Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives in Brussels on Tuesday with a clear message for EU regulators ahead of a looming review of Europe’s streaming rules: Don’t overcomplicate them. In an exclusive interview with POLITICO, Sarandos said Netflix can live with regulation — but warned the EU not to fracture the single market with a patchwork of national mandates as officials prepare to reopen the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. “It doesn’t make it a very healthy business environment if you don’t know if the rules are going to change midway through production,” Sarandos said. He also warned regulators are underestimating YouTube as a direct competitor for TV viewing, too often treating it like a social media platform with “a bunch of cat videos” than a massive streaming rival. Sarandos’ effort to win over European regulators comes soon after the collapse of Netflix’s bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — but Sarandos maintained that the political dynamics around the deal only “complicated the narrative, not the actual outcomes.” He added that there was no political interference in the deal, and he shrugged off President Donald Trump’s demand to remove Susan Rice, a former national security adviser under President Barack Obama, from the Netflix board. “It was a social media post,” Sarandos said. “It was not ideal, but he does a lot of things on social media.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What’s bringing you back to Brussels now? Well, we have ongoing meetings with regulators around Europe all the time. We have so much business in Europe, obviously, and so this has been on the books for quite a while. Can you give me a little bit of a sense of who you’re meeting with, and what is the focus? I think one of the things to keep in mind is that we’ve become such an important part, I’d think, of the European audiovisual economy. We’ve spent, in the last decade, over $13 billion in creating content in Europe. It makes us one of the leading producers and exporters of European storytelling. First of all, we’ve got a lot of skin in the game in Europe, obviously. We work with over 600 independent European producers. We created about 100,000 cast and crew jobs in Europe from our productions. So we talk to folks who are interested in all the elements of that — how to keep it, how to maintain it, how to grow it and how to protect it. In terms of regulation in the EU, Netflix is governed by a directive here. The commission is looking to reopen that this year. There seems to be a sense here from regulators that the current rules don’t create a level playing field between the broadcasters, the video on demand, the video sharing, and so they may look to put more requirements on that. How steeped in the details are you there? And how would Netflix react to more rules put on Netflix at this moment? Well, first and foremost, we comply with all the rules that apply to us in terms of how we’re regulated today. We have seen by operating around the world that those countries where they lean more into incentives than the strict regulatory scheme, that the incentives pay off. We’ve got multibillion dollar investments in Spain and the UK, where they have really leaned into attracting production through incentives versus regulatory mandates, so we find that that’s a much more productive environment to work in. But the core for me is that obviously they’re going to evolve the regulatory models, but as long as they remain simple, predictable, consistent — the single market, the benefit of the single-market is this — as long as these rules remain simple, predictable and consistent, it’s a good operating model. I think the more that it gets broken up by individual countries and individual mandates, you lose all the benefits of the single market. There’s a lot of talk in Brussels right now about simplification, getting rid of a lot of red tape. Do you think the rules that you’re governed by would benefit from a similar kind of effort to simplify, of pulling back on a lot of these patchwork of rules, even at the EU? Look, I think it doesn’t make it a very healthy business environment if you don’t know if the rules are going to change midway through production, so for me, having some stability is really important, and I understand that we’re in a dynamic market and a dynamic business, and they should reflect the current operating models that we’re in too. We want to work closely with the regulators to make sure that what they’re doing and what we’re doing kind of reflect each other, which is trying to protect the healthy work environment for folks in Europe. When you meet with regulators here, is there a message you’re going to be delivering to them or what do you want them to walk away with in terms of the bottom line for you in terms of your business at this moment in the EU? I think some things are well understood and other things I think are less so. I think our commitment to European production is unique in the world. Both in our original production but also in our investment in second right’s windows that we pre-invest in films that compel production. Tens of millions of dollars’ worth of film production is compelled by our licensing agreements as well beyond our original production. And the fact that we work with local European producers on these projects — I think there’s a misconception that we don’t. And the larger one is the economic impact that that brings to Europe and to the world with our original program strategy that supports so many, not just the productions themselves but even tourism in European countries. Think about President [Emmanuel] Macron pointing out that 38 percent of people who went to France last year cited “Emily in Paris” as one of the top reasons they went. We’ve seen that in other countries. We saw it in Madrid with the “Casa de Papel.” And so it’s one of those things where it really raises all boats across the economies of these countries. Regulators often focus on the competition between streaming services, but as you know very well, younger audiences are spending more time on platforms like YouTube. Do you think policymakers are underestimating that shift? Would you like to see that taken into account more in the regulatory landscape? One of the things that we saw in recent months with the Warner Brothers transaction is a real deep misunderstanding about what YouTube is and isn’t. YouTube is a straightforward direct competitor for television, either a local broadcaster or a streamer like Netflix. The connected television market is a zero-sum screen. So whichever one you choose, that’s what you’re watching tonight. And you monetize through subscription or advertising or both, but at the end of the day, it’s that choosing to engage in how you give them and how, and how that programming is monetized is a very competitive landscape and it includes YouTube. I think what happens is people think of YouTube as a bunch of cat videos and maybe some way to, to promote your stuff by putting it on there for free. But it turns out it is a zero-sum game. You’re going to be choosing at the expense of an RTL or Netflix. I think in this case it’s one of these things where recognizing and understanding that YouTube is in the same exact game that we are. Do you feel like you’re on different planes though, in the eyes of regulators at this moment? I don’t think that they see them as a direct competitor in that way. I think they think of that as an extension of social media. And the truth is when we talk about them as a competitor, we’re only talking about them on the screen. I’m not talking about their mobile usage or any of that. You know, about 55 percent of all YouTube engagement now is on the television through their app. So to me, that’s the thing to keep an eye on. As you get into this, it’s a pretty straightforward, competitive model and we think probably should have a level playing field relative to everybody else. Who do you view as Netflix’s main competitors today? Look, our competitive space is really the television screen. When people pick up the remote and pick what to watch, everyone is in that mix. We identified YouTube — this isn’t new for us — we identified YouTube as a competitor in the space 10 years ago, even before they moved to the television. And I think, for the most part, TikTok forced their hand to move to the television because they were kind of getting chased off the phone more or less by TikTok. I think that’s the other one that regulators should pay a lot of attention to is what’s happening with the rise of TikTok engagement as well. It’s not directly competitive for us, but it is for attention and time and to your point, maybe the next generation’s consumer behavior. Last question on regulation: With the EU looking at the rules again, there’s a tendency always to look to tinker more and more and do more. Is there a point at what regulation starts affecting your willingness to invest in European production? Well, like I said, those core principles of predictability and simplicity have really got to come into play, because I think what happens is, just like any business, you have to be able to plan. So, if you make a production under one set of regs and release it under another, it’s not a very stable business environment. The topic that dominated a lot of your attention in recent months was obviously the merger talks with Warner Brothers Discovery. I know you’ve said it didn’t work for financial reasons. I want to ask you a little bit about the political dynamics. How much did the political environment, including the Susan Rice incident, how much did that complicate the calculus in your mind? I think it complicated the narrative, not the actual outcomes. I think for us it was always a business transaction, was always a well-regulated process in the U.S. The Department of Justice was handling it, everything was moving through. We were very confident we did not have a regulatory issue. Why would that be? It’s because it was very much a vertical transaction. I can’t name a transaction that was similar to this that has ever been blocked in history. We did not have duplicated assets. We did have a market concentration issue in the marketplace that we operate in. And I think that’s the feedback I was getting back from the DOJ and from regulators in general, which was, they understood that, but I do think that Paramount did a very nice job of creating a very loud narrative of a regulatory challenge that didn’t exist. But looking back to those early days of the merger discussions, did you have an appreciation for what might follow in terms of that complicated narrative? Yeah. Look, I think it opens up the door to have a lot of conversations that you wouldn’t have had otherwise, but that’s okay. A lot great things came out of it, the process itself. I would say in total, we had a price for where we thought this was good for our business. We made our best and final offer back in December and it was our best and final offer. So that’s all. But what came out a bit that’s positive is, we’ve had really healthy conversations with folks who we hardly ever talked to, theater operators, as a good example. I had a great meeting in February with the International Union of Cinemas, and the heads from all the different countries about what challenges they have, how we could be more helpful, or how they could be helpful to us too. I think we’ll come out of this with a much more creative relationship with exhibitions around the world. And by way of example, doing things that we haven’t done before. I don’t recommend testifying before the Senate again, but it was an interesting experience for sure. Probably a good learning experience. Hopefully not in the future for anything that you don’t want to be there for, but yes. Yeah, exactly. We’ve always said from the beginning, the Warner transaction was a nice-to-have at the right price, not a must-have-at-any-price. The business is healthy, growing organically. We’re growing on the path that we laid out several years ago and we didn’t really need this to grow the business. These assets are out there through our growth period and they’re going to be out there and for our next cycle growth as well and we’ve got to compete with that just like we knew we had to at the beginning. This was I think something that would fortify and maybe accelerate some of our existing models, but it doesn’t change our outcome. Are there regrets or things you might have wished you’d done differently? I mean honestly we took a very disciplined approach. I think we intentionally did not get distracted by the narrative noise, because we knew, we recognized what it was right away, which is just narrative noise. This deal was very good for the industry. Very good for both companies, Warner Brothers and Netflix. Our intent was obviously to keep those businesses operating largely as they are now. All the synergies that we had in the deal were mostly technologies and managerial, so we would have kept a big growth engine going in Hollywood and around the world. The alternative, which we’ve always said, is a lot of cutting. I think regulators in Europe and regulators in the U.S. should keep an eye on horizontal mergers. They should keep a close eye on [leveraged buyouts]. They typically are not good for the economy anywhere they happen. What were you preparing for in terms of the EU regulatory scrutiny with Warner Brothers? What was your read on how that might have looked? I think we’re a known entity in Europe. Keep in mind, like in Q4 of last year, we reported $3.5 billion or $3.8 billion in European revenues. So 18 percent year-on-year growth. The EU is now our largest territory. We’re a known entity there. The reason we didn’t take out press releases, we had meetings in Europe as we know everybody. We talked to the regulators, both at the EU and at the country level. And I do think that in many of the countries that we operate in, we’re a net contributor to the local economy, which I think is really important. We’ve got 12 offices across Europe with 2,500 people. So we’re members of the local ecosystem, we’re not outsiders. With President Trump, he demanded that Netflix remove Susan Rice from the board or pay the consequences. Did that cross a line for you in terms of political interference? It was a social media post, and we didn’t, no, it did not. It was not ideal, but he does a lot of things on social media. So you didn’t interpret it as anything bigger than that. I mean, he does that one day, he could obviously weigh in on content the next day. How does somebody like you manage situations like that? I think it’s really important to be able to separate noise from signal, and I think a lot of what happens in a world where we have a lot of noise. There was so much attention to you going to the White House that day. And we didn’t learn until several days later that you didn’t actually have the meetings that were predicted. Before you arrived in Washington that day, had you already made the decision not to proceed? Not before arriving in Washington, but we knew the framework for if this, then that. So, yeah, I would say that it was interesting, but again, we don’t make a big parade about our meetings with government and with the regulators. I had a meeting on the books with the DOJ scheduled several weeks before, meeting with Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff, scheduled several months before, unrelated to the Warner Brothers deal. And that was just the calendar that lined up that way. We didn’t know when Warner Brothers would make the statement about the deal. It’s all very dramatic, like it belongs on Netflix as a movie. There was paparazzi outside of the White House waiting for me when I came out. I’ve never experienced that before. Yeah, it’s a remarkable story. I would tell you, and I’m being honest with you, there was no political interference in this deal. The president is interested in entertainment and interested in deals, so he was curious about the mechanics of things and how things were going to go or whatever, but he made it very clear that this was under the DOJ. So it’s just like we all spun it up from the media? How do you explain it all? First of all, Netflix is clickbait. So people write about Netflix and it gets read. And that’s a pretty juicy story. And [Trump] said, and by the way, like I said, he makes statements sometimes that lead to the beliefs of things that do and sometimes that don’t materialize at all. But I found my conversations with him were 100 percent about the industry, protecting the industry. And I think it’s very healthy that the president of the United States speaks to business leaders about industries that are important to the economy. To what degree did the narrative or the fact that David Ellison had a relationship or seemed to have a relationship with people in Washington who were in power, that that might have swayed or changed the dynamic at the end with where Warner Brothers went though? I can’t speak to what their thinking is on it. I feel like for me, it’s very important to know the folks in charge, but I wouldn’t count on it if you’re doing something that is not in the best interest of the country or the economy. You talked with Trump in the past about entertainment jobs. Were there specific policies you’ve advocated to him or anything that he brought up on that point? He has brought up tariffs for the movie and television industry many times. And I’ve hopefully talked to him the way out of them. I just said basically the same thing I said earlier. I think that incentive works much better. We’re seeing it in the U.S. things like the states compete with each other for production incentives and those states with good, healthy incentive programs attract a lot of production, and you’ve seen a lot of them move from California to Georgia to New Jersey, kind of looking for that what’s the best place to operate in, where you could put more on the screen. And I do think that having the incentives versus tariffs is much better. Netflix is now buying Ben Affleck’s AI company. What areas do you see AI having the most potential to change Netflix’s workflow? My focus is that AI should be a creator tool. But with the same way production tools have evolved over time, AI is just a rapid, important evolution of these tools. It is one of those. And the idea that the creators could use it to do things that they could never do before to do it. Potentially, they could do faster and cheaper. But the most impact will be if they can make it better. I don’t think faster and cheaper matters if it’s not better. This is the most competitive time in the history of media. So you’ve gotta be better every time out of the gate. And faster and cheaper consumers are not looking for faster and cheaper, they’re looking for better. I do think that AI, particularly InterPositive, the company we bought from Ben, will help creators make things better. Using their own dailies, using their own production materials to make the film that they’re making better. Still requires writers and actors and lighting techs and all the things that you’d use to make a movie, but be able to make the movie more effective, more efficient. Being able to do pick up shots and things like this that you couldn’t do before. It’s really remarkable. It’s a really remarkable company. As AI improves, do you see the role of human voice actors shrinking at Netflix? What’s interesting about that is if you look at the evolution of tools for dubbing and subtitling, the one for dubbing, we do a lot of A-B tests that people, if you watch something and you don’t like it, you just turn it off. The one thing that we find to be the most important part of dubbing is the performance. So good voice actors really matter. Yeah, it’s a lot cheaper to use AI, but without the performance, which is very human, it actually runs down the quality of the production. Will it evolve over time? Possibly, but it won’t evolve without the cooperation and the training of the actual voice actors themselves too. I think what will happen is you’ll be able to do things like pick up lines that you do months and months after the production. You’ll be able to recreate some of those lines in the film without having to call everybody back and redo everything which will help make a better film. You’re in the sort of early stages of a push into video podcast. What have you learned so far about what works and what doesn’t? It’s really early. The main thing is we’ve got a broad cross-section of podcasts. It’s nowhere near as complete as other podcast outlets yet. But the things that we leaned into are the things that are working. We kind of figured they would. You’ve got true crime, sports, comedy, all those things that we do well in the doc space already. And I really am excited about things where people can develop and deepen the relationship with the show itself or the [intellectual property] itself. Our Bridgerton podcast is really popular, and people really want to go deeper and we want to be able to provide that for them. I think a video podcast is just the evolution of talk shows. We have tried to and failed at many talk shows over the years, and for the most part it’s because the old days of TV, when 40 million people used to tune in to the Tonight Show every night, [are over]. What’s happened now is that it’s much smaller audiences that tune into multiple shows in the form of a podcast every day. And then they come up to be way bigger than the 40 million that Johnny Carson used to get. They’re all individual, and it’s a deeper relationship than it is a broad one. So instead of trying to make one show for the world, you might have to make hundreds or thousands of shows for the whole world.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will on Wednesday announce plans to invest in EU regions bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine that are suffering economically because of the war. Dwindling investments, reduced cargo traffic and a decline in tourism have delivered an economic blow to the EU’s easternmost regions, chiefly affecting the Baltic countries, Finland and Poland. The Commission’s strategy attempts to give an incentive to international financial institutions to provide funding to those areas — but falls short of putting new money on the table. “The safest borders are not just controlled, they’re alive,” said Niina Ratilainen, a member of the Finnish city council of Turku and the European Committee of the Regions’ Working Group on Ukraine. “Investing in jobs, clean energy and education in EU border regions sets the foundation of real security.” The EU is concerned that if these easternmost regions depopulate, Europe’s ability to defend the border is compromised, said a Commission official granted anonymity to speak freely. Brussels is also worried that the economic woes suffered by those living in the regions could see them turn to fringe parties in elections and make them vulnerable to Russian propaganda. Władysław Ortyl, the governor of the Polish region of Podkarpackie, noted that his area is “directly affected by the consequences of the ongoing war, including migratory pressure, transport disruptions and increased strain on public services and the regional economy.” He added that “escalating geopolitical tensions” mean the EU should reallocate resources toward “strengthening resilience” of its border areas. A priority of the plan is to revitalize border areas that are economically depressed as a result of the Russian invasion, whether because of a lack of tourism or due to the dangers associated with living near the Ukrainian border. “Europe’s security begins at its Eastern frontier,” the Commission wrote in a draft of the plan, officially called the Communication on Eastern Border Regions, which was seen by POLITICO. “A strong, prosperous, and resilient Eastern border is essential to safeguard the entire continent.” Yet the strategy to be presented by Executive Vice President for Cohesion Raffaele Fitto contains no new money as the EU’s current budget, which expires in 2028, is overstretched, said two Commission officials. “What we need is direct access to EU funding and a strategy that reflects today’s realities on the ground,” said Milan Majerský, governor of the Prešov self-governing region in Slovakia. “In Eastern Slovakia, we feel the economic, social and security impacts of Russia’s war every day. Our GDP per capita is just over 54 percent of the EU average, and the war has deepened long-standing structural gaps.” Majerský said he met with Fitto in Bratislava last week ahead of the plan’s unveiling. Baltic countries have already set their sights on the EU’s next budget, which is currently being negotiated by member countries. They argue that the Commission’s plan will strengthen their demands to earmark money for the easternmost regions from 2028. “We do expect our specificities to be reflected in the negotiations” on the next EU long-term budget, Lithuania’s Europe Minister Sigitas Mitkus told POLITICO. “This communication [on eastern border regions] will be a living document.” Under Fitto’s plan, global financial institutions will be part of the “EastInvest platform,” which will immediately enter into force to “address investment needs” and provide financing aid to those regions, according to the document draft. A view of Kaliningrad from the Lithuanian town of Pagėgiai on July 10, 2023. | Omar Marques/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images Brussels will allow countries bordering Russia and Belarus — Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — to use part of their EU regional development funds to offer guarantees to the European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Nordic Investment Bank and national promotional banks to invest in their easternmost regions, according to the document. The end goal is to offer cheap credit to businesses from regions that border Ukraine that would otherwise struggle to access funding. The door is open for other EU countries bordering Ukraine — including Romania, Hungary and Slovakia — to join at a later stage, one Commission official said. In a partial concession to Baltic countries, the Commission wrote that it will “explore the possibility of dedicated calls for EBRs (Eastern Border Regions) in the upcoming European Competitiveness Fund,” which is a €410 billion pot to support innovative EU businesses from 2028 onward. Such a change would be significant as the Commission previously dismissed calls to attach geographic criteria to the new fund.

The biggest loser of this weekend’s presidential election in Portugal was European Council President António Costa. Not only was Costa’s former rival in the Socialist Party, António José Seguro, elected the new head of state, the results also cemented the far-right Chega party as the country’s second-largest political force. Seguro — a moderate, center-left former member of the European Parliament and minister who was ousted as Socialist Party leader by Costa in 2014 — originally said his decision to launch a long-shot run for the presidency was motivated by his “perplexion” with the direction the country had taken during Costa’s eight-year stint as prime minister. Based on Sunday’s results, voters appear to share Seguro’s concern that the country is on the wrong course.  When Costa became prime minister in 2015, Portugal prided itself on being the only country in Europe with no far-right political presence. But this weekend, Chega leader André Ventura took in a third of the vote thanks to the support of a substantial chunk of the electorate exasperated by the affordability crisis, rising immigration rates and political corruption — issues many link to Costa’s time in office. “It’s completely legitimate to tie this phenomenon to the economic and social model implemented here during the past 10 years — an economy based on low-skilled labor and low wages in a context when prices were increasing dramatically,” said Riccardo Marchi, an expert on right-wing radicalism at Lisbon’s ISCTE-IUL Center of International Studies. “And Costa is the face of that model.” Antonio Jose Seguro after his victory in the second round of the Portuguese presidential election. Seguro originally said his decision to run was motivated by his “perplexion” with the direction the country had taken during Costa’s stint as prime minister. | Jose Coelho/EPA TROUBLE IN PARADISE When Ventura first appeared on the political scene in 2017, Portugal was enjoying a renaissance of sorts.  Just five years prior, the country was on the brink of declaring bankruptcy and was obliged to seek a €78 billion bailout package. In exchange for the cash, citizens faced brutal tax hikes and the severe curtailment of public services. But in 2015, Costa — then the charismatic mayor of Lisbon — cobbled together a parliamentary alliance of left-wing parties, unseating center-right Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho and forming a minority government that promised to “turn the page on austerity.” While maintaining fiscal discipline, Costa unveiled progressive policies to improve conditions for the lowest-income citizens and rolled back some of the most severe cost-cutting measures. The economy steadily improved as existing golden tourism schemes and new digital nomad visas attracted foreign investment, and new jobs were created thanks to a successful rebrand that saw the impoverished Atlantic country recast as a trendy new travel destination. After years of pessimism, the future looked bright for Portugal, and many saw Costa as a leader worth emulating. In that context, Ventura launched a campaign for local office on behalf of the center-right Social Democratic Party, and garnered national attention by running on a platform focused on the alleged threat posed by the Roma community. Condemned by his own party, Ventura lost the race. But he noted his rhetoric received more notice — and popular support — than a standard conservative politician would receive. Despite the popularly held belief that far-right sentiment had vanished from Portugal after the Estado Novo dictatorship ended in 1974, António Costa Pinto, a political scientist at the University of Lisbon’s Institute of Social Sciences, said “there’s plenty of data that shows that around 18 percent of the electorate embraces authoritarian values, but in the past, they either voted for mainstream conservative parties or didn’t vote at all.” Focusing on that dormant electorate’s potential, Ventura left the mainstream center-right to create Chega — or Enough — ahead of the 2019 European Parliament elections. He ran on an anti-establishment message, taking on the persona of a straight-talking common man taking on the country’s out-of-touch political elites. The tactic failed to win him a seat in Brussels, but when legislative elections were held later that year, he secured a single seat in the national parliament — and proved Portugal wasn’t immune to right-wing populism. THE RISE OF CHEGA One seat in parliament is hardly the harbinger of future political dominance, yet Ventura went from being Chega’s sole elected representative to running the country’s leading opposition party — and making it to the second round of the presidential election — in just seven years.  Pedro Magalhães, an electoral behavior specialist at the University of Lisbon’s Institute of Social Sciences, links Chega’s growth to the perception that Portugal’s establishment parties are part of a “failed party system that’s seen as being frozen and unable to respond to the crises the country faces.” The crises that Chega has thrived on developed during Costa’s years in office. One major issue is the soaring cost of living in major cities like Lisbon and Porto, which is directly tied to Portugal’s consolidation as an international destination. Costa’s government took pains to grant residency permits to foreign celebrities like Madonna in a bid to spur tourism and create service-sector jobs. The tourism economy flourished, but it came at the cost of local residents, who were ejected from apartments hastily converted into short-term rentals and priced out of their local tascas. Home prices across the country jumped more than 124 percent between 2015 and 2025, and the median price-per-square meter in Lisbon now hovers around €5,914. “There are pluses and minuses to tourism, and it’s helped rehabilitate many of our cities,” said Sérgio Sousa Pinto, a Socialist Party lawmaker who served in the national parliament from 2011 to 2025. “But that’s not top of mind for a family that can no longer afford to pay rent.” As European Council president, Costa has urged leaders to tackle Europe’s housing crisis. But during his time as prime minister, he failed to adopt major policies to expand supply or curb rising costs. For years he denied short-term rentals were having an impact on home prices, and he only moved to end the controversial golden visa scheme in 2023. Chega leader André Ventura speaks after his defeat in the presidential runoff. He took in a third of the vote thanks to the support of a substantial chunk of the electorate exasperated by issues many link to Costa’s time in office. | Tiago Petinga/EPA Frustration over cost of living has overlapped with anger regarding the state of public services. As Costa’s government ramped down many austerity measures, it ensured fiscal stability by keeping public spending in check. But that lack of public investment has drawn more scrutiny as migration has skyrocketed, with the number of foreign residents in Portugal jumped from 388,700 in 2015 to 1.5 million in 2024. Chega has gained supporters by blaming immigrants for the lackluster public services, accusing them of overwhelming hospitals and enriching themselves with public subsidies. “It’s the same stuff he used against the Roma community,” said Magalhães. “It’s an economically irrational line, but one that plays well with electors who are frustrated about higher costs and taxes.” The party has also made strides by harnessing resentment grounded in the widespread perception that the country’s political elites are corrupt. Magalhães said Portugal’s citizens are among the most skeptical in Europe when it comes to the integrity of its ruling classes. “We once did a survey in which we asked participants to think of 100 politicians and tell us how many they thought were corrupt,” he recalled. “On average, respondents said 90 of them were.” Ventura has spent years crusading against this alleged rot. And the far-right leader was finally vindicated in 2023, when police raided the prime minister’s residence in Lisbon as part of a wide-ranging influence-peddling probe and arrested Costa’s chief of staff, Vítor Escária, who was found to have €75,800 in undeclared cash stashed in his office. Costa himself was named as a subject in the investigation, prompting his resignation. Both Costa and Escária have always maintained their innocence, and no evidence linking the former prime minister to any wrongdoing has been revealed. Despite that, the case that brought down his government remains active, and has inevitably contributed to Chega’s growth. In the 2024 elections held in the aftermath of his resignation, the party jumped from 12 to 50 seats. Chega then grew to 60 seats in 2025’s repeat elections, held after Costa’s successor — center-right Prime Minister Luís Montenegro — was embroiled in a separate corruption scandal. Costa declined POLITICO’s requests for comment through a spokesperson, who said the president of the Council has a policy of not discussing national politics. LEADING THE RIGHT When Costa stood down in 2024, his Socialist Party enjoyed an absolute majority in parliament. Lawmaker Sousa Pinto believes the government failed to use that power to carry out the structural reforms that could have addressed the grievances fueling Chega’s growth.  “Costa’s tenure leading the Socialist Party is characterized by a lack of imagination,” he said, adding his last government was composed of “mediocre” figures that match “a general degradation in the quality of our politicians.” He also lamented that as Chega emerged on the scene, the Socialists cast themselves as the left’s sole legitimate representatives, facing off against an allegedly uniform right. “They pushed the idea that democratic center-right parties were the same thing as one that’s illiberal,” he said. “That gained traction among many people, and ultimately helped normalize Chega as an option that’s just as acceptable as any establishment party.” Magalhães expressed doubts that Chega’s assent could be blamed on Costa, arguing the party’s growth was due to a “mummified” national political landscape. “What we have today is a better reflection of the diversity of the public’s opinions than it was in the past — whether we like it or not.” While Chega’s electoral base was originally overwhelmingly composed of young men with little formal education, the ultranationalist group is now becoming “a catch-all for right-wing voters,” political scientist Costa Pinto explained. That’s significant in a political landscape that’s been dominated by the right since Costa’s resignation — something Ventura himself underscored on Sunday. “We lead the right-wing space in Portugal,” the far-right leader told supporters. “And we will soon govern this country.

ATHENS — Greece’s parliament is expected to pass double-edged legislation on Wednesday that will help recruit tens of thousands more South Asian workers, while simultaneously penalizing migrants that the government says have entered the country illegally. Greece’s right-wing administration seeks to style itself as tough on migration but needs to pass Wednesday’s bill thanks to a crippling labor shortfall in vital sectors such as tourism, construction and agriculture. The central idea of the new legislation is to simplify bringing in workers through recruitment schemes agreed with countries such as India, Bangladesh and Egypt. There will be a special “fast track” for big public-works projects. The New Democracy government knows, however, that these measures to recruit more foreign workers will play badly with some core supporters. For that reason the bill includes strong measures against immigrants who have already entered Greece illegally, and also pledges to clamp down on the non-government organizations helping migrants. “We need workers, but we are tough on illegal immigration,” Greece’s Migration Minister Thanos Plevris told ERT television. The migration tensions in Greece reflect the extent to which it remains a hot button issue across Europe, even though numbers have dropped significantly since the massive flows of 2015, when the Greek Aegean islands were one of the main points of arrival. More than 80,000 positions for immigrants have been approved by the Greek state annually over the past two years. There are no official figures on labor shortages, but studies from industry associations indicate the country’s needs are more than double the state-approved number of spots, and that only half of those positions are filled. The migration bill is expected to pass because the government holds a majority in parliament. Opposition parties have condemned it, saying it ignores the need to integrate the migrants already in Greece and adopts the rhetoric of the far right. Under the new legislation, migrants who entered the country illegally will have no opportunity to acquire legal status. The bill also abolishes a provision granting residence permits to unaccompanied minors once they turn 18, provided they attend school in Greece. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal, and when they are located they will be arrested, imprisoned for two to five years and repatriated,” Plevris told lawmakers. Human-rights groups also oppose the legislation, which they say criminalizes humanitarian NGOs by explicitly linking their migration-related activities to serious crimes.  The bill envisages severe penalties such as mandatory prison terms of at least 10 years and heavy fines for assisting irregular entry, providing transport for illegal migration, or helping those migrants stay. “Whoever is illegal right now will remain illegal,” Thanos Plevris told lawmakers. | Orestis Panagiotou/EPA Wednesday’s legislation also grants the migration minister broad powers to deregister NGOs based solely on criminal charges against one member, and will allow residence permits to be revoked on the basis of suspicion alone — undermining the presumption of innocence. Greece’s national ombudsman has expressed serious concerns about the bill, arguing that punishing people for entering the country illegally contravenes international conventions on the treatment of refugees. Lefteris Papagiannakis, director of the Greek Council for Refugees, was equally damning. “This binary political approach follows the global hostile and racist policy around migration,” he said.

BEIJING — Britain on Thursday opened the door to an inward visit by Xi Jinping after the Chinese president hailed a thawing of relations between the two nations. Downing Street repeatedly declined to rule out the prospect of welcoming Xi in future after saying that Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s current visit to China would not be a “one-and-done summit.” Asked about the prospect of an inward visit — which would be the first for 11 years — Starmer’s official spokesperson told reporters: “I think the prime minister has been clear that a reset relationship with China, that it’s no longer in an ice age, is beneficial to British people and British business. “I’m not going to get ahead of future engagements. We’ll set those out in the normal way.” Xi paid a full state visit to the U.K. in 2015 and visited a traditional pub with then-Prime Minister David Cameron, during what is now seen as a “golden era” of British-Chinese relations. Critics of China’s stance on human rights and espionage see the trip as one of the worst foreign policy misjudgments of the Cameron era. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, said: “We should not roll out the red carpet for a state that conducts daily espionage in our country, flouts international trading rules and aids Putin in his senseless war on Ukraine. We need a dialogue with China, we do not need to kowtow to them.” Any state visit invitation would be in the name of King Charles III and be issued by Buckingham Palace. There is no suggestion that a full state visit is being considered at present. Xi did not leave mainland China for more than two years during the Covid-19 pandemic. Starmer and Xi met Thursday in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People and the two nations agreed to look at the “feasibility” of a partnership in the services sector. Britain said it had signed an agreement for China to waive visa rules for British citizens visiting for less than 30 days for business or tourism, bringing the U.K. into line with nations including France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan. The two nations also promised to co-operate on conformity assessments, exports, sports, tackling organized crime, vocational training and food safety, though further details were not immediately available. Starmer also hailed “really good progress” on lowering Chinese whisky tariffs. One official familiar with the talks stressed that Starmer had also raised more difficult issues including the ongoing detention of British-Hong Kong democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, and China’s position on the war in Ukraine — but declined to be drawn on the specifics of the pair’s conversation. The talks steered clear of more difficult topics such as wind farm technology, where critics fear co-operation would leave Britain vulnerable to Chinese influence. Asked if Starmer had come back empty handed, his spokesperson said: “I don’t accept that at all. I think this is a historic trip where you’ve seen for the first time in eight years a PM set foot on Chinese soil, have a meeting at the highest level with the president of the second largest economy in the world. “You should also note that this isn’t a question of a one-and-done summit with China. It is a resetting of a relationship that has been on ice for eight years.”

The U.K. and China have announced a new services partnership to support British businesses operating in China, including through visa-free travel for short stays. The partnership will see Beijing relax its visa rules for British citizens, adding the U.K. to its visa-free list of countries. This will enable visits of up to 30 days for business and tourism without the need for a visa. The timings of the visa change have not yet been set out. The partnership focuses on better collaboration for businesses in healthcare, financial and professional services, legal services, education and skills — areas where British firms often face regulatory or administrative hurdles.  Britain and China have also agreed to conduct a “feasibility study” to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement. If it proceeds, this would establish clear and legally binding rules for U.K. firms doing business in China. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “As one of the world’s economic powerhouses, businesses have been crying out for ways to grow their footprints in China. “We’ll make it easier for them to do so – including via relaxed visa rules for short-term travel — supporting them to expand abroad, all while boosting growth and jobs at home.” The U.K. and China have also signed pacts covering co-operation on conformity assessments for exports from the U.K. to China, food safety, animal, and plant quarantine health and the work the UK-China Joint Economic and Trade Commission. The two sides aren’t planning to publish the full texts of the pacts.

BEIJING — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has hailed “really good progress” on Chinese whisky tariffs and visa-free travel after a lengthy meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Starmer dubbed the one hour and 20 minute sit-down with Xi as “a very good productive session with real, concrete outcomes, [which was] a real strengthening of the relationship.” Speaking to reporters after the meeting, he said: “We made some really good progress on tariffs for whisky, on visa free travel to China and on information exchange.” The news will be welcomed by Scotch whisky exporters, who have been squeezed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s 10 percent baseline tariffs on imported U.K. goods.  Currently, Scotch whisky exports face 10 percent duties in China, after the country doubled its import tariffs on brandy and whisky in February 2025, removing its provisional 5 percent rate. Exports to China fell by 31 percent last year, sliding from China’s fifth-largest export market to its tenth.  “We’ve agreed that on tariffs for whisky, we’re looking at how they’re to be reduced, what the timeframe is,” said Starmer. The two sides also made progress on visa-free travel to China for short stays — which would allow British citizens to visit for tourism, business conferences, family visits, and short exchange activities without requiring a visa. Britain is currently not among the European countries granted visa-free access to China, a list that includes France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Starmer said the two sides are now looking at “how far, how much, and when that can start.” China issued its own readout via state news agency Xinhua, where it discussed expanded cooperation in “education, healthcare, finance, and services, and conduct joint research and industrial transformation in fields such as artificial intelligence, bioscience, new energy, and low-carbon technologies to achieve common development and prosperity.” The Chinese statement said both sides should “strengthen people-to-people exchanges and further facilitate personnel exchanges,” adding that China “is willing to actively consider implementing unilateral visa-free entry for the U.K.” Starmer and Chinese Premier Li Qiang are due to sign memorandums of understanding covering cooperation in a number of areas at a signing ceremony on Thursday morning U.K. time. Starmer and Li will also sign a border security pact to enlist Beijing’s help in choking off the supply of small boat engines and equipment used by criminal gangs to facilitate Channel crossings POLITICO first reported earlier this month that the U.K. was pushing to secure visa-free travel and lower whisky tariffs. This developing story is being updated.

LONDON — Keir Starmer is off to China to try to lock in some economic wins he can shout about back home. But some of the trickiest trade issues are already being placed firmly in the “too difficult” box. The U.K.’s trade ministry quietly dispatched several delegations to Beijing over the fall to hash out deals with the Chinese commerce ministry and lay the groundwork for the British prime minister’s visit, which gets going in earnest Wednesday. But the visit comes as Britain faces growing pressure from its Western allies to combat Chinese industrial overproduction — and just weeks after Starmer handed his trade chief new powers to move faster in imposing tariffs on cheap, subsidized imports from countries like China. For now, then, the aim is to secure progress in areas that are seen as less sensitive. Starmer’s delegation of CEOs and chairs will split their time between Beijing and Shanghai, with executives representing City giants and high-profile British brands including HSBC, Standard Chartered, Schroders, and the London Stock Exchange Group, alongside AstraZeneca, Jaguar Land Rover, Octopus Energy, and Brompton filling out the cast list. Starmer will be flanked on his visit by Trade Secretary Peter Kyle and City Minister Lucy Rigby. Despite the weighty delegation, ministers insist the approach is deliberately narrow. “We have a very clear-eyed approach when it comes to China,” Security Minister Dan Jarvis said Monday. “Where it is in our national interest to cooperate and work closely with [China], then we will do so. But when it’s our national security interest to safeguard against the threats that [they] pose, we will absolutely do that.” Starmer’s wishlist will be carefully calibrated not to rock the boat. Drumming up Chinese cash for heavy energy infrastructure, including sensitive wind turbine technology, is off the table. Instead, the U.K. has been pushing for lower whisky tariffs, improved market access for services firms, recognition of professional qualifications, banking and insurance licences for British companies operating in China, easier cross-border investment, and visa-free travel for short stays. With China fiercely protective of its domestic market, some of those asks will be easier said than done. Here’s POLITICO’s pro guide to where it could get bumpy. CHAMPIONING THE CITY OF LONDON Britain’s share of China’s services market was a modest 2.7 percent in 2024 — and U.K. firms are itching for more work in the country. British officials have been pushing for recognition of professional qualifications for accountants, designers and architects — which would allow professionals to practice in China without re-licensing locally — and visa-free travel for short stays. Vocational accreditation is a “long-standing issue” in the bilateral relationship, with “little movement” so far on persuading Beijing to recognize U.K. professional credentials as equivalent to its own, according to a senior industry representative familiar with the talks, who, like others in this report, was granted anonymity to speak freely. But while the U.K.’s allies in the European Union and the U.S. have imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, the U.K. has resisted pressure to do so. | Jessica Lee/EPA Britain is one of the few developed countries still missing from China’s visa-free list, which now includes France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Sweden.  Starmer is hoping to mirror a deal struck by Canadian PM Mark Carney, whose own China visit unlocked visa-free travel for Canadians.  The hope is that easier business travel will reduce friction and make it easier for people to travel and explore opportunities on the ground — it would allow visa-free travel for British citizens, giving them the ability to travel for tourism, attend business conferences, visit friends and family, and participate in short exchange activities.  SMOOTHING FINANCIAL FLOWS The Financial Conduct Authority’s Chair Ashley Alder is also flying out to Beijing, hoping to secure closer alignment between the two countries’ capital markets. He’ll represent Britain’s financial watchdog at the inaugural U.K-China Financial Working Group in Beijing — and bang the drum for better market connectivity between the U.K. and China. Expect emphasis on the cross-border investments mechanism known as the Shanghai-London and Shenzhen-London Stock Connect, plus data sovereignty issues associated with Chinese companies jointly listing on the London Stock Exchange, two figures familiar with the planning said. The Stock Connect opened up both markets to investors in 2019 which, according to FCA Chair Ashley Alder, led to listings worth almost $6 billion. “Technical obstacles have so far prevented us from realizing Stock Connect’s full potential,” Alder said in a speech last year. Alder pointed to a memorandum of understanding being drawn up between the FCA and China’s National Financial Regulatory Administration, which he said is “critical” to allow information to be shared quickly and for firms to be supervised across borders. But that raises its own concerns about Chinese use of data. “The goods wins are easier,” said a senior British business representative briefed on the talks. “Some of the service ones are more difficult.” TAPPING INTO CHINA’S BIOTECH BOOM Pharma executives, including AstraZeneca’s CEO Pascal Soriot, are among those heading to China, as Britain tries to burnish its credentials as a global life sciences hub — and attract foreign direct investment. China, once known mainly for generics — cheaper versions of branded medicine that deliver the same treatment — has rapidly emerged as a pharma powerhouse. According to ING Bank’s global healthcare lead, Stephen Farrelly, the country has “effectively replaced Europe” as a center of innovation. ING data shows China’s share of global innovative drug approvals jumped from just 4 percent in 2014 to 27 percent in 2024. Pharma executives, including AstraZeneca’s CEO Pascal Soriot, are among those heading to China, as Britain tries to burnish its credentials as a global life sciences hub — and attract foreign direct investment. | John G. Mabanglo/EPA Several blockbuster drug patents are set to expire in the coming years, opening the door for cheaper generic competitors. To refill thinning pipelines, drugmakers are increasingly turning to biotech companies. British pharma giant GSK signed a licensing deal with Chinese biotech firm Hengrui Pharma last July. “Because of the increasing relevance of China, the big pharma industry and the U.K. by definition is now looking to China as a source of those new innovative therapies,” Farrelly said. There are already signs of progress. Science Minister Patrick Vallance said late last year that the U.K. and China are ready to work together in “uncontroversial” areas, including health, after talks with his Chinese counterpart. AstraZeneca, the University of Cambridge and Beijing municipal parties have already signed a partnership to share expertise. And earlier this year, the U.K. announced plans to become a “global first choice for clinical trials.” “The U.K. can really help China with the trust gap” when it comes to getting drugs onto the market, said Quin Wills, CEO of Ochre, a biotech company operating in New York, Oxford and Taiwan. “The U.K. could become a global gold stamp for China. We could be like a regulatory bridgehead where [healthcare regulator] MHRA, now separate from the EU since Brexit, can do its own thing and can maybe offer a 150-day streamlined clinical approval process for China as part of a broader agreement.” SLASHING WHISKY TARIFFS  The U.K. has also been pushing for lowered tariffs on whisky alongside wider agri-food market access, according to two of the industry figures familiar with the planning cited earlier. Talks at the end of 2024 between then-Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and his Chinese counterpart ended Covid-era restrictions on exports, reopening pork market access. But in February 2025 China doubled its import tariffs on brandy and whisky, removing its provisional 5 percent tariff and applying the 10 percent most-favored-nation rate. “The whisky and brandy issue became China leverage,” said the senior British business representative briefed on the talks. “I think that they’re probably going to get rid of the tariff.”  It’s not yet clear how China would lower whisky tariffs without breaching World Trade Organization rules, which say it would have to lower its tariffs to all other countries too. INDUSTRIAL TENSIONS The trip comes as the U.K. faces growing international pressure to take a tougher line on Chinese industrial overproduction, particularly of steel and electric cars. But in February 2025 China doubled its import tariffs on brandy and whisky, removing its provisional 5 percent tariff and applying the 10 percent most-favored-nation rate. | Yonhap/EPA But while the U.K.’s allies in the European Union and the U.S. have imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs, the U.K. has resisted pressure to do so. There’s a deal “in the works” between Chinese EV maker and Jaguar Land Rover, said the senior British business representative briefed on the talks quoted higher, where the two are “looking for a big investment announcement. But nothing has been agreed.” The deal would see the Chinese EV maker use JLR’s factory in the U.K. to build cars in Britain, the FT reported last week. “Chinese companies are increasingly focused on localising their operations,” said another business representative familiar with the talks, noting Chinese EV makers are “realising that just flaunting their products overseas won’t be a sustainable long term model.” It’s unlikely Starmer will land a deal on heavy energy infrastructure, including wind turbine technology, that could leave Britain vulnerable to China. The U.K. has still not decided whether to let Ming Yang, a Chinese firm, invest £1.5 billion in a wind farm off the coast of Scotland.

Andrea Carlo is a British-Italian researcher and journalist living in Rome. His work has been published in various outlets, including TIME, Euronews and the Independent. Last month, UNESCO designated Italian cuisine part of the world’s “intangible cultural heritage.” This wasn’t the first time such an honor was bestowed upon food in some form — French haute cuisine and Korean kimchi fermentation, among others, have been similarly recognized. But it was the first time a nation’s cuisine in its entirety made the list. So, as the U.N. agency acknowledged the country’s “biocultural diversity” and its “blend of culinary traditions […] associated with the use of raw materials and artisanal food preparation techniques,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reacted with expected pride. This is “a victory for Italy,” she said. And prestige aside — Italy already tops UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites — it isn’t hard to see the potential benefits this designation might entail. One study even suggests the UNESCO nod alone could boost Italian tourism by up to 8 percent. But behind this evident soft power win also lies a political agenda, which has turned “Italian cuisine” into a powerful weapon for the country’s right-wing government. For Meloni’s government, food is all the rage. It permeates every aspect of political life. From promoting “Made in Italy” products to blocking EU nutrition labelling scores and banning lab-grown meat, Rome has been doing its utmost to regulate what’s on Italian plates. In fact, during Gaza protests in Rome in September, Meloni was sat in front of the Colosseum for a “Sunday lunch” as part of her government’s long-running campaign to make the coveted list. Clearly, the prime minister has made Italian cuisine one of the main courses of her political menu. And all of this can be pinpointed to a phenomenon political scientists call “gastronationalism,” whereby food and its production are used to fuel identitarian narratives — a trend the Italian far right has latched onto with particular gusto. There are two main principles involving Italian gastronationalism: The notion that the country’s culinary traditions must be protected from “foreign contamination,” and that its recipes must be enshrined to prevent any “tinkering.” And the effects of this gastronationalism now stretch from political realm all the way to the world of social media “rage-bait,” with a deluge of TikTok and Instagram content lambasting “culinary sins” like adding cream to carbonara or putting pineapple on pizza. At the crux of this gastronationalism, though, lies the willful disregard of two fundamental truths: First, foreign influence has contributed mightily to what Italian cuisine is today; and second, what is considered to be “Italian cuisine” is neither as old nor as set in stone as gastronationalists would like to admit. Europe, as a continent, is historically poor in its selection of indigenous produce — and Italy is no exception. The remarkable variety of the country’s cuisine isn’t due to some geographic anomaly, rather, it is the byproduct of centuries of foreign influence combined with a largely favorable climate: Citrus fruits imported by Arab settlers in the Middle Ages, basil from the Indian subcontinent through ancient Greek trading routes, pasta-making traditions from East Asia, and tomatoes from the Americas. Lying at the crossroads of the Mediterranean and home to major trading outposts, Italy was a sponge for cultural cross-pollination, which enriched its culinary heritage. To speak of the “purity” of Italian food is inherently ahistorical. This wasn’t the first time such an honor was bestowed upon food in some form — French haute cuisine and Korean kimchi fermentation, among others, have been similarly recognized. | Anthony Wallace/AFP via Getty Images But even more controversial is acknowledging that the concept of “Italian cuisine” is a relatively recent construct — one largely borne from post-World War II efforts to both unite a culturally and politically fragmented country, and to market its international appeal. From north to south, not only is Italy’s cuisine remarkably diverse, but most of its iconic dishes today would have been alien to those living hardly a century ago. Back then, Italy was an agrarian society that largely fed itself with legume-rich foods. Take my great-grandmother from Lake Como — raised on a diet of polenta and lake fish — who had never heard of pizza prior to the 1960s. “The mythology [of gastronationalism] has made complex recipes — recipes which would have bewildered our grandmothers — into an exercise of national pride-building,” said Laura Leuzzi, an Italian historian at Glasgow’s Robert Gordon University. Food historian Alberto Grandi took that argument a step forward, titling his latest book — released to much furor — “Italian cuisine does not exist.” From carbonara to tiramisù, many beloved Italian classics are relatively recent creations, not much older than the culinary “blasphemies” from across the pond, like chicken parmesan or Hawaiian pizza. Even more surprising is the extent of U.S. influence on contemporary Italian food itself. Pizza, for instance, only earned its red stripes when American pizza-makers began adding tomato sauce to the dough, in turn influencing pizzaioli back in Italy. And yet, some Italian politicians, like Minister of Agriculture Francesco Lollobrigida, have called for investigations into brands promoting supposedly misleadingly “Italian sounding” products, such as carbonara sauces using “inauthentic” ingredients like pancetta. Lollobrigida would do well to revisit the original written recipe of carbonara, published in a 1954 cookbook, which actually called for the use of pancetta and Gruyère cheese — quite unlike its current pecorino, guanciale and egg yolk-based sauce. Simply put, Italian cuisine wasn’t just exported by the diaspora — it is also the product of the diaspora. One study even suggests the UNESCO nod alone could boost Italian tourism by up to 8 percent. | Michael Nguyen/NurPhoto via Getty Images What makes it so rich and beloved is that it has continued to evolve through time and place, becoming a source of intergenerational cohesion, as noted by UNESCO. Static “sacredness” is fundamentally antithetical to a cuisine that’s constantly reinventing itself, both at home and abroad. The profound ignorance underpinning Italian gastronationalism could be considered almost comedic if it weren’t so perfidious — a seemingly innocuous tool in a broader arsenal of weaponry, deployed to score cheap political points. Most crucially, it appeals directly to emotion in a country where food has been unwittingly dragged into a culture war. “They’re coming for nonna’s lasagna” content regularly makes the rounds on Facebook, inflaming millions against minorities, foreigners, vegans, the left and more. And the real kicker? Every nonna makes her lasagna differently. Hopefully, UNESCO’s recognition can serve as a moment of reflection in a country where food has increasingly been turned into a source of division. Italian cuisine certainly merits recognition and faces genuine threats — the impact of organized crime and the effects of climate change on crop growth biggest among them. But it shouldn’t become an unwitting participant in an ideological agenda that runs counter to its very spirit. For now, perhaps it’s best if our government kept politics off the dinner table.

Pedro Sánchez is the prime minister of Spain. It’s no secret the world is going through a time of turbulence. The principles that held it together for decades are under threat; disinformation is spreading freely; and even the foundations of the welfare state — which brought us the longest period of prosperity in human history — are now being questioned by a far-right transnational movement challenging our democratic systems’ ability to deliver collective solutions and social justice. In the face of this attack, Europe stands as a wall of resistance. The EU has been  — and must remain — a shelter for the values that uphold our democracies, our cohesion and our freedom. But let’s be honest, values don’t put a roof over your head. And at any rate, these values are fading fast in the face of something as concrete and urgent as the lack of affordable housing. If we do not act, Europe risks becoming a shelter without homes. The figures are clear: The housing crisis is devastating the standard of living across Europe. Between 2010 and 2025, home prices rose by 60 percent, while rental prices went up by nearly 30 percent. In countries like Estonia or Hungary, prices have tripled. In densely populated or high-tourism cities, families can spend over 70 percent of their income on rent. And individuals with stable jobs in Madrid, Lisbon or Budapest can no longer afford to live where they work or where they grew up. Meanwhile, 93 million Europeans — that’s one in five — are living at risk of poverty or social exclusion. This isn’t just the perception of experts or institutions: Around half of Europeans consider housing to be an “urgent and immediate problem.” Housing, which should be a right, has become a trap that shapes peoples’ present, suffocates their future and endangers Europe’s cohesion, economic dynamism and prosperity. The roots of this problem may differ from country to country, but two facts are undeniable and shared throughout our continent: First, the need for more houses, which we’ve been falling behind on for years. For nearly two decades now, residential construction in the EU has fallen short of demand. After a period of strong growth in the 1990s and early 2000s, the 2008 financial crisis triggered a collapse in housing investment, and the sector never fully recovered. The pandemic only widened this gap, halting permits, delaying materials and worsening labor shortages that further stalled construction. Second, and just as urgent, is that we must ensure both new construction and existing housing stock serve their true purpose: upholding the fundamental right to decent and affordable housing. Because as we continue to fall short of guaranteeing this basic right, homes are increasingly being diverted to fuel speculation or serve secondary uses like tourist rentals. In fact, according to preliminary European Parliament data, there were around 4 million short-term rental listings on digital platforms across the EU in 2025. In my home country, cities like Madrid and València have witnessed the displacement of residents from their historic centers, which are transforming into theme parks for tourists. For nearly two decades now, residential construction in the EU has fallen short of demand. | David Zorrakino/Getty Images At the same time, housing is increasingly being treated as a financial asset instead of a social good. In Ireland, investment funds have acquired nearly half of all newly built homes since 2017, while in Sweden, institutional investors now control 24 percent of all private rental apartments. Just as no one would dare justify doubling the price of a bowl of rice for a starving child, we cannot accept turning the roofs meant to shelter people into a vehicle for speculation — and citizens overwhelmingly share in this view. Seventy-one percent of Europeans believe that the places they live would benefit from more controls on property speculation, like taxing vacant rentals or regulating short-term rentals. This is what the EU stands for: When it’s a choice between profit and people, we choose people. That choice can’t wait any longer. Thankfully, with yesterday’s Affordable Housing Plan, the European Commission is starting to move on housing, taking steps that Spain has long advocated. Brussels now increasingly recognizes the scale of this emergency and acknowledges that specific market conditions may require differentiated national and local responses. This will help consolidate a shared policy understanding regarding housing-stressed areas and strengthen the case for targeted measures — which may include, among others, restrictions on short-term rentals. Crucially, the plan also stresses the need for EU financing to boost housing supply. The time for words is over. We need urgent action. A growing outcry over housing is resonating across Europe, and our citizens need concrete solutions. Any failure to act with ambition and urgency risks turning the housing crisis into a new driver of Euroskepticism. After World War II, Europe was built on two founding promises: securing peace and delivering well-being. Honoring that legacy today means taking decisive action by massively increasing flexible funding to match the scale of the housing crisis, and guaranteeing member countries can swiftly implement the legal tools needed to adopt bold regulatory measures on short-term rentals and address the impact of nonresident buyers on housing access. The true measure of our union isn’t just written in treaties. It must be demonstrated by ensuring every person can live with dignity and have a place to call home. Let us rise to that promise — boldly, together and without delay.