PARIS — Marine Le Pen recent public statements seem to indicate that she’s losing faith in her effort to quash the five-year election ban standing in the way of her becoming France’s next president. In her latest comments Tuesday, outside the gilded Parisian courtroom where she has been appealing since January an embezzlement conviction that knocked her out of the 2027 election, Le Pen told reporters: “I never expect a good surprise when I step into a courtroom.” But, she added: “I am a believer. I still believe in miracles.” The dour pessimism in those and similar comments is striking coming from a leader who had vowed to fight what she framed as politically motivated hit job. Le Pen even held a Stop-the-Steal-type rally last year after she and her codefendants were found guilty of misappropriating €4 million of European Parliament funds. But as the months have dragged on, Le Pen has seemed increasingly resigned, recognizing that her shot at the French presidency is slipping away just as her party, the National Rally, is enjoying an historic surge in popularity. Nonetheless, it’s possible the doom and gloom are all part of her strategy to express more contrition to get a more favorable verdict. Whatever it is, Le Pen has presented this appeal as her last chance to mount a bid for the Elysée Palace and acknowledged publicly that she may be forced to step aside in favor of her 30-year-old protégé, Jordan Bardella.  Tuesday’s sentencing recommendations appeared to confirm her suspicions at first.  Prosecutors asked the court to uphold her five-year electoral ban, but in an unexpected twist, argued against its immediate implementation.  Should the court agree, it offers Le Pen a small glimmer of hope. But it’s a legally complex and politically risky path back into the race, and one that Le Pen herself appears to be placing little hope in.  WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION?  In French criminal law, penalties are typically lifted when a defendant appeals a verdict to a higher court.   Part of the reason Le Pen’s initial sentence drew so much backlash is prosecutors argued — and the judges agreed — that her crimes were so grave that her ban on running for public office should be handed down immediately, regardless of whether she appeals.  But during the appeal the prosecution did not recommend immediate implementation because there was insufficient proof that Le Pen could commit further crimes if she is not sanctioned immediately.  SO, CAN LE PEN RUN FOR PRESIDENT?   In theory, if the appeals court rules in a manner that bars Le Pen from running in 2027 but does not order immediate implementation, she could appeal again to an even higher court — thereby lifting her ban temporarily. She would then need to hope that the gears of the justice system grind slowly enough to push the issue past the next election. But it’s not clear cut. Some French legal scholars have debated if and how a new appeal would lift her electoral ban at all. Le Pen has said she will make a final call once there is a verdict in the current appeal. She has also said she would drop out of the running if the electoral ban is upheld to avoid the risk of having the National Rally run its presidential campaign with no guarantee of who the candidate would be until the last minute — an ignominious end to a career dedicated to dragging her far-right party from the political fringes into the mainstream. It is unclear if a ban without immediate implementation, as sought by the prosecutors, changes her reasoning — but her comments to French broadcaster TF1-LCI after the prosecutors made their recommendation seemed to indicate that she’d still rule herself out in that eventuality. “If the prosecutors’ recommendations are followed, I won’t be able to run,” she said. Le Pen now has to hope that she’ll be acquitted, which appears unlikely, or that the case’s three-judge panel reduces or scraps her electoral ban. The judges are under no obligation to follow the prosecution’s recommendations. WHEN WILL THIS BE RESOLVED? The judges hearing the case are expected to render a verdict before the summer.   The Cour de Cassation, which would take up any ensuing appeal, has said it would aim to examine the case and issue a final ruling before the 2027 election “if possible.” 

LISBON — To stop the explosive growth of the ultranationalist Chega party, Portugal’s leading conservatives are doing the previously unthinkable: endorsing the center-left candidate for president. Last week, Portugal’s prominent center-right politicians are publicly backing António José Seguro — a former secretary general of the Socialist Party — in the runoff presidential election on Feb. 8. The conservative endorsement is a collective rejection of the opposing candidate, far-right Chega leader André Ventura, who was the runner-up in the first round of voting in January. Although current polls indicate Ventura has no real possibility of winning the second round, the conservatives publicly backing Seguro say they’re doing so to underscore the center-right’s commitment to democratic values. Those who have spoken out include former President and Prime Minister Aníbal Cavaco Silva, former Deputy Prime Minister Paulo Portas, as well as former European Commissioner for Research and current Lisbon Mayor Carlos Moedas. Thousands of electors have also signed an open letter of support for Seguro, which was issued by a group of self-declared “non-socialist” public figures. Ventura secured nearly a quarter of the ballots in the first round of voting, and his performance highlights Chega’s remarkable ascent. By campaigning against minority groups such as the Roma community, increased immigration and denouncing government corruption, the ultranationalist group has gone from having just one lawmaker in parliament to being the country’s leading opposition party in just six years. “We have to draw a red line between liberal and illiberal forces,” said political consultant Henrique Burnay, a signatory of the open letter backing Seguro. “And my center-right democratic and liberal values have no connection with the positions the radical right defends.” André Ventura secured nearly a quarter of the ballots in the first round of voting, and his performance highlights Chega’s remarkable ascent. | Zed Jameson/Anadolu via Getty Images This is a clear choice between “a candidate for whom I may not feel enthusiasm, and one who is bent on polarizing the public, unilaterally deciding who are good or bad citizens, and who earnestly worries me,” he said. Luís Marques Mendes, who ran an unsuccessful presidential campaign on behalf of the governing center-right Social Democratic Party, said he would also commit his vote to Seguro because “he is the only candidate who comes close to the values I have always defended: defense of democracy, guaranteeing space for moderation, respect for the purpose of representing all Portuguese people.” PRIME MINISTER UNDER PRESSURE The avalanche of conservative support for Seguro is a source of discomfort for Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, who is declining to endorse either candidate in the presidential runoff. During a session of the Portuguese parliament, lawmakers lambasted the center-right leader for failing to choose between “a democrat” and someone who wants to “end the democratic regime.” The country’s political analysts interpret the prime minister’s refusal to back Seguro as a tactical decision aimed at not alienating the most conservative wing of his party, which would consider any support for a former socialist leader unacceptable. João Cotrim de Figueiredo, one of the most prominent figures in the economically liberal Liberal Initiative party, was similarly criticized for not explicitly backing the center-left candidate. Last week, however, he tacitly admitted he would vote for Seguro by declaring he’d neither cast a ballot for Ventura nor abstain from voting — a pragmatic approach, as his party’s voter base is made up of right-leaning young men who could defect to Chega. The avalanche of conservative support for António José Seguro is now a source of discomfort for Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, who is declining to endorse either candidate in the presidential runoff. | Rita Franca/LightRocket via Getty Images According to António Costa Pinto, a political scientist at the University of Lisbon’s Institute of Social Sciences, the center-right’s decision to mobilize against Ventura makes sense because of the power accorded to the president, who can veto laws, appoint members of key state and judicial bodies, and dissolve parliament. “In the unlikely scenario that Ventura secured the presidency, there is little doubt that he would use it to do everything to give his party control of the government … and pose a serious threat to the institutional functioning of Portuguese democracy,” he said. But, Costa Pinto explained, the conservatives’ decision to publicly back Seguro could end up paradoxically benefiting Ventura, as he will likely use their endorsements to reaffirm his claim that the country’s center-right and center-left parties are virtually identical mainstream entities. “This allows Ventura to reinforce his image as an anti-establishment leader who represents the people and fights the elites,” he said. “As long as he obtains between 35 and 40 percent of the vote when the runoff is held — which is to say, more than the 32 percent Prime Minister Luís Montenegro secured in last year’s parliamentary elections — he’ll also be able to claim he’s the true leader of the Portuguese right.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has one person to thank for rescuing her from a looming political abyss: U.S. President Donald Trump. Frederiksen’s party has seen a dramatic surge in poll ratings through January — just months after awful results in last year’s local elections — as it launched a vehement defense of Denmark’s sovereignty against Trump’s aggressive threats to annex Greenland. “After a long time, they have finally drawn a clear line instead of appearing submissive,” said Per Clausen, a left-wing Danish MEP from the opposition Enhedslisten party, who credited the change in approach with driving a leap in voter support. The phenomenon is not unique to Denmark. In elections from Canada to Australia, standing up to Trump has become electoral rocket fuel, as leaders who frame themselves as defenders of national sovereignty and liberal democracy are being rewarded by voters eager for pushback against the U.S. president. Frederiksen’s center-left party — which governs in a coalition with the center-right Moderates and Venstre parties — netted 22.7 percent of the vote and 41 parliament seats in a new poll by Megafon, a reputable Danish consultancy, conducted from Jan. 20 to 22 among 1,012 Danes. That’s a sharp upswing from the last poll by Megafon in early December, which showed Frederiksen’s party winning just 32 seats. The Social Democrats currently hold 50 seats out of 179, and the latest polls show that it would still be the largest party in parliament with 41 seats, putting them back in pole position to lead coalition talks, but leaving them dependent on partners to maintain power. The uptick in support is even more notable given that the Social Democrats suffered a terrible result in municipal elections in November, which saw Frederiksen’s party lose Copenhagen, a symbolically important seat, for the first time in 100 years. The Moderates, led by Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, nearly tripled its vote share in the poll from 2.2 percent to 6.4 percent, equal to about 12 seats. Another poll published Monday by the research institute Voxmeter for Danish news agency Ritzau showed support for Frederiksen’s Cabinet at 40.9 percent, the highest in two years. If an election were held now, the coalition would be forecast to win 73 seats. That would still leave them 17 seats short of the 90 needed for a majority and needing to negotiate with other parties — but is far from what just months ago looked like an imminent wipeout. RALLY AROUND THE FLAG Since then, the world — and Danish politics — has changed dramatically. Trump said in early January that he would seize Greenland, a self-ruling Danish territory in the Arctic, by any means necessary, an oft-repeated threat that took on new menace after the American capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Frederiksen, who has been in power since 2019, has mounted a spirited diplomatic defense of the Arctic island, successfully repelling Trump’s advances for now. And, according to the polls, Danes have rallied around her. Standing up to Trump has become electoral rocket fuel, as leaders who frame themselves as defenders of national sovereignty and liberal democracy are being rewarded by voters. | Mads Claus Rasmussen/EPA “There isn’t really another explanation for it,” said Anne Rasmussen, a political science professor at King’s College London and the University of Copenhagen, referring to the surge in support. “It’s first and foremost Greenland.” Rasmussen said the last time Denmark experienced such a wave of solidarity with its government was during the Covid pandemic, adding that national crises tend to favor incumbents. “I do think many Danes are currently moving towards the Social Democrats because the party is delivering on its core priorities … while also demonstrating strong leadership when even the most powerful man in the world challenges [Danish] sovereignty,” said Danish MEP Christel Schaldemose, who hails from Frederiksen’s Social Democrats party. Frederiksen’s government also reached an agreement this week with left-wing parties to hand out €600 million in tax-free food vouchers to more than 2 million people hit by rising food prices. TICK TOCK The question now is whether Frederiksen will call an election anytime soon to capitalize on her political gains. Under Danish electoral law, the vote must be held before Nov. 1. Frederiksen has gambled with an early election before, holding a snap vote in 2022 amid falling support, which saw her snag victory. “It might look like a little bit too instrumental to do it [call an election] in the middle of the biggest foreign policy crisis for Denmark and the world order … but it’s probably very likely that it will come before the summer,” Rasmussen said. “She will still wait a little bit, but I don’t think she will wait that long.” Frederiksen cut an influential figure in Brussels, especially during Denmark’s presidency of the Council of the EU in 2025, but had faltered domestically thanks to missteps ranging from her decision to cull Denmark’s entire population of 17 million minks to prevent the spread of Covid-19, to the dubious jailing of a former intelligence chief, providing an electoral opportunity for the opposition. The leader of Denmark’s right-wing Danish People’s Party, Morten Messerschmidt, told POLITICO that he would welcome earlier elections, calling them “a valuable opportunity” for the country to form a new government. Frederiksen, whose approval rating plummeted from 79 percent in 2020 to 34 percent in a December YouGov poll, rejected speculation that she would resign following the disastrous local elections in November. “They really had a bad election,” Rasmussen said, but added the government has since moved to address voters’ concerns on the cost of living with the food voucher scheme. That’s important because Frederiksen’s Greenland boost in the polls won’t last forever. “I don’t think it’s just going to sort of disappear overnight, but you can imagine that as some of the national issues again become more prominent on the agenda, people are going to base their judgments more on them when they think about who to vote for,” Rasmussen said. Frederiksen, who has been in power since 2019, has mounted a spirited diplomatic defense of the Arctic island, successfully repelling Trump’s advances for now. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images Rune Stubager, a professor of political science at the University of Aarhus, agreed that the Greenland crisis had caused “kind of a rallying effect,” but added “once the pressure subsides, I would, however, expect the government to drop again as attention would then turn to domestic issues.” Stine Bosse, a Danish MEP and member of the Moderates, said Frederiksen and the government’s handling of transatlantic tensions over Greenland would stand them in good stead. “This is probably the most difficult foreign policy situation Denmark has faced in many years, and the government has handled it in the best possible way,” said Bosse. “They have kept a cool head, a warm heart, and demonstrated a high level of professionalism.”

LONDON — The U.K. Conservatives want to ditch their reputation for psychodrama. That might be easier said than done. Kemi Badenoch on Wednesday called a punchy press conference in London to claim the Conservatives are “a party of serious people” — despite seeing three of her MPs defect to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK just this month. The Tories were brutally ousted from office in 2024 after years of plotting and in-fighting which saw the party led by five different prime ministers after the 2016 Brexit vote.  Badenoch now claims only her party can be trusted to govern the country competently. The Tories are “a party of serious people, not drama queens,” she said. Voters — and her own MPs — are not yet convinced. Badenoch continues to languish in the polls, and ex-Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, veteran MP Andrew Rosindell and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman have all jumped ship to Reform UK this month claiming Britain is broken thanks to the Conservatives. The Tory leader laid into those former colleagues, accusing them of having “a tantrum dressed up as politics.” “I’m sorry you didn’t win the leadership contest. I’m sorry you didn’t get a job in the shadow cabinet. I’m sorry you didn’t get into the Lords,” Badenoch said, accusing them of “not offering a plan to fix this country.” Badenoch also jumped on in-fighting in the ruling Labour Party, accusing its MPs of “scheming to get in a new contender to challenge the prime minister.” Keir Starmer faced a backlash from some of his MPs after stopping Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who has been critical of the PM, from applying for selection in a crucial Westminster by-election. Burnham’s candidacy was blocked by Labour’s ruling body Sunday to the disgruntlement of left-wing MPs. “Everyone is fed up with this style of politics,” Badenoch said. “We are right, they are all wrong,” she said. A Labour Party spokesperson rejected the new calm characterization, saying: “The public will not trust arsonists complaining about the fire they set. The Conservatives are not serious, they’re not sorry, and are too consumed with holding together their terminally broken party.”

António José Seguro, a former head of Portugal’s Socialist Party, is projected to have secured a surprise victory in the first round of the country’s presidential election, according to exit polls released Sunday evening. Expected to win 30 percent to 35 percent of the total votes cast, Seguro’s projected triumph would be an unexpected upset for André Ventura, leader of the far-right Chega party. Pre-election surveys had consistently shown him to have the greatest support among eligible voters. As none of the candidates secured an absolute majority, Seguro faces a runoff election Feb. 8 against the second-place finisher. Exit polls conducted by the Catholic University of Portugal had Ventura in second receiving 20 percent to 24 percent of the vote, narrowly ahead of European Parliament lawmaker João Cotrim de Figueiredo, who is expected to receive between 17 percent and 21 percent. Regardless of whether he makes it to next month’s runoff, Ventura’s ability to secure nearly a quarter of the ballots Sunday emphasizes how remarkable his Chega party’s growth has been in Portugal. In six years the ultranationalist grouping has gone from having just one lawmaker in parliament to becoming the country’s leading opposition party, controlling more than a quarter of seats in the country’s legislature. Cotrim de Figueiredo’s performance is also notable. Earlier this week the politician, who leads the Liberal Initiative, a liberal economic party, and is vice-president of the Renew Group in the European Parliament, called an emergency press conference after a former advisor said she had filed a sexual harassment complaint against him in 2023. The lawmaker denied the accusations, which he said were an example of “dirty campaign” tactics, and appeared to retain the backing of voters. Portugal is a semi-presidential republic in which the president serves as the country’s head of state and has the power to appoint the prime minister and dissolve parliament. The president also has the right to veto laws, ratify international treaties, appoint some members of key state and judicial bodies, and issue pardons. Moreover, as supreme commander of the country’s armed forces, the president wields significant influence on Portuguese military deployments. Law professor Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa has dominated the presidency for the past decade. Despite being the son of a minister in the administration of dictator António de Oliveira Salazar, Rebelo de Sousa helped write the country’s democratic constitution and tapped that knowledge to compose exhaustive commentaries on government legislation. He also was renowned for his seemingly boundless energy and his willingness to take ‘selfies’ with members of the public. Although 14 candidates appeared on the ballots to succeed Rebelo de Sousa, three were disqualified for lacking the required number of signatures to run for the presidency. In addition to Seguro, Ventura and Cotrim de Figueiredo, conservative TV commentator Luís Marques Mendes and Admiral Henrique Gouveia e Melo, a naval officer who oversaw the successful roll-out of the Covid vaccine in Portugal, were among the top contenders. While Ventura performed strongly on Sunday, few believe he has a real shot of winning if he qualifies for the runoff vote. Political experts expect the public to mobilize to prevent him from capturing the presidential palace and to rally round Seguro on Feb. 8. That may not matter to Ventura, who said he has no real interest in being “the president of all Portuguese people” and has hinted he was only running to gauge support for his eventual candidacy for prime minister. This year’s presidential election is the sixth major vote held in Portugal since 2024, including three national elections, a European Parliament vote, and nationwide municipal elections. Remarkably, voter fatigue doesn’t seem to be a significant factor: Whereas 60 percent of voters declined to cast ballots when presidential elections were last held in 2021, exit polls suggest abstention rates fell to a 20-year low on Sunday, with around 40 percent of registered voters participating.

Get set for this year’s most consequential election in the EU. Hungary’s campaign stepped up a gear this week, with populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán facing the toughest challenge yet to his 15-year grip on power. The long-suffering opposition hopes that Péter Magyar — conservative leader of the opposition Tisza party, which is running 12 points ahead in the polls — can overturn what Orbán himself styles as Hungary’s “illiberal democracy.” For many Hungarians, the election is a referendum on Orbán’s model. Under his leadership the government, led by Orbán’s Fidesz party, has tightened its grip on the media and state companies — sparking accusations of cronyism — while weakening judicial independence and passing legislation that sent Hungary plunging down transparency rankings. It now sits at the bottom of the World Justice Project’s rule-of-law index for EU countries. The 62-year-old Orbán is the EU leader closest to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and proves a continual obstacle to efforts by Brussels to build a united front against the Kremlin. He has repeatedly clashed with the EU on topics ranging from LGBTQ+ rights to migration. Predicting the end of the liberal multilateral order, Orbán kicked off the year by saying the EU would “fall apart on its own.” But can Magyar — whose surname literally means “Hungarian” — really topple his former ally? And even if he does, how far could he realistically guide Hungary back toward liberal democracy with Orbán’s state architecture still in place? POLITICO breaks down the five key questions as Hungary heads toward the seismic April 12 vote. 1. WHY SHOULD I CARE? Hungary may be relatively small, with a population of 9.6 million, but under Orbán’s leadership it has become one of the EU’s biggest headaches. He has long weaponized Budapest’s veto in Brussels to block Russia-related sanctions, tie up financial aid to Ukraine and repeatedly stall urgent EU decisions. He is also a key — and sometimes leading — member of a group of right-wing populists in EU capitals, who unite on topics such as opposition to migration and skepticism toward arming Ukraine. Without Orbán, Czechia’s Andrej Babiš and Slovakia’s Robert Fico would cut far more isolated figures at summits of the European Council. Brussels has often resorted to elaborate workarounds to bypass Hungary’s obstructionism, and Orbán’s persistent defiance has led to calls to ditch the unanimity rule that has been in place for decades. “You have heard me 20 times regret, if not more, the attitude of Viktor Orbán, who, every time we had to move forward to help Ukraine … has used his veto to do more blackmail,” EU liberal party chief Valérie Hayer told journalists Tuesday. 2. WHAT ARE THE MAIN BATTLEGROUNDS? Magyar accuses Orbán and Fidesz of nepotism and corruption — of weakening the country’s economy by favoring oligarchs — and of missing out on EU funds by antagonizing Brussels. Orbán wants to frame his arch-nemesis Magyar as a puppet controlled by Brussels. Hungary’s campaign stepped up a gear this week, with populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán facing the toughest challenge yet to his 15-year grip on power. | Zoltán Fischer/Hungarian PM Communication/EPA In the past year, Fidesz has launched public debates aiming to divide Magyar’s base — which spans green and left-wing voters to disenchanted former Orbán loyalists — on subjects such as the LGBTQ+ Pride ban. Tisza’s strategy has been to avoid positioning itself on controversial issues, in an effort to garner an absolute majority that will grant the party power to reform electoral law, which they say Orbán rigged to his benefit, and enable constitutional changes. Tisza’s No. 2, Zoltán Tarr, told POLITICO he expected Orbán’s government to deploy “all possible dirty tricks.” “State propaganda smears, AI-generated fakes, doctored videos, potential staged incidents, blackmail, and exploiting the rigged electoral system. They will mobilize everything because they have so much to lose,” Tarr said. Speaking at Fidesz’s party congress on Saturday, Orbán lambasted Tisza as a pro-EU stooge. “If you vote for Tisza or DK [the social-democratic Democratic Coalition], you are voting against your own future. Tisza and DK will carry out Brussels’ demands without batting an eyelid. Do not forget that Tisza’s boss is Herr Weber, Europe’s biggest warmonger,” Orbán said, referring to the German chief of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber. 3. HOW AND WHEN DOES THE ELECTION TAKE PLACE? The national elections will take place on Sunday, April 12. Voters will choose a new 199-seat National Assembly under Hungary’s mixed electoral system, with 106 MPs elected in single-member constituencies and 93 from national party lists. The long-suffering opposition hopes that Péter Magyar — conservative leader of the Tisza party — can overturn what Orbán himself styles as Hungary’s “illiberal democracy.” | Noémi Bruzák/EPA POLITICO’s Poll of Polls shows Tisza leading with 49 percent support ahead of Fidesz at 37 percent — with Orbán’s party having been trailing for almost a year now. Although the official campaign period begins Feb. 21, the race has effectively been in full swing for months. Other notable parties in the race are the Democratic Coalition (DK); the far-right Mi Hazánk (Our Homeland) movement; and the satirical Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog Party (MKKP), largely created to mock Orbán’s policies. But these are fighting for survival as they may not meet the threshold of support for winning seats in parliament — meaning the Hungarian legislature could be exclusively controlled by two right-wing parties.  4. CAN THE ELECTION BE FREE AND FAIR? Challengers to the ruling party face a system designed to favor Fidesz. In 2011 Orbán’s government redrew electoral districts and overhauled the voting system to maximize its chances of winning seats. “There is no direct interference with the act of voting itself, yet the broader competitive environment — both in terms of institutional rules and access to resources — tilts heavily in favor of the governing parties,” said political analyst Márton Bene at the TK Institute of Political Science in Budapest. In addition to controlling roughly 80 percent of the media market, the government allows ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries (who tend to favor Fidesz) to vote by mail, whereas those living abroad who have kept their Hungarian addresses must travel to embassies to cast their ballots. “One side enjoys access to the full resources of the state, while the challenger receives no public campaign funding and has virtually no presence in state-controlled media,” said political scientist Rudolf Metz from the TK Institute, adding that this imbalance is partially offset in the digital sphere. But even the unfair conditions don’t preclude a Magyar victory, Bene says, as long as the integrity of the voting process is preserved. 5. HOW MUCH WOULD A MAGYAR WIN REALLY CHANGE? The Brussels establishment is praying for Magyar to win, hoping a Tisza government will deepen ties with the EU. Centrist chief Hayer said her party supported “any candidate who will carry pro-European values, who will be able to beat” the incumbent Hungarian prime minister. Conservative boss Weber quickly welcomed Tisza into the center-right family to secure influence in Budapest and to give them resources to develop their electoral platform. He has repeatedly framed Magyar as the man who will save Hungary from Orbán. While viewed as a potential bridge-builder for the strained Brussels-Budapest relationship, Magyar is by no means an unwavering EU cheerleader. He has been noncommittal about Brussels, considering that any rapprochement could be used by Orbán against him. In an interview with POLITICO in October 2024 he said “we certainly don’t believe in a European superstate.” Conservative boss Manfred Weber quickly welcomed Tisza into the center-right family to secure influence in Budapest and give them resources to develop their electoral platform. Filip Singer/EPA On the domestic front, Tarr — Tisza’s No. 2 — told POLITICO the party wants to “keep [the] border fence, oppose mandatory migration quotas and accelerated Ukraine accession, pursue peace, fight Russian propaganda, strengthen V4 [Hungary, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia] and Central Europe without being Europe’s bad boy.” That echoes the prognosis of political scientist Metz, who said a victory by Magyar “would not mean a radical U-turn or a return to some idealized past.” “Hungary’s role as the EU’s permanent disruptor would probably fade, not because national interests disappear, but because they would be pursued through negotiation and institutional engagement rather than constant veto politics and symbolic conflict,” Metz added. Analysts also cautioned that change at home could be slow. Zoltán Vasali of Milton Friedman University said dismantling the current system would be “legally and institutionally challenging.” “Core constitutional bodies will retain their mandates beyond the upcoming elections, and key positions remain held by individuals aligned with the current government, limiting near-term change,” Vasali said. The scale of a Magyar victory could be decisive. A two-thirds parliamentary supermajority, which would allow the new government to change the constitution, Metz said, would be “a game-changer.” “It would give a Magyar government the legal capacity to restore core elements of the rule of law, rebuild checks and balances, and introduce safeguards such as term limits for key offices,” he said. Kinga Gál, Fidesz’s leader in the European Parliament, did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Josep Borrell is the former high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and former vice-president of the European Commission. In too many corners of the world — including our own — democracy is losing oxygen. Disinformation is poisoning debate, authoritarian leaders are staging “elections” without real choice, and citizens are losing faith that their vote counts. Even as recently as the Jan. 3 U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, we have seen opposition leaders who are internationally recognized as having the democratic support of their people be sidelined. None of this is new. Having devoted much of his work to critiquing the absolute concentration of power in dictatorial figures, the long-exiled Paraguayan writer Augusto Roa Bastos found that when democracy loses ground, gradually and inexorably a singular and unquestionable end takes its place: power. And it shapes the leader as a supreme being, one who needs no higher democratic processes to curb their will. This is the true peril of the backsliding we’re witnessing in the world today. A few decades ago, the tide of democracy seemed unstoppable, bringing freedom and prosperity to an ever-greater number of countries. And as that democratic wave spread, so too did the practice of sending impartial international observers to elections as a way of supporting democratic development. In both boosting voter confidence and assuring the international community of democratic progress, election observation has been one of the EU’s quiet success stories for decades. However, as international development budgets shrink, some are questioning whether this practice still matters. I believe this is a grave mistake. Today, attacks on the integrity of electoral processes, the subtle — or brazen — manipulation of votes and narratives, and the absolute answers given to complex problems are allowing Roa Basto’s concept of power to infiltrate our democratic societies. And as the foundations of pluralism continue to erode, autocrats and autocratic practices are rising unchecked. By contrast, ensuring competitive, transparent and fair elections is the antidote to authoritarianism. To that end, the bloc has so far deployed missions to observe more than 200 elections in 75 countries. And determining EU cooperation and support for those countries based on the conclusions of these missions has, in turn, incentivized them to strengthen democratic practices. The impact is tangible. Our 2023 mission in Guatemala, for example, which was undertaken alongside the Organization of American States and other observer groups, supported the credibility of the country’s presidential election and helped scupper malicious attempts to undermine the result. And yet, many now argue that in a world of hybrid regimes, cyber threats and political polarization, international observers can do little to restore confidence in flawed processes — and that other areas, such as defense, should take priority. In both boosting voter confidence and assuring the international community of democratic progress, election observation has been one of the EU’s quiet success stories for decades. | Robert Ghement/EPA I don’t agree. Now, more than ever, is the time to stick up for democracy — the most fundamental of EU values. As many of the independent citizen observer groups we view as partners lose crucial funding, it is vital we continue to send missions. In fact, cutting back support would be a false economy, amounting to silence precisely when truth and transparency are being drowned out. I myself observed elections as chair of the European Parliament’s Development Committee. I saw firsthand how EU observation has developed well beyond spotting overt ballot stuffing to detecting the subtleties of unfair candidate exclusions, tampering with the tabulation of results behind closed doors and, more recently, the impact of online manipulation and disinformation. In my capacity as high representative I also decided to send observation missions to controversial countries, including Venezuela. Despite opposition from some, our presence there during the 2021 local elections was greatly appreciated by the opposition. Our findings sparked national and international discussions over electoral conditions, democratic standards and necessary changes. And when the time comes for new elections once more — as it surely must — the presence of impartial international observers will be critical to restoring the confidence of Venezuelans in the electoral process. At the same time, election observation is being actively threatened by powers like Russia, which promote narratives opposed to electoral observations carried out by the organizations that endorse the Declaration of Principles on International Election Observation (DoP) — a landmark document that set the global standard for impartial monitoring. A few years ago, for instance, a Russian parliamentary commission sharply criticized our observation efforts, pushing for the creation of alternative monitoring bodies that, quite evidently, fuel disinformation and legitimize authoritarian regimes — something that has also happened in Azerbaijan and Belarus. When a credible international observation mission publishes a measured and facts-based assessment, it becomes a reference point for citizens and institutions alike. It provides an anchor for dialogue, a benchmark against which all actors can measure their conduct. Above all, it signals to citizens that the international community is watching — not to interfere but to support their right to a meaningful choice. Of course, observation must evolve as well. We now monitor not only ballot boxes but also algorithms, online narratives and the influence of artificial intelligence. We are strengthening post-electoral follow-up and developing new tools to verify data and detect manipulation, exploring the ways in which AI can be a force for good. In line with this, last month I lent my support to the DoP’s endorsers — including the EU, the United Nations, the African Union, the Organization of American States and dozens of international organizations and NGOs — as they met at the U.N. in Geneva to mark the declaration’s 20th anniversary, and to reaffirm their commitment to strengthen election observation in the face of new threats and critical funding challenges. Just days later we learned of the detention of Dr. Sarah Bireete, a leading non-partisan citizen observer, ahead of the Jan. 15 elections in Uganda. These recent events are a wake-up call to renew this purpose. Election observation is only worthwhile if we’re willing to defend the principle of democracy itself. As someone born into a dictatorship, I know all too well that democratic freedoms cannot be taken for granted. In a world of contested truths and ever-greater power plays, democracy needs both witnesses and champions. The EU, I hope, will continue to be among them.

PARIS — A court appeal begins on Tuesday that will determine whether Marine Le Pen or her protégé Jordan Bardella will head into next year’s presidential election as favorite from the far-right National Rally party. While Le Pen has been a decisive force in making the anti-immigration party the front-runner for the presidency in 2027, she is currently unable to succeed Emmanuel Macron herself thanks to a five-year election ban imposed over her conviction last year for embezzling European Parliament funds. She is now appealing that decision in a case that is expected to last one month, although a verdict is not due until the summer. Le Pen looks set to fight her appeal on technical legal objections and an argument that the ban is disproportionate, rather than going out all-guns blazing and insisting she is the victim of a political hit job. If she does overcome the very steep hurdles required to win her case, she will still have to deal with the political reality that the French electorate are leaning more toward Bardella. The party’s supposed Plan B is starting to have the air of a Plan A. A poll from Ipsos in December showed the 30-year-old overtaking Le Pen as the French politician with the highest share of positive opinions. And a survey from pollster Odoxa conducted in November showed Bardella would win both rounds of the presidential contest.  The National Rally continues to insist that Le Pen is their top choice, but getting her on the ballot will likely require her to win her fast-tracked appeal by setting aside her personal grievances and perhaps even showing a measure of uncustomary contrition to ensure this trial does not end the way the embezzlement case did.  Le Pen is not famous for being low-key and eating humble pie. Shortly after her conviction, she said her movement would follow the example of civil rights’ icon Martin Luther King and vowed: “We will never give in to this violation of democracy.” That’s not the playbook she intends to deploy now. Her lawyers will pursue a less politicized strategy to win round the judges, according to three far-right politicians with direct knowledge of the case, who were granted anonymity to discuss it freely.  “We’ll be heading in with a certain amount of humility, and we’ll try not to be in the mindset that this is a political trial,” said one of trio, a French elected official who is one of the codefendants appealing their conviction.  LINE BY LINE Le Pen and 24 other codefendants stood trial in late 2024 on charges they illicitly used funds from the European Parliament to pay party employees by having them hired as parliamentary assistants. But those assistants, the prosecution argued, rarely if ever worked on actual parliamentary business.  The National Rally’s apparent defense strategy back then was to paint the trial as politicized, potentially winning in the court of public opinion and living with the consequences of a guilty verdict.  The attorneys representing the defendants could did little to rebut several pieces of particularly damning evidence, including the fact that one assistant sent a message to Le Pen asking if he could be introduced to the MEP he had supposedly been working with for months.  Given how severely the defense miscalculated the first time around, lawyers for many of the 14 codefendants in court this week will pursue more traditional appeals, going through the preliminary ruling “line by line” to identify potential rebuttals or procedural hiccups, the trio with direct knowledge of the case explained.   A survey from pollster Odoxa conducted in November showed Bardella would win both rounds of the presidential contest.  | Telmo Pinto/NurPhoto via Getty Images Defense lawyers also plan to tailor their individual arguments more precisely to each client to avoid feeding the sentiment that decisions taken at the highest levels of the National Rally leadership are imposed on the whole party. The prosecution during the initial trial successfully argued that National Rally bigwigs hand-picked assistants at party headquarters to serve the leadership rather than MEPs.  Le Pen’s lawyers will also argue that her punishment — barring a front-running presidential candidate from standing in a nationwide election — was disproportionate to the crime for which she was convicted.  The appeals’ court ruling will have seismic consequences for French politics and Europe ahead of one of the continent’s most important elections. The path toward the presidency will be nearly impossible for Le Pen if her election ban is upheld. Le Pen has indicated in past interviews that she would throw in the towel if she received the same election ban, given that she wouldn’t have enough time to appeal again to a higher court.   Should Bardella replace her and win, the consequences for the French judicial system could be profound. One of the codefendants floated the possibility of a response along the lines of what U.S. President Donald Trump did to those who prosecuted him before his reelection.   “The lingering sense of injustice will remain and can eventually evolve into a quest for revenge,” the codefendant said.

Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. 2026 is here, and Europe is under siege. External pressure from Russia is mounting in Ukraine, China is undermining the EU’s industrial base, and the U.S. — now effectively threatening to annex the territory of a NATO ally — is undermining the EU’s multilateral rule book, which appears increasingly outdated in a far more transactional and less cooperative world. And none of this shows signs of slowing down. In fact, in the year ahead, the steady erosion of the norms Europe has come to rely on will only be compounded by the bloc’s weak leadership — especially in the so-called “E3” nations of Germany, France and the U.K. Looking forward, the greatest existential risks for Europe will flow from the transatlantic relationship. For the bloc’s leaders, keeping the U.S. invested in the war in Ukraine was the key goal for 2025. And the best possible outcome for 2026 will be a continuation of the ad-hoc diplomacy and transactionalism that has defined the last 12 months. However, if new threats emerge in this relationship — especially regarding Greenland — this balancing act may be impossible. The year also starts with no sign of any concessions from Russia when it comes to its ceasefire demands, or any willingness to accept the terms of the 20-point U.S.-EU-Ukraine plan. This is because Russian President Vladimir Putin is calculating that Ukraine’s military situation will further deteriorate, forcing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to capitulate to territorial demands. I believe Putin is wrong — that backed by Europe, Zelenskyy will continue to resist U.S. pressure on territorial concessions, and instead, increasingly target Russian energy production and exports in addition to resisting along the frontline. Of course, this means Russian aerial attacks against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure will also increase in kind. Nonetheless, Europe’s growing military spending, purchase of U.S. weapons, financing for Kyiv and sanctions against Russia — which also target sources of energy revenue — could help maintain last year’s status quo. But this is perhaps the best case scenario. Activists protest outside Downing street against the recent policies of Donald Trump. | Guy Smallman/Getty Images Meanwhile, European leaders will be forced to publicly ignore Washington’s support for far-right parties, which was clearly spelled out in the new U.S. national security strategy, while privately doing all they can to counter any antiestablishment backlash at the polls. Specifically, the upcoming election in Hungary will be a bellwether for whether the MAGA movement can tip the balance for its ideological affiliates in Europe, as populist, euroskeptic Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is currently poised to lose for the first time in 15 years. Orbán, for his part, has been frantically campaigning to boost voter support, signaling that he and his inner circle actually view defeat as a possibility. His charismatic rival Péter Magyar, who shares his conservative-nationalist political origins but lacks any taint of corruption poses a real challenge, as does the country’s stagnating economy and rising prices. While traditional electoral strategies — financial giveaways, smear campaigns and war fearmongering — have so far proven ineffective for Orbán, a military spillover from Ukraine that directly affects Hungary could reignite voter fears and shift the dynamic. To top it all off, these challenges will be compounded by the E3’s weakness. The hollowing out of Europe’s political center has already been a decade in the making. But France, Germany and the U.K. each entered 2026 with weak, unpopular governments besieged by the populist right and left, as well as a U.S. administration rooting for their collapse. While none face scheduled general elections, all three risk paralysis at best and destabilization at worst. And at least one leader — namely, Britain’s Keir Starmer — could fall because of an internal party revolt. The year’s pivotal event in the U.K. will be the midterm elections in May. As it stands, the Labour Party faces the humiliation of coming third in the Welsh parliament, failing to oust the Scottish National Party in the Scottish parliament and losing seats to both the Greens and ReformUK in English local elections. Labour MPs already expect a formal challenge to Starmer as party leader, and his chances of surviving seem slight. France, meanwhile, entered 2026 without a budget for the second consecutive year. The good news for President Emmanuel Macron is that his Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s minority government will probably achieve a budget deal targeting a modest deficit reduction by late February or March. And with the presidential election only 16 months away and local elections due to be held in March, the opposition’s appetite for a snap parliamentary election has abated. However, this is the best he can hope for, as a splintered National Assembly will sustain a mood of slow-motion crisis until the 2027 race. Finally, while Germany’s economy looks like it will slightly recover this year, it still won’t overcome its structural malaise. Largely consumed by ideological divisions, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government will struggle to implement far-reaching reforms. And with the five upcoming state elections expected to see increased vote shares for the far-right Alternative for Germany party, pressure on the government in Berlin will only mount A historic truth — one often forgotten in the quiet times — will reassert itself in 2026: that liberty, stability, prosperity and peace in Europe are always brittle. The holiday from history, provided by Pax Americana and exceptional post-World War II cooperation and integration, has officially come to an end. Moving forward, Europe’s relevance in the new global order will be defined by its response to Russia’s increased hybrid aggression, its influence on diplomacy regarding the Ukraine war and its ability to improve competitiveness, all while managing an increasingly ascendant far right and addressing the existential threats to its economy and security posed by Russia, China and the U.S. This is what will decide whether Europe can survive.

PARIS — Marine Le Pen and her troops are making it clear that they’re not jumping into bed with U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration despite their shared ideology. The far-right National Rally has in recent days gone out of its way to tamp down any hint of a political romance with the White House after German news outlet Der Spiegel reported that team Trump considered sanctioning the French judges who convicted Marine Le Pen of embezzlement and handed her a five-year election ban, effectively barring her from next year’s presidential race. After the verdict was handed down, U.S. President Donald Trump likened Le Pen’s judicial woes to his own and said her conviction was an example of “using Lawfare to silence Free Speech.” Le Pen will be back in court next week to appeal the verdict. Though the State Department has since denied the Spiegel report as “stale and false,” the mere hint of a National Rally-MAGA liaison was enough to quickly put the party on the defensive — especially given that Washington sanctioned a French judge at the International Criminal Court that issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a press release dated Wednesday, the National Rally said it condemned the sanctions against the ICC judge and watches closely for “any pressure of unacceptable nature on the judicial branch.” In the same statement, it slammed the initial Spiegel report as “fake news” and chastised the press for picking it up. Three National Rally officials contacted by POLITICO also expressed unease at the unconfirmed report. “We have always rejected foreign interference from one side or the other,” Renaud Labaye, a close adviser to Le Pen and high-ranking member of her party, the National Rally, said Thursday. “We stand by that.” Alexandre Sabatou, a member of the France-U.S. friendship group in the National Assembly who traveled across the Atlantic for Trump’s inauguration, said Tuesday that “as a staunch defender of France as a sovereign nation, it bugs me.” The National Rally has been forced to play a delicate dance when it comes to support from Trump, whose administration last month hinted that it was ready to throw its weight between “patriotic European parties” in its bombshell national security strategy. However, Trump is largely unpopular in France, even among the far-right party’s supporters, and many voters recognize that his administration is pursuing economic and geopolitical policies that aren’t in France’s interest. Overtures from the White House to intervene in French and European politics also run counter to the National Rally’s pledge to protect French geostrategic independence — especially from American hegemony — rooted in the politics of legendary Gen. Charles De Gaulle. The debate around potential foreign interference comes as the country’s judicial branch is already under intense political pressure over high-profile cases, including the trial of former President Nicolas Sarkozy and Le Pen’s appeal.