BRUSSELS — The European Union is pressing ahead with talks to grant United States border authorities unprecedented access to Europeans’ data, despite growing concerns about American surveillance. The European Commission is brokering a deal to exchange information about travelers, including fingerprints and law enforcement records, so the U.S. can determine if they “pose a risk to public security or public order,” according to official documents. Commission officials flew to Washington last week for the first round of negotiations, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Trump administration’s request for deeper access comes after the U.S. border agency in December proposed reviewing five years of social media history. Talks are happening as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service is under heavy scrutiny for its use of surveillance technology against protesters in cities such as Minneapolis. The negotiations should be “put on hold” until the security and privacy of citizens in the EU and U.S. can be guaranteed, liberal European Parliament member Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle said in an interview. Romain Lanneau, a legal researcher with surveillance watchdog Statewatch, said police databases in Europe could contain information on anyone from protesters to journalists who might be considered a “threat,” and that — under the deal being discussed — this information would be at the fingertips of U.S. border authorities who could refuse those people entry to the United States or even detain them. European regulators are “very cautiously looking at what’s happening in the United States,” Wojciech Wiewiórowski, the EU’s in-house data protection supervisor, told POLITICO. Europe “has to be careful” about how it allows the data of Europeans to flow to the U.S., he said.  Hermida-van der Walle in January co-signed a letter by six prominent lawmakers calling on the Commission to stand down given the “current geopolitical context,” despite Washington’s admonition that failure to reach a deal will mean Europeans lose access to its visa waiver program. UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS The U.S. is seeking access to information including biometric data such as fingerprints that is stored on national databases in European countries, according to an explanatory note sent to national experts. The data would be used to “address irregular migration and to prevent, detect, and combat serious crime and terrorist offences,” the note said. In an earlier opinion on the deal, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) — a watchdog that advises the Commission on privacy policies — noted the deal would be the first of its kind to enable “large-scale sharing of personal data … for the purpose of border and immigration control” with a non-EU country. The Commission would negotiate a framework deal that would serve as a template for bilateral agreements called Enhanced Border Security Partnerships (EBSPs), which national governments agree with Washington. EU countries in December signed off on the Commission’s request to start talks with the U.S. Washington is pressuring its EU counterparts by imposing a deadline for the bilateral deals to be agreed by the end of 2026. If countries fail to reach a deal with the U.S. they risk being cut from the latter’s visa waiver program. The U.S has made it mandatory for all countries that are part of the visa waiver program to have an EBSP in place. “The pressure which the United States is extorting on our member states, the threats that if you don’t agree with this we will cancel your access to the visa waiver program, that is an element of blackmail that we cannot let go,” Hermida-van der Walle said. The EDPS watchdog has cautioned that the scope of data sharing should be as narrow as possible, with clear justifications for every query; transparency around how the data is used; and judicial redress available in the U.S. for any person. Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert emphasised at a recent press briefing that the framework being negotiated will involve “clear and robust safeguards on data protection,” and will ensure “a non-systematic nature of the information exchange and that the exchange is limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve the objectives of this cooperation.”  US PRIVACY UNDER PRESSURE Access to the data is the latest issue putting pressure on a troubled relationship between the U.S. and the EU on data privacy. Since whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed U.S. mass surveillance practices affecting Europeans, the EU has tightened controls on how Washington handles Europeans’ data. Since the return of Donald Trump as president last year, officials and rights groups have deplored a move by the U.S. administration to gut a key privacy watchdog tasked with overseeing privacy safeguards in place to protect Europeans. The Trump administration has also been ramping up mass surveillance of citizens by federal agencies like ICE, including through contracts with Israeli spyware company Paragon, surveillance giant Palantir and other firms. Capgemini, a prominent French IT firm, on Sunday said it was selling off its American activities after it faced political backlash from the French government that its software was being used by ICE authorities. Civil rights groups, lawmakers and other watchdogs fear the new EU-U.S. data sharing deals would add to backsliding on privacy rights.    “The current initiatives are being presented as toward counter-terrorism, but a lot of them are actually adopted for the chilling effect [on political activism],” Statewatch’s Lanneau said. Hermida-van der Walle, the liberal lawmaker, warned: “If people have to go to the United States, if it’s not a choice but something that they have do, there is a risk of self-censoring.”  “This comes from an administration who claims to be the biggest defender of free speech. What they’re doing with their actions is curtailing the possibility of people to express themselves freely, because otherwise they might not get access into the country,” she said.

MARSEILLE, France — Violence at a drug trafficking hotspot in the social housing complex next to Orange’s headquarters in Marseille forced the telecoms giant to lock its forest-green gates and order its thousands of employees to work from home. The disruption to such a recognizable company — one that gives its name to the city’s iconic football venue — became a fresh symbol of how drug trafficking and insecurity are reshaping politics ahead of municipal elections. In a recent poll, security ranked among voters’ top concerns, forcing candidates across the spectrum to pitch competing responses to the drug trade. “The number one theme is security,” center-right candidate Martine Vassal told POLITICO. “In the field, what I hear most often are people who tell me that they no longer travel in the heart of the city for that reason.” French political parties are watching the contest closely for clues about the broader battles building toward the 2027 presidential race. In many ways, Marseille is a microcosm of France as a whole, reflecting the country’s wider demographics and its biggest political battles. The city is diverse. Multicultural and low-income neighborhoods that tend to support the hard left abut conservative suburbs that have swung to the far right in recent years. As in much of France, support for the political center in Marseille is wobbling.  The left-wing incumbent Benoît Payan remains a slight favorite in the March contest, but Franck Allisio, the candidate for the far-right National Rally, is just behind, with both men polling at around 30 percent. The issues at play strike at the heart of Marseille’s identity: its notorious drug trade, entrenched poverty and failure to seize on the competitive advantages of a young, sun-drenched city strategically perched on the Mediterranean. Whichever candidate can articulate a platform that speaks to Marseille’s local realities while addressing anxieties shared across France will be well positioned to take city hall — and to provide their party with a potential blueprint for the 2027 presidential campaign.  SECOND CITY  Marseille has always had something of a little-brother complex with Paris, a resentment that goes beyond the football rivalry of Paris Saint-Germain and Olympique de Marseille. Many in the city regard the French capital as a distant power center that tries to impose its own solutions on Marseille without sufficiently consulting local experts.   People in Marseilles pay tribute to murdered Mehdi Kessaci. 20, whose brother is a prominent anti drug trafficking campaigner, and protest against trafficking, Nov. 22, 2025. | Clement Mahoudeau/AFP via Getty Images “Paris treats Marseille almost like a colony,” said Allisio. “A place you visit, make promises to — without any guarantee the money will ever be spent.”  When it comes to drug trafficking and security, leaders across the political spectrum agree that Paris is prescribing medicine that treats the symptoms of the crisis, not the cause.  Violence associated with the drug trade was thrust back in the spotlight in November with the killing of 20-year-old Mehdi Kessaci. Authorities are investigating the crime as an act of intimidation. Mehdi’s brother Amine Kessaci is one of the city’s most prominent anti-trafficking campaigners, rising to prominence after their half-brother — who was involved in the trade — was killed several years earlier.  President Emmanuel Macron, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez and Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin all visited Marseille in the wake of Kessaci’s killing, outlining a tough-on-crime agenda to stop the violence and flow of drugs.  Locals stress that law-and-order investments must be matched with funding for public services. Unless authorities improve the sluggish economy that has encouraged jobless youths to turn to the drug trade, the problem will continue.  “Repression alone is not efficient,” said Kaouther Ben Mohamed, a former social worker turned activist. “If that was the case, the drug trade wouldn’t have flourished like it did.” Housing is another issue, with many impoverished residents living in dangerous, dilapidated buildings. “We live in a shit city,” said Mahboubi Tir, a tall, broad-shouldered young man with a rugby player’s physique. “We’re not safe here.”   Tir spent a month in a coma and several more in a hospital last April after he was assaulted during a parking dispute. His face was still swollen and distorted when he spoke to POLITICO in December about how the incident reshaped his relationship with the city he grew up in.  “I almost died, and I was angry at the city,” said Tir, who suffers from memory loss and has only a vague recollection of what led to the assault, as he sipped coffee in the backroom office of a tiny, left-leaning grassroots political party where he volunteers, Citizen Ambition.  SECURITY PROBLEM To what extent Marseille’s activist groups can bring about change in a city whose struggles have lasted for decades remains to be seen, but the four leading candidates for mayor share a similar diagnosis. They all believe the lurid crime stories making national headlines are a byproduct of a lack of jobs and neglected public services — and that the French state’s responses miss the mark. Rather than relying on harsher punishments as a deterrent, they argue the state should prioritize local policing and public investment. When Payan announced his candidacy for reelection, he pledged free meals for 15,000 students to get them back in school and to double the number of local cops as part of a push for more community policing. Allisio’s platform puts the emphasis on security-related spending: increased video surveillance, more vehicles for local police and the creation of “specialized units to combat burglary and public disorder.” Vassal — the center-right backed by the conservative Les Républicains and parties aligned with Macron — has similarly put forward a proposal to arm fare enforcers in public transport. Both Allisio and Vassal are calling for unspecified spending cuts while preserving basic services provided at the local level like schools, public transportation and parks and recreation. Vassal, who is polling third, said she would make public transportation free for residents younger 26 to travel across the spread-out city. She accuses the current administration of having delivered an insufficient number of building permits, slowing the development of new housing and office buildings and thus the revitalization of Marseille’s most embattled areas — a trend she pledged to reverse. Both Vassal and Allisio are advocating for less local taxes on property to boost small businesses and create new jobs. Allisio has also put forward a proposal to make parking for less 30 minutes free to facilitate deliveries and quick stops to buy products. The outlier — at least when it comes to public safety — is Sébastien Delogu, a disciple of three-time hard-left presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Though Delogu is polling fourth at 14 percent, he can’t be counted out, given that Mélenchon won Marseille in the first round of the last two presidential elections. Though Delogu acknowledges that crime is a problem, he doesn’t want to spend more money on policing. He instead proposes putting money that other candidates want to spend on security toward poverty reduction, housing supply and the local public health sector. Whoever wins, however, will have to grapple with an uncomfortable truth. Aside from local police responsible for public tranquility and health, policing and criminal justice matters are largely managed at the national level. The solution to Marseille’s problems will depend, to no small extent, on the outcome of what happens next year in Paris.

Want to get a sense of how the next French presidential vote will play out? Then pay attention to the upcoming local elections. They start in 50 days, and voters in more than 35,000 communes will head to the polls to elect city councils and mayors. Those races will give an important insight into French politics running into the all-important 2027 presidential contest that threatens to reshape both France and the European Union.  The elections, which will take place over two rounds on March 15 and March 22, will confirm whether the far-right National Rally can cement its status as the country’s predominant political force. They will also offer signs of whether the left is able to overcome its internal divisions to be a serious challenger. The center has to prove it’s not in a death spiral. POLITICO traveled to four cities for an on-the-ground look at key races that will be fought on policy issues that resonate nationally such as public safety, housing, climate change and social services. These are topics that could very well determine the fortunes of the leading parties next year. FRANCE IN MINIATURE Benoit Payan, Franck Allisio, Martine Vassal and Sébastien Delogu | Source photos via EPA and Getty Images MARSEILLE — France’s second city is a microcosm of the nationwide electoral picture. Marseille’s sprawl is comprised of poorer, multicultural areas, middle-to-upper-class residential zones and bustling, student-filled districts. All make up the city’s unique fabric. Though Marseille has long struggled with crime, a surge in violence tied to drug trafficking in the city and nationwide has seen security rocket up voters’ priority list. In Marseille, as elsewhere, the far right has tied the uptick in violence and crime to immigration. The strategy appears to be working. Recent polling shows National Rally candidate Franck Allisio neck-and-neck with incumbent Benoît Payan, who enjoys the support of most center-left and left-wing parties. Trailing them are the center-right hopeful Martine Vassal — who is backed by French President Emmanuel Macron’s party Renaissance — and the hard-left France Unbowed candidate Sébastien Delogu, a close ally of three-time presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Those four candidates are all polling well enough to make the second round. That could set up an unprecedented and unpredictable four-way runoff to lead the Mediterranean port city of more than 850,000 people. A National Rally win here would rank among the biggest victories in the history of the French far right. Party leader Marine Le Pen traveled to Marseille herself on Jan. 17 to stump for Allisio, describing the city as a “a symbol of France’s divisions” and slamming Payan for “denying that there is a connection between immigration and insecurity.” Party leader Marine Le Pen traveled to Marseille herself on Jan. 17 to stump for Allisio. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images The center-right candidate Vassal told POLITICO said she would increase security by recruiting more local police and installing video surveillance. But she also regretted that Marseille was so often represented by its struggles. “We’re always making headlines on problems like drug trafficking … It puts all the city’s assets and qualities to the side and erases everything else which goes on,” Vassal said. Payan, whose administration took over in 2020 after decades of conservative rule, has tried to tread a line that is uncompromising on policing while also acknowledging the roots of the city’s problems require holistic solutions. He’s offered to double the number of local cops as part of a push for more community policing and pledged free meals for 15,000 students to get them back in school. Marseille’s sprawl is comprised of poorer, multicultural areas, middle-to-upper-class residential zones and bustling, student-filled districts. All make up the city’s unique fabric. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images Delogu is the only major candidate not offering typical law-and-order investments. Though he acknowledges the city’s crime problems, he proposes any new spending should be on poverty reduction, housing supply and the local public health sector rather than of more security forces and equipment. Crime is sure to dominate the debate in Marseille. This election will test which of these competing approaches resonates most in a country where security is increasingly a top concern. LATEST POLLING: Payan 30 percent – Allisio 30 percent- Vassal 23 percent – Delogu 14 percent CAN A UNITED LEFT BLOCK A FAR-RIGHT TAKEOVER? Julien Sanchez, Franck Proust and Julien Plantier | Source photos via Getty Images NÎMES — Nîmes’ stunningly well-preserved second-century Roman amphitheater attracts global superstars for blockbuster concerts. But even the glamour of Taylor Swift or Dua Lipa can’t hide the recent scares in this city of more than 150,000 people. Nîmes has in recent years suffered from violence tied to drug trafficking long associated with Marseille, located just a short train ride away. Pissevin, a high-rise neighborhood just a 15-minute streetcar ride from the landmark amphitheater, seized national headlines in 2024 when 10-year-old was killed by a stray bullet in a case that remains under investigation but which prosecutors believe was linked to drug trafficking. “Ten to 15 years ago, a lot of crime came from petty theft and burglaries. But some of the population in underprivileged areas, looking for economic opportunities, turned to the drug trade, which offered a lot more money and the same amount of prison time if they were caught,” said Salim El Jihad, a Nîmes resident who leads the local nongovernmental organization Suburban. The Nimes amphitheatre and Pissevin / Source photos via Getty Images The National Rally is betting on Nîmes as a symbolic pickup. The race is shaping up to be a close three-way contest between Communist Vincent Bouget, the National Rally’s Julien Sanchez and conservative Franck Proust, Nîmes’ deputy mayor from 2016 to 2020. Bouget — who is backed by most other left-wing parties, including moderate forces like the Socialist Party — told POLITICO that while security is shaping up to be a big theme in the contest, it raises “a broader question around social structures.” “What citizens are asking for is more human presence, including public services and social workers,” Bouget said. Whoever wins will take the reins from Jean-Paul Fournier, the 80-year-old conservative mayor who has kept Nîmes on the right without pause for the past quarter century. But Fournier’s decision not to seek another term and infighting within his own party, Les Républicains, have sharply diminished Proust’s chances of victory. Proust may very well end splitting votes with Julien Plantier, another right-leaning former deputy mayor, who has the support of Macron’s Renaissance. Sanchez, meanwhile, is appealing to former Fournier voters with pledges to bolster local police units and with red scare tactics. “Jean-Paul Fournier managed to keep this city on the right for 25 years,” Sanchez said in his candidacy announcement clip. “Because of the stupidity of his heirs, there’s a strong chance the communists and the far left could win.” LATEST POLLING: Bouget 28 percent – Sanchez 27 percent- Proust 22 percent THE LAST GREEN HOPE That was also a clear swipe at Pierre Hurmic’s main opponent — pro-Macron centrist Thomas Cazenave — who spent a year as budget minister from 2023 to 2024. | Source photos via Getty Images BORDEAUX — Everyone loves a Bordeaux red. So can a Green really last in French wine country? Pierre Hurmic rode the green wave to Bordeaux city hall during France’s last nationwide municipal elections in 2020. That year the Greens, which had seldom held power other than as a junior coalition partner, won the race for mayor in three of France’s 10 most populous cities — Strasbourg, Lyon and Bordeaux — along with smaller but noteworthy municipalities including Poitiers and Besançon. Six years later, the most recent polling suggests the Greens are on track to lose all of them. Except Bordeaux. Green mayors have faced intense scrutiny over efforts to make cities less car-centric and more eco-friendly, largely from right-wing opponents who depict those policies as out of touch with working-class citizens who are priced out of expensive city centers and must rely on cars to get to their jobs. The view from Paris is that Hurmic has escaped some of that backlash by being less ideological and, crucially, adopting a tougher stance on crime than some of his peers. Notably, Hurmic decided to arm part of the city’s local police units — departing from some of his party’s base, which argues that firearms should be reserved for national forces rather than less-experienced municipal units. In an interview with POLITICO, Hurmic refused to compare himself to other Green mayors. He defended his decision to double the number of local police, alongside those he armed, saying it had led to a tangible drop in crime. “Everyone does politics based on their own temperament and local circumstances,” he said. Hurmic insists that being tough on crime doesn’t mean going soft on climate change. He argues the Greens’ weak polling wasn’t a backlash against local ecological policies, pointing to recent polling showing 63 percent of voters would be “reluctant to vote for a candidate who questions the ecological transition measures already underway in their municipality.” Pursuing a city’s transition on issues like mobility and energy is all the more necessary because at the national level, “the state is completely lacking,” Hurmic said, pointing to what he described as insufficient investment in recent budgets. That was also a clear swipe at his main opponent — pro-Macron centrist Thomas Cazenave — who spent a year as budget minister from 2023 to 2024. Cazenave has joined forces with other center-right and conservative figures in a bid to reclaim a city that spent 73 years under right-leaning mayors, two of whom served as prime minister — Alain Juppé and Jacques Chaban-Delmas. But according Ludovic Renard, a political scientist at the Bordeaux Institute of Political Science, Hurmic’s ascent speaks to how the city has changed. “The sociology of the city is no longer the same, and Hurmic’s politics are more in tune with its population,” said Renard. LATEST POLLING: Hurmic 32 percent – Cazenave 26 percent – Nordine Raymond (France Unbowed) 15 percent – Julie Rechagneux (National Rally) 13 percent – Philippe Dessertine (independent) 12 percent GENTRIFICATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE LEFT Mayor Karim Bouamrane, a Socialist, has said the arrival of new, wealthier residents and the ensuing gentrification could be a net positive for the city, as long as “excellence is shared.” | Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images SAINT-OUEN-SUR-SEINE — The future of the French left could be decided on the grounds of the former Olympic village. The Parisian suburb of Saint-Ouen-sur-Seine, which borders the French capital, is a case study in the waves of gentrification that have transformed the outskirts of major European cities. Think New York’s Williamsburg, London’s Hackney or Berlin’s Neukölln. Saint-Ouen, as it’s usually called, has long been known for its massive flea market, which draws millions of visitors each year. But the city, particularly its areas closest to Paris, was long seen as unsafe and struggled with entrenched poverty. The future of the French left could be decided on the grounds of the former Olympic village. | Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu via Getty Images That changed over time, as more affluent Parisians began moving into the well-connected suburb in search of cheaper rents or property. A 2023 report from the local court of auditors underlined that “the population of this rapidly growing municipality … has both a high poverty rate (28 percent) and a phenomenon of ‘gentrification’ linked to the rapid increase in the proportion of executives and higher intellectual professions.” Mayor Karim Bouamrane, a Socialist, has said the arrival of new, wealthier residents and the ensuing gentrification could be a net positive for the city, as long as “excellence is shared.” Bouamrane has also said he would continue pushing for the inclusion of social housing when issuing building permits, and for existing residents not to be displaced when urban renewal programs are put in place. His main challenger, France Unbowed’s Manon Monmirel, hopes to build enough social housing to make it 40 percent of the city’s total housing stock. She’s also pledged to crack down on real estate speculation. The race between the two could shed light on whether the future of the French left lies in the center or at the extremes. In Boumrane, the Socialists have a charismatic leader. He is 52 years old, with a beat-the-odds story that lends itself well to a national campaign. His journey from child of Moroccan immigrants growing up in a rough part of Saint-Ouen to city leader certainly caught attention of the foreign press in the run-up to the Olympics. Bouamrane’s moderate politics include a push for his party to stop fighting Macron’s decision to raise the retirement age in 2023 and he supports more cross-partisan work with the current center-right government. That approach stands in sharp contrast to the ideologically rigid France Unbowed. The party’s firebrand leader Mélenchon scored 51.82 percent of the vote in Saint-Ouen during his last presidential run in 2022, and France Unbowed landed over 35 percent — more than three times its national average — there in the European election two years later, a race in which it usually struggles. Mélenchon and France Unbowed’s campaign tactics are laser-focused on specific segments that support him en masse despite his divisive nature: a mix of educated, green-minded young voters and working-class urban populations, often of immigrant descent. In other words: the yuppies moving to Saint-Ouen and the people who were their before gentrification. France Unbowed needs their continued support to become a durable force, or it may crumble like the grassroots movements born in the early 2010s, including Spain’s Podemos or Greece’s Syriza. But if the Socialists can’t win a left-leaning suburb with a popular incumbent on the ballot, where can they win?

President Donald Trump’s quest to control Greenland is driving the news — and this time, it’s not a punchline. Trump has backed off threats of using force to take the island in favor of what he calls a framework that will give the U.S. access to the island. And on Friday, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the situation is still “serious” adding that the Scandinavian nation has “a path that we are in the process of trying with the Americans. We have always said that we are of course willing to make an agreement.” But whether the deal will work remains vague. Meanwhile, all of this has resulted in a flood of questions in Washington and abroad about whether Trump’s threats have been strategy, bluster, or something in between — and the long-term consequences for America’s standing with allies. We attempt to answer some of the most asked questions about the issue. What’s Trump’s interest in Greenland all about? Trump’s obsession with obtaining Greenland — which for decades has been controlled by U.S. ally Denmark — is ostensibly about keeping Americans safe. The president and his advisers increasingly describe Greenland as essential to ensuring American – and even European – security against encroaching threats from China and Russia. Why? Greenland sits astride key Arctic sea lanes that are becoming increasingly navigable as ice melts. It also hosts Pituffik Space Base, a critical U.S. military installation for missile warning, space surveillance and Arctic operations. To Trump, Greenland represents leverage: strategic location, military value and untapped natural resources. His interest in the island isn’t new. In 2019, Trump publicly floated buying Greenland, later describing it as “a large real estate deal.” At the time, it was mostly dismissed as a pipe dream from a mercurial president. But six years later, the once frivolous threat has alienated European allies and become one of the administration’s most important goals. Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a global risk assessment firm in New York, said that Trump having captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by force has made his assertive “Donroe Doctrine” a “brand” — and emboldened him to take a more hostile posture toward Greenland and European allies. “He’s all in on having the brand,” said Bremmer, who is in Davos speaking with European allies. “Now he needs to populate it and have more ornaments on the tree. There has to be a next thing for the Donroe Doctrine. And Greenland was that thing.” Was Trump serious about invading Greenland? No. There is no legal or political pathway for the U.S. to seize Greenland without violating the sovereignty of NATO allies. Doing so would essentially end the alliance — not to mention violate international law. Trump and his aides were never seriously contemplating an invasion but refusing to rule it out publicly was an effort to increase Trump’s negotiating leverage. In the process, he incensed European leaders, who responded more forcefully than they ever had to his pressure, sending troops to Greenland for military exercises and weighing whether to deploy the European Union’s anti-economic coercion “bazooka” in response to increased Trump’s threat to impose U.S. tariffs. “For his first year, Europe has bit its tongue but worked with Trump to keep him on side,” said Charles Kupchan, a Europe specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. “When the president of the United States is threatening to invade a NATO ally, it’s time for a different approach.” The stronger response worked. With global markets starting to plummet over fears of an escalating crisis, Trump finally made clear in his speech to Davos on Wednesday that he would not look to acquire Greenland with military force. But Trump’s new assurances have not fully allayed European anger or ongoing anxieties about a leader known for changing his mind and who has repeatedly treated force, coercion and brinkmanship as negotiating tools rather than a last resort. Trump’s governing style thrives on maximalist threats followed by selective walk-backs, leaving allies and adversaries alike unsure which statements are bluster, which are trial balloons and which could harden into policy. And so with this president, even ideas he claims are off the table, never fully are. What does Greenland — and Europe — think about all of this? They’re pissed. Greenland is a semi-autonomous, self-governing territory within Denmark, and its leaders have repeatedly said the island is not for sale. Local officials have also bristled at rhetoric that treats Greenland as an object rather than a society of 56,000 people with their own political aspirations, including long-term independence. “We are not in the situation where we are thinking that a takeover of the country might happen overnight,” Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said at a press conference earlier this month. “You cannot compare Greenland to Venezuela. We are a democratic country.” At the same time, Greenland’s government welcomes U.S. investment, security cooperation, and diplomatic engagement — so long as it comes with respect for Greenlandic autonomy. The Trumpian approach has strained that balance, fueling local skepticism even as U.S. military and economic ties deepen. Though Trump has backed off his invasion threats, “the damage was done,” Bremmer said. “They feel completely disrespected. They feel like Trump treats them with contempt.” How’s this playing in America? The reaction at home has been equally searing. “If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking … there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who recently traveled to Copenhagen, said last week. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Trump’s Greenland quest “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 17 percent of Americans support the effort to acquire Greenland, while 47 percent disapprove and 35 percent remain unsure. Is the “framework” deal going to put an end to the effort to take Greenland? Trump announced in a vague post this week that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had agreed to a “framework of a future Arctic deal” on Greenland, which he described as giving the U.S. significant access to the island. But Denmark and Greenland have both strongly rejected any notion that sovereignty is negotiable or that a concrete transfer of control is underway. Though details are sparse, Trump said the U.S. got “everything we wanted,” adding that the deal is “infinite” and will last “forever.” He told reporters he’ll give more clarity on whether Denmark is on board in two weeks. How does it affect our European alliances? It reinforces a core anxiety many European allies already have about Trump: U.S. security commitments can blur into coercion when they collide with his personal priorities. “The European leaders believe it is primarily about ego,” Bremmer said. “When Trump is acting as an individual and not acting on behalf of the country, you can see how this is going to create conflict. It’s set up to create mistrust and conflict and undermine the relationship.” Even as Trump and his advisers insist his hunger for Greenland aligns with NATO interests, European leaders have warned that questioning a country’s sovereignty — even rhetorically — crosses a red line. In joint statements and public remarks, officials in NATO countries have stressed that Arctic security cooperation does not confer consent over territory, pushing back on what they see as a dangerous conflation of alliance coordination and unilateral pressure. “The American leadership of the transatlantic community was based on mutual trust, common values and interests, not on domination and coercion,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday. “That is why it was accepted by all of us. Let’s not lose it, dear friends,” adding that is what he conveyed to other EU leaders on Thursday. Trump’s Greenland push has only intensified a clear undercurrent of administration-wide disdain for Europe, articulated over his first year in office via speeches, social media posts and an official national security strategy. In the weeks following his renewed Greenland push, Trump has only further alienated our European allies, claiming NATO has not been in America’s corner in the past. “We’ve never needed them,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Friday. “We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” More than 40 countries following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks deployed troops to Afghanistan when the U.S. invoked NATO Article 5 for the first time ever. At peak years, allied forces made up roughly half of all non-Afghan troops in the country. More than 1,100 non-U.S. coalition troops were killed in Afghanistan, alongside many thousands wounded. Canada alone lost 158 soldiers and the U.K. lost 457. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer slammed Trump’s remarks Friday morning. “I consider President Trump’s remarks to be insulting and frankly appalling,” Starmer said. “I am not surprised they have caused such hurt to the loved ones of those who were killed or injured and, in fact, across the country.”

TikTok has closed a $14 billion deal establishing a U.S. subsidiary of the platform to avoid a ban, the company said Thursday. The new owners will include the U.S. private equity firm Silver Lake, Abu Dhabi-based artificial intelligence company MGX and Oracle, a tech giant co-founded by Larry Ellison, an ally of President Donald Trump. They will each hold a 15 percent stake in the U.S. joint venture. The deal allows TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company, ByteDance, to maintain a nearly 20 percent stake. The Dell Family Office, investment firm of Chair and CEO of Dell Technologies Michael Dell, is also an investor. Congress passed a law in April 2024 requiring the sale of TikTok to a U.S. buyer before Jan. 19, 2025, or banning it, citing national security concerns about the app’s ties to China. But Trump delayed the ban from taking effect five times last year while a deal was negotiated to divest the app to American owners. Trump signed an executive order in September approving the deal and giving the parties until Friday to formalize the terms. The deal matches an internal memo distributed by TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew last month, who said the agreement would be finalized by Thursday. The U.S. version will operate as an independent entity, governed by a seven-member board including TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, Oracle Executive Vice President Kenneth Glueck, Timothy Dattels, senior adviser of TPG Global; Mark Dooley, managing director at Susquehanna International Group; Silver Lake Co-CEO Egon Durban, DXC Technology CEO Raul Fernandez; and David Scott, chief strategy and safety officer at MGX. Adam Presser, head of operations and trust and safety at TikTok, will now serve as CEO of the joint venture. Trump praised the deal in a Truth Social post Thursday evening. “I am so happy to have helped in saving TikTok! It will now be owned by a group of Great American Patriots and Investors, the Biggest in the World, and will be an important Voice,” Trump wrote. Trump said in September that Chinese President Xi Jinping had agreed to the deal, but Chinese officials provided an ambiguous narrative, signaling that any deal would be a drawn out process. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the country “respects the wishes of enterprises” and welcomes them to reach “solutions that comply with Chinese laws and regulations and balance interests.” The president thanked Xi in his Truth Social post “for working with us and, ultimately, approving the Deal.” “He could have gone the other way, but didn’t, and is appreciated for his decision,” Trump wrote. Trump previously described the deal as a “qualified divestiture,” meaning the sale would fully sever ByteDance’s control over the platform and therefore make TikTok legal under the U.S. law. China hawks on Capitol Hill have championed this issue over national security concerns and fears that the Chinese-controlled app subjects users to government surveillance and content manipulation. While they’ve vowed to scrutinize the potential deal to ensure it adheres to the law, they seemed prepared to accept Trump’s claim the deal would resolve concerns over national security and control. Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the U.S. owners would have control over the app’s algorithm, which is at the heart of the platform’s success. “The U.S. company will have control over how the algorithm pushes content to users and that was a very important part of it,” Vance said during the September executive order signing in the Oval Office. “We thought it was necessary for the national security level element of the law.” According to the company release, the U.S. version will retrain and update the platform’s algorithm based on U.S. user data. Oracle will control the algorithm within its U.S. cloud environment. “President Trump got played by Xi Jinping. He got terrible advice from his staff on these negotiations. This isn’t the Art of the Deal, it’s the art of the steal. Xi Jinping can’t believe his luck,” Michael Sobolik, senior fellow at the right-leaning Hudson Institute and an expert on U.S.-China policy, told POLITICO.

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the author of the award-winning book “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. You may have heard that some unsavory ships have been navigating our waters, smuggling drugs and other goods, damaging underwater infrastructure and sometimes just lurking, perhaps conducting surveillance. Many of these ships turn up in Irish waters, which are home to multiple undersea cables. But while Ireland has a tiny navy to deal with these unwanted visitors, it does have another formidable resource that helps keep its waters safe: its fishermen. And for the sake of national security, let’s hope this shrinking tribe manages to renew its ranks. In January 2022, Ireland was facing a terrible dilemma: The Russian Navy had just announced it was going to hold an exercise in Irish waters. Conducting wargames in the exclusive economic zones of other countries is legal, but guests ordinarily ask for permission — and Russia definitely wasn’t a welcome visitor. Like the rest of Europe, Ireland was gripped with fear that Russia was about to invade Ukraine and perhaps other countries. Dublin politely asked the Russian Navy to refrain from holding its exercises, but to no avail. The wargames were going to take place. But then the Irish government received assistance from an unexpected source. The country’s fishermen declared they wouldn’t allow the exercise to happen: “This is the livelihoods of fishermen and fishing families all around the coastline here,” announced Patrick Murphy, chief executive of the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, on RTE radio. “It’s our waters. Can you imagine if the Russians were applying to go onto the mainland of Ireland to go launching rockets, how far would they get with that?” The fishermen, Murphy explained, would take turns fishing around the clock. The maneuver made it impossible for the Russians to perform their exercises, and Moscow ended up cancelling the wargames. The creativity of these gutsy fishermen made global news, but away from the headlines, they and their colleagues in other countries have long been aiding national security. In the early hours of Oct. 28, 1981, two Swedish fishermen on their daily round off the coast of Karlskrona noticed something unusual. They decided to alert the authorities, and the navy dispatched a vessel. What the fishermen had spotted turned out to be the U137 — a Soviet nuclear submarine that had run aground. The incident demonstrated several things: First, fishermen know their countries’ waters like almost no one else and notice when something is out of the ordinary. Second, the navy — or the coast guard — can’t be everywhere all the time. And third, fishermen can perform a vital service to national security by alerting authorities when something doesn’t look right. The grounded U137 wasn’t a one-off. In fact, fishermen keep a vigilant eye on their surroundings on behalf of their compatriots all the time. Stefano Guidi/Getty Image Ireland’s large number of undersea cables is the result of the country’s strategic location at the westernmost end of the north Atlantic and its need for top-notch connectivity to service its high-tech economy. Indeed, the republic has marketed its connectivity — and low corporate taxes — so successfully that a host of U.S. tech firms and other corporate giants have set up European hubs there. But its waters cover a vast 880,00 square kilometers. That’s a challenge for the Irish Naval Service, which has a small fleet of eight patrol vessels, and such a shortage of sailors that it can’t even crew those few vessels. Despite placing a few orders for maritime equipment recently, it’s in no position to detect all the suspicious activity taking place in Ireland’s waters. That’s where the fishermen come in. Because they spend so much time at sea — some 200 days in the average year — they are adept at spotting drug boats or, say, potential saboteurs. When the authorities detect something unusual, perhaps via radar, they often ask fishermen what they’ve seen. “People ring us up and say: ‘Did you notice ABC?’,” Murphy told me. “Then we send them pictures. A lot of fellas send in pictures and tracking. WhatsApp is very good for this.” This monitoring, Murphy said, isn’t just a phenomenal alert system. “It’s a deterrent.” We’ll never know how many unwelcome visitors that vigilance has deterred. But in keeping their eyes open, fishermen perform an indispensable service to Irish security — and it costs the government nothing. As unwanted visitors keep turning up in our waters, such contributions to national security are becoming increasingly essential all around Europe. There’s just one problem: The fishing profession is losing manpower. In Ireland, the fishing fleet has shrunk from some 400 vessels to just over 100 in the past two decades due to economics, foreign competition, fishing quotas and maritime regulations. From a security perspective, this continued decline of Irish — and European — fishermen is dangerous. They’re the best soldiers we never knew we had.

France will boost its military presence in Greenland in the coming days, President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday, as U.S. President Donald Trump continues to ramp up pressure in his bid to annex the Danish territory. “An initial team of French soldiers is already on site and will be reinforced in the coming days by land, air and sea assets,” Macron told an audience of top military brass during his new year address to the armed forces. “France and Europeans must continue, wherever their interests are threatened, to be present without escalation, but uncompromising on respect for territorial sovereignty,” he added, speaking in Istres, an airbase in the south of France that hosts nuclear-capable warplanes. On Wednesday, several European nations including France, Germany, Sweden and Norway said they would send troops to Greenland to participate in a Danish military exercise, amid repeated threats by Trump that the U.S. could use force to seize the island. After a White House meeting on Wednesday, Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with the U.S., Denmark said. In an obvious jab at Trump, who he didn’t mention by name, Macron criticized “a new colonialism that is at work among some.” Europeans have the means to be less dependent on the U.S., he added, revealing that two-thirds of Ukraine’s intelligence capabilities are now provided by France. In an address to his Cabinet on Wednesday, Macron warned that if the United States seized Greenland from Denmark, it would trigger a wave of “unprecedented” consequences, a government spokesperson said. The French president convened a defense council meeting Thursday morning to discuss both the Iranian uprising and the situation in Greenland, POLITICO reported.  MORE MONEY FOR DEFENSE Macron started increasing defense spending again as soon as he was elected in 2017, even before Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine and NATO’s commitment to boost budgets. The French president confirmed that France would seek to increase defense spending by €36 billion between 2026 and 2030, adding he wants the updated military planning law to be voted by parliament by July 14. “This decade of French rearmament is bearing fruit … and rearmament efforts will continue,” he told the audience. However,  the military planning law has been delayed by France’s spiralling political crisis. It was initially scheduled for last fall and has already been put off several times. As well, the €6.7 billion boost for 2026 still hasn’t been approved by lawmakers, and it’s unclear whether (and when) the government will manage to convince MPs to pass this year’s budget. In another jab at Trump, Macron said Paris wasn’t increasing military expenditures to “please this or that ally, but based on our analysis of the threat.” That’s a reference to last year’s NATO decision to set a new defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP — following significant pressure from the U.S. president. The three main priorities for France’s spending boost are: to increase munition stocks; to develop sovereign capabilities in air defense, early warning systems, space and deep strikes; and to improve the ability of the armed forces to engage swiftly. “This year will be a test of credibility in many ways, and we are ready,” Macron said. SLAMMING THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY The French president, who has a history of shaking up the defense industry, also criticized the country’s military contractors — arguing some of them risked being “forced out of the market” for slow innovation and deliveries. “I want to ask even more of you. We need to produce faster, produce in volume, and further increase mass production with lighter systems and innovative methods,” Macron said. “I need an industry that does not consider the French armed forces as a captive customer. We may seek European solutions if they are faster or more efficient. We too must be more European in our own purchasing and in our industrial strategies.” The French state usually buys mostly French military equipment, but Paris is increasingly opening its wallet to other Europeans, most recently by signing a deal with Sweden’s Saab to purchase GlobalEye surveillance and control aircraft. France is also “late” when it comes to drones because French companies didn’t set up enough partnerships with Ukrainians and are now being overtaken by rivals, he said. Although he bashed France’s military industrial complex, Macron did pat Paris on the back for its long-standing skepticism of relying too much on the U.S. and its calls for strategic autonomy and a European pillar within NATO. “What was initially a French conviction in the face of the evolving threat has become obvious for Europeans,” Macron told the audience. “We were right to start, even on our own.”

President Donald Trump has linked his desire to own Greenland with the development of his nascent missile defense shield, Golden Dome. Except that he doesn’t need to seize the Danish territory to accomplish his goal. Golden Dome, Trump’s pricey vision to protect the U.S., is a multi-layered defense shield intended to block projectiles heading toward the country. The president announced a $175 billion, three-year plan last year, although gave few details about how the administration would fund it. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said Wednesday in a Truth Social post. “It is vital for the Golden Dome we are building.” But the country already has the access it needs in Greenland to host interceptors that could knock down enemy missiles. And the U.S. has other locations it could place similar defense systems — think New York or Canada — if many of the interceptors are even based on land, instead of space as envisioned. “The right way for the U.S. to engage with an ally to improve our homeland defense — whether through additional radars, communication antennas or even interceptor sites — is to engage collaboratively with that ally,” said a former defense official. “If strengthening homeland defense is the actual goal, this administration is off to a truly terrible start.” Here are three reasons why Golden Dome has little to do with Trump’s desire to take Greenland: HE COULD HAVE JUST ASKED DENMARK The U.S. military’s presence in Greenland centers on Pituffik Space Base, which operates under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark that grants the U.S. regular access to the island. The base is a key outpost for detecting threats from the Arctic, although it doesn’t host any interceptor systems. If the Pentagon wanted to station interceptors or more sensors on the island, the U.S. could simply work with Denmark to do so, according to the former official and a defense expert. Greenland has been part of the U.S. homeland missile defense and space surveillance network for decades and it would continue that role under Golden Dome, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “We already have unfettered access to what we need for Golden Dome in Greenland, but the president talks as if he’s not aware of that,” Harrison said. “His statements about Greenland are detached from reality.” The White House, when asked for comment, pointed to Trump’s post. HE COULD CHOOSE SOMEWHERE ELSE — THAT THE U.S. OWNS Greenland could prove a good location for ground-based interceptors that block missiles launching from Russia and the Middle East towards the U.S. But the U.S. has other options for interceptor locations, and none would necessitate taking another country (a seizure that could threaten to destroy the NATO alliance). The Pentagon has examined potential locations for interceptor sites and Fort Drum, an Army base in upstate New York, has routinely survived deep dive analysis by the Missile Defense Agency, said the former defense official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions. “Compared to Fort Drum, Greenland does not appear to be a better location for such interceptors,” the person said. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Ala.) has also said his state could play a “critical role” in housing interceptors. MUCH OF THE DEFENSE SHIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED IN SPACE Trump’s assertion about needing Greenland for Golden Dome also raises questions about what the multibillion-dollar architecture will actually look like. The Pentagon has largely avoided discussing the price tag publicly. And officials originally envisioned most of it located above the Earth. A key part of Golden Dome is space-based interceptors — weapons orbiting the planet that can shoot down incoming missiles. But moving missile defense systems to space would require fewer ground-based systems, negating the importance of acquiring more land for the effort. “If Golden Dome’s sensor network and defenses are primarily space-based — as per the current plan — Greenland might still be of value,” said a former defense official. “But less so than it would be for terrestrial architecture.”

PARIS — Europe and the U.S. presented a united front for Ukraine in Paris on Tuesday, hailing security guarantees with American backing and laying out a detailed plan for bolstering Kyiv long-term. In a notable show of support, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner praised European work to hash out a plan that would provide a security guarantee to ongoing peace talks with Russia.  “We have largely finished the security protocols,” said Witkoff, standing alongside the leaders of France, Germany, the U.K. and Ukraine at the Elysée Palace. “This is important so that when this war ends, it ends forever,” he added, after praising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his “outstanding team.” Europeans, Americans and Ukrainians had agreed on “robust” security guarantees for Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron said. Those guarantees include the U.S.-led monitoring of a ceasefire and the deployment of a multinational force in Ukraine in case of a peace deal with Russia, according to the joint statement put out by the so-called coalition of the willing — a loose group of Ukraine allies that doesn’t include Washington. Security guarantees are “the key to ensuring that a peace agreement can never mean a Ukrainian surrender and that a peace agreement can never mean a new threat to Ukraine,” Macron said.  But the upbeat declarations in Paris will not allay the doubts swirling over the U.S. commitment to supporting Ukraine and the European continent. While it was initially hoped that Washington would commit to a joint statement on the security guarantees, the final declaration was ultimately only signed by the coalition of the willing. Details of American participation in the multinational force for Ukraine were removed from an earlier draft, seen by POLITICO. That version had stipulated the U.S. would commit to “support the force if it is attacked” and assist with intelligence and logistics. Leaders also did not want to be drawn on the credibility of U.S. commitments in the wake of the capture by U.S. forces of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and President Donald Trump’s threat to seize Greenland.  Europeans, Americans and Ukrainians had agreed on “robust” security guarantees for Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron said. | Ludovic Marin/Getty Images Witkoff refused to comment on Greenland, instead turning his focus to Kyiv and insisting that Trump “strongly stands behind security protocols.” “The president does not back down from his commitments … we will be there for Ukraine,” he said.   Responding to a question on Washington’s credibility, Zelenskyy said the security guarantees must be backed by the U.S. Congress. “We are counting a lot on that, the documents are ready,” he said. A PLAN FOR UKRAINE The statement from Kyiv’s European allies says they stand ready to commit to “legally binding” security guarantees to support Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia. Crucially, the monitoring and verification of a future ceasefire would be led by the U.S., with contributions from countries including the U.K. and Germany.  The plan also sets out security guarantees that would include long-term support for the Ukrainian armed forces, the deployment of a European-led multinational force in Ukraine in case of a peace settlement, and “binding” commitments to support Ukraine should there be a future Russian attack.  “The coalition of the willing declaration for a solid and lasting peace … for the first time recognizes an operational convergence between the 35 countries, Ukraine and the U.S. to build robust security guarantees,” Macron told reporters. Washington will participate in those guarantees, including with the “backstop” that Europeans wanted, he added.  British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that after a ceasefire, the U.K. and France will set up military hubs across Ukraine and “build protected facilities for weapons and military equipment to support Ukraine’s defense needs.” France, the U.K. and Ukraine signed a separate declaration on Tuesday laying out these commitments. The European-led multinational force will cover land, air and sea and will be stationed in Western Ukraine, far from the contact line, Macron said. France and the U.K. have previously said they would be willing to put boots on the ground — but most other coalition members, including Germany, have so far shied away from joining that commitment. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Berlin was open to deploying its troops in a neighboring NATO country that would act in case of Russian aggression. | Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Other nations have suggested deploying aircraft based in neighboring NATO countries to monitor Ukrainian skies, and Turkey has agreed to lead the coalition’s maritime segment to secure the Black Sea.  German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Berlin was open to deploying its troops in a neighboring NATO country that would act in case of Russian aggression, telling reporters “we are not ruling anything out.” But he stressed that the final decision would be up to Germany’s parliament. “I will only make proposals to the Bundestag once there is a ceasefire and the coalition of the willing has agreed on the procedure to be followed,” he told reporters. “The prerequisite is a ceasefire.” Some European countries, however, remain reluctant to deploy military assets in a post-war Ukraine. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis repeated that Greece will not participate in a European military force in Ukraine. However, Greek government officials said Mitsotakis has not ruled out other forms of assistance, such as in maritime surveillance. Nektaria Stamouli contributed reporting.

The Netherlands has pulled out of U.S.-led counter-drug missions in the Caribbean, a reaction to the rising death toll from American military attacks on vessels suspected of being used to smuggle narcotics. Speaking Monday evening in Aruba, Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said Dutch forces would continue drug interdiction within Dutch territorial waters, but would not take part in U.S. operations on the high seas linked to Operation Southern Spear. The operation, launched in September, has killed more than 100 people in over 20 attacks on boats that the U.S. says  were ferrying drugs. “We have worked together with the Americans on counter-narcotics for many years, but in a different way,” Brekelmans said. “When we see drug smuggling, we try to arrest and prosecute those responsible. Not by shooting ships.” The move was first reported by the Dutch daily Trouw. The decision marks a break with past practice. For years, the Netherlands, which controls six islands in the Caribbean, cooperated closely with the United States and other partners in the region, including through the Joint Interagency Task Force South. Dutch defense forces and the coast guard worked with U.S. counterparts on surveillance, interdiction, arrests and extraditions. What has changed, Brekelmans said, is the method adopted by the Donald Trump administration. “Outside our territorial waters, we see that the Americans have now chosen a national route again,” he said. “The method and the operation the United States is carrying out now, they are really doing that themselves. We are not participating in that.” The move comes amid heightened tensions after the United States used military force to detain Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and escalate pressure on Caracas, prompting international criticism over violations of sovereignty and international law. Brekelmans said Dutch defense planners were closely watching developments between Washington and Caracas, but stressed there is currently no military threat from Venezuela toward the Dutch Caribbean islands. “We must always be prepared for different scenarios,” he said, noting that rising tensions can affect airspace and regional stability. “But you also have to look realistically at what the actual threats are.” Brekelmans made clear the Netherlands would not provide facilities, helicopters or other support if requested for Southern Spear. “If it is part of that operation, then that is not something we agree to,” he said. “For this operation, we are not making our facilities available.” CNN reported in November that London had suspended some intelligence sharing with the United States after Washington began launching lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean.