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.

BUDAPEST — If Brussels claws back €10 billion of EU funds controversially disbursed to Hungary, it will also have to recover as much as €137 billion from Poland too, Budapest’s EU affairs minister told POLITICO. The European Commission made a highly contentious decision in December 2023 to free up €10 billion of EU funds to Hungary that had been frozen because of weaknesses on rule of law deficiencies and backsliding on judicial independence. Members of the European Parliament condemned what looked like a political decision, offering a sweetener to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán just before a key summit where the EU needed his support for Ukraine aid. On Feb. 12, Court of Justice of the European Union Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta recommended annulling the decision, meaning Hungary may have to return the funds if the court follows in its final ruling in the coming months. Orbán has slammed the idea of a repayment as “absurd.” János Bóka, Hungary’s EU affairs minister, told POLITICO that clawing back the €10 billion from the euroskeptic government in Budapest would mean that Brussels should also be recovering cash from Poland, led by pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk. “We believe that the Commission’s decision was lawful … the opinion, I think, it’s legally excessive,” Bóka said. He warned that “if the Advocate General’s opinion is followed then the Commission would be legally required to freeze all the EU money going to Poland as well, which I think in any case the Commission is not willing to do.” The legal opinion on Hungary states the the Commission was wrong in unfreezing the funds “before the required legislative reforms had entered into force or were being applied,” Ćapeta said in February. Bóka said that would seem to describe the situation in Poland too. In February 2024, the EU executive released €137 billion in frozen funds to Tusk’s government in exchange for promised judicial reforms. But these have since been blocked by President Karol Nawrocki as tensions between the two worsen — spelling trouble for Poland’s continued access to EU cash. “It’s very easy to get the EU funds if they want to give it to you, as we could see in the case of Poland, where they could get the funds with a page-and-a-half action plan, which is still not implemented because of legislative difficulty,” Bóka said. Fundamentally, that is why Bóka said he believed “the court will not issue any judgment that would put Poland in a difficult position.” Bóka risks leaving office with Orbán after the April 12 election, with opposition leader Péter Magyar leading in the polls on a platform of unlocking EU funds, tackling corruption, and improving healthcare and education. The Commission is, separately, withholding another €18 billion of Hungarian funds — €7.6 billion in cohesion funds and €10.4 billion from the coronavirus recovery package. “I think Péter Magyar is right when he says that the Commission wants to give this money to them … in exchange, like they did in the case of Poland, they want alignment in key policy areas,” he said, “like support for Ukraine, green-lighting progress in Ukraine’s accession process, decoupling from Russian oil and gas, and implementing the Migration Pact.” “Just like in the case of Poland, they might allow rhetorical deviation from the line, but in key areas, they want alignment and compliance.” Poland’s Tusk has been vocal against EU laws, such as the migration pact and carbon emission reduction laws. Bóka also accused the Commission of deciding “not to engage in meaningful discussions [on EU funds] as the elections drew closer.” He added that if Orbán’s Fidesz were to win the election, “neither us nor the Commission will have any other choice than to sit down and discuss how we can make progress in this process.” Legal experts are cautious about assessing the potential impact of such a ruling, noting that the funds for Poland and Hungary were frozen under different legal frameworks. However, there is broad agreement that the case is likely to set some form of precedent over how the Commission handles disbursements of EU funds to its members. If the legal opinion is followed, “there could be a strong case against disbursing funds against Poland,” said Jacob Öberg, EU law professor at University of Southern Denmark. He said, however, that it is not certain the court will follow Ćapeta’s opinion because the cases assess different national contexts. Paul Dermine, EU law professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles agreed the court ruling could “at least in theory, have repercussions on what happened in the Polish case,” but said that he thought judges would follow the legal opinion “as the wrongdoings of the Commission in the Hungarian case are quite blatant.”

Anton, a 44-year-old Russian soldier who heads a workshop responsible for repairing and supplying drones, was at his kitchen table when he learned last month that Elon Musk’s SpaceX had cut off access to Starlink terminals used by Russian forces. He scrambled for alternatives, but none offered unlimited internet, data plans were restrictive, and coverage did not extend to the areas of Ukraine where his unit operated. It’s not only American tech executives who are narrowing communications options for Russians. Days later, Russian authorities began slowing down access nationwide to the messaging app Telegram, the service that frontline troops use to coordinate directly with one another and bypass slower chains of command. “All military work goes through Telegram — all communication,” Anton, whose name has been changed because he fears government reprisal, told POLITICO in voice messages sent via the app. “That would be like shooting the entire Russian army in the head.” Telegram would be joining a home screen’s worth of apps that have become useless to Russians. Kremlin policymakers have already blocked or limited access to WhatsApp, along with parent company Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Microsoft’s LinkedIn, Google’s YouTube, Apple’s FaceTime, Snapchat and X, which like SpaceX is owned by Musk. Encrypted messaging apps Signal and Discord, as well as Japanese-owned Viber, have been inaccessible since 2024. Last month, President Vladimir Putin signed a law requiring telecom operators to block cellular and fixed internet access at the request of the Federal Security Service. Shortly after it took effect on March 3, Moscow residents reported widespread problems with mobile internet, calls and text messages across all major operators for several days, with outages affecting mobile service and Wi-Fi even inside the State Duma. Those decisions have left Russians increasingly cut off from both the outside world and one another, complicating battlefield coordination and disrupting online communities that organize volunteer aid, fundraising and discussion of the war effort. Deepening digital isolation could turn Russia into something akin to “a large, nuclear-armed North Korea and a junior partner to China,” according to Alexander Gabuev, the Berlin-based director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. In April, the Kremlin is expected to escalate its campaign against Telegram — already one of Russia’s most popular messaging platforms, but now in the absence of other social-media options, a central hub for news, business and entertainment. It may block the platform altogether. That is likely to fuel an escalating struggle between state censorship and the tools people use to evade it, with Russia’s place in the world hanging in the balance. “It’s turned into a war,” said Mikhail Klimarev, executive director of the internet Protection Society, a digital rights group that monitors Russia’s censorship infrastructure. “A guerrilla war. They hunt down the VPNs they can see, they block them — and the ‘partisans’ run, build new bunkers, and come back.” THE APP THAT RUNS THE WAR On Feb. 4, SpaceX tightened the authentication system that Starlink terminals use to connect to its satellite network, introducing stricter verification for registered devices. The change effectively blocked many terminals operated by Russian units relying on unauthorized connections, cutting Starlink traffic inside Ukraine by roughly 75 percent, according to internet traffic analysis by Doug Madory, an analyst at the U.S. network monitoring firm Kentik. The move threw Russian operations into disarray, allowing Ukraine to make battlefield gains. Russia has turned to a workaround widely used before satellite internet was an option: laying fiber-optic lines, from rear areas toward frontline battlefield positions. Until then, Starlink terminals had allowed drone operators to stream live video through platforms such as Discord, which is officially blocked in Russia but still sometimes used by the Russian military via VPNs, to commanders at multiple levels. A battalion commander could watch an assault unfold in real time and issue corrections — “enemy ahead” or “turn left” — via radio or Telegram. What once required layers of approval could now happen in minutes. Satellite-connected messaging apps became the fastest way to transmit coordinates, imagery and targeting data. But on Feb. 10, Roskomnadzor, the Russian communications regulator, began slowing down Telegram for users across Russia, citing alleged violations of Russian law. Russian news outlet RBC reported, citing two sources, that authorities plan to shut down Telegram in early April — though not on the front line. In mid-February, Digital Development Minister Maksut Shadayev said the government did not yet intend to restrict Telegram at the front but hoped servicemen would gradually transition to other platforms. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said this week the company could avoid a full ban by complying with Russian legislation and maintaining what he described as “flexible contact” with authorities. Roskomnadzor has accused Telegram of failing to protect personal data, combat fraud and prevent its use by terrorists and criminals. Similar accusations have been directed at other foreign tech platforms. In 2022, a Russian court designated Meta an “extremist organization” after the company said it would temporarily allow posts calling for violence against Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine war — a decision authorities used to justify blocking Facebook and Instagram in Russia and increasing pressure on the company’s other services, including WhatsApp. Telegram founder Pavel Durov, a Russian-born entrepreneur now based in the United Arab Emirates, says the throttiling is being used as a pretext to push Russians toward a government-controlled messaging app designed for surveillance and political censorship. That app is MAX, which was launched in March 2025 and has been compared to China’s WeChat in its ambition to anchor a domestic digital ecosystem. Authorities are increasingly steering Russians toward MAX through employers, neighborhood chats and the government services portal Gosuslugi — where citizens retrieve documents, pay fines and book appointments — as well as through banks and retailers. The app’s developer, VK, reports rapid user growth, though those figures are difficult to independently verify. “They didn’t just leave people to fend for themselves — you could say they led them by the hand through that adaptation by offering alternatives,” said Levada Center pollster Denis Volkov, who has studied Russian attitudes toward technology use. The strategy, he said, has been to provide a Russian or state-backed alternative for the majority, while stopping short of fully criminalizing workarounds for more technologically savvy users who do not want to switch. Elena, a 38-year-old Yekaterinburg resident whose surname has been withheld because she fears government reprisal, said her daughter’s primary school moved official communication from WhatsApp to MAX without consulting parents. She keeps MAX installed on a separate tablet that remains mostly in a drawer — a version of what some Russians call a “MAXophone,” gadgets solely for that app, without any other data being left on those phones for the (very real) fear the government could access it. “It works badly. Messages are delayed. Notifications don’t come,” she said. “I don’t trust it … And this whole situation just makes people angry.” THE VPN ARMS RACE Unlike China’s centralized “Great Firewall,” which filters traffic at the country’s digital borders, Russia’s system operates internally. Internet providers are required to route traffic through state-installed deep packet inspection equipment capable of controlling and analyzing data flows in real time. “It’s not one wall,” Klimarev said. “It’s thousands of fences. You climb one, then there’s another.” The architecture allows authorities to slow services without formally banning them — a tactic used against YouTube before its web address was removed from government-run domain-name servers last month. Russian law explicitly provides government authority for blocking websites on grounds such as extremism, terrorism, illegal content or violations of data regulations, but it does not clearly define throttling — slowing traffic rather than blocking it outright — as a formal enforcement mechanism. “The slowdown isn’t described anywhere in legislation,” Klimarev said. “It’s pressure without procedure.” In September, Russia banned advertising for virtual private network services that citizens use to bypass government-imposed restrictions on certain apps or sites. By Klimarev’s estimate, roughly half of Russian internet users now know what a VPN is, and millions pay for one. Polling last year by the Levada Center, Russia’s only major independent pollster, suggests regular use is lower, finding about one-quarter of Russians said they have used VPN services. Russian courts can treat the use of anonymization tools as an aggravating factor in certain crimes — steps that signal growing pressure on circumvention technologies without formally outlawing them. In February, the Federal Antimonopoly Service opened what appears to be the first case against a media outlet for promoting a VPN after the regional publication Serditaya Chuvashiya advertised such a service on its Telegram channel. Surveys in recent years have shown that many Russians, particularly older citizens, support tighter internet regulation, often citing fraud, extremism and online safety. That sentiment gives authorities political space to tighten controls even when the restrictions are unpopular among more technologically savvy users. Even so, the slowdown of Telegram drew criticism from unlikely quarters, including Sergei Mironov, a longtime Kremlin ally and leader of the Just Russia party. In a statement posted on his Telegram channel on Feb. 11, he blasted the regulators behind the move as “idiots,” accusing them of undermining soldiers at the front. He said troops rely on the app to communicate with relatives and organize fundraising for the war effort, warning that restricting it could cost lives. While praising the state-backed messaging app MAX, he argued that Russians should be free to choose which platforms they use. Pro-war Telegram channels frame the government’s blocking techniques as sabotage of the war effort. Ivan Philippov, who tracks Russia’s influential military bloggers, said the reaction inside that ecosystem to news about Telegram has been visceral “rage.” Unlike Starlink, whose cutoff could be blamed on a foreign company, restrictions on Telegram are viewed as self-inflicted. Bloggers accuse regulators of undermining the war effort. Telegram is used not only for battlefield coordination but also for volunteer fundraising networks that provide basic logistics the state does not reliably cover — from transport vehicles and fuel to body armor, trench materials and even evacuation equipment. Telegram serves as the primary hub for donations and reporting back to supporters. “If you break Telegram inside Russia, you break fundraising,” Philippov said. “And without fundraising, a lot of units simply don’t function.” Few in that community trust MAX, citing technical flaws and privacy concerns. Because MAX operates under Russian data-retention laws and is integrated with state services, many assume their communications would be accessible to authorities. Philippov said the app’s prominent defenders are largely figures tied to state media or the presidential administration. “Among independent military bloggers, I haven’t seen a single person who supports it,” he said. Small groups of activists attempted to organize rallies in at least 11 Russian cities, including Moscow, Irkutsk and Novosibirsk, in defense of Telegram. Authorities rejected or obstructed most of the proposed demonstrations — in some cases citing pandemic-era restrictions, weather conditions or vague security concerns — and in several cases revoked previously issued permits. In Novosibirsk, police detained around 15 people ahead of a planned rally. Although a small number of protests were formally approved, no large-scale demonstrations ultimately took place. THE POWER TO PULL THE PLUG The new law signed last month allows Russia’s Federal Security Service to order telecom operators to block cellular and fixed internet access. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said subsequent shutdowns of service in Moscow were linked to security measures aimed at protecting critical infrastructure and countering drone threats, adding that such limitations would remain in place “for as long as necessary.” In practice, the disruptions rarely amount to a total communications blackout. Most target mobile internet rather than all services, while voice calls and SMS often continue to function. Some domestic websites and apps — including government portals or banking services — may remain accessible through “whitelists,” meaning authorities allow certain services to keep operating even while broader internet access is restricted. The restrictions are typically localized and temporary, affecting specific regions or parts of cities rather than the entire country. Internet disruptions have increasingly become a tool of control beyond individual platforms. Research by the independent outlet Meduza and the monitoring project Na Svyazi has documented dozens of regional internet shutdowns and mobile network restrictions across Russia, with disruptions occurring regularly since May 2025. The communications shutdown, and uncertainty around where it will go next, is affecting life for citizens of all kinds, from the elderly struggling to contact family members abroad to tech-savvy users who juggle SIM cards and secondary phones to stay connected. Demand has risen for dated communication devices — including walkie-talkies, pagers and landline phones — along with paper maps as mobile networks become less reliable, according to retailers interviewed by RBC. “It feels like we’re isolating ourselves,” said Dmitry, 35, who splits his time between Moscow and Dubai and whose surname has been withheld to protect his identity under fear of governmental reprisal. “Like building a sovereign grave.” Those who track Russian public opinion say the pattern is consistent: irritation followed by adaptation. When Instagram and YouTube were blocked or slowed in recent years, their audiences shrank rapidly as users migrated to alternative services rather than mobilizing against the restrictions. For now, Russia’s digital tightening resembles managed escalation rather than total isolation. Officials deny plans for a full shutdown, and even critics say a complete severing would cripple banking, logistics and foreign trade. “It’s possible,” Klimarev said. “But if they do that, the internet won’t be the main problem anymore.”

BERLIN — Chancellor Friedrich Merz often warns that Germany is living through deeply insecure times — and increasingly, it looks like his own government could become a casualty. Merz’s ideologically divided government is under growing pressure to respond to rising anxiety in Germany over the country’s economic future as key manufacturing sectors decline and the fallout from wars in Ukraine and Iran mounts. Merz’s coalition of conservatives and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) is increasingly at odds over how to revive Germany’s stagnating economy. Both parties were defeated by the Greens in a vote in the state of  Baden-Württemberg on Sunday, and polls suggest further chastening losses are in store when voters in two eastern German states — bastions of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) — vote later this year. In Baden-Württemberg, where the AfD finished a strong third, Merz’s conservatives came up shy in their effort to recapture power in a state that was long a conservative power base, while the SPD, Germany’s oldest political party, suffered its worst election performance since World War II, coming in with a humiliating 5.5 percent.  The election “was one of the darkest days I could imagine,” said Andreas Stoch, the SPD’s lead candidate in Baden-Württemberg. “To be honest, I never could have imagined standing in front of the press to announce a single-digit election result for the SPD.” As political pressure rises, both the SPD and Merz’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) are being pushed to reframe a series of policies — from reforms meant to restore economic competitiveness to the government’s stance on the war in Iran — to appeal to their bases. That could well make the divergent coalition far more fractious. SPD’s lead candidate in Baden-Württemberg Andreas Stoch. | Kay Nietfeld/picture alliance via Getty Images Merz on Monday said his coalition will endure — less out of conviction, but more due to the inescapable political reality, calling it “the only option for a stable government” in the political center given the rise of radical parties.  “I have already spoken with the two party leaders of the SPD, and we agree that we will, of course, continue the work of the coalition and that we will also try to shape this work in the interests of the country so that we can emerge from our country’s economic weakness,” he said. There’s another electoral test coming in less than two weeks, in the the small southwestern state of Rhineland-Palatinate. Polling suggests the SPD and CDU are neck and neck in the race to win the state, and that the AfD is poised to more than double its support. ‘NOT OUR WAR’ One of the major areas of disagreements between Merz’s conservatives and the SPD involves reforms intended to make the economy more competitive. While Merz’s conservatives are pushing for cuts to social spending, the SPD is under rising pressure to preserve the safety net in order to prevent the defection of what remains of its socialist base. Germany’s constitutional spending limits are another area of tension. While the coalition partners agreed to loosen the rules for defense purposes, SPD lawmakers want to further relax them. Merz’s conservatives, however, reject that notion, and Merz doubled down on that position on Monday. “Further debt is out of the question,” he said. Another issue that is increasingly dividing the coalition is Merz’s supportive stance on the U.S. and Israel’s attacks against Iran. The chancellor reiterated that support Monday. Friedrich Merz has vowed that his conservatives will maintain their “firewall” around the AfD, refusing to govern in national and state coalitions with the far-right party. | Nadja Wohlleben/Getty Images “You know that Iran supports Russia in its war of aggression against Ukraine, that Iran is largely responsible for the terror of Hamas, that Iran is the center of international terrorism, and that this center must be shut down, and the Americans and Israelis are doing that in their own way,” Merz said. The vast majority of Germans are against the strikes on Iran, according to surveys, and SPD lawmakers argue that the strikes are a violation of international law. “I say very clearly: This is not our war,” SPD national leader Lars Klingbeil, who also serves as Germany’s vice chancellor and finance minister, said in an interview with RND over the weekend.  In Baden-Württemberg, surveys suggest concerns about wars abroad fused with worries about the economy to generate a diffuse sense of anxiety. Almost three quarters (72 percent) of voters said they have “great concerns” about Europe’s security, according to a survey done for German public television, and more than half (56 percent) said they feared they wouldn’t have enough money in old age. Perhaps most concerning for Merz’s government is that the AfD gained significant vote share in Baden-Württemberg despite facing allegations of systemic nepotism that threaten to shatter its self-styled anti-establishment image. In the two states in the former East Germany where elections are to be held in September, the AfD is far ahead of all other parties in polls. The Russia-friendly party’s popularity in the East is partly driven by concerns over the Merz government’s support for Ukraine; in one recent poll carried out in four eastern German states, a majority of people said they believe that this support “goes too far.“ Merz has vowed that his conservatives will maintain their “firewall” around the AfD, refusing to govern in national and state coalitions with the far-right party. But AfD leaders believe that if they continue to gain ground by hitting Merz’s party on the economy, that firewall will crumble. “If the conservatives get five bad results in a row, at some point the pressure will become so great that it will either lead to their destruction or the firewall will be gone,” said Marc Bernhard, a national AfD lawmaker from Baden-Württemberg. “The conservatives will have to make a move. That will be this year’s outcome.”

ROME — U.S. President Donald Trump’s airstrikes on Iran are creating a problem for his ally Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni ahead of a high-stakes referendum on March 22-23, which polls suggest she risks losing. While the nationwide referendum is ostensibly about judicial reform, it has rapidly snowballed into a broader vote of confidence in Meloni and her right-wing government, Italy’s most stable in years. Meloni’s close alliance with Trump now threatens her political fortunes as he is highly unpopular in Italy, with 77 percent of people holding an “unfavorable” view of him according to the pollster Yougov. The war is also exacerbating widespread fears about an energy price shock — a major factor in a country that already pays some of the EU’s highest power prices. That hostility toward the U.S. president, as well as fears over the impact of the war on household bills, means Meloni is now treading a tightrope, avoiding criticizing her powerful ally in the White House while reassuring voters that Rome will not be dragged into the war. In a political compromise, Meloni on Thursday pledged air-defense support to Gulf states hit by retaliatory fire from Iran, and her defense minister said Italy would send “naval assets” to protect Cyprus. She is simultaneously insisting, however, that Italy will not give direct support to the U.S.-Israeli war against Tehran, and notes that U.S. bases in Italy are authorized only to offer logistical support, not to conduct offensive operations. “We’re not at war; we don’t want to go to war,” she told RTL radio on Thursday. This balancing act over Iran could hardly come at a worse time for Meloni. Polls now suggest the referendum is too close to call, and that much will depend on the turnout. Should she lose, it would be a major set-back for a politician who has enjoyed an air of invincibility at home and on the EU stage in recent years. The Italian leader has invested heavily in her relationship with Trump, hoping to position herself as a kind of European “Trump whisperer” capable of maintaining influence in Washington. But that strategy is now beginning to carry political costs at home, with Italy’s marginal role in U.S. strategic decision-making laid bare by the stranding of her Defense Minister Guido Crosetto in Dubai last week, as the strikes unfolded without prior warning. Crosetto himself later conceded the powerlessness of America’s European allies in a parliamentary debate. He admitted the attack on Iran had “certainly occurred outside the rules of international law” but added no government — European or otherwise — could have prevented the strikes. The potential use of U.S. military bases in Italy also risks becoming politically explosive in a country where the public has historically been wary of being drawn into U.S.-led conflicts. The government insisted that the use of bases such as Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily is limited to logistical and technical support covered by long-standing bilateral agreements. Using Italian soil to provide support for strikes would require the government’s permission, which has not been requested, Meloni said in her comments to RTL on Thursday. In a political compromise, Giorgia Meloni on Thursday pledged air-defense support to Gulf states hit by retaliatory fire from Iran. | Antonio Masiello/Getty Images Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani told parliament that the government’s actions were meant to protect Italian citizens in the region as well as shipping lanes, and to prevent a spike in energy prices. “We are not just addressing Trump’s positions; the safety of our fellow citizens is the priority.” Conscious of the danger posed by soaring energy prices, Meloni on Tuesday summoned energy leaders to her office for ministerial talks on energy security. She told Italian radio that her government was “working incessantly” on stemming price rises in food and energy. Sensing her political vulnerability, however, opposition parties have criticized her for refusing to condemn the strikes and over her subservience to the U.S. During the debate in the parliament, Angelo Bonelli of the Green and Left Alliance accused the government of  being subservient to Trump. “You are leading Italy into war, minister. Do you know why? Because when a military aircraft arrives, be it a cargo plane or something else, and goes to perform maintenance or something else, those planes will then go bomb, they will go into the theater of war, they will provide military logistical support,” he said. “What’s the difference between military logistical support and someone who goes bombing? It means being at war, and we don’t agree. No, thank you!” Arnaldo Lomuti, a lawmaker from the populist 5Star Movement, quipped that Rome should distance itself from Washington and Israel, requesting that the government “impose sanctions against the United States, and present a military aid package for Iran.” Analyst Leo Goretti of the Istituto d’Affari Internazionali said Meloni “is keeping a low profile, well aware that public opinion is overwhelmingly against Italian involvement in the war, while needing not to damage relations with Trump.” Jacopo Barigazzi contributed to this report.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Friedrich Merz reist nach China. Mit einer 30-köpfigen Wirtschaftsdelegation und klaren Worten im Gepäck. Kurz vor dem Abflug hat der Kanzler das Land als globalen Machtfaktor beschrieben, der Abhängigkeiten ausnutzt, Taiwan unter Druck setzt und die internationale Ordnung in seinem Sinne neu deutet. Gordon Repinski analysiert, wie der Kanzler die kritische Perspektive darauf und wirtschaftspolitische Interessen Deutschlands auf seiner Reise in Einklang bringen will. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht BDI-Hauptgeschäftsführerin Tanja Gönner über Wettbewerb mit China, De-Risking, Exportkontrollen bei Seltenen Erden und die Balance zwischen strategischer Eigenständigkeit und wirtschaftlicher Kooperation. Bei den Grünen steht eine weitreichende Parteireform an. Maximilian Stascheit über ein neues Präsidium, Generalsekretär, weniger basisdemokratische Elemente. Die Partei will ihre Strukturen stärker an Union und SPD angleichen. Zwei Jahre POLITICO Deutschland. Beim Jubiläum im Axel-Springer-Hochhaus diskutieren u.a. Julia Klöckner, Karsten Wildberger, Ricarda Lang, Tim Klüssendorf und Florence Gaub über Debattenkultur, Reformfähigkeitg in der Politik. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von Roche Deutschland: Deutschlands Zukunft entscheidet sich bei Innovation. Darum investieren wir heute Milliarden in Forschung, Produktion und Wertschöpfung in Deutschland – für Souveränität, Sicherheit und Unabhängigkeit. Denn klar ist: Wo Innovation ausgebremst wird, verliert eine Schlüsselindustrie an Tempo. Und Deutschland an gesunder Zukunft.**

Donald Trump launched a fresh attack Wednesday on Keir Starmer, lambasting a deal the British prime minster painstakingly struck with Mauritius over the Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos Islands. In a post on Truth Social, the U.S. president — whose own State Department had signaled tentative backing for the agreement just a day before — urged Starmer: “DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!” The move is likely to trigger whiplash in the British government, which believed it had once again secured U.S. blessing after a Trump post in January excoriated a deal his own administration had formally backed in 2025. Under the arrangement, struck last year after months of negotiations, the joint U.S.-U.K. base will remain under the control of both countries for the next 99 years under a lease agreement. But Trump posted Wednesday: “I have been telling Prime Minister Keir Starmer, of the United Kingdom, that Leases are no good when it comes to Countries, and that he is making a big mistake by entering a 100 Year Lease with whoever it is that is ‘claiming’ Right, Title, and Interest to Diego Garcia, strategically located in the Indian Ocean.” The Mauritian government — which has long claimed it was forced to give up the Chagos Islands to make way for the base in the 1960s — will receive payments from the U.K. for the new set-up, and gains ultimate sovereignty over the former British imperial possession. While Trump on Wednesday nodded to a “strong and powerful” relationship with the U.K., he warned Starmer “is losing control of this important Island by claims of entities never known of before.” “In our opinion, they are fictitious in nature,” he added. In an apparent warning that the U.S. could exert further pressure if tensions ramp up in the Middle East, Trump said: “Should Iran decide not to make a Deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in [England’s] Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime — An attack that would potentially be made on the United Kingdom, as well as other friendly Countries.” Starmer, he said, should “not lose control, for any reason, of Diego Garcia, by entering a tenuous, at best, 100 Year Lease.” Allowing the land to be taken away would be “a blight on our Great Ally.” The U.S. president concluded: “We will always be ready, willing, and able to fight for the U.K., but they have to remain strong in the face of Wokeism, and other problems put before them. DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!” The attack comes just a day after the U.S. Department of State issued a statement saying it “supports” the agreement, a move interpreted as progress in London. Legislation finalizing the agreement was expected to return to the House of Lords next week after being delayed. The stated aims of the deal are to settle the future of the disputed territory and to “complete the process of decolonisation of Mauritius,” with the U.K. arguing it had moved to head off potential legal action in international courts. Senior opposition figures in Britain’s Conservative and Reform UK parties have been lobbying against the deal, which will cost Britain around £3.4 billion over the initial 99-year lease. The U.K. Foreign Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Sam Blewett contributed reporting.

NEW YORK — President Donald Trump on Monday asked a New York appeals court to overturn his criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money case that made him a felon as he plotted a path back to the White House last year. In a 96-page filing, Trump’s lawyers relied on many of the same arguments that Trump previously made before, during and immediately following the 2024 trial, including that the conviction should be thrown out in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and that the judge who oversaw the trial should have recused himself because he made political contributions. “This case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom, let alone resulted in a conviction,” his lawyers, a six-person team of Sullivan & Cromwell attorneys, wrote. The appeal is just one of Trump’s attempts to overturn his conviction last May of 34 counts of business fraud for his effort to conceal a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. He has separately asked a federal appeals court to transfer his state criminal case to federal court. Such a move would pave the way for Trump to eventually ask the Supreme Court to erase his criminal record by tossing his conviction on presidential immunity grounds. Though Trump has suffered few consequences as a result of the conviction — he won reelection in November and was subsequently sentenced to no punishment in January — he’ll still carry the title of felon unless an appellate court overturns the case. Trump’s lawyers argued in the filing Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, issued more than a month after a New York jury convicted Trump in the hush money case, meant prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office should have been precluded from using evidence connected to Trump’s “official acts” as president during his first term. That evidence, his lawyers wrote, included testimony about conversations between Trump and Hope Hicks, who was then the White House communications director, as well as Trump’s social media posts. Late last year, the trial judge, Justice Juan Merchan, rejected the notion that the immunity ruling applied to the evidence used in the case, finding that evidence at issue related not to Trump’s official acts, but instead to his private conduct — specifically, his effort to conceal a hush money payment to Daniels. Trump’s lawyers also took aim at Merchan himself, as they did numerous times during the course of the prosecution, writing that “his impartiality was reasonably in doubt” because of small-dollar political contributions he made to Democratic candidates or causes in 2020. They also cited his daughter’s work for a digital agency whose clients include a number of Democratic officials. When Trump’s lawyers made the same arguments in 2023, asking Merchan to recuse himself, the judge disclosed that he had sought guidance earlier that year from the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics about several issues Trump subsequently raised. The judge said the committee had issued an advisory opinion regarding his daughter’s employment that concluded: “We see nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests.”

The State Department rebuffed a recent ruling from the International Court of Justice on Wednesday, defending Israel on a court opinion that found the Israeli government is obligated to facilitate a stream of aid to Gaza. The ICJ ruling — issued earlier Wednesday — asserted Israel has an obligation under human rights law to allow essential aid to reach Gaza in collaboration with United Nations agencies. In a post on X shortly after, the State Department slammed the decision as “corrupt,” defending both Israel’s and the Trump administration’s actions in the region while also reiterating long-held allegations tying the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees to Hamas. “As President Trump and Secretary Rubio work tirelessly to bring peace to the region, this so-called ‘court’ issues a nakedly politicized non-binding ‘advisory opinion’ unfairly bashes Israel and gives UNRWA a free pass for its deep entanglement with and material support for Hamas terrorism,” the State Department wrote in a statement. “This ICJ’s ongoing abuse of its advisory opinion discretion suggests that it is nothing more than a partisan political tool, which can be weaponized against Americans,” the agency continued. The Trump administration has looked to sever ties with UNRWA due to claims that some of its members were involved in the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks against Israel. The ICJ found Wednesday that Israel “has not substantiated its allegations that a significant part of UNRWA employees ‘are members of Hamas … or other terrorist factions.’” In Wednesday’s ruling, the court said the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services had investigated 18 UNRWA staff members, with the cooperation of Israel, and dismissed nine members who “might have been involved” in the attack. The court said investigators “found either no or insufficient evidence to support the involvement of the other ten investigated persons.” The court also demanded Israel “co-operate in good faith” with the United Nations by providing assistance to the region. “The State of Israel has an obligation under international human rights law to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including through the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the court wrote. The court’s advisory opinion outlines other obligations Israel must adhere to as the country continues to take steps toward ending the war, like protecting access to medical services, prohibiting forcible deportations from the region and prohibiting the use of starvation of civilians as “a method of warfare.”

Last week, as the leaders of other Western nations used their trips to the United Nations to announce recognition of a Palestinian state, President Donald Trump was able to do little but watch disapprovingly. But now that a question about Israel is coming to the fore in a very different international organization, Trump finds himself with potentially much more power. Next week, the executive committee of soccer’s European governing body UEFA could vote to suspend Israel from the continental federation where its teams have competed internationally since the 1990s. Dozens of UEFA members have encouraged the organization to reconsider Israel’s standing, which could begin a process of effectively banishing the country entirely from international soccer, much as UEFA and its global analogue FIFA did in 2022 with Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. Trump, who has proposed undoing the Russian ban as part of a potential resolution to its war with Ukraine, now may be the only world leader with the influence to keep Israel from the same fate. It is an unanticipated source of influence for Trump in his second term, derived entirely from the United States’ temporary position as the primary host of next summer’s World Cup. “We will absolutely work to fully stop any effort to attempt to ban Israel’s national soccer team from the World Cup,” a State Department spokesperson told POLITICO. Trump has dangled the ability to compete as a possible reward for Russia to end its war in Ukraine and is expected to enforce his antagonistic posture toward Iran by blocking the country’s fans from traveling into the U.S. to cheer on their team. Some prominent Brazilians fear his administration will limit visas to spectators or government officials from their nation, too, as a way of gaining an upper hand in trade negotiations. “We know soccer is so important to so many countries all around the world,” White House FIFA World Cup Taskforce head Andrew Giuliani told POLITICO last month. “The president knows that better than anybody, and I think he’s willing to utilize whatever he has to to actually create peace around the world.” SWITCH OF PLAY When FIFA awarded the United States co-hosting duties for the 2026 tournament, Trump celebrated it as personal affirmation. “I fought very hard to get it in the U.S., Mexico and Canada,” he said in June 2018. “We are very honored to be chosen.” But Trump did not expect to be in office when the tournament took place in the summer of 2026. Now that it is months away, Trump is finding that being at the center of the world’s preeminent sporting event — and the practical and symbolic power that accompanies it — provides him a new, unexpected tool to use to advance American interests. Trump has grasped for leverage in international negotiations wherever he can find it, often mixing issues traditional diplomats would keep at a distance. He threatened to impose tariffs on French wine unless the country cut its tax on digital services, and on all imports from Mexico if it did not curb outbound migration. He floated intervening in the prosecution of a Huawei executive to help secure a trade deal with China. Trump expressed a willingness to mix sports and diplomacy in May, when he learned during the inaugural meeting of his White House task force that Russia was forbidden from participating in the tournament. The country had been under a joint ban from FIFA and UEFA, dating from the early days of the Ukraine invasion in February 2022, which excluded Russian teams from all international competition. (Those policies have since been relaxed to permit youth teams to compete under certain conditions.) Trump suggested that allowing Russia to compete again “could be a good incentive” for the country to end the war, a top diplomatic priority that continues to elude and frustrate Trump. “We want to get them to stop,” said Trump, sitting next to FIFA President Gianni Infantino. “Five thousand young people a week are being killed. That’s not even believable.” During another White House visit by Infantino three months later, Trump again invoked Vladimir Putin, this time brandishing a photograph of the two men together in an attempt to spur Russia’s president to resume negotiations over a possible truce. “He’s been very respectful of me and of our country, but not so respectful of others,” Trump said in the Oval Office, with the World Cup trophy at his side. “He may be coming and he might not, depending on what happens. We have a lot of things coming in the next couple of weeks!” A senior White House official granted anonymity to discuss Trump’s thinking on the World Cup said that the president’s priority is to showcase American ingenuity, spotlight domestic infrastructure and highlight the economic impact of his policies on the country’s cities — not to use tournament plans as leverage in other negotiations. But if they yield progress toward ending wars as a byproduct, the official said, Trump would happily accept it. James Talarico on immigration, his faith, and how Democrats are getting it wrong Much of Trump’s new influence comes from his close personal rapport with Infantino, who has spent significant time ingratiating himself with American political figures and raising his public profile. He has met with Trump at least a dozen times and traveled the country on a campaign-style tour of host cities for the World Cup and this year’s Club World Cup. Now the State Department may be counting on that relationship, as the Trump administration tries to aid an ally losing support from other Western countries from also losing its position on the soccer field. THE WANDERING TEAM Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the country has struggled to find a permanent home in the governing structure of international soccer. Unlike most national teams, which fight for World Cup places against other teams on their continent, Israel is functionally unable to play against its neighbors due to an Arab League boycott in place since the country’s 1948 founding. (Israel won its sole major international trophy, the 1964 Asian Cup, only after 11 of the 15 other competitors withdrew.) After a brief period competing as a far-flung outlier in the Oceania Football Confederation, Israel joined the Union of European Football Associations in 1991. Instead of traveling to Beirut or Kuala Lumpur for foreign matches, Israeli players are now more likely to end up in Dublin or Athens. That has subjected Israel to new political pressures since the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, and its military response. Then, citing security concerns, UEFA decided to indefinitely relocate all international matches from Israel, forcing the country’s teams to play in neutral locations overseas. The country has played its home matches for World Cup qualifying in Hungary. The situation has grown even more complicated as European public opinion has turned aggressively against Israel amid its siege of Gaza. Many European clubs no longer want to host Israeli squads in continent-wide tournaments. When the Israeli national team has traveled to play qualifying matches in other countries, some national governments have imposed travel restrictions on players, while others limited stadium attendance due to security concerns. The national team, which remains in contention to reach next year’s World Cup, now faces two crucial matches next month in countries whose soccer leadership have been critical of its actions in Gaza. Italy’s federation president has said “there is nobody who could be indifferent to this feeling of suffering and pain,” while the Norwegian Football Federation announced in August that it would donate proceeds from the match to organizations delivering aid in Gaza. “Neither we nor other organizations can remain indifferent to the humanitarian suffering and disproportionate attacks that the civilian population in Gaza has been subjected to for a long time,” federation president Lise Klaveness said then. Well over half of UEFA’s 55 member associations have called on its leadership to take action against Israel, a high-ranking UEFA official told POLITICO, prompting ongoing discussions within soccer’s governing body about how to deal with Israeli clubs and the national team. UEFA’s executive committee could vote to suspend Israeli club teams from European club tournaments. Maccabi Tel Aviv saw its Europa League match last week in Thessaloniki, Greece, met with protesters carrying a banner that said GENOCIDE. UEFA officials, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, justified the discussions to boot Israel from continental competitions by citing security concerns. “We are responsible for the safety of fans and players in the stadiums,” one representative said, noting that match organizers “fear fatalities.” A UEFA decision to suspend Israeli club teams could provoke a similar campaign forcing FIFA to reconsider the place of the country’s national team in World Cup qualifying. A State Department statement said the U.S. government would work to block any “attempt to ban Israel’s national soccer team from the World Cup,” but it did not address European club competitions under UEFA’s purview. If the United States were not hosting next year’s tournament, it would be just one of 208 member nations in FIFA — a weaker position than it has in the United Nations, where at least the U.S. can wield a security-council veto to relieve pressure on Israel. (It did so again this month to block a draft resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.) But Infantino is highly motivated to keep Trump happy as a way to ensure preparations for next summer’s tournament proceed with full federal support. It is unclear whether Trump has personally appealed on Israel’s behalf to Infantino, who has asked UEFA’s President Aleksander Čeferin to approach the matter with patience, according to a European soccer official, citing the possibility that a peace deal between Israel and Hamas could moot the question. “It’s looking like we have a deal on Gaza, and we’ll let you know. I think it’s a deal that will get the hostages back. It’s going to be a deal that will end the war,” Trump told reporters before departing the White House on Friday. EVERYWHERE YOU WANT TO BE Trump’s willingness to commingle the World Cup with his other diplomatic challenges is winning attention worldwide from those who think he could wield the easiest power at his disposal — to control who enters the United States during the five-week tournament — as a cudgel. That power was on display around last week’s United Nations General Assembly, when Trump’s administration used it to punish representatives of countries vexing his foreign-policy agenda, several of which have qualified for a place in the World Cup. A visa issued to Brazilian Health Minister Alexandre Padilha circumscribed his movements to the U.N. headquarters and a few blocks around his hotel, while Iranian diplomats were barred from shopping at Costco and Sam’s Club without State Department permission. On Friday, the State Department announced it was revoking the visa of Colombian President Gustavo Petro after he spoke at a pro-Palestinian gathering while in New York. Iran is among the 12 countries whose citizens face a total travel ban under an executive order Trump signed in June. Two others, Equatorial Guinea and Haiti, could still qualify for the World Cup. (The ban also partially restricts travel from another seven countries, none of which are still in contention for a tournament spot.) Under the order, Iranian fans will be barred from the United States next summer, despite historical precedent in which World Cup hosts allow ticketholders free border entry. “You’ll have an issue with [visas for] Iran,” Giuliani told POLITICO. Although the travel ban includes an exemption for athletes, coaches and essential personnel participating in “major sporting events,” including the World Cup, that carveout does not extend to fans. American authorities will still have to approve visas for heads of state, business leaders and other prominent officials hoping to cheer on their teams. “There are other conversations [about Iran] that are teed up for the president and Secretary Kristi Noem and Vice President [JD] Vance, which we’ll be discussing here in the fall,” Giuliani said, in an interview at the Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters. Brazilian officials worry that the administration could weaponize World Cup visas for the country’s sports fans, part of a spiraling conflict with its origins in a prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro and the aggressive enforcement by the country’s election regulator against online political speech. CNN reported in July that Trump is actively considering blocking visas for Brazilian fans. Since then, the State Department has imposed visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials and their families and Trump has imposed a 50 percent tariff rate as payback for what he characterizes as a “witch hunt” of Bolsonaro. A Brazilian government official cautioned that it was unlikely that American consular officials would deny visas en masse for Brazilian nationals wanting to attend the World Cup and noted that Brazilians already encounter lengthy delays in obtaining visas to enter the United States. But the Trump administration has already demonstrated a willingness to interfere with international sporting events in the service of its diplomatic aims. Iran’s men’s team was denied visas to compete in next month’s FIP Arena Polo World Championship in Virginia, reported the Tehran Times this week, much as a Venezuelan Little League team and Cuban women’s volleyball team were earlier in the year. Those events foreshadow the higher-stakes flashpoints that could arise as the list of 48 countries that will send teams to the World Cup is finalized this fall. Among those that have already secured a place are some where Trump might be looking for any possible geopolitical edge. The U.S. is still trying to wrangle a new trade deal with South Korea, for example, while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the United States “stands ready to do what is needed” as it works to boost Argentina’s President Javier Milei’s fortunes ahead of an Oct. 26 election. “Many times, it’s sports diplomacy that creates opportunities for foreign leaders who might not see other things eye to eye, to actually sit down,” Giuliani said. “By the time the World Cup kicks off next June, hopefully we have some of these foreign wars solved.”