18 countries apply for EU billions as Europe seeks to provide for its own security without the U.S.
The Security Action for Europe (SAFE) fund is a 150-billion-euro ($173 billion) program of cheap loans that member countries, Ukraine and outsiders with an EU security agreement, like Britain, can use to buy military equipment together.
The fund was launched after the Trump administration signaled that Europe is no longer a U.S. security priority. It's for buying key equipment like air and missile defense systems, artillery, ammunition, drones and 'strategic enablers' like air-to-air refueling.
The European Commission said that Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain had applied for money so far.
They have requested at least 127 billion euros ($147 billion) in total, it said.
Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said on Tuesday that his government has identified defense projects worth around 45 billion euros ($52 billion), but that the amount it receives will depend on how the commission allocates funds.
Countries using the fund are urged to buy much of their military equipment in Europe, working mostly with European suppliers — in some cases with EU help to cut prices and speed up orders.
Earlier this month, 15 EU countries were also permitted to use a 'national escape clause' to allow them to spend more on defense without breaking the bloc's debt rules.
U.S. allies in Europe are convinced that President Vladimir Putin could target one of them if Russia wins its war on Ukraine. The SAFE fund and budget leniency are aimed at preparing Europe to defend itself from attack by the end of the decade, but even EU governments concede that this is an ambitious target.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BAE Systems (LON:BA.) Is Due To Pay A Dividend Of £0.135
The board of BAE Systems plc (LON:BA.) has announced that it will pay a dividend of £0.135 per share on the 3rd of December. The payment will take the dividend yield to 1.8%, which is in line with the average for the industry. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. BAE Systems' Projected Earnings Seem Likely To Cover Future Distributions Solid dividend yields are great, but they only really help us if the payment is sustainable. The last dividend was quite easily covered by BAE Systems' earnings. This means that a large portion of its earnings are being retained to grow the business. Over the next year, EPS is forecast to expand by 44.9%. Assuming the dividend continues along recent trends, we think the payout ratio could be 37% by next year, which is in a pretty sustainable range. See our latest analysis for BAE Systems BAE Systems Has A Solid Track Record The company has been paying a dividend for a long time, and it has been quite stable which gives us confidence in the future dividend potential. The annual payment during the last 10 years was £0.205 in 2015, and the most recent fiscal year payment was £0.33. This means that it has been growing its distributions at 4.9% per annum over that time. Slow and steady dividend growth might not sound that exciting, but dividends have been stable for ten years, which we think makes this a fairly attractive offer. The Dividend Looks Likely To Grow The company's investors will be pleased to have been receiving dividend income for some time. We are encouraged to see that BAE Systems has grown earnings per share at 12% per year over the past five years. Since earnings per share is growing at an acceptable rate, and the payout policy is balanced, we think the company is positioning itself well to grow earnings and dividends in the future. BAE Systems Looks Like A Great Dividend Stock Overall, we think this could be an attractive income stock, and it is only getting better by paying a higher dividend this year. Distributions are quite easily covered by earnings, which are also being converted to cash flows. All of these factors considered, we think this has solid potential as a dividend stock. Investors generally tend to favour companies with a consistent, stable dividend policy as opposed to those operating an irregular one. Still, investors need to consider a host of other factors, apart from dividend payments, when analysing a company. Taking the debate a bit further, we've identified 1 warning sign for BAE Systems that investors need to be conscious of moving forward. Looking for more high-yielding dividend ideas? Try our collection of strong dividend payers. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. city leaders are in high-stakes negotiations on Olympics costs
Los Angeles city leaders are at a critical juncture ahead of the 2028 Summer Olympics, with potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at stake. They are in negotiations with LA28, the private committee overseeing the Games, for the use of the city's police, traffic officers and other employees during the Olympics and Paralympics. Millions of visitors are expected to pour into downtown L.A., the Sepulveda Basin and the Westside when the Olympics kick off in July 2028. Security, trash removal, traffic control, paramedics and more will be needed during the 17-day event and the two-week Paralympics the following month. Under the 2021 Games agreement between LA28 and the city, LA28 must reimburse the city for any services that go beyond what the city would provide on a normal day. The two parties must agree by Oct. 1, 2025, on 'enhanced services' — additional city services needed for the Games, beyond that normal level — and determine rates, repayment timelines, audit rights and other processes. LA28 has billed the Games as a 'no cost' event for the city. Depending on how 'enhanced services' are defined, the city, which is in a precarious financial state, could end up bearing significant costs. One of the biggest expenses will be security, with the LAPD, as well as a host of other local, state and federal agencies, working together to keep athletes and spectators safe. Overtime for Los Angeles police officers, and any other major expenses, would be acutely felt by a city government that recently closed a nearly $1-billion budget deficit, in part by slowing police hiring. The city continues to face rising labor costs and diminished revenues from tourism. At the same time, President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, recently passed by Congress, includes $1 billion for security and planning of the Games. But what those funds will cover — and what will be covered by LA28 — are not yet known. Against that backdrop, civil rights attorney Connie Rice sent a six-page letter dated July 17 to Mayor Karen Bass and other city leaders, asking questions about the enhanced services agreement and urging the city to take a tough stance. Rice said city staffers reached out to her because they were worried that the agreement wouldn't adequately protect the city. 'Los Angeles faces multiple fiscal hazards that many current leaders negotiating this and other Olympics agreements, will not be around to face,' Rice wrote. 'The City cannot afford an additional $1.5 billion hit in 2028 because city officials inadequately protected taxpayers in 2025.' Rice's letter asks if LA28 and the city have resolved differences about the definition of venue 'footprints,' or perimeters around sporting events, with the footprint changing depending on whether it's defined by a blast radius, a security perimeter or other factors. The letter questioned why LA28 isn't paying the city up front for costs, using money in escrow, and asked if LA28 has provided the city with a budget for security, transit and sanitation. Rice, in an interview, said she wants to ensure the Games are indeed 'no cost.' Both Paul Krekorian, who heads Mayor Karen Bass' major events office, and an LA28 representative declined to directly address Rice's letter. 'The City and LA28 have been collaborating for years to ensure that all Angelenos benefit from the Games for decades to come,' said Krekorian. 'While the [agreement] is currently under negotiation, we fully expect that LA28 will be successful in its fundraising efforts to deliver the Games.' The city routinely provides police officers and traffic officers for major events, such as Dodgers games and the Grammy Awards. In 2022, the Rams reimbursed the city $1.5 million for resources it provided for the team's Super Bowl parade, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo. Last month, Szabo's office released a document on the city's investor website outlining potential liabilities facing the city, including some related to the 2028 Games. The document noted that roughly $1 billion in security costs will have to be paid by the city if they are not covered by LA28 or the federal government. Jacie Prieto Lopez, LA28's vice president of communications, told The Times that security and other planning costs haven't been finalized. Rice's letter questioned whether LA28 would cover the cost of security. Prieto Lopez didn't directly answer when asked by The Times if LA28 will cover the LAPD's expenses. 'We are grateful that the Administration and Congress recently appropriated $1 billion in security funding and we will continue to work with our partners at the federal, state and local levels, including the City of LA, to ensure a safe, secure and successful Games,' Prieto Lopez said in an email. How the $1 billion from the Big Beautiful Bill is distributed will be determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which is focused on preventing terrorism and other threats. Anita Gore, a spokesperson for the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, told The Times that she expects those funds to be managed by the state through the Homeland Security Grant process. The Office of Emergency Services is the 'coordination hub' for the Games and is overseeing a statewide task force focused on security, traffic management and more, Gore said. At a recent hearing in Sacramento, LA28 Chief Executive Reynold Hoover said the nonprofit continues to push for federal support for the Games. He said the $1 billion recently approved by Congress will 'help us with that initial funding requirements for security.' Hoover told a Senate subcommittee in June that LA28 is asking the federal government to fully reimburse the public agencies that will provide critical security at the Games. A representative for the Department of Homeland Security declined to answer questions about how the $1 billion will be used. Trump's mercurial nature and past attacks on California make it difficult for some city leaders to gauge how his administration will handle funding for the Games. Rep. Nellie Pou of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Congressional Task Force for Enhancing Security for Special Events, held a public hearing last month on preparing for the World Cup and Olympics. She told The Times that she has not received any specifics about the $1 billion. 'This administration has withheld and frozen other federal funding appropriated by Congress, so we cannot simply assume that World Cup or Olympic security funding will make it to our communities,' she said. Krekorian, when asked about Pou's concerns, said the city 'is in direct communication with state and federal partners, as well as LA28, about the allocation of these funds.'
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ivy League universities paid hundreds of millions to settle with Trump. Is UCLA next?
University of California leaders face a difficult choice after the U.S. Department of Justice said this week that UCLA had violated the civil rights of Jewish students during pro-Palestinian protests and federal agencies on Wednesday suspended more than $300 million in research grants to the school. Do they agree to a costly settlement, potentially incurring the anger of taxpayers, politicians and campus communities in a deep-blue state that's largely opposed to President Trump and his battle to remake higher education? Or do they go to court, entering a protracted legal fight and possibly inviting further debilitating federal actions against the nation's premier public university system, which has until now carefully avoided head-on conflicts with the White House? Leaders of the University of California, including its systemwide president, James B. Milliken; UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk and UC's 24-member Board of Regents — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is an ex-officio member — have just days to decide. In findings issued Tuesday, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and the Justice Department said UCLA would pay a 'heavy price' for acting with 'deliberate indifference' to the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students who complained of antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, 2023. That's when Hamas attacked Israel, which led to Israel's war in Gaza and the pro-Palestinian student encampment on Royce Quad. The Justice Department gave UC — which oversees federal legal matters for UCLA and nine other campuses — a week to respond to the allegations of antisemitism. It wrote that 'unless there is reasonable certainty that we can reach an agreement' to 'ensure that the hostile environment is eliminated and reasonable steps are taken to prevent its recurrence,' the department would sue by Sept. 2. A day after the Justice Department disclosed its findings, the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and other federal agencies said they were suspending hundreds of grants to UCLA researchers. A letter from the NSF cited the university's alleged 'discrimination' in admissions and failure to 'promote a research environment free of antisemitism.' A Department of Energy letter cutting off grants on clean energy and nuclear power plants made similar accusations, adding that 'UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women's sports and private women-only spaces.' Initial data shared with The Times on Thursday night showed the cuts to be at least $200 million. On Friday, additional information shared by UC and federal officials pointed to the number being greater than $300 million — more than a quarter of UCLA's $1.1 billion in annual federal funding and contracts. UCLA has not released a total number. In a campuswide message Thursday, Frenk, the UCLA chancellor, called the government's moves 'deeply disappointing.' 'This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,' Frenk said. In a statement to The Times Friday, an official from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, said it would 'not fund institutions that promote antisemitism. We will use every tool we have to ensure institutions follow the law.' An NSF spokesperson also confirmed the UCLA cuts, saying Friday that the university is no longer in 'alignment with current NSF priorities.' A Department of Energy spokesperson also verified the cuts but did not elaborate outside of pointing to the department's letter to UCLA. The Times spoke to more than a dozen current and former senior UC leaders in addition to higher education experts about the rapid deliberations taking place this week, which for the first time have drawn a major public university system into the orbit of a White House that has largely focused its ire on Ivy League schools. Trump has accused universities of being too liberal, illegally recruiting for diversity in ways that hurt white and Asian American students and faculty, and being overly tolerant of pro-Palestinian students who he labels as antisemites aligned with Hamas. Universities, including UCLA, have largely denied the accusations, although school officials have admitted that they under-delivered in responding to Jewish student concerns. In the last two years, encampments took over small portions of campuses, and, as a result, were blamed for denying campus access to pro-Israel Jews. In a major payout announced Tuesday — before the Justice Department's findings — UCLA said it would dole out $6.45 million to settle a federal lawsuit brought by three Jewish students and a medical school professor who alleged the university violated their civil rights and enabled antisemitism during the pro-Palestinian encampment in 2024. About $2.3 million will be donated to eight groups that work with Jewish communities, including the Anti-Defamation League, Chabad and Hillel. Another $320,000 will be directed to a UCLA initiative to combat antisemitism, and the rest of the funds will go toward legal fees. Through spokespersons, Frenk and Milliken declined interviews on what next steps UCLA might take. Friday was Milliken's first day on the job after the long-planned departure of former UC President Michael V. Drake, who will return to teaching and research. But in public remarks this week, Newsom said he was 'reviewing' the Justice Department's findings and that UC would be 'responsive.' The governor, who spoke during an event at the former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento County on Thursday, said he had a meeting with Drake scheduled that day to discuss the Trump administration's charges. Newsom did not respond specifically to a question from The Times about whether UC would settle with Trump. 'We're reviewing the details of the DOJ's latest and then that deadline on Tuesday,' the governor said. 'So we'll be responsive.' In a statement Friday, Newsom said, 'Freezing critical research funding for UCLA — dollars that were going to study invasive diseases, cure cancer, and build new defense technologies — makes our country less safe. It is a cruel manipulation to use Jewish students' real concerns about antisemitism on campus as an excuse to cut millions of dollars in grants that were being used to make all Americans safer and healthier.' Senior UCLA and UC leaders, who spoke on background because they were not authorized to discuss legal decisions, said the university has been bracing for this moment for months. The university and individual campuses are under multiple federal investigations into alleged use of race in admissions, employment discrimination against Jews, and civil rights complaints from Jewish students. At the same time, leaders said, they were hoping the multimillion-dollar settlement with Jewish students would buy them time. 'It backfired,' said one senior administrator at UCLA, reflecting the sense of whiplash felt among many who were interviewed. 'Within hours of announcing our settlement, the DOJ was on our back.' Other senior UC officials said the system was considering suing Trump. It has already sued various federal agencies or filed briefs in support of lawsuits over widespread grant cuts affecting all major U.S. universities. UC itself, however, has not directly challenged the president's platform of aggressively punishing elite schools for alleged discrimination. It's unclear if a suit or settlement could wipe out all remaining investigations. Mark Yudof, a former UC president who led the system from 2008 to 2013, said he felt the Trump administration was targeting a public university as a way to 'make a statement' about the president's higher education aims going beyond Ivy League institutions. 'But this is not Columbia,' Yudof said, referring to the $221-million settlement the New York campus recently reached with the White House to resolve investigations over alleged antisemitism amid its response to pro-Palestinian protests. On Wednesday, Brown University also came to a $50-million agreement with the White House. The Brown payment will go toward Rhode Island workforce development programs. Harvard is also negotiating a deal with the government over similar accusations regarding antisemitism. 'The University of California is much more complex,' said Yudof, who lives in Florida and also led the University of Texas and University of Minnesota. 'For one, an issue that may affect UCLA is not going to affect UC Merced or UC Riverside. But do you come to an agreement on all campuses? If there is a settlement payment, does it affect all campuses, depending on the cost?' George Blumenthal, a former chancellor of UC Santa Cruz, said he 'just can't see UC making the kind of deal that Columbia did or that Harvard contemplates. Committing public funds to Washington to the tune of tens or hundreds of million dollars strikes me as politically untenable in California.' Pro-Palestinian UCLA groups said they don't agree with the premise of negotiations. They point out that many protesters in last year's encampment were Jewish and argue that the protest — the focus of federal complaints — was not antisemitic. 'We reject this cynical weaponization of antisemitism, and the misinformation campaign spinning calls for Palestinian freedom as antisemitic. We must name this for what it is: a thinly-veiled attempt to punish supporters of Palestinian freedom, and to advance the long-standing conservative goal of dismantling higher education,' said a statement from Graeme Blair, a UCLA associate professor of political science, on behalf of UCLA Faculty for Justice in Palestine. Higher education experts say UC's decision would set a national precedent. The university's finances include more than $50 billion in operating revenues, $180 billion in investments — including endowment, retirement, and working capital portfolios — and smaller campus-level endowments. The funds support facilities across the state, including multiple academic health centers, investment properties and campuses, as well as tens of thousands of former employees enrolled in retirement plans. Dozens of public campuses across the U.S. are under investigation or pressure from the White House to atone for alleged wrongdoing to Jewish students or to change admissions, scholarship programs and protest rules and more. But UC has long been a standard-bearer, including in academic and protest freedoms. 'If you are Trump, your target of Harvard or Brown is much easier — a snooty elite — than a public, even a UCLA or Berkeley,' said Rick Hess, an education expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Kenneth Marcus, who served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the Education Department during Trump's first term, said there would be benefits for UCLA and the UC system to enter into a 'systemwide agreement that would enable everybody to put this behind themselves.' The Justice Department's Tuesday letter said it was investigating all campuses but only issuing findings of violations so far at UCLA. Marcus, chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said a systemwide agreement would 'provide the federal government with assurances that the regents are making changes across the board.' Staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.
