After more than three decades in the pharmaceutical industry, I know one thing: science transforms lives, but policy determines whether innovation thrives or stalls. That reality shapes outcomes for patients — and for Europe’s competitiveness. Today, Europeans stand at a defining moment. The choices we make now will determine whether Europe remains a global leader in life sciences or we watch that leadership slip away. It’s worth reminding ourselves of the true value of Europe’s life sciences industry and the power we have as a united bloc to protect it as a European good. Europe has an illustrious track record in medical discovery, from the first antibiotics to the discovery of DNA and today’s advanced biologics. Still today, our region remains an engine of medical breakthroughs, powered by an extraordinary ecosystem of innovators in the form of start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises, academic labs, and university hospitals. This strength benefits patients through access to clinical trials and cutting-edge treatments. It also makes life sciences a strategic pillar of Europe’s economy. The economic stakes Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. The EU is already home to some of the world’s most talented scientists, thriving academic institutions and research clusters, and a social model built on universal access to healthcare. These assets are powerful, yet they only translate into future success if supported by a legislative environment that rewards innovation. > Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a > source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. This is also an industry that supports 2.3 million jobs and contributes over €200 billion to the EU economy each year — more than any other sector. EU pharmaceutical research and development spending grew from €27.8 billion in 2010 to €46.2 billion in 2022, an average annual increase of 4.4 percent. A success story, yes — but one under pressure. While Europe debates, others act Over the past two decades, Europe has lost a quarter of its share of global investment to other regions. This year — for the first time — China overtook both the United States and Europe in the number of new molecules discovered. China has doubled its share of industry sponsored clinical trials, while Europe’s share has halved, leaving 60,000 European patients without the opportunity to participate in trials of the next generation of treatments. Why does this matter? Because every clinical trial site that moves elsewhere means a patient in Europe waits longer for the next treatment — and an ecosystem slowly loses competitiveness. Policy determines whether innovation can take root. The United States and Asia are streamlining regulation, accelerating approvals and attracting capital at unprecedented scale. While Europe debates these matters, others act. A world moving faster And now, global dynamics are shifting in unprecedented ways. The United States’ administration’s renewed push for a Most Favored Nation drug pricing policy — designed to tie domestic prices to the lowest paid in developed markets — combined with the potential removal of long-standing tariff exemptions for medicines exported from Europe, marks a historic turning point. A fundamental reordering of the pharmaceutical landscape is underway. The message is clear: innovation competitiveness is now a geopolitical priority. Europe must treat it as such. A once-in-a-generation reset The timing couldn’t be better. As we speak, Europe is rewriting the pharmaceutical legislation that will define the next 20 years of innovation. This is a rare opportunity, but only if reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, Europe’s ability to compete in life sciences. To lead globally, Europe must make choices and act decisively. A triple A framework — attract, accelerate, access — makes the priorities clear: * Attract global investment by ensuring strong intellectual property protection, predictable regulation and competitive incentives — the foundations of a world-class innovation ecosystem. * Accelerate the path from science to patients. Europe’s regulatory system must match the speed of scientific progress, ensuring that breakthroughs reach patients sooner. * Ensure equitable and timely access for all European patients. No innovation should remain inaccessible because of administrative delays or fragmented decision-making across 27 systems. These priorities reinforce each other, creating a virtuous cycle that strengthens competitiveness, improves health outcomes and drives sustainable growth. > Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class > science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most > sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. Despite flat or declining public investment in new medicines across most member states over the past 20 years, the research-based pharmaceutical industry has stepped up, doubling its contributions to public pharmaceutical expenditure from 12 percent to 24 percent between 2018 and 2023. In effect, we have financed our own innovation. No other sector has done this at such scale. But this model is not sustainable. Pharmaceutical innovation must be treated not as a cost to contain, but as a strategic investment in Europe’s future. The choice before us Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. What we need now is an ambition equal to those assets. If we choose innovation, we secure Europe’s jobs, research and competitiveness — and ensure European patients benefit first from the next generation of medical breakthroughs. A wrong call will be felt for decades. The next chapter for Europe is being written now. Let us choose the path that keeps Europe leading, competing and innovating: for our economies, our societies and, above all, our patients. Choose Europe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The ultimate controlling entity is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to the Critical Medicines Act. More information here.

With multiple legislative processes underway, we are now in an important moment for Europe’s ambition to boost access and be a global leader in innovation. An agile, modernized regulatory system — coupled with supportive intellectual property and access policies — can attract research and development and advanced manufacturing to Europe. This will contribute to the earlier availability of new cures for European patients and a healthier innovative ecosystem. Unfortunately, today we see that Europe is falling behind global competition. Over the last decade, there has been a 10 percent decrease in clinical trials in the European Union, which has led to 60,000 fewer European patients participating in trials.[1] Europe’s fragmented system for clinical trial approvals is a leading cause of this decline, impacting early access to innovative treatments. As scientific breakthroughs can deliver better health outcomes for patients, governments need to keep pace with this speed of innovation. > Draghi report on EU competitiveness importantly identified pharmaceutical > innovation as a strategic sector for growth in Europe. That said, the report > also noted that what is missing is a simple and strong execution plan behind > it, with simplified regulation and coherent and predictable policies that > could drive the European goals of increased competitiveness and strategic > autonomy. Europe’s marketing authorisation process now exceeds 14 months (444 days), causing patients to wait nearly three months longer than in the US (356 days) and over five months longer than in Japan (290 days) for access to innovative medicines.[2] Such delays, combined with complex and lengthy country-level market access systems, mean patients in Europe are waiting an average of 20 months longer than people living in the United States to benefit from scientific innovation.[3] Last year’s Draghi report on EU competitiveness importantly identified pharmaceutical innovation as a strategic sector for growth in Europe. That said, the report also noted that what is missing is a simple and strong execution plan behind it, with simplified regulation and coherent and predictable policies that could drive the European goals of increased competitiveness and strategic autonomy. Ongoing discussions on the revision of the General Pharmaceutical Legislation and the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), the Critical Medicines Act and the upcoming Biotech Act (Part 1) mark crucial opportunities for Europe to become a global leader for innovation. However, to make this vision a reality, the EU must address structural challenges that undermine innovation and patient access to novel, lifesaving medicines. > To reverse the worrying decline in European clinical trial activity, the EU > should implement a maximum two-month approval process for clinical trial > applications (CTAs), encompassing the reviews of both regulators and ethics > committees consistent with other global leaders. The successful implementation of structural, future-proof policy changes can ensure timely access to innovative medicines for EU citizens, and this can be achieved through five key policy recommendations: Facilitate and accelerate clinical trial applications To reverse the worrying decline in European clinical trial activity, the EU should implement a maximum two-month approval process for clinical trial applications (CTAs), encompassing the reviews of both regulators and ethics committees consistent with other global leaders. It is equally important to increase collaboration among EU member states to remove unique and specific national CTA requirements and questions, and to also introduce opportunities for an informal dialogue with regulators to expediently address smaller challenges that can be quickly fixed. Legislative overlaps and fragmentation between the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) and the IVDR should also be addressed to avoid delays in clinical trials that utilize companion diagnostics. Expand expedited pathways Despite their potential, the EU’s expedited pathways (such as the European Medicines Agency’s PRIME scheme for unmet medical needs, Conditional Marketing Authorisation and Accelerated Assessment) are underutilised, limiting rapid patient access to important medicines. Similar expedited pathways are widely used by other regulators around the world, like the United States and Japan. Expanding the use of expedited pathways in the EU to new indications and aligning eligibility criteria with global standards would ensure that the EU has more competitive regulatory pathways and earlier patient access to life-saving medicines. Shorten scientific advice and approval timelines Shortening the EU’s scientific advice procedure is critical to optimise the development of innovative products, ensure timely and efficient resource management for both applicants and regulators, and maintain the EU’s influence in global scientific and clinical research. By evolving to a more integrated and agile dialogue, the EU can provide comprehensive, consistent guidance throughout the product lifecycle and remain competitive with other regions. Given their growing number, scientific advice should be available for medicines used with all types of medical devices and in vitro diagnostics (including combinations diagnostics) to address the complexities of working across these regulatory frameworks. > An agile, modernized regulatory system — coupled with supportive intellectual > property and access policies — can attract research and development and > advanced manufacturing to Europe. Regarding the current lengthy approval times, the proposed reduction of EMA’s standard assessment timelines from 210 to 180 days — as suggested in the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation — would allow regulators to accelerate their scientific assessments. Furthermore, the European Commission can streamline its decision phase (currently requiring up to 67 days) by conducting its activities in parallel with the scientific assessment. Strengthen the EU Medicines Regulatory Network and embrace regulatory sandboxes Achieving greater speed and agility within a regulatory system requires an appropriately resourced, sustainable regulatory infrastructure. We support transparent regulatory budgets across the network, backed by consistent investments in expertise, funding and infrastructure to support continuous capacity and capability advancements. Collaborative regulatory pathways (such as the EMA OPEN framework) could be further expanded to encourage simultaneous approvals and supply chain resilience across geographies. Additionally, regulatory sandboxes would be beneficial to pilot and adapt frameworks for disruptive future innovations, while ensuring appropriate guardrails to enable the safe development and implementation of these innovations. Enhance patient engagement Effective regulatory decision-making requires both inclusivity and adaptability. Limited patient and expert input can hinder effective regulatory decision-making, while rapid pharmaceutical innovation requires adaptable frameworks. Expert and patient perspectives are crucial for informed benefit-risk and clinical meaningfulness determinations. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Eli Lilly & Company * The advertisement is linked to General Pharmaceutical Legislation (GPL), In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), Critical Medicines Act (CMA), Biotech Act (Part 1), Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), EU Medicines Regulatory Network More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] IQVIA, Assessing the clinical trial ecosystem in Europe, Final Report, October 2024: efpia_ve_iqvia_assessing-the-clinical-trial-ct-ecosystem.pdf. [2] Lara J, Kermad A, Bujar M, McAuslane N. 2025. R&D Briefing 101: New drug approvals in six major authorities 2015-2024: Trends in an evolving regulatory landscape. Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science. London, UK: https://cirsci.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/08/CIRS-RD-Briefing-101-v1.1.pdf. [3] The Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator 2024 Survey. https://www.efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf

BRUSSELS — The Dutch government on Wednesday halted its decision to seize control of the Netherlands-based, Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia. The Netherlands effectively took control of Nexperia at the end of September, after concerns that Dutch technological know-how was leaking to China, in a move that threatened relations between Beijing and The Hague. Dutch Economy Minister Vincent Karremans said Wednesday that the controversial order, based on a 1952 law, will now be suspended. He cited diplomatic progress with China, in ensuring the supply of chips to Europe. Even Nexperia chips manufactured in Europe are rerouted to China for packaging. “We are positive about the measures already taken by the Chinese authorities to ensure the supply of chips to Europe and the rest of the world,” Karremans said in a statement. In parallel with the Netherlands taking control of Nexperia, both the U.S. and China imposed export controls on the company, disrupting the flow of critical chips to carmakers. The Chinese restrictions were aimed at Nexperia China, a key player in the company’s supply chain; while the U.S. extended earlier restrictions on Nexperia owner Wingtech to its subsidiary. The Chinese side made “a commitment to ensure the resumption of trade from Nexperia’s facilities in China” as part of a larger trade deal with the U.S. earlier this month, the Dutch said in a fact sheet as they moved to quell the diplomatic furor after claiming a win on the continued flow of critical chips. Under the original order, the Dutch government seized broad powers over major decisions that affected the company’s production capacity, intellectual property, and its continuity and future.

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

LONDON — British MPs have expressed alarm at the alleged theft of intellectual property at the U.K. arm of chip-making giant Nexperia. The Dutch government decided to take over the Chinese-owned company headquartered in the Netherlands in September. Dutch authorities believe that former Nexperia CEO, Zhang Xuezheng, had transferred trade secrets from the company’s plant in Manchester to a site he owned in China, according to multiple figures granted anonymity to speak about a sensitive matter. Zhang had also planned to lay off staff, paving the way for an effective dismantling of European operations, the figures added. The U.K. government declined to comment on the substance of these allegations, which were first reported by the Dutch newspaper NRC and Reuters.  But officials suggested the government did not recognize the Dutch claims about the theft of trade secrets from the Stockport plant.  However, senior lawmakers told POLITICO that the accusations represented a danger to British industry, which demands closer attention.  Matt Western, a Labour MP who chairs the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, said: “I’m deeply concerned by these allegations and will be watching developments closely.”  He warned: “In the U.K., as in Europe, some of our most critical supply chains are highly exposed to malicious actors. It’s vitally important that we ensure businesses have all the tools they need to reinforce resilience.”  The Dutch government decided to take over the Chinese-owned company headquartered in the Netherlands in September. | Marcel Krijgsman/EPA He added that his committee would consider the matter as part of its inquiry on the National Security Strategy.  The accusations deal another blow to the U.K.’s efforts to repair relations with Beijing, after a collapsed spying case sparked a heated political row in Westminster.  ‘THIS IS WHAT CHINA DOES’  Nexperia was at the center of an earlier controversy in the U.K., when the government ordered it to divest its acquisition of semiconductor chip firm Newport Wafer Fab in 2022, over concerns about Chinese ownership.   China hawks argue that the allegations regarding Nexperia in Manchester demonstrate an ongoing threat to Britain’s security.   Iain Duncan Smith, former Conservative Party leader, said: “This is what China does all the time. It poses a threat to the way we live our lives, industry, and the individual freedom of Hong Kong dissidents.”  Luke de Pulford, who leads the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, commented: “One wonders how many bald transgressions have to be seen before the government accepts what every onlooker can plainly see: China presents a serious threat to U.K. security and resilience.”  A U.K. government spokesperson said: “We are monitoring the situation closely and remain in touch with Dutch counterparts regarding actions taken in relation to Nexperia.”  A spokesperson for Nexperia said: “Nexperia Manchester site continues to operate as usual,” and the measures taken by the Dutch government “have restored good governance in the company, ensuring that no undue influence can be exercised by the former CEO on decision making processes.”  Wingtech, which still legally owns Nexperia and is chaired by Zhang, has been approached for comment. At the start of October, Beijing halted the export of Nexperia components from China, following the move by the Netherlands, sending ripples through the Western auto industry, which uses the chips for things like locks, speedometers, and climate control systems.  The impact is being felt at Nissan’s plants in Japan and a Honda site in Canada, which has scaled back production as a result.  The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) warned Wednesday that production lines are “days away” from closing due to the shortage. 

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron has told his ministers that the European Union should consider retaliatory measures against the U.S. digital sector after President Donald Trump threatened additional tariffs over tech regulation and taxes, according to a senior French government official.   At his weekly Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, the French president said Europe “should not exclude taking a look at the digital sector” following Trump’s broadside on Monday, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.   “The European Union has a big trade deficit with the United States, we need to focus on this,” Macron was quoted as saying, referring to the EU’s negative trade balance in services with the United States. The bloc has a trade surplus in goods, such as automobiles, pharmaceuticals and food that Trump wants to get down. A person close to Macron confirmed that exploring possible retaliation against U.S. digital players was indeed “his stance.” Trump threatened Monday to impose further tariffs on countries whose digital rules, in his view, discriminate against American companies. This came weeks after Washington and Brussels struck a trade deal that sets a baseline 15 percent tariff on EU exports to the U.S. The two sides only published a joint statement fixing that deal last week, and Trump’s latest diatribe came as a nasty surprise to EU officials. The Trump administration has for months criticized the EU’s digital rulebook — claiming that the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, respectively, censor American citizens and unfairly target U.S. companies.    France has long been at the forefront of European calls to take a tougher line against Trump on trade. However, a majority of EU countries lacks the appetite to launch a full-scale trade war, leading Brussels so far to refrain from imposing any tariff countermeasures or activating its so-called trade bazooka, the Anti-Coercion Instrument. This could, with the support of most member countries, be used to restrict the intellectual property rights of U.S. tech giants or bar them from investing in the EU.  At the height of recent transatlantic trade tensions, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that “all instruments are on the table.” | Pool Photo by Mahesh Kumar via EPA At the height of recent transatlantic trade tensions, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that “all instruments are on the table” to respond to Trump, but she then shied away from taking a hard line to keep the U.S. president engaged in efforts to end the war in Ukraine.   The French president has expressed veiled dissatisfaction with the trade deal that was struck with Trump, letting it be known that Europe “was not feared enough” to get a good trade deal. According to the first official, Macron is expected to raise this issue with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz later this week during a two-day stay in Macron’s summer retreat Fort Brégançon and the southern city of Toulon.  

LONDON — Much like cricket, trade talks with India have been a long game, with plenty of sticky wickets along the way. As India’s cricket team goes head-to-head with England at Old Trafford on Thursday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi flaunted their newly inked free trade agreement at Chequers, Starmer’s country residence. The parallel did not go unnoticed by the two leaders. “For both of us cricket is not just a game but a passion — and also a great metaphor for our partnership,” Modi told reporters shortly after the deal was signed. “There may be a swing and a miss at times, but we always play with a straight bat. We are committed to building a high-scoring, solid partnership.” The ceremony marked the symbolic end to three years of sometimes fraught head-to-head negotiations between India and Britain’s trade teams. While far from what British negotiators envisaged when they began the talks, the U.K. has managed to chalk up a fair few wins, with some stand-out sectors emerging triumphant. Indian negotiators can also boast of a few victories. From Scotch whisky to business mobility, we’ve set out the biggest wins on either side in our FTA scoreboard. UK WINNERS Scotch whisky producers One of the biggest wins on the U.K. side is reduced tariffs for Scotch whisky. Under the FTA, Indian tariffs on the tipple will be slashed in half, from 150 percent to 75 percent, then dropped even further to 40 percent over the next decade.  India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and the tariff reduction has been described as a “game changer” by the industry. Announcing the deal, Starmer said it would give U.K. whisky producers “an advantage over international competitors in reaching the Indian market.” India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and the tariff reduction has been described as a “game changer” by the industry. | Neil Hall/EPA “The deal will support long term investment and jobs in our distilleries in Speyside and our bottling plant at Kilmalid and help deliver growth in both Scotland and India over the next decade,” said Jean-Etienne Gourgues, CEO at Chivas Brothers.  Automakers There’s also good news for British automakers — which have had quite a ride over the past few months thanks to U.S. President Donald Trump’s punitive tariff regime. Tariffs of up to 110 percent on British cars will drop to 10 percent after five or ten years depending on the type of car. As a result, the government expects exports of U.K. motor vehicles to increase by 310 percent — or £890 million — in the long run.  Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT), which represents the British automotive industry, said the deal represented a “significant achievement, partially liberalising the Indian automotive market for the first time.”   He called for rapid ratification of the deal and renewed efforts to agree “fair and workable solutions” on the administration of the tariff rate quotas. Lawyers Just days after the deal was first struck on May 6, India’s legal regulator approved new rules permitting foreign legal firms and lawyers to practise there on a reciprocal basis. It was seen by the sector as a key win coming in parallel with the deal.  The Bar Council of India first signaled the move in 2023, but received fierce opposition from domestic legal firms. “This is an important development for our two professions,” said Richard Atkinson, president of the U.K.’s Law Society at the time, although some strict conditions still apply.  Services firms  The deal’s financial services chapter is a first for India. New Delhi promises that Britain’s financial and business services firms can’t be treated differently to Indian companies. It guarantees India cannot impose limitations on investment or the number of British financial services firms that can operate in the country. India’s penchant for data localization — meaning services firms like banks and consultancies need to set up servers in India if they’re processing Indian nationals’ info — isn’t addressed in the deal since the country’s parliament is still working through new data privacy and security laws. Yet there are provisions to allow further negotiations with the U.K. if India moves to liberalize the flow of data in the future. INDIAN WINNERS Workers on secondment to the UK One of the most contentious areas of the trade deal — and most sought after on the Indian side — are new provisions on business mobility. The U.K. has promised that an existing visa route for some temporary workers that’s not currently available to India — and capped at 1,800 people — will now be open to Indian employees (although the cap won’t be lifted). Most controversially for some, the U.K. and India have separately agreed to negotiate a Double Contributions Convention, which means that neither Indian nor British workers will be required to pay national insurance contributions in both their home country and the one they are working in. Details of the agreement are still being ironed out but both sides have agreed to strike the deal in side letters. In promotional material published alongside the deal, the U.K. government insists the measures will have no impact on immigration. “All visa routes that have been locked in through the agreement are only available for temporary stays, and none of the routes provide a path to permanent settlement,” it notes. Farmers The U.K. has agreed to remove tariffs on imports of Indian food, with the exception of sugar, milled rice, pork, chicken and eggs, which will continue to be subject to the current duties in place. In its impact assessment, the government notes that food imports will still have to comply with U.K. food and animal welfare standards. The U.K. has agreed to remove tariffs on imports of Indian food, with the exception of sugar, milled rice, pork, chicken and eggs, which will continue to be subject to the current duties in place. | Farooq Khan/EPA Meanwhile, campaigners welcomed the absence of any intellectual property clause in the agreement that would have limited Indian farmers’ ability to save and exchange their seeds.  Patented, genetically modified seeds and restrictions on their use have been identified as a one of several factors contributing to the high level of farmer suicides in the country. “We hope that following this deal, the U.K. government will commit to safeguarding farmers’ rights in all future trade agreements, as farmer seed systems are vital for smallholder farmers in India and in many other countries across the world,” said Hannah Conway, trade and agriculture policy adviser at Transform Trade. Drugmakers Under the deal, Indian generic medicines and medical devices can be exported duty free to the U.K., in a move welcomed by the country’s officials. Last year the U.K. imported medicinal and pharmaceutical products worth around £667.4 million from India. “Given the U.K.’s shift away from reliance on Chinese imports post-Brexit and Covid-19, Indian manufacturers are poised to emerge as a favoured, cost-effective alternative, especially with zero-duty pricing for medical devices,” a commerce ministry official told the Indian news agency PTI. Meanwhile, India will also welcome the absence of any data exclusivity clauses related to pharmaceuticals in the deal’s intellectual property chapter, which could have posed a threat to the country’s generic drugs sector, the world’s largest by volume. Textiles manufacturers The trade deal removes tariffs on Indian textiles exported to the U.K., with imports expected to rise by around 85 percent to £2.9 billion, according to the government’s impact assessment. The U.K. imported Indian clothing worth £877.3 million last year. As a result, the government projects that the U.K. textiles, apparel and leather goods industry is expected to lose £114 million — the biggest projected decline of any industry. “This in turn is projected to lead to resources shifting away from adversely affected sectors to other sectors that exhibit a larger increase in exports,” it said. 

Donald Trump’s trade war is forcing Ireland to confront the fragile foundation of its economic miracle. One economist saw it coming. In the summer of 2024, just after taking up an economic advisory role to Ireland’s government, Stephen Kinsella, professor of economics at the University of Limerick, warned that the next crisis wouldn’t be homegrown — it would come from Washington. “The most obvious source,” he said, “would be the election of Donald Trump.” If Trump moved to block U.S. multinational investment in Ireland, the shock, he said, would make Ireland’s earlier period of austerity “look like an episode of the Care Bears.” Within months, Kinsella’s prediction began to materialize. Trump returned to the White House. He publicly called Ireland a “tax scam” and launched a trade assault that threatened the Irish exports of American pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer. Meanwhile, the EU — eyeing retaliation — has considered targeting big tech firms also based on the island, such as Apple, and reviewing services imported from the U.S. From every angle, Ireland’s unusually buoyant economy suddenly looked exposed. This has much to do with Ireland’s recent economic success being linked to the fortunes of U.S. multinationals. Such corporations, many of them with market valuations exceeding Ireland’s own GDP, employed an estimated 620,000 people across a workforce of 2.9 million in 2024, according to Ireland’s National Statistics Office. Even more stark: Just 10 international corporations account for over half of all corporate tax receipts — and they make up more than a third of total Irish government revenue. “It’s the highest reliance on corporate income among developed countries,” said Aidan Regan, political economy professor at Dublin’s University College and a vocal critic of the Irish model. The risk is not just economic slowdown, but a systemic shock. As Kinsella told a business podcast: “We are an economy that is very strangely structured, a beautiful freak.” And: “To lose the top three biggest, most concentrated players [would] basically wipe us out.” Kinsella declined to be interviewed for this story because of his government advisory role. But his analysis is shared by many including the country’s Fiscal Council, a statutory body set up to monitor Irish fiscal policy. DISAPPEARING WINDFALL In April, the Fiscal Council warned the government not to use corporate windfalls to fund permanent spending, because of the risk they could “easily disappear.” The source of these Irish corporate revenues is no mystery. What appear to be pharmaceutical exports or imports of digital services are in substance the effects of massive U.S. firms shifting their profits to Ireland, via intangible assets like intellectual property. Dublin is also lobbying hard within the EU to shield U.S. firms. | Mairo Cinquetti/NurPhoto via Getty Images The data tells the story. Corporate tax receipts began surging in 2015, following OECD-led reforms that curbed some abuses elsewhere but left key loopholes intact. As a result, many companies chose to anchor their royalty-generating assets in Ireland, where the tax on such income is a minuscule 6.25 percent. According to EU Tax Observatory research, Ireland is still leads the global rankings for corporate profit shifting. “Ireland is both in a very privileged position and a very precarious position,” Regina Doherty, a former Irish government minister who is now a member of European Parliament with the center-right European People’s Party, told POLITICO last month. Her party, Fine Gael, has been part of coalitions that governed Ireland through a series of shocks, including the post-2008 financial crisis, Brexit, and the pandemic — but the Trump shock may be the most serious of them all. “Certainly [this] is the most challenging time that I can remember in my political and adult career,” Doherty said. To guard against potential vulnerabilities, Irish officials have scrambled since Trump came to power to build relationships with U.S. state governors and congressional figures, hoping to soften Washington’s stance. When Taoiseach Micheál Martin met Trump in the Oval Office in March, he leaned on talking points from the Irish American Chamber of Commerce, describing the U.S.–Ireland relationship as a “two-way street.” Ireland is now the sixth-largest investor into the United States — a fact increasingly invoked as evidence of a balanced partnership. But Dublin is also lobbying hard within the EU to shield U.S. firms. Doherty warned that introducing a bloc-wide digital tax would be “incredibly damaging for the Irish economy” and said Ireland would “continue to advance that view with EU partners.” The EU is negotiating to avoid tariffs, including on sectors such as pharmaceuticals which Ireland’s corporate revenues depend on. But it is also considering a tax on digital firms to get more revenues for its own budget. FORTRESS IRELAND Even as it defends U.S. multinationals abroad, Ireland is scrambling to fortify its economy at home. Speaking at the Global Ireland event last month, Frances Ruane, chair of the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council, said that dealings on the U.S. front require patience — but at home, they “need to move more quickly.” Ireland, she said, must invest in infrastructure and scale its indigenous economy, particularly energy grids and data centres, if it’s to ensure its economic miracle does not go to waste. Ruane also called for expanding R&D tax credits for domestic firms and for tapping into new common strategic EU funding programs. “What really matters is that the small countries make sure their voice is heard so that this does not become a concentration,” she said, referring to the risk of larger countries capturing the lion’s share of EU support. At the same event, Martin echoed this push, unveiling new bilateral strategies for deepening ties with Germany and France. Still, he stressed that “even if others step back, Ireland will continue to engage” with the U.S. “at all levels.” Whether that strategy is enough to shield Ireland from a global reordering of corporate geography remains to be seen. Back in Dublin, however, the domestic political class has been absorbed by other matters — like a parliamentary feud over whether pro-government independents can ask questions during sessions with the Taoiseach. Meanwhile, the underlying model of Ireland’s prosperity is beginning to wobble. On the surface, the island’s economy continues to perform at an incredible growth rate. In the first three months of the year, it notched up a massive 9.1 percent rise in GDP, according to the country’s statistics agency. But the figures may be misleading. Economists and even Irish Finance Minister and Eurogroup President Paschal Donohoe say the effect was largely due to large multinationals rushing through exports to front-run Donald Trump’s April 2 U.S. tariff announcement. When the distorting effects of multinationals are stripped out of official data, the quarterly growth rate comes in at a decidedly more modest 0.8 percent, according to official figures. “It frustrates me to see what our political system is doing while Trump is unleashing an existential threat to the future prosperity of the Irish economy,” said Jim Power, an independent economist. “I’m hoping that the gravity of the threat to the Irish economy will drive policy in a better direction.”

Kristen Hopewell is a professor and Canada research chair in global policy at the University of British Columbia. She is the author of “Clash of Powers” and “Breaking the WTO.” With U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to jack up tariffs to massive heights starting July 9 — including 50 percent tariffs on nearly all goods from the EU — the global economy hangs on a cliff edge. Last week, the bloc floated the idea of creating an alternative to the World Trade Organization (WTO), cooperating with like-minded countries to maintain the rule of law in trade. But there is a better option: Keep the WTO, but kick out the U.S. Since his reelection, Trump has essentially launched a full-scale assault on the global trading system, terrorizing countries around the world with a seemingly endless barrage of tariffs and threats. The U.S. leader isn’t even pretending to abide by WTO rules anymore. Moreover, his tariffs threaten to send the world back to the 1930s, when the spread of trade protectionism and beggar-thy-neighbor policies — spurred by America’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — exacerbated the Great Depression. Under these circumstances, allowing the U.S. to remain a member makes a mockery of the institution and its principles. And countries committed to preserving a rules-based trading order need to fight back and defend the system, punishing his blatant violation of WTO rules. Today, the U.S. accounts for only about one-tenth of world trade. The global trade regime can survive without it — but only if the rest of the world continues to follow the rules. | Olivier Hoslet/EFE VIA EPA The international legal order governing trade can only be sustained if countries face penalties for noncompliance. But by disabling the WTO Appellate Body, the U.S. has made it impossible to enforce global trade rules. Now, any country that loses a WTO dispute can block the ruling by simply filing an appeal to the defunct body. And by doing this in repeated disputes challenging its WTO-illegal policies, the U.S. has been able to break the rules with impunity. In addition to the substantial harm caused by Trump’s policies, the broader danger here is that rule violation will spread, leading to the collapse of global trade. If his brazen rule-breaking goes unpunished, why should other countries abide by the rules? Today, the U.S. accounts for only about one-tenth of world trade. The global trade regime can survive without it — but only if the rest of the world continues to follow the rules. It won’t, however, survive other countries imitating Trump’s rule-breaking, tariffs and other protectionist measures. This risk of contagion represents a grave threat to global economic security. This is why WTO members must come together in a clear rejection of Trump’s trade aggression and show that it won’t be tolerated. What once would have been inconceivable has now become a necessity: The only way to preserve the rules-based system is to expel or suspend the U.S. The mechanism to do this exists. Although the WTO has no specific procedures for expelling a member, it is possible under Article X, which sets out procedures for amending the WTO agreement. The U.S. could be expelled from the organization by a two-thirds majority vote to alter the agreement. If it refuses to accept the changes, then a three-fourths majority would be required. The U.S. shouldn’t be allowed to continue enjoying the benefits of membership without any responsibility to uphold its obligations. And denying it the rights of WTO membership could finally create the necessary leverage and force Trump to abandon his destructive tariffs. The U.S. president has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the WTO — it’s time to call his bluff.  The economic harm would be considerable: The U.S. would lose its access to global markets at favorable WTO tariff rates and could be subject to tariffs without limit. It would also lose market access for its services exports and protections for its intellectual property, which are the foundation of America’s contemporary economic success and its dominance in leading high-tech sectors. It would lose the WTO’s protections against trade discrimination too, which would allow other countries to impose export restrictions that could cut off its supply of vital goods. Trump has made the U.S. a rogue state on trade, showing a total disregard for international law — and even the notion that trade should be governed by the rule of law. Casting the U.S. out would make clear its status as an international pariah. It’s true, no country has been expelled from the WTO before. But the magnitude of Trump’s rule violation is entirely without precedent, and thus demands an unprecedented response. Without a functional Appellate Body, there’s now no other way to enforce WTO rules against the U.S. Supporters of the rules-based trading order should come together and seek broad support for an amendment to suspend or revoke the U.S.’s membership. If the U.S. comes to its senses and abandons Trump’s tariffs, showing that it’s willing to abide by the rules, the rest of the world would happily welcome it back to the rules-based trading system with open arms. Until then, the WTO must take steps to counter and contain the disastrous effects of his misguided policies. To combat Trump, we must be prepared to construct a WTO without the U.S.

The Justice Department on Monday announced the seizure of hundreds of financial accounts, fraudulent websites and laptops linked to a massive scheme by North Korean operatives posing as remote workers to infiltrate top tech companies and funnel money back to Pyongyang’s weapons program. The major government crackdown follows recent findings by cybersecurity experts revealing that several Fortune 500 firms were impacted by the intricate plot, which involves North Korean operatives using stolen identities and sophisticated AI tools to sail through the interview and hiring process. The cyber operation has grown more prolific as remote work in the U.S. has exploded, particularly in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the DOJ, around 100 U.S. companies have unknowingly hired workers tied to the North Korean regime, who have also used their access to company systems to steal U.S. intellectual property and virtual currency. One company targeted was an unnamed California-based defense contractor that worked on artificial intelligence-powered equipment. Some of its technical data and files were compromised and sent abroad. “Any government contracting company utilizing remote work could be a potential victim in the future,” said an FBI official, granted anonymity as a condition of speaking to reporters ahead of the announcement. These North Korean agents are often aided by individuals running so-called laptop farms across the U.S. According to the DOJ, 29 known or suspected laptop farms across 16 states were searched. Around 200 laptops were seized by the FBI, along with dozens of financial accounts and fraudulent websites used to launder money. Individuals from the U.S., China, United Arab Emirates and Taiwan, helped North Korean agents successfully embed themselves inside U.S. companies, the press release states. U.S. national Zhenxing Wang was arrested and indicted for his involvement in a multiyear plot that allowed overseas operatives to obtain remote IT work with U.S. companies, generating more than $5 million in revenue. The scheme involved stealing the identities of around 80 U.S. citizens. “North Korean IT workers defraud American companies and steal the identities of private citizens, all in support of the North Korean regime,” Assistant Director Brett Leatherman of the FBI’s Cyber Division said in a statement. “Let the actions announced today serve as a warning: if you host laptop farms for the benefit of North Korean actors, law enforcement will be waiting for you.” In addition, four North Korean nationals were separately indicted for allegedly stealing $900,000 in virtual currencies from two unnamed companies based in Georgia. The DOJ has previously taken action against these schemes, including arresting multiple U.S. nationals running the laptop farms over the past year. One American woman pleaded guilty in February to hosting a laptop farm from her home, which allowed overseas IT workers to receive more than $17.1 million for their work. The State Department continues to offer a $5 million reward for information that could disrupt North Korean financial and other illicit activities.