President Donald Trump rose to power on his immigration agenda. Now, it’s threatening to box him in. After months of aggressive enforcement actions meant to telegraph strength on one of the Republican Party’s signature issues, the White House has had to backtrack in the face of Americans’ backlash to its approach — particularly after two protesters were killed by federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis. But the calculus that forced the Trump administration to change course is a double-edged sword: If the administration appears to ease up on its maximalist stance against illegal immigration, it risks leaving its hardcore MAGA base disenchanted at a moment when Republicans can’t afford to lose support. And if it doesn’t, it risks alienating moderate Republicans, independents, young voters and Latinos who support the administration’s immigration enforcement in theory but dislike how it’s being executed. “I worry because if we lose the agenda, we’re done — and people don’t fully appreciate how big of an issue this is,” said Sean Spicer, Trump’s former press secretary. “When you have a two-seat majority in the House or a two- or three-seat majority in the Senate, you’re on a razor’s edge. To not acknowledge that is ridiculous.” For Trump, a midterms rout means the last two years of his administration will be eaten up by Democratic stonewalling, investigations and likely impeachment inquiries, rather than his own agenda — a situation the administration desperately wants to avoid. The result is a rare moment of vulnerability on Trump’s strongest issue, one that has exposed fault lines inside the Republican Party, sharpened Democratic attacks, and forced the White House into a defensive crouch it never expected to take. Some Trump allies insist the GOP shouldn’t be scared of their best issue, blaming Democrats for putting them on the back foot. “This has been President Trump’s area of greatest success,” said Trump pollster John McLaughlin. “You’re looking at the Republicans be defensive on something they shouldn’t be defensive about.” A recent POLITICO poll underscores the administration’s delicate balancing act: 1 in 5 voters who backed the president in 2024 say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, and more than 1 in 3 Trump voters say that while they support the goals of his mass deportation campaign, they disapprove of the way he is implementing it. The administration this week struggled to manage the political fallout from demonstrator Alex Pretti’s killing, where even typically loyal Republicans criticized the president and others called for the ousting of his top officials, namely Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The White House softened its hardline rhetoric, and Trump shifted his personnel in charge of Minneapolis operations, sending border czar Tom Homan to the state to deescalate tensions on the ground. A subdued Homan told reporters Thursday that he had “productive” conversations with state and local Democrats and that federal agents’ operations would be more targeted moving forward. He vowed to stick by the administration’s mission, but said he hopes to reduce Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence in the city if federal officials get access to state jails. The president “doesn’t want to be dealing with clashes between protesters and federal agents on the ground in Minnesota,” said one person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If Trump was more invested in the outcome of this, he would have sent in the National Guard. He would declare martial law. He would be more aggressive.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, in a statement, said that the administration is always looking for “the most effective way” to implement what it sees as a mandate from voters to carry out mass deportations. “Our focus remains the same: prioritizing violent criminal illegal aliens while also enforcing the law — anyone who is in the country illegally is eligible to be deported,” she said, adding that includes “the President’s continued calls for local Democrat leaders to work with the Administration to remove illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from their communities.” Some Trump allies, fearful the aggressive tactics will isolate crucial swing voters in November, have argued that Republicans have to keep the focus on criminal arrests, public safety and the Trump administration’s success in securing the southern border, which are more popular with voters across the board. But immigration hawks in the Republican Party have grown increasingly apoplectic over the administration’s moves this week, including an apparent openness to compromise with Democrats on policies to boost the oversight of federal immigration officers. They argue the administration is paying too much attention to cable news coverage and donor anxiety and not enough to the voters who propelled Trump back into office. “The upshot of the lame duck second Trump term was supposed to be that he was going to get things done regardless of the pressure from consultants, pollsters and left-wing Republicans. That doesn’t seem to be happening and it’s disappointing,” said Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, a conservative group. “I’m dumbfounded that CNN coverage seems to have more influence over the White House’s immigration enforcement agenda than the base that stood by Trump through everything over the last decade.” Even so, some of the more hardline elements of the president’s base acknowledge that the splashy optics of the administration’s immigration enforcement actions have introduced a vulnerability. “The big muscular show of force — you invite too much confrontation,” said a second person close to the White House, also granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Let’s try to be quieter about it but deport just as many people. Be a little sneakier. Don’t have the flexing and the machismo part of it. There’s a certain element of that that’s cool but as much as we can, why can’t we be stealthy and pop up all over Minnesota?” “We were almost provoking the reaction,” the person added. “I’m all for the smartest tactics as long as the end result is as many deportations as possible.” But the person warned that any perception of backtracking could depress a base already uneasy about the economy. “Our base is generally not wealthy and they’re not doing well,” the person said. “They’re struggling. If you take away immigration — if they don’t believe he means it — holy cow, that’s not good.”

ZAGREB — German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Friday poured cold water on a suggestion by Manfred Weber, leader of the center-right European People’s Party, that a joint European army could play a role in postwar peacekeeping in Ukraine. Weber has made a number of striking proposals in recent weeks to project greater EU power on the international stage. In addition to soldiers operating under a “European flag” in Ukraine, he has called for one overall European leader — merging the jobs of European Council president and European Commission president. Speaking at an informal EPP summit in Zagreb, Croatia, Merz welcomed Weber’s attempts to revamp the EU but said these ideas did not represent immediate solutions to Europe’s problems.  “We must focus on the tasks at hand right now,” Merz replied, when asked about Weber’s initiatives. The chancellor added he had no problem with “us repeatedly asking institutional questions” on making Europe more powerful and united, and stressed that “these are questions that need to be discussed again and again.” However, Merz showed little appetite for getting bogged down in the sweeping European reforms that Weber’s proposals could require. “Achieving treaty changes in this European Union of 27 is a rather difficult task,’ the chancellor said. “I advocate that we first and foremost concentrate on the tasks that are now on the table.” He said those were improving defense capabilities and the continent’s flagging industrial competitiveness. While Merz was cool on Weber’s proposals about a European army, his government has still to decide on its commitment to German peacekeepers in Ukraine. While Berlin is not as forward as Britain and France in raising the possibility of providing peacekeepers, Merz has insisted: “We are not ruling anything out in principle.“ Germany also stresses it is already acting as a regional security guarantor on the Russian border, with nearly 5,000 troops posted to Lithuania, and through air policing missions across Eastern Europe. When asked about Merz’s skepticism about his proposals, Weber said: “We are in dialogue. We are in discussion.”

The Chinese hoped President Donald Trump’s push for Greenland would help them peel Europe away from America. The Finns were desperate to prevent a trade war over the island. And Iceland was furious over a suggestion that it’s next on Trump’s target list — the “52nd state.” A batch of State Department cables obtained by POLITICO expose the deep reverberations of the president’s demands for Greenland as foreign officials vented their frustrations this month with American counterparts. The messages, which have not been previously reported, offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the thinking of allies and adversaries about the impact of Trump’s would-be land grab. They highlight a new point of tension in a transatlantic relationship already strained by Russia’s war in Ukraine, fights over tariffs and U.S. criticism of European policies. And they come just as Trump discusses a framework deal that stops short of allowing the U.S. to own Greenland, but which could expand U.S. military and mining activity in the Danish territory. The cables — perhaps most critically — underscore how important the U.S. remains to so many countries in Europe, even if Trump’s behavior is pushing that continent’s leaders to the edge. “Let’s not get a divorce,” Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said, according to one cable, “especially not a messy one.” A cable from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing on Jan. 21 suggests the Chinese government is eager to benefit from Trump’s moves against Greenland. The situation “offers China an opportunity to benefit from European hedging” and could “amplify trans-Atlantic frictions,” U.S. diplomats wrote in laying out the thinking in China. But the cable, which cites media and analysts affiliated with the ruling Chinese Communist Party, also notes that Chinese leadership was aware that a larger U.S. military footprint in Greenland could complicate their goals in the Arctic and “consolidate U.S. military and infrastructure advantages.” Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu didn’t address the content of the cable directly, but said any Chinese actions were in line with international law. “China’s activities in the Arctic are aimed at promoting the peace, stability and sustainable development of the region,” Liu said. Another cable, dated Jan. 20 from the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki, outlined the concern in the Finland foreign minister’s office over Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on European countries that had sent military advisers to Greenland to plan troop exercises. Valtonen came across as eager to calm tensions. She told visiting U.S. lawmakers that the arrival of a few soldiers in Greenland was a “misunderstanding,” according to the cable. Finland had no plans to do anything “against the Americans” and the officers — “a couple of guys” — were already back in Finland, she said. She downplayed European Union threats to retaliate over the threatened tariffs, calling it a negotiating tactic, and said she’d push the EU to “do anything to prevent a trade war.” The Finnish government did not respond to a request for comment. When asked about the cables, the State Department referred to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s testimony on Wednesday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He noted that talks between the U.S., Denmark and Greenland have started, and “will be a regular process,” though he didn’t offer any detail. “We’ve got a little bit of work to do, but I think we’re going to wind up in a good place,” he said. “And I think you’ll hear the same from our colleagues in Europe very shortly.” There was also drama in Iceland after Trump’s nominee for ambassador to that country, Billy Long, joked that Iceland could become the “52nd state” — presumably once Greenland became the 51st — and he would act as governor. Iceland’s Permanent Secretary of State Martin Eyjólfsson summoned U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Erin Sawyer to demand a high-level U.S. apology and tell her that such talk “has no place in international discourse,” according to a Jan. 23 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavík to Washington. Sawyer told him making Iceland a state was not U.S. policy, according to the cable, and pointed out that Long had apologized for the comments. There was no indication Sawyer delivered a high-level apology from the U.S. government as Iceland had requested. The Icelandic Embassy did not respond to a request for comment. Trump last week walked back months of threats about taking Greenland by force and launching a trade war against NATO allies over the issue. He and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte reached a “framework of a future deal” on Greenland at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump announced. The proposals Rutte and Trump have discussed include three main elements. One would allow the U.S. to have full sovereignty over its bases in Greenland, along the lines of Britain’s basing rights in Cyprus, according to a European diplomat and another person familiar with the planning. The U.S. would also be allowed to establish more bases, although Denmark would get a veto over where on the Arctic island, according to the person. They, like others interviewed, were granted anonymity to discuss internal planning. The framework includes the possibility of integrating Trump’s Golden Dome defense shield into plans for a framework as well as a NATO mission focused on the Arctic. The proposal would also give the U.S. first right of refusal on natural resource extraction projects. It’s not clear how long it will take to hash out details or bring Greenland and Denmark on board. Both insist that, whatever happens, they will not compromise on sovereignty. Despite that confident rhetoric, Trump’s threats about Greenland have posed an existential threat for NATO, which rarely sees such intra-alliance feuding. Rutte has moved fast in search of a compromise. He has used NATO’s machinery to his advantage, capitalizing on Europe’s eagerness to keep the alliance together to lobby allies in favor of stepping up work on Arctic security. Rutte was “persistent,” one senior NATO diplomat said. The NATO leader, armed with concrete options he could offer Trump, sought to align national positions. As the crisis escalated, he spent “many days” in calls with national security advisers and leaders, including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Britain’s Keir Starmer and Trump, according to a person familiar with the calls. His efforts led to the session in Davos, which Trump described as “very productive,” and appeared to defuse a potential NATO eruption. But European officials remain worried about the diplomatic situation and uncertain of what Trump seeks. “What we need right now in NATO is unity,” a European official said, “And what the United States is doing is a huge mistake by raising this Greenland topic.” Nette Nöstlinger in Berlin contributed to this report.

BERLIN — German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned that Europe will not withstand a new era of rising great-power imperialism unless it embraces the logic of hard power. “We will only be able to implement our ideas in the world, at least in part, if we ourselves learn to speak the language of power politics, if we ourselves become a European power,” Merz said Thursday during a speech in Germany’s federal parliament. Merz’s comments build on a speech the chancellor gave last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos in which he warned of a “radically changing” U.S. and “a new world of great powers being built on power, on strength, and when it comes to it, on force.” Merz said Thursday that Europe must embrace the logic of hard military and economic power in order to preserve Europe as a force for democracy in the world. “We are, in fact, a normative alternative to imperialism and autocracy in the world,” Merz said. “We have something to offer our partners around the world, both economically and, above all, in terms of our ideals.” Merz also joined other European leaders in condemning U.S. President Donald Trump’s comment last week that NATO allies had stayed “a little off the front lines” during the war in Afghanistan, a statement that sparked outrage in Europe’s capitals. During the nearly 20-year mission in Afghanistan, launched in response to the September 11 attacks on the U.S., 59 German soldiers lost their lives. “We will not allow this mission, which we also carried out in the interests of our ally, the United States of America, to be disparaged and belittled today,” Merz said to sustained applause. “I would like to say once again to our soldiers on duty and at their bases today that your service was and is valuable.” Given Germany’s ongoing dependence on U.S. military power for its own defense, Merz has been reluctant to openly criticize Trump even as he warns that Europe must prepare to go it alone as the U.S.-led global order crumbles. On Thursday, he urged the German public and European allies to seek to preserve the alliance with the U.S. to the degree possible. “We should not recklessly jeopardize established alliances,” Merz said. “The transatlantic alliance and transatlantic trust are still valuable in their own right today. For us in Germany, this is particularly true.” At the same time, Merz is pushing to make Germany more militarily independent of the U.S. Shortly after becoming chancellor last May, Merz vowed to take more responsibility for Europe’s defense by building the strongest conventional army in Europe.

BRUSSELS — The EU is closing in on adding Iran’s feared paramilitary forces to its list of terrorist organizations in response to a brutal crackdown on protests, after France dropped its opposition to the move. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could be added to the list if it secures support at a meeting of the bloc’s foreign affairs ministers in Brussels on Thursday, where they are set to impose other sanctions on the Iranian regime. If added to the list, the branch of the Iranian military would be in the same category as al Qaeda and Daesh. Several countries, including France and Italy, had opposed the move, arguing it would close the limited diplomatic channels with Tehran. However, France, which was the staunchest opponent of the terror designation, on Wednesday evening dropped its opposition, the Elysée Palace told POLITICO. Earlier, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said that “it is essential to combat the impunity of the perpetrators of this bloody repression.” Rome changed camps in the lead-up to the summit, citing the brutality of the Iranian crackdown, and Madrid now also supports the move, according to a statement shared with POLITICO by the Spanish foreign ministry. Designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terror group would require unanimous support from the EU’s 27 countries. The latest footage leaking out of Tehran of the brutal crackdown had crossed “a big line” for EU countries, said Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel, “so hopefully we will see some movement” on the Revolutionary Guard terror designation at Thursday’s meeting. “At least it will be something that’s on the table.” The exact number of those killed in the crackdown is difficult to confirm due to an internet blackout, but estimates start at around 6,000 and could be much higher, he said. Before dropping its opposition, Paris had cautioned that designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terror group may harm French interests and undercut the leverage it could use to try to rein in the theocratic government. For European countries with embassies in Tehran, one EU diplomat said, the Revolutionary Guard would be “among the main interlocutors” with the regime, so banning contact with its personnel would be difficult to manage. The diplomat was granted anonymity to speak freely. According to Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington, the Revolutionary Guard “is the state within the state.” He added: “They are integrated into the highest parts of the regime and involved in many of the things the West cares about; the nuclear program, the missiles, Iran’s regional activities.” One of the arguments against putting the Revolutionary Guard on the terror list was fear of potential reprisals. Iran has repeatedly used a strategy of arresting Europeans to use as bargaining chips in international diplomacy, including former EU official Johan Floderus, who was released from the notorious Evin Prison in 2024. Paris has secured the release from Evin of two of its nationals — Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris — who are now under house arrest at the French Embassy in Tehran. “We need to send a strong signal,” van Weel said. The Revolutionary Guard “is the glue and the backbone holding this regime together, directing most of the violence, being in charge of most of the economic activity, whilst the rest of the country is in poverty, so I think it’s a key enabler of the atrocities that we’ve seen happening not only in Iran but also in the region,” he added. Separately, ministers meeting Thursday are expected to approve asset freezes and visa bans on 21 Iranian individuals and entities over the human rights violations, and a further 10 over Tehran’s supply of weapons to Russia for its war on Ukraine. The U.S. designated the Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization in 2019 and has repeatedly pressed the EU to follow suit. U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned “time is running out” for the regime and that a “massive Armada” was “moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose” toward the country. “Like with Venezuela, it is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary,” Trump said, referring to the U.S. operation to capture Nicolás Maduro. He added that he hoped Tehran would “Come to the Table” to negotiate a deal to abandon its nuclear weapon ambitions. Clea Caulcutt contributed to this article.

President Donald Trump amped up pressure on Iran on Wednesday, highlighting a “massive Armada” recently deployed to the region to force Tehran to the bargaining table over a deal that would end its nuclear weapons program. The president’s social media post is the latest show of force in the international arena for a White House emboldened by a successful military operation in Caracas, Venezuela. “It is a larger fleet, headed by the great Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln, than that sent to Venezuela,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Like with Venezuela, it is, ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.” The president has taken a hard line on Iran — whose leadership has been rocked by nationwide protests in recent weeks — since returning to the White House last year. In June, Trump authorized strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an operation dubbed “Midnight Hammer,” later claiming that he had “obliterated” the country’s nuclear program. In recent weeks, the president has advocated for “new leadership” in Iran and threatened to use force when the regime responded with violence to the protests. But experts caution that Trump may have fewer viable military options than in Venezuela, where American forces captured authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro from his bedroom and flew him to the U.S. to face narco-trafficking charges. “Hopefully Iran will quickly ‘Come to the Table’ and negotiate a fair and equitable deal – NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS – one that is good for all parties,” he said. “Time is running out, it is truly of the essence! As I told Iran once before, MAKE A DEAL! They didn’t, and there was ‘Operation Midnight Hammer,’ a major destruction of Iran.” “The next attack will be far worse!,” he continued. “Don’t make that happen again.” Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations linked Trump’s threat to previous American incursions in the Middle East. “Last time the U.S. blundered into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it squandered over $7 trillion and lost more than 7,000 American lives,” the mission wrote on X. “Iran stands ready for dialogue based on mutual respect and interests—BUT IF PUSHED, IT WILL DEFEND ITSELF AND RESPOND LIKE NEVER BEFORE!”

LONDON — British ministers have been laying the ground for Keir Starmer’s handshake with Xi Jinping in Beijing this week ever since Labour came to power. In a series of behind-closed-door speeches in China and London, obtained by POLITICO, ministers have sought to persuade Chinese and British officials, academics and businesses that rebuilding the trade and investment relationship is essential — even as economic security threats loom. After a “Golden Era” in relations trumpeted by Tory Prime Minister David Cameron, Britain’s once-close ties to the Asian superpower began to unravel in the late 2010s. By 2019, Boris Johnson had frozen trade and investment talks after a Beijing-led crackdown on Hong Kong’s democracy movement. At Donald Trump’s insistence, Britain stripped Chinese telecoms giant Huawei from its telecoms infrastructure over security concerns. Starmer — who is expected to meet Xi on a high-stakes trip to Beijing this week — set out to revive an economic relationship that had hit the rocks. The extent of the reset undertaken by the PM’s cabinet is revealed in the series of speeches by ministers instrumental to his China policy over the past year, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, and former Indo-Pacific, investment, city and trade ministers. Months before security officials completed an audit of Britain’s exposure to Chinese interference last June, ministers were pushing for closer collaboration between the two nations on energy and financial systems, and the eight sectors of Labour’s industrial strategy. “Six of those eight sectors have national security implications,” said a senior industry representative, granted anonymity to speak freely about their interactions with government. “When you speak to [the trade department] they frame China as an opportunity. When you speak to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, it’s a national security risk.”  While Starmer’s reset with China isn’t misguided, “I think we’ve got to be much more hard headed about where we permit Chinese investment into the economy in the future,” said Labour MP Liam Byrne, chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee. Lawmakers on his committee are “just not convinced that the investment strategy that is unfolding between the U.K. and China is strong enough for the future and increased coercion risks,” he said. As Trump’s tariffs bite, Beijing’s trade surplus is booming and “we’ve got to be realistic that China is likely to double down on its Made in China approach and target its export surplus at the U.K.,” Byrne said. China is the U.K.’s fifth-largest trade partner, and data to June of last year show U.K. exports to China dropping 10.4 percent year-on-year while imports rose 4.3 percent. “That’s got the real potential to flood our markets with goods that are full of Chinese subsidies, but it’s also got the potential to imperil key sectors of our economy, in particular the energy system,” Byrne warned. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “Since the election, the Government has been consistently transparent about our approach to China – which we are clear will be grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism. “We will cooperate where we can and challenge where we must, never compromising on our national security. We reject the old ‘hot and cold’ diplomacy that failed to protect our interests or support our growth.” While Zheng Zeguang’s speech was released online, the Foreign Office refused to provide Catherine West’s own address when requested at the time. | Jordan Pettitt/PA Images via Getty Images CATHERINE WEST, INDO-PACIFIC MINISTER, SEPTEMBER 2024 Starmer’s ministers began resetting relations in earnest on the evening of Sept. 25, 2024 at the luxury Peninsula Hotel in London’s Belgravia, where rooms go for £800 a night. Some 400 guests, including a combination of businesses, British government and Chinese embassy officials, gathered to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China — a milestone for Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule. “I am honored to be invited to join your celebration this evening,” then Indo-Pacific Minister Catherine West told the room, kicking off her keynote following a speech by China’s ambassador to the U.K., Zheng Zeguang.  “Over the last 75 years, China’s growth has been exponential; in fields like infrastructure, technology and innovation which have reverberated across the globe,” West said, according to a Foreign Office briefing containing the speech obtained through freedom of information law. “Both our countries have seen the benefits of deepening our trade and economic ties.”  While London and Beijing won’t always see eye-to-eye, “the U.K. will cooperate with China where we can. We recognise we will also compete in other areas — and challenge where we need to,” West told the room, including 10 journalists from Chinese media, including Xinhua, CGTN and China Daily. While Zheng’s speech was released online, the Foreign Office refused to provide West’s own address when requested at the time. Freedom of information officers later provided a redacted briefing “to protect information that would be likely to prejudice relations.” DAVID LAMMY, FOREIGN SECRETARY, OCTOBER 2024 As foreign secretary, David Lammy made his first official overseas visit in the job with a two-day trip to Beijing and Shanghai. He met Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on Oct. 18, a few weeks before U.S. President Donald Trump’s re-election. Britain and China’s top diplomats discussed climate change, trade and global foreign policy challenges. “I met with Director Wang Yi yesterday and raised market access issues with him directly,” Lammy told a roundtable of British businesses at Shanghai’s Regent On The Bund hotel the following morning, noting that he hoped greater dialogue between the two nations would break down trade barriers. “At the same time, I remain committed to protecting the U.K.’s national security,” Lammy said. “In most sectors of the economy, China brings opportunities through trade and investment, and this is where continued collaboration is of great importance to me,” he told firms. Freedom of information officers redacted portions of Lammy’s speech so it wouldn’t “prejudice relations” with China.  Later that evening, the then-foreign secretary gave a speech at the Jean Nouvel-designed Pudong Museum of Art to 200 business, education, arts and culture representatives. China is “the world’s biggest emitter” of CO2, Lammy told them in his prepared remarks obtained by freedom of information law. “But also the world’s biggest producer of renewable energy. This is a prime example of why I was keen to visit China this week. And why this government is committed to a long-term, strategic approach to relations.” Shanghai continues “to play a key role in trade and investment links with the rest of the world as well,” he said, pointing to the “single biggest” ever British investment in China: INEOS Group’s $800 million plastics plant in Zhejiang. “We welcome Chinese investment for clear mutual benefit the other way too,” Lammy said. “This is particularly the case in clean energy, where we are both already offshore wind powerhouses and the costs of rolling out more clean energy are falling rapidly.” “We welcome Chinese investment for clear mutual benefit the other way too,” David Lammy said. | Adam Vaughan/EPA POPPY GUSTAFSSON, INVESTMENT MINISTER, NOVEMBER 2024 Just days after Starmer and President Xi met for the first time at the G20 that November, Poppy Gustafsson, then the British investment minister, told a U.K.-China trade event at a luxury hotel on Mayfair’s Park Lane that “we want to open the door to more investment in our banking and insurance industries.” The event, co-hosted by the Bank of China UK and attended by Chinese Ambassador Zheng Zeguang and 400 guests, including the U.K. heads of several major China business and financial institutions, is considered the “main forum for U.K.-China business discussion,” according to a briefing package prepared for Gustafsson. “We want to see more green initiatives like Red Rock Renewables who are unlocking hundreds of megawatts in new capacity at wind farms off the coast of Scotland — boosting this Government’s mission to become a clean energy superpower by 2030,” Gustafsson told attendees, pointing to the project owned by China’s State Development and Investment Group. The number one objective for her speech, officials instructed the minister, was to “affirm the importance of engaging with China on trade and investment and cooperating on shared multilateral interests.” And she was told to “welcome Chinese investment which supports U.K. growth and the domestic industry through increased exports and wider investment across the economy and in the Industrial Strategy priority sectors.” The Chinese government published a readout of Gustafsson and Zheng’s remarks. RACHEL REEVES, CHANCELLOR, JANUARY 2025 By Jan. 11 last year, Chancellor Rachel Reeves was in Beijing with British financial and professional services giants like Abrdn, Standard Chartered, KPMG, the London Stock Exchange, Barclays and Bank of England boss Andrew Bailey in tow. She was there to meet with China’s Vice-Premier He Lifeng to reopen one of the key financial and investment talks with Beijing Boris Johnson froze in 2019. Before Reeves and He sat down for the China-U.K. Economic and Financial Dialogue, Britain’s chancellor delivered an address alongside the vice-premier to kick off a parallel summit for British and Chinese financial services firms, according to an agenda for the summit shared with POLITICO. Reeves was also due to attend a dinner the evening of the EFD and then joined a business delegation travelling to Shanghai where she held a series of roundtables. Releasing any of her remarks from these events through freedom of information law “would be likely to prejudice” relations with China, the Treasury said. “It is crucial that HM Treasury does not compromise the U.K.’s interests in China.” Reeves’ visit to China paved the way for the revival of a long-dormant series of high-level talks to line up trade and investment wins, including the China-U.K. Energy Dialogue in March and U.K.-China Joint Economic and Trade Commission (JETCO) last September. EMMA REYNOLDS, CITY MINISTER, MARCH 2025 “Growth is the U.K. government’s number one mission. It is the foundation of everything else we hope to achieve in the years ahead. We recognise that China will play a very important part in this,” Starmer’s then-City Minister Emma Reynolds told the closed-door U.K.-China Business Forum in central London early last March. Reeves’ restart of trade and investment talks “agreed a series of commitments that will deliver £600 million for British businesses,” Reynolds told the gathering, which included Chinese electric vehicle firm BYD, HSBC, Standard Chartered, KPMG and others. This would be achieved by “enhancing links between our financial markets,” she said. “As the world’s most connected international financial center and home to world-leading financial services firms, the City of London is the gateway of choice for Chinese financial institutions looking to expand their global reach,” Reynolds said. Ed Miliband traveled to Beijing in mid-March for the first China-U.K. Energy Dialogue since 2019. | Tolga Akmen/EPA ED MILIBAND, ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE SECRETARY, MARCH 2025 With Starmer’s Chinese reset in full swing, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband traveled to Beijing in mid-March for the first China-U.K. Energy Dialogue since 2019. Britain’s energy chief wouldn’t gloss over reports of human rights violations in China’s solar supply chain — on which the U.K. is deeply reliant for delivering its lofty renewables goals — when he met with China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang, a British government official said at the time. “We maybe agree to disagree on some things,” they said. But the U.K. faces “a clean energy imperative,” Miliband told students and professors during a lecture at Beijing’s elite Tsinghua University, which counts Xi Jinping and former Chinese President Hu Jintao as alumni. “The demands of energy security, affordability and sustainability now all point in the same direction: investing in clean energy at speed and at scale,” Miliband said, stressing the need for deeper U.K.-China collaboration as the U.K. government reaches towards “delivering a clean power system by 2030.”  “In the eight months since our government came to office we have been speeding ahead on offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen and [Carbon Capture, Usage, and Storage],” Britain’s energy chief said. “Renewables are now the cheapest form of power to build and operate — and of course, much of this reflects technological developments driven by what is happening here in China.”  “The U.K. and China share a recognition of the urgency of acting on the climate crisis in our own countries and accelerating this transition around the world — and we must work together to do so,” Miliband said, in his remarks obtained through freedom of information law. DOUGLAS ALEXANDER, ECONOMIC SECURITY MINISTER, APRIL 2025 During a trip to China in April last year, then-Trade Minister Douglas Alexander met his counterpart to prepare to relaunch key trade and investment talks. The trip wasn’t publicized by the U.K. side. According to a Chinese government readout, the China-UK Joint Economic and Trade Commission would promote “cooperation in trade and investment, and industrial and supply chains” between Britain’s trade secretary and his Chinese equivalent. After meeting Vice Minister and Deputy China International Trade Representative Ling Ji, Minister Alexander gave a speech at China’s largest consumer goods expo near the country’s southernmost point on the island province of Hainan. Alexander extended his “sincere thanks” to China’s Ministry of Commerce and the Hainan Provincial Government “for inviting the U.K. to be the country of honour at this year’s expo.” “We must speak often and candidly about areas of cooperation and, yes, of contention too, where there are issues on which we disagree,” the trade policy and economic security minister said, according to a redacted copy of his speech obtained under freedom of information law. “We are seeing joint ventures and collaboration between Chinese and U.K. firms on a whole host of different areas … in renewable energy, in consumer goods, and in banking and finance,” Alexander later told some of the 27 globally renowned British retailers, including Wedgwood, in another speech during the U.K. pavilion opening ceremony. “We are optimistic about the potential for deeper trade and investment cooperation — about the benefits this will bring to the businesses showcasing here, and those operating throughout China’s expansive market.”

President Donald Trump revoked Canada’s invitation to participate in his “Board of Peace” initiative, in the latest blow to the increasingly frosty relations between the North American neighbors. Trump said in a social media post on Thursday that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney would no longer be welcome on the board, which his administration initially created to oversee the end of the war in Gaza but has since said would have a broader mission. The president did not specify why he was withdrawing the invitation to Carney, but his social media post came after the prime minister raised concerns about the board and pushed back sharply at Trump’s remark that “Canada lives because of the United States” in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday. “Canada doesn’t live because of the United States. Canada thrives because we are Canadian,” Carney said earlier Thursday. The Canadian prime minister’s office had no immediate comment on Trump’s announcement. The withdrawn invitation deepens the fracture in the relationship between Trump and Carney, who stood with other NATO allies in opposition to the president’s campaign to wrest control of Greenland from Denmark. The two leaders appear to be working towards opposing geopolitical goals: Carney travelled to China to negotiate a trade deal as part of a mission of ramping up trade with non-U.S. partners to decrease reliance on its neighbor. The tension sets the table for a potentially tense review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement later this year. In announcing the U.S. plan for governance of Gaza, Trump said he expects over 50 countries to sign on to the plan. Some Middle Eastern nations, including Israel and the United Arab Emirates, have agreed to join the board. But many Western allies have yet to sign on, and France and the United Kingdom have said they will not participate in the plan. Yvette Cooper, the U.K.’s top diplomat, cited Trump’s invitation to Russian President Vladimir Putin as part of the reason the U.K. won’t sign on.

BRUSSELS ― There’s no turning back now. That was the message from European leaders who gathered in Brussels on Thursday. And even though this emergency summit, called in response to Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, turned into something far less dramatic because the U.S. president backed down 24 hours earlier, the quiet realization that Europe’s post-1945 rubicon had been crossed was, if anything, all the more striking for it. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the EU’s two most powerful leaders, who haven’t seen eye-to-eye of late, were united in warning that the transatlantic crisis had catapulted the bloc into a harsh new reality — one in which it must embrace independence. “We know we have to work as an independent Europe,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters at the end of the five-hour gathering. And while, in contrast to recent EU summits, there was no tub-thumping or quarrels or even any decisions to be made, the gathering quietly signaled a tacit understanding, according to four EU diplomats and one official with knowledge of the leaders’ discussion, that there’s a fateful break between the old order and the new, the way the West has functioned since World War II and whatever lies ahead. While the mental shift toward independence has been gestating for years ― ever since Trump first moved into the White House in 2017 ― his unprecedented threats to Greenland acted as a sudden warning, forcing them to take steps that would have been unthinkable even just a few months ago, they said. All the officials interviewed for this article were granted anonymity to enable them to speak freely about the summit, which was held in private. “This is the Rubicon moment,” said an EU diplomat from an eastern flank country, with knowledge of the leaders’ discussions. “It’s shock therapy. Europe cannot go back to the way it was before. They [the leaders] have been saying this for days.” What that new way would look like is — as usual — a conversation for another day. But there have been hints at it this week. The initial response from EU leaders to the Greenland crisis — suspending an EU-U.S. trade agreement, sending troops to Greenland, threatening to deploy sweeping trade retaliation against the U.S. — served as a taste of what might come. EVERYTHING, ALL AT ONCE Between them, and then in public, leaders underscored that the speedy, unified response this month couldn’t be a one-off. Instead, it would need to define the bloc’s approach to just about everything “It cannot be energy security or defense, it cannot be economic strength or trade dependence, it has to be everything, all at once,” one of the diplomats said. France’s President Emmanuel Macron arrives for the summit. France is no longer an outlier in advocating for “strategic autonomy” for Europe. | Olivier Matthys/ EPA A key feature of Europe’s newfound quest for independence is a degree of unity that has long eluded the bloc. For countries on the bloc’s eastern flank, their location in the path of an expansionist Russia has long underpinned a quasi-religious belief in NATO ― in which a reliable U.S. had the biggest military and guaranteed the defense of all other members ― and its ability to deter Moscow. A sense of existential reliance on the U.S. has kept these countries firmly in Washington’s camp, leading to disagreements with countries further west, like France, that advocate “strategic autonomy” for Europe. Now, France isn’t the outlier. Even countries directly exposed to Russia’s expansionism are showing willingness to get on board with the independence push. Estonia is a case in point. The tiny Baltic country said last week it would consider deploying troops to Greenland as part of a “scoping mission” organized by NATO. Tallinn didn’t end up sending any soldiers — but the mere fact that it raised the possibility was remarkable. “When Europe is not divided, when we stand together, and when we are clear and strong, also in our willingness to stand up for ourselves, then results will show,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said. “I think we have learned something in the last days and weeks.” Poland, one of the staunchest U.S. backers, also stepped out of its traditional comfort zone. In discussions about how to respond, Prime Minister Donald Tusk has signaled openness to deploying the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument — a powerful trade retaliation tool that allows for limiting investments from threatening nations, according to the diplomats. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk speaks to the media as he arrives for the summit. Even Poland, one of the staunchers backers of the U.S., has stepped out of its comfort zone. | Olivier Matthys/EPA “We always respected and accepted American leadership,” Tusk said. “But what we need today in our politics is trust and respect among our partners here, not domination and not coercion. It doesn’t work.” LEARNING THE LESSON A similar realization is taking hold in Europe’s free-trading northern countries.  While nations like Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have historically opposed any move that risks imperiling their trading relationship with the U.S., those countries also signaled openness to retaliation against Trump. “This is a new era where we’re not going to rely on them anymore,” said a fourth EU diplomat. “At least not for three years,” while Trump is still in office. “This [Greenland crisis] was a test. We’ve learned the lesson.” Even Germany, whose political culture has been defined for decades by faith in the transatlantic relationship, is questioning old assumptions. Merz has hinted that Germany could be onboard with a tough trade response against the U.S. While EU diplomats and officials credited those moves with helping to change Trump’s mind on his tariff threats, they warned that further tough choices were now in order. “We need to own our agenda,” added the fourth diplomat. “Ukraine, productivity, competitiveness, security, strategic autonomy. The lesson is not to say no to everything.” Tim Ross, Zoya Sheftalovich, Seb Starcevic, Victor Jack, Nette Nöstlinger, Ferdinand Knapp, Jacopo Barigazzi, Carlo Martuscelli, Ben Munster, Camille Gijs, Gerardo Fortuna, Jakob Weizman, Bartosz Brzeziński, Gabriel Gavin and Giedre Peseckyte contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS ― EU leaders reckon Donald Trump’s about-turn on Greenland happened because they stuck together. And while they’re not claiming victory just yet, they believe there are clear lessons to be learned after several years where splits and rivalry have dominated the bloc. “When Europe is not divided, when we stand together and when we are clear and strong, also in our willingness to stand up for ourselves, then the results will show,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told reporters as she arrived for Thursday’s summit in Brussels. “We have learned something during the last couple of days and weeks.” Brussels exhaled on Wednesday after Trump announced he was backing away from threats of imposing tariffs on countries that sent troops to Greenland, touting a “framework” agreement struck with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte for resolving the crisis. While the fine print of that deal — including whether it respects Denmark’s demand to retain full sovereignty of the island — isn’t yet clear, the situation showed the EU can be effective when it advances in lockstep, shows its ability to strike back and is willing to take clear steps like sending troops to reinforce Arctic security in the Danish-held territory, according to two EU diplomats and two senior EU officials. They spoke to POLITICO having been granted anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions. “The fact that after those threats were made the EU coordinated very quickly, and reacted very quickly, reacted in a firm and calm way, with principled positions that were clear — this is certainly something that must be taken into account in terms of the reaction that followed,” said a senior EU official. “”We have learned something during the last couple of days and weeks,” said Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images The EU is drawing on months of experience of dealing with the Trump administration, most notably last summer when it came to deciding whether to sign a U.S.-EU trade deal, a senior diplomat said. Before the signing, EU leaders publicly diverged for weeks over how they should respond to Trump’s threat of sky-high tariffs. While the leaders weren’t completely in agreement over Trump’s Greenland threats, the fact that France and Germany quickly agreed on preparing the use of the so-called Anti-Coercion Instrument against the U.S., a powerful trade retaliation tool, showed the bloc was now more decisive in its response. “The debate we had in June-July helped us prepare. There is now a maturity in how the EU prepares and executes,” said the senior diplomat. The decision by eight European countries to send troops to Greenland, on a NATO-led “scoping mission” to bolster Arctic security, also helped to solidify the EU’s position, said former French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal. “My understanding is that when we speak the language of strength, we manage to push back against certain ambitions,” Attal told France Info radio on Thursday. “This only validates the idea that in a world that is all about power, we need to show that we can bite.” THE NEW PLAYBOOK In the hours after Trump’s huddle with Rutte in Davos, European diplomats were eager to underscore that a confluence of factors likely influenced Trump to take the military option for Greenland off the table, and that it remained to be seen what exactly motivated his thinking Even European diplomats acknowledge it wasn’t all the EU’s doing. Nor do they claim to know Trump’s thinking. They pointed to U.S. public opinion being skeptical about a Greenland takeover, pressure from U.S. lawmakers unwilling to approve such a move and volatility in markets as all possible factors.  But they underscored that, from the European side, there is now a clearer process for protecting EU interests. A key element is reaching out to U.S. lawmakers and business executives to convince that a transatlantic blow-up — or even, as Frederiksen suggested, the death of NATO — would not be in their interest. “Europe has every reason to act with confidence,” Austrian Chancellor Christian Stocker said during his way into Thursday’s summit. Another factor is the EU’s willingness to signal the readiness to retaliate. Diplomats pointed to European Parliament leaders pushing to delay approval of the EU-U.S. trade deal as evidence of institutions that are working together more quickly. Rhetoric counts too, they said, pointing to French President Emmanuel Macron’s support for the Anti-Coercion Instrument and a speech from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen vowing an “unflinching” response. “The conclusion we can draw is that when Europe responds in a united way, using the tools at its disposal … it can command respect,” Macron said on his way into the summit. “And that is a good thing.”