LONDON — Britain’s pubs are in distress. The beer-loving Nigel Farage has spied an opening. The Reform UK leader and his chief whip Lee Anderson are set to unveil a raft of new policies Tuesday meant to support struggling publicans — and punch a Labour bruise. It comes days after Chancellor Rachel Reeves — under pressure from a highly-organized pubs industry — was forced to U-turn on plans from her budget and announce a three-year relief package for the U.K.’s ailing hospitality sector. Farage isn’t alone — the government’s other rivals are setting out pub-friendly policies too, and are helping to push the plight of the British boozer up the political agenda.  But it’s the latest populist move by the right-wing outfit, whose leader often posts pictures from the pub on social media and has carefully cultivated an ale-drinking man-of-the people persona, to capture the attention of an electorate increasingly soured on Labour’s domestic efforts. ‘GENUINE PISS ARTIST’ Reform will on Tuesday lift the lid on a five-point plan to “save Britain’s pubs,” promising a slew of tax cuts for the sector — including slashing sales tax VAT to 10 percent, scrapping the employer National Insurance increase for the hospitality sector, cutting beer duty by 10 percent, and phasing out business rates for pubs altogether. The party will also pledge to change “beer orders” regulation, which sees large pub companies lock landlords into contracts that force them to buy beer from approved suppliers at much higher prices than the open market. Reform says the plan would be funded through social security changes — reinstating a two-child cap on universal credit, a move the party claims would save around £3 billion by 2029-30. “Labour has no connection to how real life works,” Farage said earlier this month as he lambasted government plans to lower the drink drive limit. One of the British pub industry’s biggest names thinks Farage could have a genuine opening with voters on this front. The Reform boss has “got the massive advantage in that he’s a genuine piss artist,” Tim Martin, the outspoken owner of the British pub chain JD Wetherspoons, said. “He genuinely likes a sherbet, which, when it comes to pubs, people can tell that, whereas I don’t think [they do] with the other party leaders,” he said. The pub boss recounted watching as Farage “whacked down two pints and had two cigarettes” ahead of an appearance on BBC Question Time in which Martin also featured, as other politicians hovered over their briefing notes. The dangers of upsetting the pub industry have not been lost on Labour’s political opponents. | Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images Green MP Siân Berry is less impressed with Farage’s pub shtick, however. She accuses him of “playing into a stereotype of pubs as spaces for older white men to sit and drink.” “Most people who run a pub business these days know that it needs to be a family space,” she said. SHOW US THE POLICY Either way, Farage is exploiting an opening left by Labour, which riled up some pubs with its planned shake-up of business rates. “When the Labour government came in, the pub industry was already weak — and they piled on more costs,” said Wetherspoons’ boss Martin. Since Labour won power in 2024 Reeves has also hiked the minimum wage employers must pay their staff, increased employer national insurance contributions, and raised beer duties. While the industry cautiously welcomed Reeves’ business rate U-turn last month, they say there’s still more to do. “This will make a significant difference, as three quarters of pubs are now going to see their bills staying the same or going down,” Andy Tighe, the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA)’s strategy and policy director, said of the U-turn — but “it doesn’t solve everything,” he added. “For most operators, it’s those big sorts of taxes around business rates, VAT, duty, employment-related taxes that make the real difference, ultimately, to how they think about the future,” he said.  A U.K. Treasury spokesperson said: “We are backing Britain’s pubs — cutting April’s business rates bills by 15 percent followed by a two year freeze, extending World Cup opening hours and increasing the Hospitality Support Fund to £10 million to help venues. “This comes on top of capping corporation tax, cutting alcohol duty on draught pints and six cuts in interest rates, benefiting businesses in every part of Britain,” they added. ALSO PITCHING The dangers of upsetting the pub industry have not been lost on Labour’s political opponents. Politicians of all stripes are keen to engage with the industry, Tighe says. “Pubs matter to people and that’s why I think political parties increasingly want to ensure that the policies that they’re putting forward are pub-friendly,” he said.  Polling found that nearly half (48 percent) of Farage’s supporters in 2024 think pubs in their local area have deteriorated in recent years. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images The Tories say they will abolish business rates for pubs, while the Liberal Democrats have pledged to cut their VAT by 5 percent. The Greens’ Berry also wants to tackle alcohol advertising which she says pushes people to drink at home. “A pub is a different thing in a lot of ways, it is more part of the community — drinking second,” the left-wing party’s representative said. “I think the evidence base for us is not to be anti-pub, but it might be against advertising alcohol.” Industry bigwigs like Martin have consistently argued that pubs are being asked to compete with supermarkets on a playing field tilted against them.  “They must have tax equality with supermarkets, because they can’t compete with supermarkets, which are much stronger financial institutions than pubs,” he said, citing the 20 percent VAT rate on food served in pubs — and the wider tax burden pubs face.  GLOOMY OUTLOOK The plight of the local boozer appears to be occupying British voters too. Polling from the think tank More in Common conducted in August 2025 found almost half of Brits (44 percent) go to the pub at least once a month — and among people who voted Labour in 2024 that rises to 60 percent. The same polling found nearly half (48 percent) of Farage’s supporters in 2024 think pubs in their local area have deteriorated in recent years — compared to 31 percent of Labour voters. “Reform voters are more likely than any other voter group to believe that their local area is neglected,” Louis O’Geran, research associate at More in Common, said. “These tangible signs of decline — like boarded up pubs and shops — often come up in focus groups as evidence of ‘broken Britain’ and drive support for Reform,” he added.  The job now for Farage, and his political rivals, is to convince voters their local watering hole is safe in their hands.

The Trump administration suffered a rare defeat at the Supreme Court on Friday, as the justices turned down an emergency request to halt a lawsuit over the government’s effort to bar immigration judges from speaking publicly about their work. In a brief order, the high court suggested it might step into the dispute in the future, but allowed the litigation to continue to play out in the lower courts. “At this stage, the Government has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay,” the unsigned, one-paragraph order said. No justice noted any dissent from the ruling. The ruling sullies the Trump administration’s near-perfect record at the Supreme Court this year on emergency appeals filed on the so-called shadow docket. Two weeks ago, Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the high court to take immediate action to head off “disruptive” and “destabilizing uncertainty” caused by an appeals court ruling in June that suggested federal government employees might be able to press lawsuits in federal court because of turmoil at a federal agency that oversees employment-related disputes. The justices said the Trump administration is free to come back to the Supreme Court for emergency relief if federal officials were ordered to testify or turn over records to the National Association of Immigration Judges. The judges’ union filed suit in 2020 over a policy enacted during the first Trump administration that prohibited immigration judges from public comments about their work. Previously, judges were free to discuss those issues, if they made clear they were not speaking on behalf of the Justice Department, which runs the immigration courts. An attorney for the union, Ramya Krishnan, lauded the high court’s decision. “The Supreme Court was right to reject the government’s request for a stay of proceedings,” said Krishnan, a lawyer with the Knight First Amendment Institute. “The restrictions on immigration judges’ free speech rights are unconstitutional and it’s intolerable that this prior restraint is still in place.” Spokespeople for the Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

One trillion US dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) has been surpassed. Poland has entered the ranks of the world’s 20 largest economies, symbolically ending a phase of chasing the West that has lasted more than three decades. The Polish Development Fund’s (PFR) new strategy seeks to address the challenge of avoiding the medium-level development trap and transitioning from the role of subcontractor to that of investor. This year marks a turning point in Polish economic history. After years of transformation, reforms and overcoming civilizational deficits, Poland has reached a point that the generation of ‘89 could only dream of. GDP crossed the symbolic barrier of US$1 trillion, and we proudly enter the exclusive club of the world’s 20 largest economies. Diversified Polish exports are breaking records, and innovative companies are conquering global markets. Sound like a happy ending? Not necessarily. Via PFR Investing for future generations Poland’s past success invites tougher challenges in a brutal world. The cheap labor growth model is dead; demographics are relentless. PFR analyses highlight declining employment as a core issue — without bold changes, stagnation looms. Piotr Matczuk, PFR president, says Poland needs an impetus for resilience, innovation and growth. PFR’s 2026-2030 strategy is that roadmap, urging a shift to high gear. On Dec. 10, it unveiled investments for future generations. Geopolitics enters the balance sheet PFR’s strategy marks a paradigm shift: integrating economics with security. Business now anchors state security, with “economic and defence resilience” as a core pillar — viewing security spending as essential insurance, not cost. > The PFR’s strategy is clear: the competitiveness of the Polish economy depends > directly on access to cheap and clean energy. PFR has invested in WB Electronics, Poland’s defense leader in command systems and drones. It expands beyond arms via dual-use tech: algorithms, encrypted communications and autonomous drones often from civilian startups. This spring’s PFR Deep Tech program backs venture capital (VC) for scaling these firms; IDA targets innovations for logistics, cybersecurity and future defense. The focus is Poland’s technological sovereignty. Controlling key security links — from ammo to artificial intelligence — ensures economic maturity resilient to geopolitical shocks. > Poland needs a boost to our resilience, innovation and growth rate. That is > why the new strategy emphasizes investment in new technologies, infrastructure > and the financial security of Poles. We want the PFR to be a catalyst for > change and a partner of choice — an institution that invests for future > generations, sets quality standards in development financing and supports > Polish entrepreneurs in boosting their international presence. > > Piotr Matczuk, President, PFR Piotr Matczuk, President, PFR / Via PFR Energy: to be or not to be for the industry If defense is the shield, then energy is the bloodstream. The PFR’s strategy is clear: the competitiveness of the Polish economy depends directly on access to cheap and clean energy. Without accelerating the transformation, Polish companies, instead of increasing their share in foreign markets, may lose their position. This is why the fund wants to enter the game as an investor where the risks are high, but the stakes are even higher — into an investment gap that the commercial market alone will not fill.  The concept of local content, in other words the participation of domestic companies in the supply chain, is key to the new strategy. This is where the circle closes. The Baltic Hub is not just a container terminal. Investment in the T5 installation terminal is the foundation, as the Polish offshore will not be built with the appropriate participation of a domestic port. This is a classic example of how the PFR works: building ‘hard’ infrastructure that becomes a springboard for a whole new sector of the economy.  The end of being a subcontractor: capital emancipation Taking inspiration from, among others, France’s Tibi Initiative, in mid-November 2025 the Polish minister of finance and economy, Andrzej Domański, announced the Innovate Poland program. The PFR plays a leading role in what will be the largest initiative in the history of the Polish economy to invest in innovative projects. Thanks to cooperation with Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK), PZU and the European Investment Fund, Innovate Poland is already worth 4 billion złoty, and the program multiplier may reach as much as 3-4. The combined development and private capital will be invested by experienced VC and private equity funds. The aim is to further Poland’s economic development — driven by innovative companies that make a profit. In the first phase, it is expected to finance up to 250 companies at various stages of development. Via PFR The expansion of Polish companies abroad is also part of the effort for advancement in the global hierarchy. Their support is one of the pillars of the new PFR strategy. For three decades, Poland has played the role of the assembly plant of Europe — solid, cheap and hard-working. However, the highest margins, flowing from having a global brand and market control, went overseas. Polish companies need to stop being anonymous subcontractors and become owners of assets in foreign markets.  Here, the PFR acts as financial leverage. The support for the Trend Group is a prime example of this maturing process. This is a transaction with a symbolic dimension: it reverses the investment vector of the 1990s, when German capital was consolidating Polish assets. Today, it is Polish entities that are increasingly becoming leaders in offering industrial solutions in the European Union. > Polish companies need to stop being anonymous subcontractors and become owners > of assets in foreign markets. However, these ambitions extend beyond the Western direction. The strategy strongly emphasizes Poland’s role in the future reconstruction of Ukraine and the consolidation of the Central and Eastern European region. The involvement of the PFR in the operations of the Euvic Group on the Ukrainian IT market is a good example. In the digital world, big players have more power, and the PFR strives to ensure that the decision-making centers of those growing giants remain in Poland. Most importantly, Polish businesses are no longer alone in this struggle. The strategy institutionalizes the concept of ‘Team Poland’. In this initiative, the PFR provides capital; BGK, a state development bank, offers debt solutions; the KUKE, an insurance company, insures the risk; and the Polish Investment and Trade Agency provides promotional support. Acting like a one-stop shop, all these institutions enable Polish capital to compete as a partner in the global league. This is part of the Polish government’s modern economic diplomacy strategy, led by Domański. Capital for generations. From an employee to a stakeholder in the economy  All grand plans need fuel. Mature economies like the Netherlands and the United Kingdom harness citizens’ savings via capital markets. PFR’s strategy boldly demands Poland’s success create generational wealth: turning the average Kowalski from an employee into a stakeholder. Diagnosis is brutal: Poles save little (6.38 percent compared with the EU’s 14.32 percent in Q1 2024) and inefficiently, favoring low-interest deposits. Employee Capital Plans (PPK) drive cultural change. Hard data demonstrate this: 67 percent average returns over five years crush traditional savings. It’s a virtuous cycle — PPK capital feeds stock markets, finances company growth and loops profits back to future pensioners. An architect, not a firefighter  The new PFR strategy for 2026-30 is a clear signal of a paradigm shift. The company, which many Polish entrepreneurs still see as a firefighter extinguishing the flames of the pandemic with billions from the Anti-Covid Financial Shields, is definitively taking off its helmet and putting on an engineer’s hard hat. It is shifting from interventionist to creator mode, abandoning the role of ‘night watchman’ of the Polish economy to that of its ‘chief architect’. This is an ambitious attempt to establish an institution in Poland that not only provides capital, but also actively shapes the country’s economic landscape, setting the direction for development for decades to come.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Kaum zurück aus Afrika, muss Kanzler Friedrich Merz in Berlin in den Ring: Beim Arbeitgebertag trifft er auf seinen aktuell lautesten Kritiker, JU-Chef Johannes Winkel. Es geht um die Zukunft der Rente. Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert, ob ein neues Rentenpaket den Aufstand der Jungen stoppen kann und warum Merz heute jedes Wort auf die Goldwaage legen muss. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview: Philipp Türmer. Der Juso-Vorsitzende hält dagegen. Er nennt die Pläne der Jungen Union „langweilig“, fordert eine Einbeziehung von Selbstständigen, Beamten und Politikern in die Rentenkasse und erklärt, warum die Koalition trotz des Streits nicht platzen wird. Außerdem: In Washington tobt ein Machtkampf um die Ukraine-Politik. Jonathan Martin berichtet über den Riss bei den Republikanern zwischen den „Traditionalisten“ um Marco Rubio und dem Trump-Lager um J.D. Vance. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

BERLIN — German Chancellor Friedrich Merz urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to curb the flow of young Ukrainian men to Germany and ensure they stay to defend their country. “In a lengthy telephone conversation today, I asked the Ukrainian president to ensure that young men in particular from Ukraine do not come to Germany in large numbers — in increasing numbers — but that they serve their country,” Merz said Thursday. “They are needed there.” His comments come amid growing concerns in Germany — particularly within Merz’s conservative ranks — that public support for the Ukrainian cause could wane if young male Ukrainians are seen to be avoiding military service by coming to Germany. Following the relaxation of Ukrainian exit rules over the summer, the number of young Ukrainian men aged 18 to 22 entering Germany rose from 19 per week in mid-August to between 1,400 and 1,800 per week in October, according to German media reports citing the German interior ministry.   Markus Söder, Bavaria’s conservative premier and an ally of Merz, proposed restrictions on the EU’s so-called Temporary Protection Directive if Kyiv doesn’t voluntarily reduce arrivals. The rules provide Ukrainians with an automatic protected status.       Germany is one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies within the EU. The country has hosted over 1.2 million Ukrainian refugees since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and is its biggest donor in military aid after the U.S. in absolute numbers. Members of Merz’s ruling coalition fear that the growing presence of young Ukrainian men in Germany will be turned into a political flash point by members of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, who criticize the government’s ongoing support for Kyiv. The ascending AfD, now polling first, has long demanded a stop to welfare payments to Ukrainians. Around 490,000 Ukrainian citizens of working age receive long-term unemployment benefits in Germany, according to data from the country’s employment agency. Merz’s coalition — which is under increasing fiscal pressure and generally wants to reduce welfare spending — is working on a draft law that would cut the right to such benefits for Ukrainians and encourage work. “In Germany, the transfer payments for these refugees will be such that the incentives to work are greater than the incentives in the transfer system,” Merz said Thursday. In the same phone conversation, Merz also urged Zelenskyy to sort out the country’s corruption problems as Kyiv faces the fallout of a massive scandal involving kickbacks — another development that German officials fear could undermine public support for the embattled country.

About six in 10 jobless people in Belgium have a non-Belgian background, new figures show, as the right-wing government moves to tighten rules for migrants and the unemployed.  Employment Minister David Clarinval, who released the statistics Wednesday in response to a question from Socialist MP Sophie Thémont, called them “rather astonishing.”  “We know … [migrants] have a much lower command of the national languages,” he said. “They may have difficulty understanding the institutional system. So, we clearly need to focus on these people and pay particular attention to them.”  He added, “The main message is that everyone must work, including people of foreign origin.”   The figures classify individuals as having a non-Belgian background if they were born with another nationality or if at least one parent holds another nationality, even if they now hold Belgian citizenship. About 41.5 percent of Belgium’s unemployed are Belgian, while nearly 13 percent have North African roots, followed by migrants from southern EU countries.   Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, a Flemish right-winger who took office in February, has called Belgium’s immigration policy the “source of all misery” and has introduced strict new rules, including mandating higher income requirements and longer waiting periods for family reunification visas.   De Wever’s government is also moving forward with a plan to cut off unemployment benefits for those who have been jobless for more than 20 years starting next year. In the future, claimants will only be allowed to receive benefits for up to two years. The changes mean 180,000 Belgians are set to lose their unemployment benefits next year, saving the state just under €2 billion.

NEW YORK — President Donald Trump on Monday asked a New York appeals court to overturn his criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money case that made him a felon as he plotted a path back to the White House last year. In a 96-page filing, Trump’s lawyers relied on many of the same arguments that Trump previously made before, during and immediately following the 2024 trial, including that the conviction should be thrown out in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and that the judge who oversaw the trial should have recused himself because he made political contributions. “This case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom, let alone resulted in a conviction,” his lawyers, a six-person team of Sullivan & Cromwell attorneys, wrote. The appeal is just one of Trump’s attempts to overturn his conviction last May of 34 counts of business fraud for his effort to conceal a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. He has separately asked a federal appeals court to transfer his state criminal case to federal court. Such a move would pave the way for Trump to eventually ask the Supreme Court to erase his criminal record by tossing his conviction on presidential immunity grounds. Though Trump has suffered few consequences as a result of the conviction — he won reelection in November and was subsequently sentenced to no punishment in January — he’ll still carry the title of felon unless an appellate court overturns the case. Trump’s lawyers argued in the filing Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, issued more than a month after a New York jury convicted Trump in the hush money case, meant prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office should have been precluded from using evidence connected to Trump’s “official acts” as president during his first term. That evidence, his lawyers wrote, included testimony about conversations between Trump and Hope Hicks, who was then the White House communications director, as well as Trump’s social media posts. Late last year, the trial judge, Justice Juan Merchan, rejected the notion that the immunity ruling applied to the evidence used in the case, finding that evidence at issue related not to Trump’s official acts, but instead to his private conduct — specifically, his effort to conceal a hush money payment to Daniels. Trump’s lawyers also took aim at Merchan himself, as they did numerous times during the course of the prosecution, writing that “his impartiality was reasonably in doubt” because of small-dollar political contributions he made to Democratic candidates or causes in 2020. They also cited his daughter’s work for a digital agency whose clients include a number of Democratic officials. When Trump’s lawyers made the same arguments in 2023, asking Merchan to recuse himself, the judge disclosed that he had sought guidance earlier that year from the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics about several issues Trump subsequently raised. The judge said the committee had issued an advisory opinion regarding his daughter’s employment that concluded: “We see nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests.”

Alcohol has been enjoyed in societies for thousands of years, playing a role in celebrations and gatherings across the world. While misuse continues to cause harm, it’s encouraging to see that, according to World Health Organization data, trends are moving in the right direction. Consumers are better informed and increasingly aware of the benefits of moderation.   While Diageo is only relatively young — founded in 1997 — our roots run deep. Many of our brands date back centuries, some as far back as the 1600s. From iconic names such as Guinness and Johnnie Walker to modern innovations like Tanqueray 0.0, we are proud to continue that legacy by building and sustaining exceptional brands that resonate across generations and geographies. We want to be one of the best performing, most trusted and respected consumer products companies in the world — grounded in a strong sense of responsibility.  That means being transparent about the challenges, proactive in promoting responsible drinking, and collaborative in shaping the future of alcohol policy. We are proud of the progress made, but we know there is more to do. Lasting change requires a whole-of-society approach, bringing together governments, health experts, civil society and the private sector.   We believe a more balanced, evidence-based dialogue is crucial; one that recognizes both the risks of harmful drinking and the opportunities to drive positive change. Our brands are woven into cultural and social traditions around the world, and the industry contributes significantly to employment, local economies and public revenues. Recognizing this broader context is essential to shaping effective, proportionate and collaborative alcohol policies. Public-private collaboration brings together the strengths of different sectors, and these partnerships help scale impactful programs.  > We believe a more balanced, evidence-based dialogue is crucial; one that > recognizes both the risks of harmful drinking and the opportunities to drive > positive change. Across markets, consumers are increasingly choosing to drink more mindfully. Moderation is a long-term trend — whether it’s choosing a non-alcoholic alternative, enjoying fewer drinks of higher quality, or exploring the choice ready-to-drink formats offer, people are drinking better, not more, something Diageo has long advocated. Moderation is not a limitation; it’s a mindset. One of the ways we’re leading in this space is through our expanding non-alcoholic portfolio, including the acquisition of Ritual Beverage Company in the US and our investment in Guinness 0.0. This growing diversity of options empowers individuals to choose what’s right for them, in the moment. Moderation is about choice, and spirits can also offer creative ways to moderate, such as mixing alcoholic and non-alcoholic ingredients to craft serves like the ‘lo-groni’, or opting for a smaller measure in your gin and tonic.  Governments are increasingly taking proportionate approaches to alcohol regulation, recognizing the value of collaboration and evidence-based policy. There’s growing interest in public-private partnerships and regulatory rationality, working together to achieve our shared goal to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. In the UK, underage drinking is at its lowest since records began, thanks in part to initiatives like Challenge 25, a successful public-private collaboration that demonstrates the impact of collective, targeted action.  > Moderation is not a limitation; it’s a mindset. Diageo has long championed responsible drinking through campaigns and programs that are measurable and scalable. Like our responsible drinking campaign, The Magic of Moderate Drinking, which is rolled out across Europe, and our programs such as Sober vs Drink Driving, and Wrong Side of the Road, which are designed to shift behaviors, not just raise awareness. In Ireland, we brought this commitment to life at the All Together Now music, art, food and wellness festival with the launch of the TO.0UCAN pub in 2024, the country’s first-ever non-alcoholic bar at a music festival. Serving Guinness 0.0 on draught, it reimagined the traditional Irish pub experience, offering a fresh and inclusive way for festival-goers to enjoy the full energy and atmosphere of the event without alcohol.  Another example comes from our initiative Smashed. This theatre-based education program, developed by Collingwood Learning and delivered by a network of non-government organizations, educates young people and helps them understand the dangers of underage drinking, while equipping them with the knowledge and confidence to resist peer pressure. Diageo sponsors and enables Smashed to reach millions of young people, teachers and parents across the globe, while ensuring that no  alcohol brands of any kind are mentioned. In 2008, we launched DRINKiQ, a first-of-its-kind platform to help people understand and be informed about alcohol, its effects, and how to enjoy it responsibly. Today, DRINKiQ is a dynamic, mobile-first platform, localized in over 40 markets. It remains a cornerstone of our strategy.  > Diageo has long championed responsible drinking through campaigns and programs > that are measurable and scalable. In the UK, our partnership with the Men’s Sheds Association supports older men’s wellbeing through DRINKiQ. Most recently, this collaboration expanded with Mission: Shoulder to Shoulder, a nationwide initiative where Shedders are building 100 buddy benches to spark over 200,000 conversations annually. The campaign promotes moderation and connection among older men, a cohort most likely to drink at increasing or higher risk levels. Across all our partnerships, we focus on the right message, in the right place, at the right time. They also reflect our belief that reducing harmful drinking requires collective action.  Our message is simple: Diageo is ready to be a proactive partner. Let’s build on the progress made and stay focused on the shared goal: reducing harm. With evidence-based policies, strong partnerships and public engagement, we can foster a drinking culture that is balanced, responsible and sustainable. Together, we can make real progress — for individuals, communities and society as a whole. 

The mastermind of President Donald Trump’s effort to downsize the federal workforce, Russ Vought, promised to use the government shutdown to advance his goal of “shuttering the bureaucracy.” Presented with a layoff plan that would have moved in that direction, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services scaled it way back, POLITICO has learned. It was another example, like several during the layoffs led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency this spring, in which Trump’s agency heads have pushed back successfully against top-down cuts they viewed as reckless. POLITICO obtained an HHS document from late September, the shutdown’s eve, that said the department wanted to cut nearly 8,000 jobs, based on guidance from Vought’s budget office. On Oct. 10, HHS only went ahead with 1,760. In the two weeks since, the number has dwindled to 954, as the department has rescinded nearly half of the total, blaming a coding error. The disorganized handling of the layoffs is reminiscent of Musk’s DOGE effort, in which employees were rehired after being fired, sometimes on court orders, sometimes because agency officials objected. In each case, the layoffs rattled agency managers and traumatized employees, as Vought wanted, but haven’t gone nearly as far in downsizing the government as forecast. While the nearly 8,000-person layoff plan this month was largely scuttled by top agency officials who intervened before the cuts could be made, the whiplash manner in which it was proposed and then scaled back shows that the administration is still following the DOGE playbook. “These appear to be leftovers from DOGE. I don’t know anyone — including in the White House — who supports such cuts,” a senior administration official told POLITICO in explaining the pullback from the promised mass layoffs. The official, granted anonymity to discuss confidential matters, pointed to the involvement of a staffer who was part of the DOGE effort in producing the administration document. That document came to its initial tally of 7,885 layoffs at HHS by adding employees who would be furloughed during the shutdown, as well as workers in divisions that would be shuttered if Congress passed Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal. Trump’s May budget plan called for a 25 percent cut to HHS, but lawmakers have rejected it in the appropriations bills now in process. HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard told POLITICO in a statement that HHS made its layoff list “based upon positions designated as non-essential prior to the Democrat-led government shutdown.” She added: “Due to a recent court order, HHS is not currently taking actions to implement or administer the reduction-in-force notices.” According to the document reviewed by POLITICO, the National Institutes of Health was to take the hardest hit among HHS agencies, 4,545 layoffs, or roughly a quarter of its workforce. It ended up firing no one. A federal judge in San Francisco blocked the firing of 362 of the 954 HHS employees who did receive the October layoff notices. More will be shielded after additional federal employee unions joined the lawsuit on Wednesday. In congressional testimony earlier this year, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he had downsized his department’s staff to 62,000 from 82,000 when he took office. He’s nowhere close. An HHS contingency plan produced in advance of the shutdown said the department still employed 79,717. Employees who took a Sept. 30 buyout offer from Musk would bring that lower, though the number who did is unknown because the White House has not released agency-by-agency totals and has stopped publishing agency employment updates. It’s unclear who within the Trump administration came up with the initial plan for the shutdown layoffs. Hilliard did not respond to POLITICO’s question about who within HHS was responsible. Thomas Nagy, the HHS deputy assistant secretary for human resources, has been the one updating the judge, Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, about the layoffs. The experience of the fired 954, whose last work day is scheduled for early December, mirrors the chaos of DOGE’s spring layoffs, in which employees were left wondering whether they still had jobs amidst lawsuits and officials were forced to backtrack and rehire fired workers. In one such instance, Kennedy told a House panel in June that he had appealed directly to Vought to make sure Head Start funding was protected after the early education and health care program was left out of the president’s budget proposal. In another case, HHS fired and then rehired an award-winning Parkinson’s researcher. Kennedy also told senators that he brought back hundreds of staffers at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. That came after West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito and others protested. Now many HHS employees are having déjà vu. The situation is reminiscent of the experience some former employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development had during the Trump administration dismantling of the foreign aid agency early this year. Some furloughed employees at HHS, for example, didn’t have access to their work emails to receive notices informing them they were laid off this month. “There were individuals who didn’t even know if they were in RIF status until they got the hard copy packet in the mail two days ago,” a laid-off employee at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, using the acronym for “reduction-in-force.” A similar situation played out at HHS’ Office of Population Affairs, where nearly all of the roughly 50 employees were laid off two weeks ago, according to one person with knowledge of the situation speaking anonymously for fear of retribution. The office, which is congressionally mandated, manages hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention programs. Three fired employees from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration — granted anonymity to provide details about the firings without fear of retribution — said that many of the roughly 170 employees cut from the agency earlier this month are getting physical copies of their termination notices mailed to them because they’re shut out of their email accounts. “DOGE never really left, it just looks different now,” one of the SAMHSA employees said. Amanda Friedman and Sophie Gardner contributed reporting. Tim Röhn is a global reporter at Axel Springer and head of investigations for WELT, POLITICO Germany and Business Insider Germany.

The European Central Bank’s staff union is taking the bank to court, accusing ECB management of trying to silence and intimidate its representatives in violation of the principles of European democracy. The case, lodged with the European Court of Justice on Oct. 13, marks the latest escalation in a battle between union representatives and management, where relations have deteriorated since Christine Lagarde took over as ECB president in 2019. The action contests a series of letters the bank addressed to the International and European Public Services Organization (IPSO) union and one of its senior representatives “restricting staff and union representatives from speaking publicly about workplace concerns, such as favoritism and the ‘culture of fear’ at the ECB,” the union said in a statement. These letters constitute “an unlawful interference” with basic freedoms guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, the union said. “Freedom of expression and association are not privileges; they are the foundation of the European project.” An ECB spokesperson said the bank does not comment on court cases, but that it “is firmly committed to the freedom of expression and the rule of law, operating within a clear employment framework that is closely aligned with EU Staff Regulations and is subject to European Court of Justice scrutiny.” The first letter, signed by the ECB’s Chief Services Officer Myriam Moufakkir, came in response to an interview given by union spokesperson Carlos Bowles to Germany’s Boersen-Zeitung daily paper, published May 7. In it, Bowles had warned that a culture of fear may contribute to self-censorship, groupthink and poor policy decisions. The interview came at a time when the ECB’s failure to anticipate the worst bout of inflation in half a century had provoked widespread and public soul-searching by policymakers. It also followed a union survey in which around two-thirds of respondents said being in the good graces of powerful figures was the key to career advancement at the ECB, rather than job performance.   IPSO IS A FOUR-LETTER WORD According to the IPSO union, Moufakkir responded with a letter stressing that staff and union representatives must not make public claims of a “culture of fear” within the institution or its possible effects on ECB operations — including its forecasting work, which had come under especially intense scrutiny. It also accused Bowles of breaching his duty of loyalty under the ECB’s internal code of conduct, and instructed him to refrain from public statements that could “damage the ECB’s reputation.” A later letter by Moufakkir, addressed to IPSO dated Aug. 1 and seen by POLITICO, spells out the thinking. In it she stresses that the right of “staff representatives … to address the media without prior approval … applies exclusively to ‘matters falling within their mandate’. It does not apply to the ECB’s conduct of monetary policy, including its response to inflation.” In his interview, Bowles made no reference to current or future policy but rather to a work environment that he said fostered groupthink. Lagarde herself had warned against such risks, denouncing economists the previous year in Davos as a “tribal clique” and arguing that a diversity of views leads to better outcomes. Bowles had made similar statements to the media before, such as in an interview with the Handelsblatt daily paper published in January 2016, without eliciting any reaction from the bank’s management. Contacted by POLITICO for this story, the ECB said it had “stringent measures to ensure analytical work meets the highest standards of academic rigor and objectivity, which are essential to the ECB’s mandate of price stability and banking supervision.” Moufakkir suggested that Bowles’ comments undermine trust in the ECB and that this trust is crucial if the ECB is to deliver on its mandate. “Freedom of expression, which constitutes a fundamental right, does not override the duty of loyalty to which all ECB staff are bound,” she argued. Bowles rejected that framing, arguing in a letter to Moufakkir that he had a “professional obligation” to address such issues and their impact on the ECB’s capacity to fulfil its mission. PAPER TRAIL The trouble, according to the union, is that Moufakkir addressed the first two letters to an individual union representative (Bowles) who was speaking on its behalf, effectively undermining the union’s collective voice.  In her email, the union said, Moufakkir also “heavily misrepresented” Bowles’s comments and accused him of misconduct without affording him a hearing. In her letter from Aug. 1, Moufakkir maintained that her original letter to Bowles “was not a formal decision” to be recorded in his personal file, but rather a “reminder and clarification of applicable rules.”  “Its purpose was not to intimidate or silence Mr Bowles but to highlight to him the importance of prudence and external communications about ECB matters,” she wrote. The union said it sees this framing as an effort by the ECB to shield itself from judicial review: the letter addressed to Bowles was marked ECB-CONFIDENTIAL and Personal, conveying the impression of an official document. According to a person familiar with the matter, a special appeal launched by Bowles to the executive board to retract Moufakkir’s instruction has since been dismissed — without addressing its substance — because the letters had no binding legal effect and were therefore inadmissible. That has now prompted the union to turn to the ECJ; a response to a second appeal by Bowles remains outstanding. The union said that what it perceived as attempts by the ECB to silence union representatives have succeeded: Previously scheduled media interviews have been “cancelled due to fear of retaliation.” When contacted for comment, Bowles declined, citing the same reason. WHAT COMES NEXT? The ECB will have two months to submit its defense to the court. As an EU institution, the ECB is neither subject to German labor laws nor to similar rules in other EU member states and instead enjoys extensive scope to set and interpret its own rules. Out of 91 employment-related court cases since the bank’s inception, the ECB has won 71. Regardless of the legal implications, the union warned that the ECB’s approach undermines its institutional integrity and damages its credibility.  “Silencing staff representatives or whistleblowers prevents legitimate issues from being addressed and erodes trust in the institution,” it said. “Reputation cannot be protected by censorship — it must be earned through sound governance, transparency and open dialogue.” It sees the letter as part of a broader pattern in which the ECB has sought to restrict trade union activity and control staff representation, including planned changes to a representation framework that would limit the participation of union members in the ECB staff committee. IPSO is the sole trade union recognized by the ECB and holds seven out of the nine seats on the ECB’s staff committee, which is elected by all ECB staff. The ECB, for its part, has rejected much of the criticism emerging from survey organized by the union and the staff committee, which showed widespread distrust of leadership, surging burnout levels, and complaints about favoritism. The ECB has called the surveys methodologically flawed and unreliable.