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.

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 — Water firms and campaigners are set to wait until next year to see the full details of Andy Burnham’s plans to overhaul the sector in England.

Britain’s new prime minister has promised greater “public control” of the water industry as a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, partly reversing a wave of privatization that began in the 1980s. Ministers are due to unveil more detail in a “10-year plan for Britain” that is currently expected in December.

However, while this 10-year plan will contain a high-level vision, priorities and principles for the industry’s future, much of the granular detail of how future ownership models will work in practice is only expected later, said two people with knowledge of the discussions.

Some of these key details will be laid out in Chancellor John Healey’s multi-year spending review at some point in 2027, added the two people, who were granted anonymity to discuss evolving policy. One said the spending review — a date for which has not been decided — was where the full details would be “nailed down.”

These include any fiscal implications for the Treasury, which could have to find billions of pounds if ministers decided to transfer privately-owned shares to the public purse.

This appears to mirror an approach Burnham has taken to policymaking for decades, first as a Cabinet minister and then mayor of Greater Manchester before he took over 10 Downing Street in July. He is known for setting out a broad direction which his officials can later use to pin down detailed policy, while also seeking buy-in from private industry.

With a general election due by summer 2029, however, any wait will compress the prime minister’s window to enact far-reaching reform before he goes back to the electorate.

‘£40 being added to every single water bill’

England’s privatized water firms also argue that uncertainty over the sector’s future is damaging investor confidence.

The industry trade association Water UK has said the entire industry risks being downgraded by the credit ratings agency Moody’s, which would add £40 to customers’ annual bills.

Water UK Chief Executive David Henderson urged the government to move ahead with reforms suggested last year by former Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe, before ministers decide the overall path of how the sector is owned.

The Cunliffe report “was given to the government 15 months ago and the credit rating agencies are watching,” Henderson told POLITICO. “If the government doesn’t pretty soon decide what it wants to do with that report, then we risk a downgrade, as Moody’s has indicated. And if there’s a downgrade, that would sadly see £40 being added to every single water bill across England and Wales. That’s the last thing anybody wants.”

He added: “We still have no idea how [a proposed] new regulator will look, what status it will have, what its duties will be, which parts of the Environment Agency will stay in the Environment Agency, and which parts will go into the new regulator. That is causing uncertainty … an important consideration for any investor.”

One government official insisted the 10-year plan would contain some finer details of plans to overhaul the water industry, though they accepted that fiscal implications were always dealt with in fiscal events such as the spending review. 

Environment Secretary Angela Eagle is also due to bring a water bill to parliament before Christmas with separate policy, such as closing what Burnham has called “loopholes used to pay excessive bonuses” to water company executives. It will also contain scrutiny powers for regional mayors.

Burnham announced last month that the bill would lift a ban on the government owning more than 3% of shares in any English water firm. But he has also long made clear that he would not fully nationalize the industry, a move the government previously estimated would cost £100 billion for England and Wales together.

First Secretary of State Louise Haigh, one of Burnham’s most powerful allies in government, is leading three task forces including one on public control of water alongside housing, energy and transport.

Officials have been working through a “spectrum of options” for how public control in the water sector will look, a second government official said. They added that ministers are due to begin deciding which option — or combination of options — will be taken forward before the 10-year plan.