ROME — Italian right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s crushing defeat in Monday’s referendum on judicial reform has shattered her aura of political invincibility, and her opponents now reckon she can be toppled in a general election expected next year. The failed referendum is the the first major misstep of her premiership, and comes just as she seemed in complete control in Rome and Brussels, leading Italy’s most stable administration in years. Her loss is immediately energizing Italy’s fragmented opposition, making the country’s torpid politics suddenly look competitive again. Meloni’s bid to overhaul the judiciary — which she accused of being politicized and of left-wing bias — was roundly rejected, with 54 percent voting “no” to her reforms. An unexpectedly high turnout of 59 percent is also likely to alarm Meloni, underscoring how the vote snowballed into a broader vote of confidence in her and her government. She lost heavily in Italy’s three biggest cities: In the provinces of Rome, the “no” vote was 57 percent, Milan 54 percent and Naples 71 percent. In Naples, about 50 prosecutors and judges gathered to open champagne and sing Bella Ciao, the World War II anti-fascist partisan anthem. Activists, students and trade unionists spontaneously marched to Rome’s Piazza del Popolo chanting “resign, resign.”  In a video posted on social media, Meloni put a brave face on the result. “The Italians have decided and we will respect that decision,” she said. She admitted feeling some “bitterness for the lost opportunity … but we will go on as we always have with responsibility, determination and respect for Italy and its people.” In truth, however, the referendum will be widely viewed as a sign that she is politically vulnerable, after all. It knocks her off course just as she was setting her sights on major electoral reforms that would further cement her grip on power. One of her main goals has been to shift to a fixed-term prime ministership, which would be elected by direct suffrage rather than being hostage to rotating governments. Those ambitions look far more fragile now. The opposition groups that have struggled to dent Meloni’s dominance immediately scented blood. After months on the defensive, they pointed to Monday’s result as proof that the prime minister can be beaten and that a coordinated campaign can mobilize voters against her. Matteo Renzi, former prime minister and leader of the centrist Italia Viva party, predicted Meloni would now be a “lame duck,” telling reporters that “even her own followers will now start to doubt her.” When he lost a referendum in 2016 he resigned as prime minister. “Let’s see what Meloni will do after this clamorous defeat,” he said.  Elly Schlein, leader of the opposition Democratic Party, said: “We will beat [Meloni] in the next general election, I’m sure of that. I think that from today’s vote, from this extraordinary democratic participation, an unexpected participation in some ways, a clear political message is being sent to Meloni and this government, who must now listen to the country and its real priorities.”  Former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, leader of the populist 5Star Movement heralded “a new spring and a new political season.” Angelo Bonelli , leader of the Greens and Left Alliance, told reporters the result was “an important signal for us because it shows that there is a majority in the country opposed to the government.” ‘PARALLEL MAFIA’ The referendum itself centered on changes to how judges and prosecutors are governed and disciplined, including separating their career paths and reshaping their oversight bodies. The government framed the reforms as a long-overdue opportunity to fix a system where politicized legal “factions” impede the government’s ability to implement core policies on issues such as migration and security. Justice Minister Carlo Nordio called prosecutors a “parallel mafia,” while his chief of staff compared parts of the judiciary to “an execution squad.”   A voter is given a ballot at a polling station in Rome, Italy, on March 22, 2026. | Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu via Getty Images Meloni’s opponents viewed the defeated reforms differently, casting them as an attempt to weaken a fiercely independent judiciary and concentrate power. That framing helped turn a technical vote into a broader political contest, one that opposition parties were able to rally around. It was a clash with a long and bitter political history. The Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) investigations of the 1990s, which wiped out an entire political class, left a legacy of mistrust between politicians and the judiciary. The right, in particular, accused judges of running a left-wing vendetta against them. Under Meloni’s rule that tension has repeatedly resurfaced, with her government clashing with courts, saying judges are thwarting initiatives to fight migration and criminality. Meloni herself stepped late into the campaign, after initially keeping some distance, betting that her personal involvement could shift the outcome. She called the referendum an “historic opportunity to change Italy.” In combative form this month, she had called on Italians not squander their opportunity to shake up the judges. If they let things continue as they are now, she warned: “We will find ourselves with even more powerful factions, even more negligent judges, even more surreal sentences, immigrants, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers being freed and putting your security at risk.” It was to no avail, and Meloni was hardly helped by the timing of the vote. Her ally U.S. President Donald Trump is highly unpopular in Italy and the war in Iran has triggered intense fears among Italians that they will have to pay more for power and fuel. The main upshot is that Italy’s political clock is ticking again. REGAINING THE INITIATIVE For Meloni, the temptation will be to regain the initiative quickly. That could even mean trying to press for early elections before economic pressures mount and key EU recovery funds wind down later this year. The logic of holding elections before economic conditions deteriorate further would be to prevent a slow bleeding away of support, said Roberto D’Alimonte, professor of political science at the Luiss University in Rome. But Italy’s President Sergio Mattarella has the ultimate say about when to dissolve parliament and parliamentarians, whose pensions depend on the legislature lasting until February, could help him prevent elections by forming alternative majorities. D’Alimonte said Meloni’s “standing is now damaged.” “There is no doubt she comes out of this much weaker. The defeat changes the perception of her. She has lost her clout with voters and to some extent in Europe. Until now she was a winner and now she has shown she can lose,” he added. She must now weigh whether to identify scapegoats who can take the fall — potentially Justice Minister Nordio, a technocrat with no political support base of his own.  Meloni is expected to move quickly to regain control of the agenda. She is due to travel to Algeria on Wednesday to advance energy cooperation, a trip that may also serve to pivot the political conversation back to economic and foreign policy aims. But the immediate impact of the vote is clear: A prime minister who entered the referendum from a position of strength but now faces a more uncertain political landscape, against an opposition newly convinced she can be beaten.

Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. Like many, I used to believe that former U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the biggest strategic mistake America had made, at least since the Vietnam War. That is, until now. U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel in a war against Iran is a far bigger strategic error, and one with far bigger strategic consequences. The reasons for this are many, ranging from the immediate impact on the region and the global economy to the longer-term upshots for Russia and China, as well as the repercussions for U.S. alliances and America’s global standing. That much is already clear — and we’re only three weeks in. Let’s start with the similarities: Much like the Iraq War, the war against Iran began based on the presumption that the regime in power would swiftly fall and that a new, more moderate and less antagonistic one would take its place. In both instances, the idea was to remove the greatest destabilizing threat in the Middle East — Saddam Hussein’s regime in the initial case, the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran in the latter — through the swift and decisive use of military force. But while Bush understood that defeating a regime required ground forces, it seems Trump simply hoped that airpower alone would suffice. As a result, Hussein’s regime fell swiftly — though Bush did vastly underestimate what would be required to rebuild a stable, let alone a democratic, Iraq in its place. But the Iranian government, as U.S. intelligence officials themselves have testified, “appears to be intact” despite Israel killing many of its key political and security leaders through targeted strikes. Focusing on the region at large, Bush’s misjudgment eventually contributed to a large-scale insurgency, which strengthened Iran’s influence in Iraq and the wider Middle East. In contrast, Trump’s miscalculation has left in place a regime that, aside from assuring its own survival, is now singularly focused on inflicting as much damage on the U.S. and its allies as it possibly can. Iranian drones and missiles have already attacked Israel and the Gulf states, targeted critical energy production facilities and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, which hosts one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas export transits. The Salalah oil storage fire in Oman is pictured on March 13, 2026. | Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2026 Less than a month in, the world is now witnessing the largest oil and gas disruption in history. And as the fighting escalates to include gas and oil production infrastructure, the global economic consequences will be felt by every single country for months, if not years, to come — even if the conflict were to end soon. The damage that has already been inflicted on the global economy is far greater than the economic consequences of the Iraq War in its entirety. But that’s not all. Geopolitically, the U.S.-Israel war with Iran will also have far greater reverberations than the war in Iraq ever did. For one, the Bush administration spent a lot of time and effort trying to get allies on board to participate in and support the war. It didn’t fully succeed in this, as key allies like Germany and France continued opposing the war. But it tried. Trump, by contrast, didn’t even try to get America’s most important allies on board. Not only that, he even failed to inform them of his decision. And yet, when Iran responded predictably by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. president then demanded allies send their navies to escort tankers — despite the U.S. Navy so far refusing to do so. And while it’s true that Iraq left many U.S. allies — even those that joined the war, like the U.K. — deeply scarred, Iran has convinced U.S. allies they can no longer rely on the U.S., and that Washington is now a real threat to their economic security. That, too, will have a lasting impact well beyond anything the war in Iraq did. Finally, the fact remains that when Bush decided to invade Iraq, Russia and China were still minor global powers. Russian President Vladimir Putin was only just starting his effort to stabilize the economy and rebuild Russia’s military power, while China had just joined the World Trade Organization and was still a decade or more away from becoming an economic superpower. In other words, America’s blunder in Iraq occurred at a time when the strategic consequences for the global balance of power were still manageable. Trump’s Iran debacle is occurring at a time when China is effectively competing with the U.S. for global power and influence, and Russia is engaged in the largest military action in Europe since the end of World War II. A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in Tehran, Iran on March 15, 2026 after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before. | Majid Saeedi/Getty Images Both stand to benefit greatly. Russia is the short-term winner here. Oil prices are rising, generating more than $150 million per day in extra income for Moscow to feed its war machine. The U.S. is relaxing its sanctions against Russia in a vain attempt to stall prices from ballooning at the pump. All the while, Ukraine is being left to contend with Russia’s missile and drone attacks without the advanced defensive weaponry that’s now being used to protect Israel and the Gulf instead. China, meanwhile, is watching as the U.S. diverts its military forces from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, where they will likely remain for months, if not years. These forces include a carrier strike group, a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system from Korea, and a Marine Expeditionary Force from Japan. And while a disruption in oil and gas supply will be a short-term problem for Beijing too, China’s rapid transition to renewables and close alignment with energy-rich Russia will leave it well placed to confidently confront the future. Bush and Trump both came to office determined to avoid the mistaken wars of their predecessors. Nevertheless, they both embarked on military adventures fed by a hubristic belief in American power. But while the U.S. was strong enough — and its adversaries still weak enough — to recoup much of the damage inflicted by Bush’s war, the war unfolding in Iran today will leave behind an America that will have lost much of its global power, standing and influence, destined to confront rising adversaries all on its own.

FRENCH FAR RIGHT CLAIMS MOMENTUM FOR PRESIDENCY AFTER LOCAL ELECTIONS Marine Le Pen’s National Rally failed to win big target cities such as Marseille, Toulon and Nîmes, but the party still thinks it has the upper hand nationwide. By CLEA CAULCUTT in Paris POLITICO illustration. The far-right National Rally may not have won the string of big target cities it was hoping for in France’s local election on Sunday, but its leaders said they had still built up a grassroots momentum that would propel them to victory in next year’s presidential contest. The 2027 presidential election is seen as a decisive moment for the EU as the Euroskeptic and NATO-skeptic National Rally is the current favorite to win the race for the Elysée. This week’s municipal elections are being closely scrutinized to gauge whether Marine Le Pen’s anti-immigration party is still France’s predominant political force. All in all, it was a mixed night for the far right. Its biggest victory came on the Riviera, where one of its allies won Nice, France’s fifth-biggest city. The National Rally had also campaigned hard in other significant southern cities such as Marseille, Toulon and Nîmes. It performed well in all of them but was beaten into second place. The races were close in Toulon and Nîmes, and Le Pen’s party won 40 percent of the vote in Marseille — a considerable share in France’s diverse and cosmopolitan second city. Putting a positive spin on the results, the party leaders stressed that they had won numerous smaller and mid-sized cities and towns, particularly in their southern heartlands, such as Carcassonne, Agde and Menton — adding to the first-round victory in Perpignan last week. National Rally President Jordan Bardella told supporters in Paris the far right had achieved the “biggest breakthrough of its history,” and was seizing “a strong momentum” that signaled “the end of an old world running out of steam.” National Rally mayoral candidate Laure Lavalette casts her ballot during the second round of France’s 2026 municipal elections in Toulon on March 22, 2026. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images National Rally leader Le Pen meanwhile hailed “dozens” of regional victories and “a strategy of local implantation” that was working. STRONG NATIONWIDE, WEAKER IN BIG CITIES The National Rally’s argument is that traditional parties, particularly on the left, are strong in the big cities but that these do not fully reflect the wider national political currents, which are running toward the right. In Paris, for example, the National Rally candidate and MEP Thierry Mariani scored a dismal 1.6 percent of the vote in the first round on March 15, but nationwide Bardella is still the favorite for next year’s presidential election.   A Harris Interactive poll conducted after Sunday’s municipal elections confirmed Bardella’s position as frontrunner ahead of the 2027 race. Bardella would get 35 percent of the vote in the first round of voting, the survey said, 17 points ahead of the center-right contender, former Prime Minister Édouard Philippe. Still, the municipal election results will definitely reignite concerns among National Rally strategists about whether they really can win in a second round next year, given that the tradition of uniting against the far right in runoffs — something that helped crush Le Pen’s presidential bids in 2017 and 2022 — was on full display on Sunday. In the Mediterranean port city of Toulon, Laure Lavalette, a high-profile National Rally politician and close Le Pen ally, had a promising start in the first round of voting, winning 42 percent of the vote, 13 points ahead of the incumbent conservative mayor Josée Massi. But in Sunday’s runoff, Massi pulled ahead, benefitting from the withdrawal of a conservative candidate. The National Rally had hoped that its swell of support could break that second-round Achilles heel in these municipal elections but this perennial electoral vulnerability — that it is the party everyone gangs up against — looks set to persist. NO RESPITE FOR BARDELLA’S RIVALS The National Rally’s rivals are certainly not dismissing the far right because of its losses in the bigger cities on Sunday. Gabriel Attal, presidential hopeful and leader of President Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party, said Sunday’s results showed a rise of the extremes, referring to not just the far-right National Rally but also the far-left France Unbowed, which won in the northeastern city of Roubaix and in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. “It’s a warning signal,” he said. “More and more citizens, who voted for them, want things to change, and to change more quickly.” For the conservative Les Républicains, Sunday’s elections were bittersweet. The right won the mayoral jobs in several mid-sized cities including Limoges, Tulle, Brest and Clermont-Ferrand. In France’s fourth city, Toulouse, a former conservative Jean-Luc Moudenc saw off a far-left challenger from France Unbowed, backed by a left-wing coalition. Les Républicains leader Bruno Retailleau on Sunday claimed the right was “the Number One local political force” in France. Les Républicains candidate Rachida Dati at a campaign rally after the announcement of her defeat in the second round of the 2026 Paris municipal elections on March 22, 2026. | Ian Langsdon/AFP via Getty Images But the right was wiped out in Paris, where former Culture Minister Rachida Dati lost to the Socialist Emmanuel Grégoire. And in France’s second-largest city Lyon, the conservative candidate Jean-Michel Aulas, a former football club owner, lost by a narrow margin to the Green incumbent mayor. Retailleau sought to cast the conservatives as the force that could appeal to voters wanting to shut out the extremes, and slammed the National Rally as “demagogues.” There is “a French way, expressed by millions of fellow citizens who want neither the social chaos of [France Unbowed] or the budgetary disorder that the [National Rally’s] economic manifesto would bring about,” he said.  But the Les Républicains party has several presidential hopefuls and no clear path to decide which one will represent them in the presidential race. On Sunday, conservative heavyweights were already calling for the right to agree on a candidate against Bardella. This race for a single candidate to emerge in the middle ground is also likely to accelerate because former Prime Minister Philippe, buoyed by his victory against a strong Communist challenger in Le Havre in Normandy, will now be looking to promote his candidacy. Bardella, by contrast, simply tried to present the National Rally’s onward progression toward the Élysée as inevitable. Borrowing a phrase from former President François Mitterrand’s campaign in 1981 to end the right’s dominance in France, Bardella said the National Rally was now “a tranquil force.” “Our successes are not an achievement, but a beginning,” he said. Laura Kayali contributed reporting.

Democrats in the U.S. are skewering President Donald Trump after he proclaimed on Saturday that he was glad former special counsel Robert Mueller had died. “Every day, this president shows his basic indecency and unfitness for office,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote on X in response to Trump’s statement. The diatribe, in which Trump said he was “glad he’s dead” because he “can no longer hurt innocent people,” drew fierce condemnation from Democrats. “The cruelty is the point,” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X. “Trump’s goal is to distract you from rising gas prices, his aimless war, ICE abuses, and the Epstein files. Don’t give him what he wants. And may Robert Mueller, a US Marine and lifelong public servant, rest in peace.” Mueller and the president, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) wrote on X Saturday, “represent polar opposites of what a public servant should be.” “Yet the President of the United States disgustingly celebrates Mueller’s death simply because he exposed Trump’s efforts to steal the 2016 election,” Goldman said. At least one Republican also condemned Trump’s post. “It is clearly wrong and unchristian behavior,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said in a text to POLITICO when asked about Trump’s statement. “The vast majority of Americans want better.” The reactions weren’t limited to condemnation of Trump. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) called Mueller a “dedicated and honorable public servant” on X, and Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, in a statement that offered some criticism of Mueller’s handling of the Russia investigation, said he was nonetheless “committed to the truth” as special counsel. “Bob Mueller was one of the finest directors in the history of the FBI, transforming the bureau after 9/11 and saving countless lives,” former President Barack Obama wrote on X. “But it was his relentless commitment to the rule of law and his unwavering belief in our bedrock values that made him one of the most respected public servants of our time. Michelle and I send our condolences to Bob’s family, and everyone who knew and admired him.” Former President George Bush said Mueller “led the agency effectively” in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “Laura and I are deeply saddened by the loss of Robert Mueller. Bob dedicated his life to public service,” Bush said, later adding that he and former first lady Laura Bush “send our heartfelt sympathy to his wife of nearly 60 years, Ann, and the Mueller family.” Some Republicans aligned with Trump offered support for his blistering attack. Far-right activist Laura Loomer wrote that Trump “said what everyone is thinking” about Mueller. Meanwhile, Roger Stone, a onetime Trump adviser, posted on X that “the judgement of Robert Mueller has moved to a much higher court.” Mueller, who died on Friday night at 81 years old, served as the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Bush and Obama. He gained national attention for investigating the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia during the president’s first term. In 1968, Mueller joined the Marines, where he was deployed to Vietnam and received the Bronze Star for saving a fellow Marine under fire. He was later shot and awarded the Purple Heart. While the Mueller report ultimately “did not establish” criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, the special counsel found that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election to benefit Trump. The president has since attacked Mueller and Democrats, whom he says perpetuated a Russia collusion “hoax.”

Probably not since Margaret Thatcher was in office have EU leaders been so outraged with one of their peers as they were last week when Victor Orbán again blocked a critical €90 billion loan to fund Ukraine’s war effort. Admittedly, the language wasn’t quite as colorful as sometimes used about Britain’s Iron Lady. An exasperated Jacques Chirac once was caught on a mic complaining about Thatcher: “What does she want from me, this housewife? My balls on a plate?” Nonetheless, there was no disguising the depth of anger at last week’s European Council meeting, with Orbán the villain of the piece as the Hungarian leader stubbornly declined once again to approve the critical financial lifeline for Ukraine. He’d only do so, he said, when Russian oil flows freely to Hungary through the Druzhba pipeline, damaged in a Russian air attack. Orbán accuses Kyiv of stalling repairs to it; Ukraine’s leader denies this. “I have never heard such hard-hitting criticism at an EU summit of anyone, ever,” Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters later. Maddened though they may be with Orbán, some of his most fervent European critics worry that EU leaders fell into a trap he carefully baited and perfectly timed for the final stretch of the closely fought Hungarian parliamentary elections. They worry EU leaders inadvertently boosted his electoral chances by ganging up on him and allowing him to portray himself back at home as the only man capable of protecting Hungarian interests, a favorite trope of his.  “The EU should have waited for the result of the Hungarian election,” French MEP Chloé Ridel told POLITICO. “Orbán is not doing will in the opinion polls. And obviously he’s doing his best to fight until the end, and they should have avoided the confrontation about the Ukrainian loan, delayed the clash and not let him obtain what he clearly wanted,” she added.  As co-chair of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on Anti-Corruption, Ridel has been an impassioned critic of Orbán and she argues that if he does pull off another election win next month, then the EU should withhold all EU funds for Hungary to punish it for democratic backsliding and explore the nuclear option of stripping an Orbán-led Hungary of its EU voting rights.  But best to keep quiet for now with the long-serving Hungarian leader’s political dominance in question for the first time in a decade-and-a-half with his Fidesz party trailing rival Péter Magyar’s Tisza party in the opinion polls, she believes. Why play into Orbán’s election script and give him the opportunity to fire up his electoral base and engineer a rally-around-the-flag and possibly persuade swing voters to cast their ballots for Fidesz? ORBÁN’S ELECTION PLAYBOOK Certainly, as he left Brussels after the summit on Friday morning, Orbán didn’t seem crestfallen or rattled by the drubbing. Tellingly he flashed several smiles as he told reporters that all the EU leaders could do was to “make a few threats and then realize that it would not work.” He added: “There was no argument from them against which we did not have a stronger argument. They did not say nice things, but they could not bring up anything that Hungary could be morally, legally, or politically blamed for.”  All of this is very much out of Orbán’s election playbook, according to Michael Ignatieff, the former Canadian politician. He has observed Hungarian politics up close as professor of history at the Central European University, formerly based in Budapest, until it was forced out by Orbán, and is now headquartered in Vienna. “There’s always a risk you fall into a trap with Orbán. He’s fighting for his political life,” Ignatieff told POLITICO. But he doesn’t fault EU leaders for the stance they took last week. “I’m in no position to second-guess the Commission or the Council or anybody. The point to remember is that Orbán has run against Brussels Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday for 16 years and cashed the checks on Saturday and Sunday. That’s the play, right? I don’t think there’s anything the EU can do one way or the other here. If it plays soft, he’ll still play hard,” he added. Orbán’s four previous election campaigns were all built around the idea of Hungary facing a dark and dangerous external threat, portraying himself as the man of destiny — the only one able to protect the beleaguered country surrounded by conniving enemies. Those foes have been variously faceless financial masters of the universe, international institutions, transnational left-wing elites and, of course, always the European Union. “We know all too well the nature of the uninvited helping comrades, and we recognize them even when instead of uniforms with epaulettes, they don well-tailored suits,” Orbán said once, when his controversial changes to Hungary’s constitution were challenged by the EU.  While MAGA heavyweights have not been shy in recent weeks to mobilize to shore up their most loyal European ideological ally — this week Reuters reported that U.S. Vice President JD Vance might be dispatched to Budapest in a bid to give Orbán an electoral lift. But EU leaders had until last week been more circumspect and careful to try to stay above the electoral fray to avoid being accused of election meddling. ‘PYRRHIC VICTORY’ While disputing that Orbán in any way lured EU leaders into a trap, Fidesz MEP András László conceded the clash might well help the Hungarian leader secure a fifth straight term as prime minister. “Mr. Orbán actually kept his word. Isn’t that what every citizen wants from politicians?” And with a touch of sophistry, he told POLITICO: “It was not the reaction of EU partners which could help us in this election, it’s the fact that Mr. Orbán actually stood his ground and did not give in to the pressure.” László blames Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the clash, arguing that the Ukrainian president is purposefully not repairing the oil pipeline “for political reasons, to meddle in the elections, create chaos, create fear in the hope that Hungarians will turn against Orbán.” Since the summer, Orbán has gone out his way, of course, to cast Magyar as a puppet of the EU and even a Ukrainian agent of influence who wants to push Hungary into war. The portrayal of Magyar, an MEP, as an instrument of Brussels is false. Tisza MEPs voted in the European Parliament against the €90 billion loan to Ukraine and Magyar is also critical of fast-tracking Kyiv’s application for EU membership. Nevertheless, Orbán persists in his characterization of Magyar as Brussels’ guy. “In line with Brussels and Kyiv, instead of a national government, they [Tisza] want to bring a pro-Ukrainian government to power in Hungary. That is why they are not standing up for the interests of Hungarian people and Hungary,” Orbán argued in a Facebook post last week. And with his domination of Hungary’s traditional media, his bundling together of the EU, Magyar and Ukraine as one collective enemy might well be cutting through — at least in the rural districts Orbán needs to hold if he’s to defy his critics and pull off another victory.  But if he does so off the back of last week’s clash with other EU leaders, it will be a “pyrrhic victory for him,” said Péter Krekó, director of the Political Capital Institute, a Budapest-based think tank and political consultancy. “Orbán can use it in the campaign to demonstrate his fight against Brussels domestically, but if he stays in power the Council will play hardball. It is bad for the EU now, but it will be much worse for Hungary in the middle to long run — if Orbán stays in power,” Krekó told POLITICO.

TOULOUSE, France — The prospect of the hard-left France Unbowed party taking control of Toulouse, France’s fourth-largest city and home to Europe’s best-known airplane maker, is putting industry on edge. It’s not just that a win in the second round of local elections Sunday could give the party’s anticapitalist leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a major boost ahead of next year’s presidential election. That’s a concern for later. The immediate fear is that if France Unbowed makes history here — the party has never come close to controlling such a big metropolis — it will heap taxes on local icons like Airbus to pay for a generous manifesto that includes water subsidies, free public transport for residents under 26 years old, and free school meals and educational supplies. “I’m concerned it will jeopardize plans for new firms and factories to open in Toulouse, including the future prospects of Airbus,” said Pierre-Olivier Nau, the president of the employers’ lobby MEDEF in the Haute-Garonne department, which includes Toulouse. Nau also worries that the hard left’s opposition to adding a high-speed rail connection between Bordeaux and Toulouse, due to cost at least €14 billion, will harm businesses that have been expecting it a long time. France Unbowed’s mayoral hopeful argues the project will damage the environment and push up rents in Toulouse by attracting commuters or remote workers from other cities with higher salaries. A TIGHT RACE MEDEF and other business lobbies are now scrambling to react, given France Unbowed was never expected to get this close to power in Toulouse. Its candidate, lawmaker François Piquemal, was polling behind his Socialist Party rival François Briançon in the run-up to the first round of the vote last Sunday. The Socialist leadership had vowed not to work with the hard left after the torrent of criticism unleashed against Mélenchon following accusations of antisemitic behavior and his unapologetic reaction to the death of a far-right activist. So Piquemal’s second-place finish and his quickly formed alliance with Briançon to topple the longtime center-right mayor, Jean-Luc Moudenc, came as a surprise. The runoff is expected to be close. A poll released Thursday showed Moudenc winning by just two points in the second round, within the margin of error. Two local employers’ lobbies recently slammed the hard left’s plans for Toulouse, and a group of 350 local celebrities, including rugby luminaries and business owners, signed an open letter calling on citizens to vote against France Unbowed. “A lot of business projects have been put on hold,” said Nau. Piquemal says this is scaremongering. The 41-year-old former teacher denied he will raise taxes and downplayed talk among business leaders that Airbus, the region’s dominant employer responsible for more than 200,000 direct and indirect jobs, would reduce investments or shift facilities if he were elected. Airbus declined a request for comment. A general view shows an entrance of the Airbus Defence and Space campus in Toulouse on October 16, 2024. | Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images “Moudenc’s policies, but also [President Emmanuel] Macron’s policies, have worsened living conditions in Toulouse,” Piquemal told reporters in Toulouse on Thursday. “We are the ones who support jobs, we support companies,” he added. “We are the ones defending small shop owners against big corporations.” A soft-spoken man with a light beard and warm manner, Piquemal is characteristic of the new generation of radical left activists in France. He’s just as comfortable discussing toxic masculinity and making videos on TikTok as he is campaigning for rent controls or against Israel’s war in Gaza. He was aboard the so-called Freedom Flotilla with Greta Thunberg and MEP Rima Hassan, carrying aid to Gaza before they were all arrested by Israeli forces. Piquemal, however, is much more understated than his party’s flamethrowing leader. But he’s benefiting from the success of Mélenchon’s adversarial approach to politics. France Unbowed is trying to establish itself as the ultimate anti-establishment party ahead of what is expected to be a showdown with the far right in next year’s presidential election. Most polls show Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella’s party, the National Rally, is currently the favorite in the race for the Elysée. “France Unbowed is the most solid, the best-placed to build a barrage against the far right,” said Ismael Youssouf-Huard, a France Unbowed activist and candidate for the Toulouse city council. “Mélenchon is the sensible choice against the National Rally,” he said. Results in the first round of voting have gone some way toward validating Mélenchon’s provocative approach. France Unbowed won the poor, diverse city of Saint-Denis in the Paris suburbs outright in the first round and is on track to score the mayor’s job in the industrial northeastern city of Roubaix. Hard-left candidate François Piquemal talking to voters in the impoverished Reynerie neighbourhood in Toulouse. | Clea Caulcutt/POLITICO The election in Toulouse is seen as a major test case for Mélenchon ahead of the 2027 presidential election. Can he and his party confirm its leadership role on the left ahead of the presidential election or will more moderate voters, turned off by the hard left’s radicalism, flock toward the opposition? ‘ARE YOU READY FOR SUNDAY?’ At a market squashed between a burnt-out drug dealers’ den and a tower block in the Reynerie neighborhood, Piquemal is trying to get people to vote. “Are you ready for Sunday?” he asked, as he handed out leaflets. “You need to go and vote.” In the Reynerie market, shoppers are pleased to see him. “I’m so happy he did well in the first round,” said Claude Compas, a retired special education teacher. Thibaut Cazal, a leftwing candidate for the city council, hopes to beat abstention in the poorer neighbourhoods of Toulouse. | Clea Caulcutt/POLITICO But some voters are worried about the prospect of the far left running the city. “They say they’ll give free public transport to the youth, but nothing’s free,” said retiree Abdallah Taberkokt. “Who’s going to pay? We are.” Piquemal was generally warmly received — little surprise considering Reynerie swung heavily for him in the first round of the vote. Still, Piquemal thought there was more excitement than usual in his core constituencies. He said he was harnessing “greater momentum” than during the last local election six years ago, when Moudenc narrowly defeated a more moderate candidate backed by a united left. Piquemal’s supporters believe their champion will pave the way for a unified left, despite the fact that the first round of voting exposed deep divisions nationally over local alliances with Mélenchon and the hard left. “These local elections are going to make history,” said Thibaut Cazal, a candidate for councilor alongside Piquemal. “It’ll show that left-wing families can be reconciled.” France Unbowed may still fall short in Toulouse. But even if it does, the party will have proved that it cannot be ignored ahead of the big presidential showdown in 2027.

‘ALL I COULD DO WAS JUST WAIT AND PRAY’: AN ORAL HISTORY OF THE BRUSSELS BOMBINGS 10 years ago, terror attacks shook the Belgian capital. Here’s how the day and its aftermath unfolded, in the words of those who lived it. By SONJA RIJNEN and SEBASTIAN STARCEVIC Illustration by Patrik Svensson for POLITICO On March 22, 2016, just before 8 a.m. on an ordinary weekday morning, two explosions ripped through the departure hall of the main international airport in Brussels. The nail-packed bombs shredded flesh and blew off limbs as flaming tiles rained down from the ceiling. About an hour later, across town, a third detonation took out a train carriage at a metro station in the city’s European Quarter. Tensions and security measures in Brussels had been escalating since coordinated Islamist terrorist attacks had killed more than 130 people in Paris four months earlier, including 90 at a rock concert in the Bataclan theater.  Advertisement Belgian officials had warned of possible strikes just days before, after raids in Brussels led to the capture of key suspects linked to the deadly assaults in neighboring France. A decade on, POLITICO spoke with politicians, emergency service officials, journalists, survivors and their families about that fateful morning, reconstructing a timeline of the Brussels bombings and the painful days that followed. *The following interviews were conducted in English, French and Dutch. They have been translated, edited and condensed for clarity. AT ZAVENTEM AIRPORT At 7:58 a.m., two suicide bombers detonated explosives, nine seconds apart, in the crowded departure hall. Karen Northshield, American-Belgian athlete and survivor: I was at the Brussels international airport to fly out to the U.S., like a lot of other people that day. The moment I was hit by the first bomb, literally all hell broke loose. I’m swept off my feet, I’m on my back, fatally injured and just waiting, hoping, praying somebody will come and see me. Tara Palmeri, journalist and former POLITICO reporter: I think I just got a Twitter alert. I was still in bed, hadn’t properly woken up for work yet, and I saw the news of the terror attack. I got in an Uber and asked them to get me as close to the airport as possible. They dropped me off on the highway, and I started walking. When I got there, it was chaos. People were running. It was like a crime scene. Karen Northshield: I was lying on the floor for the longest time. I’m losing my breath. I’m losing every ounce of strength I have in me. There’s blood gushing out of my leg. And I’m thinking: “How did this happen?” There were other survivors that were severely injured. They were waiting for help. There was a lot of noise and crying and yelling and screaming. Of course, it was chaos. Tara Palmeri: I just remember the sound of the sirens. It reminded me of a World War II movie. In my head, I remember feeling like I was in the middle of a war. Karen Northshield: When a life-or-death situation happens, the body can do amazing things. I was able to hoist myself up onto an airport cart. At a certain moment, I looked off to the side and saw somebody running back in. He was a couple meters away from me, looking to see if there were any more bodies to save. I’m thinking: “This is my only chance. It’s now or never.” I do everything I can to gain just enough strength to show him I’m alive, so I wave my hand, and he understands. He comes running to me, pushes me out and wheels me on one of the carts out to the sidewalk, then he disappears. A plume of smoke rises over Brussels airport after the terrorist attack on March 22, 2016 in Brussels, Belgium. | Sylvain Lefevre/Getty Images Tara Palmeri: I remember there was this wonderful woman who taught yoga at the gym. She was an American girl [Karen], and she lost, like, half her body. Karen Northshield: It took about an hour before the ambulance finally arrived [at the airport]. I was doing everything I could to stay awake and remain conscious and remain alive. But that hour just felt like hell. I was literally dying, and all I could do was just wait and pray that God would come rescue me. When the ambulance finally arrived, I think my subconscious mind said: “Okay, you’re good. Now you can let them take care of the rest.” AT THE MAELBEEK METRO STATION At 9 a.m., another suicide bomber detonated inside a subway car at Maelbeek Station. Christelle Giovanetti, survivor: On March 22, 2016, I left for work. I didn’t usually take the metro, but once every two months I had a meeting in the city center, which fell on that day. The metro started moving, and as soon as the first car entered the tunnel, the explosion happened. I was sitting in that first car — it was in the second one that the suicide bomber blew himself up. There was a big ball of fire and the sound of a really loud explosion. I was thrown up and then crashed back into my seat. Advertisement Silvia Sciorilli Borrelli, journalist and former POLITICO reporter: I was based in London and had started at POLITICO just a few months prior, so I was on a trip to Brussels. Because I had woken up late, I decided I was going to take the metro from Maelbeek. I was on the phone with my dad because he’d heard on the radio about the bombs that went off at the airport, and he called to check I was OK. While I was talking to him, I heard these loud bangs, and it was the bomb going off at the metro station right below where I was standing, right where I was about to go. Christelle Giovanetti: I remember being in the dark because I was already partially in the subway tunnel. I remember touching my legs and wondering what was on me — it was debris and dust. It felt like I had swallowed dust and had things in my mouth. There was a man next to me who kept praying. Then, there was some movement, there was some noise, and people started switching on their phones, so everything came back to life a bit. The driver came from his cabin and helped us take out a window for an emergency exit. We let people out, women and children first. I was one of the last ones out. Silvia Sciorilli Borrelli: Obviously, when it happened, it was surreal because I’d never been anywhere where bombs were going off. It’s just one of those very strange situations where you realize you’re in the middle of something that will become big news, but in the moment, you don’t really realize it’s happening. I remember just telling my dad I was going to get off the phone. Christelle Giovanetti: I think I was a bit in shock, so instead of leaving like everyone else, I stood stuck on the platform. There were things on the ground, human pieces. I was very taken aback. There was a young woman who was with me who told me not to look. I looked anyway. Policemen stand guard at the entrance of a security perimeter set near the Maelbeek metro station, on March 22, 2016. | Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images I wanted to go into the second train car, but it wasn’t possible. All the people who had died were there. I saw a lot of horrors. I pulled one woman out of the rubble who was stuck and was barely responding. Tine Gregoor, physician and volunteer first responder: My partner and I were by chance in the car in the European Quarter, and I saw on Twitter there had been a second attack in the area. I thought there probably wasn’t a doctor there yet, so I walked to the site. I said: “Je suis medicin” (“I am a doctor”). At some point, I met someone, I think from the fire department, who took me to a first-aid station. The most critically injured were brought there. Christelle Giovanetti: The first police arrived on the opposite platform. There was no light in the station, so we couldn’t see each other well. The officer yelled at me to evacuate, and I shouted back that there were survivors. He replied that I should get out. So, I stepped over a lot of things, and I went up the escalator. I couldn’t even see a meter in front of me because of the smoke. At the top, there were already firemen and ambulances.  Lack of equipment was a problem for everyone. I had respiratory problems because I inhaled a lot of gas from the bomb, but I couldn’t get a mask because they didn’t have enough of them, and they were obviously given to someone who was no longer breathing.  Silvia Sciorilli Borrelli: Basically, the Thon Hotel (on Rue de la Loi) turned into triage, and from the hotel gym — I think it was on the first floor — you could see law enforcement arriving, and people being taken out of the metro station on stretchers, both the injured and the deceased. Tine Gregoor: People just kept coming. Tables were moved to the side, and at one point there were 11 seriously injured people just in that room, which was actually quite small. They were all lying side by side, each one in worse condition than the other. It was very intense. They all had life-threatening injuries. Anyone that could still walk was sent to another room. Christelle Giovanetti: We were triaged based on our injuries and then sent to a hospital. In the beginning, I was surrounded by passersby, people who had taken care of me and other victims. We became very close because we’d all come out of something terrible. One of the people who was on the metro with me and with whom I had spent all morning at the Thon came looking for me. It was good to see him, even though we hadn’t known each other just the day before. He took care of me, went to get me water and charged my phone. Advertisement Tine Gregoor: I was taking care of injuries that were like war injuries. At one point I had a scalp in my hands. The victims couldn’t hear anything, and they were covered in black stuff. I had to improvise a lot because we had very little material. We also had to triage and decide who we thought had the highest chance of survival. There were many people with broken bones, almost all of them had severe burns and some had brain injuries too. You could see their heads were swollen. After an hour, the most seriously injured were taken to the hospital. In the chaos, I’d lost my handbag and keys. I was a bit dazed. I remember a nurse asking me if I was OK, and I said yes. You just had to flip a switch and keep going. FIRST RESPONSE Authorities raced to secure EU institutions, clear the metro and identify victims, while families desperately awaited news. In total, 32 people were killed and more than 340 were injured. Philippe Vansteenkiste, director of V-Europe and special adviser on Victims of Terrorism to the European Commission: On the morning of March 22, I was driving my kids to school. The day before, my wife had told me to stop listening to the news with the kids in the car because it’s not always pleasant, so I’d switched on music that day. When I arrived at the school, I heard that a bomb had exploded at the airport. My sister worked at the airport. Then, I got a call from my mother saying my sister wasn’t answering her phone. She usually did a morning shift that ended at 6 a.m. But someone had called in sick that day, and my sister decided to stay until 8 a.m. At around 8:45 a.m., I suddenly had a very weird feeling I’d never had before. It was like my sister passed by to say goodbye. I jumped in the car and decided to drive straight to my parents. Christian Decobecq, former head of Disaster Victim Identification (DVI), Belgian federal police: I received a call from one of my colleagues who told me there had been an explosion at Zaventem. We’d been fearing attacks — especially after France — and the federal police were on alert. Special police forces stand guard outside the Council Chamber of Brussels on March 24, 2016 during investigations into the Paris and Brussels terror attacks. | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images The DVI was only a team of seven, but we had a pool of 80 in case of major disasters. I started putting together teams on my whiteboard — teams for recovering bodies, autopsies, speaking to families for identification, and logistics and coordination, etc. We heard about the second explosion in Maelbeek while I was writing the names. So, I drew a line on my whiteboard and assigned a second team. Alexander De Croo, former prime minister of Belgium: At that point, I was deputy prime minister, and my competencies were digital and telecom. The first thing was that the telecom network was crashing. I remember that, without consulting anyone, I sent a tweet asking people to please use IP-based messaging such as WhatsApp instead of calling and sending texts. It’s been my most retweeted post of my whole life. It helped a lot in reducing the tension on the telecom network. Jean-Luca Cocci, head of Dispatching Unit, European Parliament: Once we had more or less understood what had happened, first at the airport and then in the Maelbeek metro, we knew this was something we’d never experienced before. This wasn’t attacks in France or Germany — it was next door. It was the EU’s backyard. The first thing that collapsed was the mobile network because of congestion, so I launched one of the first WhatsApp groups. We needed to immediately inform everybody we could with the means that we had. Tom Michiels, former technical director, Brussels Metro Business Unit: Initially, getting information was almost impossible because communication [was cut off]. But I realized quite quickly that we would need to go on-site. It became apparent we would need a team on standby to clean up the train. We went to Maelbeek, but we were not allowed down. We were there for hours on standby. Advertisement Christian Decobecq: The first thing the DVI does is go on-site and recover the bodies. Once the bodies have been collected, we transport them, and postmortem activities are carried out in collaboration with forensic experts. When I realized it was terrorism, one of the first things that went through my head was: “Do not make mistakes.” The French had told me they made a mistake with two young girls. They didn’t follow the Interpol standards and made a comparison based on visible identification and an ID card. The two girls looked alike, and they gave the news to the wrong family. I thought to myself: “Christian, you must not do that. We will follow the procedures, and that may take some time.” Jean-Luca Cocci: The EU institutions took the decision to keep people at home and let them stay there until we had certainty from the Belgian authorities that no other explosions or attacks were ongoing. We had many requests coming one after the other: What about my kids in school? Should we join them? Should I leave Parliament and go home? It was hard to give instructions because information was coming in from everywhere. So, block by block, step by step, we tried to answer all the questions. Alexander De Croo: Brussels had very strict rules about how much power cell towers could have because of concerns that they might impact our health. We decided to tell telecom networks to double their power to get network stability. By late afternoon, I think we had our first Security Council meeting with government and the heads of security agencies. I think the first major discussions were about if we could have the military in the streets to secure some high-risk areas. It was a tense discussion. It’s still a difficult discussion these days. Dimitri Defre, emergency preparedness coordinator, University Hospital Leuven: That first day was the most dramatic in terms of the medical aspect. But alongside that, we also had the forensic part of things. We were quickly designated the hospital in charge of analyzing all the physical remains of the victims and perpetrators from the airport.  There were a lot of moving parts. We had to improvise because our morgue was not big enough for the extra bodies alongside the usual flow. A ambulance man pushes a stretcher with a body bag outside the Maalbeek metro station. | Philippe Huguen/AFP via Getty Images Philippe Vansteenkiste: We couldn’t find [my sister]. It was a very, very intense and difficult day. No one understood exactly what was going on, and as time goes by, you just get more and more desperate. Then, as evening approaches, suddenly all the helplines are closed because their office hours are over. You start to feel so much frustration because you need help, and it’s just not coming. Tom Michiels: Around 11 p.m., we were allowed down [to the metro]. The police had done their investigation, so we worked for a few hours. We saw quite a scene — the train was folded open like a sardine box. The roof had been blown open and a piece was stuck to the ceiling. We were thinking: “What can we do to get this train back to a depot?” We realized relatively quickly that we needed more equipment, so around 3 or 4 a.m., we made the necessary contact. Our team went to sleep for 3 hours before getting back to work. There were 12 to 15 of us working on the train. There was a bit of urgency to clean up for political reasons. To get the metro running as fast as possible, to show: “Look, we won’t let ourselves get destroyed.” Over four days, we only slept six hours.  Christian Decobecq: There are standards we follow: The bodies must be identified via scientific methods — that is to say, teeth, DNA or fingerprints. Only based on this can we make a positive identification. It takes time, of course. We started this the first day. The DVI also meets with relatives for an interview to establish what the persons looked like. What were they wearing? Do they wear jewelry? Do they have any tattoos or scars? What’s the address of their doctor and dentist? We also asked if they had traveled abroad. If they’d been to America, then maybe we could find their fingerprints.  Philippe Vansteenkiste: We kept searching for [my sister], on and on. On Thursday afternoon, we finally got a call that we should come to the DVI. I went with my mother, and they asked for a description of my sister. It took an hour-and-a-half. Finally, a step was being taken. Advertisement Then, on Friday morning, a policeman called me, thinking I had already received the news that my sister had been killed — I hadn’t. So, it had happened on Tuesday, and I got the news that she had passed away on Friday, a bit by mistake. It took four days. I understand the DVI cannot make errors, but she had a uniform. She had a badge. It can’t be that families have to wait for such a long time. Christian Decobecq: I know that for the bereaved, one minute feels like a century, but we have to be absolutely sure. We can’t make mistakes. At one point, all the families were gathered at a Red Cross center, and I explained as much as I could. There was one family, where the wife came to me and said: “Sir, sir, please give my husband back.” I’ve never forgotten that. THE AFTERMATH  In the ensuing days, political leaders rushed to show resolve and solidarity. But as Belgium struggled to comprehend how the attacks were able to take place, many began demanding answers. Philippe Close, mayor of Brussels: In 2016, I was deputy mayor and a member of the Brussels Parliament. We were aware the risk existed. But in democracies, we think it’s impossible because we live in peace, that it’s unimaginable that people would attack their own country. We know that intelligence services do their utmost to control and arrest terrorist cells, but this last group decided to act, I think because they knew they were recognized by the services. Was the city prepared? For an attack, no. To help the injured people, yes. There was a lot of solidarity. We are one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and it’s important that a large part of the population want to defend that, also after the attack. A Belgian serviceman stands guard at the Maalbeek metro station on its re-opening day on April 25, 2016 in Brussels, after being closed since the 22 March attacks. | John Thys/AFP via Getty Images Alexander De Croo: I found the prime minister [Charles Michel] handled it well. In general, the government did well. But when terrorist attacks happen, one way or another, it is a failure to prevent that. It was a case of really working together with security services and also making some legal reforms to give police and legal institutions more leverage to act against these terrorists. Tara Palmeri: I remember there was a lot of debate about the right to move freely within the EU and how countries like Belgium just aren’t able to protect their citizens the way they can in the U.S. There was a huge sense that they should have done more to protect their citizens. One of the top priorities of a state is to provide security to its people. They weren’t able to do that. Philippe Close: I remember we decided not to freeze the city. It’s a very difficult decision. The advice is to close everything. We didn’t decide that. If we decided to do that, when would we reopen? The population is made more afraid by the measures than the risks. As a politician, you need to pay attention to the balance between the risk and also the values you want to defend, and that our city needs to continue to live. If you don’t defend that, they win. Advertisement Silvia Sciorilli Borrelli: On the evening of the attacks, the day after and the days following, there was an incredible silence at the airport, the train station and around the city in general. It was suddenly extremely empty and quiet. Because it wasn’t very long after the Paris attacks, it was a moment in time in Europe where everyone kind of had a sense of being in potential danger and wanting to avoid situations that could put them in harm’s way. So, everyone was a bit wary of just carrying on with their regular lives. Christelle Giovanetti: The week that followed was really complicated because I felt like there was an attack going on inside my head. I had hearing problems, felt withdrawn in my suffering, and even though the people around me were really present, I couldn’t find what would help me. A woman reacts during a minute of silence held at a makeshift memorial in front of Brussel’s Stock Exchange on Place de la Bourse (Beursplein) on March 24, 2016. | Philippe Huguen/AFP via Getty Images A week after, the police organized a discussion group among victims. It was the first time I met other victims since the attack, and that really helped me. It was the starting point for my recovery. Sitting down with other people who have been through the same thing really helped. In the end, I got four days of sick leave and then went back to work. Karen Northshield: I ended up in the hospital for 79 days — 79 days nonstop in terms of terror, in terms of agony, in terms of suffering. My body, my skin, my cells, my bones, everything was fully in flames. I had zero chance of survival, my heart had stopped so many times, I went into septic shock so many times. Everything I had built up until then, all my hopes, all my dreams just vanished into thin air. Françoise Schepmans, member of the Brussels Parliament and former mayor of Molenbeek: I understand the anger that people felt at that time because it was a period of fear and uncertainty for residents. They were deeply worried. Advertisement Silvia Sciorilli Borrelli: There was a general sense of wariness of the people around you, which I think was the worst part, really. I have always thought of Brussels as an inclusive city where different people mingle, and there’s just a melting pot of people from different walks of life. Suddenly those people or those communities were singled out. Alexander De Croo: This was the first major terrorist attack in 40 years. It opened many people’s eyes to the fact that no one is shielded from this. I think it’s a major trauma in Belgian society. I think that we’ve always been a very stable and peaceful society. People from the security forces [used to] say that we don’t really have a culture of security — and that’s true. But that’s also the type of society we had. Politicians in general were very accessible and had no security forces, parliament and ministries essentially had open doors. That had to change quite a bit. It really changed the way we look at how we have to secure our society. Philippe Close: Our police departments need to study these terrorist actions more. For example, what happens in the Middle East is always a risk for Brussels — and we know it. We need to invest in intelligence. We also need to detect radicalism. A large part of people become [radicalized] on social networks. I think there’s a real responsibility from Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and all of them, to manage what we can put on social networks more. Françoise Schepmans: A lot has changed in the last 10 years. People were afraid back then. Today, we are better prepared, better coordinated and better equipped to prevent and respond to threats. We have stronger tools, clearer procedures and more experience in protecting our society. Unfortunately, in today’s world, we have to be aware that anything can happen. That’s why we must stay vigilant and prepared. But at the same time, we cannot live in fear. We have to stay hopeful, united and trust that our institutions and our society are stronger than they were before. Advertisement

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Europe is working hard to end the standoff with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán over the €90 billion loan promised to Ukraine. Host Zoya Sheftalovich and Ian Wishart, senior EU politics editor, discuss how likely it is for the deadlock to be resolved before tomorrow’s meeting of EU leaders now that Kyiv has agreed to work with the bloc to repair the Druzhba pipeline. Orbán has held off on greenlighting any funding until Ukraine fixes this pipeline that carries Russian oil into Hungary. Also on the pod, Brussels is trying to do something about its startup problem. The European Commission will unveil the so-called “28th regime” which attempts to make it easier to start and scale new companies across borders. We explain why this plan is actually a test of something much bigger — and more political. Finally, a new exhibition in the European Parliament traces the continent’s history through the eyes of a notary … because what’s more “EU” than official documents? Questions? Comments? Send them to our WhatsApp: +32 491 05 06 29. 

President Donald Trump has often frustrated European allies with his overt entreaties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and harsh words for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But behind the seeming imbalance is a longer-term strategic goal – countering China. The Trump administration believes that incentivizing Russia to end the war in Ukraine, welcoming it back economically and showering it with U.S. investments, could eventually shift the global order away from China. It’s a gamble – and one Ukrainians are concerned with – but it underscores the administration’s belief that the biggest geopolitical threat facing the United States and the West is China, not Putin’s Russia. While countering China isn’t the only reason the administration wants a truce, it does help explain why after more than 15 months of fruitless talks and multiple threats to walk away, the president’s team – special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner – keep looking for a breakthrough. A Trump administration official, granted anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations, said finding a “way to align closer with Russia” could create “a different power balance with China that could be very, very beneficial.” The administration’s desire to use Ukraine peace negotiations to counter China has not been previously reported. But many observers believe this plan has little hope of succeeding – at least while Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping remain in charge. And the idea of giving Russia economic incentives to grow closer to the U.S. is concerning for Ukraine, said a Ukrainian official, granted anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters. “We had such attempts in the past already and it led to nothing,” they said. “Germany had [Ostpolitik, Germany’s policy toward the East], for that and now Russia is fighting the deadliest war in Europe.” And when it comes to banking on breaking apart China and Russia, the Ukrainian official noted that both countries “have one [thing] in common which you can not beat – they hate the U.S. as a symbol of democracy.” Still, the strategy is in keeping with the administration’s broader foreign policy initiatives aimed at least in part in countering Chinese influence. Taking out Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and pressuring Cuba’s government to the brink of collapse all diminishes China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. The administration threatened Panama, which withdrew from Chinese leader Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative a month after Trump took office and called Peru’s deal with China surrounding its deepwater port in Chancay a “cautionary tale.” And striking Iran shifted China’s oil import potential, as Tehran supplied Beijing with more than 13 percent of its oil in 2025, according to Reuters. Indeed, the Trump administration official noted that between Venezuela, Iran and Russia, China was buying oil at below-market rates, subsidizing its consumption “to the tune of over $100 billion a year for the last several years.” “So that’s been a massive subsidy for China by being able to buy oil from these places on the black market, sometimes $30 a barrel lower than what the spot market is,” the person said. Even as there are reports that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran, the U.S. and Russia keep talking. Witkoff and Kushner met with Kirill Dmitriev, a top adviser to Putin, last week. The Russians called the meeting “productive.” Witkoff said they’d keep talking. These negotiations and the broader efforts to counter China now take place under the spectre of Trump asking several countries, including China, for help securing the Strait of Hormuz. The National Security Strategy, released in November, spilled a fair amount of ink on China, though it often doesn’t mention Beijing directly. Many U.S. lawmakers — from both parties — consider China the gravest long-term threat to America’s global power. “There is a longstanding kind of U.S. strategic train of thought that says that having Russia and China working together is very much not in our interests, and finding ways to divide them, or at least tactically collaborate with the partner who’s less of a long term strategic threat to us,” said said Alexander Gray, Trump’s National Security Council chief of staff in his first term. Gray, who is currently the CEO of American Global Strategies, a consulting firm, compared the effort to former Secretary of State and national security adviser Henry Kissinger, who spearheaded President Richard Nixon’s trip to China during the Cold War in an effort to pull that country away from the Soviet Union. The State Department declined to comment for this report. However, a State Department spokesperson previously told POLITICO that China’s economic ties with Latin American countries present a “national security threat” for the U.S. that the administration is actively trying to mitigate. The White House declined to comment. Fred Fleitz, another Trump NSC chief of staff in his first term, noted that the president has “pressed Putin to end the war to normalize Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe,” and wants Russia to rejoin the G8. “It is clear that Trump wants to find a way to end the war in Ukraine and to coexist peacefully with Russia,” said Fleitz, who now serves as the vice chair for American Security at the America First Policy Institute. “But I also believe he correctly sees the growing Russia-China alliance as a far greater threat to U.S. and global security than the Ukraine War and therefore wants to find ways to improve U.S.-Russia relations to weaken or break that alliance.” Others, however, remain skeptical. Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the goal to break Russia and China is “appealing in theory, but in practice the partnership between Moscow and Beijing is iron-clad.” “Obviously there is nothing wrong with testing diplomacy and President Trump is a dealmaker. But history probably suggests that this won’t really result in much,” Singleton added. “The likely outcome [with Russia] is limited tactical cooperation with the U.S., not some sort of durable break with Beijing.” And China seeks to keep Russia as an ally and junior partner in its relationship as a counter to Western powers. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reaffirmed the relationship in a press conference this month, saying, “in a fluid and turbulent world, China-Russia relationship has stood rock-solid against all odds.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, shortly after his confirmation, hinted at the broader strategy, saying in an interview, that “a situation where the Russians are permanently a junior partner to China, having to do whatever China says they need to do because of their dependence on them” is not a “good outcome” for Russia, the U.S. or Europe. But Rubio, like the Trump administration official given anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations, both acknowledged that fully severing those ties would be a tough lift. “I don’t know if we’ll ever be successful at peeling them completely off a relationship with the Chinese,” Rubio said in February of last year. Adam Savit, director for China policy at the America First Policy Institute, argued that “Russia matters at the margins, but it won’t be a decisive variable in the U.S.-China competition,” and that the “center of gravity is East Asia.” “Russia gives China strategic depth, a friendly border, energy supply, and a second front in Ukraine to sap Western attention,” he said. “Getting closer to Russia could complicate China’s strategic position, but Moscow is a declining power and solidly the junior partner in that relationship.”

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives in Brussels on Tuesday with a clear message for EU regulators ahead of a looming review of Europe’s streaming rules: Don’t overcomplicate them. In an exclusive interview with POLITICO, Sarandos said Netflix can live with regulation — but warned the EU not to fracture the single market with a patchwork of national mandates as officials prepare to reopen the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. “It doesn’t make it a very healthy business environment if you don’t know if the rules are going to change midway through production,” Sarandos said. He also warned regulators are underestimating YouTube as a direct competitor for TV viewing, too often treating it like a social media platform with “a bunch of cat videos” than a massive streaming rival. Sarandos’ effort to win over European regulators comes soon after the collapse of Netflix’s bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — but Sarandos maintained that the political dynamics around the deal only “complicated the narrative, not the actual outcomes.” He added that there was no political interference in the deal, and he shrugged off President Donald Trump’s demand to remove Susan Rice, a former national security adviser under President Barack Obama, from the Netflix board. “It was a social media post,” Sarandos said. “It was not ideal, but he does a lot of things on social media.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What’s bringing you back to Brussels now? Well, we have ongoing meetings with regulators around Europe all the time. We have so much business in Europe, obviously, and so this has been on the books for quite a while. Can you give me a little bit of a sense of who you’re meeting with, and what is the focus? I think one of the things to keep in mind is that we’ve become such an important part, I’d think, of the European audiovisual economy. We’ve spent, in the last decade, over $13 billion in creating content in Europe. It makes us one of the leading producers and exporters of European storytelling. First of all, we’ve got a lot of skin in the game in Europe, obviously. We work with over 600 independent European producers. We created about 100,000 cast and crew jobs in Europe from our productions. So we talk to folks who are interested in all the elements of that — how to keep it, how to maintain it, how to grow it and how to protect it. In terms of regulation in the EU, Netflix is governed by a directive here. The commission is looking to reopen that this year. There seems to be a sense here from regulators that the current rules don’t create a level playing field between the broadcasters, the video on demand, the video sharing, and so they may look to put more requirements on that. How steeped in the details are you there? And how would Netflix react to more rules put on Netflix at this moment? Well, first and foremost, we comply with all the rules that apply to us in terms of how we’re regulated today. We have seen by operating around the world that those countries where they lean more into incentives than the strict regulatory scheme, that the incentives pay off. We’ve got multibillion dollar investments in Spain and the UK, where they have really leaned into attracting production through incentives versus regulatory mandates, so we find that that’s a much more productive environment to work in. But the core for me is that obviously they’re going to evolve the regulatory models, but as long as they remain simple, predictable, consistent — the single market, the benefit of the single-market is this — as long as these rules remain simple, predictable and consistent, it’s a good operating model. I think the more that it gets broken up by individual countries and individual mandates, you lose all the benefits of the single market. There’s a lot of talk in Brussels right now about simplification, getting rid of a lot of red tape. Do you think the rules that you’re governed by would benefit from a similar kind of effort to simplify, of pulling back on a lot of these patchwork of rules, even at the EU? Look, I think it doesn’t make it a very healthy business environment if you don’t know if the rules are going to change midway through production, so for me, having some stability is really important, and I understand that we’re in a dynamic market and a dynamic business, and they should reflect the current operating models that we’re in too. We want to work closely with the regulators to make sure that what they’re doing and what we’re doing kind of reflect each other, which is trying to protect the healthy work environment for folks in Europe. When you meet with regulators here, is there a message you’re going to be delivering to them or what do you want them to walk away with in terms of the bottom line for you in terms of your business at this moment in the EU? I think some things are well understood and other things I think are less so. I think our commitment to European production is unique in the world. Both in our original production but also in our investment in second right’s windows that we pre-invest in films that compel production. Tens of millions of dollars’ worth of film production is compelled by our licensing agreements as well beyond our original production. And the fact that we work with local European producers on these projects — I think there’s a misconception that we don’t. And the larger one is the economic impact that that brings to Europe and to the world with our original program strategy that supports so many, not just the productions themselves but even tourism in European countries. Think about President [Emmanuel] Macron pointing out that 38 percent of people who went to France last year cited “Emily in Paris” as one of the top reasons they went. We’ve seen that in other countries. We saw it in Madrid with the “Casa de Papel.” And so it’s one of those things where it really raises all boats across the economies of these countries. Regulators often focus on the competition between streaming services, but as you know very well, younger audiences are spending more time on platforms like YouTube. Do you think policymakers are underestimating that shift? Would you like to see that taken into account more in the regulatory landscape? One of the things that we saw in recent months with the Warner Brothers transaction is a real deep misunderstanding about what YouTube is and isn’t. YouTube is a straightforward direct competitor for television, either a local broadcaster or a streamer like Netflix. The connected television market is a zero-sum screen. So whichever one you choose, that’s what you’re watching tonight. And you monetize through subscription or advertising or both, but at the end of the day, it’s that choosing to engage in how you give them and how, and how that programming is monetized is a very competitive landscape and it includes YouTube. I think what happens is people think of YouTube as a bunch of cat videos and maybe some way to, to promote your stuff by putting it on there for free. But it turns out it is a zero-sum game. You’re going to be choosing at the expense of an RTL or Netflix. I think in this case it’s one of these things where recognizing and understanding that YouTube is in the same exact game that we are. Do you feel like you’re on different planes though, in the eyes of regulators at this moment? I don’t think that they see them as a direct competitor in that way. I think they think of that as an extension of social media. And the truth is when we talk about them as a competitor, we’re only talking about them on the screen. I’m not talking about their mobile usage or any of that. You know, about 55 percent of all YouTube engagement now is on the television through their app. So to me, that’s the thing to keep an eye on. As you get into this, it’s a pretty straightforward, competitive model and we think probably should have a level playing field relative to everybody else. Who do you view as Netflix’s main competitors today? Look, our competitive space is really the television screen. When people pick up the remote and pick what to watch, everyone is in that mix. We identified YouTube — this isn’t new for us — we identified YouTube as a competitor in the space 10 years ago, even before they moved to the television. And I think, for the most part, TikTok forced their hand to move to the television because they were kind of getting chased off the phone more or less by TikTok. I think that’s the other one that regulators should pay a lot of attention to is what’s happening with the rise of TikTok engagement as well. It’s not directly competitive for us, but it is for attention and time and to your point, maybe the next generation’s consumer behavior. Last question on regulation: With the EU looking at the rules again, there’s a tendency always to look to tinker more and more and do more. Is there a point at what regulation starts affecting your willingness to invest in European production? Well, like I said, those core principles of predictability and simplicity have really got to come into play, because I think what happens is, just like any business, you have to be able to plan. So, if you make a production under one set of regs and release it under another, it’s not a very stable business environment. The topic that dominated a lot of your attention in recent months was obviously the merger talks with Warner Brothers Discovery. I know you’ve said it didn’t work for financial reasons. I want to ask you a little bit about the political dynamics. How much did the political environment, including the Susan Rice incident, how much did that complicate the calculus in your mind? I think it complicated the narrative, not the actual outcomes. I think for us it was always a business transaction, was always a well-regulated process in the U.S. The Department of Justice was handling it, everything was moving through. We were very confident we did not have a regulatory issue. Why would that be? It’s because it was very much a vertical transaction. I can’t name a transaction that was similar to this that has ever been blocked in history. We did not have duplicated assets. We did have a market concentration issue in the marketplace that we operate in. And I think that’s the feedback I was getting back from the DOJ and from regulators in general, which was, they understood that, but I do think that Paramount did a very nice job of creating a very loud narrative of a regulatory challenge that didn’t exist. But looking back to those early days of the merger discussions, did you have an appreciation for what might follow in terms of that complicated narrative? Yeah. Look, I think it opens up the door to have a lot of conversations that you wouldn’t have had otherwise, but that’s okay. A lot great things came out of it, the process itself. I would say in total, we had a price for where we thought this was good for our business. We made our best and final offer back in December and it was our best and final offer. So that’s all. But what came out a bit that’s positive is, we’ve had really healthy conversations with folks who we hardly ever talked to, theater operators, as a good example. I had a great meeting in February with the International Union of Cinemas, and the heads from all the different countries about what challenges they have, how we could be more helpful, or how they could be helpful to us too. I think we’ll come out of this with a much more creative relationship with exhibitions around the world. And by way of example, doing things that we haven’t done before. I don’t recommend testifying before the Senate again, but it was an interesting experience for sure. Probably a good learning experience. Hopefully not in the future for anything that you don’t want to be there for, but yes. Yeah, exactly. We’ve always said from the beginning, the Warner transaction was a nice-to-have at the right price, not a must-have-at-any-price. The business is healthy, growing organically. We’re growing on the path that we laid out several years ago and we didn’t really need this to grow the business. These assets are out there through our growth period and they’re going to be out there and for our next cycle growth as well and we’ve got to compete with that just like we knew we had to at the beginning. This was I think something that would fortify and maybe accelerate some of our existing models, but it doesn’t change our outcome. Are there regrets or things you might have wished you’d done differently? I mean honestly we took a very disciplined approach. I think we intentionally did not get distracted by the narrative noise, because we knew, we recognized what it was right away, which is just narrative noise. This deal was very good for the industry. Very good for both companies, Warner Brothers and Netflix. Our intent was obviously to keep those businesses operating largely as they are now. All the synergies that we had in the deal were mostly technologies and managerial, so we would have kept a big growth engine going in Hollywood and around the world. The alternative, which we’ve always said, is a lot of cutting. I think regulators in Europe and regulators in the U.S. should keep an eye on horizontal mergers. They should keep a close eye on [leveraged buyouts]. They typically are not good for the economy anywhere they happen. What were you preparing for in terms of the EU regulatory scrutiny with Warner Brothers? What was your read on how that might have looked? I think we’re a known entity in Europe. Keep in mind, like in Q4 of last year, we reported $3.5 billion or $3.8 billion in European revenues. So 18 percent year-on-year growth. The EU is now our largest territory. We’re a known entity there. The reason we didn’t take out press releases, we had meetings in Europe as we know everybody. We talked to the regulators, both at the EU and at the country level. And I do think that in many of the countries that we operate in, we’re a net contributor to the local economy, which I think is really important. We’ve got 12 offices across Europe with 2,500 people. So we’re members of the local ecosystem, we’re not outsiders. With President Trump, he demanded that Netflix remove Susan Rice from the board or pay the consequences. Did that cross a line for you in terms of political interference? It was a social media post, and we didn’t, no, it did not. It was not ideal, but he does a lot of things on social media. So you didn’t interpret it as anything bigger than that. I mean, he does that one day, he could obviously weigh in on content the next day. How does somebody like you manage situations like that? I think it’s really important to be able to separate noise from signal, and I think a lot of what happens in a world where we have a lot of noise. There was so much attention to you going to the White House that day. And we didn’t learn until several days later that you didn’t actually have the meetings that were predicted. Before you arrived in Washington that day, had you already made the decision not to proceed? Not before arriving in Washington, but we knew the framework for if this, then that. So, yeah, I would say that it was interesting, but again, we don’t make a big parade about our meetings with government and with the regulators. I had a meeting on the books with the DOJ scheduled several weeks before, meeting with Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff, scheduled several months before, unrelated to the Warner Brothers deal. And that was just the calendar that lined up that way. We didn’t know when Warner Brothers would make the statement about the deal. It’s all very dramatic, like it belongs on Netflix as a movie. There was paparazzi outside of the White House waiting for me when I came out. I’ve never experienced that before. Yeah, it’s a remarkable story. I would tell you, and I’m being honest with you, there was no political interference in this deal. The president is interested in entertainment and interested in deals, so he was curious about the mechanics of things and how things were going to go or whatever, but he made it very clear that this was under the DOJ. So it’s just like we all spun it up from the media? How do you explain it all? First of all, Netflix is clickbait. So people write about Netflix and it gets read. And that’s a pretty juicy story. And [Trump] said, and by the way, like I said, he makes statements sometimes that lead to the beliefs of things that do and sometimes that don’t materialize at all. But I found my conversations with him were 100 percent about the industry, protecting the industry. And I think it’s very healthy that the president of the United States speaks to business leaders about industries that are important to the economy. To what degree did the narrative or the fact that David Ellison had a relationship or seemed to have a relationship with people in Washington who were in power, that that might have swayed or changed the dynamic at the end with where Warner Brothers went though? I can’t speak to what their thinking is on it. I feel like for me, it’s very important to know the folks in charge, but I wouldn’t count on it if you’re doing something that is not in the best interest of the country or the economy. You talked with Trump in the past about entertainment jobs. Were there specific policies you’ve advocated to him or anything that he brought up on that point? He has brought up tariffs for the movie and television industry many times. And I’ve hopefully talked to him the way out of them. I just said basically the same thing I said earlier. I think that incentive works much better. We’re seeing it in the U.S. things like the states compete with each other for production incentives and those states with good, healthy incentive programs attract a lot of production, and you’ve seen a lot of them move from California to Georgia to New Jersey, kind of looking for that what’s the best place to operate in, where you could put more on the screen. And I do think that having the incentives versus tariffs is much better. Netflix is now buying Ben Affleck’s AI company. What areas do you see AI having the most potential to change Netflix’s workflow? My focus is that AI should be a creator tool. But with the same way production tools have evolved over time, AI is just a rapid, important evolution of these tools. It is one of those. And the idea that the creators could use it to do things that they could never do before to do it. Potentially, they could do faster and cheaper. But the most impact will be if they can make it better. I don’t think faster and cheaper matters if it’s not better. This is the most competitive time in the history of media. So you’ve gotta be better every time out of the gate. And faster and cheaper consumers are not looking for faster and cheaper, they’re looking for better. I do think that AI, particularly InterPositive, the company we bought from Ben, will help creators make things better. Using their own dailies, using their own production materials to make the film that they’re making better. Still requires writers and actors and lighting techs and all the things that you’d use to make a movie, but be able to make the movie more effective, more efficient. Being able to do pick up shots and things like this that you couldn’t do before. It’s really remarkable. It’s a really remarkable company. As AI improves, do you see the role of human voice actors shrinking at Netflix? What’s interesting about that is if you look at the evolution of tools for dubbing and subtitling, the one for dubbing, we do a lot of A-B tests that people, if you watch something and you don’t like it, you just turn it off. The one thing that we find to be the most important part of dubbing is the performance. So good voice actors really matter. Yeah, it’s a lot cheaper to use AI, but without the performance, which is very human, it actually runs down the quality of the production. Will it evolve over time? Possibly, but it won’t evolve without the cooperation and the training of the actual voice actors themselves too. I think what will happen is you’ll be able to do things like pick up lines that you do months and months after the production. You’ll be able to recreate some of those lines in the film without having to call everybody back and redo everything which will help make a better film. You’re in the sort of early stages of a push into video podcast. What have you learned so far about what works and what doesn’t? It’s really early. The main thing is we’ve got a broad cross-section of podcasts. It’s nowhere near as complete as other podcast outlets yet. But the things that we leaned into are the things that are working. We kind of figured they would. You’ve got true crime, sports, comedy, all those things that we do well in the doc space already. And I really am excited about things where people can develop and deepen the relationship with the show itself or the [intellectual property] itself. Our Bridgerton podcast is really popular, and people really want to go deeper and we want to be able to provide that for them. I think a video podcast is just the evolution of talk shows. We have tried to and failed at many talk shows over the years, and for the most part it’s because the old days of TV, when 40 million people used to tune in to the Tonight Show every night, [are over]. What’s happened now is that it’s much smaller audiences that tune into multiple shows in the form of a podcast every day. And then they come up to be way bigger than the 40 million that Johnny Carson used to get. They’re all individual, and it’s a deeper relationship than it is a broad one. So instead of trying to make one show for the world, you might have to make hundreds or thousands of shows for the whole world.