BRUSSELS — The European Union and Canada have agreed a framework to invest more European money in Canadian critical minerals, as part of a broader agreement to boost raw material and energy trade between the two jurisdictions.

The EU confirmed Friday it had concluded negotiations that would “facilitate European investments in critical Canadian resources, in particular in critical raw materials,” following talks between senior EU officials and the Canadian government in Montreal. The investments would be made through the European Investment Bank, the EU’s lending arm.

The two jurisdictions will also carry out a “long-term feasibility study” on exporting Canadian liquified natural gas to Europe. Canada is rich in gas but currently doesn’t have infrastructure to liquefy and export it from its east coast.

The commitments are part of a much broader effort to deepen the relationship between the EU and Canada, who see themselves as likeminded democracies in a world that is increasingly pulling away from the international rules-based order that has dominated since World War II.

“[W]e will accelerate collaboration to support investment in critical raw materials projects, both in Canada and in the EU, along the value chain, including extraction, processing, refining, manufacturing and recycling activities,” the EU and Canada said in a joint statement.

They also said they would “explore cooperation opportunities on raw materials projects in third countries identified as projects of common interest.”

The joint statement, which aims to build “an even closer association between Canada and the EU,” also covered security, trade, tech and artificial intelligence, competition policy, financial services and cultural exchange.

MONTREAL — Canada embraced the European Union’s offer of “associate membership” after a two-day summit at which Brussels and Ottawa gave themselves until next June to work out what their new relationship will look like.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s endorsement of the proposal by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen followed weeks of hesitation, a hostile response from U.S. President Donald Trump and pushback from EU heavyweight Germany.

“In the coming months, we will determine the full substance, scale, and scope of this new form of membership,” Carney told a press conference on Friday at the end of the two-day summit at the Port of Montreal. 

“Today, we move towards associate membership for Canada,” Carney said, describing it as “the deepest possible partnership short of accession.”

The two sides have set a June 2027 deadline to determine the terms and boundaries of their intensifying relationship — an alliance that comes with a payment schedule. Carney danced around a question pressing him on how much associate membership will cost the Canadian public.

“We don’t view this as paying, personally,” Carney said, stressing the alliance as a “positive” project.

Von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, standing either side of Carney, presented the experiment as a necessary survival strategy to thrive in an increasingly dangerous world.

“The concept of an associate member is uncharted territory but we have the ambition, trust and creativity to shape it together,” Von der Leyen told reporters. “To be crystal clear, this is not a partnership against anybody, but for our common strength.”

Canadian government officials who spoke to reporters after the press conference confirmed legislation won’t be necessary to legitimize Canada’s EU associate membership status.

“Our relationship is so special that we want to create something new — to go beyond a simple association, everything short of a full EU membership,” said Costa, pitching a new model for non-European countries to integrate more closely with the bloc. “Our association will be the closest, deepest and most unique of its kind.”

Irritants persist

Despite the upbeat rhetoric, some longstanding trade disputes remained unresolved after the summit.

Carney told reporters the two sides had reached an agreement on carveouts from a landmark EU anti-deforestation law, but Canadian government officials subsequently walked back his assertion.

The issue remains part of ongoing trade discussions, one official said, noting progress in addressing what Canada views as flaws in the legislation. The officials were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic and trade negotiations.

Another irritant has been whether Canada would qualify for “Made in Europe” status under the EU’s Industrial Accelerator Act, a landmark measure that would seek to channel public procurement spending in sectors ranging from green energy to automotive toward locally produced goods. 

Von der Leyen said the regulation proposed earlier this year by the Commission foresaw including Canada as a free-trade partner, but added that it was now subject to review by EU lawmakers and governments.

“The Industrial Accelerator Act has been proposed by the Commission to include all countries with whom we have free-trade agreements. So automatically Canada would be in,” she said in response to a question. 

“Of course now the proposal has to go through the co-legislative process. But our proposal is very clear in including Canada.”

Despite months of preparations, the summit itself was chaotic, with agenda details confirmed at short notice and bilateral meetings split between two locations. The informal arrangements were intended to encourage more face time between EU commissioners and Canadian ministers, who are set to see much more of each other.

Canadian ministers have been invited to attend more meetings with their EU counterparts as part of a plan to deepen political alignment. Recent participation by Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand and International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu in informal EU meetings has served as a trial run.

Carney himself is expected in Dublin in two weeks, having accepted Costa’s invitation to join an informal European Council meeting.

PARIS — France’s economy shrunk by 0.1% in the third quarter of 2026, according to fresh estimates from national statistics agency Insee, pushing the country closer to recession and further complicating the government’s efforts to stave off a debt-driven financial crisis.

Economy and Finance Minister Roland Lescure said Friday that this summer’s extreme heat and spiking energy prices were responsible for the negative growth.

In an interview with Franceinfo, he said the new figures give added urgency for lawmakers to pass the 2027 budget proposed by the government, which aims to bring the deficit down to 5% of gross domestic product next year with €43 billion in savings.

“If we don’t have the budget adjustment we put in the budget, we will hit the wall,” Lescure said.

But France’s fragmented parliament failed to pass budgets before the new year in both 2024 and 2025, and the spring 2027 presidential election may further complicate efforts to seek compromise this time around. That could force Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu to push through the budget using a constitutional backdoor that bypasses a parliamentary vote, but it would expose the minority government to potential motions of no confidence.

Lescure insisted that adopting a budget for next year was key to “reassure markets” and relaunch growth in the last quarter of the year. The French economy contracted by 0.1% in the first quarter of 2026 and recorded no growth in the three months that followed.

That anemic growth will likely complicate the government’s pledge to bring the deficit down to 5.4% of GDP this year, as the target was based on the assumption the economy would grow by 0.5% in 2026.

“The French economy is at a standstill,” Lescure said. “It has to restart.”

LONDON — Britain’s government runs on numbers — but what if they’re a shot in the dark?

From tepid economic growth to squeezed household incomes, this week’s budget from Chancellor John Healey was packed with grim figures about the state of play in the U.K. — and a host of costly measures to try and turn things around.

Yet it’s almost certain that the budget forecasts Healey relied upon Wednesday will be revised by the time the next fiscal event rolls around.

In this week’s episode of the Westminster Insider podcast, POLITICO unpacked the numbers that govern the U.K. — and found out just how many doubts there are about the information the country relies on.

1. True levels of immigration

Few issues divide Brits like immigration — but grappling with hard data on the issue has proven to be a repeated challenge to governments of all stripes.

For decades, immigration into the U.K. was calculated by the International Passenger Survey (IPS) — essentially people with clipboards at airports, train stations and ports asking people about their intention to stay in the U.K.

But between 2012 and 2020, the number of European Union nationals coming into the country was off by 76% — or 93,000 people a year. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) only discovered this error after trialing a new approach to counting immigration that focused less heavily on the IPS, which was dropped altogether in 2025.

The ONS now uses this new measurement — relying on a combination of Home Office data, information from the Department for Work and Pensions and tax receipts.

But this was again wrong in the year to June 2023 — by 234,000 people.

The original numbers published by the ONS in November 2023 said net migration to the U.K. was 672,000. A year later, the ONS admitted there had been a mistake and said it was in fact 906,000.

Laura Gilbert, who ran data science in No. 10 Downing Street until last year, told POLITICO that net migration numbers are often incredibly misleading — and even the way we calculate those numbers is “highly spurious.”

Gilbert says the quality of the numbers on immigration normally improves months later, sometimes by “quite a lot.” But she warned, “if politicians are making a decision based on exact numbers, often they are using the first number that comes out, which is the worst one.”

2. The scale of unemployment

Healey and Prime Minister Andy Burnham have vowed to get welfare spending down “but in a Labour way.” Much of this will rest on getting young people into work, the subject of a 217-page report by Tony Blair-era minister Alan Milburn.

But Britain’s workforce — and the number of young people out of work — is counted by the Labour Force Survey (LFS), an ONS measurement beset with issues.

For example, between 2019 and 2024, the LFS missed 1 million workers because people with full-time jobs are less likely to answer the phone to surveyors during the week, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) admitted just this week that the survey is too unreliable to measure productivity. “In recent years, falling response rates have significantly affected the quality of the LFS, making it more difficult to estimate reliably the number of workers and the hours they work,” the watchdog said.

Gilbert says Healey’s claim that there are “1 million young people out of work” is unlikely to be accurate.

The number of NEETs — people not in education, employment or training — is also based on figures from a subset of the LFS, which is particularly susceptible to inaccuracies.

“I think being within 50,000 on either side of that number is very unlikely to be the sort of level of accuracy that you’re at,” Gilbert said. “It’s entirely spurious, if I’m completely honest, but it’s a big number, you write it down, and everyone reads the papers.”

Ben Warner, who set up 10DS, Downing Street’s data science unit, says the LFS can’t accurately measure the number of entrepreneurs arriving in the country, either, making it difficult for ministers to know if decisions — such as a much-hyped tax relief for founders — are actually encouraging people to come to the U.K.

“I’m willing to bet you a hundred quid [we don’t have accurate numbers] at the level that you would need to make thoughtful policy around this,” Warner said. “I am sure there are people who have very, very good knowledge of the economic statistics. But if you’re a minister, you don’t necessarily have access.”

3. Where inflation and GDP sit

These are hugely important measures for a government: Are costs rising for households — and is the British economy growing?

But buried inside this week’s budget assessment by the OBR was a startling admission: There is a one in five chance inflation in 2027 will come in at over 4.5% … and the same chance it will be under 2.5%. They are profoundly different outcomes for the cost of living, a top political issue.

Warner told POLITICO, “The whole thing is mental. We are discussing the uncertainty of the numbers and pretending that these are real.”

Gilbert says there are knock-on effects at play: problems with net migration numbers and workforce data bleed into inflation and GDP projections.

“Understanding migration tells us about the demographics of the country, and when we look at how many people are in work, and that is wildly undercounted, it looks like there are more people who are unemployed, which has a knock-on effect on GDP and inflation,” she explained.

4. The number of kids on free school meals

The number of pupils in England on free school meals is just over 2.2 million, according to government statistics from the start of this year. That’s more than a quarter of all children in the country.

But Gilbert warns that these numbers are likely to be overestimated because schools “game the system” when census data is collected. “So for anyone who has children in school they may have received a text message that says don’t send them to school with a packed lunch — because the schools get funding based on how many children are on school meals,” she said.

5. The number of rough sleepers on the streets

One of Burnham’s flagship promises when he became prime minister was to end homelessness in the U.K., and Wednesday’s budget put £432 million towards precisely that promise.

Yet the way rough sleepers are counted in the U.K. varies according to each council, with some areas relying on an estimate and others on a street count — sending workers out to physically count the number of people on the streets on a particular day in autumn.

Some councils have swapped between methods — which can make it look as though they have dramatically reduced their rough sleepers from one year to the next.

For example, in 2017 Brighton and Hove Council used an estimate of rough sleepers which put that number at 176. The following year, the council used a street count — but this took place on a snowy night, so the number fell to 68.

This made it appear as though the number of people experiencing homelessness had been more than halved.

BRUSSELS — The European Union should ready its Anti-Coercion Instrument, otherwise known as its “trade bazooka,” for use against Washington over its push to raise EU drug prices, Belgium’s deputy prime minister has said.

Frank Vandenbroucke, who also serves as the country’s health minister, issued the call in a position paper published Thursday by the Egmont Institute think tank, co-authored with his deputy head of cabinet Gloria Ghéquière.

He also said the EU should be ready to suspend the tariff concessions it granted to Washington under the Turnberry trade deal from August 2025 if the U.S. imposes additional duties on European goods.

The Trump administration has been pressuring European governments to pay more for medicines under its “most-favored-nation” policy as it seeks to bring American drug prices into line with those in other wealthy countries.

Washington argues that Americans are unfairly shouldering the costs of pharmaceutical research and development, while Europeans reap the benefits.

The MFN policy ties American drug prices to the lowest prices charged in a basket of wealthy countries, including France, Germany and Italy. The U.S. has already concluded MFN pricing agreements with 26 pharma companies, which have agreed to benchmark the prices of drugs supplied to the U.S. Medicaid program.

The intended effect is for drugs manufacturers to either increase prices in third countries, to lower their U.S. prices, or both.

Washington is also ramping up pressure on individual member countries to pay more for their drugs. In June, the U.S. launched a so-called Section 301 investigation into Germany’s alleged “persistent underpayment” for innovative drugs. The investigation could lead to additional tariffs, exceeding the 15% ceiling agreed under Turnberry.

Capitals are banding together to counter the U.S. pressure. At an informal meeting in Dublin last week, ministers from Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium discussed creating an EU-wide pharmaceutical task force to coordinate their response.

“If we don’t work together and act as a team, countries are inevitably tempted to go it alone,” French Trade Minister Nicolas Forissier told POLITICO.

In the paper, Vandenbroucke and his colleague argue that Brussels should open an ACI investigation in response to Washington’s drug pricing policy. The instrument allows the EU to impose tariffs and restrictions on services in response to foreign threats to trade if backed by a qualified majority of member countries.

“The procedure is quite heavy, but already opening an examination would have an effect of its own,” the paper argues.

The authors also highlight a clause in Pfizer’s MFN agreement requiring it to share additional revenue from higher prices outside the U.S. with the American government. “Higher foreign payments thus become a source of revenue for the American government itself,” they write.

The deputy PM questioned the underlying basis of the policy. Because the U.S. market is so lucrative compared to all the rest, drugmakers would accept withdrawing from third countries as long as it meant keeping U.S. prices high.

Vandenbroucke, an economist by training, said the net effect would likely be an extreme increase in European drug prices — or the withdrawal of drugs from the market — while producing comparatively modest price cuts in the U.S.

According to one forecast cited in the paper, prices could triple in countries used as benchmarks, while U.S. prices would fall by just 7.5% to 15%.

“The consequences would reach well beyond the medicines budget, putting pressure on the solidarity that universal insurance is designed to secure,” the authors write.

As Europe’s energy ministers meet in Brussels this week, they are weighing legitimate concerns around energy security, affordability, and the pressures facing businesses and households.

The European Commission’s proposal to delay selected EU Methane Regulation requirements for fossil-fuel importers is now moving quickly through the legislative process. Ministers have an opportunity to keep any adjustment tightly focused, while preserving the policy stability that companies and investors need to plan, invest and manage risk over the long term.

Investors need a stable framework against which companies can plan, manage risk and allocate capital with confidence.

For investors, the question is not whether implementation should be practical. It should. The question is whether a response to current pressures becomes a wider change to a framework that companies have already begun to implement.

Sixty investors, representing over €9.5 trillion in assets under management, have called for the EU Methane Regulation to be maintained and implemented as adopted. That statement pre-dated the Commission’s proposed one-year delay. Its central concern, however, is more relevant now: investors need a stable framework against which companies can plan, manage risk and allocate capital with confidence.

The regulation was designed with phased implementation. It gave companies, importers and national authorities time to prepare for stronger measurement, reporting and verification of methane emissions. It has helped bring methane from the margins into boardroom discussions, where it belongs.

Why methane matters to investors

For investors, methane performance can offer a useful view of how a company is run. It is an indicator of operational discipline, process safety and the quality of management oversight. By setting requirements for measurement, reporting and verification, the regulation can also improve the availability, consistency and reliability of methane data. That gives investors a stronger basis to compare companies and assess whether they are managing risks that could affect long-term value. Maintaining the regulation’s core provisions and avoiding any further delay would protect the progress already under way.

The EU’s position as a major oil and gas importer gives the Methane Regulation particular weight. Clear import requirements can improve the quality and comparability of emissions information across global supply chains. They can help create a more level playing field for companies supplying the European market, rather than allowing weak data or weaker controls to become a commercial advantage.

The choice is not between competitiveness, affordability and effective methane management. Europe can support all three.

This matters for competitiveness as well as climate-related financial risk. Energy affordability is a legitimate concern, particularly for businesses and households facing continued market volatility. But well-designed, practical rules can reward operational excellence, support informed investment decisions and give companies a clearer basis on which to plan, while implementation can be managed in ways that preserve market flexibility and limit unnecessary costs for consumers.

The choice is not between competitiveness, affordability and effective methane management. Europe can support all three. A three-year postponement, however, would not serve institutional investors, companies or Europe’s competitiveness.

Methane is often treated as a narrow technical issue. It is not. Reducing emissions from oil and gas operations is one of the quickest and most cost-effective ways to limit near-term warming. For companies, stronger measurement and reporting can also identify avoidable losses, improve operational performance and strengthen confidence among lenders and investors.

Companies and investors have already begun to respond to the direction set by the impending regulation. Investors are looking more closely at the quality of companies’ emissions data and the systems behind it. A predictable regulatory framework supports that work. Repeated changes to the timetable would do the opposite: they would make it harder to judge preparedness, compare performance and distinguish between companies that are acting now and those that are waiting for the rules to move again.

A longer delay would not remove the work needed to implement the regulation. It would postpone it, weaken incentives for companies and suppliers to prepare, and leave investors with less visibility over how methane-related risk will be managed. It could also disadvantage businesses that have already invested in stronger measurement and reporting, while slowing the development of the market for independent verification services needed to support credible implementation. When the requirements eventually return, the adjustment may be sharper and more costly. That uncertainty carries a cost for companies, investors and the wider market.

Practical implementation, not prolonged delay

The practical challenges facing importers are real and should be addressed through consistent implementation. This includes clear guidance from national authorities, practical ways to link relevant methane data to imported fuels, and clear standards for countries outside the EU whose methane rules are recognized as comparable to EU requirements. This approach would preserve market flexibility and help limit unnecessary costs, without weakening the regulation’s purpose.

If a one-year adjustment is judged necessary, ministers should keep it tightly defined, with a clear end date and no reopening of the regulation’s core provisions. They should use the period to provide the guidance that companies, importers and national authorities need to implement the rules consistently.

The choice facing ministers is not whether Europe should address methane emissions, but whether it does so through a stable framework that rewards preparedness and investment. A limited adjustment may be manageable. A prolonged delay risks creating uncertainty, slowing preparation and leaving Europe less competitive.

Stephanie Pfeifer, CEO, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of all IIGCC members.

---

Disclaimer

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

• The sponsor is Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).
• The advertisement relates to EU methane and energy policy and advocates for maintaining the core provisions of the EU Methane Regulation, limiting any implementation delay and preserving a stable regulatory framework for companies and investors.

More information here.

Ask European Union leaders what they think of Mark Carney’s climate credentials, and you’ll get a gushing response.

“We see the world with the same eyes: from AI to climate change,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in her State of the Union speech last month, where the Canadian prime minister was the guest of honor.

“Canada and the EU are very, very like-minded,” the bloc’s climate chief, Wopke Hoekstra, told POLITICO in an interview when asked about his hopes for climate collaboration between the two powers ahead of this week’s EU-Canada summit in Montreal.

But this rosy view sidesteps a less comfortable reality: Canada is a major fossil fuel producer whose climate ambitions fall far short of Europe’s.

And under Carney, those ambitions are weakening.

Last year, Canada produced more crude oil than any other country outside the big three producers, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Oil and gas are Canada’s biggest exports by far, and the industry lobby is an influential force in Ottawa.

In his previous life as a central banker, Carney was considered a climate champion. POLITICO even dubbed him an “eco warrior” in 2018. But since taking over as prime minister last year, he has weakened Canada’s climate policies at a rate few predicted, scrapping a national carbon tax and electric vehicle mandate and opening new oil and gas projects.

The list of climate laws Carney has watered down, repealed and canceled makes the EU’s own recent backtracking on green laws look minor. Some environmentalists argue it is comparable to U.S. President Donald Trump’s wholesale dismantling of environmental protections.

“The track the Carney government has taken on climate and environmental regulation has been a decisive move in the direction of the U.S.,” said Tim Gray, executive director of environmental non-profit Environment Defence. Carney, he said, “seems to be all in on fossil fuels.”

Keean Nembhard, a spokesperson for Canada’s Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin, told POLITICO the Carney government is “committed to fighting climate change and reaching net-zero by 2050 by taking a pragmatic and durable approach.”

“This includes building major clean energy projects across the country, driving mass electrification, and making significant investment in the low-carbon economy,” he said.

But Gray argued that Carney’s support for fossil fuels and weakening of environmental standards may complicate Canada’s attempts to forge closer ties with Europe, which has some of the world’s most stringent green laws.

Still, in Europe, Carney’s green image persists.

Last week, Belgian member of the European Parliament Saskia Bricmont gave expression to this faith in Carney’s commitment to climate issues when she called on him to lead a global push to put climate back on the agenda ahead of next month’s U.N. climate summit.

“Mr Carney … relaunch the fight against climate deregulation and for the restoration of biodiversity, and re-mobilize the international community around concrete, coordinated measures,” she said.

Carney’s green aura

Carney’s reputation as a climate champion is well earned. As governor of the Bank of England, he led a push among central bankers to take the economic risks of climate change seriously — memorably captured in his 2015 ‘Tragedy of the Horizon’ speech, in which he warned: “The catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors.”

In 2021, after he’d left the Bank of England, he became a United Nations special envoy on climate action and finance and launched a net-zero financial alliance with some of the world’s biggest banks.

But things changed dramatically when Donald Trump took back the White House, and Carney replaced fellow Liberal Justin Trudeau as Canada’s prime minister in 2025. At the time, Trudeau and his Liberals had been way behind in the polls, battered by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s attacks on his climate policies — in particular an unpopular consumer carbon tax.

Carney’s first act as prime minister was to scrap that tax.

Following his surprise victory in the elections that April, Carney set about promoting Canada as an “energy superpower.” To the dismay of environmental groups, he supported the “Pacific Link,” an oil pipeline costing tens of billions of dollars, designed to carry Alberta crude to Canada’s Pacific coast for export to Asia.

He then pushed for thawing relations with Beijing in January, a not-so-subtle pitch to find a new crude oil client that isn’t the U.S. Germany, rushing to replace its dependence on Russian energy, signed a long-term agreement in July to buy Canadian liquefied natural gas from a proposed port in British Columbia, despite backlash from environmental and indigenous groups.

He also scrapped laws on electric vehicle adoption, dropped plans for an emissions cap on oil and gas companies, watered down an existing industrial carbon price and introduced legislation to weaken environmental permitting rules for big infrastructure projects, which critics dubbed the “bulldoze nature bill.”

A landmark moment, according to Gray, came in November 2025, when Carney signed a memorandum of understanding with the government of Alberta, Canada’s biggest oil-producing province. That document, which promised to turn Canada into a “global energy superpower,” contained a string of promises to promote oil and gas and water down federal climate laws.

So why the dramatic shift?

Carney, who has repeatedly positioned energy sovereignty as a bulwark against Trump’s economic aggression, offered his realpolitik response at an event in the heart of Alberta’s oil patch earlier this month.

“There’s a structural challenge of energy security and the existential challenge of climate change, and these challenges are forcing countries to think differently about where their energy comes from and on who they can rely on to supply it,” Carney said in Fort McMurray, Alberta on Oct. 1.

“Even under any plausible net zero scenario, the IEA [International Energy Agency] forecasts the world will still need tens of millions of barrels of crude a day. So the question is: who will emerge as the world’s trusted suppliers? It should be us. It must be Canada.”

Not black and white

Carney, to be sure, is no Trump. Unlike the U.S. president, he has retained his pro-climate rhetoric and promised to develop the country’s mining of critical minerals essential for the clean energy transition.

In May, he unveiled a national electricity strategy which aims to double Canada’s largely clean electricity grid by 2050 to meet soaring demand. “The path to net zero is electrification,” Carney said then.

In August, he announced C$10 billion in federal support for the Churchill Falls hydroelectric project in Newfoundland and Labrador, saying it will be the largest clean energy project in North America, capable of generating enough electricity to light up the equivalent of Canada’s three largest cities.

Nembhard, Environment Minster Dabrusin’s spokesperson, also pointed to new electricity transmission lines, electric vehicle subsidies and a C$2 billion plan to retrofit homes with heat pumps.

Canadian climate activist Alex Cool-Fergus said she does not think Carney “believes that oil and gas is the future,” but is simply being pragmatic about Canada’s economic reality.

“The electricity strategy that came out in May was incredibly important, and actually gives us a better idea of what his thinking is for the future,” she said.

Trudeau’s approach to climate change was “very much values-based, and it was about doing the right thing,” said Cool-Fergus. “I think that’s hit its limits. Carney’s approach makes more sense for the world of 2025-2026.”

The limits of the partnership

Hoekstra, the EU’s commissioner for climate, said he wants to deepen ties with Canada. “Given all the complications the world is facing, it is imperative to team up more closely with your closest partners,” he said. But he’s realistic about how far that relationship can go.

Hoekstra has ambitions of cementing the EU into a global network of economies with carbon pricing regimes. While he conceded nothing is “off the table,” he acknowledged linking the EU’s Emissions Trading System with Canada’s “quite different” version, which varies from province to province: “You’re talking about a completely different horizon, and that is not something we would attempt in the very short run.”

There are, however, other ways Hoekstra believes the EU and Canada can closely link on environmental issues.

“Doubling down, tripling down on electrification, on solar, on wind, on nuclear, on batteries,” he said, adding “that is one area that I think is potentially very fruitful for my portfolio.”

Another is critical raw materials, a key focus of this week’s summit.

Brussels is exploring ways for the European Investment Bank, the EU’s lending arm, to help finance the mining of Canadian mineral deposits that could supply the bloc with an alternative to Chinese-produced metals, with a framework agreement expected to be signed during the summit. Lithium, copper, nickel, and other key ingredients for electric vehicle batteries and clean energy technologies essential for decarbonizing Europe are abundant but often undeveloped all over Canada.

This week’s summit will also explore investing in infrastructure on Canada’s east coast to liquefy and ship Canadian gas to Europe, a move that could help the EU diversify its supply away from the U.S., which, along with Norway, has become Europe’s dominant supplier since it cut off Russian gas imports following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Many EU member countries will welcome success on these goals. But Gray warns that closer ties with Canada could lead to deeper penetration by the country’s powerful fossil fuel lobby, which he described as a “major, major force.”

“They’ll be spending time trying to make sure the alignment with the EU is in a direction that favors them,” he said.

The EU’s lack of oil and gas resources — and, by extension, the absence of a powerful fossil fuel lobby — has kept climate policy relatively bipartisan in the EU. Could inviting a fossil fuel “superpower” into the fold as an “associate member” change that?

“That would depend very much on what is an ‘associate member,’” Dutch Climate Minister Stientje van Veldhoven-van der Meer said.

LONDON — Andy Burnham’s love affair with beans is well documented.

Asked what items he would stockpile in case of an emergency, the prime minister picked the store-cupboard staple, together with soup and Twiglets.

Now bean producers are screaming betrayal.

As part of a stream of “everyday fixes” aimed at easing the cost of living, Chancellor John Healey said the government would suspend tariffs on more than 100 products, including imported chocolate, marmalade and Burnham’s beloved baked beans.

An analysis of the list — published in full today — reveals that tariffs of 16% will be removed on an array of finished bean products imported from around the world, many of which are also manufactured in the U.K.

While the raw beans used to make products like baked beans are mostly imported, the U.K. boasts a major bean processing industry which food executives fear could now be undermined by exporters such as China and the U.S.

Karen Betts, chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation, said the budget did “nothing to ease the pressures food and drink manufacturers are under.”

“Instead, one of the chancellor’s flagship announcements, removing tariffs from some food and drink products, will have no meaningful impact on consumer prices,” Betts said. “But it will undermine British factories and their workers, grappling with much higher costs, producing the same products.

“The Treasury in particular has persistently failed to recognise the importance of food and drink manufacturing to jobs and prosperity the length and breadth of the U.K.,” Betts added.

Instead of making it easier to import rival products, Betts said the government should be addressing the “acute pressures” the sector is facing, including high energy costs and “overly complex” regulation.

A spokesperson for Princes Group, which produces Branston Baked Beans in the U.K., said removing tariffs on imported finished baked beans was “unlikely to have a meaningful impact on prices, particularly as there are currently no tariffs on the imported haricot beans used by U.K. manufacturers and no tariffs on EU imports.” 

“We believe measures that help address the higher costs of manufacturing food in the UK, particularly energy costs, would have a greater impact for both consumers and British businesses.”

According to the government, the move, together with existing tariff suspensions announced earlier this year, will reduce consumer costs by between £245 million and £595 million a year, saving households up to £21 on their food shop annually.

In response to a consultation on the changes, the government said it had taken the decision to exclude several products from the initial list “due to concerns about the impact on domestic production, developing countries, international considerations and other government policies.”

“The government recognises that for some remaining products, there may be some limited impacts on domestic producers of goods which will be able to be imported tariff-free for the specified period. However, the government considers the benefits of this to consumers, through reduced costs, outweigh those risks.”

The U.K. government did not respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. and Canada are flirting again.

Washington and Ottawa have increased the tempo of their trade talks over the past week, after President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke by phone on Oct. 21.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who helped torpedo a previous round of negotiations over the summer, and Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc have been speaking regularly since then, according to two people with knowledge of the talks, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. They have primarily discussed Trump’s tariffs on sectors like autos and steel that have been a sticking point for Canada all along.

A senior Canadian government official told POLITICO that talks remain informal as of Tuesday.

The uptick in engagement — what Carney called “un petit intensification” speaking in French to reporters in Ottawa Monday — has triggered a flurry of headlines on both sides of the border as well as White House boasts that a deal is near. The North American trade spat will be “settled pretty soon,” Trump predicted at a rally Sunday in Michigan.

But unlike Trump, Carney has little political incentive to make concessions at the moment — or bail out Trump right before congressional elections heavily focused on affordability, including tariffs’ impact on prices. The Canadian prime minister is riding high in domestic polls after standing up to the American president and walking away from trade negotiations in August. And he is days away from welcoming European Union leaders to Montreal for a landmark summit aimed at deepening their alliance — and building an implicit counterweight to the U.S.

Neither side, moreover, has dropped its original demands, according to half a dozen current and former government officials, industry representatives and others with knowledge of the talks. Those outstanding sticking points include Carney’s ask for lower auto tariffs and Trump’s push for increased access to the Canadian alcohol and dairy markets.

The lack of new concessions or tangible breakthroughs is a sign that the recent flurry of outreach may be more of a White House effort to soothe Republicans’ midterm worries — particularly in border states whose economies are tightly connected to Canada’s — than to secure an immediate deal. The people say any denouement between the two countries is likely weeks if not months off, even as they expect the two North American neighbors to ultimately hammer out an agreement to lower tariffs and stabilize one of the world’s largest trading relationships.

“I think that we’re going to make a deal with Canada. I mean, first of all, we made a deal with Canada. They reneged on the deal,” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) said in an interview. Asked if the deal will come before the election, Moreno said, “I don’t know.”

Canada has also been cautious about promising that a deal is near. Carney said last week Ottawa doesn’t care about “the timing” of an agreement to roll back tariffs on each other’s imports. And both Mark Wiseman, the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., and Pete Hoekstra, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, suggested at an event in Ottawa Monday that there will be a deal, even if it takes time.

“We have to take a longer timeline into account. And at the end of the day, we have to remember neither of us is moving out of the neighborhood, and we’re going to make it work,” Wiseman said. “The state of the relationship is pretty damn good.”

Trump, however, has been lobbing attacks on Ottawa since he returned to the White House, calling Canada the 51st state and threatening tariffs since shortly after his reelection win. Canada, along with Mexico and China, was one of the first countries he targeted with new duties in 2025 — despite an existing North American free trade deal and deeply entwined economies, particularly in the auto industry.

The tensions hit a crescendo this summer, when Trump announced a preliminary deal with Carney to lower U.S. duties, among other measures, before talks collapsed at the 11th hour. Washington and Ottawa then traded 50% duties on about $20 billion worth of goods, with Trump imposing a ban on certain products, like alcohol, and threatening even more punitive duties come January if their differences have not been resolved.

The forces that caused the deal to unravel in August are still in place. Canada has continued to seek lower tariff rates for key sectors, including autos, trucks, steel and aluminum — policies that are under Lutnick’s purview at the Commerce Department. The previous talks hit a snag over whether the U.S. would lower tariffs on heavy duty trucks, some of which are built in Ontario.

“Any potential Canada deal is going to have the same issue,” said an industry official granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. “And that is Lutnick’s strong reluctance to negotiate on the [sector-specific tariffs], particularly now that he is much heavier involved.”

Lutnick “has signed off on auto [tariff] reductions,” in previous trade agreements the White House reached with partners like the European Union and Japan, “but those often come with promises of large investment.”

A White House official confirmed Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer have held discussions with their Canadian counterparts in recent days.

“USTR and the Commerce Department continue to work together on the cross-cutting issues involving trade with Canada,” added the official, who was granted anonymity to share details about the negotiations.

The Commerce Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not respond to requests for comment.

Industry groups that are in favor of keeping the existing duties on Canadian steel, aluminum and autos insist that Lutnick remains in their corner, even as talks intensify. Representatives for domestic manufacturing met with senior officials at the Commerce Department and USTR over the past week to lobby in favor of sticking with the status quo, according to two people granted anonymity to describe the private discussions.

“”The programs are effective as they are, and they should stay as they are,” said Century Aluminum President and CEO Jesse Gary, adding that Lutnick shows a “clear understanding of what makes these types of industries work.”

The Canada tariffs are unpopular among U.S. voters, however, and have been a headache for Republican candidates running in U.S. border states. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, GOP Senate candidate Mike Rogers of Michigan and Republican Senate hopeful John Sununu of New Hampshire have all come out against the deal. The topic has even trickled into competitive races in Texas and Kansas.

Adam Hamilton, the Democrat challenging Sen. Roger Marshall in Kansas, is making tariffs part of his closing argument in a state where the agriculture industry has been pummeled by the trade war.

Trump and his National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett have sought to play down Republicans’ concerns about the duties by suggesting a deal is close.

Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, Hassett said that the two sides are “very close” to a deal and emphasized Lutnick’s involvement in talks.

“I expect this is supposed to send some sort of signal to … Iowa and Kansas and other states,” said a person close to the administration who was granted anonymity to share details of private conversations with officials. But “no one expects a deal,” the person said.

“Carney would have to have some reason to want to get a deal before the midterms,” the person added. “But I can’t imagine why he would at this point.”

Megan Messerly, Sue Allan, Zi-Ann Lum and Nick Taylor-Vaisey contributed reporting.

LONDON — The U.K. government is removing import tariffs on more than 100 products, including food, drink and fuel, to ease the cost of living.

In a pre-budget announcement on Monday night, the Treasury said it would suspend tariffs on a number of popular food items, including baked beans, chocolate and gherkins, as well as fertilizer and kerosene heating oil.

The announcement, which follows a consultation earlier this year, comes after the government said last week that it would suspend import tariffs on over 250 goods that were due to expire on Dec. 31 until Dec. 2028.

Collectively, the government said the tariff suspensions would reduce consumer costs by around £245 million to £595 million a year.

“Today’s everyday fixes are just a small part of what we are doing to give families a bit of breathing space,” Chancellor John Healey said.

“Conflict in the Middle East and Europe is hitting families here at home through higher everyday costs. We can’t control global events, but we can act where we can make a difference.”

LONDON — Liz Truss claims the U.K. would have managed successful missions to Mars within years — if only her 49-day premiership hadn’t been cut short.

The assertion comes in the former British prime minister’s new book “Bank Job,” which was published Monday and claims to explain “how the Bank of England broke the bond market and brought down the government” when her mini-budget in 2022 precipitated market turmoil.

In its closing chapter, the book paints a vivid picture of what Truss believes life in 2040 would be like if her policies had been given a chance to bed in. “Several missions to Mars have now been launched from Britain’s space port,” Truss’ book imagines.

The ex-PM also opts for some more grounded policy dreams.

She envisages a 2040 in which “there are now no European Union laws in Britain,” a “permissive regime for artificial intelligence” is in place, and tumbling energy costs and faster planning timelines have helped make the U.K. a leader in AI.

“Bitcoin received tax treatment consistent with its status as a form of money for commercial purposes,” she imagines. “No central bank digital currency was introduced.”

Since leaving office after a revolt in her own party, Truss has dismissed claims her economic decisions — which included a huge energy bills bailout and tax cuts funded by fresh borrowing — were responsible for crashing the pound.

She has instead pointed the finger at the central bank, the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility watchdog, accusing them of working against her. Her new book takes direct aim at the Bank of England, which proposed to sell £80 billion of gilts before the mini-budget, although delayed that sale amid market turmoil.

Truss lost her House of Commons seat at the 2024 general election, and has since been involved in launching the Conservative Political Action Conference in Britain.

Donald Trump on Sunday night said Norway “sucks,” as he fulminated about being repeatedly overlooked for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite starting a war with Iran and toppling the leader of Venezuela, Trump has vigorously touted his peacemaking credentials, claiming to have settled at least eight conflicts during his second term in office.  

But he was passed over twice by the Oslo-based Nobel committee: in 2025 for María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition figurehead; and in 2026 for South African jurist Navi Pillay, for her efforts to promote peace and international law.

“What about me? Do they do two of them? So I’m not in love with Norway. Frankly, Norway sucks. Norway has become a shithouse country, actually,” the U.S. president mused during a campaign rally speech in Port Huron, Michigan.

Trump was railing about immigration to the U.S. when he segued into the criticism of Norway.

“We work with Denmark, good country, good nice country. Anybody that would like to come into our country from Denmark, I’m all for it. But I must tell you, from Somalia … I’ve had it with them. I’ve had it with them. I much prefer Denmark. Denmark, we’ll take them. Sweden, Norway … I don’t think so because I didn’t get the Nobel Prize even though I ended it. So I don’t want anybody from Norway. I don’t want anything to do with Norway,” Trump said.

Espen Barth Eide, Norway’s foreign minister, responded to Trump’s remarks by reiterating the Nobel committee’s independence. “He knows very well that the Nobel committee is independent. We have reminded him of that, in case anyone is wondering, and that is still the case,” Eide told Norwegian news outlet NRK Monday.

While Trump didn’t get the 2025 prize, the Venezuelan winner did present him with her medal during a meeting at the White House in January this year.

“And the person who got it, Maria, was very nice,” the president said during his rally speech. “She said, ‘I can’t believe I got it. This should go to President Trump,’ and she gave me her Nobel Peace Prize, that was so nice. It was very nice. I won’t forget that. It was very nice.”

ROME — Roadblocks by truckers in southern Italy are exposing the limits of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s hardline approach toward protests, as she concedes she will have to take a carrot-and-stick approach to demonstrators struggling with soaring fuel costs.

The demonstrations across the south are fast spiraling into a full-blown economic crisis. Truck drivers and farmers protesting soaring diesel bills have blocked highways, ports and distribution centers this week, leaving supermarket shelves empty and petrol pumps dry. Airports in the south are also suffering from fuel shortages.

After a cabinet meeting on Thursday, the right-wing Meloni vowed to use a security decree to clear the roadblocks, but also pledged to give financial relief to farmers and fishermen crippled by the price of diesel.

Regarding the decree, she said her government would not be “blackmailed by those who use violence as an instrument of pressure.” But she cushioned that blow by acknowledging that financial relief measures were needed to offer “immediate responses, especially to workers, to people who are in difficulty, to families.”

With elections expected in spring next year, the truckers’ protests threaten to shift the political debate from immigration and crime to whether Italians can afford to keep their businesses running. 

Gaetano Amato, a lawmaker from Naples for the populist left 5Star Movement, accused the government of offering security measures instead of answers to the economic grievances driving the protests.

“The government has done nothing and is continuing to do nothing, because it is basing everything on security decrees,” he told POLITICO. 

Stefano Orlacchio, president of the opposition center-left Democratic Party’s youth wing in the southern region of Campania, also slammed the government’s response as “an anti-southern attitude.”

“The protests in the south aren’t being taken into consideration at all,” he told POLITICO.

Diesel squeeze

At the heart of the revolt is a squeeze that truckers say they can no longer absorb. Diesel prices in Italy have risen by about a third since the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran began, and the cost of a long haul journey like Naples to Milan has climbed with them. 

Pasquale, a truck driver with a Campania-based company, who asked POLITICO to withhold his surname for fear of retaliation, said a trip’s profit had now shrunk sharply once fuel, tolls and wages were covered, and that the extra cost was working its way down the supply chain to supermarket shelves. 

Far-right Transport Minister Matteo Salvini of the League party, who posed in a truck cab a few months ago, should “come spend a week with me and we’ll see how comfortable it is,” Pasquale quipped.

While a cap on fuel prices exists on paper, he added petrol stations had ignored it “in these days of chaos.”

Beyond fuel prices, Pasquale zeroed in on EU environmental rules that Italian businesses struggle to comply with, even as cheaper foreign produce continues to reach supermarket shelves. “How can you face something like that?” he asked.

The Brussels-based International Road Transport Union has also appealed directly to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for help. 

In a letter sent on Thursday and seen by POLITICO, the group and its national member associations said they did not support the blockades but warned that soaring diesel prices were pushing operators to the brink, calling for extended EU state aid and tougher rules on late payments from customers.

The blockades hit hundreds of supermarkets and dozens of distribution centers, according to retailers’ association Federdistribuzione. Fresh fruit, meat and fish ran out within days, followed by other food products, leaving some shops completely empty.

Carlo Alberto Buttarelli, the association’s president, put the damage at “tens of millions of euros,” with fresh food spoiling in trucks and warehouses. Supplies were beginning to resume in Sicily and Calabria on Thursday, but disruption remained in Campania. 

No room to maneuver

Meloni has limited resources to offer relief. Italy remains subject to EU deficit proceedings, constraining Rome’s room for additional spending, while the international instability driving fuel prices higher lies largely beyond her control.

Amato dismissed the announced support from the cabinet meeting on Thursday as money that had already been promised.

While the government’s reaction to last weekend’s northern protests, which were hijacked by masked gangs that looted shops and set fires, was to link the unrest to immigration and deploy troops, the southern unrest is harder for Meloni to handle because it demands concrete economic relief, said Marco Valbruzzi, a researcher at the University of Naples Federico II.

Frustrated voters could turn to the 5Star Movement, which has previously channeled economic discontent in the south, or abstain from voting altogether. 

The protests could also weaken the appeal of early elections expected in April or May next year. A winter of sustained protests would give Meloni a reason to wait until autumn 2027, hoping for an ease in international instability and improved fiscal flexibility. 

If economic grievances dominate the campaign, “she is playing an electoral game on a field that she cannot control,” Valbruzzi said.

he world is starting to understand that there is no way to fully and lastingly protect itself from President Donald Trump.

The man just can’t let things go — and he’ll get creative to get what he wants.

The latest blowup over Ukraine is emblematic of Trump’s wily persistence, and it suggests a challenging two years lie ahead for the international set even if Democrats gain some power in the midterm elections.

Not that long ago, Trump seemed to have patched up ties with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Kyiv made gains against Russia. Trump signed legislation last month that was championed by his late friend, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to impose heavy new sanctions and tariffs to punish Russia for its war on Ukraine.

This month, the original Trump — the one who fawns over Russian leader Vladimir Putin and despises Zelenskyy — roared back. He waived many of the legislation’s penalties on Russia, moved to buy Russian diesel and signaled he’s more interested in doing business with Moscow than seeking justice for Kyiv. Ukrainians suspect the U.S. has pressured them by throttling its satellite connections and intelligence-sharing. (The Trump administration disputes much of this.)

“Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” Trump said Monday as he welcomed the idea of an arms control summit with Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping that might include talks about Ukraine.

The lesson, foreign officials and others steeped in diplomacy tell me, is that you cannot truly change Trump’s mind or stop his overall trajectory. Even if Trump seems briefly chastened or stages a tactical retreat, he will eventually return in new, often-surprising modes to push his original views and goals. He will try to exhaust you into submission.

Imagine how startling it is to be Ukrainian these days as Trump pressures you to make concessions to Russia by blaming you for a global energy crisis he caused by launching a war on Iran. Or what it’s like for officials across European capitals trying to craft a response, knowing there’s never an end to the process.

“There is no immunity to Donald Trump. He makes a deal in order to make a better deal the next day,” one senior European official mused, having been granted anonymity because the topic involves sensitive diplomacy.

It’s hard to blame world leaders who think they’ve learned to manage Trump only to be bewildered by a sudden left hook on his part. Foreign policy is often driven by hope when you lack good options. And Trumpology is a confounding, but still a relatively new, subfield.

Besides, Trump’s messaging is inconsistent, incoherent and nonstrategic — characteristics that can obscure his single-minded pursuit of his goals. So the global actors dealing with him — whether it’s the Gulf Arab states who shower him with gifts or the Canadians furious over his trade and territorial threats — sometimes think they’ve come to terms with him only to find they’re fighting on a newly configured plane.

A Supreme Court ruling that gutted many of Trump’s tariffs earlier this year was good news in many capitals. But since then, the so-called Tariff Man has moved to impose the import taxes under pretexts not considered by the court, including turning to accusations involving forced labor.

The White House doesn’t dispute Trump’s aggressive tactics.

“There is no greater fighter for America First interests than President Trump — and he is willing to look anyone in the eye to deliver wins on behalf of the United States,” spokesperson Anna Kelly told me in a statement.

The Greenland saga shows the limits of trying to mollify Trump.

In his first term, Trump wanted to buy the frozen island. The idea was shelved amid global laughter, but authorities in Greenland and Denmark made it clear to Trump that they welcomed more U.S. investment in the Danish territory.

In his second term, Trump huffed and puffed about an all-out U.S. takeover of Greenland, only to agree in September to an expanded U.S. military footprint that he could have gotten anyway under existing, decades-old diplomatic accords without all the drama. The whole affair has led to lingering anger in Europe about what Canada’s leader called a “rupture” in the global order — but many European officials hoped that the saga had faded away.

Yet, it’s far from certain that Trump has given up on possessing Greenland. Just days ago, he touted on social media plans to start oil, gas and mineral exploration in “our new and beautiful Greenland.”

The use of “our” is more than a little suggestive.

Defying Trump, too, can get you only so far.

Brazilians effectively told Trump to take a hike when he used tariffs and sanctions to punish the country for charging its former president, Jair Bolsonaro, in a coup attempt.

A few months later, as Bolsonaro was about to start his prison sentence, Trump seemed to admit defeat in his effort to help his political ally. “That’s too bad,” he said in November 2025, with little emotion. (“Brazil Defied Trump and Won,” The New York Times declared.)

But Trump wasn’t done with Brazil. He and his team have pursued efforts to undercut the current Brazilian government while quietly backing Bolsonaro’s son, Flávio, in his efforts to win the presidency this year. The runoff election is on Sunday, and it’s tight.

World leaders are doing what they can to make their countries Trump-resistant, if not all-out Trump-proof.

That has meant everything from diversifying their sources of trade and security alliances to joining Trump on ventures that, on the surface at least, can be helpful to them. (Then there are the many countries, especially in Africa, that diplomats privately tell me are happy to be off Trump’s radar.)

My takeaway from watching all of this, though, is that it’s not enough to stay one step ahead of Trump. You have to stay several steps ahead, and you have to be wildly imaginative about the lengths to which Trump and his devoted aides are willing to go to complicate your life.

The second Trump administration is filled with people who have turned to unique, bizarre and clever interpretations of law and reality to push his agenda. It’s not always clear who is behind which move, but it’s hard to imagine Trump isn’t fine with most of what’s happening.

It’s why a teenager is being held in immigration detention for the actions of his grandmother decades ago. It’s why Congress can scream and shout about its spending orders yet Trump ignores it.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said other nations should not hope that the Republican Party will shed Trump’s worldview, including his disdain for allies, once Trump’s out of power.

“I would love for our allies to know that we have consistent common adversaries that we’re going to work together to fight. I just don’t know that you can make that guarantee,” Murphy, a frequent Trump critic, told me. “That’s painful to say, but given the state of the Republican Party right now, it’s true.”

I understand why Ukraine and the European Union are trying to diversify their sources of intelligence and military industrial bases as Trump keeps chasing love from Russia.

Despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claims, the reality is that the United States can no longer be trusted for such security assistance.

But it’s not enough to find new intelligence partners or weapons manufacturers. You have to ask bigger questions, like, “What are the untapped streams of intelligence that no one knows are out there? What’s a potential weapon no one has considered? How can I acquire what I need before Trump stops me?”

Governments need to have plans — now — for scenarios that seem completely crazy. Better to be wrong than unprepared.

Still, even if you do all of that … “I don’t think it’s possible to stay two or three steps ahead of Trump,” said Charles Kupchan, a former senior national security official during the Obama administration who apparently enjoys raining on parades.

“He acts on impulse,” argued Kupchan, who has a new book out on the crumbling world order. “We need to try to limit the damage he’s causing and ride him out.”

A Democratic win in November’s midterms — one or both chambers of Congress — is unlikely to do much to rein in Trump’s actions abroad during his final years, current and former U.S. and foreign officials tell me.

He still has the veto and has been willing to ignore congressional demands. There’s also the fact that presidents have significantly more power to act in unilateral ways overseas than they do domestically.

Ukraine, the European Union, the world — all will be dealing with a politically wounded Trump who’s likely to double down on what he feels he must have.

“He’s going to be angrier,” Murphy predicted.

LONDON — Britain’s energy regulator is planning to authorize urgent investment to increase gas pipeline imports from continental Europe this winter, amid fears over the country’s ability to supply all customers in an emergency scenario. 

The plans, outlined in a document published Thursday morning, have been published a day after Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh approved a controversial North Sea gas project, Jackdaw.  

Government documents show that gas security considerations were given “substantial weight” in her decision. 

In a consultation paper, Ofgem said that, without intervention, Britain would have a “negative supply margin” this winter, in the event of a one in 20-year cold day — a day so cold Britain would only be expected to have one every 20 years — coinciding with the loss of key gas infrastructure. 

This unlikely scenario is a key standard followed by Britain’s energy authorities to assess its resilience in maintaining gas supply — also called the “N-1 gas security” standard. 

A shortfall in gas supply would be a national emergency, potentially requiring power plants or factories to shut down, or in extreme cases homes being disconnected from the gas network.  

Britain has never experienced a “network supply emergency,” but diminishing domestic supply and the threat of Russian sabotage of key undersea gas pipelines has raised fears over the country’s energy security. 

Last year the energy system operator, NESO, said long-term declines in domestic North Sea gas supply and global competition for LNG imports could mean the N-1 gas security standard is breached in winter 2030/31. 

However, there are now fears of a crunch point as soon as this winter, after the Belgian operator of the undersea gas pipeline Interconnector said it would cut planned export capacity to the U.K. because of soaring maintenance and operating costs. EU countries are also facing concerns over gas supply this winter. 

Ofgem, the regulator, said it is now planning to amend gas system operator National Gas’s regulatory licence, allowing them to cover the costs of maintaining imports from Belgium at current capacity, in agreement with Interconnector Ltd, majority-owned by Belgian firm Fluxys. 

“Without intervention, Great Britain could potentially face a negative supply margin in winter 2026/27 involving extremely high gas demand on a 1-in-20 cold weather day and the loss of the single largest element of GB gas infrastructure,” Ofgem said. “The position could become more constrained in future winters without intervention. While these are low-probability stress scenarios, their potential consequences are significant.” 

Costs will be recouped through customers’ energy bills. Ofgem said costs of £147 million could be passed on to bills, adding an estimated £1.19 to every domestic energy bill per year over a five-year period.  

Interconnector Ltd said it would restore British import capacity to 27.8GW this winter, an additional 11.3GW of capacity above the previously announced level. 

National Gas welcomed the plans but insisted that the warning over gas security “should not be interpreted as an indication that gas shortages are expected.” 

The Conservatives’ Shadow Energy Secretary Andew Bowie called the situation “utterly outrageous.” 

Britain is “going cap in hand to Europe and paying vast sums to import foreign gas,” he said, criticizing the Labour government for what he characterized as a failure to fully exploit domestic gas supplies. 

“Britain has one of the most secure and resilient energy systems in the world– and gas interconnectors form part of our diverse energy mix,” Energy Minister Michael Shanks said in a statement. 

“We are working with industry to build a gas system fit for the future, ensuring value for money for consumers while giving investors’ confidence to back Britain’s energy sector.” 

STRASBOURG — The EU will not ease sanctions on Russian fossil fuels even after the U.S. struck a diesel deal with Moscow, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday morning.

In a speech to EU lawmakers, she warned “Russia is not a trusted supplier of energy because it would, this is our experience, at any time weaponize energy dependencies to blackmail others,” arguing it was Russia that cut gas supply to Europe. “That is a lesson Europe certainly will not forget.”

Earlier this month, U.S. President Donald Trump announced an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to ease sanctions on imports of diesel fuel until April 2027, as global oil prices surge. 

A few days later, Trump defended the deal, arguing the EU had also purchased billions in fossil fuels from Moscow, without providing further details. 

Von der Leyen also addressed the trade imbalance with China.

She confirmed that the European Commission would present a new deterrent tool as soon as December. This tool is expected to be based on the one proposed by Berlin and Paris earlier this month and would empower the EU executive to restrict or even ban imports from countries seen as distorting the single market. It would require minimal consultation from member states, allowing faster action from Brussels.

This instrument would come alongside a diversification instrument and a solidarity mechanism which are already in the works.

“We see jobs lost in our industrial heartlands,” von der Leyen said, adding that the EU will continue to seek deals with Beijing after an agreement to cap Chinese hybrid imports. As POLITICO reported last week, the EU is expected to prioritize chemicals and industrial machinery in its efforts to protect European industry from Chinese competition.

Camille Gijs contributed to this article.

BRUSSELS — The European Union is beefing up its presence in the Arctic to catch up with neighboring powers carving new trade lanes and drilling for resources under the melting ice.

On Tuesday, the EU unveiled a new plan called Northern Neighborhood. It’s meant to prepare for rising military and commercial activity in the north driven by climate change, and calls for new transport, research and security infrastructure in the region.

“The Arctic is one place where the tectonic plates of geopolitics are colliding. And it’s not someone else’s frontier. It’s part of the European Union,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared as she unveiled the strategy.

She pointed to Russia’s expanding military footprint and the race for emerging shipping routes and critical resources as forces reshaping Europe’s security and economic future.

Climate change is dramatically affecting the Arctic. Planet-warming emissions are making the ice melt faster, disrupting the region’s fragile ecosystems. But where the ice is disappearing, countries like China, Russia and even Canada see an opportunity.

The EU is now scrambling to update its existing policies on the Arctic — once largely focused on environmental protection — to give more importance to security, shipping and extracting resources.

The strategy calls for a rebranding of the EU’s existing partnerships with Norway, Iceland, Canada and the U.K., backed by regular summits to set joint priorities and launch projects.

Here are five things Brussels wants to change about its Arctic policy.

1. Defense and security 

The strategy warns that Russia is rebuilding its military presence in the Arctic and that China has growing strategic ambitions in the region.

The EU plans to set up a pilot research project using satellite and maritime observation in 2027 and share ship-tracking data to help identify Russian shadow fleet vessels.

In the longer term, it wants EU countries to lead on a maritime security hub to pool intelligence on threats ranging from undersea cable sabotage to illegal fishing. It also calls for setting up an Arctic Cable Hub alongside NATO to monitor and protect subsea cables in the North Atlantic and the Arctic. The strategy lacks any information on funding for these projects, however.

Finnish MEP Mika Aaltola of the European People’s Party said the new focus on the Arctic is long overdue.

“Europe hasn’t been thinking about [the Arctic] enough,” Aaltola said. “Because of the ice melting and climate change, it’s becoming kind of the next great game. And if that happens, then what are the European positions when it comes to Russia, China and also the United States?”

2. Access to energy resources

The new policy sticks with EU promises not to drill for fossil fuels in the Arctic.

“The EU remains committed to ensuring that oil, coal and gas stay in the ground, including in Arctic regions,” it reads. Instead, Brussels promises to develop renewable energy projects in the region but drops an old commitment to convince the rest of the world to follow its lead. 

“It is good that the Commission maintains its opposition to oil and gas drilling in the Arctic,” said Delara Burkhardt, a Socialist MEP, but not pressing for a global ban “weakens the EU’s ability to push for stronger international protection and leaves the door open for other countries to exploit one of the world’s most fragile ecosystems.”

The EU’s former Arctic policy — drafted in 2021 — committed the bloc to pursuing an international moratorium on Arctic oil and gas extraction. 

Norway — which supplies a lot of energy to the EU — has made it clear it would still drill in the Arctic regardless of the bloc’s position.

3. Critical raw materials 

The EU is under pressure to secure new supplies of critical raw materials to reduce its dependency on China.

The new strategy says it will continue working with Canada, Greenland, Norway and the United States to develop critical raw materials projects in the region, but insists it will do so while following the “highest social, environmental and governance standards,” and work to the “benefit of local communities in respect of Indigenous Peoples’ rights.” 

Brussels has already labeled several critical raw materials projects, including the Sokli project in Finland and the Per Geijer rare earth deposit in northern Sweden, as “strategic” under EU law, which means they could benefit from faster permitting procedures.  

But some of these projects face serious local resistance from local and indigenous communities, who say the mining plans threaten reindeer herding and protected ecological sites. 

4. New trade routes

Melting ice is opening up new shipping routes in the far north, and the EU is worried that it could be sidelined from the region. But the strategy offers little on that front; its only action is a study on new shipping lanes.

The number of vessels operating in the area covered by the Polar Code — international regulations covering shipping in the Arctic and Antarctic — rose by 40% between 2013 and 2025, while the total distance sailed nearly doubled, said Michael Kingston, a special adviser on polar issues to the Arctic Council on marine protection.

Recent transits by Chinese and South Korean container ships using the Northern Sea Route running along Russia’s Arctic coast show the appeal of a route that is about 20 days faster than conventional routes, he added. 

“Russia builds the infrastructure, China facilitates and funds some of it,” Aaltola said, calling it part of a “grand bargain” between the two.

He complained that the EU is left on the sidelines. “When it comes to the Arctic, there is a vacuum of interest, and there’s also a vacuum of resources and institutions participating.” 

The route is still mostly seasonal for Russian oil and gas tankers, said Ksenia Vakhrusheva, project manager and Arctic project adviser at the environmental group Bellona. Ice, unpredictable weather, increased insurance costs and Moscow’s control over the route make it unlikely to become a mainstream commercial corridor anytime soon, she added.  

Europe also has leverage as the final customer for Chinese shipments, Vakhrusheva said.

“If the EU sends a strong message to China that they do not want goods shipped via NSR, China won’t use this route for transit,” she said. “For NSR to become a valid transit route you need two sides,” she said, “a seller on one side and a buyer on the other.” 

5. Environmental protection 

The strategy is light on measures to shield the Arctic from the impact of global warming. However, it does warn that increased shipping in an “inherently harsh and poorly charted environment” raises the risk of “catastrophic accidents, severe marine pollution” and hybrid interference.  

“Increased shipping in the Arctic both exploits this vulnerability and exacerbates it,” said Dave Walsh, an adviser at the Clean Arctic Alliance NGO, citing carbon emissions, wastewater discharge and noise as some of the impacts of more traffic.

Safety and the environment have not been a priority for Moscow, said Vakhrusheva, and a shortage of high ice-class ships combined with the need to sell oil and gas “to whoever is ready to buy it” raises the risks. 

Protections such as a ban on heavy fuel oil are still negotiated at the International Maritime Organization, where the EU is a key player, she said, adding that such measures will push up the cost of Arctic shipping. 

The strategy says Brussels will push at the IMO to turn measures to limit black carbon — soot emitted by ships that falls on snow and ice and accelerates melting — from voluntary guidelines into binding rules.

It also calls for expanding the definition of Arctic waters to everything north of 60 degrees latitude, replacing the current boundary, which excludes much of the waters around Iceland and Norway from special Arctic shipping rules.

It also promises to keep pressing for compliance with the Polar Code through tools such as an IMO regulation that involves national maritime authorities inspecting foreign-flagged ships in Arctic ports to verify compliance with international safety, environmental and crew-qualification standards. 

The document includes non-binding commitments on biodiversity loss and plans to boost ocean and Arctic research programs. It also promises to launch an “initiative to promote local public and private investment in the Arctic around blue economy sectors.” 

Jakob Weizman contributed reporting.