U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened to send federal immigration agents to airports across the country on Monday if Democrats don’t agree to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, now approaching five weeks. “If the Radical Left Democrats don’t immediately sign an agreement to let our Country, in particular, our Airports, be FREE and SAFE again, I will move our brilliant and patriotic ICE Agents to the Airports where they will do Security like no one has ever seen before, including the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country,” he wrote. “Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country, with heavy emphasis on those from Somalia” would be targeted with an especially firm hand, the president wrote on Truth Social. Shortly thereafter, Trump followed up to say he plans to send ICE to airports in just days. “I look forward to moving ICE in on Monday, and have already told them to, ‘GET READY.’ NO MORE WAITING, NO MORE GAMES!” he wrote in a separate Truth Social post on Saturday. It’s his latest bid to push Democrats, who have refused to greenlight DHS funding without changes to how it carries out immigration enforcement, pointing to deadly incidents as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents descended en masse on major American cities. Increased callouts among TSA agents and airport staffers are expected to roil airports in the coming weeks, with major interruptions to airport procedure likely to follow. Both sides have seemingly made progress in recent days toward ending the shutdown. The White House made several concessions on immigration enforcement policies in a proposal shared with Senate Democrats on Friday. But the ICE agent masking ban Democrats are seeking in exchange for their support on a funding package remains a bridge too far, Republicans argue. Trump’s latest threat isn’t likely to make the prospects of a truce any more viable, especially given his focus on Minnesota, where tensions flared after federal immigration agents killed two protesters during a major surge of personnel in January. In a post on X following Trump’s threat, Rep. Lauren Boebert said, “The airport in Minnesota is about to be a ghost town.” The president’s threat Saturday lands squarely in the middle of a confirmation fight over his pick to run DHS, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a process that has quickly become a proxy battle over the future of ICE itself. At his hearing this week, Mullin tried to strike a more measured tone than in some of his past remarks, pledging to rein in some enforcement tactics and lower the agency’s public profile. But he repeatedly defended ICE agents amid mounting scrutiny, including backing officers involved in high-profile civilian deaths and arguing Democrats are tying the agency’s hands. Republicans — including Mullin — have instead pushed to expand ICE’s resources and authority, framing the standoff as a fight over public safety. The backdrop is the messy ouster of Kristi Noem, whose tenure was defined by aggressive deportation policies, costly PR campaigns and a series of controversies that ultimately led Trump to push her out after a bruising round of congressional hearings. The enforcement-heavy approach Trump threatened Saturday sets up a preview for what Mullin will perhaps be asked to defend — and potentially formalize — as the next head of DHS. ICE and the Transportation Security Administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment from POLITICO.

BRITAIN’S LABOUR PARTY STARES INTO THE ABYSS IN ITS WELSH HEARTLAND In the old coalfields of south Wales, Britain’s center-left establishment faces being crushed by a nationalist left and populist right. POLITICO went to find out why. By DAN BLOOM and SASCHA O’SULLIVAN in Newport, South Wales Photo-Illustration by Natália Delgado/POLITICO Eluned Morgan, the Welsh first minister, stood in a sunbeam at Newport’s Victorian market and declared: “Wales is ready for a new chapter.” Many voters agree. The problem for Morgan is: few think she’ll be the one to write it. This nation of 3 million people, with its coalfields, docks, mountains and farms, is the deepest heartland of Morgan’s center-left Labour Party. Labour has topped every U.K. general election here for 104 years and presided over the Welsh parliament, the Senedd, since establishing it 27 years ago. Yet Senedd elections on May 7 threaten not only to end this world-record winning streak, but leave Welsh Labour fighting for a reason to exist. One YouGov poll in January put the party joint-fourth with the Conservatives on 10 percent, behind Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru on 37 percent, Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK on 23 percent and the Greens on 13 percent. Other polls are less dramatic (one last week had Reform and Plaid equal, and Labour a closer third), but the mood remains stark.  The most common projection for the 96-seat Senedd is a Plaid minority government propped up by Labour — blowing a hole in Labour’s status as the default governing party and safe vote to stop the right, and echoing recent by-elections in Caerphilly (won by Plaid) and Manchester (won by Greens). POLITICO visited south Wales and spoke to 30 politicians and officials across Labour, Plaid and Reform. | Dan Bloom/POLITICO It would raise the simple question, said a senior Welsh Labour official granted anonymity to speak frankly: “What is the point in this party?’” POLITICO visited south Wales and spoke to 30 politicians and officials across Labour, Plaid and Reform, including interviews with all three of their Welsh leaders, for this piece and an episode of the Westminster Insider podcast. The conversations painted a vivid picture of a center-left establishment fighting for survival in an election that could echo far beyond Wales. While in the 1980s Welsh Labour could unite voters against Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives, now it is battling demographic changes, a decline in unionized heavy industry and an anti-incumbent backlash. All have killed old loyalties and habits. Squeezed by Plaid and Greens to their left and Reform to their right, some in Labour see parallels with other mainstream postwar parties facing a reckoning across Europe. This week, Germany’s conservative Christian Democrats and center-left Social Democrats lost to the Greens in the car production region of Baden-Württemberg; the latter barely scraped 5 percent. In the recent Manchester by-election, the Conservatives lost their deposit. Welsh Labour MPs fear a reckoning. One said: “We will have to start again. We rebuild. We figure out, what does Welsh Labour mean in 2026? What do we stand for?” NEW CHAPTER, SAME AUTHOR It takes Morgan 20 minutes to walk the 500 meters from Newport Market to our interview. Some passers-by flag her down; others she ambushes. We pass a baked goods shop (“Ooh, Gregg’s! That’s what I want!”) and Morgan emerges with a latte, though not with one of the chain’s famous sausage rolls. She introduces herself to one woman as “Eluned Morgan, first minister of Wales.” Her target looks vaguely bemused.  After the Covid pandemic, people are simply more aware of what the Welsh government actually does — which means Labour, as the incumbent, gets more blame when things go wrong. | Matthew Horwood/Getty Images A peer and ex-MEP who joined the Senedd in 2016, Morgan is a fixture of Wales’ Labour establishment who became first minister unopposed in August 2024 after her predecessor, Vaughan Gething, resigned over a donations scandal. “I didn’t have a mandate really, because I was just kind of thrown in,” she tells POLITICO midway up the high street. “I thought, right, I need a program, so I went out on the streets and took my program directly from the public without any filter.”  She is selling a nuts-and-bolts offer of new railway stations, a £2 bus fare cap and same-day mental health care. Morgan casts herself as the experienced option to beat what she calls the “separatists” of Plaid and the “concerning” rise of populism. She means Reform, which wants to scrap net zero targets and cut 580 Welsh civil service jobs. Yet paradoxically, she also paints herself as a vessel for change. “[People] want to see change faster,” she said in John Frost Square, named after the leader of an 1839 uprising that demanded voting rights for all men. She wants to show “delivery” and “hope.” Dimitri Batrouni, Newport Council’s Labour leader, suggested an Amazonification of politics is under way. “Our lives commercially are instant,” he said. “I want something, I order it, it’s delivered to my house … people quite naturally want that in their governments.” But after 27 years, many voters are rolling the dice on delivery elsewhere. Welsh Labour is promising to end homelessness by 2034, but previously made the same pledge by 2026. Around 6,900 people are still waiting two years or more for NHS treatment (though this figure was 10 times higher during the Covid-19 pandemic). Education rankings slumped in 2023. At Newport’s Friars Walk shopping center, retired mechanical engineer Roy Wigmore, 81, said all politicians are liars. “I’ve voted Labour all my life until now,” he said, “but I’ll probably vote for somebody else — probably Nigel Farage.” ‘SHIT, WELL, HE DIDN’T CALL ME’ Much of this anger is pointed at Westminster — which is why Labour has long tried to show a more socialist face to Wales.  It was the seat of Labour co-founder Keir Hardie as well as of Nye Bevan, who launched Britain’s National Health Service in 1948. “Welsh Labour” was born out of the first Senedd-style elections in 1999, when Plaid surged in south Wales heartlands while Tony Blair’s New Labour appealed to the middle classes. For years, this deliberate rebranding worked; Labour pulled through with the most seats even when the Tories ruled Westminster. Yet in 2024, the party boasted of “two Labour governments at both ends of the M4” — in London and in Cardiff — working in harmony. The emphasis soon flipped back when things went wrong in No. 10; Morgan promised a “red Welsh way” last May. She is “trying to find our identity again,” said the MP quoted above. Morgan appeared to disown the “both ends of the M4” approach, while declining to call it a mistake. “Look, that was a decision before I became first minister,” she said. A peer and ex-MEP who joined the Senedd in 2016, Morgan is a fixture of Wales’ Labour establishment who became first minister unopposed in August 2024 after her predecessor, Vaughan Gething, resigned over a donations scandal. | Matthew Horwood/Getty Images She tries to be playful in distancing herself from Keir Starmer. “He came down a couple of weeks ago and I was very clear with him, if you’re coming you need to bring something with you. Fair play, he brought £14 billion of investment,” she said. “If he wants to come again, he’ll have to bring me more money.” But she has also hitched herself to Starmer for now — unlike Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, who has called for the PM to go. As we sat down, Morgan professed surprise at news that Sarwar called several Cabinet ministers beforehand. “Did he! Shit, well, he didn’t call me,” she said. “Look at the state of the world at the moment; actually what we need is stability,” she added. “We need the grown-ups in the room to be in charge, and I do think Keir Starmer is a grown-up.” ‘ELUNED WASN’T HAPPY’ Morgan has mounted a fightback since Plaid won October’s Caerphilly by-election.  She has hired Matt Greenough, a strategist who worked on London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s re-election campaign last year, said three people with knowledge of the appointment. One of the people said: “During Caerphilly, it became quite clear there were a lot of problems. Eluned wasn’t happy with Welsh Labour or the way the campaign was running. She did a lot of lobbying and got the Welsh executive to basically give her complete power over the campaign.” Morgan “was angry that the central party [in London] took control of the Caerphilly by-election,” another of the people added. (A Morgan ally disputed this reading of events, saying she would always take a bigger role as the election drew near, and that a wide range of Labour figures are involved in the campaign committee such as a Westminster MP, Torsten Bell.) Morgan also has more support these days from Labour’s MPs — who pushed last year for her to focus less on Plaid and more on Reform. That lobbying may have been a mistake, the MP quoted above admits now. “We were quite naive in thinking that the progressives would back us,” this MP said. Privately, Labour politicians and officials in Wales say the mood and prospects are better than the start of 2026. Though asked if Labour would win the most seats in the Senedd, Batrouni said: “Let’s look and see. It’s not looking good in the polls but … politics changes so quickly.” IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT KEIR STARMER The harsh reality is that Labour’s base in Wales began slipping long before Starmer, rooted in deindustrialization since the 1970s and 80s. Newport, near England on the M4 corridor, has a measure of prosperity that other parts of Wales do not. The 137-year-old market has had a makeover, Microsoft is building data centers and U.S. giant Vishay runs Britain’s biggest semiconductor plant. Here Labour is mostly expecting a fight between itself and Reform. At Newport’s Friars Walk shopping center, retired mechanical engineer Roy Wigmore, 81, said all politicians are liars. “I’ve voted Labour all my life until now,” he said, “but I’ll probably vote for somebody else — probably Nigel Farage.” | Jon Rowley/Getty Images Wales’ west coast and north west are more Plaid-dominated, with more Welsh speakers and independence supporters. But support for nationalists is spreading in the southern valleys. “All across the valleys you’re seeing places where Labour has dominated for 100 years plus but is now in deep, deep crisis,” said Richard Wyn Jones, professor of Welsh politics at Cardiff University. “It has long been the case that a lot of Labour supporters have had a very positive view of Plaid Cymru — they just didn’t have a reason to vote for them until now.” Wyn Jones attributes the change to trends across northern Europe, where traditional left-wing parties have been “unmoored” from working-class occupations. A growing service sector has brought more white-collar voters with socially liberal values. Carmen Smith, a 29-year-old Plaid campaigner who is the House of Lords’ youngest-ever peer, said Brexit had unhitched young, left-leaning voters from the idea of British patriotism: “There are a lot more young people identifying as Welsh rather than British.”  And after the Covid pandemic, people are simply more aware of what the Welsh government actually does — which means Labour, as the incumbent, gets more blame when things go wrong.  All the while, a left-behind contingent of socially conservative ex-Labour voters is turning to Reform UK. At the Tumble Inn, a Wetherspoons chain pub in the valley town of Pontypridd, retired gas engineer Paul Jones remembered: “You could leave one job, walk a couple of hundred yards and start another job … it was a totally different world. I wish we could get it back, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.” He hasn’t voted for years but plans to back Reform. THEY’VE BLOWN UP THE MAP All these changes will be turbocharged by a new electoral map. A previous Labour first minister, Mark Drakeford, introduced a more proportional voting system which will see voters elect six Senedd members in each of 16 super-constituencies. The results will reflect the mood better than U.K. general elections (Labour won 84 percent of Wales’ seats on a 37 percent vote share in 2024), but create a volatile outcome. In the mega-constituency for eastern Cardiff, Wyn Jones believes the six seats could be won by six parties: Labour, Plaid, Reform, the Conservatives, Greens and Liberal Democrats. Ironically, said the Labour MP quoted above, Welsh Labour is now polling so badly that it could actually win more seats under the new system than the old one. Trying to win the sixth seat in each super-constituency will hoover up many resources. The size of each patch changes how parties campaign, said Plaid’s Westminster leader Liz Savile Roberts: “We’ve had to go to places that I’ve never been to.” And the scale means activists have a weaker connection to the candidates they campaign for — compounded in Labour by many Senedd members stepping down. Just six people turned up to one recent Labour door-knocking session in a heartland seat. A left-behind contingent of socially conservative ex-Labour voters is turning to Reform UK. | Huw Fairclough/Getty Images After May 8, the new system will make coalitions or informal support deals more necessary to command a Senedd majority. Morgan declined to say if she would support Plaid’s £400 million-a-year offer to expand free childcare (which Labour says is unfunded), rather than see it voted down. “I’m certainly not getting into hypotheticals,” she said. “I’m in this to win it.”  Her rivals have other ideas. THE PRESIDENT IS COMING On the hill above Newport, a two-story presidential-style image of Rhun ap Iorwerth filled a screen at the International Convention Centre above the words: “New leadership for Wales.” The former BBC presenter, who took over Plaid’s leadership in 2023, strained not to make his February conference look like a premature victory lap. Members could’ve been fooled. They struggled to find parking. There were more lobbyists; more journalists. It is a slow burn for a party founded in 1925, which won its first Westminster seat in 1966. Ap Iorwerth ramped up the anti-establishment rhetoric in his conference speech while Lindsay Whittle, who won Caerphilly for Plaid in October’s by-election, bellowed: “Rich men from London, we are waiting for you!” Yet he insists his success is more than a protest vote, a trend sweeping Europe or a mirror of Reform’s populism. “I’d like to think that we’re doing something different,” Ap Iorwerth told POLITICO. While Morgan accuses him of “separatism,” he said: “We have a growing sense of Welsh nationhood and Welsh identity, at a time when there’s deep disillusionment in the old guard of U.K. politics and a sense of needing to keep at bay that populist right wing.” Ap Iorwerth said there is a “very real danger” that Labour vanishes entirely as a serious force in the Senedd. “The level of support that they have collapsed to is a level that most people, probably myself included, could never have imagined would happen so quickly,” he said. INDEPENDENCE DAY? But Plaid faces three big challenges to hold this pole position. The first is its ground game, stretched thin to cover the new world of mega-seats. On the hill above Newport, a two-story presidential-style image of Rhun ap Iorwerth filled a screen at the International Convention Centre above the words: “New leadership for Wales.” | Matthew Horwood/Getty Images The second is to remain distinct from Labour and the insurgent Greens while running a broad left-leaning platform focused on energy costs, childcare and the NHS. The third is to convince unionist voters that Plaid is not simply a Trojan horse for Welsh independence. Independence is Plaid’s core belief, yet Ap Iorwerth did not mention the word once in his speech, instead promising a “standing commission” to look at Wales’ future. He told POLITICO he would rather have a “sustained, engaging, deep discussion … than try to crash, bang, wallop, towards the line.”  But opponents suggest Plaid will push hard for independence if they win a second term in 2030 — like the Scottish National Party did after topping elections in 2007 then 2011. One conference attendee, Emyr Gruffydd, 36, a member for 19 years, said independence “is going to be part of our agenda in the future, definitely. But I think nation-building has to be the approach that we take in the first term.” Savile Roberts accepted that shelving talk of independence (which is still supported by less than half the Welsh population) is part of a deliberate strategy to broaden the party’s reach and keep a wide left-leaning appeal. “I mean, we know the people that we need to appeal to — it is the disenchanted Labour voters,” she said. For some shoppers in Newport — not Plaid’s home turf — it may be working. One ex-Labour voter, Rose Halford, said of Plaid: “All they want to do is make everybody speak Welsh.” But she’ll consider backing them: “They’re showing a bit more gumption, aren’t they?” TAXING QUESTIONS FOR PLAID If Plaid does win, that’s when the hard part begins. Ap Iorwerth would seek urgent talks about changing Wales’ funding formula from Westminster — but cannot say how much this would raise. And Plaid has vowed not to hike income tax, one of the few (blunt) tax instruments available to the Welsh government. Strategists looked at the issue before and feared it would prompt taxpayers to flee over the border to England. So Plaid promises vague financial “efficiencies” in areas such as child poverty, where spending exceeded £7 billion since 2022, and health. Whittle said: “There’s an awful lot of people pen-pushing in the health service. We don’t need pen-pushers.” Labour’s attack machine argues that Plaid and Reform UK alike would cut services. Ap Iorwerth insists his and Farage’s promises are different: “We’re talking about being effective and efficient.” But he admitted: “You don’t know the detail until you come into government.”  Ap Iorwerth jettisoned any suggestion that Plaid would introduce universal basic income, saying it is “not a pledge for government.” He added: “It’s something that I believe in as a principle. I don’t think we’re in a place where we have anything like a model that could be put in place now.” Ap Iorwerth would seek urgent talks about changing Wales’ funding formula from Westminster — but cannot say how much this would raise. | Matthew Horwood/Getty Images The blame game between Cardiff and Westminster will run hot. Ap Iorwerth voiced outrage this week at a leaked memo from Starmer in December, ordering his Cabinet to deliver directly in Wales and Scotland “even when devolved governments may oppose this.” FARAGE’S WELSH SURGE And then there’s Reform. Farage’s party has rocketed in the polls since 2024; typical branch meetings have swelled from a dozen members to several dozen. Since February, Reform has even had its own leader for Wales — Dan Thomas, a former Tory councillor in London who says he recently moved back to the area of Blackwood, in the south Wales valleys. Some party figures have observed a dip after the Caerphilly by-election, where Reform came second. Thomas insists: “I don’t think we’ve plateaued” — and even said there is room to increase a 31 percent vote share from one (optimistic) poll. “There’s still a Labour vote to squeeze,” he told POLITICO.  “We’re targeting all of Wales.” It is a measure of Plaid’s success that Reform UK often now presents the nationalist party as its main competition. “It’s a two-horse race [with Plaid], that’s what I say on the doors,” said Leanne Dyke, a Reform canvasser who was drinking in the Pontypridd Wetherspoons. James Evans, who is now one of Reform’s two Senedd members after he was thrown out of the Conservative group in January on suspicion of defection talks, argues his supporters are underrepresented in polling because they are “smeared” as bigots. Evans added: “Very similarly to what happened in America when Donald Trump was elected, I think there is a quiet majority of people out there who do not want to say they’re voting Reform, who will vote Reform.”  Reform has its own custom-built member app, ReformGo, as it canvasses data on where its supporters live for the first time. It sent a mass appeal by post to all registered Welsh voters in late 2025 (before spending limits kicked in). Welsh campaign director David Thomas is recruiting a brand new slate of 96 candidates, booking hotels for training days with interviews, written exercises and team-building. Daytime TV presenter Jeremy Kyle has helped with media training. English officials cross the border to help; Reform still only has three paid officials in Wales. FARAGE HAS AN NHS PROBLEM Lian Walker, a postal worker from the village of Pen-y-graig, would be a prime target for Reform. “There’s people who I see on the databases, they don’t work,” she said in Pontpridd’s Patriot pub, “but they get everything; new windows, earrings, T-shirts, shorts.” She supports Reform’s plans to deport migrants. But on the NHS, she says of Reform: “They want it to go private like America.” Labour and Plaid drive this attack line relentlessly. The full picture is more nuanced — but still exposes a tension between Farage and Thomas. But Farage has an advantage; the right is less split than the left. | Ben Birchall/PA Images via Getty Images While Reform emphasizes it would keep the NHS free at the point of use, Farage has not ruled out shifting its funding from general taxation to a French-style insurance model, saying that would be “a national decision ahead of a general election.” Thomas, however, broke from this stance. He told POLITICO: “No, no. We rule out any kind of insurance system or any kind of privatization.” He added: “Nigel’s also said that devolved issues are down to the Welsh party, and I wouldn’t consider any kind of insurance-based or private-based system for the Welsh NHS.” Labour and Plaid are relying on an anti-Reform vote to keep Farage’s party out of power. Opponents have also highlighted the jailing of Nathan Gill, Reform’s former Welsh leader, for taking bribes to give pro-Russia interviews and speeches. But Farage has an advantage; the right is less split than the left. In Evans’ sprawling rural seat of Brecon and Radnorshire, two people with knowledge of the Conservative association said its membership had fallen catastrophically from a recent peak of around 400. On the other hand, the sheer number of defections makes Reform look more like a copycat Conservative Party. A former Tory staffer works for Evans; Thomas’ press officer is the Welsh Conservatives’ former media chief. Evans said last year that 99 percent of Reform’s policies were “populist rubbish,” but was allowed to see the policy platform in secret before he agreed to join (and has since contributed to it). While the long-time former UKIP and Brexit Party politician Mark Reckless led a policy consultation in the first half of 2025, former Conservative Welsh Secretary David Jones — who defected without fanfare last year — played a hands-on role behind the scenes working up manifesto policies, two people with knowledge of his work said. THE NIGEL SHOW Then there is Reform’s reliance on Farage himself.  The party deliberately left it late before unveiling a Welsh leader, said a Reform figure in Wales, and chose in Thomas a Welsh figure who would not “detract from Nigel’s overall umbrella and brand.” While Welsh officials and politicians worked on the manifesto, Farage himself was involved in signing it off — as were several others in London, said Evans, including frontbench spokespeople Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman and Zia Yusuf. Thomas said: “Ultimately, it’s my decision to sign off the manifesto. Of course, Nigel was consulted because he’s our U.K. leader, and we want to ensure that what’s going on in Wales is aligned to the broader picture in the UK.” Reform’s Welsh manifesto promises to cut a penny off every band of income tax by 2030, end Wales’ “nation of sanctuary” plan to support asylum seekers, scrap 20mph road speed limits and upgrade the M4 and A55 highways. But costings have not been published yet — Reform has sent them to be assessed by the Institute for Fiscal studies, a nonpartisan think tank — and like other parties, Reform faces questions about how it will all be paid for. Asked if Reform would begin work on the M4 and A55 upgrades by 2030, Thomas replied: “We’d like to. But we all know in this country, infrastructure projects take a long time.” While Welsh officials and politicians worked on the manifesto, Farage himself was involved in signing it off — as were several others in London, said Evans, including frontbench spokespeople Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman and Zia Yusuf. | Huw Fairclough/Getty Images ‘I’VE GOT TO FOCUS ON WHAT I CAN CONTROL’ These harsh realities facing Wales’ would-be rulers are a silver lining for Labour. Morgan avoided POLITICO’s question about whether she believes the polls — “I’ve got to focus on what I can control” — but insisted many voters remain persuadable. “People will scratch the surface and say [our rivals] are not ready,” she said. Alun Michael, who led the first Welsh Labour administration in 1999, said the idea that the Labour vote has “collapsed completely” is wrong. “It’s always dangerous to go on opinion polls as a decider of what will happen in an election,” he said. Whoever does win will deserve a moment of levity. If Ap Iorwerth wins the most seats on May 7, he will drink an Aperol spritz; Thomas will have a glass of Penderyn Welsh whisky.  As for Morgan? She would like a cup of tea — milk, no sugar. Perhaps survival would be sweet enough.

Hungary’s ruling party on Monday introduced a bill aimed at cementing last week’s controversial seizure of millions of euros worth of Ukrainian state bank cash and gold. The measure would allow authorities to freeze the assets while a national security investigation unfolds. The proposal, introduced by Fidesz parliamentary leader Máté Kocsis, would treat the €35 million, $40 million and 9 kilograms of gold seized from vehicles linked to Ukraine’s state-owned Oschadbank as confiscated property until Hungary’s tax and customs authority concludes its probe. According to Hungarian outlet Telex, lawmakers plan to debate the legislation under an unusual fast-track procedure after the parliament’s national security committee met Monday. Hungarian authorities say they are examining whether the convoy — stopped while transiting the country last week — posed national security risks. They are also investigating the origin and intended use of the money. Hungarian officials insist key questions about the convoy remain unresolved. Fidesz parliamentary leader Kocsis described the episode as a “scandalous Ukrainian gold convoy” and said investigators are examining whether the transport of such large quantities of cash and bullion could pose security risks to Hungary. Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, slammed the move on X, accusing Budapest of trying to retroactively legitimize an illegal seizure. “Hungary is falling down a spiral of lawlessness,” Sybiha wrote, calling the bill “a de facto recognition that Hungary’s actions lack any legal grounds.” The clash is the latest flare-up in a long-running feud between Kyiv and Budapest. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has repeatedly butted heads with Ukraine over energy flows through the Druzhba pipeline, opposed Kyiv’s bid to join the European Union and blocked major EU financial support packages — including a €90 billion lifeline intended to keep Ukraine’s government functioning during the country’s war with Russia.

When U.S., Mexican and Canadian soccer officials fanned out across the globe nearly a decade ago to sell the 2026 World Cup, they traveled in threes — one representative from each country — to underscore a simple message: North America’s three largest countries were in lockstep. “It was so embedded into everything we did that this was a united bid. Our success was tied to the joint nature of the bid. That was the anchor regarding the premise of what we were trying to do,” said John Kristick, former executive director of the 2026 United Bid Committee. The pitch worked. In 2018, FIFA members awarded the tournament to North America, marking the first time three countries would co-host a men’s World Cup. Bid strategists were delighted when The Washington Post editorial page approvingly called it ”the NAFTA World Cup.” The North American Free Trade Agreement is no more, a victim of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw during his first term, and the successor U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is now teetering. At almost exactly the midway point of the 39-day tournament, trade ties that link the three countries’ economies will expire. The trilateral relationship is more frayed than it has ever been, tensions reflected in this year’s World Cup itself. Instead of one continental showcase, the 2026 World Cup increasingly resembles three distinct tournaments, with different immigration regimes, security plans and funding models, all a function of different policy choices in each host country. Soccer governing body FIFA “is the only glue that’s holding it together,” said one person intimately involved in the bid who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the sensitive political dynamics. The “United” in the United Bid, once the anchor of the entire project, now competes with three national agendas, each running on its own track. POLITICO spoke to eight people involved in developing a World Cup whose path from conception to execution reflects the crooked arc of North American integration. “When these events are awarded, they’re concepts. They’re ideas. They feel good,” said Lee Igel, a professor of global sport at NYU who has advised the U.S. Conference of Mayors on sports policy. “But between the award and the event itself, the world changes. Politics change. Leaders change.” THE TRUMP TOURNAMENT At the start of the extravagant December event that formally set the World Cup schedule, Trump stood next to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to ceremonially draw the first lottery ball. FIFA officials touted the moment at the Kennedy Center as a milestone: the first time the three leaders had appeared together in person, united by soccer. The trio also met for 90 minutes off stage in a meeting — facilitated by FIFA as part of World Cup planning. That novelty was notable. While each national government has named a “sherpa” to serve as its lead, those officials — including Canadian Secretary of State for Sport Adam van Koeverden and Mexican coordinator Gabriela Cuevas — have met only a handful of times in formal trilateral settings. At a January security summit in Colorado Springs, White House FIFA Task Force director Andrew Giuliani did not mention Canada or Mexico during his remarks. Only when FIFA security officer GB Jones took the stage was the international nature of the tournament acknowledged. “We have been and continue to work very closely with officials from all three host countries on topics including safety, security, logistics, transportation and other topics related to hosting a successful FIFA World Cup,” a FIFA spokesperson wrote via email. “This is one World Cup presented across all three host countries and 16 host cities, while showcasing the uniqueness of each individual location and culture.” The soccer federations behind the United Bid have been largely sidelined, with FIFA — rather than national governments — serving as the link between them. It has brought personnel of local host-city organizing committees for quarterly workshops and other meetings, and situated nearly 1,000 of its own employees across all three countries, according to a FIFA spokesperson who says they are “working seamlessly in a united effort.” (The number will swell to more than 4,000 when the tournament is underway.) But those FIFA staff are forced to navigate wildly varied fiscal conditions depending on where they land. Mexico, which will have matches in three cities, has imposed a tax exemption to stimulate investment in the World Cup and related tourist infrastructure in its three host cities. The Canadian government has dedicated well over $300 million to tournament costs, with more than two-thirds going directly to host-city governments. “The federal government are contributing significantly to both Vancouver and Toronto in terms of funding,” said Sharon Bollenbach, the executive director of the FIFA World Cup Toronto Secretariat, which unlike American host committees is run directly out of city hall. American cities, however, have been left to secure their own funding, largely through the pursuit of commercial sponsorships and donations to local organizing committees. Congress has allocated $625 million for the federal government to reimburse host cities in security costs via a grant program. But the partial government shutdown and an attendant decision by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to stop approving FEMA grants is exacerbating a logjam for U.S. states and municipalities — including not only those with World Cup matches but hosting team training camps — that rely on federal funds to coordinate counterterrorism and security efforts. That has left American host cities in very different financial situations just months before the tournament starts. Houston and Dallas-area governments can count on receiving a share of state revenue from Texas’ Major Events Reimbursement Program. The small Boston suburb of Foxborough, Massachusetts, however, is refusing to approve an entertainment license for matches at Gillette Stadium because of an unresolved $7.8 million security bill. Because of the budget squeeze, American cities have cut back on “fan festival” gatherings that will run extend during the tournament’s full length in Canadian and Mexican cities. Jersey City has canceled the fan fest planned at Liberty State Park in favor of smaller community events, and Seattle’s fan fest will be scaled down into a “distributed model” spread cross four locations. The tournament has become tightly intertwined with Trump, as FIFA places an outsized emphasis on courting the man who loves to be seen as the consummate host. Public messaging from the White House has focused almost exclusively on the United States’ role, and Trump rarely mentions Canada or Mexico from the Oval Office or on Truth Social. Since returning to office, Trump has had eight in-person meetings with FIFA President Gianni Infantino — besides the lottery draw at the Kennedy Center — whereas Sheinbaum and Carney have only had one each. While taking questions from the media during a November session with Infantino in the Oval office, Trump did not rule out the use of U.S. military force, including potential land actions, within Mexico to combat drug cartels. Guadalajara, which is set to host four World Cup matches, this weekend erupted in violence after Mexican security forces killed the head of a cartel that Trump last year labeled a “foreign terrorist organization.” A White House spokesperson wrote in a social-media post that the United States provided “intelligence support” to the mission. It is part of a more significant set of conflicts than Trump had with the United States’ neighbors during his first term. In January, Trump claimed that Sheinbaum is “not running Mexico,” while Carney rose to office promising Canadians he would “stand up to President Trump.” Since then, Trump has regularly proposed annexing Canada as the 51st state, as his government offers support to an Alberta separatist movement that could split the country through an independence vote on the province’s October ballot. The July 1 renewal deadline for the five-year-old USMCA has injected urgency into relations among the three leaders. Without an extension, the largely tariff-free trade that underpins North America’s economy would come into question, and governments and businesses would begin planning for a rupture. Trump, who recently called the pact “irrelevant,” has signaled he would be content to let it lapse. Suspense around the free trade zone’s future will engulf preparations for the World Cup, potentially granting Trump related in unrelated negotiations. “In the lead-up to mega-events, geopolitical tensions tend to hover in the background,” Igel said. “Once the matches begin, the show can overwhelm everything else, unless something dramatic like a boycott intervenes. But in the months before? That’s when you see the friction.” THE ORIGINS OF THE UNITED BID It was not supposed to be this way. When North American soccer officials first decided, in 2016, to fuse three national campaigns to host the World Cup into one, they saw unity as the strategic advantage that would distinguish their bid from any competitors. Each country had considered pursuing the World Cup on its own. Canada, looking to build on its success as host of the 2015 Women’s World Cup, wanted to host the larger men’s competition. Mexico, the first country to host it twice, wanted another shot. The United States dusted off an earlier bid for the 2022 tournament, which was awarded to Qatar. Sunil Gulati, a Columbia University economist serving as the U.S. Soccer Federation’s president, envisioned an unprecedented compromise: Instead of competing with one another they would work together — with the United States using its economic primacy and geographical centrality to ensure it remained the tournament’s focal point. The three countries’ economies had been deeply intertwined for nearly a quarter-century. Their leaders signed NAFTA in 1992, lowering trade barriers and snaking supply chains across borders that had previous isolated economic activity. But the trade pact triggered a broad backlash in the United States that allied labor unions on the left and isolationists on the right. That political disquiet exploded with the candidacy of Donald Trump, who called NAFTA “the worst trade deal” and immediately moved to renegotiate it upon taking office. Gulati, meanwhile, was pitching Emilio Azcárraga Jean, CEO and chair of Mexican broadcaster Grupo Televisa, and Canada Soccer President Victor Montagliani, on his own plan for regional integration. They agreed to sketch out a tournament that would have 75 percent of the games held in the U.S. with the remainder split between Canada and Mexico. “I’d rather have a 90 percent chance of winning 75 percent of the World Cup than a 75 percent chance of, you know, winning all of it,” Gulati told the U.S. Soccer board, according to two people who heard him say it. Montagliani and Mexico Football Federation President Decio de María joined Gulati to formally announce the so-called United Bid in New York in April 2017. The three federation presidents knew that the thrust of their pitch had to be more emotional and inclusive than “we are big, rich and have tons of ready-built stadiums,” as one of the bid organizers put it. Kristick laced a theme of “community” through the 1,500-page prospectus known to insiders as a bid book. “In 2026, we can create a bold new legacy for players, for fans and for football by hosting a FIFA World Cup that is more inclusive, more universal than ever,” declared a campaign video that the United Bid showed to the organization’s voting members. “Not because of who we are as nations, but because of what we believe in as neighbors. To bid together, countries come together.” It was a sentiment increasingly out of sync with the times. The same month that Gulati had stood with his counterparts in New York announcing the joint bid, Trump was busy demanding that Congress include funding for a wall along the border with Mexico. He told then-Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto and then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, using aluminum and steel tariffs as a cudgel. Carlos Cordeiro, who displaced Gulati as U.S. Soccer president during the bid process in 2018, became the driving force of the lobbying effort to sell the idea to 211 national federations that would vote on it. In Cordeiro’s view, according to two Americans intimately involved in the bid at the time, the bid’s biggest challenge was assuring voters that the tournament would be more than a U.S. event dressed up with the flags of its neighbors. Teams fanned out across each of soccer’s six regional confederations to make their pitch, each presentation designed to paint a picture of tri-national cooperation, and returned to a temporary base in London to debrief. “It was very pragmatic. It was like Carlos, or another U.S. representative, would say this and talk about this. The Canada representative will then talk about this. The Mexico representative will talk about this. And it was very much trying to be even across the three in terms of who was speaking,” one person on the traveling team said. When the United Bid finally prevailed in June 2018, defeating a rival bid from Morocco, Trump celebrated it as an equal triumph for the three countries. “The U.S., together with Mexico and Canada, just got the World Cup,” he wrote on Twitter, now known as X. “Congratulations — a great deal of hard work!” THREE DIFFERENT TOURNAMENTS What began with a united bid is turning into parallel tournaments: with different fan bases, security procedures and off-field programs, all a function of different policy choices in each host country. Fans from Iran and Haiti are barred from entering the United States under travel restrictions imposed by Trump, while other World Cup countries are subject to elevated scrutiny that could block travel plans. (Official team delegations are exempt.) Canada and Mexico do not impose the same restrictions, creating uneven access across the tournament: fans traveling from Ivory Coast will likely find it much easier to reach Toronto for a June 20 match against Germany than one in Philadelphia five days later against Curaçao. “FIFA recognizes that immigration policy falls within the jurisdiction of sovereign governments,” read a statement provided by the FIFA spokesperson. “Engagement therefore focuses on dialogue and cooperation with host authorities to support inclusive tournament delivery, while respecting national law.” A fan who does cross borders will encounte a patchwork of security régimes depending on which government is in charge. Mexican authorities draw from deep experience policing soccer matches, with a mix of traditional crowd-control tactics and advanced technology like four-legged robots. The United States is emphasizing novel drone defenses and asked other countries for lists of its most problematic fans. Ongoing immigration enforcement actions in the U.S. have also prompted concern among the international soccer community and calls for a boycott of the tournament. The White House this month issued clarifying talking points to host cities to buttress the “shared commitment to safety, hospitality, and a successful tournament experience for all.” The document confirms that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement “may have a presence” at the tournament to assist with non-immigration-related functions like aviation security and anti-human trafficking efforts. No where is the fragmentation more glaring among countries than on human rights. After previous World Cups were accused of “sportswashing” autocratic regimes in Qatar and Russia, the United Bid made “human rights and labor standards” a centerpiece of its proposal to FIFA. The bid stipulated that each host city by August 2025 must submit concrete plans for how the city would protect individual rights, including respect for “indigenous peoples, migrant workers and their families, national, ethnic and religious minorities, people with disabilities, women, race, LGBTQI+, journalists, and human rights defenders.” “Human rights were embedded in the bid from the beginning,” said Human Rights Watch director of global initiatives Minky Worden, who worked closely with Mary Harvey, a former U.S. goalkeeper and soccer executive who now leads the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, on the language. Harvey consulted with 70 civil-society groups across the three countries while developing the strategy. That deadline passed without a single U.S. city submitting their plan on time. Now just months before the kickoff, host cities have finally started to release their reports, creating a patchwork of approaches. While Vancouver’s report makes multiple references to respecting LGBTQ+ populations, Houston’s has no mention of sexual orientation and identity at all. The FIFA spokesperson says the organization has embedded inclusion and human rights commitments directly into agreements signed by host countries, cities and stadium operators, and that dedicated FIFA Human Rights, Safeguarding and Anti-Discrimination teams will monitor implementation and hold local organizers to account for violations. “All of these standards were supposed to be uniform across these three countries,” said Worden. “It wasn’t supposed to be the lowest common denominator with the U.S. being really low.”

Scattered among the candy shelves and freezer cabinets in Russian supermarkets across Germany are advertisements promoting a business with a service the government has tried to outlaw: a logistics company specialized in moving packages from the heart of Germany to Russia, in defiance of European Union sanctions. Trade restrictions have been in place since 2014 and were tightened just after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, when Western nations began to impose far-reaching financial and trade sanctions on Russia. But an investigation by the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which includes POLITICO, has identified a clandestine Berlin-based postal system that exploits the special status of postal parcels to transport all kinds of European goods — including banned electronics components — into President Vladimir Putin’s empire. We know every stop and turn in the route because we sent five packages and used digital tracking devices to follow them — through an illicit 1,100-mile journey that undermines the sanctions regime European policymakers consider their strongest tool to generate political pressure on Russian leaders by weakening their country’s economy. LS Logistics said its internal controls make violations of EU sanctions “virtually impossible” but that it was not immune from customers making fraudulent declarations about the goods they ship. “Sanctions enforcement is whack-a-mole,” said David Goldwyn, who worked on sanctions policy as U.S. State Department coordinator for international energy affairs and now chairs the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center’s energy advisory group. “It’s a hard process, and you have to constantly be adapting to how the evaders are adapting.” THE UZBEK LABEL In late December, we packed five square brown parcels with electronic components specifically banned under EU sanctions and addressed the parcels to locations in Moscow and St. Petersburg. When we brought our parcels to the counters of Russian supermarkets in Berlin, we told salespeople the packages included books, scarves and hats. But they never checked inside the packages, which in fact held banned electronic components we rendered unusable before packing. Salespeople charged us 13 euros per kilogram, about $7 per pound, refusing to provide receipts. What makes these cardboard packages even more special is their disguise: The employee does not affix Russian postal stickers to the boxes, but rather those of UzPost, the national postal service of Uzbekistan. The former Soviet republic is not subject to EU sanctions. UzPost maintains close ties to the Russian postal service, according to a person familiar with the entities’ history of cooperation granted anonymity to discuss confidential business practices. Tatyana Kim, the CEO of Russian ecommerce marketplace Wildberries and reputedly her country’s richest woman, recently acquired a large stake in UzPost, according to media reports. “We work with partners, including private postal service providers,” the Uzbek postal service stated in response to our inquiry. “They can use our solutions for deliveries.” In Germany, registered logistics companies are permitted to provide postal services — including pick-up, sorting and delivery — for international postal operators. However, the Federal Network Agency, which is responsible for postal oversight, says the Uzbek postal service is not authorized to perform any of these functions in Germany. (The Federal Network Agency said in a response to our inquiry that it is “currently reviewing” the case and that it would pursue penalties for LS if it is found to be using Uzbek documents without authorization.) After our packages spent one to two days at the supermarkets, we saw them begin to move. Inside each package we had placed a small black GPS device, naming them “Alpha,” “Beta,” “Gamma,” “Delta” and “Epsi.” We could track their movements in real time in an app, watching them closely as they wound through Berlin’s roads to Schönefeld, site of the capital’s international airport. There they stopped, unloaded into a modern warehouse that has been repurposed into a Russian shadow postal service. COLOGNE, TECHNICALLY In 2014, a retired professional gymnast was tasked with launching a subsidiary of Russia’s national postal service, the RusPost GmbH, which would operate with official authorization to collect, process and deliver postal items in Germany, according to a former employee granted anonymity to speak openly about the business. For 18 years, the St. Petersburg-raised Alexey Grigoryev had competed and coached at Germany’s highest levels, winning three national championship titles with the KTV Straubenhardt team and working with an Olympic gold medalist on the high bar. But he had no evident experience in the postal business. RusPost’s German business model collapsed upon the imposition of an expanded sanctions package in the weeks after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Much like American sanctions on Russia, the European Union blocks sensitive technical materials that could boost the Russian defense sector, while allowing the export of personal effects and quotidian consumer items. “The sanctions are accompanied by far-reaching export bans, particularly on goods relevant to the war, in order to put pressure on the Russian war economy,” according to a statement the Federal Ministry of Economics provided us. In March 2022, while conducting random checks of postal traffic to Moscow, customs officials discovered sanctioned goods (including cash, jewelry and electrical appliances) in numerous RusPost packages. The Berlin public prosecutor’s office launched an investigation of the company, concluding that a former RusPost managing director had deliberately failed to set up effective control mechanisms, in breach of his duties. He was charged with 62 counts of attempting to violate the Foreign Trade and Payments Act over an eight-month period; criminal proceedings are ongoing. The Russian postal network did not quite disappear, however. A new company called LS Logistics Solution GmbH was formed in December 2022, according to corporate filings. LS filled its top jobs, including customs manager and head of customer service, with former RusPost employees, according to their LinkedIn profiles. The new company listed as its business address an inconspicuous semi-detached house in a residential area of Cologne, across from a church. When we visited, we found an old white mailbox whose plated sign lists LS Logistics alongside dozens of other companies supposed to be housed there. But none of them seemed to be active. The building was empty during business hours, its mailbox overflowing with discolored brochures and old newspapers. The operational heart of LS is the warehouse complex in Berlin-Schönefeld, just a few minutes from the capital’s airport. The building itself is functional and anonymous: a long, gray industrial structure with several metal rolling doors, some fitted with narrow window slits. Through them, towering stacks of parcels are visible, packed tightly, sorted roughly, stretching deep into the hall. Trucks arrive and depart regularly, from loading bays lit by harsh white floodlights that cut through the otherwise quiet industrial area. Behind the warehouse lies a wide concrete parking lot where a black BMW SUV with a license plate bearing the initials AG is often parked. We saw a man resembling Grigoryev enter the car. The former head of RusPost officially withdrew from the postal business after authorities froze the company’s operations. Unofficially, however, the 50-year-old’s continued presence in Schönefeld suggests otherwise. According to one former RusPost employee, the warehouse near the airport serves as a collection point for parcels from all over Europe. Other logistics companies with Russian management have listed the warehouse as their business address, some of their logos decorating the façade. LS Logistics Solution GmbH has the largest sign of them all. THE A2 GETAWAY According to tracking devices, our packages spent several days in the warehouse before being loaded onto 40-ton trucks covered with grey tarps, among several that leave every day loaded with mail. They were then driven toward the Polish border, through the German city of Frankfurt (Oder). Without any long stops, the 40-ton trucks traversed Poland on the A2 motorway, past Warsaw. Two days after leaving Berlin, they were approaching the eastern edge of the European Union. They arrived at a border checkpoint in Brest, the Belarusian city where more than a hundred years ago Russia signed a peace pact with Germany to withdraw from World War I. Now it marked the last place for European officials to identify contraband leaving for countries they consider adversaries. In 2022, the European Union applied a separate set of sanctions on Belarus because its leader, Alexander Lukashenko, a close ally of Putin, has supported Russia’s presence in Ukraine. Yet despite provisions that should have stopped our packages from leaving Poland, they moved onward into Belarus, their tracking devices apparently undetected. What makes this possible is the special legal status that accompanies international mail. While a formal export declaration is required for the export of regular goods, such as those moving via container ship or rail freight, simplified paperwork helps speed up the departure process for postal items. At Europe’s borders, this distinction becomes crucial, as postal packages are examined largely on risk-based checks rather than comprehensive inspections. “International postal items are subject to the regular provisions of customs supervision both on import and on export and transit and are checked on a risk-oriented basis in accordance with applicable EU and national legislation, including with regard to compliance with sanctions regulations,” the German General Customs Directorate stated in response to our inquiry. Two of our tracking devices briefly lost their signal in Belarus — likely part of a widespread pattern of satellite navigation systems being disrupted across Eastern Europe — but after a journey of around 1,100 miles, they all showed the same destination. Our packages had reached Russia’s largest cities. Ukrainian authorities told us they were not surprised by our investigation. The country’s presidential envoy for sanctions policy, Vladyslav Vlasiuk, said at the Ukrainian embassy in Berlin that his government regularly collects intelligence on such schemes and shares it with international partners. “Nobody is doing enough, if you look at the number of cases,” Vlasiuk said. ONE STEP BEHIND After the arrival of the packages, we confronted all parties involved, including LS Logistics Solution GmbH, the mysterious shipper that helped transport the goods from Europe to Russia. We called Grigoryev several times, but he never answered; efforts to reach him through the company failed as well. An LS executive would not answer our questions about his role. “Our internal control mechanisms are designed in such a way that violations of EU sanctions are virtually impossible,” LS managing director Anjelika Crone wrote to us. “Shipments that do not meet the legal requirements are not processed further. We are not immune to fraudulent misdeclarations, such as those that obviously underlie the ‘test shipments’ you refer to.” Crone said she could not answer further questions due to data protection and contractual confidentiality concerns. This month, Germany took steps to strengthen enforcement of its sanctions regime, expanding the range of violations subject to criminal penalties. The law, passed by the Bundestag in January, amends the country’s Foreign Trade and Payments Act to integrate a European Union directive harmonizing criminal sanctions law across its 27 member states and ensure efficient, uniform enforcement. Germany was one of the 18 countries put on notice by EU officials last May for having failed to follow the 2024 directive. The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs, which is responsible for implementing the new policy, argued in a statement to the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network that the very ingenuity of the logistics network we unmasked operating within Germany was a testament to the strength of the country’s sanctions regime. “The state-organized Russian procurement systems operate at enormous financial expense to create ever new and more complex diversion routes,” said ministry spokesperson Tim-Niklas Wentzel. “This confirms that the considerable compliance efforts of many companies and the work of the sanctions enforcement authorities in combating circumvention are also having a practical effect. Procurement is becoming increasingly difficult, time-consuming, and expensive for Russia.” According to those who have tried to administer sanctions laws, that argument rings true — but only partly. “It’s probably more fair to say that sanctions had a material impact and increased the cost of bad actors to achieve their goals. But to say that they’re working well is probably overstating the truth of the matter,” said Max Meizlish, formerly an official with the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and now a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “When there’s evasion, it requires enforcement,” Meizlish went on. “And when you need more enforcement I think it’s hard to make a compelling case that the tool is working as intended.” The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network is a multi-publication initiative publishing scoops, investigations, interviews, op-eds and analysis that reverberate across the world. It connects journalists from Axel Springer brands—including POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, and Onet— on major stories for an international audience. Their ambitious reporting stretches across Axel Springer platforms: online, print, TV, and audio. Together, these outlets reach hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address was defined in many respects not by what he said but by what he avoided saying. There were the mistakes he avoided making: Trump did not attack the Supreme Court. He did not blitz members of his own party who have criticized him. He avoided rambling, angry digressions from the script. Then there were the issues he avoided addressing: Trump offered no new ideas on housing or health care, two defining issues of the midterm campaign. He made no mention of the Jeffrey Epstein scandals consuming politics in Washington and far beyond. He did not clarify his policy toward Iran, even as he masses air and naval forces in the region. It was, for better or worse, a speech not likely to change the political trajectory of Trump’s second term. The historically long address was, in some ways, nearly indistinguishable from Trump’s daily patter in the Oval Office, on Air Force One or in the White House driveway. For some leaders in the president’s party, mindful of his capacity for political self-harm, that might be cause for relief. Republicans wake up on Wednesday morning with no political problems they did not have the day before. Yet the status quo of the midterm campaign does not favor the GOP: Trump is on the defensive on many of the issues driving the election cycle so far. That, too, did not change. “In some ways, this was Trump’s finest — it was a full patriotic projection,” said GOP strategist Matthew Bartlett, who served in Trump’s first administration. “It was aspirational, emotive. Yet in terms of a political speech there was no policy prescription that will guide Republicans towards safer ground in the midterms.” Another Republican operative, granted anonymity to discuss the president’s performance, expressed concern that the speech didn’t do enough to look forward. “It’s all look behind, as great as it all is,” the operative said. “I wish we had more detailed steps to take, directing Congress to do more for people who are hurting.” For some, Trump did exactly what he needed to do — offering plenty of red meat to a base hungry for the president to call out Democrats for their hypocrisy about inflation, blame former President Joe Biden and talk tough on illegal immigration. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, said talking to so-called persuadable voters is a losing strategy that failed in 2018. “Tonight changes that,” he said. “The president is not reaching out , he’s leading forward—game now on!” The speech was replete with Trump’s usual flourishes — braggadocio, hyperbole, unscripted asides and anecdotes. He talked about the wars he stopped, the prices he has helped bring down and the “hundreds of billions of dollars” he’s brought in from foreign investments through tariffs and negotiations. “We’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it,” Trump said. “People are asking me, ‘please, please please, Mr. President, we’re winning too much. We can’t take it anymore. We’re not used to winning in our country until you came along. We were just always losing.’” Still, 13 months into a second term defined largely by the president’s outsized ambition and focus on personal prerogatives, be it his quest for a Nobel Peace Prize or determination to remodel and redecorate the White House complex, the remarks were also notable for their uncharacteristic restraint. The president remained disciplined even as he broke his own record for the longest State of the Union ever. There was no mention of owning or annexing Greenland, which caused international chaos and strained the transatlantic alliance, just last month. In fact, foreign policy made up a relatively small part of his remarks given what a huge part of his agenda it has been. With his approval rating stuck around 40 percent and Republicans increasingly nervous about the possibility of a midterm tsunami, Trump stuck to politically safer ground. He interspersed his remarks with several feel-good set-pieces, diverting the audience’s attention to the House balcony in an effort to rise above partisan politics: he cheered the gold-medal olympic hockey team; praised the Coast Guard rescue swimmer who saved an 11-year from the central Texas flooding, pinned medals and ribbons on war heroes and servicemen and prayed for a woman trying to conceive through IVF, whose drugs were cheaper because of TrumpRX. That last point, a focus on economic issues and affordability, was an effort to shore up a growing liability. Trump outlined the tax cuts enacted by Republicans last year and outlined additional policy proposals for Congress, urging lawmakers to aid prospective homeowners by preventing private equity firms from buying up single-family homes and to lower prescription drug costs for seniors. But with the GOP holding such slim legislative majorities and the focus quickly turning to the campaign trail, the prospects for major legislative action this year are slim. Asserting that consumer prices are coming down, Trump continued to attack Democrats as hypocrites for “suddenly” emphasizing affordability issues. “You caused that problem,” Trump said to the Democratic side of the aisle. “Their policies created the high prices. Our policies are rapidly ending them.” His hectoring, especially when he turned to immigration issues, provoked a stronger reaction from a few Democratic lawmakers who weren’t able to stay quiet. “You should be ashamed of yourselves,” Trump said to Democrats, over their refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats are demanding changes to how federal agents operate in the wake of the deadly shootings of protesters by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers carrying out raids in Minneapolis and several other cities. Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — both frequent targets of the president’s attacks — shouted back. “You have killed Americans,” Omar shouted, referencing Alex Pretti, the nurse who was killed by federal agents in Minneapolis last month. “Alex wasn’t a criminal,” she said. When some Democrats didn’t heed Trump’s call for lawmakers to stand at various points to show support for crime victims attacked by undocumented immigrants or parents seeking to prevent their children’s sexual transition, the president dismissed the entire party. “These people are crazy,” he said. “They’re crazy.” Trump looked to frame his dizzying return to the Oval Office — the upheaval caused by his predatory foreign policy, his punishing, unpredictable tariff regime and even the violence sparked by his immigration enforcement efforts — as a modern corollary to America’s original revolution, filling his speech with references to 1776 and the milestone 250th anniversary the country will mark in July. “These first 250 years were just the beginning,” Trump said as he wrapped his speech. “The golden age of America is upon us. The revolution that began in 1776 has not ended. It still continues because the flame of liberty and Independence still burns in the heart of every American patriot. And our future will be bigger, better, brighter, bolder, and more glorious than ever before.” Lisa Kashinsky, Dasha Burns, Megan Messerly and Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.

In striking down a large chunk of President Donald Trump’s tariffs Friday, the Supreme Court set up a new legal battle over the $130 billion-plus the government has collected from those duties. The justices, in their 6-3 ruling, did not order the Trump administration to provide refunds to importers for the tariffs already paid, or spell out how repayment should work. That likely leaves the U.S. Court of International Trade responsible for sorting out a thicket of legal issues related to possible repayments — under customs law, tariff refund claims are typically handled through that trade-focused, New York-based court and processed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that the refund process will be a “mess” — echoing Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s description during oral arguments. Barrett, nonetheless, joined the majority ruling against Trump’s duties. “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” Kavanaugh wrote, adding that “refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury.” That’s a point the president and other senior economic officials made repeatedly in the build-up to the court’s decision. In a Truth Social post last month, Trump warned that striking down the tariffs could force the U.S. to repay “many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars” — potentially “Trillions” when accounting for related investments — calling such a scenario “a complete mess” that would be “almost impossible for our Country to pay.” Trade and customs experts agree that any potential repayment process will be a logistical “nightmare” for both the federal government and the companies seeking compensation — and that legal fights are likely. “I would assume that the Trump people will fight the idea of refunds, and that’ll be the next thing that’ll go winding through the courts,” Trump’s first term Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in an interview. “There will be more litigation.” That would create a “particularly unfair burden for smaller importers,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the libertarian Cato Institute, noting they “lack the resources to litigate tariff refund claims.” The Justice Department and parties in the tariff litigation have already asked the Court of International Trade to establish a steering committee to coordinate the more than 1,000 refund-related cases now pending, a common step in large, complex trade disputes. In court filings, the DOJ has acknowledged that if the tariffs are ruled unlawful, importers would likely be entitled to refunds, which CBP would process, primarily via its Automated Commercial Environment system, as the agency transitions to fully electronic refund payments. “Customs is setting up a process for importers to collect refunds. Those refunds will be processed over time, so there won’t be a sudden, overnight windfall to importers,” said Nazak Nikakhtar, who worked on trade issues at the Commerce Department during the first Trump administration and is now a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein. “Their customers, however, who hadn’t independently negotiated tariff refunds might be left without any recourse.” Industry groups are already pressing the Trump administration to swiftly issue refunds. “We are confident in Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) ability to move quickly and provide clear guidance to American businesses on how to obtain refunds for tariffs that were unlawfully collected,” American Apparel & Footwear Association President Steve Lamar said in a statement.

The world is watching for Bad Bunny to make a political statement at the Super Bowl. Democrats are watching closely to figure out how to make their own. Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, the Puerto Rican recording artist known globally by his stage name, has created a pop culture phenomenon that will converge at a historic halftime show performance at the Super Bowl on Sunday when the New England Patriots play the Seattle Seahawks. Though Bad Bunny already made his Super Bowl debut alongside Shakira and Jennifer Lopez back in 2020, this time the spotlight will be on him and his exclusively in-Spanish catalog. And while his invitation triggered a harsh backlash on the right from the president on down, it’s also marking a major inflection point for Hispanic Americans of all backgrounds. Sunday may prove to be Bad Bunny’s biggest chance to move the dial. There’s an opportunity here, Democrats told POLITICO, to turn Bad Bunny’s cultural phenomenon into a political one, right as the party is mounting its strongest resistance to Trump’s sweeping deportation agenda — and with months to go before the midterms to make amends with Latino voters who have left their tent. Former Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), who is of Puerto Rican descent and whose tenure in the House was marked by his outspokenness for the Latino communities he represented, emphasized that Democrats need to seize this moment to win back Latino support. Democrats “do too little to engage the Latino community, and then they wonder why all these Latinos voted for Trump? Because you didn’t knock on their doors asking to vote for the Democrat. You failed to message us in so many ways,” he said. “They should embrace it.” “It’s such a huge watershed moment,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he used this as a very unifying moment, but also on very resonant and salient grounds to send a message to people.” There’s already signs of what’s on the Latino rapper’s mind. “Before I say thanks to God, I’m going to say, ‘ICE out,’” Bad Bunny said last Sunday as he accepted the Grammy for Best Música Urbana Album for his record-smashing “DeBÍ TiRAR MáS FOToS” — just hours before taking home the night’s biggest prize, Album of the Year. “We’re not savage, we’re not animals, we’re not aliens — we are humans, and we are Americans.” Bad Bunny isn’t new to political endeavors. But he has long focused primarily on island politics — he’s a big activist for Puerto Rican independence — and has only occasionally weighed in on mainland issues. In 2024, shortly after comedian Tony Hinchcliffe infamously disparaged Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage” during the pre-show for Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden, Bad Bunny posted an endorsement of Kamala Harris to his tens of millions of Instagram followers. But he never appeared with Harris on the campaign trail. His political trajectory has followed other Latino voters’ in recent months, however. Polls show many Hispanics have been particularly outraged at the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. And they are highly motivated to vote and could shift left, after consecutive election cycles where Trump made significant inroads with Latinos. Americans overall in recent polling have shown an increasing souring on Trump’s handling of immigration. The two fatal shootings in Minneapolis and the stream of videos of ICE raids online are driving a fierce grassroots opposition that is pushing Democrats to hold the line on the Hill and not cave in negotiations on the DHS funding bill. But Trump’s crackdown has been felt most acutely in Latino communities. For many, the stories of families being detained have fueled a feeling of solidarity across the diaspora. “That’s bringing people of all kinds together — especially the Latino community, the diaspora of Latino communities, that come from so many different places, so many different subcultures. It’s bringing us together in a new vision of latinidad,” said Chicago Alderman Michael Rodriguez, who represents the city’s historically Mexican Little Village community. “Our community is being assaulted right now.” During Bad Bunny’s massive world tour last year, the artist did not schedule any shows on the U.S. mainland, in part due to concerns that ICE would target his concerts for immigration enforcement operations. “It’s something that we were talking about and very concerned about,” he told i-D magazine in a September interview. After the rapper was announced as the halftime performer in September, Corey Lewandowski said there would be ICE enforcement operations at the Super Bowl — seemingly bringing to life some of the concerns that Martínez Ocasio voiced. Local leaders in the Bay Area have said this week they’ve privately been told no ICE officers will be at the show. DHS has remained more vague publicly about enforcement plans around the game. DHS did not respond to a request for comment on this story. Meanwhile, Republicans this weekend — many of whom in the MAGA universe have referred to Martínez Ocasio as “Woke Bunny” — are holding their own halftime performance to make a statement. Turning Point is counterprogramming Bad Bunny’s performance with a made-for-television “All American Halftime Show” featuring Kid Rock. “I think that that part of the country just felt offended,” said Andrew Kolvert, a spokesperson for Turning Point. “There needs to be a counter voice that says, ‘Hey, you know, we love this country. We love the rule of law, we love our troops, we love law enforcement, we love traditional America.’” For Democrats, the question of how to better engage and win in Latino communities has dogged them as the party searches for a way out of the wilderness since their 2024 election losses. Bad Bunny has shown a natural ability to bring those communities together with his music, filling stadiums across the world for multi-night shows. “It’s not that easy. We’re 23 countries, we fight each other every day,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who represents the largest Puerto Rican community in the Midwest — and whose city of Chicago was an early target of Trump’s increased immigration enforcement efforts. “For Bad Bunny to be able to bring Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Dominicans together, and all feel like they’re being heard and that he can represent them, says a lot about who is.” As for Martínez Ocasio, he’s keeping mum about what to expect from his performance on Sunday night. “It’s going to be a huge party,” he said at a preview event on Thursday. “I want to bring to the stage, of course, a lot of my culture. But I really don’t, I don’t want to give any spoilers. It’s going to be fun.” The cultural solidarity that Bad Bunny’s music has fostered could translate into political unity, Rodriguez, the Chicago alderman, said. And some of his fellow Democrats are ready to build on the moment. “There’s just no scenario where he is not going to have a message,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said. “There are moments in history that really move a community and solidify them within a political movement. And I think that’s happening right now.”

BRUSSELS — After years of looking at Turkey as a problem, the European Union is now viewing it as part of the solution. As negotiations for peace in Ukraine gather momentum, Turkey’s potential role in the post-war order — particularly as a peacekeeper and regional powerbroker in the Black Sea —makes it a critical partner for the EU. However, Brussels is taking baby steps with a country that has been backsliding on democracy and whose Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has jailed high-profile political opponents. In an attempt to thaw relations, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos will visit Turkey on Friday. Ahead of her trip, Kos told POLITICO in a written statement: “Peace in Ukraine will change the realities in Europe, especially in the Black Sea region. Türkiye will be a very important partner for us.” “Preparing for peace and stability in Europe implies preparing a strong partnership with Türkiye,” she added. Turkey is a military heavyweight. It has the second-largest armed forces in NATO and holds a crucial strategic position in the Mediterranean and Middle East. Ankara’s control of the Bosphorus gives it immense sway over regional security, and it played a key role in brokering the Black Sea deal in July 2022 that granted safe passage to ships carrying Ukrainian grain. The country of 88 million people has also said it is willing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine if a deal is struck with Russia, and that it would take a leading role in Black Sea security.  However, relations between the EU and Turkey have deteriorated over the years, and have hardly been helped by Erdoğan’s lurch to autocracy and his crackdown on opposition mayors. Although officially a candidate to join the EU, the negotiations have been frozen since 2018. “In the latest EU enlargement reports we have seen steps away from EU standards, especially on the rule of law and democracy,” Kos said. “I know Türkiye has a very long democratic tradition and also a strong civil society, and this is what we need to see strengthened to build trust between the EU and Türkiye.” In Ankara, to take the first steps to a rapprochement, Kos will attend a ceremony in which the European Investment Bank and Turkey will sign off on €200 million in loans for renewable energy projects. The EIB suspended new lending to Turkey in 2019 because of a dispute over oil and gas drilling off Cyprus. Also on Friday, the Commission will unveil a study on “advancing a cross-regional connectivity agenda” with Turkey, Central Europe and the South Caucasus. The study, seen by POLITICO, maps out how investment is needed to strengthen transport, trade, energy and digital connections along the Trans-Caspian Corridor, which links China, Central Asia, the South Caucasus and the Black Sea. These are symbolic first steps toward bringing Ankara back into the fold, but they’re not what Turkey really wants from the EU — that would be an updated customs union agreement. The old deal was signed in 1995. New trade agreements signed by Brussels with India and the Mercosur group of South American countries put Turkey at a competitive disadvantage. Once they’re in place, Ankara will be forced to grant tariff-free access to goods from those countries, but that benefit won’t be reciprocated. Even Ekrem İmamoğlu, the democratically elected mayor of Istanbul, whose arrest last March triggered massive nationwide protests and international condemnation, weighed in in favor of upgrading the customs union deal. In a plea sent from his prison cell to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council chief António Costa and Parliament President Roberta Metsola, İmamoğlu asked the EU to modernize the customs agreement with Turkey. “The Customs Union remains the only rules-based and normative framework underpinning Türkiye–EU relations,” İmamoğlu said in a social media post Thursday. “In the wake of EU free trade agreements with Mercosur and India, the asymmetrical consequences for Türkiye have become increasingly visible.” Updating Turkey’s deal would require buy-in from the European Council. However, Greece and Cyprus are staunchly opposed to warming relations without a goodwill gesture first from Ankara. Cyprus wants Ankara to allow its ships into Turkish ports, according to an EU official. Ankara does not recognize Cyprus due to the 1974 division of the island following a Turkish military invasion. “The strength of any future partnership needs to be underpinned by good political relations with our member states, and especially good neighbourly relations and relations with Cyprus,” Kos said. Cyprus’ deputy minister for European affairs, Marilena Raouna, told POLITICO that the country’s presidency of the Council of the EU “can be an opportunity” for EU-Turkey relations. She said Cyprus “has been constructive. And we look to Türkiye to also engage constructively.” So far, Ankara has shown little appetite to extend an olive branch. Last year it rejected Cyprus President Nikos Christodoulides’ proposal that Turkey open its ports to Cypriot-flagged ships in exchange for easier access to European visas for Turkish businesspeople. But U.S. President Donald Trump’s reshaping of geopolitical and trade relationships could push Europe and Turkey back toward one another. “The world is changing and history is accelerating. Türkiye-EU relations also need to adapt,” Turkey’s ambassador to the EU, Yaprak Balkan, told POLITICO. “The way these relations can become stronger is by building on mutual interests. We hope that we can build upon this philosophy in a very concrete manner. Türkiye’s strategic objective continues to be accession to the European Union and this should be the guiding light in our relations.” Restarting EU membership negotiations is not in the EU’s thinking just yet. Still, Kos said that “we need to look with fresh eyes at our relations” with the country. “My visit to Ankara … is about rebuilding trust and exploring how we can make our economic relationship work better for both sides.”

BRUSSELS — The EU and U.K. must overcome historic gripes and “reset” their relationship to be able to work together in an increasingly uncertain world, the bloc’s top parliamentarian said. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola used an address to the Spanish senate on Tuesday to call for closer ties with the U.K. as London steps up efforts to secure smoother access to European markets and funding projects, after the country voted to leave the bloc in 2016. “Ten years on from Brexit … and in a world that has changed so profoundly, Europe and the U.K. need a new way of working together on trade, customs, research, mobility and on security and defense,” Metsola said. “Today it is time to exorcize the ghosts of the past.” Metsola called for a “reset” in the partnership between Britain and the EU as part of a policy of “realistic pragmatism anchored in values that will see all of us move forward together.” Her speech comes after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he intended to try and ensure his country’s defense industries can benefit from the EU’s flagship SAFE scheme — a €150 billion funding program designed to boost procurement of military hardware. That push has been far from smooth, with a meeting of EU governments on Monday night failing to sign off U.K. access to SAFE, despite France — which has consistently opposed non-EU countries taking part — supporting the British inclusion. Starmer has also signaled in recent days that he is seeking closer integration with the EU’s single market. Brussels has so far been reluctant to reopen the terms of the U.K.’s relations with the bloc just six years after it exited. While those decisions lie with the remaining 27 EU member countries, rather than the Parliament, Metsola’s intervention marks a shift in tone that could bolster the British case for closer relations. In the context of increasingly tense relations with the U.S., capitals are depending on cooperation with British intelligence and military capabilities and in key industries. Europe must take “the next steps towards a stronger European defense, boosting our capabilities and cooperation, and working closely with our NATO allies so that Europe can better protect its people,” Metsola said.