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

Want to get a sense of how the next French presidential vote will play out? Then pay attention to the upcoming local elections. They start in 50 days, and voters in more than 35,000 communes will head to the polls to elect city councils and mayors. Those races will give an important insight into French politics running into the all-important 2027 presidential contest that threatens to reshape both France and the European Union.  The elections, which will take place over two rounds on March 15 and March 22, will confirm whether the far-right National Rally can cement its status as the country’s predominant political force. They will also offer signs of whether the left is able to overcome its internal divisions to be a serious challenger. The center has to prove it’s not in a death spiral. POLITICO traveled to four cities for an on-the-ground look at key races that will be fought on policy issues that resonate nationally such as public safety, housing, climate change and social services. These are topics that could very well determine the fortunes of the leading parties next year. FRANCE IN MINIATURE Benoit Payan, Franck Allisio, Martine Vassal and Sébastien Delogu | Source photos via EPA and Getty Images MARSEILLE — France’s second city is a microcosm of the nationwide electoral picture. Marseille’s sprawl is comprised of poorer, multicultural areas, middle-to-upper-class residential zones and bustling, student-filled districts. All make up the city’s unique fabric. Though Marseille has long struggled with crime, a surge in violence tied to drug trafficking in the city and nationwide has seen security rocket up voters’ priority list. In Marseille, as elsewhere, the far right has tied the uptick in violence and crime to immigration. The strategy appears to be working. Recent polling shows National Rally candidate Franck Allisio neck-and-neck with incumbent Benoît Payan, who enjoys the support of most center-left and left-wing parties. Trailing them are the center-right hopeful Martine Vassal — who is backed by French President Emmanuel Macron’s party Renaissance — and the hard-left France Unbowed candidate Sébastien Delogu, a close ally of three-time presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Those four candidates are all polling well enough to make the second round. That could set up an unprecedented and unpredictable four-way runoff to lead the Mediterranean port city of more than 850,000 people. A National Rally win here would rank among the biggest victories in the history of the French far right. Party leader Marine Le Pen traveled to Marseille herself on Jan. 17 to stump for Allisio, describing the city as a “a symbol of France’s divisions” and slamming Payan for “denying that there is a connection between immigration and insecurity.” Party leader Marine Le Pen traveled to Marseille herself on Jan. 17 to stump for Allisio. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images The center-right candidate Vassal told POLITICO said she would increase security by recruiting more local police and installing video surveillance. But she also regretted that Marseille was so often represented by its struggles. “We’re always making headlines on problems like drug trafficking … It puts all the city’s assets and qualities to the side and erases everything else which goes on,” Vassal said. Payan, whose administration took over in 2020 after decades of conservative rule, has tried to tread a line that is uncompromising on policing while also acknowledging the roots of the city’s problems require holistic solutions. He’s offered to double the number of local cops as part of a push for more community policing and pledged free meals for 15,000 students to get them back in school. Marseille’s sprawl is comprised of poorer, multicultural areas, middle-to-upper-class residential zones and bustling, student-filled districts. All make up the city’s unique fabric. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images Delogu is the only major candidate not offering typical law-and-order investments. Though he acknowledges the city’s crime problems, he proposes any new spending should be on poverty reduction, housing supply and the local public health sector rather than of more security forces and equipment. Crime is sure to dominate the debate in Marseille. This election will test which of these competing approaches resonates most in a country where security is increasingly a top concern. LATEST POLLING: Payan 30 percent – Allisio 30 percent- Vassal 23 percent – Delogu 14 percent CAN A UNITED LEFT BLOCK A FAR-RIGHT TAKEOVER? Julien Sanchez, Franck Proust and Julien Plantier | Source photos via Getty Images NÎMES — Nîmes’ stunningly well-preserved second-century Roman amphitheater attracts global superstars for blockbuster concerts. But even the glamour of Taylor Swift or Dua Lipa can’t hide the recent scares in this city of more than 150,000 people. Nîmes has in recent years suffered from violence tied to drug trafficking long associated with Marseille, located just a short train ride away. Pissevin, a high-rise neighborhood just a 15-minute streetcar ride from the landmark amphitheater, seized national headlines in 2024 when 10-year-old was killed by a stray bullet in a case that remains under investigation but which prosecutors believe was linked to drug trafficking. “Ten to 15 years ago, a lot of crime came from petty theft and burglaries. But some of the population in underprivileged areas, looking for economic opportunities, turned to the drug trade, which offered a lot more money and the same amount of prison time if they were caught,” said Salim El Jihad, a Nîmes resident who leads the local nongovernmental organization Suburban. The Nimes amphitheatre and Pissevin / Source photos via Getty Images The National Rally is betting on Nîmes as a symbolic pickup. The race is shaping up to be a close three-way contest between Communist Vincent Bouget, the National Rally’s Julien Sanchez and conservative Franck Proust, Nîmes’ deputy mayor from 2016 to 2020. Bouget — who is backed by most other left-wing parties, including moderate forces like the Socialist Party — told POLITICO that while security is shaping up to be a big theme in the contest, it raises “a broader question around social structures.” “What citizens are asking for is more human presence, including public services and social workers,” Bouget said. Whoever wins will take the reins from Jean-Paul Fournier, the 80-year-old conservative mayor who has kept Nîmes on the right without pause for the past quarter century. But Fournier’s decision not to seek another term and infighting within his own party, Les Républicains, have sharply diminished Proust’s chances of victory. Proust may very well end splitting votes with Julien Plantier, another right-leaning former deputy mayor, who has the support of Macron’s Renaissance. Sanchez, meanwhile, is appealing to former Fournier voters with pledges to bolster local police units and with red scare tactics. “Jean-Paul Fournier managed to keep this city on the right for 25 years,” Sanchez said in his candidacy announcement clip. “Because of the stupidity of his heirs, there’s a strong chance the communists and the far left could win.” LATEST POLLING: Bouget 28 percent – Sanchez 27 percent- Proust 22 percent THE LAST GREEN HOPE That was also a clear swipe at Pierre Hurmic’s main opponent — pro-Macron centrist Thomas Cazenave — who spent a year as budget minister from 2023 to 2024. | Source photos via Getty Images BORDEAUX — Everyone loves a Bordeaux red. So can a Green really last in French wine country? Pierre Hurmic rode the green wave to Bordeaux city hall during France’s last nationwide municipal elections in 2020. That year the Greens, which had seldom held power other than as a junior coalition partner, won the race for mayor in three of France’s 10 most populous cities — Strasbourg, Lyon and Bordeaux — along with smaller but noteworthy municipalities including Poitiers and Besançon. Six years later, the most recent polling suggests the Greens are on track to lose all of them. Except Bordeaux. Green mayors have faced intense scrutiny over efforts to make cities less car-centric and more eco-friendly, largely from right-wing opponents who depict those policies as out of touch with working-class citizens who are priced out of expensive city centers and must rely on cars to get to their jobs. The view from Paris is that Hurmic has escaped some of that backlash by being less ideological and, crucially, adopting a tougher stance on crime than some of his peers. Notably, Hurmic decided to arm part of the city’s local police units — departing from some of his party’s base, which argues that firearms should be reserved for national forces rather than less-experienced municipal units. In an interview with POLITICO, Hurmic refused to compare himself to other Green mayors. He defended his decision to double the number of local police, alongside those he armed, saying it had led to a tangible drop in crime. “Everyone does politics based on their own temperament and local circumstances,” he said. Hurmic insists that being tough on crime doesn’t mean going soft on climate change. He argues the Greens’ weak polling wasn’t a backlash against local ecological policies, pointing to recent polling showing 63 percent of voters would be “reluctant to vote for a candidate who questions the ecological transition measures already underway in their municipality.” Pursuing a city’s transition on issues like mobility and energy is all the more necessary because at the national level, “the state is completely lacking,” Hurmic said, pointing to what he described as insufficient investment in recent budgets. That was also a clear swipe at his main opponent — pro-Macron centrist Thomas Cazenave — who spent a year as budget minister from 2023 to 2024. Cazenave has joined forces with other center-right and conservative figures in a bid to reclaim a city that spent 73 years under right-leaning mayors, two of whom served as prime minister — Alain Juppé and Jacques Chaban-Delmas. But according Ludovic Renard, a political scientist at the Bordeaux Institute of Political Science, Hurmic’s ascent speaks to how the city has changed. “The sociology of the city is no longer the same, and Hurmic’s politics are more in tune with its population,” said Renard. LATEST POLLING: Hurmic 32 percent – Cazenave 26 percent – Nordine Raymond (France Unbowed) 15 percent – Julie Rechagneux (National Rally) 13 percent – Philippe Dessertine (independent) 12 percent GENTRIFICATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE LEFT Mayor Karim Bouamrane, a Socialist, has said the arrival of new, wealthier residents and the ensuing gentrification could be a net positive for the city, as long as “excellence is shared.” | Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images SAINT-OUEN-SUR-SEINE — The future of the French left could be decided on the grounds of the former Olympic village. The Parisian suburb of Saint-Ouen-sur-Seine, which borders the French capital, is a case study in the waves of gentrification that have transformed the outskirts of major European cities. Think New York’s Williamsburg, London’s Hackney or Berlin’s Neukölln. Saint-Ouen, as it’s usually called, has long been known for its massive flea market, which draws millions of visitors each year. But the city, particularly its areas closest to Paris, was long seen as unsafe and struggled with entrenched poverty. The future of the French left could be decided on the grounds of the former Olympic village. | Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu via Getty Images That changed over time, as more affluent Parisians began moving into the well-connected suburb in search of cheaper rents or property. A 2023 report from the local court of auditors underlined that “the population of this rapidly growing municipality … has both a high poverty rate (28 percent) and a phenomenon of ‘gentrification’ linked to the rapid increase in the proportion of executives and higher intellectual professions.” Mayor Karim Bouamrane, a Socialist, has said the arrival of new, wealthier residents and the ensuing gentrification could be a net positive for the city, as long as “excellence is shared.” Bouamrane has also said he would continue pushing for the inclusion of social housing when issuing building permits, and for existing residents not to be displaced when urban renewal programs are put in place. His main challenger, France Unbowed’s Manon Monmirel, hopes to build enough social housing to make it 40 percent of the city’s total housing stock. She’s also pledged to crack down on real estate speculation. The race between the two could shed light on whether the future of the French left lies in the center or at the extremes. In Boumrane, the Socialists have a charismatic leader. He is 52 years old, with a beat-the-odds story that lends itself well to a national campaign. His journey from child of Moroccan immigrants growing up in a rough part of Saint-Ouen to city leader certainly caught attention of the foreign press in the run-up to the Olympics. Bouamrane’s moderate politics include a push for his party to stop fighting Macron’s decision to raise the retirement age in 2023 and he supports more cross-partisan work with the current center-right government. That approach stands in sharp contrast to the ideologically rigid France Unbowed. The party’s firebrand leader Mélenchon scored 51.82 percent of the vote in Saint-Ouen during his last presidential run in 2022, and France Unbowed landed over 35 percent — more than three times its national average — there in the European election two years later, a race in which it usually struggles. Mélenchon and France Unbowed’s campaign tactics are laser-focused on specific segments that support him en masse despite his divisive nature: a mix of educated, green-minded young voters and working-class urban populations, often of immigrant descent. In other words: the yuppies moving to Saint-Ouen and the people who were their before gentrification. France Unbowed needs their continued support to become a durable force, or it may crumble like the grassroots movements born in the early 2010s, including Spain’s Podemos or Greece’s Syriza. But if the Socialists can’t win a left-leaning suburb with a popular incumbent on the ballot, where can they win?

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

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

BRUSSELS — After its defeat by the British in the First Opium War, the Qing dynasty signed a treaty in 1842 that condemned China to more than a hundred years of foreign oppression and colonial control of trade policy.   It was the first of what came to be known as “unequal treaties,” where the bullying military and technological heavyweight of the day imposed one-sided terms to try to slash back its massive trade deficit. Sound familiar? Fast-forward nearly two centuries, and the EU is starting to understand exactly how that feels. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s dash to Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland last month to seal a highly unbalanced trade deal has raised fears among politicians and analysts that Europe has lost the leverage that it once thought it had as a leading global trade power.  Von der Leyen’s critics were quick to assert that accepting Trump’s 15 percent tariff on most European goods amounted to an act of “submission,” a “clear-cut political defeat for the EU,” and an “ideological and moral capitulation.” If she had hoped that would keep Trump at bay, a rude awakening was in store. With the ink barely dry on the trade deal, Trump doubled down on Monday by threatening to impose new tariffs on the EU over its digital regulations that would hit America’s tech giants. If the EU didn’t fall into line, the U.S. would stop exporting vital microchip technologies, he warned. His diatribe came less than a week after Brussels believed it had won a written guarantee from Washington that its digital rulebook — and sovereignty — were safe.  Trump can wield this coercive advantage because — just like the 19th century British imperialists — he holds the military and technological cards, and is well aware his counterpart lags miles behind in both sectors. He knows Europe doesn’t want to face Russian President Vladimir Putin without U.S. military back-up and cannot cope without American chip technology, so he feels he can dictate the trade agenda. EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič strongly implied last month that the deal with the U.S. was a reflection of Europe’s strategic weakness, and its need for U.S. support. “It’s not only about … trade: It’s about security, it is about Ukraine, it is about current geopolitical volatility,” he explained. The trade deal is a “direct function of Europe’s weakness on the security front, that it cannot provide for its own military security and that it failed to invest, for 20 years, in its own security,” said Thorsten Benner, director at the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, who also pointed to failures to invest in “technological strength” and to deepen the single market.  Just like the Qing leadership, Europe also scorned the warning signs over many years. “We are paying the price for the fact we ignored the wake-up call we got during the first Trump administration — and we went back to sleep. And I hope that this is not what we are doing now,” Sabine Weyand, director-general for trade at the European Commission, told a panel at the European Forum Alpbach on Monday. She was speaking before Trump’s latest broadside on tech rules.   After its defeat by the British in the First Opium War, the Qing dynasty signed a treaty in 1842 that condemned China to more than a hundred years of foreign oppression and colonial control of trade policy. | History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images It is clear that Trump’s volatile tariff game is far from over, and the 27-nation bloc is bound to face further political affronts and unequal negotiating outcomes this fall. To prevent the humiliation from becoming entrenched, the EU faces a huge task to reduce its dependence on the U.S. — in defense, technology and finance. STORMY WATERS  The Treaty of Nanking, signed under duress aboard the HMS Cornwallis, a British warship anchored in the Yangtze River, obliged the Chinese to cede the territory of Hong Kong to British colonizers, pay them an indemnity, and agree to a “fair and reasonable” tariff. British merchants were authorized to trade at five “treaty ports” — with whomever they wanted.  The Opium War began what China came to lament as its “century of humiliation.” The British forced the Chinese to open up to the devastating opium trade to help London claw back the yawning silver deficit with China. It’s an era that still haunts the country and drives its strategic policymaking both at home and internationally. A key factor forcing the Qing dynasty to submit was its failure to invest in military and technological progress. Famously, China’s Qianlong Emperor told the British in 1793 China did not require the “barbarian manufactures” of other nations. While gunpowder and firearms were Chinese inventions, a lack of experimentation and innovation slowed their development — meaning Qing weapons were about 200 years behind British arms in design, manufacture and technology.   Similarly, the EU is now being punished for falling decades behind the U.S. Slashing defense spending after the Cold War kept European countries dependent on the U.S. military for security; complacency about technological developments means the EU now is behind its global rivals in almost all critical technologies. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has, for his part, declared the beginning of a new world order — which he dubbed the “Turnberry system” — comparing the U.S.-EU trade accord to the post-war financial system devised at the New England resort of Bretton Woods in 1944.    TURBULENCE AHEAD  With his attack on Monday, Trump demonstrated scant regard for the EU’s desire to bracket out sensitive issues from last week’s non-binding joint statement. The vagueness of the four-page text, meanwhile, leaves room for him to press new demands or threaten retaliation if he deems that the EU is failing to keep its side of the bargain.  More humiliation could follow as the two sides try to work out details — from a tariff quota system on steel and aluminium to exemptions for certain sectors — that still need to be ironed out.   “This deal is so vague that there are so many points where conflicts could easily be escalated to then be used as justification for why other things will not follow through,” said Niclas Poitiers, a research fellow at the Bruegel think tank.    Asked what would happen if the EU were to fail to invest a pledged $600 billion in the U.S., Trump said earlier this month: “Well, then they pay tariffs of 35 percent.”  With his attack on Monday, Trump demonstrated scant regard for the EU’s desire to bracket out sensitive issues from last week’s non-binding joint statement. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images It’s a danger the EU is acutely aware of.  The European Commission argues the $600 billion simply reflects broad intentions from the corporate sector that cannot be enforced by bureaucrats in Brussels. But Trump could well use the investment pledge as a trigger point to gun for higher duties.   “We do expect further turbulence,” said a senior EU official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. But “we feel we have a very clear insurance policy,” they added.     What’s more, by accepting the agreement, sold by the EU executive as the “less bad” option following Trump’s tariff threats, Brussels has also shown that blackmail works. Beijing will be watching developments with interest — just as EU-China ties have hit a new low and Beijing’s dominance on the minerals the West needs for its green, digital and defense ambitions hand it immense geopolitical leverage.  ESCAPING IRRELEVANCE But what, if anything, can the bloc do to avoid prolonging its period of geopolitical weakness?  In the lead-up to the deal, von der Leyen repeatedly emphasized that the EU’s strategy in dealing with the U.S. should be built on three elements: readying retaliatory measures; diversifying trade partners; and strengthening the bloc’s single market.     For some, the EU needs to see the deal as a wake-up call to usher in deep change and boost the bloc’s competitiveness through institutional reform, as outlined last year in landmark reports penned by former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi and former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta.    In response to the deal, Draghi issued a strongly-worded warning that Trump’s evident ability to force the bloc into doing his bidding is conclusive proof that it faces irrelevance, or worse, if it can’t get its act together. He also played up the failings on security. “Europe is ill-equipped in a world where geo-economics, security, and stability of supply sources, rather than efficiency, inspire international trade relations,” he said.   Eamon Drumm, a research analyst at the German Marshall Fund, also took up that theme. “Europe needs to think of its business environment as a geopolitical asset to be reinforced,” he said.  To do so, investments in European infrastructure, demand and companies are needed, Drumm argued: “This means bringing down energy prices, better putting European savings to use for investment in European companies and completing capital markets integration.”   In comments to POLITICO, French Europe Minister Benjamin Haddad also called for “investing massively in AI, quantum computing and green technologies, and protecting our sovereign industries, as the Americans do not hesitate to do.”   FREE TRADE For others, the answer lies in deepening and diversifying the bloc’s trade ties — Brussels insists the publication of its trade deal with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries is just around the corner, and it is eyeing deals with Indonesia, India and others this year. It has also signaled openness to intensifying trade with the Asia-focused CPTPP bloc, which counts Canada, Japan, Mexico, Australia and others as members.    “In addition to modernizing the [World Trade Organization], the EU must indeed focus on continuing to build its network of trade agreements with reliable partners,” said Bernd Lange, a German Social Democrat who heads the European Parliament’s trade committee.   “To stabilize the rules-based trading system, we should find a common position with democratically constituted countries,” added Lange.   Europe, said Drumm, faces a choice.  “Is it going to reinforce its position as a hub of free trade in a world where globalization is unwinding?” he asked. “Or is it just going to be a battlefield on which increasing competition between China and the United States plays out?” 

Daniel Harper is a British Iranian multimedia journalist, residing and working in the EU, specializing in migration, women’s rights and human rights. His work has appeared in Euronews, Balkan Insight, GAY Times, Insider, among other publications. After a three-day mourning period, the flags above Austria’s parliament were raised from half-mast, where they’d been lowered following last month’s fatal school shooting in the country’s second city of Graz. The shooting at the high school was the deadliest in the country’s history, leaving 10 dead and several injured. Notably, the assailant had used a shotgun and handgun he’d obtained legally, despite failing a psychological screening for his required military service. According to a small arms survey, Austria is the 14th most armed country in the world, with 30 firearms per 100 inhabitants. Yet, it has often shirked from gun reform — even after the terrorist attack of November 2020, which saw assault rifles fired in central Vienna. So, for the issue to raise to the top of the agenda now, speaks volumes as to just how far this fatal incident has shoved the political dial on the country’s long-standing ambivalence to gun reform. “Nothing we do, including what we have decided today, will bring back the 10 people we lost last Tuesday. But I can promise you one thing: We will learn from this tragedy,” Chancellor Christian Stocker said, echoing that very sentiment a press conference held after the shooting. Question is, will Austria’s government finally be spurred into action? Austria’s hunting culture means gun ownership is deeply engrained in its society. Currently, 130,000 people — roughly 1.4 percent of the population — hold mandatory hunting licenses. And anyone who’s been to Austria can attest to the numerous animal heads and trophy antlers hanging on the walls of pubs and chalets. Moreover, two large weapons manufacturers, Steyr and Glock, are both headquartered in the country. And their lobbying of pro-gun political parties within the conservative faction has helped prevent previous gun reform attempts. “There is a big hunters lobby,” said Professor Roger von Laufenberg, managing director of the Vienna Center for Societal Security explained. “Especially [for] the major political parties. The Conservative Party, for example, has traditionally had a large share of voters [who are] hunters, which is why this was not really perceived as an issue for so long.” The last time gun laws were reformed in any major way in Austria was in 1997, following an EU directive imposing tighter restrictions on gun ownership — a change that, according to a report by the British Journal of Psychology, led to a drop in the rate of firearm suicides and homicides. Decades later, one of the main reforms now being discussed is raising the minimum age to buy firearms from 21 to 25. Other restrictions the chancellor suggested include raising the minimum age to own specific firearms like handguns, having gun permits expire every eight years, strengthening psychological testing and making it mandatory, sharing information across governmental agencies, as well as introducing a four-week waiting period for the delivery of a first weapon. These are all in addition to a suggested expansion of psychological support in schools across the country over the next three years. A woman leaves a candle at a makeshift memorial site near the school where several people died in a school shooting, on June 10, 2025 in Graz, southeastern Austria. | Georg Hochmuth/AFP via Getty Images This is a dramatic shift in how gun reform has been addressed by the government in previous years. Under current laws, anyone over the age of 18 can purchase certain shotguns and rifles without a permit, while other weapons, like hand pistols, require a three-day waiting period and a psychological analysis. The issue of psychological testing is especially a point of focus, as the assailant in the school shooting had passed the test to own a handgun. The process that’s drawing particular criticism is that a person is only tested once in their lifetime and never reassessed. Furthermore, despite the assailant failing his psychological exam for compulsory military service, this information was not shared with other agencies, including the police. Interestingly, just a couple weeks before the Graz shooting, Austria’s Green Party had put forward a proposal aimed at reforming gun laws. But the motion for a resolution was postponed with the votes of Austria’s coalition government. The proposed motion set out much of the same guidelines the chancellor shared with the press — tighter background checks, greater monitoring of private gun sales and a permanent gun ban for those who have restraining orders against them. The difference was that these reforms were specifically aimed at combating violence against women and girls — another problem Austria’s been dealing with for a long time. According to Green member Meri Disoksi, who proposed the reform, “almost one in two perpetrators of violence against women suffers from a mental illness” — hence the greater need for stricter psychological checks. Similarly, an Institute of Conflict Research analysis on femicides in Austria between 2010 to 2020 found that of the women assaulted with a firearm, 62.6 percent died. Even the use of illegal firearms involved with femicides has increased from 2016 to 2020, according to the study. Markus Leinfellner of the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) — a party that often blocks gun reform legislation — had criticized the proposal, speaking out against the suggestion of psychological assessments for gun owners every five years, saying it would place a financial burden on gun owners and lead to an increased workload for psychologists. It’s evident just how much the Graz shooting has changed the conversation and forced the issue of gun reform back into play, as even FPO leader Herbert Kickl didn’t come out against the chancellor’s recent proposals. He simply told lawmakers: “I don’t think now is the time to pledge or announce that this or that measure will solve a problem.” Of course, it remains to be seen whether the proposed gun reforms will eventually pass. But with Stocker now promising the country will learn from this tragedy, it seems Austria has been forced to confront the consequences of being a society so intertwined with gun culture after decades of political ambivalence. The shooting in Graz has finally pierced the illusion that legal gun ownership guarantees safety, and the country’s political parties can’t sit on the fence any longer.