PARIS — Marine Le Pen recent public statements seem to indicate that she’s losing faith in her effort to quash the five-year election ban standing in the way of her becoming France’s next president. In her latest comments Tuesday, outside the gilded Parisian courtroom where she has been appealing since January an embezzlement conviction that knocked her out of the 2027 election, Le Pen told reporters: “I never expect a good surprise when I step into a courtroom.” But, she added: “I am a believer. I still believe in miracles.” The dour pessimism in those and similar comments is striking coming from a leader who had vowed to fight what she framed as politically motivated hit job. Le Pen even held a Stop-the-Steal-type rally last year after she and her codefendants were found guilty of misappropriating €4 million of European Parliament funds. But as the months have dragged on, Le Pen has seemed increasingly resigned, recognizing that her shot at the French presidency is slipping away just as her party, the National Rally, is enjoying an historic surge in popularity. Nonetheless, it’s possible the doom and gloom are all part of her strategy to express more contrition to get a more favorable verdict. Whatever it is, Le Pen has presented this appeal as her last chance to mount a bid for the Elysée Palace and acknowledged publicly that she may be forced to step aside in favor of her 30-year-old protégé, Jordan Bardella.  Tuesday’s sentencing recommendations appeared to confirm her suspicions at first.  Prosecutors asked the court to uphold her five-year electoral ban, but in an unexpected twist, argued against its immediate implementation.  Should the court agree, it offers Le Pen a small glimmer of hope. But it’s a legally complex and politically risky path back into the race, and one that Le Pen herself appears to be placing little hope in.  WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION?  In French criminal law, penalties are typically lifted when a defendant appeals a verdict to a higher court.   Part of the reason Le Pen’s initial sentence drew so much backlash is prosecutors argued — and the judges agreed — that her crimes were so grave that her ban on running for public office should be handed down immediately, regardless of whether she appeals.  But during the appeal the prosecution did not recommend immediate implementation because there was insufficient proof that Le Pen could commit further crimes if she is not sanctioned immediately.  SO, CAN LE PEN RUN FOR PRESIDENT?   In theory, if the appeals court rules in a manner that bars Le Pen from running in 2027 but does not order immediate implementation, she could appeal again to an even higher court — thereby lifting her ban temporarily. She would then need to hope that the gears of the justice system grind slowly enough to push the issue past the next election. But it’s not clear cut. Some French legal scholars have debated if and how a new appeal would lift her electoral ban at all. Le Pen has said she will make a final call once there is a verdict in the current appeal. She has also said she would drop out of the running if the electoral ban is upheld to avoid the risk of having the National Rally run its presidential campaign with no guarantee of who the candidate would be until the last minute — an ignominious end to a career dedicated to dragging her far-right party from the political fringes into the mainstream. It is unclear if a ban without immediate implementation, as sought by the prosecutors, changes her reasoning — but her comments to French broadcaster TF1-LCI after the prosecutors made their recommendation seemed to indicate that she’d still rule herself out in that eventuality. “If the prosecutors’ recommendations are followed, I won’t be able to run,” she said. Le Pen now has to hope that she’ll be acquitted, which appears unlikely, or that the case’s three-judge panel reduces or scraps her electoral ban. The judges are under no obligation to follow the prosecution’s recommendations. WHEN WILL THIS BE RESOLVED? The judges hearing the case are expected to render a verdict before the summer.   The Cour de Cassation, which would take up any ensuing appeal, has said it would aim to examine the case and issue a final ruling before the 2027 election “if possible.” 

A Hungarian court on Wednesday sentenced German national Maja T. to eight years in prison on charges related to an assault on a group of right-wing extremists in Budapest two years ago. The case attracted national attention in Germany following the extradition of the defendant to Hungary in 2024, a move which Germany’s top court subsequently judged to have been illegal. Politicians on the German left have repeatedly expressed concern over whether the defendant, who identifies as non-binary, was being treated fairly by Hungary’s legal system. Hungarian prosecutors accused Maja T. of taking part in a series of violent attacks on people during a neo-Nazi gathering in Budapest in February 2023, with attackers allegedly using batons and rubber hammers and injuring several people, some seriously. The defendant was accused of acting alongside members of a German extreme-left group known as Hammerbande or “Antifa Ost.” The Budapest court found Maja T. guilty of attempting to inflict life-threatening bodily harm and membership in a criminal organization. The prosecution had sought a 24-year prison sentence, arguing the verdict should serve as a deterrent; the defendant has a right to appeal. German politicians on the left condemned the court’s decision. “The Hungarian government has politicized the proceedings against Maja T. from the very beginning,” Helge Limburg, a Greens lawmaker focused on legal policy, wrote on X. “It’s a bad day for the rule of law.” The case sparked political tensions between Hungary and Germany after Maja T. went on a hunger strike in June to protest conditions in jail. Several German lawmakers later visited to express their solidarity, and German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul called on Hungary to improve detention conditions for Maja T. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s illiberal government is frequently accused of launching a culture war on LGBTQ+ people, including by moving to ban Pride events, raising concerns among German left-wing politicians and activists over the treatment of Maja T. by the country’s legal system. Maja T.’s lawyers criticized the handling of evidence and what they described as the rudimentary hearing of witnesses, according to German media reports.

London’s Metropolitan Police on Tuesday evening opened an investigation into former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson over alleged misconduct in public office. “Following the further release of millions of court documents in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Department of Justice, the Met received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office, including a referral from the U.K. government,” the Metropolitan Police said in a statement. “I can confirm that the Metropolitan Police has now launched an investigation into a 72-year-old man, a former Government Minister, for misconduct in public office offenses,” said Police Commander Ella Marriott. The police didn’t give a name, but 72-year-old Mandelson — a central figure in the politics of the U.K’s ruling Labour party for decades — has appeared in the latest tranche of Epstein-related documents. Files released by the U.S. Department of Justice show emailed communications between Mandelson and Epstein, including discussions about sensitive government policy. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday evening. A government spokesperson told POLITICO on Tuesday: “The government stands ready to provide whatever support and assistance the police need.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer — who appointed Mandelson as the U.K.’s ambassador to the U.S. a year ago — told his Cabinet on Tuesday that the fresh allegations were “disgraceful,” according to people familiar with the meeting. Joe Stanley-Smith and Andrew McDonald contributed to this report.

PARIS — French prosecutors on Tuesday recommended that a five-year electoral ban on far-right leader Marine Le Pen should be confirmed — a move that, if accepted by the court, would likely prevent her from running in next year’s presidential election. Le Pen’s far-right National Rally is comfortably ahead in polls ahead of the first round of the 2027 election but she is currently looking unlikely to be able to stand as the presidential candidate herself thanks to a five-year election ban, imposed over her conviction last year for embezzling European Parliament funds — a ban she is now appealing. In that appeal proceeding on Tuesday, the prosecutors sought not only the electoral prohibition but four years jail, with one served as a custodial sentence. In an unexpected twist, however, prosecutors did not insist that the ban should be immediately implemented. This could offer her a theoretical long-shot back into the race, but it appears legally complex and politically risky. Le Pen herself did not signal any major shift in the case. In remarks to BFMTV, Le Pen said the prosecution in the appeal was “following the path taken” during the first trial. The court is due to make a final decision on the appeal this summer. When it came to her narrow route back to the presidential race, the prosecutors said the court should not impose the five-year ban immediately because there was insufficient proof that the three-time presidential candidate could commit further crimes if she is not sanctioned immediately. This means that, even if found guilty at appeal, Le Pen could still try to have the penalty lifted by bringing the case before a supreme court. The supreme court which would look into the case, the Cour de Cassation, said it would examine the legal challenge and make a final ruling before the 2027 election “if possible.” That timing could be politically problematic for Le Pen, if the supreme court does not come to a decision until shortly before the race. Le Pen had said she would drop out of the running if her electoral ban was upheld. It is unclear if a ban without immediate implementation, as sought by the prosecutors, would now change her reasoning. Le Pen has been increasingly expected to be replaced by her 30-year-old protégé Jordan Bardella because of her legal woes. Although he originally triggered doubts within his own political camp on his ability to stand the rigors of a presidential election, he has surpassed Le Pen as France’s most popular politician according to recent polling. Le Pen has already run for president three times, making the runoff in the last two elections and losing to Emmanuel Macron. The 2027 election is widely seen as the best shot yet for a National Rally candidate to win and become the first democratically elected far-right leader in France since World War II. Le Pen has shifted her defense strategy since the start of her appeal trial, with a partial acknowledgement that some wrongdoing may have been committed unintentionally. The National Rally has described the case as politicized. Le Pen and her co-defendants are accused of having embezzled funds from the European Parliament by having party staff hired as parliamentary assistants, while working solely on domestic affairs rather than legislative work.

A group of researchers is suing Elon Musk’s X to gain access to data on Hungary’s upcoming elections to assess the risk of interference, they told POLITICO. Hungary is set to hold a highly contentious election in April as populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán faces the toughest challenge yet to his 16-year grip on power. The lawsuit by Democracy Reporting International (DRI) comes after the civil society group, in November, applied for access to X data to study risks to the Hungarian election, including from disinformation. After X rejected their request, the researchers took the case to the Berlin Regional Court, which said it is not competent to rule on the case. DRI — with the support of the Society for Civil Rights and law firm Hausfeld — is now appealing to a higher Berlin court, which has set a hearing date of Feb. 17. Sites including X are obliged to grant researchers access to data under the European Union’s regulatory framework for social media platforms, the Digital Services Act, to allow external scrutiny of how platforms handle major online risks, including election interference. The European Commission fined X €40 million for failing to provide data access in December, as part of a €120 million levy for non-compliance with transparency obligations. The lawsuit is the latest legal challenge to X after the researchers went down a similar path last year to demand access to data related to the German elections in February 2025. A three-month legal drama, which saw a judge on the case dismissed after X successfully claimed they had a conflict of interest, ended with the court throwing out the case. The platform said that was a “comprehensive victory” because “X’s unwavering commitment to protecting user data and defending its fundamental right to due process has prevailed.” The researchers also claimed a win: The court threw the case out on the basis of a lack of urgency, as the elections were well in the past, said DRI. The groups say the ruling sets a legal precedent for civil society groups to take platforms to court where the researchers are located, rather than in the platforms’ legal jurisdictions (which, in X’s case, would be Ireland). X did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment on Monday.

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.

Thousands of Poles who believed they were long divorced are discovering an unsettling possibility: They may still be legally married. The confusion is an unexpected upshot of Poland’s years-long battle over a politicized judiciary spilling into everyday life, as Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s centrist government tries to undo reforms of the legal system imposed by its nationalist predecessors. The problem surfaced in January in the northeastern town of Giżycko, where a divorced couple went to court expecting routine paperwork to divide their assets. Instead, they were told that in the eyes of the state, they had never been divorced at all. The case boils down to moves by Tusk’s pro-EU administration to reject decisions by some judges appointed under the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) administration that led Poland’s government from 2015 to 2023. The Giżycko judge ruled that the couple’s original divorce judgment was legally “non-existent” because it had been signed off by one of the “neo-judges” appointed under reforms designed by previous Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. EU courts later ruled that Ziobro’s overhaul had undermined judicial independence, leaving Tusk’s government grappling with how to dismantle the system without undermining legal certainty. It’s unclear how many similar rulings may exist across Poland, but the scale is vast. The country records around 57,000 divorces a year, and tens of thousands of routine cases, including divorces, may have been decided by judges appointed under the disputed system. Kinga Skawińska-Pożyczka, a lawyer at Warsaw-based firm Dubois i Wspólnicy, said the decision was flawed and should be overturned on appeal, arguing that a court handling a property dispute should not have questioned the validity of a final divorce ruling. “The Giżycko ruling should be treated as an exception, not a rule,” she said. But others warned that even isolated rulings can have wider consequences. “A system that starts mass-questioning its own rulings stops being a system,” said Bartosz Stasik, a Wrocław-based lawyer. “Nobody wants to be the one to tell thousands of people their divorces, inheritances or verdicts don’t exist — but every avalanche starts with a single stone.” POLITICAL CLASH At the center of the dispute is the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), a body that nominates judges. In 2017 Ziobro’s Law and Justice government rewrote the rules so that parliament, not judges, chose most of its members.  By the time EU courts weighed in, hundreds of judges had already been appointed or promoted under the new system, including those handling everyday cases like mortgages, inheritance and divorces. Tusk’s government has been trying to limit the fallout from disputes over neo-judges. One proposal making its way through parliament would allow childless couples to divorce administratively at civil registry offices, bypassing the courts altogether. Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek called the Giżycko ruling “very disturbing,” warning that the crisis around neo-judges has entered “the most sensitive areas of citizens’ lives — family matters, finances and basic legal certainty.” He blamed the situation on Ziobro’s reforms. Żurek also pointed to President Karol Nawrocki, a PiS ally, whose repeated veto threats have stalled government legislation aimed at repairing the rule of law. Citizens, he said, “cannot be made to pay the price for political decisions they had no influence over.” Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek called the Giżycko ruling “very disturbing,” warning that the crisis around neo-judges has entered “the most sensitive areas of citizens’ lives — family matters, finances and basic legal certainty.” | Leszek Szymanski/EPA PiS lawmakers and their allies have seized on the ruling as evidence of institutional collapse under Tusk. From Budapest, where he has received political asylum, Ziobro said the ruling showed the government was willing to unleash “real chaos and anarchy” to undermine his reforms, even if it meant destroying ordinary people’s lives. During a heated parliamentary debate, PiS lawmakers branded the government’s proposal for out-of-court divorces an “attack on marriage,” while conservative legal groups and right-wing media also accused the government of admitting the justice system no longer works. With parliamentary elections due next year, PiS have clearly spotted what they think is an effective line of attack. That means the fight over the court system is fast becoming a political gamble over whom voters blame for the chaos — the original authors of the PiS-era reforms, or those trying to undo them. While Tusk’s Civic Coalition still leads in polls, support for its coalition partners has been sliding, raising the prospect he could lose power even if his party finishes first.

BERLIN — Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is heading back to the Munich Security Conference (MSC) — reclaiming a seat at one of the world’s most prestigious security forums after being banished for three straight years. The decision to invite AfD lawmakers to the mid-February gathering marks a significant reversal for the conference and a symbolic win for a party eager to shed its pariah status by rubbing shoulders with global leaders. The AfD mounted an aggressive campaign beginning late last year to regain access to the MSC, including legal action against conference organizers and attempts to capitalize on relationships with Trump administration officials. That effort appears to have paid off, at least in part. MSC organizers have invited three AfD parliamentarians to attend this year’s conference, though the party has pushed for more prominent figures — including national co-chair Alice Weidel — to be included. “The invitations were issued because we made an impression with our contacts to the Americans,” Heinrich Koch, one of three AfD parliamentarians who received an invite, told POLITICO. Koch, by his own account and that of one of the AfD’s legal representatives, was deployed by the party to gain access to the MSC. Wolfgang Ischinger, the prominent German diplomat acting as MSC chair this year, denied that conference organizers invited the AfD due to a pressure campaign, framing the decision rather as one that acknowledges a simple political reality: that the AfD is the largest opposition force in Germany. “It is a decision that we took on our own conscience, if you wish, trying to do the right thing in order to make sure that we would be able to reflect the current reality,” he told POLITICO. “It would be very difficult for the Munich Security Conference — which brings together so many opposing views, adversaries, people who accuse each other [of being] murderers or genocidal people — for us to justify categorically excluding the largest German opposition party.” LEGACY OF NAZI RESISTANCE This year won’t be the first time AfD politicians have attended the MSC. During Ischinger’s previous tenure as head of the conference, which lasted from 2008 to 2022, AfD politicians with a focus on defense were invited to the conference. But since that time, the AfD has come under the increasing scrutiny of national and state domestic intelligence agencies tasked with monitoring groups deemed anti-constitutional, culminating last year in the party’s federal classification as a right-wing extremist organization. Ischinger’s successor, career diplomat Christoph Heusgen, refused to invite AfD leaders for the past three conferences, arguing that a party deemed at that point to have been at least partly right-wing extremist by intelligence authorities had no place at the event. After all, he argued, the conference was founded after World War II by Ewald von Kleist, one of the aristocratic Wehrmacht officers now revered in Germany for having partaken in the failed 1944 plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. “I can well imagine that Ewald von Kleist would have supported my decision against the AfD,” Heusgen told German newspaper Tagesspiegel. Wolfgang Ischinger speaking at the 2023 Munich Security Conference in Munich. He denied that conference organizers invited the AfD this year due to a pressure campaign. | Johannes Simon/EPA Heusgen stepped aside after last year’s conference, and this year Ischinger is back at the helm. But it was in response to Heusgen’s rejection of the party that the AfD sued late last year to get into the conference this February. The AfD said it was a victim of “targeted exclusion,” according to documents from the Munich regional court seen by POLITICO.  “The plaintiff wishes to be involved in foreign policy and security policy issues in order to have a say as an opposition faction,” the court said. But the court ultimately rejected the AfD’s argument, ruling last December that the MSC, as a private organization, is free to choose whom to invite. Koch, who was in court on behalf of the AfD parliamentary group, says he pressured the MSC side during the proceeding to invite party members by threatening to come to the conference anyway as guests of the American delegation. Soon after, his party received three invitations, he said.  The MSC denied in emailed comments to POLITICO that such threats had led to the invites. EMPTY THREATS? The AfD’s threats appear to have consisted mostly of bluster. Koch said he reached out to the office of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, who is set to attend the conference, but never heard back from the Republican lawmaker. Graham did not respond to three requests for comment. The threat nevertheless illustrates how the AfD has sought to utilize past support from the Trump administration to pressure the MSC and, more broadly, to end its domestic political ostracization. The AfD’s effort to get into the MSC can be seen as part of a larger push to knock down the so-called firewall mainstream forces have erected around the far right, precluding close cooperation with the party despite its rising popularity. In that effort, the AfD has received support from the highest rungs of the Trump administration. At last year’s MSC, U.S. Vice President JD Vance sharply criticized European centrists for excluding the far right, declaring “there’s no room for firewalls.” Following his speech, JD Vance met with AfD national co-leader Alice Weidel in a Munich hotel.  Koch said the AfD would attempt to organize a similar high-level meeting this year, though it’s not clear Vance will attend the February conference. Koch said he has also sought an invitation for Weidel, but the MSC had denied it. The MSC’s Ischinger said he and his team would not issue any further invitations to AfD politicians. Weidel’s spokesperson, Daniel Tapp, denied that the AfD had used the prospect of another meeting with a high-level Trump administration official to press for invites to the MSC, but said a “certain pressure” had led to three of its lawmakers being invited. Weidel’s plans for the conference remain unclear. “We will wait and see over the next few days whether anything else develops in this matter,” said Tapp late last month. As of Friday, no meeting involving Weidel and U.S. officials during the MSC had been planned, according to Tapp. Ischinger said any AfD events occurring outside the confines of the MSC are irrelevant to the conference. “They can organize a huge conference, you know, if you ask me,” he said. “And it’s not my business to stop them or discuss this with them. It’s their business, but it has nothing to do with the Munich Security Conference.” POLITICO is an official media partner of this year’s Munich Security Conference.

Tech mogul Elon Musk poured $10 million into two major Republican super PACs at the end of last year, according to campaign finance disclosures submitted Saturday, as he once again takes a more active role in GOP politics. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO, who had a public falling out with President Donald Trump last spring and said he was giving up on political spending, gave $5 million in December to each of the Congressional Leadership Fund and Senate Leadership Fund, two groups that aim to help the GOP keep control of Congress this year. It was Musk’s second round of donations to both groups this cycle, having previously given in June, amid his feud with Trump. Those contributions came shortly before Musk floated starting his own political party, an initiative that never seemed to gain much headway. But Musk and Trump have patched up their differences more recently, with the tech CEO joining Trump for dinner at Mar-a-Lago earlier this month. Musk has also been back to advocating for Republican politics on X, which he owns, pushing for senators to pass a plussed up version of the SAVE Act, a bill that would require states to collect proof of citizenship from people registering to vote. Musk has thrown his support behind a version called the SAVE Act Plus, calling for ID requirements and a ban of mail voting for most Americans along with other changes to election administration. Musk was the biggest individual donor to political committees during the 2024 election cycle, spending roughly $290 million, mostly through his own super PAC, America PAC, in support of Trump. In the first few months of the Trump administration, he played an active role with the Department of Government Efficiency, but began fighting with Trump and Republicans around the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Musk also threw himself into a Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April where his preferred candidate lost by 10 points. Musk’s funds accounted for just a fraction of total fundraising for both SLF and CLF. SLF raised nearly $77 million in the final six months of 2025 and had $100 million cash on hand, while CLF raised over $38 million over that period and had more than $54 million cash on hand.

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