BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s top trade lawmakers failed on Wednesday to reach a common position on the EU-U.S. trade deal, in a move that risks fueling Washington’s impatience against the EU’s slow pace in finally implementing its side of a bargain struck last summer. Negotiations will continue until next week, two people who attended a meeting of the lawmakers told POLITICO. One said that committee vote was penciled in for Feb. 24 and a final plenary vote for March. Both were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door talks. The meeting failed to clear remaining hurdles regarding the Parliament’s position on the removal of tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and lobsters — a precondition for Washington to reduce its own tariffs on European cars.  Lawmakers from the international trade committee disagreed on the length of a sunset clause which would limit the proposals’ application to 18 to 36 months, as well as whether the EU should withdraw any tariff concessions until a solution is found between Brussels and Washington on the 50 percent tariff the Trump administration has put on steel derivatives. With the EU still processing the shock of Trump’s threats against the territorial sovereignty of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, the liberal Renew group and the Socialists & Democrats are pushing to Trump-proof the deal by inserting suspension clauses into enabling legislation in case the U.S. president turns hostile again.  The center-right European People’s Party has pushed to sign off the deal following calls from EU leaders to unfreeze the implementation of the deal.  Failure to reach an agreement on Wednesday throws into disarray the timeline for parliamentary approval, and further delays the start of negotiations with EU capitals and the European Commission.

Domènec Ruiz Devesa is a senior researcher at Barcelona Centre for International Affairs and a former member of the European Parliament. Emiliano Alessandri is an affiliated researcher at Austrian Institute for International Affairs. When NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told the European Parliament the continent can’t defend itself without the U.S., and that those who think otherwise should “keep dreaming,” he did more than just describe Europe’s military dependence — he turned that dependence into a political doctrine. He also positioned himself not so much as the head of an alliance of would-be equals but as the spokesperson of Europe’s strategic resignation. Rutte’s view of European defense follows a familiar but increasingly untenable logic: Nuclear deterrence equals U.S. protection; U.S. protection equals European security; therefore, European strategic sovereignty is an illusion. But this chain of reasoning is far more fragile than it sounds. First of all, even though Europe’s overall strategic stability does depend on nuclear deterrence, most real-world security challenges in the Euro-Atlantic space — from hybrid operations to limited conventional scenarios — have and will continue to develop well below the nuclear threshold. This is something NATO’s own deterrence posture recognizes. And overstating the nuclear dimension risks overlooking the decisive importance of conventional mass, resilience, logistics, high-quality intelligence, air defense and industrial depth — areas where Europe is weak by political choice. Moreover, the nuclear debate in Europe isn’t binary. The continent isn’t condemned to choose between total dependence on the U.S. umbrella and total vulnerability. A serious discussion regarding the role of the French and British deterrents within a European framework — politically complex, yes, but strategically conceivable — is no longer taboo. And by pointing at the prohibitively high cost of developing a European nuclear force from scratch, Rutte’s sweeping dismissal of Europe’s strategic agency in the nuclear field sidesteps this evolution instead of engaging with it. Plus, the NATO chief is being too hasty in his dismissal of the increasingly accepted notion of a “European pillar” within NATO. Sure, the EU added value is, at present, best exemplified in the creation of a more integrated and dynamic European defense market, which the European Commission is actively fostering. But Rutte is underestimating existing European military capabilities. European countries already collectively field advanced air forces, world-class submarines, significant naval power, cutting-edge missile and air-defense systems, cyber expertise, space assets and one of the largest defense-industrial bases in the world. And when it comes to the defense of Ukraine, European allies — including France — have significantly expanded their intelligence contributions. The problem, therefore, isn’t so much scarcity but national and industrial fragmentation, coupled with the risk of technological stagnation and insufficient investment in key enablers like munitions production, military mobility, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, satellites, air-to-air refueling and integrated command structures. As demonstrated by satellite projects like the EU’s Governmental Satellite Communications and IRIS² Satellite Constellation, these are areas that can be improved in the space of months and years rather than decades. But telling Europeans that sovereignty is a fantasy can easily kill the political momentum needed to fix them. Regardless of what one may think of Trump and his disruptive politics, the direction of travel in U.S. foreign policy is unmistakable. | Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Finally, Rutte’s message is oddly out of sync with Washington too. U.S. presidents have long demanded Europe take far greater responsibility for its own defense, and in his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has taken this message to new heights, from burden-sharing to burden-shifting. But to simultaneously tell Europe it must take care of itself, provided it continues purchasing U.S.-manufactured weapons, and that it can never truly succeed isn’t strategic clarity, it’s cognitive dissonance. Europe can no longer ignore political reality. Regardless of what one may think of Trump and his disruptive politics, the direction of travel in U.S. foreign policy is unmistakable: Europe is no longer a priority. The center of U.S. strategic gravity now lies in the Indo-Pacific, and U.S. dominance in the Western hemisphere ranks higher than Europe’s defense. In this mutated context, placing all of Europe’s security eggs in the U.S. basket isn’t sensible. However, none of this means Europe abandoning NATO or actively severing transatlantic ties. Rather, it means recognizing that alliances between equals are stronger than those built on dependence. A Europe that can militarily, industrially and politically rely on itself makes a more credible and valuable ally. And the 80-year transatlantic alliance will only endure if the U.S. and Europe strike a new bargain. So, as transatlantic allies grapple with a less straightforward alignment of interests and values, Rutte needs to be promoting a more balanced NATO with a strong European pillar — not undermining it.

Leaders of Europe’s most powerful political family want to make better use of the EU’s mutual defense clause amid growing concerns about Donald Trump’s commitment to NATO. The push came during a weekend dinner at a European People’s Party leaders’ retreat in Zagreb, Croatia featuring the likes of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, as reported in Brussels Playbook. The EPP will task two as-yet-unnamed heads of state or government with looking at how to implement the EU Treaty’s Article 42.7 (which obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked). The EPP top brass did not make clear by when the leaders will have to deliver this plan or what exactly it will address. However, a policy paper published by the EPP on Sunday pointed to nine areas where the EU needs to develop military capacity if it’s to become independent of the U.S., including drones, space and missile defense. The EPP’s policy paper still makes mention of NATO as the cornerstone of European defense. The push to use the EU’s mutual defense clause comes amid the worst transatlantic crisis in decades, with Trump’s claim to Greenland shaking belief in the U.S. commitment to NATO. During a press conference in Zagreb, EPP President Manfred Weber praised French President Macron for his offer to extend France’s nuclear umbrella to other EU states. “Having the new U.S. developments in mind,” said Weber, “I am totally in favor that the leaders are … considering how this option of a French nuclear weapon can be used for European security.”

Yanmei Xie is senior associate fellow at the Mercator Institute for China Studies. After Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke at Davos last week, a whole continent contracted leadership envy. Calling the rules-based order — which Washington proselytized for decades before stomping on — a mirage, Carney gave his country’s neighboring hegemonic bully a rhetorical middle finger, and Europeans promptly swooned. But before the bloc’s politicians rush to emulate him, it may be worth cooling the Carney fever. Appearing both steely and smooth in his Davos speech, Carney warned middle powers that “when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness.” Perhaps this was in reference to the crass daily coercion Canada has been enduring from the U.S. administration. But perhaps he was talking about the subtler asymmetry he experienced just days before in Beijing. In contrast to his defiance in Switzerland, Carney was ingratiating during his China visit. He signed Canada up for a “new strategic partnership” in preparation for an emerging “new world order,” and lauded Chinese leader Xi Jinping as a fellow defender of multilateralism. The visit also produced a cars-for-canola deal, which will see Canada slash tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles from 100 percent to 6.1 percent, and lift the import cap to 49,000 cars per year. In return, China will cut duties on Canadian canola seeds from 84 percent to 15 percent. In time, Ottawa also expects Beijing will reduce tariffs on Canadian lobsters, crabs and peas later this year and purchase more Canadian oil and perhaps gas, too. The agreement to launch a Ministerial Energy Dialogue will surely pave the way for eventual deals. These productive exchanges eventually moved Carney to declare Beijing a “more predictable” trade partner than Washington. And who can blame him? He was simply stating the obvious — after all, China isn’t threatening Canada with annexation. But one is tempted to wonder if he would have needed to flatter quite so much in China if his country still possessed some of the world’s leading technologies. The truth is, Canada’s oil and gas industry probably shouldn’t really be holding its breath. Chinese officials typically offer serious consideration rather than outright rejection out of politeness — just ask Russia, which has spent decades in dialogue with Beijing over a pipeline meant to replace Europe as a natural gas market. The cars-for-canola deal also carries a certain irony: Canada is importing the very technology that makes fossil fuels obsolete. China is electrifying at dizzying speed, with the International Energy Agency projecting its oil consumption will peak as early as next year thanks to “extraordinary” electric vehicle sales. That means Beijing probably isn’t desperate for new foreign suppliers of hydrocarbons, and the ministerial dialogue will likely drag on inconclusively — albeit courteously — well into the future. This state of Sino-Canadian trade can be seen as classic comparative advantage at work: China is good at making things, and Canada has abundant primary commodities. But in the not-so-distant past, it was Canadian companies that were selling nuclear reactors, telecom equipment, aircraft and bullet trains to China. Yet today, many of these once globe-spanning Canadian high-tech manufacturers have either exited the scene or lead a much-reduced existence. Somewhere in this trading history lies a cautionary tale for Europe. Deindustrialization can have its own self-reinforcing momentum. As a country’s economic composition changes, so does its political economy. When producers of goods disappear, so does their political influence. And the center of lobbying gravity shifts toward downstream users and consumers who prefer readily available imports. Europe’s indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products | STR/AFP via Getty Images Europe already has its own version of this story: Its indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products over the span of two decades. Currently, its solar industry is dominated by installers and operators who favor cheap imports and oppose trade defense. Simply put, Carney’s cars-for-canola deal is a salve for Canadian consumers and commodity producers, but it’s also industrial policy in reverse. In overly simplified terms, industrial policy is about encouraging exports of finished products over raw materials and discouraging the opposite in order to build domestic value-added capacity and productivity. But while Canada can, perhaps, make do without industry — as Carney put it in Davos, his ambition is to run “an energy superpower” — Europe doesn’t have that option. Agri-food and extractive sectors aren’t enough to stand up the continent’s economy — even with the likes of tourism and luxury goods thrown in. China currently exports more than twice as much to the EU than it imports. In container terms, the imbalance widens to 4-to-1. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs estimates Chinese exports will shave 0.2 percentage point or more of GDP growth in Germany, Spain and Italy each year through 2029. And according to the European Central Bank, cars, chemicals, electric equipment and machinery — sectors that form Europe’s industrial backbone — face the most severe job losses from China trade shock. Europe shares Canada’s plight in dealing with the U.S., which currently isn’t just an unreliable trade partner but also an ally turned imperialist. This is why Carney’s speech resonates. But U.S. protectionism has only made China’s mercantilism a more acute challenge for Europe, as the U.S. resists the bloc’s exports and Chinese goods keep pouring into Europe in greater quantities at lower prices. European leaders would be mistaken to look for trade relief in China as Carney does, and bargain away the continent’s industrial capacity in the process. Whether it’s to resist an expansionist Russia or an imperial U.S., Europe still needs to hold on to its manufacturing base.

TOKYO — Britain’s prime minister has urged Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, to answer questions in the U.S. about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Keir Starmer suggested Mountbatten-Windsor would not be sufficiently focused on Epstein’s victims if he did not accept an invitation to testify before the U.S. Congress about his past exchanges with the convicted sex offender, who died in 2019. An email exchange dated August 2010, released by the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday, showed Epstein offered the then-Duke of York the opportunity to have dinner with a woman he described as “26, russian, clevere beautiful, trustworthy.” Mountbatten-Windsor replied: “That was quick! How are you? Good to be free?” The exchange happened a year after Epstein was released from jail following a sentence for soliciting prostitution from a person under 18. Another newly released file appears to show Mountbatten-Windsor crouching on all fours over an unknown woman. Mountbatten-Windsor missed a November deadline to sit for a transcribed interview that was set by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. During a visit to China and Japan this week, Starmer was asked by reporters whether Mountbatten-Windsor should now apologize to Epstein’s victims and testify to Congress about what he knew. The prime minister replied: “I have always approached this question with the victims of Epstein in mind. Epstein’s victims have to be the first priority,” he said. “As for whether there should be an apology, that’s a matter for Andrew,” Starmer added. “But yes, in terms of testifying, I have always said anybody who has got information should be prepared to share that information in whatever form they are asked to do that because you can’t be victim-centered if you’re not prepared to do that,” Starmer said. In 2019, Mountbatten-Windsor was accused in a civil lawsuit of sexually assaulting Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers, but he denied all allegations. Mountbatten-Windsor has faced a backlash for his friendship with Epstein, but has not been charged with a crime in either the U.K. or the U.S. Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his royal titles in October amid continued scrutiny of his past friendship with Epstein.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Today’s angry and discombobulating geopolitical landscape is giving rise to noticeably more acrimonious diplomatic exchanges than seen in preceding decades — even sharper than during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first term. This is likely just a reflection of the times we live in: Roiled by shocks and uncertainty, even world leaders and their envoys are on edge. And social media doesn’t help keep exchanges calm and respectful either. Measured speech doesn’t go viral. If you want attention, be disparaging and abrasive. Let’s take Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s carefully crafted speech at Davos last week. Carney earned a standing ovation from global and corporate leaders as he bewailed the unfolding great-power rivalry, urging “middle powers” to act together “because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.” Yet, it was Trump’s free-wheeling, sharp-edged speech with its personal criticism of fellow Western leaders — including a jab at French President Emmanuel Macron — that roared on social media. This shift away from traditional diplomatic etiquette toward more confrontational, seemingly no-nonsense and aggressive public-facing communication is very much in keeping with populist styles of leadership. And it’s now shaping an era where antagonistic communication isn’t just tolerated but celebrated and applauded by many. Trump is very much a man of his times. And it’s time Europe finally caught on. Aside from Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin is also often known to use colloquial and crude language to attack Western and Ukrainian leaders — though noticeably, he never uses such language with Trump. In an address last month, Putin referred to European leaders as podsvinki — little pigs. And before invading Ukraine in February 2022, he used a vulgar Russian rhyme to insinuate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy needed to be raped. China, too, has been noticeably more menacing in its diplomatic speech in recent years — though it tends to eschew personal invective. The shift began around 2019, when Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi instructed envoys to display a stronger “fighting spirit” to defend Beijing from supposed Western bullying. The abrasive style led to the more aggressive envoys being dubbed “wolf warriors,” after a blockbuster movie in which Chinese commandos vanquish American mercenaries. But driving the trend are Trump and his aides, who can go toe-to-toe with anyone when it comes to put-downs, slurs or retaliation. And if met with pushback, they simply escalate. Hence the avuncular counsel of U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to Europeans on the Greenland-related tariff threats last week: “Sit back, take a deep breath, do not retaliate.” But here’s the curious thing: While the Russians and Chinese use such language to target their foes, Trump and his senior aides reserve much of their invective for supposed allies, namely Europe with Canada thrown in for good measure. And they’re utterly relentless in doing so — far more than during his first term, when there were still some more traditionally minded folks in the White House to temper or walk back the rhetoric. This all seemed to reach its pinnacle in Davos last week, where it seemed belittling European allies was part of virtually everything the U.S. delegation said in the Swiss ski resort. Bessent couldn’t even restrain himself from insulting Swiss-German fare. And U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik appeared almost gleeful in infuriating Europe’s leaders with his combative remarks at a VIP dinner which, according to the Financial Times, not only sparked uproar but prompted European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde to leave the event early. “Only one person booed, and it was Al Gore,” said the U.S. Commerce Department in a statement to media. But others at the event — around 200 people — said there was, indeed, some heckling, though not so much because of the content of Lutnik’s criticism, some of which Europeans have also made about net zero, energy policy, globalization and regulation. According to two attendees, who asked to be granted anonymity to speak freely, it was in reaction to the contemptuous tone instead. Likewise, Trump’s delegation — the largest ever brought from Washington to Davos — didn’t miss a beat in pressing America First themes, making it clear the U.S. would prioritize its own economic interests regardless of how it affects allies. “When America shines, the world shines,” Lutnik said. China, too, has been noticeably more menacing in its diplomatic speech in recent years — though it tends to eschew personal invective. | Pool photo by Vincent Thian/EPA As the forum unfolded, however, U.S. Vice President JD Vance insisted that what was fueling such criticism wasn’t hatred for the old continent, but that it was more a matter of tough love. “They think that we hate Europe. We don’t. We love Europe,” he said. “We love European civilization. We want it to preserve itself.” That in itself seems pretty condescending. Tough love or not, Europe-bashing plays well with the MAGA crowd back home who feel Europeans are the haughty ones, lacking gratitude, freeloading and in dire need of subordination — and squeals of complaint merely incite more of the same. To that end, Zelenskyy made a telling a point: European leaders shouldn’t waste their time trying to change Trump but rather focus on themselves. Time to stop complaining about America First and get on with putting Europe First.

Initial talks between Denmark, the U.S. and Greenland over the Arctic island’s fate “went well” but the dispute is not over, the Danish foreign minister said Thursday.   Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt met with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington on Jan. 14 and agreed to establish a “working group” to discuss Greenland and Arctic security amid U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands to take over the self-ruling Danish territory. “After that there was a huge derailment,” Rasmussen said, apparently referring to Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on several European countries unless they agreed to hand over Greenland — a threat that he eventually walked back after saying he’d reached a “framework” toward a deal with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, the details of which have not been made public. “Things escalated, but now we are back on track,” Rasmussen told reporters at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels. The first meeting of the working group on Wednesday “went well and took place in a constructive atmosphere and tone.” “I’m a little more optimistic today than I was a week ago,” he added, but warned the dispute has not been “resolved” and more talks are planned. Trump’s threats to seize Greenland roiled Europe and fractured transatlantic relations, leading to calls from leaders for the EU to become more unified and independent to ensure its own security. France and Germany went so far as to call for the EU to explore deploying its “trade bazooka,” the Anti-Coercion Instrument, before Trump backed down. Rasmussen credited Trump’s climbdown from launching a trade war to a “very strong European signal of solidarity” over Greenland. “It has become clear that the price for going down that path has been too high,” he said.

BRUSSELS ― Slovakia’s prime minister told EU leaders at a summit last week that a meeting with Donald Trump left him shocked by the U.S. president’s state of mind, five European diplomats briefed on the conversation said. Robert Fico, one of the few EU leaders to frequently support Trump’s stance on Europe’s weaknesses, was concerned about the U.S. president’s “psychological state,” two of the diplomats said. Fico used the word “dangerous” to describe how the U.S. president came across during their face-to-face meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Jan. 17, according to two of the diplomats. The conversation between Fico and his European counterparts took place in Brussels on Jan. 22 on the sidelines of an emergency EU summit arranged to discuss transatlantic relations in the wake of Trump’s threats to seize Greenland. Leaders used that gathering to try to calm tensions after the U.S. president walked back his threat to slap tariffs on some European countries over the issue a day earlier. The Slovak prime minister made his remarks in a separate informal huddle between some leaders and chief EU officials rather than during the formal roundtable talks, the diplomats said. While none of the diplomats who spoke to POLITICO were present, individual leaders briefed them separately on the content of the conversation shortly after it. All the diplomats were granted anonymity by POLITICO to allow them to discuss the confidential exchanges between leaders. They come from four different EU governments. The fifth is a senior EU official. All of them said they didn’t know the details of what Trump had said to Fico that had triggered his reaction. Fico’s comments are especially pertinent because he’s among Europe’s most pro-Trump politicians, touting his access to the U.S. president in a Facebook video after the Mar-a-Lago meeting and voicing support for Washington’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine war. A year ago, Fico spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference and told Americans “your president is doing Europe a great service.” Spokespeople for Fico did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said: “This is absolutely total fake news from anonymous European diplomats who are trying to be relevant. The meeting at Mar-a-Lago was positive and productive.” A senior administration official who was in the meeting with Trump and Fico, granted anonymity to describe the conversation, said they couldn’t recall any awkward moments or off-key exchanges. They said the meeting, which Fico had requested, was pleasant, normal and included some lighthearted exchanges that were captured by a White House photographer. Fico seemed to be “traumatized” by his encounter with Trump, one of the European diplomats said. Fico characterized Trump as being “out of his mind,” a diplomat said, using the words briefed to them by their leader, who was directly involved in the conversation. DEEP CRISIS Fico’s private concerns contrast with the public account of his Mar-a-Lago visit that he gave via his official Facebook post. In that video, Fico said his invitation to Trump’s Florida residence was a sign of “high respect and trust” from the U.S. president. The two leaders discussed Ukraine as well as their shared view that the EU was in “deep crisis” during what Fico called “informal and open talks.” Fico, who signed a civil nuclear cooperation deal with Washington while on his trip to the U.S., did not mention Trump’s claims on Greenland or his operation to seize Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro earlier in January in the video. He said discussions had focused on issues including Ukraine, asserting that Washington sought his view because Slovakia is “not a Brussels parrot” — meaning that it does not echo the positions of EU institutions. Robert Fico characterized Donald Trump as being “out of his mind,” a diplomat said, using the words briefed to them by their leader, who was directly involved in the conversation. | Shawn Thew/EPA Even without Fico’s remarks, Europe’s leaders and senior officials are increasingly concerned about the U.S. president’s “unpredictability,” according to a sixth EU diplomat, who was not briefed directly by a leader on last week’s conversation. Fears about the U.S. president’s health are “rapidly becoming a more conversed topic at all levels,” said an EU official who is involved in political discussions in Brussels and between capitals. Trump, 79, has repeatedly and forcefully denied that he suffers from any condition affecting his cognition, telling New York Magazine this week that he doesn’t suffer from Alzheimer’s disease. ‘I WON’T DO THAT, OK?’ Ever since Trump returned to office a year ago, European governments have been grappling with how to deal with his positions on issues such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, his administration’s apparent backing for far-right politicians, barriers to free trade, and the U.S. role in the continent’s defense. Earlier this month, Trump threatened new tariffs on eight European countries, including France, Germany and the U.K., which he said were blocking his efforts to take over Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory belonging to Denmark, an EU and NATO member. He also didn’t rule out taking the island by force. In a speech in Davos, Switzerland last Wednesday, the U.S. president demanded “immediate negotiations” to obtain Greenland, but ruled out the use of military action. “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be frankly unstoppable. But I won’t do that, OK?” Trump said in the speech. After the speech, he said he’d agreed on a framework of a deal on Greenland with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and withdrew his threat, although the details of the apparent agreement have still not been made public. At last week’s summit, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the EU’s two most powerful leaders, warned their counterparts that despite that apparent deal, the bloc needed to become less dependent on the U.S. for its security. Speaking after the gathering, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen suggested the leaders had learned the lesson that standing up to Trump in a “firm” but “non-escalatory” way was an effective strategy that they should continue.  Jacopo Barigazzi, Camille Gijs and Tom Nicholson contributed reporting.

PARIS — Tech billionaire and early Trump backer Peter Thiel is bringing his Antichrist lecture series across the Atlantic. The famed venture capitalist and right-wing tech icon on Monday delivered an in-depth presentation on the subjects to a small audience inside the wood-paneled halls of one of France’s most prestigious bodies, the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, two attendees told POLITICO. An outline of Thiel’s 23-slide presentation, distributed to attendees by the organizer and shared with POLITICO, delves into the theory of the biblical Antichrist, a deceptive figure in Christian theology who opposes Christ and embodies ultimate evil. The presentation sheds light on the ideology of one of the most influential figures in the United States given his role at the vanguard of Silicon Valley’s ideological shift toward an ideology blending Christian conservatism with a radical libertarianism. Thiel was invited by philosopher and academy member Chantal Delsol. According to the presentation notes seen by POLITICO, which had been translated into French, Thiel said the Antichrist is “not only a medieval fantasy” but that it and the apocalypse are both linked to “the end of modernity,” which he has argued is currently happening. Thiel said the Antichrist would exploit fears of the apocalypse — for example due to nuclear armageddeon, climate change or the threat posed by AI — to control a “frightened population.” He listed, as he has on previous occasions, Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg as a possible example. The 58-year-old self-described “classic liberal” and “moderate Orthodox Christian” had previously spoken about the Antichrist at an even in San Francisco last year and also discussed his thoughts on it with The New York Times. But he called the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences “one of the few places in the world where a conference like this can take place.” The two attendees previously cited told POLITICO they weren’t exactly blown away with the talk. One called it “disjointed.” The other said: “I heard more about the Antichrist during those 45 minutes than during the rest of my life.” “I didn’t understand much,” said a third attendee who did not specify what the talk was about. Despite the 30 or so protesters outside the venue, the event was highly anticipated given Thiel’s status as one of the first major figures in the tech world to back U.S. President Donald Trump. Thiel, who co-founded PayPal with Elon Musk and was an early investor in Facebook, is also a mentor to Vice President JD Vance and donated a record-breaking amount of money to his campaign for U.S. Senate. Thiel is also a co-founder of Palantir, a software and data analysis company that provides services to France’s General Directorate for Internal Security — the French equivalent of the FBI — and the European aircraft-maker Airbus. Thiel also met with French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot during his visit to Paris. “Given the role he has played in shaping the doctrine that drives part of the U.S. administration, Jean-Noël Barrot has invited him for a discussion on our differences of opinion on several major issues: digital regulation, liberal democracy, European civilization, and transatlantic relations in particular,” an aide to Barrot, granted anonymity to adhere to French professional norms, told POLITICO. Giorgio Leali contributed to this report.

“In Brussels, no one hears you scream” — spin doctor Kasper Juul in the Danish political TV drama “Borgen.” For some politicians, Brussels is where you are sent when you are problematic or no longer needed back home. For others, there’s the chance to get a prestigious position that goes beyond rank or experience. At the same time, bureaucrats with little or no media experience appear before the cameras every weekday as European Commission spokespeople, while career diplomats find themselves handling dossiers with major consequences for domestic politics. All these people are united by a belief, to some degree, in the EU project. But working in Brussels can turn into a nightmare (despite the visibility, high salary, and other perks). Here’s who we think have the five hardest jobs in Brussels, and why: MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL He may have been given the nickname “Teflon” by officials in the Netherlands and NATO — because nothing sticks to him — but with Donald Trump in the White House, Rutte’s job is surely the toughest in Brussels. His role at present is seemingly less about running the military alliance and more about trying to stop one man — Trump — from dismantling the entire thing. And the former Dutch prime minister is having some success in his role as Trump whisperer. Not long after he used his speech in Davos last week to double down on wanting Greenland, the U.S. president met with Rutte and surprisingly announced that they had “formed the framework of a future deal.” However, it does put Rutte in some awkward situations. Last March, when Rutte and Trump met in the Oval Office, the U.S. president said he wanted to annex Greenland, to which the Dutchman could only reply “I don’t want to drag NATO” into it, which angered the Danes. No provision in the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty envisions one NATO ally attacking another, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and others warned that an invasion would mean the end of the alliance. Rutte earlier this month said NATO is “not at all” in crisis. Rutte also raised eyebrows when he called Trump “daddy” — a comment he tried to row back on. Rutte’s office didn’t respond to a request for a comment for this article. “I perfectly understand how difficult is his job [to keep NATO unity], but it’s such a pain to watch him,” said a senior EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak freely, as were others in this article. Mark Rutte raised eyebrows when he called Donald Trump “daddy” — a comment he tried to row back on. | Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images “Walking on a tightrope in a headwind is easier than NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s job,” said Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, former Spanish NATO ambassador and now a member of the European Parliament’s Security and Defense Committee for the European People’s Party. “Keeping the Atlantic alliance united under present circumstances requires unparalleled statesmanship to temper down Trump’s relentless brinkmanship.” PAULA PINHO, COMMISSION CHIEF SPOKESPERSON In the von der Leyen era, the job of chief spokesperson has become a very tough gig. Officials say that the Commission president works in a (metaphorical) bunker, with only her head of cabinet, Björn Seibert, in the loop while everyone else is either left in the dark or informed only on a strictly need-to-know basis — very different from the more collegial style of her predecessor, Jean-Claude Juncker. That makes the job of Portuguese official Paula Pinho, appointed Commission chief spokesperson in November 2024 and a lawyer by training, one of the most difficult in Brussels as she has to face questions from journalists in front of the cameras every working day. But often Pinho — a German speaker close to Michael Hager, considered a Seibert ally and who is head of Cabinet for Valdis Dombrovskis — cannot respond either because she’s not allowed to or because she’s not been given the answer, officials and diplomats say. It’s made the Commission more closed off than ever. Last January, when Ursula von der Leyen was hospitalized with pneumonia, it was the German news agency DPA that broke the news. The following month, even the famously non-transparent Vatican didn’t hide the fact that Pope Francis had been taken to hospital. When Pinho’s predecessor, Eric Mamer, moved on, there were jokes among officials about how many bottles of champagne he opened to celebrate that he was finally free. At least Mamer’s sacrifice was rewarded: when he left, he got the position of director general in the environment department. Pinho told POLITICO: “I am honoured to have what is among the unique jobs in Brussels. Certainly not measured in comfort or easiness of the tasks, but in responsibility and sobriety.” She said part of the job “is to differentiate what the public needs to know and what some media would just love to know.” KAJA KALLAS, EU FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF The European External Action Service, the bloc’s diplomatic body, was created in 2010 and the job of the top diplomat who leads it has always been a difficult one as member countries, especially the big ones, want to keep foreign policy in their own hands. Relations between von der Leyen and the former holder of the role, Josep Borrell, were very bad, according to officials. It’s even worse with Kallas. The Mediterranean area has been taken away from Kallas as the Commission last year created the Directorate-General for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf (DG MENA). At the same time, the Commission has been actively working on plans to cut down the size of the EEAS. In an attempt to fight back, Kallas tried to appoint a powerful deputy secretary general in the form of Martin Selmayr, Juncker’s feared former chief of staff, but the move was blocked by von der Leyen’s office. Kallas “privately complains that she [von der Leyen] is a dictator but there’s little or nothing she can do about that,” said one senior official. Kallas also comes from tiny Estonia, and her party, the liberals, is small, making her position even weaker than Borrell’s (a socialist from Spain). Kallas’ office did not reply to a request for a comment. BÁLINT ÓDOR, HUNGARIAN AMBASSADOR Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán likes to play the villain with his pro-Russia and pro-Trump lines, which makes the job of the country’s EU ambassador difficult. The current ambassador, Bálint Ódor, is seen as close to Orbán’s Fidesz party, unlike his predecessor, Tibor Stelbaczky, who now works for the EU’s diplomatic body. Bálint Ódor is seen as close to Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images When Hungarian ambassadors try to soften some of the harsh lines coming from the government, it creates suspicions in Budapest about their loyalty, said a Hungarian diplomat. One official described the Hungarian ambassador as the “elephant in the room,” because of the country’s close ties with the Kremlin. During the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the EU last year, some diplomats raised concerns about sharing certain information with the Hungarians because of Orbán’ s proximity to Russia (Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó holds regular meetings with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, who is under EU sanctions). Ódor told POLITICO: “It’s a privilege to serve my country and represent Hungarian interests.” MAROŠ ŠEFČOVIČ, TRADE COMMISSIONER When a dossier is hard to crack, send for the Moscow-educated Slovak commissioner, nicknamed Mr. Fix It. The former member of the Slovak Communist Party has been a commissioner since October 2009, making him the longest-serving current commissioner, having served under José Manuel Barroso as well as Juncker and von der Leyen. Šefčovič has been called upon to oversee the EU’s response to extraordinary (and complicated) challenges like Brexit and the European Green Deal, and now, in the age of Trump, he is in charge of trade. He does more than that, though. For instance, when von der Leyen didn’t want to go to the European Parliament in Strasbourg for a debate on whether to remove her (and therefore him) from office, she sent Šefčovič instead. Šefčovič’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.