Finland has urged U.S. officials not to describe future security pledges to a postwar Ukraine as “Article 5-like,” implying that doing so could undercut the mutual defense clause at the heart of the NATO military alliance, according to a State Department cable obtained by POLITICO. The Jan. 20 cable hints at worries in some corners over the labels used during peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow. They show how sensitive some phrases can be in the national security realm, even when officials are merely trying to offer an analogy to various audiences. According to the cable, sent from the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki to Washington, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen discussed the issue on Jan. 19 with U.S. Reps. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) and Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), both of whom are members of the House Armed Services Committee. Valtonen underscored Finland’s view that Russia is a “long-term strategic threat” and cautioned against a “weak” peace deal for Ukraine that would hinder its ability to defend itself against future Russian aggression, the cable states. But Valtonen cautioned against any suggestions of “Article 5-like” security guarantees in a postwar Ukraine, the cable adds. She warned that it risked conflating NATO’s Article 5 guarantees with whatever bilateral promises are made to Ukraine. It also quotes her as saying there should be a “firewall” between NATO and future security guarantees to Ukraine. Finland’s defense minister made similar points in a later meeting, according to the cable. Article 5 is a critical clause in the NATO pact that means an armed attack on one member of the 32-member alliance will be treated as an attack on all members. NATO has invoked the article only once: after Islamist terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. The documents’ contents offer insight into concerns voiced by other Finnish leaders who have said that, while they want to help Ukraine protect itself, the concept of a security “guarantee” is a more serious matter they’re not ready to agree to just yet. A Finnish official said Valtonen’s office wouldn’t comment on confidential discussions, though underscored Helsinki’s long-standing goal of eventually accepting Ukraine into the NATO alliance. “Finland’s objective is to ensure that Ukraine receives the strongest possible security arrangements and guarantees in support of a sustainable and lasting peace,” the official said, who was granted anonymity to speak about sensitive policy matters. “Finland’s position is that Ukraine’s future lies within NATO.” Former NATO officials and analysts said the cable reflects growing concerns in various capitals about how engaging with a postwar Ukraine could affect individual countries in the long run. One potential problem is that “using the term Article 5 in other contexts implies NATO involvement that is not in fact a part of any of these proposed arrangements,” said Edward Wrong, a former NATO official. “Finland and many other NATO members want to ensure it is understood that Article 5 is unique to NATO.” The State Department declined to comment. Elfreth, one of the U.S. lawmakers Valtonen met with, did not address the session with the Finnish foreign minister directly, but said in a statement: “From our many meetings, it was clear to me that our NATO allies, new and old, are committed to advancing shared goals of defending our partners from Russian and other adversarial influences. Bergman declined to comment. Using Article 5 as a parallel has multiple upsides and downsides, especially given the range of attitudes toward Ukraine in NATO, the former officials and analysts said. That’s further complicated by the likelihood that individual countries, or select groups of countries — but not NATO itself — will offer Ukraine security aid in the near future. One challenge is that by referring to Article 5, even with the “like” attached to it, national leaders could hand political ammunition to opposition groups, said Josh Shifrinson, a scholar with the University of Maryland, College Park, who advocates for a more restrained foreign policy. There’s also the possibility that framing a security pledge to Ukraine as “Article 5-like” will entice Russia to test what that truly means. If Russia stages some sort of an armed attack and the countries backing Ukraine struggle to respond, that could raise questions about the strength of NATO’s Article 5, said Rachel Ellehuus, a former Biden administration Defense Department official assigned to NATO. On top of that, other members of NATO, especially those in Europe, are acutely aware of President Donald Trump’s dim views of the alliance. They are reacting to his demands that they step up defense spending and have taken on the lion’s share of aid to Ukraine. Given economic uncertainties in the years ahead, just how much they can support Ukraine is in question. “I’m guessing the Finns don’t want to overpromise and under-deliver,” Ellehuus said. Spokespeople for NATO declined to comment. Finland is one of NATO’s newest members, having joined after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Finnish foreign minister comes across in the cable as tough on Russia, a country with which Finland shares an 830-mile border. “We should not be naïve in thinking they will change, especially if sanctions get [lifted]” and Russia becomes “empowered politically and economically,” Valtonen is quoted as saying. Although there are ongoing talks among the U.S., Ukraine and Russia in various formats, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has not committed to a substantial cease-fire and has made demands that many Ukrainians consider unacceptable for a peace deal. Victor Jack contributed to this report from Brussels.

The Trump administration wants to work with traditional allies to secure new supplies of critical minerals. But months of aggression toward allies, culminating with since-aborted threats to seize Greenland, have left many cool to the overtures. While the State Department has drawn a lengthy list of participating countries for its first Critical Minerals Ministerial scheduled for Wednesday, a number of those attending are hesitant to commit to partnering with the U.S. in creating a supply chain that bypasses China’s current chokehold on those materials, according to five Washington-based diplomats of countries invited to or attending the event. State Department cables obtained by POLITICO also show wariness among some countries about signing onto a framework agreement pledging joint cooperation in sourcing and processing critical minerals. Representatives from more than 50 countries are expected to attend the meeting, according to the State Department — all gathered to discuss the creation of tech supply chains that can rival Beijing’s. But the meeting comes just two weeks since President Donald Trump took to the stage at Davos to call on fellow NATO member Denmark to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and that isn’t sitting well. “We all need access to critical minerals, but the furor over Greenland is going to be the elephant in the room,” said a European diplomat. In the immediate run-up to the event there’s “not a great deal of interest from the European side,” the person added. The individual and others were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic relationships. Their concerns underscore how international dismay at the Trump administration’s foreign policy and trade actions may kneecap its other global priorities. The Trump administration had had some success over the past two months rallying countries to support U.S. efforts to create secure supply chains for critical minerals, including a major multilateral agreement called the Pax Silica Declaration. Now those gains could be at risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants foreign countries to partner with the U.S. in creating a supply chain for the 60 minerals (including rare earths) that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “vital to the U.S. economy and national security that face potential risks from disrupted supply chains.” They include antimony, used to produce munitions; samarium, which goes into aircraft engines; and germanium, which is essential to fiber-optics. The administration also launched a $12 billion joint public-private sector “strategic critical minerals stockpile” for U.S. manufacturers, a White House official said Monday. Trump has backed away from his threats of possibly deploying the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark. But at Davos he demanded “immediate negotiations” with Copenhagen to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the U.S. That makes some EU officials leery of administration initiatives that require cooperation and trust. “We are all very wary,” said a second European diplomat. Rubio’s critical minerals framework “will not be an easy sell until there is final clarity on Greenland.” Trump compounded the damage to relations with NATO countries on Jan. 22 when he accused member country troops that deployed to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 of having shirked combat duty. “The White House really messed up with Greenland and Davos,” a third European diplomat said. “They may have underestimated how much that would have an impact.” The Trump administration needs the critical minerals deals to go through. The U.S. has been scrambling to find alternative supply lines for a group of minerals called rare earths since Beijing temporarily cut the U.S. off from its supply last year. China — which has a near-monopoly on rare earths — relented in the trade truce that Trump brokered with China’s leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October. The administration is betting that foreign government officials that attend Wednesday’s event also want alternative sources to those materials. “The United States and the countries attending recognize that reliable supply chains are indispensable to our mutual economic and national security and that we must work together to address these issues in this vital sector,” the State Department statement said in a statement. The administration has been expressing confidence that it will secure critical minerals partnerships with the countries attending the ministerial, despite their concerns over Trump’s bellicose policy. “There is a commonality here around countering China,” Ruth Perry, the State Department’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for ocean, fisheries and polar affairs, said at an industry event on offshore critical minerals in Washington last week. “Many of these countries understand the urgency.” Speaking at a White House event Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that 11 nations would sign on to a critical minerals framework with the United States this week and another 20 are considering doing so. Greenland has rich deposits of rare earths and other minerals. But Denmark isn’t sending any representatives to the ministerial, according to the person familiar with the event’s planning. Trump said last month that a framework agreement he struck with NATO over Greenland’s future included U.S. access to the island’s minerals. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure in its interior makes the extraction of those materials highly challenging. Concern about the longer term economic and geostrategic risks of turning away from Washington in favor of closer ties with Beijing — despite the Trump administration’s unpredictability — may work in Rubio’s favor on Wednesday. “We still want to work on issues where our viewpoints align,” an Asian diplomat said. “Critical minerals, energy and defense are some areas where there is hope for positive movement.” State Department cables obtained by POLITICO show the administration is leaning on ministerial participants to sign on to a nonbinding framework agreement to ensure U.S. access to critical minerals. The framework establishes standards for government and private investment in areas including mining, processing and recycling, along with price guarantees to protect producers from competitors’ unfair trade policies. The basic template of the agreement being shared with other countries mirrors language in frameworks sealed with Australia and Japan and memorandums of understanding inked with Thailand and Malaysia last year. Enthusiasm for the framework varies. The Philippine and Polish governments have both agreed to the framework text, according to cables from Manila on Jan. 22 and Warsaw on Jan. 26. Romania is interested but “proposed edits to the draft MOU framework,” a cable dated Jan. 16 said. As of Jan. 22 India was noncommittal, telling U.S. diplomats that New Delhi “could be interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding in the future.” European Union members Finland and Germany both expressed reluctance to sign on without clarity on how the framework aligns with wider EU trade policies. A cable dated Jan. 15 said Finland “prefers to observe progress in the EU-U.S. discussions before engaging in substantive bilateral critical mineral framework negotiations.” Berlin also has concerns that the initiative may reap “potential retaliation from China,” according to a cable dated Jan. 16. Trump’s threats over the past two weeks to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada for cutting a trade deal with China and 25 percent tariffs on South Korea for allegedly slow-walking legislative approval of its U.S. trade agreement are also denting enthusiasm for the U.S. critical minerals initiative. Those levies “have introduced some uncertainty, which naturally leads countries to proceed pragmatically and keep their options open,” a second Asian diplomat said. There are also doubts whether Trump will give the initiative the long-term backing it will require for success. “There’s a sense that this could end up being a TACO too,” a Latin American diplomat said, using shorthand for Trump’s tendency to make big threats or announcements that ultimately fizzle. Analysts, too, argue it’s unlikely the administration will be able to secure any deals amid the fallout from Davos and Trump’s tariff barrages. “We’re very skeptical on the interest and aptitude and trust in trade counterparties right now,” said John Miller, an energy analyst at TD Cowen who tracks critical minerals. “A lot of trading partners are very much in a wait-and-see perspective at this point saying, ‘Where’s Trump really going to go with this?’” And more unpredictability or hostility by the Trump administration toward longtime allies could push them to pursue critical mineral sourcing arrangements that exclude Washington. “The alternative is that these other countries will go the Mark Carney route of the middle powers, cooperating among themselves quietly, not necessarily going out there and saying, ‘Hey, we’re cutting out the U.S.,’ but that these things just start to crop up,” said Jonathan Czin, a former China analyst at the CIA now at the Brookings Institution. “Which will make it more challenging and allow Beijing to play divide and conquer over the long term.” Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

London’s Metropolitan Police on Tuesday evening opened an investigation into former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson over alleged misconduct in public office. “Following the further release of millions of court documents in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Department of Justice, the Met received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office, including a referral from the U.K. government,” the Metropolitan Police said in a statement. “I can confirm that the Metropolitan Police has now launched an investigation into a 72-year-old man, a former Government Minister, for misconduct in public office offenses,” said Police Commander Ella Marriott. The police didn’t give a name, but 72-year-old Mandelson — a central figure in the politics of the U.K’s ruling Labour party for decades — has appeared in the latest tranche of Epstein-related documents. Files released by the U.S. Department of Justice show emailed communications between Mandelson and Epstein, including discussions about sensitive government policy. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday evening. A government spokesperson told POLITICO on Tuesday: “The government stands ready to provide whatever support and assistance the police need.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer — who appointed Mandelson as the U.K.’s ambassador to the U.S. a year ago — told his Cabinet on Tuesday that the fresh allegations were “disgraceful,” according to people familiar with the meeting. Joe Stanley-Smith and Andrew McDonald contributed to this report.

LONDON — Peter Mandelson spent four decades helping build Britain’s Labour establishment. Now it’s decisively cutting him adrift. Former colleagues in the Cabinet and Labour Party officialdom lined up to blowtorch Britain’s former ambassador to the U.S. on Tuesday after newly released files suggested he leaked sensitive government financial discussions to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2009. “The latest revelations are materially different to the unpleasant sleaze of previous revelations,” David Blunkett, a former home secretary under Tony Blair, told POLITICO. “This is about conduct in a public office, betrayal of colleagues and a dereliction of duty.” Geoff Hoon, Blair’s former defense secretary, told GB News it was “very disturbing,” while Labour grandee Harriet Harman told BBC radio: “I was of the view that Peter Mandelson was untrustworthy from the 1990s.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer sacked the so-called “prince of darkness” as Britain’s envoy to Washington in September as the extent of his friendship with Epstein became clear. But to many former colleagues, Monday’s revelation that Mandelson allegedly disclosed internal emails went much further — and will trigger, they believe, the end of his time in public life.  Mandelson declined to comment for this piece. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Starmer said on Saturday that he had “nothing more to say” on Mandelson. That didn’t last. Smelling public outrage, the PM told his Cabinet Tuesday that the fresh allegations were “disgraceful.” Mandelson, 72, quit his seat for life in the House of Lords on Tuesday after Starmer — having earlier declined to do so — said ministers would draft a law to remove him from the upper house. Police are reviewing whether the allegations could amount to misconduct in a public office. Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who brought Mandelson back into government in 2008 — issued a statement tearing into the “shocking” revelations, and revealing he asked civil servants to investigate Mandelson’s communications with Epstein in September. Brown also contacted police Tuesday. One former diplomat, granted anonymity to speak undiplomatically, called the flurry of statements a “public lynching.” They added: “He’s going now through Dante’s seven circles of hell, and every time it looks like he’s reached the bottom, another circle appears.” One of British politics’ greatest survivors, Mandelson has not arrived at the last circle yet. Prime Minister Keir Starmer sacked the so-called “prince of darkness” as Britain’s envoy to Washington in September as the extent of his friendship with Epstein became clear. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Several of his close personal allies kept their counsel when contacted on Tuesday. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has not yet decided to comment. Another of Labour’s most senior figures told POLITICO that they had no publishable comment. But Luke Sullivan, who was a junior special adviser in the late 2000s, and later became Starmer’s political director in opposition, said: “I cannot tell you how angry people are.” Another former aide from the New Labour years, granted anonymity to speak frankly, added: “Bloody hell, it is worse than we thought. People feel justifiably sad and angry. This is not a story of people turning on him. It’s more like a Greek tragedy — Peter has been brought down by his fatal flaw, and it’s a flaw that people were always aware of.” AT THE HEART OF POWER Whenever Labour reached a turning point in its recent history, Mandelson was somehow there. Pairing a smooth-talking style with ruthless maneuvering behind the scenes, he began as the party’s communications director in 1985 and embarked on a mission with then-leader Neil Kinnock to drag his party back from the left. He became MP for Hartlepool in 1992, playing a key role in Blair’s 1994 election as party leader and Labour’s 1997 general election landslide. He was never far from scandal, resigning from the Cabinet first in 1998 over a loan he took from a colleague, then again in 2001 in a row over a passport application from an Indian billionaire. Yet his attraction to power and strategic skills made his return inevitable. In 2008, already back as Britain’s EU trade commissioner, he repaired ties with Brown, who had recently become prime minister, in an hour-long private meeting in Brussels, before returning to the heart of government. The next year, when Cabinet minister James Purnell resigned and called on Brown to stand aside, Mandelson is said to have come into No. 10 and persuaded the rebels to back down. Peter Mandelson began as the party’s communications director in 1985 and embarked on a mission with then-leader Neil Kinnock to drag his party back from the left. | Will Oliver/EPA Nigel Farage, leader of the populist right-wing party Reform UK, said on Tuesday: “He’s very articulate. He’s highly intelligent. He’s incredibly well-briefed, probably the best networker in Westminster in the last 30 years.” “[On] the actual subject, the brief … I’d never heard anybody as impressive in all my 20 years in the European Parliament. The guy is very, very bright, but clearly has a taste for money, and has a taste for bad company.” Labour went on to lose the 2010 election — though by a slimmer margin than many expected — and Mandelson co-founded a lobbying firm, Global Counsel. (The firm began cutting ties with him last year.) But in the late 2010s, he returned to politics, striking up a close professional relationship with Morgan McSweeney, now Starmer’s chief of staff. Along with other Labour aides, the pair attended dinners at the south London home of the Labour peer Roger Liddle to discuss how best to wrestle Labour back (again) from the left. His advice became more valued in the run-up to the 2024 election. He even co-presented a podcast, produced by The Times newspaper, called “How To Win An Election.” And late in 2024 — at the suggestion of McSweeney, despite concerns elsewhere in government — Mandelson bagged his biggest prize yet: the ambassadorship to Washington. Starmer jokingly compared Mandelson to Donald Trump in a February 2025 speech at the embassy: “You can sense that there’s a new leader. He’s a true one-off, a pioneer in business, in politics. Many people love him. Others love to hate him. But to us, he’s just … Peter.” TURNING ON MANDELSON In four decades, Mandelson made plenty of enemies who are now glad to see his demise. The difference with this scandal may be the reaction of those close to him. Nigel Farage, leader of the populist right-wing party Reform UK, said on Tuesday: “He’s very articulate. He’s highly intelligent. He’s incredibly well-briefed, probably the best networker in Westminster in the last 30 years.” | Andy Rain/EPA Wes Streeting, Starmer’s telegenic health secretary, who shares many aspects of Mandelson’s politics and is widely expected to be a future leadership contender, was at some of the Liddle dinners. He told the BBC: “This is a betrayal on so many levels. It is a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein that he continued that association and that friendship for so long after his conviction. It is a betrayal of just not one, but two prime ministers.” Privately, Mandelson is said to believe he was simply casting around for advice during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. He told the Times: “There was no reason to shun his advice, but I was too trusting.” He added: “Work has always defined me. Everything else has always been an add-on. So I will find things to do.” But one serving Labour official in government said the revelations were “qualitatively (and quantitatively) worse” than what was known before. A second Labour official added: “The latest revelations have put him beyond what most people are willing to accept.” One person who speaks to No. 10 regularly said: “There are people who have known him for a long time who are very hurt and angry. He has upset people.  “He had a much reduced reservoir of support coming into this anyway, and the question is — who is going to touch him now?” Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who brought Mandelson back into government in 2008 — issued a statement tearing into the “shocking” revelations. | Will Oliver/EPA A person who knows Mandelson well drew a distinction between the reaction to his sacking in September, when some colleagues felt concern for Mandelson on a “human level because of the very public nature of his sacking,” and the “shock and real anger” at the revelations of the last few days. “It felt like a kick in the gut to read it and has brought his behavior as minister into question in a way no one could possibly have imagined,” they said. Sullivan said: “People thought that he had been characteristically not as frank as he could be with his relationship with Epstein … but I don’t think people had clocked just quite how big the significance of those revelations [Monday] are. “Any one of those, if it had come out at the time, would have brought the government down. I was a very junior Spad in the last Labour government. [With] Gordon Brown, you could hear the anger in his statement.” “I think the potential ramifications of this not just for the Labour Party but for politics and politicians in general could be understated. It is serious,” Sullivan added. The former diplomat quoted above added: “People are genuinely astonished at the sort of stuff he told Epstein. He always had a reputation of being relatively indiscreet, but some of that stuff, I mean, why Epstein? I don’t know why Epstein seemed to have had such a grip on him.” John McTernan, who served as a senior aide during the New Labour years, said: “It turns out that Peter’s actions are those of an avaricious man — which makes it really sad, because he did so much to make Labour electable, not once but twice.” WHERE DOES IT GO FROM HERE? Britain’s opposition Conservative Party is likely to apply fresh pressure on Wednesday by formally demanding that ministers release the details of Mandelson’s vetting for the ambassador post. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper revealed in September that Mandelson was not subjected to full national security vetting until after his appointment had been announced.  One government official said: “If there wasn’t any real vetting until after the appointment, that could be very damaging in my view.” Labour officials also smell danger in the fact that Gordon Brown asked the government to investigate Mandelson’s communications on Sept. 10 — a day before Starmer resolved to sack Mandelson as ambassador. The Labour Party has said disciplinary action was underway against Mandelson before he resigned his party membership on Sunday, but has not said when it began — days, weeks, or months ago. One former Labour official said: “The problem for the government as a whole and the civil service is Gordon clearly clocked something had gone on, had some concerns, and raised them last September, and it’s unclear exactly what has happened to dig it out.” No. 10 went nuclear in its response on Tuesday, saying the government was investigating and had contacted the police. Starmer’s spokesperson said: “An initial review of the documents released in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Department of Justice has found that they contain likely market-sensitive information surrounding the 2008 financial crash and official activities thereafter to stabilize the economy.  “Only people operating in an official capacity had access to this information, [with] strict handling conditions to ensure it was not available to anyone who could potentially benefit from it financially. It appears these safeguards were compromised.  “In light of this information, the Cabinet Office has referred this material to the police.” Starmer and McSweeney can maintain that they — like the rest of the press and British public — knew nothing of the emails revealed this week when they appointed Mandelson. Whether they can prevent the saga raising questions about their judgment may be another matter.

LONDON — Britain’s leading opposition politician has joined calls for British royal Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to testify in the United States over his links to Jeffrey Epstein. Nigel Farage, the right-wing populist whose party, Reform UK is leading opinion polls, said that giving evidence to a U.S. congressional investigation about Epstein could be the former prince’s only chance to clear his name. “If Andrew believes that, yep his judgment was flawed, yep he did things he shouldn’t have done, but they weren’t coercive, they weren’t outside the law, if he believes those things, then he ought to go … for his own sake, and testify,” Farage said. “If he doesn’t go, he’d probably never be able to show his face in public again,” the Reform leader added, warning it is “probably the only chance he’s got, to some degree … at least I think, to clear his name.” In 2019, Mountbatten-Windsor was accused in a civil lawsuit of sexually assaulting Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers, but he strongly denied all allegations. He paid a financial settlement to Giuffre, but accepted no liability. The royal has faced a backlash over his friendship with Epstein, but has not been charged with a crime in either the U.K. or the U.S. He missed a November deadline to sit for a transcribed interview that was set by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Farage’s intervention comes after Keir Starmer suggested that Mountbatten-Windsor should appear before U.S. lawmakers. The British prime minister told reporters last week that anyone with information “should be prepared to share that information in whatever form they are asked to,” adding: “You can’t be victim-centered if you’re not prepared to do that.” Mountbatten-Windsor is under renewed pressure to testify after the latest tranche of Epstein files released by the U.S. Department of Justice included a picture which appears to show King Charles’ brother crouching on all fours over an unknown woman. An email exchange dated August 2010, also released Friday, showed Epstein offered the then-Duke of York the opportunity to have dinner with a woman he described as “26, russian, clevere beautiful, trustworthy.” Mountbatten-Windsor replied: “That was quick! How are you? Good to be free?” The exchange happened a year after Epstein was released from jail following a sentence for soliciting prostitution from a person under 18.

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday preparatory work was under way to restart direct discussions between Europe and Russia over the war in Ukraine. “It has to be prepared, so technical discussions are under way to prepare for this,” Macron said, answering a reporter who asked the president about his call in December to restart talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “It is important that Europeans restore their own channels of communication, it is being prepared at the technical level,” Macron added, during a visit to farmers in the Haute-Saône department. Macron said talks with Putin should be coordinated with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his “main European colleagues,” insisting on the role of the so-called “coalition of the willing,” which brings together like-minded countries supporting Ukraine. The president was, however, quick to note that, by continuing to bomb Ukraine, Russia was not showing any willingness to negotiate a peace deal. “First and foremost, today, we continue to support Ukraine, which is under bombs, in the cold, with attacks on civilians and on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure by the Russians, which are intolerable and don’t show a real willingness to negotiate for peace.”

Tech mogul Elon Musk poured $10 million into two major Republican super PACs at the end of last year, according to campaign finance disclosures submitted Saturday, as he once again takes a more active role in GOP politics. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO, who had a public falling out with President Donald Trump last spring and said he was giving up on political spending, gave $5 million in December to each of the Congressional Leadership Fund and Senate Leadership Fund, two groups that aim to help the GOP keep control of Congress this year. It was Musk’s second round of donations to both groups this cycle, having previously given in June, amid his feud with Trump. Those contributions came shortly before Musk floated starting his own political party, an initiative that never seemed to gain much headway. But Musk and Trump have patched up their differences more recently, with the tech CEO joining Trump for dinner at Mar-a-Lago earlier this month. Musk has also been back to advocating for Republican politics on X, which he owns, pushing for senators to pass a plussed up version of the SAVE Act, a bill that would require states to collect proof of citizenship from people registering to vote. Musk has thrown his support behind a version called the SAVE Act Plus, calling for ID requirements and a ban of mail voting for most Americans along with other changes to election administration. Musk was the biggest individual donor to political committees during the 2024 election cycle, spending roughly $290 million, mostly through his own super PAC, America PAC, in support of Trump. In the first few months of the Trump administration, he played an active role with the Department of Government Efficiency, but began fighting with Trump and Republicans around the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Musk also threw himself into a Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April where his preferred candidate lost by 10 points. Musk’s funds accounted for just a fraction of total fundraising for both SLF and CLF. SLF raised nearly $77 million in the final six months of 2025 and had $100 million cash on hand, while CLF raised over $38 million over that period and had more than $54 million cash on hand.

A federal judge has rejected a bid by state and local officials in Minnesota to end Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s massive deployment of thousands of federal agents to aggressively enforce immigration laws. In a ruling Saturday, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez found strong evidence that the ongoing federal operation “has had, and will likely continue to have, profound and even heartbreaking, consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities, and Minnesotans.” “There is evidence that ICE and CBP agents have engaged in racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other harmful actions,” Menendez said, adding that the operation has disrupted daily life for Minnesotans — harming school attendance, forcing police overtime work and straining emergency services. She also said there were signs the Trump administration was using the surge to force the state to change its immigration policies — pointing to a list of policy demands by Attorney General Pam Bondi and similar comments by White House immigration czar Tom Homan. But the Biden-appointed judge said state officials’ arguments that the state was being punished or unfairly treated by the federal government were insufficient to justify blocking the surge altogether. And in a 30-page opinion, the judge said she was “particularly reluctant to take a side in the debate about the purpose behind Operation Metro Surge.” The surge has involved about 3,000 federal officers, a size roughly triple that of the local police forces in Minneapolis and St. Paul. However, Menendez said it was difficult to assess how large or onerous a federal law enforcement presence could be before it amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion on state authority. “There is no clear way for the Court to determine at what point Defendants’ alleged unlawful actions … becomes (sic) so problematic that they amount to unconstitutional coercion and an infringement on Minnesota’s state sovereignty,” she wrote, later adding that there is “no precedent for a court to micromanage such decisions.” Menendez said her decision was strongly influenced by a federal appeals court’s ruling last week that blocked an order she issued reining in the tactics Homeland Security officials could use against peaceful protesters opposing the federal operation. She noted that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted her order in that separate lawsuit even though it was much more limited than the sweeping relief the state and cities sought. “If that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here — halting the entire operation — certainly would,” the judge said in her Saturday ruling. Attorney General Pam Bondi on X called the decision “another HUGE” win for the Justice Department in its Minnesota crackdown and noted that it came from a judge appointed by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat. “Neither sanctuary policies nor meritless litigation will stop the Trump Administration from enforcing federal law in Minnesota,” she wrote. Minneapolis has been rocked in recent weeks by the killings of two protesters by federal immigration enforcement, triggering public outcry and grief – and souring many Americans on the president’s deportation agenda. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have both called for federal agents to leave the city as the chaos has only intensified in recent weeks. “This federal occupation of Minnesota long ago stopped being a matter of immigration enforcement,” Walz said at a press conference last week after two Customs and Border Patrol agents shot and killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti. “It’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of our state. And today, that campaign claimed another life. I’ve seen the videos from several angles. And it’s sickening.” Backlash from Pretti’s killing has prompted Trump to pull back on elements of the Minneapolis operation. Two CBP agents involved in the shooting were placed on administrative leave. CBP Commander Greg Bovino was sidelined from his post in Minnesota, with the White House sending border czar Tom Homan to the state in an effort to calm tensions. Officials also said some federal agents involved in the surge were cycling out of state, but leaders were vague about whether the size of the overall operation was being scaled back. “I don’t think it’s a pullback,” Trump told Fox News on Tuesday. “It’s a little bit of a change.”

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on Saturday accepted the resignation of his national security adviser, Miroslav Lajčák, following revelations that Lajčák exchanged messages with convicted sex offended Jeffrey Epstein. The messages were included in Friday’s release by the U.S. Justice Department of investigative materials related to Epstein.  Fico, announcing the decision in a video statement on Facebook, praised Lajčák as “a great diplomat” and said Slovakia was losing “an incredible source of experience in diplomacy and foreign policy.” Lajčák served as Slovak foreign minister in multiple Fico governments between 2009 and 2020. The U.S. Justice Department on Friday released more than three million pages of documents in the Epstein files. The documents, which reference several prominent figures, such as Steve Bannon, Elon Musk and world leaders, also include exchanges between Lajčák and Epstein. In the newly released files, Epstein bantered with Lajčák about women while discussing Lajčák’s meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lajčák initially denied any wrongdoing, describing the communications as informal and light-hearted, and later offered his resignation to prevent political costs from falling on the prime minister, according to reports in Slovak media. “Not because I did anything criminal or unethical, but so that he does not bear political costs for something unrelated to his decisions,” Lajčák was quoted as saying. The opposition has united in calling for him to resign. The coalition Slovak National Party has also joined this stance, saying that Lajčák represents a security risk, according to local media. Lajčák did not immediately respond to a request for comment by POLITICO.  In his video address, the prime minister also criticized media coverage of the case, calling it “hypocritical” and overstated.

Second Amendment advocates are warning that Republicans shouldn’t count on them to show up in November, after President Donald Trump insisted that demonstrator Alex Pretti “should not have been carrying a gun.” The White House labels itself the “most pro-Second Amendment administration in history.” But Trump’s comments about Pretti, who was legally carrying a licensed firearm when he was killed by federal agents last week, have some gun rights advocates threatening to sit out the midterms. “I’ve spent 72 hours on the phone trying to unfuck this thing. Trump has got to correct his statements now,” said one Second Amendment advocate, granted anonymity to speak about private conservations. The person said Second Amendment advocates are “furious.” “And they will not come out and vote. He can’t correct it three months before the election.” The response to Pretti’s killing isn’t the first time Second Amendment advocates have felt abandoned by Trump. The powerful lobbying and advocacy groups, that for decades reliably struck fear into the hearts of Republicans, have clashed multiple times with Trump during his first year back in power. And their ire comes at a delicate moment for the GOP. While Democrats are unlikely to pick up support from gun-rights groups, the repeated criticisms from organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights suggest that the Trump administration may be alienating a core constituency it needs to turn out as it seeks to retain its slim majority in the House and Senate. It doesn’t take much to swing an election, said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “All you have to do is lose four, five, six percent of their base who left it blank, who didn’t write a check, who didn’t walk districts, you lose,” he said. “Especially marginal districts — and the House is not a good situation right now.” And it wasn’t only the president who angered gun-rights advocates. Others in the administration made similar remarks about Pretti, denouncing the idea of carrying a gun into a charged environment such as a protest. FBI Director Kash Patel said “you cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said she didn’t “know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” These sentiments are anathema to many Republicans who have fought for years against the idea that carrying a gun or multiple magazine clips implies guilt or an intent to commit a crime. “I sent a message to high-place people in the administration with three letters, W.T.F.,” Brown said. “If it had just been the FBI director and a few other highly-placed administration officials, that would have been one thing but when the president came out and doubled down that was a whole new level. This was not a good look for your base. You can’t be a conservative and not be radically pro-gun.” A senior administration official brushed off concerns about Republicans losing voters in the midterms over the outrage. “No, I don’t think that some of the comments that were made over the past 96 hours by certain administration officials are going to impede the unbelievable and strong relationship the administration has with the Second Amendment community, both on a personal level and given the historic successes that President Trump has been able to deliver for gun rights,” the official said. But this wasn’t the only instance when the Trump administration angered gun-rights advocates. In September after the shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis that killed two children, reports surfaced that the Department of Justice was looking into restricting transgender Americans from owning firearms. The suspect, who died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the scene of the shooting, was a 23-year-old transgender woman. “The signaling out of a specific demographic for a total ban on firearms possession needs to comport with the Constitution and its bounds and anything that exceeds the bounds of the Constitution is simply impermissible,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, told POLITICO. At the time, the National Rifle Association, which endorsed Trump in three consecutive elections, said they don’t support any proposals to “arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.” Additionally, some activists, who spoke to the gun-focused independent publication “The Reload,” said they were upset about the focus from federal law enforcement about seizing firearms during the Washington crime crackdown in the summer. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office wouldn’t pursue felony charges in Washington over carrying guns, The Washington Post reported. Trump, during his first term, infuriated some in the pro-gun movement when in 2018 his administration issued a regulation to ban bump stocks. The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the rule in 2024. “I think the administration clearly wants to be known as pro-Second Amendment, and many of the officials do believe in the Second Amendment, but my job at Gun Owners of America is to hold them to their words and to get them to act on their promises. And right now it’s a mixed record,” said Gun Owners for America director of federal affairs Aidan Johnston. In the immediate aftermath of the Pretti shooting, the NRA called for a full investigation rather than for “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.” But now, the lobbying group is defending Trump’s fuller record. “Rather than trying to extract meaning from every off-the-cuff remark, we look at what the administration is doing, and the Trump administration is, and has been, the most pro-2A administration in modern history,” said John Commerford, NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director. “From signing marquee legislation that dropped unconstitutional taxes on certain firearms and suppressors to joining pro-2A plaintiffs in cases around the country, the Trump administration is taking action to support the right of every American to keep and bear arms.” In his first month in office, Trump directed the Department of Justice to examine all regulations, guidance, plans and executive actions from President Joe Biden’s administration that may infringe on Second Amendment rights. The administration in December created a civil rights division office of Second Amendment rights at DOJ to work on gun issues. That work, said a second senior White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, should prove the administration’s bona fides and nothing said in the last week means they’ve changed their stance on the Second Amendment. “Gun groups know and gun owners know that there hasn’t been a bigger defender of the Second Amendment than the president,” said a second senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak on a sensitive issue. “But I think the president’s talking about in the moment— in that very specific moment— when it is such a powder keg going on, and when there’s someone who’s actively impeding enforcement operations, things are going to happen. Or things can happen.” Andrew Howard contributed to this report.