French authorities searched Elon Musk’s social media platform X’s French offices on Tuesday as part of a criminal investigation into its Grok AI chatbot, the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office said in a post on X. France opened an investigation last month following the proliferation of sexually explicit deepfakes generated by Grok on X, following up on a previous probe into the chatbot’s antisemitic outbursts over the summer. Owner Elon Musk and former CEO Linda Yaccarino have been summoned for “voluntary interviews” on Apr. 20, the prosecutor’s office said in a press release. “At this stage, the conduct of this investigation is part of a constructive approach, with the aim of ultimately ensuring that the X platform complies with French law, insofar as it operates within the national territory,” it said. A recent study estimated that Grok could have produced up to three million sexualized images in 11 days in January, including 23,000 of children. The European Commission has also opened a new probe under the EU’s online platforms rulebook, and has said it is exploring a ban on apps under the AI law. The Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office said Tuesday’s search was conducted by its cybercrime unit, together with the EU’s law enforcement agency Europol. The investigations range from sexually explicit deepfakes, aiding the distribution of child sexual abuse material to the dissemination of Holocaust-denial content, the office said. X didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

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

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said the country’s Crown Princess Mette-Marit showed “poor judgment” in her extensive contact with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, after correspondence with her was included in a new release of documents by the U.S. Department of Justice. “The crown princess herself has acknowledged that she exercised poor judgment, and I agree,” Støre told Norwegian broadcaster TV 2 on Sunday. Mette-Marit came under intense scrutiny over the weekend after her name appeared hundreds of times in correspondence with Epstein included in the latest batch of files released Friday. The documents include emails dating from 2011 to 2014 and reveal a familiar tone in the exchanges, as well as the fact that the crown princess spent four days at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence in January 2013. The crown princess on Saturday apologized for her relationship with Epstein and described her contacts with him as “embarrassing,” according to a statement issued by the Norwegian royal palace. “I showed poor judgment and regret having any contact with Epstein at all,” Mette-Marit said in the statement. “Jeffrey Epstein is solely responsible for his actions. I must take responsibility for not having investigated Epstein’s background more thoroughly, and for not realizing sooner what kind of person he was. I deeply regret this, and it is a responsibility I must bear,” the crown princess said. She went on to express her “deep sympathy and solidarity with the victims of the abuses committed by Jeffrey Epstein.” Several of the exchanges with Epstein have drawn particular attention. In one of the messages, Mette-Marit referred to Epstein as “such a sweetheart.” In another exchange, after Epstein said he was on a “wife hunt” in Paris, she replied that “Paris is good for adultery” and added that “Scandis [are] better wife material.” In another email, Mette-Marit asked if it was “inappropriate for a mother to suggest two naked women carrying a surfboard for my 15 yr old sons wallpaper?” The revelations come at a sensitive time for the Norwegian royal family. Mette-Marit’s 29-year-old son, Marius Borg Høiby — who does not hold a royal title — is due to stand trial in Oslo on Tuesday, accused of committing 38 criminal offenses, including the rape of four women and drug-related charges. He denies the most serious accusations and could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted. Mette-Marit’s sister, Princess Märtha Louise, made headlines in 2024 after she married an American self-proclaimed shaman, who, among other things, claimed he predicted the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Their unusual love story is the subject of a Netflix documentary “Rebel Royals.” The latest release of Epstein files includes references to several prominent politicians and business figures, among them U.S. President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Bill Gates and former U.K. Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson, who on Sunday resigned his membership of the Labour Party over his friendship with Epstein. Slovak diplomat Miroslav Lajčák, who also is mentioned in the files, stepped down over the weekend from his role as an adviser to Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico following the disclosures.

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

TOKYO — Britain’s prime minister has urged Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, to answer questions in the U.S. about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Keir Starmer suggested Mountbatten-Windsor would not be sufficiently focused on Epstein’s victims if he did not accept an invitation to testify before the U.S. Congress about his past exchanges with the convicted sex offender, who died in 2019. An email exchange dated August 2010, released by the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday, showed Epstein offered the then-Duke of York the opportunity to have dinner with a woman he described as “26, russian, clevere beautiful, trustworthy.” Mountbatten-Windsor replied: “That was quick! How are you? Good to be free?” The exchange happened a year after Epstein was released from jail following a sentence for soliciting prostitution from a person under 18. Another newly released file appears to show Mountbatten-Windsor crouching on all fours over an unknown woman. Mountbatten-Windsor missed a November deadline to sit for a transcribed interview that was set by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. During a visit to China and Japan this week, Starmer was asked by reporters whether Mountbatten-Windsor should now apologize to Epstein’s victims and testify to Congress about what he knew. The prime minister replied: “I have always approached this question with the victims of Epstein in mind. Epstein’s victims have to be the first priority,” he said. “As for whether there should be an apology, that’s a matter for Andrew,” Starmer added. “But yes, in terms of testifying, I have always said anybody who has got information should be prepared to share that information in whatever form they are asked to do that because you can’t be victim-centered if you’re not prepared to do that,” Starmer said. In 2019, Mountbatten-Windsor was accused in a civil lawsuit of sexually assaulting Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers, but he denied all allegations. Mountbatten-Windsor has faced a backlash for his friendship with Epstein, but has not been charged with a crime in either the U.K. or the U.S. Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his royal titles in October amid continued scrutiny of his past friendship with Epstein.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s increasingly overt attempts to bring down the Cuban government are forcing Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum into a delicate diplomatic dance. Mexico is the U.S.’s largest trading partner. It is also the primary supplier of oil to Cuba since the U.S. seized control of Venezuela’s crude. Now, Sheinbaum must manage her relationship with a mercurial Trump, who has at times both praised her leadership and threatened to send the U.S. military into her country to combat drug trafficking — all while appeasing her left-wing party Morena, factions of which have historically aligned themselves with Cuba’s communist regime. That balance became even more difficult for Sheinbaum this week following reports that Mexico’s state-run oil company, Pemex, paused a shipment of oil headed for Cuba, which is grappling with shortages following the U.S. military action earlier this month in Venezuela. Asked about the suspension, the Mexican president said only that oil shipments are a “sovereign” decision and that future action will be taken on a “humanitarian” basis. On Thursday, Trump ramped up the pressure, declared a national emergency over what he couched as threats posed by the Cuban government and authorized the use of new tariffs against any country that sells or provides oil to the island. The order gives the administration broad discretion to impose duties on imports from countries deemed to be supplying Cuba, dramatically raising the stakes for Mexico as it weighs how far it can go without triggering economic retaliation from Washington — or worse. “It’s the proverbial shit hitting the fan in terms of the spillover effects that would have,” said Arturo Sarukhán, former Mexican ambassador to the U.S., referring to the possibility of a Pemex tanker being intercepted. Sheinbaum still refuses to hit back too hard against Trump, preferring to speak publicly in diplomatic platitudes even as she faces new pressure. Her posture stands in marked contrast to Canada’s Mark Carney, whose speech at Davos, urging world leaders to stand up to Trump, went viral and drew a swift rebuke from the White House and threats of new tariffs. But the latest episode is characteristic of Sheinbaum’s approach to Trump over the last year — one that has, so far, helped her avoid the kinds of headline-grabbing public ruptures that have plagued Carney, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron. Still, former Mexican officials say Trump’s threats — though not specific to Mexico — have triggered quiet debate inside the Mexican government over how much risk Sheinbaum can afford to absorb and how hard she should push back. “My sense is that right now, at least because of what’s at stake in the counter-narcotics and law enforcement agenda bilaterally, I think that neither government right now wants to turn this into a casus belli,” Sarukhán added. “But I do think that in the last weeks, the U.S. pressure on Mexico has risen to such a degree where you do have a debate inside the Mexican government as to what the hell do we do with this issue?” A White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the administration’s approach, said that Trump is “addressing the depredations of the communist Cuban regime by taking decisive action to hold the Cuban regime accountable for its support of hostile actors, terrorism, and regional instability that endanger American security and foreign policy.” “As the President stated, Cuba is now failing on its own volition,” the official added. “Cuba’s rulers have had a major setback with the Maduro regime that they are responsible for propping up.” Sheinbaum, meanwhile, responded to Trump’s latest executive order during her Friday press conference by warning that it could “trigger a large-scale humanitarian crisis, directly affecting hospitals, food supplies, and other basic services for the Cuban people.” “Mexico will pursue different alternatives, while clearly defending the country’s interests, to provide humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people, who are going through a difficult moment, in line with our tradition of solidarity and respect for international norms,” Sheinbaum said. The Mexican embassy in Washington declined further comment. Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, in a post on X, accused the U.S. of “resorting to blackmail and coercion in an attempt to make other countries to join its universally condemned blockade policy against Cuba.” The pressure on Sheinbaum to respond has collided with real political constraints at home. Morena has long maintained ideological and historical ties to Cuba, and Sheinbaum faces criticism from within her coalition over any move that could be seen as abandoning Havana. At the same time, she has come under growing domestic scrutiny over why Mexico should continue supplying oil abroad as fuel prices and energy concerns persist at home, making the “humanitarian” framing both a diplomatic shield and a political necessity. Amid the controversy over the oil shipment, Trump and Sheinbaum spoke by phone Thursday morning, with Trump describing the conversation afterward as “very productive” and praising Sheinbaum as a “wonderful and highly intelligent Leader.” Sheinbaum’s remarks after the call point to how she is navigating the issue through ambiguity rather than direct confrontation, noting that the two did not discuss Cuba. She described it as a “productive and cordial conversation” and that the two leaders would “continue to make progress on trade issues and on the bilateral relationship.” With the upcoming review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade looming, even the appearance of defying Trump’s push to cut off Cuba’s oil lifelines carries the potential for economic and diplomatic blowback. It also could undo the quiet partnership the U.S. and Mexico have struck on border security and drug trafficking issues. Gerónimo Gutiérrez, who served as Mexican ambassador to the U.S. during the first Trump administration, described Sheinbaum’s approach as “squish and muddle through.” “She obviously is trying to tread carefully with Trump. She doesn’t want to irritate him with this matter,” Gutiérrez said, adding that “she knows that it’s a problem.” Meanwhile, Cuba’s vulnerability has only deepened since the collapse of Venezuela’s oil support following this month’s U.S. operation that ousted President Nicolás Maduro. For years, Venezuelan crude served as a lifeline for the island, a gap Mexico has increasingly helped fill, putting the country squarely in Washington’s crosshairs as Trump squeezes Havana. With fuel shortages in Cuba triggering rolling blackouts and deepening economic distress, former U.S. officials who served in Cuba and regional analysts warn that Trump’s push to choke off remaining oil supplies could hasten a broader collapse — even as there is little clarity about how Washington would manage the political, humanitarian or regional fallout if the island tips over the edge. Trump has openly suggested that outcome is inevitable, telling reporters in Iowa on Tuesday that “Cuba will be failing pretty soon,” even as he pushed back on Thursday that the idea he was trying to “choke off” the country. “The word ‘choke off’ is awfully tough,” Trump said. “It looks like it’s not something that’s going to be able to survive. I think Cuba will not be able to survive.” The administration, however, has offered few details about what would come next, and Latin American analysts warn that the U.S. and Mexico are likely to face an influx of migrants — including to Florida and the Yucatán Peninsula — seeking refuge should Cuba collapse. There is no evidence that the Trump administration has formally asked Mexico to halt oil shipments to Cuba. Trump’s executive order leaves it to the president’s Cabinet to determine whether a country is supplying oil to Cuba and the rate at which it should be tariffed — an unusual deferral of power for a president for whom tariffs are a favorite negotiating tool. But former U.S. officials say that absence of an explicit demand to Mexico does not mean the pressure is theoretical. Lawrence Gumbiner, who served as chargé d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Havana during the first Trump administration, believes Washington would be far more likely to lean on economic pressure than the kind of military force it has used to seize Venezuelan oil tankers. At the same time, the administration’s push on Venezuela began with a similar executive order last spring. “There’s no doubt that the U.S. is telling Mexico to just stop it,” Gumbiner said. “I think there’s a much slimmer chance that we would engage our military to actually stop Mexican oil from coming through. That would be a last resort. But with this administration you cannot completely discount the possibility of a physical blockade of the island if they decide that it’s the final step in strangling the island.”

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on Saturday accepted the resignation of his national security adviser, Miroslav Lajčák, following revelations that Lajčák exchanged messages with convicted sex offended Jeffrey Epstein. The messages were included in Friday’s release by the U.S. Justice Department of investigative materials related to Epstein.  Fico, announcing the decision in a video statement on Facebook, praised Lajčák as “a great diplomat” and said Slovakia was losing “an incredible source of experience in diplomacy and foreign policy.” Lajčák served as Slovak foreign minister in multiple Fico governments between 2009 and 2020. The U.S. Justice Department on Friday released more than three million pages of documents in the Epstein files. The documents, which reference several prominent figures, such as Steve Bannon, Elon Musk and world leaders, also include exchanges between Lajčák and Epstein. In the newly released files, Epstein bantered with Lajčák about women while discussing Lajčák’s meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lajčák initially denied any wrongdoing, describing the communications as informal and light-hearted, and later offered his resignation to prevent political costs from falling on the prime minister, according to reports in Slovak media. “Not because I did anything criminal or unethical, but so that he does not bear political costs for something unrelated to his decisions,” Lajčák was quoted as saying. The opposition has united in calling for him to resign. The coalition Slovak National Party has also joined this stance, saying that Lajčák represents a security risk, according to local media. Lajčák did not immediately respond to a request for comment by POLITICO.  In his video address, the prime minister also criticized media coverage of the case, calling it “hypocritical” and overstated.

Second Amendment advocates are warning that Republicans shouldn’t count on them to show up in November, after President Donald Trump insisted that demonstrator Alex Pretti “should not have been carrying a gun.” The White House labels itself the “most pro-Second Amendment administration in history.” But Trump’s comments about Pretti, who was legally carrying a licensed firearm when he was killed by federal agents last week, have some gun rights advocates threatening to sit out the midterms. “I’ve spent 72 hours on the phone trying to unfuck this thing. Trump has got to correct his statements now,” said one Second Amendment advocate, granted anonymity to speak about private conservations. The person said Second Amendment advocates are “furious.” “And they will not come out and vote. He can’t correct it three months before the election.” The response to Pretti’s killing isn’t the first time Second Amendment advocates have felt abandoned by Trump. The powerful lobbying and advocacy groups, that for decades reliably struck fear into the hearts of Republicans, have clashed multiple times with Trump during his first year back in power. And their ire comes at a delicate moment for the GOP. While Democrats are unlikely to pick up support from gun-rights groups, the repeated criticisms from organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights suggest that the Trump administration may be alienating a core constituency it needs to turn out as it seeks to retain its slim majority in the House and Senate. It doesn’t take much to swing an election, said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “All you have to do is lose four, five, six percent of their base who left it blank, who didn’t write a check, who didn’t walk districts, you lose,” he said. “Especially marginal districts — and the House is not a good situation right now.” And it wasn’t only the president who angered gun-rights advocates. Others in the administration made similar remarks about Pretti, denouncing the idea of carrying a gun into a charged environment such as a protest. FBI Director Kash Patel said “you cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said she didn’t “know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” These sentiments are anathema to many Republicans who have fought for years against the idea that carrying a gun or multiple magazine clips implies guilt or an intent to commit a crime. “I sent a message to high-place people in the administration with three letters, W.T.F.,” Brown said. “If it had just been the FBI director and a few other highly-placed administration officials, that would have been one thing but when the president came out and doubled down that was a whole new level. This was not a good look for your base. You can’t be a conservative and not be radically pro-gun.” A senior administration official brushed off concerns about Republicans losing voters in the midterms over the outrage. “No, I don’t think that some of the comments that were made over the past 96 hours by certain administration officials are going to impede the unbelievable and strong relationship the administration has with the Second Amendment community, both on a personal level and given the historic successes that President Trump has been able to deliver for gun rights,” the official said. But this wasn’t the only instance when the Trump administration angered gun-rights advocates. In September after the shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis that killed two children, reports surfaced that the Department of Justice was looking into restricting transgender Americans from owning firearms. The suspect, who died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the scene of the shooting, was a 23-year-old transgender woman. “The signaling out of a specific demographic for a total ban on firearms possession needs to comport with the Constitution and its bounds and anything that exceeds the bounds of the Constitution is simply impermissible,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, told POLITICO. At the time, the National Rifle Association, which endorsed Trump in three consecutive elections, said they don’t support any proposals to “arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.” Additionally, some activists, who spoke to the gun-focused independent publication “The Reload,” said they were upset about the focus from federal law enforcement about seizing firearms during the Washington crime crackdown in the summer. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office wouldn’t pursue felony charges in Washington over carrying guns, The Washington Post reported. Trump, during his first term, infuriated some in the pro-gun movement when in 2018 his administration issued a regulation to ban bump stocks. The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the rule in 2024. “I think the administration clearly wants to be known as pro-Second Amendment, and many of the officials do believe in the Second Amendment, but my job at Gun Owners of America is to hold them to their words and to get them to act on their promises. And right now it’s a mixed record,” said Gun Owners for America director of federal affairs Aidan Johnston. In the immediate aftermath of the Pretti shooting, the NRA called for a full investigation rather than for “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.” But now, the lobbying group is defending Trump’s fuller record. “Rather than trying to extract meaning from every off-the-cuff remark, we look at what the administration is doing, and the Trump administration is, and has been, the most pro-2A administration in modern history,” said John Commerford, NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director. “From signing marquee legislation that dropped unconstitutional taxes on certain firearms and suppressors to joining pro-2A plaintiffs in cases around the country, the Trump administration is taking action to support the right of every American to keep and bear arms.” In his first month in office, Trump directed the Department of Justice to examine all regulations, guidance, plans and executive actions from President Joe Biden’s administration that may infringe on Second Amendment rights. The administration in December created a civil rights division office of Second Amendment rights at DOJ to work on gun issues. That work, said a second senior White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, should prove the administration’s bona fides and nothing said in the last week means they’ve changed their stance on the Second Amendment. “Gun groups know and gun owners know that there hasn’t been a bigger defender of the Second Amendment than the president,” said a second senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak on a sensitive issue. “But I think the president’s talking about in the moment— in that very specific moment— when it is such a powder keg going on, and when there’s someone who’s actively impeding enforcement operations, things are going to happen. Or things can happen.” Andrew Howard contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump rose to power on his immigration agenda. Now, it’s threatening to box him in. After months of aggressive enforcement actions meant to telegraph strength on one of the Republican Party’s signature issues, the White House has had to backtrack in the face of Americans’ backlash to its approach — particularly after two protesters were killed by federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis. But the calculus that forced the Trump administration to change course is a double-edged sword: If the administration appears to ease up on its maximalist stance against illegal immigration, it risks leaving its hardcore MAGA base disenchanted at a moment when Republicans can’t afford to lose support. And if it doesn’t, it risks alienating moderate Republicans, independents, young voters and Latinos who support the administration’s immigration enforcement in theory but dislike how it’s being executed. “I worry because if we lose the agenda, we’re done — and people don’t fully appreciate how big of an issue this is,” said Sean Spicer, Trump’s former press secretary. “When you have a two-seat majority in the House or a two- or three-seat majority in the Senate, you’re on a razor’s edge. To not acknowledge that is ridiculous.” For Trump, a midterms rout means the last two years of his administration will be eaten up by Democratic stonewalling, investigations and likely impeachment inquiries, rather than his own agenda — a situation the administration desperately wants to avoid. The result is a rare moment of vulnerability on Trump’s strongest issue, one that has exposed fault lines inside the Republican Party, sharpened Democratic attacks, and forced the White House into a defensive crouch it never expected to take. Some Trump allies insist the GOP shouldn’t be scared of their best issue, blaming Democrats for putting them on the back foot. “This has been President Trump’s area of greatest success,” said Trump pollster John McLaughlin. “You’re looking at the Republicans be defensive on something they shouldn’t be defensive about.” A recent POLITICO poll underscores the administration’s delicate balancing act: 1 in 5 voters who backed the president in 2024 say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, and more than 1 in 3 Trump voters say that while they support the goals of his mass deportation campaign, they disapprove of the way he is implementing it. The administration this week struggled to manage the political fallout from demonstrator Alex Pretti’s killing, where even typically loyal Republicans criticized the president and others called for the ousting of his top officials, namely Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The White House softened its hardline rhetoric, and Trump shifted his personnel in charge of Minneapolis operations, sending border czar Tom Homan to the state to deescalate tensions on the ground. A subdued Homan told reporters Thursday that he had “productive” conversations with state and local Democrats and that federal agents’ operations would be more targeted moving forward. He vowed to stick by the administration’s mission, but said he hopes to reduce Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence in the city if federal officials get access to state jails. The president “doesn’t want to be dealing with clashes between protesters and federal agents on the ground in Minnesota,” said one person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If Trump was more invested in the outcome of this, he would have sent in the National Guard. He would declare martial law. He would be more aggressive.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, in a statement, said that the administration is always looking for “the most effective way” to implement what it sees as a mandate from voters to carry out mass deportations. “Our focus remains the same: prioritizing violent criminal illegal aliens while also enforcing the law — anyone who is in the country illegally is eligible to be deported,” she said, adding that includes “the President’s continued calls for local Democrat leaders to work with the Administration to remove illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from their communities.” Some Trump allies, fearful the aggressive tactics will isolate crucial swing voters in November, have argued that Republicans have to keep the focus on criminal arrests, public safety and the Trump administration’s success in securing the southern border, which are more popular with voters across the board. But immigration hawks in the Republican Party have grown increasingly apoplectic over the administration’s moves this week, including an apparent openness to compromise with Democrats on policies to boost the oversight of federal immigration officers. They argue the administration is paying too much attention to cable news coverage and donor anxiety and not enough to the voters who propelled Trump back into office. “The upshot of the lame duck second Trump term was supposed to be that he was going to get things done regardless of the pressure from consultants, pollsters and left-wing Republicans. That doesn’t seem to be happening and it’s disappointing,” said Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, a conservative group. “I’m dumbfounded that CNN coverage seems to have more influence over the White House’s immigration enforcement agenda than the base that stood by Trump through everything over the last decade.” Even so, some of the more hardline elements of the president’s base acknowledge that the splashy optics of the administration’s immigration enforcement actions have introduced a vulnerability. “The big muscular show of force — you invite too much confrontation,” said a second person close to the White House, also granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Let’s try to be quieter about it but deport just as many people. Be a little sneakier. Don’t have the flexing and the machismo part of it. There’s a certain element of that that’s cool but as much as we can, why can’t we be stealthy and pop up all over Minnesota?” “We were almost provoking the reaction,” the person added. “I’m all for the smartest tactics as long as the end result is as many deportations as possible.” But the person warned that any perception of backtracking could depress a base already uneasy about the economy. “Our base is generally not wealthy and they’re not doing well,” the person said. “They’re struggling. If you take away immigration — if they don’t believe he means it — holy cow, that’s not good.”

LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is braced for a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping — and there’ll be more than a few elephants in the room. Though Britain has improved its relationship with China following the more combative approach of previous Conservative administrations, a litany of concerns over national security and human rights continues to dog Labour’s attempted refresh. Starmer, who will meet the Chinese president in Beijing Thursday morning, told reporters engaging with China means he can discuss “issues where we disagree.”   “You know that in the past, on all the trips I’ve done, I’ve always raised issues that need to be raised,” he said during a huddle with journalists on the British Airways flight to China on Tuesday evening. In a sign of how hard it can be to engage on more tricky subjects, Chinese officials bundled the British press out of the room when Starmer tried to bring up undesirable topics the last time the pair met. From hacking and spying to China’s foreign policy aims, POLITICO has a handy guide to all the ways Starmer could rile up the Chinese president. 1) STATE-SPONSORED HACKING China is one of the biggest offenders in cyberspace and is regarded by the U.K.’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) — part of Britain’s GCHQ intelligence agency — as a “highly sophisticated threat actor.” The Electoral Commission said it has taken three years to recover from a Chinese hack of its systems. The Chinese state, and private companies linked directly or obliquely to its cyber and espionage agencies, have been directly accused by the British government, its intelligence agencies and allies. As recently as last month, the U.K. government sanctioned two Chinese companies — both named by the U.S. as linked to Chinese intelligence — for hacking Britain and its allies. 2) ACTIONS AGAINST BRITISH PARLIAMENTARIANS Politicians in Britain who have spoken out against Chinese human rights abuses and hostile activity have been censured by Beijing in recent years. This includes the sanctioning of 5 British MPs in 2021, including the former security minister Tom Tugendhat, who has been banned from entering the country. Last year, Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse was refused entry to Hong Kong while attempting to visit her grandson, and was turned back by officials. The government said that the case was raised with Chinese authorities during a visit to China by Douglas Alexander, who was trade minister at the time. 3) JIMMY LAI In 2020, the British-Hong Kong businessman and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai was arrested under national security laws imposed by Beijing and accused of colluding with a foreign state. Lai — who is in his late 70s — has remained in prison ever since. Last month, a Hong Kong court convicted Lai of three offenses following what his supporters decried as a 156-day show trial. He is currently awaiting the final decisions relating to sentencing — with bodies including the EU parliament warning that a life imprisonment could have severe consequences for Europe’s relationship with China if he is not released. Lai’s son last year called for the U.K. government to make his father’s release a precondition of closer relations with Beijing.  4) REPRESSION OF DISSIDENTS China, like Iran, is involved in the active monitoring and intimidation of those it considers dissidents on foreign soil — known as trans-national repression. China and Hong Kong law enforcement agencies have repeatedly issued arrest warrants for nationals living in Britain and other Western countries.  British police in 2022 were forced to investigate an assault on a protester outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester. The man was beaten by several men after being dragged inside the grounds of the diplomatic building during a demonstration against Xi Jinping. China removed six officials from Britain before they could be questioned. 5) CHINESE SPY SCANDALS Westminster was last year rocked by a major Chinese spying scandal involving two British men accused of monitoring British parliamentarians and passing information back to Beijing. Though the case against the two men collapsed, the MI5 intelligence agency still issued an alert to MPs, peers and their staff, warning Chinese intelligence officers were “attempting to recruit people with access to sensitive information about the British state.” It is not the only China spy allegation to embroil the upper echelons of British society. Yang Tengbo, who in 2024 outed himself as an alleged spy banned from entering the U.K., was a business associate of Andrew Windsor , the` disgraced brother of King Charles. Christine Lee, a lawyer who donated hundreds of thousands of pounds to a Labour MP, was the subject of a security alert from British intelligence. In October, Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, said that his officers had “intervened operationally” against China that month. 6) EMBASSY DING DONG This month — after a protracted political and planning battle — the government approved the construction of a Chinese “super-embassy” in London. This came after a litany of security concerns were raised by MPs and in the media, including the building’s proximity to sensitive cables, which it is alleged could be used to aid Chinese spying. Britain has its own embassy headache in China. Attempts to upgrade the U.K. mission in Beijing were reportedly blocked while China’s own London embassy plan was in limbo. 7) SANCTIONS EVASION China has long been accused of helping facilitate sanctions evasion for countries such as Russia and Iran. Opaque customs and trade arrangements have allegedly allowed prohibited shipments of oil and dual-use technology to flow into countries that are sanctioned by Britain and its allies. Britain has already sanctioned some Chinese companies accused of aiding Russia’s war in Ukraine. China has called for Britain to stop making “groundless accusations” about its involvement in Russia’s war efforts. 8) HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND GREEN ENERGY U.K. ministers are under pressure from MPs and human rights organizations to get tougher on China over reported human rights abuses in the country’s Xinjiang region — where many of the world’s solar components are sourced. In a meeting with China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang last March, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband raised the issue of forced labor in supply chains, according to a government readout of the meeting. But he also stressed the need for deeper collaboration with China as the U.K.’s lofty clean power goal looms. British academic Laura Murphy — who was researching the risk of forced labor in supply chains — had her work halted by Sheffield Hallam University amid claims of pressure from China. “I know that there are other researchers who don’t feel safe speaking out in public, who are experiencing similar things, although often more subtly,” Murphy said last year. 9) THE FUTURE OF TAIWAN China continues to assert that “Taiwan is a province of China” amid reports it is stepping up preparations for military intervention in the region. In October, the Telegraph newspaper published an op-ed from the Chinese ambassador to Britain, which said: “Taiwan has never been a country. There is but one China, and both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same China.” In a sign of just how sensitive the matter is, Beijing officials reportedly threatened to cancel high-level trade talks between China and the U.K. after Alexander, then a trade minister, travelled to Taipei last June. 10) CHINA POOTLING AROUND THE ARCTIC Britain is pushing for greater European and NATO involvement in the Arctic amid concern that both China and Russia are becoming more active in the strategically important area. There is even more pressure to act, with U.S. President Donald Trump making clear his Greenland aspirations. In October, a Chinese container ship completed a pioneering journey through the Arctic to a U.K. port — halving the usual time it takes to transport electric cars and solar panels destined for Europe.