BRUSSELS — If European governments didn’t realize before that Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland were serious, they do now. Policymakers are no longer ignoring the U.S. president’s ramped-up rhetoric — and are desperately searching for a plan to stop him. “We must be ready for a direct confrontation with Trump,” said an EU diplomat briefed on ongoing discussions. “He is in an aggressive mode, and we need to be geared up.” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he planned to discuss a U.S. acquisition of Greenland with Danish officials next week. The White House said Trump’s preference would be to acquire the territory through a negotiation and also that it would consider purchasing the island — but that a military takeover was possible. As diplomatic efforts intensified in Europe, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said he and his counterparts from Germany and Poland had discussed a joint European response to Trump’s threats. “What is at stake is the question of how Europe, the EU, can be strengthened to deter threats, attempts on its security and interests,” Barrot told reporters. “Greenland is not for sale, and it is not for taking … so the threats must stop.” POLITICO spoke with officials, diplomats, experts and NATO insiders to map out how Europe could deter the U.S. president from getting that far, and what its options are if he does. They were granted anonymity to speak freely. “Everyone is very stunned and unaware of what we actually have in the toolbox,” said a former Danish MP. “No one really knows what to do because the Americans can do whatever they want. But we need answers to these questions immediately. They can’t wait three or five or seven years.” On Wednesday, POLITICO set out the steps Trump could take to seize Greenland. Now here’s the flip side: What Europe does to stop him. OPTION 1: FIND A COMPROMISE Trump says Greenland is vital for U.S. security interests and accuses Denmark of not doing enough to protect it against increasing Chinese and Russian military activity in the Arctic.  A negotiated settlement that sees Trump come out of talks with something he can sell as a win and that allows Denmark and Greenland to save face is perhaps the fastest route out of trouble. A former senior NATO official suggested the alliance could mediate between Greenland, Denmark and the U.S., as it has done with alliance members Turkey and Greece over their disputes. U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said on Wednesday that Trump and his advisers do not believe Greenland is properly secured. | Omar Havana/Getty Images U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said on Wednesday that Trump and his advisers do not believe Greenland is properly secured. “As the ice thaws and as the routes in the Arctic and the High North open up … Greenland becomes a very serious security risk for the mainland of the United States of America.” NATO allies are also mulling fresh overtures to Trump that could bolster Greenland’s security, despite a widely held view that any direct threat from Russian and Chinese ships to the territory is overstated. Among other proposals, the alliance should consider accelerating defense spending on the Arctic, holding more military exercises in the region, and posting troops to secure Greenland and reassure the U.S. if necessary, according to three NATO diplomats.  The alliance should also be open to setting up an “Arctic Sentry” scheme — shifting its military assets to the region — similar to its Eastern Sentry and Baltic Sentry initiatives, two of the diplomats said. “Anything that can be done” to bolster the alliance’s presence near Greenland and meet Trump’s demands “should be maxed out,” said one of the NATO diplomats cited above. Trump also says he wants Greenland for its vast mineral deposits and potential oil and gas reserves. But there’s a reason Greenland has remained largely untapped: Extracting resources from its inhospitable terrain is difficult and very expensive, making them less competitive than Chinese imports. Denmark’s envoys say they tried for years to make the case for investment in Greenland, but their European counterparts weren’t receptive — though an EU diplomat familiar with the matter said there are signs that attitude is shifting. OPTION 2: GIVE GREENLAND A TON OF CASH The Trump administration has thrown its weight behind Greenland’s independence movement. The pitch is that if the Arctic territory leaves the Kingdom of Denmark and signs up to a deal with the U.S., it will be flooded with American cash.  While Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland, he has also insisted he wants it to come willingly. The EU and Denmark are trying to convince Greenlanders that they can give them a better deal. Brussels is planning to more than double its spending on Greenland from 2028 under long-term budget plans drawn up after Trump started to make claims on the Danish-held territory, according to a draft proposal from the European Commission published in September. Under the plans, which are subject to further negotiations among member countries, the EU would almost double spending on Greenland to €530 million for a seven-year period starting in 2028.  That comes on top of the money Denmark sends Greenland as part of its agreement with the self-governing territory. Greenland would also be eligible to apply for an additional €44 million in EU funding for remote territories associated with European countries, per the same document. Danish and European support currently focuses mainly on welfare, health care, education and the territory’s green transition. Under the new spending plans, that focus would expand to developing the island’s ability to extract mineral resources. “We have many, many people below the poverty line, and the infrastructure in Greenland is lagging, and our resources are primarily taken out without good profit to Greenland but mostly profit to Danish companies,” said Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Greenlandic opposition MP.  An attractive offer from Denmark and the EU could be enough to keep Greenlanders out of America’s grasp. OPTION 3: RETALIATE ECONOMICALLY Since Trump’s first term in office, “there’s been a lot of effort to try and think through how we ensure European security, Nordic security, Arctic security, without the U.S. actively involved,” said Thomas Crosbie, a U.S. military expert at the Royal Danish Defense College, which provides training and education for the Danish defense force. “That’s hard, but it’s possible. But I don’t know if anyone has seriously contemplated ensuring European security against America. It’s just crazy,” Crosbie said. The EU does have one strong political tool at its disposal, which it could use to deter Trump: the Anti-Coercion Instrument, the “trade bazooka” created after the first Trump administration, which allows the EU to retaliate against trade discrimination. The EU threatened to deploy it after Trump slapped tariffs on the bloc but shelved it in July after the two sides reached a deal. With the U.S. still imposing tariffs on the EU, Brussels could bring the bazooka back out. “We have exports to the United States a bit above €600 billion, and for around one-third of those goods we have a market share of more than 50 percent and it’s totally clear that this is also the power in our hands,” said Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee. But Trump would have to believe the EU was serious, given that all its tough talk amounted to nothing the last time around. OPTION 4: BOOTS ON THE GROUND If the U.S. does decide to take Greenland by military force, there’s little Europeans could do to prevent it.  “They are not going to preemptively attack Americans before they claim Greenland, because that would be done before an act of war,” said Crosbie, the Danish military educator. “But in terms of responding to the first move, it really depends. If the Americans have a very small group of people, you could try and arrest those people, because there’d be a criminal act.” It’s a different story if the U.S. goes in hard. Legally speaking, it’s possible Denmark would be forced to respond militarily. Under a 1952 standing order, troops should “immediately take up the fight without waiting for, or seeking orders” in “the event of an attack on Danish territory.” European countries should weigh the possibility of deploying troops to Greenland — if Denmark requests it — to increase the potential cost of U.S. military action, an EU diplomat said, echoing suggestions that Berlin and Paris could send forces to deter any incursion. While those forces are unlikely to be able to withstand a U.S. invasion, they would act as a deterrent. “You could have a tripwire effect where you have some groups of people who are physically in the way, like a Tiananmen Square-type situation, which would potentially force the [U.S.] military to use violence” or to back down, said Crosbie.  But that strategy comes at a high cost, he said. “This is completely unexplored territory, but it is quite possible that people’s lives will be lost in the attempt to reject the American claim over Greenland.” Gerardo Fortuna, Clea Caulcutt and Eli Stokols contributed reporting.

The term ‘moonshot’ references the NASA moon missions of the 1960s, describing visionary, ambitious and innovative undertakings that redefined the boundaries of science and society. In recent times, it’s a phrase that the European Commission has used in the draft Horizon Europe 2028-2034 research initiative to describe building the Future Circular Collider or achieving commercial nuclear fusion. What the phrase does not connote or encompass is the continuation of a status quo that fails to meet the needs of European citizens. As the Commission rightly points out, the EU is suffering from “an alarming failure to translate innovation into products or services”. This problem is particularly acute in the context of health research, an arena in which only a very small proportion of pre-clinical discoveries leads to actual advances for patients. This has been referred to as the “valley of death” in drug discovery, with an estimated 95 percent of promising drugs failing at clinical stage. A large percentage of this failure rate is a result of ‘animal models’ of human disease and toxicity that simply do not translate from the laboratory to human beings in the real world. > Achieving a high degree of translational relevance in biomedical models would > be a true moonshot project, with its embrace of human biology as the new gold > standard. Achieving a high degree of translational relevance in biomedical models would be a true moonshot project, with its embrace of human biology as the new gold standard and a shift in research focus and funding to augment and enhance the existing toolbox of human-specific nonanimal methods (NAMs). The EU stands on the threshold of such a moment: a €1 billion investment in a NAMs Moonshot Programme under Horizon Europe 2028-2034. Such a programme would represent a transformative, coordinated effort to accelerate the development, validation and adoption of more human-relevant research methods across the full innovation cycle, from discovery to deployment. Europe’s current investment trajectory risks leaving it behind. Under the Choose Europe for Life Sciences strategy announced in July, the Commission pledged €10 billion annually through EU funding programs to position the EU as a global leader in health and life sciences. Yet only €50 million of that investment is earmarked for NAMs in 2026-27, not nearly enough to drive EU innovation or strengthen EU competitiveness. FG Trade/Getty Images By contrast, other global actors have not only recognised the strategic value of NAMs, but they have also put forward their money. The United States launched the NIH Complement-ARIE initiative in 2024, a 10-year, US$400 million programme to advance non-animal research methods, while the Netherlands established the Utrecht Ombion Centre for Animal-Free Biomedical Translation in 2025 with a €245 million investment. The current €50 million reserved for NAMs in the Commission’s strategy is not enough to get the job done. With Horizon Europe 2028-2034 doubling its budget and foregrounding a set of visionary moonshot projects, there’s a window of opportunity for the EU to strengthen NAMs funding and secure a leadership role in human-relevant, next-generation life sciences. A structured, €1 billion EU-wide NAMs Moonshot Programme, grounded in the principles of scientific excellence, strategic autonomy and societal benefit is in close alignment with the European Research Area Action on NAMs, which focuses on validation, infrastructure, education and awareness. > With Horizon Europe 2028-2034 doubling its budget and foregrounding a set of > visionary moonshot projects, there’s a window of opportunity for the EU to > strengthen NAMs funding and secure a leadership role in human-relevant, > next-generation life sciences. To set a NAMs moonshot up for success, validation capacity (i.e., proving NAMs work reliably and accurately for their intended purpose) must be prioritised, along with solid infrastructure and training to build scientific credibility and technological scalability. Education and awareness initiatives are essential to develop a skilled workforce and sustain long-term adoption of these approaches. This investment would drive scientific innovation and strengthen EU competitiveness. NAMs and human-centred experimental design must be embedded into educational curricula across disciplines. Inter- and transdisciplinary learning, integrating complex in vitro models, in silico tools and artificial intelligence (AI) will equip future researchers with the knowledge and skills needed to lead this scientific transition. Europe should promote open-access research repositories, supported by AI technologies, to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing across sectors. Establishing a coordinated European NAMs Integration Hub would enhance alignment, build synergies and accelerate the uptake of human-relevant approaches across academia, industry, regulators and international partners. This would help avoid fragmentation while preventing the formation of new silos, enabling full knowledge sharing and cooperation. > Just as humankind once looked to the moon and saw immense possibilities, > Europe must now be bold and invest in a future for health research that > delivers for its citizens. Social sciences and humanities must also play a central role in funded health research, ensuring fair partnerships with patient groups, regulators and other key interest holders. This will help align research with real-world needs, clarify intended outcomes and ensure the feasibility and social relevance of new approaches. Just as humankind once looked to the moon and saw immense possibilities, Europe must now be bold and invest in a future for health research that delivers for its citizens. A €1 billion investment in human-specific NAMs would support improved patient outcomes, greener and more ethical research, and enhanced EU competitiveness. It would bring cutting-edge science closer to the lives it seeks to improve and place Europe in the driving seat of the next revolution in human health. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Humane World for Animals * The ultimate controlling entity is Humane World for Animals More information here.

HELSINKI — Europe’s easternmost countries have a blunt message for Brussels: Russia is testing their borders, and the EU needs to start paying for the response. Leaders from eight EU states bordering Russia will use a summit in Helsinki on Tuesday to press for dedicated defense funding in the bloc’s next long-term budget, arguing that frontline security can no longer be treated as a national expense alone, according to three European government officials. “Strengthening Europe’s eastern flank must become a shared responsibility for Europe,” Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal said Monday. The first-of-its-kind summit, spearheaded by Finnish Premier Petteri Orpo, underscores a growing anxiety among the EU’s so-called Eastern flank countries about Russia’s increasingly brazen efforts to test their defenses and stir panic among their populations. In recent months Russia has flown fighter jets into Estonian airspace and sent dozens of drones deep into Polish and Romanian territory. Its ally Belarus has repeatedly brought Lithuanian air traffic to a standstill by allowing giant balloons to cross its borders. And last week, Moscow’s top envoy Sergey Lavrov issued a veiled threat to Finland to exit NATO.  “Russia is a threat to Europe … far into the future,” Orpo told Finnish daily Helsingin Sanomat on Saturday. “There is always a competition for resources in the EU, but [defense funding] is not something that is taken away from anyone.” Tuesday’s confab, attended by Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, comes during a critical week for Europe. On Monday several EU leaders met with U.S. officials as they strain to hammer out a peace deal in Ukraine, just three days before all 27 EU countries reconvene for a crucial summit that will determine whether they unlock €210 billion in frozen Russian cash for Kyiv. OPEN THE VAULTS At the heart of Tuesday’s discussion will be unblocking EU money.  The frontline countries want the EU to “propose new financial possibilities for border countries and solidarity-based financial tools,” said one of the government officials. As part of its 2028-2034 budget proposal, the European Commission plans to raise its defense spending fivefold to €131 billion. Frontline countries would like some of that cash to be earmarked for the region, two of the government officials said, a message they are likely to reiterate during Thursday’s European Council summit in Brussels. “Strengthening Europe’s eastern flank must become a shared responsibility for Europe,” Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal said. | Hendrik Schmidt/Getty Images In the meantime, the EU should consider new financial instruments similar to the bloc’s €150 billion loans-for-weapons program, called the Security Action For Europe, the same two officials said. European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen told POLITICO last week she had received calls to set up a “second SAFE” after the first iteration was oversubscribed. The frontline countries also want to throw their political weight behind two upcoming EU projects to buttress the bloc’s anti-drone and broader defenses, the two officials said. EU leaders refused to formally endorse the Eastern Flank Watch and European Drone Defense Initiative at a summit in October amid opposition by countries like Hungary, France and Germany, who saw them as overreach by Brussels on defense, two EU diplomats said at the time. A request to reserve part of the EU budget for a specific region may also face opposition from other countries. To get around this, Eastern flank countries should link defense “infrastructure improvements to overall [EU] economic development,” said Jamie Shea, a senior defense fellow at the Friends of Europe think tank and a former NATO spokesperson. Frontline capitals should also look at “opening up [those infrastructure projects] for competitive bidding” to firms outside the region, he added. DIFFERENT REGION, DIFFERENT VIEW Cash won’t be the only divisive issue in the shadows of Tuesday’s gathering. In recent weeks Donald Trump’s administration has repeatedly rebuked Europe, with the U.S. president branding the continent’s leaders “weak” in an interview with POLITICO. Countries like Germany and Denmark have responded to growing U.S. admonishments by directly rebutting recent criticisms and formally branding Washington a “security risk”.  But that approach has rankled frontline countries, conscious of jeopardizing Washington’s commitment to NATO’s collective defense pledge, which they see as a last line of protection against Moscow. This view also reflects a growing worry inside NATO that a peace deal in Ukraine will give Moscow more bandwidth to rearm and redirect its efforts toward frontline countries. “If the war stops in Ukraine … [Russia’s] desire is to keep its soldiers busy,” said one senior NATO diplomat, arguing those troops are likely to be “relocated in our direction.” “Europe should take over [its own] defenses,” the diplomat added. But until the continent becomes militarily independent, “we shouldn’t talk like this” about the U.S., they argued. “It’s really dangerous [and] it’s stupid.” Jacopo Barigazzi contributed to this report from Brussels.

Europe’s populist worries will intensify when right-wing billionaire Andrej Babiš becomes Czech prime minister today. Czech President Petr Pavel is set to appoint Babiš to the position after resolving longstanding conflict-of-interest issues related to the PM-elect’s conglomerate, Agrofert. Babiš and his future government have sparked fears in Brussels, where his opponents worry that alliances he could form at the European level may tilt Central Europe in an anti-establishment direction. Combined with Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, Babiš has the potential to jam up the legislative machinery in Brussels as it works on key files. Babiš regularly speaks of reviving the so-called Visegrád Four group, something both Orbán and Fico hope for, after it became largely dormant following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A new Visegrád grouping would likely count three rather than the four members it had after being founded as a cultural and political alliance in the 1990s. Poland’s current center-right prime minister, Donald Tusk, is staunchly pro-Ukraine and is thus unlikely to enter any entente with Orbán. Polish President Karol Nawrocki of the right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party, though, has been talking up the prospects for Visegrád. Babiš’ government — his Patriots for Europe-aligned ANO party is in a coalition with the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy and right-wing Motorists for Themselves parties — is also likely to fight against EU-level pro-environment initiatives. That could cause issues for climate files like ETS2, the Emissions Trading System for road and buildings, and Brussels’ bid to ban combustion engines. Czech President Petr Pavel is set to appoint Andrej Babiš to the position after resolving longstanding conflict-of-interest issues related to the PM-elect’s conglomerate, Agrofert. | Martin Divisek/EPA Following his decisive victory in the Czech election Oct. 3-4, however, Babiš has toned down his previous remarks about canceling the Czech ammunition initiative in support of Ukraine, raising questions about whether the campaign rhetoric will translate into actual policy reversals. The extent to which Czechia becomes another EU disrupter might become clearer later this week as Babiš travels to Brussels to take part in the European Council — assuming the rest of his cabinet is appointed by then.

Czech right-wing billionaire Andrej Babiš will be the new prime minister in Prague after announcing Thursday evening that he would dispose of a potential conflict of interest. Babiš’ ANO party won the Czech parliamentary election in October and formed a coalition with the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy and right-wing Motorists for Themselves parties. But the proposed prime minister and coalition ministers must be green-lit by Czech President Petr Pavel before taking office. Babiš has been entangled in legal woes, both at home and abroad, concerning his agriculture business empire Agrofert, which is a major recipient of EU subsidies. “Of course, I could have left politics after winning the election and had a comfortable life, or ANO could have appointed someone else as prime minister,” Babiš said Thursday night in a video address to voters. “But I am convinced that you would perceive it as a betrayal,” he added. “That is why I have decided to irrevocably give up the Agrofert company, with which I will no longer have anything to do, I will never own it, I will not have any economic relations with it, and I will not be in any contact with it.” Babiš’ ascension to the Czech premiership further tilts Central Europe in an anti-establishment direction, as the populist tycoon joins Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico as potential thorns in Brussels’ side on key EU files. In stepping back from Agrofert, however, Babiš made clear the importance of retaking the prime ministerial role. The holding’s shares will now be managed through a trust structure by an independent administrator. “This step, which goes far beyond the requirements of the law, was not easy for me. I have been building my company for almost half my life and I am very sorry that I will also have to step down as chairman of the Agrofert Foundation,” Babiš said. “My children will only get Agrofert after my death,” he added. In response, Pavel announced that he would appoint Babiš as prime minister on Dec. 9. Andrej Babiš has been entangled in legal woes, both at home and abroad, concerning his agriculture business empire Agrofert, which is a major recipient of EU subsidies. | Gabriel Kuchta/Getty Images “I appreciate the clear and understandable manner in which Andrej Babiš has fulfilled our agreement and publicly announced how he will resolve his conflict of interest,” Pavel said. Pavel previously noted that strong pro-NATO and pro-EU stances, along with safeguarding the country’s democratic institutions, will be key factors in his decision-making regarding the proposed Cabinet. Czech conflict of interest law bars officials (or their close relatives) from owning or controlling a business that would create a conflict with their governing function. This doesn’t mean ministers can’t own businesses, just that they must prioritize the public interest over their own. Similar rules exist at the EU level. When he was prime minister the first time round, from 2017 to 2021, Babiš placed Agrofert — which consists of more than 250 companies — in trust funds, but the Czech courts as well as the European Commission in 2021 concluded that he still retained influence over them and was therefore in violation of EU conflict-of-interest rules.

Angelika Niebler, head of the powerful center-right German delegation in the European Parliament, is being investigated for misusing EU funds, according to four parliamentary officials.  The European Parliament’s legal affairs committee will start discussing on Tuesday afternoon whether to lift the parliamentary immunity of Niebler — a member of the European People’s Party — following a request from the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. A committee hearing with Niebler herself will follow, and a final decision is not expected for several months. According to two of the four parliamentary officials, all granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive case, Niebler has been accused by EPPO of hiring assistants to chauffeur her from her hometown of Munich to Brussels and Strasbourg, as well as to private and business appointments not linked to her work as an MEP. EPPO also alleges that she got her assistants in Brussels to carry out private chores not related to her work as a lawmaker, and hired an assistant in Germany using Parliament cash to work for a former MEP colleague. The Parliament’s rules state that assistants can only help with parliamentary duties.  “The allegations are unfounded. I wish that the facts of the matter are clarified as quickly and completely as possible,” Niebler told POLITICO. “I will fully support this investigation.” A spokesperson for EPPO said the organization would “neither comment, nor do we confirm which investigations we are working on. This is to not endanger the outcome of the possible investigation.” MEPs get €30,769 a month to spend on staff, either in the Parliament in Brussels or in their local constituency office. Niebler, a longtime MEP, is a member of the Christian Social Union, the sister party of the Christian Democratic Union of Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The CSU and CDU are part of the EU’s biggest political family, the EPP. Since 2014, Niebler has co-led the CDU/CSU delegation in the Parliament along with Daniel Caspary, who is due to step down to join the European Court of Auditors at the end of the year. 

BRUSSELS — Israel’s new ambassador to the European Union is calling on the bloc to lift the penalties it imposed on his country over the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, now that a ceasefire negotiated with a push from Donald Trump has begun. In his first interview since officially taking up the post last week, Avi Nir-Feldklein said he was “optimistic” that the ceasefire would allow for a reset in Israel’s relationship with the EU, which has been severely strained by the fallout from the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.  The ambassador conceded that it had been a “challenging” period for Israel-EU relations. But he downplayed the rift and argued there was now a window “to overcome this short, uncomfortable situation that we have between us right now and to resume the good relations that we had,” given that the peace initiative was underway.  “We cherish very much our relationship with the EU,” the ambassador said. “I’m optimistic because I believe the EU member countries, most of them, would like to see it happening and right now the Trump initiative has started in a very good way and I believe that the EU would like to be part of it. “And if you want to be part of it, you need, really, to clear the table of what is hanging above our relationship.” Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced plans to restrict trade with Israel and impose sanctions on “extremist ministers” in Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration. She also suspended Commission funding for support to Israel, worth a total of around €14 million, as she demanded “the horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop.”  EU officials have been bitterly critical of Israel over what they have described as the “man-made famine” hitting tens of thousands of Palestinians and the failure to distribute aid supplies to those who need it. Some senior figures have labeled Israel’s actions in Gaza “genocide.” A number of EU countries moved last month to recognize a Palestinian state, angering the Israeli government.  The ambassador said two issues need to be resolved to allow for a reset in relations with Brussels. First, the EU funding for cooperation with Israeli institutions that von der Leyen put on hold should be restored. “This is one topic that we hope will be off the table and those projects that were put on hold will be resumed,” he said.  The second point the Commission needs to address is the proposed suspension of parts of the EU-Israel association agreement on the Horizon Europe research program and preferential trade terms. “There’s just no reason any more for it,” he said. “This needs to be totally off the table.”  EU and U.K. officials have said they want Europe to have a seat on the “board of peace,” the body that is intended to oversee the transitional governance of Gaza by a Palestinian committee. Nir-Feldklein said it would be up to Israel’s foreign minister to discuss the question of the peace board’s composition with the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas.  “But there’s probably going to be some reluctance in Jerusalem before we clear the table” of the issues “hanging above our relations.”  TWO-STATE SOLUTION  Nir-Feldklein said the success of the Trump initiative was “extremely important” for Israel, bringing an end to the conflict and returning the Israeli hostages Hamas seized two years ago.  The EU, U.K. and other Western powers regard a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state alongside Israel, as the only viable long-term option for peace in the Middle East.  Netanyahu has flatly ruled out such an option, and the new ambassador said it would be impossible while Hamas remained active in Gaza and while Palestinians continue to deny the right of the state of Israel to exist, two issues that have not been addressed under the current ceasefire. A representative of the Palestinian mission in Brussels was contacted for comment, but did not respond.  But Nir-Feldklein did not rule out that at some point in the future, if the Palestinians take a radically different approach, a two-state solution could return as an option.  “They need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” he said. “What we need to see is much more sincere attitudes from the Palestinian leadership toward a future solution and then who knows? Maybe then it might be again on the table. Out of three times they rejected it, twice we were the ones putting it on the table.”  The ambassador added, “It was on the table, now it’s off the table, but you know, life far away [is] dynamic. So maybe I don’t know what — maybe after we see real sincere efforts, then it might be.”  A few years ago, even Netanyahu was saying publicly he supported a two-state solution, the ambassador said, but the Israeli prime minister now has “good reasons” not to support the concept. 

The European Union wants to boost efforts to ban conversion therapy and tackle hate against LGBTQ+ people in the face of an increase in attacks against the community. Around one in four members of the LGBTQ+ community in the EU — including almost half of trans people — have been subjected to some form of conversion therapy, whether in the form of physical or sexual violence, verbal abuse or humiliation, according to data presented by the European Commission on Wednesday. Conversion therapy is the name given to any effort to change, modify or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender. These numbers are “shocking,” Commissioner for Equality Hadja Lahbib said at a press conference. “This must stop.” Lahbib on Wednesday presented the LGBTIQ+ Strategy for 2026-2030 to combat growing attacks against members of the community. “It seems we are moving backwards,” she said, adding that this is a “worrying trend.” Half of EU countries currently have a national strategy for LGBTQ+ equality, and eight countries (Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Malta, Portugal and Spain) have banned conversion therapy, with the Netherlands discussing following suit. Meanwhile, in the United States, the Supreme Court is considering overturning Colorado’s ban on the practice. As part of its new strategy, which is not legally binding, the Commission wants to focus on tackling hate speech against LGBTQ+ people, both online and offline, and will be coming up with a plan to combat cyberbullying. The Commission is also considering drawing up a law to harmonize the definition of online hate offenses. Several European countries have cracked down on the LGBTQ+ community. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico successfully pushed last month to enshrine into his country’s constitution that there are only two genders (male and female), and to ban surrogacy and adoption for same-sex couples. Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orbán, has been in a standoff with Brussels over a series of anti-LGBTQ+ laws and his unsuccessful attempt to ban this year’s Budapest Pride — an event that celebrates the LGBTQ+ community. The EU’s top court is expected to rule soon on whether these actions violate EU law, but a recent legal opinion suggests that the court is likely to side with Brussels. “The Commission will not hesitate to take further action,” including going to court, to protect people’s rights, Lahbib said, adding that there are 10 ongoing infringement procedures against Hungary for violating EU fundamental rights. The Commission has also frozen €18 billion in EU funding for Hungary as a result of these breaches. “We don’t want to punish the citizens for the actions taken by their governments,” Lahbib said, adding that in the next EU long-term budget, she proposed that frozen funds for rule of law violations be directly redistributed to civil society organizations.

BRUSSELS ― The far-right Patriots for Europe is taking legal action after the European Parliament suspended access to millions of euros in public funds over alleged misspending. In two separate cases, the Patriots party is contesting rulings by the Parliament and the EU’s party watchdog that resulted in it losing access to more than €4 million in funds, arguing the decisions were illegitimate and the product of bias and lack of impartiality. The far-right political family, home to France’s Marine Le Pen and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, has consistently complained of being sidelined from EU policymaking and key positions of power since the 2024 European elections, where it surged to become the third-largest group in Parliament. Mainstream politicians have kept the Patriots at arm’s length under the so-called cordon sanitaire — an informal pact to avoid cooperation with factions on the far right and far left. Now, the Patriots are also accusing EU officials of sabotaging their access to public cash earmarked for political parties. “There is a problem with certain agents of the administration of the Parliament,” said Belgian MEP Gerolf Annemans, honorary president of the Patriots party. The Patriots scored its first win on Wednesday when the European Court of Justice annulled a sanction by the party watchdog, the APPF, which had required the party to pay a €47,000 fine. The sanction came after the party wrongly referred to one of its lawmakers as being part of its board in a social media post, which the APPF took as a sign the party had lied in its entry to the authority’s register — a serious offense that could lead to all public funding for the party being withheld. The APPF ruling enabled the European Parliament to cut the Patriots party off from accessing €4 million of EU funding in 2023, documents obtained by POLITICO show. That meant a substantial cut to the party’s available budget for the 2024 elections — where other European political parties carried their 2023 funds over for the following year. Wednesday’s court ruling will allow the Patriots to try to claim part of these funds back — and will likely bolster the party’s claims of bias from the Parliament’s administration. EQUAL TREATMENT In a separate lawsuit filed mid-July, the Patriots accused the Parliament of bias and lack of impartiality after it ruled the party had misspent funds in a campaign in Czechia. The Parliament’s Bureau, composed of MEPs and tasked with taking decisions on administrative issues, ruled the Patriots should pay for that campaign with their own money and give back the EU funds spent on it, which came to €228,000. The decision violated “the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, as it deemed similar campaigns by other parties to be reimbursable,” the Patriot’s case document, seen by POLITICO, read. The far-right political family, home to France’s Marine Le Pen and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, has consistently complained of being sidelined from EU policymaking and key positions of power since the 2024 European elections. | Wojtek Radwanski/Getty Images They also argue that the decision was not impartial, as the Bureau is composed mostly of center-right, liberal and left-wing lawmakers, with no far-right MEPs from the Patriots present to defend the case. On top of that, they contend the Parliament violated their rights to defense as it censored big chunks of the letter the Patriots had sent to the bureau to defend themselves. In the first version of the letter, the Patriots compared their campaign with that of another EU party. In the letter that the administration circulated in the bureau, the justification was redacted. ‘VERY GOOD LAWYERS’ The Parliament refused to comment on the ongoing judicial proceedings. The APPF “remains committed to protecting integrity of European democracy” in accordance with its obligations under EU law, it said after the ruling. These two lawsuits follow threats of a separate challenge from the Patriots group — a distinct legal entity from the Patriots party, which represents the far-right camp in Parliament. At the beginning of September, the Parliament’s budgetary control committee recommended the administration seek the reimbursement of €4.3 million from the group in reparations for alleged misspending by the now-defunct far-right Identity and Democracy. The ID group dissolved in the summer of 2024, with many of its members and staff joining the new Patriots. “We will fight it in court if necessary,” said a Patriots group official, granted anonymity to speak about sensitive matters. “We have very good lawyers, and we are sure we are right.”

The Italian organizers announced Monday they are cancelling the concert of pro-Kremlin conductor Valery Gergiev after a political outcry. Gergiev, who is a staunch supporter of Russian ruler Vladimir Putin, was slated to perform at the major Un’Estate da Re festival at the vast 18th century Royal Palace of Caserta, near Naples, on July 27. It would have been his first concert in the European Union since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began three years ago. Putting Gergiev on the line-up drew plenty of criticism last week. The performance “risks sending the wrong message,” said Italy’s Culture Minister Alessandro Giuli. Yulia Navalnaya, the wife of late Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, also spoke out against it. Gergiev supports Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula in 2014 and conducted nationalistic concerts after Russia occupied the Georgian region of South Ossetia in 2008. After Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, major opera houses and festivals across Europe cut ties with Gergiev. Ukraine and several countries inside the EU have consistently banned prominent pro-Kremlin opera singers from performing, arguing they are a part of Russia’s propaganda machine and shouldn’t be seen separately from the Kremlin’s imperialist agenda. The European Commission also got involved, pushing a Spanish organizer to make sure no EU funding was flowing to concerts that had Gergiev on the program.