ATHENS — Greece’s authorities on Wednesday launched an internal investigation into a deadly collision between a coast guard patrol vessel and a speedboat carrying migrants off the island of Chios. According to a statement by the coast guard, the collision occurred after the speedboat, which had its navigation lights off, ignored signals from the patrol vessel and changed course. The boat capsized due to the force of the impact, sending its passengers into the sea. At least 15 migrants were killed while 24 were rescued. A search and rescue operation is ongoing, and it is still unclear how many were on board. Two coast guard officers were also slightly injured. A prosecutor ordered the arrest of a Moroccan national who was piloting the speedboat. The coast guard said a camera installed on its vessel was not active at the time of the crash. An official from Frontex, the EU’s coastguard agency, said the agency wasn’t involved in the operation. Frontex has offered a plane to support the search and rescue but has not yet been asked by Greek authorities to deploy it. Greece has repeatedly been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights, Frontex and the EU Commission for pushbacks of migrant vessels and for improper investigations by its coast guard. In the notorious case of the Pylos shipwreck, among the deadliest in modern Mediterranean history, an independent investigation by the Greek Ombudsman recommended that disciplinary charges be filed against coast guard officers for alleged dereliction of duty. Migration Minister Thanos Plevris relayed the coast guard’s version of events and told the parliament that the tragedy underscores the fight Greece must wage against “killer smugglers.” Dimitris Mantzos, spokesperson of the Pasok main opposition party, said: “The truth must be revealed institutionally, without ideological bias or anti-immigration rhetoric.”

5 TIMES THE WINTER OLYMPICS GOT SUPER POLITICAL Invasions, nuclear crises and Nazi propaganda: The Games have seen it all. By SEBASTIAN STARCEVIC Illustration by Natália Delgado /POLITICO The Winter Olympics return to Europe this week, with Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo set to host the world’s greatest athletes against the snowy backdrop of the Italian Alps. But beyond the ice rinks and ski runs, the Games have long doubled as a stage for global alliances, heated political rivalries and diplomatic crises.  “An event like the Olympics is inherently political because it is effectively a competition between nations,” said Madrid’s IE Assistant Professor Andrew Bertoli, who studies the intersection of sport and politics. “So the Games can effectively become an arena where nations compete for prestige, respect and soft power.” If history is any guide, this time won’t be any different. From invasions to the Nazis to nuclear crises, here are five times politics and the Winter Olympics collided. 1980: AMERICA’S “MIRACLE ON ICE” One of the most iconic moments in Olympic history came about amid a resurgence in Cold War tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The USSR had invaded Afghanistan only months earlier, and Washington’s rhetoric toward Moscow had hardened, with Ronald Reagan storming to the presidency a month prior on an aggressive anti-Soviet platform. At the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York, that superpower rivalry was on full display on the ice. The U.S. men’s ice hockey team — made up largely of college players and amateurs — faced off against the Soviet squad, a battle-hardened, gold medal-winning machine. The Americans weren’t supposed to stand a chance. Then the impossible happened. In a stunning upset, the U.S. team skated to a 4-3 victory, a win that helped them clinch the gold medal. As the final seconds ticked away, ABC broadcaster Al Michaels famously cried, “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!” The impact echoed far beyond the rink. For many Americans, the victory was a morale boost in a period marked by geopolitical anxiety and division. Reagan later said it was proof “nice guys in a tough world can finish first.” The miracle’s legacy has endured well into the 21st century, with U.S. President Donald Trump awarding members of the hockey team the Congressional Gold Medal in December last year. 2014: RUSSIA INVADES CRIMEA AFTER SOCHI Four days. That’s how long Moscow waited after hosting the Winter Olympics in the Russian resort city of Sochi before sending troops into Crimea, occupying and annexing the Ukrainian peninsula. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had fled to Moscow days earlier, ousted by protesters demanding democracy and closer integration with the EU. As demonstrators filled Kyiv’s Independence Square, their clashes with government forces played on television screens around the world alongside highlights from the Games, in which Russia dominated the medal tally. Vladimir Putin poses with Russian athletes while visiting the Coastal Cluster Olympic Village ahead of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. | Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images No sooner was the Olympic flame extinguished in Sochi on Feb. 23 than on Feb. 27 trucks and tanks rolled into Crimea. Soldiers in unmarked uniforms set up roadblocks, stormed Crimean government buildings and raised the Russian flag high above them. Later that year, Moscow would face allegations of a state-sponsored doping program and many of its athletes were ultimately stripped of their gold medals. 2022: RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE … AGAIN There’s a theme here. Russian President Vladimir Putin made an appearance at the opening ceremony of Beijing’s Winter Games in 2022, meeting on the sidelines with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and declaring a “no limits” partnership. Four days after the end of the Games, on Feb. 24, Putin announced a “special military operation,” declaring war on Ukraine. Within minutes, Russian troops flooded into Ukraine, and missiles rained down on Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities across the country. According to U.S. intelligence, The New York Times reported, Chinese officials asked the Kremlin to delay launching its attack until after the Games had wrapped up. Beijing denied it had advance knowledge of the invasion. 2018: KOREAN UNITY ON DISPLAY As South Korea prepared to host the Winter Games in its mountainous Pyeongchang region, just a few hundred kilometers over the border, the North Koreans were conducting nuclear missile tests, sparking global alarm and leading U.S. President Donald Trump to threaten to strike the country. The IOC said it was “closely monitoring” the situation amid concerns about whether the Games could be held safely on the peninsula. South Korean Vice Unification Minister Chun Hae-Sung, shakes hands with the head of North Korean delegation Jon Jong-Su after their meeting on January 17, 2018 in Panmunjom, South Korea. | South Korean Unification Ministry via Getty Images But then in his New Year’s address, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un signaled openness to participating in the Winter Olympics. In the end, North Korean athletes not only participated in the Games, but at the opening ceremony they marched with their South Korean counterparts under a single flag, that of a unified Korea. Pyongyang and Seoul also joined forces in women’s ice hockey, sending a single team to compete — another rare show of unity that helped restart diplomatic talks between the capitals, though tensions ultimately resumed after the Games and continue to this day. 1936: HITLER INVADES THE RHINELAND Much has been said about the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, in which the Nazi regime barred Jewish athletes from participating and used the Games to spread propaganda. But a few months earlier Germany also hosted the Winter Olympics in the town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, allowing the Nazis to project an image of a peaceful, prosperous Germany and restore its global standing nearly two decades after World War I. A famous photograph from the event even shows Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels signing autographs for the Canadian figure skating team. Weeks after the Games ended, Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, a major violation of the Treaty of Versailles that was met with little pushback from France and Britain, and which some historians argue emboldened the Nazis to eventually invade Poland, triggering World War II.

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.

BEIJING — Dialogue between the U.K. and China is essential for “world peace,” Chinese President Xi Jinping told Keir Starmer Thursday, heaping praise on Britain’s center-left prime minister as the two men marked a thawing of their relationship. The U.K. prime minister said he wanted “more sophisticated” ties with the world’s second-largest economy, during a visit where he is seeking growth for the British economy and co-operation on issues such as climate change. It is the first visit by a U.K. prime minister to China for eight years, which has proven controversial in Britain due to concerns over Beijing’s human rights record, economic imbalances and accusations of cyber sabotage in Britain by Chinese entities. But in remarks at the start of their meeting in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, both men avoided difficult issues and heaped praise on each other’s countries. After years of chilled relations under Conservative U.K. governments, Starmer said: “China is a vital player on the global stage and it is vital to build a more sophisticated relationship, where we can identify opportunities to collaborate, but also to allow meaningful dialogue on areas where we disagree.” Communist leader Xi, speaking through an interpreter, singled out Britain’s Labour Party, saying it had in the past “made important contributions to the growth of China-U.K. relations.” He added that there had been “twists and turns that did not serve the interests of our countries” in recent years. Describing the state of the world as “turbulent and fluid,” Xi said more dialogue between the two nations was “imperative,” whether “for the sake of world peace and stability or for our two countries’ economies and peoples.” He added the two men would “stand the test of history” if they could rise above their differences. Acknowledging the furor over China in the U.K., Xi said: “Your visit this time has drawn a lot of attention. Sometimes good things take time. “As long as it is the right thing that serves the fundamental interests of the country and the people, then as leaders we should not shy away from difficulties.” Starmer has tried to take a more measured approach than Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who warned the world order was fractured after his recent trip to Beijing and was later threatened with tariffs by U.S. President Donald Trump. Starmer has insisted he can pursue trade with the U.S., EU and China at the same time in a way that protects national security. The U.K. prime minister said he wanted to focus on “global stability and security, growth and shared challenges like climate change.” Starmer did not raise specific human rights concerns or policy detail during his brief on-camera remarks, though he did make reference to having “meaningful dialogue” on areas where the countries disagree. Ahead of the meeting, Starmer declined to say whether he would raise Russia’s war in Ukraine with Xi, or whether he would ask the Chinese leader to put pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the fighting. China and the U.K. are due to sign a series of deals later on Thursday. They are expected to cover areas including visa-free travel and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, but collaboration on deeper technology including wind farms appeared less likely.

The leaders of three Dutch political parties said Tuesday they had agreed in principle to form a minority coalition government after months of negotiations.   The centrist D66 party, which took first place in last October’s election, the center-right Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and the liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) will join forces in a coalition that will only hold 66 seats in the Netherlands’ lower house of parliament, 10 seats short of a majority. Minority governments are rare in the Netherlands. D66’s leader, 38-year-old Rob Jetten, will be the youngest Dutch prime minister in history. He appeared alongside CDA and VVD’s leaders Tuesday night and said the three “still have a few final details” to iron out before their coalition agreement is formally presented Friday, but sounded an optimistic note.   “We’re really looking forward to getting started,” said Jetten. He added the new government’s priorities would be affordable housing, controlling migration and investing in defense. The Cabinet could be sworn in by the Dutch king by the end of February.  VVD’s leader, Dilan Yeşilgöz, who has previously served as a justice minister, said she hadn’t decided whether she will take a post in the new government.  October’s election saw D66 surge to victory, narrowly overtaking Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), which previously was the largest party in a coalition government marked by infighting. That coalition eventually collapsed after a dispute over asylum policy saw Wilders withdraw his party’s support. 

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?

Vice President JD Vance on Friday said the United States will stop funding any organization working on diversity and transgender issues abroad. Vance called the policy, which has been widely expected, “a historic expansion of the Mexico City Policy,” which prevents foreign groups receiving U.S. global health funding from providing or promoting abortion, even if those programs are paid for with other sources of financing. President Donald Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy last year, following a tradition for Republican presidents that Ronald Reagan started in 1984. Democratic presidents have repeatedly rescinded the policy. “Now we’re expanding this policy to protect life, to combat [diversity, equity and inclusion] and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children,” Vance told people attending the March for Life in Washington, an annual gathering of anti-abortion activists on the National Mall. The rule covers non-military U.S. foreign assistance, making the Mexico City Policy “about three times as big as it was before, and we’re proud of it because we believe in fighting for life,” Vance said. That means that any organizations receiving U.S. non-military funding will not be able to work on abortion, DEI and issues related to transgender people, even if that work is done with other funding sources. POLITICO reported in October that the Trump administration was developing the policy. The State Department made the rule change Friday afternoon. Vance accused the Biden administration of “exporting abortion and radical gender ideology all around the world.” The Trump administration has used that argument to massively reduce foreign aid since it took office a year ago. Vance said the Trump administration believes that every country in the world has the duty to protect life. “It’s our job to promote families and human flourishing,” he said, adding that the administration “turned off the tap for NGOs whose sole purpose is to dissuade people from having kids.” Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Africa Subcommittee, called the new aid restrictions “the best and most comprehensive iteration” of the Mexico City Policy since Reagan. Smith, who opposes abortion, was also speaking at the March for Life. But domestic and international groups deplored the expanded policy, noting that it would make women and girls in some parts of the world more vulnerable. “History shows that the Mexico City policy not only diminishes access to essential services for women and girls, but also breaks down networks of organizations working on women’s rights, and silences civil society,” the International Crisis Group, which works to prevent conflicts, said in a statement. “This expansion will amplify those effects and is set to compound the global regression on gender equality that we have seen accelerate in the last year,” the group added. The expanded Mexico City Policy, which international groups have called the ‘global gag rule’ because of the restrictions it imposes, will limit how humanitarian groups and other organizations “can engage in advocacy, information dissemination and education related to reducing maternal mortality, sexual and reproductive health, and reducing stigma and inequalities anywhere in the world, with any funding they receive,” said Defend Public Health, a network of volunteers fighting against the Trump administration’s health policies. “This would effectively coerce them into denying that transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people exist,” the group said. Alice Miranda Ollstein contributed to this report.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech went viral, but it has sparked a predictably angry reaction from the Trump White House that could torpedo trade talks already on thin ice. Carney’s call to arms to smaller countries to band together against the economic coercion of “great powers” sparked criticism from Donald Trump and his inner circle — and it is renewing warnings on both sides of the border that it could undermine Ottawa as it faces a review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the continental trade deal worth C$1.3 trillion in two-way merchandise trade. Goldy Hyder, the president of the lobby group for Canada’s top CEOs, spent several days in Washington this week where he said he got an earful from U.S. lawmakers and business leaders. “Obviously, the response from the Americans suggests that some harm has been done. I don’t believe it to have been significant or fatal, but I do think we need to make sure we’re sending the signals that we care about this agreement,” Hyder, the president of the Business Council of Canada, told POLITICO on Friday. The standing ovation and breathless praise Carney initially received in Davos gave way to some hand-wringing Friday at the World Economic Forum and beyond. “I’m not exactly on the same page as Mark,” European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said in a panel, a departure from earlier in the week when she walked out of a dinner with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick during an anti-Europe speech. “We should be talking about alternatives,” she said. “We should be identifying, much more so than we have probably in the past, the weaknesses, the sore points, the dependencies, the autonomy.” Trump and Carney, as well as their top Cabinet members, are exchanging blows against the backdrop of the looming mandatory six-year review of the USMCA, a process that could lead to renewal, modifications or the potential demise of a pact Trump once called the biggest and most important deal in U.S. history. Trump fired the first shot back at Carney’s speech during his own Davos address the following day, telling the world: “Canada lives because of the United States.” He repeated past gripes that Canada “gets a lot of freebies” from the U.S. and it “should be grateful.” Carney counterpunched the next day at his Quebec City Cabinet retreat, making a last-minute edit to a speech on his domestic ambitions. “Canada doesn’t live because of the United States,” he said. “Canada thrives because we are Canadian.” Hours later, Trump revoked Canada’s invitation to participate in his Gaza “Board of Peace” initiative. Trump didn’t offer a specific reason. Then on Friday, Trump trolled Canada in a Truth Social post that included a dig about “doing business with China.” Louise Blais, a former Canadian deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said the post-Davos bickering between Trump and Carney evokes the hostility that erupted between Trump and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2018 at the G7 Canada hosted, and could be damaging to the USMCA review. “Canada thinks that we’re pushing back on the Americans blackmailing us and holding us to account, but to the White House mind, it looks as if we are ungrateful,” Blais told POLITICO from Mexico on Friday, where she was attending meetings on the USMCA. She now works as a senior adviser for a U.S. consultancy and Hyder’s council. “The damage could be eight out of 10, but it’s really totally up to the Americans. They are going to decide whether or not they push back. We certainly have given them a lot of ammunition to do so,” she added. Trump’s top political lieutenants also piled on with insults and sideswipes of their own. In an interview with Bloomberg from Davos, Lutnick called Carney “arrogant” and said his decision to strike new agreements with China will work against Canada in this year’s review of USMCA. “This is the silliest thing I’ve ever seen,” Lutnick said of the idea that China will then increase imports from Canada. “Give me a break — they have the second-best deal in the world. And all we got to do is listen to this guy whine and complain.” Lutnick said Mexico has the best deal, followed by Canada because 85 percent of its exports flow tariff-free to the U.S. under USMCA. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused Carney of “value signaling.” “If he believes what’s best for Canada is to make speeches like that, which I don’t think is very helpful, then he should make speeches like that,” Bessent told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns. Bessent added: “In the context of the United States, I’ll point out the Canadian economy is smaller than the economy of Texas.” Bessent noted in the interview that Trump stood up to China’s manipulation of the rare earths market. “Prime Minister Carney should say ‘thank you,’ rather than giving this value-signaling speech,” Bessent said. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer also questioned the wisdom of Carney’s dealmaking with China in light of the upcoming USMCA review and has been speculating the U.S. could negotiate separate deals with Canada and Mexico. As Carney returned from Europe for a Cabinet meeting in Quebec City, his leading lieutenants remained defiant. “There are always going to be stressful times, and let’s not sugarcoat it. The prime minister never does. It’s a difficult world,” Artificial Intelligence Minister Evan Solomon told reporters Friday morning. When asked about the U.S. criticism, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Carney was simply saying “a lot of things that people thought. And he had the courage to say it loud.” Greenland’s Energy and Industry Minister Naaja Nathanielsen told POLITICO that Carney’s speech was “brilliant.” “Right now, we’re still figuring out what is the American intentions,” she said from Davos. “I thought [it] was the most clear-eyed speech I’ve heard in a long time.” But Hyder and Blais say Carney’s next priority must be finding a path back to bargaining with Trump and his team, and to end the bickering in interest of preserving USMCA. Talks were expected to resume this month after Trump abruptly halted them in October, apparently angry the Ontario government used Ronald Reagan’s voice in an anti-tariff commercial. Hyder said he got a lengthy briefing from senior officials in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, met one Democrat and seven Republican lawmakers and consulted his U.S. counterparts at the Business Roundtable, which represents the leaders of the largest American companies. During his 90 minutes at USTR, Hyder said he was told Mexico was making “great progress” in dealing with trade irritants. “They have the lowest tariff rate in the world as a result of it, lower than ours,” said Hyder. “We’re now not engaged, we’re not conversing, and we’re waiting for the Americans to call us. Why would they call us to lower the tariffs that they’re imposing on us? We need to lean in.” Hyder said he believes Carney has convinced himself Trump has no intention of renewing USMCA, and that he needs to disabuse himself of that “self-fulfilling prophecy.” “It’s not too late to recognize the opportunity to still get this agreement across the finish line, and we need to be at the table to do that,” he said. Carney signaled he was irritated when he brushed off what he called a “boring question” from a reporter about how talks with Trump were going as he departed the Cabinet retreat this week. Blais said that Carney needs the USCMA if he wants to achieve his goal of increasing exports to other countries. “The strength of our economy and our ability to diversify is very much anchored in our North American competitiveness … because we’re seen to have access to the U.S. market that has supply chains that are healthy,” she said. “The more we say that there’s a rupture with that, the less attractive we become as a country to invest. “That’s the worry.” Jakob Weizman and Marianne Gros contributed to this report from Brussels. Mickey Djuric reported from Quebec City.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed U.S. President Donald Trump’s vow not to use military force to take Greenland, while warning that Europe must exert its own power as the world becomes a more far more dangerous place. Calling it “good news” that Trump said he would drop the Feb. 1 tariffs he’d pledged to slap onto European countries over Greenland, Merz nonetheless said Washington was “radically reshaping” its foreign policy, shaking the foundations of the international order. “This new world of great powers is being built on power, on strength, and when it comes to it, on force,” Merz said Thursday during an address at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “It’s not a cozy place.” Merz urged European nations to move swiftly to boost their defense spending and economic competitiveness in order to be able to exert power amid the “tectonic” shifts in the global order. At the same time, he urged Germans and other Europeans not to give up on the transatlantic alliance and NATO, advocating, in effect, a middle path. “Despite all the frustration and anger of recent months, let us not be too quick to write off the transatlantic partnership,” Merz said, switching briefly to German. “We Europeans, we Germans, know how precious the trust on which NATO is based is.” Merz sounded particularly grave about what he framed as the dire risks of the world entering a new era of great power rivalry. “The world where only power counts is a dangerous place, first, for small states, then for the middle powers, and ultimately for the great ones,” he said. “I do not say this lightly. In the 20th century, my country Germany went down this road to its bitter end. It pulled the world into a black abyss.” MERCOSUR A MUST FOR MERZ The German chancellor used his speech to set out a three-pronged plan for Europe to assert itself in the new world order: invest “massively” in defense, make its economies more competitive and stay united. Merz argued that Europe must secure new trade deals around the world to boost its economic competitiveness, pitting the EU in direct opposition to Trump’s tariff policies. “Europe’s trade ambitions are crystal clear,” Merz said. “We want to be the alliance offering open markets and trade opportunities.” Europe, he went on, “must be the antithesis to state sponsored unfair trade practices, raw material protectionism, tech prohibition and arbitrary tariffs. Tariffs again have to be replaced by rules, and those rules need to be respected by trading partners.” Merz said that  both Germany and Europe have “wasted” opportunities for growth in recent years, including by failing to implement an EU trade deal with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries. The chancellor sharply criticized the European Parliament’s vote this week to send the accord for a judicial review, a move which could delay the trade deal by up to two years, putting pressure on the European Commission to provisionally apply the agreement. Merz said there is “no alternative” to the deal. “We will not be stopped,” he added. “Most likely, this agreement will provisionally be put in place.”

President Donald Trump may be backing down on his threat to seize Greenland, but his push for the island has already changed the way foreign policy is done in Washington and beyond. More than any other global issue I’ve seen Trump tackle, his obsession with Greenland has shifted paradigms and broken brains. And I’m talking about big brains: diplomats, foreign policy analysts, economic specialists. People on the left and a fair number on the right. Even diplomats not from Europe are rattled. “It was like, huh?” said an African official in Washington. “The shocking part was the level of the threat, how serious he was. And it’s not over.” Suzanne Maloney, a Middle East analyst who directs the Brookings Institution’s foreign policy program, said it has felt “as though the world has gone mad.” She added: “The language, the determination on this particular issue just feels disconnected from our national interest.” Not long ago, many foreign policy professionals were still asking if the post-World War II “rules-based international order” was dead. In the wake of Trump’s Greenland gambit, I’m hearing more flat-out declare it’s a corpse. Canada’s leader, Mark Carney, said as much at the World Economic Forum this week. That means foreign policy consultants are rethinking advice they give to clients, while think tankers are reconsidering their travel and study plans. Maloney, for one, said she had to submit her department’s policy research priorities for the coming fiscal year to her superiors this week, but that she warned them the list could change by next week. Diplomats from Europe said the Greenland crisis has created a new reality because it’s clearer than ever that even allies are not safe from Trump’s machinations. “It creates a sort of fear in the European Union,” one European diplomat told me. “It’s not just about expanding our imagination, but just to realize this is a different day and the traditional ways — the rules, the laws — don’t necessarily apply. Everything is now negotiable.” (I granted the diplomat and others I spoke to anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.) That’s even though Trump toned down his rhetoric Wednesday. He first said he won’t use military force to take over Greenland and later announced he’d withdraw a threat of tariffs after reaching a “framework” deal over the territory. Few details were immediately available. But Trump, who has wanted Greenland since his first term, changes his mind so often that Europeans — or any other global actor — would be foolish to trust that this issue is resolved. He has a history of walking away from deals, including ones his administration crafted. He also has three more years in this term. The sense from Trump critics I spoke to for this column was that they’re not ready to relax even though he’s softened his tone. “His overriding interest is to expand the map of the United States,” said Eric Green, a former senior National Security Council official who dealt with Russia and Central Asia in the Biden administration. “Sooner or later he’s going to come back to that.” Trump’s Greenland desires have scrambled the plans of many foreign affairs practitioners to a degree that’s unusual even for a president who delights in upending conventional wisdom. The whole Greenland debacle is especially hard for people who teach international relations, many of whom keep having to redo their syllabi. These scholars are trained to use neutral language to explain the actions of power players. The goal is to help students learn methods to understand the world. But “there comes a point where you just want to say this is a fucking stupid idea,” said Daniel Drezner, academic dean at Tufts University’s Fletcher School. Trump’s Greenland push also came with a level of personal self-interest that went beyond the “America First” justification he has used to explain other actions. He has said he is pursuing Greenland in part because he was upset that he had not been given the Nobel Peace Prize. “It feels a bit like ‘The Twilight Zone’,” Green said. “He’s linking a personal slight to a geopolitical request that is completely unreasonable.” Trump’s foreign policy moves typically have some logic behind them. You don’t have to agree with the logic, but you can still see it. He bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities because it was a rare chance to set back a program that could threaten the U.S. He captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro because he wants access to Venezuelan oil and could make a case that Maduro is a narcotrafficker whose regime undermines the U.S. He imposed tariffs on practically every other country because he believes it will help the U.S. become more economically self-sufficient over time. In bullying Denmark to hand over, or sell, Greenland, Trump and his aides have said they are thinking of the U.S. national interest. The island is strategically located and contains many useful natural resources. Alex Gray, who served in a senior role at the National Security Council in Trump’s first term, said one long-term worry is that Greenland’s residents will eventually insist on full independence from Denmark, making them more vulnerable to China or Russia. “Which is why we need to put our best foot forward and offer them some very compelling things,” Gray said of U.S. overtures to Greenland. Trump does have a history of making seemingly outrageous demands before settling for whatever he can get. He’s sometimes been spooked by the markets, which have not reacted well to his push for Greenland. Some people say he chickens out, but the approach has its benefits. It forces people to talk about issues that otherwise get ignored (like the fecklessness of the U.N.) or settle for terms that otherwise they’d abhor. Still, Trump’s insistence that the U.S. control Greenland has stained America’s reputation with its allies. That’s a price detractors say should never have had to be paid. After all, Washington already has tremendous access to Greenland under past agreements with Denmark; U.S. troops already operate in Greenland and Washington can send more. Trump’s demand that Denmark grant the territory to the U.S. is a body blow to U.S. relations with its European allies. It also hurts NATO, a military alliance that includes the U.S. and Denmark — and which would defend Greenland should an adversarial power threaten it. For people trying to advise clients, teach students, make policy or otherwise engage the public, Trump’s Greenland moves underscore how hard the foreign policy prediction game has become. The true effects of Trump’s moves may not be felt until long after he’s out of office. He often acts as if he’s making a more significant change than he really is; the effective rate of his tariffs, for example, is often lower than his proclamations. Many of Trump’s policies also contradict one another. For instance, Trump supposedly wants African countries to build their economies and be less dependent on foreign aid, but his tariffs hurt those economies. It doesn’t help that so much of what’s happening with Greenland comes down to the personality of one man. This is probably an argument for all of us to take a class on political psychology. Or maybe join a support group for exhausted foreign policy professionals?