Israel reopened the Rafah crossing from Gaza to Egypt on Sunday in a limited capacity after two years, allowing only foot traffic, as violence continued across the Gaza Strip. The move comes amid fresh bloodshed in the enclave, with Gaza’s civil defense agency reporting dozens killed in Israeli strikes on Saturday. The Israel Defense Forces said it was responding to ceasefire violations. Around 80,000 Palestinians who left Gaza during Israel’s war on the enclave are seeking to return through the crossing from Egypt, a Palestinian official told Al Jazeera. At the same time, Israel announced it was terminating the operations of Doctors Without Borders in Gaza, accusing the group of failing to submit lists of its Palestinian staff — a requirement Israeli authorities say applies to all aid organizations in the territory. Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism alleged that two employees had ties to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, accusations the medical charity has strongly denied. The ministry said the group must halt its work and leave Gaza by Feb. 28. The tightly controlled reopening of Rafah — alongside the expulsion of a major humanitarian actor — is likely to intensify scrutiny of Israel’s handling of civilian access and aid as the conflict drags on.

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, after nixing a pair of executive orders that dealt with antisemitism and boycotting Israel, defended his actions amid fallout that has included sharp criticism from the Israeli government and concerns from local Jewish groups. As one of his first acts as mayor, Mamdani declined to renew two executive orders signed by former Mayor Eric Adams: One that adopted a broad definition of antisemitism and another that prohibited city employees from engaging in the boycott, divest and sanctions movement against Israel. The defunct orders were part of a suite of mayoral decrees signed by Adams that Mamdani revoked. During an unrelated press briefing Friday, Mamdani pledged to protect Jewish New Yorkers, but did not go into much detail about why he tossed the orders. “My administration will also be marked by a city government that will be relentless in its efforts to combat hate and division, and we will showcase that by fighting hate across the city,” he said. “That includes fighting the scourge of antisemitism by actually funding hate crime prevention, by celebrating our neighbors and by practicing a politics of universality.” As for the definition of antisemitism adopted by Adams, which was promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, Mamdani noted that many Jewish organizations in the city do not abide by the interpretation, which, for example, equates some criticisms of Israel’s actions as antisemitic. “I also know that a number, as you said, of leading Jewish organizations have immense concerns around this definition,” Mamdani said, addressing a reporter who had asked about the orders. Mamdani himself has supported the boycott, divest and sanctions movement against Israel, making his move to toss an executive order banning it in city government unsurprising. Upon taking office Thursday, Mamdani was required to sift through years of Adams-era executive orders, choosing to renew, revise or revoke them. The new mayor opted to nix every executive order signed after Adams was indicted on federal bribery charges and the motivation for his actions in office came under suspicion. However, there were several exceptions, including a decree to establish the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism and another that prohibits protests within a certain distance of houses of worship. Mamdani took office Thursday with deep rifts remaining between his administration and some members of the city’s Jewish community who have been critical of his past comments opposing Israeli military action in Gaza and its right to exist as an explicitly Jewish state. On Friday, a collection of Jewish groups, including the UJA-Federation of New York, the New York chapter of the Jewish Community Relations Council and the New York Board of Rabbis, released a statement arguing Mamdani’s actions took away two significant protections against antisemitism, though they praised him for retaining the other two elements of Adams’ policy. “Our community will be looking for clear and sustained leadership that demonstrates a serious commitment to confronting antisemitism and ensures that the powers of the mayor’s office are used to promote safety and unity, not to advance divisive efforts such as BDS,” the statement read. “Singling out Israel for sanctions is not the way to make Jewish New Yorkers feel included and safe, and will undermine any words to that effect.” Comments from the Israeli government were more pointed. (Mamdani has expressed his desire to arrest Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the basis of an International Criminal Court warrant.) “On his very first day as New York City Mayor Mamdani shows his true face: He scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel,” Israel’s foreign ministry said in a post. “This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire.”

Israel’s foreign ministry accused New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani of antisemitism on Friday, escalating tensions with the progressive leader within hours of him formally taking office. Israel’s criticism focused on Mamdani’s revocation of executive orders issued under his predecessor Eric Adams, including policies supportive of Israel. The Adams-era measures had prevented city officials from pursuing punitive economic policies such as boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. They had also adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which the Adams’ administration said identified “demonizing Israel and holding it to double standards as forms of contemporary antisemitism.” “On his very first day as New York City Mayor Mamdani shows his true face: He scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel. This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire,” Israel’s foreign ministry said in a post. Mamdani became mayor just after midnight on New Year’s Eve, beginning a term that Democrats hope will energize the party ahead of the 2026 midterms. The 34-year-old democratic socialist campaigned on an ambitious but costly agenda, including universal free childcare and free buses, financed in part by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Friday’s public rebuke from Israel’s government adds an international dimension to a controversy already unfolding at home. On Thursday, Jewish civil rights groups criticized the removal of posts related to combating antisemitism from the official @NYCMayor X account shortly after Mamdani assumed office, warning that the move risked sending the wrong signal at a particularly sensitive moment. Mamdani has repeatedly rejected accusations of antisemitism, arguing his criticism of Israel is rooted in human rights concerns. He has pledged to protect New York’s Jewish community, while maintaining his outspoken views on Middle East policy. That solidarity with New York’s Jewish community was repeated in his swearing-in ceremony, where celebrated the city’s diversity by quipping: “Where else could a Muslim kid like me grow up eating bagels and lox every Sunday?” Mamdani does, however, support bond disinvestment to pressure Israel, and says he does not believe Israel should exist as a “Jewish state.” Israeli officials have long viewed Mamdani with suspicion. Following his election victory in November Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel described the outcome as “deeply concerning,” pointing to Mamdani’s past activism and rhetoric. Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu slammed Mamdani’s Jewish supporters, accusing them of having “raised their hands in support of antisemitism in the heart of America.”

LONDON — Dorian Gerhold already had his doubts about plans for a Holocaust memorial in the heart of Westminster when he discovered something unexpected. “I spent a morning at the London archives, and it was very easy to find that there was actually an act of Parliament that said that the southern part of Victoria Tower gardens could not be built on,” he recalled. The retired parliamentary clerk, who for 33 years walked to work through the small strip of green on the north side of the River Thames, had begun researching the proposals for a memorial out of curiosity about how the site was chosen. His discovery in 2018 proved a serious setback to an initiative begun four years earlier under David Cameron’s government, which set up a commission to plan a monument to ensure that “in 50 years’ time the memory and lessons of the Holocaust will be as strong and as vibrant as today.” Twelve years and several changes of prime minister later, construction on the site, on the north side of the River Thames, has not yet begun. Ministers were forced to legislate to repeal the building ban discovered by Gerhold — and that bill is still crawling its way through parliament. Far from commanding national consensus, the endeavor has driven a wedge between politicians, local residents and Jews in Britain. Supporters believe the project has already been delayed for too long. They say its completion is all the more urgent because the Holocaust is receding further from living memory. But its vociferous critics fear the memorial will oversimplify the U.K.’s relationship with its past, and fudge questions about present-day antisemitism.  Martin Stern, who survived concentration camps at Westerbork and Theresienstadt, told POLITICO there is “parochialism” to the way the Holocaust is remembered today. “I narrowly survived because, for some reason, my name and my sister’s name were not on the list when children were being loaded for the train to Auschwitz. It’s very close to me, but that doesn’t mean I want everybody just to be deeply immersed in only about me.” ‘STRIKING AND PROMINENT’ There is almost no aspect of the memorial, which will feature 23 large bronze fin structures and an underground learning center in the park next to the Palace of Westminster, which isn’t contested. Most hotly debated of all is the location. A site was not specified in the original Commission report, which stated only that the new memorial should be “striking and prominent.” A year after the report, Cameron announced it would be built in Victoria Tower Gardens to “show the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust.” The choice sparked consternation among local residents and users of the park, who complained it would dominate the space and detract from its existing monuments, the Burghers of Calais and a memorial to the anti-slavery campaigner Richard Buxton. There is almost no aspect of the memorial, which will feature 23 large bronze fin structures and an underground learning center in the park next to the Palace of Westminster, which isn’t contested. | Vuk Valcic/Sopa/Images/LightRocket via Getty Images After the government threw its weight behind the Westminster location, it was subject to several legal challenges, which were decided against the site and eventually necessitated legislation to override the relevant statute.  Others have criticised the placement on security grounds. Alex Carlile, a lawyer, crossbench peer and former reviewer of counter-terror legislation, has argued that placing it so close to parliament is a “lure to terrorists.” The design and cost of the memorial have attracted further criticism. The fin-like structure was devised by David Adjaye, a renowned British-Ghanaian architect who has since faced allegations of sexual harassment, which he denies.  Ruth Deech, a crossbench peer whose father arrived in Britain after fleeing Poland at the start of the Second World War, said: “As soon I saw the design and the concept, I felt instinctively it did not do honor to my grandparents, my family, because the design is meaningless.” “The Jewish tradition of remembering departed souls would be a light,” she added. “That’s what you do for people who die. You don’t build something that looks like a dinosaur’s rib cage.” The memorial, which will be partly funded by the taxpayer with additional money from donations, has ballooned in cost from an estimated £50 million at its inception to £138.8 million in 2023. HOW TO REMEMBER The concept of a “learning center” has also proved to be a fraught one.  A year after the report, Cameron announced it would be built in Victoria Tower Gardens to “show the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust.” | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Stern balked at the term, arguing: “The concept of education is much deeper than the concept of learning… If you’re having a center in London that is intended to teach people about these things, to provide a national resource, it needs to be much bigger.” Deech warned that it will give “a very, very limited, almost misleading account of Britain and the Holocaust when what we really need is an overall exposition of a whole of Jewish life in Britain over 1,000 years.” There was until recently a Jewish Museum based in north London, which closed its doors two years ago due to lack of funds. Opponents have raised concerns about the contents and focus of the learning center — in particular, the prospect that it could become a more generalized exhibit about genocides, which does not treat the Holocaust as distinct. Members of the House of Lords recently passed an amendment designed to ensure it would specifically commemorate the mass slaughter of Jews by the Nazis. Discussions about how to enact this requirement are ongoing, according to one person working on the bill, granted anonymity to speak freely — part of the reason it has not yet been scheduled to return to parliament. But Deech’s more fundamental fear is that the effect of the Westminster memorial will be to “package the Holocaust in an airtight box — it was 80 years ago. It was German. It was nothing to do with us. Much better today. And that is simply not working anymore.” At this point, the memorial’s historical focus smashes up against the present. Some argue it will make present-day antisemitism worse, locating it conveniently in the past while acting as a physical lightning rod for anti-Jewish hatred. One lawyer, who has carried out research on legal challenges to the site and asked to remain anonymous due to his other public duties, claimed it would “protect the dead but not the living.” URGENT CASE Yet those who have been involved with the project from the beginning insist it is all the more needed in light of the October 7, 2022 attacks on Israel and the war in Gaza. Eric Pickles, a Tory peer who until recently served as the U.K.’s special envoy for post-Holocaust issues, said that the objection the memorial would not engage with wider antisemitism “has no basis in reality.” He told POLITICO the site would have “a great importance in terms of getting out a very solid message against antisemitism” and would “ensure that the narrative after the last survivor is gone is one that’s going to be built on truth and honesty and verifiable fact.” Pickles defended Victoria Tower Gardens as “exactly the right location, right next to Parliament, because ultimately, the Holocaust shows you what happens when governments decide to use all the resources of the state to kill their citizens.” He also stressed that opposition was not universal among local residents, and mostly amounted to “special pleading” by people “who didn’t want this memorial to be near their property.” Olivia Marks-Woldman, chief executive of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, highlighted the link between the function of the memorial and its location. She said that “to have a physical, tangible memorial in the heart of London will be a focal point for a lot of the learning and the commemorations and a reminder of how the Holocaust impacted in Britain.” Marks-Woldman resisted the idea that it will paint Britain’s wartime record in a wholly positive light, pointing out that “while Kindertransportees have rebuilt their lives here… their parents weren’t allowed in, and mostly their parents were murdered.” The long-running debate over the monument has perhaps touched on something wider about the British fondness for raising objections, particularly over building projects. As Danny Finkelstein, a Conservative peer who has recently taken on American far-right commentator Nick Fuentes, has written: “Really you can find some sort of case against everything. Even against creating a small exhibition centre for people to learn how bad the Nazis were.” Barring a massive volte-face, plans for the memorial will clear their legal hurdles this year and work will begin — but deep skepticism about the wisdom of the project is unlikely to fade.

At least 12 people are dead after two gunmen opened fire at Sydney’s famed Bondi Beach in an attack authorities said targeted the Jewish community during a major holiday celebration. One of the shooters is among the dead while the second is in a critical condition, local police said in a statement. More people have been injured, among them two police officers, authorities said. Police are investigating whether any other assailants were involved. “This attack was designed to target Sydney’s Jewish community, on the first day of Hanukkah,” said Chris Minns, the premier of the state of New South Wales. “What should have been a night of peace and joy celebrated in that community with families and supporters, has been shattered by this horrifying evil attack.” The attack occurred as hundreds of members of Sydney’s Jewish community gathered in Bondi Beach for the annual Hanukkah celebration, among the biggest events of the local Jewish calendar. The event, attended by many families, features the lighting of the menorah, a petting zoo, a children’s climbing wall and other activities. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his “thoughts are with every person affected.” Israel’s President Isaac Herzog called the attack terrorism: “Our hearts go out to our Jewish sisters and brothers in Sydney who have been attacked by vile terrorists as they went to light the first candle of Chanukah.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent “heartfelt condolences” and said “Europe stands with Australia and Jewish communities everywhere,” in a statement. “This appalling act of violence against the Jewish community must be unequivocally condemned,” said Kaja Kallas, the EU’s chief diplomat. The incident is Australia’s worst mass shooting in decades, after the nation’s gun laws were tightened in response to a 1996 massacre in the state of Tasmania.

BERLIN — U.S. President Donald Trump’s overtures to the European far right have never been more overt, but the EU’s biggest far-right parties are split over whether that is a blessing or a curse.  While Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has welcomed Trump’s moral support, viewing it as a way to win domestic legitimacy and end its political ostracization, France’s National Rally has kept its distance — viewing American backing as a potential liability. The differing reactions from the two parties, which lead the polls in the EU’s biggest economies, stem less from varying ideologies than from distinct domestic political calculations. AfD leaders in Germany celebrated the Trump administration’s recent attacks on Europe’s mainstream political leaders and approval of “patriotic European parties” that seek to fight Europe’s so-called “civilizational erasure.” “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy — which, in parts, sounds like it could have been a manifesto of a far-right European party — warning that Europe may be “unrecognizable” in two decades due to migration and a loss of national identities. “The AfD has always fought for sovereignty, remigration, and peace — precisely the priorities that Trump is now implementing,” added Bystron, who will be among a group of politicians in his party traveling to Washington this week to meet with MAGA Republicans. One of the AfD’s national leaders, Alice Weidel, also celebrated Trump’s security strategy. “That’s why we need the AfD!” Weidel said in a post after the document was released. By contrast, National Rally leaders in France were generally silent. Thierry Mariani, a member of the party’s national board, explained Trump hardly seemed like an ideal ally. “Trump treats us like a colony — with his rhetoric, which isn’t a big deal, but especially economically and politically,” he told POLITICO. The party’s national leaders, Mariani added, see “the risk of this attitude from someone who now has nothing to fear, since he cannot be re-elected, and who is always excessive and at times ridiculous.”  AFD’S AMERICAN DREAM It’s no coincidence that Bystron is part of a delegation of AfD politicians set to meet members of Trump’s MAGA camp in Washington this week. Bystron has been among the AfD politicians increasingly looking to build ties to the Trump administration to win support for what they frame as a struggle against political persecution and censorship at home. This is an argument members of the Trump administration clearly sympathize with. When Germany’s domestic intelligence agency declared the AfD to be extremist earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the move “tyranny in disguise.” During the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President JD Vance urged mainstream politicians in Europe to knock down the “firewalls” that shut out far-right parties from government. “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy. | Britta Pedersen/Picture Alliance via Getty Images AfD leaders have therefore made a simple calculation: Trump’s support may lend the party a sheen of acceptability that will help it appeal to more voters while, at the same time, making it politically harder for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives to refuse to govern in coalition with their party. This explains why AfD polticians will be in the U.S. this week seeking political legitimacy. On Friday evening, Markus Frohnmaier, deputy leader of the AfD parlimentary group, will be an “honored guest” at a New York Young Republican Club gala, which has called for a “new civic order” in Germany. NATIONAL RALLY SEES ‘NOTHING TO GAIN’ In France, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally has distanced itself from the AfD and Trump as part of a wider effort to present itself as more palatable to mainstream voters ahead of a presidential election in 2027 the party believes it has a good chance of winning. As part of the effort to clean up its image, Le Pen pushed for the AfD to be ejected from the Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament last year following a series of scandals that made it something of a pariah. At the same time, National Rally leaders have calculated that Trump can’t help them at home because he is deeply unpopular nationally. Even the party’s supporters view the American president negatively. An Odoxa poll released after the 2024 American presidential election found that 56 percent of National Rally voters held a negative view of Trump. In the same survey, 85 percent of voters from all parties described Trump as “aggressive,” and 78 percent as “racist.”  Jean-Yves Camus, a political scientist and leading expert on French and international far-right movements, highlighted the ideological gaps separating Le Pen from Trump — notably her support for a welfare state and social safety nets, as well as her limited interest in social conservatism and religion.  “Trumpism is a distinctly American phenomenon that cannot be transplanted to France,” Camus said. “Marine Le Pen, who is working on normalization, has no interest in being linked with Trump. And since she is often accused of serving foreign powers — mostly Russia — she has nothing to gain from being branded ‘Trump’s agent in France.’” 

Remigijus Žemaitaitis, leader of Lithuania’s populist Dawn of Nemunas ruling coalition party, has been found guilty of incitement to hatred against Jews and downplaying the Holocaust in a decision by the Vilnius Regional Court. In a Thursday ruling the court said his public statements had “mocked Jewish people, denigrated them, and encouraged hatred toward the Jewish community.” Žemaitaitis was fined €5,000 — a fraction of what the prosecutor had requested — and is at risk of being stripped of his seat in parliament. “This is a politicized decision,” Žemaitaitis said, while indicating he will appeal. The court considered several social media posts in which Žemaitaitis blamed Jews for the “destruction of our nation” and for “contributing to the torture, deportation, and killing of Lithuanians.” After Israeli authorities demolished a Palestinian school on May 7, 2023, Žemaitaitis wrote: “After such events, it is no wonder that statements like this emerge: ‘A Jew climbed the ladder and accidentally fell. Take, children, a stick and kill that little Jew.'” His lawyer, Egidija Belevičienė, told local media that while her client’s remarks “may have been inappropriate and may have shocked some people, they did not reach the level of danger for which a person is punished with a criminal penalty that necessarily results in a criminal record.” Lithuania’s ruling Social Democrats, who share a coalition with Žemaitaitis, have yet to respond to the ruling, noting that it “is not yet final.” In a Thursday social media post the party said any form of antisemitism, hate speech or Holocaust denial “is unacceptable to us and incompatible with our values.” Still, Žemaitaitis’ record of antisemitic comments was known to the Social Democrats when they formed a coalition with his party last November. He had resigned his seat in parliament the previous April after the country’s Constitutional Court ruled he had violated the constitution by making antisemitic statements on social media. “The Social Democrats were not bothered last year … nor are they bothered now,” said Simonas Kairys, deputy leader of the Liberal Movement opposition party. Laurynas Kasčiūnas, chair of the opposition Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats, accused the Social Democrats of suffering from Stockholm syndrome. “They have been taken hostage by Žemaitaitis, and they’re beginning to like it,” he said. The country’s political opposition is calling on the Social Democrats to sever ties with Žemaitaitis — and is threatening to kick him out of the country’s parliament if they won’t. “The Social Democrats could simply tell Žemaitaitis ‘goodbye,’” Kasčiūnas said. If they fail to cut ties after the court’s ruling becomes final, he added, “an impeachment initiative will emerge in the Seimas.” Žemaitaitis has made a name for himself recently for more than antisemitism. In November he tabled a draft law to simplify the process of firing the head of the country’s LRT public broadcaster, sparking public outrage that the government was preparing to install a political flunky in the post. A street protest is scheduled for Dec. 9; as of Thursday over 124,000 people had signed an online petition against the draft law in a country of 2.8 million.

BERLIN — Before Leif-Erik Holm became one of the German far right’s leading figures, he was a morning radio DJ in his home state in eastern Germany celebrated, by his station, for making “the best jokes far and wide.” Ahead of regional elections across Germany next year, Holm, 55, is now set to become the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party’s top candidate in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, a largely rural area bordering Poland and the Baltic Sea. With polls showing the AfD in first place at 38 percent support in the state, it’s one of the places where the party — now the largest opposition group in Germany’s national parliament — is within striking distance of taking significant governing power for the first time since its formation over a decade ago. Holm embodies the type of candidate at least some AfD leaders increasingly want at the top of the ticket. With an avuncular demeanor, he eschews the kind of incendiary rhetoric other politicians in the party have embraced and says he seeks dialogue with his political opponents. Asked what his party would do if it takes power in his state next year, Holm rattled off some innocuous-sounding proposals: invest more in education, including STEM subjects, and ensure children of immigrants learn German before they start school. “I’m actually a nice guy,” Holm said. Underneath the guy-next-door image, however, there’s a clear political calculus. National co-head of the party, Alice Weidel, is attempting something of a rebrand, believing that the AfD won’t be able to make the jump to real political power unless it moves away from candidates who embrace openly extreme positions. That means moving away from controversial leaders like Björn Höcke — found guilty by a court for uttering a banned slogan used by Adolf Hitler’s SA storm troopers — and Maximilian Krah, who last year said he would “never say that anyone who wore an SS uniform was automatically a criminal.” Instead, the preferred candidate, at least for Weidel and people in her camp, is someone like Holm, who can present a more sanitized face of the party. But the makeover is proving to be only skin deep, and even Weidel, despite her national leadership role, can’t prevent the mask from slipping. NEW LOOK, SAME POLITICS Since its creation in 2013 as a Euroskeptic party, the AfD has grown more extreme, mobilizing its increasingly radicalized base primarily around the issue of migration. Earlier this year, Germany’s federal domestic intelligence agency — which is tasked with surveilling groups found to be anti-constitutional — deemed the AfD an extremist group. Weidel is now trying to tamp down on the open extremism. The effort is intended to make the AfD more palatable to mainstream conservatives — and to make it harder for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s center-right alliance to refuse to govern in coalition with the party by maintaining the postwar “firewall” around the far right. Weidel’s push to present a more polished party image isn’t necessarily supported by large swaths of the AfD’s rank and file — especially in its strongholds in the former East Germany — who point to the fact that the party’s political ascent coincided with its radicalization. The argument isn’t without merit. Despite its rising extremism, the party came in second in the snap federal election early this year — the best national showing for a far-right party since World War II. The party is now ahead of Merz’s conservatives in polls. Alice Weidel’s push to present a more polished party image isn’t necessarily supported by large swaths of the AfD’s rank and file. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images  Weidel is nevertheless pressing ahead with her drive to try to soften the AfD’s image. As part of this effort, Weidel has tried to somewhat shift her party from its proximity to the Kremlin — seeking closer ties with Republicans in the U.S. From now on, the party will “fight alongside the white knight rather than the black knight,” a person familiar with Weidel’s thinking said. In another remake attempt, earlier this year, an extremist youth group affiliated with the AfD dissolved itself to avert a possible ban that might have damaged the party. Last weekend, a new youth wing was formed that party leaders will have direct control over. Other far-right parties across Europe have made their own rebranding efforts. In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen has attempted to normalize her party — an effort referred to as dédiabolisation, or “de-demonization” — ditching the open antisemitism of its founders. As part of that push, Le Pen moved to disassociate her party from the AfD in the European Parliament. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has moderated her earlier anti-EU, pro-Russia stances. For the AfD, however, the attempted transformation is less a matter of substance — and more a matter of optics. Underneath Weidel’s effort to burnish her party’s reputation, many of its most extreme voices continue to hold sway. THE POLISHED RADICAL Perhaps no AfD leader embodies that tension more than Ulrich Siegmund, the lead candidate for the party in the state of Saxony-Anhalt, where it is polling first at 40 percent support ahead of a regional vote next September. It’s here, in this small state of just over 2 million people, where AfD leaders pin most of their hopes of getting into state government next year — possibly even with an absolute majority. Like Holm, Siegmund too tries to cultivate a regular-guy persona. Even members of opposing parties in the state parliament describe him as friendly and approachable. With over half a million followers on TikTok, he reaches more people than any other state politician in Germany. Perhaps no AfD leader embodies that tension more than Ulrich Siegmund, the lead candidate for the party in the state of Saxony-Anhalt. | Emmanuele Contini/NurPhoto via Getty Images At the same time, Siegmund is clearly connected to the extreme fringe of the party. He was one of the attendees at a secret meeting of right-wing extremists in which a “master plan” to deport migrants and “unassimilated citizens” was reportedly discussed. When news of the meeting broke last year, it sparked sustained protests against the far right across Germany and temporarily dented the AfD’s popularity in polls. Speaking to POLITICO, Siegmund minimized the secret meeting as “coffee klatsch,” claiming the real scandal is how the media overblew the episode. He described himself not as a dangerous extremist — but as a regular guy concerned for his country. “I am a normal citizen, taxpayer and resident of this country who simply wants a better home, especially for his children, for his family, for all of our children,” Siegmund said. “Because I simply cannot stand by and watch our country develop so negatively in such a short time.” Yet, when pressed, Siegmund could not conceal his extremism. He defended the use of the motto “Everything for Germany!” — the banned Nazi phrase that got his party colleague, Höcke, into legal trouble. “I think it goes without saying that you should give your all for your own country,” Siegmund said. “And I think that should also be the benchmark for every politician — to do everything they can for their own country, because that’s what they were elected to do and what they are paid to do.” Siegmund also took issue with the notion that the Nazis perpetrated history’s greatest crime against humanity, so therefore Germans have a special responsibility to avoid such terms. Ulrich Siegmund also took issue with the notion that the Nazis perpetrated history’s greatest crime against humanity, so therefore Germans have a special responsibility to avoid such terms. | Heiko Rebsch/picture alliance via Getty Images “I find this interpretation to be grossly exaggerated and completely detached from reality,” he said. “For me, it is important to look forward and not backward. And of course, we must always learn from history, but not just from individual aspects of history, but from history as a whole.” Siegmund said he couldn’t judge whether the Nazis had perpetrated history’s worst crime, relativizing the Holocaust in a manner reminiscent of some of the most extreme voices in his party. “I don’t presume to judge that,” he said, “because I can’t assess the whole of humanity.” One lesson from Germany’s history, Siegmund added, is that there should be no “language police” or attempts to ban the AfD as extremist, as some centrist politicians advocate. “If you want to ban the strongest force in this country according to opinion polls, then you’re not learning from history either,” he said. INTERNATIONAL NATIONALISTS The AfD’s national leaders privately smarted at Siegmund’s comments for making their faltering rebrand more difficult. (Holm did not respond to a request for comment on the statements.) That’s especially the case because Weidel and other AfD leaders are increasingly looking abroad for the legitimacy they crave at home and fear such rhetoric will complicate the effort. Weidel and people in her circle have sought to forge closer ties to the Trump administration and other right-wing governments, seeing connections with MAGA Republicans in the U.S. and other populist-right parties in Europe as a way of winning credibility for the AfD domestically. In Europe, Weidel has repeatedly visited Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at his official residence in Budapest. The party is also making an effort to reestablish connections with members of Le Pen’s party in the European Parliament, according to a high-ranking AfD official. Not everyone in the AfD, however, sees eye to eye with Weidel on the attempt to moderate the party image, especially when it comes to relations with Moscow. The AfD’s other national co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, recently told an interviewer on German public television that Vladimir Putin’s Russia poses no threat to Germany. Chrupalla’s rhetoric is much more friendly to the Kremlin, and he’s the preferred party leader among many of the AfD’s most radical supporters in eastern Germany — where pro-Moscow sympathies are more prevalent. Many of the AfD’s followers in the former East Germany, where the party polls strongest, see Weidel, born in the former West Germany, as too mild in her approach. Ultimately, the direction of the AfD — in next year’s state elections and beyond — may well depend on which leader’s vision prevails.

PARIS — The Paris public prosecutor’s office will investigate allegations that Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence platform made antisemitic comments. Several posts by the AI model Grok were widely circulated Wednesday, including the chatbot stating that “the plans for the crematoria at Auschwitz do indeed show facilities designed for disinfection with Zyklon B […] rather than mass executions.” Last July, French prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into X, over allegations that the company manipulated its algorithms for the purposes of “foreign interference.” “The Holocaust denial comments relayed by the artificial intelligence Grok on X have been included in the ongoing investigation conducted by the cybercrime division of the Paris public prosecutor’s office, and the functioning of the AI will be analyzed in this context,” the Paris public prosecutor’s office told POLITICO, confirming a report from AFP. The League for Human Rights, or LDH, also announced Wednesday that it was filing a complaint against the AI model. The messages posted on X by Grok are a “denial of crimes against humanity,” according to the human rights organization. The LDH has chosen to file a complaint “against X,” the procedure applicable when the perpetrator is unknown, said Nathalie Tehio, president of the LDH. Last July, Grok came in for public criticism after a software update designed to enable it to provide more “politically incorrect” opinions. A few days later, xAI announced that it was “actively working to remove inappropriate content.” At 6 p.m. Wednesday, the posts targeted by the LDH were still accessible on the platform. X did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

President Donald Trump’s iron-fisted grip on his party appears to be slipping in ways unseen since the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Back then, he quickly reasserted himself as the singular, dominant force within the Republican Party, and he may do so again. But the extraordinary rebukes and headwinds the president is now facing — much of it from within his own party — are revealing a GOP beginning to reckon with a post-Trump future. That dynamic crystallized after voters surged to the polls to support Democratic candidates for statewide races in New Jersey, Virginia, Georgia and Pennsylvania, shattering expectations of close contests and signaling that even Trump can’t defy political gravity forever. Trump has spent the days since recycling old grievances, berating members of his own party and choosing sides in a burgeoning intra-MAGA debate about antisemitism and bigotry within the GOP coalition. Asked about the momentum shift, a White House spokesperson said Trump had “delivered on many of the promises he was elected to enact” — from border security to ending taxes on tips to “affordability issues.” “As the architect of the MAGA movement, President Trump will always put America First. Every single day he’s working hard to continue fulfilling the many promises he made and he will continue delivering,” spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. In addition to the election romp, here’s a look at some recent brush-offs, brushbacks and breakups that have threatened Trump’s aura of invincibility. REPUBLICANS REFUSE TO BACK DOWN ON EPSTEIN VOTE A year ago, the idea that a Republican-led Congress would vote overwhelmingly in favor of anything Trump opposed would have been fanciful. Enter the Epstein files. Trump’s coalition has long viewed the FBI’s trove of records related to the late convicted sex offender and disgraced international power broker to be a holy grail of sorts, one that could shed light on a grander sex trafficking conspiracy implicating world leaders and politicians. But Trump, a longtime associate of Epstein’s until they fell out more than a decade ago, spent the summer leaning on congressional Republicans to cease their search for records. Trump has denied wrongdoing and no evidence has suggested he took part in Epstein’s trafficking operation. What happened next was perhaps the most stinging intra-party rebuke of Trump’s presidency. Trump tried and failed to pressure Republican lawmakers to pull the plug on a vote demanding the Justice Department turn over the full library of Epstein files. An intense pressure campaign against Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) in particular went nowhere. The fallout also claimed the relationship of Trump and Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose refusal to flinch led Trump to brand her a “traitor” and attempt to turn his coalition against her. Greene has responded by saying Trump’s attacks have endangered her life. As a full House vote expected to overwhelming support the release of the Epstein files was just hours away, Trump reversed himself and encouraged Republicans to back the measure, avoiding what looked to be an inevitable black eye. Now White House officials say Trump should get credit for transparency and seeking the release of the files. INDIANA GOP LAWMAKERS DON’T BITE ON REDISTRICTING Trump’s inability to cajole Congress into his preferred course of action on the Epstein files came at virtually the same time the president and his allies failed to move Indiana Republicans to redraw their congressional boundaries to net Republicans another seat in the 2026 midterms. Trump had been pressing for a Hoosier redistricting measure for months, but state GOP leaders signaled they simply lacked the votes to make it a reality, drawing a threat from Trump to endorse some Republicans’ primary challengers. Countermeasures by Democrats in Virginia and California could make Trump’s nationwide push a wash. WARNING SIGNS APPEAR FOR TARIFFS AT THE SUPREME COURT Trump has long proclaimed that wielding tariffs against foreign governments is the key to negotiating favorable trade deals. Never mind that business and Republican orthodoxy has long considered tariffs as a backdoor tax on Americans. But the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of Trump’s approach, with justices he appointed sharply questioning whether the president can leverage emergency powers to tariff foreign governments at will. By all accounts, the argument was a drubbing for Trump’s side. And the president seemed to discover that reality when he vented at the court in a pair of Truth Social posts last week. It’s folly to predict how the high court will rule, even when the justices send clear signals during the arguments. But Trump appears to be bracing for defeat that could have devastating consequences for his economic agenda. His administration has repeatedly emphasized the centrality of tariffs to the recent spate of trade deals he’s made around the world. NO LUCK ON THE FILIBUSTER OR THE BLUE SLIP, EITHER Trump has never had much luck telling the Senate how to run itself. But his recent incursions into Senate procedure have underscored his relative powerlessness in this arena. Trump spent the bulk of the record-setting government shutdown pressuring Senate Republicans to abolish the filibuster, the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to pass most legislation. That threshold has vexed presidents for generations but has long been defended by institutional leaders as a way to prevent national whiplash every time the chamber changes. And Senate Majority Leader John Thune made clear quickly that Trump wasn’t going to get his way. Trump fared no better leaning on Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to scrap the Senate’s 100-year-old tradition of honoring “blue slips,” the power of home-state senators to veto nominees for judgeships and U.S. attorneys they find unacceptable. Grassley has been Trump’s loudest champion on claims that the Justice Department was weaponized against him and has helped unearth records related to those allegations, but Trump has still bristled at Grassley’s refusal to cave on blue slips. Trump has struggled to get some of his preferred nominees across the finish line. TRUMP GETS A ONE-TWO PUNCH AFTER PARDONING 2020 ALLIES Trump announced last week a sweeping pardon of dozens of allies who played roles in his bid to subvert the 2020 election. Though none on the list actually faced federal criminal charges, many had been charged at the state level with seeking to defraud voters or corrupt the election results. Presidents can’t pardon state-level crimes, and within hours of Trump’s sweeping clemency he got a stark reminder. In Nevada, the state Supreme Court revived a criminal case against six of Trump’s pardon recipients who falsely claimed to be legitimate presidential electors. And in Georgia, a supervisory prosecutor reupped the criminal case against Trump himself for seeking to overturn the state’s election results. MAGA REBUKES TRUMP ON 50-YEAR MORTGAGES, H1B VISAS Trump’s feel for his MAGA base has been unerring for most of his decade in presidential politics. And their ardent support has sustained the president through his darkest moments: two impeachments, a slew of criminal indictments and a conviction making him the first former-president-turned-felon to retake the White House. So when his core allies twice sound the alarm that he’s missed the mark on economic policy proposals, it’s worth taking note. That was the case when Trump recently pitched a 50-year mortgage for homeowners, one that was roundly panned by a wide-range of MAGA influencers and created friction between the White House and Trump’s housing czar Bill Pulte. And the reaction from the base was similar when Trump defended issuing H1B visas to foreign workers and proclaimed that U.S. citizens lack “certain talents.” The uproar was swift among some of Trump’s most reliable allies. The administration says Trump’s broader economic agenda has disproportionately benefited U.S.-born workers and is working to weed out abuses in the H1B system.