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.

BRUSSELS — America’s ambassador to the EU called on the European Parliament to back the trade deal struck with President Donald Trump, arguing it would unlock deeper transtlantic cooperation on energy, tech and AI. Speaking to POLITICO on Monday, Andrew Puzder cautioned that it would be a mistake to allow a further delay of the deal reached last July at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, but has still to be implemented on by the EU side. “All of the signals are good, but you never know. We’re hopeful, but we want to be careful and make sure that we don’t take anything for granted,” Puzder said in an interview at the U.S. mission in Brussels.  “It’s in the best interest of the European Union and the United States that it passes,” he added. “Some people might think that politically, it might give them an advantage to vote against. I hope that’s not the case. But economically, it’d be malpractice not to vote for this in the EU.” Puzder highlighted the importance of the EU’s commitment to spend $750 billion on U.S. energy under the Turnberry deal.  “Europe’s going to need that energy,” he said. “So we need to cut back on the regulatory restrictions to our shipping them the energy and also the regulatory restrictions that make that energy more expensive once it gets here.” IT’S BEEN LONG ENOUGH Puzder, a former fast food executive nominated by Trump, started the role last September and made an early impression in Brussels with his plain speaking. He told POLITICO in December that the EU should stop trying to be the world’s regulator and get on instead with being one of its innovators.  His latest remarks came amid mounting U.S. frustration over the EU’s slow pace in keeping its side of the bargain, under which it would scrap import duties on U.S. industrial goods. The enabling legislation is now up for a plenary vote in the European Parliament on Thursday. If it passes, talks between EU lawmakers, governments and the Commission would then begin on finally implementing the tariff changes. “We’re anxious to get this through the process. We understood they had to go through a process, but it’s been long enough. And hopefully we’ll get through it on Thursday and we can both move on to more economically beneficial endeavors,” Puzder stressed.  Trade lawmakers backed amendments at the committee stage to strengthen the EU’s protections in case Washington doesn’t respect its side of the deal.  They for instance introduced a suspension clause if Trump threatens the EU’s territorial sovereignty, as he did earlier this year when he pushed to annex Greenland. MEPs also added another provision that foresees that the deal would expire in March 2028.  Puzder declined to speculate on whether the deal could unravel altogether if the U.S. president were to launch any renewed threats.  “I hate to prejudge where this is going to go,” he said. “What everybody’s been saying on both sides is a deal is a deal. We had a deal; hopefully we still have a deal.” The ambassador stressed there had been a “very good two-way communication” between Trump’s team of Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and the European Commission, as well as with Bernd Lange, who chairs the European Parliament’s Trade Committee.   “I’ve also had a number of meetings with Bernd Lange and members of parliament on these issues. So the communication has been very good and very open throughout this process,” Puzder said.

Iranian missiles late Saturday hit two southern Israeli towns close to a nuclear facility in what Tehran said was retaliation for Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear site at Natanz. More than 160 people were injured in the strikes, which hit the towns of Dimona and Arad near Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center, according to the Israeli health ministry. The attack came as U.S. President Donald Trump warned that the United States will “obliterate” energy plants in Iran if the government in Tehran doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz, giving the country a 48-hour deadline to comply. Tehran warned in reply that any strike on its energy facilities would prompt retaliatory attacks on U.S. and Israeli energy and infrastructure facilities. Iranian state TV said Saturday’s strikes by Tehran were a response to an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility earlier in the day, according to the BBC. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran’s parliament, said the fact that ballistic missiles evaded Israeli defenses and struck near the nuclear research site appears to signal “a new phase” in the war. “If Israel is unable to intercept missiles in the heavily protected Dimona area, it is, operationally, a sign of entering a new phase of the conflict,” he posted on social media network X. “Israel’s skies are defenseless.” He added that the “time has come to implement the next pre-planned schemes,” without providing further details. Israeli military spokesman Effie Defrin said the strikes did not represent a new threat. “The air defense systems operated but did not intercept the missile. We will investigate the incident and learn from it,” he wrote on X. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it had been a “very difficult evening,” and vowed to “continue to strike our enemies on all fronts.” The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was aware of the strikes near the nuclear research center and has not received any indication of damage to the facility, nor any information from regional states indicating that abnormal radiation levels have been detected.

Probably not since Margaret Thatcher was in office have EU leaders been so outraged with one of their peers as they were last week when Victor Orbán again blocked a critical €90 billion loan to fund Ukraine’s war effort. Admittedly, the language wasn’t quite as colorful as sometimes used about Britain’s Iron Lady. An exasperated Jacques Chirac once was caught on a mic complaining about Thatcher: “What does she want from me, this housewife? My balls on a plate?” Nonetheless, there was no disguising the depth of anger at last week’s European Council meeting, with Orbán the villain of the piece as the Hungarian leader stubbornly declined once again to approve the critical financial lifeline for Ukraine. He’d only do so, he said, when Russian oil flows freely to Hungary through the Druzhba pipeline, damaged in a Russian air attack. Orbán accuses Kyiv of stalling repairs to it; Ukraine’s leader denies this. “I have never heard such hard-hitting criticism at an EU summit of anyone, ever,” Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters later. Maddened though they may be with Orbán, some of his most fervent European critics worry that EU leaders fell into a trap he carefully baited and perfectly timed for the final stretch of the closely fought Hungarian parliamentary elections. They worry EU leaders inadvertently boosted his electoral chances by ganging up on him and allowing him to portray himself back at home as the only man capable of protecting Hungarian interests, a favorite trope of his.  “The EU should have waited for the result of the Hungarian election,” French MEP Chloé Ridel told POLITICO. “Orbán is not doing will in the opinion polls. And obviously he’s doing his best to fight until the end, and they should have avoided the confrontation about the Ukrainian loan, delayed the clash and not let him obtain what he clearly wanted,” she added.  As co-chair of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on Anti-Corruption, Ridel has been an impassioned critic of Orbán and she argues that if he does pull off another election win next month, then the EU should withhold all EU funds for Hungary to punish it for democratic backsliding and explore the nuclear option of stripping an Orbán-led Hungary of its EU voting rights.  But best to keep quiet for now with the long-serving Hungarian leader’s political dominance in question for the first time in a decade-and-a-half with his Fidesz party trailing rival Péter Magyar’s Tisza party in the opinion polls, she believes. Why play into Orbán’s election script and give him the opportunity to fire up his electoral base and engineer a rally-around-the-flag and possibly persuade swing voters to cast their ballots for Fidesz? ORBÁN’S ELECTION PLAYBOOK Certainly, as he left Brussels after the summit on Friday morning, Orbán didn’t seem crestfallen or rattled by the drubbing. Tellingly he flashed several smiles as he told reporters that all the EU leaders could do was to “make a few threats and then realize that it would not work.” He added: “There was no argument from them against which we did not have a stronger argument. They did not say nice things, but they could not bring up anything that Hungary could be morally, legally, or politically blamed for.”  All of this is very much out of Orbán’s election playbook, according to Michael Ignatieff, the former Canadian politician. He has observed Hungarian politics up close as professor of history at the Central European University, formerly based in Budapest, until it was forced out by Orbán, and is now headquartered in Vienna. “There’s always a risk you fall into a trap with Orbán. He’s fighting for his political life,” Ignatieff told POLITICO. But he doesn’t fault EU leaders for the stance they took last week. “I’m in no position to second-guess the Commission or the Council or anybody. The point to remember is that Orbán has run against Brussels Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday for 16 years and cashed the checks on Saturday and Sunday. That’s the play, right? I don’t think there’s anything the EU can do one way or the other here. If it plays soft, he’ll still play hard,” he added. Orbán’s four previous election campaigns were all built around the idea of Hungary facing a dark and dangerous external threat, portraying himself as the man of destiny — the only one able to protect the beleaguered country surrounded by conniving enemies. Those foes have been variously faceless financial masters of the universe, international institutions, transnational left-wing elites and, of course, always the European Union. “We know all too well the nature of the uninvited helping comrades, and we recognize them even when instead of uniforms with epaulettes, they don well-tailored suits,” Orbán said once, when his controversial changes to Hungary’s constitution were challenged by the EU.  While MAGA heavyweights have not been shy in recent weeks to mobilize to shore up their most loyal European ideological ally — this week Reuters reported that U.S. Vice President JD Vance might be dispatched to Budapest in a bid to give Orbán an electoral lift. But EU leaders had until last week been more circumspect and careful to try to stay above the electoral fray to avoid being accused of election meddling. ‘PYRRHIC VICTORY’ While disputing that Orbán in any way lured EU leaders into a trap, Fidesz MEP András László conceded the clash might well help the Hungarian leader secure a fifth straight term as prime minister. “Mr. Orbán actually kept his word. Isn’t that what every citizen wants from politicians?” And with a touch of sophistry, he told POLITICO: “It was not the reaction of EU partners which could help us in this election, it’s the fact that Mr. Orbán actually stood his ground and did not give in to the pressure.” László blames Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the clash, arguing that the Ukrainian president is purposefully not repairing the oil pipeline “for political reasons, to meddle in the elections, create chaos, create fear in the hope that Hungarians will turn against Orbán.” Since the summer, Orbán has gone out his way, of course, to cast Magyar as a puppet of the EU and even a Ukrainian agent of influence who wants to push Hungary into war. The portrayal of Magyar, an MEP, as an instrument of Brussels is false. Tisza MEPs voted in the European Parliament against the €90 billion loan to Ukraine and Magyar is also critical of fast-tracking Kyiv’s application for EU membership. Nevertheless, Orbán persists in his characterization of Magyar as Brussels’ guy. “In line with Brussels and Kyiv, instead of a national government, they [Tisza] want to bring a pro-Ukrainian government to power in Hungary. That is why they are not standing up for the interests of Hungarian people and Hungary,” Orbán argued in a Facebook post last week. And with his domination of Hungary’s traditional media, his bundling together of the EU, Magyar and Ukraine as one collective enemy might well be cutting through — at least in the rural districts Orbán needs to hold if he’s to defy his critics and pull off another victory.  But if he does so off the back of last week’s clash with other EU leaders, it will be a “pyrrhic victory for him,” said Péter Krekó, director of the Political Capital Institute, a Budapest-based think tank and political consultancy. “Orbán can use it in the campaign to demonstrate his fight against Brussels domestically, but if he stays in power the Council will play hardball. It is bad for the EU now, but it will be much worse for Hungary in the middle to long run — if Orbán stays in power,” Krekó told POLITICO.

BERLIN — German Defense Minister Boris Pistorus will spend next week touring the Indo-Pacific with a passel of corporate chiefs in tow to make deals across the region. It’s part of an effort to mark a greater impact in an area where Berlin’s presence has been minor, but whose importance is growing as Germany looks to build up access to natural resources, technology and allies in a fracturing world. “If you look at the Indo-Pacific, Germany is essentially starting from scratch,” said Bastian Ernst, a defense lawmaker from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats. “We don’t have an established role yet, we’re only just beginning to figure out what that should be.” Pistorius leaves Friday on an eight-day tour to Japan, Singapore and Australia where he’ll be aiming to build relations with other like-minded middle powers — mirroring countries from France to Canada as they scramble to figure out new relationships in a world destabilized by Russia, China and a United States led by Donald Trump. “Germany recognizes this principle of interconnected theaters,” said Elli-Katharina Pohlkamp, visiting fellow of the Asia Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Berlin, she said, “increasingly sees Europe’s focus on Russia and Asia’s focus on China and North Korea as security issues that are linked.” The military and defense emphasis of next week’s trip marks a departure from Berlin’s 2020 Indo-Pacific guidelines, which laid a much heavier focus on trade and diplomacy. Pistorius’ outreach will be especially important as Germany rapidly ramps up military spending at home. Berlin is on track to boost its defense budget to around €150 billion a year by the end of the decade and is preparing tens of billions in new procurement contracts. But not everything Germany needs can be sourced in Europe. Australia is one of the few alternatives to China in critical minerals essential to the defense industry. It’s a leading supplier of lithium and one of the only significant producers of separated rare earth materials outside China. Australia also looms over a key German defense contract. Berlin is considering whether to stick with a naval laser weapon being developed by homegrown firms Rheinmetall and MBDA, or team up with Australia’s EOS instead. That has become a more sensitive political question in Berlin. WELT, owned by POLITICO’s parent company Axel Springer, reported that lawmakers had stopped the planned contract for the German option, reflecting wider concern over whether Berlin should back a domestic system or move faster with a foreign one. That means what Pistorius sees in Australia could end up shaping a decision back in Germany. TALKING TO TOKYO Japan offers something different — not raw materials but military integration, logistics and technology.  Pohlkamp said the military side of the relationship with Japan is now “very much about interoperability and compatibility, built through joint exercises, mutual visits, closer staff work, expanded information exchange and mutual learning.” She described Japan as “a kind of yardstick for Germany,” a country that lives with “an enormous threat perception” not only militarily but also economically, because it is surrounded by pressure from China, North Korea and Russia.  The Japan-Germany Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement took effect in July 2024, giving the two militaries a framework for reciprocal supplies and services and making future port calls for naval vessels, exercises and recurring cooperation easier to sustain.  Pohlkamp said what matters most to Tokyo are not headline-grabbing deployments but “plannable, recurring contributions, which are more valuable than big, one-off shows of force.” But that ambition only goes so far if Germany’s presence remains sporadic. Bundeswehr recruits march on the market square to take their ceremonial oath in Altenburg on March 19, 2026. | Bodo Schackow/picture alliance via Getty Images Berlin has sent military assets to the region for training exercises in recent years — a frigate in 2021, combat aircraft in 2022, army participation in 2023, and a larger naval mission in 2024. But as pressure grows on Germany to beef up its military to hold off Russia, along with its growing presence in Lithuania and its effort to keep supplying Ukraine with weapons, the attention given to Asia is shrinking. The government told parliament last year it sent no frigate in 2025, plans none in 2026 and has not yet decided on 2027. Germany’s current military engagement in the Indo-Pacific consists of a single P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, sent to India in February as part of the Indo-Pacific Deployment 2026 exercises.  Germany, according to Ernst, is still “relatively blank” in the region. What it can contribute militarily remains narrow: “A bit of maritime patrol, a frigate, mine clearance.” Pohlkamp said Germany’s role in Asia is still being built “in small doses” and is largely symbolic. But what matters is whether Berlin can turn occasional visits and deployments into something steadier and more predictable. The defense ministry insists that is the point of Pistorius’s trip. Ministry spokesperson Mitko Müller said Wednesday that Europe and the Indo-Pacific are “inseparably linked,” citing the rules-based order, sea lanes, international law and the role of the two regions in global supply and value chains.  The new P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft stands in front of a technical hangar at Nordholz airbase on Nov. 20, 2025. | Christian Butt/picture alliance via Getty Images The trip is meant to focus on the regional security situation, expanding strategic dialogue, current and possible military cooperation, joint exercises including future Indo-Pacific deployments, and industrial cooperation. That explains why industry is traveling with Pistorius.  Müller said executives from Airbus, TKMS, MBDA, Quantum Systems, Diehl and Rohde & Schwarz are coming along, suggesting Berlin sees the trip as a chance to widen defense ties on the ground. But any larger German role in Asia would have to careful calibrated to avoid angering China — a key trading partner that is very wary of European powers expanding their regional presence. “That leaves Germany trying to do two things at once,” Pohlkamp said. “First, show up often enough to matter, but not so forcefully that it gets dragged into a confrontation it is neither politically nor militarily prepared to sustain.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music From ChatGPT-written speeches to constituents flooding MPs with AI-generated emails, artificial intelligence has arrived in Westminster. In this episode of Westminster Insider, host Patrick Baker explores how politicians and ministers are scrambling to respond, balancing fears about deepfakes, bias and online harms with a determination to harness AI for economic growth. The UK’s first AI minister, Kanishka Narayan, says he believes that an artificial intelligence more capable than humans (so-called AGI) could arrive in five years’ time, and explains how he is trying to balance the risks of AI with its economic potential. Labour MP Mike Reader, dubbed the “ChatG-MP” after being spotted using the model to respond to constituents on a train, describes how AI is changing the day-to-day work of politicians. Conservative MP Luke Evans reflects on delivering the first AI-generated speech in the House of Commons. Labour MP Dawn Butler, who served on Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee, sets out her concerns about AI perpetuating racial discrimination and why she believes it must be tightly controlled. POLITICO’s Tech Editor Isobel Hamilton traces the twists and turns of the UK’s AI policy, including the influence of a pivotal meeting between the Prime Minister and a leading tech CEO. And Andrea Miotti, CEO of Control AI, explains why he believes urgent action is needed to guard against the existential risks posed by increasingly powerful systems.

BRUSSELS — Norway should reapply to become a member of the European Union in light of their shared security challenges — namely Russia — the leader of the country’s conservative opposition party told POLITICO. The oil-rich Nordic nation applied to join the EU in 1992, but the bid was rejected in a referendum two years later. Since then, Norway has been a member of the European Economic Area, which means it adopts many of the EU’s rules and regulations, as well as being a member of NATO. But with wars and growing threats around the world, the arms-length relationship between Brussels and Oslo is no longer fit for purpose, argued Ine Eriksen Søreide, who was elected leader of Norway’s conservative party last month. “In my opinion, and my party’s opinion, we would be best served by being full members of the EU,” she said in an interview on Thursday as EU leaders were convening for a summit in Brussels. “I’ve been talking consistently about the need for a constructive debate based on the EU as it is today, not as it was in 1994 … and saying very clearly and loudly” that Norway’s interests lie inside the 27-member bloc, added Søreide, who was defense minister from 2013 to 2017 and foreign minister from 2017 to 2021. A recent spat between Oslo and Brussels over ferro-alloys (additives in steelmaking) had underscored the drawbacks of being outside the union, said Søreide. The spat, during which the EU imposed restrictions on imports from Norway, “very clearly illustrated that we are a part of the [EU] internal market … but that doesn’t help if something comes from the outside like these protective measures.” Iceland’s potential bid to join the EU is another spur for Oslo to seek membership in the bloc. “If Iceland then decides in a referendum to reopen negotiations, it’s a very different ballgame,” she said. “I’m not suggesting that what Iceland does will in itself change the view of Norwegians, but it can lead to certain institutional changes and also a kind of different approach for the EU, making it more difficult for us to be on the outside.” Beyond benefits on trade, Søreide listed defense, space, health and Arctic security as areas where Oslo would benefit from full EU membership. The fact that Norway isn’t part of the EU, but nevertheless transposes its laws, means that the country is “missing out in so many areas,” she said. While Norway had transposed some 14,000 legal acts from the EU into national law in recent years, the country nonetheless gets no say in setting the bloc’s agenda or weighing in on its strategic orientations. The ferro-alloy case shows how Oslo can be seen as “a second-tier member” of the club, Søreide added. ‘MORE OPEN’ TODAY The question of Norway’s EU membership has come up repeatedly during the past 30 years, with voters typically deciding not to join the bloc. Norway applied for EU membership in 1992 along with Finland, Sweden and Austria, but ultimately voted against membership in a referendum — with 52.2 percent against and 47.8 percent in favor — while the other three countries opted to join. In recent years, polls have shown that a majority remains against joining the bloc, with concerns about protecting Norway’s vast energy wealth outweighing the benefits of membership. Norway’s parliament has a majority of MPs opposed to membership. However, support for joining the EU has ticked up over the past 18 months amid tensions in the transatlantic relationship and U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of seizing Greenland. A tense exchange of leaked messages between Trump and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre — in which the former criticized the latter for not granting him the Nobel Peace Prize — drove home concerns about the transatlantic relationship for many Norwegians. On the prospect of EU membership, Søreide said it was unlikely to materialize “immediately.” Indeed, Norway’s current government has not shown interest in launching a national debate about membership, and the next parliamentary elections aren’t until 2029. But Søreide said that attitudes toward membership were shifting. “I do sense … there is a more open approach to the issue in Norway,” she said. “Now when you hear debates among everything from the business sector to large private sector organizations to people on the street, there is a difference in tone.” The conservative party leader also criticized Norway’s Labour Party minority government, which is backed by a center-left coalition, for making the subject of EU membership taboo. “I’m very disappointed and also quite surprised that the government, a Labour government, has kind of put even the debate off for the next four years,” she said, adding she found the approach “very strange in this situation.” Søreide’s Høyre party is currently the third most popular in Norway, with about 18 percent support, according to POLITICO’s Poll of Polls. But that share has been inching up in recent months. Asked about her own plans, she said she aimed to make her party “significantly bigger than we did in the last election, which was a very poor election for us,” and would seek to become prime minister in 2029.

LONDON — A vast cache of messages between ministers and Britain’s sacked U.S. Ambassador Peter Mandelson is unlikely to be published until at least mid-April — creating a new moment of peril for Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his top team. Government officials had hoped to publish a new batch of disclosures relating to Mandelson before the House of Commons’ Easter recess begins March 26, said two people with knowledge of the discussions who were granted anonymity to speak frankly.  However, this is no longer likely to happen. One key reason, said three people with knowledge of the discussions (including one of those noted above), is that Downing Street wants to publish the vast majority of outstanding messages that MPs ordered for disclosure on Feb. 4 in one single batch, rather than in dribs and drabs. Retrieval has also been ongoing, with some of the raw messages with Mandelson — specifically from WhatsApp groups — only extracted from people’s phones in recent days, a fifth person with knowledge of the process said. The wait could add to the political difficulties facing Starmer, with headlines about Mandelson dragging out even longer. The post-Easter timing raises the prospect that private remarks by Starmer’s own ministers will become public shortly before elections on May 7, which some MPs believe could determine his future as PM. ‘REPUTATIONAL RISK’ The release of U.K. government communications, which follows the disclosure of millions of documents related to the U.S. investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was set in motion after Labour MPs backed a call by the opposition Conservative Party to release several thousand pages of documents related to Mandelson and his appointment. Mandelson was sacked as Britain’s ambassador to Washington last September over his past friendship with Epstein, but further revelations from the U.S. prompted a police investigation into his conduct, leading to his arrest in February. He has not been charged, and his lawyers have said he is cooperating with the investigation. Mandelson’s overriding priority is to clear his name, they added, having previously apologized “unequivocally” for his association with Epstein and “to the women and girls that suffered.” Ministers published an initial tranche of documents on March 11 relating directly to Mandelson’s appointment as U.S. ambassador. The files showed that Starmer had been warned that Mandelson’s Epstein links represented a “reputational risk,” and that the PM’s National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell had considered the appointment “weirdly rushed.” Still awaiting publication are “electronic communications” — including WhatsApp messages and emails — between Mandelson and ministers, officials and special advisers during his time as ambassador. Files are being shared with parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which is agreeing redactions of any elements that would compromise national security. Any publication is expected to happen while parliament is sitting. The Commons will be in recess between March 26 and April 13. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM, said on March 11 that he hoped the second tranche would be released “in the coming weeks.” However, the three people referenced above said No. 10 also wants to release as many of the remaining files as possible in one go. That would mean releasing the vast majority of the remaining files, save for a small number that the Metropolitan Police has asked the government to hold back. The force is investigating whether Mandelson committed misconduct in public office after a 2009 email exchange, released in the Epstein files, appeared to show him forwarding the details of government financial discussions to Epstein. He has denied wrongdoing. The emails and WhatsApp messages to be released could include the private opinions of Mandelson or his confidants on the political situation in Britain or on U.S. President Donald Trump. Previous messages between Mandelson and Wes Streeting, released proactively by the health secretary, showed Streeting complaining that the U.K. government had “no growth strategy at all.”

BRUSSELS — Most Europeans believe the U.S. could pull the plug on technology that Europe heavily relies on, according to a new poll. Eighty-six percent of people think a sudden U.S. move to restrict Europe’s access to digital services is “plausible” and “should not be ruled out,” and 59 percent called it “already a real and concrete risk,” in a survey conducted by SWG and Polling Europe presented to European Parliament members this week. European governments are trying to reduce their dependency on U.S. technology for critical services like cloud, communications and AI. One fear driving the shift to use homegrown tech is that of a “kill switch”; the idea that U.S. President Donald Trump could force the hand of American tech providers to cease services in Europe. Those fears peaked when the International Criminal Court’s Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan lost access last year to his Microsoft-hosted email account after the U.S. imposed sanctions on him. “During the last year, everybody has really realized how important it is that we are not dependent on one country or one company when it comes to some very critical technologies,” the EU’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen told an audience in Brussels earlier this year, at an event organized by POLITICO. “In these times … dependencies, they can be weaponized against us,” Virkkunen said. The survey quizzed 5,079 respondents across all 27 EU member countries in January. For 55 percent of those interviewed, charting a “European path” has become a “central strategic issue.” The European Parliament and a series of national government institutions have already taken steps to move away from ubiquitous U.S. tech — though EU capitals have cautioned the transition won’t happen overnight. The European Commission is also finalizing a set of proposals due in late May to reduce reliance on foreign tech, including defining what qualifies as a sovereign provider and which critical sectors should rely exclusively on them to safeguard European data and day-to-day operations. The poll suggests U.S. efforts to debunk and dismiss the “kill switch” scenario haven’t convinced Europeans. U.S. National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross told an audience in Munich in February that the idea that Trump can pull the plug on the internet is not “a credible argument.” Microsoft President Brad Smith said in Brussels last year that the “kill switch” scenario was “exceedingly unlikely” to happen, but acknowledged it’s “a real concern of people across Europe.” He pledged to push back against any prospective orders to suspend operations in Europe. U.S. firms at the same time are rushing to assuage the concerns with safeguards, like air-gapped solutions that would prove resilient in the case of operational disruptions.