commission

European Commission proposes EU preference in public procurement, excluding Chinese firms

Published on Updated

The European Commission unveiled on Wednesday a legislative proposal allowing EU public authorities to favour European companies in public procurement for key public services such as energy, water, railways, ports, airports and postal services.


ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The move comes as European policymakers seek to shield the bloc’s market from China amid heated trade negotiations, as the EU grapples with a trade deficit with Beijing of roughly €1 billion a day.

Public procurement markets in Europe represent €2 trillion every year — 15% of Europe’s GDP.

“Public money must serve our collective interests,” Commission Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné said on Wednesday. “A public buyer will be able to organise his European preference and to exclude operators coming from countries with which we do not agree on public markets, both on the basis of the nationality of the company or on the base of the origin of the products.”

Under the Commission’s proposal, EU public authorities will be able to exclude non-European companies from public contracts when they come from countries that do not allow Europeans access to their own public procurement markets.

“A municipality will be very clearly able to exclude a Chinese company or a European company that offers Chinese products,” Séjourné added. “It will also be able to give more points and more visibility in his offer to European offers compared to competition offers.”

Swift reaction from China

The Commission proposes that at least 30% of the evaluation of supplies for public procurement rely on quality criteria and not only on price, which will also hit low-cost Chinese products.

“The new standard is the best quality-price ratio, and not just the price,” Séjourné said. “Our choices must also be able to meet social and environmental demands, but also sovereignty.”

The legislation, which still has to be adopted by the EU co-legislators — the European Parliament and the EU Council — prompted a swift reaction from China. In a statement released after the commission’s announcement, China’s Chamber of Commerce to the EU said that such a European preference could “distort a level playing field” for Chinese companies participating in the European public procurement market.

“Public procurement should not discriminate against suppliers or goods on the basis of the supplier’s nationality or the country of origin of the goods.”

In March, another proposal creating a European preference in EU strategic sectors such as green tech, cars and energy-intensive industries also prompted Chinese ire, with Beijing threatening to retaliate.

EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič will travel to China in early October, hoping to reach a political deal with Beijing to rebalance the trade relationship with the EU.

Source link

European Commission proposes EU preference in public procurement, excluding Chinese firms

Published on Updated

The European Commission unveiled on Wednesday a legislative proposal allowing EU public authorities to favour European companies in public procurement for key public services such as energy, water, railways, ports, airports and postal services.


ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The move comes as European policymakers seek to shield the bloc’s market from China amid heated trade negotiations, as the EU grapples with a trade deficit with Beijing of roughly €1 billion a day.

Public procurement markets in Europe represent €2 trillion every year — 15% of Europe’s GDP.

“Public money must serve our collective interests,” Commission Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné said on Wednesday. “A public buyer will be able to organise his European preference and to exclude operators coming from countries with which we do not agree on public markets, both on the basis of the nationality of the company or on the base of the origin of the products.”

Under the Commission’s proposal, EU public authorities will be able to exclude non-European companies from public contracts when they come from countries that do not allow Europeans access to their own public procurement markets.

“A municipality will be very clearly able to exclude a Chinese company or a European company that offers Chinese products,” Séjourné added. “It will also be able to give more points and more visibility in his offer to European offers compared to competition offers.”

Swift reaction from China

The Commission proposes that at least 30% of the evaluation of supplies for public procurement rely on quality criteria and not only on price, which will also hit low-cost Chinese products.

“The new standard is the best quality-price ratio, and not just the price,” Séjourné said. “Our choices must also be able to meet social and environmental demands, but also sovereignty.”

The legislation, which still has to be adopted by the EU co-legislators — the European Parliament and the EU Council — prompted a swift reaction from China. In a statement released after the commission’s announcement, China’s Chamber of Commerce to the EU said that such a European preference could “distort a level playing field” for Chinese companies participating in the European public procurement market.

“Public procurement should not discriminate against suppliers or goods on the basis of the supplier’s nationality or the country of origin of the goods.”

In March, another proposal creating a European preference in EU strategic sectors such as green tech, cars and energy-intensive industries also prompted Chinese ire, with Beijing threatening to retaliate.

EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič will travel to China in early October, hoping to reach a political deal with Beijing to rebalance the trade relationship with the EU.

Source link

FCC asks court to reject ABC’s 1st Amendment claims

The Federal Communications Commission has asked a judge to toss out ABC’s 1st Amendment lawsuit, arguing that parent company Walt Disney Co. is wrongly attempting to short-circuit the agency’s review into whether the broadcaster has violated the law.

The commission, in court documents, maintains ABC’s lawsuit was premature because regulators simply were in the process of reviewing whether ABC has served the public interest in operating its eight television stations. No final determination has been reached, the FCC argued.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr made the rare move last spring to call for an early review of ABC’s licenses as part of his yearlong look at whether Disney’s diversity and inclusion programs violate anti-discrimination laws.

The Disney-owned station licenses were not set to expire for several years. For example, the license for KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles extends to 2030.

But the FCC launched the probe a day after President Trump complained about ABC late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel over a joke that upset First Lady Melania Trump.

ABC has taken an aggressive stance, arguing the FCC is wielding its enforcement powers to punish the network after Trump repeatedly agitated to have ABC’s licenses revoked. ABC maintains the FCC’s enforcement action is an attempt to quell the network’s free speech, in violation of the 1st Amendment. It asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order and injunction to halt the FCC’s early station review.

ABC also is fighting an FCC review into whether its daytime talk show, “The View,” should be entitled to an exemption from the so-called equal-time rule for political candidates who appear as guests.

Disney’s lawsuit has enormous 1st Amendment implications.

ABC is the first major broadcaster to challenge the FCC’s enforcement actions since Trump returned to power, joining a small handful of news organizations, including the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal, that have pushed back against the president’s efforts to bully outlets he dislikes.

In late December, Trump wrote on social media: “If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows are almost 100% negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party, shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say YES!”

ABC, which did not comment Friday, argued the FCC’s review is “extraordinarily early” and “that timing underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.”

The FCC has scoffed at the broadcaster’s arguments.

“Disney filed a meritless lawsuit in an effort to stop the FCC’s ongoing investigation into allegations that Disney violated the law,” an FCC spokesperson said in a statement. “The FCC has developed a voluminous record, and it will continue to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”

The government filed its motion Thursday in Washington. The 46-page document was filed by U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro and signed by Assistant U.S. Atty. Dimitar P. Georgiev on behalf of the FCC.

Disney was “not content to let the Commission’s ordinary investigative processes (and, if needed, ordinary processes of judicial review) run their course. They instead ask this Court to halt the license renewal proceeding in its tracks by issuing a preliminary injunction,” the FCC said.

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan has scheduled an Oct. 6 hearing.

Disney has argued the FCC has gone well beyond an examination of its internal hiring practices — the original purpose of the agency’s review.

But, in its motion, the FCC faulted Disney’s handling of the matter, saying “Disney’s responses to Commission information requests were deficient and nonresponsive,” prompting the agency to escalate the dispute.

In late April, Carr directed the FCC Media Bureau to force ABC to apply for renewal of their licenses early.

“The Commission’s Chairman has repeatedly emphasized that, although the allegations against Disney are serious, he and the agency remain ‘open-minded,’ have ‘not made a decision,’ and are ‘going to follow the facts and the law wherever they [lead],’ ” according to the motion.

The FCC also argued Disney picked the wrong court because Congress stipulated that any review of commission orders should be heard by an appeals court.

If ABC lost its licenses, it would hobble the network by forcing its largest stations off the air. Other ABC stations at risk include those in San Francisco, Fresno, Houston, Philadelphia and New York.

KABC-TV Channel 7 is owned by Disney in Glendale.

KABC-TV Channel 7 is owned by Disney in Glendale.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Trump on Sunday called for the FCC to “rebuke or punish” NBC’s “Meet the Press” anchor Kristen Welker after she pointed out that the president has had mixed success in endorsing political candidates in this election season.

The FCC also has an open investigation against NBC owner Comcast, also looking at the Philadelphia company’s diversity and hiring practices. The FCC has not ruled out calling NBC-owned station licenses in for an early review as well.

Source link

Former White House teleprompter operator ordered to turn over profits, pay fine over insider trading

A former White House teleprompter operator accused of using inside knowledge to make bets on the prediction market Kalshi has been ordered to turn over more than $100,000 in profits and pay a $65,000 fine as part of a settlement with federal authorities.

The settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, announced Friday, also dealt Gabriel Perez a three-year trading ban. Perez was placed on unpaid leave from his job at the White House after reports emerged that he used his position to make bets on what President Trump would say in speeches.

The White House did not immediately comment on the settlement. A White House official said in July that Perez was no longer in his position but did not say if he had been fired or resigned.

The commission found that Perez made $107,500 on prediction markets by betting on words and phrases that would appear in Trump’s speeches between December 2025 and February 2026.

“In his position, Perez had access to presidential speeches prior to those speeches being delivered and Perez misappropriated that information — in breach of his duty of trust and confidence,” according to a release from the commission.

Perez was ordered to repay his profits in full, along with the $65,000 civil penalty, which the commission said was a reduction because of his “exemplary cooperation.”

As details emerged July 16, then White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was “unfortunate” and “a disgrace.”

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

Source link