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.

LONDON — The British government hit back Wednesday after Donald Trump launched his latest broadside at London Mayor Sadiq Khan. The U.S. president told POLITICO in an interview Monday that Khan was “a horrible mayor” who had made the British capital city a  “different place” to what it once was. Trump added of Khan: “He’s an incompetent mayor, but he’s a horrible, vicious, disgusting mayor. I think he’s done a terrible job. London’s a different place. I love London. I love London. And I hate to see it happen.” Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, a member of the U.K. cabinet, pushed backed at those remarks Wednesday, and heaped praise on her fellow Labour politician. “I strongly disagree with those comments,” she told Sky News. “I think Sadiq is doing a really good job and has been at the forefront of providing affordable housing [and] improvements to transport.” Nandy said Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, had offered a model for the U.K. government to follow nationally. “He’s been one of the people who has set up multi-agency approaches to help young people with knife crime, gang violence that we’re learning from in government,” she said. “So I strongly disagree.” Asked explicitly if Trump’s comments were wrong, Nandy replied: “Yes he is.” In his wide-ranging interview with POLITICO, the U.S. president also claimed Khan — who has won three consecutive terms as mayor of London and has no power to determine national migration policy — had been elected “because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.” Pushed on why Prime Minister Keir Starmer hadn’t explicitly defended Khan from Trump’s attack, Nandy said she knows “the prime minister would disagree with those comments.” She added: “I’m sure that if you asked the prime minister if he was sitting in this studio today, he would say what I’ve said, which is that Sadiq is doing an incredibly good job for London. We’re proud of our mayors.” Khan told POLITICO Tuesday the U.S. president was “obsessed” with him and claimed Americans were “flocking” to live in London, because its liberal values are the “antithesis” of Trump’s. It’s not the first beef between the two politicians.  Trump once called Khan a “stone cold loser” and “very dumb” — after Khan compared Trump to “the fascists of the 20th century.” In 2018, Khan allowed anti-Trump activists to fly a blimp over parliament showing Trump as a crying baby in a diaper during his first state visit.

LONDON — Nigel Farage has gone to war with the BBC after a radio presenter suggested he had “a relationship when he was younger with Hitler,” vowing he would not speak to the national broadcaster until it apologized for its own past “racist” content.  Speaking to reporters at a press conference in Westminster, the Reform UK leader angrily rejected claims he had targeted antisemitic racial abuse at fellow pupils in his schooldays at the independent Dulwich College, in south London, and read out a letter from a Jewish classmate who supported him.  The furor blew up after Radio 4 presenter Emma Barnett asked Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice about the allegations that Farage had made comments about the Holocaust to a Jewish pupil.  Interviewing Tice on the Today program on Thursday morning, Barnett said: “Let’s talk about your leader Nigel Farage’s relationship when he was younger with Hitler.” Tice then dismissed the claims as lies. “I thought this morning’s performance by one of your lower grade presenters on the Today program was utterly disgraceful,” Farage told a BBC reporter at the press conference on Thursday. “To frame a question around the leader of Reform’s relationship with Hitler, which is how she framed it, was despicable, disgusting beyond belief.”  While denying he had ever racially abused anyone, Farage accused the BBC of “double standards and hypocrisy” because in the 1970s, at the time he was alleged to have made the comments, the broadcaster aired many comedy shows that contained racist humor which would now be totally unacceptable.  He listed “homophobic” and “racist” content, listing shows such as “Are You Being Served,” “It Ain’t Half Hot Mum,” and performances by “Bernard Manning.” Nigel Farage accused the BBC of “double standards and hypocrisy” because in the 1970s the broadcaster aired many comedy shows that contained racist humor which would now be totally unacceptable. | Andy Rain/EPA “I cannot put up with the double standards of the BBC,” he said. “I want an apology from the BBC for virtually everything you did throughout the 1970s and ’80s.”  Farage read a letter from a school contemporary which said the culture was very different in the 1970s. “Lots of boys said things they regret today,” the letter said. Farage’s comments were “offensive” sometimes, “but never with malice.”

GROßRÄSCHEN, Germany — It was in a bowling alley beside a parking lot in a small eastern German town that the designated youth-wing leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) laid out a simple vision for the party’s march to power: recruit and professionalize the young acolytes. “We will need new blood,” Jean-Pascal Hohm, the 28-year-old who is set to lead the AfD’s new youth organization, told POLITICO as families gathered to bowl nearby. “We need to identify talented people early on.” Hohm is set to be elected leader of party’s revamped youth wing, dubbed Generation Germany, during its founding congress on Saturday. The group’s creation is part of a wider effort among some of the AfD’s national leaders to destigmatize the party and efface its extremist image. The rebrand comes after the former youth organization affiliated with the AfD dissolved itself earlier this year in what was widely seen as a tactical maneuver to avert a possible ban. Germany’s domestic intelligence agency had labeled the former group as extremist. But experts say the makeover, which brings the youth wing under the direct control of the AfD, is merely cosmetic. While the organization may appear more palatable and professional under Hohm’s leadership, it’s likely to be just as ideologically extreme as the earlier incarnation. “In terms of content, my perception is that what is currently happening is not what one would understand as a major deradicalization effort,” said Anna-Sophie Heinze, a researcher at the University of Trier who has studied the AfD. EXTREME HOOLIGANS Hohm, who joined the AfD when he was 17, in many ways embodies efforts by some party leaders to sanitize their image. With an assured demeanor and measured tone, his own ideological peers once described him online as the kind of guy a mother would be happy to see her daughter marry. But his past activities and connections suggest a far more extreme edge. Hohm is deeply rooted in the eastern German city of Cottbus, where he leads the local AfD branch, and is described by political scientists as a figure who has helped link local extremist activists. For a brief period he was deemed too extreme even for his own party. In 2017, Hohm lost his job as an aide for the AfD parliamentary group in the eastern state of Brandenburg after he was spotted at a soccer game for FC Energie Cottbus, a team in Germany’s third division that at the time attracted right-wing extremist hooligans known for chanting Nazi slogans and performing Hitler salutes in the stands. Hohm was seen at one game among the hooligans sitting beside a then-leader of Germany’s Identitarian Movement, which was eventually designated a right-wing extremist group by the federal domestic intelligence agency. But his exclusion from the AfD didn’t last long, and Hohm soon got a job as an assistant to an AfD national parliamentarian. Last year he himself was elected to the Brandenburg state parliament. When asked about his connections to Identitarian figures, Hohm took issue with their classification as extremist. “We will need new blood,” Jean-Pascal Hohm, the 28-year-old who is set to lead the AfD’s new youth organization, told POLITICO as families gathered to bowl nearby. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images “The question is always: How do you define extremism?” Hohm said. “There is the definition used by the media or domestic intelligence service, which says that the Identitarian Movement, for example, is right-wing extremist. But they also say that the AfD is right-wing extremist. And I don’t believe that either.” Hohm and others now see the new youth wing as a recruitment engine that can equip the AfD leaders of tomorrow with the political savvy they’ll need to take power and keep it — in part by making such ideological views palatable to mainstream voters. WHAT WOULD GRANDMA THINK? AfD youth activists have become increasingly influential in recent years, attracting young voters with online campaigns that have made once-fringe ideas mainstream. Last year, for instance, some activists created a viral AI-generated video for “Remigration Hit,” a far-right dance track that calls for the deportation of migrants from Germany. At the same time, the previous AfD youth organization, known as Young Alternative, was seen by party leaders as a potential liability. Germany’s postwar constitution allows domestic intelligence agencies to surveil political parties and organizations deemed extremist — and even makes it possible to ban such groups, though the legal bar is high in the case of political parties. Young Alternative was classified as a right-wing extremist organization by federal domestic intelligence authorities in 2023. The AfD as a whole was classified as extremist earlier this year. While centrist politicians have debated whether to try to ban the AfD, the idea is considered politically fraught given the party’s popularity. The former youth group, however, which functioned as an independent organization, was seen as far more vulnerable to a possible ban. That’s why the new youth group is forming under Hohm’s leadership. Because it will be under the direct control of the AfD, a ban attempt is considered less likely, thereby protecting the party from the possibility of collateral damage. Or, as Hohm put it at the bowling alley, “When grandma sees on the news that the AfD’s youth organization has been banned for right-wing extremism, that definitely leaves an impression.”

One key figure is missing from the pack of top national security officials crisscrossing the globe to achieve a Ukraine peace deal: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. But that sits fine with the White House, which is happy with his culture war attacks, made-for-TV images rallying the troops and online trolling of MAGA enemies. The Defense secretary has stayed silent on the surprising role of his subordinate, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who recently catapulted into the spotlight by leading surprise negotiations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv and Russian advisers in Abu Dhabi. Hegseth, instead, has been stirring support from President Donald Trump’s base for authorizing an investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly, a former Navy captain, who told troops in a video that they can refuse illegal orders. The Pentagon leader — a former Fox News host who seems more at home railing against diversity programs than leading diplomatic consultations — has carved out an unorthodox political niche that has helped insulate him from criticism within the administration, at least for now. “The president expects Pete to rule out DEI at the Pentagon, which he has been quite successful at doing,” said a senior White House official. “The president also loves that.” The Defense secretary position is traditionally not an overtly partisan role, especially since the person works with a military that has taken an oath to stay apolitical. But Hegseth’s tenure has been markedly different from his predecessors in the way he’s politicized the office. He’s antagonized Democratic lawmakers on social media, huddled with conservative activists such as Laura Loomer in his office, and stacked a new hand-picked Pentagon press corps with far-right conspiracy websites. “It’s all about projecting an image of strength,” said a former Pentagon official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. “The new acquisition reform policy is a huge and important thing he’s doing,” the person said, in reference to a new initiative to transform U.S. weapons sales. “But he’s still focused on talking about DEI and grooming standards instead of that policy change.” And that appears to have gone over well in an administration that appreciates confidence, power and loyalty. “Hegseth still seems in tight with (read: loyal) to POTUS,” said another defense official. “And this ridiculousness with Sen. Kelly and the IG investigation could make Hegseth more popular with the president in the short term. Until it backfires.” The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment. The White House insisted Hegseth was involved in broader discussions about the future of Ukraine. “Secretary Hegseth is deeply involved in all national security matters, including the Russia-Ukraine War, and any suggestion to the contrary is false,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. “In addition to running the Pentagon, Secretary Hegseth manages the weapons sales process to NATO, provides critical battlefield updates to the president, participates in the president’s intelligence briefings, and he is also deeply involved in discussions about Venezuela, China, and all of the challenges around the globe.” His tenure is still tenuous. Hegseth continues to face fallout from Signalgate, one of the most embarrassing incidents of Trump’s second term. The Defense Department’s inspector general is expected to soon conclude an investigation into whether the Pentagon chief released classified information about U.S. military strikes in Yemen this year in a Signal chat that accidentally included a journalist. The release of the report, if it further implicates Hegseth, could present problems. And the Pentagon leader may face subpoenas and uncomfortable hearings if the Democrats win back the House in the midterm elections. Hegseth appears to be playing at least some role in the administration’s controversial efforts to root out drug cartels in Latin America and weaken the authority of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He traveled to the Dominican Republic on Wednesday as the Pentagon continues with an unprecedented military buildup in the Caribbean. “They’re very situational and they plug and play based on what makes sense at the moment,” said Alex Gray, a National Security Council chief of staff in the first Trump administration. “Some of the things that [Hegseth] is front and center on are things that require the most adept communication expertise and the best messaging capacity.” But Driscoll continued to make his own headlines this week, pushing Ukraine and European allies to accept Trump’s peace proposal and meeting with a Russian delegation as the main U.S. negotiator. Trump indicated on Tuesday that special envoy Steve Witkoff would head to Moscow while Driscoll met with the Ukrainians. The White House tasked Driscoll, who was already set to visit Ukraine to talk about drones, to “go and then open the door for peace,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter. The plug-and-play dynamic may have roots much earlier in the administration. Another person familiar with the situation said that behind the scenes, Hegseth can come off as stilted and uncomfortable in closed-door diplomatic meetings, and has had to rely on scripts in certain situations. “When you’re in a fluid diplomatic discussion, you can’t just stick to a script,” the person said. And yet it’s Hegseth who has gotten attention from some of Trump’s most ardent supporters, including Loomer, a MAGA influencer. She occasionally meets with Hegseth and has lambasted Driscoll online for not being sufficiently loyal to the president. “I’m not telling Pete Hegseth how to do his job,” Loomer told POLITICO this summer. “He’s a good leader in the sense that he’s not just ignoring [issues I raise] and saying, ‘Oh, well, it doesn’t matter.’” White House allies made the case that Hegseth also has a key role both in Trump-era housecleaning of military brass and the Pentagon’s increasing role in border security and domestic deployments. “The amount of internal cleanup that has to be done is extraordinary,” said Gray. “[Hegseth] has had to be incredibly focused on messaging and communicating the president’s agenda for reforming the department.”

The European Parliament on Wednesday called for a Europe-wide minimum threshold of 16 for minors to access social media without their parents’ consent. Parliament members also want the EU to hold tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk personally liable should their platforms consistently violate the EU’s provisions on protecting minors online — a suggested provision that was added by Hungarian social-democrat member Dóra Dávid, who previously worked for Meta. The call for tougher rules on social media comes as several EU countries prepare more restrictions on social media for kids, following concerns about the effects on mental health and development of platforms like TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and others. Australia is in the process of implementing an age limit of 16 for users of social media accounts. The European Parliament backed an age limit in its report on how to better protect minors online, with 483 members voting in favor, 92 against and 86 abstaining. The report called on the European Commission to ensure that laws and measures on age checks are consistent across the bloc. Several countries are rushing to develop their own national checks. The bulk of the votes against and abstentions came from political groups on the right, who have argued that the report goes too far into EU countries’ competencies. The report was led by Danish social-democrat Christel Schaldemose, who also led Parliament’s work on the Digital Services Act, the EU’s content moderation regulation. The report could influence upcoming negotiations on EU law. The Commission is set to propose two legislative acts that will include heavy chunks on minor protections next year: the review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and a new Digital Fairness Act.

LONDON — It’s a decade since Britain’s Labour Party caused uproar simply by printing “controls on immigration” on a mug. Ten years, it turns out, are a long time in politics. Shabana Mahmood, Labour’s new interior minister, unveiled hardline plans Monday to shake up Britain’s immigration system that make the 2015 mantra look positively tame. Under her proposed reforms, refugees in Britain who arrived on small boats will have to wait up to 20 years for permanent settlement and could be deported if the situation in their home country improves. Those with valuables will be forced to fund the cost of their own accommodation. The tribunal appeals system, which features judges prominently, will be replaced with a streamlined system staffed by “professionally trained adjudicators.” And ministers are promising to ramp up the forcible removal of entire families to their countries of origin, if they do not accept “financial support” to go voluntarily. The home secretary is “beginning to sound as though” she is applying to join Nigel Farage’s right-wing Reform UK, his gleeful deputy Richard Tice told a Westminster press conference Monday. With Mahmood clearly spoiling for a fight with her own ranks, some colleagues to her left flank are making the same comparison. Yet despite the backlash, many other Labour MPs now believe measures like this necessary to confront a rising public backlash over immigration in many European nations. Mahmood, said one official, is concerned that public anger is turning into hate. Labour aides also argue they could be running out of time, as opinion polls project a victory in 2029 for Reform — whose immigration plans would go far further. One government frontbencher (granted anonymity, like others in this piece, to speak frankly) argued the change had been driven by the “the visibility and tangibility of policy failures” on small boats, and the growing use of hotel accommodation for asylum seekers. They added: “We may be in a world where we have to deliver a system we’re not quite comfortable with — or surrender the right to deliver a system to people who don’t think the system should exist. That’s a really uncomfortable place to be.” ‘LIKE A DROWNING MAN’ None of this eliminates the very real anger from Labour’s left-wing MPs — who were already concerned about votes bleeding away to the Green Party — and the likely uproar from its left-leaning grassroots. “The Starmer administration is like a drowning man,” a discontented Labour MP said Monday. “It just doesn’t have the ability to be able to make the argument that it is doing this from a progressive perspective. Where they’ve landed themselves politically, it’s not a place where you can bring people with you.” “The party won’t wear this — not just MPs, the wider party,” a second MP on the party’s soft left said. “The rhetoric around these reforms encourages the same culture of divisiveness that sees racism and abuse growing in our communities,” backbench Labour MP Tony Vaughan, who was only elected in 2024, argued on X. On one highly emotive point, officials were forced to clarify Monday that the Home Office would not seize migrants’ sentimental jewelery. That came overnight news stories suggested such items could be taken to contribute to migrant accommodation costs. The clarification did not come before MPs took to social media to speak out. “Taking jewellery from refugees” is “akin to painting over murals for refugee children,” another backbench MP, Sarah Owen, said, referencing a controversial order under the Conservatives to cover up cartoons at an accommodation centre for unaccompanied child migrants. The first Labour MP quoted above said that while many of his colleagues were seeing voters switch to Reform UK, a “hell of a lot of people” are going to the center-left Liberal Democrats and the Greens. “The tone that we’ve taken on immigration and asylum will hurt us as well,” the MP added.  ‘MORAL DUTY’ Government figures strongly disagree with the criticism — and think they have the public in their corner on this one. They sought to highlight More in Common polling that suggested even Green voters would support some individual measures that are used in Denmark — such as only granting asylum seekers temporary residence (50 percent support, 25 percent oppose.) A third, supportive MP on the right of the party pointed out there were “no surprise names” among those who had broken ranks to criticize the government’s plans. Mahmood insisted Monday the government has a “moral duty” to fix Britain’s “broken” asylum system. “Unless we can persuade people we can control our borders, we’re not going to get a hearing on anything else,” former Minister Justin Madders told Times Radio. It is an “existential test of whether we deserve to govern this country,” a serving minister said. They warned that if Starmer fails, the outcome in policy terms could be “a whole lot more drastic.” Noah Keate contributed reporting

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Russia’s war in Ukraine has given new momentum to EU enlargement — and raised a bigger question: Is the bloc itself ready to grow?  This week, host Sarah Wheaton examines the EU’s growing pains — not just the politics and geopolitics of enlargement, but also the cultural and emotional questions of identity and belonging.     She speaks with Sneška Quaedvlieg-Mihailović, head of Europa Nostra, about why Europe won’t feel complete until its whole cultural family is reunited; and with Icelandic politics professor Eirikur Bergmann on why his country may be revisiting its European path — more than a decade after freezing its EU bid.    There’s also a conversation led by POLITICO’s Gordon Repinski with Kosovo’s president, Vjosa Osmani, who reflects on her country’s long wait for membership. 

LONDON — Donald Trump’s war against the media has gone international.  Britain’s public service broadcaster has until 10 p.m. U.K. time on Friday to retract a 2024 documentary that he claims did him “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” — or potentially face a $1 billion lawsuit (nearly £760 million). It’s the U.S. president’s first notable battle with a non-American media organization. The escalation from Trump comes as the BBC is already grappling with the double resignations this past weekend of two top executives, Director General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness, amid the growing furor sparked by the release last week of an internal ombudsman’s report criticizing the Trump program as well as the BBC’s coverage of the Gaza war. Trump told Fox News he believes he has “an obligation” to sue the corporation because “they defrauded the public” and “butchered” a speech he gave. POLITICO walks you through the possible road ahead — and the potential pitfalls on both sides of the Atlantic.  WHY IS TRUMP THREATENING TO SUE?  The U.S. president is objecting to the broadcaster’s reporting in a documentary that aired on Panorama, one of the BBC’s flagship current affairs shows, just days before the U.S. presidential election.  The program included footage from Trump’s speech ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, which was selectively edited to suggest, incorrectly, that he told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.”   But those lines were spoken almost an hour apart, and the documentary did not include a section where Trump called for supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”  “I really struggle to understand how we got to this place,” former BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman told POLITICO. “The first lesson almost you’re taught as a broadcast journalist is that you do not join two bits of footage together from different times in a way that will make the audience think that it is one piece of footage.” The U.S. president’s legal team claimed the edit on the footage was “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory” and caused him “to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”  BBC Chair Samir Shah apologized on Monday for the “error of judgment” in the edit. Trump’s lawyers said in their letter that they want a retraction, an apology and appropriate financial compensation — though their client’s subsequent comments suggest that may not satisfy him at this point. DO TRUMP’S CLAIMS STAND A CHANCE?  Trump’s lawyers indicated in their letter that he plans to sue in Florida, his home state, which has a two-year statute of limitations for defamation rather than the U.K.’s one-year limit — which has already passed.  The U.S. president is objecting to the broadcaster’s reporting in a documentary that aired on Panorama, one of the BBC’s flagship current affairs shows, just days before the U.S. presidential election. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images To even gain a hearing, the U.S. president would first need to prove the documentary was available there. The broadcaster confirmed the Panorama episode was not shown on the global feed of the BBC News Channel, while programs on iPlayer, the BBC’s catchup service, were only available in the U.K.  The Trump team’s letter to the BBC, however, claimed the clip was “widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums” reaching tens of millions of people worldwide — a key contention that would need to be considered by any judge deciding whether the case could be brought.  U.S. libel laws are tougher for claimants given that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. In U.S. courts, public figures claiming to have been defamed also have to show the accuser acted with “actual malice.”  The legal meaning doesn’t require animosity or dislike, but instead an intent to spread false information or some action in reckless disregard of the truth — a high burden of proof for Trump’s lawyers.  American libel standards tend to favor publishers more than those in Britain, so much so that in recent decades public figures angry about U.S. news reports have often opted to file suit in the U.K. That trend even prompted a 2010 U.S. law aimed at reining in so-called libel tourism. Yet Trump’s legal team is signaling it will argue that since the full video of Trump’s 2021 speech was widely available to the BBC, the editing itself amounted to reckless disregard and, therefore, actual malice.  BBC Chair Samir Shah apologized on Monday for the “error of judgment” in the edit. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images “The BBC’s reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements,” his lawyers wrote.  However, a court battle wouldn’t be without risks for Trump. Prateek Swaika, a U.K.-based partner with Boies Schiller Flexner, said pursuing litigation “could force detailed examination and disclosure in connection” with Trump’s Jan. 6 statements —  potentially creating “more reputational damage than the original edit.”  COULD THE BBC SETTLE?  Trump has a long history of threatening legal action, especially against the press, but has lately had success in reaching out-of-court agreements with media outlets — including, most notably, the U.S. broadcasters ABC and CBS.  Trump’s latest claim is the flipside of his $20 billion suit against CBS’s “60 Minutes” over an interview with then-Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, which Trump claimed was deceptively edited to make Harris look good and therefore amounted to election interference.  CBS settled for $16 million in July, paying into a fund for Trump’s presidential library or charitable causes, though the network admitted no wrongdoing. The settlement came as CBS’ parent company, Paramount, was pursuing a corporate merger that the Trump administration had the power to block — and after Trump publicly said he thought CBS should lose its broadcast license, which is also granted by the federal government. The president doesn’t hold that same sway over the BBC, though the organization does have some U.S.-based commercial operations. Some news organizations have also opted to fight rather than settle past Trump claims, including CNN, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Some news organizations have opted to fight rather than settle past Trump claims, including CNN, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images “Litigation is always a commercial decision and it’s a reputational decision,” said Coleman, suggesting settlement talks may look appealing compared to fighting a case that could “hang over the heads of the BBC for many, many years, like a dark cloud.”  COULD THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT STEP IN?  Despite the BBC’s standing as a state broadcaster, the Labour government has so far taken a hands-off approach, perhaps unsurprisingly given Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ongoing efforts to woo Trump on trade. No. 10 said on Tuesday that the lawsuit threat was a matter for the BBC, though Starmer subsequently reiterated his support for it generally. “I believe in a strong and independent BBC,” Starmer said at prime minister’s questions Wednesday. “Some would rather the BBC didn’t exist … I’m not one of them.” Perhaps eager to stay in Trump’s good books, the PM’s ministers have also avoided attacking the president and instead walked a diplomatic tightrope by praising the BBC in more general terms. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy on Tuesday reiterated the government’s vision of the BBC as a tool of soft power. The BBC documentary did not include a section where Trump called for supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” | Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images “At a time when the line between fact and opinion, and between news and polemic, is being dangerously blurred, the BBC stands apart,” Nandy told MPs Tuesday. “It is a light on the hill for people here and across the world.”  WHO WOULD FUND ANY PAYOUT?  The BBC is funded by the country’s license fee, which requires any household that has a TV or uses BBC iPlayer to pay £174.50 a year (some people are exempt from paying). In the year ending March 2025, this accounted for £3.8 billion of the corporation’s overall £5.9 billion in income. The remaining £2 billion came from activities including commercial ventures. Any licence fee revenue that funded a settlement with Trump would likely go down very poorly as a political matter, given looming tax increases in the U.K. as well as the U.S. president’s significant unpopularity with British voters. The corporation lost a €100,000 (£88,000) libel case earlier this year against former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams after a Dublin jury found the broadcaster falsely connected him to a 2006 Irish Republican Army killing, showing there is a precedent for politicians winning cases.  Responding to a question as to whether license fee payers would fund any legal sum, Starmer said Wednesday: “Where mistakes are made, they do need to get their house in order and the BBC must uphold the highest standards, be accountable and correct errors quickly.” Singer Cliff Richard also received £210,000 in damages and around £2 million in legal costs from the BBC in 2019 over a privacy case, though those payments were within the scope of its legal insurance. MIGHT AN ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT WORK?  The BBC has paid damages to a foreign head of state before, including compensating then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2019 for an incorrect report. But Trump technically faces rules on accepting foreign payments. There’s every chance that a settlement to Trump could pass through another vehicle, as the with the CBS agreement. ABC’s settlement involved $15 million to a Trump-related foundation alongside $1 million for his legal fees.  Trump’s former attorney Alan Dershowitz suggested just that on Tuesday, saying if the corporation made a “substantial” contribution to a charity “that’s relevant to the president might put this thing behind them.” 

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: The prime minister’s future in No 10. Keir Starmer’s political future was the only show in town (despite a dreadful week for the BBC), handing Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch a wide-open goal. If you’ve got a life outside SW1: The PM’s allies briefed multiple journalists Tuesday evening that Starmer expected — and would fight — a leadership challenge. Wes Streeting was accused of plotting a coup if the budget landed badly, something the health secretary flatly condemned during his well-received media round this morning (awkward timing). Ticked off the register: To be fair, Labour whips turned out their flock, with the government benches packed to the rafters despite reports some Labour MPs would boycott the Commons. Starmer entered the chamber with a grin (or grimace) on his face and to a somewhat over-the-top cheer from his colleagues. Caveat alert: There was no sign of Streeting in the chamber because he was in Manchester to address the NHS Providers Conference — and possibly grab some tips from Labour leadership wannabe and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham? Grab the hazmat suit: Badenoch quoted Streeting’s comments today, asking if the health secretary was right that the “toxic culture in Downing Street” needed to change. Distancing himself from his allies, Starmer stressed, “let me be absolutely clear — any attack on any member of my cabinet is completely unacceptable.” The PM praised Streeting’s work as health secretary — presumably as that’s where he’d like him to stay. Buck stops here: The Tory leader joked there was “only one waiting list” Streeting wanted to cut (it’s the way she tells ’em), before probing the PM on if he had full confidence in his influential Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney. “Of course I’ve never authorised attacks on cabinet members,” Starmer responded. “I appointed them to their posts because they’re the best people to carry out their jobs.” Take note: That was not a full-throated defense of the adviser who has defined Starmer’s time in charge of Labour. Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds and Commons Leader Alan Campbell seemed, at best, glum, as the Tories soaked up the infighting opposite them rather than within their own ranks (for now). Walk in the park: Badenoch didn’t need to try hard to exploit the difficulties.  “The real scandal is that two weeks from a budget, the government has descended into civil war,” she cried. Starmer pointed at his backbenchers and remarked, “this is a united team and we are delivering together,” to roars of derision from the opposition benches. Indeed, saying something is true doesn’t make it so. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Ashford MP Sojan Joseph pointed the finger at the Reform UK-led Kent County Council, where numerous councilors have left or been expelled. Starmer was temporarily on the front foot, offering sympathy to “the people of Kent, whose lives are being disrupted by the staggering incompetence of Reform.” That’s the dividing line he’d rather be discussing. Bursting the Westminster bubble: Clwyd North MP Gill German also asked if the PM wanted to join her on a visit to the Welsh seaside town of Rhyl. “That’s a very appealing invitation just at the moment,” he joked. You don’t say … Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 5/10. Badenoch 8/10. The uphill struggle for Starmer was always going to be tricky, given the political gunfire over the last 24 hours. The political vulnerabilities were handed to Badenoch, who went on the attack. Starmer’s inability to fully back Sweeney was revealing, while claiming unity jarred so much with reality that it only reinforced the claim that the PM lacks any political instinct.