BRUSSELS ― Two wars on Europe’s doorstep loomed over a 12-hour summit of EU leaders ― and for very different reasons they found themselves paralyzed rather than able to do much about either. Rarely has the bloc’s inability to take a lead on international affairs been so obvious. Between Germany’s Friedrich Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni ― heads of three of the world’s top 10 economies ― and the other 24 in attendance, they could only look the other way, squabble with each other, or offer little but words as the bombing, missile-firing and killing continued. “In these very troubled moments in which we are living, more than ever it’s decisive to uphold the international rules-based order,” European Council President  António Costa, who chaired the gathering in Brussels, told reporters. “The alternative is chaos. The alternative is the war in Ukraine. The alternative is the war in the Middle East.” And that speech was about as far as it went. As Tehran pounded its neighbors, disrupting Europe’s energy supplies, Kyiv attacked Russian factories repairing military planes, and Donald Trump in Washington joked about the Pearl Harbor attack alongside the Japanese prime minister, European leaders used their talks to tinker with the bloc’s carbon permit scheme, the Emissions Trading System. It’s not a wholly unrelated matter to the global energy shock, but hardly an issue where the continent could demonstrate its geopolitical might. On Iran, leaders found they had little leverage or will to make any significant intervention. On Ukraine, more than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion ― a conflict where they do have leverage and they do have will ― they were unable to overcome internal divisions to approve sending €90 billion Kyiv’s way. There was “no willingness to get involved across the table” on the Iran conflict, said a senior European government official, granted anonymity like others quoted in this article to discuss the talks behind closed doors. German Chancellor Merz even complained that focusing on Iran risked shifting attention away from measures to boost Europe’s flagging economy — the summit’s original raison d’être before would affairs got in the way — according to three officials. “The world looked very different at Alden Biesen,” an EU official said, referring to last month’s competitiveness-focused meeting in a Belgian castle that was meant to set the stage for this summit. That was before Iran’s war and Ukraine’s funding dilemma, brought about by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán going back on his promise to approve the loan, radically reshaped the agenda. NOT OUR WAR That’s not to say Iran was ignored completely. There was some renewed discussion about sending French warships to protect the Strait of Hormuz, the vital oil transit point that Tehran has effectively shut down by threatening to strike ships, potentially with backing from the U.N. Security Council. “We have begun an exploratory process, and we will see in the coming days if it has a chance of succeeding,” Macron said. But the summit’s final statement stopped short of pledging any new mission, referring only to strengthening existing EU naval operations in the region. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at a press conference at the end of the European Council summit on March 19, 2026 in Brussels. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images By the end of the talks, the EU’s leaders reached a sobering conclusion: Europe has little power or inclination to shape events. “Middle East impacts us a lot — but are we a player in the game?” an EU official who was party to the leaders’ discussions asked. “They’re trying to find a place in this debate and we have a lot of statements and positions [but] is there a role for Europeans for solving this process?” Evidently not, according to Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, who warned leaders that “starting war is like a love affair — it’s easy to get in and difficult to get out,” according to two diplomats briefed on her remarks. Translation: This is not Europe’s war — and it’s not going to be. The EU was left with doing “what we always do,” an EU official said, writing “nice statements.” BURNING GAS FIELDS Europe already angered U.S. President Trump earlier this week when its top envoys rejected his call to secure the Strait of Hormuz. The summit’s final conclusions leaned heavily on familiar calls for “de-escalation” and “restraint,” without proposing concrete action, sticking to that earlier position. That’s despite Qatar warning Thursday it would not be able to fulfill its liquefied natural gas contracts with Belgium and Italy after Iran directed its wrath — and its ballistic missiles — over U.S.-Israeli strikes at the Gulf country, knocking out almost a fifth of its LNG export capacity. Yet rather than grapple head-on with the rapidly expanding energy shock, Europe’s leaders spent hours debating the bloc’s climate policy, including its ETS, which a group of countries are eager to reform. “To say ETS is the biggest issue when big gas fields are burning is a bit weird,” an EU official said. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the consequences of the war extended far beyond the Middle East, adding its most “immediate impact” was on energy supply and prices. She announced a slate of emergency measures to lower costs, from lowering taxes to boosting investment in ETS. ‘JUST CRAZY’ If anything, the summit exposed where the wars in Iran and Ukraine overlap. In what could be his final EU gathering after 16 years if he loses next month’s election, Hungary’s Orbán slammed Europe’s approach to the unfolding energy crisis. “The behavior and the strategy that the Europeans have here is just crazy,” he said — adding the EU needed to buy Russian oil to “survive.” Orbán has blocked a €90 billion EU loan to Kyiv because of a dispute about a damaged pipeline carrying Russian oil through Ukraine to Hungary and other central European countries. For that reason, the bloc was similarly unable to offer much more than assurances on the Ukraine war either. Orbán maintained his opposition on Thursday and even won the sympathy of Meloni, who told leaders she understood his position. As frustration inside the room boiled over, many leaders sharply criticized the Hungarian premier, according to Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. “I have never heard such hard-hitting criticism of anyone, ever,” he told reporters during a break in the talks. Merz concurred that leaders were “deeply upset” at Orbán. “I am firmly convinced that this will leave a lasting mark,” he said. But the pressure from his peers failed to sway Orbán and questions of the EU loan will roll on to another summit next month ― by which time Hungary could have a new leader, or at least an old one not desperate for votes. On Iran and on Ukraine, the EU didn’t get anywhere. Earlier predictions by diplomats that leaders might continue discussions through the night or even reconvene for a second day as the urgency of a world in turmoil forced them to face up to the challenges before them failed to materialize. Things were done and dusted before midnight. After 12 hours of few decisions, leaders were left with little new to tell people back home. “There are many things worrying about this war” in the Middle East, while Orban’s veto of the loan to Kyiv “is still there and we are extremely unhappy about this, and so of course is Ukraine,” Sweden’s Kristersson told reporters upon leaving the summit. And that was that. Zoya Sheftalovich, Nette Nöstlinger, Nicholas Vinocur, Gerardo Fortuna, Gabriel Gavin, Hans von der Burchard, Sonja Rijnen, Zia Weise, Seb Starcevic, Giorgio Leali, Hanne Cokelaere, Ferdinand Knapp, Milena Wälde, Aude van den Hove, Gregorio Sorgi, Koen Verhelst, Victor Jack, Ben Munster, Jacopo Barigazzi and Bartosz Brzezińksi contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — EU leaders were supposed to spend Thursday mapping out how to boost Europe’s economy. Instead, they were left scrambling to deal with two wars, a deepening transatlantic rift and a standoff over Ukraine. Twelve hours of talks, a few showdowns and many, many coffees later, here’s POLITICO’s rapid round-up of what we learned at the European Council. 1) Viktor Orbán’s not a man for moving … The most pressing question ahead of this summit was whether Hungary’s prime minister could be convinced to drop his veto to the EU’s €90 billion loan for Ukraine. He wasn’t. The European Commission had attempted to appease Orbán in the days running up to the summit by sending a mission of experts to Ukraine to inspect the damaged Druzhba pipeline, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia. Orbán has argued that Ukraine is deliberately not addressing the issue, and tied that to his blocking of the cash. Asked whether he saw any chance for progress on the loan going into the summit, Orbán’s response was simple: “No.” Twelve hours later, that answer was much the same. 2) … But he does like to stretch his legs. In one of the most striking images to have come out of Thursday’s summit, the Hungarian prime minister stands on the sidelines of the outer circle of the room while the rest of the leaders are in their usual spots listening to a virtual address from Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (on screen) speaks to EU leaders via video at the European Council summit in Brussels, March 19, 2026. | Pool photo by Geert Vanden Wijngaert/OL / AFP via Getty Images The relationship between the two has descended into outright acrimony after the Hungarian leader refused to back the EU loan and the Ukrainian leader made veiled threats — which even drew the (rare) rebuke of the Commission. Faced with Zelenskyy’s address, the Hungarian decided to vote with his feet. 3) The new kid on the block is happy to be a part of this European family, dysfunctional as it may be. This was the first leaders’ summit for Rob Jetten, the Netherland’s newly-installed prime minister. Ahead of the meeting, he said he was “very much looking forward to being part of this family.” His verdict after the talks? That leaders differ greatly in their speaking style, with some quite efficient while others take longer to get to the point — but he welcomed the jokes of Belgian’s Bart De Wever, “especially when the meeting has been going on for hours.” 5) Though not everyone was so charitable. Broadly speaking, Orbán digging in his heels did not go down well. Sweden’s prime minister told reporters after the summit that leaders’ criticism of the Hungarian in the room was “very, very harsh,” and like nothing he’d ever heard at an EU summit. Jetten said the vibe in the room with EU leaders was “icy” at points, with “awkward silences.”  6) The EU’s not giving up on the loan. Despite murmurs ahead of the talks of a plan B in the works, multiple EU leaders as well as Costa and Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen were adamant that the loan was the only way to go — and that it will happen, eventually. “We will deliver one way or the other … Today, we have strengthened our resolve,” von der Leyen. Costa added: “Nobody can blackmail the European Council, no one can blackmail the European Union.” Top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas arrives at the European Council summit on March 19, 2026. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images 7) Kaja Kallas wants to avoid a messy entanglement. In her address to the bloc’s leaders, Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, stressed the importance of not getting caught up in the conflict in the Middle East. “Starting war is like a love affair — it’s easy to get in and difficult to get out,” she said, according to two diplomats briefed by leaders on the closed-door talks. At the same time, Kallas reiterated the importance of the EU’s defending its interests in the region but said there was little appetite for expanding the remit of its Aspides naval mission, currently operating in the Red Sea. 8) But it was all roses with the U.N. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres joined the Council for lunch, thanking them for their “strong support for multilateralism and international law.” In an an exclusive interview with POLITICO on the sidelines of the summit, Guterres applauded the restraint shown by the Europeans, despite Donald Trump’s anger at their refusal to actively support the war or help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime artery that Iran has largely sealed off, driving up global energy prices. 9) Kinda. One senior EU official told POLITICO that the lunch meeting was “unnecessary.” “With all appreciation for multilateralism and its importance … considering the role the U.N. is not playing in international crises right now, it is unnecessary,” said the official, granted anonymity to speak freely. 10) Celery is a very versatile vegetable. Also on the table while they picked over the future of the multilateral world order was a pâté en croûte with spring vegetables and fillet of veal with celery three ways. Three ways! And for dessert? A mandarin tartlet with cinnamon. 11) Cyprus and Greece want the EU to get serious about mutual defense. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis asked the EU to think about a roadmap for acting on the bloc’s mutual defense clause, according to two EU diplomats and one senior European government official. The clause, Article 42.7, is the EU’s equivalent of NATO’s Article 5. Its existence and potential use has recently come into focus since British bases in Cyprus were attacked by drones. 12) And the Commission hopes it’s already got serious enough about migration. Von der Leyen said that while the EU has not yet experienced an increase in migrants as a result of the conflict in Iran, the bloc should be prepared. “There is absolutely no appetite … to repeat the situation of 2015 in the event of large migration flows resulting from the conflict in the Middle East,” said one national official. The Commission chief emphasized that the mistakes of the 2015 refugee crisis won’t happen again. 13) Von der Leyen likes to cross her Ts.   Speaking of emphasis — “temporary, tailored and targeted” was how von der Leyen described the EU’s short-term actions to minimize the impact on Europe of the recent energy price spikes after the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. The moves will impact four components that affect energy prices: energy costs, grid charges, taxes and levies and carbon pricing, she said. 14) The ETS is here to stay — with some modifications. While EU leaders agreed to make some adjustments to the Emissions Trading System — the bloc’s carbon market — most forcefully backed the continuation of the system itself. “This ETS is a great success. It has been in place for 20 years and is a market-based and technology-neutral system. So we are not calling the ETS into question,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters after the talks had concluded. While the Commission will propose some adjustments to the ETS by July, these are merely adjustments, not fundamental changes, the German leader said. In the run-up to the summit, some EU countries, including Italy, floated the idea of weakening the ETS to help weather soaring energy prices. 15) No matter what, EU leaders want to get home — ASAP. While Costa has so far ensured every European Council under his watch lasts only one day instead of the once-customary two, this time around, that goal was looking optimistic. However, at the end of the day, leaders’ dogged determination to get out of there prevailed (even if that meant kicking a discussion on the long-term budget to April). À bientôt!

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will make a proposal to boost the bloc’s carbon market reserve within “days” and develop a €30 billion decarbonization fund, in response to pressure from EU leaders to limit the CO2 price’s impact on electricity bills. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the EU executive would work on a mix of immediate relief and structural changes to bring down high energy prices, with measures to tackle all components of the power bill, from taxes and levies to carbon costs. Two measures to tweak the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which requires factories and power plants to purchase a permit for every ton of CO2 they emit, “will come in the next days,” von der Leyen said at a press conference following Thursday’s EU leaders’ summit. They include an update to the so-called benchmarks that determine how many free-of-charge permits a certain industrial sector receives and a proposal to “increase the firepower” of the Market Stability Reserve governing the ETS permit supply. In what she described as the “medium term,” von der Leyen pointed to the review of the ETS scheduled for this summer, as well as a new “ETS investment booster” providing financial support to industry. This booster, first reported by POLITICO on Thursday, will “have a budget of round about €30 billion, financed by 400 million ETS allowances,” she said. “The aim is to finance projects for decarbonization” under a first-come, first-served scheme with a focus on lower-income EU countries. In their summit conclusions, leaders asked the Commission to conduct the ETS review “by July 2026 at the latest, to reduce the volatility of the carbon price and mitigate its impact on electricity prices … while preserving the essential role of the ETS.” Compared to previous drafts, the final conclusions also “invited” the Commission “to work closely with Member States to design national temporary and targeted measures” to rein in high energy prices. This addition was seen as catering to countries such as Italy and Poland, which had cited their national circumstances — in particular, high reliance on fossil fuels in their power mix — as reasons for more substantial changes to the ETS, two diplomats said. Asked specifically about a controversial Italian decree subsidizing power companies to make up for their ETS costs, von der Leyen said: “Because of different energy mix in different member states you cannot have one-size-fits-all” and vowed to “work closely with the Italian government on the Italian decree.” In general, she said, Thursday’s summit was “positive for the ETS.” The bloc’s bedrock climate measure escaped demands for fundamental changes from leaders and was widely praised as a key lever for accelerating the bloc’s transition to cheaper clean energy.

BRUSSELS — An EU summit once billed as a chance to boost the bloc’s economy is now a full-blown stress test. Leaders gathering Thursday face a combustible agenda: Ukraine’s financial survival, Middle East escalation, transatlantic tensions, and deep internal rifts over energy and climate policy. Thursday’s meeting has been dramatically reshaped in recent days by the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran and a standoff with Hungary over a €90 billion lifeline for Kyiv — turning what had been meant to be a forward-looking discussion into a scramble to manage multiple crises at once. Leaders will still try to push ahead on plans to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, from deepening the single market to easing the burden on businesses. But those longer-term ambitions risk being overshadowed by more immediate geopolitical fires, alongside intense discussions on continent’s energy, defense and migration policies, according to a draft version of the post-summit joint statement obtained by POLITICO.   Expect a packed — and likely fractious — day in Brussels. Here’s POLITICO’s cheat sheet of the five biggest clashes to look out for at the European Council. THE €90B QUESTION: HUNGARY VS. EVERYONE  A €90 billion lifeline for Ukraine — which will determine Kyiv’s ability to continue defending itself against Russian aggression — hangs on whether Hungary lifts its veto. EU leaders agreed in December to provide the funding. But Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán later reneged and blocked the deal over a dispute with Ukraine about a damaged pipeline carrying Russian oil to Central Europe. Budapest has accused Kyiv of trying to engineer an energy crisis in Hungary by cutting off Russian oil supplies and says it won’t approve the cash disbursement until flows resume. The European Commission said Tuesday it had offered to help repair the pipeline and that Ukraine had accepted, raising hopes of a breakthrough. The move could prompt Hungary to lift its veto, one diplomat familiar with Budapest’s thinking said, speaking on condition of anonymity like others in this article to discuss sensitive negotiations. But Orbán struck a defiant tone in a video posted after the Commission’s announcement, saying: “If there is no oil, there is no money.” That leaves him isolated from almost all other leaders, aside from Slovakia’s Robert Fico. “The behavior from Hungary is a new low,” Sweden’s Europe Minister Jessica Rosencrantz told POLITICO ahead of the meeting. Another diplomat said that “if we fail on the loan, [Ukrainian leader Volodymyr] Zelenskyy will rightly be furious.” The latest draft conclusions still point to disbursement by early April — a timeline leaders will be endeavoring to rescue in their negotiations. HORMUZ DILEMMA: IRAN’S THREATS VS. A RELUCTANT EUROPE Tehran’s attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz — a vital oil transit point — have jacked up the global price of oil and forced Europe to weigh whether to get involved. One idea was to expand the mandate of the EU’s Middle East naval mission, Aspides, to allow European warships to patrol the waterway. That was quickly ruled out by the bloc’s foreign ministers on Monday. “Nobody wants to go actively in this war,” the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said after the foreign envoys met. Instead, leaders will call for the reinforcement of existing naval missions, Aspides and Atalanta, with “more assets” (read: ships) — while stopping short of extending their reach to Hormuz, according to the draft summit conclusions. The text stresses that operations must remain “in line with their respective mandates.” A diplomat from the Gulf region said they were watching closely but did not expect any major shift from EU leaders, such as expanding the Aspides mandate or launching joint operations with third countries. TRANSATLANTIC TREMORS: TRUMP VS. EUROPEAN CAPITALS  Europe’s refusal to step in around the Strait of Hormuz has angered U.S. President Donald Trump, who said it would be “very bad for the future of NATO” if EU countries failed to act. That frustration is only growing. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he had spoken to Trump about Europe’s unwillingness to provide assets to keep the strait open and had “never heard him so angry in my life.” The flare-up comes with EU-U.S. ties already under strain. Spain has openly defied Trump over the Iran conflict, refusing to allow the U.S. to use its bases and drawing threats of trade retaliation from Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron has stepped in to back Madrid and signal European solidarity, while other leaders have taken a more cautious or mixed line on how far to push back. Trump may not be on the formal agenda, but his pressure will loom over the summit — and sharpen already fraught debates over defense, trade and Europe’s reliance on the U.S. ETS BRAWL: ITALY, POLAND AND OTHERS VS. THE COMMISSION  A major brawl is brewing over the EU’s Emissions Trading System between a cadre of member countries and the EU’s executive.  Ten EU member countries sent a letter to the Commission ahead of Thursday’s summit asking to speed up a planned review of the ETS, a cornerstone of the bloc’s climate policy that forces big polluters to cough up.  Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Austria and Croatia are urging the EU executive to reexamine the scheme by the end of May at the latest, arguing it harms their industries and is contributing to rising energy prices.  But not everyone agrees, with two EU officials from ETS-supporting countries saying the cap-and-trade system must remain in place. The first official argued it is not contributing to the energy crisis and is actually helping Europe’s economy, with its revenues needed for the green transition.   On the topic of energy, the Commission’s proposed gas price cap is also likely to be raised, though not all countries are likely to get on board with that either, according to a senior German government official. According to the draft conclusions, EU leaders will instruct the Commission to “present without delay a toolbox of targeted temporary measures” to bring down energy prices.  COMPETITIVENESS, ANYONE? EU VS. ITSELF Despite the crises crowding the agenda, leaders will still try to push forward plans to revive Europe’s economy, building on talks at a February summit at Alden Biesen in Belgium. Most of the proposals fall under the “One Europe, One Market” push to deepen the single market — easing the movement of goods, services, capital and people across the bloc. The draft conclusions say leaders will back new corporate rules, dubbed “EU Inc.,” to help startups scale across borders, as well as a “simple, unified and voluntary e-declaration system” to make it easier to work across countries. The aim is to move from talk to delivery, with concrete steps and deadlines, another EU diplomat said. But while there is broad agreement on the need for reform, divisions persist over whether EU energy and climate policies — particularly the Emissions Trading System — are holding back growth. That split, with Central, Eastern and Southern European countries pushing for changes and others, including the Nordics, resisting, will likely be the main battleground on competitiveness. Nick Vinocur contributed reporting.

WARSAW — Poland’s MAGA-aligned President Karol Nawrocki is in a war for control of the country with pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The sharp end of the conflict concerns the European Union’s €150 billion Security Action For Europe program — an EU effort (in part negotiated by the Polish government) to provide cheap loans to finance arms purchases by member countries. Nawrocki last week vetoed a law enabling the allocation of a €44 billion loan to Poland, although the government insists it will still be able to get the cash. But SAFE is just one front in a wide-ranging tussle. Tusk and Nawrocki are sparring over everything from the EU’s social media law to the government’s efforts to restore rule of law, ambassadorial nominations, whether to swear in judges and even the EU’s Emissions Trading System. Both sides are painting the struggle in existential terms as they gear up for next year’s crucial parliamentary election. For Nawrocki and his allies in the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party, the EU loan is a misguided effort that would make an independent Poland subservient to Brussels, and especially Berlin, while fraying ties with the U.S. “NO TO THE LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY,” Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, a member of the European Parliament and one of Nawrocki’s top foreign policy advisers, wrote on X. Tusk is warning that the effort to derail the SAFE loan will inexorably lead to a Polexit — a U.K.-style Polish withdrawal from the EU. Polish MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski attends a session of the European Parliament on November 27, 2019 in Strasbourg, France. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images “I think there is a clearly anti-European narrative promoted by the president’s camp and PiS. It’s potentially very dangerous, because we see in this rhetoric an attempt to cast the European Union as an enemy and to blame it for the challenges Poland faces,” Finance Minister Andrzej Domański told POLITICO, calling the president’s approach “extremely irresponsible and contrary to Poland’s national interest.” SUSPICIOUS LOANS SAFE is a flashpoint because Poland’s political divisions are as deep as in Donald Trump’s America. Both sides have their own media ecosystems and are engaged in a winner-takes-all conflict, with social contacts between ordinary people fraying over political differences. In the rest of the EU, SAFE was not controversial. So far 19 EU countries have signed up, and even conservative leaders like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán are on board. While some countries have managed to rub along with power-sharing between presidents and prime ministers from different political groupings, it’s proving very difficult in Poland. A protester holds a trash bin saying “Safe.” Polish opposition groups protest outside the Presidential Palace in Warsaw, Poland, on February 21, 2026. | Marek Antoni Iwaczuk/NurPhoto via Getty Images The core promise Tusk made when he led his coalition to victory in the 2023 parliamentary election was to roll back many of the changes made during the previous eight years under PiS governments. Those governments had clashed with the EU over efforts to bring the judicial system under tighter political control and saw relations with key partners like Germany and France go sour, while top officials were accused by Tusk of misusing public funds. But Tusk’s program set him up for immediate clashes with pro-PiS President Andrzej Duda. The standoff grew even worse after Duda was replaced by the far tougher Nawrocki last year. Now Nawrocki is trying to expand the limited powers of the presidency, while Tusk is trying to hem him in. The prize is next year’s parliamentary election. POLITICO’s Poll of Polls shows Tusk’s Civic Coalition is comfortably ahead with the support of 34 percent of voters, while PiS trails at 26 percent. However, the smaller parties that make up Tusk’s coalition aren’t doing well and he’d be unlikely to form the next government. Just behind PiS are two far-right parties, the libertarian Confederation at 13 percent and the antisemitic Confederation of the Polish Crown with 8 percent. However, those parties are in deep conflict with PiS, and it’s unclear if they’d be able to form a stable coalition. That’s forcing PiS to scramble to appeal to conservative voters, making Nawrocki’s SAFE veto a key political move. A survey out this week by the Ibris organization found that 56.9 percent of those polled were opposed to Nawrocki’s SAFE veto while 33.8 percent supported it. While many voters are leery of the effort to block SAFE, the right-wing Republika television denounced the loan program with comments like: “HERR DONALD FÜR DEUTSCHLAND,” and, “A gang of traitors and Volksdeutsches is trying to saddle Poles with billions of euros in debt to Germany” — playing to anti-German stereotypes common among the Polish right. Berlin isn’t taking a SAFE loan as it can borrow more cheaply on its own. Poland’s new President Karol Nawrocki (right) and his predecessor Andrzej Duda wave as Nawrocki takes over the Presidential Palace on August 6, 2025 in Warsaw. | Sergei Gapon/AFP via Getty Images “I understand that blocking the law on realizing SAFE investments is an internal battle among the extreme right,” said Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski, adding that PiS had supported SAFE until it saw the rising danger from rival far-right parties. “It’s a battle for the anti-EU electorate. The danger is real.” PLAYING THE POLEXIT CARD Tusk is hoping to capitalize on the situation by warning of the danger of a Polexit. EU membership is still overwhelmingly popular in Poland — which has for years been one of the bloc’s best-performing economies. However, support is slowly eroding. A CBOS poll last month found that 82 percent of Poles support being in the EU, down from 92 percent in 2002; among conservative voters, only two-thirds back the bloc. Nawrocki and PiS insist they aren’t in favor of quitting the EU, just reshaping the bloc to make it more of a loose grouping of sovereign nation states. That aligns with the thinking of the U.S. administration, which strongly supports Nawrocki. “Tusk’s Polexit claim is utter nonsense and yet another attempt to scare voters for electoral gain — a campaign tactic, plain and simple,” Saryusz-Wolski told POLITICO. “PiS and the president support Poland’s membership of the EU, but with a sovereign role and on the basis of the EU Treaties — without competence creep or the usurpation of powers not granted to the EU, aimed at building a centralized European superstate in place of nation states,” Saryusz-Wolski said. But years of skepticism about the value of the EU can also build momentum to quit — as happened in the U.K. “It may be that they introduce this topic into public circulation somewhat cynically, that is, looking at it exclusively from the point of view of their own political interests, rather than because they genuinely want Polexit,” said Anna Mierzyńska, a disinformation expert. “But the consequences of doing so may be such that they will not be able to control it, and that Polexit might start defining things more broadly so that the 2027 campaign is all about whether you are for the EU or against it,” Mierzyńska added. Bartosz Brzeziński contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will look into loosening state aid rules and capping the price of gas to help member countries deal with the energy crisis triggered by the Iran war, according to a letter sent by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The letter, dated March 16 and obtained by POLITICO, singles out a number of main ways countries could combat higher energy costs, which have risen sharply as a result of the U.S.-Iraeli war with Iran. The letter comes ahead of a meeting of European leaders in Brussels on Thursday. Since the war broke out last month, effectively shutting off the Strait of Hormuz through which a fifth of the world’s oil supply transits, EU countries have been debating a broad range of responses to a looming energy crunch. Proposed measures have ranged from the modest and technical, such as relaxing rules to allow governments to compensate households and businesses for rising energy costs; to the radical and controversial, such as scrapping the EU’s most important climate laws. One option proposed in Monday’s letter is to relax state aid rules to permit national capitals to redistribute profits generated by gas-fired plants to support consumers and businesses facing rising bills, the letter says. Another potential change would allow countries to cap the price of gas.  Von der Leyen said both of these policies had been used after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and stressed that the Commission would determine on a case-by-case basis whether they would be deployed again. “The design of these emergency mechanisms should in any case avoid internal market distortions, preserve long-term investment signals for clean energy and preclude excessive additional demand for gas,” she said.  The Commission will also “further strengthen” a mechanism that allows countries to compensate 80 percent of the carbon price paid under the Emissions Trading System, the EU’s flagship carbon pricing mechanism, von der Leyen added.   The letter also stresses that measures ought to be “targeted and temporary” — an apparent rebuke to countries that have sought to dismantle key climate policies that they blame for higher prices.  The Commission president added that the Commission would also look into simplifying rules for companies to buy electricity through power purchase agreements. It will also propose a new law to “ensure that grid users receive the right incentives to make optimal use of existing grid infrastructure, as this will avoid unnecessary and costly grid expansions,” she said. 

EU leaders were all set to finally hammer out how they will revive the bloc’s ailing economy and chart a path to independence from powers like China and the United States. But Donald Trump had other plans. Just as the U.S. president’s threats to seize Greenland had dominated a previous gathering of leaders in January (and his tariffs had overshadowed a meeting before that), the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has hijacked the agenda of Thursday’s European Council, forcing leaders to focus on a short-term energy crisis — while sapping attention from the original aim of talking about long-term competitiveness. “It is crucial that we reduce the price impact” from the war, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in the run-up to the summit. “We must deliver relief now … [We need] a comprehensive look at how to reduce people’s energy bills.” With oil prices hovering around $100 per barrel, EU leaders will spend much of their time at Thursday’s meeting weighing how to offset the impact of surging energy prices on European households and businesses, according to several diplomats ahead of the gathering, who were granted anonymity to discuss private summit preparations like others in this article. While high energy prices have been a consistent theme in discussions among leaders for months, including at their gathering at Alden Biesen castle in Belgium last month, the volatility fueled by Iranian drone and missile attacks across the Middle East has turned an irritant into an emergency for leaders, who fear that surging inflation could fuel an upsurge in support for populist, anti-EU politicians. “The focus will be very strongly on energy prices — we are expecting proposals from the European Commission,” said a senior EU diplomat. “The situation with energy prices was there before at Alden Biesen but now it is indeed acute.” Then there’s the war itself, where Europe remains divided on how to respond to Trump. One camp led by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is pushing for the bloc to use Council conclusions (the often dry-seeming language agreed by all 27 leaders at the end of the summit) to call for international law to be upheld, in what would amount to an indirect rebuke to Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But another group of nations, including heavyweight Germany, is wary of taking any steps that could irritate the U.S. president and imperil an EU-U.S. trade deal currently being examined by European lawmakers. The risks of irking Trump are simply too great, said a second EU diplomat from a large country. “We don’t want trade escalation. We want the U.S. involved in Ukraine. We want them involved in NATO. Is it worth risking these objectives in order to be vocal about Iran? So far, not really.” “Is it worth saying: you stupid fuckers, why did you do it? No, because we will pay a higher price for that,” added the diplomat. The result is unlikely be a total missed opportunity. Leaders are still set to agree on ambitious deadlines for slashing EU red tape, as well as laying the groundwork for a more integrated European financial market. But their agenda is — once again — being dictated primarily by a leader who resides in Washington, not Europe. ORBÁN, AGAIN Oil prices surging past $100 per barrel last week have thrust Europe back into the dark days of 2022 when Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine caused a massive spike in energy prices across the bloc. Those price spikes, though offset thanks to a huge injection of EU cash, nonetheless helped far-right and far-left political movements, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán basing his current reelection campaign on the idea that the Ukraine war has been too costly. Now Orbán is set to seek center stage again: His threat to veto a planned €90 billion EU loan for Ukraine looms as the major unsolved question of the summit, infuriating leaders. Frustration at Budapest is at a fever pitch, according to the senior diplomat, with governments taking on a “much more direct, even confrontational” tone with Budapest behind closed doors, the person said. Orbán’s violating his promise to back the loan had made it possible for other countries to drag him before the European Court of Justice for violating the EU principle of “sincere cooperation,” the two diplomats said. However, they acknowledged that any legal proceedings would take months or years to conclude — far too long for Ukraine, which needs the EU loan within months. The alternative is to reach a deal on Thursday. The same two diplomats voiced optimism it could be done and said Orbán himself had shown openness to a deal, which could also include unblocking a 20th package of sanctions against Russia that is currently being held up by Budapest and Bratislava. Leaders are also due to lock horns over the longer-term direction of Europe’s energy policies. A group of Nordic countries, plus Spain, wrote to the Commission before the summit to defend the bloc’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), arguing that greater use of renewable energy will make the EU more autonomous. But they’re up against Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Poland’s Donald Tusk, who are pushing for tweaks to the ETS to offset potential price spikes linked to the fact that Poland and Italy remain big consumers of fossil fuel. “I don’t know if we go as far as removing ETS completely,” said the second EU diplomat, when asked about their country’s demands for next week’s leaders’ summit.  But the diplomat added: “If you have a [price] spike caused by an external shock, there has to be a mechanism where ETS doesn’t add to this shock.” IRAN AND UKRAINE Another major concern is how the Iran war affects Ukraine, given that spiking oil prices have refilled Russian President Vladimir Putin’s coffers just as his army is losing control of the Dnipropetrovsk region in eastern Ukraine. Leaders are also concerned that demand for U.S. weapons for the Iran war will deprive Kyiv of much-needed arms, which in many cases are being purchased with EU money. Diplomats say this could be a chance for Europe’s defense industry to step in while providing Ukraine with much-needed revenues given its production capacity. Indeed, Ukraine has announced it is sending anti-drone operators and counter-drone technology to assist the Gulf states. The push to take advantage is reflected in a draft of the conclusions, dated March 9 and seen by POLITICO, where leaders call “for a step change” in strengthening the EU’s defense industry. A previous version did not include such strong wording. But it remains unclear whether Europe’s defense industry can keep up with demand.  After the war in Ukraine, this is a new challenge for the industry — military conflicts are proliferating so fast that the sector can’t keep up with production demand, said the CEO of Italian defense giant Leonardo, Roberto Cingolani. “There’s a big effort ongoing” to help countries in the Persian Gulf that are under attack from Iran, Cingolani told a company presentation in Rome last week.  But “to be honest,” he added, “the number of wars … is growing even faster than our Capacity Boost program,” he added, referring to a Leonardo initiative to increase production capacity in response to rising demand. Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Europeans should eat less meat and farms must be taxed for their planet-warming pollution if the bloc is to reach its climate goals, the EU’s scientific advisers argue in a set of far-reaching recommendations that are unlikely to get a warm welcome from farmers.  In a 350-page report published Wednesday, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change also calls on the EU to scrap farm subsidies for climate-damaging practices, arguing sweeping measures are necessary to reduce agriculture’s contribution to global warming. To aid farmers, they propose scaling up financial support to help them transition toward greener alternatives as well as aid to cope with increasing droughts and climate disasters.  Yet environmental policies that so much as touch on agriculture have become politically toxic in recent years, with Brussels and EU capitals reluctant to address farm emissions in the face of large-scale tractor protests and intense lobbying campaigns.  Still, sticking with business as usual isn’t an option, said the board’s chair Ottmar Edenhofer.  “In order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 within the EU, the sector has to contribute to emissions reduction,” he said.  “And if we do this in a smart way during the transition process, in a gradual way, pricing the emissions but also using the revenues to support the transition … I think this is a beneficial pathway for the whole sector and for the whole of society.”  While politically sensitive, the board’s recommendations are not revolutionary.  Plenty of scientists and even the World Bank have in recent years urged governments to ensure their citizens eat less meat and to cut environmentally harmful subsidies in order to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from food, which account for about a third of all planet-warming pollution.  And Denmark is on track to become the first country to tax agricultural pollution after Copenhagen and farmers’ associations agreed in 2024 to impose a carbon price on livestock emissions from 2030.  Yet the board’s reports carry weight. The independent consortium of scientists is tasked by EU law with providing guidance on climate policy; past recommendations have proven influential, with the board’s 2023 advice on setting a 2040 emissions-slashing target of at least 90 percent playing a major role in leading the EU to enshrine this goal in law last week.  The entire food system, from farming to consumption to waste management, produces 31 percent of the bloc’s emissions. | Quentin Top / Hans Lucas / AFP via Getty Images The recommendations on agriculture also come just as the EU drafts new policies that could incorporate some of the board’s advice — from the bloc’s next long-term budget and an upcoming revision of the EU farm subsidy program, to a slate of new green legislation designed to meet the new 2040 target, and a plan to increase resilience to climate disasters. CAPPING CAP PAYMENTS The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), a behemoth that absorbs around a third of the EU’s budget, is a key target of the report. The current framework contains provisions around climate and biodiversity, but has failed to sufficiently slash greenhouse gas emissions. The entire food system, from farming to consumption to waste management, produces 31 percent of the bloc’s emissions. More than half of that occurs during food production — think super-polluting methane released by cows as well as fertilizer use, tractor fuel and more.  The CAP, the scientists warn, still incentivizes climate-harming practices through its vast subsidy system. The EU should therefore gradually phase out payments that are tied to livestock production, a type of income support for farmers that consumes 5 percent of the current CAP budget, they say.  In fact, they add, the EU should reconsider the entire idea of subsidies based on farmland size, worth 39 percent of the CAP budget or more than €100 billion, as they “incentivize agricultural production over other land use” such as forestry, and thus drive up emissions. On top of reforming the CAP, the EU should introduce a carbon pricing mechanism covering agriculture, building on the Emissions Trading System architecture that has successfully halved industry and power plant pollution, the scientists say.  But they argue that agricultural carbon pricing should consist of three separate systems — one each for energy-related farm emissions, non-CO2 pollution such as methane, and agricultural emissions and carbon dioxide removals from land.  The EU also needs to address consumer demand to tackle food emissions, the board says. In particular, Europeans eat too much red meat, driving up methane pollution.  The scientists recommend the EU set up national guidelines for climate-friendly diets and set mandatory standards for marketing and sustainability labeling of food to push consumers toward greener choices.  CLIMATE-PROOFING FARMS To sweeten the deal for farmers, the board suggests that with the money saved from a reformed CAP and generated through carbon pricing, the EU should support them in the transition toward climate-friendly practices and in adapting to a warmer world.  Whether the promise of funding would be enough to placate farming lobbies that have launched massive tractor protests across Europe at any hint of additional burdens for farmers is uncertain. Political appetite for green legislation has also declined in both Brussels and capitals amid a shift toward industry- and security-focused policies.  As part of its Green Deal, the European Commission in 2020 launched a Farm to Fork Strategy designed to make the bloc’s food system more environmentally friendly. The plan, however, was effectively abandoned following a backlash from lobby groups and conservative politicians.  Political appetite for green legislation has also declined amid a shift toward industry- and security-focused policies. | Marijan Murat/picture alliance via Getty Images Only last week, EU institutions struck a deal to ban vegetarian products from using certain meat-related terms.  But Edenhofer believes that there is political space to enact the board’s recommendations, pointing to Denmark’s tripartite deal establishing a carbon tax — an agreement between the government, farmers and environmental groups — as a hopeful example.  “We acknowledge that this is very complicated, but … we need a regulatory system which incentivizes emission reductions in the agri-food system,” Edenhofer insisted.

BRUSSELS — An industry petition criticizing the European Union’s core climate policy implied its demands were supported by some 1,350 companies and associations. Now some firms deny they signed up. Last month, a number of EU leaders — including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron — joined hundreds of industry representatives for a get-together in Antwerp.  There, they were presented with a letter that demanded, among other things, lower “carbon costs” — a call widely interpreted as asking for a weaker price signal under the Emissions Trading System, the bloc’s main tool for reducing planet-warming emissions.  Merz jumped on the demands to suggest he was open to weakening the policy, comments he later rowed back on but not before they crashed the carbon price. Ever since, attacks on the ETS, which obliges factories to pay for their pollution, have escalated, with Italy recently calling for a suspension pending an upcoming reform.  The letterhead on top of the petition, which asked the EU to “bring energy and carbon costs down,” read: “Presented to EU leaders at the European Industry Summit in Antwerp on 11 February 2026 on behalf of the signatories of the Antwerp Declaration.” The 2024 Antwerp Declaration, which called for a European “Industrial Deal” and did not mention carbon costs, was backed by nearly 1,350 signatories, including more than 900 companies ranging from steel giant ArcelorMittal to fertilizer producer Yara.  An emailed press release linking to the petition similarly stated that “the Antwerp Declaration Community — representing more than 1,300 companies, associations and trade unions across Europe — called on EU Heads of State and Government to take urgent and bold action.”  But some of those companies now say they didn’t support the missive — and even the organizers admitted to POLITICO that they do not know the actual number of backers for this year’s petition, dubbed the Antwerp Call to Alden-Biesen in reference to the Belgian chateau where EU leaders met the day after the industry summit.  The findings throw a spotlight on a lobbying practice starting to spread through Europe: Letters demanding controversial policy changes in the name of companies loosely associated with the organizers to boost their influence.  Last October, two CEOs demanded the EU scrap or weaken key environmental laws while claiming to speak on behalf of 46 companies, some of which later distanced themselves.  The European chemicals lobby association Cefic, which organizes the annual Antwerp summits, did not directly respond to a question asking whether describing the letter as sent “on behalf of” the original signatories was misleading.  A spokesperson insisted all signatories of the 2024 declaration were invited to give input into this year’s petition and that the text was shown to companies that joined consultation calls ahead of the summit.  But Cefic acknowledged that there was no specific number of backers. “As the text builds on the existing Antwerp Declaration, signatories were not asked [to] sign, and no additional signatory list was created,” the spokesperson said, adding: “The Call was a political reminder, not a new Antwerp Declaration, as the text itself specifically states.”  DEFENDING THE ETS The discrepancies in support for the Antwerp Call were first noticed by NGO Finnwatch, which checked with Finnish companies that signed the 2024 declaration. Of the seven that responded, three distanced themselves from the call for slashing the carbon price. Finnwatch also writes that after it published a blogpost with the companies’ responses, the summit website’s Antwerp Call page started returning an error, and a different PDF deleting the “on behalf of” language was uploaded.  The new document only lists 16 industry lobby groups as backers for this year’s call. Cefic acknowledged that the website had been “updated.” POLITICO this week contacted 20 companies listed as signatories of the 2024 declaration. Of the 12 that responded, seven said they did not support this year’s petition.  Among the companies that distanced themselves were French energy major EDF, Norwegian aluminum and energy company Norsk Hydro, fertilizer giant Yara, and Holcim, one of the world’s largest cement producers.  Holcim supported the original declaration but said that it was “not involved in the Alden-Biesen call for action.” A spokesperson said that “Holcim remains steadfast in its commitment to decarbonization” and that it welcomed “long-term predictability” in EU policy, including a “stable” carbon price. Norsk Hydro said it did not even participate in this year’s Antwerp summit, adding: “Hydro supports the EU ETS, but the system needs reform.”  EDF said it supported “the continuity” of the ETS. A spokesperson wrote: “To our knowledge the final Antwerp statement was not shared with past signatories before the day of the event, so it was not possible to assess its content beforehand.”  Swedish mining company LKAB also said that “there was no signing process” for the petition, adding that the company does “not support an ask [to] ‘bring carbon cost down’ — energy prices yes, but carbon costs no.”  DEFENDING THE PETITION Similarly, Yara “does not call for lower carbon prices,” the company’s vice president for European government relations, Tiffanie Stephani, said in an email. “Carbon prices provide the most suitable market signal to drive decarbonization of production and products.”  But, she added, “carbon prices and carbon costs are not one and the same… A high carbon cost without enabling conditions to decarbonize, and without demand for the more sustainable products, is destructive to industrial competitiveness.”  Cefic made a similar argument. “Please note that the text on purpose references the impact of carbon costs, not on the ETS as a tool, nor on the carbon price itself,” the association’s spokesperson said.  The companies that told POLITICO they supported this year’s call were paper manufacturer Sappi and Belgian oil and gas infrastructure provider Fluxys, as well as two Cefic members: chemicals giants Bayer and Solvay.  Steel giant ArcelorMittal also said they did support this year’s call as a whole, but that they weren’t asking for a lower carbon price.  Solvay insisted it was in favor of “long‑term clarity and predictability” of the ETS, adding: “European industry currently faces significantly higher energy and carbon‑related costs than global competitors operating under less stringent frameworks. Our support for the call should be read in that context: It is not about reducing ambition, but about ensuring Europe can deliver both decarbonization and industrial resilience.”  Cefic said that the petition presented to EU leaders last month “reflects the many opinions” heard in consultation calls.  At an EU leaders’ meeting on March 19-20, energy costs and carbon pricing are once again on the agenda, draft conclusions show.

BRUSSELS — Spain has come to the defense of the European Union’s bedrock climate law, with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez warning fellow European leaders against dismantling the embattled Emissions Trading System. In a discussion paper on economic competitiveness, seen by POLITICO, Madrid insists the EU “unequivocally commit” to its green transition. The paper fiercely pushes back against efforts to weaken the ETS, which requires power plants and factories to pay for the planet-warming emissions they cause. The European Commission is due to publish a revision of the 20-year-old carbon market later this year. Sánchez sent the paper to European Council President António Costa on Thursday, just as Italy launched a blistering attack on the ETS. Rome called for its suspension until after the reform is completed, claiming that the carbon price is driving up energy costs and acting as a “tax” on manufacturers. The Spanish paper takes the opposite view. “Dismantling the emissions trading system is the wrong answer to high energy prices,” the paper reads. “While some adjustments to the current system to reduce [price] volatility could [be] welcome, a misguided and rushed reform would risk distorting the price signal it has successfully been sending without bringing competitiveness gains.” Madrid joins Sweden in defending the system, which regulates around half of the bloc’s emissions and has successfully slashed pollution in half since 2005. In general, Spain writes, “we must advance and accelerate, not dilute, the green agenda. This is not just a moral imperative, but a lever for sustained, long-term competitiveness … Any slowdown in decarbonisation would play directly into our competitors’ hands.” Madrid also positions itself against demands to further put off the introduction of a second ETS governing heating and transport pollution, already postponed from 2027 to 2028, saying another delay “is also not the answer to our problems.” Aitor Hernández-Morales and Zoya Sheftalovich contributed reporting.