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

Iranian diplomats are to be banned from entering the European Parliament in response to the Tehran regime’s brutal crackdown on protesters who are demanding an end to half a century of religious dictatorship.  European Parliament President Roberta Metsola announced the move in a letter to MEPs on Monday. The ban will apply to the Parliament’s premises in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. “Those braving the streets, those political prisoners still detained, need more than just solidarity,” Metsola said. “I have taken the decision to ban all diplomats, staff of diplomatic missions, government officials and representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran from entering any premises of the European Parliament.” This story is being updated 

Hundreds of EU officials’ children face upheaval and uncertainty as a major campus of the European School system in Brussels prepares to move pupils to a temporary location due to chronic overcrowding and repeated delays to the construction of a new school. Created in 1953 to educate the children of European officials, the European School system is facing severe overcrowding. The four Brussels campuses serve more than 14,600 pupils. The European School Brussels II in Woluwe — built for 2,500 children in 1974 — now hosts almost 4,000. To solve this, the Woluwe school, also called EEB2, plans to temporarily relocate all its nursery and primary school students to a newer site in Evere, near NATO headquarters, in 2026 until the Belgian authorities build a long-promised fifth campus in Neder-Over-Heembeek, on the northern outskirts of Brussels. But the construction of the new campus, first announced a decade ago, has been repeatedly delayed, with no clear assurances from the Belgian government on when or even if it will be built. To make matters worse, the permit for the interim campus in Evere expires in 2027. “Parents are very worried because we just see empty promises,” said the mother of a secondary pupil in Woluwe. POLITICO spoke to seven parents, all members of the Woluwe parents’ association APEEE. They were granted anonymity to speak freely, as several expressed concerns that publicly identifying themselves could invite negative repercussions from school authorities. CHRONIC OVERCROWDING MEETS DELAYED EXPANSION The European Schools network, funded mainly by the European Commission, was created to educate children of officials working for European institutions — free of charge — leading to the European Baccalaureate, a diploma granting university access across all EU member countries and several other nations. There are 13 schools spread across the EU. Students attend classes in their mother tongue, so they can easily reintegrate into their national school systems if needed. Brussels’ role as the EU capital drew many Eurocrats with young families. But campus capacity struggled to keep pace. “We have daily health, safety and well-being risks due to overcrowding,” Secretary-General of the European Schools Andreas Beckmann, who is the schools’ senior executive, said. To ease the overcrowding, the organization opened a new campus in Evere in 2021, initially conceived as the site for a future fifth school. After that project was reassigned to Neder-Over-Heembeek, Evere became a temporary base for some kindergarten and primary school kids from the Woluwe school. Meanwhile, the new fifth campus, originally due to be completed by 2028, has been pushed to 2030 and, even then, there’s no guarantee it will be built. The responsibility for building the new school rests with the Régie des Bâtiments, Belgium’s public buildings authority. Its spokesperson, Sylvie Decraecker, said in an email that it cannot proceed without funding from the federal government, which governs how Belgium finances infrastructure for international institutions it hosts.  The Evere campus is near NATO’s former headquarters, and the area retains security infrastructure. A mother of two pupils, who works at the Commission, said: “It’s a bit scary, especially given the current geopolitical climate.” | iStock Two letters seen by POLITICO — from former Prime Minister Alexander De Croo to former European Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn in June 2024, and from Belgian Ambassador to NATO François de Kerchove to the schools’ Secretary-General Beckmann in February 2025 — acknowledge parents’ worries and reaffirm Belgium’s “well-established tradition” of supporting the European Schools, but offer no guarantees of a fifth school. Parents had raised their concerns with Hahn and Beckmann, who in turn wrote to De Croo and de Kerchove. “If we do not plan now, this is a disaster in the making for later,” said Pim Gesquiere, president of the Woluwe APEEE. A CAMPUS ON BORROWED TIME Adding to parents’ unease, the Evere campus’ permit expires in March 2027. Urban planning documents show a new road cutting through the school grounds as part of the PAD Défense redevelopment plan, a master plan for infrastructure and security upgrades near NATO headquarters. However, Decraecker said that a request to extend the permit until 2037 is expected to receive final approval by the end of 2026. “This extension would require adapting the playground at the rear of the site in order to allow, when the time comes, for the creation of a new roadway serving the future neighborhood,” she said. “Regarding the modification of road infrastructure, the school’s management has been informed of this prospect. Although this is not ideal for day-to-day operations, the management appears willing to accept this constraint,” she added. It’s not a new predicament for the European Schools. In Frankfurt, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde recently called it “embarrassing” that local authorities still hadn’t found space for a new European School to ease overcrowding. “We can’t move from container to container to potato field,” she said. Beckmann and EEB2 Director Kamila Malik acknowledged the structural problems, but defended the anticipated move as a short-term necessity to ease overcrowding and ensure safety. They said they hope using Evere to its full capacity will pressure Belgium to finally start building the fifth school. OF BARRACKS, SECURITY CHECKS AND BAD AIR The Evere campus is located near NATO’s former headquarters, which was repurposed in 2020 to host Belgium’s largest terrorism trials following the attacks at Zaventem Airport and Brussels’ Maelbeek metro station in March 2016. The area retains much of its security infrastructure: fenced perimeters, surveillance systems and limited green space, with traffic regularly slowed by security checks around NATO’s current headquarters, located just across the street. Parents argued these conditions make the site unsuitable for young children. “This is not where children should grow up, this is not a school,” said the mother of two kids who will be affected by the move. Some parents are even considering working part-time or returning to their home countries because of the move. “We moved here because of my job, but I don’t want my kids to grow up in a site surrounded by barbed wire and in barracks,” said the mother of one primary pupil. The campus’ high-profile neighbor is not welcome, either. “You’re in the middle of NATO’s defense area. It’s a bit scary, especially given the current geopolitical climate,” said a mother of two students, who currently works at the European Commission. “Inside the Commission, we get all sorts of briefings about drones and defense threats. It’s not unreasonable to think it could be a target.” It’s not just the surroundings that are less than ideal. A 2024 Brussels SIRANE air-quality study also found the Evere campus had the worst air quality of any primary school location in the region. EEB2 Director Malik countered that the school did its own testing and the results were “very, very good” and “much better than in central Brussels.” POLITICO was denied access to the full report. Families are also struggling with logistics, with children split between Evere and Woluwe — it would take about 15 minutes by bicycle or 40 minutes by public transport to get from one to the other. Parents noted that most of them are expatriates who moved for EU jobs, leaving family support networks behind. “You are dependent on having all your kids in one location, on the bus service, on the garderie [daycare] … it is not helpful when your kids are being moved,” said one parent. STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS PERSIST From the outside, the European Schools seem like a privileged enclave. But the system is stretched to its limits. The schools’ complex governance structure, split between the EU and national bodies, means “everyone decides, and no one decides … everyone will always find someone else to blame,” said the mother of a student in primary and one in secondary. They also complained that decisions are made behind closed doors and without proper consultations with parents. Beckmann rejected the accusations of not sticking to promises, explaining that the relocation clause had always been subject to review in 2024 and that decisions were made collectively. Meanwhile, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) study conducted in five European Schools between September and November 2018 found that children with disabilities were often not provided with adequate accommodation to allow them to learn in an inclusive environment. The report did not specify which schools were reviewed. Teachers have also raised concerns over employment conditions at the European Schools. Between February and March this year, staff in Brussels staged several strikes to demand equal rights for locally recruited teachers, who face precarious contracts, lack job stability and have no union representation. To address job-security concerns, Beckmann said that the Board of Governors decided to provide staff that have worked in the system for more than eight years with permanent contracts. Regarding the salary concerns, he said the system is also looking into it, but argued that the European Schools in Belgium already offer “more than competitive” salaries compared with national schools. But for many Brussels parents, it may not be enough. “The whole history of overcrowding in the European Schools is about inadequate planning,” said Gesquiere. “And the children are the ones caught in the middle.”

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump should not get involved in European democracy, Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday, days after the U.S. president launched a stinging attack on Europe. “It is not on us, when it comes to elections, to decide who the leader of the country will be, but on the people of this country … That’s the sovereignty of the voters, and this must be protected,” the European Commission president said in an interview at the POLITICO 28 gala event in Brussels. “Nobody else is supposed to interfere, without any question,” the Commission chief added in response to a question about the U.S. National Security Strategy, which was published last week and caused uproar in Europe. The strategy claims Europe is facing “civilizational erasure” within the next 20 years, a narrative that has resonated well with Europe’s far-right leaders, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, as well as in Russia. The document also bashes European efforts to rein in far-right parties, calling such moves political censorship, and speaks of “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.” Von der Leyen said this is one of the reasons why the EU proposed the Democracy Shield, meant to step up the fight against foreign interference online, including in elections. The Commission chief said she has always had “a very good working relationship” with U.S. presidents, and ” this is also the case today.” However, she stressed that Europe should focus on itself rather than making comparisons with others. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist. But what is so important? [What’s] important is that … we take pride in being the European Union, that we look at our strength and that we deal with the challenges that we do have,” she said. “Ofa course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing. And this is so important that we keep in mind: what is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe. This is our task … [to] look at ourselves and be proud of ourselves,” von der Leyen said, to applause from the crowd. The U.S. president denounced Europe as a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns that aired Tuesday in a special episode of The Conversation podcast. “I think they’re weak,” Trump said, referring to the continent’s presidents and prime ministers, adding, “I think they don’t know what to do. Europe doesn’t know what to do.”  POLITICO on Thursday named Trump the most powerful person shaping European politics, placing him at the top of the annual P28 list. The list highlights who is expected to have the most sway over Europe’s political direction in the coming year, based on input from POLITICO’s newsroom and the power players POLITICO’s journalists speak with.

BRUSSELS — More than 80 percent of Europe’s companies will be freed from environmental-reporting obligations after EU institutions reached a deal on a proposal to cut green rules on Monday.   The deal is a major legislative victory for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her push cut red tape for business, one of the defining missions of her second term in office. However, that victory came at a political cost: The file pushed the coalition that got her re-elected to the brink of collapse and led her own political family, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), to team up with the far right to get the deal over the line. The new law, the first of many so-called omnibus simplification bills, will massively reduce the scope of corporate sustainability disclosure rules introduced in the last political term. The aim of the red tape cuts is to boost the competitiveness of European businesses and drive economic growth. The deal concludes a year of intense negotiations between EU decision-makers, investors, businesses and civil society, who argued over how much to reduce reporting obligations for companies on the environmental impacts of their business and supply chains — all while the effects of climate change in Europe were getting worse. “This is an important step towards our common goal to create a more favourable business environment to help our companies grow and innovate,” said Marie Bjerre, Danish minister for European affairs. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of the year, led the negotiations on behalf of EU governments. Marie Bjerre, Den|mark’s Minister for European affairs, who said the agreement was an important step for a more favourable business environment. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images Proposed by the Commission last February, the omnibus is designed to address businesses’ concerns that the paperwork needed to comply with EU laws is costly and unfair. Many companies have been blaming Europe’s overzealous green lawmaking and the restrictions it places on doing business in the region for low economic growth and job losses, preventing them from competing with U.S. and Chinese rivals.   But Green and civil society groups — and some businesses too — argued this backtracking would put environmental and human health at risk. That disagreement reverberated through Brussels, disturbing the balance of power in Parliament as the EPP broke the so-called cordon sanitaire — an unwritten rule that forbids mainstream parties from collaborating with the far right — to pass major cuts to green rules. It set a precedent for future lawmaking in Europe as the bloc grapples with the at-times conflicting priorities of boosting economic growth and advancing on its green transition. The word “omnibus” has since become a mainstay of the Brussels bubble vernacular with the Commission putting forward at least 10 more simplification bills on topics like data protection, finance, chemical use, agriculture and defense. LESS PAPERWORK   The deal struck by negotiators from the European Parliament, EU Council and the Commission includes changes to two key pieces of legislation in the EU’s arsenal of green rules: The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).  The rules originally required businesses large and small to collect and publish data on their greenhouse gas emissions, how much water they use, the impact of rising temperatures on working conditions, chemical leakages and whether their suppliers — which are often spread across the globe — respect human rights and labor laws.    Now the reporting rules will only apply to companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover, while only the largest companies — with 5,000 employees and at least €1.5 billion in net turnover — are covered by supply chain due diligence obligations. They also don’t have to adopt transition plans, with details on how they intend to adapt their business model to reach targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.   Importantly the decision-makers got rid of an EU-level legal framework that allowed civilians to hold businesses accountable for the impact of their supply chains on human rights or local ecosystems. MEPs have another say on whether the deal goes through or not, with a final vote on the file slated for Dec. 16. It means that lawmakers have a chance to reject what the co-legislators have agreed to if they consider it to be too far from their original position.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will on Monday evening meet NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa in Brussels. The leaders are set to meet at around 8 p.m. at Rutte’s official residence. “I won’t go into what may be discussed in detail in this meeting later today but it’s clearly to be seen against the background of the ongoing discussions on peace for Ukraine,” Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho said Monday. The topic of reparation loans will likely be raised, according to Pinho, who mentioned von der Leyen’s meeting on Friday with Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, which was described as “a good meeting” and “a good exchange of views.” “Discussions [will] continue in regard to reparations loans up until the European Council next week, where the aim is to have a final decision and a clear outcome for a solution to support the financing of Ukraine’s need in 2026 and 2027,” Pinho said. The high-stakes European Council summit will begin next Thursday and will focus on efforts to persuade Belgium to approve the use of Russian frozen assets to help the war effort in Ukraine.

Authorities detained three suspects and raided the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the College of Europe as part of a probe into suspected fraud related to EU-funded training for junior diplomats. The searches — conducted at the request of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and approved by the investigating judge and Belgium’s Federal Police — were conducted at the EEAS in Brussels, in buildings of the College of Europe in Bruges and at private homes, according to a statement from the EPPO. Belgian authorities are investigating the European Union Diplomatic Academy, a training program for junior diplomats across EU countries. The raids were first reported by Euractiv. The EPPO said it has “strong suspicions” that rules around “fair competition” were breached when “confidential information related to the ongoing procurement was shared with one of the candidates participating in the tender.” This article is being updated.

STRASBOURG — The United Arab Emirates embarked on a lobbying blitz in Strasbourg this week as the European Parliament prepared to vote on a resolution condemning ongoing atrocities in the Sudanese civil war.   The Emirati delegation held meetings with key MEPs to insist that the UAE is playing a constructive role in Sudan, despite accusations that Abu Dhabi actively backs the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a notorious militia implicated in ethnic massacres and sexual violence.  Parliament lawmakers ultimately passed a resolution Thursday afternoon that decried Sudan’s devastating civil war, but without mentioning the UAE’s alleged interference in the conflict.   Human rights NGOs, independent media and Sudanese officials have said Abu Dhabi has fueled the conflict by transferring weapons to the RSF as it battles the Sudanese Armed Forces, which are supported by Egypt, for control of the country.  The UAE denies supporting the RSF or interfering in Sudan’s war. A UAE government spokesperson told POLITICO there is zero evidence of interference and rejected any link to the paramilitary group.  The Parliament text — backed by a broad coalition including the conservative European People’s Party (EPP), the center-left Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists, the far-right Patriots, the liberals of Renew and the Greens — condemns the two-year conflict, which has killed tens of thousands of people and plunged 25 million into extreme hunger.   According to three Parliament officials familiar with negotiations between the political factions, language that criticized the UAE’s alleged role in Sudan proposed by the Socialists, Renew and Greens proved to be a red line for the EPP — which was, in turn, supported by groups to its right.   SUPPORTIVE SIGNAL  The resolution drew an unusually assertive diplomatic operation from the Gulf.   Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE’s envoy for Europe, traveled to Strasbourg with an entourage to meet with MEPs and argue that Abu Dhabi is working toward peace in Sudan rather than exacerbating the conflict.   Two officials familiar with the talks told POLITICO that Emirati representatives denied any link to the RSF, while insisting they only wanted peace in Sudan and to be a key mediator for the country.  Abu Dhabi’s delegation was provided a private room inside the European Parliament, next to the hemicycle, to conduct its meetings.   “When foreign dignitaries come to Parliament and ask for a room, we give it to them. Not everyone asks, but if they do and if a room is available, we do,” Parliament President Roberta Metsola’s spokesperson Juri Laas told POLITICO.  Despite the absence of a direct reference to the UAE’s alleged support for the RSF, the Socialists, Renew and the Greens ultimately agreed to support the resolution.   Three people involved in the process said the groups were satisfied with the language negotiated with the EPP and wanted to send a strong signal of support to Sudan.  The Parliament’s resolution eventually condemned the RSF’s “atrocities” in Sudan and says ethnically motivated killings, rape, sexual enslavement and the starvation of civilians could potentially constitute “acts of genocide.”  The text calls for sanctions on the militias involved in the civil war, plus penalties for “financiers and external enablers,” but without naming any other parties to the conflict.  POLITICO reviewed an unofficial document circulated by the UAE ahead of the vote, rejecting allegations that it provided material, funding or political backing to the RSF.  Marit Maij, one of the lead negotiators for the S&D, confirmed she met with the Abu Dhabi delegation “at the request of the UAE” inside the Parliament in Strasbourg.   “We discussed the horrific situation in Sudan,” she said. “During the conversation, I stated that we have information that the Emirates are fueling the war by supporting the RSF.”  The Greens’ negotiator on the file, MEP Nela Riehl, said “there’s nothing in the text that we oppose” but lamented that “things [are] missing,” including a clear mention of the UAE.  The resolution does name-check the UAE as a key party in mediation efforts to achieve peace, along the U.S., Egypt and Saudi Arabia.   SENSITIVE MOMENT  The Emirati lobbying push comes at a sensitive moment in EU-UAE relations.   Brussels is pursuing closer economic ties with the Gulf state and is deep into ambitious free-trade negotiations — which one senior Emirati official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive discussions, said are progressing at lightning speed.  The UAE downplayed the significance of Nusseibeh’s Strasbourg trip.   A government spokesperson told POLITICO it was part of a routine tour through France, the U.K. and Slovakia “to discuss bilateral relations and issues of mutual interest, including key regional developments.”  Gamaal El Attar, executive director of the Belgian human rights organization IFRD — which itself lobbied heavily on the resolution — characterized the UAE’s efforts as “damage control,” accusing Abu Dhabi of “heavy counter-lobbying” to avoid being singled out.  The Emirati foreign ministry said in a statement it “welcomed the European Parliament’s timely resolution” and praised the fact that it “endorsed the work of the Quad,” the regional grouping the UAE belongs to alongside the U.S., Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which has sought an end to the war. 

BRUSSELS — European Parliament members this week rubbished the EU executive’s Democracy Shield plan, an initiative aimed at bolstering the bloc’s defenses against Russian sabotage, election meddling and cyber and disinformation campaigns. The Commission’s plan “feels more like a European neighborhood watch group chat,” Kim van Sparrentak, a Dutch member of the Greens group, told a committee meeting on Monday evening. On Tuesday, EU Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath faced the brunt of that censure before the full Parliament plenary, as centrist and left-leaning lawmakers panned the plan for its weaknesses and far-right members warned that Brussels is rolling out a propaganda machine of its own. “We want to see more reform, more drive and more actions,” Swedish center-right lawmaker Tomas Tobé, who leads the Parliament’s report on the matter, told McGrath. The European Democracy Shield was unveiled Nov. 12 as a response to Russia’s escalating meddling in the bloc. In past months, Europe has been awash in hybrid threats. Security services linked railway disruptions in Poland and the Baltics to Russian-linked saboteurs, while unexplained drone flyovers have crippled public services in Belgium and probed critical infrastructure sites across the Nordics. At the same time, pro-Kremlin influence campaigns have promoted deepfake videos and fabricated scandals and divisive narratives ahead of elections in Moldova, Slovakia and across the EU, often using local intermediaries to mask their origins.   Together these tactics inform a pressure campaign that European security officials say is designed to exhaust institutions, undermine trust and stretch Europe’s defenses.  The Democracy Shield was a key pledge President Ursula von der Leyen made last year. But the actual strategy presented this month lacks teeth and concrete actions, and badly fails to meet the challenge, opponents said. While “full of new ways to exchange information,” the strategy presents “no other truly new or effective proposals to actually take action,” said van Sparrentak, the Dutch Greens lawmaker.  EU RESPONSE A WORK IN PROGRESS Much of the Shield’s text consists of calls to support existing initiatives or proposed new ones to come later down the line.   One of the pillars of the initiative, a Democratic Resilience Center that would pool information on hybrid warfare and interference, was announced by von der Leyen in September but became a major sticking point during the drafting of the Shield before its Nov. 12 unveiling.  The final proposal for the Center lacks teeth, critics said. Instead of an independent agency, as the Parliament had wanted, it will be a forum for exchanging information, two Commission officials told POLITICO.  The Center needs “a clear legal basis” and should be “independent” with “proper funding,” Tobé said Tuesday.   Austrian liberal Helmut Brandstätter said in a comment to POLITICO that “some aspects of the center are already embedded in the EEAS [the EU’s diplomatic service] and other institutions. Instead of duplicating them, we should strive to consolidate and streamline our tools.” EU countries also have to opt into participating in the center, creating a risk that national authorities neglect its work.  RIGHT BLASTS EU ‘CENSORSHIP’  For right-wing and far-right forces, the Shield reflects what they see as EU censorship and meddling by Brussels in European national politics.   “The stated goals of the Democracy Shield look good on paper but we all know that behind these noble goals, what you actually want is to build a political machinery without an electoral mandate,” said Csaba Dömötör, a Hungarian MEP from the far-right Patriots group.   “You cannot appropriate the powers and competence of sovereign countries and create a tool which is going to allow you to have an influence on the decisions of elections” in individual EU countries, said Polish hard-right MEP Beata Szydło.   Those arguments echo some of the criticisms by the United States’ MAGA movement of European social media regulation, which figures like Vice President JD Vance have previously compared to Soviet-era censorship laws.  The Democracy Shield strategy includes attempts to support European media organizations and fact-checking to stem the flood of disinformation around political issues. Romanian right-wing MEP Claudiu-Richard Târziu said her country’s 2024 presidential elections had been cancelled due to “an alleged foreign intervention” that remained unproven.  “This Democracy Shield should not create a mechanism whereby other member states could go through what Romania experienced in 2024 — this is an attack against democracy — and eventually the voters will have zero confidence,” he said.  In a closing statement on Tuesday at the plenary, Commissioner McGrath defended the Democracy Shield from its hard-right critics but did not respond to more specific criticisms of the proposal.  “To those who question the Shield and who say it’s about censorship. What I say to you is that I and my colleagues in the European Commission will be the very first people to defend your right to level robust debate in a public forum,” he said.

Tech tycoon Elon Musk on Wednesday threw a jab at European democracy — and the president of the European Commission. “If democracy is the foundation of freedom, surely your position as leader of the EU should be elected directly by the people?” Musk wrote in a post on social media platform X, which he owns, to Ursula von der Leyen. In another post, the Tesla and SpaceX chief added that the “leader of the EU” should be “elected by the people” of the bloc, “not appointed by a committee.” Musk was reacting to von der Leyen’s unveiling of the European Democracy Shield, a new strategy to step up the fight against foreign interference online, including in elections. “Democracy is the foundation of our freedom. Democracy is the foundation of our prosperity. Democracy is the foundation of our security,” von der Leyen wrote on social media. The German politician had pitched the Democracy Shield idea in a campaign speech at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit last year as she sought another term as Commission president ahead of the 2024 European election. The Commission president — head of the EU’s executive, though not literally the “leader of the EU” — is proposed and voted on by the European Council, comprising the EU’s 27 heads of state and government, for a five-year term. The proposed candidate also has to win a vote among members of the European Parliament. After getting the required backing last year, von der Leyen survived three motions of no confidence by factions in the Parliament in July and October this year. The centerpiece of the Democracy Shield strategy is the European Centre for Democratic Resilience, which draws on expertise across current and aspiring EU member countries to counter disinformation. Other elements include guidance on how to use AI in elections or on using influencers to help people understand EU rules, such as regulations on online content or political advertising. Musk, who played a brief but prominent role earlier this year as U.S. President Donald Trump’s adviser after supporting him vigorously throughout the 2024 election campaign, has often used his platform to amplify controversial views on democracy, free speech and political leadership around the world.