From Lisbon to Tallinn, Europeans are overwhelmed by soaring home prices. This week, Brussels intends to do something about it. “This is a real crisis,” said European Commissioner for Housing Dan Jørgensen in an interview with POLITICO, ahead of the approval of the bloc’s first-ever Affordable Housing Plan. “And it’s not just enough to talk about it.” To that end, the package will seek to free up public cash for the construction of new homes, track speculation in the housing market, and give regional and local governments tools to rein in the short-term rentals contributing to the housing shortage. “The plan will be a mix of concrete actions at the EU level and recommendations that member states can apply,” Jørgensen said, adding that the European Commission wants to give national, regional and local governments ways to make real changes on the ground — while not overstepping its role in an area over which it has no official competence. “This is a real problem affecting millions of people, and the inaction is playing right into the playbook of right-wing populists,” Jørgensen noted, citing the ultranationalist parties that have stoked discontent over sky-high home prices to score major victories in countries like the Netherlands and Portugal. “Normally the EU has not played a big role here,” he added. “That needs to change.” CASH, TOOLS AND TRANSPARENCY The most concrete action set to be announced this week is a revision of state aid rules to make it easier for national governments to build affordable housing. Member countries have long complained they can only use public cash to provide homes for low-income families. Reflecting the fact that even middle-class earners are now struggling to pay for shelter, the new regulations will allow funds to be used for all groups priced out of the housing market. The package will also give national, regional and local authorities tools to target the tourist flats exacerbating the housing shortage in cities like Barcelona, Florence and Prague. “I’m not on the side of the people who call for banning short-term rentals,” Jørgensen clarified, adding that such platforms have offered travelers the ability to experience Europe differently, and provided some families with a needed source of income. But the model has grown at a rate “no one could have imagined, with short-term rentals accounting for 20 percent of homes in some very stressed areas,” he noted. It has turned into a “money machine instead of what it was intended to.” The commissioner stressed that national, regional and local leaders would ultimately be the ones deciding whether to use the tools to rein in short-term rentals. “We’re not going to force people to do anything,” he said. “If you think the status quo is fine, you can keep things as they are.” In another first, a more abstract section of the package will also aim to address speculation in the housing market. “This is a real crisis,” said European Commissioner for Housing Dan Jørgensen in an interview with POLITICO. | Lilli Förter/Getty Images While insisting he’s “not against people making money,” Jørgensen said Europe’s housing stock was being treated like “gold or Bitcoin and other investments made for the sole purpose of making money” — an approach that ignores the vital role of shelter for society at large. “Having a roof over your head, a decent house … is a human right,” he argued. As an initial step, this week’s package will propose the EU track speculation and determine the scope of the problem. However, Jørgensen acknowledged that using the resulting data for concrete action to tackle the market’s financialization might prove difficult. “While no one is really arguing this problem doesn’t exist, there’s a political conflict over whether it’s a good or a bad thing.” But regulation is essential for the proper functioning of the internal market, he added. THE COMPETENCE QUESTION The Commission’s housing package will also include a new construction strategy to cut red tape and create common standards, so that building materials manufactured at competitive prices in one member country can be easily used for housing projects in another. Additionally, there will be a bid to address the needs of the over a million homeless Europeans, many of whom aren’t citizens of the countries in which they are sleeping rough. “We want to look at what rights they have and how these are respected,” Jørgensen said. “We’re talking about humans with needs, people who deserve our help and compassion.” The commissioner explained the complexity of the housing crisis had required a “holistic” approach that led him to work in tandem with Executive Vice Presidents Teresa Ribera and Roxana Mînzatu, as well as internal market boss Stéphane Séjourné and tech chief Henna Virkkunen, among others. He also stressed the package didn’t constitute a power grab on the Commission’s part, and that national, regional and local governments are still best positioned to address many aspects of the crisis. “But,” he said, “there are areas where we haven’t done anything in which we can do something.” While much of the plan will consist of recommendations member countries won’t be required to implement, Jørgensen warned against ignoring them. The Commission is providing solutions, he said, and “policymakers need to answer to their populations if they don’t do something that’s pretty obvious they could do.” “Normal citizens will use every opportunity to make their demands known, be it in local, national or European elections,” Jørgensen explained. “I’m respectfully telling decision-makers all over Europe that either they take this problem seriously, or they accept that they’ll have to hand over power to the populists.”

LONDON — The British government hit back Wednesday after Donald Trump launched his latest broadside at London Mayor Sadiq Khan. The U.S. president told POLITICO in an interview Monday that Khan was “a horrible mayor” who had made the British capital city a  “different place” to what it once was. Trump added of Khan: “He’s an incompetent mayor, but he’s a horrible, vicious, disgusting mayor. I think he’s done a terrible job. London’s a different place. I love London. I love London. And I hate to see it happen.” Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, a member of the U.K. cabinet, pushed backed at those remarks Wednesday, and heaped praise on her fellow Labour politician. “I strongly disagree with those comments,” she told Sky News. “I think Sadiq is doing a really good job and has been at the forefront of providing affordable housing [and] improvements to transport.” Nandy said Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, had offered a model for the U.K. government to follow nationally. “He’s been one of the people who has set up multi-agency approaches to help young people with knife crime, gang violence that we’re learning from in government,” she said. “So I strongly disagree.” Asked explicitly if Trump’s comments were wrong, Nandy replied: “Yes he is.” In his wide-ranging interview with POLITICO, the U.S. president also claimed Khan — who has won three consecutive terms as mayor of London and has no power to determine national migration policy — had been elected “because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.” Pushed on why Prime Minister Keir Starmer hadn’t explicitly defended Khan from Trump’s attack, Nandy said she knows “the prime minister would disagree with those comments.” She added: “I’m sure that if you asked the prime minister if he was sitting in this studio today, he would say what I’ve said, which is that Sadiq is doing an incredibly good job for London. We’re proud of our mayors.” Khan told POLITICO Tuesday the U.S. president was “obsessed” with him and claimed Americans were “flocking” to live in London, because its liberal values are the “antithesis” of Trump’s. It’s not the first beef between the two politicians.  Trump once called Khan a “stone cold loser” and “very dumb” — after Khan compared Trump to “the fascists of the 20th century.” In 2018, Khan allowed anti-Trump activists to fly a blimp over parliament showing Trump as a crying baby in a diaper during his first state visit.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music When Europe’s biggest political family crosses the aisle to vote with the far right, something fundamental shifts in Brussels. In this episode, host Sarah Wheaton unpacks the vote that cracked the European Parliament’s cordon sanitaire — and what a newly disciplined, image-polished far right means for Ursula von der Leyen’s shaky centrist alliance. POLITICO’s Marianne Gros and Max Griera take us inside the omnibus showdown; Tim Ross demonstrates how the same forces are reshaping politics across Europe — from the English seaside town of Jaywick to Paris, Berlin and beyond. Plus — Aitor Hernández-Morales brings us a surprising counterpoint from Denmark, where voters pushed back against a left-wing government they felt had leaned too far toward the right.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s Social Democrats suffered heavy losses in Tuesday’s nationwide local elections, losing key cities including Copenhagen for the first time since 1903. “We had expected losses, but the decline appears to be greater than we had expected,” Frederiksen told supporters at a party event in the Danish capital. “That is, of course, not satisfactory.” Although the Social Democrats remain Denmark’s most popular political group, securing around 23 percent of all votes, support for the party declined in 87 of the country’s 98 municipalities. The prime minister said she took “responsibility” for the electoral debacle, and said that she would “carefully consider what is behind it.” With Denmark required to hold general elections within the next year, the losses in Copenhagen and other Danish cities are likely to put pressure on Frederiksen to change course on some of her signature policies during the coming months. The liberal Venstre group now controlling the largest number of mayoralties in Denmark underscores the political disaster suffered by Frederiksen’s party, whose electoral base is supposed to be made up of urban voters. The high cost of housing dominated the campaign in Denmark’s largest municipalities, with voters exasperated by the national government’s response. In Copenhagen, where home prices have risen by 20 percent over the past year, just 12.7 percent of electors backed the prime minister’s party. After 122 years of Social Democrat rule in Copenhagen, the party’s candidate, Pernille Rosenkrantz–Theill, was not even invited to attend negotiations to form the capital’s next government. Sisse Marie Welling — whose Socialists made the largest gains in the election — will be Copenhagen’s new lord mayor, leading a “green and progressive majority.” Welling has tapped Line Barfod, whose Red-Green Alliance secured 1 out of every 5 votes cast in the capital, to be Copenhagen’s environment czar. That poses a major threat to the government’s controversial Lynetteholm artificial island project, which is meant to protect the city from flooding and create space for new housing. Barfod is a longtime opponent of the €2.7 billion scheme and she’s likely to make much of a new report showing the project is leaking cyanide into Copenhagen’s waters. Beyond the capital, the Social Democrats suffered dramatic reversals in traditional bastions like Frederikshavn, where support for the party fell by half. The far-right Danish Democrats performed well in rural municipalities in Jutland, and won more seats than the number of candidates they had running for office in places such as Lolland. While the prime minister — whose birthday is Wednesday — said that local factors had contributed to the defeat, she acknowledged that there were “also trends that transcend local conditions.” Beyond debates over classic urban issues like mobility policies and access to green spaces, the local elections were seen as a referendum on the rightward turn the Social Democrats have taken at the national level. Based on the results, voters in major cities appear to be souring on Frederiksen’s tough stance on migration and her willingness to ally with economic liberal parties.

COPENHAGEN — Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s Social Democrats are staring down a potential political earthquake in Tuesday’s nationwide local elections. Polls predict a drubbing in the very cities that once anchored the party’s power. But the biggest humiliation may come in Copenhagen, where the Social Democrats are poised to lose control of city hall for the first time in 122 years. The revolt is driven by a familiar urban grievance: The skyrocketing cost of housing. After decades of turning Copenhagen from a gritty port into one of Europe’s most livable — and expensive — capitals, the party is now paying for the prosperity it helped create. But housing isn’t the whole story. The election has also become a referendum on Frederiksen’s centrist makeover — a strategy that’s seen the party ally with economic liberal parties and take one of Europe’s toughest stances on migration. Those moves may have shored up support in small towns, but in Copenhagen, they’ve cost the party its soul. Frederiksen’s ability to remain in power since 2019 has been a success story for Europe’s beleaguered Party of European Socialists. But the crumbling of the Social Democrats’ dominance in Copenhagen is set to bolster those arguing the center-left needs to return to its working-class origins and focus on issues such as affordable housing and economic equity. A CITY TRANSFORMED, A VOTING BASE LOST The Social Democrats have been in power in Copenhagen for so long that when they first took control of the city in 1903, the current city hall building — a neo-renaissance palace “guarded” by stone bears and bronze dragons — was still under construction. During the 20th century, the Social Democrats represented the blue-collar workers of the bustling port city. But anticipating the decline of industrial activity in Copenhagen, in the late 1990s the party began to focus on turning the Danish capital into a polished magnet for global companies, urban professionals and international students. “The Social Democrats can take credit for transforming Copenhagen from a city without investments into a global model city with efficient infrastructure, strong educational institutions, green spaces, swimming in the harbor, an impressive gastronomic scene, and a high level of safety,” said sociologist and political analyst Carsten Mai. But that metamorphosis has come with soaring real estate prices that have pushed many working-class families out of the city entirely and strained those who remain. “The price of an average 80 square meter, owner-occupied apartment has increased by 20 percent over the past year and by 29 percent over the past four years,” said Lise Nytoft Bergmann, chief housing economist at Nordea Credit. “The sharp price increases have made it significantly harder for young people, singles, and low-income households to find housing in Copenhagen.” “The price of an average 80 square meter, owner-occupied apartment has increased by 20 percent over the past year and by 29 percent over the past four years,” said Lise Nytoft Bergmann, chief housing economist at Nordea Credit. | Michael Nguyen/NurPhoto via Getty Images Bent Winther, political commentator at the media company Berlingske, pointed out the housing crisis had been particularly detrimental for the Social Democrats’ voting base in the capital. “The overall number of unionized, blue-collar and public sector workers who have historically voted for the party has declined over the last decades,” he said. “Those that are left — people who work in hospitals, kindergartens, etc — can’t really afford to live here anymore.” LEADERSHIP BLUNDERS The Social Democrats’ hold on Copenhagen has been weakening for years, partly as a result of problems with its leaders at the local level. In 2020, Mayor Frank Jensen resigned after sexual harassment allegations came to light, and his successor, Sophie Hæstorp Andersen, was moved to a ministerial position in a 2023 maneuver widely believed to have been motivated by the party’s lack of confidence in her chances for reelection. Seasoned national politician Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil was brought in to revive the Social Democrats’ fortunes in the capital, but her stint as lead candidate has inadvertently accentuated the party’s disconnection with the electorate. As Denmark’s minister for housing between 2022 and 2024, the Social Democrats’ candidate has struggled to disassociate herself from her own failure to address the escalating housing crisis. After calling for the construction of more affordable housing in Copenhagen during an electoral debate, Line Barfod, head of the far-left Red-Green Alliance, accused Rosenkrantz-Theil of ignoring the issue during her time in the national government and rushing to address it “in the final sprint of the campaign.” The candidate also angered green-minded voters who had previously backed the Social Democrats by reversing the party’s support for measures to limit car access to the city, and abruptly promising to reintroduce parking spots to make life easier for drivers. Elisabet Svane, political analyst for Danish newspaper Politiken, said that Rosenkrantz-Theil’s campaign had ambitiously incorporated policy changes calculated to make the Social Democrats stand apart from far-left parties that are able to take more hardline positions on green topics like parking. “She took ownership of what was a traditionally conservative position, and argued that it’s a Social Democrat value to have the right to a car, to drive around,” Svane said. But the strategy doesn’t appear to have paid off. Polls project that the left-wing groups pushing green policies and affordability issues will outperform the Social Democrats on Tuesday. Barfod’s Red-Green Alliance is expected to secure nearly one in four votes, while the Socialist People’s Party is projected to double its support to 22 percent. Denmark’s Social Democrats, Prime Minister Frederiksen, and Rosenkrantz-Theil did not respond to POLITICO’s requests for comment. FREDERIKSEN’S CENTRISM MEETS LEFT-LEANING CAPITAL Beyond local missteps, the Social Democrats’ decline in Copenhagen is tied to urban voters’ broader dissatisfaction with the measures adopted by Frederiksen’s right-leaning coalition government. While Frederiksen’s hawkish defense policies and support for Ukraine have proved broadly popular, her hardline stance on immigration has been far more controversial. The policies have played well in rural Denmark, but are alienating voters in the urban areas that have traditionally been the Social Democrats’ base — among them, Copenhagen, where non-natives make up 20 percent of the electorate. “Everybody agrees we have to have an orderly policy on migration and fight Islamism, but what’s at issue is the government’s tone,” said Svane, who relayed the complaints of Social Democratic mayors in surrounding communities who said the party’s harsh rhetoric against foreigners was undermining its position at the local level. Beyond the migration issue, political analyst Mai said the party was increasingly out of step with Denmark’s ever-more progressive urban electorate. “Many of them are focused on value-based issues such as social justice and the war in Gaza,” he said. “The Social Democrats have failed to adjust their policies to align with these voters.” A WARNING FOR EUROPE’S CENTER-LEFT Denmark and Spain are the only two major EU countries still governed by members of the Party of European Socialists, and the approaches taken by their leaders are frequently contrasted. While Frederiksen has embraced centrism, bolstered defense spending, and cracked down on migration, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has taken the opposite tack, forging a “progressive coalition” with left-wing parties, prioritizing social spending over military budgets, and adopting a more welcoming posture toward migrants. Political commentator Winther said Frederiksen’s approach had been successful in clamping down on the far-right in Denmark, “because she sucked the oxygen out of their argument by taking such a hard line on the key issue of migration.” But, he added, the party’s rightward drift under her leadership had “created confusion about what it actually stands for.” That’s a challenge in a city like Copenhagen, which is “now composed of a lot of young people attracted by our big universities, and some quite rich people who can afford to both stay in the city and have more left-wing values.” Denmark must hold a general election within the next year, and losses in Copenhagen and other Danish cities could put pressure on Frederiksen to change course. The dominant narrative in Europe is that far-right forces are steadily advancing by campaigning on cost-of-living issues that establishment parties appear to be incapable of addressing. But Tuesday’s election in Copenhagen is notable because the likely winners are unabashedly left-wing forces that have embraced topics such as the housing crisis. The development mirrors Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s recent, headline-grabbing victory in New York City, which was keenly watched by Europe’s leftists. Nicoline Kristine Ryde, a 27-year-old actress who lives in Copenhagen, summed up the mood by saying the Social Democrats simply aren’t “cool” anymore. “I respect how Frederiksen handled the corona crisis, and the Social Democrats are still good on stuff like elder care, but for the rest, it just feels like they moved away from the social politics that have made this country great,” she said. “They just don’t feel like a socialist party anymore.”

After two years plagued by infighting and political paralysis, the Dutch tried to turn a page in Wednesday’s seismic election. But the country remains sharply divided: The parties finishing first and second, centrist liberal D66 and the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), are sworn enemies.  During his campaign, D66 leader Rob Jetten cast himself as a foil to PVV firebrand Geert Wilders. And Wilders has said he “basically disagrees with everything [Jetten] says.” Dutch convention has it that the largest party gets first shot at forming a coalition and its leader is favored to become prime minister. That looks like Jetten right now, especially as no one mainstream wants to team up with Wilders. But if talks fail, others can try — meaning the coming weeks remain unpredictable. Once the Heineken wears off, parties will have to decide who they’re willing to work in coalition with, to unravel the country’s complex issues of housing and nitrogen-pollution crises mixed with simmering anti-immigrant sentiment. But that’s for another day. For now, here are election night’s biggest winners and losers. WINNERS Rob Jetten Meet your potential next Dutch prime minister. “We did it!” a victorious Jetten, the 38-year-old D66 leader, told a boisterous crowd in Leiden chanting the party’s campaign slogan: “It is possible.”  The party picked the line to underscore its optimistic campaign promises on housing and education, but the mantra applied also to its result: With a preliminary forecast predicting 26 seats, D66 is on track to achieve its best result ever and become the Netherlands’ largest party after a stunning late surge.  To illustrate its reversal of fortunes: In the 2023 election, D66 won just nine seats, 17 fewer than on Wednesday.  Addressing journalists on election night, Jetten said the results were nothing short of historic, “because we’ve shown not only to the Netherlands but also to the world that it’s possible to beat populist and extreme-right movements.” Fiscally conservative liberals At the start of election night, a visitor attending the election watch party of the center-right liberals of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) joked that they’d gone ahead and “sent out the funeral bouquets.”  The party had been shedding support in the polls, with the gloomiest projections predicting that it could lose 10 seats compared with its 2023 results, which were already down from 2021.  That didn’t happen: According to a preliminary forecast, the party would lose just two seats, finish third in the race and actually emerge from the election as the least-damaged party from the outgoing, right-leaning government. A triumph indeed. “Decent” politics After two years of constant backbiting and a political circus traversing from one scandal to the next, a core of Dutch voters returned to a politics of familiar ideas and the promise of stability.  The main proponent of this, Christian Democrat boss Henri Bontenbal, enthusiastically summarized it in The Hague on Wednesday night: “The Netherlands is gasping for new politics. Respectful and on-topic,” after campaigning with the slogan, “a decent country.” Speaking to POLITICO, Bontenbal admitted that the election came at the right time for his party, as it bounced back from five seats in 2023 to 18 this week on that platform, according to the preliminary forecast. “I really think people are tired of all the old political games that got us here,” he exhaled.  Bontenbal’s CDA wasn’t the only party scoring big with a positive campaign tone — Jetten’s efforts also paid off in spades — which broke through grumpiness characterizing the Dutch political scene after the Wilders-dominated government fell in June. LOSERS Frans Timmermans  Frans Timmermans left his top job at the European Commission in the summer of 2023 to become the face of the Dutch left and to lead a joint green-socialist ticket to victory.  On Wednesday, he failed for the second time.  Timmermans was unable to cash in on a year of chaos under a right-wing government. His party still loved him, as supporters made clear even during his concession speech — but Timmermans realized the Netherlands does not.  The GreenLeft-Labor ticket lost seats compared to the 2023 election, and fell short of poll predictions after a campaign in which it had seemed to emerge as the lead progressive antagonist to the far-right PVV.  But the spell broke on Wednesday, and the green-socialist audience in Rotterdam had to face up to the reality that D66’s Jetten is now the Dutch progressive darling.  Timmermans, after the devastating exit poll, wasted no time in quitting as the alliance leader.  The left Can anything propel left-wing parties to victory — or, frankly, even to gain seats — in the Dutch political landscape?  It’s a tough question for Dutch left-wingers to wrestle with Thursday morning, because the top left-leaning parties — the GreenLeft-Labor alliance and the Socialist Party (SP) — lost ground, according to projections.  The biggest opposition party couldn’t convince voters to back them, and even lost seats, despite being faced with the hardest-right government in Dutch history and the political chaos it ushered in.  The SP fared even worse than Timmermans’ joint ticket; its seat count almost halved, from five to three.   GreenLeft-Labor is already an alliance of two left-wing parties, and both have decided to merge into one single party next year — but they face a rocky road ahead, though could make up part of a Jetten-led coalition. JURY’S OUT Geert Wilders  We’ll never know how Geert Wilders or his supporters reacted to the first exit polls, since, unlike its competitors, the PVV didn’t hold an election watch party. When he did eventually face the press, fiery Wilders was the picture of humility, describing the dramatic loss of 11 seats — more than any other party — as a “heavy setback.” But, careful now, don’t declare him politically finished just yet. After triggering the collapse of the previous government, Wilders risked being ditched by his voters in even larger numbers. A sweeping victory by his left-wing nemesis Timmermans would have added to the humiliation. Neither scenario played out. Instead it was Timmermans who stepped down, while Wilders remains near the top of the political leaderboard.  And although his chances of joining even a right-wing coalition are slim — he’s burned too many bridges for that — he seems primed to return to his role of Dutch politics’ longest-serving outsider, firing shots and tossing bombs at the establishment from the benches of parliament.  “Buckle up, we’re only getting started,” he warned reporters.

LEIDEN, the Netherlands — Waking up bleary eyed this Thursday morning and wondering who won the Dutch election? Well, it’s a stunner.  Here’s our brief explainer on the progressive liberal party that surged in recent weeks to match Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) on the back of a charismatic young leader.  START FROM THE BEGINNING, PLEASE, WHO WON THE DUTCH ELECTION? The liberal-progressive D66 party — short for Democrats 66; founded in 1966, natch — is on track to win 26 seats in the Netherlands’ 150-strong parliament, according to a preliminary forecast. That puts them equal with the hotly tipped Wilders and his PVV, which just two years ago scored a huge election win, and ahead of other mainstream conservative, socialist and liberal parties. OK, D66 THEN, WHAT DO THEY STAND FOR? D66 is a pro-European party that tends to draw in urbanite, high-income voters.  While the party’s pitch in its early days was to have prime ministers and mayors directly elected, in 2025 it focused its campaign on solutions to the Netherlands’ housing crisis, notably with a plan to build new cities. It also picked a hopeful slogan: “It is possible,” evoking former U.S. President Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” optimism. The party campaigned on pledges to focus on “affordable, green energy from our own soil” to keep energy prices down, while securing the “healthiest generation ever” by prioritizing the prevention of illness. It also wants greener residential areas and an emphasis on better education. D66 beefed up its stance on migration, advocating for a system that would have people lodge asylum applications outside Europe, with leader Rob Jetten warily noting the collapse of two successive Dutch governments over asylum policy. The party also pushed to reclaim the red-white-and-blue tricolor flag as something for mainstream Dutch voters to be proud of after angry farmers turned it upside down in protests and Wilders clutched it for populist-nationalist reasons.  At D66’s election night party in Leiden, their leader told reporters the flags are a way to wave goodbye to recent years “where it sometimes seemed like our country can’t be proud anymore. We’re an amazing country and we can make it even better,” he said. SO WHO IS THE LEADER AND WHAT’S HIS DEAL? Once dubbed “Robot Jetten” because of the clunky manner he answered questions, Jetten is now in pole position to become the future prime minister of the Netherlands. Despite the unfavorable early nickname, the 38-year-old — who is openly gay — has since become a charming and media-savvy poster-boy for D66’s positive and progressive-liberal platform. “I’ve become a lot grayer and a lot more experienced,” Jetten joked on election night.  He was in line to head the party back in 2018, but stepped aside in favor of veteran diplomat Sigrid Kaag; a move that won him plaudits among party members.  Jetten took the baton from Kaag in 2023 after her hopes of becoming the Netherlands’ first female prime minister were dashed in the previous election. IS JETTEN REALLY GOING TO BE THE NEXT DUTCH PRIME MINISTER? If the final results confirm the election night projections, he’s certainly in prime position.  But the real work starts next.  Jetten will have to form a coalition and, to get the numbers for a majority, may need to carry out the unenviable task of convincing the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and left-wing GreenLeft-Labor to team up after bitterly campaigning against one another.  The challenge isn’t lost on Jetten. With around 26 seats, D66 is “a small large party, when compared with Dutch history,” he said on election night. “So we’ll have to cooperate with many parties.” Jetten is also well aware of the challenge that has doomed recent Dutch governments. Migration was once more in the spotlight in the run-up to the election “and it is my ambition that in four years’ time, this will no longer need to be an issue,” Jetten told reporters on election night. BACK TO THE PARTY, HAVE THEY BEEN IN GOVERNMENT BEFORE? Many times, including most recently in the third and fourth governments helmed by longtime liberal leader Mark Rutte. Jetten himself was a climate and energy minister in Rutte’s fourth and final government, in which D66 was the second-largest party.  Before that, D66 has joined coalitions on and off since the early 1970s. HAVE I HEARD OF ANY OF THE PARTY BIGWIGS? You likely have: Diplomat and former Foreign Affairs and Finance Minister Sigrid Kaag led D66 from 2020 until 2023, before returning to the United Nations as the organization’s senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator for Gaza.  The EU’s Special Representative for Human Rights Kajsa Ollongren previously filled roles as defense and internal affairs minister for the party.  And then there are the party’s former European lawmakers: Both Marietje Schaake and Sophie in ‘t Veld — who left D66 in 2023 — are well-known names in the Brussels bubble. WHAT’S THEIR POSITION IN BRUSSELS? D66, which is part of the Renew Europe group in the European Parliament, takes a decidedly more pro-EU stance than we’re used to hearing in the Netherlands, from supporting the implementation of a European migration pact to advocating for the creation of European armed forces.  But despite its pro-European stance, D66 has never filled a major EU post — like, for example, a Dutch commissioner — with most party heavyweights focused on domestic politics instead.  Max Griera contributed to this report.

Rob Jetten’s liberal D66 party and far-right firebrand Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party are neck and neck in the Dutch election, according to the first exit poll released Wednesday night.  D66 is on track to get 27 seats, while Wilders’ PVV is closely behind, poised to snag 25 seats, the key exit survey by Ipsos I&O, carried out for broadcasters NOS and RTL, suggests.  The center-right liberals of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) are projected to come third with 23 seats; while the center-left GreenLeft-Labor (GL-PvdA) is set to win 20 seats and the center-right Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) 19, the exit poll signals. Exit poll projections are historically a good indicator of Dutch election final results. This story is being updated.

LONDON — Britain’s technocratic ministers aren’t the most obvious candidates to don MAGA-style red caps and belt out punchy slogans. But Britain’s housing secretary has a real fight on his hands, and he’s not afraid to channel Donald Trump in waging it. Steve Reed took office in early September with a colorful promise to “build, baby, build.” Britain is in the midst of a housing crisis. The availability of affordable housing has plummeted, Brits are getting on the housing ladder later in life, and many families and renters are living in overcrowded, substandard and insecure homes. To try to fix this, the government came to power promising to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of the parliament. Reed and his team went into this fall’s Labour conference wearing hats emblazoned with the Trump-style three-word phrase, a rabble-rousing address and a social media strategy to match. But his MPs are already worried that the tradeoffs Reed and the U.K. Treasury are pushing to get shovels in the ground ride roughshod over the environmental protections that Brits cherish — and put some vulnerable Labour seats at risk. The three-word slogan is “completely counterproductive,” said one Labour MP who was granted anonymity to speak candidly like others quoted in this piece. The government must acknowledge “that nature is something that people genuinely love, [which] improves health and wellbeing.” PLANNING BATTLE Front of their minds are a host of changes to the U.K.’s planning bill, which is snaking its way through parliament. The bill aims to cut red tape to fast-track planning decisions, unlock more land for development, and create a building boom.  The legislation is on a journey through the U.K.’s House of Lords, and has been tweaked with a slew of government amendments on its way. In October, Reed introduced further amendments to try to speed up planning decisions and overrule councils who attempt to block new developments.  But the first MP quoted above said they are concerned Reed’s “build, baby, build” drive will only see Labour shed votes to both Zack Polanski’s left-wing Green Party and Nigel Farage’s populist Reform. The government announced that the quotas for affordable housing in new London developments would be slashed from 35 percent to 20 percent. | Richard Baker/Getty Images “Making tough decisions about how we use our land for important purposes, such as energy, food, security, housing and nature, is what government is about,” the first MP said. But they added: “We need to make sure that we are making the right decisions, but also telling a story about why we’re making those decisions, and dismissing nature as inconvenient is going against the grain of the British public.” They added: “Nobody disagrees with [building more homes] as a principle, but ending up with a narrative that basically sounds like you’re speaking in support of the [housing] developers, rather than in support of the communities that we represent, is just weird.” MAKING CHANGES Last week, Reed opened up another front in his battle. The government announced that the quotas for affordable housing in new London developments would be slashed from 35 percent to 20 percent. City Hall said the measures would help speed up planning decisions and incentivize developers to actually build more houses. But cutting social housing targets is an uncomfortable prospect for many in the Labour party.   The government’s message is “build, baby build — but not for poor people,” a Labour aide complained.  Reed firmly defended the change, telling Sky News last week: “There were only 4,000 starts in London last year for social and affordable housing. That is nothing like the scale of the crisis that we have.” He added of the quota: “35 percent of nothing is nothing. We need to make schemes viable for developers so they’ll get spades in the ground.” BLOCKING THE BLOCKERS NARRATIVE Reed has the backing of the U.K.’s powerful Treasury in waging his battle. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said the government wants to back the “builders not the blockers,” language a second Labour MP, this one in a rural seat, described as “terrible” and an approach that “needs to stop.” Such rhetoric will fail to persuade constituents worried about new developments that trample nature to support new housing. “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar,” they warned. “It’s all vinegar.” The government has already shown that it’s willing to take the fight to pro-environment MPs — sometimes dismissed in the U.K. as “NIMBYs,” short for “not in my backyard.” Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said the government wants to back the “builders not the blockers.” | Pool Photo by Joe Giddens via Getty Images 2024 intake MP Chris Hinchliff was stripped of the Labour whip in July after proposing a series of rebel amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and attacking the legislation for having a “narrow focus on increasing housing supply.” While there is vocal opposition to the “build, baby, build” strategy within Labour, there are also MPs who align themselves with the general message, if not the exact wording. “I would not go out to my constituents who are concerned about the Green Belt wearing a [build, baby, build] cap,” said a third Labour MP, also in a rural seat, “but at the same time, you have to be honest with people about the trade-offs.” They accused the opposition to Reed of “fear-mongering” and stoking the idea that England’s green belt — a designated area of British countryside protected from most development — risks being “destroyed.”  “That has killed off responsible discussions on development,” they argued. “Do I love the slogan? No. Am I going to lose sleep over it? No, because as a constituency MP you can have reasonable conversations.” THE RED HAT BRIGADE Reed also has a cohort of willing warriors on his side. The 2024 intake of Labour MPs brought with it some highly vocal, pro-growth Labour factions. The Labour YIMBY group and Labour Growth Group have been shouting from the rooftops about building more. Labour Growth Group chair and MP Chris Curtis says: “We have some of the oldest and therefore coldest homes of any developed country. We have outdated, carbon intensive energy infrastructure, hardly any water storage, pipes that leak, old sewage infrastructure that dumps raw sewage into our rivers, and car dependency because we can’t build proper public transport.  “Anybody who thinks blocks on building has been good for nature is simply wrong,” he added. “Protecting our environment literally depends on us building well, and building quickly.” Labour MP Mike Reader, who worked in the construction and infrastructure sector before becoming an MP and is part of the pro-building caucus, was sanguine about Reed’s message. “The U.K. is the most nature-depleted country in Western Europe,” he said. “So to argue for the status quo … is arguing for us to destroy nature in its very essence. The legislation that we [currently] have does not protect nature.” As for concern that the government is too close to housing developers, Reader shot back: “Who do they think builds the houses?” Steve Reed introduced further amendments to try to speed up planning decisions and overrule councils who attempt to block new developments. | Aaron Chown/Getty Images “I want each [MP who rejects the ‘build, baby, build’ message] to tell the thousands of young families in temporary accommodation that they don’t deserve a safe secure home,” he said. “If they can’t do that they need to grow a pair and do difficult things. That’s why we’re in government. To change lives. And build, baby, build.” A fourth unnamed Labour MP said the slogan is “a bit cringe and Trumpian,” but added: “I’m not really arsed about what slogans they’re using if they’re delivering on that as an objective.” There’s also unlikely praise for the effort from the other side of the U.K. political divide. Jack Airey, a former No. 10 special adviser who tried to get a planning and infrastructure bill through under the last Conservative government, said “people that oppose house building often have the loudest voice, and they use it … and yet, the people that support house building generally don’t really say it, because why would they? They’ve got better things to do.” “I think it’s really positive for the government to have a pro-house building and pro-development message out there, and, more importantly, a pro-development caucus in parliament and beyond,” he said. In a bid to steady the nerves of anxious MPs, Reed told the parliamentary Labour Party last week that his Trump-style slogan is a “bit of fun” that hides a serious point — that there simply aren’t enough houses being built in the U.K. And an aide to Reed rejected concerns from Labour MPs that nature is not being sufficiently considered, saying “nobody understands [nature concerns] more than Steve. “We reject this kind of binary choice between nature and building,” they said. “We think that you can do both. It just requires imaginative, ultimately sensible and pragmatic policy-making, and that’s what we’re doing. “We’re not ashamed to campaign in primary colors,” the Reed aide said. Noah Keate contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Heard the one about the 12-and-half-hour meeting of 27 national leaders that succeeded in agreeing very little apart from coming up with quite a lot of “let’s decide in a couple of months” or “let’s just all agree on language that means absolutely nothing but looks like we’re united” or “let’s at least celebrate that we got through this packed agenda without having to come back on Friday”? No? Well let us enlighten you. And if that makes you question how we’ve managed to squeeze 29 things out of this, well let’s just say one of these is about badly functioning vending machines… 1 . STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX WITH A QUICK WIN ON SANCTIONS … The day was off to a flying start when Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico lifted his veto over the latest raft of Russia sanctions on the eve of the summit — allowing the package to get formally signed off at 8 a.m. before leaders even started talking. Fico rolled over after claiming to achieve what he set out to do: clinch support for Slovakia’s car industry. He found an unusual ally in German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who he met separately to discuss the impact of climate targets on their countries’ automotive sectors. 2. … BUT AGREEMENT ON FROZEN RUSSIAN ASSETS WAS LESS FORTHCOMING There was a moment earlier in the week where the EU looked to be on the cusp of a breakthrough on using Russian frozen assets to fund a €140 billion loan for Ukraine. Belgium, the main holdout, appeared to be warming to the European Commission’s daring idea to crack open the piggy bank. But Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever stuck by his guns , saying he feared taking the assets, which are held in a Brussels-based financial depository, could trigger Moscow to take legal action. 3. BELGIUM DIDN’T MOVE ON ITS BIG THREE BIG DEMANDS The Flemish right-winger’s prerequisites were threefold: the “full mutualization of the risk,” guarantees that if the money has to paid back, “every member state will chip in,” and for every other EU country that holds immobilized assets to also seize them. Leaders eventually agreed on that classic EU summit outcome: a fudge. They tasked the European Commission to “present options” at the next European Council — effectively deciding not to decide. “Political will is clear, and the process will move forward,” said one EU official. But it’s uncertain whether a deal can be brokered by the next summit, currently set for December. 4. DE WEVER REJECTS THE ‘BAD BOY’ LABEL After POLITICO ranked the Belgian leader among its list of “bad boys” likely to disrupt Thursday’s summit (rightfully, might we add), he protested the branding. “A bad boy! Me? … If you talk about the immobilized assets, we’re the very, very best,” he said. The day was off to a flying start when Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico lifted his veto over the latest raft of Russia sanctions on the eve of the summit. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA 5. URSULA VON DER LEYEN ALSO CONCEDED THEY’RE NOT QUITE THERE YET The high-level talks “allowed us to identify points we need to clarify,” the Commission president said tactfully. “Nobody vetoed nothing today,” European Council President António Costa chimed in. “The technical and legal aspects of Europe’s support need to be worked upon.” Translation in case you didn’t understand the double negative: The EU needs to come up with a better plan to reassure Belgium — and fast. 6. UKRAINE: EVER THE OPTIMIST Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ― a guest of the summit ― told reporters Russia must pay the price for its invasion, calling on the EU to follow through with its frozen assets proposal, adding he thought the leaders were “close” to an agreement. “If Russia brought war to our land, they have to pay for this war,” he said. 7. AND ZELENSKYY IS STILL HOLDING OUT FOR TOMAHAWKS “We will see,” was Zelenskyy’s message on the topic of acquiring the long-range missiles from the U.S., which Donald Trump has so far ruled out selling to Kyiv. “Each day brings something … maybe tomorrow we will have Tomahawks,” Zelenskyy said. “I don’t know.” 8. UKRAINE WANTS GERMANY TO SEND MORE WEAPONS TOO Merz held a meeting with Zelenskyy about “the situation in Washington and the American plans that are now on the table,” a German official said, adding Zelenskyy made “specific requests” to the chancellor about helping Ukraine with its “defense capabilities.” After the summit, the German leader said Berlin would review a proposal on how German technologies could help to protect Ukrainian’s energy and water infrastructure. 9. THUMBS UP TO DEFENSE ROADMAP! EU leaders endorsed the Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030 presented last week by the Commission, which aims to prepare member countries for war by 2030. One of its main objectives is to fill EU capability gaps in nine areas: air and missile defense, enablers, military mobility, artillery systems, AI and cyber, missile and ammunition, drones and anti-drones, ground combat, and maritime. The plan also mentions areas like defense readiness and the role of Ukraine, which would be heavily armed and supported to become a “steel porcupine” able to deter Russian aggression. As leaders deliberated, a Russian fighter jet and a refueling aircraft briefly crossed into Lithuanian airspace from the Kaliningrad region, underscoring the need for the EU to protect its skies. 10. KYIV IS PROMISING TO BUY EUROPEAN — MOSTLY Ukraine will prioritize domestic and European industry when spending cash from the proposed reparation loan funded by Russia’s frozen assets, Zelenskyy told leaders at the summit — but wants to be able to go across the pond when necessary. 11. MUCH THE SAME FOR SPAIN Spanish leader Pedro Sánchez said the country had committed to contributing cash to a fund organized by NATO to buy weapons for Ukraine from the U.S. | Nicolas Tucat/Getty Images Spanish leader Pedro Sánchez said the country had committed to contributing cash to a fund organized by NATO to buy weapons for Ukraine from the U.S. “Today, most of the air defense components, such as Patriots or Tomahawks … which Ukraine clearly needs, are only manufactured in the United States,” he said. Madrid has been a thorn in Washington’s side over its lax defense spending. 12. THERE WAS A MERCOSUR SURPRISE Merz stunned trade watchers when he announced the leaders had backed a controversial trade agreement with Latin American countries. “We voted on it today: The Mercosur agreement can be ratified,” the German chancellor told reporters, adding that he was “very happy” about that. “All 27 countries voted unanimously in favor,” Merz added on Mercosur. “It’s done.” The remark sparked confusion amongst delegations, as the European Council doesn’t usually vote on trade agreements — let alone one as controversial as the mammoth agreement with the countries of the Latin American bloc of Mercosur, which has been in negotiations for over 25 years. One EU diplomat clarified that it’s because European Council President António Costa sought confirmation from EU leaders that they would agree to take a stance on the deal by the end of this year — and no formal vote was taken yet. 13. CLIMATE TALKS PASSED WITHOUT A HITCH One of the hotter potatoes ahead of the summit passed surprisingly smoothly. Leaders ultimately refrained from bulldozing the EU’s climate targets, agreeing to a vaguely worded commitment to a green transition, though without committing to a 2040 goal, which proposes cutting emissions by 90 percent compared to 1990 levels. In the words of one diplomat: “Classic balance, everyone equally unhappy.” 14. AT LEAST ONE LEADER SEEMED PLEASED, THOUGH Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the summit a “turning point” in Europe’s approach to green policy, adding he succeeded in inserting a “revision clause” into the EU’s plan to extend its carbon-trading system to heating and transport emissions that will give member countries the option to delay or adjust the rollout. “We’ve defused a threat to Polish families and drivers,” he declared, calling the change a signal that “Europe is finally speaking our language.” 15. BUT THE ISSUE WON’T STAY BURIED FOR LONG Ministers are set to reconvene and cast a vote on the 2040 goal on Nov. 4, described by one diplomat as “groundhog day.” 16. MEANWHILE, THERE WAS NOTHING ON MIGRATION … Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the summit a “turning point” in Europe’s approach to green policy. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Aside from promising to make migration a “priority,” the EU’s leaders failed to make any kind of breakthrough on a stalled proposal for burden-sharing. Reminder: The EU missed a deadline last week to agree on a new way of deciding which member countries are under stress from receiving migrants and ways of sharing the responsibility more equally across the bloc. 17. … BUT THE ANTI-MIGRANT BREAKFAST CLUB LIVES ON Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen and the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof have kept up their informal pre-summit “migration breakfasts” since last June, swapping innovative ideas on tougher border and asylum policies. They met again on Thursday with von der Leyen, who updated them on the EU’s latest plans for accelerating migrant returns, and the trio agreed an informal summit will take place next month in Rome. 18. NOR DID THE EU’S SOCIAL MEDIA BAN GET MUCH OF A LOOK IN As expected, the leaders endorsed a “possible” minimum age for kids to use social media, but failed to commit to a bloc-wide ban, with capitals divided on whether to make the age 15 or 16, as well as on the issue of parental consent. 19. THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT OF WAITING FOR NEWS… Journalists were frantically pressing their sources in the Council and national delegations to find out what was happening at the leaders’ table as the meeting dragged into the late hours. It eventually finished at 10.30 p.m. ― 12 and a half hours after it began. 20. … AND THE GREENS SEIZED THEIR MOMENT The EU Parliament’s Greens group co-chair Bas Eickhout wandered the hallways of the Justus Lipsius building ready to brief bored journalists about the wonders of the Green Deal — while leaders debated how to unravel it in the other room. 21. THE COMBUSTION ENGINE BAN FELL FLAT One of the pillars of the EU’s green transition, its 2035 de facto combustion engine ban, was set to play a major role in the competitiveness and climate discussions, with Merz and Fico spoiling for a fight over the proposal — yet it barely registered as a footnote. Slovakia used the climate talks to oppose the ban, and the Czech Republic chimed in to agree, but in the end the summit’s official conclusions welcomed the Commission’s proposed ban without mentioning how it should be watered down. 22. THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL’S VENDING MACHINES AREN’T VERY, ER, COMPETITIVE Officials and journalists alike found that the vending machines in the EU’s Justus Lipsius building, which incidentally is due for a €1 billion renovation, about as efficient as a roundtable of 27 national leaders lasting 12 and a half hours. 23. THE BLOC IS WORRIED ABOUT CHINA… Beijing’s export controls on rare earths came up in the talks on competitiveness, according to two EU officials, with some leaders expressing their concerns. 24. … BUT THEY’RE NOT READY TO GO NUCLEAR — YET One of the officials said the EU’s most powerful trade weapon, the Anti-Coercion Instrument, was mentioned, but didn’t garner much interest around the table. 25. HOUSING GETS 40 MINUTES — NOT BAD FOR A FIRST RUN Leaders spent a chunk of time discussing the continent’s housing crisis. A solid start for the topic, which made it onto the agenda for the first time at Costa’s behest. The EU executive “is ready to help,” von der Leyen said after the summit, announcing a European Affordable Housing Plan is in the pipeline and the first EU Housing Summit in 2026. | Dursun Aydemir/Getty Images During talks, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis called on the Commission to create a database tracking which housing policies work — and which don’t — across Europe. Most leaders agreed that, while housing remains a national competence, the EU still has a role to play. 26. AND THE COMMISSION WANTS TO ROLL UP ITS SLEEVES The EU executive “is ready to help,” von der Leyen said after the summit, announcing a European Affordable Housing Plan is in the pipeline and the first EU Housing Summit in 2026. 27. LEADERS ENJOYED A FEAST OR TWO For lunch, langoustine with yuzu, celeriac and apple, fillet of veal with artichokes and crispy polenta, and a selection of fresh fruit. For dinner, cannelloni with herbs, courgette velouté, fillet of brill with chorizo and pepper, and fig meringue cake. Yum. 28. THOUGH A FEW COULDN’T MAKE IT Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was the most notable absence, rocking up several hours late due to a national holiday in Budapest. Portugal and Slovenia’s leaders were also absent at one point. 29. AND COSTA KEPT HIS PROMISE … JUST The European Council president pledged to streamline summits under his watch, making them one-day affairs instead of two. And with just a couple hours to spare, he was successful. Okay, breathe. Did we miss anything? (Don’t answer that.) Gerardo Fortuna, Max Griera Andrieu, Jordyn Dahl, Gabriel Gavin, Hanne Cokelaere, Clea Caulcutt, Hans von der Burchard, Kathryn Carlson, Tim Ross, Jacopo Barigazzi, Gregorio Sorgi, Eliza Gkritsi, Carlo Martuscelli, Nicholas Vinocur, Saga Ringmar, Sarah Wheaton, Louise Guillot, Zia Weise, Camille Gijs, Bartosz Brzezinski and Giedre Peseckyte contributed to this report.