PARIS — One of French President Emmanuel Macron’s top political allies is under fire over respect for the rule of law after he fired a high-ranking official at the country’s most powerful constitutional body. The head of France’s Constitutional Council, Richard Ferrand, one of the president’s closest confidants, dismissed the institution’s secretary general, Aurélie Bretonneau, just a year after she was appointed.  In an internal email sent late on March 23 and seen by POLITICO, Bretonneau said Ferrand had “informed [her] that he has proposed to the President of the Republic that [she] step down from [her] position due to differences of opinion on the conduct of the institution.” The move triggered strong reactions from top French political officials and legal scholars. Aurélien Rousseau, a former health minister in Macron’s government and now a center-left MP, said on X that the move was “worrying” and highlighted the “flippancy with which our institutions are treated.” Green MEP David Cormand posted: “It is a problem that a member of a particular clan has been appointed to head our country’s highest constitutional body,” adding that such actions undermine French democracy and institutions. Ferrand’s appointment by Macron last year was criticized as an attempt to politicize the independent institution, which has the power to rule on whether legislation passed by the National Assembly is in accordance with the constitution. Ferrand, a former president of the National Assembly, has limited legal training and was one of Macron’s earliest supporters. The Constitutional Council rules on legal challenges and oversees elections. Its members don’t need to be trained judges or lawyers.  Four people within the institution confirmed to POLITICO that Ferrand had decided to fire Bretonneau. “Differences of opinion” between Ferrand and Bretonneau had emerged in recent months, particularly “on the role of the law”, said two of the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. According to one of the officials, the disagreements between Ferrand and Bretonneau reached their peak near the end of last year when, amid a spiralling budgetary crisis, the government contemplated the possibility of passing fiscal legislation via executive action. Bretonneau sent out an internal memo arguing that a budget passed by the government through executive action could not include amendments on what had already been drafted, a ruling that would have tied the government’s hands during a period of tense negotiations with opposition parties. She also argued that the Constitutional Council did not have the authority to review the legislation. Her conclusions reportedly upset Ferrand. Ferrand did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment on Monday. Bretonneau also declined to comment. “Aurélie Bretonneau is not the type of person to compromise on the defense of the rule of law, the rigour of legal reasoning or the independence of the institution,” a senior civil servant told POLITICO. “If that’s what bothered her, it’s a major problem.” Bretonneau’s appointment had been directly approved by Ferrand.

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

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s keeping Britain out of the war in Iran — but he can’t duck the conflict’s grave economic consequences. In a sign of growing fears about the impact of the war on Britain, the prime minister chaired a rare meeting of the government’s emergency COBRA committee Monday night, joined by senior ministers and Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey. Starmer’s top finance minister, Rachel Reeves, will update the House of Commons on the economic picture Tuesday, as an already-unpopular administration worries that chaos in the Middle East is shredding plans to lower the cost of living and get the British economy growing. For Starmer’s government — headed for potentially brutal local elections in May — the crisis in the Gulf risks a nightmare combination of a rise in energy prices, interest rates, inflation and the cost of government borrowing that threatens to undermine everything he’s done since winning office. Economists are now warning that even if Donald Trump’s promise of a “complete and total resolution of hostilities” with Iran were to bear fruit, the effects on the British economy could still last for months. Already there are signs of a split within Starmer’s party over how to respond. Labour MPs want the government to think seriously about action to protect households — but Starmer and Reeves have long talked up the need for fiscal responsibility, and economics are warning that there’s little room for maneuver. Fuel prices displayed at a Shell garage in Southam, Warwickshire on March 23, 2026. | Jacob King/PA Images via Getty Images Jim O’Neill, a former Treasury minister who served as an adviser to Reeves, told POLITICO the government should “not get sucked into reacting to every external shock” and “concentrate on boosting our underlying growth trend.” WHY THE UK IS SO HARD HIT Just before the outbreak of war, there was reason for Starmer and Reeves to feel quietly optimistic about the long-stagnant British economy. The Bank of England had expected inflation to fall back sustainably toward its two percent target for the first time in five years, giving the central bank the space to carry on cutting interest rates.  With the Iran war in full flow, it was forced to rewrite those forecasts at the Monetary Policy Committee’s meeting last week — and now sees inflation at around 3.5 percent by the summer. The U.K. is a big net importer of energy and also needs constant imports of foreign capital to fund its budget and current account deficits. That’s made it one of first targets in the financial markets’ crosshairs. The government’s cost of borrowing has risen by more than half a percentage point over the last month. That threatens both the real economy and Reeves’ painstakingly-negotiated budget arithmetic. Higher inflation means higher interest rates and a higher bill for servicing the government’s debt: fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates a one-point increase in inflation would add £7.3 billion to debt servicing costs in 2026-2027 alone. The effect on businesses and home owners is also likely to be chilling. Britain’s banks are already repricing their most popular mortgages, which are tied to the two-year gilt rate. Hundreds of mortgage products were pulled in a hurry after the MPC meeting last week, something that will hit the housing market and depress Reeves’ intake from both stamp duty and capital gains. Duncan Weldon, an economist and author, said: “Even if this were to stop tomorrow, the inflation numbers and growth numbers are going to look materially worse throughout 2026. “If this continues for longer… it’s an awful lot more challenging and you end up with a much tougher budget this autumn than the government would have been hoping to unveil.” DECISION TIME The U.K.’s economic plight presents an acute political headache for Starmer, as he faces a mismatch between his own party’s expectations about the government’s ability to help people and his own scarce resources. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has promised to keep looking at different options for some form of assistance to bill-payers hit by an energy price shock. A pain point is looming in July, when a regulated cap on energy costs is due to expire and bills could jump significantly. One left-leaning Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said: “They [ministers] need to be treating this like a financial crisis. They need plans for multiple scenarios with clear triggers for government support.” A second MP from the 2024 intake said “it’s right that a Labour government steps in, particularly to help the most vulnerable.” Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves at the first cabinet meeting of the new year at No. 10 Downing St. on Jan. 6, 2026 in London, England. | Pool photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images This demand for action is being felt in the upper echelons of the party too, as Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy recently argued Reeves’ fiscal rules — seen as crucial in the Treasury to reassure the markets — may need to be reconsidered if prices continue to rise and a major support package is needed.  One Labour official said there are clear disagreements with Labour over how to go about drawing up help and warned “the fiscal approach is going to be a massive dividing line at any leadership election.” The same official pointed to recent comments by former Starmer deputy — and likely leadership contender — Angela Rayner about the OBR, with Rayner accusing the watchdog of ignoring the “social benefit” of government spending. Despite the pressure, ministers have so far restricted themselves to criticizing petrol retailers for alleged profiteering, and have been flirting with new powers for markets watchdog the Competition and Markets Authority. The government said Reeves would on Tuesday set out steps to “help protect working people from unfair price rises,” including a new “anti-profiteering framework” to “root out price gouging.” But Starmer signaled strongly in an appearance before a Commons committee Monday evening that he was not about to unveil any wide-ranging bailout package, telling MPs he was “acutely aware” of what it had cost when then-Prime Minister Liz Truss launched her own universal energy price guarantee in 2022.  O’Neill backed this approach, saying: “I don’t think they should do much… They can’t afford it anyhow. The nation can’t keep shielding people from external shocks.” Weldon predicted, however, that as the May elections approach and the energy cap deadline draws nearer, the pressure will prove too much and ministers could be forced to step in. The furlough scheme rolled out during the pandemic to project jobs and Truss’s 2022 intervention helped create “the expectation that the government should be helping households,” he said. “But it’s incredibly difficult. Britain’s growth has been blown off-course an awful lot in the last 15 years by these sorts of shocks.” Geoffrey Smith, Dan Bloom, Andrew McDonald and Sam Francis contributed to this report.

U.S. regulators this week proposed easing capital rules on big U.S. banks in a package of proposals that departs from globally agreed-upon standards. Now, it’s sparking calls from European trade groups to loosen the EU’s own version of the rules. On Thursday, U.S. bank regulators released a number of potential rule changes intended to align U.S. policy with a 2017 global agreement known as Basel III. Its provisions imply a 2.4 percent decrease in capital held by the largest U.S. banks and bigger cuts for smaller banks. European regulators, anticipating the U.S. move, had already been discussing loosening their own requirements, which currently call for raising the capital that banks must have on hand by around 8 percent by 2033. But the breadth of the U.S. proposal has prompted trade groups in Europe to push officials to move faster. Taken together, the moves could weaken the global regulatory framework instituted on both sides of the Atlantic after the 2008 financial crisis. “The U.S. proposal appears to mark a clear shift toward easing capital constraints to support lending and growth, while Europe seems to continue moving in a different direction,” said Sébastien de Brouwer, deputy CEO of the European Banking Federation, a trade group. The United States’ pullback is “making it more urgent than ever to review the EU framework to preserve competitiveness and financing capacity of European banks,” he said. Over the past few months, European regulators had started to reevaluate the competitiveness of the bloc’s banking sector, especially as major European economies have struggled to keep pace with U.S. growth. EU heads of government called Thursday night, in a statement agreed upon before the release of the U.S. proposal, for the European Commission “to propose targeted amendments to the prudential framework in order to enhance the capacity of the banking sector to finance the European economy.” The Commission is also authoring a report on the competitiveness of its banking sector, due after the summer, which will pave the way for legislative proposals. This is set to be a wide-ranging report that could relate to bank capital requirements or other policies. The European Central Bank has already made recommendations for simplifying the bloc’s banking rules ahead of the report, including calling for lighter Basel rules for small banks and for capital buffers to be merged. None of its recommendations were as sweeping as what the U.S. has proposed, however. The U.S. proposal departs from the intent of the original Basel accords, a long process in which global regulators worked to address the root causes of the global financial crisis, critics say. Regulators in 2017 reached an agreement around the framework for jurisdictions to mitigate risks. “This definitely goes against not just the ethos but the intent, spirit and goal of Basel III,” said Dennis Kelleher, CEO of Better Markets, an advocacy group that supports stronger financial regulation. “This proposal when finalized will inevitably ignite another global race to the regulatory bottom” One of the biggest departures relates to the unwinding of the “output floor,” which sets a minimum capital threshold for banks’ trading activities. The new proposal uses a new risk-weighting approach that would do away with the threshold. “This will encourage other jurisdictions to do the same, undermining a key reform and cornerstone of the Basel III agreement,” Federal Reserve board member Michael Barr said Thursday. In the 2017 international talks, the U.S. had argued in favor of a restrictive output floor. Major European banks argued that would hike their capital requirements above and beyond those of the U.S., given the makeup of European banks’ trading books, stymieing lending to the real economy. The threshold was ultimately set at a lower rate than what American negotiators wanted. European regulators had recently moved to delay implementation of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book, the portion of Basel focused specifically on so-called market risk, or rules governing how to capitalize banks’ trading activities. “Removing the output floor for market risk is a divergence from international standards, and we will carefully assess the impact on internationally active banks, in particular, with respect to the ongoing discussions on EU FRTB implementation and banking competitiveness in Europe,” said Caroline Liesegang, head of prudential regulation and research at the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, which represents large banks. In the past, U.S. regulators had tended to “gold plate” the country’s rules for big banks, meaning they put in provisions above and beyond what Basel requires in order to acknowledge the United State’s central role in the global financial system and push for stricter global standards. In 2023, U.S. regulators failed to pass a capital proposal that would have raised aggregate capital by 16 percent and would have adhered more strictly to the international framework. On Thursday, U.S. regulators said the international standards should not be an unnecessary barrier to the needs of the U.S. financial system. “We should not seek to punish U.S. consumers and businesses by imposing higher costs of credit, or forcing credit availability outside of the banking system, particularly if this is done only to show greater alignment with Basel or any other international standard,” said Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, who led the U.S. central bank’s crafting of the proposal. The dilution of the agreement and its pullback on capital “will make it more challenging for the U.S. to use Basel, as it so often has, to further its own agenda,” said Kathryn Judge, professor at Columbia Law School. In the U.K., which has since left the bloc, the capital rules are expected to have less of an impact on banks than EU peers. A spokesperson for the Prudential Regulation Authority, the U.K.’s main banking regulator, said that the thinking remains the same as in its final rules, which will see the market risk rules apply from 2028. The European Commission declined to comment. The Basel Committee said it doesn’t comment on individual jurisdictions. The Federal Reserve declined to comment. Bjarke Smith-Meyer and Elliot Gulliver-Needham contributed to this report.

The composition of the next Danish government may hinge on a former prime minister with a penchant for brushing his teeth with hand soap. The Social Democrats of incumbent center-left Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen are projected to get the most votes when Danes go to the polls on March 24. But whether they can form a government will likely be decided by Lars Løkke Rasmussen, leader of the centrist Moderate Party. Rasmussen, a former prime minister currently serving as the country’s foreign minister, was the face of Copenhagen’s defiance of threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to annex Greenland earlier this year. At the time, he and Frederiksen seemed like a dynamic duo protecting the Kingdom. But just a day before Tuesday’s elections in Denmark, a right-leaning and a left-leaning bloc are nearly tied with each other in the polls, both just short of a majority in the country’s 179-seat parliament. Rasmussen’s Moderates, meanwhile, are projected to secure 12 seats. That sets him up to either backstop Frederiksen to form another broadly centrist government, or hand power to Deputy PM Troels Lund Poulsen, leader of the center-right Venstre party and the preferred PM candidate of the right-wing bloc. Frederiksen is using that reality to nudge voters towards supporting her. “If [Rasmussen] chooses to back another prime minister, then we will, with a very high possibility, get a right-wing government in Denmark,” she said recently. METTE DOESN’T DEFINE ME For the past four years, Frederiksen’s Social Democrats have governed in coalition with Venstre and Rasmussen’s Moderates — the latter named after a fictional political group in the hit Danish political drama, “Borgen.” The government’s right-leaning policies on migration, which are among the most hardline in Europe, and the lack of action on issues like the housing crisis were cited as key factors in the Social Democrats’ disastrous results in December’s nationwide municipal elections. In the wake of those votes, members of the party’s base called for Frederiksen to recalibrate and prioritize working with left-leaning parties. But the prime minister has kept her options open ahead of March 24, saying she can imagine a repeat partnership with “the political middle” as easily as an alliance with the left. The latter option is firmly opposed by Rasmussen, who wants a repeat of centrist governance. The politician led Venstre during two non-consecutive terms as prime minister from 2009 to 2019, but following an election defeat broke away to found the Moderates as an alternative to Denmark’s historic left-right political offer. Ahead of this week’s vote Rasmussen has ruled out facilitating a left-leaning coalition, saying he won’t partner with the far-left Red-Green Alliance whose support would be needed to make such a government viable. He also insists he’s not aiming to usher the right into power, as Frederiksen claims. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen speaks to journalists ahead of a European Council summit in Brussels, Belgium on March 19, 2026. | Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images “I will not be placed: I stand in the center, firmly, even when the winds blow,” he wrote on Facebook March 19. “The job is to pull together what is otherwise falling apart — because we already have plenty of forces pulling us in different directions.” THE GOAT Rasmussen has been an omnipresent figure in Danish politics for 40 years. In 1986, at 22, he became chairman of Venstre’s youth wing, kickstarting his political career. Since then he’s held multiple cabinet portfolios including finance, health, interior, foreign affairs and prime minister. In recent years he has leaned into his status as a meme on social media, where he is celebrated for his playful demeanor and unabashed chain-smoking. His insouciance and pragmatism — which extends to using hand soap to brush his teeth when toothpaste is unavailable — strikes a chord with Danes, especially amid a tense election. At the same time Poulsen and Frederiksen were dueling it out in a televised debate, Rasmussen uploaded a photo of himself with a goat on Instagram; the caption wished luck to the leaders of Denmark’s two biggest parties. The post referenced the term “greatest of all time” (GOAT) at a moment when his electoral opponents had the spotlight. In the comment section under the entry, users posted goat emojis and echoed the GOAT label. A SHOCK ENDGAME Even though Frederiksen’s Social Democrats are projected to win the most votes, Rasmussen asks why they should get to decide who takes the post of prime minister, per parliamentary tradition. “It’s a bit strange that the Social Democrats have never experienced sitting in government without having the post of prime minister,” he said recently. “I think they should experience that one day.” Despite having already held the crown twice himself, the leader of the Moderates isn’t opposed to becoming prime minister again. Some Danish political analysts say the scenario isn’t impossible. “If the election result is as messy as current polls suggest, and if neither the traditional blue nor red bloc has a majority without the Moderates, could a scenario emerge in which [Rasmussen] would and could go for the prime minister’s job himself?” public channel DR’s political correspondent Christine Cordsen posited. “There is no doubt that if the opportunity arises, he will go for it.” It wouldn’t be without precedent. In 1968 Hilmar Baunsgaard became Danish prime minister despite leading the smallest party in the governing coalition. Although Rasmussen admits he can’t imagine a government “where that would happen,” he also hasn’t rejected the idea of serving a third term as PM. “Rule it out entirely? That would be a strangely weak position to put yourself in when you’re the GOAT, right?”

LONDON — Donald Trump has berated Keir Starmer over the Iran war. But the U.S. president might just have bought the British leader a little more time in the job. Trump blasted Starmer as “no Winston Churchill” for his limits on the U.S. launching offensive attacks from British bases — and has helped stoke criticism from opposition parties at home about an indecisive U.K. administration. But the global tumult from the U.S.-led war in the Middle East has had one counter-effect: strengthening, for now, Starmer’s precarious domestic position. Numerous errors and climbdowns — plus voter frustration at not seeing the “change” promised in the 2024 election — has left Starmer one of the most unpopular British prime ministers on record. Missteps and a failure to bring political troops with him on a host of controversial issues have also left Starmer sorely lacking support among his own MPs. Whether he will survive past a difficult round of local elections on May 7 is an open talking point at Westminster. Would-be replacements, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and former Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner, have made little secret of their hope to stand if a contest arises. But external events have a habit of changing the course of politics. And a sense is growing that the crisis in the Middle East is dampening the chatter about removing the prime minister. “Iran has bought him time,” said one Labour official, who like others in this piece spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal party tensions. A Labour frontbencher, who in the past predicted Starmer would be out after the spring elections, said the war is “making colleagues think again about changing leader,” adding: “It focuses minds on who we want leading the country at a time of crisis. Would we really want Angela or Wes sitting around the NATO table?” Britain’s involvement entered a new stage on Friday, when the U.K. said the U.S. could use British bases to bomb Iranian missile sites attacking commercial shipping the Strait of Hormuz. Downing Street insisted this fell within the existing scope of “defensive” action that Starmer approved on Mar. 1. There is broad agreement among Labour MPs that Starmer has taken the correct approach to the conflict — refusing to let jibes from Trump rile him while sticking to his position that the initial U.S.-Israel offensive action was wrong but that allies need defending from Iranian blowback. “Most other potential prime ministers, Labour or otherwise, wouldn’t have had the backbone to stand firm, and would now be explaining to a furious British public how we were disentangling ourselves from Trump’s war and all the ensuing economic challenges we will face,” said one senior government official. The same person sensed that even among rival leadership camps “there is an acknowledgement that this war changes things. It would be a terrible time to be seen to be playing politics by any contender.” Health Secretary Wes Streeting speaks to the press at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England on March 19, 2026. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Indeed, one of Streeting’s allies accepted that there won’t be a leadership challenge while the war continues, adding that being a statesman on the world stage is “what Keir is good at.” Even disgruntled MPs have been telling each other “there’s no way there could be a challenge at a time like this,” one noted, while Conservative MPs have also discussed how the war has shored up the Starmer position.  But the calculation among plotters is still likely to come down to weighing the state of the war against how bad the verdict is from voters at the May local elections. “He’s played a blinder and is exactly where most of the country is,” one Starmer critic said. “But if it’s a bloodbath in May it would still be tricky. And it feels like everyone is on maneuvers in Westminster.” That is acknowledged even in government. One minister said the outcome will be difficult to predict if election results are “catastrophic,” while another said: “There is still a feeling that things are untenable and could come to a head quite quickly.” Cabinet ministers including Chancellor Rachel Reeves have been contacting junior ministers in recent weeks encouraging them to rally round the prime minister, said one of those on the receiving end. They described the outreach as one of the “save Keir calls.” Some note, too, that those arguing that a leader cannot be changed during a war have forgotten lessons from the past. “The center [of government] will argue people shouldn’t move at a time of war, but we changed leaders during two world wars,” said another government frontbencher. “If things are really bad in May, I don’t think it will be the argument that stops people.” Even the ongoing Ukraine war serves as a lesson. There was murmuring among Conservative MPs that it would be wrong to oust their then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson amid war in Europe. But he was gone six months after the BBC reported it in 2022.  The opposition is also not giving Starmer the grace he afforded to Johnson as the Ukraine crisis mounted. “Starmer is in office but not in power and that is making Britain’s response to this conflict confused and incoherent,” a Conservative spokesperson said. In the end, it could be Starmer’s response to bad election results, not his reaction to a war beyond his control, that really seals his fate. “Clearly we are working hard to secure success in the May elections. However, following any election, it is right that there is a full assessment of the outcome,” said Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who has called for Starmer to quit in the past.  “There are always circumstances where a case can be made that ‘now is not the right time’ but what is important is that there is recognition of the outcome, the reasons why and the remedy that is required. “Let’s see where we get to in seven weeks’ time,” she added.

BRUSSELS ― Two wars on Europe’s doorstep loomed over a 12-hour summit of EU leaders ― and for very different reasons they found themselves paralyzed rather than able to do much about either. Rarely has the bloc’s inability to take a lead on international affairs been so obvious. Between Germany’s Friedrich Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni ― heads of three of the world’s top 10 economies ― and the other 24 in attendance, they could only look the other way, squabble with each other, or offer little but words as the bombing, missile-firing and killing continued. “In these very troubled moments in which we are living, more than ever it’s decisive to uphold the international rules-based order,” European Council President  António Costa, who chaired the gathering in Brussels, told reporters. “The alternative is chaos. The alternative is the war in Ukraine. The alternative is the war in the Middle East.” And that speech was about as far as it went. As Tehran pounded its neighbors, disrupting Europe’s energy supplies, Kyiv attacked Russian factories repairing military planes, and Donald Trump in Washington joked about the Pearl Harbor attack alongside the Japanese prime minister, European leaders used their talks to tinker with the bloc’s carbon permit scheme, the Emissions Trading System. It’s not a wholly unrelated matter to the global energy shock, but hardly an issue where the continent could demonstrate its geopolitical might. On Iran, leaders found they had little leverage or will to make any significant intervention. On Ukraine, more than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion ― a conflict where they do have leverage and they do have will ― they were unable to overcome internal divisions to approve sending €90 billion Kyiv’s way. There was “no willingness to get involved across the table” on the Iran conflict, said a senior European government official, granted anonymity like others quoted in this article to discuss the talks behind closed doors. German Chancellor Merz even complained that focusing on Iran risked shifting attention away from measures to boost Europe’s flagging economy — the summit’s original raison d’être before would affairs got in the way — according to three officials. “The world looked very different at Alden Biesen,” an EU official said, referring to last month’s competitiveness-focused meeting in a Belgian castle that was meant to set the stage for this summit. That was before Iran’s war and Ukraine’s funding dilemma, brought about by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán going back on his promise to approve the loan, radically reshaped the agenda. NOT OUR WAR That’s not to say Iran was ignored completely. There was some renewed discussion about sending French warships to protect the Strait of Hormuz, the vital oil transit point that Tehran has effectively shut down by threatening to strike ships, potentially with backing from the U.N. Security Council. “We have begun an exploratory process, and we will see in the coming days if it has a chance of succeeding,” Macron said. But the summit’s final statement stopped short of pledging any new mission, referring only to strengthening existing EU naval operations in the region. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at a press conference at the end of the European Council summit on March 19, 2026 in Brussels. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images By the end of the talks, the EU’s leaders reached a sobering conclusion: Europe has little power or inclination to shape events. “Middle East impacts us a lot — but are we a player in the game?” an EU official who was party to the leaders’ discussions asked. “They’re trying to find a place in this debate and we have a lot of statements and positions [but] is there a role for Europeans for solving this process?” Evidently not, according to Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, who warned leaders that “starting war is like a love affair — it’s easy to get in and difficult to get out,” according to two diplomats briefed on her remarks. Translation: This is not Europe’s war — and it’s not going to be. The EU was left with doing “what we always do,” an EU official said, writing “nice statements.” BURNING GAS FIELDS Europe already angered U.S. President Trump earlier this week when its top envoys rejected his call to secure the Strait of Hormuz. The summit’s final conclusions leaned heavily on familiar calls for “de-escalation” and “restraint,” without proposing concrete action, sticking to that earlier position. That’s despite Qatar warning Thursday it would not be able to fulfill its liquefied natural gas contracts with Belgium and Italy after Iran directed its wrath — and its ballistic missiles — over U.S.-Israeli strikes at the Gulf country, knocking out almost a fifth of its LNG export capacity. Yet rather than grapple head-on with the rapidly expanding energy shock, Europe’s leaders spent hours debating the bloc’s climate policy, including its ETS, which a group of countries are eager to reform. “To say ETS is the biggest issue when big gas fields are burning is a bit weird,” an EU official said. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the consequences of the war extended far beyond the Middle East, adding its most “immediate impact” was on energy supply and prices. She announced a slate of emergency measures to lower costs, from lowering taxes to boosting investment in ETS. ‘JUST CRAZY’ If anything, the summit exposed where the wars in Iran and Ukraine overlap. In what could be his final EU gathering after 16 years if he loses next month’s election, Hungary’s Orbán slammed Europe’s approach to the unfolding energy crisis. “The behavior and the strategy that the Europeans have here is just crazy,” he said — adding the EU needed to buy Russian oil to “survive.” Orbán has blocked a €90 billion EU loan to Kyiv because of a dispute about a damaged pipeline carrying Russian oil through Ukraine to Hungary and other central European countries. For that reason, the bloc was similarly unable to offer much more than assurances on the Ukraine war either. Orbán maintained his opposition on Thursday and even won the sympathy of Meloni, who told leaders she understood his position. As frustration inside the room boiled over, many leaders sharply criticized the Hungarian premier, according to Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. “I have never heard such hard-hitting criticism of anyone, ever,” he told reporters during a break in the talks. Merz concurred that leaders were “deeply upset” at Orbán. “I am firmly convinced that this will leave a lasting mark,” he said. But the pressure from his peers failed to sway Orbán and questions of the EU loan will roll on to another summit next month ― by which time Hungary could have a new leader, or at least an old one not desperate for votes. On Iran and on Ukraine, the EU didn’t get anywhere. Earlier predictions by diplomats that leaders might continue discussions through the night or even reconvene for a second day as the urgency of a world in turmoil forced them to face up to the challenges before them failed to materialize. Things were done and dusted before midnight. After 12 hours of few decisions, leaders were left with little new to tell people back home. “There are many things worrying about this war” in the Middle East, while Orban’s veto of the loan to Kyiv “is still there and we are extremely unhappy about this, and so of course is Ukraine,” Sweden’s Kristersson told reporters upon leaving the summit. And that was that. Zoya Sheftalovich, Nette Nöstlinger, Nicholas Vinocur, Gerardo Fortuna, Gabriel Gavin, Hans von der Burchard, Sonja Rijnen, Zia Weise, Seb Starcevic, Giorgio Leali, Hanne Cokelaere, Ferdinand Knapp, Milena Wälde, Aude van den Hove, Gregorio Sorgi, Koen Verhelst, Victor Jack, Ben Munster, Jacopo Barigazzi and Bartosz Brzezińksi contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — EU leaders were supposed to spend Thursday mapping out how to boost Europe’s economy. Instead, they were left scrambling to deal with two wars, a deepening transatlantic rift and a standoff over Ukraine. Twelve hours of talks, a few showdowns and many, many coffees later, here’s POLITICO’s rapid round-up of what we learned at the European Council. 1) Viktor Orbán’s not a man for moving … The most pressing question ahead of this summit was whether Hungary’s prime minister could be convinced to drop his veto to the EU’s €90 billion loan for Ukraine. He wasn’t. The European Commission had attempted to appease Orbán in the days running up to the summit by sending a mission of experts to Ukraine to inspect the damaged Druzhba pipeline, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia. Orbán has argued that Ukraine is deliberately not addressing the issue, and tied that to his blocking of the cash. Asked whether he saw any chance for progress on the loan going into the summit, Orbán’s response was simple: “No.” Twelve hours later, that answer was much the same. 2) … But he does like to stretch his legs. In one of the most striking images to have come out of Thursday’s summit, the Hungarian prime minister stands on the sidelines of the outer circle of the room while the rest of the leaders are in their usual spots listening to a virtual address from Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (on screen) speaks to EU leaders via video at the European Council summit in Brussels, March 19, 2026. | Pool photo by Geert Vanden Wijngaert/OL / AFP via Getty Images The relationship between the two has descended into outright acrimony after the Hungarian leader refused to back the EU loan and the Ukrainian leader made veiled threats — which even drew the (rare) rebuke of the Commission. Faced with Zelenskyy’s address, the Hungarian decided to vote with his feet. 3) The new kid on the block is happy to be a part of this European family, dysfunctional as it may be. This was the first leaders’ summit for Rob Jetten, the Netherland’s newly-installed prime minister. Ahead of the meeting, he said he was “very much looking forward to being part of this family.” His verdict after the talks? That leaders differ greatly in their speaking style, with some quite efficient while others take longer to get to the point — but he welcomed the jokes of Belgian’s Bart De Wever, “especially when the meeting has been going on for hours.” 5) Though not everyone was so charitable. Broadly speaking, Orbán digging in his heels did not go down well. Sweden’s prime minister told reporters after the summit that leaders’ criticism of the Hungarian in the room was “very, very harsh,” and like nothing he’d ever heard at an EU summit. Jetten said the vibe in the room with EU leaders was “icy” at points, with “awkward silences.”  6) The EU’s not giving up on the loan. Despite murmurs ahead of the talks of a plan B in the works, multiple EU leaders as well as Costa and Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen were adamant that the loan was the only way to go — and that it will happen, eventually. “We will deliver one way or the other … Today, we have strengthened our resolve,” von der Leyen. Costa added: “Nobody can blackmail the European Council, no one can blackmail the European Union.” Top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas arrives at the European Council summit on March 19, 2026. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images 7) Kaja Kallas wants to avoid a messy entanglement. In her address to the bloc’s leaders, Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, stressed the importance of not getting caught up in the conflict in the Middle East. “Starting war is like a love affair — it’s easy to get in and difficult to get out,” she said, according to two diplomats briefed by leaders on the closed-door talks. At the same time, Kallas reiterated the importance of the EU’s defending its interests in the region but said there was little appetite for expanding the remit of its Aspides naval mission, currently operating in the Red Sea. 8) But it was all roses with the U.N. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres joined the Council for lunch, thanking them for their “strong support for multilateralism and international law.” In an an exclusive interview with POLITICO on the sidelines of the summit, Guterres applauded the restraint shown by the Europeans, despite Donald Trump’s anger at their refusal to actively support the war or help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime artery that Iran has largely sealed off, driving up global energy prices. 9) Kinda. One senior EU official told POLITICO that the lunch meeting was “unnecessary.” “With all appreciation for multilateralism and its importance … considering the role the U.N. is not playing in international crises right now, it is unnecessary,” said the official, granted anonymity to speak freely. 10) Celery is a very versatile vegetable. Also on the table while they picked over the future of the multilateral world order was a pâté en croûte with spring vegetables and fillet of veal with celery three ways. Three ways! And for dessert? A mandarin tartlet with cinnamon. 11) Cyprus and Greece want the EU to get serious about mutual defense. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis asked the EU to think about a roadmap for acting on the bloc’s mutual defense clause, according to two EU diplomats and one senior European government official. The clause, Article 42.7, is the EU’s equivalent of NATO’s Article 5. Its existence and potential use has recently come into focus since British bases in Cyprus were attacked by drones. 12) And the Commission hopes it’s already got serious enough about migration. Von der Leyen said that while the EU has not yet experienced an increase in migrants as a result of the conflict in Iran, the bloc should be prepared. “There is absolutely no appetite … to repeat the situation of 2015 in the event of large migration flows resulting from the conflict in the Middle East,” said one national official. The Commission chief emphasized that the mistakes of the 2015 refugee crisis won’t happen again. 13) Von der Leyen likes to cross her Ts.   Speaking of emphasis — “temporary, tailored and targeted” was how von der Leyen described the EU’s short-term actions to minimize the impact on Europe of the recent energy price spikes after the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. The moves will impact four components that affect energy prices: energy costs, grid charges, taxes and levies and carbon pricing, she said. 14) The ETS is here to stay — with some modifications. While EU leaders agreed to make some adjustments to the Emissions Trading System — the bloc’s carbon market — most forcefully backed the continuation of the system itself. “This ETS is a great success. It has been in place for 20 years and is a market-based and technology-neutral system. So we are not calling the ETS into question,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters after the talks had concluded. While the Commission will propose some adjustments to the ETS by July, these are merely adjustments, not fundamental changes, the German leader said. In the run-up to the summit, some EU countries, including Italy, floated the idea of weakening the ETS to help weather soaring energy prices. 15) No matter what, EU leaders want to get home — ASAP. While Costa has so far ensured every European Council under his watch lasts only one day instead of the once-customary two, this time around, that goal was looking optimistic. However, at the end of the day, leaders’ dogged determination to get out of there prevailed (even if that meant kicking a discussion on the long-term budget to April). À bientôt!

BRUSSELS — United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said Thursday there are “reasonable grounds” to believe both sides in the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran may have committed war crimes, as attacks and retaliatory strikes on energy facilities intensify. Speaking exclusively to POLITICO on a visit to Brussels before Thursday’s European Council summit, Guterres said: “If there are attacks either on Iran or from Iran on energy infrastructure, I think that there are reasonable grounds to think that they might constitute a war crime.”  Israel attacked Iran’s South Pars natural gas field on Wednesday, then Tehran launched a retaliatory strike on a major energy complex in Qatar. Beyond that, Guterres said the growing civilian casualties left both sides in the conflict open to possible war crimes charges. “I don’t see any difference. It doesn’t matter who targets civilians. It is totally unacceptable,” he said. Representatives for the U.S. and Israeli governments did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Guterres’ remarks. America and Israel began a bombing campaign on Feb. 28, killing Iran’s supreme leader and sparking ongoing retaliatory missile-and-drone attacks from Tehran on sites across the Middle East. Having called for deescalation in the region, Guterres appeared to blame Israel for driving the conflict forward, and called on U.S. President Donald Trump to persuade Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu to bring it to an end. “The war needs to stop … and I believe that it is in the hands of the U.S. to make it stop. It is possible [to end the war], but it depends on the political will to do it,” Guterres told host Anne McElvoy for an episode of the EU Confidential podcast publishing Friday morning. “I am convinced that Israel, as a strategy, wants to achieve a total destruction of the military capacity of Iran and regime change. And I believe Iran has a strategy, which is to resist for as much time as possible and to cause as much harm as possible. So the key to solve the problem is that the U.S. decides to claim that they have done their job. “President Trump will be able to convince … those that need to be convinced that the work is done. That the work can end,” Guterres added. The secretary-general also attributed America’s decision to launch strikes on Iran to Israel. “I have no doubt that this was something that corresponds to Israel’s strategy … to draw the United States into a war. That objective was achieved. But this is creating dramatic suffering in Iran, [and] in the region, even in Israel. And it is creating a devastating impact in the global economy and whose consequences are still too early to foresee. So, we absolutely must end this conflict,” he said. But finding an off-ramp might prove difficult, and relations between the U.N. and the Trump administration remain frosty.   Asked if he had spoken with Trump since the conflict began three weeks ago, Guterres responded emphatically: “No, no, no … I speak with those I need to speak to. But this is not a soap opera.” He claimed, however, to have been “in contact with all sides,” including with the Trump administration, since hostilities spread across the Gulf.  “It’s vital for the world at large that this war ends quickly,” Guterres said. “This is indeed spiraling out of control and the recent attacks represent an escalation that is extremely dangerous.” Trump said on his Truth Social site that the U.S. had not authorized the attack by Israel on the South Pars site, and that Israel had “violently lashed out,” raising questions about how much influence the U.S. has over its ally. “My hope is that the United States will be able to understand that this has gone too far,” Guterres said. The conflict was primarily benefitting Russia, Guterres added, with Moscow welcoming the distraction from its own war on Ukraine. “Russia is the biggest beneficiary of the Iran crisis,” Guterres said. “Russia is the country that is gaining more with what’s happening in this horrible disaster. Russia is already the winner.” Meanwhile, European leaders, including U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, have said they won’t be sending ships to the Persian Gulf in response to Trump’s appeal for help to open the Strait of Hormuz. France has said it will only contribute support vessels “when the situation is calmer.” Guterres applauded the restraint shown by the Europeans, despite Trump’s anger at their refusal to actively support the war or help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime artery that Iran has largely sealed off, driving up global energy prices. “I think these countries made their own reading of the situation, and I believe they took a decision not to get too much involved, knowing that the most important objective is the deescalation,” he said. Listen to the full episode of EU Confidential on Friday morning.

LONDON — Britain will reduce its aid sent to Africa by more than half, as the government unveils the impact of steep cuts to development assistance for countries across the world. On Thursday the Foreign Office revealed the next three years of its overseas development spending, giving MPs and the public the first look at the impact of Labour’s decision to gut Britain’s aid budget in order to fund an increase in defense spending. Government figures show that the value of Britain’s programs in Africa will fall by 56 percent from the £1.5 billion in 2024/25 when Labour took office to £677 million in 2028/9. It follows the move to reduce aid spending from 0.5 to 0.3 percent of gross national income. However, the government did not release the details of the funding for specific countries, giving Britain’s ambassadors and diplomats time to deliver the news personally to their counterparts across the world ahead of any potential backlash from allies. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told MPs that affected countries want Britain “to be an investor, not just a donor” and “want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid,” as she pointed to money her department had committed to development banks and funds which will help Africa raise money. The decision shows a substantial shift in the government’s focus, moving away from direct assistance for countries, and funneling much of the remaining money into international organizations and private finance initiatives. Chi Onwurah, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Africa, told POLITICO that she was “dismayed at the level and extent of the cuts to investment in Africa and the impact it will have particularly on health and economic development.” She added: “I hope the government recognizes that security of the British people is not increased by insecurity in Africa and increased migration from Africa, quite the opposite.” Ian Mitchell from the Center for Global Development think tank noted the move was “a remarkable step back from Africa by the U.K.” NEW PRIORITIES Announcing the cuts in the House of Commons, Cooper stressed that the decision to reduce the aid budget had been “hugely difficult,” pointing to similar moves by allies such as France and Germany following the U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to dramatically shrink America’s aid programs after taking office in January 2025. She insisted that it was still “part of our moral purpose” to tackle global disease and hunger, reiterating Labour’s ambition to work towards “a world free from extreme poverty on a livable planet.” Cooper set out three new priorities for Britain’s remaining budget: funding for unstable countries with conflict and humanitarian disasters, funneling money into “proven” global partnerships such as vaccine organizations, and a focus on women and girls, pledging that these will be at the core of 90 percent of Britain’s bilateral aid programs by 2030. A box with the Ukrainian flag on it awaits collection in Peterborough, U.K. on March 10, 2022. | Martin Pope/Getty Images Only three recipients will see their aid spending fully protected: Ukraine, the Palestinian territories and Sudan. Lebanon will also see its funding protected for another year. All bilateral funding for G20 countries will end. Despite the government’s stated priorities, the scale of the cuts mean that even the areas it is seeking to protect will not be protected fully. An impact assessment — which was so stark that ministers claimed they had to rethink some of the cuts in order to better protect focus areas such as contraception — published alongside the announcement found that there will likely be an end to programs in Malawi where 250,000 young people will lose access to family planning, and 20,000 children risk dropping out of school. “These steep cuts will impact the most marginalized and left behind communities,” said Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, adding: “The U.K. is turning its back on the communities that need support the most.” Last-minute negotiations did see some areas protected from more severe cuts, with the BBC World Service seeing a funding boost, the British Council set to receive an uplift amid its financial struggles, and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) — the aid spending watchdog that had been at risk of being axed — continuing to operate with a 40 percent budget cut. GREEN THREAT Though the move will not require legislation to be confirmed — after Prime Minister Keir Starmer successfully got the move past his MPs last year — MPs inside his party and out have lamented the impact of the cuts, amid the ongoing threat to Labour’s left from a resurgent Green Party under new leader Zack Polanski. Labour MP Becky Cooper, chair of the APPG on global health and security said that her party “is, and always has been, a party of internationalism” but today’s plans would “put Britain and the world at risk.” Sarah Champion, another Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons international development committee said that the announcement confirmed that there “will be no winners from unrelenting U.K. aid cuts, just different degrees of losers,” creating a “desperately bleak” picture for the world’s most vulnerable. “These cuts do not aid our defense, they make the whole world more vulnerable,” she added. Her Labour colleague Gareth Thomas, a former development minister, added: “In an already unsafe world, cutting aid risks alienating key allies and will make improving children’s health and education in Commonwealth countries more difficult.” The announcement may give fresh ammunition to the Greens ahead of May’s local elections, where the party is eyeing up one of its best nights in local government amid a collapse in support for Labour among Britain’s young, progressive, and Muslim voters. Reacting to the news that Britain will cut its aid to developing countries aimed at combatting climate change, Polanski said: “Appalling and just unbelievably short-sighted. Our security here in the U.K. relies on action around the world to tackle the climate crisis.”