PARIS — One of French President Emmanuel Macron’s top political allies is under fire over respect for the rule of law after he fired a high-ranking official at the country’s most powerful constitutional body. The head of France’s Constitutional Council, Richard Ferrand, one of the president’s closest confidants, dismissed the institution’s secretary general, Aurélie Bretonneau, just a year after she was appointed.  In an internal email sent late on March 23 and seen by POLITICO, Bretonneau said Ferrand had “informed [her] that he has proposed to the President of the Republic that [she] step down from [her] position due to differences of opinion on the conduct of the institution.” The move triggered strong reactions from top French political officials and legal scholars. Aurélien Rousseau, a former health minister in Macron’s government and now a center-left MP, said on X that the move was “worrying” and highlighted the “flippancy with which our institutions are treated.” Green MEP David Cormand posted: “It is a problem that a member of a particular clan has been appointed to head our country’s highest constitutional body,” adding that such actions undermine French democracy and institutions. Ferrand’s appointment by Macron last year was criticized as an attempt to politicize the independent institution, which has the power to rule on whether legislation passed by the National Assembly is in accordance with the constitution. Ferrand, a former president of the National Assembly, has limited legal training and was one of Macron’s earliest supporters. The Constitutional Council rules on legal challenges and oversees elections. Its members don’t need to be trained judges or lawyers.  Four people within the institution confirmed to POLITICO that Ferrand had decided to fire Bretonneau. “Differences of opinion” between Ferrand and Bretonneau had emerged in recent months, particularly “on the role of the law”, said two of the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. According to one of the officials, the disagreements between Ferrand and Bretonneau reached their peak near the end of last year when, amid a spiralling budgetary crisis, the government contemplated the possibility of passing fiscal legislation via executive action. Bretonneau sent out an internal memo arguing that a budget passed by the government through executive action could not include amendments on what had already been drafted, a ruling that would have tied the government’s hands during a period of tense negotiations with opposition parties. She also argued that the Constitutional Council did not have the authority to review the legislation. Her conclusions reportedly upset Ferrand. Ferrand did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment on Monday. Bretonneau also declined to comment. “Aurélie Bretonneau is not the type of person to compromise on the defense of the rule of law, the rigour of legal reasoning or the independence of the institution,” a senior civil servant told POLITICO. “If that’s what bothered her, it’s a major problem.” Bretonneau’s appointment had been directly approved by Ferrand.

When German historian Rainer Zitelmann reposted a photo of Adolf Hitler to warn against appeasing Russian President Vladimir Putin, he didn’t expect it to trigger a police probe. According to police, the problem was the image itself: Hitler was shown wearing a swastika armband — a banned symbol under Germany’s criminal code, which prohibits the public display of Nazi and other extremist insignia. Zitelmann was informed in February that authorities were examining the case. Zitelmann’s is just one of several recent investigations into online speech, which have raised questions about how far German authorities are going in enforcing strict speech laws — and whether efforts to curb extremism are colliding with satire and political criticism. Zitelmann said he posted the image as a warning, not an endorsement. Like Hitler, Putin cannot be trusted when he says he has no further territorial ambitions. “I’m usually against Hitler analogies,” he said. “They’re often inaccurate and used to discredit political opponents.”  But, he added, ”the parallels practically impose themselves.” A week earlier, a journalist found himself in a similar situation for mocking the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.  In a podcast, Jan Fleischhauer suggested the party’s youth wing, known as “Generation Germany,” might be better named “Generation Germany awake” — a reference to a banned Nazi slogan. Fleischhauer’s case comes after police had searched conservative commentator Norbert Bolz’s home in October for using the same slogan to mock a left-wing newspaper that had called for the AfD to be banned. “A good translation for ‘woke’: Germany awake!” Bolz had written. Fleischhauer reacted to his investigation with humor. “Maybe [the complaint was filed] … by an AfD supporter who was annoyed that I made fun of the AfD youth wing,” he said.  But, he warned, such cases risk chilling free speech. Jan Fleischhauer at the 69th Frankfurt Book Fair in Frankfurt am Main in October 2017. | Frank May/picture alliance via Getty Images “I come from the 1968 generation,” Fleischhauer said. “I thought the path of free speech had been cleared once and for all by the ’68 movement. But as we can see, all of that can be rolled back.” TRADEOFF The cases highlight a tension at the heart of Germany’s postwar legal order: how to guard against extremism without restricting free expression. After World War II, lawmakers — encouraged by the occupying Allied powers — moved swiftly to ban symbols of the country’s Nazi past, seeking to prevent fascism from reasserting itself. Critics now argue authorities are going too far. Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy leader of the pro-business Free Democrats, wants the law scrapped or narrowed. “If one wants to keep it, it would have to be limited strictly to explicit endorsement of National Socialist ideology,” he said. “At the moment, it has become vague and ill-defined. The legislature urgently needs to change that.” But others warn that loosening the rules could embolden extremists.  Lena Gumnior speaks to MPs in the plenary chamber of the German Bundestag on May 16, 2025. | Katharina Kausche/picture alliance via Getty Images “The point is not to allow governments to suppress political expression, but rather to protect the principles of our liberal constitution,” said Lena Gumnior, a Green lawmaker. “It is about strictly prohibiting the use of unconstitutional symbols, particularly those associated with National Socialism, in order to protect our democracy.” A separate provision of Germany’s criminal code — which designates it an offense to insult or belittle a politician — also sparked controversy recently. In January, a retiree came under investigation after posting a Facebook comment about Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s visit to his town: “Pinocchio is coming,” he wrote, adding a long-nose “lying” emoji.  That case drew the attention of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, prompting a a post by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has taken a strong stance against European laws that regulate online speech. “Most Germans I’ve talked to don’t want their laws applied this way,” she wrote. “When you’re regulating speech at scale, on platforms based in America (whose American users, especially, deserve First Amendment protection), this creates problems worth solving.” German authorities have dropped the probes into Fleischhauer and the Pinocchio emoji. The investigation into Zitelmann was still open as of Friday. For Matthias Cornils, a law professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, the outcome matters more than the investigations themselves. “Courts often reject criminal liability, even in quite harsh cases,” he said. “The strong constitutional protection of freedom of expression, developed over decades, remains intact.”

Opposition parties, NGOs and academics are accusing Czechia’s new government of preparing to introduce a Russia-style law, which would stifle dissent by tightening disclosure rules on foreign financing for NGOs. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’s right-wing government has described the creation of a public register for NGO subsidies as a key government program priority. “This is not any kind of foreign agents law, but rather about making funding transparent,” he told journalists last week. “We want to do this and we will do it,” said Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Petr Macinka about the proposed legislation on Monday. However, Czech opposition parties, academics and NGOs say the new rules, along with the expected severe penalties, would stigmatize and burden civil society instead of enhancing transparency. They also say it could be used by the government to justify repressive measures — like in Georgia and Russia — such as silencing independent NGOs and imprisoning opposition figures. They expect the proposal will follow the contours of a draft version — yet to be presented in parliament — which was first disclosed by media outlet Seznam Zprávy and later seen by POLITICO. It would create a database of NGOs with foreign ties and require them to disclose detailed information about their activities, staff and funding. However, NGOs wouldn’t have to label themselves as foreign-funded. Fines for noncompliance would start at 1 million Czech koruna (€40,000) for administrative errors, rising to 15 million Czech koruna (€600,000) for more serious violations. The text was drawn up by MPs from the ruling coalition as a preliminary working draft, rather than by the government as an official bill. Czech Minister of Justice Jeroným Tejc told POLITICO that the leaked version “was not prepared by anyone from the Ministry of Justice, and personally I do not consider it suitable for discussion.” Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Jan Lipavský called the working draft a “Russian recipe for totalitarianism.” Danuše Nerudová, an MEP for the European People’s Party and former Czech presidential candidate, warned in a statement to POLITICO that “it stigmatizes civil society, nongovernmental organizations, experts and the media, and it introduces a principle into the Czech environment that belongs more in authoritarian regimes.” Czechia’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs Jan Lipavský speaks to media arriving for a Ministerial Council meeting of the OSCE on December 4, 2025 in Vienna, Austria. | Georg Hochmuth/APA/AFP via Getty Images) “When laws of this kind are drafted so broadly … the extreme vagueness of those legislative terms always means they want to create a tool that they can, but don’t have to, use against whoever they want,” said Nadiia Ivanova, head of the Human Rights and Democracy Centre at the NGO People in Need. Babiš dismissed comparisons to the Russian law, and said the working draft version would undergo changes. Macinka was more combative on Monday: “When you’re out of arguments, you just bring up Russia, that’s a classic,” he said. After the public backlash, Tomio Okamura, the speaker of the lower house of parliament, clarified that a government ministry will now take over and finalize the legislation before introducing it in parliament. The Prime Minister’s Office did not reply to a request for comment.

BUDAPEST — If Brussels claws back €10 billion of EU funds controversially disbursed to Hungary, it will also have to recover as much as €137 billion from Poland too, Budapest’s EU affairs minister told POLITICO. The European Commission made a highly contentious decision in December 2023 to free up €10 billion of EU funds to Hungary that had been frozen because of weaknesses on rule of law deficiencies and backsliding on judicial independence. Members of the European Parliament condemned what looked like a political decision, offering a sweetener to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán just before a key summit where the EU needed his support for Ukraine aid. On Feb. 12, Court of Justice of the European Union Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta recommended annulling the decision, meaning Hungary may have to return the funds if the court follows in its final ruling in the coming months. Orbán has slammed the idea of a repayment as “absurd.” János Bóka, Hungary’s EU affairs minister, told POLITICO that clawing back the €10 billion from the euroskeptic government in Budapest would mean that Brussels should also be recovering cash from Poland, led by pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk. “We believe that the Commission’s decision was lawful … the opinion, I think, it’s legally excessive,” Bóka said. He warned that “if the Advocate General’s opinion is followed then the Commission would be legally required to freeze all the EU money going to Poland as well, which I think in any case the Commission is not willing to do.” The legal opinion on Hungary states the the Commission was wrong in unfreezing the funds “before the required legislative reforms had entered into force or were being applied,” Ćapeta said in February. Bóka said that would seem to describe the situation in Poland too. In February 2024, the EU executive released €137 billion in frozen funds to Tusk’s government in exchange for promised judicial reforms. But these have since been blocked by President Karol Nawrocki as tensions between the two worsen — spelling trouble for Poland’s continued access to EU cash. “It’s very easy to get the EU funds if they want to give it to you, as we could see in the case of Poland, where they could get the funds with a page-and-a-half action plan, which is still not implemented because of legislative difficulty,” Bóka said. Fundamentally, that is why Bóka said he believed “the court will not issue any judgment that would put Poland in a difficult position.” Bóka risks leaving office with Orbán after the April 12 election, with opposition leader Péter Magyar leading in the polls on a platform of unlocking EU funds, tackling corruption, and improving healthcare and education. The Commission is, separately, withholding another €18 billion of Hungarian funds — €7.6 billion in cohesion funds and €10.4 billion from the coronavirus recovery package. “I think Péter Magyar is right when he says that the Commission wants to give this money to them … in exchange, like they did in the case of Poland, they want alignment in key policy areas,” he said, “like support for Ukraine, green-lighting progress in Ukraine’s accession process, decoupling from Russian oil and gas, and implementing the Migration Pact.” “Just like in the case of Poland, they might allow rhetorical deviation from the line, but in key areas, they want alignment and compliance.” Poland’s Tusk has been vocal against EU laws, such as the migration pact and carbon emission reduction laws. Bóka also accused the Commission of deciding “not to engage in meaningful discussions [on EU funds] as the elections drew closer.” He added that if Orbán’s Fidesz were to win the election, “neither us nor the Commission will have any other choice than to sit down and discuss how we can make progress in this process.” Legal experts are cautious about assessing the potential impact of such a ruling, noting that the funds for Poland and Hungary were frozen under different legal frameworks. However, there is broad agreement that the case is likely to set some form of precedent over how the Commission handles disbursements of EU funds to its members. If the legal opinion is followed, “there could be a strong case against disbursing funds against Poland,” said Jacob Öberg, EU law professor at University of Southern Denmark. He said, however, that it is not certain the court will follow Ćapeta’s opinion because the cases assess different national contexts. Paul Dermine, EU law professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles agreed the court ruling could “at least in theory, have repercussions on what happened in the Polish case,” but said that he thought judges would follow the legal opinion “as the wrongdoings of the Commission in the Hungarian case are quite blatant.”

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.”

The 21st century is more likely to belong to Beijing than to Washington — at least that’s the view from four key U.S. allies. Swaths of the public in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. have soured on the U.S., driven by President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions, according to recent results from The POLITICO Poll. Respondents in these countries increasingly see China as a more dependable partner than the U.S. and believe the Asian economic colossus is leading on advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence. Critically, Europeans surveyed see it as possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. but harder to reduce reliance on China — suggesting newfound entanglements that could drastically tip the balance of global power away from the West. Here are five key takeaways from the poll highlighting the pivot from the U.S. to China. The POLITICO Poll — in partnership with U.K. polling firm Public First — found that respondents in those four allied countries believe it is better to depend on China than the U.S. following Trump’s turbulent return to office. That appears to be driven by Trump’s disruption, not by a newfound stability in China: In a follow-up question, a majority of respondents in both Canada and Germany agreed that any attempts to get closer to China are because the U.S. has become harder to depend on — not because China itself has become a more reliable partner. Many respondents in France (38 percent) and the U.K. (42 percent) also shared that sentiment. Under Trump’s “America First” ethos, Washington has upended the “rules-based international order” of the past with sharp-elbowed policies that have isolated the U.S. on the global stage. This includes slow-walking aid to Ukraine, threatening NATO allies with economic punishment and withdrawing from major international institutions, including the World Health Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Council. His punitive liberation day tariffs, as well as threats to annex Greenland and make Canada “the 51st state,” have only further strained relationships with top allies. Beijing has seized the moment to cultivate better business ties with European countries looking for an alternative to high U.S. tariffs on their exports. Last October, Beijing hosted a forum aimed at shoring up mutual investments with Europe. More recently, senior Chinese officials described EU-China ties as a partnership rather than a rivalry. “The administration has assisted the Chinese narrative by acting like a bully,” Mark Lambert, former deputy assistant secretary of State for China and Taiwan in the Biden administration, told POLITICO. “Everyone still recognizes the challenges China poses — but now, Washington no longer works in partnership and is only focused on itself.” These sentiments are already being translated into action. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney declared a “rupture” between Ottawa and Washington in January and backed that rhetoric by sealing a trade deal with Beijing that same month. The U.K. inked several high-value export deals with China not long after, while both French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have returned from recent summits in Beijing with Chinese purchase orders for European products. Respondents across all four allied countries are broadly supportive of efforts to create some distance from the U.S. — and say they’re also more dependent on China. In Canada, 48 percent said it would be possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. and believe their government should do so. In the U.K., 42 percent said reducing reliance on the U.S. sounded good in theory, but were skeptical it could happen in practice. By contrast, fewer respondents across those countries believe it would actually be possible to reduce reliance on China — a testament to Beijing’s dominance of global supply chains. Young adults may be drawn to China as an alternative to U.S. cultural hegemony. Respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 were significantly more supportive than their older peers of building a closer relationship with China. A recent study commissioned by the Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences — a Beijing-based think tank — suggests most young Europeans get their information about China and Chinese life through social media. Nearly 70 percent of those aged 18 to 25 said they rely on social media and other short-form video platforms for information on China. And the media they consume is likely overwhelmingly supportive of China, as TikTok, one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, was built by Chinese company ByteDance and has previously been accused of suppressing content deemed negative toward China. According to Alicja Bachulska, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, younger generations believe the U.S. has led efforts to depict China as an authoritarian regime and a threat to democracy, while simultaneously degrading its own democratic values. The trend “pushes a narrative that ‘we’ve been lied to’ about what China is,” said Bachulska, as “social sentiment among the youth turns against the U.S.” “It’s an expression of dissatisfaction with the state of U.S. politics,” she added. There’s a clear consensus among those surveyed in Europe and Canada that China is winning the global tech race — a coveted title central to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s grand policy vision. China is leading the U.S. and other Western nations in the development of electric batteries and robotics, while Chinese designs have also become the global standard in electric vehicles and solar panels. “There has been a real vibe shift in global perception of Chinese tech and innovation dominance,” said Sarah Beran, who served as deputy chief of mission in the U.S. embassy in Beijing during the Biden administration. This digital rat race is most apparent in the fast-paced development of artificial intelligence. China has poured billions of dollars into research initiatives, poaching top tech talent from U.S. universities and funding state-backed tech firms to advance its interests in AI. The investment appears to be paying off — a plurality of respondents from Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is more likely to develop the first superintelligent AI. But these advancements have done little to change American minds. A majority of respondents in the U.S. still see American-made tech as superior to Chinese tech, even in the realm of AI. As Washington and its allies grow more estranged, the perception of the U.S. as the dominant world power is in retreat — though most Americans don’t see it that way. About half of all respondents in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is rapidly becoming a more consequential superpower. This is particularly true among those who say the U.S. is no longer a positive force for the world. By contrast, 63 percent of respondents in the U.S. believe their nation will maintain its dominance in 10 years — reflecting major disparities in beliefs about global power dynamics between the U.S. and its European allies. This view of China as the world’s power center may not have been entirely organic. The U.S. has accused Beijing of pouring billions of dollars into international information manipulation efforts, including state-backed media initiatives and the deployment of tools to stifle online criticism of China and its policies. Some fear that a misplaced belief among U.S. allies in the inevitability of China surpassing the U.S. as a global superpower could be helping accelerate Beijing’s rise. “Europe is capable of defending itself against threats from China and contesting China’s vision of a more Sinocentric, authoritarian-friendly world order,” said Henrietta Levin, former National Security Council director for China in the Biden administration. “But if Europe believes this is impossible and does not try to do so, the survey results may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.” METHOLODGY The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Feb. 6 to Feb. 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.

By Anna Wiederkehr and Erin Doherty Many Americans give their country positive reviews. Some of the United States’ closest allies give far less flattering ratings. The POLITICO Poll, conducted across five countries, reveals a stark disconnect between how Americans see their country and how several top allies do. As the Trump administration’s aggressive posture abroad disrupts the longstanding world order, the United States’ global reputation appears far worse than Americans realize. In the U.S., the divergence is especially sharp along partisan lines. Americans who voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 overwhelmingly give the country high marks on the world stage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article is part of an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com. Those who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris, however, offer negative assessments far closer to America’s allies. The results paint a lopsided picture, with Americans — driven by the president’s own supporters — increasingly on an island in how they view the country. It’s not just The POLITICO Poll that reveals this growing mismatch. Leaders across Europe and Canada are increasingly voicing their concern about Trump’s efforts to upend longtime alliances. The poll was conducted Feb. 6 to Feb. 9 in the United States, Canada and the three largest economies in Europe: France, Germany and the United Kingdom. We’ve turned the results from several key questions into ratings, comparing answers across countries. Here’s America, reviewed: “THE US PROTECTS DEMOCRACY” U.S. 4.9/10 About half of Americans, 49 percent, said the U.S. protects democracy, including three in four who backed Trump in 2024. On the contrary, just 35 percent of voters who backed Harris agreed. Featured review GERMANY 1.8/10 “I see no need for the Americans to now want to save democracy in Europe. If it would need to be saved, we would manage on our own.” —German Chancellor Friedrich Merz Dec. 9, 2025 Other reviews U.K. 3.4/10 CANADA 2.5/10 FRANCE 2.1/10 Question: “Thinking about the US, do you agree or disagree with the following? The US protects democracy.” The U.S. has long seen itself as a defender of democracy — both at home and abroad. But that reputation may be fraying amid growing unease among longtime allies about whether the U.S. still protects the democratic principles it once championed. When U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro earlier this year, Trump pointed to Maduro’s disputed election as part of the rationale for the operation, even as some allies and international experts questioned the legality of Washington’s intervention. “THE US IS MOSTLY A FORCE FOR STABILITY IN THE WORLD” U.S. 3.6/10 A 36 percent plurality of Americans said the U.S. is mostly a force for stability — more than double the share of adults in the other countries who said the same. Featured review FRANCE 1.5/10 “We have the Chinese tsunami on the trade front, and we have minute-by-minute instability on the American side. These two crises amount to a profound shock — a rupture for Europeans.” — French President Emmanuel Macron February, 2026 Other reviews U.K. 1.8/10 CANADA 1.4/10 GERMANY 1.3/10 Question: “Which of the following comes closest to your view on the US’s role in the world?” Options: The US is “mostly a force for stability in the world”, “sometimes a force for stability, sometimes a threat,” “mostly a threat to global stability,” “not very important to global stability either way,” or “don’t know.” The surveyed nations have been among the hardest hit by Trump’s sweeping trade agenda, resulting in strained economic and diplomatic relationships. The steep levies — and Trump’s repeated broadsides against U.S. allies — have left them doubting Washington’s reliability as both a partner and a stabilizing force. It’s not just that allies no longer see the United States as a force for stability. Sizable shares, including a 43 percent plurality in Canada, say the country is mostly a threat to global stability. At the Munich Security Conference last month, a number of global leaders openly questioned the United States’ standing in the international order. “THE US CAN BE DEPENDED UPON IN A CRISIS” U.S. 5.7/10 A 57 percent majority of Americans said the U.S. can be depended on in a crisis, more than double the share of adults in Canada, Germany and France who agree. Featured review CANADA 2.7/10 “It is clear that the United States is no longer a reliable partner. It is possible that, with comprehensive negotiations, we will be able to restore some trust, but there will be no turning back.” —Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney March 28, 2025 Other reviews U.K. 3.8/10 FRANCE 2.7/10 GERMANY 2.5/10 Question: “How would you rate The US on the following scales? Can be depended upon in a crisis | Can not be depended upon in a crisis” with the option to choose two levels of agreement on either side or a middle point between the two. The ratings displayed are a sum of the agreement of the levels on either side. The most common view among the close allies surveyed, in fact, was that the U.S. cannot be depended on in a crisis. That’s the opinion of a 57 percent majority in Canada, 51 percent majority in Germany, and pluralities in France (47 percent) and the U.K. (42 percent). Their concerns come as the Trump administration has clashed with allies over defense spending, trade and the scope of collective security agreements. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt over America’s commitments in Europe, fueling questions about whether Washington can be relied upon. “HAS THE MOST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY” U.S. 5.3/10 Most Americans — 53 percent — said their country has the most advanced technology in comparison to the European Union and China. But top NATO allies disagree. Featured review U.K. 3.5/10 “China is a vital player on the global stage, and it’s vital that we build a more sophisticated relationship. … “Our international partnerships help us deliver the security and prosperity the British people deserve, and that is why I’ve long been clear that the UK and China need a long term, consistent, and comprehensive strategic partnership.” — UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer January, 2026 Other reviews CANADA 3.7/10 FRANCE 3.6/10 GERMANY 3/10 Question: “Comparing China, the EU, and The US, if you had to choose, which would you say…: Has the most advanced technology” with the option to choose China, the EU or the U.S. Trump sees the U.S. in close competition with China on technological advancements, repeatedly touting America as the global leader in artificial intelligence and chip production. But a majority of respondents in the other countries said China, not the United States or the European Union, has the most advanced technology: 54 percent in Canada, 55 percent in Germany, 53 percent in the U.K. and 50 percent in France. That perception gap could have real-world consequences. If longtime allies view Beijing as the technological leader, it could complicate Trump’s ability to rally partners around policies to try to curb China’s growth. ABOUT THE SURVEY The POLITICO Poll was conducted by Public First from Feb. 6 to 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography. The overall margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.

Iran’s foreign ministry on Thursday accused the European Union of “complicity” in the U.S.-Israeli war against Tehran. “The European Union’s indifference and acquiescence in the face of U.S. and Israeli aggression, brutalities and atrocities amounts to nothing less than complicity,” foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said in a post on X Thursday. “The world is watching.” To support his claim, Baqaei shared a video of left-wing Belgian lawmaker Marc Botenga speaking in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday, where Botenga said: “Most of you don’t condemn, you even support Trump’s and Netanyahu’s war on Iran … Your bombs never brought democracy and never will.” Botenga did not immediately respond to a request for comment.  EU leaders have taken differing positions on the Mideast conflict. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said “there should be no tears shed” over the fall of Iran’s regime, while European Council President António Costa warned the strikes undertaken by U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu risked further instability across the Middle East. Within Europe, Spain has been among the strongest critics of the military action, diverging from the positions of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Baqaei’s remarks came a few hours after Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, warned that attacks on Iranian islands would “shatter all restraint.” “The blood of American soldiers is Trump’s personal responsibility,” Ghalibaf added.

BRUSSELS — Spain’s left-wing Deputy Prime Minister Yolanda Díaz hit out at the EU’s leadership for being weak on the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, amid rumbling discontent in Madrid over the conflict and Europe’s response. “Europe is an orphan at a moment of historic gravity,” Díaz said during an interview with POLITICO in Brussels. “The kind of leadership the bloc needs is lacking.” The EU, Díaz said, “should be fighting for a political Europe, an economic Europe, a social Europe, a fiscal Europe, a Europe that has its own foreign policy, that has its own policy of self-defense and is not held hostage by [U.S. President Donald] Trump.” And, Díaz added, Brussels should be pushing back hard against the “completely illegitimate” war in Iran, which the U.S. and Israel launched late last month, sparking turmoil in the Middle East as Tehran retaliated with missile and drone attacks across the region. Díaz took aim at European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for not immediately moving to condemn the attack on Iran, and said she should speak out swiftly in defense of the same international law principles that can be found in the Charter of the United Nations. “Europe must stand on the side of international law, human rights and democracy,” she said. “Given the times we’re living in, none of us can afford to remain silent.” Her remarks echoed those of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who has assumed the role of Europe’s chief Trump critic and has repeatedly denounced Washington’s “unjustified and dangerous military intervention” in Iran. Díaz, who this week chided German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for paying “homage” to Trump, argued the EU’s stance toward the U.S. president could also have serious domestic consequences. “The fact is that European citizens are against the illegitimate war in Iran,” she said. “By supporting it, the EU could end up increasing the Euroskeptic sentiment that often also fuels the growth of the far right.” Díaz praised Spain’s refusal to back Washington’s military offensive and Madrid’s defense of “human rights, dignity and decency around the world.” She added that Spain’s stance was increasingly backed by other EU leaders, noting that even Italy’s right-wing prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, had said on Monday that the war represents “a breakdown of the rules of international law.” ‘NOT AFRAID’ Trump, in Diaz’s view, poses an existential threat to Europe that the EU is failing to recognize. “Trump has dictated a global state of emergency and broken all the rules,” Díaz said. | Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images “In December of last year Mr. Trump released a strategic document in which he took aim at Europe and explicitly said that he has had enough of us,” she said, in reference to the Trump administration’s blunt National Security Strategy. The text fleshes out an “America First” approach to Europe that is focused on gaining a mercantilist advantage over the continent. Díaz, who leads the far-left Sumar party, the junior partner in Sánchez’s coalition government, argued that the U.S. president’s outlandish public statements camouflaged a deep animosity toward the bloc grounded in economic objectives. “Everything he does has these crazy overtones, but deep down the actions are motivated by economic interests in the U.S.,” she argued. “Europe needs to wake up once and for all.” The top Spanish minister blasted EU leaders for taking a “servile” attitude toward the U.S. president, adding that the approach was “foolish, because it’s clear Mr. Trump does not respect those who attempt to be his vassals.” Díaz said her country “is not afraid” to stand up to the U.S. president and does not feel intimidated by his threat to cut commercial ties with Madrid. “Trump has dictated a global state of emergency and broken all the rules,” she said. “In these moments of uncertainty, of pain, of absolute uncertainty, we must be bold in our response.”

FAVERSHAM, U.K. — Frank Furedi, one of the European populist right’s intellectual darlings, has a nagging anxiety. What if they gain power, then blow it? A Hungarian-born sociologist who spent decades on the political fringes himself, Furedi now runs MCC Brussels, a think tank backed by Viktor Orbán’s Budapest government. It aims to challenge what he calls the European Union’s liberal consensus — and help sharpen the ideas of a rising populist right. Speaking in his home office in the English market town of Faversham, where he was recovering from a recent illness, the 78-year-old professional provocateur — who has risen to prominence in Europe’s right-wing circles — hailed what he sees as the impending collapse of Europe’s political center. But he also questioned whether the insurgent movements benefiting from that upheaval have the discipline needed to govern if they win. “You can win an election, but if you’re not prepared for its consequences, then you become your worst enemy,” he said during a two-hour conversation in his paper-strewn office. “You basically risk being doomed forever.” Across Europe, the movements Furedi is talking about are already testing the political mainstream. Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is surging in Britain, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally has a real shot at the French presidency, and the Alternative for Germany is consistently at or near the top of polls. In Italy and Hungary, Giorgia Meloni and Orbán have already shown what populists in power can look like. Inside his house in Faversham, the conversation turned from Europe’s populist surge to the ideas that might shape what comes next. As Furedi led the way up the stairs, a yapping cockerpoo was hauled away into some back room. At the top of the staircase was a framed poster of Hannah Arendt, the philosopher who understood the attraction of radical political movements for the disenfranchised and alienated — and the potential for those movements to veer into evil. Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is surging in Britain, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally has a real shot at the French presidency, and the Alternative for Germany is consistently at or near the top of polls. | Nicolas Guyonnet/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images But Furedi isn’t worried about a return of European totalitarianism — if anything, he thinks the current regime is where freedom of thought and speech are being crushed. His real fear is that Europe’s right-wingers arrive in power unprepared — failing to learn from the experience of the U.S. MAGA movement, which almost blew its chance after Donald Trump won power in 2016 but couldn’t execute a coherent vision for government.  “There’s a real demand for something different,” he said. “It’s the collapse of the old order, which is really what’s exciting.” But while Furedi is eager to watch it all burn down, he’s unconvinced by the right-wing parties carrying the torches.  “At the moment, all politics is negative,” he said, noting two exceptions where the right has managed to govern with stability: Meloni and Orbán.  “It’s a fascinating moment in most parts of Europe, but it’s a moment that isn’t going to be there forever,” he said. “But whether these movements have got the maturity and the professionalism to be able to project themselves in a convincing way still remains to be seen.”  POLITICAL PROGRAM Like Farage, Meloni and many of their ilk, Furedi is riding a political wave after a lifetime spent far from power or relevance. Since the 1960s he has been an agitator at the obscure edge of politics, first on the left as a founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party and its magazine Living Marxism, which attacked the British Labour Party for its centrism, later to become a writer for Spiked, an internet magazine that attacked Labour from the right.  His real fear is that Europe’s right-wingers arrive in power unprepared — failing to learn from the experience of the U.S. MAGA movement. | Heather Diehl/Getty Images He’s pro-Brexit, but thinks the EU should remain intact (albeit with diminished power). He despises doctrinaire multiculturalism, is a defender of women’s right to have an abortion, and thinks Covid and climate change reveal an undesirable timidity in the face of danger. He’s an implacable supporter of Israel, but thinks freedom of speech should extend even to abhorrent ideas, including Holocaust denial. He thinks the far right should support trade unions.  “I don’t see myself as right-wing. So even though other people might call me far-right, right, fascist or whatever, I identify myself in a very different kind of way,” he said. That evening he planned to watch Wuthering Heights. The best thing he’s seen recently? Sinners.  Under Furedi, MCC Brussels has gained notoriety — and some level of mainstream acceptance — as a far-right counterweight to the hefty centrist institutes that dot the city’s European Quarter.  The think tank promotes Hungary’s brand of right-wing nationalism and its rejection of European federalism, immigration policy and LGBTQ+ inclusion. But he insists the project isn’t about being a mouthpiece for Budapest so much as creating a place where right-wing ideas can be tested and hardened. Across all of politics, he laments, “ideas are not taken sufficiently seriously.”  MCC Brussels is fully funded by the Mathias Corvinus Collegium, a private higher education institution that has received massive financial backing from Orbán’s government. While Furedi acknowledges that the think tank’s publications frequently echo the Hungarian government — “we have our sympathies” — he denies that Orbán calls the shots.  MCC Brussels is fully funded by the Mathias Corvinus Collegium, a private higher education institution that has received massive financial backing from Orbán’s government. | János Kummer/Getty Images Hungary’s upcoming election, which threatens to end the prime minister’s 16-year rule, is unlikely to affect its funding. The college is floated by assets permanently gifted by the government, said John O’Brien, MCC Brussels head of communications.  OTHER MOVEMENTS’ WEAKNESSES In his eighth decade, Furedi worries he will run out of time to see “something nice happening.” But he’s convinced the political order he has spent his life attacking is ready to fold. To illustrate why, he points to Faversham. He arrived in the area in 1974 to study at the University of Kent, where he later became a professor. In the last few years the town has become a flash point for anti-immigration protests after a former care home was converted to house a few dozen refugee children.  Last summer and fall, left and right protest groups clashed over a campaign to hang English flags across the town. One Guardian reader reported hearing chants of “Sieg Heil” in the streets at night. To Furedi, the anger behind the clashes is the inevitable consequence of a narrow politics that has not only lost touch with the people it represents, but actively shut them out. “Our elites adopted what are called post-material values and basically looked down on people who were interested in their material circumstances,” he said. YouGov’s most recent seat-by-seat polling analysis in September put Farage’s Reform easily ahead in Faversham. But Furedi doesn’t give the party a lot of credit for winning people’s backing with a positive program for government. “I think Reform recognizes the fact that they have to be both more professional,” he said. But, he added, “You cannot somehow magic a professional cadre of operators.”  YouGov’s most recent seat-by-seat polling analysis in September put Farage’s Reform easily ahead in Faversham. | Ben Birchall/PA Images via Getty Images The successes of the right are, in Furedi’s view, primarily based on being “beneficiaries of other movements’ weaknesses.”  The same was also true for Trump, he said. “It wasn’t like a love affair or anything of that sort. The U.S. president just happened to act as a conduit for a lot of those sentiments.” Is this a recipe for good government? “No,” he said. “One of the big tragedies in our world is that democracy in a nation requires serious political parties.”