LONDON — Peter Mandelson spent four decades helping build Britain’s Labour establishment. Now it’s decisively cutting him adrift. Former colleagues in the Cabinet and Labour Party officialdom lined up to blowtorch Britain’s former ambassador to the U.S. on Tuesday after newly released files suggested he leaked sensitive government financial discussions to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2009. “The latest revelations are materially different to the unpleasant sleaze of previous revelations,” David Blunkett, a former home secretary under Tony Blair, told POLITICO. “This is about conduct in a public office, betrayal of colleagues and a dereliction of duty.” Geoff Hoon, Blair’s former defense secretary, told GB News it was “very disturbing,” while Labour grandee Harriet Harman told BBC radio: “I was of the view that Peter Mandelson was untrustworthy from the 1990s.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer sacked the so-called “prince of darkness” as Britain’s envoy to Washington in September as the extent of his friendship with Epstein became clear. But to many former colleagues, Monday’s revelation that Mandelson allegedly disclosed internal emails went much further — and will trigger, they believe, the end of his time in public life.  Mandelson declined to comment for this piece. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Starmer said on Saturday that he had “nothing more to say” on Mandelson. That didn’t last. Smelling public outrage, the PM told his Cabinet Tuesday that the fresh allegations were “disgraceful.” Mandelson, 72, quit his seat for life in the House of Lords on Tuesday after Starmer — having earlier declined to do so — said ministers would draft a law to remove him from the upper house. Police are reviewing whether the allegations could amount to misconduct in a public office. Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who brought Mandelson back into government in 2008 — issued a statement tearing into the “shocking” revelations, and revealing he asked civil servants to investigate Mandelson’s communications with Epstein in September. Brown also contacted police Tuesday. One former diplomat, granted anonymity to speak undiplomatically, called the flurry of statements a “public lynching.” They added: “He’s going now through Dante’s seven circles of hell, and every time it looks like he’s reached the bottom, another circle appears.” One of British politics’ greatest survivors, Mandelson has not arrived at the last circle yet. Prime Minister Keir Starmer sacked the so-called “prince of darkness” as Britain’s envoy to Washington in September as the extent of his friendship with Epstein became clear. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Several of his close personal allies kept their counsel when contacted on Tuesday. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has not yet decided to comment. Another of Labour’s most senior figures told POLITICO that they had no publishable comment. But Luke Sullivan, who was a junior special adviser in the late 2000s, and later became Starmer’s political director in opposition, said: “I cannot tell you how angry people are.” Another former aide from the New Labour years, granted anonymity to speak frankly, added: “Bloody hell, it is worse than we thought. People feel justifiably sad and angry. This is not a story of people turning on him. It’s more like a Greek tragedy — Peter has been brought down by his fatal flaw, and it’s a flaw that people were always aware of.” AT THE HEART OF POWER Whenever Labour reached a turning point in its recent history, Mandelson was somehow there. Pairing a smooth-talking style with ruthless maneuvering behind the scenes, he began as the party’s communications director in 1985 and embarked on a mission with then-leader Neil Kinnock to drag his party back from the left. He became MP for Hartlepool in 1992, playing a key role in Blair’s 1994 election as party leader and Labour’s 1997 general election landslide. He was never far from scandal, resigning from the Cabinet first in 1998 over a loan he took from a colleague, then again in 2001 in a row over a passport application from an Indian billionaire. Yet his attraction to power and strategic skills made his return inevitable. In 2008, already back as Britain’s EU trade commissioner, he repaired ties with Brown, who had recently become prime minister, in an hour-long private meeting in Brussels, before returning to the heart of government. The next year, when Cabinet minister James Purnell resigned and called on Brown to stand aside, Mandelson is said to have come into No. 10 and persuaded the rebels to back down. Peter Mandelson began as the party’s communications director in 1985 and embarked on a mission with then-leader Neil Kinnock to drag his party back from the left. | Will Oliver/EPA Nigel Farage, leader of the populist right-wing party Reform UK, said on Tuesday: “He’s very articulate. He’s highly intelligent. He’s incredibly well-briefed, probably the best networker in Westminster in the last 30 years.” “[On] the actual subject, the brief … I’d never heard anybody as impressive in all my 20 years in the European Parliament. The guy is very, very bright, but clearly has a taste for money, and has a taste for bad company.” Labour went on to lose the 2010 election — though by a slimmer margin than many expected — and Mandelson co-founded a lobbying firm, Global Counsel. (The firm began cutting ties with him last year.) But in the late 2010s, he returned to politics, striking up a close professional relationship with Morgan McSweeney, now Starmer’s chief of staff. Along with other Labour aides, the pair attended dinners at the south London home of the Labour peer Roger Liddle to discuss how best to wrestle Labour back (again) from the left. His advice became more valued in the run-up to the 2024 election. He even co-presented a podcast, produced by The Times newspaper, called “How To Win An Election.” And late in 2024 — at the suggestion of McSweeney, despite concerns elsewhere in government — Mandelson bagged his biggest prize yet: the ambassadorship to Washington. Starmer jokingly compared Mandelson to Donald Trump in a February 2025 speech at the embassy: “You can sense that there’s a new leader. He’s a true one-off, a pioneer in business, in politics. Many people love him. Others love to hate him. But to us, he’s just … Peter.” TURNING ON MANDELSON In four decades, Mandelson made plenty of enemies who are now glad to see his demise. The difference with this scandal may be the reaction of those close to him. Nigel Farage, leader of the populist right-wing party Reform UK, said on Tuesday: “He’s very articulate. He’s highly intelligent. He’s incredibly well-briefed, probably the best networker in Westminster in the last 30 years.” | Andy Rain/EPA Wes Streeting, Starmer’s telegenic health secretary, who shares many aspects of Mandelson’s politics and is widely expected to be a future leadership contender, was at some of the Liddle dinners. He told the BBC: “This is a betrayal on so many levels. It is a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein that he continued that association and that friendship for so long after his conviction. It is a betrayal of just not one, but two prime ministers.” Privately, Mandelson is said to believe he was simply casting around for advice during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. He told the Times: “There was no reason to shun his advice, but I was too trusting.” He added: “Work has always defined me. Everything else has always been an add-on. So I will find things to do.” But one serving Labour official in government said the revelations were “qualitatively (and quantitatively) worse” than what was known before. A second Labour official added: “The latest revelations have put him beyond what most people are willing to accept.” One person who speaks to No. 10 regularly said: “There are people who have known him for a long time who are very hurt and angry. He has upset people.  “He had a much reduced reservoir of support coming into this anyway, and the question is — who is going to touch him now?” Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who brought Mandelson back into government in 2008 — issued a statement tearing into the “shocking” revelations. | Will Oliver/EPA A person who knows Mandelson well drew a distinction between the reaction to his sacking in September, when some colleagues felt concern for Mandelson on a “human level because of the very public nature of his sacking,” and the “shock and real anger” at the revelations of the last few days. “It felt like a kick in the gut to read it and has brought his behavior as minister into question in a way no one could possibly have imagined,” they said. Sullivan said: “People thought that he had been characteristically not as frank as he could be with his relationship with Epstein … but I don’t think people had clocked just quite how big the significance of those revelations [Monday] are. “Any one of those, if it had come out at the time, would have brought the government down. I was a very junior Spad in the last Labour government. [With] Gordon Brown, you could hear the anger in his statement.” “I think the potential ramifications of this not just for the Labour Party but for politics and politicians in general could be understated. It is serious,” Sullivan added. The former diplomat quoted above added: “People are genuinely astonished at the sort of stuff he told Epstein. He always had a reputation of being relatively indiscreet, but some of that stuff, I mean, why Epstein? I don’t know why Epstein seemed to have had such a grip on him.” John McTernan, who served as a senior aide during the New Labour years, said: “It turns out that Peter’s actions are those of an avaricious man — which makes it really sad, because he did so much to make Labour electable, not once but twice.” WHERE DOES IT GO FROM HERE? Britain’s opposition Conservative Party is likely to apply fresh pressure on Wednesday by formally demanding that ministers release the details of Mandelson’s vetting for the ambassador post. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper revealed in September that Mandelson was not subjected to full national security vetting until after his appointment had been announced.  One government official said: “If there wasn’t any real vetting until after the appointment, that could be very damaging in my view.” Labour officials also smell danger in the fact that Gordon Brown asked the government to investigate Mandelson’s communications on Sept. 10 — a day before Starmer resolved to sack Mandelson as ambassador. The Labour Party has said disciplinary action was underway against Mandelson before he resigned his party membership on Sunday, but has not said when it began — days, weeks, or months ago. One former Labour official said: “The problem for the government as a whole and the civil service is Gordon clearly clocked something had gone on, had some concerns, and raised them last September, and it’s unclear exactly what has happened to dig it out.” No. 10 went nuclear in its response on Tuesday, saying the government was investigating and had contacted the police. Starmer’s spokesperson said: “An initial review of the documents released in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Department of Justice has found that they contain likely market-sensitive information surrounding the 2008 financial crash and official activities thereafter to stabilize the economy.  “Only people operating in an official capacity had access to this information, [with] strict handling conditions to ensure it was not available to anyone who could potentially benefit from it financially. It appears these safeguards were compromised.  “In light of this information, the Cabinet Office has referred this material to the police.” Starmer and McSweeney can maintain that they — like the rest of the press and British public — knew nothing of the emails revealed this week when they appointed Mandelson. Whether they can prevent the saga raising questions about their judgment may be another matter.

Second Amendment advocates are warning that Republicans shouldn’t count on them to show up in November, after President Donald Trump insisted that demonstrator Alex Pretti “should not have been carrying a gun.” The White House labels itself the “most pro-Second Amendment administration in history.” But Trump’s comments about Pretti, who was legally carrying a licensed firearm when he was killed by federal agents last week, have some gun rights advocates threatening to sit out the midterms. “I’ve spent 72 hours on the phone trying to unfuck this thing. Trump has got to correct his statements now,” said one Second Amendment advocate, granted anonymity to speak about private conservations. The person said Second Amendment advocates are “furious.” “And they will not come out and vote. He can’t correct it three months before the election.” The response to Pretti’s killing isn’t the first time Second Amendment advocates have felt abandoned by Trump. The powerful lobbying and advocacy groups, that for decades reliably struck fear into the hearts of Republicans, have clashed multiple times with Trump during his first year back in power. And their ire comes at a delicate moment for the GOP. While Democrats are unlikely to pick up support from gun-rights groups, the repeated criticisms from organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights suggest that the Trump administration may be alienating a core constituency it needs to turn out as it seeks to retain its slim majority in the House and Senate. It doesn’t take much to swing an election, said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “All you have to do is lose four, five, six percent of their base who left it blank, who didn’t write a check, who didn’t walk districts, you lose,” he said. “Especially marginal districts — and the House is not a good situation right now.” And it wasn’t only the president who angered gun-rights advocates. Others in the administration made similar remarks about Pretti, denouncing the idea of carrying a gun into a charged environment such as a protest. FBI Director Kash Patel said “you cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said she didn’t “know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” These sentiments are anathema to many Republicans who have fought for years against the idea that carrying a gun or multiple magazine clips implies guilt or an intent to commit a crime. “I sent a message to high-place people in the administration with three letters, W.T.F.,” Brown said. “If it had just been the FBI director and a few other highly-placed administration officials, that would have been one thing but when the president came out and doubled down that was a whole new level. This was not a good look for your base. You can’t be a conservative and not be radically pro-gun.” A senior administration official brushed off concerns about Republicans losing voters in the midterms over the outrage. “No, I don’t think that some of the comments that were made over the past 96 hours by certain administration officials are going to impede the unbelievable and strong relationship the administration has with the Second Amendment community, both on a personal level and given the historic successes that President Trump has been able to deliver for gun rights,” the official said. But this wasn’t the only instance when the Trump administration angered gun-rights advocates. In September after the shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis that killed two children, reports surfaced that the Department of Justice was looking into restricting transgender Americans from owning firearms. The suspect, who died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the scene of the shooting, was a 23-year-old transgender woman. “The signaling out of a specific demographic for a total ban on firearms possession needs to comport with the Constitution and its bounds and anything that exceeds the bounds of the Constitution is simply impermissible,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, told POLITICO. At the time, the National Rifle Association, which endorsed Trump in three consecutive elections, said they don’t support any proposals to “arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.” Additionally, some activists, who spoke to the gun-focused independent publication “The Reload,” said they were upset about the focus from federal law enforcement about seizing firearms during the Washington crime crackdown in the summer. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office wouldn’t pursue felony charges in Washington over carrying guns, The Washington Post reported. Trump, during his first term, infuriated some in the pro-gun movement when in 2018 his administration issued a regulation to ban bump stocks. The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the rule in 2024. “I think the administration clearly wants to be known as pro-Second Amendment, and many of the officials do believe in the Second Amendment, but my job at Gun Owners of America is to hold them to their words and to get them to act on their promises. And right now it’s a mixed record,” said Gun Owners for America director of federal affairs Aidan Johnston. In the immediate aftermath of the Pretti shooting, the NRA called for a full investigation rather than for “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.” But now, the lobbying group is defending Trump’s fuller record. “Rather than trying to extract meaning from every off-the-cuff remark, we look at what the administration is doing, and the Trump administration is, and has been, the most pro-2A administration in modern history,” said John Commerford, NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director. “From signing marquee legislation that dropped unconstitutional taxes on certain firearms and suppressors to joining pro-2A plaintiffs in cases around the country, the Trump administration is taking action to support the right of every American to keep and bear arms.” In his first month in office, Trump directed the Department of Justice to examine all regulations, guidance, plans and executive actions from President Joe Biden’s administration that may infringe on Second Amendment rights. The administration in December created a civil rights division office of Second Amendment rights at DOJ to work on gun issues. That work, said a second senior White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, should prove the administration’s bona fides and nothing said in the last week means they’ve changed their stance on the Second Amendment. “Gun groups know and gun owners know that there hasn’t been a bigger defender of the Second Amendment than the president,” said a second senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak on a sensitive issue. “But I think the president’s talking about in the moment— in that very specific moment— when it is such a powder keg going on, and when there’s someone who’s actively impeding enforcement operations, things are going to happen. Or things can happen.” Andrew Howard contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Several EU lawmakers have declared they have a side income but didn’t reveal how much extra money those gigs bring in. According to the MEPs’ code of conduct, lawmakers are supposed to declare any money they make outside of the European Parliament if it’s over €5,000 a year. MEPs earn €8,088 a month after tax and insurance contributions are deducted. The actual provision in the code of conduct says: “If [a remunerated activity undertaken alongside the exercise of the member’s office] generates income, Members shall indicate for each separate item the respective amount of that income and, where relevant, its periodicity.” However, Transparency International shared with POLITICO’s EU Influence newsletter the names of 14 MEPs who had not listed that income. The information was verified by POLITICO and all 14 MEPs were contacted. Raphaël Kergueno, senior policy officer at Transparency International, said: “Without proper monitoring of MEPs’ declarations, and sanctioning for breaches to the code of conduct, EU citizens are left relying on MEPs’ promises alone. The results of this speak for themselves.” Those on the list include Alvise Pérez, a Spanish far-right lawmaker who moonlights as a corruption-hating influencer. He wrote in a declaration to the Parliament last year that the “exact generated income” from his influencing would be updated at the end of each year. However, the amount that he earned since being voted in as an MEP in 2024 has not been revealed — although his records show he was getting €20,000 per month from the side job in the months running up to the election. His team said: “All income received has been duly declared in accordance with the applicable rules.” Then there’s Mario Mantovani, an Italian MEP for the European Conservatives and Reformists, who has had three consulting roles in addition to his parliamentary post; Transparency International says he promised to declare the sums by the end of 2024. He has yet to do so (and didn’t respond to a request for comment) but we know from his records that he was regularly pulling in six-figure sums annually from these roles before this term began. Meanwhile, Michał Wawrykiewicz, a long-time EU lawyer from the European People’s Party who has had clients in the retail, property, telecoms and rail sectors, said he didn’t think he had to declare the earnings with the European Parliament because he had already done so with the Polish parliament. He told POLITICO he had “misunderstood” the rules and added: “I inquired about this with my assistant several times” and “despite her very broad experience in the EP,” she was unaware that he also was supposed to submit declarations to the European Parliament. He said it was “in no way intentional.” Far-right Czech lawmaker Jana Nagyová said she had been “wrongly informed” by her office about income declarations. She added that she did have some side income from regional politics: around €150 per month for being elected to a local parliament and approximately €300 a month from a regional parliament, although the latter stopped last January.  A few of the lawmakers sent info after POLITICO got in touch. Sibylle Berg, a German non-aligned lawmaker, was an author and playwright before joining the European Parliament. Her office sent a document that said she makes €120,000 per year outside of her work as a parliamentarian. “We value transparency and believe that publication obligations support public scrutiny,” said her head of office, Dustin Hoffmann. Greens lawmaker Lena Schilling, who made some extra money via the book she published in 2024 and who flagged her potential earnings to the Parliament ahead of its release, said she hadn’t declared it because it fell below the €5,000 threshold. Her office added that they would update the register nevertheless and also sent over a breakdown of her earnings. Esteban González Pons, a Spanish EPP parliamentarian, said he had published two books in 2025 but wouldn’t be able to confirm the royalties earned until May.  Those who didn’t respond to a request for comment include Domenico Lucano, a lawmaker for The Left group, who flagged that he had done some work for a film production company; and Vladimir Prebilič, a Greens lawmaker who lectures in Ljubljana. Also not responding were Katri Kulmuni, a Renew lawmaker who has various municipal roles in Finland (as well as being a paid board member of a Christian foundation) and Pekka Toveri, a Finnish EPP lawmaker who lists himself as the CEO of his own company. François Kalfon, a French S&D parliamentarian, said he had “not received any remuneration or income from any professional activity,” and that “all necessary steps” had been taken to ensure “full compliance” with the Parliament’s rules on transparency and financial declarations. In Kalfon’s declaration it says “dividends for 2024 not yet defined”. Riho Terras, an Estonian EPP lawmaker who had flagged some potential dividends, told POLITICO: “Everything has been declared.” Socialists and Democrats MEP Elisabeth Grossmann was on the Transparency International list but told POLITICO that she hadn’t worked as a lecturer in Vienna since being elected and hadn’t updated her parliamentary records. Max Griera contributed to this article.

LONDON — It’s a far cry from the ice age of U.K.-China relations that characterized Rishi Sunak’s leadership — and it’s not exactly David Cameron’s “golden era,” either.  As U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer embarks on his Chinese charm offensive against a turbulent economic backdrop, he has opted for a softly-softly approach in a bid to warm up one of Britain’s most important trading partners — a marked departure from his Tory predecessors. With the specter of U.S. President Donald Trump looming over the visit — not to mention national security concerns back home — Starmer’s cautious optimism is hardly surprising.  Despite reservations from China skeptics, Starmer’s trip — the first such visit by a British prime minister since 2018 — was peppered with warm words and a smattering of deals, some more consequential than others. Britain’s haul from the trip may be modest, but it’s just the beginning, Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle — who joined Starmer on the trip — told a traveling pack of reporters in Beijing. “This visit is a springboard,” the minister said. “This is not the last moment, it is a springboard into a future with far more action to come.” STEP-BY-STEP On the ground in Beijing, British officials gave the impression that the prime minister was focused on getting as many uncontroversial wins over the line as possible, in a bid to thaw relations with China. That’s not to say Starmer and his team don’t have a few tangible wins to write home about. Headline announcements include a commitment from China to allow visa-free travel for British tourists and business travelers, enabling visits of up to 30 days without the need for documents.   The provisions are similar to those extended to 50 other countries including France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan. The timings of the visa change have not yet been set out publicly, but one official — who, like others cited in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak freely — said they were aiming to get it nailed down in coming months. “From a business standpoint, it will reduce a lot of friction,” said a British business representative, adding it will make it easier for U.K. firms to explore opportunities and form partnerships. “China is very complicated. You have to be on the ground to really assess opportunities,” they said, adding visa-free travel “will make things a lot easier.” The commitment to visa-free travel forms part of a wider services package aimed at driving  collaboration for businesses in healthcare, financial and professional services, legal services, education and skills — areas where British firms often face regulatory or administrative hurdles.  The countries have also agreed to conduct a “feasibility study” to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement. If it goes ahead, this would establish clear and legally binding rules for U.K. firms doing business in China. Once again, the timeframe is vague. David Taylor, head of policy at the Asia House think tank in London, said “Xi’s language has been warmer and more expansive, signaling interest in stabilizing the relationship, but the substance on offer so far remains tightly defined.” “Beyond the immediate announcements, progress — particularly on services and professional access — will be harder and slower if it happens at all,” he added. WHISKY TARIFF RELIEF Another victory talked up by the British government is a plan for China to slash Scotch whisky tariffs by half, from 10 percent to 5 percent.  However, some may question the scale of the commitment, which effectively restores the rate that was in place one year ago, ahead of a doubling of the rate for whisky and brandy in February 2025. The two sides have not yet set out a timeframe for the reduction of tariffs.  Speaking to POLITICO ahead of Starmer’s trip, a senior business representative said the whisky and brandy issue had become “China leverage” in talks leading up to the visit. However, they argued that even a removal of the tariff was “not going to solve the main issue for British whisky companies in China and everywhere, which is that people aren’t buying and drinking whisky.” CHINA INVESTMENT WIN Meanwhile, China can boast a significant win in the form of a $15 billion investment in medicines manufacturing and research and development from British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca.  ING Bank’s global healthcare lead Stephen Farelly said that increasing investment into China “makes good business sense,” given the country is “now becoming a force in biopharma.” However, it “does shine a light on the isolation of Europe and the U.K. more generally, where there is a structural decline in investment and R&D.” AstraZeneca recently paused a £200 million investment at a Cambridge research site in September last year, which was due to create 1,000 jobs.  Britain recently increased the amount the NHS pays for branded, pharmaceutical drugs, following heavy industry lobbying and following trade negotiations with the Trump administration — all in the hopes of attracting new investment into the struggling sector.  Shadow Trade Secretary Andrew Griffith was blunt in his assessment. “AstraZeneca’s a great British company but under this government it’s investing everywhere in the world other than its U.K. home. When we are losing investment to communist China, alarm bells should be ringing in No 10 Downing Street.” Conspicuously absent from Starmer’s haul was any mention of net zero infrastructure imports, like solar panels, a reflection of rising concerns about China’s grip on Britain’s critical infrastructure. XI RETURNS So what next? As Starmer prepares to fly back home, attention has already turned to his next encounter with the Chinese leader.  On Thursday, Britain opened the door to an inward visit by Xi Jinping, with Downing Street repeatedly declining to rule out the prospect of welcoming him in future. Asked about the prospect of an inward visit — which would be the first for 11 years — Starmer’s official spokesperson told reporters: “I think the prime minister has been clear that a reset relationship with China, that it’s no longer in an ice age, is beneficial to British people and British business.” As Starmer’s trip draws to a close, one thing is certain: there is more to come. “This isn’t a question of a one-and-done summit with China,” Starmer’s spokesperson added. “It is a resetting of a relationship that has been on ice for eight years.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission suspects that a massive tranche of pro-industry comments on the EU’s proposed tobacco tax hike was “probably” a coordinated attempt to distort public feedback. The Commission received thousands of anonymous submissions promoting pro-tobacco industry arguments in the final hours of the public feedback period on its proposal on the Tobacco Tax Directive. There were also fake submissions purporting to be from public health experts opposing the plan. “We have been looking at the submissions in the public consultation and we saw some elements that indicated, indeed, some of the submissions were probably submitted in a coordinated manner and not necessarily representing individual views,” said David Boublil from the Commission’s tax department, in response to a question from POLITICO. Boublil didn’t say who was behind the coordinated submissions but said the lobbying from the tobacco industry on the file was “gigantic.” He was speaking at an event on tobacco taxation hosted by the European Respiratory Society in Brussels. Public consultations on controversial products like tobacco have attracted suspicious activity in the past. A 2024 U.K. consultation on tobacco and vaping policies received over 90,000 fraudulent responses that the government said was consistent with the use of bots. In Europe, this year is likely to see increased industry lobbying as two pieces of tobacco legislation are slated for review. The Commission’s plan to hike tobacco taxes is likely to be a contentious political issue: It wants to raise the EU-wide minimum levy on tobacco from €90 per 1,000 cigarettes to €215, but some countries think that’s too aggressive. Cyprus, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of June, has suggested paring that back to €200 and giving countries an extra two years to implement the directive. The Commission also plans to overhaul its rules on the marketing and sale of nicotine products to cover e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches in 2026. A draft European Parliament report said the Commission should extend its tobacco control laws to all non-medicinal nicotine products, including a crackdown on marketing, flavors and packaging.

BRUSSELS — Powerful political allies helped automakers force the EU to water down climate laws for cars — and now the aviation sector is borrowing those tactics. Their big target is getting the EU to dilute its mandate forcing airlines to use increasing amounts of cleaner jet fuels, alternatives to kerosene that are also much more expensive and harder to source. Aviation is emerging as the next crucial stress test for the EU’s climate agenda, as key leaders push to do whatever it takes to help struggling European businesses. With industry and allied governments pressing for relief from costly green rules, the fight will show how far Brussels is willing to go — and what it is willing to give up — in pursuit of its climate goals. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” French energy giant TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné predicted at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month. Carmakers provide a model on how to get the EU to backtrack. The bloc mandated that no CO2-emitting cars could be sold from 2035, essentially killing the combustion engine and replacing it with batteries (possibly with a minor role for hydrogen). But many carmakers — allied with countries like Germany, Italy and automaking nations in Central Europe — pushed back, arguing that the 2035 mandate would destroy the car sector just as it is battling U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, sluggish demand and a rising threat from Chinese competitors. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” Patrick Pouyanné said. | Ludovic Marin/ AFP via Getty Images In the end, the European Commission gave way and watered down the 2035 mandate, which will now only aim to cut CO2 emissions by 90 percent. AVIATION DEMANDS The aviation sector has a similar list of issues with the EU. It is taking aim at a host of other climate policies, such as including aviation in the bloc’s cap-and-trade Emissions Trading System and intervening on non-CO2 impacts of airplanes like contrails — the ice clouds produced by airplanes that have an effect on global warming. Brussels introduced several regulations over the last 15 years to address the growing climate impact of air transport, which accounts for about 3 percent of global CO2 emissions. Those policies include the obligation to use sustainable aviation fuels, to put a price on carbon emissions and to take action on non-CO2 emissions. Each of these green initiatives is now under attack. The ReFuelEU regulation requires all airlines to use SAF for at least 2 percent of their fuel mix starting this year. That mandate rises to 6 percent from 2030, 20 percent from 2035 and 70 percent by 2050. “Today, all airline companies are fighting even the 6 percent … which is easy to reach to be honest,” Pouyanné said, but then warned, “20 percent five years after makes zero sense.” He is echoed by CEOs like Ryanair’s combative Michael O’Leary, who called the SAF mandate “nonsense.” “It is all gradually dying a death, which is what it deserves to do,” O’Leary said last year. “We have just about met our 2 percent mandate. There is no possibility of meeting 6 percent by 2030; 10 percent, not a hope in hell. We’re not going to get to net zero by 2050.” Brussels-based airline lobbies are not calling for the SAF mandate to be killed, rather they are demanding a book-and-claim system. Under such a scheme, airlines could claim carbon credits for a certain amount of SAF, even if they don’t use it in their own aircraft. They would buy it at an airport where it’s available and then let other airlines use it. That would make it easier for airlines to meet the SAF mandate even if the fuel is not easily available. However, so far the Commission is opposed. LOBBYING BATTLE The car coalition only worked because industry allied with countries, and there are signs of that happening with aviation. The sector’s lobbying effort to slash the EU carbon pricing could find an ally in the new Italo-German team-up to promote competitiveness. The German government last year announced a plan to cut national aviation taxes — with the call made during the COP30 global climate conference, something that angered the German Greens. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz attend the Italy-Germany Intergovernmental Summit at Villa Doria Pamphilj. | Vincenzo Nuzzolese/LightRocket via Getty Images Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Friday that she and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wanted to start “a decisive change of pace … in terms of the competitiveness of our businesses.” “A certain ideological vision of the green transition has ended up bringing our industries to their knees, creating new dangerous strategic dependencies for Europe without, however, having any real impact on the global protection of the environment and nature,” she added. Her far-right coalition ally, Italian Transport Minister Matteo Salvini, has called the ETS and taxes on maritime transport and air transport “economic suicide” that “must be dismantled piece by piece.” COMMISSION SAYS NO As with the 2035 policy for cars, the European Commission is strongly defending its policy against those attacks. Apostolos Tzitzikostas, the transport commissioner, stressed the EU’s “firm commitment” to stick with aviation decarbonization policies. “Investment decisions and construction must start by 2027, or we will miss the 2030 targets. It is as simple as that,” the commissioner said in November when announcing the bloc’s new plans to boost investment into sustainable aviation and maritime fuels. Climate campaigners fought hard against the car sector’s efforts to gut 2035, and now they’re gearing up for another battle over aviation targets. “The airlines’ whining comes as no surprise — yet it is disappointing to see airlines come after such a fundamental piece of EU legislation,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. She was incensed about efforts to dodge the high prices set by the EU’s ETS in favor of the U.N.’s cheaper CORSIA emissions reduction scheme. Airline lobbyA4E said its members paid €2.3 billion for ETS permits last year. “By 2030, [the ETS cost] should rise up to €5 billion because the free allowances are phased out,” said Monika Rybakowska, the lobby’s policy director.  A recent study by the think tank InfluenceMap found that airlines are working to increase their impact on policymakers by aligning their positions on ETS. T&E also took aim at a recent position paper by A4E that asked the EU to postpone measures to curb non-CO2 pollution — such as nitrogen oxides and soot particles that, along with water vapor, contribute to contrails. The A4E paper said that “the scientific foundation for regulating non-CO2 effects remains insufficient” and “introducing financial liability risks misdirecting resources.” This is “an outdated excuse,” responded T&E, noting that the climate impact of contrails has been known for over 20 years.

BRUSSELS — The multi-billion-dollar battle between Netflix and Paramount to buy Warner Bros. Discovery has moved to the heart of Europe. Warner Bros. has accepted Netflix’s $82.7 billion bid (which would also include buying HBO) — which Netflix amended this week to a cash offer. But that’s not stopping Paramount, whose $108.4 billion offer for a larger chunk of the business was rejected, from doing all it can to stay in the race. Paramount has met with officials at the European Commission’s competition department, DG COMP, to discuss the Warner Bros. deal as it edges closer to submitting a draft of its formal filing, according to a person familiar with the case, granted anonymity to speak freely. Paramount’s aim is to speed up the process of getting the Commission to give an antitrust greenlight for its Warner Bros. bid. On a tour of European capitals earlier this month, Paramount CEO David Ellison went to the heart of European cinema, Paris, and had lunch with French President Emmanuel Macron.  He also booked time with the culture ministers of France and the U.K., signaling that the company’s strategy in Europe is not just to throw in more cash to secure a deal, but rather to win over hearts and minds by appealing to the continent’s love of the arts. Paramount hopes that support from European politicians and leading cultural figures will overcome the reservations Warner Bros. shareholders feel toward its bid, which they have repeatedly rejected. That’s why while in Paris, Ellison also met with key figures from the film industry, including the president of the National Film Board, Gaëtan Bruel; Gaumont CEO Sidonie Dumas; Richard Patry, the head of the French Exhibition Association; and Metropolitan Filmexport boss Victor Hadida.  Part of its strategy is to talk up its love of cinema and to claim that it can defend the movies against streaming giant Netflix. As part of its bid, Paramount has promised to release at least 30 films in theaters every year, and committed to honor “healthy traditional windows” of movie releases. THE DEATH OF CINEMA? The cinema industry has reservations about both bids. The International Union of Cinemas (UNIC) — which held a meeting with the European Commission’s competition department last week — namechecked theatrical release schedules as a “key principle” that had to be protected in any deal in a statement. But it said Thursday that it doesn’t support either of the current bids, adding that both could result in a “significant downside for European cinema.” UNIC’s key worry is that after the deal, the U.S. will end up producing fewer movies, to the detriment of European cinemagoers. French movies might get critical acclaim, but what really drives revenue are Hollywood blockbusters. EPP SUPPORT One victory Paramount has scored has been to draw the support of one of the European Parliament’s most influential lawmakers, Germany’s Andreas Schwab from the center-right European People’s Party.  Schwab, a competition policy expert, has been following the deal since its early days and was quick to warn the Commission against a potential Amazon offer for Warner Bros. last year. And ultimately it’s the competition argument, rather than the cultural one, that won him over. “The Paramount bid would be a better choice than Netflix for the balance of the market,” he told POLITICO.  BEEFING UP Both camps have entrusted global public affairs consultancies with well-rooted Brussels branches to massage the message: FGS Global for Netflix and Brunswick for Paramount. Each firm has also lined up legal heavyweights. Netflix is advised by global U.S. law firm Skadden, whose Brussels team is led by Ingrid Vandenborre (her CV includes getting Activision Blizzard’s $69 billion acquisition by Microsoft in 2023 over the line after an epic cross-border antitrust review).  Paramount relies on U.S. global powerhouse Latham & Watkins; in the driving seat is Carles Esteva Mosso, formerly a senior official at DG COMP. Warner Bros., meanwhile, is advised by another of Brussels’ top competition lawyers, Johan Ysewyn of Covington & Burling. Netflix and Paramount had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.

LONDON — Just as Keir Starmer was scrambling to smooth things over with Donald Trump, the U.S. president fired an unexpected rocket the British prime minister’s way. London awoke to a Truth Social post from Trump slamming Britain’s decision to hand control of the Chagos Islands — home of a joint U.K.-U.S. military base at Diego Garcia — to Mauritius. The British government had long thought the deal was squared with the U.S. administration, but Trump decried it as an act of “great stupidity” that will only embolden Russia and China. The intervention is a fresh nightmare for Starmer’s government, which was already digging deep to maintain the links the prime minister has painstakingly built with the White House in a week Trump vowed to slap tariffs on the U.K. and European allies who oppose his plan to forcibly acquire Greenland. Officials received no advance warning of Trump’s intervention — which played right into the hands of domestic opposition parties who have been campaigning against the deal for months. Starmer’s government was outwardly bullish on Tuesday, with his spokesman insisting that “the U.S. supports the deal.” A bill enacting the transfer is currently making its way through the parliamentary process. However, ministers confirmed they would make fresh efforts to shore up U.S. support for the Chagos agreement in the coming days. Starmer will now have to strain every sinew to get back on an even keel with his unpredictable counterpart.  WHAT GIVES? Trump’s apparent change of heart follows assiduous lobbying over the deal’s potential risks on both sides of the Atlantic. In the U.K., the campaign against the Chagos agreement was led by politicians from the right, citing concerns over Chinese influence in the region. They are now claiming victory. U.S. officials have received representations from Nigel Farage, the populist leader of Reform UK, and Tory figures, including Ross Kempsell, a peer and former aide to Boris Johnson. GB News reported Tuesday that a letter from skeptical British lawmakers was handed to Trump’s team during his state visit to the U.K. in September. One U.K. defense analyst with U.S. links, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said: “Every single China hawk in D.C. was against the deal.” Sophia Gaston, a research fellow at King’s College London, said U.S. institutions, which had been working on the negotiations with the U.K. were “supportive” of the deal and that Trump “was happy to wave it through in May as a gesture of trust and goodwill towards the special relationship.” But she added: “There was always an element of fragility to the president’s support, however, because it’s a deal that’s all based around a respect for international law, and he prioritizes hard power in the national interest.” A British official, not authorized to speak on the record, did not dispute this. “Pentagon and the State Department looked hard at this and concluded the deal was the best available outcome to secure vital U.S. interests,” they said. FRESH LOBBYING PUSH Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office Minister Stephen Doughty acknowledged Tuesday that the U.K. would now have to lobby the U.S. afresh. “We will, of course, have discussions with the administration in the coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal and how it secures the base,” he told MPs. Donald Trump’s apparent change of heart follows assiduous lobbying over the deal’s potential risks on both sides of the Atlantic. | Pool Photo by Francis Chung via EPA Starmer’s spokesman told reporters the parliamentary process to enact the Chagos treaty would continue as planned, while Mauritius’ Attorney General Gavin Glover issued a statement stressing that it still expects the transfer to go ahead. Campaigners had long argued that Britain’s custody of the archipelago — including the forcible expulsion of Chagossians to make way for the base in the 1960s — was a hangover from its days as a global empire. Glover said: “The sovereignty of the Republic of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago is already unambiguously recognised by international law and should no longer be subject to debate.” Gaston argued that it would still be “possible” for Starmer to persuade Trump to resume his backing, but warned that the price of doing so could be helping to find a solution to his standoff with Europe over Greenland — or allowing the president to “save some face” on his heavily-criticized Board of Peace for Gaza. The row poses wider questions for Starmer too. The British prime minister, a human rights lawyer by profession, has described international law as his “lodestar,” and took considerable domestic flack for sticking to his guns on the Chagos deal. Callum Miller, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, urged a tougher approach, telling the House of Commons, “we must show President Trump that his actions have consequences” and “we should take no options off the table” when dealing with him.  But protestations from opposition MPs are unlikely to dissuade Starmer from his settled course of striving for common ground with Trump and raising differences in private. As one senior Labour MP put it: “It’s presidential trolling. Best not to rise to it.”

The head of the U.S. oil industry’s top lobbying group said Tuesday that American producers are prepared to be a “stabilizing force” in Iran if the regime there falls — even as they remain skeptical about returning to Venezuela after the capture of leader Nicolás Maduro. “This is good news for the Iranian people — they’re taking freedom into their own hands,” American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said of the mass protests that have embroiled Iran in recent days. President Donald Trump is said to be weighing his options for potential actions against the Iranian government in response to its violent crackdown on the protests. “Our industry is committed to being a stabilizing force in Iran if they decide to overturn the regime,” Sommers told reporters following API’s annual State of American Energy event in Washington. “It’s an important oil play in the world, about the sixth-largest producer now — they could absolutely do more,” he said of the country. Iran’s oil industry, despite being ravaged by years of U.S. sanctions, is still considered to be structurally sound, unlike that of Venezuela’s. In order for companies to return to Venezuela, on the other hand, they will need long-term investment certainty, operational security and rule of law — all of which will take significant time, Sommers said. “If they get those three big things right, I think there will be investment going to Venezuela,” he said. Background: Experts who spoke earlier from the stage at API’s event also underscored the differences between Iran and Venezuela, whose oil infrastructure has deteriorated under years of neglect from the socialist regime. “Iran was able to add production under the weight of the most aggressive sanctions the U.S. could possibly deploy,” said Kevin Book, managing director at the energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners. “Imagine what they could do with Western engineering.” Bob McNally, a former national security and energy adviser to President George W. Bush who now leads the energy and geopolitics consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, said the prospects for growing Iran’s oil production are “completely different” from Venezuela’s. “You can imagine our industry going back there — we would get a lot more oil, a lot sooner than we will out of Venezuela,” McNally said. “That’s more conventional oil right near infrastructure, and gas as well.” No equity stakes: Sommers told reporters that API would oppose any efforts by the Trump administration to take a stake in oil companies that invest in Venezuela. The administration has taken direct equity stakes in a range of U.S. companies in a bid to boost the growth of sectors it sees as a geopolitical priority, such as semiconductor manufacturing and critical minerals. “We would be opposed to the United States government taking a stake in any American oil and gas companies, period,” Sommers said. “We’d have to know a little bit more about what the administration is proposing in terms of stake in [Venezuelan state-owned oil company] PdVSA, but we’re not for the nationalization of oil companies or for there to be a national oil company in the United States.”

BRUSSELS — European governments have launched a two-pronged diplomatic offensive to convince Donald Trump to back away from his claims on Greenland: by lobbying in Washington and pressing NATO to allay the U.S. president’s security concerns. The latest moves mark an abrupt change in Europe’s response to Trump’s threats, which are fast escalating into a crisis and have sent officials in Brussels, Berlin and Paris scrambling to sketch out an urgent way forward. Until now they have attempted to play down the seriousness of Trump’s ideas, fearing it would only add credence to what they hoped was mere rhetoric, but officials involved in the discussions say that has now changed. As if to underscore the shift, French President Emmanuel Macron became the most powerful European leader so far to starkly set out the challenges facing the continent. “The United States is an established power that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the international rules that it used to promote,” Macron said in his annual foreign policy address in Paris on Thursday. Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric this week, telling reporters on Sunday night “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” The president has repeatedly refused to rule out military intervention, something Denmark has said would spell the end of NATO ― an alliance of 32 countries, including the U.S., which has its largest military force. Greenland is not in the EU but is a semi-autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark, which is an EU member. Most of the diplomacy remains behind closed doors. The Danish ambassador to the U.S., Jesper Møller Sørensen, and the Greenlandic representative in Washington, Jacob Isbosethsen, held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The two envoys are attempting to persuade as many of them as possible that Greenland does not want to be bought by the U.S. and that Denmark has no interest in such a deal, an EU diplomat told POLITICO. In an unusual show of dissent, some Trump allies this week publicly objected to the president’s proposal to take Greenland by military force. Danish officials are expected to provide a formal briefing and update on the situation at a meeting of EU ambassadors on Friday, two EU diplomats said. RUSSIAN, CHINESE INFLUENCE At a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Thursday, NATO ambassadors agreed the organization should reinforce the Arctic region, according to three NATO diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions. Trump claimed the Danish territory is exposed to Russian and Chinese influence, and cited an alleged swarm of threatening ships near Greenland as a reason behind Washington’s latest campaign to control the territory. Experts largely dispute those claims, with Moscow and Beijing mostly focusing their defense efforts — including joint patrols and military investment — in the eastern Arctic. But U.S. Vice President JD Vance told reporters Thursday that Trump wants Europe to take Greenland’s security “more seriously,” or else “the United States is going to have to do something about it.” Europeans see finding a compromise with Trump as the first and preferred option. A boosted NATO presence on the Arctic island might convince the U.S. president that there is no need to own Greenland for security reasons. The Danish ambassador to the US and the Greenlandic representative in Washington held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. | Kevin Carter/Getty Images The NATO envoys meeting Thursday floated leveraging intelligence capabilities to better monitor the territory, stepping up defense spending to the Arctic, shifting more military equipment to the region, and holding more military exercises in the vicinity.  The request for proposals just days after the White House’s latest broadside reflects how seriously Europe is taking the ultimatum and the existential risk any incursion into Greenland would have on the alliance and transatlantic ties. NATO’s civil servants are now expected to come up with options for envoys, the alliance diplomats said. Thursday’s meeting of 32 envoys veered away from direct confrontation, the three NATO diplomats said, with one calling the mood in the room “productive” and “constructive.” Denmark’s ambassador, who spoke first, said the dispute was a bilateral issue and instead focused on the recent successes of NATO’s Arctic strategy and the need for more work in the region, the diplomats said — a statement that received widespread support. The Greenland issue was also raised at a closed-door meeting of EU defense and foreign policy ambassadors on Thursday even though it wasn’t on the formal agenda, the two EU diplomats said. The bloc’s capitals expressed solidarity with Denmark, they added. Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.