BERLIN — Chancellor Friedrich Merz is mounting an unusually assertive effort to project German leadership at the heart of the EU, positioning himself as the defender not only of Ukraine but, by his own account, of Europe as a whole. This represents a stark shift in Germany’s approach to world affairs. Merz’s predecessors, Olaf Scholz and Angela Merkel, were reluctant to put the country in such an outspoken lead role internationally or within the EU. Rather, Germany tended to hang back and avoid undue risk. Germans even coined a slang verb — “to Merkel,” or Merkeln — to connote dithering. Merz has taken a far more active stance inside the EU — assuming a role more traditionally played by France’s now weakened President Emmanuel Macron. He has placed himself as Europe’s most visible advocate of a risk-laden EU plan to replenish Ukraine’s war chest with a €210 billion loan backed by Russian frozen assets. Earlier this month he visited Belgium’s prime minister, Bart De Wever, who has rejected the plan, along with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in an effort to convince the Belgian to drop his opposition. “When it comes to managing European issues, Merz is truly the polar opposite of Merkel,” an Italian diplomat said of that effort. Outside of EU affairs, the Trump administration’s wavering on military aid for Ukraine and the erosion of the transatlantic alliance have compelled Merz to push Germany beyond long familiar limits when it comes to foreign policy. Given this seismic realignment, Merz has repeatedly vowed that Germany will play a “leading role” internationally. “Ukraine’s fate is the fate of all of Europe,” Merz said on Monday alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “And in this respect, it is a key task, and I have taken it upon myself to closely support Ukraine in the negotiations that are currently taking place here in Berlin.” IS EUROPE CAPABLE OF ‘STANDING TOGETHER?’ Merz’s attempt to make good on the promise to lead has been on full display this week. While praising Donald Trump for pressing for a peace deal, the chancellor has in many ways set himself in direct opposition to the U.S. president, working to ensure that Washington doesn’t impose an unfavorable deal. The Trump administration has also opposed the EU proposal on Russia’s frozen reserves, hoping instead to turn a profit on those assets as part of a potential peace agreement. “Washington is now exerting tremendous pressure here, which is why it is also a question of asserting ourselves against Washington,” Norbert Röttgen, a senior German lawmaker belonging to Merz’s conservatives, told POLITICO.  Ahead of a key meeting of European leaders on Thursday, Merz is depicting the looming decision on whether to leverage frozen Russian central bank assets in the EU as a test of whether Europe can still stand up for itself. “Let us not deceive ourselves. If we do not succeed in this, the European Union’s ability to act will be severely damaged for years, if not for a longer period,” Merz said on Monday. “And we will show the world that, at such a crucial moment in our history, we are incapable of standing together and acting to defend our own political order on this European continent.”  Friedrich Merz’s predecessors, Olaf Scholz and Angela Merkel, were reluctant to put the country in such an outspoken lead role internationally or within the EU. | Maja Hitij/Getty Images In a reflection of his government’s new assertiveness, Merz has made Berlin a nexus of diplomacy over a potential peace deal. On Sunday and Monday he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. On Monday evening, many of Europe’s most powerful leaders converged over dinner in Berlin to discuss the outlines of a possible deal. “Berlin is now at the center of very important diplomatic talks and decisions,” Zelenskyy said Monday. “These talks are always complex, never easy, but they were very productive.” Merz, too, standing alongside the Ukrainian leader, appeared to play up the role Germany has assumed in recent negotiations. “We have seen great diplomatic momentum — perhaps the greatest since the start of the war,” he said. “We now have the chance for a genuine peace process for Ukraine. This seedling is still small, but the opportunity is real.” MERZ OVERSTEPS But Merz’s efforts to put Germany forward as a key EU leader on Ukraine and other matters, from defense to trade, are also replete with risk. European leaders have largely welcomed Merz’s willingness to take on a greater leadership role — particularly the chancellor’s decision, even before he took office, to unlock hundreds of billions of euros in borrowing to bolster Germany’s military. But as Europe’s biggest economy, Germany’s exercise of power within a union of 27 countries requires a delicate balancing act, and at times of late, Merz has appeared to overstep. After the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, which depicted the EU as a transnational body that “undermines political liberty and sovereignty,” Merz condemned the document as “unacceptable.” At the same time he offered Trump a workaround that seemed to undermine the EU even more: “If you can’t get on board with Europe, then at least make Germany your partner.” Merz has tried to assert German interests in EU trade negotiations as well as on the issue of the EU’s proposed combustion engine ban, successfully watering it down. However, the greater risk for Merz lies in whether his latest efforts succeed or fail. By depicting European leaders’ looming decisions on Russian assets this week as a make-or-break moment for the EU and for Ukraine, Merz may be setting himself up for embarrassment given Belgian and Italian opposition to the plan. “It is a very active role that [Merz] is playing,” Röttgen told POLITICO. “Not because there is great competition for a leadership role, but because, in my view, Germany is currently best suited to take this initiative.” “This also has something to do with the fiscal possibilities that exist in Germany. We are by far the biggest supporter of Ukraine at the moment. But this should not take the form of national support, but rather European support. It needs to be organized, and in my view, that is a task for Merz.” Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report from Brussels.

Mathias Döpfner is chair and CEO of Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. America and Europe have been transmitting on different wavelengths for some time now. And that is dangerous — especially for Europe. The European reactions to the new U.S. National Security Strategy paper and to Donald Trump’s recent criticism of the Old Continent were, once again, reflexively offended and incapable of accepting criticism: How dare he, what an improper intrusion! But such reactions do not help; they do harm. Two points are lost in these sour responses. First: Most Americans criticize Europe because the continent matters to them. Many of those challenging Europe — even JD Vance or Trump, even Elon Musk or Sam Altman — emphasize this repeatedly. The new U.S. National Security Strategy, scandalized above all by those who have not read it, states explicitly: “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” And Trump says repeatedly, literally or in essence, in his interview with POLITICO: “I want to see a strong Europe.” The transatlantic drift is also a rupture of political language. Trump very often simply says what he thinks — sharply contrasting with many European politicians who are increasingly afraid to say what they believe is right. People sense the castration of thought through a language of evasions. And they turn away. Or toward the rabble-rousers. My impression is that our difficult American friends genuinely want exactly what they say they want: a strong Europe, a reliable and effective partner. But we do not hear it — or refuse to hear it. We hear only the criticism and dismiss it. Criticism is almost always a sign of involvement, of passion. We should worry far more if no criticism arrived. That would signal indifference — and therefore irrelevance. (By the way: Whether we like the critics is of secondary importance.) Responding with hauteur is simply not in our interest. It would be wiser — as Kaja Kallas rightly emphasized — to conduct a dialogue that includes self-criticism, a conversation about strengths, weaknesses and shared interests, and to back words with action on both sides. Which brings us to the second point: Unfortunately, much of the criticism is accurate. Anyone who sees politics as more than a self-absorbed administration of the status quo must concede that for decades Europe has delivered far too little — or nothing at all. Not in terms of above-average growth and prosperity, nor in terms of affordable energy. Europe does not deliver on deregulation or debureaucratization; it does not deliver on digitalization or innovation driven by artificial intelligence. And above all: Europe does not deliver on a responsible and successful migration policy. The world that wishes Europe well looked to the new German government with great hope. Capital flows on the scale of trillions waited for the first positive signals to invest in Germany and Europe. For it seemed almost certain that the world’s third-largest economy would, under a sensible, business-minded and transatlantic chancellor, finally steer a faltering Europe back onto the right path. The disappointment was all the more painful. Aside from the interior minister, the digital minister and the economics minister, the new government delivers in most areas the opposite of what had been promised before the election. The chancellor likes to blame the vice chancellor. The vice chancellor blames his own party. And all together they prefer to blame the Americans and their president. Instead of a European fresh start, we see continued agony and decline. Germany still suffers from its National Socialist trauma and believes that if it remains pleasantly average and certainly not excellent, everyone will love it. France is now paying the price for its colonial legacy in Africa and finds itself — all the way up to a president driven by political opportunism — in the chokehold of Islamist and antisemitic networks. In Britain, the prime minister is pursuing a similar course of cultural and economic submission. And Spain is governed by socialist fantasists who seem to take real pleasure in self-enfeeblement and whose “genocide in Gaza” rhetoric mainly mobilizes bored, well-heeled daughters of the upper middle class. Hope comes from Finland and Denmark, from the Baltic states and Poland, and — surprisingly — from Italy. There, the anti-democratic threats from Russia, China and Iran are assessed more realistically. Above all, there is a healthy drive to be better and more successful than others. From a far weaker starting point, there is an ambition for excellence. What Europe needs is less wounded pride and more patriotism defined by achievement. Unity and decisive action in defending Ukraine would be an obvious example — not merely talking about European sovereignty but demonstrating it, even in friendly dissent with the Americans. (And who knows, that might ultimately prompt a surprising shift in Washington’s Russia policy.) That, coupled with economic growth through real and far-reaching reforms, would be a start. After which Europe must tackle the most important task: a fundamental reversal of a migration policy rooted in cultural self-hatred that tolerates far too many newcomers who want a different society, who hold different values, and who do not respect our legal order. If all of this fails, American criticism will be vindicated by history. The excuses for why a European renewal is supposedly impossible or unnecessary are merely signs of weak leadership. The converse is also true: where there is political will, there is a way. And this way begins in Europe — with the spirit of renewal of a well-understood “Europe First” (what else?) — and leads to America. Europe needs America. America needs Europe. And perhaps both needed the deep crisis in the transatlantic relationship to recognize this with full clarity. As surprising as it may sound, at this very moment there is a real opportunity for a renaissance of a transatlantic community of shared interests. Precisely because the situation is so deadlocked. And precisely because pressure is rising on both sides of the Atlantic to do things differently. A trade war between Europe and America strengthens our shared adversaries. The opposite would be sensible: a New Deal between the EU and the U.S. Tariff-free trade as a stimulus for growth in the world’s largest and third-largest economies — and as the foundation for a shared policy of interests and, inevitably, a joint security policy of the free world. This is the historic opportunity that Friedrich Merz could now negotiate with Donald Trump. As Churchill said: “Never waste a good crisis!”

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. “It must be a policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure,” said former U.S. President Harry Truman during a speech to Congress in 1947. The Truman Doctrine, as this approach became known, saw the defense of democracy abroad as of vital interest to the U.S. — but that’s not a view shared by President Donald Trump and his acolytes. If anyone had any doubts about this — or harbored any lingering hopes that Vice President JD Vance was speaking out of turn when he launched a blistering attack on Europe at the Munich Security Conference earlier this this year — then Washington’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) should settle the matter. All U.S. presidents release such a strategy early in their terms to outline their foreign policy thinking and priorities, which in turn shapes how the Pentagon’s budget is allocated. And with all 33 pages of this NSS, the world’s despots have much to celebrate, while democrats have plenty to be anxious about — especially in Europe. Fleshing out what the Trump administration means by “America First,” the new security strategy represents an emphatic break with Truman and the post-1945 order shaped by successive U.S. presidents. It is all about gaining a mercantilist advantage, and its guiding principle is might is right. Moving forward, Trump’s foreign policy won’t be “grounded in traditional, political ideology” but guided by “what works for America.” And apparently what works for America is to go easy on autocrats, whether theocratic or secular, and to turn on traditional allies in a startling familial betrayal. Of course, the hostility this NSS displays toward Europe shouldn’t come as a surprise — Trump’s top aides have barely disguised their contempt for the EU, while the president has said he believes the bloc was formed to “screw” the U.S. But that doesn’t dull the sting. Over the weekend, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas sought to present a brave face despite the excoriating language the NSS reserves for European allies, telling international leaders at the Doha Forum: “We haven’t always seen eye-to-eye on different topics. But the overall principle is still there: We are the biggest allies, and we should stick together.” But other seasoned European hands recognize that this NSS marks a significant departure from what has come before. “The only part of the world where the new security strategy sees any threat to democracy seems to be Europe. Bizarre,” said former Swedish Prime Minister and European Council on Foreign Relations co-chair Carl Bildt. He’s right. As Bildt noted, the NSS includes no mention, let alone criticism, of the authoritarian behavior of the “axis of autocracy” — China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. It also rejects interventionist approaches to autocracies or cajoling them to adopt “democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories.” For example, the 2017 NSS framed China as a systemic global challenger in very hostile terms. “A geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order is taking place in the Indo-Pacific region,” that document noted. But the latest version contains no such language amid clear signs that Trump wants to deescalate tensions; the new paramount objective is to secure a “mutually advantageous economic relationship.” All should be well as long as China stays away from the Western Hemisphere, which is the preserve of the U.S. — although it must also ditch any idea of invading Taiwan. “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority” the NSS reads. Likewise, much to Moscow’s evident satisfaction, the document doesn’t even cast Russia as an adversary — in stark contrast with the 2017 strategy, which described it as a chief geopolitical rival. No wonder Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov welcomed the NSS as a “positive step” and “largely consistent” with Russia’s vision. “Overall, these messages certainly contrast with the approaches of previous administrations,” he purred. While Beijing and Moscow appear delighted with the NSS, the document reserves its harshest language and sharpest barbs for America’s traditional allies in Europe. “The core problem of the European continent, according to the NSS, is a neglect of ‘Western’ values (understood as nationalist conservative values) and a ‘loss of national identities’ due to immigration and ‘cratering birthrates,’” noted Liana Fix of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The alleged result is economic stagnation, military weakness and civilizational erasure.” The new strategy also lambasts America’s European allies for their alleged “anti-democratic” practices,accusing them of censorship and suppressing political opposition in a dilation of Vance’s Munich criticism. Ominously, the NSS talks about cultivating resistance within European nations by endorsing “patriotic” parties — a threat that caused much consternation when Vance made it, but is now laid out as the administration’s official policy. Regime change for Europe but not for autocracies is cause for great alarm. So how will Europe react? Flatter Trump as “daddy,” like NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte did in June? Pretend the U.S. administration isn’t serious, and muddle through while overlooking slights? Take the punishment and button up as it did over higher tariffs? Or toughen up, and get serious about strategic autonomy? Europe has once again been put on the spot to make some fundamental choices — and quickly. But doing anything quickly isn’t Europe’s strong point. Admittedly, that’s no easy task for a bloc that makes decisions by consensus in a process designed to be agonizingly slow. Nor will it be an easy road at the national level, with all 27 countries facing critical economic challenges and profound political divisions that Washington has been seeking to roil. With the assistance of Trump’s ideological bedfellows like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, the impasse will only intensify in the coming months. Trump 2.0 is clearly a disorienting step change from the president’s first term — far more triumphalist, confident, uncompromisingly mercantilist; and determined to ignore guardrails; and more revolutionary in how it implements its “America First” agenda. The NSS just makes this clearer, and the howls of disapproval from critics will merely embolden an administration that sees protest as evidence it’s on the right track. Europe’s leaders have had plenty of warnings, but apart from eye-rolling, hand-wringing and wishful thinking they failed to agree on a plan. However, trying to ride things out isn’t going to work this time around — and efforts to foist a very unfavorable “peace” deal on Ukraine may finally the trigger the great unraveling of the Western alliance. The bloc’s options are stark, to be sure. Whether it kowtows or pushes back, it’s going to cost Europe one way or another.

BRUSSELS — The United States should “not threaten to interfere in the democratic life” of its European allies, European Council President António Costa said. Costa’s remarks were some of the first to come from senior EU leadership since the unveiling of the U.S. National Security Strategy, in which the White House set out its approach to the geopolitical challenges facing the U.S. and the world. Speaking at the Jacques Delors Conference in Paris on Monday, Costa said that while Europe and the United States remain partners, the foundations of that partnership require mutual respect, particularly in moments of political divergence. “Certainly, this [U.S.] strategy continues to speak of Europe as an ally. That’s good,” Costa said. “But if we are allies, we must act as allies. And allies do not threaten to interfere in the democratic life or the domestic political choices of these allies. They respect them. They respect each other’s sovereignty.” According to Costa, critical remarks by U.S. Vice President JD Vance and social media posts from President Donald Trump are no longer isolated outbursts but now constitute “the doctrine of the United States.” “We must take note and act accordingly,” he said. “This means that we need more than just new energy. We need to focus on building a Europe that must understand that the relationships between allies and the post-World War II alliances have changed.” At the heart of Costa’s message was Europe’s refusal to accept external political pressure. “The United States cannot replace European citizens in deciding which are the right parties and the wrong parties,” he said, a reference to the part of the U.S. strategy referring to the support of “patriotic European parties.” Costa also noted that the new U.S. approach reflects a broader shift away from multilateralism, a weakening commitment to the rules-based international order and the abandonment of climate action as a strategic priority. “We have differences in our worldviews,” he warned Costa also mounted a direct defense of the EU’s regulatory autonomy, including last week’s high-profile fine imposed on social platform X under the Digital Services Act. He rejected criticism from Washington and from U.S. tech leaders, saying Europe’s actions are grounded in its democratic model. “The United States cannot replace Europe in its vision of freedom of speech,” he said. “Our history has taught us that there is no freedom of speech without freedom of information. And freedom of information exists where there is respect for pluralism.” He added: “There will be no freedom of speech if citizens’ freedom of information is sacrificed to defend the tech oligarchs of the United States.”

BRUSSELS — EU countries on Monday signed off on sweeping new plans to reform how the bloc deals with migration. The measures, approved at a meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers in Brussels, will give capitals the power to remove people who don’t have the right to live and work in the bloc, to set up asylum processing centers overseas and to create removals hubs outside their borders. It comes amid growing public unrest over migration, in a move designed to counter the far right and overhaul the way capitals deal with new arrivals. “We are at a turning point of the European migration and asylum reform,” European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner told POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook. “These are all measures that will help process claims more effectively and reduce pressure on asylum systems. And they all send the same signal: Europe will not tolerate any abuse of its systems.” The draft legislation includes a new “solidarity pool” in which countries — apart from those already facing high levels of migratory pressure — will be asked to resettle migrants or pay for other countries to support them. In addition, a new list of “safe countries” has been drawn up, from which asylum applications will be rapidly rejected unless there are extenuating circumstances. Additional rules, still to be agreed by ministers on Monday, would mean countries are able to set up asylum processing centers in non-EU countries, as well as “return hubs” from where people whose claims are unsuccessful can be removed. The changes have been pushed by Denmark, which holds the six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, with the country’s center-left government setting out a hard-nosed approach to irregular migration both at home and in Brussels. “We have a very high influx of irregular migrants, and our European countries are under pressure,” said Danish Minister for Immigration and Integration Rasmus Stoklund. “Thousands are drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or are abused along the migratory routes, while human smugglers earn fortunes.” “This shows that the current system creates unhealthy incentive structures and a strong pull-factor, which are hard to break.” There had been dissent from countries such as Spain, which worry the new rules go too far, and Slovakia, which claimed they don’t go far enough. Despite that, negotiators managed to strike a deal before the legislative agenda grinds to a halt during the winter break. “To get the migration challenge under control has been a key demand from European leaders for years. For many, this is perceived as paramount to keep the trust of European citizens,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to speak frankly. Migration is high on the list of public priorities and has been capitalized on by right-wing parties in elections from France to Poland in recent years. In her State of the Union address in September, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said tackling irregular migration was key to maintaining the perception “that democracy provides solutions to people’s legitimate concerns.” “The people of Europe have proven their willingness to help those fleeing war and persecution. However, frustration grows when they feel our rules are being disregarded,” von der Leyen said. The EU has also come under fire from U.S. President Donald Trump in recent days, whose administration claimed in an explosive new strategy document that Brussels’ migration policies “are transforming the continent and creating strife.”

President Donald Trump intends for the U.S. to keep a bigger military presence in the Western Hemisphere going forward to battle migration, drugs and the rise of adversarial powers in the region, according to his new National Security Strategy. The 33-page document is a rare formal explanation of Trump’s foreign policy worldview by his administration. Such strategies, which presidents typically release once each term, can help shape how parts of the U.S. government allocate budgets and set policy priorities. The Trump National Security Strategy, which the White House quietly released Thursday, has some brutal words for Europe, suggesting it is in civilizational decline, and pays relatively little attention to the Middle East and Africa. It has an unusually heavy focus on the Western Hemisphere that it casts as largely about protecting the U.S. homeland. It says “border security is the primary element of national security” and makes veiled references to China’s efforts to gain footholds in America’s backyard. “The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity — a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region,” the document states. “The terms of our alliances, and the terms upon which we provide any kind of aid, must be contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence — from control of military installations, ports, and key infrastructure to the purchase of strategic assets broadly defined.” The document describes such plans as part of a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The latter is the notion set forth by President James Monroe in 1823 that the U.S. will not tolerate malign foreign interference in its own hemisphere. Trump’s paper, as well as a partner document known as the National Defense Strategy, have faced delays in part because of debates in the administration over elements related to China. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pushed for some softening of the language about Beijing, according to two people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Bessent is currently involved in sensitive U.S. trade talks with China, and Trump himself is wary of the delicate relations with Beijing. The new National Security Strategy says the U.S. has to make challenging choices in the global realm. “After the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country. Yet the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests,” the document states. In an introductory note to the strategy, Trump called it a “roadmap to ensure that America remains the greatest and most successful nation in human history, and the home of freedom on earth.” But Trump is mercurial by nature, so it’s hard to predict how closely or how long he will stick to the ideas laid out in the new strategy. A surprising global event could redirect his thinking as well, as it has done for recent presidents from George W. Bush to Joe Biden. Still, the document appears in line with many of the moves he’s taken in his second term, as well as the priorities of some of his aides. That includes deploying significantly more U.S. military prowess to the Western Hemisphere, taking numerous steps to reduce migration to America, pushing for a stronger industrial base in the U.S. and promoting “Western identity,” including in Europe. The strategy even nods to so-called traditional values at times linked to the Christian right, saying the administration wants “the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health” and “an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes.” It mentions the need to have “growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.” As POLITICO has reported before, the strategy spends an unusual amount of space on Latin America, the Caribbean and other U.S. neighbors. That’s a break with past administrations, who tended to prioritize other regions and other topics, such as taking on major powers like Russia and China or fighting terrorism. The Trump strategy suggests the president’s military buildup in the Western Hemisphere is not a temporary phenomenon. (That buildup, which has included controversial military strikes against boats allegedly carrying drugs, has been cast by the administration as a way to fight cartels. But the administration also hopes the buildup could help pressure Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to step down.) The strategy also specifically calls for “a more suitable Coast Guard and Navy presence to control sea lanes, to thwart illegal and other unwanted migration, to reduce human and drug trafficking, and to control key transit routes in a crisis.” The strategy says the U.S. should enhance its relationships with governments in Latin America, including working with them to identify strategic resources — an apparent reference to materials such as rare earth minerals. It also declares that the U.S. will partner more with the private sector to promote “strategic acquisition and investment opportunities for American companies in the region.” Such business-related pledges, at least on a generic level, could please many Latin American governments who have long been frustrated by the lack of U.S. attention to the region. It’s unclear how such promises square with Trump’s insistence on imposing tariffs on America’s trade partners, however. The National Security Strategy spends a fair amount of time on China, though it often doesn’t mention Beijing directly. Many U.S. lawmakers — on a bipartisan basis — consider an increasingly assertive China the gravest long-term threat to America’s global power. But while the language the Trump strategy uses is tough, it is careful and far from inflammatory. The administration promises to “rebalance America’s economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence.” But it also says “trade with China should be balanced and focused on non-sensitive factors” and even calls for “maintaining a genuinely mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing.” The strategy says the U.S. wants to prevent war in the Indo-Pacific — a nod to growing tensions in the region, including between China and U.S. allies such as Japan and the Philippines. “We will also maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait,” it states. That may come as a relief to Asia watchers who worry Trump will back away from U.S. support for Taiwan as it faces ongoing threats from China. The document states that “it is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine,” and to mitigate the risk of Russian confrontation with other countries in Europe. But overall it pulls punches when it comes to Russia — there’s very little criticism of Moscow. Instead, it reserves some of its harshest remarks for U.S.-allied nations in Europe. In particular, the administration, in somewhat veiled terms, knocks European efforts to rein in far-right parties, calling such moves political censorship. “The Trump administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the [Ukraine] war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition,” the strategy states. The strategy also appears to suggest that migration will fundamentally change European identity to a degree that could hurt U.S. alliances. “Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European,” it states. “As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter.” Still, the document acknowledges Europe’s economic and other strengths, as well as how America’s partnership with much of the continent has helped the U.S. “Not only can we not afford to write Europe off — doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve,” it says. “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory,” it says. Trump’s first-term National Security Strategy focused significantly on the U.S. competition with Russia and China, but the president frequently undercut it by trying to gain favor with the leaders of those nuclear powers. If this new strategy proves a better reflection of what Trump himself actually believes, it could help other parts of the U.S. government adjust, not to mention foreign governments. As Trump administration documents often do, the strategy devotes significant space to praising the commander-in-chief. It describes him as the “President of Peace” while favorably stating that he “uses unconventional diplomacy.” The strategy struggles at times to tamp down what seem like inconsistencies. It says the U.S. should have a high bar for foreign intervention, but it also says it wants to “prevent the emergence of dominant adversaries.” It also essentially dismisses the ambitions of many smaller countries. “The outsized influence of larger, richer, and stronger nations is a timeless truth of international relations,” the strategy states. The National Security Strategy is the first of several important defense and foreign policy papers the Trump administration is due to release. They include the National Defense Strategy, whose basic thrust is expected to be similar. Presidents’ early visions for what the National Security Strategy should mention have at times had to be discarded due to events. After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush’s first-term strategy ended up focusing heavily on battling Islamist terrorism. Biden’s team spent much of its first year working on a strategy that had to be rewritten after Russia moved toward a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

PARIS — Central Paris is getting painted a different combination of red, white and blue next summer. Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo announced Thursday that to celebrate the 250th birthday of the U.S. in 2026, Paris Plages — an annual event in which the French capital transforms the banks of the Seine to give them an outdoor, beach-like atmosphere for the summer — would open on July 4 and celebrate America throughout the summer. Paris Plages began in 2002 and for the first time this summer included public swimming thanks to a €1.4 billion effort to clean up the famed river. “It’s the perfect occasion to celebrate our incredible and strong relationship with the United States of America,” Hidalgo said alongside U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner at a news conference. “As Parisians we are very proud that our city holds a special place in the story of the United States.” Hidalgo also said the Eiffel Tower would light up on the Fourth of July in the colors of the American flag. The announcement was timed to coincide with the 249th anniversary of Benjamin Franklin’s arrival to France seeking support for the American Revolution. “As Parisians we are very proud that our city holds a special place in the story of the United States,” Hidalgo said. France is the United States’ oldest ally, and the Franco-American alliance will turn 250 years old in 2028. Yet despite those centuries of shared history, the French aren’t always fond of their partners across the Atlantic. A survey published over the summer by the Pew Research Foundation found that just 36 percent of respondents in France had a favorable opinion of the U.S., down 10 percent from a year prior. That hasn’t stopped Americans from trekking to Paris in droves, though. The City of Lights welcomed more American tourists than those from any other country last year.

Vladimir Putin used a blend of charm, calculated stalling and pointed threats to show U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner exactly where Russia stands on peace with Ukraine. Witkoff, U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy, and Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, enjoyed a stroll through Moscow and lunch at an upscale restaurant Tuesday while the Russian president made them wait several hours for a meeting at the Kremlin about ending the war in Ukraine. While the Americans killed time, Putin addressed the press at an investment forum where he blamed Europe for thwarting the peace process and hinted at future escalation. “We’re not planning to wage a war with Europe, but if Europe decides to start a war, we’re ready right now,” he said. Unsurprisingly for those who know the Russian president’s habit of keeping foreign dignitaries twiddling their thumbs, Tuesday’s talks began almost three hours later than the 5 p.m. start time initially indicated by Putin’s spokesperson. A video posted by the Kremlin showed Putin welcoming Witkoff and Kushner and asking whether they were enjoying Moscow, to which Witkoff replied: “It’s a magnificent city.”  Discussions in the Russian capital on the almost four-year war on Ukraine didn’t conclude until long after midnight local time.  In a post on X, Putin’s foreign policy adviser Kirill Dmitriev, who was present at the talks, called the meeting “productive.”  Donald Trump’s latest push to inject new momentum into a ceasefire effort, with a plan that heavily favored Moscow, has ramped up pressure on Kyiv and alarmed European officials. | Pete Marovich/Getty Images Putin aide Yuri Ushakov, who was also present, described the conversation as “useful, constructive, and highly substantive,” but added there was still a “lot of work” to be done.  “We’re not further from peace that’s for sure,” he said.   According to Ushakov, Putin flagged “the destructive actions of the European side” — an indication he may try to pin the blame for any failure to reach a peace deal on the EU, which was notably left out of the meeting. Trump’s latest push to inject new momentum into a ceasefire effort — with a plan that, in its original 28-point leaked version, heavily favored Moscow —has ramped up pressure on Kyiv and alarmed European officials.  Among other things, it asks Ukraine to give up territory in the country’s east not yet occupied by Russian forces and to formalize that it will not seek to join NATO.  Though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has described the talks as confronting Ukraine with possibly the “most difficult moment in history,” he has signaled he is open to dialogue. Less clear is what Trump is requiring from Russia, or what Moscow is willing to concede.  In the days preceding the Moscow talks, Putin showed no signs of straying from his demand of Ukraine’s effective capitulation, denouncing Zelenskyy as an illegitimate leader with whom he could not strike a deal.  Vladimir Putin spoke to the press at an annual investment forum, blaming Europe for stalled peace talks and hinting at escalation. | Pool Photo by Kristina Kormilitsyna via Getty Images In fact, neither earlier talks in Istanbul, an August summit in Alaska between Trump and Putin or five previous visits to Moscow by Witkoff have resulted in the Kremlin softening its stance or its bellicose rhetoric. In comments to POLITICO, State Duma politician Pyotr Tolstoy echoed that inflexible position, saying that “no decisions will be made that would undermine Russia’s security. This must be clearly understood.” So far, there is no sign that Tuesday’s talks will prompt any shift in Moscow’s position. “No doubt Putin believes he has laid everything out once again, and now it’s up to the others to decide among themselves whether they want to end the war,” says Tatiana Stanovaya, founder of political consultancy R.Politik. Putin is ready for peace, she says. “Just on his terms.”

BERLIN — Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Monday clashed over war reparations and restitution for Germany’s Nazi-era destruction of Poland. The open disagreement between two leaders — who have vowed to mend often-strained relations between their two countries — cast a shadow over talks in Berlin that were meant to project unity and cooperation on a range of issues, including defense and support for Ukraine. Instead, the two leaders spent time sparring over the highly emotional issue of how Germany should attempt to make up for its actions during World War II. “We must keep memories alive, even painful ones,” Merz said alongside Tusk. “I hope that we can do this in a way that does not divide us, but brings us closer together.” But Tusk, under pressure from the opposition nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party, took a harder line on the matter than he has in the past, criticizing Germany’s logic for refusing to pay war reparations to Poland. “We in Poland all believe that Poland has not received compensation for the losses and crimes of World War II,” Tusk said. After his reelection in 2023, Tusk had not highlighted the reparations demands of the previous PiS government, which called on Germany to pay €1.3 trillion for its 1939-1945 occupation of Poland. Berlin has repeatedly said the matter is legally “closed.” But on Monday, Tusk reopened the issue, criticizing the German argument that Poland waived its right to reparations in the 1950s when it was under the control of the Soviet Union. PiS politicians, including Poland’s current president, Karol Nawrocki, argue the waiver was made under Soviet pressure and can’t be taken at face value. On Monday, Tusk echoed that line. Friedrich Merz said Germany would press ahead with plans to construct a memorial dedicated to Polish victims of Nazi Germany in Berlin. | Kay Nietfeld/Getty Images “Germany is adhering to this formal diplomatic agreement from the 1950s,” Tusk said. “Those who know history know that in the 1950s, Poland had no say in the matter. And Poland’s waiver of reparations is not seen as an act that reflects the opinion of the Polish people. The Polish people had no say.” The renewed tensions over reparations threaten to complicate the two leaders’ efforts to smooth over differences on a range of issues, from disputes on national border controls to Berlin’s investigation of explosions that crippled the undersea Nord Stream pipelines carrying Russian gas to Germany. Tusk’s government has frequently made the case that, while there is a moral case for reparations, there is no way to legally make Berlin pay and therefore, pursing the matter only undermines Poland’s ties with Germany, its largest economic partner. At the same time, Merz came to office vowing to improve relations with Poland, traveling to Warsaw on his first full-day on office. Merz then said he saw the so-called Weimar Triangle — an informal alliance between Germany, Poland and France — as a potential engine for shaping a more robust European defense strategy. On Monday, Merz’s government announced a series of other steps designed to ease Polish resentments over Berlin’s refusal to pay reparations, though those measures were unlikely to placate many Poles. Merz said Germany would press ahead with plans to construct a memorial dedicated to Polish victims of Nazi Germany in Berlin, and his government vowed to return Polish cultural artifacts plundered by the Nazis. Germany also pledged to “examine possibilities of providing further support to Polish victims of the Nazi aggression,” according to a joint declaration. That pledge alluded to a proposal by former Chancellor Olaf Scholz to financially compensate still-living Polish victims of Nazi Germany. But the plan has yet to materialize. Tusk expressed frustration about this on Monday, arguing time is running out. “When I discussed this with Chancellor Scholz, the figure [of people who were still alive] was just over 60,000,” said Tusk. “Today it is 50,000 people.” “Please, please speed things up if you really want to make this gesture,” he said, adding that if Berlin doesn’t move faster, then Warsaw will use its own money to compensate victims. Despite the disagreement, Merz and Tusk said they are in close contact over developments in Ukraine and negotiations over a possible peace deal. That pledge alluded to a proposal by former Chancellor Olaf Scholz to financially compensate still-living Polish victims of Nazi Germany. | Michael Bahlo/Getty Images Tusk called the level of cooperation “truly unprecedented” and warned of the risk of playing up divisions between the two countries. “We have radicals on both sides of the border” who are “interested in stirring up anti-German sentiment in Poland and anti-Polish sentiment and moods in Germany,” he said. “But I am convinced that they will not be able to achieve their goals.”

Donald Trump’s drive to secure peace in Ukraine must not let Vladimir Putin off the hook for war crimes committed by Russian forces, a top EU official has warned, effectively setting a new red line for a deal.  In an interview with POLITICO, Michael McGrath, the European commissioner for justice and democracy, said negotiators must ensure the push for a ceasefire does not result in Russia escaping prosecution.  His comments reflect concerns widely held in European capitals that the original American blueprint for a deal included the promise of a “full amnesty for actions committed during the war,” alongside plans to reintegrate Russia into the world economy. The Trump team’s push to rehabilitate the Kremlin chief comes despite international condemnation of Russia for alleged crimes including the abduction of 20,000 Ukrainian children and attacks targeting civilians in Bucha, Mariupol and elsewhere.  “I don’t think history will judge kindly any effort to wipe the slate clean for Russian crimes in Ukraine,” McGrath said. “They must be held accountable for those crimes and that will be the approach of the European Union in all of these discussions. “Were we to do so, to allow for impunity for those crimes, we would be sowing the seeds of the next round of aggression and the next invasion,” he added. “And I believe that that would be a historic mistake of huge proportions.” Protesters in London, June 2025. There has been international condemnation of Russia for alleged crimes including the abduction of 20,000 Ukrainian children and attacks targeting civilians. | Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Ukrainian authorities say they have opened investigations into more than 178,000 alleged Russian crimes since the start of the war. Last month, a United Nations commission found Russian authorities had committed crimes against humanity in targeting Ukrainian residents through drone attacks, and the war crimes of forcible transfer and deportation of civilians.  “We cannot give up on the rights of the victims of Russian aggression and Russian crimes,” McGrath said. “Millions of lives have been taken or destroyed, and people forcibly removed, and we have ample evidence.”  The EU and others have worked to set up a new special tribunal for the crime of aggression with the aim of bringing Russian leaders to justice for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022. In March 2023, judges at the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Putin, naming him “allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population [children]” from Ukraine. But Trump and his team have so far shown little interest in prosecuting Putin. In fact, the U.S. president has consistently described his Russian counterpart in positive terms, often talking about how he is able to have a “good conversation” with Putin. Trump has expressed the hope of building new economic and energy partnerships with Russia, and the pair have even discussed organizing ice hockey matches in Russia and the U.S. once the war is over.   The draft 28-point peace plan that Trump’s team circulated last week continues in a similar vein.  It states that “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy” and invited to rejoin the G8 after being expelled in 2014 following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. “The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities,” the document said. The U.S. peace plan proposes to lift sanctions against Russia in stages, though European leaders have pushed back to emphasize that the removal of EU sanctions will be for them to decide. Not everyone in Europe wants to maintain the squeeze on Moscow, however. Hungary has repeatedly stalled new sanctions, especially on oil and gas, for which it relies on Russia. Senior politicians in Germany, too, have floated the idea of lifting sanctions on the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia.