BRUSSELS — When it comes to support for Ukraine, a split has emerged between the European Union and its English-speaking allies. In France and Germany, the EU’s two biggest democracies, new polling shows that more respondents want their governments to scale back financial aid to Kyiv than to increase it or keep it the same. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, meanwhile, respondents tilt the other way and favor maintaining material support, according to The POLITICO Poll, which surveyed more than 10,000 people across the five countries earlier this month. The findings land as European leaders prepare to meet in Brussels on Thursday for a high-stakes summit where providing financial support to Ukraine is expected to dominate the agenda. They also come as Washington seeks to mediate a peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv — with German leader Friedrich Merz taking the lead among European nations on negotiating in Kyiv’s favor. Across all five countries, the most frequently cited reason for supporting continued aid to Ukraine was the belief that nations should not be allowed to seize territory by force. The most frequently cited argument against additional assistance was concerns about the cost and the pressure on the national economy.  “Much of our research has shown that the public in Europe feels the current era demands policy trade-offs, and financial support for Ukraine is no exception,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London that carried out the survey for POLITICO.  “In a time where public finances are seen as finite resources, people’s interests are increasingly domestic,” he added.  WESTERN DIVIDE Germans were the most reluctant to ramp up financial assistance, with nearly half of respondents (45 percent) in favor of cutting financial aid to Kyiv while only 20 percent wanted to increase it. In France 37 percent wanted to give less and 24 percent preferred giving more. In contrast to the growing opposition to Ukrainian aid from Europe, support remains strikingly firm in North America. In the U.S., President Donald Trump has expressed skepticism toward Kyiv’s chances of defeating Moscow and has sent interlocutors to bargain with the Russians for peace. And yet the U.S. had the largest share of respondents (37 percent) in favor of increasing financial support, with Canada just behind at 35 percent. Support for Ukraine was driven primarily by those who backed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 election in the U.S. Some 29 percent of Harris voters said one of the top three reasons the U.S. should support Ukraine was to protect democracy, compared with 17 percent of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. “The partisan split in the U.S. is now quite extreme,” Wride said. In Germany and France, opposition to assistance was especially pronounced among supporters of far-right parties — such as the Alternative for Germany and France’s National Rally — while centrists were less skeptical. “How Ukraine financing plays out in Germany in particular, as a number of European governments face populist challenges, should be a particular warning sign to other leaders,” Wride said. REFUGEE FATIGUE Support for military assistance tracked a similar divide. Nearly 40 percent of respondents in the U.S., U.K. and Canada backed higher levels of military aid, with about 20 percent opposed. In Germany 26 percent supported increased military aid to Ukraine while 39 percent opposed it. In France opinions were evenly split, with 31 percent favoring an increase and 30 percent favoring cuts. Germany was also the only country where a majority of respondents said their government should accept fewer Ukrainians displaced by the war.  In a country that has taken in more than a million Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, 50 percent of Germans said Berlin should admit fewer.  Half of respondents also said Germany should reduce support for Ukrainians already settled in the country — a sign that public fatigue is extending beyond weapons and budgets to the broader social and political pressures of the conflict. The softer support for Ukraine in France and Germany does not appear to reflect warmer feelings toward Moscow, however. Voters in all five countries backed sanctions against Russia, suggesting that even where publics want to pare back aid they remain broadly aligned around punishing the aggressor and limiting Russia’s ability to finance the war. This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Dec. 5 to Dec. 9 and surveyed 10,510 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Germany. The results for each country were weighted to be representative in terms of age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error. The survey is an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com.

LONDON — On the face of it, the new MI6 chief’s first speech featured many of the same villains and heroes as those of her predecessors. But in her first public outing Monday, Blaise Metreweli, the first female head of the U.K.’s foreign intelligence service, sent a strong signal that she intends to put her own stamp on the role – as she highlighted a wave of inter-connected threats to western democracies. Speaking at MI6’s HQ in London, Metreweli, who took over from Richard Moore in October, highlighted a confluence of geo-political and technological disruptions, warning “the frontline is everywhere” and adding “we are now operating in a space between peace and war.” In a speech shot through with references to a shifting transatlantic order and the growth of disinformation, Metreweli made noticeably scant  reference to the historically close relationship with the U.S. in intelligence gathering — the mainstay of the U.K.’s intelligence compact for decades. Instead, she highlighted that a “new bloc and identities are forming and alliances reshaping.” That will be widely seen to reflect an official acknowledgement that the second Donald Trump administration has necessitated a shift in the security services towards cultivating more multilateral relationships. By comparison with a lengthy passage on the seriousness of the Russia threat to Britain, China got away only with a light mention of its cyber attack tendencies towards the U.K. — and was referred to more flatteringly as “a country where a central transformation  is  taking place this century.” Westminster hawks will note that Metreweli — who grew up in Hong Kong and  so knows the Chinese system close-up — walked gingerly around the risk of conflict in the  South China Sea and Beijing’s espionage activities targeting British politicians – and even its royals. In a carefully-placed line, she reflected that she was  “going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour.” Moore, her predecessor, was known for that approach, which delighted those who enjoyed a plain-speaking MI6 boss giving pithy analysis of global tensions and their fallout, but frustrated some in the Foreign Office who believed the affable Moore could be too unguarded in his comments on geo-politics. The implicit suggestion from the new chief was that China needs to be handled differently to the forthright engagement with “aggressive, expansionist and revisionist” Russia. The reasons may well lie in the aftermath of a bruising argument within Whitehall about how to handle the recent case of two Britons who were arrested for spying for China, and with a growth-boosting visit to Beijing by the prime minister scheduled for 2026. Sources in the service suggest the aim of the China strategy is to avoid confrontation, the better to further intelligence-gathering and have a more productive economic relationship with Beijing. More hardline interpreters of the Secret Intelligence Service will raise eyebrows at her suggestion that the “convening power” of the service would enable it to “ defuse tensions.” But there was no doubt about Metreweli’s deep concern at the impacts of social-media disinformation and distortion, in a framing which seemed just as worried about U.S. tech titans as conventional state-run threats:  “We are being contested from battlefield to boardroom — and even our brains — as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other.” Declaring that “some  algorithms become as powerful as states,” seemed to tilt at outfits like Elon Musk’s X and Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta-owned Facebook. Metreweli warned that “hyper personalized tools could become a new vector for conflict and control,” pushing their effects on societies and individuals  in “minutes not months – my service must operate in this new context too.” The new boss used the possessive pronoun, talking about “my service” in her speech several times – another sign that she intends to put a distinctive mark of the job, now that she has, at the age of just 48,  inherited the famous green-ink pen in which the head of the service signs correspondence.  Metreweli is experienced operator in war zones including Iraq who spent a secondment with MI5, the domestic intelligence service, and won the job in large part because of her experience in the top job via MI6’s science and technology “Q”  Branch. She clearly wants to expedite changes in the service – saying agents must be as fluent in computer coding as foreign languages. She is also expected to try and address a tendency in the service to harvest information, without a clear focus on the action that should follow – the product of a glut of intelligence gathered via digital means and AI. She  was keen to stress that the human factor is at the heart of it all — an attempt at reassurance for spies and analysts wondering if they might be replaced by AI agents as the job of gathering intelligence in the era of facial recognition and biometrics gets harder.  Armed with a steely gaze Metreweli speaks fluent human, occasionally with a small smile. She is also the first incumbent of the job to wear a very large costume jewelry beetle brooch on her sombre navy attire. No small amount of attention in Moscow and Beijing could go into decoding that.

LONDON — The U.K. has imposed new sanctions on senior commanders of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) amid escalating atrocities in Sudan. The move aims at key figures accused of mass killings, sexual violence and targeted attacks on civilians in El Fasher, including Abdul Rahim Hamdan Dagalo, the RSF’s deputy leader and brother of commander Mohamed “Hemedti” Dagalo. Three other senior RSF officers will also now face asset freezes and travel bans to the U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said the sanctions sent a message that atrocities “cannot and will not go unpunished.” While the U.K. has targeted other RSF figures before, the paramilitary group’s recent sharing of footage of their own alleged crimes has made it easier to establish the basis for sanctions. The penalties announced Friday coincide with a fresh £21 million aid package intended to provide food, clean water, healthcare and protection for tens of thousands caught in what the U.K. government has termed the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The administration in London has been under pressure from lawmakers to do more to stop the bloodshed. The U.K.’s action follows the U.S. decision this week to sanction a network it says is recruiting former Colombian soldiers to fight in Sudan’s civil war, while the European Union has also targeted RSF leadership for alleged crimes in Darfur. Sudan has been locked in a civil war for two and a half years, with the Sudanese Armed Forces pitted against the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group, which international institutions have accused the United Arab Emirates of backing. Since becoming foreign secretary, Cooper has sought to place particular emphasis on the conflict in Sudan and has discussed it with her U.S. counterpart Marco Rubio on several occasions. Donald Trump signaled a new interest in ending the violence in Sudan after meeting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in November, but it’s not yet clear if that will be sustained.

Only a few days ago, President Donald Trump lashed out at Europe in an interview with POLITICO as a “decaying” group of countries with “weak” leaders. In public at least, it didn’t ruffle European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “I have always had a very good working relationship with the presidents of the United States, and this is also the case today,” von der Leyen said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist.” Now in her second term leading the EU’s lawmaking body, von der Leyen also acknowledged that Europe’s relationship with the United States is in flux, and not just because of Trump. “Of course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing,” she said. “And this is so important that we keep in mind: What is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe.” The question of European unity is front of mind as Russia’s war on Ukraine grinds on and Trump pushes harder for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal. In her interview with POLITICO, von der Leyen emphasized the need for a “just and lasting peace” with real security guarantees. “This peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately,” she said. The Russian threat also goes beyond Ukraine, of course. How long until Europe is fully able to defend itself? “That’s a good question,” von der Leyen said. “We have not the luxury of time.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with a question very much on the minds of the people in this room: Will there be a funding agreement by next week for Ukraine to keep the fight up against Russia? We’re working intensively towards a just and lasting peace. And I emphasize “just and lasting” because this peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately. In a new interview, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen discusses Russia’s war on Ukraine and Trump’s challenge to Europe. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gestures as she delivers a major state of the union speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, earlier this month. Only a few days ago, President Donald Trump lashed out at Europe in an interview with POLITICO as a “decaying” group of countries with “weak” leaders. In public at least, it didn’t ruffle European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “I have always had a very good working relationship with the presidents of the United States, and this is also the case today,” von der Leyen said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist.” Now in her second term leading the EU’s lawmaking body, von der Leyen also acknowledged that Europe’s relationship with the United States is in flux, and not just because of Trump. “Of course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing,” she said. “And this is so important that we keep in mind: What is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe.” The question of European unity is front of mind as Russia’s war on Ukraine grinds on and Trump pushes harder for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal. In her interview with POLITICO, von der Leyen emphasized the need for a “just and lasting peace” with real security guarantees. “This peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately,” she said. The Russian threat also goes beyond Ukraine, of course. How long until Europe is fully able to defend itself? “That’s a good question,” von der Leyen said. “We have not the luxury of time.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with a question very much on the minds of the people in this room: Will there be a funding agreement by next week for Ukraine to keep the fight up against Russia? We’re working intensively towards a just and lasting peace. And I emphasize “just and lasting” because this peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately.

Ukraine’s latest peace plan proposes a demilitarized “free economic zone” in the Donbas region where American business interests could operate — an attempt to bring President Donald Trump on board, according to two people familiar with the matter. Trump, who sounded skeptical about the prospects for a breakthrough in Oval Office comments on Wednesday, “is aware of” the latest 20-point plan Ukraine sent to the White House Wednesday, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Thursday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also spoke to reporters about the proposal Thursday, suggesting that control of the buffer zone in eastern Ukraine still needs to be worked out but that, under the new proposal, troops from both Russia and Ukraine would be barred. That, Zelenskyy said, marked “a compromise” from the original 28-point peace plan authored by the U.S. with Russian input, under which Russian troops would control the region. But, he noted that Ukraine would only withdraw its forces after receiving meaningful security guarantees from allies against future aggression from Moscow. The two people familiar with the proposal, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the press, both expressed skepticism that Russia would back the plan, crafted this week with input from European leaders. Trump, they suggested, still views Ukraine as the weaker, more malleable party in the conflict, especially in the wake of a corruption scandal that forced Zelenskyy’s longtime chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, to step down. “The White House is using this latest corruption scandal to pressure Zelenskyy,” one of the people said. While European leaders have asked Trump to go to Berlin next week to continue talks, the person added that was highly unlikely unless there are substantial changes in the joint Ukrainian-European plan. Leavitt did not elaborate on what Trump thinks about the revised proposal, or if he would send aides to take part in additional conversations with European and Ukrainian officials scheduled for this weekend in Paris. “If there is a real chance of signing a peace agreement, if we feel like those meetings are worthy of someone on the United States’ time this weekend, then we will send a representative,” she said. “It’s still up in the air if we believe real peace can be accomplished … [but] he’s sick of meetings for the sake of meetings.” According to officials from two of the countries involved, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff intends to take part in talks with national security officials this weekend. Trump has suggested that the security guarantees Ukraine is seeking, aimed at deterring Russia from attacking Ukraine again, would have to come primarily from Europe. Zelenskyy said Thursday that he and his team had “a constructive and in-depth conversation” about security guarantees with U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, along with military officials and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. One European defense official, granted anonymity to discuss internal discussions, said that allies on the continent have been planning to move troops and surveillance equipment to Ukraine. Coalition troops would fly drones inside Ukraine to monitor whatever peace plan is agreed to, and while there will be boots on the ground they “will not serve on the front line.” The official said that the Europeans are stressing to the Americans that they need deeper political coordination with Washington on the talks, reflecting frustration about not having a seat at the table up to this point. During a visit to Washington this week, U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey told reporters that the so-called Coalition of the Willing is “ready to do the heavy lifting in Europe, alongside the contribution to security guarantees that President Trump has talked about from the U.S. But we’re ready to step in, and we will help secure that peace long-term and protect the deal that President Trump is looking to negotiate.” He sketched an outline of some of the work being done, including some 200 military planners from more than 30 nations who have already participated in “reconnaissance visits to Ukraine, and we have the troops ready. “ Over the last several months, Trump has repeatedly ruled out Ukraine’s future membership in NATO, the longstanding transatlantic security alliance that deems an attack on any member nation an attack on all. The revised Ukraine peace plan, however, removed language from an initial version barring Ukraine from ever joining the alliance, according to the two people familiar with the proposal. It also calls for elections in Ukraine, something Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have been pushing for, the two people said. But Zelenskyy’s new commitment to hold elections shortly after a peace is secured may not be enough to satisfy Moscow, which has demanded that Russia control all of the contested Donbas region and guarantees that Ukraine will be denied future accession to NATO.

President Donald Trump held a conference call with French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Wednesday to discuss the war in Ukraine, a White House official said, as the U.S. president continues to push for an end to the conflict while expressing skepticism that Kyiv stands a chance of coming out ahead. “The leaders discussed the latest on the ongoing U.S.-led peace talks, welcoming their efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace for Ukraine, and to see an end to the killing,” a spokesperson from Downing Street said after the call. “Intensive work on the peace plan is continuing and will continue in the coming days.” Trump’s call with the three world leaders came just days after he again cast doubt on Kyiv’s chances of winning its nearly four-year-long war against Russia in an exclusive Monday interview with POLITICO. The president has wavered in his faith in Ukraine since returning to the White House, telling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a February White House confrontation that he didn’t “have the cards,” before appearing to change his mind in September, advocating for Ukraine to win all of its land back “in its original form.” In recent weeks, Trump has again shifted his stance, pushing for a peace plan that would see Ukraine cede the entire Donbas region to Russia in exchange for vague American security guarantees. The about-face from the White House — as well as the pressure Trump has applied to Ukraine in search of a deal — has frustrated Kyiv and its allies. “He’s gonna have to get on the ball and start, uh, accepting things,” Trump told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns. “You know, when you’re losing, ’cause he’s losing.” Trump cast European countries as “decaying” in his Monday interview, blasting the immigration and trade policies of their leaders while denigrating Europe’s efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine. “I think they’re weak, but I also think that they want to be so politically correct,” he said, before lamenting, “I think they don’t know what to do. Europe doesn’t know what to do.” But Yvette Cooper, Britain’s chief foreign minister, still thinks the president has the potential to play a key role in ending the war, she told POLITICO in an interview Wednesday. “The work that the U.S. is doing to pursue a peace process is incredibly important, and the work that Marco Rubio has been doing as part of those discussions is also hugely important,” she said.

BRUSSELS — Britain’s chief foreign minister praised Donald Trump’s role in trying to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, despite fears he may lose interest in finding a settlement that is acceptable to Kyiv. In an interview with POLITICO after attending a conference with European partners on curbing illegal migration on Wednesday, Yvette Cooper denied that Trump’s unpredictability is making her job harder.  “Actually, it’s only because of the work that President Trump and the U.S. system have done that we have reached the ceasefire in Gaza,” the U.K. foreign secretary said, while also crediting nations including Egypt and Turkey. Her comments came after Trump attacked efforts by European leaders to end the war, saying in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for her podcast The Conversation: “They talk, but they don’t produce, and the war just keeps going on and on.” Trump also renewed his call for Ukraine to hold new elections, ratcheting up pressure on President Volodomyr Zelenskyy as he seeks to turn the page on a corruption scandal. Cooper insisted the U.S. is “very serious” about making progress in the current set of peace talks, following a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday. “The work that the U.S. is doing to pursue a peace process is incredibly important, and the work that Marco Rubio has been doing as part of those discussions is also hugely important,” she added. Cooper suggested the U.S. would deliver on security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire, a key element of negotiations which have so far proved hard to pin down. “It can’t just be an agreement that means that Putin can just pause and then come again, and I think the U.S. are very clear about that,” she said. Trump’s virulent attack on European leaders — who he said were “weak” and presiding over “decaying” nations due to mass migration — did not come up during her meetings on Wednesday, which included talks with European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner and Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot, Cooper said. Cooper announced earlier Wednesday that the U.K. Foreign Office will double the size of its migration unit, which is involved in discussions around the return of migrants to other countries. The U.K. foreign secretary did not rule out taking up an offer by Jordan Bardella, the leader of France’s far-right National Rally, to conduct “pushbacks” of migrant boats in the English Channel. Such a move, never previously accepted by France, would involve British Border Force boats directing laden dinghies, bound for the U.K., to turn around at sea. Cooper suggested the U.K.’s focus is on French police, rather than pushback powers for the U.K. Border Force. “You’re seeing those boats set off. Once they’re in the water, then the previous rules have meant that the French police have not been able to actually take action. We need that to happen. That’s been agreed in principle. We need to see that in force,” she said. However, she declined to directly criticize the idea of pushback, which opponents argue could cause more migrants to drown in the Channel. “Everything has to be safely done,” Cooper told POLITICO, “but there are ways of making sure that the French authorities and the U.K. authorities are always cooperating on making sure that things are safe. “The U.K. will always do its bit to help those who fled persecution and conflict, but we also have to be able to do more returns and more law enforcement, and we’ll always look at different ways to do that.” Asked again if pushback was not “totally off the table,” Cooper — who was until recently Britain’s interior minister — replied: “We will look at any mechanism that can work effectively and also can work safely. “Because what we want to see is action that prevents these dangerous boat crossings — because lives are being put at risk every time people get into those dangerous small boats and criminal gangs are making hundreds of millions of pounds of profit.” Cooper spoke as U.K. Justice Secretary David Lammy attended parallel talks in Strasbourg with European allies on reforming the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to remove some legal hurdles to deporting migrants. European foreign ministers are due to meet in May 2026 to take “the next steps forward” on ECHR reform, Cooper said. Illegal immigration is “deeply damaging” and causes a “deep sense of injustice that people feel if the law are not enforced,” Cooper said. but insisted: “Legal migration, on the other hand, has been part of our history for generations and will always be important.”

LONDON — The British government pushed back on Tuesday against Donald Trump’s assertion that European nations spend too much time discussing the war in Ukraine without reaching a resolution. The U.S. president told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns in a Monday interview for a special episode of The Conversation that European leaders “talk too much” about the conflict and have failed to help end the war.   “They’re not producing,” Trump said. “We’re talking about Ukraine. They talk but they don’t produce. And the war just keeps going on and on.” POLITICO on Tuesday named Trump the most influential figure shaping European politics in the year ahead, a recognition previously conferred on leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.  Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson challenged Trump’s framing of the Ukraine peace negotiations, which have entered a pivotal moment almost four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion. “I would reject that,” the spokesperson said. “You’ve seen the number of countries involved in the Coalition of the Willing discussions. You would also see the work that the U.K. has done in terms of leading the response on sanctions, including against the shadow fleet [carrying embargoed Russian goods].” However, they confirmed that British support for the U.S.-led peace plan for Ukraine remained strong, and welcomed “the significant U.S. efforts to bring about peace to Ukraine, which no one wants more than President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy.” Washington has held separate talks with both Moscow and Kyiv, neither of which has yielded an outcome that satisfies both sides. The spokesperson also pushed back against the U.S. president’s desciption of the continent as a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people. “You’ve seen the strong relationship between the prime minister and the president,” they said, noting that the U.S.-U.K. trade deal signed earlier this year was about “securing and protecting and creating jobs.” The spokesperson also referenced the unity of the E3 nations (Britain, Germany and France) in speaking with Zelenskyy at Downing Street on Monday: “We will continue to put our shoulder to the wheel in order to strengthen Ukraine’s position, in order to bring this barbaric war to an end.” Starmer will meet U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. Warren Stephens at Downing Street on Tuesday afternoon for a previously scheduled appointment. MIDDLE GROUND Trump also hit out against left-wing London Mayor Sadiq Khan, claiming the city’s first Muslim mayor had only been elected “because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.” Downing Street did not challenge that assertion: “The prime minister has a strong relationship with the U.S. president and a strong relationship with the mayor of London and on both is committed to working together in order to deliver stronger outcomes for the British people.” But the U.S. president’s comments drew some criticism from Labour MPs. “Strength is the ability to work with others and bring them along with you, to listen and to make friends,” argued Emily Thornberry, who chairs Britain’s Foreign Affairs Committee. “It’s not strong to try to push other people around.” A backbench Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak candidly, admitted it was “hard to remain calm when you read Trump when he’s in full flow.” The MP added that the U.K. government should “be absolutely unapologetic and fearless when making our views known.” “It’s clear Trump sees [Russian President Vladimir] Putin as an ally in subduing Europe and we can’t allow that to happen.” A third Labour MP was dismissive of Trump’s stance on European politics: “So he’s allowed to interfere with our politics, but God forbid I do a bit of door-knocking for Kamala Harris.” Esther Webber contributed to this report.

LONDON — In February Britain’s cash-strapped Labour government cut international development spending — and barely anyone made a noise. The center-left party announced it would slice the country’s spending on aid down to only 0.3 percent of gross domestic income — from 0.5 percent — in order to fund a hike in defense spending. MPs, aid experts and officials have told POLITICO that the scale of the cuts is on a par with — or even exceeding — those of both the previous center-right Conservative government or the United States under Donald Trump. This leaves Britain’s development arm, once globally envied as a vehicle for poverty alleviation, a shadow of its former self. The move — prompted by U.S. demands to up its NATO spending, and mirroring the Trump administration’s move to gut its own USAID development budget — shocked Labour’s progressive MPs, supporters and backers in the aid sector. But unlike attempted cuts to British welfare spending, the real-world backlash was muted, with the resignation of Britain’s development minister prompting little further dissent or change in policy. There was no mutiny in parliament, and only limited domestic and international condemnation outside of an aid sector torn between making their voices heard — and keeping in Whitehall’s good books over slices of the shrinking pie. Some fear a return grab over the aid budget could still be on the cards — but that the government will find that there is little left to cut. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, warned that, instead of “reversing the cuts by the previous Conservative government, Labour has compounded them, and lives will be lost as a result.” “These cuts will further tarnish the U.K.’s reputation as it continues to be known as an unreliable global partner, breaking Labour’s manifesto commitment,” he warned. “The Conservatives started the fire, but instead of putting it out, this Labour government threw petrol on it.” ‘IT WAS THE PERFECT TIME TO DO IT’ When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the cut to international aid — a bid to save over £6 billion by 2027 — Labour MPs, including those who worked in the sector before being elected, were notably silent. The move followed a 2021 Conservative cut to aid spending — from 0.7 percent in the Tory brand-rebuilding David Cameron years down to 0.5 percent. At the time, Labour MPs had met that Tory cut with howls of outrage. This time it was different. Some were genuinely shocked, while others feared retribution from a Downing Street that had flexed its muscles at MPs who rebelled on what they saw as points of conscience. “No one was expecting it, so there was no opportunity to campaign around it,” said one Labour MP. “Literally none of us had any idea it was coming.” Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank. | Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images The same MP noted that there are around 50 Labour MPs from the new 2024 intake who had some form of development background before coming into parliament. Yet they were put “completely under the cosh” by Downing Street and government whips. “It was the perfect time to do it,” the MP said. A number of MPs who might have been vocal have since been made parliamentary private secretaries — the most junior government role. “They have basically gagged the people who would be most likely to be outspoken on it,” the MP above said. The department’s ministerial team is now more likely to be loyal to the Starmer project. “I just felt hurt, and wounded. We were stunned. None of us saw it coming,” said one MP from the 2024 cohort, adding: “They priced in that backlash wouldn’t come.” But they added: “If we were culpable so were NGOs, too inward-looking and focused on peripheral issues.” The lack of outcry from MPs would, however, seem to put them largely in step with the wider British public. Polling and focus groups from think tank More in Common suggest that despite the majority of voters thinking spending on international aid is the right thing to do in a variety of circumstances, only around 20 percent of the public think the budget was cut too much.  The second new-intake Labour MP quoted above said the policy was therefore an “easy thing to sell on the doorstep,” and “in my area, there’s not going to be shouting from the rooftops to spend more money on aid.” DIMINISHED AND DEMORALIZED The cuts to aid come at a time when Britain’s Foreign Office is undergoing a radical overhaul. While the department describes its plans as “more agile,” staff, programs and entire areas of focus are all ripe for cuts to save money. The department is looking to make redundancies for around 25 percent of staff based in the U.K. MPs have voiced concern that development staff will be among the first to make the jump due to the government’s shift away from aid. The department insists that no final decisions have been taken over the size and shape of the organization. Major cuts are expected across work on education, conflict, and WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene.) The government’s Integrated Security Fund — which funds key counter-terror programs abroad — is also looking to scale back work abroad which does not have a clear link to Britain’s national security. The British Council — a key soft-power organization viewed as helping combat Chinese and Russian reach across the world — told MPs it is in “real financial peril” and would be cutting its presence in 35 of the 97 countries it operates. The BBC’s World Service is seeing similar cuts to its global reach. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the watchdog for aid spending, is also not safe from the ax as the government continues its bonfire of regulators. The FCDO did not refute the expected pathway of cuts. Published breakdowns of spending allocations for the next three years are due to be published in the coming months, an official said. A review of Britain’s development and diplomacy policies conducted by economist Minouche Shafik — who has since been moved into Downing Street — sits discarded in the department. The government refuses to publish its findings. Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. | Pool Photo by Adrian Dennis via Getty Images The second 2024 intake MP quoted earlier in the piece said that following the U.S. decisions on aid and foreign policy “there was an expectation that the U.K., as a responsible international partner, as a leader on a lot of this stuff, would fill the gap to some extent, and then take more of a leadership role on it, and we’ve done the opposite.” NOTHING LEFT TO CUT Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. While few MPs or those in the aid sector feel Britain will ever return to the lofty heights of its 0.7 percent commitment, they predict there will be harder resistance if the government comes back for more. “I don’t think they’re going to try and do it again, as there’s no money left,” the second 2024 intake MP said. But they pointed out that a large portion of the remaining aid budget is spent on in-country costs such as accommodation for asylum seekers. Savings identified from the asylum budget would be sent back to the Treasury, rather than put back into the aid budget, they noted. Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank or the United Nations and would, they warned, involve “getting rid of international agreements and chopping up longstanding influence at big international institutions that we are one of the leading people in.” The United Nations is already facing its own funding crisis as it struggles to adjust to the global downturn in aid spending. British diplomat Tom Fletcher — who leads the UN’s humanitarian response — said earlier this year that the organization has been “forced into a triage of human survival,” adding: “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking.” The government still has a commitment to returning to 0.7 percent of GNI “as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow.” The tests for this ramp back up were set out four years ago. Britain must not be borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt must be falling. The last two budgets have forecast that the government will not meet these tests in this parliament. FARAGE CIRCLES In the meantime, Labour’s opponents feel emboldened to go further. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have said that they would further cut the aid budget. The Tories have vowed to slice it down to 0.1 percent of GNI, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is eyeing fresh cuts of at least by £7-8 billion a year. A third 2024 Labour MP said that there was a degree of pressure among some colleagues to match the Conservatives’ 0.1 percent pledge. Though no country has gone as far as Uganda’s Idi Amin in setting up a “save Britain fund” for its “former colonial masters,” Britain’s departure on international aid gives space for other countries wanting to step up to further their own foreign policy aims. The space vacated by Britain and America has prompted warnings that China will step in, while countries newer to international development such as Gulf states could try and fill the void. Many of these nations are unlikely to ever fund the same projects as the U.K. and the U.S., forcing NGOs to look to alternate donors such as philanthropists to fund their work. “There’ll be a big, big gap, and it won’t be completely filled,” the second new intake MP said. An FCDO spokesperson said the department was undergoing “an unprecedented transformation,” and added: “We remain resolutely committed to international development and have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context. We will bring U.K. expertise and investment to where it is needed most, including global health solutions and humanitarian support.”

A pair of documents laying out the Trump administration’s global security strategy have been delayed for weeks due in part to changes that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted on concerning China, according to three people familiar with the discussions on the strategies. The documents — the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy — were initially expected to be released earlier this fall. Both are now almost done and will likely be released this month, one of the people said. The second person confirmed the imminent release of the National Security Strategy, and the third confirmed that the National Defense Strategy was coming very soon. All were granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The strategies went through multiple rounds of revisions after Bessent wanted more work done on the language used to discuss China, given sensitivity over ongoing trade negotiations with Beijing and the elevation of the Western Hemisphere as a higher priority than it had been in previous administrations, the people said. The National Security Strategy has been used by successive administrations to outline their overall strategic priorities from the economic sphere to dealing with allies and adversaries and military posture. The drafting goes through a series of readthroughs and comment periods from Cabinet officials in an attempt to capture the breadth of an administrations’ vision and ensure the entire administration is marching in the same direction on the president’s top issues. The administration has been involved in sensitive trade talks with Beijing for months over tariffs and a variety of trade issues, but the Pentagon has maintained its position that China remains the top military rival to the United States. The extent of the changes after Bessent’s requests remains unclear, but two of the people said that Bessent wanted to soften some of the language concerning Chinese activities while declining to provide more details. Any changes to one document would require similar changes to the other, as they must be in sync to express a unified front. It is common for the Treasury secretary and other Cabinet officials to weigh in during the drafting and debate process of crafting a new strategy, as most administrations will only release one National Security Strategy per term. In a statement, the Treasury Department said that Bessent “is 100 percent aligned with President Trump, as is everyone else in this administration, as to how to best manage the relationship with China.” The White House referred to the Treasury Department. Trump administration officials have alternately decried the threat from China and looked for ways to improve relations with Beijing. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to deliver a speech on Friday at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, on Pentagon efforts to build weapons more quickly to meet the China challenge. At the same time, Hegseth is working with his Chinese counterpart, Adm. Dong Jun, to set up a U.S.-China military communication system aimed to prevent disagreements or misunderstandings from spiraling into unintended conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Bessent told the New ‍York Times Dealbook summit on Wednesday that China was on schedule to meet the pledges it made under a ‌U.S.-China trade agreement, including purchasing 12 million metric tons of soybeans by February 2026. “China is on track to ‍keep every ⁠part of the deal,” ⁠he said. Those moves by administration officials are set against the massive Chinese military buildup in the Indo-Pacific region and tensions over Beijing’s belligerent attitude toward the Philippines, where Beijing and Manila have been facing off over claims of land masses and reefs in the South China Sea. The U.S. has been supplying the Philippines with more sophisticated weaponry in recent years in part to ward off the Chinese threat. China has also consistently flown fighter planes and bombers and sailed warships close to Taiwan’s shores despite the Taiwan Relations Act, an American law that pledges the U.S. to keep close ties with the independent island. The National Security Strategy, which is put out by every administration, hasn’t been updated since 2022 under the Biden administration. That document highlighted three core themes: strategic competition with China and Russia; renewed investment and focus on domestic industrial policy; and the recognition that climate change is a central challenge that touches all aspects of national security. The strategy is expected to place more emphasis on the Western Hemisphere than previous strategies, which focused on the Middle East, counterterrorism, China and Russia. The new strategy will include those topics but also focus on topics such as migration, drug cartels and relations with Latin America — all under the umbrella of protecting the U.S. homeland. That new National Defense Strategy similarly places more emphasis on protecting the U.S. homeland and the Western Hemisphere, as POLITICO first reported, a choice that has caused some concern among military commanders. Both documents are expected to be followed by the “global posture review,” a look at how U.S. military assets are positioned across the globe, and which is being eagerly anticipated by allies from Germany to South Korea, both of which are home to tens of thousands of U.S. troops who might be moved elsewhere.