BERLIN — German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Tuesday condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for going to war with Iran, calling the conflict a violation of international law and warning of a transatlantic rupture comparable to Germany’s break with Russia. Steinmeier’s role in German politics is largely ceremonial, but his sharp criticism of the war and the U.S. president is likely to put additional pressure on German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has stopped short of other European leaders in calling the war illegal even as he has grown increasingly critical of what he sees as the lack of an exit strategy on the part of the U.S. and Israel. “This war violates international law,” said Steinmeier, who is a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which rules in a coalition with Merz’s conservatives and has been more critical of the ongoing attacks. “There is little doubt that, in any case, the justification of an imminent attack on the U.S. does not hold water,” he added. Steinmeier, speaking in front of an audience of German diplomats in Berlin, criticized Trump for withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term in office. The president, who served as Germany’s foreign minister from 2013 to 2017, had helped negotiate that deal. “This war is also — and please bear with me when I say this, as someone directly involved — a politically disastrous mistake,” said Steinmeier. “And that’s what frustrates me the most. A truly avoidable, unnecessary war, if its goal was to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” Despite the president’s largely symbolic role, his strident criticism is likely to fuel a growing domestic debate over Germany’s stance on the Iran war and its relationship with the U.S. Merz and his fellow conservatives were initially far more supportive of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran than many other EU countries, arguing that Germany shares the goal of regime change in Tehran. But as the conflict has expanded and the economic and security effects on the EU’s biggest economy have become clearer, the chancellor has become far more openly critical, saying the war has raised “major questions” about Europe’s security. Steinmeier, who refrained from criticizing Israel directly, also compared the transatlantic rift during Trump’s second term to Germany’s divorce from Russia in the wake of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. “Just as I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before February 24, 2022 in our relationship with Russia, so I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before January 20, 2025 in transatlantic relations,” Steinmeier said, referring to the day of Trump’s second inauguration. “The rupture is too deep.” Steinmeier then urged his country to become more independent of the U.S., both in terms of defense and technology, arguing that such autonomy is necessary to prevent Trump administration interference in his country’s domestic politics. The German military “must become the backbone of conventional defense in Europe,” he said. “In the technological sphere, our dependence on the U.S. is even greater. This makes it all the more important that we do not simply accept this situation.”

Danes head to the polls on Tuesday, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen having called early parliamentary elections after her ruling Social Democrats received a big boost from U.S. President Donald Trump. Frederiksen could have waited until October 2026 to call the vote, but moved early after standing up to Trump’s aggressive threats to annex Greenland earlier this year. Her defiance generated a surge of support for the party just months after it suffered a historic defeat in local elections last October.  But foreign policy won’t carry the day in this election. Voters are focused on domestic issues, while Denmark’s fracturing coalition government — with two other party leaders challenging the prime minister — has turned Tuesday’s vote into a cliffhanger.  WHAT WILL DECIDE THE VOTE?  While Denmark may have come together to resist the pressure from the White House, voters are most concerned about what’s happening at home. Ahead of the vote Danish parties debated a plethora of divisive issues, none of which proved decisive. A poll published by Epinion on Monday suggested almost one in five Danes still didn’t know who they’d vote for.   Everything suggests that Frederiksen’s center-left party, the Social Democrats, will prevail in the vote. Her big talking point has been the revival of a wealth tax that hasn’t been enforced in Denmark for 30 years, and whose reinstatement would thrill left-wing voters. But her main challenger, Deputy Prime Minister Troels Lund Poulsen, leader of the center-right Venstre party, argues the measure will prompt the richest Danes to emigrate, weakening the country’s competitiveness.  Politicians have also debated whether to reinstate the country’s “Great Prayer Day” holiday that Frederiksen’s government abolished in 2024, or to step up efforts to clean polluted drinking water, improve animal welfare, lift the ban on nuclear power, increase defense spending, and tighten migration rules.   RED OR BLUE?  Denmark’s political spectrum has long been divided between a red bloc of left-leaning parties and a blue bloc on the right. In 2022, however, Frederiksen broke with tradition by forming a broad centrist government. The current coalition brings together her Social Democrats with the conservative Venstre party and the liberal Moderates led by former Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen.  Polls suggest the red and blue blocs are running almost even, with Rasmussen’s Moderates poised to play kingmaker. Support for the red bloc currently translates into 83 seats, while the blue bloc would get 80 — with 90 seats needed for a parliamentary majority. With Frederiksen and Poulsen heading in different directions politically, a repeat of the current coalition government appears unlikely.   That means Rasmussen will likely decide which direction the country goes in if the elections transpire as forecast. Frederiksen has warned that if Rasmussen doesn’t decide to work with her, “then we will, with a very high possibility, get a right-wing government in Denmark.”  Rasmussen has removed himself from contention to become the next prime minister, and has offered instead to mediate the formation of the incoming government. COCAINE-GATE  In the leadup to the vote, the blue bloc’s largest party, the Liberal Alliance, sparked a media frenzy after leader Alex Vanopslagh — a candidate for PM — admitted to using cocaine during his early days as party leader in the mid-2010s. Some 42 percent of Danes said the 34-year-old politician’s drug use had left them less able to see him as the country’s leader.   The parties in the blue bloc have thrown their support behind Venstre’s Poulsen. But with the Liberal Alliance primed to win the most votes on the right, Vanopslagh is insisting the party should be the one to lead if Denmark ends up with a conservative government.  Liberal Alliance leader Alex Vanopslagh arrives for a debate in Copenhagen on Feb. 26, 2026. | Ida Marie Odgaard/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images At the same time, he says, he won’t stand in Poulsen’s way. “It won’t be me who ends up derailing a right-wing alliance after the election,” Vanopslagh said on Sunday.  GREENLAND IN THE SPOTLIGHT  For all the domestic focus, Greenland still has a key role to play in Denmark’s election — just not the one you might expect. Greenland and Denmark’s other autonomous territory, the Faroe Islands, each hold two seats in the country’s parliament, and those could prove decisive given how tight the race is.   That could prove a major obstacle for a right-leaning government. According to Lasse Lindegaard, Greenland correspondent at public broadcaster DR, those who represent the islands would be highly unlikely “to back a government that includes or relies on support from the [far-right] Danish People’s Party,” whose leader Morten Messerschmidt has dismissed the idea of Greenland’s independence as “immature and absurd.”  Then there’s the Faroe Islands, which will hold their own parliamentary election just two days after Denmark. Politicians in both self-governing territories are questioning whether to scrap the requirement that they send representatives to the Danish parliament.  “We should enter negotiations with Denmark on an equal partnership — and at that point, we would no longer need our seats in the Danish parliament,” said Beinir Johannesen, leader of the Fólkaflokkurin party and a likely contender for prime minister of the Faroe Islands. THE LOGISTICS  Polls in Denmark open at 8 a.m. on Tuesday and close at 8 p.m. The country uses a proportional representation system, meaning the number of seats that parties win is proportional to their share of the national vote. Exit polls will be published shortly after the polls close, but given how close the race is a definitive outcome may not be clear until late Tuesday evening after all votes have been counted, or even early Wednesday morning.   Then comes the hard part: forming a government. With the two sides so closely matched, the process will almost certainly take weeks. Denmark’s next government is certain to be a coalition, but whether it commands majority or minority support in the parliament remains to be seen. The latter scenario has been the norm in Denmark for decades, but often produces weak prime ministers who must constantly seek the support of other parties under the threat of no-confidence motions. 

ROME — Italian right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s crushing defeat in Monday’s referendum on judicial reform has shattered her aura of political invincibility, and her opponents now reckon she can be toppled in a general election expected next year. The failed referendum is the the first major misstep of her premiership, and comes just as she seemed in complete control in Rome and Brussels, leading Italy’s most stable administration in years. Her loss is immediately energizing Italy’s fragmented opposition, making the country’s torpid politics suddenly look competitive again. Meloni’s bid to overhaul the judiciary — which she accused of being politicized and of left-wing bias — was roundly rejected, with 54 percent voting “no” to her reforms. An unexpectedly high turnout of 59 percent is also likely to alarm Meloni, underscoring how the vote snowballed into a broader vote of confidence in her and her government. She lost heavily in Italy’s three biggest cities: In the provinces of Rome, the “no” vote was 57 percent, Milan 54 percent and Naples 71 percent. In Naples, about 50 prosecutors and judges gathered to open champagne and sing Bella Ciao, the World War II anti-fascist partisan anthem. Activists, students and trade unionists spontaneously marched to Rome’s Piazza del Popolo chanting “resign, resign.”  In a video posted on social media, Meloni put a brave face on the result. “The Italians have decided and we will respect that decision,” she said. She admitted feeling some “bitterness for the lost opportunity … but we will go on as we always have with responsibility, determination and respect for Italy and its people.” In truth, however, the referendum will be widely viewed as a sign that she is politically vulnerable, after all. It knocks her off course just as she was setting her sights on major electoral reforms that would further cement her grip on power. One of her main goals has been to shift to a fixed-term prime ministership, which would be elected by direct suffrage rather than being hostage to rotating governments. Those ambitions look far more fragile now. The opposition groups that have struggled to dent Meloni’s dominance immediately scented blood. After months on the defensive, they pointed to Monday’s result as proof that the prime minister can be beaten and that a coordinated campaign can mobilize voters against her. Matteo Renzi, former prime minister and leader of the centrist Italia Viva party, predicted Meloni would now be a “lame duck,” telling reporters that “even her own followers will now start to doubt her.” When he lost a referendum in 2016 he resigned as prime minister. “Let’s see what Meloni will do after this clamorous defeat,” he said.  Elly Schlein, leader of the opposition Democratic Party, said: “We will beat [Meloni] in the next general election, I’m sure of that. I think that from today’s vote, from this extraordinary democratic participation, an unexpected participation in some ways, a clear political message is being sent to Meloni and this government, who must now listen to the country and its real priorities.”  Former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, leader of the populist 5Star Movement heralded “a new spring and a new political season.” Angelo Bonelli , leader of the Greens and Left Alliance, told reporters the result was “an important signal for us because it shows that there is a majority in the country opposed to the government.” ‘PARALLEL MAFIA’ The referendum itself centered on changes to how judges and prosecutors are governed and disciplined, including separating their career paths and reshaping their oversight bodies. The government framed the reforms as a long-overdue opportunity to fix a system where politicized legal “factions” impede the government’s ability to implement core policies on issues such as migration and security. Justice Minister Carlo Nordio called prosecutors a “parallel mafia,” while his chief of staff compared parts of the judiciary to “an execution squad.”   A voter is given a ballot at a polling station in Rome, Italy, on March 22, 2026. | Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu via Getty Images Meloni’s opponents viewed the defeated reforms differently, casting them as an attempt to weaken a fiercely independent judiciary and concentrate power. That framing helped turn a technical vote into a broader political contest, one that opposition parties were able to rally around. It was a clash with a long and bitter political history. The Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) investigations of the 1990s, which wiped out an entire political class, left a legacy of mistrust between politicians and the judiciary. The right, in particular, accused judges of running a left-wing vendetta against them. Under Meloni’s rule that tension has repeatedly resurfaced, with her government clashing with courts, saying judges are thwarting initiatives to fight migration and criminality. Meloni herself stepped late into the campaign, after initially keeping some distance, betting that her personal involvement could shift the outcome. She called the referendum an “historic opportunity to change Italy.” In combative form this month, she had called on Italians not squander their opportunity to shake up the judges. If they let things continue as they are now, she warned: “We will find ourselves with even more powerful factions, even more negligent judges, even more surreal sentences, immigrants, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers being freed and putting your security at risk.” It was to no avail, and Meloni was hardly helped by the timing of the vote. Her ally U.S. President Donald Trump is highly unpopular in Italy and the war in Iran has triggered intense fears among Italians that they will have to pay more for power and fuel. The main upshot is that Italy’s political clock is ticking again. REGAINING THE INITIATIVE For Meloni, the temptation will be to regain the initiative quickly. That could even mean trying to press for early elections before economic pressures mount and key EU recovery funds wind down later this year. The logic of holding elections before economic conditions deteriorate further would be to prevent a slow bleeding away of support, said Roberto D’Alimonte, professor of political science at the Luiss University in Rome. But Italy’s President Sergio Mattarella has the ultimate say about when to dissolve parliament and parliamentarians, whose pensions depend on the legislature lasting until February, could help him prevent elections by forming alternative majorities. D’Alimonte said Meloni’s “standing is now damaged.” “There is no doubt she comes out of this much weaker. The defeat changes the perception of her. She has lost her clout with voters and to some extent in Europe. Until now she was a winner and now she has shown she can lose,” he added. She must now weigh whether to identify scapegoats who can take the fall — potentially Justice Minister Nordio, a technocrat with no political support base of his own.  Meloni is expected to move quickly to regain control of the agenda. She is due to travel to Algeria on Wednesday to advance energy cooperation, a trip that may also serve to pivot the political conversation back to economic and foreign policy aims. But the immediate impact of the vote is clear: A prime minister who entered the referendum from a position of strength but now faces a more uncertain political landscape, against an opposition newly convinced she can be beaten.

LONDON — Senior members of Donald Trump’s presidential transition team attempted on more than one occasion to intervene in Keir Starmer’s decision in 2024 to remove Karen Pierce as ambassador and replace her with Peter Mandelson, according to a former Trump official and a serving U.K. official. Trump’s aides told Starmer’s National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and his then-Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney that they wanted Pierce to remain in post during a meeting in Palm Beach in early December 2024, the officials told POLITICO. Later the same month, people working on the transition placed a call to Powell and told him they were unhappy at the treatment of Pierce and that they did not like that Mandelson had been picked, according to the same former Trump official. Trump’s aides were particularly exercised that Mandelson could be made ambassador after he had made disparaging public remarks about the president in the past, according to both officials.  The details about the interaction between the two leaders’ teams have not previously been reported and underscore the disquiet within the president’s inner circle about one of Starmer’s first major foreign policy decisions on becoming prime minister — and a juncture at which his key aides could have urged Starmer to think again.  Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, was among those wary of Mandelson, according to the former U.S. official already cited and a second official still serving in the administration, with one saying she saw him as “arrogant” and rude to staff. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “This is an inaccurate representation of this meeting and what was said.” Wiles had no comment. Downing Street declined to comment. Mandelson was sacked as Britain’s ambassador to Washington last September over his past friendship with the late convicted sex offender Epstein, but further revelations from documents released in the U.S. prompted a police investigation into his conduct, leading to his arrest in February.  Mandelson has not been charged, and his lawyers have said he is cooperating with the investigation. He has previously apologized “unequivocally” for his association with Epstein and “to the women and girls that suffered.” ‘COMMON KNOWLEDGE’ The serving Trump administration official, who like others in this piece was granted anonymity to speak candidly, said it was “common knowledge” that “no one was particularly favorable to him [Mandelson], really primarily because he’d been openly nasty about the president… [He had] a bad history of being openly nasty so why would he be a preferred ambassador?” It’s not clear how explicitly any concerns were relayed at the time to Starmer, who is facing renewed questions about his decision to hire Mandelson following the release of internal government documents on the vetting process.  U.K. National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell is pictured leaving Downing Street in London on Oct. 24, 2025. | Leon Neal/Getty Images The files published last week showed that Powell had misgivings about Mandelson and called the appointment process “weirdly rushed.” The former minister of the New Labour years was ultimately fired from the job in September 2025 after the true extent of his relationship with the convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein became clear, raising questions about Starmer’s judgement. It has previously been reported that Trump communicated reservations about Mandelson in a November 2024 phone call, but accounts of the conversation in Florida and subsequent call suggest Starmer received repeated U.S. representations against his pick for envoy. Then-Ambassador Pierce and senior U.K. embassy aide Senay Bulbul, both of whom were credited with building good links with MAGA figures, were also in attendance at the Palm Beach meeting. Pierce herself discussed the diplomatic matter with Mike Waltz, who briefly served as Trump’s national security adviser, but did not attempt to escalate any concerns as a result of their conversation, an email in the tranche of documents shows. McSweeney, a close ally of Mandelson, remained an advocate for the Labour veteran long after the meeting and even until the day he was fired, according to contemporary accounts. McSweeney could not be reached for comment. By January 2025, any major concerns appear to have been allayed. An email from Olly Robbins, the top civil servant at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to Downing Street indicated that Pierce had spoken to Waltz and there was “no suggestion that Peter’s nomination was an issue” for Trump.  Starmer apologized again for the debacle last week, saying “it was me that made a mistake” in deciding that the former business secretary should become the U.K.’s top diplomat in Washington. 

A top Pentagon official told lawmakers Tuesday that existing military operations targeting Latin American drug cartels are “just the beginning” — and left open the possibility of deploying ground forces even as lethal boat strikes against alleged smugglers continue indefinitely. The comments from Joseph Humire, acting assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, during a House Armed Services Committee hearing raised immediate concerns from congressional Democrats who said the efforts appear to be another “forever war” without clear goals or a stated end date. It’s the latest example of the administration doubling down on aggressive foreign policy interventions without clarifying what victory might look like, despite President Donald Trump’s past campaign pledges to avoid embroiling America in more overseas conflicts. And it raises the prospect that the nation’s armed forces could be further strained amid a massive air war over Iran. Democrats on Tuesday also questioned military leaders’ assertions that the six-month effort to sink smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific has made a meaningful impact on illegal drugs entering American borders, and whether it follows proper rules of engagement for enemy combatants or amounts to war crimes. “We could shoot suspected criminals dead on the street here in America, and it may be a deterrent to crime, but that doesn’t make it legal,” said Rep. Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.). But Humire insisted the open-ended missions — dubbed Operation Southern Spear — are “saving American lives” and compliment President Donald Trump’s other border security mandates. “Interdiction is necessary, but insufficient,” he said. “Deterrence has a signaling effect on narco-terrorists, and raises the risks with their movements.” At least 157 people have been killed in 45 strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats in the seas around South America since early September, according to Defense Department statistics. More than 15,000 service members have been deployed to the region for counter-drug missions, training efforts and blockade enforcement over the last six months, though some of those numbers have been drawn down since the start of the conflict in Iran. Humire said officials have seen a 20 percent reduction in suspected drug vessels traveling the Caribbean and a 25 percent reduction in the Eastern Pacific traffic since the start of the military operations. But committee ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) questioned whether those numbers actually translate into fewer drugs on American streets, or simply evidence that smugglers are being forced into other shipping lanes or land routes. Humire said officials are looking to expand to land strikes against known cartel routes and hideouts, but are working with partner country militaries on that work. The U.S. Defense Department launched operations with Ecuadorian forces against narco-terrorist groups in that country earlier this month. He would not, however, rule out potential unilateral strikes in South American countries later on. Smith called that hedge concerning. Republicans on the committee largely praised the military’s anti-drug operations, dismissing the Democratic criticism. “Defending the homeland does not stop at our border,” said committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.). “It also requires confronting threats at their source. The president has made it clear that narco-terrorists and hostile foreign powers will find no sanctuary or foothold anywhere in our hemisphere.”

President Donald Trump has often frustrated European allies with his overt entreaties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and harsh words for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But behind the seeming imbalance is a longer-term strategic goal – countering China. The Trump administration believes that incentivizing Russia to end the war in Ukraine, welcoming it back economically and showering it with U.S. investments, could eventually shift the global order away from China. It’s a gamble – and one Ukrainians are concerned with – but it underscores the administration’s belief that the biggest geopolitical threat facing the United States and the West is China, not Putin’s Russia. While countering China isn’t the only reason the administration wants a truce, it does help explain why after more than 15 months of fruitless talks and multiple threats to walk away, the president’s team – special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner – keep looking for a breakthrough. A Trump administration official, granted anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations, said finding a “way to align closer with Russia” could create “a different power balance with China that could be very, very beneficial.” The administration’s desire to use Ukraine peace negotiations to counter China has not been previously reported. But many observers believe this plan has little hope of succeeding – at least while Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping remain in charge. And the idea of giving Russia economic incentives to grow closer to the U.S. is concerning for Ukraine, said a Ukrainian official, granted anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters. “We had such attempts in the past already and it led to nothing,” they said. “Germany had [Ostpolitik, Germany’s policy toward the East], for that and now Russia is fighting the deadliest war in Europe.” And when it comes to banking on breaking apart China and Russia, the Ukrainian official noted that both countries “have one [thing] in common which you can not beat – they hate the U.S. as a symbol of democracy.” Still, the strategy is in keeping with the administration’s broader foreign policy initiatives aimed at least in part in countering Chinese influence. Taking out Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and pressuring Cuba’s government to the brink of collapse all diminishes China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. The administration threatened Panama, which withdrew from Chinese leader Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative a month after Trump took office and called Peru’s deal with China surrounding its deepwater port in Chancay a “cautionary tale.” And striking Iran shifted China’s oil import potential, as Tehran supplied Beijing with more than 13 percent of its oil in 2025, according to Reuters. Indeed, the Trump administration official noted that between Venezuela, Iran and Russia, China was buying oil at below-market rates, subsidizing its consumption “to the tune of over $100 billion a year for the last several years.” “So that’s been a massive subsidy for China by being able to buy oil from these places on the black market, sometimes $30 a barrel lower than what the spot market is,” the person said. Even as there are reports that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran, the U.S. and Russia keep talking. Witkoff and Kushner met with Kirill Dmitriev, a top adviser to Putin, last week. The Russians called the meeting “productive.” Witkoff said they’d keep talking. These negotiations and the broader efforts to counter China now take place under the spectre of Trump asking several countries, including China, for help securing the Strait of Hormuz. The National Security Strategy, released in November, spilled a fair amount of ink on China, though it often doesn’t mention Beijing directly. Many U.S. lawmakers — from both parties — consider China the gravest long-term threat to America’s global power. “There is a longstanding kind of U.S. strategic train of thought that says that having Russia and China working together is very much not in our interests, and finding ways to divide them, or at least tactically collaborate with the partner who’s less of a long term strategic threat to us,” said said Alexander Gray, Trump’s National Security Council chief of staff in his first term. Gray, who is currently the CEO of American Global Strategies, a consulting firm, compared the effort to former Secretary of State and national security adviser Henry Kissinger, who spearheaded President Richard Nixon’s trip to China during the Cold War in an effort to pull that country away from the Soviet Union. The State Department declined to comment for this report. However, a State Department spokesperson previously told POLITICO that China’s economic ties with Latin American countries present a “national security threat” for the U.S. that the administration is actively trying to mitigate. The White House declined to comment. Fred Fleitz, another Trump NSC chief of staff in his first term, noted that the president has “pressed Putin to end the war to normalize Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe,” and wants Russia to rejoin the G8. “It is clear that Trump wants to find a way to end the war in Ukraine and to coexist peacefully with Russia,” said Fleitz, who now serves as the vice chair for American Security at the America First Policy Institute. “But I also believe he correctly sees the growing Russia-China alliance as a far greater threat to U.S. and global security than the Ukraine War and therefore wants to find ways to improve U.S.-Russia relations to weaken or break that alliance.” Others, however, remain skeptical. Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the goal to break Russia and China is “appealing in theory, but in practice the partnership between Moscow and Beijing is iron-clad.” “Obviously there is nothing wrong with testing diplomacy and President Trump is a dealmaker. But history probably suggests that this won’t really result in much,” Singleton added. “The likely outcome [with Russia] is limited tactical cooperation with the U.S., not some sort of durable break with Beijing.” And China seeks to keep Russia as an ally and junior partner in its relationship as a counter to Western powers. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reaffirmed the relationship in a press conference this month, saying, “in a fluid and turbulent world, China-Russia relationship has stood rock-solid against all odds.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, shortly after his confirmation, hinted at the broader strategy, saying in an interview, that “a situation where the Russians are permanently a junior partner to China, having to do whatever China says they need to do because of their dependence on them” is not a “good outcome” for Russia, the U.S. or Europe. But Rubio, like the Trump administration official given anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations, both acknowledged that fully severing those ties would be a tough lift. “I don’t know if we’ll ever be successful at peeling them completely off a relationship with the Chinese,” Rubio said in February of last year. Adam Savit, director for China policy at the America First Policy Institute, argued that “Russia matters at the margins, but it won’t be a decisive variable in the U.S.-China competition,” and that the “center of gravity is East Asia.” “Russia gives China strategic depth, a friendly border, energy supply, and a second front in Ukraine to sap Western attention,” he said. “Getting closer to Russia could complicate China’s strategic position, but Moscow is a declining power and solidly the junior partner in that relationship.”

U.S. President Donald Trump warned NATO allies they face a “very bad future” if they refuse to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, pressing Europe to support an American effort to reopen the key maritime corridor. In an interview with the Financial Times published Sunday, Trump said countries benefiting from oil shipments through the Gulf should help safeguard the waterway. The U.S. and Israel launched a war on Iran late last month, triggered regional retaliation from Tehran. The Iranian regime has moved to close the Strait of Hormuz in response, driving up oil prices around the world and aiming to create massive economic pressure on Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to fold. “It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there,” Trump said. “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.” Trump said allies could contribute naval assets such as minesweepers — vessels Europe has far more of than the U.S. “Whatever it takes,” he said when asked what help Washington expects. In recent days, he has namechecked China, France, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. as countries he expects to assist in the Gulf. The remarks revive Trump’s long-running criticism of NATO. “We’ve been very sweet,” he said, arguing the U.S. had helped European allies over Ukraine and now expects support in return. European governments have reacted cautiously to Trump’s persistent pressure to help him reopen the strait. Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said he was “very skeptical” that expanding the EU’s naval mission would improve security. EU foreign ministers are meeting Monday in Brussels to discuss a push by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas to deploy additional ships to the bloc’s maritime mission. Trump also pressed China to help unblock the strait before a planned summit with President Xi Jinping later this month, warning his trip to Beijing could be delayed. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly a fifth of global oil shipments, raising the stakes for European allies as Trump presses NATO to take a larger role in keeping the strait open.

The EU has failed to hold the U.S. accountable for breaches of international law, its former diplomacy chief has warned, accusing European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen of a power grab and calling for the trade pact she negotiated with Washington to be rejected. In comments to POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook, Josep Borrell — who served as von der Leyen’s vice president and high representative for foreign affairs from 2019-2024 — said the U.S. war against Iran “is illegal under international law [and] not justified by an imminent threat as some claimed.” According to Borrell, von der Leyen has “continued to overstep her functions” by conducting foreign policy, which he insists the EU’s foundational treaty “clearly states” is not within her competence. “She is systematically biased in favor of the U.S. and Israel,” he went on, despite Europe “suffering from the consequences in terms of energy prices, while [U.S. President Donald] Trump gloats that this is good for the U.S. because they are oil exporters.” Trump has given several different rationales for the start of the war with Iran, including removing the country’s repressive regime and preventing it from gaining offensive nuclear capabilities. Borrell, a Spanish socialist who since leaving office has served as the president of the Barcelona Center for International Affairs, praised the approach of Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, who has been Europe’s fiercest critic of Trump’s strikes on Iran. Borrell argued that his successor as the EU’s chief diplomat, former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, should “be clearer on condemning breaches of international law, whether done by Russia, Israel or the U.S.” because “we lose credibility [when] we use selectively international norms.” Representatives for Kallas did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The former top diplomat, who has long been critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza and has increasingly turned fire on the Commission since finishing his mandate, said the EU should not move ahead with the ratification of the trade agreement von der Leyen and Trump struck in Scotland last summer. “The deal was unfair from the beginning,” Borrell said. “They imposed 15 percent tariffs on us and we reduce our tariffs on them.” The criticism comes as von der Leyen faces a growing rebellion from Spanish socialists from Sánchez’s party, who form an important part of her own dominant coalition in the European Parliament. Senior lawmakers last week condemned comments from the Commission president in which she declared “Europe can no longer be a custodian for the old-world order, for a world that has gone and will not return.” Representatives for von der Leyen declined to comment. Von der Leyen has measured her criticism of the U.S. and Israel, saying that the Iranian regime deserves to fall but urging diplomatic solutions to the conflict. The European Commission President used her State of the Union speech in September to say she would halt bilateral payments to Israel and sanction “extremist ministers.” Spain will hold parliamentary elections by August next year at the latest, and von der Leyen’s center-right European People’s Party is hoping to take control of the government — with its national affiliate, the Partido Popular, polling consistently ahead of Sánchez’s socialists. Borrell also weighed into the EU’s dilemma over how to unblock €90 billion in much-needed funds for Ukraine after Hungary and Slovakia vetoed the plan at the last moment, having called on Kyiv to repair a pipeline carrying Russian oil to their countries via Ukrainian territory. The two governments, he said, “openly breached the principle of sincere cooperation which is part of the Treaties” by reneging on their agreement. “The is an issue for the Court. The other 25 could provide a bridge loan until the EU loan is approved,” Borrell said, dismissing the charm offensive employed by the bloc’s current leadership. Representatives for von der Leyen declined to comment, while representatives for Kallas did not immediately respond.

LONDON — Ministers are poised to axe the watchdog that measures the U.K.’s overseas aid spending as part of deep cuts to the development budget, set to be confirmed this week.  Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced last year he would reduce the aid budget from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of economic output in order to pay for a boost to defense spending, but has not yet spelled out where those cuts will fall. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper is expected to unveil details before the Easter recess, including tough funding settlements for the BBC World Service and the British Council.  The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), which scrutinizes official development assistance (ODA), may be downsized or scrapped altogether under the plans, according to three people with knowledge of discussions with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The move comes as Starmer’s government shifts away from a focus on international development — a cornerstone of Labour Party foreign policy since the 1990s — and plows those resources into defense. An ICAI spokesperson said: “The Independent Commission for Aid Impact costs less than 0.03 percent of the total U.K. aid budget. … As the government reduces the aid budget and changes the way it does development, independent scrutiny and learning become even more important, not less.” The ICAI’s latest report lambasted the government for a lack of “an overarching strategy or set of priorities,” pointing out that aid cash is being spent on supporting refugees in the U.K. rather than on the global poor. The potential closure of the ICAI has drawn concern from within Starmer’s own ranks, with Labour MPs pointing out that the party made an explicit commitment to “work closely” with the watchdog in their 2024 election manifesto. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper is expected to unveil details before the Easter recess. | WPA pool photo by Jaimy Joy/Getty Images Sarah Champion, chair of the international development committee, said the ICAI’s latest report “underlines why the government should row back from its plans to scrap the U.K.’s aid watchdog.” She added: “At a time of brutal budget cuts, it is more important than ever that the government spends its aid wisely and transparently.” Fleur Anderson, a member of the foreign affairs committee, told POLITICO: “When something works as well as ICAI, why are we even considering dismantling it?” Beccy Cooper, a 2024 intake MP, said: “More than ever, we need to ensure effectiveness and maximum impact of our aid funding.” Asked about the body’s future in January, International Development Minister Jenny Chapman said: “I have to ask myself whether that is the right use of that money or whether we could get what we need more efficiently.” The government is expected to prioritize multilateral aid while slashing funding for bilateral donations and in-country projects including public health initiatives and education for women and girls. A Labour MP briefed on the plans, granted anonymity to speak candidly, raised fears that some cuts would go against ministers’ own stated aims for the remaining aid budgets. The MP flagged proposals to reduce funds for the British International Investment development bank, despite a stated aim to boost private investment in development projects, and to reduce the headcount of Whitehall staff working on ODA, despite professing a wish to focus on expertise. Fleur Anderson, a member of the foreign affairs committee, told POLITICO: “When something works as well as ICAI, why are we even considering dismantling it?” | Brian Lawless/PA Images via Getty Images Chapman held briefings on the plans last week and will hold more sessions next week as the government tries to keep MPs onside as the details emerge of where savings will be made. An FCDO spokesperson said: “National security is the first duty of this government. That’s why, to fund a necessary increase in defense spending, the government has taken the decision to reduce the U.K. ODA budget to 0.3 percent of [economic output] by 2027.   “We remain absolutely committed to tackling the global challenges of hunger, disease, insecurity and conflict, but we have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context.” 

The 21st century is more likely to belong to Beijing than to Washington — at least that’s the view from four key U.S. allies. Swaths of the public in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. have soured on the U.S., driven by President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions, according to recent results from The POLITICO Poll. Respondents in these countries increasingly see China as a more dependable partner than the U.S. and believe the Asian economic colossus is leading on advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence. Critically, Europeans surveyed see it as possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. but harder to reduce reliance on China — suggesting newfound entanglements that could drastically tip the balance of global power away from the West. Here are five key takeaways from the poll highlighting the pivot from the U.S. to China. The POLITICO Poll — in partnership with U.K. polling firm Public First — found that respondents in those four allied countries believe it is better to depend on China than the U.S. following Trump’s turbulent return to office. That appears to be driven by Trump’s disruption, not by a newfound stability in China: In a follow-up question, a majority of respondents in both Canada and Germany agreed that any attempts to get closer to China are because the U.S. has become harder to depend on — not because China itself has become a more reliable partner. Many respondents in France (38 percent) and the U.K. (42 percent) also shared that sentiment. Under Trump’s “America First” ethos, Washington has upended the “rules-based international order” of the past with sharp-elbowed policies that have isolated the U.S. on the global stage. This includes slow-walking aid to Ukraine, threatening NATO allies with economic punishment and withdrawing from major international institutions, including the World Health Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Council. His punitive liberation day tariffs, as well as threats to annex Greenland and make Canada “the 51st state,” have only further strained relationships with top allies. Beijing has seized the moment to cultivate better business ties with European countries looking for an alternative to high U.S. tariffs on their exports. Last October, Beijing hosted a forum aimed at shoring up mutual investments with Europe. More recently, senior Chinese officials described EU-China ties as a partnership rather than a rivalry. “The administration has assisted the Chinese narrative by acting like a bully,” Mark Lambert, former deputy assistant secretary of State for China and Taiwan in the Biden administration, told POLITICO. “Everyone still recognizes the challenges China poses — but now, Washington no longer works in partnership and is only focused on itself.” These sentiments are already being translated into action. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney declared a “rupture” between Ottawa and Washington in January and backed that rhetoric by sealing a trade deal with Beijing that same month. The U.K. inked several high-value export deals with China not long after, while both French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have returned from recent summits in Beijing with Chinese purchase orders for European products. Respondents across all four allied countries are broadly supportive of efforts to create some distance from the U.S. — and say they’re also more dependent on China. In Canada, 48 percent said it would be possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. and believe their government should do so. In the U.K., 42 percent said reducing reliance on the U.S. sounded good in theory, but were skeptical it could happen in practice. By contrast, fewer respondents across those countries believe it would actually be possible to reduce reliance on China — a testament to Beijing’s dominance of global supply chains. Young adults may be drawn to China as an alternative to U.S. cultural hegemony. Respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 were significantly more supportive than their older peers of building a closer relationship with China. A recent study commissioned by the Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences — a Beijing-based think tank — suggests most young Europeans get their information about China and Chinese life through social media. Nearly 70 percent of those aged 18 to 25 said they rely on social media and other short-form video platforms for information on China. And the media they consume is likely overwhelmingly supportive of China, as TikTok, one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, was built by Chinese company ByteDance and has previously been accused of suppressing content deemed negative toward China. According to Alicja Bachulska, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, younger generations believe the U.S. has led efforts to depict China as an authoritarian regime and a threat to democracy, while simultaneously degrading its own democratic values. The trend “pushes a narrative that ‘we’ve been lied to’ about what China is,” said Bachulska, as “social sentiment among the youth turns against the U.S.” “It’s an expression of dissatisfaction with the state of U.S. politics,” she added. There’s a clear consensus among those surveyed in Europe and Canada that China is winning the global tech race — a coveted title central to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s grand policy vision. China is leading the U.S. and other Western nations in the development of electric batteries and robotics, while Chinese designs have also become the global standard in electric vehicles and solar panels. “There has been a real vibe shift in global perception of Chinese tech and innovation dominance,” said Sarah Beran, who served as deputy chief of mission in the U.S. embassy in Beijing during the Biden administration. This digital rat race is most apparent in the fast-paced development of artificial intelligence. China has poured billions of dollars into research initiatives, poaching top tech talent from U.S. universities and funding state-backed tech firms to advance its interests in AI. The investment appears to be paying off — a plurality of respondents from Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is more likely to develop the first superintelligent AI. But these advancements have done little to change American minds. A majority of respondents in the U.S. still see American-made tech as superior to Chinese tech, even in the realm of AI. As Washington and its allies grow more estranged, the perception of the U.S. as the dominant world power is in retreat — though most Americans don’t see it that way. About half of all respondents in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is rapidly becoming a more consequential superpower. This is particularly true among those who say the U.S. is no longer a positive force for the world. By contrast, 63 percent of respondents in the U.S. believe their nation will maintain its dominance in 10 years — reflecting major disparities in beliefs about global power dynamics between the U.S. and its European allies. This view of China as the world’s power center may not have been entirely organic. The U.S. has accused Beijing of pouring billions of dollars into international information manipulation efforts, including state-backed media initiatives and the deployment of tools to stifle online criticism of China and its policies. Some fear that a misplaced belief among U.S. allies in the inevitability of China surpassing the U.S. as a global superpower could be helping accelerate Beijing’s rise. “Europe is capable of defending itself against threats from China and contesting China’s vision of a more Sinocentric, authoritarian-friendly world order,” said Henrietta Levin, former National Security Council director for China in the Biden administration. “But if Europe believes this is impossible and does not try to do so, the survey results may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.” METHOLODGY The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Feb. 6 to Feb. 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.