BRUSSELS — The EU’s top defense official issued an unusually sharp warning on Wednesday, arguing that the new U.S. National Security Strategy “surprises by its clear antagonism towards the European Union” and amounts to a geopolitical play to prevent Europe from ever becoming a unified power. In a strongly worded blog post published just days after Washington released its 2025 NSS, EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius argued that Washington’s framing of Europe’s supposed “civilizational erasure” is not rooted in genuine concerns about values or democracy, but in hard-edged U.S. geopolitical calculations.  “EU unity is against USA interests,” Kubilius wrote, summarizing the logic he said underpins the Trump administration’s document. He pointed to passages in the strategy urging Washington to “cultivate resistance” inside European countries and to work with nationalist parties opposed to deeper integration, language he interpreted as evidence the U.S. is ready “to fight against the European Union, against our strength through unity.” Trump’s view on Europe was underlined in an interview with POLITICO where he denounced European leaders as “weak” and that he would endorse candidates in European elections, even at the risk of offending local sensitivities. Kubilius wrote that the U.S. now sees a more cohesive EU as a potential challenger to American influence. “The US National Security Strategy’s antagonistic language on the European Union comes not from American sentimental emotions about ‘good old Europe,’ but from deep strategic considerations,” he wrote. Kubilius linked the strategy’s worldview to the ideas of Elbridge Colby — now a senior Pentagon official — whose book “The Strategy of Denial” argues that the U.S. must prevent any region from forming a dominant power capable of constraining American access to markets.  Kubilius noted that Colby identifies “the European Union or a more cohesive entity emerging from it” as being “capable of establishing regional hegemony and unduly burdening or even excluding US trade and engagement.” Kubilius argued that this strategic perspective, rather than ideological disagreements, explain the NSS’s unusually hostile tone toward Brussels. “Let’s hope,” he concluded, there “will be enough prudence on American soil not to fight against the emerging power of European unity.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has proposed rolling back several EU environmental laws including industrial emissions reporting requirements, confirming previous reporting by POLITICO. It’s the latest in a series of proposed deregulation plans — known as omnibus bills — as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tries to make good on a promise to EU leaders to dramatically reduce administrative burden for companies.   The bill’s aim is to make it easier for businesses to comply with EU laws on waste management, emissions, and resource use, with the Commission stressing the benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which make up 99 percent of all EU businesses. The Commission insisted the rollbacks would not have a negative impact on the environment. “We all agree that we need to protect our environmental standards, but we also at the same time need to do it more efficiently,” said Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall during a press conference on Wednesday.  “This is a complex exercise,” said Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a press conference on Wednesday. “It is not easy for anyone to try to identify how we can respond to this demand to simplify while responding to this other demand to keep these [environmental] standards high.”  Like previous omnibus packages, the environmental omnibus was released without an impact assessment. The Commission found that “without considering other alternative options, an impact assessment is not deemed necessary.” This comes right after the Ombudswoman found the Commission at fault for “maladministration” for the first omnibus.   The Commission claims “the proposed amendments will not affect environmental standards” — a claim that’s already under attack from environmental groups.   MORE REPORTING CUTS  The Commission wants to exempt livestock and aquaculture operators from reporting on water, energy and materials use under the industrial emissions reporting legislation.  EU countries, competent authorities and operators would also be given more time to comply with some of the new or revised provisions in the updated Industrial Emissions Directive while being given further “clarity on when these provisions apply.”  The Commission is also proposing “significant simplification” for environmental management systems (EMS) — which lay out goals and performance measures related to environmental impacts of an industrial site — under the industrial and livestock rearing emissions directive.  These would be completed by industrial plants at the level of a company and not at the level of every installation, as it currently stands.   There would also be fewer compliance obligations under EU waste laws.   The Commission wants to remove the Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database, for example, claiming that it “has not been effective in informing recyclers about the presence of hazardous substances in products and has imposed substantial administrative costs.”  Producers selling goods in another EU country will also not have to appoint an authorized representative in both countries to comply with extended producer responsibility (EPR). The Commission calls it a “stepping stone to more profound simplification,” also reducing reporting requirements to just once per year.  The Commission will not be changing the Nature Restoration Regulation — which has been a key question in discussions between EU commissioners — but it will intensify its support to EU countries and regional authorities in preparing their draft National Restoration Plans.  The Commission will stress-test the Birds and Habitats Directives in 2026 “taking into account climate change, food security, and other developments and present a series of guidelines to facilitate implementation,” it said.  CRITIQUES ROLL IN   Some industry groups, like the Computer & Communications Industry Association, have welcomed the changes, calling it a “a common-sense fix.” German center-right MEP Pieter Liese also welcomed the omnibus package, saying, “[W]e need to streamline environmental laws precisely because we want to preserve them. Bureaucracy and paperwork are not environmental protection.” But environmental groups opposed the rollbacks.  “The Von der Leyen Commission is dismantling decades of hard-won nature protections, putting air, water, and public health at risk in the name of competitiveness,” WWF said in a statement. The estimated savings “come with no impact assessment and focus only on reduced compliance costs, ignoring the far larger price of pollution, ecosystem decline, and climate-related disasters,” it added.   The Industrial Emissions Directive, which entered into force last year and is already being transposed by member countries, was “already much weaker than what the European Commission had originally proposed” during the last revision, pointed out ClientEarth lawyer Selin Esen.  “The Birds and Habitats Directives are the backbone of nature protection in Europe,” said BirdLife Europe’s Sofie Ruysschaert. “Undermining them now would not only wipe out decades of hard-won progress but also push the EU toward a future where ecosystems and the communities that rely on them are left dangerously exposed.” 

BRUSSELS — France and Italy can breathe a sigh of relief after the EU’s statistics office signaled that the financial guarantees needed to back a €210 billion financing package to Ukraine won’t increase their heavy debt burdens. Eurostat on Tuesday evening sent a letter, obtained by POLITICO, informing the bloc’s treasuries that the financial guarantees underpinning the loan, backed by frozen Russian state assets on Belgian soil, would be considered “contingent liabilities.” In other words, the guarantees would only impact countries’ debt piles if triggered. Paris and Rome wanted Eurostat to clarify how the guarantees would be treated under EU rules for public spending, as both countries carry a debt burden above 100 percent of their respective economic output. Eurostat’s letter is expected to allay fears that signing up to the loan would undermine investor confidence in highly indebted countries and potentially raise their borrowing costs. That’s key for the Italians and French, as EU leaders prepare to discuss the initiative at a summit next week. Failure to secure a deal could leave Ukraine without enough funds to keep Russian forces at bay next year. The Commission has suggested all EU countries share the risk by providing financial guarantees against the loan in case the Kremlin manages to claw back its sanctioned cash, which is held in the Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear. “None of the conditions” that would lead to EU liability being transferred to member states “would be met,” Eurostat wrote in a letter, adding that the chances of EU countries ever paying those guarantees are weak. The Commission instead will be held liable for those guarantees, the agency added. Germany is set to bear the brunt of the loan, guaranteeing some €52 billion under the Commission’s draft rules. This figure will likely rise as Hungary has already refused to take part in the funding drive for Ukraine. The letter is unlikely to change Belgium’s stance, as it wants much higher guarantees and greater legal safeguards against Russian retaliation at home and abroad. The biggest risk facing the Commission’s proposal is the prospect of the assets being unfrozen if pro-Russia countries refuse to keep existing sanctions in place. Under current rules, the EU must unanimously reauthorize the sanctions every six months. That means Kremlin-friendly countries, such as Hungary and Slovakia, can force the EU to release the sanctioned money with a simple no vote. To make this scenario more unlikely, the Commission suggested a controversial legal fix that will be discussed today by EU ambassadors. Eurostat described the possibility of EU countries paying out for the loan as “a complex event with no obvious probability assessment at the time of inception.”

BRUSSELS — It’s time for Europeans to stop trailing behind Donald Trump and instead draw up their own peace plan for Ukraine, Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius told POLITICO. The EU “needs to be independent or at least be ready to be strong in geopolitical developments, including to have our plans on how peace in Ukraine can be brought and to discuss them with our transatlantic partners,” Kubilius said. The EU is scrambling to respond after the U.S. president’s negotiators — real estate tycoon Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner — were in Moscow Tuesday to talk over the latest peace proposal with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Europe was caught off guard by the 28-point peace plan drafted by Witkoff and Russia’s Kirill Dmitriev, which included a ban on Ukraine’s membership of NATO and a limit on the size of the Ukrainian army. That draft was modified after a desperate intervention by European allies and Ukraine, but there is wariness about yet another Trump-led peace effort. European countries were not represented at the Kremlin during the meeting with Putin, despite Ukraine’s future being crucial to the continent’s security. EU officials worry that even if this new Trump plan doesn’t fly, in a few months, there’ll be a new one.  “Each six months, we’re getting new plans and in some way I feel that we are waiting here to know the plans that will come from Washington this year. The plans should come also from Brussels or from Berlin,” Kubilius said. The defense commissioner argued that it is “very much needed” for Europe to craft its own plan to end the war to secure a seat at the table. “We should have the possibility to discuss two plans: one that is European and another one, maybe, prepared by our American friends,” he said. The aim would be to “find synergies between these two plans and achieve the best outcome.” DEFENSE IS A TOP PRIORITY The former Lithuanian prime minister has been the bloc’s first defense commissioner for a year — a sign of how much has changed in the EU as it wakes up to the threat posed by Russia and ramps up its rearmament efforts, all while the Trump-led U.S. pulls back from the continent. The U.S. has been the linchpin of Europe’s security since the end of World War II, and Kubilius said, “We should always count on Article 5,” referring to NATO’s common defense provision. However, he argued that America’s shift toward the Pacific “is happening.” “The question is whether we need to have some kind of additional security guarantees and institutional arrangements in order to be ready — in case Article 5 suddenly is not implemented,” he said.   He also mentioned recent comments by U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker that Germany might take over NATO’s top military job, rather than keeping it in the hands of an American general. That “is a signal that really Americans are asking us to take care about European defense,” not only from a military point of view but also from an institutional perspective, Kubilius said. The geopolitical shift “pushed Europe to understand that defense is a clear strategic priority, which demands action from our side,” the commissioner said, mentioning some of the EU’s key legislative actions like the €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program aimed at boosting the bloc’s military production. Next year, “we are planning to spend a lot of our efforts on the development of industry,” he said, including a communication on the single market. Defense companies are currently not fully integrated into the single market as governments have an opt-out for national security interests, but that is a cause of the bloc’s fragmented defense industry and is hampering rearmament efforts. Kubilius also said he wants to open a discussion on “institutional defense readiness,” including revamping the bloc’s mutual defense provision — often overshadowed by NATO’s more muscular promise. The EU clause needs procedural language that spells out the actions member countries must take to protect each other.

Canada has reached a final agreement to join the EU’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe program, two EU diplomats told POLITICO, marking the first time a third country will formally participate in the bloc’s flagship joint procurement initiative. The breakthrough follows months of technically complex negotiations and was communicated directly to ministers taking part in Monday’s Foreign Affairs Council; Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius informed delegations that negotiations with Ottawa had concluded.  Canada’s accession to the loan-for-weapons SAFE scheme gives Ottawa access to jointly financed defense projects and allows Canadian companies to bid into EU-supported joint procurement projects. For Brussels, securing a G7 partner strengthens the credibility of SAFE as it seeks to coordinate long-term weapons demand and ramp up Europe’s defense industrial base. Under SAFE, third countries can account for a maximum of 35 percent of the value of a weapons system paid for by the scheme; Canada will be able to have a larger share but it will have to pay a fee “commensurate with the benefits the Partner Country and its entities are expected to derive,” factoring in GDP, industrial competitiveness and the depth of cooperation with European manufacturers. Other issues tackled in negotiations covered conditions on intellectual property control and limits on non-EU inputs for sensitive systems including drones, missile-defense assets and strategic enablers. Similar talks with the U.K. broke down on Friday. The timing aligns with a major SAFE milestone: Kubilius announced on X that all 19 participating EU countries had submitted their spending plans that will be financed by low interest SAFE loans. He added that 15 members included support for Ukraine in their plans, involving “billions, not millions” — something the Commission has been keen to encourage. This article has been updated.

The center-right European People’s Party voted with right-wing and far-right lawmakers in the European Parliament Wednesday to back a proposal to delay by a year and weaken the EU’s anti-deforestation law. It comes two weeks after the EPP teamed up with far-right MEPs to exempt more companies from green reporting rules, as the center-right party demonstrates willingness to ally with far-right groups when politically convenient — angering its traditional centrist allies. It confirms a new normal now exists in the European Parliament, where the center-right no longer feels bound by a longstanding unspoken rule that forbids mainstream parties from siding with the far-right on important legislation. Under pressure from unhappy trade partners and business groups, the European Commission last month proposed bringing the law — designed to monitor the origins of commodities like coffee, soy and beef that are often produced on deforested land — into effect on Dec. 30 with some simplifying amendments and a six-month grace period for companies that struggle to comply. Member countries proposed amendments to push those concessions far further, with a one-year delay for medium and large operators, a longer delay for small operators and a 2026 review clause to allow for further regulatory cuts. Talks between the center-right European People’s Party, centrist Renew Europe and center-left Socialists & Democrats on the file continued into Tuesday, before ending with no deal. One key sticking point was whether to back the year-long delay that features in the Council’s position. The EPP ultimately backed the Council’s proposal, leaning on the right-wing and far-right groups including the European Conservatives and Reformists and the Patriots for Europe for support. “It’s difficult to understand why a compromise supported by 24 of the 27 member states is deemed unacceptable for S&D and Renew,” said EPP MEP Christine Schneider ahead of the vote. “Unfortunately, the three groups from the platform were unable again to find an agreement on a green file. Renew tried until the very end to strike a compromise,” said Renew Europe lawmaker Pascal Canfin ahead of the vote. “This is another bad news for the Von der Leyen coalition and for the spirit of compromise which is at the heart of the EU’s history.” The Parliament can now begin negotiations on the file with EU member countries.

BRUSSELS — Huawei was rushed back into the EU’s most influential solar panel lobby after threatening legal action in reaction to its earlier expulsion over its alleged involvement in a bribery and corruption scandal.   That’s outraging other solar power companies, worried that creating a special membership category for Huawei could undermine the ability of SolarPower Europe to effectively represent the industry in Brussels.  “The conduct reported … specifically the handling of Huawei’s membership has seriously undermined both my personal confidence and that of our organization in the governance of SPE,” Elisabeth Engelbrechtsmüller-Strauß, CEO of Austrian company Fronius, wrote in a letter to SPE, which was obtained by POLITICO.  Lawyers for Huawei and SolarPower Europe met at the end of May for negotiations, an industry insider told POLITICO, which culminated in SPE sending a final agreement to the Chinese company at the beginning of September.   Huawei argued that the European Commission’s decision to ban its lobbyists from any meetings with the executive or the European Parliament was unlawful and did not warrant a full expulsion from SPE, said the insider, who spoke on condition of being granted anonymity over fears of retaliation for speaking out.  The ban on Huawei lobbyists was put in place in March after Belgian authorities accused the company of conducting a cash-for-influence scheme and bribing MEPs to ensure their support of Huawei’s interests.  At the time, Huawei maintained it has a “zero-tolerance stance against corruption.”  During the Sept. 29 meeting to reinstate Huawei’s membership, SPE told its board of directors that the organization wanted to avoid a lawsuit and a potentially costly trial.  Instead, SPE proposed making Huawei a passive member that would not actively participate in the group’s workstreams — an option the board accepted, POLITICO reported earlier this month.   Huawei did not respond to a request for comment about its legal threat.  SPE acknowledged the threat in a letter to Fronius, one of its board members, on Thursday. “Based on legal advice and with the assistance of external lawyers, SolarPower Europe held discussions with Huawei with a view to avoiding litigation and protracted legal uncertainty regarding Huawei’s membership status, while preserving SolarPower Europe’s uninterrupted and unrestricted access to the EU Institutions and other relevant stakeholders,” reads the letter obtained by POLITICO.  The SPE’s letter was a response to an Oct. 20 letter from the Austrian solar panel manufacturer sent to the lobby after POLITICO’s story was published on Oct. 9. Fronius called for full transparency over the reinstatement of Huawei and action against any appearance of corruption.  The Austrian company’s concern is that SPE will be “unable to effectively represent” the sector given the EU’s ban on direct contact with Huawei or groups that lobby on its behalf, Engelbrechtsmüller-Strauß told POLITICO in an email.   Fronius is also raising questions about whether SPE can designate a company as a passive member — a status that does not exist in the organization’s bylaws.  “To our knowledge, SPE’s status do not include such a membership category,” Fronius’s letter to SPE reads. “We request a clear explanation of what this form of membership is based on.”  SPE did not raise the issue of member status in its response to Fronius.   The lobbying practices of Huawei and other Chinese companies are under a microscope over concerns around the influence they wield over crucial technologies, including renewable energy and 5G mobile data networks.  While it is better known as a telecom giant, Huawei is also a leader in manufacturing inverters, which turn solar panels’ electricity into current that flows into the energy grid.  Cybersecurity experts warn inverters offer a back door for bad actors to hack into the grid and tamper with or shut it down through remote access.  Two members of the European Parliament sent a letter to the European Commission earlier this month warning of such risks and urging the executive to restrict high-risk vendors like Huawei from investing in Europe’s critical infrastructure.  “Inverters are the brain of a [solar panel] system, connected to the internet and must be remotely controllable for updates. This applies regardless of who the manufacturer is,” Engelbrechtsmüller-Strauß said. “If European legislation does not address the ‘manufacturer risk,’ then energy security in Europe will be jeopardized, which I consider critical.” 

BERLIN — Friedrich Merz said the quiet part out loud back in May: Germany intends to build the Bundeswehr into “the strongest conventional army in Europe,” pledging to give it “all the financial resources it needs.” Five months later, the German chancellor aims to add the hardware to that ambition, according to new internal government documents seen by POLITICO.  The sprawling 39-page list lays out €377 billion in desired buys across land, air, sea, space and cyber. The document is a planning overview of arms purchases that will be spelled out in the German military’s 2026 budget, but many are longer-term purchases for which there is no clear time frame. Taken together, it’s a comprehensive roadmap for Germany’s long-overdue defense overhaul, anchored firmly in domestic industry. Politically, the timing tracks with Merz’s shift to a new financing model. Since the spring, Berlin has moved to carve out defense from Germany’s constitutional debt brake, allowing sustained multiyear spending beyond the nearly exhausted €100 billion special fund set up under former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s tenure. Items on the list will eventually appear, in smaller tranches, when they’re mature enough for a parliamentary budget committee vote. All procurements valued over €25 million need the committee’s sign-off. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS The documents show that the Bundeswehr wants to launch about 320 new weapons and equipment projects over the next year’s budget cycle. Of those, 178 have a listed contractor. The rest remain “still open,” showing that much of the Bundeswehr’s modernization plan is still on the drawing board. German companies dominate the identifiable tenders with around 160 projects, worth about €182 billion, tied to domestic firms.  Rheinmetall is by far the biggest winner. The Düsseldorf-based group and its affiliated ventures appear in 53 separate planning lines worth more than €88 billion. Around €32 billion would flow directly to Rheinmetall, while another €56 billion is linked to subsidiaries and joint ventures, such as the Puma and Boxer fighting vehicle programs run with KNDS. The document foresees a total of 687 Pumas, including 662 combat versions and 25 driver-training vehicles, to be delivered by 2035. Rheinmetall is by far the biggest winner. | Hannibal Hanschke/EPA In air defense, the Bundeswehr aims to procure 561 Skyranger 30 short-range turret systems for counter-drone and short-range protection — a program fully under Rheinmetall’s lead. Along with that come grenades and rifle rounds in the millions. Diehl Defence emerges as the Bundeswehr’s second major industrial anchor after Rheinmetall. The Bavarian missile manufacturer appears in 21 procurement lines worth €17.3 billion. The largest share comes from the IRIS-T family, which is set to form the backbone of Germany’s future air defense architecture. According to the document, the Bundeswehr aims to buy 14 complete IRIS-T SLM systems valued at €3.18 billion, 396 IRIS-T SLM missiles for about €694 million and another 300 IRIS-T LFK short-range missiles worth €300 million. Together, these lines alone amount to around €4.2 billion — making IRIS-T one of the most significant single air defense programs in the Bundeswehr’s planning. Drones are also gaining ground on the military wish list.  On the higher end, the Bundeswehr wants to expand its armed Heron TP fleet operated with Israel’s IAI, aiming to buy new munitions for around €100 million. A dozen new LUNA NG tactical drones follow at about €1.6 billion. For the navy, four uMAWS maritime drones appear in the plan for an estimated €675 million, which will include replacement parts, training and maintenance. Several of the Bundeswehr’s most expensive new projects sit not on land, sea or in the air — but in orbit. The list includes more than €14 billion in satellite programs, calling for new geostationary communications satellites, upgraded ground control stations and, most ambitiously, a low-Earth-orbit satellite constellation worth €9.5 billion to ensure constant, jam-resistant connectivity for troops and command posts. The push aligns with Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’ €35 billion plan to boost Germany’s “space security.” KEEPING THE CASH AT HOME One of the most politically charged plans on the Bundeswehr’s wish list is the potential top-up of 15 F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin, worth about €2.5 billion under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales system.  These would keep Germany’s nuclear-sharing role intact but also retain its reliance on American maintenance, software and mission-data access. It could also signal a further German convergence on American weaponry it cannot replace, just as political tensions deepen over the Franco-German-Spanish sixth-generation fighter jet, the Future Combat Air System. The same U.S. framework appears across other high-profile projects.  The Bundeswehr plans to buy 400 Tomahawk Block Vb cruise missiles for roughly €1.15 billion, along with three Lockheed Martin Typhon launchers valued at €220 million — a combination that would give Germany a 2,000-kilometer strike reach.  The navy’s interim maritime-patrol aircraft plan, worth €1.8 billion for four Boeing P-8A Poseidons, also sits within the foreign military sales pipeline. One of the most politically charged plans on the Bundeswehr’s wish list is the potential top-up of 15 F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin. | Kevin Carter/Getty Images All three tie Berlin’s future strike and surveillance capabilities to U.S. export and sustainment control. Together, about 25 foreign-linked projects worth roughly €14 billion appear clearly in the Bundeswehr’s internal planning — less than 5 percent of the total €377 billion in requested spending.  Yet they account for nearly all of Germany’s strategic, nuclear-related and long-range capabilities, from nuclear-certified aircraft to deep-strike and maritime surveillance systems. By contrast, nearly half of the list is anchored in German industry, spanning armored vehicles, sensors and ammunition lines. In financial terms, domestic firms dominate; politically, however, the few foreign systems define the country’s most sensitive military roles.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s top climate envoy is picking a fight with China weeks before a high-stakes United Nations summit on global warming, already undercut by the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement. Some diplomats and observers were left wondering what Wopke Hoekstra hoped to achieve when he attacked Beijing last month for what he described as a “clearly disappointing” climate plan — especially after the EU had failed to present its own strategy. The move raised fears of a rift between China and Europe heading into the United Nations’ COP30 climate summit, where the two blocs will be dominant forces after U.S. President Donald Trump declared in January that Washington would no longer participate in the process and formally exit the Paris Agreement. But the Dutchman was unbowed. China’s promise to cut its climate pollution by between 7 and 10 percent by 2035 deserved straight talk, he said in an interview with POLITICO. “As much as I’m in the domain of diplomacy, there’s no point in suggesting that this is somewhere in the ballpark of almost being good enough.” Every country needs to take responsibility for their planet-cooking pollution, he said, adding that he would keep seeking dialogue with China. “We’ll continue to work with them, but this is a missed opportunity, in my view, of doing what is needed and doing what also is related to a responsible actor of this importance and this size.” The EU, racked by its own internal disagreement, has yet to submit a formal target, as it is required to do under the Paris Agreement. Instead, it has released a “statement of intent,” indicating that it will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by between 66.3 percent and 72.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. Hoekstra’s criticism sparked an extraordinary riposte from China’s foreign ministry, which complained to Reuters about the EU’s “double standards and selective blindness” and warned “such rhetoric disrupts global solidarity in addressing climate change and undermines the atmosphere of cooperation.”  On Monday, Hoekstra, the European commissioner responsible for climate, will sit across from Chinese negotiators for the first time since the spat broke out. The talks in Brazil are the final preparatory meeting before COP30 kicks off in the Amazon city of Belém in November.   With the White House seeking every way possible to promote fossil fuels and downplay the surging global investment in clean energy, much of the rest of the world is looking to China and the EU to step in and send an alternative and unified message about the shift away from coal, oil and gas. Asked who would win in a war of words between China and the EU, Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, replied flatly: “Trump.” Hoekstra’s response to China’s climate goal stood out among European and U.N. officials, even many climate advocacy groups, who largely swerved conflict and accepted Beijing had a track record of underpromising and overdelivering on its pledges.  “Criticism of others can only be credible if we lead by example, and Hoekstra’s remarks come across more as an attempt to deflect from Europe’s own shortcomings than as a coherent climate strategy,” said European Green lawmaker Michael Bloss.  “Right now, we talk a big game but have nothing to show for it,” Bloss told POLITICO, referring to the EU missing the deadline to submit its 2035 climate plan. “That’s not how you motivate the rest of the world to act,” he added, warning that “without close EU-China cooperation, the COP30 process is in danger.”  But “Commissioner Hoekstra’s statement was walking a very fine line,” tempered Sébastien Treyer, executive director of the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, or IDDRI, a think tank. “It would have been unthinkable for the European commissioner for climate action to simply welcome China’s [climate plan] from a diplomatic point of view,” he added.  What this leads to, however, is “a statement that creates a rather harsh atmosphere of mutual criticism, rather than a positive learning dynamic” ahead of COP30, Treyer noted.  PUNCHING HARD  Hoekstra’s approach has some support in Europe’s capitals, where pointing to China’s continued coal expansion is a common excuse for doing less at home. French officials, for example, have been adamant about the need for China to step up its efforts in the global fight against climate change.  China’s 2035 climate target was “absolutely disappointing … they can do a lot better,” said a French government official, who, like others in this article was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters. They vowed to keep “push[ing] China to fully embrace its role as a climate leader, which it should logically assume” ahead of COP30, because it is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, one of the top historical emitters, and has the “economic and financial means” to have a “real climate leadership policy.” Others questioned whether Hoekstra’s strategy is the right one, especially after his boss European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had just endured the embarrassment of turning up to a U.N. summit in New York without a formal plan from the EU. The rift on climate policy between the two powers is coming at a moment when trade tensions could be exacerbated as the EU looks to ramp up its trade defense measures against China.  “Hoekstra is a liability,” said a senior climate diplomat from a European country, who disagrees with his aggressive approach toward China. “He always looks and sounds as if he’s just walked off the 18th green and wants a glass of wine with his Caesar salad. I don’t know anyone who thinks he has the requisite gravitas.” Hoekstra brushed off the criticism toward his approach, telling an event in Brussels earlier this month, that “we tend to overestimate our ability to, at scale, influence [China’s] decision-making.”  “I’m not convinced at all that if we had tabled something earlier that it would have moved the needle,” he said. But added that, when China is responsible for about 30 percent of global emissions, “if then the response is a 7 to 10 [percent reduction of emissions], it’s really hard, even if you want to make as much of a diplomatic effort as possible, to do as if that is enough.”  A Commission official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said Hoekstra’s team was in discussions with the Chinese over a bilateral meeting ahead of COP30. But that won’t happen in Brazil on Monday because Beijing was not sending a representative of Hoekstra’s ministerial rank, the official said. Canada, China and the EU will lead a ministerial climate summit in Toronto, Ontario at the end of the month, presenting a chance for a meeting. The climate commissioner’s relationship with China contrasts with that of Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, his direct overseer in the Commission structure. Ribera, a veteran climate diplomat, recently held a meeting with the former Chinese climate envoy Xie Zhenhua in Brussels — an unusual bending of protocol. In July, after Hoekstra signaled the EU would not sign a joint statement with China unless it showed greater “ambition,” Ribera brokered a deal in which China made no such concession.   Speaking to POLITICO, Ribera emphasized the need for COP30 to project unity against the fossil fuel revisionism of the Trump administration. “In the COP, in Belém this year, we need to come up providing a clear message on the multilateral system being prepared to work together and being supported by all parties — almost all parties,” she told POLITICO. She was not responding directly to Hoekstra’s war of words with the Chinese.   Steffen Menzel, program leader at the climate think tank E3G, said Hoekstra and Ribera were representing “different voices, different tones in Brussels and across the EU.” He saw no problem with Hoekstra’s tougher language.  “It’s the right way to go for the EU to be very clear with the Chinese engagement or climate action when it is insufficient, and that doesn’t rule out cooperation,” he said. “The EU can and needs to be there with their own strong position.”  Nicolas Camut contributed to this report. 

BRUSSELS — The head of Wall Street’s top watchdog is “absolutely not” concerned about the body’s independence from the White House. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins told POLITICO in an interview that President Donald Trump has the power to oust the head of the body and its commissioners. “It’s clear from the law and Supreme Court rulings that we’re part of the executive branch and the president can fire me and the other commissioners,” he said. “He’s [Trump] the head of the executive branch. So I think that goes without saying.” His comments come amid Trump’s repeated attacks on the head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, as well as his attempts to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the board. Asked whether he has concerns about the SEC’s independence, Atkins said: “No. Absolutely not.” But, he added: “As far as the SEC goes,” he is “confident we could do our job as we have been doing it now for 90 years.” Atkins declined to provide an opinion on Trump’s attacks on Powell — the president has described the Fed chair as a “moron” and a “numbskull” — saying: “That’s another agency altogether. They can — Jay Powell and the president — work out those sorts of things.” CRYPTO RESERVE Atkins praised Trump for his plans to set up a strategic Bitcoin reserve and digital assets stockpile following a presidential executive order. “The U.S. government has seized a lot of Bitcoin and other things. … I think it’s smart not to dump it on the market, frankly, and so I salute the efforts of the president and the Treasury Secretary [Scott Bessent] and others to address that issue.” The SEC chair has unveiled an ambitious agenda for stablecoin regulation known as “Project Crypto,” which he described as a move away from a “head-in-the-sand” approach from the regulator toward the digital technology. “The SEC needs to embrace change. And if you do the opposite … if you are not embracing it, then it goes offshore,” he said, citing the example of FTX, the crypto exchange which was headquartered in the Bahamas and collapsed in 2022. GREEN STANDARDS Atkins has made his dislike of EU rules for corporate sustainability reporting clear, criticizing them in a speech in Paris earlier this week. He has also threatened to withdraw U.S. recognition of international accounting standards over the inclusion of sustainability in their methodology. Asked whether he disagrees with the European Central Bank’s approach of factoring the risks posed by climate change into their policymaking, Atkins said: “Yes, in a word.” “We’re not here to be environmental police or social police or whatever. That’s not our job. And if others want to do that, then that’s up to them,” he said. Atkins said “it doesn’t matter what I believe” regarding his personal views on climate change, adding that the SEC’s position “long before me” was that climate change does not pose a risk to the orderly functioning of financial markets. “I’m just continuing with that. I agree with that position,” he said. ENFORCEMENT AGENDA Separately, Atkins defended the appointment of Meg Ryan, a judge, to the role of head of the SEC’s enforcement division. Her hire broke with a precedent of appointing someone with long experience in securities law. But Atkins said critics are “people who are ignorant, frankly, of how things work.” “Judges don’t come ready-made with knowledge of the securities world,” he said, adding that Ryan is “eminently qualified to take this position.” Judges “learn it on the job, they apply their experience and their knowledge to the case at hand, and they study up and they’re smart people and that’s their job,” Atkins said.