LONDON — Keir Starmer will strive for “maximum transparency” when releasing files on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the U.S., a senior U.K. minister said Wednesday. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the prime minister wants to release as much information into the public domain about how Mandelson was appointed, his correspondence with ministers and his subsequent sacking last September over the former Labour peer’s friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “The prime minister’s going for maximum transparency here,” Streeting, a former friend of Mandelson, told Sky, though added the PM is “obviously drawing a line” by “not releasing information where it might compromise our national security and our security services, or where there may be information in there that might undermine international relations with other countries.” The opposition Conservatives have put forward a humble address — a parliamentary message to King Charles that was favored by Starmer during his time as leader of the opposition — calling for “all papers” relating to Mandelson’s appointment last year to be published. These include “due diligence which was passed to Number 10,” conflict of interest forms over his work in Russia and China, and correspondence (including electronic communications) between Mandelson, ministers and the PM’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney — who encouraged Starmer to send the then Labour peer to Washington. The government has published an amendment to the address accepting the Tories’ request, with the caveat that it will exclude “papers prejudicial to U.K. national security or international relations.” U.K. lawmakers will debate the substance of what should be released this afternoon. “What we’ve seen in recent days also is a prime minister acting rapidly to make sure that Peter Mandelson is stripped of all of the titles and privileges that were conferred on him through public service,” Streeting told the BBC, calling his behavior “so jaw-droppingly stupid and outrageous.” The Metropolitan Police confirmed Tuesday evening that Mandelson is under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office after it appeared he leaked sensitive government discussions at the height of the financial crisis to the late financier. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. And in a Times Newspaper interview that was conducted before the most recent batch of Epstein files were released, Mandelson attempted to explain his historic association with the disgraced financier. “I don’t know what his motives were — probably mixed — but he provided guidance to help me navigate out of the world of politics and into the world of commerce and finance,” Mandelson told the newspaper. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. Mandelson also resigned from the House of Lords and left Labour following the latest tranche of correspondence in the Epstein Files.

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

ABOARD THE PRIME MINISTER’S PLANE TO BEIJING — Keir Starmer rejected his Canadian counterpart’s call for mid-sized countries to band together in the face of unpredictable global powers — and insisted his “common sense” British approach will do just fine. The British prime minister arrives in China Wednesday for a trip aimed at rebooting the U.K.’s relationship with the Asian superpower. He’s the latest Western leader to make the visit — which will include a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping — after trips by Carney and France’s Emmanuel Macron. Carney used a searing speech at the World Economic Forum last week to warn of the “rupture” caused by “great powers” acting in their own self-interest. While he did not namecheck Donald Trump’s administration, the speech riled the U.S. president, who insisted: “Canada lives because of the United States.” The Canadian PM had called for middle powers to work together to “build something bigger, better, stronger, more just.” Starmer was pressed on those remarks on board his flight to China Tuesday. Asked whether he agreed that the old global order is dead — and whether smaller powers need to team up to push back at the U.S. and China, Starmer defended his own policy of trying to build bridges with Trump, Xi and the European Union all at once. “I’m a pragmatist, a British pragmatist applying common sense, and therefore I’m pleased that we have a good relationship with the U.S. on defense, security, intelligence and on trade and prosperity,” he says. “It’s very important that we maintain that good relationship.” He added: “Equally, we are moving forward with a better relationship with the EU. We had a very good summit last year with 10 strands of agreement. “We’ll have another summit this year with the EU, which I hope will be iterative, as well as following through on what we’ve already agreed. “And I’ve consistently said I’m not choosing between the U.S. and Europe. I’m really glad that the UK has got good relations with both.” Starmer’s government — which faces pressure from opposition parties back home as it re-engages with China — has stressed that it wants to cooperate, compete with and challenge Beijing when necessary, as it bids to build economic ties to aid the sputtering U.K. economy. “Obviously, China is the second biggest economy in the world, one of our biggest trading partners,” the British PM — who is flying with an entourage of British CEOs and business reps — said Tuesday. “And under the last government, we veered from the golden age to the ice age. And what I want to do is follow through on the approach I’ve set out a number of times now … which is a comprehensive and consistent approach to China. “I do think there are opportunities, but obviously we will never compromise national security in taking those opportunities.”

Czech President Petr Pavel on Tuesday accused Foreign Minister Petr Macinka of blackmail in an extraordinary dispute over the government’s controversial pick for environment minister. The rift between Pavel and Macinka points to a deeper divide in Czech politics, pitting Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’s anti-establishment, right-wing coalition government against a staunchly pro-Western president and former NATO general committed to the alliance and the EU. “He can have peace if I get [right-wing populist Filip] Turek at the Environment Ministry. If not, I’ll burn bridges in a way that will end up in political science textbooks as an extreme case of cohabitation,” Macinka wrote in a text message to Pavel’s adviser, adding that he has the support of the populist prime minister and the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD), the other coalition partner. Macinka added that the president will be “surprised by the consequences” if he “does nothing, or at least refuses to enter into negotiations over Turek,” adding that “he is ready to brutally fight with the president for Turek.” Pavel, who holds veto power over ministerial appointments, blocked Turek from becoming environment minister over his embroilment in various scandals. “I consider the foreign minister’s words in the text messages to be an attempt at blackmail. I regard that as unacceptable and, under our democratic conditions, absolutely intolerable,” Pavel said in a press conference Tuesday. Pavel, who published the text messages addressed to his adviser, said he will contact the police, which confirmed it has received the report. Speaking at a press conference Tuesday, Macinka rejected claims of blackmail, accused the president of overstepping constitutional limits by vetoing Turek and threatened Pavel’s participation in July’s NATO summit. ‘HOSTAGE TO PERSONAL ANIMOSITIES’ Turek, honorary president of the right-wing populist Motorists for Themselves party from which Macinka also hails, has been investigated for sexual assault, racist, sexist, and homophobic Facebook posts, and an image of him making a Nazi salute, all of which he denies. Petr Macinka rejected claims of blackmail, accused the president of overstepping constitutional limits by vetoing Turek and threatened Petr Pavel’s participation in July’s NATO summit. | Martin Divisek/EPA “If he really has the support of the Prime Minister … then Petr Macinka’s statements are not only an illustration of the new government’s approach to power-sharing in our constitutional order, but also proof that the fundamental issues of our foreign and security policy have become hostage to personal animosities and interests,” the president said Tuesday. Pavel previously noted that strong pro-NATO and pro-EU stances, along with safeguarding the country’s democratic institutions and respecting the constitution, will be key factors in his decision-making regarding the proposed Cabinet. Babiš said in a post on X that Macinka’s words were “unfortunate” but refuted claims about blackmail. “It was in a private communication with his adviser, so it definitely isn’t blackmail,” Babiš said. Pavel’s office did not respond to a request for comment. Macinka’s office said the minister will speak at a press conference later. Jakob Weizman contributed to this report.

Europe’s populist worries will intensify when right-wing billionaire Andrej Babiš becomes Czech prime minister today. Czech President Petr Pavel is set to appoint Babiš to the position after resolving longstanding conflict-of-interest issues related to the PM-elect’s conglomerate, Agrofert. Babiš and his future government have sparked fears in Brussels, where his opponents worry that alliances he could form at the European level may tilt Central Europe in an anti-establishment direction. Combined with Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, Babiš has the potential to jam up the legislative machinery in Brussels as it works on key files. Babiš regularly speaks of reviving the so-called Visegrád Four group, something both Orbán and Fico hope for, after it became largely dormant following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A new Visegrád grouping would likely count three rather than the four members it had after being founded as a cultural and political alliance in the 1990s. Poland’s current center-right prime minister, Donald Tusk, is staunchly pro-Ukraine and is thus unlikely to enter any entente with Orbán. Polish President Karol Nawrocki of the right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party, though, has been talking up the prospects for Visegrád. Babiš’ government — his Patriots for Europe-aligned ANO party is in a coalition with the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy and right-wing Motorists for Themselves parties — is also likely to fight against EU-level pro-environment initiatives. That could cause issues for climate files like ETS2, the Emissions Trading System for road and buildings, and Brussels’ bid to ban combustion engines. Czech President Petr Pavel is set to appoint Andrej Babiš to the position after resolving longstanding conflict-of-interest issues related to the PM-elect’s conglomerate, Agrofert. | Martin Divisek/EPA Following his decisive victory in the Czech election Oct. 3-4, however, Babiš has toned down his previous remarks about canceling the Czech ammunition initiative in support of Ukraine, raising questions about whether the campaign rhetoric will translate into actual policy reversals. The extent to which Czechia becomes another EU disrupter might become clearer later this week as Babiš travels to Brussels to take part in the European Council — assuming the rest of his cabinet is appointed by then.

Czech right-wing billionaire Andrej Babiš will be the new prime minister in Prague after announcing Thursday evening that he would dispose of a potential conflict of interest. Babiš’ ANO party won the Czech parliamentary election in October and formed a coalition with the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy and right-wing Motorists for Themselves parties. But the proposed prime minister and coalition ministers must be green-lit by Czech President Petr Pavel before taking office. Babiš has been entangled in legal woes, both at home and abroad, concerning his agriculture business empire Agrofert, which is a major recipient of EU subsidies. “Of course, I could have left politics after winning the election and had a comfortable life, or ANO could have appointed someone else as prime minister,” Babiš said Thursday night in a video address to voters. “But I am convinced that you would perceive it as a betrayal,” he added. “That is why I have decided to irrevocably give up the Agrofert company, with which I will no longer have anything to do, I will never own it, I will not have any economic relations with it, and I will not be in any contact with it.” Babiš’ ascension to the Czech premiership further tilts Central Europe in an anti-establishment direction, as the populist tycoon joins Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico as potential thorns in Brussels’ side on key EU files. In stepping back from Agrofert, however, Babiš made clear the importance of retaking the prime ministerial role. The holding’s shares will now be managed through a trust structure by an independent administrator. “This step, which goes far beyond the requirements of the law, was not easy for me. I have been building my company for almost half my life and I am very sorry that I will also have to step down as chairman of the Agrofert Foundation,” Babiš said. “My children will only get Agrofert after my death,” he added. In response, Pavel announced that he would appoint Babiš as prime minister on Dec. 9. Andrej Babiš has been entangled in legal woes, both at home and abroad, concerning his agriculture business empire Agrofert, which is a major recipient of EU subsidies. | Gabriel Kuchta/Getty Images “I appreciate the clear and understandable manner in which Andrej Babiš has fulfilled our agreement and publicly announced how he will resolve his conflict of interest,” Pavel said. Pavel previously noted that strong pro-NATO and pro-EU stances, along with safeguarding the country’s democratic institutions, will be key factors in his decision-making regarding the proposed Cabinet. Czech conflict of interest law bars officials (or their close relatives) from owning or controlling a business that would create a conflict with their governing function. This doesn’t mean ministers can’t own businesses, just that they must prioritize the public interest over their own. Similar rules exist at the EU level. When he was prime minister the first time round, from 2017 to 2021, Babiš placed Agrofert — which consists of more than 250 companies — in trust funds, but the Czech courts as well as the European Commission in 2021 concluded that he still retained influence over them and was therefore in violation of EU conflict-of-interest rules.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission wants Google to break itself up. The U.S. search giant says no. Google has delivered its formal response to a landmark ad tech antitrust decision by the Commission, rejecting the watchdog’s prescription of an asset sale to address its competition concerns. The firm submitted a compliance proposal late Wednesday that includes a set of product and technical changes, including some to be rolled out within the year, that aim to open up its ad tech empire to rivals. The move comes on the final day of the deadline imposed by the Commission on Sept. 5, when it fined the Alphabet unit €2.95 billion for its conduct.  In its decision, the Commission concluded that Google’s abuse was a product of the “inherent conflict of interest” it has by owning such vast swaths of the infrastructure that powers online advertising. A spokesperson for the Commission confirmed in a statement that the EU executive had received Google’s proposal, and that it will now analyse the proposed measures. The search giant has proposed a series of immediate product changes, such as giving publishers greater pricing power, as well as longer-term fixes to increase the interoperability of its ad tech tools. “Our proposal fully addresses the EC’s decision without a disruptive break-up that would harm the thousands of European publishers and advertisers,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement. News publishers on both sides of the Atlantic have long lamented that they face few options other than Google to administer their ad-powered businesses, ultimately forcing up costs for the already struggling sector.  Those complaints crystallized in the early 2020s, when both the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission launched antitrust investigations into Google’s control over the plumbing of online advertising. When the Commission issued its final decision in September, it made the unprecedented move of stipulating that its concerns could only be resolved if Google ceded control of its market-leading ad tech tools. The measures proposed to Brussels by Google fall far short of the envisioned structural sell-off that both the Commission and its American counterpart envisioned as a solution to Google’s distortion of competition in the online advertising sector. They also largely echo the proposals Google submitted to the U.S. federal court overseeing the Trump administration’s ad tech case, where it, too, proposed a mix of behavioural fixes. Closing arguments in the U.S. trial will begin on Monday. In its statement, the Commission said it would analyze Google’s remedies against a yardstick of whether they end and address the conflicts of interest that Google’s ownership of the sellside, buyside and exchange infrastructure upon which digital ads are priced and placed. The Commission has never imposed structural remedies and faces a high legal bar for doing so, legal experts have told POLITICO.

A message from Brussels to Google: Would you break yourself up, please? The search giant faces an early November deadline to say how it intends to comply with a European Commission decision in September, which found that it had illegally maintained its grip on the infrastructure that powers online advertising. With a €2.95 billion fine in the rearview mirror, the Commission and Google find themselves in an unprecedented standoff as Brussels contemplates the once unthinkable: a structural sell-off of part of a U.S. company, preferably voluntary, but potentially forced if necessary. The situation is “very unusual,” said Anne Witt, a professor in competition law at EDHEC Business School in Lille, France. “Structural remedies are almost unprecedented at the EU level,” Witt added. “It’s really the sledgehammer.” In its September decision, the Commission took the “unusual and unprecedented step,” per Witt, to ask Google to design its own remedy — while signaling, if cautiously, that anything short of a sale of parts of its advertising technology business would fall foul of the EU antitrust enforcer. “It appears that the only way for Google to end its conflict of interest effectively is with a structural remedy, such as selling some part of its Adtech business,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief, said at the time. As the clock counts down to the deadline for Google to tell the Commission what it intends to do, the possibility of a Brussels-ordered breakup of an American tech champion is unlikely to go unnoticed in Washington, even as the Donald Trump administration pursues its own case against the search giant. (Google accounts for 90 percent of the revenues of Alphabet, the $3.3 trillion technology holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California.) Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Google has said that it will appeal the Commission’s decision, which in its view requires changes that would hurt thousands of European businesses. “There’s nothing anticompetitive in providing services for ad buyers and sellers, and there are more alternatives to our services than ever before,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, its vice president and global head of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post in September. PARALLEL PROBES The proposal for a voluntary break up of Google marks the culmination of a decade of EU antitrust enforcement in digital markets in which “behavioral” fixes achieved little, and a unique alignment in both timing and substance between the U.S. and the EU of their parallel probes into the firm’s ad tech empire. “It would have been unthinkable 10 years ago that there would be a case in the U.S.  and a sister case in Europe that had a breakup as a potential outcome,” said Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Tech Institute, which is advocating for a break-up. The Commission formally launched the investigation into Google’s ad tech stack in 2021, following a drumbeat of complaints from news organizations that had seen Google take control of the high-frequency exchanges where publishers and advertisers agree on the price and placement of online ads.  Google’s control of the exchanges, as well as infrastructure used by both sides of the market, was like allowing Goldman Sachs or Citibank to own the New York Stock Exchange, declared the U.S. Department of Justice in its lawsuit in 2023. It also created a situation in which cash-strapped news organizations on both sides of the Atlantic saw Google eating an increasing share of revenues from online advertising — and ultimately posing a threat to journalism itself. “This is not just any competition law case — this is about the future of journalism,” said Alexandra Geese, a German Green member of the European Parliament. “Publishers don’t have the revenue because they don’t get traffic on their websites, and then Google’s algorithm decides what information we see,” she said. The plight of publishers proved hefty on the other side of the Atlantic too. In April, the federal judge overseeing the U.S. government’s case against Google ruled that the search giant had illegally maintained its monopoly over parts of the ad tech market.   A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges. | Nurphoto via Getty Images The Virginia district court held a two-week trial on remedies in September. The Trump administration has advocated a sale of the exchanges and an unwinding of Google’s 2008 merger with DoubleClick, through which it came to dominate the online ad market. Judge Leonie Brinkema will hear the government’s closing arguments on Nov. 17 and is expected to issue her verdict in the coming months. STARS ALIGN Viewed by Google’s critics, it’s the ideal set of circumstances for the Commission to push for a muscular structural remedy. “If you cannot go for structural remedies now, when the U.S. is on the same page, then you’re unlikely to ever do it,” said Crider. The route to a breakup may, however, be both legally and politically more challenging. Despite the technical alignment, and a disenchantment with the impact that past fines and behavioral remedies have had, the Commission still faces a “big hurdle” when it comes to the legal test, should it not be satisfied with Google’s remedy offer, said Witt. The U.S. legal system is more conducive to ordering breakups, both as a matter of law — judges have a wide scope to remedy a harm to the market — and in tradition, said Witt, noting that the U.S. government’s lawsuits to break up Google and Meta are rooted in precedents that don’t exist in Europe. Caught in the middle is Google, which should file its proposed remedies within 60 days of being served notice of the Commission decision that was announced on Sept. 5. A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges, and therefore with the notion that structural remedies are necessary. The firm is expected to lodge its appeal in the coming days. While Google has floated asset sales to the Commission over the course of the antitrust investigation, only to be rebuffed by Brussels, the firm does not intend to divest the entirety of its ad tech stack, according to a person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case. Ultimately, what happens in Brussels may depend on what happens in the U.S. case. While a court-ordered divestiture of a chunk of Google’s ad tech business is conceivable, U.S. judges have shown themselves to be skeptical of structural remedies in recent months, said Lazar Radic, an assistant law professor at IE University in Madrid, who is affiliated with the big tech-friendly International Center for Law and Economics. “Behavioral alternatives are still on the table,” said Radic, of the U.S. case. The Commission will likely want to align itself with the U.S. should the Virginia court side with the Department of Justice, said Damien Geradin, legal counsel to the European Publishers Council — of which POLITICO parent Axel Springer is a member — that brought forward the case. Conversely, if the court opts for a weaker remedy than is being proposed, the Commission will be obliged to go further, he said. “This is the case where some structural remedies will be needed. I don’t think the [European Commission] can settle for less,” said Geradin.

PRAGUE — Right-wing populist Andrej Babiš and his ANO movement won the Czech parliamentary elections by a large margin, but his path to the premiership is anything but straightforward. With 99.9 percent of the ballots counted, ANO had a decisive lead with 35 percent, well ahead of Prime Minister Petr Fiala’s center-right governing coalition, Spolu (Together), which had 23 percent. ANO’s tally is the highest percentage ever achieved by a single party in a Czech parliamentary election. POLITICO brings you five key takeaways from the pivotal election. 1. FORMING A GOVERNMENT COULD TAKE MONTHS ANO failed to secure a majority in the 200-seat lower house, which means Babiš will need parliamentary support to form a government. That could be a drawn-out process, as all the mainstream parties have ruled out cooperating with Babiš. “The negotiations won’t be simple at all, and they won’t be quick either. I really think that forming the government could take quite some time. It might drag on for several months,” said Petr Kaniok, political scientist at Masaryk University in Brno. Babiš on Saturday evening said he aims to form a single-party minority government supported by the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) party and the right-wing populist Motorists for Themselves. “We will lead talks with the SPD and Motorists and strive for a single-party government led by the ANO movement,” he said. 2. IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE Babiš is not Viktor Orbán — as long as he isn’t pressured by extremists, analysts say, which makes their poor results in this election a reason for cautious optimism. The far-left coalition Stačilo! (Enough), which calls for leaving both NATO and the EU and favors closer relations with Russia, did not make it above the 5 percent threshold to enter parliament despite strong polling during the campaign. The eurosceptic SPD got only 8 percent, much less than the predicted 13 percent, reducing its leverage in any potential cooperation with Babiš. “Babiš could form his own government without likely having to make any agreements that would be anti-European,” said political marketing expert Anna Shavit, who used to work on the Babiš campaign. Kaniok at Masaryk University called the results for extremists “good news.” “The most radical groups — namely Stačilo! and SPD — received fewer votes than expected. … From the point of view of the future of Czech foreign policy — and also European policy — it’s clearly good news, because you could say that the ANO movement in some respects was radical in its rhetoric, trying to appeal strongly to their voters,” Kaniok told POLITICO. “I think that by not having to rely on them so much in forming a government, any resulting government might not be as radical in its stance,” he said. 3. WILD CARD UP THE PRESIDENT’S SLEEVE Czech President Petr Pavel, who has discretion over appointing the prime minister, will meet all the parties that entered parliament on Sunday. Traditionally, the president tasks the leader of the winning party to form a government. Once a government with at least a 101-seat majority is established, the president appoints the prime minister and ministers, but the government must still win a vote of confidence. Pavel previously said he wouldn’t appoint ministers who advocate Czechia’s withdrawal from NATO or the EU. He also has said he is consulting lawyers on the question of whether to block Babiš over the conflict of interest posed by his large agriculture empire Agrofert. The first potential situation now appears much less likely, as SPD underperformed, and the far-left Stačilo! fell short of the 5 percent needed to enter parliament. Both parties are anti-NATO and euroskeptic. But the conflict of interest over Agrofert is still on the table. Czech law bars officials from owning or controlling a business that would create a conflict with their governing function. This doesn’t mean that ministers can’t own a business, just that they are mandated to prioritize the public interest over their own interest. Babiš said in a televised debate ahead of the elections that he “would solve the conflict of interest,” but he did not specify how. The possibility is slim, but Pavel still has the constitutional option to decline appointing Babiš as prime minister if he believes the proposed solution is insufficient. 4. SUPPORT TO UKRAINE COULD DECREASE Babiš campaigned on reducing support to Ukraine and prioritizing the Czech Republic. He previously said he doesn’t support Ukraine’s membership in the EU. He famously criticized the Prague-led ammunition initiative — which delivers millions of rounds to Kyiv — and pledged to cancel it, suggesting that NATO should run the scheme instead. The political analyst Kaniok said that ANO is not “openly on Russia’s side … but much more inclined toward Russia, much less toward Ukraine.” European officials have been watching Babiš with concern as they worry he could become another disruptive figure in the EU alongside Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico. Babiš denies this. “We are clearly pro-European and pro-NATO, of course,” Babiš said at the press conference on Saturday following the results. “The EU has 27 members. Ukraine is not a member of the EU. We want, obviously, to talk about Europe, about European citizens, about the energy prices, the migration pact,” he added. Babiš, together with Orbán, is a co-founder of the far-right Patriots for Europe group in the European Parliament. Several Patriots for Europe members, including Orbán and France’s Jordan Bardella, congratulated Babiš on his victory. “Truth has prevailed! Andrej Babiš has won the Czech parliamentary elections with a convincing lead,” Orbán said in a post on X. “A big step for the Czech Republic, good news for Europe. Congratulations, Andrej!” 5. BABIŠ IS STILL CHARGED WITH ALLEGED FRAUD Babiš is currently awaiting a verdict from the Prague District Court over whether he defrauded the EU out of €2 million so that Agrofert could receive subsidies intended for medium-sized businesses. The case hinges on whether the “Stork’s Nest” farm was carved out of Agrofert to make it look like a smaller, independent business. Unless new evidence is found, the court is obliged to take its lead from Prague’s High Court, which in June overturned an earlier ruling that had originally acquitted Babiš of wrongdoing. Chances are that the lower chamber of parliament will have to vote on stripping Babiš of parliamentary immunity.

President Donald Trump publicly vented at Attorney General Pam Bondi on Saturday, saying the lack of criminal charges against top adversaries was “killing our reputation and credibility.” “We can’t delay any longer,” Trump posted on Truth Social in a message directed to “Pam.” “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” He specifically lamented the lack of criminal charges against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, three of his most prominent political antagonists. Trump spent much of the post venting about Erik Siebert, the former U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia, who he forced out Friday amid reports that Siebert did not believe there was enough evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud. Trump appeared to confirm those reports, accusing Siebert of saying “that we had no case.” “There is a GREAT CASE,” Trump said. Trump also appeared to float his onetime personal attorney Lindsey Halligan — now a White House aide who has been reviewing materials in the Smithsonian museums to ensure they align with Trump’s agenda — to take on a role in the probes of his adversaries. “Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot,” Trump wrote. He later posted that he intended to nominate Halligan to the post, though it’s still unclear if he wants Bondi to immediately install her in the job on an interim basis. It was a remarkable public message to the nation’s top law enforcement officer, linking his personal grievances over his own criminal prosecutions and congressional impeachments to a potential decision by federal prosecutors to level criminal charges against his adversaries. Trump’s frustration stemmed in part, he said, from “30 statements and posts” from allies that complained “nothing is being done” to punish his longtime rivals. Trump amplified his post in a brief gaggle with reporters on Saturday night, saying the post was not meant as a criticism of Bondi but that “we have to act fast.” “One way or the other. They’re guilty, they’re not guilty. We have to act fast,” Trump said. “If they’re not guilty, that’s fine. If they are guilty, or if they should be judged, they should be judged. And we have to do it now.” Trump has long accused Comey, Schiff and James, without evidence, of criminal conduct. Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017 amid frustrations over the investigation of his campaign’s contacts with Russia. Schiff led Trump’s first impeachment trial over his decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine over a demand that the Ukrainian government investigate his political rivals. And Trump has railed against James for her sprawling lawsuit against his business empire that led to a massive civil judgment against him. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The message came after POLITICO reported that Bondi had elevated little-known prosecutor Mary “Maggie” Cleary to succeed Siebert, taking on the job as acting U.S. attorney amid questions about the investigation into James. Trump capped his message to Bondi by accusing Democrats of impeaching him twice and indicting him five times “over nothing.” In 2023, Trump was charged in criminal cases that accused him of seeking to subvert the 2020 presidential election, corrupt Georgia’s election process, hoard classified information at Mar-a-Lago after his first term and cover up a hush money payment scheme. Only the hush money case, brought by Manhattan prosecutors, reached a jury, which found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts. Two of the cases, brought by special counsel Jack Smith, were dropped after Trump won the 2024 election. And the Georgia case remains mired in pretrial dysfunction, with lead prosecutor Fani Willis recently disqualified over a conflict of interest.