BRUSSELS — EU countries will be able to fund small local media without asking Brussels for permission, according to a draft of the bloc’s revised state aid rulebook obtained by POLITICO.

Government subsidies to businesses are strictly disciplined by Brussels under state aid rules, but there are exceptions. These are spelled out in frameworks, with the master one, the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER), up for revision at the end of the year. 

The European Commission put out an initial draft for public consultation in February with a view to finalizing it by year’s end. The updated, 200-page draft gives a leg-up to local and independent journalism by allowing governments to fund small- and medium-sized outlets without formal vetting by Brussels.

“SMEs active in the press sector play an essential role in safeguarding media pluralism, cultural and linguistic diversity, democratic participation and citizens’ access to reliable information, particularly at local and regional level,” the Commission writes, highlighting structural challenges arising from the digital transformation of media markets.

To qualify for assistance, beneficiaries would need to fulfil at least one item in a Commission checklist that includes preserving media pluralism and diversity of opinion, transitioning to digital content while also preserving print editions. 

“The exemption covers aid pursuing cultural objectives — including linguistic diversity, the digitalization of press publications or the promotion of printed publications,” said Carole Maczkovics, of Counsel at Covington & Burling, of the press measures. 

Many European media outlets are struggling to stay viable, with print readership declining and publishers complaining that online platforms, such as search giant Google, are reducing referral traffic to their websites.

Broad scope

The GBER covers most sectors of the economy, from agriculture to transport, and is the target of intense lobbying from EU capitals, traditionally torn between big government spenders led by Germany and smaller member states, including the pro-free-trade Nordics, which complain that national subsidies distort the EU single market.

Countering the stereotype, Denmark was a leading advocate to extend GBER exemptions to the media. In a consultation response last year, the Danes said the state aid framework should be broadened to include private and public media providers “to promote harmonisation and simplify the general management of state aid in the media sector.”

The latest GBER draft focuses strongly on SMEs and innovation, as well as on the social dimension of state aid — as it expands on conditions for money that governments can put in training programs and the inclusion of disadvantaged workers. 

But it may not necessarily make things easier.

“Although the revision aims to simplify the State aid framework, it may ultimately make it more detailed and prescriptive,” warned Maczkovics. She added that the Commission’s gradual shift from broad aid categories to narrowly defined exemptions may sway EU countries to design measures that don’t quite fit the real needs of companies — for the sake of avoiding a notification.

Industry, for its part, is keeping a close eye on state aid exemptions, with airport lobby ACI Europe quick to react to the latest leak. 

“The revised GBER remains too restrictive for Europe’s smaller regional airports,” said Philippe Sacré, the association’s secretary general. He was referring to aid exemptions that would be restricted to airports handling over 500,000 passengers a year, according to the Commission’s draft. 

The Commission’s latest State aid Scoreboard shows that EU countries spent €168.2 billion in state aid in 2024, with Germany, France and Italy the top spenders. Capitals are increasingly taking advantage of block exemptions, with GBER representing close to 70 percent of all active exemption measures.

Tommaso Lecca contributed reporting.

President Donald Trump denied Tuesday that he played a role in orchestrating a dramatic ruse to secretly switch planes to depart Turkey in early July, following reports that most of the decoy plane’s passengers were unaware of the move.

“It’s only up to Secret Service,” Trump told reporters before boarding Air Force One in Ohio. “I just follow what they like to do.”

The clandestine operation, first reported by The Washington Post on Monday, involved the president being covertly shuttled off an Air Force One jet to a smaller military plane by an airport catering truck.

The switch took place after the president boarded the traditional jet in front of television cameras. Journalists and many administration staff who remained on Air Force One were unaware of the switch and their role as unwitting decoys, The Post reported.

Trump claimed at the time that he was riding the recently retired Air Force One jet — instead of a Qatari-gifted Boeing 747-800 which the president flew into Ankara on — for “old time’s sake.” But subsequent news reports suggested the Secret Service had become aware of an Iranian threat, leading to the older jet to be used. The flight out of Turkey on July 8 occurred just a day after the U.S. renewed military strikes on Iran after the collapse of peace talks.

Trump then reboarded the older jet to descend its stairs upon his arrival to the United Kingdom, though the Post story was unable to determine how he reentered the plane.

Trump on Tuesday didn’t elaborate much on the threat, telling reporters: “I guess there was a threat out here. I really didn’t ask too much.”

Earlier on Tuesday, the White House Correspondents’ Association said it had expressed concerns to administration officials about how the subterfuge impaired reporters’ ability to report on the president’s movements and their safety, CNN reported.

But, Trump argued Tuesday that he believed the plane he was flying on was “at greater risk because that would be the plane that they would be more likely to go for.”

The originally represented decision to travel on the older Air Force One jet instead of the Qatari-gifted plane raised questions about the security of the newer plane. The Trump administration subpoenaed reporters for The New York Times over their reporting around the security of the plane, but later withdrew it after the Times challenged the demands in courts.

PISA, Italy — Giorgia Meloni doesn’t want to be beaten at her own game.

With an election approaching next year and a new far-right rival emerging, the Italian prime minister — whose political origins lie in Italy’s post-fascist right — is putting aside the moderate image she has built over her four years in office and hardening her tone on migration and security.

Meloni’s government was the first in the EU to attack the Spanish government over a sudden influx of migrants from Morocco into the Spanish exclave of Ceuta last week. 

While France and other countries tightened border checks, Italy went further and announced it had suspended the EU’s free-movement Schengen agreement with Madrid. Now, in Italian airports, passengers from Spain are asked to join a different line. 

Meloni’s office has made clear it has no intention of lifting the controls until at least Aug. 15, escalating the clash with Spain, which retaliated by imposing checks on travelers from Italy.

“We will not back down one millimeter on illegal immigration,” Meloni posted on X while her allies attacked the socialist Spanish government, accusing it of failing to manage migration flows. “Defending our borders, stopping human traffickers, and ensuring effective repatriation will continue to be this government’s policy,” she added.

The clash with Spain is just the latest sign that the Italian leader is doing all she can to secure her core, hard-right electorate in the face of a challenge from the right by Roberto Vannacci, a former general and member of the European Parliament.

With an election expected as early as next spring, Vannacci’s far-right National Future party has been advancing in the polls, overtaking one of Meloni’s coalition partners, the far-right League party, and gaining on another, Forza Italia, according to POLITICO’s Poll of Polls. 

For Meloni, who began her political career in the youth wing of Italy’s post-fascist movement, the challenge strikes particularly close to home.

“There is no doubt that there is concern about containing the competition from National Future,” said Marco Tarchi, a leading right-wing political scientist. “It all boils down to a sharpening of tone. The issues — security, immigration, identity — remain the same as before.” 

During the electoral campaign that brought her to power in 2022, Meloni promised to crack down on illegal migration by putting in place a naval blockade off Italy’s coast. Though that project never ultimately happened, Meloni’s government did open detention hubs in Albania to house migrants while their asylum applications are processed. 

Vannacci, who is campaigning on security and a hard line on immigration, is calling for a more radical solution: “remigration” — a yet-to-be-detailed plan to encourage migrants to return to their countries of origin.

The crisis in Ceuta, during which tens of thousands of migrants crossed from Morocco into the Spanish exclave and nearly 100 died, provided Meloni with an opportunity to show that fighting irregular migration remains an absolute priority for her government.

Meloni’s reaction was “purely the result of domestic political calculations,” said Giorgio Gori, a member of the European Parliament from the left-wing Democratic Party. The Italian prime minister is trying to secure her electorate “by showing that she is loyal to the right-wing slogan and propaganda on migration and beyond.”

For Giovanni Orsina, director of the political science department at Rome’s Luiss Guido Carli University, Meloni’s priority at this stage is “that the Brothers of Italy [Meloni’s party] doesn’t start losing votes too” — in preparation for a potential alliance with Vannacci before or after next year’s election.

“Vannacci has been growing a lot in polls, especially over the past two months,” said Lorenzo Pregliasco from the YouTrend polling firm, noting that National Future is polling at over 7 percent. 

“Without Vannacci, the center-right could lose the upcoming election,” he said. “These seven points matter a lot.”

The Vannacci effect

Nicola Procaccini, Meloni’s lieutenant and co-chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, denies that Meloni is shifting on policy to protect herself from Vannacci.

“She stands where she has always stood,” he told POLITICO. “She simply isn’t the racist, xenophobic fascist she was made out to be when she first took office. And she isn’t one now, either.” 

Meloni is also facing a challenge to her support for Ukraine, with both the League and Vannacci advocating a softer line on Moscow, opposing military aid to Kyiv and arguing against an increase in defense spending. 

Though Meloni has portrayed herself as a strong backer of Ukraine, her reliance on the League for support has meant Italy has contributed just €3 billion in four years, roughly the equivalent of €1 a month for every Italian citizen, less than the cost of an espresso.

Italy has also declined to join NATO’s PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List), an arms-buying scheme set up last summer after U.S. President Donald Trump ended new military aid commitments to Kyiv.

Ukraine is where Meloni’s real difference with Vannacci lies, argued Tarchi, who teaches at the University of Florence and is considered the key figure of a movement called the New Right.

“Otherwise, the gap is artificially exaggerated in rhetoric and posturing for tactical reasons,” he said.

Meloni’s allies haven’t ruled out an alliance with Vannacci but they stress that the possibility will depend on where he stands on key values such as foreign policy.

If he seeks “to position Italy, alongside Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, clearly, it is not possible to stand together,” said Procaccini. “If, instead, he chooses the West — the democracies, Western nations, Western liberal democracies — then we can certainly stand together.”

Germany is being hit by hybrid warfare attacks from foreign powers on a “daily” basis, the country’s interior minister has warned, after a drone packed with explosives was found at Leipzig Airport earlier this week.

Espionage, sabotage, cyber attacks and covert actions “with the aim of destabilizing Germany or directly harming it” are a “constant reality,” German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt told BILD in an interview on Sunday.

Dobrindt suggested on Thursday that a drone incident at Leipzig Airport may have been an attack by a state actor. The minister has stopped short of specifying which foreign powers are behind the hybrid attacks.

Leipzig Airport serves as a strategic hub for NATO, including for military transports to Ukraine. The airport is also the international courier service DHL’s largest European air hub and serves as a temporary home for some Ukrainian Antonov aircraft, protecting them from Russian attacks. An armed drone was found just meters away from such a plane, German officials said Wednesday.

A spokesperson for Germany’s foreign ministry said on Wednesday that Russia is behind daily attempts to “exert influence here in Germany in a manner that seeks to undermine our democracy and erode trust in politics and politicians.”

The Kremlin has been accused of seeking to sway September’s elections in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg–Western Pomerania, states in the former communist East Germany where pro-Russian sentiment remains strong and where the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party could take power for the first time at the state level.

Tourists traveling between Spain and Italy are caught in the middle of an escalating ideological feud over European border security involving Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

Madrid on Saturday restored border controls on ships and flights arriving in Spain from Italian ports and airports, suspending passport-free travel between the two countries. Spain said the move was necessary to protect its citizens from “the persistent irregular migration pressure suffered by the transalpine country.”

The move was an unmistakable retaliation for the checks that Italy has imposed on travelers arriving from Spain since Aug. 1. Rome enacted those measures in response to the mass arrival of people in the Spanish exclave of Ceuta, citing fears that the unauthorized migrants could cross the Strait of Gibraltar and take advantage of the passport-free Schengen area to travel onward to Italy and elsewhere in the EU.

Madrid has pushed back forcefully against that narrative, and noted that the migrants could not leave the North African territory because they lack valid IDs required to travel on ferries to mainland Europe.

Spanish authorities and the European Commission this week confirmed that none of the 72,000 people who surged into Ceuta have crossed the Strait of Gibraltar. During a meeting of EU interior ministers on Tuesday, Italian Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi publicly praised Spain for its handling of the situation and expressed Rome’s “sincere solidarity” with Madrid.

Yet despite requests from Madrid, the Italian government has declined to end border checks even after it became clear that there was no risk of the Ceuta crisis spilling into the rest of Europe. Rome’s inaction prompted Spain to issue a statement on Friday threatening to adopt “proportional measures” if Rome did not change course by Aug. 9.

After Meloni’s office responded by declaring “Italy does not accept ultimatums or demands from abroad regarding national security and border control,” Madrid moved to reintroduce its own controls.

Magnus Brunner, the European commissioner for internal affairs and migration, sought to mediate in the dispute.

“I was in contact with both the Spanish and Italian Interior Ministers today. Both confirmed that the internal border controls are temporary,” Brunner said in a post on X. “I stressed the progress we’ve made on tackling illegal migration and that trust between Member States is our most valuable currency.”

“Spanish authorities assured us the events in Ceuta will have no lasting effect on the Schengen area. That is why there are signals from Italy that controls could be lifted soon,” the Austrian commissioner added.

A battle fought in passport queues

The tit-for-tat measures are emblematic of Meloni and Sánchez’s broader feud over migration policies.

Italy’s right-wing premier built her political brand as an opponent of migration and has led a charge to get the EU to adopt tougher border controls. Her Socialist counterpart in Madrid has, meanwhile, taken a diametrically opposed approach, arguing that the bloc needs to take in more foreign workers to remain economically competitive and stave off a demographic collapse.

Meloni slammed Madrid after it rolled out a scheme to grant legal status to more than 1 million unauthorized migrants earlier this year, and called for a debate on the consequences of the measure during a meeting of European leaders last month.

As the Ceuta crisis unfolded, the Italian premier spearheaded the drafting of a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa in which 22 EU leaders argued Madrid’s migration policies had undermined the security of the bloc’s external borders.

“We have a duty to effectively deter and relentlessly combat illegal migration, by coordinating our action, strengthening our external borders and addressing all policies that can serve as pull factors, such as the regularization of [a] very large number of irregular migrants,” the leaders wrote.

Madrid has forcefully rejected Italy’s accusations and pointed out that none of the migrants who entered Ceuta could have benefited from the legal status scheme, which is subject to specific qualifying conditions. Moreover, Spanish officials have bristled at Rome’s suggestion that they are mismanaging the bloc’s external borders, pointing to data showing Italy is doing a far worse job of handling unauthorized migrants.

“Italy is the EU member state that has recorded the highest number of irregular crossings in recent years, with figures that have at times been twice those of Spain,” a Spanish government spokesperson said on Friday.

By reintroducing border controls, Italy and Spain have underscored the fragility of the Schengen area, which has existed since 1995 and now extends to 29 European countries.

Under the current rules, any member country is allowed to reintroduce checks for an initial period of up to six months to address security threats. The measures can be renewed for six-month periods for up to two years, and, in exceptional circumstances, up to three years.

Few expect the spat between Rome and Madrid to endure for that long, but in the meantime those traveling between the two countries will have to endure the resulting inconvenience.

Throughout the week, passengers on flights departing from Spanish airports have complained about the scrutiny they have faced upon arrival in Italy, with travelers reporting significant delays as Italian carabinieri checked their IDs. On Saturday, passengers on Italian flights arriving in Spain were subjected to similar controls, with National Police holding travelers who could not provide official identification.

Some 3.2 million Spaniards traveled to Italy in 2024, and 5.4 million Italians visited Spain. The renewed controls could push travelers to reconsider trips between the two countries — and make other European destinations the inadvertent beneficiaries of an ideological battle playing out in passport queues.

This article has been updated with additional reporting by Gabriel Gavin.

BERLIN — A drone packed with explosives discovered at Leipzig Airport is raising fears of foreign interference in upcoming German regional elections in which far-right politicians have campaigned on fears of escalations with Moscow.

The drone — found at a strategic airport serving Ukrainian and NATO aircraft as well as a major DHL logistics hub — is being seen as evidence of a potential act by “foreign powers,” said German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt.

The Kremlin has been accused of seeking to sway September’s elections in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg–Western Pomerania, states in the former communist East Germany where pro-Russian sentiment remains strong and where the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party could take power for the first time at the state level.

“We do of course see that Russia attempts every day, in one way or another — through hybrid means and various measures — to exert influence here in Germany in a manner that seeks to undermine our democracy and erode trust in politics and politicians,” said Martin Giese, a foreign ministry spokesperson.

Russian disinformation campaigns have portrayed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his government as warmongers. They aim to undermine the already unpopular chancellor and boost Russia-friendly forces such as the AfD and the far-left Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) — both of which are strong in eastern Germany.

“The state elections in Saxony-Anhalt and in eastern Germany are, of course, a major target of Russian influence, because these are pivotal elections in the heart of Europe,” said Stefan Meister, a Russia expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations.

He said that it is too early to attribute the explosive-laden drone to Russia as investigations are still ongoing. But he added that Moscow is clearly waging a broad hybrid campaign targeting the region ahead of next month’s votes.

“This could be the first time right-wing populists come to power,” Meister said. “And with that, the chancellor might even fall — or at the very least, the coalition would be severely weakened — and a pro-Russian party would come to power in one of the federal states.”  

“There is a major campaign underway on the Russian side to influence these elections in favor of the AfD and the BSW,” he added. 

Polls show that the AfD has a chance of winning an outright majority in Saxony-Anhalt on Sept. 6 and is poised to be the largest party in Mecklenburg–Western Pomerania and is expected to perform well in Berlin when those states hold elections on Sept. 20.

Vulnerable transport hub

The drone incident risks raising fears in Germany that their country’s support for Ukraine is bringing the war closer to home.

The Leipzig-Halle airport has been a target in the past. In July 2024, an incendiary parcel caught fire at a DHL facility there shortly before it was due to be loaded onto an aircraft. European investigators later identified 22 suspects allegedly working for Russian military intelligence in the wider parcel plot. 

The airport is among Germany’s most strategically important transport hubs.

It is the home base for NATO’s SALIS airlift program, which gives nine participating countries access to Ukrainian Antonov aircraft capable of carrying oversized military cargo for national, EU and alliance missions.

The incident adds to a feeling of insecurity, which could help populist parties, said Meister.

“It’s once again obvious that we’re simply very vulnerable,” he said.

An interior ministry spokesperson said Wednesday that the government was monitoring a campaign it called “Matryoshka,” and regarded it as serious.

German officials said this week that fabricated videos that falsely accused candidates of corruption, sexual misconduct and other crimes appeared to have mimicked trusted outlets such as the German regional public broadcaster ARD and the U.K.’s BBC.

Independent researchers have gone further. Deutsche Welle counted more than 180 fake posts linked to Matryoshka targeting September’s three elections. The posts largely attacked candidates from centrist parties, while sparing the AfD and BSW, according to researchers.

Chris Lunday contributed to this report.

BERLIN — German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt has suggested a state actor was behind the explosive-laden drone that was found at Leipzig airport.

“We can’t rule out the possibility that foreign powers are behind this,” Dobrindt told public broadcaster ZDF Wednesday evening. “That will now be part of the investigation, but there are many indications pointing in that direction,” he said.

Dobrindt stopped short of naming Russia specifically in his statements but said that “a hybrid threat is evident” and that such threats do not originate from amateurs but are “often linked to foreign powers.”

“Of course, we all want to know which foreign powers are involved. But it would be reckless to give credence to any kind of speculation at this point,” he added.

Leipzig Airport serves as a strategic hub for NATO, including for military transports to Ukraine. The airport is also international courier service DHL’s largest European air hub and serves as a temporary home for some Ukrainian Antonov aircraft, protecting them from Russian attacks. The armed drone was found just meters away from such a plane, said officials Wednesday.

Armin Schuster, minister of the interior for Saxony — where Leipzig is located — told ZDF that the incident represented a new threat level.

“Without wanting to preempt the investigation, I would describe this as a suspected attack scenario because this is the first time we’ve had a drone that was also loaded with explosives,” he said. “That’s new.”

An airport worker found the drone Tuesday night. Officers disarmed the device by removing its detonator, which had failed to go off. In a separate incident at the same airport,  another flying object struck a DHL cargo aircraft as it was being diverted away from the airport after the explosive-laden drone was found.

A new survey quantifies the financial and emotional toll of flight disruptions, pointing to a widening gap between passenger rights on paper and passenger experience in practice.

Nearly eight in 10 travelers experienced a flight disruption in the past year, and for most the damage went well beyond the inconvenience itself. A new survey from AirHelp, a company dedicated to supporting travelers throughout their journey, puts a number on what disruption actually costs passengers: an average of €514 out of pocket, plus a real toll on their time, plans and well-being.

These figures reflect an industry operating under sustained pressure, with disruption continuing to shape the everyday experience of millions of travelers.

Air travel has largely recovered from its pandemic-era lows, but disruption remains a persistent feature of modern flying, driven by everything from air traffic control constraints to weather, staffing and aging infrastructure. Globally, 79 percent of respondents had a flight canceled, delayed by more than two hours or otherwise disrupted in the past 12 months. Of those disruptions, 50 percent were delays over two hours, 15 percent were cancellations, and 14 percent involved delayed, lost or damaged luggage. These figures reflect an industry operating under sustained pressure, with disruption continuing to shape the everyday experience of millions of travelers.

The financial toll

Globally, nearly three-quarters of passengers (73 percent) incurred additional expenses due to disruptions, with costs averaging €514 per person, although that figure masks wide differences. It also marks a clear increase from previous surveys, which found average costs of just €362.50 per passenger.

UK and German travelers report the highest average costs, at roughly €708 and €619 respectively. Portuguese and Spanish travelers report the lowest, at approximately €277 and €340. The United States and Brazil sit in the mid-to-high range, at around €577 and €529. The spread likely reflects differing living and wage levels, but it also means the highest-cost markets can see disrupted trips cost nearly three times what they would in the cheapest.

Money isn’t the only thing that weighs on passengers during disruptions.

Fifty-seven percent of passengers had to spend extra out of pocket during a disruption. Another 20 percent lost money that couldn’t be recovered, a non-refundable hotel stay, for instance, while 5 percent lost income they’d expected to earn. Just over a quarter, 27 percent, said the disruption cost them nothing.

Emotional toll

Money isn’t the only thing that weighs on passengers during disruptions. Sixty-eight percent of all respondents globally cited stress or frustration as a consequence of their disruption. That finding holds up when you look at what passengers rated as a major problem. Globally, waiting around for long periods ranked as the most common major complaint, cited by 50 percent of passengers, followed closely by stress itself at 43 percent.

The knock-on effects extended well beyond the airport. Thirty percent said the disruption derailed specific plans during their trip, such as sightseeing or connecting activities. Twenty-nine percent reported negative health or well-being effects like fatigue, missed sleep or illness. Twenty-two percent missed work or professional obligations, and 20 percent missed personal events like family gatherings or celebrations. Only 8 percent said they experienced no impacts beyond the disruption itself.

A pattern of inconsistent support

Much of the toll passengers describe traces back to communication. Many report not knowing what support or compensation they were entitled to during a disruption.
Globally, in-the-moment support was inconsistent: 47 percent of passengers said they never received vouchers, air miles or future discounts, and 44 percent said they never received cash compensation or money back for their costs. Basic support fared a little better but was still patchy- 38 percent never received food and drink, while adequate information about the disruption was more reliably provided, with just 25 percent saying they never got it.

These findings vary by market. On cash compensation, American passengers were the least likely to receive money back, with 52 percent receiving none, while German passengers were the most likely, with only 34 percent reporting none.

The regulatory question

Over a third of travelers (35 percent) said they didn’t know that regulations protecting passenger rights exist when flying in Europe. Among those who might have been eligible for compensation, 31 percent globally never filed a claim simply because they didn’t know they could, while another 22 percent held back because the process seemed too complicated.

Travellers are paying a very high price for flight disruptions, and the damage goes well beyond the bank balance.

Tomasz Pawliszyn, CEO of AirHelp

These findings come from a global survey commissioned by AirHelp and launched in February, polling 1,996 passengers across the UK, Europe, the United States and Brazil about their experiences with flight disruptions over the past 12 months.

“Travellers are paying a very high price for flight disruptions, and the damage goes well beyond the bank balance,” says Tomasz Pawliszyn, CEO of AirHelp. He points to the gap between the protections that exist on paper, air passenger rights laws and what passengers actually experience.

“Passengers are entitled to care and, in many cases, compensation when their flight is disrupted,” Pawliszyn said. “But when the majority of travelers remain uninformed, that protection isn’t reaching the people it’s meant for.”

The findings point to a narrower and more tractable question than airline performance itself: whether existing consumer-protection rules are being communicated clearly enough to function as intended. As aviation authorities in the UK, EU and elsewhere continue reviewing passenger rights frameworks, this data suggests the more urgent gap may not be the rules themselves, but how well travelers understand them.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s new biometric border-check system is causing such long delays for summer travelers that some airports are turning to a simple solution: switching it off when they’re overwhelmed by arriving travelers.

The quick fix, which is allowed under EU regulations, wasn’t what was envisioned when the Entry/Exit System was gradually introduced in October and went fully into force on April 10.

And yet, many airports are doing just that.

“When lines form during the busy summer months, the system is shut off to ensure smooth transit at our hubs in Paris and Amsterdam,” Air France-KLM told POLITICO. 

Airline CEOs, border authorities, and airport officials said biometric checks are suspended when border crossings become congested at other hubs, including in Frankfurt, Brussels and Milan.

The EES applies to non-EU citizens entering the 29-country Schengen zone. Instead of heading to a border agent to get passports stamped, passengers have to use an EES kiosk to provide their fingerprints and be photographed — which will be kept on file for three years — but if those aren’t working then the information has to be taken manually.

They then head either to electronic passport gates or to border agents to enter. The goal is to keep track of visa overstays.

“The advantages of the new system for the EU are evident,” said Guillaume Mercier, a Commission spokesperson. “It increases the security of EU citizens and replaces paper stamping with a modern system of registration and checks.”

The Commission said earlier this year that biometric checks allowed authorities to detect identity frauds that would otherwise “likely have gone undetected.”

Many airports, ports, road border crossings and rail terminals have adapted to the new demands, but tourist-heavy locations have seen hours-long waits.

“Connecting flights were missed due to the EU entry system,” Lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr said on Tuesday.

Under pressure from the travel industry, the Commission granted a waiver for the peak summer season lasting until Sept. 6. The EES regulation “includes the possibility to temporarily suspend the registration of biometrics in case of exceptional circumstances during the summer,” said Mercier.

“We’ve been able to achieve this with German authorities and with Frankfurt Airport because delays were getting too long,” Spohr told reporters. 

This exception applies to all entry points, not just airports.

A British traveler, Rene Colandog, said on Friday he only had to present his passport before boarding a Eurostar train at London St. Pancras last month. Facial scans and fingerprints were not required. 

“I’m OK with this biometric system … as long as it’s for security,” Colandog said before boarding the train from Brussels back to London. 

Teething troubles

The EES was adopted in 2017, but it was delayed for years because border authorities were not ready to handle the additional workload. 

Even now, getting travelers properly registered in the new system still requires significant staffing. Another problem is that the EES is still new, so almost all travelers are registering for the first time — creating additional delays.

“At Milan Malpensa Airport, border control teams currently consist of about 35 people,” said Cristian Sternativo, a border control officer at the Italian airport and local representative of Italy’s Autonomous Police Union. 

To carry out all the checks required by the EES without creating long lines, “at least 10 to 15 more people would be needed during the busiest times,” he added.  

It is “unthinkable” to expect the EES to operate at full capacity with the current level of staffing because the new system “requires more time,” he said.

Even at Brussels Airport — barely 10 kilometers from the EU institutions — the technology is still not fully operational; biometric data collection suspensions started well before the summer under a derogation issued in late March after 600 passengers missed their flights over just 21 hours.

“The Federal Police Border Control may decide to apply this derogation when necessary,” Belgium’s police confirmed this week.

Now, eight EU countries and Switzerland want the summer derogations extended beyond Sept. 6. 

A strict application of the full procedure “would lead to public order issues” because “there are certain peak periods when the current infrastructure isn’t sufficient to accommodate everyone,” Sternativo said.

Security vs. speed

Despite suspending biometric checks, border authorities insist that security isn’t undermined.

“The traveler is always registered in the EES and the required travel document data are entered into the system,” the Belgian federal police said in a written reply, adding that “the security of border checks and compliance with European regulations remain our absolute priority.”

Passenger experiences vary depending on where they enter the EU.

Kathleen Glass, who regularly travels from the U.K. to the EU, waited only about 15 minutes to complete biometric checks at London St. Pancras on Friday morning before boarding a Eurostar train to Brussels.

William, from Edinburgh, who asked not to have his surname published, said biometric checks at a German airport during Christmas took between 40 and 50 minutes.

The ability to suspend biometric collection appears to be keeping the system functioning this summer.

“Although we are early into the summer season, we are not receiving reports of excessive queues,” said Luke Petherbridge, director of public affairs for the Association of British Travel Agents.

The stress over the EES is only a precursor to the next border technology change being planned by Brussels. The bloc’s next goal is the online European Travel Information and Authorization System, which will require travelers from 59 visa-exempt countries to preregister, undergo a security check and pay a small fee before entering Schengen.

ETIAS — similar to systems already in use in the U.K., and the U.S. — was originally supposed to launch in 2021, and then later this year, but is now delayed until 2027.