World
Analysis: Trump’s policies set to widen EU-US innovation gap
As the curtain falls on 2025, policymakers in Brussels have yet to decisively counter the negative economic impacts of two major developments: the trade deal struck between the European Union and the United States this summer, and President Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”, a mammoth piece of domestic legislation with global economic implications.
The EU’s slow progress toward improving relative business conditions at such a volatile moment has left investors frustrated and looking elsewhere.
According to a report published this week by the European Round Table for Industry, the leaders of the bloc’s industrial giants are “alarmed at the lack of urgency in delivering on Draghi and Letta’s bold reforms to restore the business case for investing in Europe.”
The report also points to a survey of CEOs conducted in October, which shows that only 55% expect to stick to their investment plans. Even worse, a mere 8% intend to invest more in Europe than they planned to six months prior, in contrast with the 38% who will either invest less than previously intended or have put decisions on hold.
And most tellingly, the US now attracts more investment than originally planned by 45% of respondents.
The ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach
The Trump administration’s combination of supply-side economics and protectionism has converted the necessity of avoiding US tariffs into a massive financial incentive for foreign companies and multinationals to invest in the United States directly.
The Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed into law in July, formalised huge tax breaks and effectively guaranteed incentives to shift investments across the Atlantic. Namely, the 100% bonus depreciation for new machinery and factories, as well as the 100% immediate expensing of domestic research and development (R&D) costs, mitigating the expenses of moving production and innovation to the US.
Companies have until 1 January 2026 to finalize their decisions and collect retroactive benefits for capital deployed in 2025, but the conditions will remain the same next year.
To compound the EU’s growing inability to compete, the heavily criticised EU-US trade deal was agreed in the same month. The agreement de-escalated the transatlantic trade war of 2025 but it levied a 15% tariff on the vast majority of the EU’s industrial exports to the US, with an exemption from duties for most US-made goods bound for the EU market.
In addition, the EU committed to spending over €640 billion in US energy, investing more than €500 billion in the US economy and buying around €35 billion worth of US-made AI chips, until the end of President Trump’s mandate. Meanwhile, the United States made no similar pledges.
As for corporations, the choice became simple: relocate investment to the US, avoid the tariff and claim massive tax deductions.
The innovation gap in numbers
The R&D siphon is the most critical threat to Europe’s future competitiveness, as the Trump administration’s new incentives pull core innovation to the US.
In the most innovative industries, such as the AI and healthcare sectors, the numbers for 2025 already demonstrate the chasm between the EU and the US.
In the first three quarters of this year, private investment flowing into US AI companies exceeded €100 billion, with the US capturing over 80% of global AI funding. In contrast, the entire EU attracted just shy of €7 billion, according to the widely read State of AI Report 2025.
This severe 15-to-1 funding deficit means the technological future is being built and scaled primarily outside the EU, something that has been recognised by the European Parliament.
Likewise, the EU is aiming to achieve 20% market share in semiconductor manufacturing by 2030, as outlined in the Chips Act, but experts say such a goal is unlikely given that Europe is among the slowest growers in the sector year-on-year.
Furthermore, the EU is even falling behind on AI adoption among young users, according to a new survey by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
As for the pharmaceutical industry, CEOs sent a stark warning to President von der Leyen back in April that “unless Europe delivers rapid, radical policy change then pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing is increasingly likely to be directed towards the US.”
In the following weeks, fuelled by the fear of the ongoing transatlantic trade war at the time and frustration with the European regulatory scene, the third largest company in Europe by market capitalization, the Swiss-based Roche, committed over €40 billion in US investment over the next five years. Likewise, the French multinational Sanofi announced an investment of €17 billion to expand manufacturing in the US through 2030.
In July, as the Big Beautiful Bill and the EU-US trade deal were being agreed, the British-Swedish company AstraZeneca also declared investing over €40 billion in the US over the next five years, including the construction of a chronic disease research centre in the state of Virginia, the company’s largest single investment in a facility to date.
In November, the White House announced a large-scale agreement between two pharmaceutical rivals, the American manufacturer Eli Lilly, and the Danish corporation Novo Nordisk, known for pioneering the prescription drug for type 2 diabetes, Ozempic, which has also been widely used off-label for weight loss.
The two companies agreed a strategy to reduce the prices of several medications for Americans and announced new investments in the US, with Novo Nordisk committing roughly €8.5 billion to expand US manufacturing capacity. In exchange, the Danish company is expected to receive a three-year exemption from US tariffs, among other benefits.
In total, the European pharmaceutical industry has pledged more than €100 billion for US expansion in 2025 alone with multi-year commitments.
The scramble to deregulate
The pressure applied by the US is evident as this year has seen the European Commission pivot to an aggressive deregulation agenda.
In response to a request from the European Council, six simplification proposals, referred to as “omnibuses”, have been presented since February covering energy, finance, agriculture, technology, defence and chemicals.
Notably, the so-called Digital Omnibus was introduced in November, and it includes delays to provisions of the AI Act and modifications to the GDPR.
These initiatives aim to rapidly cut red tape and reduce bureaucratic costs for European businesses in an attempt to stem the outflow of talent and capital. However, the proposed measures are still facing legislative scrutiny, as well as administrative oversight and political backlash from privacy and climate advocates, among others.
It was only this week that an agreement was finally reached on the first omnibus, another sign that the EU is still far from offering the immediate financial certainty of minimising or avoiding US tariffs while benefiting from President Trump’s policies where possible.
The numbers reveal the plain economic truth: while the EU debates the fine print of deregulation, the investment in innovation is already being decisively relocated.
World
What the US and Iran agreed – and disagreed – on first day of talks
The United States has waived sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days following the first day of talks for a peace deal, with US President Donald Trump saying he will “do what I have to do” if Iran does not stick to its side of the agreement. Direct talks between the US and Iran were triggered by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two sides last week.
The parties have also established “a communication line” regarding the Strait of Hormuz to “avoid incidents and miscommunication with the aim of safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz”. Iran closed the strait, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas is shipped in peacetime, after US-Israeli attacks began at the end of February. This caused shockwaves through global energy markets, and the price of oil spiked.
A joint statement released by mediators Qatar and Pakistan on Monday said: “Chief negotiators will report regularly to the High Level Committee and lead working groups focused on nuclear, sanctions, and a monitoring and dispute resolution group to ensure the effective implementation of the MoU, and on other matters.”
But, besides sanctions relief, the two sides appear to disagree on what else they had agreed on.
On Tuesday, Iranian state media reported that the US had also agreed to release $12bn of frozen Iranian assets, but Washington has not confirmed this. And, while US Vice President JD Vance stated on Monday that Iran would allow international nuclear inspectors back into the country, Iran denied this on Tuesday.
Several other major sticking points to a peace deal have yet to be negotiated, including the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and the specifics of the sanctions relief.
In this explainer, we break down what each side has said about ongoing talks so far – and what they are disagreeing about.
Will the US release frozen Iranian assets?
On Monday, Iran’s top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said an agreement had been reached with the US to release $12bn in frozen Iranian funds.
But Vance said only that if Iranian assets are unfrozen, they will be used by Iran to buy US agricultural products. “They’re going to go to make American farmers richer and feed the Iranian people,” he said.
“We’re doing very well in terms of negotiating a fair and reasonable deal. One of the things that we are doing also, and it came up last night, is money that’s being unfrozen is going to be used to buy food, and the food’s going to be bought exclusively through the United States from our farmers,” Trump emphasised on Monday.
“And corn, soybeans, all of the things they need are going to be bought from our farmers. So our farmers are very happy. I’ve had a lot of calls; they were very happy about this.”
On Tuesday, he added in a Truth Social post: “The Money and/or Sanctions that the U.S. Treasury is releasing goes into escrow, controlled by the U.S.A., and will be used for the purchase of food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States, including Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American Farmers. These are things that are desperately needed by Iran. This is a humanitarian crisis, and I feel it is necessary to help, NOW, before it is too late. Talks are going well! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
However, on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei dismissed reports that Iran would be forced to buy US foodstuffs, saying the assets “will be released and will be employed with absolute liberty by Iran in order to purchase whatever goods or commodities needed by the nation”.
What sanctions will be lifted on Iran?
So far, the US has waived sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days, freeing up an estimated 67 million barrels of oil currently being stored on boats and tankers in the Gulf. The Chinese state and independent refineries are the biggest buyers of this oil.
On Tuesday, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva reported good progress in talks.
“Our colleagues continue to discuss in very good talks yesterday at technical level,” said Ali Bahreini, adding that two working groups will be established within the coming days to discuss the removal of sanctions against Iran and issues related to Iranian nuclear activities.
Iran is one of the most heavily sanctioned countries in the world, having been subject to US sanctions for decades. The lifting of some of these under the 2015 nuclear agreement was reversed when Trump walked out of the landmark deal. Billions of dollars of Iranian assets remain frozen in foreign banks as a result.
In an X post, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote that sanctions on Iranian oil exports and petrochemical sales had been waived, the blockade had been lifted, a number of frozen Iranian assets had been released and a major reconstruction and development plan for Iran had been launched. Araghchi said key Iranian conditions had now been met.
Reporting from the White House, Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said: “This is a big deal with the oil sanctions being removed because up until this point, the Iranians sold oil, but they sold at a huge discount because many companies, many countries didn’t want to fall on the wrong side of American sanctions.
“Now, they can actually sell their oil at full market rates, and that’s a huge boost for the Iranian economy. Now, the intention is, of course, that we reach a deal where all the sanctions will disappear, but we’ll only get confirmation of that if we get to a final deal that is finally sent to the United Nations for approval by a Security Council resolution.”
Al Jazeera’s Almigdad Alruhaid, reporting from Tehran, said: “This is a very crucial point for Iran. We have seen this as a central Iranian demand for relieving sanctions and frozen assets.”
Will Iran allow nuclear inspectors in?
The two sides have very different accounts of what was agreed on Monday.
Vance claimed Iran had agreed to invite International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors back into the country. He added that communications with the IAEA could happen as soon as Monday.
“That is a major milestone for the American people. And the first step in permanently denuclearising- permanently ending a nuclear weapons programne in Iran,” Vance said.
On Tuesday, however, Iranian officials denied this.
At a news conference in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Baghaei said Iran has not met with IAEA Director General Grossi and has no clear schedule for IAEA inspectors to examine Iranian nuclear facilities.
The IAEA is the UN’s nuclear watchdog. IAEA inspected Iran’s nuclear programme under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by former US President Barack Obama, but which Trump pulled the US out of in 2018.
Iran eventually barred inspectors from entering the country last year following the 12-day war with Israel, in which Israel pounded nuclear and military sites. The US also joined the war, attacking three Iranian nuclear sites.
On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump weighed into the dispute about what had actually been agreed, when he posted on his Truth Social platform: “Despite their protestations and false statements to the contrary, coupled with the drumbeat of the Fake News, which is doing everything possible to make the U.S. Victory as small and insignificant as possible, Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!). This will insure [sic] “Nuclear Honesty.” If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!”
He added: “Based on this and other major concessions being made by Iran, I have agreed to allow the Hormuz Strait to remain OPEN, with no further Naval Blockade. However, all ships are remaining in place should it be necessary to reinstitute the Blockade, which seems, at this point, highly unlikely.”
What about other nuclear talks?
Vance said the US and Iran had made “a lot of great progress” on other nuclear talks, without providing additional details.
Iran’s uranium enrichment programme has been a chief bone of contention between the US and Iran.
Under the JCPOA, which Trump pulled the US out of in 2018, Iran had been allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent only – enough for the purposes of a nuclear power programme. Inspectors confirmed that it had stuck to this limit.
But in the years since 2018, it is believed to have resumed higher levels of enrichment and currently holds 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched to 60 percent. This is still short of weapons-grade, at 90 percent, but is the point at which it becomes much quicker to achieve 90 percent enrichment.
While the US has been calling for Iran to hand over its stockpile of enriched uranium to it, Iran has consistently stated that it will not do this, although it has, at times, appeared willing to consider the prospect of handing it over to a third country. The agreement announced last week appeared to suggest that diluting it on site in Iran could also be an option.
World
Oklahoma rolls past Tar Heels 13-2 for 1st national championship since 1994 and SEC’s 7th in a row
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — The way its regular season unfolded, a national championship for Oklahoma would have seemed impossible.
The way the postseason unfolded, well, there was no stopping the Sooners.
OU completed the improbable run to its first national championship since 1994 with a 13-2 victory over North Carolina in the winner-take-all Game 3 of the College World Series finals Monday night, a performance that featured the prodigious offensive production and clutch pitching the Sooners rode through the NCAA Tournament.
“I think we knew the talent was always in the room,” said Jaxon Willits, named the CWS most outstanding player. “We got hot at the right time, and now we’re national champions.”
The Sooners (43-23) won the Southeastern Conference’s seventh straight title, quite an accomplishment for a team picked 14th in the 16-team conference in the preseason, finished 11th and entered the postseason off losses in seven of nine games.
To get to Omaha, they beat No. 2 national seed Georgia Tech twice on the road in regionals and swept upstart Kansas on the road in super regionals. To get to the finals, they beat No. 3 Georgia twice in bracket play.
“They got really confident the last month,” OU coach Skip Johnson said. “They care about each other. They didn’t want to give in. They were selfless.”
North Carolina (54-14-1) was runner-up for the third time since 2006 and now has 13 CWS appearances without a title. Only Florida State, with 24, has more without winning it all.
The Sooners were back in top form offensively after managing only four singles in a 6-2 loss in Game 2 and handed the Tar Heels their most lopsided loss of the season.
“We ran out of gas when all is said and done,” Carolina coach Scott Forbes said.
When Jackson Cleveland struck out Jake Schaffner to end the game, he and catcher Deiten Lachance embraced and then headed to the dogpile that formed near third base. Players waving national championship towels rushed back toward their dugout to salute the celebrating Sooner faithful on the first-base line, football greats Barry Switzer and Brian Bosworth among them.
Kyle Branch, the No. 9 batter who came into the game 1 of 16 (.063) in the CWS, drove in six runs with a pair of singles and home run. His homer came on his last at-bat, just as brother Kolby’s did for Georgia last Wednesday.
“Pure joy. Pure joy for our team,” Branch said. “I had a teammate tell me I was going to do something special, and for him to tell me that with the way things have been going, it has to be a God thing.”
He joined Dayton Tockey as the seventh and eighth OU players to homer in Omaha. Willits had three hits, reached base five times and finished the CWS 13 of 25 (.520).
The pitching matchup of Carolina’s Jackson Rose (5-1) and Oklahoma’s Nick Wesloski was the first between freshmen in a CWS winner-take-all game since 1993. Neither got out of the third inning.
LJ Mercurius (7-7) turned in another strong performance out of the bullpen, shutting down a threat when OU led 3-1 in the third and holding the Tar Heels to one run in 5 2/3 innings. He allowed just two runs in 12 1/3 over four CWS appearances.
The Tar Heels’ pitching staff, which had the best ERA in the Atlantic Coast Conference, had been good and occasionally great in the CWS. It was neither Monday, with eight pitchers combining to allow 14 hits, issue eight walks, throw three wild pitches and hit a batter.
ACC freshman of the year Caden Glauber, who had given up just one run in 10 1/3 innings in four CWS appearances, was called on for a fifth one day after he threw 65 pitches in five shutout innings. It was apparent coach Forbes went to the well one time too many.
Glauber was called for a clock violation before he even threw his first pitch. He issued a four-pitch bases-loaded walk and Willits followed with a two-run single to make it 6-1 in the fourth. That was all for Glauber, who threw seven pitches, five of them balls. The Tar Heels had won all 29 games in which Glauber had pitched before Monday.
“This group loved each other all season and took us on a ride and came up just short,” Forbes said. “I’d take that ride every day of the year. While we’re sad, the sadness will go away. We talk about joy. Joy doesn’t go away. These guys have given me, our coaching staff, our fans, administration, everybody, a ton of joy and a ton to be proud of.”
___
AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports
World
Trump says Colombia’s ‘El Tigre’ will be a ‘great president’ as socialist opponent launches legal challenge
Trump congratulates Colombia presidential candidate
Trump congratulated Abelardo De La Espriella, known by many as ‘El Tigre,’ following an initial ballot count. While not officially called, the narrow lead signals a potential rightward shift for Colombia. (Reuters.)
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump congratulated conservative attorney and businessman Abelardo de la Espriella on becoming president of Colombia Monday at the White House. Yet while he holds a slim lead and is the favorite to win over left-wing Senator Ivan Cepeda, authorities have yet to officially certify the result.
With 99.9% of votes counted, de la Espriella led with 49.7% to Cepeda’s 48.7%. De la Espriella, known to his supporters as “El Tigre,” dominated in the country’s mountainous interior and the vote-rich state of Antioquia, while Cepeda won in the capital Bogotá and performed well in coastal regions, following trends of recent presidential elections.
Cepeda has challenged the results, citing irregularities at thousands of polling stations. Nonetheless, overturning the election would be unprecedented in Colombian history.
If de la Espriella does hold out, it will mirror a continent-wide rightward shift seen in recent electoral results in Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru, where conservative Keiko Fujimori appears poised to win the presidency.
ANTI-CARTEL HARDLINER CHANNELS TRUMP IN BID TO END COLOMBIA’S LEFTIST ERA IN PIVOTAL ELECTION
Colombia’s right-wing presidential candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, from the Defensores de la Patria movement, delivers a speech to supporters during a campaign rally in Palmira, near Cali, Colombia on May 14, 2026. Colombia will hold presidential elections on May 31. (Joaquin Sarmiento/AFP via Getty Images)
Donald Trump congratulated de la Espriella during a signing at the White House on Monday. Trump told reporters that, “He called me last night, and he thanked me for the endorsement. He won. He won the election.” In response to a question on relations between the U.S. and Colombia, Trump asserted that things would be “Much better. It’ll be better. He’s going to be a great president.”
The election featured two candidates representing polar opposites of the Colombian political spectrum. De la Espriella, known as ‘El Tigre’ by his supporters, has enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of Donald Trump, promised a return to the law-and-order approach of former President Alvaro Uribe, and pledged an aggressive military campaign against guerrilla groups and criminal organizations, while Cepeda vowed to continue the negotiation-based strategy of Petro, a longtime political ally.
Ivan Cepeda is a longtime figure on the Colombian left, and served as senator for 12 years, following a four-year stint in the Chamber of Representatives. His father, Manuel Cepeda, was a prominent figure in the Colombian Communist Party, and was assassinated in 1994 during a particularly bloody era in Colombia’s internal conflict.
TRUMP DOUBLES DOWN ON COLOMBIA CRACKDOWN, CALLS PETRO ‘LUNATIC,’ VOWS TO END ALL US PAYMENTS OVER DRUGS
Colombia’s presidential candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, of the Defensores de la Patria party, speaks behind bulletproof glass during his closing campaign rally in Medellin, Colombia on May 24, 2026. Colombia will hold presidential elections on May 31. (Jaime Saldarriaga/AFP Via Getty Images)
The first round of the election, held on May 31, saw de la Espriella win 43.7% of the vote, to Cepeda’s 40.9%, with right-wing Senator Paloma Valencia placing a distant third, at 6.9%.
On Sunday evening, Secretary of State Marco Rubio congratulated de la Espriella on the result, saying, “The Trump Administration looks forward to working closely with your incoming administration to advance regional security cooperation, end illegal immigration to the United States.”
Ivan Cepeda speaks during a campaign rally in Cali, Colombia, on June 6, 2026. The leftist candidate is set to face conservative attorney Abelardo De La Espriella in Colombia’s June 21 presidential runoff election. (AFP via Getty Images)
COLOMBIAN PRESIDENT PETRO THREATENS MILITARY RESPONSE AFTER TRUMP WARNS COLOMBIA MAY BE NEXT TARGET
While the issues driving American and Colombian politics remain considerably distinct, de la Espriella’s insurgent outsider campaign emulated Trump’s in many ways, particularly in the sense that neither held elected nor appointed office prior to winning the presidency, launching successful campaigns almost entirely outside the existing party structure.
The defining safety and security issue set de la Espriella on a winning course, as he honed something of a strongman image to forcefully critique the Petro administration’s policy of peace through negotiation with armed groups in opposition to the Colombian government.
Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, left, and President Donald Trump. On Wednesday, Trump said Petro will “be next” amid escalating tensions over U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean and drug trafficking operations. (Mauro Pimentel/AFP via Getty Images; Francis Chung/Politico/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
It is widely believed that Petro’s negotiation-based approach and restraint with respect to military action has allowed such groups as the ELN (National Liberation Army), and various dissident elements of the FARC to regroup, boost recruitment and regain control of key territory and drug trafficking routes.
De la Espriella promised a return to an aggressive military campaign to reclaim territory from terrorist groups and cartels, and pledged to build “mega-prisons”, citing the policies of El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele as a model for eradicating criminal groups.
A de la Espriella administration will also likely mark a return to free-market economics, decreased governmental intervention in the economy, and a renewed push to lower taxes.
A strengthened U.S.-Colombia relationship is also a certainty, following an era of considerable tensions between Petro and Trump, which led to a series of acrimonious social media exchanges. Historically, Colombia was the U.S.’ strongest ally in the region, but the relationship has weakened considerably under the tenure of Petro.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Political analysts will also be closely watching the dynamic between Colombia and Venezuela. De la Espriella is likely to follow the Trump administration’s lead in Bogotá’s approach to the new Delcy Rodriguez administration, demanding a timeline for free and fair elections, and calling on the Venezuelan government to aggressively pursue the ELN Marxist guerrilla group in border regions where it has long sought refuge, and had an allegedly close relationship with former dictator Nicolás Maduro.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
World32 seconds agoWhat the US and Iran agreed – and disagreed – on first day of talks
-
News28 minutes agoFive years after the Surfside condo collapse, killing 98, what’s changed?
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoSchool Superintendent Alberto Carvalho steps down. Now what for LAUSD?
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoPolice investigation at Monica and Clarita streets in Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoWhere to watch Athletics vs San Francisco Giants: TV channel, start time, streaming for June 23
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoDallas Man Convicted of Distributing Fentanyl
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoFiery, fatal crash shuts down southbound lanes of Don Shula Expressway in southwest Miami-Dade
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoEditorial: With Boston’s World Cup win, could we host Olympics?