Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob’s liberals lead by a narrow margin in Sunday’s national election over former right-wing populist leader Janez Janša, according to exit polls.  The preliminary results show Golob’s governing Freedom Movement party securing 29.9 percent of the vote, good for 30 seats in the country’s 90-seat chamber, ahead of Janša’s conservative Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) on 27.5 percent, equaling 27 seats. If those results hold, it would represent a substantial step back for Golob’s party, which won 41 seats in the last election in 2022. The Slovenian vote has been seen as a mood-check of the bloc’s electorate, with the EU tilting right since the 2024 European Parliament elections gave a boost to right-wing populist parties. A nationalist-populist government took power in the Czech Republic last year, adding to a pro-Moscow bloc that includes Slovakia and Hungary, while the far-right RN leads polling in France ahead of key 2027 presidential elections. If Janša, who has expressed admiration for U.S. President Donald Trump, were to lead the country again, it would give Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán another ally in the European Council. In remarks Sunday night at his party headquarters, Janša said the results show Slovenia has two choices: Either the incumbent liberal-left coalition could continue to govern, or a new right-wing coalition under SDS could take the reins. LIBERALISM VS. ILLIBERALISM Slovenes went to the polls after a dramatic campaign that in its final stretch was less about bread-and-butter issues than allegations of election interference.  Janša, a veteran politician who has served multiple terms as prime minister, campaigned on lower taxes and stronger governance, while Golob sought to frame the election in an interview with POLITICO as a choice between liberal democratic values and Janša’s Hungary-style illiberalism.  Leaked audio and video recordings published earlier this month and apparently designed to tie Golob’s government to corruption showed prominent Slovenian figures, including a former minister, apparently discussing illegal lobbying and the misuse of state funds.   Slovenian authorities said Israeli private intelligence firm Black Cube had carried out illegal surveillance and wiretapping and has visited SDS headquarters in December. Janša acknowledged he had been in contact with a figure linked to the firm, but denied hiring them to dig up dirt on the government.  In a letter sent earlier this week and obtained exclusively by POLITICO, Golob urged European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to investigate the alleged election interference, calling it “a clear hybrid threat against the European Union.”  Both parties sought to turn the scandal to their advantage ahead of the vote, with the SDS arguing the recordings were proof of high-level corruption while Golob’s supporters said it was evidence Janša was willing to collaborate with foreign entities to retake power.    The political row spilled over into Brussels, with the European People’s Party group, to which Janša’s party belongs, pushing last week for a European Parliament hearing on fresh allegations that Slovenia’s EU commissioner, Marta Kos — who hails from Golob’s party — had collaborated with Yugoslavia’s secret police decades ago.  Kos has denied the claims, and an official close to her cabinet described the accusations to POLITICO as politically motivated.  The first official results of Sunday’s election will be declared later in the evening.  Ali Walker contributed to this report.

Talks between Russia and Ukraine on ending their war have stalled, the Kremlin said, appearing to confirm Kyiv’s fears that the war in Iran could derail the peace process. “The three-way group is on hold,” Dmitry Peskov, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, told the Izvestia newspaper Thursday, referring to U.S.-mediated negotiations between the two sides.  He added, however, that the economic cooperation talks happening in parallel between Moscow and Washington are still ongoing. The Kremlin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev has previously suggested the two sides were eyeing joint projects worth up to $14 trillion. Russia has also long been lobbying for the United States to lift economic sanctions. Negotiations on prisoner swaps would also continue, Peskov said.  He did not provide a reason for why the peace negotiations, which U.S. President Donald Trump launched soon after he entered the White House, have hit a roadblock.  The last time the three parties met was in February in Geneva. A new round of talks scheduled for March 5 in Abu Dhabi was postponed indefinitely, days after the U.S. and Israel launched an attack on Iran, which has spilled over into the wider region. In an interview with the BBC earlier this week, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he had a “very bad feeling” about the effect of the events in Iran on the war in Ukraine.  Negotiations, he said, were “constantly being postponed. There is one reason: [the] war in Iran.”  The Ukrainian president was backed by  British Prime Minister Keir Starmer who, after hosting Zelenskyy in London earlier this week, cautioned that, as the conflict in Iran and the Middle East unfolds, “we can’t lose focus on what’s going on in Ukraine and the need for our support.” Russia, meanwhile, is already reaping some benefits from the Iran crisis, as higher oil prices are boosting its energy revenues while shifting international attention away from its onslaught against Ukraine.

LONDON — The U.K. government is expected to publish a long-awaited plan to decarbonize new homes next week, with ministers set to mandate low-carbon heating for all new-builds and solar panels on the vast majority. According to two energy sector figures briefed on the plan, the government will publish the Future Homes Standard next week. Both were granted anonymity to discuss behind-closed-doors briefings from government. One of the energy sector figures said the plan was expected Tuesday. The strategy — which has been subject to years of consultation — will likely be presented as an essential step to reduce U.K. reliance on fossil fuels and to cut energy bills in the context of the Iran war and the resulting surge in oil and gas prices, they added. “We’re expecting it to confirm that all new homes will have heat pumps or connections to low-carbon heat networks,” the person said, “and the vast majority of new homes will have solar.” The policies are in line with expectations, and the timing of the publication suggests the government is using the Middle East energy crisis to double down on green plans at home. A third energy sector figure, also granted anonymity to speak candidly, said they had expected plans for publication to be “accelerated” after Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said on Sunday the government would go “further and faster” in pursuit of clean energy and electrification. The Future Homes Standard, first planned under the previous Conservative government, has been beset by delays and lobbying by house builders concerned that some of its measures could push up costs or prove impractical. But the third energy sector figure added: “It looks like the crisis has shut up the volume house-builder lobbyists.” An official at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said the FHS will mean new homes need “no future retrofitting to meet net zero” and will contribute to bringing down bills.

LONDON — U.K. staff at the collapsed lobbying firm co-founded by Peter Mandelson were not given a paid consultation period before they lost their jobs, the company’s administrators have confirmed to POLITICO. Former employees of Global Counsel say that they are each thousands of pounds out of pocket after their roles and salaries ended last month. Some former staff, granted anonymity to talk about internal matters, have compared their situation unfavorably with that of Mandelson, who received a payout after Keir Starmer sacked him last year as Britain’s ambassador to the U.S. over his links with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The U.K. government handed Mandelson a £75,000 severance payment after he left his job as ambassador, according to documents released by the U.K. government. He had initially requested the remainder of his contracted salary, which would have totaled £547,201, and was paid out the smaller sum in an effort to prevent potential litigation over his severance, the documents showed. Mandelson separately transferred his 1.2 million remaining shares in Global Counsel to three people on Feb. 6, two weeks before the firm collapsed. It is not clear whether Mandelson was paid for the shares or how much, but they could potentially have been worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Around 80 London-based staff lost their jobs when Global Counsel, which Mandelson co-founded in 2010, called in administrators on Feb. 19. Some former staff have compared their situation unfavorably with that of Mandelson, who received a payout after Keir Starmer sacked him last year as Britain’s ambassador to the U.S. | Paul Faith/AFP via Getty Images Representatives for the administrators, Interpath Ltd, told staff the next day that their paid employment would end with immediate effect, said two former staff members, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal matters. However, the administrators did not provide a paid consultation period for staff who were being made redundant. PLANS TO FILE While it is common not to provide such a consultation period when firms go into insolvency, one is legally required in the U.K. for large-scale redundancies and must run for at least 30 days. This means former staff are entitled to file a mass legal claim in the form of applying for a “protective award,” compensating them for the lack of a consultation period through the U.K. employment tribunal system.  A spokesperson for the joint administrators at Interpath confirmed: “As the exit of customers left the company facing insolvency, the U.K. business was unable to continue to trade while the statutory notice periods be run.” Dozens of former U.K. staff are now planning to apply for a protective award, the same two former staff members told POLITICO. When a claim is successful against an insolvent firm, employees are able to receive a maximum of £5,752 each from the Insolvency Service. However, Interpath representatives warned in the Feb. 20 meeting that this process could take up to nine months, the same two former staff members said. ‘LET DOWN’ One of the two former staff members complained that they had suffered financial repercussions while watching Mandelson receive severance from the government. The other complained the situation had been “dealt with very, very badly” and staff had felt “let down.” However, a third person praised Global Counsel for running payroll before the firm’s collapse to ensure staff were paid up until the final day they had worked. Companies House records show Mandelson transferred his remaining 1,192,137 shares in Global Counsel on Feb. 6. Mandelson’s legal representatives did not respond to a request for comment. The firm said at the time that his shares had been fully acquired by three individuals — the firm’s then-Managing Director Rebecca Park plus “an existing board member [and] shareholder.” The firm did not disclose who those people were. Global Counsel has not announced how much, if anything, Mandelson was paid for his shares. Until the scandal, Global Counsel — from which Mandelson resigned as a director in May 2024 — had been boasting “significant progress.” Operating profit exceeded £1 million in 2024 thanks to what the company called a “significant market opportunity arising from increasing geopolitical uncertainty.”

Russia and China are aiding Iran in a number of ways, including by providing “military cooperation,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said. Araghchi called Russia and China strategic partners for Tehran during its war with the U.S. and Israel, in an interview with broadcaster MS NOW on Saturday. “We have had close cooperation in the past, which still continues, and that includes military cooperation as well,” said the foreign minister. Iran has had “good cooperation with these countries: politically, economically, even militarily,” he added. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump speculated that Russian President Vladimir Putin might be helping Iran “a bit.” “I guess, and he probably thinks we’re helping Ukraine, right?” said Trump, in reference to aid to Kyiv to defend against Moscow’s all-out invasion. Iran and Russia have strengthened ties over the past decade in response to U.S. opposition. Iran has been supplying Russia with its domestically designed Shahed drones, which Moscow uses to wage its war in Ukraine, going so far as to set up factories in Russia. The two countries also threw their support behind the now-defunct regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. In 2021, Iran signed a 25-year economic cooperation agreement with Beijing, centering on the sale Iran’s rich oil reserves to supply China. Araghchi in Saturday’s interview also addressed the turmoil in the key waterway of the Strait of Hormuz, which passes by the coasts of Iran and Oman, and which is a passage for one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas. Tensions in the Strait have propelled the cost of oil to above $100 a barrel and are threatening economic dislocation worldwide. Araghchi said that the Strait was closed to tankers and ships belonging to “our enemies, to those who are attacking us and their allies.” Iran has been lobbing missiles at Persian Gulf countries, which are major suppliers on global hydrocarbon markets. But, he added: “The Strait is not closed. It is only closed to American, Israeli ships and tankers, and not to to others.”

The Trump administration quietly shifted its immigration messaging in the weeks after its violent operation in Minneapolis that included the fatal shooting of two Americans, largely dropping mentions of “mass deportations” as public sentiment shifted against the aggressive tactics. A POLITICO review of social media posts from major official administration accounts shows only one mention of the term in the past month, compared to more than a dozen in the four weeks prior. The analysis examined the social media accounts of top Trump officials and White House-run pages the administration has leveraged to push support for its immigration agenda. The findings suggest an administration recalibrating its message in the wake of wavering poll numbers on what had been one of President Donald Trump’s signature issues. It comes as Republicans have grown worried about the 2026 midterms, with calls for large-scale deportations — a hallmark of Trump’s campaign — now seen by some in the party as a vulnerability, particularly with Hispanic voters who had shifted toward the president just two years ago. “Deportations have a different look after Minneapolis, and we need to reclaim immigration as an issue,” said Michigan-based GOP strategist Jason Roe. “Deporting criminals remains popular, and the fact that the Democrats reflexively take the opposite side of Trump puts them, once again, on the side of criminals.” For months, calls for “mass deportation” were a frequent feature of the Trump administration’s aggressive social media strategy. On X, the White House’s prolific Rapid Response account spent days in mid-January linking “mass deportations” to lower crime, more jobs and lower housing costs. But that account hasn’t used the phrase “mass deportation” since Feb. 12, when it shared clips from a press conference during which border czar Tom Homan, who was dispatched to Minneapolis to deescalate tensions, said mass deportations were still on but emphasized more targeted enforcement. “The message focus is a reflection on where the administration’s strongest arguments have always been, which is an emphasis on border security policies that draw a contrast with the Biden-Harris administration, and a more prioritized and precise focus on illegal immigrants with criminal offenses,” said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who has worked for House GOP leadership and on presidential campaigns. Last week, Trump picked Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to be the next Homeland Security secretary, moving current DHS chief Kristi Noem to a special envoy role in the face of growing frustrations with her tenure. The official White House account, along with social media accounts tied to other top Trump officials, including deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and press secretary Karoline Leavitt, have also eschewed the phrase after highlighting mass deportations in the past — even as they continue to post when immigrants accused of violent crimes are arrested. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said the rapid response page is not indicative of any policy changes. The account amplifies and engages with major news stories, the official said, noting that there has been less news coverage about immigration since early February. The official said the same applies to other officials’ X accounts. The Department of Homeland Security’s public ad campaign has also started to take a different tact: An ad that began running in February, weeks after the Minnesota shootings, sought to highlight “victims of illegal immigration,” in contrast with ads the agency had previously run that featured footage of arrests. A DHS spokesperson said the agency “remains committed to arresting and deporting the worst of the worst illegal aliens to keep the American people safe, just as President Trump promised.” The spokesperson also shared several DHS press releases from this week highlighting arrests of immigrants who had committed crimes. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the administration’s immigration enforcement isn’t changing, and that the president’s “highest priority has always been the deportation of illegal alien criminals who endanger American communities.” She also said that 70 percent of deportations to date have been unauthorized immigrants with criminal records, and said the administration has had the “most secure border in U.S. history for nine straight months.” This week, White House deputy chief of staff James Blair privately urged House Republicans at their annual policy retreat in Doral, Florida, to focus their immigration message on removing violent criminals instead of “mass deportations.” Blair’s message was first reported by Axios. A senior White House official said Blair’s comments were taken “out of context.” The official said the administration can highlight deportations but that the White House also has to tout the president’s success at the border. “Like the border numbers are astronomical — zero, right?” the senior official said. “Zero people coming in. That’s a great message to push.” A person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the strategy, said among crucial voting blocs, including Latino voters, moderate Republicans, Independents, and young voters, “mass deportations” is associated with sweeping round-ups in community gathering places. If candidates instead focus on criminal arrests, public safety, and the president’s success in securing the southern border, the person argued, they can turn the issue against Democrats. “Just have to message it a little bit better,” the person said. “If you can go on a campaign, and you can contrast and say, ‘OK, this person wants open borders, this person wants amnesty for criminal illegal aliens — it’s madness.’ It’s just not where the majority of the American people are.” The president, during the State of the Union address, sought to draw that contrast when he asked members of Congress to stand if they agreed that “the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens” — a standout moment Vice President JD Vance amplified again during a speech in North Carolina on Friday. In the February address, the president only said “deporting” once to emphasize his focus on deporting “criminal illegal aliens.” It was part of a section in which Trump introduced the mother of Lizbeth Medina, a teenager killed by an unauthorized immigrant. It was a departure from Trump’s 2025 address when the president reiterated his vow to conduct the “largest deportation operation in U.S. history.” Promises of “mass deportations” were also a recurring feature of his 2024 campaign — a vow he and his top officials repeatedly amplified during his first year back in the White House. “People know where President Trump stands on immigration, on deportation,” the senior official said, when asked about the president’s SOTU address. “It was a hallmark of his campaign. … We don’t need to explain our immigration position.” The White House’s shift in messaging is infuriating some Trump allies who have launched a lobbying effort to reverse that reversal. Those concerns underscore the GOP divide on how aggressive to be on immigration enforcement. Immigration hardliners want Trump to ramp up deportations but many Republicans worry that would risk a further loss of public support. Recent immigration polling, including a January POLITICO poll conducted before 37-year-old Alex Pretti was killed, has shown growing unease with the president’s deportation campaign. Even among his base, the poll found that more than 1 in 3 Trump voters said that while they supported the goal of his policy, they disapproved of its implementation. Eli Stokols and Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.

OSLO — Norway is doubling down on its role as Europe’s energy lifeline as wars and geopolitical turmoil rattle global markets. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said the widening conflict in the Middle East, which has already pushed oil prices higher and reduced supply, underscores why Europe needs stable energy partners. “It’s a war that appears to have no plan,” Støre said at the Offshore Norge Annual Conference in Oslo on Thursday, referring to the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran. “In such unpredictable times, Norway needs to be reliable.” Since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Norway has become Europe’s largest pipeline gas supplier, replacing much of the fuel that once flowed from Russia. “All the gas we produce in Norway goes to Europe, and around 90 to 95 percent of oil we produce goes to Europe,” Anders Opedal, chief executive of Norwegian oil and gas company Equinor, told POLITICO. But while Oslo is positioning itself as a pillar of Europe’s energy security, Norwegian officials say the country cannot quickly ramp up production even if geopolitical tensions tighten global supply. Norway’s Energy Minister Terje Aasland said his country is already operating close to maximum output. “We are at the top of production capacity just now,” he told POLITICO. Increasing supply would require new exploration and investment, Aasland said, as his government works to slow an expected decline in production after 2030 by developing additional resources on the Norwegian continental shelf. “Our focus is to be a stable and long and predictable supplier of energy to the European market,” he said. ARCTIC TENSIONS At the same time, Norway is pushing back against calls in Brussels to halt oil and gas development in the Arctic as the EU revises its Arctic strategy. The EU’s current policy commits the bloc to pursuing an international moratorium on Arctic oil and gas extraction, but the strategy is now under review, with a public consultation closing March 16 and a revised version expected before the summer. Norwegian officials, industry groups and unions are lobbying Brussels to drop the idea, arguing Europe will continue to need Norwegian Arctic gas as it phases out Russian supplies. Aasland defended Norway’s record in the region, pointing to the Barents Sea — where the country launched the Johan Castberg oil field last August — as an example of responsible development. “We have delivered oil and gas to the European market from the Arctic for several decades,” he said. “And we will develop it.” Industry leaders say Arctic production already plays a role in replacing Russian supplies. “When we opened the Johan Castberg field last year, the first cargo went straight to Europe, replacing Russian oil,” Opedal said. “Any moratorium here would actually reduce Europe’s security of supply.” Norway supplies roughly a third of EU gas imports, though Arctic gas accounts for a much smaller share, around 3 percent of the bloc’s imports. Still, Norwegian leaders argue a moratorium would send the wrong signal while Europe remains dependent on external energy supplies. Norwegian officials, industry groups and unions are lobbying Brussels to drop the idea, arguing Europe will continue to need Norwegian Arctic gas as it phases out Russian supplies. | Soeren Stache/picture alliance via Getty Images Ine Eriksen Søreide, the leader of Norway’s Conservative party, said calls to stop Arctic development clash with Europe’s current energy security priorities. “It sends a very bad signal when the Commission says we need to stop oil and gas development in the Arctic, because that’s development the EU relies on,” she said. Experts say the broader Arctic energy picture is dominated by Russia, which has major plans to expand liquefied natural gas production through projects such as Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2. Malte Humpert, founder and senior fellow at the Arctic Institute, said climate change is rapidly transforming the once-inaccessible region. “If we didn’t have climate change, we wouldn’t be talking about Arctic geopolitics,” he told POLITICO. “Climate change is actively reshaping the map, where suddenly there’s new trade routes available that didn’t exist even 10, 15 years ago.” OIL AND GAS AREN’T GOING ANYWHERE FOR NOW Across Oslo’s political spectrum, the message is broadly the same: Europe still needs reliable fossil fuel suppliers, and Norway intends to remain one of them. Opposition leader Sylvi Listhaug of the right-wing Progress Party argued Europe should encourage Norway to produce more oil and gas to reduce reliance on authoritarian regimes. “The more Norway can produce of gas, the less dependent Europe will be” on non-democratic producers, she said. Ine Eriksen Søreide, the leader of Norway’s Conservative party, said calls to stop Arctic development clash with Europe’s current energy security priorities. | Pool photo by Olivier Doulier/AFP via Getty Images Listhaug also warned that high energy prices risk undermining European competitiveness. “Energy and economic growth are a one-to-one relationship,” she said. Even as Norway expands renewables, leaders insist fossil fuels will remain crucial to Europe’s energy system during the long transition to cleaner alternatives. “We have to have two thoughts in our heads at the same time,” Aasland said.

BRITAIN’S LABOUR PARTY STARES INTO THE ABYSS IN ITS WELSH HEARTLAND In the old coalfields of south Wales, Britain’s center-left establishment faces being crushed by a nationalist left and populist right. POLITICO went to find out why. By DAN BLOOM and SASCHA O’SULLIVAN in Newport, South Wales Photo-Illustration by Natália Delgado/POLITICO Eluned Morgan, the Welsh first minister, stood in a sunbeam at Newport’s Victorian market and declared: “Wales is ready for a new chapter.” Many voters agree. The problem for Morgan is: few think she’ll be the one to write it. This nation of 3 million people, with its coalfields, docks, mountains and farms, is the deepest heartland of Morgan’s center-left Labour Party. Labour has topped every U.K. general election here for 104 years and presided over the Welsh parliament, the Senedd, since establishing it 27 years ago. Yet Senedd elections on May 7 threaten not only to end this world-record winning streak, but leave Welsh Labour fighting for a reason to exist. One YouGov poll in January put the party joint-fourth with the Conservatives on 10 percent, behind Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru on 37 percent, Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK on 23 percent and the Greens on 13 percent. Other polls are less dramatic (one last week had Reform and Plaid equal, and Labour a closer third), but the mood remains stark.  The most common projection for the 96-seat Senedd is a Plaid minority government propped up by Labour — blowing a hole in Labour’s status as the default governing party and safe vote to stop the right, and echoing recent by-elections in Caerphilly (won by Plaid) and Manchester (won by Greens). POLITICO visited south Wales and spoke to 30 politicians and officials across Labour, Plaid and Reform. | Dan Bloom/POLITICO It would raise the simple question, said a senior Welsh Labour official granted anonymity to speak frankly: “What is the point in this party?’” POLITICO visited south Wales and spoke to 30 politicians and officials across Labour, Plaid and Reform, including interviews with all three of their Welsh leaders, for this piece and an episode of the Westminster Insider podcast. The conversations painted a vivid picture of a center-left establishment fighting for survival in an election that could echo far beyond Wales. While in the 1980s Welsh Labour could unite voters against Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives, now it is battling demographic changes, a decline in unionized heavy industry and an anti-incumbent backlash. All have killed old loyalties and habits. Squeezed by Plaid and Greens to their left and Reform to their right, some in Labour see parallels with other mainstream postwar parties facing a reckoning across Europe. This week, Germany’s conservative Christian Democrats and center-left Social Democrats lost to the Greens in the car production region of Baden-Württemberg; the latter barely scraped 5 percent. In the recent Manchester by-election, the Conservatives lost their deposit. Welsh Labour MPs fear a reckoning. One said: “We will have to start again. We rebuild. We figure out, what does Welsh Labour mean in 2026? What do we stand for?” NEW CHAPTER, SAME AUTHOR It takes Morgan 20 minutes to walk the 500 meters from Newport Market to our interview. Some passers-by flag her down; others she ambushes. We pass a baked goods shop (“Ooh, Gregg’s! That’s what I want!”) and Morgan emerges with a latte, though not with one of the chain’s famous sausage rolls. She introduces herself to one woman as “Eluned Morgan, first minister of Wales.” Her target looks vaguely bemused.  After the Covid pandemic, people are simply more aware of what the Welsh government actually does — which means Labour, as the incumbent, gets more blame when things go wrong. | Matthew Horwood/Getty Images A peer and ex-MEP who joined the Senedd in 2016, Morgan is a fixture of Wales’ Labour establishment who became first minister unopposed in August 2024 after her predecessor, Vaughan Gething, resigned over a donations scandal. “I didn’t have a mandate really, because I was just kind of thrown in,” she tells POLITICO midway up the high street. “I thought, right, I need a program, so I went out on the streets and took my program directly from the public without any filter.”  She is selling a nuts-and-bolts offer of new railway stations, a £2 bus fare cap and same-day mental health care. Morgan casts herself as the experienced option to beat what she calls the “separatists” of Plaid and the “concerning” rise of populism. She means Reform, which wants to scrap net zero targets and cut 580 Welsh civil service jobs. Yet paradoxically, she also paints herself as a vessel for change. “[People] want to see change faster,” she said in John Frost Square, named after the leader of an 1839 uprising that demanded voting rights for all men. She wants to show “delivery” and “hope.” Dimitri Batrouni, Newport Council’s Labour leader, suggested an Amazonification of politics is under way. “Our lives commercially are instant,” he said. “I want something, I order it, it’s delivered to my house … people quite naturally want that in their governments.” But after 27 years, many voters are rolling the dice on delivery elsewhere. Welsh Labour is promising to end homelessness by 2034, but previously made the same pledge by 2026. Around 6,900 people are still waiting two years or more for NHS treatment (though this figure was 10 times higher during the Covid-19 pandemic). Education rankings slumped in 2023. At Newport’s Friars Walk shopping center, retired mechanical engineer Roy Wigmore, 81, said all politicians are liars. “I’ve voted Labour all my life until now,” he said, “but I’ll probably vote for somebody else — probably Nigel Farage.” ‘SHIT, WELL, HE DIDN’T CALL ME’ Much of this anger is pointed at Westminster — which is why Labour has long tried to show a more socialist face to Wales.  It was the seat of Labour co-founder Keir Hardie as well as of Nye Bevan, who launched Britain’s National Health Service in 1948. “Welsh Labour” was born out of the first Senedd-style elections in 1999, when Plaid surged in south Wales heartlands while Tony Blair’s New Labour appealed to the middle classes. For years, this deliberate rebranding worked; Labour pulled through with the most seats even when the Tories ruled Westminster. Yet in 2024, the party boasted of “two Labour governments at both ends of the M4” — in London and in Cardiff — working in harmony. The emphasis soon flipped back when things went wrong in No. 10; Morgan promised a “red Welsh way” last May. She is “trying to find our identity again,” said the MP quoted above. Morgan appeared to disown the “both ends of the M4” approach, while declining to call it a mistake. “Look, that was a decision before I became first minister,” she said. A peer and ex-MEP who joined the Senedd in 2016, Morgan is a fixture of Wales’ Labour establishment who became first minister unopposed in August 2024 after her predecessor, Vaughan Gething, resigned over a donations scandal. | Matthew Horwood/Getty Images She tries to be playful in distancing herself from Keir Starmer. “He came down a couple of weeks ago and I was very clear with him, if you’re coming you need to bring something with you. Fair play, he brought £14 billion of investment,” she said. “If he wants to come again, he’ll have to bring me more money.” But she has also hitched herself to Starmer for now — unlike Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, who has called for the PM to go. As we sat down, Morgan professed surprise at news that Sarwar called several Cabinet ministers beforehand. “Did he! Shit, well, he didn’t call me,” she said. “Look at the state of the world at the moment; actually what we need is stability,” she added. “We need the grown-ups in the room to be in charge, and I do think Keir Starmer is a grown-up.” ‘ELUNED WASN’T HAPPY’ Morgan has mounted a fightback since Plaid won October’s Caerphilly by-election.  She has hired Matt Greenough, a strategist who worked on London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s re-election campaign last year, said three people with knowledge of the appointment. One of the people said: “During Caerphilly, it became quite clear there were a lot of problems. Eluned wasn’t happy with Welsh Labour or the way the campaign was running. She did a lot of lobbying and got the Welsh executive to basically give her complete power over the campaign.” Morgan “was angry that the central party [in London] took control of the Caerphilly by-election,” another of the people added. (A Morgan ally disputed this reading of events, saying she would always take a bigger role as the election drew near, and that a wide range of Labour figures are involved in the campaign committee such as a Westminster MP, Torsten Bell.) Morgan also has more support these days from Labour’s MPs — who pushed last year for her to focus less on Plaid and more on Reform. That lobbying may have been a mistake, the MP quoted above admits now. “We were quite naive in thinking that the progressives would back us,” this MP said. Privately, Labour politicians and officials in Wales say the mood and prospects are better than the start of 2026. Though asked if Labour would win the most seats in the Senedd, Batrouni said: “Let’s look and see. It’s not looking good in the polls but … politics changes so quickly.” IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT KEIR STARMER The harsh reality is that Labour’s base in Wales began slipping long before Starmer, rooted in deindustrialization since the 1970s and 80s. Newport, near England on the M4 corridor, has a measure of prosperity that other parts of Wales do not. The 137-year-old market has had a makeover, Microsoft is building data centers and U.S. giant Vishay runs Britain’s biggest semiconductor plant. Here Labour is mostly expecting a fight between itself and Reform. At Newport’s Friars Walk shopping center, retired mechanical engineer Roy Wigmore, 81, said all politicians are liars. “I’ve voted Labour all my life until now,” he said, “but I’ll probably vote for somebody else — probably Nigel Farage.” | Jon Rowley/Getty Images Wales’ west coast and north west are more Plaid-dominated, with more Welsh speakers and independence supporters. But support for nationalists is spreading in the southern valleys. “All across the valleys you’re seeing places where Labour has dominated for 100 years plus but is now in deep, deep crisis,” said Richard Wyn Jones, professor of Welsh politics at Cardiff University. “It has long been the case that a lot of Labour supporters have had a very positive view of Plaid Cymru — they just didn’t have a reason to vote for them until now.” Wyn Jones attributes the change to trends across northern Europe, where traditional left-wing parties have been “unmoored” from working-class occupations. A growing service sector has brought more white-collar voters with socially liberal values. Carmen Smith, a 29-year-old Plaid campaigner who is the House of Lords’ youngest-ever peer, said Brexit had unhitched young, left-leaning voters from the idea of British patriotism: “There are a lot more young people identifying as Welsh rather than British.”  And after the Covid pandemic, people are simply more aware of what the Welsh government actually does — which means Labour, as the incumbent, gets more blame when things go wrong.  All the while, a left-behind contingent of socially conservative ex-Labour voters is turning to Reform UK. At the Tumble Inn, a Wetherspoons chain pub in the valley town of Pontypridd, retired gas engineer Paul Jones remembered: “You could leave one job, walk a couple of hundred yards and start another job … it was a totally different world. I wish we could get it back, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.” He hasn’t voted for years but plans to back Reform. THEY’VE BLOWN UP THE MAP All these changes will be turbocharged by a new electoral map. A previous Labour first minister, Mark Drakeford, introduced a more proportional voting system which will see voters elect six Senedd members in each of 16 super-constituencies. The results will reflect the mood better than U.K. general elections (Labour won 84 percent of Wales’ seats on a 37 percent vote share in 2024), but create a volatile outcome. In the mega-constituency for eastern Cardiff, Wyn Jones believes the six seats could be won by six parties: Labour, Plaid, Reform, the Conservatives, Greens and Liberal Democrats. Ironically, said the Labour MP quoted above, Welsh Labour is now polling so badly that it could actually win more seats under the new system than the old one. Trying to win the sixth seat in each super-constituency will hoover up many resources. The size of each patch changes how parties campaign, said Plaid’s Westminster leader Liz Savile Roberts: “We’ve had to go to places that I’ve never been to.” And the scale means activists have a weaker connection to the candidates they campaign for — compounded in Labour by many Senedd members stepping down. Just six people turned up to one recent Labour door-knocking session in a heartland seat. A left-behind contingent of socially conservative ex-Labour voters is turning to Reform UK. | Huw Fairclough/Getty Images After May 8, the new system will make coalitions or informal support deals more necessary to command a Senedd majority. Morgan declined to say if she would support Plaid’s £400 million-a-year offer to expand free childcare (which Labour says is unfunded), rather than see it voted down. “I’m certainly not getting into hypotheticals,” she said. “I’m in this to win it.”  Her rivals have other ideas. THE PRESIDENT IS COMING On the hill above Newport, a two-story presidential-style image of Rhun ap Iorwerth filled a screen at the International Convention Centre above the words: “New leadership for Wales.” The former BBC presenter, who took over Plaid’s leadership in 2023, strained not to make his February conference look like a premature victory lap. Members could’ve been fooled. They struggled to find parking. There were more lobbyists; more journalists. It is a slow burn for a party founded in 1925, which won its first Westminster seat in 1966. Ap Iorwerth ramped up the anti-establishment rhetoric in his conference speech while Lindsay Whittle, who won Caerphilly for Plaid in October’s by-election, bellowed: “Rich men from London, we are waiting for you!” Yet he insists his success is more than a protest vote, a trend sweeping Europe or a mirror of Reform’s populism. “I’d like to think that we’re doing something different,” Ap Iorwerth told POLITICO. While Morgan accuses him of “separatism,” he said: “We have a growing sense of Welsh nationhood and Welsh identity, at a time when there’s deep disillusionment in the old guard of U.K. politics and a sense of needing to keep at bay that populist right wing.” Ap Iorwerth said there is a “very real danger” that Labour vanishes entirely as a serious force in the Senedd. “The level of support that they have collapsed to is a level that most people, probably myself included, could never have imagined would happen so quickly,” he said. INDEPENDENCE DAY? But Plaid faces three big challenges to hold this pole position. The first is its ground game, stretched thin to cover the new world of mega-seats. On the hill above Newport, a two-story presidential-style image of Rhun ap Iorwerth filled a screen at the International Convention Centre above the words: “New leadership for Wales.” | Matthew Horwood/Getty Images The second is to remain distinct from Labour and the insurgent Greens while running a broad left-leaning platform focused on energy costs, childcare and the NHS. The third is to convince unionist voters that Plaid is not simply a Trojan horse for Welsh independence. Independence is Plaid’s core belief, yet Ap Iorwerth did not mention the word once in his speech, instead promising a “standing commission” to look at Wales’ future. He told POLITICO he would rather have a “sustained, engaging, deep discussion … than try to crash, bang, wallop, towards the line.”  But opponents suggest Plaid will push hard for independence if they win a second term in 2030 — like the Scottish National Party did after topping elections in 2007 then 2011. One conference attendee, Emyr Gruffydd, 36, a member for 19 years, said independence “is going to be part of our agenda in the future, definitely. But I think nation-building has to be the approach that we take in the first term.” Savile Roberts accepted that shelving talk of independence (which is still supported by less than half the Welsh population) is part of a deliberate strategy to broaden the party’s reach and keep a wide left-leaning appeal. “I mean, we know the people that we need to appeal to — it is the disenchanted Labour voters,” she said. For some shoppers in Newport — not Plaid’s home turf — it may be working. One ex-Labour voter, Rose Halford, said of Plaid: “All they want to do is make everybody speak Welsh.” But she’ll consider backing them: “They’re showing a bit more gumption, aren’t they?” TAXING QUESTIONS FOR PLAID If Plaid does win, that’s when the hard part begins. Ap Iorwerth would seek urgent talks about changing Wales’ funding formula from Westminster — but cannot say how much this would raise. And Plaid has vowed not to hike income tax, one of the few (blunt) tax instruments available to the Welsh government. Strategists looked at the issue before and feared it would prompt taxpayers to flee over the border to England. So Plaid promises vague financial “efficiencies” in areas such as child poverty, where spending exceeded £7 billion since 2022, and health. Whittle said: “There’s an awful lot of people pen-pushing in the health service. We don’t need pen-pushers.” Labour’s attack machine argues that Plaid and Reform UK alike would cut services. Ap Iorwerth insists his and Farage’s promises are different: “We’re talking about being effective and efficient.” But he admitted: “You don’t know the detail until you come into government.”  Ap Iorwerth jettisoned any suggestion that Plaid would introduce universal basic income, saying it is “not a pledge for government.” He added: “It’s something that I believe in as a principle. I don’t think we’re in a place where we have anything like a model that could be put in place now.” Ap Iorwerth would seek urgent talks about changing Wales’ funding formula from Westminster — but cannot say how much this would raise. | Matthew Horwood/Getty Images The blame game between Cardiff and Westminster will run hot. Ap Iorwerth voiced outrage this week at a leaked memo from Starmer in December, ordering his Cabinet to deliver directly in Wales and Scotland “even when devolved governments may oppose this.” FARAGE’S WELSH SURGE And then there’s Reform. Farage’s party has rocketed in the polls since 2024; typical branch meetings have swelled from a dozen members to several dozen. Since February, Reform has even had its own leader for Wales — Dan Thomas, a former Tory councillor in London who says he recently moved back to the area of Blackwood, in the south Wales valleys. Some party figures have observed a dip after the Caerphilly by-election, where Reform came second. Thomas insists: “I don’t think we’ve plateaued” — and even said there is room to increase a 31 percent vote share from one (optimistic) poll. “There’s still a Labour vote to squeeze,” he told POLITICO.  “We’re targeting all of Wales.” It is a measure of Plaid’s success that Reform UK often now presents the nationalist party as its main competition. “It’s a two-horse race [with Plaid], that’s what I say on the doors,” said Leanne Dyke, a Reform canvasser who was drinking in the Pontypridd Wetherspoons. James Evans, who is now one of Reform’s two Senedd members after he was thrown out of the Conservative group in January on suspicion of defection talks, argues his supporters are underrepresented in polling because they are “smeared” as bigots. Evans added: “Very similarly to what happened in America when Donald Trump was elected, I think there is a quiet majority of people out there who do not want to say they’re voting Reform, who will vote Reform.”  Reform has its own custom-built member app, ReformGo, as it canvasses data on where its supporters live for the first time. It sent a mass appeal by post to all registered Welsh voters in late 2025 (before spending limits kicked in). Welsh campaign director David Thomas is recruiting a brand new slate of 96 candidates, booking hotels for training days with interviews, written exercises and team-building. Daytime TV presenter Jeremy Kyle has helped with media training. English officials cross the border to help; Reform still only has three paid officials in Wales. FARAGE HAS AN NHS PROBLEM Lian Walker, a postal worker from the village of Pen-y-graig, would be a prime target for Reform. “There’s people who I see on the databases, they don’t work,” she said in Pontpridd’s Patriot pub, “but they get everything; new windows, earrings, T-shirts, shorts.” She supports Reform’s plans to deport migrants. But on the NHS, she says of Reform: “They want it to go private like America.” Labour and Plaid drive this attack line relentlessly. The full picture is more nuanced — but still exposes a tension between Farage and Thomas. But Farage has an advantage; the right is less split than the left. | Ben Birchall/PA Images via Getty Images While Reform emphasizes it would keep the NHS free at the point of use, Farage has not ruled out shifting its funding from general taxation to a French-style insurance model, saying that would be “a national decision ahead of a general election.” Thomas, however, broke from this stance. He told POLITICO: “No, no. We rule out any kind of insurance system or any kind of privatization.” He added: “Nigel’s also said that devolved issues are down to the Welsh party, and I wouldn’t consider any kind of insurance-based or private-based system for the Welsh NHS.” Labour and Plaid are relying on an anti-Reform vote to keep Farage’s party out of power. Opponents have also highlighted the jailing of Nathan Gill, Reform’s former Welsh leader, for taking bribes to give pro-Russia interviews and speeches. But Farage has an advantage; the right is less split than the left. In Evans’ sprawling rural seat of Brecon and Radnorshire, two people with knowledge of the Conservative association said its membership had fallen catastrophically from a recent peak of around 400. On the other hand, the sheer number of defections makes Reform look more like a copycat Conservative Party. A former Tory staffer works for Evans; Thomas’ press officer is the Welsh Conservatives’ former media chief. Evans said last year that 99 percent of Reform’s policies were “populist rubbish,” but was allowed to see the policy platform in secret before he agreed to join (and has since contributed to it). While the long-time former UKIP and Brexit Party politician Mark Reckless led a policy consultation in the first half of 2025, former Conservative Welsh Secretary David Jones — who defected without fanfare last year — played a hands-on role behind the scenes working up manifesto policies, two people with knowledge of his work said. THE NIGEL SHOW Then there is Reform’s reliance on Farage himself.  The party deliberately left it late before unveiling a Welsh leader, said a Reform figure in Wales, and chose in Thomas a Welsh figure who would not “detract from Nigel’s overall umbrella and brand.” While Welsh officials and politicians worked on the manifesto, Farage himself was involved in signing it off — as were several others in London, said Evans, including frontbench spokespeople Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman and Zia Yusuf. Thomas said: “Ultimately, it’s my decision to sign off the manifesto. Of course, Nigel was consulted because he’s our U.K. leader, and we want to ensure that what’s going on in Wales is aligned to the broader picture in the UK.” Reform’s Welsh manifesto promises to cut a penny off every band of income tax by 2030, end Wales’ “nation of sanctuary” plan to support asylum seekers, scrap 20mph road speed limits and upgrade the M4 and A55 highways. But costings have not been published yet — Reform has sent them to be assessed by the Institute for Fiscal studies, a nonpartisan think tank — and like other parties, Reform faces questions about how it will all be paid for. Asked if Reform would begin work on the M4 and A55 upgrades by 2030, Thomas replied: “We’d like to. But we all know in this country, infrastructure projects take a long time.” While Welsh officials and politicians worked on the manifesto, Farage himself was involved in signing it off — as were several others in London, said Evans, including frontbench spokespeople Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman and Zia Yusuf. | Huw Fairclough/Getty Images ‘I’VE GOT TO FOCUS ON WHAT I CAN CONTROL’ These harsh realities facing Wales’ would-be rulers are a silver lining for Labour. Morgan avoided POLITICO’s question about whether she believes the polls — “I’ve got to focus on what I can control” — but insisted many voters remain persuadable. “People will scratch the surface and say [our rivals] are not ready,” she said. Alun Michael, who led the first Welsh Labour administration in 1999, said the idea that the Labour vote has “collapsed completely” is wrong. “It’s always dangerous to go on opinion polls as a decider of what will happen in an election,” he said. Whoever does win will deserve a moment of levity. If Ap Iorwerth wins the most seats on May 7, he will drink an Aperol spritz; Thomas will have a glass of Penderyn Welsh whisky.  As for Morgan? She would like a cup of tea — milk, no sugar. Perhaps survival would be sweet enough.

LONDON — The U.K. government published its long-awaited digital ID consultation Tuesday, claiming it will make public services “quicker, easier and more secure to access.”   It marks a shift in tone from Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s initial pitch last September, which framed the proposal as a way to curb illegal working and, by extension, unauthorized migration.  Now, digital ID is all about helping Brits interact with the state. “People too often dread their interactions with public services. Endless telephone calls, complicated printed forms and having to tell their story multiple times to different parts of government,” Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones said.   “Supermarkets, banks and shops have all chosen to move their services online because it delivers a better customer experience, and other countries like Estonia fully digitized public services years ago. We need to catch up,” Jones said.  The U.K. government has gradually pivoted in its approach to digital ID since Keir Starmer first announced it. In September, Starmer said: “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID,” but that’s no longer the case. In January, the Cabinet Office abandoned plans to make government-issued digital ID mandatory for proving Right to Work by 2029 amid public outcry and private sector lobbying.   Workers will be able to choose between a government-issued credential, private sector offerings, and physical documents like passports, meaning the only aspect of the process necessarily “digital” is on the employer’s end.   At the same time, the government wants to set out a much broader – and altogether more positive – vision for digital ID, based on the idea of “government by app,” per a Cabinet Office press release.   Alongside the consultation process, the government will create a “People’s Panel” that “brings together people across the country from different backgrounds” to share their perspectives.  The consultation will run for 8 weeks, until May 5.

When U.S., Mexican and Canadian soccer officials fanned out across the globe nearly a decade ago to sell the 2026 World Cup, they traveled in threes — one representative from each country — to underscore a simple message: North America’s three largest countries were in lockstep. “It was so embedded into everything we did that this was a united bid. Our success was tied to the joint nature of the bid. That was the anchor regarding the premise of what we were trying to do,” said John Kristick, former executive director of the 2026 United Bid Committee. The pitch worked. In 2018, FIFA members awarded the tournament to North America, marking the first time three countries would co-host a men’s World Cup. Bid strategists were delighted when The Washington Post editorial page approvingly called it ”the NAFTA World Cup.” The North American Free Trade Agreement is no more, a victim of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw during his first term, and the successor U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is now teetering. At almost exactly the midway point of the 39-day tournament, trade ties that link the three countries’ economies will expire. The trilateral relationship is more frayed than it has ever been, tensions reflected in this year’s World Cup itself. Instead of one continental showcase, the 2026 World Cup increasingly resembles three distinct tournaments, with different immigration regimes, security plans and funding models, all a function of different policy choices in each host country. Soccer governing body FIFA “is the only glue that’s holding it together,” said one person intimately involved in the bid who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the sensitive political dynamics. The “United” in the United Bid, once the anchor of the entire project, now competes with three national agendas, each running on its own track. POLITICO spoke to eight people involved in developing a World Cup whose path from conception to execution reflects the crooked arc of North American integration. “When these events are awarded, they’re concepts. They’re ideas. They feel good,” said Lee Igel, a professor of global sport at NYU who has advised the U.S. Conference of Mayors on sports policy. “But between the award and the event itself, the world changes. Politics change. Leaders change.” THE TRUMP TOURNAMENT At the start of the extravagant December event that formally set the World Cup schedule, Trump stood next to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to ceremonially draw the first lottery ball. FIFA officials touted the moment at the Kennedy Center as a milestone: the first time the three leaders had appeared together in person, united by soccer. The trio also met for 90 minutes off stage in a meeting — facilitated by FIFA as part of World Cup planning. That novelty was notable. While each national government has named a “sherpa” to serve as its lead, those officials — including Canadian Secretary of State for Sport Adam van Koeverden and Mexican coordinator Gabriela Cuevas — have met only a handful of times in formal trilateral settings. At a January security summit in Colorado Springs, White House FIFA Task Force director Andrew Giuliani did not mention Canada or Mexico during his remarks. Only when FIFA security officer GB Jones took the stage was the international nature of the tournament acknowledged. “We have been and continue to work very closely with officials from all three host countries on topics including safety, security, logistics, transportation and other topics related to hosting a successful FIFA World Cup,” a FIFA spokesperson wrote via email. “This is one World Cup presented across all three host countries and 16 host cities, while showcasing the uniqueness of each individual location and culture.” The soccer federations behind the United Bid have been largely sidelined, with FIFA — rather than national governments — serving as the link between them. It has brought personnel of local host-city organizing committees for quarterly workshops and other meetings, and situated nearly 1,000 of its own employees across all three countries, according to a FIFA spokesperson who says they are “working seamlessly in a united effort.” (The number will swell to more than 4,000 when the tournament is underway.) But those FIFA staff are forced to navigate wildly varied fiscal conditions depending on where they land. Mexico, which will have matches in three cities, has imposed a tax exemption to stimulate investment in the World Cup and related tourist infrastructure in its three host cities. The Canadian government has dedicated well over $300 million to tournament costs, with more than two-thirds going directly to host-city governments. “The federal government are contributing significantly to both Vancouver and Toronto in terms of funding,” said Sharon Bollenbach, the executive director of the FIFA World Cup Toronto Secretariat, which unlike American host committees is run directly out of city hall. American cities, however, have been left to secure their own funding, largely through the pursuit of commercial sponsorships and donations to local organizing committees. Congress has allocated $625 million for the federal government to reimburse host cities in security costs via a grant program. But the partial government shutdown and an attendant decision by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to stop approving FEMA grants is exacerbating a logjam for U.S. states and municipalities — including not only those with World Cup matches but hosting team training camps — that rely on federal funds to coordinate counterterrorism and security efforts. That has left American host cities in very different financial situations just months before the tournament starts. Houston and Dallas-area governments can count on receiving a share of state revenue from Texas’ Major Events Reimbursement Program. The small Boston suburb of Foxborough, Massachusetts, however, is refusing to approve an entertainment license for matches at Gillette Stadium because of an unresolved $7.8 million security bill. Because of the budget squeeze, American cities have cut back on “fan festival” gatherings that will run extend during the tournament’s full length in Canadian and Mexican cities. Jersey City has canceled the fan fest planned at Liberty State Park in favor of smaller community events, and Seattle’s fan fest will be scaled down into a “distributed model” spread cross four locations. The tournament has become tightly intertwined with Trump, as FIFA places an outsized emphasis on courting the man who loves to be seen as the consummate host. Public messaging from the White House has focused almost exclusively on the United States’ role, and Trump rarely mentions Canada or Mexico from the Oval Office or on Truth Social. Since returning to office, Trump has had eight in-person meetings with FIFA President Gianni Infantino — besides the lottery draw at the Kennedy Center — whereas Sheinbaum and Carney have only had one each. While taking questions from the media during a November session with Infantino in the Oval office, Trump did not rule out the use of U.S. military force, including potential land actions, within Mexico to combat drug cartels. Guadalajara, which is set to host four World Cup matches, this weekend erupted in violence after Mexican security forces killed the head of a cartel that Trump last year labeled a “foreign terrorist organization.” A White House spokesperson wrote in a social-media post that the United States provided “intelligence support” to the mission. It is part of a more significant set of conflicts than Trump had with the United States’ neighbors during his first term. In January, Trump claimed that Sheinbaum is “not running Mexico,” while Carney rose to office promising Canadians he would “stand up to President Trump.” Since then, Trump has regularly proposed annexing Canada as the 51st state, as his government offers support to an Alberta separatist movement that could split the country through an independence vote on the province’s October ballot. The July 1 renewal deadline for the five-year-old USMCA has injected urgency into relations among the three leaders. Without an extension, the largely tariff-free trade that underpins North America’s economy would come into question, and governments and businesses would begin planning for a rupture. Trump, who recently called the pact “irrelevant,” has signaled he would be content to let it lapse. Suspense around the free trade zone’s future will engulf preparations for the World Cup, potentially granting Trump related in unrelated negotiations. “In the lead-up to mega-events, geopolitical tensions tend to hover in the background,” Igel said. “Once the matches begin, the show can overwhelm everything else, unless something dramatic like a boycott intervenes. But in the months before? That’s when you see the friction.” THE ORIGINS OF THE UNITED BID It was not supposed to be this way. When North American soccer officials first decided, in 2016, to fuse three national campaigns to host the World Cup into one, they saw unity as the strategic advantage that would distinguish their bid from any competitors. Each country had considered pursuing the World Cup on its own. Canada, looking to build on its success as host of the 2015 Women’s World Cup, wanted to host the larger men’s competition. Mexico, the first country to host it twice, wanted another shot. The United States dusted off an earlier bid for the 2022 tournament, which was awarded to Qatar. Sunil Gulati, a Columbia University economist serving as the U.S. Soccer Federation’s president, envisioned an unprecedented compromise: Instead of competing with one another they would work together — with the United States using its economic primacy and geographical centrality to ensure it remained the tournament’s focal point. The three countries’ economies had been deeply intertwined for nearly a quarter-century. Their leaders signed NAFTA in 1992, lowering trade barriers and snaking supply chains across borders that had previous isolated economic activity. But the trade pact triggered a broad backlash in the United States that allied labor unions on the left and isolationists on the right. That political disquiet exploded with the candidacy of Donald Trump, who called NAFTA “the worst trade deal” and immediately moved to renegotiate it upon taking office. Gulati, meanwhile, was pitching Emilio Azcárraga Jean, CEO and chair of Mexican broadcaster Grupo Televisa, and Canada Soccer President Victor Montagliani, on his own plan for regional integration. They agreed to sketch out a tournament that would have 75 percent of the games held in the U.S. with the remainder split between Canada and Mexico. “I’d rather have a 90 percent chance of winning 75 percent of the World Cup than a 75 percent chance of, you know, winning all of it,” Gulati told the U.S. Soccer board, according to two people who heard him say it. Montagliani and Mexico Football Federation President Decio de María joined Gulati to formally announce the so-called United Bid in New York in April 2017. The three federation presidents knew that the thrust of their pitch had to be more emotional and inclusive than “we are big, rich and have tons of ready-built stadiums,” as one of the bid organizers put it. Kristick laced a theme of “community” through the 1,500-page prospectus known to insiders as a bid book. “In 2026, we can create a bold new legacy for players, for fans and for football by hosting a FIFA World Cup that is more inclusive, more universal than ever,” declared a campaign video that the United Bid showed to the organization’s voting members. “Not because of who we are as nations, but because of what we believe in as neighbors. To bid together, countries come together.” It was a sentiment increasingly out of sync with the times. The same month that Gulati had stood with his counterparts in New York announcing the joint bid, Trump was busy demanding that Congress include funding for a wall along the border with Mexico. He told then-Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto and then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, using aluminum and steel tariffs as a cudgel. Carlos Cordeiro, who displaced Gulati as U.S. Soccer president during the bid process in 2018, became the driving force of the lobbying effort to sell the idea to 211 national federations that would vote on it. In Cordeiro’s view, according to two Americans intimately involved in the bid at the time, the bid’s biggest challenge was assuring voters that the tournament would be more than a U.S. event dressed up with the flags of its neighbors. Teams fanned out across each of soccer’s six regional confederations to make their pitch, each presentation designed to paint a picture of tri-national cooperation, and returned to a temporary base in London to debrief. “It was very pragmatic. It was like Carlos, or another U.S. representative, would say this and talk about this. The Canada representative will then talk about this. The Mexico representative will talk about this. And it was very much trying to be even across the three in terms of who was speaking,” one person on the traveling team said. When the United Bid finally prevailed in June 2018, defeating a rival bid from Morocco, Trump celebrated it as an equal triumph for the three countries. “The U.S., together with Mexico and Canada, just got the World Cup,” he wrote on Twitter, now known as X. “Congratulations — a great deal of hard work!” THREE DIFFERENT TOURNAMENTS What began with a united bid is turning into parallel tournaments: with different fan bases, security procedures and off-field programs, all a function of different policy choices in each host country. Fans from Iran and Haiti are barred from entering the United States under travel restrictions imposed by Trump, while other World Cup countries are subject to elevated scrutiny that could block travel plans. (Official team delegations are exempt.) Canada and Mexico do not impose the same restrictions, creating uneven access across the tournament: fans traveling from Ivory Coast will likely find it much easier to reach Toronto for a June 20 match against Germany than one in Philadelphia five days later against Curaçao. “FIFA recognizes that immigration policy falls within the jurisdiction of sovereign governments,” read a statement provided by the FIFA spokesperson. “Engagement therefore focuses on dialogue and cooperation with host authorities to support inclusive tournament delivery, while respecting national law.” A fan who does cross borders will encounte a patchwork of security régimes depending on which government is in charge. Mexican authorities draw from deep experience policing soccer matches, with a mix of traditional crowd-control tactics and advanced technology like four-legged robots. The United States is emphasizing novel drone defenses and asked other countries for lists of its most problematic fans. Ongoing immigration enforcement actions in the U.S. have also prompted concern among the international soccer community and calls for a boycott of the tournament. The White House this month issued clarifying talking points to host cities to buttress the “shared commitment to safety, hospitality, and a successful tournament experience for all.” The document confirms that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement “may have a presence” at the tournament to assist with non-immigration-related functions like aviation security and anti-human trafficking efforts. No where is the fragmentation more glaring among countries than on human rights. After previous World Cups were accused of “sportswashing” autocratic regimes in Qatar and Russia, the United Bid made “human rights and labor standards” a centerpiece of its proposal to FIFA. The bid stipulated that each host city by August 2025 must submit concrete plans for how the city would protect individual rights, including respect for “indigenous peoples, migrant workers and their families, national, ethnic and religious minorities, people with disabilities, women, race, LGBTQI+, journalists, and human rights defenders.” “Human rights were embedded in the bid from the beginning,” said Human Rights Watch director of global initiatives Minky Worden, who worked closely with Mary Harvey, a former U.S. goalkeeper and soccer executive who now leads the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, on the language. Harvey consulted with 70 civil-society groups across the three countries while developing the strategy. That deadline passed without a single U.S. city submitting their plan on time. Now just months before the kickoff, host cities have finally started to release their reports, creating a patchwork of approaches. While Vancouver’s report makes multiple references to respecting LGBTQ+ populations, Houston’s has no mention of sexual orientation and identity at all. The FIFA spokesperson says the organization has embedded inclusion and human rights commitments directly into agreements signed by host countries, cities and stadium operators, and that dedicated FIFA Human Rights, Safeguarding and Anti-Discrimination teams will monitor implementation and hold local organizers to account for violations. “All of these standards were supposed to be uniform across these three countries,” said Worden. “It wasn’t supposed to be the lowest common denominator with the U.S. being really low.”