President Donald Trump’s latest round of Europe-bashing has the U.S.’s allies across the Atlantic revisiting a perennial question: Why does Trump hate Europe so much? Trump’s disdain for America’s one-time partners has been on prominent display in the past week — first in Trump’s newly released national security strategy, which suggested that Europe was suffering from civilizational decline, and then in Trump’s exclusive interview with POLITICO, where he chided the “decaying” continent’s leaders as “weak.” In Europe, Trump’s criticisms were met with more familiar consternation — and calls to speed up plans for a future where the continent cannot rely on American security support. But where does Trump’s animosity for Europe actually come from? To find out, I reached out to a scholar who’d been recommended to me by sources in MAGA world as someone who actually understands their foreign policy thinking (even if he doesn’t agree with it). “He does seem to divide the world into strength and weakness, and he pays attention to strength, and he kind of ignores weakness,” said Jeremy Shapiro, the research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Trump’s strained relations with the continent. “And he has long characterized the Europeans as weak.” Shapiro explained that Trump has long blamed Europe’s weakness on its low levels of military spending and its dependence on American security might. But his critique seems to have taken on a new vehemence during his second term thanks to input from new advisers like Vice President JD Vance, who have successfully cast Europe as a liberal bulwark in a global culture war between MAGA-style “nationalists” and so-called globalists. Like many young conservatives, Shapiro explained, Vance has come to believe that “it was these bastions of liberal power in the culture and in the government that stymied the first Trump term, so you needed to attack the universities, the think tanks, the foundations, the finance industry, and, of course, the deep state.” In the eyes of MAGA, he said, “Europe is one of these liberal bastions.” This conversation was edited for length and clarity. Trump’s recent posture toward Europe brings to mind the old adage that the opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference. Do you think Trump hates Europe, or does he just think it’s irrelevant? My main impression is that he’s pretty indifferent toward it. There are moments when specific European countries or the EU really pisses him off and he expresses something that seems close to hatred, but mostly he doesn’t seem very focused on it. Why do you think that is? He does seem to divide the world into strength and weakness, and he pays attention to strength, and he kind of ignores weakness. And he has long characterized the Europeans as weak for a bunch of different reasons having to do with what seems to him to be a decadence in their society, their immigration, their social welfare states, their lack of apparent military vigor. All of those things seem to put them in the weak category, and in Trump’s world, if you’re in the weak category, he doesn’t pay much attention to you. What about more prosaic things like the trade imbalance and NATO spending? Do those contribute to his disdain, or does it originate from a more guttural place? I get the impression that it is more at a guttural level. It always seemed to me that the NATO spending debate was just a stick with which to beat the NATO allies. He has long understood that that’s something that they felt a little bit guilty about, and that’s something that American presidents had beat them about for a while, so he just sort of took it to an 11. The trade deficit is something that’s more serious for him. He’s paid quite a bit of attention to that in every country, so it’s in the trade area where he takes Europeans most seriously. But because they’re so weak and so dependent on the United States for security, he hasn’t had to deal with their trade problems in the same way. He’s able to threaten them on security, and they have folded pretty quickly. Does some of his animosity originate from his pre-presidency when he did business in Europe? He likes to blame Europeans for nixing some of his business transactions, like a golf course in Ireland. How serious do you think that is? I think that’s been important in forming his opinion of the EU rather than of Europe as a whole. He never seems to refer to the EU without referring to the fact that they blocked his golf course in Ireland. It wasn’t even the EU that blocked it, actually — it was an Irish local government authority — but it conforms to the general MAGA view of the EU as overly bureaucratic, anti-development and basically as an extension of the American liberal approach to development and regulation, which Trump certainly does hate. That’s part of what led Trump and his movement more generally to put the EU in the category of supporters of liberal America. In that sense, the fight against the EU in particular — but also against the other liberal regimes in Europe — became an extension of their domestic political battle with liberals in America. That effort to pull Europe as a whole into the American culture war by positioning it as a repository of all the liberal pieties that MAGA has come to hate — that seems kind of new. That is new for the second term, yeah. Where do you think that’s coming from? It definitely seems to be coming from [Vice President] JD Vance and the sort of philosophers who support him — the Patrick Deneens and Yoram Hazonys. Those types of people see liberal Europe as quite decadent and as part of the overall liberal problem in the world. You can also trace some of it back to Steve Bannon, who has definitely been talking about this stuff for a while. There does seem to be a real preoccupation with the idea that Europe is suffering from some sort of civilizational decline or civilization collapse. For instance, in both the new national security strategy and in his remarks to POLITICO this week, Trump has suggested that Europe is “decaying.” What do you make of that? This is a bit of a projection, right? If you look at the numbers in terms of immigration and diversity, the United States is further ahead in that decay — if you want to call it that — than Europe. There was this view that emerged among MAGA elites in the interregnum that it wasn’t enough to win the presidency in order to successfully change America. You had to attack all of the bastions of liberal power. It was these bastions of liberal power in the culture and in the government that stymied the first Trump term, so you needed to attack the universities, the think tanks, the foundations, the finance industry and, of course, the deep state, which is the first target. It was only through attacking these liberal bastions and conquering them to your cause that you could have a truly transformative effect. One of the things that they seem to have picked up while contemplating this theory is that Europe is one of these liberal bastions. Europe is a support for liberals in the United States, in part because Europe is the place where Americans get their sense of how the world views them. It’s ironic that that image of a decadent Europe coexists with the rise of far-right parties across the continent. Obviously, the Trump administration has supported those parties and allied with them, but at least in France and Germany, the momentum seems to be behind these parties at the moment. That presents them with an avenue to destroy liberal Europe’s support for liberal America by essentially transforming Europe into an illiberal regime. That is the vector of attack on liberal Europe. There has been this idea that’s developed amongst the populist parties in Europe since Brexit that they’re not really trying to leave the EU or destroy the EU; they’re trying to remake the EU in their nationalist and sovereigntist image. That’s perfect for what the Trump people are trying to do, which is not destroy the EU fully, but destroy the EU as a support for liberal ideas in the world and the United States. You mentioned the vice president, who has become a very prominent mouthpiece for this adversarial approach to Europe — most obviously in his speech at Munich earlier this year. Do you think he’s just following Trump’s guttural dislike of Europe or is he advancing his own independent anti-European agenda? A little of both. I think that Vance, like any good vice president, is very careful not to get crosswise with his boss and not contradict him in any way. So the fact that Trump isn’t opposed to this and that he can support it to a degree is very, very important. But I think that a lot of these ideas come from Vance independently, at least in detail. What he’s doing is nudging Trump along this road. He’s thinking about what will appeal to Trump, and he’s mostly been getting it right. But I think that especially when it comes to this sort of culture war stuff with Europe, he’s more of a source than a follower. During this latest round of Trump’s Euro-bashing, did anything stand out to you as new or novel? Or was it all of a piece with what you had heard before? It was novel relative to a year ago, but not relative to February and since then. But it’s a new mechanism of describing it — through a national security strategy document and through interviews with the president. The same arguments have achieved a sort of higher status, I would say, in the last week or so. You could sit around in Europe — as I did — and argue about the degree to which this really was what the Trump administration was doing, or whether this was just a faction — and you can still have that argument, because the Trump administration is generally quite inconsistent and incoherent when it comes to this kind of thing — but I think it’s undoubtedly achieved a greater status in the last week or two. How do you think Europe should deal with Trump’s recurring animosity towards the continent? It seems they’ve settled on a strategy of flattery, but do you think that’s effective in the long run? No, I think that’s the exact opposite of effective. If you recall what I said at the beginning, Trump abhors weakness, and flattery is the sort of ultimate manifestation of weakness. Every time the Europeans show up and flatter Trump, it enables them to have a good meeting with him, but it conveys the impression to him that they are weak, and so it increases his policy demands against them. We’ve seen that over and over again. The Europeans showed up and thought they had changed his Ukraine position, they had a great meeting, he said good things about them, they went home and a few weeks later, he had a totally different Ukraine position that they’re now having to deal with. The flattery has achieved the sense in the Trump administration that they can do anything they want to the Europeans, and they’ll basically swallow it. They haven’t done what some other countries have done, like the Chinese or the Brazilians, or even the Canadians to some degree, which is to stand up to Trump and show him that he has to deal with them as strong actors. And that’s a shame, because the Europeans — while they obviously have an asymmetric dependence on the United States, and they have some weaknesses — are a lot stronger than a lot of other countries, especially if they were working together. I think they have some capacity to do that, but they haven’t really managed it as of yet. Maybe this will be a wake-up call to do that.

BERLIN — U.S. President Donald Trump’s overtures to the European far right have never been more overt, but the EU’s biggest far-right parties are split over whether that is a blessing or a curse.  While Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has welcomed Trump’s moral support, viewing it as a way to win domestic legitimacy and end its political ostracization, France’s National Rally has kept its distance — viewing American backing as a potential liability. The differing reactions from the two parties, which lead the polls in the EU’s biggest economies, stem less from varying ideologies than from distinct domestic political calculations. AfD leaders in Germany celebrated the Trump administration’s recent attacks on Europe’s mainstream political leaders and approval of “patriotic European parties” that seek to fight Europe’s so-called “civilizational erasure.” “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy — which, in parts, sounds like it could have been a manifesto of a far-right European party — warning that Europe may be “unrecognizable” in two decades due to migration and a loss of national identities. “The AfD has always fought for sovereignty, remigration, and peace — precisely the priorities that Trump is now implementing,” added Bystron, who will be among a group of politicians in his party traveling to Washington this week to meet with MAGA Republicans. One of the AfD’s national leaders, Alice Weidel, also celebrated Trump’s security strategy. “That’s why we need the AfD!” Weidel said in a post after the document was released. By contrast, National Rally leaders in France were generally silent. Thierry Mariani, a member of the party’s national board, explained Trump hardly seemed like an ideal ally. “Trump treats us like a colony — with his rhetoric, which isn’t a big deal, but especially economically and politically,” he told POLITICO. The party’s national leaders, Mariani added, see “the risk of this attitude from someone who now has nothing to fear, since he cannot be re-elected, and who is always excessive and at times ridiculous.”  AFD’S AMERICAN DREAM It’s no coincidence that Bystron is part of a delegation of AfD politicians set to meet members of Trump’s MAGA camp in Washington this week. Bystron has been among the AfD politicians increasingly looking to build ties to the Trump administration to win support for what they frame as a struggle against political persecution and censorship at home. This is an argument members of the Trump administration clearly sympathize with. When Germany’s domestic intelligence agency declared the AfD to be extremist earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the move “tyranny in disguise.” During the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President JD Vance urged mainstream politicians in Europe to knock down the “firewalls” that shut out far-right parties from government. “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy. | Britta Pedersen/Picture Alliance via Getty Images AfD leaders have therefore made a simple calculation: Trump’s support may lend the party a sheen of acceptability that will help it appeal to more voters while, at the same time, making it politically harder for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives to refuse to govern in coalition with their party. This explains why AfD polticians will be in the U.S. this week seeking political legitimacy. On Friday evening, Markus Frohnmaier, deputy leader of the AfD parlimentary group, will be an “honored guest” at a New York Young Republican Club gala, which has called for a “new civic order” in Germany. NATIONAL RALLY SEES ‘NOTHING TO GAIN’ In France, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally has distanced itself from the AfD and Trump as part of a wider effort to present itself as more palatable to mainstream voters ahead of a presidential election in 2027 the party believes it has a good chance of winning. As part of the effort to clean up its image, Le Pen pushed for the AfD to be ejected from the Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament last year following a series of scandals that made it something of a pariah. At the same time, National Rally leaders have calculated that Trump can’t help them at home because he is deeply unpopular nationally. Even the party’s supporters view the American president negatively. An Odoxa poll released after the 2024 American presidential election found that 56 percent of National Rally voters held a negative view of Trump. In the same survey, 85 percent of voters from all parties described Trump as “aggressive,” and 78 percent as “racist.”  Jean-Yves Camus, a political scientist and leading expert on French and international far-right movements, highlighted the ideological gaps separating Le Pen from Trump — notably her support for a welfare state and social safety nets, as well as her limited interest in social conservatism and religion.  “Trumpism is a distinctly American phenomenon that cannot be transplanted to France,” Camus said. “Marine Le Pen, who is working on normalization, has no interest in being linked with Trump. And since she is often accused of serving foreign powers — mostly Russia — she has nothing to gain from being branded ‘Trump’s agent in France.’” 

LONDON — In February Britain’s cash-strapped Labour government cut international development spending — and barely anyone made a noise. The center-left party announced it would slice the country’s spending on aid down to only 0.3 percent of gross domestic income — from 0.5 percent — in order to fund a hike in defense spending. MPs, aid experts and officials have told POLITICO that the scale of the cuts is on a par with — or even exceeding — those of both the previous center-right Conservative government or the United States under Donald Trump. This leaves Britain’s development arm, once globally envied as a vehicle for poverty alleviation, a shadow of its former self. The move — prompted by U.S. demands to up its NATO spending, and mirroring the Trump administration’s move to gut its own USAID development budget — shocked Labour’s progressive MPs, supporters and backers in the aid sector. But unlike attempted cuts to British welfare spending, the real-world backlash was muted, with the resignation of Britain’s development minister prompting little further dissent or change in policy. There was no mutiny in parliament, and only limited domestic and international condemnation outside of an aid sector torn between making their voices heard — and keeping in Whitehall’s good books over slices of the shrinking pie. Some fear a return grab over the aid budget could still be on the cards — but that the government will find that there is little left to cut. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, warned that, instead of “reversing the cuts by the previous Conservative government, Labour has compounded them, and lives will be lost as a result.” “These cuts will further tarnish the U.K.’s reputation as it continues to be known as an unreliable global partner, breaking Labour’s manifesto commitment,” he warned. “The Conservatives started the fire, but instead of putting it out, this Labour government threw petrol on it.” ‘IT WAS THE PERFECT TIME TO DO IT’ When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the cut to international aid — a bid to save over £6 billion by 2027 — Labour MPs, including those who worked in the sector before being elected, were notably silent. The move followed a 2021 Conservative cut to aid spending — from 0.7 percent in the Tory brand-rebuilding David Cameron years down to 0.5 percent. At the time, Labour MPs had met that Tory cut with howls of outrage. This time it was different. Some were genuinely shocked, while others feared retribution from a Downing Street that had flexed its muscles at MPs who rebelled on what they saw as points of conscience. “No one was expecting it, so there was no opportunity to campaign around it,” said one Labour MP. “Literally none of us had any idea it was coming.” Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank. | Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images The same MP noted that there are around 50 Labour MPs from the new 2024 intake who had some form of development background before coming into parliament. Yet they were put “completely under the cosh” by Downing Street and government whips. “It was the perfect time to do it,” the MP said. A number of MPs who might have been vocal have since been made parliamentary private secretaries — the most junior government role. “They have basically gagged the people who would be most likely to be outspoken on it,” the MP above said. The department’s ministerial team is now more likely to be loyal to the Starmer project. “I just felt hurt, and wounded. We were stunned. None of us saw it coming,” said one MP from the 2024 cohort, adding: “They priced in that backlash wouldn’t come.” But they added: “If we were culpable so were NGOs, too inward-looking and focused on peripheral issues.” The lack of outcry from MPs would, however, seem to put them largely in step with the wider British public. Polling and focus groups from think tank More in Common suggest that despite the majority of voters thinking spending on international aid is the right thing to do in a variety of circumstances, only around 20 percent of the public think the budget was cut too much.  The second new-intake Labour MP quoted above said the policy was therefore an “easy thing to sell on the doorstep,” and “in my area, there’s not going to be shouting from the rooftops to spend more money on aid.” DIMINISHED AND DEMORALIZED The cuts to aid come at a time when Britain’s Foreign Office is undergoing a radical overhaul. While the department describes its plans as “more agile,” staff, programs and entire areas of focus are all ripe for cuts to save money. The department is looking to make redundancies for around 25 percent of staff based in the U.K. MPs have voiced concern that development staff will be among the first to make the jump due to the government’s shift away from aid. The department insists that no final decisions have been taken over the size and shape of the organization. Major cuts are expected across work on education, conflict, and WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene.) The government’s Integrated Security Fund — which funds key counter-terror programs abroad — is also looking to scale back work abroad which does not have a clear link to Britain’s national security. The British Council — a key soft-power organization viewed as helping combat Chinese and Russian reach across the world — told MPs it is in “real financial peril” and would be cutting its presence in 35 of the 97 countries it operates. The BBC’s World Service is seeing similar cuts to its global reach. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the watchdog for aid spending, is also not safe from the ax as the government continues its bonfire of regulators. The FCDO did not refute the expected pathway of cuts. Published breakdowns of spending allocations for the next three years are due to be published in the coming months, an official said. A review of Britain’s development and diplomacy policies conducted by economist Minouche Shafik — who has since been moved into Downing Street — sits discarded in the department. The government refuses to publish its findings. Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. | Pool Photo by Adrian Dennis via Getty Images The second 2024 intake MP quoted earlier in the piece said that following the U.S. decisions on aid and foreign policy “there was an expectation that the U.K., as a responsible international partner, as a leader on a lot of this stuff, would fill the gap to some extent, and then take more of a leadership role on it, and we’ve done the opposite.” NOTHING LEFT TO CUT Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. While few MPs or those in the aid sector feel Britain will ever return to the lofty heights of its 0.7 percent commitment, they predict there will be harder resistance if the government comes back for more. “I don’t think they’re going to try and do it again, as there’s no money left,” the second 2024 intake MP said. But they pointed out that a large portion of the remaining aid budget is spent on in-country costs such as accommodation for asylum seekers. Savings identified from the asylum budget would be sent back to the Treasury, rather than put back into the aid budget, they noted. Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank or the United Nations and would, they warned, involve “getting rid of international agreements and chopping up longstanding influence at big international institutions that we are one of the leading people in.” The United Nations is already facing its own funding crisis as it struggles to adjust to the global downturn in aid spending. British diplomat Tom Fletcher — who leads the UN’s humanitarian response — said earlier this year that the organization has been “forced into a triage of human survival,” adding: “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking.” The government still has a commitment to returning to 0.7 percent of GNI “as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow.” The tests for this ramp back up were set out four years ago. Britain must not be borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt must be falling. The last two budgets have forecast that the government will not meet these tests in this parliament. FARAGE CIRCLES In the meantime, Labour’s opponents feel emboldened to go further. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have said that they would further cut the aid budget. The Tories have vowed to slice it down to 0.1 percent of GNI, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is eyeing fresh cuts of at least by £7-8 billion a year. A third 2024 Labour MP said that there was a degree of pressure among some colleagues to match the Conservatives’ 0.1 percent pledge. Though no country has gone as far as Uganda’s Idi Amin in setting up a “save Britain fund” for its “former colonial masters,” Britain’s departure on international aid gives space for other countries wanting to step up to further their own foreign policy aims. The space vacated by Britain and America has prompted warnings that China will step in, while countries newer to international development such as Gulf states could try and fill the void. Many of these nations are unlikely to ever fund the same projects as the U.K. and the U.S., forcing NGOs to look to alternate donors such as philanthropists to fund their work. “There’ll be a big, big gap, and it won’t be completely filled,” the second new intake MP said. An FCDO spokesperson said the department was undergoing “an unprecedented transformation,” and added: “We remain resolutely committed to international development and have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context. We will bring U.K. expertise and investment to where it is needed most, including global health solutions and humanitarian support.”

PARIS — A generational reckoning is brewing in Paris and Berlin, where a new wave of younger politicians is putting pensioners on notice: The system is buckling and can’t hold unless retirees do more to help fix it. Culture, language and local politics may add a distinct flavor to each debate, but the European Union’s two biggest economies are dealing with the same issue — how to pay for the soaring costs associated with the retirement of baby boomers.   The problem is both demographic and financial. Declining birthrates mean there aren’t enough young people to offset the boom in retirees at a time when economic growth is sluggish, salaries have stagnated and purchasing power isn’t evolving at the same rate as it did for previous generations. And with the cost of real estate skyrocketing, young people feel that buying a home and other opportunities afforded to their parents’ generation are increasingly out of reach.  With budgets already strapped thanks to priorities such as rearmament in the face of Russian aggression, reindustrialization and the green transition, a growing number of young politicians from the center to the right of the political spectrum are calling out retirees for not contributing to the solution.  Some lawmakers in Germany, like 34-year-old Johannes Winkel, are calling for greater “intergenerational justice.” The 38-year-old French MP Guillaume Kasbarian is going a step further, arguing France should rethink its pay-as-you-go system — similar to Germany’s — in which current workers fund retirees’ pensions through taxes. The 38-year-old French MP Guillaume Kasbarian is going a step further, arguing France should rethink its pay-as-you-go system — similar to Germany’s — in which current workers fund retirees’ pensions through taxes. | Amaury Cornu/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images Targeting pensioners is a politically dangerous proposition. They are a reliable voting constituency, heading to the ballot box in greater numbers than younger generations — and they lean centrist. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservative bloc got an estimated 43 percent of the vote among people aged 70 and above in February’s general election, and older voters helped Macron secure reelection in 2022.  French Budget Minister Amélie de Montchalin told lawmakers last month that she didn’t “want to trigger a generation war” over the government’s fiscal plans for next year.  But she — and her counterparts across the Rhine — may not have a choice. ‘FAIR TO ALL GENERATIONS’ Lawmakers in France are sparring this week over a highly contentious plan to freeze inflation adjustments on pension payments next year, part of a wide-ranging effort to trim billions of euros from the budget and get the deficit below 5 percent of gross domestic product. The debate in France echoes similar conversations in Germany, where Winkel is among a group of young conservatives who rebelled against a pension reform package put forth by Merz’s government, saying current benefits for older people are too generous and asking for a plan that is “fair to all generations.”   A group of leading economists argued in an op-ed in German newspaper Handelsblatt that Merz’s proposed pension package would be “to the detriment of the younger generation, who are already under increasing financial pressure.”   The leaders of Germany’s coalition set out to resolve the dispute last week, with Merz vowing to take on a second, more far-reaching set of pension reforms as early as next year.   Winkel is among a group of young conservatives who rebelled against a pension reform package put forth by Merz’s government, saying current benefits for older people are too generous and asking for a plan that is “fair to all generations.”  | Photo by Nadja Wohlleben/Getty Images But it’s unclear whether that proposal has appeased all young conservatives. In a letter this week, the group said its 18 lawmakers would decide individually how they will vote on the immediate pension package, which is set to go for a vote on Friday. Every vote will matter, as Merz’s fragile coalition has a majority of only 12 parliamentarians. On Tuesday, Merz’s center-right bloc held a test vote to see if there was enough conservative support to pass the pension reform package. The results of the internal vote were unclear. Opinion surveys in Germany and France show that much of the public favors protecting existing pension systems and benefits. Leftist parties in both countries have also strongly pushed back against measures that would freeze or lower pension benefits, arguing that the public pension system is a core element of social cohesion. But intergenerational cracks are emerging.  “Measures on pensions show a generational cleavage: They are massively rejected by pensioners but supported by nearly one out of two in the younger generation (18-24),” according to an analysis from French pollster Elabe published in October.  In another poll from Odoxa, a small majority of working-age people in France agreed that current pensioners are “better off because they were able to leave earlier than those still working.” KEY DIFFERENCES There are key differences between France and Germany, however. Pension benefits in France are far more generous than in Germany, and help keep the poverty rate among people aged 65 and above lower than that of the general population.  The opposite is true in Germany, where the over-65 population is worse off than those younger than 65, in part because public pensions became comparatively lower after pension reforms passed in the 2000s.  Ultimately, however, demographics and economics vary so much from one generation to another that it’s almost impossible to make a pension system “fair,” according to Arnaud Lechevalier, an economist at the Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University. The idea that each generation can have the same return on investment on their working-aged contributions is, in Lechevalier’s words, “a deeply stupid idea.”

DUBLIN — Ukraine cannot accept any U.S.-Russian ceasefire formula that would allow Russia to “come back with a third invasion,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday. During his first visit to Ireland as president, Zelenskyy received fulsome backing from Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin, who stood shoulder to shoulder with him and condemned Russian leader Vladimir Putin. “Putin has shown a complete indifference to the value of human life and to international laws and norms,” Martin told their joint press conference. “He must never be allowed to succeed.” Zelenskyy’s whirlwind visit to Dublin — where he also received a standing ovation from the joint houses of parliament and met Ireland’s newly elected and NATO-critical President Catherine Connolly — coincided with resumed Moscow talks between Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff. Zelenskyy said he spoke Monday with Witkoff and expected a post-talks update call Tuesday night — but downplayed hopes of reaching a speedy accord that would permanently end Russia’s attacks on his nation. He dismissed as unrealistic any proposed agreement that fails to include clear-cut security guarantees from both the U.S. and European allies, a commitment that Trump appears loath to give. “We have to stop the war in such a manner that in one year Russia would not come back with a third invasion,” he said, referring to Russia’s initial 2014 seizure of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine as well as its full-scale assault on Ukraine launched in 2022. Martin said making any ceasefire permanent would require, in part, that Russia pays a punitive price for the costs of Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction. That would mean, he said, approving the European Commission’s plan to tap frozen Russian funds largely banked in Belgium. Martin expressed hopes that Belgium would drop its objections at the next European Council this month. “When the U.N. charter is violated in such a brutal manner,” Martin said, referring to Russia’s ongoing invasion, “there has to be a deterrence of such behavior. There has to be some responsibility on the aggressor who has wreaked such devastation.” “There’s a very practical issue of the enormity of the reconstruction of Ukraine and the cost of that, and who’s going to pay for that,” Martin said. “It cannot only be the European taxpayer. Europe did not start this war.” But Ireland — a militarily neutral nation that will hold the EU’s rotating presidency in the second half of 2026 — did use Zelenskyy’s visit to boost its own financial support to Ukraine. Martin signed an agreement with Ukraine pledging a further €100 million in nonlethal military equipment, including for minefield clearance, and €25 million to help rebuild Ukraine’s besieged energy utilities. Ireland, a non-NATO member with virtually no defense industries of its own, has declined to provide any finance for acquiring weapons. Ireland, a country of 5.4 million people, also hosts more than 80,000 Ukrainian refugees — but, against a wider tide of anti-immigrant sentiment, is trimming the housing and welfare supports it has provided since 2022 to the Ukrainians. Zelenskyy said he couldn’t concern himself with the level of Irish support, and was grateful it keeps being provided at all. “The question is not about the size of assistance. It’s about the choice,” he said.

In Italia il numero delle nascite non è mai stato così basso, mettendo a rischio il debito pubblico e la coesione sociale. E’ l’allarme lanciato giovedì dal presidente della Repubblica Sergio Mattarella, durante l’apertura degli Stati generali della natalità per l’auditorium della conciliazione di Roma. La ricetta del Quirinale per invertire la rotta è chiara: più servizi pubblici per sostenere le famiglie e aiutare i genitori, ma anche stipendi più alti. L’evento, organizzato dalla Fondazione per la Natalità presieduta da Gigi de Palo, si concluderà venerdì. Il capo dello Stato ha aperto il convegno mettendo tutti in guardia: il calo della natalità “inciderà sulla sostenibilità dei conti pubblici, oltre che sulla coesione intergenerazionale”. PERCHÉ SI FANNO MENO FIGLI? PRECARIATO, STIPENDI, POCHI SERVIZI, CASA INACCESSIBILE La premessa sono i dati Istat, con le nascite al minimo storico: nel 2024 il numero medio di figli si attesta a 1,18, in flessione sul 2023 (1,20). L’anno scorso le nascite sono state 369.944, in calo del 2,6% sul 2023 (una contrazione di quasi 10mila unità). Ma nel 2025 l’Italia arretra ancora: in base ai dati provvisori, da gennaio luglio le nascite sono circa 13mila in meno rispetto allo stesso periodo del 2024 (-6,3%). Se si fanno meno figli, non è perché le nuove leve sono più egoiste e meno inclini ai sacrifici della genitorialità: lo disse il presidente del Censis Giuseppe De Rita (padre di 8 figli) in un’intervista del 2020. Secondo Mattarella, “condizioni adeguate di retribuzione e sviluppo dei servizi sociali consentono orizzonti di vita nei quali è possibile orientare le proprie scelte verso la gioia di avere figli e non verso la rinuncia ad averne”. Ovvero, si fanno meno figli anche perché gli stipendi sono bassi e scarseggia l’assistenza dello Stato, mentre latitano asili nidi e aiuti per i genitori. Neppure i contratti di lavoro flessibili e a tempo sono un incentivo a fare figli. “Parliamo delle difficoltà della precarietà e dei bassi redditi, dell’ardua impresa di accesso a una abitazione nelle aree urbane, dalle carenze dei servizi che rendono difficile conciliare i tempi del lavoro con quelli della vita familiare e con la cura di familiari in età avanzata”, ha ricordato il presidente. Che sottolinea un altro aspetto decisivo: la difficoltà delle giovani coppie per acquistare casa, un tassello fondamentale per costruire una famiglia. COSA DICE LA COSTITUZIONE Il Quirinale ha ricordato alla platea l’articolo 31 della Costituzione. “Vale la pena rileggerlo”, ha ammonito Mattarella: “La Repubblica agevola con misure economiche e altre provvidenze la formazione della famiglia e l’adempimento dei compiti relativi, con particolare riguardo alle famiglie numerose. Protegge la maternità, l’infanzia e la gioventù, favorendo gli istituti necessari a tale scopo”. Secondo il presidente non è mai un problema individuale o generazionale, bensì collettivo: “È la società nel suo insieme che deve comporre un ambiente favorevole e assicurare piena libertà”. I giovani dunque non sono il problema, bensì le vittime. “In una società centrata sulla velocità i giovani – e non per loro responsabilità – vengono messi in condizione di rischiare di essere in costante ritardo”, ha detto Mattarella. Ritardo nel trovare un lavoro stabile, nel diventare autonomi, nel comprare casa e mettere su famigli, in ritardo nell’avere figli. MIGRANTI PER SOPPERIRE AL CALO DEL NUMERO DEI LAVORATORI Il Presidente ha messo in guardia anche sulla retorica contro i migranti, per la quale lo straniero ruberebbe il lavoro ai figli d’Italia: “Affrontare i temi della natalità nel nostro Paese non è in contrapposizione con l’integrazione dei migranti”. Anzi, “l’integrazione dei migranti e delle loro famiglie, che con il loro lavoro contribuiscono, spesso, è un lavoro di cura, contribuiscono al benessere della nostra comunità”. Del resto, tra 10 anni ci saranno 6,1 milioni di lavoratori in meno e non basteranno le nuove leve italiche a sostituirli. E’ lo scenario dipinto dal presidente Inapp (Istituto nazionale per l’analisi delle politiche pubbliche) Natale Forlani, durante l’audizione alla Commissione parlamentare d’inchiesta sugli effetti economici e sociali derivanti dalla transizione demografica. I lavoro della Commissione ha ricevuto l’elogio del Presidente, nella speranza di “trasformare in azioni la consapevolezza del problema”. Un monito anche per il governo, sempre pronto a sbandierare il vessillo della “battaglia demografica”. La ricetta di Giorgia Meloni si basa sui bonus, ma dagli Stati generali della Natalità è giunto l’alt del presidente Luigi De Palo: “Servono misure strutturali e non semplici bonus: lavoro stabile, accesso alla casa e una fiscalità equa sono le tre leve fondamentali”. Mattarella è d’accordo. Non è detto lo sia il braccio destro di Meloni a palazzo Chigi, il sottosegretario Alfredo Mantovano. In un convegno di qualche mesa fa additò la cannabis e le sollecitazioni erotiche tra le cause del calo delle nascite. Altro che salari e diritti sociali. L'articolo Mattarella: “Il calo delle nascite minaccia conti pubblici e coesione sociale. Servono servizi e stipendi adeguati” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

LONDON — Rachel Reeves launched an impassioned defense of her budget Thursday, insisting her political future is secure. Britain’s chief finance minister unveiled her second budget Wednesday, raising taxes by £26 billion with measures including a tax on expensive homes and freeze on income tax thresholds until 2031. She also ended the two-child cap on benefits — a move which received a largely positive reception from Labour MPs who have been publicly and privately pushing for the measure. Conservative opponents accused her of launching a welfare splurge, and paying for it by hiking taxes on working people. Speaking during the traditional post-budget morning broadcast round, Reeves insisted her political legacy would not be a huge welfare system, despite the increase in social security spending over this parliament. “Lots of people have tried to write me off over the last 16 months,” Reeves told Times Radio. “You’re not going to write my obituary today. There’s plenty more that I’m going to do to grow our economy and make working people better off.”  Reeves later told Sky News working people had been asked to “contribute a bit more,” but would benefit from reduced energy bills and a freeze on train fares and prescription charges. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) watchdog on Wednesday predicted real GDP growth for 2025 would be 1.5 percent, 0.5 percentage points higher than its March forecast. But its growth outlook for subsequent years has been downgraded. “I have defied the forecasts this year,” Reeves said. “I’m going to defy those forecasts next year and the year after that.” However the OBR Chair Richard Hughes said no measures announced Wednesday met the watchdog’s thresholds for boosting growth, and warned the figures could reflect “more structural issues and the headwinds that the U.K. economy is facing.” The chancellor had been expected to increase income tax but backed down in the wake of a backlash from Labour MPs concerned about the direction of the government and the party’s dire poll ratings. Reeves admitted to the BBC: “I have to operate in the world as it is and the forecasts that I have, not in the world as I might like it to be.”

As Europe redefines its life sciences and biotech agenda, one truth stands out: the strength of our innovation lies in its interconnection between human and animal health, science and society, and policy and practice. This spirit of collaboration guided the recent “Innovation for Animal Health: Advancing Europe’s Life Sciences Agenda” policy breakfast in Brussels, where leading voices from EU politics, science and industry came together to discuss how Europe can turn its scientific excellence into a truly competitive and connected life sciences ecosystem. Jeannette Ferran Astorga / Via Zoetis Europe’s role in life sciences will depend on its ability to see innovation holistically. At Zoetis we firmly believe that animal health innovation must be part of that equation, as this strengthens resilience, drives sustainability, and connects directly to the wellbeing of people. Innovation without barriers Some of humanity’s greatest challenges continue to emerge at the intersection of human, animal and environmental health, sometimes with severe economic impact. The recent outbreaks of diseases like avian influenza, African swine fever and bluetongue virus act as reminders of this. By enhancing the health and welfare of animals, the animal health industry and veterinarians are strengthening farmers’ livelihoods, supporting thriving communities and safeguarding global food security. This is also contributing to protecting wildlife and ecosystems. Meanwhile, companion animals are members of approximately half of European households. Here, we have seen how dogs and cats have become part of the family, with owners now investing a lot more to keep their pets healthy and able to live to an old age. Because of the deepening bonds with our pets and their increased longevity, the demand for new treatment alternatives is rising continuously, stimulating new research and innovative solutions making their way into veterinary practices. Zoonotic diseases that can be transferred between animals and humans, like rabies, Lyme disease, Covid-19 and constantly new emerging infectious diseases, make the rapid development of veterinary solutions a necessity. Throughout the world, life sciences are an engine of growth and a foundation of health, resilience and sustainability. Europe’s next chapter in this field will also be written by those who can bridge human and animal health, transforming science into solutions that deliver both economic and societal value. The same breakthroughs that protect our pets and livestock underpin the EU’s ambitions on antimicrobial resistance, food security and sustainable agriculture. Ensuring these innovations can reach the market efficiently is therefore not a niche issue, it is central to Europe’s strategic growth and competitiveness. This was echoed at the policy event by Dr. Wiebke Jansen, Policy Lead at the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) when she noted that ‘innovation is not abstract. As soon as a product is available, it changes the lives of animals, their veterinarians and the communities we serve. With the many unmet needs we still face in animal health, having access to new innovation is an extremely relevant question from the veterinary perspective.’ Enabling innovation through smart regulation To realize the promise of Europe’s life sciences and biotech agenda, the EU must ensure that regulation keeps pace with scientific discovery. The European Commission’s Omnibus Simplification Package offers a valuable opportunity to create a more innovation-friendly environment, one where time and resources can be focused on developing solutions for animal and human health, not on navigating overlapping reporting requirements or dealing with an ever increasing regulatory burden. > In animal health, biotechnology is already transforming what’s possible — for > example, monoclonal antibodies that help control certain chronic conditions or > diseases with unprecedented precision. Reviewing legislative frameworks, developing the Union Product Database as a true one-stop hub or introducing digital tools such as electronic product information (e-leaflets) in all member states, for instance, would help scientists and regulators alike to work more efficiently, thereby enhancing the availability of animal health solutions. This is not about loosening standards; it is about creating the right conditions for innovation to thrive responsibly and efficiently. Science that serves society Europe’s leadership in life sciences depends on its ability to turn cutting-edge research into real-world impact, for example through bringing new products to patients faster. In animal health, biotechnology is already transforming what’s possible — for example, monoclonal antibodies that help control certain chronic conditions or diseases with unprecedented precision. Relieving itching caused by atopic dermatitis or alleviating the pain associated with osteoarthritis significantly increases the quality of life of cats and dogs — and their owners. In addition, diagnostics and next-generation vaccines prevent outbreaks before they start or spread further. Maintaining a proportionate, benefit–risk for veterinary medicines allows innovation to progress safely while ensuring accelerated access to new treatments. Supporting science-based decision-making and investing in the European Medicines Agency’s capacity to deliver efficient, predictable processes will help Europe remain a trusted partner in global health innovation. Continuum of Care / Via Zoetis A One Health vision for the next decade Europe is not short of ambition. The EU Biotech Act and the Life Sciences Strategy both aim to turn innovation into a driver of growth and wellbeing. But to truly unlock their potential, they must include animal health in their vision. The experience of the veterinary medicines sector shows that innovation does not stop at species’ borders; advances in immunology, monoclonal antibodies and the use of artificial intelligence benefit both animals and humans. A One Health perspective, where veterinary and human health research reinforce each other, will help Europe to play a positive role in an increasingly competitive global landscape. The next five years will be decisive. By fostering proportionate, science-based adaptive regulation, investing in digital and institutional capacity, and embracing a One Health approach to innovation, Europe can become a genuine world leader in life sciences — for people and the animals that are essential to our lives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Zoetis Belgium S.A. * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on the EU End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR), circular plastics, chemical recycling, and industrial competitiveness in Europe. More information here.

BERLIN — German Chancellor Friedrich Merz urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to curb the flow of young Ukrainian men to Germany and ensure they stay to defend their country. “In a lengthy telephone conversation today, I asked the Ukrainian president to ensure that young men in particular from Ukraine do not come to Germany in large numbers — in increasing numbers — but that they serve their country,” Merz said Thursday. “They are needed there.” His comments come amid growing concerns in Germany — particularly within Merz’s conservative ranks — that public support for the Ukrainian cause could wane if young male Ukrainians are seen to be avoiding military service by coming to Germany. Following the relaxation of Ukrainian exit rules over the summer, the number of young Ukrainian men aged 18 to 22 entering Germany rose from 19 per week in mid-August to between 1,400 and 1,800 per week in October, according to German media reports citing the German interior ministry.   Markus Söder, Bavaria’s conservative premier and an ally of Merz, proposed restrictions on the EU’s so-called Temporary Protection Directive if Kyiv doesn’t voluntarily reduce arrivals. The rules provide Ukrainians with an automatic protected status.       Germany is one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies within the EU. The country has hosted over 1.2 million Ukrainian refugees since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and is its biggest donor in military aid after the U.S. in absolute numbers. Members of Merz’s ruling coalition fear that the growing presence of young Ukrainian men in Germany will be turned into a political flash point by members of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, who criticize the government’s ongoing support for Kyiv. The ascending AfD, now polling first, has long demanded a stop to welfare payments to Ukrainians. Around 490,000 Ukrainian citizens of working age receive long-term unemployment benefits in Germany, according to data from the country’s employment agency. Merz’s coalition — which is under increasing fiscal pressure and generally wants to reduce welfare spending — is working on a draft law that would cut the right to such benefits for Ukrainians and encourage work. “In Germany, the transfer payments for these refugees will be such that the incentives to work are greater than the incentives in the transfer system,” Merz said Thursday. In the same phone conversation, Merz also urged Zelenskyy to sort out the country’s corruption problems as Kyiv faces the fallout of a massive scandal involving kickbacks — another development that German officials fear could undermine public support for the embattled country.

PARIS — France’s National Assembly on Wednesday voted to suspend the controversial 2023 law raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 for most workers until the 2027 presidential election. The vote passed by a margin of 255 to 146. Its supporters included left-wing lawmakers from the Socialists and the Greens as well as the far-right National Rally. Opponents included MPs from the far-left France Unbowed, right-wing Les Républicains and center-right Horizons. Most lawmakers from the centrist party of French President Emmanuel Macron abstained. Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu had proposed the suspension last month as a compromise to ensure his government’s survival. The government expects the measure to cost around €300 million in 2026 and €1.9 billion in 2027, Labor and Solidarity Minister Jean-Pierre Farandou said Wednesday. France is under pressure to cut its massive debt, and Lecornu has pledged to reduce the country’s budget deficit to no more than 5 percent of gross domestic product next year. While the retirement reform suspension has dialed down the domestic political temperature, it has also sparked concerns that France isn’t serious about getting its public finances in order as more workers retire and people live longer. The European Commission has called on France to compensate for the fiscal cost of the suspension by taking other steps and ratings agencies have warned of the economic impact of suspending the reform. Both Standard & Poor’s and Fitch have downgraded France’s credit to the single-A category while last month Moody’s cut its outlook for France from “stable” to “negative,” highlighting the negative economic impact of the freeze and the risk it could last beyond 2027. The National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament, has until midnight to pass the entirety of its social security budget, which focuses on welfare spending and includes the pensions reform suspension. The text then heads to the French Senate. If the National Assembly votes down the social security budget or fails to hold a vote in time, the Senate will debate the original text proposed by the government. However, the government has already made clear it would amend it to take into account all the changes approved in the National Assembly, including the suspension of the pensions reform.