When Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni attended her first European leaders’ summit in Brussels in December 2022, few would have expected her to become one of the most effective politicians sitting around the table four years later.   In fact, few would have expected that she’d still be there at all, as Italian leaders are famously short-lived. Remarkably, her right-wing Brothers of Italy party looks as rock solid in polls as it did four years ago, and she now has her eye on the record longest term for an Italian premier — a feat she is due to accomplish in September. A loss in what is set to be a nail-biting referendum on the bitter and complex issue of judicial reform on March 22 and 23 would be her first major set back — and would puncture the air of political invincibility that she exudes not only in Rome but also in Brussels. Meloni has thrived on the European stage, and has become adept at using the EU machinery to her advantage. Only in recent months, she has made decisive interventions on the EU’s biggest dossiers, such as Russian assets, the Mercosur trade deal and carbon markets, leveraging Italy’s heavyweight status to win concessions in areas like farm subsidies. Profiting from France’s weakness, Meloni is also establishing a strong partnership with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — a double act between the EU’s No. 1 and No. 3 economies — to mold the bloc’s policies to favor manufacturing and free trade. CRASHING DOWN TO EARTH For a few more days, at least, Meloni looks like a uniquely stable and influential Italian leader. Nicola Procaccini, a Brothers of Italy MEP very close to Meloni and co-chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, called the government’s longevity a “real novelty” in the European political landscape. “Until recently, Italy couldn’t insert itself into the dynamics of those that shape the European Union — essentially the Franco-German axis — because it lacked governments capable of lasting even a year,” said the MEP. “Giorgia Meloni is not just a leader who endures; she is a leader who shapes decisions and influences the direction to be taken.” But critics of the prime minister said a failure in the referendum would mark a critical turning point. Her rivals would finally detect a chink in her armor and move to attack her record, particularly on economic weaknesses at home. The unexpected, new message to other EU leaders would be clear: She won’t be here for ever. Brando Benifei, an MEP in Italy’s center-left opposition Democratic Party, conceded that other EU leaders saw her as the leader of a “ultra-stable government.” But, if she were to lose the referendum, he argued “she would inevitably lose that aura.” “Everyone remembers how it ended for Renzi’s coalition after he lost his referendum,” Benifei added, in reference to former Democratic Party Prime Minister Matteo Renzi who resigned after his own failed referendum in 2016. MACHIAVELLIAN MELONI Meloni owes much of her success on the EU stage to canny opportunism. At the beginning of the year, she slyly spotted an opportunity — suddenly wavering on the Mercosur trade deal, which Rome has long supported — to win extra cash for farmers that would please her powerful farm unions at home. She held off from actually killing the agreement, something that would have lost her friends among other capitals. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at a signing ceremony during an Italy-Germany Intergovernmental Summit in Rome on Jan. 23, 2026. | Pool photo by Michael Kappeler/AFP via Getty Images The Italian leader “knows how to read the room very well,” said one European diplomat, who was granted anonymity to discuss European Council dynamics.   Teresa Coratella, deputy head of the Rome office at the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations, said Meloni had  “a political cunning” that allowed her to build “variable geometries,” allying with different European leaders by turn based on the subject under discussion. One of her first victories came on migration in 2023. She was able to elevate the issue to the top level of the European Council, and even managed to secure a visit by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to Tunisia, eventually resulting in the signing of a pact on the issue. Others wins followed.  Last December, with impeccable timing, Meloni unexpectedly threw her lot in with Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever at the last minute, scuppering a plan to fund Ukraine’s defenses with Russian frozen assets, instead pushing for more EU joint debt. Italian diplomats said that Meloni is a careful student, showing up to summits always having read the relevant documents, and having asking the apposite questions. That wasn’t always the case with former Italian prime ministers.  They said her choice of functionaries — rewarding competence over and above political affiliation — also helps. These include her chief diplomatic consigliere Fabrizio Saggio and Vincenzo Celeste, ambassador to the EU. Neither is considered close politically to Meloni.   Her biggest coup, though, has been shunting aside France as Germany’s main European partner on key files, with her partnership with Merz even being dubbed “Merzoni.” ROLLING THE DICE Meloni’s strength partly explains why she dared call the referendum. Italy’s right has for decades complained that the judiciary is biased to the left. It’s a feud that goes back to the Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) anti-corruption drive in the 1990s that pulverized the political elite of that time, and the constant court cases against playboy premier and media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, father of the modern center-right. The proposal in the plebiscite is to restructure the judiciary. But it’s a high-stakes gamble, and why she called it seems something of a puzzle. The reforms themselves are highly technical — and by the government’s own admission won’t actually speed up Italy’s notoriously long court cases.    Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni attends the European Council meeting on June 26, 2025 in Brussels. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images Instead, the vote has turned into a more general vote of confidence in Meloni and her government. The timing is tough as Italians widely dislike her ally U.S. President Donald Trump and fear the war in Iran will drive up their already high power prices. Still, she is determined not to suffer Renzi’s fate and insists she will not step down even if she loses the referendum.  Asked at a conference on Thursday whether a loss would make Rome appear less stable in its dealings with other European capitals, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani was adamant that the referendum has “absolutely nothing to do with the stability of the government.” “This government will last until the day of the next national elections,” he added. A victory on Monday will put the wind in her sails before the next general elections, which have to be held by the end of 2027. It would also set the stage for other reforms that Meloni wants to enact: a move to a more presidential system, with a direct election of the prime minister, making the role more like the French presidency.  But a loss would galvanize the opposition — split between the populist 5Star Movement, and the traditional center-left Democratic Party. The danger is her rivals would round on her particularly over the economy. Even counting for the fact Italy has benefitted from the largest tranche of the Covid-era recovery package — growth has been sluggish, consistently below 1 percent, falling to 0.5 percent in 2025.  “We have a situation in which the country is increasingly heading toward stagnation and we have to ask ourselves what would have happened if we had not had the boost of the Recovery Fund,” said Enrico Borghi, a senator from Italia Viva, Renzi’s party. Procaccini, however, defended her, both on employment and growth. “It could be better,” he conceded. “But we are still talking about growth, unlike countries that in this historical phase are recording a decline, as in the case of Germany.”

BRUSSELS — The European Union’s anti-deforestation law will put United States producers off exporting to the European market, harming EU competitiveness, a senior official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture told reporters in Brussels Friday. The law, also called EUDR, is “going to discourage us from looking at the European market” and from “paying attention to any European rules [linked to deforestation],” the official said. The law as it stands would affect $9 billion of U.S. trade to the EU annually, added the official, who spoke to journalists on condition that he was not named. A delegation of U.S. government representatives is finishing a tour of EU capitals — including Madrid, Rome, Paris, Berlin and Brussels — to lobby governments to simplify the EUDR ahead of an upcoming review of the rules next month. One example of a sector that could be affected is livestock farming, the official said, arguing these farmers depend on soybeans to feed their animals, and Europe does not produce enough protein feed. “It needs to import from countries that are better at it, like us,” he said, warning that the U.S. stopping that export “will drive up their costs, hurt their competitiveness.” The EU’s anti-deforestation law requires that companies police their supply chains to ensure that any commodities they use, such as palm oil, beef or coffee, have not contributed to deforestation. After complaints from industry groups and trade partners, EU institutions in December agreed to put off implementation of the law by a year — until Dec. 2026 — and mandated the Commission to present a review of the rules by April. “It’s particularly difficult for us because these [compliance] costs will be borne by our producers,” said the official. U.S. farmers also don’t want to share information on their farms with foreign governments, he said. Washington’s main qualms with the law include the fact that there’s no category of “negligible” risk in the EU’s ranking of countries by risk of deforestation. The U.S. — like all EU member countries as well as China, Canada, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Vietnam and others — has been labeled “low risk” under the EU’s deforestation classification system. Members of the European Parliament in the center-right European People’s Party have also backed the introduction of a “no risk” category, “for countries with stable or expanding forest areas.” The senior official also complained about a stipulation in the law that if the level of deforestation in any country exceeds 70,000 hectares annually, that country cannot be considered “low risk.” That standard “just doesn’t work for us,” they said. “It’s not fair.” Representatives from the European Commission are meeting with members of the delegation on Friday “at technical level” to discuss the law, a spokesperson for the European Commission confirmed to POLITICO. European Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall told reporters in January that there would be no new legislative proposal come April, saying businesses need “predictability.” A 2024 report from the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimated that, in 2023, U.S. exports of the seven commodities under the EUDR accounted for approximately 3 percent of the value of U.S. exports to the EU, “so overall the EUDR may not significantly affect U.S. trade.” European Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall told reporters in January that there would be no new legislative proposal come April, saying businesses need “predictability.” | Gabriel Luengas/Europa Press via Getty Images Still, the authors wrote, the law could affect U.S. producers of specific commodities covered by the law. In 2023, the highest value of covered commodities exported to the EU from the U.S. were wood and wood products ($4.5 billion), soybeans ($4 billion), rubber ($1.1 billion), and cattle, such as beef and related products ($409 million). Environmental groups are calling on EU governments and the Commission to stick by the EUDR and keep the rules intact. “Misleading and self-serving foreign pressure on the EU should not distract policy-makers from staying focused on facts,” said Anke Schulmeister-Oldenhove, manager for forests at WWF EU, in an emailed statement. “Every year the EUDR is postponed results in the loss of nearly 50 million trees and the release of 16.8 million tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere.”

Listen on Ukraine is running out of money to fight Russia — but Hungary still isn’t budging on its opposition to the EU’s €90 billion loan to Kyiv. On today’s episode, host Zoya Sheftalovich and Kathryn Carlson, senior finance reporter, outline some of the contingency plans European countries have up their sleeves to get Ukraine the funding it needs before it’s too late. Also on the podcast, POLITICO’s Karl Mathiesen has interviewed Frank Furedi, who runs MCC Brussels, a think tank linked to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government.  The Hungarian-born sociologist argues Europe’s rising populist right may not be ready for power — Zoya and Kathryn try to understand why. Finally, a 350-page report published today by the EU’s climate advisers lays out recommendations to tackle the carbon footprint of the agriculture sector … but don’t expect a warm response from farmers. Do you have questions or comments for our hosts? Send a message or a voice note to our WhatsApp: +32 491 05 06 29. **A message from Amazon: Across Europe, businesses are growing with the AWS Cloud to build innovative, scalable products. From Europe’s largest enterprises and government agencies to the continent’s fastest growing startups, learn more about how AWS Cloud is helping businesses across Europe grow at AWS.eu.**

Republicans on Capitol Hill are preparing to confront a staggering price tag for the war in the Middle East after closed-door briefings this week detailed the rapid consumption of expensive munitions and the lack of any firm deadline for the end of the military campaign. Asked how much the Iran offensive would cost, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) didn’t sugarcoat it. “A lot,” he replied. Senior Republicans privately expect President Donald Trump’s administration to request tens of billions of dollars for the Middle East conflict and other military needs from Congress in the coming days, with some GOP lawmakers hearing estimates that the Pentagon is spending as much as $2 billion a day on the war. Three F-15E jets shot down by friendly fire in Kuwait are estimated to cost $100 million alone. But Trump officials in private briefings have declined to give lawmakers any specific numbers, according to six congressional Republicans granted anonymity to describe the internal discussions. A White House request for supplemental funding could further balloon once it hits Capitol Hill, according to four other people with direct knowledge of the matter. Farm-state Republicans want an additional $15 billion in tariff relief for farmers, while others float adding tens of billions of dollars in wildfire aid to get enough Democratic support to pass the massive bill. The prospect of a growing new spending measure has GOP leaders bracing for a messy internal fight, with fiscal hawks who have long decried “forever wars” and bloated Pentagon budgets deeply unsettled by some of the cost estimates flying around on Capitol Hill. At the very least, some are planning to demand offsetting spending cuts. “I haven’t seen any specifics … but if it’s unpaid-for, I generally have an issue,” Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho) said. Another House Republican granted anonymity to describe the conversations among GOP hard-liners said, “It’s not a ‘hell no,’ but it should be offset somehow.” The topic is now looming over next week’s House Republican policy retreat, which kicks off Monday with a speech from Trump at the president’s resort in Doral, Florida. If the administration sends its formal funding request in the coming days, House GOP leaders will be forced to confront the issue head on. At least some are expressing unqualified early support for any administration request. House Foreign Affairs Chair Brian Mast (R-Fla.), for instance, said in an interview this week he is ready to support an emergency funding bill spending tens of billions of dollars on the Iran operation alone. That sentiment could be challenged by the congressional Republicans who are privately wary of the open-ended timeline and shifting rationales for the war. One House Republican recently remarked that Trump’s pledge to do “whatever” it takes, including entertaining boots on the ground, sounded like “President Lyndon Johnson going into Vietnam.” Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, a vulnerable Pennsylvania Republican, noted that “as much as we need to neutralize their capabilities to continue to attack us, we do also need to make sure that we don’t get dragged into a forever war.” Asked in an interview if Congress is ready to approve a $50 billion Pentagon funding package, Speaker Mike Johnson replied that he didn’t know the specific number yet but Congress would pass the bill “when it’s appropriate and get it right.” “We’re waiting on the White House and [the Pentagon] to let us know, but we have an open dialogue about it,” Johnson said. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who is attuned to the spending concerns among the fiscal hawks inside the GOP ranks, demurred when asked about the potential for a $50 billion package. “We’re still just in the first few days of this conflict, and there’s no ask yet from the Department of War for a supplemental,” Scalise said in an interview Wednesday. He referenced the laborious talks ahead: “When that time comes, we’ll obviously have very serious conversations, because it’s important that the Department of War have the tools they need to keep America safe.” A bigger potential headache is brewing for Johnson as members of his conference debate whether additional military funding should go in a much-discussed but long-shot budget reconciliation bill. That could move to Trump’s desk along party lines without Democratic support, but only if Republicans are almost completely unified. House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said in an interview this week he expected the chamber to move forward on an initial emergency funding bill but that a second filibuster-skirting megabill could contain additional Pentagon spending, along with some possible offsetting cuts. “It’s not just for the current conflict,” Arrington said. “There are things that need to be retooled fundamentally at the Defense Department, and the president’s team is making a really good case for that.” Rep. Ralph Norman, one GOP hard-liner who has objected in the past to big Pentagon budgets, now says he would “absolutely” support a $50 billion bill without offsets. “I don’t like it, but with what this president’s doing with income — the GDP is increasing, the money he’s bringing in for other investments — to handicap him on that, that’s a problem,” said Norman, who is running for South Carolina governor and seeking Trump’s support. In the Senate, some GOP appropriators are cautioning that any war funding bill will be a big lift — and warning the administration to get specific, and fast. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the “administration should not be taking anything for granted.” “If they come to us at the end of the month and say, ‘This is what we want, and basically, deliver the votes’ … it’s not a winning strategy, in my view,” she said. “You’ve got to start making the case.” Katherine Tully-McManus and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — In the corridors of Brussels, policymakers endlessly debate the intricacies of the Vision for Agriculture and Food, the urgency of the European Child Guarantee and the future of the Common Agricultural Policy. Yet the place where these high-level strategies actually collide, and succeed or fail, is likely the noisiest room in any building: the school canteen. This week, as we mark International School Meals Day, we need to stop treating school food as a mere logistical cost or a side dish to education. Instead, we must recognize it for what it is: the single most powerful but under-utilized lever for systemic change. Beyond the plate: a systemic warning The statistics are sobering. Today, one in four European adolescents is overweight or obese, according to the World Health Organization. This is not merely a matter of individual choice or poverty. This trend is driven by a food landscape where ultra-processed, low-nutrient options have become the most accessible and affordable default for almost every family, regardless of socio-economic background. For many children, school meals are the only reliable window of high-quality nutrition in a day otherwise dominated by a broken food system. On the production side, our farmers are protesting for fair incomes, while the climate crisis demands a shift to sustainable food systems. It sounds like an impossible knot to untie. But for the past three years, a growing revolution has been taking place in close to 4,000 schools across 22 European countries, reaching over one million children. > For many children, school meals are the only reliable window of high-quality > nutrition in a day otherwise dominated by a broken food system. Through the EU-funded initiative SchoolFood4Change (SF4C), cities and schools have gone far beyond updating their menus; they have dismantled the old model entirely. While thousands have begun transforming how food is sourced, prepared and valued, more than 850 schools have taken the leap even further by fully implementing the Whole School Food Approach (WSFA). The results, published by Rikolto in a new report this week, offer a blueprint for an EU-wide roll-out of the model. “Evidence proves the framework works, yet we are currently hitting a bureaucratic ceiling,” explains Amalia Ochoa, head of sustainable food systems at ICLEI Europe and coordinator of SF4C. “Healthy school meals combined with food education represent the most accessible pathway to food system transformation, directly benefiting the 93 million children and young people across Europe. By aligning existing initiatives under a coherent framework, the EU can deliver on its promises to public health and both economic and environmental sustainability in one integrated approach.” Breaking the silos The WSFA works because it shifts the focus from the individual plate to the entire ecosystem. It recognizes that school meals are not an isolated education cost, but a powerful crossroads where public health, regional economics and environmental policy meet. Credit: LAYLA AERTS The approach integrates four pillars: meaningful policy leadership; sustainable procurement (favoring local and organic); hands-on education (gardening and cooking); and community partnership. When procurement is aligned with regional sustainability goals, magic happens. Children understand the value of food, waste less and local farmers gain a stable, predictable market, shielding them from global market volatility, while simultaneously lowering the long-term healthcare costs associated with diet-related diseases. The missing ingredient: it’s not just the food, it’s the people However, the report reveals a critical bottleneck. The biggest barrier to scaling this success isn’t necessarily the cost of the ingredients; it is the lack of dedicated coordination. > School meals are not an isolated education cost, but a powerful crossroads > where public health, regional economics and environmental policy meet. Transformation requires human power. It needs local coordinators who can navigate the labyrinth between a city’s health department, the procurement office and the school board. Too often, we fund the infrastructure but forget the implementation. For the WSFA to become an EU-wide standard, national and regional authorities need to move beyond project-based thinking. It’s not just another subsidy; it’s a strategic investment in Europe’s social and ecological resilience. As Thibault Geerardyn, director at Rikolto Europe, notes in the report:“The true obstacle to scaling up is institutional, not ideological. Changes in policy must be embedded in the current system, not merely added to it as a ‘nice to have’ project.” The mandate for change: a strategic imperative As the EU begins implementing its new mandate, school food offers a rare ‘triple dividend’ that hits every major political target on the Brussels agenda. It serves as a public health shield, a guaranteed market for local farmers and a tangible safety net for the European Child Guarantee. > Systemic change cannot be led by temporary staff or volunteers. The EU can > make the difference. However, this potential remains locked as long as school food is treated as a secondary concern. Systemic change cannot be led by temporary staff or volunteers. The EU can make the difference. We call on the European Parliament and Commission to: 1. Standardize quality: establish an EU-wide minimum standard of healthy school food and education to drive quality upwards across all member states. 2. Fund the coordinators: move away from short-term grants toward long-term strategic investment in the permanent operational implementation and coordination needed to guide schools through this transition. You cannot build a resilient system on temporary project cycles. 3. Connect the dots: create an interdepartmental taskforce. School food is currently a political orphan, sitting awkwardly between agricultural, health, youth and social policies. It needs a permanent home in the EU institutions and a unified strategy. The revolution is on the menu. We have the recipe. We have the evidence from more than 850 schools. Now, what’s needed is the political courage to serve it. Read the full evidence-based report here: “From Pilots to Policy: Evidence from Three Years of Implementing the Whole School Food Approach in Europe.” This article has been published with funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 101036763. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Rikolto België vzw * The ultimate controlling entity is Rikolto België vzw * The political advertisement is linked to encouraging change to European policy on food systems with calls to action for EU Institutions. Reference to the Green Deal, the European Child Guarantee, and agricultural reform. More information here.

Ursula von der Leyen’s decision to provisionally implement the EU-Mercosur trade deal has unleashed a wave of outrage in Paris. It has also shown the European Commission president is increasingly prepared to take decisions without factoring France into the equation, with the end of French President Emmanuel Macron’s term at the Elysée only 14 months away. Von der Leyen announced Friday that the EU would provisionally implement its trade deal with the South American Mercosur bloc, even after the European Parliament voted last month to send the accord for review by the Court of Justice of the European Union, effectively freezing its final ratification for up to two years. The Commission chief said she consulted widely with countries and lawmakers. However, shortly after the announcement, Macron said that “for France, it’s a surprise, and an unpleasant one.” A chorus of French ministers and lawmakers also slammed the decision, accusing officials in Brussels of ignoring the will of EU citizens. Two French officials confirmed to POLITICO that the government in Paris was not informed in advance of von der Leyen’s decision to force through a deal that France has been fighting against for years, amid an overwhelming backlash from the country’s political parties, influential farmers and public opinion. Diplomats and officials from other EU members, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly on a sensitive issue, were quick to draw the conclusion that France’s influence in Brussels is fading and that the European Commission chief now thinks she can deliberately ignore the opposition of a French president who will leave power next year. “I don’t know which of the two is worse for the French: not having been informed or not having been able to block the Commission. I think the former,” said one EU government official. “Macron must have been the only person in Europe to be surprised,” joked one EU diplomat. While von der Leyen had long made clear that she wanted the deal to enter into force soon, uncertainty loomed over whether the Commission was ready to sideline the European Parliament and go for an early implementation of an agreement that would create a free-trade area among between the EU and Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, spanning 720 million people. “French officials were confident this would not happen,” said a second EU diplomat. TRADE TENSIONS French Trade Minister Nicolas Forissier, in an interview with POLITICO on Thursday, said France was aiming to use the time of the judicial review to obtain reassurances from the Commission on French requests to protect farmers. Forissier vowed “to use the additional time granted by the European Court of Justice to continue discussions with the Commission and arrive at specific answers on all issues, particularly on the question of mirror measures and [sanitary] checks.” But things went differently as von der Leyen decided there was no need to wait for the court verdict. Von der Leyen had already raised tensions with Macron in January, when she signed the Mercosur trade deal in Paraguay after a majority of EU countries backed it against France, Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary. Political instability at home and the rise of transatlantic trade tensions hindered French efforts to block or to substantially change the deal during years-long negotiations with the Commission. The EU executive received the go-ahead from EU countries to implement the deal once Mercosur countries complete their own approvals. Both Argentina and Uruguay ratified the agreement Thursday. To become final, after the court review the agreement still needs the final nod of the Parliament, which might now be harder to get after the European Commission skirted EU lawmakers. Von der Leyen didn’t want to waste time. She announced the provisional application the following day, ignoring once again the French call to wait until the end of the judicial review. In return Macron, who cannot run for a third consecutive term and is set to leave the Elysée in spring 2027, slammed von der Leyen’s Commission, saying “European citizens and their representatives [had] not been duly respected.” The dispute marks an unprecedented clash between the two. “I will never defend an agreement that is lax on imports and tough on domestic production, because it is inconsistent for European consumers and criminal for European sovereignty,” Macron said.

BRUSSELS — The EU will provisionally implement its trade deal with the South American Mercosur bloc, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced Friday, in a move that is likely to trigger a major backlash from European capitals and lawmakers opposed to the deal. The deal, to create a free-trade area spanning 720 million people, is controversial because it hasn’t yet been officially blessed by the European Parliament. Lawmakers voted last month to send it for review by the Court of Justice of the European Union, effectively freezing its final ratification for up to two years. Implementation could harden opposition in the European Parliament, antagonize skeptical countries led by France and Poland, and potentially sink the agreement when it comes to a final consent vote later. The European Commission received the go-head from EU countries in January to implement the deal once Mercosur countries complete their own approvals. Both Argentina and Uruguay ratified the agreement on Thursday. This is a developing story.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has decided a showdown with Brussels is exactly what his flagging election campaign needs.  Orbán is on the back foot at home — trailing his rival Péter Magyar by some 8 percentage points in polls ahead of the April 12 election. So he’s gone on the attack against two of his favorite bogeymen abroad: Brussels and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  In doing so he’s trying to set a trap for Magyar, the 44-year-old member of the European Parliament who is on track to beat him.   Magyar has built his poll lead through a laser-focus on the corruption, mismanagement and cronyism that he says has defined Orbán’s 15 years in power. The last thing he wants is an election race in which he is typecast as the pro-EU or pro-Ukrainian candidate.   But that’s exactly where Orbán is now trying to shift the campaign. On the international stage, Orbán’s government has taken the highly confrontational step of blocking the EU’s €90 billion financial lifeline to Ukraine — agreed at a European Council meeting in December — accusing Kyiv of slow-walking repairs to the Druzhba pipeline that supplies oil to Hungary.  The timing of Orbán’s move is hardly coincidental, given his troubles in the election race. Having engineered a conflagration with Brussels over Ukraine, he upped the ante this week by accusing Magyar’s Tisza party of being traitors, of taking the side of the EU and Zelenskyy in the standoff.   ORBÁN ON THE ATTACK It’s Orbán himself who is leading the offensive. He is styling his clash with Brussels and Kyiv as one and the same as his fight with the Tisza party, which he accused of remaining “shamefully silent” about the problems with the oil supply from Ukraine.  “In line with Brussels and Kyiv, instead of a national government, they [Tisza] want to bring a pro-Ukrainian government to power in Hungary. That is why they are not standing up for the interests of Hungarian people and Hungary,” Orbán argued in a Facebook post on Monday.  He followed up with another post saying Tisza would wreck the country’s energy sector, and insisted his ruling Fidesz party was “the safe choice in April.”  “[The opposition’s] goal is chaos, fuel shortages, and gasoline price increases before the elections. That is why they have sided with Zelenskyy, against the Hungarian people,” Orbán said.   Sidestepping the trap, Magyar hit back against Orbán’s accusations — not by defending the EU or Zelenskyy, but by claiming economic mismanagement by the prime minister was stoking the high prices and insisting fuel was cheaper in Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria.  Péter Magyar has built his poll lead through a laser-focus on the corruption, mismanagement and cronyism that he says has defined Orbán’s 15 years in power. | Bállint Szentgallay/NurPhoto via Getty Images “Orbán does not govern effectively and shows no interest in the continuously deteriorating situation of Hungarian citizens or businesses. Instead, he chooses to lie, incite hatred, and burden the country with some of the highest taxes in Europe,” Magyar said. Tisza declined to comment.   HOW PRO-EU IS MAGYAR, REALLY? For the EU, the big concern is how long Orbán, the EU leader closest to the Kremlin, will drag out this fight. Kyiv desperately needs the now-blocked €90 billion cash injection, and six weeks of uncertainty due to the Hungarian election would inflame geopolitical tensions over the war in Ukraine.   While much of Brussels is holding out for a Magyar win — largely to end Budapest’s obstructionism on Ukraine — the irony of Orbán’s attacks is that Magyar is hardly an unalloyed pro-EU politician, and far less a pro-Ukrainian one. Indeed, he is outdoing Orbán with his some of his more nationalist campaigning. Tisza, for example, voted against the €90 billion loan to Ukraine in the European Parliament and Magyar has strongly opposed plans for Kyiv’s accelerated membership in the European Union.   In an interview with POLITICO in 2024, Magyar said Tisza was pro-EU but was candid about the EU’s shortcomings. He expressed opposition to a European “superstate” and said he didn’t have “friends” in the European Parliament. That followed his first press conference in the Parliament, in which he opposed sending weapons to Ukraine. Earlier this year, Orbán’s Fidesz party sought to corner Magyar over the EU’s giant Mercosur trade deal with South America, which it opposes on the grounds it would harm Hungarian farmers. In Budapest, Orbán accused Magyar of backing the agreement and undermining farmers because Tisza sits with the center-right European People’s Party grouping in the European Parliament, which supported the trade pact.  So Orbán’s gone on the attack against two of his favorite bogeymen abroad: Brussels and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. | Ukrinform/NurPhoto via Getty Images Ultimately, however, Tisza voted in January to freeze ratification of the EU-Mercosur accord, breaking with the EPP line — a move that triggered a “shitstorm” against the Hungarian delegation at a subsequent group meeting, according to an official who was present. CALIBRATED MESSAGING Magyar’s awkward relationship with Brussels was on full display at the Munich Security Conference this month. He used the event to initiate a tentative outreach to European heavyweights including Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil, as well as Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Croatia’s Prime Minister Andrej Plenković, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.  The messaging was cautiously calibrated. Magyar said he wanted to undo the damage Orbán had done to democratic and judicial norms, but with the chief goal of restoring Hungary’s access to EU funds and standing up “for Hungarian interests.” His language on Ukraine was far cooler.   “The top priority of a future Tisza government will be to secure the EU funds Hungary is entitled to. To achieve this, we will immediately introduce strict anti-corruption measures, restore judicial independence, and safeguard the freedom of the press and higher education,” he said on X after meeting with Merz Feb. 14. While that was music to EU mainstream ears, Magyar also said he had used his talk with Poland’s Tusk to stress he didn’t support a fast-track EU membership for Kyiv.  Conspicuously, Magyar did not meet with any leader of the EU institutions. The optics would admittedly have been hard to navigate given that the Fidesz camp has flooded the streets of Budapest with AI photos of Magyar conspiring against Hungary with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. MYSTERY MAN All in all, Magyar remains an enigma to observers in both the EU and Ukraine. An MEP from the liberal Renew group in the European Parliament said: “We feel anything is better than Orbán but, honestly, I’m not sure what they are, content wise, what are the things they concretely want to do, for example in Europe and geopolitically.” While that was music to EU mainstream ears, Magyar also said he had used his talk with Poland’s Donald Tusk to stress he didn’t support a fast-track EU membership for Kyiv. | Thomas Kienzle/AFP via Getty Images Even inside the ranks of Magyar’s center-right EPP grouping, the jury remains out. “We need to see, if Magyar wins, how he will organize the government and distribute power,” said an EPP official. “But once you are in power the question is whether he will have the strength to overcome temptations or fall [to them] as Orbán did.” On Ukraine, it’s already clear that a Magyar victory would not signal an overnight thaw in ties with Kyiv. But the hope among diplomats from the EU and Kyiv is that he won’t deliberately wreck EU efforts, as Orbán has done.  “We don’t know the consequences [of the election] so we have to be careful,” said a Ukrainian government adviser, who noted they were communicating with Magyar’s team. “But by following his public speeches, it seems he is a little bit more flexible and we will expect this.”  Swedish European Affairs Minister Jessica Rosencrantz told POLITICO she was still holding out hope for a more emphatic change in Budapest’s position.  “I hope for a shift in the Hungarian approach toward Ukraine because we need to stand united for European security. Given Hungary’s own history I think it’s unbelievable that they did not show solidarity,” she said.  Ketrin Jochecová contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Next up on Ursula von der Leyen’s trade to-do list: Australia. The EU’s ally Down Under is ready to tango again as Donald Trump’s tariffs push the rest of the world closer together. Both Brussels and Canberra worry about China. And they already see eye-to-eye on issues, ranging from research funding to defense cooperation. The EU and Australia came close to a deal in October 2023, on the sidelines of a G7 meeting in Osaka, Japan. But Aussie Trade Minister Don Farrell pulled out at the last minute under pressure from the beef lobby back home. Sticking points remain: access for Australian beef and lamb to the European market; EU trade protections on specialty foods; critical minerals; and an Australian tax on luxury cars. Farrell visits Brussels on Thursday to meet the EU’s trade and agriculture commissioners, Maroš Šefčovič and Christoph Hansen. Only if they resolve those differences would the Commission chief get to fly to Australia to finally conclude a formal agreement. “I don’t do bad deals,” Farrell said before heading to Brussels. Here are five issues that need to be sorted out for a good deal to happen: ANGRY FARMERS The biggest obstacle is whether the EU will grant more access to Australian farm produce, chiefly beef and lamb. Farrell needs a deal he can sell to vocal farmers back home who effectively blocked the deal just over two years ago. It’s not only meat but also sugar, rice and dairy — even though quotas for those are less sensitive. The Australian National Farmers’ Federation said this week that it’s still looking for “significantly increased access” on all of those fields. The crux here: Australia might want more, but if the EU gives more it risks the ire of European farmers ready to protest on the doorstep of the Berlaymont. The European Parliament’s referral of the EU’s agri-heavy deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc for judicial review adds to the uncertainty. PROTECTING PARMIGIANO While the matter of protected European products on the market down under was all but solved in 2023, it’s likely this chapter will return to haunt negotiators. Australia knows very well how to use anything the EU says against it: Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, after all. Canberra signaled it was ready to set up its own version of Europe’s system of geographical indications. These, for instance, denote that Champagne can only be called that when it’s made in the eponymous region of France. They are also some non-Greek supermarkets that have to resort to calling their feta imitations “white cheese.” Australia might want more, but if the EU gives more it risks the ire of European farmers ready to protest on the doorstep of the Berlaymont. | Geoffroy van der Hasselt/AFP via Getty Images Australia is a peculiar case because, for example, Italian-heritage farmers have made parmesan cheese for generations in the same way as around Parma. They could now face limits on what they can call their product — but probably not Parmigiano Reggiano. A likely solution would allow established brands to continue to use product names for a grace period. This is why prosecco, pecorino, parmesan and feta are still under discussion, the Australian Associated Press reports. On the flip side, the EU usually offers to protect some of the other side’s products on its own market. Let’s hope they don’t come after our flat whites. RAW MATERIALS (AND THEIR PRICE) Australia holds the world’s largest lithium reserves but lacks the refining capacity to monetize them. As a result, China processes virtually all of the raw lithium that Australia produces, enabling Beijing to dominate global supply. Brussels and Canberra continued talking on this topic after the Osaka debacle, concluding a memorandum of understanding in early 2024. Australia is also a partner in Europe’s RESourceEU program to reduce dependencies on a subset of critical raw materials. And the European Investment Bank is teaming up with Australia. Ideally, a trade deal would unlock exports from Australia to Europe and also boost the confidence of European companies to invest in local refining capacity. This is true not only for lithium, but also uranium, silver, bauxite used for aluminum, and a host of others. It cuts both ways: One example of an existing project getting a boost is the Australian-owned lithium producer Vulcan Energy in Germany. So is this really a hurdle? There’s a technical one: Europe wants to avoid a dual pricing system for critical raw materials (and energy sources like natural gas) that favors domestic customers. Australia hasn’t signaled it’s ready to end the practice, however. TAXING LUXURY CARS Australia still taxes luxury vehicle imports — a relic of a bygone era when it still had a car industry of its own. The tax is a 33 percent charge on models above a certain price threshold. There’s also a 5 percent import duty on all foreign cars. Trading partners that have deals with Canberra — like Korea and Japan — saw that removed but are still charged the luxury car tax. The potential is there: Japan sold $8 billion worth of vehicles to Australia in 2024, with German only in fifth position at $2 billion. While the EU would love to pave the way for more high-end German autos to be sold Down Under, the tax is domestic legislation and not formally part of the talks. Australia was rumored in 2023 to be willing to get rid of the tax, and Albanese hinted at it again late last year. That could be a sweetener for the EU to stomach a slightly higher beef quota. THE POLITICS OF IT ALL The EU is on a roll with new trade agreements: it has signed the Mercosur deal, closed talks with India and an Australian win is close. The streak serves von der Leyen’s geopolitical agenda for Europe to stand on its own two feet economically. On the other side of the world, Albanese is in more dire need of a win. He’s under pressure over his response to the Bondi Beach terror attack in December. And even though Trump only hit Australia with a 10 percent tariff, the country needs strong alliances if it wants to weather both Chinese and American pressure. The same is true for Europe, which sees the deal as underlining its cultural and historic ties with Australia, lifting an already-strong working relationship to the next level, as with Canada. And Australia is a key member of “the West” in the Indo-Pacific where Europe needs and wants to expand its attraction and influence. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

MADRID — The Socialist Party of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez endured a major defeat on Sunday in an election in the Spanish region of Aragón, while the far right made substantial gains. The conservative People’s Party (PP), which governs the north-eastern region, came first with 34.3 percent support, but its 26 seats represented a loss of two and left it well short of a majority in the 67-seat chamber. With 99 percent of votes counted the Socialists secured 24.3 percent, good for 18 seats but representing a loss of five, equaling their worst-ever result in the region. Aragón is known as “Spain’s Ohio” because, like the U.S. state, it tends to serve a barometer of the national electoral mood. Meanwhile, the far-right Vox secured 14 seats with support of 17.9 percent, double what it won in the last election in 2023 and echoing its strong performance recently in national polls. The party campaigned hard in Aragón’s rural areas, pitching to farmers unhappy with EU regulations. “This is not the result we wanted,” said the Socialist candidate, Pilar Alegría. “An uncertain horizon has opened up in Aragón.” Sunday’s was the first of three elections scheduled in the coming months in PP-held regions in Spain, and will be followed by Castilla y León in March and Andalusia in June. Both the PP and the Socialists used the regional election to discuss broader national issues. The PP presented the election as a referendum on the tenure of Sánchez, whose coalition has been rocked by scandals affecting his party and allies. Two January train crashes that killed 47 people and triggered rail chaos around the country have compounded Sánchez’s woes. His Socialists, meanwhile, presented the Aragón vote as a chance to push back against a radical right-wing tide that is sweeping Spain and other parts of the world.  In a highly fragmented parliament, the PP’s only option to continue in government now appears to be a coalition or a less formal alliance with Vox.  The snap election was called by regional President Jorge Azcón after Vox withdrew its support for his conservative government. With many voters jumping from the PP to Vox, the far-right party is now in a strong position to seek concessions for backing the PP.