BRUSSELS — Ukraine’s war chest stands to get a vital cash injection after EU envoys agreed on a €90 billion loan to finance Kyiv’s defense against Russia, the Cypriot Council presidency said on Wednesday. “The new financing will help ensure the country’s fierce resilience in the face of Russian aggression,” Cypriot Finance Minister Makis Keravnos said in a statement. Without the loan Ukraine had risked running out of cash by April, which would have been catastrophic for its war effort and could have crippled its negotiating efforts during ongoing American-backed peace talks with Russia. EU lawmakers still have some hurdles to clear, such as agreeing on the conditions Ukraine must satisfy to get a payout, before Brussels can raise money on the global debt market to finance the loan — which is backed by the EU’s seven-year budget. A big point of dispute among EU countries was how Ukraine will be able to spend the money, and who will benefit. One-third of the money will go for normal budgetary needs and the rest for defense. France led efforts to get Ukraine to spend as much of that as possible with EU defense companies, mindful that the bloc’s taxpayers are footing the €3 billion annual bill to cover interest payments on the loan. However, Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian nations pushed to give Ukraine as much flexibility as possible. The draft deal, seen by POLITICO, will allow Ukraine to buy key weapons from third countries — including the U.S. and the U.K. — either when no equivalent product is available in the EU or when there is an urgent need, while also strengthening the oversight of EU states over such derogations. The list of weapons Kyiv will be able to buy outside the bloc includes air and missile defense systems, fighter aircraft ammunition and deep-strike capabilities. If the U.K. or other third countries like South Korea, which have signed security deals with the EU and have helped Ukraine, want to take part in procurement deals beyond that, they will have to contribute financially to help cover interest payments on the loan. The European Parliament must now examine the changes the Council has made to the legal text. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images The text also mentions that the contribution of non-EU countries — to be agreed in upcoming negotiations with the European Commission — should be proportional to how much their defense firms could gain from taking part in the scheme. Canada, which already has a deal to take part in the EU’s separate €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons scheme, will not have to pay extra to take part in the Ukraine program, but would have detail the products that could be procured by Kyiv. NEXT STEPS Now that ambassadors have reached a deal, the European Parliament must examine the changes the Council has made to the legal text before approving the measure. If all goes well, Kyiv will get €45 billion from the EU this year in tranches. The remaining cash will arrive in 2027. Ukraine will only repay the money if Moscow ends its full-scale invasion and pays war reparations. If Russia refuses, the EU will consider raiding the Kremlin’s frozen assets lying in financial institutions across the bloc. While the loan will keep Ukrainian forces in the fight, the amount won’t cover Kyiv’s total financing needs — even with another round of loans, worth $8 billion, expected from the International Monetary Fund. By the IMF’s own estimates, Kyiv will need at least €135 billion to sustain its military and budgetary needs this year and next. Meanwhile, U.S. and EU officials are working on a plan to rebuild Ukraine that aims to attract $800 billion in public and private funds over 10 years. For that to happen, the eastern front must first fall silent — a remote likelihood at this point. Veronika Melkozerova contributed reporting from Kyiv.

BRUSSELS — Hungary says it has asked the European Union’s top court to annul a new law banning the import of Russian gas into the bloc, filing the challenge within hours of the new law taking effect. “Today, we took legal action before the European Court of Justice to challenge the REPowerEU regulation banning the import of Russian energy and request its annulment,” Hungary’s Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Péter Szijjártó said on X. Member countries agreed to the outright ban on Russian gas late last year in response to the country’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. The law passed despite Hungary’s opposition. Szijjártó said Hungary’s case was based on three arguments. “First, energy imports can only be banned through sanctions, which require unanimity. This regulation was adopted under the guise of a trade policy measure,” he said. “Second, the EU Treaties clearly state that each member state decides its choice of energy sources and suppliers. “Third, the principle of energy solidarity requires the security of energy supply for all member states. This decision clearly violates that principle, certainly in the case of Hungary.” Slovakia has also said it will challenge the law in court.

BRUSSELS — The “presidential” way Ursula von der Leyen runs the European Commission is hurting Europe, according to a former member of her team. “I have the impression that commissioners are now largely silenced,” Nicolas Schmit, who was the commissioner for jobs and social rights in the first von der Leyen Commission, told POLITICO in an interview. “The system, how the College is organized — very centralized, call it presidential or whatever system — is not good for the College, it’s not good for the Commission, and it is not good for Europe in general,” he said. Schmit represented Luxembourg in the Commission from 2019 to 2024 and was the Party of European Socialists’ lead candidate in the 2024 EU election. The Socialists had hoped he could stay on for a second term, but Luxembourg’s government instead nominated Christophe Hansen, from von der Leyen’s own center-right European People’s Party. Schmit is now the president of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies, the PES think tank. While it is unusual for sitting commissioners to openly criticize von der Leyen, several former members of the College have done so. Michel Barnier used his memoir to accuse his former boss of presiding over an “authoritarian drift” in the Commission. Another former commissioner, Thierry Breton, also said von der Leyen wielded too much power, arguing that Europe “was not built to have an empress or an emperor.” As a commissioner, Schmit belonged to a faction that challenged some of von der Leyen’s moves from within, including the appointment of a close ally as envoy for small businesses — a move that the European Parliament criticized for a lack of transparency. He also accused the Commission of lacking long-term vision and strategic planning. “Did we have a real strategic debate on Europe in the world, which was already a different world from the one we knew before? We did not have a real strategic approach, a real strategy,” he said of von der Leyen’s first term. A Commission spokesperson declined to comment. On U.S. relations, Schmit criticized the Commission for not publicly defending former commissioner Breton, who was handed a travel ban by Washington over what it views as unfair efforts to regulate American social media and tech giants. Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told POLITICO at the time that the College of Commissioners agreed to provide Breton with legal and financial support. Breton was the commissioner who pushed through and helped enforce the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a piece of regulation designed to enforce content moderation policies on large online platforms. Schmit said the laws that the U.S. is unhappy about — regulating digital services and digital markets — were adopted by all 27 commissioners, including von der Leyen, and not by Breton alone. Thierry Breton was the commissioner who pushed through and helped enforce the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a piece of regulation designed to enforce content moderation policies on large online platforms. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA “This is the point where we should have shown more solidarity and said ‘no, it’s not one, it is all of us.’ But you know, courage is not always shared, including in political spheres,” he said. Schmit also took aim at the Commission’s deregulation push, which seeks to slash red tape in areas ranging from technology to environment policy through so-called omnibus packages. He said that although it can take too long to come up with laws, “in just one moment, you can issue this anti-legislation or try to draw back the whole thing.” He said this was “not a good way” to deal with the issue of reducing bureaucracy. Other figures on the center-left have echoed the criticism. Iratxe García — leader of the Socialists & Democrats group in the Parliament — has likened the deregulation drive to something straight out of the Donald Trump playbook. The European Ombudsman said in November that the Commission’s handling of the omnibus process had “procedural shortcomings” amounting to “maladministration,” citing the compressed timelines and the speed with which the reforms were drafted. The Commission has consistently justified the omnibus packages as simplification measures meant to boost competitiveness and cut administrative burdens on businesses. Nicholas Vinocur contributed to this report.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Saturday accused the U.S., Israel and Europe of exploiting Iran’s economic crisis to incite unrest and “tear the nation apart,” following nationwide protests over soaring inflation and rising living costs. U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and European leaders “provoke, create division, and supplied resources, drawing some innocent people into this movement,” Pezeshkian said in a state TV broadcast, according to media reports. Pezeshkian added that the unrest was not merely a social protest but a coordinated effort to sow division. “Everyone knows that the issue was not just a social protest,” he said. The protests, which erupted at the end of 2025 after a sharp decline of the Iranian economy, were met with an increasingly brutal government crackdown, including mass arrests, killings, and a near-total internet shutdown. Rights organizations say thousands have been killed or detained. The U.N. Human Rights Council held an emergency session, noting that the violence against protesters in recent weeks is the deadliest since the 1979 Iranian revolution. In Washington, Trump has repeatedly promised the protesters that “help is on the way,” while Israeli forces have increased their regional presence. In recent weeks, Trump has advocated for “new leadership” in Iran and warned of potential military action in response to the crackdown. The European Union on Thursday designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization following the crackdown. “Repression cannot go unanswered,” EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas wrote on X. “The EU already has sweeping sanctions in place on Iran — on those responsible for human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation activities and Tehran’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine — and I am prepared to propose additional sanctions in response to the regime’s brutal repression of protesters,” she told POLITICO earlier this month. 

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

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. “

SHANGHAI — China has lifted sanctions it imposed almost five years ago on a group of serving British parliamentarians who criticized Beijing’s record on human rights. Nine British citizens, including five MPs and two members of the House of Lords, were sanctioned after speaking out, including about what campaigners allege is a genocide against the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang. Prime Minister Keir Starmer told broadcasters on Friday that he had secured the move from Chinese President Xi Jinping in three hours of talks in Beijing on Thursday. He told the BBC: “I did raise it. And the response of the Chinese as a result of our discussions is that the restrictions no longer apply. And the President Xi said to me, that means that all parliamentarians are free to travel to China. “That rather vindicates my approach because that’s only because we’re here, that we have had the engagement.” However, Downing Street later clarified that the move referred to “restrictions on parliamentarians.” Several other groups including academics have also previously been sanctioned by China. Officials stressed that Britain did not offer anything as a quid pro quo for the move, and that Britain is not lifting any sanctions on Chinese officials in turn. Ahead of the announcement, however, the group of parliamentarians issued a punchy joint statement saying they would “rather remain under sanction indefinitely than have our status used as a bargaining chip to justify lifting British sanctions on those officials responsible for the genocide in Xinjiang.” “We would reject any deal that prioritises our personal convenience over the pursuit of justice for the Uyghur people,” the group, which includes Loughton, former Conservative Leader Iain Duncan Smith, and Deputy House of Commons Speaker Nusrat Ghani said.

BRUSSELS — The European Union is poised to list the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization following a brutal crackdown against protesters that has claimed thousands of lives in recent weeks, top diplomat Kaja Kallas told reporters on Thursday. “I also expect that we agree on listing the Iran Revolutionary Guard on the terrorist list,” Kallas said on her way into a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels. “This will put them on the same footing with al Qaeda, Hamas, Daesh. If you act as a terrorist, you should also be treated as a terrorist.” Kallas added that the move, which will require unanimous support from the EU’s 27 member countries, came in response to reports of brutal repression against protesters who took to the streets in dozens of Iranian cities to voice dissatisfaction with the clerical regime in Tehran.  The expected move sends a “clear message that if you are suppressing people, it has a price and you will be sanctioned for this,” added Kallas, who was previously prime minister of Estonia. If the Revolutionary Guard is listed as a terror group, it will mark a ramping up of the European Union’s pressure against Tehran, coming on top of plans to sanction more than two dozen individuals and entities linked to the repression of protesters or Iran’s support of Moscow in its war against Ukraine. Designating the Revolutionary Guard, which has tens of thousands of personnel and is a major branch of Iran’s armed forces, also points to a significant shift in European capitals’ positions, as securing unanimous support will require countries such as France and Italy, both previously opposed to the move, to come on board.  On Wednesday, France dropped its opposition to the terror listing. “The unwavering courage of the Iranians, who have been the target of this violence, cannot happen in vain. This is the reason why we will today take European sanctions against those responsible,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told reporters on Thursday. Rome also switched camps in the lead-up to the summit, citing the brutality of Iran’s crackdown, and Madrid now also supports the designation, per a statement shared with POLITICO by the Spanish foreign ministry. Ahead of the foreign ministers’ gathering, Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel said recent footage emerging from Tehran documenting the brutal crackdown had crossed “a big line” for EU countries. The exact number of those killed in the crackdown is difficult to confirm due to an internet blackout, but estimates start at around 6,000 and could be much higher, he said. The U.S. designated the Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization in 2019 and has repeatedly pressed the EU to follow suit. U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned “time is running out” for the regime and that a “massive Armada” was “moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose” toward the country. Gabriel Gavin, Zoya Sheftalovich and Tim Ross contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — An identity tool that underpins the digital lives of Dutch people and has partly fallen into American hands is prompting the country to reconsider its reliance on U.S. technology. In the Netherlands, almost every citizen regularly uses the online identification tool DigiD to book a doctor’s appointment, buy a house or access online public services. With a Dutch supplier of the tool in the process of being acquired by a U.S. technology company, that’s prompting concerns that the Netherlands is giving away critical technology at a moment of heightened sensitivity around the country’s wholesale use of American services. As Dutch lawmakers in the parliament’s digital affairs committee met Tuesday to debate the issue, they received a petition signed by 140,000 people calling on the government to block the acquisition. “If the Dutch government does something that [U.S. President Donald] Trump doesn’t like, he can shut down our government with one push of a button,” the petition reads. “That’s a big danger.”  The debate over DigiD has put the spotlight on a topic that has been simmering for a while.  With the Netherlands a long-time proponent of the transatlantic relationship, Dutch society is built on U.S. technology and IT services — as is the country’s government. That’s now seen as a glaring security issue as Trump fires off threats toward Europe.  Two-thirds of the domain names of Dutch governments, schools and other critical companies rely on at least one U.S. cloud provider, research by the Dutch public broadcaster showed Sunday, with Microsoft the frontrunner.  “We are the most Microsoft-loving country of the whole world,” said Bert Hubert, a Dutch cybersecurity expert and former intelligence watchdog. “The Dutch government uses more Microsoft than the U.S. government.” OMNIPRESENT Questions over DigiD’s relationship with U.S. technology started in early November.  U.S. cloud provider Kyndryl, a recent spin-off of the well-known U.S. tech company IBM, announced at the time that it would acquire Dutch cloud provider Solvinity. That company doesn’t own the online identification tool DigiD but provides the platform on which it runs.  To Dutch people, DigiD is ubiquitous in their lives. “Every time you want to rent a house in the Netherlands, make an appointment with the doctor or do something in the hospital, you have to go through DigiD,” Hubert said.  Potential U.S. control over such an omnipresent tool triggered fierce pushback.  Last year the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, ditched Microsoft as a service provider amid concerns about U.S. sanctions targeting the court. | Erik S. Lesser/EPA Putting vital digital infrastructure in American hands “raises Dutch vulnerability for outages, manipulation or even blackmail,” a group of experts, among them Hubert, said in a letter their lawyers sent mid-January to the ministry service in charge of scrutinising acquisitions.   The acquisition could also endanger the security of Dutch people’s sensitive personal data, lawmakers and experts argue. “The risk is that it falls under the U.S. Cloud Act, which says that it doesn’t matter if data is hosted on EU soil, but if the service is done by a U.S. company, then the [U.S.] government can ask for that data,” said Barbara Kathmann, lawmaker of the GreenLeft-Labour party and expert in digital affairs.  The Dutch Economy Ministry is now looking into the deal and whether it raises national security concerns, a ministry representative said in the Dutch parliament last week. Kyndryl said in a statement that it “always lived up to relevant Dutch and European requirements for the security of customers’ data and will continue to comply with existing obligations of Solvinity to its customers.” CAUTIONARY TALE The Solvinity acquisition has put the spotlight on a topic that has been simmering for a while.  Last year the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, ditched Microsoft as a service provider amid concerns about U.S. sanctions targeting the court.  The ICC case and the Solvinity acquisition should serve as a cautionary tale for Europe to start mapping its reliance on the U.S. and nurturing European alternatives, said Sarah El Boujdaini, a lawmaker for the centrist D66 — the party of the incoming prime minister Rob Jetten. “We need to have a wider look at where our most vulnerable dependencies are, where we need to take back control, and where we need to procure more from European companies,” said El Boujdaini.  That should include a particular focus on government services and services that people access continually, several interviewees said. “Traditional government services should not be outsourced to other countries, especially not countries that are willing and have shown to be capable of weaponizing those dependencies,” said Dutch liberal European Parliament lawmaker Bart Groothuis.  “Of course [the government] should make use of the services of ICT providers,” said Hubert, “but what you should not do is give a part of your society that you depend on 24 hours a day to a company that can be acquired.”

BRUSSELS — The EU is closing in on adding Iran’s feared paramilitary forces to its list of terrorist organizations in response to a brutal crackdown on protests, after France dropped its opposition to the move. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could be added to the list if it secures support at a meeting of the bloc’s foreign affairs ministers in Brussels on Thursday, where they are set to impose other sanctions on the Iranian regime. If added to the list, the branch of the Iranian military would be in the same category as al Qaeda and Daesh. Several countries, including France and Italy, had opposed the move, arguing it would close the limited diplomatic channels with Tehran. However, France, which was the staunchest opponent of the terror designation, on Wednesday evening dropped its opposition, the Elysée Palace told POLITICO. Earlier, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said that “it is essential to combat the impunity of the perpetrators of this bloody repression.” Rome changed camps in the lead-up to the summit, citing the brutality of the Iranian crackdown, and Madrid now also supports the move, according to a statement shared with POLITICO by the Spanish foreign ministry. Designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terror group would require unanimous support from the EU’s 27 countries. The latest footage leaking out of Tehran of the brutal crackdown had crossed “a big line” for EU countries, said Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel, “so hopefully we will see some movement” on the Revolutionary Guard terror designation at Thursday’s meeting. “At least it will be something that’s on the table.” The exact number of those killed in the crackdown is difficult to confirm due to an internet blackout, but estimates start at around 6,000 and could be much higher, he said. Before dropping its opposition, Paris had cautioned that designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terror group may harm French interests and undercut the leverage it could use to try to rein in the theocratic government. For European countries with embassies in Tehran, one EU diplomat said, the Revolutionary Guard would be “among the main interlocutors” with the regime, so banning contact with its personnel would be difficult to manage. The diplomat was granted anonymity to speak freely. According to Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington, the Revolutionary Guard “is the state within the state.” He added: “They are integrated into the highest parts of the regime and involved in many of the things the West cares about; the nuclear program, the missiles, Iran’s regional activities.” One of the arguments against putting the Revolutionary Guard on the terror list was fear of potential reprisals. Iran has repeatedly used a strategy of arresting Europeans to use as bargaining chips in international diplomacy, including former EU official Johan Floderus, who was released from the notorious Evin Prison in 2024. Paris has secured the release from Evin of two of its nationals — Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris — who are now under house arrest at the French Embassy in Tehran. “We need to send a strong signal,” van Weel said. The Revolutionary Guard “is the glue and the backbone holding this regime together, directing most of the violence, being in charge of most of the economic activity, whilst the rest of the country is in poverty, so I think it’s a key enabler of the atrocities that we’ve seen happening not only in Iran but also in the region,” he added. Separately, ministers meeting Thursday are expected to approve asset freezes and visa bans on 21 Iranian individuals and entities over the human rights violations, and a further 10 over Tehran’s supply of weapons to Russia for its war on Ukraine. The U.S. designated the Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization in 2019 and has repeatedly pressed the EU to follow suit. U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned “time is running out” for the regime and that a “massive Armada” was “moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose” toward the country. “Like with Venezuela, it is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary,” Trump said, referring to the U.S. operation to capture Nicolás Maduro. He added that he hoped Tehran would “Come to the Table” to negotiate a deal to abandon its nuclear weapon ambitions. Clea Caulcutt contributed to this article.