LONDON — Ministers are poised to axe the watchdog that measures the U.K.’s overseas aid spending as part of deep cuts to the development budget, set to be confirmed this week.  Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced last year he would reduce the aid budget from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of economic output in order to pay for a boost to defense spending, but has not yet spelled out where those cuts will fall. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper is expected to unveil details before the Easter recess, including tough funding settlements for the BBC World Service and the British Council.  The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), which scrutinizes official development assistance (ODA), may be downsized or scrapped altogether under the plans, according to three people with knowledge of discussions with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The move comes as Starmer’s government shifts away from a focus on international development — a cornerstone of Labour Party foreign policy since the 1990s — and plows those resources into defense. An ICAI spokesperson said: “The Independent Commission for Aid Impact costs less than 0.03 percent of the total U.K. aid budget. … As the government reduces the aid budget and changes the way it does development, independent scrutiny and learning become even more important, not less.” The ICAI’s latest report lambasted the government for a lack of “an overarching strategy or set of priorities,” pointing out that aid cash is being spent on supporting refugees in the U.K. rather than on the global poor. The potential closure of the ICAI has drawn concern from within Starmer’s own ranks, with Labour MPs pointing out that the party made an explicit commitment to “work closely” with the watchdog in their 2024 election manifesto. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper is expected to unveil details before the Easter recess. | WPA pool photo by Jaimy Joy/Getty Images Sarah Champion, chair of the international development committee, said the ICAI’s latest report “underlines why the government should row back from its plans to scrap the U.K.’s aid watchdog.” She added: “At a time of brutal budget cuts, it is more important than ever that the government spends its aid wisely and transparently.” Fleur Anderson, a member of the foreign affairs committee, told POLITICO: “When something works as well as ICAI, why are we even considering dismantling it?” Beccy Cooper, a 2024 intake MP, said: “More than ever, we need to ensure effectiveness and maximum impact of our aid funding.” Asked about the body’s future in January, International Development Minister Jenny Chapman said: “I have to ask myself whether that is the right use of that money or whether we could get what we need more efficiently.” The government is expected to prioritize multilateral aid while slashing funding for bilateral donations and in-country projects including public health initiatives and education for women and girls. A Labour MP briefed on the plans, granted anonymity to speak candidly, raised fears that some cuts would go against ministers’ own stated aims for the remaining aid budgets. The MP flagged proposals to reduce funds for the British International Investment development bank, despite a stated aim to boost private investment in development projects, and to reduce the headcount of Whitehall staff working on ODA, despite professing a wish to focus on expertise. Fleur Anderson, a member of the foreign affairs committee, told POLITICO: “When something works as well as ICAI, why are we even considering dismantling it?” | Brian Lawless/PA Images via Getty Images Chapman held briefings on the plans last week and will hold more sessions next week as the government tries to keep MPs onside as the details emerge of where savings will be made. An FCDO spokesperson said: “National security is the first duty of this government. That’s why, to fund a necessary increase in defense spending, the government has taken the decision to reduce the U.K. ODA budget to 0.3 percent of [economic output] by 2027.   “We remain absolutely committed to tackling the global challenges of hunger, disease, insecurity and conflict, but we have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context.” 

Today, cancer remains one of Europe’s leading causes of death and disability, accounting for 23 percent of all deaths in 2022 and 17 percent of disability-adjusted life years in 2021. Four Europeans are diagnosed with cancer every minute, a number that is expected to rise over the next several decades due to population aging. As the EU Beating Cancer Plan reaches the end of its initial phase, Europe now stands at a critical moment. The question is not whether progress has been made, but whether Europe will build on that momentum or allow it to stall, with consequences not only for health outcomes, but also for economic growth and scientific leadership. Gilles Marrache At this juncture, cancer care must be understood not as a cost to be contained, but also as a strategic investment that delivers measurable returns in survival, productivity and Europe’s global competitiveness. > Continued investment in oncology is therefore not only a moral imperative but > also a proven economic and social multiplier. Cancer innovation delivers proven returns Investment in cancer innovation has already delivered extraordinary value for European patients and societies. Since 1989, advances in oncology have helped prevent an estimated 5.4 million deaths. More recently, since 2012, innovative cancer medicines have generated approximately 1.1 million quality-adjusted life years, all while accounting for just 6.6 percent of total health budgets. These gains are not abstract. They represent longer lives, improved quality of life, and the ability for people to remain active contributors to their families, workplaces and communities. Continued investment in oncology is therefore not only a moral imperative but also a proven economic and social multiplier. Delayed access is holding Europe back Despite these returns, Europe continues to struggle with timely access to innovative cancer medicines and diagnostics. According to EFPIA’s 2025 W.A.I.T. data, only 46 percent of centrally approved innovative medicines are available to patients on average across Europe, with a mean delay of 578 days between EU approval and patient access. In oncology, these waits have grown since 2023, which undermines patient outcomes and weakens Europe’s competitiveness in health innovation. Europe’s innovation edge is at risk Without decisive action, Europe risks falling further behind other regions. High-income European countries currently invest roughly half as much per capita in innovative medicines as the United States. This gap is driven largely by differences in how new therapies are valued, assessed and reimbursed. The impact of this underinvestment is already visible. Over the past two decades, Europe has lost around a quarter of its global share of biopharmaceutical research and development. Along with that loss comes fewer high-quality jobs, reduced private investment and weakened strategic autonomy in a sector that is increasingly central to economic and health security. > evidence suggests that every euro invested in health can generate up to four > euros in economic value, unlocking an estimated €10 trillion in GDP and saving > up to 60 million lives. Smart health investment drives growth and resilience By increasing targeted investment in innovative medicines, including in oncology, Europe can improve health outcomes for citizens, support workforce participation  and stimulate sustainable economic growth. Globally, evidence suggests that every euro invested in health can generate up to four euros in economic value, unlocking an estimated €10 trillion in GDP and saving up to 60 million lives. What European policymakers should do next To support oncology patients and safeguard innovation, regional and national governments must act across policy, funding and access: — Value what matters: modernize health technology assessment frameworks to better capture the full societal and economic benefits of innovation, while reducing duplicative and inefficient evidence requirements. This is particularly important as oncology products begin going through the new EU Joint Clinical Assessment. — Accelerate access: introduce time-bound, predictable pricing and reimbursement pathways; address regional and formulary-level delays; and invest in diagnostic and biomarker testing capacity to ensure patients receive the right treatment at the right time. — Back prevention and screening: fully finance the EU Beating Cancer Plan’s screening ambitions and scale proven pilot programmes that detect cancer earlier and improve outcomes. — Invest in innovation: increase public spending on innovative medicines in line with their true societal impact, while eliminating clawbacks and other cost-containment measures that disproportionately undermine the value of these therapies. A defining choice for Europe Europe stands at a crossroads. It can choose to invest now in cancer innovation, which would help to close survival gaps, strengthen competitiveness and deliver long-term value for citizens. Or it can allow delays, underinvestment and fragmented policies to widen those gaps further. Aligning policy, funding and access around innovation would not only improve cancer outcomes but make health one of Europe’s most powerful and sustainable investments for the future.     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on securing a technology-neutral EU road-transport decarbonisation framework through recognition of renewable fuels, strengthened grid and infrastructure enablers, and avoiding mandates that limit operators’ choice and competitiveness. * The ultimate controlling entity is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) More information here.

Andrej Babiš built his fortune making fertilizer. But another, lesser-known arm of his business empire has helped bring more than 170,000 children into the world across Europe. The Czech prime minister’s name is rarely attached to FutureLife, one of Europe’s largest IVF clinic networks, spanning 60 clinics in 16 countries from Prague to Madrid to Dublin. But is just one part of a commercial empire that spans nitrogen-based fertilizers and industrial farms, assisted reproduction, online lingerie stores and more. And the Czech leader holds this portfolio while sitting at the table negotiating EU budgets, health rules and industrial policy. Yet in Brussels, nobody can answer a deceptively simple question: Which of the companies associated with Babiš receives EU money — and how much? “We might be giving him money and we don’t even know,” said Daniel Freund, a German Green lawmaker who led the European Parliament’s inquiries into Babiš during his first term as Czechia’s prime minister from 2017 to 2021. In 2021, the Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution condemning Babiš over conflicts of interest involving EU subsidies and companies he founded. Under EU rules, member countries are responsible for checking conflicts of interest and reporting on who ultimately benefits from EU funds. But there is no single EU-wide register linking ultimate beneficial owners to all EU payments — making cross-border oversight difficult. The issue has resurfaced as Babiš returns to power and once again takes a seat among other EU heads of state and government in the European Council. In that exclusive body, he helps negotiate the bloc’s long-term budget, agricultural subsidies and other funding frameworks that shape the sectors in which his companies might operate. For years, debates over Babiš’s conflicts of interest have revolved around a single name — Agrofert, the agro-industrial empire that EU and Czech auditors found had improperly received over €200 million in EU and national agricultural subsidies. The payment suspensions and repayment demands continue: This week, Czech authorities halted some agricultural subsidies to Agrofert pending a fresh legal review of the company’s compliance with conflict-of-interest rules. Babiš has consistently rejected accusations of wrongdoing. His office said he “follows all binding rules” and that “there is no conflict of interests at the moment,” adding that Agrofert shares are managed by independent experts and that he “is not and will never be the owner of Agrofert shares.” In a parliamentary debate earlier this month, he dismissed the controversy as politically motivated, accusing opponents of having “invented” the conflict-of-interest issue because they were unable to defeat him at the ballot box. But critics argue that the renewed focus on Agrofert obscures a far broader commercial footprint. “Agrofert is only half of the problem,” said Petr Bartoň, chief economist at Natland, a private investment group based in Prague. “The law does not say ‘thou shalt not benefit from companies called Agrofert.’ It says you must not benefit from any companies subsidized by or receiving public money.” The concern, critics argue, arises from the sheer number of companies and sectors with which Babiš remains associated. THE INVISIBLE PILLAR Separate from Agrofert sits Hartenberg Holding, a private-equity vehicle Babiš co-founded with financier Jozef Janov in 2013. He holds a majority stake in the fund through SynBiol, a company he fully owns and which, unlike Agrofert, has not been transferred into any trust arrangement. With assets worth around €600 million, Hartenberg invests in health care, retail, aviation and real estate. Yet it has attracted only a fraction of the scrutiny directed at the agricultural holding, according to Lenka Stryalová of the Czech public-spending watchdog Hlídač státu. “Alongside Agrofert, there is a second, less visible pillar of Babiš’s business activities that is not currently intended to be placed into blind trusts,” she said. That pillar includes FutureLife, whose 2,100 specialists help individuals and couples conceive across Czechia, Slovakia, the U.K., Ireland, Romania, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Estonia. The clinics operate in a policy-sensitive space shaped primarily by national health reimbursement systems and insurance rules, rather than decisions taken directly in Brussels. Those systems, however, function within a broader EU regulatory framework governing cross-border care and state aid. Hartenberg owns 50.1 percent of FutureLife. The company said in a statement that Babiš has no operational role, no board seat and no decision-making authority. It added that FutureLife clinics operate like other health care providers and, where applicable, are reimbursed by national public health insurance systems under the same rules as other providers. Like thousands of other companies, some FutureLife entities received pandemic-era wage support under Czechia’s Covid relief programs. There is no evidence of any irregularity in those payments.  But health care is only one corner of the portfolio. Through Hartenberg, Babiš-linked capital also flows into everyday retail life. Astratex, a Czech-founded online lingerie retailer that began as a catalogue business before moving fully online in 2005, now operates localized e-shops across roughly 10 European markets and generates tens of millions of euros in annual revenue. Hartenberg acquired a controlling stake in 2018, marking one of the fund’s early expansions into cross-border digital retail. In Czechia, shoppers may also encounter Flamengo florist stands, a network of around 200 outlets selling bouquets, potted plants and funeral flower arrangements inside supermarkets and shopping malls. Hartenberg acquired a majority stake in the chain in 2019, backing its expansion and push into online delivery. Other online businesses linked to Babiš include sports equipment, and wool and textile retailers. Through Hartenberg, Babiš has also invested in urban development and real estate. Hartenberg was an early majority investor in the project company behind Prague’s Císařská vinice, a premium hillside development of villas and apartments near Ladronka park, partnering with developer JRD to finance construction. JRD Development Group said the project company is now 100 percent owned by JRD and that neither Babiš nor companies linked to him hold any direct or indirect ownership interest. The firm added that the development has not received EU funds or other public financial support. None of the Hartenberg businesses have ever been accused of misusing EU subsidies. But the long-running “Stork’s Nest” case, first investigated more than a decade ago and still unresolved, shows how difficult it can be to follow Babiš’s business web. The alleged fraud involved a €2 million EU subsidy provided in 2008 to the 31-room Čapí Hnízdo (Stork’s Nest) recreational and conference center in central Czechia, then part of Babiš’s Agrofert conglomerate. Prosecutors have accused Babiš and his associates of manipulating the center’s ownership and concealing his control of the business in order to obtain the subsidy. Babiš has always denied wrongdoing, telling POLITICO in 2019 that the case was politically motivated. He was acquitted in 2023, but an appeals court later overturned that verdict and ordered a retrial, which remains pending. Today, the resort itself is no longer part of Agrofert. It is owned by Imoba, a company fully controlled by Babiš’s SynBiol, the same holding that controls Hartenberg. Hartenberg itself holds no stake in Stork’s Nest. Taken together, Babis’ non-Agrofert portfolio spans health care reimbursement systems, online retail regulation, aviation safety oversight, real estate and city-planning decisions across multiple EU jurisdictions. In theory, a Czech consumer could encounter Babiš-linked companies at nearly every stage of life: the fertilizer on the fields that grow the wheat, the bread on the supermarket shelf, the bouquet for the wedding, the apartment in Prague and even the clinic that helps bring the next generation into the world. And at the end, perhaps, the flowers once more. WHY BRUSSELS CAN’T KEEP TRACK During Babiš’s previous term, the European Commission concluded that trust arrangements he put in place did not eliminate his effective control over Agrofert. A leaked legal document reported by POLITICO this month has since renewed accusations that his latest trust setup does not fully address those concerns either. Babiš rejects that interpretation, saying the arrangement complies with Czech and EU law and insisting he has done “much more than the law required” to distance himself from the company. The Commission said it does not maintain a consolidated list of companies ultimately owned or controlled by Babiš across member countries. Nor does it hold a comprehensive accounting of EU funds received by companies linked to him beyond Agrofert. Instead, responsibility for collecting beneficial ownership data lies primarily with national authorities implementing EU funds. The Commission can audit how member countries manage conflicts of interest and take measures to protect the EU budget if needed, but it does not itself aggregate that information across borders. The Commission confirmed to POLITICO that it has asked Czech authorities to explain how conflicts of interest are being prevented in relation to companies under Babiš’s control beyond Agrofert. Czech Regional Development Minister Zuzana Mrázová on Thursday acknowledged receiving the Commission’s letter earlier this month, saying it will be answered in line with applicable legislation and adding that, in her view, the prime minister has done everything necessary to comply with Czech and EU law. “From my perspective, there is no conflict of interest,” she said. Freund argues that the corporate complexity has become a problem in its own right. “The tracking of beneficial owners or beneficial recipients of EU funds is at the moment very difficult or sometimes even impossible,” said the EU lawmaker. Part of the difficulty lies in Europe’s fragmented ownership registers, which exist on paper across the EU but don’t speak the same language or even list the same owners. Freund described them as “inconsistent,” with some national databases listing Babiš in connection with certain companies while others do not. Babiš’s defenders argue that his steps regarding Agrofert go beyond what Czech law strictly requires. Critics counter that the law was never written with billionaires running multi-sector empires in mind and that resolving the conflict of interest identified by auditors in relation to Agrofert does not settle the wider concerns raised by the scale of his business interests. “For some reason, the perception has been created that once Agrofert is resolved, that resolves the conflict of interest,” Bartoň said. “As if the president were the arbiter of what needs and needs not be dealt with.” In reality, many companies owned through Hartenberg and Synbiol structures continue to operate in areas shaped by public spending, regulation and political decisions without being part of any divestment or trust arrangement. Those assets “still not only [pose] conflict of interest,” said Bartoň, but they are “not even in the process of being dealt with.” From fertilizer to fertility to funeral flowers, the structure is easy enough to trace in everyday life. It is far harder to trace on paper. Ketrin Jochecová contributed to this report.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has urged EU governments to rely on “coalitions of the willing” to push through long-stalled economic reforms, arguing the bloc doesn’t need all 27 countries on board to move forward. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published Saturday, Lagarde pointed to the 21-country eurozone as proof that deeper integration can work without full unanimity of the EU member states. “We do not have the 27 around the table, and yet it works,” she said. Lagarde’s remarks come as EU leaders debate how to complete the bloc’s long-stalled capital markets union. The project, now dubbed the “Savings and Investments Union,” is intended to deepen cross-border financial markets and mobilize private savings. Frustration over slow progress has led several large EU member states, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, to back a two-speed approach that would allow smaller groups of countries to integrate more quickly. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said the EU could consider “enhanced cooperation” if unanimity cannot be reached. Lagarde, whose term as ECB president runs until October 2027 and who has faced speculation about a possible early departure, said Europe should focus on delivering concrete reforms. In a sign of growing impatience, Lagarde earlier this month sent EU leaders a five-point checklist of “urgently needed” measures under the subject line “time for action,” outlining measures on capital markets integration, corporate harmonization and research coordination. Even partial implementation of those measures would significantly boost Europe’s growth potential, she told the Wall Street Journal.

LONDON — Britain has signed a new critical minerals partnership with the Trump administration, as it seeks to diversify supply chains away from China. Foreign Minister Seema Malhotra signed the partnership in Washington with U.S. Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg on Wednesday night. “As demand for critical minerals around the world continues to rise, this Memorandum of Understanding with the United States underscores our commitment to working as close allies to build resilient, diversified global supply chains,” Malhotra said in a statement. Under the terms of the deal, the two countries have agreed to use economic policy tools and coordinated investment to secure supplies of critical minerals and crack down on subsidized imports that risk undercutting domestic production. They will jointly identify priority projects, mobilize financing for developments, and share intelligence on investments that could threaten domestic capabilities in either country. The partnership signals a tougher stance on market distortion, with both sides pledging to protect their industries from “non-market policies and unfair trade practices” — including by working with allies on a global approach to pricing challenges. The agreement also states both sides will use existing legislative and diplomatic tools to review, deter and potentially block critical minerals and rare earths asset sales on national security grounds. U.S. and U.K. ministers are expected to convene within the next six months to take the partnership forward. The Trump administration, which has announced similar agreements with Mexico, the European Union and Japan, ultimately wants to establish a critical minerals trading bloc, first floated on Wednesday by Vice President JD Vance to 54 countries. Speaking to reporters in London on Thursday, U.K. Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said the trading bloc with Washington “makes perfect sense.” “On critical minerals, the alliances make perfect sense, as long as they take into account the specific peculiarities of domestic markets,” Kyle said.  “In all of the alliances, all of us have different needs, and all of us are producing different minerals, so we have to make sure that it’s completely cooperative, but we should be approaching it with a ‘how do you make it work?’ — rather than how to avoid it,” he added.

The Trump administration wants to work with traditional allies to secure new supplies of critical minerals. But months of aggression toward allies, culminating with since-aborted threats to seize Greenland, have left many cool to the overtures. While the State Department has drawn a lengthy list of participating countries for its first Critical Minerals Ministerial scheduled for Wednesday, a number of those attending are hesitant to commit to partnering with the U.S. in creating a supply chain that bypasses China’s current chokehold on those materials, according to five Washington-based diplomats of countries invited to or attending the event. State Department cables obtained by POLITICO also show wariness among some countries about signing onto a framework agreement pledging joint cooperation in sourcing and processing critical minerals. Representatives from more than 50 countries are expected to attend the meeting, according to the State Department — all gathered to discuss the creation of tech supply chains that can rival Beijing’s. But the meeting comes just two weeks since President Donald Trump took to the stage at Davos to call on fellow NATO member Denmark to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and that isn’t sitting well. “We all need access to critical minerals, but the furor over Greenland is going to be the elephant in the room,” said a European diplomat. In the immediate run-up to the event there’s “not a great deal of interest from the European side,” the person added. The individual and others were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic relationships. Their concerns underscore how international dismay at the Trump administration’s foreign policy and trade actions may kneecap its other global priorities. The Trump administration had had some success over the past two months rallying countries to support U.S. efforts to create secure supply chains for critical minerals, including a major multilateral agreement called the Pax Silica Declaration. Now those gains could be at risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants foreign countries to partner with the U.S. in creating a supply chain for the 60 minerals (including rare earths) that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “vital to the U.S. economy and national security that face potential risks from disrupted supply chains.” They include antimony, used to produce munitions; samarium, which goes into aircraft engines; and germanium, which is essential to fiber-optics. The administration also launched a $12 billion joint public-private sector “strategic critical minerals stockpile” for U.S. manufacturers, a White House official said Monday. Trump has backed away from his threats of possibly deploying the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark. But at Davos he demanded “immediate negotiations” with Copenhagen to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the U.S. That makes some EU officials leery of administration initiatives that require cooperation and trust. “We are all very wary,” said a second European diplomat. Rubio’s critical minerals framework “will not be an easy sell until there is final clarity on Greenland.” Trump compounded the damage to relations with NATO countries on Jan. 22 when he accused member country troops that deployed to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 of having shirked combat duty. “The White House really messed up with Greenland and Davos,” a third European diplomat said. “They may have underestimated how much that would have an impact.” The Trump administration needs the critical minerals deals to go through. The U.S. has been scrambling to find alternative supply lines for a group of minerals called rare earths since Beijing temporarily cut the U.S. off from its supply last year. China — which has a near-monopoly on rare earths — relented in the trade truce that Trump brokered with China’s leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October. The administration is betting that foreign government officials that attend Wednesday’s event also want alternative sources to those materials. “The United States and the countries attending recognize that reliable supply chains are indispensable to our mutual economic and national security and that we must work together to address these issues in this vital sector,” the State Department statement said in a statement. The administration has been expressing confidence that it will secure critical minerals partnerships with the countries attending the ministerial, despite their concerns over Trump’s bellicose policy. “There is a commonality here around countering China,” Ruth Perry, the State Department’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for ocean, fisheries and polar affairs, said at an industry event on offshore critical minerals in Washington last week. “Many of these countries understand the urgency.” Speaking at a White House event Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that 11 nations would sign on to a critical minerals framework with the United States this week and another 20 are considering doing so. Greenland has rich deposits of rare earths and other minerals. But Denmark isn’t sending any representatives to the ministerial, according to the person familiar with the event’s planning. Trump said last month that a framework agreement he struck with NATO over Greenland’s future included U.S. access to the island’s minerals. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure in its interior makes the extraction of those materials highly challenging. Concern about the longer term economic and geostrategic risks of turning away from Washington in favor of closer ties with Beijing — despite the Trump administration’s unpredictability — may work in Rubio’s favor on Wednesday. “We still want to work on issues where our viewpoints align,” an Asian diplomat said. “Critical minerals, energy and defense are some areas where there is hope for positive movement.” State Department cables obtained by POLITICO show the administration is leaning on ministerial participants to sign on to a nonbinding framework agreement to ensure U.S. access to critical minerals. The framework establishes standards for government and private investment in areas including mining, processing and recycling, along with price guarantees to protect producers from competitors’ unfair trade policies. The basic template of the agreement being shared with other countries mirrors language in frameworks sealed with Australia and Japan and memorandums of understanding inked with Thailand and Malaysia last year. Enthusiasm for the framework varies. The Philippine and Polish governments have both agreed to the framework text, according to cables from Manila on Jan. 22 and Warsaw on Jan. 26. Romania is interested but “proposed edits to the draft MOU framework,” a cable dated Jan. 16 said. As of Jan. 22 India was noncommittal, telling U.S. diplomats that New Delhi “could be interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding in the future.” European Union members Finland and Germany both expressed reluctance to sign on without clarity on how the framework aligns with wider EU trade policies. A cable dated Jan. 15 said Finland “prefers to observe progress in the EU-U.S. discussions before engaging in substantive bilateral critical mineral framework negotiations.” Berlin also has concerns that the initiative may reap “potential retaliation from China,” according to a cable dated Jan. 16. Trump’s threats over the past two weeks to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada for cutting a trade deal with China and 25 percent tariffs on South Korea for allegedly slow-walking legislative approval of its U.S. trade agreement are also denting enthusiasm for the U.S. critical minerals initiative. Those levies “have introduced some uncertainty, which naturally leads countries to proceed pragmatically and keep their options open,” a second Asian diplomat said. There are also doubts whether Trump will give the initiative the long-term backing it will require for success. “There’s a sense that this could end up being a TACO too,” a Latin American diplomat said, using shorthand for Trump’s tendency to make big threats or announcements that ultimately fizzle. Analysts, too, argue it’s unlikely the administration will be able to secure any deals amid the fallout from Davos and Trump’s tariff barrages. “We’re very skeptical on the interest and aptitude and trust in trade counterparties right now,” said John Miller, an energy analyst at TD Cowen who tracks critical minerals. “A lot of trading partners are very much in a wait-and-see perspective at this point saying, ‘Where’s Trump really going to go with this?’” And more unpredictability or hostility by the Trump administration toward longtime allies could push them to pursue critical mineral sourcing arrangements that exclude Washington. “The alternative is that these other countries will go the Mark Carney route of the middle powers, cooperating among themselves quietly, not necessarily going out there and saying, ‘Hey, we’re cutting out the U.S.,’ but that these things just start to crop up,” said Jonathan Czin, a former China analyst at the CIA now at the Brookings Institution. “Which will make it more challenging and allow Beijing to play divide and conquer over the long term.” Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

Europe is laying the foundation for renewed economic growth. Regulatory simplification is gaining traction. Public investment is accelerating in technology, energy and defense. Private capital is supplementing these efforts. These are meaningful steps, which, in the eyes of many, are long overdue and still need to gain pace. But an additional ingredient is required.  Our new research finds that closing the continent’s competitiveness gap requires Europe’s major companies to place a new emphasis on entrepreneurial courage: that is, the increased willingness to embrace uncertainty and take calculated risks in service of renewal and growth. Corporate leaders willing to make bold investments and engage in modern public-private collaborations, much like their American and Asian peers, stand to reap the rewards for acting decisively and with greater urgency.   Europe’s global competitiveness is ultimately a function of individual companies making a material difference, particularly large corporations and dynamic scale-ups. And it doesn’t require many acting boldly to have a disproportionate impact. In examining a sample representing about 15 percent of the U.S. economy, the McKinsey Global Institute found that more than two-thirds of productivity growth between 2011 and 2019 was driven by just 44 ‘standout’ companies. Meanwhile, 13 standout companies drove a similar proportion of the German sample’s productivity growth during the same period. These highly valued ‘outliers’, together with differences in growth and return on invested capital, underpin much of the valuation gap between European companies and their international peers, as highlighted in research we conducted on UK capital markets.   The status quo is not tenable.  Since the global financial crisis, Europe has endured a prolonged slump in private investment that has been especially pronounced in future-shaping industries. In the past five years alone, our analysis found that companies with headquarters in the United States have invested €2 trillion more in digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) than their European peers. And in traditional manufacturing industries, China is out-investing Europe at a rate of 3:1.  > This investment gap not only stifles European economic growth, but prevents > the continent from inventing, developing and deploying the technologies it > needs to increase productivity and drive prosperity.  And the need to boost investments is growing: when the landmark Draghi report on European competitiveness was released in 2024, it estimated that an additional €800 billion needed to be mobilized annually to start closing the continent’s competitiveness gap. With the required additional investment in defense, that figure is now estimated to be €1.2 trillion annually for the next five years.  Of course, the regulatory landscape is also important. The positive news over the past year is that the European Commission has implemented dozens of initiatives, from regulatory simplification to streamlining and enhancing funding and market-creation mechanisms, as well as preparing to propose a ‘28th regime’ to make it easier for companies to scale across its 27 member states. Governments are also stepping up, with growth in strategic public investment in technology, energy and defense capabilities creating tailwinds for private investment. For instance, Germany amended its constitution to exempt defense spending above 1 percent of GDP from its debt brake and established a €500 billion fund to support infrastructure and climate-neutral investment. Similar programs are taking shape in France, Italy, the Netherlands and the Nordics.  But, while private sector activity shows some signs of acceleration, more is needed. Driving Europe’s economic vitality requires the emergence of standout companies, acting both individually and in close collaboration with the public sector. Without it, Europe risks another decade of ‘secular stagnation’: sluggish real GDP growth of around 1 percent annually as excess savings and a dearth of investment depress aggregate demand and push interest rates back to near zero.  > So, what does it take to show more entrepreneurial courage? Informed by our > global research and what we see standout firms doing, our research highlights > a range of actions leaders could explore.  One example is making broader ecosystem plays, such as semiconductor company ASML joining with the Dutch government and regional partners to launch Project Beethoven, a €2.5 billion public-private investment to ensure ASML’s continued presence and expansion of the broader microchip cluster in Eindhoven. Another is re-inventing potential stranded assets to position them for the industries of the future, illustrated by the range of European utilities converting or marketing former coal and gas power plant sites for hyperscale data centers. And a clear one is radical adoption of AI and automation technologies, which MGI’s research shows could add up to 3.4 percentage points to annual productivity growth globally through 2040.  > Europe has an opportunity to take steps to decisively alter its competitive > trajectory.  But while public sector leaders can lay the foundations necessary to accelerate investment and growth, the continent’s leading companies are distinctly positioned to amplify this and make a critical contribution to the continent’s prosperity, security and strategic autonomy. There’s growing consensus on what needs to be done. What’s now needed is a hefty dose of entrepreneurial courage to act.

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

By ALEX PERRY in Paris Illustrations by Julius Maxim for POLITICO This article is also available in French When Patrick Pouyanné decided to spend billions on a giant natural gas field in a faraway warzone, he made the call alone, over a single dinner, with the head of a rival energy company. Pouyanné, the chairman and CEO of what was then called Total, was dining with Vicki Hollub, CEO of Houston-based Occidental Petroleum. It was late April 2019, and Hollub was in a David and Goliath battle with the American energy behemoth Chevron to buy Anadarko, like Occidental a mid-sized Texan oil and gas explorer. The American investor Warren Buffett was set to back Hollub with $10 billion, but it wasn’t enough. So Hollub flew to Paris to meet Pouyanné. Hollub’s proposal: Pouyanné would pitch in $8.8 billion in exchange for Anadarko’s four African gas fields, including a vast deep-sea reserve off northern Mozambique, an area in the grip of an Islamist insurgency. The Frenchman, who had previously approached Anadarko about the same assets, said yes in a matter of minutes. Advertisement “What are the strengths of Total?” Pouyanné explained to an Atlantic Council event in Washington a few weeks later. “LNG,” he went on, and the “Middle East and Africa,” regions where the company has operated since its origin in the colonial era. “So it’s just fitting exactly and perfectly.” Total, “a large corporation,” could be “so agile,” he said, because of the efficacy of his decision-making, and the clarity of his vision to shift from oil to lower-emission gas, extracted from lightly regulated foreign lands. In the end, “it [was] just a matter of sending an email to my colleague [Hollub],” he added. “This is the way to make good deals.” Six years later, it’s fair to ask if Pouyanné was a little hasty. On Nov. 17, a European human rights NGO filed a criminal complaint with the national counterterrorism prosecutor’s office in Paris accusing TotalEnergies of complicity in war crimes, torture and enforced disappearances, all in northern Mozambique. The allegations turn on a massacre, first reported by POLITICO last year, in which Mozambican soldiers crammed about 200 men into shipping containers at the gatehouse of a massive gas liquefaction plant TotalEnergies is building in the country, then killed most of them over the next three months. The complaint, submitted by the nonprofit European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), alleges that TotalEnergies became an accomplice in the “so-called ‘container massacre’” because it “directly financed and materially supported” the Mozambican soldiers who carried out the executions, which took place between June and September 2021. “TotalEnergies knew that the Mozambican armed forces had been accused of systematic human rights violations, yet continued to support them with the only objective to secure its facility,” said Clara Gonzales, co-director of the business and human rights program at ECCHR, a Berlin-based group specializing in international law that has spent the past year corroborating the atrocity. In response to the complaint, a company spokesperson in Paris said in a written statement: “TotalEnergies takes these allegations very seriously” and would “comply with the lawful investigation prerogatives of the French authorities.” Last year, in response to questions by POLITICO, the company — through its subsidiary Mozambique LNG — said it had no knowledge of the container killings, adding that its “extensive research” had “not identified any information nor evidence that would corroborate the allegations of severe abuses and torture.” This week, the spokesperson repeated that position. Advertisement Asked in May in the French National Assembly about the killings, Pouyanné dismissed “these false allegations” and demanded the company’s accusers “put their evidence on the table.” Questioned about the complaint on French television this week, he again rejected the allegations and described them as a “smear campaign” motivated by the fact that TotalEnergies produces fossil fuels. The war crimes complaint is based on POLITICO’s reporting and other open-source evidence. In the last year, the container killings have been confirmed by the French newspaper Le Monde and the British journalism nonprofit Source Material. The British Mozambique expert Professor Joseph Hanlon also said the atrocity was “well known locally,” and an investigation carried out by UK Export Finance (UKEF) — the British state lender, which is currently weighing delivery of a $1.15 billion loan to Total’s project — has heard evidence from its survivors.  The massacre was an apparent reprisal for a devastating attack three months earlier by ISIS-affiliated rebels on the nearby town of Palma, just south of the border with Tanzania, which killed 1,354 civilians, including 55 of Total’s workforce, according to a house-to-house survey carried out by POLITICO. Of those ISIS murdered, it beheaded 330. TotalEnergies has previously noted that Mozambique has yet to issue an official toll for the Palma massacre. In March, a French magistrate began investigating TotalEnergies for involuntary manslaughter over allegations that it abandoned its contractors to the onslaught.  After the jihadis left the area in late June, Mozambican commandos based at Total’s gas concession rounded up 500 villagers and accused them of backing the rebels. They separated men from women and children, raped several of the women, then forced the 180-250 men into two metal windowless shipping containers that formed a rudimentary fortified entrance to Total’s plant. There, the soldiers kept their prisoners in 30-degree-Celsius heat for three months. According to eleven survivors and two witnesses, some men suffocated. Fed handfuls of rice and bottle caps of water, others starved or died of thirst. The soldiers beat and tortured many of the rest. Finally, they began taking them away in groups and executing them. Only 26 men survived, saved when a Rwandan intervention force, deployed to fight ISIS, discovered the operation. A second house-to-house survey conducted by POLITICO later identified by name 97 of those killed or disappeared. Along with the new ECCHR complaint and the British inquiry, the killings are the subject of three other separate investigations: by the Mozambican Attorney General, the Mozambican National Human Rights Commission, and the Dutch government, which is probing $1.2 billion in Dutch state financing for TotalEnergies’ project. This week’s complaint was lodged with the offices of the French National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor, whose remit includes war crimes. The prosecutor will decide whether to open a formal inquiry and appoint an investigating magistrate.  Should the case move ahead, TotalEnergies will face the prospect of a war crimes trial.  Such an eventuality would represent a spectacular fall from grace for a business that once held a central place in French national identity and a CEO whose hard-nosed resolve made him an icon of global business. Should a French court eventually find the company or its executives liable in the container killings, the penalties could include fines and, possibly, jail terms for anybody indicted. How did TotalEnergies get here? How did Patrick Pouyanné? ‘POUYANNÉ PETROLEUM’ Born in Normandy in 1963, the son of a provincial customs official and a post office worker, Pouyanné elevated himself to the French elite by winning selection to the École Polytechnique, the country’s foremost engineering university, and then the École des Mines, where France’s future captains of industry are made. Following a few years in politics as a minister’s aide, he joined the French state petroleum company Elf as an exploration manager in Angola in 1996. After moving to Qatar in 1999 as Elf merged with Total, Pouyanné ascended to the top job at Total in 2014 after his predecessor, Christophe de Margerie, was killed in a plane crash in Moscow. Pouyanné led by reason, and force of will. “To be number one in a group like Total … is to find yourself alone,” he said in 2020. “When I say ‘I don’t agree,’ sometimes the walls shake. I realize this.” A decade at the top has seen Pouyanné, 62, transform a company of 100,000 employees in 130 countries into a one-man show — “Pouyanné Petroleum,” as the industry quip goes. His frequent public appearances, and his unapologetically firm hand, have made him a celebrated figure in international business. “Patrick Pouyanné has done an extraordinary job leading TotalEnergies in a complex environment, delivering outstanding financial results and engaging the company in the energy transition quicker and stronger than its peers,” Jacques Aschenbroich, the company’s lead independent director, said in 2023. Advertisement Marc-Antoine Eyl-Mazzega, director of energy and climate at the French Institute of International Relations, agreed. “His involvement is his strength,” he said. “He’s able to take a decision quickly, in a much more agile and rapid way.” Still, Eyl-Mazzega said, “I’m not sure everyone is happy to work with him. You have to keep up the pace. There are often departures. He’s quite direct and frank.”  Among employees, Pouyanné’s lumbering frame and overbearing manner has earned him a nickname: The Bulldozer. The moniker isn’t always affectionate. A former Total executive who dealt regularly with him recalled him as unpleasantly aggressive, “banging fists on the table.” The effect, the executive said, has been to disempower the staff: “The structure of Total is trying to guess what Pouyanné wants to do. You can’t make any decisions unless it goes to the CEO.” In a statement to POLITICO, TotalEnergies called such depictions “misplaced and baseless.” ‘DON’T ASK US TO TAKE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND’ What’s not in dispute is how Pouyanné has used his authority to shape Total’s answer to the big 21st-century oil and gas puzzle: how to square demand for fossil fuels with simultaneous demands from politicians and climate campaigners to eliminate them. His response has been diversification, moving the company away from high-emission fuels towards becoming a broad-based, ethical energy supplier, centered on low-carbon gas, solar and wind, and pledging to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The change was symbolized by Pouyanné’s renaming of the company TotalEnergies in 2021. A second, more unsung element of Pouyanné’s strategy has been moving much of his remaining fossil fuel operation beyond Western regulation.  Speaking to an audience at Chatham House in London in 2017, he said the catalyst for his move to favor reserves in poorer, less tightly policed parts of the planet was the penalties imposed on the British energy giant BP in the United States following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout, in which 11 men died and an oil slick devastated the Gulf of Mexico coast. Pouyanné declared that the fines — between $62 billion and $142 billion, depending on the calculation used — represented an excessive “legal risk” to oil and gas development in the West. While other, more troubled territories came with their share of dangers, Pouyanné put the cost of failure of any project outside the West at a more manageable $2 to $3 billion, according to his Chatham House remarks. As a way of assessing risk, it was efficient. “Other players would spend a lot of money on consultancies and write 70 reports to conclude that a project is risky,” Eyl-Mazzega said. “Pouyanné, on the other hand, is prepared to take risks.” Asked by the French Senate in 2024 how he chose where to invest, however, Pouyanné admitted that his math was strictly about the bottom line. “Don’t ask us to take the moral high ground,” he said. ‘A COLLAPSE WILL NOT PUT TOTAL IN DANGER’ The first oil and gas prospectors arrived in northern Mozambique in 2006 as part of a Western effort to broaden supply beyond the Middle East. When Anadarko found gas 25 miles out to sea in 2010, the talk was of Mozambique as the new Qatar. At 2.6 million acres, or about a third of the size of Belgium, Rovuma Basin Area 1 was a monster, thought to hold 75 trillion cubic feet of gas, or 1 percent of all global reserves. An adjacent field, Area 4, quickly snapped up by ExxonMobil, was thought to hold even more. To cope with the volume of production, Anadarko’s Area 1 consortium drew up a plan for a $20 billion onshore liquefaction plant. Together with ExxonMobil’s field, the cost of developing Mozambique’s gas was estimated at $50 billion, which would make it the biggest private investment ever made in Africa. But in 2017, an ISIS insurgency emerged to threaten those ambitions.  By the time Pouyanné was preparing to buy Anadarko’s 26.5 percent share in Area 1 two years later, what had begun as a ragtag revolt against government corruption in the northern province of Cabo Delgado had become a full-scale Islamist rebellion.  Insurgents were taking ever more territory, displacing hundreds of thousands of people and regularly staging mass beheadings. Even under construction, the gas plant was a regular target. It was run by Europeans and Americans, intending to make money for companies thousands of miles away while displacing 2,733 villagers to build their concession and banning fishermen from waters around their drill sites. After several attacks on plant traffic to and from the facility, in February 2019, the militants killed two project workers in a village attack and dismembered a contract driver in the road.  A further risk had its origins in a ban on foreigners carrying guns. That made the plant reliant for security on the Mozambican army and police, both of which had a well-documented record of criminality and repression. Initially, Pouyanné seemed unconcerned. The gas field was outside international law, as Mozambique had not ratified the Rome Statute setting up the International Criminal Court. And Pouyanné appeared to see the pursuit of high-risk, high-reward projects almost as an obligation for a deep-pocketed corporation, telling the Atlantic Council in May 2019, soon after he agreed the Mozambique deal, that Total was so big, it didn’t need to care — at least, not in the way of other, lesser companies or countries. “We love risk, so we have decided to embark on the Mozambique story,” he said. “Even if there is a collapse, [it] will [not] put Total in danger.” Advertisement In September 2019, when Total’s purchase was formally completed, the company declared in a press release: “The Mozambique LNG project is largely derisked.” In one of several statements to POLITICO, TotalEnergies explained the term echoed the boss’s focus on “the project’s commercial and financial fundamentals. To infer this was a dismissal of security concerns amounts to a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the sector operates.” Still, for workers at the project, it was an arresting statement, given that a Mozambique LNG worker had recently been chopped to pieces. Around the same time, the project managers at Anadarko, many of whom were now working for Total, tried to warn their new CEO of the danger posed by the insurgency. It was when they met Pouyanné, however, that “things then all started to unwind,” said one. Pouyanné regaled the team who had worked on the Mozambique project for years with a speech “on how brilliant Total was, and how brilliantly Total was going to run this project,” a second executive added. Pouyanné added he had “a French hero” running the company’s security: Denis Favier who, as a police commander, led a team of police commandos as they stormed a hijacked plane on the tarmac at Marseille in 1994, and in 2015, as France’s most senior policeman, commanded the operation to hunt and kill the Islamist brothers who shot dead 12 staff at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris. “This is easy for him,” Pouyanné said. Asked about the transition from Anadarko to Total, the company maintained it was responsive to all concerns expressed by former Anadarko workers. “We are not aware of any such dismissal of security concerns by TotalEnergies or its senior management,” the company said. “It is incorrect to state that advice from the ground was not listened to.” Still, after meeting Pouyanné, the old Anadarko team called their Mozambique staff together to brief them on their new boss. “Well, holy shit,” one manager began, according to a person present. “We’ve got a problem.” ‘VERY VULNERABLE’ A third former Anadarko staffer who stayed on to work for Total said that on taking over, the company also put on hold a decision to move most contractors and staff from hotels and compounds in Palma to inside its fortified camp — a costly move that Anadarko was planning in response to deteriorating security. “This was a danger I had worked so hard to eliminate,” the staffer said. “Palma was very vulnerable. Almost nobody was supposed to be [there]. But Total wouldn’t listen to me.” Other measures, such as grouping traffic to and from the plant in convoys and flanking them with drones, also ended. One project contractor who regularly made the run through rebel territory described the difference between Anadarko and Total as “night and day.” Then in June 2020, the rebels captured Mocimboa da Praia, the regional hub, and killed at least eight subcontractors. In late December that year, they staged another advance that brought them to Total’s gates. At that, Pouyanné reversed course and assumed personal oversight of the security operation, the first Anadarko manager said. Despite no expertise in security, “[he] had to get into every little last possible detail.” The second executive concurred. “It went from, ‘I don’t care, we’ve got the best security people in the business to run this’ to ‘Oh my God, this is a disaster, let me micromanage it and control it,’” he said. The company was “not aware of any … criticism that Mr. Pouyanné lacks the necessary expertise,” TotalEnergies said, adding the CEO had “first-hand experience of emergency evacuation … [from] when Total had to evacuate its staff from Yemen in 2015.” The insurgents’ advance prompted Pouyanné to order the evacuation of all TotalEnergies staff. By contrast, many contractors and subcontractors, some of them behind schedule because of Covid, were told to keep working, according to email exchanges among contractors seen by POLITICO. “Mozambique LNG did not differentiate between its own employees, its contractors or subcontractors when giving these instructions,” the company said, but added that it was not responsible for the decisions of its contractors. Advertisement Then, in February 2021, Pouyanné flew to Maputo, the Mozambican capital, to negotiate a new security deal with then Mozambican President Filipe Nyusi. Afterward, the two men announced the creation of the Joint Task Force, a 1,000-man unit of soldiers and armed police to be stationed inside the compound.  The deal envisaged that the new force would protect a 25-kilometer radius around the gas plant, including Palma and several villages. In practice, by concentrating so many soldiers and police inside the wire, it left Palma comparatively exposed. “It is incorrect to allege that Palma was left poorly defended,” the company said. “However, it is a fact that these security forces were overwhelmed by the magnitude and violence of the terrorist attacks in March 2021.” TotalEnergies added it is not correct to say that “Mr. Pouyanné personally managed the security deal setting up the Joint Task Force.” ‘TRAIN WRECK’ By this time, the company’s own human rights advisers were warning that by helping to create the Joint Task Force — to which the company agreed to pay what it described as “hardship payments” via a third party, as well as to equip it and accommodate it on its compound — Pouyanné was effectively making TotalEnergies a party to the conflict, and implicating it in any human rights abuses the soldiers carried out. Just as worrying was TotalEnergies’ insistence — according to a plant security manager, and confirmed by minutes of a Total presentation on security released under a Dutch freedom of information request — that all major security decisions be handled by a 20-man security team 5,000 miles away in Paris. That centralization seemed to help explain how, when the Islamists finally descended on Palma on March 24, 2021, Total was among the last to know. One Western security contractor told POLITICO he had pulled his people out 10 days before the assault, based on intelligence he had on guns and young men being pre-positioned in town. In the days immediately preceding the attack, villagers around Palma warned friends and relatives in town that they had seen the Islamists advancing. WhatsApp messages seen by POLITICO indicate contractors reported the same advance to plant security on March 22 and March 23. Advertisement Nonetheless, at 9 a.m. on March 24, TotalEnergies in Paris announced that it was safe for its staff to return. Hours later, the Islamists attacked. “Neither Mozambique LNG nor TotalEnergies received any specific ‘advance warnings’ of an impending attack prior to March 24,” the company said. Faced with a three-pronged advance by several hundred militants, the plant security manager said TotalEnergies’ hierarchical management pyramid was unable to cope. Ground staff could not respond to evolving events, paralyzed by the need to seek approval for decisions from Paris. Total’s country office in Maputo was also in limbo, according to the security manager, neither able to follow what was happening in real-time, nor authorized to respond.  ‘WHO CAN HELP US?!’ Two decisions, taken as the attack unfolded, compounded the havoc wreaked by the Islamists. The first was Total’s refusal to supply aviation fuel to the Dyck Advisory Group (DAG), a small, South African private military contractor working with the Mozambican police. With the police and army overrun, DAG’s small helicopters represented the only functional military force in Palma and the only unit undertaking humanitarian rescues. But DAG’s choppers were limited by low supplies of jet fuel, forcing them to fly an hour away to refuel, and to ground their fleet intermittently. Total, as one of the world’s biggest makers of aviation fuel, with ample stocks at the gas plant, was in a position to help. But when DAG asked Total in Paris for assistance, it refused. “Word came down from the mountain,” DAG executive Max Dyck said, “and that was the way it was going to be.” Total has conceded that it refused fuel to DAG — out of concern for the rescuers’ human rights record, the company said — but made fuel available to the Mozambican security services. DAG later hired an independent lawyer to investigate its record, who exonerated the company. Advertisement A second problematic order was an edict, handed down by Pouyanné’s executives in Paris in the months before the massacre, according to the plant security manager, that should the rebels attack, gate security guards at the gas plant were to let no one in. It was an instruction that could only have been drawn up by someone ignorant of the area’s geography, the man said.  If the Islamists blocked the three roads in and out of Palma, as conventional tactics would prescribe, the only remaining ways out for the population of 60,000 would be by sea or air — both routes that went through TotalEnergies’s facility, with its port and airport. By barring the civilians’ way, the company would be exposing them. So it proved. TotalEnergies soon had 25,000 fleeing civilians at its gates, according to an internal company report obtained under a freedom of information request by an Italian NGO, Recommon. Among the crowd were hundreds of project subcontractors and workers. Witnesses described to POLITICO how families begged TotalEnergies’ guards to let them in. Mothers were passing their babies forward to be laid in front of the gates. But TotalEnergies in Paris refused to allow its guards on the ground to open up. On March 28, the fifth day of the attack, Paris authorized a ferry to evacuate 1,250 staff and workers from the gas plant, and make a single return trip to pick up 1,250 civilians, who had sneaked inside the perimeter. That still left tens of thousands stranded at its gates. On March 29, a TotalEnergies community relations manager in Paris made a panicked call to Caroline Brodeur, a contact at Oxfam America. “He’s like, ‘There’s this huge security situation in Mozambique!’” Brodeur said. “An escalation of violence! We will need to evacuate people! Who can help us? Which NGO can support us with logistics?’” Thirty minutes later, the man called back. “Wait,” he told Brodeur. “Don’t do anything.” TotalEnergies’ senior managers had overruled him, the man said. No outsiders were to be involved. “I think he was trying to do the right thing,” Brodeur said in an interview with POLITICO. “But after that, Total went silent.” Over the next two months, the jihadis killed hundreds of civilians in and around Palma and the gas plant before the Rwandan intervention force pushed them out. The second former Anadarko and Total executive said the rebels might have attacked Palma, whoever was in charge at the gas project. But Total’s distant, centralized management made a “train wreck … inevitable.” Advertisement TotalEnergies said its response to the attack “mitigated as much as was reasonably possible the consequences.” Confirming the phone call to Oxfam, it added: “There was no effort by whoever within TotalEnergies to shut any possibility for external assistance down.” The company was especially adamant that Pouyanné was not at fault.  “The allegation that Mr. Pouyanné’s management of TotalEnergies exacerbated the devastation caused by the attacks in Mozambique is entirely unsubstantiated,” it said. “Mr. Pouyanné takes the safety and security of the staff extremely seriously.” In his television appearance this week, Pouyanné defended the company’s performance. “We completely evacuated the site,” he said. “We were not present at that time.” He said he considered that TotalEnergies, whose security teams had helped “more than 2,000 civilians evacuate the area,” “had carried out heroic actions.” ‘AN ALMOST PERFECT DINNER PARTY’  TotalEnergies’ troubles in Mozambique have come amid a wider slump in the country’s fortunes and reputation. Years of climate protests outside the company’s annual general meetings in central Paris peaked in 2023 when police dispersed activists with batons and tear gas. For the last two years, TotalEnergies has retreated behind a line of security checks and riot police at its offices in Défense, in the western part of Paris. Though the company intended 2024, its centenary year, as a celebration, the company succeeded mostly in looking past its prime. When Pouyanné took over in 2014, Total was France’s biggest company, and 37th in the world. Today, it is France’s seventh largest and not even in the global top 100.  Several French media houses chose the occasion of TotalEnergies’ 100th birthday to declare open season on the company, portraying it as a serial offender on pollution, corruption, worker safety, and climate change. Pouyanné has also presided over a rift with the French establishment. Last year, when he suggested listing in New York to boost the stock, French President Emmanuel Macron berated him in public. Advertisement The division grew wider a few weeks later when the French Senate concluded a six-month inquiry into the company with a recommendation that the formerly state-owned enterprise be partly taken back into public ownership.  The company has faced five separate lawsuits, civil and criminal, claiming it is breaking French law on climate protection and corporate conduct.  In a sixth case, brought by environmentalists in Paris last month, a judge ordered TotalEnergies to remove advertising from its website claiming it was part of the solution to climate change. Given the company’s ongoing investments in fossil fuels, that was misleading, the judge said, decreeing that TotalEnergies take down its messaging and upload the court’s ruling instead. The Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has also led protests against TotalEnergies’ East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline. That project, intended to pump oil 1,000 miles from Uganda across Tanzania to the Indian Ocean, is similarly embroiled in accusations of human rights abuses, drawing criticism from the European Parliament plus 28 banks and 29 insurance companies who have refused to finance it. Pouyanné has also taken hits to his personal brand. A low point came in 2022 when he chose the moment his countrymen were recovering from Covid and struggling with soaring fuel prices to defend his salary of €5,944,129 a year. He was “tired” of the accusation that he had received a 52 percent rise, he wrote on Twitter. His pay, he added, had merely been restored to pre-pandemic levels.  Overnight, the CEO became the unacceptable face of French capitalism. “Pouyanné lives in another galaxy, far, far away,” said one TV host. Under a picture of the CEO, an MP from the leftist France Unbowed movement wrote: “A name, a face. The obstacle in the way of a nation.” So heated and widely held is the contempt that in 2023 the company produced a guide for its French employees on how to handle it. Titled “An Almost Perfect Dinner Party,” the booklet lays out arguments and data that staff might use to defend themselves at social occasions. “Have you ever been questioned, during a dinner with family or friends, about a controversy concerning the Company?” it asked. “Did you have the factual elements to answer your guests?” ‘FALSE ALLEGATIONS’ The war crimes case lodged this week against TotalEnergies was filed in France, despite the alleged crimes occurring in Mozambique, because, it argues, TotalEnergies’ nationality establishes jurisdiction.  The case represents a dramatic example of the extension of international justice — the prosecution in one country of crimes committed in another. A movement forged in Nuremberg and Tokyo in the wake of World War II, the principles of international justice have been used more recently by national and international courts to bring warlords and dictators to trial — and by national courts to prosecute citizens or companies implicated in abuses abroad where local justice systems are weak. U.S. courts have ordered ExxonMobil and banana giant Chiquita to stand trial for complicity in atrocities committed in the late 1990s and early 2000s by soldiers or militias paid to protect their premises in Indonesia and Colombia, respectively. Exxon settled a week before the case opened in 2023. A Florida court ordered Chiquita to pay $38 million to the families of eight murdered Colombian men in June 2024; Chiquita’s appeal was denied that October.  In Sweden, two executives from Lundin Oil are currently on trial for complicity in war crimes after Sudanese troops and government militias killed an estimated 12,000 people between 1999 and 2003 as they cleared the area around a company drill site. The executives deny the accusations against them. Advertisement ECCHR has initiated several international justice cases. Most notably, in 2016, it and another legal non-profit, Sherpa, filed a criminal complaint in Paris against the French cement maker Lafarge, accusing its Syrian plant of paying millions of dollars in protection money to ISIS. Earlier this month, Lafarge and eight executives went on trial in Paris, accused of funding terrorism and breaking international sanctions — charges they deny. The war crimes complaint against TotalEnergies cites internal documents, obtained under freedom of information requests in Italy and the Netherlands, that show staff at the site knew the soldiers routinely committed human rights abuses against civilians while working for the company.  There were “regular community allegations of JTF [Joint Task Force] human rights violations,” read one, including “physical violence, and arrests/disappearances.” The report also referred to “troops who were allegedly involved in a [human rights] case in August [2021].” These were deemed so serious that TotalEnergies suspended pay to all 1,000 Joint Task Force soldiers and the army expelled 200 from the region, according to the internal document. The ECCHR complaint accuses TotalEnergies and “X”, a designation leaving open the possibility for the names of unspecified company executives to be added. Among those named in the document’s 56 pages are Pouyanné and five other TotalEnergies executives and employees. Favier, the company’s security chief, is not among them. TotalEnergies declined to make any of its executives or security managers available for interviews. In April 2024, when Pouyanné was questioned about his company’s Mozambique operation by the French Senate, he stated that while the government was responsible for the security of Cabo Delgado, “I can ensure the security of whichever industrial premises on which I might operate.” Asked about the container executions before the National Assembly this May, Pouyanné reaffirmed his faith in the Mozambican state, saying: “I think we help these countries progress if we trust their institutions and don’t spend our time lecturing them.” Apparently forgetting how he helped negotiate a security deal to place Mozambican soldiers on Total’s premises, however, he then qualified this statement, saying: “I can confirm that TotalEnergies has nothing to do with the Mozambican army.” A company spokesperson clarified this week: “TotalEnergies is not involved in the operations, command or conduct of the Mozambican armed forces.” In addition to the war crimes complaint, TotalEnergies’ Mozambique operation is already the subject of a criminal investigation opened in March by French state prosecutors. The allegation against the company is that it committed involuntary manslaughter by failing to protect or rescue workers left in Palma when ISIS carried out its massacre. Though POLITICO’s previous reporting found that 55 project workers were killed, TotalEnergies — through its subsidiary, Mozambique LNG — initially claimed it lost no one. “All the employees of Mozambique LNG, its contractors and subcontractors were safely evacuated from the Mozambique LNG Project site,” Maxime Rabilloud, Mozambique LNG’s managing director, told POLITICO last year. Advertisement That assertion notwithstanding, the death of at least one British subcontractor, Philip Mawer, is the subject of a formal inquest in the U.K.  In December 2024, the company’s Paris press office adjusted its position on the Palma attack. “TotalEnergies has never denied the tragedy that occurred in Palma and has always acknowledged the tragic loss of civilian lives,” it told POLITICO. For the first time, it also admitted “a small number” of project workers had been stationed outside its secure compound during the attack and exposed to the bloodbath.  A resolution to the French manslaughter investigation will take years. A decision on whether to open a formal investigation into the new claims against TotalEnergies for complicity in war crimes, let alone to bring the case to trial, is not expected until 2026, at the earliest. Should anyone eventually be tried for involuntary manslaughter, a conviction would carry a penalty of three years in prison and a €45,000 fine in France, escalating to five years and €75,000 for “a manifestly deliberate violation of a particular obligation of prudence or safety.” For complicity in war crimes, the sentence is five years to life. ‘CAN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR?’ The war crimes accusation adds new uncertainty to the 20-year effort to develop Mozambique’s gas fields. In the aftermath of the 2021 Palma massacre, TotalEnergies declared a state of “force majeure,” a legal measure suspending all contracted work due to exceptional events. The following four and a half years of shutdown have cost TotalEnergies $4.5 billion, in addition to the $3.9 billion that Pouyanné originally paid Anadarko for the Mozambique operation. Billions more in costs can be expected before the plant finally pumps gas, which Total now predicts will happen in 2029. The manslaughter case and the war crimes complaint have the potential to cause further holdups by triggering due diligence obligations from TotalEnergies’ lenders, preventing them from delivering loans of $14.9 billion — without which Pouyanné has said his star project will collapse. Total also faces a Friends of the Earth legal challenge to a $4.7 billion U.S. government loan to the project. A TotalEnergies spokesperson said this week that the project was able to “meet due diligence requirements by lenders.” Advertisement All this comes as the situation on the ground remains unstable. After a successful Rwandan counter-attack from 2021 to 2023, the insurgency has returned, with the Islamists staging raids across Cabo Delgado, including Palma and the regional hub of Mocimboa da Praia. The International Organization for Migration says 112,185 people fled the violence between September 22 and October 13. Among those killed in the last few months were two gas project workers — a caterer, murdered in Palma, and a security guard, beheaded in a village south of town. TotalEnergies has consistently said that neither recent legal developments nor the upsurge in ISIS attacks will affect its plans to formally reopen its Mozambique operation by the end of the year. “This new complaint has no connection with the advancement of the Mozambique LNG project,” a spokesperson said this week. Pouyanné himself has spent much of this year insisting the project is “back on track” and its financing in place. In October, in a move to restart the project, the company lifted the force majeure.  Still, in a letter seen by POLITICO, Pouyanné also wrote to Mozambican President Daniel Chapo asking for 10 more years on its drilling license and $4.5 billion from the country to cover its cost overruns.  Mozambique, whose 2024 GDP was $22.42 billion — around a tenth of TotalEnergies’ revenues for the year of $195.61 billion — has yet to respond. A final issue for TotalEnergies’ CEO is whether a formal accusation of war crimes will fuel opposition to his leadership among shareholders. At 2024’s annual general meeting, a fifth of stockholders rejected the company’s climate transition strategy as too slow, and a quarter declined to support Pouyanné for a fourth three-year term. In 2025, several institutional investors expressed their opposition to Pouyanné by voting against his remuneration. In the statement, the TotalEnergies spokesperson pointed to the 2023 comments by Aschenbroich, the independent board member: “The Board unanimously looks forward to his continued leadership and his strategic vision to continue TotalEnergies’ transition.” Yet, there seems little prospect that his popularity will improve, inside or outside the company. “Patrick Pouyanné is everyone’s best enemy,” says Olivier Gantois, president of the French oil and gas lobby group UFIP-EM, “the scapegoat we love to beat up on.” Recently, the 62-year-old Pouyanné has begun to sound uncharacteristically plaintive. At TotalEnergies’ 2022 shareholder meeting, he grumbled that the dissidents might not like CO2 emissions, “but they sure like dividends.” At last year’s, he complained that TotalEnergies was in an impossible position. “We are trying to find a balance between today’s life and tomorrow’s,” he said. “It’s not because TotalEnergies stops producing hydrocarbons that demand for them will disappear.” Advertisement TotalEnergies’ articles of association require Pouyanné to retire before he reaches 67, in 2030, around the time that TotalEnergies currently forecasts gas production to begin in Mozambique. Henri Thulliez, the lawyer who filed both criminal complaints against TotalEnergies in Paris, predicts Pouyanné’s successors will be less attached to the project — for the simple reason that Mozambique turned out to be bad business. “You invest billions in the project, and the project has been completely suspended for four years now,” Thulliez says. “All your funders are hesitating. You’re facing two potential litigations in France, maybe at some point elsewhere, too. You have to ask: what’s the point of all of this?” As for Pouyanné, two questions will haunt his final years at TotalEnergies, he suggests. First, “Can shareholders afford to keep you in your job?” Second, “Can you actually look at yourself in the mirror?” Aude Le Gentil and Alexandre Léchenet contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Airbus, Siemens, Novo Nordisk and other industry heavyweights are preparing a pledge to invest billions in Europe if the European Union follows through on plans to slash red tape and ease industrial hurdles. An industry declaration, of which POLITICO obtained a draft, showed more than two dozen of the bloc’s largest companies are planning to promise large-scale investments to help close the €800 billion investment gap that Europe has with other world regions — a gap that was central to Mario Draghi’s 2024 analysis of Europe’s lag on global competition. But first, the EU institutions should deliver on “ambitious reforms that foster innovation, investments, technological infrastructure, a clean and just transition, and security,” the companies will say. “This investment increase will only be realized in full if policy unlocks addressed by this declaration are implemented,” the draft declaration read. The declaration will be presented to European leaders as they gather in Copenhagen on Wednesday. Signatories are expected to include Airbus, Siemens, ASML, Novo Nordisk, thyssenkrupp, SAP, Equinor, Schneider Electric, Thales and Vodafone, and more than a dozen other large industrial firms. Exactly how much investment the companies are committing is still listed as “[xx]” in the draft declaration. “If all large European companies match this level of investment increase, Europe would be on track to close most of the ~€800 billion annual investment gap outlined by Draghi,” the text said. The list of “policy unlocks” they are demanding ranges from cutting red tape and offering more incentives for private investment to speeding up the clean-energy transition, strengthening Europe’s defense industrial base, and reducing reliance on foreign technology. The declaration is set to be endorsed at a Copenhagen Competitiveness Summit hosted by trade association Danish Industry. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk are scheduled to attend.