BRUSSELS — Donald Trump says he wants to reshape politics in Europe. For many voters in major European democracies, it feels like he already has. Trump’s return as U.S. president is far more significant for voters in Germany, France and the U.K. than the election of their own national leaders, according to respondents to the first international POLITICO Poll. The finding vividly illustrates the impact of Trump’s first year back in the White House on global politics, with his sway felt particularly keenly in Europe. The online survey, conducted by the independent London-based polling company Public First, also shows many Europeans share Trump’s critical assessment in a POLITICO interview earlier this week of the relative weakness of their own national leaders. The poll had more than 10,000 respondents from the U.S., Canada and the three biggest economies in Europe: Germany, France and the United Kingdom. For leaders like Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, it makes particularly grim reading: They are seen by their own voters as having largely failed to handle the unpredictable American president effectively so far. EU leaders fared worst of all. In France, only 11 percent thought Brussels had done a good job of handling Trump, with 47 percent saying EU leadership had navigated the relationship badly. Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer gets a slightly better rating — his record on managing Trump is seen as neither good nor bad. “These results show how much Trump has shaped the last year of political conversation not just in the U.S., but globally,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First. “This is true for the public as much as it is for policymakers — the fact that so many believe Trump’s election, on the other side of the world, has been more significant for their own country than their own leaders’ election lays this bare.” The polling comes at an acutely sensitive moment for transatlantic relations. A new White House National Security Strategy unveiled last week destroyed any notion of American neutrality toward its historic allies in Europe, instead launching a crusade to convert the region’s democracies to his own MAGA ideology. POLITICO on Tuesday named Trump as the most powerful person shaping European politics, at the top of its annual P28 list. The list is not an endorsement or award. It reflects, instead, each individual’s capacity to shape Europe’s politics and policies in the year ahead, as assessed by the POLITICO newsroom and the power players POLITICO’s journalists speak with. In a White House interview on Monday with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of “The Conversation,” Trump expanded on the message, saying he would endorse candidates from parties in Europe who shared his outlook — especially on shutting down immigration. ELECTIONS MATTER, BUT SOME MORE THAN OTHERS In an effort to unpack Trump’s disruptive influence on international affairs since he returned for his second term in January, Public First conducted an online survey of 10,510 adults aged 18 and over, between Dec. 5 and Dec. 9. The research found that in Germany and the U.K. over half of respondents considered Trump’s election even more important than the elections of their own leaders, even though both Merz and Starmer have only relatively recently won power themselves. In Germany, 53 percent of people thought Trump’s election was more significant for their country than the election of Merz, compared with 25 percent who thought the German election was more important. In the U.K., 54 percent said Trump’s return was more significant than Starmer’s Labour Party taking power and ending 14 years of Conservative rule, compared with 28 percent who said the change of national government last year was more important for Britain.  French voters were a little less stark in their view, but still 43 percent thought Trump’s victory was more significant, against 25 percent who believed Macron’s election had a bigger impact on France. In Canada, however, respondents were split. Mark Carney’s victory in April, on the back of a campaign promise to stand up to Trump, was viewed by 40 percent as more significant than Trump’s return to power. Only slightly more — 45 percent — said Trump’s win was more significant for Canada than Carney’s. TRANSPARENCY TRUMPS STRENGTH In his interview with POLITICO, Trump denounced European leaders as “weak,” provoking retorts from politicians across the European Union and even prompting the pope to urge him not to “break apart” the transatlantic alliance. The researchers found that Europeans broadly shared Trump’s view that their leaders were weak, at least in comparison to him. They rated Trump as more “strong and decisive” than their own leader, by 74 percent to 26 percent in Germany; 73 percent to 27 percent in France; and 69 percent to 31 percent in the U.K. Canada was again the notable exception, with 60 percent saying Carney is stronger and more decisive compared to Trump, and only 40 percent saying the reverse.  Overall, however, the quality of being a strong and decisive leader is not seen as the most desirable trait among voters questioned in the survey. Far more important across all five countries in the research, including the U.S., is being honest and transparent.  “Strength is not the most important trait for a leader, but it is clearly an area where European leaders’ approach fall short so his words in the POLITICO interview will ring true,” said Wride.  Pollsters also asked how people felt their own leaders were handling the whirlwind of geopolitical upheaval in Trump’s second term. In France and Germany, more people think their leaders handled Trump badly than approved: Only 24 percent thought Merz had done a good job, while 34 percent thought his handling of Trump had been bad.  In France, Macron fared even worse. Just 16 percent of respondents said he had done well compared to 39 percent who thought he had done badly at managing relations with the White House. The verdict on Starmer was mixed: 29 percent thought he was handling Trump well, the same proportion as said he was doing badly. That represents an underwhelming verdict on a prime minister who has made a priority of maintaining a warm and effective alliance with the U.S. president.  RESISTANCE VS. STANDING UP TO TRUMP The research found that people in Europe wanted their leaders to stand up to Trump and challenge him, rather than prioritize getting along with him. However, when asked how their own particular national leaders should behave, Europeans took the opposite view, saying collaboration was more important than challenging the president.  Canadians remained punchy regardless, with a slight preference for Carney to confront Trump.  “Perhaps the only opportunity Trump has offered national leaders is the opportunity to stand up to him, something which we find tends to improve perceptions of them,” said Wride, from Public First. “Having fallen short on this, from the public’s perspective, leaders are seen to have largely failed to respond for the last year.” This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Dec. 5 to Dec. 9, surveying 10,510 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error. The survey is an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com.

BRUSSELS — Europe isn’t popping the champagne corks just yet even after U.S. Supreme Court judges cast doubt on the future of Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.  In a highly anticipated hearing on Wednesday, both conservative and progressive judges sharply questioned the U.S. president’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on the rest of the world — including the European Union.  Yet officials and observers across the Atlantic know full well that should the court strike down the tariffs, in cases brought by a dozen Democratic-run states and two sets of private companies, Trump will find a way to replace them. “The president’s authority is not limited,” German lawmaker Bernd Lange, who chairs the European Parliament’s international trade committee, told POLITICO. “New legal bases will be sought, which will again entail significantly greater effort and perhaps further uncertainties for certain product groups.”  Trump imposed his duties — including a 15 percent baseline tariff on the 27-nation bloc — under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 sanctions law that empowers the president to “regulate” imports but does not specifically authorize tariffs.  A key question now is whether Trump, in imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, grabbed power that is constitutionally bound to Congress. During the hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why Trump believed he had the authority to impose tariffs under a law that has never been used for that purpose.  Tariffs are a form of taxation and “that has always been the core power of Congress,” Roberts said. “So, to have the president’s foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power.” The skeptical tone struck by judges from both U.S. political camps has led some observers to predict a majority ruling by the nine-judge bench to kill the tariffs. For that to happen, some or all of Trump’s own conservative appointees on the bench — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — would need to vote against them.  “Not only the Court’s liberal judges but also key conservative judges such as Justice Roberts, Coney Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh advanced a deeply skeptical line of questioning,” said David Kleimann, a senior researcher at think tank ODI Global.  The hearing, Kleimann said, “will certainly give rise to hopes among international stakeholders that the Court will annul the tariff orders, which will, however, remain a matter of first seeing and then believing.” FIXING A ‘GLOBAL PROBLEM’  Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, Brussels wouldn’t be out of the woods.  Trump’s sectoral tariffs on pharmaceuticals, cars and steel using other legal avenues — chiefly Section 232 investigations into specific industrial sectors — aren’t the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. And it is those measures that are inflicting the most pain on European exporters. Precisely because of that, former EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy cautioned his fellow Europeans to “not rejoice too quickly.”  “If Trump loses this case, he will use other legal grounds, albeit more complicated ones,” Lamy told POLITICO, referring to the sectoral tariffs.  “It would be great if they were overturned and they had trouble reinstating the latest tariffs, but we’re not counting on it,” agreed an EU trade diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.  One argument made by the Trump administration — including by the government’s lawyer, Dean John Sauer — is that the tariffs are needed because America’s trade deficits with many of its trading partners are, in fact, a genuine emergency. Sauer argued that the trade deficits the tariffs are intended to address are “a global problem.” Countries hit by tariffs “haven’t disputed … that the president has correctly identified that virtually every major trading partner has this longstanding, so asymmetric, unfair treatment of our trade.” In Europe’s case, that is true: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen admitted, as she struck the EU’s trade deal with Trump, that it was “actually about rebalancing. So you can call it fairness, you can call it rebalancing. We have a surplus, the U.S. has a deficit, and we need to rebalance it.”  By buying into Trump’s narrative, von der Leyen handed his team a victory — allowing Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to boast about a new trading era, dubbed the “Turnberry system” after the Scottish golf course where Trump and von der Leyen shook hands on their deal in July.  HOW FIRM IS A HANDSHAKE?  For the EU, the question now is how solid a foundation it has built with the Turnberry accord, which was baked into a bare-bones joint statement the following month.  EU officials assert that the 15 percent tariff cap on most exports should hold even if the Supreme Court throws out Trump’s tariffs. A decision is expected by the end of this year, but could come much sooner. The European Commission declined to comment on legal proceedings in another country as a matter of policy. “But I can say that the Commission’s focus is on implementing the commitments spelled out in the EU-U.S. joint statement,” deputy chief spokesperson Olof Gill said Thursday. Ultimately, however, the court’s decision could have knock-on effects on legislation to implement the EU’s side of its deal with Washington. The European Parliament, which needs to pass the enabling legislation, has taken a critical view of the U.S. deal. Many lawmakers fault the EU executive for agreeing to a humiliating one-sided deal by agreeing to abolish all tariffs on U.S. industrial goods. A Supreme Court verdict striking down the U.S. tariffs could swell the camp of lawmakers determined to vote down the procedure.  “It would be very unlikely that the EU Parliament [would] continue its work on lowering EU tariffs on U.S. products in case the Court declares the U.S. tariffs illegal,” said Brando Benifei, a Spanish Socialist who chairs the Parliament body responsible for strengthening ties with the U.S.  “It would be absurd.”

Opponents of President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are finally getting their day in the U.S. Supreme Court. And while the justices may not rule for some time, their lines of questioning could offer hints about which way they are leaning in the blockbuster case. On Wednesday, the high court will hear from the plaintiffs — a dozen Democratic-run states and two sets of private companies — and the Trump administration. Each side will have 40 minutes to make their arguments and then get peppered with questions from the nine justices. The court then has until the end of its term next July to issue a ruling, although some of the lawyers who brought the initial cases hope it will move faster given the real-world impact the decision will have. “It’s very reasonable to expect that this will be decided before the end of the year, if not much, much more before that,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a constitutional rights law firm representing companies in the case.  Advertisement Three federal courts have ruled against Trump’s use of a 50-year-old emergency law to impose broad “reciprocal” duties that he then deployed to strike trade deals with the EU, Japan and other partners. The case does not address sectoral tariffs on products like steel, aluminum or autos, which have also been part of negotiations, but were imposed under a different legal authority that is not in dispute. If the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs Trump announced in April are illegal, will those deals fall apart? We analyze the risks: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States European Union United Kingdom China Canada Mexico -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES Risk assessment: Many legal experts think there is a strong chance the Supreme Court will strike down the duties that Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 sanctions law that empowers Trump to “regulate” imports but does not specifically authorize tariffs. Not all agree, arguing the conservative-led court is likely to back the Trump administration’s view that the president has broad authority to conduct foreign affairs and that imperative  outweighs any concerns about executive branch overreach that the court has expressed in previous cases. Coping strategy: In the worst-case scenario for the administration, the Supreme Court would strike down all the duties and order it to repay hundreds of billions of dollars in duties paid by companies and individuals.  But even in that scenario, Trump may be able to use other authorities to recreate the tariffs, including Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. That provision could allow the president to impose a 15 percent global import “surcharge” for up to 150 days, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Trump would have to get congressional approval to keep any Section 122 tariffs in place for longer — a tall order even in a Republican-led Congress. However, he might be able to use the provision as a stopgap measure while he explores other options.  Those include Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which he used in his first term to impose extensive tariffs on Chinese goods and recently deployed against Brazil. Unlike IEEPA, which Trump believes merely allows him to declare an international emergency to impose tariffs, Section 301 requires a formal investigation into whether the United States has been harmed by an unfair foreign trade practice.  However, Trump could also just use those investigations — and the implied threat of tariffs — to pressure trading partners like the EU into reaffirming the trade deals they have already struck with him.  Trump could also launch additional sectoral investigations under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, a provision that allows the president to restrict imports determined to pose a threat to national security. He has employed that measure in his first and second term to impose duties on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks. In one variation, he’s used an ongoing investigation into pharmaceutical imports to pressure companies to invest more in the United States and to slash drug prices. He has also used the threat of semiconductor tariffs to prod countries and companies into concessions, without yet imposing any duties. The Commerce Department has other ongoing Section 232 investigations into processed critical minerals, aircraft and jet engines, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, robotics and industrial machinery, and medical supplies. And, as Trump’s lumber and furniture duties demonstrate, the administration’s expansive definition of national security provides it with broad leeway to open new investigations into a variety of sectors. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EUROPEAN UNION Risk assessment: The European Union isn’t counting on the Supreme Court to save it from Trump’s 15 percent baseline tariff — knowing full well that if U.S. tariffs don’t come through the front door, they’ll come through the window. “Even a condemnation or a ruling by the Supreme Court that these reciprocal tariffs are illegal does not automatically mean that they fall,” the EU’s top trade official, Sabine Weyand, told European lawmakers recently. “There are other legal bases available.” Trump invoked IEEPA to impose the baseline tariff on the 27-nation European bloc. But Brussels is more worried about sectoral tariffs that Trump has imposed on pharmaceuticals, cars and steel using other legal avenues — chiefly Section 232 investigations — that aren’t the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. Advertisement Coping strategy: Brussels is in full damage-control mode, trying not to stir the pot too much with Washington and focusing on implementing the deal struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in July — and baked into a bare-bones joint statement the following month.  Crucially, the EU asserts that it has locked in an “all-inclusive” tariff of 15 percent on most exports — so even if the Supreme Court throws out Trump’s universal tariffs it would argue that the cap should still apply. “Even if all IEEPA tariffs are eliminated, the EU would have an interest in keeping the deal,” Ignacio García Bercero, who used to be the Commission’s point person for its trade talks with the U.S., told POLITICO. The Commission is also still in negotiations with the Trump administration to secure further tariff exemptions for sensitive sectors such as wines and spirits.  The European Parliament, which will need to approve the Turnberry accord, is taking a more hawkish line over what many lawmakers have criticized as the one-sided trade deal with the U.S.: It wants to add a “sunset” clause that would effectively limit the EU’s trade concessions to Trump’s term in office. EU countries have given that idea the thumbs down, however, saying deals that have been agreed must be respected. The EU has invited Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to a meeting of its trade ministers in Brussels on Nov. 24. The focus there will be on reassuring him that the legislation to implement the trade deal will pass, and on fending off U.S. charges that EU business regulation is discriminatory. By Camille Gijs Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED KINGDOM Risk assessment: Should the Supreme Court strike down Donald Trump’s universal tariffs, Britain won’t be off the hook. London may have secured a favorable, 10 percent baseline rate with Washington back in May — but that only goes so far.   That protection does not extend to Trump’s Section 232 steel and auto levies, which remain in place. Under the current deal, Britain gets preferential tariffs on its car exports, as well as a 50 percent reduction to the global steel tariff rate.  If Britain tried to renegotiate its baseline tariffs, the U.S. could quickly retaliate by withdrawing those preferential deals, and take a harder line in ongoing negotiations covering pharma and whisky tariffs. Coping strategy: The U.K. is pressing ahead with its negotiations with the Trump administration on other parts of the deal — despite the ongoing court case. British officials fly out to D.C. in mid-November to push forward talks, shortly before Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is due in London on Nov. 24. “I don’t think the U.K. or others would attempt to renegotiate in the first instance — we might even see some public statements saying we plan to honour the deal,” said Sam Lowe, British trade expert and partner at consultancy firm Flint Global. “There’s too much risk in trying to reopen it in the first instance, given it could antagonise Trump.” Meanwhile the U.K. is seeking to strengthen its trade ties with other nations. It struck a free trade agreement with India over summer, is renegotiating aspects of its trading relationship with the European Union and hopes to close a trade deal with a six-nation Gulf economic bloc including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the coming weeks. The U.K. is expected to maintain its current deal with the U.S., even if legal challenges were to weaken Trump’s wider tariff regime. By Caroline Hug Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINA Risk assessment: Chinese leader Xi Jinping exited his meeting with Trump in South Korea last week with a U.S. commitment to cut in half the 20 percent “emergency” tariff imposed in March to punish Beijing for its role in the U.S. opioid epidemic. A possible ruling by the Supreme Court that overturns the residual “emergency” tariffs on Chinese imports — the remainder of the fentanyl tariff and the 10 percent “baseline” levy added in April — would leave Beijing with an average 25 percent tariff rate. The judges will test the administration’s position that its IEEPA tariffs are legally sound because they constitute a justified regulation of imports. But a blanket ruling on the levies on Chinese imports isn’t guaranteed. “The Supreme Court is likely to make a binary ruling — the court might decide the trade deficit tariffs are illegal, but the fentanyl tariffs are lawful,” said Peter Harrell, former senior director for international economics in the Joe Biden administration. The Chinese embassy declined to comment on how Beijing might respond to a SCOTUS ruling in China’s favor. But it would mark a symbolic victory for the Chinese government whose Foreign Minister Wang Yi has described them as an expression of “extreme egoism.”    Coping strategy: Celebration in Beijing about a possible revocation of any of these tariffs may be short-lived. That’s because Trump can wield multiple other trade weapons even if the Supreme Court deems the tariffs unlawful. His administration signaled that it’s priming potential replacements for the IEEPA tariffs with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s announcement last week of Section 301 probes of Beijing’s adherence to the U.S.-China Phase One trade deal in Trump’s first term. It is also undertaking Section 232 probes — geared to determine national security threats — of Chinese-dominated imports including pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and wind turbines. “There’s ample opportunity for the Trump administration to use other legal instruments in the event that the IEEPA tariffs get struck down,” said Emily Kilcrease, a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative during Trump’s first term and under Biden. The 301 investigation into the Phase One deal is already active, and “will allow them to be fairly quick in responding in the event that the Supreme Court rules against the administration,” Kilcrease said at a Center for a New American Security briefing. By Phelim Kine Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CANADA Risk assessment: It’s a bit of a lose-lose situation for Canada.  Trump pre-emptively blamed a Canadian provincial government for weaponizing Ronald Reagan in an ad to influence the SCOTUS ruling. The 60-second spot launched on U.S. networks on Oct. 16 to bring an anti-trade war message to Republican districts rather than to nine Supreme Court justices. It riled Trump enough that he ended trade talks eight days later. Then he vowed to increase tariff levels by 10 percent in retribution. If the court sides with Trump, it will justify an impulse to use IEEPA to raise rates higher without a need for findings or an investigation. And if the court rules against the president — Ottawa will have to prepare for more of Trump’s fury over the ad. The U.S. increased the IEEPA tariff rate on Canada to 35 percent from 25 percent in July, citing a failure to crack down on fentanyl trafficking across the northern border. This 35-percent rate excludes the promised 10-percent retributive increase — an executive order hasn’t been released. It’s unclear which legal authority Trump will use if his stated reasoning is to punish Canada over an ad about Reagan’s warning about protectionism.  Advertisement Prime Minister Mark Carney has called the IEEPA tariffs “unlawful and unjustified.” And he’s been able to play down the threat, for now, by reminding Canadians that these “fentanyl tariffs” have a carve-out for goods covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Carney regularly says 85 percent of Canadian exports enter the U.S. tariff free. Section 232 tariffs on industry have hit the economy harder than the IEEPA tariffs. Coping strategy: Canada is frantically pursuing trade diversification coupled with a high-level charm offensive while its trade negotiators try to limit the scope of the upcoming review of the USMCA to minimize U.S. tariff exposure. “Our priorities are to keep the review as targeted as possible, to seek a prompt renewal of the agreement, while securing preferential market access and a stable and predictable trading environment for Canadian businesses and investors,” Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman recently told a parliamentary committee. Carney has, meanwhile, apologized to Trump for the Reagan ad. By Zi-Ann Lum Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEXICO Risk assessment: Trump has hit Mexico, the largest U.S. trading partner, with multiple tariffs since taking office. Those include a 25 percent duty imposed under IEEPA to pressure the country to do more to stop fentanyl and precursor chemicals — as well as illegal immigrants — from entering the United States.  Trump softened the blow by excluding goods that comply with terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement from the new IEEPA duties. That has encouraged more and more companies to fill out paperwork to claim the exemption.  About 90 percent of Mexican goods entering the U.S. now have the necessary USMCA documentation, compared to around 60 percent last year, said Diego Marroquín, a fellow in the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Still, U.S. customs officials report collecting $5.7 billion in IEEPA duties on Mexican goods between Mar. 4 and Sep. 23, according to the most recent data available. Trump also has threatened to raise the IEEPA tariff on Mexico to 30 percent, but reportedly recently agreed to delay that move for several more weeks to allow time for talks. Coping strategy: President Claudia Sheinbaum has stayed on Trump’s good side by declining to retaliate and working with the U.S. on fentanyl and illegal immigration concerns. She has kept that forbearance while Trump has piled new tariffs on Mexico’s exports of autos, auto parts and certain other products using Section 232. Mexico’s ultimate goal is to maintain the preferential access it enjoys to the U.S. market under the USMCA, which is up for review next year, when countries have to say if they want to continue the pact past July 1, 2036, its current expiration date.  Sheinbaum told reporters on Oct. 27 that she hopes to resolve U.S. concerns over 54 Mexican non-tariff trade barriers in coming weeks. While a return to tariff-free trade with the U.S. seems unlikely while Trump is in office, Mexico hopes to be treated better than most other trading partners, or at least no worse. That drama will play out in the first half of 2026. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Palmer and Phelim Kine reported from Washington, Camille Gijs from Brussels, Caroline Hug from London and Zi-Ann Lum from Ottawa. Advertisement

BRUSSELS — What began as a push to free Europe’s businesses from crippling rules has morphed into yet another tactic to appease Donald Trump.  Since taking office, the U.S. president has repeatedly threatened to hike tariffs on EU goods unless the bloc agrees to roll back some of its laws that also apply to American companies. That presents Brussels with a dilemma. If it bows to the U.S. pressure, it risks ending up with strict regulations that only apply to European businesses — potentially destroying their competitiveness. Conversely, if it scraps the rules altogether, it abandons key aims like digital sovereignty and environmental protection. Enter the simplification agenda, Brussels’ new plan to get the best of both worlds. Cutting red tape is one of the few areas of policymaking on which EU countries largely agree; in fact, they want more of it. Later this week, European leaders meeting in Brussels will instruct the European Commission to speed up its work “as a matter of utmost priority, on all files with a simplification and competitiveness dimension,” according to draft conclusions obtained by POLITICO.  Driving home that message, 19 EU leaders — including Friedrich Merz of Germany, Emmanuel Macron of France, Giorgia Meloni of Italy and Donald Tusk of Poland — have issued a presummit appeal for “a systematic review of all EU regulations to identify rules that are superfluous, excessive, or unbalanced.” In a letter, obtained by POLITICO, they also called on Brussels to dismantle outdated rules, demanded a “constant stream” of simplification measures and urged self-restraint when it comes to new legislation. Still, the simplification drive is being spun as a way to address some of Washington’s concerns with what it sees as regulatory overreach by Brussels.  “Since Trump is willing to swallow a number of jokes — he doesn’t look too closely at it anyway — if we can say to him, ‘Donald, thank you very much, it’s thanks to you that we’ve cleaned things up a bit,’ why not?” asked Pascal Lamy, a former EU trade commissioner and head of the World Trade Organization. SWEEPING ROLLBACK In a bid to bring struggling European industries back from the brink, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has made deregulation — or “simplification” — the North Star of her second term. In less than 12 months, her Commission has come up with plans to cut much of the red tape crafted during her first mandate, touching on almost all areas of EU law, from defense and agriculture to digital rules and the environment.  At first, the logic was straightforward: Fewer rules would be good for European companies struggling to remain competitive against their U.S. and Chinese rivals.  Now, the simplification push comes as a diplomatic gesture — to smooth relations with Washington after Trump made it clear that U.S. companies shouldn’t be bound by European rules he has denounced as discriminatory.  Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has made deregulation — or “simplification” — the North Star of her second term. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Under the trade deal von der Leyen struck with Trump at his Scottish golf resort in July, the Commission pledged that its green rules would “not pose undue restrictions on transatlantic trade.” The list agreed by the two sides included Europe’s rules on supply chain oversight, sustainability reporting, a carbon border tax and rules aimed at preventing the import of goods produced on deforested land. All have already been the target of simplification measures launched by the Commission.   Explaining the strategy, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen likened it in an interview with POLITICO to a Kinder Egg — an Italian-made children’s treat with chocolate on the outside and a toy on the inside. Cutting red tape is in Europe’s “own self best interest. But at the same time, it also serves others’ interest as well,” explained Rasmussen, whose country holds the presidency of the Council, the bloc’s intergovernmental branch. Others say it’s not so clear cut.  “We can’t say on the one hand that we’re willing to pay for American strategic protection in terms of tariffs, and on the other hand that we’re not going to change our regulations for that, neither on data, nor on DMA, DSA, nor everything else that Americans criticize about what they see as our hyper-regulation,” Lamy said, referring to the twin pillars of EU tech regulation, the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act.  The Commission stressed that while Washington and Brussels have agreed to look at ways to cut red tape, “this will not lead to a lowering of EU standards or legislation,” said Olof Gill, deputy chief spokesperson for the Commission.  “The EU has been firm on defending our fundamental principle — our legislative framework and our regulatory autonomy are not up for negotiation,” added Gill, whose remit covers trade.  LEADERS JUMP IN The letter from the 19 EU leaders intensifies the pressure on the EU executive from the bloc’s leading economies to keep deregulating — above all from Macron and Merz. Backed by their largest businesses, the two leaders have echoed U.S calls for the EU to ditch its supply chain oversight directive. But the European debate has the added benefit of having — apparently — convinced Trump’s new ambassador to Brussels, Andrew Puzder, that the EU’s drive to slash red tape is in its own essential interest.  “Chancellor Merz and President Macron have both said it should be repealed … not because that’s in America’s best interest. They’re saying it’s the best interest of Germany and France,” Puzder told a recent event in Brussels, referring to the supply chain rules. For a veteran like Lamy, the simplification imperative arose from internal EU pressure following strategy recommendations by former Italian Prime Ministers Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta. The former leaders warned that Europe must become more competitive or face the “slow agony” of decline. “If we look at the history of these simplification packages, they were entirely generated within the EU by pressure from employers,” Lamy said.  But even with the political wind in her sails, delivering on simplification won’t be a pleasure cruise for von der Leyen.  Negotiations on the first simplification package — aimed at cutting green reporting obligations for companies — nearly destroyed the coalition of political groups that elected her to a second term, while efforts to simplify Europe’s farming policy and budget have sparked another backlash from the agriculture sector.  National calls for massive cuts to EU rules have also drawn criticism from EU decision-makers who are reluctant to see trade talks or corporate interests derail the bloc’s green agenda.  “No one should be mistaken, we will not lower these standards because there is no competitiveness in a race to the bottom,” said Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s No. 2 and top competition regulator. Nor are European lawmakers giving up on the “Brussels effect” — whereby rules set by the EU set a standard for how business is done internationally. That EU rules should apply to foreign companies is “a fundamental element of … Europe’s normative power,” said Pascal Canfin, a centrist member of the European Parliament, who has worked on several of the simplification packages.  Hans von der Burchard and Nette Nöstlinger contributed to this report from Berlin. This story has been updated. 

HORSENS, Denmark — The European Union’s deregulation drive isn’t just about pleasing Washington, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said Tuesday, arguing Brussels must loosen up its own rules while defending its independence from U.S. pressure. “It’s like a Kinder egg. It serves more than one purpose,” Rasmussen told POLITICO in an exclusive interview.  “We should go down that track in our own self best interest. But at the same time, it also serves others’ interest as well.” Rasmussen’s comments come ahead of a crucial meeting of EU leaders next week, where the EU’s deregulation drive will take center stage. Leaders are expected to urge the bloc’s executive to speed up efforts to slash red tape — a push the Danish minister said is vital to keeping Europe globally competitive. “If our investors are met with the red carpet in the U.S. and by red tape in Europe, they will, at the end of the day, choose the U.S.,” he stressed.  For over a year, Brussels has been torching swaths of environmental red tape in a bid to restore the competitiveness of Europe’s beleaguered industries against their U.S. and Chinese rivals. Brussels now has nine simplification packages in the works, spanning the defense, environmental and digital sectors.  The EU’s rulebooks have drawn the ire of President Donald Trump, who has threatened to hike tariffs over rules he says discriminate against, and even censor, U.S. companies.  France and Germany, the EU’s two largest economies, are pushing Brussels for a similar environmental deregulation drive.  In a bid to keep Washington onside, the European Commission is preparing plans to address Trump’s grievances — while presenting the effort as part of a self-driven policy overhaul. Politically, the move allows the bloc to reconcile its own domestic agenda without appearing to bow to Trump’s pressure. Washington imposed a baseline 15 percent tariff on all goods from the European Union, while the EU committed to cut its tariffs on U.S. imports of cars and industrial goods to zero. | Focke Strangmann/Getty Images Rasmussen made the comments on the margins of a meeting of EU trade ministers in Denmark, which currently holds the presidency of the Council, the bloc’s intergovernmental arm. The get-together was overshadowed by China’s move to drastically restrict exports of rare earths — further squeezing the EU amid a rift between the U.S. and China.  Brussels called for the G7 group of industrialized nations to coordinate their response to China’s export restrictions. PRESSURE FROM WITHIN Rasmussen poured cold water on the idea of a so-called sunset clause, under which the EU could revisit the terms of its trade deal with the U.S. once Trump leaves office. Under the pact, struck in July by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, Washington imposed a baseline 15 percent tariff on all goods from the European Union, while the EU committed to cut its tariffs on U.S. imports of cars and industrial goods to zero.   “Defining a sunset clause will not change the reality,” Rasmussen said. “I’m living in the real world, and we have to deal with the current U.S. administration.” That view was echoed at the trade ministerial by Thomas Byrne, Ireland’s minister for European affairs.  “If we start rooting through it or making changes or putting in review clauses, I think that that is not something that would be in the interest of European citizens,” Byrne said on his way into Tuesday’s meeting. The European Parliament in particular has called to consider a possible review of the terms the EU conceded to the Trump administration, amid criticism that the transatlantic trade deal was severely skewed in favor of the United States. Rasmussen didn’t rule out renegotiating those terms one day — but only once the political and economic costs of Trump’s trade protectionism begin to bite in the U.S. “I am pretty sure that in a midterm perspective, you will see implications of this strategy within American society. And then we must stand ready to renegotiate things,” the former Danish prime minister said.  Marianne Gros contributed to this report. 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is drawing up a playbook to convince the Trump administration that Europe is serious about cutting red tape for American companies — but on its own terms. The EU executive told national envoys this week that it was preparing a “checklist” spelling out how Brussels would address President Donald Trump’s demands on its business rule books, five EU diplomats and officials told POLITICO.  The move comes after Trump’s trade department sent its position to the European Commission demanding that Brussels remove what the U.S. considers to be non-tariff barriers to trade — measures that EU officials see instead as core elements of the bloc’s regulatory sovereignty. The European Commission has repeatedly stressed that the bloc will not be unwinding any existing laws or regulations to suit Trump’s agenda. But having faced criticism over the EU-U.S. trade deal, EU officials are mindful to present the work on easing the regulatory framework as being in line with the bloc’s own ongoing deregulation agenda. This now includes nine simplification packages — known in the Brussels jargon as “omnibus” measures. “We don’t do ‘at your command,’” said one of the officials, who like others interviewed for this story was granted anonymity to discuss the confidential conversations. “We’re going to sell them our omnibus as concessions.”  EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič and his U.S. counterpart Jamieson Greer spoke last Sunday, a European Commission spokesperson said earlier this week. FLIPPING THE NARRATIVE For Brussels, the move offers a chance to flip the narrative: Instead of bowing to Trump’s pressure, the EU executive is looking to frame its own deregulation push to show it is playing ball on their trade agreement — which was set down in writing in August and only referred briefly to some non-tariff barriers and the bloc’s business oversight rules. According to the diplomats, the Commission’s internal work will focus on areas explicitly mentioned in the statement agreed after Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands on a deal in Scotland — including the EU’s carbon border tax, deforestation ban, supply chain transparency rules and its green reporting obligations.  This would exclude the EU’s digital rules, such as the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, which the Trump administration sees as censoring or discriminating against American companies. Commission Deputy Chief Spokesperson Olof Gill said the EU was focused on the “faithful implementation” of the joint statement, describing it as the basis for strategic cooperation. “The EU is now exploring the best path forward to implement all commitments made, with Commissioner Šefčovič engaging closely with U.S. counterparts,” Gill told POLITICO. “Our focus is on delivery and tangible results, ensuring that all next steps build on the joint statement and reflect a fair and reciprocal EU–U.S. trade partnership.” The checklist was first reported by Bloomberg. Marianne Gros contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The European Union has signaled it won’t give in to pressure from Washington to tear up its green rules in order to firm up a deal on tariffs, the bloc’s top trade official has told member countries. Speaking during a closed-door meeting of ambassadors on Wednesday, Sabine Weyand, who heads the European Commission’s Directorate for Trade, said the executive will not use a document drafted by the U.S. as the basis for its negotiations, according to five diplomats and officials granted anonymity to discuss the restricted meeting with POLITICO. The paper, developed by President Donald Trump’s administration, would commit Brussels to dropping rules requiring American firms to produce plans to fight climate change and end environmental and human rights violations in their supply chains. The Financial Times reported Wednesday that in the document, the White House branded the legislation “serious and unwarranted regulatory over-reach” that “imposes significant economic and regulatory burdens on U.S. companies.” The diplomats and officials told POLITICO that the Commission does not intend to act on the criticism in the document, which was drawn up after Trump agreed a handshake trade deal with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in July at his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland. Instead, the EU executive intends to act in line with the terms of a subsequent joint statement that does not foresee those concessions. “We have always said — we are not negotiating on these issues,” said one European Commission official, while an envoy from one EU country insisted the broadside against the green rules was a negotiating tactic: “They have their red lines and we have ours.” The session at which Weyand spoke was held in a restricted format, reserved for the most sensitive discussions, and ambassadors were not allowed phones in the room. National capitals have not been given access to the negotiating paper sent by Washington, given the high stakes surrounding a trade agreement worth potentially trillions of dollars. NO ROLLBACK Speaking during a press briefing on Thursday, the Commission’s deputy chief spokesperson, Olof Gill, refused to confirm receipt of the position paper from the U.S. He insisted the bloc is “focused on the faithful implementation of the EU-U.S. joint statement, which we believe is essential to preserving our unmatched transatlantic trade … We are not rolling back on any of our laws.” The EU did, in the framework agreement published in August, commit to addressing U.S. concerns regarding its supply chain transparency law as it launches a major new deregulation drive designed to simplify rules and boost economic competitiveness. According to another official, that is being seen internally as an overture to Washington. However, American officials, backed by big business, are eyeing the proposals as a chance to push for legislation to be dropped that they see as unfavorable, and have launched a new impetus. EU leaders should not lose their nerve amid U.S. attacks on the EU’s digital rulebooks, Commission Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen said. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Trump’s White House has consistently blasted the EU’s green regulations while slashing rules designed to protect the environment and limit carbon emissions and other polluting gases for firms at home. The Republican’s team has also been pressuring the bloc to drop its digital regulations that they claim unfairly punish American tech firms. EU leaders should not lose their nerve amid U.S. attacks on the EU’s digital rulebooks, Commission Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen said in an interview Wednesday. “It’s important to stay calm, even if there are different kinds of attacks against this legislation,” she told POLITICO. “We are fully enforcing the rules all the time, and everybody can be ensured on that.” According to a draft agenda obtained by POLITICO, European leaders are set to discuss the need to double down on policies in the face of pressure from across the Atlantic at a summit in Brussels later this month. The meeting of the European Council will consider how to “reassert Europe’s interests, values and regulatory autonomy.” Gabriel Gavin reported from Brussels. Marianne Gros reported from Paris. Koen Verhelst, Camille Gijs and Pieter Haeck contributed reporting.

On the edge of Burgenland, Austria, Werner Michlits Jr. is busy harvesting grapes. That’s a welcome distraction from the waiting game EU-U.S. trade negotiations have put him and other winemakers in, wondering if they’ll lose their most lucrative market. Winemakers in Europe and their import and distribution partners in the U.S. are facing twin crises: a 15 percent tariff on European wine entering the U.S. and a declining dollar. Many American importers stocked up on wine ahead of an Aug. 1 tariff deadline, leaving them cash-strapped for the next few months and placing winemakers in a holding pattern while trade negotiations continue. Michlits, who runs the Meinklang farm and winery with his wife and parents, exports more than a third of its wine to the U.S. Some importers have asked if he can lower prices to offset tariffs. “But it’s impossible. We are already at our maximum,” he said. “It’s a little bit sad, because we have so much invested in this relationship. In the end, it’s the consumers in America that have to pay, or they will drink other wines.”  European exporters have long benefited from tariff-free access to the American market on most alcohol and had hoped they would win an exemption in the trade deal struck this summer. A 15 percent rate isn’t as bad as it could have been. President Donald Trump at one point threatened 200 percent.  “From one day to the next, our exports stopped for an entire month,” said Ignacio Sánchez Recarte, secretary-general of European Committee of Wine Companies, or CEEV, which represents EU wine companies.   But it’s still significant. CEEV estimates that the wine industry could lose €800 million to €1 billion over the next year. It’s not only that Europeans will stop sending wines, but producers will also earn less on the wines they are sending.  Lamberto Frescobaldi, one of the largest wine producers in Italy, said the average price of Italian wine being sent to the U.S. has dropped 10 percent over the past three months.  “It kills me to think we would be less involved in the U.S. For many Italians, the U.S. has been the country of home, opportunity. It is a very, very difficult thing that we are not a good guest any longer there,” said the 30th-generation Florentine winemaker. ‘A FRAGILE AND SCARY TIME’  Across the ocean, it’s killing their counterparts, too.  “A wine that a restaurant bought in November of last year is going to be 35 percent more expensive this year,” said Ben Aneff, president of the U.S. Wine Trade Alliance, citing tariffs and the plunging dollar. “It’s hard to overstate the problem we expect that to start causing.”  European winemakers exported more than €4.88 billion worth of wine in 2024 to the U.S., their largest destination market. In parallel, for every dollar generated by wine exporters, American distribution and hospitality sectors earn $4.50, the European industry estimates. Importers and distributors have been hit hardest so far. Aneff said that European wines account for 75 percent of the industry’s profits. Most distributors have halted all hiring, and some have started layoffs. Harry Root, owner of Grassroots Wine in Charleston, South Carolina, focuses on small, family-owned wineries around the world, with about 60 percent of them in Europe. At this time last year his business was growing 13 percent year-on-year. This year, sales are flat. “And the only reason it’s flat is because we’ve had competitors going out of business. It’s a fragile and scary time,” Root said. His strategy for the rest of the year is to be more conservative with his European buying. But like most importers, he bought as much as possible before tariffs took effect.  BAD FOR EUROPE, BAD FOR THE U.S. This causes other issues though, particularly for American wineries.  “Subsequently, we have had to slow purchase from American producers because we have so much capital tied up in tariffs and EU wine,” said Root.  The way wine sales work in the U.S. goes back to the Prohibition era a century ago, when most states implemented what’s known as the three-tier system. Wineries sell to distributors, who sell to retailers and restaurateurs, who sell to consumers. Even if a retailer really wants a certain domestic wine, or has a good relationship with a winemaker, they cannot go out and purchase that wine on their own. “No other product in the country is sold this way,” said Aneff. “Distributors, who sometimes make up to 65 percent of revenue from imported wine, when they get a huge tariff bill, they buy less, including less American wine. Last time this happened, we had U.S. wineries who lost their distribution in states like New York because distributors had financial issues caused by tariffs.” That’s why American wine groups including Napa Valley Vintners, The Wine Institute, Wine America, and the National Association of Wine Retailers have sent a joint letter to Trump asking him to reconsider his European tariffs. They warned that the 15 percent tariff rate could reduce American alcohol sales by nearly $2 billion and put 25,000 U.S. jobs at risk.  “We import about $4.5 billion of European wine a year, resulting in $23 billion worth of sales in the U.S.,” said Aneff. “That surplus goes to the 6,000 importers and distributors who have employees, to independent retailers, to hundreds of thousands of restaurants and their employees. There is no other imported product that would have economics like that.” The wine world is in trouble not only because of tariffs. Climate change and extreme weather events and declining consumption are threatening the industry in both Europe and the U.S. But those are long-term problems, while this is immediate. WHAT CONSUMERS WANT The next few months will be telling as consumers grapple with higher prices. Wine is not fungible: the whole point of terroir is that wine is distinct, and of a place. A Pinot Noir from Burgundy is not the same as a Pinot Noir from Oregon. Both can be fantastic, but they’re different. “The flat reality is that when someone wants a burgundy from France, that’s what they want. If you go to the grocery store and want strawberries and they say ‘Here’s tomatoes,’ that’s not the same thing,” said Aneff. He’s had to raise prices on effectively everything at Tribeca Wine Merchants, his wine shop in New York City, to offset tariffs — even on U.S. wines.  But not everyone sees doomsday ahead. Peter Eizel, wine buyer at Martha’s Vineyard, a busy wine shop in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said he thinks consumers are willing to pay a couple dollars more for European wines.  He stocked up earlier this year, but there are some bottles you can only buy in certain seasons, like Beaujolais Nouveau. He ordered his cases a few weeks ago and said wines that he would normally sell for $10 will go for $11.99. He expects them to still fly off the shelves.  “If I said to someone, ‘Well the price of X, Y, Z wine is gonna go up $2 or $5, but I have this other wine from this country over here and it’s quality-wise about the same, and I can get it to you $4 cheaper,’ my customers will say, ‘I don’t care that it’s cheaper, it tastes different,’” he said.  The organizers of Vinitaly, the world’s largest wine show, are betting he’s right. Vinitaly has run in Verona for 58 years, but this October will stage its fair in Chicago for the second time. Adolfo Rebughini, general manager of Veronafiere, which organizes Vinitaly, expects about 1,600 U.S. buyers in Chicago this year — a strong number despite the situation.  “We’re going full steam ahead with the U.S. because it is such a critical market for Italian wine producers,” Rebughini said.  Italian wine exports to the U.S. account for roughly €2 billion per year, according to Rebughini. Veronafiere estimates the Italian wine sector could lose €317 million per year, but if the dollar keeps weakening that could reach €450 million.  Certain wines are more at risk. Sixty percent of all Moscato d’Asti is exported to the U.S., 48 percent of all Pinot Grigio and 46 percent of all Chianti. Some European wineries are looking outside the U.S., particularly to Canada, Mexico and Brazil. They welcome the EU’s deal with the South American Mercosur bloc and are excited about a prospective free-trade accord with India, where wine is currently taxed at 150 percent nationally, plus state taxes. But any benefit from those deals could be years away.  “We try to compensate with other markets, but there is no way that any other trade alternative that the EU could have could compensate for the losses of the U.S.” said Recarte of CEEV. “We understand that the Commission has been supporting us strongly, asking wines and spirits to have a special status in the second package.” Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told European lawmakers last week that he was working to expand exemptions on the 15 percent U.S. tariffs to include wine and spirits, signaling that no progress has yet been made.  For now, winemakers are living in limbo.  “We all still hope this disappears as fast as it appeared,” said Michlits, pausing the harvest for a rain break. “We all want tariffs to go away.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music “Europe is in a fight.” With those words, Ursula von der Leyen set the tone for her State of the European Union speech — framing this as Europe’s “Independence Moment.” She proposed sanctions on extremist Israeli ministers over Gaza; floated using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine; and backed calls for a drone wall to protect the bloc’s eastern flank against Russia. She also pledged action on jobs, poverty and housing. But were those fighting words enough to bridge the gap between promises and reality — or did they simply paper over a fraying coalition? Host Sarah Wheaton is joined by Rym Momtaz, editor-in-chief of Carnegie Europe’s Strategic Europe blog; Carsten Brzeski, ING’s global head of macro research; and Sorcha Edwards, secretary general of Housing Europe, to unpack the geopolitics, economics and social policy in the speech. We’ll also hear from POLITICO’s Max Griera in Strasbourg, with on-the-ground reactions from MEPs — and look across the border to France, where President Emmanuel Macron faces fresh political turmoil after the government of Prime Minister François Bayrou collapsed.

European lawmakers accused Commission President Ursula von der Leyen of striking a bad, one-sided trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump after she defended the accord in her annual State of the Union address Wednesday.  “Where was Europe when you signed an unfair deal with Trump?” asked Socialists & Democrats leader Iratxe García Pérez. Responding to von der Leyen’s speech, she called the EU’s decision to accept a 15 percent tariff on most EU exports while scrapping its own tariffs on U.S. industrial goods “unacceptable.”  The EU’s strategic autonomy, said García Pérez, has been buried “under a golf course.”  She was referring to the trade deal that von der Leyen struck with Trump at his Turnberry resort in Scotland in July. Von der Leyen and her aides have defended the deal as the best that could be done in difficult circumstances. Many critics fear, however, that it will condemn the bloc to an era of economic subjugation. Ahead of Wednesday’s speech, the European Socialists had already come out against the deal — and others leaped at the chance to criticize the agreement or voice specific concerns.  Both on the left and radical-right side of the Parliament, the truce with Trump was criticized widely. Martin Schirdewan, the German leader for The Left, said that “fighting overcapacity with more trade is like throwing lighters on the fire of the European economic crisis.” LEFT-RIGHT PILE ON Bas Eickhout of the Greens and Jordan Bardella of the right-wing Patriots for Europe both slammed von der Leyen’s promise that the EU would buy €750 billion in U.S. energy — mostly fossil-based — albeit for very different reasons.  Eickhout argued that, amid climate change, this money should be invested into European renewable energy. Bardella claimed, falsely, that EU countries would be coughing up that amount. In reality, this number is based on projections of investments and market developments, not hard agreements. While less harsh in her assessment, Valérie Hayer, chief of the liberal Renew Europe group, urged von der Leyen to “continue standing firm” on the bloc’s regulatory power and autonomy in trade talks. Trump has repeatedly attacked the EU’s digital rulebook, arguing that it puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage. European People’s Party leader Manfred Weber — von der Leyen’s political ally and fellow German conservative — seemed relatively isolated in his defense of the trade deal, asking: “What is the alternative to Scotland?” In her speech, von der Leyen called on lawmakers to support the agreement. Their votes will be needed to pass legislation to scrap the EU tariffs on U.S. industrial goods, which in turn would unlock a reduction in the levies on European cars being exported to the U.S. “I have heard many things about the deal we agreed on over the summer,” she said in her hour-long address. “I understand the initial reactions … But when you account for the exceptions that we secured and the additional rates which others have on top — we have the best agreement. Without any doubt.” “The deal provides crucial stability in our relations with the U.S. at a time of grave global insecurity,” she told MEPs. “Think of the repercussions of a full-fledged trade war with the U.S.” Trump, however, is ready to demand more and on Tuesday told the EU it should put 100 percent tariffs on both China and India to pressure them into abandoning support for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his war against Ukraine, the Financial Times and other news outlets reported. Von der Leyen, in her speech, did not respond to the U.S. demands, but did stress the need to keep up the pressure on Russia. “We need more sanctions,” she said, referring to a 19th round of measures that will prioritize phasing out imports of fossil fuels more quickly. This proposal is expected to land this week, with negotiations between EU governments to follow.