ATHENS — Greece’s parliament is expected to pass double-edged legislation on Wednesday that will help recruit tens of thousands more South Asian workers, while simultaneously penalizing migrants that the government says have entered the country illegally. Greece’s right-wing administration seeks to style itself as tough on migration but needs to pass Wednesday’s bill thanks to a crippling labor shortfall in vital sectors such as tourism, construction and agriculture. The central idea of the new legislation is to simplify bringing in workers through recruitment schemes agreed with countries such as India, Bangladesh and Egypt. There will be a special “fast track” for big public-works projects. The New Democracy government knows, however, that these measures to recruit more foreign workers will play badly with some core supporters. For that reason the bill includes strong measures against immigrants who have already entered Greece illegally, and also pledges to clamp down on the non-government organizations helping migrants. “We need workers, but we are tough on illegal immigration,” Greece’s Migration Minister Thanos Plevris told ERT television. The migration tensions in Greece reflect the extent to which it remains a hot button issue across Europe, even though numbers have dropped significantly since the massive flows of 2015, when the Greek Aegean islands were one of the main points of arrival. More than 80,000 positions for immigrants have been approved by the Greek state annually over the past two years. There are no official figures on labor shortages, but studies from industry associations indicate the country’s needs are more than double the state-approved number of spots, and that only half of those positions are filled. The migration bill is expected to pass because the government holds a majority in parliament. Opposition parties have condemned it, saying it ignores the need to integrate the migrants already in Greece and adopts the rhetoric of the far right. Under the new legislation, migrants who entered the country illegally will have no opportunity to acquire legal status. The bill also abolishes a provision granting residence permits to unaccompanied minors once they turn 18, provided they attend school in Greece. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal, and when they are located they will be arrested, imprisoned for two to five years and repatriated,” Plevris told lawmakers. Human-rights groups also oppose the legislation, which they say criminalizes humanitarian NGOs by explicitly linking their migration-related activities to serious crimes.  The bill envisages severe penalties such as mandatory prison terms of at least 10 years and heavy fines for assisting irregular entry, providing transport for illegal migration, or helping those migrants stay. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal,” Thanos Plevris told lawmakers. | Orestis Panagiotou/EPA Wednesday’s legislation also grants the migration minister broad powers to deregister NGOs based solely on criminal charges against one member, and will allow residence permits to be revoked on the basis of suspicion alone — undermining the presumption of innocence. Greece’s national ombudsman has expressed serious concerns about the bill, arguing that punishing people for entering the country illegally contravenes international conventions on the treatment of refugees. Lefteris Papagiannakis, director of the Greek Council for Refugees, was equally damning. “This binary political approach follows the global hostile and racist policy around migration,” he said.

BRUSSELS — The European Union is pressing ahead with talks to grant United States border authorities unprecedented access to Europeans’ data, despite growing concerns about American surveillance. The European Commission is brokering a deal to exchange information about travelers, including fingerprints and law enforcement records, so the U.S. can determine if they “pose a risk to public security or public order,” according to official documents. Commission officials flew to Washington last week for the first round of negotiations, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Trump administration’s request for deeper access comes after the U.S. border agency in December proposed reviewing five years of social media history. Talks are happening as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service is under heavy scrutiny for its use of surveillance technology against protesters in cities such as Minneapolis. The negotiations should be “put on hold” until the security and privacy of citizens in the EU and U.S. can be guaranteed, liberal European Parliament member Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle said in an interview. Romain Lanneau, a legal researcher with surveillance watchdog Statewatch, said police databases in Europe could contain information on anyone from protesters to journalists who might be considered a “threat,” and that — under the deal being discussed — this information would be at the fingertips of U.S. border authorities who could refuse those people entry to the United States or even detain them. European regulators are “very cautiously looking at what’s happening in the United States,” Wojciech Wiewiórowski, the EU’s in-house data protection supervisor, told POLITICO. Europe “has to be careful” about how it allows the data of Europeans to flow to the U.S., he said.  Hermida-van der Walle in January co-signed a letter by six prominent lawmakers calling on the Commission to stand down given the “current geopolitical context,” despite Washington’s admonition that failure to reach a deal will mean Europeans lose access to its visa waiver program. UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS The U.S. is seeking access to information including biometric data such as fingerprints that is stored on national databases in European countries, according to an explanatory note sent to national experts. The data would be used to “address irregular migration and to prevent, detect, and combat serious crime and terrorist offences,” the note said. In an earlier opinion on the deal, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) — a watchdog that advises the Commission on privacy policies — noted the deal would be the first of its kind to enable “large-scale sharing of personal data … for the purpose of border and immigration control” with a non-EU country. The Commission would negotiate a framework deal that would serve as a template for bilateral agreements called Enhanced Border Security Partnerships (EBSPs), which national governments agree with Washington. EU countries in December signed off on the Commission’s request to start talks with the U.S. Washington is pressuring its EU counterparts by imposing a deadline for the bilateral deals to be agreed by the end of 2026. If countries fail to reach a deal with the U.S. they risk being cut from the latter’s visa waiver program. The U.S has made it mandatory for all countries that are part of the visa waiver program to have an EBSP in place. “The pressure which the United States is extorting on our member states, the threats that if you don’t agree with this we will cancel your access to the visa waiver program, that is an element of blackmail that we cannot let go,” Hermida-van der Walle said. The EDPS watchdog has cautioned that the scope of data sharing should be as narrow as possible, with clear justifications for every query; transparency around how the data is used; and judicial redress available in the U.S. for any person. Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert emphasised at a recent press briefing that the framework being negotiated will involve “clear and robust safeguards on data protection,” and will ensure “a non-systematic nature of the information exchange and that the exchange is limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve the objectives of this cooperation.”  US PRIVACY UNDER PRESSURE Access to the data is the latest issue putting pressure on a troubled relationship between the U.S. and the EU on data privacy. Since whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed U.S. mass surveillance practices affecting Europeans, the EU has tightened controls on how Washington handles Europeans’ data. Since the return of Donald Trump as president last year, officials and rights groups have deplored a move by the U.S. administration to gut a key privacy watchdog tasked with overseeing privacy safeguards in place to protect Europeans. The Trump administration has also been ramping up mass surveillance of citizens by federal agencies like ICE, including through contracts with Israeli spyware company Paragon, surveillance giant Palantir and other firms. Capgemini, a prominent French IT firm, on Sunday said it was selling off its American activities after it faced political backlash from the French government that its software was being used by ICE authorities. Civil rights groups, lawmakers and other watchdogs fear the new EU-U.S. data sharing deals would add to backsliding on privacy rights.    “The current initiatives are being presented as toward counter-terrorism, but a lot of them are actually adopted for the chilling effect [on political activism],” Statewatch’s Lanneau said. Hermida-van der Walle, the liberal lawmaker, warned: “If people have to go to the United States, if it’s not a choice but something that they have do, there is a risk of self-censoring.”  “This comes from an administration who claims to be the biggest defender of free speech. What they’re doing with their actions is curtailing the possibility of people to express themselves freely, because otherwise they might not get access into the country,” she said.

A federal judge has rejected a bid by state and local officials in Minnesota to end Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s massive deployment of thousands of federal agents to aggressively enforce immigration laws. In a ruling Saturday, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez found strong evidence that the ongoing federal operation “has had, and will likely continue to have, profound and even heartbreaking, consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities, and Minnesotans.” “There is evidence that ICE and CBP agents have engaged in racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other harmful actions,” Menendez said, adding that the operation has disrupted daily life for Minnesotans — harming school attendance, forcing police overtime work and straining emergency services. She also said there were signs the Trump administration was using the surge to force the state to change its immigration policies — pointing to a list of policy demands by Attorney General Pam Bondi and similar comments by White House immigration czar Tom Homan. But the Biden-appointed judge said state officials’ arguments that the state was being punished or unfairly treated by the federal government were insufficient to justify blocking the surge altogether. And in a 30-page opinion, the judge said she was “particularly reluctant to take a side in the debate about the purpose behind Operation Metro Surge.” The surge has involved about 3,000 federal officers, a size roughly triple that of the local police forces in Minneapolis and St. Paul. However, Menendez said it was difficult to assess how large or onerous a federal law enforcement presence could be before it amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion on state authority. “There is no clear way for the Court to determine at what point Defendants’ alleged unlawful actions … becomes (sic) so problematic that they amount to unconstitutional coercion and an infringement on Minnesota’s state sovereignty,” she wrote, later adding that there is “no precedent for a court to micromanage such decisions.” Menendez said her decision was strongly influenced by a federal appeals court’s ruling last week that blocked an order she issued reining in the tactics Homeland Security officials could use against peaceful protesters opposing the federal operation. She noted that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted her order in that separate lawsuit even though it was much more limited than the sweeping relief the state and cities sought. “If that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here — halting the entire operation — certainly would,” the judge said in her Saturday ruling. Attorney General Pam Bondi on X called the decision “another HUGE” win for the Justice Department in its Minnesota crackdown and noted that it came from a judge appointed by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat. “Neither sanctuary policies nor meritless litigation will stop the Trump Administration from enforcing federal law in Minnesota,” she wrote. Minneapolis has been rocked in recent weeks by the killings of two protesters by federal immigration enforcement, triggering public outcry and grief – and souring many Americans on the president’s deportation agenda. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have both called for federal agents to leave the city as the chaos has only intensified in recent weeks. “This federal occupation of Minnesota long ago stopped being a matter of immigration enforcement,” Walz said at a press conference last week after two Customs and Border Patrol agents shot and killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti. “It’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of our state. And today, that campaign claimed another life. I’ve seen the videos from several angles. And it’s sickening.” Backlash from Pretti’s killing has prompted Trump to pull back on elements of the Minneapolis operation. Two CBP agents involved in the shooting were placed on administrative leave. CBP Commander Greg Bovino was sidelined from his post in Minnesota, with the White House sending border czar Tom Homan to the state in an effort to calm tensions. Officials also said some federal agents involved in the surge were cycling out of state, but leaders were vague about whether the size of the overall operation was being scaled back. “I don’t think it’s a pullback,” Trump told Fox News on Tuesday. “It’s a little bit of a change.”

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

The Senate passed a compromise spending package Friday, clearing a path for Congress to avert a lengthy government shutdown. The 71-29 vote came a day after Senate Democrats and President Donald Trump struck a deal to attach two weeks of Homeland Security funding to five spending bills that will fund the Pentagon, State Department and many other agencies until Sept. 30. Only five of 53 Republicans voted against it after Trump publicly urged lawmakers Thursday to approve the legislation. Democrats were split, with 24 of 47 caucus members opposing the package. The Senate’s vote won’t avert a partial shutdown that will start early Saturday morning since House lawmakers are out of town and not scheduled to return until Monday. During a private call with House Republicans Friday, Speaker Mike Johnson said the likeliest route to House passage would be bringing the package up under a fast-track process Monday evening. That would require a two-thirds majority — and a significant number of Democratic votes. The $1.2 trillion package could face challenges in the House, especially from conservative hard-liners who have said they would vote against any Senate changes to what the House already passed. Many House Democrats are also wary of stopgap funding for DHS, which would keep ICE and Border Patrol funded at current levels without immediate new restrictions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he had been in constant contact with Johnson “for better or worse” about getting the funding deal through the House, predicting that the Louisiana Republican is “prepared to do everything he can as quickly as possible.” “Hopefully things go well over there,” he added. If the Trump-blessed deal ultimately gets signed into law, Congress will have approved more than 95 percent of federal funding — leaving only a full-year DHS bill on its to-do list. Congress has already funded several agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs and Justice. “These are fiscally responsible bills that reflect months of hard work and deliberation from members on both parties and both sides of the Capitol,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said before the final vote. The Office of Management and Budget has issued shutdown guidance for agencies not already funded, which include furloughs of some personnel. Republicans agreeing to strip out the full-year DHS bill and replace it with a two-week patch is a major win for Democrats. They quickly unified behind a demand to split off and renegotiate immigration enforcement funding after federal agents deployed to Minnesota fatally shot 37-year-old U.S. citizen Alex Pretti last week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who helped negotiate the final deal, took a victory lap after the vote, saying “the agreement we reached today did exactly what Democrats wanted.” But Democrats will still need to negotiate with the White House and congressional Republicans about what, if any, policy changes they are willing to codify into law as part of a long-term bill. Republicans are open to some changes, including requiring independent investigations. But they’ve already dismissed some of Democrats’ main demands, including requiring judicial warrants for immigration arrests. “I want my Republican colleagues to listen closely: Senate Democrats will not support a DHS bill unless it reins in ICE and ends the violence,” Schumer said. “We will know soon enough if your colleagues understand the stakes.” Republicans have demands of their own, and many believe the most likely outcome is that another DHS patch will be needed. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), for instance, wants a future vote on legislation barring federal funding for cities that don’t comply with federal immigration laws. Other Republicans and the White House have pointed to it as a key issue in the upcoming negotiations. “I am demanding that my solution to fixing sanctuary cities at least have a vote. You’re going to put ideas on the floor to make ICE better? I want to put an idea on the floor to get to the root cause of the problem,” Graham said. The Senate vote caps off a days-long sprint to avoid a second lengthy shutdown in the span of four months. Senate Democrats and Trump said Thursday they had a deal, only for it to run into a snag when Graham delayed a quick vote as he fumed over a provision in the bill, first reported by POLITICO, related to former special counsel Jack Smith’s now-defunct investigation targeting Trump. Senate leaders ultimately got the agreement back on track Friday afternoon by offering votes on seven changes to the bill, all of which failed. The Senate defeated proposals to cut refugee assistance, strip out all earmarks from the package and redirect funding for ICE to Medicaid, among others. Graham raged against the House’s move to overturn a law passed last year allowing senators to sue for up to $500,000 per incident if their data had been used in former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the 2020 election. But he backed off his threats to hold up the bill after announcing that leaders had agreed to support a future vote on the matter. “You jammed me,” Graham said on the floor Friday. “Speaker Johnson, I won’t forget this.” Meredith Lee Hill and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

For a year, federal judges grappling with President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda have looked askance at his administration, warning of potential or, in rarer cases, outright violations of their orders. But in recent weeks, that drumbeat of subtle alarm has metastasized into a full-blown clarion call by judges across the country, who are now openly castigating what they say are systematic legal and constitutional abuses by the administration. “There has been an undeniable move by the Government in the past month to defy court orders or at least to stretch the legal process to the breaking point in an attempt to deny noncitizens their due process rights,” warned U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, a Minnesota-based Clinton appointee. His docket has been inundated as a result of Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s large-scale deportation campaign in the Twin Cities. The object of judges’ frustration has routinely been Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the vanguard of Trump’s push to round up and expel millions of noncitizens as quickly as possible. The agency’s unprecedented strategy to mass detain people while their deportation proceedings are pending has flooded the courts with tens of thousands of emergency lawsuits and resulted in a breathtaking rejection by hundreds of judges. “ICE is not a law unto itself,” Judge Patrick Schiltz, the chief judge on Minnesota’s federal bench, said Wednesday in a ruling describing staggering defiance by ICE to judges’ orders — particularly ones requiring the release of detained immigrants. He estimated, conservatively, that the agency had violated court orders by Minnesota judges 96 times this month alone. Though the national focus has been on Minnesota, judges in other states have grown exasperated as well: — Judge Christine O’Hearn, a Biden appointee in New Jersey, blasted the administration’s defiance of her order to release a man from ICE custody without any conditions, noting that they instead required him to submit to electronic monitoring. “Respondents blatantly disregarded this Court’s Order,” O’Hearn wrote in a Tuesday order. “This was not a misunderstanding or lack of clarity; it was knowing and purposeful,” she added. — Judge Roy Dalton, a Florida-based Obama appointee, threatened sanctions against Trump administration attorneys for what he says was presenting misleading arguments in support of the administration’s deportation policies. “Don’t hide the ball. Don’t ignore the overwhelming weight of persuasive authority as if it won’t be found. And don’t send a sacrificial lamb to stand before this Court with a fistful of cases that don’t apply and no cogent argument for why they should,” he wrote in a Monday ruling. — Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee in Rhode Island, ruled Tuesday that the administration defied her orders regarding the location of an ICE detainee, who was moved to a facility in Massachusetts that McElroy had deemed “wholly unsuitable.” “It seems clear that the Court can conclude that the [administration] willfully violated two of this Court’s orders and willfully misrepresented facts to the Court,” McElroy wrote. — Judge Angel Kelley, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, said ICE moved a Salvadoran woman out of Maine without warning and in violation of an order to keep her in place. That relocation caused the woman to miss her hearing to seek protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where she said she feared domestic abuse. “The Court notes that ICE signing its own permission slip, citing its own operational needs as reason for the transfer, offers little comfort or justification for ignoring a Federal Court Order,” Kelley wrote Wednesday. — Judge Sunshine Sykes, a Biden appointee in Los Angeles, threatened to hold administration officials in contempt for what she labeled “continued defiance” of her order providing class action relief to immigrants targeted for detention. — Judge Donovan Frank, a Clinton appointee in Minnesota, described a “deeply concerning” practice by ICE to race detainees to states with more favorable judges, which he said “generally suggest that ICE is attempting to hide the location of detainees.” Throughout the first year of Trump’s second term, there have been high-profile examples in which judges have accused ICE and the Department of Homeland Security of violating court orders — from Judge James Boasberg’s command in March to retain custody of 137 Venezuelans shipped to El Salvador without due process, to Judge Paula Xinis’ April order for the administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia after his illegal deportation. But the sheer volume of violations judges are now describing reflects an intensification of the mass deportation effort and a system ill-prepared to handle the influx. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson responded to questions about the complaints from judges by noting Schiltz backed off an initial plan to have ICE’s director, Todd Lyons, appear for a potential contempt proceeding. “If DHS’s behavior was so vile, why dismiss the order to appear?” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, labeling Schiltz — a two-time clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — an “activist judge.”“DHS will continue to enforce the laws of the United States within all applicable constitutional guidelines. We will not be deterred by activists either in the streets or on the bench,” she added. The surge in violations of court orders has been accompanied by signs that the Justice Department — like the court system — is simply overwhelmed by the volume of emergency cases brought by people detained in the mass deportation push. It’s led to mistakes, missed deadlines and even more frustration from judges, who themselves are buckling under the caseload. Ana Voss, the top civil litigator in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, apologized to U.S. District Judge Jerry Blackwell last week, noting that in the crush of cases her office has handled recently, she failed to keep the court updated on the location of a man the judge had ordered to be returned to Minnesota from Texas. “I have spent considerable time on this and other cases related to transfer and return issues over the past 3 days,” Voss said. Notably, Schiltz singled out Voss and her office for praise when he initially criticized ICE for its legal violations. He said the career prosecutors “have struggled mightily” to comply with court orders despite their leadership’s failure “to provide them with adequate resources.” When he itemized the violations Wednesday, Schiltz said it was likely ICE had violated more court orders in January than some agencies had in their entire existence. “This list,” he said, “should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law. “

President Donald Trump rose to power on his immigration agenda. Now, it’s threatening to box him in. After months of aggressive enforcement actions meant to telegraph strength on one of the Republican Party’s signature issues, the White House has had to backtrack in the face of Americans’ backlash to its approach — particularly after two protesters were killed by federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis. But the calculus that forced the Trump administration to change course is a double-edged sword: If the administration appears to ease up on its maximalist stance against illegal immigration, it risks leaving its hardcore MAGA base disenchanted at a moment when Republicans can’t afford to lose support. And if it doesn’t, it risks alienating moderate Republicans, independents, young voters and Latinos who support the administration’s immigration enforcement in theory but dislike how it’s being executed. “I worry because if we lose the agenda, we’re done — and people don’t fully appreciate how big of an issue this is,” said Sean Spicer, Trump’s former press secretary. “When you have a two-seat majority in the House or a two- or three-seat majority in the Senate, you’re on a razor’s edge. To not acknowledge that is ridiculous.” For Trump, a midterms rout means the last two years of his administration will be eaten up by Democratic stonewalling, investigations and likely impeachment inquiries, rather than his own agenda — a situation the administration desperately wants to avoid. The result is a rare moment of vulnerability on Trump’s strongest issue, one that has exposed fault lines inside the Republican Party, sharpened Democratic attacks, and forced the White House into a defensive crouch it never expected to take. Some Trump allies insist the GOP shouldn’t be scared of their best issue, blaming Democrats for putting them on the back foot. “This has been President Trump’s area of greatest success,” said Trump pollster John McLaughlin. “You’re looking at the Republicans be defensive on something they shouldn’t be defensive about.” A recent POLITICO poll underscores the administration’s delicate balancing act: 1 in 5 voters who backed the president in 2024 say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, and more than 1 in 3 Trump voters say that while they support the goals of his mass deportation campaign, they disapprove of the way he is implementing it. The administration this week struggled to manage the political fallout from demonstrator Alex Pretti’s killing, where even typically loyal Republicans criticized the president and others called for the ousting of his top officials, namely Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The White House softened its hardline rhetoric, and Trump shifted his personnel in charge of Minneapolis operations, sending border czar Tom Homan to the state to deescalate tensions on the ground. A subdued Homan told reporters Thursday that he had “productive” conversations with state and local Democrats and that federal agents’ operations would be more targeted moving forward. He vowed to stick by the administration’s mission, but said he hopes to reduce Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence in the city if federal officials get access to state jails. The president “doesn’t want to be dealing with clashes between protesters and federal agents on the ground in Minnesota,” said one person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If Trump was more invested in the outcome of this, he would have sent in the National Guard. He would declare martial law. He would be more aggressive.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, in a statement, said that the administration is always looking for “the most effective way” to implement what it sees as a mandate from voters to carry out mass deportations. “Our focus remains the same: prioritizing violent criminal illegal aliens while also enforcing the law — anyone who is in the country illegally is eligible to be deported,” she said, adding that includes “the President’s continued calls for local Democrat leaders to work with the Administration to remove illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from their communities.” Some Trump allies, fearful the aggressive tactics will isolate crucial swing voters in November, have argued that Republicans have to keep the focus on criminal arrests, public safety and the Trump administration’s success in securing the southern border, which are more popular with voters across the board. But immigration hawks in the Republican Party have grown increasingly apoplectic over the administration’s moves this week, including an apparent openness to compromise with Democrats on policies to boost the oversight of federal immigration officers. They argue the administration is paying too much attention to cable news coverage and donor anxiety and not enough to the voters who propelled Trump back into office. “The upshot of the lame duck second Trump term was supposed to be that he was going to get things done regardless of the pressure from consultants, pollsters and left-wing Republicans. That doesn’t seem to be happening and it’s disappointing,” said Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, a conservative group. “I’m dumbfounded that CNN coverage seems to have more influence over the White House’s immigration enforcement agenda than the base that stood by Trump through everything over the last decade.” Even so, some of the more hardline elements of the president’s base acknowledge that the splashy optics of the administration’s immigration enforcement actions have introduced a vulnerability. “The big muscular show of force — you invite too much confrontation,” said a second person close to the White House, also granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Let’s try to be quieter about it but deport just as many people. Be a little sneakier. Don’t have the flexing and the machismo part of it. There’s a certain element of that that’s cool but as much as we can, why can’t we be stealthy and pop up all over Minnesota?” “We were almost provoking the reaction,” the person added. “I’m all for the smartest tactics as long as the end result is as many deportations as possible.” But the person warned that any perception of backtracking could depress a base already uneasy about the economy. “Our base is generally not wealthy and they’re not doing well,” the person said. “They’re struggling. If you take away immigration — if they don’t believe he means it — holy cow, that’s not good.”

Most Europeans want their governments to have more control over their borders to tackle migration, polling across 23 EU countries shows. Seventy-one percent of respondents agreed that “the European Union needs to allow member states much greater control of their own borders, so that countries can better manage immigration,” according to a survey of 11,714 people across Europe that was carried out by strategic communications firm FGS Global and shared exclusively with POLITICO. The findings highlight countries’ skepticism of the EU’s migration coordination, an area long defined by bickering and finger-pointing, at a time when Brussels is working on major reforms to bolster protection of the bloc’s external borders and increase support for countries that receive the bulk of arrivals.  Yet a move away from EU-level coordination and toward national border control could undermine Europe’s flagship passport-free travel zone, the Schengen area. Countries in the Schengen area — 25 of which are in the EU, while four aren’t — have committed to remove checks on internal borders. While it is possible to temporarily reintroduce controls as a last-resort response to a serious threat, that’s supposed to be limited to six-month periods, which can only be extended to up to two years. Since 2025, 12 EU governments have notified the European Commission they are imposing temporary border controls, eight of which listed migration as a motive for doing so. Some countries have in practice had border checks in place for years. EU ministers met in Cyprus last week to hash out how to halt migration across the EU’s internal borders to protect Schengen. The continued existence of the check-free travel zone “relies on trust and shared responsibility,” Cypriot Justice Minister Costas Fytiris said. That question of shared responsibility has long haunted EU migration debates, which weigh the pressure on countries that receive the bulk of arriving migrants, such as Italy and Greece, against the impact on countries elsewhere in the bloc as a result of secondary movements, i.e. onward travel from the EU country where migrants first arrive. “It’s all about responsibility on the one hand, from those countries that are at the external border. But also solidarity on the other side; from the member states which are affected by secondary movements,” Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner told POLITICO. Yet the challenge of finding an EU-level answer to immigration management remains. Throughout preparations for the first so-called solidarity pool, a framework that seeks to better share the migration burden among EU countries, governments have disagreed about who owes whom what. Support for “frontline” states such as Italy and Greece can come in the form of financial contributions or relocations — with several countries, including Belgium and Sweden, already ruling out relocations. Belgium’s Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt told POLITICO that Belgium’s initial solidarity contribution had already been lowered to €12.9 million and that the country is in talks with Italy and Greece to figure out “how we can account for historical [secondary] movements and see whether we can further lower that amount,” she said. With many countries now focused on the migratory implications of the EU’s signature borderless travel area, Luxembourg has become something of a lone Schengen crusader. The country “regrets” that the debates about Europe’s free-travel area and migration have become so intertwined, Home Affairs Minister Léon Gloden told POLITICO. “Schengen is much more than just migration.” Secondary movements aren’t a Schengen problem, he argued — they only mean that the bloc needs to cooperate better and strengthen controls on its external borders. “The illegal migration does not take place between Luxembourg and Germany,” Gloden said. The small country has lodged a complaint against migration-linked checks on Germany’s borders, which have landed the thousands of commuters that enter Luxembourg on a daily basis in major traffic jams. When the Schengen zone was built, it was “not linked to migration … [It] should facilitate the free movement of people, not hinder [it],” he said. FGS interviewed 11,714 adults from 23 European Union countries between Nov. 10 and Nov. 23, 2025. A minimum of 500 interviews were conducted in each of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Interviews were conducted online and the data was weighted to be nationally representative of each country by gender, age, income, region and socio-economic group. Data from a nationally representative poll of 500 adults is accurate to a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percent at 95 percent confidence.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government scrambled to contain the fallout Tuesday after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed its agents would assist with security at next month’s Winter Olympics in Italy. Opposition parties reacted with fury after it emerged that the agency, which has been engulfed in controversy after deportation agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in recent weeks, would be involved in security operations for the Games, due to begin on Feb. 6. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Tuesday that it was “not going to be those that are on the street in Minneapolis.” He added: “I have been harder than anyone else in Italy on [the ICE raids] … but it’s not like the SS are coming,” in reference to the notorious Nazi paramilitary outfit. U.S. ambassador Tilman Fertitta was scheduled to meet Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi later Tuesday to clarify Olympics plans, Tajani said. The controversy erupted Monday, when Attilio Fontana, president of Lombardy, one of the northern regions hosting the Games, wrongly suggested that ICE agents would merely assist with the security of U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who are scheduled to attend the opening ceremony at Milan’s San Siro stadium on Feb. 6. ICE later sought to clarify its role, saying in a statement: “At the Olympics, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is supporting the US Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service and the host nation to vet and mitigate risks from transnational criminal organizations. All security operations remain under Italian authority.” HSI, which maintains a presence in Italy and many other nations, is part of ICE but separate from the subagency that handles deportations domestically in the U.S. Like other parts of the U.S. federal government, HSI has played a bigger role in supporting the deportations-focused Enforcement and Removal Operations arm of ICE as the Trump administration has ramped up its immigration crackdown, but the agency typically investigates criminal wrongdoing, including child exploitation, human-trafficking and cybercrimes cases. DHS did not respond to a question clarifying whether new agents would be sent to Milan or Cortina d’Ampezzo, or whether it would only involve agents at the Rome field office. ‘NOT WELCOME’ Meloni has already faced criticism for her defense of U.S. President Donald Trump following his threats to annex Greenland. “This government is a joke and completely subservient to those like Trump who every day insult us, threaten world peace and justify inhuman and heinous acts such as those committed by ICE,” said Riccardo Ricciardi, an MP for the opposition 5Star Movement. Alessandro Zan, a member of the European Parliament for the centre-left Democratic Party, condemned it as “unacceptable.” “In Italy, we don’t want those who trample on human rights and act outside of any democratic control,” he wrote on X. “If the Italian government needs ICE’s help, it means not only that it has failed on security but that it has embraced a dangerous drift,” said Maria Chiara Gadda, an MP from the centrist Italia Viva party. Local leaders also joined in. Giuseppe Sala, the left-wing mayor of Milan, which is hosting several Olympic events, told RTL 102.5 radio that ICE was “not welcome.” “This is a militia that kills… They are not welcome in Milan, there’s no doubt about it,” he said, adding: “Can’t we just say no to Trump for once?” Public pressure has also grown. Two petitions Tuesday had gathered more than 50,000 signatures calling on the government to block ICE’s entry and operations in Italy. Eric Bazail-Eimil contributed to this report.

The killing of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minnesota has led to a rare rebuke of top Trump administration officials by leading 2nd Amendment advocates. Multiple national gun-rights organizations, as well as a prominent Minnesota gun rights group, have expressed horror at top Trump administration officials’ criticism of Pretti for being armed with a handgun that he had a legal permit to carry. “The FBI director needs to brush off that thing called the Constitution, because he clearly hasn’t read it,” National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown told POLITICO. “I know of no more crucial place to carry a firearm for self defense than a protest.” FBI Director Kash Patel said Sunday on Fox News that “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have a right to break the law.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said Saturday that she didn’t “know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that “any gun owner knows” that carrying a gun raises “the assumption of risk and the risk of force being used against you,” during interactions with law enforcement. Gun-rights groups rushed to push back on an administration that was breaking with conservative orthodoxy on the right to bear arms in public places. Several were particularly outraged by Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, who posted on X: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” The National Rifle Association, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, posted that Essayli’s remarks were “dangerous and wrong,” and called for a full investigation rather than “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.” Aidan Johnston, the director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, called Essayli’s remarks “absolutely unacceptable.” “Federal prosecutors should know better than to comment on a situation when he didn’t know all the facts, to make a judgment in a case like this, and then also, just to make a blanket statement, threatening gun owners in that way,” Johnston said Monday. It’s not the first time Trump and the gun lobby have tangled since he returned to office. In September, gun rights advocates were shocked by reports that the administration was looking into a gun ban for transgender Americans. During Trump’s first term, his administration issued a regulation to ban bump stocks, but the Supreme Court ultimately blocked the rule in 2024. There are still conflicting accounts surrounding Saturday’s shooting — including whether Pretti’s hand at any point during the incident was near his gun. Video verified and analyzed by several media outlets, including the New York Times, show the item Pretti appeared to be holding was a phone he was using to film the scene before he attempted to help a woman who had been pushed to the ground by Border Patrol agents. According to a Washington Post analysis of video footage, federal agents appear to have secured Pretti’s gun moments before an agent shot the 37-year-old ICU nurse, who was also a U.S. citizen. “We can all see what is on video,” said Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus chair Bryan Strawser, arguing statements from Trump’s officials have not lined up with footage of the event. Strawser hoped the incident would help Democrats understand the importance of gun ownership. “If it has helped move the needle and helped individual folks realize that they should be protecting this right, I think that’s a good thing,” he said. “I think the more political-minded part of my brain would say, ‘are they just using this for their own political purposes and this isn’t going to change their position at all?’ I think time will tell as to where that goes.” California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom — who became a gun owner last year — responded on X to Noem’s remarks: “The Trump administration does not believe in the 2nd Amendment. Good to know.” Rep. Dave Min (D-Calif.) and former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-Alaska) also used the moment to highlight the right to carry. “Joining the gun lobby to condemn Bill Essayli was not on my bingo card but here we are,” Min said on X. “Lawfully carrying a firearm is not grounds for being killed.” Brown argued it was Newsom and Democrats who were being hypocritical, pointing to Newsom’s longtime support for more gun control. “The irony is thick,” he said. Jacob Wendler contributed to this report.