The State Department is adding resources to evacuate stranded Americans in the Middle East, and the Pentagon is scrambling to increase the number of U.S. troops gathering intelligence for operations — the latest indications that the Trump administration was not fully prepared for the broader war it is now facing. Amid criticism that the administration has been too slow to alert U.S. citizens that they should leave or help those then caught in the maelstrom, the State Department is sending extra staff to Athens to aid U.S. citizens, according to a current and former department official familiar with consular issues. A State Department official familiar with the process said Wednesday morning that the top leaders in the department had taken charge of the evacuation operation, much of which would typically be handled by consular and bureau officials. U.S. Central Command, meanwhile, is asking the Pentagon to send more military intelligence officers to its headquarters in Tampa, Florida, to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days but likely through September, according to a notification obtained by POLITICO. It’s the first known call for additional intelligence personnel for the Iran war by the administration, and a sign the Pentagon is already allocating funding for operations that may stretch long beyond President Donald Trump’s initial four-week timeline for the conflict. The rush to add people and resources to support efforts that are often organized well in advance of U.S. military action highlights how the Trump team had not fully anticipated the wide fallout of the war it launched alongside Israel on Saturday. “What we’ve seen is a completely ad hoc operation where it appeared that nobody actually understood or believed that military action was imminent,” said Gerald Feierstein, a former senior U.S. diplomat who dealt with the Middle East. “It seems like they woke up on Saturday morning and decided that they were going to start a war.” The U.S. executed a massive and multi-pronged operation with Israel that targeted Iranian security infrastructure and killed off the country’s supreme leader and other top officials. But American and Israeli officials have not yet articulated a clear end goal for the operation. Trump and his aides also have struggled to offer solid reasons why the strikes had to happen now. Iran has retaliated by firing on U.S. and other targets across the Middle East. At least six U.S. troops died at port in Kuwait, raising questions about whether their facility had been fortified well enough against the apparent drone strike. Some U.S. diplomatic facilities have also been struck, and concerns are rising that the U.S. and its Middle East allies could run low on munitions. Several of the people interviewed for this article were granted anonymity because the issue is sensitive and in some cases they were not authorized to speak publicly. The Pentagon is also trying to ship more air defenses to the region, especially smaller, less expensive counter-drone systems that the department has been developing over the last several years, a U.S. official said. The strike that killed the American troops is of particular concern for war planners because it came from a relatively cheap Shahed drone that can often fly below existing radars. The U.S. is, at least right now, using missiles that cost as much as several million dollars to defeat the drones, which cost a fraction of that. Iran has thousands of such drones in its stockpiles, and dozens of them have already punched their way through existing air defenses. Many of the counter drones the U.S. could respond with have not been used in combat, the official added, since American forces have not faced a drone threat this pervasive up to this point. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the limited preparation to assist Americans wanting to leave the region has had the most immediate impact. While at least two U.S. embassies — in Lebanon and Israel — began sending staff and their families out in the final days before the strikes, most diplomatic missions in the region did not make such moves until after the war began. It also was Monday before the State Department issued its first major alert to Americans, urging them to “depart now” from 14 countries in the region. By that point, it was hard to get a ticket out because airspace closures had led to numerous canceled flights. The department has since expanded its alerts and evacuations to at least two other countries, Cyprus and Pakistan. “It’s been a complete dereliction of duty,” said Jeffrey Feltman, a former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon who oversaw the evacuation of thousands of American citizens from that country in 2006. “Iran is a menace without question, but there was no imminent threat to us, and yet [Trump has] left thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans in harm’s way without planning how to get them out.” The State Department official familiar with the process said relatively few people at the department had been read in on the war plans. That may have contributed to the challenges on evacuation orders and travel alerts, the official acknowledged. The goal is to stabilize the situation as quickly as possible. That includes staffing up in Athens, and potentially additional places if the crisis worsens. The additional staff can help Americans who arrive on charter or other flights if they need to renew their passports, loans to help them buy tickets or even temporary lodging, the current and former State Department official familiar with consular issues said. The State Department said in a statement that a 24-7 task force set up Saturday morning had helped more than 6,500 Americans abroad with guidance on security and travel options. State also noted it had issued travel alerts to Americans about the region starting in January, though those alerts were relatively routine for a region with many turbulent spots. Dylan Johnson, the assistant secretary of State for global public affairs, wrote on X Wednesday morning that since Feb. 28, the day the war began, “over 17,500 American citizens have returned to the United States from the Middle East.” But that number appeared to include many Americans who’d left without any assistance from the State Department. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that the president had told regional leaders “that we expect their help” in getting Americans home. “The administration is already rapidly chartering flights free of charge and booking commercial options, which we expect to become increasingly available as time goes on and the success of this mission further comes to fruition,” she said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about its broader preparations for the impact of a spreading war in the Middle East. The Trump administration has, in general, cut back the number of people involved in its national security policymaking process and reduced the meetings that would normally loop in many departments and agencies. Aside from Rubio and a handful of his top aides, much of the State Department has been left in the dark about many key decisions. Rubio also serves as national security adviser, meaning he spends much of his time at the White House. Still, current and former U.S. diplomats pointed out that the possibility the U.S. would go to war in the Middle East was not exactly a secret. The administration spent weeks dramatically ramping up its military presence in the region and issuing warnings to Iran. So people at the State Department, including political appointees in the consular affairs bureau, should have known to reduce embassy staffing and urged Americans to leave the region many days or weeks ago, some argued. “There was no reason not to prepare staff departure plans as this was ongoing, particularly since the Defense Department knew the likely Iranian military responses,” the former State Department official familiar with consular services said. “They also could have started messaging to the region about the fluid security situation.” Democrats have seized on the evacuation debacle to lambast the Trump administration. It was something of a reversal: Republicans ripped the Biden administration over its handling of the evacuation of Americans and Afghan allies in the final days of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) called for oversight hearings on the State Department’s alleged failure to plan for aiding Americans in the region. “A core function of our foreign policy is to keep Americans safe,” Coons said in a statement. “Thus far, the president’s response to this reckless incompetence has simply been ‘that’s the way it is.’” In a letter shared with POLITICO, Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urged Rubio on Wednesday to “take more concrete steps to facilitate the departure” of American citizens and embassy personnel now in harm’s way amid the widening conflict. The lawmakers want Rubio to explain by Friday how decisions are being made about which countries require departures and what criteria determine the use of charter planes versus the need for military aircraft. They also asked what alternative evacuation options are being considered amid frequent airspace closures, among other efforts. The letter was spearheaded by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). Several governors, including California’s Gavin Newsom, New York’s Kathy Hochul and Illinois’ JB Pritzker, have also been communicating with State Department staffers to get updates on Americans stranded in the region as the governors field calls from panicked residents. Governors’ staff questioned what the administration is doing to bring Americans back, including whether charter or military aircraft are being considered, according to a person familiar with the discussions. “Americans are stranded abroad, and we all have a responsibility to do everything in our power to safely get them home,” Pritzker wrote in a letter to Rubio on Wednesday. Daniella Cheslow, Oriana Pawlyk, Cheyanne Daniels, Shia Kapos, Nick Reisman and Jeremy B. White contributed to this report.

Europe’s ambition to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot succeed in healthcare unless we fix a basic problem: we do not measure sustainability in the same way across the single market. Currently, measuring Product Carbon Footprints (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) throughout the European Union consists of a patchwork of national methodologies and/or competing frameworks. This fragmentation is not just a technical inconvenience, it actively undermines fair procurement, increases costs, and risks unequal patient access across Europe.[1] Without a single, harmonized methodology or framework, this EU sustainability and competitiveness goal will remain challenging to achieve. Though the lack of harmonizsation may seem technical, its consequences are tangible. PCF and LCA outputs can differ widely depending on the standards and methodologies defined and endorsed by policymakers, the way they are applied by industry, or how existing international standards are interpreted and implemented across member states.[2] The result is that national authorities are effectively speaking different languages. A treatment considered more environmentally responsible in one country may be evaluated entirely differently just across the border. And without harmonized sustainability assessments for medicines, there is a risk that sustainability is given disproportionate weight compared with safety and quality, undermining high-quality medicine development. In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – prevents comparability. [1]  > In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – > prevents comparability. In practice, the absence of a harmonized standard allows 27 different interpretations of ‘sustainability’ to coexist, which is incompatible with a functioning single market. Fortunately, PAS 2090:2025 offers what the EU has been missing: a single, science-based methodology that allows regulators, procurers, and industry to finally speak the same language. Developed with stakeholders across the healthcare and life sciences sector, PAS 2090:2025 specifies the appropriate methodology for medicines under ISO standards, aligning the playing field for everyone involved. Published by the British Standards Institution in November 2025, it reflects broad technical consensus and strong credibility. PAS 2090:2025 provides the first practical methodology for measuring the environmental performance of pharmaceuticals, establishing a common framework to support comparable environmental reporting, reduce regulatory duplication and provide policymakers with a credible basis to demonstrate progress toward climate neutrality. It also gives industry the predictability needed to invest in sustainable innovation, while ensuring that patients receive consistent assessments of a treatment’s environmental profile, regardless of where it is evaluated. Importantly, this approach reflects principles already embedded in EU policymaking. The European Health Data Space, for example, demonstrates how interoperability and standardized frameworks are essential in making cross-border data meaningful and actionable.[3] Meanwhile, the European Commission has been equally clear: harmonized technical standards and coherent sustainability rules are critical to the effective functioning of the Single Market and ensuring the free movement of goods.[4] This is a shared concern across stakeholder groups. Both the Federation of European Academies of Medicine and European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, representing Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, have similarly highlighted the fact that common standards are essential for transparent procurement and fair competition across therapeutic categories.[5]And the innovative pharmaceutical industry, via the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, has outlined both the challenges caused by the absence of harmonized standards and called for policymakers, regulators and healthcare stakeholders to endorse PAS 2090:2025 as the one, internationally accepted standard for measuring PCA and LCA in the pharmaceutical industry.[6]Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, the European Commission, and the innovative pharmaceutical sector all point to the same conclusion: without harmonized standards, sustainability policy cannot work. > At Chiesi, we support PAS 2090:2025 not because it is convenient, but because > it makes our environmental performance directly comparable and therefore > accountable.[2]  That is why our teams have laid out ambitious, yet reachable, targets regarding the reduction of Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that in order to reach these targets, we need to measure our actions and emissions. Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful difference.[3]  > Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful > difference.[3]  Our support for PAS 2090:2025 reflects a commitment to transparency, science-based decision-making and long-term sustainability; we use it ourselves because we believe it is the way forward — making it simple to compare products fairly, design transparent tenders, and procure with clarity. Further, industry members will be able to innovate with confidence, knowing that the life-changing efforts will be assessed with science and clear understandings. That said, no single actor can deliver alignment alone. Real progress depends on collaboration between regulators, policymakers, scientific bodies, and industry around a shared approach to measuring and comparing environmental impact. Chiesi stands ready to work with policymakers and partners across the healthcare ecosystem in favor of the adoption of PAS 2090:2025, understanding that achieving true regulatory harmonization is essential for ensuring patient access, maintaining high safety and quality standards, and fostering a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry in Europe. At the end of the day, the EU does not need another pilot program, framework, or national workaround. It needs a decision. It needs action. Europe must agree on how sustainability in healthcare is measured consistently and credibly across the single market. Measuring what matters, in the same way across Europe, is the only path to a climate-neutral, competitive, and fair European health system. Endorsing PAS 2090:2025 as the reference methodology would turn that principle into practice. Andrea Bonetti Andrea Bonetti is head of the EU office at Chiesi Farmaceutici, where he oversees the company’s public affairs strategy at European level across healthcare, sustainability and planetary health. Since opening Chiesi’s Brussels office in 2020, he has strengthened the company’s engagement with EU institutions, contributed to key policy discussions and supported initiatives to advance awareness on climate and environmental priorities in line with Chiesi’s values. He collaborates closely with cross-functional teams on the development and implementation of Chiesi’s sustainability strategy and represents the company within European and international trade associations. With more than 15 years of experience in health and environmental policy, he supports Chiesi’s external positioning and contributes to sector-wide work on environmental and sustainability frameworks. Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Chiesi Farmaceutici * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU sustainability and Single Market policy. More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission. (2023). Annual Single Market Report 2023. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/ASMR%202023.pdf   [2] Healthcare Without Harm. (2022). Report: Procuring for greener pharma. https://europe.noharm.org/media/4639/download?inline=1   [3] European Union. (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327 [4] European Commission. (2026). Public procurement. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/public-procurement_en [5] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) & Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM). (2021). Decarbonisation of the health sector: A commentary by EASAC and FEAM. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Health_Decarb/EASAC_Decarbonisation_of_Health_Sector_Web_9_July_2021.pdf.pdf [6]European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). (2025). Advancing environmental sustainability assessment of pharmaceuticals through standardisation and harmonisation of product carbon footprint assessment. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/efpia-news/advancing-environmental-sustainability-assessment-of-pharmaceuticals-through-standardisation-and-harmonisation-of-product-carbon-footprint-assessment/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

LONDON — Global Counsel started the year riding high. The public affairs agency had just posted its best-ever financial results, could boast of staff in multiple countries, and was in the process of expanding its international operations. In a matter of weeks, the lobby shop’s 16-year legacy had been all-but wiped out, and it had collapsed into administration under the weight of the Epstein scandal. Co-founder Peter Mandelson, the former U.K. ambassador to Washington and one of the commanding figures of British politics over the past four decades, is facing fresh revelations over his links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Despite frantic efforts to distance itself from Mandelson, the influence business he masterminded was forced to fold. POLITICO spoke to more than half a dozen members of staff and former clients since the agency announced it was going into administration last Thursday. They paint a picture of a dramatic and sudden disintegration which left more than 100 staffers in London, Brussels and Washington scrambling to find new jobs. Many were granted anonymity to speak openly about their experience. NEVER SEEN HIM Staff insist Mandelson — who founded Global Counsel in 2010 after Labour lost power — had very little to do with the firm when the latest documents on his contact with Epstein dropped at the end of January. Among them were emails suggesting Mandelson leaked sensitive information to Epstein when serving as business secretary. He is now subject to a police investigation. Mandelson’s lawyers Mishcon de Reya say he is cooperating with the police investigation, and his overriding priority is to “clear his name.” “There was a feeling of bewilderment initially because it seemed blindingly obvious to us that [Mandelson] was out of the picture,” a senior staff member said. “But the reporting, or maybe more the response from people to the reporting, made it sound like he was still sitting in on pitches and approving our expenses.” The former Labour heavyweight’s association with the firm had long been seen as a major asset — particularly as Labour’s Keir Starmer prepared for power, backed by Mandelson ally Morgan McSweeney. But Mandelson formally stepped back from any day-to-day involvement with Global Counsel when he became U.K. ambassador to Washington in December 2024. When he was sacked from the post by Starmer last September over previous revelations about his links to Epstein, the firm announced his 21 percent stake would be sold. He would be barred from drawing financial benefits, and his shares would be reclassified so he would no longer have a say over business decisions. But the senior staff member quoted above said a failure to complete the divestment process quickly, given the complex legal and financial process involved, meant it was “impossible to argue there was clear blue water” from Mandelson. Mandelson was sacked from the ambassador post by Keir Starmer last September over previous revelations about his links to Epstein. | Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images This was particularly frustrating for staff members who said they had never seen Mandelson in the flesh. Even those with years of service said he had only been present a handful of times. ‘BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION’ Matters were also complicated by the appearance of Global Counsel co-founder Benjamin Wegg-Prosser — then still the company’s chief executive —in the Epstein emails released by the U.S. Department of Justice. He was copied into conversations about the business between Mandelson and Epstein, and directly emailed Epstein with a draft statement the company had prepared seeking to downplay links between Mandelson and the convicted sex offender. Global Counsel was approached for comment about the Wegg-Prosser emails at the time they were released, but they declined to comment. POLITICO was unable to reach Wegg-Prosser for comment ahead of the publication of this article. Wegg-Prosser’s involvement was simply “one of those circumstances where you’re asked to do something by your chairman and you do that,” a Global Counsel director said. His role, they argued, had been “blown significantly out of proportion” by media reporting. “Anyone that works in public affairs will know that a meeting is a meeting, and you’re never always going to know who that person is.” In an attempt to put a lid on the growing crisis, Wegg-Prosser announced his departure from Global Counsel on Feb. 6, just hours before the firm confirmed it had finally completed the divestment of Mandelson’s shares. But it wasn’t enough. An associate director of the agency said Wegg-Prosser’s exit came as a “real shock” to staff, and argued that his links had been “seriously overblown” by the media. Wegg-Prosser’s “principled” decision to step down, they suggested, may have instead “perversely” fueled an erroneous impression that the links between Epstein and the firm were deeper than the reality. NOT JUST HEADLINES Staff initially hoped the Mandelson backlash would be limited to a series of gruesome headlines. But those hopes were dashed when a host of household names — including Tesco, Bank of America and Barclays — called time on their relationship with the firm. Some major clients did stick by the embattled agency, including banking giant Santander. Samir Dwesar, the bank’s senior public affairs and public policy manager told POLITICO the staff “don’t deserve this,” but predicted the “consummate professionals, who have deep expertise in their areas” would “all be snapped up pretty quickly.” Another public affairs professional at a company which employed Global Counsel said there had been “no discussions” about ending their contract. “Our assessment was that Global Counsel’s leadership had taken the correct decisions under incredibly difficult circumstances,” they said. “We were confident they’d get through it.” Many staff believed the same when they gathered for the all-hands meeting at the firm’s London HQ last Thursday — only to be told that not only was Global Counsel to close, but that administrators had been appointed to oversee the company’s affairs. A note to staff from Chief Executive Rebecca Park said “the decision to wind up the UK business affects all of GC. We will be discussing separately with each country office how the process will work for them.” Staff present for the London HQ announcement soon decamped to local bars to digest the news and drown their sorrows. | Daniel Sorabji/AFP via Getty Images “I think for a lot of people, it was a shock,” the same director at the firm quoted above said. “We’d amazingly retained a significant number of clients. In terms of business, that’s not easy, particularly when you’re politically exposed. So I think there should be a big thanks to them and the loyalty they showed as well.” The associate director quoted above said staff had sought solace in the survival of  business lobby group the Confederation of British Industry, which weathered its own storm of sexual misconduct claims. A mass exodus of members, and the icing of Whitehall meetings by government ministers wary of association with the group, was overcome under new leadership. “Maybe I was naïve, but lots of business leaders and politicians are brought down by scandals that leave their companies or parties bruised, and they still survive,” the associate director quoted above said. “I’d started to believe that might be the case with us too.” Staff present for the London HQ announcement soon decamped to local bars to digest the news and drown their sorrows. Some who had dialed in from half-term holidays had to return to their families knowing they’d just lost their livelihoods. Everyone — from decade-long veterans to new joiners — was affected. There remains a sense of genuine anger and grief among staff, who say their time at Global Counsel was among the most rewarding of their careers. While some had begrudgingly started job-hunting when the scandal first broke, others had opted to stay given a belief that the firm was entirely disconnected from Mandelson’s historic behavior. “I spent the weekend speaking to my partner, my parents, and my closest friends about what to do,” the associate director quoted above said of the days after the scandal broke. “I looked through some of the emails [in the Epstein files] and felt physically nauseous. I didn’t want to have even a microscopic link to what I was reading about, but at the same time I didn’t see that reflected whatsoever in the culture or people at Global Counsel.” The lingering question for many is whether the collapse could have been prevented. The failure to divest Mandelson’s shares left a tangible legal link, but a second associate director said frequent references to Mandelson in Global Counsel media coverage meant people outside the operation saw him as “central to its DNA” — even if that was not the experience of those working there. NEW HORIZONS Park, who stepped up as CEO following Wegg-Prosser’s departure, was praised by some of the staff for how she handled the final days of the crisis. Staff POLITICO spoke to highlighted efforts she had overseen to try and secure new jobs for those out of work. There is even more urgency to find a new job for those staff whose visas are linked to their work at the firm. Under U.K. laws they will have just 60 days to find new employment or face having their visas revoked. It has left some Global Counsel staff at risk of losing their immigration status, along with family members listed as their dependents. One staff member left in that situation said the change to their visa status meant they are no longer entitled to unemployment benefits or other public funds. With the firm entering into the administration process, other staff also lost access to enhanced parental pay packages. Despite initial fears that staff at the agency would be stained by their association, several of those who spoke to POLITICO have already secured new jobs. One staff member at rival firm FGS Global said it the lobbying agency is planning a hiring spree, with as many as two dozen ex-Global Counsel staff being lined up for new gigs. Those are expected to include a raft of senior staffers who’d been working on financial services and private equity briefs. “I think people do recognize that this is an insane opportunity from a talent perspective, just given how [Global Counsel] was respected and the people that were there, I think they genuinely are recognized as top of the class in the field,” the ex-Global Counsel director quoted above said. This reporting first appeared in POLITICO London Influence, a weekly newsletter on lobbying, campaigning and influence in Westminster and beyond.

The public affairs agency set up by former British ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson is set to shut down after an outcry over Mandelson’s links with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Staff at Global Counsel, the firm co-founded by Mandelson in 2010, were told in an all-hands meeting in London Thursday that the firm is being placed into administration, according to five employees of the agency across its Brussels and London offices, who were granted anonymity to speak about a sensitive matter. One said the firm had lost too many clients from its London office, the advisory firm’s main hub. Global Counsel will, the person said, be placed into administration, with administrators appointed tomorrow. A note to staff from Chief Executive Rebecca Park, seen by POLITICO, said that “the decision to wind up the UK business affects all of GC. We will be discussing separately with each country office how the process will work for them.” She adds: “This has proved to be a terrible time for all of us. We have had to endure seeing everything we have built together brought down by the inexcusable actions of others. “In the long term I am confident that the people of GC I have come to admire so much will all go on to better things. But in the short term the consequences will be painful for all of you, and for that I am deeply sorry. But I hope with time that you will share the same sense of pride I have for every member of this team.” The company, which says it helps clients “anticipate, shape and adapt to regulatory and political change,” has in the past advised firms including JP Morgan, OpenAI, Shein and TikTok. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. Global Counsel had moved to distance itself from Mandelson in recent months, with co-founder Benjamin Wegg-Prosser — who has not been accused of any wrongdoing — quitting as chief executive, and the agency agreeing a divestment of Mandelson’s shares in the organization. Global Counsel’s HQ is in London, but it has a substantial presence in Brussels, its major European hub, where it has doubled the amount of money it spends since 2020. Mandelson, a veteran British politician who was fired as ambassador over his continued association with Epstein after the financier’s conviction for sex offenses, has said he “deeply regrets” those ties and attacked the “lies” that the “monster” told him. He has apologized “unequivocally” for his association with Epstein and “to the women and girls that suffered.” John Johnston, Dan Bloom and Graham Lanktree contributed reporting.

LONDON — British businesses that have plowed millions into border control facilities are demanding compensation from the U.K. government over its Brexit “reset” deal with the European Union. Since the U.K. left the bloc, dozens of firms importing plants and fresh produce from the continent have invested in purpose-built inspection facilities, known as “control points,” in an attempt to reduce the border friction and costs associated with EU trade.  By developing in-house facilities, businesses had hoped to bypass the expense and disruption that had plagued larger border control posts, like the government’s Sevington site in Kent. But as the U.K. and EU negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal — which is expected to remove the need for most border checks on food imported from the bloc — business owners now fear these facilities will be rendered redundant. Nigel Jenney, CEO of the Fresh Produce Consortium, said several members had spent “anything from a few hundred thousand to several millions” on control points to accommodate checks on imports of fresh fruit and vegetables and cut flowers. “In good faith, the industry proactively responded to the requests of government; and now it’s been hung out to dry, costing modest family businesses huge amounts of money,” Jenney added. ‘BITTERSWEET’ DEAL Provender Nurseries, a wholesaler of plants and plant products that imports 80 percent of its stock from the EU, is one of many firms in this predicament. In 2024, it splashed out around £250,000 to convert a large general-purpose barn into a control point, the culmination of three years of paperwork.   Speaking to POLITICO on site in Swanley, Kent, where workers were busy unloading a shipment of trees from Italy ready for inspection, Provender’s site operations manager Stuart Tickner said the prospect of an SPS deal was “bittersweet” for the business. “I fully support and back up the SPS agreement,” Tickner said, pointing out that it would decrease border friction with the EU. “But at the same time, we’ve spent a lot of time, money and effort to achieve it [the control point]. So it’s gutting that it’s got to go.” Investment in the control point has also restricted the business’s ability to grow, he claims.  “We’ve pumped so much money into it [the control point] that the directors are reluctant to invest in more at the moment,” Tickner added. Provender Nurseries, a wholesaler of plants and plant products that imports 80 percent of its stock from the EU, is one of many firms in this predicament. | Photo by Provender Nurseries A U.K. government spokesperson said: “We are focused on delivering a food and drink deal that could add up to £5.1 billion a year to our economy, supporting British producers and businesses, backing British jobs, and putting more money in people’s pockets.” “With negotiations ongoing, our aim is to reduce regulatory barriers, slash costs, and cut red tape for businesses, while maintaining the UK’s high biosecurity standards.” CALLS FOR COMPENSATION  Shortly after the U.K. and EU announced plans for an SPS deal last May, Tickner and two other horticultural businesses wrote to former Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner asking for a meeting on the issue of compensation for control points.   In their letter, shared with POLITICO, the businesses warned of “significant knock-on effects” for businesses like theirs that have invested in control points.  “This process involved not only major capital expenditure, but also serious operational impacts, including staffing adjustments, the implementation of import software and compliance systems, and long-term contractual commitments,” they said. “Importantly, the building of these control points also caused substantial disruption to our day-to-day operations,” they added. “Many of us had to redesign or repurpose areas of our business premises, manage construction activity around ongoing operations, and absorb the associated delays and interruptions to normal business.” Neither Zeichner nor his successor, Angela Eagle, responded to the letter or follow-up messages sent by Tickner.  These are just the latest calls for compensation for potentially redundant Brexit border facilities. Last year, POLITICO reported that the British taxpayer had spent more than £700 million on border control posts, which may no longer be needed once the SPS deal comes into effect.  That’s not counting the £120 million that British ports themselves splashed out on specialist facilities. Ports are also demanding compensation from the government.  While Tickner and his colleagues have managed to make good use of their control point since the introduction of checks on imported plants from the EU in April 2024, other businesses with control points have been less fortunate. In June last year, the government announced that it would scrap checks on fruit and vegetables in anticipation of the SPS deal, meaning many of these facilities are underused. More recently, the government announced that it would reduce inspection rates for four popular varieties of cut flowers imported from the EU. “The government is constantly changing its mind. I’ve lost count of the amount of U-turns,” Fresh Produce Consortium CEO Jenney said, the exasperation clear in his voice.  Speaking to POLITICO on site in Swanley, Kent, where workers were busy unloading a shipment of trees from Italy ready for inspection, Provender’s site operations manager Stuart Tickner said the prospect of an SPS deal was “bittersweet” for the business. | Photo by Provender Nurserie “We have secured confirmation of a low-risk position for fruit and vegetables and most cut flowers from Europe. But that’s after the industry has spent a small fortune doing what the government wanted us to do. There is now no likelihood of future income because the reset would appear to remove that requirement.” PILOT SCHEME SCRAPPED To make matters more difficult for these businesses, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last year cancelled the rollout of an “Authorised Operator Scheme,” which would have allowed businesses to carry out their own checks on imports, following a pilot.  Firms running control points must instead rely on government inspectors to check imports, who only work certain hours of the week, defeating a key purpose of control points. “Government gave businesses a clear message and advice that for those importing perishable and sensitive goods at scale, investing in control points to then have the chance to achieve Authorised Operator Status was the best option to control your supply chains and give critical certainty,” said Jennifer Pheasey, director of policy and public affairs at the Horticultural Trades Association.  By canning the Authorised Operator Scheme scheme and agreeing to an SPS deal, control points “cannot deliver real returns and will be underutilized,” she added. HTA is now joining calls for government support for businesses that have invested in control points to help them mitigate and repurpose.  Like plant importers, Jenney would also like to see his members compensated for their investment in control points.  “We’d love to see businesses compensated for the losses they’ve incurred through no fault of their own — but we also accept that the government might find that difficult. What there does need to be is a genuine awareness of the cost burden that they’ve placed on industry and to make sure it never, ever happens again.”

Two new polls released Wednesday show that most voters do not want the U.S. to take military action against Iran and think President Donald Trump is overstepping abroad. A Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters found that 70 percent oppose U.S. military involvement in Iran, even if protesters there are killed while demonstrating against the Iranian government, compared to 18 percent who support military action. Opposition was mostly along party lines, with 79 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of independents opposing military involvement. Republicans were more supportive, with a majority — 53 percent — saying the U.S. should not get involved. The poll also found that 70 percent of voters think the president should receive congressional approval first before taking military action. Trump did not receive congressional approval prior to capturing Maduro, prompting criticism from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Five GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri, joined Democratic lawmakers to advance legislation forcing Trump to obtain Congress’ approval before taking any further military steps in Venezuela. Trump scolded the senators in a post on Truth Social, saying Republicans should be “ashamed” of them and they should “never be elected to office again” as the vote “greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security.” Voters were less supportive of other aggressive foreign policy moves by the Trump administration to expand U.S. influence abroad. Trump argued that the push for U.S. control over Greenland was for national security purposes and to benefit NATO. Regardless, 86 percent opposed using military force to take over Greenland, and 55 percent opposed buying it. The results mirror growing resistance among voters against U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts amid a slew of executive efforts. A separate poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that a growing number of Americans want the U.S. to take a “less active role” in global affairs. Following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, the poll revealed that 56 percent of Americans think Trump has “gone too far” in using military power abroad, and 45 percent say they want the country to be less involved in solving global problems — up from 33 percent in September 2025. Despite broad skepticism of foreign military action, many Americans still seem optimistic about the effects of U.S. intervention in Venezuela. About half of adults think Maduro’s capture and military action in Venezuela will be “mostly a good thing” for halting the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S., and 44 percent believe it will benefit the people of Venezuela more than harm them. The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 12, 2025, by phone and surveyed 1,133 self-identified registered voters. The AP-NORC poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 11, 2025, and surveyed 1,097 by web and 106 by phone.

LONDON — Donald Trump has triggered turmoil at the BBC at exactly the time its upstart right-wing rival is feeling bullish. Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Britain’s public service broadcaster — finally filed late Monday after weeks of build-up — continues a drama that has already cost the BBC two of its most senior leaders.  But even if the legal action over a controversial edit of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech before the Capitol riot fails in extracting the U.S. president’s $10 billion demand from the BBC, it’s offering a boost to a newcomer Trump’s MAGA movement sees as ideologically aligned: GB News. The outlet, which boasts Trump ally Nigel Farage among its hosts, has defied a shaky start by building a loyal audience, snagging big political interviews, and branching out to include a Washington bureau which now broadcasts a nightly show.  The channel pitches itself as a break from the liberal consensus — and Trump’s fresh attack on the BBC’s reputation offers GB News another chance to flaunt its wares. “In the past, the BBC retained relevance through a moral authority derived from a sense of total objectivity,” said James Frayne, a former British government adviser who gave evidence on trust in broadcasters to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee in 2024. “That authority just doesn’t exist anymore. This row with Trump is just another nail in the BBC’s coffin and it ensures that the likes of GB News are now viewed as channels of perfectly equivalent legitimacy.”  ON THE MARCH GB News launched in June 2021 to great fanfare — and plenty of skepticism. There were doubts it would survive after a rocky start beset by technical problems and the departure of star presenter Andrew Neil, a highly-respected veteran of BBC broadcasting who lasted just eight shows before quitting. Almost five years on, and the channel is making steady viewership inroads in some key slots. It boasted a ratings success against its rivals on budget day, one of the big political moments of the year, and has a growing online audience. Politicians are taking note. Center-left Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is routinely interviewed by Political Editor Christopher Hope, a veteran Westminster lobby journalist who traveled with the PM for a migration-focused trip to Albania in May. Starmer’s ministers usually speak to GB News during a morning broadcast round, and GB News’ relationship with Trump’s team has also stepped up rapidly since the channel launched a shoestring U.S. operation in the summer. Host Bev Turner landed a place in the press pool for the U.S. president’s trip to his Scottish golf course at Turnberry over the summer, and charmed him with questions critical of the U.K. government. “Who are you with?” Trump asked. “Because you’re asking such nice questions.” Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Britain’s public service broadcaster — finally filed late Monday after weeks of build-up — continues a drama that has already cost the BBC two of its most senior leaders.  | Andy Rain/EPA Four months later she was granted an interview with Trump. Hope says the channel has aspirations to grow further, and argues that it has a strong sense of its audience. “We know who they are, and how we can serve them,” he says. “I think these are people who feel overlooked by the political main parties. They feel let down. They feel Brexit was something they voted for, hasn’t been done properly, and these are all people I think, were Trump a U.K. politician, he’d be appealing to them.” And that’s helped GB News grow quickly in tandem with popular support for Farage’s Reform Party. Former GB News producer Liam Deacon, who is now consultant at London public affairs firm Pagefield, said: “Trump taking GB News seriously has been useful in that it’s made them feel like a prestigious brand. But they also thrive as an underdog, so it’s not critical.”  STIRRING THE POT  Criticism of the BBC is nothing new, but the broadcaster has been under pressure in recent months over more than just its Trump edit, with its coverage of the war in Gaza coming under particular criticism. That’s allowed GB News to position itself as a fresh alternative, even though television viewers in the UK have other options, including Sky News, and radio stations such as LBC. “It’s hard to appreciate what a phenomenon GB News is if your life is mostly London-based,” said Frayne. “It’s becoming the channel of choice for working-class England. It’s not just in people’s homes, you see it on in the background in countless pubs and small businesses in every town you go to.” He added: “The BBC has become non-existent in many of these places.”  Center-left Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is routinely interviewed by Political Editor Christopher Hope, a veteran Westminster lobby journalist. | Pool photo by Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images Others are watching the outlet with skepticism and alarm. Tom Chivers of the Media Reform Coalition, a non-partisan research group which campaigns for public interest media, acknowledged that outlets like GB News “matter a lot to politicians” — but pointed out that it still has a relatively small audience share. “I think what we come back to is why these kinds of outlets are established in the first place,” he argued. “It’s not about providing alternative sources of news, or about catering to audiences that feel underserved. It’s actually about powerful political elites — whether that’s Nigel Farage or [senior Conservative] Jacob Rees-Mogg or all these other people connected with GB News — who already have quite significant power across politics and media, ensuring that their place at the table, their voice on your screens and on your radio and so on, is permanent, is entrenched.” “I think GB News has achieved what it set out to do, which is to become this kind of focal point of political influence for a particular element of the right wing in the U.K.,” he added. “And really it’s up to politicians to decide if they want to be led by that kind of agenda, or if they want to make sure that there is a source like the BBC which provides a more well-rounded, accurate, impartial, objective approach to news and so on.” GB News, which counts hedge fund manager Paul Marshall among its backers, is yet to make money. GB News Limited made a post-tax loss of £33.4 million in 2024, down from a £42.4 million loss in 2023, according to its latest accounts. The channel — which has at times been rapped on the knuckles by the country’s broadcast regulator over impartiality concerns — has also faced an organized advertising boycott campaign. This may in part explain its push for U.S. eyeballs. One person with knowledge of the channel’s strategy, granted anonymity to speak freely, said : “Even a tiny slice of the American market would be massive. If they can get any advertising from the American side, they’ll be winning.” The outlet, which boasts Trump ally Nigel Farage among its hosts, has defied a shaky start by building a loyal audience, snagging big political interviews, and branching out to include a Washington bureau which now broadcasts a nightly show. | Tolga Akmen/EPA The rival outlet has avoided gloating about the BBC’s current woes. Hope said GB News does “believe in the BBC” — even if it thinks the public broadcaster should do things differently.  “Where I sit as a political editor, there’s no jubilation [about the BBC’s woes.] It’s another story. It’s a story which we ask other politicians about.”  But Jennifer Nadel, a former BBC journalist who now leads the U.K. think tank Compassion In Politics, thinks the BBC’s rivals will seek to exploit its current Trump-inflicted disarray. “It represents an opportunity for the BBC’s enemies to capitalize and further undermine it, and I think they’re doing it for two reasons — aside from the commercial advantages of weakening their main competitor, it also serves their political ends, and it should really be of concern for us all, because when trust in the BBC weakens, it isn’t replaced by something better,” she argued.  Yet Conservative peer Tina Stowell, who chaired a House of Lords inquiry into the future of news, argued that the BBC — which has apologized for its initial coverage but vowed to defend itself against the U.S. president’s lawsuit — should be more open about its own shortcomings, regardless of where its rivals sit. “The BBC created the situation in which it now finds itself,” she argued. “The bigger danger isn’t President Trump’s lawsuit, but the BBC’s unwillingness to accept the systemic cause of this and other editorial failings; and a misplaced belief that the broadcaster is a victim distracting it from understanding and addressing the reasons why it is pushing some audiences away.”  Noah Keate contributed reporting.

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

LONDON — The self-styled “eco-populist” leader of Britain’s Green Party couldn’t be ideologically further from right-wing firebrand Nigel Farage. But, as Zack Polanski presides over a leap in his party’s poll ratings, he’s actively channeling the Reform UK leader’s media strategy, and putting himself front and center of the argument for change. It’s a high-stakes gamble that, like Farage, could see him accused of turning the outfit into a one-man band. But so far, it appears to be working. “I don’t want everyone to agree with what I or the Green Party is saying,” Polanski told POLITICO in an interview. “What I do want everyone to know is, I’ll always say what I mean.” ‘REACHING THE CEILING’ Polanski won a landslide victory in the Greens’ heated summer leadership election, handing him the reins of a party that made strong inroads at the last election — but still has just four Members of Parliament. Though the Greens stress many spokespeople will continue to represent the organization, he undoubtedly dominates media appearances, and the party is pushing him as an electoral asset. “We were reaching a ceiling of where you could get to by [the] ground game alone,” Polanski reflects of the Greens’ past performance. “What maybe was holding us back was not being heard in the national media.”  Next month, he’ll walk a well-trodden path for British politicians wanting to raise their profile with an appearance on “Have I Got News for You,” the BBC’s long-running satirical quiz show poking fun at politicians. Despite the cheeky reputation, it’s a national institution and a firm part of the establishment with a large national viewership. Previous guests include Farage himself — and Boris Johnson. Polanski says he wants to “make sure that the media have an easy access point” to the party, and the Green leader seems willing to go to places where he’ll have to put up a fight, too — including a colorful on-air battle with Piers Morgan. He’s even launched his own podcast, currently ranked ninth in the U.K. Apple Podcasts charts for politics shows. Some of the numbers lend credence to the Green leader’s theory of the case. The party now has more than 150,000 members, according to its own estimates, compared to 68,500 when Polanski took over. That puts it ahead of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in membership numbers. As Nigel Farage bids to eclipse the Conservatives as a right-wing force in British politics, he has used regular defections to Reform UK to show he’s on the march. | Carl Court/Getty Images Polanski also appears to have overseen a steady polling uptick for the left-wing outfit, as borne out in POLITICO’s Poll of Polls. “There’s a definite and obvious increase,” says YouGov’s Head of European Political and Social Research Anthony Wells.  “He’s already far better known than [predecessors] Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay were.” Wells cautions: “It’s not like the public are in love with him, but the public do … dislike him less than most of the party leaders,” Wells adds. CONVICTION POLITICS As Farage bids to eclipse the Conservatives as a right-wing force in British politics, he has used regular defections to Reform UK to show he’s on the march. Polanski has tried similar, crowing about defections by ex-Labour councilors from the left. In video campaigning, too, Polanski has taken a leaf out of Reform’s book. He peppered his leadership run with arresting monologues to camera, and he has opted to weigh in on — rather than duck — the divisive issue of immigration. A video by the coast urged voters to “hold that line together” against the “super rich” rather than attacking asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats. “The biggest draw for those films is the fact that Zack is prepared to speak about these things — like a lot of other politicians aren’t,” argues the film’s creator Jeremy Clancy, who leads a creative agency making films for progressive outlets. Clancy used to serve as senior communications manager for ex-Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. Praising the contribution of migrants when polling shows the public want lower levels is a risky bet. The Green leader argues voters will respect a clear stance, even if they disagree. “People who know that their politicians are telling the truth and are speaking with conviction are always preferred,” he says. Like Reform, Polanski’s team has so far tried to paint in populist, primary colors. His first party political broadcast — a convention by which parties are given guaranteed five-minute TV slots — was filmed in the early hours as a metaphor about billionaires sleeping comfortably while others struggle. “Both were efforts to visualize things that you can’t see and to consciously make them as simple as possible,” Clancy says. Those short videos racked up millions of views. Whether this translates into electoral success, however, remains a wide open question. Next May’s local elections will offer the first real ballot box test of Polanski’s pitch. Ipsos’ Research Director for Public Affairs Keiran Pedley says the Greens are “still waiting for that breakthrough moment” and now need to “seal the deal” with voters. He cautioned against assuming cut-through for a leader will lead to electoral success. Pedley compared Polanski to ex-Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg — who lost seats at the 2010 general election despite a major polling bounce mid-campaign off the back of strong televised debate performances. For now, those who’ve joined the movement seem bullish. “The Greens have gone from being a one-issue party, which is the environment, to basically being the broad left party,” said Swindon Borough Councilor Ian Edwards, who joined the Greens in October after resigning the Labour whip earlier this year. But he added: “We can’t rely on just a leader. We’ve got to prove ourselves.”

BRUSSELS — A senior executive from semiconductor champion ASML slammed the EU for being inaccessible to Europe’s companies during POLITICO’s Competitive Europe summit in Brussels on Wednesday. When asked if he felt the company had sufficient access to top European policymakers such as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Frank Heemskerk, executive vice president of global public affairs at ASML, said: “It’s not always easy.” “It’s easier to get a meeting in the White House with a senior official than to get a meeting with a commissioner,” he added, quoting a previous company executive. The comment came after Heemskerk revealed ASML’s CEO Christophe Fouquet had a 2-hour meeting with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “After an hour and a half of listening, he [Modi] said you’re too friendly, tell me what we can do better,” said Heemskerk. European policymakers would do well to take note, according to the ASML executive: “The political leaders should sit down with the companies that are investing money.” He also commented on ASML’s recent €1.3 billion deal with French artificial intelligence company Mistral, which was seen as a major boost for Europe’s bid to be more technologically sovereign. “Of course it’s easier that it’s a European company, it is easier to understand each other,” he said. But the reason the two companies are teaming up is “because of the focus of Mistral on industrial AI,” he said. “It’s much more an industrial AI focus than anything around geopolitics,” he said.