The U.S. is offering Ukraine security guarantees similar to those it would receive as part of NATO, American officials said Monday. The offer is the strongest and most explicit security pledge the Trump administration has put forward for Ukraine, but it comes with an implicit ultimatum: Take it now or the next iteration won’t be as generous. The proposal of so-called Article 5-like guarantees comes amid marathon talks among special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner and Ukrainian and European officials in Berlin as Washington tries to pressure Kyiv into accepting terms that will end the war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and many European leaders have been reluctant to reach a deal without an explicit U.S. security guarantee, fearful that Russia, after a period of time, would attack again. This latest U.S. offer appears to be an effort to assuage those concerns but also to push Zelenskyy to act quickly. “The basis of that agreement is basically to have really, really strong guarantees, Article 5-like,” a senior U.S. official said. “Those guarantees will not be on the table forever. Those guarantees are on the table right now if there’s a conclusion that’s reached in a good way.” President Donald Trump said later Monday that he had spoken with Zelenskyy and European leaders by phone. Trump also said he had spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin, but did not say when. “I think we’re closer now than we have been ever, and we’ll see what we can do,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Asked if the offer for security guarantees had a time limit, he said “the time limit is whenever we can get it done.” The discussions over the weekend largely focused on detailing the security guarantees that the U.S. and Europe would provide Ukraine, but they also included territory and other matters. Witkoff and Kushner were joined by Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, head of U.S. European Command as well as the top commander for NATO. The U.S. expects that Russia would accept such an arrangement in a final deal, as well as permit Ukraine to join the European Union. That could prove to be an overly optimistic assessment, given the Kremlin’s refusal to give ground in peace talks so far. And Moscow has yet to weigh in on any of the new agreements being worked out in Europe over the last few days. “We believe the Russians, in a final deal, will accept all these things which allow for a strong and free Ukraine. Russia, in a final deal, has indicated they were open to Ukraine joining the EU,” a second U.S. official said. Both officials were granted anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations. It was not clear when or how the Trump administration would bring the new details to Moscow. Russia expects the U.S. side will update it on the talks, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said. He added Putin “is open to peace, to a serious peace and serious decisions. He is absolutely not open to any tricks aimed at stalling for time.” The Kremlin said Monday it expected to be updated on the Berlin talks by the U.S. side. Asked whether the negotiations could be over by Christmas, Peskov said trying to predict a potential time frame for a peace deal was a “thankless task.” The second U.S. official said the Ukrainian delegation was pleasantly “surprised” by Trump’s willingness to agree to firmer security guarantees and to have them ratified by Congress so that they will endure beyond his presidency. The U.S. side also spoke highly of its European counterparts, who have been worried for months that the Trump team would force Ukraine to agree to unfavorable conditions. European officials also sounded upbeat. “The legal and material security guarantees that the U.S. has put on the table here in Berlin are remarkable,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters during a press conference after the talks Monday. Merz, along with his counterparts from Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, U.K., Sweden and the EU put out a statement welcoming “significant progress” in the U.S. effort and committing to helping Ukraine to end the war and deter Russian aggression, including through a European-led multinational force for Ukraine supported by the U.S. Over the weekend Zelenskyy conceded that Ukraine would not seek NATO membership, a condition that Russia has repeatedly sought. Trump, who skipped this week’s meetings in Berlin but has been briefed twice by Witkoff and Kushner, planned to call into a dinner Monday for attending heads of state, foreign ministers and security officials, the U.S. officials said. “He’s really pleased with where [things] are,” the first U.S. official said. Witkoff and Kushner also sought to narrow disputes between Ukraine and Russia over what territory Moscow would control in a final deal. Russia has so far insisted on controlling Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, even parts that Moscow hasn’t captured. One of the U.S. officials said the talks focused on many of the specific territorial considerations, stating that there is a proposal in the works but yet to be finalized for Russia and Ukraine to split control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant with each country having access to half of the energy produced by the plant. But the American officials mostly avoided specifics on how they aimed to bridge other gaps on territorial disputes. They said they left Zelenskyy with “thought-provoking ideas” on how to do so. After Zelenskyy responds to the proposals, Witkoff and Kushner will discuss the matter with Russia. “We feel really good about the progress that we’ve made, including on territories,” the first official said. Next the U.S. will convene working groups, likely in Miami this weekend, where military officials will pore over maps to solve the remaining territorial issues. “We believe that we have probably solved for … 90 percent of the issues between Ukraine and Russia, but there’s some more things that have to be worked out,” the first U.S. official said. Hans Joachim Von Der Burchard in Berlin contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — The European Union faces a critical week as it seeks to shield Ukraine from a humiliating peace deal carved out by the U.S. and Russia while attempting to salvage an agreement to fund a multi-billion euro loan to keep Kyiv afloat. After a series of stinging attacks from Washington ― including Donald Trump telling POLITICO that European leaders are “weak” ― the coming days will be a real test of their mettle. On Monday leaders will attempt to build bridges and use their powers of persuasion over the peace agreement when they meet Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. officials in Berlin. At the same time in Brussels, EU foreign ministers and diplomats will battle to win over a growing number of European governments that oppose the loan plan. By Thursday, when all 27 leaders gather in the Belgian capital for what promises to be one of the most pivotal summits in years, they’ll hope to have more clarity on whether the intense diplomacy has paid off. With Trump’s stinging put-downs ― Europe’s leaders “talk, but they don’t produce” ― and NATO chief Mark Rutte’s stark warnings about the the threat from Russia ringing in their ears, they’re taking nothing for granted. “We are Russia’s next target, and we are already in harm’s way,” Rutte said last week. “Russia has brought war back to Europe and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great grandparents endured.” Little wonder then that European officials are casting the next few days as existential. The latest shot of 11th-hour diplomacy will see the leaders of the U.K., Germany and possibly France, potentially with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and his special envoy Steve Witkoff, meeting with Zelenskyy in Berlin. As if to underscore the significance of the meeting, “numerous European heads of state and government, as well as the leaders of the EU and NATO, will join the talks” after the initial discussion, said Stefan Kornelius, spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. French President Emmanuel Macron hasn’t confirmed his attendance but spoke to Zelenskyy by telephone on Sunday. The discussion will represent Europe’s attempt to influence the final settlement, weeks after a 28-point peace plan drafted by Witkoff  — reportedly with the aid of several Kremlin officials — provoked a furious backlash in both Kyiv and European capitals. They’ve since scrambled to put together an alternative. Further European disunity this week would send a “disastrous signal to Ukraine,” said one EU official. That outcome wouldn’t just be a hammer blow to the war-struck nation, the official added: “It’s also fair to say that Europe will then fail as well.” EMPTYING TERRITORIES This time the focus will be on a 20-point amendment to the plan drafted by Kyiv and its European allies and submitted to Washington for review last week. The contents remain unclear, and nothing is decided, but the fate of the Ukrainian territories under Russian occupation is particularly thorny. Trump has pitched emptying out the territories of Ukrainian and Russian troops and establishing a demilitarized “free economic zone” where U.S. business interests could operate. Ukraine has rejected that proposal, according to a French official, who was granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. The U.S. has insisted on territorial concessions despite fierce European objections, the official added, creating friction with the Trump administration. Leaders will attempt to build bridges and use their powers of persuasion over the peace agreement when they meet Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. officials in Berlin. | Antonio Masiello/Getty Images Europe’s leaders insist there can be no progress on territory before Ukraine is offered security guarantees. In a sign of movement toward some kind of deal, Zelenskyy said over the weekend he was willing to “compromise” and not demand NATO membership for Ukraine. Instead, the country should be afforded an ad-hoc collective defense arrangement, he told journalists in a WhatsApp conversation. “The bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States … and the security guarantees from our European colleagues for us, as well as from other countries such as Canada and Japan ― these security guarantees for us provide an opportunity to prevent another outbreak of Russian aggression,” he said. REPEATED SETBACKS Europe will have further opportunities to discuss the way forward after Monday. EU affairs ministers will continue on Tuesday in Brussels to thrash out plans for Thursday’s summit. In between, Wednesday will see the leaders of Europe’s “Eastern flank” ― with countries including the Baltics and Poland represented ― huddle in Helsinki. The EU has been trying for months to convince Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever to consent to a plan to use the cash value of the €185 billion in Russian state assets held in Brussels-based depository Euroclear to fund and arm Ukraine. (The remainder of the total €210 billion financial package would include €25 billion in frozen Russian assets held across the bloc.) In a sign the chances of a deal at Thursday’s summit are worsening rather than improving, Italy — the EU’s third-largest country — sided with Belgium’s demands to look for alternative options to finance Ukraine in a letter on Friday that was also signed by Malta and Bulgaria. Czechia’s new Prime Minister Andrej Babiš also rejected the plan on Sunday. “The more such cases we have the more likely it is that we will have to find other solutions,” an EU diplomat said. The five countries — even if joined by pro-Kremlin Hungary and Slovakia — would not be able to build a blocking minority, but their public criticism erodes the Commission’s hopes of striking a political deal this week. A meeting of EU ambassadors originally planned for Sunday evening was postponed until Monday. While the last-minute diplomatic effort has left many concerned the money might not be approved before the end of the year, with Ukraine in desperate need of the cash, three diplomats insisted they were sticking to the plan and that no alternatives were yet being considered. Belgium is engaging constructively with the draft measures, actively making suggestions and changes in the document to be considered when ambassadors meet on Monday, one of the diplomats and an EU official said. The decision on the Russian assets is “a decision on the future of Europe and will determine whether the EU is still a relevant actor,” a German official said. “There is no option B.” Bjarke Smith-Meyer, Nick Vinocur, Victor Jack and Zoya Sheftalovich in Brussels, Veronika Melkozerova in Kyiv, Clea Caulcutt and Laura Kayali in Paris and Nette Nöstlinger in Berlin contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Italy is throwing its weight behind Belgium in opposing the EU’s plan to send €210 billion of Russia’s frozen state assets to Ukraine, according to an internal document seen by POLITICO. The intervention by Rome, the EU’s No.3 in terms of population and voting power — less than a week before a crucial meeting of EU leaders in Brussels — undermines the European Commission’s hopes of finalizing a deal on the plan. The Commission is pushing for EU member countries to reach an agreement in a European Council summit on Dec.18-19 so that the billions of euros in Russian reserves held in the Euroclear bank in Belgium can be freed up to support Kyiv’s war-battered economy.  Belgium’s government is holding out over fears it will be on the hook to repay the full amount if Russia claws back the money, but has so far lacked a heavyweight ally ahead of the December summit. Now Italy has shaken up the diplomatic dynamics by drafting a document with Belgium, Malta and Bulgaria urging the Commission to explore alternative options to using the Russian assets to keep Ukraine afloat over the coming years. The four countries said they “invite the Commission and the Council to continue exploring and discussing alternative options in line with EU and international law, with predictable parameters, presenting significantly less risks, to address Ukraine’s financial needs, based on an EU loan facility or bridge solutions.” The four countries are referring to a Plan B to issue joint EU debt to finance Ukraine over the coming years. However, this idea has its own problems. Critics note it will add to the high debt burdens of Italy and France, and requires unanimity — meaning it can be vetoed by Hungary’s Kremlin-friendly Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The four countries — even if joined by pro-Kremlin Hungary and Slovakia — would not be able to build a blocking minority but their public criticism erodes the Commission’s hopes of striking a political deal next week. While Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has always supported sanctions against Russia, the government coalition she leads is divided over supporting Ukraine. Hard-right Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has embraced a Russia-friendly stance and endorsed U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Ukraine. EMERGENCY RULE Offering a further criticism, the four countries expressed skepticism toward the Commission seizing on emergency powers to overhaul the current sanctions rules and keep Russia’s assets frozen in the long-term. Despite voting in favor of this move to preserve EU unity, they said they were wary of then progressing to use the Russian assets themselves. “This vote does not pre-empt in any circumstances the decision on the possible use of Russian immobilised assets that needs to be taken at Leaders’ level,” the four countries wrote. The legal mechanism for long-term freeze is meant to reduce the chance that pro-Kremlin countries in Europe, such as Hungary and Slovakia, will hand back the frozen funds to Russia. Officials claim this workaround undermines the Kremlin’s chances of liberating its assets as part of a post-war peace settlement — and therefore strengthens the EU’s separate plan to make use of that money.   However, the four countries wrote that the legal clause “implies very far reaching legal, financial, procedural, and institutional consequences that might go well beyond this specific case.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s former chief of staff said that he would go to the frontline and fight for Ukraine after being embroiled in a corruption scandal. Andriy Yermak, who was abruptly fired on Friday hours after his home was raided by the national anti-corruption watchdog, told the New York Post that he was going to fight for his country, the U.S. tabloid reported late Friday. “I’ve been desecrated, and my dignity hasn’t been protected,” Yermak told the outlet. “Therefore, I don’t want to create problems for Zelenskyy; I’m going to the front.” Yermak’s ouster came after Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies revealed that people close to Zelenskyy were involved in a plot to skim around $100 million from Ukraine’s energy sector. No charges have been brought yet against Yermak, a long-time Zelenskyy confidant who was seen as the second-most powerful man in the Ukrainian government. The former adviser had been a key bridge to Ukraine’s Western allies and had led negotiations with Donald Trump’s White House. In his place, Zelenskyy has appointed Rustem Umerov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, to lead talks with top American officials scheduled for Sunday. Yermak was scathing in his message that he would go fight for his country: “I’m disgusted by the filth directed at me, and even more disgusted by the lack of support from those who know the truth.” “Maybe we’ll see each other again. Glory to Ukraine,” the former powerbroker added in his signoff.

LONDON — Europe’s leaders are trying to nail down their plans to back up Ukraine with multinational military force if the country manages to land a peace deal with Russia. With a flurry of diplomacy towards an agreement sharpening minds, Ukraine’s allies assembled for a virtual meeting of the “coalition of the willing” Tuesday — and appeared to have won at least some United States buy-in. The meeting was designed to show solidarity with Kyiv as it advances delicate peace talks with the U.S. — and make good on promises by the 33-strong “Coalition of the Willing” to match words with deeds. On Tuesday night, French President Emmanuel Macron announced a new joint task-force — led by France and the U.K. with the participation of the United States and Turkey. It’s intended to hammer out the precise detail of the military support Europe will offer under a peace agreement. “In the coming days, we will be able to finalize very precisely the contributions of each country and be able to present finalized security guarantees,” Macron promised. A “multinational force” will play “a vital part” in guaranteeing the country’s security, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told those on the call — who notably included U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. An Elysée official argued that the fresh task force would give a “new coherence” to transatlantic talks on security guarantees, while a U.K. official said Rubio’s participation in the call was a positive sign of U.S. buy-in, long one of the most contentious elements of any plan. A second British official said British preparations by military planners were “very well advanced.”  Still, analysts urged a good dose of caution. Ed Arnold from the Royal United Services think tank in London warned that, if U.S. security guarantees are not firmly pinned down, the coalition is “in a really dangerous position, in that you’re deploying a force with a backstop that deep down you know is not credible.” ‘FALLBACK POSITIONS’ The coalition, a loose alliance of nations whose members include France, Germany, Britain, Belgium, Canada and Turkey among others, sprung up earlier this year amid deep European concern about America’s ongoing support for Ukraine. Its members have promised varying degrees of support — including, in the case of France and the U.K., a commitment to deploy national troops on the ground to police the deal and deter further Russian aggression. The coalition has already floated a “reassurance force” providing air and naval support to Ukraine, as well as a focus on regenerating the country’s armed forces. Starmer’s spokesman told reporters Tuesday that the U.K. was “still willing to put boots on the ground” to secure peace. Macron, while stressing that the force would be “far from the frontline,” floated a presence “in fallback positions in Kyiv or Odessa.” “We’ll have a air reassurance force, which will not be based in Ukraine, but possibly in neighboring countries… leading operations linked with the Ukrainian air force to secure its airspace,” he told French radio. With one eye on a wary domestic audience, Macron added: “We shouldn’t sow panic among the French, because there are a lot of people… who want to scare us, and who are saying that we’re going to immediately send troops, that’s false.” Germany has been somewhat more circumspect about its involvement. Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul this week pointed to an existing German brigade in Lithuania, saying “we are more involved in the entire region than almost any other member of NATO” and that this is “sufficient.” Major questions remain too about how the U.S. really sees its own role and where European forces could make a tangible difference. Russia has openly trashed a Europe-backed plan for peace. Calvin Bailey, a Labour MP on the U.K. House of Commons defense committee, said that while the group is “playing a vital role… the capabilities and plans we offer in to this process must be properly resourced and credible for this to work.” The U.K. Conservative Party has questioned whether the government has really thought its commitments through. The second British government official cited above insisted this criticism was misplaced, arguing clear operational expectations can only be set after a ceasefire agreement is actually reached.  But John Foreman, former British military attaché to Russia, played down the significance of Europe’s military contribution as a whole. He argued that the coalition’s main utility is “as a political grouping which can bridge NATO, EU and the rest of the world.” It is, he said, “never going to be able to provide credible security guarantees — only the U.S. with perhaps key allies can do this, as no one wants to fight the Russians if peace breaks down.” Nette Nöstlinger contributed to this report.

VENICE, Italy — Luca Zaia, a towering force in northern Italian politics, is plotting his next move and that’s turning into a headache for his party, the far-right League, led by firebrand Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini. As regional president of Veneto, the wealthy region of 5 million people around Venice, Zaia is one of the League’s superstars, but his mandate comes to an end after an election this weekend. That is sparking intense speculation about his ambitions — not least because his political vision is so different from Salvini’s. While Salvini is steering the League away from its separatist roots — no longer seeking to rip the rich industrialized north away from poorer southern Italy — Zaia remains a vocal advocate for northern autonomy from Rome. He is also more moderate on immigration, climate and LGBTQ+ rights than his right-wing populist party chief. One of the big questions looming over Italian politics is whether these two rival visions can survive within the League, a party at the heart of Giorgia Meloni’s coalition government. Zaia himself suggests the League could split into two allied factions along the lines of the Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union on Germany’s center right.   MEET THE DOGE Nicknamed the “Doge of Venice,” Zaia, a former Italian agriculture minister, has spent 15 of his 57 years running Veneto from an office lined with emerald silk in a 16th-century palazzo on the Grand Canal. He won eight out of 10 votes cast in 2020, the highest approval rating of any regional chief, but is barred from running again because of a two-term limit. In an interview with POLITICO, he joked about the whirl of theories about his next steps. “I am in the running for everything: [energy giant] ENI, Venice, parliament, minister.” But when pressed on what he will do, he gave nothing away, only that his focus is squarely on the north. “I gave up a safe seat in Brussels a year ago to stay here,” he said, only adding he would work until the last day of his mandate. “Then I’ll see.” Amid internal power struggles in the League, Zaia is increasingly seen as an alternative leadership figure by those unhappy with its trajectory.  Zaia has clashed with Salvini’s deputy leader Gen. Roberto Vannacci over his revisionist views of the fascist era under Benito Mussolini, but has held back from criticizing Salvini openly. Zaia, right, at the closing event of the center-right coalition’s campaign for the Veneto regional elections in support of Alberto Stefani, left, Nov. 18. | Alessandro Bremec/NurPhoto via Getty Images When asked whether Salvini made strategic mistakes as party leader, he stayed cryptically diplomatic. “We all make mistakes,” he replied. A CHANGING LEAGUE When Zaia joined what was then the Northern League in the 1990s it was a separatist movement, opposed to tax redistribution from the wealthy north to the south, perceived as corrupt and inefficient. But under Salvini’s leadership, the rebranded League became a nationwide party, with a strand increasingly courting the extreme right. This approach has alienated both mainstream voters, and more moderate and north-focused activists, for whom Zaia is a political lodestar. One major bugbear is Salvini’s drive to build a €14 billion bridge between Calabria and Sicily, seen by separatists as a wasteful southern project sucking in northern tax revenue. In a sign of the shifting tectonic plates, one faction, supported by the Northern League’s founder Umberto Bossi, and that has in recent years unsuccessfully tried to oust Salvini, last week launched a new party, the Pact for the North. Its leader, former MP Paolo Grimoldi, expelled from the League after 34 years, told POLITICO his group would welcome Zaia “with open arms.”  Zaia and other northern governors “just have to find the courage to say publicly what they have been saying privately for some time, that Salvini has completely betrayed the battles of the League.” Zaia himself is recommending a new-look League modeled on the German CDU-CSU, with sister League parties catering to Italy’s north and south. He aired the idea in a new book by journalist Bruno Vespa, pointing out the CSU had a separate Bavarian identity within the German Christian Democrat family. “We could do the same here,” he said. Most political insiders and observers think it unlikely that Zaia would seek a national leadership role — being too associated with Veneto — but he would be an obvious choice to lead the northern wing of a divided party. For Salvini, this internal schism is an obvious challenge. He has said he’s intrigued by the CDU-CSU idea, but few believe him. He needs to find something to prevent Zaia from turning into a nuisance, and has proposed him for a vacant parliamentary seat in Rome and as mayor of Venice. “It’s up to him to decide if he stays in Veneto or brings Veneto to Rome,” Salvini said at an event in Padua last weekend. MAYOR OF VENICE? Which way will Zaia jump? A return to Rome seems unappetizing. “When he was minister, he didn’t like Rome”, said a political colleague. “Rome’s values are not the values of Veneto.  In Veneto, we value meritocracy, work, effort, seriousness in politics. In Rome it’s all compromise.” Which makes Venice the more likely option, if he does decide to avoid a head-on clash with Salvini. Zaia would be very well set to run for mayor of Venice next May, according to the MP and two friends of Zaia’s from Veneto. He has a manifesto ready: Autonomy for Venice. Venice should become a city-state with special powers to address its unique problems of depopulation, overtourism and climate change, he said in the interview. Zaia’s popularity in Veneto, according to the locals, derives from his down-to-earth persona. He’s better known for speaking in regional dialect and attending traditional events, rather than being snapped at glamorous galas or on the fleet of speedboats at his disposal, rocking gently at his Grand Canal doorstep.   He was also lauded for his handling of the Covid pandemic, readying Veneto for the Winter Olympics next year and even helping boost exports of Prosecco sparkling wine. Local lore holds that half of Veneto’s 5 million residents have his phone number. “Maybe even more,” he quipped. “I have never changed my number, people know they can call me if they have a serious problem.” DISCO DOGE Raised in a small village near Treviso, just 30 kilometers from Venice, he was an unusually independent and motivated teenager, passionate about horses and teaching himself Latin on Sundays, according to one classmate. At university, where he graduated in animal husbandry, he supported himself by running club nights in local discos. It was a useful training for politics, Zaia said. “Clubs are a great school of life. You meet humanity in all its forms: rich, poor, good, bad, violent, peaceful.” One of the big questions looming over Italian politics is whether these two rival visions can survive within the League, a party at the heart of Giorgia Meloni’s coalition government. | Ivan Romano/Getty Images Indeed, it seems he took the role ultraseriously. “I never saw Luca dance. For him it was work,” said the same former classmate. He entered politics in the aftermath of the 1990s Clean Hands scandal, a nationwide corruption investigation, which took down a generation of politicians, and became a rising star in the region. As well as being the youngest provincial president in Italy, adorning Treviso with numerous surprisingly popular roundabouts, he was minister of agriculture in Silvio Berlusconi’s government. He is sufficiently self-assured to diverge from central League dogma when he sees fit. He tried to bring in a law this year to regulate doctor-assisted suicide in contrast to national League policy. He also supports sex education in schools, something the League opposes. “When it’s an ethical matter … I  have my own ideas, regardless of what the party says,” he said. But he is clearly smarting about the party’s deal with Meloni to keep the Zaia brand out of the campaign for this weekend’s Veneto election. The original plan, which would have given him significant ongoing influence in the region, was for him to choose a list of regional councilors to go on the ballot and for the League logo to feature his name, he told journalists on the sidelines of a Venice Commission event in October. “If they see me as a problem, I’ll become a real problem,” he threatened. (He will still appear on the ballot as a candidate for regional councilor, giving him yet another option — stay on to assist his successor.) If he does decide to chart his own political path as mayor of Venice next year, at least he won’t have far to go. The doge needs only to step into one of his speedboats to whizz off to the mayor’s equally opulent palazzo along the Grand Canal.

As Europe redefines its life sciences and biotech agenda, one truth stands out: the strength of our innovation lies in its interconnection between human and animal health, science and society, and policy and practice. This spirit of collaboration guided the recent “Innovation for Animal Health: Advancing Europe’s Life Sciences Agenda” policy breakfast in Brussels, where leading voices from EU politics, science and industry came together to discuss how Europe can turn its scientific excellence into a truly competitive and connected life sciences ecosystem. Jeannette Ferran Astorga / Via Zoetis Europe’s role in life sciences will depend on its ability to see innovation holistically. At Zoetis we firmly believe that animal health innovation must be part of that equation, as this strengthens resilience, drives sustainability, and connects directly to the wellbeing of people. Innovation without barriers Some of humanity’s greatest challenges continue to emerge at the intersection of human, animal and environmental health, sometimes with severe economic impact. The recent outbreaks of diseases like avian influenza, African swine fever and bluetongue virus act as reminders of this. By enhancing the health and welfare of animals, the animal health industry and veterinarians are strengthening farmers’ livelihoods, supporting thriving communities and safeguarding global food security. This is also contributing to protecting wildlife and ecosystems. Meanwhile, companion animals are members of approximately half of European households. Here, we have seen how dogs and cats have become part of the family, with owners now investing a lot more to keep their pets healthy and able to live to an old age. Because of the deepening bonds with our pets and their increased longevity, the demand for new treatment alternatives is rising continuously, stimulating new research and innovative solutions making their way into veterinary practices. Zoonotic diseases that can be transferred between animals and humans, like rabies, Lyme disease, Covid-19 and constantly new emerging infectious diseases, make the rapid development of veterinary solutions a necessity. Throughout the world, life sciences are an engine of growth and a foundation of health, resilience and sustainability. Europe’s next chapter in this field will also be written by those who can bridge human and animal health, transforming science into solutions that deliver both economic and societal value. The same breakthroughs that protect our pets and livestock underpin the EU’s ambitions on antimicrobial resistance, food security and sustainable agriculture. Ensuring these innovations can reach the market efficiently is therefore not a niche issue, it is central to Europe’s strategic growth and competitiveness. This was echoed at the policy event by Dr. Wiebke Jansen, Policy Lead at the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) when she noted that ‘innovation is not abstract. As soon as a product is available, it changes the lives of animals, their veterinarians and the communities we serve. With the many unmet needs we still face in animal health, having access to new innovation is an extremely relevant question from the veterinary perspective.’ Enabling innovation through smart regulation To realize the promise of Europe’s life sciences and biotech agenda, the EU must ensure that regulation keeps pace with scientific discovery. The European Commission’s Omnibus Simplification Package offers a valuable opportunity to create a more innovation-friendly environment, one where time and resources can be focused on developing solutions for animal and human health, not on navigating overlapping reporting requirements or dealing with an ever increasing regulatory burden. > In animal health, biotechnology is already transforming what’s possible — for > example, monoclonal antibodies that help control certain chronic conditions or > diseases with unprecedented precision. Reviewing legislative frameworks, developing the Union Product Database as a true one-stop hub or introducing digital tools such as electronic product information (e-leaflets) in all member states, for instance, would help scientists and regulators alike to work more efficiently, thereby enhancing the availability of animal health solutions. This is not about loosening standards; it is about creating the right conditions for innovation to thrive responsibly and efficiently. Science that serves society Europe’s leadership in life sciences depends on its ability to turn cutting-edge research into real-world impact, for example through bringing new products to patients faster. In animal health, biotechnology is already transforming what’s possible — for example, monoclonal antibodies that help control certain chronic conditions or diseases with unprecedented precision. Relieving itching caused by atopic dermatitis or alleviating the pain associated with osteoarthritis significantly increases the quality of life of cats and dogs — and their owners. In addition, diagnostics and next-generation vaccines prevent outbreaks before they start or spread further. Maintaining a proportionate, benefit–risk for veterinary medicines allows innovation to progress safely while ensuring accelerated access to new treatments. Supporting science-based decision-making and investing in the European Medicines Agency’s capacity to deliver efficient, predictable processes will help Europe remain a trusted partner in global health innovation. Continuum of Care / Via Zoetis A One Health vision for the next decade Europe is not short of ambition. The EU Biotech Act and the Life Sciences Strategy both aim to turn innovation into a driver of growth and wellbeing. But to truly unlock their potential, they must include animal health in their vision. The experience of the veterinary medicines sector shows that innovation does not stop at species’ borders; advances in immunology, monoclonal antibodies and the use of artificial intelligence benefit both animals and humans. A One Health perspective, where veterinary and human health research reinforce each other, will help Europe to play a positive role in an increasingly competitive global landscape. The next five years will be decisive. By fostering proportionate, science-based adaptive regulation, investing in digital and institutional capacity, and embracing a One Health approach to innovation, Europe can become a genuine world leader in life sciences — for people and the animals that are essential to our lives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Zoetis Belgium S.A. * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on the EU End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR), circular plastics, chemical recycling, and industrial competitiveness in Europe. More information here.

The White House is exuding confidence heading into Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing that the justices will uphold President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff powers. But just in case, aides have a plan B. Aides have spent weeks strategizing how to reconstitute the president’s global tariff regime if the court rules that he exceeded his authority. They’re ready to fall back on a patchwork of other trade statutes to keep pressure on U.S. trading partners and preserve billions in tariff revenue, according to six current and former White House officials and others familiar with the administration’s thinking, some of whom were granted anonymity to share details of private conversations. “They’re aware there are a number of different statutes they can use to recoup the tariff authority,” said Everett Eissenstat, former deputy director of the White House’s National Economic Council during Trump’s first term. “There’s a lot of tools there that they could go to to make up that tariff revenue.” The contingency planning underscores how much is at stake for Trump, who has used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law designed for national emergencies, to impose tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner — the foundation of his second-term economic agenda. The justices will weigh whether the law gives the president broad power to impose economic restrictions — or whether Trump has stretched it beyond what Congress intended. If the court curtails that power, it could upend not only the White House’s “America First” trade strategy but also the global negotiations Trump has leveraged it to shape. “This is all about foreign policy. This isn’t 1789 where you can clearly delineate between trade policy, economic policy, national security policy and defense policy. These things are all completely interconnected,” said Alex Gray, who served as National Security Council chief of staff and deputy assistant to the president during the first Trump administration. “To diminish the tools he has to do that is really dangerous.” Behind the scenes, trade and legal advisers have modeled what a partial loss might look like — where the court upholds the use of the 1977 law in some circumstances but not others — and what other legal means might be available to achieve similar ends. However, those alternatives are slower, narrower and, in some cases, similarly vulnerable to legal challenge, leaving even White House allies to acknowledge the administration’s tariff strategy is on shakier ground than it is willing to publicly concede. Even a partial loss at the Supreme Court would make it much harder for the president to use tariffs as an all-purpose tool for extracting concessions on a number of issues, from muscling foreign companies to make investments in the U.S. to pressuring countries into reaching peace agreements. “There’s no other legal authority that will work as quickly or give the president the flexibility he wanted,” said one supporter of Trump’s tariff policies, who was part of a group that filed an amicus brief in support of his tariffs. “They seem very confident that they’re going to win. I don’t see why they’re confident at all. Two different courts that have ruled extremely harshly on this.” Still, White House aides are telegraphing confidence, convinced the justices won’t strip Trump of his favorite negotiating tool, and certain that even if they do, he has plenty of backup plans. “Frankly, there’s a little bit of bravado, like, they’re not going to knock these down,” one person close to the White House said. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the administration sees it as “a pretty clear case.” “We’re using a law that Congress passed, in which they gave the executive branch the authority to use tariffs to address national emergencies,” the official said. Aides concede that other tariff authorities are not a “one-for-one replacement” for the emergency law, though they confirmed they are pursuing them. In fact, the White House has already laid some of the policy groundwork under those authorities, such as the 1970s-vintage Section 301, which the U.S. used against China in Trump’s first term, or the Cold War-era Section 232, which allows tariffs on national-security grounds. The administration has launched more than a dozen 232 investigations into whether the import of goods like lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals from other countries impairs national security. Since January, Trump has used that authority to impose new tariffs on copper, aluminum, steel and autos. It has also opened a 301 investigation into Brazil’s trade practices, including digital services, ethanol tariffs and intellectual property protection. It’s a model officials say could be replicated against other countries if the court curtails IEEPA — and could be used to pressure countries into reaffirming the trade deals that they’ve already negotiated with the United States, or to accept the rates that Trump has unilaterally assigned them. But those tools come with challenges: Section 301 investigations can take months to complete, slowing Trump’s ability to impose tariffs unilaterally or tie them to unrelated goals like ending the war between Russia and Ukraine or stem the flow of fentanyl across the U.S. border. Section 232 offers broad discretion to impose tariffs on national-security grounds, but because the levies are sector-based, they are typically applied across a product category, limiting Trump’s ability to pressure individual countries. And imposing new duties on global industries like semiconductors or pharmaceuticals, as Trump has threatened, could upend recent agreements the administration has reached with trading partners, especially China, which negotiated a trade truce last week. “This detente may have weakened the president’s resolve to go forward with the 232s. We’re worse off than we were,” a second person close to the administration said. The U.S. has already promised to delay fees on Chinese vessels arriving at U.S. ports following the conclusion of a Section 301 investigation on China’s shipbuilding practices as a result of the Thursday meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The U.S. also agreed to delay an investigation into China’s adherence to its trade deal from Trump’s first term. Section 122, meanwhile, allows only short-term tariffs of up to 15 percent and for no more than 150 days unless Congress acts to extend them — a narrow clause meant to address trade deficit emergencies. The authority could potentially serve as a bridge between an adverse court ruling and new duties Trump wants to put in place using other authorities. Then there’s Section 338 — a rarely used provision that’s been on the books for nearly a century. In theory, it could let Trump swiftly impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on any country, if he can explain how they are engaging in “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” actions that hurt U.S. commerce. Section 338 does not require a formal investigation before a president can impose tariffs, but would likely face similar legal challenges. Major trading partners are betting that Trump will find a way to reimpose tariffs, somehow. Two European diplomats, granted anonymity to discuss trade strategy, said the countries believe that the Supreme Court won’t strike down the global tariffs and, if it does, it won’t do much to shift the dynamic. “Our working assumption is that the court rulings won’t change anything,” a European official said, adding that they are still hoping the law is overturned. Some are convinced the only way to address the tariffs permanently is for the president to appeal to Congress, arguing that only lawmakers can decide how much unilateral power any White House should permanently wield over global commerce. That would be an uphill battle. At least four Republicans are openly opposed to the global tariffs — bucking Trump in a series of symbolic votes last week. And it’s unclear whether there’s appetite for a vote on Trump’s tariffs in the House, which has been shielded from weighing in on the tariffs until the end of January, after Republican leadership blocked votes on Trump’s national emergencies. “At the end of the day, all this comes back to Congress,” Eissenstat said. “Maybe Congress will step up its role post hearing, post ruling. We’ll see.”

SOFIA— Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis warned that the EU might need to provide Ukraine with bridge funding if EU capitals don’t back the frozen assets loan plan soon. “The longer we now run delays, the more challenging it will become. It may open questions on some possible bridging solutions,” Dombrovskis said in Sofia on the fringes of a high-level conference on the country’s incoming adoption of the euro. The EU executive pitched combining EU guarantees with the cash balances of Russian assets held by Belgian-based Euroclear to support a loan to fill Ukraine’s $60 billion budget hole. But Belgium has so far blocked the plan, citing concerns about the legal and financial risks it could face. To find a solution, EU capitals tasked the Commission with drafting a list of options to support Kyiv. “If we run further delays without deciding on a reparation loan or other feasible option for Ukraine … the question is, how will you provide financial support to Ukraine in early next year? So that’s the question we need to answer in this case,” the commissioner said, talking about a bridging solution. He also pushed back against Belgium’s concerns that Russia can retaliate by filing a mountain of legal litigation. “The European Commission’s legal service has very thoroughly assessed all the legal risks or possible litigation risks and sees them as contained and, in any case, guarantees to be provided to Belgium is to cover potential financial risks Belgium may face,” Dombrovskis said. The commissioner added that another option could be to provide Ukraine with grants, but that this path is even “more complicated” for EU countries.

Italy’s Court of Auditors on Wednesday rejected the government’s plan to build a long-debated bridge from mainland Italy to Sicily, dealing a body blow to one of Rome’s most ambitious infrastructure projects. The ruling temporarily halts efforts to construct the €13.5 billion Messina Bridge across the Strait of Messina. The court, which oversees public spending, announced its decision late Wednesday and said it would release its full reasoning within 30 days. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni condemned the decision as “an act of overreach into the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament,” insisting her administration had addressed all the technical questions raised by the court. “To give an idea of the sophistry, one of the objections concerned the transmission of lengthy documents via links, as if the accounting judges were unaware of the existence of computers,” Meloni said in a statement. Envisioned as the world’s longest suspension bridge, the Messina project has been proposed and abandoned multiple times over the past five decades. It has long been controversial due to the risks of seismic activity and doubts over its economic viability, environmental impact and related legal concerns. Wednesday’s ruling casts fresh doubt over the project’s future. Meloni’s government now faces a critical choice: to accept the ruling and revise the proposal, or appeal and seek provisional authorization, which would make the government fully liable for the project and any legal consequences. If built, the 3.7-kilometer bridge would connect the “toe” of Italy’s boot to Sicily’s northeastern tip, transforming the country’s southern transport links while ranking among its most expensive public works. Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister Matteo Salvini, who once opposed the bridge but is now its leading advocate, denounced the court’s decision as inflicting “serious damage to the country” and called it “a political choice rather than a serene technical judgment.” “While waiting for the reasons, I want to make it clear that I did not stop when I had to defend the borders, and I will not stop now,” Salvini said. “This is a project supported even by Europe, one that will bring development and thousands of jobs from south to north. We are determined to take all possible paths to start the works. Let’s move forward.”