PARIS — Marine Le Pen recent public statements seem to indicate that she’s losing faith in her effort to quash the five-year election ban standing in the way of her becoming France’s next president. In her latest comments Tuesday, outside the gilded Parisian courtroom where she has been appealing since January an embezzlement conviction that knocked her out of the 2027 election, Le Pen told reporters: “I never expect a good surprise when I step into a courtroom.” But, she added: “I am a believer. I still believe in miracles.” The dour pessimism in those and similar comments is striking coming from a leader who had vowed to fight what she framed as politically motivated hit job. Le Pen even held a Stop-the-Steal-type rally last year after she and her codefendants were found guilty of misappropriating €4 million of European Parliament funds. But as the months have dragged on, Le Pen has seemed increasingly resigned, recognizing that her shot at the French presidency is slipping away just as her party, the National Rally, is enjoying an historic surge in popularity. Nonetheless, it’s possible the doom and gloom are all part of her strategy to express more contrition to get a more favorable verdict. Whatever it is, Le Pen has presented this appeal as her last chance to mount a bid for the Elysée Palace and acknowledged publicly that she may be forced to step aside in favor of her 30-year-old protégé, Jordan Bardella.  Tuesday’s sentencing recommendations appeared to confirm her suspicions at first.  Prosecutors asked the court to uphold her five-year electoral ban, but in an unexpected twist, argued against its immediate implementation.  Should the court agree, it offers Le Pen a small glimmer of hope. But it’s a legally complex and politically risky path back into the race, and one that Le Pen herself appears to be placing little hope in.  WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION?  In French criminal law, penalties are typically lifted when a defendant appeals a verdict to a higher court.   Part of the reason Le Pen’s initial sentence drew so much backlash is prosecutors argued — and the judges agreed — that her crimes were so grave that her ban on running for public office should be handed down immediately, regardless of whether she appeals.  But during the appeal the prosecution did not recommend immediate implementation because there was insufficient proof that Le Pen could commit further crimes if she is not sanctioned immediately.  SO, CAN LE PEN RUN FOR PRESIDENT?   In theory, if the appeals court rules in a manner that bars Le Pen from running in 2027 but does not order immediate implementation, she could appeal again to an even higher court — thereby lifting her ban temporarily. She would then need to hope that the gears of the justice system grind slowly enough to push the issue past the next election. But it’s not clear cut. Some French legal scholars have debated if and how a new appeal would lift her electoral ban at all. Le Pen has said she will make a final call once there is a verdict in the current appeal. She has also said she would drop out of the running if the electoral ban is upheld to avoid the risk of having the National Rally run its presidential campaign with no guarantee of who the candidate would be until the last minute — an ignominious end to a career dedicated to dragging her far-right party from the political fringes into the mainstream. It is unclear if a ban without immediate implementation, as sought by the prosecutors, changes her reasoning — but her comments to French broadcaster TF1-LCI after the prosecutors made their recommendation seemed to indicate that she’d still rule herself out in that eventuality. “If the prosecutors’ recommendations are followed, I won’t be able to run,” she said. Le Pen now has to hope that she’ll be acquitted, which appears unlikely, or that the case’s three-judge panel reduces or scraps her electoral ban. The judges are under no obligation to follow the prosecution’s recommendations. WHEN WILL THIS BE RESOLVED? The judges hearing the case are expected to render a verdict before the summer.   The Cour de Cassation, which would take up any ensuing appeal, has said it would aim to examine the case and issue a final ruling before the 2027 election “if possible.” 

PARIS — French prosecutors on Tuesday recommended that a five-year electoral ban on far-right leader Marine Le Pen should be confirmed — a move that, if accepted by the court, would likely prevent her from running in next year’s presidential election. Le Pen’s far-right National Rally is comfortably ahead in polls ahead of the first round of the 2027 election but she is currently looking unlikely to be able to stand as the presidential candidate herself thanks to a five-year election ban, imposed over her conviction last year for embezzling European Parliament funds — a ban she is now appealing. In that appeal proceeding on Tuesday, the prosecutors sought not only the electoral prohibition but four years jail, with one served as a custodial sentence. In an unexpected twist, however, prosecutors did not insist that the ban should be immediately implemented. This could offer her a theoretical long-shot back into the race, but it appears legally complex and politically risky. Le Pen herself did not signal any major shift in the case. In remarks to BFMTV, Le Pen said the prosecution in the appeal was “following the path taken” during the first trial. The court is due to make a final decision on the appeal this summer. When it came to her narrow route back to the presidential race, the prosecutors said the court should not impose the five-year ban immediately because there was insufficient proof that the three-time presidential candidate could commit further crimes if she is not sanctioned immediately. This means that, even if found guilty at appeal, Le Pen could still try to have the penalty lifted by bringing the case before a supreme court. The supreme court which would look into the case, the Cour de Cassation, said it would examine the legal challenge and make a final ruling before the 2027 election “if possible.” That timing could be politically problematic for Le Pen, if the supreme court does not come to a decision until shortly before the race. Le Pen had said she would drop out of the running if her electoral ban was upheld. It is unclear if a ban without immediate implementation, as sought by the prosecutors, would now change her reasoning. Le Pen has been increasingly expected to be replaced by her 30-year-old protégé Jordan Bardella because of her legal woes. Although he originally triggered doubts within his own political camp on his ability to stand the rigors of a presidential election, he has surpassed Le Pen as France’s most popular politician according to recent polling. Le Pen has already run for president three times, making the runoff in the last two elections and losing to Emmanuel Macron. The 2027 election is widely seen as the best shot yet for a National Rally candidate to win and become the first democratically elected far-right leader in France since World War II. Le Pen has shifted her defense strategy since the start of her appeal trial, with a partial acknowledgement that some wrongdoing may have been committed unintentionally. The National Rally has described the case as politicized. Le Pen and her co-defendants are accused of having embezzled funds from the European Parliament by having party staff hired as parliamentary assistants, while working solely on domestic affairs rather than legislative work.

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.

ROME — Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini faces a battle to save his far-right League party from electoral oblivion. The party’s internal crisis exploded into public view last week after Salvini’s maverick deputy, Roberto Vannacci, an ex-general and defender of fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, threatened to form a splinter party to the right of the League called National Future. Salvini seeks to play down the split with his No. 2, but Vannacci’s move revealed starkly how the League — a key part of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing ruling coalition — risks disintegrating as a political force before next year’s elections. Current and former party members told POLITICO that Salvini’s rift with Vannacci had exposed a deeper and potentially devastating factional struggle at the heart of the party — between moderates and extremists, and over whether the League should return to its roots ad seek northern autonomy from Rome. In the short term, weakness in the League could bring some relief to the Atlanticist, pro-NATO Meloni, who is prone to irritation at the anti-Ukrainian, Kremlin-aligned outbursts of Salvini and Vannacci, who are supposed to be her allies. In the longer term, however, the party’s full implosion would potentially make it harder for her to build coalitions and to maintain Italy’s unusually stable government. PUBLIC FEUD The tensions between Salvini and Vannacci became impossible to disguise last month. On Jan. 24 Vannacci registered a trademark for his new National Future party. He later distanced himself from an Instagram account announcing the party’s launch, but hinted on X that he could still turn to social media to launch a party when the time was ripe. “If I decide to open such channels, I will be sure to inform you,” he said. By Jan. 29 Salvini was in full firefighting mode. Speaking before the stately tapestries of the Sala della Regina in Italy’s parliament, he insisted there was “no problem.” “There is space for different sensibilities in the League … we want to build and grow, not fight,” he added, vowing to hold a meeting with Vannacci to set the relationship back on course. Many in the League are more hostile to Vannacci, however, particularly those alarmed by the former paratrooper’s placatory language about Mussolini and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. A powerful bloc in the League that is more socially moderate — and deeply committed to northern autonomy — is pressing for Salvini to take the initiative and fire Vannacci, according to two people involved in the party discussions. Daniele Albertazzi, a politics professor and expert on populism at the University of Surrey, said a schism looked imminent. “[Vannacci] is not going to spend years building someone else’s party,” Albertazzi said. “It’s clear he doesn’t want to play second fiddle to Salvini.” FROM ASSET TO LIABILITY Vannacci emerged from obscurity in 2023 with a self-published bestseller “The World Back to Front.” It espoused the Great Replacement Theory — a conspiracy that white populations are being deliberately replaced by non-whites — and branded gay people “not normal.” More recently he has stated he prefers Putin to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Vannacci emerged from obscurity in 2023, with a self-published bestseller “The World Back to Front.” | Nicola Ciancaglini/Ciancaphoto Studio/Getty Images Albertazzi said Vannacci was positioning himself on the extreme right. “You can see it even in the typography of his symbol [for National Future], which evokes the fascist era,” he said. Salvini originally identified the military veteran as a lifeline who could reverse the League’s flagging fortunes. Salvini had early success in transforming the League from a regional party “of the north” into a national force, and it won a record 34 percent of the Italian vote in the 2019 European elections. But by 2022 things were souring, and support collapsed to about 8 percent in the general election. Vannacci was brought in to broaden the party’s appeal and shore up his own leadership. The gamble initially paid off. In the 2024 European elections, Vannacci personally received more than 500,000 preference votes — roughly 1.5 percent of the national total —validating Salvini’s strategy. But Vannacci has since become a liability. He was responsible for a failed regional campaign in his native Tuscany in October and has flouted party discipline, building his own internal group, opening local branches and organizing rallies outside the League’s control, operating as “a party within a party.” In recent interviews Vannacci has increasingly flirted with the idea of going solo with his own party. For the traditional northern separatist camp in the League, Vannacci has gone too far. Luca Zaia, head of the Veneto regional assembly, a towering figure in northern politics, and three other major northern leaders are now demanding privately that he be expelled, according to two League insiders.  “His ideas are nationalist and fascist, and have never been compatible with the League,” said a party member, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal disputes. “The writing is on the page. Since the first provocation it has been clear that it is only a matter of when, not if, he starts his own party.”  An elected League official added: “Now if he gets votes it’s Salvini’s fault for giving him a ton of publicity. No one had heard of him before. He basically won the lottery.” Attilio Fontana, a senior League official who is president of the Lombardy region, said Vannacci’s actions raised questions for Salvini. “I think that if inside the party there are differences, that can enrich the party. But creating local branches, holding demonstrations outside the party, registering a new logo and website, this is an anomaly … these are issues that [Salvini] will be looking at,” he told reporters in Milan on Friday.  EVERY VOTE COUNTS There’s no guarantee any party Vannacci launches will be a success. Three leaders in his “World Back to Front” movement — seen as a precursor to his National Future party — quit on Friday, issuing a statement that described a lack of leadership and “permanent chaos.” But his party could upset the political landscape, even if he only peels off relatively minor support from the League. Meloni will have a close eye on the arithmetic of potential alliances in the run-up to next year’s election, particularly if left-wing parties team up against her. Giorgia Meloni will have a close eye on the arithmetic of potential alliances in the run-up to next year’s election. | Simona Granati/Corbis via Getty Images Polling expert Lorenzo Pregliasco of You Trend, which is canvassing a potential new party led by Vannacci, said it had a potential electorate on the right of the coalition of about 2 per cent,  among voters who had supported [Meloni’s] Brothers of Italy, League voters and non-voters with an anti immigrant, anti-political correctness stance, who are attracted by Vannacci’s outspokenness.  The potential party “poses some risks for Meloni and the coalition … It’s not a huge electorate but in national elections two points could make the difference between winning and not winning, or winning but with a very narrow majority that could mean you were not able to form a government.”  Vannacci “has been clever in putting himself forward as a provocative opinion leader and converted this into electoral success … He has the potential to be a strong media presence and central to political debate.” The northern separatist Pact for the North movement, led by former League MP Paolo Grimoldi, said Salvini’s reputation was now damaged because of the faith he put in Vannacci. While Salvini could resign and support an alternative figure such Zaia as League leader, this was extremely unlikely, Grimoldi told POLITICO. “If not, there aren’t tools to get rid of him before the next election,” he added.  “The result will be political irrelevance and electoral defeat [for the League].”

PARIS — Anti-immigration MEP Sarah Knafo of the Reconquest party is set to advance to the second round of the Paris mayoral election in what would be a historic first for a far-right candidate, according to new polling shared with POLITICO. The survey from Cluster17, a prominent French pollster, shows Knafo, who formally entered the race in January, winning 10 percent of the vote in the municipal election next month. The data suggests her campaign is building traction — a surprise in a city where the far right has always struggled — as she was on course to win only 6 percent in December. Reconquest is the party founded by Knafo’s partner, maverick far-right politician and commentator Ériz Zemmour, who came fourth in the first round of the 2022 presidential election. Candidates who meet the 10 percent support threshold in the first round on March 15 advance to the runoff and earn representation on the city council. As it stands, that would see an unprecedented five-way race in the second round on March 22. Socialist candidate Emmanuel Grégoire leads the race with 33 percent of the vote, according to the poll. He’s followed by Rachida Dati, the conservative culture minister, at 26 percent. Centrist Pierre-Yves Bournazel scored 14 percent, while Sophia Chikirou of the hard-left France Unbowed drew 12 percent. Knafo’s platform includes several radical proposals such as halving the number of public workers in Paris and rowing back on some of current Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s signature policies, including reducing the speed limit on the Paris ring road. Hidalgo also banished cars from the banks of the Seine River, but Knafo wants instead to build a two-story passageway on the banks, with cars traveling underground and pedestrians above. Grégoire and Dati are clear front-runners in the race, but both have incentives to forge an alliance with candidates on their political extremes between the first and second rounds. Jean-Yves Dormagen, president and founder of Cluster17, warned that Dati is “caught in a pincer movement” between Knafo to her right and Bournazel in the center. “Dati doesn’t have a good campaign dynamic,” Dormagen said. Despite Grégoire facing a similar risk of being outflanked by Chikirou to his left, the Socialist candidate’s strong polling with voters from multicultural backgrounds — a “decisive group” in Paris — gives him a boost, the pollster said. “It’s a real problem for Sophia Chikirou,” said Dormagen.

A group of researchers is suing Elon Musk’s X to gain access to data on Hungary’s upcoming elections to assess the risk of interference, they told POLITICO. Hungary is set to hold a highly contentious election in April as populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán faces the toughest challenge yet to his 16-year grip on power. The lawsuit by Democracy Reporting International (DRI) comes after the civil society group, in November, applied for access to X data to study risks to the Hungarian election, including from disinformation. After X rejected their request, the researchers took the case to the Berlin Regional Court, which said it is not competent to rule on the case. DRI — with the support of the Society for Civil Rights and law firm Hausfeld — is now appealing to a higher Berlin court, which has set a hearing date of Feb. 17. Sites including X are obliged to grant researchers access to data under the European Union’s regulatory framework for social media platforms, the Digital Services Act, to allow external scrutiny of how platforms handle major online risks, including election interference. The European Commission fined X €40 million for failing to provide data access in December, as part of a €120 million levy for non-compliance with transparency obligations. The lawsuit is the latest legal challenge to X after the researchers went down a similar path last year to demand access to data related to the German elections in February 2025. A three-month legal drama, which saw a judge on the case dismissed after X successfully claimed they had a conflict of interest, ended with the court throwing out the case. The platform said that was a “comprehensive victory” because “X’s unwavering commitment to protecting user data and defending its fundamental right to due process has prevailed.” The researchers also claimed a win: The court threw the case out on the basis of a lack of urgency, as the elections were well in the past, said DRI. The groups say the ruling sets a legal precedent for civil society groups to take platforms to court where the researchers are located, rather than in the platforms’ legal jurisdictions (which, in X’s case, would be Ireland). X did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment on Monday.

PARIS — Former French Economy and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein at the convicted sex offender’s house, according to the latest document release by U.S. Department of Justice. Le Maire was purportedly brought to one of Epstein’s homes by former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s aide Olivier Colom, according to an email exchange between Colom and Epstein. The email does not specify at which of Epstein’s houses they met. The email exchanges also do not specify when Le Maire, who spent seven years leading the Economy and Finance Ministry, allegedly met Epstein. The email exchange between Epstein and Colom is dated Nov. 24, 2018 — before Epstein was charged in 2019 but long after the favorable plea deal he cut in 2008 with federal prosecutors in Miami. Epstein died by suicide while in federal custody in 2019. Colom wrote in the series of emails that he regularly meets Le Maire and his then chief of staff, Emmanuel Moulin. Moulin is currently President Emmanuel Macron’s chief of staff. There is no suggestion in the email that Moulin met with Epstein. Le Maire and Moulin did not respond immediately to requests for comment. POLITICO could not immediately find contact information for Colom. Le Maire, a longtime fixture of French conservative politics and a former presidential candidate, now teaches at a university in Lausanne. While he was mulling a bid for the 2027 presidential election, his reputation has suffered significantly as France has struggled to cut trillions in debt since his departure. Le Maire’s appointment as armed forces minister last year was met with such outrage it helped trigger a government collapse after a mere 14 hours. Colom also asked Epstein in a 2013 email for “any ideas” helping to raise money for Le Maire as a “future candidate [sic] to the Presidential election.” Epstein responded: “lets meet and talk about it.” The documents include several exchanges between Colom and Epstein, including one in which Epstein says he is on his island in the Caribbean “with an aquarium full of girls.” Colom responded: “The King of Saudi Arabia has a few white sharks in his [sic] at his Jeddah palace. I totally prefer yours. Sure I would enjoy the view.” Marion Solletty contributed to this report.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Keine Brandmauer in München: Nach zwei Jahren sind drei AfD-Politiker wieder auf die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz eingeladen. MSC-Chef Wolfgang Ischinger setzt auf Dialog statt Ausgrenzung, auch wenn die Entscheidung für Kritik bei den Grünen und Sicherheitsbedenken in der Union sorgt. Pauline von Pezold und Gordon Repinski analysieren die Hintergründe der Einladung und das juristische Tauziehen hinter den Kulissen.  Wahlkampf-Check Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: In Schwerin zeichnet sich ein Zweikampf zwischen SPD und AfD ab, während die CDU in Umfragen bei 13 Prozent stagniert. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview bezieht CDU-Spitzenkandidat Daniel Peters Stellung: Wie viel „Politikwechsel“ ist mit ihm machbar und wo zieht er die Linie gegenüber der AfD?  Eskalation im Iran: Während das Regime in Teheran mit äußerster Brutalität gegen die eigene Bevölkerung vorgeht und die Armeen der EU-Staaten als Terrororganisationen einstuft, stellt sich die Frage nach der Rolle des Westens. Nahost-Experte Daniel-Dylan Böhmer, Korrespondent für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik von  WELT, ordnet ein, warum ein US-Militärschlag unter Donald Trump aktuell unwahrscheinlich bleibt und welche Vermittler jetzt gefragt sind. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Thousands of Poles who believed they were long divorced are discovering an unsettling possibility: They may still be legally married. The confusion is an unexpected upshot of Poland’s years-long battle over a politicized judiciary spilling into everyday life, as Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s centrist government tries to undo reforms of the legal system imposed by its nationalist predecessors. The problem surfaced in January in the northeastern town of Giżycko, where a divorced couple went to court expecting routine paperwork to divide their assets. Instead, they were told that in the eyes of the state, they had never been divorced at all. The case boils down to moves by Tusk’s pro-EU administration to reject decisions by some judges appointed under the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) administration that led Poland’s government from 2015 to 2023. The Giżycko judge ruled that the couple’s original divorce judgment was legally “non-existent” because it had been signed off by one of the “neo-judges” appointed under reforms designed by previous Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. EU courts later ruled that Ziobro’s overhaul had undermined judicial independence, leaving Tusk’s government grappling with how to dismantle the system without undermining legal certainty. It’s unclear how many similar rulings may exist across Poland, but the scale is vast. The country records around 57,000 divorces a year, and tens of thousands of routine cases, including divorces, may have been decided by judges appointed under the disputed system. Kinga Skawińska-Pożyczka, a lawyer at Warsaw-based firm Dubois i Wspólnicy, said the decision was flawed and should be overturned on appeal, arguing that a court handling a property dispute should not have questioned the validity of a final divorce ruling. “The Giżycko ruling should be treated as an exception, not a rule,” she said. But others warned that even isolated rulings can have wider consequences. “A system that starts mass-questioning its own rulings stops being a system,” said Bartosz Stasik, a Wrocław-based lawyer. “Nobody wants to be the one to tell thousands of people their divorces, inheritances or verdicts don’t exist — but every avalanche starts with a single stone.” POLITICAL CLASH At the center of the dispute is the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), a body that nominates judges. In 2017 Ziobro’s Law and Justice government rewrote the rules so that parliament, not judges, chose most of its members.  By the time EU courts weighed in, hundreds of judges had already been appointed or promoted under the new system, including those handling everyday cases like mortgages, inheritance and divorces. Tusk’s government has been trying to limit the fallout from disputes over neo-judges. One proposal making its way through parliament would allow childless couples to divorce administratively at civil registry offices, bypassing the courts altogether. Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek called the Giżycko ruling “very disturbing,” warning that the crisis around neo-judges has entered “the most sensitive areas of citizens’ lives — family matters, finances and basic legal certainty.” He blamed the situation on Ziobro’s reforms. Żurek also pointed to President Karol Nawrocki, a PiS ally, whose repeated veto threats have stalled government legislation aimed at repairing the rule of law. Citizens, he said, “cannot be made to pay the price for political decisions they had no influence over.” Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek called the Giżycko ruling “very disturbing,” warning that the crisis around neo-judges has entered “the most sensitive areas of citizens’ lives — family matters, finances and basic legal certainty.” | Leszek Szymanski/EPA PiS lawmakers and their allies have seized on the ruling as evidence of institutional collapse under Tusk. From Budapest, where he has received political asylum, Ziobro said the ruling showed the government was willing to unleash “real chaos and anarchy” to undermine his reforms, even if it meant destroying ordinary people’s lives. During a heated parliamentary debate, PiS lawmakers branded the government’s proposal for out-of-court divorces an “attack on marriage,” while conservative legal groups and right-wing media also accused the government of admitting the justice system no longer works. With parliamentary elections due next year, PiS have clearly spotted what they think is an effective line of attack. That means the fight over the court system is fast becoming a political gamble over whom voters blame for the chaos — the original authors of the PiS-era reforms, or those trying to undo them. While Tusk’s Civic Coalition still leads in polls, support for its coalition partners has been sliding, raising the prospect he could lose power even if his party finishes first.

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron’s celebrations over the imminent passage of the 2026 budget will be short-lived. Once it’s approved, he’s going to be a lame duck until the presidential election of spring next year. Current and former ministers, lawmakers and political aides — including three Macron allies — told POLITICO that now that the budget fight is over and the concerns of angry citizens and jittery markets are assuaged, the whole cycle of French politics will shift to campaign mode at the expense of the dirty work of lawmaking.  First will come next month’s municipal elections, where voters in all of France’s 35,000-plus communes will elect mayors and city councils. Then all attention will flip to the race for the all-powerful presidency, Macron cannot run again due to term limits, and polls show he could be replaced by a candidate from the far-right National Rally. “It’s the end of [Macron’s] term,” a former adviser close to Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said of the budget’s passage.   Gabriel Attal, Macron’s former prime minister who now leads the French president’s party, confirmed in an interview with French media last month that he told his troops the budget marked “the end” of Macron’s second term.  “I stand by what I said,” Attal told FranceInfo.  As president, Macron continues to exert a strong influence over foreign affairs and defense, two realms that will keep him on the world stage given the geopolitical upheaval brought on by U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term. Domestically, however, he’s been hampered by the snap election in 2024 that delivered a hung parliament.  Lecornu was only able to avoid being toppled over the passage of the budget, as his two immediate predecessors were, thanks to his political savvy, some compromises and a few bold decisions. These included pausing Macron’s flagship pension reform that raised the retirement age and going back on his promise not to use a constitutional backdoor to ram it through without a vote. “Lecornu was smart enough to make the budget phase pass and end on a high note. That’s commendable, given that [former Prime Ministers Michel] Barnier and [François] Bayrou didn’t manage to do so, and he did it with considerable skill,” said a ministerial adviser who, like others quoted in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak candidly.  But Lecornu’s decision to prioritize uncontroversial measures in the coming weeks speak to the difficulties that lie ahead.   These priorities include defining the division of power between the central government and local authorities, and streamlining and centralizing welfare payments that are currently doled out in an ad hoc fashion. Lecornu is also planning to get to work early on France’s 2027 fiscal plans to try to prevent the third budget crisis in a row.  French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu leaves the Elysee Palace in Paris after a Cabinet meeting on Jan. 28. His decision to prioritize uncontroversial measures in the coming weeks speak to the difficulties ahead. | Mohammed Badra/EPA “There will be a presidential election in 2027. Before then, we need to agree on a bottom line which allows the country to move forward,” government spokesperson Maud Bregeon said Thursday on Sud Radio.  Lecornu has repeatedly stressed that his government should be disconnected from the race for president, blaming “partisan appetites” for both the budget crisis and the collapse of his 14-hour government, which was eventually replaced with a suite of less ambitious ministers.   But it’s ironic that some French government officials and MPs are now saying the self-described warrior-monk prime minister may have vaulted himself into the realm of presidential contender with his budget win. Mathieu Gallard, a pollster at Ipsos, said Lecornu had clearly become a more viable presidential candidate but noted that the jump from prime minister to president “is always a hard task.”  One parliamentary leader was much less sanguine. They said the same “partisan appetites” Lecornu has long warned about will likely cost him his job before voters head to the polls to choose Macron’s successor.   “[Lecornu] has few friends … And now that the budget has passed, every political group can have fun throwing him out of office to plant their flag before the next presidential election,” the leader said.  Anthony Lattier, Sarah Paillou and Elisa Bertholomey contributed to this report.