GLOBAL
Politico: WTO meeting ends with no deal – Caroline Hug and Douglas Busvine
The World Trade Organization’s ministerial meeting ended in the early hours of Monday morning without reaching a deal to extend a moratorium on e-commerce tariffs or on a broader reform work program for the beleagured global trade rules body.
Director-General Ngozi Okonjo Iweala said ministers from the 166-nation global trade body had kept working as the four-day meeting in Cameroon ran into overtime on Sunday, but she finally called time overnight.
Multiple officials had indicated earlier that a compromise was emerging around a four-year extension of the moratorium, paired with a roughly one-year sunset clause designed to give businesses time to adjust.
Washington was pushing for a far longer horizon for the e-commerce moratorium— with U.S. negotiators seeking a 10-year commitment. Brazil threw a last-minute spanner in the works and was vetoing efforts to extend the moratorium altogether.
On top of that, U.S. officials linked any extension of the moratorium to their agreement on the broader WTO reform workplan, effectively derailing the talks and deepening U.S. frustration with the WTO’s negotiating system.
PC: Press Memo: Trump’s Bullying on Behalf of Big Tech Derails WTO Ministerial
Today, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) ended in chaos, with the carefully curated MC14 outcome that seemed all but assured failing to cross the finish line.
This outcome comes in spite of the U.S., EU, and other developed countries dominating the agenda to benefit their largest corporations, the Secretariat’s heavy-handed facilitator-dominated process, and the further sidelining of civil society participation. The Trump administration, unable to bully countries into securing a long enough tax holiday for Big Tech, has blocked agreement on other issues under discussion.
WTO: Members adopt a pathway to bring E‑Commerce Agreement into force via interim arrangements
Sixty-six members, covering approximately 70% of global trade, have adopted a pathway to bring into force the WTO Agreement on Electronic Commerce through interim arrangements while continuing to work towards its incorporation into the WTO legal framework of rules, co-convenors announced on 28 March at the 14th Ministerial Conference taking place in Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Politico: European and Indo-Pacific alliance eyes digital trade deal – Caroline Hug, Graham Lanktree and Zi-Ann Lum
A new coalition of European and Indo-Pacific nations has agreed to explore plans to strike a digital trade agreement, marking a significant step forward for the alliance of middle powers.
Working on the sidelines of a World Trade Organization summit in Cameroon, the European Union and the 12-country CPTPP bloc — which includes the U.K. and Canada — have resolved to launch talks on a deal that would set rules for how digital services trade flows, how electronic contracts are signed and how data is stored and governed.
“This is historic,” Canadian Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu told POLITICO on Friday. “We’re also having conversations on trade and investment facilitation [and] supply chain resiliency.”
There was a “strong push at the dialogue by the EU for a digital trade agreement between CPTPP and the EU,” a CPTPP member nation official confirmed, adding it had “good support around the room.”
The meeting between the two largest trading blocs, which together represent nearly a third of the global economy, took place on Friday afternoon, as the World Trade Organization scrambles to advance long-stalled reforms — including efforts to keep digital trade permanently tariff-free.
EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič highlighted the bloc’s existing digital trade agreements — or DTAs — with CPTPP member countries Singapore and South Korea, and said that it had launched negotiations this month on a similar accord with Canada.
FreeMalaysiaToday: WTO members launch first baseline digital trade rules despite opposition – Reuters
A group of World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed today to sidestep adoption hurdles for the world’s first baseline on digital trade rules, opting to bring the agreement into force among consenting participants, the WTO said.
At the 14th WTO Ministerial Conference in Cameroon, 66 members settled on an interim arrangement to activate the deal within their countries while pursuing broader incorporation into the WTO framework.
CentreonKnowledgeGovernance: The Moratorium the AI Industry Cannot Afford to Lose – Burcu Kilic
The WTO’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) starts in Yaoundé, Cameroon, next week with a packed agenda and real stakes. Buried in the long list of negotiations is a decision that will have a significant impact beyond trade: whether to renew the moratorium on non-violation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. The outcome will help determine whether the TRIPS flexibilities and exceptions, particularly copyright exceptions, which have recently become the backbone of the AI economy, can be challenged at the WTO.
PC: International Resistance to Trump Trade Deals
Facing the threat of extreme “reciprocal” tariffs, governments are being coerced into ceding the sovereign right to resources and governance in the interest of their people. With the U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs — the very tariffs used to pressure countries into the agreements — the future of these deals are not certain.
Thousands of farmers, labor organizers, healthcare workers, faith leaders, economists, climate experts, government officials, and more from across the world are urging their governments to resist U.S. imperialism through trade deals.
While the country, source, and voice varies, one throughline persists: these deals surrender sovereignty, jeopardize rights, and undermine economic development.
This document compiles criticisms of the ARTs signed by various countries with the U.S.
AFLCIO: Issue Brief: Without Robust Guardrails, AI Harms Workers
Employers are rapidly deploying AI systems across workplaces to monitor, evaluate, manage, and replace workers. Despite grandiose claims that AI systems can deliver unprecedented productivity gains and usher in a golden era of economic growth, evidence shows that the hype surrounding AI is divorced from reality. AI systems, many of which are available to the public, are often error-prone, produce biased results, and may even generate outputs that advise illegal activity. In many cases, these AI uses are occurring without employees’ knowledge or consent and with little or no regulatory oversight. These systems harm workers in many ways. From exploitative surveillance tools and discriminatory management algorithms to dangerous experimentation and job elimination, AI is causing measurable harm to workers and the public. These technologies, left unregulated, intensify workplace injuries, perpetuate racial and gender discrimination, lead to deskilling, threaten intellectual property rights, and undermine the fundamental dignity of work. AI is often deployed as a tool that increases the power of employers at the expense of workers. This is why the AFL-CIO developed a first-of-its-kind national labor AI agenda. The AFL-CIO’s AI Principles center workers and ensure that the benefits of new technologies are widely shared and do not lead to dangerous, discriminatory, and anti-worker outcomes.
ASIA
FreeMalaysiaToday: Johari confirms Malaysia-US trade deal nullified
Investment, trade and industry minister Johari Ghani has confirmed that the reciprocal trade agreement (ART) signed between Malaysia and the US has been nullified.
He said the US Supreme Court ruling that struck down the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump rendered the deal null and void, New Straits Times reported.
“It is not on hold. It’s null and void. The US Supreme Court has ruled that if you want to impose tariffs, you must have reasons,” he said.
Bilaterals: The Indonesia-US agreement: A ‘reciprocal’ trade deal that isn’t – Muhammad Ikhsan Alia
The ART contains legal weaknesses across three areas. Each one alone is enough to justify renegotiation, and together they form a strong argument that is hard to dismiss.
First, the agreement’s basic foundation is flawed. The ART was created under the pressure of a threatened 32 percent tariff imposed through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional on February 20, 2026 in a 6-3 ruling. The 32 percent IEEPA tariff was the key condition that shaped the entire agreement. To claim that the agreement remains fully valid after the main source of pressure has been struck down is a legal argument that cannot withstand serious examination. Article 62 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that when a major change in circumstances forms the essential basis of consent, was not expected when the treaty was made, and drastically changes the remaining obligations, a country may end or renegotiate the treaty.
Second, the agreement violates proportionality. In trade law, proportionality is not a moral idea but a legal standard used to judge whether a rule goes further than necessary. WTO Panels use a “necessity test” under Article XIV of the General Agreement on Trade in Services to check whether a regulation is more restrictive than needed to achieve a legitimate goal. A total ban on digital taxation, without any special allowance for a developing country, goes beyond what is reasonable. It gives up long‑term policy tools in exchange for market access benefits that are unevenly distributed. Digital trade agreements that remove regulatory space from developing countries create permanent restrictions that block future law‑making across entire sectors. Indonesia accepted exactly these terms.
Third, the agreement forces massive changes to Indonesia’s legal system. An economist calculated that full ART compliance requires Indonesia to create 26 new regulations and amend 91 existing ones, for a total of 117 legal instruments. At the constitutional level, experts have identified at least eight ART provisions that conflict with the 1945 Constitution, affecting at least seven constitutional articles, including Article 33, which the Constitutional Court has repeatedly interpreted as requiring democratic oversight for all natural resource contracts.
Indonesia signed an agreement it did not need to sign, accepted terms it did not need to accept, and received a tariff rate it would have obtained without giving up anything. International law provides a legitimate and technically sound path for correction. The real question is no longer whether that path exists, but whether the political will to take it does.
Reuters: WTO members try to close gap between US, India on e-commerce tariff moratorium – Olivia Le Poidevin
Countries are working to close the gap between the U.S. and India to extend a global agreement not to impose tariffs on electronic transmissions such as digital downloads and streaming, diplomats said on Saturday.
India signalled it may drop its opposition to an extension of the e-commerce moratorium – which is due to expire this month – and allow a two-year prolongation at the World Trade Organization meeting in Cameroon, three diplomats told Reuters.
Reuters: India to hold off on US trade deal amid new probe, sources say – Shivangi Acharya and Krishna N. Das
India will hold off on signing a trade deal with the United States for several months, four Indian sources said, as fresh investigations by President Donald Trump’s administration into what it calls excess industrial capacity among trading partners add new friction after an early understanding, opens new tab last month.
New Delhi had initially expected to sign an interim deal in March, followed by a full deal later, after Trump agreed in early February to cut punishing U.S. tariffs on Indian imports in return for commitments including halting Russian oil imports, lowering duties on U.S. goods and pledging to buy $500 billion worth of American products.
AFRICA
NYTimes: U.S. Considers Withholding H.I.V. Aid Unless Zambia Expands Minerals Access – Stephanie Nolen
The State Department is considering withholding lifesaving assistance to people with H.I.V. in Zambia as a negotiating tactic to force the government of the southern African country to sign a deal giving the United States more access to the country’s critical minerals.
“We will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale,” a draft of a memo prepared for Secretary of State Marco Rubio by the department’s Africa Bureau staff says. A copy of the memo was obtained by The New York Times.
EUROPE
Politico: Let’s talk about your tech rules, Trump envoy tells EU – Camille Gijs, Eliza Gkritsi and Jacob Parry
The United States wants to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Brussels on reducing European tech regulation, its Ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder told POLITICO.
The U.S. administration and its allies have been vocal critics of the EU’s tech rules, saying they unfairly target American companies and hurt freedom of speech. The European Commission has repeatedly denied such allegations, saying it is merely trying to rein in Big Tech and protect the online space from harmful behavior.
In an interview Monday, Puzder said he hoped that this week’s vote in the European Parliament to advance last year’s transatlantic trade deal would set the scene for talks to loosen constraints on business.
Politico: US should give up on trying to change EU tech rules, lawmakers say – Eliza Gkritsi
The United States should let go of trying to change the European Union’s tech rules, senior EU lawmakers suggested Tuesday.
“There is a certain level of tiredness in Brussels when it comes to responding to these talking points from Washington,” German center-right MEP Andreas Schwab told POLITICO.
Schwab’s comments were in response to a call from the U.S. ambassador to the EU, Andrew Puzder, for fresh political talks on the EU’s digital rulebooks.
CorporateEuropeObservatory: Inside the far-right network targeting Europe’s digital rules
The Trump administration and a network of far-right think tanks are increasingly targeting the EU’s digital regulations and rules on content moderation. Far-right MEPs have taken over these narratives, while tech companies are hoping to exploit the opportunity.
TheGuardian: ‘Another internet is possible’: Norway rails against ‘enshittification’ – Ashifa Kassam
The video’s opening shot shows a man hiding under a bed snipping in a hole in someone’s sock. Seconds later, the same man uses a saw to shorten a table leg so that it wobbles during breakfast. “My job is to make things shitty,” the man explains. “The official title is enshittificator. What I do is I take things that are perfectly fine and I make them worse.”
The video, released recently by the Norwegian Consumer Council, is an absurdist take on a serious issue; it is part of a wider, global campaign aimed at fighting back against the “enshittification”, or gradual deterioration, of digital products and services.
“We wanted to show that you wouldn’t accept this in the analogue world,” said Finn Lützow-Holm Myrstad, the council’s director of digital policy. “But this is happening every day in our digital products and services, and we really think it doesn’t need to be that way.”
BEUC: Users Still Stuck in the Mud: An analysis of Meta’s 2026 changes to its consent-for-ads mechanism against EU law
A new analysis by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) concludes that Meta’s latest model to let consumers pay for an ad-free experience, or obtain their consent to show either personalised or less personalised ads, continues to breach the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), the GDPR and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD).
BEUC calls on the European Commission and competent authorities to ensure that Meta swiftly complies with EU law. In addition, the European Commission should, where appropriate, impose periodic penalty payments to bring an end to these practices.
The new model rolled out in January 2026 still fails to offer consumers the possibility to give free, specific, informed and unambiguous consent to personalised ads, which remains a crucial problem given Meta’s extensive data collection. Additionally, the way Meta has designed how it presents the options and its use of non‑neutral language steers users toward accepting the fully personalised ads option. These shortcomings in the model do not the meet requirements under the DMA, the GDPR nor the UCPD.
NORTH AMERICA
Politico: US Committee demands Big Tech share private comms with EU officials
The US Congress Judiciary Committee is pushing technology companies to provide access to all communications with European Commission officials that relate to the enforcement of EU digital rules, in letters sent Monday.
The letters cite comments from a senior EU official first reported by POLITICO that communications included messages set to auto-delete.
In letters addressed to 10 companies including Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok and X, the chairman of the committee, Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, said that the companies are required “to preserve and produce relevant communications, including these auto-deleting messages, with foreign censors” under subpoenas issued in February.
IELP: Comparing the Digital Trade Provisions in the New U.S. Trade Deals – Simon Lester
My series of posts comparing specific provisions across the Trump administration’s Agreements on Reciprocal Trade got interrupted, but let me get back to it now, with a focus on certain digital trade provisions in the nine agreements for which we now have the full legal text. To keep this post manageable, I’m going to discuss only three of these provisions.
First up, these agreements all have a provision along the following lines about digital services taxes: The U.S. trading partner signing the agreement “shall not impose digital services taxes, or similar taxes, that discriminate against U.S. companies in law or in fact.” So, no discrimination in digital services taxes. That’s very clear. But wait, what do they mean by discrimination? Are we talking about a discriminatory effect or a discriminatory intent? Can legitimate regulatory purposes be taken into account in the analysis, and if so how? So actually, it could be a bit more clear.
Politico: House Republicans introduce bill to go after Canada’s Online Streaming Act – Daniel Desrochers
House Republicans introduced legislation Thursday to investigate Canada’s Online Streaming Act, adding to the U.S. pressure on Ottawa to drop the controversial law amid ongoing trade negotiations.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.) and co-sponsored by five other Republicans on the House Ways and Means subcommittee on trade, would direct the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office to launch a Section 301 trade investigation into the new Canadian law, which requires tech companies, mainly from the U.S., to contribute to the creation of Canadian content, including Canadian news. It passed Canada’s Parliament in 2023, but is not in force yet because Canada’s broadcasting regulator hasn’t determined how much money tech companies would have to pay.
The lawmakers want USTR to determine if the law constitutes an unfair trade practice targeting U.S. businesses, a finding that could lay the groundwork to impose higher tariffs on Canada.
OtherNews: Palantir Is Leading a New Age of Empire – Guy Christensen
A former Palantir executive recently confirmed what many have long suspected. In a public statement, the whistleblower said it plainly: Palantir intended to take over the US government, and many of his former colleagues are now installed inside the federal apparatus. He called it an occupied nation. He is not alone. Thirteen former Palantir employees—engineers, managers, and a member of the company’s own privacy team—signed a letter shared with NPR warning that guardrails meant to prevent discrimination, disinformation, and abuse of power have been violated and are being rapidly dismantled.
What Palantir represents is something unprecedented: the convergence of American imperialism, Zionism, technofascism, and surveillance capitalism into a single instrument of control. Understanding how we got here requires looking at the machine Palantir has built, who built it, and what they believe.
Information&Power: The Algorithm Loses Its Immunity – Courtney Radsch
For years, technology companies have not only argued that they cannot be held responsible for what happens on their platforms, they have largely been protected from that responsibility as a matter of law.
This week, two juries were asked a different question: what if the harm comes not from what users post, but from what the system is designed to do? Finally, we are asking the right questions, framing the problems more accurately, and reasserting the power of individuals over tech behemoths that are inescapable and indominable.
TechPolicyPress: Landmark Verdicts Could Unleash New Legal Playbook Over Social Media Harms – Cristiano Lima-Strong
Juries in New Mexico and California delivered twin verdicts this week finding tech giants Meta and Google liable for harms to young users on their platforms, watershed decisions that could open the door to more lawsuits alleging that the companies fuel addiction or endanger kids.
A jury in New Mexico found that Facebook parent company Meta violated the state’s consumer protection laws by misleading users about the safety of its platforms, awarding $375 million in civil penalties to the plaintiffs in a first-of-its-kind state enforcement decision. The case focused heavily on claims that the company failed to prevent and alert users to sexual predation on its sites.
Meanwhile, a jury in California found Meta and Google-owned YouTube to be negligent in using addictive design features that led to mental distress for a young woman. The jury awarded the plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta bearing the brunt of the cost, and an additional $3 million in punitive damages.
The decisions mark landmark victories for child online safety advocates, who for years have clamored for state and federal regulators to rein in practices and design choices by tech companies they argued were enabling or facilitating harms to kids.
LATIN AMERICA
Valor: Lula holds Brazil’s line in clash with United States – Assis Moreira
Amid a standoff between Brazil and the United States in the final stretch of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference on Sunday, Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira called President Lula for guidance.
The president’s position was clear: Brazil would stick to its proposal to renew the e-commerce moratorium for just two years. The measure prevents import tariffs on digital products such as streaming films and software downloads, maintaining the country’s longstanding stance over the past three decades.
The Trump administration, which had pushed for a permanent extension and later for a five-year renewal, responded inflexibly, signaling that no agreement would be reached at the WTO ministerial in Yaoundé, including a broadly worded document on a potential reform of the global body.
The country that has most aggressively criticized and weakened the WTO arrived at the conference seeking to act as an enforcer, showing little willingness to negotiate while insisting that without concessions from others, it would disengage from the process.
The U.S. stance was made explicit by Jamieson Greer, head of the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), during a closed-door meeting, according to sources. “There will be consequences,” Greer warned negotiators if the moratorium were not extended beyond two years.
The impact of this standoff—and Brazil’s resistance—on bilateral relations remains uncertain, including ongoing discussions over potential tariff measures between Brasília and Washington.
