BRUSSELS — In the 10 years since the Brussels terror attacks, the EU has tightened its security strategy but the internet is opening up new threats, according to the bloc’s counterterrorism coordinator.  Daesh is “mutating jihadism,” Bartjan Wegter told POLITICO in an interview on the eve of the anniversary of the terrorist attacks in Brussels, which pushed the bloc to bolster border protection and step up collaboration and information-sharing. The group has “calculated that it’s much more effective to radicalize people who are already inside the EU through online environments rather than to organize orchestrated attacks from outside our borders,” he said.  “And they’re very good at it.” Ten years ago, two terrorists from Daesh (also known as the so-called Islamic State) blew themselves up at Brussels Airport. Another explosion tore through a metro car at Maelbeek station, in the heart of Brussels’ EU district. Thirty-two people were killed, and hundreds more injured.  The attacks came just months after terrorists killed 130 people in attacks on a concert hall, a stadium, restaurants and bars in Paris, exposing gaps in information-sharing in the bloc’s free-travel area. The terrorists had moved between countries, planning the attacks in one and carrying them out in another, said Wegter, who is Dutch. “That’s where our vulnerabilities were.” Today, violent jihadism remains a threat and new large-scale attacks can’t be excluded. But the probability is “much, much lower today than it was 10 years ago,” said Wegter. In the aftermath of the attacks, the bloc changed its security strategy with a focus on prevention and a “security reflex” across every policy field, according to Wegter. It’s also stepping up police and judicial collaboration through Europol and Eurojust, and it’s putting in place databases — including the Schengen Information System — so countries could alert each other about high-risk individuals, as well as an entry/exit system to monitor who enters and leaves the free-travel area. But the bloc is facing a new type of threat, as security officials see a gradual increase in attempted terrorist attacks by lone actors. A lot of that is being cultivated online and increasingly, younger people are involved. “We’ve seen cases of children 12 years old. And, the radicalization process [is] also happening faster,” Wegter said. “Sometimes we’re talking about weeks or months.” In 2024, a third of all arrests connected to potential terror threats were of people aged between 12 and 20 years old, and France recorded a tripling of the number of minors radicalized between 2023 and 2024, said Wegter.  “Just put yourself in the shoes of law enforcement … You’re dealing with young people who spend most of their time online … Who may not have a criminal record. Who, if they are plotting attacks, may not be using registered weapons. It’s very hard to prevent.” Violent jihadism is just one of the threats EU security officials worry are being cultivated online. Wegter said there is also an emerging trend of a violent right-wing extremist narrative online — and to a lesser extent, violent left-wing extremism. There’s also what he called “nihilistic extremist violence,” a new phenomenon that can feature elements of different ideologies or a drive to overthrow the system, but which is fundamentally minors seeking an identity through violence. “What we see online, some of these images are so horrible that even law enforcement needs psychological support to see this kind of stuff,” said Wegter. Law enforcement’s ability to get access to encrypted data and information on people under investigation is crucial, he stressed, and he drew parallels with the steps the EU took to secure the Schengen free movement 10 years ago. “If you want to preserve the good things of the internet, we also need to make sure that we have … some key mechanisms to safeguard the internet also.”

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.

The Trump administration is telling foreign officials and others that it will not reschedule a summit between the U.S. president and Chinese leader Xi Jinping until the Iran war ends. A Washington-based diplomat privy to U.S.-China summit planning confirmed that the administration has made clear “the next dates for the Trump-Xi summit will only be proposed after the active part of the Iran conflict is over.” A Washington-based individual close to the administration also briefed on White House summit planning confirmed the administration shared that timeline. POLITICO granted both the people anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about sensitive diplomatic discussions. The U.S. State Department directed queries to the White House. The White House denied the summit timeline was tied to the Iran war. “This is fake news. The United States and China are having productive discussions about rescheduling President Trump’s visit — announcements are forthcoming,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said. The Chinese embassy said it had “no information to provide” about the possible delay in summit scheduling. The long-anticipated meeting between Trump and Xi had originally been planned for the end of March, but Trump said Monday the meeting would be pushed back “a month or so” because “we’ve got a war going on.” On Thursday, he said it would happen in “about a month and a half.” Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt suggested the meeting might not take place until after May. “The president has some things here at home in May that he has to attend to, and I’m sure President Xi is a very busy man, as well, so we’ll get the dates on the books as soon as we can,” Leavitt said. Tying the summit preparations to the end of the Iran conflict could mean additional delays to a meeting intended to maintain stability in a fragile U.S.-China trade truce. As the war on Iran enters its fourth week, the Trump administration appears to be preparing for a longer conflict. The U.S. has made detailed plans for the deployment of ground troops onto Iranian soil, CBS News reported Friday. The administration is also moving to dispatch thousands of troops to the region. Trump told reporters Thursday he’s “not putting troops anywhere” but then added: “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.” “There are operational constraints to managing a war from a foreign country — particularly a hostile one like China,” said the person close to the administration. “It would be terribly awkward for Trump and Xi to transact in this climate.” On Friday, Trump signaled a potential wind-down in the Iran conflict in a Truth Social post, suggesting the U.S. could scale back its role while pushing allies to take on more responsibility in securing the Strait of Hormuz, the major commercial waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. “We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great military efforts in the Middle East,” Trump wrote. Trump and Xi made progress toward heading off an intensified trade war in an October meeting in South Korea. During that meeting, Xi committed to Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products like soybeans and the elimination of many of Beijing’s restrictions on critical minerals exports. In return, Trump agreed to extend a pause on triple-digit tariffs on Chinese goods. Wendy Cutler, a former negotiator in the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, argued this work can continue even if Trump and Xi don’t meet again in person. “The stabilization part of this won’t necessarily be jeopardized without a meeting,” she said. “Now, if something happens in the war, either foreseen or unforeseen, there’s just lots of flash points that can threaten this truce, which are unforeseeable at this period.” Rush Doshi, former senior director for China and Taiwan in the Biden administration, said a meeting between the two leaders is important to strengthening and maintaining the bilateral relationship. “Without leader-to-leader communication to manage a relationship of this complexity until the war is over — and there’s no sense of when the war is going to be over — there’s a real risk the relationship is going to be less stable than people might have expected,” said Doshi, now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

LONDON — Britain’s Labour Party is paying a communications agency to find influencers who can promote struggling Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s cost-of-living message. The governing party has tapped up digital communications agency 411 to reach out to influencers, with the comms shop asking them to be part of a campaign “sharing the steps that this Labour Government is taking to ease the cost of living,” according to a message to influencers seen by POLITICO. The creators are hand-picked “micro-influencers” with less than 20,000 followers, which 411 believes have a more engaged and targeted audience, according to a person working on the strategy but not authorized to speak publicly about it. The influencers do not get paid by Labour or 411, with the same person describing the outreach as akin to a targeted press release. The quest for new messengers comes as Starmer’s government tries to convince Brits it can reduce costs and fights to turn around dire poll ratings. At the beginning of the year, Starmer announced that cutting the cost of living was his “number one priority.”  His government has, however, repeatedly struggled with its communications, with tanking poll ratings partially blamed by his own MPs on a failure to tell the story of his administration. Starmer’s Downing Street has cycled through multiple communications chiefs since taking office in July 2024. Mark McVitie, who works on social media strategy as director of the Labour Growth Group — though is not involved with the influencer outreach — described the latest move as “tactically fine and what a government should be doing in 2026.” But he warned it is “insufficient to the level of the challenge facing this particular government.” The Labour Party did not respond to a request for comment. The move is the latest by the British government to tap into the world of influencers as it tries to push its message. At the end of February, Starmer hosted a press conference solely for content creators, while Chancellor Rachel Reeves booked out seats at a pre-budget press conference for hand-picked online finance influencers. Starmer has started posting podcast-style videos in recent weeks in a bid to more directly connect with voters. A Labour MP, discussing the bid to reach influencers and granted anonymity to speak freely, said they were “delighted to discover we have a comms strategy of any kind.”

LONDON — A vast cache of messages between ministers and Britain’s sacked U.S. Ambassador Peter Mandelson is unlikely to be published until at least mid-April — creating a new moment of peril for Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his top team. Government officials had hoped to publish a new batch of disclosures relating to Mandelson before the House of Commons’ Easter recess begins March 26, said two people with knowledge of the discussions who were granted anonymity to speak frankly.  However, this is no longer likely to happen. One key reason, said three people with knowledge of the discussions (including one of those noted above), is that Downing Street wants to publish the vast majority of outstanding messages that MPs ordered for disclosure on Feb. 4 in one single batch, rather than in dribs and drabs. Retrieval has also been ongoing, with some of the raw messages with Mandelson — specifically from WhatsApp groups — only extracted from people’s phones in recent days, a fifth person with knowledge of the process said. The wait could add to the political difficulties facing Starmer, with headlines about Mandelson dragging out even longer. The post-Easter timing raises the prospect that private remarks by Starmer’s own ministers will become public shortly before elections on May 7, which some MPs believe could determine his future as PM. ‘REPUTATIONAL RISK’ The release of U.K. government communications, which follows the disclosure of millions of documents related to the U.S. investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was set in motion after Labour MPs backed a call by the opposition Conservative Party to release several thousand pages of documents related to Mandelson and his appointment. Mandelson was sacked as Britain’s ambassador to Washington last September over his past friendship with Epstein, but further revelations from the U.S. prompted a police investigation into his conduct, leading to his arrest in February. He has not been charged, and his lawyers have said he is cooperating with the investigation. Mandelson’s overriding priority is to clear his name, they added, having previously apologized “unequivocally” for his association with Epstein and “to the women and girls that suffered.” Ministers published an initial tranche of documents on March 11 relating directly to Mandelson’s appointment as U.S. ambassador. The files showed that Starmer had been warned that Mandelson’s Epstein links represented a “reputational risk,” and that the PM’s National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell had considered the appointment “weirdly rushed.” Still awaiting publication are “electronic communications” — including WhatsApp messages and emails — between Mandelson and ministers, officials and special advisers during his time as ambassador. Files are being shared with parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which is agreeing redactions of any elements that would compromise national security. Any publication is expected to happen while parliament is sitting. The Commons will be in recess between March 26 and April 13. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM, said on March 11 that he hoped the second tranche would be released “in the coming weeks.” However, the three people referenced above said No. 10 also wants to release as many of the remaining files as possible in one go. That would mean releasing the vast majority of the remaining files, save for a small number that the Metropolitan Police has asked the government to hold back. The force is investigating whether Mandelson committed misconduct in public office after a 2009 email exchange, released in the Epstein files, appeared to show him forwarding the details of government financial discussions to Epstein. He has denied wrongdoing. The emails and WhatsApp messages to be released could include the private opinions of Mandelson or his confidants on the political situation in Britain or on U.S. President Donald Trump. Previous messages between Mandelson and Wes Streeting, released proactively by the health secretary, showed Streeting complaining that the U.K. government had “no growth strategy at all.”

EU efforts to ban Huawei from 5G networks won the backing of a top court advisor Thursday, in a legal opinion that is likely to galvanize security hawks seeking to restrict Chinese tech in Europe. A lawyer for the EU’s top court in Luxembourg said rules blocking telecom operators from using risky suppliers can be set by the EU, not just national governments. They also said telecom operators don’t need to be compensated for the cost of replacing Huawei equipment. It’s a blow for Europe’s telecom giants, which have pushed back against banning China’s Huawei from 5G procurement and have told EU officials that large-scale bans are an “act of self-harm” that could even bring down networks. It is a win for China hawks, who have fought to impose tougher measures against Huawei — with strong backing from Washington. The EU has spent years trying to persuade national governments to voluntarily kick out Huawei and ZTE over concerns that their presence in European telecom networks could enable large-scale spying and surveillance by the Chinese government. It is now working on broader rules that seek to reduce the bloc’s reliance on foreign “high-risk” suppliers and limit foreign government control over its digital networks. The case was brought by Estonian telecom operator Elisa, which is seeking compensation for the costs of removing Huawei and is challenging whether the EU has the competence to ask for restrictions on Chinese vendors. Thursday’s opinion said national security authorities can follow EU guidance when imposing bans on Huawei. The Court of Justice is expected to issue its final ruling on the case later this year, and may take the opinion from Advocate General Tamara Ćapet into account. Laszlo Toth, head of Europe at global telecom lobby association GSMA, said in reaction that “blanket rip-and-replace mandates are an unreasonable approach to what is a highly nuanced situation.” The industry considers national security measures should remain the responsibility of national governments, he said. Huawei said the opinion “recognizes that all restrictive measures with regards to telecom equipment must be subject to judicial review, under a strict standard of proportionality” and that “decisions cannot rest on general suspicion … but must be based on a specific assessment.” “We expect EU or national restrictions to be scrutinized under this principle,” Huawei said. BOON FOR BRUSSELS Progress towards an EU-wide ban has been sluggish, with many national governments dragging their feet, in part due to fears of Chinese trade retaliation. European Commission Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen told POLITICO in January that she is “not satisfied” with voluntary efforts by EU capitals to kick out Huawei. The EU executive now wants binding rules, laid out in a proposal in January. Large telecom players in Europe have pushed back hard against restrictions on Huawei, arguing that blocking risky vendors is a national security measure — an area handled exclusively by national governments. Efforts to clamp down on risky vendors should respect “the competence of member states for national security matters,” industry group Connect Europe said in January. Thursday’s opinion suggests operators will have a harder time fighting the bans.  It also bodes badly for operators hoping to get compensated for ripping out Huawei equipment. Many have sought financial support and compensation for the measures, which they say add massive unexpected costs to network rollouts. The EU executive previously estimated that phasing out “specific high-risk equipment” would cost between €3.4 billion and €4.3 billion per year for three years. Only if the burden for replacing Huawei is “disproportionately heavy,” could telcos seek compensation, according to the opinion. Elisa said it welcomed the legal recommendation that all decisions made on the grounds of national security should still be subject to judicial review. It said the restrictions in Estonia “amounted to a deprivation of its ownership rights … as the impacted equipment has become unusable” and that Elisa “already swapped the majority of its network equipment to Nokia.” Chinese vendor ZTE, the smaller rival of Huawei, did not respond to a request for comment. Mathieu Pollet contributed reporting.

British authorities are seeking the cooperation of the Justice Department as they pursue investigations arising from the Epstein files, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said in an interview Wednesday. Commissioner Mark Rowley declined to opine on why the files have resulted in the arrests of two high-profile figures in the U.K. — Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, and former ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson — while U.S. authorities have made no arrests or charges in the wake of the files’ release. But Rowley touted British authorities’ willingness to pursue “eminent” figures. “I can’t speak about American policing strategies on this, because I haven’t plowed through their files,” he said. “But in the U.K., we’re proud of operating without fear or favor, and we’ll go where the evidence takes us. And we’ve investigated, and sometimes prosecuted, eminent people in the past, and I’m sure we’ll do it again in the future.” Rowley said “conversations” between investigators in the Met Police and the Justice Department and FBI have been happening for some time — though he declined to provide a timeline. He said communication between British and American law enforcement is a precursor to more formal requests British authorities intend to file, including mutual legal assistance treaty — or MLAT — requests. “You need the original documentation that the American teams have got, and a full, evidenced understanding of where that documentation came from, to be able to stand up a case if it’s ever going to result in a prosecution — which, of course, it may or may not do, depending where the investigation goes,” Rowley said. The arrests of Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson have fueled criticism in Congress and elsewhere about the lack of consequences in the U.S. for the many prominent figures exposed in the Epstein files as having close ties to the late convicted sex offender. Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested last month on suspicion of misconduct in public office. In 2019, Mountbatten-Windsor was accused in a civil lawsuit of sexually assaulting Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers, but he denied all allegations. Days after Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, British police also arrested Mandelson on suspicion of misconduct in public office amid allegations he passed confidential information to Epstein. Mandelson’s lawyers have said he is cooperating with the investigation. Neither has been charged. A spokesperson for the Justice Department said “each country has its own laws and rules of evidence.” “Prince Andrew was arrested for ‘misconduct in public office’ under U.K. law. No such federal crime exists here. As we have said repeatedly, if new evidence of a crime presents itself, we will investigate,” the spokesperson added. Rowley said the conversations with the Justice Department are a preliminary move before a “formal process” can commence. “The norm is, if you’re working with a country, you think they’ve got some material relevant for your investigation, you tend to start with conversations, because otherwise you’re sending an MLAT into — you’re sending it blind, really. So it tends to start with a conversation about what’s possible, what exists, what questions make sense to the recipient country, and then, and then it goes into the formal process. So we’re just working our way through that process.” He declined to identify which Justice Department officials he has contacted, but indicated he has been satisfied by their willingness to cooperate thus far.

The FBI is buying up information that can be used to track people’s movement and location history, Director Kash Patel said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. It is the first confirmation that the agency is actively buying people’s data since former Director Christopher Wray said in 2023 that the FBI had purchased location data in the past but was not doing so at that time. “We do purchase commercially available information that’s consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us,” Patel told senators at the Intelligence Committee’s annual Worldwide Threats hearing. The U.S. Supreme Court has required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant for getting people’s location data from cell phone providers since 2018, but data brokers offer an alternative avenue by purchasing the information directly. Many lawmakers want to end the practice. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Government Surveillance Reform Act on March 13, which would require federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant to buy Americans’ personal information. “Doing that without a warrant is an outrageous end run around the Fourth Amendment, it’s particularly dangerous given the use of artificial intelligence to comb through massive amounts of private information,” Wyden said at Wednesday’s hearing. The bill has a House counterpart introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio). Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) defended the practice at the hearing. “The key words are commercially available. If any other person can buy it, and the FBI can buy it, and it helps them locate a depraved child molester or savage cartel leader, I would certainly hope the FBI is doing anything it can to keep Americans safe,” he said. Defense Intelligence Agency Director James Adams told senators at the hearing that his agency also purchases commercially available information.

The EU is exploring options to protect the Strait of Hormuz including by changing the mandate of its naval missions in the region, top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas said Monday after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened NATO allies if they don’t help. But some EU states are already pushing back, with Luxembourg’s Deputy Prime Minister Xavier Bettel saying that his country would not give in to “blackmail” from the United States to participate in the Iran war. “With satellites, with communications, we are very happy to be useful. But don’t ask us with troops and with machines,” Bettel, who is also foreign minister, said on his way into a gathering of foreign envoys in Brussels on Monday. “Blackmail is also not what I wish for,” Bettel added. The EU is under growing pressure from Washington to help secure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, with Trump telling the Financial Times over the weekend that it would “very bad for the future of NATO” if European allies fail to respond to his appeals or refuse to participate. “It is in our interest to keep the Strait of Hormuz open,” Kallas told journalists. “That’s why we are also discussing what we can do from the EU side. We have been in touch with the U.S. on many levels, but of course the situation is very volatile.” Among the options, Kallas said she was discussing with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres whether the U.N. and the EU could work together on a plan to secure navigation through the strait, a vital artery for trade through which 20 percent of the world’s oil transits. The mission could echo the Black Sea Grain Initiative between Turkey, Russia, Ukraine and the U.N. to allow Ukrainian crops to be safely exported despite an ongoing war, she added. ASPIDES AND ATALANTA Kallas also said that EU foreign ministers would look into changing the mandate of two ongoing EU-backed naval protection missions — Operations Aspides and Atalanta — so that they could help to open the Strait of Hormuz. Currently those missions — originally conceived to protect EU commercial vessels from attacks by Houthi rebels in Yemen — are not operating in the strait and are bound by rules of engagement that would limit their effectiveness, a senior EU diplomat said. “We will discuss with the member states whether it’s possible to really change the mandate of this mission,” said Kallas. “We have proposals on the table … The point is whether the member states are willing to use this mission.” “If the member states are not doing anything with this then of course it’s their decision, but we have to discuss to show we help to keep the Strait of Hormuz open,” Kallas said. In her remarks, Kallas blasted Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Russian oil exports as a “dangerous precedent,” saying it was important that the ongoing war in the Middle East did not overshadow Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Washington lifted the sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil exports for one month to alleviate pressure on global oil markets amid a surge in the price of oil to more than $100 per barrel following the attacks on Iran. Even so, the top EU diplomat underscored European efforts to help clear the Strait of Hormuz. Another possibility, she said, was to use a so-called coalition of the willing to secure the strait. This refers to a group of countries rather than the entire 27-member bloc. “But of course you can see it’s difficult,” she said.  Indeed, no sooner had Kallas spoken than EU foreign ministers started pouring cold water on the idea of joining any mission to clear the strait, with Romania’s foreign minister arguing that NATO was a defensive alliance that had no immediate duty to act in the Middle Eastern war. Milena Wälde contributed to this report.