TheChek News Flow

Europol chief says Big Tech has ‘responsibility’ to unlock encrypted messages

Catherine De Bolle warns companies risk threatening democracy unless they co-operate with lawmakers

Technology giants must do more to co-operate with law enforcement on encryption or they risk threatening European democracy, according to the head of Europol, as the agency gears up to renew pressure on companies at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week.

Catherine De Bolle told the Financial Times she will meet Big Tech groups in the Swiss mountain resort to discuss the matter, claiming that companies had a “social responsibility” to give the police access to encrypted messages that are used by criminals to remain anonymous.

“Anonymity is not a fundamental right,” said the EU law enforcement agency’s executive director. “When we have a search warrant and we are in front of a house and the door is locked, and you know that the criminal is inside of the house, the population will not accept that you cannot enter.”

In a digital environment, the police need to be able to decode these messages to fight crime, she added. “You will not be able to enforce democracy [without it].”

There has long been a tension between tech companies and law enforcement over the use of end-to-end encryption on messaging platforms, which makes it difficult for police to obtain evidence in investigations.

In April last year, European police chiefs called on governments and industry to take urgent action to prevent encryption from undermining crime investigations.

Tech companies, including Apple, Meta’s WhatsApp and privacy-focused messaging app Signal, have consistently fought off legal efforts to compromise their encryption, arguing that it would threaten their users’ privacy and security. Apple has stepped up its efforts in recent years to co-operate with law enforcement to tackle child abuse online and other crimes. But such moves have largely been abandoned due to a fierce backlash from privacy campaigners. 

Some EU member states, including Germany, have also been sceptical of giving law enforcement greater access to private messages, resulting in legislation to fight child sexual abuse remaining stuck.

De Bolle, 54, a Belgian who took up the helm of Europol in 2018 and is entering her last full year in post, also said she would like to expand the use of artificial intelligence in the agency’s investigations and to look at “hybrid threats”, such as the recent allegations against Russia of cutting undersea cables in the Baltic.

At present, Europol can only look at criminal organisations and must bow out if there are criminal activities at a state level, De Bolle said, adding that a change would require new EU legislation.

Europol, which uses its giant trove of data to help states combat serious and organised crime in areas such as terrorism, drug trafficking and fraud, has doubled in size to about 1,700 staff under De Bolle.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said last year that she wanted to further increase Europol’s staff and strengthen its mandate to “become a truly operational police agency”.

Outside its work for EU member states, a number of countries, including the UK and the US, have desks within the agency. 

De Bolle said she did not anticipate much change to the US set-up after Donald Trump takes up the presidency this month, based on his previous term in office. The US has about 30 officials sitting in-house at Europol from a number of different agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

She said she had yet to meet the incoming Trump administration. 

Europol demonstrated its value last year with the disruption of the prolific LockBit ransomware group, which involved the FBI and the US justice department.

The agency has also played a big role in combating drug trafficking in Europe, including helping decode the messaging services EncroChat and Sky ECC, which were used by criminals. Access to their messages has led to a multitude of criminal cases and thousands of arrests. 

Last year, more than 100 people were sentenced in Belgium’s largest ever criminal trial, based on evidence from the Sky ECC decryption. De Bolle said more cases stemming from the decryption of the messaging services were to come.

Europol will publish its four-yearly assessment of serious and organised crime facing the EU in March, which would include information on foreign interference, De Bolle said.

Case relating to collapsed developer sheds light on the often-opaque dealings between property firms and affluent overseas clients

A British court has given property group JLL permission to keep managing 33 luxury London apartments owned by the ex-wife of China Evergrande’s co-founder, after her assets were frozen in the wake of the Chinese developer’s collapse. 

The US-listed group runs letting and management services for the flats near the river Thames on behalf of Ding Yumei, the former wife of property tycoon Hui Ka Yan, once China’s richest man but now being held on suspicion of involvement in “illegal crimes”. Ding herself lives in one of the luxury apartments, court filings say. 

Judges in London and Hong Kong last year granted injunctions that froze Ding’s assets worldwide, after liquidators were appointed to recoup funds for Evergrande investors. JLL told a London court it was no longer willing to manage the properties unless it was made clear that it had permission to, filings show, a case it has now won. 

The lawsuit provides a rare window into the normally discreet dealings between property groups such as JLL and wealthy overseas clients looking to stash their funds in centres like London. JLL employs more than 100,000 people worldwide in businesses ranging from facilities management to advising on multibillion-dollar commercial real estate deals. 

Court filings by Evergrande’s liquidators say Ding is “amongst the principal beneficiaries” of “what is understood to be the largest financial fraud to have emerged from mainland China”.

JLL and Ding declined to comment.

The liquidators, Alvarez & Marsal restructuring specialists Eddie Middleton and Tiffany Wong, were appointed a year ago when a Hong Kong judge ordered the winding-up of Evergrande’s holding company, listed in the territory. 

They are racing to lay claim to and sell off assets around the world that may enable them to hand money back to creditors. The company had more than $20bn of offshore debt in issue when it defaulted in 2021. 

Ding owns the apartments, on Carnation Way in Nine Elms, south of the river Thames, through five companies registered in the British Virgin Islands, according to court filings. JLL provides letting and property management services such as marketing the flats, setting up lease agreements and receiving rent, the filings say. 

The Financial Times has identified seven of the properties, which cost £15.6mn.

A court order issued last month says JLL can handle payments in relation to “meeting the costs of insurance and repairs, replacement and/or repair of fixtures and fittings only where necessary and on a ‘like-for-like’ basis, the payment of ground rent and service charges, and payments for utilities”, among other things. 

Ding had opposed the court making that order, saying it was unnecessary and prejudiced her position in Hong Kong court proceedings. Evergrande’s liquidators backed JLL’s case, saying: “All parties to the proceedings agree that JLL should continue to provide its services . . . to preserve the value of those properties and ensure that they can continue to generate revenue.” 

Over the past two decades, fees have amounted to more than 50% of gross gains, LCH research finds

Hedge-fund investors often gripe about high fees. A new report puts the problem in sharp relief.

Just over half of the industry’s total gross performance was eaten away by fees over the past two decades, according to LCH Investments. That compares to about 30% between 1969 and the early 2000s, said the company, which manages and advises on investments in hedge funds on behalf of investment firm Edmond de Rothschild and other investors.

“This increase in the proportion of gross gains being paid away in fees is clearly not to the advantage of investors,” said Rick Sopher, chairman of LCH.

Viewed another way, hedge funds have earned $3.72 trillion since the late 1960s—and kept nearly $1.8 trillion of that in fees.

The worsening ratio of fees to gains reflects how hedge-fund returns have moderated in recent years, while fees, especially fixed management charges, have crept higher. Many firms take a management fee of 2% of assets, plus a performance fee equating to 20% of fund profits. Some outfits, including behemoth “multimanager” firms such as Citadel, charge much more.

LCH released the findings alongside its annual “Great Money Managers” ranking of hedge funds, based on the lifetime gains they have generated, in dollars, for clients. Some key findings:

Industry fees have long been contentious. In an open letter last year, dozens of large investors in hedge funds demanded changes to how managers are paid.

On fees, LCH found:

Hedge funds have lost some of their luster in recent years, with institutions preferring to pour money in Wall Street’s newer crazes for dependable returns like private credit, but the most successful firms in the old guard are still delivering steady gains for their limited partner investors.

The world’s top 20 hedge funds, ranked in order of estimated net gains since inception according to LCH Investments, cumulatively produced a record $93.7 billion in gains in 2024. Citadel, D.E. Shaw and Millennium Management remained the top three since inception and were also the top three performers in 2024 in particular, separating themselves further from the rest of the industry. While Ken Griffin’s Citadel remains comfortably in first place with $83 billion in gains since it was founded in 1990, D.E. Shaw, founded by billionaire David Shaw and now run by a seven-person executive committee, netted an estimated $11.1 billion in 2024 to edge out its rivals for the single year.

D.E. Shaw’s flagship Composite fund generated a reported 18% net return in 2024, and its Oculus fund focused on macro trading returned 36%. Citadel’s flagship Wellington fund and billionaire Israel Englander’s Millennium each returned 15%. LCH Investments notes that the top 20 managers collectively generated asset-weighted returns of 13.1% last year, trouncing the average hedge fund reflected the HFRI Asset Weighted Composite Index, which returned a meager 8.3%.

“In most cases these managers have been generating above average performance over several decades, reflecting the persistence of their superior returns,” Rick Sopher, chairman of LCH Investments and CEO of Edmond de Rothschild Capital Holdings, said in a press release.

Run-of-the-mill investors in stock index funds may roll their eyes at even the higher end of those figures after the S&P 500 gained 23%, following a 24% increase in 2023 that also beat most hedge funds. But the most successful hedge funds are built to provide safety even in market downturns. Citadel, D.E. Shaw and Millennium are multistrategy firms with thousands of employees divided into trading teams focused on several strategies like quant trading or macro and commodities themes. Their secrets are closely guarded, but they’ve managed remarkable consistency. All three posted positive double-digit returns in 2022, when the S&P 500 declined 19%, and Citadel’s annualized return since 1990 is approximately 19.5%, beating the S&P 500 by more than eight percentage points a year on average.

Citadel claimed the No. 1 position on LCH Investments’ annual list in 2023 from Bridgewater, Ray Dalio’s firm which has since slumped to fourth. Here is the full list of the top 20 hedge funds.

LCH Investments is a subsidiary of the Edmond de Rothschild Group and the investment advisor of Leveraged Capital Holdings, the world’s oldest fund of hedge funds which has returned 9.8% annually since 1969. LCH has released this list each year since 2010 based on meetings with founders and other confidential sources, choosing to recognize raw cash gains rather than annualized return metrics that are often skewed by higher returns when funds were smaller.

All 19 active firms in the top 20 generated at least $1.2 billion in gains in 2024—George Soros remains eighth overall after generating $43.8 billion for investors over four decades, but closed his hedge fund in 2011 and is no longer tracked year after year. Stock-picking hedge funds like Christopher Hohn’s London-based Children’s Investment Fund and Steve Mandel’s Lone Pine Capital had good years. Hohn’s portfolio of large concentrated stakes in stocks like General Electric, Moody’s, Microsoft and Visa produced another $8.2 billion in gains in 2024 after earning $13 billion in 2023. That performance moved him up another spot to sixth on the list with $49.5 billion in gains since inception, and he’s done it in much less time than most of his peers since launching his fund in 2004.

Another British hedge fund, Marshall Wace, is new to the list, slotting in at 16th with $29.5 billion in gains since inception and $4.5 billion in 2024. Led by Paul Marshall and Ian Wace, the firm manages $69 billion in assets and is 40% owned by American private equity giant KKR, which partnered with them in 2015.

For the first time, LCH Investments also published some aggregate data on fees, revealing that as a whole hedge fund managers keep almost as much for themselves as they produce for their investors. The firm estimates that all hedge funds have recorded $3.7 trillion in gross gains since 1969 but $1.9 trillion in net gains—48% of the gross gains were wiped out by steep management and performance fees. The top 20 funds are responsible for $854 billion in net gains, or 44% of the industry-wide total.

Sopher says early investors like LCH around 1969 typically paid a 1% management fee and a 20% performance fee, but fixed management fees began to increase to 2% or more in the 2000s. In fact, since 2000s, fees account for a slight majority of gross gains, in part because many hedge funds suffered significant losses around the 2008 crisis to wipe out gains but could keep prior years’ performance fees in their pockets.

The most successful hedge funds have of course given investors more bang for their buck, despite charging higher than average fees in most cases. LCH Investments estimates managers in the top 20 have kept 34% of gross gains since inception as fee earnings, amounting to around $450 billion in fees. It’s no wonder then that the hedge fund founders on the list have stacked up some $185 billion in personal fortunes, according to Forbes estimates, led by Griffin at $43 billion as of last September.

Hedge fund managers pocket nearly half of investment gains as fees

Industry has taken $1.8tn in charges since the 1960s, according to LCH research

Investors in hedge funds have paid out almost half of their profits in fees since the early days of the industry more than half a century ago, new data shows.

Managers generated $3.7tn of total gains before fees, but fees charged to investors were $1.8tn, or about 49 per cent of gross gains, according to the analysis by LCH Investments, an investor in hedge funds.

The figures, which date back to 1969, show how the scale of the fees raked in by managers has soared as the industry has matured.

“Up to the year 2000, the hedge fund fee take had been running at around a third of overall gains, but since then it has increased to a half,” said

Rick Sopher, chief executive of Edmond de Rothschild Capital Holdings and chair of LCH Investments. “As returns came down, fees went up.”

New research comes after the world’s 20 most successful hedge funds made their biggest profits on record in 2024, according to LCH — for the second consecutive year and against a backdrop of surging equity markets.

The standout performers last year, delivering the best returns net of fees, were three multi-strategy hedge funds: DE Shaw, Izzy Englander’s Millennium Management, and Ken Griffin’s Citadel. They also have some of the highest overall charges.

Citadel cemented its position as the most profitable hedge fund of all time in 2024, topping the rankings for the third consecutive year, with DE Shaw and Millennium in second and third place, respectively.

The top 20 managers in the $4.5tn hedge fund industry made total profits for investors of $93.9bn in 2024, said LCH, up from the previous record of $67bn in 2023.

Together the top 20 generated asset-weighted returns of 13.1 per cent, significantly outperforming the average hedge fund, which made 8.3 per cent, according to other data from Hedge Fund Research.

The managers in the top 20 had a much lower overall fee take at just over a third of gross gains, compared with 55.7 per cent for the rest of the industry since inception, LCH found.

Hedge funds have historically been known for a “two and 20” fee model, where investors pay 2 per cent in management fees every year and a 20 per cent performance fee on investment gains.

However, this has come under pressure since the global financial crisis, as investors have complained about performance and a lack of protection against market falls.

The increase in the overall fee take from 30 per cent to about 50 per cent of gross gains is largely due to higher management fees, according to LCH.

Whereas management fees used to eat up less than 10 per cent of gross gains in the late 1960s and 1970s, they have represented almost 30 per cent in the past two decades, LCH said. 

The shift suggests efforts by institutional investors and investment consultants to cut fees across the board have failed, with management fees gobbling up more of the returns as gains have dwindled.

The fastest-growing corner of the hedge fund industry has been multi-manager platforms, which have driven up average fees, according to prime brokers. 

Such firms have a “pass-through” expenses model, where the manager passes on all costs to their end investors instead of taking an annual management fee.

That can cover office rents, technology and data, salaries, bonuses and even client entertainment. It typically varies from 3 to 10 per cent of assets annually. A performance fee of 20-30 per cent of profits is usually charged on top. 

LCH’s list calculates which managers are most successful based on the cumulative dollar profits they have made for investors, net of fees, since inception. The sources for the calculations were LCH’s internal estimates, as well as data from Nasdaq eVestment and HFR.

Sopher said that LCH as a fund would close this year but that Edmond de Rothschild would continue to invest in hedge funds through other funds within the group.

LCH, one of the world’s first funds of hedge funds, was founded in 1969. The value of one share, if bought at the fund’s launch, has multiplied by 172 times to December 31 2024, representing a return of 9.8 per cent a year.

Davos trustee and ESG backer takes stand against ‘arrogance’ of Trump and Musk

André Hoffmann sits more than 400 places below Elon Musk in Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index. His net worth is estimated at just under $7bn, against the $450bn attributed to the world’s richest man.

If anything, the gap understates the gulf between the soft-spoken, beetle-browed Hoffmann, who is the great-grandson of Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche, founder of pharmaceuticals group Roche, and the noisy SpaceX creator and X owner. “The arrogance of these guys knows no limit,” grumbles the 66-year-old Hoffmann about Musk and his assumption, shared by many of his fellow Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, that he knows how to change the world single-handedly.

Hoffmann has been vice-chair of Roche since 2006 and a board director since 1996. Among many other roles, he is a trustee of the World Economic Forum, whose annual summit takes place in Davos this week, and co-founder of InTent, a platform for developing sustainable solutions to societal problems.

Hoffman advocates for the power of business to work towards the common good, in partnership with government, regulators and other stakeholders. “It’s together doing something for the commons, rather than ‘I’m going to bypass you to make more money’ or ‘you’re going to stop me because I make too much money’,” he says in an interview. “We need a different approach.”

His background has made him a firm believer in the value of family businesses, and a source of wisdom in the dilemmas family owners face, such as whether to serve as operational managers, or — the approach adopted at Roche — to step back and exert pressure from the board and as investors.

As a vocal backer of environmental, social and governance initiatives, Hoffmann is the epitome of what Musk and US president-elect Donald Trump would decry as “woke” capitalism.

“I define myself as an idealist, and I would say that the couple of days after [Trump’s victory, it] was really quite difficult to pick [myself] up. This is a knockout,” says Hoffmann, speaking a few weeks after November’s US election. “Fifty-one per cent of Americans feel that a corrupt old man is going to make their life better? I’m sure it’s not true.”

Even though he believes that those gathering around Trump are “not good people”, Hoffmann maintains a businessman’s determination to navigate through the changed landscape. 

Trump policies, in particular the nomination of vaccine sceptic Robert F Kennedy Jr as head of the US Department of Health and Human Services, could have unpredictable consequences for Roche. But Hoffmann says “Mr Kennedy might simplify the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] procedures. Maybe there is something there where we can help to create something that would serve the patient better. Change always provides opportunities, so let’s try to be pragmatic about this”.

He adds, still in shock: “This is somebody who denies the power of vaccines, being in charge of public health. I’m sorry, I didn’t think I would see that in my life.”

Hoffmann’s conviction that business can and should be directed towards expanding the world’s human and environmental capital, and not just its financial capital, was inspired by his own experience. For many of the last decades of the 20th century, descendants of the Swiss company’s founding family maintained a deliberately hands-off attitude, disparaged by managers of the group as passive Glückspilze or “lucky mushrooms”, feeding off their good fortune. During that period, Roche was at the centre of a number of ethical and environmental breaches, from the catastrophic emission of dioxin that polluted the northern Italian town of Seveso in 1976, to the vitamin price-fixing scandal of the 1990s.

The trigger for change was an unexpected approach from rival Swiss drugmaker Novartis in the early 2000s. The family’s first reaction was: “We’re being besieged here and we shouldn’t tolerate that,” says Hoffmann. Then he and his relatives realised they “didn’t really have a vision for the business”.

In his recent book The New Nature of Business, co-authored with Peter Vanham, Hoffmann explains how the family worked to tighten up oversight. New board committees were set up to underline to management that the family was serious about the company’s identity. The family articulated to the managers a new positive purpose, encapsulated in Roche’s mission of “doing now what the patients need next”.

The book expands on the theme, laying out how Roche and other companies, such as Schneider Electric and cement maker Holcim, have tried to promote a long-term vision of sustainable and inclusive profitability. In particular, the book focuses on how business can work with rather than against nature. The Financial Times’ review drew fire on LinkedIn from one strategy consultant whose firm had worked with Roche. He dismissed the book as “the work of a limousine liberal [feeling] guilty about his heirs’ past deeds” and claimed Roche was really turned round by its then chief executive Franz Humer.

Hoffmann responds: “The family influences, but doesn’t do. He [Humer] did. And you know, we are very grateful for that.” Humer and Hoffmann’s father, Luc, a conservationist who co-founded the World Wildlife Fund, were close. Hoffmann points out that the “intimacy between the family and management” might be one way in which they reconciled their different roles. 

But being a family influencer rather than a management doer is subtle and difficult. Hoffmann illustrates the point with a current dilemma about the pressure on Roche to reduce the use of persistent organic pollutants in the drugmaking process. “It’s not easy to put through. André Hoffmann walking in on his white horse and saying ‘from now on you don’t pollute the world any more’ is a joke. That’s not how it happens. So when we talk, we put in evidence, we come back and we talk again and we try to move that forward.”

This style is having positive results, Hoffmann says, but while “the pockets where we are not best in class are diminishing . . . they’re still there”. The approach also does not satisfy environmentalists he works with, who would like the family, which controls a majority of Roche shares, to push harder for wholesale change. “I think that’s probably a little bit over ambitious,” says Hoffmann quietly.

He takes a long-term perspective and points out that the family-owned model “is the norm” worldwide. The Family Business Network, an organisation of 4,000 families, has estimated that family-controlled businesses account for 70 per cent of global GDP and employ 60 per cent of the workforce. Most entrepreneurs, Hoffmann adds, have the opportunity to maintain family control, unless they float the company or sell to financial buyers.

But he says: “I don’t believe family business is the better model. In fact, it can be diabolical, if you suddenly start hating your cousins or hating your nephews. There’s nothing that can rescue that . . . and I’ve seen a number of these bloodthirsty feuds”. 

Similarly, there is no rule that family businesses will always set a positive vision or purpose. 

Hoffmann is often approached by frustrated younger family members who want to change their company’s strategy to do more for nature, against the will of their parents.

Sometimes the parents give a chunk of the family fortune to their children in order to expand philanthropic activities. “That’s not the way to do it,” says Hoffman. Instead, he tells the heirs: “If you run a business and avoid thinking about climate risk, or biodiversity loss risk, or the social inequality risk, or the unhappiness of the people who work with you, you are not running it in a very professional way . . . You are fighting for the survival of your business. If the old generation ignores these sort of threats they are running a very risky business. That’s where you can make a difference as a young generation . . . You see things that perhaps they don’t.”

PORTRAITLe président du modeste club de football sera-t-il le premier dirigeant à pouvoir rivaliser avec le PSG dans la capitale ? L’accord conclu à l’automne avec la famille Arnault lui donne trois ans pour y travailler. Un joli coup pour cet homme de réseaux qui s’apprêterait, à 72 ans, à passer les rênes du groupe Alpha, le cabinet de conseil spécialisé dans les relations sociales qu’il a fondé.

Présider un club de Ligue 2, l’antichambre de l’élite du football professionnel, n’est pas toujours une sinécure. Ce samedi 7 décembre au soir, il pleut à verse sur Ajaccio. Dans les tribunes du stade Michel-Moretti, un millier de courageux, guère plus, est venu assister au match opposant l’AC Ajaccio au Paris FC (PFC). Entre deux chants corses couvrant le bruit de la pluie, des supporteurs locaux lancent, de temps à autre, des noms d’oiseaux visant les « Français » de l’équipe parisienne.

A 72 ans, Pierre Ferracci en a vu d’autres. Veste grise sur jeans foncé, cheveux clairsemés, le patron du Paris Football Club, lui-même né à Ajaccio, suit la rencontre en tribunes. Il s’est assis entre son fils François, directeur sportif du PFC, et un ex-dirigeant de l’AC Ajaccio. Le voilà presque comme un spectateur lambda ; ce soir-là, il a ignoré la loge dévolue aux dirigeants du club visiteur, trop excentrée.

Le plateau de coppa, lonzu et fromages corses est resté intact, tout comme la bouteille de champagne. Malgré tout, Pierre Ferracci, s’est régalé. Au coup de sifflet final, scellant une victoire des Parisiens sur deux buts gaguesques, il s’invite sur la pelouse. Sous la pluie battante, il serre des mains, tout sourire. A ses joueurs comme aux adversaires.

Changement de dimension

Pierre Ferracci est un patron de club heureux. Les récentes défaites n’y changeront rien. D’ailleurs, le PFC, actuel troisième du classement, peut toujours viser la montée en Ligue 1 en fin de saison. « Je suis heureux parce que j’ai l’impression d’avoir mis le club sur de bons rails », avançait-il, satisfait, avant le match face à Ajaccio. « De bons rails », l’expression frise la coquetterie. Car le septuagénaire, fondateur et dirigeant du groupe Alpha, spécialiste et leader du conseil en ressources humaines, vient sans doute de réussir l’un des plus beaux deals de sa carrière. Le plus retentissant, à coup sûr.

L’information a d’abord fuité dans le quotidien sportif L’Equipe, le 9 octobre. Une semaine plus tard, confirmation officielle : le Paris FC, modeste club de Ligue 2, jusque-là aux mains de Pierre Ferracci, accompagné d’un pack d’actionnaires, est en passe d’être racheté par la famille Arnault. Promesse, avec ces milliardaires, d’un changement de dimension. Et si émergeait enfin un « deuxième club de la capitale » capable, qui sait, de rivaliser un jour avec le richissime Paris Saint-Germain, sous pavillon qatari ?

Vous pouvez partager un article en cliquant sur les icônes de partage en haut à droite de celui-ci.

Le 20 novembre, foin de bling-bling, c’est dans la cantine du centre de formation du PFC, à Orly (Val-de-Marne) que Pierre Ferracci et Antoine Arnault, patron de deux fleurons du groupe de luxe LVMH, le maroquinier Berluti et le spécialiste du cachemire de très grand luxe, commentent l’union. Face à eux, des dizaines de caméras et une centaine de journalistes. L’affluence, pour une conférence de presse du PFC, est inédite. L’aîné de la fratrie Arnault, 47 ans, fan de foot et… du PSG, prend des accents philanthropiques : « L’idée est de rendre à la société, à Paris, à notre pays, ce qui nous a été donné. » Une manière adroite, peut-être aussi, de faire oublier les dribbles du patriarche avec le fisc.

Un carnet d’adresses bien fourni

Pierre Ferracci savoure le moment. Avec gourmandise, il évoque les coulisses de l’opération, en se gardant de tout dévoiler. La décision prise « avec [ses] deux fils, à l’été 2023 », de « s’associer à des forces économiques plus puissantes que les [leurs] » pour viser la Ligue 1. La satisfaction d’avoir trouvé, ensuite, par le biais de la banque Rothschild, un investisseur français « alors qu’aujourd’hui les deux tiers des clubs de L1 et de L2 sont contrôlés par des capitaux étrangers ». « Un enjeu de souveraineté nationale », ose-t-il, tout en reconnaissant que ces dernières années, il avait réuni au capital du Paris FC, « à titre minoritaire » certes, des actionnaires venus de Bahreïn, des Etats-Unis, d’Arménie et du Sri Lanka.

Du montant du rachat, il ne dit rien ou presque. Il conservera 30 % des parts jusqu’en 2027, date prévue de son départ de la présidence du club. Agache Sport, la holding des Arnault, possédera alors 85 % du PFC, contre 15 % pour Red Bull – sous réserve que BRI Sports Holding, l’actionnaire anglo-sri-lankais, le seul qui résiste, accepte de vendre ses parts (7 %).

Jongler avec les sujets économiques, politiques et sportifs, voilà la marque de fabrique de cet homme de réseaux. Autoproclamé « de gauche » et « homme de compromis », ce patron tout-terrain évolue au carrefour de plusieurs mondes. L’entrepreneur, aujourd’hui à la tête d’un groupe fort d’un millier de collaborateurs et d’un chiffre d’affaires annuel supérieur à 140 millions d’euros, côtoie depuis des décennies le gratin des grands patrons, des syndicalistes, comme des dirigeants sportifs. Il déteste l’expression « homme d’affaires », trop « péjorative » à ses yeux.

Ses différentes activités lui ont permis de se constituer l’un des carnets d’adresses les plus fournis du Tout-Paris. Depuis vingt ans, il loue, au travers de sa société Alpha, une loge VIP au Stade de France – compter environ 200 000 euros à l’année. Il y invite les huiles du monde patronal et syndical. « Le foot, résume-t-il, c’est le sport le plus populaire de la planète. Il fédère beaucoup de personnes, d’états d’esprit différents. J’aime ça. »

« Il était très militant »

Le sport, pourtant, a d’abord occupé une place annexe dans sa vie. Car, avant tout, il y eut les affaires. Certes, dans les années 1960, gamin à Ajaccio, Pierre Ferracci allait voir les matchs du Gazélec, le club de foot des gaziers et électriciens corses. S’il en est resté un « supporteur historique », cela relevait en partie, à l’époque, du tropisme héréditaire.

Albert Ferracci, son père, instituteur et ancien résistant, fut une figure éminente en Corse du Parti communiste. Sa mère, Rose, également enseignante et syndicaliste, partageait les mêmes engagements. Le soutien au Gazélec s’est imposé comme une évidence. Mais, niveau loisirs, le petit Pierre préfère encore, durant ses vacances d’été, les parties de chasse sous-marine du côté de Suartone, un village dans le sud de l’île, près de Bonifacio, où habite la famille du côté paternel.

Doué à l’école, Pierre Ferracci monte à la capitale et mène des études d’économie et d’expertise comptable à l’université Paris-Dauphine. L’un de ses profs s’appelle Jacques Attali – on y reviendra. Déjà, l’étudiant porte plusieurs casquettes. Il adhère aux Jeunesses communistes – il prendra vite ses distances avec le PCF – et à l’UNEF, syndicat étudiant marqué à gauche. « Il était très militant mais pas gauchiste du tout », se remémore Paul-Antoine Luciani, un ami de la famille, figure communiste et ancien adjoint à la mairie d’Ajaccio.

Rapports cordiaux avec Vincent Bolloré

Le jeune homme tisse des liens avec la CGT. La figure de son père, très respecté chez les communistes, est un atout qu’il n’est pas besoin d’inscrire sur son CV. Précieux pour lancer sa carrière. Au début des années 1980, il rejoint un petit cabinet d’expertise-comptable, Maréchal. Très vite, il grimpe les échelons, en prend la tête. Les lois Auroux, en 1982 et en 1983, favorisent les négociations salariales et élargissent le rôle des comités d’entreprise (CE). Pierre Ferracci flaire le bon filon.

Son groupe, Alpha, qui voit le jour en 1983, d’abord avec le cabinet Secafi, s’impose assez vite sur cette niche très rentable ; la CGT deviendra un de ses principaux clients, avec le syndicat des cadres CFE-CGC plus récemment. Le cabinet de conseil travaille aujourd’hui pour environ 2 000 comités sociaux et économiques (CSE). Le groupe s’est diversifié : il s’occupe aussi du reclassement des salariés, après un plan de licenciement. Un conflit d’intérêts, s’offusquent des concurrents du secteur qui reprochent à Alpha de jouer sur les deux tableaux, syndical et patronal. « La plupart du temps, on modifie à la marge les plans de licenciement. Donc l’accompagnement des salariés licenciés, c’est la suite logique », répond Pierre Ferracci.

Grâce à son activité, il est l’un des patrons les mieux informés de l’état de santé des grandes entreprises françaises. L’expert du dialogue social cultive une proximité avec un nombre incalculable de patrons. Il y a eu les Corses, comme Jean-Cyril Spinetta, PDG d’Air France (1997-2008), ou Jean-Marie Colombani, directeur du Monde (1994-2007). Et puis des figures du CAC 40 et capitaines d’industrie, parmi lesquels le spécialiste du textile Maurice Bidermann (mort en 2020), l’ancien sidérurgiste et ex-ministre Francis Mer ou encore Vincent Bolloré.

Pierre Ferracci connaît le milliardaire conservateur breton « depuis longtemps ». « Dans les années 1990, j’ai même réussi à lui faire rencontrer, lors d’un repas, Louis Viannet, le secrétaire général de la CGT. » Et d’ajouter, facétieux : « C’était à l’époque où Vincent Bolloré avait une image un peu plus sociale qu’aujourd’hui. » Il a conservé des rapports cordiaux avec l’industriel : « Mais on parle plus de football et de Canal que du JDD et de CNews, si c’est ça que vous voulez savoir. »

Donateur du candidat d’En marche !

Pierre Ferracci n’a cessé de tisser son réseau, tous azimuts. Son étiquette d’expert des questions sociales est un précieux sésame. En 2007, au début de la présidence Sarkozy, il accepte d’être membre de la commission Attali sur la libération de la croissance. Beaucoup, à la CGT, tiquent. Peu lui importe. Le Corse aime le rappeler aux journalistes : c’est Emmanuel Macron, alors banquier chez Rothschild et rapporteur général adjoint de la commission, qui a glissé son nom. « Manu », comme il l’appelle en privé, le tutoyant, est depuis vingt ans l’un des amis de son fils aîné, Marc, économiste devenu ministre sous les gouvernements Barnier puis Bayrou.

Etudiants à Sciences Po, Marc Ferracci et Emmanuel Macron ont préparé l’ENA ensemble. Les révisions s’organisaient parfois dans le chic appartement que loue aujourd’hui encore Pierre Ferracci près du jardin du Luxembourg, à Paris. En 2017, l’homme d’affaires sera d’ailleurs l’un des donateurs du candidat d’En marche !, ce qui ne l’a pas empêché, par la suite, de critiquer publiquement l’actuel chef de l’Etat, avec qui il conserve des relations « respectueuses et amicales ». Insaisissable Pierre Ferracci. Sous la présidence Hollande, en 2014, il est nommé à la tête du Conseil national éducation économie, une structure visant à favoriser le dialogue entre le système éducatif et les entreprises. Il a également été membre du Conseil d’orientation pour l’emploi.

« Pierre, c’est un pont entre plusieurs mondes, courtois, bon vivant », résume le consultant en stratégie sociale Antoine Foucher, qui a appris à le connaître lorsqu’il travaillait au Medef, vers 2012-2013. « Je ne suis jamais pour la politique de la chaise vide, justifie Pierre Ferracci. Là où il y a moyen de faire passer ses idées, j’y vais. » Son mantra : que les choix économiques n’écrasent pas les questions sociales. Ses détracteurs dénoncent des compromissions, lui vante les « compromis équilibrés ».

Débuts catastrophiques au Paris FC

C’est le football qui va lui permettre d’étoffer encore ses réseaux. Au début des années 2000, le conseil général de Seine-Saint-Denis et la ville de Saint-Ouen demandent à son groupe un audit du Red Star, avant de le sonder pour qu’il reprenne les rênes du club. L’affaire n’est pas conclue, mais elle lui donne des idées. En 2007, Guy Cotret, dirigeant du Crédit foncier, fait entrer Pierre Ferracci dans l’actionnariat du Paris FC, alors en National, le troisième échelon français.

Le Corse sympathise avec des dirigeants et des personnalités du ballon rond, comme le mythique entraîneur Arsène Wenger ou le journaliste Didier Roustan. « Le football lui a permis d’élargir son carnet d’adresses avec des personnalités qui ne sont pas forcément celles qu’il rencontrait habituellement à travers son activité », résume Guy Cotret. Qui, en 2012, se fait évincer par Pierre Ferracci de la tête du club. « Il avait mis au pot plus que moi, 1 million d’euros environ, se remémore le président déchu et fâché à l’époque. Il voulait garder la main. C’est un chef d’entreprise, il y a une part d’autoritarisme qui n’est pas anormale. Mais l’affaire s’est conclue en bonne intelligence. »

Les débuts de la présidence Ferracci au Paris FC sont catastrophiques. Le club est relégué. Les entraîneurs valsent les uns après les autres. La venue comme conseiller de son ami le journaliste Charles Villeneuve, ex-président du PSG rencontré par l’intermédiaire d’Alain Minc, est un échec. Le projet, avec Jean-Marc Guillou, un ancien joueur de l’équipe de France qui a entraîné par la suite la Côte d’Ivoire, de faire venir des jeunes joueurs africains, ne prend pas non plus. « Ça m’a vacciné d’entrée, ça c’est sûr », observe Pierre Ferracci avec le recul. Depuis plus de dix ans, il ne jure plus que par la formation locale et la richesse du bassin parisien. « Il croit à ce projet et a une vision claire de ce qu’il veut faire », salue Jean-François Martins, ancien adjoint aux sports à la mairie de Paris.

Accord critiqué avec le Bahreïn

En douze ans de présidence, Pierre Ferracci a professionnalisé le PFC. Sans parvenir à lui faire goûter à la Ligue 1. Un centre d’entraînement et de formation a été inauguré à Orly en 2019. Le budget du club, l’un des plus gros de Ligue 2, se situe désormais autour de 30 millions d’euros. Pierre Dréossi, figure connue de la Ligue 1 et manageur général du PFC de 2015 à 2020, loue un patron de club qui a su « trouver des partenaires financiers ».

En 2015, ce fut d’abord Vinci comme sponsor – un groupe que le cabinet Secafi connaissait bien. Puis le Bahreïn en 2020, à l’époque pour 25 millions d’euros et 20 % du capital du club – et 2 millions d’euros annuels pour être sponsor maillot. L’accord a suscité son lot de critiques, d’autant que le prince Nasser Ben Hamed Al Khalifa, à la tête du fonds bahreïni, est accusé par plusieurs ONG d’actes de torture. « Vous avez au Bahreïn une synagogue, une église catholique, une église orthodoxe et beaucoup plus de liberté pour les femmes qu’au Qatar, donc je n’avais pas de problème avec le Bahreïn », balaie cet athée revendiqué – « je suis très croyant : je crois que Dieu n’existe pas » –, qui apprécie peu de recevoir des leçons.

Pierre Ferracci reconnaît d’ailleurs sans mal avoir essayé, « dans les années 2014-2015 », de recruter le géant russe Gazprom comme sponsor : « En octobre 2015, j’ai même eu un rapide échange avec François Hollande, Vladimir Poutine et Alexandre Orlov [ambassadeur de la Russie à Paris] à ce sujet. » Aucun accord n’a été trouvé, mais la rencontre lui a rappelé l’époque où Alpha avait des bureaux à Saint-Pétersbourg et à Moscou.

Ces dernières années, avant le rachat par les Arnault, il a réussi, grâce à son seul entregent, quelques « coups ». Comme faire de Raï, l’ex-star brésilienne du PSG, pas vraiment désireuse de travailler avec les Qataris, un ambassadeur du PFC. Ou de rendre gratuite la billetterie du stade Charléty, l’enceinte du Paris FC, aux tribunes souvent aux trois quarts vides – cela a un peu changé ces derniers mois. Fin novembre 2024, il a nommé son ami Michel Denisot au conseil d’administration du PFC. L’homme de télé, ex-président du PSG, est aussi un ancien de Canal+. Le dirigeant du PFC milite d’ailleurs pour qu’un jour la chaîne cryptée et le football français renouent leur longue alliance, interrompue ces dernières années. En vain pour l’instant.

L’affaire de ses villas

Au cours des dernières semaines, la BBC, le New York Times ou le Washington Post l’ont sollicité pour des interviews. Flatteur, même pour cet habitué de la presse. S’il est intarissable sur les mille et une nuances du monde syndical, les petites ou grandes histoires du football européen, il l’est beaucoup moins, en revanche, sur ce qu’il considère relever de son intimité. De son goût pour les bolides, il n’a jamais rien dit. Rien non plus sur ses revenus – un peu plus de 750 000 euros déclarés auprès du fisc pour l’année 2018, selon nos informations.

L’affaire de ses deux villas et de sa piscine près de Suartone, en Corse, qui lui ont valu une longue bataille judiciaire et 1 million d’euros d’amende pour un permis de construire non respecté, l’agace encore. S’il a pu conserver les villas, il n’a pas digéré les nombreux articles écrits. « Une conséquence de ma relation avec Emmanuel Macron », estime-t-il à propos de cette attention médiatique. Mais, même sur ces polémiques, le verbe s’emporte rarement. « Il est assez insondable, Pierre, observe Jean-François Martins, l’ex-adjoint parisien, c’est assez déroutant. Il n’est pas surexpressif, même s’il dit ce qu’il pense. »

Le ton affable et le goût revendiqué pour le dialogue social de Pierre Ferracci ne convainquent pas tout le monde. Plusieurs ex-salariés du groupe Alpha décrivent, sous couvert d’anonymat, un patron « autocrate » et « un management de la tension ». Simple aigreur de collaborateurs licenciés ? Pas sûr : l’inspection du travail s’est émue, à plusieurs reprises, au mitan des années 2010, du manque de dialogue chez Secafi-Alpha lors de plans de réorganisation, avec des syndicats internes informés « au compte-goutte ».

En 2015, un fichier des ressources humaines listant des dizaines de salariés avec des remarques désobligeantes et parfois personnelles fuite. Scandale dans le groupe. « Il y a eu des sanctions, ces pratiques n’existent plus », assure Pierre Ferracci. Et d’ajouter : « Le groupe Alpha n’est ni une entreprise parfaite ni, compte tenu du modèle social qu’elle a mis en place, un groupe qui doit être l’objet de toutes les critiques, tant s’en faut. »

Des mystères demeurent

Au sein du Paris FC, depuis ses débuts compliqués, tout le monde reconnaît l’implication de Pierre Ferracci. Il assiste à la plupart des matchs. Mais quelques mystères demeurent. Combien d’argent a-t-il mis dans le club depuis près de quinze ans ? « Beaucoup, beaucoup », sourit-il. Mais encore ? « Ça, je ne le dirai jamais. » Malgré nos relances, il ne précise pas, non plus, à quel prix le club a été racheté – « ça n’a pas grande importance ». D’une formule, il reconnaît tout de même : « C’est une très belle valorisation. » Et ajoute qu’il est « ravi que tous les actionnaires qui [l]’ont suivi depuis le départ n’ont pas perdu d’argent mais en ont gagné » avec la reprise par les Arnault. Lui compris, évidemment.

Au sujet des nouveaux propriétaires, Pierre Ferracci l’assure : il ne connaissait pas personnellement la famille Arnault avant le printemps, au début des négociations. Avec son groupe Alpha, il avait pourtant eu à gérer, dans les années 2000, deux dossiers sensibles liés à LVMH. D’abord, la fermeture contestée de la Samaritaine, où son cabinet Secafi avait été très critiqué par des salariés l’accusant d’avoir joué le jeu de la direction. Ensuite, le rachat des Echos par Bernard Arnault.

Antoine Arnault confirme n’avoir, avant le printemps 2024, que « croisé » le président du PFC « dans différentes réceptions ou événements liés à nos vies professionnelles ». Mais, depuis le printemps, ils ont appris à se connaître et à s’apprécier. Le patron de Berluti salue des négociations menées « avec une grande intelligence et une grande patience ». « Après, nuance le nouveau propriétaire du Paris FC, c’est quelqu’un qui a aussi ses idées et qui n’en démord pas, et va négocier de manière extrêmement déterminée. Ce n’est pas un enfant de chœur, Pierre Ferracci. » C’est dit comme un compliment.

Le casse-tête du stade

Ces dernières semaines, Antoine Arnault, habitué aux tribunes VIP du Parc des Princes, a assisté à des matchs de son nouveau club. Même si l’enceinte du Paris FC n’a pas de loges, il a pu y côtoyer du beau monde. « Pierre Ferracci est quelqu’un qui a une très grande intelligence des gens et qui arrive à se les mettre dans la poche, jauge-t-il. Quand je vais à Charléty et que je croise aussi bien Philippe Martinez que Pascal Obispo… Il réussit à réunir des gens d’univers très différents et à les faire dialoguer. Dieu merci, avec Martinez, ce n’est pour l’instant que pour parler foot ! »

Cette année, Pierre Ferracci a promis de passer la main à la présidence du groupe Alpha. D’ici à l’automne, il souhaite créer un fonds de dotation pour soutenir des actions liées à « l’éducation des tout-petits », un sujet cher à ce fils d’instits. Sa casquette de président du Paris FC, pour trois ans encore, devrait bien l’occuper.

Les chantiers ne manquent pas. Il y a cette montée en Ligue 1, dont il rêve depuis des années. L’agrandissement du centre d’entraînement, à Orly, qui paraît sous-dimensionné au vu des ambitions des nouveaux propriétaires. Et puis, surtout, le casse-tête du stade. Charléty, avec sa piste d’athlétisme et ses tribunes ouvertes aux quatre vents, n’est pas l’écrin rêvé. Il faudrait le réaménager, si la Ville de Paris l’accepte. Afin de pouvoir accueillir les célébrités qui devraient se presser en tribunes, pour voir jouer le club alliant désormais le savoir-faire du président Ferracci à l’argent des Arnault.

U.S. natural-gas exporter Venture Global plans to go public at an auspicious time for the LNG industry, cementing the firm’s meteoric rise

Gas exporter Venture Global is planning what would be the energy industry’s largest initial public offering in more than a decade on the heels of Donald Trump’s inauguration. The timing couldn’t be better.

The Arlington, Va.,-based firm, which chills natural gas into liquid to ship overseas, said in a regulatory filing last week that it hopes to raise up to $2.3 billion from an IPO. The issuance would peg the LNG company’s value at as much as $110 billion—more than the market capitalization of British oil giant BP.

The listing on the New York Stock Exchange could take place this week, said people familiar with the matter, and planning for it began before the election. It is sure to attract investors seeking to capitalize on Trump’s pro-oil-and-gas agenda.

After his swearing-in Monday, Trump plans to take a spate of executive actions to boost the fossil-fuel industry, including lifting a freeze on new LNG exports that President Biden imposed last year. Reversing the ban would free Venture Global’s hands to continue a building spree to produce more LNG in Louisiana, where it already runs two huge terminals.

“Brilliant timing on their end,” said Timm Schneider, a veteran energy analyst. “Everything’s kind of falling into place for them.”

Venture Global has also made inroads with the new administration. Chief Executive Michael Sabel attended an April meeting of oil and gas bosses at Mar-a-Lago, and the company employs former Trump officials. The company is a top donor to Trump’s presidential inauguration with a $1 million donation, according to people familiar with the matter.

The IPO is an eye-catching public entrance for Venture Global, a scrappy startup just a few years ago. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the company sold dozens of LNG cargoes to gas-starved Europe, which allowed it to leapfrog rivals, pocket billions of dollars and invest in new terminals.

Venture Global’s meteoric rise has been clouded by controversy. BP, Shell and other early customers who contracted for Venture Global’s LNG have accused the company of enriching itself at their expense by withholding the fuel—and instead selling it on the spot market. The companies, which are in some cases both customers and competitors of Venture Global, are pursuing billions of dollars through arbitration.

Venture Global has said the accusations are meritless.

In a 2023 Wall Street Journal interview, Sabel said the company was a “historically significant disrupter,” which made it a target for rivals unable to keep up. “We are so busy executing, and winning, and being successful.”

Meteoric rise

Venture Global will become the second-biggest LNG exporter in the U.S. after Cheniere Energy once its second facility fully comes online. It plans three more terminals on the Gulf Coast, which, if built, would help its goal to supplant Qatar as the world’s top exporter of the fuel.

Venture Global potentially becoming a $110 billion public company is a surprise to many in the energy industry. Sabel, a former investment banker, and co-founder Robert Pender, an energy lawyer, roamed energy conferences for years promising to build facilities faster and cheaper than established rivals.

The two men founded the firm in 2013 with a different business model from the rest of the industry. Their idea was to combine midsize, prefabricated LNG units into a new export terminal. They promised it would be cheaper and faster than competitors, which typically built massive refrigeration units on-site.

The entrepreneurs dangled rock-bottom fees for LNG, landing mammoth clients such as Shell. Others followed, including BP, Spanish refiner Repsol, Portugal’s Galp and Polish state energy company PGNiG, and they signed long-term contracts that allowed Venture Global to get loans for the projects.

A turning point came after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and gas prices soared as Europeans scrambled for alternatives to Russian energy. By then, Venture Global’s first plant was operating in a marshy swath of Louisiana, and the company sold cargoes to eager buyers. But it didn’t supply its early customers, saying it wasn’t bound to do so because the plant wasn’t fully operational.

While Shell, BP and others seethed, Venture Global raked in huge profits. The company said in IPO filings that it generated almost $7 billion in net income in 2022 and 2023 combined. Venture Global also said that it is in arbitration proceedings with seven early customers.

Venture Global has said customers knew from the beginning there would be an extended period to get the plant fully operational. Selling cargoes to others during that period before fulfilling long-term contracts was a part of its business plan, the company said.

Risks for investors

The controversy surrounding its handling of customers poses a challenge for Venture Global, which needs to attract new clients to build future projects, said Louis Lazzara, a senior research analyst at investment fund Energy Income Partners.

Another obstacle arose when Biden paused approvals on new LNG plants last year, stalling growth prospects and infuriating the industry. Trump’s fossil-fuel donors made it clear to him that a priority was lifting the pause and speeding up permitting for new export facilities. Trump is expected to deliver on that.

Reversing the moratorium will bolster the industry, but there are other risks for Venture Global. Investors may need to weigh a potential peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, which could bring Russian gas flows back to Europe and dent demand for U.S. LNG. A potential rise in domestic natural-gas prices as electricity demand climbs—caused in part by the rise of artificial intelligence and data centers—could eat into Venture Global’s profits, Lazzara said.

And depending on the success of Venture Global’s listing, other privately held LNG companies could be inspired to follow the same path, said Mark Bononi, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie.

“Venture Global’s IPO reflects the natural progression and evolution of a rapidly growing and increasingly capital-hungry industry,” he said.

The president-elect’s team briefed senior Republican leaders about the plans on Sunday

President-elect Donald Trump is readying a blitz of executive orders that he plans to issue just hours after he is sworn into office, wielding his executive authority on day one to push forward his top priorities related to the border, energy and government reform.

The breadth of the orders, which would make major changes to immigration, energy and government hiring policies, illustrates the urgency with which Trump and his team plan to launch into an ambitious agenda.

Stephen Miller, Trump’s incoming White House deputy chief of staff for policy, briefed a small number of senior GOP leaders Sunday afternoon about the administration’s plans. They include declaring a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border, rescinding Biden administration directives on diversity, equity and inclusion and unwinding President Biden’s limits on drilling offshore and on federal land, Miller told the lawmakers, according to Capitol Hill Republicans briefed on the call.

Part of Trump’s efforts to overhaul the federal government will be aimed at rewriting hiring rules for employees and creating a new process for firing others. The president-elect will again sign an executive order, known as Schedule F, which he issued in October 2020 to eliminate job protections for federal workers, the Republicans said. The Biden administration had previously blocked the order.

Trump’s transition team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The orders, which bypass Congress, are expected to be “border heavy” and focus on undoing the executive orders issued by Biden when he first came to office in 2021, according to a Republican familiar with the planning.

Trump is expected to declare a national emergency on the border, Republicans briefed on the call said, which would in turn unlock additional Pentagon funding and assets to help address the matter. He is also expected to order troops to help build more infrastructure at the border. The president-elect will direct his administration to relaunch a policy known as Remain in Mexico, which requires migrants seeking asylum at the southern border to live in northern Mexican border cities during their U.S. court proceedings.

Trump also plans to designate cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and restrict entry to the U.S., likely through a travel ban. It couldn’t immediately be learned how any travel ban might work.

Besides the border-focused immigration orders, Trump’s advisers have also been planning immigration raids in several major cities during the first few days of the new administration, according to people familiar with the discussion. The cities that are expected to be targeted include Chicago, Boston, Washington, D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, Denver, New York and San Antonio. The scale of the raids and the number of cities that will see increased enforcement activity remains in flux.

Miller also discussed what he called an “energy-omnibus,” with the Trump aide describing a wide-ranging directive that would declare a national energy emergency, according to one of the Republicans on the call. Trump would also move to terminate Biden-era restrictions on drilling and policies promoting electric vehicles, while calling for cutting spending on efforts to address climate change.

Tax breaks for corporate sponsors can benefit the creative sector at a time of dwindling public funds

The UK government’s announcement last week of £60mn to support the creative industries is very welcome, but what if there was another untapped source of money to drive economic growth? The UK’s creative industries are vital to the economy. Valued at £124bn, they are worth more than the life sciences, aerospace and automotive industries combined. Arts and culture alone contribute an impressive £34.6bn.

Beyond the economic value, the subsidised arts sector nurtures creative and technical talent and creates new intellectual property. Award-winning creators like Sam Mendes, Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Stephen Daldry honed their craft in the subsidised sector before generating billions through global franchises like James Bond and The Crown.

Yet this critical element of our creative ecosystem is in crisis. According to a 2024 report by the University of Warwick and Campaign for the Arts, the government’s core cultural funding dropped by 18 per cent between 2009 and 2023. Arts Council England funding also decreased by 18 per cent, and local government funding in England fell by 48 per cent. A 2023 analysis of 2,800 arts organisations showed a combined deficit of £117.8mn — the worst financial position in five years.

A renewed funding model is needed — with state investment at its heart. One compelling solution could lie in France’s Aillagon law.

Introduced in 2003 by then culture minister Jean-Jacques Aillagon, this policy incentivises corporate philanthropy for arts and charities by offering a 60 per cent tax relief on donations, capped at 0.5 per cent of a company’s annual turnover. The law has transformed France’s cultural funding, with the overall volume of declared patronage increasing from €1bn in 2004 to nearly €4bn in 2018.

Corporate philanthropy is now embedded in France’s creative ecosystem. In 2017 the Louvre was generating €12mn annually from the Aillagon law. Versailles raised €10mn and the Centre Pompidou €5mn. Most strikingly, in 2019, France raised €850mn within 72 hours to rebuild Notre-Dame cathedral thanks to corporate generosity nurtured by the Aillagon law. 

By contrast, the UK’s corporate sector remains an untapped resource for arts funding. Over the past decade, FTSE 100 charitable donations fell by 34 per cent. True, there are some visionary, committed sponsors of the arts. But 70 per cent of commercial sponsorship goes to sports, not the arts.

A UK version of the Aillagon law could catalyse private investment in the arts. By offering tax incentives for corporate donors, the government could encourage the business sector to step in where public funding falls short.

Critics of the Aillagon law argue that generous tax breaks shift a lot of the burden of donations on to taxpayers. However, this overlooks the broader benefits. A thriving cultural sector develops new intellectual property and supports jobs, tourism and innovation, while fostering community cohesion and national identity.

This isn’t just about the money. It’s about stimulating collaboration between culture and commerce — much needed, given current arts sponsorship protests, which risk making sponsors think twice about aligning with the arts.

France’s Aillagon law demonstrates how visionary policy can transform cultural funding. It’s more than a fiscal mechanism. It’s a catalyst for cultural vitality and corporate engagement, while reducing reliance on dwindling public funds.

Given the state of the nation’s finances, the UK government must match its commitment to support the arts with bold action. Adopting a French-style policy could win the Labour government a place in history for securing the future of the UK’s arts sector — and driving economic growth.