Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Fünf Jahre nach dem Fall Kabuls rückt ein Kapitel deutscher Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik erneut in den Fokus: die Aufnahmeprogramme für afghanische Ortskräfte und Gefährdete. Interne Dokumente, Sicherheitsvermerke und Behördenakten zeichnen das Bild eines Systems, das zwischen politischem Druck, Sicherheitsbedenken und organisatorischer Überforderung ins Rutschen geraten ist. Die WELT-Recherche „⁠Der Verrat. Die Afghanistan-Protokolle“⁠ bringt neue Details ans Licht und zeichnet ein kritisches Bild der deutschen Aufnahmeprogramme nach der Machtübernahme der Taliban 2021. Im Gespräch mit einem der drei Autoren, Lennart Pfahler (WELT), geht es um zentrale Befunde der Recherche: unklare Identitäten, gefälschte Pässe, widersprüchliche Prüfverfahren – und gleichzeitig Menschen, die trotz Zusagen über Jahre auf eine Ausreise warten. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Rixa Fürsen gibt es auch hier: Instagram: ⁠@rixafu⁠ | X: ⁠@rixa_fursen⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠ information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht der PKV: Hätten Sie’s gedacht? Vom jährlichen 15,5-Milliarden-Euro-Mehrumsatz der Privatversicherten profitiert das gesamte Gesundheitswesen. Denn neben den Haus- und Fachärzten kommen die höheren Honorare auch den zahnärztlichen Praxen zugute, dem Arzneimittelbereich oder Therapeutinnen. So stützt die PKV die medizinische Versorgung in Deutschland zugunsten aller – auch der gesetzlich Versicherten. Mehr auf pkv.de**

Viktor Orbán’s block on a loan for Ukraine is not the United States’ issue, said Washington’s ambassador to the EU, days after Donald Trump endorsed the Hungarian prime minister’s reelection campaign. “This is an internal EU issue, this isn’t a United States issue; they need to resolve the issue of how they’re going to finance Ukraine to the extent to which they’re gonna finance it,” Andrew Puzder told POLITICO in an interview. The U.S. has stepped up pressure on Europe to increase its financial aid to Ukraine since Donald Trump returned to office. All EU countries agreed on a €90 billion loan to Ukraine, but Orbán changed his mind after Russian oil stopped flowing through the Druzhba pipeline. Despite Trump’s close ties to Orbán, Puzder said it’s up to the EU to find a way to finance Kyiv. “Whether that loan goes through and the condition in which it goes through is something for the EU to resolve internally, and I have every confidence that they will resolve it,” Puzder said. He added that the U.S. is “happy” to sell more weapons to Ukraine that Kyiv could pay for with the EU loan. Trump on Saturday endorsed Orbán ahead of the April 12 election, in a video streamed at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest. “He’s a fantastic guy, and it’s such an honor to endorse him. I endorsed him last time he won, and he did a fantastic job for his country,” Trump said. Asked if accusations that Hungary’s foreign minister informed Moscow about internal EU talks would change Washington’s stance toward Orbán, Puzder said that’s “obviously a decision that the president has to make,” but that Trump “likes” the Hungarian prime minister. “They’ve been supportive of each other, and that’s certainly the president’s call.” Puzder declined to comment on the allegations but said he has “very good relationships” with Hungary’s representatives in Brussels. “I think Hungary has been very friendly to the United States, and we do share views on certain issues with Hungary,” he said, citing migration as a key point of convergence. He said the EU is now adopting the Hungarian model by hardening its migration policy.  “I think a lot of the dust that’s been thrown in the air with respect to Hungary and its relationship with the European Union will settle down after the election. No matter which party wins, I think a lot of this will settle once the election’s over,” Puzder added.

Danes head to the polls on Tuesday, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen having called early parliamentary elections after her ruling Social Democrats received a big boost from U.S. President Donald Trump. Frederiksen could have waited until October 2026 to call the vote, but moved early after standing up to Trump’s aggressive threats to annex Greenland earlier this year. Her defiance generated a surge of support for the party just months after it suffered a historic defeat in local elections last October.  But foreign policy won’t carry the day in this election. Voters are focused on domestic issues, while Denmark’s fracturing coalition government — with two other party leaders challenging the prime minister — has turned Tuesday’s vote into a cliffhanger.  WHAT WILL DECIDE THE VOTE?  While Denmark may have come together to resist the pressure from the White House, voters are most concerned about what’s happening at home. Ahead of the vote Danish parties debated a plethora of divisive issues, none of which proved decisive. A poll published by Epinion on Monday suggested almost one in five Danes still didn’t know who they’d vote for.   Everything suggests that Frederiksen’s center-left party, the Social Democrats, will prevail in the vote. Her big talking point has been the revival of a wealth tax that hasn’t been enforced in Denmark for 30 years, and whose reinstatement would thrill left-wing voters. But her main challenger, Deputy Prime Minister Troels Lund Poulsen, leader of the center-right Venstre party, argues the measure will prompt the richest Danes to emigrate, weakening the country’s competitiveness.  Politicians have also debated whether to reinstate the country’s “Great Prayer Day” holiday that Frederiksen’s government abolished in 2024, or to step up efforts to clean polluted drinking water, improve animal welfare, lift the ban on nuclear power, increase defense spending, and tighten migration rules.   RED OR BLUE?  Denmark’s political spectrum has long been divided between a red bloc of left-leaning parties and a blue bloc on the right. In 2022, however, Frederiksen broke with tradition by forming a broad centrist government. The current coalition brings together her Social Democrats with the conservative Venstre party and the liberal Moderates led by former Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen.  Polls suggest the red and blue blocs are running almost even, with Rasmussen’s Moderates poised to play kingmaker. Support for the red bloc currently translates into 83 seats, while the blue bloc would get 80 — with 90 seats needed for a parliamentary majority. With Frederiksen and Poulsen heading in different directions politically, a repeat of the current coalition government appears unlikely.   That means Rasmussen will likely decide which direction the country goes in if the elections transpire as forecast. Frederiksen has warned that if Rasmussen doesn’t decide to work with her, “then we will, with a very high possibility, get a right-wing government in Denmark.”  Rasmussen has removed himself from contention to become the next prime minister, and has offered instead to mediate the formation of the incoming government. COCAINE-GATE  In the leadup to the vote, the blue bloc’s largest party, the Liberal Alliance, sparked a media frenzy after leader Alex Vanopslagh — a candidate for PM — admitted to using cocaine during his early days as party leader in the mid-2010s. Some 42 percent of Danes said the 34-year-old politician’s drug use had left them less able to see him as the country’s leader.   The parties in the blue bloc have thrown their support behind Venstre’s Poulsen. But with the Liberal Alliance primed to win the most votes on the right, Vanopslagh is insisting the party should be the one to lead if Denmark ends up with a conservative government.  Liberal Alliance leader Alex Vanopslagh arrives for a debate in Copenhagen on Feb. 26, 2026. | Ida Marie Odgaard/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images At the same time, he says, he won’t stand in Poulsen’s way. “It won’t be me who ends up derailing a right-wing alliance after the election,” Vanopslagh said on Sunday.  GREENLAND IN THE SPOTLIGHT  For all the domestic focus, Greenland still has a key role to play in Denmark’s election — just not the one you might expect. Greenland and Denmark’s other autonomous territory, the Faroe Islands, each hold two seats in the country’s parliament, and those could prove decisive given how tight the race is.   That could prove a major obstacle for a right-leaning government. According to Lasse Lindegaard, Greenland correspondent at public broadcaster DR, those who represent the islands would be highly unlikely “to back a government that includes or relies on support from the [far-right] Danish People’s Party,” whose leader Morten Messerschmidt has dismissed the idea of Greenland’s independence as “immature and absurd.”  Then there’s the Faroe Islands, which will hold their own parliamentary election just two days after Denmark. Politicians in both self-governing territories are questioning whether to scrap the requirement that they send representatives to the Danish parliament.  “We should enter negotiations with Denmark on an equal partnership — and at that point, we would no longer need our seats in the Danish parliament,” said Beinir Johannesen, leader of the Fólkaflokkurin party and a likely contender for prime minister of the Faroe Islands. THE LOGISTICS  Polls in Denmark open at 8 a.m. on Tuesday and close at 8 p.m. The country uses a proportional representation system, meaning the number of seats that parties win is proportional to their share of the national vote. Exit polls will be published shortly after the polls close, but given how close the race is a definitive outcome may not be clear until late Tuesday evening after all votes have been counted, or even early Wednesday morning.   Then comes the hard part: forming a government. With the two sides so closely matched, the process will almost certainly take weeks. Denmark’s next government is certain to be a coalition, but whether it commands majority or minority support in the parliament remains to be seen. The latter scenario has been the norm in Denmark for decades, but often produces weak prime ministers who must constantly seek the support of other parties under the threat of no-confidence motions. 

ROME — Italian right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s crushing defeat in Monday’s referendum on judicial reform has shattered her aura of political invincibility, and her opponents now reckon she can be toppled in a general election expected next year. The failed referendum is the the first major misstep of her premiership, and comes just as she seemed in complete control in Rome and Brussels, leading Italy’s most stable administration in years. Her loss is immediately energizing Italy’s fragmented opposition, making the country’s torpid politics suddenly look competitive again. Meloni’s bid to overhaul the judiciary — which she accused of being politicized and of left-wing bias — was roundly rejected, with 54 percent voting “no” to her reforms. An unexpectedly high turnout of 59 percent is also likely to alarm Meloni, underscoring how the vote snowballed into a broader vote of confidence in her and her government. She lost heavily in Italy’s three biggest cities: In the provinces of Rome, the “no” vote was 57 percent, Milan 54 percent and Naples 71 percent. In Naples, about 50 prosecutors and judges gathered to open champagne and sing Bella Ciao, the World War II anti-fascist partisan anthem. Activists, students and trade unionists spontaneously marched to Rome’s Piazza del Popolo chanting “resign, resign.”  In a video posted on social media, Meloni put a brave face on the result. “The Italians have decided and we will respect that decision,” she said. She admitted feeling some “bitterness for the lost opportunity … but we will go on as we always have with responsibility, determination and respect for Italy and its people.” In truth, however, the referendum will be widely viewed as a sign that she is politically vulnerable, after all. It knocks her off course just as she was setting her sights on major electoral reforms that would further cement her grip on power. One of her main goals has been to shift to a fixed-term prime ministership, which would be elected by direct suffrage rather than being hostage to rotating governments. Those ambitions look far more fragile now. The opposition groups that have struggled to dent Meloni’s dominance immediately scented blood. After months on the defensive, they pointed to Monday’s result as proof that the prime minister can be beaten and that a coordinated campaign can mobilize voters against her. Matteo Renzi, former prime minister and leader of the centrist Italia Viva party, predicted Meloni would now be a “lame duck,” telling reporters that “even her own followers will now start to doubt her.” When he lost a referendum in 2016 he resigned as prime minister. “Let’s see what Meloni will do after this clamorous defeat,” he said.  Elly Schlein, leader of the opposition Democratic Party, said: “We will beat [Meloni] in the next general election, I’m sure of that. I think that from today’s vote, from this extraordinary democratic participation, an unexpected participation in some ways, a clear political message is being sent to Meloni and this government, who must now listen to the country and its real priorities.”  Former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, leader of the populist 5Star Movement heralded “a new spring and a new political season.” Angelo Bonelli , leader of the Greens and Left Alliance, told reporters the result was “an important signal for us because it shows that there is a majority in the country opposed to the government.” ‘PARALLEL MAFIA’ The referendum itself centered on changes to how judges and prosecutors are governed and disciplined, including separating their career paths and reshaping their oversight bodies. The government framed the reforms as a long-overdue opportunity to fix a system where politicized legal “factions” impede the government’s ability to implement core policies on issues such as migration and security. Justice Minister Carlo Nordio called prosecutors a “parallel mafia,” while his chief of staff compared parts of the judiciary to “an execution squad.”   A voter is given a ballot at a polling station in Rome, Italy, on March 22, 2026. | Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu via Getty Images Meloni’s opponents viewed the defeated reforms differently, casting them as an attempt to weaken a fiercely independent judiciary and concentrate power. That framing helped turn a technical vote into a broader political contest, one that opposition parties were able to rally around. It was a clash with a long and bitter political history. The Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) investigations of the 1990s, which wiped out an entire political class, left a legacy of mistrust between politicians and the judiciary. The right, in particular, accused judges of running a left-wing vendetta against them. Under Meloni’s rule that tension has repeatedly resurfaced, with her government clashing with courts, saying judges are thwarting initiatives to fight migration and criminality. Meloni herself stepped late into the campaign, after initially keeping some distance, betting that her personal involvement could shift the outcome. She called the referendum an “historic opportunity to change Italy.” In combative form this month, she had called on Italians not squander their opportunity to shake up the judges. If they let things continue as they are now, she warned: “We will find ourselves with even more powerful factions, even more negligent judges, even more surreal sentences, immigrants, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers being freed and putting your security at risk.” It was to no avail, and Meloni was hardly helped by the timing of the vote. Her ally U.S. President Donald Trump is highly unpopular in Italy and the war in Iran has triggered intense fears among Italians that they will have to pay more for power and fuel. The main upshot is that Italy’s political clock is ticking again. REGAINING THE INITIATIVE For Meloni, the temptation will be to regain the initiative quickly. That could even mean trying to press for early elections before economic pressures mount and key EU recovery funds wind down later this year. The logic of holding elections before economic conditions deteriorate further would be to prevent a slow bleeding away of support, said Roberto D’Alimonte, professor of political science at the Luiss University in Rome. But Italy’s President Sergio Mattarella has the ultimate say about when to dissolve parliament and parliamentarians, whose pensions depend on the legislature lasting until February, could help him prevent elections by forming alternative majorities. D’Alimonte said Meloni’s “standing is now damaged.” “There is no doubt she comes out of this much weaker. The defeat changes the perception of her. She has lost her clout with voters and to some extent in Europe. Until now she was a winner and now she has shown she can lose,” he added. She must now weigh whether to identify scapegoats who can take the fall — potentially Justice Minister Nordio, a technocrat with no political support base of his own.  Meloni is expected to move quickly to regain control of the agenda. She is due to travel to Algeria on Wednesday to advance energy cooperation, a trip that may also serve to pivot the political conversation back to economic and foreign policy aims. But the immediate impact of the vote is clear: A prime minister who entered the referendum from a position of strength but now faces a more uncertain political landscape, against an opposition newly convinced she can be beaten.

The composition of the next Danish government may hinge on a former prime minister with a penchant for brushing his teeth with hand soap. The Social Democrats of incumbent center-left Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen are projected to get the most votes when Danes go to the polls on March 24. But whether they can form a government will likely be decided by Lars Løkke Rasmussen, leader of the centrist Moderate Party. Rasmussen, a former prime minister currently serving as the country’s foreign minister, was the face of Copenhagen’s defiance of threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to annex Greenland earlier this year. At the time, he and Frederiksen seemed like a dynamic duo protecting the Kingdom. But just a day before Tuesday’s elections in Denmark, a right-leaning and a left-leaning bloc are nearly tied with each other in the polls, both just short of a majority in the country’s 179-seat parliament. Rasmussen’s Moderates, meanwhile, are projected to secure 12 seats. That sets him up to either backstop Frederiksen to form another broadly centrist government, or hand power to Deputy PM Troels Lund Poulsen, leader of the center-right Venstre party and the preferred PM candidate of the right-wing bloc. Frederiksen is using that reality to nudge voters towards supporting her. “If [Rasmussen] chooses to back another prime minister, then we will, with a very high possibility, get a right-wing government in Denmark,” she said recently. METTE DOESN’T DEFINE ME For the past four years, Frederiksen’s Social Democrats have governed in coalition with Venstre and Rasmussen’s Moderates — the latter named after a fictional political group in the hit Danish political drama, “Borgen.” The government’s right-leaning policies on migration, which are among the most hardline in Europe, and the lack of action on issues like the housing crisis were cited as key factors in the Social Democrats’ disastrous results in December’s nationwide municipal elections. In the wake of those votes, members of the party’s base called for Frederiksen to recalibrate and prioritize working with left-leaning parties. But the prime minister has kept her options open ahead of March 24, saying she can imagine a repeat partnership with “the political middle” as easily as an alliance with the left. The latter option is firmly opposed by Rasmussen, who wants a repeat of centrist governance. The politician led Venstre during two non-consecutive terms as prime minister from 2009 to 2019, but following an election defeat broke away to found the Moderates as an alternative to Denmark’s historic left-right political offer. Ahead of this week’s vote Rasmussen has ruled out facilitating a left-leaning coalition, saying he won’t partner with the far-left Red-Green Alliance whose support would be needed to make such a government viable. He also insists he’s not aiming to usher the right into power, as Frederiksen claims. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen speaks to journalists ahead of a European Council summit in Brussels, Belgium on March 19, 2026. | Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images “I will not be placed: I stand in the center, firmly, even when the winds blow,” he wrote on Facebook March 19. “The job is to pull together what is otherwise falling apart — because we already have plenty of forces pulling us in different directions.” THE GOAT Rasmussen has been an omnipresent figure in Danish politics for 40 years. In 1986, at 22, he became chairman of Venstre’s youth wing, kickstarting his political career. Since then he’s held multiple cabinet portfolios including finance, health, interior, foreign affairs and prime minister. In recent years he has leaned into his status as a meme on social media, where he is celebrated for his playful demeanor and unabashed chain-smoking. His insouciance and pragmatism — which extends to using hand soap to brush his teeth when toothpaste is unavailable — strikes a chord with Danes, especially amid a tense election. At the same time Poulsen and Frederiksen were dueling it out in a televised debate, Rasmussen uploaded a photo of himself with a goat on Instagram; the caption wished luck to the leaders of Denmark’s two biggest parties. The post referenced the term “greatest of all time” (GOAT) at a moment when his electoral opponents had the spotlight. In the comment section under the entry, users posted goat emojis and echoed the GOAT label. A SHOCK ENDGAME Even though Frederiksen’s Social Democrats are projected to win the most votes, Rasmussen asks why they should get to decide who takes the post of prime minister, per parliamentary tradition. “It’s a bit strange that the Social Democrats have never experienced sitting in government without having the post of prime minister,” he said recently. “I think they should experience that one day.” Despite having already held the crown twice himself, the leader of the Moderates isn’t opposed to becoming prime minister again. Some Danish political analysts say the scenario isn’t impossible. “If the election result is as messy as current polls suggest, and if neither the traditional blue nor red bloc has a majority without the Moderates, could a scenario emerge in which [Rasmussen] would and could go for the prime minister’s job himself?” public channel DR’s political correspondent Christine Cordsen posited. “There is no doubt that if the opportunity arises, he will go for it.” It wouldn’t be without precedent. In 1968 Hilmar Baunsgaard became Danish prime minister despite leading the smallest party in the governing coalition. Although Rasmussen admits he can’t imagine a government “where that would happen,” he also hasn’t rejected the idea of serving a third term as PM. “Rule it out entirely? That would be a strangely weak position to put yourself in when you’re the GOAT, right?”

LONDON — U.K. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been warned her planned overhaul of settlement rules for migrants will not save the £10 billion she has claimed. Instead, the policy to drastically increase the length of time migrants must wait before gaining permanent residency could end up costing the Treasury billions, according to a private briefing note shared with the Home Office and obtained by POLITICO.  The document, drawn up by the IPPR think tank where Mahmood made the case for her reforms earlier this month, is being used by Labour MPs to pressure for a rethink of the policy. A leading critic said it totally “dismantles” her financial argument. In her speech, Mahmood cited increased welfare costs from the 196,000 migrants on health and social care visas and their dependents who arrived during a post-Brexit immigration spike, and who are expected to start getting settled status soon, as a key reason for the overhaul.  Under her proposals, care workers would have to wait around 15 years before being eligible for indefinite leave to remain (ILR), up from the current five years.  “If we do not, we will see a £10 billion pound drain on our public finances and further strain on public services, like housing and healthcare, already under immense pressure,” Mahmood said. But the progressive think tank, which is well-connected in Labour circles, argues the Home Office’s calculations are flawed for four reasons.  The department’s figure is based on the cost of welfare spending over the individuals’ lifetimes. But the IPPR points out that estimates from the government’s own Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) show dependents making net positive financial contributions until they stop working, claim the state pension and start having higher health costs. Though Mahmood’s proposals will lengthen the time it takes them to gain access to the welfare system, the change “will not make a significant difference to the lifetime fiscal impact” of these migrants, according to the report. “The only way this policy would significantly bring down the £10 billion lifetime fiscal cost is if it led to large numbers of care workers and dependents leaving the U.K. before they reached the qualifying period for settlement,” the IPPR says. As it stands, that’s not the case Mahmood is making. The primary reason care workers make a negative net lifetime financial contribution is because they are poorly paid. Gaining settlement would allow them to earn more by opening the door to work in any occupation. But delaying this traps them in lower-paid work for longer, the document argues. “The overall fiscal impact of the proposed earned settlement reforms should therefore consider the potential costs of lower tax contributions from the care worker cohort while they wait for settlement, as well as the fiscal benefits of restricting access to public funds for longer,” the IPPR says. If indeed the policy is to encourage care workers and their dependents to leave the U.K. in large numbers then the briefing argues it could in fact add to costs.  Estimates by the MAC, which advises the Home Office, point out that their adult dependents are net positive contributors for 20 — and it’s only after around 40 years that they make a cumulative net negative financial impact to the British state. “Given the [Treasury’s] fiscal rules work to a 5-year horizon, the emigration of care workers would make it harder — not easier — for the Treasury to meet its fiscal targets,” the IPPR argues. ‘DISMANTLES THE RATIONALE’ The briefing also digs into the wider “earned settlement” policy. Estimates of the effects are hard to ascertain because behavioral impacts are uncertain. But last year’s immigration white paper was accompanied by an illustrative example of a drop of between 10-20 per cent in skilled workers, care workers and their dependents. The IPPR uses this to calculate the cost to the Treasury based on that reduction being applied to both care workers and skilled workers. They argue that this would mean a potential cost to the exchequer of £11 billion to £22 billion over the lifetimes of migrants granted relevant visas last year.  “Even if the policy is designed in such a way to minimise any direct effects on skilled workers who make a positive fiscal contribution, it is possible that the reforms will deter (and indeed may already be deterring) higher-paid workers who seek certainty for their and their family’s status,” it says. “Even a small impact on higher-paid skilled workers would counteract the savings from care workers, given the per person net lifetime fiscal contribution of skilled workers is £689,000, nearly 20 times larger than the per person net costs of care workers.”  Leading Labour critic of the policy Tony Vaughan used the findings to argue that Mahmood’s proposals “will be a fiscal cost to the U.K. for decades.” “The IPPR report dismantles the rationale for this earned settlement policy,” the MP told POLITICO. “It would also undermine community cohesion and integration, weakening the bonds that hold our society together. This is not a policy that can be trimmed around the edges. It is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned.” POLITICO reported this week that the government is considering watering down the proposals, potentially introducing transitions to ease the retrospective nature of the changes that are proving most controversial among Labour MPs. But, as critics consider parliamentary action to force a vote on the issue, Vaughan indicated the compromises under consideration would not be enough.  “I say that as a loyal Labour MP who has never voted against the government and who desperately wants us to succeed, but cannot in good conscience stand by and see a policy as flawed as this, which is so strongly against our national interest, reach the statute books,” he said. The Home Office has yet to respond to a request for comment.

BRUSSELS — EU leaders were supposed to spend Thursday mapping out how to boost Europe’s economy. Instead, they were left scrambling to deal with two wars, a deepening transatlantic rift and a standoff over Ukraine. Twelve hours of talks, a few showdowns and many, many coffees later, here’s POLITICO’s rapid round-up of what we learned at the European Council. 1) Viktor Orbán’s not a man for moving … The most pressing question ahead of this summit was whether Hungary’s prime minister could be convinced to drop his veto to the EU’s €90 billion loan for Ukraine. He wasn’t. The European Commission had attempted to appease Orbán in the days running up to the summit by sending a mission of experts to Ukraine to inspect the damaged Druzhba pipeline, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia. Orbán has argued that Ukraine is deliberately not addressing the issue, and tied that to his blocking of the cash. Asked whether he saw any chance for progress on the loan going into the summit, Orbán’s response was simple: “No.” Twelve hours later, that answer was much the same. 2) … But he does like to stretch his legs. In one of the most striking images to have come out of Thursday’s summit, the Hungarian prime minister stands on the sidelines of the outer circle of the room while the rest of the leaders are in their usual spots listening to a virtual address from Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (on screen) speaks to EU leaders via video at the European Council summit in Brussels, March 19, 2026. | Pool photo by Geert Vanden Wijngaert/OL / AFP via Getty Images The relationship between the two has descended into outright acrimony after the Hungarian leader refused to back the EU loan and the Ukrainian leader made veiled threats — which even drew the (rare) rebuke of the Commission. Faced with Zelenskyy’s address, the Hungarian decided to vote with his feet. 3) The new kid on the block is happy to be a part of this European family, dysfunctional as it may be. This was the first leaders’ summit for Rob Jetten, the Netherland’s newly-installed prime minister. Ahead of the meeting, he said he was “very much looking forward to being part of this family.” His verdict after the talks? That leaders differ greatly in their speaking style, with some quite efficient while others take longer to get to the point — but he welcomed the jokes of Belgian’s Bart De Wever, “especially when the meeting has been going on for hours.” 5) Though not everyone was so charitable. Broadly speaking, Orbán digging in his heels did not go down well. Sweden’s prime minister told reporters after the summit that leaders’ criticism of the Hungarian in the room was “very, very harsh,” and like nothing he’d ever heard at an EU summit. Jetten said the vibe in the room with EU leaders was “icy” at points, with “awkward silences.”  6) The EU’s not giving up on the loan. Despite murmurs ahead of the talks of a plan B in the works, multiple EU leaders as well as Costa and Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen were adamant that the loan was the only way to go — and that it will happen, eventually. “We will deliver one way or the other … Today, we have strengthened our resolve,” von der Leyen. Costa added: “Nobody can blackmail the European Council, no one can blackmail the European Union.” Top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas arrives at the European Council summit on March 19, 2026. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images 7) Kaja Kallas wants to avoid a messy entanglement. In her address to the bloc’s leaders, Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, stressed the importance of not getting caught up in the conflict in the Middle East. “Starting war is like a love affair — it’s easy to get in and difficult to get out,” she said, according to two diplomats briefed by leaders on the closed-door talks. At the same time, Kallas reiterated the importance of the EU’s defending its interests in the region but said there was little appetite for expanding the remit of its Aspides naval mission, currently operating in the Red Sea. 8) But it was all roses with the U.N. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres joined the Council for lunch, thanking them for their “strong support for multilateralism and international law.” In an an exclusive interview with POLITICO on the sidelines of the summit, Guterres applauded the restraint shown by the Europeans, despite Donald Trump’s anger at their refusal to actively support the war or help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime artery that Iran has largely sealed off, driving up global energy prices. 9) Kinda. One senior EU official told POLITICO that the lunch meeting was “unnecessary.” “With all appreciation for multilateralism and its importance … considering the role the U.N. is not playing in international crises right now, it is unnecessary,” said the official, granted anonymity to speak freely. 10) Celery is a very versatile vegetable. Also on the table while they picked over the future of the multilateral world order was a pâté en croûte with spring vegetables and fillet of veal with celery three ways. Three ways! And for dessert? A mandarin tartlet with cinnamon. 11) Cyprus and Greece want the EU to get serious about mutual defense. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis asked the EU to think about a roadmap for acting on the bloc’s mutual defense clause, according to two EU diplomats and one senior European government official. The clause, Article 42.7, is the EU’s equivalent of NATO’s Article 5. Its existence and potential use has recently come into focus since British bases in Cyprus were attacked by drones. 12) And the Commission hopes it’s already got serious enough about migration. Von der Leyen said that while the EU has not yet experienced an increase in migrants as a result of the conflict in Iran, the bloc should be prepared. “There is absolutely no appetite … to repeat the situation of 2015 in the event of large migration flows resulting from the conflict in the Middle East,” said one national official. The Commission chief emphasized that the mistakes of the 2015 refugee crisis won’t happen again. 13) Von der Leyen likes to cross her Ts.   Speaking of emphasis — “temporary, tailored and targeted” was how von der Leyen described the EU’s short-term actions to minimize the impact on Europe of the recent energy price spikes after the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. The moves will impact four components that affect energy prices: energy costs, grid charges, taxes and levies and carbon pricing, she said. 14) The ETS is here to stay — with some modifications. While EU leaders agreed to make some adjustments to the Emissions Trading System — the bloc’s carbon market — most forcefully backed the continuation of the system itself. “This ETS is a great success. It has been in place for 20 years and is a market-based and technology-neutral system. So we are not calling the ETS into question,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters after the talks had concluded. While the Commission will propose some adjustments to the ETS by July, these are merely adjustments, not fundamental changes, the German leader said. In the run-up to the summit, some EU countries, including Italy, floated the idea of weakening the ETS to help weather soaring energy prices. 15) No matter what, EU leaders want to get home — ASAP. While Costa has so far ensured every European Council under his watch lasts only one day instead of the once-customary two, this time around, that goal was looking optimistic. However, at the end of the day, leaders’ dogged determination to get out of there prevailed (even if that meant kicking a discussion on the long-term budget to April). À bientôt!

When Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni attended her first European leaders’ summit in Brussels in December 2022, few would have expected her to become one of the most effective politicians sitting around the table four years later.   In fact, few would have expected that she’d still be there at all, as Italian leaders are famously short-lived. Remarkably, her right-wing Brothers of Italy party looks as rock solid in polls as it did four years ago, and she now has her eye on the record longest term for an Italian premier — a feat she is due to accomplish in September. A loss in what is set to be a nail-biting referendum on the bitter and complex issue of judicial reform on March 22 and 23 would be her first major set back — and would puncture the air of political invincibility that she exudes not only in Rome but also in Brussels. Meloni has thrived on the European stage, and has become adept at using the EU machinery to her advantage. Only in recent months, she has made decisive interventions on the EU’s biggest dossiers, such as Russian assets, the Mercosur trade deal and carbon markets, leveraging Italy’s heavyweight status to win concessions in areas like farm subsidies. Profiting from France’s weakness, Meloni is also establishing a strong partnership with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — a double act between the EU’s No. 1 and No. 3 economies — to mold the bloc’s policies to favor manufacturing and free trade. CRASHING DOWN TO EARTH For a few more days, at least, Meloni looks like a uniquely stable and influential Italian leader. Nicola Procaccini, a Brothers of Italy MEP very close to Meloni and co-chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, called the government’s longevity a “real novelty” in the European political landscape. “Until recently, Italy couldn’t insert itself into the dynamics of those that shape the European Union — essentially the Franco-German axis — because it lacked governments capable of lasting even a year,” said the MEP. “Giorgia Meloni is not just a leader who endures; she is a leader who shapes decisions and influences the direction to be taken.” But critics of the prime minister said a failure in the referendum would mark a critical turning point. Her rivals would finally detect a chink in her armor and move to attack her record, particularly on economic weaknesses at home. The unexpected, new message to other EU leaders would be clear: She won’t be here for ever. Brando Benifei, an MEP in Italy’s center-left opposition Democratic Party, conceded that other EU leaders saw her as the leader of a “ultra-stable government.” But, if she were to lose the referendum, he argued “she would inevitably lose that aura.” “Everyone remembers how it ended for Renzi’s coalition after he lost his referendum,” Benifei added, in reference to former Democratic Party Prime Minister Matteo Renzi who resigned after his own failed referendum in 2016. MACHIAVELLIAN MELONI Meloni owes much of her success on the EU stage to canny opportunism. At the beginning of the year, she slyly spotted an opportunity — suddenly wavering on the Mercosur trade deal, which Rome has long supported — to win extra cash for farmers that would please her powerful farm unions at home. She held off from actually killing the agreement, something that would have lost her friends among other capitals. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at a signing ceremony during an Italy-Germany Intergovernmental Summit in Rome on Jan. 23, 2026. | Pool photo by Michael Kappeler/AFP via Getty Images The Italian leader “knows how to read the room very well,” said one European diplomat, who was granted anonymity to discuss European Council dynamics.   Teresa Coratella, deputy head of the Rome office at the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations, said Meloni had  “a political cunning” that allowed her to build “variable geometries,” allying with different European leaders by turn based on the subject under discussion. One of her first victories came on migration in 2023. She was able to elevate the issue to the top level of the European Council, and even managed to secure a visit by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to Tunisia, eventually resulting in the signing of a pact on the issue. Others wins followed.  Last December, with impeccable timing, Meloni unexpectedly threw her lot in with Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever at the last minute, scuppering a plan to fund Ukraine’s defenses with Russian frozen assets, instead pushing for more EU joint debt. Italian diplomats said that Meloni is a careful student, showing up to summits always having read the relevant documents, and having asking the apposite questions. That wasn’t always the case with former Italian prime ministers.  They said her choice of functionaries — rewarding competence over and above political affiliation — also helps. These include her chief diplomatic consigliere Fabrizio Saggio and Vincenzo Celeste, ambassador to the EU. Neither is considered close politically to Meloni.   Her biggest coup, though, has been shunting aside France as Germany’s main European partner on key files, with her partnership with Merz even being dubbed “Merzoni.” ROLLING THE DICE Meloni’s strength partly explains why she dared call the referendum. Italy’s right has for decades complained that the judiciary is biased to the left. It’s a feud that goes back to the Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) anti-corruption drive in the 1990s that pulverized the political elite of that time, and the constant court cases against playboy premier and media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, father of the modern center-right. The proposal in the plebiscite is to restructure the judiciary. But it’s a high-stakes gamble, and why she called it seems something of a puzzle. The reforms themselves are highly technical — and by the government’s own admission won’t actually speed up Italy’s notoriously long court cases.    Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni attends the European Council meeting on June 26, 2025 in Brussels. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images Instead, the vote has turned into a more general vote of confidence in Meloni and her government. The timing is tough as Italians widely dislike her ally U.S. President Donald Trump and fear the war in Iran will drive up their already high power prices. Still, she is determined not to suffer Renzi’s fate and insists she will not step down even if she loses the referendum.  Asked at a conference on Thursday whether a loss would make Rome appear less stable in its dealings with other European capitals, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani was adamant that the referendum has “absolutely nothing to do with the stability of the government.” “This government will last until the day of the next national elections,” he added. A victory on Monday will put the wind in her sails before the next general elections, which have to be held by the end of 2027. It would also set the stage for other reforms that Meloni wants to enact: a move to a more presidential system, with a direct election of the prime minister, making the role more like the French presidency.  But a loss would galvanize the opposition — split between the populist 5Star Movement, and the traditional center-left Democratic Party. The danger is her rivals would round on her particularly over the economy. Even counting for the fact Italy has benefitted from the largest tranche of the Covid-era recovery package — growth has been sluggish, consistently below 1 percent, falling to 0.5 percent in 2025.  “We have a situation in which the country is increasingly heading toward stagnation and we have to ask ourselves what would have happened if we had not had the boost of the Recovery Fund,” said Enrico Borghi, a senator from Italia Viva, Renzi’s party. Procaccini, however, defended her, both on employment and growth. “It could be better,” he conceded. “But we are still talking about growth, unlike countries that in this historical phase are recording a decline, as in the case of Germany.”

LONDON — Britain will reduce its aid sent to Africa by more than half, as the government unveils the impact of steep cuts to development assistance for countries across the world. On Thursday the Foreign Office revealed the next three years of its overseas development spending, giving MPs and the public the first look at the impact of Labour’s decision to gut Britain’s aid budget in order to fund an increase in defense spending. Government figures show that the value of Britain’s programs in Africa will fall by 56 percent from the £1.5 billion in 2024/25 when Labour took office to £677 million in 2028/9. It follows the move to reduce aid spending from 0.5 to 0.3 percent of gross national income. However, the government did not release the details of the funding for specific countries, giving Britain’s ambassadors and diplomats time to deliver the news personally to their counterparts across the world ahead of any potential backlash from allies. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told MPs that affected countries want Britain “to be an investor, not just a donor” and “want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid,” as she pointed to money her department had committed to development banks and funds which will help Africa raise money. The decision shows a substantial shift in the government’s focus, moving away from direct assistance for countries, and funneling much of the remaining money into international organizations and private finance initiatives. Chi Onwurah, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Africa, told POLITICO that she was “dismayed at the level and extent of the cuts to investment in Africa and the impact it will have particularly on health and economic development.” She added: “I hope the government recognizes that security of the British people is not increased by insecurity in Africa and increased migration from Africa, quite the opposite.” Ian Mitchell from the Center for Global Development think tank noted the move was “a remarkable step back from Africa by the U.K.” NEW PRIORITIES Announcing the cuts in the House of Commons, Cooper stressed that the decision to reduce the aid budget had been “hugely difficult,” pointing to similar moves by allies such as France and Germany following the U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to dramatically shrink America’s aid programs after taking office in January 2025. She insisted that it was still “part of our moral purpose” to tackle global disease and hunger, reiterating Labour’s ambition to work towards “a world free from extreme poverty on a livable planet.” Cooper set out three new priorities for Britain’s remaining budget: funding for unstable countries with conflict and humanitarian disasters, funneling money into “proven” global partnerships such as vaccine organizations, and a focus on women and girls, pledging that these will be at the core of 90 percent of Britain’s bilateral aid programs by 2030. A box with the Ukrainian flag on it awaits collection in Peterborough, U.K. on March 10, 2022. | Martin Pope/Getty Images Only three recipients will see their aid spending fully protected: Ukraine, the Palestinian territories and Sudan. Lebanon will also see its funding protected for another year. All bilateral funding for G20 countries will end. Despite the government’s stated priorities, the scale of the cuts mean that even the areas it is seeking to protect will not be protected fully. An impact assessment — which was so stark that ministers claimed they had to rethink some of the cuts in order to better protect focus areas such as contraception — published alongside the announcement found that there will likely be an end to programs in Malawi where 250,000 young people will lose access to family planning, and 20,000 children risk dropping out of school. “These steep cuts will impact the most marginalized and left behind communities,” said Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, adding: “The U.K. is turning its back on the communities that need support the most.” Last-minute negotiations did see some areas protected from more severe cuts, with the BBC World Service seeing a funding boost, the British Council set to receive an uplift amid its financial struggles, and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) — the aid spending watchdog that had been at risk of being axed — continuing to operate with a 40 percent budget cut. GREEN THREAT Though the move will not require legislation to be confirmed — after Prime Minister Keir Starmer successfully got the move past his MPs last year — MPs inside his party and out have lamented the impact of the cuts, amid the ongoing threat to Labour’s left from a resurgent Green Party under new leader Zack Polanski. Labour MP Becky Cooper, chair of the APPG on global health and security said that her party “is, and always has been, a party of internationalism” but today’s plans would “put Britain and the world at risk.” Sarah Champion, another Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons international development committee said that the announcement confirmed that there “will be no winners from unrelenting U.K. aid cuts, just different degrees of losers,” creating a “desperately bleak” picture for the world’s most vulnerable. “These cuts do not aid our defense, they make the whole world more vulnerable,” she added. Her Labour colleague Gareth Thomas, a former development minister, added: “In an already unsafe world, cutting aid risks alienating key allies and will make improving children’s health and education in Commonwealth countries more difficult.” The announcement may give fresh ammunition to the Greens ahead of May’s local elections, where the party is eyeing up one of its best nights in local government amid a collapse in support for Labour among Britain’s young, progressive, and Muslim voters. Reacting to the news that Britain will cut its aid to developing countries aimed at combatting climate change, Polanski said: “Appalling and just unbelievably short-sighted. Our security here in the U.K. relies on action around the world to tackle the climate crisis.”

BRUSSELS — An EU summit once billed as a chance to boost the bloc’s economy is now a full-blown stress test. Leaders gathering Thursday face a combustible agenda: Ukraine’s financial survival, Middle East escalation, transatlantic tensions, and deep internal rifts over energy and climate policy. Thursday’s meeting has been dramatically reshaped in recent days by the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran and a standoff with Hungary over a €90 billion lifeline for Kyiv — turning what had been meant to be a forward-looking discussion into a scramble to manage multiple crises at once. Leaders will still try to push ahead on plans to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, from deepening the single market to easing the burden on businesses. But those longer-term ambitions risk being overshadowed by more immediate geopolitical fires, alongside intense discussions on continent’s energy, defense and migration policies, according to a draft version of the post-summit joint statement obtained by POLITICO.   Expect a packed — and likely fractious — day in Brussels. Here’s POLITICO’s cheat sheet of the five biggest clashes to look out for at the European Council. THE €90B QUESTION: HUNGARY VS. EVERYONE  A €90 billion lifeline for Ukraine — which will determine Kyiv’s ability to continue defending itself against Russian aggression — hangs on whether Hungary lifts its veto. EU leaders agreed in December to provide the funding. But Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán later reneged and blocked the deal over a dispute with Ukraine about a damaged pipeline carrying Russian oil to Central Europe. Budapest has accused Kyiv of trying to engineer an energy crisis in Hungary by cutting off Russian oil supplies and says it won’t approve the cash disbursement until flows resume. The European Commission said Tuesday it had offered to help repair the pipeline and that Ukraine had accepted, raising hopes of a breakthrough. The move could prompt Hungary to lift its veto, one diplomat familiar with Budapest’s thinking said, speaking on condition of anonymity like others in this article to discuss sensitive negotiations. But Orbán struck a defiant tone in a video posted after the Commission’s announcement, saying: “If there is no oil, there is no money.” That leaves him isolated from almost all other leaders, aside from Slovakia’s Robert Fico. “The behavior from Hungary is a new low,” Sweden’s Europe Minister Jessica Rosencrantz told POLITICO ahead of the meeting. Another diplomat said that “if we fail on the loan, [Ukrainian leader Volodymyr] Zelenskyy will rightly be furious.” The latest draft conclusions still point to disbursement by early April — a timeline leaders will be endeavoring to rescue in their negotiations. HORMUZ DILEMMA: IRAN’S THREATS VS. A RELUCTANT EUROPE Tehran’s attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz — a vital oil transit point — have jacked up the global price of oil and forced Europe to weigh whether to get involved. One idea was to expand the mandate of the EU’s Middle East naval mission, Aspides, to allow European warships to patrol the waterway. That was quickly ruled out by the bloc’s foreign ministers on Monday. “Nobody wants to go actively in this war,” the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said after the foreign envoys met. Instead, leaders will call for the reinforcement of existing naval missions, Aspides and Atalanta, with “more assets” (read: ships) — while stopping short of extending their reach to Hormuz, according to the draft summit conclusions. The text stresses that operations must remain “in line with their respective mandates.” A diplomat from the Gulf region said they were watching closely but did not expect any major shift from EU leaders, such as expanding the Aspides mandate or launching joint operations with third countries. TRANSATLANTIC TREMORS: TRUMP VS. EUROPEAN CAPITALS  Europe’s refusal to step in around the Strait of Hormuz has angered U.S. President Donald Trump, who said it would be “very bad for the future of NATO” if EU countries failed to act. That frustration is only growing. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he had spoken to Trump about Europe’s unwillingness to provide assets to keep the strait open and had “never heard him so angry in my life.” The flare-up comes with EU-U.S. ties already under strain. Spain has openly defied Trump over the Iran conflict, refusing to allow the U.S. to use its bases and drawing threats of trade retaliation from Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron has stepped in to back Madrid and signal European solidarity, while other leaders have taken a more cautious or mixed line on how far to push back. Trump may not be on the formal agenda, but his pressure will loom over the summit — and sharpen already fraught debates over defense, trade and Europe’s reliance on the U.S. ETS BRAWL: ITALY, POLAND AND OTHERS VS. THE COMMISSION  A major brawl is brewing over the EU’s Emissions Trading System between a cadre of member countries and the EU’s executive.  Ten EU member countries sent a letter to the Commission ahead of Thursday’s summit asking to speed up a planned review of the ETS, a cornerstone of the bloc’s climate policy that forces big polluters to cough up.  Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Austria and Croatia are urging the EU executive to reexamine the scheme by the end of May at the latest, arguing it harms their industries and is contributing to rising energy prices.  But not everyone agrees, with two EU officials from ETS-supporting countries saying the cap-and-trade system must remain in place. The first official argued it is not contributing to the energy crisis and is actually helping Europe’s economy, with its revenues needed for the green transition.   On the topic of energy, the Commission’s proposed gas price cap is also likely to be raised, though not all countries are likely to get on board with that either, according to a senior German government official. According to the draft conclusions, EU leaders will instruct the Commission to “present without delay a toolbox of targeted temporary measures” to bring down energy prices.  COMPETITIVENESS, ANYONE? EU VS. ITSELF Despite the crises crowding the agenda, leaders will still try to push forward plans to revive Europe’s economy, building on talks at a February summit at Alden Biesen in Belgium. Most of the proposals fall under the “One Europe, One Market” push to deepen the single market — easing the movement of goods, services, capital and people across the bloc. The draft conclusions say leaders will back new corporate rules, dubbed “EU Inc.,” to help startups scale across borders, as well as a “simple, unified and voluntary e-declaration system” to make it easier to work across countries. The aim is to move from talk to delivery, with concrete steps and deadlines, another EU diplomat said. But while there is broad agreement on the need for reform, divisions persist over whether EU energy and climate policies — particularly the Emissions Trading System — are holding back growth. That split, with Central, Eastern and Southern European countries pushing for changes and others, including the Nordics, resisting, will likely be the main battleground on competitiveness. Nick Vinocur contributed reporting.