BRUSSELS — Access to confidential EU documents by the Russia-friendly Alternative for Germany party is raising concerns that sensitive deliberations are being exposed to Moscow, three EU diplomats and four German lawmakers have said. German MPs — including from the far-right AfD — have access to a databank containing thousands of EU files. Those include confidential notes from meetings of ambassadors where the bloc’s diplomats hash out their countries’ positions on geopolitical issues such as plans to fund Ukraine using frozen Russian assets. “The problem is that we have a party, the AfD, of which there are justified suspicions of information leaking to China or Russia,” said Greens lawmaker Anton Hofreiter, chair of the Bundestag’s EU affairs committee. Those suspicions are shaping how sensitive talks are conducted, as diplomats increasingly factor in the risk of exposure. Budapest was accused in media reports over the weekend of passing information about confidential discussions by EU leaders to Moscow, claims Hungary’s foreign minister described as “fake news.” EU countries already meet in smaller groups over concerns that “less-than-loyal” countries leak sensitive information to the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a European government official said. “We’re taking all kinds of precautions in Brussels to protect sensitive meetings and information,” said one senior EU diplomat. But the access that AfD MPs have to the confidential materials “leaves a giant, Putin-shaped hole in our security measures.”  “We’re all careful about sharing sensitive information in a format with 27 EU member states,” another diplomat said. “Whether because of [Hungarian leader Viktor] Orbán or because of the German system … we don’t freely share all information as you would among your closest confidants in a setting with 27 member states around the table. That’s the Hungarian factor, and that’s the AfD factor.” An “ambassador cannot guarantee that any sensitive things he says in Coreper [the EU ambassadors’ format] are not going straight to the Russians or China,” the diplomat continued. The diplomats POLITICO spoke to said they weren’t aware of these concerns being raised in any official capacity — “more at the watercooler,” the same diplomat said, adding there’s lots of chatter about concerns on the sidelines of meetings, particularly among countries in Europe’s northwest. The AfD denies it passes information from the system to Russia or China. “We do not comment on baseless allegations,” a spokesperson for the AfD’s parliamentary group said in response to a request for comment.   A LEAKY SYSTEM Unlike in other national parliaments, all MPs and their aides in Germany’s Bundestag have access to EuDoX, a databank containing thousands of EU files ranging from ministerial summit briefing notes to summaries of confidential meetings among ambassadors. The system was set up as a safeguard against unchecked executive power, a particular concern in Germany given its Nazi past. The documents — around 25,000 per year — are put into the system by a special unit within the Bundestag that gets them from the government. The databank contains “restricted” documents, the lowest classification of confidential information.   “In principle, this [access] is absolutely right and necessary in order to fulfill our task … to monitor the federal government, and since a great deal of this takes place at the EU level, it is, as I said, necessary,” the Greens’ Hofreiter said. Experts also noted that the government is well aware that a large number of people have access to the system and that this creates the possibility of leaks.   “Considering that EuDoX is a relatively open platform with 5,000 authorized users, there is nothing particularly sensitive in it. The federal government knows exactly what it is feeding into it,” said law professor Sven Hölscheidt from the Free University Berlin, who has studied the databank. But seven German lawmakers or their aides who use the databank told POLITICO the AfD’s access is a security risk. “The AfD’s apparent closeness to Putin, the contacts between numerous AfD lawmakers and the Russian embassy, their trips to Moscow, their adoption of Russian propaganda narratives, and their deliberate attempts to obtain security-related information through parliamentary inquiries are causing sleepless nights for all those who care deeply about the country’s security,” said Roland Theis, a senior lawmaker for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives in the Bundestag’s EU affairs committee. Centrist lawmakers have said AfD politicians expose information that could be of interest to Russian intelligence. That includes government information on local drone defenses, Western arms transports to Ukraine, and authorities’ knowledge of Russian sabotage and hybrid activities in the Baltic Sea region. Late last year, the party’s lawmakers were widely accused of using their right to submit parliamentary questions to gather information for the Kremlin, claims the party’s leadership rejected. Earlier in 2025, a former aide to MEP Maximilian Krah was convicted of spying for China. “In general, we view the AfD’s handling of sensitive information with great concern,” said Johannes Schraps, a senior SPD lawmaker in the Bundestag’s EU affairs committee, adding that this concern “stems from a broader pattern.” The Bundestag administration took some steps toward securing information last year, Schraps said, including denying some AfD staff members access to buildings and parliamentary IT systems. Chris Lunday and Max Griera contributed reporting.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music In dieser Sonderfolge spricht Gordon Repinski mit zwei Experten, die sich regelmäßig mit unsichtbaren, hybriden Angriffen beschäftigen: Sinan Selen, Präsident des Bundesverfassungsschutzes, und Marika Linntam, Botschafterin Estlands in Deutschland. Zusammen haben sie auf der Sicherheitstagung des Bundesverfassungsschutzes und des „Verbandes für Sicherheit in der Wirtschaft“ besprochen, wie Russland mit Nadelstichen versucht, die deutsche Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft zu destabilisieren. Während Estland durch jahrelange Erfahrung eine breite gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Resilienz gegen Desinformation und Sabotage entwickelt hat, warnt Sinan Selen vor einem erheblichen Nachholbedarf in deutschen Unternehmen und der breiten Öffentlichkeit. Im Gespräch geht es deswegen auch darum, wie die Sensibilität gesteigert werden kann, ohne dabei paranoid zu werden. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Wir befinden uns in einem neuen Kalten Krieg, und er ist deutlich ungemütlicher als der letzte. Anstatt klarer Blockkonfrontation erleben wir ein multipolares Chaos, in dem die zivile Infrastruktur und die Wirtschaft längst zum Ziel geworden sind. Im Panel-Gespräch auf einer Sicherheitstagung in Berlin spricht der Präsident des Bundesverfassungsschutzes, Sinan Selen, mit Gordon Repinski über Russlands Nadelstiche aus der „hybriden Toolbox“ und neue Bedrohungen aus Richtung Iran. Wie gut sind das Land und die Geheimdienste gegen diese teils unsichtbaren Feinde aufgestellt? Im 200-Sekunden-Interview dazu: der stellvertretende Vorsitzende des Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremiums, Konstantin von Notz (Grüne). Nach dem EU-Gipfel sortiert Hans von der Burchard die Ergebnisse. Von der Ukraine-Hilfe über das Rüstungsprojekt FCAS bis hin zur europäischen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit gibt er ein Update aus dem politischen Herzen Europas. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

EU efforts to ban Huawei from 5G networks won the backing of a top court advisor Thursday, in a legal opinion that is likely to galvanize security hawks seeking to restrict Chinese tech in Europe. A lawyer for the EU’s top court in Luxembourg said rules blocking telecom operators from using risky suppliers can be set by the EU, not just national governments. They also said telecom operators don’t need to be compensated for the cost of replacing Huawei equipment. It’s a blow for Europe’s telecom giants, which have pushed back against banning China’s Huawei from 5G procurement and have told EU officials that large-scale bans are an “act of self-harm” that could even bring down networks. It is a win for China hawks, who have fought to impose tougher measures against Huawei — with strong backing from Washington. The EU has spent years trying to persuade national governments to voluntarily kick out Huawei and ZTE over concerns that their presence in European telecom networks could enable large-scale spying and surveillance by the Chinese government. It is now working on broader rules that seek to reduce the bloc’s reliance on foreign “high-risk” suppliers and limit foreign government control over its digital networks. The case was brought by Estonian telecom operator Elisa, which is seeking compensation for the costs of removing Huawei and is challenging whether the EU has the competence to ask for restrictions on Chinese vendors. Thursday’s opinion said national security authorities can follow EU guidance when imposing bans on Huawei. The Court of Justice is expected to issue its final ruling on the case later this year, and may take the opinion from Advocate General Tamara Ćapet into account. Laszlo Toth, head of Europe at global telecom lobby association GSMA, said in reaction that “blanket rip-and-replace mandates are an unreasonable approach to what is a highly nuanced situation.” The industry considers national security measures should remain the responsibility of national governments, he said. Huawei said the opinion “recognizes that all restrictive measures with regards to telecom equipment must be subject to judicial review, under a strict standard of proportionality” and that “decisions cannot rest on general suspicion … but must be based on a specific assessment.” “We expect EU or national restrictions to be scrutinized under this principle,” Huawei said. BOON FOR BRUSSELS Progress towards an EU-wide ban has been sluggish, with many national governments dragging their feet, in part due to fears of Chinese trade retaliation. European Commission Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen told POLITICO in January that she is “not satisfied” with voluntary efforts by EU capitals to kick out Huawei. The EU executive now wants binding rules, laid out in a proposal in January. Large telecom players in Europe have pushed back hard against restrictions on Huawei, arguing that blocking risky vendors is a national security measure — an area handled exclusively by national governments. Efforts to clamp down on risky vendors should respect “the competence of member states for national security matters,” industry group Connect Europe said in January. Thursday’s opinion suggests operators will have a harder time fighting the bans.  It also bodes badly for operators hoping to get compensated for ripping out Huawei equipment. Many have sought financial support and compensation for the measures, which they say add massive unexpected costs to network rollouts. The EU executive previously estimated that phasing out “specific high-risk equipment” would cost between €3.4 billion and €4.3 billion per year for three years. Only if the burden for replacing Huawei is “disproportionately heavy,” could telcos seek compensation, according to the opinion. Elisa said it welcomed the legal recommendation that all decisions made on the grounds of national security should still be subject to judicial review. It said the restrictions in Estonia “amounted to a deprivation of its ownership rights … as the impacted equipment has become unusable” and that Elisa “already swapped the majority of its network equipment to Nokia.” Chinese vendor ZTE, the smaller rival of Huawei, did not respond to a request for comment. Mathieu Pollet contributed reporting.

LONDON — Two men have been charged Wednesday evening with spying on locations and individuals linked to the Jewish community on behalf of Iran. Nematollah Shahsavani, a 40-year-old dual British and Iranian national, and Alireza Farasati, a 22-year-old Iranian national, were charged under the National Security Act with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service between July 9 and Aug. 15 last year. The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed the charges related to Iran. The Metropolitan Police’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans described the charges as “extremely serious” after counter terror Police investigated alleged surveillance of places and people in London’s Jewish community. “We fully recognise that the public — and in particular the Jewish community — will be concerned,” Evans said. “I hope this investigation reassures them that we will not hesitate to take action if we identify there may be a threat to their safety, and will be relentless in our pursuit of those who may be responsible.” The men were originally arrested and detained on March 6 while two other men arrested on the same day were released without charge. The head of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division Frank Ferguson said “the charge relates to carrying out activities in the U.K. such as gathering information and undertaking reconnaissance of targets.” Shahsavani and Farasati will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court Thursday March 19.

LONDON — Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has welcomed an offer from MI5 to help political parties vet their election candidates as hostile states try to infiltrate British democracy. Last month MI5 — Britain’s domestic intelligence agency — said it would help political parties with candidate checks for potential foreign interference risks. A Reform spokesman told POLITICO the party would be “very interested” in taking up the offer, if it “comes to fruition.” Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, made the offer at a cross-party briefing with U.K. political parties last month, alongside Security Minister Dan Jarvis, three people with knowledge of the meeting told POLITICO. The offer from McCallum is part of a wider effort by the U.K. government and security services to shore up British democracy amid a wave of espionage activity from hostile states. In the past six months, several foreign and U.K.-born citizens have been arrested on suspicion of working for Iran, Russia and China. Earlier this month three former Labour officials, including the husband of a sitting Labour MP and former candidate for North Wales police and crime commissioner, were arrested by counter-terrorism police on suspicion of spying for China. Last year, the former Reform UK leader in Wales Nathan Gill was jailed for accepting bribes to make pro-Russian statements while he was a member of the EU parliament for Reform’s precursor Brexit Party. Britain’s political parties have no standardized system for vetting those who want to become MPs. Each party has its own internal, and in some cases, external processes for probity checks. Reform leader Nigel Farage in 2024 blamed a “reputable vetting company” for oversights in helping sift its candidates ahead of the general election after one praised Hitler and backed Russia’s war in Ukraine. He apologized, adding: “We have been stitched up politically and that’s given us problems.” MI5’s role in vetting is limited to its own staff and certain levels of security clearance for specific government and official roles in Whitehall. Its offer to candidates is expected to be limited to helping parties assess foreign interference risks, rather than any official security clearance. POLITICO asked the six main Westminster parties if they will take MI5 up on its offer to assist in their vetting processes. The ruling Labour Party, the Conservatives, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats all declined to comment. The Scottish National Party did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The offer from Ken McCallum is part of a wider effort by the U.K. government and security services to shore up British democracy amid a wave of espionage activity from hostile states. | Jonathan Brady/PA WIRE/AFP via Getty A Reform UK spokesman said: “If this offer comes to fruition, we would be very interested in taking the MI5 up on it.  “We must do all we can to stamp out foreign interference in our politics. We have seen just last week with the Labour China spy scandal just how deeply embedded this issue is.” The government unveiled its Counter Political Interference and Espionage Action Plan last November. It includes an elections bill, which is currently making its way through parliament. An independent review into financial interference in U.K. democracy is examining the use of cryptocurrency. Ministers are also considering bringing in proscription-like powers to disrupt proxies and state-backed terror groups as part of the plan. A Government spokesperson said: “The Security Minister is coordinating an action plan to ensure we’re doing all we can to safeguard our democracy, including working directly with political parties to help them detect and deter interference and espionage. “We’re also strengthening rules on political funding, rolling out security advice for election candidates, and working with professional networking sites and think tanks to make them a more hostile operating environment for foreign agents.”

LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is braced for a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping — and there’ll be more than a few elephants in the room. Though Britain has improved its relationship with China following the more combative approach of previous Conservative administrations, a litany of concerns over national security and human rights continues to dog Labour’s attempted refresh. Starmer, who will meet the Chinese president in Beijing Thursday morning, told reporters engaging with China means he can discuss “issues where we disagree.”   “You know that in the past, on all the trips I’ve done, I’ve always raised issues that need to be raised,” he said during a huddle with journalists on the British Airways flight to China on Tuesday evening. In a sign of how hard it can be to engage on more tricky subjects, Chinese officials bundled the British press out of the room when Starmer tried to bring up undesirable topics the last time the pair met. From hacking and spying to China’s foreign policy aims, POLITICO has a handy guide to all the ways Starmer could rile up the Chinese president. 1) STATE-SPONSORED HACKING China is one of the biggest offenders in cyberspace and is regarded by the U.K.’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) — part of Britain’s GCHQ intelligence agency — as a “highly sophisticated threat actor.” The Electoral Commission said it has taken three years to recover from a Chinese hack of its systems. The Chinese state, and private companies linked directly or obliquely to its cyber and espionage agencies, have been directly accused by the British government, its intelligence agencies and allies. As recently as last month, the U.K. government sanctioned two Chinese companies — both named by the U.S. as linked to Chinese intelligence — for hacking Britain and its allies. 2) ACTIONS AGAINST BRITISH PARLIAMENTARIANS Politicians in Britain who have spoken out against Chinese human rights abuses and hostile activity have been censured by Beijing in recent years. This includes the sanctioning of 5 British MPs in 2021, including the former security minister Tom Tugendhat, who has been banned from entering the country. Last year, Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse was refused entry to Hong Kong while attempting to visit her grandson, and was turned back by officials. The government said that the case was raised with Chinese authorities during a visit to China by Douglas Alexander, who was trade minister at the time. 3) JIMMY LAI In 2020, the British-Hong Kong businessman and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai was arrested under national security laws imposed by Beijing and accused of colluding with a foreign state. Lai — who is in his late 70s — has remained in prison ever since. Last month, a Hong Kong court convicted Lai of three offenses following what his supporters decried as a 156-day show trial. He is currently awaiting the final decisions relating to sentencing — with bodies including the EU parliament warning that a life imprisonment could have severe consequences for Europe’s relationship with China if he is not released. Lai’s son last year called for the U.K. government to make his father’s release a precondition of closer relations with Beijing.  4) REPRESSION OF DISSIDENTS China, like Iran, is involved in the active monitoring and intimidation of those it considers dissidents on foreign soil — known as trans-national repression. China and Hong Kong law enforcement agencies have repeatedly issued arrest warrants for nationals living in Britain and other Western countries.  British police in 2022 were forced to investigate an assault on a protester outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester. The man was beaten by several men after being dragged inside the grounds of the diplomatic building during a demonstration against Xi Jinping. China removed six officials from Britain before they could be questioned. 5) CHINESE SPY SCANDALS Westminster was last year rocked by a major Chinese spying scandal involving two British men accused of monitoring British parliamentarians and passing information back to Beijing. Though the case against the two men collapsed, the MI5 intelligence agency still issued an alert to MPs, peers and their staff, warning Chinese intelligence officers were “attempting to recruit people with access to sensitive information about the British state.” It is not the only China spy allegation to embroil the upper echelons of British society. Yang Tengbo, who in 2024 outed himself as an alleged spy banned from entering the U.K., was a business associate of Andrew Windsor , the` disgraced brother of King Charles. Christine Lee, a lawyer who donated hundreds of thousands of pounds to a Labour MP, was the subject of a security alert from British intelligence. In October, Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, said that his officers had “intervened operationally” against China that month. 6) EMBASSY DING DONG This month — after a protracted political and planning battle — the government approved the construction of a Chinese “super-embassy” in London. This came after a litany of security concerns were raised by MPs and in the media, including the building’s proximity to sensitive cables, which it is alleged could be used to aid Chinese spying. Britain has its own embassy headache in China. Attempts to upgrade the U.K. mission in Beijing were reportedly blocked while China’s own London embassy plan was in limbo. 7) SANCTIONS EVASION China has long been accused of helping facilitate sanctions evasion for countries such as Russia and Iran. Opaque customs and trade arrangements have allegedly allowed prohibited shipments of oil and dual-use technology to flow into countries that are sanctioned by Britain and its allies. Britain has already sanctioned some Chinese companies accused of aiding Russia’s war in Ukraine. China has called for Britain to stop making “groundless accusations” about its involvement in Russia’s war efforts. 8) HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND GREEN ENERGY U.K. ministers are under pressure from MPs and human rights organizations to get tougher on China over reported human rights abuses in the country’s Xinjiang region — where many of the world’s solar components are sourced. In a meeting with China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang last March, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband raised the issue of forced labor in supply chains, according to a government readout of the meeting. But he also stressed the need for deeper collaboration with China as the U.K.’s lofty clean power goal looms. British academic Laura Murphy — who was researching the risk of forced labor in supply chains — had her work halted by Sheffield Hallam University amid claims of pressure from China. “I know that there are other researchers who don’t feel safe speaking out in public, who are experiencing similar things, although often more subtly,” Murphy said last year. 9) THE FUTURE OF TAIWAN China continues to assert that “Taiwan is a province of China” amid reports it is stepping up preparations for military intervention in the region. In October, the Telegraph newspaper published an op-ed from the Chinese ambassador to Britain, which said: “Taiwan has never been a country. There is but one China, and both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same China.” In a sign of just how sensitive the matter is, Beijing officials reportedly threatened to cancel high-level trade talks between China and the U.K. after Alexander, then a trade minister, travelled to Taipei last June. 10) CHINA POOTLING AROUND THE ARCTIC Britain is pushing for greater European and NATO involvement in the Arctic amid concern that both China and Russia are becoming more active in the strategically important area. There is even more pressure to act, with U.S. President Donald Trump making clear his Greenland aspirations. In October, a Chinese container ship completed a pioneering journey through the Arctic to a U.K. port — halving the usual time it takes to transport electric cars and solar panels destined for Europe.

LONDON — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney left Beijing and promptly declared the U.S.-led “world order” broken. Don’t expect his British counterpart to do the same. Keir Starmer will land in the Chinese capital Wednesday for the first visit by a U.K. prime minister since 2018. By meeting President Xi Jinping, he will end what he has called an “ice age” under the previous Conservative administration, and try to win deals that he can sell to voters as a boost to Britain’s sputtering economy. Starmer is one of a queue of leaders flocking to the world’s second-largest economy, including France’s Emmanuel Macron in December and Germany’s Friedrich Merz next month. Like Carney did in Davos last week, the British PM has warned the world is the most unstable it has been for a generation. Yet unlike Carney, Starmer is desperate not to paint this as a rupture from the U.S. — and to avoid the criticism Trump unleashed on Carney in recent days over his dealings with China. The U.K. PM is trying to ride three horses at once, staying friendly — or at least engaging — with Washington D.C., Brussels and Beijing.  It is his “three-body problem,” joked a senior Westminster figure who has long worked on British-China relations. POLITICO spoke to 22 current and former officials, MPs, diplomats, industry figures and China experts, most of whom were granted anonymity to speak frankly. They painted a picture of a leader walking the same tightrope he always has surrounded by grim choices — from tricky post-Brexit negotiations with the EU, to Donald Trump taking potshots at British policies and freezing talks on a U.K.-U.S. tech deal. Starmer wants his (long-planned) visit to China to secure growth, but be cautious enough not to compromise national security or enrage Trump. He appears neither to have ramped up engagement with Beijing in response to Trump, nor reduced it amid criticism of China’s espionage and human rights record. In short, he doesn’t want any drama. “Starmer is more managerial. He wants to keep the U.K.’s relationships with big powers steady,” said one person familiar with planning for the trip. “You can’t really imagine him doing a Carney or a Macron and using the trip to set out a big geopolitical vision.” An official in 10 Downing Street added: “He’s clear that it is in the U.K.’s interests to have a relationship with the world’s second biggest economy. While the U.S. is our closest ally, he rejects the suggestion that means you can’t have pragmatic dealings with China.” He will be hoping Trump — whose own China visit is planned for April — sees it that way too. BRING OUT THE CAVALRY Starmer has one word in his mind for this trip — growth, which was just 0.1 percent in the three months to September. The prime minister will be flanked by executives from City giants HSBC, Standard Chartered, Schroders and the London Stock Exchange Group; pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca; car manufacturer Jaguar Land Rover; energy provider Octopus; and Brompton, the folding bicycle manufacturer. The priority in Downing Street will be bringing back “a sellable headline,” said the person familiar with trip planning quoted above. The economy is the overwhelming focus. While officials discussed trying to secure a political win, such as China lifting sanctions it imposed on British parliamentarians in 2021, one U.K. official said they now believe this to be unlikely. Between them, five people familiar with the trip’s planning predicted a large number of deals, dialogues and memorandums of understanding — but largely in areas with the fewest national security concerns. These are likely to include joint work on medical, health and life sciences, cooperation on climate science, and work to highlight Mandarin language schemes, the people said.  Officials are also working on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and visa-free travel for short stays, while firms have been pushing for more expansive banking and insurance licences for British companies operating in China. The U.K. is meanwhile likely to try to persuade Beijing to lower import tariffs on Scotch whisky, which doubled in February 2025. A former U.K. official who was involved in Britain’s last prime ministerial visit to China, by Theresa May in 2018, predicted all deals will already be “either 100 or 99 percent agreed, in the system, and No. 10 will already have a firm number in its head that it can announce.” THREADING THE NEEDLE Yet all five people agreed there is unlikely to be a deal on heavy energy infrastructure, including wind turbine technology, that could leave Britain vulnerable to China. The U.K. has still not decided whether to let Ming Yang, a Chinese firm, invest £1.5 billion in a wind farm off the coast of Scotland. And while Carney agreed to ease tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), three of the five people familiar with the trip’s planning said that any deep co-operation on EV technology is likely to be off the table. One of them predicted: “This won’t be another Canada moment. I don’t see us opening the floodgates on EVs.” Britain is trying to stick to “amber and green areas” for any deals, said the first person familiar with the planning. The second of the five people said: “I think they‘re going for the soft, slightly lovey stuff.” Britain has good reason to be reluctant, as Chinese-affiliated groups have long been accused of hacking and espionage, including against MPs and Britain’s Electoral Commission. Westminster was gripped by headlines in December about a collapsed case against two men who had been accused of spying for China. Chinese firm Huawei was banned from helping build the U.K.’s 5G phone network in 2020 after pressure from Trump. Even now, Britain’s security agencies are working on mitigations to telecommunications cables near the Tower of London. They pass close to the boundary of China’s proposed embassy, which won planning approval last week. Andrew Small, director of the Asia Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank working on foreign and security policy, said: “The current debate about how to ‘safely’ increase China’s role in U.K. green energy supplies — especially through wind power — has serious echoes of 5G all over again, and is a bigger concern on the U.S. side than the embassy decision.”  Starmer and his team also “don’t want to antagonize the Americans” ahead of Trump’s own visit in April, said the third of the five people familiar with trip planning. “They’re on eggshells … if they announce a new dialogue on United Nations policy or whatever bullshit they can come up with, any of those could be interpreted as a broadside to the Trump administration.” All these factors mean Starmer’s path to a “win” is narrow. Tahlia Peterson, a fellow working on China at Chatham House, the international affairs think tank, said: “Starmer isn’t going to ‘reset’ the relationship in one visit or unlock large-scale Chinese investment into Britain’s core infrastructure.” Small said foreign firms are being squeezed out of the Chinese market and Xi is “weaponizing” the dependency on Chinese supply chains. He added: “Beijing will likely offer extremely minor concessions in areas such as financial services, [amounting to] no more than a rounding error in economic scale.” Chancellor Rachel Reeves knows the pain of this. Britain’s top finance minister was mocked when she returned with just £600 million of agreements from her visit to China a year ago. One former Tory minister said the figure was a “deliberate insult” by China. Even once the big win is in the bag, there is the danger of it falling apart on arrival. Carney announced Canada and China would expand visa-free travel, only for Beijing’s ambassador to Ottawa to say that the move was not yet official. Despite this, businesses have been keen on Starmer’s re-engagement.  Rain Newton-Smith, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, said firms are concerned about the dependence on Chinese rare earths but added: “If you map supply chains from anywhere, the idea that you can decouple from China is impossible. It’s about how that trade can be facilitated in the best way.” EMBASSY ROW Even if Starmer gets his wins, this visit will bring controversies that (critics say) show the asymmetry in Britain’s relationship with China. A tale of two embassies serves as a good metaphor.  Britain finally approved plans last week for China’s new outpost in London, despite a long row over national security. China held off formally confirming Starmer’s visit until the London embassy decision was finalized, the first person familiar with planning for the trip said. (Others point out Starmer would not want to go until the issue was resolved.) The result was a scramble in which executives were only formally invited a week before take-off. And Britain has not yet received approval to renovate its own embassy in Beijing. Officials privately refer to the building as “falling down,” while one person who has visited said construction materials were piled up against walls. It is “crumbling,” added another U.K. official: “The walls have got cracks on them, the wallpaper’s peeling off, it’s got damp patches.” British officials refused to give any impression of a “quid pro quo” for the two projects under the U.K.’s semi-judicial planning system. But that means much of Whitehall still does not know if Britain’s embassy revamp in Beijing will be approved, or held back until China’s project in London undergoes a further review in the courts. U.K. officials are privately pressing their Chinese counterparts to give the green light. One of the people keenest on a breakthrough will be Britain’s new ambassador to Beijing Peter Wilson, a career diplomat described by people who have met him as “outstanding,” “super smart” and “very friendly.”  For Wilson, hosting Starmer will be one of his trickiest jobs yet. The everyday precautions when doing business in China have made preparations for this trip more intense. Government officials and corporate executives are bringing secure devices and will have been briefed on the risk of eavesdropping and honeytraps. One member of Theresa May’s 2018 delegation to China recalled opening the door of what they thought was their vehicle, only to see several people with headsets on, listening carefully and typing. They compared it to a scene in a spy film. Activists and MPs will put Starmer under pressure to raise human rights issues — including what campaigners say is a genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang province — on a trip governed by strict protocol where one stray word can derail a deal.  Pro-democracy publisher Jimmy Lai, who has British nationality, is facing sentencing in Hong Kong imminently for national security offenses. During the PM’s last meeting with Xi in 2024, Chinese officials bundled British journalists out of the room when he raised the case. Campaigners had thought Lai’s sentencing could take place this week. All these factors mean tension in the British state — which has faced a tussle between “securocrats” and departments pushing for growth — has been high ahead of the trip. Government comments on China are workshopped carefully before publication. Earlier this month, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told POLITICO her work on Beijing involves looking at “transnational repression” and “espionage threats.” But when Chancellor Rachel Reeves met China’s Finance Minister He Lifeng in Davos last week to tee up Starmer’s visit, the U.K. Treasury did not publicize the meeting — beyond a little-noticed photo on its Flickr account. SLOW BOAT TO CHINA Whatever the controversies, Labour’s China stance has been steadily taking shape since before Starmer took office in 2024. Labour drew inspiration from its sister party in Australia and the U.S. Democrats, both of which had regular meetings with Beijing. Party aides argued that after a brief “golden era” under Conservative PM David Cameron, Britain engaged less with China than with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The result of Labour’s thinking was the policy of “three Cs” — “challenge, compete, and cooperate.” A procession of visits to Beijing followed, most notably Reeves last year, culminating in Starmer’s trip. His National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell was involved in planning across much of 2025, even travelling to meet China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, in November. Starmer teed up this week’s visit with a December speech arguing the “binary” view of China had persisted for too long. He promised to engage with Beijing carefully while taking a “more transactional approach to pretty well everything.”  The result was that this visit has long been locked in; just as Labour aides argue the London embassy decision was set in train in 2018, when the Tory government gave diplomatic consent for the site. Labour ministers “just want to normalize” the fact of dealing with China, said the senior Westminster figure quoted above. Newton-Smith added: “I think the view is that the government’s engagement with eyes wide open is the right strategy. And under the previous government, we did lose out.” But for each person who praises the re-engagement, there are others who say it has left Britain vulnerable while begging for scraps at China’s table. Hawks argue the hard details behind the “three Cs” were long nebulous, while Labour’s long-awaited “audit” of U.K.-China relations was delayed before being folded briefly into a wider security document. “Every single bad decision now can be traced back to the first six months,” argued the third person familiar with planning quoted above. “They were absolutely ill-prepared and made a series of decisions that have boxed them into a corner.” They added: “The government lacks the killer instinct to deal with China. It’s not in their DNA.” Luke de Pulford, a human rights campaigner and director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, argued the Tories had engaged with China — Foreign Secretary James Cleverly visited in 2023 — and Labour was simply going much further. “China is pursuing an enterprise to reshape the global order in its own image, and to that end, to change our institutions and way of life to the extent that they’re an obstacle to it,” he said. “That’s what they’re up to — and we keep falling for it.” END OF THE OLD ORDER? His language may be less dramatic, but Starmer’s visit to China does have some parallels with Canada. Carney’s trip was the first by a Canadian PM since 2017, and he and Xi agreed a “new strategic partnership.” Later at Davos, the Canadian PM talked of “the end of a pleasant fiction” and warned multilateral institutions such as the United Nations are under threat. One British industry figure who attended Davos said of Carney’s speech: “It was great. Everyone was talking about it. Someone said to me that was the best and most poignant speech they’d ever seen at the World Economic Forum. That may be a little overblown, but I guess most of the speeches at the WEF are quite dull.” The language used by Starmer, a former human rights lawyer devoted to multilateralism, has not been totally dissimilar. Britain could no longer “look only to international institutions to uphold our values and interests,” he said in December. “We must do it ourselves through deals and alliances.” But while some in the U.K. government privately agree with Carney’s point, the real difference is the two men’s approach to Trump. Starmer will temper his messaging carefully to avoid upsetting either his Chinese hosts or the U.S., even as Trump throws semi-regular rocks at Britain. To Peterson, this is unavoidable. “China, the U.S. and the EU are likely to continue to dominate global economic growth for the foreseeable future,” she said. “Starmer’s choice is not whether to engage, but how.” Esther Webber contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Hungarian Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has said he didn’t know anything about a spy ring that allegedly operated out of Budapest’s embassy to the EU while he was in charge. When quizzed on the scandal by EU lawmakers on Monday, Várhelyi said he hadn’t been approached by intelligence services to pass on secret information. “Have I been approached by the Hungarian or any other services? No, I have not,” he told MEPs in a European Parliament committee meeting. A joint investigation by Hungarian outlet Direkt36, Germany’s Der Spiegel, Belgian daily De Tijd and others reported in October that Hungarian intelligence officials disguised as diplomats had tried to infiltrate EU institutions and recruit spies between 2012 and 2018. At the time the reports surfaced, Várhelyi told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that he was “not aware” of the alleged Hungarian efforts, a denial he repeated on Monday. “I had no knowledge of this claim which was made in the press,” he told MEPs in response to a question from Greens lawmaker Daniel Freund. Freund had asked the commissioner if he had known of any of the activities supposedly run out of the Hungarian permanent representation to the EU, which he worked at from 2011 and ran from 2015. Hungarian officials working in the EU institutions at the time described the network to POLITICO as an open secret in the Belgian capital. Following the media reports, Hungarian opposition leader Péter Magyar — who also worked at the Hungarian permanent representation under Várhelyi — accused him of withholding information about his time as an ambassador. “In my opinion, Olivér Várhelyi, the current EU Commissioner and former EU Ambassador (and my former boss), did not reveal the whole truth when he denied this during the official investigation the other day,” Magyar wrote in a Facebook post. “It was a common fact at the EU Embassy in Brussels, that during the period of János Lázár’s ministry in 2015-2018, secret service people were deployed to Brussels,” he continued. The Commission last year set up an internal group to look into the claims that Hungarian officials had spied on the EU institutions. Commission spokesperson Balazs Ujvari told reporters on Monday that its work is “ongoing.” Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report.

In the desolate Arctic desert of Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, Europeans are building defenses against a new, up-and-coming security threat: space hacks. A Lithuanian company called Astrolight is constructing a ground station, with support from the European Space Agency, that will use laser beams to download voluminous data from satellites in a fast and secure manner, it announced last month.  It’s just one example of how Europe is moving to harden the security of its satellites, as rising geopolitical tensions and an expanding spectrum of hybrid threats are pushing space communications to the heart of the bloc’s security plans. For years, satellite infrastructure was treated by policymakers as a technical utility rather than a strategic asset. That changed in 2022, when a cyberattack on the Viasat satellite network coincided with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.   Satellites have since become popular targets for interference, espionage and disruption. The European Commission in June warned that space was becoming “more contested,” flagging increasing cyberattacks and attempts at electronic interference targeting satellites and ground stations. Germany and the United Kingdom warned earlier this year of the growing threat posed by Russian and Chinese space satellites, which are regularly spotted spying on their satellites.  EU governments are now racing to boost their resilience and reduce reliance on foreign technology, both through regulations like the new Space Act and investments in critical infrastructure. The threat is crystal clear in Greenland, Laurynas Mačiulis, the chief executive officer of Astrolight, said. “The problem today is that around 80 percent of all the [space data] traffic is downlinked to a single location in Svalbard, which is an island shared between different countries, including Russia,” he said in an interview. Europe’s main Arctic ground station sits in Svalbard and supports both the navigation systems of Galileo and Copernicus. While the location is strategic, it is also extremely sensitive due to nearby Russian and Chinese activities. Crucially, the station relies on a single undersea cable to connect to the internet, which has been damaged several times. “In case of intentional or unintentional damage of this cable, you lose access to most of the geo-intelligence satellites, which is, of course, very critical. So our aim is to deploy a complementary satellite ground station up in Greenland,” Mačiulis said. THE MUSK OF IT ALL A centerpiece of Europe’s ambitions to have secure, European satellite communication is IRIS², a multibillion-euro secure connectivity constellation pitched in 2022 and designed to rival Elon Musk’s Starlink system. “Today, communications — for instance in Ukraine — are far too dependent on Starlink,” said Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the founding chairman of political consultancy Rasmussen Global, speaking at an event in Brussels in November. “That dependence rests on the shifting ideas of an American billionaire. That’s too risky. We have to build a secure communications system that is independent of the United States.” The European system, which will consist of 18 satellites operating in low and medium Earth orbit, aims to provide Europe with fast and encrypted communication. “Even if someone intercepts the signal [of IRIS² ], they will not be able to decrypt it,” Piero Angeletti, head of the Secure Connectivity Space Segment Office at the European Space Agency, told POLITICO. “This will allow us to have a secure system that is also certified and accredited by the national security entities.” The challenge is that IRIS² is still at least four years away from becoming operational. WHO’S IN CHARGE? While Europe beefs up its secure satellite systems, governments are still streamlining how they can coordinate cyber defenses and space security. In many cases, that falls to both space or cyber commands, which, unlike traditional military units, are relatively new and often still being built out. Clémence Poirier, a cyberdefense researcher at the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich, said that EU countries must now focus on maturing them. “European states need to keep developing those commands,” she told POLITICO. “Making sure that they coordinate their action, that there are clear mandates and responsibilities when it comes to cyber security, cyber defensive operations, cyber offensive operations, and also when it comes to monitoring the threat.” Industry, too, is struggling to fill the gaps. Most cybersecurity firms do not treat space as a sector in its own right, leaving satellite operators in a blind spot. Instead, space systems are folded into other categories: Earth-observation satellites often fall under environmental services, satellite TV under media, and broadband constellations like Starlink under internet services. That fragmentation makes it harder for space companies to assess risk, update threat models or understand who they need to defend against. It also complicates incident response: while advanced tools exist for defending against cyberattacks on terrestrial networks, those tools often do not translate well to space systems. “Cybersecurity in space is a bit different,” Poirier added. “You cannot just implement whatever solution you have for your computers on Earth and just deploy that to your satellite.”