U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened to send federal immigration agents to airports across the country on Monday if Democrats don’t agree to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, now approaching five weeks. “If the Radical Left Democrats don’t immediately sign an agreement to let our Country, in particular, our Airports, be FREE and SAFE again, I will move our brilliant and patriotic ICE Agents to the Airports where they will do Security like no one has ever seen before, including the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country,” he wrote. “Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country, with heavy emphasis on those from Somalia” would be targeted with an especially firm hand, the president wrote on Truth Social. Shortly thereafter, Trump followed up to say he plans to send ICE to airports in just days. “I look forward to moving ICE in on Monday, and have already told them to, ‘GET READY.’ NO MORE WAITING, NO MORE GAMES!” he wrote in a separate Truth Social post on Saturday. It’s his latest bid to push Democrats, who have refused to greenlight DHS funding without changes to how it carries out immigration enforcement, pointing to deadly incidents as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents descended en masse on major American cities. Increased callouts among TSA agents and airport staffers are expected to roil airports in the coming weeks, with major interruptions to airport procedure likely to follow. Both sides have seemingly made progress in recent days toward ending the shutdown. The White House made several concessions on immigration enforcement policies in a proposal shared with Senate Democrats on Friday. But the ICE agent masking ban Democrats are seeking in exchange for their support on a funding package remains a bridge too far, Republicans argue. Trump’s latest threat isn’t likely to make the prospects of a truce any more viable, especially given his focus on Minnesota, where tensions flared after federal immigration agents killed two protesters during a major surge of personnel in January. In a post on X following Trump’s threat, Rep. Lauren Boebert said, “The airport in Minnesota is about to be a ghost town.” The president’s threat Saturday lands squarely in the middle of a confirmation fight over his pick to run DHS, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a process that has quickly become a proxy battle over the future of ICE itself. At his hearing this week, Mullin tried to strike a more measured tone than in some of his past remarks, pledging to rein in some enforcement tactics and lower the agency’s public profile. But he repeatedly defended ICE agents amid mounting scrutiny, including backing officers involved in high-profile civilian deaths and arguing Democrats are tying the agency’s hands. Republicans — including Mullin — have instead pushed to expand ICE’s resources and authority, framing the standoff as a fight over public safety. The backdrop is the messy ouster of Kristi Noem, whose tenure was defined by aggressive deportation policies, costly PR campaigns and a series of controversies that ultimately led Trump to push her out after a bruising round of congressional hearings. The enforcement-heavy approach Trump threatened Saturday sets up a preview for what Mullin will perhaps be asked to defend — and potentially formalize — as the next head of DHS. ICE and the Transportation Security Administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment from POLITICO.

The EU has failed to hold the U.S. accountable for breaches of international law, its former diplomacy chief has warned, accusing European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen of a power grab and calling for the trade pact she negotiated with Washington to be rejected. In comments to POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook, Josep Borrell — who served as von der Leyen’s vice president and high representative for foreign affairs from 2019-2024 — said the U.S. war against Iran “is illegal under international law [and] not justified by an imminent threat as some claimed.” According to Borrell, von der Leyen has “continued to overstep her functions” by conducting foreign policy, which he insists the EU’s foundational treaty “clearly states” is not within her competence. “She is systematically biased in favor of the U.S. and Israel,” he went on, despite Europe “suffering from the consequences in terms of energy prices, while [U.S. President Donald] Trump gloats that this is good for the U.S. because they are oil exporters.” Trump has given several different rationales for the start of the war with Iran, including removing the country’s repressive regime and preventing it from gaining offensive nuclear capabilities. Borrell, a Spanish socialist who since leaving office has served as the president of the Barcelona Center for International Affairs, praised the approach of Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, who has been Europe’s fiercest critic of Trump’s strikes on Iran. Borrell argued that his successor as the EU’s chief diplomat, former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, should “be clearer on condemning breaches of international law, whether done by Russia, Israel or the U.S.” because “we lose credibility [when] we use selectively international norms.” Representatives for Kallas did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The former top diplomat, who has long been critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza and has increasingly turned fire on the Commission since finishing his mandate, said the EU should not move ahead with the ratification of the trade agreement von der Leyen and Trump struck in Scotland last summer. “The deal was unfair from the beginning,” Borrell said. “They imposed 15 percent tariffs on us and we reduce our tariffs on them.” The criticism comes as von der Leyen faces a growing rebellion from Spanish socialists from Sánchez’s party, who form an important part of her own dominant coalition in the European Parliament. Senior lawmakers last week condemned comments from the Commission president in which she declared “Europe can no longer be a custodian for the old-world order, for a world that has gone and will not return.” Representatives for von der Leyen declined to comment. Von der Leyen has measured her criticism of the U.S. and Israel, saying that the Iranian regime deserves to fall but urging diplomatic solutions to the conflict. The European Commission President used her State of the Union speech in September to say she would halt bilateral payments to Israel and sanction “extremist ministers.” Spain will hold parliamentary elections by August next year at the latest, and von der Leyen’s center-right European People’s Party is hoping to take control of the government — with its national affiliate, the Partido Popular, polling consistently ahead of Sánchez’s socialists. Borrell also weighed into the EU’s dilemma over how to unblock €90 billion in much-needed funds for Ukraine after Hungary and Slovakia vetoed the plan at the last moment, having called on Kyiv to repair a pipeline carrying Russian oil to their countries via Ukrainian territory. The two governments, he said, “openly breached the principle of sincere cooperation which is part of the Treaties” by reneging on their agreement. “The is an issue for the Court. The other 25 could provide a bridge loan until the EU loan is approved,” Borrell said, dismissing the charm offensive employed by the bloc’s current leadership. Representatives for von der Leyen declined to comment, while representatives for Kallas did not immediately respond.

BRUSSELS — The EU on Friday sought to reassure national capitals concerned over its handling of the energy crisis that started after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and has ramped up as conflict spreads across the Middle East. At an emergency meeting of commissioners on Friday as energy prices soar, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s top team sought to build support for their energy strategy, which includes replacing imported oil and gas with homegrown green energy. The issue has become a major headache for Brussels, as leaders face rising public anger over high bills and sluggish economic growth. “Developments in the Middle East remind us once again of the risks of relying still too much on fossil fuels,” von der Leyen said in a statement following the session, attended by International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol. Oil and gas prices have jumped sharply in the wake of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. “There is criticism and concerns coming from member states, but at the leaders’ retreat [last month in the Belgian countryside] they asked the Commission to come up with solutions on energy,” said one EU official with knowledge of the talks, granted anonymity to speak frankly, as were others quoted in this piece. Described as an orientation debate, the meeting was a chance for commissioners to “exchange ideas on these topics and propose concrete actions,” said the EU official, “particularly in this case, as the president is expected by the member states to present on energy prices at the next EUCO [European Council]. They’re important to member states so it’s important to the Commission.” According to an internal note drafted by EU competition chief Teresa Ribera, a Spanish socialist, and Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen, a Danish social democrat, “the recent escalation in the Middle East and the disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have had an immediate effect on global energy prices and market volatility.” Oil and gas prices have jumped sharply in the wake of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. | Oscar Del Pozo/AFP via Getty Images And yet, the Commission’s strategy remains unchanged despite strikes on Iran sparking supply concerns. The internal note, obtained by POLITICO, focuses on long-standing calls to boost green energy, but also acknowledges that may not be enough and hints at a “bridge solution” to slash bills until the benefits from the clean transition are felt. A second Commission official confirmed that the meeting was called to focus on improving “organization in the wake of the high energy prices due to the conflict in the Middle East,” but that the response would focus on trying to get national governments to take advantage of powers already available under existing EU rules to slash bills. A third official, who has worked directly on the proposals, said the Commission is confident it has “taken concrete actions” in the wake of Russia weaponizing energy supplies, and that it is in a good place to deal with current developments. “We have enhanced security of supply by diversifying our partners and reducing overdependencies on unreliable suppliers like Russia,” they said. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has sought to capitalize on the new war in the Middle East just weeks before a critical national election that has become the toughest test yet of his 16-year hold on power. Trailing in the polls, Orbán claims war with Iran means the EU should reverse its plans to quit Russian oil and gas, and put pressure on Ukraine to repair a pipeline carrying Moscow’s crude oil. A string of national and regional elections have seen populist parties surge after railing against green rules. New Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš and his coalition government have vowed to dismantle the framework, adding his voice to those around the table of leaders challenging von der Leyen’s policies. Meanwhile, Sweden earlier this week wrote to von der Leyen, urging her to change course on plans to join up national electricity markets, warning this could “lead to a more expensive system for EU citizens and companies.”

As European health systems grapple with how to deliver increasingly advanced therapies, rare disease patients in Sweden still face everyday challenges — from securing a diagnosis to accessing appropriate care. Although rights are strong on paper, families often find themselves stitching together services across a decentralized system. Ågrenska is a national competence center in Sweden working to bridge those gaps. It supports people with rare diagnoses and their families in navigating health and social services. “But there’s a limit to what one organization can do,” says Zozan Sewger Kvist, Ågrenska’s CEO. POLITICO Studio spoke with her about where the Swedish system falls short and what must change across Europe to ensure patients are not left behind. POLITICO Studio: From Ågrenska’s experience working with families of rare disease patients across Sweden, where does the system most often break down? Zozan Sewger Kvist: For 25 years the families have been telling us the same thing: the system doesn’t connect. Zozan Sewger Kvist, CEO, Ågrenska The breakdown is most evident in health care, especially when transitioning from pediatric to adult care. But it also happens when patients are transitioning between schools, social services and medical teams. No one is looking at their care from a holistic point of view. Families become their own project managers. They are the ones booking appointments, chasing referrals, explaining the diagnosis again and again. It’s a heavy burden. That’s largely why our organization exists. We provide families with the knowledge, networks and tools to navigate the system and understand their rights. But there’s a limit to what one organization can do. In a perfect world, these functions would already be embedded within public care. > Without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether > families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. PS: Access to rare disease care varies widely within many European countries and Sweden is no exception. In practical terms, what do those regional disparities look like? ZSK: Swedish families have the same rights across the country, but regional priorities differ. That leads to unequal access in practice. For example, areas with university hospitals tend to have stronger specialist networks and rehabilitation services. In more rural parts of the country, especially in the north, it is harder to attract expertise, and families feel that gap directly. In practical terms, that can mean something as basic as access to rehabilitation. In some regions, children receive coordinated physiotherapy, speech therapy and follow-up. In others, families struggle to access rehabilitation at all. And that’s a big issue because a lot of Sweden’s health care runs through rehabilitation — without it, referrals to other services and treatments can stall. PS: Would a comprehensive national rare disease strategy meaningfully change outcomes across regions? ZSK: The problem is compliance, not regulation. Sweden has strong rules but regions have almost full freedom to organize care, which makes consistency difficult. As it stands, without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. A national rare disease strategy would not solve everything but it would set expectations such as what the minimum level of care should look like, what coordination should include and how outcomes are followed up. A draft national strategy was developed in 2024, and there was real momentum. Patient organizations, health care experts and the government were all involved. Everyone was optimistic the framework would provide guidance and accountability. After some delays, work on the national strategy has resumed, so hopefully we will see it implemented soon. > Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They > describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to > connect the dots. PS: Families often describe a long and fragmented path to diagnosis. Where does that journey tend to go wrong, and what would shorten it most? ZSK: Coordinated multidisciplinary teams would make the biggest difference — teams that can look at the whole condition, not just one symptom at a time. The challenge is that rare diseases often affect multiple organ systems. Several specialists may be involved, but they do not always work together, and it may not be clear who is taking responsibility for the whole case. When no one holds that overview, delays multiply. Sweden also lacks a fully integrated national health record system, so specialists may be looking at different pieces of the same case without seeing the full picture. Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to connect the dots. PS: Sweden participates in the European Reference Networks, yet you’ve suggested they’re underused. What’s missing in how Sweden leverages that expertise? ZSK: The ERNs are a strong, established framework for connecting specialists across borders. Swedish experts participate, but we are not using that structure to its full potential. Participation often appears project-based rather than long-term. Neighboring countries such as Norway, Denmark and Finland are more proactive in leveraging these collaborations. I would like to see Sweden invest more in turning these networks into durable partnerships that support clinical practice — not just research initiatives. > Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. > Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should > be managing. PS: Sweden often falls behind other EU countries in terms of access to orphan medicines (drugs that treat rare diseases). What needs to change in Sweden’s approach to ensure patients aren’t left behind? ZSK: Families are very aware of how access compares across Europe. They follow these discussions closely, and when a treatment is available in one country but not another, it is difficult for them to understand why. In Sweden, reimbursement decisions often come down to cost-effectiveness calculations. That makes access an ethical as well as an economic question. But for a family, it is hard to accept that a few additional years of life or stability are weighed against a financial threshold. Some families choose to cross borders for treatment. But that can be quite a complex, expensive process, depending on the kind of treatment. I think greater transparency and clearer communication about the criteria and long-term impact — not only the immediate cost — would make difficult outcomes easier to understand. PS: You’ve worked with families for decades. Have things materially improved — and what worries you most if reforms stall? ZSK: Unfortunately, I cannot say that things have materially improved. When I look back at the challenges families described 15 or 20 years ago, many of them are still the same. There have been some positive developments. Digital access means families are more informed and can connect more easily with others in similar situations. That has strengthened their voice. But structurally, many of the underlying gaps remain. Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should be managing. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Alexion Pharmaceuticals * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor: AstraZeneca plc * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around rare disease governance, funding, and equitable access to diagnosis and treatment across Europe More information here.

With a roar of rockets and bombs, a gasp of international outcry and the death of Iran’s supreme leader, President Donald Trump’s legacy became clearer than ever. He is burying the 20th Century: Its villains, its alliances, its political norms and ceasefires. And he is unleashing a future of uncertainty and disruption with no new equilibrium in sight. Across both his terms as president, and in so many different areas of policy and governance and culture, his signal achievements have been acts of demolition. His Supreme Court appointees struck down Roe v. Wade, ending the seething political and legal stalemate on abortion rights that governed America since the 1970s. His military interventions in Latin America have brought the Cuban government, one of the last surviving Cold War regimes, to the brink of collapse. His tariffs and trade threats have blown apart the Reagan-Clinton policy consensus on free trade, upending half a century of global commercial arrangements and diplomatic relations. His America First worldview and contempt for Europe’s political establishment have increasingly relegated NATO’s charter, the 1949 accord forging the globe’s most powerful military alliance, to antique status. His acts of corporate favoritism and personal enrichment, and his use of the justice system as a weapon of vengeance, have erased the post-Watergate regime of legal and ethical norms for the presidency. And in the first few hours of war in Iran, Trump’s attack killed the enduring leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution, Ali Khamenei, a dictator as cruel as he was ancient. In every instance, Trump’s allies and admirers say he is completing the unfinished business of a generation: doing the work that other American leaders have been too weak or too conventional or too unpatriotic to do themselves. In each case, too, Trump is tearing down old structures and systems without a vision for replacing them. At age 79, Trump is himself a creation of the age he is now unwinding, with a worldview molded in America’s prosperous, socially turbulent decades after World War II. It is not evident that he’s interested in designing the grand policies of the future. Even if Trump had a modernizer’s imagination, there is not too much time left for him to build a new world. Trump has about 35 months left as president – about as long as it takes to make one major motion picture – and just eight months before a midterm election that could sap his power. It is not likely that before he leaves office we will see a stable global trade order, thriving new governments in Havana and Tehran or a post-NATO order of international security that reflects America’s overdue destiny as a Pacific nation. It is harder, still, to imagine that Trump might help lead a hard process of legislative compromise on other issues that have been intractable for decades, like abortion or the national debt — though he may be the one president who could force a grand bargain on immigration. Trump’s opponents have often criticized him for his vacant sense of history: his too-hasty dismissal of 20th Century achievements like NATO and NAFTA and START, his middle school-level commentary on figures like Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson, his weird public musings about Frederick Douglass being recognized more and more. This philistinism and historical ignorance was at the heart of Joe Biden’s case against Trump. Biden deplored Trump as an insult to the American political tradition and promised to make Washington work, repair broken norms and turn over power to the next generation. His slow-moving, self-admiring, politically dysfunctional administration achieved none of these things. If there was a chance then to build a bridge to the 20th Century, Biden lost it. The next time the country chooses a replacement for Trump, resurrecting the past won’t even be an option. For American policymakers and voters, there’s no longer any prospect of mimicking détente with regimes in Iran and Cuba that are unraveling at this very hour. Barack Obama pursued that aim as part of his own 21st Century agenda; that path is now closed for good. America’s credibility as a trade negotiator and commercial partner is already changed forever; the next president will be unable to restore Bush-era trade relations even if he or she wants to. NATO’s place in the world won’t return to where it was in 1998 just because the next president says the right words about Washington’s commitment to its allies. This is already obvious to leaders looking at the United States from the outside in. “We know the old order is not coming back,” Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada said at the World Economic Forum last month. His speech, declaring an epochal “rupture” in geopolitics, was the climactic event of Davos for a reason. Yet for all Trump’s zeal to crush big institutions and enemies and conventions of the past, he has also failed so far to lock in an agenda for the future. Many of his policies — on technology, energy and international security — can be changed or undone with the stroke of a pen, as Biden’s were. Others, like Trump’s landmark tax cuts, are unpopular and face a dim fate whenever Democrats next win power. The variegated coalition that won the 2024 election for Trump, and raised Republican hopes of a lasting realignment, fractured within months of his inauguration. If the 20th Century is finally dead, this country’s trajectory in the 21st is an immense question mark. That is the great challenge Trump has left for the next president. For a visionary successor, it could also be an opportunity unmatched in recent U.S. history.

LONDON — The exiled “crown prince” of Iran is calling on Europe’s leaders to back Donald Trump’s military campaign and support efforts to replace the religious dictatorship with democracy.  Reza Pahlavi, whose father, the last shah, was overthrown in the 1979 revolution, said the ayatollah’s regime is “collapsing” after two days of bombardment from Israeli and American forces, which killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his top commanders.  But the initial European response to the attacks was divided, cautious and muted in any support for the airstrikes. In comments to POLITICO, Pahlavi welcomed recent EU moves to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization but called for more active backing for the U.S.-led assault on the regime.  “The military operation is a humanitarian rescue mission and will save many lives,” Pahlavi said. “Europe’s decision to proscribe the IRGC is welcome but it now needs to go further and support our transition plan to rebuild Iran. Europe has too long sat on the fence. This is the moment of decision. Stand with the Iranian people.”  His comments came after European governments first urged restraint, raising concerns about the risks of war spreading through the region and questioning the legitimacy of the action under international law. France’s President Emmanuel Macron called the escalation of the conflict “dangerous.” France, Germany and the U.K. said the Iranian regime should return to negotiations over its nuclear program.  There were signs that leading European powers were shifting their positions on Sunday to support limited involvement in the conflict in response to growing threats from Iranian retaliation.  On Sunday night, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the U.K. would reverse its earlier position and allow U.S. forces to use its air bases for operations, while the French and German leaders also indicated they stood ready to enable defensive action to destroy Iranian missile sites if necessary, working with the Americans.  In a new statement on Sunday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she backed regime change.  Pahlavi thanked the U.S. and Israel for their “leadership” in his statement to POLITICO. “But the final victory will need to be forged by the Iranian people on the ground,” he said. “I have a plan for a stable transition to democracy. We are making our final preparations for the transitional government to lead the country to stability and peace.”  One of the biggest questions arising from Trump’s attacks on Iran is who could take over from the ayatollahs when the opposition to the regime has been so fragmented. Pahlavi is putting himself forward as the leader who can steer a transitional administration and serve as a bridge to democracy and has been in contact with the White House in recent weeks. He has mapped out a plan for how this can be achieved and has previously promised to step back once a new constitution is in place. But not everyone in the Iranian opposition is a supporter, and the Pahlavi monarchy remains a divisive feature of Iran’s history, with its own record of police brutality in the past. Some of Pahlavi’s critics have also accused his supporters of being abusive and threatening to those who take divergent views.  However, even those who would not welcome the return of the monarchy concede that Pahlavi is one of the few opposition figures with nationwide name recognition. He seemed to be able to persuade hundreds of thousands of protesters to take to the streets during mass demonstrations that swept the country earlier this year, before the regime killed thousands in a crackdown. 

OTTAWA — Defense Minister David McGuinty says rising global uncertainty is driving a surge of Canadians to enlist in the military. “Applications are up because Canadians want to serve,” McGuinty said Tuesday at an announcement about increasing and upgrading the stockpile of housing on military bases. He said in the past eight months, there has been a 13 percent increase in new recruits to the Canadian Armed Forces. “They’re very engaged in the project called ‘Canada’ right now. I think they want to make sure that Canada remains a secure and sovereign country.” Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government is pouring tens of billions of dollars into its military following President Donald Trump’s economic attacks and threats to annex Canada as “the 51st state,” as well as his complaints about Canada and other NATO allies free-riding on U.S. coattails. Canada is set to meet the previous NATO spending target of 2 percent of GDP in the coming months. It has pledged that by 2035, Canada will meet the 5 percent benchmark Trump foisted on the alliance last year. Ottawa recently launched its new Defense Industrial Strategy that aims to create 125,000 jobs as part of a “Buy Canadian” push to increase the proportion of military purchases away from the United States to other allies. Canada is planning major military hardware purchases, such as a new fleet of 12 non-nuclear submarines, dozens of fighter jets and new warships, with a focus on securing the country’s vast and largely undefended Arctic. That has also meant a 20 percent pay raise for military personnel, along with a commitment to improving living conditions at military bases. The incentives are aimed at boosting the sagging levels of military personnel and addressing poor recruitment and retention that has created a shortfall in both rank-and-file soldiers and pilots needed to fly the next generation of fighter jets. Before the recent recruitment increase, the Forces were about 15,000 people short of the 71,500 needed to meet regular strength requirement. On Tuesday, McGuinty rolled out the second phase of a military housing strategy that is part of a plan to build 7,500 new military housing units across Canada. McGuinty said military members at 13 bases across the country that he has visited have stressed the need for better housing. In response, he said the government is making the largest investment in military housing since the end of the Second World War. “When they have stability at home, they are better equipped to meet the security challenges of today and the ones we know are coming tomorrow,” McGuinty said. McGuinty said more details are coming soon about measures to increase housing and infrastructure in the Canadian Arctic, including specifics around the C$2.67 billion plan to create a series of Northern Operational Support Hubs in the Far North. The Arctic focus is part of Carney’s broader “build baby, build” strategy that ties increased defense industrial production to bolstering the Canadian economy against Trump’s economic aggression toward Canada — threats that have ranged from punitive tariffs to threatening to choke off the Gordie Howe International Bridge, a key trade crossing between the two countries. Carney has created a Major Projects Office to expedite the creation of energy and infrastructure construction, including roads, buildings and airstrips that could have both civilian and military uses. The plan requires consulting with First Nations, including the Inuit people of Canada in the North. “We’re marrying not only our defense requirements, operational requirements, with our Major Projects Office priorities, with the priorities of the Inuit, with the priorities of different governments,” McGuinty said.

OTTAWA — It’s the world’s most awkward breakup. More than a year after U.S. President Donald Trump casually joked about absorbing Canada and repeatedly threatened debilitating tariffs on its goods, many Canadians are convinced their former pals to the south have lost the plot. New results from The POLITICO Poll suggest a lasting chill has settled over the world’s former bosom buddies. Americans are rosy as ever about their northern neighbors, but Canadians don’t share the love. Their message to America: It’s not us, it’s you. Canadians don’t see Trump’s America as merely an annoyance, the survey found. They consider the superpower next door the world’s greatest threat to peacetime. The POLITICO Poll — in partnership with U.K. polling firm Public First — finds Canadians increasingly view the United States as a source of global volatility instead of as a stabilizing ally. In survey question after survey question, Canadians say the U.S. no longer reflects their values, is more likely to provoke conflict than to prevent it and, as a result, is pushing Canada to consider closer ties with other global powers — including overtures to China that would have seemed unthinkable only a couple of years ago. Here’s the Canada-U.S. schism explained in five charts. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney rose to power on a pledge to defend Canada from Trump. When the realities of a prolonged trade war set in, he promised to reduce Canada’s reliance on its nearest neighbor. Roughly three-quarters of Canadian exports find their way to U.S. customers. Carney has traveled the world in search of new partnerships with the European Union, China and Qatar. A new defense industrial strategy sets targets aimed at building up domestic production and buying overseas kit for the military only when necessary. Carney put a finer point on his worldview with a headline-making rallying cry in Davos: In a world of great-power rivalry and fewer rules, middle powers need to band together. The POLITICO Poll shows Carney’s approach is popular at home. Canadians were the most likely — among respondents in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. — to say the U.S. is not a reliable ally (58 percent). A slight 42 percent plurality of respondents from Canada go even further, saying the U.S. is no longer an ally of Canada. Only about one in three Canadians, 37 percent, said “The US is still an ally of Canada.” Other results that reveal the extent of Canada’s mistrust: * 57 percent of Canadians in the poll said the U.S. cannot be depended on in a crisis. * 67 percent say the U.S. “challenges” — as opposed to supports — its allies around the world. * 69 percent agree the U.S. tends to create problems for other countries rather than solve them. Europeans see the greatest threat to world peace in their own backyard. Slight majorities in the three European countries in the poll chose Russia, which upended the global order nearly four years ago with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as the largest threat: Germany (56 percent), France (55 percent) and the UK (53 percent). Canadians are likewise worried about what’s next door. Almost half of Canadians point a finger at the U.S. — a 19-point lead over Russia, which took the next largest share (29 percent). A large plurality of Canadians (43 percent) see the U.S. as “mostly a threat” to global stability. Another 34 percent say Americans are “sometimes a force for stability, sometimes a threat.” Conservative voters agree that the U.S. is the top threat to peace — but only 35 percent of them. Another 30 percent picked Russia, followed by 22 percent who said China. More than two out of three Canadians believe Trump is actively seeking conflict with other countries. Liberal voters who powered Carney’s stunning victory last year — a rare fourth-consecutive win for the party — overwhelmingly see things that way. Progressive New Democrats are even likelier than the centrist governing party to hold that view. But even Conservative voters, who broadly support close and enduring ties with Americans, have mixed feelings. A 57 percent majority say the U.S. president is looking around the world for a fight. And that foreign intervention worries them, too: 47 percent of Canadians say U.S. involvement overseas makes the world less safe. In the middle of the Covid pandemic, Canadians viewed Beijing with deep suspicion. Chinese authorities had for more years imprisoned two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, on espionage charges. Ottawa and Western allies widely viewed the so-called Two Michaels’ prolonged detention as retaliation for Canada’s arrest of Huawei exec Meng Wanzhou as part of an extradition request from Washington. In 2021, several months before the Two Michaels were released, a Research Co. survey revealed a low point in Canadians’ take on China: only 19 percent held a positive view. The U.S. president’s torching of the relationship with Canada has flipped public opinion. Forced to pick, a majority of Canadians (57 percent) now say they’d rather depend on China than Trump’s America. Asked whether Canada should deliberately move closer to China, 39 percent agreed — with a majority of those respondents (60 percent) directly naming Trump as the reason to build bridges across the Pacific. Any prolonged Canada-U.S. tension feels deeply personal to many border-town residents. The rivers and lakes and straight-line boundaries that divide the two countries were for decades just technicalities. Ask a Canadian who grew up on the Ontario side of Niagara Falls, and they’ll talk about going “over the river” — not across a border — to visit friends and family, go to work or have a night out. But Canadian visits to the U.S. have dropped significantly since Trump’s inauguration. Tourists are taking their money elsewhere. Snowbirds who flock annually to Florida and Arizona have found other sunny options. A declining state of affairs has frayed countless deeply woven ties. Still, respondents expressed some optimism about the future. Forty-one percent of Canadians say Trump represents a lasting change. But nearly half (49 percent) said the relationship between the United States and Canada will recover in a post-Trump era. A similar proportion of Canadians share that optimism across party lines: Liberal (51 percent), Conservative (50) and NDP (46). But then there’s the solid core of skeptics — 29 percent of the country is convinced there is no going back. Carney won on an “elbows up” rallying cry that urged Canadians to stand up for themselves. Now they’re reckoning with the everyday impact of a lasting cross-border rupture. The country seems to have settled on a new maxim for now: America if necessary, but not necessarily America.

LONDON — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has offered to “broker a bridge” between the European Union and a fast-growing Indo-Pacific trade bloc this year to form a new anti-Trump trade pact. Carney was responding to questions on Tuesday about POLITICO’s reporting that Ottawa is spearheading conversations between the EU and nations in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). “We can help broker a bridge between the two,” Carney said during a press conference as he unveiled Canada’s defense industrial strategy in Montreal. “It’s the opportunity to have a rules-based trading bloc of one and a half billion people with complementary economies, and also provides a basis potentially for further expansion out of that,” the prime minister said. The CPTPP trade bloc includes Canada, the U.K., Japan, Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and other Pacific nations. The plans would bring nearly 40 nations on opposite sides of the globe closer together to reach a deal on so-called rules of origin. These rules determine the economic nationality of a product. A deal would allow manufacturers throughout the two blocs to trade goods and their parts more seamlessly in a low-tariff process known as cumulation. Carney said Canada is “in a unique position” to push talks forward with the 27 nations of the EU as it’s both a member of CPTPP and has the CETA trade deal with Brussels. “We’re not alone in this idea. It’s one of the first conversations I had with the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand — like-minded countries who see the merits in developing this,” Carney said, citing a “series of conversations” with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa and several CPTPP leaders about it. Carney spoke with Keir Starmer about the talks on Monday, according to a read-out of their call. “Stronger ties between the EU and CPTPP members will strengthen supply chains, unlock new opportunities for Canadian businesses, and reinforce a rules-based trading system,” wrote Canada’s International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu on Monday. “Canada is proud to be at the centre of this momentum.”

A new EU-backed study sheds light on the gender gap in investments across Europe, with a particular focus on deep tech — a category of innovation that is central to Europe’s long-term competitiveness, security and economic resilience. Deep tech refers to companies built on scientific breakthroughs and advanced engineering, often emerging from research laboratories and universities. These include firms working in areas such as artificial intelligence, advanced materials, semiconductors, robotics, quantum technologies, climate and energy systems, health and biotech, and industrial technologies. Unlike many consumer-facing digital startups, deep-tech companies typically require long development timelines, specialized talent and significant upfront capital before reaching market. For the EU, deep tech is strategic. It underpins the green and digital transitions, strengthens industrial leadership, and reduces dependence on external technologies in critical areas such as energy, health and security. Ensuring that talent can access capital in these sectors is therefore not only a question of fairness — it is a question of Europe’s ability to compete globally. > Gender equality isn’t just a fairness goal. It’s a competitiveness goal. > Europe can’t afford to waste talent — especially in deep tech. > > Katerina Svíčková, Head of Gender Sector, DG RTD, European Commission Two objectives: Measure the gap — and understand how to close it The project was designed around two complementary goals. First, to identify and consolidate data that can be used to measure the gender investment gap in a consistent and transparent way across Europe. Second, to engage directly with founders, investors and policymakers to understand why the gap persists — and what could help bridge it, particularly in deep tech. While gender-disaggregated data exist, they are often fragmented, based on different definitions or not publicly comparable. This makes it difficult for policymakers, investors and ecosystem actors to assess progress or design targeted interventions. A prototype repository: The Gender Gap in Investments Dashboard A central output of the project is the Gender Gap in Investments Dashboard, developed by Dealroom. The dashboard is a prototype repository that already presents a clear picture of the current state of the gender investment gap using Dealroom data. It brings together information on company founding teams and venture funding outcomes across Europe in a single, accessible interface. The dashboard is not an endpoint. It is designed as a foundation that can, over time, incorporate additional data sources, improve coverage, and offer a more nuanced view of how gender, sector, funding stage and geography interact. The long-term ambition is to support the development of a credible, shared European data infrastructure on gender and investment. What the data show: Deep tech remains highly skewed Even at this early stage, the dashboard reveals persistent imbalances. Across Europe, startups with at least one woman founder raise just 14.4 percent of all venture capital (VC) rounds and 12 percent of total VC funding. In deep tech, the imbalance is even starker. Around 80 percent of deep-tech companies are founded by all-male teams, which receive nearly 90 percent of venture funding. > Investing through diverse teams helps unlock deal flow that would otherwise > remain invisible. > > Ulrike Kostense, Investment Principal, Invest-NL Given the capital intensity of deep tech, these disparities matter. Who receives early and follow-on funding today shapes which technologies Europe brings to scale tomorrow. Listening to the ecosystem: Evidence beyond the numbers To complement the data work, the project placed strong emphasis on qualitative research and ecosystem engagement. Over 11 months, the team conducted: * 81 in-depth interviews with founders, investors, fund managers, public banks and EU policymakers * 12 ecosystem events across Europe, engaging more than 1,000 participants Across countries and sectors, participants consistently pointed to structural barriers, including difficulties accessing early and scale-up capital, credibility gaps in fundraising — particularly in deep tech — fragmented support landscapes, and limited diversity in investment decision-making roles. From insight to action: Priorities for Europe Drawing on both the data and the ecosystem input, the report highlights several areas for action: * Build a permanent European data hub on gender and investment, starting with the Dealroom dashboard and gradually adding more public and private data sources. * Make investment data easier to compare and understand, by using shared definitions and reporting standards across EU and national funding programs. * Close the gap between early support and growth funding, so that startups — especially deep-tech companies that take longer to develop — are not lost before they can scale. * Use public investment to shape the market, drawing on the EU’s role as a major investor — including the European Innovation Council (EIC) and its investment arm, the EIC Fund, which provide public funding and equity to high-potential startups — to attract private capital and set better incentives. * Improve connections across the ecosystem, helping founders find the right funding routes and reach key decision-makers. A foundation for long-term change The central conclusion of the study is clear: Europe does not lack women innovators — it lacks the systems needed to measure, fund and scale them consistently. By combining a shared data foundation with direct engagement across the ecosystem, the project lays the groundwork for more informed policymaking, better investment decisions and a stronger, more inclusive European deep-tech ecosystem. Final Report: Gender Gap in InvestmentsDownload -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is EISMEA – European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency * The ultimate controlling entity is EISMEA – European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency More information here.