A federal judge has rejected a bid by state and local officials in Minnesota to end Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s massive deployment of thousands of federal agents to aggressively enforce immigration laws. In a ruling Saturday, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez found strong evidence that the ongoing federal operation “has had, and will likely continue to have, profound and even heartbreaking, consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities, and Minnesotans.” “There is evidence that ICE and CBP agents have engaged in racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other harmful actions,” Menendez said, adding that the operation has disrupted daily life for Minnesotans — harming school attendance, forcing police overtime work and straining emergency services. She also said there were signs the Trump administration was using the surge to force the state to change its immigration policies — pointing to a list of policy demands by Attorney General Pam Bondi and similar comments by White House immigration czar Tom Homan. But the Biden-appointed judge said state officials’ arguments that the state was being punished or unfairly treated by the federal government were insufficient to justify blocking the surge altogether. And in a 30-page opinion, the judge said she was “particularly reluctant to take a side in the debate about the purpose behind Operation Metro Surge.” The surge has involved about 3,000 federal officers, a size roughly triple that of the local police forces in Minneapolis and St. Paul. However, Menendez said it was difficult to assess how large or onerous a federal law enforcement presence could be before it amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion on state authority. “There is no clear way for the Court to determine at what point Defendants’ alleged unlawful actions … becomes (sic) so problematic that they amount to unconstitutional coercion and an infringement on Minnesota’s state sovereignty,” she wrote, later adding that there is “no precedent for a court to micromanage such decisions.” Menendez said her decision was strongly influenced by a federal appeals court’s ruling last week that blocked an order she issued reining in the tactics Homeland Security officials could use against peaceful protesters opposing the federal operation. She noted that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted her order in that separate lawsuit even though it was much more limited than the sweeping relief the state and cities sought. “If that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here — halting the entire operation — certainly would,” the judge said in her Saturday ruling. Attorney General Pam Bondi on X called the decision “another HUGE” win for the Justice Department in its Minnesota crackdown and noted that it came from a judge appointed by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat. “Neither sanctuary policies nor meritless litigation will stop the Trump Administration from enforcing federal law in Minnesota,” she wrote. Minneapolis has been rocked in recent weeks by the killings of two protesters by federal immigration enforcement, triggering public outcry and grief – and souring many Americans on the president’s deportation agenda. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have both called for federal agents to leave the city as the chaos has only intensified in recent weeks. “This federal occupation of Minnesota long ago stopped being a matter of immigration enforcement,” Walz said at a press conference last week after two Customs and Border Patrol agents shot and killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti. “It’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of our state. And today, that campaign claimed another life. I’ve seen the videos from several angles. And it’s sickening.” Backlash from Pretti’s killing has prompted Trump to pull back on elements of the Minneapolis operation. Two CBP agents involved in the shooting were placed on administrative leave. CBP Commander Greg Bovino was sidelined from his post in Minnesota, with the White House sending border czar Tom Homan to the state in an effort to calm tensions. Officials also said some federal agents involved in the surge were cycling out of state, but leaders were vague about whether the size of the overall operation was being scaled back. “I don’t think it’s a pullback,” Trump told Fox News on Tuesday. “It’s a little bit of a change.”

Second Amendment advocates are warning that Republicans shouldn’t count on them to show up in November, after President Donald Trump insisted that demonstrator Alex Pretti “should not have been carrying a gun.” The White House labels itself the “most pro-Second Amendment administration in history.” But Trump’s comments about Pretti, who was legally carrying a licensed firearm when he was killed by federal agents last week, have some gun rights advocates threatening to sit out the midterms. “I’ve spent 72 hours on the phone trying to unfuck this thing. Trump has got to correct his statements now,” said one Second Amendment advocate, granted anonymity to speak about private conservations. The person said Second Amendment advocates are “furious.” “And they will not come out and vote. He can’t correct it three months before the election.” The response to Pretti’s killing isn’t the first time Second Amendment advocates have felt abandoned by Trump. The powerful lobbying and advocacy groups, that for decades reliably struck fear into the hearts of Republicans, have clashed multiple times with Trump during his first year back in power. And their ire comes at a delicate moment for the GOP. While Democrats are unlikely to pick up support from gun-rights groups, the repeated criticisms from organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights suggest that the Trump administration may be alienating a core constituency it needs to turn out as it seeks to retain its slim majority in the House and Senate. It doesn’t take much to swing an election, said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “All you have to do is lose four, five, six percent of their base who left it blank, who didn’t write a check, who didn’t walk districts, you lose,” he said. “Especially marginal districts — and the House is not a good situation right now.” And it wasn’t only the president who angered gun-rights advocates. Others in the administration made similar remarks about Pretti, denouncing the idea of carrying a gun into a charged environment such as a protest. FBI Director Kash Patel said “you cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said she didn’t “know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” These sentiments are anathema to many Republicans who have fought for years against the idea that carrying a gun or multiple magazine clips implies guilt or an intent to commit a crime. “I sent a message to high-place people in the administration with three letters, W.T.F.,” Brown said. “If it had just been the FBI director and a few other highly-placed administration officials, that would have been one thing but when the president came out and doubled down that was a whole new level. This was not a good look for your base. You can’t be a conservative and not be radically pro-gun.” A senior administration official brushed off concerns about Republicans losing voters in the midterms over the outrage. “No, I don’t think that some of the comments that were made over the past 96 hours by certain administration officials are going to impede the unbelievable and strong relationship the administration has with the Second Amendment community, both on a personal level and given the historic successes that President Trump has been able to deliver for gun rights,” the official said. But this wasn’t the only instance when the Trump administration angered gun-rights advocates. In September after the shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis that killed two children, reports surfaced that the Department of Justice was looking into restricting transgender Americans from owning firearms. The suspect, who died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the scene of the shooting, was a 23-year-old transgender woman. “The signaling out of a specific demographic for a total ban on firearms possession needs to comport with the Constitution and its bounds and anything that exceeds the bounds of the Constitution is simply impermissible,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, told POLITICO. At the time, the National Rifle Association, which endorsed Trump in three consecutive elections, said they don’t support any proposals to “arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.” Additionally, some activists, who spoke to the gun-focused independent publication “The Reload,” said they were upset about the focus from federal law enforcement about seizing firearms during the Washington crime crackdown in the summer. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office wouldn’t pursue felony charges in Washington over carrying guns, The Washington Post reported. Trump, during his first term, infuriated some in the pro-gun movement when in 2018 his administration issued a regulation to ban bump stocks. The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the rule in 2024. “I think the administration clearly wants to be known as pro-Second Amendment, and many of the officials do believe in the Second Amendment, but my job at Gun Owners of America is to hold them to their words and to get them to act on their promises. And right now it’s a mixed record,” said Gun Owners for America director of federal affairs Aidan Johnston. In the immediate aftermath of the Pretti shooting, the NRA called for a full investigation rather than for “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.” But now, the lobbying group is defending Trump’s fuller record. “Rather than trying to extract meaning from every off-the-cuff remark, we look at what the administration is doing, and the Trump administration is, and has been, the most pro-2A administration in modern history,” said John Commerford, NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director. “From signing marquee legislation that dropped unconstitutional taxes on certain firearms and suppressors to joining pro-2A plaintiffs in cases around the country, the Trump administration is taking action to support the right of every American to keep and bear arms.” In his first month in office, Trump directed the Department of Justice to examine all regulations, guidance, plans and executive actions from President Joe Biden’s administration that may infringe on Second Amendment rights. The administration in December created a civil rights division office of Second Amendment rights at DOJ to work on gun issues. That work, said a second senior White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, should prove the administration’s bona fides and nothing said in the last week means they’ve changed their stance on the Second Amendment. “Gun groups know and gun owners know that there hasn’t been a bigger defender of the Second Amendment than the president,” said a second senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak on a sensitive issue. “But I think the president’s talking about in the moment— in that very specific moment— when it is such a powder keg going on, and when there’s someone who’s actively impeding enforcement operations, things are going to happen. Or things can happen.” Andrew Howard contributed to this report.

The Senate passed a compromise spending package Friday, clearing a path for Congress to avert a lengthy government shutdown. The 71-29 vote came a day after Senate Democrats and President Donald Trump struck a deal to attach two weeks of Homeland Security funding to five spending bills that will fund the Pentagon, State Department and many other agencies until Sept. 30. Only five of 53 Republicans voted against it after Trump publicly urged lawmakers Thursday to approve the legislation. Democrats were split, with 24 of 47 caucus members opposing the package. The Senate’s vote won’t avert a partial shutdown that will start early Saturday morning since House lawmakers are out of town and not scheduled to return until Monday. During a private call with House Republicans Friday, Speaker Mike Johnson said the likeliest route to House passage would be bringing the package up under a fast-track process Monday evening. That would require a two-thirds majority — and a significant number of Democratic votes. The $1.2 trillion package could face challenges in the House, especially from conservative hard-liners who have said they would vote against any Senate changes to what the House already passed. Many House Democrats are also wary of stopgap funding for DHS, which would keep ICE and Border Patrol funded at current levels without immediate new restrictions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he had been in constant contact with Johnson “for better or worse” about getting the funding deal through the House, predicting that the Louisiana Republican is “prepared to do everything he can as quickly as possible.” “Hopefully things go well over there,” he added. If the Trump-blessed deal ultimately gets signed into law, Congress will have approved more than 95 percent of federal funding — leaving only a full-year DHS bill on its to-do list. Congress has already funded several agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs and Justice. “These are fiscally responsible bills that reflect months of hard work and deliberation from members on both parties and both sides of the Capitol,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said before the final vote. The Office of Management and Budget has issued shutdown guidance for agencies not already funded, which include furloughs of some personnel. Republicans agreeing to strip out the full-year DHS bill and replace it with a two-week patch is a major win for Democrats. They quickly unified behind a demand to split off and renegotiate immigration enforcement funding after federal agents deployed to Minnesota fatally shot 37-year-old U.S. citizen Alex Pretti last week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who helped negotiate the final deal, took a victory lap after the vote, saying “the agreement we reached today did exactly what Democrats wanted.” But Democrats will still need to negotiate with the White House and congressional Republicans about what, if any, policy changes they are willing to codify into law as part of a long-term bill. Republicans are open to some changes, including requiring independent investigations. But they’ve already dismissed some of Democrats’ main demands, including requiring judicial warrants for immigration arrests. “I want my Republican colleagues to listen closely: Senate Democrats will not support a DHS bill unless it reins in ICE and ends the violence,” Schumer said. “We will know soon enough if your colleagues understand the stakes.” Republicans have demands of their own, and many believe the most likely outcome is that another DHS patch will be needed. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), for instance, wants a future vote on legislation barring federal funding for cities that don’t comply with federal immigration laws. Other Republicans and the White House have pointed to it as a key issue in the upcoming negotiations. “I am demanding that my solution to fixing sanctuary cities at least have a vote. You’re going to put ideas on the floor to make ICE better? I want to put an idea on the floor to get to the root cause of the problem,” Graham said. The Senate vote caps off a days-long sprint to avoid a second lengthy shutdown in the span of four months. Senate Democrats and Trump said Thursday they had a deal, only for it to run into a snag when Graham delayed a quick vote as he fumed over a provision in the bill, first reported by POLITICO, related to former special counsel Jack Smith’s now-defunct investigation targeting Trump. Senate leaders ultimately got the agreement back on track Friday afternoon by offering votes on seven changes to the bill, all of which failed. The Senate defeated proposals to cut refugee assistance, strip out all earmarks from the package and redirect funding for ICE to Medicaid, among others. Graham raged against the House’s move to overturn a law passed last year allowing senators to sue for up to $500,000 per incident if their data had been used in former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the 2020 election. But he backed off his threats to hold up the bill after announcing that leaders had agreed to support a future vote on the matter. “You jammed me,” Graham said on the floor Friday. “Speaker Johnson, I won’t forget this.” Meredith Lee Hill and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump rose to power on his immigration agenda. Now, it’s threatening to box him in. After months of aggressive enforcement actions meant to telegraph strength on one of the Republican Party’s signature issues, the White House has had to backtrack in the face of Americans’ backlash to its approach — particularly after two protesters were killed by federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis. But the calculus that forced the Trump administration to change course is a double-edged sword: If the administration appears to ease up on its maximalist stance against illegal immigration, it risks leaving its hardcore MAGA base disenchanted at a moment when Republicans can’t afford to lose support. And if it doesn’t, it risks alienating moderate Republicans, independents, young voters and Latinos who support the administration’s immigration enforcement in theory but dislike how it’s being executed. “I worry because if we lose the agenda, we’re done — and people don’t fully appreciate how big of an issue this is,” said Sean Spicer, Trump’s former press secretary. “When you have a two-seat majority in the House or a two- or three-seat majority in the Senate, you’re on a razor’s edge. To not acknowledge that is ridiculous.” For Trump, a midterms rout means the last two years of his administration will be eaten up by Democratic stonewalling, investigations and likely impeachment inquiries, rather than his own agenda — a situation the administration desperately wants to avoid. The result is a rare moment of vulnerability on Trump’s strongest issue, one that has exposed fault lines inside the Republican Party, sharpened Democratic attacks, and forced the White House into a defensive crouch it never expected to take. Some Trump allies insist the GOP shouldn’t be scared of their best issue, blaming Democrats for putting them on the back foot. “This has been President Trump’s area of greatest success,” said Trump pollster John McLaughlin. “You’re looking at the Republicans be defensive on something they shouldn’t be defensive about.” A recent POLITICO poll underscores the administration’s delicate balancing act: 1 in 5 voters who backed the president in 2024 say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, and more than 1 in 3 Trump voters say that while they support the goals of his mass deportation campaign, they disapprove of the way he is implementing it. The administration this week struggled to manage the political fallout from demonstrator Alex Pretti’s killing, where even typically loyal Republicans criticized the president and others called for the ousting of his top officials, namely Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The White House softened its hardline rhetoric, and Trump shifted his personnel in charge of Minneapolis operations, sending border czar Tom Homan to the state to deescalate tensions on the ground. A subdued Homan told reporters Thursday that he had “productive” conversations with state and local Democrats and that federal agents’ operations would be more targeted moving forward. He vowed to stick by the administration’s mission, but said he hopes to reduce Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence in the city if federal officials get access to state jails. The president “doesn’t want to be dealing with clashes between protesters and federal agents on the ground in Minnesota,” said one person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If Trump was more invested in the outcome of this, he would have sent in the National Guard. He would declare martial law. He would be more aggressive.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, in a statement, said that the administration is always looking for “the most effective way” to implement what it sees as a mandate from voters to carry out mass deportations. “Our focus remains the same: prioritizing violent criminal illegal aliens while also enforcing the law — anyone who is in the country illegally is eligible to be deported,” she said, adding that includes “the President’s continued calls for local Democrat leaders to work with the Administration to remove illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from their communities.” Some Trump allies, fearful the aggressive tactics will isolate crucial swing voters in November, have argued that Republicans have to keep the focus on criminal arrests, public safety and the Trump administration’s success in securing the southern border, which are more popular with voters across the board. But immigration hawks in the Republican Party have grown increasingly apoplectic over the administration’s moves this week, including an apparent openness to compromise with Democrats on policies to boost the oversight of federal immigration officers. They argue the administration is paying too much attention to cable news coverage and donor anxiety and not enough to the voters who propelled Trump back into office. “The upshot of the lame duck second Trump term was supposed to be that he was going to get things done regardless of the pressure from consultants, pollsters and left-wing Republicans. That doesn’t seem to be happening and it’s disappointing,” said Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, a conservative group. “I’m dumbfounded that CNN coverage seems to have more influence over the White House’s immigration enforcement agenda than the base that stood by Trump through everything over the last decade.” Even so, some of the more hardline elements of the president’s base acknowledge that the splashy optics of the administration’s immigration enforcement actions have introduced a vulnerability. “The big muscular show of force — you invite too much confrontation,” said a second person close to the White House, also granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Let’s try to be quieter about it but deport just as many people. Be a little sneakier. Don’t have the flexing and the machismo part of it. There’s a certain element of that that’s cool but as much as we can, why can’t we be stealthy and pop up all over Minnesota?” “We were almost provoking the reaction,” the person added. “I’m all for the smartest tactics as long as the end result is as many deportations as possible.” But the person warned that any perception of backtracking could depress a base already uneasy about the economy. “Our base is generally not wealthy and they’re not doing well,” the person said. “They’re struggling. If you take away immigration — if they don’t believe he means it — holy cow, that’s not good.”

BRUSSELS — France is hurtling toward a ban for children younger than 15 to access social media — a move that would see it become only the second country in the world to take that step. The plan comes amid rising concerns about the impacts of apps including Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and X on children’s mental health. After Australia in December kicked kids under 16 off a host of platforms, France is leading the charge in Europe with a bill that would prohibit social media for under-15s as soon as this year. Supported by President Emmanuel Macron and his centrist Renaissance party, the proposed law passed the French parliament’s lower chamber in the early hours of Tuesday. Here are 5 things to know. WHEN WILL A BAN KICK IN? While the timing isn’t finalized, the government is targeting September of this year. “As of September 1st, our children and adolescents will finally be protected. I will see to it,” Macron said in an X post. The bill now has to be voted on by the French Senate, and Macron’s governing coalition is aiming for a discussion on Feb. 16. If the Senate votes the bill through, a joint committee with representatives of both upper and lower houses of parliament will be formed to finalize the text. WHICH PLATFORMS WILL BE BANNED? That decision will lie with France’s media authority Arcom, since the legislation itself doesn’t outline which platforms will or won’t be covered. The architect of the bill, Renaissance lawmaker Laure Miller, has said it will be similar to Australia’s and would likely see under-15s banned from using Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and X. Australia no longer allows children under 16 to create accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube. Australia’s list doesn’t include Discord, GitHub, Google Classroom, LEGO Play, Messenger, Pinterest, Roblox, Steam and Steam Chat, WhatsApp or YouTube Kids. Miller has also described plans to come up with a definition that could see the ban cover individual features on social media platforms. WhatsApp Stories and Channels — a feature of the popular messaging app — could be included, as well as the online chat within the gaming platform Roblox, the French MP said. WHO WILL ENFORCE IT? With France set to be the first country within the European Union to take this step, a major sticking point as the bill moves through parliament has been who will enforce it. Authorities have finally settled on an answer: Brussels. The EU has comprehensive social media rules, the Digital Services Act, which on paper prohibits countries from giving big platforms additional obligations. After some back and forth between France and the European Commission, they have come to an agreement. France can’t give more obligations to platforms but it can set a minimum age on accessing social media. It will then be up to the Commission to ensure national rules are followed. This is similar to how other parts of the DSA work, such as illegal content. Exactly what is illegal content is determined by national law, and the Commission must then make sure that platforms are properly assessing and mitigating the risks of spreading it. How exactly the EU will make sure no children in France are accessing sites is untested. DSA violations can lead to fines of up to 6 percent of platforms’ annual global revenue. WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL CHALLENGES? Companies within the industry have been at loggerheads over who should implement age gates that would render the social media ban possible. Platform providers including Meta say that operating system services should implement age checks, whereas OS and app store providers such as Apple say the opposite. The Commission has not clearly prescribed responsibility to either side of the industry, but France has interpreted guidance from Brussels as putting the onus on the service providers. France’s bill therefore puts the responsibility on the likes of TikTok and Instagram. Exactly what the technical solution will be to implement a ban is up to the platforms, as long as it meets requirements for accuracy and privacy. Some public entities have developed solutions, like the French postal service’s “Jeprouvemonage,” which the platforms can use. Privately developed tech is also available. “No solution will be imposed on the platforms by the state,” the office of the minister for digital affairs told journalists.  IS THIS HAPPENING IN OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES? France is not the only European country working on such restrictions. Denmark’s parliament agreed on restrictions for under-15s, although parents can allow them to go on social media if they are older than 13. Denmark hasn’t passed a formal bill. Austria’s digital minister said an Australia-style ban is being developed for under-14s. Bills are going through the Spanish and Italian parliaments, and Greece’s Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has also voiced support for similar plans. Germany is considering its options. The Dutch government has issued guidance to say kids younger than 15 should not access social media like TikTok. Many of these countries as well as the European Parliament have said they want something done at the EU level. While the Commission has said it will allow EU countries to set their own minimum ages for accessing social media, it is also trying to come up with measures that would apply across the entire bloc. President Ursula von der Leyen has been personally paying attention to this issue and is setting up a panel of experts to figure out if an EU-wide ban is desirable and tenable.

“Laws that exist only on paper achieve nothing.” This is not a slogan. It reflects the reality described by small-scale fishers and points to a wide gap between European Union commitments and delivery on the water. More than a decade after the last reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the EU is once again debating whether to rewrite this policy, even though the CFP’s framework is fit for purpose and delivers sustainable fisheries — when properly applied. What continues to fail is its implementation. The clearest example is the legal commitment to end overfishing by 2020, a deadline still unmet. > If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing > the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Nowhere is this gap more visible than in the Mediterranean, and particularly in Cyprus and Greece, where stocks are further weakened by the accelerating effects of the climate crisis and the spread of invasive species. The Mediterranean remains the most overfished sea in the world, and small-scale fishers feel these consequences directly. Yet, Cypriot fishers are not asking for weaker rules or a new policy. They are asking for effective enforcement of existing legislation, and support from national authorities. Without these, the future of fisheries as a profession is at stake. If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Photo by A.S.S. The experience of Cypriot and Greek fishers mirrors a broader European issue. Before reopening the CFP, Europe should take stock of the real gap, which lies not in the law itself, but in its uneven implementation and enforcement. Calls for reform are driven by familiar pressures: environmental safeguards are increasingly framed as obstacles to economic viability and fleet renewal. Reform is presented as a way to modernize vessels and cut red tape. But this framing overlooks lessons from the past. Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public money and livelihoods. For small-scale fishers in the Mediterranean, these impacts are not theoretical. They are experienced daily, through declining catches, rising costs and increasing uncertainty. The Common Fisheries Policy delivers when implemented Evidence shows that where the CFP has been implemented, it delivers. According to European Commission assessments, the share of stocks subject to overfishing in the North-East Atlantic fell from around 40 percent in 2013 to just over 22 percent by 2025. In the Mediterranean, the figure dropped from 70 percent to 51 percent over the same period. These improvements are closely linked to the application of science-based catch limits, effort restrictions and capacity controls under the CFP. > Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish > stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public > money and livelihoods. Economic and social data tell the same story. EU fishing fleets have become more efficient and more profitable over the past decade. Vessels now generate higher average incomes, with wages per full-time fisher rising by more than a quarter since 2013. In its 2023 policy communication, the Commission concluded that the CFP remains an adequate legal framework, with the real gap lying in its application and enforcement. Those involved in the 2013 reform understand why this matters. The revised policy marked a clear shift away from overcapacity and short-term decision-making toward a science-based approach. The European Commission’s own assessments show that this approach delivered results where it was applied. Parts of the EU fleet became more profitable, labor productivity improved and several fish stocks recovered. The CFP remains the EU’s strongest tool for reversing decline at sea. Implementation results in progress; reform leads to instability and uncertainty Strengthening the CPF’s implementation would deliver tangible benefits, including greater stability for fishers and coastal communities, avoiding years of legislative uncertainty, and allowing faster progress toward sustainability objectives. Firm and consistent implementation can enhance economic resilience while restoring ocean health, without the delays and risks that come with reopening the legislation. Given the time and resources required, another round of institutional reform is neither efficient nor necessary. Priority should instead be given to effectively delivering the agreed CFP commitments. Photo by A.S.S. Cypriot Presidency of the Council: a moment for delivery This debate unfolds as Cyprus assumes the EU Council Presidency, at a moment when choices made in Brussels carry immediate consequences at sea. Holding the Presidency brings responsibility as well as opportunity. It offers a chance to help frame the discussion toward making existing rules work in practice, while addressing current implementation challenges. This is where the credibility of the CFP will be tested. > Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. Reopening the CFP now may send the wrong signal. It may suggest that missed deadlines carry no consequence and that agreed-upon rules are optional. For fishers, it would prolong uncertainty at a time when stability is already fragile. For Europe, it would undermine trust in its ability to deliver. The EU was not conceived to generate endless processes or delay action through repeated legislative cycles. Its purpose is to deliver common solutions to shared problems, and to support people and communities where national action falls short. The last reform of the CFP was built on a simple principle: healthy fish stocks are the foundation of viable fisheries. Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. This principle is already reflected in Europe’s agreed framework. The task now is to act on it. Fisheries are a clear test of that promise. The law is already in place. The tools already exist. What Europe needs now is the political resolve to deliver on the commitments it has already made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is OCEANA * The ultimate controlling entity is OCEANA More information here.

President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation campaign is starting to make some Republicans uneasy. As midterms approach, GOP lawmakers, candidates, strategists and people close to the White House are warning that the administration’s mass deportations policy — and the wall-to-wall coverage of enforcement operations, arrests of U.S. citizens and clashes between protesters and federal officials — could cost them their razor-thin House majority. The administration’s forceful approach across the U.S. risks repelling the swing voters who fueled Trump’s return to the White House but are increasingly wary of how the president is implementing a central campaign promise. Further complicating the issue is that Republicans are split on the best way to address the eroding support, with some in the party viewing it as a messaging problem, while others argue that the administration’s policy itself is driving voters’ concerns. “If we don’t change our approach, it will have a negative effect on the midterms, for sure,” said Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), who recently decided not to seek reelection. A new POLITICO poll underscores those worries: Nearly half of all Americans — 49 percent — say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, including 1 in 5 voters who backed the president in 2024. In a sign of growing discomfort among the president’s base, more than 1 in 3 Trump voters say that while they support the goals of his mass deportation campaign, they disapprove of the way he is implementing it. The president ran on removing the millions of immigrants living in the country illegally, while connecting former President Joe Biden’s border crisis to the violent crime plaguing U.S. cities. The White House has pressured immigration officials to fulfill the president’s goal, an effort that requires targeting immigrants well beyond violent criminals. But Americans broadly do not support such a sweeping approach. In the poll, 38 percent of Americans said the federal government should prioritize deporting immigrants who have committed serious crimes, while 21 percent said the administration should only deport serious criminals. The poll was conducted from Jan. 16 to 19, after an ICE agent killed Renee Good in Minneapolis. There was another federal officer-involved shooting on Saturday in Minneapolis, though details remain scarce. “ICE should focus on the bad hombres. The bad hombres, that’s it, not the cleaning ladies,” said Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.). “One thing is the gardeners, another thing is the gangsters. One thing is the cooks, the other thing is the coyotes.” The White House, so far, has maintained its heavy enforcement presence in Minneapolis, betting that the issue is messaging, not its policies. The president said this week that his administration needs to do more to highlight the criminals they’ve arrested during the Minnesota crackdown. A person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Republicans have to keep the focus on criminal arrests, public safety and the Trump administration’s success in securing the southern border, which are more popular with voters across the board. Otherwise, the person worried, the GOP is losing support with moderate Republicans, independents, Latinos and young voters. “Do I think we have to be a little bit smarter about it? I don’t think there’s any question about it,” the person said of the party’s messaging. “The reason why crime is down across the country, especially in these Democratic states and these blue cities, is because of one thing — the only thing that changed is President Trump’s policies.” Most Trump voters do support his mass deportations campaign, with 55 percent saying the actions, including his widespread deployment of ICE agents across the U.S. are “about right,” the POLITICO Poll with Public First finds. But there is a notable split between Trump’s strongest 2024 voters and those who are more malleable: Among the 2024 Trump voters who do not identify as MAGA, a more moderate group of Trump supporters, 29 percent say his campaign is too aggressive. Seventeen percent of these voters say it is not aggressive enough. And a 43 percent plurality of non-MAGA Trump voters say they support the goals of Trump’s deportation agenda but not how he is implementing it, compared to 28 percent of MAGA Trump voters — his strongest supporters — who say the same. The poll results suggest Americans are uneasy with the Trump administration’s approach, and that even many Trump voters who support increased immigration enforcement oppose the president’s sprawling deportation campaign. “They are going to be worried about, OK, is ICE using excessive force? Are they going after, you know, moms and dads that have a clean record?” said Brendan Steinhauser, a GOP strategist in Texas. “I don’t think that plays well with independents and moderates. I don’t think it plays well with center-right Republicans. It does seem to play well with a smaller subset of the Republican Party. But I don’t think that’s where, nationally, the people who swing elections are on this.” Some battleground Republicans, worried immigration enforcement could become a political albatross in an already tough election year, are trying to walk a tightrope of showing support for ICE in general while also calling for restraint in their actions. “ICE exists to carry out laws passed by Congress, and in that sense, its role is absolutely necessary, but at the same time, enforcement must be professional and targeted and humane,” said Republican candidate Trinh Ha, a Vietnamese immigrant running in Washington’s eighth district, a seat currently held by Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier. “What’s happening right now underscores why enforcement must always be paired with restraint and accountability.” A White House spokesperson said the president’s mass deportations agenda was a central campaign promise and argued that the administration’s enforcement — and its message — has and will continue to focus on the “worst of the worst,” including people with convictions for assault, rape and murder. The official said the administration won’t allow criminals to remain free in cities where “Democrats don’t cooperate with us,” adding that there “wouldn’t be a need for as much of an ICE presence if we had cooperation.” The president has expressed concerns about how ICE is being perceived. He posted Tuesday on Truth Social that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE needed to do more to highlight the “murderers and other criminals” they’re detaining, arguing that it would help boost Americans’ support of ICE. He then took to the podium during a White House press briefing and spent the first 10 minutes sifting through photos of immigrants who had committed crimes. “Because Minnesota is so much in the fray, and I say to my people all the time — and they’re so busy doing other things — ‘they don’t say it like they should,’” Trump said. “They are apprehending murderers and drug dealers, a lot of bad people. … I say why don’t you talk about that? Because people don’t know.” Vice President JD Vance traveled to Minneapolis on Thursday, where he said he wanted to “lower the temperature.” Flanked by immigration agents, Vance empathized with community members’ concerns, while blaming state and local officials’ lack of cooperation and far-left agitators for fueling chaos in the city. “We want to be able to enforce the immigration laws on the one hand, while on the other hand, we want to make sure the people in Minneapolis are able to go about their day,” he said. It remains to be seen whether the administration’s message will be enough to tame the concerns coursing through the party. While many Republicans remain confident that they are still most trusted on immigration and border security — and that Democrats will ultimately be seen as too extreme in their response — others warn that Trump’s base won’t be the voters who swing races in 2026. Immigration still ranks far below economic concerns for voters, according to The POLITICO Poll. When asked to select the top three issues facing the country, just 21 percent cited illegal immigration, compared with half who said the cost of living. But as the White House continues to make immigration a policy priority, crucial swaths of swing voters and soft Trump supporters are expressing discomfort with some of the administration’s tactics. “I’d reframe the ‘raids’ narrative,” said Buzz Jacobs, a Republican strategist and White House immigration policy director for former President George W. Bush. “The reality is that most enforcement activity is routine and never becomes a headline.”

Just hours after federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old man in Minneapolis, Trump administration officials called the deceased a “would-be assassin” and blamed Democrats for siding with “terrorists.” Democrats, meanwhile, renewed calls for Minnesota officials to investigate the shooting and characterized the president’s immigration actions as “a campaign of organized brutality.” With few official details released on the latest shooting in Minneapolis, the White House and Democrats retreated to heated rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of Saturday’s incident, with President Donald Trump accusing state officials of “inciting Insurrection” and Democrats accusing federal agents of “murder.” “A would-be assassin tried to murder federal law enforcement and the official Democrat account sides with the terrorists,” deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller wrote on X Saturday, referring to a tweet from the Democratic National Committee about the shooting that stated “Get ICE out of Minnesota NOW.” Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota focused her anger on ICE, posting on social media: “This appears to be an execution by immigration enforcement. I am absolutely heartbroken, horrified, and appalled that federal agents murdered another member of our community.” In Saturday morning’s shooting, a 37-year-old man was shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis who claimed he approached federal officers with a 9 mm gun but didn’t specify if he was holding or brandishing the weapon. Various videos of the incident appear to show the man holding a phone. Minneapolis has emerged as the epicenter of the debate over the Trump administration’s immigration actions and deployment of federal agents. It came to a head after a federal agent shot and killed a 37-year-old woman, Renee Good, earlier this month in an incident that has sparked weeks of demonstrations in the city and fights between the White House and state officials over who would investigate the shootings. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, described the man who was shot Saturday as a “gunman” and suggested a cover-up by Minnesota Democrats. The Justice Department has subpoenaed several Democratic Minneapolis state officials, including Gov. Tim Walz, who called the DOJ’s subpoena a “partisan distraction.” “AMONG OTHER THINGS, THIS IS A ‘COVER UP’ FOR THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN STOLEN FROM THE ONCE GREAT STATE (BUT SOON TO BE GREAT AGAIN!) OF MINNESOTA!” Trump wrote in a separate post. Trump also assailed Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, and Walz in the first Saturday post, accusing them of “inciting Insurrection, with their pompous, dangerous, and arrogant rhetoric.” U.S. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino told reporters at a Saturday press conference that the incident “looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” though he didn’t provide any evidence for his claim. “If you obstruct a law enforcement officer or assault a law enforcement officer, you are in violation of the law and will be arrested,” he added. “Our law enforcement officers take an oath to protect the public.” Video of the shooting, posted on social media and verified by The New York Times, shows the 37-year-old man appearing to film agents in Minneapolis on Saturday before they push him and several others back. The videos don’t appear to show the man drawing his weapon, but not all angles are accounted for. During a struggle with the man on the ground, an agent fires several shots, then the group of federal agents back away. The man, identified by the Minneapolis Star Tribune as Alex Pretti, had a legal permit to carry a firearm, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, who spoke during a press conference Saturday. Bovino told reporters that “an individual approached U.S. Border Patrol agents with a nine millimeter semi-automatic handgun. The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a border patrol agent fired defensive shots.” But when asked by a reporter when the individual drew his firearm, Bovino said the shooting is still under investigation. The latest POLITICO Poll illustrates just how sharply views of ICE — and its presence in cities across the country — diverge along partisan lines. A majority of voters who backed Trump in 2024 — 57 percent — say risks to the lives of anti-ICE protestors are a price worth paying to carry out immigration enforcement, compared with just 15 percent of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris. By contrast, nearly three-quarters of Harris voters — 71 percent — say it is not worth risking the lives of anti-ICE protesters to conduct immigration enforcement, a view shared by just 31 percent of Trump voters, the poll, conducted from Jan. 16 to 19, found. The divide extends to perceptions of public safety: 64 percent of Trump voters say ICE agents make U.S. cities safer, while 80 percent of Harris voters say the opposite, that their presence is making them more dangerous. Democrats also used heated language to describe the shooting. During a Democratic Senate primary debate in Texas on Saturday, state Rep. James Talarico raised the Minneapolis shooting, saying: “ICE shot a mother in the face. ICE kidnapped a 5-year-old boy. ICE executed a man in broad daylight on our streets just this morning. It’s time to tear down this secret police force and replace it with an agency that actually is going to focus on public safety.” His opponent, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, also weighed in: “This is the fifth-highest funded military force in the entire world. And what are they doing? They’re killing people in the middle of the street.” Walz on Saturday urged the federal government to allow Minnesota officials to take control of the probe into the shooting. He told reporters that he said to the White House in an early morning call that “the federal government cannot be trusted to lead this investigation. The state will handle it, period.” “As I said last week, this federal occupation of Minnesota long ago stopped being a matter of immigration enforcement,” Walz said at a press conference Saturday. “It’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of our state. And today, that campaign claimed another life. I’ve seen the videos from several angles. And it’s sickening.” When asked for comment, the White House referred POLITICO to Trump’s Truth Social post and to a post on X from the Department of Homeland Security, which claimed, “The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted.” They did not respond to requests to questions as to what evidence showed the man who was shot was a “terrorist.” Vice President JD Vance also placed the blame of Saturday’s shooting at Minnesota leaders’ feet, saying their unwillingness to work with immigration enforcement agents was the primary reason for the shooting. “When I visited Minnesota, what the ICE agents wanted more than anything was to work with local law enforcement so that situations on the ground didn’t get out of hand,” he wrote on X. “The local leadership in Minnesota has so far refused to answer those requests.” Liz Crampton contributed to this report.

Minnesota Democrats are once again calling on federal law enforcement to leave Minneapolis after reports of yet another shooting made the rounds Saturday. “Minnesota has had it. This is sickening,” Governor Tim Walz said in a post on X, noting he’d spoken with President Donald Trump. “The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.” A likely candidate to succeed Walz echoed his words. “To the Trump administration and the Republicans in Congress who have stood silent: Get ICE out of our state NOW,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) wrote on X, adding that details are scarce. The City of Minneapolis confirmed that a shooting involving federal law enforcement had occurred early on Saturday. The Associated Press reported that the 51-year-old victim had died, but POLITICO has not independently confirmed. A Department of Homeland Security official told POLITICO that the person who was shot, whom the DHS official described as a “suspect,” was in possession of a firearm and two magazines. The situation is still evolving, the official said. The individual’s condition is currently unknown. Minneapolis Police Department officials are on the scene, keeping more than 100 observers and protesters blocked off from the agents, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. An ambulance left the scene after CPR was seen being performed on the man, the Tribune reported. Minneapolis has become a national flashpoint for outrage over Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement after the Department of Homeland Security deployed thousands of federal immigration agents to the city in December. The scale and visibility of federal law enforcement’s operation — paired with federal agents operating with limited cooperation with local officials — have alarmed city and state leaders in Minnesota, who say the tactics resemble a show of force aimed at a politically hostile region rather than routine immigration enforcement. The tension came to a head earlier this month after the killing of 37-year-old Renee Good in her car during an immigration operation. The shooting has since triggered sustained protests and national scrutiny. In the aftermath of the shooting, federal authorities limited state officials’ access to the federal probe. They later subpoenaed Walz as part of a Justice Department probe into the state’s response to White House immigration enforcement. The governor called it a “partisan distraction” and “political theater.” Trump and Vice President JD Vance have attacked Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration agents and by criticizing the federal enforcement, with Vance initially arguing that the agent who shot Good was protected by “absolute immunity.” On Thursday, he took a different tone. “I didn’t say, and I don’t think any other official within the Trump administration said that officers who engage in wrongdoing would enjoy immunity,” the vice president said in Minneapolis. “That’s absurd. What I did say, is that when federal law enforcement officers violate the law, that is typically something that federal officials would look into.” Now, in the aftermath of Saturday’s shooting, the city is again reeling amid reports of more violence. “Holy shit, ICE just killed someone else in Minneapolis,” Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic Party and a Minnesota native, wrote on X. “What the actual fuck is going on in this country.” The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Eric Bazail-Eimil contributed to this report.

QUEBEC CITY — Canadian Culture Minister Marc Miller isn’t ruling out a ban on social media for kids under 14 as he drafts legislation intended to address the harmful effects of online activity. Miller said in an interview Friday that he’s looking at approaches taken by other jurisdictions including Australia, which recently became the first nation in the world to ban kids from social media. “I am looking at a number of things to limit and even prevent online harms to some of the most vulnerable portions of our population, particularly kids,” Miller told POLITICO. He wouldn’t provide details of the measures under consideration but said any ban on social media “would have to be paired” with regulations on online content, particularly material targeted at children. Parliament has spent years examining online harms, with MPs and senators holding multiple hearings on how social media affects children. The Liberal government has introduced two iterations of online harms legislation since 2021, but both bills failed to pass Parliament. Tech companies have urged the Liberal government to pursue alternatives to an outright ban. Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, says Google and Apple should verify ages and require parental consent for kids who want to download social media apps. Rachel Curran, director of public policy at Meta Canada, previously told POLITICO that an outright ban of social media “doesn’t make sense.” “The same problems exist [in Australia] that exist everywhere else: Our ability to verify age accurately has got some big gaps in it,” Curran said. “Enforcement is going to be an issue.”