BRUSSELS — The United States wants to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Brussels on reducing European tech regulation, its Ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder told POLITICO. The U.S. administration and its allies have been vocal critics of the EU’s tech rules, saying they unfairly target American companies and hurt freedom of speech. The European Commission has repeatedly denied such allegations, saying it is merely trying to rein in Big Tech and protect the online space from harmful behavior. In an interview Monday, Puzder said he hoped that this week’s vote in the European Parliament to advance last year’s transatlantic trade deal would set the scene for talks to loosen constraints on business. “I’ve had talks with individuals within the EU about moving this discussion forward. I haven’t, as yet, experienced the concrete steps we need to make that happen,” Puzder said. He was referring to the EU’s tech rulebook — and the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act in particular — that Washington sees as barriers to trade. “Hopefully, we’ll continue to talk. Once this trade agreement is approved, in the spirit of moving forward with these non-tariff trade barriers, we’ll be able to break down some of these walls,” he added.  Discussions are still in their very early stages and “there’s nothing formal,” Puzder clarified. The next steps between Brussels and Washington should be “diplomatic engagement followed by political engagement,” he added.  RECALIBRATION NEGOTIATION The envoy’s comments follow a heated series of exchanges between senior American and European officials over whether the EU’s tech rules should even be part of the transatlantic trade discussion. In November 2025, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick tied a potential easing of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs to a “recalibration” by the EU of the bloc’s digital regulations. European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera responded that tying tariff relief to European tech rules amounted to “blackmail.” Ribera, the EU’s top competition official, told POLITICO at the time that the EU would not accept such attempts to strong-arm it on a topic that it considers to be a matter of sovereignty. She is currently visiting the U.S. and is due to meet tech industry bosses in San Francisco this week. Transatlantic ties took another turn for the worse when the Donald Trump administration in December barred former Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton from traveling to the U.S. over his role in creating and implementing the EU’s tech rules.  Puzder explained that Washington doesn’t think “that Europe shouldn’t have regulation,” but that it shouldn’t be “regulating in such an extreme manner that companies feel they can’t innovate — which is why … most of the tech startups in Europe end up moving to Silicon Valley.” European Commission Vice President Teresa Ribera attends a press conference in Brussels on Feb. 25, 2026. | Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu via Getty Images Responding, the European Commission stressed there is “continued engagement” between the EU and the U.S.  “Executive Vice President [Henna] Virkkunen has held several meetings with U.S. Representatives, both in Europe and in the U.S. At technical level, our teams also engage on a continuous basis with their American counterparts,” spokesperson Thomas Regnier said in a statement to POLITICO.  Virkunnen’s remit covers technology policy. Before Trump’s return to the White House, the two sides held held a structured dialogue under the auspices of the now-defunct EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council.  The occasional forum, launched by former U.S. President Joe Biden, sought to establish a structured dialogue around regulatory cooperation. Yet in the view of observers it under-delivered, failing for instance to resolve a long-running steel dispute. The TTC has not met since Trump returned to the White House in early 2025. 

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Europe is working hard to end the standoff with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán over the €90 billion loan promised to Ukraine. Host Zoya Sheftalovich and Ian Wishart, senior EU politics editor, discuss how likely it is for the deadlock to be resolved before tomorrow’s meeting of EU leaders now that Kyiv has agreed to work with the bloc to repair the Druzhba pipeline. Orbán has held off on greenlighting any funding until Ukraine fixes this pipeline that carries Russian oil into Hungary. Also on the pod, Brussels is trying to do something about its startup problem. The European Commission will unveil the so-called “28th regime” which attempts to make it easier to start and scale new companies across borders. We explain why this plan is actually a test of something much bigger — and more political. Finally, a new exhibition in the European Parliament traces the continent’s history through the eyes of a notary … because what’s more “EU” than official documents? Questions? Comments? Send them to our WhatsApp: +32 491 05 06 29. 

BERLIN — Germany’s parliament approved a multibillion-euro military drone contract on Wednesday, but only after coalition lawmakers imposed new financial caps and oversight conditions following scrutiny over Peter Thiel’s stake in Stark, the Berlin-based startup that was awarded the deal. The agreement — covering loitering munitions from Stark and competitor Helsing — cleared the Bundestag’s budget committee with binding restrictions that would limit how much the Defense Ministry can ultimately spend and require renewed parliamentary approval for large optional orders. The late-stage changes, summarized in a document obtained by POLITICO, followed days of political controversy over Thiel’s minority investment in Stark, as well as broader concerns among coalition lawmakers about how the framework contract was structured and disclosed to parliament. The Thiel Foundation, a private foundation set up by Peter Thiel and contacted by POLITICO in an effort to seek a response, did not respond to emailed requests for comment. The confidential Stark contract, seen by POLITICO, is structured as a seven-year framework agreement with an initial fixed order worth €268.6 million. If all optional orders had been exercised, the total value could have reached roughly €2.86 billion. Under the conditions adopted Wednesday, any additional orders beyond the initial tranche require renewed parliamentary approval. The Defense Ministry must also demonstrate completed qualification and serial readiness before follow-on orders can proceed. If it seeks to exceed the €1 billion cap, it must submit updated needs justifications and pricing documentation to lawmakers. Stark did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment on limits to the contract. It’s unclear what Thiel’s share in the company is. The investor is known for supporting President Donald Trump and bankrolling conservative candidates such as Vice President JD Vance, aligning himself with the populist wing of the Republican Party. Beyond investor concerns, coalition budget lawmakers had also questioned pricing structures and redacted passages in documents presented to parliament. Christian Democratic lawmaker Andreas Mattfeldt warned that “responsibility does not mean rubber-stamping.” The contracts were originally designed so that, if one supplier failed, the other could scale up to cover the Bundeswehr’s full requirement. By capping each company at €1 billion without renewed approval, lawmakers have limited that built-in redundancy — ensuring that any large expansion will require another political decision. Doepfner Capital, led by Moritz Döpfner, the son of Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner, is also an investor in Stark. Axel Springer owns POLITICO.

BERLIN — A multibillion-euro German military drone contract has triggered scrutiny inside Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s governing coalition over its most prominent investor, Trump-friendly billionaire Peter Thiel, putting its approval in doubt. Thiel is at the center of a political controversy over his investment in Stark, a Berlin-based defense-tech startup. German lawmakers question whether his minority stake could give him direct or indirect influence over the company’s decisions or access to sensitive defense information. They have also raised concerns about how the contract is priced and structured, saying key details on unit costs, quantities and optional volumes were redacted from documents presented to the country’s parliament. “The fact is that Peter Thiel openly rejects our democracy. We do not know how large his influence at Stark is. And even worse: The federal government cannot explain it,” Greens lawmaker Jeanne Dillschneider told POLITICO. “We need drones, no one disputes that. But the question of how large Thiel’s influence is must be clarified before we procure them.” The Thiel Foundation, a private foundation set up by Peter Thiel and contacted by POLITICO in an effort to seek a response, did not respond to emailed requests for comment. The confidential Stark contract, seen by POLITICO, is structured as a seven-year framework agreement with an initial fixed order worth €268.6 million. If all optional orders are exercised, the total value could rise to roughly €2.86 billion. The agreement covers the serial production of “deployment sets,” each consisting of 20 loitering munitions, a ground control station, spare parts and software and training packages. It would be one of Germany’s first purchases of loitering drones, which have become a low-cost weapon of choice in Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion. It’s unclear what Thiel’s share in the company is. The German-born investor, who is also an American citizen, is known for his support for President Donald Trump and for bankrolling conservative candidates such as Vice President JD Vance, aligning himself with the populist wing of the Republican party. That has raised concerns among German lawmakers, affecting the outlook for parliamentary approval of the deal. Under German law, any defense contract exceeding €25 million must receive explicit approval from the parliamentary budget committee, meaning a vote scheduled for Wednesday is legally required for the deal to proceed.  Stark declined to comment on the details of its shareholder structure but said any foreign investment exceeding a 10 percent threshold would trigger a mandatory review by Germany’s Economy Ministry. The same applies below that level if special rights exist, the company said, adding: “None of this applies.”  It also stated that no shareholder has information rights relating to its products and that any transfer of technical details would be subject to German export control approval. Boris Pistorius rejected the idea that Thiel’s involvement should stall the deal. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images Defense Minister Boris Pistorius rejected the idea that Thiel’s involvement should stall the deal. Speaking to the Deutsche Welle broadcaster at the recent Munich Security Conference, he said: “I don’t know whether my information is correct or not, but as far as I’m informed, we are not talking about a key stakeholder — we are talking about somebody who has between 3 and 4.5 percent.” That, he added, means Thiel does not play “a key role as a stakeholder,” and while the issue should be considered seriously, it is “not an obstacle really to make contracts with that company.” However, the final decision lies not with his ministry but with parliament. COALITION SCRUTINY GROWS While the Greens were the first to target Thiel’s involvement, criticism has spilled over to Germany’s governing parties, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.  Budget lawmakers who spoke with POLITICO on the basis of anonymity to speak candidly have since broadened their review to include pricing structures, delivery timelines and the overall scale of the framework agreement’s optional volumes.  A central point of scrutiny is timing: Berlin would be committing to serial production before a full munitions safety qualification has been completed. According to the contract, the qualification is expected by Sept. 30. The agreement contains exit clauses allowing the government to withdraw if the qualification fails, if performance benchmarks such as hit probability are not met, or if changes in the company’s ownership create security concerns. Lawmakers from both ruling coalition parties have also raised concerns after portions of the Stark contract were redacted. In particular, details relating to quantities and pricing were not fully visible to MPs. They say meaningful oversight becomes difficult if key financial parameters are not fully disclosed. “Responsibility does not mean rubber-stamping,” Christian Democratic budget lawmaker Andreas Mattfeldt wrote on LinkedIn, alluding to further examination of the procurement. “Responsibility means examining, questioning and, if necessary, correcting. For a strong Bundeswehr [German armed forces] and a clean handling of taxpayers’ money.”  In an explanatory memo to lawmakers seen by POLITICO, the Defense Ministry outlines the overall contract structure and aggregate values but doesn’t provide granular figures. It confirms that the initial fixed tranches amount to roughly €270 million per supplier and that the total ceiling values — roughly €2.9 billion for Stark — would only apply if all optional orders are exercised. Bloomberg first reported on the memo. That document does not, however, directly address why specific passages were withheld from committee review. That gap has added to frustration among some coalition MPs ahead of the vote. Lawmakers from Germany’s governing parties are now preparing a conditional approval that would attach binding requirements to the contract before it takes effect. According to two officials familiar with the talks, budget lawmakers are drafting language that would require closer oversight of pricing and limit how the larger optional parts of the deal can be triggered. The move suggests the contract is likely to pass, but not without new safeguards in response to concerns raised inside the coalition. Whether Stark clears the hurdle this week will determine not only the fate of the contract, but also whether the coalition is prepared to close ranks behind one of its most politically sensitive defense procurements. Doepfner Capital, led by Moritz Döpfner, the son of Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner, is also an investor in Stark. Axel Springer owns POLITICO.

A new EU-backed study sheds light on the gender gap in investments across Europe, with a particular focus on deep tech — a category of innovation that is central to Europe’s long-term competitiveness, security and economic resilience. Deep tech refers to companies built on scientific breakthroughs and advanced engineering, often emerging from research laboratories and universities. These include firms working in areas such as artificial intelligence, advanced materials, semiconductors, robotics, quantum technologies, climate and energy systems, health and biotech, and industrial technologies. Unlike many consumer-facing digital startups, deep-tech companies typically require long development timelines, specialized talent and significant upfront capital before reaching market. For the EU, deep tech is strategic. It underpins the green and digital transitions, strengthens industrial leadership, and reduces dependence on external technologies in critical areas such as energy, health and security. Ensuring that talent can access capital in these sectors is therefore not only a question of fairness — it is a question of Europe’s ability to compete globally. > Gender equality isn’t just a fairness goal. It’s a competitiveness goal. > Europe can’t afford to waste talent — especially in deep tech. > > Katerina Svíčková, Head of Gender Sector, DG RTD, European Commission Two objectives: Measure the gap — and understand how to close it The project was designed around two complementary goals. First, to identify and consolidate data that can be used to measure the gender investment gap in a consistent and transparent way across Europe. Second, to engage directly with founders, investors and policymakers to understand why the gap persists — and what could help bridge it, particularly in deep tech. While gender-disaggregated data exist, they are often fragmented, based on different definitions or not publicly comparable. This makes it difficult for policymakers, investors and ecosystem actors to assess progress or design targeted interventions. A prototype repository: The Gender Gap in Investments Dashboard A central output of the project is the Gender Gap in Investments Dashboard, developed by Dealroom. The dashboard is a prototype repository that already presents a clear picture of the current state of the gender investment gap using Dealroom data. It brings together information on company founding teams and venture funding outcomes across Europe in a single, accessible interface. The dashboard is not an endpoint. It is designed as a foundation that can, over time, incorporate additional data sources, improve coverage, and offer a more nuanced view of how gender, sector, funding stage and geography interact. The long-term ambition is to support the development of a credible, shared European data infrastructure on gender and investment. What the data show: Deep tech remains highly skewed Even at this early stage, the dashboard reveals persistent imbalances. Across Europe, startups with at least one woman founder raise just 14.4 percent of all venture capital (VC) rounds and 12 percent of total VC funding. In deep tech, the imbalance is even starker. Around 80 percent of deep-tech companies are founded by all-male teams, which receive nearly 90 percent of venture funding. > Investing through diverse teams helps unlock deal flow that would otherwise > remain invisible. > > Ulrike Kostense, Investment Principal, Invest-NL Given the capital intensity of deep tech, these disparities matter. Who receives early and follow-on funding today shapes which technologies Europe brings to scale tomorrow. Listening to the ecosystem: Evidence beyond the numbers To complement the data work, the project placed strong emphasis on qualitative research and ecosystem engagement. Over 11 months, the team conducted: * 81 in-depth interviews with founders, investors, fund managers, public banks and EU policymakers * 12 ecosystem events across Europe, engaging more than 1,000 participants Across countries and sectors, participants consistently pointed to structural barriers, including difficulties accessing early and scale-up capital, credibility gaps in fundraising — particularly in deep tech — fragmented support landscapes, and limited diversity in investment decision-making roles. From insight to action: Priorities for Europe Drawing on both the data and the ecosystem input, the report highlights several areas for action: * Build a permanent European data hub on gender and investment, starting with the Dealroom dashboard and gradually adding more public and private data sources. * Make investment data easier to compare and understand, by using shared definitions and reporting standards across EU and national funding programs. * Close the gap between early support and growth funding, so that startups — especially deep-tech companies that take longer to develop — are not lost before they can scale. * Use public investment to shape the market, drawing on the EU’s role as a major investor — including the European Innovation Council (EIC) and its investment arm, the EIC Fund, which provide public funding and equity to high-potential startups — to attract private capital and set better incentives. * Improve connections across the ecosystem, helping founders find the right funding routes and reach key decision-makers. A foundation for long-term change The central conclusion of the study is clear: Europe does not lack women innovators — it lacks the systems needed to measure, fund and scale them consistently. By combining a shared data foundation with direct engagement across the ecosystem, the project lays the groundwork for more informed policymaking, better investment decisions and a stronger, more inclusive European deep-tech ecosystem. Final Report: Gender Gap in InvestmentsDownload -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is EISMEA – European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency * The ultimate controlling entity is EISMEA – European Innovation Council and SME Executive Agency More information here.

Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for years communicated with experts in the cybersecurity community and expressed interest in attending two of the largest hacker conventions in the world, according to documents released by the Justice Department. It’s unclear if Epstein ever attended either DEFCON or Black Hat, where thousands of hackers and researchers gather annually in Las Vegas to discuss the latest cyber vulnerabilities and trends. According to his emails with several prominent researchers and business people, his interest in cybersecurity and cryptography appeared to be widespread, ranging from discussions about removing information about himself from online search engines to network security. Jeff Moss, founder of both the Black Hat and DEFCON conferences, told POLITICO in a statement that it’s unlikely Epstein actually made it to the conferences. “As far as we can tell, he wanted to attend, but never did,” Moss said of Epstein. “It looks like there were a lot of plans and I’m just waiting for some sort of evidence that he followed through on them.” According to the released emails, Epstein first made plans to attend DEFCON for a few hours in August 2013 to meet with Pablos Holman, who at the time worked on various tech and cyber projects at private equity company Intellectual Ventures. It’s unclear whether Epstein and almost a dozen of his guests obtained tickets to DEFCON or if Epstein attended. It appears that Epstein and Holman had been in touch since 2010, according to emails. Epstein in 2010 emailed cryptography researcher Ian Goldberg and said Holman “suggested we speak.” Holman also planned to stay in Epstein’s apartment while visiting New York City in 2013 and advised Epstein on how to bury “negative stuff” online. A spokesperson for the University of Waterloo, where Goldberg works within the School of Computer Science, confirmed to POLITICO that Goldberg turned down the offer from Epstein in 2010 to fund his work at the university. Holman, who currently serves as a general partner at venture capital group Deep Future, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Joi Ito, the current president of Japan’s Chiba Institute of Technology and former director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab, appears to have introduced entrepreneur and researcher Vincenzo Iozzo via email to Epstein in 2014, according to the emails. Ito stepped down from his role at MIT in 2019 when previous disclosures revealed Ito had accepted about $1.7 million from Epstein for the lab and his own investment funds. Spokespersons for Chiba Institute of Technology did not respond to a request for comment on Ito’s connections to Epstein. Ito previously apologized for his association with Epstein and stressed that he was “never involved in, never heard him talk about and never saw any evidence of the horrific acts that he was accused of.” According to the emails, Iozzo, who currently serves as CEO of identity management company SlashID, discussed obtaining tickets for Epstein to attend DEFCON conferences in Las Vegas in 2016 and 2018. Iozzo previously served in roles at cybersecurity company CrowdStrike and as a board member for the annual Black Hat conference. He also planned to meet with Epstein at his New York City home on at least five occasions in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. One email sent by Epstein to Iozzo ahead of the 2016 conferences noted he wanted to bring guests, including former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, American billionaire Tom Pritzker and “four girls.” It’s not clear if Epstein attended the conference that year or met with Barak, Pritzker or Iozzo. A spokesperson for Barak told POLITICO that the former prime minister “did not attend DEFCON in 2016,” and further noted that Epstein never asked him to attend. The spokesperson stressed that Barak “has repeatedly and publicly stated that he deeply regrets having any association with Jeffrey Epstein.” Separate spokespersons for Hyatt Hotels — where Pritzker serves as executive chairman of the board of directors — and for the Pritzker Organization did not respond to a request for comment. Epstein again discussed attending DEFCON in 2018, which Iozzo also offered to procure tickets for, according to the emails. Ahead of the 2018 convention, Epstein requested to meet with “founder” of Black Hat, but Iozzo wrote in an email that this person had turned down the meeting due to “what’s out there online” about Epstein. The founder, however, was “happy” to provide Epstein with tickets to the event, Iozzo wrote. It’s unclear if Epstein was referring to Moss or someone else. Moss told POLITICO in a statement that he “turned down Vincenzo’s badge request” for Epstein, and “advised Vincenzo to stay clear” of the disgraced financier. Moss noted that it’s possible Iozzo bought passes to the conference separately. An FBI file released by the Justice Department — first reported by TechCrunch — suggested that Epstein had a “personal hacker” who developed “offensive cyber tools” that were sold to several unnamed governments. It’s unclear if the information provided by the unnamed informant to the FBI is accurate. The name of the hacker is redacted in the file but a description of the person — including that they had a company that was acquired by CrowdStrike in 2017 and found vulnerabilities in Blackberry and iOS devices — matches Iozzo. Iozzo strongly denied that he was the so-called personal hacker for Epstein and issued a lengthy statement to POLITICO refuting the claims made by the FBI informant, including his alleged past work for foreign governments. Iozzo said that his interactions with Epstein “were limited to business opportunities that never materialized, as well as discussion of the markets and emerging technologies.” “The latest release of files contains a document with fabricated claims made about me to an FBI agent over eight years ago,” Iozzo said, noting that neither the FBI nor any other government agency ever contacted him about the file. “These accusations are false and defamatory. For the avoidance of doubt, it should go without saying that I have never been involved in any illegal or unethical activity.” Iozzo also said that he did not provide Epstein with “exclusive access” to the DEFCON and Black Hat conferences and did not know if Epstein actually attended either event. “I unfortunately knew Epstein for professional reasons,” Iozzo said. “I wish I did not. We were introduced by people whom I trusted and admired when I was 25 fundraising for my startup in 2014. Because of this, I failed to ask the right questions — questions that, in retrospect, seem obvious. I foolishly accepted the narrative that was presented to me by others that greatly minimized the magnitude of his horrific actions.” “I regret the past association and take full responsibility for not exercising greater judgment at the time,” he added. Epstein’s interest in the Black Hat and DEFCON conventions began years after he had been convicted of and jailed for soliciting sex from minors in 2008. Following his incarceration, Epstein reportedly took steps to scrub references to his conviction from the internet with the help of cyber professionals. Epstein was again arrested and charged with sex trafficking minors in 2019, though the federal case was formally dismissed in August 2019 following his death by suicide in jail while awaiting trial.

Call it “bots on the ground.” One in three Germans think their country should allow artificial intelligence to make life-or-death decisions on the battle field, according to The POLITICO Poll. A third of respondents in Germany said they favor AI systems to be used in weapons in place of human decision makers, even if these systems are less transparent, the poll showed. The results suggest a cultural shift, as the government of Chancellor Friedrich Merz no longer explicitly excludes lethal decisions without human checks. It also puts Germany in a different category than some of its allies: In the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and France, 26 percent of respondents said militaries could rely on AI rather than human decision — or roughly a quarter of people. Forty-seven percent of German respondents still favored human involvement in the use of weapons, even if they are slower than AI. But that figure was 10 percentage points lower than responses to the same question in the U.K., eight points lower than in the U.S. and Canada, and five percentage points lower than in France.  Almost half of respondents in Germany (46 percent) said cybersecurity and artificial intelligence capabilities mattered as much as traditional military power to win wars. The online survey, conducted for POLITICO by the independent London-based polling company Public First, comes as political leaders, security chiefs and industry officials gather in Germany for the Munich Security Conference. Part of their discussions get into how technologies like AI are changing the nature of warfare and national security strategies. The relatively high acceptance of so-called lethal autonomous weapons systems — also known as “killer robots” — is surprising when considering Berlin’s slow uptake of new technologies and its deep cultural attachment to data protection, which is being put under pressure by new AI applications. Germany has also had a fiery public debate over killer robots in past years. In 2021, a survey commissioned by an NGO coalition campaigning against killer robots said only 19 percent of respondents approved of such autonomous weapon systems, and 68 percent expressed ethical concerns about lethal decisions made without human control. Three years earlier, in 2018, 72 percent of respondents were against autonomous weapon systems. Berlin’s governing coalition, which took office last year, no longer explicitly excluded lethal decisions without human control in its coalition agreement — unlike the center-to-left coalition government that preceded it. AI-enabled weapons have changed the war in Ukraine, where drones have become a chief vector for armies to hit critical military and strategic targets, often operating independently.  Germany is preparing to spend €267.7 million on a new drone system from defense startup Helsing, but field data from deployments in Ukraine showed its drones have performed far below expectations, POLITICO reported last month. United Nations Secretary General António Guterres has long opposed these weapons, calling them “politically unacceptable and morally repugnant.” But years of discussions between governments at the U.N. have so far not yield clear rules on their use. The EU has its AI Act in place since 2024 to deal with the risks stemming from AI, but those rules don’t apply to military applications, which are a sovereign competence of member countries. This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted by Public First from Feb. 6 to 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography. The overall margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error. The survey is an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com. Sam Clark reported from Brussels. Anouk Schlung contributed reporting from Berlin. Pieter Haeck contributed reporting from Brussels.

In a continent of SPAs and GmbHs, what’s the value of an Inc.? A “freedom fries”-style linguistic argument has broken out over the naming of a corporate law proposal for startups, highlighting anti-American sentiment in Europe amid Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, during a speech in Davos, suggested using the name “EU Inc.” instead of the somewhat dry “28th regime.” Her suggestion has drawn disdain from the lead lawmaker on the proposal. An American abbreviation like “Inc.” — short for the U.S.-specific “incorporated” legal entity — is “maybe not the right way to call this one” in the current geopolitical context, said René Repasi, a German Social Democrat. The row reflects deeper resistance to the Americanization of language and culture in Europe. In a continent of French Sociétés Anonymes and German GmbHs, Brussels’ embrace of U.S. corporate terminology may be a bridge too far. Some lawmakers have been rankled by the rise of “Acts” — from the Digital Markets Act to the AI Act — which mirror the punchy legislative branding of Capitol Hill, abandoning traditional European “directives” and “regulations” when used in the EU executive’s primary communication method, English. Von der Leyen has also come under fire for rolling back her green agenda during her current, second mandate. Critics have said her drive to cut red tape is a poorly disguised attempt to appease President Donald Trump, who has criticized EU regulation for discriminating against U.S. business. This latest geopolitically flavored semantic squabble summons memories of 2003, when an American lawmaker — upset with France’s refusal to join the invasion of Iraq — renamed “French fries” as “freedom fries” in three congressional cafeterias. Repasi’s proposal for the 28th regime rebrand? Societas Europaea Unificata (S.EU), a Latin-derived term that translates to “unified European company.” Parliament voted in favor of his choice of name, which echoes past proposals like the 2008 Societas Privata Europaea. “We go back to the roots of our continent’s languages,” said Repasi, explaining Parliament’s choice of a Latin-derived term rather than an American abbreviation. “I cannot be the only one who struggles to pronounce the proposed name of the new corporate form,” Kim van Sparrentak said in Monday’s debate on the proposal. (The Dutch Greens MEP still voted for the proposal with the Latin-rooted name.) COVERING THE BASIS Beyond the naming spat, there are more profound ideological splits over the regime to create a single EU window for registering companies, which Commissioner Michael McGrath is expected to unveil in late March. The idea is to create a flourishing startup landscape, and stem a flight of talent and ideas across the Atlantic. Repasi warned that the regime must not become a vehicle for “charlatans” to escape labor standards, echoing a complaint from Lukas Mandl, of the European People’s Party, that the proposal should not give rise to a “gold digger mentality” that could destabilize the European social partnership model. “If there is no credible solution how employee participation … can be secured, I see difficulties that the progressive side of the House can support such a 28th regime,” he said, citing the failure of previous attempts like the SPE and SUP due to the same issue. Another substantive issue may prove to be its legal basis, on which lawmakers haven’t yet agreed. It’s on this issue that the creators of the “EU Inc.” naming proposal — who were delighted to see von der Leyen endorse it — are really hoping to make an impact. The “EU Inc.” movement, led by founders who have taken their roadshow to capitals across the bloc, is pushing for a regulation to ensure a single, directly applicable rulebook that prevents member states from “gold-plating” the law with national quirks. If von der Leyen “chooses a title that’s very dear to pressure groups, that guarantees applause,” said Repasi, worrying that the Commission may put forward a proposal that would impinge on national labor rules. The new name in particular “sends a wrong signal,” said Repasi. The Parliament’s report steers towards what Repasi describes as a more pragmatic directive, a choice rooted in what he says is Council arithmetic. A regulation on corporate law would require the unanimous consent of all 27 member countries, a high bar that Repasi fears would create a “Frankenstein’s monster” as each capital demands its own specific national carve-outs .  By opting for a directive, the EU can move forward via qualified majority voting, bypassing the “unanimity trap” that famously saw previous attempts at corporate law harmonization languish for decades. “If we want to have a regulation which ends up in unanimity … we can wait for Godot,” said Repasi.

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.

One trillion US dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) has been surpassed. Poland has entered the ranks of the world’s 20 largest economies, symbolically ending a phase of chasing the West that has lasted more than three decades. The Polish Development Fund’s (PFR) new strategy seeks to address the challenge of avoiding the medium-level development trap and transitioning from the role of subcontractor to that of investor. This year marks a turning point in Polish economic history. After years of transformation, reforms and overcoming civilizational deficits, Poland has reached a point that the generation of ‘89 could only dream of. GDP crossed the symbolic barrier of US$1 trillion, and we proudly enter the exclusive club of the world’s 20 largest economies. Diversified Polish exports are breaking records, and innovative companies are conquering global markets. Sound like a happy ending? Not necessarily. Via PFR Investing for future generations Poland’s past success invites tougher challenges in a brutal world. The cheap labor growth model is dead; demographics are relentless. PFR analyses highlight declining employment as a core issue — without bold changes, stagnation looms. Piotr Matczuk, PFR president, says Poland needs an impetus for resilience, innovation and growth. PFR’s 2026-2030 strategy is that roadmap, urging a shift to high gear. On Dec. 10, it unveiled investments for future generations. Geopolitics enters the balance sheet PFR’s strategy marks a paradigm shift: integrating economics with security. Business now anchors state security, with “economic and defence resilience” as a core pillar — viewing security spending as essential insurance, not cost. > The PFR’s strategy is clear: the competitiveness of the Polish economy depends > directly on access to cheap and clean energy. PFR has invested in WB Electronics, Poland’s defense leader in command systems and drones. It expands beyond arms via dual-use tech: algorithms, encrypted communications and autonomous drones often from civilian startups. This spring’s PFR Deep Tech program backs venture capital (VC) for scaling these firms; IDA targets innovations for logistics, cybersecurity and future defense. The focus is Poland’s technological sovereignty. Controlling key security links — from ammo to artificial intelligence — ensures economic maturity resilient to geopolitical shocks. > Poland needs a boost to our resilience, innovation and growth rate. That is > why the new strategy emphasizes investment in new technologies, infrastructure > and the financial security of Poles. We want the PFR to be a catalyst for > change and a partner of choice — an institution that invests for future > generations, sets quality standards in development financing and supports > Polish entrepreneurs in boosting their international presence. > > Piotr Matczuk, President, PFR Piotr Matczuk, President, PFR / Via PFR Energy: to be or not to be for the industry If defense is the shield, then energy is the bloodstream. The PFR’s strategy is clear: the competitiveness of the Polish economy depends directly on access to cheap and clean energy. Without accelerating the transformation, Polish companies, instead of increasing their share in foreign markets, may lose their position. This is why the fund wants to enter the game as an investor where the risks are high, but the stakes are even higher — into an investment gap that the commercial market alone will not fill.  The concept of local content, in other words the participation of domestic companies in the supply chain, is key to the new strategy. This is where the circle closes. The Baltic Hub is not just a container terminal. Investment in the T5 installation terminal is the foundation, as the Polish offshore will not be built with the appropriate participation of a domestic port. This is a classic example of how the PFR works: building ‘hard’ infrastructure that becomes a springboard for a whole new sector of the economy.  The end of being a subcontractor: capital emancipation Taking inspiration from, among others, France’s Tibi Initiative, in mid-November 2025 the Polish minister of finance and economy, Andrzej Domański, announced the Innovate Poland program. The PFR plays a leading role in what will be the largest initiative in the history of the Polish economy to invest in innovative projects. Thanks to cooperation with Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK), PZU and the European Investment Fund, Innovate Poland is already worth 4 billion złoty, and the program multiplier may reach as much as 3-4. The combined development and private capital will be invested by experienced VC and private equity funds. The aim is to further Poland’s economic development — driven by innovative companies that make a profit. In the first phase, it is expected to finance up to 250 companies at various stages of development. Via PFR The expansion of Polish companies abroad is also part of the effort for advancement in the global hierarchy. Their support is one of the pillars of the new PFR strategy. For three decades, Poland has played the role of the assembly plant of Europe — solid, cheap and hard-working. However, the highest margins, flowing from having a global brand and market control, went overseas. Polish companies need to stop being anonymous subcontractors and become owners of assets in foreign markets.  Here, the PFR acts as financial leverage. The support for the Trend Group is a prime example of this maturing process. This is a transaction with a symbolic dimension: it reverses the investment vector of the 1990s, when German capital was consolidating Polish assets. Today, it is Polish entities that are increasingly becoming leaders in offering industrial solutions in the European Union. > Polish companies need to stop being anonymous subcontractors and become owners > of assets in foreign markets. However, these ambitions extend beyond the Western direction. The strategy strongly emphasizes Poland’s role in the future reconstruction of Ukraine and the consolidation of the Central and Eastern European region. The involvement of the PFR in the operations of the Euvic Group on the Ukrainian IT market is a good example. In the digital world, big players have more power, and the PFR strives to ensure that the decision-making centers of those growing giants remain in Poland. Most importantly, Polish businesses are no longer alone in this struggle. The strategy institutionalizes the concept of ‘Team Poland’. In this initiative, the PFR provides capital; BGK, a state development bank, offers debt solutions; the KUKE, an insurance company, insures the risk; and the Polish Investment and Trade Agency provides promotional support. Acting like a one-stop shop, all these institutions enable Polish capital to compete as a partner in the global league. This is part of the Polish government’s modern economic diplomacy strategy, led by Domański. Capital for generations. From an employee to a stakeholder in the economy  All grand plans need fuel. Mature economies like the Netherlands and the United Kingdom harness citizens’ savings via capital markets. PFR’s strategy boldly demands Poland’s success create generational wealth: turning the average Kowalski from an employee into a stakeholder. Diagnosis is brutal: Poles save little (6.38 percent compared with the EU’s 14.32 percent in Q1 2024) and inefficiently, favoring low-interest deposits. Employee Capital Plans (PPK) drive cultural change. Hard data demonstrate this: 67 percent average returns over five years crush traditional savings. It’s a virtuous cycle — PPK capital feeds stock markets, finances company growth and loops profits back to future pensioners. An architect, not a firefighter  The new PFR strategy for 2026-30 is a clear signal of a paradigm shift. The company, which many Polish entrepreneurs still see as a firefighter extinguishing the flames of the pandemic with billions from the Anti-Covid Financial Shields, is definitively taking off its helmet and putting on an engineer’s hard hat. It is shifting from interventionist to creator mode, abandoning the role of ‘night watchman’ of the Polish economy to that of its ‘chief architect’. This is an ambitious attempt to establish an institution in Poland that not only provides capital, but also actively shapes the country’s economic landscape, setting the direction for development for decades to come.