The Dutch government has quietly removed Google tracking tools from job listings for its intelligence services over concerns that the data would expose aspirant spies to U.S. surveillance. The intervention would put an end to Google’s processing of the data of job seekers interested in applying to spy service jobs, after members of parliament in The Hague raised security concerns. The move comes at a moment when trust between the Netherlands and the United States is fraying. It reflects wider European unease — heightened by Donald Trump’s return to the White House — about American tech giants having access to some of their most sensitive government data. The heads of the AIVD and MIVD, the Netherlands’ civilian and military intelligence services, said in October that they were reviewing how to share information with American counterparts over political interference and human rights concerns. In the Netherlands, government vacancies are listed on a central online portal, which subsequently redirects applicants to specific institutions’ or agencies’ websites, including those of the security services. The government has now quietly pulled the plug on Google Analytics for intelligence-service postings, according to security expert Bert Hubert, who first raised the alarm about the trackers earlier this year. Hubert told POLITICO the job postings for intelligence services jobs no longer contained the same Google tracking technologies at least since November. The move was first reported by Follow the Money. The military intelligence service MIVD declined to comment. The interior ministry, which oversees the general intelligence service AIVD, did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication. In a statement, Communications Manager for Google Mathilde Méchin said: “Businesses, not Google Analytics, own and control the data they collect and Google Analytics only processes it at their direction. This data can be deleted at any time.” “Any data sent to Google Analytics for measurement does not identify individuals, and we have strict policies against advertising based on sensitive information,” Méchin said. ‘FUTURE EMPLOYEES AT RISK’ Derk Boswijk, a center-right Dutch lawmaker, raised the alarm about the tracking of job applicants in parliamentary questions to the government in January. He said that while China and Russia have traditionally been viewed as the biggest security risks, it is unacceptable for any foreign government — allied or not — to have a view into Dutch intelligence recruitment. “I still see the U.S. as our most important ally,” Boswijk told POLITICO. “But to be honest, we’re seeing that the policies of the Trump administration and the European countries no longer necessarily align, and I think we should adapt accordingly.” The government told Boswijk in February it had enabled privacy settings on data gathered by Google. The government has yet to comment on Boswijk’s latest questions submitted in November. Hubert, the cybersecurity expert, said the concerns over tracking were justified. Even highly technical data like IP addresses, device fingerprints and browsing patterns can help foreign governments, including adversaries such as China, narrow down who might be seeking a job inside an intelligence agency, he said. “By leaking job applications so broadly, the Dutch intelligence agencies put their future employees at risk, while also harming their own interests,” said Hubert, adding it could discourage sought-after cybersecurity talent that agencies are desperate to attract. Hubert previously served on a watchdog committee overseeing intelligence agencies’ requests to use hacking tools, surveillance and wiretapping.  One open question raised by Dutch parliamentarians is how to gain control over the data that Google gathered on aspiring spies in past years. “I don’t know what happens with the data Google Analytics already has, that’s still a black box to me,” said Sarah El Boujdaini, a lawmaker for the centrist-liberal Democrats 66 party who oversees digital affairs. The episode is likely to add fuel to efforts to wean off U.S. technologies — which are taking place across Europe, as part of the bloc’s “technological sovereignty” drive. European Parliament members last month urged the institution to move away from U.S. tech services, in a letter to the president obtained by POLITICO. In the Netherlands, parliament members have urged public institutions to move away from digital infrastructure run by U.S. firms like Microsoft, over security concerns. “If we can’t even safeguard applications to our secret services, how do you think the rest is going?” Hubert asked. The country also hosts the International Criminal Court, where Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan previously lost access to his Microsoft-hosted email account after he was targeted with American sanctions over issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ICC in October confirmed to POLITICO it was moving away from using Microsoft Office applications to German-based openDesk.

BRUSSELS — You can even put an exact date on the day when Brussels finally gave up on its decade-long dream of seeking to be the predominant global tech regulator that would rein in American tech titans like Google and Apple.  It came last Wednesday — Nov. 19 — when the European Commission made an outright retreat on its data and privacy rules and hit pause on its AI regulation, all part of an attempt to make European industries more competitive in the global showdown with the United States and China.   It sounded the death knell for what has long been described as the “Brussels Effect” — the idea that the EU would be a trailblazer on tech legislation and set the world’s standards for privacy and AI.  Critics say Washington is now setting the deregulatory trajectory, while U.S. President Donald Trump is battering down Europe’s ambitions by threatening to roll out tariffs against countries that he accuses of attacking “our incredible American Tech Companies.” “I don’t hear anybody in Brussels saying ‘We’re a super regulator’ anymore,” said Marietje Schaake, who shaped Europe’s tech rulebooks as a former European Parliament member and special adviser to the European Commission. The big pivot away from rule-setting came in a “digital omnibus” proposal on Wednesday — a core part of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s “simplification” program to cut red tape to make Europe more competitive. The digital omnibus was one of the “main discussion points” at a meeting between the EU’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images “Whether you call it ‘simplification’ or ‘deregulation,’ you are certainly moving away from the high watermark era of regulation,” said Anu Bradford, a professor at Columbia University who coined the term “Brussels Effect” in 2012. The deregulation drive followed a year in which the Trump administration pressured the EU to roll back enforcement of its tech rulebooks, which Big Tech giants and Trump himself deem “taxes” targeted at U.S. companies. The digital omnibus was one of the “main discussion points” at a meeting between the EU’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Monday. “We adopted a major package that would have an impact not only on EU companies, but also on U.S. companies, so this is the appropriate moment … to explain what we’re doing on our side,” European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told reporters on Monday when asked why Virkkunen had discussed the topic with her U.S. counterparts. Lutnick, however, told Bloomberg that Washington was seeking more than just an explanation of EU laws — it wanted changes to its tech rulebooks as well. U.S. giants like Google and Meta have led a full-frontal lobbying push to replace heavy-handed EU enforcement with lighter-touch rules. Behind the push to break the shackles for tech firms is a fear of missing out on the promised economic boom linked to AI technologies. The bloc has traded its role as global tech cop for a ticket to the AI race.  GLOBAL FIRST Brussels showed its ambition to lead the world in regulating the online space throughout the 2010s. In 2016 it adopted the General Data Protection Regulation. Since then, the law has been copied in new legislation across more than 100 countries, said Joe Jones, director of research and insights at the International Association of Privacy Professionals.  When the GDPR came into force, international companies like Microsoft, Google and Facebook acknowledged it spurred them to apply EU privacy standards globally.  It served as a quintessential case of the Brussels Effect: When setting the bar in Brussels, multinational firms would roll out standards across their businesses far beyond the EU’s borders. Other governments, too, copied some of Brussels’ early attempts at setting the rules. After the GDPR, the EU adopted other laws that had the ambition of reining in Big Tech, either by pressing platforms to police for illegal content through its Digital Services Act or by blocking them from using their dominance to favor own services through the Digital Markets Act. Right after the EU adopted its risk-focused AI rulebook, Trump took office and scrapped AI safety rules embraced by his predecessor Joe Biden.  | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images The EU’s latest blockbuster tech rulebook, the Artificial Intelligence Act, was Brussels’ latest attempt at pioneering legislation, as it sought to address the risks posed by the fledgling technology. “There was more confidence in the EU’s regulation, partially because the EU seemed confident. Right now, when the EU seems to be retreating, any government around is also asking the same question,” Bradford said. Right after the EU adopted its risk-focused AI rulebook, Trump took office and scrapped AI safety rules embraced by his predecessor Joe Biden.   The changing of the guard in Washington came right as Brussels was waking up to the need to be competitive in a global technology race. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi presented the EU’s competitiveness report in 2024, just weeks before Trump won a second term. “I think the Brussels effect is still alive and well. It just has a bit of the Draghi effect, in that it has a bit of this geopolitical innovation, pro-growth effect in it,” said IAPP’s Jones.  According to German politician Jan Philipp Albrecht, a former European Parliament member who was a chief architect of the GDPR, Europe has become blind to the benefits of its regulatory regime that set the gold standard. “Europeans have no self-secureness anymore … They don’t see the strength in their own market and in their own regulatory and innovative power,” Albrecht said.  WASHINGTON EFFECT Other critics of deregulation are taking a step further, claiming that Washington has hijacked the Brussels Effect — but just on its own terms.   “In an odd way, maybe the Trump administration has taken inspiration from the Brussels Effect, in the sense [that] they see what it means for this one regulating entity to be the one that sets global standards,” said Brian J. Chen, policy director at nonprofit research group Data & Society. It’s just, “they want to be the ones setting those standards,” Chen said. The Trump administration pressured Brussels to tone down its tech regulation during heated trade talks this summer, POLITICO previously reported. That the EU followed through with scaling back its tech laws just as the U.S. is pressing the EU is bad optics, said Schaake, the former lawmaker. “The timing of the whole simplification [package] is very bad,” she said.  She argued that it’s essential to deal with the unnecessary burden on companies, but issuing the digital omnibus after the U.S. pressure “looks like a response to that criticism.” Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier dismissed the idea that the EU was acting on U.S. pressure. “On the digital omnibus, absolutely no third country had an influence on our sovereign simplification agenda. Because this omnibus is about Europe: less administrative burden, less overlaps, less costs,” Regnier said in a comment on Friday. “We have always been clear: Europe has its sovereign right to legislate,” Regnier added. “Nothing in the omnibus is watering down our digital legislation and we will keep enforcing it, firmly but always fairly.” This article has been updated to include new developments.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s push for the U.S. to scrap its tariffs on steel and aluminum has opened the door to an old demand from Washington: Loosen your digital rulebook, and we’ll meet you halfway. Brussels raised its concerns over Washington’s expanded list of goods covered by high steel and aluminum tariffs at meetings on Monday between Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and EU trade ministers and, from the U.S. side, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The Commerce Department in August subjected over 400 products containing steel and aluminum to a 50 percent tariff — a list the EU feels is so broad it goes against the spirit of a framework trade deal struck in July. That trade deal, which President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clinched at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, sets a baseline tariff of 15 percent on most EU imports to the U.S., while the EU committed to cutting most of its own tariffs to zero. At the time, the EU and the U.S. pledged to work together to reduce tariffs on steel and aluminum — but remained vague on the details. After the Europeans raised the steel tariffs on Monday, Lutnick responded by calling on the EU to “analyze their digital rules, trying to come away with a balance … not put them away, but find a balanced approach that works with us.” “And if they can come up with that balanced approach, which I think they can, then we will, together with them, handle the steel and aluminum issues and bring that on together,” he added. Lutnick’s remarks signal a departure from the previous U.S. position, which threatened to retaliate against the bloc’s digital laws, while advocating for light-touch artificial intelligence regulation.  Lutnick sold the loosening of the bloc’s digital rules as an “opportunity” for the EU, offering U.S. investment in return, mainly through data centers that could power artificial intelligence.   “If the European Union can find a way to have a balanced digital set of rules, I think the European Union can see $1 trillion of investment,” he said. PUSHING BACK — SORT OF In response, Šefčovič reiterated the bloc’s commitment to its regulatory autonomy and its belief that its rules are not — contrary to what Washington asserts — discriminatory.  The EU side, he added, “explained how our legislation is working, we explained that this is not discriminatory. It’s not aimed at American companies. And I think that we just simply need to do more of the explanation in that regard.”  A Commission official, speaking on condition of anonymity, was more direct: “Steel and digital are completely unrelated. Steel has always been part of the discussions with the U.S. and has been formalized in the joint statement. Our sovereign digital legislation is not up for negotiations.” The EU’s digital rules are a major concern for the Donald Trump administration, and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick raised the matter on a visit to Brussels. | Pool photo by Aaron Schwartz/EPA The EU executive has already moved to simplify its tech rules through a digital omnibus presented last week, an effort that the EU’s tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, raised with Lutnick and Greer at an earlier meeting that day. That omnibus brought major changes to the EU’s GDPR data protection regulation, and also proposed to pause the rollout of a key part of the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act — a controversial move championed by U.S. Big Tech companies and lobby groups.  European lawmakers and civil society groups have expressed concerns in recent weeks that the Commission’s digital simplification push is meant to placate Washington, a claim the Commission has vehemently denied.   Lawmakers are due to discuss the digital simplification package with the Commission on Tuesday. Last week, the Commission also kicked off a process to review all of its tech rulebooks, which could lead to further simplification efforts.  STEEL TALKS  Washington’s earlier decision to widen the list of steel products facing the 50 percent tariff caused uproar in Brussels, with some European lawmakers arguing that the EU should refrain from lowering its own tariffs on steel until the issue is resolved. In a bid to cozy up to the White House, the EU side on Monday pushed the idea that Brussels and Washington should jointly face up to a common enemy — China — rather than dwelling on their differences.  Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said the two sides had addressed “some of the challenges we are facing together,” such as “overcapacity” and “China’s role in the global economy.” Asked about joint work on overcapacity, Lutnick said such issues are “easy for us to work together, and those don’t take up a lot of time when we’re talking, because when everybody just agrees right away, it’s not very difficult.” Behind closed doors, however, the U.S. stressed to its European counterparts that cooperation on China didn’t mean they would simply give the EU a pass on steel and aluminum tariffs. Šefčovič said a team from Brussels would travel to Washington in the coming weeks to address these issues.

LONDON — The robots are coming for us all — even the parliamentary researchers. British politicians — and the industries seeking to influence them — are increasingly embracing artificial intelligence tools in a bid to make their jobs easier.  But the rise of the emerging tech is prompting big questions about the output and job security of young people working in politics — and the vital ladder into the world of Westminster their entry-level gigs provide. “Across the whole of public affairs, you’ll be able to write and communicate better. I think there’s a positive here,” said Peter Heneghan, a former No. 10 deputy digital communications director and now an AI advocate in the public affairs world.  “The negative side of that is there will be a lot of roles that go alongside it,” he added. “It’s inevitable.”  Politicians and the people supporting them are already jumping on AI to help write everything from books, speeches and media briefings to policy proposals and responses to constituency casework.  In public affairs, it’s already proving useful for all manner of run-of-the-mill jobs, including drafting strategies, press releases, communiqués, timelines and media monitoring.  It’s cutting the need to trawl through large documents like Hansard — the official record of the British parliament — or Westminster’s register of all-party parliamentary groups, a frequent source of influence for lobbyists.  Both sources have hundreds of pages added in each routine update — and entry-level staffers can often be found combing them for insight to brief their bosses or clients.  So far, British officialdom is leaning into the trend. The government’s own AI incubator has even created “Parlex,” a research tool leting anybody with a government email address examine a parliamentarian’s stated position on even the most minor issues in little to no time.  Proponents argue these tools will free up people working in politics to do the kind of work AI simply can’t.  But there are frustrations too.   The only sanctioned AI tool for the majority of parliamentary work, as outlined in House of Commons guidance, is Microsoft’s Copilot, which the government has licensed for internal use. | Algi Febri Sugita/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images The only sanctioned AI tool for the majority of parliamentary work, as outlined in House of Commons guidance, is Microsoft’s Copilot, which the government has licensed for internal use. The use of other chatbots — including ChatGPT, Elon Musk’s Grok, and Claude — is still frequent in parliament, however, amid some grumbling about the official offering.  In June last year, one MP included in a trial emailed the Parliamentary Digital Service — which oversees tech in the Commons — to fume that they “do not want my staff to spend time testing Copilot when the productivity tools are not those that we want or need,” according to correspondence obtained under freedom of information by POLITICO Pro.  ROBOTS TALKING TO ROBOTS  Parliamentarians in the digital age are already inundated with correspondence over email. And artificial intelligence could turn that deluge into an unmanageable flood.  AI-generated email campaigns are now a frequent bugbear for MPs’ offices, with staff feeling pressured to respond to more and more material of a lower and lower quality. One person working in public affairs called it “slop campaigning.”  Heneghan suggests that the “sheer volume” of constituency correspondence that MPs are now getting — and the need to sift through it and reply — means the future of interacting with parliamentarians could become “AI talking to AI.” It would, he says, be “awful” for an already record-low trust in politicians.  Tom Hashemi, the boss of comms consultancy Cast from Clay, echoed that concern. “It’s almost insulting to the point of democracy. MPs are there to respond to genuine constituent concerns, not to have to spend hours of their time responding to AI-generated messages.”  He added that, in his own conversations with ministers and MPs, “they always say those campaigns” — labelled “clicktivism” by Labour MP Mike Reader — “don’t work.”  One parliamentary staffer said: “I can tell that now lots of the email campaigns [by charities] are written by AI — the ones that we get in — whereas before they weren’t. They want it to seem like lots of people are, so they use AI to change the subject lines in the first line of the email very slightly, and the language is all bizarre.”  SQUEEZE ON JOBS AI’s widening use in politics comes amid an increasingly difficult job market for U.K. graduates across the board.  Heneghan suggests there will be a “massive squeeze” on junior jobs available for people working in public affairs, which he argues represents a “double-edged sword” in that menial tasks can be performed more efficiently — while the gains that young people themselves could make from performing them will also be lost.  Prospective job losses will, he predicts, go further than just junior level jobs, with roles for middle managers, human resources, sales and more all being affected.  Meanwhile, Hashemi suggests a route for public affairs firms to continue to expand would be to train new hires to use AI, saying the tech will “affect junior public affairs jobs in firms that don’t adapt to using it and integrating it.”  As trivial as these jobs can seem, many a high-flying politician or adviser got their start shifting around a lot of paper. None other than the prime minister’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, for example, got his start in Labour’s headquarters entering data into spin doctor Peter Mandelson’s famed “Excalibur” rebuttal machine.  Current parliamentary aides expressed less concern that AI is coming for them just yet.  Almost all those POLITICO spoke to in parliament said they wouldn’t use AI to write speeches for their bosses, because it is too easy to spot.  However, a Conservative adviser said they imagined junior staffers could become “checkers” of work as opposed to creators of it, due to the ease of asking AI to generate a first pass at materials.  Meanwhile, a second parliamentary staffer said: “It’s like an aid. I don’t think it can replace jobs yet.”  AI’s one attempt to imitate an MP has so far have been widely derided. Labour MP Mark Sewards became the first parliamentarian to create an AI version of himself that constituents could speak to at any hour — to mixed results. It garbled a Guardian reporter’s Northern accent into unintelligibility, and offered relationship advice, alongside producing a deficient haiku about Nigel Farage to PoliticsHome.  That might be the case right now. But as AI continues to develop at breakneck pace, it could soon seem like child’s play. 

LONDON — Britain’s Department of Health is pressing ahead with plans to open up a trove of pandemic-era patient data to outside researchers — despite concerns from doctors’ representatives. A formal direction titled “GP Data for Consented Research,” yet to be signed by Health Secretary Wes Streeting but shared in draft format with doctors’ reps, would enable NHS England to disseminate patient data originally collected solely for the purpose of Covid-19-related research to other studies. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) confirmed to POLITICO that the direction has been drafted and is awaiting Streeting’s signature. A group of doctors has warned the government that the move could erode patient trust. While the direction says government will obtain patient consent to share the data more broadly, doctors groups are worried this won’t happen in practice, and that patients won’t be aware their data is being funneled to other studies. NHS England has been in discussions with the Joint GP IT Committee, which comprises representatives from the British Medical Association (BMA) and Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), about the data, a person close to the talks told POLITICO. DHSC confirmed it had been in dialogue with the doctors’ groups, and a spokesperson said it had delayed signing the direction in order to engage with doctors’ concerns. The JGPITC argued it hasn’t been properly consulted on the change in line with established governance processes, and that repurposing the dataset without asking patients’ permission risks damaging already-fragile public confidence in the profession, the same person said.  While the direction says government will obtain patient consent to share the data more broadly, doctors groups are worried this won’t happen in practice, and that patients won’t be aware their data is being funneled to other studies. | Pool photo by Hannah McKay/EPA It comes after the same group of doctors filed a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office in June alleging that NHS England had breached data protection law by training a general-purpose AI model on the same dataset without consent. The disagreement is also set against the wider backdrop of a long-running dispute between government and the BMA over doctors’ pay and working conditions. DHSC maintains that proper processes have been followed. “As the Secretary of State made clear last year during his speech to the Royal College of GPs in October 2024, we are committed to implementing this direction in line with patients’ explicit consent for their data to be used in research,” a DHSC spokesperson said. ‘CONSULTED EXTENSIVELY’ In his speech last month, Streeting said he would direct NHS England to take responsibility for sharing patient data with projects including UK Biobank, Genomics England and Our Future Health. “I know there are issues we need to work through together around information governance, risk and liabilities,” he said. “There’s also, let’s be honest, some producer interest in play.” NHS England asked the JGPITC to confirm whether it was happy with the direction on broadening access to the dataset by Nov. 4. The JGPITC couldn’t reach a consensus to give its blessing to the change, the same person close to the talks and cited above said. The doctors’ group has pushed for NHS England to notify consenting participants about where their data is going via text or the NHS App, they added. DHSC is not obligated to comply with any of the JGPITC’s requests. “We have consulted extensively with GP representatives over the past 18 months to ensure patients’ wishes are respected and their data used appropriately, while minimizing the burden on busy GPs,” DHSC’s spokesperson said.

BRUSSELS — The far right last week broke through the firewall in the European Parliament and is now looking to flex its muscles again to secure a wider set of goals.   Next on the target list: Deporting more migrants, reversing a ban on the combustion engine, new rules on gene-edited crops, and even more red tape reductions for businesses. After decades of being sidelined by mainstream political parties, the far right scored a major victory last week when the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) ditched its traditional centrist allies and pressed ahead with plans to cut green rules for businesses that received the backing of lawmakers on the right. Now that the cordon sanitaire against the far right “has fallen,” there will be space for a right-wing majority to pass legislation “when it comes to competitiveness, in some areas of the Green Deal where they want to scale down the targets or the burdens for the businesses,” Anders Vistisen, chief whip for the far-right Patriots group, told POLITICO.   There’s dispute over how much cooperation actually took place last week, however. The EPP says it did not — and never will — negotiate directly with far-right groups. Instead, the EPP insists it merely puts forward its position, which may or may not be supported by others. “It is a lie that we negotiated with them,” EPP spokesperson Daniel Köster said following the green rules vote, after MEPs from the Patriots claimed there were formal compromises and negotiations between both parties. Yet the Patriots argue that EPP lawmakers, behind the scenes and at committee level, discreetly consult with their right-wing counterparts on areas where they have overlapping priorities. “They coordinate with us quite often on these files,” Vistisen said, “but it is becoming a little bit ridiculous and silly that they don’t just want to own up to it.” The extent of cooperation largely depends on which nationality the center-right lawmakers are from, according to the Patriots. “On a technical level we work constructively with almost all delegations, except with the German EPP,” Roman Haider, top Patriots MEP in the transport committee, told POLITICO, echoing comments from his colleague Paolo Borchia, a member of the industry and energy committee, who said only some national EPP delegations are open to talking. “Cooperation with the German EPP is practically impossible. They refuse any professional interaction with us,” said Haider. For many years, the German center-right has opposed co-operation with the far-right because of the country’s Nazi past. IT’S NOT OVER FOR THE CENTER Any further collaboration has clear boundaries — after all, many far-right lawmakers want to tear the EU down. The EPP also still needs the centre to pass a majority of files, such as the long-term EU budget. However, Italy’s Nicola Procaccini, chair of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (which ideologically sits between the EPP and the Patriots), told POLITICO that the right can easily team up on deregulation, migration, farming, and family issues. However, Italy’s Nicola Procaccini, chair of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (which ideologically sits between the EPP and the Patriots), told POLITICO that the right can easily team up on deregulation, migration, farming, and family issues. | Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images “In these issues for sure we are closer” on the right side of the Parliament, Procaccini said. He believes the cordon sanitaire, which kept the far right from power, is not dead, but that the first steps in tearing it down have been taken, and parts of the EPP are ready to openly work with the right-wing side of the hemicycle. Liberal and Socialist lawmakers point out the Patriots often coordinate closely with the ECR, which then presents their position to the EPP. According to a parliamentary official, granted anonymity to speak freely, the ECR acts as a “Trojan horse” for the Patriots to circumvent the cordon sanitaire. Asked about future deals with the far right, EPP spokesperson Pedro López de Pablo said: “We are fully committed to working with all our platform partners [Socialists and Democrats, the liberals of Renew] and they know our guiding principle is content, content, content.” Vistisen also acknowledged that, while lawmakers from the Patriots are ready to sit at the table and negotiate on all things related to deregulation and migration, the EPP continues to try to find compromises with the center. “It’s also a question of how many times the EPP wants to look ridiculous in this attempt to pretend that the central majority is the one that can be used to deregulate,” said Vistisen. He added that the EPP, as the Parliament’s biggest force, has the leverage to do whatever it wants and that “the only real negotiating strength that the Socialists have left” is calling a motion of no confidence in Ursula von der Leyen. The Commission president has faced — and comfortably survived — three such motions this year, brought by the far right and the far left. TOUGHER ON MIGRATION One major area where the far-right is hoping to lure the EPP into its arms is migration. In December, the Parliament is expected to vote on a new bill on “safe” non-EU countries to which member states could deport migrants, even if they are not originally from there, which the Patriots hope will be passed with a right-wing majority. They are already claiming that the price of securing their votes a second time will be higher. “We know that the EPP are struggling very much to get liberals and social democrats to play ball,” said Vistisen. “If they want to strike a deal with us, it has to be compromise amendments signed by ECR, EPP and Patriots. That is going to be a testing ground for whether the EPP publicly will make policy with us.” The right-wing majority could find common ground on a new deportations regulation proposed by the Commission in March, a key bill for von der Leyen as she seeks to appease calls from across the bloc for tougher migration policies. The lead negotiators on the file from ECR, Patriots, and the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations group want to pull the EPP away from the center and pass a tougher version of the bill. “In terms of cooperation on the right, what I’ve heard thus far is that both the Patriots and ECR and ESN, but also EPP, are very much on the same line on a great number of issues,” Patriots’ lead negotiator Marieke Ehlers told POLITICO. Ehlers said she is in touch with her EPP counterpart, François-Xavier Bellamy, whose national party, Les Républicains, is advocating tougher migration policies in France.   Fabrice Leggeri, a Patriots MEP, also said that “there are talks or exchanges of views between Patriots for Europe and the EPP”. Bellamy did not respond to a request for comment. CUT, CUT, CUT The European Commission may have found a new ally in its simplification agenda, with right-wing and far-right groups in Parliament eager to tear down policy in the name of cutting bureaucracy and giving power back from Brussels to national capitals. Two of the most explosive files where the right-wing majority could team up are in the automotive sector, as the EPP, pushed by Germany, seeks to slash regulations it says are strangling the car industry. The Commission is set to put forward in December a revision of what is a de facto ban on the combustion engine by 2035, alongside a measure that could set an electric vehicle target for company cars and leasing companies. In Parliament, the EPP could kill both files with the help of the far right. Straight after winning the most seats in the 2024 election, EPP chief Manfred Weber told POLITICO that his group would overturn the 2035 combustion engine ban. The far-right has also made this a major campaign talking point, with the Czech Republic’s Motorist Party basing its entire platform on the issue. The Greens, the Socialists & Democrats and Renew don’t have a unified position on the ban, making things even easier for the EPP and far right to team up. “If the German EPP wants to stand by one of its core pre-election promises, namely ending the phase-out of the combustion engine, then they will have no choice but to work with us,” said Patriots MEP Haider. The digital omnibus, presented by the Commission on Wednesday, is also a potential area where the EPP and Socialists could fail to agree on a way forward, opening the door for a right-wing majority. The bill is being pitched by the Commission as a way to simplify the EU’s digital laws to make life easier for European companies. But the proposal put forward by the Commission on Wednesday seeks extensive changes to the EU’s data protection regulation (GDPR), many to the benefit of AI developers, which the socialists and liberals have said they will block. FARMING TARGETS The right-wing dynamic is also playing out in the talks on Europe’s new rules on gene-edited crops, where exhausted EPP negotiators are quietly weighing far-right votes as a fallback option to break a months-long Parliament deadlock. Italian right-wing lawmakers from the ECR and Patriots could end up delivering the majority needed to push a compromise through — a prospect left-wing MEPs say would result in a deal far too weak to protect the interests of small producers, consumers and the environment. And the next Common Agricultural Policy, the EU’s vast farm-subsidy program, could shift even more dramatically if pushed through with far-right backing. Instead of the slow trend toward stricter environmental and climate obligations, the new coalition arithmetic could deliver a CAP with fewer strings attached, looser oversight and even weaker green conditions, which have been long-standing wishes for both the EPP and far-right groups.

BRUSSELS — A fresh proposal by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to reform digital laws on Wednesday was welcomed by lawmakers on the right but shunned on the left. It signals a possible repeat of a pivotal parliamentary clash last week in which von der Leyen’s center-right European People’s Party sided with the far right to pass her first omnibus proposal on green rules — sidelining the centrist coalition that voted the Commission president into office last year. The EU executive on Wednesday presented plans to overhaul everything from its flagship General Data Protection Regulation to data rules and its fledgling Artificial Intelligence Act. The reforms aim to help businesses using data and AI, in an effort to catch up with the United States, China and other regions in the global tech race. Drafts of the plans obtained by POLITICO caused an uproar in Brussels in the past two weeks, as everyone from liberal to left-leaning political groups and privacy-minded national governments rang the alarm. Von der Leyen sought to extend an olive branch with last-minute tweaks to her proposal, but she’s still a long way away from center-left groups. The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, Greens and The Left all slamming the plans in recent days. Tom Vandendriessche, a Belgian member of the far-right Patriots for Europe group, said the GDPR is not “untouchable,” and that there needs to be simplification “to ensure our European companies can compete again.” He added: “If EPP supports that course, we’re happy to collaborate on that.” Charlie Weimers a Swedish member of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists, welcomed the plan for “cleaning up overlapping data rules, cutting double reporting and finally tackling the cookie banner circus.” Weimers argued von der Leyen could go further, saying it falls short of being “the regulatory U-turn the EU actually needs” to catch up in the AI race. Those early rapprochements on the right are what Europe’s centrists and left fear most. The digital omnibus “should not be a repetition of omnibus one,” German Greens lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky told reporters on Wednesday. Lagodinsky warned EPP leader Manfred Weber that “there should be no games with anti-democratic and anti-European parties.” BIG REFORMS, SMALL CONCESSIONS The Commission’s double-decker digital omnibus package includes one plan to simplify the EU’s data-related laws (including the GDPR as well as rules for nonpersonal data), and another specifically targeting the AI Act. A Commission official, briefing reporters without being authorized to speak on the record, said the omnibus’ impact on the GDPR was subject to “intense discussion” internally in the run up to Wednesday’s presentation, after its rough reception from some parliament groups and privacy organizations. Much in the EU executive’s final text remained unchanged. Among the proposals, the Commission wants to insert an affirmation into the GDPR that AI developers can rely on their “legitimate interest” to legally process Europeans’ data. That would give AI companies more confidence that they don’t always have to ask for consent. It also wants to change the definition of personal data in the GDPR to allow pseudonymized data — where a person’s details have been obscured so they can’t be identified — to be more easily processed. The omnibus proposals also aim to reduce the number of cookie banners that crop up across Europe’s internet. To assuage privacy concerns, Commission officials scrapped a hotly contested clause that would have redefined what is considered “special category” data, like a person’s religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or health data, which are afforded extra protections under the GDPR. The new cookie provision will also contain an explicit statement that website and app operators still need to get consent to access information on people’s devices. SEEKING POLITICAL SUPPORT The final texts will now be scrutinized by the Parliament and Council of the European Union. Von der Leyen’s center-right EPP welcomed the digital simplification plans as a “a critical boost for Europe’s industrial competitiveness.” Parliament’s group of center-left Socialists and Democrats came out critical of the reforms. Birgit Sippel, a prominent German member of the group, said in a statement the Commission “wants to undermine its own standards of protection in the area of data protection and privacy in order to facilitate data use, surveillance, and AI tools ‘made in the U.S.’” On the EPP’s immediate left, the liberal Renew group cited “important concerns” about the final texts but said it was “delighted” that the Commission backtracked on changing the definition of sensitive data, one idea in the leaked drafts that triggered a backlash. Renew said it would “support changes in the digital omnibus that will make life easier for our European companies.” If von der Leyen goes looking for votes for her digital omnibus among far-right groups, she will find support but it might not be a united front. German lawmaker Christine Anderson of the Alternative for Germany party, part of the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations group, warned the digital omnibus could end up boosting “the ability to track and profile people.” Weaker privacy rules would “enable enhanced surveillance architecture,” she said, adding her party had “always opposed” such changes. “On these issues, we find ourselves much closer to the groups on the left in the Parliament,” she said. Pieter Haeck contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Ursula von der Leyen hasn’t even published her plans to overhaul the EU’s digital laws yet and already the European Parliament is signaling: This shall not pass.   Political groups to the left of von der Leyen’s center-right European People’s Party are coming out against draft proposals for a digital omnibus legislation that reveal how the EU executive is looking to loosen privacy rules, amend its artificial intelligence law, and overhaul data legislation to the benefit of industry — not least American tech giants.   In letters to the European Commission, political groups from center to left barreled into the draft reforms, calling them “extremely worrying,” asking the executive to “reverse course,” and slamming it for what they see as a capitulation to U.S. demands. The backlash puts von der Leyen in a bind. She could opt to change her proposals ahead of the formal presentation next Wednesday, or else she’ll have to seek votes on the far right — yet again — to pass a key part of her political platform. The EPP is already expected to lean on right-wing support to pass its green rules simplification legislation on Thursday due to a lack of support in the center. The Commission also backed down on its budget plans to avert a rebellion of centrist groups in the Parliament, POLITICO reported Sunday.  The digital omnibus draft proposals, obtained by POLITICO last week, showed how the EU executive is looking to ease rules on AI firms under the flagship General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It’s looking to create exceptions for AI companies that would allow them to legally process data linked to people’s religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or health data to train and operate their tech, and also wants to redefine categories of personal data, which would relieve swaths of data from the privacy protections they currently enjoy. The proposals also envision tweaks to the EU’s landmark AI law, like delays on fines for watermarked content and exemptions for small businesses. The drafts drew the ire of the center and the left in the Parliament in recent days. Such outcries are exceptional: Parliament groups often refrain from taking a position until a proposal is formally presented. The Greens group, liberal Renew and Socialists and Democrats have all drawn up letters slamming the Commission. The Greens addressed von der Leyen and the Commission’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen, asking them to “reverse course and focus on actual simplification” of tech laws, in a letter shared with POLITICO.   Alexandra Geese, a prominent German member of the Greens group, said the Commission’s plans would “dismantle the protection of European citizens for the benefit of U.S. tech giants.” She said “the Commission should focus on real simplification and streamlining of definitions rather than bending their knee to the U.S. administration.”  The Renew group voiced “strong opposition to certain changes” and called some of the draft tweaks “extremely worrying.” “We would strongly ask you to remove and reconsider those proposed changes before presenting the official proposals,” the group wrote in its letter to von der Leyen and key commissioners, shared with POLITICO. The Greens addressed von der Leyen and the Commission’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen, asking them to “reverse course and focus on actual simplification” of tech laws, in a letter shared with POLITICO.  | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Italian S&D MEP Brando Benifei, the Parliament’s lead negotiator on the AI Act, said he was “deeply skeptical of reopening the AI Act before it’s fully in force and without impact assessment.” Two dozen lawmakers from The Left, the Greens and S&D also backed a written question drawn up by French left-wing MEP Leïla Chaibi that will be filed this week. It follows the EU executive’s reportedly “engaging” with the Donald Trump administration in the lead-up to the omnibus proposal. In it, lawmakers said: “The European Commission’s apparent willingness to yield to pressure from the White House in this way raises serious concerns about the European Union’s digital sovereignty.”  The S&D came out swinging in a letter on Tuesday, warning the Commission that they’ll oppose “any attempt” to weaken the foundations of the EU’s privacy framework that would “lower the level of personal data protection, or narrow the GDPR’s scope.” The group said Europe’s digital laws at large have “inspired international partners and positioned Europe as a normative power in global tech governance.” RIGHT TO THE RESCUE?  Von der Leyen’s EPP hasn’t yet issued a united statement about the draft digital simplification plans.   Finnish center-right lawmaker Aura Salla — who previously led Meta’s Brussels lobbying office — said earlier she would “warmly” welcome the proposal “if done correctly,” as it could bring legal certainty for AI companies.  The center right, which holds the most seats in the Parliament, could seek support to its right with the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) and Patriots for Europe. Piotr Müller, a Polish ECR member, welcomed the Commission’s draft texts: “After years of excessive legislation that has stifled progress, it is five to midnight: We need ambitious deregulation now.” Further to the right, French lawmaker Sarah Knafo from the ESN said it would be a “breath of fresh air for our businesses,” lamenting that “Europe has locked itself into absurd over-regulation in the technology sector, which stifles all innovation.” On the issue of privacy, though, some right-wing lawmakers could turn against the draft idea. The right has previously defended personal privacy and personal freedoms over industry’s interests in some legislative fights. “We need to let our tech players move forward, while remaining vigilant about sovereignty and control over our data,” Knafo said.  Lawmakers on both the left and right will be under fire from powerful privacy lobbyists. Civil society campaigners have sounded the alarm in recent days after the drafts leaked. The Commission is “secretly trying to overrun everyone else in Brussels,” Max Schrems, founder of Austrian privacy group Noyb and a prominent European privacy campaigner, said previously. The proposals also have to make their way through the Council of the EU, where countries are equally divided on whether to touch privacy rules.  Documents seen by POLITICO show that at least four countries — Estonia, France, Austria and Slovenia — are firmly against any rewrite of the GDPR. Germany, usually seen as one of the most privacy-minded countries, came out in favor of big changes to help AI blossom. 

BRUSSELS — EU countries won’t be obliged to take part in a new effort to reduce foreign election interference, according to a draft proposal obtained by POLITICO. The strategy for a European Democracy Shield — promised by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in July 2024 — is meant to step up the fight against foreign interference online, including in elections. The centerpiece is a European Centre for Democratic Resilience, described as a “framework” to share information on information manipulation and disinformation, according to the draft. But EU countries won’t be obliged to take part since their participation is “voluntary.” The proposal, set to be released Wednesday, has been subject to political infighting within the Commission. Despite strong concerns about foreign meddling in the EU, the topic is sensitive due to the U.S. administration’s stance on anything related to misinformation, which it has frequently construed as disguised censorship. Many of the proposals included in the draft strategy remain voluntary. That includes a plan for the Commission to work with EU countries on guidance on how to use AI in elections, in the wake of AI deepfakes rocking several election campaigns. In both the Netherlands and Ireland, AI-generated deepfakes of political candidates circulated on social media platforms in the final sprint of recent election campaigns, while data protection watchdogs warned voters should not rely on AI chatbots for voting advice. The new guidance should inform “voluntary commitments on the responsible use of new technologies” for European and national political parties, the draft said. The Commission also plans to tackle the safety of politicians amid growing recognition of the personal dangers faced by those in the field. “To better ensure the safety of political candidates and elected representatives, the Commission will adopt a Recommendation on safety in politics,” the draft read. It is also planning to assemble a network of influencers to “raise awareness about relevant EU rules” — suggesting that using influencers could help people better understand EU rules such as on political advertising, online content and artificial intelligence.

BRUSSELS — European Union officials are ready to sacrifice some of their most prized privacy rules for the sake of AI, as they seek to turbocharge business in Europe by slashing red tape.  The European Commission will unveil a “digital omnibus” package later this month to simplify many of its tech laws. The executive has insisted that it is only trimming excess fat through “targeted” amendments, but draft documents obtained by POLITICO show that officials are planning far-reaching changes to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to the benefit of artificial intelligence developers.   The proposed overhaul will come as a boon to businesses working with AI, as Europe scrambles to stay economically competitive on the world stage. But touching the flagship privacy law — seen as the “third rail” of EU tech policy — is expected to trigger a massive political and lobbying storm in Brussels. “Is this the end of data protection and privacy as we have signed it into the EU treaty and fundamental rights charter?” said German politician Jan Philipp Albrecht, who as a former European Parliament member was one of the chief architects of the GDPR. “The Commission should be fully aware that this is undermining European standards dramatically.” Brussels’ shift on privacy comes as it frets over Europe’s waning economic power. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi namechecked the General Data Protection Regulation as holding back European innovation on artificial intelligence in his landmark competitiveness report last year. European privacy regulators have already been spoiling Big Tech’s AI party in recent years. Meta, X and LinkedIn have all delayed rollouts of artificial intelligence applications in Europe after interventions by the Irish Data Protection Commission. Google is facing an inquiry by the same regulator and was previously forced to pause the release of its Bard chatbot. Italy’s regulator has previously imposed temporary blocks on OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Chinese DeepSeek over privacy concerns. Those same tech giants are racing ahead in the U.S., without an equivalent blanket privacy law barring them from feeding AI with citizens’ data. UNLEASH THE LOBBYISTS The General Data Protection Regulation’s initial drafting in 2012-2016 triggered one of the biggest lobbying efforts Brussels has ever seen. Since taking effect in 2018, the EU has steered clear of amending it, fearing it would reignite the vicious lobbying war.  In past months, Commission officials have sought to preempt worries that it was overhauling the privacy rulebook. It insisted that its simplification proposals wouldn’t touch the underlying principles of the GDPR.  Now that draft plans are out, civil society campaigners have begun sounding the alarm. The Commission is “secretly trying to overrun everyone else in Brussels,” said Max Schrems, founder of Austrian privacy group Noyb — and Europe’s infamous privacy campaigner who was behind court cases that brought down major data transfer deals with the United States in the past. “This disregards every rule on good lawmaking, with terrible results,” he said. “Is this the end of data protection and privacy as we have signed it into the EU treaty and fundamental rights charter?” said German politician Jan Philipp Albrecht. | Heiko Rebsch/picture alliance via Getty Images One line of attack from privacy groups is to poke holes in what they say is a rushed omnibus process. While the GDPR took years to negotiate, public consultation on the digital omnibus only ended in October. The Commission has not prepared impact assessments to accompany its proposals, as it says the changes are only targeted and technical. The Commission’s tunnel vision on the AI race has resulted in a “poorly drafted ‘quick shot’ in a highly complex and sensitive area,” said Schrems. LOOSENING PRIVACY RULES The draft proposal obtained by POLITICO shows how far the European Commission is willing to go to placate industry on AI. Draft changes would create new exceptions for AI companies that would allow them to legally process special categories of data (like a person’s religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or health data) to train and operate their tech. The Commission is also planning to reframe the definition of such special category data, which are afforded extra protections under the privacy rules.   Officials also want to redefine what constitutes as personal data, saying that pseudonymized data (where personal details have been obscured so a person can’t be identified) might not always be subject to the GDPR’s protections, a change that reflects a recent ruling from the EU’s top court. Finally, it wants to reform Europe’s pesky cookie banner rules by inserting a provision into the GDPR that would give website and app owners more legal grounds to justify tracking users beyond simply obtaining their consent. The draft proposal could still change before the Commission officially unveils its plans on Nov. 19. Once presented, the omnibus package has to pass muster with EU countries and lawmakers, who are already sharply divided on whether to touch privacy protections.   But Finnish center-right lawmaker Aura Salla said she would “warmly” welcome the proposal “if done correctly,” as it could bring legal certainty for AI companies. | Alexis Haulot/European Parliament Documents seen by POLITICO show that Estonia, France, Austria and Slovenia are firmly against any rewrite of the General Data Protection Regulation. Germany — usually seen as one of the most privacy-minded countries — on the other hand is pushing for big changes to help AI. In the European Parliament, the issue is expected to divide groups. Czech Greens lawmaker Markéta Gregorová said she is “surprised and concerned” that the GDPR is being reopened. She warned that Europeans’ fundamental rights “must carry more weight than financial interests.”  But Finnish center-right lawmaker Aura Salla — who previously led Meta’s Brussels lobbying office — said she would “warmly” welcome the proposal “if done correctly,” as it could bring legal certainty for AI companies. Salla emphasized that the Commission will have to “ensure it is European researchers and companies, not just third country giants that gain a competitive edge from our own rules.”