. These are the most commonly used. Then there’s the possible withdrawal or suspension of trade agreement concessions,” Julien told POLITICO.  The lawyer stressed that the situation was still “very unclear. There may be other provisions in other U.S. statutes that may be used for that purpose.”  The drawback for Trump is that any measures would have to be preceded by an investigation that could last up to a year. In the meantime, confidence in the U.S. among European lawmakers who are still deliberating over whether to approve the Turnberry accord has hit new lows. Top trade lawmakers in the European Parliament decided on Wednesday, again, to defer a vote to advance enabling legislation under which the EU would fulfill its side of the bargain — chiefly to eliminate tariffs on U.S. industrial goods. “A trade threat against an EU country is worsening the mood in the Parliament,” said Anna Cavazzini, a German Green lawmaker who sits on the trade committee. Milena Wälde, Nette Nöstlinger and Max Griera contributed reporting.

The European Union should not be pressured into admitting new members based on pressure from Russia, the United States or any foreign power, France’s Europe minister told POLITICO. “No power outside the EU should decide on enlargement in place of the Member States,” said Benjamin Haddad, who represents France at meetings on enlargement with other EU countries. Haddad’s comments coincide with a push by the European Commission and some EU states to bring Ukraine into the bloc on a much shorter timeline than has been normal for countries seeking membership in the bloc.  The push from Brussels is partly motivated by the fact that EU membership is a bargaining chip in ongoing U.S.-led peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seeking EU membership by 2027. Accession is a carrot for Ukrainians who may be called upon to accept difficult compromises in any peace deal. But Haddad’s comments suggest that France does not want the EU’s enlargement schedule to be dictated by foreign powers or geopolitical circumstances. “Neither the United States nor Russia” should have any influence over EU enlargement policy, he added. Paris is in favor of Ukraine joining the bloc. Ukraine, Moldova and Western Balkan countries — widely seen as part of a future enlargement wave — should not be left “in a gray zone, vulnerable to foreign influence and aggression,” added the centrist minister, whose office sits in the foreign ministry. However, France is less favorable to proposals to change the way Europe admits new members, for example by granting them fewer privileges upon entry and then building them up in a phased accession process. “This enlargement must remain demanding and merit-based to ensure its success and credibility,” said Haddad. BUY EUROPEAN The 40-year-old minister also weighed into a debate about how the EU should allocate resources as part of a push to bolster competitiveness, endorsing the idea of a “European preference” for future investments in the EU’s long-term budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework. “Why should we be more naive than the Americans, who have long implemented Buy American policies?” he asked. “European preference should be a cross-cutting rule of the MFF.” He also threw his weight behind the idea of EU countries borrowing money jointly to support innovation and back industrial champions — a subject of disagreement with so-called “frugal” countries, including Germany, which argue that investment needs can be met via the MFF. “We must … consider a new targeted common borrowing capacity focused on investment in disruptive innovation, in particular in defense or AI/quantum capabilities,” Haddad said, adding that joint borrowing would be an ideal way to get around fiscal constraints facing many EU states. “In a constrained budgetary context, this is a way to invest without immediately increasing national contributions,” he added, recalling that a landmark report by former European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi called for €800 billion per year in public and private investment to help Europe catch up with technologically-advanced rivals. Haddad also criticized European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for moving ahead with the Mercosur trade deal, which is opposed by France. “This move disregards the members of the European Parliament and the interinstitutional agreement,” he said. “This is a bad signal from the Commission for both our farmers and European citizens at large.” 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will adopt the Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA) on Wednesday, finally backing the landmark measure that would define a European preference in green public procurement after several delays. Haggling over the planned regulation went right down to the wire, with a meeting of cabinet chiefs that began on Monday spilling into Tuesday, the day before Ursula von der Leyen’s College of Commissioners will now sign off on an agreed text. According to one Commission official, another 44 changes were made to the draft at the meeting that ran into overtime. Paula Pinho, the Commission’s chief spokesperson, confirmed at Tuesday’s regular midday briefing that “commissioners are expected to adopt a proposal for an Industrial Accelerator Act.” The landmark measure would define a “Made in EU” preference in green public procurement — while pushing back a decision for six months on whether friendly third countries can be included in its scope. This means that, even after Wednesday’s announcement, countries like the U.K. or Switzerland will still need to lobby to get inside the tent. The IAA would also set restrictions on inward investment for dominant players in strategic green industries. These would mainly have China in mind, and cover batteries and energy storage, electric vehicles and components, solar photovoltaic, and the extraction, processing and recycling of critical raw materials, according to a draft obtained by POLITICO last week. An earlier version of the proposal, which is being overseen by Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné, was panned last month by as many as nine departments of the EU executive. By the end of last week that was down to three, including the Commission’s powerful trade department, according to one person familiar with the discussion. They were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door talks. Germany also led a rearguard action by 10 EU countries — which styled themselves as the Friends of Industry — who support less industry regulation and more open trade, with Economy Minister Katherina Reiche saying it would create “a regulatory wasteland that nobody can understand anymore.” With so many changes being made at the last minute, including dropping entire industries like tech from the purview of the legislation, critics say the bill is nowhere near ready for prime time and is at risk of being heavily revised when it goes for review by the Council of the EU, which represents the bloc’s 27 member countries, and European lawmakers. Additional reporting by Gerardo Fortuna.