LONDON — Green Party leader Zack Polanski is open to forming a discrete non-aggression pact with Labour in order to stop right-winger Nigel Farage from ever entering Downing Street, according to two senior Green officials. Polanski, the leader of the “eco-populist” outfit that is helping squeeze the incumbent Labour government’s progressive vote, has been keen to make the case that his radical politics can halt Farage — whose insurgent Reform UK is riding high in the polls — in his tracks. But the recently elected party chief, who has overseen a big boost to Green polling with his punchy defenses of leftist causes on social media and television, has told allies he “couldn’t live with myself” if he contributed to Farage’s victory, according to a second senior Green official, granted anonymity like others in this piece to speak about internal thinking. Such a move would stop short of a formal Green-Labour deal, instead tapping into tactical voting. Green officials are discussing the prospect of informal, local prioritizations of resources so the best-placed progressive challenger can win, as seen in elections past with Labour and the centrist Liberal Democrats. At the same time, Green advisers are keen to lean into the deep divisions within Labour about whether Starmer should be replaced with another leader to prevent electoral oblivion. Starmer appears deeply unpopular with Green supporters. One YouGov study has him rated just as unfavorably as Conservative chief Badenoch with backers of Polanski’s party. The first Green official argued there is “no advantage in working electorally with Labour under Starmer.” Instead, they’re eyeing up — even expecting — a change in Labour leadership. Polanski has talked up Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Labour mayor who is seen as one potential challenger to Starmer.  LABOUR: WE ARE NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT THAT As the party in power, Labour — which has ramped up its attacks on the Greens in recent weeks — is keen to tamp down talk of working together. Asked about the Greens, a senior U.K. government adviser said: “We are not even thinking about that. We need to focus on being a viable government.”  They expect Polanski’s polling to plummet once there’s more scrutiny of his politics, including his criticism of NATO, as well as his more colorful comments. Back in 2013, as a hypnotherapist, Polanski suggested to a reporter he could enlarge breasts with his mind. “The hypnotist thing goes down in focus groups like a bucket of cold sick,” the government adviser added. There’s skepticism that a non-aggression deal could work anyway, not least because the Greens will be vying for the kind of urban heartlands Labour can’t afford to back down from. Neither party “has an incentive to go soft on one another,” as a result, Luke Tryl, a director at the More in Common think tank, said. “I really doubt they’re going to forgo taking more seats off us in London or Bristol in the greater interest of the left,” said a Labour MP with a keen eye on the polling. “They’re trying to replace us — they’re not trying to be our little friends.” The Labour MP instead argued that voters typically make their minds up in the lead-up to elections as to how best to stop a certain outcome, whether that’s due to past polling or activities on the ground. Zack Polanski has been keen to make the case that his radical politics can halt Nigel Farage — whose insurgent Reform UK is riding high in the polls — in his tracks. | Lesley Martin/Getty Images That can well work against Labour, as seen in the Caerphilly by-election in October. The constituency of the devolved Welsh administration had been Labour since its inception in 1999 — but no more. Voters determined to stop Farage decided it was the center-left Welsh nationalists of Plaid Cymru that represented the best party to coalesce around. Reform’s success was thwarted — but Labour’s vote plummeted in what were once party heartlands.  “There’s no doubt the Greens risk doing to Labour what Farage did to the Conservatives,” said Tryl of More in Common, who pointed out that the Greens may not even win many seats as a result of the fracturing (party officials internally speak of winning only 50 MPs as being a huge ask).   “Labour’s hope instead will have to be that enough disgruntled progressives hold their nose and opt for PM Starmer over the threat of PM Farage.” Labour and the Greens are not the only parties dealing with talk of a pact, despite a likely four-year wait for Britain’s next general election. Ever since 1918, it’s been either the Conservatives or Labour who’ve formed the British government, with Westminster’s first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system across 650 constituencies meaning new parties rarely get a look in. But the general election in July last year suggested this could be coming apart. Farage has already been forced to deny a report that he views an electoral deal with establishment Conservatives as the “inevitable” route to power. His stated aim is to replace the right-wing party entirely. Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch is publicly pretty firm that she won’t buddy up with Reform either. “I am the custodian of an institution that has existed for nigh on 200 years,” she said in February. “I can’t just treat it like it’s a toy and have pacts and mergers.” Robert Jenrick, the right-winger who’s widely tipped as her successor, has been more circumspect, however. That appears to be focusing minds on the left. Farage may be polling the highest — but there’s still a significant portion of the public horrified by the prospect of him entering No.10. A YouGov study on tactical voting suggested that Labour would be able to count on a boost in support from Liberal Democrat and Green voters to stave off the threat of Farage. Outwardly, Polanski is a vocal critic of Labour under Starmer and wants to usurp the party as the main vehicle for left-wing politics. The Green leader is aiming to win over not just progressives, but also disenchanted Reform-leaning voters, with his support for wider public ownership, higher taxes on the wealthy, and opposition to controversial measures like scaling back jury trials and introducing mandatory digital IDs. But privately, Polanski is more open to doing deals because in his mind, “at the general election, stopping Farage is the most important objective,” as the first senior Green adviser put it. “We expect to be the main challengers to Reform, but of course we are open to discussing what options exist to help in that central mission of stopping Farage,” they said.

President Donald Trump promised that a wave of emergency tariffs on nearly every nation would restore “fair” trade and jump-start the economy. Eight months later, half of U.S. imports are avoiding those tariffs. “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs,” Trump said in April when he rolled out global tariffs based on the United States’ trade deficits with other countries, “I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate your currencies.” But in the time since the president gave that Rose Garden speech announcing the highest tariffs in a century, enormous holes have appeared. Carveouts for specific products, trade deals with major allies and conflicting import duties have let more than half of all imports escape his sweeping emergency tariffs. Some $1.6 trillion in annual imports are subject to the tariffs, while at least $1.7 trillion are excluded, either because they are duty-free or subject to another tariff, according to a POLITICO analysis based on last year’s import data. The exemptions on thousands of goods could undercut Trump’s effort to protect American manufacturing, shrink the trade deficit and raise new revenue to fund his domestic agenda. In September, the White House exempted hundreds of goods, including critical minerals and industrial materials, totaling nearly $280 billion worth of annual imports. Then in November, the administration exempted $252 billion worth of mostly agricultural imports like beef, coffee and bananas, some of which are not widely produced in the U.S. — just after cost-of-living issues became a major talking point out of Democratic electoral victories — on top of the hundreds of other carveouts. “The administration, for most of this year, spent a lot of time saying tariffs are a way to offload taxes onto foreigners,” said Ed Gresser, a former assistant U.S. trade representative under Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s first term, who now works at the Progressive Policy Institute, a D.C.-based think tank. “I think that becomes very hard to continue arguing when you then say, ‘But we are going to get rid of tariffs on coffee and beef, and that will bring prices down.’ … It’s a big retreat in principle.” The Trump administration has argued that higher tariffs would rebalance the United States’ trade deficits with many of its major trading partners, which Trump blames for the “hollowing out” of U.S. manufacturing in what he evoked as a “national emergency.” Before the Supreme Court, the administration is defending the president’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact the tariffs, and Trump has said that a potential court-ordered end to the emergency tariffs would be “country-threatening.” In an interview with POLITICO on Monday, Trump said he was open to adding even more exemptions to tariffs. He downplayed the existing carveouts as “very small” and “not a big deal,” and said he plans to pair them with tariff increases elsewhere. Responding to POLITICO’s analysis, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “The Trump administration is implementing a nuanced and nimble tariff agenda to address our historic trade deficit and safeguard our national security. This agenda has already resulted in trillions in investments to make and hire in America along with over a dozen trade deals with some of America’s most important trade partners.” To date, the majority of exemptions to the “reciprocal” tariffs — the minimum 10 percent levies on most countries — have been for reasons other than new trade deals, according to POLITICO’s analysis. The White House also pushed back against the notion that November’s cuts were made in an effort to reduce food prices, saying that the exemptions were first outlined in the September order. The U.S. granted subsequent blanket exemptions, regardless of the status of countries’ trade negotiations with the Trump administration, after announcing several trade deals. Following the exemptions on agricultural tariffs, Trump announced on Monday a $12 billion relief aid package for farmers hurt by tariffs and rising production costs. The money will come from an Agriculture Department fund, though the president said it was paid for by revenue from tariffs (by law, Congress would need to approve spending the money that tariffs bring in). In addition to the exemptions from Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, more than $300 billion of imports are also exempted as part of trade deals the administration has negotiated in recent months, including with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan and more recently, Malaysia, Cambodia and Brazil. The deal with Brazil removed a range of products from a cumulative tariff of 50 percent, making two-thirds of imports from the country free from emergency tariffs. For Canadian and Mexican goods, Trump imposed tariffs under a separate emergency justification over fentanyl trafficking and undocumented migrants. But about half of imports from Mexico and nearly 40 percent of those from Canada will not face tariffs because of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. Last year, importers claimed USMCA exemptions on $405 billion in goods; that value is expected to increase, given that the two countries are facing high tariffs for the first time in several years. The Trump administration has also exempted several products — including autos, steel and aluminum — from the emergency reciprocal tariffs because they already face duties under Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The imports covered by those tariffs could total up to $900 billion annually, some of which may also be exempt under USMCA. The White House is considering using the law to justify further tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and several other industries. For now, the emergency tariffs remain in place as the Supreme Court weighs whether Trump exceeded his authority in imposing them. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s use of emergency authority was unlawful — a decision the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld in August. During oral arguments on Nov. 5, several Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism that the emergency statute authorizes a president to levy tariffs, a power constitutionally assigned to Congress. As the rates of tariffs and their subsequent exemptions are quickly added and amended, businesses are struggling to keep pace, said Sabine Altendorf, an economist with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “When there’s uncertainty and rapid changes, it makes operations very difficult,” Altendorf said. “Especially for agricultural products where growing times and planting times are involved, it’s very important for market actors to be able to plan ahead.” ABOUT THE DATA Trump’s trade policy is not a straightforward, one-size-fits-all approach, despite the blanket tariffs on most countries of the world. POLITICO used 2024 import data to estimate the value of goods subject to each tariff, accounting for the stacking rules outlined below. Under Trump’s current system, some tariffs can “stack” — meaning a product can face more than one tariff if multiple trade actions apply to it. Section 232 tariffs cover automobiles, automobile parts, products made of steel and aluminum, copper and lumber — and are applied in that order of priority. Section 232 tariffs as a whole then take priority over other emergency tariffs. We applied this stacking priority order to all imports to ensure no double-counting. To calculate the total exclusions, we did not count the value of products containing steel, aluminum and copper, since the tariff would apply only to the known portion of the import’s metal contentand not the total import value of all products containing them. This makes the $1.7 trillion in exclusions a minimum estimate. Goods from Canada and Mexico imported under USMCA face no tariffs. Some of these products fall under a Section 232 category and may be charged applicable tariffs for the non-USMCA portion of the import. To claim exemptions under USMCA, importers must indicate the percentage of the product made or assembled in Canada or Mexico. Because detailed commodity-level data on which imports qualify for USMCA is not available, POLITICO’s analysis estimated the amount that would be excluded from tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports by applying each country’s USMCA-exempt share to its non-Section 232 import value. For instance, 38 percent of Canada’s total imports qualified for USMCA. The non-Section 232 imports from Canada totaled around $320 billion, so we used only $121 billion towards our calculation of total goods excluded from Trump’s emergency tariffs. Exemptions from trade deals included those with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, Brazil, Cambodia and Malaysia. They do not include “frameworks” for agreements announced by the administration. Exemptions were calculated in chronological order of when the deals were announced. Imports already exempted in previous orders were not counted again, even if they appeared on subsequent exemption lists.

DUBLIN — Neutral and poorly armed Ireland — long viewed as “Europe’s blind spot” — announced Thursday it will spend €1.7 billion on improved military equipment, capabilities and facilities to deter drones and potential Russian sabotage of undersea cables. The five-year plan, published as Defense Minister Helen McEntee visited the Curragh army base near Dublin,  aims in part to reassure European allies that their leaders will be safe from attack when Ireland — a non-NATO member largely dependent on neighboring Britain for its security — hosts key EU summits in the second half of next year. McEntee said Ireland intends to buy and deploy €19 million in counter-drone technology “as soon as possible, not least because of the upcoming European presidency.” Ireland’s higher military spending — representing a 55 percent increase from previous commitments — comes barely a week after a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy exposed Ireland’s inability to secure its own seas and skies. Five unmarked drones buzzed an Irish naval vessel supposed to be guarding the flight path of Zelenskyy’s plane shortly after the Ukrainian leader touched down at Dublin Airport. The Irish ship didn’t fire at the drones, which eventually disappeared. Irish authorities have been unable to identify their source, but suspect that they were operated from an unidentified ship later spotted in European Space Agency satellite footage. The Russian embassy in Dublin denied any involvement. Ireland’s navy has just eight ships, but sufficient crews to operate only two at a time, even though the country has vast territorial waters containing critical undersea infrastructure and pipelines that supply three-fourths of Ireland’s natural gas. The country has no fighter jets and no military-grade radar and sonar. Some but not all of those critical gaps will be plugged by 2028, McEntee pledged. She said Ireland would roll out military-grade radar starting next year, buy sonar systems for the navy, and acquire up to a dozen helicopters, including four already ordered from Airbus. The army would upgrade its Swiss-made fleet of 80 Piranha III armored vehicles and develop drone and anti-drone units. The air force’s fixed-wing aircraft will be replaced by 2030 — probably by what would be Ireland’s first wing of combat fighters. Thursday’s announcement coincided with publication of an independent assessment of Ireland’s rising security vulnerabilities on land, sea and air. The report, coauthored by the Dublin-based think tank IIEA and analysts at Deloitte, found that U.S. multinationals operating in Ireland were at risk of cyberattacks and espionage by Russian, Chinese and Indian intelligence agents operating in the country.

As a frontline NATO heavyweight, Poland is seething at being relegated to the diplomatic sidelines on a potential peace deal in Ukraine. When leaders from the U.K., France, Germany and Ukraine gathered in London this week to align their stances on Washington’s fast-moving push for a peace deal, Poland wasn’t to be found on the guest list. It was the second snub in as many months, after Warsaw also missed an invitation to a crunch peace summit in Geneva on Nov. 23. Poland’s exclusion from the top table is a bitter blow for a country that has taken one of the EU’s most active positions on Ukraine — and the right-wing nationalist camp around President Karol Nawrocki has wasted no time in blaming liberal Prime Minister Donald Tusk for the flop. “Poland’s absence in London is yet another example of Donald Tusk’s incompetence,” Marek Pęk, a senator from the nationalist Law and Justice party, raged after the Downing Street meeting, calling Tusk “a second-tier politician in Europe.” The reasons for Polish frustration are clear. Poland not only hosts 1 million Ukrainian refugees and acts as the key supply hub for Ukraine, but Warsaw also plays a pivotal role in pressing Europe toward rearmament. Poland is NATO’s highest per capita spender on defense and wants to more than double its military — already the alliance’s third biggest — to 500,000 personnel. TUSK ON THE MARGINS Tusk has also betrayed some frustration at Poland’s exile to the diplomatic margins. After the meeting in Geneva, he asked to be added to the joint European communiqué — a face-saving request that Warsaw commentators said merely underlined Poland’s absence. Donald Tusk has betrayed some frustration at Poland’s exile to the diplomatic margins. | Halil Sagirkaya/Anadolu via Getty Images In Berlin last week, standing beside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Tusk tried to defuse the awkwardness over the diplomatic rebuff to Poland with a touch of irony. “I don’t want to stir emotions, but let’s say this plainly: Not everyone in Washington — and certainly no one in Moscow — wants Poland to be present everywhere,” he said, before adding that he took this banishment — presumably a reflection of Poland’s dogged defense of Ukraine — “as a compliment.” The government insists nothing unusual occurred in London. The format “was proposed by Prime Minister [Keir] Starmer,” government spokesperson Adam Szłapka said, arguing that “there are dozens of such formats, and they change constantly. Not every format produces results, and Poland does not have to — and should not — participate in all of them.”  He noted that Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski had joined a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Starmer after the meeting — proof, he said, that Poland “remains fully engaged.” Polish officials are also quick to point out there are no actual peace negotiations with Russia, at least for now. “These are snapshots, not the architecture,” one diplomat said of Warsaw’s absences. “It’s too early for hysteria.” The diplomat, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely on a topic of political sensitivity. FROM PLAYMAKER TO BYSTANDER In the early years of the war, Poland was impossible to ignore. It sent much of its arsenal to Ukraine, cajoled Berlin into sending Leopard tanks to Kyiv, and served as NATO’s indispensable logistics hub, most notably from an airbase near the city of Rzeszów. President Karol Nawrocki has been busy building up his own foreign-policy credentials. | Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images But much of that leverage has faded. Poland’s Soviet-era weapons stocks are depleted and its vast rearmament drive won’t free up anything it can spare abroad for years. Meanwhile, France, Germany and the U.K. are now promising new air-defense systems, long-range missiles and — crucially — are willing to contribute troops to any future monitoring or peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. Even if they are just that — promises — Poland has already ruled that out. In discussions now centered on cease-fire enforcement and security guarantees, past support matters less than deployable assets, and Kyiv has adjusted accordingly. Zelenskyy is now leaning heavily on capitals that can bring something new to the table. “Americans don’t want us, European leaders don’t want us, Kyiv doesn’t want us — so who does?” former Prime Minister Leszek Miller said after the London talks. “Something unpleasant is happening, and we should stop pretending otherwise.” Former President Bronisław Komorowski, a political ally of Tusk, argued that Poland’s absence reflected geopolitical realities, not diplomatic failure.  London brought together “the three strongest European countries” — politically, militarily and economically — the ones contributing the most to Ukraine’s war effort, he said. Poland, he added, “is simply weaker,” and while Europe values Warsaw’s role, it must be “in line with its real weight.” SPLIT-SCREEN DIPLOMACY Poland’s quest for diplomatic heft is hardly helped by its difficulties speaking with one voice abroad. As Tusk focuses on European coordination efforts, nationalist opposition-backed President Nawrocki has been busy building up his own foreign-policy credentials, jetting off to Washington, cultivating contacts around Donald Trump’s administration, and speaking publicly about Poland’s “independent voice.”  The two sides exchange frequent jabs. Tusk recently reminded Nawrocki that the Polish constitution entrusts foreign policy to the government, not to the presidency. Despite the theatrics, both camps share the same hard line on Russia. What they don’t share is a strategy for navigating Washington. Government officials acknowledge Nawrocki currently has more direct access to the White House.  His senior foreign policy adviser, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, puts it bluntly: “Trump will never meet Tusk. He will meet the president. Thanks to him, Poland still has a channel to Washington.” Nawrocki’s circle argues this gives him leverage Tusk can’t match. Without access to Trump, Tusk “adds nothing distinctive” to high-level Western conversations, Saryusz-Wolski told POLITICO. In his view, unless someone with the president’s standing asserts Poland’s interests at the highest level, the country will simply follow whatever compromise Paris, Berlin and London shape with Washington. Officials concede privately that a channel to Washington matters — and for now, Nawrocki has it. Still, they also warn that betting everything on a single, unpredictable U.S. president is risky, especially after the new U.S. security strategy openly signaled that Europe must take far greater responsibility for its own defense. The consequence of Nawrocki handling diplomacy with Trump while Tusk deals with Europe is that it can look like two foreign policies at once. “The problem is not Poland’s position,” said a senior Western European diplomat, referring to the country’s pro-Ukraine stance. “The problem is knowing who speaks for Poland.” If it’s any consolation to Tusk, Germany’s Merz insists that he is taking Warsaw’s position into account. “My position toward Poland is very clear: We do nothing without close coordination with Poland,” the chancellor told Tusk last week.

President Donald Trump’s latest round of Europe-bashing has the U.S.’s allies across the Atlantic revisiting a perennial question: Why does Trump hate Europe so much? Trump’s disdain for America’s one-time partners has been on prominent display in the past week — first in Trump’s newly released national security strategy, which suggested that Europe was suffering from civilizational decline, and then in Trump’s exclusive interview with POLITICO, where he chided the “decaying” continent’s leaders as “weak.” In Europe, Trump’s criticisms were met with more familiar consternation — and calls to speed up plans for a future where the continent cannot rely on American security support. But where does Trump’s animosity for Europe actually come from? To find out, I reached out to a scholar who’d been recommended to me by sources in MAGA world as someone who actually understands their foreign policy thinking (even if he doesn’t agree with it). “He does seem to divide the world into strength and weakness, and he pays attention to strength, and he kind of ignores weakness,” said Jeremy Shapiro, the research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Trump’s strained relations with the continent. “And he has long characterized the Europeans as weak.” Shapiro explained that Trump has long blamed Europe’s weakness on its low levels of military spending and its dependence on American security might. But his critique seems to have taken on a new vehemence during his second term thanks to input from new advisers like Vice President JD Vance, who have successfully cast Europe as a liberal bulwark in a global culture war between MAGA-style “nationalists” and so-called globalists. Like many young conservatives, Shapiro explained, Vance has come to believe that “it was these bastions of liberal power in the culture and in the government that stymied the first Trump term, so you needed to attack the universities, the think tanks, the foundations, the finance industry, and, of course, the deep state.” In the eyes of MAGA, he said, “Europe is one of these liberal bastions.” This conversation was edited for length and clarity. Trump’s recent posture toward Europe brings to mind the old adage that the opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference. Do you think Trump hates Europe, or does he just think it’s irrelevant? My main impression is that he’s pretty indifferent toward it. There are moments when specific European countries or the EU really pisses him off and he expresses something that seems close to hatred, but mostly he doesn’t seem very focused on it. Why do you think that is? He does seem to divide the world into strength and weakness, and he pays attention to strength, and he kind of ignores weakness. And he has long characterized the Europeans as weak for a bunch of different reasons having to do with what seems to him to be a decadence in their society, their immigration, their social welfare states, their lack of apparent military vigor. All of those things seem to put them in the weak category, and in Trump’s world, if you’re in the weak category, he doesn’t pay much attention to you. What about more prosaic things like the trade imbalance and NATO spending? Do those contribute to his disdain, or does it originate from a more guttural place? I get the impression that it is more at a guttural level. It always seemed to me that the NATO spending debate was just a stick with which to beat the NATO allies. He has long understood that that’s something that they felt a little bit guilty about, and that’s something that American presidents had beat them about for a while, so he just sort of took it to an 11. The trade deficit is something that’s more serious for him. He’s paid quite a bit of attention to that in every country, so it’s in the trade area where he takes Europeans most seriously. But because they’re so weak and so dependent on the United States for security, he hasn’t had to deal with their trade problems in the same way. He’s able to threaten them on security, and they have folded pretty quickly. Does some of his animosity originate from his pre-presidency when he did business in Europe? He likes to blame Europeans for nixing some of his business transactions, like a golf course in Ireland. How serious do you think that is? I think that’s been important in forming his opinion of the EU rather than of Europe as a whole. He never seems to refer to the EU without referring to the fact that they blocked his golf course in Ireland. It wasn’t even the EU that blocked it, actually — it was an Irish local government authority — but it conforms to the general MAGA view of the EU as overly bureaucratic, anti-development and basically as an extension of the American liberal approach to development and regulation, which Trump certainly does hate. That’s part of what led Trump and his movement more generally to put the EU in the category of supporters of liberal America. In that sense, the fight against the EU in particular — but also against the other liberal regimes in Europe — became an extension of their domestic political battle with liberals in America. That effort to pull Europe as a whole into the American culture war by positioning it as a repository of all the liberal pieties that MAGA has come to hate — that seems kind of new. That is new for the second term, yeah. Where do you think that’s coming from? It definitely seems to be coming from [Vice President] JD Vance and the sort of philosophers who support him — the Patrick Deneens and Yoram Hazonys. Those types of people see liberal Europe as quite decadent and as part of the overall liberal problem in the world. You can also trace some of it back to Steve Bannon, who has definitely been talking about this stuff for a while. There does seem to be a real preoccupation with the idea that Europe is suffering from some sort of civilizational decline or civilization collapse. For instance, in both the new national security strategy and in his remarks to POLITICO this week, Trump has suggested that Europe is “decaying.” What do you make of that? This is a bit of a projection, right? If you look at the numbers in terms of immigration and diversity, the United States is further ahead in that decay — if you want to call it that — than Europe. There was this view that emerged among MAGA elites in the interregnum that it wasn’t enough to win the presidency in order to successfully change America. You had to attack all of the bastions of liberal power. It was these bastions of liberal power in the culture and in the government that stymied the first Trump term, so you needed to attack the universities, the think tanks, the foundations, the finance industry and, of course, the deep state, which is the first target. It was only through attacking these liberal bastions and conquering them to your cause that you could have a truly transformative effect. One of the things that they seem to have picked up while contemplating this theory is that Europe is one of these liberal bastions. Europe is a support for liberals in the United States, in part because Europe is the place where Americans get their sense of how the world views them. It’s ironic that that image of a decadent Europe coexists with the rise of far-right parties across the continent. Obviously, the Trump administration has supported those parties and allied with them, but at least in France and Germany, the momentum seems to be behind these parties at the moment. That presents them with an avenue to destroy liberal Europe’s support for liberal America by essentially transforming Europe into an illiberal regime. That is the vector of attack on liberal Europe. There has been this idea that’s developed amongst the populist parties in Europe since Brexit that they’re not really trying to leave the EU or destroy the EU; they’re trying to remake the EU in their nationalist and sovereigntist image. That’s perfect for what the Trump people are trying to do, which is not destroy the EU fully, but destroy the EU as a support for liberal ideas in the world and the United States. You mentioned the vice president, who has become a very prominent mouthpiece for this adversarial approach to Europe — most obviously in his speech at Munich earlier this year. Do you think he’s just following Trump’s guttural dislike of Europe or is he advancing his own independent anti-European agenda? A little of both. I think that Vance, like any good vice president, is very careful not to get crosswise with his boss and not contradict him in any way. So the fact that Trump isn’t opposed to this and that he can support it to a degree is very, very important. But I think that a lot of these ideas come from Vance independently, at least in detail. What he’s doing is nudging Trump along this road. He’s thinking about what will appeal to Trump, and he’s mostly been getting it right. But I think that especially when it comes to this sort of culture war stuff with Europe, he’s more of a source than a follower. During this latest round of Trump’s Euro-bashing, did anything stand out to you as new or novel? Or was it all of a piece with what you had heard before? It was novel relative to a year ago, but not relative to February and since then. But it’s a new mechanism of describing it — through a national security strategy document and through interviews with the president. The same arguments have achieved a sort of higher status, I would say, in the last week or so. You could sit around in Europe — as I did — and argue about the degree to which this really was what the Trump administration was doing, or whether this was just a faction — and you can still have that argument, because the Trump administration is generally quite inconsistent and incoherent when it comes to this kind of thing — but I think it’s undoubtedly achieved a greater status in the last week or two. How do you think Europe should deal with Trump’s recurring animosity towards the continent? It seems they’ve settled on a strategy of flattery, but do you think that’s effective in the long run? No, I think that’s the exact opposite of effective. If you recall what I said at the beginning, Trump abhors weakness, and flattery is the sort of ultimate manifestation of weakness. Every time the Europeans show up and flatter Trump, it enables them to have a good meeting with him, but it conveys the impression to him that they are weak, and so it increases his policy demands against them. We’ve seen that over and over again. The Europeans showed up and thought they had changed his Ukraine position, they had a great meeting, he said good things about them, they went home and a few weeks later, he had a totally different Ukraine position that they’re now having to deal with. The flattery has achieved the sense in the Trump administration that they can do anything they want to the Europeans, and they’ll basically swallow it. They haven’t done what some other countries have done, like the Chinese or the Brazilians, or even the Canadians to some degree, which is to stand up to Trump and show him that he has to deal with them as strong actors. And that’s a shame, because the Europeans — while they obviously have an asymmetric dependence on the United States, and they have some weaknesses — are a lot stronger than a lot of other countries, especially if they were working together. I think they have some capacity to do that, but they haven’t really managed it as of yet. Maybe this will be a wake-up call to do that.

PARIS — Far-right presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen has criticized France’s participation in European defense programs, arguing they’re a waste of money that should be spent on the country’s military instead. “[French President Emmanuel] Macron has consistently encouraged European institutions to interfere in our defense policy,” she told French lawmakers on Wednesday. Slamming the European Defence Fund and the European Peace Facility — two EU-level defense funding and coordination initiatives — and industrial defense projects between France and Germany, she said: “A great deal of public money has been wasted and precious years have been lost, for our manufacturers, for our armed forces and for the French people.” Le Pen was speaking in the National Assembly during a debate about boosting France’s defense budget. Some 411 MPs of the 522 lawmakers present voted in favor of increasing military expenditures — although the Greens and the Socialists warned they won’t let social spending suffer as a result. The far-right National Rally has an anti-EU agenda and is wary of defense industrial cooperation with Germany. Le Pen criticized Macron’s proposal this past summer to enter into a strategic dialogue with European countries on how France’s nuclear deterrent could contribute to Europe’s security. She also slammed the Future Air Combat System, a project to build a next-generation fighter jet with Germany and Spain, describing it as a “blatant failure.” She hinted she would axe the program if she won power in France’s next presidential elections, scheduled for 2027, along with another initiative to manufacture a next-generation battle tank with Berlin, known as the Main Ground Combat System. Le Pen claimed that France’s military planning law was contributing to EU funds that were, in turn, being spent on foreign defense contractors. “Cutting national defense budgets to create a European defense system actually means financing American, Korean or Israeli defense companies,” she said. Marine Le Pen criticized Emmanuel Macron’s proposal this past summer to enter into a strategic dialogue with European countries on how France’s nuclear deterrent could contribute to Europe’s security. | Pool Photo by Sebastien Bozon via Getty Images The French government has long pushed for Buy European clauses to be attached to the use of EU money, with mixed results. “[European Commission President Ursula] von der Leyen did not hear you, or perhaps did not listen to you, promising to purchase large quantities of American weapons in the unfair trade agreement with President [Donald] Trump,” Le Pen declared. In reality, the EU-U.S. trade deal agreed earlier this year contains no legally binding obligation to buy U.S. arms.

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Labour’s internal woes. Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch couldn’t resist using the penultimate PMQs of 2025 to land a punch by bringing up Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s future, as rumors about his political survival continue to swirl. They’re behind you! Badenoch asked the PM why Labour MPs were “describing him as a caretaker prime minister.” That framing wasn’t helped by the influential think tank Labour Together canvassing party members about possible leadership runners and riders. Starmer brushed off that initial attack by claiming his own MPs were “very proud” of the budget and focused on “the single most important issue,” i.e., the cost of living. State of secretaries: The Tory leader said Starmer “has lost control of his party” and Cabinet ministers were “so busy trying to replace him that they have taken their eyes off the ball.” She then worked through contenders often mooted — probing the PM on their records in respective Whitehall departments. Igniting the fires: Badenoch said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was trying to “recycle himself as leader” despite Starmer’s predecessor but one insisting he didn’t want to become Labour leader again. Then followed a spat about energy bills, though Starmer highlighted Badenoch’s own difficulty, with plenty of ex-Tories jumping ship to Reform UK. The “real question is who’s next,” he joked. Playground banter: “He could power the national grid on all of that hot air,” the Tory leader cried, turning her attention to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and teacher numbers (Labour promised 6,500). The PM tore into the Conservatives’ record on education, saying “they should be utterly ashamed.” Cop out: “Wrong,” Badenoch dismissively replied, having another go on police numbers (managed, of course, by Home Secretary and darling of the Labour right, Shabana Mahmood). The PM said there would be “3,000 more by the end of March” and Badenoch should “get up and say sorry” for their time in government. “Wrong,” the Tory leader mused again. More in anger than in sorrow: Despite the rapid range of policies, Badenoch tied her criticism together by stating “everything is getting worse” and, quoting the famous Saatchi & Saatchi poster, “Labour isn’t working.” Starmer wasn’t going down without a fight, calling the Tory leader “living proof you can say whatever you like when nobody is listening to anything you have to say.” So much for the season of goodwill … Helpful backbench intervention of the week: York Central MP Rachael Maskell deplored the Tories’ attitude to child poverty and highlighted Labour’s work managing this issue. The PM, breathing a sigh of relief to bag a friendly question from the often Labour rebel, plugged the government’s work with a dig at Badenoch for good measure. Oh, and: Dartford MP Jim Dickson ripped into Reform UK’s governance of Kent County Council, claiming their so-called DOGE unit actually stood for “deluded, overconfident, gormless and embarrassing.” Starmer was more than happy, listing their eventful spell across local government since May and slamming comments by Reform politicians. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 5/10. Badenoch 7/10. The endless internal Labour rows about Starmer’s future and the party’s languishing popularity gave the Tory leader a plethora of material. Though not sticking to one topic, Badenoch used possible contenders as a springboard to flag the government’s policy challengers. The PM rightly raised the Tories’ own problems with Reform UK and terrible polling numbers, but struggled to brush off the narrative that his time in No 10 is numbered.

LONDON — In February Britain’s cash-strapped Labour government cut international development spending — and barely anyone made a noise. The center-left party announced it would slice the country’s spending on aid down to only 0.3 percent of gross domestic income — from 0.5 percent — in order to fund a hike in defense spending. MPs, aid experts and officials have told POLITICO that the scale of the cuts is on a par with — or even exceeding — those of both the previous center-right Conservative government or the United States under Donald Trump. This leaves Britain’s development arm, once globally envied as a vehicle for poverty alleviation, a shadow of its former self. The move — prompted by U.S. demands to up its NATO spending, and mirroring the Trump administration’s move to gut its own USAID development budget — shocked Labour’s progressive MPs, supporters and backers in the aid sector. But unlike attempted cuts to British welfare spending, the real-world backlash was muted, with the resignation of Britain’s development minister prompting little further dissent or change in policy. There was no mutiny in parliament, and only limited domestic and international condemnation outside of an aid sector torn between making their voices heard — and keeping in Whitehall’s good books over slices of the shrinking pie. Some fear a return grab over the aid budget could still be on the cards — but that the government will find that there is little left to cut. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, warned that, instead of “reversing the cuts by the previous Conservative government, Labour has compounded them, and lives will be lost as a result.” “These cuts will further tarnish the U.K.’s reputation as it continues to be known as an unreliable global partner, breaking Labour’s manifesto commitment,” he warned. “The Conservatives started the fire, but instead of putting it out, this Labour government threw petrol on it.” ‘IT WAS THE PERFECT TIME TO DO IT’ When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the cut to international aid — a bid to save over £6 billion by 2027 — Labour MPs, including those who worked in the sector before being elected, were notably silent. The move followed a 2021 Conservative cut to aid spending — from 0.7 percent in the Tory brand-rebuilding David Cameron years down to 0.5 percent. At the time, Labour MPs had met that Tory cut with howls of outrage. This time it was different. Some were genuinely shocked, while others feared retribution from a Downing Street that had flexed its muscles at MPs who rebelled on what they saw as points of conscience. “No one was expecting it, so there was no opportunity to campaign around it,” said one Labour MP. “Literally none of us had any idea it was coming.” Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank. | Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images The same MP noted that there are around 50 Labour MPs from the new 2024 intake who had some form of development background before coming into parliament. Yet they were put “completely under the cosh” by Downing Street and government whips. “It was the perfect time to do it,” the MP said. A number of MPs who might have been vocal have since been made parliamentary private secretaries — the most junior government role. “They have basically gagged the people who would be most likely to be outspoken on it,” the MP above said. The department’s ministerial team is now more likely to be loyal to the Starmer project. “I just felt hurt, and wounded. We were stunned. None of us saw it coming,” said one MP from the 2024 cohort, adding: “They priced in that backlash wouldn’t come.” But they added: “If we were culpable so were NGOs, too inward-looking and focused on peripheral issues.” The lack of outcry from MPs would, however, seem to put them largely in step with the wider British public. Polling and focus groups from think tank More in Common suggest that despite the majority of voters thinking spending on international aid is the right thing to do in a variety of circumstances, only around 20 percent of the public think the budget was cut too much.  The second new-intake Labour MP quoted above said the policy was therefore an “easy thing to sell on the doorstep,” and “in my area, there’s not going to be shouting from the rooftops to spend more money on aid.” DIMINISHED AND DEMORALIZED The cuts to aid come at a time when Britain’s Foreign Office is undergoing a radical overhaul. While the department describes its plans as “more agile,” staff, programs and entire areas of focus are all ripe for cuts to save money. The department is looking to make redundancies for around 25 percent of staff based in the U.K. MPs have voiced concern that development staff will be among the first to make the jump due to the government’s shift away from aid. The department insists that no final decisions have been taken over the size and shape of the organization. Major cuts are expected across work on education, conflict, and WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene.) The government’s Integrated Security Fund — which funds key counter-terror programs abroad — is also looking to scale back work abroad which does not have a clear link to Britain’s national security. The British Council — a key soft-power organization viewed as helping combat Chinese and Russian reach across the world — told MPs it is in “real financial peril” and would be cutting its presence in 35 of the 97 countries it operates. The BBC’s World Service is seeing similar cuts to its global reach. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the watchdog for aid spending, is also not safe from the ax as the government continues its bonfire of regulators. The FCDO did not refute the expected pathway of cuts. Published breakdowns of spending allocations for the next three years are due to be published in the coming months, an official said. A review of Britain’s development and diplomacy policies conducted by economist Minouche Shafik — who has since been moved into Downing Street — sits discarded in the department. The government refuses to publish its findings. Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. | Pool Photo by Adrian Dennis via Getty Images The second 2024 intake MP quoted earlier in the piece said that following the U.S. decisions on aid and foreign policy “there was an expectation that the U.K., as a responsible international partner, as a leader on a lot of this stuff, would fill the gap to some extent, and then take more of a leadership role on it, and we’ve done the opposite.” NOTHING LEFT TO CUT Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. While few MPs or those in the aid sector feel Britain will ever return to the lofty heights of its 0.7 percent commitment, they predict there will be harder resistance if the government comes back for more. “I don’t think they’re going to try and do it again, as there’s no money left,” the second 2024 intake MP said. But they pointed out that a large portion of the remaining aid budget is spent on in-country costs such as accommodation for asylum seekers. Savings identified from the asylum budget would be sent back to the Treasury, rather than put back into the aid budget, they noted. Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank or the United Nations and would, they warned, involve “getting rid of international agreements and chopping up longstanding influence at big international institutions that we are one of the leading people in.” The United Nations is already facing its own funding crisis as it struggles to adjust to the global downturn in aid spending. British diplomat Tom Fletcher — who leads the UN’s humanitarian response — said earlier this year that the organization has been “forced into a triage of human survival,” adding: “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking.” The government still has a commitment to returning to 0.7 percent of GNI “as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow.” The tests for this ramp back up were set out four years ago. Britain must not be borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt must be falling. The last two budgets have forecast that the government will not meet these tests in this parliament. FARAGE CIRCLES In the meantime, Labour’s opponents feel emboldened to go further. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have said that they would further cut the aid budget. The Tories have vowed to slice it down to 0.1 percent of GNI, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is eyeing fresh cuts of at least by £7-8 billion a year. A third 2024 Labour MP said that there was a degree of pressure among some colleagues to match the Conservatives’ 0.1 percent pledge. Though no country has gone as far as Uganda’s Idi Amin in setting up a “save Britain fund” for its “former colonial masters,” Britain’s departure on international aid gives space for other countries wanting to step up to further their own foreign policy aims. The space vacated by Britain and America has prompted warnings that China will step in, while countries newer to international development such as Gulf states could try and fill the void. Many of these nations are unlikely to ever fund the same projects as the U.K. and the U.S., forcing NGOs to look to alternate donors such as philanthropists to fund their work. “There’ll be a big, big gap, and it won’t be completely filled,” the second new intake MP said. An FCDO spokesperson said the department was undergoing “an unprecedented transformation,” and added: “We remain resolutely committed to international development and have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context. We will bring U.K. expertise and investment to where it is needed most, including global health solutions and humanitarian support.”

BRUSSELS — The European Union’s drive to cut red tape is creating uncertainty for business and chaos in the EU’s institutions, Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera said on Thursday, in comments that put her squarely at odds with her boss Ursula von der Leyen. “In too many occasions we have this sense that it is not simplification but [a] messy combination of things that end in uncertainty,” Ribera said in Brussels. The Commission’s dealings with EU member countries and lawmakers have degenerated into “a terrible political spectacle,” she added. The remarks by the Spanish socialist represent the most serious pushback by a top EU official since von der Leyen launched a massive effort to simplify the bloc’s regulatory rulebook after being confirmed for a second term a year ago. This has taken the form of a series of “omnibus” packages — on issues ranging from business supply chains to agriculture funding and migration — that have emerged from the EU’s policy machinery with little or no consultation. The EU ombudsman has slammed the Commission for procedural shortcomings in proposing the measures, saying they amounted to “maladministration.” Ribera, who ranks second at the EU executive behind its German president, acknowledged in a keynote speech that it was important to avoid duplication, align procedures, move faster and provide greater clarity to businesses. But this should not go too far. “Deregulation eliminates safeguards, it puts costs onto citizens and taxpayers, creates uncertainty, discourages investment,” she said at an event hosted by think tank Bruegel. “It’s a kind of Trumpist approach against being stable, reliable and predictable. It weakens our standards. It lowers the credibility of the single market, it enlarges inequalities and distortions.” Von der Leyen made the case for deregulation in a speech last month in Copenhagen. “When we look at simplification, we all agree we need simplification, we need deregulation,” she said. But Ribera cautioned against that on Thursday. “Simplifying rules is not the same as weakening protections or giving up on regulation,” she said. Lawmakers in the European Parliament earlier this month agreed to exempt more companies from green reporting rules after the center-right, right-wing and far-right groups allied to pass the EU’s first omnibus simplification package. Louise Guillot contributed reporting.

LONDON — Keir Starmer is promising British voters he’ll fix the Brexit-shaped hole in the U.K. economy, but Brussels appears to have quite enough on its plate. Days after Britain’s grim growth prospects were laid bare in the U.K. budget, the country’s PM gave two speeches promising closer ties with the European Union and elevated his EU point person, Nick Thomas-Symonds, to the Cabinet. “We have to keep moving towards a closer relationship with the EU, and we have to be grown-up about that, to accept that that will require trade-offs,” Starmer said on Monday.   But European leaders are already grappling with packed in-trays as they look for an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine and confront their own domestic economic challenges — and skepticism remains as to how much room for maneuver the British PM actually has.  Starmer’s political red lines — no customs union, no single market, and no return to freedom of movement — remain in place, and ministers continue to stress that a return to full EU membership remains off the table. Even Starmer’s existing EU “reset” agenda — which aims to walk back some of the harder edges of Boris Johnson’s Brexit settlement — is not all going to plan. A push to join the EU’s SAFE loans-for-arms scheme crashed last week after the two sides failed to agree on how much money the U.K. would pay. “The same ‘how much should the U.K. contribute?’ question has been slowing down the actual implementation of basically all the reset topics,” said one EU diplomat who was not authorized to speak on the record. Despite plenty of talk in London about closer ties, the forum for putting fresh topics on the agenda would be the EU-U.K. summit that is due next year. But a date has yet to be set for that gathering. “Nobody is talking about the next summit here yet. I’m not saying it isn’t going to happen, it’s just a question of bandwidth,” another EU diplomat said. “For us the focus now is to work through our existing commitments and finalize those deals, start implementing them and then showing that the deals are bringing value. That takes time,” a third diplomat said. LIMITED SCOPE  The problem for Starmer is that his existing plan to rebuild EU ties is unlikely to move the dial on U.K. economic growth. Economists at the Centre for European Reform reckon that the government’s reset package — if delivered in full — is worth somewhere between 0.3 percent and 0.7 per cent of U.K. GDP over a decade.   Meanwhile, academics at the Bank of England and Stanford University calculate that the economic hit from Brexit could be as high as 8 percent of GDP over a similar period. “It is striking how frequently the chancellor and prime minister will now lament the costs of Brexit, without making any suggestions on how to change the status quo,” said Joël Reland, research fellow at the U.K. In A Changing Europe think tank.  “This could be read as a slow creep towards a breach of their red lines, but I suspect it is mostly about domestic political management. They are in a sticky economic situation and Brexit is a convenient thing to blame. I don’t think they’d be brave enough to risk a manifesto breach on Brexit, but I’d be surprised if ‘no single market or customs union’ is in the 2029 manifesto,” Reland said.  One British government official stressed that Labour’s red lines remain in place — but added: “We don’t think we’re at those red lines yet.”  BREAKING THE TABOO  Labour’s previous reluctance to talk about Brexit was born of a fear of upsetting Leave-leaning swing voters whom the party wanted to win over in the last election.  But that started to change over the summer.  Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of delivering the reset, went on the attack in a speech hosted by the Spectator, a right-wing magazine. Parties pledging to reverse Starmer’s reset were offering “more red tape, mountains of paperwork, and a bureaucratic burden,” he argued. To the surprise of Downing Street aides, the attacks landed well and drew a line between the government’s agenda and that of Reform UK boss Nigel Farage — the longstanding Brexiteer dominating in the polls — and Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch.  It emboldened Starmer and his lieutenants. Rachel Reeves, the U.K.’s chief finance minister, used her speech at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool to talk up the benefits of improved cross-border mobility for the economy.   Ahead of last week’s difficult budget stuffed with tax rises, she waded in further, damning the effects of a “chaotic Brexit.” While the new rhetoric has yet to be backed up by a shift in policy, there are signs that some of Starmer’s close allies are starting to think bigger.  Rejoining the EU customs union was reportedly raised as an option by Starmer’s economic advisor ahead of the budget — but was rejected. “There are definitely people who have been pushing at this for a long time,” one person with knowledge of conversations in government said.  “I don’t think that will be that surprising to people, because if your primary goal allegedly is growth then that’s one of the easiest levers you can pull. Most economists would agree — it’s the politics that’s stopping it.”  Pressed on the prospect of Britain’s applying to rejoin the customs union on Wednesday, Health Secretary Wes Streeting did not explicitly rule out the idea but stressed the government’s policy was about “new partnerships and new relationships, not relitigating the past.” If Starmer opts for a risky manifesto-busting push to rejoin the customs union, diplomats say even that is unlikely to be a quick fix for the British PM.  “It would take time. Just consider how slow has been so far the progress on SPS, ETS and Erasmus,” the first diplomat quoted above said. “As of now, the U.K. needs the EU to spur its growth, not the other way around.”