BRUSSELS — The European Commission has done everything in its power to accommodate the concerns of member countries over the EU’s trade deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc and get it over the finish line, Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told POLITICO. “I hope we will pass the test this week because we really went to unprecedented lengths to address the concerns which have been presented to us,” Šefčovič said in an interview on Monday.  “Now it’s a matter of credibility, and it’s a matter of being strategic,” he stressed, explaining that the huge trade deal is vital for the European Union at a time of increasingly assertive behavior by China and the United States. “Mercosur very much reflects our ambition to play a strategic role in trade, to confirm that we are the biggest trader on this planet.” The commissioner’s remarks come as time is running short to hold a vote among member countries that would allow Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Brazil on Dec. 20 for a signing ceremony with the Mercosur countries — Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. “The last miles are always the most difficult,” Šefčovič added. “But I really hope that we can do it this week because I understand the anxiety on the side of our Latin American partners.”  The vote in the Council of the EU, the bloc’s intergovernmental branch, has still to be scheduled. To pass, it would need to win the support of a qualified majority of 15 member countries representing 65 percent of the bloc’s population. It’s not clear whether France — the EU country most strongly opposed to the deal — can muster a blocking minority. If Paris loses, it would be the first time the EU has concluded a big trade deal against the wishes of a major founding member. France, on Sunday evening, called for the vote to be postponed, widening a rift within the bloc over the controversial pact that has been under negotiation for more than 25 years. Several pro-deal countries warn that the holdup risks killing the trade deal, concerned that further stalling it could embolden opposition in the European Parliament or complicate next steps when Paraguay, which is skeptical toward the agreement, takes over the presidency of the Mercosur bloc from current holder Brazil. Asked whether Brussels had a Plan B if the vote does not take place on time, Šefčovič declined to speculate. He instead put the focus on a separate vote on Tuesday in the European Parliament on additional farm market safeguards proposed by the Commission to address French concerns. “There are still expectations on how much we can advance with some of the measures which are not yet approved, particularly in the European Parliament,” he stressed.  “If you look at the safeguard regulation, we never did anything like this before. It’s the first [time] ever. It’s, I would say, very, very far reaching.” 

BRUSSELS — The French government called on Sunday to postpone a crucial vote by countries on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement, widening a rift within the bloc over the controversial pact. “France is asking for the December deadlines to be pushed back so we can keep working and get the legitimate protections our European agriculture needs,” the office of Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said Sunday evening. The statement confirmed a POLITICO report on Thursday that Paris was pushing for a delay. It comes within sight of the finish line for the European Union to finally close the agreement with Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay that has been in negotiations for over 25 years and would create a common market of over 700 million people. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU, has vowed to hold the vote in time for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Brazil on Dec. 20 to sign the deal. Several countries warn that the holdup risks ultimately killing the trade deal, concerned that further stalling it could embolden opposition in the European Parliament or complicate next steps when Paraguay, which is skeptical toward the agreement, takes over the presidency of the Mercosur bloc from current holder Brazil. Pro-deal countries, including Germany, Sweden and Spain, argue that France’s concerns have already been accommodated, pointing to proposed additional safeguards designed to protect European farmers in the event of a surge in Latin American beef or poultry imports. But with those safeguards still not finalized, France says it still can’t back the deal, wary that it could enrage the country’s politically powerful farming community. Brussels also announced this month it was planning to strengthen its border controls on food, animal and plant imports. “These advances are still incomplete and must be finalized and implemented in an operational, robust and effective manner in order to produce and appreciate their full effects,” Lecornu’s office said. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU, has vowed to hold the vote in time for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Brazil on Dec. 20 to sign the deal. | Wagner Meier/Getty Images Despite Denmark’s resolve to hold the vote in time, final talks among EU member countries may not be wrapped up before a summit of European leaders on Thursday and Friday this week. A big farmers’ protest is planned in Brussels on Thursday. The Commission declined to comment.

BRUSSELS — Denmark is holding the line and pressing ahead with plans to schedule a crucial vote of EU ambassadors on the EU-Mercosur trade deal next week, in a tug-of-war splitting countries across the bloc. “In the planning of the Danish presidency, the intention is to have the vote on the Mercosur agreement next week to enable the Commission President to sign the agreement in Brazil on Dec. 20,” an official with the Danish presidency of the Council of the EU told POLITICO. This is the first official confirmation from Copenhagen that it will go ahead with scheduling the vote over the deal with the Latin American countries in the coming days, despite warnings from France, Poland and Italy that the texts as they stand would not garner their support.  This risks leaving the Danish presidency of the Council short of the supermajority needed to get the deal over the line. Under EU rules, this would require the support of a “qualified” majority of EU member countries — meaning 15 of the bloc’s 27 members representing 65 percent of its population. The outcome of the vote will determine whether European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen can fly, as is now planned, to Brazil on Dec. 20 for a signing ceremony with her Mercosur counterparts. France however has been playing for time in an effort to delay its approval of the accord, which has been more than 25 years in the making — a strategy several diplomats warn could ultimately kill the trade deal.  They cite fears that further stalling could embolden opposition in the European Parliament or complicate the next steps when Paraguay, which is more skeptical of the agreement, takes over the presidency of the Mercosur bloc. “If we can’t agree on Mercosur, we don’t need to talk about European sovereignty anymore. We will make ourselves geopolitically irrelevant,” said a senior EU diplomat. European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, are expected to descend on Brussels on Thursday for a high-stakes EU summit. While not formally on the agenda, the trade deal with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay is expected to loom large. A farmers demonstration is also expected in Brussels on the same day.  Countries backing the deal, including Germany and Sweden, argue that France has already been accommodated, pointing to proposed additional safeguards designed to protect European farmers in the event of a surge in Latin American beef or poultry imports. The instrument, which still requires validation by EU institutions, was a proposal from the Commission to placate Poland and France, whose influential farming constituencies worry they would be undercut by Latin American beef or poultry.  The texts submitted for the upcoming vote were published last week and include a temporary strengthened safeguard, committing to closely monitor market disruptions — one of the key conditions for Paris to back the deal.

BRUSSELS — France is playing for time over a crucial vote on the EU’s trade mega deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc, three EU diplomats told POLITICO, in a strategy that one warned could kill the long-awaited accord.  With U.S. President Donald Trump having slammed Europe as “weak” and “decaying,” the European Commission is racing to prove otherwise — by rushing before Christmas to lock in the trade deal with Mercosur, which groups Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Now, just over a week before Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hopes to fly to Brazil for a signing ceremony, France is raising the alarm that its longstanding demands haven’t been met. Paris warns it won’t be able to support the pact in a looming vote by member countries, suggesting it be held in January instead, according to the diplomats.  That could leave the Danish presidency of the Council short of the supermajority needed to get the deal over the line. Under EU rules this would require the support of a “qualified” majority of EU member countries — meaning 15 of the bloc’s 27 member countries representing 65 percent of its population. The French government reiterated on Thursday that it wasn’t satisfied with the agreement and that its final decision will depend on the progress made toward its demands.  “France is a big agricultural power, we defend our agricultural interests very firmly in these negotiations … We continue working on this agreement, which is not acceptable as it stands on the day I am speaking to you,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Pascal Confavreux told POLITICO. Confavreux declined to say when asked whether France was pushing to delay the vote to January. A senior EU diplomat warned that the long-awaited trade deal — which has been a quarter century in the making and would create a common market of over 700 million people — would not survive another delay.  “If [von der Leyen] does not sign it, if we do not allow her to sign it on the 20th, it’s dead,” said the diplomat, who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. “And then we really need to think about whether that’s where we want to be in the world.”  COALITION OF THE UNWILLING Ireland, which remains one of the more skeptical countries due to its large farming constituency, said Thursday it was “working with like-minded countries” on its position on the agreement — referring to a so-called coalition of the unwilling that has varied over time and included countries like Poland and Austria.  “The key question now is whether a blocking minority still exists. And I think the jury is still a little out on that,” said Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris. The stalling tactics will infuriate pro-Mercosur nations led by Germany, which argue that the French have already been accommodated, including by the proposal of additional safeguards to protect European farmers in case Latin American beef or poultry flood EU markets.  Paris is adamant that its three core conditions — the inclusion of “mirror clauses,” stronger sanitary controls, and the agricultural safeguards — have still not been met.  A separate plenary vote still needs to be held in the European Parliament this coming Tuesday on the farm safeguards. The chamber’s trade committee last week approved compromise amendments to tighten the protections. Yet a late flood of new amendments could complicate matters just two days before EU leaders are due to hold their year-end summit in Brussels. A diplomat from one Mercosur country said the signing date was still on: “We are still talking about Dec. 20.”  “Nobody has abandoned that yet,” said the diplomat, who was also granted anonymity to discuss the extremely sensitive matter.  Bloomberg first reported on the delay.  Giovanna Faggionato and Kathryn Carlson contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump pardoned North Carolina turkeys Gobble and Waddle on Tuesday from the possibility of being roasted in beef tallow — or the more traditional basting. But he also made sure to tout the drop in turkey prices ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday, as his administration seeks to convince voters that it’s making progress on bread and butter issues. “Our country is doing really well economically, like we’ve never done before,” he said during wide-ranging remarks in the newly-redone White House Rose Garden. He claimed that turkey prices are down 33 percent, but it’s not clear what USDA statistic he was referencing. Trump’s comments on affordability come as his party struggles to win over voters amid rising costs of living — a mirror image of the dilemma former President Joe Biden faced in 2024. Key voters who swung for Trump last year reversed course in the off-year elections earlier this month. The White House has previously pointed to an estimate from the Farm Bureau that states the cost of the Thanksgiving meal is down 5 percent from 2024 and retail turkey prices are down 16 percent. But the more complicated reality is that food costs remain well-above what consumers can recall in recent memory. A new poll from POLITICO and Public First found that groceries were still voters’ top affordability concern, above housing and health care costs. At Tuesday’s event, Trump praised Republicans’ domestic tax and spending package, his administration’s immigration crackdown and moves to send the National Guard into cities, including the capital, to tackle crime. “We actually put four years — actually probably eight or 10 years — but we put four years worth of material into one great, big, beautiful bill,” he told the audience, which included Vice President JD Vance and several Cabinet secretaries, from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. He also ran through some attacks on his Democratic rivals. Trump said Biden’s turkey pardons last year “are totally invalid” because they were done with the autopen, which Trump has accused his predecessor of wielding illegally. “The turkeys known as Peach and Blossom last year have been located, and they were on their way to be processed, in other words, to be killed, but I have stopped that journey, and I am officially pardoning them, and they will not be served for Thanksgiving dinner,” he said. “We saved them in the nick of time.” He added that the pardoned turkeys almost went by different names — Chuck, as in the Senate minority leader, and Nancy, as in the former House speaker — but “I would never pardon those two.” Rollins was responsible for selecting Waddle and Gobble from a farm in the Tar Heel state earlier this week. Before the pardon, Waddle, weighing in at 50 pounds, gave the press a preview of his plumage when he strutted into the White House briefing room Tuesday morning. The two birds are some of the largest turkeys presented for the presidential pardon, which dates back to 1947 under former President Harry Truman. Trump said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. formally certified the pair as the first ever “Make America Healthy Again” turkeys. “They’ve been fattened on a steady diet of grass[-fed] beef, to allow the smoothies and all of the other things that they’ve been eating for this occasion. This was a really big occasion, but they’ve eaten every factory food that you can eat,” the president said.

BRUSSELS — The EU Parliament is set to fast-track a vote on one of the final hurdles in front of the trade agreement with the Latin American Mercosur bloc, three parliament officials told POLITICO. The rushed timeline comes as lawmakers come under massive political pressure to finalize legislative work over the additional instrument in time for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Brazil on Dec. 20 to sign the long-awaited accord. The “cows for cars” deal, which has been in the works for a quarter century, would create a free-trade area spanning nearly 800 million people. In Europe, resistance to the accord has melted under pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff offensive — along with the pledge from Brussels to implement safeguards to protect European farmers from cheaper South American competition. Once the Parliament’s trade committee approves proposed safeguards, which could happen by Monday, the plenary will vote on the issue as soon as Tuesday on whether to submit them to an urgent procedure. And if a majority of lawmakers approve the accelerated procedure, the safeguards are expected to be put to a vote on Thursday, the officials explained, on condition of anonymity Under the safeguards, proposed forward in October, the European Commission would commit to closely monitor imports of sensitive farm products such as beef, poultry and sugar. This was perceived as an olive branch to assuage concerns from countries skeptical towards the massive trade deal, such as France and Poland. The safeguards are set to be approved on Wednesday by the Council of the EU. After that, EU institutions would need to rubber-stamp legislative work on the instrument, which was a key condition for France and others to support the overall agreement at a vote in the coming days. In another crucial decision, the Conference of Presidents is expected Wednesday to reject a motion for a resolution requesting a court opinion on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement. A large group of European lawmakers — counting between 140 and 150 MEPs — proposed a motion last week to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union to assess whether the accord with the Mercosur trade bloc is compatible with the European treaties. The Conference of Presidents, chaired by Roberta Metsola of the European People’s Party and composed of all political group leaders, will reject the motion on the grounds that it’s not up to the Parliament to weigh on the texts yet, one of the officials said, as the Council of the EU still needs to vote on the pact. The motion, if it had gone through, would have derailed efforts to get the long-awaited trade deal with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay over the finish line in time for the deal to be signed this year. The text of the motion, supported by lawmakers from the EPP, Socialists and Democrats, Renew, the Greens and The Left group, seeks a legal opinion on a rebalancing mechanism baked into the deal. This provision, a first in EU trade agreements, foresees that either party can seek redress if it considers the other party has introduced a measure that “nullifies or substantially impairs” the benefits of the deal. This story has been updated.

BRUSSELS — A large group of European lawmakers is joining forces in a bid to derail efforts to get a long-awaited trade deal with Latin American countries over the finish line.  The group — counting more than 100 MEPs — plans to propose a motion on Friday calling  for a resolution to ask the Court of Justice of the EU to assess whether the accord with the Mercosur trade bloc is compatible with the European treaties. Should the resolution be adopted at the European Parliament’s next plenary session, from Nov. 24 to 27, it risks thwarting the European Commission’s bid to sign the deal before Christmas to create one of the largest free-trade areas in the world. Mercosur groups Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. The text would show that “it is still possible to work constructively across our groups,” said Belgian Green MEP Saskia Bricmont.  “Beyond the sometimes divergent views on the pros and cons of the agreement with Mercosur, we must ensure that it is fully compatible with our European treaties,” she told POLITICO.  If a majority of lawmakers supports the resolution, the Parliament would then have to wait until the court issues its opinion before it can vote to approve the agreement. That would risk delaying the process as judicial proceedings in Luxembourg are typically lengthy.  Should the Court issue an opinion against the legality of the agreement, this would put the EU executive in an impossible spot, given how divisive the issue is across the bloc. While it might not crash the whole deal, any required amendments could easily delay the process by a year. The lawmakers — spanning the EPP, S&D, Renew, the Greens and the Left group — want the Court of Justice to issue an opinion on a rebalancing mechanism baked into the deal. This provision, a first in EU trade agreements, foresees that either party can seek redress in the form of tariffs or quotas if they consider the other party has introduced a measure that “nullifies or substantially impairs” the benefits of the deal. The MEPs also want the court to rule on the legal basis for splitting the deal’s trade and partnership sections. Such splits have been introduced to ensure that the main trade provisions can go through a streamlined ratification process that only requires the approval of the European Parliament — but not national or regional parliaments. In addition, the lawmakers want the court to review whether the EU-Mercosur deal is compatible with the EU’s right to apply the so-called precautionary principle, fearing that it could weaken or override this principle when the EU tries to act on environmental or health risks. The principle foresees preventive action in the face of foreseeable environmental harms. The signatories mostly come from countries that have traditionally opposed the behemoth deal — such as Poland, France, Belgium and Ireland.  The EPP, the biggest group in the European Parliament, is represented by its Polish and French members, such as Krzysztof Hetman, Marta Wcisło and François-Xavier Bellamy, among others. Other MEPs include Renew’s Pascal Canfin and S&D’s Raphaël Glucksmann, as well as the Greens’ Majdouline Sbaï.  The Parliament is also set to decide next week which of the trade and agriculture committees will lead work on the Commission’s proposal to introduce safeguards in case a surge of imports of sensitive agricultural produce hurts European markets.  Camille Gijs and Antonia Zimmermann reported from Brussels, and Judith Chetrit from Paris. Max Griera Andreu and Koen Verhelst contributed to this report. 

OTTAWA — It all started with an avian flu outbreak last winter on a small British Columbia ostrich farm. The beleaguered flock’s brush with disaster has now spiraled into a national standoff over science and personal freedoms. And it’s one that extends beyond Canada, as top Trump administration health officials have become personally involved. After the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ordered the owners of Universal Ostrich Farms to kill more than 300 birds last year, they refused, sparking a legal and political battle that on Thursday will reach Canada’s Supreme Court. It is a winding, only-in-the-Trump-era political saga that involves a New York City grocery magnate, a celebrity doctor turned agency head and the lightning rod American ambassador to Canada. And the 10-month fight over the flock has evolved into a wider debate about government overreach, institutional trust and the international rules that guide Canada’s trade policies. “We’re not criminals, we’re farmers,” Katie Pasitney, who co-owns Universal Ostrich Farms, recently told reporters. “We’re doing nothing wrong.” In the U.S., she has rallied allies like Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who agree. Like her, Kennedy and members of his Make America Healthy Again movement believe the order to kill the birds amounts to government overreach based on outdated policies. Kennedy says the Canadians should study the birds rather than kill them to understand why some birds survive the flu. The controversy has stirred up debate across Canada’s political landscape. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, caught between his populist base and party moderates, is under pressure to defend the birds — a dilemma exposing fractures in his support ahead of a 2026 leadership review. Prime Minister Mark Carney has so far managed to dodge the issue as his government faces calls to be more transparent and retest the birds. Lawmakers from across party lines told POLITICO the issue resonates with constituents from British Columbia to Ontario. “We should not have been able to garner more attention and more support internationally from the Trump administration than our own government,” Pasitney said. THE OSTRICHES Last December, after receiving an anonymous tip, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency showed up at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, British Columbia, to test the flock. When two ostriches tested positive for avian flu, the agency ordered the entire flock culled. Court documents show that 69 birds died in December and January after the agency declared an outbreak. Over 300 birds survived, but the CFIA ordered them destroyed under Canada’s “stamping-out” policy — a measure aligned with the policies of the World Health Organization, the U.N.’s health agency, designed to help prevent viral spread among animals and people while maintaining trade stability. The farm owners objected vociferously, but they weren’t the only ones. “We understand the importance of containing the bird flu and the important role that agency plays. What’s hard to watch is a lack of discretion and ability to evaluate case-by-case scenarios,” British Columbia Premier David Eby told CBC in May. Universal Ostrich Farms has bred the birds since the mid-1990s. At first they raised them for slaughter, but in recent years they began using the ostrich eggs for research. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the farmers began collaborating with researchers in Japan and Boston studying antibodies from the eggs. The farm argues its ostriches that survived the avian flu outbreak have developed herd immunity to H5N1 and that their eggs hold scientific insight into the illness. But the CFIA disputes that claim. “Through a thorough review of scientific peer-reviewed literature, no evidence was found that a particular ostrich flock would be superior to other ostrich flocks for antibody production,” the CFIA said in a statement in May. The farm is seeking an exemption to save its ostriches, but the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal have upheld the decision. On Sept. 22, the CFIA took control of the ostrich enclosure — a first for Canada, even though it has plenty of experience killing birds: More than 14 million commercial and backyard birds have been culled in recent years, including more than 8.7 million in British Columbia. For now, the ostriches remain alive … behind police tape. THE MAHA MOVEMENT South of the border in the United States, the birds have attracted an unlikely patron. Although New York billionaire John Catsimatidis is best known as a business owner, GOP megadonor and outspoken talk show host, Pasitney knew he was also an animal lover. Earlier this year, she called into his WABC radio station, hoping to catch his attention, and told him and Curtis Sliwa, the recently defeated GOP candidate for New York City mayor, on “Sid & Friends in the Morning” that “the Canadian government wants our farm killed off of two tests.” The farmer’s gambit worked. Not only is Catsimatidis now bankrolling the Universal Ostrich Farms’ legal battle against the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, but he also has recruited members of the Trump administration to the fight, including Kennedy and Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Kennedy and his “Make America Healthy Again” movement have a natural ally in the Canadian farmers. Both distrust the World Health Organization and allege that pharmaceutical companies are shaping government decisions, including around vaccines. President Donald Trump said he would withdraw the U.S. from the WHO on his first day in office, accusing it of mishandling the Covid pandemic. The withdrawal takes effect in January. In May, Kennedy pulled $590 million in funding for pharmaceutical company Moderna that the Biden administration had granted in January to help develop vaccines against potential pandemic flu viruses, such as bird flu, arguing mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses. The same month, Kennedy met with the CFIA asking it to spare the birds by collaborating with U.S. health agencies on a long-term study, arguing the flock could offer valuable scientific insight into H5N1 immunity. Oz even offered the birds sanctuary at his Florida ranch, a request that U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra said has been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Catsimatidis said he also mentioned the ostriches to Trump. “I spoke to President Trump about it, too. He knows about it,” Catsimatidis told POLITICO in July. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment. Catsimatidis, along with those in the MAHA movement and many backers of the ostrich crusade, are skeptical of mRNA vaccines, often advocating for natural therapies as an alternative. “Maybe some of the drug companies, the pharmaceutical companies, probably hate Secretary Kennedy for setting them straight,” Catsimatidis said. “Maybe they don’t want cures.” The CFIA says there’s “no linkage to the application of the stamping out policy at the ostrich farm and the availability of human avian influenza vaccines.” DANIELLE SMITH AND DOUG FORD In Canada, some of the country’s top conservative leaders have realized the fight over the birds is bigger than just one flock. As in the United States, the movement against established public health practices has become an important political constituency to be wooed. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith of the United Conservative Party asked her agriculture minister how the province would handle a similar outbreak. “If we can find a better way than doing mass culls in situations like this, I think it’s probably worth it to try to find a better way to do it,” Smith said in July. Protesters have shown up at the offices of Conservative MPs in Alberta, and some MPs tell POLITICO they hear about the ostriches often from constituents. “This case has really taken on a lot of public sentiment behind it,” Smith said. Ontario Premier Doug Ford, a self-proclaimed animal lover and member of the Progressive Conservative Party, wants the ostriches spared too. Ford previously praised Catsimatidis’ commitment to animal protection, noting that he “puts his money where his mouth is.” “Anything John needs, I’m always there to support him,” Ford said. Both premiers maintain a relationship with Catsimatidis unrelated to the flock. His Red Apple Group conglomerate, which includes energy businesses, purchases oil from Alberta, and Ford frequently appears on Catsimatidis’ radio show. PIERRE POILIEVRE Not all conservative politicians have waded into the fray — and it’s costing them. Pierre Poilievre’s grip on his Conservative Party is showing strain as he faces pressure to speak up in favor of the birds. So far, the usually outspoken leader has avoided saying the word “ostrich” altogether. “This is just another example of total Liberal incompetence,” Poilievre has said when asked about the culling. Poilievre, who must win over Liberal voters to become the next prime minister, is focused on broader issues like cost of living, crime and inflation. But during the Covid-19 pandemic he aligned himself with the “Freedom Convoy” demonstration — which opposed pandemic measures and vaccines — that blockaded downtown Ottawa for three weeks and halted almost C$4 billion in Canada-U.S. trade. The movement continues to oppose government overreach, with organizer Tamara Lich backing the birds and hosting benefit concerts for the ostriches. Convoy-aligned supporters are noticing Poilievre’s silence. Conservative influencers who promoted Poilievre’s run for prime minister in the April election — and who have stood by him since — are now calling him out and blaming his inner circle for giving him bad advice. “Pierre please read the room. It’s honestly so painful to watch you fumble these easy layups,” one wrote on social media in September. “Can you please use your voice to speak up for Canadians?” another said. “The [British Columbia] Ostrich standoff is a grave injustice.” Poilievre risks losing support from his base, including those who support the MAHA movement, if he backs the cull. But if he speaks out against the cull, the Liberals could paint him as flouting public health and hurting Canadian trade. By criticizing the health agency, he sticks with his brand of attacking federal bureaucracy. Next January, Poilievre will face a scheduled leadership review. The Liberals’ prospects are tied to his future. Many Liberal MPs hope Poilievre will stick around given that he’s unpopular with their constituents. MARK CARNEY Prime Minister Mark Carney has not touched the issue publicly. The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment on the ostriches, or to say if Trump has brought up the birds during their meetings. “No comment,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement. He ignored a written request that Kennedy, Oz and Catsimatidis sent in July, offering “to stand with you in a joint public statement that highlights cross-border compassion and thoughtful decision making.” Canadian Health Minister Marjorie Michel has the authority to direct the CFIA to call off the cull, but she has also remained silent, even after Green Party Leader Elizabeth May asked her to retest the birds. When asked by POLITICO on two separate occasions, Michel’s office said she won’t be commenting on the ostriches. Last month, with tensions growing between protesters and national police outside the B.C. farm, Canada’s Supreme Court granted an interim hold on the culling. It will decide on Thursday whether to hear the case. If it rejects it, the culling order stands — and the ostriches will be killed.

KYIV — The drone struck just after sunrise. Oleksandr Hordiienko, a 58-year-old farmer from Ukraine’s southern Kherson region, was driving across his war-scarred fields when the Russian munition slammed into his car. At his funeral in Odesa in early September, mourners called him “the farmer with a shotgun,” a defiant hero who resisted occupation for three years. He cleared thousands of mines from the 1,000 hectares his cooperative shared with a dozen other farmers and patrolled the skies with a Turkish shotgun and jerry-rigged electronics to protect his workers from drones. For Ukraine’s farmers, his death symbolized the resilience of the men and women who continue to produce grain, milk and potatoes under fire. For Europe it was a reminder that the “Ukrainian farmer” is not just an agribusiness boss controlling vast swathes of land, but also includes men like Hordiienko, fighting to protect their land with a shotgun. Across the EU, such nuance is often lost. Hostility to Ukraine’s mega farms and their ability to drown Europe in highly competitive exports has often shifted the bloc’s politics against Kyiv, despite the war. Ukraine’s vast expanses of highly fertile “black earth” have long made it the “breadbasket of Europe” — something many in the EU see as a threat. In Poland, farmers’ border blockades over Ukrainian grain imports have soured public opinion on Kyiv’s war efforts. In Hungary, ministers have cast Ukraine’s accession to the bloc as a threat to EU farm subsidies, warning that money meant for European farmers risks being siphoned away. And in France, President Emmanuel Macron moved last year to join Poland in pushing for tighter quotas on Ukrainian cereals to appease his own restive farmers. Behind all of this looms the image of Ukrainian farm giants and oligarch-owned holdings — MHP, Kernel, UkrLandFarming — that are big enough to rival the agri powerhouses of Brazil or Argentina. These few dozen companies dominate Ukraine’s exports and have become the face of the country’s agriculture in Europe, looming as an existential threat at the border. The reality on the ground in Ukraine is more complex, and includes tens of thousands of smaller commercial farms and millions of households who have kept the country fed throughout the war. LEAVING WAS NOT AN OPTION Akhmil Alkhadzhi, whose father came from Syria, runs a family company that cultivates 3,500 hectares. In Europe that would be a mega-farm; in Ukraine, it’s considered middling. He built it from scratch, starting with just 20 hectares in the 1990s and expanding steadily with his wife. When Russia invaded, wheat prices collapsed to $70 a ton from $250 to $300 before the war, and sunflower seeds plunged to barely $110 per ton from about $600 to $650. To keep the business alive, Alkhadzhi sold his apartment abroad. “We stayed without an apartment, but with a business,” he said. He employs 60 workers — “that’s 300 or 400 lives depending on us.” Hostility to Ukraine’s mega farms and their ability to drown Europe in highly competitive exports has often shifted the bloc’s politics against Kyiv, despite the war. | Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images The war was only part of the challenge. Droughts have cut his wheat yields from 6 or 7 tons to just 2 tons per hectare, and with banks demanding interest rates of over 20 percent he has had to improvise, renting low-till machinery to conserve water before scraping together enough to upgrade. Climate change is pushing him toward sustainability choices even without EU rules.  Yet leaving was never an option. “Three days before the war, my family said if Russians come close, we will go. But when it started, no one left. We stayed. We were more needed here.” CHAMPAGNE AND COMBINE HARVESTERS A day before Hordiienko’s death, Alkhadzhi found himself among the guests at a very different kind of gathering. At an elite yacht club on the southern edge of Kyiv, prosecco sprayed from a fountain as a live band played pop classics. European diplomats mingled with Ukrainian ministry officials and the owners of some of the country’s largest farms. This was a reception hosted by UCAB, Ukraine’s biggest agribusiness lobby, providing a gilded day of meaty dishes, strong spirits and relentless networking. The spectacle was as much about politics as farming, a show of survival, clout and ambition after three years of war. Even Ukraine’s agri barons have been battered, losing swathes of leased land and infrastructure to occupation and bombardment. Yet they remain global players, with balance sheets and export volumes big enough to compete on world markets. What many farmers in Poland or France fear is the scale of these companies and the possibility that Ukrainian grain or poultry could undercut them. Anton Zhemerdeev, a brisk, fresh-faced manager at TAS Agro, shrugged when asked about those fears. His company controls 80,000 hectares across five Ukrainian regions — a number so outlandish in EU terms that it borders on science fiction. The average European farm is just 17 hectares. “Eighty thousand hectares is big, yes,” he said with a grin, “but we don’t sell everything to Europe.” Much of TAS Agro’s grain heads to Asia and the Middle East. The EU, he argued, is just one market among many. But unlike Asia, it is also a political one, with borders that can slam shut overnight and quotas that shift with the political winds.  When Poland closed its border in 2023, Ukraine’s harvest was redirected to the Romanian port of Constanța instead. “Poland missed the chance to modernize. Romania took it,” he said, referring to investments in ports and railways that captured the trade. Another producer at the yacht club, Ihor Shyliuk, whose Cygnet Agrocompany runs 30,000 hectares and a sugar factory in western Ukraine, fumed at the European Commission’s tight quotas. Serbia, he noted, enjoys bigger export allowances to the EU than does Ukraine, even though it’s a fraction of its size. “Why is our sugar quota smaller than Moldova’s?” he also asked. “Politics, not economics.” Those quotas are due to improve under a deal struck between the Commission and Kyiv over the summer, though Shyliuk remained skeptical, arguing that politics will continue to outweigh economics in the EU’s farm trade. The presence of these giants and medium-sized players is exactly what makes Ukraine’s EU bid so sensitive. In Poland, farmers’ border blockades over Ukrainian grain imports have soured public opinion on Kyiv’s war efforts. | Andriy Andriyenko/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Kyiv formally applied for EU membership days after Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, and has since begun accession talks that promise to be lengthy and fraught. Agriculture looms especially large because farm products are one of Ukraine’s biggest exports and trade in them is already a contentious issue, pitting Kyiv against the EU’s powerful farm lobbies and the national governments that back them. OVERLOOKED MILLIONS Step away from the yacht club and the massive combine harvesters, however, and yet another Ukraine comes into view. Alongside Ukraine’s farm giants are tens of thousands of registered family farms, typically 50–100 hectares in size, selling into domestic markets and anchoring local rural economies. Nearly 4 million households also work the land, cultivating over 6 million hectares. Many tend only a hectare or two, but together they produce 95 percent of the country’s potatoes, 85 percent of its vegetables, 80 percent of its fruit and berries and three-quarters of its milk. Together, these farms and plots are the backbone of Ukraine’s food security, yet they are often invisible in the debate. During the war, many families have relied almost entirely on their own milk, potatoes and chickens. For some, farming is not just a business, but a lifeline. That lopsided map of Ukraine’s agriculture — comprising towering agriholdings at one end and millions of smaller farms and household plots at the other— was drawn long before the war. It’s the legacy of Soviet collectivization and the land reforms that followed, a process that left families with small parcels and allowed companies to lease and consolidate those remnants into today’s sprawling estates. The top 10 holdings each control hundreds of thousands of hectares. But without the smallholders, Ukraine’s villages would have starved long ago. The debate in Brussels often overlooks this complexity, even if the fears of European farmers about the overall size of Ukraine are not unfounded. Ukraine’s largest farms operate on a scale incomprehensible in Europe, with vertical integration and global reach. Their land runs into the hundreds of thousands of hectares. They can produce wheat cheaper than anyone in the EU. Corruption scandals have fed suspicions, from ministers accused of seizing state land to regional officials caught taking bribes for quarantine certificates. But the fixation on oligarchs obscures a more complicated reality. The debate in Brussels reduces Ukraine to a threat — vast, deregulated, and impossible to absorb without crushing EU farmers. Yet for every holding with a yacht club cocktail reception, there are thousands of family farms adapting to EU rules, millions of households growing potatoes in backyards, and many farmers like Hordiienko, fighting and dying in the fields. The war has also nudged Ukraine’s farm economy to adapt. With ports under attack and borders often restricted, producers are putting more focus on processed goods such as sunflower oil, poultry and sugar, which already make up nearly half of agri-food exports. For Zhemerdeev of TAS Agro, even 80,000 hectares is just one part of a bigger picture. What matters, he insisted, is that Ukraine’s fields are not just symbols of geopolitical competition. They are home to people — some rich, some struggling, some heroic — all bound by the same stubborn conviction: “The land is worth fighting for.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has told Mercosur countries that it will propose an internal workaround to satisfy the demands of France, Poland and Italy to better protect their farmers in a landmark trade deal with the South American bloc, two senior Mercosur diplomats told POLITICO.  These safeguard measures would remain internally on the EU side, the Commission told its Mercosur counterparts on Tuesday, meaning that both sides would not have to renegotiate the long-awaited accord, the diplomats said.  Brussels will on Wednesday release the texts of its trade agreement with the Latin American trade bloc as it seeks to close the controversial deal that has been under negotiation for a quarter of a century. It will also adopt the text of an upgrade to the EU’s existing trade deal with Mexico. The EU executive is banking that skeptical governments will have been persuaded by U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policies to swing round behind the deal with Mercosur — which groups Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — to broaden their trading relationships. French President Emmanuel Macron has fought a rearguard action against the accord, channeling the concerns of farmers over a potential glut of cheap beef and poultry from Brazil and Argentina. Poland and Italy have also voiced concerns, but Macron still appears to lack the votes in the Council of the EU, the bloc’s intergovernmental arm, to block the accord. Seeking to address the French concerns, Brussels in June floated the idea of a side declaration that would not require talks with Mercosur to be reopened, POLITICO reported at the time.  French President Emmanuel Macron has fought a rearguard action against the accord, channeling the concerns of farmers over a potential glut of cheap beef and poultry from Brazil and Argentina. | Guillaume Horcajuelo/EPA As expected, the agreement will be split between its trade and political sections in order to fast-track its implementation, said the Mercosur diplomats, who were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door discussions. This would avoid lengthy ratification by the EU’s numerous national (and even sometimes regional) parliaments. While the approval of the trade elements only requires the blessing of a qualified majority of 15 of the EU’s 27 member countries, the political part of the agreement, which touches on national competences such as investments, requires unanimity.