The College of Europe is hiring a new rector because the former holder of that role, Federica Mogherini, resigned after being mired in scandal earlier this month. In a vacancy notice posted Monday, the college said it’s accepting applications until March 2, with the new rector to start from June 2026 or soon after. The rector “holds the overall academic and administrative responsibility for the College as a whole,” the notice said.   Candidates must be European nationals, show “important academic qualities” and have management experience, as well as speaking English and French. “In executing their responsibilities, the Rector will live up to the high ethical standards and values of the College of Europe,” the notice said. The elite training ground for future EU civil servants may be hoping for a quieter selection process than last time around, when Mogherini, the EU’s former top diplomat, won the job even though she applied after the deadline and despite accusations of cronyism and not being qualified for the role. Mogherini resigned in early December after being questioned in a fraud probe over a public tender in 2021-22 for a diplomatic academy program. Mogherini’s former employer, the European External Action Service (EEAS), awarded the tender to the College of Europe, and Mogherini became the director of the diplomatic academy in addition to her job as rector of the college. The scandal also took down the former top civil servant at the EEAS, Stefano Sannino. The college has named Ewa Ośniecka-Tamecka as acting rector until a replacement for Mogherini is found. The rector’s job is for a term of five years and can be renewed once. The person will report to former European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, who is the head of the college’s administrative council.

The Radio Spectrum Policy Group’s (RSPG) Nov. 12 opinion on the upper 6-GHz band is framed as a long-term strategic vision for Europe’s digital future. But its practical effect is far less ambitious: it grants mobile operators a cost-free reservation of one of Europe’s most valuable spectrum resources, without deployment obligations, market evidence or a realistic plan for implementation. > At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital > infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision > amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The opinion even invites the mobile industry to develop products for the upper 6-GHz band, when policy should be guided by actual market demand and product deployment, not the other way around. At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The cost of inaction is real. Around the world, advanced 6-GHz Wi-Fi is already delivering high-capacity, low-latency connectivity. The United States, Canada, South Korea and others have opened the 6-GHz band for telemedicine, automated manufacturing, immersive education, robotics and a multitude of other high-performance Wi-Fi connectivity use cases. These are not experimental concepts; they are operational deployments generating tangible socioeconomic value. Holding the upper 6- GHz band in reserve delays these benefits at a time when Europe is seeking to strengthen competitiveness, digital inclusion, and digital sovereignty. The opinion introduces another challenge by calling for “flexibility” for member states. In practice, this means regulatory fragmentation across 27 markets, reopening the door to divergent national spectrum policies — precisely the outcome Europe has spent two decades trying to avert with the Digital Single Market. > Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular > networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. Equally significant is what the opinion does not address. The upper 6-GHz band is already home to ‘incumbents’: fixed links and satellite services that support public safety, government operations and industrial connectivity. Any meaningful mobile deployment would require refarming these incumbents — a technically complex, politically sensitive and financially burdensome process. To date, no member state has proposed a viable plan for how such relocation would proceed, how much it would cost or who would pay. Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. There is, however, a pragmatic alternative. The European Commission and the member states committed to advancing Europe’s connectivity can allow controlled Wi-Fi access to the upper 6-GHz band now — bringing immediate benefits for citizens and enterprises — while establishing clear, evidence-based criteria for any future cellular deployments. Those criteria should include demonstrated commercial viability, validated coexistence with incumbents, and fully funded relocation plans where necessary. This approach preserves long-term policy flexibility for member states and mobile operators, while ensuring that spectrum delivers measurable value today rather than being held indefinitely in reserve. > Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that > must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum underpins Europe’s competitiveness, connectivity, and digital innovation. But its value is unlocked through use, not by shelving it in anticipation that hypothetical future markets might someday justify withholding action now. To remain competitive in the next decade, Europe needs a 6-GHz policy grounded in evidence, aligned with the single market, and focused on real-world impact. The upper 6-GHz band should be a driver of European innovation, not the latest casualty of strategic hesitation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Wi-Fi Alliance * The ultimate controlling entity is Wi-Fi Alliance More information here.

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Labour’s internal woes. Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch couldn’t resist using the penultimate PMQs of 2025 to land a punch by bringing up Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s future, as rumors about his political survival continue to swirl. They’re behind you! Badenoch asked the PM why Labour MPs were “describing him as a caretaker prime minister.” That framing wasn’t helped by the influential think tank Labour Together canvassing party members about possible leadership runners and riders. Starmer brushed off that initial attack by claiming his own MPs were “very proud” of the budget and focused on “the single most important issue,” i.e., the cost of living. State of secretaries: The Tory leader said Starmer “has lost control of his party” and Cabinet ministers were “so busy trying to replace him that they have taken their eyes off the ball.” She then worked through contenders often mooted — probing the PM on their records in respective Whitehall departments. Igniting the fires: Badenoch said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was trying to “recycle himself as leader” despite Starmer’s predecessor but one insisting he didn’t want to become Labour leader again. Then followed a spat about energy bills, though Starmer highlighted Badenoch’s own difficulty, with plenty of ex-Tories jumping ship to Reform UK. The “real question is who’s next,” he joked. Playground banter: “He could power the national grid on all of that hot air,” the Tory leader cried, turning her attention to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and teacher numbers (Labour promised 6,500). The PM tore into the Conservatives’ record on education, saying “they should be utterly ashamed.” Cop out: “Wrong,” Badenoch dismissively replied, having another go on police numbers (managed, of course, by Home Secretary and darling of the Labour right, Shabana Mahmood). The PM said there would be “3,000 more by the end of March” and Badenoch should “get up and say sorry” for their time in government. “Wrong,” the Tory leader mused again. More in anger than in sorrow: Despite the rapid range of policies, Badenoch tied her criticism together by stating “everything is getting worse” and, quoting the famous Saatchi & Saatchi poster, “Labour isn’t working.” Starmer wasn’t going down without a fight, calling the Tory leader “living proof you can say whatever you like when nobody is listening to anything you have to say.” So much for the season of goodwill … Helpful backbench intervention of the week: York Central MP Rachael Maskell deplored the Tories’ attitude to child poverty and highlighted Labour’s work managing this issue. The PM, breathing a sigh of relief to bag a friendly question from the often Labour rebel, plugged the government’s work with a dig at Badenoch for good measure. Oh, and: Dartford MP Jim Dickson ripped into Reform UK’s governance of Kent County Council, claiming their so-called DOGE unit actually stood for “deluded, overconfident, gormless and embarrassing.” Starmer was more than happy, listing their eventful spell across local government since May and slamming comments by Reform politicians. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 5/10. Badenoch 7/10. The endless internal Labour rows about Starmer’s future and the party’s languishing popularity gave the Tory leader a plethora of material. Though not sticking to one topic, Badenoch used possible contenders as a springboard to flag the government’s policy challengers. The PM rightly raised the Tories’ own problems with Reform UK and terrible polling numbers, but struggled to brush off the narrative that his time in No 10 is numbered.

LONDON — In February Britain’s cash-strapped Labour government cut international development spending — and barely anyone made a noise. The center-left party announced it would slice the country’s spending on aid down to only 0.3 percent of gross domestic income — from 0.5 percent — in order to fund a hike in defense spending. MPs, aid experts and officials have told POLITICO that the scale of the cuts is on a par with — or even exceeding — those of both the previous center-right Conservative government or the United States under Donald Trump. This leaves Britain’s development arm, once globally envied as a vehicle for poverty alleviation, a shadow of its former self. The move — prompted by U.S. demands to up its NATO spending, and mirroring the Trump administration’s move to gut its own USAID development budget — shocked Labour’s progressive MPs, supporters and backers in the aid sector. But unlike attempted cuts to British welfare spending, the real-world backlash was muted, with the resignation of Britain’s development minister prompting little further dissent or change in policy. There was no mutiny in parliament, and only limited domestic and international condemnation outside of an aid sector torn between making their voices heard — and keeping in Whitehall’s good books over slices of the shrinking pie. Some fear a return grab over the aid budget could still be on the cards — but that the government will find that there is little left to cut. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, warned that, instead of “reversing the cuts by the previous Conservative government, Labour has compounded them, and lives will be lost as a result.” “These cuts will further tarnish the U.K.’s reputation as it continues to be known as an unreliable global partner, breaking Labour’s manifesto commitment,” he warned. “The Conservatives started the fire, but instead of putting it out, this Labour government threw petrol on it.” ‘IT WAS THE PERFECT TIME TO DO IT’ When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the cut to international aid — a bid to save over £6 billion by 2027 — Labour MPs, including those who worked in the sector before being elected, were notably silent. The move followed a 2021 Conservative cut to aid spending — from 0.7 percent in the Tory brand-rebuilding David Cameron years down to 0.5 percent. At the time, Labour MPs had met that Tory cut with howls of outrage. This time it was different. Some were genuinely shocked, while others feared retribution from a Downing Street that had flexed its muscles at MPs who rebelled on what they saw as points of conscience. “No one was expecting it, so there was no opportunity to campaign around it,” said one Labour MP. “Literally none of us had any idea it was coming.” Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank. | Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images The same MP noted that there are around 50 Labour MPs from the new 2024 intake who had some form of development background before coming into parliament. Yet they were put “completely under the cosh” by Downing Street and government whips. “It was the perfect time to do it,” the MP said. A number of MPs who might have been vocal have since been made parliamentary private secretaries — the most junior government role. “They have basically gagged the people who would be most likely to be outspoken on it,” the MP above said. The department’s ministerial team is now more likely to be loyal to the Starmer project. “I just felt hurt, and wounded. We were stunned. None of us saw it coming,” said one MP from the 2024 cohort, adding: “They priced in that backlash wouldn’t come.” But they added: “If we were culpable so were NGOs, too inward-looking and focused on peripheral issues.” The lack of outcry from MPs would, however, seem to put them largely in step with the wider British public. Polling and focus groups from think tank More in Common suggest that despite the majority of voters thinking spending on international aid is the right thing to do in a variety of circumstances, only around 20 percent of the public think the budget was cut too much.  The second new-intake Labour MP quoted above said the policy was therefore an “easy thing to sell on the doorstep,” and “in my area, there’s not going to be shouting from the rooftops to spend more money on aid.” DIMINISHED AND DEMORALIZED The cuts to aid come at a time when Britain’s Foreign Office is undergoing a radical overhaul. While the department describes its plans as “more agile,” staff, programs and entire areas of focus are all ripe for cuts to save money. The department is looking to make redundancies for around 25 percent of staff based in the U.K. MPs have voiced concern that development staff will be among the first to make the jump due to the government’s shift away from aid. The department insists that no final decisions have been taken over the size and shape of the organization. Major cuts are expected across work on education, conflict, and WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene.) The government’s Integrated Security Fund — which funds key counter-terror programs abroad — is also looking to scale back work abroad which does not have a clear link to Britain’s national security. The British Council — a key soft-power organization viewed as helping combat Chinese and Russian reach across the world — told MPs it is in “real financial peril” and would be cutting its presence in 35 of the 97 countries it operates. The BBC’s World Service is seeing similar cuts to its global reach. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the watchdog for aid spending, is also not safe from the ax as the government continues its bonfire of regulators. The FCDO did not refute the expected pathway of cuts. Published breakdowns of spending allocations for the next three years are due to be published in the coming months, an official said. A review of Britain’s development and diplomacy policies conducted by economist Minouche Shafik — who has since been moved into Downing Street — sits discarded in the department. The government refuses to publish its findings. Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. | Pool Photo by Adrian Dennis via Getty Images The second 2024 intake MP quoted earlier in the piece said that following the U.S. decisions on aid and foreign policy “there was an expectation that the U.K., as a responsible international partner, as a leader on a lot of this stuff, would fill the gap to some extent, and then take more of a leadership role on it, and we’ve done the opposite.” NOTHING LEFT TO CUT Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. While few MPs or those in the aid sector feel Britain will ever return to the lofty heights of its 0.7 percent commitment, they predict there will be harder resistance if the government comes back for more. “I don’t think they’re going to try and do it again, as there’s no money left,” the second 2024 intake MP said. But they pointed out that a large portion of the remaining aid budget is spent on in-country costs such as accommodation for asylum seekers. Savings identified from the asylum budget would be sent back to the Treasury, rather than put back into the aid budget, they noted. Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank or the United Nations and would, they warned, involve “getting rid of international agreements and chopping up longstanding influence at big international institutions that we are one of the leading people in.” The United Nations is already facing its own funding crisis as it struggles to adjust to the global downturn in aid spending. British diplomat Tom Fletcher — who leads the UN’s humanitarian response — said earlier this year that the organization has been “forced into a triage of human survival,” adding: “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking.” The government still has a commitment to returning to 0.7 percent of GNI “as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow.” The tests for this ramp back up were set out four years ago. Britain must not be borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt must be falling. The last two budgets have forecast that the government will not meet these tests in this parliament. FARAGE CIRCLES In the meantime, Labour’s opponents feel emboldened to go further. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have said that they would further cut the aid budget. The Tories have vowed to slice it down to 0.1 percent of GNI, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is eyeing fresh cuts of at least by £7-8 billion a year. A third 2024 Labour MP said that there was a degree of pressure among some colleagues to match the Conservatives’ 0.1 percent pledge. Though no country has gone as far as Uganda’s Idi Amin in setting up a “save Britain fund” for its “former colonial masters,” Britain’s departure on international aid gives space for other countries wanting to step up to further their own foreign policy aims. The space vacated by Britain and America has prompted warnings that China will step in, while countries newer to international development such as Gulf states could try and fill the void. Many of these nations are unlikely to ever fund the same projects as the U.K. and the U.S., forcing NGOs to look to alternate donors such as philanthropists to fund their work. “There’ll be a big, big gap, and it won’t be completely filled,” the second new intake MP said. An FCDO spokesperson said the department was undergoing “an unprecedented transformation,” and added: “We remain resolutely committed to international development and have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context. We will bring U.K. expertise and investment to where it is needed most, including global health solutions and humanitarian support.”

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

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron said Friday that high school students would “likely” be banned from using cell phones in school starting next year. Pupils in primary schools and collège, France’s equivalent of middle school for many anglophone countries, are already barred from using cell phones in schools. During an event organized by a regional newspaper group in eastern France, Macron said the first phase of the ban had worked “rather well” and expressed his support for extending the policy to lycées, the final stage of French secondary education, where students are typically ages 15 to 18. The French president said Education Minister Édouard Geffray is reviewing the idea. However, outlawing phones in lycée may require new lawmakers to pass new legislation. The French National Assembly voted in favor of the current ban in 2018, but that law only explicitly covers the French equivalents of preschool, kindergarten, primary school and middle school. Macron’s influence on domestic politics has waned after losing control of parliament in 2024, but the president has in recent weeks attempted to reemerge on the domestic stage with a series of appearances devoted to how he intends to take on challenges posed by social media and large online platforms.

VENICE, Italy — Luca Zaia, a towering force in northern Italian politics, is plotting his next move and that’s turning into a headache for his party, the far-right League, led by firebrand Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini. As regional president of Veneto, the wealthy region of 5 million people around Venice, Zaia is one of the League’s superstars, but his mandate comes to an end after an election this weekend. That is sparking intense speculation about his ambitions — not least because his political vision is so different from Salvini’s. While Salvini is steering the League away from its separatist roots — no longer seeking to rip the rich industrialized north away from poorer southern Italy — Zaia remains a vocal advocate for northern autonomy from Rome. He is also more moderate on immigration, climate and LGBTQ+ rights than his right-wing populist party chief. One of the big questions looming over Italian politics is whether these two rival visions can survive within the League, a party at the heart of Giorgia Meloni’s coalition government. Zaia himself suggests the League could split into two allied factions along the lines of the Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union on Germany’s center right.   MEET THE DOGE Nicknamed the “Doge of Venice,” Zaia, a former Italian agriculture minister, has spent 15 of his 57 years running Veneto from an office lined with emerald silk in a 16th-century palazzo on the Grand Canal. He won eight out of 10 votes cast in 2020, the highest approval rating of any regional chief, but is barred from running again because of a two-term limit. In an interview with POLITICO, he joked about the whirl of theories about his next steps. “I am in the running for everything: [energy giant] ENI, Venice, parliament, minister.” But when pressed on what he will do, he gave nothing away, only that his focus is squarely on the north. “I gave up a safe seat in Brussels a year ago to stay here,” he said, only adding he would work until the last day of his mandate. “Then I’ll see.” Amid internal power struggles in the League, Zaia is increasingly seen as an alternative leadership figure by those unhappy with its trajectory.  Zaia has clashed with Salvini’s deputy leader Gen. Roberto Vannacci over his revisionist views of the fascist era under Benito Mussolini, but has held back from criticizing Salvini openly. Zaia, right, at the closing event of the center-right coalition’s campaign for the Veneto regional elections in support of Alberto Stefani, left, Nov. 18. | Alessandro Bremec/NurPhoto via Getty Images When asked whether Salvini made strategic mistakes as party leader, he stayed cryptically diplomatic. “We all make mistakes,” he replied. A CHANGING LEAGUE When Zaia joined what was then the Northern League in the 1990s it was a separatist movement, opposed to tax redistribution from the wealthy north to the south, perceived as corrupt and inefficient. But under Salvini’s leadership, the rebranded League became a nationwide party, with a strand increasingly courting the extreme right. This approach has alienated both mainstream voters, and more moderate and north-focused activists, for whom Zaia is a political lodestar. One major bugbear is Salvini’s drive to build a €14 billion bridge between Calabria and Sicily, seen by separatists as a wasteful southern project sucking in northern tax revenue. In a sign of the shifting tectonic plates, one faction, supported by the Northern League’s founder Umberto Bossi, and that has in recent years unsuccessfully tried to oust Salvini, last week launched a new party, the Pact for the North. Its leader, former MP Paolo Grimoldi, expelled from the League after 34 years, told POLITICO his group would welcome Zaia “with open arms.”  Zaia and other northern governors “just have to find the courage to say publicly what they have been saying privately for some time, that Salvini has completely betrayed the battles of the League.” Zaia himself is recommending a new-look League modeled on the German CDU-CSU, with sister League parties catering to Italy’s north and south. He aired the idea in a new book by journalist Bruno Vespa, pointing out the CSU had a separate Bavarian identity within the German Christian Democrat family. “We could do the same here,” he said. Most political insiders and observers think it unlikely that Zaia would seek a national leadership role — being too associated with Veneto — but he would be an obvious choice to lead the northern wing of a divided party. For Salvini, this internal schism is an obvious challenge. He has said he’s intrigued by the CDU-CSU idea, but few believe him. He needs to find something to prevent Zaia from turning into a nuisance, and has proposed him for a vacant parliamentary seat in Rome and as mayor of Venice. “It’s up to him to decide if he stays in Veneto or brings Veneto to Rome,” Salvini said at an event in Padua last weekend. MAYOR OF VENICE? Which way will Zaia jump? A return to Rome seems unappetizing. “When he was minister, he didn’t like Rome”, said a political colleague. “Rome’s values are not the values of Veneto.  In Veneto, we value meritocracy, work, effort, seriousness in politics. In Rome it’s all compromise.” Which makes Venice the more likely option, if he does decide to avoid a head-on clash with Salvini. Zaia would be very well set to run for mayor of Venice next May, according to the MP and two friends of Zaia’s from Veneto. He has a manifesto ready: Autonomy for Venice. Venice should become a city-state with special powers to address its unique problems of depopulation, overtourism and climate change, he said in the interview. Zaia’s popularity in Veneto, according to the locals, derives from his down-to-earth persona. He’s better known for speaking in regional dialect and attending traditional events, rather than being snapped at glamorous galas or on the fleet of speedboats at his disposal, rocking gently at his Grand Canal doorstep.   He was also lauded for his handling of the Covid pandemic, readying Veneto for the Winter Olympics next year and even helping boost exports of Prosecco sparkling wine. Local lore holds that half of Veneto’s 5 million residents have his phone number. “Maybe even more,” he quipped. “I have never changed my number, people know they can call me if they have a serious problem.” DISCO DOGE Raised in a small village near Treviso, just 30 kilometers from Venice, he was an unusually independent and motivated teenager, passionate about horses and teaching himself Latin on Sundays, according to one classmate. At university, where he graduated in animal husbandry, he supported himself by running club nights in local discos. It was a useful training for politics, Zaia said. “Clubs are a great school of life. You meet humanity in all its forms: rich, poor, good, bad, violent, peaceful.” One of the big questions looming over Italian politics is whether these two rival visions can survive within the League, a party at the heart of Giorgia Meloni’s coalition government. | Ivan Romano/Getty Images Indeed, it seems he took the role ultraseriously. “I never saw Luca dance. For him it was work,” said the same former classmate. He entered politics in the aftermath of the 1990s Clean Hands scandal, a nationwide corruption investigation, which took down a generation of politicians, and became a rising star in the region. As well as being the youngest provincial president in Italy, adorning Treviso with numerous surprisingly popular roundabouts, he was minister of agriculture in Silvio Berlusconi’s government. He is sufficiently self-assured to diverge from central League dogma when he sees fit. He tried to bring in a law this year to regulate doctor-assisted suicide in contrast to national League policy. He also supports sex education in schools, something the League opposes. “When it’s an ethical matter … I  have my own ideas, regardless of what the party says,” he said. But he is clearly smarting about the party’s deal with Meloni to keep the Zaia brand out of the campaign for this weekend’s Veneto election. The original plan, which would have given him significant ongoing influence in the region, was for him to choose a list of regional councilors to go on the ballot and for the League logo to feature his name, he told journalists on the sidelines of a Venice Commission event in October. “If they see me as a problem, I’ll become a real problem,” he threatened. (He will still appear on the ballot as a candidate for regional councilor, giving him yet another option — stay on to assist his successor.) If he does decide to chart his own political path as mayor of Venice next year, at least he won’t have far to go. The doge needs only to step into one of his speedboats to whizz off to the mayor’s equally opulent palazzo along the Grand Canal.

LONDON — Voters across the Western world are alarmed about threats to democracy, worrying that extremist parties, fake news and corruption will undermine elections.  A major poll by Ipsos of almost 10,000 voters in nine countries — seven in the European Union, plus the U.K. and the U.S. — found about half of voters are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working.  With the exception of Sweden, where people think democratic politics is working well, a clear majority worry about the risks to their systems of self-government over the next five years, according to the survey shared exclusively with POLITICO.  “There’s widespread concern about the way democracy is working, with people feeling unrepresented particularly by their national governments,” Gideon Skinner, senior director of U.K. politics at Ipsos, told POLITICO. “[There are] particular concerns around the impact of fake news, disinformation, lack of accountability for politicians, and extremism. In most countries there is a desire for radical change.”  The survey comes amid growing concern that democracy across the West is under threat. Wealth inequality around the world is driving support for extremist parties, undermining debate and preparing the ground for authoritarianism, according to a recent report for the G20. This week, the European Commission unveiled its plans to strengthen democracy across the EU’s 27 countries. But critics said its proposal to tackle foreign interference in European elections was too weak, with participation voluntary across the bloc. Authorities have identified Russian disinformation and meddling in elections in many European countries over the past year, from Romania to Germany.  For the new poll, Ipsos questioned more than 9,800 voters in the U.K., France, the U.S., Spain, Italy, Sweden, Croatia, the Netherlands and Poland between Sept. 12 and Sept. 29. The pollsters found an average of 45 percent of respondents across all nine countries examined were dissatisfied with the way democracy was working, Skinner said.  Voters who identified as belonging to the political extremes — both on the far left and far right — were most likely to say democracy was failing.  In France and the Netherlands, satisfaction levels have fallen over the past year in response to political turmoil. The French government has repeatedly collapsed amid an ongoing crisis over the national budget, while the Dutch coalition fell apart earlier this year, triggering an election that was held in October. In none of the nine countries surveyed did a majority of voters believe their national government was representing their views well. Voters in Croatia and the U.K. were the least likely to agree that their governments were representing them effectively, with just 23 percent saying so in both cases.  In every country surveyed apart from Poland — which saw a high turnout in presidential elections this year — more voters said the way democracy was working had worsened over the past five years than said it had improved. In the U.S. 61 percent of voters thought the state of democracy had worsened since 2020.  Voters in France (86 percent) and Spain (80 percent) were the most worried about what the next five years would mean for their democratic systems. Respondents identified the biggest risks to democracy as disinformation, corruption, a lack of accountability for politicians and the rise of extremist politics.    Generally, most people questioned still strongly supported democratic ideals, though in Croatia more than half (51 percent) said keeping democracy was only worth it if it delivered a good quality of life.  Ipsos found that respondents backed action to protect democracy, especially laws and enforcement to combat corruption, protecting the independence of the courts, better civic education in schools, and regulations against fake news and hate speech on social media.

ATHENS — A criminal investigation has been launched against Greek far-right MEP and party leader Afroditi Latinopoulou over allegations that the party’s founding declaration contains forged signatures. Greece’s Justice Minister Giorgos Floridis said on Tuesday, during a speech to parliament, that a case file against the leader of the Voice of Reason party was opened in Jan. 2025 and is currently under review by a prosecutor. According to Floridis, the investigation is seeking to verify the authenticity of signatures on the party’s founding declaration. Copies of the document, including the suspected forgeries, have been forwarded from the Supreme Court to the Interior Ministry, which oversees elections and political parties. Under Greek law, political parties must gather at least 200 signatures from citizens with voting rights to participate in elections. It is alleged that some of these were fake. “These are absurdities stemming from fear of the rise of our political party and originating from attacks by a political opponent, who is known for his vulgarity in Greece,” an official from the party said. Latinopoulou was kicked out of the ruling New Democracy party in 2022 after body-shaming a television presenter. She decried the decision, blaming it on “woke culture.” She then founded the Voice of Reason party in 2023 and won a seat in the European Parliament. The party is described as a modern patriotic movement dedicated to preserving Greek identity and values, summed up under the slogan “Fatherland, Religion, Family.” Latinopoulou identifies with the policies of other female leaders in the far right, such as French politician Marine Le Pen and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. She has an anti-abortion and anti-immigration platform and wants to ban members of the LGBTQ+ community from working in the education system.

At New York Climate Week in September, opinion leaders voiced concern that high-profile events often gloss over the deep inequalities exposed by climate change, especially how poorer populations suffer disproportionately and struggle to access mitigation or adaptation resources. The message was clear: climate policies should better reflect social justice concerns, ensuring they are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor those already privileged.  We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, because everything starts with food: it is a fundamental human right and a foundation for health, education and opportunity. It is also a lever for climate, economic and social resilience.  > We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, > because everything starts with food This makes the global conversation around food systems transformation more urgent than ever. Food systems are under unprecedented strain. Without urgent, coordinated action, billions of people face heightened risks of malnutrition, displacement and social unrest.   Delivering systemic transformation requires coordinated cross-sector action, not fragmented solutions. Food systems are deeply interconnected, and isolated interventions cannot solve systemic problems. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach report calls for systems thinking and collaboration across the value chain to address overlapping food, health and environmental challenges.   Now, with COP30 on the horizon, unified and equitable solutions are needed to benefit entire value chains and communities. This is where a systems approach becomes essential.  A systems approach to transforming food and agriculture  Food systems transformation must serve both people and planet. We must ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food while protecting human rights and supporting a just transition.   At Tetra Pak, we support food and beverage companies throughout the journey of food production, from processing raw ingredients like milk and fruit to packaging and distribution. This end-to-end perspective gives us a unique view into the interconnected challenges within the food system, and how an integrated approach can help manufacturers reduce food loss and waste, improve energy and water efficiency, and deliver food where it is needed most.   Meaningful reductions to emissions require expanding the use of renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As outlined in our Food Systems 2040 whitepaper,1 the integration of low-carbon fuels like biofuels and green hydrogen, alongside electrification supported by advanced energy storage technologies, will be critical to driving the transition in factories, farms and food production and processing facilities.   Digitalization also plays a key role. Through advanced automation and data-driven insights, solutions like Tetra Pak® PlantMaster enable food and beverage companies to run fully automated plants with a single point of control for their production, helping them improve operational efficiency, minimize production downtime and reduce their environmental footprint.  The “hidden middle”: A critical gap in food systems policy  Today, much of the focus on transforming food systems is placed on farming and on promoting healthy diets. Both are important, but they risk overlooking the many and varied processes that get food from the farmer to the end consumer. In 2015 Dr Thomas Reardon coined the term the “hidden middle” to describe this midstream segment of global agricultural value chains.2   This hidden middle includes processing, logistics, storage, packaging and handling, and it is pivotal. It accounts for approximately 22 percent of food-based emissions and between 40-60 percent of the total costs and value added in food systems.3 Yet despite its huge economic value, it receives only 2.5 to 4 percent of climate finance.4  Policymakers need to recognize the full journey from farm to fork as a lynchpin priority. Strategic enablers such as packaging that protects perishable food and extends shelf life, along with climate-resilient processing technologies, can maximize yield and minimize loss and waste across the value chain. In addition, they demonstrate how sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand.  Alongside this, climate and development finance must be redirected to increase investment in the hidden middle, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up most of the sector.   Collaboration in action  Investment is just the start. Change depends on collaboration between stakeholders across the value chain: farmers, food manufacturers, brands, retailers, governments, financiers and civil society.  In practice, a systems approach means joining up actors and incentives at every stage.5 The dairy sector provides a perfect example of the possibilities of connecting. We work with our customers and with development partners to establish dairy hubs in countries around the world. These hubs connect smallholder farmers with local processors, providing chilling infrastructure, veterinary support, training and reliable routes to market.6 This helps drive higher milk quality, more stable incomes and safer nutrition for local communities.  Our strategic partnership with UNIDO* is a powerful example of this collaboration in action. Together, we are scaling Dairy Hub projects in Kenya, building on the success of earlier initiatives with our customer Githunguri Dairy. UNIDO plays a key role in securing donor funding and aligning public-private efforts to expand local dairy production and improve livelihoods. This model demonstrates how collaborations can unlock changes in food systems.  COP30 and beyond  Strategic investment can strengthen local supply chains, extend social protections and open economic opportunity, particularly in vulnerable regions. Lasting progress will require a systems approach, with policymakers helping to mitigate transition costs and backing sustainable business models that build resilience across global food systems for generations to come.   As COP30 approaches, we urge policymakers to consider food systems as part of all decision-making, to prevent unintended trade-offs between climate and nutrition goals. We also recommend that COP30 negotiators ensure the Global Goal on Adaptation include priorities indicators that enable countries to collect, monitor and report data on the adoption of climate-resilient technologies and practices by food processors. This would reinforce the importance of the hidden middle and help unlock targeted adaptation finance across the food value chain.  When every actor plays their part, from policymakers to producers, and from farmers to financiers, the whole system moves forward. Only then can food systems be truly equitable, resilient and sustainable, protecting what matters most: food, people and the planet.  * UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)  Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Tetra Pak * The ultimate controlling entity is Brands2Life Ltd * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding food systems and climate policy More information here. https://www.politico.eu/7449678-2