An anonymously-sourced story in the Wall Street Journal contains the following claim: “The European Union’s executive arm is currently working on new legislation aimed at promoting tech sovereignty, according to officials familiar with the matter.“
When a major news publication anonymously posts claims about an event that has not yet happened—in this case a law propping up tech companies in the E.U.—it’s appropriate to wonder why. After all, there might be commercial interests that want this somewhat limp threat published beforehand for purely cynical or self-serving reasons. But that doesn’t make the claim not worth contemplating.
Citing “officials and lawmakers,” the Journal says powerful people want to discourage “dependencies” on the U.S., in addition to helping their own companies, and they don’t necessarily want to “ditch” technologies produced by the Silicon Valley giants.
In and around the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland this past week, the issue on everyone in Europe’s mind was Donald Trump’s bizarre demand that the landmass of Greenland be handed to him on a platter by Denmark—and his threat to introduce tariffs against the E.U. countries that he feels are thwarting him—most of Northern Europe, France, Germany, and the U.K. Trump has apparently abandoned his most powerful bargaining chip in this standoff: the threat of actual war. That in turn may have been because the most powerful people in the world, bond vigilantes, sent a clear message to Trump that they didn’t want war over Greenland.
But while tensions were higher earlier this week, the E.U. did something truly strange and entertained the possibility of a display of actual backbone against the U.S. via its package of measures known as the “Anti-Coercion Instrument” (ACI). The ACI, also known as the “trade bazooka,” is a collection of tariffs and trade restrictions originally intended as a weapon brandished in the direction of China. Instead, officials intimated that they might christen their bazooka by firing it at the U.S.
European tech sovereignty is a buzz phrase with real power right now, even if the concept seems to lack a certain material heft at first glance. The Wall Street Journal’s framing for its story on this potential legislation is one of economic defense and deterrence—not some kind of first strike. E.U. officials are apparently quaking with fear of a “White House executive order that cuts off the region’s access to data centers or email software that businesses and governments need to function,” the Journal writes.
The reverse, the E.U. cutting off access to basic tech necessities doesn’t really sound like something Europe can do. Denying Americans access to Sweden-based Spotify and phones from Finland-based Nokia doesn’t sound like all that serious of a threat, which is why boosting E.U. companies seems like a natural focus for any effort, as it would cause pain by making U.S. tech less competitive. Earlier this month, the European Commission announced the sovereignty-focused “Open Digital Ecosystem Strategy” initiative, which is currently soliciting public feedback. The elephants in the room for such an effort would be France-based Mistral as a source of E.U.-based AI models, and some kind of Eurozone-centric mobile operating system. Deepmind for AI and Huawei’s HarmonyOS mobile operating system come to mind. Large scale cloud computing in Europe without megacompanies like Amazon and Microsoft would be trickier.
But one very large hammer the EU could look into whacking the U.S. with (and one that isn’t mentioned at all by the Wall Street Journal) is Netherlands-based ASML, currently the world’s only creator of the lithography machines used to make the GPUs needed for the training and running of frontier AI models. A monopoly on the machines currently keeping the U.S. economy on rails is an even more powerful piece of economic weaponry than a bazooka (it’s an economic aircraft carrier at least, if not a small, tactical economic nuke) and thanks to its recent investment in Mistral, it’s abundantly clear that E.U. sovereignty is on ASML’s mind to some degree.
And taking proactive steps toward E.U. tech sovereignty is, at least to some degree, an idea not just floating around the halls of power, but one with actual grassroots support, at least if you judge from the activity on Reddit’s BuyFromEU subreddit. Users there who normally exchange tips on finding locally sourced products are increasingly paranoid that they’re going to be banned from the U.S. social media platform they’re currently using to communicate. Some are even talking about a move to W, a newly announced European Social Media site along the lines of X.
And I wish Europe all the good luck in the world getting an X alternative to thrive and avoid becoming a cesspool. That’s no easy task, not even here in the good old U.S.A.
President Donald Trump linked his aggressive stance on Greenland to last year’s decision not to award him the Nobel Peace Prize, telling Norway’s prime minister that he no longer felt “an obligation to think purely of Peace,” two European officials said Monday.Trump’s message to Jonas Gahr Støre appears to ratchet up a standoff between Washington and its closest allies over his threats to take over Greenland, a self-governing territory of NATO member Denmark. On Saturday, Trump announced a 10% import tax starting in February on goods from eight nations that have rallied around Denmark and Greenland, including Norway.Those countries issued a forceful rebuke. But British Prime Minister Keir Starmer sought to de-escalate tensions on Monday. While the White House has not ruled taking control of the strategic Arctic island by force, Starmer said he did not believe military action would occur.”I think this can be resolved and should be resolved through calm discussion,” he said.Still, the American leader’s message to Gahr Støre could further fracture a U.S.-European relationship already strained by differences over how to end the nearly four-year war in Ukraine, previous rounds of tariffs, military spending and migration policy.In a sign of how tensions have increased in recent days, thousands of Greenlanders marched over the weekend in protest of any effort to take over their island. Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a Facebook post Monday that the tariff threats would not change their stance.“We will not be pressured,” he wrote.Meanwhile, Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s minister for business, minerals, energy, justice and equality, told The Associated Press that she was moved by the quick response of allies to the tariff threat and said it showed that countries realize “this is about more than Greenland.”“I think a lot of countries are afraid that if they let Greenland go, what would be next?”Trump sends a message to the Norwegian leaderAccording to two European officials, Trump’s message to Gahr Støre read in part: “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”It concluded: “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”The officials, who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said it had been forwarded to multiple European ambassadors in Washington. PBS first reported on the content of Trump’s note.U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the president’s approach in Greenland during a brief Q&A with reporters in Davos, Switzerland, which is hosting the World Economic Forum meeting this week.“I think it’s a complete canard that the president would be doing this because of the Nobel,” Bessent said, immediately after saying he did not “know anything about the president’s letter to Norway.”Bessent insisted Trump “is looking at Greenland as a strategic asset for the United States,” adding that “we are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to anyone else.”The White House did not respond to questions about the message or the context for Trump sending it.Gahr Støre confirmed Monday that he had received a text message the day before from Trump but did not release its contents.The Norwegian leader said Trump’s message was a reply to an earlier missive sent on behalf of himself and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, in which they conveyed their opposition to the tariff announcement, pointed to a need to de-escalate, and proposed a telephone conversation among the three leaders.“Norway’s position on Greenland is clear. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and Norway fully supports the Kingdom of Denmark on this matter,” the Norwegian leader said in a statement. “As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, I have clearly explained, including to President Trump what is well known, the prize is awarded by an independent Nobel Committee and not the Norwegian Government.”He told TV2 Norway that he hadn’t responded to the message, but “I still believe it’s wise to talk,” and he hopes to talk with Trump in Davos this week.The Norwegian Nobel Committee is an independent body whose five members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.Trump has openly coveted the peace prize, which the committee awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado last year. Last week, Machado presented her Nobel medal to Trump, who said he planned to keep it though the committee said the prize can’t be revoked, transferred or shared with others.Starmer says a trade war is in no one’s interestIn his latest threat of tariffs, Trump indicated they would be retaliation for last week’s deployment of symbolic numbers of troops from the European countries to Greenland — though he also suggested that he was using the tariffs as leverage to negotiate with Denmark.European governments said that the troops traveled to the island to assess Arctic security, part of a response to Trump’s own concerns about interference from Russia and China.Starmer on Monday called Trump’s threat of tariffs “completely wrong” and said that a trade war is in no one’s interest.He added that “being pragmatic does not mean being passive and partnership does not mean abandoning principles.”Six of the eight countries targeted are part of the 27-member European Union, which operates as a single economic zone in terms of trade. European Council President Antonio Costa said Sunday that the bloc’s leaders expressed “readiness to defend ourselves against any form of coercion.” He announced a summit for Thursday evening.Starmer indicated that Britain, which is not part of the EU, is not planning to consider retaliatory tariffs.“My focus is on making sure we don’t get to that stage,” he said.Denmark’s defense minister and Greenland’s foreign minister are expected to meet NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in Brussels on Monday, a meeting that was planned before the latest escalation.___Associated Press writers Josh Boak in West Palm Beach, Florida; Emma Burrows in Nuuk, Greenland; and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump linked his aggressive stance on Greenland to last year’s decision not to award him the Nobel Peace Prize, telling Norway’s prime minister that he no longer felt “an obligation to think purely of Peace,” two European officials said Monday.
Trump’s message to Jonas Gahr Støre appears to ratchet up a standoff between Washington and its closest allies over his threats to take over Greenland, a self-governing territory of NATO member Denmark. On Saturday, Trump announced a 10% import tax starting in February on goods from eight nations that have rallied around Denmark and Greenland, including Norway.
Those countries issued a forceful rebuke. But British Prime Minister Keir Starmer sought to de-escalate tensions on Monday. While the White House has not ruled taking control of the strategic Arctic island by force, Starmer said he did not believe military action would occur.
“I think this can be resolved and should be resolved through calm discussion,” he said.
Still, the American leader’s message to Gahr Støre could further fracture a U.S.-European relationship already strained by differences over how to end the nearly four-year war in Ukraine, previous rounds of tariffs, military spending and migration policy.
In a sign of how tensions have increased in recent days, thousands of Greenlanders marched over the weekend in protest of any effort to take over their island. Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a Facebook post Monday that the tariff threats would not change their stance.
“We will not be pressured,” he wrote.
Meanwhile, Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s minister for business, minerals, energy, justice and equality, told The Associated Press that she was moved by the quick response of allies to the tariff threat and said it showed that countries realize “this is about more than Greenland.”
“I think a lot of countries are afraid that if they let Greenland go, what would be next?”
Trump sends a message to the Norwegian leader
According to two European officials, Trump’s message to Gahr Støre read in part: “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”
It concluded: “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”
The officials, who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said it had been forwarded to multiple European ambassadors in Washington. PBS first reported on the content of Trump’s note.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the president’s approach in Greenland during a brief Q&A with reporters in Davos, Switzerland, which is hosting the World Economic Forum meeting this week.
“I think it’s a complete canard that the president would be doing this because of the Nobel,” Bessent said, immediately after saying he did not “know anything about the president’s letter to Norway.”
Bessent insisted Trump “is looking at Greenland as a strategic asset for the United States,” adding that “we are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to anyone else.”
The White House did not respond to questions about the message or the context for Trump sending it.
Gahr Støre confirmed Monday that he had received a text message the day before from Trump but did not release its contents.
The Norwegian leader said Trump’s message was a reply to an earlier missive sent on behalf of himself and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, in which they conveyed their opposition to the tariff announcement, pointed to a need to de-escalate, and proposed a telephone conversation among the three leaders.
“Norway’s position on Greenland is clear. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and Norway fully supports the Kingdom of Denmark on this matter,” the Norwegian leader said in a statement. “As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, I have clearly explained, including to President Trump what is well known, the prize is awarded by an independent Nobel Committee and not the Norwegian Government.”
He told TV2 Norway that he hadn’t responded to the message, but “I still believe it’s wise to talk,” and he hopes to talk with Trump in Davos this week.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is an independent body whose five members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.
Trump has openly coveted the peace prize, which the committee awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado last year. Last week, Machado presented her Nobel medal to Trump, who said he planned to keep it though the committee said the prize can’t be revoked, transferred or shared with others.
Starmer says a trade war is in no one’s interest
In his latest threat of tariffs, Trump indicated they would be retaliation for last week’s deployment of symbolic numbers of troops from the European countries to Greenland — though he also suggested that he was using the tariffs as leverage to negotiate with Denmark.
European governments said that the troops traveled to the island to assess Arctic security, part of a response to Trump’s own concerns about interference from Russia and China.
Starmer on Monday called Trump’s threat of tariffs “completely wrong” and said that a trade war is in no one’s interest.
He added that “being pragmatic does not mean being passive and partnership does not mean abandoning principles.”
Six of the eight countries targeted are part of the 27-member European Union, which operates as a single economic zone in terms of trade. European Council President Antonio Costa said Sunday that the bloc’s leaders expressed “readiness to defend ourselves against any form of coercion.” He announced a summit for Thursday evening.
Starmer indicated that Britain, which is not part of the EU, is not planning to consider retaliatory tariffs.
“My focus is on making sure we don’t get to that stage,” he said.
Denmark’s defense minister and Greenland’s foreign minister are expected to meet NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in Brussels on Monday, a meeting that was planned before the latest escalation.
___
Associated Press writers Josh Boak in West Palm Beach, Florida; Emma Burrows in Nuuk, Greenland; and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.
After nearly two months without new consumer price data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest report Thursday, providing a glimpse at energy costs, food prices and other everyday expenses.
According to the consumer price index, inflation slowed in November, with prices rising 0.2% over the 0.3% observed in September. (BLS could not collect October data because of the government shutdown.)
Still, inflation remains stubbornly high. Compared with a year ago, consumer costs are up about 2.7%.
Thursday’s report came just a day after President Donald Trump delivered a prime-time address from the White House in which he largely discussed affordability concerns, from housing costs to grocery prices, saying the U.S. is “poised for an economic boom.”
“The last administration and their allies in Congress looted our treasury for trillions of dollars, driving up prices and everything at levels never seen before. I am bringing those high prices down and bringing them down very fast.”
In truth, of the 11 everyday costs tracked month to month by the consumer price index, only five have decreased since January.
Here’s a closer look at the president’s claims and how prices are changing, or not, during his second term in office.
To see the average U.S. price of a specific good, click on the drop-down arrow below and select the item you wish to view.
Eggs
In the wake of all-time highs set earlier this year, egg prices have collapsed in recent months.
That downward trend continued in November, with the price dropping a whopping 63 cents from September and settling at $2.86 per dozen. It’s the first time since June 2024 that the average nationwide price for a dozen large Grade A eggs registered below the $3 mark.
This steep drop-off in prices is a result of a declining number of bird flu cases in commercial and backyard flocks. In the first two months of 2025, tens of millions of birds were affected by highly pathogenic avian influenza across 39 states, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. With entire flocks culled to prevent the spread of the virus, the egg supply was strained, leading to shortages in stores and record costs for consumers.
Following another spike in cases in the early fall, the number of new infections appears to be subsiding again, with less than 2 million U.S. birds affected in the past two months. More notably, zero outbreaks among egg-laying chickens have been reported in November and December.
Consequently, costs are “falling rapidly” as highlighted by Trump in his prime-time address earlier this week.
“The price of eggs is down 82% since March, and everything else is falling rapidly. And it’s not done yet, but boy are we making progress. Nobody can believe what’s going on.”
While egg prices have dropped considerably from March’s record high of $6.23 per dozen, the difference of roughly $3.37 from March to November represents a 54% decrease — not the 82% cited by the president.
In a statement given to the Tribune, a White House official clarified that he was referring to wholesale costs, not retail prices.
Milk
The cost of milk also saw a measurable decrease from the previous month, falling 13 cents.
A gallon of fresh, fortified whole milk is now priced at $4.00 — that’s 2.5% less than it was in December 2024, before Trump took office.
Bread
The average price of white bread fell in November to $1.79 per pound, marking a three-year low for the pantry staple. Time for bread pudding, anyone?
Bananas
The cost of bananas fell slightly from September’s all-time highs, dropping just a fraction of a cent to $0.66 per pound in November.
Recent price inflation is likely a byproduct of the president’s trade war, with tariffs imposed on the country’s top banana suppliers like Guatemala, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras and Mexico — all of which are currently subject to an import tax of at least 10%.
But in mid-November, Trump took action to combat rising grocery costs, announcing that some agricultural products would be exempt from tariffs due to “current domestic demand for certain products” and “current domestic capacity to produce certain products.”
Both fresh and dried bananas were among the listed exemptions, indicating that lower prices may be around the corner.
Oranges
No data on orange prices was available for November.
However, in September, the cost of navel oranges was listed at $1.80 per pound, less than a cent shy of record highs and nearly 18% more than they were at the start of the Trump administration.
Drastically low domestic orange production combined with steep tariffs on foreign growers have been helping to push costs skyward. But, as with bananas, oranges are now exempt from most reciprocal tariffs.
Tomatoes
As of November, the cost of field-grown tomatoes was $1.83 per pound. That price is 8 cents lower than the previous month of data and down roughly 12% since Trump took power.
The change is somewhat abnormal given the growing season, as prices typically rise in the fall and peak in the early winter months, and could be attributable to the Trump administration’s recent course reversal on many of its tomato tariffs.
Chicken
The cost of fresh, whole chicken fell for a fourth consecutive month, to $2.04 per pound — its lowest price in a year.
Rising feed costs and the effects of bird flu on the poultry supply chain have driven persistently higher prices, but with the number of cases dropping again, we could see lower prices in the new year.
Still, the average cost is only about 2 cents less than it was when President Joe Biden left the White House.
Ground beef
Ground beef is getting more expensive.
After shoppers saw some relief in September from climbing costs, the price of ground beef jumped another 18 cents.
Rising costs can be attributed to a confluence of factors. The U.S. cattle inventory is the lowest it’s been in almost 75 years, and severe drought in parts of the country has further reduced the feed supply, per the USDA. Additionally, steep tariff rates on top beef importers also played a part in higher prices stateside, but as of Nov. 13 high-quality cuts, processed beef and live cattle are exempt from most countries’ levies.
Still, since the change of administrations, ground beef costs have ballooned by 18% — translating to $1 per pound price increases at the grocery store.
As of November, a pound of 100% ground beef chuck would set you back about $6.50.
Electricity
Electric costs have also been steadily rising.
At approximately 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, the current price of electricity is a fraction of a cent off August’s high. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average American household uses 899 kWh every four weeks, translating to a monthly bill of about $170.
Thankfully, the White House appears to be working to mitigate mounting costs. In his presidential address, Trump claimed that within the next 12 months his administration will have opened 1,600 new electrical generating plants.
“Prices on electricity and everything else will fall dramatically,” Trump said.
For many Americans, relief is needed. Since last December, the average price of electricity per kilowatt-hour has increased more than 7%.
Gasoline
Declining gas prices were another highlight of Trump’s Wednesday night remarks.
The cost of gasoline has tumbled from the record-setting prices Americans saw three summers ago under Biden, and just last month, the price at the pump dropped more than 10 cents per gallon.
“On day one I declared a national energy emergency,” Trump said. “Gasoline is now under $2.50 a gallon in much of the country. In some states, it by the way, just hit $1.99 a gallon.”
According to the latest CPI data, the average nationwide cost for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline is $3.23. And though prices are noticeably lower than they were two to three years ago, that average remains higher than it was just a year ago and up nearly 3% during the Trump presidency.
Prices in Chicago, meanwhile, are about the same month-over-month, costing an average of $3.29 per gallon, according to EIA data.
Natural gas
Bucking its previous downward trend, piped utility gas, or natural gas, is another expense that’s climbing. The nationwide cost jumped 3 cents in November, landing at $1.64 per therm.
On average, Americans are paying close to 8% more to heat their homes, ovens and stovetops than when Biden left office. Year-over-year, that gap is even more drastic: a roughly 10% change or difference of 15 cents per therm.
Now that many governments around the world are moving to protect industries they consider vital, and international institutions like the I.M.F. and the World Trade Organization are being sidelined, Rodrik believes it will be largely up to the U.S. and China, as the world’s two dominant economic powers, to define new rules of global commerce after Trump has departed. He is particularly enthused by China’s two-decades-long effort to promote renewable energy, which he says could serve as a model to apply in other countries, and in other sectors of the economy. Largely as a result of technological progress in China, solar energy is now so cheap that even a red state like Texas is rapidly expanding its solar capacity. And thanks to the growth of the electric-vehicle industry in China, which is now the world’s largest car market, cheap Chinese E.V.s are being exported to many other countries. “We’re much further ahead on this”—the green transition—“than anyone thought feasible, and it happened through a mechanism that nobody predicted,” Rodrik said.
In his book, he argues that the key to the success of China’s green-energy initiative was the breadth of tools it employed, and the flexibility with which they were applied. The Chinese government supplied E.V. startups with venture capital, subsidies, customized infrastructure, specialized training, and preferential access to raw material. But instead of imposing a top-down production plan, it left a lot of the details up to the businesses. “The hallmark of Chinese developmentalism is an experimental approach,” Rodrik writes. “The national government sets broad objectives. Then a variety of industrial policies are deployed in different industries and locations, followed by close monitoring, iteration, and revision when called for.”
Rodrik also saw much to like in the Biden Administration’s industrial policies, which aimed to hasten the green transition by offering subsidies, tax credits, and public support for industrial research. Trump is busy dismantling many of these policies. Rodrik would support restoring them in the future. He also advocates for allowing countries, including the U.S., to use targeted tariffs to protect specific industries that they consider vital, but he insists it’s a mistake to focus solely on manufacturing, which employs less than ten per cent of the U.S. workforce. The real challenge, he argues, is boosting wages in the vast services sector, which employs more than eighty per cent of American workers. “Whether we like it or not, services will remain the main job engine of the economy,” he writes. Some service jobs, such as managerial ones, are well paid, but many of them, particularly in areas like retail and care, are low-wage positions. “An inescapable conclusion follows: a good jobs economy hinges critically on our ability to increase the productivity and quality of jobs in such services.”
Rodrik concedes that there is no tried and tested formula to achieve this. The approach that he advocates mimics the Chinese model in encompassing government agencies at the national and local level, as well as educational institutions, private businesses, and workers. He supports efforts to organize service workers in labor unions, and he discusses the possibility, raised by Arin Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, of establishing wage boards to set minimum wages that vary across industries, occupations, and locations. Rodrik, citing the contrast between nurse practitioners, who earn a median yearly salary of a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars, and low-wage care workers, also argues that training, technology, and regulatory reform can a play a big role—as can directed scientific research.
He calls for the establishment of a workers’ equivalent of DARPA, the Pentagon agency that has helped finance the development of the internet, G.P.S., and the mRNA technologies used to make COVID-19 vaccines. Whereas DARPA focusses on research that potentially has military implications, Rodrik’s proposed “ARPA-W” would focus on developing “labor-friendly technologies,” including some that employ artificial intelligence. As some observers predict that A.I. could eliminate huge numbers of jobs, many of them well paid, Rodrik, echoing the M.I.T. economists David Autor, Daron Acemoglu, and Simon Johnson, argues that technological progress needs to be refocussed. Referring to his proposal for an ARPA-W, he writes, “The overarching objective would be to allow workers to do what they cannot presently do, instead of displacing them by taking over the tasks that they already do.”
President Trump catalyzed the worst market sell-off in six months and then reversed it with a single post on Truth Social.
Friday’s $2 trillion rout led some commentators to call out the popping of a bubble, yet it turned out to be a one-day bear market that vanished by the next trading session.
U.S. stocks finished higher Monday, recovering more than half their losses from the sell-off, while bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies also climbed.
An Inc.com Featured Presentation
As a recap:
Friday: Trump threatened new tariffs on China, triggering a 2.7 percent drop for the S&P 500
Sunday: He softened his tone, telling investors not to worry about China
Monday: Stocks rebounded, with the S&P 500 gaining 1.6 percent
The series of events echoed April’s “Liberation Day” pullback, when tariff news spooked investors but ultimately punished sellers more than those who stayed in the market.
Yardeni Research founder Ed Yardeni expects the US and China to reach a deal before any lasting economic damage occurs, something markets seem to now recognize.
“The odds favor Teams Trump and Xi stepping back from the brink and avoiding the deep global recession all this would likely cause,” Yardeni wrote in a Monday note.
Strategist Michael Wilson of Morgan Stanley, meanwhile, said the stock market was set up for a correction anyway given valuation concerns and unfavorable seasonality.
The bank sees the S&P 500 resuming its climb, arguing that the broader cycle still looks early-stage despite rising volatility and stretched valuations.
Not only that but recession risks, Wilson noted, are indeed behind us.
That said, he maintains that a second, larger sell-off is likely if the U.S. and China fail to reach an agreement.
“With Friday’s impulsive reversal at a key level of resistance, we believe the first leg up of this new bull market is now complete and we can see a healthy correction,” Wilson said.
“If we don’t see trade de-escalation over the next several weeks, the drawdown is likely to be larger than consensus expects (i.e, 10-15 percent in S&P 500 terms).”
To be clear, if we shelve the geopolitics, the optimistic case for stocks becomes hard to refute.
AI momentum remains not only strong but accelerating
Only one bull run since WWII hit 3 years without reaching its fourth
S&P 500 is up 83 percent this bull market, far less than the average 191 percent of the last 11 bull markets
“Most bull markets go longer than three years,” said LPL Financial’s chief equity strategist Jeff Buchbinder. “They last about five years on average, but the 1990 and 2009 bulls lasted twice that long. So this bull is not old.”
DENVER — While costs have crept up for consumers, President Donald Trump’s tariffs haven’t yet led to the large price spikes many Coloradans feared. That has created a lot of confusion about the impact on consumers, so Denver7 is getting answers.
On Thursday, Gov. Jared Polis released a new report showing the impact Trump’s tariffs could have on Colorado’s economy. The report said the tariffs “will likely lead to worse economic outcomes for both the U.S. and Colorado.”
“One thing that’s clear: Everyone loses a trade war,” Polis said. “Everyone loses a tariff war. It’s a race to the bottom.”
Read the full report below
The governor’s report said Colorado’s effective tariff rate, which is the actual average cost of taxes (tariffs) paid on imports, is higher than it has been in over 100 years.
“Today, Coloradans are paying seven times more in tariff taxes than one year ago,” Polis said.
According to the governor, the effective rate skyrocketed from 3% to 21%.
Polis and the state’s top economic experts said the tariffs are bad news for Colorado businesses and families.
“When businesses face high tariffs and the associated uncertainty and confusion, they have difficult choices,” said Jeff Kraft, the deputy director of the governor’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade. “Companies are forced to either pass costs on to consumers, which raises prices and can reduce revenue and obviously hurts the consumer, or they have to shift funds to cover the cost of the tariffs internally. If they do that, it can lead to significant reductions in research and development, reduced employment, job cuts and over time.”
KMGH-TV
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis holds a press conference with officials from his economic team.
After calling around, Denver7 learned many local companies haven’t yet passed those costs on to consumers. In a social media post last month, Trump said it was mostly companies and foreign governments picking up the tab.
“It has been proven that even at this late stage, Tariffs have not caused Inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury’s coffers,” Trump wrote.
Denver7 asked Zac Rogers, a professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, to weigh in on the tariffs and the impact on consumers.
“I think it’s been a slow creep,” Rogers said.
Rogers said costs from the tariffs are being spread around the supply chain, with different entities, such as suppliers and wholesalers, picking up some of the costs. By the time a product reaches the consumer, it’s not as expensive as it otherwise would have been.
“So, consumers are certainly seeing prices go up, but we’re not getting hit with the full 25%, 40%, 50% [tariff],” he said.
Rogers told Denver7 many companies stockpiled inventory ahead of the tariffs, which is also keeping prices down. However, that will change.
“My guess, and based on all the people we talk to when we do our index, is that in the holiday season, we will see prices go up,” Rogers said. “50% tariffs on India, 50% tariffs on Brazil, 25% Japan, that’s not all going to be passed to consumers. But a portion of it will absolutely be passed to consumers, and it will be a bit of a game for retailers to figure out how much will consumers absorb, and how much do we have to absorb?”
The governor’s report said key Colorado industries, such as aerospace, agriculture, construction, energy, and goods-focused businesses, are among the most vulnerable to tariffs.
“Businesses that are hit with tariffs have to drive up costs for consumers, raise prices, might lay people off,” Polis said, adding that the analysis showed tariff escalation could push the state into a recession and cost the state budget as much as $800 million in lost revenue within two years.
The governor said he believes Trump has exceeded his authority on tariffs and wants Congress to “show a spine.”
“Congress absolutely can more limit the authority of the president,” Polis said. “They can do that in the spending bills that they’re considering going through right now. They can restrict the ability of any president to unilaterally impose tariffs, particularly under the circumstances that President Trump cited emergency authority. Congress can do that as part of the appropriations bills that are going through Congress now, and I would encourage Congress to include that language that prevents a president unilaterally from starting and escalating these kinds of trade wars that damage our economy.”
Polis said the U.S. Supreme Court could ultimately decide whether the president overstepped his authority. On Wednesday, Trump urged the SCOTUS justices to overturn a lower court’s decision, which found his administration acted unlawfully by relying on emergency powers to impose many of the tariffs.
“I’m very hopeful that that case will limit the president’s power in that area, but it doesn’t end the trade war, it doesn’t end the president’s apparent affinity for these huge tax increases,” Polis said. “Although it would be a major step forward for our economy and for Colorado.”
Polis said his team would also provide additional analysis if there are significant updates to the tariffs.
Denver7
Denver7 | Your Voice: Get in touch with Brandon Richard
Denver7 politics reporter Brandon Richard closely follows developments at the State Capitol and in Washington, and digs deeper to find how legislation affects Coloradans in every community. If you’d like to get in touch with Brandon, fill out the form below to send him an email.
Poland’s prime minister has told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to never “insult” Poles again, returning to harsh rhetoric towards Kyiv after the Polish president had sought to defuse a simmering dispute between the two countries over the issue of Ukrainian grain imports.
Zelenskyy angered his neighbours in Warsaw – a key military ally against Russia – when he told the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week that Kyiv was working to preserve land routes for its grain exports amid a Russian blockade of the Black Sea, but that “political theatre” around grain imports was helping Moscow’s cause.
“I … want to tell President Zelenskyy never to insult Poles again, as he did recently during his speech at the UN,” Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki told an election rally on Friday, according to the State-run news agency PAP.
Earlier on Friday, Poland’s President Andrzej Duda said the dispute between Poland and Ukraine over grain imports would not significantly affect good bilateral relations, in an apparent move to ease tensions.
“I have no doubt that the dispute over the supply of grain from Ukraine to the Polish market is an absolute fragment of the entire Polish-Ukrainian relations,” Duda told a business conference. “I don’t believe that it can have a significant impact on them, so we need to solve this matter between us.”
Duda’s comment followed after Prime Minister Morawiecki was reported as saying that Poland would no longer send weapons to Ukraine amid the grain dispute.
“We are no longer transferring weapons to Ukraine because we are now arming Poland with more modern weapons,” Morawiecki said on Wednesday, according to a local media report.
Poland is scheduled to hold parliamentary elections on October 15, and Morawiecki’s ruling nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party has come in for criticism from the far right for what it says is the government’s subservient attitude to Kyiv.
Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau said in an article by Politico that Poland wanted to see “a strong Ukrainian state emerge from this war with a vibrant economy”, and that Warsaw “will continue to back Ukraine’s efforts to join NATO and the EU”.
However, speaking to reporters in New York, Rau said that while Poland had not changed its policy towards Ukraine, there had been a “radical change in Polish public opinion’s perception” of the countries’ relationship.
Asked by the PAP news agency what it would take to improve this perception, Rau said repairing the atmosphere would require a “titanic” diplomatic effort.
Slovakia, Poland and Hungary imposed national restrictions on Ukrainian grain imports after the EU executive decided not to extend its ban on imports into those countries as well as fellow EU members Bulgaria and Romania.
The countries have argued that cheap Ukrainian agricultural goods – meant mainly to transit further west and to ports – get sold locally, harming their own farmers.
Speaking in Canada on Friday, Zelenskyy did not mention the tension with Poland but said that when Ukraine lacked support, Russia was strengthened.
“You help either Ukraine or Russia. There will be no mediators in this war. By weakening assistance to Ukraine, you will strengthen Russia,” Zelenskyy told reporters after a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
“And a powerful Russia and what to expect from it… I think history in books and witnesses has long since answered this question. If someone wants to take a risk, fine, weaken assistance to Ukrainians,” he said, according to a statement posted on the Ukrainian president’s website.
“To be frank and honest, freedom, democracy and human rights must be fought for,” he added.
The Kremlin said on Friday that it was watching the situation between Kyiv and Warsaw closely, adding that tensions would inevitably grow between Kyiv and its European allies as the dispute over grain escalates.
“We predict that these frictions between Warsaw and Kyiv will increase. Friction between Kyiv and other European capitals will also grow over time. This is inevitable,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
“We are, of course, watching this closely,” Peskov said, calling Kyiv and Warsaw “the main” centres of Russophobia.
Ukraine is threatening to take Brussels and EU member countries to the World Trade Organization if they fail to lift restrictions on its agricultural exports to the bloc this month.
The country’s grain exports — its main trade commodity — are currently banned from the markets of Poland, Hungary and three other EU countries under a deal struck with the European Commission earlier this year to protect farmers from an influx of cheaper produce from their war-torn neighbor.
The glut, triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its blockade of the country’s traditional Black Sea export routes, has driven a wedge between Ukraine and the EU’s eastern frontline states which have been among the strongest backers of Kyiv’s military fightback.
The restrictions, already extended once, are due to expire on September 15. Amid speculation that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will let them lapse, Poland and Hungary have threatened to impose their own unilateral import bans, in violation of the bloc’s common trade rules.
“With full respect and gratitude to Poland, in case of introduction of any bans after [September 15], Ukraine will bring the case against Poland and the EU to the World Trade Organization,” Taras Kachka, Ukraine’s deputy economy minister, told POLITICO.
Kyiv has argued that the restrictions violate the EU-Ukraine free-trade agreement from 2014.
Kachka’s comments backed up a warning this week from Igor Zhovka, a senior aide to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. If Brussels fails to act against the countries that violate the trade agreement, Kyiv “reserves the choice of legal mechanisms on how to respond,” Zhovka told Interfax-Ukraine.
The Ukrainian foreign ministry said Kyiv reserved the right to initiate arbitration proceedings under its association agreement with the EU, or to apply to the WTO.
“We do not intend to retaliate immediately given the spirit of friendship and solidarity between Ukraine and the EU,” explained Kachka. But, he added, the systemic threat to Ukrainian interests “forces us to bring this case to the WTO.”
Crisis warning
Russia’s war of aggression and partial occupation has cut Ukraine’s grain production in half, compared to before the war, while Moscow’s withdrawal in July from a U.N.-brokered deal allowing safe passage for some seaborne exports has raised concerns that EU-backed export corridors won’t be able to cope.
The bloc’s agriculture commissioner, Janusz Wojciechowski, struggled to explain to European lawmakers at a hearing on Thursday how Brussels would handle the situation after September 15.
Wojciechowski, who is Polish, also appeared to sympathize with the right-wing government in Warsaw, which has latched on to the fight over Ukrainian grain as a campaign issue ahead of mid-October general elections in which it is seeking an unprecedented third term.
The bloc’s agriculture commissioner, Janusz Wojciechowski, struggled to explain to European lawmakers how Brussels would handle the situation after September 15 | Olivier Hoslet/EFE via EPA
The curbs should be extended at least until the end of the year; otherwise “we will have a huge crisis again in the five frontline member states,” Wojciechowski said, adding that this was his personal position and not that of the EU executive.
The Commission’s decision in April to restrict imports to the five countries, which came with a €100 million aid package, met widespread disapproval from other EU governments and European lawmakers for undermining the integrity of the bloc’s single market.
Kachka, in written comments sent in response to questions from POLITICO, said there was no evidence of price deviations or a significant increase in grain supplies that would justify extending the import restrictions. Kyiv had engaged in “constructive cooperation” with the Commission, the five member states, as well as Moldova, a key transit hub for Ukrainian exports to the EU.
“We got a lot of support for ensuring better transit of the goods through the territory of neighboring member states, including Poland and Hungary,” Kachka said. “During [the] last two months we significantly advanced cooperation with Romania on transportation of goods from Ukraine.”
We consider the impact as China’s export curbs on the chipmaking metals gallium and germanium take effect.
Semiconductor chips are a vital component used in devices including smartphones, electric cars, wind turbines and even missiles. They are now considered as crucial to economic production as oil.
The United States is worried China could use chip technology to further develop its military power. It unveiled export controls in October to prevent Beijing from getting the most advanced ones. That marked the start of tit-for-tat trade restrictions and upped their geopolitical rivalry.
In a recent move, China has begun to restrict the export of industry-critical materials.
Elsewhere, after the coup in Niger, millions of its citizens could pay the price of sanctions.
And can Egypt lure dollars back into its financial system?
China’s commerce ministry tariffs ‘no longer necessary’, while Australia drops trade complaint.
China has announced it will drop tariffs on Australian barley amid a diplomatic thaw after years of tensions.
China’s commerce ministry said on Friday it was “no longer necessary” to levy antidumping duties on imports of Australian barley due to changes in the local market.
Australia said on Friday it would also drop a related complaint against the second-biggest economy at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong welcomed the announcement, which she said would benefit both Australian producers and Chinese consumers.
“The removal of duties is the result of work by government and industry to resolve this matter,” Wong said in a statement.
“We acknowledge and thank industry and affected businesses for their support and patience throughout the World Trade Organization (WTO) process.”
The move follows a thaw in Australia-China relations following the election of Anthony Albanese’s centre-left Labor Party to power in May last year.
In April, Wong announced that the government would suspend its WTO complaint after Beijing agreed to review the tariffs.
Beijing imposed hefty tariffs on Australian exports of barley, beef and wine and other key commodities in 2020 amid a bitter dispute that erupted after the previous conservative government called for an international inquiry into the causes of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The tariffs and unofficial ban on Australian coal are estimated to have cost more than 5 billion Australian dollars ($3.28bn) in lost revenue.
China has been Australia’s biggest trading partner for over a decade and a half, accounting for about one-third of trade. In 2020-21, trade between the countries totalled 267 billion Australian dollars ($175bn).
BRUSSELS — The chips industry faces a different kind of summer heat: Chinese and Western governments meddling with its supply chains.
From Tuesday, China is putting the brakes on the export of two critical metals for making chips — gallium and germanium — in retaliation for the United States, the Netherlands and Japan curbing exports of some advanced chip printers. The Dutch restrictions, published before summer, will apply from September 1.
This tit-for-tat trade war is unfolding against the backdrop of a global subsidies race to re-shore and secure microchip production. What began in a time of pandemic-era shortages is now a race to avoid supply chokepoints in case conflict breaks out in Taiwan, a major chips hub.
Despite China’s stranglehold on raw materials — with, for example, 95 percent of the world’s supply of primary gallium — chips companies have stayed relatively quiet about the incoming restrictions in their recent quarterly earnings reports.
Europe’s leading chip makers, like NXP Semiconductors, rarely mention China’s upcoming raw materials restrictions in their earnings releases or follow-up calls with analysts.
There was equal indifference to the Western restrictions that provoked the Chinese counter-move. ASML, the Dutch chip equipment supplier that is the main target of the Dutch export controls, said the measures would not have a “material impact” on the firm’s 2023 outlook, nor on longer-term scenarios.
But that doesn’t mean there won’t be any consequences.
Because Chinese gallium and germanium producers will have to seek export permits, much will depend on how rigorous the permitting procedure is, analysts from research firm Wood Mackenzie wrote in a report in early July with the ominous title, “Chips wars: a sign of things to come?”
“If the permitting process restricts the supply of raw materials to chip manufacturers outside China, this will impact downstream end-use markets, including electric vehicles,” the report reads. That brings back memories of the chips shortages in 2020 and 2021, which increased waiting times for car deliveries.
Particularly vulnerable countries in Europe: Germany — the second-largest importer of gallium after Japan — and the Netherlands.
Ramping up
A bigger concern, however, is that the current restrictions are only the start of a larger escalating trade war. “The concern is that this protectionism could escalate to other critical materials end sectors,” according to the Wood Mackenzie report.
ASML CEO Peter Wennink was already forced to comment during the company’s quarterly earnings presentation on media reports that more chip export controls out of the U.S. are coming: “Of course, we will and cannot respond to speculation.” But more in general, he had to admit during the same earnings call that there’s “significant uncertainty” in the market, citing “the geopolitical environment, including export controls” as one of the reasons.
The message: The industry is waking up to the fact that governments consider semiconductors to be strategically important and no longer hesitate to intervene to secure their national security interests.
Both the U.S. and the EU have rolled out multibillions’ worth of subsidy programs — the EU’s Chips Act (€43 billion) and the U.S.’s CHIPS and Science Act ($52 billion) — to lure private investments from U.S.-based Intel, South Korea’s Samsung or Taiwan’s TSMC.
If that’s the carrot tack, some experts point out that governments are also increasingly using the stick approach of export controls — and the current pace of restrictions between the West and China would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
Chris Miller, an associate professor of international history at Tufts University and author of the book “Chip War,” said last week at an event in Washington that he was “surprised by the success” of the U.S.-led effort to build a coalition on export controls.
“Zoom back five years ago, in 2018, ask anyone in this room: Would it have been possible to have established an export control regime bringing together countries from Europe and Asia? Most people would have bet against it,” Miller said.
It’s a new reality for the companies involved — and one that could have unintended consequences.
Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger summed it up at the Aspen Security Forum earlier in July: “Right now, China represents 25 to 30 percent of semiconductor exports. If I have 25 or 30 percent less market, I need to build [fewer] factories.”
That comment got a rebuke from U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who said that she didn’t see “any inconsistency” between the export controls to China and the U.S.’s multibillion-dollar plan to re-shore chips capacity.
Brendan Bordelon contributed reporting from Washington.
China and the US say they want to improve communications, but mutual
suspicion runs deep. Plus, Kenya’s TV evangelists and their hold over viewers.
The United States-China relationship is a complex one. Beneath the diplomatic niceties lies deep mutual suspicion – two governments fully engaged in a bigger battle of narratives.
Contributors: Jiayang Fan – staff writer, The New Yorker Brian Hioe – editor, New Bloom Magazine James Palmer – deputy editor, Foreign Policy
On our radar:
In the United Kingdom, the BBC is in a state of turmoil after a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid alleged sexual misconduct involving one of the broadcaster’s most famous faces. Producer Flo Phillips reports on the saga that has seduced the British media.
Kenya’s deadly televangelist
The politics of prayer: Producer Nicholas Muihead travels to Kenya to ask how the authorities there plan to regulate the power of televangelism and prevent another “Shakahola Massacre”.
Contributors: Ezra Chiloba – director general, Communications Authority of Kenya Reuben Kigake – broadcast journalist and musician Lee Scharnick-Udemans – senior researcher, Desmond Tutu Centre Rodgers Shibutse – victim’s son Joseph Yeri – journalist
LONDON — It was clear when Boris Johnson was forced from Downing Street that British politics had changed forever.
But few could have predicted that less than six months later, all angry talk of a cross-Channel trade war would be a distant memory, with Britain and the EU striking a remarkable compromise deal over post-Brexit trade rules in Northern Ireland.
Private conversations with more than a dozen U.K. and EU officials, politicians and diplomats reveal how the Brexit world changed completely after Johnson’s departure — and how an “unholy trinity” of little-known civil servants, ensconced in a gloomy basement in Brussels, would mastermind a seismic shift in Britain’s relationship with the Continent.
They were aided by an unlikely sequence of political events in Westminster — not least an improbable change of mood under the combative Liz Truss; and then the jaw-dropping rise to power of the ultra-pragmatic Rishi Sunak. Even the amiable figure of U.K. Foreign Secretary James Cleverly would play his part, glad-handing his way around Europe and smoothing over cracks that had grown ever-wider since 2016.
As Sunak’s Conservative MPs pore over the detail of his historic agreement with Brussels — and await the all-important verdict of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland — POLITICO has reconstructed the dramatic six-month shift in Britain’s approach that brought us to the brink of the Brexit deal we see today.
Bye-bye Boris
Johnson’s departure from Downing Street, on September 6, triggered an immediate mood shift in London toward the EU — and some much-needed optimism within the bloc about future cross-Channel relations.
For key figures in EU capitals, Johnson would always be the untrustworthy figure who signed the protocol agreement only to disown it months afterward.
In Paris, relations were especially poisonous, amid reports of Johnson calling the French “turds”; endless spats with the Elysée over post-Brexit fishing rights, sausages and cross-Channel migrants; and Britain’s role in the AUKUS security partnership, which meant the loss of a multi-billion submarine contract for France. Paris’ willingness to engage with Johnson was limited in the extreme.
Truss, despite her own verbal spats with French President Emmanuel Macron — and her famously direct approach to diplomacy — was viewed in a different light. Her success at building close rapport with negotiating partners had worked for her as trade secretary, and once she became prime minister, she wanted to move beyond bilateral squabbles and focus on global challenges, including migration, energy and the war in Ukraine.
“Boris had become ‘Mr. Brexit,’” one former U.K. government adviser said. “He was the one the EU associated with the protocol, and obviously [Truss] didn’t come with the same baggage. She had covered the brief, but she didn’t have the same history. As prime minister, Liz wanted to use her personal relationships to move things on — but that wasn’t the same as a shift in the underlying substance.”
Indeed, Truss was still clear on the need to pass the controversial Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which would have given U.K. ministers powers to overrule part of the protocol unilaterally, in order to ensure leverage in the talks with the European Commission.
Truss also triggered formal dispute proceedings against Brussels for blocking Britain’s access to the EU’s Horizon Europe research program. And her government maintained Johnson’s refusal to implement checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain, causing deep irritation in Brussels.
But despite the noisy backdrop, tentative contact with Brussels quietly resumed in September, with officials on both sides trying to rebuild trust. Truss, however, soon became “very disillusioned by the lack of pragmatism from the EU,” one of her former aides said.
“The negotiations were always about political will, not technical substance — and for whatever reason, the political will to compromise from the Commission was never there when Liz, [ex-negotiator David] Frost, Boris were leading things,” they said.
Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss announces her resignation outside 10 Downing Street in central London on October 20, 2022 | Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images
Truss, of course, would not be leading things for long. An extraordinary meltdown of the financial markets precipitated her own resignation in late October, after just six weeks in office. Political instability in Westminster once again threatened to derail progress.
But Sunak’s arrival in No. 10 Downing Street — amid warnings of a looming U.K. recession — gave new impetus to the talks. An EU official said the mood music improved further, and that discussions with London became “much more constructive” as a result.
David Lidington, a former deputy to ex-PM Theresa May who played a key role in previous Brexit negotiations, describes Sunak as a “globalist” rather than an “ultra-nationalist,” who believes Britain ought to have “a sensible, friendly and grown-up relationship” with Brussels outside the EU.
During his time as chancellor, Sunak was seen as a moderating influence on his fellow Brexiteer Cabinet colleagues, several of whom seemed happy to rush gung-ho toward a trade war with the EU.
“Rishi has always thought of the protocol row as a nuisance, an issue he wanted to get dealt with,” the former government adviser first quoted said.
One British officialsuggested the new prime minister’s reputation for pragmatism gave the U.K. negotiating team “an opportunity to start again.”
Sunak’s slow decision-making and painstaking attention to detail — the subject of much criticism in Whitehall — proved useful in calming EU jitters about the new regime, they added.
“When he came in, it wasn’t just the calming down of the markets. It was everyone across Europe and in the U.S. thinking ‘OK, they’re done going through their crazy stage,’” the same officialsaid. “It’s the time he takes with everything, the general steadiness.”
EU leaders “have watched him closely, they listened to what he said, and they have been prepared to trust him and see how things go,” Lidington noted.
Global backdrop
As months of chaos gave way to calm in London, the West was undergoing a seismic reorganization.
Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine triggered a flurry of coordinated work for EU and U.K. diplomats — including sanctions, military aid, reconstruction talks and anti-inflation packages. A sense began to emerge that it was in both sides’ common interest to get the Northern Ireland protocol row out of the way.
“The war in Ukraine has completely changed the context over the last year,” an EU diplomat said.
A second U.K. official agreed. “Suddenly we realized that the 2 percent of the EU border we’d been arguing about was nothing compared to the massive border on the other side of the EU, which Putin was threatening,” they said. “And suddenly there wasn’t any electoral benefit to keeping this row over Brexit going — either for us or for governments across the EU.”
A quick glance at the electoral calendar made it clear 2023 offered the last opportunity to reach a deal in the near future, with elections looming for both the U.K. and EU parliaments the following year — effectively putting any talks on ice.
“Rishi Sunak would have certainly been advised by his officials that come 2024, the EU is not going to be wanting to take any new significant initiatives,” Lidington said. “And we will be in election mode.”
The upcoming 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday peace agreement on April 10 heaped further pressure on the U.K. negotiators, amid interest from U.S. President Joe Biden in visiting Europe to mark the occasion.
“The anniversary was definitely playing on people’s minds,” the first U.K. official said.“Does [Sunak] really want to be the prime minister when there’s no government in Northern Ireland on the anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement?”
The pressure was ramped up further when Biden specifically raised the protocol in a meeting with Truss at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in late September, after which British officials said they expected the 25th anniversary to act as a “key decision point” on the dispute.
The King and I
Whitehall faced further pressure from another unlikely source — King Charles III, who was immediately planning a state visit to Paris within weeks of ascending the throne in September 2022. Truss had suggested delaying the visit until the protocol row was resolved, according to two European diplomats.
The monarch is now expected to visit Paris and Berlin at the end of March — and although his role is strictly apolitical, few doubt he is taking a keen interest in proceedings. He has raised the protocol in recent conversations with European diplomats, showing a close engagement with the detail.
One former senior diplomat involved in several of the king’s visits said that Charles has long held “a private interest in Ireland, and has wanted to see if there was an appropriately helpful role he could play in improving relations [with the U.K].”
By calling the deal the Windsor framework and presenting it at a press conference in front of Windsor Castle, one of the king’s residences, No. 10 lent Monday’s proceedings an unmistakable royal flavor.
The king also welcomed von der Leyen for tea at the castle following the signing of the deal. A Commission spokesperson insisted their meeting was “separate” from the protocol discussion talks. Tory MPs were skeptical.
Cleverly does it
The British politician tasked with improving relations with Brussels was Foreign Secretary Cleverly, appointed by Truss last September. He immediately began exploring ways to rebuild trust with Commission Vice-President and Brexit point-man Maroš Šefčovič, the second U.K. official cited said.
His first hurdle was a perception in Brussels that the British team had sabotaged previous talks by leaking key details to U.K. newspapers and hardline Tory Brexiteers for domestic political gain. As a result, U.K. officials made a conscious effort to keep negotiations tightly sealed, a No. 10 official said.
“The relationship with Maroš improved massively when we agreed not to carry out a running commentary” on the content of the discussions, the second U.K. official added.
This meant keeping key government ministers out of the loop, including Northern Ireland Minister Steve Baker, an arch-Brexiteer who had been brought back onto the frontbench by Truss.
British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly is welcomed by European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič ahead of a meeting at the EU headquarters in Brussels on February 17, 2023 | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images
The first U.K. official said Baker would have “felt the pain,” as he had little to offer his erstwhile backbench colleagues looking for guidance while negotiations progressed, “and that was a choice by No. 10.”
Cleverly and Šefčovič “spent longer than people think just trying to build rapport,” the second U.K. officialsaid, with Cleverly explaining the difficulties the protocol was raising in Northern Ireland and Šefčovič insistent that key economic sectors were in fact benefiting from the arrangement.
Cleverly also worked at the bilateral relationship with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, while Sunak made efforts to improve ties with French President Emmanuel Macron, Lidington noted.
A British diplomat based in Washington said Cleverly had provided “a breath of fresh air” after the “somewhat stiff” manner of his predecessors, Truss and the abrasive Dominic Raab.
By the Conservative party conference in early October, the general mood among EU diplomats in attendance was one of expectation. And the Birmingham jamboree did not disappoint.
Sorry is the hardest word
Baker, who had once described himself as a “Brexit hard man,” stunned Dublin by formally apologizing to the people of Ireland for his past comments, just days before technical talks between the Commission and the U.K. government were due to resume.
“I caused a great deal of inconvenience and pain and difficulty,” he said. “Some of our actions were not very respectful of Ireland’s legitimate interests. I want to put that right.”
The apology was keenly welcomed in Dublin, where Micheál Martin, the Irish prime minister at the time, called it “honest and very, very helpful.”
Irish diplomats based in the U.K. met Baker and other prominent figures from the European Research Group of Tory Euroskeptics at the party conference, where Baker spoke privately of his “humility” and his “resolve” to address the issues, a senior Irish diplomat said.
“Resolve was the keyword,” the envoy said. “If Steve Baker had the resolve to work for a transformation of relationships between Ireland and the U.K., then we thought — there were tough talks to be had — but a sustainable deal was now a possibility.”
There were other signs of rapprochement. Just a few hours after Baker’s earth-shattering apology, Truss confirmed her attendance at the inaugural meeting in Prague of the European Political Community, a new forum proposed by Macron open to both EU and non-EU countries.
Sunak at the wheel
The momentum snowballed under Sunak, who decided within weeks of becoming PM to halt the passage of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill in the House of Lords, reiterating Britain’s preference for a negotiated settlement. In exchange, the Commission froze a host of infringement proceedings taking aim at the way the U.K. was handling the protocol. This created space for talks to proceed in a more cordial environment.
An EU-U.K. agreement in early January allowed Brussels to start using a live information system detailing goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, seen as key to unlocking a wider agreement on physical checks under the protocol.
The U.K. also agreed to conduct winter technical negotiations in Brussels, rather than alternating rounds between the EU capital and London, as was the case when Frost served as Britain’s chief negotiator.
Trust continued to build. Suddenly the Commission was open to U.K. solutions such as the “Stormont brake,” a clause giving the Northern Ireland Assembly power of veto over key protocol machinations, which British officials did not believe Brussels would accept when they first pitched them.
The Stormont brake was discussed “relatively early on,” a third U.K. official said. “Then we spent a huge amount of effort making sure nobody knew about it. It was kept the most secret of secret things.”
Yet a second EU diplomat claimed the ideas in the deal were not groundbreaking and could have been struck “years ago” if Britain had a prime minister with enough political will to solve the dispute. “None of the solutions that have been found now is revolutionary,” they said.
An ally of Johnson described the claim he was a block on progress as “total nonsense.”
The ‘unholy trinity’
Away from the media focus, a group of seasoned U.K. officials began to engage with their EU counterparts in earnest. But there was one (not so) new player in town.
Tim Barrow, a former U.K. permanent representative to the EU armed with a peerless contact book, had been an active figure in rebuilding relations with the bloc since Truss appointed him national security adviser. He acquired a more prominent role in the protocol talks after Sunak dispatched him to Brussels in January 2023, hoping EU figures would see him as “almost one of them,” another adviser to Sunak said.
Ensconced in the EU capital, Barrow and his U.K. team of negotiators took over several meeting rooms in the basement of the U.K. embassy, while staffers were ordered to keep quiet about their presence.
Besides his work on Northern Ireland trade, Barrow began to appear in meetings with EU representatives about other key issues creating friction in the EU-U.K. relationship, including discussions on migration alongside U.K. Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
Barrow “positioned himself very well,” the first EU diplomat quoted above said. “He’s very close to the prime minister — everybody in Brussels and London knows he’s got his ear. He’s very knowledgeable while very political.”
But other British officials insist Barrow’s presence was not central to driving through the deal. “He has been a figure, but not the only figure,” the U.K. adviser quoted above said. “It’s been a lot of people, actually, over quite a period of time.”
When it came to the tough, detailed technical negotiations, the burden fell on the shoulders of Mark Davies — the head of the U.K. taskforce praised for his mastery of the protocol detail — and senior civil servant and former director of the Northern Ireland Office, Brendan Threlfall.
The three formed an “unholy trinity,” as described by the first U.K. official, with each one bringing something to the table.
Davies was “a classic civil servant, an unsung hero,”the official said, while Threlfall “has good connections, good understanding” and “Tim has met all the EU interlocutors over the years.”
Sitting across the table, the EU team was led by Richard Szostak, a Londoner born to Polish parents and a determined Commission official with a great CV and an affinity for martial arts. His connection to von der Leyen was her deputy head of cabinet until recently, Stéphanie Riso, a former member of Brussels’ Brexit negotiating team who developed a reputation for competence on both sides of the debate.
Other senior figures at the U.K. Cabinet Office played key roles, including Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and senior official Sue Gray.
The latter — a legendary Whitehall enforcer who adjudicated over Johnson’s “Partygate” scandal — has a longstanding connection to Northern Ireland, famously taking a career break in the late 1980s to run a pub in Newry, where she has family links. More recently, she spent two years overseeing the finance ministry.
Gray has been spotted in Stormont at crunch points over the past six months as Northern Ireland grapples with the pain of the continued absence of an executive.
Some predict Gray could yet play a further role, in courting the Democratic Unionist Party as the agreement moves forward in the weeks ahead.
For U.K. and EU officials, the agreement struck with Brussels represented months of hard work — but for Sunak and his Cabinet colleagues, the hardest yards may yet lie ahead.
This story was updated to clarify two parts of the sourcing.
The transatlantic reset between Brussels and Washington is on life support.
After four years of discord and disruption under Donald Trump, hopes were high that Joe Biden’s presidency would usher in a new era of cooperation between Europe and the U.S. after he declared: “America is back.”
But when senior officials from both sides meet in Washington on Monday for a twice-yearly summit on technology and trade, the mood will be gloomier than at any time since Trump left office.
The European Union is up in arms over Biden’s plans for hefty subsidies for made-in-America electric cars, claiming these payments, which partly kick in from January 1, are nothing more than outright trade protectionism.
At the same time, the U.S. is increasingly frustrated the 27-country bloc won’t be more aggressive in pushing back against China, accusing some European governments of caving in to Beijing’s economic might.
Those frictions are expected to overshadow the so-called EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council (TTC) summit this week. At a time when the Western alliance is seeking to maintain a show of unity and strength in the face of Russian aggression and Chinese authoritarianism, the geopolitical stakes are high.
Biden may have helped matters last Thursday, during a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, by saying he believed the two sides can still resolve some of the concerns the EU has raised.
“We’re going to continue to create manufacturing jobs in America but not at the expense of Europe,” Biden said. “We can work out some of the differences that exist, I’m confident.”
But, as ever, the details will be crucial.
It is unclear what Biden can do to stop his Buy American subsidies from hurting European car-markers, for example, many of which come from powerful member countries like France and Germany. The TTC summit offers a crucial early opportunity for the two sides to begin to rebuild trust and start to deliver on Biden’s warm rhetoric.
Judging by the TTC’s record so far, those attending, who will include U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, will have their work cut out.
More than 20 officials, policymakers and industry and society groups involved in the summit told POLITICO that the lofty expectations for the TTC have yet to deliver concrete results. Almost all of the individuals spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken will be attending the TTC | Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Some officials privately accused their counterparts of broken promises, particularly on trade. Others are frustrated at a lack of progress in 10 working groups on topics like helping small businesses to digitize and tackling climate change.
“With these kinds of allies, who needs enemies?” said one EU trade diplomat when asked about tensions around upcoming U.S. electric car subsidies. A senior U.S. official working on the summit hit back: “We need the Europeans to play ball on China. So far, we haven’t had much luck.”
Much of the EU-U.S. friction is down to three letters: IRA.
Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provides subsidies to “Buy American” when it comes to purchasing electric vehicles, has infuriated officials in Brussels who see it as undermining the multilateral trading system and a direct threat to the bloc’s rival car industry.
“The expectation the TTC was established to provide a forum for precisely these advanced exchanges with a view to preventing trade frictions before they arise appears to have been severely frustrated,” said David Kleimann, a trade expert at the Bruegel think tank in Brussels.
Biden’s room for flexibility is limited. The context for the subsidies and tax breaks is his desire to make good on his promise to create more manufacturing jobs ahead of an expected re-election run in 2024. The U.S. itself is hovering on the edge of a possible recession.
In addition, the U.S. trade deficit with the EU hit a record $218 billion in 2021, second only to the U.S. trade deficit with China. The U.S. also ran an auto trade deficit of about $22 billion with European countries, with Germany accounting for the largest share of that.
Washington has few, if any, meaningful policy levers at its disposal to calm European anger. During a recent visit to the EU, Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, urged European countries to pass their own subsidies to jumpstart Europe’s electric car production, according to three officials with knowledge of those discussions.
“It risks being the elephant in the room,” said Emily Benson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, when asked about the electric car dispute.
After a push from Brussels, there were increasing signs on Friday that the TTC could still play a role. In the latest version of the TTC’s draft declaration, obtained by POLITICO, both sides commit to addressing the European concerns over Biden’s subsidies, including via the Trade and Tech Council. Again, though, there was no detail on how Washington could resolve the issue.
Politicians across Europe are already drawing up plans to fight back against Biden’s subsidies. That may include taking the matter to the World Trade Organization, hitting the U.S. with retaliatory tariffs or passing a “Buy European Act” that would nudge EU consumers and businesses to buy locally made goods and components.
Officials and business leaders pose for a photo during the TTC in September 2021 | Pool photo by Rebecca Droke/AFP via Getty Images
Privately, Washington has not been in the mood to give ground. Speaking to POLITICO before Biden met Macron, five U.S. policymakers said the IRA was not aimed at alienating allies, stressing that the green subsidies fit the very climate change goals that Europe has long called on America to adopt.
“There’s just a huge amount to be done and more frankly to be done than the market would provide for on its own,” said a senior White House official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “We think the Inflation Reduction Act is reflective of that type of step, but we also think there is a space here for Europe and others, frankly, to take similar steps.”
China tensions
Senior politicians attending the summit are expected to play down tensions this week when they announce a series of joint EU-U.S. projects.
These include funds for two telecommunications projects in Jamaica and Kenya and the announcement of new rules for how the emerging technology of so-called trustworthy artificial intelligence can develop. There’s also expected to be a plan for more coordination to highlight potential blockages in semiconductor supply chains, according to the draft summit statement obtained by POLITICO.
Yet even on an issue like microchips — where both Washington and Brussels have earmarked tens of billions of euros to subsidize local production — geopolitics intervenes.
For months, U.S. officials have pushed hard for their European counterparts to agree to export controls to stop high-end semiconductor manufacturing equipment being sent to China, according to four officials with knowledge of those discussions.
Washington already passed legislation to stop Chinese companies from using such American-made hardware. The White House had been eager for the European Commission to back similar export controls, particularly as the Dutch firm ASML produced equipment crucial for high-end chipmaking worldwide.
Yet EU officials preparing for the TTC meeting said such requests had never been made formally to Brussels. The draft summit communiqué makes just a passing reference to China and threats from so-called non-market economies.
Unlike the U.S., the EU remains divided on how to approach Beijing as some countries like Germany have long-standing economic ties with Chinese businesses that they are reluctant to give up. Without a consensus among EU governments, Brussels has little to offer Washington to help its anti-China push.
“In theory, the TTC is not about China, but in practice, every discussion with the U.S. is,” said one senior EU official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “If we talk with Katherine Tai about Burger King, it has an anti-China effect.”
Gavin Bade, Clea Caulcutt, Samuel Stolton and Camille Gijs contributed reporting.
LONDON — Three years after leaving the EU to chart its own course, Britain finds itself caught between two economic behemoths in a brewing transatlantic trade war.
In one corner sits the United States, whose Congress in August passed the Biden administration’s much-vaunted $369 billion program of green subsidies, part of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
In the opposing corner is the European Union, which fears Washington’s subsidy splurge will pull investment — particularly in electric vehicles — away from Europe, hitting carmakers hard.
The EU is preparing its own retaliatory package of subsidies; Washington shows little sign of changing course. Fears of a trade war are growing fast.
Now sitting squarely outside the ring, the U.K. can only look on with horror, and quietly ask Washington to soften the blow. But there are few signs the softly-softly approach is bearing fruit. Britain now risks being clobbered by both sides.
“It’s not in the U.K.’s interest for the U.S. and EU to go down this route,” said Sam Lowe, a partner at Flint Global and expert in U.K. and EU trade policy. “Given the U.K.’s current economic position, it can’t really afford to engage in a subsidy war with both.” The British government has just unleashed a round of fiscal belt-tightening after a market rout, following months of political turmoil.
For iconic British motor brands, the row over the Biden administration’s IRA comes with real costs.
The U.S. is the second-largest destination for British-made vehicles after the EU, and the automotive sector is one of Britain’s top goods exporters.
Manufacturers like Jaguar Land Rover have warned publicly about the “very serious challenges” posed by the new U.S. law and its plan for electric vehicle tax credits aimed at boosting American industry.
Kemi on the case
U.K. Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch has for months been privately urging top U.S. officials to soften the impact of the electric vehicle subsidies on Britain by carving out exemptions, U.K. officials said.
When Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo visited London in early October, Badenoch pushed her to rethink the strategy. The U.K. trade chief brought that same message to Washington in a series of private meetings earlier this month, including at a sit-down with Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo.
Badenoch has “raised this issue on many levels,” an official from the U.K.’s Department for International Trade said, citing conversations with U.S. Ambassador to Britain Jane Hartley, with Secretary Raimondo, “and with members of the Biden administration and senior representatives of both parties.”
The Cabinet minister has also spoken out in public, telling the pro-free market Cato Institute in Washington earlier this month that “the substantial new tax credits for electric cars not only bar vehicles made in the U.K. from the U.S. market, but also affect vehicles made in the U.S. by U.K. manufacturers.”
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo | Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
Badenoch’s comments echo concerns raised by both British automotive lobby group the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), and by Jaguar Land Rover, in comments filed with the U.S. Treasury Department.
The SMMT warned that Biden’s green vehicle package has several “elements of concern that risk creating an uneven competitive environment, with U.K.-based manufacturers and suppliers potentially penalised.” The lobby group is taking aim at the credit scheme’s requirement for green vehicles to be built in North America, with significant subsidies available only if critical minerals are sourced from the U.S. or a U.S. ally.
In response to Washington’s plans, the EU is preparing what could amount to billions in subsidies for its own industries hit by the U.S. law, which also offers tax breaks to boost American green businesses such as solar panel manufacturers. Britain faces being squeezed in both markets, while lacking any say in whatever response Brussels decides.
Protectionism that impacts like-minded allies “isn’t the answer to the geopolitical challenges we face,” the British trade department official warned, adding “there is a serious risk” the law disrupts “vital” global supply chains of batteries and electric vehicles.
The conversations Badenoch had this month in Washington were “reassuring,” the official added. “But it’s for them to address and find solutions.”
‘Ton of work to do’
Yet others believe Badenoch will have a hard time getting her colleagues in the U.S. — now cooling on a much-touted bilateral trade deal — to take action. “The U.S. is minimally focused on how any of their policies are going to impact the U.K.,” admitted a U.S.-based representative of a major business group.
While Britain and the U.S. are “very close allies”, they added, those in Washington “just don’t really view the U.K. as an interesting trade partner and market right now.” The U.S. is more focused, they noted, on pushing back against China, meaning Badenoch has “a ton of work to do” getting the administration to soften the IRA.
Nevertheless the U.S. is still working out how its law will actually be implemented, the business figure said, and is assembling a working group on how the IRA impacts trade allies. This has the potential, they added, to “alleviate a lot of the concerns coming out of the U.K.”
Late Tuesday evening, the SMMT called on the British government to provide greater domestic support for the sector as it prepares to ramp up its own electric vehicle production. The group wants an extension past April on domestic support for firms’ energy costs; a boost to government investment in green energy sources; and a speedier national rollout of charging infrastructure and staff training.
In the meantime, Britain’s options appear limited.
Newly manufactured Land Rover and Range Rover vehicles parked and waiting to be loaded for export | Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images
The U.K. “could consider legal action” and haul the U.S. before the World Trade Organization or challenge the EU through provisions in the post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement, said Lowe of consultancy Flint. “But — to be blunt — neither of them care what we have to say.”
Anna Jerzewska, a trade advisor and associate fellow at the UK Trade Policy Observatory, suggested pressing ahead “with your own domestic policy and efforts to support strategic industries is perhaps more important” than complaining about foreign subsidy schemes. But she noted that after a “chaotic” political period, Britain is “likely to take longer to respond to external changes and challenges.”
And in truth, Britain “can’t afford to out-subsidize the U.S. and EU,” said David Henig, a trade expert with the European Centre For International Political Economy think tank.
Outside the EU, Britain could work to rally allies such as Japan and South Korea who are also unhappy with the Biden administration’s protectionist measures, he noted. “But I don’t think we’re in that position,” Henig said, as it would take a concerted diplomatic effort, and the U.K.’s automotive sector would “have to be well positioned” in the first place, not struggling as it is. He predicted London’s lobbying in Washington and Brussels is “not going to get anywhere.”
Former United States President Donald Trump was a useful bogeyman for Europe. His successor, Joe Biden, is proving much trickier — a friend who says all the right things but leaves you in the lurch when it counts.
At each new perceived slight, the Europeans express shock, frustration and dismay: How could Washington fail to consult its allies, or at the very least inform them of its plans? Meanwhile, the American response is always some variant of: Terribly sorry, we didn’t even think of that.
The underlying dynamic is one of polite indifference. Despite Washington’s renewed commitment to NATO and massive outlay of arms and funds to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia, the U.S. remains steadfastly focused on what most perceive to be its main existential challenge: China.
In that equation, Europe is often an afterthought. It’s just that many on this side of the Atlantic have failed to get the message — or draw conclusions of what it means for the bloc’s future — instead preferring to act out a script of outrage and remonstrance.
A current example is the blooming transatlantic argument over Biden’s IRA.
Months in the making, painstakingly hashed out on Capitol Hill, the legislation represents Washington’s best bipartisan effort thus far to decarbonize its economy and prepare for decoupling from China. The bill flags $369 billion for energy and climate programs, including billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies for the production of electric vehicles inside the U.S.
It just so happens that it’s a potential disaster for Europe.
Bruised and confused
Amid an energy crisis that has large parts of the European Union economy staring into an abyss, French President Emmanuel Macron has led the charge against Biden’s IRA, accusing Washington of maintaining a “double standard” on energy and trade. He’s called for Europe to respond in kind by rolling out its own subsidy plan, prompting a visit from U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to an EU trade ministers’ meeting in Prague on October 31.
But rather than try to cajole them with concessions, Tai invited them to get on board the China train by rolling out their own subsidies — which isn’t what the Europeans wanted to hear.
According to an EU diplomat who spoke to POLITICO ahead of a trade ministers’ meeting on Friday, members of the bloc still hope that Biden will send the IRA back to Congress for resizing, a prospect U.S. officials say is about as likely as canceling Thanksgiving.
The result is that Europe is now back in familiar territory: Bruised, confused and scrambling for a response while failing to formulate its own cohesive strategy to contend with China. And instead of receiving solidarity from Washington in a time of war, they feel the U.S. has maneuvered itself into a perfect position to suck investment out of Europe.
The outlines of an EU response to the IRA did start to take shape earlier this week, when Paris and Berlin — only recently back on speaking terms after a falling out — jointly called for an EU plan to subsidize domestic industries.
But that plan is likely weeks, even months, away from becoming a reality. And even if all 27 EU countries manage to strike a deal, their leaders will be hard-pressed to inject anywhere near as much money into it as Washington has earmarked, as most EU countries are still howling in pain over the high price of gas — much of which they now import from liquid natural gas terminals in Texas.
Again, Biden’s America is looking after its interests while the EU’s left to groan about missed signals, hurt feelings and unfair practices.
The tragedy for Europe is that this is happening at a time when transatlantic relations are meant to be at an all-time high. Biden’s election, followed by the war in Ukraine and Washington’s massive investment in shoring up NATO’s eastern flank, was meant to signal the U.S.’s decisive return to the European sphere.
But what the Europeans are discovering is that the Ukraine war is just one facet of the U.S.’s larger strategic duel with China, which will always take precedence over EU interests.
That was true under Trump, and it remains true under his successor. It’s just that the message is delivered in a different style.
In the long run, Biden’s polite indifference may prove more deadly.
The EU is in emergency mode and is readying a big subsidy push to prevent European industry from being wiped out by American rivals, two senior EU officials told POLITICO.
Europe is facing a double hammer blow from the U.S. If it weren’t enough that energy prices look set to remain permanently far higher than those in the U.S. thanks to Russia’s war in Ukraine, U.S. President Joe Biden is also currently rolling out a $369 billion industrial subsidy scheme to support green industries under the Inflation Reduction Act.
EU officials fear that businesses will now face almost irresistible pressure to shift new investments to the U.S. rather than Europe. EU industry chief Thierry Breton is warning that Biden’s new subsidy package poses an “existential challenge” to Europe’s economy.
The European Commission and countries including France and Germany have realized they need to act quickly if they want to prevent the Continent from turning into an industrial wasteland. According to the two senior officials, the EU is now working on an emergency scheme to funnel money into key high-tech industries.
The tentative solution now being prepared in Brussels is to counter the U.S. subsidies with an EU fund of its own, the two senior officials said. This would be a “European Sovereignty Fund,” which was already mentioned in the State of the Union address by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in September, to help businesses invest in Europe and meet ambitious green standards.
Senior officials said the EU had to act extremely quickly as companies are already making decisions on where to build their future factories for everything from batteries and electric cars to wind turbines and microchips.
Another reason for Brussels to respond rapidly is to avoid individual EU countries going it alone in splashing out emergency cash, the officials warned. The chaotic response to the gas price crisis, where EU countries reacted with all sorts of national support measures that threatened to undermine the single market, is still a sore point in Brussels.
European Commissioner Breton especially has led the pack in sounding alarm bells. At a meeting with EU industry leaders Monday, Breton issued his warning on the “existential challenge” to Europe from the Inflation Reduction Act, according to people in the room. Breton said it was now a matter of utmost urgency to “revert the deindustrialization process taking place.”
Breton was echoing calls from business leaders all over Europe warning about a perfect storm brewing for manufacturers. “It’s a bit like drowning. It’s happening quietly,” BusinessEurope President Fredrik Persson said.
The Inflation Reduction Act is a particular bugbear to EU carmaking nations — such as France and Germany — as it encourages consumers to “Buy American” when it comes to electric vehicles. Brussels and EU capitals see this as undermining global free trade, and Brussels wants to cut a deal in which its companies can enjoy the same American benefits.
With a diplomatic solution seeming unlikely and Brussels wanting to avoid an all-out trade war, a subsidy race now looks increasingly likely as a contentious Plan B.
To do that, it will be vital to secure support from Germany and from the more economically liberal commissioners such as trade chief Valdis Dombrovskis and competition chief Margrethe Vestager.
At a meeting of EU trade ministers on Friday, Brussels hopes to get more clarity from Berlin on whether they are willing to break their subsidy taboo.
France has long been calling for a counterstrike against Washington by funneling state funds into European industry to help industrial champions on the Continent. That idea is now also gaining traction in Berlin, which has traditionally been economically more liberal.
On Tuesday, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck and his French counterpart Bruno Le Maire issued a joint statement to call for an “EU industrial policy that enables our companies to thrive in the global competition especially through technological leadership,” adding that “we want to coordinate closely a European approach to challenges such as the United States Inflation Reduction Act.”
Apart from the trade ministers’ meeting on Friday, the idea will also informally be discussed among competition ministers next week. One official said European leaders will also discuss it on the margins of the Western Balkan summit on December 6 and at the European Council mid-December.
Hans von der Burchard, Giorgio Leali and Paola Tamma contributed reporting.
BERLIN — With only six weeks to avoid a transatlantic trade showdown over green industries, the Germans are frustrated that Washington isn’t offering a peace deal and are increasingly considering a taboo-breaking response: European subsidies.
Europe’s fears hinge on America’s $369 billion package of subsidies and tax breaks to bolster U.S. green businesses, which comes into force on January 1. The bugbear for the Europeans is that Washington’s scheme will encourage companies to shift investments from Europe and incentivize customers to “Buy American” when it comes to purchasing an electric vehicle — something that infuriates the big EU carmaking nations like France and Germany.
The timing of this protectionist measure could hardly be worse as Germany is in open panic that several of its top companies — partly spurred by energy cost spikes after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — are shuttering domestic operations to invest elsewhere. The last thing Berlin needs is even more encouragement for businesses to quit Europe, and the EU wants the U.S. to cut a deal in which its companies can enjoy the American perks.
A truce seems unlikely, however. If this spat now spirals out of control, it will lead to a trade war, something that terrifies the beleaguered Europeans. While the first step would be a largely symbolic protest at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the clash could easily slide precipitously back toward the tit-for-tat tariff battles of the era of former U.S. President Donald Trump.
This means that momentum is growing in Berlin for a radical Plan B. Instead of open tariff war with America, the increasingly discussed option is to rip up the classic free-trade rulebook and to play Washington at its own game by funneling state funds into European industry to rear homegrown green champions in sectors such as solar panels, batteries and hydrogen.
France has long been the leading advocate of strengthening European industry with state largesse but, up until now, the more economically liberal Germans have not wanted to launch a subsidy race against America. The sands are now shifting, however. Senior officials in Berlin say they are increasingly leaning toward the French thinking, should the talks with the U.S. not lead to an unexpected last-minute solution.
Berlin is the 27-nation bloc’s economic powerhouse, so it will be a decisive moment if Berlin ultimately decides to throw its might behind the state-led subsidy approach to an industrial race with the U.S.
Running out of time
The clock is ticking for a truce with Biden that looks increasingly unlikely.
Recent attempts by a special EU-U.S. task force to address EU concerns have met little enthusiasm on the American side to amend the controversial legislation, the European Commission told EU countries this week.
“There are only a few weeks left,” warned Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, adding that “once the act is implemented, it will be too late for us to achieve any changes.”
Lange said that the failure to reach a deal would likely trigger a WTO lawsuit by the EU against the U.S., and Brussels could also strike back against what it sees as the discriminatory U.S. subsidies by imposing punitive tariffs. Warnings of a trade war are already overshadowing the runup to a high-level EU-U.S. meeting in Washington on December 5.
MEP Bernd Lange Lange said that the failure to reach a deal would likely trigger a WTO lawsuit by the EU against the U.S. | Philippe Buissin/European Union
It’s precisely the kind of spat that the German government wants to avoid, as Chancellor Olaf Scholz hopes to forge unity among like-minded democracies amid Russia’s war and the the increasing challenges posed by China. Earlier this month, Scholz’s government made an overture to Washington by suggesting that a new EU-U.S. trade deal could be negotiated to resolve differences, but that proposal was quickly rejected.
There are sympathizers for the subsidies approach in Brussels, with officials at the EU’s executive saying powerful Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton is a leading proponent. Breton is already advocating for a “European Solidarity Fund” to help “mobilizing the necessary funding” to strengthen European autonomy in key sectors like batteries, semiconductors or hydrogen. Support from Germany could help Breton win the upper hand in internal EU strategy discussions over the more cautious Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis.
Breton will travel to Berlin on November 29 to discuss the consequences of the Inflation Reduction Act as well as industrial policy and energy measures with Scholz’s government.
The German considerations even echo calls from top officials of the Biden administration, including U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, who are urging the EU to not engage in a transatlantic trade dispute and instead roll out their own industrial subsidies; a strategy that Washington also sees as way to reduce dependence on China.
Plan B
Scholz first indicated late last month that the EU might have to respond to the U.S. law with its own tax cuts and state support if the negotiations with Washington fail to reach a solution, lending support to similar plans articulated by French President Emmanuel Macron, who will meet Biden on December 1 in Washington.
Although Scholz does not endorse Macron’s framing of the initiative as a “Buy European Act” (which sounds too protectionist for the Germans), the chancellor agrees that the EU cannot stand by idly if it faces unfair competition or lost investments, people familiar with his thinking said late last month.
Negative economic news, such as carmaker Tesla putting plans for a new battery factory in Germany on hold and instead investing in the U.S., or steelmaker ArcelorMittal partly closing operations in Germany, have increased calls in Berlin to consider more state support to counter a negative trend caused by both the U.S. scheme and high energy prices.
Although the official government line remains that Berlin is still holding out hope for a negotiated solution with Washington, officials in Berlin say that it could be possible to increase incentives for industries to locate the production of green technologies in Europe.
A spokesperson for the German Economy Ministry said that faced with the challenges stemming from the Inflation Reduction Act, “we will have to come up with our own European response that puts our strengths first … The aim is to competitively relocate green value creation in Europe and strengthen our own production capacities.”
The spokesperson warned, however, that both the U.S. and EU “must be careful that there is no subsidy race that prevents the best ideas from prevailing in the market,” and added: “Green technologies in particular thrive best in fair competition; protectionism cripples innovation.”
One important condition that could help Germany and the EU to safeguard said fair competition and to avoid the global free trade system descending into protectionist tendencies would be to ensure that any EU state subsidies remain in line with WTO rules. That means, in contrast to the U.S. law, that those subsidies would not discriminate between local and foreign producers.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz first indicated late last month that the EU might have to respond to the U.S. law with its own tax cuts and state support | Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Crucially, support is also coming from German industry.
“In the area of industrial policy and subsidies, we could look at measures that are compatible with WTO rules — as the EU is already doing in the chip sector,” said Volker Treier, the head of foreign trade at the German Chamber of Commerce.
Treier also stressed that “there must be no discrimination” against foreign investors, but added: “This explicitly does not rule out the possibility of settlement bonuses, which in turn should be available to investors from all countries who would be interested in such investment commitments in Europe.”
In Brussels, the Commission’s competition department has also made clear that it’s looking with an open mind at upcoming proposals.
“There are no instruments excluded a priori” when it comes to the EU’s response to the U.S. subsidies, the department’s state aid Deputy Director General Ben Smulders said Thursday.
Barbara Moens, Suzanne Lynch and Pietro Lombardi in Brussels and Laura Kayali and Clea Caulcutt in Paris contributed reporting.