Millions of people are forming emotional bonds with artificial intelligence chatbots — a problem that politicians need to take seriously, according to top scientists. The warning of a rise in AI bots designed to develop a relationship with users comes in an assessment released Tuesday on the progress and risks of artificial intelligence. “AI companions have grown rapidly in popularity, with some applications reaching tens of millions of users,” according to the assessment from dozens of experts, mostly academics — completed for the second time under a global effort launched by world leaders in 2023. Specialized companion services such as Replika and Character.ai have user numbers in the tens of millions — with users citing a variety of reasons including fun and curiosity, as well as to alleviate loneliness, the report says. But people can also seek companionship from general-purpose tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini or Anthropic’s Claude. “Even the ordinary chatbots can become companions,” said Yoshua Bengio, a professor at the University of Montreal and lead author of the International AI Safety report. Bengio is considered one of the world’s leading voices on AI. “In the right context and with enough interactions between the user and the AI, a relationship can develop,” he said. While the assessment acknowledges that evidence regarding the psychological effects of companions is mixed, “some studies report patterns such as increased loneliness and reduced social interaction among frequent users,” the report says. The warning lands two weeks after dozens of European Parliament lawmakers pressed the European Commission to look into the possibility of restricting companion services under the EU’s AI law amid concerns over their impact on mental health. “I can see in political circles that the effect of these AI companions on children, especially adolescents, is something that is raising a lot of eyebrows and attention,” said Bengio. The worries are fueled by the sycophantic nature of chatbots, which aim to be helpful for their users and please them as much as possible. “The AI is trying to make us, in the immediate moment, feel good, but that isn’t always in our interest,” Bengio said. In that sense, the technology has similar pitfalls to social media platforms, he argued. Bengio said to expect that new regulations will be introduced to address the phenomenon. He pushed back, however, against the idea of introducing specific rules for AI companions and argued that the risk should be addressed through horizontal legislation which addresses several risks simultaneously. The International AI Safety report lands ahead of a global summit starting Feb. 16, an annual gathering for countries to discuss governance of the technology that this year is held in India. Tuesday’s report lists the full series of risks that policymakers will have to address, including AI-fueled cyberattacks, AI-generated sexually explicit deepfakes and AI systems that provide information on how to design bioweapons. Bengio urged governments and the European Commission to enhance their internal AI expertise to address the long list of potential risks. World leaders first gave a mandate for the annual assessment at the 2023 AI Safety Summit in the United Kingdom. Some of the advisers are well-known figures in the Brussels tech policy world, including former European Parliament lawmaker Marietje Schaake.

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.”

One month into nationwide protests, the Iranian people are still making history — at the cost of their lives. The free world can no longer credibly claim uncertainty about events on the ground, nor can they claim neutrality in the face of what has occurred. Iranians aren’t asking others to speak for them but to empower them to finish what they’ve started. And the urgency for international action has only intensified. This week, the European debate finally shifted. Italy formally joined calls to condemn the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and with that decision, the EU’s political landscape narrowed. France and Spain are now the only two member countries preventing the bloc from collectively designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The question for Brussels is no longer whether the conditions for this are met — it’s whether the bloc will act once they are. For decades, the Iranian people have been subject to systematic violence by their own state. This isn’t law enforcement. It’s a unilateral war against a civilian population, marked by extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, confessions, torture, mass censorship and the deliberate use of deprivation as a tool of repression. On one side stands a totalitarian state; on the other, unarmed citizens. As videos and eyewitness testimonies continue to emerge despite severe communications blackouts, the scale of the violence is no longer in doubt. Supported by investigative reporting, sources inside Iran warn that more than 36,500 people may have been killed by regime forces since protests began on Dec. 28. Leading human rights organizations have verified thousands of deaths, cautioning that all available figures are almost certainly undercounts due to access restrictions and internet shutdowns. The scale, organization and intent of this repression meets the legal threshold for crimes against humanity as defined under the 1998 Rome Statute that founded the International Criminal Court. And under the U.N.’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) — a principle seeking to ensure populations are protected from mass atrocity crimes, which the EU has formally endorsed — this threshold triggers obligation. At this point, inaction ceases to be restraint and becomes moral, political and legal failure. The risks here are immediate. Thousands of detained protesters face the imminent threat of execution. Senior Iranian judicial authorities have warned that continued protest, particularly if citing alleged foreign support, constitutes moharebeh, or “waging war on God” — a charge that carries the death penalty and has historically been used to justify mass executions after unrest. Arbitrary detention and the absence of due process place detainees in clear and foreseeable danger, heightening the international community’s obligations. The Iranian people are bravely tackling the challenge placed before them, demonstrating agency, cohesion and resolve. Under the pillars of R2P, responsibility now shifts outward — first to assist and, where necessary, to take collective action when a state itself is the perpetrator of atrocity crimes. Six actions directly follow from these obligations: First, civilians must be protected by degrading the regime’s capacity to commit atrocities. This requires formally designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization given its central role in systematic violence against civilians both inside and outside of Iran. This is in line with European legal standards. Italy has moved on it. Now France and Spain must follow, so the EU can act as one. France and Spain are now the only two member countries preventing the bloc from collectively designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. | Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA Second, the bloc must impose coordinated and sustained economic measures consistent with the R2P. This includes globally freezing regime assets under EU sanctions frameworks, as well as identifying, seizing and dismantling the shadow fleet of “ghost tankers” that finance repression and evade sanctions. The third obligation is guaranteeing the right to information. Iran’s digital blackout constitutes a grave violation of freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. Free, secure and continuous internet access needs to be ensured through the large-scale deployment of satellite connectivity and secure communication technologies. Defensive cyber measures should prevent arbitrary shutdowns of civilian networks. Fourth, the EU must move to end state impunity through legal accountability. This means expelling regime representatives implicated in the repression of citizens from European capitals, and initiating legal proceedings against those responsible for crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction — a principle already recognized by several EU member countries. Fifth, the bloc must demand the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, who were detained in clear violation of Iran’s international human rights obligations. Finally, Europe must issue a clear ultimatum, demanding that independent nongovernmental humanitarian and human rights organizations be granted immediate, unrestricted and time-bound access on the ground inside Iran. If this access isn’t granted within a defined time frame, it must withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nonrecognition is a lawful response to a regime that has forfeited its legitimacy by systematically attacking its own population. It would also signal unambiguous support for the Iranian people’s right to representative and accountable government. Supporting Iranians is neither charity nor interference. Rather, it is realizing the legal and political commitments the EU has already made. The regime in Tehran has practiced state-sponsored terror, exported violence, destabilized the region and fueled nuclear threats for 47 years. Ending this trajectory isn’t ideological. It’s a matter of European and global security. For the EU, there’s no remaining procedural excuse. The evidence is overwhelming. The legal framework is settled. France and Spain are now all that stand between the bloc and collective action against the IRGC. What’s at stake isn’t diplomacy but Europe’s credibility — and whether it will enforce the principles it invokes when they’re tested by history. Nazenin Ansari Journalist, managing editor of Kayhan-London (Persian) and Kayhan-Life (English) Nazanin Boniadi Human rights activist, actress, board director of Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, 2023 Sydney Peace Prize Laureate Ladan Boroumand Human rights activist, historian, co-founder of Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran Shirin Ebadi Lawyer, 2003 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shéhérazade Semsar-de Boisséson Entrepreneur, former CEO of POLITICO Europe, chair of the board at Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran

LONDON — Pornhub will no longer be fully available in the U.K. from Feb. 2, its parent company Aylo announced Tuesday, citing the consequences of Britain’s Online Safety Act. Aylo said it made an effort to comply after the act’s Children’s Codes came into force last summer, requiring adult sites to have highly effective age-assurance. But visitors — both adults and under-18s — are flocking to non-compliant sites en masse, Alexzandra Kekesi, vice president of brand and community at Aylo, said. Despite sharing these findings with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the U.K.’s communications watchdog Ofcom, “we’re still continuing to see more of the same,” she said. Aylo says users who go through age assurance prior to the Feb. 2 cut-off date will still be able to access the site. During a press conference, Aylo’s lawyers were keen to argue that the blame for its decision should be put at the government’s feet, rather than Ofcom’s, and argued only device-based age-assurance by the likes of Google, Apple, and Microsoft would solve the problem. “This law, not our regulator, this law by its very nature is pushing both adults and children alike to the cesspools of the internet, to the most dangerous material possible,” Solomon Friedman, a partner at Ethical Capital Partners and a lawyer representing Aylo said. “And while there [were] six months by Aylo of good faith effort to be part of this ecosystem, to gather data and share it with the government, the data now really speaks for itself. This law not only is not protecting children, it’s putting children and adults in greater danger online,” he added.

MARSEILLE, France — Violence at a drug trafficking hotspot in the social housing complex next to Orange’s headquarters in Marseille forced the telecoms giant to lock its forest-green gates and order its thousands of employees to work from home. The disruption to such a recognizable company — one that gives its name to the city’s iconic football venue — became a fresh symbol of how drug trafficking and insecurity are reshaping politics ahead of municipal elections. In a recent poll, security ranked among voters’ top concerns, forcing candidates across the spectrum to pitch competing responses to the drug trade. “The number one theme is security,” center-right candidate Martine Vassal told POLITICO. “In the field, what I hear most often are people who tell me that they no longer travel in the heart of the city for that reason.” French political parties are watching the contest closely for clues about the broader battles building toward the 2027 presidential race. In many ways, Marseille is a microcosm of France as a whole, reflecting the country’s wider demographics and its biggest political battles. The city is diverse. Multicultural and low-income neighborhoods that tend to support the hard left abut conservative suburbs that have swung to the far right in recent years. As in much of France, support for the political center in Marseille is wobbling.  The left-wing incumbent Benoît Payan remains a slight favorite in the March contest, but Franck Allisio, the candidate for the far-right National Rally, is just behind, with both men polling at around 30 percent. The issues at play strike at the heart of Marseille’s identity: its notorious drug trade, entrenched poverty and failure to seize on the competitive advantages of a young, sun-drenched city strategically perched on the Mediterranean. Whichever candidate can articulate a platform that speaks to Marseille’s local realities while addressing anxieties shared across France will be well positioned to take city hall — and to provide their party with a potential blueprint for the 2027 presidential campaign.  SECOND CITY  Marseille has always had something of a little-brother complex with Paris, a resentment that goes beyond the football rivalry of Paris Saint-Germain and Olympique de Marseille. Many in the city regard the French capital as a distant power center that tries to impose its own solutions on Marseille without sufficiently consulting local experts.   People in Marseilles pay tribute to murdered Mehdi Kessaci. 20, whose brother is a prominent anti drug trafficking campaigner, and protest against trafficking, Nov. 22, 2025. | Clement Mahoudeau/AFP via Getty Images “Paris treats Marseille almost like a colony,” said Allisio. “A place you visit, make promises to — without any guarantee the money will ever be spent.”  When it comes to drug trafficking and security, leaders across the political spectrum agree that Paris is prescribing medicine that treats the symptoms of the crisis, not the cause.  Violence associated with the drug trade was thrust back in the spotlight in November with the killing of 20-year-old Mehdi Kessaci. Authorities are investigating the crime as an act of intimidation. Mehdi’s brother Amine Kessaci is one of the city’s most prominent anti-trafficking campaigners, rising to prominence after their half-brother — who was involved in the trade — was killed several years earlier.  President Emmanuel Macron, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez and Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin all visited Marseille in the wake of Kessaci’s killing, outlining a tough-on-crime agenda to stop the violence and flow of drugs.  Locals stress that law-and-order investments must be matched with funding for public services. Unless authorities improve the sluggish economy that has encouraged jobless youths to turn to the drug trade, the problem will continue.  “Repression alone is not efficient,” said Kaouther Ben Mohamed, a former social worker turned activist. “If that was the case, the drug trade wouldn’t have flourished like it did.” Housing is another issue, with many impoverished residents living in dangerous, dilapidated buildings. “We live in a shit city,” said Mahboubi Tir, a tall, broad-shouldered young man with a rugby player’s physique. “We’re not safe here.”   Tir spent a month in a coma and several more in a hospital last April after he was assaulted during a parking dispute. His face was still swollen and distorted when he spoke to POLITICO in December about how the incident reshaped his relationship with the city he grew up in.  “I almost died, and I was angry at the city,” said Tir, who suffers from memory loss and has only a vague recollection of what led to the assault, as he sipped coffee in the backroom office of a tiny, left-leaning grassroots political party where he volunteers, Citizen Ambition.  SECURITY PROBLEM To what extent Marseille’s activist groups can bring about change in a city whose struggles have lasted for decades remains to be seen, but the four leading candidates for mayor share a similar diagnosis. They all believe the lurid crime stories making national headlines are a byproduct of a lack of jobs and neglected public services — and that the French state’s responses miss the mark. Rather than relying on harsher punishments as a deterrent, they argue the state should prioritize local policing and public investment. When Payan announced his candidacy for reelection, he pledged free meals for 15,000 students to get them back in school and to double the number of local cops as part of a push for more community policing. Allisio’s platform puts the emphasis on security-related spending: increased video surveillance, more vehicles for local police and the creation of “specialized units to combat burglary and public disorder.” Vassal — the center-right backed by the conservative Les Républicains and parties aligned with Macron — has similarly put forward a proposal to arm fare enforcers in public transport. Both Allisio and Vassal are calling for unspecified spending cuts while preserving basic services provided at the local level like schools, public transportation and parks and recreation. Vassal, who is polling third, said she would make public transportation free for residents younger 26 to travel across the spread-out city. She accuses the current administration of having delivered an insufficient number of building permits, slowing the development of new housing and office buildings and thus the revitalization of Marseille’s most embattled areas — a trend she pledged to reverse. Both Vassal and Allisio are advocating for less local taxes on property to boost small businesses and create new jobs. Allisio has also put forward a proposal to make parking for less 30 minutes free to facilitate deliveries and quick stops to buy products. The outlier — at least when it comes to public safety — is Sébastien Delogu, a disciple of three-time hard-left presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Though Delogu is polling fourth at 14 percent, he can’t be counted out, given that Mélenchon won Marseille in the first round of the last two presidential elections. Though Delogu acknowledges that crime is a problem, he doesn’t want to spend more money on policing. He instead proposes putting money that other candidates want to spend on security toward poverty reduction, housing supply and the local public health sector. Whoever wins, however, will have to grapple with an uncomfortable truth. Aside from local police responsible for public tranquility and health, policing and criminal justice matters are largely managed at the national level. The solution to Marseille’s problems will depend, to no small extent, on the outcome of what happens next year in Paris.

Want to get a sense of how the next French presidential vote will play out? Then pay attention to the upcoming local elections. They start in 50 days, and voters in more than 35,000 communes will head to the polls to elect city councils and mayors. Those races will give an important insight into French politics running into the all-important 2027 presidential contest that threatens to reshape both France and the European Union.  The elections, which will take place over two rounds on March 15 and March 22, will confirm whether the far-right National Rally can cement its status as the country’s predominant political force. They will also offer signs of whether the left is able to overcome its internal divisions to be a serious challenger. The center has to prove it’s not in a death spiral. POLITICO traveled to four cities for an on-the-ground look at key races that will be fought on policy issues that resonate nationally such as public safety, housing, climate change and social services. These are topics that could very well determine the fortunes of the leading parties next year. FRANCE IN MINIATURE Benoit Payan, Franck Allisio, Martine Vassal and Sébastien Delogu | Source photos via EPA and Getty Images MARSEILLE — France’s second city is a microcosm of the nationwide electoral picture. Marseille’s sprawl is comprised of poorer, multicultural areas, middle-to-upper-class residential zones and bustling, student-filled districts. All make up the city’s unique fabric. Though Marseille has long struggled with crime, a surge in violence tied to drug trafficking in the city and nationwide has seen security rocket up voters’ priority list. In Marseille, as elsewhere, the far right has tied the uptick in violence and crime to immigration. The strategy appears to be working. Recent polling shows National Rally candidate Franck Allisio neck-and-neck with incumbent Benoît Payan, who enjoys the support of most center-left and left-wing parties. Trailing them are the center-right hopeful Martine Vassal — who is backed by French President Emmanuel Macron’s party Renaissance — and the hard-left France Unbowed candidate Sébastien Delogu, a close ally of three-time presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Those four candidates are all polling well enough to make the second round. That could set up an unprecedented and unpredictable four-way runoff to lead the Mediterranean port city of more than 850,000 people. A National Rally win here would rank among the biggest victories in the history of the French far right. Party leader Marine Le Pen traveled to Marseille herself on Jan. 17 to stump for Allisio, describing the city as a “a symbol of France’s divisions” and slamming Payan for “denying that there is a connection between immigration and insecurity.” Party leader Marine Le Pen traveled to Marseille herself on Jan. 17 to stump for Allisio. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images The center-right candidate Vassal told POLITICO said she would increase security by recruiting more local police and installing video surveillance. But she also regretted that Marseille was so often represented by its struggles. “We’re always making headlines on problems like drug trafficking … It puts all the city’s assets and qualities to the side and erases everything else which goes on,” Vassal said. Payan, whose administration took over in 2020 after decades of conservative rule, has tried to tread a line that is uncompromising on policing while also acknowledging the roots of the city’s problems require holistic solutions. He’s offered to double the number of local cops as part of a push for more community policing and pledged free meals for 15,000 students to get them back in school. Marseille’s sprawl is comprised of poorer, multicultural areas, middle-to-upper-class residential zones and bustling, student-filled districts. All make up the city’s unique fabric. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images Delogu is the only major candidate not offering typical law-and-order investments. Though he acknowledges the city’s crime problems, he proposes any new spending should be on poverty reduction, housing supply and the local public health sector rather than of more security forces and equipment. Crime is sure to dominate the debate in Marseille. This election will test which of these competing approaches resonates most in a country where security is increasingly a top concern. LATEST POLLING: Payan 30 percent – Allisio 30 percent- Vassal 23 percent – Delogu 14 percent CAN A UNITED LEFT BLOCK A FAR-RIGHT TAKEOVER? Julien Sanchez, Franck Proust and Julien Plantier | Source photos via Getty Images NÎMES — Nîmes’ stunningly well-preserved second-century Roman amphitheater attracts global superstars for blockbuster concerts. But even the glamour of Taylor Swift or Dua Lipa can’t hide the recent scares in this city of more than 150,000 people. Nîmes has in recent years suffered from violence tied to drug trafficking long associated with Marseille, located just a short train ride away. Pissevin, a high-rise neighborhood just a 15-minute streetcar ride from the landmark amphitheater, seized national headlines in 2024 when 10-year-old was killed by a stray bullet in a case that remains under investigation but which prosecutors believe was linked to drug trafficking. “Ten to 15 years ago, a lot of crime came from petty theft and burglaries. But some of the population in underprivileged areas, looking for economic opportunities, turned to the drug trade, which offered a lot more money and the same amount of prison time if they were caught,” said Salim El Jihad, a Nîmes resident who leads the local nongovernmental organization Suburban. The Nimes amphitheatre and Pissevin / Source photos via Getty Images The National Rally is betting on Nîmes as a symbolic pickup. The race is shaping up to be a close three-way contest between Communist Vincent Bouget, the National Rally’s Julien Sanchez and conservative Franck Proust, Nîmes’ deputy mayor from 2016 to 2020. Bouget — who is backed by most other left-wing parties, including moderate forces like the Socialist Party — told POLITICO that while security is shaping up to be a big theme in the contest, it raises “a broader question around social structures.” “What citizens are asking for is more human presence, including public services and social workers,” Bouget said. Whoever wins will take the reins from Jean-Paul Fournier, the 80-year-old conservative mayor who has kept Nîmes on the right without pause for the past quarter century. But Fournier’s decision not to seek another term and infighting within his own party, Les Républicains, have sharply diminished Proust’s chances of victory. Proust may very well end splitting votes with Julien Plantier, another right-leaning former deputy mayor, who has the support of Macron’s Renaissance. Sanchez, meanwhile, is appealing to former Fournier voters with pledges to bolster local police units and with red scare tactics. “Jean-Paul Fournier managed to keep this city on the right for 25 years,” Sanchez said in his candidacy announcement clip. “Because of the stupidity of his heirs, there’s a strong chance the communists and the far left could win.” LATEST POLLING: Bouget 28 percent – Sanchez 27 percent- Proust 22 percent THE LAST GREEN HOPE That was also a clear swipe at Pierre Hurmic’s main opponent — pro-Macron centrist Thomas Cazenave — who spent a year as budget minister from 2023 to 2024. | Source photos via Getty Images BORDEAUX — Everyone loves a Bordeaux red. So can a Green really last in French wine country? Pierre Hurmic rode the green wave to Bordeaux city hall during France’s last nationwide municipal elections in 2020. That year the Greens, which had seldom held power other than as a junior coalition partner, won the race for mayor in three of France’s 10 most populous cities — Strasbourg, Lyon and Bordeaux — along with smaller but noteworthy municipalities including Poitiers and Besançon. Six years later, the most recent polling suggests the Greens are on track to lose all of them. Except Bordeaux. Green mayors have faced intense scrutiny over efforts to make cities less car-centric and more eco-friendly, largely from right-wing opponents who depict those policies as out of touch with working-class citizens who are priced out of expensive city centers and must rely on cars to get to their jobs. The view from Paris is that Hurmic has escaped some of that backlash by being less ideological and, crucially, adopting a tougher stance on crime than some of his peers. Notably, Hurmic decided to arm part of the city’s local police units — departing from some of his party’s base, which argues that firearms should be reserved for national forces rather than less-experienced municipal units. In an interview with POLITICO, Hurmic refused to compare himself to other Green mayors. He defended his decision to double the number of local police, alongside those he armed, saying it had led to a tangible drop in crime. “Everyone does politics based on their own temperament and local circumstances,” he said. Hurmic insists that being tough on crime doesn’t mean going soft on climate change. He argues the Greens’ weak polling wasn’t a backlash against local ecological policies, pointing to recent polling showing 63 percent of voters would be “reluctant to vote for a candidate who questions the ecological transition measures already underway in their municipality.” Pursuing a city’s transition on issues like mobility and energy is all the more necessary because at the national level, “the state is completely lacking,” Hurmic said, pointing to what he described as insufficient investment in recent budgets. That was also a clear swipe at his main opponent — pro-Macron centrist Thomas Cazenave — who spent a year as budget minister from 2023 to 2024. Cazenave has joined forces with other center-right and conservative figures in a bid to reclaim a city that spent 73 years under right-leaning mayors, two of whom served as prime minister — Alain Juppé and Jacques Chaban-Delmas. But according Ludovic Renard, a political scientist at the Bordeaux Institute of Political Science, Hurmic’s ascent speaks to how the city has changed. “The sociology of the city is no longer the same, and Hurmic’s politics are more in tune with its population,” said Renard. LATEST POLLING: Hurmic 32 percent – Cazenave 26 percent – Nordine Raymond (France Unbowed) 15 percent – Julie Rechagneux (National Rally) 13 percent – Philippe Dessertine (independent) 12 percent GENTRIFICATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE LEFT Mayor Karim Bouamrane, a Socialist, has said the arrival of new, wealthier residents and the ensuing gentrification could be a net positive for the city, as long as “excellence is shared.” | Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images SAINT-OUEN-SUR-SEINE — The future of the French left could be decided on the grounds of the former Olympic village. The Parisian suburb of Saint-Ouen-sur-Seine, which borders the French capital, is a case study in the waves of gentrification that have transformed the outskirts of major European cities. Think New York’s Williamsburg, London’s Hackney or Berlin’s Neukölln. Saint-Ouen, as it’s usually called, has long been known for its massive flea market, which draws millions of visitors each year. But the city, particularly its areas closest to Paris, was long seen as unsafe and struggled with entrenched poverty. The future of the French left could be decided on the grounds of the former Olympic village. | Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu via Getty Images That changed over time, as more affluent Parisians began moving into the well-connected suburb in search of cheaper rents or property. A 2023 report from the local court of auditors underlined that “the population of this rapidly growing municipality … has both a high poverty rate (28 percent) and a phenomenon of ‘gentrification’ linked to the rapid increase in the proportion of executives and higher intellectual professions.” Mayor Karim Bouamrane, a Socialist, has said the arrival of new, wealthier residents and the ensuing gentrification could be a net positive for the city, as long as “excellence is shared.” Bouamrane has also said he would continue pushing for the inclusion of social housing when issuing building permits, and for existing residents not to be displaced when urban renewal programs are put in place. His main challenger, France Unbowed’s Manon Monmirel, hopes to build enough social housing to make it 40 percent of the city’s total housing stock. She’s also pledged to crack down on real estate speculation. The race between the two could shed light on whether the future of the French left lies in the center or at the extremes. In Boumrane, the Socialists have a charismatic leader. He is 52 years old, with a beat-the-odds story that lends itself well to a national campaign. His journey from child of Moroccan immigrants growing up in a rough part of Saint-Ouen to city leader certainly caught attention of the foreign press in the run-up to the Olympics. Bouamrane’s moderate politics include a push for his party to stop fighting Macron’s decision to raise the retirement age in 2023 and he supports more cross-partisan work with the current center-right government. That approach stands in sharp contrast to the ideologically rigid France Unbowed. The party’s firebrand leader Mélenchon scored 51.82 percent of the vote in Saint-Ouen during his last presidential run in 2022, and France Unbowed landed over 35 percent — more than three times its national average — there in the European election two years later, a race in which it usually struggles. Mélenchon and France Unbowed’s campaign tactics are laser-focused on specific segments that support him en masse despite his divisive nature: a mix of educated, green-minded young voters and working-class urban populations, often of immigrant descent. In other words: the yuppies moving to Saint-Ouen and the people who were their before gentrification. France Unbowed needs their continued support to become a durable force, or it may crumble like the grassroots movements born in the early 2010s, including Spain’s Podemos or Greece’s Syriza. But if the Socialists can’t win a left-leaning suburb with a popular incumbent on the ballot, where can they win?

President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation campaign is starting to make some Republicans uneasy. As midterms approach, GOP lawmakers, candidates, strategists and people close to the White House are warning that the administration’s mass deportations policy — and the wall-to-wall coverage of enforcement operations, arrests of U.S. citizens and clashes between protesters and federal officials — could cost them their razor-thin House majority. The administration’s forceful approach across the U.S. risks repelling the swing voters who fueled Trump’s return to the White House but are increasingly wary of how the president is implementing a central campaign promise. Further complicating the issue is that Republicans are split on the best way to address the eroding support, with some in the party viewing it as a messaging problem, while others argue that the administration’s policy itself is driving voters’ concerns. “If we don’t change our approach, it will have a negative effect on the midterms, for sure,” said Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), who recently decided not to seek reelection. A new POLITICO poll underscores those worries: Nearly half of all Americans — 49 percent — say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, including 1 in 5 voters who backed the president in 2024. In a sign of growing discomfort among the president’s base, 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 president ran on removing the millions of immigrants living in the country illegally, while connecting former President Joe Biden’s border crisis to the violent crime plaguing U.S. cities. The White House has pressured immigration officials to fulfill the president’s goal, an effort that requires targeting immigrants well beyond violent criminals. But Americans broadly do not support such a sweeping approach. In the poll, 38 percent of Americans said the federal government should prioritize deporting immigrants who have committed serious crimes, while 21 percent said the administration should only deport serious criminals. The poll was conducted from Jan. 16 to 19, after an ICE agent killed Renee Good in Minneapolis. There was another federal officer-involved shooting on Saturday in Minneapolis, though details remain scarce. “ICE should focus on the bad hombres. The bad hombres, that’s it, not the cleaning ladies,” said Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.). “One thing is the gardeners, another thing is the gangsters. One thing is the cooks, the other thing is the coyotes.” The White House, so far, has maintained its heavy enforcement presence in Minneapolis, betting that the issue is messaging, not its policies. The president said this week that his administration needs to do more to highlight the criminals they’ve arrested during the Minnesota crackdown. A person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said 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. Otherwise, the person worried, the GOP is losing support with moderate Republicans, independents, Latinos and young voters. “Do I think we have to be a little bit smarter about it? I don’t think there’s any question about it,” the person said of the party’s messaging. “The reason why crime is down across the country, especially in these Democratic states and these blue cities, is because of one thing — the only thing that changed is President Trump’s policies.” Most Trump voters do support his mass deportations campaign, with 55 percent saying the actions, including his widespread deployment of ICE agents across the U.S. are “about right,” the POLITICO Poll with Public First finds. But there is a notable split between Trump’s strongest 2024 voters and those who are more malleable: Among the 2024 Trump voters who do not identify as MAGA, a more moderate group of Trump supporters, 29 percent say his campaign is too aggressive. Seventeen percent of these voters say it is not aggressive enough. And a 43 percent plurality of non-MAGA Trump voters say they support the goals of Trump’s deportation agenda but not how he is implementing it, compared to 28 percent of MAGA Trump voters — his strongest supporters — who say the same. The poll results suggest Americans are uneasy with the Trump administration’s approach, and that even many Trump voters who support increased immigration enforcement oppose the president’s sprawling deportation campaign. “They are going to be worried about, OK, is ICE using excessive force? Are they going after, you know, moms and dads that have a clean record?” said Brendan Steinhauser, a GOP strategist in Texas. “I don’t think that plays well with independents and moderates. I don’t think it plays well with center-right Republicans. It does seem to play well with a smaller subset of the Republican Party. But I don’t think that’s where, nationally, the people who swing elections are on this.” Some battleground Republicans, worried immigration enforcement could become a political albatross in an already tough election year, are trying to walk a tightrope of showing support for ICE in general while also calling for restraint in their actions. “ICE exists to carry out laws passed by Congress, and in that sense, its role is absolutely necessary, but at the same time, enforcement must be professional and targeted and humane,” said Republican candidate Trinh Ha, a Vietnamese immigrant running in Washington’s eighth district, a seat currently held by Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier. “What’s happening right now underscores why enforcement must always be paired with restraint and accountability.” A White House spokesperson said the president’s mass deportations agenda was a central campaign promise and argued that the administration’s enforcement — and its message — has and will continue to focus on the “worst of the worst,” including people with convictions for assault, rape and murder. The official said the administration won’t allow criminals to remain free in cities where “Democrats don’t cooperate with us,” adding that there “wouldn’t be a need for as much of an ICE presence if we had cooperation.” The president has expressed concerns about how ICE is being perceived. He posted Tuesday on Truth Social that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE needed to do more to highlight the “murderers and other criminals” they’re detaining, arguing that it would help boost Americans’ support of ICE. He then took to the podium during a White House press briefing and spent the first 10 minutes sifting through photos of immigrants who had committed crimes. “Because Minnesota is so much in the fray, and I say to my people all the time — and they’re so busy doing other things — ‘they don’t say it like they should,’” Trump said. “They are apprehending murderers and drug dealers, a lot of bad people. … I say why don’t you talk about that? Because people don’t know.” Vice President JD Vance traveled to Minneapolis on Thursday, where he said he wanted to “lower the temperature.” Flanked by immigration agents, Vance empathized with community members’ concerns, while blaming state and local officials’ lack of cooperation and far-left agitators for fueling chaos in the city. “We want to be able to enforce the immigration laws on the one hand, while on the other hand, we want to make sure the people in Minneapolis are able to go about their day,” he said. It remains to be seen whether the administration’s message will be enough to tame the concerns coursing through the party. While many Republicans remain confident that they are still most trusted on immigration and border security — and that Democrats will ultimately be seen as too extreme in their response — others warn that Trump’s base won’t be the voters who swing races in 2026. Immigration still ranks far below economic concerns for voters, according to The POLITICO Poll. When asked to select the top three issues facing the country, just 21 percent cited illegal immigration, compared with half who said the cost of living. But as the White House continues to make immigration a policy priority, crucial swaths of swing voters and soft Trump supporters are expressing discomfort with some of the administration’s tactics. “I’d reframe the ‘raids’ narrative,” said Buzz Jacobs, a Republican strategist and White House immigration policy director for former President George W. Bush. “The reality is that most enforcement activity is routine and never becomes a headline.”

Just hours after federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old man in Minneapolis, Trump administration officials called the deceased a “would-be assassin” and blamed Democrats for siding with “terrorists.” Democrats, meanwhile, renewed calls for Minnesota officials to investigate the shooting and characterized the president’s immigration actions as “a campaign of organized brutality.” With few official details released on the latest shooting in Minneapolis, the White House and Democrats retreated to heated rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of Saturday’s incident, with President Donald Trump accusing state officials of “inciting Insurrection” and Democrats accusing federal agents of “murder.” “A would-be assassin tried to murder federal law enforcement and the official Democrat account sides with the terrorists,” deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller wrote on X Saturday, referring to a tweet from the Democratic National Committee about the shooting that stated “Get ICE out of Minnesota NOW.” Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota focused her anger on ICE, posting on social media: “This appears to be an execution by immigration enforcement. I am absolutely heartbroken, horrified, and appalled that federal agents murdered another member of our community.” In Saturday morning’s shooting, a 37-year-old man was shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis who claimed he approached federal officers with a 9 mm gun but didn’t specify if he was holding or brandishing the weapon. Various videos of the incident appear to show the man holding a phone. Minneapolis has emerged as the epicenter of the debate over the Trump administration’s immigration actions and deployment of federal agents. It came to a head after a federal agent shot and killed a 37-year-old woman, Renee Good, earlier this month in an incident that has sparked weeks of demonstrations in the city and fights between the White House and state officials over who would investigate the shootings. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, described the man who was shot Saturday as a “gunman” and suggested a cover-up by Minnesota Democrats. The Justice Department has subpoenaed several Democratic Minneapolis state officials, including Gov. Tim Walz, who called the DOJ’s subpoena a “partisan distraction.” “AMONG OTHER THINGS, THIS IS A ‘COVER UP’ FOR THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN STOLEN FROM THE ONCE GREAT STATE (BUT SOON TO BE GREAT AGAIN!) OF MINNESOTA!” Trump wrote in a separate post. Trump also assailed Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, and Walz in the first Saturday post, accusing them of “inciting Insurrection, with their pompous, dangerous, and arrogant rhetoric.” U.S. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino told reporters at a Saturday press conference that the incident “looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” though he didn’t provide any evidence for his claim. “If you obstruct a law enforcement officer or assault a law enforcement officer, you are in violation of the law and will be arrested,” he added. “Our law enforcement officers take an oath to protect the public.” Video of the shooting, posted on social media and verified by The New York Times, shows the 37-year-old man appearing to film agents in Minneapolis on Saturday before they push him and several others back. The videos don’t appear to show the man drawing his weapon, but not all angles are accounted for. During a struggle with the man on the ground, an agent fires several shots, then the group of federal agents back away. The man, identified by the Minneapolis Star Tribune as Alex Pretti, had a legal permit to carry a firearm, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, who spoke during a press conference Saturday. Bovino told reporters that “an individual approached U.S. Border Patrol agents with a nine millimeter semi-automatic handgun. The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a border patrol agent fired defensive shots.” But when asked by a reporter when the individual drew his firearm, Bovino said the shooting is still under investigation. The latest POLITICO Poll illustrates just how sharply views of ICE — and its presence in cities across the country — diverge along partisan lines. A majority of voters who backed Trump in 2024 — 57 percent — say risks to the lives of anti-ICE protestors are a price worth paying to carry out immigration enforcement, compared with just 15 percent of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris. By contrast, nearly three-quarters of Harris voters — 71 percent — say it is not worth risking the lives of anti-ICE protesters to conduct immigration enforcement, a view shared by just 31 percent of Trump voters, the poll, conducted from Jan. 16 to 19, found. The divide extends to perceptions of public safety: 64 percent of Trump voters say ICE agents make U.S. cities safer, while 80 percent of Harris voters say the opposite, that their presence is making them more dangerous. Democrats also used heated language to describe the shooting. During a Democratic Senate primary debate in Texas on Saturday, state Rep. James Talarico raised the Minneapolis shooting, saying: “ICE shot a mother in the face. ICE kidnapped a 5-year-old boy. ICE executed a man in broad daylight on our streets just this morning. It’s time to tear down this secret police force and replace it with an agency that actually is going to focus on public safety.” His opponent, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, also weighed in: “This is the fifth-highest funded military force in the entire world. And what are they doing? They’re killing people in the middle of the street.” Walz on Saturday urged the federal government to allow Minnesota officials to take control of the probe into the shooting. He told reporters that he said to the White House in an early morning call that “the federal government cannot be trusted to lead this investigation. The state will handle it, period.” “As I said last week, this federal occupation of Minnesota long ago stopped being a matter of immigration enforcement,” Walz said at a press conference Saturday. “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.” When asked for comment, the White House referred POLITICO to Trump’s Truth Social post and to a post on X from the Department of Homeland Security, which claimed, “The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted.” They did not respond to requests to questions as to what evidence showed the man who was shot was a “terrorist.” Vice President JD Vance also placed the blame of Saturday’s shooting at Minnesota leaders’ feet, saying their unwillingness to work with immigration enforcement agents was the primary reason for the shooting. “When I visited Minnesota, what the ICE agents wanted more than anything was to work with local law enforcement so that situations on the ground didn’t get out of hand,” he wrote on X. “The local leadership in Minnesota has so far refused to answer those requests.” Liz Crampton contributed to this report.

STEVENAGE, England — Nigel Farage has a Donald Trump problem. Even voters keen on his poll-topping party are unsure about the company he keeps. Among a key constituency of women considering switching from the ruling Labour Party to Reform UK, concern about Farage’s relationship with Donald Trump is rife, according to a new focus group and polling shared with POLITICO. In the midst of Trump’s tariff saber-rattling this week, POLITICO listened to the group of women living in the commuter-belt town of Stevenage — 30 miles north of London. To protect those taking part in the study, all names used below are pseudonymous. “Stevenage woman” became pollsters’ shorthand for mothers based in towns and suburbs at the last election, who were seen as crucial to Labour’s 2024 general election victory. Farage might “just be a stooge” for Trump, Lauren, a mental health support worker, said. “He might just be [Trump’s] whipping boy. That kind of concerns me,” the 54-year-old added. Jane, a 51-year-old stay-at-home mum of three, said: “There’s no one who will actually stand up to him. Trump would say, ‘do this, do that,’ and Nigel would be like ‘yep, yep.'” When asked to pinpoint the greatest threat to the U.K., Rachel, a 47-year-old property manager, said: “I think Trump, full stop.” These women are not alone in their view. Wider polling by More in Common, the think tank which organized the focus group held on Monday night, found 25 percent of women see Farage’s support for Trump as the top reason not to vote Reform. That compared to 21 percent of the men surveyed between Jan. 10 and 13. More in Common’s sample size was 2,036 people. FRIENDS CAN DISAGREE Farage has often spoken of his admiration for Trump. The Reform leader famously shared a snap of himself with the U.S. president-elect in Trump Tower after his shock first-term election victory in 2016. Nigel Farage arriving at Trump Tower, New York City, Dec. 15, 2016. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images That association has continued. The pair met in the Oval Office last September when Farage was in Washington. But the Reform leader’s support for Trump has its limits. Farage this week described U.S. tariff threats over the U.K.’s opposition to the annexation of Greenland as “wrong,” as European leaders lined-up to condemn Trump’s economic aggression towards his NATO allies. “Friends will disagree,” Farage said in an interview with Bloomberg in Davos on Thursday morning, insisting a close relationship with the U.S. did not mean being “beholden.” Despite their Trump misgivings, the Stevenage women are still minded to vote for Farage’s Reform UK. “I quite liked him on ‘I’m a Celebrity’ and it’s grown from there,” Alice, a 55-year-old building society manager, said, referencing Farage’s 2023 appearance on the reality jungle game show. “God knows what would happen if he got into power. But could he be any worse [than the current government]?,” she said, to an emphatic “no” from others in the room. Reform is “gaining a lot of support through default, aren’t they?,” Lauren, the mental health worker quoted above, said, citing a wider loss of trust in the mainstream parties.  “I just feel like anything is better than now and it depresses me,” Megan, a 48-year-old regional manager for a brewer, said. “If I could see a little shimmer of light for our future for our children, I think I would want to go down that way,” she said of Reform. WHY NOT STARMER? Despite attempts to exploit Farage’s perceived vulnerability on foreign policy this month, there are few signs Starmer is reaping any electoral reward. Asked how the British PM is doing, 63-year-old retiree Sandra said “rubbish.”  “Nothing’s really changed,” she said. “We thought the new government were coming in with all these promises and that, and actually nothing. … We’re still in a state, aren’t we?” The Stevenage women POLITICO spoke to made it clear they were no longer fans of Starmer’s Labour, but More in Common Executive Director Luke Tryl says the Trump factor still remains a risk for Farage. “This group of women had no time for Trump and his tactics and wondered what the president’s erraticism would mean for their safety and security and the future of their children,” the think tank boss said. “With Brits already saying that Nigel Farage’s relationship with Trump is the biggest barrier to voting Reform, particularly women, and over half of the country describing Farage as Britain’s Trump, there is a very real risk that the Reform leader’s association with the U.S. president means that a Farage premiership is seen as a risk too far,” he added.

TikTok has closed a $14 billion deal establishing a U.S. subsidiary of the platform to avoid a ban, the company said Thursday. The new owners will include the U.S. private equity firm Silver Lake, Abu Dhabi-based artificial intelligence company MGX and Oracle, a tech giant co-founded by Larry Ellison, an ally of President Donald Trump. They will each hold a 15 percent stake in the U.S. joint venture. The deal allows TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company, ByteDance, to maintain a nearly 20 percent stake. The Dell Family Office, investment firm of Chair and CEO of Dell Technologies Michael Dell, is also an investor. Congress passed a law in April 2024 requiring the sale of TikTok to a U.S. buyer before Jan. 19, 2025, or banning it, citing national security concerns about the app’s ties to China. But Trump delayed the ban from taking effect five times last year while a deal was negotiated to divest the app to American owners. Trump signed an executive order in September approving the deal and giving the parties until Friday to formalize the terms. The deal matches an internal memo distributed by TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew last month, who said the agreement would be finalized by Thursday. The U.S. version will operate as an independent entity, governed by a seven-member board including TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, Oracle Executive Vice President Kenneth Glueck, Timothy Dattels, senior adviser of TPG Global; Mark Dooley, managing director at Susquehanna International Group; Silver Lake Co-CEO Egon Durban, DXC Technology CEO Raul Fernandez; and David Scott, chief strategy and safety officer at MGX. Adam Presser, head of operations and trust and safety at TikTok, will now serve as CEO of the joint venture. Trump praised the deal in a Truth Social post Thursday evening. “I am so happy to have helped in saving TikTok! It will now be owned by a group of Great American Patriots and Investors, the Biggest in the World, and will be an important Voice,” Trump wrote. Trump said in September that Chinese President Xi Jinping had agreed to the deal, but Chinese officials provided an ambiguous narrative, signaling that any deal would be a drawn out process. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the country “respects the wishes of enterprises” and welcomes them to reach “solutions that comply with Chinese laws and regulations and balance interests.” The president thanked Xi in his Truth Social post “for working with us and, ultimately, approving the Deal.” “He could have gone the other way, but didn’t, and is appreciated for his decision,” Trump wrote. Trump previously described the deal as a “qualified divestiture,” meaning the sale would fully sever ByteDance’s control over the platform and therefore make TikTok legal under the U.S. law. China hawks on Capitol Hill have championed this issue over national security concerns and fears that the Chinese-controlled app subjects users to government surveillance and content manipulation. While they’ve vowed to scrutinize the potential deal to ensure it adheres to the law, they seemed prepared to accept Trump’s claim the deal would resolve concerns over national security and control. Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the U.S. owners would have control over the app’s algorithm, which is at the heart of the platform’s success. “The U.S. company will have control over how the algorithm pushes content to users and that was a very important part of it,” Vance said during the September executive order signing in the Oval Office. “We thought it was necessary for the national security level element of the law.” According to the company release, the U.S. version will retrain and update the platform’s algorithm based on U.S. user data. Oracle will control the algorithm within its U.S. cloud environment. “President Trump got played by Xi Jinping. He got terrible advice from his staff on these negotiations. This isn’t the Art of the Deal, it’s the art of the steal. Xi Jinping can’t believe his luck,” Michael Sobolik, senior fellow at the right-leaning Hudson Institute and an expert on U.S.-China policy, told POLITICO.