American allies are watching in disbelief as the Pentagon reroutes weapon shipments to aid the Iran war, angry and scared that arms the U.S. demanded they buy will never reach them. European nations that have struggled to rebuild arsenals after sending weapons to Ukraine fear they won’t be able to ward off a Russian attack. Asian allies, startled by America’s rate of fire, question whether it could embolden China and North Korea. And even in the Middle East, countries aren’t clear if they will get air defenses from the U.S. for future priorities. Nearly a dozen officials in allied nations in Asia and Europe say they can’t win. The Trump administration has put them under extreme political pressure to raise defense budgets and buy American weapons — from air defense interceptors to guided bombs — only to quickly burn through those munitions in a war of its own. “It shouldn’t be a secret to anyone that the munitions that have been and will be fired are the ones that everybody needs to acquire in large numbers,” said one northern European official. Weapons production is a complex process that takes years of planning and runs through a supply chain riddled with bottlenecks. Trump’s reassurances that the U.S. has a “virtually unlimited supply” of munitions to fight Iran has done little to soothe allies’ fears. “It is very frustrating, the words are not matching the deeds,” said an Eastern European official, who like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “It is pretty clear to everyone that the U.S. will put their own, Taiwan’s, Israel’s, and hemisphere priorities before Europe.” The joint U.S.-Israel war, officials warn, could accelerate the distancing between America and its allies when it comes to defense. The European Union already has approved rules to favor its own arms-makers over American contractors — risking tens, if not hundreds of billions in future U.S. sales. Even major companies, such as the German drone-maker Helsing are touting “European sovereignty.” Poland, a longtime American ally, has bought tanks and artillery from South Korea instead of U.S. contractors such as General Dynamics. It’s been a wake-up call for officials in Asia and Europe who once took Pentagon arms sales for granted. “The Europeans still live in a dream world in which the U.S. is a gigantic Walmart, where you buy the stuff and you get it immediately, and that is simply not true,” said Camille Grand, a former top NATO official who now heads the Brussels-based Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe. Allies in the Pacific — where China has built the world’s largest Navy and now has missiles that can attack American troops on Guam — are worried that the Pentagon will run out of ammunition in Iran and won’t have any left to deter a war in Asia. “It’s natural that the longer the conflict, the more urgent the supply of munitions and its inevitable for the U.S. to mobilize its foreign assets to maintain the operation,” said a Washington-based Asian diplomat, who warned it would affect “readiness” in the region. The fears of depleted weapons stockpiles extend to the U.S., where some Pentagon officials are warning about the state of the military’s munitions stockpiles, according to a congressional aide and two other people familiar with the dynamic. Defense Department officials warned Congress this week that the U.S. military was expending “an enormous amount” of munitions in the conflict, according to two of the people familiar with the conversations. The congressional aide briefed by the Pentagon said the U.S. was using precision strike missiles and cutting-edge interceptors in “scary high” numbers despite the Iranian military’s relative weakness. The weapons also include Tomahawk land-attack missiles, Patriot PAC-3 and ship-launched air defenses fired by the Navy. “The idea of doing a larger campaign with Iran was not on anyone’s mathematical bingo card as we were looking at munitions implications,” said a former defense official. “I struggle to see a way that layering on the Iran element makes the math problem get any better.” The Pentagon referred questions to the White House. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said Iran’s retaliatory ballistic missile attacks had fallen by 90 percent because of U.S. strikes. “President Trump is in close contact with our partners in Europe and the Middle East, and the terrorist Iranian regime’s attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies,” she said. But some defense hawks in Congress are worried. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Wednesday on the Senate floor that the military is “not prepared” to deter aggression from both Russia and China at once due to the munitions shortfall. McConnell did not reply to a request for comment. Trump said in a social media post that he met with defense executives on Friday, including Boeing, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and Lockheed, who agreed to quadruple their production of “Exquisite Class” weapons. He did not explain which systems that entailed or how the U.S. planned to rapidly build factories, hire workers and increase weapons production. Some allies worried about weapons are hoping that’s more than an empty promise. “It seems that U.S. defense primes are still challenged to produce at the speed of demand,” said Giedrimas Jeglinskas, a Lithuanian member of Parliament who is also a former deputy Defense minister. “We welcome any effort by the administration to incentivize defense companies to get into war mode of production.” Others cautioned that the defense industrial base can’t be turned on with a switch to start mass producing the sophisticated missiles and air defenses that the U.S. and its allies desperately need. “There’s always this idea that there is a world in which we just have to go World War II,” said Grand, the former NATO official. “But [in] World War II, producing Sherman tanks was pretty close to producing tractor engines. Producing a Patriot is not pretty close to producing a Tesla.” Paul McLeary contributed to this report.

LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump has U-turned on his threat to raise new global tariffs to 15 percent, sparing Britain and the European Union from higher rates. Tariffs on exports to the United States will, for now, remain at 10 percent under the White House’s new regime, which took effect on Tuesday morning. Trump’s decision not to follow through on the threat means continuity for British businesses. U.K. exports already faced 10 percent duties, plus Most Favored Nation (MFN) rates, under Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. It also sees a similar level of tariffs applied to exports from the European Union. Products coming from the EU previously paid 15 percent, or the MFN rate, depending on which was higher. The European Parliament froze ratification of the EU’s trade deal with the U.S. on Monday amid concerns that Trump’s latest tariff broadside breaches the terms of the transatlantic accord struck last summer. Speaking with USTR Jamieson Greer over the weekend, U.K. trade chief Peter Kyle “underlined his concerns about further uncertainty for business” and reinforced “the need to honor the U.K.-U.S. deal” reached last May, a No. 10 spokesperson told reporters on Monday. The deal lowered Trump’s sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminum, autos and aerospace. Trump’s new duties will apply to exports not covered by the Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD). Trump’s latest tariffs will be imposed for 150 days from today under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act as Greer and his department carry out further investigations using tools like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose additional sectoral tariffs. After the 150 days expire, Congress could also vote to extend the 1duties. “What will happen when the 150-day period allowed by the act expires?” asked Duncan Edwards, CEO of BritishAmerican Business. Congress, he said, “will have to decide whether the trade policies promised by this administration during the election become enshrined in law. Given the narrow margins in both houses of Congress, a definitive answer looks unlikely, so business would be wise to expect continued uncertainty.”

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

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.

The Kremlin hit back Thursday at a European aerospace chief in a feud over tactical nuclear weapons.  The board chair of Airbus, René Obermann, called Wednesday on Europe to develop tactical nuclear weapons to deter Russia’s arsenal in Kaliningrad, sparking a response from Moscow, which is no stranger to nuclear saber-rattling. “Kaliningrad is an integral part of Russia,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told journalists, adding, “of course, Russia will do everything necessary to provide its security, stability, and predictability today, and tomorrow.” Responding to Obermann, Peskov said: “Unfortunately, some allow such provocative statements, and call for further steps … to escalate tension.” Russia’s heavily militarized semi-exclave of Kaliningrad is located on the Baltic Sea, bordered by Lithuania and Poland, and is home to 1 million residents. According to a German Council on Foreign Relations memo, Russia deploys “numerous nuclear weapons” in the Kaliningrad region.  Moscow has engaged in veiled nuclear threats against the West since it launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, while both the U.S. and Russia have recently considered plans for further nuclear weapons testing.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday bemoaned the “absence of urgency” and “a fundamental lack of trust” between the military and defense firms, in the most substantive and unifying policy address of his tenure. The speech, delivered to industry executives at the National War College, kicked off a highly ambitious program of speeding up weapons delivery — an issue that has beguiled administrations for decades. Hegseth’s address, which dug into the weedy details of acquisition reform, resembled the kinds of talks given by previous Pentagon chiefs and was a stunning tone shift from the berating one he delivered in September to hundreds of generals and admirals. It was also a far cry from his usual focus on culture war issues, often aimed at the MAGA base and dedicated to the perils of diversity, equity and inclusion. “I’m not here to punish. I’m here to liberate,” Hegseth said. “I’m not here to reform, but to transform and empower. We need to save the bureaucracy from itself.” It’s unclear whether the Defense secretary will live up to his reform goals, which reflect entrenched issues within the Pentagon. While he pledged to get rid of layers of bureaucracy, many of the ideas entailed renaming existing offices under the new “Department of War” moniker, adding oversight functions and overturning decades of policy in a few short months. “You’re our only hope,” Hegseth told an audience of defense industry mainstays and upstarts, including representatives from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Palantir and Anduril. The reforms, which POLITICO first reported, are meant to cut bureaucracy and speed up how the military buys weapons and equipment. But they’re also a major test for Hegseth, a relative newcomer to the Pentagon who Vice President JD Vance vowed would prove an effective “disrupter.” The defense industry hailed the moves, which mirrored changes representatives have lobbied to get for years. Keith Webster, President of the Chamber of Commerce’s Defense Aerospace Council, called the reforms “bold, timely and forward-looking.” Aerospace Industries Association CEO Eric Fanning labeled them “an ambitious, long-needed overhaul.” The Pentagon aims to speed up U.S. arms sales to allies by moving the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which runs the process, and the Defense Technology Security Administration, which runs export approvals, directly under acquisitions leadership. This will allow the same officials who manage weapons programs to handle the approval for allies. Hegseth even invoked the words of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — hardly a hallowed figure in the MAGA world — and said the Trump administration planned to “rebuild the defense industrial base into an arsenal of freedom.” The Pentagon chief’s push at acquisition reform — alongside two other major initiatives moving on Capitol Hill — are seen as efforts to level the playing field in the industry, which has long been dominated by a handful of contractors with deep roots in Washington. Hegseth has encouraged the expansion of new legal authorities that allow the Pentagon to give billions to upstart contractors that have not yet competed for major Defense Department programs. The reforms also include the creation of powerful “Portfolio Acquisition Executives,” who will run point on Pentagon weapons acquisition and have performance incentives linked to deliveries. “The Department of War will only do business with industry partners that share our priority of speed and volume above all else,” he said, using the administration’s preferred moniker for the Pentagon. Hegseth vowed to work with Congress on the ambitious overhaul. His address comes as leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services panels weigh parallel proposals to slash bureaucracy and get weapons and new technology into soldiers’ hands faster. Compromise defense legislation that’s likely to pass before the end of the year will almost certainly include a synthesis of the reforms proposed by the House and Senate. Hegseth called out both bills in his speech. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said Hegseth’s endorsement of his legislation and the priorities his committee has pushed — including prioritizing commercial technology, expanding the industrial base and empowering acquisition leaders — “mark a pivotal moment for our national security.” House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) stressed the need for the Pentagon and Congress to work together to overhaul the system, calling Hegseth “a willing and enthusiastic partner in our efforts.” Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.

NASA on Thursday pushed back against comments from U.S. celebrity Kim Kardashian suggesting that the 1969 moon landing was faked. During an episode of The Kardashians TV series that aired Thursday, the Skims founder questioned whether the space mission ever took place, and noted her fascination with conspiracy theories. “There’s no gravity on the moon. Why is the flag blowing?” Kardashian said. “The shoes that they have in the museum that they wore on the moon is a different print in the photos. Why are there no stars?” she continued. “They’re gonna say I’m crazy no matter what, but like, go to TikTok. See for yourself … ” Hours after the episode aired, acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy responded to Kardashian in a post including a clip of her remarks. “Yes, we’ve been to the Moon before … six times!” Duffy wrote. “And even better: NASA Artemis is going back under the leadership of POTUS [U.S. President Donald Trump]. We won the last space race and we will win this one too.” Kardashian has said her doubts stem from alleged past comments by Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon after Neil Armstrong, which have long circulated online in edited or misleading form, and that those videos led her to question the official account of the landing. (Aldrin, for his part, once punched a man who questioned whether the moon landings were real or not.) After Duffy’s post, Kardashian replied with a change of subject: “Wait … what’s the tea on 3I Atlas?!?!!!!!!!?????,” referencing an interstellar comet recently spotted passing through the solar system. Duffy, who was selected by Trump in July as acting boss of the space agency, responded that it was a “Great question!” said NASA’s current observations show that this is the third interstellar comet to pass through our solar system. “No aliens. No threat to life here on Earth,” he said, adding that he appreciated Kardashian’s excitement about the Artemis moon mission and invited her to attend the upcoming Artemis launch at Kennedy Space Center. The exchange comes amid growing tension between NASA and the Trump administration, which has proposed deep budget cuts and agency restructuring even as it touts a renewed focus on lunar exploration. Conspiracy theories claiming the moon landing was staged have circulated for decades. According to the Institute of Physics, “every single argument claiming that NASA faked the Moon landings has been discredited.” The institute points to photographic, radiation and physical evidence, including 382 kilograms of lunar rock brought back by Apollo astronauts, all of which have been independently verified by laboratories worldwide.

BRUSSELS — Romania wants Europe’s rearmament push to benefit all EU nations, not just the largest ones. The massive increase in defense spending and weapons orders that is foreseen in the coming years should translate into new factories and jobs in his country, Romania’s Defense Minister Liviu-Ionuț Moșteanu told POLITICO. “If we spend people’s money on defense, it’s important for them to see that part of it is coming back to their country, for example via factories. It’s not just about buying rockets abroad,” he said in an interview at NATO headquarters. “We aim to have a part of the production in the country. We want to be part of the production chain,” he added. “Every country wants to have a big share, but so far only a few do.” Western nations such as France, Germany, Italy and Sweden have the bloc’s best-developed arms industries and are grabbing the majority of lucrative arms contracts. Former eastern bloc countries like Romania tend to have smaller defense companies without the technological know-how to produce the full array of weapons needed to rearm, meaning they are more dependent on external suppliers. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has opened the money taps for defense. NATO countries agreed this summer to boost their defense spending target from 2 percent of gross domestic product to 5 percent by 2035. According to the European Commission, reaching the new target will require an additional €288 billion spent on defense each year. Romania is spending 2.3 percent of its GDP on the military this year and plans to raise that to 3.5 percent by 2030. One of its main challenges is to modernize its armed forces, which have operated for decades largely with obsolete Soviet-era military kit. The country, which borders Ukraine, Moldova and the Black Sea as well as EU countries, is key to regional security in southeastern Europe and hosts a NATO battlegroup led by France that also includes American troops. LOANS FOR WEAPONS Bucharest is set to be the second-largest user of the EU’s €150 billion SAFE scheme, and is asking for €16.7 billion in low interest loans for defense. Moșteanu said two-thirds of that money will be spent on military equipment and the remaining third on infrastructure; it also includes military aid to Ukraine and Moldova. The condition for any procurement under SAFE — which is open mostly to European companies — would be industrial returns in Romania, the minister told POLITICO. The condition for any procurement under SAFE — which is open mostly to European companies — would be industrial returns in Romania, the minister told POLITICO. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images In one example of the country’s push to ensure some defense cash stays at home, an ongoing €6.5 billion tender for more than 200 tanks sets a condition that final assembly happen in the country. “It’s very important for the years to come that when we talk about spending money, we spread [the industrial return] evenly throughout the continent,” the minister said, referring also to countries further from the frontlines such as Portugal. “It’s a negotiation with the producers,” he said, adding that if European manufacturers don’t accept domestic production requirements, Bucharest will take its money to companies outside the EU that are willing to do so. “If some programs don’t look good under SAFE, we’ll move them under the national budget,” he stressed. The Romanian government is already a big customer of foreign weapons manufacturers, especially from the U.S., Israel and South Korea. It recently purchased American-made Patriot air defense systems and F-35 warplanes, as well as K9 self-propelled howitzers from South Korea’s Hanwha Aerospace. Last year, Hanwha Aerospace executives told POLITICO that Romania could become a weapons production hub for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. WHAT ROMANIA BRINGS TO THE TABLE Romania, which is one of Europe’s most industrialized countries, has assets to offer arms-makers, Moșteanu argued. Romania, which is one of Europe’s most industrialized countries, has assets to offer arms-makers, Moșteanu argued. | Andreea Campeanu/Getty Images It’s already luring in some of Europe’s largest defense companies: Bucharest and German giant Rheinmetall signed an agreement earlier this year to build an ammunition powder plant that will be partly funded by EU money under the Act in Support of Ammunition Production scheme. In the near future, manufacturers will need to open new factories to meet demand, and Romania could easily host some of them, Moșteanu said: “We have defense production facilities with all the necessary approvals. They’re not up-to-date but it’s a good starting point.” Another strength of the country is its robust automotive sector, which could help weapons manufacturers swiftly ramp up manufacturing. Defense companies across the bloc are teaming up with carmakers to benefit from their mass production expertise. “We have a very strong automotive industry in Romania that can switch to the defense industry,” the minister said, adding that the machinery, production lines, expertise and supply chains are already in place. Romania is also looking to cut red tape. “We’re looking to change the legislation to speed investments in the defense industry. I know there is the defense omnibus in Brussels,” Moșteanu said, referring to the European Commission’s simplification package, “but I don’t know when it’ll come, I prefer to have something quick.”

BRUSSELS — Crafty hacking groups backed by hostile states have increasingly targeted European public institutions with cyber espionage campaigns in the past year, the European Union’s cybersecurity agency said Wednesday. Public institutions were the most targeted type of organization, accounting for 38 percent of the nearly 5,000 incidents analyzed, the ENISA agency said in its yearly threat landscape report on European cyber threats. The EU itself is a regular target, it added. State-aligned hacking groups “steadily intensified their operations toward EU organizations,” ENISA said, adding that those groups carried out cyber espionage campaigns on public bodies while also attempting to sway the public through disinformation and interference.  The report looked at incidents from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025. Multiple European countries said in August that they had been affected by “Salt Typhoon,” a sprawling hacking and espionage campaign believed to be run by China’s Ministry of State Security. In May, the Netherlands also attributed a cyber espionage campaign to Russia, and the Czech government condemned China for carrying out a cyberattack against its foreign ministry exposing thousands of unclassified emails. These incidents underlined how European governments and organizations are increasingly plagued by cyber intrusions and disruption. Though state-backed cyber espionage is on the rise, ENISA said the most “impactful” threat in the EU is ransomware, a type of hack where criminals infiltrate a system, shut it down and demand payment to allow victims to regain control over their IT. Another type of attack, known as distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), was the most common type of incident, ENISA said. DDoS attacks are most commonly deployed by cyber activists. ENISA said different types of hacking groups are increasingly using each others’ tactics, most notably when state-aligned groups use cyber-activist techniques to hide their provenance. The agency also highlighted the threat to supply chains posed by cyberattacks, saying the interconnected nature of modern services can amplify the effect of a cyberattack.   Passengers at Brussels, Berlin and London Heathrow airports recently experienced severe delays due to a cyberattack on supplier Collins Aerospace, which provides check-in and boarding systems. “Everyone needs to take his or her responsibilities seriously,” Hans de Vries, the agency’s chief operations officer, told POLITICO. “Any company could have a ripple effect … We are so dependent on IT. That’s not a nice story but it’s the truth.”

LIVERPOOL, England — Under U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the Labour government has made a big play of pouring money into the defense sector — and is changing the party, as well as the country, in the process. Labour’s change of heart when it comes to world affairs can be felt as members gather in Liverpool for its annual party conference, once the natural home of progressive internationalism and a fierce commitment to foreign aid. NGOs once flocked to Labour conference, holding rows and rows of stalls in the exhibition hall and attracting the great and the good to their fringe events. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown spoke loftily of Britain as a development superpower, and embraced the Make Poverty History campaign as well as the movement to enshrine foreign aid spending in law. This year, the presence of NGOs has noticeably diminished, with fewer events focused on international development and many charities deciding not to bother coming to conference at all.  In their place are defense companies and lobbyists, buoyed by Starmer’s commitment to ratchet up spending on the sector to 5 percent of gross domestic product by 2035 and his pledge to make the country “battle-ready.” On one level, the vibe shift reflects the reality of forces felt across the world, as Western countries adjust to war in Europe and a less beneficent United States. But it also marks a sea change inside Britain’s biggest center-left party, and one that is already shaping the way it governs. THE NEW CONSENSUS As delegates arrive in Liverpool hoping to influence the Starmer government, some are feeling less optimistic than others. Paul Abernethy of Bond, a network for organizations working in international development, said: “I’ve noticed a lot of our members choosing not to attend conference, or at least if they are attending, they’re certainly cutting down the amount of resources behind it.” The costs are “astronomical,” he added, and “I’m not surprised [fewer NGOs are attending] when political parties like Labour and the Conservatives are de-prioritizing international development and foreign policy.” The reason for their gloom is self-evident, as conference meets for the first time since Starmer announced he would slash spending on aid from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of GDP in order to boost defense coffers. Those cuts fall not just on the recipients of development grants but also on the charities dedicated to supporting them. At a fringe event on aid cuts, Flora Alexander, executive director of International Rescue Committee UK, said: “Our [Britain’s] standing and our influence has been affected — it’s what happens when you say you’ll commit a certain amount of money and then you don’t.” The picture is especially stark when placed alongside the mood in the Labour Party of 10 or 20 years ago.  Labour’s change of heart when it comes to world affairs can be felt as members gather in Liverpool for its annual party conference. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images Kevin Watkins, a professor of development practice at the London School of Economics and former CEO of Save the Children, said under former leaders Tony Blair and Gordon Brown “you had big hitters who were really leading on multilateralism and internationalism.” The aid movement of the early 2000s also gained currency as a supposed means of damping down terrorist radicalization and strengthening national security. However, as Watkins observed, its place in mainstream politics has now given way to a new “consensus” among Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK that “the U.K. should be stepping back from global leadership on poverty reduction.” DEFENSE ON THE MARCH The contrast with the mood among defense suppliers — who have at times been regarded with suspicion in Labour circles — could hardly be more marked.  Andrew Kinniburgh, director general of manufacturers’ body Make UK, said: “Certainly the message we get [from the government] is that defense is really at the heart of what they’re doing, and it’s probably at the front of the queue in terms of leading growth.” A representative of an aerospace company, granted anonymity to speak freely, described the cognitive dissonance experienced by some in the industry.  “Did I think Labour would invest in defense? Yes. Did I ever think one of our biggest export cheerleaders would be David Lammy? No.” Lammy, until recently the foreign secretary, is drawn from the “soft left” of the party, which is traditionally less hawkish and more skeptical of the arms industry — but defense is having a moment, as Labour’s quest for jobs and growth coincides with heightened external threats, particularly from Russia. Paul Mason, an economist and a fellow at the Council on Geostrategy, said at a fringe event “the whole party should be united” behind the defense agenda, as it would deliver high-skilled jobs as well as helping to repel Nigel Farage’s Reform.  Defense Minister Luke Pollard told POLITICO: “This isn’t something that is far, far away — there are hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs rely on defense today … That’s something that I hope the entire country will be able to get behind.” A LASTING CHANGE? Senior Labour figures insist the trade-off between investment in defense and progressive causes is not zero-sum.  Development Minister Jenny Chapman, speaking at a fringe event, said she was “optimistic” about the U.K. continuing to make a difference on the world stage despite the cuts to her budget.  Development Minister Jenny Chapman said she was “optimistic” about the U.K. continuing to make a difference on the world stage despite the cuts to her budget. | Leon Neal/Getty Images Yet it is hard to find anyone who believes that the golden era of overseas development could make a comeback and dominate mainstream politics in the way it once did. Instead, Labour insiders in Liverpool are unapologetic about their reinvention as the party of defense — once much more closely associated with the Conservatives — and want it to stay that way. “It’s been a long road,” said one Labour adviser, “to convince people we’re as strong on defense as we are on other international issues. We need to guard that now.”