BRUSSELS — Hungary says it has asked the European Union’s top court to annul a new law banning the import of Russian gas into the bloc, filing the challenge within hours of the new law taking effect. “Today, we took legal action before the European Court of Justice to challenge the REPowerEU regulation banning the import of Russian energy and request its annulment,” Hungary’s Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Péter Szijjártó said on X. Member countries agreed to the outright ban on Russian gas late last year in response to the country’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. The law passed despite Hungary’s opposition. Szijjártó said Hungary’s case was based on three arguments. “First, energy imports can only be banned through sanctions, which require unanimity. This regulation was adopted under the guise of a trade policy measure,” he said. “Second, the EU Treaties clearly state that each member state decides its choice of energy sources and suppliers. “Third, the principle of energy solidarity requires the security of energy supply for all member states. This decision clearly violates that principle, certainly in the case of Hungary.” Slovakia has also said it will challenge the law in court.

Second Amendment advocates are warning that Republicans shouldn’t count on them to show up in November, after President Donald Trump insisted that demonstrator Alex Pretti “should not have been carrying a gun.” The White House labels itself the “most pro-Second Amendment administration in history.” But Trump’s comments about Pretti, who was legally carrying a licensed firearm when he was killed by federal agents last week, have some gun rights advocates threatening to sit out the midterms. “I’ve spent 72 hours on the phone trying to unfuck this thing. Trump has got to correct his statements now,” said one Second Amendment advocate, granted anonymity to speak about private conservations. The person said Second Amendment advocates are “furious.” “And they will not come out and vote. He can’t correct it three months before the election.” The response to Pretti’s killing isn’t the first time Second Amendment advocates have felt abandoned by Trump. The powerful lobbying and advocacy groups, that for decades reliably struck fear into the hearts of Republicans, have clashed multiple times with Trump during his first year back in power. And their ire comes at a delicate moment for the GOP. While Democrats are unlikely to pick up support from gun-rights groups, the repeated criticisms from organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights suggest that the Trump administration may be alienating a core constituency it needs to turn out as it seeks to retain its slim majority in the House and Senate. It doesn’t take much to swing an election, said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “All you have to do is lose four, five, six percent of their base who left it blank, who didn’t write a check, who didn’t walk districts, you lose,” he said. “Especially marginal districts — and the House is not a good situation right now.” And it wasn’t only the president who angered gun-rights advocates. Others in the administration made similar remarks about Pretti, denouncing the idea of carrying a gun into a charged environment such as a protest. FBI Director Kash Patel said “you cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said she didn’t “know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” These sentiments are anathema to many Republicans who have fought for years against the idea that carrying a gun or multiple magazine clips implies guilt or an intent to commit a crime. “I sent a message to high-place people in the administration with three letters, W.T.F.,” Brown said. “If it had just been the FBI director and a few other highly-placed administration officials, that would have been one thing but when the president came out and doubled down that was a whole new level. This was not a good look for your base. You can’t be a conservative and not be radically pro-gun.” A senior administration official brushed off concerns about Republicans losing voters in the midterms over the outrage. “No, I don’t think that some of the comments that were made over the past 96 hours by certain administration officials are going to impede the unbelievable and strong relationship the administration has with the Second Amendment community, both on a personal level and given the historic successes that President Trump has been able to deliver for gun rights,” the official said. But this wasn’t the only instance when the Trump administration angered gun-rights advocates. In September after the shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis that killed two children, reports surfaced that the Department of Justice was looking into restricting transgender Americans from owning firearms. The suspect, who died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the scene of the shooting, was a 23-year-old transgender woman. “The signaling out of a specific demographic for a total ban on firearms possession needs to comport with the Constitution and its bounds and anything that exceeds the bounds of the Constitution is simply impermissible,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, told POLITICO. At the time, the National Rifle Association, which endorsed Trump in three consecutive elections, said they don’t support any proposals to “arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.” Additionally, some activists, who spoke to the gun-focused independent publication “The Reload,” said they were upset about the focus from federal law enforcement about seizing firearms during the Washington crime crackdown in the summer. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office wouldn’t pursue felony charges in Washington over carrying guns, The Washington Post reported. Trump, during his first term, infuriated some in the pro-gun movement when in 2018 his administration issued a regulation to ban bump stocks. The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the rule in 2024. “I think the administration clearly wants to be known as pro-Second Amendment, and many of the officials do believe in the Second Amendment, but my job at Gun Owners of America is to hold them to their words and to get them to act on their promises. And right now it’s a mixed record,” said Gun Owners for America director of federal affairs Aidan Johnston. In the immediate aftermath of the Pretti shooting, the NRA called for a full investigation rather than for “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.” But now, the lobbying group is defending Trump’s fuller record. “Rather than trying to extract meaning from every off-the-cuff remark, we look at what the administration is doing, and the Trump administration is, and has been, the most pro-2A administration in modern history,” said John Commerford, NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director. “From signing marquee legislation that dropped unconstitutional taxes on certain firearms and suppressors to joining pro-2A plaintiffs in cases around the country, the Trump administration is taking action to support the right of every American to keep and bear arms.” In his first month in office, Trump directed the Department of Justice to examine all regulations, guidance, plans and executive actions from President Joe Biden’s administration that may infringe on Second Amendment rights. The administration in December created a civil rights division office of Second Amendment rights at DOJ to work on gun issues. That work, said a second senior White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, should prove the administration’s bona fides and nothing said in the last week means they’ve changed their stance on the Second Amendment. “Gun groups know and gun owners know that there hasn’t been a bigger defender of the Second Amendment than the president,” said a second senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak on a sensitive issue. “But I think the president’s talking about in the moment— in that very specific moment— when it is such a powder keg going on, and when there’s someone who’s actively impeding enforcement operations, things are going to happen. Or things can happen.” Andrew Howard contributed to this report.

German industrial giant Bosch on Friday confirmed plans to cut 20,000 jobs after profits nearly halved last year, underlining the mounting strain on Germany’s once-dominant manufacturing sector and increasing the pressure on politicians in Berlin to find a solution. Official data released Friday also showed Germany’s unemployment rate, unadjusted for seasonal factors, rising to 6.6 percent — the highest level in twelve years. The number of unemployed people surpassed three million in January. “Economic reality is also reflected in our results,” Bosch CEO Stefan Hartung said, describing 2025 as “a difficult and, in some cases, painful year” for the company, which is a leading supplier of parts for cars. The move lands amid a deepening slump in the country’s automotive industry, long the backbone of German manufacturing. The sector has been shedding jobs rapidly: A 2025 study by EY found that more than 50,000 automotive positions were cut in Germany last year alone. Germany’s automotive downturn has become a wider political test for the government in Berlin and Europe more widely. Once the economy’s crown jewel, the industry is now being challenged by current policy on electric vehicles, energy costs and aggressive competition from Chinese manufacturers. As suppliers weaken, the risk is shifting from lower profits to a lasting loss of competitiveness. With layoffs rising and investment decisions being delayed, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government is coming under growing pressure from workers, unions and industry leaders to rethink Germany’s industrial strategy — as doubts spread domestically and across Europe about the country’s ability to remain an economic powerhouse.

PARIS — Tech billionaire and early Trump backer Peter Thiel is bringing his Antichrist lecture series across the Atlantic. The famed venture capitalist and right-wing tech icon on Monday delivered an in-depth presentation on the subjects to a small audience inside the wood-paneled halls of one of France’s most prestigious bodies, the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, two attendees told POLITICO. An outline of Thiel’s 23-slide presentation, distributed to attendees by the organizer and shared with POLITICO, delves into the theory of the biblical Antichrist, a deceptive figure in Christian theology who opposes Christ and embodies ultimate evil. The presentation sheds light on the ideology of one of the most influential figures in the United States given his role at the vanguard of Silicon Valley’s ideological shift toward an ideology blending Christian conservatism with a radical libertarianism. Thiel was invited by philosopher and academy member Chantal Delsol. According to the presentation notes seen by POLITICO, which had been translated into French, Thiel said the Antichrist is “not only a medieval fantasy” but that it and the apocalypse are both linked to “the end of modernity,” which he has argued is currently happening. Thiel said the Antichrist would exploit fears of the apocalypse — for example due to nuclear armageddeon, climate change or the threat posed by AI — to control a “frightened population.” He listed, as he has on previous occasions, Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg as a possible example. The 58-year-old self-described “classic liberal” and “moderate Orthodox Christian” had previously spoken about the Antichrist at an even in San Francisco last year and also discussed his thoughts on it with The New York Times. But he called the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences “one of the few places in the world where a conference like this can take place.” The two attendees previously cited told POLITICO they weren’t exactly blown away with the talk. One called it “disjointed.” The other said: “I heard more about the Antichrist during those 45 minutes than during the rest of my life.” “I didn’t understand much,” said a third attendee who did not specify what the talk was about. Despite the 30 or so protesters outside the venue, the event was highly anticipated given Thiel’s status as one of the first major figures in the tech world to back U.S. President Donald Trump. Thiel, who co-founded PayPal with Elon Musk and was an early investor in Facebook, is also a mentor to Vice President JD Vance and donated a record-breaking amount of money to his campaign for U.S. Senate. Thiel is also a co-founder of Palantir, a software and data analysis company that provides services to France’s General Directorate for Internal Security — the French equivalent of the FBI — and the European aircraft-maker Airbus. Thiel also met with French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot during his visit to Paris. “Given the role he has played in shaping the doctrine that drives part of the U.S. administration, Jean-Noël Barrot has invited him for a discussion on our differences of opinion on several major issues: digital regulation, liberal democracy, European civilization, and transatlantic relations in particular,” an aide to Barrot, granted anonymity to adhere to French professional norms, told POLITICO. Giorgio Leali contributed to this report.

Europe isn’t doomed to inexorable decline — and in fact is doing better than most people realize, said the IMF’s Kristalina Georgieva. Much of the European Union’s policymaking bubble has been gripped with despair since the bloc’s weakness was exposed during a recent confrontation with the U.S. over Greenland. While U.S. President Donald Trump eventually backed down, the European military response — sending a symbolic handful of soldiers to the North Atlantic island — underlined that had the White House really wanted to seize Greenland, Europeans would have had no choice but to accede. But in an interview with POLITICO, Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said the pessimism was misplaced. In an end-of-year shortlist of top-performing economies put together by the Economist, she noted, the top 10 included seven EU countries, with Portugal in the top spot. The Iberian economy has recorded steady growth while comfortably paying down its debt in the past few years. That’s a fact, she said, that should be celebrated. “Europeans — we are modest people. We don’t brag,” the IMF head stated. She recalled how a U.S. colleague had recently done “something marginal.” “He said ‘oh, let’s look at this. I’m great. I’m fantastic,’” Georgieva recounted. “In Europe you do something great and you say ‘not too bad.’ In this world we are in now, you have to brag a little, exude confidence.” Even before the Greenland standoff, a sense of despair had settled over the top echelons of European economic decision-making. Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank, warned that the bloc faced “slow agony” if it didn’t reform. Georgieva acknowledged the increasingly sharp-elbowed way in which countries now operate — one that leaves little room for multilateral organizations like her own IMF. In a speech earlier on Monday she acknowledged that the world had become “multipolar” — code for a new era of jostling geopolitical blocs that has replaced unilateral American dominance. Speaking to POLITICO, Georgieva said that “geopolitical factors play an increasingly bigger role in defining the world economy.” On Greenland, she said the fact that “allies find it more difficult to retain their sense of common purpose” was a “significant change.” But she insisted that the “destiny of Europe is in the hands of Europeans.” The IMF’s list of advice to reform the EU’s economy echoes Draghi’s own, contained in his competitiveness report from 2024: They include strengthening the single market, cutting regulations on businesses, and integrating the continent’s fragmented energy and financial systems. Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank, warned that the bloc faced “slow agony” if it didn’t reform. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Georgieva said it was “paramount” for the EU to press ahead with reform. “Get your own house in order,” she said. Three of the Economist shortlist’s best-performing countries — Ireland, Portugal and Greece — were put under IMF supervision at the height of the eurozone crisis. There, they had to agree to painful adjustments known as structural reform programs, which included tax hikes and brutal cuts to public services. In the case of Greece in particular, those structural reforms resulted in a sharp increase in unemployment and poverty levels; gross domestic product per capita is still not at its pre-crisis level. But, said Georgieva, their current success is proof that countries, and the EU as a whole, can change their economic trajectories. Asked whether Europe should consider retaliating against U.S. aggression by selling off assets like government bonds, a suggestion included in a recent analyst report from Deutsche Bank, the senior official urged caution. “I would say that the smooth functioning of the international monetary system is of value to all countries,” she said. “Disturbing that smooth functioning of the international monetary system with the same token can bring negative impact.” The Bulgarian boss of the Washington, D.C.-based fund did, however, back a deeper pool of joint EU debt — an idea favored by Draghi but regarded with suspicion by frugal countries like Germany and the Netherlands. As for the disbursement of $8.1 billion in IMF funds to Ukraine to help the country meet its financing needs, Georgieva said she was aiming to hold an IMF board meeting in the second half of `February at which the board could approve the program and start paying out funds. Though the amount is relatively small — less than a tenth of the €90 billion that the EU has agreed to lend to Ukraine — IMF approval is a signal of confidence for financial markets. The IMF chief also said that a meeting “is scheduled” with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent regarding the situation in Venezuela, and that it would happen in the “nearest future.” The IMF stopped working with Venezuela in 2019. The fund estimates that the South American country’s economy, battered by U.S. sanctions and plagued by mismanagement, has shrunk to a third of its previous largest size. Since the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro at the start of the year, it has floated the possibility of allowing Venezuela to access IMF financing again.

BRUSSELS — Powerful political allies helped automakers force the EU to water down climate laws for cars — and now the aviation sector is borrowing those tactics. Their big target is getting the EU to dilute its mandate forcing airlines to use increasing amounts of cleaner jet fuels, alternatives to kerosene that are also much more expensive and harder to source. Aviation is emerging as the next crucial stress test for the EU’s climate agenda, as key leaders push to do whatever it takes to help struggling European businesses. With industry and allied governments pressing for relief from costly green rules, the fight will show how far Brussels is willing to go — and what it is willing to give up — in pursuit of its climate goals. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” French energy giant TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné predicted at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month. Carmakers provide a model on how to get the EU to backtrack. The bloc mandated that no CO2-emitting cars could be sold from 2035, essentially killing the combustion engine and replacing it with batteries (possibly with a minor role for hydrogen). But many carmakers — allied with countries like Germany, Italy and automaking nations in Central Europe — pushed back, arguing that the 2035 mandate would destroy the car sector just as it is battling U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, sluggish demand and a rising threat from Chinese competitors. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” Patrick Pouyanné said. | Ludovic Marin/ AFP via Getty Images In the end, the European Commission gave way and watered down the 2035 mandate, which will now only aim to cut CO2 emissions by 90 percent. AVIATION DEMANDS The aviation sector has a similar list of issues with the EU. It is taking aim at a host of other climate policies, such as including aviation in the bloc’s cap-and-trade Emissions Trading System and intervening on non-CO2 impacts of airplanes like contrails — the ice clouds produced by airplanes that have an effect on global warming. Brussels introduced several regulations over the last 15 years to address the growing climate impact of air transport, which accounts for about 3 percent of global CO2 emissions. Those policies include the obligation to use sustainable aviation fuels, to put a price on carbon emissions and to take action on non-CO2 emissions. Each of these green initiatives is now under attack. The ReFuelEU regulation requires all airlines to use SAF for at least 2 percent of their fuel mix starting this year. That mandate rises to 6 percent from 2030, 20 percent from 2035 and 70 percent by 2050. “Today, all airline companies are fighting even the 6 percent … which is easy to reach to be honest,” Pouyanné said, but then warned, “20 percent five years after makes zero sense.” He is echoed by CEOs like Ryanair’s combative Michael O’Leary, who called the SAF mandate “nonsense.” “It is all gradually dying a death, which is what it deserves to do,” O’Leary said last year. “We have just about met our 2 percent mandate. There is no possibility of meeting 6 percent by 2030; 10 percent, not a hope in hell. We’re not going to get to net zero by 2050.” Brussels-based airline lobbies are not calling for the SAF mandate to be killed, rather they are demanding a book-and-claim system. Under such a scheme, airlines could claim carbon credits for a certain amount of SAF, even if they don’t use it in their own aircraft. They would buy it at an airport where it’s available and then let other airlines use it. That would make it easier for airlines to meet the SAF mandate even if the fuel is not easily available. However, so far the Commission is opposed. LOBBYING BATTLE The car coalition only worked because industry allied with countries, and there are signs of that happening with aviation. The sector’s lobbying effort to slash the EU carbon pricing could find an ally in the new Italo-German team-up to promote competitiveness. The German government last year announced a plan to cut national aviation taxes — with the call made during the COP30 global climate conference, something that angered the German Greens. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz attend the Italy-Germany Intergovernmental Summit at Villa Doria Pamphilj. | Vincenzo Nuzzolese/LightRocket via Getty Images Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Friday that she and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wanted to start “a decisive change of pace … in terms of the competitiveness of our businesses.” “A certain ideological vision of the green transition has ended up bringing our industries to their knees, creating new dangerous strategic dependencies for Europe without, however, having any real impact on the global protection of the environment and nature,” she added. Her far-right coalition ally, Italian Transport Minister Matteo Salvini, has called the ETS and taxes on maritime transport and air transport “economic suicide” that “must be dismantled piece by piece.” COMMISSION SAYS NO As with the 2035 policy for cars, the European Commission is strongly defending its policy against those attacks. Apostolos Tzitzikostas, the transport commissioner, stressed the EU’s “firm commitment” to stick with aviation decarbonization policies. “Investment decisions and construction must start by 2027, or we will miss the 2030 targets. It is as simple as that,” the commissioner said in November when announcing the bloc’s new plans to boost investment into sustainable aviation and maritime fuels. Climate campaigners fought hard against the car sector’s efforts to gut 2035, and now they’re gearing up for another battle over aviation targets. “The airlines’ whining comes as no surprise — yet it is disappointing to see airlines come after such a fundamental piece of EU legislation,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. She was incensed about efforts to dodge the high prices set by the EU’s ETS in favor of the U.N.’s cheaper CORSIA emissions reduction scheme. Airline lobbyA4E said its members paid €2.3 billion for ETS permits last year. “By 2030, [the ETS cost] should rise up to €5 billion because the free allowances are phased out,” said Monika Rybakowska, the lobby’s policy director.  A recent study by the think tank InfluenceMap found that airlines are working to increase their impact on policymakers by aligning their positions on ETS. T&E also took aim at a recent position paper by A4E that asked the EU to postpone measures to curb non-CO2 pollution — such as nitrogen oxides and soot particles that, along with water vapor, contribute to contrails. The A4E paper said that “the scientific foundation for regulating non-CO2 effects remains insufficient” and “introducing financial liability risks misdirecting resources.” This is “an outdated excuse,” responded T&E, noting that the climate impact of contrails has been known for over 20 years.

BERLIN — As Europe’s traditional Franco-German engine splutters, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is increasingly looking to team up with hard-right Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as his co-pilot in steering the EU. The two are set to meet at a summit in the opulent Villa Doria Pamphilj in Rome on Friday to double down on their budding alliance. They are both right-wing Atlanticists who want to cool tensions with U.S. President Donald Trump. And they both have their frustrations with French President Emmanuel Macron. In years past, Germany would traditionally have turned to France at decisive moments to map out blueprints for the EU, so it’s significant that Merz is now aligning with Meloni in his attempt to drive forward core European priorities on trade and industry. In part, Merz’s gravitation toward Meloni is driven by annoyance with France. Berlin is irritated that Paris sought to undermine the landmark Mercosur trade deal with South America, which the Germans have long wanted in order to promote industrial exports. Germany is also considering pulling out of a €100 billion joint fighter-jet program over disputes with the French. Against that backdrop, the alignment with Rome has a compelling logic. During Friday’s meeting, Merz and Meloni are expected to sign up to cooperation on defense, according to diplomats involved in the preparations. It’s not clear what that involves, but Germany’s Rheinmetall and Italy’s Leonardo already have a joint venture to build tanks and other military vehicles. Perhaps most ambitiously, Italy and Germany are also teaming up to draft a new game plan to revive EU industry and expand exports in a joint position paper for the Feb. 12 European Council summit. Berlin and Rome style themselves as the “two main industrial European nations” and have condemned delays to the Mercosur agreement. That language will grate in Paris. IN FOR THE LONG HAUL For Giangiacomo Calovini, a lawmaker from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, who heads the parliament’s Italian-German friendship group, the Merz-Meloni alliance makes sense given Macron’s impending departure from the European stage after next year’s French election. “[Our] two countries have stable governments, especially if compared with France’s,” he said. “It is clear that Meloni and Merz still probably have a long path ahead of them, during which they can work together.” Safeguarding the relationship with Trump is crucial to both leaders, and both Merz and Meloni have sought to avoid transatlantic blow-ups. They have been supported in their firefighting by their foreign ministers, Johann Wadephul and Antonio Tajani. “Giorgia Meloni and Friedrich Merz have represented the European wing most open to dialogue with President Trump,” said Pietro Benassi, former Italian ambassador to Berlin and the EU. “The somewhat surreal acceleration [of events] driven by the American president is confirming a convergence in the positions of Italy and Germany, rather than between Italy and France, or France and Germany.” In contrast to the softly-softly approach in Rome and Berlin, Calovini accused Macron of unhelpfully “contradictory” behavior toward Trump. “He acts as the one who wants to challenge the United States of America but then sends texts — that Trump has inelegantly published — in which he begs Trump to have dinner,” he complained. GOOD CHEMISTRY Officials in Berlin now privately gush over the growing cooperation with Meloni, describing the relationship with Rome as dependable. “Italy is reliable,” said one senior German government official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. It’s not an adjective authorities in Berlin have often used to describe their French counterparts of late. “France is more verbal, but Italy is much more pragmatic,” said Axel Schäfer, a senior lawmaker in Germany’s Social Democratic Party long focused on German-Italian relations. An Italian official also praised the “good chemistry” between Merz and Meloni personally. That forms a marked contrast with the notoriously strained relations between Meloni and Macron, who have frequently clashed. In their effort to draw closer, Merz and Meloni have at times resorted to hyperbole. During his inaugural visit to Rome as chancellor last year, Merz said there was “practically complete agreement between our two countries on all European policy issues.” Meloni returned the sentiment. “It is simply impossible to cast doubt on the relations between Italy and Germany,” she said at the time. MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE That is overegging it. The two leaders, in fact, have considerable differences. Meloni refused to support an ultimately doomed plan, pushed by Merz, to use frozen Russian assets to finance military aid for Ukraine. Meloni also briefly withheld support for the Mercosur trade deal in order to win concessions for Italian farmers before ultimately backing it. Critically, Rome and Berlin are likely to prove very awkward allies when it comes to public finances. Italy has long pushed for looser European fiscal policy — and been a natural ally of France on this point — while Germany has served as the continent’s iron disciplinarian on spending. But even here there has been some convergence, with Meloni cutting Italy’s spending and Merz presiding over a historic expansion in debt-fueled outlays on infrastructure and defense. Fundamentally, much of the growing alliance between Merz and Meloni is a product of shifts undertaken for their own domestic political survival. Meloni has dragged her nationalist Brothers of Italy party to the center, particularly on foreign policy matters. At the same time, the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Germany has forced Merz to shift his conservative party sharply to the right on migration.     This ideological merging has allowed for a warming of relations. As Merz has sought partners on the European level to drastically reduce the inflow of asylum seekers coming to Europe, to reduce regulation and to push for more trade — and provide a counterbalance to Macron — Meloni has become an increasingly important figure for the chancellor. Still, Stefano Stefanini, a former senior Italian diplomat and NATO representative, said there would always be limits to the relationship. “It’s very tactical,” he said. “There’s no coordinated strategy. There are a number of issues on which Meloni and Merz find themselves on the same side.” Stefanini also noted that spending commitments — particularly on military projects — would be an area where Rome would once again find itself in a more natural alliance with France. “On defense spending Italy and France are closer, because Germany has the fiscal capacity to spend by itself, while Italy and France need to get as much financial support as they can from the EU,” he said. Despite such differences, Meloni has seized her opening to get closer to Merz. “Meloni has understood that, as there is some tension in the France-Germany relationship, she could infiltrate and get closer to Germany,” said Marc Lazar, an expert on Franco-Italian relations who teaches at the Luiss University in Rome and at Sciences Po in Paris.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said he doesn’t like banks and will scrap interest payments British lenders receive through the Bank of England’s quantitative easing program.  The Reform Party included the proposal to end the practice of the U.K. central bank paying interest on the reserves placed with it by banks in its 2024 manifesto, which it claimed would bring in up to £40 billion for taxpayers.  “We are going to do it. Some of the banks won’t like it. Well, I don’t like the banks very much because they debanked me, didn’t they?” Farage said in an interview with Bloomberg at the World Economic Forum in Davos.  “This will be tough for banks to accept, but I am sorry, the drain on public finances is just too great. It’s not a tax. They are just not going to get free money anymore. They’ll adjust; business always does.” The BoE currently pays interest on the bank reserves created during the post-global financial crisis quantitative easing (QE) program. That money is now largely held on deposit back at the BoE by commercial banks, which earn a risk-free return linked to the current Bank Rate. Amid concerns about what a Reform government would mean for policymakers’ independence, Farage declared that he’s “not questioning the independence” of the central bank, but didn’t rule out appointing his own governor.  “Andrew Bailey is a perfectly polite, nice man, but they should have picked somebody who was a Brexiteer to be in charge of the Bank of England to think totally differently, especially around financial markets, financial market regulation,” he said.  “If we don’t do things differently, we’re going to get poorer. We’re going to pick different people with a different attitude towards everything.”  Farage has recently claimed he is giving “serious thought” to scrapping the independent Office for Budget Responsibility if his party wins the next general election.

In a continent of SPAs and GmbHs, what’s the value of an Inc.? A “freedom fries”-style linguistic argument has broken out over the naming of a corporate law proposal for startups, highlighting anti-American sentiment in Europe amid Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, during a speech in Davos, suggested using the name “EU Inc.” instead of the somewhat dry “28th regime.” Her suggestion has drawn disdain from the lead lawmaker on the proposal. An American abbreviation like “Inc.” — short for the U.S.-specific “incorporated” legal entity — is “maybe not the right way to call this one” in the current geopolitical context, said René Repasi, a German Social Democrat. The row reflects deeper resistance to the Americanization of language and culture in Europe. In a continent of French Sociétés Anonymes and German GmbHs, Brussels’ embrace of U.S. corporate terminology may be a bridge too far. Some lawmakers have been rankled by the rise of “Acts” — from the Digital Markets Act to the AI Act — which mirror the punchy legislative branding of Capitol Hill, abandoning traditional European “directives” and “regulations” when used in the EU executive’s primary communication method, English. Von der Leyen has also come under fire for rolling back her green agenda during her current, second mandate. Critics have said her drive to cut red tape is a poorly disguised attempt to appease President Donald Trump, who has criticized EU regulation for discriminating against U.S. business. This latest geopolitically flavored semantic squabble summons memories of 2003, when an American lawmaker — upset with France’s refusal to join the invasion of Iraq — renamed “French fries” as “freedom fries” in three congressional cafeterias. Repasi’s proposal for the 28th regime rebrand? Societas Europaea Unificata (S.EU), a Latin-derived term that translates to “unified European company.” Parliament voted in favor of his choice of name, which echoes past proposals like the 2008 Societas Privata Europaea. “We go back to the roots of our continent’s languages,” said Repasi, explaining Parliament’s choice of a Latin-derived term rather than an American abbreviation. “I cannot be the only one who struggles to pronounce the proposed name of the new corporate form,” Kim van Sparrentak said in Monday’s debate on the proposal. (The Dutch Greens MEP still voted for the proposal with the Latin-rooted name.) COVERING THE BASIS Beyond the naming spat, there are more profound ideological splits over the regime to create a single EU window for registering companies, which Commissioner Michael McGrath is expected to unveil in late March. The idea is to create a flourishing startup landscape, and stem a flight of talent and ideas across the Atlantic. Repasi warned that the regime must not become a vehicle for “charlatans” to escape labor standards, echoing a complaint from Lukas Mandl, of the European People’s Party, that the proposal should not give rise to a “gold digger mentality” that could destabilize the European social partnership model. “If there is no credible solution how employee participation … can be secured, I see difficulties that the progressive side of the House can support such a 28th regime,” he said, citing the failure of previous attempts like the SPE and SUP due to the same issue. Another substantive issue may prove to be its legal basis, on which lawmakers haven’t yet agreed. It’s on this issue that the creators of the “EU Inc.” naming proposal — who were delighted to see von der Leyen endorse it — are really hoping to make an impact. The “EU Inc.” movement, led by founders who have taken their roadshow to capitals across the bloc, is pushing for a regulation to ensure a single, directly applicable rulebook that prevents member states from “gold-plating” the law with national quirks. If von der Leyen “chooses a title that’s very dear to pressure groups, that guarantees applause,” said Repasi, worrying that the Commission may put forward a proposal that would impinge on national labor rules. The new name in particular “sends a wrong signal,” said Repasi. The Parliament’s report steers towards what Repasi describes as a more pragmatic directive, a choice rooted in what he says is Council arithmetic. A regulation on corporate law would require the unanimous consent of all 27 member countries, a high bar that Repasi fears would create a “Frankenstein’s monster” as each capital demands its own specific national carve-outs .  By opting for a directive, the EU can move forward via qualified majority voting, bypassing the “unanimity trap” that famously saw previous attempts at corporate law harmonization languish for decades. “If we want to have a regulation which ends up in unanimity … we can wait for Godot,” said Repasi.

DAVOS, Switzerland — Be careful sliding into the Donald’s DMs. The world might learn something about Trump — but more about you. The U.S. president’s affinity for screenshotting his texts with presidents and prime ministers instead of sharing  the standard sanitized readouts of such leader-to-leader conversations offers an extraordinary level of insight into how power players are trying to woo Trump. Take the message Trump shared early Tuesday from French President Emmanuel Macron, which the Elysée Palace says is authentic. In it, Macron says he doesn’t understand the American strategy with respect to Greenland, which Trump is threatening to take over at the expense of transatlantic relations. The French president also offers to set up a G7 meeting in Paris — after Trump leaves Davos, where he is attending this year’s edition of the World Economic Forum — with several other major players on the margins, including the Russians. Macron then invites Trump to dinner in Paris on Thursday. The note seems straightforward enough, but Macron’s appeal to Trump’s ego and ambition speaks to a deeper subtext about the state of the geopolitical order. FRIENDSHIP WHAT HE SAID “My friend” WHAT HE MEANT The French president is calling President Trump “his friend,” as he has done publicly. And some meetings between the leaders have gone well. But the two enjoy a mercurial relationship at best, amid knuckle-crunching encounters and Trump’s jibes over Macron’s diplomatic endeavors and energy. On Monday evening, the U.S. president didn’t display much affection for Macron after he refused to join Washington’s “Board of Peace” for the Gaza transition. “Well, nobody wants him because he’s going to be out of office very soon,” Trump told reporters. Then he threatened to hit French wines and Champagnes with 200 percent tariffs. SYRIA WHAT HE SAID “We are totally in line on Syria“ WHAT HE MEANT Syria is, undoubtedly, an area of agreement for the duo. Both support the former Al-Qaeda member Ahmed al-Sharaa as Syria’s leader, despite ongoing issues over reconciling the country’s different communities. Highlighting Syria seems to be a good way to paper over other Trump and Macron’s myriad other disagreements: Washington’s support for far-right movements in Europe, the French president’s desire to impose stricter regulation on tech giants, the Israel-Gaza war, climate change and the role of the United Nations, to name just a few. IRAN WHAT HE SAID “We can do great things on Iran” WHAT HE MEANT Another thing Paris and Washington agree on … to a certain extent. The G7 nations have threatened Iran with sanctions if the bloody crackdown on protesters in Tehran continues and the EU is also considering additional sanctions. There are some quite substantial differences, however. The French do not support bombing Iran, something Trump has threatened to do. Don’t forget, Paris helped forge the nuclear deal with Iran that Trump pulled out of during his first term. GREENLAND WHAT HE SAID “I do not understand what you are doing on Greenland” WHAT HE MEANT This is Macron using his most euphemistic language during his direct conversation with Trump, about the subject roiling the global order right now. France has publicly been much more forceful in response to the U.S. president’s threats to tariff European allies who do not support his designs on Greenland. Macron has pushed for the EU to unleash its Anti-Coercion Instrument, the the so-called trade bazooka, while other leaders like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz want to give a chance to diplomacy. France has also sent a small contingent of troops to Greenland and is planning to deploy land, sea and air forces, though the details remain unspecified. SUMMITS WHAT HE SAID “I can set up a g7 meeting after Davos in Paris on thursday afternoon.” WHAT HE MEANT Timing is everything. If Macron sent that message Monday (Trump’s screenshot in what appears to be their Signal chat says “Today” and is timestamped 5:01 p.m., but he could have taken the screenshot earlier), he would have been proposing a meeting that directly clashes with an emergency EU leaders’ summit Thursday evening in Brussels, which may project a sense of disunity in the bloc. Macron’s invitation also underlines the issue of where to go when the transatlantic relationship hits the rocks. The EU is the main format for responding to Trump’s tariffs threat, but it doesn’t include the U.K., which is playing a key role on security guarantees for Ukraine and discussions on Greenland security. France is likely proposing the G7 format as it holds the rotating presidency of the group and includes major Arctic stakeholders like the U.K. and Canada. NATO is typically the privileged forum to discuss European defense and security. But it’s not really built to handle one member threatening another. OTHER LEADERS WHAT HE SAID “I can invite the ukrainians, the danish, the syrians and the russians in the margins.” WHAT HE MEANT Macron’s apparent willingness to invite the Russians to a G7 meeting in Paris alongside the Ukrainians and the Danes is likely to raise concerns among Europeans. The French president has repeatedly said Europeans should resume dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the wake of peace talks between the U.S., Ukraine and Russia. However, Europeans have been divided over who should lead those talks and whether a European special envoy role should be created, as Moscow’s bombardment of Ukraine continues unabated. Inviting the Russians, even on the margins of a G7 meeting in Paris, could be read as rehabilitating Moscow before Putin has offered any indication it takes peace talks seriously. It’s a risky bet. DINNER DATE WHAT HE SAID “Let us have a dinner together in Paris on thursday before you go back to the us” WHAT HE MEANT A good dinner in Paris might be a way to Trump’s heart. Europeans have noted that pomp and ceremony puts the U.S. president in a good mood. The NATO summit in The Hague last year was considered a successful example of Trump-cajoling, with lots of flattery and hobnobbing with royalty. Macron has also developed a knack for “dinner diplomacy,” having invited Hungary’s Viktor Orbán several times for dinners in Paris, in a bid to iron out differences. The results, however, are mixed.