Hugo Bromley

Trump just authorized Americans to trade Iranian oil for the first time since Clinton banned Americans from doing so in 1995. The new OFAC sanctions license allows trades (and imports in the US) through April 18, even as the war continues. 🧵

“The European Commission needs to step back and allow coalitions of nation-states from within and outside the bloc to develop new, intergovernmental partnerships,” argues @HugoBromley. fam.ag/4uzFJns

One can say another fossil fuel energy crisis shows the instability writ into fossil fuels and it does. But it also shows they are the life force of the material world and that you cannot jump off that juggernaut at will or think only of a future where they matter somewhat less.

The book examines underexplored crises, draws on new archival material, and includes fresh interviews with decision-makers such as Tony Blair & George Robertson. Available for $35 if you order directly from Georgetown using the discount code TGUF. press.georgetown.edu/Book/Transatla… 2/2

I’m keen on a limited form of CANZUK as long as you are really measured and level-headed about what it can and can’t do. There is real room for systematic joint branding of statements, calls and leader engagement, solid regulatory and procurement ideas like @PierrePoilievre is proposing, with room in the development space where the US has retreated for joint projects and financial instruments to do much more together. I’ll tell you a story from my time in the Foreign Office which is I had workshopped a very tentative proposal for more systematic use of the term with a possible Foreign Ministers meeting or at least photo at margins of existing summits, with a suggestion to use the format to discuss with soft issues like development. The idea died early in the policy planning process as the Ambassador in Washington — at the time a certain Peter Mandelson — thought it risked being seen as Five Eyes without the Americans and posed risk. At the time, there was merit to that caution. But I think times have changed. The truth is America does plenty without us and would already expect these countries with so much in common to do more together than is actually the case. I strongly reject this is just an issue for the right. It was roughly in a CANZUK plus select European allies format the Labour government advanced our position on Palestine. I genuinely see a limited CANZUK policy-driven platform as complimentary to building up our independence, integration and capacity with our EU allies. Instead of talking vaguely about doing more with “middle powers” — who and what exactly — this is something creative as can do with old friends who happen to be those.

This chap wins the internet for today. Robert Pape, “posturing as an authority on aerial warfare”.

So does the US have a balance of payments deficit for purposes of section 122 of the trade law (and thus the basis for imposing a 15% tariff). It is an interesting question 1/ many

The latest IMF analysis of China (The staff report/ Article IV) highlights that China's export driven growth has come at the expense of its trading partners. That is welcome, and very necessary message 1/many

Brilliant piece on the UK's (massive) goods deficit -- Wonderfully written

A really important problem, and one with another effect: requiring constant green lights all the way through youth means no second chances for people who for whatever reason (illness, bereavement, poor schooling, pure bad luck…) don’t get the right results as teenagers.

"It’s worth emphasising that, among Australia’s risks in Pillar One, Britain’s involvement is not the highest...there can be little doubt that Britain will build an SSN class to replace the Astutes, regardless of AUKUS." aspistrategist.org.au/demonstrating-…

To those declaring the end of NATO because of Trumps horrific threats to invade Greenland, I agree that this moment is a major crisis. But bigger than our splits in 1956 over Suez? France’s departure from NATO military structure for a while? Divides over Pershings in the 1980s or Iraq war in 2003? Maybe, but if so, just barely. We can get through this.

To break China's chokehold on critical minerals, we should not try to out-China China. Key insight from @heidirediker's new @CFR_org report: We can succeed by leaning into our greatest strength: innovation & disruptive tech. A must-read roadmap: cfr.org/reports/leapfr…

Britain must put growth first or we will become poorer, our welfare state will become less and less sustainable and our public services will deteriorate. My @thetimes column today 👇 thetimes.com/business/compa…

The data here tells two different stories depending on how you read it. Story one: London is the world’s 4th largest startup hub, raised $17.7B in 2025, produced more unicorns than Berlin, Paris, and Tokyo combined. Success. Story two: London’s stock exchange fell to 23rd globally for IPO fundraising, behind Mexico and Oman. 88 companies delisted or fled in 2024, the largest exodus since the financial crisis. Deliveroo finally turned profitable after years of struggle, and DoorDash immediately swooped in to buy it for less than half its IPO price. The pattern is consistent. Freetrade built a profitable trading app, got acquired by IG Group for £160M after targeting a £700M valuation. Runna built a successful fitness app, Strava bought it. ARM, DeepMind, Skyscanner, Shazam. The exit playbook is always the same: build in London, sell to San Francisco. What London actually built is Europe’s most efficient farm system for US acquirers. The city does the expensive, risky work of finding founders, funding early rounds, and proving product-market fit. American companies wait until the risk is de-risked, then buy the winners at discounts enabled by London’s shrinking public markets. The $17.7B in venture funding measures inputs, not outcomes. The outcome is that UK startups raised all that money, then got absorbed into US companies before they could compound at scale. Being 4th in funding and 23rd in IPOs tells you exactly where the value is leaking.

NEW: Hinkley Point C will be the most expensive nuclear power station ever built. More than £700m will be spent on 'fish protection measures' due to inflexible envrionmental rules. The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, last year, put forward a plan to change those regulations to cut the cost of building and protect nature more effectively. Green NGOs have just put out a misleading briefing for MPs claiming that the taskforce's evidence was flawed. I've read their briefing. It's sloppy. My latest blog exposes their errors. samdumitriu.com/p/in-defence-o…

Latest post tries to catch up with the back and forth on Greenland. I argue that rather this being a rupture (as Mark Carney suggested) the European response shows a transition to a rebalanced transatlantic relationship with diminished US power. (£/free trial), open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/to-…?

This is 100% correct. There needs to be a serious, comprehensive, across-the-board clawback in the powers of the executive.

Breaking: Keir Starmer tells Donald Trump that a trade war is in 'no one's interests' and that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark *alone* He says he is determined to keep the relationship with the US strong, highlighting investment and co-operation on defence and security He says that his approach to Trump is delivering 'concrete outcomes in the national interest' But he says that mature alliances are not about pretending disagreements don't exist 'On Greenland the right approach to an issue of this seriousness is through calm discussion among allies. Greenland matters. The high north will require greater investment and stronger collective defence. The US will be central to that effort and the UK stands ready to contribute 'But there is a principle here that cannot be set aside. Any decision about the future status for Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. That right is fundamental and we support it 'Denmark is a close ally of the UK. Alliances endure because they are built on respect and partnership, not pressure. That is why I said the use of tarfis against allies is completely wrong. It is not the right way to resolve differences 'Such measures hurt British workers, British businesses and the British economy. A trade war is in no one's interest and my job is always to act in the UK' national interest'

1/5 FT: "Chinese offerings of asset-backed securities have hit a record high this year as cash-strapped local governments struggle to plug fiscal holes." Needless to say, selling ABS is a double-edged sword. ft.com/content/2d9ed7… via @ft