BERLIN — German Defense Minister Boris Pistorus will spend next week touring the Indo-Pacific with a passel of corporate chiefs in tow to make deals across the region. It’s part of an effort to mark a greater impact in an area where Berlin’s presence has been minor, but whose importance is growing as Germany looks to build up access to natural resources, technology and allies in a fracturing world. “If you look at the Indo-Pacific, Germany is essentially starting from scratch,” said Bastian Ernst, a defense lawmaker from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats. “We don’t have an established role yet, we’re only just beginning to figure out what that should be.” Pistorius leaves Friday on an eight-day tour to Japan, Singapore and Australia where he’ll be aiming to build relations with other like-minded middle powers — mirroring countries from France to Canada as they scramble to figure out new relationships in a world destabilized by Russia, China and a United States led by Donald Trump. “Germany recognizes this principle of interconnected theaters,” said Elli-Katharina Pohlkamp, visiting fellow of the Asia Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Berlin, she said, “increasingly sees Europe’s focus on Russia and Asia’s focus on China and North Korea as security issues that are linked.” The military and defense emphasis of next week’s trip marks a departure from Berlin’s 2020 Indo-Pacific guidelines, which laid a much heavier focus on trade and diplomacy. Pistorius’ outreach will be especially important as Germany rapidly ramps up military spending at home. Berlin is on track to boost its defense budget to around €150 billion a year by the end of the decade and is preparing tens of billions in new procurement contracts. But not everything Germany needs can be sourced in Europe. Australia is one of the few alternatives to China in critical minerals essential to the defense industry. It’s a leading supplier of lithium and one of the only significant producers of separated rare earth materials outside China. Australia also looms over a key German defense contract. Berlin is considering whether to stick with a naval laser weapon being developed by homegrown firms Rheinmetall and MBDA, or team up with Australia’s EOS instead. That has become a more sensitive political question in Berlin. WELT, owned by POLITICO’s parent company Axel Springer, reported that lawmakers had stopped the planned contract for the German option, reflecting wider concern over whether Berlin should back a domestic system or move faster with a foreign one. That means what Pistorius sees in Australia could end up shaping a decision back in Germany. TALKING TO TOKYO Japan offers something different — not raw materials but military integration, logistics and technology.  Pohlkamp said the military side of the relationship with Japan is now “very much about interoperability and compatibility, built through joint exercises, mutual visits, closer staff work, expanded information exchange and mutual learning.” She described Japan as “a kind of yardstick for Germany,” a country that lives with “an enormous threat perception” not only militarily but also economically, because it is surrounded by pressure from China, North Korea and Russia.  The Japan-Germany Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement took effect in July 2024, giving the two militaries a framework for reciprocal supplies and services and making future port calls for naval vessels, exercises and recurring cooperation easier to sustain.  Pohlkamp said what matters most to Tokyo are not headline-grabbing deployments but “plannable, recurring contributions, which are more valuable than big, one-off shows of force.” But that ambition only goes so far if Germany’s presence remains sporadic. Bundeswehr recruits march on the market square to take their ceremonial oath in Altenburg on March 19, 2026. | Bodo Schackow/picture alliance via Getty Images Berlin has sent military assets to the region for training exercises in recent years — a frigate in 2021, combat aircraft in 2022, army participation in 2023, and a larger naval mission in 2024. But as pressure grows on Germany to beef up its military to hold off Russia, along with its growing presence in Lithuania and its effort to keep supplying Ukraine with weapons, the attention given to Asia is shrinking. The government told parliament last year it sent no frigate in 2025, plans none in 2026 and has not yet decided on 2027. Germany’s current military engagement in the Indo-Pacific consists of a single P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, sent to India in February as part of the Indo-Pacific Deployment 2026 exercises.  Germany, according to Ernst, is still “relatively blank” in the region. What it can contribute militarily remains narrow: “A bit of maritime patrol, a frigate, mine clearance.” Pohlkamp said Germany’s role in Asia is still being built “in small doses” and is largely symbolic. But what matters is whether Berlin can turn occasional visits and deployments into something steadier and more predictable. The defense ministry insists that is the point of Pistorius’s trip. Ministry spokesperson Mitko Müller said Wednesday that Europe and the Indo-Pacific are “inseparably linked,” citing the rules-based order, sea lanes, international law and the role of the two regions in global supply and value chains.  The new P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft stands in front of a technical hangar at Nordholz airbase on Nov. 20, 2025. | Christian Butt/picture alliance via Getty Images The trip is meant to focus on the regional security situation, expanding strategic dialogue, current and possible military cooperation, joint exercises including future Indo-Pacific deployments, and industrial cooperation. That explains why industry is traveling with Pistorius.  Müller said executives from Airbus, TKMS, MBDA, Quantum Systems, Diehl and Rohde & Schwarz are coming along, suggesting Berlin sees the trip as a chance to widen defense ties on the ground. But any larger German role in Asia would have to careful calibrated to avoid angering China — a key trading partner that is very wary of European powers expanding their regional presence. “That leaves Germany trying to do two things at once,” Pohlkamp said. “First, show up often enough to matter, but not so forcefully that it gets dragged into a confrontation it is neither politically nor militarily prepared to sustain.”

Teresa Graham, © EFPIA European governments navigate an ever more competitive global landscape, stagnating productivity and competing demands on budgets. We have successfully faced and solved many challenges in the past, but this situation is different: the choices we make today will shape our health care systems and patient care, and these choices will dictate Europe’s economic performance and global relevance for decades to come. For those of us in the life sciences, these aren’t just macroeconomic trends — they are the pulse of a system that determines how quickly a breakthrough reaches a patient. It is a high-stakes environment where policies on health care and innovation carry urgent human and economic consequences. When a medicine has the power to treat or potentially cure, neither innovators nor policymakers want to drag their heels, because no person requiring health care can afford the luxury of delay. > The true economic burden of health care isn’t financing health innovation, but > the cost of failing to do so. Europe’s challenge is clear: we must better align our industrial strength in life science with public health goals, ensuring innovation reaches both patients and economies faster. The question is no longer what Europe wants to be — it is where Europe chooses to invest to remain a global player. Health as e conomic i nfrastructure Under the weight of mounting budget pressures, it is understandable that governments often view health primarily as a cost to be contained. However, this perspective is disconnected from modern economic reality. And let me be clear: the true economic burden of health care isn’t financing health innovation, but the cost of failing to do so. For years, Europe has already been paying the price of lost productivity: citizens forced out of the workforce too early and chronic diseases managed too late. For instance, cardiovascular diseases alone cost the E uropean U nion economy up to €282 billion annually. This creates a massive yet avoidable strain on national budgets, especially as pharmaceutical innovation is estimated to be responsible for up to two-thirds of life expectancy gains in high-income countries . 1 > Every medical breakthrough that enables a citizen to return to work or care > for their family is a direct investment in Europe’s economic strength. We must shift our mindset . H ealth is not merely a social good; it is economic infrastructure. Healthier societies are inherently more productive and resilient, and every medical breakthrough that enables a citizen to return to work or care for their family is a direct investment in Europe’s economic strength. Investing in innovation today is the only way to secure a competitive workforce and reduce long-term systemic costs. The c ompetitiveness t est: a s trategic a sset, n ot a l ine i tem Europe’s life sciences sector is one of the few remaining areas that retains genuine global competitiveness and strength, contributing more than €300 billion to annual output and supporting 2 million high-skilled jobs across m ember s tates . 2 It anchors Europe’s trade resilience, generating a trade surplus 66 percent higher than all other EU sectors combined . 3 But the warning signs are clear: while Europe still accounts for 20 percent of global pharmaceutical research and development , its share of global investment is shrinking as capital and talent migrate elsewhere . 4 Europe’s world-class science is being held back by fragmentation and regulatory inertia. > We must treat this sector as a pillar of our sovereignty and a strategic > asset, not merely a cost to be managed. If we want to lead the next wave of medical breakthroughs, we must move at the speed of global change. This requires a fundamental shift: simplifying clinical trial regulations, deploying AI-driven digital tools, incentivizing research through strong intellectual property frameworks and establishing a public-private dialogue on innovative pharmaceuticals. We need a clear action plan, not just more legislation, to translate our scientific leadership into tangible health outcomes.   We must treat this sector as a pillar of our sovereignty and a strategic asset, not merely a cost to be managed.  A  c onsequential  c hoice  Europe has to choose. Either we can continue to approach life science innovation as a budgetary threat, only to reali z e too late that we have weakened our competitiveness and delayed new treatments for patients. Or we can recogni z e innovation for what it is  —  an economic multiplier that strengthens our productivity, resilience  and global influence  —  and ensure that Europe remains a place where the next generation of medical breakthroughs is discovered, developed  and delivered to patients.  There is no middle ground. Europe must stop focus ing solely on the cost of innovation and start asking how much innovation it can afford to lose. In the global race for talent and capital, hesitation is a decision. The rest of the world is not waiting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. The value of health: Investing in Europe’s future [EPC 2026] 2. Economic and Societal Footprint of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Europe [VE / PwC 2024] 3. International trade of EU and non-EU countries since 2002 by SITC [Eurostat 2026] 4. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard [EC 2025] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to  EU pharmaceutical regulation and innovation policy. More information here.

LONDON — The Palace of Westminster stands on the banks of the River Thames as a proud symbol of British democracy.  But upon closer inspection, this neo-gothic mini-village, part of a UNESCO World Heritage site, is falling apart. Britain’s parliament has become an increasingly dangerous place to work for the 650 MPs, more than 800 members of the House of Lords, and thousands more staff who use it. The Restoration and Renewal (R&R) program, set up to deliver the long-delayed overhaul of the palace, warns of serious risks from fire, flooding, crumbling stonework and aging mechanical and electrical systems. Parliament needs fixing — and in the coming weeks, MPs and peers are expected to vote on what to do next. But there’s little consensus on how to proceed. The fight over the future of the site is now pitting politicians worried about spiraling costs against those who think the need to act is growing more urgent by the day. As this week’s POLITICO Westminster Insider podcast explores, fixing parliament is a story of seemingly endless division and delay. TWO OPTIONS, EYE-WATERING NUMBERS The way forward, presented to MPs and peers by the R&R team, has been boiled down to two stark options. The first is the so-called “full decant.” This would involve moving MPs and peers out of the palace to allow major works to be carried out. On current estimates, it would take 19 to 24 years and cost up to £15.6 billion. The second is an even slower, staged approach — catchily named “Enhanced Maintenance and Improvement plus”(EMI+) — where only the House of Lords is moved out, and works are done in phases while MPs’ parliamentary business continues on the estate. But that could take 38 to 61 years and cost up to £39.2 billion, the program’s figures suggest. In the coming weeks, MPs and peers are expected to vote on whether to at least green-light an initial seven-year package of preparatory works — a step that keeps both longer-term options alive, with a final decision pushed into the next decade. One of the most prominent advocates of the faster approach is Marie Goldman, the Liberal Democrat MP for Chelmsford. Goldman is a member of parliament’s Restoration and Renewal Programme Board, a cross-party body that scrutinizes the restoration team’s work.  For Goldman, the logic is blunt: if the work is going to happen at all, it is safer and ultimately cheaper to do it without thousands of staff, MPs and visitors continuing to use the building. “Trying to do those works with MPs and everyone else in place… feels like an absolute nightmare,” she says. The fight over the future of the site is now pitting politicians worried about spiraling costs against those who think the need to act is growing more urgent by the day. | Pool photo by Henry Nicholls via WPA/Getty Images Goldman is adamant that MPs and peers find a solution and believes Britain’s international reputation is at stake: “Nothing would say. Hey, look at the demise of Britain than watching the Houses of Parliament crumble into the Thames.” The government has said it will allow MPs a free vote on the restoration plans. Labour MP Mike Reader has followed the saga closely since his election in 2024. He backs option two, EMI+. Reader told POLITICO he has spoken directly with the consultants and contractors working across the estate — and believes the restoration team has underestimated the scale of the work needed, saying he fears “the discovery risk” of finding new problems as the work progresses. Reader says a longer-term approach would allow the restoration team greater scope “to learn and improve over time.” His “biggest fear” is that a different government decides to “stall and delay” the scheme or “require a complete rethink.” “Instability and uncertainty are the biggest risks to a program like this,” he warns. WASTING MONEY The fiercest critics see the project as typical of Westminster’s habit of wasting public money — and argue selling a multi-billion pound revamp will be impossible in a country grappling with the rising cost of living. Veteran Tory MP Edward Leigh, styled as the Father of the House for his long service, is a long-standing skeptic who argues that parliament should focus narrowly on essential safety upgrades rather than what he derides as “gold-plating.”  He believes plans to create a new visitors’ reception and steps to reduce the building’s carbon footprint are “bells and whistles.” “You don’t need all this, not when there’s an economic crisis. Our constituents are going to be absolutely furious.” Leigh wants what he describes as a “third option”: repealing parts of the current legal framework that mandates the restoration “in one go” and repairing the Palace in stages around MPs. His concerns over the costs involved are shared by the Conservative Party’s top brass. Leader Kemi Badenoch has raised “serious concerns about value for money.” She has instructed her party to vote against the plans in any parliamentary vote.  ‘CATASTROPHE’ Academic and parliament restoration specialist Alexandra Meakin — who has studied the project for years and previously worked in parliament — strongly disagrees with the Conservative Party’s position. Parliament needs fixing — and in the coming weeks, MPs and peers are expected to vote on what to do next. | Andy Rain/EPA “Desperately wanting there to be a third way or for it to not cost as much or for the repairs not to be as essential doesn’t make it less true,” she warns. Meakin adds: “Every review, every expert shows you cannot do this in any cheaper, quicker or safer way than just moving out entirely.” In her view, the core purpose of restoration is not gilding the palace — but preventing a future in which the building becomes unusable because of a major fire, flood or infrastructure failure. She warns: “The catastrophe is coming. The Palace of Westminster will become uninhabitable, whether it’s through fire, flood, or a failure of the essential infrastructure. And at that point, MPs and peers will have to face up to the fact that they have lost their own workplace, but they’ve also lost this iconic building for the nation.” LOOKING TO OTTAWA The U.K. is not the only old democracy grappling with decaying, neo-Gothic legislature buildings. Canada’s already moved its Commons chamber into a temporary home (known as West Block) while major works on Ottawa’s Centre Block proceed. Nick Taylor-Vaisey is POLITICO’s Ottawa bureau chief. He told Westminster Insider that Canada’s success was in part down to persuading hesitant MPs to move out entirely. The trick? Ensuring they were excited by their new alternative. “The West Block Chamber is actually a former courtyard and there is a glass ceiling on top, a novel, modern take on how you can build a legislature.”  Looking to the U.K., Taylor-Vaisey advised: “There is this chance to rethink what it could be.” Current plans in Westminster would likely involve MPs moving into Richmond House on the Whitehall estate, while the Lords would move into the QEII conference center. So far neither seems to have captured the imagination. 

Europe’s ambition to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot succeed in healthcare unless we fix a basic problem: we do not measure sustainability in the same way across the single market. Currently, measuring Product Carbon Footprints (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) throughout the European Union consists of a patchwork of national methodologies and/or competing frameworks. This fragmentation is not just a technical inconvenience, it actively undermines fair procurement, increases costs, and risks unequal patient access across Europe.[1] Without a single, harmonized methodology or framework, this EU sustainability and competitiveness goal will remain challenging to achieve. Though the lack of harmonizsation may seem technical, its consequences are tangible. PCF and LCA outputs can differ widely depending on the standards and methodologies defined and endorsed by policymakers, the way they are applied by industry, or how existing international standards are interpreted and implemented across member states.[2] The result is that national authorities are effectively speaking different languages. A treatment considered more environmentally responsible in one country may be evaluated entirely differently just across the border. And without harmonized sustainability assessments for medicines, there is a risk that sustainability is given disproportionate weight compared with safety and quality, undermining high-quality medicine development. In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – prevents comparability. [1]  > In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – > prevents comparability. In practice, the absence of a harmonized standard allows 27 different interpretations of ‘sustainability’ to coexist, which is incompatible with a functioning single market. Fortunately, PAS 2090:2025 offers what the EU has been missing: a single, science-based methodology that allows regulators, procurers, and industry to finally speak the same language. Developed with stakeholders across the healthcare and life sciences sector, PAS 2090:2025 specifies the appropriate methodology for medicines under ISO standards, aligning the playing field for everyone involved. Published by the British Standards Institution in November 2025, it reflects broad technical consensus and strong credibility. PAS 2090:2025 provides the first practical methodology for measuring the environmental performance of pharmaceuticals, establishing a common framework to support comparable environmental reporting, reduce regulatory duplication and provide policymakers with a credible basis to demonstrate progress toward climate neutrality. It also gives industry the predictability needed to invest in sustainable innovation, while ensuring that patients receive consistent assessments of a treatment’s environmental profile, regardless of where it is evaluated. Importantly, this approach reflects principles already embedded in EU policymaking. The European Health Data Space, for example, demonstrates how interoperability and standardized frameworks are essential in making cross-border data meaningful and actionable.[3] Meanwhile, the European Commission has been equally clear: harmonized technical standards and coherent sustainability rules are critical to the effective functioning of the Single Market and ensuring the free movement of goods.[4] This is a shared concern across stakeholder groups. Both the Federation of European Academies of Medicine and European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, representing Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, have similarly highlighted the fact that common standards are essential for transparent procurement and fair competition across therapeutic categories.[5]And the innovative pharmaceutical industry, via the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, has outlined both the challenges caused by the absence of harmonized standards and called for policymakers, regulators and healthcare stakeholders to endorse PAS 2090:2025 as the one, internationally accepted standard for measuring PCA and LCA in the pharmaceutical industry.[6]Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, the European Commission, and the innovative pharmaceutical sector all point to the same conclusion: without harmonized standards, sustainability policy cannot work. > At Chiesi, we support PAS 2090:2025 not because it is convenient, but because > it makes our environmental performance directly comparable and therefore > accountable.[2]  That is why our teams have laid out ambitious, yet reachable, targets regarding the reduction of Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that in order to reach these targets, we need to measure our actions and emissions. Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful difference.[3]  > Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful > difference.[3]  Our support for PAS 2090:2025 reflects a commitment to transparency, science-based decision-making and long-term sustainability; we use it ourselves because we believe it is the way forward — making it simple to compare products fairly, design transparent tenders, and procure with clarity. Further, industry members will be able to innovate with confidence, knowing that the life-changing efforts will be assessed with science and clear understandings. That said, no single actor can deliver alignment alone. Real progress depends on collaboration between regulators, policymakers, scientific bodies, and industry around a shared approach to measuring and comparing environmental impact. Chiesi stands ready to work with policymakers and partners across the healthcare ecosystem in favor of the adoption of PAS 2090:2025, understanding that achieving true regulatory harmonization is essential for ensuring patient access, maintaining high safety and quality standards, and fostering a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry in Europe. At the end of the day, the EU does not need another pilot program, framework, or national workaround. It needs a decision. It needs action. Europe must agree on how sustainability in healthcare is measured consistently and credibly across the single market. Measuring what matters, in the same way across Europe, is the only path to a climate-neutral, competitive, and fair European health system. Endorsing PAS 2090:2025 as the reference methodology would turn that principle into practice. Andrea Bonetti Andrea Bonetti is head of the EU office at Chiesi Farmaceutici, where he oversees the company’s public affairs strategy at European level across healthcare, sustainability and planetary health. Since opening Chiesi’s Brussels office in 2020, he has strengthened the company’s engagement with EU institutions, contributed to key policy discussions and supported initiatives to advance awareness on climate and environmental priorities in line with Chiesi’s values. He collaborates closely with cross-functional teams on the development and implementation of Chiesi’s sustainability strategy and represents the company within European and international trade associations. With more than 15 years of experience in health and environmental policy, he supports Chiesi’s external positioning and contributes to sector-wide work on environmental and sustainability frameworks. Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Chiesi Farmaceutici * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU sustainability and Single Market policy. More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission. (2023). Annual Single Market Report 2023. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/ASMR%202023.pdf   [2] Healthcare Without Harm. (2022). Report: Procuring for greener pharma. https://europe.noharm.org/media/4639/download?inline=1   [3] European Union. (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327 [4] European Commission. (2026). Public procurement. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/public-procurement_en [5] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) & Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM). (2021). Decarbonisation of the health sector: A commentary by EASAC and FEAM. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Health_Decarb/EASAC_Decarbonisation_of_Health_Sector_Web_9_July_2021.pdf.pdf [6]European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). (2025). Advancing environmental sustainability assessment of pharmaceuticals through standardisation and harmonisation of product carbon footprint assessment. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/efpia-news/advancing-environmental-sustainability-assessment-of-pharmaceuticals-through-standardisation-and-harmonisation-of-product-carbon-footprint-assessment/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

The British Council is preparing to shed hundreds of jobs and scale back operations across Europe as the fallout from Keir Starmer’s aid cuts collides with years of financial strain at one of the U.K.’s key soft power institutions. The Council, which is tasked with promoting British culture and education overseas, is grappling with the looming repayment of a government loan of almost £200 million dating back to the pandemic. In the midst of bruising negotiations with the Foreign Office, it has begun formal consultations on a sweeping restructuring that could lead to around 400 roles cut across Europe and the U.K., according to four people familiar with the plans. An internal consultation document emailed to staff and seen by POLITICO lists 784 jobs “in scope” across the U.K. and Europe, with at least 404 roles expected to be “displaced” — 15 percent of total current staff, according to one of the people familiar with the plans.  The scale of the planned British Council retrenchment is likely to fuel concerns in Westminster that Britain is hollowing out its soft power footprint just as other geopolitical rivals ramp up theirs. Russia and China have poured resources into overseas cultural and language programs in recent years, while the U.K.’s global engagement budget has been repeatedly squeezed. The shift in London away from supporting a longstanding pillar of British cultural diplomacy also echoes moves in Washington, where the Trump administration has dismantled the United States Agency for International Development and slashed other U.S. foreign outreach programs, including government-backed overseas media organizations. Much of the financial strain at the Council stems from a £197 million government loan agreed under Conservative leader Boris Johnson, originally pitched as a stabilization measure during the pandemic but on commercial terms with annual interest of around £14 million.  Critics argue the debt burden has constrained investment just as government funding has been cut, forcing the organization into successive rounds of cuts. The Council is largely self-funding from its English language teaching and exams divisions, but it still receives around £160 million a year in government grants.  A spokesperson for the British Council said: “We are in the early stages of beginning consultation about proposed changes to our operations around the world and we will work with employee representative bodies and local authorities to ensure that we meet all legal obligations and support colleagues fairly.” The cuts were triggered as the body approached a new three-year funding settlement with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which one person familiar with negotiations said would demand savings of around £50 million a year. The FCDO declined to comment.  The Council has asked the government to relieve the financial pressure of the loan and declining grants, requesting an extra £20 million in annual funding. Its chief executive warned last year that the organization might have to sell assets to survive, and that dozens of country operations were at risk.  A similar process has unfolded at the BBC World Service, often cited as another standard bearer of British soft power. The BBC said in a statement this week that the service is facing hundreds of millions of pounds in cuts in the next three years. ‘DETACHING FROM FOREIGN ENGAGEMENT‘ “The axe has finally fallen,” said one British Council staffer whose role is expected to go. “It’s going to be a bloodbath, and we are not going to go quietly.” Italy is expected to be especially hard hit. Of 150 roles in the country, 120 are “in scope” — about 80 percent of the workforce. Plans in a European Works Council consultation pack emailed to staff indicate that in Italy the entire teaching division would close and the exams arm would be outsourced.  Elsewhere, middle management and lower level roles, including customer service positions, have been targeted. In the U.K., 147 roles are under review, while in France 52 and Germany 23, according to the document. In Spain, 160 roles are under review with around 60 redundancies expected. In Portugal, 45 roles are in scope with roughly 25 job losses anticipated.  In Italy, employees have met union representatives and FLC CGIL is preparing industrial action. “The British Council’s teaching was renowned,” said Leonardo Croatto of FLC CGIL. “Now the U.K. government is closing the U.K. in on itself and detaching from foreign engagement. We are seeing the death of cultural multilateralism.” One MP briefed on the changes, granted anonymity to speak freely, said: “It’s losing huge amounts of money and needs a proper overhaul.” Critics of the cuts inside and outside the organization argue, however, that the strategy risks long-term damage. The British Council was founded to counter fascism and totalitarianism through cultural engagement. Now, as nationalist politics resurge across parts of Europe, insiders fear Britain is retreating from the field. “In the EU, affection for the U.K. is not there just because they like us but because we built it,” one insider said, arguing that goodwill painstakingly built over decades was dented by Brexit and cannot be taken for granted. The U.K. remains one of the world’s leading soft power players, this person added, but the position is fragile: “It’s an awful lot cheaper than hard power, the price of a few missiles.” Dan Bloom contributed reporting.

The Trump administration wants some of the world’s largest technology companies to publicly commit to a new compact governing the rapid expansion of AI data centers, according to two administration officials granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. A draft of the compact obtained by POLITICO lays out commitments designed to ensure energy-hungry data centers do not raise household electricity prices, strain water supplies or undermine grid reliability, and that the companies driving demand also carry the cost of building new infrastructure. The proposed pact, which is not final and could be subject to change, is framed as a voluntary agreement between President Donald Trump and major U.S. tech companies and data center developers. It could bind OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook parent Meta and other AI giants to a broad set of energy, water and community principles. None of these companies immediately responded to a request for comment. The initiative, which the administration wants to roll out with a splashy White House event, has yet to be formally announced – and it remains unclear which companies have agreed to the compact or been invited to participate. The compact would mark one of the most ambitious efforts to shape the footprint of AI infrastructure without imposing direct regulation, and comes a month after the White House made an unprecedented appeal to the mid-Atlantic energy grid operator to try to lower electricity prices. Concerns have steadily risen that data centers’ enormous appetite for energy could drive prices up even more, which could become even more of a political liability for an administration that’s been all-in on the rapid, unbridled development of data centers. The compact is one way to try to tout work to blunt their impact ahead of the midterms. “As President Trump announced weeks ago, top tech companies are working with the President to ‘pick up the tab’ for their power consumption as they build data centers. More to come soon!” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. A White House official said the draft is “is outdated and no longer accurate” without specifying which parts have changed. The decentralized nature of the nation’s electricity grid means that grid operators, state regulators and utilities themselves would have to agree to set rules or to craft contracts in order to make aspects of the proposed compact actionable. The effort comes as electric utilities, regulators and lawmakers warn that the explosive growth of AI-driven data centers – the warehouse-sized buildings that house powerful chips and servers for the development of AI technology – could overwhelm regional power systems and drive up electricity bills for consumers already worried about the cost of living. “People are skeptical. ‘Oh my gosh, this is going to further add insult to injury and drive up my energy prices.’ I understand their concerns,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in an interview with the POLITICO Energy podcast. “We are in dialogue with all the hyperscale developers about not only being a long-term force to drive down electricity prices on the grid, but to also be a short-term force to stop the existing price rises.” Major tech companies known as “hyperscalers” are building bigger data centers to process more advanced AI computing. At the core of the compact is a requirement that AI data center developers pay 100 percent of the cost of new power generation needed to serve their facilities. The compact also calls on companies to sign long-term electricity contracts to ensure other customers don’t end up footing the bill if the data center fails. Companies would similarly commit to paying the full cost of any current or future transmission upgrades required to interconnect new data centers to the grid. In parallel, the tech companies would agree to work with federal, state and local regulators to establish power and transmission rates that, “in every manner possible,” hold harmless and ideally reduce residential electricity prices in the jurisdictions where data centers operate. To prevent companies from outsourcing impacts, the principles would apply not only to data centers they own, but also to capacity they lease or operate that is owned by others.Electricity costs are already rising, even outpacing the rate of inflation over the past year. Utilities have requested record-breaking rate increases and government data predicts costs will continue to rise in the coming years. The insatiable demand from data centers — which the federal government predicts could as much as triple between 2025 and 2028 — has already been attributed for driving up prices in the power grid that covers parts of 13 mid-Atlantic and Midwest states. A 2025 Bloomberg News analysis found that power prices have risen in the areas directly around data centers and a separate 2025 paper from the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program found that consumers are shouldering the costs of grid infrastructure that serves data centers. The White House and industry allies, however, say that data centers are not to blame and that data centers can be a meaningful force to drive down the price of electricity. A report released last week by the Edison Electric Institute, the trade group representing investor-owned utilities, said that most areas with data centers are not seeing higher costs. Instead, the report said, well-crafted data center tariffs and agreements that put more of the responsibility for new power generation and infrastructure on large tech companies could help reduce costs for consumers. That, however, requires state utility regulators to craft tariff agreements and power contracts that fully account for tech companies’ costs. Wright singled out two states in particular that have seen the greatest growth in demand for electricity due to data center developments but have not had corresponding increases in electricity prices. That includes North Dakota, which had roughly 35 percent growth in electricity demand over the past five years. “And their nominal price of electricity has not gone up.The real price of electricity has gone down meaningfully over that five year period,” Wright said. PICKING UP THE TAB The compact comes just weeks after Microsoft made a similar set of commitments , saying it would pay more for the electricity that serves its data centers, cover any additional infrastructure and reduce water consumption. Microsoft also said it would no longer accept any local tax breaks, a measure not included in the White House draft compact. Trump touted the Microsoft announcement last month in a Truth Social post, where he indicated that he was working with other tech companies to “ensure that Americans don’t ‘pick up the tab’ for their POWER consumption.” “You will see more announcements,” Wright said. “You probably saw one from Google in Georgia, freezing electricity prices for three years with their deals. You will hear some deals later this year where large data center developments are announced commensurate with declines in electricity prices.” Other companies have also said that they already pay their own costs. Meta, for example, has said that it covers all of its energy costs and commissioned a study last year that found that the clean energy projects it has supported add additional generation and do not raise costs for ratepayers. The draft also pulls data centers more directly into grid reliability planning. Signatories would commit to using noncritical backup generation at new and existing facilities, in coordination with grid operators, to support stability and reliability during emergencies. Companies would further agree, on a voluntary basis, to allow new data center load to be curtailed when necessary to ensure reliable power for American households, a growing concern for grid operators facing rising peak demand and extreme weather events. The idea of grid flexibility and backup power has been growing in policy circles. Texas lawmakers last year passed a landmark bill that would require large power users like data centers to reduce power or be disconnected from the grid in emergencies. Other states and grid operators are exploring similar programs. During last month’s winter storm, Wright also called on grid operators to make backup power from data centers available. Beyond energy, the compact aims to address local opposition in fast-growing data center regions. Hyperscalers would commit to being “water positive,” developing or procuring sufficient water supplies to support new facilities and ensuring no negative impact on local water availability or quality. The agreement also calls on companies to establish AI educational awareness programs in surrounding communities and public schools, and to adopt best practices to mitigate noise, traffic and other disruptions affecting nearby residential neighborhoods. The pact could be meaningful for companies seeking federal help to accelerate grid interconnections, a major bottleneck for AI infrastructure projects. Under the draft, the federal government would commit to supporting accelerated interconnection of new data centers to what’s called the bulk power system that ships high-voltage power across regions.

DAVOS, Switzerland — When U.S. President Donald Trump arrives in the snowy Alpine village of Davos this week, it will mark both the culmination of a yearlong courtship — and a turning point for a forum once synonymous with liberal globalism. This year’s World Economic Forum, which starts Monday, underscores a sharp shift for an event long caricatured as a “woke” talking shop: Climate and diversity have slipped down the agenda, AI and growth are ascendant, and the United States — led by Trump and his inner circle — is set to dominate the stage. That shift coincided with a monthslong campaign to land the U.S. president and reassert Davos’ relevance after years of drift. “Post-Davos last year, I started discussions with the White House and also coordinating with Chief of Staff Susie Wiles,” Børge Brende, president and CEO of the World Economic Forum, told POLITICO in a video call from his office in Geneva last week. “I also visited D.C. in early December, had meetings in the White House, but also with the different Cabinet secretaries, and now we are in a situation where Trump is coming, and we also have five key Cabinet secretaries,” he said. “There will be a broad footprint of the U.S. in Davos.” Brende, a former Norwegian foreign minister, has clearly made it his mission to secure star speakers for the Alpine summit of the world’s business and political elite. After limp Covid-era editions, a sharp jump in participation costs and leadership turmoil for the WEF, Trump’s star turn — flanked by many of MAGA’s most powerful players — amounts to a vote of confidence in a forum some had written off as outdated or adrift. The Trump administration will be the star presence in Davos this year — and the focus of much of the dealmaking around it. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images That U.S. dominance coincides with a broader shift in the program itself.  The same gathering that once gave Greta Thunberg its main stage for her “our house is on fire” warning about the climate crisis, that celebrated an all-female lineup of co-chairs in the wake of #MeToo, and that pushed governments to track progress toward the United Nations’ Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals — is now clearing space for Trump’s MAGA agenda at a moment when the U.S. president has once again upended global diplomacy by threatening tariffs on European countries over their resistance to his efforts to take over Greenland. Trump’s entourage will include Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The VIP treatment is evident. Brende twice stopped the interview to take a call from Kushner. “Say hello to Ivanka,” he said, before muting himself. WOKE IS OUT, AI IS IN This year’s WEF has the somewhat milquetoast theme of “A Spirit of Dialogue.” Previously trendy topics around green and diversity have been largely stripped out and replaced with formulations like “building prosperity within planetary boundaries” and “investing in people.” Elite participants will be treated to discussions like “Business Case for Nature,” “Corporate Ladders, AI Reshuffled” and “Science as a Growth Engine,” with the juggernaut AI industry and its potential for economic growth a key focus of the program. Asked whether the agenda was tailored to draw in the Trump administration, Brende said the forum is “independent, impartial” and the agenda is “as we planned and is not edited by any outside players.” Intentional or not, there’s a clear bend away from “woke” topics for this edition — though Davos regulars argue it reflects the moment rather than a conscious strategy. It’s “entirely reasonable to focus on environmental, social justice concerns, but right now the world is much more concerned with the thorny questions of geopolitics,” said Clayton Allen, practice head for the United States at the Eurasia Group. Mike Rubino, a former Trump administration official, now a partner at Forward Global and Ballard Partners, said the shift in focus is “kind of part and parcel of the new world order.”  “That stuff has gone out of fashion,” he said, pointing to the rise and fall of nuclear energy on the Davos agenda and the waning attention paid to the Ukraine war. European officials have privately cast the forum as a venue to press Trump to personally endorse American-backed security guarantees discussed in Paris last week. | Telmo Pinto/LightRocket via Getty Images Meanwhile, Davos’ traditional billionaire business and finance class will be meeting AI “hyperscalers” as they toast record highs in their personal wealth.  The head of AI giant Nvidia, Jensen Huang, is another star speaker, while top executives from Microsoft, Meta, Palantir, Anthropic and OpenAI will stack meetings on the sidelines with firms like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock and Salesforce. U.S. OUT IN FORCE  The Trump administration will be the star presence at Davos this year — and the focus of much of the dealmaking around it. Allen said his clients are “massively interested in anything relating to Trump’s approach to the rest of the world. Anything Trump does, any interaction he has with foreign leaders … just huge interest.” A slate of European leaders are expected in Davos. They will be scrambling to negotiate with Trump over his threat of fresh tariffs against the EU related to the White House campaign to take control of Greenland, and the suspension of the EU-U.S. trade deal. French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are among those attending, alongside leaders from Germany, Poland, Spain and several other EU countries, as well as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also expected, alongside leaders who hope to use the forum to lock in U.S. commitments on a potential Ukraine peace framework, whether by endorsing American-backed security guarantees or securing his backing for a narrower economic pact tied to Ukraine’s postwar recovery. “There’s much more excitement” this year, Rubino said.  “You’re seeing a scramble of CEOs not just attempting to gain access to the reception that [Trump] will be hosting, but also to gain entrance to the USA House,” he added, referring to the small church hosting U.S. administration officials and business leaders throughout the week, sponsored at top dollar by Microsoft and McKinsey. One U.S. CEO has played a pivotal role in shoring up the WEF: BlackRock’s Larry Fink.  Fink was brought in as interim co-chair after WEF founder Klaus Schwab resigned amid whistleblower allegations over his management of the forum. (A WEF probe found “no evidence of material wrongdoing.”) His departure was followed by a public back-and-forth over whether European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde would step down before the end of her mandate to fill Schwab’s shoes, which she ultimately denied.  After those “challenging times,” WEF leadership “moved fast” to shore things up, Brende said. Fink, along with Swiss billionaire businessman André Hoffmann, brought financial and business clout to the organization and were sufficiently well-connected to attract star speakers.  The arrangement has been going “really well,” Brende said. “I speak to them almost every day, and it’s a great team.”   According to one insider, WEF founder Schwab is expected to skip this year’s summit.

The deployment of European troops in Greenland doesn’t alter U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to get his hands on the Arctic island, the White House said. “I don’t think troops in Europe impacts the president’s decision-making process or impact his goal of the acquisition of Greenland at all,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday when asked whether recent announcements of European boots on the ground would alter Trump’s calculus. This week, several European nations including France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands said they would send troops to Greenland to take part in a Danish military exercise — with some of them already there. Estonia is participating in the planning and “is ready to put boots on the ground if requested.” NATO is not involved in the military exercise, which is an inter-governmental drill. The U.S. president has repeatedly threatened the use of military force to seize the Arctic island, which he claims is at risk of falling into the hands of Russia and China. After meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the White House on Wednesday, the Danish foreign minister said Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron told the country’s armed forces earlier on Thursday that France would deploy land, air and naval assets to Greenland in the coming days. “France and Europeans must continue, wherever their interests are threatened, to be present without escalation, but uncompromising on respect for territorial sovereignty,” he said. The U.K. and Norway are publicly backing a push to set up a NATO mission dubbed Arctic Sentry that would increase the alliance’s footprint and reassure Trump of Europe’s commitment to security in the region.

Denmark and allied countries said Wednesday they will increase their military presence in Greenland as part of expanded exercises, amid intensifying pressure from Washington over the Arctic island’s sovereignty. “Security in the Arctic is of crucial importance to the Kingdom and our Arctic allies, and it is therefore important that we, in close cooperation with allies, further strengthen our ability to operate in the region,” said Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. “The Danish Defense Forces, together with several Arctic and European allies, will explore in the coming weeks how an increased presence and exercise activity in the Arctic can be implemented.” In a statement, Denmark’s defense ministry said additional Danish aircraft, naval assets and troops will be deployed in and around Greenland starting immediately as part of expanded training and exercise activity. The effort will include “receiving allied forces, operating fighter jets and carrying out maritime security tasks,” the ministry said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on X that Swedish officers are arriving in Greenland as part of a multinational allied group to help prepare upcoming phases of Denmark’s Operation Arctic Endurance exercise, following a request from Copenhagen. A European diplomat said that troops from the Netherlands, Canada and Germany were also taking part. The diplomat and another official with first-hand knowledge said France was also involved. Defense ministries in other countries did not immediately respond to requests for comment. So far, the deployment remains intergovernmental and has not been formally approved by NATO, according to two people familiar with the matter. “The goal is to show that Denmark and key allies can increase their presence in the Arctic region,” said a third person briefed on the plans, demonstrating their “ability to operate under the unique Arctic conditions and thereby strengthen the alliance’s footprint in the Arctic, benefiting both European and transatlantic security.” The announcement landed the same day U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers in Washington, following days of rising transatlantic tensions over President Donald Trump’s bid to take over the strategic island. Trump escalated the dispute earlier Wednesday in a Truth Social post, declaring that “the United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” calling it “vital” for his planned “Golden Dome” missile defense system.  He also insisted that seizing Greenland would not destroy NATO, despite warnings from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that such a move would end the Atlantic alliance. “Militarily, without the vast power of the United States … NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent — Not even close!” Trump posted. “They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES.” Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly rejected any suggestion of a transfer of sovereignty, stressing that Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and that its future is for Greenlanders alone to decide. Greenland’s government said it is working closely with Copenhagen to ensure local involvement and transparency, with Denmark’s Arctic Command tasked with keeping the population informed. “If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Greenland’s prime minister, said at a press conference Tuesday. In response, Trump said, “That’s their problem. I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. Don’t know anything about him, but that’s going to be a big problem for him.”

The message from Capitol Hill on both sides of the aisle is clear: Get ready for U.S. relations with China to spiral all over again in the new year. The one-year trade truce brokered in October between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping is already looking shaky. And lawmakers are preparing to reup clashes over trade, Taiwan and cyber-intrusions when they return in January. “It’s like a heavyweight fight, and we’re in that short time period in-between rounds, but both sides need to be preparing for what is next after the truce,” Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), a member of the House Select Committee on China, said in an interview. POLITICO talked to more than 25 lawmakers, including those on the House Select Committee on China, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s East Asia subcommittee and the Congressional Executive Commission on China, for their views on the durability of the trade treaty. Both Republicans and Democrats warned of turbulence ahead. More than 20 of the lawmakers said they doubt Xi will deliver on key pledges the White House said he made in October, including reducing the flow of precursor chemicals to Mexico that cartels process into fentanyl and buying agreed volumes of U.S. agricultural goods. “China can never be trusted. They’re always looking for an angle,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said. That pessimism comes despite an easing in U.S.-China tensions since the Trump-Xi meeting in South Korea. The bruising cycle of tit-for-tat tariffs that briefly hit triple digits earlier this year is currently on pause. Both countries have relaxed export restrictions on essential items (rare earths for the U.S., chip design software for China), while Beijing has committed to “expanding agricultural product trade” in an apparent reference to the suspension of imports of U.S. agricultural products it imposed earlier this year. This trend may continue, given that Trump is likely to want stability in the U.S.-China relationship ahead of a summit with Xi planned for April in Beijing. “We’re starting to see some movement now on some of their tariff issues and the fentanyl precursor issue,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said. But a series of issues have been brushed aside in negotiations or left in limbo — a status quo the Trump administration can only maintain for so long. The U.S.-China trade deal on rare earths that Bessent said the two countries would finalize by Thanksgiving remains unsettled. And the White House hasn’t confirmed reporting from earlier this month that Beijing-based ByteDance has finalized the sale of the TikTok social media app ahead of the Jan. 23 deadline for that agreement. “The idea that we’re in a period of stability with Beijing is simply not accurate,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Shaheen has been sounding the alarm on China’s national security threats since she entered the Senate in 2009. But even some lawmakers who have been more open to engagement with Beijing — such as California Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna and Ami Bera — said that they don’t expect the armistice to last. The White House is more upbeat about the prospects for U.S.-China trade ties. “President Trump’s close relationship with President Xi is helping ensure that both countries are able to continue building on progress and continue resolving outstanding issues,” the White House said in a statement, adding that the administration “continues to monitor China’s compliance with our trade agreement.” It declined to comment on the TikTok deal. Still, the lawmakers POLITICO spoke with described four issues that could derail U.S.-China ties in the New Year: A SOYBEAN SPOILER U.S. soybean farmers’ reliance on the Chinese market gives Beijing a powerful non-tariff trade weapon — and China doesn’t appear to be following through on promises to renew purchases. The standoff over soybeans started in May, when China halted those purchases, raising the prospect of financial ruin across farming states including Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Indiana — key political constituencies for the GOP in the congressional midterm elections next year. The White House said last month that Xi committed to buying 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in November and December. But so far, Beijing has only purchased a fraction of that agreed total, NBC reported this month. “What agitates Trump and causes him to react quickly are things that are more domestic and closer to home,” Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) said. China’s foot-dragging on soybean purchases “is the most triggering because it’s hurting American farmers and consumers, so that’s where we could see the most volatility in the relationship,” she said. That trigger could come on Feb. 28 — the new deadline for that 12 million metric ton purchase, which Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced earlier this month. The Chinese embassy in Washington declined to comment on whether Beijing plans to meet this deadline. The White House said one of the aspects of the trade deal it is monitoring is soybean purchases through this growing season. THE TAIWAN TINDERBOX Beijing’s threats to invade Taiwan are another near-term potential flashpoint, even though the U.S. hasn’t prioritized the issue in its national security strategy or talks between Xi and Trump. China has increased its preparations for a Taiwan invasion this year. In October, the Chinese military debuted a new military barge system that addresses some of the challenges of landing on the island’s beaches by deploying a bridge for cargo ships to unload tanks or trucks directly onto the shore. “China is tightening the noose around the island,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who joined a bipartisan congressional delegation to China in September and returned calling for better communications between the U.S. and Chinese militaries. Some of the tension around Taiwan is playing out in the wider region, as Beijing pushes to expand its military reach and its influence. Chinese fighter jets locked radar — a prelude to opening fire — on Japanese aircraft earlier this month in the East China Sea. “There is a real chance that Xi overplays his hand on antagonizing our allies, particularly Australia and Japan,” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said. “There is still a line [China] cannot cross without making this truce impossible to sustain.” The U.S. has a decades-long policy of “strategic ambiguity” under which it refuses to spell out how the U.S. would respond to Chinese aggression against Taiwan. Trump has also adhered to that policy. “You’ll find out if it happens,” Trump said in an interview with 60 Minutes in November. MORE EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ON THE WAY Beijing has eased its export restrictions on rare earths — metallic elements essential to both civilian and military applications — but could reimpose those blocks at any time. Ten of the 25 lawmakers who spoke to POLITICO said they suspect Beijing will reimpose those export curbs as a convenient pressure point in the coming months. “At the center of the crack in the truce is China’s ability to levy export restrictions, especially its chokehold on the global supply of rare earths and other critical minerals,” Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.) said. Others are worried China will choose to expand its export controls to another product category for which it has market dominance — pharmaceuticals. Beijing supplies 80 percent of the U.S. supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients — the foundations of common drugs to treat everything from high blood pressure to type 2 diabetes. “Overnight, China could turn off the spigot and many basic pharmaceuticals, including things like aspirin, go away from the supply chain in the United States,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) said. China restarted exports of rare earths earlier this month, and its Commerce Ministry pledged “timely approval” of such exports under a new licensing system, state media reported. Beijing has not indicated its intent to restrict the export of pharmaceuticals or their components as a trade weapon. But the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission urged the Food and Drug Administration to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese sources of pharmaceuticals in its annual report last month. The Chinese embassy in Washington didn’t respond to a request for comment. GROWING CHINESE MILITARY MUSCLE China’s drive to develop a world-class military that can challenge traditional U.S. dominion of the Indo-Pacific could also derail relations between Washington and Beijing in 2026. China’s expanding navy — which, at more than 200 warships, is now the world’s largest — is helping Beijing show off its power across the region. The centerpiece of that effort in 2025 has been the addition of a third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, which entered into service last month. The Fujian is two-thirds the size of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier. But like the Ford, it boasts state-of-the-art electromagnetic catapults to launch J-35 and J-15T fighter jets. The Trump administration sees that as a threat. The U.S. aims to insulate allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific from possible Chinese “sustained successful military aggression” powered by Beijing’s “historic military buildup,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this month at the Reagan National Defense Forum. Five lawmakers said they see China’s increasingly aggressive regional military footprint as incompatible with U.S. efforts to maintain a stable relationship with Beijing in the months ahead. “We know the long-term goal of China is really economic and diplomatic and military domination around the world, and they see the United States as an adversary,” Moran said. Daniel Desrochers contributed to this report.