LONDON — Emergency support to help Brits grappling with rising bills should go to “those who need it most,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves said Tuesday — all-but ruling out a Liz Truss-style universal bailout in response to the Iran war. Pledging to “learn the mistakes of the past,” Reeves told MPs Tuesday that, while “contingency planning” is underway for “every eventuality,” the government will be “responsible” with public finances in any new state intervention. Oil and gas prices have soared since the conflict began, leading to higher fuel prices in the U.K. and sparking fears of a sharp increase in family and business energy bills when a regulated price cap period ends in July. Reeves said that, while the full impact of the crisis is not yet known, “the challenges may be significant.” In response to the 2022 energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the government of then-Prime Minister Liz Truss subsidized the bill of every household in the country — a policy backed by the Labour Party at the time. But Reeves today criticized the “unfunded, untargeted” 2022 package, saying it had pushed up borrowing, interest rates and inflation. Between 2022 and 2024, households in the top income decile received an average £1,350 of direct energy bill support, Reeves said, contributing to national debt “still being paid today.” However, the chancellor stopped short of explicitly ruling out a similar approach. She said: “Contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality so that we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most, acting within our ironclad fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.” The government has already announced a £53 million package of support for households that use heating oil, which are not protected by the energy price cap. The majority of households that use gas and electricity will not see prices rise until July, when the next price cap period ends. The latest expert projections suggest the average annual bill could rise by more than £200 from current levels. On fuel pricing, Reeves said the government would give an update “within the next month,” amid pressure from opposition parties to extend a longstanding five pence tax relief on gasoline and diesel — the fuel duty cut — beyond its expiry date in September. U.K. gasoline prices have have risen by nearly 16 pence per liter since the war began, while diesel has risen by more than 31 pence.

BRUSSELS — The European Union should loosen its “rigid” adherence to climate neutrality and allow itself to miss its 2050 net-zero goal by up to 10 percent, Germany’s minister for energy and economy told a major oil and gas conference in the United States. Speaking at the annual CERAWeek conference in Texas late Monday, Katherina Reiche called the EU’s goal to slash its planet-warming pollution to net zero by mid-century into question. Europe, for a long time, “had left a corridor, there wasn’t a net-zero … it was, for Europe, a goal [to reduce emissions] between 85 and 95 percent,” she claimed, likely referring to a non-binding European Commission roadmap from 2011. “There is a flexibility we have to get back, accept not 100 percent solutions but allowing different solutions and technologies and accept that there might be a gap of maybe a 5 or 10 percent by 2050,” she added. “If you have strict and rigid goals, you bind yourself, it ends up that you lose industries that you need … and we can’t afford that we lose our energy-intensive industries in Europe and in Germany.” Reiche’s comments mark a rare departure from the EU consensus. The bloc set itself a net-zero by 2050 goal in 2019, with only Poland not formally committing to the new milestone. Last year, EU governments agreed on an intermediate target to slash the bloc’s emissions by up to 90 percent by 2040. Germany has set itself even stricter goals, aiming to become climate neutral by 2045. Throughout her remarks at CERAWeek, Reiche stressed that economic growth must come before green targets. “At the end of the day, it is good to have a goal of sustainability — but if sustainability crashes your economy, you have to readjust,” she said. “And that’s what we’re doing right now.” In Germany, Reiche has in recent months unveiled plans to build out gas power plants, scrap the previous government’s gas boiler phaseout, remove subsidies for rooftop solar panels, and deprioritize the connection of renewables from the country’s power grid. She also told the Texas audience that Germany should drill for fossil fuels in the North Sea, saying: “We have a gas field in the North Sea, which we don’t want to explore. I think we can’t stick to this attitude. We have to also go into our own reserves.” And she insisted: “I am not speaking against sustainability, and not against a climate target. But if a climate target ignores other things you have to think of, especially affordability and abundance … you have to change course.” Mike Lee contributed to this report from Texas.

HOUSTON — The Trump administration reached a nearly $1 billion agreement with French energy giant TotalEnergies on Monday to cancel its offshore wind leases off the coasts of New York and North Carolina. The announcement marks the latest blow by the Trump administration against the U.S. offshore wind industry, particularly in the Northeast, after it faced a series of recent legal losses. “The era of taxpayers subsidizing unreliable, unaffordable and unsecured energy is officially over,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told reporters at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston. As part of the agreement, the Interior Department would terminate the leases for TotalEnergies’ Attentive Energy and Carolina Long Bay projects, worth $928 million, the department said. The lease sales occurred during the Biden administration. TotalEnergies committed to invest the value of those leases into oil and natural gas production in the United States, after which the United States will reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar for the amount they paid for the offshore wind leases, the department said. The company is poised to redirect the funds toward the Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas and the development of upstream conventional oil in the Gulf of Mexico and of shale gas production, according to the Interior Department. Burgum and TotalEnergies signed the agreements Monday from the conference. President Donald Trump has often attacked the U.S. offshore wind sector as unreliable and expensive. He’s repeatedly said he plans to have “no windmills built in the United States” under his tenure. Still, the settlement would suggest a new tack by the administration to target the sector. The Trump administration previously issued stop-work orders for offshore wind projects currently under construction on the East Coast, but judges lifted all five orders earlier this year. “Considering that the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest, we have decided to renounce offshore wind development in the United States, in exchange for the reimbursement of the lease fees,” TotalEnergies Chair and CEO Patrick Pouyanné said in a statement. Pouyanné previously said the company would halt development of the Attentive Energy project, off the New Jersey and New York coasts, following Trump’s return to the White House. Both the Attentive Energy and Carolina Long Bay projects were in the early stages of development. Pouyanné told reporters that the company continues to invest in solar, onshore wind and batteries. The deal is a major blow for New York’s offshore wind targets, although proposed projects in the lease area controlled by TotalEnergies and its partners never secured final contracts with the state. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) called the prospect of a deal “not helpful” last week. Attentive Energy dropped out of a bidding process for deals with New York in October 2024, even before Trump’s election. The state concluded that process last month with no awards amid the federal uncertainty and officials have struggled to determine next steps for the industry writ large. Hochul has pivoted to an “all of the above” energy strategy in the face of Trump’s opposition to offshore wind — including nuclear and fossil fuels. Further delays to the development of the technology off New York’s coast will likely further the state’s reliance on repowering fossil fuel plants to serve the New York City region. The deal also leaves New Jersey without any workable offshore wind projects at a time when Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill is already searching for more clean energy to combat a regional power crunch. The project was supposed to provide more than 1,300 megawatts of power. Sherrill’s predecessor, Phil Murphy, had lofty ambitions for the industry that were all for naught. His administration approved a series of offshore wind projects that all ran into financial or permitting challenges. The state approved Attentive Energy’s project in early 2024 as part of an attempted reset of the industry, which was already facing woe. The new affront could also prove problematic to permitting reform discussions on the Hill, as Democratic lawmakers have linked progress on those negotiations to whether or not the administration continues its attacks on renewable energy. ClearView Energy Partners said in a note last week the deal could also “re-raise concerns about the durability of federal approvals and therefore further erode, but not eliminate, the thin opportunity for bipartisan permitting reform on Capitol Hill.” So far, Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is staying the course on permitting talks, despite reports of the settlement agreement last week — a development he derided as “just more selling out the public for the fossil fuel industry.” His office did not immediately provide further comment Monday. Some Moderate New York Republicans last week also criticized the reported settlement. Marie French and Ry Rivard contributed to this report.

HOUSTON — Oil companies and the world’s largest energy consumers face a significant challenge to rebuild global petroleum supply chains and inventories once the critical Strait of Hormuz bottleneck opens, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said Monday. “We’ve got a lot of oil and gas now that is not flowing into the market,” Wirth said at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston. “Physical supply chains don’t respond immediately, so even if the strait opens at some point, it will take time to rebuild inventories of the right grades of crude and the right types of fuel.” Wirth cautioned that Iran’s attacks on oil tankers and the broader damage of the Middle East war did greater damage to oil and gas markets than the Russia-Ukraine war. Asian nations are running low on diesel and jet fuel. The war has held up deliveries of LNG, fertilizer and other products. Part of the challenge, Wirth said, will be taking a read of the damage. It’s unclear how much production has been shut in, Wirth said, and how badly some facilities were damaged. At the same event, Energy Secretary Chris Wright reiterated to oil executives that he anticipated the global disruption to oil and gas flows would be “short-term,” but he encouraged companies to ramp up production. “Markets do what markets do,” Wright said. “Prices went up to send signals to everyone that can produce more: ‘Please, produce more.’”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Nach 35 Jahren verliert die SPD ihre Bastion Rheinland-Pfalz. Gordon Schnieder führt die CDU zum Sieg, während Alexander Schweitzer trotz persönlicher Beliebtheit dem massiven Bundestrend unterliegt. Gemeinsam mit Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert Gordon Repinski die Schockwellen für Berlin und die Bundespolitik. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht der schleswig-holsteinische Ministerpräsident Daniel Günther (CDU) über den „Auftrag zur Beherztheit“. Günther ordnet ein, warum der Wahlsieg in Mainz kein Grund zum Ausruhen ist, sondern die Koalition in Berlin nun zwingt, die großen Sozial- und Rentenreformen durchzuziehen. Donald Trump verliert die Geduld: Angesichts der immer weiter steigenden Energiepreise in den USA hat der Präsident ein 48-Stunden-Ultimatum gestellt. Entweder das Regime gibt die Straße von Hormus frei, oder die USA bombardieren iranische Kraftwerke. Jonathan Martin berichtet aus Washington über die Frustration im Weißen Haus und warum dieses „Roulette“ für Trump zur Schicksalsfrage für die Midterm-Elections im November wird. 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 **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht der PKV: Hätten Sie’s gedacht? Vom jährlichen 15,5-Milliarden-Euro-Mehrumsatz der Privatversicherten profitiert das gesamte Gesundheitswesen. Denn neben den Haus- und Fachärzten kommen die höheren Honorare auch den zahnärztlichen Praxen zugute, dem Arzneimittelbereich oder Therapeutinnen. So stützt die PKV die medizinische Versorgung in Deutschland zugunsten aller – auch der gesetzlich Versicherten. Mehr auf pkv.de**

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

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Sunday offered a full-throated endorsement of President Donald Trump’s military efforts against Iran and also said he expects the nations of NATO to come together to support Trump. “What I know is that we always come together,” Rutte told host Margaret Brennan on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Rutte has consistently been supportive of Trump even as some of the leading European powers — noting that NATO is intended to be a defensive alliance — have expressed reluctance to help Trump with the Iran war, including with U.S. efforts to make the Strait of Hormuz safe for the passage of oil tankers. Trump, for his part, has lashed out at NATO. “Without the U.S.A., NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! They didn’t want to join the fight to stop a Nuclear Powered Iran,” he wrote on Truth Social on Friday. “Now that fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER!” Rutte, while expressing reluctance to criticize the European leaders, said of Trump: “He’s doing this to make the whole world safe.” A former prime minister of the Netherlands, Rutte told Brennan it was taking the European powers some time to come around because they had been left out of the initial planning in an effort to preserve the element of surprise of the American and Israeli attacks. “I understand the president’s frustration that it takes some time, but again I also ask for some understanding because nations had to prepare for this not knowing,” Rutte said. In supporting the current military campaign, Rutte contrasted the military actions against Iran with the world’s efforts to prevent North Korea from acquiring a nuclear weapon. “We have seen with North Korea if we negotiate for too long, you might pass the moment when you can still get this thing done and North Korea now has the nuclear capability,” he said, saying a nuclear-armed Iran would be a clear threat to Israel, Europe and the stability of the world.

The Cuban deputy foreign minister issued a blunt warning to the U.S. on Sunday: His island’s military is “prepared” for any U.S. aggression as the Trump administration continues to push for regime change in the country. Speaking to NBC’s Kristen Welker in a sometimes tense interview, Carlos Fernández de Cossío said he doesn’t understand why the U.S. would attack the island — but added, “our military is always prepared. And in fact it is preparing these days for the possibility of military aggression.” “Our country has historically been ready to mobilize, as a nation as a whole, for military aggression,” Cossío said on “Meet the Press.” “We truly always see it as something far from us. We don’t believe it is something that is probable. But we would be naive if we do not prepare.” Cossío’s warning came days after President Donald Trump spoke of “taking” Cuba. “I do believe I’ll be the honor of — having the honor of taking Cuba. That’d be a good hon — that’s a big honor,” Trump told reporters. “I mean, whether I free it, take it. I think I can do anything I want with it, you want to know the truth.” American presidents have been hoping to see a new government in Cuba since Fidel Castro took power in 1959. Still, Cossío said on Sunday that regime change is “absolutely” off the table. “Cuba is a sovereign country and has the right to be a sovereign country and has the right to self-determination,” he said. “Cuba would not accept to become a vassal state or a dependent state from any other country or any other superpower.” Cuba’s economy has plummeted since the Trump administration captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January. The U.S. has cut off Venezuelan oil supplies, which are critical to propping up the island’s economy, and the nation’s transportation, health and education systems are also strained. But the U.S.’s oil blockade is “very severe,” Cossío said, accusing the United States of threatening other countries “with coercive measures” against importing fuel to the island. “We do hope that fuel will reach Cuba one way or the other and that this boycott that the United States has been imposing does not last and cannot be sustained forever,” Cossío said. Though the U.S. and Havana are now in discussions, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, Cossío said those discussions do not include regime change — or the release of political prisoners. “We are in dialogue with the United States to talk about bilateral issues. We’re not talking about prisoners in the United States, and the U.S. has the highest record of prisoners in the world,” Cossío said. And though Rubio this week asserted that Cuba will collapse “on its own” and Havana’s leaders “don’t know how to fix” the country, Cossío insisted his country is not in any state of collapse. “What does ‘on its own’ mean when it’s being forced by the United States? It’s a very bizarre statement,” he said. “Why does the U.S. government need to employ so many resources, so much political capital, so many human resources, to try to destroy the economy of another country? Evidently, it implies that the country does not have the characteristics to collapse on its own.”

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

The Trump administration is doubling down on its endorsement of Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán in next month’s Hungarian elections, even as Orbán’s deal-blocking in Brussels has been labeled “unacceptable” by EU peers. U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday reiterated his “complete and total endorsement” of Orbán in the Hungarian elections. And U.S. Vice President JD Vance is reportedly due to fly to Budapest in April in support of the prime minister. The EU’s longest-serving leader, facing an election in less than a month that he is forecast to lose, has long been a thorn in the side of Brussels. In the latest stand-off against his European counterparts, Orbán held hostage a €90 billion loan to Ukraine this week over an oil dispute. “The prime minister has been a strong leader whose shown the entire world what’s possible when you defend your borders, your culture, your heritage, your sovereignty and your values,” Trump said in a video address to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) taking place in Hungary on Saturday. Trump praised Hungary’s “strong borders” and said the country will continue to “work very hard on immigration,” and said Europe has to “work very hard” to solve “a lot of problems” around immigration. The American president said that Hungary and the U.S. are “showing the way toward a revitalized West,” and would also work “hard together on energy.” Vance is planning an April trip to Budapest just ahead of the Hungarian elections in a show of support for Orbán, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto confirmed in a podcast on Friday. Reuters first reported on Vance’s planned trip to Budapest.