LONDON — The U.K.’s leading energy retail companies will meet with Energy Secretary Ed Miliband Thursday to discuss the risk of higher bills for consumers amid the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has invited the country’s biggest retailers to a roundtable Thursday afternoon with Miliband and Martin McCluskey, the minister responsible for energy consumers, four industry figures said. “This roundtable will discuss the ongoing situation in the Middle East and its implications for energy markets and consumers,” the government’s invite says, seen by POLITICO. “We are keen to hear directly from suppliers about the real-world impact of global energy developments, and to ensure that the voices of those most affected by price and supply volatility are central to our policy thinking,” according to the email. DESNZ is hoping companies will “share reflections on impacts on consumers” including consumer debt. “This is an opportunity for open and candid dialogue, and your organisation’s perspective would be of considerable value,” the email said. The meeting will last an hour. One of the industry figures referenced above confirmed this would be a discussion involving the most senior company executives. Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed to parliament Wednesday morning that the government was “looking at a whole range of different scenarios” to help consumers hit by higher bills, including planning for “any future [energy support] package, if it were necessary.”  The government has been approached for comment.

President Donald Trump once won the loyalty of his base by promising no new wars. That promise now rings hollow for many, especially after his decision to strike Iran last week. Since the attacks began Saturday, six U.S. service members have been killed. Oil prices are rising. Gulf states are fielding Iranian counterattacks. It is a striking escalation by a president who seems increasingly emboldened by a series of successful military attacks since his return to the Oval Office. As the Middle East tumbles into uncertainty, it’s unclear what the administration’s endgame is, who Iran’s next successor could be or even when the war might end. To get a better understanding of how things might unfold, we convened a roundtable of top POLITICO reporters who cover the White House and Trump’s foreign policy — and have been closely following the administration’s moves. The discussion featured defense reporter Paul McLeary, White House reporter Diana Nerozzi, diplomatic correspondent Felicia Schwartz and energy reporter James Bikales. The group discussed the United States’ diminishing weapons stockpile, responses from ally countries and the political implications of starting yet another war in the Middle East eight months before the midterm elections. Here’s what they shared. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Eight months ago, the U.S. struck Iran, and here we are again. What’s different about the administration in 2026 and the recent attacks it is carrying out now? Paul McLeary: Unlike the first Trump administration, which was filled with people he didn’t know or trust, this time around it is stacked with Trump loyalists who have a good understanding of how he operates. They’re moving fast on international issues because they know his time is limited by the midterms and are embracing the fact that presidents may be constrained by courts and Congress at home, but can act as they see fit overseas. Felicia Schwartz: I think they are also very inspired by past successes. At the end of Trump’s first term, he killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leader Qassem Soleimani — something the so-called foreign policy blob and regional allies warned would inflame the Middle East. He got the same feedback about his plans to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the embassy, which he did in 2018 without major blowback. Add to that what he and his team see as the success of the Venezuela operation, and you have a very emboldened president who likes to wield power militarily. Diana Nerozzi: I agree. Trump is facing his last term as president and is feeling inspired by his successful capture of Maduro. The administration sees Iran as the number one sponsor of global terror, and taking out the Iranian government cripples their connections with foreign adversaries like Russia and China. Trump has spoken about his desire to leave a global mark and foreign policy legacy, and regime change in Iran would contribute to that greatly. James Bikales: On the energy side of things, the administration feels it has a little more leeway to act in ways that could disrupt the global oil market because the U.S. has cemented its place as a net crude exporter in the last few years. That’s helped keep oil prices lower and more stable since Trump took office, even with the conflicts in the Middle East and Venezuela. On the other hand, Trump has been laser-focused on keeping gas prices low — and the attack on Iran certainly won’t help with that. On that note, James, how soon are gas prices going to be affected by the conflict? What’s the worst-case scenario, and how would that occur? Bikales: It really depends on how long this conflict lasts. The main issue driving up oil prices has been the disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, where 20 percent of global crude flows pass through every day. We’ve already seen oil prices jump significantly over the past few days as a result, and it won’t be long until that starts showing up for American consumers at the gas pump. Some analysts have predicted that if the conflict lasts more than three or four weeks, we could see triple-digit oil prices — which would be a major shock to the system and have a lot of cascading effects. Diana, the administration’s messaging has been muddled, with officials offering a range of rationales for starting the war now, from nuclear weapons to Iran’s crackdown on democracy to payback for the 1979 hostage crisis. Why has the administration’s messaging been so haphazard? Nerozzi: The reason for the apparent mixed messages is the variety of voices who are speaking on the rationale. There is the president, who has been very open to reporters’ questions, but with that openness comes a lot of different answers. Then there is Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and other administration officials. The reason is all of those combined. But more immediately, the administration argues the attacks were launched because of the refusal of Iran to negotiate honestly about nuclear weapons. Two administration officials went into detail yesterday about how the Iranians were “playing games” in negotiations, were really hiding nuclear material further underground, and were not going to come to the table honestly. That, coupled with the crackdown on protests and Iran’s hostile actions towards the U.S. over the past decades, pushed Trump over the edge. McLeary: The Iran attacks are also another way to undo what Republicans see as the signature disaster of the Obama years — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action deal with Iran. Trump has made it a priority to unwind virtually everything that Obama and Biden pushed through during their terms. Schwartz: I thought it was interesting that the administration chose not to go on the Sunday shows or do the usual things like a live prime-time address to justify the action to the nation. Seemed like they acted first, then worked on the messaging. And it’s shifted as Congress, the public and the Republican base have reacted to it. Secretary Rubio, for example, said that the U.S. assessed that its assets in the Middle East would be attacked if Israel were to go ahead, and Israel was planning to go ahead, so it may as well join. But the perception that Israel dragged Trump into war hasn’t played well. Felicia and Diana, do we know who has influenced Trump most on Iran? Is it someone in the administration, like Rubio or Hegseth? Or is it someone outside, like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? Schwartz: Our reporting and that of our colleagues suggest that Netanyahu did have a big influence. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a longtime Iran hawk, has been pressing Trump on this since he returned to office. I think the Venezuela success, that there was a model for something resembling regime change, helped to push him over the line. The U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee was also a strong proponent. On top of that, while there were not many other loud cheerleaders, none of the national security team was lobbying hard against it. Nerozzi: The administration has been very careful to not reveal who exactly is in Trump’s ear on Iran. Trump has a very close relationship with Netanyahu, and the U.S. has been working side-by-side with Israel on the attacks, so the prime minister did play a role. But I believe Trump had his sights set on Iran from the beginning, and the actions of the Iranians in the negotiations and killing protesters made Trump irate enough to pull the trigger. Who are the top succession candidates in Iran right now? Does the White House have its eye on anyone, especially since Trump has said the people the administration had in mind were killed in the strikes? Schwartz: While the situation is still fluid, the son of the now deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has emerged as a frontrunner to replace his father. His son, Mojtaba Khamenei, is known for having close ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps. Other candidates that have emerged include Alireza Arafi, part of the current transition council named in the elder Khamenei’s absence, and Seyed Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution that established the Islamic Republic. The administration and Israel are hoping that by targeting Iranian security forces and regime targets, they can create the conditions for a different kind of government to take the place of the current system. But the regime still controls the military and the weapons, so that is very unlikely. Nerozzi: Trump has refused to say whether the U.S. has anyone in mind as a successor, which leads me to believe they are not in that point of thinking quite yet. He said he is open to Reza Pahlavi in response to a reporter’s question. But the general response from the administration has been that the leaders they had in mind have been killed, and that the main focus right now is to take out the Iranian military. Some Pentagon officials were worried about dwindling weapons stockpiles even before the attack. Paul, at what point could this deplete munitions enough to make the U.S. more vulnerable? McLeary: The munitions being used are expensive and take months to make, and while the stockpiles are deep, they’re not unlimited as Trump and Hegseth have indicated over the past several days. There’s little capacity for the defense industry to ramp up production any time soon — workforce issues and thin supply chains make a quick ramp-up almost impossible. The U.S. can handle a campaign like this for several weeks before it becomes a major issue. The worry is that precision bombs meant to be sold to allies would suffer first, if the Pentagon wanted to redirect them back to its own warehouses. That could cause a major break with key NATO allies who are already looking for alternatives to the U.S. defense industry. European allies don’t seem sure what to think about this war. Do you think they will oppose it, sit on the sidelines or eventually get behind it, Felicia? And how are U.S. allies in the Middle East responding? Is there some discomfort among Arab states with being on the same side of a war as Israel? Schwartz: No one in Europe is sad to see the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and many governments there share Washington’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles and support for regional proxies. They would have preferred to see the U.S. deal with this diplomatically, as these governments are generally more cautious than Trump is, and they are closer to Iran than we are and might feel the fallout more quickly. That being said, once Iran responded so forcefully and began hitting civilian targets throughout the Gulf, where many European citizens live and do business and many countries have military assets, they have generally supported the U.S. campaign. As for the Middle East, their discomfort isn’t about being on the same side as Israel. Many of these countries have had strong intelligence and military relationships with Israel for years, drawn together by the common threat of Iran. Some countries, like the UAE and Bahrain, have formalized and publicized these ties. Their unease is that Iran is targeting their people and infrastructure, and they worry about their own ability to defend themselves in a prolonged war. Unlike Israel, which has sirens and shelters, these countries don’t have any warning systems or protections for the public. And they are worried about their own air defense supplies. Nerozzi: In the Middle East, Iran striking neighboring Arab nations could be an opportunity for the U.S. to form stronger alliances with those who were critical of the strikes on Iran. The Arab nations are being brought into the war via the Iranian counterstrikes, and the Gulf states are finding themselves being directly impacted by Iran. Bikales: European countries are also very concerned about the impact of the war on energy prices — they remember well the impacts of the price shock after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine just a few years ago. We’ve already seen natural gas prices skyrocket in parts of Europe after Qatar shut down some of its LNG export facilities, so that’s just another reason Europe wants this fighting over quickly. But Trump has said the military campaign against Iran could last four to five weeks, even longer. Does the U.S. have an endgame? If so, what is it? Nerozzi: Trump gave the four-to-five-week deadline. Today, Pete Hegseth said, “We are just getting started.” There is no stated endgame 100 percent, but Hegseth said the U.S. and Israel are targeting Iranian military generals and are “finding, fixing and finishing the missiles and defense industrial base of the Iranian military.” At the end of the day, the U.S. has been firm that they don’t want to see Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, so the end may come when they feel satisfied enough with the destruction of the Iranian military and their enriched uranium. McLeary: Defense officials have so far outlined tactical successes and goals like taking out the Iranian Navy and ballistic missile sites and nuclear facilities, but we haven’t heard anything about the “day after” if the Iranian regime is to collapse. Destroying the Iranian ability to strike outside its borders is a goal, but without a larger strategic vision of what they want Iran to look like going forward, those goals don’t necessarily solve the larger issues of having a hostile regime in power in Tehran. Schwartz: When Trump first announced the campaign, he talked about regime change. That’s now more of a nice-to-have. As the administration has refined its message, officials have described Iran’s ballistic and other advanced missiles as a shield that it is building up rapidly and would eventually prevent the U.S. from doing anything about its nuclear program. So they want to eliminate Iran’s missile program, destroy its navy so it can’t harass American and other vessels at sea and end their support for proxies. But in terms of what should Iran look like next year, what role should it play in the region and other long-term strategic objectives, those are unclear. And while the regime is at its weakest point, it continues to have a monopoly on weapons and violence. That will be hard for the U.S. to destroy from the air. On Diana’s point about enriched uranium, that is another one they have not really spelled out how they will address. They did what they could militarily to target Iran’s nuclear program last June. All of Iran’s enriched uranium is buried under rubble. I think on that point, they want to pressure Iran to do what it hasn’t so far accepted: commit to zero enrichment and ship all of its remaining enriched material out of the country. Bikales: We’ve reported that the Trump administration went into the conflict with little plan to deal with the ensuing oil price spike. Essentially, they hoped the conflict would be over quickly, and prices would fall back naturally. In the last couple of days, they’ve had to scramble to start putting together a plan to calm the markets. In some ways, that gives Iran an opening. Tehran knows that President Trump is very focused on lowering prices at the pump, especially ahead of the midterms, so it could use oil prices as leverage to force his hand in potentially ending the war. James, speaking of oil, Iran has said it has closed the Strait of Hormuz. Is that possible? And what are the implications of making it challenging to travel through? Is there a workaround? Bikales: The short answer is no. Iran has fairly limited naval capabilities, especially after the initial wave of U.S. strikes, so it hasn’t mined or physically closed the strait in any way. That being said, it has warned ships not to try to transit it, and it has fired on some tankers, which has led insurance companies to cancel coverage and hike rates, essentially bringing traffic through the strait to a halt. The Trump administration announced a plan Tuesday to offer naval escorts and government risk insurance to those tankers, and we will be watching in the coming days whether that gets shipping moving again. One important thing to note: Iran itself exports much of the crude it produces through the Strait of Hormuz, so shutting it down could hurt its own economy — as well as that of its primary customer, China. Schwartz: I am very curious to see how the market will react to the government provision of insurance for ships, and whether it will make a real dent, given the environment. Bikales: It’s certainly a creative strategy from a U.S. perspective, but even with insurance, I’m not sure I would want my ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz right now if I were a ship owner. McLeary: Iran does possess the capability to mine the Strait or use drones to harass ships passing through it. If they launched a drone swarm at an American warship, it would be difficult for the ship’s air defenses to knock multiple drones down at once. So the situation remains incredibly dangerous and uncertain. Paul, the White House has pushed back on the language around this military operation. Is the U.S. in a war? And how does this military campaign in Iran affect Trump’s avowed goal of focusing more on the Western Hemisphere, like Venezuela and Cuba? Schwartz: Time to cue the meme, it’s only a war if it’s from the war region of France. McLeary: The war question is much like the Department of Defense rebranding itself as the Department of War! Call it what you want, but shooting at another country is an act of war, full stop. As far as the Western Hemisphere goes, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group — which was pulled from the Mediterranean in October to head to the Caribbean — is back in the Mediterranean, along with its destroyer escort ships. One can argue that those ships were never needed to intercept speedboats, but one can also argue that moving the ships away from the Caribbean undercuts the recently released National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy, which gave scant attention to the Middle East in favor of the Western Hemisphere and a homeland security focus. In the end, strategy papers are just that — pieces of paper — once a president casts his gaze elsewhere. Schwartz: There are 50,000 American troops in the Middle East right now, and six have died so far. And Trump has told us to expect more of that. I think the average person sees this as a war, whatever the administration wants to call it. This all means a lot is at stake for the GOP right now: Trump’s approval ratings are poor, the attacks are fairly unpopular and midterms are coming. How do you think this will play out politically for Republicans? Democrats? Nerozzi: Polls are showing that the majority of Americans disapprove of the strikes, but a large majority of Republicans, around 75 percent, are in support. The GOP is going into the midterms with a disadvantage due to being the incumbent. The outcome of the war in the next few months may sway public opinion to be more in favor of the war, but it could also push voters away, especially if things go south. Trump will have to deliver internationally and domestically for Republicans to surge ahead and keep both the Senate and House. Schwartz: Voters rarely vote primarily on foreign policy, but drawn-out wars or the rising prices from them contribute heavily to the vibes leading into the election and how people feel about the direction of the country. If Trump can keep this to a few weeks and the fallout minimal, maybe it will be a blip that won’t carry through to the midterms. It could also present Democrats with an opportunity to curry favor with voters if gas prices climb further upward and inflation gets worse as a result. McLeary: War is always unpredictable. Americans tend to rally around the flag in times of conflict, even if we haven’t seen that happen yet in the case of Iran. Part of the reason is that the White House simply hasn’t bothered to make the case to the American people. That said, think back to George W. Bush winning re-election in 2004 when Iraq was going terribly and dozens of troops were being killed by roadside bombs every month while fighting — yes — Iranian-backed Iraqi militias. A lot will depend on how quickly Trump can get out of the fight. I don’t sense a lot of patience for a long war launched by a president who campaigned on “no new wars.” Bikales: President Trump has made energy affordability a key piece of his message heading into the midterms — in fact, just a few hours ahead of the strikes, he was in Corpus Christi, Texas, touting record U.S. oil production and lower prices at the pump. Democrats see an opening on that issue now with Iran, and they’ve already launched attacks that Trump is more focused on foreign wars than keeping energy prices down. So far, Republicans have largely dismissed those concerns, saying that prices will fall back naturally. But even if global crude prices fall, gas prices tend to be slower to recover — and we’re only eight months from the midterms.

LONDON — British ministers have been laying the ground for Keir Starmer’s handshake with Xi Jinping in Beijing this week ever since Labour came to power. In a series of behind-closed-door speeches in China and London, obtained by POLITICO, ministers have sought to persuade Chinese and British officials, academics and businesses that rebuilding the trade and investment relationship is essential — even as economic security threats loom. After a “Golden Era” in relations trumpeted by Tory Prime Minister David Cameron, Britain’s once-close ties to the Asian superpower began to unravel in the late 2010s. By 2019, Boris Johnson had frozen trade and investment talks after a Beijing-led crackdown on Hong Kong’s democracy movement. At Donald Trump’s insistence, Britain stripped Chinese telecoms giant Huawei from its telecoms infrastructure over security concerns. Starmer — who is expected to meet Xi on a high-stakes trip to Beijing this week — set out to revive an economic relationship that had hit the rocks. The extent of the reset undertaken by the PM’s cabinet is revealed in the series of speeches by ministers instrumental to his China policy over the past year, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, and former Indo-Pacific, investment, city and trade ministers. Months before security officials completed an audit of Britain’s exposure to Chinese interference last June, ministers were pushing for closer collaboration between the two nations on energy and financial systems, and the eight sectors of Labour’s industrial strategy. “Six of those eight sectors have national security implications,” said a senior industry representative, granted anonymity to speak freely about their interactions with government. “When you speak to [the trade department] they frame China as an opportunity. When you speak to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, it’s a national security risk.”  While Starmer’s reset with China isn’t misguided, “I think we’ve got to be much more hard headed about where we permit Chinese investment into the economy in the future,” said Labour MP Liam Byrne, chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee. Lawmakers on his committee are “just not convinced that the investment strategy that is unfolding between the U.K. and China is strong enough for the future and increased coercion risks,” he said. As Trump’s tariffs bite, Beijing’s trade surplus is booming and “we’ve got to be realistic that China is likely to double down on its Made in China approach and target its export surplus at the U.K.,” Byrne said. China is the U.K.’s fifth-largest trade partner, and data to June of last year show U.K. exports to China dropping 10.4 percent year-on-year while imports rose 4.3 percent. “That’s got the real potential to flood our markets with goods that are full of Chinese subsidies, but it’s also got the potential to imperil key sectors of our economy, in particular the energy system,” Byrne warned. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “Since the election, the Government has been consistently transparent about our approach to China – which we are clear will be grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism. “We will cooperate where we can and challenge where we must, never compromising on our national security. We reject the old ‘hot and cold’ diplomacy that failed to protect our interests or support our growth.” While Zheng Zeguang’s speech was released online, the Foreign Office refused to provide Catherine West’s own address when requested at the time. | Jordan Pettitt/PA Images via Getty Images CATHERINE WEST, INDO-PACIFIC MINISTER, SEPTEMBER 2024 Starmer’s ministers began resetting relations in earnest on the evening of Sept. 25, 2024 at the luxury Peninsula Hotel in London’s Belgravia, where rooms go for £800 a night. Some 400 guests, including a combination of businesses, British government and Chinese embassy officials, gathered to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China — a milestone for Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule. “I am honored to be invited to join your celebration this evening,” then Indo-Pacific Minister Catherine West told the room, kicking off her keynote following a speech by China’s ambassador to the U.K., Zheng Zeguang.  “Over the last 75 years, China’s growth has been exponential; in fields like infrastructure, technology and innovation which have reverberated across the globe,” West said, according to a Foreign Office briefing containing the speech obtained through freedom of information law. “Both our countries have seen the benefits of deepening our trade and economic ties.”  While London and Beijing won’t always see eye-to-eye, “the U.K. will cooperate with China where we can. We recognise we will also compete in other areas — and challenge where we need to,” West told the room, including 10 journalists from Chinese media, including Xinhua, CGTN and China Daily. While Zheng’s speech was released online, the Foreign Office refused to provide West’s own address when requested at the time. Freedom of information officers later provided a redacted briefing “to protect information that would be likely to prejudice relations.” DAVID LAMMY, FOREIGN SECRETARY, OCTOBER 2024 As foreign secretary, David Lammy made his first official overseas visit in the job with a two-day trip to Beijing and Shanghai. He met Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on Oct. 18, a few weeks before U.S. President Donald Trump’s re-election. Britain and China’s top diplomats discussed climate change, trade and global foreign policy challenges. “I met with Director Wang Yi yesterday and raised market access issues with him directly,” Lammy told a roundtable of British businesses at Shanghai’s Regent On The Bund hotel the following morning, noting that he hoped greater dialogue between the two nations would break down trade barriers. “At the same time, I remain committed to protecting the U.K.’s national security,” Lammy said. “In most sectors of the economy, China brings opportunities through trade and investment, and this is where continued collaboration is of great importance to me,” he told firms. Freedom of information officers redacted portions of Lammy’s speech so it wouldn’t “prejudice relations” with China.  Later that evening, the then-foreign secretary gave a speech at the Jean Nouvel-designed Pudong Museum of Art to 200 business, education, arts and culture representatives. China is “the world’s biggest emitter” of CO2, Lammy told them in his prepared remarks obtained by freedom of information law. “But also the world’s biggest producer of renewable energy. This is a prime example of why I was keen to visit China this week. And why this government is committed to a long-term, strategic approach to relations.” Shanghai continues “to play a key role in trade and investment links with the rest of the world as well,” he said, pointing to the “single biggest” ever British investment in China: INEOS Group’s $800 million plastics plant in Zhejiang. “We welcome Chinese investment for clear mutual benefit the other way too,” Lammy said. “This is particularly the case in clean energy, where we are both already offshore wind powerhouses and the costs of rolling out more clean energy are falling rapidly.” “We welcome Chinese investment for clear mutual benefit the other way too,” David Lammy said. | Adam Vaughan/EPA POPPY GUSTAFSSON, INVESTMENT MINISTER, NOVEMBER 2024 Just days after Starmer and President Xi met for the first time at the G20 that November, Poppy Gustafsson, then the British investment minister, told a U.K.-China trade event at a luxury hotel on Mayfair’s Park Lane that “we want to open the door to more investment in our banking and insurance industries.” The event, co-hosted by the Bank of China UK and attended by Chinese Ambassador Zheng Zeguang and 400 guests, including the U.K. heads of several major China business and financial institutions, is considered the “main forum for U.K.-China business discussion,” according to a briefing package prepared for Gustafsson. “We want to see more green initiatives like Red Rock Renewables who are unlocking hundreds of megawatts in new capacity at wind farms off the coast of Scotland — boosting this Government’s mission to become a clean energy superpower by 2030,” Gustafsson told attendees, pointing to the project owned by China’s State Development and Investment Group. The number one objective for her speech, officials instructed the minister, was to “affirm the importance of engaging with China on trade and investment and cooperating on shared multilateral interests.” And she was told to “welcome Chinese investment which supports U.K. growth and the domestic industry through increased exports and wider investment across the economy and in the Industrial Strategy priority sectors.” The Chinese government published a readout of Gustafsson and Zheng’s remarks. RACHEL REEVES, CHANCELLOR, JANUARY 2025 By Jan. 11 last year, Chancellor Rachel Reeves was in Beijing with British financial and professional services giants like Abrdn, Standard Chartered, KPMG, the London Stock Exchange, Barclays and Bank of England boss Andrew Bailey in tow. She was there to meet with China’s Vice-Premier He Lifeng to reopen one of the key financial and investment talks with Beijing Boris Johnson froze in 2019. Before Reeves and He sat down for the China-U.K. Economic and Financial Dialogue, Britain’s chancellor delivered an address alongside the vice-premier to kick off a parallel summit for British and Chinese financial services firms, according to an agenda for the summit shared with POLITICO. Reeves was also due to attend a dinner the evening of the EFD and then joined a business delegation travelling to Shanghai where she held a series of roundtables. Releasing any of her remarks from these events through freedom of information law “would be likely to prejudice” relations with China, the Treasury said. “It is crucial that HM Treasury does not compromise the U.K.’s interests in China.” Reeves’ visit to China paved the way for the revival of a long-dormant series of high-level talks to line up trade and investment wins, including the China-U.K. Energy Dialogue in March and U.K.-China Joint Economic and Trade Commission (JETCO) last September. EMMA REYNOLDS, CITY MINISTER, MARCH 2025 “Growth is the U.K. government’s number one mission. It is the foundation of everything else we hope to achieve in the years ahead. We recognise that China will play a very important part in this,” Starmer’s then-City Minister Emma Reynolds told the closed-door U.K.-China Business Forum in central London early last March. Reeves’ restart of trade and investment talks “agreed a series of commitments that will deliver £600 million for British businesses,” Reynolds told the gathering, which included Chinese electric vehicle firm BYD, HSBC, Standard Chartered, KPMG and others. This would be achieved by “enhancing links between our financial markets,” she said. “As the world’s most connected international financial center and home to world-leading financial services firms, the City of London is the gateway of choice for Chinese financial institutions looking to expand their global reach,” Reynolds said. Ed Miliband traveled to Beijing in mid-March for the first China-U.K. Energy Dialogue since 2019. | Tolga Akmen/EPA ED MILIBAND, ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE SECRETARY, MARCH 2025 With Starmer’s Chinese reset in full swing, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband traveled to Beijing in mid-March for the first China-U.K. Energy Dialogue since 2019. Britain’s energy chief wouldn’t gloss over reports of human rights violations in China’s solar supply chain — on which the U.K. is deeply reliant for delivering its lofty renewables goals — when he met with China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang, a British government official said at the time. “We maybe agree to disagree on some things,” they said. But the U.K. faces “a clean energy imperative,” Miliband told students and professors during a lecture at Beijing’s elite Tsinghua University, which counts Xi Jinping and former Chinese President Hu Jintao as alumni. “The demands of energy security, affordability and sustainability now all point in the same direction: investing in clean energy at speed and at scale,” Miliband said, stressing the need for deeper U.K.-China collaboration as the U.K. government reaches towards “delivering a clean power system by 2030.”  “In the eight months since our government came to office we have been speeding ahead on offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen and [Carbon Capture, Usage, and Storage],” Britain’s energy chief said. “Renewables are now the cheapest form of power to build and operate — and of course, much of this reflects technological developments driven by what is happening here in China.”  “The U.K. and China share a recognition of the urgency of acting on the climate crisis in our own countries and accelerating this transition around the world — and we must work together to do so,” Miliband said, in his remarks obtained through freedom of information law. DOUGLAS ALEXANDER, ECONOMIC SECURITY MINISTER, APRIL 2025 During a trip to China in April last year, then-Trade Minister Douglas Alexander met his counterpart to prepare to relaunch key trade and investment talks. The trip wasn’t publicized by the U.K. side. According to a Chinese government readout, the China-UK Joint Economic and Trade Commission would promote “cooperation in trade and investment, and industrial and supply chains” between Britain’s trade secretary and his Chinese equivalent. After meeting Vice Minister and Deputy China International Trade Representative Ling Ji, Minister Alexander gave a speech at China’s largest consumer goods expo near the country’s southernmost point on the island province of Hainan. Alexander extended his “sincere thanks” to China’s Ministry of Commerce and the Hainan Provincial Government “for inviting the U.K. to be the country of honour at this year’s expo.” “We must speak often and candidly about areas of cooperation and, yes, of contention too, where there are issues on which we disagree,” the trade policy and economic security minister said, according to a redacted copy of his speech obtained under freedom of information law. “We are seeing joint ventures and collaboration between Chinese and U.K. firms on a whole host of different areas … in renewable energy, in consumer goods, and in banking and finance,” Alexander later told some of the 27 globally renowned British retailers, including Wedgwood, in another speech during the U.K. pavilion opening ceremony. “We are optimistic about the potential for deeper trade and investment cooperation — about the benefits this will bring to the businesses showcasing here, and those operating throughout China’s expansive market.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech went viral, but it has sparked a predictably angry reaction from the Trump White House that could torpedo trade talks already on thin ice. Carney’s call to arms to smaller countries to band together against the economic coercion of “great powers” sparked criticism from Donald Trump and his inner circle — and it is renewing warnings on both sides of the border that it could undermine Ottawa as it faces a review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the continental trade deal worth C$1.3 trillion in two-way merchandise trade. Goldy Hyder, the president of the lobby group for Canada’s top CEOs, spent several days in Washington this week where he said he got an earful from U.S. lawmakers and business leaders. “Obviously, the response from the Americans suggests that some harm has been done. I don’t believe it to have been significant or fatal, but I do think we need to make sure we’re sending the signals that we care about this agreement,” Hyder, the president of the Business Council of Canada, told POLITICO on Friday. The standing ovation and breathless praise Carney initially received in Davos gave way to some hand-wringing Friday at the World Economic Forum and beyond. “I’m not exactly on the same page as Mark,” European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said in a panel, a departure from earlier in the week when she walked out of a dinner with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick during an anti-Europe speech. “We should be talking about alternatives,” she said. “We should be identifying, much more so than we have probably in the past, the weaknesses, the sore points, the dependencies, the autonomy.” Trump and Carney, as well as their top Cabinet members, are exchanging blows against the backdrop of the looming mandatory six-year review of the USMCA, a process that could lead to renewal, modifications or the potential demise of a pact Trump once called the biggest and most important deal in U.S. history. Trump fired the first shot back at Carney’s speech during his own Davos address the following day, telling the world: “Canada lives because of the United States.” He repeated past gripes that Canada “gets a lot of freebies” from the U.S. and it “should be grateful.” Carney counterpunched the next day at his Quebec City Cabinet retreat, making a last-minute edit to a speech on his domestic ambitions. “Canada doesn’t live because of the United States,” he said. “Canada thrives because we are Canadian.” Hours later, Trump revoked Canada’s invitation to participate in his Gaza “Board of Peace” initiative. Trump didn’t offer a specific reason. Then on Friday, Trump trolled Canada in a Truth Social post that included a dig about “doing business with China.” Louise Blais, a former Canadian deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said the post-Davos bickering between Trump and Carney evokes the hostility that erupted between Trump and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2018 at the G7 Canada hosted, and could be damaging to the USMCA review. “Canada thinks that we’re pushing back on the Americans blackmailing us and holding us to account, but to the White House mind, it looks as if we are ungrateful,” Blais told POLITICO from Mexico on Friday, where she was attending meetings on the USMCA. She now works as a senior adviser for a U.S. consultancy and Hyder’s council. “The damage could be eight out of 10, but it’s really totally up to the Americans. They are going to decide whether or not they push back. We certainly have given them a lot of ammunition to do so,” she added. Trump’s top political lieutenants also piled on with insults and sideswipes of their own. In an interview with Bloomberg from Davos, Lutnick called Carney “arrogant” and said his decision to strike new agreements with China will work against Canada in this year’s review of USMCA. “This is the silliest thing I’ve ever seen,” Lutnick said of the idea that China will then increase imports from Canada. “Give me a break — they have the second-best deal in the world. And all we got to do is listen to this guy whine and complain.” Lutnick said Mexico has the best deal, followed by Canada because 85 percent of its exports flow tariff-free to the U.S. under USMCA. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused Carney of “value signaling.” “If he believes what’s best for Canada is to make speeches like that, which I don’t think is very helpful, then he should make speeches like that,” Bessent told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns. Bessent added: “In the context of the United States, I’ll point out the Canadian economy is smaller than the economy of Texas.” Bessent noted in the interview that Trump stood up to China’s manipulation of the rare earths market. “Prime Minister Carney should say ‘thank you,’ rather than giving this value-signaling speech,” Bessent said. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer also questioned the wisdom of Carney’s dealmaking with China in light of the upcoming USMCA review and has been speculating the U.S. could negotiate separate deals with Canada and Mexico. As Carney returned from Europe for a Cabinet meeting in Quebec City, his leading lieutenants remained defiant. “There are always going to be stressful times, and let’s not sugarcoat it. The prime minister never does. It’s a difficult world,” Artificial Intelligence Minister Evan Solomon told reporters Friday morning. When asked about the U.S. criticism, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Carney was simply saying “a lot of things that people thought. And he had the courage to say it loud.” Greenland’s Energy and Industry Minister Naaja Nathanielsen told POLITICO that Carney’s speech was “brilliant.” “Right now, we’re still figuring out what is the American intentions,” she said from Davos. “I thought [it] was the most clear-eyed speech I’ve heard in a long time.” But Hyder and Blais say Carney’s next priority must be finding a path back to bargaining with Trump and his team, and to end the bickering in interest of preserving USMCA. Talks were expected to resume this month after Trump abruptly halted them in October, apparently angry the Ontario government used Ronald Reagan’s voice in an anti-tariff commercial. Hyder said he got a lengthy briefing from senior officials in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, met one Democrat and seven Republican lawmakers and consulted his U.S. counterparts at the Business Roundtable, which represents the leaders of the largest American companies. During his 90 minutes at USTR, Hyder said he was told Mexico was making “great progress” in dealing with trade irritants. “They have the lowest tariff rate in the world as a result of it, lower than ours,” said Hyder. “We’re now not engaged, we’re not conversing, and we’re waiting for the Americans to call us. Why would they call us to lower the tariffs that they’re imposing on us? We need to lean in.” Hyder said he believes Carney has convinced himself Trump has no intention of renewing USMCA, and that he needs to disabuse himself of that “self-fulfilling prophecy.” “It’s not too late to recognize the opportunity to still get this agreement across the finish line, and we need to be at the table to do that,” he said. Carney signaled he was irritated when he brushed off what he called a “boring question” from a reporter about how talks with Trump were going as he departed the Cabinet retreat this week. Blais said that Carney needs the USCMA if he wants to achieve his goal of increasing exports to other countries. “The strength of our economy and our ability to diversify is very much anchored in our North American competitiveness … because we’re seen to have access to the U.S. market that has supply chains that are healthy,” she said. “The more we say that there’s a rupture with that, the less attractive we become as a country to invest. “That’s the worry.” Jakob Weizman and Marianne Gros contributed to this report from Brussels. Mickey Djuric reported from Quebec City.

LONDON — When Britain’s top finance minister held a doomy pre-budget press conference earlier this month, it seemed like a traditional Westminster affair. But it didn’t take long for the established members of the press corps to spot that two front-row seats had — for the first time — been reserved for online finance influencers hand-picked by the government. “I could feel the glares hitting the back of my head from people wondering who I am and why I was on the front row,” recalls Cameron Smith — a creator best known as “Cazza Time” to his hundreds of thousands of online followers. For Smith, this was only his latest involvement in a developing government comms strategy that both influencers and Whitehall insiders say is genuinely innovative for the U.K. At the same time, the growing operation has traditional journalists grumbling, political comms specialists nodding — and influencers themselves wrestling with how to maintain their prized independence. “Obviously there is a risk it becomes a bit of a gravy train, and people end up willing to do anything to get a video with the prime minister or whoever it may be,” says fellow climate creator Laura Anderson. “But I hope people’s audiences will hold them accountable.” ‘NOT JUST THE WESTMINSTER BUBBLE’ Smith — or “Cazza,” as Prime Minister Keir Starmer apparently calls him — first got tapped up under the previous Conservative government, long before he found himself bagging a front-row seat at Reeves’ speech. An out-of-the-blue email invited him to cover what would be Jeremy Hunt’s last budget before the 2024 general election. It felt, Smith says, as if the flailing Conservative government was “clutching around” to drum up support — but he eventually agreed. His first-ever interaction with a politician was a face-to-face chat with the country’s top finance minister. The civil-service-led operation behind that early foray has ballooned under Labour. A dedicated New Media Unit has been tasked with tapping into the U.K.’s less politically-engaged audiences. The unit recently embarked on a hiring spree to help it identify and engage with Britain’s biggest online creators. That has further opened the door for creators like Smith, who focuses on personal finance content for people aged 18 to 35. He’s been able to put his audience’s questions directly to senior establishment figures, and in the last several months alone has enjoyed direct access to Reeves, Starmer and even the governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey. “What we’ve tried to do is really appeal to audiences in the real world, not just the Westminster bubble,” said one senior Whitehall communications official, granted anonymity like others in this story to discuss the project. “Through partnering with creators who have a strong audience and strong reputation, you can have conversations about what government is doing while avoiding some of the traps we get into with journalists.” Content creators are “very ordinary people” asking the questions members of the public want answering, according to a government New Media Unit insider. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Talk of “traps” is likely to raise eyebrows among Westminster’s traditional journalists, who fiercely prize their ability to hold the government to account. Some veterans of the Westminster lobby smiled when Abi Foster, the other online creator invited to grill Reeves, went on Times Radio just after the press conference to bemoan the stage-managed event as “not the stuff of viral clips.” For good measure, she also lamented the chancellor’s “long-winded” answers. Government figures insist there’s no attempt to control influencers, and appear keen to distance themselves from the U.S. Trump administration’s efforts to bring content creators that are aligned with the president into the fold. Many of those invited in the U.K. include experts on the various topics: doctors, nurses, teachers, academics and campaigners, they point out. “If you draw the comparison with America, it’s very much those on the political right who sit in those rooms,” the same official quoted above said. “That doesn’t apply here.” PUSHBACK Still, the unprecedented access to ministers has left some creators concerned about how to balance close political engagement with the hard-earned trust that keeps their audiences loyal. “It’s something that we don’t take lightly,” says Jack Ferris, content lead for Earthtopia, a channel that has become one of the largest eco-communities on TikTok. Ferris’ first interaction was as part of a group of climate influencers invited for coffee and pastries with Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and his comms team to discuss how they could work together. “We also got a tour of No. 10, which was very cool,” he recalls. “I told my mum immediately after I got out.” But while the channel he helps run focuses primarily on good news stories around net zero, Ferris insists it won’t be “cowed” in criticizing the government. “You don’t want to make it look like because we are going to all these nice political events now we’re only going to be talking about what they do in a positive light.” Laura Anderson, a climate content creator and PhD researcher known to her audience as “Less Waste Laura,” shot to online prominence in part because of a successful campaign to persuade governments to ban disposable vapes. Anderson said she recognizes the risk that influencers could “get dazzled by Downing Street and the canapés and drinks, and forget this is a government that we should be holding to account.” But she says creators used a recent roundtable inside government to “bluntly” ask whether they were expected to become “mouthpieces” for the administration. The answer? “Absolutely not.” ‘THEY NEVER ASK: CAN YOU DO THIS?’ Ferres, who outside his online creator role works as a comms consultant, insists the relationship doesn’t differ much from a traditional PR approach. Government departments send over press releases and ask if there’s a way they can make an announcement work for creators. “They never ask: Can you do this? It’s more around whether it would be of interest to our audiences — and it’s down to our editorial control to say if it’s interesting,” he says. Smith, who built his vast audience without that proximity to power, seems wary about how to move forward. While tranches of his audience perceive him as a trusted voice who is now able to grill leaders, others view him as a political novice who is being “manipulated.” Having gained followers unaided, most creators say they do feel empowered to push back. Smith says he has repeatedly refused to post content when he feels he’s been given a “politician’s answer.” “Really, really clever” — that’s one eco influencer and comms consultant’s verdict on Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s Instagram content. | Pool picture by Tolga Akmen/EPA And the consensus is that cutting off access to a critical voice would lead to an online firestorm that would do real reputational harm to the government. “Ultimately, I don’t need Rachel Reeves in the room with me to explain what the budget is going to mean to people’s finances,” Smith argues. “People listen to me regardless, so I don’t need them — but there’s a way we can work together and that adds credibility to what I’m saying.” ‘GENUINELY FUNNY AND ENGAGING’ There are few signs yet that the government — which lags right-wing Nigel Farage in the polls and has spent the week locked in internal warfare — is benefiting from its online strategy. But some individual ministers are throwing themselves into it with gusto — and seem to be avoiding the kind of trend-chasing content that can afflict middle-aged politicos who’ve spent too much time online. “Ed Miliband, for example, is doing lots of different types of content on Instagram,” Ferres says. “It’s actually genuinely funny and engaging, but managed to loop back into his clean energy vision — it’s really, really clever.” “I think there’s something about the fact that content creators are very ordinary people who are asking genuine questions,” an NMU insider says. “That helps, and then ministers know when they are speaking to them, they are getting questions that the public really care about. “It’s different to having to sit opposite [BBC interviewer Laura Kuenssberg] and having to answer all these different questions on different topics.”

BELÉM, Brazil — Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) will arrive Friday at the COP30 climate summit — making him the sole U.S. federal representative at United Nations talks that the Trump administration is skipping. Whitehouse’s office said he will meet in the Amazonian port city of Belém, Brazil, with elected officials along with business and global climate leaders. It said his goal is to show that the U.S. public still broadly supports addressing climate change despite Trump abstaining from the negotiations. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered a similar message earlier this week during his own swing through Belém. The White House has defended the U.S. absence from the talks, maintaining that the annual global climate gatherings work in the interests of rival countries like China. “President Trump will not allow the best interest of the American people to be jeopardized by the Green Energy Scam,” spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in an email last week. One GOP lawmaker, Sen. John Curtis of Utah, had planned to attend the summit but canceled because of the federal government shutdown. Whitehouse said he plans to harp on Trump and GOP policies that he cast as unpopular and responsible for boosting energy costs. “Amidst sinking approvals and a shellacking in the most recent elections, it’s no surprise the Trump administration is unwilling to defend the fossil fuel industry’s unpopular and corrupt climate denial lies on the global stage.” Whitehouse will participate in events Friday on offshore wind, shipping and non-carbon-dioxide greenhouse gas emissions before delivering a keynote speech at a roundtable with elected officials from other nations hosted by the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. On Saturday, he will weigh in on methane rules, net-zero policies and the effect climate change has on oceans.

SÃO PAULO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom isn’t even at the United Nations climate talks yet — but he’s already getting bombarded with meeting requests. Newsom kicked off his trip to Brazil 1,800 miles south of the Amazonian city of Belém that’s hosting this year’s international gathering, talking to Brazilian and American financiers at an investors’ summit in São Paulo. His first question from the Brazilian press on Monday, fresh off last week’s redistricting victory: whether he would run for president (“Nothing else matters but 2026 and taking back the House of Representatives,” he said). Newsom couldn’t walk halfway down a hallway without fielding a meeting request from CEOs and NGOs — or a selfie request. One Brazilian picture-taker had him repeat the Portuguese word for “Let’s go”: “Vamos.” His remarks to investors at the Milken Global Investors’ Symposium sounded more like a campaign rally than a business speech. “We have seen this complete reversal of so much of the progress that the Biden administration made,” he said. “What Trump is doing is unprecedented in American history … This should not be through the lens or prism of red, in American vernacular, versus blue.” Then he held an hour-long roundtable meeting with representatives from major investment funds, philanthropies, development banks and energy leaders, who he said pushed him to bolster economic ties in existing voluntary agreements with Brazilian governments. Newsom told POLITICO he and his team were getting a “disproportionate number of calls” to meet on the sidelines of the talks, where the U.S. government’s delegation numbers zero (“not even a note taker,” Newsom said.) “We’re at peak influence because of the flatness of the surrounding terrain with the Trump administration and all the anxiety,” Newsom said in an interview in São Paulo. Newsom is playing a well-rehearsed role for California, which has staked out a leading role in international climate diplomacy for decades under both Democratic and Republican governors, including during Trump’s first term. The Trump administration’s dismantling of climate policies to favor oil and gas interests only give California more space to fill, said former Gov. Jerry Brown, who got a hero’s welcome himself at the United Nations climate talks in 2017, the first year of Trump 1.0. “Trump, he’s saying one thing,” Brown said in an interview. “Newsom is saying something else, very important.” The impact, he said, will be determined in Belém. “That’s why it’s exciting. There’s not an answer yet.” That gives Newsom an opening — and a risk. Where Brown led a coalition of states eager to demonstrate continued commitment on climate in Trump’s first term, Newsom will arrive in Belém, near the mouth of the Amazon River, at a time when U.S. politics are tilting rightward and even Democrats are pulling back on embracing climate policies. And there’s little Newsom’s team, which includes ex-State Department climate negotiators, can actually do in the closed-door talks reserved for countries. But the governor’s goal is to influence from just outside the door. “We’re in every room, because California has been the inspiration for a lot of these jurisdictions,” he told POLITICO. Newsom’s heading next to Belém, where he’s scheduled to meet with other subnational leaders and renew environmental pacts with other countries and states — starting on Tuesday with the environment ministers from Germany and the German state of Baden-Württemburg, which Brown first partnered with to promote the soft power of subnational governments during Trump’s first term. Newsom said he would also meet with representatives from Chile. He’s also expected to give plenary remarks at the UN. After that, he’ll head deeper into the Amazon rainforest to meet with Indigenous communities on conservation — one of the goals of the Brazilian organizers of the climate talks. Newsom said he saw the visit to the Amazon as a spiritual opportunity. “It connects us to our creator,” he said. “It connects us to thousands and thousands of generations.”

LONDON — Britain’s financial watchdogs have been on a crypto journey — with a little help from Donald Trump.  The Bank of England publishes its long-awaited rules for stablecoin Monday. Two years after the central bank’s Governor Andrew Bailey dismissed the virtual currency — a theoretically more stable form of crypto — as “not money,” its rulebook is now expected to get a cautious welcome from an industry that’s been lobbying hard for a rethink. It would mark quite a shift from the U.K. central bank. Stablecoins “are not robust and, as currently organized, do not meet the standards we expect of safe money in the financial system,” Bailey told a City of London audience in 2023.  Now his top officials herald a “fabulous opportunity.”  The Bank chief’s initial position — that he doesn’t see stablecoins as a substitute for commercial bank money — has put him at odds with the U.K. Treasury, which is on an all-consuming mission to get the sluggish British economy moving. Chancellor Rachel Reeves wants the U.K. “at the forefront of digital asset innovation.”  The United States crypto lobby, fresh from several wins stateside, spied an opportunity. Exploiting those divisions — and pointing to a more gung-ho approach from Trump’s U.S. — has allowed firms to push for a British regime that more closely aligns with their own.  Monday could be a very good day at the office.  TREADING CAREFULLY Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency pegged to a real asset, like the dollar, with the largest and best-known offering being Tether. They’re seen as a more palatable version of crypto, and are used by investors to buy other cryptocurrencies, or allow cross-border payments.  The pro-stablecoin camp says their development is necessary to improve payments and overseas transactions for businesses and consumers, particularly as cash usage declines and sending money abroad remains clunky and expensive. If done well, a stablecoin could maintain a reliable store of value and be a viable alternative to cash.  Stablecoins (USDT) are a type of cryptocurrency pegged to a real asset. | Silas Stein/picture alliance via Getty Images Those more cautious, including the BoE, warn there are risks for the wider financial system including undermining public confidence in money and payments if something goes wrong.  And stablecoins are not immune to things going wrong: In 2022, the Terra Luna token lost 99 percent of its value, along with its sister token TerraUSD, a stablecoin which went from being pegged to the dollar on a $1-1 TerraUSDbasis, to being valued at $0.4. Tether also fell during that time to $0.95.  Other central bankers seem to agree with Bailey’s early caution. The Bank for International Settlements, a central bank body, issued a stark warning on stablecoins in June, saying they “fall short” as a form of sound money.  There are also concerns such coins are used to skirt money-laundering laws, with anti-money laundering watchdog the Financial Action Task Force, warning that most on-chain illicit transactions involved stablecoins. The EU has tough regulation in place for digital assets. The bloc prioritizes tighter control over the market than the U.S., with stricter rules on capital and operations.  That’s in stark contrast to the U.S., which passed its own stablecoin regulation — the GENIUS act — earlier this year, which is much more industry-friendly. Donald Trump, whose family is building its own crypto empire, has described stablecoins as “perhaps the greatest revolution in financial technology since the birth of the Internet itself.”  That’s put post-Brexit Britain in a bind: align with the EU, the U.S., or go it alone?  “The U.K. is a bit caught,” a former Bank of England official who now works in digital assets said. They were granted anonymity, like others in this article, to speak freely. “It doesn’t have the luxury of completely creating a bespoke regime. It can do, but essentially, no one’s going to care.” AMERICAN PUSH For a Labour government intent on deregulating for growth, aligning with the U.S. was immediately a more attractive proposition.  Warnings came from the City of London, Britain’s financial powerhouse, that the government would need to embrace crypto and stablecoin for the U.K. to become a global player. Domestic financial services firms wrote to the government calling for it to align its regime with the U.S., talking up “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to establish the future rules for digital assets.   “Securities are getting tokenized,” said one former Treasury official, now working in the private sector. “Bank deposits are getting tokenized. If we don’t build a regime that is permissive enough [to make the U.K. attractive], then the City’s relevance will diminish as a consequence.”  For the pro-crypto brigade, the BoE has been the main hurdle in achieving a U.S.-style, free-market stablecoin rulebook. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, whose party is currently leading in the polls, accused Bailey of behaving like a “dinosaur.  For the pro-crypto brigade, the BoE has been the main hurdle in achieving a U.S.-style, free-market stablecoin rulebook. | Niklas Helle’n/AFP via Getty Images “The Bank’s really got itself into a twist on this one. From what I understand from people who have been at the Bank, this is coming from the top,” said the former BoE employee quoted above.  “Andrew Bailey has made it publicly clear for some many months now that he is sceptical about the two new alternative forms of money, which is stablecoins and central bank digital currencies,” said a financial services firm CEO.  In recent weeks, however, Bailey and his colleagues have softened their rhetoric as well as indicating a relaxed policy is forthcoming.  Sarah Breeden, Bailey’s deputy governor for financial stability, has repeatedly said any limits on stablecoin will be temporary, and recent reports suggest there will be carve-outs for certain firms. Other BoE officials have also backed away from tougher rules on the assets which must be used to underpin the value of a stablecoin.  A second former BoE employee, who now works in the fintech industry, said Bailey was “under a huge amount of pressure, from the government and the industry. He is worried about looking like he is just anti-innovation.”  The BoE declined to comment. The Treasury did not respond to a request for comment. US interest  A state visit by Trump to the U.K. this fall appeared to help shift the debate.   In late September, the Trump administration and the British government agreed to explore ways to collaborate on digital asset rules.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Reeves announced that financial regulators and officials from the U.S. and U.K. would convene a “Transatlantic Taskforce for Markets of the Future.”  During Trump’s visit, Bessent held a financial services roundtable in London with key figures from industry. “There was a steady slate of crypto attendees there, and the discussion predominantly focused on stablecoins,” said the former Treasury official.  “Rachel Reeves met Scott Bessent and seems to have been told, actually, we’d like you to be much more supportive of … digital assets,” the financial services CEO added.   The U.K. Treasury has been “pretty proactive” in taking meetings with crypto firms and traditional finance firms interested in crypto, in the New York consulate and British embassy in Washington, added the former Treasury official.   The BoE too met with the crypto industry and U.S. politicians, with Breeden at the helm of discussions while she was in the U.S. in October for IMF-World Bank meetings, in an effort to better understand U.S. stablecoin rules.  Last month saw a major olive branch.  A Bailey-penned op-ed in the Financial Times saw the Bank chief recognize stablecoins’ “potential in driving innovation in payments systems both at home and across borders.”   Going further still, Breeden told a crypto conference just this month that synchronization between the U.S. and the U.K. on stablecoin marks a “fabulous opportunity.”  She has heavily indicated there will be more than a slight American influence when she announces the proposals on Nov. 10. “It’s a fabulous opportunity, to reengineer the financial system with these new technologies,” Breeden told the Nov. 5 crypto conference.  “I think a lot of people have observed that it was the U.S. crypto firms that really pushed the dial on getting political will, whereas British firms haven’t been able to secure that,” the former Treasury official said.

BRUSSELS — Heard the one about the 12-and-half-hour meeting of 27 national leaders that succeeded in agreeing very little apart from coming up with quite a lot of “let’s decide in a couple of months” or “let’s just all agree on language that means absolutely nothing but looks like we’re united” or “let’s at least celebrate that we got through this packed agenda without having to come back on Friday”? No? Well let us enlighten you. And if that makes you question how we’ve managed to squeeze 29 things out of this, well let’s just say one of these is about badly functioning vending machines… 1 . STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX WITH A QUICK WIN ON SANCTIONS … The day was off to a flying start when Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico lifted his veto over the latest raft of Russia sanctions on the eve of the summit — allowing the package to get formally signed off at 8 a.m. before leaders even started talking. Fico rolled over after claiming to achieve what he set out to do: clinch support for Slovakia’s car industry. He found an unusual ally in German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who he met separately to discuss the impact of climate targets on their countries’ automotive sectors. 2. … BUT AGREEMENT ON FROZEN RUSSIAN ASSETS WAS LESS FORTHCOMING There was a moment earlier in the week where the EU looked to be on the cusp of a breakthrough on using Russian frozen assets to fund a €140 billion loan for Ukraine. Belgium, the main holdout, appeared to be warming to the European Commission’s daring idea to crack open the piggy bank. But Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever stuck by his guns , saying he feared taking the assets, which are held in a Brussels-based financial depository, could trigger Moscow to take legal action. 3. BELGIUM DIDN’T MOVE ON ITS BIG THREE BIG DEMANDS The Flemish right-winger’s prerequisites were threefold: the “full mutualization of the risk,” guarantees that if the money has to paid back, “every member state will chip in,” and for every other EU country that holds immobilized assets to also seize them. Leaders eventually agreed on that classic EU summit outcome: a fudge. They tasked the European Commission to “present options” at the next European Council — effectively deciding not to decide. “Political will is clear, and the process will move forward,” said one EU official. But it’s uncertain whether a deal can be brokered by the next summit, currently set for December. 4. DE WEVER REJECTS THE ‘BAD BOY’ LABEL After POLITICO ranked the Belgian leader among its list of “bad boys” likely to disrupt Thursday’s summit (rightfully, might we add), he protested the branding. “A bad boy! Me? … If you talk about the immobilized assets, we’re the very, very best,” he said. The day was off to a flying start when Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico lifted his veto over the latest raft of Russia sanctions on the eve of the summit. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA 5. URSULA VON DER LEYEN ALSO CONCEDED THEY’RE NOT QUITE THERE YET The high-level talks “allowed us to identify points we need to clarify,” the Commission president said tactfully. “Nobody vetoed nothing today,” European Council President António Costa chimed in. “The technical and legal aspects of Europe’s support need to be worked upon.” Translation in case you didn’t understand the double negative: The EU needs to come up with a better plan to reassure Belgium — and fast. 6. UKRAINE: EVER THE OPTIMIST Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ― a guest of the summit ― told reporters Russia must pay the price for its invasion, calling on the EU to follow through with its frozen assets proposal, adding he thought the leaders were “close” to an agreement. “If Russia brought war to our land, they have to pay for this war,” he said. 7. AND ZELENSKYY IS STILL HOLDING OUT FOR TOMAHAWKS “We will see,” was Zelenskyy’s message on the topic of acquiring the long-range missiles from the U.S., which Donald Trump has so far ruled out selling to Kyiv. “Each day brings something … maybe tomorrow we will have Tomahawks,” Zelenskyy said. “I don’t know.” 8. UKRAINE WANTS GERMANY TO SEND MORE WEAPONS TOO Merz held a meeting with Zelenskyy about “the situation in Washington and the American plans that are now on the table,” a German official said, adding Zelenskyy made “specific requests” to the chancellor about helping Ukraine with its “defense capabilities.” After the summit, the German leader said Berlin would review a proposal on how German technologies could help to protect Ukrainian’s energy and water infrastructure. 9. THUMBS UP TO DEFENSE ROADMAP! EU leaders endorsed the Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030 presented last week by the Commission, which aims to prepare member countries for war by 2030. One of its main objectives is to fill EU capability gaps in nine areas: air and missile defense, enablers, military mobility, artillery systems, AI and cyber, missile and ammunition, drones and anti-drones, ground combat, and maritime. The plan also mentions areas like defense readiness and the role of Ukraine, which would be heavily armed and supported to become a “steel porcupine” able to deter Russian aggression. As leaders deliberated, a Russian fighter jet and a refueling aircraft briefly crossed into Lithuanian airspace from the Kaliningrad region, underscoring the need for the EU to protect its skies. 10. KYIV IS PROMISING TO BUY EUROPEAN — MOSTLY Ukraine will prioritize domestic and European industry when spending cash from the proposed reparation loan funded by Russia’s frozen assets, Zelenskyy told leaders at the summit — but wants to be able to go across the pond when necessary. 11. MUCH THE SAME FOR SPAIN Spanish leader Pedro Sánchez said the country had committed to contributing cash to a fund organized by NATO to buy weapons for Ukraine from the U.S. | Nicolas Tucat/Getty Images Spanish leader Pedro Sánchez said the country had committed to contributing cash to a fund organized by NATO to buy weapons for Ukraine from the U.S. “Today, most of the air defense components, such as Patriots or Tomahawks … which Ukraine clearly needs, are only manufactured in the United States,” he said. Madrid has been a thorn in Washington’s side over its lax defense spending. 12. THERE WAS A MERCOSUR SURPRISE Merz stunned trade watchers when he announced the leaders had backed a controversial trade agreement with Latin American countries. “We voted on it today: The Mercosur agreement can be ratified,” the German chancellor told reporters, adding that he was “very happy” about that. “All 27 countries voted unanimously in favor,” Merz added on Mercosur. “It’s done.” The remark sparked confusion amongst delegations, as the European Council doesn’t usually vote on trade agreements — let alone one as controversial as the mammoth agreement with the countries of the Latin American bloc of Mercosur, which has been in negotiations for over 25 years. One EU diplomat clarified that it’s because European Council President António Costa sought confirmation from EU leaders that they would agree to take a stance on the deal by the end of this year — and no formal vote was taken yet. 13. CLIMATE TALKS PASSED WITHOUT A HITCH One of the hotter potatoes ahead of the summit passed surprisingly smoothly. Leaders ultimately refrained from bulldozing the EU’s climate targets, agreeing to a vaguely worded commitment to a green transition, though without committing to a 2040 goal, which proposes cutting emissions by 90 percent compared to 1990 levels. In the words of one diplomat: “Classic balance, everyone equally unhappy.” 14. AT LEAST ONE LEADER SEEMED PLEASED, THOUGH Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the summit a “turning point” in Europe’s approach to green policy, adding he succeeded in inserting a “revision clause” into the EU’s plan to extend its carbon-trading system to heating and transport emissions that will give member countries the option to delay or adjust the rollout. “We’ve defused a threat to Polish families and drivers,” he declared, calling the change a signal that “Europe is finally speaking our language.” 15. BUT THE ISSUE WON’T STAY BURIED FOR LONG Ministers are set to reconvene and cast a vote on the 2040 goal on Nov. 4, described by one diplomat as “groundhog day.” 16. MEANWHILE, THERE WAS NOTHING ON MIGRATION … Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the summit a “turning point” in Europe’s approach to green policy. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Aside from promising to make migration a “priority,” the EU’s leaders failed to make any kind of breakthrough on a stalled proposal for burden-sharing. Reminder: The EU missed a deadline last week to agree on a new way of deciding which member countries are under stress from receiving migrants and ways of sharing the responsibility more equally across the bloc. 17. … BUT THE ANTI-MIGRANT BREAKFAST CLUB LIVES ON Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen and the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof have kept up their informal pre-summit “migration breakfasts” since last June, swapping innovative ideas on tougher border and asylum policies. They met again on Thursday with von der Leyen, who updated them on the EU’s latest plans for accelerating migrant returns, and the trio agreed an informal summit will take place next month in Rome. 18. NOR DID THE EU’S SOCIAL MEDIA BAN GET MUCH OF A LOOK IN As expected, the leaders endorsed a “possible” minimum age for kids to use social media, but failed to commit to a bloc-wide ban, with capitals divided on whether to make the age 15 or 16, as well as on the issue of parental consent. 19. THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT OF WAITING FOR NEWS… Journalists were frantically pressing their sources in the Council and national delegations to find out what was happening at the leaders’ table as the meeting dragged into the late hours. It eventually finished at 10.30 p.m. ― 12 and a half hours after it began. 20. … AND THE GREENS SEIZED THEIR MOMENT The EU Parliament’s Greens group co-chair Bas Eickhout wandered the hallways of the Justus Lipsius building ready to brief bored journalists about the wonders of the Green Deal — while leaders debated how to unravel it in the other room. 21. THE COMBUSTION ENGINE BAN FELL FLAT One of the pillars of the EU’s green transition, its 2035 de facto combustion engine ban, was set to play a major role in the competitiveness and climate discussions, with Merz and Fico spoiling for a fight over the proposal — yet it barely registered as a footnote. Slovakia used the climate talks to oppose the ban, and the Czech Republic chimed in to agree, but in the end the summit’s official conclusions welcomed the Commission’s proposed ban without mentioning how it should be watered down. 22. THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL’S VENDING MACHINES AREN’T VERY, ER, COMPETITIVE Officials and journalists alike found that the vending machines in the EU’s Justus Lipsius building, which incidentally is due for a €1 billion renovation, about as efficient as a roundtable of 27 national leaders lasting 12 and a half hours. 23. THE BLOC IS WORRIED ABOUT CHINA… Beijing’s export controls on rare earths came up in the talks on competitiveness, according to two EU officials, with some leaders expressing their concerns. 24. … BUT THEY’RE NOT READY TO GO NUCLEAR — YET One of the officials said the EU’s most powerful trade weapon, the Anti-Coercion Instrument, was mentioned, but didn’t garner much interest around the table. 25. HOUSING GETS 40 MINUTES — NOT BAD FOR A FIRST RUN Leaders spent a chunk of time discussing the continent’s housing crisis. A solid start for the topic, which made it onto the agenda for the first time at Costa’s behest. The EU executive “is ready to help,” von der Leyen said after the summit, announcing a European Affordable Housing Plan is in the pipeline and the first EU Housing Summit in 2026. | Dursun Aydemir/Getty Images During talks, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis called on the Commission to create a database tracking which housing policies work — and which don’t — across Europe. Most leaders agreed that, while housing remains a national competence, the EU still has a role to play. 26. AND THE COMMISSION WANTS TO ROLL UP ITS SLEEVES The EU executive “is ready to help,” von der Leyen said after the summit, announcing a European Affordable Housing Plan is in the pipeline and the first EU Housing Summit in 2026. 27. LEADERS ENJOYED A FEAST OR TWO For lunch, langoustine with yuzu, celeriac and apple, fillet of veal with artichokes and crispy polenta, and a selection of fresh fruit. For dinner, cannelloni with herbs, courgette velouté, fillet of brill with chorizo and pepper, and fig meringue cake. Yum. 28. THOUGH A FEW COULDN’T MAKE IT Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was the most notable absence, rocking up several hours late due to a national holiday in Budapest. Portugal and Slovenia’s leaders were also absent at one point. 29. AND COSTA KEPT HIS PROMISE … JUST The European Council president pledged to streamline summits under his watch, making them one-day affairs instead of two. And with just a couple hours to spare, he was successful. Okay, breathe. Did we miss anything? (Don’t answer that.) Gerardo Fortuna, Max Griera Andrieu, Jordyn Dahl, Gabriel Gavin, Hanne Cokelaere, Clea Caulcutt, Hans von der Burchard, Kathryn Carlson, Tim Ross, Jacopo Barigazzi, Gregorio Sorgi, Eliza Gkritsi, Carlo Martuscelli, Nicholas Vinocur, Saga Ringmar, Sarah Wheaton, Louise Guillot, Zia Weise, Camille Gijs, Bartosz Brzezinski and Giedre Peseckyte contributed to this report.

Russia’s Supreme Court outlawed what it termed the “International Movement of Satanists” as hostile to traditional religions on Wednesday, in the latest incarnation of the Kremlin’s sweeping crackdown on ideological dissent. “Today, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted the lawsuit filed by the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Igor Krasnov, recognizing the International Movement of Satanists as extremist and banning its activities within Russia,” the Prosecutor General’s Office said in a statement. “As established, the movement is based on extremist ideology, hatred and hostility toward traditional religious confessions,” the statement added. Despite the official-sounding name, the “International Movement of Satanists” does not appear to exist, at least not under that moniker. Independent Russian-language news outlet Meduza, based in Latvia, wrote that the Supreme Court has previously “also banned other fictitious movements” such as the “international LGBT movement” and then “used that designation to persecute LGBTQ+ individuals and censor artistic works.” Undeterred, the prosecutor’s office accused the Satanists of inciting violence against religious institutions and engaging in “destruction, damage and desecration of Orthodox churches,” and linked the movement to “radical nationalism and neo-Nazism.” Russia’s Deputy Justice Minister Oleg Sviridenko said the ban was the result of coordinated efforts between law enforcement and the judiciary “within the framework of state control aimed at protecting national interests and strengthening public safety.” The Russian Orthodox Church and conservative lawmakers have called for years for Satanist ideology to be outlawed. In April Russia’s lower house of parliament, the State Duma, hosted a roundtable on combating Satanism and other beliefs considered a threat to Russian statehood. The ruling adds to a growing list of ideological and religious movements targeted under Russia’s 2002 extremism law, a tool critics argue has often been used to stifle criticism of the Russian Orthodox Church and Kremlin policies.