BRUSSELS — Europeans should eat less meat and farms must be taxed for their planet-warming pollution if the bloc is to reach its climate goals, the EU’s scientific advisers argue in a set of far-reaching recommendations that are unlikely to get a warm welcome from farmers.  In a 350-page report published Wednesday, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change also calls on the EU to scrap farm subsidies for climate-damaging practices, arguing sweeping measures are necessary to reduce agriculture’s contribution to global warming. To aid farmers, they propose scaling up financial support to help them transition toward greener alternatives as well as aid to cope with increasing droughts and climate disasters.  Yet environmental policies that so much as touch on agriculture have become politically toxic in recent years, with Brussels and EU capitals reluctant to address farm emissions in the face of large-scale tractor protests and intense lobbying campaigns.  Still, sticking with business as usual isn’t an option, said the board’s chair Ottmar Edenhofer.  “In order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 within the EU, the sector has to contribute to emissions reduction,” he said.  “And if we do this in a smart way during the transition process, in a gradual way, pricing the emissions but also using the revenues to support the transition … I think this is a beneficial pathway for the whole sector and for the whole of society.”  While politically sensitive, the board’s recommendations are not revolutionary.  Plenty of scientists and even the World Bank have in recent years urged governments to ensure their citizens eat less meat and to cut environmentally harmful subsidies in order to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from food, which account for about a third of all planet-warming pollution.  And Denmark is on track to become the first country to tax agricultural pollution after Copenhagen and farmers’ associations agreed in 2024 to impose a carbon price on livestock emissions from 2030.  Yet the board’s reports carry weight. The independent consortium of scientists is tasked by EU law with providing guidance on climate policy; past recommendations have proven influential, with the board’s 2023 advice on setting a 2040 emissions-slashing target of at least 90 percent playing a major role in leading the EU to enshrine this goal in law last week.  The entire food system, from farming to consumption to waste management, produces 31 percent of the bloc’s emissions. | Quentin Top / Hans Lucas / AFP via Getty Images The recommendations on agriculture also come just as the EU drafts new policies that could incorporate some of the board’s advice — from the bloc’s next long-term budget and an upcoming revision of the EU farm subsidy program, to a slate of new green legislation designed to meet the new 2040 target, and a plan to increase resilience to climate disasters. CAPPING CAP PAYMENTS The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), a behemoth that absorbs around a third of the EU’s budget, is a key target of the report. The current framework contains provisions around climate and biodiversity, but has failed to sufficiently slash greenhouse gas emissions. The entire food system, from farming to consumption to waste management, produces 31 percent of the bloc’s emissions. More than half of that occurs during food production — think super-polluting methane released by cows as well as fertilizer use, tractor fuel and more.  The CAP, the scientists warn, still incentivizes climate-harming practices through its vast subsidy system. The EU should therefore gradually phase out payments that are tied to livestock production, a type of income support for farmers that consumes 5 percent of the current CAP budget, they say.  In fact, they add, the EU should reconsider the entire idea of subsidies based on farmland size, worth 39 percent of the CAP budget or more than €100 billion, as they “incentivize agricultural production over other land use” such as forestry, and thus drive up emissions. On top of reforming the CAP, the EU should introduce a carbon pricing mechanism covering agriculture, building on the Emissions Trading System architecture that has successfully halved industry and power plant pollution, the scientists say.  But they argue that agricultural carbon pricing should consist of three separate systems — one each for energy-related farm emissions, non-CO2 pollution such as methane, and agricultural emissions and carbon dioxide removals from land.  The EU also needs to address consumer demand to tackle food emissions, the board says. In particular, Europeans eat too much red meat, driving up methane pollution.  The scientists recommend the EU set up national guidelines for climate-friendly diets and set mandatory standards for marketing and sustainability labeling of food to push consumers toward greener choices.  CLIMATE-PROOFING FARMS To sweeten the deal for farmers, the board suggests that with the money saved from a reformed CAP and generated through carbon pricing, the EU should support them in the transition toward climate-friendly practices and in adapting to a warmer world.  Whether the promise of funding would be enough to placate farming lobbies that have launched massive tractor protests across Europe at any hint of additional burdens for farmers is uncertain. Political appetite for green legislation has also declined in both Brussels and capitals amid a shift toward industry- and security-focused policies.  As part of its Green Deal, the European Commission in 2020 launched a Farm to Fork Strategy designed to make the bloc’s food system more environmentally friendly. The plan, however, was effectively abandoned following a backlash from lobby groups and conservative politicians.  Political appetite for green legislation has also declined amid a shift toward industry- and security-focused policies. | Marijan Murat/picture alliance via Getty Images Only last week, EU institutions struck a deal to ban vegetarian products from using certain meat-related terms.  But Edenhofer believes that there is political space to enact the board’s recommendations, pointing to Denmark’s tripartite deal establishing a carbon tax — an agreement between the government, farmers and environmental groups — as a hopeful example.  “We acknowledge that this is very complicated, but … we need a regulatory system which incentivizes emission reductions in the agri-food system,” Edenhofer insisted.

Presented as an instrument aimed at strengthening farmers’ position in the food supply chain, the targeted revision of the Regulation on the Common Market Organisation was intended to address structural challenges within the sector. Yet, as the trilogue approaches, the debate has gradually crystallized around a different issue: restricting certain denominations used for plant-based products. This shift deserves careful scrutiny. How would limiting widely understood terms concretely improve farmers’ position in the food chain? The connection between the original objective of the proposal and the measure currently under discussion remains insufficiently substantiated. If the stated ambition is to reinforce resilience and fairness within the agricultural chain, it is legitimate to question whether terminology restrictions meaningfully contribute to that goal. > How would limiting widely understood terms concretely improve farmers’ > position in the food chain? In a letter addressed to Members of the European Parliament, GAIA calls for maintaining the current regulatory framework and rejecting the proposed restrictions, whether concerning existing plant-based products or future products derived from cellular agriculture. The objective is clear: to preserve coherent and proportionate regulation that protects consumers without weakening an innovative and strategic sector. Behind a word: a market and jobs Europe holds a leading position in several innovative segments of plant-based alternatives. The European market was estimated at €2.7 billion in 2024 and continues to structure a dynamic industrial ecosystem across member states. Companies operating in this field invest significantly in research and development, expand production capacities, create qualified jobs and actively contribute to the industrial dynamism of the single market. This ecosystem extends well beyond food production. It supports technological innovation, specialised logistics, supply chain transformation and new forms of industrial cooperation. It contributes to the modernization of the European agri-food sector and strengthens the competitiveness of the internal market. In a period where industrial policy and strategic autonomy are central to the European agenda, introducing regulatory uncertainty risks undermining a competitive advantage built on sustained investment and innovation. > The issue therefore goes beyond semantics: it concerns the stability and > predictability of the European regulatory framework. “Behind denominations lies a real European economy: jobs, innovation and competitiveness.” Restricting widely understood terms would entail compliance costs, packaging adjustments, potential litigation and a risk of divergent interpretations across member states. The issue therefore goes beyond semantics: it concerns the stability and predictability of the European regulatory framework — factors that are essential for long-term investment decisions and business planning. Cellular agriculture: anticipate without destabilizing The same reasoning applies to products derived from cellular agriculture. Although not yet present on European shelves, these technologies hold significant potential for future development. Estimates suggest that the cultivated protein value chain could represent between €15 billion and €80 billion in new markets, with the potential to create between 25,000 and 90,000 jobs in Europe. The European Union already counts 47 companies active in cultivated meat out of 174 worldwide, as well as 61 out of 158 companies operating in precision fermentation and biomass technologies. This demonstrates that Europe is not a passive observer but an active participant in emerging food technologies. Yet European investment in novel foods currently represents less than 1 percent of total agri-food innovation funding. In this context, regulatory stability becomes a decisive factor in consolidating emerging technological leadership and retaining investment within the EU. Introducing additional denomination restrictions at such an early stage may send an unintended signal of unpredictability. For innovative sectors that depend on long development cycles and significant capital expenditure, clarity and proportionality in regulation are structural conditions for growth. “Europe can be demanding. It cannot afford to be unpredictable in sectors where it seeks to innovate.” Consumer protection: a framework already validated Consumer protection is a legitimate objective and a cornerstone of EU law. However, it operates within an already established and functional legal framework. The Food Information to Consumers Regulation requires clear, accurate and non-misleading labeling. Annex VI explicitly provides that the absence or substitution of animal-derived ingredients must be indicated. In case C-438/23, the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that this framework provides sufficient safeguards against misleading practices. “The Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed it: EU law already protects consumers.” > A plant-based product clearly identified as such does not constitute > linguistic ambiguity for the vast majority of consumers. The central argument in favor of additional restrictions rests on an assumption of consumer confusion. Yet available evidence indicates that consumers clearly distinguish animal-based products from plant-based alternatives when origin and composition are explicitly stated. Labeling transparency, rather than categorical prohibitions, remains the key instrument for ensuring informed choice. A plant-based product clearly identified as such does not constitute linguistic ambiguity for the vast majority of consumers. The debate should not be trivialized, but one principle deserves emphasis: regulation must protect without infantilizing. Suggesting that a single word, taken in isolation, would systematically mislead consumers underestimates their ability to read labels, understand context and make informed decisions. “Protecting consumers does not mean presuming a lack of discernment.” More than 600 companies and organizations from 22 member states have called for maintaining the current framework, underlining the importance of preserving single market coherence and avoiding regulatory fragmentation detrimental to innovation and competitiveness. Europe can reconcile consumer protection, legal certainty and competitiveness. It can do so by fully enforcing existing rules and targeting actual abuses rather than introducing general prohibitions that generate costs, legal uncertainty and unintended economic consequences. Ultimately, the question is not whether a word is liked or disliked. It is whether, in a context marked by major challenges related to industrial competitiveness, climate transition, economic security and geopolitical tension, this is where the union should concentrate its political and regulatory capital.

ANTWERP, Belgium — European leaders can’t just blame the red tape merchants in Brussels for the EU’s economic weakness and must slash back their own national bureaucracies and protectionist rulebooks. That’s the message European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is delivering as she heads into Thursday’s European Council retreat in the castle of Alden Biesen in the Belgian countryside for a meeting dedicated to reviving flagging EU competitiveness. Fears about Europe’s waning industrial power relative to the U.S. and China are reaching fever pitch, but the EU institutions in Brussels are at loggerheads with national capitals such as Berlin and Rome over who to blame for bureaucratic overkill. Sensing Thursday’s Council meeting could turn into an ambush, with European leaders ganging up to bash Brussels for overburdening industry with rules on everything from chemicals to cattle, von der Leyen hit back in two pre-Council speeches on Wednesday. “We must also look at the national level … the extra layers of national legislation that just make businesses’ lives harder and create new barriers in our single market,” she said in her first speech, to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. She was identifying long-standing grievances that Europe is still awash with regulatory hurdles that prevent the 27 member countries from effectively working as one joint commercial zone. These complaints range from national barriers thwarting the formation of a Continent-wide capital market, through to non-recognition of professional qualifications across EU countries and labeling rules that prevent resale of products abroad. Offering one frustrating example of failure in the internal market, she explained that a truck can carry 44 tonnes on Belgian roads, but only 40 tonnes on French roads, creating problems for cross-border trade. “We proposed legislation to harmonize this. Almost two years later, it is still under discussion,” she complained. Von der Leyen has already introduced 10 omnibuses — legislation-slashing packages designed to reduce the burden of red tape, part of a plan to save €15 billion a year. But she is insistent that others aren’t doing their part. In her second speech, at an industrial summit in Antwerp, she tackled the same theme, underlining dysfunction among the national capitals. Offering one frustrating example of failure in the internal market, she explained that a truck can carry 44 tonnes on Belgian roads, but only 40 tonnes on French roads, creating problems for cross-border trade. | Sebastian Kahnert/picture alliance via Getty Images “Shipping waste from one member state to another should be efficient, easy, and quick. But different national practices … make it extremely complex. And some member states, for example, only accept correspondence by fax. It can take several months for traders to get a green light from the authorities depending on the different rules of the different member states,” she said. STILL BASHING BRUSSELS If you ask the capitals who’s to blame for overregulation strangling business, it’s Brussels. In the run-up to the Alden Biesen meeting, Germany and Italy drafted a document insisting the EU should “limit itself” in pursuit of new rules. “New legislative proposals that are expected to introduce [an] excessive additional administrative burden, should be withdrawn or not be tabled in the first place,” Rome and Berlin said in the joint paper. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz doubled down on that line, deflecting responsibility for his country’s sluggish growth onto Brussels in a speech Wednesday night. When it comes to cutting red tape, “I know that these institutions in the European Union are not as fast as they should be,” he said. “We are fighting against the machinery which is working and working, and producing and producing new regulations.” “The bottleneck for us is parts of the European Commission and unfortunately parts of European Parliament,” he continued. “I’m hearing that Ursula von der Leyen and others are making the way open to reduce red tape fundamentally. But we are frankly, we are not there where we should be. And this is hard work, but we are doing that work.” One European diplomat, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said capitals attacking Brussels “is a part of the game” — even if that “blame game” stood in the way of delivering concrete changes to improve the economy. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz doubled down on that line, deflecting responsibility for his country’s sluggish growth onto Brussels in a speech Wednesday night. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images “National policymakers want to stick to their very national solutions that are, of course, undermining the internal market,” said Georg Zachmann, an economic policy expert at the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. The result, he said, is “a power struggle that leads to this bureaucratization” as the EU and its member countries try to out-legislate each other. Merz’s arguments are indeed receiving short shrift in the Brussels institutions. One EU official was quick to point the finger at capitals: “Leaders need to give a clear signal to their capitals to work on bringing down barriers and cutting red tape. From the EU institutions’ side, it is important to see what else can be done to avoid different interpretations of our decisions. This will be part of the discussions in Alden Biesen.” LONG FRUSTRATION The frustration from the European Commission has been building for a long time. The EU’s industry commissioner, Stéphane Séjourné, has emerged as a key enforcer of closer internal market integration, coming up against skeptical national governments. In a letter sent to capitals late last year, seen by POLITICO, the French centrist politician warned the bloc’s actions “need to be complemented with urgent and concrete actions by all Member States to champion the Single Market and, not least, to address specific barriers at national level.” As part of that drive, Séjourné mapped out a list of the “Terrible Ten” barriers harming the single market and called on capitals to give prior notice of legislation that could create new obstacles. In addition, he said, governments should “name a high-level Single Market Sherpa” who can act as a point person for the critical policy area in Brussels amid fears it too often falls through the gaps between ambassadors and ministers. The EU’s industry commissioner, Stéphane Séjourné, has emerged as a key enforcer of closer internal market integration, coming up against skeptical national governments. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images “Discussions on the single market have lasted long enough,” Séjourné told POLITICO ahead of Thursday’s talks. “The Commission has done its job identifying single market barriers, country by country, and sector by sector. But it is now for member states to take their responsibilities and actively remove those barriers. We will chase them as far, and fast, as we need to.” A second national diplomat said those pushing the Commission to act “have a bit of a point” because the bloc’s executive has powers to strengthen the single market it is not using. The reason it isn’t using them, though, the diplomat admitted, is because “they are afraid of political backlash if they touch some national holy cows, like Italian beaches or French skiing instructors,” referring to two notorious cases of alleged protectionism. “It’s a bit like this Spider-Man meme … The Commission will continue to propose legislation as the main solution to any problem they identify. But I’m not sure member states as a group are much better.”

For a year, federal judges grappling with President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda have looked askance at his administration, warning of potential or, in rarer cases, outright violations of their orders. But in recent weeks, that drumbeat of subtle alarm has metastasized into a full-blown clarion call by judges across the country, who are now openly castigating what they say are systematic legal and constitutional abuses by the administration. “There has been an undeniable move by the Government in the past month to defy court orders or at least to stretch the legal process to the breaking point in an attempt to deny noncitizens their due process rights,” warned U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, a Minnesota-based Clinton appointee. His docket has been inundated as a result of Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s large-scale deportation campaign in the Twin Cities. The object of judges’ frustration has routinely been Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the vanguard of Trump’s push to round up and expel millions of noncitizens as quickly as possible. The agency’s unprecedented strategy to mass detain people while their deportation proceedings are pending has flooded the courts with tens of thousands of emergency lawsuits and resulted in a breathtaking rejection by hundreds of judges. “ICE is not a law unto itself,” Judge Patrick Schiltz, the chief judge on Minnesota’s federal bench, said Wednesday in a ruling describing staggering defiance by ICE to judges’ orders — particularly ones requiring the release of detained immigrants. He estimated, conservatively, that the agency had violated court orders by Minnesota judges 96 times this month alone. Though the national focus has been on Minnesota, judges in other states have grown exasperated as well: — Judge Christine O’Hearn, a Biden appointee in New Jersey, blasted the administration’s defiance of her order to release a man from ICE custody without any conditions, noting that they instead required him to submit to electronic monitoring. “Respondents blatantly disregarded this Court’s Order,” O’Hearn wrote in a Tuesday order. “This was not a misunderstanding or lack of clarity; it was knowing and purposeful,” she added. — Judge Roy Dalton, a Florida-based Obama appointee, threatened sanctions against Trump administration attorneys for what he says was presenting misleading arguments in support of the administration’s deportation policies. “Don’t hide the ball. Don’t ignore the overwhelming weight of persuasive authority as if it won’t be found. And don’t send a sacrificial lamb to stand before this Court with a fistful of cases that don’t apply and no cogent argument for why they should,” he wrote in a Monday ruling. — Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee in Rhode Island, ruled Tuesday that the administration defied her orders regarding the location of an ICE detainee, who was moved to a facility in Massachusetts that McElroy had deemed “wholly unsuitable.” “It seems clear that the Court can conclude that the [administration] willfully violated two of this Court’s orders and willfully misrepresented facts to the Court,” McElroy wrote. — Judge Angel Kelley, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, said ICE moved a Salvadoran woman out of Maine without warning and in violation of an order to keep her in place. That relocation caused the woman to miss her hearing to seek protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where she said she feared domestic abuse. “The Court notes that ICE signing its own permission slip, citing its own operational needs as reason for the transfer, offers little comfort or justification for ignoring a Federal Court Order,” Kelley wrote Wednesday. — Judge Sunshine Sykes, a Biden appointee in Los Angeles, threatened to hold administration officials in contempt for what she labeled “continued defiance” of her order providing class action relief to immigrants targeted for detention. — Judge Donovan Frank, a Clinton appointee in Minnesota, described a “deeply concerning” practice by ICE to race detainees to states with more favorable judges, which he said “generally suggest that ICE is attempting to hide the location of detainees.” Throughout the first year of Trump’s second term, there have been high-profile examples in which judges have accused ICE and the Department of Homeland Security of violating court orders — from Judge James Boasberg’s command in March to retain custody of 137 Venezuelans shipped to El Salvador without due process, to Judge Paula Xinis’ April order for the administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia after his illegal deportation. But the sheer volume of violations judges are now describing reflects an intensification of the mass deportation effort and a system ill-prepared to handle the influx. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson responded to questions about the complaints from judges by noting Schiltz backed off an initial plan to have ICE’s director, Todd Lyons, appear for a potential contempt proceeding. “If DHS’s behavior was so vile, why dismiss the order to appear?” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, labeling Schiltz — a two-time clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — an “activist judge.”“DHS will continue to enforce the laws of the United States within all applicable constitutional guidelines. We will not be deterred by activists either in the streets or on the bench,” she added. The surge in violations of court orders has been accompanied by signs that the Justice Department — like the court system — is simply overwhelmed by the volume of emergency cases brought by people detained in the mass deportation push. It’s led to mistakes, missed deadlines and even more frustration from judges, who themselves are buckling under the caseload. Ana Voss, the top civil litigator in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, apologized to U.S. District Judge Jerry Blackwell last week, noting that in the crush of cases her office has handled recently, she failed to keep the court updated on the location of a man the judge had ordered to be returned to Minnesota from Texas. “I have spent considerable time on this and other cases related to transfer and return issues over the past 3 days,” Voss said. Notably, Schiltz singled out Voss and her office for praise when he initially criticized ICE for its legal violations. He said the career prosecutors “have struggled mightily” to comply with court orders despite their leadership’s failure “to provide them with adequate resources.” When he itemized the violations Wednesday, Schiltz said it was likely ICE had violated more court orders in January than some agencies had in their entire existence. “This list,” he said, “should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law. “

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Keir Starmer escaped from all his domestic troubles by jetting off to China, so Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy was left to fend off questions from disgruntled MPs both in front of (and behind) him. Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch carried on rotating which frontbencher batted for the Conservatives, handing that dubious honor to Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith. Given his brief, er, business rates dominated. Hold my beer: Griffith led on the government’s U-turn watering down business rate costs for pubs, asking Lammy to confirm that more than 90 percent of “retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will get nothing.” The deputy PM, you may not be surprised to read, swerved that interrogation and said it is “always a pleasure to hear from the co-author of the mini-budget” — Liz Truss’ economic proposals, which led to her swift departure from No 10. Drink: The PM may be out of the country, but it wouldn’t be PMQs without a mention of Britain’s shortest serving prime minister — the person Labour thinks is still the Tories’ biggest electoral liability nearly three-and-a-half years after she left office. Last orders: The shadow business secretary bigged up his experience, unsurprisingly, in business, contrasting that with Lammy’s 25 years “manufacturing grievance.” Nonetheless, Griffith claimed the help is “too little, too late” with striking visual imagery, arguing “our high streets are bleeding out and the chancellor’s handing out a box of sticking plasters.” Out of the till: Lammy may have had little notice that Griffith was stepping into the blue hot seat, but his aides did their homework. The deputy PM ripped into Griffith opposing the minimum wage. Best of enemies: Griffith had plenty of barbs up his sleeve too, labeling his opposite number “left behind Lammy” for not getting a cushty trip to Beijing. But the already depleted Tory benches were even quieter than usual, making it harder for the PMQs novice’s lines to land. That said: He managed a good line about “Andy from Manchester having his dreams crushed by Labour,” a reference to the Greater Manchester mayor getting blocked from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election over fears he might challenge Starmer for the top job (though, of course, Labour would deny that). “It is our party that is getting stronger,” Griffith cried unironically to shrieks of laughter from the government benches. Indeed, the polls beg to differ. Crossing the line: As usual with these exchanges, the substance of support (or lack thereof) for businesses was lost after about question two. Lammy concluded his responses by highlighting that Badenoch praised the art of queuing during her appearance on the long-running BBC “Desert Island Discs” radio program. It was too easy for Lammy to argue Tory MPs took her at her word after three defections just this month. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Rugby MP John Slinger continued meeting his ultra-loyalist stereotype by commending Labour’s record on the NHS and slipping in criticism of Reform’s health policies. Lammy couldn’t have been happier, joyously reiterating the point made by every Labour politician that the NHS is only safe under them. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Lammy 8/10. Griffith 6/10. It was unsurprising for the Tories to lead on a U-turn, given there were many to choose from. However, despite business rates being Griffith’s area of expertise, he did not make his point land. Good lines from both sides meant the session became a battle of which voices could shout the loudest. Given the government’s parliamentary majority, there could only be one winner.

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: The year that was. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch’s last hurrah of 2025 saw everyone’s favorite duo row about the turkey Labour’s record over the last 12 months — and who caused the nightmare before Christmas. Pull the other one: Badenoch wished everyone a festive break in the season of goodwill — but then the gloves came off. She raised the PM’s own frustration at pulling levers but struggling to get change (Labour’s favorite word). “Does he blame himself or the levers?” Cutting. Starmer used the free airtime to rattle through his achievements, stressing “I’ve got a whole list … I could go on for a very long time.” Comparisons to Santa write themselves. Jobbing off:  “The Prime Minister promised economic growth, but the only thing that’s grown is his list of broken promises,” Badenoch hit back. This list analogy was really gaining momentum. She lambasted rising unemployment under Labour, yet the PM was able to point to lower inactivity under his watch and, of course, mentioned the boost of falling inflation this morning. Backhanded compliment: Starmer, no doubt desperate for a rest, used the imminent break to “congratulate” Badenoch for breaking a record on the number of Tories defecting to Reform UK. “The question is who’s next,” he mused, enjoying the chance to focus on the Conservatives’ threat to their right, rather than Labour’s troubles to its left. Clucking their tongues: Outraged at her Shadow Cabinet getting called non-entities, Badenoch kept the seasonal attacks going by labeling the Cabinet a “bunch of turkeys.” She said Starmer was no longer a caretaker PM but the “undertaker prime minister.” Bruising stuff. Last orders: Amid all the metaphorical tinsel and bells of holly, Starmer adopted a lawyerly tone on Labour’s support for pubs (even though many greasy spoons have banned Labour MPs) and condemned ongoing industrial action by resident doctors. But the Tory leader went out on (possibly) a new low by arguing Starmer “doesn’t have the baubles” to ban medical staff from striking and said all Labour MPs want “is a new leader.” Grab the mince pies: The prime minister’s speechwriters clearly did their homework with Starmer, not a natural on the humor front, comparing the Tories to “The Muppets Christmas Carol” and joking that all the defections meant Badenoch would be “left Home Alone.” Penalty shootout: Hold the homepage — PMQs actually delivered a news line. The PM confirmed the government issued a licence to transfer to Ukraine £2.5 billion of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich’s cash from his sale of Chelsea football club. Starmer told Abramovich to “pay up now,” or he’d be taken to court. Teal bauble: The end-of-year vibes allowed Starmer to deploy a festive jibe of advice to Reform UK: “If mysterious men from the East appear bearing gifts, this time, report it to the police!” Labour just won’t let ex-Reform UK Leader in Wales Nathan Gill’s conviction for pro-Russian bribery go. Even Nigel Farage, sat up above in the VIP public gallery, had a chuckle, admitting “that’s quite funny” to nearby hacks. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Tipton and Wednesbury MP Antonia Bance commended the government’s efforts to support the West Midlands by striking the U.S. trade deal, ripping into Reform. The PM just couldn’t resist another attack line against his party’s main opponent. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 8/10. Badenoch 5/10. The final PMQs exchange was never going to be a serious exchange, given the opportunity to make Christmas gags. The Tory leader followed a scattergun approach, highlighting the various broken promises, but none landed a blow. The PM, doubtless relieved to bag a few weeks away from the interrogation, brushed them off and used his pre-scripted lines to deliver a solid concluding performance.

A non-alcoholic beverage may not be sold as gin, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled today in a case that could have wide-ranging consequences for a growing sector catering to health-conscious consumers. The case involved a drink being sold as Virgin Gin Alkolholfrei. The Luxembourg court ruled that wording violated an EU law that says gin should be produced with ethyl alcohol and juniper berries, with a minimum alcoholic strength by volume of 37.5 percent.  The law is meant to protect gin producers from competition and consumers against confusion, the court said in a statement. The gin judgment comes as plant-based meat products gear up for a potential labeling fight, depending on whether a controversial “veggie burger ban” makes it through inter-institutional negotiations. A German association for combating unfair competition brought the case against PB Vi Goods, which manufactures the gin copycat. A German court referred the case to the Court of Justice, which found a “clear prohibition in EU law” because the beverage does not contain alcohol. The product can be sold, but not as “gin,” regardless of whether or not it uses terms like “non-alcoholic” or “virgin.” The top EU court has upended consumer trends in the past: it ruled against calling plant-based products “milk,” “cream,” “butter,” “cheese” or “yogurt”’” in 2017.

STRASBOURG — Less than 24 hours after the European Parliament voted to ban plant-based foods across the EU from using names like “burger,” “sausage” or “steak” — the institution’s canteen in Strasbourg served up a “vegan burger” as its healthy lunch option. The prohibition was slipped into a wider reform of EU farm rules via an amendment spearheaded by French lawmaker Céline Imart of the conservative European People’s Party. While supporters pitched it as a win for transparency and recognition for livestock producers, NGOs blasted it as “just dumb” and a blow to sustainable diets. The timing of Thursday’s lunch menu was not lost on lawmakers and their aides, several of whom messaged POLITICO in uproar or mockery.  “A day after the highly controversial ban, it seems like the chefs in the canteen have decided upon some civil disobedience,” quipped Dutch Green MEP Anna Strolenberg. “Let’s see what daredevils still order a veggie b***r.” By early afternoon, the burgers were sold out. “They hid them,” joked one Parliament official. A second official said the canteen had simply run out and insisted menus are “established in advance by the contractors in full respect with legislations in place.” Staffers were split on quality. “Wait, is this just veggies on a bun? If they’re taking the piss, then I think it’s hilarious,” said an assistant to a liberal MEP. Lowie Kok, spokesperson for the Greens, was lukewarm on the quality. “For a seasoned vegan, I’m used to waaay worse in the canteen. In Brussels, they can’t do anything properly vegan. So this is … edible,” he said. Another aide, shown a photo, cracked: “EPP was right, all the way.” Despite the lunchtime comedy, the deep-seated political fault lines are evident on the prohibition. Even inside Imart’s own political family, there were dissenters. EPP chief, Manfred Weber, distanced himself from the ban, calling it unnecessary. Herbert Dorfmann, the group’s point person on agriculture, went further and voted against the measure. “I don’t really think there is a danger that somebody wants to buy a meat sausage and gets a veggie sausage,” he told POLITICO. “We should have some trust in the consumer.” Asked if he tried the burger, he replied:  “Not a fan of the canteen.”

LONDON — The case against two men accused of spying for China collapsed because the government refused to label Beijing a “threat to the national security of the U.K.,” the director of public prosecutions said Tuesday evening. In a rare intervention, Stephen Parkinson, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, said his agency tried “over many months” to obtain evidence from the government that China posed a national security threat but was not successful. Christopher Cash, 30, a former researcher for a Conservative MP, and Christopher Berry, a 33-year-old teacher, were due to face trial this month on charges of breaching the Official Secrets Act between December 2021 and February 2023 by spying for China, which they strongly denied. The charges were dropped last month after the CPS said the “evidential standard for the offence indicted is no longer met.” Writing to the chairs of the Commons’ Home and Justice Select Committees, Parkinson said a 2024 High Court decision meant an “enemy” under the Official Secrets Act includes “a country which represents at the time of the offence, a threat to the national security of the U.K.” Despite receiving further witness statements in light of the judgment, “none of these stated that at the time of the offense China represented a threat to national security.” Parkinson added: “By late August 2025 it was realized that this evidence would not be forthcoming.” Even though the CPS does not usually comment on the factors leading to a case collapsing, Parkinson said he was “now able to provide further information to contextualize the position” as “government briefings have been provided commenting on the evidential situation.” CRUCIAL TIMING Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a former DPP, said any evidence must be based on the previous government’s stance towards China because that was when the offenses were allegedly committed. “If you’re prosecuting someone on the basis of what the situation was in 2023, you have to prosecute them on the basis of what the situation was in 2023,” the prime minister told reporters on a plane to India. “You can’t change the situation afterwards and then prosecute people on the basis of a changed situation.” The Conservatives previously referred to Beijing as a  “systemic competitor” and an “epoch-defining and systemic challenge,” but never as a threat. Environment Minister Emma Hardy insisted the CPS dropped the case independently of the government and rejected accusations of pressure about labeling China an enemy or that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell had anything to do with the decision. “We’re constantly re-evaluating our relationship with every single country,” Hardy told Sky Wednesday about not calling China a threat. “At the moment, our consideration is that China is a challenge.”

When a Donald Trump-appointed judge delivered a stinging rejection of his effort to put National Guard troops on the ground in Portland, the president had some regrets. “I wasn’t served well by the people that pick judges,” Trump vented Saturday. His gripe came four months after he similarly sounded off about the “bad advice” he got from the conservative Federalist Society for his first-term judicial nominations — a reaction to a ruling, backed by a Trump-appointed judge, rejecting his power to impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners. “This is something that cannot be forgotten!” he said on Truth Social. While Trump and his allies have spent all year leveling pointed attacks at Democratic judicial appointees, labeling them rogue insurrectionists and radicals, the president is increasingly facing stark rejections from people he put on the bench — including at least one from his second term. The brushbacks have come mainly from district judges, who occupy the lowest level of the three-tiered federal judiciary. So far, it’s been a different story among Trump’s three most powerful judicial appointees: Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. That troika, along with the high court’s three other conservatives, has handed Trump numerous short-term victories in emergency rulings this year, often lifting injunctions against Trump policies issued by district judges. The White House leaned into that bottom-line success in a statement to POLITICO that attributed Trump’s defeats to Democratic appointees and sidestepped questions about the defeats dealt by Trump’s own picks. “The Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings from far-left liberal activist judges,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. “The President will continue implementing the policy agenda that the American people voted for in November and will continue to be vindicated by higher courts when liberal activist judges attempt to intervene.” Trump allies also emphasize that district court judges tend to require the approval of home-state senators, leading presidents to nominate more moderate picks than they might otherwise in states dominated by the opposing party. Still, in some cases in which Trump-appointed judges have heard Trump-related cases, they have gone further than simply ruling against his policies. They have delivered sweeping warnings about the expansion of executive power, the erosion of checks and balances and have criticized his attacks on judges writ large. One Trump appointee rebuked the president and his allies for a “smear” campaign against the judiciary. “Although some tension between the coordinate branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system,” U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen wrote in a recent ruling, “this concerted effort by the Executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate.” Rulings against the administration by Trump-appointed judges have come in some of the most high-profile cases of Trump’s second term. Here’s a look at the most notable examples. NATIONAL GUARD CALL-UP U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a first-term Trump appointee in Oregon, ruled that Trump’s effort to put National Guard troops in Portland was “untethered” from reality and risked plunging the nation into an unconstitutional form of military rule. DEPORTING GUATEMALAN CHILDREN U.S. District Judge Tim Kelly, a first-term appointee in Washington, D.C., rejected the Trump administration’s claim that it was trying to reunite unaccompanied Guatemalan kids with their parents when it abruptly loaded hundreds of children onto buses and planes for a middle-of-the-night deportation effort. That explanation “crumbled like a house of cards,” he wrote, after the Guatemalan government contradicted the claim. Kelly blocked the immediate deportations, saying they appeared to violate the law. RESTRICTING THE AP’S WHITE HOUSE ACCESS U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden said the White House had unconstitutionally evicted the Associated Press from Oval Office events over its refusal to adopt Trump’s “Gulf of America” label. McFadden’s ruling was later put on hold by an appeals court. Notably, Trump has mischaracterized this ruling twice in recent days during public remarks, claiming that McFadden, a first-term appointee, not only sided with his restrictions on the AP but endorsed his relabeling of the Gulf of Mexico. Neither McFadden nor the appeals court reached such a conclusion. TRUMP’S TARIFF POWER Few issues are as central to Trump’s economic agenda as his power to levy tariffs at will against U.S. trading partners he claims are ripping off the country. But Timothy Reif, a judge he put on the U.S. Court of International Trade, joined two other judges in ruling that Trump lacked the legal power to impose such sweeping tariffs, a traditionally congressional authority. A federal appeals court later agreed with the panel, and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court. SUMMARY DEPORTATIONS UNDER THE ALIEN ENEMIES ACT Several Trump-appointed judges joined a nationwide legal rebuke of the president and his administration over efforts to abruptly deport Venezuelan nationals using Trump’s wartime authority under the Alien Enemies Act. U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. was the first to label the effort “unlawful.” Two other first-term Trump appointees, U.S. District Judges John Holcomb and Stephanie Haines, ruled that Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was legitimate but that the administration’s effort to speedily deport its targets violated their due process rights. RETURNING DANIEL LOZANO CAMARGO Among the targets of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act order was Daniel Lozano Camargo, a Venezuelan man who had been residing in Texas. Unlike others whom the administration abruptly sent to El Salvador under that order, Lozano Camargo was protected by a 2024 settlement requiring the government to resolve his pending asylum claim before deportation could occur. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a first-term Trump appointee in Maryland, ordered the administration to facilitate the man’s return to the United States — following the lead of her colleague on the Maryland bench, Obama appointee Paula Xinis, in the similar case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. MANDATORY DETENTION OF POTENTIAL DEPORTEES The Trump administration has sought to vastly expand the use of detention for immigrants facing deportation — seeking to deprive bond hearings for all potential deportees, even if they’ve spent decades living in the United States. Dozens of judges have found the abrupt shift illegal, saying the move is potentially subjecting millions of people to being locked up while they fight to remain in the United States. In recent days, several Trump appointees have joined their ranks. They include first-term appointees: Dominic Lanza of Arizona, Rebecca Jennings of the Western District of Kentucky and Eric Tostrud of Minnesota. Kyle Dudek of the Middle District of Florida, whom Trump appointed this term, was confirmed to the bench just two weeks before ruling against the administration. TARGETING THE MARYLAND BENCH Cullen’s stinging assessment of Trump and his allies’ attacks on judges came in a remarkable legal attack by the Trump administration against the entire federal district court bench in Maryland. The administration sued the judges there over a blanket policy to delay all urgent deportation cases for 48 hours to give the court a chance to act before litigants were deported. The administration said the rule infringed on executive power to execute immigration laws. But Cullen rejected the administration’s lawsuit as defective and the improper way to seek relief from an administrative process it disagreed with. OTHER REJECTIONS U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, another Washington, D.C.-based first-term Trump appointee, has turned down the administration on multiple fronts — including an effort by the Justice Department to use Trump’s pardon of Jan. 6 defendants to cover unrelated crimes. She also granted an injunction requiring the administration to disburse funds it had withheld from the National Endowment for Democracy. Another first-term Trump appointed judge, Mary McElroy of Rhode Island, repeatedly rebuked the administration in recent weeks for abrupt funding cuts to homelessness programs and public health grants. Last week, she blocked the administration from repurposing $233 million in FEMA grants from blue states over what those states said was punishment for refusing to assist with immigration enforcement.