PARIS — French prosecutors on Tuesday recommended that a five-year electoral ban on far-right leader Marine Le Pen should be confirmed — a move that, if accepted by the court, would likely prevent her from running in next year’s presidential election. Le Pen’s far-right National Rally is comfortably ahead in polls ahead of the first round of the 2027 election but she is currently looking unlikely to be able to stand as the presidential candidate herself thanks to a five-year election ban, imposed over her conviction last year for embezzling European Parliament funds — a ban she is now appealing. In that appeal proceeding on Tuesday, the prosecutors sought not only the electoral prohibition but four years jail, with one served as a custodial sentence. In an unexpected twist, however, prosecutors did not insist that the ban should be immediately implemented. This could offer her a theoretical long-shot back into the race, but it appears legally complex and politically risky. Le Pen herself did not signal any major shift in the case. In remarks to BFMTV, Le Pen said the prosecution in the appeal was “following the path taken” during the first trial. The court is due to make a final decision on the appeal this summer. When it came to her narrow route back to the presidential race, the prosecutors said the court should not impose the five-year ban immediately because there was insufficient proof that the three-time presidential candidate could commit further crimes if she is not sanctioned immediately. This means that, even if found guilty at appeal, Le Pen could still try to have the penalty lifted by bringing the case before a supreme court. The supreme court which would look into the case, the Cour de Cassation, said it would examine the legal challenge and make a final ruling before the 2027 election “if possible.” That timing could be politically problematic for Le Pen, if the supreme court does not come to a decision until shortly before the race. Le Pen had said she would drop out of the running if her electoral ban was upheld. It is unclear if a ban without immediate implementation, as sought by the prosecutors, would now change her reasoning. Le Pen has been increasingly expected to be replaced by her 30-year-old protégé Jordan Bardella because of her legal woes. Although he originally triggered doubts within his own political camp on his ability to stand the rigors of a presidential election, he has surpassed Le Pen as France’s most popular politician according to recent polling. Le Pen has already run for president three times, making the runoff in the last two elections and losing to Emmanuel Macron. The 2027 election is widely seen as the best shot yet for a National Rally candidate to win and become the first democratically elected far-right leader in France since World War II. Le Pen has shifted her defense strategy since the start of her appeal trial, with a partial acknowledgement that some wrongdoing may have been committed unintentionally. The National Rally has described the case as politicized. Le Pen and her co-defendants are accused of having embezzled funds from the European Parliament by having party staff hired as parliamentary assistants, while working solely on domestic affairs rather than legislative work.

PARIS — Anti-immigration MEP Sarah Knafo of the Reconquest party is set to advance to the second round of the Paris mayoral election in what would be a historic first for a far-right candidate, according to new polling shared with POLITICO. The survey from Cluster17, a prominent French pollster, shows Knafo, who formally entered the race in January, winning 10 percent of the vote in the municipal election next month. The data suggests her campaign is building traction — a surprise in a city where the far right has always struggled — as she was on course to win only 6 percent in December. Reconquest is the party founded by Knafo’s partner, maverick far-right politician and commentator Ériz Zemmour, who came fourth in the first round of the 2022 presidential election. Candidates who meet the 10 percent support threshold in the first round on March 15 advance to the runoff and earn representation on the city council. As it stands, that would see an unprecedented five-way race in the second round on March 22. Socialist candidate Emmanuel Grégoire leads the race with 33 percent of the vote, according to the poll. He’s followed by Rachida Dati, the conservative culture minister, at 26 percent. Centrist Pierre-Yves Bournazel scored 14 percent, while Sophia Chikirou of the hard-left France Unbowed drew 12 percent. Knafo’s platform includes several radical proposals such as halving the number of public workers in Paris and rowing back on some of current Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s signature policies, including reducing the speed limit on the Paris ring road. Hidalgo also banished cars from the banks of the Seine River, but Knafo wants instead to build a two-story passageway on the banks, with cars traveling underground and pedestrians above. Grégoire and Dati are clear front-runners in the race, but both have incentives to forge an alliance with candidates on their political extremes between the first and second rounds. Jean-Yves Dormagen, president and founder of Cluster17, warned that Dati is “caught in a pincer movement” between Knafo to her right and Bournazel in the center. “Dati doesn’t have a good campaign dynamic,” Dormagen said. Despite Grégoire facing a similar risk of being outflanked by Chikirou to his left, the Socialist candidate’s strong polling with voters from multicultural backgrounds — a “decisive group” in Paris — gives him a boost, the pollster said. “It’s a real problem for Sophia Chikirou,” said Dormagen.

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.”

MARSEILLE, France — Violence at a drug trafficking hotspot in the social housing complex next to Orange’s headquarters in Marseille forced the telecoms giant to lock its forest-green gates and order its thousands of employees to work from home. The disruption to such a recognizable company — one that gives its name to the city’s iconic football venue — became a fresh symbol of how drug trafficking and insecurity are reshaping politics ahead of municipal elections. In a recent poll, security ranked among voters’ top concerns, forcing candidates across the spectrum to pitch competing responses to the drug trade. “The number one theme is security,” center-right candidate Martine Vassal told POLITICO. “In the field, what I hear most often are people who tell me that they no longer travel in the heart of the city for that reason.” French political parties are watching the contest closely for clues about the broader battles building toward the 2027 presidential race. In many ways, Marseille is a microcosm of France as a whole, reflecting the country’s wider demographics and its biggest political battles. The city is diverse. Multicultural and low-income neighborhoods that tend to support the hard left abut conservative suburbs that have swung to the far right in recent years. As in much of France, support for the political center in Marseille is wobbling.  The left-wing incumbent Benoît Payan remains a slight favorite in the March contest, but Franck Allisio, the candidate for the far-right National Rally, is just behind, with both men polling at around 30 percent. The issues at play strike at the heart of Marseille’s identity: its notorious drug trade, entrenched poverty and failure to seize on the competitive advantages of a young, sun-drenched city strategically perched on the Mediterranean. Whichever candidate can articulate a platform that speaks to Marseille’s local realities while addressing anxieties shared across France will be well positioned to take city hall — and to provide their party with a potential blueprint for the 2027 presidential campaign.  SECOND CITY  Marseille has always had something of a little-brother complex with Paris, a resentment that goes beyond the football rivalry of Paris Saint-Germain and Olympique de Marseille. Many in the city regard the French capital as a distant power center that tries to impose its own solutions on Marseille without sufficiently consulting local experts.   People in Marseilles pay tribute to murdered Mehdi Kessaci. 20, whose brother is a prominent anti drug trafficking campaigner, and protest against trafficking, Nov. 22, 2025. | Clement Mahoudeau/AFP via Getty Images “Paris treats Marseille almost like a colony,” said Allisio. “A place you visit, make promises to — without any guarantee the money will ever be spent.”  When it comes to drug trafficking and security, leaders across the political spectrum agree that Paris is prescribing medicine that treats the symptoms of the crisis, not the cause.  Violence associated with the drug trade was thrust back in the spotlight in November with the killing of 20-year-old Mehdi Kessaci. Authorities are investigating the crime as an act of intimidation. Mehdi’s brother Amine Kessaci is one of the city’s most prominent anti-trafficking campaigners, rising to prominence after their half-brother — who was involved in the trade — was killed several years earlier.  President Emmanuel Macron, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez and Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin all visited Marseille in the wake of Kessaci’s killing, outlining a tough-on-crime agenda to stop the violence and flow of drugs.  Locals stress that law-and-order investments must be matched with funding for public services. Unless authorities improve the sluggish economy that has encouraged jobless youths to turn to the drug trade, the problem will continue.  “Repression alone is not efficient,” said Kaouther Ben Mohamed, a former social worker turned activist. “If that was the case, the drug trade wouldn’t have flourished like it did.” Housing is another issue, with many impoverished residents living in dangerous, dilapidated buildings. “We live in a shit city,” said Mahboubi Tir, a tall, broad-shouldered young man with a rugby player’s physique. “We’re not safe here.”   Tir spent a month in a coma and several more in a hospital last April after he was assaulted during a parking dispute. His face was still swollen and distorted when he spoke to POLITICO in December about how the incident reshaped his relationship with the city he grew up in.  “I almost died, and I was angry at the city,” said Tir, who suffers from memory loss and has only a vague recollection of what led to the assault, as he sipped coffee in the backroom office of a tiny, left-leaning grassroots political party where he volunteers, Citizen Ambition.  SECURITY PROBLEM To what extent Marseille’s activist groups can bring about change in a city whose struggles have lasted for decades remains to be seen, but the four leading candidates for mayor share a similar diagnosis. They all believe the lurid crime stories making national headlines are a byproduct of a lack of jobs and neglected public services — and that the French state’s responses miss the mark. Rather than relying on harsher punishments as a deterrent, they argue the state should prioritize local policing and public investment. When Payan announced his candidacy for reelection, he pledged free meals for 15,000 students to get them back in school and to double the number of local cops as part of a push for more community policing. Allisio’s platform puts the emphasis on security-related spending: increased video surveillance, more vehicles for local police and the creation of “specialized units to combat burglary and public disorder.” Vassal — the center-right backed by the conservative Les Républicains and parties aligned with Macron — has similarly put forward a proposal to arm fare enforcers in public transport. Both Allisio and Vassal are calling for unspecified spending cuts while preserving basic services provided at the local level like schools, public transportation and parks and recreation. Vassal, who is polling third, said she would make public transportation free for residents younger 26 to travel across the spread-out city. She accuses the current administration of having delivered an insufficient number of building permits, slowing the development of new housing and office buildings and thus the revitalization of Marseille’s most embattled areas — a trend she pledged to reverse. Both Vassal and Allisio are advocating for less local taxes on property to boost small businesses and create new jobs. Allisio has also put forward a proposal to make parking for less 30 minutes free to facilitate deliveries and quick stops to buy products. The outlier — at least when it comes to public safety — is Sébastien Delogu, a disciple of three-time hard-left presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Though Delogu is polling fourth at 14 percent, he can’t be counted out, given that Mélenchon won Marseille in the first round of the last two presidential elections. Though Delogu acknowledges that crime is a problem, he doesn’t want to spend more money on policing. He instead proposes putting money that other candidates want to spend on security toward poverty reduction, housing supply and the local public health sector. Whoever wins, however, will have to grapple with an uncomfortable truth. Aside from local police responsible for public tranquility and health, policing and criminal justice matters are largely managed at the national level. The solution to Marseille’s problems will depend, to no small extent, on the outcome of what happens next year in Paris.

LONDON — Kemi Badenoch’s Conservative Party retracted a contentious statement that referred to the mental health of former Tory cabinet minister Suella Braverman who earlier Monday announced her defection to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. Braverman, a former home secretary, became the insurgent right-wing outfit’s eighth MP on Monday when she resigned her Tory membership of 30 years. Braverman will stay on as MP for her Fareham and Waterlooville constituency. Following her switch to Farage’s poll-topping party, the Conservatives sent a statement to journalists lambasting her record, and making reference to her mental health. “It was always a matter of when, not if, Suella would defect. The Conservatives did all we could to look after Suella’s mental health, but she was clearly very unhappy,” the spokesperson said. The backlash came quickly. A Reform spokesperson said: “It’s gutter politics, a sign of what the Conservative Party has become.” Government minister Mike Tapp described the remarks as “below the standards we expect,” while Labour colleague Josh Fenton-Glynn said it was “horrible.” “Attacking someone on mental health is wrong,” he wrote on X. “The kind of first draft of an email you do before having a cup of tea and letting your better angels take over.” A new version of the Conservative statement, which was sent around an hour-and-a-half after the original, pointedly omitted the “mental health” comments, with Conservative officials saying the original “draft” had been sent in “error.”  It is the latest in a series of Conservative attacks on defectors to Reform. When Robert Jenrick quit as shadow justice secretary to join Reform, Badenoch shrugged off the departure of one of her most recognizable MPs. She painted Jenrick as someone who had been working to undermine her party: “So I’m just glad that Nigel Farage is doing my spring cleaning for me. He’s taking away my problems.” When former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi jumped to Farage’s ship, Conservative officials let it be known that he’d been asking Badenoch for a peerage just weeks before. Sam Francis contributed reporting.

PARIS — Europeans are downbeat about the state of the world, their countries, their circumstances, and the dangers posed by U.S. President Donald Trump. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said the “best years are behind us” (63 percent), while 77 percent believe life in their country “will be harder for the next generation, according to a poll by the strategic communications firm FGS Global shared exclusively with POLITICO, which surveyed more than 11,000 people across 23 European Union countries in November.   The dour sentiment is especially widespread in Western and Central Europe. A majority of Europeans (76 percent) said democracy in their country is in decline. The poll reveals widespread concern about the state of European democracies and the capacity of governments to meet their challenges, which include war on the continent’s eastern flank, economic and geopolitical uncertainty and growing friction with Washington. Even before the U.S. president declared he wanted to take over Greenland, a large majority of Europeans viewed him as a negative force for peace, their country and the global economy.  “It is clear that there is a very, very high degree of pessimism,” said Craig Oliver, co-global head of strategy at FGS Global, who previously served as a communications advisor to former British Prime Minister David Cameron.  Though governments should be alert to that mood, they can also try to harness it, he said: “It’s in those moments, historically, when people are pessimistic that change and improvement can come.”  EUROPEANS TO THEIR GOVERNMENTS: YOU CAN DO BETTER In nearly every country polled, majorities believe their country is on the wrong track. The exceptions are Poland, Lithuania and Denmark — even though they are among those most exposed to Russia or, for Denmark, U.S. pressure over Greenland. Oliver attributed that divergence to how countries are governed. “There are various countries where people feel that there is leadership and change and things are being addressed,” he said. “People feel very strongly that they do want to be led; they want clarity from governments.” The survey is bad news for most governments, revealing weak public trust in political systems and skepticism about their capacity to function effectively. Asked to pick between two opposing statements, at least half of respondents said their country’s political system “is failing the people and needs fundamental reform,” rather than “works fairly well and doesn’t need significant reform.” Nordic countries, generally less gloomy, had the most positive numbers. Negative opinions were higher in Romania (91 percent), Greece (88 percent) and Bulgaria (86 percent).  In all countries, more than 70 percent of respondents felt they were “entitled to expect more from government,” as opposed to expecting too much.  WANTED: STRONG DEFENSE In light of the many challenges facing the continent, Europeans want their leaders to step up — and gear up. Asked whether they agreed their countries “should be more assertive of [their] national interests even if this creates friction with other countries,” a large majority approved (71 percent). Respondents also backed higher investment in European security, with 57 percent supporting more “spending on defense and security.”  TRUMP EFFECT Though the survey was conducted before the latest bout of hostility from Trump, the U.S. president was already seen as a negative force.  Other polls have shown that Trump is unpopular on the continent, even among supporters of the right-wing populist parties he sees as allies.  About two-thirds of respondents to the FGS Global survey said they were pessimistic about Trump’s impact in the year ahead on the global economy (69 percent), peace and security (64 percent) and their own country (64 percent).  Asked if Trump deserves the Nobel Prize, 77 percent said he does not. FGS interviewed 11,714 adults from 23 European Union countries between Nov. 10 to Nov. 23, 2025. A minimum of 500 interviews were conducted in each of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Interviews were conducted online and the data weighted to be nationally representative of each country by gender, age, income, region and socio-economic group. Data from a nationally representative poll of 500 adults is accurate to a margin of error of +/- 4.4% at 95% confidence.

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.

Its been a bad stretch of polling for President Donald Trump. In recent weeks, a string of new polls has found Trump losing ground with key constituencies, especially the young, non-white and low-propensity voters who swung decisively in his direction in 2024. The uptick in support for Trump among those non-traditional Republican voters helped fuel chatter of an enduring “realignment” in the American electorate — but the durability of that realignment is now coming into doubt with those same groups cooling on Trump. Surveying the findings of the most recent New York Times-Siena poll, polling analyst Nate Cohn bluntly declared that “the second Trump coalition has unraveled.” Is it time to touch up the obituaries for the Trumpian realignment? To find out, I spoke with conservative pollster and strategist Patrick Ruffini, whose 2024 book “Party of the People” was widely credited with predicting the contours of Trump’s electoral realignment. Ruffini cautioned against prematurely eulogizing the GOP’s new coalition, noting that the erosion of support has so far not extended to the constituencies that have served as the primary drivers of the Trumpian realignment — particularly white working-class voters and working-class Latinos and Asian Americans. But he also acknowledged that the findings of the recent polls should raise alarms for Republicans ahead of 2026 and especially 2028. His advice to Trump for reversing the trend: a relentless focus on “affordability,” which the White House has so far struggled to muster, and which remains the key issue dragging down the president. “I think that is undeniable,” he said. “It’s the number one issue among the swing voter electorate.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Based on your own polling, do you agree that “the second Trump coalition has unraveled?” It really depends on how you define the Trump coalition. The coalition that has really reshaped American politics over the last decade has been a coalition that saw voters who are aligned with a more populist view of America come into the Republican Party — in many cases, after voting for Barack Obama twice. Those shifts have proven to be pretty durable, especially among white working-class voters but also among conservative Hispanic voters and conservative Asian American voters. You have another group of voters who is younger and disconnected from politics — a group that had been really one of the core groups for Barack Obama and the Democrats back in the 2010s. They didn’t always vote, but there was really no hope or prospect for Republicans winning that group or being very competitive with that group. That happens for the first time in 2024, when that specific combination of young, minority, male voters really comes into play in a big way. But that shift right has proven to be a little bit less durable — and maybe a lot less durable — because of the nature of who those voters are. They’re not really connected to one political party, and they’re inherently non-partisan. So what you’re seeing is less of a shift among people who reliably vote in midterms, and what we are seeing is more of a shift among those infrequent voters. The question then becomes are these voters going to show up in 2026? How big of a problem is it for Republicans if they don’t? How alarmed should Republicans be by the current trends? I think they’re right to focus on affordability. You’ve seen that as an intentional effort by the White House, including what seems like embracing some Democratic policy proposals that also are in some ways an end-run around traditional Republican and conservative economics — things like a 10 percent cap on credit card interest. What’s the evidence that cost of living is the thing that’s primarily eroding Republican support among that group of voters you described? I think that is undeniable. It’s the number one issue among the swing voter electorate. However you want to define the swing voter electorate in 2024, cost of living was far and away the number one issue among the Biden-to-Trump voters in 2024. It is still the number one issue. And that’s because of demographically who they are. The profile of the voter who swung in ‘24 was not just minority, but young, low-income, who tends to be less college-educated, less married and more exposed to affordability concerns. So I think that’s obviously their north star right now. The core Democratic voter is concerned about the erosion of norms and democracy. The core Republican voter is concerned about immigration and border security. But this swing vote is very, very much concerned about the cost of living. Is there any evidence that things like Trump’s immigration crackdown or his foreign policy adventurism are contributing at all to the erosion of support among this group? I have to laugh at the idea of foreign policy being decisive for a large segment of voters. I think you could probably say that, to the extent that Trump had some non-intervention rhetoric, there might be some backlash among some of the podcast bros, or among the Tucker Carlson universe. But that is practically a non-entity when it comes to the actual electorate and especially this group that is floating between the two political parties. Maybe there’s a dissident faction on the right that is particularly focused on this, but what really matters is this cost-of-living issue, which people don’t view as having been solved by Trump coming into office. The White House would say — and Vance said recently — that it takes a while to turn the Titanic around. Which is not the most reassuring metaphor, but sure. Exactly, but nonetheless. I think a lot of these things are very interesting bait for media, but they are not necessarily what is really driving the voters who are disconnected from these narratives. What about his immigration agenda? Does that seem to be having any specific effect? I do think there’s probably some aspect of this that might be challenging with Latinos, but I think it’s very easy to fall back into the 2010 pattern of saying Latino voters are inordinately primarily focused on immigration, which has proven incorrect time after time after time. So, yes, I would say the ICE actions are probably a bit negative, but I think Latino voters primarily share the same concerns as other voters in the electorate. They’re primarily focused on cost of living, jobs and health care. How would Trump’s first year in office have looked different if he had been really laser-focused on consolidating the gains that Republicans saw among these voters in 2024? What would he have done that he didn’t do, and what shouldn’t he have done that he did do? I would first concede that the focus on affordability needed to be, like, a Day 1 concern. I will also concede how hard it is to move this group that is very, very disaffected from traditional politics and doesn’t trust or believe the promises made by politicians — even one as seemingly authentic as Trump. I go back to 2018. While in some ways you would kill for the economic perceptions that you had in 2018, that didn’t seem to help them much in the midterms. The other problem with a laser focus on affordability on Day 1 is that I don’t think it clearly aligns with what the policy demanders on the right are actually asking for. If you ask, “What is MAGA economic policy?”, for many, MAGA economic policy is tariffs — and in many ways, tariffs run up against an impulse to do something about affordability. Now, to date, we haven’t really seen that actually play out. We haven’t really seen an increase in the inflation rate, which is good. But there’s an opportunity cost to focusing on certain issues over this focus on affordability. I think the challenge is that I don’t think either party has a pre-baked agenda that is all about reducing costs. They certainly had a pre-baked agenda around immigration, and they do have a pre-baked agenda around tariffs. What else has stopped the administration from effectively consolidating this part of the 2024 coalition? It’s a very hard-to-reach group. In 2024, Trump’s team had the insight to really put him front-and-center in these non-political arenas, whether it was going to UFC matches or appearing on Joe Rogan. I think it’s very easy for any administration to come into office and pivot towards the policy demanders on the right, and I think that we’ve seen a pivot in that direction, at least on the policy. So I would say they should be doing more of that 2024 strategy of actually going into spaces where non-political voters live and talking to them. Is it possible to turn negative perception around among this group? Or is it a one-way ratchet, where once you’ve lost their support, it’s very hard to get it back? I don’t think it’s impossible. We are seeing some improvement in the economic perception numbers, but we also saw how hard it is to sustain that. I think the mindset of the average voter is just that they’re in a far different place post-Covid than they were pre-Covid. There’s just been a huge negative bias in the economy since Covid, so I think any thought that, “Oh, it would be easy that Trump gets elected, and that’s going to be the thing that restores optimism” was wrong. I think he’s taken really decisive action, and he has solved a lot of problems, but the big nut to crack is, How do you break people out of this post-Covid economic pessimism? The more critical case that could be made against Trump’s approach to economic policy is not just that he’s failed to address the cost-of-living crisis, but that he’s actively done things that run contrary to any stated vision of economic populism. The tax cuts are the major one, which included some populist components tacked on, but which was essentially a massively regressive tax cut. Do you think that has contributed to the sour feeling among this cohort at all? I think we know very clearly when red lines are crossed and when different policies really get voters writ large to sit up and take notice. For instance, it was only when you had SNAP benefits really being cut off that Congress had any impetus to actually solve the shutdown. I don’t think people are quite as tuned in to the distributional effects of tax policy. The White House would say that there were very popular parts of this proposal, like the Trump accounts and no tax on tips, that didn’t get coverage — and our polling has shown that people have barely actually heard about those things compared to some of the Democratic lines of attack. So I think that the tax policy debate is relatively overrated, because it simply doesn’t matter as much to voters as much as the cultural issues or the general sense that life is not as affordable as it was. Assuming these trends continue and this cohort of sort of young, low-propensity voters continues to shift away from Trump, what does the picture look like for Republicans in 2026 and 2028? I would say 2026 is perhaps a false indicator. In the midterms, you’re really talking about an electorate that is going to be much older, much whiter, much more college-educated. I think you really have to have a presidential campaign to test how these voters are going to behave. And presidential campaigns are also a choice between Republicans and Democrats. I think certainly Republicans would want to make it into a Republican-versus-Democrat choice, because polling is very clear that voters do not trust the Democrats either on these issues. It’s clear that a lot of these voters have actually moved away from the Democratic Party — they just haven’t necessarily moved into the Republican Party. Thinking big picture, does this erosion of support change or alter your view of the “realignment” in any respect? I’ve always said that we are headed towards a future where these groups are up for grabs, and whichever party captures them has the advantage. That’s different from the politics of the Obama era, where we were talking about an emerging Democratic majority driven by a generational shift and by the rise of non-white voters in the electorate. The most recent New York Times poll has Democrats ahead among Latino voters by 16 points, which is certainly different than 2024, when Trump lost them by just single digits, but that is a far cry from where we were in 2016 and 2018. So I think in many respects, that version of it is coming true. But if 2024 was a best-case scenario for the right, and 2026 is a worst-case scenario, we really have to wait till 2028 to see where this all shakes out.

President Donald Trump’s quest to control Greenland is driving the news — and this time, it’s not a punchline. Trump has backed off threats of using force to take the island in favor of what he calls a framework that will give the U.S. access to the island. And on Friday, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the situation is still “serious” adding that the Scandinavian nation has “a path that we are in the process of trying with the Americans. We have always said that we are of course willing to make an agreement.” But whether the deal will work remains vague. Meanwhile, all of this has resulted in a flood of questions in Washington and abroad about whether Trump’s threats have been strategy, bluster, or something in between — and the long-term consequences for America’s standing with allies. We attempt to answer some of the most asked questions about the issue. What’s Trump’s interest in Greenland all about? Trump’s obsession with obtaining Greenland — which for decades has been controlled by U.S. ally Denmark — is ostensibly about keeping Americans safe. The president and his advisers increasingly describe Greenland as essential to ensuring American – and even European – security against encroaching threats from China and Russia. Why? Greenland sits astride key Arctic sea lanes that are becoming increasingly navigable as ice melts. It also hosts Pituffik Space Base, a critical U.S. military installation for missile warning, space surveillance and Arctic operations. To Trump, Greenland represents leverage: strategic location, military value and untapped natural resources. His interest in the island isn’t new. In 2019, Trump publicly floated buying Greenland, later describing it as “a large real estate deal.” At the time, it was mostly dismissed as a pipe dream from a mercurial president. But six years later, the once frivolous threat has alienated European allies and become one of the administration’s most important goals. Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a global risk assessment firm in New York, said that Trump having captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by force has made his assertive “Donroe Doctrine” a “brand” — and emboldened him to take a more hostile posture toward Greenland and European allies. “He’s all in on having the brand,” said Bremmer, who is in Davos speaking with European allies. “Now he needs to populate it and have more ornaments on the tree. There has to be a next thing for the Donroe Doctrine. And Greenland was that thing.” Was Trump serious about invading Greenland? No. There is no legal or political pathway for the U.S. to seize Greenland without violating the sovereignty of NATO allies. Doing so would essentially end the alliance — not to mention violate international law. Trump and his aides were never seriously contemplating an invasion but refusing to rule it out publicly was an effort to increase Trump’s negotiating leverage. In the process, he incensed European leaders, who responded more forcefully than they ever had to his pressure, sending troops to Greenland for military exercises and weighing whether to deploy the European Union’s anti-economic coercion “bazooka” in response to increased Trump’s threat to impose U.S. tariffs. “For his first year, Europe has bit its tongue but worked with Trump to keep him on side,” said Charles Kupchan, a Europe specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. “When the president of the United States is threatening to invade a NATO ally, it’s time for a different approach.” The stronger response worked. With global markets starting to plummet over fears of an escalating crisis, Trump finally made clear in his speech to Davos on Wednesday that he would not look to acquire Greenland with military force. But Trump’s new assurances have not fully allayed European anger or ongoing anxieties about a leader known for changing his mind and who has repeatedly treated force, coercion and brinkmanship as negotiating tools rather than a last resort. Trump’s governing style thrives on maximalist threats followed by selective walk-backs, leaving allies and adversaries alike unsure which statements are bluster, which are trial balloons and which could harden into policy. And so with this president, even ideas he claims are off the table, never fully are. What does Greenland — and Europe — think about all of this? They’re pissed. Greenland is a semi-autonomous, self-governing territory within Denmark, and its leaders have repeatedly said the island is not for sale. Local officials have also bristled at rhetoric that treats Greenland as an object rather than a society of 56,000 people with their own political aspirations, including long-term independence. “We are not in the situation where we are thinking that a takeover of the country might happen overnight,” Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said at a press conference earlier this month. “You cannot compare Greenland to Venezuela. We are a democratic country.” At the same time, Greenland’s government welcomes U.S. investment, security cooperation, and diplomatic engagement — so long as it comes with respect for Greenlandic autonomy. The Trumpian approach has strained that balance, fueling local skepticism even as U.S. military and economic ties deepen. Though Trump has backed off his invasion threats, “the damage was done,” Bremmer said. “They feel completely disrespected. They feel like Trump treats them with contempt.” How’s this playing in America? The reaction at home has been equally searing. “If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking … there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who recently traveled to Copenhagen, said last week. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Trump’s Greenland quest “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 17 percent of Americans support the effort to acquire Greenland, while 47 percent disapprove and 35 percent remain unsure. Is the “framework” deal going to put an end to the effort to take Greenland? Trump announced in a vague post this week that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had agreed to a “framework of a future Arctic deal” on Greenland, which he described as giving the U.S. significant access to the island. But Denmark and Greenland have both strongly rejected any notion that sovereignty is negotiable or that a concrete transfer of control is underway. Though details are sparse, Trump said the U.S. got “everything we wanted,” adding that the deal is “infinite” and will last “forever.” He told reporters he’ll give more clarity on whether Denmark is on board in two weeks. How does it affect our European alliances? It reinforces a core anxiety many European allies already have about Trump: U.S. security commitments can blur into coercion when they collide with his personal priorities. “The European leaders believe it is primarily about ego,” Bremmer said. “When Trump is acting as an individual and not acting on behalf of the country, you can see how this is going to create conflict. It’s set up to create mistrust and conflict and undermine the relationship.” Even as Trump and his advisers insist his hunger for Greenland aligns with NATO interests, European leaders have warned that questioning a country’s sovereignty — even rhetorically — crosses a red line. In joint statements and public remarks, officials in NATO countries have stressed that Arctic security cooperation does not confer consent over territory, pushing back on what they see as a dangerous conflation of alliance coordination and unilateral pressure. “The American leadership of the transatlantic community was based on mutual trust, common values and interests, not on domination and coercion,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday. “That is why it was accepted by all of us. Let’s not lose it, dear friends,” adding that is what he conveyed to other EU leaders on Thursday. Trump’s Greenland push has only intensified a clear undercurrent of administration-wide disdain for Europe, articulated over his first year in office via speeches, social media posts and an official national security strategy. In the weeks following his renewed Greenland push, Trump has only further alienated our European allies, claiming NATO has not been in America’s corner in the past. “We’ve never needed them,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Friday. “We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” More than 40 countries following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks deployed troops to Afghanistan when the U.S. invoked NATO Article 5 for the first time ever. At peak years, allied forces made up roughly half of all non-Afghan troops in the country. More than 1,100 non-U.S. coalition troops were killed in Afghanistan, alongside many thousands wounded. Canada alone lost 158 soldiers and the U.K. lost 457. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer slammed Trump’s remarks Friday morning. “I consider President Trump’s remarks to be insulting and frankly appalling,” Starmer said. “I am not surprised they have caused such hurt to the loved ones of those who were killed or injured and, in fact, across the country.”