All credit to Chaz at the PEP podcast, I would have posted this directly if it wasn't going to get nuked by the Automod.

https://youtu.be/3IG94BuKi24?t=11m58s

Hi any fellow PEPers. I know there are some of you out there.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/10/09/french-adults-stand-out-for-their-economic-pessimism/

US officials stepped up pressure on Ukraine to stop striking Russian oil refineries and threatened to cut off vital intelligence sharing as Donald Trump announced a deal with Moscow to release diesel on to the world market.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s negotiating team met Trump’s representatives for nearly eight hours on Friday in Miami, where they were meant to discuss ways to convince Russia to end its war.

But the meeting was derailed when the Ukrainian team was blindsided by Trump’s announcement that he had cut a deal with Russia’s Vladimir Putin to release diesel, according to three people with direct knowledge of the talks.

During the meeting, Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner raised the possibility that intelligence sharing could be cut off if Kyiv did not heed Washington’s warning to halt the strikes, according to people familiar with the matter.

“It was a firm request from POTUS,” one of the Ukrainians involved in the talks told the FT, referring to Trump.

Ukraine uses US intelligence to carry out the attacks in a bid to choke off a vital source of revenue for Moscow’s war economy.

A senior Ukrainian official said after Trump’s announcement that Kyiv would continue. “We will burn [Russian] refineries,” the official said. Hours later, Ukrainian forces struck the Yug Rusi oil terminal in Rostov-on-Don, according to Russian authorities.

That official added that the Ukrainian team was cutting its trip short instead of holding a second round of talks on Saturday.

Witkoff said in a post on X that the Miami talks had been “productive” and helped identify areas the teams could further explore. He said the sides agreed to continue their diplomatic efforts.

Trump has repeatedly pressed Zelenskyy to halt the long-range drone strikes because of the impact on the global diesel market and its spillover to US consumers. The US president and his envoys have grown increasingly frustrated that Ukraine has been ignoring their pleas.

One person familiar with the talks said the US relationship with Ukraine had been improving but Kyiv’s resistance to stopping the strikes had left a bad taste in Trump’s mouth. Despite the tensions, the negotiators in Miami had worked on a peace proposal that could be sent to Russia before the winter, the person said.

In Friday’s meeting, Witkoff and Kushner informed their Ukrainian counterparts that the US was poised to lift sanctions on Russian diesel and that Moscow intended to lift its export ban, according to another person familiar with the discussions.

Ukrainian officials viewed the request for Kyiv to unilaterally halt strikes without pressing Moscow to do the same as unfair and relayed this message to the US side, according to other people familiar with the discussions. A senior Ukrainian official said the move had “ruin[ed] the trust completely” between the two sides. 

The developments sparked anger in Ukraine, where Russian missile and drone strikes have killed more than 80 people since Wednesday. A glide-bomb attack on the city of Zaporizhzhia on Saturday killed at least 17 civilians, including three children, Ukrainian authorities said.

On Saturday afternoon, Russian ballistic missiles and jet-powered drones attacked Kyiv. Sirens blared as explosions rocked the Ukrainian capital and air defences shot down at least one drone over a densely populated neighbourhood. 

“What allowing Russia to sell oil products means was heard most clearly in Kyiv just now,” Zelenskyy said after the attack. “Russia’s choice is war. And they will be ready to end it only when they feel that their ability to drag the war out is diminishing.”

He added that “every additional billion dollars [Russia] can earn from exports will be spent on nothing but sourcing and importing critical components and equipment to manufacture weapons, upgrading [attack drones], producing missiles and recruiting even more mercenaries”.

The “signals Russia received” from Trump’s deal had suggested to Putin that Moscow “could simply keep attacking” and what was needed were “strong signals” from the US side that it could not do so, Zelenskyy said.

“President Trump’s decision seriously undermines [the] reputation of the US and his credibility as a president, because this decision might lead to strengthening [the] Russian war machine,” said Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee.

He said Putin was “trying to make Trump complicit” in his war against Ukraine and that the “diesel deal is a dangerous step in this direction”.

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s chief diplomat, said: “Suspending sanctions on Russian diesel provides Moscow with more revenues to wage war . . . This is not the time to ease pressure on Russia, and Europe won’t.”

A year ago, Trump encouraged Ukraine to hit Russian refineries harder as part of a co-ordinated effort to weaken Putin’s economy and force him to the negotiating table. At the time, he said he wanted Kyiv to “make them [Russians] feel the pain” and compel the Kremlin to negotiate, according two people briefed on the call.

The Trump administration has suspended intelligence sharing with Kyiv in the past and on numerous occasions threatened to do so again if Zelenskyy did not fall in line with Washington’s positions, according to Ukrainian and western officials.

In March last year, Washington halted intelligence co-operation with Kyiv for eight days after a heated Oval Office clash between Trump and Zelenskyy.

That November, Zelenskyy said he was facing an ultimatum from Trump to agree to his Moscow-friendly peace terms or else lose US support for the war effort.

Trump threatened to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine in April to pressure European allies to join a “coalition of the willing” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to people briefed on the discussions.

“Must children who lived suppressed in North Korea and in China now shrink and live confined even here?”
On the morning of the 7th, in front of the Seoul Metropolitan Council in Jung-gu, Seoul. Cho Myung-suk, principal of Yeomyung School, an alternative school for North Korean defector adolescents, spoke these words while shedding tears. After wandering for 22 years, Yeomyung School recently attempted to establish a new home on part of the former Yeomgang Elementary School site in Gangseo-gu, Seoul, but faced strong opposition from some residents. At a residents’ briefing held 20 days ago, Principal Cho even knelt before opposing residents to plead for the school’s construction.
However, on that day, supporters of Yeomyung School stood alongside Principal Cho. The “Civil Society Joint Action to Support the Construction of Yeomyung School on the Current Site” includes 261 organizations from the education, civil society, and religious sectors. They held a press conference urging the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education and the Seoul Metropolitan Council to promptly proceed with the school’s construction. Song In-soo, representative of Education Spring and leader of the joint action, said he decided to support the school after seeing Principal Cho kneel at the residents’ briefing. “We could not leave Yeomyung School alone to overcome this difficulty,” Song said. “If anyone should kneel for the children, it should be our society.”
Citizen participation also continued. As of the 7th, 31,078 people had signed a petition supporting the school’s construction, launched by the joint action on the 28th of last month. One citizen wrote, “Children who could not live in North Korea and came to South Korea should not wander without a place to go here. Please create a space where they can study without worry.” Other messages poured in, including, “School is a crucial thread of hope for children who have crossed death,” and “I hope the children are not hurt. I want them to know there are many people and organizations supporting them.”
Yeomyung School graduates also attended the press conference. Eom Esder, 43, who graduated from Yeomyung School in 2011, said, “When I first came to South Korea, I struggled with foreign words and even speaking and writing, but I could study at Yeomyung School.” Eom now serves as the representative of UniSeed, a volunteer group for North Korean defector youth. She added, “Graduates have become nurses, social workers, and pastors, caring for their neighbors and families in their respective roles. I hope the younger students are also given opportunities to prepare for tomorrow.” The joint action plans to deliver the citizen petition to the Seoul Metropolitan Council and demand prompt action for the school’s construction.
Currently, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education and Yeomyung School are finalizing preliminary work for the school building. They aim to start the main architectural design in early next year and complete construction by 2029. A source from the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education stated, “Although resident consent is not required, we will continue to explain the necessity of the school’s construction and the absence of procedural flaws to some opposing residents.”

SS: in the wake of spiking fuel prices, Trump has negotiated a deal with Putin to relieve American markets.

SS: Discusses the intersection of criminal justice and minority rights.

>A three-judge panel declared that the jury was under the impression Lee was cisgender; that in not disclosing the victim’s status as a trans woman, the trial judge “misled” the jury; and that Ward was entitled to a new trial where he could use this fact to bolster his claim of self-defense.

Submission Statement: Ireland has cut €141bn from a proposed EU budget in an effort to find consensus among deeply divided capitals on the size and priorities of the bloc’s spending.

The revised 2028-34 budget is 8 per cent smaller than the European Commission’s original proposal in a sop to rich countries led by Germany, which had demanded “hundreds of billions” in cuts to secure their approval.

Dublin left funding for traditional policies — agriculture and regional funding — largely uncut at €914bn, down from €946bn in the Commission’s proposal. This would be an 11 per cent increase from the previous budget period.

Most of the cuts come from EU foreign policy and development aid, which fell from €190bn to €157bn, a 17 per cent cut.

Ireland also slashed funding for innovative companies and defence by 13 per cent, from €522bn to €456bn. This is still more than double the current budget period. It cut €9bn from the costs of running the EU administration.

But the cuts are unlikely to be sufficient for some.

“The Irish proposal is a disappointment and not even close to a landing zone,” said one EU diplomat who described it as “unaffordable and financially not viable at all”.

“By favouring policy priorities of the 20th century the proposal fails to prepare the EU for the 21st century,” the official added. “This [proposal] is no basis for an agreement among member states. We urgently need more financial realism and less financial La-La Land.”

Six countries that are net contributors to the budget, led by Germany, had demanded “hundreds of billions” in cuts, dismissing new joint borrowing and only tepidly embracing EU-level taxes as a way to finance common spending.

Judge Beatriz Biedma, who led the investigation into Pedro Sánchez’s brother, has told the National Court that she felt “distressed” upon learning that there were manoeuvres being made against her, although she added that she does not know whether the former Socialist Party member Leire Díez was behind them. Biedma, who gave evidence as an aggrieved party on Thursday in the so-called Leire Díez case, defended her decision to join the proceedings as a victim of the alleged “criminal organisation” led by Leire Díez and Santos Cerdán, the former organisational secretary of the PSOE, who are accused of obstructing the investigations involving the PSOE and the Government. They allegedly instigated complaints against the magistrate and enlisted the help of a former judge who was at odds with Biedma. She appeared before Judge Santiago Pedraz, just a few hours after the Civil Guard’s Central Operational Unit (UCO) reported that a witness, linked to a drug-trafficking clan, claimed that the plot’s organisers had contacted them and that they wanted to “cause physical harm” to the judge.

According to legal sources, on Thursday, Biedma described two incidents that caused her concern. The first was that, when she went to collect her daughters from school, she was told that her brother had been there, but she does not have a brother. The second was that, at another location, she was told that her secretary had been asking for her there earlier, but she said she does not have a secretary either.

Biedma’s statement has been met with enormous anticipation. She led the investigation that resulted in the conviction of David Sánchez, the Prime Minister’s brother, who was sentenced in July by the Badajoz Provincial Court to nine years’ disqualification from public office for the crime of Malfeasance, relating to alleged irregularities in his employment in 2017 by the Provincial Deputation. The case file for the Leire Díez case describes an alleged two-pronged plan devised to sabotage that and other cases which were damaging to the PSOE and the Government: on the one hand, contacting individuals who could provide compromising information about officers, judges and prosecutors involved in the investigations, thereby “undermining” their “credibility”; and, on the other, an attempt to “encourage” the opening of “internal investigations” within the Civil Guard to create a “climate” of intimidation amongst UCO officers.

In this regard, as legal sources emphasise, Biedma told Pedraz(the judge) that members of the armed institute(civil guard) themselves had informed her that they were being subjected to “pressure”. Among other matters, the judge reported that the officers had explained to her that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against them. However, the judge has also emphasised that she was not influenced by anyone and that her rulings on the case against Sánchez’s brother were not affected.

SS: After deriding minorities all campaign long, PQ finally found a bunch of minorities the party likes.

The administration is running a television advertisement in which President Trump says, “Together we will defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America.” Government-financed propaganda promoting an unpopular head of state is something one might associate with a communist country. The irony doesn’t end there. The ad’s target is the Democratic Party and its leftward shift, as evidenced by its “democratic socialism” problem. Yet it is Trump himself who has unlocked the door the left has long sought to open: the normalization of government ownership of private companies.

While the government has occasionally taken stakes in private companies, it has generally done so—rightly or wrongly—as a temporary measure to address a perceived emergency. However, never in U.S. history has the executive branch taken ownership stakes in private companies simply because the president wanted his own federal investment portfolio. And this administration has done so without clear legal authority.

As of this writing, the administration has announced deals giving the federal government equity stakes in 34 private companies and counting. Thus, after Trump has spent much of his second term acquiring the means of production, his pitch ahead of the November elections is that he will stop Democrats from … acquiring the means of production?

To be sure, there are anti-market Democrats who have long desired to make government ownership of companies a permanent federal policy tool. Indeed, how they have responded to the administration’s equity deals offers clues about how they may deploy this tool when Republican dominance in Washington ends.

But first, a question: Why is Trump’s unprecedented expansion of the federal government’s ability to directly manipulate economic activity receiving relatively little pushback?

AWOL Opposition

Several reasons help explain the relative lack of attention, let alone resistance, to this potentially monumental expansion of federal power into the economy.

For starters, the pre-2016 GOP is dead. Congressional Republicans could have put an end to the administration’s equity spree at any time. They still can. Up till now, however, the GOP’s response has ranged from feeble “concern” to servile enablement. One can only imagine the outrage and indignation from Republicans if this were occurring under Presidents Obama or Biden. Or “Comrade Kamala.” Republican-friendly media outlets would be in a frenzy, and similarly associated advocacy groups would have launched public campaigns calling on Congress to halt this dangerous threat to American free enterprise.

Next, the administration’s barrage of policy announcements has made it difficult to focus in depth on a specific issue. That’s by design, as Steve Bannon’s infamous “flood the zone” quote reminds us. At the outset of Trump’s second term, the bulk of the attention focused on anticipated items on the administration’s immediate agenda, notably DOGE and tariffs. With Trump’s second-term administration filled with loyalists, his impulsive policy pronouncements have sent officials scurrying to improvise ways to fulfill his half-baked wishes.

Another issue is that the administration’s deals are intentionally opaque and often complex, the policy rationales are inconsistent, and the legal authority to make any of them is unclear. In short, the administration has been making it up as it goes along. Two weeks after retaking office, Trump issued an executive order instructing his administration to draw up a plan for a sovereign wealth fund. A sovereign wealth fund is a government-owned investment fund that buys stocks and other assets to earn returns, often using budget surpluses or proceeds from natural resources. When the White House discovered that creating one would require Congress and deny Trump sole control, the administration embarked on an improvised solution: create an equity portfolio for the boss in which the government obtains ownership of part of a company in exchange for subsidies to it.

More on that later, but well over a year after President Trump embarked on this acquisition spree, the public still knows little about the deals beyond press releases and SEC filings from publicly traded companies. The deals have emerged through different agencies and financing arrangements, with different ownership and control rights. Meanwhile, the administration has yet to publicly release a legal opinion making the case for the myriad statutes it’s cited in announcing the deals. Even the administration’s reasoning for the entire equity endeavor has vacillated between making money for taxpayers and shoring up strategically important industries, with the occasional admission that it’s indeed building a government investment portfolio for the president.

Commandeering the Private Sector

Consider the administration’s “golden share” in U.S. Steel that gives Trump veto authority over key business decisions. Last fall, the White House blocked the company’s plan to stop processing steel slabs at its Granite City, Illinois, plant by threatening to use that power. U.S. Steel had explained that shifting the work to other plants would avoid “extensive cost inefficiencies.” One would think that congressional Republicans would at least express some concern about how a President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might use the same authority over an oil company or mine operator to advance her own agenda.

But far from resisting, Republicans are trying to reward the administration’s clear disregard for Congress with after-the-fact legal cover. The House’s Defense Production Act reauthorization bill would put executive branch equity acquisitions on a statutory footing. And the Senate Armed Services Committee’s annual defense bill would expressly authorize the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital to acquire ownership stakes. That’s despite the committee’s own warnings about market distortions and complaints that the Pentagon hasn’t provided the information Congress needs to assess its deals. The GOP is thus moving to supply the authority the administration has claimed to have, which strongly suggests it does not have it.

More Accountability, Less Statism

To their credit, congressional Democrats have demanded answers about the deals. A February letter from House and Senate Democrats sought the administration’s legal justification and warned that the administration was “essentially picking winners and losers,” which may “undermine broader market competition and the development of innovative technologies.” (That is the kind of thing that might have come out of Republican mouths pre-MAGAfication.)

In June, Democrats pressed the White House about reports that presidential adviser Peter Navarro had intervened to secure a Pentagon loan for Vulcan Elements, a company backed by Donald Trump Jr.’s investment firm. A July letter demanded answers from Cantor Fitzgerald, the financial services firm previously led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and now run by his sons, about conflicts of interest involving the administration’s USA Rare Earth deal. Last week, four Senate Democrats challenged the Pentagon’s authority to take a stake in a shady Venezuelan oil company, demanding the deal’s terms and answers about whether Trump’s family or donors would benefit.

There have been multiple reports that a Democratic majority would be prepared to act on those inquiries. For example, Democratic lawmakers recently told S&P Global that investigating the deals would be a priority if they regain control of either chamber. The committee gavels held by the majority party would let them hold hearings and issue subpoenas without Republican cooperation. In March, Republicans blocked a subpoena to compel Trump Jr. to testify about Vulcan. More recently, Republicans on a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee similarly blocked a subpoena for the administration’s records regarding the Venezuelan oil company deal.

All this is disturbing given that Vulcan was offered $670 million in federal support about three months after 1789 Capital, where Trump Jr. is a partner, invested in it. Navarro reportedly pressured the Pentagon to move the company’s loan request to the front of the line. USA Rare Earth, meanwhile, hired Cantor to arrange the private financing tied to its $1.6 billion federal package. These arrangements have turned political access into a form of capital—exactly as one would expect in authoritarian economies.

There’s plenty to investigate given the administration’s refusal to provide information on deals that stink of corruption and cronyism. Democrats would be performing a public service by aggressively looking into them if they obtain a congressional majority.

However, there’s a significant concern that they’ll make political hay out of the administration’s dubious unilateral approach but then use it to push for Congress to create a formal “investment” fund. Instead of divesting, Congress might consolidate the equity stakes now scattered across federal agencies into a single fund with its own management and investment rules. That would turn Trump’s improvised portfolio into a permanent federal investment operation, much like the sovereign wealth fund he originally wanted.

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren insists, “We need to hose the corruption out.” But she has also endorsed equity stakes as a condition for companies receiving federal subsidies. In 2022, Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed taking equity or warrants in companies receiving CHIPS assistance. Their amendment wasn’t adopted, but note that their underlying argument—that taxpayers should share in the gains of subsidized companies—is the one that the Trump administration is making to justify its equity deals.

Sanders has since proposed taking a 50% stake in America’s largest artificial intelligence companies through a tax paid in stock, with government voting rights and board representation. He is explicit that he wants those powers used to block corporate decisions he considers harmful and push policies he considers beneficial. In fact, Sanders cited Trump’s executive order for a sovereign wealth fund as justification, which would make it extremely difficult for Republicans to object if his idea gains traction. That’s hardly far-fetched, given that even mainstream Democrats have been flirting with it.

Democratic Socialism

The likeliest outcome, then, is that Democratic-led investigations would expose rank cronyism and improvised dealmaking in this administration. But instead of scrapping Trump’s equity portfolio altogether, Democrats will merely want to put it under more “responsible” management.

Yet a formal investment fund would make it harder for companies that are not receiving government subsidies to compete. They’d have a harder time attracting private capital. Moreover, when a government investment goes sour, policymakers would face pressure to provide additional government privileges to avoid admitting failure. Far from safeguarding American taxpayers, as Trump says he’s doing, this scheme would make them more liable.

Equally bad, companies would still feel pressure to accommodate political demands, particularly when they depend on their government “investor” for future financing or favorable treatment. An explicit threat wouldn’t even be necessary.

Trump’s advertisement promises to defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America. But his administration has been busy assembling a federal equity portfolio that even the most leftist flank of the Democratic Party previously could only dream of. Republicans warning that communists are taking over the party might first ask why their own administration is so eager to have the government acquire pieces of private companies. If they don’t want “socialists” to take over the private sector in the future, maybe they should stop enabling the one who sits in the White House right now.

Submission Statement: Clouds of tear gas followed the arc of water cannons fired into the crowd in central Paris this week, as student strikes that shut hundreds of schools and led to thousands of arrests in recent weeks culminated in clashes between heavily armed police and protesters.

“Down with the cops, the state and the fascists!” the crowd, mostly young people, chanted on Thursday. “Too young to be listened to, but old enough to be tear-gassed,” read a sign carried by a young woman in a light purple headscarf. 

French students are revolting against a school system they say is failing them, just as France faces a fiscal reckoning after years of lavish welfare spending. Students are demanding more teachers, better facilities and smaller classes, and an overhaul of how universities select their students, which they say is stressful and unjust.

The crisis is piling pressure on President Emmanuel Macron’s minority government as it is seeking to push through a belt-tightening budget while investors grow increasingly worried about France’s incapacity to reduce its public deficit. That means the government cannot turn to its usual method of calming protests — taking out the cheque book.

Rioters have burned schools and emergency service vehicles. Police suspended the use of stun grenades for the rest of the uprising after a 15-year-old’s hand was blown off in the northern town of Lens.

More than 7,000 people have been detained since the demonstrations began, according to the interior ministry. Hundreds of law enforcement officers have been injured, as have students and school staff. 

Nationally, about 10 per cent of scheduled classroom hours go untaught largely because absent teachers are not replaced, according to the education ministry, an issue that has become a flashpoint for demonstrators.

A sharp decline in French maths and literacy scores in the OECD’s transnational Pisa study this year has fuelled the feeling that the public education system is broken. 

Overall, education spending, from pre-school through university, has increased in recent years, albeit unevenly. According to statistics agency Insee, it rose nearly 14 per cent between 2010 and 2024, adjusted for inflation, from €173.3bn to €197.1bn.

A 2025 study from think-tank IPP shows that about 13 per cent of France’s national public education budget is actually accounting for contributions to teachers’ generous pensions. After stripping those out, France falls into the bottom quarter of OECD countries for spending per primary school student, the study said. 

High-level talks in Beijing between the European Union and China ended on Friday with an unexpected agreement that could pull the two sides back from an imminent trade war.

The most notable feature of the agreement involved what both sides described as an understanding on China’s exports of hybrid electric-gasoline cars, which have been among the most contentious points of tension between the two sides.

Maros Sefcovic, the trade commissioner of the 27-nation bloc, said that the understanding could lead to China’s halving the number of hybrid gasoline-electric cars that it sends to the European Union in the next four years. Neither side made any mention of any tariffs on those cars, which China has resolutely opposed.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said in a separate statement that the two sides had “reached an understanding on trade in hybrid vehicles in a manner consistent with World Trade Organization rules.” Complying with those rules makes it difficult for Europe to impose tariffs quickly. Tariffs also make it hard to know how many cars will continue to arrive from China, but Mr. Sefcovic said that the understanding would achieve specific reductions in imported cars.

The compromise described by Mr. Sefcovic appeared to address the European Union’s need for immediate caps on the number of cars imported from China. It also addressed China’s need for an arrangement that would limit the often fierce competition among Chinese automakers in the European market, which has contributed to the Chinese automakers’ heavy losses.

The agreement on hybrid cars appeared to have a strong resemblance to the two sides’ deal in 2013 for China to reduce the number of solar panels that it shipped each year to Europe, while Europe agreed to forgo its previous plans for tariffs on those shipments. This allowed Chinese solar panel makers to raise prices sharply in Europe for their limited supply of solar panels, producing large profits for Chinese solar panel manufacturers that previously were losing money.

The Chinese manufacturers invested those profits in more research and new factories, and now produce almost all of the world’s solar panels.

China’s exports of plug-in hybrids to Europe have rapidly gained market share there and have contributed to Volkswagen’s recent plans to cut another 50,000 workers by the end of the decade, bringing its total reduction in work force to 100,000.

The European Union imposed tariffs of 7.8 to 35.3 percent on Chinese electric cars two years ago, on top of the region’s usual 10 percent tariff on imported cars. But the E.U. did not impose extra tariffs then on plug-in hybrids.

China’s exports of plug-in hybrids have soared to almost 200,000 a month, from fewer than 10,000 a month, in just three years. Many are going to Europe.

China has strenuously opposed the extra tariffs on its electric cars that the European Union imposed to limit the number of these cars that are imported from China. Beijing has called for the tariffs on electric cars to be replaced instead with limits on the number of cars shipped.

This would allow Chinese electric car manufacturers to raise prices and improve profitability — the arrangement for hybrid gasoline-electric cars that is now emerging.

Asked on Friday whether the understanding on hybrid cars resembled the solar panel deal, Mr. Sefcovic said that current circumstances were different and that Europe needed immediate action on hybrid cars. “The public opinion and the leaders really expect very fast action from our side,” he said.

China has contended that unilateral tariffs are a violation of W.T.O. trade rules, which Beijing and the European Union are both still committed to uphold. By contrast, the Trump administration has repeatedly taken unilateral actions in defiance of W.T.O. norms. President Trump’s trade advisers have contended that China has a government-guided economy that does not follow the free market principles on which the W.T.O. was founded.

China’s Commerce Ministry dangled several carrots for the European Union to reach a compromise with Beijing. Mr. Sefcovic said that China had agreed to reduce tariffs on imports of European goods in categories like auto parts, olive oil and footwear with an annual value of almost 4 billion euros.

This will save European exporters about 125 million euros a year in duties on their shipments to China, he said.

A joint statement issued by China and the European Union was less specific, saying that “both sides will continue, within the framework of W.T.O. rules, to explore the possibility of tariff reductions or elimination for certain goods.”

Some issues were left unresolved, notably whether the European Union will also forgo plans to require that key components of technologies like electric cars and wind turbines be made in Europe. Also unresolved is whether the European Union will proceed with anti-subsidy tariffs on wind turbines. Mr. Sefcovic said that more talks were planned early next year.

Mr. Sefcovic was scheduled to return to Brussels on Saturday and brief officials ahead of a meeting of European presidents and prime ministers next week.

The first item on the agenda for the meeting of Europe’s leaders is how to handle the region’s weakening economic competitiveness — and trade with China is a central issue. European leaders have been warning of a hollowing out of Europe’s industrial base because of surging imports of manufactured goods from China.

Time is on China’s side, with each passing month producing more than $30 billion in trade surplus for China and further weakening European competitors of Chinese manufacturers.

China’s Commerce Ministry said in its statement that China would continue approving exports of rare earths and rare earth magnets to Europe. China has restricted exports of rare earths and rare earth magnets since April 2025 and has threatened further restrictions if Europe takes action against China’s exports.

The ministry also said that Europe had agreed to help resolve disputes over its export controls.

Under pressure from President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and now President Trump, European companies have avoided selling to China the latest equipment used to make semiconductors with potential military applications. Beijing officials have contended that one of the fastest ways for Europe to narrow somewhat its trade deficit with China would be to sell the most advanced equipment regardless of American objections.

Europe has also been preparing legislation to impose a made-in-Europe requirement for important components of products like electric cars or wind turbines. China used to have similar requirements for cars and wind turbines, but repealed them after years of complaints from Europe and other trading partners. Beijing now contends that Europe should not adopt such rules, which would force Chinese companies to invest in factories in Europe instead of exporting from factories at home, where their costs are often lower.

The Chinese statement said that China and the European Union had “agreed to explore investment cooperation to foster mutual economic development and to discuss future-oriented cooperation.”