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

According to Donald Trump, Iranians have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “The hour of your freedom is at hand,” he declared, as U.S. and Israeli warplanes pounded Iranian cities and the compound of the country’s supreme leader. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will probably be your only chance for generations.” Trump’s comments made clear that America is seeking regime change. After decades of high tensions, tough recriminations and one-off attacks, Washington finally decided to try getting rid of the country’s government altogether — and it thinks ordinary Iranians will rise up and finish the job. The country’s population, after all, is clearly fed up with the Islamic Republic. Over the last decade, Iranians have repeatedly staged mass demonstrations against the regime. Those protests typically only go away after the government responds with horrific force. In December and January, for example, hundreds of thousands of Iranians spent weeks demonstrating — until Iranian security officials shot and killed thousands of them. But now, American and Israeli warplanes are attacking Iran’s military and security apparatus and destroying other government institutions. They have killed the country’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and many other top officials. The Trump administration seems to be betting that the Iranian people will soon take over the regime change process, resume protesting and successfully remove a greatly weakened government. To gauge how likely that response might be, I spoke to political scientists and Iranian experts, all of whom would love to see “people power” usher in new leadership in Tehran. But they also expressed deep skepticism that even this massive air campaign could produce a successful uprising. For starters, they told me, aerial bombing campaigns have a terrible record at fomenting regime change in any state. Second, Iran has powerful repressive organs with a lot of experience in putting down popular unrest. In addition, Iran’s bureaucracy has been expecting — and preparing for — American attacks for generations. And even if Washington does successfully fracture or defang the Islamic Republic, exhausted and shocked Iranians may be too frightened or focused on survival to flood the streets. The country’s political opposition remains weak, and it is famously fragmented. Iranians, of course, do desperately want a better future, and they have been willing to protest under very difficult conditions. For an autocracy, the country has high levels of civic engagement. It is therefore possible that Iranians will succeed where other populations haven’t. But history suggests most of the country’s people will not heed Trump’s call, and that even if they do, they will have a hard time winning. In February 1991, as the American military laid waste to the Iraqi armed forces, U.S. President George H.W. Bush made an appeal. Speaking on international television, Bush called on “the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.” They didn’t act immediately. But as soon as America stopped the bombing, thousands of Kurds and Shiites across the country rose up against the Sunni-dominated government, hoping that Saddam’s battered regime and weakened military could finally be defeated. The Iraqi experience is, unfortunately, typical of what happens when presidents have tried in the past to use aerial firepower to change governments. The United States knocked out 90 percent of North Korea’s power generation during the Korean War in hopes that it would help topple Kim Il-Sung. It didn’t. Washington plunged North Vietnam into darkness during the Vietnam War; that, too, failed. Even Bill Clinton’s 1998 bombing of tiny Serbia didn’t give the opposition movement space to drive Slobodan Milosevic from power. It took another 16 months, and a fraudulent election, before he was forced to leave office. “Never,” Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago who studies air power and regime change, replied when I asked whether what Washington was doing in Iran had succeeded elsewhere. “Bombings have never led people to take to the streets and topple their leader.” There are two main reasons why air power has such a terrible record. The first, Pape said, is because bombings often prompt citizens to turn against the domestic opposition — no matter how much they hate the leader. “Even the hint that you are siding with the attacking state is used by rivals to stab you in the back,” he told me. To understand why, he asked liberals to consider how Americans might respond if Iran killed Trump and then encouraged the Democratic Party’s supporters to seize power; conservatives might imagine what would have happened if Iran did the same to Barack Obama. Just because you don’t like your country’s leaders, it doesn’t mean that you want to side with an external enemy who deposes them. The second reason is that bombings by themselves rarely fully decimate a government’s repressive capacity. “In order to save the pro-democracy protesters, you’ve got to be right there,” Pape told me. “You have to have troops on the ground.” In Iran, both lessons hold value. Iran analysts frequently debate whether outside attacks could prompt a rally-around-the-flag effect, given how unpopular the government has been. Most analysts think that reactions will vary widely, and Iranians are known to be quite nationalistic and weary and wary of international interventions. As a result, experts said that even many Iranians who loathe Khamenei will not want to do what America is asking of them — especially given rising civilian casualties from the U.S. attacks. To be sure, not everyone will feel squeamish. “There are those who, just out of sheer desperation, were hoping for a U.S. military intervention,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group. They might be happy to take to the streets, as Trump asked them to. So might some of the people who are unhappy with the attacks but want a new government. Yet these Iranians could run into the second problem: the regime’s substantial capabilities. The Iranian state has multiple institutions that are capable of and responsible for mowing down demonstrators. It has large weapons stockpiles that it has spread out across the country, in part because it expected U.S. hits. That means no matter how far America and Israel go in dropping bombs, they will struggle to truly neuter its security forces. “The U.S. would basically have to do what it did in Afghanistan and Iraq over the course of several years in the course of a couple of months,” Vaez told me. “I just don’t see how that would be possible.” There’s one final obstacle to a popular revolution: Iran’s opposition is disorganized, weak and riven. “The Islamic Republic may have abjectly failed at providing its people with a functioning economy and decent standard of living, but it has been very effective at locking up its opponents. The country has a politically active diaspora, but it is particularly plagued by infighting—especially between those who want former Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi to take control of the country and those who oppose him.As a result, opposition forces will have a hard time coordinating and then overwhelming whatever regime institutions still exist. “ Already today, the regime has deployed militias on the streets in order to keep order and prevent upheaval,” Vaez said. Especially after watching thousands of people die at the regime’s hands in December and January — and then scores more die in U.S. and Israeli attacks — he was skeptical the Islamic Republic’s foes would be ready to come together and hold mass protests. Bombing campaigns may never have incited a successful uprising, but there are cases where foreign air power has helped topple a dictator. In Libya, NATO began striking Muammar al-Gaddafi’s forces after Gaddafi began brutalizing his people. It proved critical. Around six months after the campaign began, rebel forces drove Gaddafi’s government from power. Those rebel forces existed before the NATO bombings began. But it is a more optimistic precedent for those hoping this campaign will bring down the Islamic Republic. And at least some people are relatively bullish about the country’s future. Iran may not have an armed, organized opposition, but it does have deeply committed regime opponents. “Iranians are willing to make tremendous sacrifices to get rid of their leaders,” Behnam Taleblu wrote in a recent article outlining how a bombing campaign could open the door to an opposition takeover. He cited the death toll from the most recent protests, which some observers place at north of 30,000, as evidence of just how much demonstrators are prepared to give and how hard suppressing them has become. If the bombing campaign continues and extends to local police headquarters and lower-level commanders, Taleblu was optimistic that ordinary Iranians could, indeed, get rid of any regime remnants. “The Iranian people have the drive and determination needed,” he concluded. So far, the American and Israeli attacks are certainly overwhelming. Decapitation strikes may have a poor track record at inciting regime change, but few governments have killed quite so many officials in quite so short a period as Jerusalem and Washington have in the attack’s first 36 hours. In addition to assassinating Iran’s leader — something the American campaigns in the Korean War, the War, and the first Gulf War never accomplished — Washington has taken out many of his top deputies. Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, is dead. So is Iran’s defense minister, the chief of staff of the armed forces, and the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And bombs have killed enumerable officials lower down the chain of command. It’s impossible to say how, exactly, Iranians feel about all this on average. But videos have come out showing many people celebrating Khamenei’s death. “We’re in a different place,” said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “This is a moment where you start thinking about dreams.” But it is still early days, and celebratory clips are not proof that a government-toppling uprising is near. (There have also been videos of Iranians mourning the supreme leader.) Even Taleblu told me that, although the United States and Israel were off to a good start, it was too early to say how things would play out. In fact, almost every Iran analyst I spoke to hedged when asked what might come next. The only thing they agreed on was that the country would be transformed. “The regime as we know it is no longer going to exist,” said Sanam Vakil, the director of Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Program. “It’s going to evolve into something else.” Too much of the government has been destroyed for it to carry on as it was. But that doesn’t mean it will change for the better — or that ordinary Iranians will have a say in what follows. It is possible, perhaps even more likely, that America and Israel have identified or will identify a cooperative regime insider who they will help take charge, as happened in Venezuela. (Alternatively, they might try to install someone from outside the country.) It is also possible that one of the Iranian regime’s many contingency plans will prove effective, and that the country is about to be governed by a new supreme leader. Those contingency plans could fail, but a different regime official or commander might unify the system’s surviving elements and ruthlessly consolidate power. Or the regime might fracture, and different groups will violently compete for control — as happened in Libya’s post-Qaddafi civil war. Either way, Iranians will have to fight to have their voices heard. And in a moment of great chaos, facing great danger and disruption, protesting for democracy is unlikely to be their first concern. “I think people are just trying to digest and think about what’s coming next,” Vakil said. “They are going to be focusing on their own survival.”

Democrats are frothing at the mouth to center President Donald Trump’s tariff chaos in their affordability messaging as they charge into the midterms. The party was already planning to slam Republicans over the economy on the campaign trail, riding the playbook that helped propel New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani to victories last year. Then, on Friday, the Supreme Court in a remarkable rebuke slapped down Trump’s tariffs — declaring illegal his favorite lever to bend the global economy to his will. But for Democratic strategists and party officials who spoke with POLITICO, it’s not just the high court’s ruling that could open a new avenue — it’s also Trump’s doubling down, moving to levy 15 percent tariffs worldwide under a different authority. “Now we have a new data point that Trump is not going to relent,” said a person familiar with Democrats’ strategies, granted anonymity to speak candidly. Democratic operatives see it as a massive windfall. “It’s such a gift,” the person familiar said. “The gift of it is how politically inept it is.” Doug Herman, a Democratic strategist based in California, said Trump’s renewed tariff saber-rattling provides “tailor-made” messaging on affordability for Democrats. “Every American has borne the cost of these Trump tariffs,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that everybody needs to take advantage of in their campaigns.” The crop of potential Democratic 2028 presidential candidates leapt into action immediately. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker released an “invoice” demanding that the White House pay more than $8.6 billion in “past due” tariff revenue, which he calculated out to $1,700 per family in his state. “The President owes you an apology — and a refund,” Pete Buttigieg said on X. California Gov. Gavin Newsom told reporters that Trump “should return that money immediately.” “They imposed a sales tax on the American people,” veteran Democratic strategist James Carville told POLITICO. “What did you get? Nothing.” That messaging — branding the tariffs as illegal taxes that Trump must repatriate to voters (which, he said Friday, he did not intend to do) — is expected to become a core component of Democrats’ strategy as they fight to retake majorities in Congress. “I wouldn’t be surprised if tariffs made it in 50 percent of our paid advertising,” said one Democratic strategist working on House campaigns. Another who works on Senate campaigns said they’re preparing to rev up their ads on affordability as well. “We have a very clear line that we can draw from [voters] struggling to make ends meet, and things that Trump is doing intentionally,” Third Way’s Matt Bennett said. “It is a uniquely easy story for Democrats to tell.” It’s also not lost on the party that the states whose economies have been hit hardest by the tariffs are home to some of the most contentious Senate races that could make or break the GOP’s majority. “We’ve not only lost our markets and gotten lower prices selling corn and soybeans, particularly soybeans, but we have also, at the same time right now, we have the misfortune of having very high inputs, a lot of uncertainty,” Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart told POLITICO. “We’re talking about real hardship where people are going to be really negatively affected financially.” Trump, of course, is not on the ballot in November, but multiple Democratic operatives told POLITICO they’re planning to skewer any Republican who has defended his tariffs. “It’s this very, very easy to understand action that the president took, and that congressional Republicans backed,” the Democratic strategist working on Senate races said. So the line for Dem candidates will be cut and dried: “This is where my opponent is not fighting for you,” they said. The RNC is fully prepared to defend against any Democratic attacks. “The Supreme Court’s decision does not change the reality: President Trump’s trade agenda is working, and Republicans are united in strengthening the economy for American families,” RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels said in a statement. “His tariffs have helped lower inflation, raise wages, and drive historic investment into U.S. manufacturing and energy. As we head into the midterms, Republicans are focused on building on these gains and putting workers first — while Democrats oppose the policies bringing jobs back home.” The White House, too, is brushing off the idea that Democrats have been handed a messaging victory. “President Trump has powerfully used tariffs to renegotiate broken trade deals, lower drug prices, and secure trillions in manufacturing investments for American workers — all things Democrats have promised to do for decades,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “It’s not surprising Democrats care more about having a phony talking point than these tangible victories for the American people, because talking is all Democrats have ever been able to do.” But the economic picture over the last year has soured, with key indicators released Friday showing slowed growth and rising inflation. Recent polls find that costs and the economy remain a central concern going into November. And though Trump is visiting battleground states to pitch his economic message, he has thus far struggled to acknowledge voters’ concerns. In Georgia on Thursday, the day before the Supreme Court’s ruling came down, Trump claimed he had “won affordability” and told voters his tariffs were “the greatest thing that’s happened in this country.” On Tuesday, Trump will stand before Congress for his State of the Union address — one of the largest platforms that the presidential bully pulpit provides. Trump said last week he would focus on the economy in those remarks. Democrats have a tsunami of counterprogramming planned — including anti-SOTU rallies. Multiple Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, will bring as their guests some small business owners who’ve been affected by Trump’s tariffs, guaranteeing the issue will be front and center, regardless of the substance of the president’s remarks. DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) previewed what this messaging will sound like on the campaign trail. “House Republicans rubber stamped President Trump’s tariffs and are responsible for the painful affordability crisis they have unleashed on American families,” DelBene said in a statement. “Voters will not soon forget Republicans are the reason everything is more expensive.”

The head of sport at Italy’s public broadcaster has resigned amid outrage over his gaffe-ridden live commentary at the opening of the Winter Olympics. Paolo Petrecca, head of Rai Sport, quit after confusing actress Matilda De Angelis with singer Mariah Carey during the opening ceremony of the Milano-Cortina games on Feb. 6. He also misidentified Kirsty Coventry, president of the International Olympic Committee, as the daughter of Italian President Sergio Mattarella. In his remarks, Petrecca caused widespread offense by describing the Spanish team as “calienti” (“hot”), saying that Brazilians “have the music in their blood,” associating African athletes with “voodoo rituals,” and making derogatory remarks about the clothing of Arab delegations. Petrecca is seen as close to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and her political opponents were quick to capitalize on the backlash. The Democratic Party said in a statement that “the Olympics are a time of utmost responsibility for public service broadcasting” and denounced the telecast as an example of Rai TV at its worst, calling it “Telemeloni” — or Meloni TV. Usigrai, the union representing journalists at Rai, welcomed Petrecca’s resignation but noted that “responsibilities remained” at the leadership level for putting him in charge of Rai Sport. That decision has caused enormous damage to the broadcaster’s reputation, they argued. Petrecca has yet to speak publicly since the announcement, although earlier on Thursday he shared a cryptic Instagram story that referred to a passage from the Bible in which Jesus, speaking at the Last Supper, tells his disciples that “one of you will betray me.”

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a civil rights activist known for his rousing oratory who became the first African American candidate to have a plausible path to winning the presidency, has died. He was 84. Because of declining health, Jackson stepped down as the leader of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition in July 2023. In the summer of 2024, as Democrats gathered to back Kamala Harris’ candidacy, Jackson received a standing ovation when he was wheeled on stage at the party’s convention in Chicago. The Baptist minister pulled in 3.3 million votes in the 1984 Democratic primaries and 6.9 million in the 1988 contests, drawing far more votes than any Black candidate had at that point in U.S. history and making his Rainbow Coalition a legitimate force in the Democratic Party. He also carved a transformative grassroots path through the primaries that would be emulated in various forms by other candidates in Democratic primaries over the years, including Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama, who would go on to realize Jackson’s ambition of becoming the first Black president. “People forget about this,” Sanders, the Vermont senator, said in 2015 before the Iowa caucuses, “but Barack Obama would not be president today if Jesse Jackson didn’t come to Iowa. That was a guerrilla-type campaign that clearly didn’t have resources but had incredible energy.” Jackson particularly appealed to minority voters who had long been underrepresented or totally ignored. “When I look out at this convention,” he told the 1988 Democratic National Convention, “I see the face of America, red, yellow, brown, black and white. We are all precious in God’s sight — the real rainbow coalition.” Jackson’s positions occasionally put him at odds with longtime Democratic voters, but his campaigns galvanized some people who detested mainstream politics. “Even though he did not win the Democratic Party presidential nomination,” Marxist activist Angela Davis wrote in an introduction to her autobiography, “Jesse Jackson conducted a truly triumphant campaign, one that confirmed and further nurtured progressive thought patterns among the people of our country.” Before his presidential bids, Jackson was a civil rights activist and organizer who worked with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and founded Operation PUSH, an organization designed to improve economic opportunities for Black people and other minorities. In later years, Jackson was an all-purpose activist, jumping from crisis to crisis with seemingly boundless energy. He‘d be enthusiastically welcomed in impoverished neighborhoods that terrified others, in difficult situations that no other politician wanted any part of. His impact was also felt internationally, particularly as a supporter of Nelson Mandela and those who worked to topple apartheid in South Africa. “Jackson had come to see himself as America’s racial traffic cop and ambassador. All racial cases seemed to flow eventually to Jesse Jackson — as he preferred. If they didn’t, he often flowed to them,” wrote Mike Kelly in “Color Lines: The Troubled Dreams of Racial Harmony in an American Town,” his 1995 book. Activism was his life’s blood. “Gandhi had to act. Mandela had to act. Dr. King had to march,” Jackson said in a Chicago speech in 2002. “Dr. King suffered and sacrificed. We must honor that tradition. We must use the pitter-patter of our marching feet and go forward.” Aiming to inspire, Jackson frequently recited variations of a poem called “I am — Somebody!” written in the 1950s by the Rev. William Holmes Borders Sr. On “Sesame Street“ in 1972, Jackson began: “I am. Somebody! I am. Somebody! I may be poor. But I am. Somebody. I may be young, But I am. Somebody.“ The children on the PBS show shouted the words back at him. They were neither the first nor the last to do so. Jackson was born Jesse Louis Burns on Oct. 8, 1941, in Greenville, South Carolina, to Helen Burns, a high school student. “Born in a three-room house, bathroom in the backyard, slop jar by the bed, no hot and cold running water,” he told the 1988 Democratic National Convention. “Jesse Jackson is my third name. I’m adopted,” he said in that speech. “When I had no name, my grandmother gave me her name. My name was Jesse Burns until I was 12. So I wouldn’t have a blank space, she gave me a name to hold me over. I understand when nobody knows your name. I understand when you have no name.“ At Greenville’s segregated Sterling High School, he was the class president; in 1960, he took part in a sit-in at the public library. Jackson went to the University of Illinois to play football but transferred to North Carolina A&T, a historically Black college where he played quarterback and was elected class president. After graduating with a degree in sociology, he became an organizer for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and attended the Chicago Theological Seminary. He was ordained as a minister in 1968. Deeply segregated Chicago was a tough nut to crack, as it was in the grip of an entrenched Democratic Party machine led by Mayor Richard J. Daley. When Jackson arrived, he showed up at the mayor‘s office with a letter of introduction but left empty-handed. According to “Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago” by Chicago journalist Mike Royko: “Daley told him to see his ward committeeman, and if he did some precinct work, rang doorbells, hustled up some votes, there might be a government job for him. Maybe something like taking coins at a tollway booth.” That was clearly not what Jackson had in mind. Instead, Jackson became the leader of SCLC’s newly created Operation Breadbasket, which pushed businesses located in Black communities to employ Black people and invest in the community. He was also a highly visible presence in King’s Chicago Freedom Movement in 1966. SCLC veteran Andrew Young later wrote in his autobiography “An Easy Burden“: “Jesse’s model for leadership was the traditional Baptist preacher. He was eager for the leadership mantle. We didn’t know exactly what was driving Jesse, but Martin appreciated Jesse’s desire to lead and encouraged it.“ While critical of Jackson’s ambition and ego, Young wrote that Operation Breadbasket “achieved excellent results by bringing economic strength to the black ghetto over a period of several years.” As a Christian activist in the civil rights movement, Jackson said of King: “He was the pilot of the plane, but we were the ground crew.” On April 4, 1968, Jackson witnessed King’s assassination in Memphis. King was shot to death as he stood on the balcony of Room 306 at the Lorraine Motel. At that moment, King was talking to Jackson and Memphis musician Ben Branch, who were waiting in the parking lot to join King and others for dinner at the home of the Rev. Samuel Billy Kyles. Jackson claimed to have cradled King in his arms before he died, an assertion at odds with eyewitness accounts. (It was Marrell McCollough who grabbed a towel off a cleaning cart to try to stanch King’s bleeding; the Rev. Ralph Abernathy then took over at King’s side.) Five days later, Jackson walked with other movement leaders next to the mule-drawn farm wagon that carried King’s casket through the streets of Atlanta to Morehouse College. Abernathy succeeded King atop the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In 2018, Jackson said King’s assassination still haunted him whenever he returned to Memphis. “Every time I go back, it pulls a scab off and the wound is still raw,” Jackson told CNN. “Every time, the trauma of the incident. His lying there. Blood everywhere. It hurts all the time.” Along with Abernathy and the widow Coretta Scott King, Jackson carried on with King’s planned Poor People’s Campaign for economic justice in Washington in the spring of 1968. But the movement became increasingly fragmented. At odds with Abernathy, Jackson left the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1971. “Without King’s powers of mediation and persuasion, rifts had deepened between the two men who inherited the largest pieces of King’s mantle,” Time magazine wrote of them in January 1972. Jackson then launched a variation of Operation Breadbasket in Chicago called Operation PUSH, which stood for People United to Save (later Serve) Humanity. “Despite precarious finances,“ James Ralph wrote in “The Encyclopedia of Chicago,” “Operation PUSH was active.” Ralph added: “It held rousing weekly meetings at its Hyde Park headquarters to energize its supporters, which included both black and white Chicagoans. It pressured major companies to hire more African Americans and to extend business ties with the black community. And in 1976, it launched PUSH-Excel, a program designed to inspire inner-city teenagers across the country to work hard and to stay out of trouble.” Operation PUSH utilized strategic boycotts, including one of Anheuser-Busch in 1983, designed to increase minority hiring. These boycotts elevated Jackson’s national profile. Jackson’s organization also spotlighted high-achieving African Americans as role models. In 1973, for instance, Operation PUSH hosted Hank Aaron as a speaker as the baseball superstar chased the sport’s all-time record for home runs set by Babe Ruth. Aaron biographer Howard Bryant described the scene in “The Last Hero.” “When we look at Hank,” Jackson said, “there’s something on the outside in his presence that tells us that we can achieve, and because he’s just like us, there’s something on the inside that tells us we deserve to achieve, and if he can, any man can.” In November 1983, Jackson declared his candidacy for president, becoming the second African American after New York Rep. Shirley Chisholm in 1972 to mount a potentially viable major-party bid. It was only months after Chicago had unexpectedly elected Harold Washington to be the city’s first Black mayor. That election was as mean and ugly as elections get, but Washington’s supporters mounted a vigorous grassroots campaign that overcame systemic racism to win with 51.7 percent of the vote. It became a template for Jackson’s efforts. Almost immediately, though, Jackson ignited a firestorm when he referred to Jewish people as “Hymie” and New York City as “Hymietown“ in an interview with a Washington Post reporter. Jackson already had critics within the Jewish community, having embraced Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in 1979 and called Zionism “a poisonous weed,“ but his “Hymietown” remarks threatened to derail his fledgling candidacy. “He was no longer an indication of Black-Jewish problems; he was the problem,” wrote J.J. Goldberg in “Jewish Power.” In February, Jackson apologized at a New Hampshire synagogue, saying: “However innocent and unintended, it was wrong.“ The 1984 Democratic presidential race seemed like it might end quickly, but frontrunner Walter Mondale stumbled in New Hampshire, losing to Colorado Sen. Gary Hart. As the race heated up, Jackson became a factor. “It means a victory for the boats stuck at the bottom,” he said in May after winning Louisiana. Jackson ended up with more than 3 million votes and 465 delegates, both well short of Hart and eventual nominee Mondale, but enough to make him a force to be reckoned with. In July, Mondale ruled out picking Jackson as his running mate, citing deep philosophical differences on some issues. (Mondale picked New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro instead.) The National Rainbow Coalition grew out of the 1984 campaign. Jackson had used the phrase “Rainbow Coalition” for years — Black Panther leader Fred Hampton had launched a group by that name in 1969, months before he was shot to death by Chicago police. Jackson adopted the phrase as part of an effort to broaden his appeal for his next presidential bid. The group would later morph into the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. It soon became clear Jackson would be a much more formidable candidate in 1988. “Jesse Jackson is a serious candidate for the presidency,” The Nation wrote in April 1988. “He was always serious; it was just the political scientists and the other politicians who belittled his campaign, trivialized his efforts, and disdained his prospects. Despite the contempt and condescension of the media — or perhaps because of it — Jackson went to the most remote and isolated grass roots in the American social landscape to find the strength for a campaign that has already begun to transform politics.“ Among those endorsing him was Sanders, then the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, who helped Jackson win the state’s caucuses. After early front-runner Hart quickly fell by the wayside because of scandal, five Democrats won primaries in 1988, including Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Al Gore, who took five Southern states each on Super Tuesday in March. But both took a back seat to Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, who dominated in other regions of the country. Jackson accumulated 1,219 delegates, second only to Dukakis. He angled unsuccessfully for the vice-presidential slot, but Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen got the nod instead. “Never surrender, move forward,” Jackson told the Democratic National Convention in support of Dukakis that July in Atlanta. Jackson finished his speech with a repeated exhortation: “Keep hope alive!” He did not run again in 1992, but ended up playing an important role in the race inadvertently and perhaps unhappily. At a Rainbow Coalition gathering, Democratic nominee Bill Clinton criticized racial remarks made by hip-hop artist Sister Souljah, another featured speaker. “This planned political stunt,” argued Ibram X. Kendi in his book “Stamped From The Beginning,” showed Clinton was not captive to Jackson’s wing of the party, something that Kendi said “thrilled racist voters.” Unlike Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988, Clinton won the general election. Jackson’s electoral success gave him a platform from which to launch reform efforts around the country and jump into crisis situations wherever and whenever he saw fit. One such case came in Teaneck, New Jersey, in April 1990, when Phillip Pannell, a Black teenager, was shot to death by a white police officer under questionable circumstances. Protests and unrest followed. Arriving on the scene soon thereafter, Jackson pushed for justice but also tried to dial down tensions. “When the lights go out, don’t turn on each other,” Jackson urged students at Teaneck High School, according to Kelly’s “Color Lines” book. “In the dark, turn to each other and not on each other, and then wait until morning comes.“ He added: “What is the challenge of your age? Learning to live together.” Children in need remained a focus of his. “We must invest in the formative years of these children,” Jackson said in 2013. “So we need more than a conversation. We need transportation and education and trade skill training. And that will cost. It will cost more to not do it.” He did not limit his activism to the United States, at times venturing into hostile lands, meeting with dictators such as Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Nigeria’s Ibrahim Babangida and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to seek the release of prisoners. Perhaps no other American secured the release of so many people trapped in places they didn’t wish to be. Jackson vigorously opposed apartheid in South Africa, noting the parallels between the American civil rights movement and the efforts to upend the existing order in South Africa. ”Whatever you do to protest this evil system does not go without notice to those it is being done to,” South African Bishop Desmond Tutu told Jackson about his activism in December 1984. Jackson, in his own community, remained a symbol of what was possible. In Derrick Bell’s 1992 book “Faces at the Bottom of the Well,” one of the characters likened the inspirational impact of Jackson in the African American community to that of a Chicago basketball superstar. “With Jackson still active,” Bell’s character says, “we can expect some more Michael Jordan-type moves, political slam dunks in which he does the impossible and looks good while doing it.” In December 1995, his son Jesse Jr. was elected to fill a vacancy in Congress from Chicago’s South Side; he resigned in 2012, but sibling Jonathan was elected to a Chicago seat in 2022. For his part, Jesse Jackson never held a government post more significant than his stint as the District of Columbia’s “shadow senator” from 1991 to 1997. During the 2008 campaign, Jesse Jackson said some unflattering things about Obama, a fellow Chicagoan whom he accused of “talking down to black people.” But on election night, Jackson was seen crying with joy in Chicago’s Grant Park after Obama was elected. He saw progress but, as always, pushed for more. “Africans are free but not equal, Americans are free but not equal,” Jackson wrote in 2013 at the time of Mandela’s death. “Ending apartheid and ending slavery was a big deal, Mandela becoming president of South Africa, [Barack] Obama becoming the first African American president was a big deal, but we have to go deeper. We were enslaved longer than we have been free and we have a long way to go.” Jackson in 2017 announced he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s, though his son, Yusef Jackson, later said it was actually a related condition called progressive supranuclear palsy. Seven years later, the ailing Jackson was clearly moved by the response when he was wheeled on stage at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago by Yusef and Jonathan Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton. “The thunderous applause went on for several minutes,” wrote David Maraniss in the Washington Post. “Cameras panned to members of the audience in tears. Jackson’s face lit up, his eyes sparkling, his puffed cheeks rising from a broad smile. He lifted his hands and gave a thumbs-up sign.” Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

STRASBOURG — A battle for the European Parliament’s most senior posts is underway. More than a year out from a planned midterm reshuffle that will see the Parliament’s leadership posts reallocated in early 2027, the plotting and jostling has already begun. Groups of lawmakers are adding top jobs talks to their agendas in anticipation of plum positions — from the president to committee leadership to key roles in the political groups — coming up for grabs. This time, the Parliament’s two biggest factions are on a collision course over who gets the coveted president post. Meanwhile, the far-right firewall sees its latest challenge in the contest for powerful roles, and a new Russia-friendly grouping is in the works. Here are five flashpoints to watch: THE BATTLE FOR PARLIAMENT PRESIDENT It’s no secret that current Parliament President Roberta Metsola would like a third term (which would make her the longest-serving president of the assembly) — neither Metsola nor European People’s Party chief Manfred Weber denies it. The S&D has not yet pushed a candidate to replace Metsola — a fact that hasn’t escaped some of the party’s own allies. | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images Parliament presidents are elected for two-and-a-half-year stints, which are renewable. Each Parliament term is five years. Metsola signaled that a third term remained a possibility last June after she ruled out going back to Malta to become her national party’s leader. When asked by POLITICO whether she intended to run again at a press conference in October, she replied: “We are still 15 months away from the midterms and I’m here to deliver every day for the job that I was elected to do.” Several lawmakers and officials said Metsola is working toward securing another term. “She’s in full campaign mode, giving favors to MEPs and officials,” said a liberal Renew MEP, granted anonymity to speak freely, as were others quoted in this piece. The push would put Metsola and the EPP on a collision course with the Socialists and Democrats, the Parliament’s second-biggest group, which claims it should get the presidency as part of a power-sharing arrangement signed at the beginning of the term. But the EPP has remained vague about whether they committed to any such deal. The S&D hasn’t yet pushed a candidate to replace Metsola — a fact that hasn’t escaped some of the party’s own allies. One Green lawmaker, when asked whether they would support the Socialists, said “I will think about it when they have a candidate, I cannot support a vague claim for a post.” All the infighting between the EPP and S&D has opened the door for Renew Europe, the third member of the centrist coalition, to start thinking about suggesting a compromise candidate, two Renew lawmakers said. WILL FAR RIGHT SECURE LEADERSHIP POSITIONS? The reshuffle will again test the so-called cordon sanitaire, an informal arrangement among centrist forces to keep the far right out of decision-making. In practice, that rule no longer applies when it comes to passing laws — the EPP has in the past year voted with the far right on topics such as migration and deregulation. However, Weber said in an interview with POLITICO last year that it was a “red line” for him and his political family “to give any role for right-extreme politicians here in this house, to represent the institution, to be power holders on the administrative side, and also on other aspects where you have an executive role.” Liberal and center-left groups say they don’t trust Weber because of the cooperation between the EPP and the far right, and suspect he could use the Parliament’s vice-presidencies and committee leaderships as bargaining chips to secure support for another term for Metsola. The EPP’s ranks are also beginning to wonder whether it’s possible to keep far-right groups from power in Brussels while they govern in national capitals. “What are we supposed to do when [Jordan] Bardella is president of France?” asked an EPP MEP, noting a country as big as France can’t be sidelined from top positions in Brussels. Weber has a solid grip on the EPP after 12 years at its helm — even if critics point out that his long rule is precisely why the leadership needs refreshing. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images After big gains in the 2024 EU election, the far-right Patriots and Europe of Sovereign Nations groups weren’t given any Parliament vice-presidencies or committee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships. Although those decisions were taken through democratic votes, the Patriots — the third-largest group in the Parliament — have challenged them before the Court of Justice of the EU. They argue that it is discriminatory and breaks the Parliament’s own internal rules, which say that leadership positions should reflect the composition of the chamber. If the court decides in their favor (no date has been given for that ruling), the Patriots could make big gains. PLOTS TO DETHRONE POLITICAL GROUP LEADERS When positions are uncertain and lawmakers sense an opportunity, talk of coups tends to surface — and left-wing and liberal groups appear most vulnerable. For the Greens, the current co-chairs — Terry Reintke and Bas Eickhout — both hail from the pragmatist wing of the group, willing to compromise to secure incremental wins. But the more idealistic faction is increasingly frustrated with what they see as a too-soft approach to opposition in the Parliament, and is pushing for a stronger voice — setting the stage for a potential internal clash. Similarly, Renew Europe is divided between a left-leaning, greener faction and a more economically liberal right-leaning wing. Both factions think the other is planning to challenge the incumbent, Valérie Hayer, whose position is weakened by French President Emmanuel Macron’s fading support in polls, according to four liberal officials. The Slovak, Dutch and Belgian delegations have been floated as potential alternatives, but no name has yet emerged as a viable contender. In The Left group, an early-term agreement held that a Greek lawmaker would succeed Germany’s Martin Schirdewan as co-chair. But the Greek delegation has lost half its four members over the past year, opening the door for others to stake a claim, two group officials said.  The rest of the group leaders seem more secure.  Weber has a solid grip on the EPP after 12 years at its helm — even if critics point out that his long rule is precisely why the leadership needs refreshing. The right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Patriots for Europe groups are also likely to keep the same leadership.  For the S&D, everything hinges on whether they can secure the Parliament presidency — a prize that would be fought over by the bloc’s national heavyweights: the Spaniards, the Italians and the Germans. Renew is currently the Parliament’s fifth-largest group and is eyeing fourth place, currently held by ECR. | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images If the S&D doesn’t get the presidency, those national camps could instead fight over who chairs the group, currently Spain’s Iratxe García. But as long as Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s fragile left-wing government doesn’t fall, García is likely to be safe as she will have the backing of one big EU country. LAWMAKERS ON THE MOVE Lukas Sieper, from the German Party of Progress, announced last week that he’ll be joining the Renew Europe group — pending confirmation by members of his party. He’ll move from the ranks of non-attached MEPs. The move kicked off what is shaping up to be a year of backroom bargaining and political horse-trading, as groups court lawmakers they believe can be peeled away from rivals with the right mix of promises. “Obviously, each of the groups in this Parliament has an interest in growing to gain influence,” Renew chair Hayer said at a press conference last week when asked by POLITICO. “Of course we have an interest in gaining members.” Elisabetta Gualmini, an Italian MEP from Italy’s center-left Democratic Party, on Monday announced she was jumping ship from the S&D and joining the liberals of Renew. Renew is currently the Parliament’s fifth-largest group and is eyeing fourth place, currently held by the ECR. Renew is now just two seats away from matching the ECR’s MEPs total. All groups want more MEPs, as it brings more funding, more speaking time and determines the order of priority for speakers in meetings and debates. “Groups are reaching out to every single MEP that could flip; the MEP shopping is all over the place,” said a Greens parliamentary assistant. A NEW POLITICAL GROUP THAT’S CLOSE TO RUSSIA Cypriot YouTuber-turned-politician Fidias Panayiotou, along with the MEPs of Slovakia’s leftist-populist Smer party, are planning to start a new group, as first reported by POLITICO in June and confirmed by Fidias to Cypriot media last week. The lawmakers, along with those from Germany’s Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, visited Moscow for Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s Victory Day celebrations last year. While they currently lack the 23 MEPs from seven different countries that are required to form a group, the midterm reshuffle could make it possible.  The group’s unifying theme will be “peace and social justice,” and they are “pretty close” to reaching the needed number of lawmakers, an official with knowledge of the talks told POLITICO. “The idea is not to launch it with the minimum [number of MEPs], they want it to be stable.” 

Portuguese voters head back to the polls for the runoff round of the country’s presidential election on Sunday despite an ongoing state of emergency amid devastating storms.  More than 7,000 people have been evacuated in Spain and Portugal since early February and at least two people died after torrential rain and flooding hit the Iberian Peninsula. Portugal has declared a state of emergency in 69 of its 308 municipalities, and thousands of residents remain without power. Far-right leader André Ventura, the runner-up candidate heading into the deciding round, has spent the past week calling for the election to be postponed until order can be restored. “It is neither unfair nor disproportionate to say that a large part of the country is in a state of calamity, we are reaching brutal levels of need, and we are not capable of holding elections in this environment,” he said. As of Saturday, 19 especially hard-hit municipalities — home to 31,862 voters — have been given permission to delay the vote by one week. But outgoing President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa on Friday insisted that postponing the elections nationwide would violate electoral law. Portugal’s national electoral authority has also said the vote will go ahead as planned.  “A state of emergency, weather alerts or overall unfavorable situations are not in themselves a sufficient reason to postpone voting in a town or region,” the authority clarified in a statement.  Moderate left-wing candidate António José Seguro, who won the first round of the election on Jan. 18, this week admitted that low turnout could benefit Ventura, whose Chega party supporters have proven reliable voters in the last few elections. “People keep telling me I’ve already won this race, and that’s not the case,” he said on Friday, adding that his opponent had “many incentives to push for the electoral demobilization of the Portuguese people.” Far-right Chega party candidate André Ventura has been calling for the election to be postponed. | Horacio Villalobos Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images Seguro secured 31 percent in last month’s vote in a field of 11 candidate; Ventura came second with 23.5 percent. The relatively close result has produced the first runoff in a presidential election in Portugal in four decades, and has raised the stakes for a final vote in which turnout looks to be crucial. In order to “avoid waking up to a nightmare,” Seguro called “on the Portuguese people who are able to vote to do so on Sunday,” adding that he “believes in the common sense of the Portuguese who know that the country has to continue.” FAR-RIGHT PUSHBACK Seguro has cast Sunday’s election as a milestone in the establishment’s ongoing push to keep the far right from power. His message was taken up by some members of the conservative Liberal Initiative party, who reached across the political spectrum to support Seguro after their candidate, João Cotrim de Figueiredo, took third place on 16 percent in the first-round ballot. A selection of center-right luminaries including former President and Prime Minister Aníbal Cavaco Silva, former Deputy Prime Minister Paulo Portas and former European Commissioner for Research and current Lisbon Mayor Carlos Moedas have all thrown their support behind Seguro. Portas praised him as “an honest and educated person” while Moedas told local media Seguro has “the capacity not to divide,” even though his support for the center-left frontrunner comes “without enthusiasm.” Moderate left-wing candidate António José Seguro has cast Sunday’s election as a milestone in the establishment’s ongoing push to keep the far right from power. | Horacio Villalobos Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images Thousands of voters also signed an open letter of support for Seguro launched by a group of self-declared “non-socialist” public figures. An opinion poll by Católica University, published Feb. 3, saw Seguro winning in a landslide with 67 percent support compared to 33 percent for Ventura. If that forecast is borne out, Seguro’s victory would the biggest presidential result since the 1974 Carnation Revolution, when Portugal overthrew its authoritarian regime. But it’s not all flowers this time around: Ventura’s projected 33 percent would also be Chega’s best-ever result in a national election in Portugal, signaling his growing ability to mobilize right-wing voters. A significant part of Chega’s success is attributed to public backlash against Portugal’s migration policies. Over the past five years the country has experienced a massive surge in immigration, with foreign-born residents doubling to over 1 million, or roughly 10 percent of the population. Ventura on Friday posted on X that Portugal doesn’t need “more immigrants from India or Bangladesh; what we need is to pay our own more and get those who don’t want to work into jobs.”  While center-right Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, who leads a minority government, has declined to enter into a coalition with Chega, he has also been careful to avoid direct clashes with Ventura in an apparent attempt not to alienate his own party’s most right-wing voters. Ahead of Sunday’s vote the prime minister declined to endorse any candidate — a stance that earned him harsh criticism in the Portuguese parliament and beyond. Montenegro’s governing Social Democratic Party could see its position as Portugal’s premier right-wing force eclipsed on Sunday if Ventura secures a significant share of the vote. “If [Ventura] obtains between 35 and 40 percent of the vote when the runoff is held — which is to say, more than the 32 percent Montenegro secured in last year’s parliamentary elections — he’ll also be able to claim he’s the true leader of the Portuguese right,” said António Costa Pinto, a political scientist at the University of Lisbon’s Institute of Social Sciences. While Ventura has hinted his presidential run was actually meant to gauge support for his eventual candidacy for prime minister, he said this week that as head of state he would “do everything to be the voice of this discontent.” “The country is unhappy with the direction things have been taking, and I will not be the president [who] sweeps things under the rug and leaves them as they are.”

President Donald Trump won’t be representing the U.S. at the opening ceremony of the Italian Olympic Games in Milan’s famous San Siro Stadium. But his shadow will surely loom over the two-week-long sporting spectacle, which kicks off Friday. The president’s repeated jabs at longtime partners, his inconsistent tariff policy and repeated plays for Greenland have shown just how much he’s shifted the traditional world order. The resulting international “rupture,” as described by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Davos last month, has turned beating the Americans in Italy from a crowning sporting achievement to an even greater moral imperative for the president’s rivals. “This is life and death,” said Charlie Angus, a former member of Parliament in Canada with the New Democratic Party and prominent Trump critic. “If it’s the semifinals and we’re playing against the United States, it’s no longer a game. And that’s profound.” The Trump administration has big plans for these Olympics, according to a State Department memo viewed by POLITICO. It hopes to “promote the United States as a global leader in international sports” and build momentum for what the White House sees as a “Decade of Sport in America,” which will see the country host the Summer Olympics and Paralympics in 2028 and the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in 2034, as well as the FIFA World Cup this summer. But a combative administration may well complicate matters. He’s sending Vice President JD Vance, a longtime critic of Europe’s leaders, to lead the presidential delegation in Milan. Then there’s ICE. News that American federal immigration agents would be on the ground providing security during the games sparked widespread fury throughout the country. Trump has also clashed with many of the countries vying to top the leaderboards in Milan. Since returning to the White House in January, he’s antagonized Norway, which took home the most medals in the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, over a perceived Nobel Peace Prize snub and clashed repeatedly with Canada, which finished fourth. “We’re looking at the world in a very different light,” Angus said. “And we’re looking at a next-door neighbor who makes increasingly unhinged threats towards us. So to go to international games and pretend that we’re all one happy family, well, that’s gone.” Trump has also sparred with Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, (the 13th-place finisher in Beijing) and threatened a military incursion in pushing Denmark (a Scandinavian country which curiously hasn’t medaled in the Winter Olympics since 1998) to cede Greenland. All while seeming to placate Russia, whose athletes competed under a neutral flag in 2022 due to doping sanctions and secured the second-most medals in the Beijing games, which ended just days before President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. The Olympics have long collided with geopolitics, from Russia’s ban in response to its war in Ukraine to South Africa’s 32-year-long exclusion as punishment for apartheid. And Beijing’s time in the limelight was marred by a U.S. diplomatic boycott over China’s treatment of its Uyghur population. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump’s political agenda of putting America First is paying off. “Fairer trade deals are leveling the playing field for our farmers and workers, NATO allies are taking greater responsibility for their own defense, and drugs and criminals are no longer entering our country,” she said. “Instead of taking bizarre vendettas against American athletes, foreign leaders should follow the President’s lead by ending unfettered migration, halting Green New Scam policies, and promoting peace through strength.” When reached for comment, the State Department deferred to the White House about the political ramifications of the games. A State Department spokesperson also highlighted the role that its Diplomatic Security Service would serve as the security lead for Americans throughout Olympic and Paralympic competition. Hockey, arguably one of the winter Olympic Games’ highest-profile sports, has already been roiled by Trump’s global agenda. Just look at last year’s 4 Nations Face-Off, which pitted the U.S. and Canada against each other in preliminary play and then again in the final. Canadian fans booed the American national anthem mercilessly when the two sides faced off in Montreal. Trump called the U.S. locker room on the morning of the final and showered the Great North with incessant 51st state gibes, and then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded boisterously when Canada won the championship in overtime. “You can’t take our country — and you can’t take our game,” he wrote. The American men’s team will play Denmark in Milan — fittingly — on Valentine’s Day, and could see the Canadians at the medal rounds. “I’m sure they’ll concentrate on the events they compete in rather than get involved in politics,” Anders Vistisen, a member of the European Parliament from Denmark, said of his compatriots in a statement. “Maybe Trump’s antics will give them even more motivation? Who knows?” Elsewhere in Italy, Americans Sean Doherty, Maxime Germain, Campbell Wright, and Paul Schommer will match up against 2022 champion Quentin Fillon Maillet from France in biathlon throughout the games. And Canadian short track speedskater and medal favorite William Dandjinou will look to hold off multiple Americans at the Milano Ice Skating Arena. “With the current American president, no one knows what he will do or say tomorrow,” said legendary goaltender Dominik Hasek, a gold medalist with Czechia in the 1998 Nagano Games and a one-time rumored presidential candidate in his home nation. “If he doesn’t make negative comments about athletes from other countries in the coming weeks, everything will be fine. But that could change very quickly after one of his frequent hateful attacks.” Hasek, a frequent critic of Putin’s war in Ukraine, said Trump “has antagonized most of the people of the democratic world with his attitudes and actions.” That doesn’t exactly scream “Faster, Higher, Stronger — Together,” the Olympic motto revamped by the IOC in 2021. “It was personal,” Angus, the former Canadian lawmaker, said of the tense Canada-U.S. showdown in the 4 Nations Face-Off last year. “This was deeply personal. We were at the moment of people brawling in the stands, and that was because of Donald Trump and the constant insults. He turned that game into war.” But now at the Olympics, the U.S. is just one of more than 90 nations competing. And Trump’s international critics say they’re determined to not let their anger with Trump ruin the games — if just not to give him the satisfaction. “People are done with Donald Trump’s flagrant attempts to goad us and poke at us and insult us,” Angus said. “It’s like water off our back. We’re a much tougher people than we were last year.” Nahal Toosi contributed to this report.

Minnesota Democrats are once again calling on federal law enforcement to leave Minneapolis after reports of yet another shooting made the rounds Saturday. “Minnesota has had it. This is sickening,” Governor Tim Walz said in a post on X, noting he’d spoken with President Donald Trump. “The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.” A likely candidate to succeed Walz echoed his words. “To the Trump administration and the Republicans in Congress who have stood silent: Get ICE out of our state NOW,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) wrote on X, adding that details are scarce. The City of Minneapolis confirmed that a shooting involving federal law enforcement had occurred early on Saturday. The Associated Press reported that the 51-year-old victim had died, but POLITICO has not independently confirmed. A Department of Homeland Security official told POLITICO that the person who was shot, whom the DHS official described as a “suspect,” was in possession of a firearm and two magazines. The situation is still evolving, the official said. The individual’s condition is currently unknown. Minneapolis Police Department officials are on the scene, keeping more than 100 observers and protesters blocked off from the agents, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. An ambulance left the scene after CPR was seen being performed on the man, the Tribune reported. Minneapolis has become a national flashpoint for outrage over Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement after the Department of Homeland Security deployed thousands of federal immigration agents to the city in December. The scale and visibility of federal law enforcement’s operation — paired with federal agents operating with limited cooperation with local officials — have alarmed city and state leaders in Minnesota, who say the tactics resemble a show of force aimed at a politically hostile region rather than routine immigration enforcement. The tension came to a head earlier this month after the killing of 37-year-old Renee Good in her car during an immigration operation. The shooting has since triggered sustained protests and national scrutiny. In the aftermath of the shooting, federal authorities limited state officials’ access to the federal probe. They later subpoenaed Walz as part of a Justice Department probe into the state’s response to White House immigration enforcement. The governor called it a “partisan distraction” and “political theater.” Trump and Vice President JD Vance have attacked Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration agents and by criticizing the federal enforcement, with Vance initially arguing that the agent who shot Good was protected by “absolute immunity.” On Thursday, he took a different tone. “I didn’t say, and I don’t think any other official within the Trump administration said that officers who engage in wrongdoing would enjoy immunity,” the vice president said in Minneapolis. “That’s absurd. What I did say, is that when federal law enforcement officers violate the law, that is typically something that federal officials would look into.” Now, in the aftermath of Saturday’s shooting, the city is again reeling amid reports of more violence. “Holy shit, ICE just killed someone else in Minneapolis,” Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic Party and a Minnesota native, wrote on X. “What the actual fuck is going on in this country.” The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Eric Bazail-Eimil contributed to this report.

Its been a bad stretch of polling for President Donald Trump. In recent weeks, a string of new polls has found Trump losing ground with key constituencies, especially the young, non-white and low-propensity voters who swung decisively in his direction in 2024. The uptick in support for Trump among those non-traditional Republican voters helped fuel chatter of an enduring “realignment” in the American electorate — but the durability of that realignment is now coming into doubt with those same groups cooling on Trump. Surveying the findings of the most recent New York Times-Siena poll, polling analyst Nate Cohn bluntly declared that “the second Trump coalition has unraveled.” Is it time to touch up the obituaries for the Trumpian realignment? To find out, I spoke with conservative pollster and strategist Patrick Ruffini, whose 2024 book “Party of the People” was widely credited with predicting the contours of Trump’s electoral realignment. Ruffini cautioned against prematurely eulogizing the GOP’s new coalition, noting that the erosion of support has so far not extended to the constituencies that have served as the primary drivers of the Trumpian realignment — particularly white working-class voters and working-class Latinos and Asian Americans. But he also acknowledged that the findings of the recent polls should raise alarms for Republicans ahead of 2026 and especially 2028. His advice to Trump for reversing the trend: a relentless focus on “affordability,” which the White House has so far struggled to muster, and which remains the key issue dragging down the president. “I think that is undeniable,” he said. “It’s the number one issue among the swing voter electorate.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Based on your own polling, do you agree that “the second Trump coalition has unraveled?” It really depends on how you define the Trump coalition. The coalition that has really reshaped American politics over the last decade has been a coalition that saw voters who are aligned with a more populist view of America come into the Republican Party — in many cases, after voting for Barack Obama twice. Those shifts have proven to be pretty durable, especially among white working-class voters but also among conservative Hispanic voters and conservative Asian American voters. You have another group of voters who is younger and disconnected from politics — a group that had been really one of the core groups for Barack Obama and the Democrats back in the 2010s. They didn’t always vote, but there was really no hope or prospect for Republicans winning that group or being very competitive with that group. That happens for the first time in 2024, when that specific combination of young, minority, male voters really comes into play in a big way. But that shift right has proven to be a little bit less durable — and maybe a lot less durable — because of the nature of who those voters are. They’re not really connected to one political party, and they’re inherently non-partisan. So what you’re seeing is less of a shift among people who reliably vote in midterms, and what we are seeing is more of a shift among those infrequent voters. The question then becomes are these voters going to show up in 2026? How big of a problem is it for Republicans if they don’t? How alarmed should Republicans be by the current trends? I think they’re right to focus on affordability. You’ve seen that as an intentional effort by the White House, including what seems like embracing some Democratic policy proposals that also are in some ways an end-run around traditional Republican and conservative economics — things like a 10 percent cap on credit card interest. What’s the evidence that cost of living is the thing that’s primarily eroding Republican support among that group of voters you described? I think that is undeniable. It’s the number one issue among the swing voter electorate. However you want to define the swing voter electorate in 2024, cost of living was far and away the number one issue among the Biden-to-Trump voters in 2024. It is still the number one issue. And that’s because of demographically who they are. The profile of the voter who swung in ‘24 was not just minority, but young, low-income, who tends to be less college-educated, less married and more exposed to affordability concerns. So I think that’s obviously their north star right now. The core Democratic voter is concerned about the erosion of norms and democracy. The core Republican voter is concerned about immigration and border security. But this swing vote is very, very much concerned about the cost of living. Is there any evidence that things like Trump’s immigration crackdown or his foreign policy adventurism are contributing at all to the erosion of support among this group? I have to laugh at the idea of foreign policy being decisive for a large segment of voters. I think you could probably say that, to the extent that Trump had some non-intervention rhetoric, there might be some backlash among some of the podcast bros, or among the Tucker Carlson universe. But that is practically a non-entity when it comes to the actual electorate and especially this group that is floating between the two political parties. Maybe there’s a dissident faction on the right that is particularly focused on this, but what really matters is this cost-of-living issue, which people don’t view as having been solved by Trump coming into office. The White House would say — and Vance said recently — that it takes a while to turn the Titanic around. Which is not the most reassuring metaphor, but sure. Exactly, but nonetheless. I think a lot of these things are very interesting bait for media, but they are not necessarily what is really driving the voters who are disconnected from these narratives. What about his immigration agenda? Does that seem to be having any specific effect? I do think there’s probably some aspect of this that might be challenging with Latinos, but I think it’s very easy to fall back into the 2010 pattern of saying Latino voters are inordinately primarily focused on immigration, which has proven incorrect time after time after time. So, yes, I would say the ICE actions are probably a bit negative, but I think Latino voters primarily share the same concerns as other voters in the electorate. They’re primarily focused on cost of living, jobs and health care. How would Trump’s first year in office have looked different if he had been really laser-focused on consolidating the gains that Republicans saw among these voters in 2024? What would he have done that he didn’t do, and what shouldn’t he have done that he did do? I would first concede that the focus on affordability needed to be, like, a Day 1 concern. I will also concede how hard it is to move this group that is very, very disaffected from traditional politics and doesn’t trust or believe the promises made by politicians — even one as seemingly authentic as Trump. I go back to 2018. While in some ways you would kill for the economic perceptions that you had in 2018, that didn’t seem to help them much in the midterms. The other problem with a laser focus on affordability on Day 1 is that I don’t think it clearly aligns with what the policy demanders on the right are actually asking for. If you ask, “What is MAGA economic policy?”, for many, MAGA economic policy is tariffs — and in many ways, tariffs run up against an impulse to do something about affordability. Now, to date, we haven’t really seen that actually play out. We haven’t really seen an increase in the inflation rate, which is good. But there’s an opportunity cost to focusing on certain issues over this focus on affordability. I think the challenge is that I don’t think either party has a pre-baked agenda that is all about reducing costs. They certainly had a pre-baked agenda around immigration, and they do have a pre-baked agenda around tariffs. What else has stopped the administration from effectively consolidating this part of the 2024 coalition? It’s a very hard-to-reach group. In 2024, Trump’s team had the insight to really put him front-and-center in these non-political arenas, whether it was going to UFC matches or appearing on Joe Rogan. I think it’s very easy for any administration to come into office and pivot towards the policy demanders on the right, and I think that we’ve seen a pivot in that direction, at least on the policy. So I would say they should be doing more of that 2024 strategy of actually going into spaces where non-political voters live and talking to them. Is it possible to turn negative perception around among this group? Or is it a one-way ratchet, where once you’ve lost their support, it’s very hard to get it back? I don’t think it’s impossible. We are seeing some improvement in the economic perception numbers, but we also saw how hard it is to sustain that. I think the mindset of the average voter is just that they’re in a far different place post-Covid than they were pre-Covid. There’s just been a huge negative bias in the economy since Covid, so I think any thought that, “Oh, it would be easy that Trump gets elected, and that’s going to be the thing that restores optimism” was wrong. I think he’s taken really decisive action, and he has solved a lot of problems, but the big nut to crack is, How do you break people out of this post-Covid economic pessimism? The more critical case that could be made against Trump’s approach to economic policy is not just that he’s failed to address the cost-of-living crisis, but that he’s actively done things that run contrary to any stated vision of economic populism. The tax cuts are the major one, which included some populist components tacked on, but which was essentially a massively regressive tax cut. Do you think that has contributed to the sour feeling among this cohort at all? I think we know very clearly when red lines are crossed and when different policies really get voters writ large to sit up and take notice. For instance, it was only when you had SNAP benefits really being cut off that Congress had any impetus to actually solve the shutdown. I don’t think people are quite as tuned in to the distributional effects of tax policy. The White House would say that there were very popular parts of this proposal, like the Trump accounts and no tax on tips, that didn’t get coverage — and our polling has shown that people have barely actually heard about those things compared to some of the Democratic lines of attack. So I think that the tax policy debate is relatively overrated, because it simply doesn’t matter as much to voters as much as the cultural issues or the general sense that life is not as affordable as it was. Assuming these trends continue and this cohort of sort of young, low-propensity voters continues to shift away from Trump, what does the picture look like for Republicans in 2026 and 2028? I would say 2026 is perhaps a false indicator. In the midterms, you’re really talking about an electorate that is going to be much older, much whiter, much more college-educated. I think you really have to have a presidential campaign to test how these voters are going to behave. And presidential campaigns are also a choice between Republicans and Democrats. I think certainly Republicans would want to make it into a Republican-versus-Democrat choice, because polling is very clear that voters do not trust the Democrats either on these issues. It’s clear that a lot of these voters have actually moved away from the Democratic Party — they just haven’t necessarily moved into the Republican Party. Thinking big picture, does this erosion of support change or alter your view of the “realignment” in any respect? I’ve always said that we are headed towards a future where these groups are up for grabs, and whichever party captures them has the advantage. That’s different from the politics of the Obama era, where we were talking about an emerging Democratic majority driven by a generational shift and by the rise of non-white voters in the electorate. The most recent New York Times poll has Democrats ahead among Latino voters by 16 points, which is certainly different than 2024, when Trump lost them by just single digits, but that is a far cry from where we were in 2016 and 2018. So I think in many respects, that version of it is coming true. But if 2024 was a best-case scenario for the right, and 2026 is a worst-case scenario, we really have to wait till 2028 to see where this all shakes out.