FORGET THE FAR RIGHT. THE KIDS WANT A ‘UNITED STATES OF EUROPE.’  On social media, the upcoming generation is expressing more European solidarity than the continent has seen in decades. By NICHOLAS VINCOUR Illustration by Joanne Joo for POLITICO A futuristic EU soldier stands guard, laser blaster at the ready. European fighter jets zoom through the sky over thumping Eurodance beats. An imaginary map shows a vastly enlarged EU, swallowing everything from Greenland to the Caucasus.  Welcome to the wild world of pro-Europe online propaganda, where the EU isn’t a fractious club of 27 countries but a juiced-up superpower on par with China or the United States, only wiser and more cultured.  This type of content, which re-imagines the EU as a pan-European empire, a European Federation or the United States of Europe — take your pick — has flooded social media platforms over the past two years, garnering billions of views collectively on X, TikTok and Instagram as the EU has reeled from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a U.S.-EU trade deal decried as “humiliation” for Brussels in many parts of Europe. In the face of withering attacks from U.S. President Donald Trump, who called European leaders “weak” in an interview with POLITICO, as well as anti-EU tirades from X owner Elon Musk, such pro-EU memes are flowing thicker and faster than ever. Its mainstays are Soviet-style propaganda posters featuring the EU’s ring of stars emblem, video montages with soaring drone shots of European monuments and memes where the EU’s strengths — from its laid-back work culture to rich cultural heritage — are favorably compared to other parts of the world, namely Donald Trump’s America.  Scrolling through these posts, it can be tempting to shrug off the entire trend as meaningless “AI slopaganda” (AI-generated content does loom large). Indeed the hyper-confident Europe envisioned by accounts with names like “European propagandist” or “Ave Europa” bears little resemblance to the actual EU, where leaders remain divided over everything from how to finance Ukraine’s war next year to what reforms should be undertaken to reverse a long trend of economic decline.  But for the people behind these accounts, the point isn’t to stick too closely to the day-to-day reality of EU politics. It’s to generate a sense of agency, vision and possibility at a time when bullying from Trump, expansionism from Russia and competition between U.S. and China have left young Europeans feeling powerless. POLITICO reached out to 11 of the users behind the accounts and learned that they were real people with widely differing political views ranging from left-wing to the hard-right, and used different terms to describe where they stood on Europe. Some called their beliefs “Eurofed,” short for European federalist. Others described themselves as pan-European imperialist, emphasizing the notion of a European “civilization” to defend rather than any existing political setup.   One thing they all had in common: They were under the age of 35. “People are looking to escape powerlessness… to regain action and sovereignty and act on things,” said Christelle Savall, president of the Young Federalists Association Europe, a non-profit advocacy group that has existed since 1972 but has recently seen a surge in membership  For years, Europe’s dominant political narrative has been that the far right is ascendant and the only question is how much further it will rise and how much more it will corrode the eighty-year-old project that grew out of the ashes of World War II to become the European Union. These online warriors believe that is flat-out wrong and that the future lies with a stronger Europe, a view reflected in a growing swell of opinion in the real world. Just as the MAGA online movement mirrored and fueled the rise of Trump before the 2016 presidential election, Europe’s online glowup is reflected in polls showing support for the EU at an all-time high.   Strong majorities of Europeans across all age groups now favor more deeply integrated security and defense, according to the 2025 Eurobarometer survey. Another poll across nine European countries showed that most Germans — 69 percent — favor the creation of an EU army, a prospect often scoffed at by sitting leaders as a pipe dream.  And there are hints that, far from existing in an online vacuum, this youth-driven burst in pro-EU feelings can also help to win elections. Rob Jettens, the 38-year-old centrist who recently won the most votes in Dutch elections, is one of the gang as far as some young federalists are concerned. A pan-European party called Volt Europa, which defines itself as centrist or center-left, has grown its footprint significantly since its launch in 2017, including a foothold in the European Parliament.  “The center right Eurofed group is more and more turning from an online phenomenon to a real-life movement… They try to create something akin to a centrist to right-wing alternative to Volt,” wrote the holder of the X account European Challenges, who described himself as a 25–35-year-old STEM graduate in high-tech. I agreed to grant him anonymity due to concern about being “doxxed” or harassed by other social media users and not wanting users to focus on his nationality, which would be evident from his name.  For Joseph de Weck, a foreign policy analyst and author of a biography on French President Emmanuel Macron, this surge in youthful patriotism is being missed by leaders and many media outlets who are obsessively focused on the far-right. “It’s a fundamental mistake… Public opinion has changed,” he said.   The reality, he argues, is that Europe’s far-right itself is no longer, for the most part, anti-European but merely critical of certain policies emanating from Brussels, like its push for net zero carbon emissions. The big political fight in coming years won’t be over whether to dismantle the European Union, he argues, but over which version of a more federalist bloc will prevail. “No one is putting into question the existence of the EU anymore, but they fundamentally disagree [on] what they should do,” he added.  A FRAGILE UNION  The idea that Europe — ground zero for two world wars — should abolish national borders and form up into a unified polity isn’t new. In 1849, speaking to the International Peace Congress in Paris, French author Victor Hugo predicted that “a day will come when you France, you Russia, you Italy, you England, you Germany, you all, nations of the continent, without losing your distinct qualities and your glorious individuality will be merged closely within a superior unit and you will form the European brotherhood.”   That idea was forgotten at the outset of a 20th century marked by savage nationalism. But it reemerged forcefully in the aftermath of World War II, when a group of European countries formed the European Economic Community in 1957. Six years later, in a speech to the Irish Dáil, former U.S. President John F. Kennedy called for a “United States of Europe,” urging leaders to form a “political federation of Europe, not as a rival to the United States but as a partner.”  In subsequent decades the European Union, which was formally created in 1992, massively expanded its membership to 28 countries and more than 500 million citizens, and even after Brexit it has 27 countries and 450 million citizens. The union made the huge leap of abolishing border controls between some countries in 1995, introduced a single currency, the euro, in 1999, and over time created the Schengen free travel zone.   But that’s about as far as things got. Kennedy’s vision of a “United States of Europe” ran headlong into the nationalism of leaders like France’s Charles de Gaulle, who famously poured cold water on the prospect of a European federalism. “States, once created, have their own existence that cannot be dissolved. They are irreversibly individual,” he wrote in his “Memoir of Hope” published in 1970.  A group of young girls sit in the European Parliament chamber in Brussels. | Michael Currie/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images While endorsing expansion, European leaders have consistently resisted taking any steps that would turn the EU into a real federation — namely an integrated army and a fiscal transfer union where tax resources are seamlessly redistributed. Even after the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw EU capitals centralize aspects of health policy in Brussels, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which has led to some centralization of defense policy, the mood that now prevails among Europe’s leaders is one of “euro-realism” — code for, don’t try anything crazy, it will only help the far-right.   Even Macron, who swept to power in 2017 in France with a staunchly pro-European campaign, seems to have given in to the prevailing mood.  Mario Draghi, a former Italian prime minister and ex-central bank chief whom many federalists hold up as their mascot, has acknowledged as much. Given widespread reluctance to rock the boat, he argued in an October speech that Europe should embrace “pragmatic federalism,” i.e. coalitions of like-minded countries acting in concert on specific areas of interest instead of any big leaps forward.  Czechia’s outgoing foreign minister, Jan Lipavsky, described the current attitude among EU leaders as “not idealistic” in a recent POLITICO interview. A few days later, Belgium’s defense minister brushed off the idea of a European army. “Anyone who believes in a European army is selling castles in the air,” he told local outlet Humo.  REDDIT SUB-GROUP BATTLES   Yet it so happens that castles in the air — i.e. big jumps forward — is exactly what Europe’s young boosters want, and they’re tired of hearing that they’re too idealistic. “A direct election of the commission president… is absolutely necessary. As long as that doesn’t happen, the EU will not get more trust,” the European Challenges account holder wrote to me in a DM.  Savall says young Europeans yearn for politicians who can articulate a strategic view of where Europe is headed, rather than fighting out the domestic political battle of the day. “There’s long-term [vision], but no one is selling it,” she said, noting that membership in her group grew 6 percent in 2024 to 10,000. In October, with other pro-federalist groups, it relaunched the Action Committee for a United States of Europe which had been dormant for decades. A key driver for new adherents was the EU-U.S. trade deal inked by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, Scotland, which was widely panned as a humiliation for the bloc. “It was disappointing because Europe’s power was its trade mandate. Soft power was commerce,” said Savall.  Other pro-federalist or pan-European groups report a similar jump in membership. Membership in Ave Europa, a federalist group founded in March of this year which describes itself as “center-right”, has gained 400–500 members since its launch. Board member Nikodem Skrobisz wrote that the tense Oval Office meeting last February between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump, in which Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated their guest, had spurred the group’s launch. “A wave of Europatriotism swept the continent in defiance to the Trumpist attempts to humiliate our continent,” he wrote in a message to me. “The subsequent trade and tariff disputes further demonstrated that Europe can no longer rely on others to defend its interests; and with every MAGA attack against Europe, we saw a new wave of recruits boost our ranks.”   Not all pro-Europeans share the same roadmap, however. “I think the term ‘European federalism’ is just misplaced for this day and age… Europe will probably head towards greater centralization and will more closely resemble a confederation of some sorts,” said Alex Asgari, a Czech-American 25-year-old lobbyist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked as a Republican aide in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Indeed, federalists are far from being a politically homogenous group. Several meme warriors told me that there is an ideological battle ongoing in the dank recesses of federalist Reddit subgroups and chatrooms between broadly centrist people who believe in boosting the power of existing Brussels institutions, and far-right people who hate Brussels but nonetheless want Europe to assert itself on the world stage. The big divider is identity politics and migration policy: far-right groups tend to envision Europe as a culturally and ethnically homogenous “empire” — read, white and Christian, preferably Catholic — that keeps foreigners out.  “I limit potential membership to countries that have a Latin-European model of social life… only a Civilisationally homogeneous state has the right to function stably,” said the user of an account named Sacrum Imperium, a 30-year-old law student whom I agreed not to identify by name because they said expressing political views in public could be detrimental to their career. The user also voiced skepticism about Brussels, advocating limited competences for EU institutions. “The optimal division of competences… should provide for tasks at European level only those that are necessary and cannot be carried out at national level,” they added.  EUROPE OR BUST   For de Weck, the point is not that these young Europeans don’t see eye to eye, but that their frame of reference is Europe — not the domestic political debate of France, Germany or any other EU member country. This marks a profound shift compared to 2016, when Britain’s vote to leave the European Union was widely seen as heralding other EU exits, and euroskeptic politicians ranging from France’s Marine Le Pen to Austria’s Sebastian Kurk and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders dominated headlines.  Indeed, a big factor linking pro-Europe online users is their youth. With all reporting their age as under 35, these Europeans may or may not have witnessed the last big surge of euro-idealism around the turn of the century, when the euro currency was introduced in several countries and the overtly pro-EU movie “The Spanish Apartment” (L’Auberge Espagnole” originally) promoted Europe’s Erasmus student program as an ideal way to find love. But they have all been through what came after this period of optimism: terrorism, a surge in migration, the rise of far-right parties across Europe and, more recently, Russia’s aggressive expansionism and the collapse of a U.S.-led post-World War II order.   A giant EU flag is unfurled during Europe Day celebrations in Milan in May. | Emanuele Cremaschi/Getty Images Such upheavals, combined with other problems — like grinding economic decline and an ageing population — have painted Europe as a victim, or at least a losing party, in the minds of many youths. It’s a feeling that these people are rebelling against — and one that may well fuel the rise of a new generation of much more Europe-minded, if not overtly federalist, politicians in coming years.  For now, it’s still populists and their favorite rivals, centrists such as France’s Macron, who continue to occupy headlines. In the past decade hard-right leaders have won elections, becoming prime ministers in Austria and Italy, or political kingmakers, as was the case with Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders in 2023. The prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, has been in power since 2010, positioning himself as an arch-opponent of Brussels-based EU institutions.  But the reality is that, unlike in 2016 when Europe feared a wave of Brexit-style “-exits,” none of these leaders now advocates pulling their country out of the bloc. In a recent chat with POLITICO, Orbán’s political director said that despite virulent criticism of the EU as currently configured, Budapest still sees its place firmly within the EU. “We want to be inside. We are part of the club,” said the aide, Balasz Orbán (no relation). Similarly, Czechia’s populist incoming prime minister Andrej Babiš, though no fan of Brussels, has gone so far as to rule out a referendum on his country’s membership in the EU or NATO in his government manifesto.  Could this be the first hint of a tectonic shift in European politics? Ave Europa, the group founded in March, plans to run candidates in the next EU elections. Volt Europa, a pan-European, federalist party, won five seats in the most recent European Parliament elections, and now has 30 national chapters both inside and outside the EU. To grow much bigger, such parties would benefit from a change to the European Parliament’s rules that would allow candidates to compete for a number of EU-wide seats in transnational campaigns, versus the current system whereby campaigns are nationally bound — a change that Savall of the Young Federalists points to as her group’s “No. 1” policy priority.  But to become a reality, it would have to be embraced by the EU’s current leaders, who haven’t shown much interest in recent years. The United States of Europe may not become a reality in the next few months, or even years. But its online cheerleaders are determined to bring that horizon closer — one “EU soldier” meme at a time. 

Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler in a speech Saturday evening, warning that the Kremlin leader’s ambitions won’t stop with Ukraine. “Just as the Sudetenland was not enough in 1938, Putin will not stop,” Merz said, referring to a part of Czechoslovakia that the Allies ceded to the Nazi leader with an agreement. Hitler continued his expansion into Europe after that. “If Ukraine falls, he won’t stop there,” Merz said, referring to Putin. German, British and French officials are set to meet in Berlin this weekend to discuss proposals to end the war in Ukraine. U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff is also expected to meet with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The talks are in preparation for a planned summit of leaders including Merz, Britain’s Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Zelenskyy on Monday over stopping Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. A U.S.-backed 20-point peace plan is in the works, which includes territorial concessions on Ukraine’s part. Under one proposal being discussed, the Donbas region would be made into a free-trade zone were American companies can freely operate. Merz was speaking at a party conference of the Christian Social Union of Bavaria, which is closely aligned with his own party, the Christian Democrats.

THE TRUMP EFFECT: HOW ONE MAN’S POLITICS REWIRED EUROPE From defense to trade to climate policy, Trump’s second term has shaken Europe’s foundations and forced leaders across the continent to adapt to a new transatlantic reality. By POLITICO Illustration by Jiyeun Kang for POLITICO Even with an ocean apart, there isn’t an industry in Europe that hasn’t been impacted by President Donald Trump’s actions.   Businesses and consumers alike are reeling from Trump’s tariffs. Climate advocates are reeling from the U.S. pulling out of major treaties, including the Paris Agreement. National budgets are being strained by Trump’s demand for more defense spending from European countries, while militaries are rebuilding their ranks and rethinking their strategies. Politicians are seizing the opportunity to stand out in this moment of crisis — some as protectors against Trump’s rampage and others as acolytes of MAGA-style populism.   It’s difficult to even track the impact of Trump 2.0 due to its scope, which is why POLITICO Magazine reached out to eight different thought leaders in Europe and the U.S. and asked: What’s the biggest way Trump has changed Europe? Answers varied from the demise of NATO to changing political identities to setbacks in climate action. A common sentiment, however, is that this is a sink-or-swim moment for Europe.   Here’s what they said.   ‘THE STRATEGIC HOLIDAY FOR EUROPE IS OVER’   Attila Demkó is a security policy analyst and writer based in Hungary.  Trump shattered the illusion that what many believe to be “common values” in Europe are, indeed, common. As it turns out, some of these mostly liberal, left and far-left values are not shared by all. The emphasis on multiculturalism, Wilkommenskultur (the German term for a welcoming culture, especially toward refugees), excessive focus on political correctness and gender issues has created a rift, and the deep divide is not only between Europe and the U.S., but also within Europe itself. While smaller European countries (such as Hungary or Slovakia) and non-mainstream parties (such as France’s National Rally, Poland’s PiS and Germany’s AfD) that oppose Wilkommenskultur, European federalism, and propose a Europe of nations, could be ignored and quarantined as fringe, Trump and the American right cannot be ignored. The rift is real and goes through right in the middle of most Western societies.  Trump also made it clear that the strategic holiday for Europe is over. The continent must pay full price for its own defense, and almost full price for the support for Ukraine. So far, in both cases, the bloc has talked the talk but hasn’t walked the walk. Trump may finally teach Europe to walk — or if it can’t walk, at least get it to stop dreaming and preaching.  ‘TRUMP MAY BE DOING EUROPE A FAVOR’  Kay Bailey Hutchison is a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO.  By challenging Europe to do more in its own defense, President Trump may be doing Europe a favor. If Europeans can adopt a plan to work together to provide military equipment and technology, they will emerge stronger. Increasing defense capabilities, with each country contributing, will also enable significant economic benefits.  Since World War II, Europe has depended on the U.S. for many security guarantees. Like previous American presidents — Republican and Democrat — President Trump has said it is time to make security responsibility more evenly divided among our allies. For maximum results, a more equal share of security must also produce interoperable assets. Organized by NATO, all willing allies and trusted partners could share in building and manufacturing equipment and hardware, while military training and increased exercises could prepare all NATO countries and trusted partners for joint defense when there are attacks of varying severity.   If Europe wisely uses the 5 percent of GDP it promised for defense priorities and works in concert with the U.S. and trusted allies, the world will be safer for those who seek freedom — and Europe will be regarded as a significant and reliable global leader.  ‘ONE OF THE STRONGEST ALLIANCES IN MODERN TIMES HAS WEAKENED’  Manfred Elsig is professor of international relations at the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern.   From an international relations perspective, the biggest way Trump has changed Europe is by destabilizing the U.S.–European partnership. Over the course of Trump’s two presidencies, the bloc has come to realize that the U.S. is no longer a reliable and close partner. Trump has eroded the most important political capital in the transatlantic cooperation: trust — the bedrock of the post-World War II partnership between the U.S. and Europe. The transregional security pact, with NATO at its core, has been badly weakened, denting Karl Deutsch’s infamous “security community” built on a shared sense of values and “we-ness.” And as a result, Europe must quickly rethink its security architecture and take more independent action.  Andrew Harnik/Getty Images Another area where we’re witnessing negative effects of the Trump presidency is the transatlantic marketplace. Primarily, the “trade community” is no longer a model of relatively free, fair and stable trade, and investment relations are leading to less growth and innovation. The secondary effects are trade diversion and growing pressures to protect markets from foreign competition. As a result, Europe will look elsewhere for trade partners that believe in a rules-based system in an attempt to de-risk and secure its supply chains. Economic security considerations will be increasingly mainstreamed into Europe’s international economic agenda, and more stimulus for bloc-building can be expected as well.   Finally, Europe’s investments in climate diplomacy and development cooperation are suffering a setback due to the U.S. “withdrawal doctrine” that started in 2016. The U.S. is either bypassing or selectively instrumentalizing international law, eroding global solidarity and sidelining the ambitious policies the planet urgently needs. As a result, Europe will struggle to find partners at the global level, and will continue on its path to act unilaterally on both climate and development policies.  ‘EUROPE NEEDS TO FACE THE REALITY OF BEING A RESOURCE-POOR CONTINENT’  Heather Grabbe is a senior fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels-based economic think tank.   When it comes to climate and the environment, Trump has distracted Europe from addressing its long-term resource vulnerabilities by creating panic over defense and trade. By creating crises around U.S. military support against Russian aggression and tariffs that hit the trade-dependent European economy, Trump has Europe’s leaders on the defensive and has forced them to focus on short-term security. Of course, these are important issues, but they divert political attention and public budgets away from measures that would bring longer-term security from climate impacts, volatile commodity markets and fragile supply chains by investing in climate resilience and enhancing resource productivity. Russian President Vladimir Putin may or may not invade Europe, and Trump may or may not help protect us, but climate change and resource insecurity will certainly damage the European economy.  Europe needs to face the reality of being a resource-poor continent, not only in fossil fuels but also in many other raw materials. And while Trump is trying to maintain Europe’s dependence on U.S. LNG as a replacement for Russian gas, that is the most expensive way of fuelling the economy it also slows down our transition to true energy security. Fossil fuel subsidies of more than €100 billion a year keep Europe vulnerable to the U.S. and other exporters, rather than spending taxpayers’ money on electrification, enlarging renewable energy production and building the grids and interconnectors that would bring us independence.  ‘THE TURBULENCE THE U.S. HAS UNLEASHED GLOBALLY HAS FORCED MANY EUROPEANS TO GROW UP’   Aliona Hlivco is founder and CEO of St. James’s Foreign Policy Group and a former Ukrainian politician.   The turbulence the U.S. has unleashed globally has forced many Europeans to grow up. They have finally realized they can no longer rest in the comfort of predictable trade deals or rely on the continent’s famously slow but steady regulatory machinery to keep things ticking along. Europe has woken up to the fact that it must shift from the pace and mentality of an aircraft carrier — vast, heavy and resourceful, lumbering toward a destination set out years in advance — to that of a maritime drone: fast, agile, nimble and capable of striking with precision at exactly the right place and time.   This new agility is felt unevenly across the continent but is unmistakably emerging. Germany is finally, and understandably, overcoming its post-World War II paralysis, reclaiming its role as an economic power as well as the “Eastern flank of NATO,” as one Bundeswehr official put it to me earlier this year. France, long a champion of “strategic autonomy,” has at last found the space to act on it. The Northern European nations — Scandinavia and the Baltics — are leading Europe’s defence innovation, rearmament and the next generation of deterrence, including by taking the lead in supporting Ukraine. They also built a sustainable and crucial bridge with the U.K. through the Joint Expeditionary Force — keeping Europe’s only nuclear power other than France closely tied to the continent after Brexit. Military strength may well become the decisive factor determining who leads Europe in the next 50 years, and in that regard, Poland is rapidly emerging as one of the EU’s most powerful members.   Europe is changing. It can no longer afford inertia or the illusion that statements can substitute for action. While Brussels continues to grapple with Washington’s unpredictability — possibly beyond Trump’s second term — European countries are seizing the moment. In an era of uncertain geopolitical multilateralism, they are playing their best cards, hoping to secure the breakthroughs that redefine Europe’s future.  ‘TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY HAS HAD A PROFOUND AND CONTRADICTORY EFFECT ON EUROPEAN POLITICAL IDENTITY’  Aleksandra Sojka is an associate professor of European politics at the University Carlos III in Madrid.   Trump’s biggest impact on Europe has been forcing the bloc to confront its strategic dependence on the U.S. His second presidency has fundamentally shaken the transatlantic alliance, exposing Europe’s critical weakness: the absence of genuine defense and security capabilities independent of American support. Trump’s wavering commitment to NATO and inconsistent support for Ukraine have made European rearmament an urgent necessity, shifting public opinion beyond the political elite. And this pressure has created remarkable convergence among European leaders, enabling decisions that were previously politically impossible — such as excluding defense spending from budget deficit calculations and allocating funds for coordinated European military procurement and shared defense initiatives. While disagreements remain over specific strategies, this fundamental shift is undeniable.  Kay Nietfeld/picture alliance via Getty Images Beyond defense, I consider Trump’s presidency has had a profound and contradictory effect on European political identity. His administration’s divergence from traditional European support for multilateralism as well as the EU’s positions on climate, trade and democratic norms have energized both sides of Europe’s political conflict. On the one hand, it has emboldened Euroskeptic and populist parties, providing external validation for their narratives on issues like national sovereignty and migration. On the other hand, it has triggered a sort of rally-around-the-flag effect with Europeans who increasingly value the achievements of integration and the protections of their democracies. Trust in EU institutions has recovered to pre-crisis levels, and support for bloc-wide policies stands at an historic high. In essence, Trump could inadvertently become a catalyst for European unity and self-reliance, even as he amplifies divisions within European societies.  ‘GIVING US A DIFFERENT DYSTOPIAN VISION OF ONE OF OUR POSSIBLE FUTURES’   Sunder Katwala is director of British Future.    Trump may have changed Europe most by giving us a different dystopian vision of one of our possible futures. Our leaders and the public alike lack a mental map or language for this unfamiliar world in which an American government appears to present a new threat from the West to our peace, prosperity and democracy. While that persists, it means hard work rethinking our assumptions across foreign policy and defense, trade and economics, technology and democracy.  The most significant impact may be political. The Trump administration’s effort to export this particular vision of conflict and polarization has turned America’s traditional soft power to attract into a deterrent, as it is a form of populism unpopular enough to create a boomerang effect. By reframing the choices on offer in our domestic politics, the challenge has catalyzed the search for antidotes among the anti-Trump majorities of our societies, and an appetite among citizens to coalesce around the most viable anti-Trumpist choices when choosing our own governments in these fragmented times.  ‘TRUMP’S ERA HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE EU’S SOVEREIGNTY CRISIS’   Thiemo Fetzer is an economist and professor at the University of Warwick and the University of Bonn.   Trump’s era has highlighted the EU’s sovereignty crisis, most visible in the digital and financial domains. Now is the time for Europe to choose how it will build out its economic future: Will it align with the U.S. or China, or is it capable of reimagining an even more ambitious but autonomous path forward?   By controlling key digital platforms and payment systems, the U.S. holds enormous power over global data and finance, being able to grant or deny access to entire countries or industries. This U.S. economic model — built on services, financialization, and energies like natural gas and crude oil — has powered innovation but also created deep inequality and social dysfunction. For Europe, aligning with this model promises access to capital and technology but risks dependence and division, as the U.S. may pit member states against one another. China offers an alternative model rooted in data sovereignty and a strong industrial base. Its strategy to electrify everything is an added bonus to addressing the shared climate crisis. Yet following Beijing’s path could weaken Europe’s manufacturing.   There is a third path, though: Europe can build its own economic and technological independence instead of choosing between Washington and Beijing. That would mean completing the single market so that goods, capital and digital services can move freely across borders — creating scale, cutting red tape and helping homegrown tech companies compete globally. A truly borderless European business environment would keep talent and investment within Europe, rather than letting it flow to the U.S. or Asia. Pooling defense resources could also make Europe stronger and more efficient, freeing up money and industrial capacity for new sectors such as clean energy and advanced manufacturing. Expanding the euro’s international role would also make Europe less dependent on the dollar and strengthen its financial influence abroad.   This path would tie Europe’s growth to its core values — dignity, privacy, data protection, accountability, and the rule of law — embedding them into its digital and economic systems. In doing so, Europe can continue work pragmatically with the U.S., China and others to set global rules. It is for Europeans to shape their own destiny. 

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music He’s not even European — yet Donald Trump has topped POLITICO’s annual P28 ranking of the most powerful people who will shape Europe in 2026. EU Confidential host Sarah Wheaton takes you inside the gala in Brussels — where commissioners, MEPs, diplomats, lobbyists and journalists packed into a glittering room, even as the mood underneath the sparkle felt unusually tense. At the event, Ursula von der Leyen sat down with Carrie Budoff Brown, POLITICO’s executive editor, for an exclusive on-stage conversation — offering one of her first public reactions to Trump’s sharp criticism of EU leaders as “weak,” and Washington’s dramatic new security strategy, which seeks to undermine them. Be sure to check out the full 2026 ranking here. Plus, we bring you Sarah’s conversation with Balázs Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister’s political director, who offers a perspective far outside the Brussels mainstream — on Ukraine, on Europe’s political direction, and on where he believes the EU keeps going wrong. And finally, we have a taste of Anne McElvoy’s interview with Nick Thomas-Symonds, the U.K.’s minister for European relations (for more, head to: Politics at Sam and Anne’s ). And if you haven’t yet, listen to the exclusive interview our colleague Dasha Burns did with Donald Trump on our sister podcast The Conversation.

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump should not get involved in European democracy, Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday, days after the U.S. president launched a stinging attack on Europe. “It is not on us, when it comes to elections, to decide who the leader of the country will be, but on the people of this country … That’s the sovereignty of the voters, and this must be protected,” the European Commission president said in an interview at the POLITICO 28 gala event in Brussels. “Nobody else is supposed to interfere, without any question,” the Commission chief added in response to a question about the U.S. National Security Strategy, which was published last week and caused uproar in Europe. The strategy claims Europe is facing “civilizational erasure” within the next 20 years, a narrative that has resonated well with Europe’s far-right leaders, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, as well as in Russia. The document also bashes European efforts to rein in far-right parties, calling such moves political censorship, and speaks of “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.” Von der Leyen said this is one of the reasons why the EU proposed the Democracy Shield, meant to step up the fight against foreign interference online, including in elections. The Commission chief said she has always had “a very good working relationship” with U.S. presidents, and ” this is also the case today.” However, she stressed that Europe should focus on itself rather than making comparisons with others. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist. But what is so important? [What’s] important is that … we take pride in being the European Union, that we look at our strength and that we deal with the challenges that we do have,” she said. “Ofa course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing. And this is so important that we keep in mind: what is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe. This is our task … [to] look at ourselves and be proud of ourselves,” von der Leyen said, to applause from the crowd. The U.S. president denounced Europe as a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns that aired Tuesday in a special episode of The Conversation podcast. “I think they’re weak,” Trump said, referring to the continent’s presidents and prime ministers, adding, “I think they don’t know what to do. Europe doesn’t know what to do.”  POLITICO on Thursday named Trump the most powerful person shaping European politics, placing him at the top of the annual P28 list. The list highlights who is expected to have the most sway over Europe’s political direction in the coming year, based on input from POLITICO’s newsroom and the power players POLITICO’s journalists speak with.

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump says he wants to reshape politics in Europe. For many voters in major European democracies, it feels like he already has. Trump’s return as U.S. president is far more significant for voters in Germany, France and the U.K. than the election of their own national leaders, according to respondents to the first international POLITICO Poll. The finding vividly illustrates the impact of Trump’s first year back in the White House on global politics, with his sway felt particularly keenly in Europe. The online survey, conducted by the independent London-based polling company Public First, also shows many Europeans share Trump’s critical assessment in a POLITICO interview earlier this week of the relative weakness of their own national leaders. The poll had more than 10,000 respondents from the U.S., Canada and the three biggest economies in Europe: Germany, France and the United Kingdom. For leaders like Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, it makes particularly grim reading: They are seen by their own voters as having largely failed to handle the unpredictable American president effectively so far. EU leaders fared worst of all. In France, only 11 percent thought Brussels had done a good job of handling Trump, with 47 percent saying EU leadership had navigated the relationship badly. Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer gets a slightly better rating — his record on managing Trump is seen as neither good nor bad. “These results show how much Trump has shaped the last year of political conversation not just in the U.S., but globally,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First. “This is true for the public as much as it is for policymakers — the fact that so many believe Trump’s election, on the other side of the world, has been more significant for their own country than their own leaders’ election lays this bare.” The polling comes at an acutely sensitive moment for transatlantic relations. A new White House National Security Strategy unveiled last week destroyed any notion of American neutrality toward its historic allies in Europe, instead launching a crusade to convert the region’s democracies to his own MAGA ideology. POLITICO on Tuesday named Trump as the most powerful person shaping European politics, at the top of its annual P28 list. The list is not an endorsement or award. It reflects, instead, each individual’s capacity to shape Europe’s politics and policies in the year ahead, as assessed by the POLITICO newsroom and the power players POLITICO’s journalists speak with. In a White House interview on Monday with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of “The Conversation,” Trump expanded on the message, saying he would endorse candidates from parties in Europe who shared his outlook — especially on shutting down immigration. ELECTIONS MATTER, BUT SOME MORE THAN OTHERS In an effort to unpack Trump’s disruptive influence on international affairs since he returned for his second term in January, Public First conducted an online survey of 10,510 adults aged 18 and over, between Dec. 5 and Dec. 9. The research found that in Germany and the U.K. over half of respondents considered Trump’s election even more important than the elections of their own leaders, even though both Merz and Starmer have only relatively recently won power themselves. In Germany, 53 percent of people thought Trump’s election was more significant for their country than the election of Merz, compared with 25 percent who thought the German election was more important. In the U.K., 54 percent said Trump’s return was more significant than Starmer’s Labour Party taking power and ending 14 years of Conservative rule, compared with 28 percent who said the change of national government last year was more important for Britain.  French voters were a little less stark in their view, but still 43 percent thought Trump’s victory was more significant, against 25 percent who believed Macron’s election had a bigger impact on France. In Canada, however, respondents were split. Mark Carney’s victory in April, on the back of a campaign promise to stand up to Trump, was viewed by 40 percent as more significant than Trump’s return to power. Only slightly more — 45 percent — said Trump’s win was more significant for Canada than Carney’s. TRANSPARENCY TRUMPS STRENGTH In his interview with POLITICO, Trump denounced European leaders as “weak,” provoking retorts from politicians across the European Union and even prompting the pope to urge him not to “break apart” the transatlantic alliance. The researchers found that Europeans broadly shared Trump’s view that their leaders were weak, at least in comparison to him. They rated Trump as more “strong and decisive” than their own leader, by 74 percent to 26 percent in Germany; 73 percent to 27 percent in France; and 69 percent to 31 percent in the U.K. Canada was again the notable exception, with 60 percent saying Carney is stronger and more decisive compared to Trump, and only 40 percent saying the reverse.  Overall, however, the quality of being a strong and decisive leader is not seen as the most desirable trait among voters questioned in the survey. Far more important across all five countries in the research, including the U.S., is being honest and transparent.  “Strength is not the most important trait for a leader, but it is clearly an area where European leaders’ approach fall short so his words in the POLITICO interview will ring true,” said Wride.  Pollsters also asked how people felt their own leaders were handling the whirlwind of geopolitical upheaval in Trump’s second term. In France and Germany, more people think their leaders handled Trump badly than approved: Only 24 percent thought Merz had done a good job, while 34 percent thought his handling of Trump had been bad.  In France, Macron fared even worse. Just 16 percent of respondents said he had done well compared to 39 percent who thought he had done badly at managing relations with the White House. The verdict on Starmer was mixed: 29 percent thought he was handling Trump well, the same proportion as said he was doing badly. That represents an underwhelming verdict on a prime minister who has made a priority of maintaining a warm and effective alliance with the U.S. president.  RESISTANCE VS. STANDING UP TO TRUMP The research found that people in Europe wanted their leaders to stand up to Trump and challenge him, rather than prioritize getting along with him. However, when asked how their own particular national leaders should behave, Europeans took the opposite view, saying collaboration was more important than challenging the president.  Canadians remained punchy regardless, with a slight preference for Carney to confront Trump.  “Perhaps the only opportunity Trump has offered national leaders is the opportunity to stand up to him, something which we find tends to improve perceptions of them,” said Wride, from Public First. “Having fallen short on this, from the public’s perspective, leaders are seen to have largely failed to respond for the last year.” This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Dec. 5 to Dec. 9, surveying 10,510 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error. The survey is an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com.

LONDON — London mayor Sadiq Khan has hit back at Donald Trump Tuesday for suggesting he owes his election victories to the rising number of migrants in the U.K. Speaking in an interview with POLITICO, Khan responded that the U.S. president is “obsessed” with him and contended that Americans are in fact “flocking” to live in London, because its liberal values are the “antithesis” of Trump’s. London’s mayor urged Trump to clarify his remarks that people who “come in” to Britain helped put Khan in office. “I think it’s for President Trump to explain what he means by that,” Khan said. “I’m unclear.”  The U.S. president, who spoke on Monday at the White House to POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of The Conversation, asserted that European nations are “decaying” and their immigration policies would render them no longer “viable.” POLITICO on Tuesday named Trump the most influential figure shaping European politics in the year ahead, a recognition previously conferred on leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. In his Europe-bashing comments to POLITICO, Trump zeroed in on London and Paris, claiming they were each a “different place” to what they once were, and launched an especially incendiary attack on Khan, saying: “If you take a look at London, you have a mayor named Khan.   “He’s a horrible mayor,” Trump went on. “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.”  Trump added: “My roots are in Europe, as you know … and I hate to see that happen. This is one of the great places in the world, and they’re allowing people just to come in and … unchecked, unvetted.”  Trump argued immigration would change the “ideology” of European nations, saying of Khan: “He’s a disaster. He’s got a totally different ideology of what he’s supposed to have. And he gets elected because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.”  Khan responded: “I think the one part that President Trump has got right is that London is becoming a different place. We are the greatest city in the world.   “I suspect that’s one of the reasons why we have record numbers of Americans coming here to holiday, coming here to live, coming here to invest, or coming here to study.  “I literally have no idea why President Trump is so obsessed with this mayor of London. I’m not sure what he’s got against a liberal, progressive, diverse, successful city like London.” A HISTORY OF PUBLIC ATTACKS Trump and Khan — who topped the same influence list himself in 2017 — have traded barbs regularly since the center-left Labour politician won office in 2016, becoming the first Muslim mayor of a Western capital.  Born in London to parents who moved to Britain from Pakistan in the 1960s, Khan, 55, attended school and studied law in the U.K. capital, and served as a transport minister in Gordon Brown’s Labour government.  The U.S. president most recently attacked Khan during his United Nations speech in September, alleging without evidence that London wants “to go to Sharia law” under Khan. London’s mayor responded at the time by saying Trump had “shown he is racist, he is sexist, he is misogynistic and he is Islamophobic.”  Trump’s latest remarks appear to go further than his speech at the U.N. by suggesting that Khan chiefly represents people who have migrated to Britain, and further that they are at ideological odds with other Britons — a view echoed in the recent U.S. National Security Strategy document, which argued that immigration is weakening Europe.    To vote for the capital’s mayor, voters must be resident in London and either be British or Irish citizens or citizens of a defined list of countries including Commonwealth nations, Denmark, Poland, Portugal and Spain who also have permission to enter or stay in the U.K. Khan won 43.8 percent of the vote in his most recent election, compared to 32.7 percent for his Conservative rival. A FORMAL STRATEGY Trump’s virulent rhetoric echoes that in the National Security Strategy, published last Thursday, which said European countries face “civilizational erasure” due to migration policies, “censorship of free speech,” falling birth rates and “loss of national identities and self-confidence.” During his interview with POLITICO, the U.S. president branded Europe’s political leaders “weak” and signaled that he would endorse candidates aligned with his own vision for the continent.  Asked whether some European nations would no longer be allies of the U.S., Trump replied: “It depends. They’ll change their ideology, obviously, because the people coming in have a totally different ideology … they’ll be much weaker, and they’ll be much different.” Khan said “record numbers of Americans are flocking” to London “and I suspect it’s because we are the antithesis of everything President Trump believes in, in terms of nativism, in terms of populism, in terms of unilateralism — we’re the exact opposite.”  He added: “I’m very comfortable, as a Londoner, having friends who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh. I think diversity is a strength, not a weakness. It makes us richer, not poorer; stronger, not weaker. And it’s for President Trump to explain what he’s got against that.” 

This article is also available in French and German. President Donald Trump denounced Europe as a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people in an interview with POLITICO, belittling the traditional U.S. allies for failing to control migration and end the Russia-Ukraine war, and signaling that he would endorse European political candidates aligned with his own vision for the continent. The broadside attack against European political leadership represents the president’s most virulent denunciation to date of these Western democracies, threatening a decisive rupture with countries like France and Germany that already have deeply strained relations with the Trump administration. “I think they’re weak,” Trump said of Europe’s political leaders. “But I also think that they want to be so politically correct.” “I think they don’t know what to do,” he added. “Europe doesn’t know what to do.” Trump matched that blunt, even abrasive, candor on European affairs with a sequence of stark pronouncements on matters closer to home: He said he would make support for immediately slashing interest rates a litmus test in his choice of a new Federal Reserve chair. He said he could extend anti-drug military operations to Mexico and Colombia. And Trump urged conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, both in their 70s, to stay on the bench. Trump’s comments about Europe come at an especially precarious moment in the negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, as European leaders express intensifying alarm that Trump may abandon Ukraine and its continental allies to Russian aggression. In the interview, Trump offered no reassurance to Europeans on that score and declared that Russia was obviously in a stronger position than Ukraine. Trump spoke on Monday at the White House with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of The Conversation. POLITICO on Tuesday named Trump the most influential figure shaping European politics in the year ahead, a recognition previously conferred on leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Trump’s confident commentary on Europe presented a sharp contrast with some of his remarks on domestic matters in the interview. The president and his party have faced a series of electoral setbacks and spiraling dysfunction in Congress this fall as voters rebel against the high cost of living. Trump has struggled to deliver a message to meet that new reality: In the interview, he graded the economy’s performance as an “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” insisted that prices were falling across the board and declined to outline a specific remedy for imminent spikes in health care premiums. Even amid growing turbulence at home, however, Trump remains a singular figure in international politics. In recent days, European capitals have shuddered with dismay at the release of Trump’s new National Security Strategy document, a highly provocative manifesto that cast the Trump administration in opposition to the mainstream European political establishment and vowed to “cultivate resistance” to the European status quo on immigration and other politically volatile issues. In the interview, Trump amplified that worldview, describing cities like London and Paris as creaking under the burden of migration from the Middle East and Africa. Without a change in border policy, Trump said, some European states “will not be viable countries any longer.” Using highly incendiary language, Trump singled out London’s left-wing mayor, Sadiq Khan, the son of Pakistani immigrants and the city’s first Muslim mayor, as a “disaster” and blamed his election on immigration: “He gets elected because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.” The president of the European Council, António Costa, on Monday rebuked the Trump administration for the national security document and urged the White House to respect Europe’s sovereignty and right to self-government. “Allies do not threaten to interfere in the democratic life or the domestic political choices of these allies,” Costa said. “They respect them.” Speaking with POLITICO, Trump flouted those boundaries and said he would continue to back favorite candidates in European elections, even at the risk of offending local sensitivities. “I’d endorse,” Trump said. “I’ve endorsed people, but I’ve endorsed people that a lot of Europeans don’t like. I’ve endorsed Viktor Orbán,” the hard-right Hungarian prime minister Trump said he admired for his border-control policies. It was the Russia-Ukraine war, rather than electoral politics, that Trump appeared most immediately focused on. He claimed on Monday that he had offered a new draft of a peace plan that some Ukrainian officials liked, but that Zelenskyy himself had not reviewed yet. “It would be nice if he would read it,” Trump said. Zelenskyy met with leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom on Monday and continued to voice opposition to ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of a peace deal. The president said he put little stock in the role of European leaders in seeking to end the war: “They talk, but they don’t produce, and the war just keeps going on and on.” In a fresh challenge to Zelenskyy, who appears politically weakened in Ukraine due to a corruption scandal, Trump renewed his call for Ukraine to hold new elections. “They haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said. “You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.” Latin America Even as he said he is pursuing a peace agenda overseas, Trump said he might further broaden the military actions his administration has taken in Latin America against targets it claims are linked to the drug trade. Trump has deployed a massive military force to the Caribbean to strike alleged drug runners and pressure the authoritarian regime in Venezuela. In the interview, Trump repeatedly declined to rule out putting American troops into Venezuela as part of an effort to bring down the strongman ruler Nicolás Maduro, whom Trump blames for exporting drugs and dangerous people to the United States. Some leaders on the American right have warned Trump that a ground invasion of Venezuela would be a red line for conservatives who voted for him in part to end foreign wars. “I don’t want to rule in or out. I don’t talk about it,” Trump said of deploying ground troops, adding: “I don’t want to talk to you about military strategy.” But the president said he would consider using force against targets in other countries where the drug trade is highly active, including Mexico and Colombia. “Sure, I would,” he said. Trump scarcely defended some of his most controversial actions in Latin America, including his recent pardon of the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a decades-long sentence in an American prison after being convicted in a massive drug-trafficking conspiracy. Trump said he knew “very little” about Hernández except that he’d been told by “very good people” that the former Honduran president had been targeted unfairly by political opponents. “They asked me to do it and I said, I’ll do it,” Trump acknowledged, without naming the people who sought the pardon for Hernández. HEALTH CARE AND THE ECONOMY Asked to grade the economy under his watch, Trump rated it an overwhelming success: “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.” To the extent voters are frustrated about prices, Trump said the Biden administration was at fault: “I inherited a mess. I inherited a total mess.” The president is facing a forbidding political environment because of voters’ struggles with affordability, with about half of voters overall and nearly 4 in 10 people who voted for Trump in 2024 saying in a recent POLITICO Poll that the cost of living was as bad as it had ever been in their lives. Trump said he could make additional changes to tariff policy to help lower the price of some goods, as he has already done, but he insisted overall that the trend on costs was in the right direction. “Prices are all coming down,” Trump said, adding: “Everything is coming down.” Prices rose 3 percent over the 12 months ending in September, according to the most recent Consumer Price Index. Trump’s political struggles are shadowing his upcoming decision on a nominee to chair the Federal Reserve, a post that will shape the economic environment for the balance of Trump’s term. Asked if he was making support for slashing interest rates a litmus test for his Fed nominee, Trump answered with a quick “yes.” The most immediate threat to the cost of living for many Americans is the expiration of enhanced health insurance subsidies for Obamacare exchange plans that were enacted by Democrats under former President Joe Biden and are set to expire at the end of this year. Health insurance premiums are expected to spike in 2026, and medical charities are already experiencing a marked rise in requests for aid even before subsidies expire. Trump has been largely absent from health policy negotiations in Washington, while Democrats and some Republicans supportive of a compromise on subsidies have run into a wall of opposition on the right. Reaching a deal — and marshaling support from enough Republicans to pass it — would likely require direct intervention from the president. Yet asked if he would support a temporary extension of Obamacare subsidies while he works out a large-scale plan with lawmakers, Trump was noncommittal. “I don’t know. I’m gonna have to see,” he said, pivoting to an attack on Democrats for being too generous with insurance companies in the Affordable Care Act. A cloud of uncertainty surrounds the administration’s intentions on health care policy. In late November, the White House planned to unveil a proposal to temporarily extend Obamacare subsidies only to postpone the announcement. Trump has promised on and off for years to unveil a comprehensive plan for replacing Obamacare but has never done so. That did not change in the interview. “I want to give the people better health insurance for less money,” Trump said. “The people will get the money, and they’re going to buy the health insurance that they want.” Reminded that Americans are currently buying holiday gifts and drawing up household budgets for 2026 amid uncertainty around premiums, Trump shot back: “Don’t be dramatic. Don’t be dramatic.” SUPREME COURT Large swaths of Trump’s domestic agenda currently sit before the Supreme Court, with a generally sympathetic 6-3 conservative majority that has nevertheless thrown up some obstacles to the most brazen versions of executive power Trump has attempted to wield. Trump spoke with POLITICO several days after the high court agreed to hear arguments concerning the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, the automatic conferral of citizenship on people born in the United States. Trump is attempting to roll back that right and said it would be “devastating” if the court blocked him from doing so. If the court rules in his favor, Trump said, he had not yet considered whether he would try to strip citizenship from people who were born as citizens under current law. Trump broke with some members of his party who have been hoping that the court’s two oldest conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, might consider retiring before the midterm elections so that Trump can nominate another conservative while Republicans are guaranteed to control the Senate. The president said he’d rather Alito, 75, and Thomas, 77, the court’s most reliable conservative jurists, remain in place: “I hope they stay,” he said, “’cause I think they’re fantastic.”

Paul McCartney has joined forces with U.K. MPs who are urging Brussels to scrap any plans to ban the use of meat-related names such as “burger” and “sausage” for plant-based products. The proposed EU ban, if passed into law, would prohibit food producers from using designations such as “veggie burger” or “vegan sausage” for plant-based and lab-grown dishes. “To stipulate that burgers and sausages are ‘plant-based,’ ‘vegetarian’ or ‘vegan’ should be enough for sensible people to understand what they are eating,” the former Beatles star, who became a vegetarian in 1975, told The Times of London. “This also encourages attitudes essential to our health and that of the planet.” The proposed EU ban “could increase confusion” and “undermine economic growth, sustainability goals, and the EU’s own simplification agenda,” eight British MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn, wrote in a letter to Brussels. The Times reported the contents of the letter Saturday evening. The missive includes the support of the McCartney family, which owns a business selling vegetarian food and recipes. The looming ban stems from an amendment that French center-right MEP Céline Imart introduced into legislation that aims to reform EU farming rules. These proposed reforms include how farmers sign contracts with buyers alongside other technical provisions. The bill is now subject to legislative negotiations with the Council of the EU, which represents EU governments.  The proposed rules will become law if and when MEPs and the Council agree on a final version of the legislation to become EU law. MPs in the U.K. fear that the ban, if it survives, would also impact British supermarkets, as markets and companies across the continent are so closely intertwined. Imart’s burger-busting tweaks were supposed to be a gesture of respect toward the French farmers that she represents — but they have divided MEPs within her own European People’s Party. “A steak is not just a shape,” Imart told POLITICO in an interview last month. “People have eaten meat since the Neolithic. These names carry heritage. They belong to farmers.” Limiting labels for vegetarian producers will also help shoppers understand the difference between a real burger and a plant-based patty, according to Imart, despite years of EU surveys showing consumers largely understand the difference. U.K. MPs also cite research in their letter, stating that European shoppers “overwhelmingly understand and support current naming conventions” such as “veggie burger.”

Europe’s far-right firebrands are rushing to hitch their fortunes to Washington’s new crusade against Brussels. Senior U.S. government officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have launched a raft of criticism against what they call EU “censorship” and an “attack” of U.S. tech companies following a €120 million fine from the European Commission on social media platform X. The fine is for breaching EU transparency obligations under the Digital Services Act, the bloc’s content moderation rule book. “The Commission’s attack on X says it all,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on X on Saturday. “When the Brusselian overlords cannot win the debate, they reach for the fines. Europe needs free speech, not unelected bureaucrats deciding what we can read or say,” he said. “Hats off to Elon Musk for holding the line,” Orbán added. Tech mogul Musk said his response to the penalty would target the EU officials who imposed it.  “The European Commission appreciates censorship & chat control of its citizens. They want to silence critical voices by restricting freedom of speech,” echoed far-right Alternative for Germany leader Alice Weidel. Three right-wing to far-right parties in the EU are pushing to stop and backtrack the integration process of European countries — the European Conservatives and Reformists, the Patriots for Europe, and the Europe of Sovereign Nations. Together they hold 191 out of 720 seats in the European Parliament. The parties’ lawmakers are calling for a range of proposals — from shifting competences from the European to the national level, to dismantling the EU altogether. They defend the primacy of national interests over common European cooperation. Since Donald Trump’s reelection, they have portrayed themselves as the key transatlantic link, mirroring the U.S. president’s political campaigning in Europe, such as pushing for a “Make Europe Great Again” movement. The fresh U.S. criticism of EU institutions has come in handy to amplify their political agendas. “Patriots for Europe will fight to dismantle this censorship regime,” the party said on X. The ECR group — political home to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — issued a statement questioning the enforcement of the DSA following the U.S. criticism. “A digital law that lacks legal certainty risks becoming an instrument of political discretion,” ECR co-chairman Nicola Procaccini said on Saturday after the U.S. backlash. The group supported the DSA when it passed through the Parliament, having said in the past the law would “protect freedom of expression, increase trust in online services and contribute to an open digital economy in Europe.”