A minimum tax on the EU’s richest individuals will not discourage innovators and start-up founders from investing in the bloc, prominent economist Gabriel Zucman told POLITICO. “Innovation does not depend on just a tiny number of wealthy individuals paying zero tax,” Zucman said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. The young economist has become a household name in France thanks to his proposal to have households worth more than €100 million paying an annual tax of at least 2 percent of the value of all their assets. Critics of the tax warned about the risk of scaring investors out of the EU and that tech entrepreneurs could leave the bloc as they would be forced to pay a tax based on the market value of shares they own in their companies without necessarily having the liquidity to do so. But Zucman rejected “the notion that someone […] would be discouraged to create a start-up, to innovate in AI because of the possibility that once that person is a billionaire, he or she will have to pay a tiny amount of tax” “Who can believe in that?” he scoffed. The “Zucman tax” was one of the key demands by left-wing parties for France’s budget for next year. But the measure has been ignored by all France’s short-lived prime ministers, and rejected by the French parliament during ongoing budget debates. But Zucman is not giving up and still promotes the measure, including at the EU level. “This would generate about €65 billion in tax revenue for the EU as whole,” Zucman insisted.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s top envoy to the EU told POLITICO that overregulation is causing “real problems” economically and forcing European startups to flee to America. Andrew Puzder said businesses in the bloc “that become successful here go to the United States because the regulatory environment is killing them.” “Wouldn’t it be great if this part of the world, instead of deciding it was going to be the world’s regulator, decided once again to be the world’s innovators?” he added in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “You’ll be stronger in the world and you’ll be a much better trade partner and ally to the United States.” Puzder’s remarks come as the Trump administration launched a series of blistering attacks on Europe in recent days. Washington’s National Security Strategy warned of the continent’s “civilizational erasure” and Trump himself blasted European leaders as “weak” and misguided on migration policy in an interview with POLITICO. Those broadsides have sparked concerns in Europe that Trump could seek to jettison the transatlantic relationship. But Puzder downplayed the strategy’s criticism and struck a more conciliatory note, saying the document was “more ‘make Europe great again’ than it was ‘let’s desert Europe’” and highlighted Europe’s potential as a partner.

LONDON — Britain’s Treasury unveiled a provisional licensing authorization regime for start-up financial firms, allowing them to start operating before they get full authorization from the Financial Conduct Authority. The move comes as part of the British government’s deregulatory push to try and encourage growth in the U.K.’s sizable financial services and start-up industry. Speaking at POLITICO’s Financial Services forum Thursday, City Minister Lucy Rigby said U.K. start-ups that don’t yet meet the “onerous” conditions for formal authorization under the Financial Services and Markets Act would be “be able to obtain a provisional license.” However, Rigby stressed that firms will still need to meet some qualifications to receive the licenses, stating: “We are maintaining standards which we believe are vital for consumer protection.” “It will enable them to grow, to be able to secure the further investments that we know that they will need to be able to grow,” she added. It’s the latest sign that the British government is aiming to ease the regulatory rulebook in the U.K. in a bid to spur growth. Prime minister Keir Starmer wrote to the Financial Conduct Authority last year ordering them to produce a list of pro-growth initiatives that could be implemented by the regulator. TREASURY DOESN’T WANT TO ‘RUSH’ ON PENSION CHANGES Speaking at the forum just a week after a headline-grabbing and chaotic U.K. budget, Rigby was also grilled on whether the financial services industry will have the chance to press for changes to some of its more unpopular policies. Rigby said “a huge part of [her] role” involves listening to feedback from the financial sector, “because I think that’s how you ultimately get to the best results, and certainly how you get to things that will actually work.” Several policies announced in the budget, such as a cut to salary sacrifice limits for pension savers, are not due to come into effect until 2029, which has left some in the pension sector hopeful that changes can still be made. “It’s critical that there is sufficient time spent working with industry on the detail of exactly how this is going to operate, and we definitely do not want to rush that,” Rigby said. The City minister also addressed Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ decision not to hike taxes on banks at last week’s budget, saying the government wanted “to see the U.K. staying competitive globally and indeed, becoming more competitive.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

LONDON — The wait is finally over. After weeks of briefings, speculation, and U-turns, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out her final tax and spending plans for the year ahead. As expected, there is plenty for policy wonks to chew over. To make your lives easier, we’ve digested the headline budget announcements on energy, financial services, tech, and trade, and dug deep into the documents for things you might have missed.  ENERGY  The government really wants to bring down bills: Rachel Reeves promised it would be a cost-of-living budget, and surprised no one with a big pledge on families’ sky-high energy bills. She unveiled reforms which, the Treasury claims, will cut bills by £150 a year — by scrapping one green scheme currently paid for through bills (the Energy Company Obligation) and moving most of another into general taxation (the Renewables Obligation). The problem is, the changes will kick in next year at the same time bills are set to rise anyway. So will voters actually notice? The North Sea hasn’t escaped its taxes: Fossil fuel lobbyists were desperate to see a cut in the so-called Windfall Tax, which, oil and gas firms say, limits investment and jobs in the North Sea. But Rachel Reeves ultimately decided to keep the tax in place until 2030 (even if North Sea firms did get a sop through rules announced today, which will allow them to explore for new oil and gas in areas linked to existing, licensed sites.) Fossil fuel lobbyists, Offshore Energies UK, were very unimpressed. “The government was warned of the dangers of inaction. They must now own the consequences and reconsider,” it said. FINANCIAL SERVICES Pension tax changes won’t arrive for some time: The widely expected cut in tax breaks for pension salary sacrifice is set to go ahead, but it will be implemented far later than thought. The thresholds for exemption from national insurance taxes on salary sacrifice contributions will be lowered from £60,000 to £2,000 in April 2029, likely to improve forecasts for deficit cuts in the later years of the OBR’s forecasts. The OBR has a markets warning: The U.K.’s fiscal watchdog warned that the price-to-earnings ratio among U.S. equities is reminiscent of the dotcom bubble and post-pandemic rally in 2021, which were both followed by significant market crashes. The OBR estimated a global stock market collapse could cause a £121 billion hike in U.K. government debt by 2030 and slash U.K. growth by 0.6 percent in 2027-28. Even if the U.K. managed to stay isolated from the equity collapse, the OBR reckons the government would still incur £61 billion in Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities. Banks back British investments: British banks and investment houses have signed an agreement with the Treasury to create “invest in Britain” hubs to boost retail investment in U.K. stocks, a plan revealed by POLITICO last week. Reeves also finally tabled a cut to the tax-free cash ISA allowance: £12,000 from spring 2027 (the amount and timings also revealed by POLITICO last week), down from £20,000, with £8,000 slated for investments only. Over-65s will keep the full tax-free subscription amount. Also hidden in the documents was an upcoming consultation to replace the lifetime ISA with a “new, simpler ISA product to support first-time buyers to buy a home.” No bank tax: Banks managed to dodge a hike in their taxes this time, despite calls from the IPPR for a windfall-style tax that could have raised £8 billion. The suggestions (which also came from inside the Labour Party) were met with an intense lobbying effort from the banks, both publicly and privately. By the eve of the budget, City figures told POLITICO they were confident taxes wouldn’t be raised, citing the high rate of tax they already pay and Reeves’ commitment to pushing for growth through the financial services industry. TECH ‘Start, scale, stay’ is the new mantra:  Startup founders and investors were in panic mode ahead of the budget over rumored plans for an “exit tax” on wealthy individuals moving abroad, but instead were handed several wins on Wednesday, with Reeves saying her aim was to “make Britain the best place in the world to start up, to scale up and to stay.” She announced an increase in limits for the Enterprise Manage Scheme, which incentivizes granting employees share options, and an increase to Venture Capital Trust (VCT) and Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) thresholds to facilitate investment in growing startups. A further call for evidence will also consider “how our tax system can better back entrepreneurs,” Reeves announced. The government will also consider banning non-compete clauses — another long-standing request from startups. Big Tech will still have to cough up: A long-standing commitment to review a Digital Services Tax on tech giants was quietly published alongside the budget, confirming it will remain in place despite pressure from the Trump administration. The government will ‘Buy British’ on AI: Most of the government’s AI announcements came ahead of the budget — including plans for two new “AI Growth Zones” in Wales, an expansion of publicly owned compute infrastructure — meaning the only new announcements on the day were a relatively minor “digital adoption package” and a commitment to overhaul procurement processes to benefit innovative tech firms. But the real point of interest on AI came in the OBR’s productivity forecasts, which said that despite the furor over AI, the technology’s impacts on productivity would be smaller than previous waves of technology, providing just a 0.2 percentage point boost by 2030. The government insists digital ID will ultimately lead to cost savings. | Andrea Domeniconi/Getty Images OBR delivers a blow to digital ID: The OBR threw up another curveball, estimating the cost of the government’s digital ID scheme at a whopping £1.8 billion over the next three years and calling out the government for making “no explicit provision” for the expense. The government insists digital ID will ultimately lead to cost savings — but “no specific savings have yet been identified,” the OBR added. TRADE  Shein and Temu face new fees: In a move targeted at online retailers like Shein and Temu, the government launched a consultation on scrapping the de minimis customs loophole, which exempts shipments worth less than £135 from import duties. These changes will take effect from March 2029 “at the latest,” according to a consultation document. Businesses are being consulted on how the tariff should be applied, what data to collect, whether to apply an additional administration fee, as well as potential changes to VAT collection. Reeves said the plans would “support a level-playing field in retail” by stopping online firms from “undercutting our High Street businesses.”  Northern Irish traders get extra support: Also confirmed in the budget is £16.6 million over three years to create a “one-stop shop” support service to help firms in Northern Ireland navigate post-Brexit trading rules. The government said the funding would “unlock opportunities” for trading across the U.K. internal market and encourage Northern Ireland to take advantage of access to EU markets.  There’s a big question mark over drug spending: Conspicuously absent was any mention of NHS drug spending, despite U.K. proposals to raise the cost-effectiveness threshold for new drugs by 25 percent as part of trade negotiations with the U.S., suggesting a deal has not yet been finalized. The lack of funding was noted as a potential risk to health spending in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which was leaked ahead of the budget. 

Businesses from Wall Street to main street are struggling to comply with President Donald Trump’s byzantine tariff regime, driving up costs and counteracting, for some, the benefits of the corporate tax cuts Republicans passed earlier this year. Trump has ripped up the U.S. tariff code over the past year, replacing a decades-old system that imposed the same tariffs on imports from all but a few countries with a vastly more complicated system of many different tariff rates depending on the origin of imported goods. To give an example, an industrial product that faced a mostly uniform 5 percent tariff rate in the past could now be taxed at 15 percent if it comes from the EU or Japan, 20 percent from Norway and many African countries, 24 to 25 percent from countries in Southeast Asia and upwards of 50 percent from India, Brazil or China. “This has been an exhausting year, I’d say, for most CEOs in the country,” said Gary Shapiro, CEO and vice chair of the Consumer Technology Association, an industry group whose 1,300 member companies include major brands like Amazon, Walmart and AMD, as well as many small businesses and startups. “The level of executive time that’s been put in this has been enormous. So instead of focusing on innovation, they’re focusing on how they deal with the tariffs.” Upping the pressure, the Justice Department has announced that it intends to make the prosecution of customs fraud one of its top priorities. The proliferation of trade regulations and threat of intensified enforcement has driven many companies to beef up their staff and spend what could add up to tens of millions of dollars to ensure they are not running afoul of Trump’s requirements. The time and expense involved, combined with the tens of billions of dollars in higher tariffs that companies are paying each month to import goods, amount to a massive burden that is weighing down industries traditionally reliant on imported products. And it’s denting, for some, the impact of the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts that companies will receive over the next decade via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act championed by the White House. “Every CEO survey says this is their biggest issue,” said Shapiro. A recent survey by KPMG, a professional services firm, found 89 percent of CEOs said they expect tariffs to significantly impact their business’ performance and operations over the next three years, with 86 percent saying they expect to respond by increasing prices for their goods and services as needed. Maytee Pereira, managing director for customs and international trade at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, another professional services firm, has seen a similar trend. “Many of our clients have been spending easily 30 to 60 percent of their time having tariff conversations across the organization,” Pereira said. That’s forced CEOs to get involved in import-sourcing decisions to an unprecedented degree and intensified competition for personnel trained in customs matters. “There’s a real dearth of trade professionals,” Pereira said. “There isn’t a day that I don’t speak to a client who has lost people from their trade teams, because there is this renewed need for individuals with those resources, with those skill sets.” But the impact goes far beyond a strain on personnel into reducing the amount of money that companies are willing to spend on purchasing new capital equipment or making other investments to boost their long-term growth. “People are saying they can’t put money into R&D,” said one industry official, who was granted anonymity because of the risk of antagonizing the Trump administration. “They can’t put money into siting new factories in the United States. They don’t have the certainty they need to make decisions.” A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. However, the administration has previously defended tariffs as key to boosting domestic manufacturing, along with their overall economic agenda of tax cuts and reduced regulation. They’ve also touted commitments from companies and other countries for massive new investments in the U.S. in order to avoid tariffs, although they’ve acknowledged it will take time for the benefits to reach workers and consumers. “Look, I would have loved to be able to snap my fingers, have these facilities going. It takes time,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview this week on Fox News. “I think 2026 is going to be a blockbuster year.” For some companies, however, any benefit they’ve received from Trump’s push to lower taxes and reduce regulations has been substantially eroded by the new burden of complying with his complicated tariff system, said a second industry official, who was also granted anonymity for the same reason. “It is incredibly complex,” that second industry official said. “And it keeps changing, too.” Matthew Aleshire, director of the Milken Institute’s Geo-Economics Initiative, said he did not know of any studies yet that estimate the overall cost, both in time and money, for American businesses to comply with Trump’s new trade regulations. But it appears substantial. “I think for some firms and investors, it may be on par with the challenges experienced in the early days of Covid. For others, maybe a little less so. And for others, it may be even more complex. But it’s absolutely eating up or taking a lot of time and bandwidth,” Aleshire said. The nonpartisan think tank’s new report, “Unintended Consequences: Trade and Supply Chain Leaders Respond to Recent Turmoil,” is the first in a new series exploring how companies are navigating the evolving trade landscape, he said. One of the main findings is that it has become very difficult for companies to make decisions, “given the high degree of uncertainty” around tariff policy, Aleshire said. Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs — imposed on most countries under a 1977 emergency powers act that is now being challenged in court — start at a baseline level of 10 percent that applies to roughly 100 trading partners. He’s set higher rates, ranging from 15 to 41 percent, on nearly 100 others, including the 27-member European Union. Those duties stack on top of the longstanding U.S. “most-favored nation” tariffs. Two notable exceptions are the EU and Japan, which received special treatment in their deals with Trump. Companies also could get hit with a 40 percent penalty tariff if the Trump administration determines an item from a high-tariffed country has been illegally shipped through a third country — or assembled there — to obtain a lower tariff rate. However, businesses are still waiting for more details on how that so-called transshipment provision, which the Trump administration outlined in a summer executive order, will work. The president also has hit China, Canada and Mexico with a separate set of tariffs under the 1977 emergency law to pressure those countries to do more to stop shipments of fentanyl and precursor chemicals from entering the United States. Imports from Canada and Mexico are exempt from the fentanyl duties, however, if they comply with the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a trade pact Trump brokered in his first term. That has spared most goods the U.S. imports from its North American neighbors, but also has forced many more companies to spend time filling out paperwork to document their compliance. Trump’s increasingly baroque tariff regime also includes the “national security” duties he has imposed on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks under a separate trade law. But the administration has provided a partial exemption for the 25 percent tariffs he has imposed on autos and auto parts, and has struck deals with the EU, Japan and South Korea reducing the tariff on their autos to 15 percent. In contrast, Trump has taken a hard line against exemptions from his 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, and recently expanded the duties to cover more than 400 “derivative” products, such as chemicals, plastics and furniture, that contain some amount of steel and aluminum or are shipped in steel and aluminum containers. And the administration is not stopping there, putting out a request in September for further items it can add to the steel and aluminum tariffs. “This is requiring companies that do not even produce steel and aluminum products to keep track of and report what might be in the products that they’re importing, and it’s just gotten incredibly complicated,” one of the industry officials granted anonymity said. That’s because companies need to precisely document the amount of steel or aluminum used in a product to qualify for a tariff rate below 50 percent. “Any wrong step, like any incorrect information, or even delay in providing the information, risks the 50 percent tariff value on the entire product, not just on the metal. So the consequence is really high if you don’t get it right,” the industry official said. The administration has also signaled plans to similarly expand tariffs for other products, such as copper. And the still unknown outcomes of ongoing trade investigations that could lead to additional tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, commercial aircraft, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, medical products and robotics and industrial machinery continue to make it difficult for many companies to plan for the future. Small business owners say they feel particularly overwhelmed trying to keep up with all the various tariff rules and rates. “We are no longer investing into product innovation, we’re not investing into new hires, we’re not investing into growth. We’re just spending our money trying to stay afloat through this,” said Cassie Abel, founder and CEO of Wild Rye, an Idaho company which sells outdoor clothing for women, during a virtual press conference with a coalition of other small business owners critical of the tariffs. Company employees have also “spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours counter-sourcing product, pausing production, restarting production, rushing production, running price analysis, cost analysis, shipping analysis,” Abel said. “I spent zero minutes on tariffs before this administration.” In one sign of the duress small businesses are facing, they have led the charge in the Supreme Court case challenging Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose both the reciprocal and the fentanyl-related tariffs. Crutchfield Corp., a family-owned electronics retailer based in Charlottesville, Virginia, filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the litigants in the case, in which the owners detailed its difficulties in coping with Trump’s erratic tariff actions. “If tariffs can be imposed, increased, decreased, suspended or altered … through the changing whim of a single person, then Crutchfield cannot plan for the short term, let alone the long run,” the company wrote in its brief, asking “the Court to quell the chaos.”

Andrea Dugo is an economist at the European Centre for International Political Economy. In the late 1400s, Italy was the jewel of Europe. Venice ruled the seas; Florence dominated art and finance; and Milan led in trade and technology. No corner of the Western world was more advanced. Yet, within decades, both its political independence and economic primacy were gone. Europe today risks a similar fate. Once the envy of the world, the bloc’s lead has eroded. The EU isn’t just politically divided, it’s also falling behind in industries that will define the rest of this century. Young talent is fleeing for the U.S. and Asia, while its economy increasingly resembles an open-air museum of past achievements. Whether in growth, technology, industry or living standards, Europe is in jeopardy of becoming a province in a world defined by others. And it stands to learn from Italy’s decline. The warning signs are unmistakable: Since 2008, the EU’s GDP expanded by just 18 percent, while the U.S. grew twice as fast and China grew nearly three times bigger. Tourism across the continent is still booming, of course, but the millions chasing their Instagram-able escapes aren’t enough to offset stagnation, and also bring costs. The bloc’s fall in living standards echoes Renaissance Italy as well. Around 1450, Italy’s income per person was 50 percent higher than Holland’s. A century later, the Dutch were 15 percent richer, and by 1650, they were nearly twice as rich. Modern Europe is slipping even faster than that. In 1995, Germany’s GDP per capita was 10 percent higher than America’s, whereas today, the U.S. is 60 percent higher. At this pace, Germany’s prosperity levels could shrink to a third of its transatlantic partner’s within a generation. Much like in Renaissance Italy, this economic malaise reflects a deep technology gap. Once the queen of the seas, Venice clung to old technology and paid the price. Its galleys, superb in calm Mediterranean waters, were no match for the ocean-going caravels that carried Spain and Portugal across the world. Modern Europe is now doing the same: On artificial intelligence, the EU invests barely 4 percent of what the U.S. does. Today, OpenAI is valued at $500 billion, while Europe’s biggest AI startup Mistral is worth just $15 billion. And though it pioneered the science in quantum, Europe trails behind in commercialization — a single U.S. startup, IonQ, raised more capital than all the bloc’s quantum firms combined. Even when it comes to batteries, Sweden’s much-touted Northvolt collapsed in March, only to be snapped up by a Silicon Valley startup. Traditional industries are faltering too. Taken together, Germany’s top three carmakers are worth just an eighth of Tesla. Ericsson and Nokia, once world leaders in mobile network technology, lag behind Asian rivals in 5G. And France’s Arianespace, once dominant in satellite launches, now hitches rides on tech billionaire Elon Musk’s rockets. The problem isn’t invention, though — it’s scale. Despite its top engineers and universities, nearly 30 percent of the bloc’s unicorns have transferred to the U.S. since 2008, taking its most entrepreneurial spirits with them. It seems the continent sparks ideas, while America fuels them and profits — yet another pattern that mirrors Italy, which supplied talent as others built empires. Its greatest explorers like Columbus, Cabot, Vespucci and Verrazzano had also trained at home, only to sail under foreign flags. The prescriptions are known. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi detailed them in his report on the EU’s future. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images The fundamental issue in both cases is political. Like Italy’s warring city-states in the 1500s, today’s Europe is divided and feeble. Capitals quarrel over energy, debt, migration and industrial policy; a common defense strategy remains only an aspiration; and ambitious plans for joint technology spending or deeper capital markets get drowned in debate. This disunity is what doomed Italy as it fell prey to foreign powers that eventually carved up the peninsula. And the bloc’s current divisions leave it similarly vulnerable to global competitors, as Washington dictates defense; Russia menaces the continent’s east; China dominates supply chains; and Silicon Valley rules the digital economy. But is this all fated? Not necessarily. The EU has built institutions Renaissance Italy could never have dreamed of: a single market, a currency, a parliament. It still hosts world-class research institutions and excels in advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, green energy and design. The continent can still lead — but only if it acts. Sixteenth-century Italy had no such chance. Geography trapped it in the Mediterranean while trade routes shifted to the Atlantic, and commerce stagnated. New naval technologies left its fleets behind, and its brightest minds sought their fortunes abroad. But Europe faces no such limit. Nothing is stopping it other than its own political timidity and fractiousness. The bloc needs to accept costs now in order to avoid the greatest of costs later: irrelevance. It needs to invest heavily in frontier technologies like AI, quantum, space and biotech, while also building real defense and creating deep capital markets so that start-ups can scale up at home. The prescriptions are known. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi detailed them in his report on the EU’s future. What’s missing is political will. Once Europe’s beating heart, Italy eventually became a land of visitors rather than innovators. And history’s lesson is clear: Its culture endured, but its power withered. The EU still has time to avoid that destiny. Europeans can either wake up or resign themselves to becoming a continent of monuments and echoing memories.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is in talks with eight of Europe’s top investors to involve them in a fund to support homegrown companies working on critical technologies. Representatives from the private investors are in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss their involvement, according to a planning note seen by POLITICO. The fund has been in the works since the spring and will combine EU money with private investment to fill a late-stage financing gap for European tech startups — buying stakes to support companies ranging from artificial intelligence to quantum. It could range from €3 billion to €5 billion, depending on how much investors contribute. The investors invited to meet with the Commission on Tuesday are Danish investment company Novo Holdings, the Export and Investment Fund of Denmark, Spanish CriteriaCaixa and Santander, Italian Intesa Sanpaolo, Dutch pension fund APG Asset Management, Swedish Wallenberg Investments, and Polish Development Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, according to the planning note. The fund will focus on “strategic and enabling technologies,” the note read, including advanced materials, clean energy, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum technology, robotics, space and medical technologies. The Commission is seeking to address the issue of companies struggling to scale in Europe. Many turn to investors from the U.S. or elsewhere for late-stage financing, after which they often relocate. The goal of the fund is to make sure that startups that have completed their early funding rounds can “secure scaleup financing while maintaining their headquarters and core activities in Europe,” the note said.  The fund follows an earlier effort to take direct equity stakes in companies through the European Innovation Council Fund. Investments under the EIC Fund are capped at €30 million, while the new fund would invest €100 million or more. The fund will launch in April. Other investors could still come in at a later date. In November, the Commission plans to begin the search for an investment adviser — a process that should be wrapped up by January, according to the planning note.

AI is intensifying the strategic rivalry between the European Union and the United States, reshaping models of industrial policy and regulatory sovereignty. Amid a flurry of investment announcements, the exposure of security vulnerabilities and the contest over global standards, one critical factor remains largely in the shadows — seldom acknowledged, scarcely quantified and rarely debated: its environmental footprint. The environmental blind spot of a strategic technology The silence surrounding the impact of AI is surprising. A study carried out by Sopra Steria and Opsci.ai analyzing over 3 million posts about AI on social media reveals that its environmental impact accounts for less than 1 percent of the global conversation.1 Worse still, among the 100 most influential AI personalities,2 ecological concerns are only eighth on the list of subjects they discuss most, far behind technological and economic issues. > A study carried out by Sopra Steria and Opsci.ai analyzing over 3 million > posts about AI on social media reveals that its environmental impact accounts > for less than 1 percent of the global conversation AI relies on energy-intensive infrastructure that consumes resources and water, the footprint of which remains largely underestimated, poorly measured and therefore little considered in industrial and political trade-offs. This misalignment can also be explained by the trajectory of the sector itself: driven by the rise of AI, the digital sector is one of the few areas whose environmental impact is continuing to grow, contrary to the climate objectives set out in the Paris Agreement. While American players are already crushing the AI market, technological dependence must not be compounded by a setback on Europe’s carbon trajectory. This omission undermines the credibility of any European industrial strategy built on AI. To serve as genuine drivers of transformation, the leading AI companies must bring full transparency to their environmental trajectory — one they are progressively shaping for Europe. © Sopra Steria Measuring for action: The need for transparency and rigor We must not rush to condemn AI, but we must insist on setting the conditions for its long-term sustainability. This means measuring its impact objectively and transparently, equipping stakeholders with the tools for informed debate, and guiding decision-makers in their technological choices. Recent research indicates that the environmental footprint of a given model can vary significantly depending on where it is assessed, the energy mix of the countries hosting the data centers,3 the duration of the training, the architecture employed and the extent to which low-carbon energy sources are used. Breaking through the methodological vagueness means providing developers, purchasers and decision-makers with common frames of reference, impact simulators, libraries of low-carbon models and low-carbon computing infrastructures. Numerous levers for action and choice exist, provided we have the necessary data and tools. This requirement is not a regulatory whim but a strategic steering tool. Sustainability must be given as much weight as performance or security in industrial and economic trade-offs, because it determines the very viability of Europe’s strategic autonomy. At a time when free international trade faces headwinds, and as the second phase of the AI Act — in force since August 2025 — continues to overlook environmental sustainability, transparency on environmental impact must become a prerequisite for access to European markets, financing and large-scale deployment. Making sustainability a central pillar of European competitiveness Europe has an opportunity to seize. It has a robust standards base that is a powerful lever for competitiveness and responsible innovation, provided that it is supported by targeted investment, shared standards and an industrial strategy aligned with our climate objectives. But Europe can rely on something even more decisive: its people. We have world-class researchers, visionary entrepreneurs, and thriving companies that embody the best of technological and industrial excellence. The recent strategic partnership between ASML, a key supplier to the world’s semiconductor industry, and Mistral, an AI start-up, illustrates Europe’s capacity to connect its industrial and digital strengths to shape a sovereign and sustainable future4. It would be dangerous to suggest that Europe’s technological strength could be built on deferred ecology. What is tolerated as a gray area today will be a competitive handicap tomorrow. Customers, investors and citizens will increasingly demand transparency. The emergence of responsible AI does not mean making it perfect, but making it readable, controllable and adjustable. In a technological landscape dominated by two superpowers that have hitherto favored efficiency and technological competitiveness to the detriment of ethical safeguards, Europe can chart a singular course. It has the means to assert itself by defending responsible AI, at the service of the common good and in line with its fundamental values: the rule of law, individual freedom, social justice and respect for the environment. This orientation is not a brake on innovation, but on the contrary a lever for differentiation, capable of inspiring confidence in a digital ecosystem that is often perceived as opaque or threatening. By betting on ethical, explainable and sustainable AI, Europe would not be giving up global competition, but it would be redefining the rules of the game. More than ever, it must give priority to clarity, stringency and rigor. Only then will AI cease to be a technological equation to be solved and become a genuine project at the service of our society, consistent with our democratic and ecological imperatives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AI & environment: breaking through the information fog – Sopra Steria 2. “The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024”, Time Magazine 3. ADEME – Arcep study on the environmental footprint of digital technology in 2020, 2030 and 2025 4. https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-asml-invests-in-french-mistral-in-huge-european-ai-team-up/

CLIMATEWIRE | A once-outlandish idea for reversing global warming took a major step toward reality Friday when Israeli-U.S. startup Stardust Solutions announced the largest-ever fundraising round for any company that aims to cool the Earth by spraying particles into the atmosphere. Its plan to limit the sun’s heat raised $60 million from a broad coalition of investors that included Silicon Valley luminaries and the Agnelli family, an Italian industrial dynasty. The disclosure, critics said, raises questions about involvement of venture capital firms in driving forward a largely untested, thinly researched and mostly unregulated technology that could disrupt global weather patterns and trigger geopolitical conflict. The investors were “putting their trust in the concept of, we need a safe and responsible and controlled option for sunlight reflection, which for me is [a] very important step forward in the evolution of this field,” Stardust CEO Yanai Yedvab said during an interview this week in POLITICO’s London office. He and co-founder Amyad Spector, who also flew in for the interview, are both nuclear physicists who formerly worked for the Israeli government. The startup’s fundraising haul was led by Lowercarbon Capital, a Wyoming-based climate technology-focused firm co-founded by billionaire investor Chris Sacca. It was also backed by the Agnellis’ firm Exor, a Dutch holding company that is the largest shareholder of Chrysler parent company Stellantis, luxury sports car manufacturer Ferrari and Italy’s Juventus Football Club. Ten other firms — hailing from San Francisco to Berlin — and one individual, former Facebook executive Matt Cohler, also joined Stardust’s fundraising round, its second since being founded two years ago. The firm has now raised a total of $75 million. It is registered in the U.S. state of Delaware and headquartered outside Tel Aviv but is not affiliated with the state of Israel. The surge of investor enthusiasm for Stardust comes amid stalled political efforts in Washington and other capitals to reduce the use of oil, gas and coal — the main drivers of climate change. Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to climb to new heights, worsening wildfires, floods, droughts and other natural disasters that some U.S. policymakers have baselessly blamed on solar geoengineering. The new influx of cash is four times the size of the startup’s initial fundraising round and, Yedvab argued, represents a major vote of confidence in Stardust and its strategy to land government contracts for deploying its technology at a global scale. It also shows that a growing pool of investors are willing to bet on solar geoengineering — a technology that some scientists still consider too dangerous to even study. Even advocates of researching solar geoengineering question the wisdom of pursuing it via a for-profit company like Stardust. “They have convinced Silicon Valley [venture capitalists] to give them a lot of money, and I would say that they shouldn’t have,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School and author of the book “Geoengineering: The Gamble.” “I don’t think it is a reasonable path to suggest that there’s going to be somebody — the U.S. government, another government, whoever — who buys Stardust, buys the [intellectual property] for a billion bucks [and] makes the VC investors gazillions. I don’t think that is, at all, reasonable.” Lowercarbon Capital did not respond to emailed questions. Stardust claims to have created a particle that would reflect sunlight in the same way debris from volcanic eruptions can temporarily cool the planet. The company says its powder is inert, wouldn’t accumulate in humans or ecosystems, and can’t harm the ozone layer or create acid rain like the sulfur-rich particles from volcanoes. It plans to seek government contracts to manufacture, disperse and monitor the particles in the stratosphere. The company is in the process of securing patents and preparing academic papers on its integrated solar geoengineering system. The startup would use the money it has raised to begin “controlled outdoor experiments” as soon as April, Yedvab told POLITICO. Those tests would release the company’s reflective particles inside a modified plane flying about 11 miles (18 kilometers) above sea level. The idea, Yedvab explained, is that “instead of displacing the particles out to the stratosphere and start following them, to do the other way around — to suck air from the stratosphere and to conduct in situ experiments, without dispersing essentially.” He said the company could have raised more money but only sought the funding it believes is necessary for the initial stratospheric testing. Stardust only took cash from investors who are aligned with the company’s cautious approach, he added. The fundraising round wasn’t conducted “from a point of view of, let’s get as much money as we can, but rather to say, this is what we need” to advance the technology, Yedvab said. Stardust’s new investors include the U.S. firms Future Ventures, Never Lift Ventures, Starlight Ventures, Nebular and Lauder Partners, as well as the British groups Attestor, Kindred Capital and Orion Global Advisors. Future Positive Capital of Paris and Berlin’s Earth.now also joined the fundraising round. Corbin Hiar reported from Washington. Karl Mathiesen reported from London.