Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is SAP SE * The advertisement is linked to advocacy on strengthening Europe’s digital sovereignty by promoting trusted cloud and AI adoption under EU law, harmonized regulation, accountable governance and openness to global innovation to enhance security, competitiveness and strategic autonomy. More information here.

The three parties that have formed the new Dutch minority government have pitched raising the European minimum age for social media to 15, according to coalition plans unveiled on Friday. With the move, the Netherlands is the latest country to push for a de facto social media ban at 15, following France’s example. The three Dutch parties — the centrist D66, the Christian Democrat CDA and the liberal VVD — will still need to seek support for their proposals, as they hold only 66 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament. The parties want an “enforceable European minimum age of 15 for social media, with privacy-friendly age verification for young people, as long as social media are not sufficiently safe,” they write in the plans. The current EU minimum age stands at 13. The coalition program also envisions a crackdown on screen time through prevention and health guidance, and stricter smartphone rules in schools, which will require devices to remain at home or in a locker. In June of last year, the previous Dutch government issued guidance to parents to wait until age 15 before allowing their children to use social media. Earlier this week, a bill to ban social media for users under 15 passed the French parliament’s lower chamber and could take effect in September. Australia paved the way by banning children from a range of platforms in December. The new Dutch government also is launching a push to become more digitally sovereign and to reduce “strategic dependencies” in areas such as cloud services and data. Eliza Gkritsi contributed to this report.

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 European Commission’s vice president Henna Virkkunen sounded the alarm about Europe’s dependence on foreign technology on Tuesday, saying “it’s very clear that Europe is having our independence moment.” “During the last year, everybody has really realized how important it is that we are not dependent on one country or one company when it comes to some very critical technologies,” she said at an event organized by POLITICO. “In these times … dependencies, they can be weaponized against us,” Virkkunen said. The intervention at the event — titled Europe’s race for digital leadership — comes at a particularly sensitive time in transatlantic relations, after U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent threats to take over Greenland forced European politicians to consider retaliation. Virkkunen declined to single out the United States as one of the partners that the EU must de-risk from. She pointed to the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as incidents that point to Europe’s “vulnerabilities.” She said the U.S. is a key partner, but also noted that “it’s very important for our competitiveness and for our security, that we have also our own capacity, that we are not dependent.” The Commission’s executive vice president for tech sovereignty swung behind the idea of using public contracts as a way to support the development of European technology companies and products. “We should use public procurement, of course, much more actively also to boost our own growing technologies in the European Union,” she said when asked about her stance on plans to “Buy European.” Those plans, being pushed by the French EU commissioner Stéphane Séjourné, in charge of European industy, to ensure that billions in procurement contracts flow to EU businesses, are due to be outlined in an upcoming Industrial Accelerator Act that has been delayed multiple times. “Public services, governments, municipalities, regions, also the European Commission, we are very big customers for ICT services,” Virkkunen said. “And we can also boost very much European innovations [and startups] when we are buying services.” Virkkunen is overseeing a package of legislation aimed at promoting tech sovereignty that is expected to come out this spring, including action on cloud and artificial intelligence, and microchips — industries in which Europe is behind global competitors. When asked where she saw the biggest need for Europe to break away from foreign reliance, the commissioner said that while it was difficult to pick only one area, “chips are very much a pre-condition for any other technologies.” “We are not able to design and manufacture very advanced chips. It’s very problematic for our technology customer. So I see that semiconductor chips, they are very much key for any other technologies,” she said.

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.

TikTok has closed a $14 billion deal establishing a U.S. subsidiary of the platform to avoid a ban, the company said Thursday. The new owners will include the U.S. private equity firm Silver Lake, Abu Dhabi-based artificial intelligence company MGX and Oracle, a tech giant co-founded by Larry Ellison, an ally of President Donald Trump. They will each hold a 15 percent stake in the U.S. joint venture. The deal allows TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company, ByteDance, to maintain a nearly 20 percent stake. The Dell Family Office, investment firm of Chair and CEO of Dell Technologies Michael Dell, is also an investor. Congress passed a law in April 2024 requiring the sale of TikTok to a U.S. buyer before Jan. 19, 2025, or banning it, citing national security concerns about the app’s ties to China. But Trump delayed the ban from taking effect five times last year while a deal was negotiated to divest the app to American owners. Trump signed an executive order in September approving the deal and giving the parties until Friday to formalize the terms. The deal matches an internal memo distributed by TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew last month, who said the agreement would be finalized by Thursday. The U.S. version will operate as an independent entity, governed by a seven-member board including TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, Oracle Executive Vice President Kenneth Glueck, Timothy Dattels, senior adviser of TPG Global; Mark Dooley, managing director at Susquehanna International Group; Silver Lake Co-CEO Egon Durban, DXC Technology CEO Raul Fernandez; and David Scott, chief strategy and safety officer at MGX. Adam Presser, head of operations and trust and safety at TikTok, will now serve as CEO of the joint venture. Trump praised the deal in a Truth Social post Thursday evening. “I am so happy to have helped in saving TikTok! It will now be owned by a group of Great American Patriots and Investors, the Biggest in the World, and will be an important Voice,” Trump wrote. Trump said in September that Chinese President Xi Jinping had agreed to the deal, but Chinese officials provided an ambiguous narrative, signaling that any deal would be a drawn out process. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the country “respects the wishes of enterprises” and welcomes them to reach “solutions that comply with Chinese laws and regulations and balance interests.” The president thanked Xi in his Truth Social post “for working with us and, ultimately, approving the Deal.” “He could have gone the other way, but didn’t, and is appreciated for his decision,” Trump wrote. Trump previously described the deal as a “qualified divestiture,” meaning the sale would fully sever ByteDance’s control over the platform and therefore make TikTok legal under the U.S. law. China hawks on Capitol Hill have championed this issue over national security concerns and fears that the Chinese-controlled app subjects users to government surveillance and content manipulation. While they’ve vowed to scrutinize the potential deal to ensure it adheres to the law, they seemed prepared to accept Trump’s claim the deal would resolve concerns over national security and control. Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the U.S. owners would have control over the app’s algorithm, which is at the heart of the platform’s success. “The U.S. company will have control over how the algorithm pushes content to users and that was a very important part of it,” Vance said during the September executive order signing in the Oval Office. “We thought it was necessary for the national security level element of the law.” According to the company release, the U.S. version will retrain and update the platform’s algorithm based on U.S. user data. Oracle will control the algorithm within its U.S. cloud environment. “President Trump got played by Xi Jinping. He got terrible advice from his staff on these negotiations. This isn’t the Art of the Deal, it’s the art of the steal. Xi Jinping can’t believe his luck,” Michael Sobolik, senior fellow at the right-leaning Hudson Institute and an expert on U.S.-China policy, told POLITICO.

BRUSSELS — The fight between Brussels and Washington over tech rules is officially high politics — and shows no sign of stopping in 2026.  Last week the United States sanctioned a former top European Commission official, alleging he was a “mastermind” of the bloc’s content moderation law. The travel ban was a sign the Trump administration is ramping up its attacks on what it calls Europe’s censorship regime.  The pressure puts Brussels between a rock and a hard place.  EU leaders like France’s Emmanuel Macron and European Parliament lawmakers dismissed the U.S. move as intimidation and even suggested considering counteraction, ramping up calls for Brussels to hold its ground and reduce the EU’s reliance on U.S. technology.  It suggests that U.S. pressure on the EU’s tech rules is now a full-blown transatlantic dispute of its own, rather than just a sideshow to trade talks, and requires an appropriate response. “The real response must be political,” said Italian Social Democrat lawmaker Brando Benifei, the European Parliament’s lead on relations with the U.S., in response to the American sanctions.  “Our sleepwalking leaders must wake up, because there’s no time left.” While the Commission condemned the U.S. move, its President Ursula von der Leyen offered a muted response, highlighting only the importance of freedom of speech in a post on X. ONLY THE START The U.S. move to impose a travel ban on Frenchman Thierry Breton, who served as the EU’s internal market chief from 2019 to 2024 and led the drafting of the Digital Services Act, marked an acceleration in the U.S. campaign against the EU’s tech rules.  Breton has borne the brunt of criticism over the EU’s tech rules, particularly following his public spat with U.S. President Donald Trump’s one-time ally, X owner Elon Musk. The tech billionaire appears to be back in the president’s good books after a bitter falling-out over the summer. A letter Breton sent in August 2024 to warn Musk ahead of an upcoming livestream featuring then-presidential candidate Trump was repeatedly shared by Trump loyalists after Breton was sanctioned.  Another four individuals were sanctioned, including two from German NGO HateAid, which Berlin’s regulators have said is a “trusted” organization to flag illegal content like hate speech.   The U.S. had previously mainly threatened the EU over its tech rules, or invoked them when the EU demanded concessions from Washington such as lower steel and aluminum tariffs in early December. But after the Commission crossed the Rubicon in early December and imposed its first-ever Digital Services Act fine on Musk’s X, Washington responded with the travel bans.  The EU executive has repeatedly said its enforcement of the DSA is not political, yet Washington insists it is nothing but.  Threats of travel restrictions from the U.S. have been trickling in since the summer, but the Commission has declined to say how it plans to protect its officials.  Both sides still have room — and face internal calls to escalate — in what is now a full-blown transatlantic dispute over the limits of free speech.  Just earlier this month, when the U.S. announced its intention to require social media disclosures from people hoping to enter the country on temporary visas, Commission chief spokesperson Paula Pinho insisted these were only plans and declined to comment on how it would protect its staff working on the DSA.  Pressured by journalists about the impact on staff working on digital rules, she said tech spokesperson Thomas Regnier had no plans to visit the U.S.  Still, the sanctions announced by the State Department may be only a warning shot.  The measures announced last week targeted a former Commission official, not someone currently in office. The U.S. still has many other tools in its arsenal, which U.S. politicians say it should use.  Missouri Republican Senator Eric Schmitt called for the use of Magnitsky sanctions, which are financial measures that can cause significant operational headaches including asset freezes and barring U.S. entities from trading with sanctioned entities.  While they are normally reserved for serious human rights violations like war crimes or the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the Trump administration has already used them to go after another person deemed to be a modern agent of censorship.  In July, the Treasury and State departments announced Magnitsky sanctions against Brazilian Judge Alexandre de Moraes, including for suppressing “speech that is protected under the U.S. Constitution.”  De Moraes has drawn the same criticism as EU officials from the Trump administration and its allies, including Musk.  COUNTERACTION The Commission also faces heat from the other side, with EU country leaders and European Parliament lawmakers demanding a more political response to the situation.  The EU’s tech rules have been a regular topic of debate at the Parliament’s plenary sessions, and several lawmakers have indicated the U.S. travel restrictions could be on the agenda for the January session.  German Greens lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky said the EU should not rule out considering some sort of counteraction.  “Europe must respond. It must raise pressure in the trade talks and consider measures against senior tech executives who actively support the U.S. administration agenda,” he said in a statement shared with POLITICO.  Breton himself accused the EU institutions of being “very weak” in an interview with TF1. Just before the break, in a rare joint address, MEPs from four political groups called for stronger action against U.S. Big Tech companies.  “The small fine against X is a good beginning, but it comes definitely too late, and it’s absolutely not enough,” said German Greens MEP Alexandra Geese. The socialists have tried to kick off a special inquiry committee to figure out if the Commission is strong enough in enforcing the DSA, although support from other groups is lacking.  The Commission has yet to announce its decisions on the meatier part of its DSA probe into X and other platforms.  Others see the U.S. sanctions as another warning to reduce reliance on U.S. technology and build up the EU’s own technological capacity.  “Lovely, but not enough,” Aurore Lalucq, a French MEP and chair of the economic affairs committee, quipped in response to the Commission’s condemnation of the U.S. sanctions.  “We need to build our independence now. It starts with our payment systems, a sovereign cloud, and an industrial policy for digital infrastructure and social networks.”

Venture capitalist Finn Murphy believes world leaders could soon resort to deflecting sunlight into space if the Earth gets unbearably hot. That’s why he’s invested more than $1 million in Stardust Solutions, a leading solar geoengineering firm that’s developing a system to reduce warming by enveloping the globe in reflective particles. Murphy isn’t rooting for climate catastrophe. But with global temperatures soaring and the political will to limit climate change waning, Stardust “can be worth tens of billions of dollars,” he said. “It would be definitely better if we lost all our money and this wasn’t necessary,” said Murphy, the 33-year-old founder of Nebular, a New York investment fund named for a vast cloud of space dust and gas. Murphy is among a new wave of investors who are putting millions of dollars into emerging companies that aim to limit the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth — while also potentially destabilizing weather patterns, food supplies and global politics. He has a degree in mathematics and mechanical engineering and views global warming not just as a human and political tragedy, but as a technical challenge with profitable solutions. Solar geoengineering investors are generally young, pragmatic and imaginative — and willing to lean into the adventurous side of venture capitalism. They often shrug off the concerns of scientists who argue it’s inherently risky to fund the development of potentially dangerous technologies through wealthy investors who could only profit if the planet-cooling systems are deployed. “If the technology works and the outcomes are positive without really catastrophic downstream impacts, these are trillion-dollar market opportunities,” said Evan Caron, a co-founder of the energy-focused venture firm Montauk Capital. “So it’s a no-brainer for an investor to take a shot at some of these.” More than 50 financial firms, wealthy individuals and government agencies have collectively provided more than $115.8 million to nine startups whose technology could be used to limit sunlight, according to interviews with VCs, tech company founders and analysts, as well as private investment data analyzed by POLITICO’s E&E News. That pool of funders includes Silicon Valley’s Sequoia Capital, one of the world’s largest venture capital firms, and four other investment groups that have more than $1 billion of assets under management. Of the total amount invested in the geoengineering sector, $75 million went to Stardust, or nearly 65 percent. The U.S.-Israeli startup is developing reflective particles and the means to spray and monitor them in the stratosphere, some 11 miles above the planet’s surface. At least three other climate-intervention companies have also raked in at least $5 million. The cash infusion is a bet on planet-cooling technologies that many political leaders, investors and environmentalists still consider taboo. In addition to having unknown side effects, solar geoengineering could expose the planet to what scientists call “termination shock,” a scenario in which global temperatures soar if the cooling technologies fail or are suddenly abandoned. Still, the funding surge for geoengineering companies pales in comparison to the billions of dollars being put toward artificial intelligence. OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, has raised $62.5 billion in 2025 alone, according to investment data compiled by PitchBook. The investment pool for solar geoengineering startups is relatively shallow in part because governments haven’t determined how they would regulate the technology — something Stardust is lobbying to change. As a result, the emerging sector is seen as too speculative for most venture capital firms, according to Kim Zou, the CEO of Sightline Climate, a market intelligence firm. VCs mostly work on behalf of wealthy individuals, as well as pension funds, university endowments and other institutional investors. “It’s still quite a niche set of investors that are even thinking about or looking at the geoengineering space,” Zou said. “The climate tech and energy tech investors we speak to still don’t really see there being an investable opportunity there, primarily because there’s no commercial market for it today.” AEROSOLS IN THE STRATOSPHERE Stardust and its investors are banking on signing contracts with one or more governments that could deploy its solar geoengineering system as soon as the end of the decade. Those investors include Lowercarbon Capital, a climate-focused firm co-founded by billionaire VC Chris Sacca, and Exor, the holding company of an Italian industrial dynasty and perhaps the most mainstream investment group to back a sunlight reflection startup. Even Stardust’s supporters acknowledge that the company is far from a sure bet. “It’s unique in that there is not currently demand for this solution,” said Murphy, whose firm is also supporting out-there startups seeking to build robots and data centers in space. “You have to go and create the product in order to potentially facilitate the demand.” Lowercarbon partner Ryan Orbuch said the firm would see a return on its Stardust investment only “in the context of an actual customer who can actually back many years of stable, safe deployment.” Exor, another Stardust investor, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Other startups are trying to develop commercial markets for solar geoengineering. Make Sunsets, a company funded by billionaire VC Tim Draper, releases sulfate-filled weather balloons that pop when they reach the stratosphere. It sells cooling credits to individuals and corporations based on the theory that the sulfates can reliably reduce warming. There are questions, however, about the science and economics underpinning the credit system of Make Sunsets, according to the investment bank Jeffries. “A cooling credit market is unlikely to be viable,” the bank said in a May 2024 note to clients. That’s because the temperature reductions produced by sulfate aerosols vary by altitude, location and season, the note explained. And the warming impacts of carbon dioxide emissions last decades — much longer than any cooling that would be created from a balloon’s worth of sulfate. Make Sunsets didn’t respond to a request for comment. The company has previously attracted the attention of regulators in the U.S. and Mexico, who have claimed it began operating without the necessary government approvals. Draper Associates says on its website that it’s “shaping a future where the impossible becomes everyday reality.” The firm has previously backed successful consumer tech firms like Tesla, Skype and Hotmail. “It is getting hotter in the Summer everywhere,” Tim Draper said in an email. “We should be encouraging every solution. I love this team, and the science works.” THE NEXT FRONTIER One startup is pursuing space-based solar geoengineering. EarthGuard is attempting to build a series of large sunlight deflectors that would be positioned between the sun and the planet, some 932,000 miles from the Earth. The company did not respond to emailed questions. Other space companies are considering geoengineering as a side project. That includes Gama, a French startup that’s designing massive solar sails that could be used for deep space travel or as a planetary sunshade, and Ethos Space, a Los Angeles company with plans to industrialize the moon. Both companies are part of an informal research network established by the Planetary Sunshade Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for the development of a trillion-dollar parasol for the globe. The network mainly brings together collaborators on the sidelines of space industry conferences, according to Gama CEO Andrew Nutter. “We’re willing to contribute something if we realize it’s genuinely necessary and it’s a better solution than other solutions” to the climate challenge, Nutter said of the space shade concept. “But our business model does not depend on it. If you have dollar signs hanging next to something, that can bias your decisions on what’s best for the planet.” Nutter said Gama has raised about $5 million since he co-founded the company in 2020. Its investors include Possible Ventures, a German VC firm that’s also financing a nuclear fusion startup and says on its website that the firm is “relentlessly optimistic — choosing to focus on the possibilities rather than obsess over the risks.” Possible Ventures did not respond to a request for comment. Sequoia-backed Reflect Orbital is another space startup that’s exploring solar geoengineering as a potential moneymaker. The company based near Los Angeles is developing a network of satellite mirrors that would direct sunlight down to the Earth at night for lighting industrial sites or, eventually, producing solar energy. Its space mirrors, if oriented differently, could also be used for limiting the amount of sun rays that reach the planet. “It’s not so much a technological limitation as much as what has the highest, best impact. It’s more of a business decision,” said Ally Stone, Reflect Orbital’s chief strategy officer. “It’s a matter of looking at each satellite as an opportunity and whether, when it’s over a specific geography, that makes more sense to reflect sunlight towards or away from the Earth.” Reflect Orbital has raised nearly $28.7 million from investors including Lux Capital, a firm that touts its efforts to “turn sci-fi into sci-fact” and has invested in the autonomous defense systems companies Anduril and Saildrone.” Sequoia and Lux didn’t respond to requests for comment. The startup hopes to send its first satellite into space next summer, according to Stone. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose aerospace company already has an estimated fleet of more than 8,800 internet satellites in orbit, has also suggested using the circling network to limit sunlight. “A large solar-powered AI satellite constellation would be able to prevent global warming by making tiny adjustments in how much solar energy reached Earth,” Musk wrote on X last month. Neither he nor SpaceX responded to an emailed request for comment. DON’T CALL IT GEOENGINEERING Other sunlight-reflecting startups are entering the market — even if they’d rather not be seen as solar geoengineering companies. Arctic Reflections is a two-year-old company that wants to reduce global warming by increasing Arctic sea ice, which doesn’t absorb as much heat as open water. The Dutch startup hasn’t yet pursued outside investors. “We see this not necessarily as geo-engineering, but rather as climate adaptation,” CEO Fonger Ypma said in an email. “Just like in reforestation projects, people help nature in growing trees, our idea is that we would help nature in growing ice.” The main funder of Arctic Reflections is the British government’s independent Advanced Research and Invention Agency. In May, ARIA awarded $4.41 million to the company — more than four times what it had raised to that point. Another startup backed by ARIA is Voltitude, which is developing micro balloons to monitor geoengineering from the stratosphere. The U.K.-based company didn’t respond to a request for comment. Altogether, the British agency is supporting 22 geoengineering projects, only a handful of which involve startups. “ARIA is only funding fundamental research through this programme, and has not taken an equity stake in any geoengineering companies,” said Mark Symes, a program director at the agency. It also requires that all research it supports “must be published, including those that rule out approaches by showing they are unsafe or unworkable.” Sunscreen is a new startup that is trying to limit sunlight in localized areas. It was founded earlier this year by Stanford University graduate student Solomon Kim. “We are pioneering the use of targeted, precision interventions to mitigate the destructive impacts of heatwave on critical United States infrastructure,” Kim said in an email. But he was emphatic that “we are not geoengineering” since the cooling impacts it’s pursuing are not large scale. Kim declined to say how much had been raised by Sunscreen and from what sources. As climate change and its impacts continue to worsen, Zou of Sightline Climate expects more investors to consider solar geoengineering startups, including deep-pocketed firms and corporations interested in the technology. Without their help, the startups might not be able to develop their planet-cooling systems. “People are feeling like, well wait a second, our backs are kind of starting to get against the wall. Time is ticking, we’re not really making a ton of progress” on decarbonization, she said. “So I do think there’s a lot more questions getting asked right now in the climate tech and venture community around understanding it,” Zou said of solar geoengineering. “Some of these companies and startups and venture deals are also starting to bring more light into the space.” Karl Mathiesen contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — European banks and other finance firms should decrease their reliance on American tech companies for digital services, a top national supervisor has said. In an interview with POLITICO, Steven Maijoor, the Dutch central bank’s chair of supervision, said the “small number of suppliers” providing digital services to many European finance companies can pose a “concentration risk.” “If one of those suppliers is not able to supply, you can have major operational problems,” Maijoor said. The intervention comes as Europe’s politicians and industries grapple with the continent’s near-total dependence on U.S. technology for digital services ranging from cloud computing to software. The dominance of American companies has come into sharp focus following a decline in transatlantic relations under U.S. President Donald Trump. While the market for European tech services isn’t nearly as developed as in the U.S. — making it difficult for banks to switch — the continent “should start to try to develop this European environment” for financial stability and the sake of its economic success, Maijoor said. European banks being locked in to contracts with U.S. providers “will ultimately also affect their competitiveness,” Maijoor said. Dutch supervisors recently authored a report on the systemic risks posed by tech dependence in finance. Dutch lender Amsterdam Trade Bank collapsed in 2023 after its parent company was placed on the U.S. sanctions list and its American IT provider withdrew online data storage services, in one of the sharpest examples of the impact on companies that see their tech withdrawn. Similarly a 2024 outage of American cybersecurity company CrowdStrike highlighted the European finance sector’s vulnerabilities to operational risks from tech providers, the EU’s banking watchdog said in a post-mortem on the outage. In his intervention, Maijoor pointed to an EU law governing the operational reliability of banks — the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) — as one factor that may be worsening the problem. Those rules govern finance firms’ outsourcing of IT functions such as cloud provision, and designate a list of “critical” tech service providers subject to extra oversight, including Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Microsoft and Oracle. DORA, and other EU financial regulation, may be “inadvertently nudging financial institutions towards the largest digital service suppliers,” which wouldn’t be European, Maijoor said. “If you simply look at quality, reliability, security … there’s a very big chance that you will end up with the largest digital service suppliers from outside Europe,” he said. The bloc could reassess the regulatory approach to beat the risks, Maijoor said. “DORA currently is an oversight approach, which is not as strong in terms of requirements and enforcement options as regular supervision,” he said. The Dutch supervisors are pushing for changes, writing that they are examining whether financial regulation and supervision in the EU creates barriers to choosing European IT providers, and that identified issues “may prompt policy initiatives in the European context.” They are asking EU governments and supervisors “to evaluate whether DORA sufficiently enhances resilience to geopolitical risks and, if not, to consider issuing further guidance,” adding they “see opportunities to strengthen DORA as needed,” including through more enforcement and more explicit requirements around managing geopolitical risks. Europe could also set up a cloud watchdog across industries to mitigate the risks of dependence on U.S. tech service providers, which are “also very important for other parts of the economy like energy and telecoms,” Maijoor said. “Wouldn’t there be a case for supervision more generally of these hyperscalers, cloud service providers, as they are so important for major parts of the economy?” The European Commission declined to respond.

This article is also available in French and German. President Donald Trump denounced Europe as a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people in an interview with POLITICO, belittling the traditional U.S. allies for failing to control migration and end the Russia-Ukraine war, and signaling that he would endorse European political candidates aligned with his own vision for the continent. The broadside attack against European political leadership represents the president’s most virulent denunciation to date of these Western democracies, threatening a decisive rupture with countries like France and Germany that already have deeply strained relations with the Trump administration. “I think they’re weak,” Trump said of Europe’s political leaders. “But I also think that they want to be so politically correct.” “I think they don’t know what to do,” he added. “Europe doesn’t know what to do.” Trump matched that blunt, even abrasive, candor on European affairs with a sequence of stark pronouncements on matters closer to home: He said he would make support for immediately slashing interest rates a litmus test in his choice of a new Federal Reserve chair. He said he could extend anti-drug military operations to Mexico and Colombia. And Trump urged conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, both in their 70s, to stay on the bench. Trump’s comments about Europe come at an especially precarious moment in the negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, as European leaders express intensifying alarm that Trump may abandon Ukraine and its continental allies to Russian aggression. In the interview, Trump offered no reassurance to Europeans on that score and declared that Russia was obviously in a stronger position than Ukraine. Trump spoke on Monday at the White House with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of The Conversation. POLITICO on Tuesday named Trump the most influential figure shaping European politics in the year ahead, a recognition previously conferred on leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Trump’s confident commentary on Europe presented a sharp contrast with some of his remarks on domestic matters in the interview. The president and his party have faced a series of electoral setbacks and spiraling dysfunction in Congress this fall as voters rebel against the high cost of living. Trump has struggled to deliver a message to meet that new reality: In the interview, he graded the economy’s performance as an “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” insisted that prices were falling across the board and declined to outline a specific remedy for imminent spikes in health care premiums. Even amid growing turbulence at home, however, Trump remains a singular figure in international politics. In recent days, European capitals have shuddered with dismay at the release of Trump’s new National Security Strategy document, a highly provocative manifesto that cast the Trump administration in opposition to the mainstream European political establishment and vowed to “cultivate resistance” to the European status quo on immigration and other politically volatile issues. In the interview, Trump amplified that worldview, describing cities like London and Paris as creaking under the burden of migration from the Middle East and Africa. Without a change in border policy, Trump said, some European states “will not be viable countries any longer.” Using highly incendiary language, Trump singled out London’s left-wing mayor, Sadiq Khan, the son of Pakistani immigrants and the city’s first Muslim mayor, as a “disaster” and blamed his election on immigration: “He gets elected because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.” The president of the European Council, António Costa, on Monday rebuked the Trump administration for the national security document and urged the White House to respect Europe’s sovereignty and right to self-government. “Allies do not threaten to interfere in the democratic life or the domestic political choices of these allies,” Costa said. “They respect them.” Speaking with POLITICO, Trump flouted those boundaries and said he would continue to back favorite candidates in European elections, even at the risk of offending local sensitivities. “I’d endorse,” Trump said. “I’ve endorsed people, but I’ve endorsed people that a lot of Europeans don’t like. I’ve endorsed Viktor Orbán,” the hard-right Hungarian prime minister Trump said he admired for his border-control policies. It was the Russia-Ukraine war, rather than electoral politics, that Trump appeared most immediately focused on. He claimed on Monday that he had offered a new draft of a peace plan that some Ukrainian officials liked, but that Zelenskyy himself had not reviewed yet. “It would be nice if he would read it,” Trump said. Zelenskyy met with leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom on Monday and continued to voice opposition to ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of a peace deal. The president said he put little stock in the role of European leaders in seeking to end the war: “They talk, but they don’t produce, and the war just keeps going on and on.” In a fresh challenge to Zelenskyy, who appears politically weakened in Ukraine due to a corruption scandal, Trump renewed his call for Ukraine to hold new elections. “They haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said. “You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.” Latin America Even as he said he is pursuing a peace agenda overseas, Trump said he might further broaden the military actions his administration has taken in Latin America against targets it claims are linked to the drug trade. Trump has deployed a massive military force to the Caribbean to strike alleged drug runners and pressure the authoritarian regime in Venezuela. In the interview, Trump repeatedly declined to rule out putting American troops into Venezuela as part of an effort to bring down the strongman ruler Nicolás Maduro, whom Trump blames for exporting drugs and dangerous people to the United States. Some leaders on the American right have warned Trump that a ground invasion of Venezuela would be a red line for conservatives who voted for him in part to end foreign wars. “I don’t want to rule in or out. I don’t talk about it,” Trump said of deploying ground troops, adding: “I don’t want to talk to you about military strategy.” But the president said he would consider using force against targets in other countries where the drug trade is highly active, including Mexico and Colombia. “Sure, I would,” he said. Trump scarcely defended some of his most controversial actions in Latin America, including his recent pardon of the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a decades-long sentence in an American prison after being convicted in a massive drug-trafficking conspiracy. Trump said he knew “very little” about Hernández except that he’d been told by “very good people” that the former Honduran president had been targeted unfairly by political opponents. “They asked me to do it and I said, I’ll do it,” Trump acknowledged, without naming the people who sought the pardon for Hernández. HEALTH CARE AND THE ECONOMY Asked to grade the economy under his watch, Trump rated it an overwhelming success: “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.” To the extent voters are frustrated about prices, Trump said the Biden administration was at fault: “I inherited a mess. I inherited a total mess.” The president is facing a forbidding political environment because of voters’ struggles with affordability, with about half of voters overall and nearly 4 in 10 people who voted for Trump in 2024 saying in a recent POLITICO Poll that the cost of living was as bad as it had ever been in their lives. Trump said he could make additional changes to tariff policy to help lower the price of some goods, as he has already done, but he insisted overall that the trend on costs was in the right direction. “Prices are all coming down,” Trump said, adding: “Everything is coming down.” Prices rose 3 percent over the 12 months ending in September, according to the most recent Consumer Price Index. Trump’s political struggles are shadowing his upcoming decision on a nominee to chair the Federal Reserve, a post that will shape the economic environment for the balance of Trump’s term. Asked if he was making support for slashing interest rates a litmus test for his Fed nominee, Trump answered with a quick “yes.” The most immediate threat to the cost of living for many Americans is the expiration of enhanced health insurance subsidies for Obamacare exchange plans that were enacted by Democrats under former President Joe Biden and are set to expire at the end of this year. Health insurance premiums are expected to spike in 2026, and medical charities are already experiencing a marked rise in requests for aid even before subsidies expire. Trump has been largely absent from health policy negotiations in Washington, while Democrats and some Republicans supportive of a compromise on subsidies have run into a wall of opposition on the right. Reaching a deal — and marshaling support from enough Republicans to pass it — would likely require direct intervention from the president. Yet asked if he would support a temporary extension of Obamacare subsidies while he works out a large-scale plan with lawmakers, Trump was noncommittal. “I don’t know. I’m gonna have to see,” he said, pivoting to an attack on Democrats for being too generous with insurance companies in the Affordable Care Act. A cloud of uncertainty surrounds the administration’s intentions on health care policy. In late November, the White House planned to unveil a proposal to temporarily extend Obamacare subsidies only to postpone the announcement. Trump has promised on and off for years to unveil a comprehensive plan for replacing Obamacare but has never done so. That did not change in the interview. “I want to give the people better health insurance for less money,” Trump said. “The people will get the money, and they’re going to buy the health insurance that they want.” Reminded that Americans are currently buying holiday gifts and drawing up household budgets for 2026 amid uncertainty around premiums, Trump shot back: “Don’t be dramatic. Don’t be dramatic.” SUPREME COURT Large swaths of Trump’s domestic agenda currently sit before the Supreme Court, with a generally sympathetic 6-3 conservative majority that has nevertheless thrown up some obstacles to the most brazen versions of executive power Trump has attempted to wield. Trump spoke with POLITICO several days after the high court agreed to hear arguments concerning the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, the automatic conferral of citizenship on people born in the United States. Trump is attempting to roll back that right and said it would be “devastating” if the court blocked him from doing so. If the court rules in his favor, Trump said, he had not yet considered whether he would try to strip citizenship from people who were born as citizens under current law. Trump broke with some members of his party who have been hoping that the court’s two oldest conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, might consider retiring before the midterm elections so that Trump can nominate another conservative while Republicans are guaranteed to control the Senate. The president said he’d rather Alito, 75, and Thomas, 77, the court’s most reliable conservative jurists, remain in place: “I hope they stay,” he said, “’cause I think they’re fantastic.”