Feed aggregator

In today's edition: Macron vs Big Tech, DMA's weak enforcement, and DNA last stretch

In today's edition: Mercosur, CBAM, diets

Credit: WMO/Daniel Pavlinovic / UN News

By Center for International Environmental Law
WASHINGTON, USA, Jan 9 2026 (IPS)

The Trump Administration’s sweeping executive order to withdraw the United States from dozens of United Nations bodies and international organizations, as well as a treaty ratified by the United States with the advice and consent of the US Senate, is a targeted assault on multilateralism, international law, and global institutions critical to safeguarding human rights, peace, and climate justice.

This move, the constitutionality and legal effect of which are questionable, was announced under the guise of protecting US interests, but does exactly the opposite. By divesting from global cooperation on the environment, human rights, democracy, and peace, the US puts its own future, and that of the planet, at greater risk.

The Executive Order represents a deliberate effort to dismantle the international infrastructure designed to uphold dignity, protect children, improve gender and racial equality, advance sustainable development, preserve the oceans, and confront the climate crisis. It undermines bodies that safeguard the global commons and ensure basic protections for marginalized people and those in vulnerable situations around the world, including refugees, women, children, people of African descent, and many others.

Rebecca Brown, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) said:

“This executive order is not just a policy shift— it is a direct assault on the multilateral system that has helped prevent conflict, advance human rights, and protect the global commons for nearly eighty years. At a time when rising seas, record heat, and deadly disasters demand urgent, coordinated action, the US government is choosing to retreat.”

“The decision to defund and withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) does not absolve the US of its legal obligations to prevent climate change and remedy climate harm, as the world’s highest court made clear last year. This action is simply a continuation of this Administration’s efforts to prioritize corporate interests over people and planet, and flout the rule of law.

Withdrawing from institutions designed to support global climate action does not change the stark reality of the climate crisis, rebut the irrefutable evidence of its causes, or eliminate the US’s clear responsibility for its consequences. Withdrawal only serves to further isolate the US to the detriment of its own population and billions around the world.”

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)\[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');\ \ 

Global development policy is a particularly revealing field in which the Trump administration combines crude transactionalism with a high level of ideological commitment, namely an authoritarian libertarianism oriented toward elite interests. This is coupled with, at times, a chaotic absence of tactical or strategic coherence. With Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, a significant phase in international affairs, including global development policy, began. 
This policy brief traces the evolution of the US approach to development cooperation and exposes how Trump’s approach represents an overtly aggressive assault, delivering a high voltage shockwave to global sustainable development policy, undermining multilateral norms, institutional commitments and long-standing principles of international solidarity. The United States (US) has played a decisive role in the conception and evolution of global development policy since the mid-20th century. From the establishment of the post-Second World War order onward, the US shaped the normative, political and organisational foundations of development cooperation, often setting agendas, defining standards, and providing leadership and personnel for key multilateral institutions. Early reconstruction efforts such as the Marshall Plan and the establishment of the World Bank embedded development within a broader framework of power politics, positioning aid as both a tool of reconstruction and geopolitical influence. Since January 2025, US development cooperation has undergone a dramatic rupture. The administration rapidly withdrew from multilateral institutions, cut budgets, and de facto dissolved USAID, transferring residual functions to the State Department. This shift was accompanied by conspiracy narratives and an explicit rejection of multilateral norms, marking a sharp departure from previous Republican and Democratic approaches alike. The brief conceptualises this shift as the emergence of a “New Washington Dissensus”: a model of transactional, nationalist development cooperation that treats aid as an instrument of power rather than a global public good. Under this paradigm, development engagement is ideologically conditional, hostile to climate and equity agendas, oriented toward migration control, and explicitly transactional. The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (December 2025) is consistent with this in the sense that it frames an “America First” approach that narrows US priorities to “core, vital national interests” and places strong emphasis on Western Hemisphere pre-eminence via a stated “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. For global development, foreign assistance and development finance are thus instruments of strategic competition and commercial diplomacy. US agencies are mobilised to back US commercial positioning. The consequences are dramatic and systemic. The US retreat has destabilised the global development architecture and intensified geopolitical fragmentation. For many countries in the Global South, this represents a watershed moment, creating both new room for manoeuvre and new dependencies as states pursue multi-alignment strategies amid intensifying great-power rivalry. At the same time, humanitarian impacts are severe. Overall, the brief concludes that development policy has entered a new phase, which is narrower, more instrumental and overtly geopolitical, and is reshaping not only US engagement but the future of global development policy itself. 

Global development policy is a particularly revealing field in which the Trump administration combines crude transactionalism with a high level of ideological commitment, namely an authoritarian libertarianism oriented toward elite interests. This is coupled with, at times, a chaotic absence of tactical or strategic coherence. With Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, a significant phase in international affairs, including global development policy, began. 
This policy brief traces the evolution of the US approach to development cooperation and exposes how Trump’s approach represents an overtly aggressive assault, delivering a high voltage shockwave to global sustainable development policy, undermining multilateral norms, institutional commitments and long-standing principles of international solidarity. The United States (US) has played a decisive role in the conception and evolution of global development policy since the mid-20th century. From the establishment of the post-Second World War order onward, the US shaped the normative, political and organisational foundations of development cooperation, often setting agendas, defining standards, and providing leadership and personnel for key multilateral institutions. Early reconstruction efforts such as the Marshall Plan and the establishment of the World Bank embedded development within a broader framework of power politics, positioning aid as both a tool of reconstruction and geopolitical influence. Since January 2025, US development cooperation has undergone a dramatic rupture. The administration rapidly withdrew from multilateral institutions, cut budgets, and de facto dissolved USAID, transferring residual functions to the State Department. This shift was accompanied by conspiracy narratives and an explicit rejection of multilateral norms, marking a sharp departure from previous Republican and Democratic approaches alike. The brief conceptualises this shift as the emergence of a “New Washington Dissensus”: a model of transactional, nationalist development cooperation that treats aid as an instrument of power rather than a global public good. Under this paradigm, development engagement is ideologically conditional, hostile to climate and equity agendas, oriented toward migration control, and explicitly transactional. The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (December 2025) is consistent with this in the sense that it frames an “America First” approach that narrows US priorities to “core, vital national interests” and places strong emphasis on Western Hemisphere pre-eminence via a stated “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. For global development, foreign assistance and development finance are thus instruments of strategic competition and commercial diplomacy. US agencies are mobilised to back US commercial positioning. The consequences are dramatic and systemic. The US retreat has destabilised the global development architecture and intensified geopolitical fragmentation. For many countries in the Global South, this represents a watershed moment, creating both new room for manoeuvre and new dependencies as states pursue multi-alignment strategies amid intensifying great-power rivalry. At the same time, humanitarian impacts are severe. Overall, the brief concludes that development policy has entered a new phase, which is narrower, more instrumental and overtly geopolitical, and is reshaping not only US engagement but the future of global development policy itself. 

Global development policy is a particularly revealing field in which the Trump administration combines crude transactionalism with a high level of ideological commitment, namely an authoritarian libertarianism oriented toward elite interests. This is coupled with, at times, a chaotic absence of tactical or strategic coherence. With Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, a significant phase in international affairs, including global development policy, began. 
This policy brief traces the evolution of the US approach to development cooperation and exposes how Trump’s approach represents an overtly aggressive assault, delivering a high voltage shockwave to global sustainable development policy, undermining multilateral norms, institutional commitments and long-standing principles of international solidarity. The United States (US) has played a decisive role in the conception and evolution of global development policy since the mid-20th century. From the establishment of the post-Second World War order onward, the US shaped the normative, political and organisational foundations of development cooperation, often setting agendas, defining standards, and providing leadership and personnel for key multilateral institutions. Early reconstruction efforts such as the Marshall Plan and the establishment of the World Bank embedded development within a broader framework of power politics, positioning aid as both a tool of reconstruction and geopolitical influence. Since January 2025, US development cooperation has undergone a dramatic rupture. The administration rapidly withdrew from multilateral institutions, cut budgets, and de facto dissolved USAID, transferring residual functions to the State Department. This shift was accompanied by conspiracy narratives and an explicit rejection of multilateral norms, marking a sharp departure from previous Republican and Democratic approaches alike. The brief conceptualises this shift as the emergence of a “New Washington Dissensus”: a model of transactional, nationalist development cooperation that treats aid as an instrument of power rather than a global public good. Under this paradigm, development engagement is ideologically conditional, hostile to climate and equity agendas, oriented toward migration control, and explicitly transactional. The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (December 2025) is consistent with this in the sense that it frames an “America First” approach that narrows US priorities to “core, vital national interests” and places strong emphasis on Western Hemisphere pre-eminence via a stated “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. For global development, foreign assistance and development finance are thus instruments of strategic competition and commercial diplomacy. US agencies are mobilised to back US commercial positioning. The consequences are dramatic and systemic. The US retreat has destabilised the global development architecture and intensified geopolitical fragmentation. For many countries in the Global South, this represents a watershed moment, creating both new room for manoeuvre and new dependencies as states pursue multi-alignment strategies amid intensifying great-power rivalry. At the same time, humanitarian impacts are severe. Overall, the brief concludes that development policy has entered a new phase, which is narrower, more instrumental and overtly geopolitical, and is reshaping not only US engagement but the future of global development policy itself. 

In today's edition: ChatGPT Health, food pyramids, and restrictions for the tobacco lobby

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Plus Spain doubles down on FCAS, and a history lesson for Donald Trump on NATO's Article 5

In today's edition: EU ETS jeopardy, US Democrats probe big oil, heat pumps

REPORT on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 2025
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Francisco Assis

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Le président américain Donald Trump souhaite avoir accès au pétrole vénézuélien, mais que savons-nous exactement de ces réserves, des défis liés à leur exploitation et des implications mondiales de l'exploitation de ce qui est considéré comme les plus grandes réserves au monde ?

Written by Anna Flynn.

The European Parliament is fully committed to ensuring an ambitious European Union budget that meets the Union’s many challenges in the years to come. The European Commission presented its proposals for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF) on 16 July 2025. The Commission proposes a budget amounting to a total of almost €1.8 trillion in commitments over seven years (in constant 2025 prices). The MFF constitutes the EU’s long-term budgetary plan, setting a maximum level of spending (‘ceilings’) for each major category of expenditure (‘heading’) in accordance with Article 312 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The proposed 2028-2034 budget corresponds to 1.26 % of the EU’s GNI. This includes 0.11 % of EU gross national income (GNI) for the repayment of the debt created by Next Generation EU (NGEU) grants. Excluding the NGEU repayment, the proposed post-2027 MFF reflects, in nominal terms, an increase of €367.2 billion (+29 %). However, in real terms, the increase is only 0.02 percentage points of GNI.

The national and regional partnership plans (NRPPs) proposed by the European Commission have proven particularly controversial throughout the European Parliament. They are seen as a risk of ‘renationalising’ the EU budget, as each Member State would agree their own plan with the Commission, within the constraints of allocated funding that is conditional on meeting EU priorities This raises questions about Parliament’s capacity for oversight and scrutiny. Moreover, the NRPPs merge many funds that were previously separate, such as the common agricultural policy, cohesion policy, and the common fisheries policy. Parliament’s four pro-European groups (S&D, Greens/EFA, Renew Europe, and the EPP) threatened to reject the Commission’s draft regulation on the NRPPs if it does not substantially amend its proposal.

On 9 November 2025, the Commission proposed some possible reforms to the NRPPs, such as the introduction of a 10 % spending target for agriculture, and a strengthened role for regional authorities in decision-making. However, these revisions do not address all of Parliament’s concerns. Parliament’s Committee on Budgets (BUDG) continues its work on the interim report on the MFF proposals, with opinions awaited from many of the standing committees before the BUDG report goes to plenary in May 2026.

An overview of the main components of the proposed 2028-2034 MFF and an initial comparison with the 2021-2027 budget framework illustrates the Commission’s proposed division of €1.763 trillion in commitments, which Parliament’s BUDG committee finds lacks ambition.

Academia, think tanks, other EU institutions and bodies, and a variety of stakeholders are publishing a wealth of analysis and commentary on the proposed 2028-2034 MFF as it proceeds through negotiations (see our monthly digest).

Links to EPRS publications:

• ERDF – Cohesion Fund and conditions for EU support to regional policy
• Background information on the post-2027 MFF – December 2025
• Regulation on the common agricultural policy for the period 2028 to 2034
• EU budget 2028-2034: Overview of the Commission’s proposal

Other links

• The European Parliament rejects the National and Regional Partnership Plans proposal as it stands and demands an amended proposal to start negotiations (30 October 2025)
• MEPS brand von der Leyen’s EU budget ‘re-nationalisation’ (9 September 2025)

The Royal Court found the funds were "more likely than not" proceeds from a corrupt scheme.

In Friday's edition: Metsola on Iran, Trump's Greenland push, Cyprus row, Ukraine loan, Council renovations

La Turquie a livré au Kosovo des systèmes de missiles antichars de moyenne portée, permettant au petit pays des Balkans de poursuivre ses efforts pour constituer une véritable armée. Ankara cherche aussi à renforcer sa présence dans les Balkans.

- Le fil de l'Info / Kosovo, Défense, police et justice, Relations régionales, Turquie, Courrier des Balkans, dialogue Kosovo Serbie

La Turquie a livré au Kosovo des systèmes de missiles antichars de moyenne portée, permettant au petit pays des Balkans de poursuivre ses efforts pour constituer une véritable armée. Ankara cherche aussi à renforcer sa présence dans les Balkans.

- Le fil de l'Info / Une - Diaporama, Une - Diaporama - En premier, Kosovo, Défense, police et justice, Relations régionales, Turquie, Courrier des Balkans, dialogue Kosovo Serbie

Les agriculteurs bloquent toutes les routes de Grèce depuis jeudi. Les propositions du gouvernement sont jugées insuffisantes, et l'accord avec le Mercosur avive le craintes. Le Premier ministre a fait de nouvelles offres de dialogue.

- Le fil de l'Info / Une - Diaporama, Agriculture, Grèce, Société, Economie, Courrier des Balkans

Disinformation has evolved from a problem of messages into a problem of systems that shape our judgment

Trump doubts Europe would ever have America’s back. NATO’s own history – beginning on 11 September 2001 – suggests otherwise