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.

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.

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

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.

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

Zbigniew Ziobro spent eight years reshaping Poland’s legal system. Now, speaking from political asylum in Hungary, the former justice minister says the same system is being turned against him, and that he can only fight it from abroad. Ziobro, once one of the most powerful figures in Polish politics, ran the justice system under the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) government from 2015 to 2023. He is now under investigation over the alleged misuse of public funds and the deployment of Pegasus spyware against political opponents — cases pursued by prosecutors under Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s centrist government. “My presence here isn’t an escape of any kind — it’s a form of fighting back,” Ziobro told POLITICO by telephone from Budapest, after Viktor Orbán’s government granted him asylum earlier this month. “Because here I can fight. There, I’d be stripped of any ability to do so.” Prosecutors say investigations linked to Ziobro are part of an effort to unwind decisions taken during his tenure, when sweeping judicial reforms gave ministers broad influence over prosecutors and disciplinary control over judges. Those changes put Poland on a prolonged collision course with Brussels and were later condemned by EU courts. Ziobro rejected those allegations and cast himself as a victim of political revenge. “I wanted to reform Poland’s judiciary — and that was never accepted, including by the EU,” he said. “They had the right to criticize me politically. They did not have the right to falsely accuse me of theft.” He accused prosecutors of using pre-trial detention as a political weapon against figures linked to his former ministry. As an example, Ziobro pointed to the case of two of his former aides and that of Michał Olszewski, a Catholic priest accused of misusing funds from a justice ministry program for crime victims. Olszewski spent months in pre-trial detention, and Poland’s ombudsman later cited instances of improper treatment. Hungary’s decision to grant Ziobro asylum has pushed the dispute beyond Poland’s borders, infuriating Warsaw and raising questions about the EU’s ability to enforce cooperation between member states. Poland’s justice minister, Waldemar Żurek, called the move a “dangerous precedent,” warning it could allow governments to shield political allies from accountability at home. From exile, Ziobro has broadened his attack. He accused the European Commission and its president, Ursula von der Leyen, of hypocrisy for condemning alleged rule-of-law abuses under PiS while tolerating what he called “lawlessness” under the current government in Warsaw. Polish officials reject that. Deputy Foreign Minister Ignacy Niemczycki on Monday pointed to assessments by international organizations showing that rule-of-law standards deteriorated under PiS and have improved since the change of government. “Given Poland’s political situation, not everything we would like to do is possible,” Niemczycki said, responding to a question from POLITICO in Brussels. “But what happens in practice matters far more. And speaking frankly, if Ziobro has fled to Hungary, then what exactly are we debating?” A DIVIDED RECEPTION AT HOME Ziobro’s safe haven in Budapest may not last. Hungary is heading toward a parliamentary election in April, with pro-EU opposition challenger Péter Magyar leading in polls. Asked whether a change of government could jeopardize his asylum status, Ziobro brushed off the question and instead mounted a vigorous defense of Orbán. “Hungarians will choose Orbán,” Ziobro said. “They know that in an unstable world, experience and the ability to protect the country’s security matter.” He rejected claims that Orbán’s ties to Russia reflected an ideological sympathy. Instead, Ziobro argued that Hungary’s reliance on Russian gas left it little room to maneuver. Back in Poland, Ziobro’s asylum has divided opinion. Polls suggest a majority of PiS voters see Ziobro’s stay in Hungary as a liability for the party. President Karol Nawrocki, a PiS ally, has offered only a cautious backing, warning that not everyone in Poland can count on a fair trial. Pro-PiS broadcaster Telewizja Republika has amplified Ziobro’s narrative of a witch-hunt, producing near-constant television coverage on police searches, detentions and court proceedings involving the former minister’s allies. From Budapest, Ziobro said he is writing a book about what he called “Europe’s hypocrisy and Tusk’s dictatorship,” as Polish tabloids chronicle his new life strolling about the Hungarian capital. He insisted his exile is temporary and said he plans to return to Polish politics, staging a comeback ahead of the 2027 parliamentary election. “I am convinced Tusk’s government will fall,” he said. “It will end in failure and he will have to answer for what he has done.”

Mario Monti is a former prime minister of Italy and EU commissioner. Sylvie Goulard is vice president of the Institute for European Policymaking at Bocconi University and a former member of the European Parliament. In just the last few days, U.S. President Donald Trump has reiterated his determination to take over Greenland, announced a 10 percent tariff on NATO allies who disagree with his will and threatened a 200 percent tariff on French wine because French President Emmanuel Macron refused a seat on his “Board of Peace” meant to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction. But for once, the EU isn’t chasing behind events. Indeed, the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) that the EU may use in response to Trump’s repeated threats over Greenland is ready. Introduced in 2023 with the support of all 27 member countries, the ACI — although nicknamed the “bazooka” — is a framework for negotiation in situations where a third country seeks to pressure the EU or a member country into a particular choice by applying — or threatening to apply — measures affecting trade or investment. It enables the EU to deter coercion and, if necessary, respond to it. Before any action is implemented, the EU will first engage in consultations with the coercing third country — in this case, the U.S. And at any rate, whatever steps the bloc may eventually introduce will be compatible with international law. So, nothing as abrupt, unpredictable and arbitrary as some decisions the current U.S. administration has taken in relation to Europe. It is unlikely that when crafting this instrument, EU legislators had such a variety of coercion cases in mind — or that they would come from the American president. It is worth noting, however, that Trump’s actions and threats meet all five of the conditions set out in the ACI to determine if economic coercion is taking place. And having for once been prescient in endowing itself with a policy instrument in line with the times, it would be irresponsible and cowardly if the EU were to give up just because the coercion at hand is heavy and, unexpectedly, comes from the most powerful third country in the world — whether friend or foe, only history will tell. In line with the ACI, the countermeasures the EU may decide to take after consultations could involve tariffs — including suspending the ratification of last July’s trade agreement — restrictions on trade in services and certain aspects of intellectual property rights, or restrictions on foreign direct investment and public procurement. In view of the potential impact of current U.S. financial policy, it would also make sense for the bloc’s financial institutions to review their resilience with respect to  developments that might intervene in the U.S. financial landscape as a result of current economic policies and the relaxation of supervisory rules. The fact of the matter is, if the EU sidesteps the ACI and genuflects, Trump will feel encouraged to be even more disrespectful toward Europe than he already is. | Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images The regulation has another interesting feature: It can create links between the EU and other countries affected by the same or similar coercion. The idea being that when a dominant power tends to follow the principle of divide et impera, it may be wise for its designated prey, both within and outside the EU, to seek a coordinated response. The fact of the matter is, if the EU sidesteps the ACI and genuflects, Trump will feel encouraged to be even more disrespectful toward Europe than he already is; the EU will lose all credibility as a moderate but forceful player in a world of autocrats; and European citizens will be even more disillusioned with European institutions unwilling to protect them and their dignity. It could also make them more likely to seek protection from nationalist parties and governments — those that may well be against triggering the ACI in the first place, devout as they are to Trump’s hostility toward the EU. Many in Europe are, indeed, adopting an attitude of subordinate acceptance when it comes to Trump’s wishes, either because of ideological affinities or because they feel more comfortable being close to those in power — as political theorist Etienne de La Boétie stated in the 16th century, servitude is generally based on the “voluntary” acceptance of domination. Then there are those who are ready to align with Trump invoking Realpolitik — a group that seems to have forgotten that 80 years of peace since World War II provide a clear reading of reality in which peace and prosperity are better safeguarded through cooperation than the use of force. History’s judgement on that is clear. Finally, there are also EU leaders who, when siding with the U.S. over European interests, are driven by the intention of preserving the West’s or NATO’s unity. But while this may be a laudable intention, they’re falling blind to the fact that, in the last year, most of the breaches of this unity have come from the American side. To be sure, much of Europe’s reluctance to engage with Trump in a less subordinate manner has a lot to do with the continent’s weakness in defense and security. The U.S. is right in asking Europe to bear a higher proportion of that burden, and Europe does need to step up its preparedness. But the readiness of many to accept virtually any demand, or coercion, because the U.S. may otherwise withdraw its security umbrella from Ukraine or EU countries is no longer convincing. Much is made of the NATO Treaty’s Article 5 providing a collective security guarantee. However, the credibility of this guarantee relies on shared values and mutual respect. And with Trump constantly displaying his adversarial and contemptuous feelings toward Europe — seemingly more aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin — how much can the continent really count on the U.S. umbrella in case of Russian intervention? What price should the EU be ready to pay, in terms of foregone sovereignty, to hold onto a guarantee that may no longer exist? Moreover, a Europe less acquiescent to Trump’s requests would be a strong signal to the many Americans who still believe in rule of law and the multilateral order. When Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to the U.S. in the 1830s to study the young democracy, he was impressed by the strength of its civil society and institutions — at the same time, he feared “the tyranny of the majority.” And one might wonder whether a system where the winner of an election can govern with no respect for the country’s institutions, violating the independence of its judicial system and central bank, is still a model of democracy. After World War II, the U.S. contributed generously to the relaunch of the European economy. It also massively influenced new democratic institutions in Germany and the nascent European Community. Maybe now it’s Europe’s turn to give something back and defend these values — and that means taking action. This is, after all, what the ACI was meant for.

Get set for this year’s most consequential election in the EU. Hungary’s campaign stepped up a gear this week, with populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán facing the toughest challenge yet to his 15-year grip on power. The long-suffering opposition hopes that Péter Magyar — conservative leader of the opposition Tisza party, which is running 12 points ahead in the polls — can overturn what Orbán himself styles as Hungary’s “illiberal democracy.” For many Hungarians, the election is a referendum on Orbán’s model. Under his leadership the government, led by Orbán’s Fidesz party, has tightened its grip on the media and state companies — sparking accusations of cronyism — while weakening judicial independence and passing legislation that sent Hungary plunging down transparency rankings. It now sits at the bottom of the World Justice Project’s rule-of-law index for EU countries. The 62-year-old Orbán is the EU leader closest to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and proves a continual obstacle to efforts by Brussels to build a united front against the Kremlin. He has repeatedly clashed with the EU on topics ranging from LGBTQ+ rights to migration. Predicting the end of the liberal multilateral order, Orbán kicked off the year by saying the EU would “fall apart on its own.” But can Magyar — whose surname literally means “Hungarian” — really topple his former ally? And even if he does, how far could he realistically guide Hungary back toward liberal democracy with Orbán’s state architecture still in place? POLITICO breaks down the five key questions as Hungary heads toward the seismic April 12 vote. 1. WHY SHOULD I CARE? Hungary may be relatively small, with a population of 9.6 million, but under Orbán’s leadership it has become one of the EU’s biggest headaches. He has long weaponized Budapest’s veto in Brussels to block Russia-related sanctions, tie up financial aid to Ukraine and repeatedly stall urgent EU decisions. He is also a key — and sometimes leading — member of a group of right-wing populists in EU capitals, who unite on topics such as opposition to migration and skepticism toward arming Ukraine. Without Orbán, Czechia’s Andrej Babiš and Slovakia’s Robert Fico would cut far more isolated figures at summits of the European Council. Brussels has often resorted to elaborate workarounds to bypass Hungary’s obstructionism, and Orbán’s persistent defiance has led to calls to ditch the unanimity rule that has been in place for decades. “You have heard me 20 times regret, if not more, the attitude of Viktor Orbán, who, every time we had to move forward to help Ukraine … has used his veto to do more blackmail,” EU liberal party chief Valérie Hayer told journalists Tuesday. 2. WHAT ARE THE MAIN BATTLEGROUNDS? Magyar accuses Orbán and Fidesz of nepotism and corruption — of weakening the country’s economy by favoring oligarchs — and of missing out on EU funds by antagonizing Brussels. Orbán wants to frame his arch-nemesis Magyar as a puppet controlled by Brussels. Hungary’s campaign stepped up a gear this week, with populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán facing the toughest challenge yet to his 15-year grip on power. | Zoltán Fischer/Hungarian PM Communication/EPA In the past year, Fidesz has launched public debates aiming to divide Magyar’s base — which spans green and left-wing voters to disenchanted former Orbán loyalists — on subjects such as the LGBTQ+ Pride ban. Tisza’s strategy has been to avoid positioning itself on controversial issues, in an effort to garner an absolute majority that will grant the party power to reform electoral law, which they say Orbán rigged to his benefit, and enable constitutional changes. Tisza’s No. 2, Zoltán Tarr, told POLITICO he expected Orbán’s government to deploy “all possible dirty tricks.” “State propaganda smears, AI-generated fakes, doctored videos, potential staged incidents, blackmail, and exploiting the rigged electoral system. They will mobilize everything because they have so much to lose,” Tarr said. Speaking at Fidesz’s party congress on Saturday, Orbán lambasted Tisza as a pro-EU stooge. “If you vote for Tisza or DK [the social-democratic Democratic Coalition], you are voting against your own future. Tisza and DK will carry out Brussels’ demands without batting an eyelid. Do not forget that Tisza’s boss is Herr Weber, Europe’s biggest warmonger,” Orbán said, referring to the German chief of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber. 3. HOW AND WHEN DOES THE ELECTION TAKE PLACE? The national elections will take place on Sunday, April 12. Voters will choose a new 199-seat National Assembly under Hungary’s mixed electoral system, with 106 MPs elected in single-member constituencies and 93 from national party lists. The long-suffering opposition hopes that Péter Magyar — conservative leader of the Tisza party — can overturn what Orbán himself styles as Hungary’s “illiberal democracy.” | Noémi Bruzák/EPA POLITICO’s Poll of Polls shows Tisza leading with 49 percent support ahead of Fidesz at 37 percent — with Orbán’s party having been trailing for almost a year now. Although the official campaign period begins Feb. 21, the race has effectively been in full swing for months. Other notable parties in the race are the Democratic Coalition (DK); the far-right Mi Hazánk (Our Homeland) movement; and the satirical Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog Party (MKKP), largely created to mock Orbán’s policies. But these are fighting for survival as they may not meet the threshold of support for winning seats in parliament — meaning the Hungarian legislature could be exclusively controlled by two right-wing parties.  4. CAN THE ELECTION BE FREE AND FAIR? Challengers to the ruling party face a system designed to favor Fidesz. In 2011 Orbán’s government redrew electoral districts and overhauled the voting system to maximize its chances of winning seats. “There is no direct interference with the act of voting itself, yet the broader competitive environment — both in terms of institutional rules and access to resources — tilts heavily in favor of the governing parties,” said political analyst Márton Bene at the TK Institute of Political Science in Budapest. In addition to controlling roughly 80 percent of the media market, the government allows ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries (who tend to favor Fidesz) to vote by mail, whereas those living abroad who have kept their Hungarian addresses must travel to embassies to cast their ballots. “One side enjoys access to the full resources of the state, while the challenger receives no public campaign funding and has virtually no presence in state-controlled media,” said political scientist Rudolf Metz from the TK Institute, adding that this imbalance is partially offset in the digital sphere. But even the unfair conditions don’t preclude a Magyar victory, Bene says, as long as the integrity of the voting process is preserved. 5. HOW MUCH WOULD A MAGYAR WIN REALLY CHANGE? The Brussels establishment is praying for Magyar to win, hoping a Tisza government will deepen ties with the EU. Centrist chief Hayer said her party supported “any candidate who will carry pro-European values, who will be able to beat” the incumbent Hungarian prime minister. Conservative boss Weber quickly welcomed Tisza into the center-right family to secure influence in Budapest and to give them resources to develop their electoral platform. He has repeatedly framed Magyar as the man who will save Hungary from Orbán. While viewed as a potential bridge-builder for the strained Brussels-Budapest relationship, Magyar is by no means an unwavering EU cheerleader. He has been noncommittal about Brussels, considering that any rapprochement could be used by Orbán against him. In an interview with POLITICO in October 2024 he said “we certainly don’t believe in a European superstate.” Conservative boss Manfred Weber quickly welcomed Tisza into the center-right family to secure influence in Budapest and give them resources to develop their electoral platform. Filip Singer/EPA On the domestic front, Tarr — Tisza’s No. 2 — told POLITICO the party wants to “keep [the] border fence, oppose mandatory migration quotas and accelerated Ukraine accession, pursue peace, fight Russian propaganda, strengthen V4 [Hungary, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia] and Central Europe without being Europe’s bad boy.” That echoes the prognosis of political scientist Metz, who said a victory by Magyar “would not mean a radical U-turn or a return to some idealized past.” “Hungary’s role as the EU’s permanent disruptor would probably fade, not because national interests disappear, but because they would be pursued through negotiation and institutional engagement rather than constant veto politics and symbolic conflict,” Metz added. Analysts also cautioned that change at home could be slow. Zoltán Vasali of Milton Friedman University said dismantling the current system would be “legally and institutionally challenging.” “Core constitutional bodies will retain their mandates beyond the upcoming elections, and key positions remain held by individuals aligned with the current government, limiting near-term change,” Vasali said. The scale of a Magyar victory could be decisive. A two-thirds parliamentary supermajority, which would allow the new government to change the constitution, Metz said, would be “a game-changer.” “It would give a Magyar government the legal capacity to restore core elements of the rule of law, rebuild checks and balances, and introduce safeguards such as term limits for key offices,” he said. Kinga Gál, Fidesz’s leader in the European Parliament, did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Nationalist leaders lined up to endorse Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in a campaign video released this week as the election race begins in earnest. The nearly two-minute clip, posted by Orbán, rolls out support from a who’s who of European and international conservatives, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, her deputy Matteo Salvini, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Alice Weidel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The coordinated show of support comes as Orbán heads into what is likely to be his most competitive election in more than a decade. Hungary’s President Tamás Sulyok confirmed Tuesday that the country will go to the polls on April 12. After nearly 20 years at the helm, Orbán faces mounting criticism at home and abroad over democratic backsliding, curbs on media freedom, and the erosion of the rule of law. His Fidesz party, which has governed since 2010, is now trailing the opposition Tisza Party, led by former Orbán ally Péter Magyar. “Together we stand for a Europe that respects national sovereignty, is proud of its cultural and religious roots,” Meloni said in the video, as she endorsed Hungary’s incumbent leader. “Security cannot be taken for granted, it must be won. And I think Viktor Orbán has all those qualities. He has the tenacity, the courage, the wisdom to protect his country,” Netanyahu added. Also featured are Spain’s Vox chief Santiago Abascal, Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ) leader Herbert Kickl, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, and Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, all key figures in the conservative, populist and far-right political sphere. Argentine President Javier Milei also appears in the video. POLITICO’s Poll of Polls puts Magyar’s Tisza on 49 percent, well ahead of Fidesz on 37 percent. Magyar has built momentum by campaigning on pledges to strengthen judicial independence, clamp down on corruption and offer voters a clear break from Orbán’s rule. In Brussels, Orbán has frequently clashed with EU institutions and other member states over issues including support for Ukraine, sanctions on Russia and LGBTQ+ rights, making him a polarizing figure within the bloc. The campaign video, featuring a slate of foreign leaders, positions his re-election bid in a broader international context, tying Hungary’s vote to themes of national sovereignty and political alignment beyond the country’s borders. POLITICO was able to confirm the video’s authenticity via representatives for Weidel and Salvini. Ketrin Jochecová, Nette Nöstlinger and Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report.

The head of the U.S. oil industry’s top lobbying group said Tuesday that American producers are prepared to be a “stabilizing force” in Iran if the regime there falls — even as they remain skeptical about returning to Venezuela after the capture of leader Nicolás Maduro. “This is good news for the Iranian people — they’re taking freedom into their own hands,” American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said of the mass protests that have embroiled Iran in recent days. President Donald Trump is said to be weighing his options for potential actions against the Iranian government in response to its violent crackdown on the protests. “Our industry is committed to being a stabilizing force in Iran if they decide to overturn the regime,” Sommers told reporters following API’s annual State of American Energy event in Washington. “It’s an important oil play in the world, about the sixth-largest producer now — they could absolutely do more,” he said of the country. Iran’s oil industry, despite being ravaged by years of U.S. sanctions, is still considered to be structurally sound, unlike that of Venezuela’s. In order for companies to return to Venezuela, on the other hand, they will need long-term investment certainty, operational security and rule of law — all of which will take significant time, Sommers said. “If they get those three big things right, I think there will be investment going to Venezuela,” he said. Background: Experts who spoke earlier from the stage at API’s event also underscored the differences between Iran and Venezuela, whose oil infrastructure has deteriorated under years of neglect from the socialist regime. “Iran was able to add production under the weight of the most aggressive sanctions the U.S. could possibly deploy,” said Kevin Book, managing director at the energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners. “Imagine what they could do with Western engineering.” Bob McNally, a former national security and energy adviser to President George W. Bush who now leads the energy and geopolitics consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, said the prospects for growing Iran’s oil production are “completely different” from Venezuela’s. “You can imagine our industry going back there — we would get a lot more oil, a lot sooner than we will out of Venezuela,” McNally said. “That’s more conventional oil right near infrastructure, and gas as well.” No equity stakes: Sommers told reporters that API would oppose any efforts by the Trump administration to take a stake in oil companies that invest in Venezuela. The administration has taken direct equity stakes in a range of U.S. companies in a bid to boost the growth of sectors it sees as a geopolitical priority, such as semiconductor manufacturing and critical minerals. “We would be opposed to the United States government taking a stake in any American oil and gas companies, period,” Sommers said. “We’d have to know a little bit more about what the administration is proposing in terms of stake in [Venezuelan state-owned oil company] PdVSA, but we’re not for the nationalization of oil companies or for there to be a national oil company in the United States.”