LONDON — The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and U.S. tech company Palantir have agreed to drop legal proceedings relating to a blocked £50 million police contract.

Palantir brought a claim against the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime in the High Court in June after Khan’s deputy mayor refused to sign off on the £50 million contract with the Metropolitan Police for the provision of an AI and data analysis service.

In July, lawyers working on behalf of MOPAC in turn accused the Met Police and Palantir of coordinating to fix the outcome of the procurement process in breach of the rules. Palantir claimed Khan’s office had unlawfully blocked the contract over the company’s “values and ethics,” based on media reporting.

A full trial was expected in January but on Wednesday both sides agreed to “settle their differences” and drop the allegations without admitting liability. They will each cover their own legal costs.

In an agreed statement, the two sides said MOPAC’s decision to block the Palantir contract was “not based on Palantir’s values or ethics or any wider reporting about the company,” though MOPAC said it “recognizes Palantir’s concerns that media reporting of a statement from the Mayor’s spokesperson before the decision was taken could have incorrectly created the impression that an assessment of the company’s values had been a factor in that decision.”

“MOPAC’s consideration was based upon its statutory role of examining spend proposals, against the appropriate legal tests and the relevant guidance on procurement, governance, affordability and ensuring value for money for Londoners and in doing so it focussed on the available information at the time,” the statement said.

The settlement also notes that MOPAC is working with Metropolitan Police Service to re-run a competitive procurement for the relevant service, which Palantir will be eligible to bid for.

“MOPAC does not have, and has never had, any policy of not contracting with Palantir,” the statement confirms, while noting the mayor’s duty is to ensure “all procurements are lawful, fair, transparent and deliver value for money.”

“London is the technology capital of Europe, and I am proud that leading software firms choose the city as their home. Palantir makes a significant contribution to jobs and investment in the capital, employing a large number of Londoners whose services have been procured legally by organizations across the U.K. and beyond,” Khan said.

Federal authorities arrested a Saudi national employed at OpenAI and charged him with planting a recording device in a company’s executive conference room, the Department of Justice announced Tuesday.

On or around Sept. 30, OpenAI discovered a sophisticated recording device inserted into the back of a television in an executive conference room located in one of its San Francisco offices. The company determined that the device was installed approximately a couple days prior, concealed in toilet paper. The contents of the device were encrypted, according to the DOJ.

The Department of Justice said in a news release that the employee, Abdulrahman Alfozan, 35, was arrested Friday and appeared in federal court Tuesday. OpenAI confirmed the incident on social media and said that it was supporting the FBI’s investigation.

“We used our models to understand the device and where it had come from, identifying that a specific employee had planted it a few days earlier,” OpenAI said in its statement. “At this time, we have no indications of this individual inappropriately accessing or exfiltrating model weights, source code, or customer data.”

Alfozan used a “productivity tool” to inquire about the company’s meeting rooms, calendars, and “leadership and exec” locations, according to OpenAI’s complaint to the DOJ. A chatbot account associated with his spouse also indicated that the user submitted prompts in September relating to installing and remote accessing a recording device.

The DOJ said that CCTV footage showed Alfozan, who had been employed as an engineer by OpenAI since July 2025, near and inside the conference room on multiple occasions before the device was discovered. Meetings in the conference room “frequently involved discussions of highly confidential technical, commercial, and strategic information, including proprietary research, product plans, and business-development opportunities,” according to the complaint.

The company also discovered another recording device in one of Alfozan’s bags left in the office.

“We referred the matter to the FBI, and we’re grateful to the agents and prosecutors who moved quickly to make an arrest,” OpenAI said. “Our security program is designed to protect against a wide range of threat actors, from insider risks to cybercriminals to nation states, and this case is an example of how AI can help address these sophisticated security threats.”

The Saudi national, who has since been fired by OpenAI, faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release if convicted, according to the DOJ.

“For us it is a matter of national security,” U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian for the Northern District of California said in a statement. “This arrest highlights our relentless efforts in partnership with the FBI to identify and prosecute those who seek to steal our technology, as alleged in the complaint.”

LONDON — Britain’s spies will have a leading role in Britain’s preparation for AI threats, the head of MI5 announced on Tuesday, after warning the technology could enable terrorists to access bioweapons.

Ken McCallum, director general of the U.K.’s domestic intelligence agency has established the AI Threat Assessment Centre to help determine how the government views potential threats.

Giving his annual threat update from MI5 headquarters in London, McCallum said: “Human history has given us no experience of facing an actor which is smarter than we are, is capable of outthinking us.”

He stressed the “real” risks of AI, saying MI5 has caught terrorists seeking to use AI to “improve their reconnaissance and attack methodologies,” in addition to the danger of AI-enabled drones.

Though it has not yet been “realized,” he said he attaches “the greatest weight” to AI’s potential to “change the stakes on existing or even new bioweapons.”

He said “low-capability” terrorists may get a “capability” uplift if the safety guardrails in AI models don’t work as intended. 

He added that for a long time “many terrorists would dearly love” access to chemical, biological or radiological weapons, but that it has been hard for them to achieve.

“One risk is that AI could enable dangerous knowledge to get into the hands of people who […] didn’t have that knowledge.”

McCallum added that “sober attention” must be given to the risk that “AI could generate novel pathogens not previously seen.” He noted that the government is taking “additional steps” on bioweapons. 

One thing that “does trouble me”, McCallum said, is the pace at which the world is evolving. He noted that the “weird bits inside MI5” that focus on how Britain’s adversaries will act in five years from now are seeing those timelines shortening due to AI.

He said it is now his responsibility to “drag my organization forwards at a faster pace than human beings generally want to be dragged.”

Sifting threats from hype

The new threat assessment centre, known as AITAC, will bring together expertise from bodies including Britain’s AI Security Institute, National Crime Agency, and the National Cyber Security Centre to “separate the bluster from the realities” of AI’s threat to the British public.

This is the third center of its kind MI5 has set up, after creating similar units dedicated to analyzing terrorism and state threats.

Asked how the agency would work, McCallum said it would look at emerging trends and how the U.K. can best think about and prioritize the various manifestations of AI threats. 

Though the government, rather than AITAC, will decide the response to AI, McCallum said it was partly set up to avoid “competitive analysis, slightly conflicting and confusing messages that otherwise might exist, where you have different departments offering their own opinion” on the issue.

He said that it would enable everyone to have “a single version of the truth, a single understanding, a single lexicon, typography.”

McCallum also said MI5 will now give national resilience — such as protecting critical infrastructure, countering cognitive warfare, and addressing technology threats — “front-rank mission status” alongside its twin roles of countering state threats and terrorism.

He noted that MI5 is now devoting more resources to countering state threats than it was during the Cold War, noting an uptick in anti-immigration cases tipping into terrorist intent, while Iran has shifted its ambitions to hit harder targets such as military sites.

LONDON — Britain and the European Union will hold their annual leaders summit on Nov. 20 in Brussels.

U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham confirmed the date in a statement to the House of Commons on Monday afternoon.

Brussels and London want to use the meeting to sign off new agreements on agri-food trade, emissions trading, and a youth mobility scheme.

Burnham told the Commons he wanted to secure a deal on the agreements — begun by previous Prime Minister Keir Starmer — and then begin a “calm, clear-eyed, rational look” at even closer relations.

“If we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, upholding our values and security, it is a conversation we must have,” he said.

“Sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain. Worse, it would be a major dereliction of duty to turn away.”

He added: “Our immediate priority is securing a successful outcome at the summit, and I believe we should then set up a serious dialogue about the different options for our relationship in the long term.”

The prime minister also said the meeting would present an opportunity to “raise our concerns about Made In Europe” — the EU’s program of protectionism which some countries want to exclude the U.K.

Burnham has previously suggested these future options could include rejoining the single market, customs union, or even the EU wholesale.

Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the opposition Conservative party, criticized the prime minister for focusing on the U.K.’s relationship with the EU.

“His exact words earlier this year were, ‘The last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments,’” she said.

“And yet, here he is unpicking the deal this country signed with the EU a decade after the referendum. He is not going to get a better deal. The EU are tough negotiators.”

She added: “Just like some people thought all of Britain’s problems would be solved by leaving the EU, some now think all our problems will be will be solved by rejoining. Neither of these are serious positions.”

In a statement issued while Burnham was speaking in Westminster, António Costa, president of European Council, which represents EU member countries, said improving cooperation was “essential.”

He said the three agreements under negotiation could be complemented by additional deals on a defence and security partnership, as well as on migration and law enforcement.

“The European Union and the United Kingdom are like-minded partners, united by common values and shared interests,” he said in a statement,” he said.

“Our security and prosperity are closely intertwined, making a strong partnership between us essential.

“By deepening our cooperation, we can strengthen our ability to address the challenges of our time, strengthen our resilience and promote stability in Europe and beyond.”

Costa and Burnham will be joined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the Nov. 20 meeting. Negotiations have been taking place since the previous summit in May 2025, which was attended by Starmer.

This year’s summit was intended to take place in July but was postponed following the collapse of Starmer’s administration.

LONDON — British Prime Minister Andy Burnham confirmed Friday he will legislate to ease restrictive non-compete clause rules for workers — but stopped short of committing to a ban.

​Burnham said in a speech in Manchester that he wants to “make sure that non-compete clauses will no longer be a barrier to hiring for our most promising start-ups and scaling firms” — but did has yet to set out the extent of the crackdown.

​The scope of the new rules will come later, ahead of legislation. POLITICO first reported the planned crackdown Thursday.

​The government’s action would be the “Bosman ruling for the innovation sector,” Burnham said at a government-backed innovation summit in Manchester. That’s a reference to a 1995 European Court of Justice decision that changed how star players are transferred between football clubs.

​Potential changes to non-compete clauses in workers’ contracts began in 2025 under Burnham’s predecessor Keir Starmer. The proposals ranged from a total ban on non-compete clauses to a partial ban, such as allowing non-compete clauses only for workers earning more than a set salary threshold, or limiting their length.

​The vow from Burnham comes after intense lobbying lobbying for and against the restrictions in workers’ contracts. U.K. tech start-ups claim the curbs are undermining economic growth, while City firms and trade bodies, including TheCityUK and the Managed Funds Association, are against any changes.

LONDON — The U.K. government is planning to commit to a full or partial ban on non-compete clauses in workers’ employment contracts, six people with knowledge of the discussions told POLITICO.

All six of the people, who were granted anonymity to discuss government policy, said they believed an announcement is due imminently and could be made as soon as Friday. Three of those people said they believed the announcement was likely to be fronted personally by Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who is expected to give a speech Friday.

The government of Burnham’s predecessor, Keir Starmer, set out options in November 2025 to limit the use of non-compete clauses, which aim to restrict a person’s ability to work for or set up a competing business after they leave their job.

The founders of more than 20 U.K. tech start-ups wrote to the government last month saying the restrictions, along with long notice periods and enforced gardening leave, were and “undermin[ing] the innovation that drives economic growth”.

The options set out 11 months ago ranged from a total ban on non-compete clauses to a partial ban, such as allowing non-compete clauses only for workers earning more than a set salary threshold, or limiting their length.

However, two of the six people quoted above said that the government would stop short of backing a specific option at this stage.

Ministers are expected to set out a broad intention of ensuring that non-compete clauses are no longer a hiring problem for start-ups and innovative firms, but finer details will be worked out further down the line in consultation with industry.

No. 10 declined to comment.

The announcement comes after Chancellor John Healey said he wanted to tackle the costs for businesses in his budget on Oct. 28. One of the six people quoted above said: “They want to sell it as pro growth and freeing up the labour market.”

AI Minister Kanishka Narayan said last week that the government was “working extremely rapidly” on potential changes to the system.

Non-compete clauses are common in the financial services industry. The lobby group TheCityUK opposed a ban earlier this year, arguing that non-compete clauses “promote competition and innovation in high-value industries” as they are often the “only way to pre-emptively protect confidential information and intellectual property.”

The government argued last year that even though non-compete clauses are “unenforceable” as a starting point under current law, ministers were “concerned about the behavioural effect of including a non-compete clause in an employment contract. Even if broadly drafted and unlikely to be enforceable, workers may perceive the clause as binding and comply with it for fear of legal repercussions.”

The Trump administration pressured diplomatic officials from the EU, Canada and Lithuania to pull out of an international conference on disinformation after organizers announced panels warning of the threat posed by American government officials and the country’s influence broadly, according to excerpts of a State Department cable seen by POLITICO.

The conference, titled #Disinfo2026, included sessions that described the U.S. as a “foreign information manipulation and interference” actor, or “FIMI,” which bothered the Trump administration, according to the cable. The conference is being held Wednesday and Thursday in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital.

The State Department asked American embassies in several European countries and the EU to express Washington’s concerns and “assess” whether the governments involved in the conference agree with the U.S. being characterized as a FIMI actor, according to the cable.

FIMI is an EU term used to describe activities that try to distort public information, such as spreading disinformation online, usually by foreign actors such as Russia. The conference conflates the U.S. with “foreign adversaries like Russia and China,” which is a “false equivalence” that “obscures the scale and nature of Russian and Chinese interference in our democracies,” the cable states.

The demarche request appears to be an unusual administration effort to use allied government pressure to silence criticism from European citizens and Americans abroad (three U.S. citizens appeared on one of the panels that prompted the cable). It also marks an acceleration of the Trump administration’s years-long pressure campaign on the continent, which includes U.S. criticism of perceived EU censorship.

The recipients of the cable included U.S. embassies in France, Norway, Romania and Poland. The embassies each were told to tell their hosts — verbally, not in writing — that the U.S. was unhappy with the panels on American disinformation, according to the cable and a U.S. official, who, like others, was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the situation.

One of those panels, titled “USA as a FIMI threat: acknowledge, adapt, push back” featured two American researchers and a former CIA official and looked at how the U.S. had become a disinformation threat to Europe. Another, titled “Under attack: How the counter-disinformation community is dealing with US government pressure,” asked legal experts to weigh in on the threat of U.S. government travel bans against European figures.

The State Department asked some of those countries — but not all — to reconsider participating in the event, said the U.S. official familiar with the cable, which came from the secretary of State’s office.

Officials from Norway, Romania and Poland still appear on the conference agenda. Spokespeople for the ministries of foreign affairs in Norway, Romania and Poland did not respond to a request for comment.

U.S. officials also contacted France’s Foreign Ministry, but it did not withdraw from the conference.

The Trump administration and its allies have repeatedly tried to pressure EU allies to align with Washington’s standards of free speech, which some in Europe consider to be too broadly defined. These efforts have included public criticism, closed-door lobbying against EU laws and visa restrictions for Europeans.

Domestically, the administration has dismantled U.S. government organizations that fight disinformation, including at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans have also taken issue with some European laws that force social media platforms to be more active in combating false information online, such as laws requiring age verification for potentially harmful content, which some have said amount to censorship.

As of Monday, Canada and Lithuania asked organizers to remove their ministry logos from conference materials, according to a conference participant, and the European External Action Service followed on Tuesday. European news site Rapporteur first reported on the removal of the foreign ministry logos.

“To me, I see a very strange reaction from the State Department to a conference of researchers using our First Amendment free speech rights to talk about how to stop lying and manipulation that undermines democracy and hurts our families and hurts our children,” said Adam Fivenson, who works for the Center for Security, Innovation and New Technology at American University and was on one of the panels the Trump administration took issue with. This panel still proceeded as scheduled.

The cable also notes that top officials in the State Department’s global public diplomacy section reached out directly to Canadian officials to express frustrations with Ottawa’s participation in the conference. This part of the State Department, led by Sarah Rogers, handles the public-facing aspects of diplomacy that are aimed at building support for U.S. goals among foreign populations.

Asked for comment, the State Department said in a statement: “While we are unable to comment on the details of diplomatic conversations, it should not be a surprise that countries would disaffiliate from this conference upon learning that it labeled the U.S. a ‘FIMI threat.’ Labeling the United States a ‘FIMI threat’ — a term normally reserved for describing influence operations of adversaries — undermines shared goals and should alarm those involved.”

After speaking with U.S. officials, Canada and Lithuania pulled their support from the conference, meaning they don’t appear on panels or in conference materials. The EU’s External Action Service, its diplomatic arm, was also removed from official programming.

Images reviewed by POLITICO show conference banners with the logos of all Canadian, Lithuanian, and EU diplomatic services covered. France remains the sole “main supporter.”

Spokespeople for the EEAS and Lithuania’s Foreign Ministry both said they withdrew because some of the conference programming didn’t align with their official positions, though they did not specify what those positions are.

The cable draws a clearer line between U.S. engagement with Lithuania and Canada and their decision to pull public support for the conference. After speaking to the local U.S. embassy, “Lithuania’s Foreign Minister [Kęstutis] Budrys stated the U.S.-focused sessions did not represent the views of the Lithuanian government and committed that no one from Lithuania MFA would participate,” the cable reads.