LONDON — Keir Starmer has been throwing a little shade at fellow world leaders. The British prime minister ditched his buttoned-up public persona on Monday evening to poke fun at France’s Emmanuel Macron during a live recording of comedian Matt Forde’s podcast. Handed a pair of aviator sunglasses, similar to those worn by the French president during the World Economic Forum in Davos last week due to an eye health issue, Starmer put them on and jibed to audience laughter: “Bonjour.” The clip was posted on the PM’s TikTok feed with a message to Macron saying: “Talk to me, Goose” — a reference to the 1986 Tom Cruise film “Top Gun.” > @keirstarmer @Emmanuel Macron ♬ original sound – Keir Starmer Starmer told Forde that while he will consider wearing the specs to international summits, he will need his normal glasses back to be able to see in parliament. It’s not the first time Macron’s shades have raised eyebrows. “I watched him yesterday with those beautiful sunglasses. What the hell happened?” Donald Trump remarked during a speech at Davos. Starmer also disclosed that Trump regularly rings him on his mobile phone, rather than using official government communications. “Once I was in the flat with the kids cleaning pasta off the table after their dinner, and the phone goes and it’s Donald on the phone,” Starmer said. “Another time, I’d say most inconvenient, we’re halfway through the Arsenal-PSG game,” he added, referencing his love of the top-flight soccer team. In a more serious moment, Starmer defended his decision to travel to China this week, in the first trip to the country by a British prime minister since 2018. “If you’re a leader on the international stage, you are dealing with whoever is the leader in another country. I mean, it’s that simple,” he said.  

BRUSSELS — Meta’s WhatsApp will face fresh scrutiny from Brussels after the EU decided the service falls under its tough regime for the biggest online platforms. A decision announced Monday to classify WhatsApp Channels as a popular online platform — joining the likes of Facebook, Instagram, X and TikTok — means that the app will now be held liable for how it handles systemic risks to users. Platforms that fail to meet regulatory requirements can be fined up to 6 percent of global annual turnover under the EU’s Digital Services Act. The verdict also lands as countries such as France are actively discussing restrictions on social media platforms for children. The decision focuses particularly on WhatsApp Channels in which admins can broadcast announcements to groups of people in a feed, making it different from the messaging feature. WhatsApp’s private messaging service is explicitly excluded. WhatsApp was aware that the decision was coming as far back as August, when it reported that Channels had approximately 51.7 million users in the EU. That crossed the EU’s threshold for Very Large Online Platforms with over 45 million users in the EU. Meta now has four months to assess and mitigate systemic risks on its platform. Those risks include the spread of illegal content, as well as threats to civic discourse, elections, fundamental rights and health. “WhatsApp Channels continue to grow in Europe and globally. As this expansion continues, we remain committed to evolving our safety and integrity measures in the region, ensuring they align with relevant regulatory expectations and our ongoing responsibility to users,” WhatsApp spokesperson Joshua Breckman said in a statement.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission opened a fresh investigation Monday into Elon Musk’s X following an explosion of non-consensual sexualized deepfakes created by the artificial intelligence chatbot Grok. The Commission will decide whether X met EU requirements to protect users when it integrated Grok into the social media platform and its underlying algorithm. X is already under investigation on several fronts under the EU’s Digital Services Act, which regulates social media platforms, and was in December fined €120 million for lapses in transparency. Penalties can reach up to 6 percent of X’s annual global revenue. The new investigation will look into whether the company properly assessed and mitigated the risks of integrating Grok, particularly those of “manipulated sexually explicit images” including some that “may amount to child sexual abuse material,” the Commission said. But the investigation “is much broader” than these images, a senior Commission official said during a briefing. The chatbot may have generated as many as 3 million non-consensual sexual images and 20,000 child sexual abuse images in the 11 days before it made changes to stop the spread of such photos, an estimate by civil society found. On top of the new investigation, the Commission will expand a 2023 probe to look into the impact of X’s decision, announced last week, to switch the algorithm for its social media platform to a Grok-based system. The Commission said Monday it could take interim steps — for example, order X to change its algorithms or shut down the chatbot — “in the absence of meaningful adjustments to the X service,” something the EU has so far shied away from doing for Musk’s platform. The threshold for such measures is “really high,” a second senior Commission official said. The image-generating feature of Grok went viral just before the end of 2025, as users instructed the chatbot to alter images of real people. This led to global outcry and calls from EU lawmakers to ban nudification AI apps as well as crack down on Grok. The platform did restrict the chatbot’s image generation abilities in January, initially by limiting them to paid subscribers of Grok. The Commission said at the time it was assessing whether changes made to Grok were sufficient. EU officials found initial changes insufficient and voiced their concerns to the platform, after which the platform took further steps. “I dare say that without our interaction, probably none of these kind of changes that they have done would have appeared,” the second official said. X did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

American investors have closed a $14 billion deal giving them control of the U.S. version of TikTok, raising a host of questions about what’s next for the social media app and its tens of millions of users. Under the new ownership structure, a group of investors led by Silicon Valley giant Oracle and the private equity firm Silver Lake will own more than 80 percent of the company, which draws 66 million daily users in the United States. The deal is intended to insulate the social media company from influence by China, avoiding a ban that Congress had mandated in 2024. TikTok released some information about the deal in a Thursday night announcement, but further details have yet to be made public, including whether it complies with the 2024 law. It is also uncertain whether the agreement sufficiently allays U.S. lawmakers’ concerns that the app endangers national security. Here are five crucial questions remaining about TikTok and its future: WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE ALGORITHM? TikTok’s algorithm has been key to the app’s success, as it’s remarkably effective at curating a continuous feed of videos that keep users scrolling. Lawmakers have expressed concern that the Chinese government could use the algorithm to push propaganda or surveil users, a key reason Congress passed legislation in 2024 requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to spin off an American version of the app. In announcing the deal Thursday, TikTok said that the new owners “will retrain, test, and update the content recommendation algorithm on U.S. user data.” Those measures may allay some of the national security risks associated with the algorithm, but it’s unclear if they go far enough to satisfy the 2024 law, which prohibits “cooperation” between ByteDance and the U.S. version of TikTok on operating the algorithm. Previous reports indicated that the U.S. version of TikTok would license the algorithm from ByteDance, which could be another legal stumbling block if the agreement involves continued coordination between the two companies. “The central issue is whether the TikTok U.S. entity actually owns and controls the recommendation system, or whether it is merely licensing it,” said Chris Krebs, former director of the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. “A license means ByteDance still retains leverage over what the U.S. platform shows its 170 million users.” WILL TIKTOK STILL BE BANNED ON GOVERNMENT DEVICES? Former President Joe Biden signed the No TikTok on Government Devices Act in 2022 to prohibit the use of the app on federal phones, tablets and other devices, and at least 39 states, including California and New York, passed similar bans. The House and Senate also have their own rules banning TikTok on federal devices. (President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, the White House and California Gov. Gavin Newsom all have active TikTok accounts, however.) Even with the deal in place, reversing the government device bans would require new legislation from federal and state lawmakers, which could prove to be a tall order. “The state bans presumably still can stay,” said Alan Rozenshtein, a former attorney adviser in the Justice Department’s national security division under President Barack Obama. “From a legal perspective, the president can’t overturn [the federal law].” COULD COMPANIES ENABLING TIKTOK STILL FACE CRIPPLING FINES UNDER A FUTURE ADMINISTRATION? TikTok temporarily went dark in the United States in January 2025 after the law forcing a sale or ban took effect. The app came back online a short time later after then President-elect Trump promised that no company, such as app stores or internet service providers, would face the law’s daily fine of $5,000 per user for flouting the ban, a penalty that could quickly add up to billions of dollars. But legal experts have consistently said an executive order or presidential promise doesn’t trump a law, especially one already upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Rozenshtein, the 2024 law leaves open the possibility that a future administration could declare the new arrangement illegal. There’s a five-year statute of limitations for the government to challenge violations of federal laws. “Imagine a situation in which the new venture sells itself back to ByteDance — obviously you’d want the next president to be able to say you’re clearly not divested anymore,” Rozenshtein told POLITICO. “If a [future] president had those powers, then presumably the president would also have the powers to say: ‘This thing that my predecessor did was a lie to begin with, so obviously I’m yanking it.’” DOES THE DEAL ADDRESS THE NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS? A White House official previously told POLITICO that the deal would resolve Congress’ national security concerns because the Chinese government would not have access to American users’ data, and because ByteDance would have less than 20 percent ownership of the U.S. app. Even so, congressional Republicans have vowed to review the deal to ensure it follows the law. “I don’t know what the framework says — but anything short of that, the president would be violating congressional intent,” Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO in September. St. John’s University internet law professor Kate Klonick said the law has enough wiggle room, and gives enough deference to the president, that the deal could pass muster for the time being. “The [deal] is probably sufficient for the law, because the law was sufficiently vague — but for the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law,” she said. “What people thought at the time were serious national security concerns [in 2024] now seems to kind of have been forgotten.” HOW DOES THE DEAL ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT CHINA ACCESSING PEOPLE’S DATA? Under the 2024 law, ByteDance and TikTok can’t enter into any data-sharing agreements. Thursday’s announcement says the new American venture will store user data in Oracle’s cloud, where it “will operate a comprehensive data privacy and cybersecurity program that is audited and certified by third party cybersecurity experts.” That might be enough, according to Adam Conner, vice president for technology policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. “The data sharing question operationally should be solved by this [deal],” he told POLITICO. However, Conner noted that particulars around the operation of the algorithm and advertising may lead to violations of the law.

LONDON — The BBC will attempt to have Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit over the way it edited a 2021 speech thrown out of court. Filings in the southern district of Florida published Monday said the BBC would “move to dismiss” the case because the October 2024 documentary for the flagship Panorama program which carried the edited speech was not made, produced or broadcast in the state. The court lacks “personal jurisdiction” over the BBC, and the U.S. president “fails to state a claim on multiple independent grounds,” the filing says. In a lawsuit filed last month Trump demanded more than $5 billion after accusing the corporation of misleadingly editing his Jan. 6, 2021 speech, delivered ahead of the storming of the U.S. Capitol during the 2020 presidential election certification process. Trump’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami, claims the BBC “maliciously” strung together two comments Trump made more than 54 minutes apart to convey the impression that he’d urged his supporters to engage in violence. The corporation apologized to Trump when the botched edit became public but said it did not merit a defamation case. The broadcaster said the episode of its Panorama current affairs program was not shown on the global feed of the BBC News Channel, while programs on iPlayer, the BBC’s catchup service, were only available in the U.K.  Public figures claiming defamation in the U.S. have to demonstrate “actual malice,” meaning they have to show there was an intent to spread false information or some action in reckless disregard of the truth. The BBC filing says Trump “fails to plausibly allege” this. It said the documentary included “extensive coverage of his supporters and balanced coverage of his path to reelection.” BBC Director General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness announced their resignations in November after the very public row with the U.S. president hit the headlines. A BBC spokesperson said: “As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”

Europe’s biggest ever trade deal finally got the nod Friday after 25 years of negotiating.  It took blood, sweat, tears and tortured discussions to get there, but EU countries at last backed the deal with the Mercosur bloc — paving the way to create a free trade area that covers more than 700 million people across Europe and Latin America.  The agreement, which awaits approval from the European Parliament, will eliminate more than 90 percent of tariffs on EU exports. European shoppers will be able to dine on grass-fed beef from the Argentinian pampas. Brazilian drivers will see import duties on German motors come down.  As for the accord’s economic impact, well, that pales in comparison with the epic battles over it: The European Commission estimates it will add €77.6 billion (or 0.05 percent) to the EU economy by 2040.  Like in any deal, there are winners and losers. POLITICO takes you through who is uncorking their Malbec, and who, on the other hand, is crying into the Bordeaux. WINNERS Giorgia Meloni Italy’s prime minister has done it again. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal.  The end result? In exchange for its support, Rome was able to secure farm market safeguards and promises of fresh agriculture funding from the European Commission — wins that the government can trumpet in front of voters back home. It also means that Meloni has picked the winning side once more, coming off as the team player despite the last-minute holdup. All in all, yet another laurel in Rome’s crown.  The German car industry  Das Auto hasn’t had much reason to cheer of late, but Mercosur finally gives reason to celebrate. Germany’s famed automotive sector will have easier access to consumers in LatAm. Lower tariffs mean, all things being equal, more sales and a boost to the bottom line for companies like Volkswagen and BMW. There are a few catches. Tariffs, now at 35 percent, aren’t coming down all at once. At the behest of Brazil, which hosts an auto industry of its own, the removal of trade barriers will be staggered. Electric vehicles will be given preferential treatment, an area that Europe’s been lagging behind on.  Ursula von der Leyen Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Since shaking hands on the deal with Mercosur leaders more than a year ago, her team has bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of the skeptics and build the all-important qualified majority that finally materialized Friday. Expect a victory lap next week, when the Berlaymont boss travels to Paraguay to sign the agreement. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal. | Ettore Ferrari/EPA On the international stage, it also helps burnish Brussels’ standing at a time when the bloc looks like a lumbering dinosaur, consistently outmaneuvered by the U.S. and China. A large-scale trade deal shows that the rules-based international order that the EU so cherishes is still alive, even as the U.S. whisked away a South American leader in chains.  But the deal came at a very high cost. Von der Leyen had to promise EU farmers €45 billion in subsidies to win them over, backtracking on efforts to rein in agricultural support in the EU budget and invest more in innovation and growth.   Europe’s farmers  Speaking of farmers, going by the headlines you could be forgiven for thinking that Mercosur is an unmitigated disaster. Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right?  The reality is a little bit more complicated. The deal comes with strict quotas for categories ranging from beef to poultry. In effect, Latin American farmers will be limited to exporting a couple of chicken breasts per European person per year. Meanwhile, the deal recognizes special protections for European producers for specialty products like Italian parmesan or French wine, who stand to benefit from the expanded market. So much for the agri-pocalpyse now.  Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Then there’s the matter of the €45 billion of subsidies going into farmers’ pockets, and it’s hard not to conclude that — despite all the tractor protests and manure fights in downtown Brussels — the deal doesn’t smell too bad after all.  LOSERS Emmanuel Macron  There’s been no one high-ranking politician more steadfast in their opposition to the trade agreement than France’s President Emmanuel Macron who, under enormous domestic political pressure, has consistently opposed the deal. It’s no surprise then that France joined Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary to unsuccessfully vote against Mercosur.  The former investment banker might be a free-trading capitalist at heart, but he knows well that, domestically, the deal is seen as a knife in the back of long-suffering Gallic growers. Macron, who is burning through prime ministers at rates previously reserved for political basket cases like Italy, has had precious few wins recently. Torpedoing the free trade agreement, or at least delaying it further, would have been proof that the lame-duck French president still had some sway on the European stage.  Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right? | Darek Delmanowicz/EPA Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. That’s all come to nought. After this latest defeat, expect more lambasting of the French president in the national media, as Macron continues his slow-motion tumble down from the Olympian heights of the Élysée Palace.  Donald Trump Coming within days of the U.S. mission to snatch Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and put him on trial in New York, the Mercosur deal finally shows that Europe has no shortage of soft power to work constructively with like-minded partners — if it actually has the wit to make use of it smartly.  Any trade deal should be seen as a win-win proposition for both sides, and that is just not the way U.S. President Donald Trump and his art of the geopolitical shakedown works. It also has the incidental benefit of strengthening his adversaries — including Brazilian President and Mercosur head honcho Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — who showed extraordinary patience as he waited on the EU to get their act together (and nurtured a public bromance with Macron even as the trade talks were deadlocked). China  China has been expanding exports to Latin America, particularly Brazil, during the decades when the EU was negotiating the Mercosur trade deal. The EU-Mercosur deal is an opportunity for Europe to claw back some market share, especially in competitive sectors like automotive, machines and aviation. The deal also strengthens the EU’s hand on staying on top when it comes to direct investments, an area where European companies are still outshining their Chinese competitors. Emmanuel Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/EPA More politically, China has somewhat succeeded in drawing countries like Brazil away from Western points of view, for instance via the BRICS grouping, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and other developing economies. Because the deal is not only about trade but also creates deeper political cooperation, Lula and his Mercosur counterparts become more closely linked to Europe. The Amazon rainforest  Unfortunately, for the world’s ecosystem, Mercosur means one thing: burn, baby, burn. The pastures that feed Brazil’s herds come at the expense of the nation’s once-sprawling, now-shrinking tropical rainforest. Put simply, more beef for Europe means less trees for the world. It’s not all bad news for the climate. The trade deal does include both mandatory safeguards against illegal deforestation, as well as a commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement for its signatories. 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

BRUSSELS — The EU is seeking reassurances from Ukraine over future financial support to the country after a far-reaching corruption probe revealed a $100 million kickback scheme tied to its energy sector. Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies revealed this week that some of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s close associates were allegedly involved in the plot, prompting the Ukrainian president to issue sanctions against his former business partner and dismiss several senior ministers. That’s divided Kyiv’s European partners. For many, the revelations are a positive sign of the continued independence of Ukraine’s anti-graft watchdogs. Some, however, want concrete commitments from the country that show it is serious about preventing similar incidents in the future. “The endemic corruption” revealed in the probe is “revolting,” said one EU official, who, like others for this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely on the sensitive matter, and “won’t help” the country’s reputation with international partners. “It will mean [the European] Commission will surely have to reassess how it spends” funds on Kyiv’s energy sector, the official argued, adding that in the future, “Ukraine will have to give more attention and transparency in how it spends cash.” “We expect Ukraine to press ahead with anti-corruption measures and reforms in its own country,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Thursday, after calling Zelenskyy.  The president “needs to comfort everyone,” added an EU government official, “most likely with a plan on how to fix corruption.” The scandal comes at a delicate time for Ukraine. The country is facing a €41 billion budget crunch next year, while EU countries are currently deadlocked over unblocking a €140 billion reparations loan for Kyiv from frozen Russian assets. Ukraine’s foreign and energy ministries didn’t respond to POLITICO’s request for comment. But on Wednesday, Zelenskyy said “there must be maximum integrity in the energy sector in absolutely all processes,” adding: “I support … every investigation carried out by law enforcement and anti-corruption officials.” HIGH WIRE ACT So far, the scandal — the worst to hit Zelenskyy since he took office in 2019 — is not prompting allies to threaten to cut aid to Ukraine. On Thursday, the EU confirmed it would earmark €6 billion in new aid for Ukraine. Earlier this week, Estonia officially approved an additional €150,000 for Kyiv’s energy sector, while Germany is reportedly considering a €3 billion top-up for the country next year. As they met at the G7 on Wednesday and flocked to Warsaw for the EU-Ukraine Investment Conference on Thursday, allies sought to put on a united front. In recent months, Moscow has ramped up its bombing campaign on Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure, pummelling its gas production facilities and coal power plants. | Maxym Marusenko/NurPhoto via Getty Images “It is painful to see how corruption affects the energy sector, especially as winter approaches and Russia continues its brutal attacks on energy infrastructure,” said Lithuanian Energy Minister Žygimantas Vaičiūnas. But we “stand firmly with the people of Ukraine — our support will not stop,” he told POLITICO. Ending aid for Kyiv’s battered energy sector would have a “terrible” impact ahead of this winter, said Aura Sabadus, a senior energy analyst specializing in eastern Europe at the ICIS energy consultancy. In recent months, Moscow has ramped up its bombing campaign on Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure, pummelling its gas production facilities and coal power plants. As a result, the country has secured €500 million in aid from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to buy up emergency gas imports. Behind closed doors, Ukraine’s EU backers are also wary that being too vocal could feed into its opponents’ narratives aimed at discrediting Kyiv and scuppering its efforts to join the bloc. “A wartime mafia network with countless ties to President Zelenskyy has been exposed,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a consistent critic of Ukraine, claimed on social media on Thursday. “This is the chaos into which the Brusselian elite want to pour European taxpayers’ money.” “By [highlighting] corruption scandals, they only give ammo to those like Hungary who are saying it is a corrupt nation,” said one EU diplomat. “Those who are opposed to Ukraine … will milk this for all it’s worth,” added a second diplomat. A former senior Ukrainian official said he expected Brussels to double down on making some funding conditional on reforms. “But the overall taboo on criticizing Ukraine in public will hold,” he said. CLEANING UP Ukraine’s defenders say the probe is limited to one company, arguing international backers shouldn’t punish the energy sector as a result. But some allies still want to see more reforms. Up until now, the investigation has largely focused on Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear energy company, accusing seven officials of manipulating contracts to extract kickbacks worth 10-15 percent of contract values. “There will be a cleansing and reset of Energoatom’s management,” Zelenskyy said Wednesday. In total, the Commission has granted “more than €3 billion” in energy-related aid to Kyiv since 2022, a spokesperson for the EU executive said. Around one tenth of that has been channeled through the Energy Community, an international organization that supplies Ukraine with in-kind energy equipment like transformers based on requests from Kyiv. In total, it has mobilized €1.5 billion in donations from Ukraine’s western partners. Energy Community Director Artur Lorkowski called the scandal “frustrating.” But at the Vienna-based organization, the corruption “risk is mitigated,” he said, since it retains “full control” over the coordination, purchase and post-arrival monitoring of the equipment — with procurement handled by an independent agency in the U.K. The EBRD, meanwhile, has allocated €3.1 billion in aid to Ukraine’s energy sector, a bank spokesperson said, around a third of its total support since 2022. Its “very robust procurement requirements,” including open tenders and direct payments to contractors, they said, gives the bank a “very high degree of comfort” for future donations. Still, others argue there is still a long way to go in eliminating corruption in the sector. Going forward, Ukraine should make its energy sector more transparent and give reassurances to its European partners that their money will be well spent, two EU diplomats and two European government officials said. “This is also a chance to cleanse and rebuild stronger,” said Vaičiūnas, the minister. Andrii Zhupanyn, an MP from Zelenskyy’s ruling Servant of the People party who sits on the parliament’s energy committee, agreed. Kyiv should start by improving the corporate governance of state-owned energy firms and strengthening their supervisory boards, he said, adding: “More transparency is necessary for sure.” Tim Ross, Jamie Dettmer and Veronika Mekoverova contributed to this report.

LONDON — Donald Trump’s war against the media has gone international.  Britain’s public service broadcaster has until 10 p.m. U.K. time on Friday to retract a 2024 documentary that he claims did him “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” — or potentially face a $1 billion lawsuit (nearly £760 million). It’s the U.S. president’s first notable battle with a non-American media organization. The escalation from Trump comes as the BBC is already grappling with the double resignations this past weekend of two top executives, Director General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness, amid the growing furor sparked by the release last week of an internal ombudsman’s report criticizing the Trump program as well as the BBC’s coverage of the Gaza war. Trump told Fox News he believes he has “an obligation” to sue the corporation because “they defrauded the public” and “butchered” a speech he gave. POLITICO walks you through the possible road ahead — and the potential pitfalls on both sides of the Atlantic.  WHY IS TRUMP THREATENING TO SUE?  The U.S. president is objecting to the broadcaster’s reporting in a documentary that aired on Panorama, one of the BBC’s flagship current affairs shows, just days before the U.S. presidential election.  The program included footage from Trump’s speech ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, which was selectively edited to suggest, incorrectly, that he told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.”   But those lines were spoken almost an hour apart, and the documentary did not include a section where Trump called for supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”  “I really struggle to understand how we got to this place,” former BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman told POLITICO. “The first lesson almost you’re taught as a broadcast journalist is that you do not join two bits of footage together from different times in a way that will make the audience think that it is one piece of footage.” The U.S. president’s legal team claimed the edit on the footage was “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory” and caused him “to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”  BBC Chair Samir Shah apologized on Monday for the “error of judgment” in the edit. Trump’s lawyers said in their letter that they want a retraction, an apology and appropriate financial compensation — though their client’s subsequent comments suggest that may not satisfy him at this point. DO TRUMP’S CLAIMS STAND A CHANCE?  Trump’s lawyers indicated in their letter that he plans to sue in Florida, his home state, which has a two-year statute of limitations for defamation rather than the U.K.’s one-year limit — which has already passed.  The U.S. president is objecting to the broadcaster’s reporting in a documentary that aired on Panorama, one of the BBC’s flagship current affairs shows, just days before the U.S. presidential election. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images To even gain a hearing, the U.S. president would first need to prove the documentary was available there. The broadcaster confirmed the Panorama episode was not shown on the global feed of the BBC News Channel, while programs on iPlayer, the BBC’s catchup service, were only available in the U.K.  The Trump team’s letter to the BBC, however, claimed the clip was “widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums” reaching tens of millions of people worldwide — a key contention that would need to be considered by any judge deciding whether the case could be brought.  U.S. libel laws are tougher for claimants given that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. In U.S. courts, public figures claiming to have been defamed also have to show the accuser acted with “actual malice.”  The legal meaning doesn’t require animosity or dislike, but instead an intent to spread false information or some action in reckless disregard of the truth — a high burden of proof for Trump’s lawyers.  American libel standards tend to favor publishers more than those in Britain, so much so that in recent decades public figures angry about U.S. news reports have often opted to file suit in the U.K. That trend even prompted a 2010 U.S. law aimed at reining in so-called libel tourism. Yet Trump’s legal team is signaling it will argue that since the full video of Trump’s 2021 speech was widely available to the BBC, the editing itself amounted to reckless disregard and, therefore, actual malice.  BBC Chair Samir Shah apologized on Monday for the “error of judgment” in the edit. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images “The BBC’s reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements,” his lawyers wrote.  However, a court battle wouldn’t be without risks for Trump. Prateek Swaika, a U.K.-based partner with Boies Schiller Flexner, said pursuing litigation “could force detailed examination and disclosure in connection” with Trump’s Jan. 6 statements —  potentially creating “more reputational damage than the original edit.”  COULD THE BBC SETTLE?  Trump has a long history of threatening legal action, especially against the press, but has lately had success in reaching out-of-court agreements with media outlets — including, most notably, the U.S. broadcasters ABC and CBS.  Trump’s latest claim is the flipside of his $20 billion suit against CBS’s “60 Minutes” over an interview with then-Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, which Trump claimed was deceptively edited to make Harris look good and therefore amounted to election interference.  CBS settled for $16 million in July, paying into a fund for Trump’s presidential library or charitable causes, though the network admitted no wrongdoing. The settlement came as CBS’ parent company, Paramount, was pursuing a corporate merger that the Trump administration had the power to block — and after Trump publicly said he thought CBS should lose its broadcast license, which is also granted by the federal government. The president doesn’t hold that same sway over the BBC, though the organization does have some U.S.-based commercial operations. Some news organizations have also opted to fight rather than settle past Trump claims, including CNN, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Some news organizations have opted to fight rather than settle past Trump claims, including CNN, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images “Litigation is always a commercial decision and it’s a reputational decision,” said Coleman, suggesting settlement talks may look appealing compared to fighting a case that could “hang over the heads of the BBC for many, many years, like a dark cloud.”  COULD THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT STEP IN?  Despite the BBC’s standing as a state broadcaster, the Labour government has so far taken a hands-off approach, perhaps unsurprisingly given Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ongoing efforts to woo Trump on trade. No. 10 said on Tuesday that the lawsuit threat was a matter for the BBC, though Starmer subsequently reiterated his support for it generally. “I believe in a strong and independent BBC,” Starmer said at prime minister’s questions Wednesday. “Some would rather the BBC didn’t exist … I’m not one of them.” Perhaps eager to stay in Trump’s good books, the PM’s ministers have also avoided attacking the president and instead walked a diplomatic tightrope by praising the BBC in more general terms. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy on Tuesday reiterated the government’s vision of the BBC as a tool of soft power. The BBC documentary did not include a section where Trump called for supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” | Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images “At a time when the line between fact and opinion, and between news and polemic, is being dangerously blurred, the BBC stands apart,” Nandy told MPs Tuesday. “It is a light on the hill for people here and across the world.”  WHO WOULD FUND ANY PAYOUT?  The BBC is funded by the country’s license fee, which requires any household that has a TV or uses BBC iPlayer to pay £174.50 a year (some people are exempt from paying). In the year ending March 2025, this accounted for £3.8 billion of the corporation’s overall £5.9 billion in income. The remaining £2 billion came from activities including commercial ventures. Any licence fee revenue that funded a settlement with Trump would likely go down very poorly as a political matter, given looming tax increases in the U.K. as well as the U.S. president’s significant unpopularity with British voters. The corporation lost a €100,000 (£88,000) libel case earlier this year against former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams after a Dublin jury found the broadcaster falsely connected him to a 2006 Irish Republican Army killing, showing there is a precedent for politicians winning cases.  Responding to a question as to whether license fee payers would fund any legal sum, Starmer said Wednesday: “Where mistakes are made, they do need to get their house in order and the BBC must uphold the highest standards, be accountable and correct errors quickly.” Singer Cliff Richard also received £210,000 in damages and around £2 million in legal costs from the BBC in 2019 over a privacy case, though those payments were within the scope of its legal insurance. MIGHT AN ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT WORK?  The BBC has paid damages to a foreign head of state before, including compensating then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2019 for an incorrect report. But Trump technically faces rules on accepting foreign payments. There’s every chance that a settlement to Trump could pass through another vehicle, as the with the CBS agreement. ABC’s settlement involved $15 million to a Trump-related foundation alongside $1 million for his legal fees.  Trump’s former attorney Alan Dershowitz suggested just that on Tuesday, saying if the corporation made a “substantial” contribution to a charity “that’s relevant to the president might put this thing behind them.”