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

BRUSSELS — EU leaders are scrambling to come up with a deal on Greenland’s future that would allow Donald Trump to claim victory on the issue without destroying the alliance that underpins European security.  From proposals to using NATO to bolster Arctic security to giving the U.S. concessions on mineral extraction, the bloc’s leaders are leaning heavily toward conciliation over confrontation with Trump, three diplomats and an EU official told POLITICO. The race to come up with a plan follows the U.S. president’s renewed claims that his country “needs” the island territory — and won’t rule out getting it by force. “In the end, we have always come to a common conclusion” with Washington, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said after meeting U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, adding that their talks on the Arctic territory were “encouraging.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he hopes “a mutually acceptable solution” will be found within NATO. The foreign ministers of Greenland and Denmark will meet U.S. Vice President JD Vance alongside Rubio at the White House on Wednesday. They are hoping for “an honest conversation with the administration,” according to another EU diplomat familiar with plans for the meeting. THE ART OF THE DEAL Asked to describe a possible endgame on Greenland, the first EU diplomat said it could be a deal that would give Trump a victory he could sell domestically, such as forcing European countries to invest more in Arctic security as well as a promise that the U.S. could profit from Greenland’s mineral wealth. Trump is primarily looking for a win on Greenland, the diplomat said. “If you can smartly repackage Arctic security, blend in critical minerals, put a big bow on top, there’s a chance” of getting Trump to sign on. “Past experience” — for example when EU allies pledged to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense — showed “this is always how things have gone.” On defense, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte laid the groundwork for a deal when on Monday he said countries in the alliance were discussing ways of bolstering Arctic security. While the shape of the “next steps” touted by Rutte remain to be defined, a ramped-up investment by European NATO members is one possibility that could fit with Trump’s desire to see Europe shoulder greater responsibility for its security. On mineral extraction, details are blurrier. But a deal that guarantees the U.S. a share of profits from extraction of critical raw materials is one possibility, said the EU official. For now, capacity to extract critical raw materials from Greenland is limited. Denmark has spent years seeking investment for long-term projects, with little luck as countries have preferred obtaining minerals at a much cheaper rate on global markets. The EU is planning to more than double its investment in Greenland in its next-long term budget — including funds oriented toward critical raw materials projects. This could be a hook for Trump to accept a co-investment deal. Yet, if Trump’s real aim is the island’s minerals, Danes have been offering the U.S the chance to invest in Greenland for years — an offer refused by American officials, several diplomats said. If Trump’s push on Greenland is about China and Russia, he could easily ask Copenhagen to increase the presence of U.S troops on the island, they also say. A third EU diplomat questioned whether Trump’s real aim was to get into the history books. Trump’s Make America Great Again slogan “has become a geographical concept; he wants to go down in history as the man who has made America ‘greater’ — in geographical terms,” they said. PRESERVING NATO Above all, governments are trying to avoid a military clash, the three diplomats and EU official said. A direct intervention by the U.S. on Greenland — a territory belonging to a member of the EU and NATO — would effectively spell the end of the postwar security order, leaders have warned.  “It would be an unprecedented situation in the history of NATO and any defense alliance,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Tuesday, adding that Berlin is talking with Copenhagen about the options at Europe’s disposal if the U.S. launches a takeover. EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius and Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen both said a military intervention would be the end of NATO. “Everything would stop,” Fredriksen said. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte laid the groundwork for a deal when on Monday he said countries in the alliance were discussing ways of bolstering Arctic security. | Paul Morigi/Getty Images “No provision [in the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty] envisions an attack on one NATO ally by another one,” said a NATO diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. It would mean “the end of the alliance,” they added. Trump said “it may be a choice” for the U.S. between pursuing his ambition to take control of Greenland and keeping the alliance intact. Preserving NATO remains the bloc’s top priority, the first EU diplomat said. While both privately and publicly officials have forcefully rejected the idea Europe might “give up” Greenland to the U.S., the comments underscore how desperate governments are to avoid a direct clash with Washington. “This is serious – and Europe is scared,” said a fourth EU diplomat involved in discussions in Brussels on how the bloc responds. A fifth described the moment as “seismic,” because it signaled that the U.S. was ready to rip up a hundred years of ironclad relations.  STILL REELING While European leaders are largely on the same page that a military conflict is unconscionable, how to reach a negotiated settlement is proving thornier. Until the U.S. military strike on Venezuela on Jan. 3, and Trump’s fresh claims the U.S. needs to “have” Greenland, the Europeans were very conspicuously not working on a plan to protect Greenland from Trump — because to do so might risk making the threat real. “It’s been something we’ve anticipated as a potential risk, but something that we can do very little about,” said Thomas Crosbie, a U.S. military expert at the Royal Danish Defense College, which provides training and education for the Danish defense force. “The idea has been that the more we focus on this, and the more we create preparations around resisting this, the more we make it likely to happen. So there’s been anxiety that [by planning for a U.S. invasion] we may accidentally encourage more interest in this, and, you know, kind of escalate,” Crosbie said. But the problem was that, having spent six years studiously avoiding making a plan to respond to Trump’s threats, Europe was left scrabbling for one. Europeans are now faced with figuring out what they have in their “toolbox” to respond to Washington, a former Danish MP aware of discussions said. “The normal rulebook doesn’t work anymore.” Officials consider it the biggest challenge to Europe since the Second World War and they’re not sure what to do.  “We know how we would react if Russia started to behave this way,” the fourth diplomat said. But with the U.S, “this is simply not something we are used to.” Victor Jack, Nette Nöstlinger, Chris Lunday, Zoya Sheftalovich and Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.

The head of the U.S. oil industry’s top lobbying group said Tuesday that American producers are prepared to be a “stabilizing force” in Iran if the regime there falls — even as they remain skeptical about returning to Venezuela after the capture of leader Nicolás Maduro. “This is good news for the Iranian people — they’re taking freedom into their own hands,” American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said of the mass protests that have embroiled Iran in recent days. President Donald Trump is said to be weighing his options for potential actions against the Iranian government in response to its violent crackdown on the protests. “Our industry is committed to being a stabilizing force in Iran if they decide to overturn the regime,” Sommers told reporters following API’s annual State of American Energy event in Washington. “It’s an important oil play in the world, about the sixth-largest producer now — they could absolutely do more,” he said of the country. Iran’s oil industry, despite being ravaged by years of U.S. sanctions, is still considered to be structurally sound, unlike that of Venezuela’s. In order for companies to return to Venezuela, on the other hand, they will need long-term investment certainty, operational security and rule of law — all of which will take significant time, Sommers said. “If they get those three big things right, I think there will be investment going to Venezuela,” he said. Background: Experts who spoke earlier from the stage at API’s event also underscored the differences between Iran and Venezuela, whose oil infrastructure has deteriorated under years of neglect from the socialist regime. “Iran was able to add production under the weight of the most aggressive sanctions the U.S. could possibly deploy,” said Kevin Book, managing director at the energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners. “Imagine what they could do with Western engineering.” Bob McNally, a former national security and energy adviser to President George W. Bush who now leads the energy and geopolitics consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, said the prospects for growing Iran’s oil production are “completely different” from Venezuela’s. “You can imagine our industry going back there — we would get a lot more oil, a lot sooner than we will out of Venezuela,” McNally said. “That’s more conventional oil right near infrastructure, and gas as well.” No equity stakes: Sommers told reporters that API would oppose any efforts by the Trump administration to take a stake in oil companies that invest in Venezuela. The administration has taken direct equity stakes in a range of U.S. companies in a bid to boost the growth of sectors it sees as a geopolitical priority, such as semiconductor manufacturing and critical minerals. “We would be opposed to the United States government taking a stake in any American oil and gas companies, period,” Sommers said. “We’d have to know a little bit more about what the administration is proposing in terms of stake in [Venezuelan state-owned oil company] PdVSA, but we’re not for the nationalization of oil companies or for there to be a national oil company in the United States.”

PARIS — A court appeal begins on Tuesday that will determine whether Marine Le Pen or her protégé Jordan Bardella will head into next year’s presidential election as favorite from the far-right National Rally party. While Le Pen has been a decisive force in making the anti-immigration party the front-runner for the presidency in 2027, she is currently unable to succeed Emmanuel Macron herself thanks to a five-year election ban imposed over her conviction last year for embezzling European Parliament funds. She is now appealing that decision in a case that is expected to last one month, although a verdict is not due until the summer. Le Pen looks set to fight her appeal on technical legal objections and an argument that the ban is disproportionate, rather than going out all-guns blazing and insisting she is the victim of a political hit job. If she does overcome the very steep hurdles required to win her case, she will still have to deal with the political reality that the French electorate are leaning more toward Bardella. The party’s supposed Plan B is starting to have the air of a Plan A. A poll from Ipsos in December showed the 30-year-old overtaking Le Pen as the French politician with the highest share of positive opinions. And a survey from pollster Odoxa conducted in November showed Bardella would win both rounds of the presidential contest.  The National Rally continues to insist that Le Pen is their top choice, but getting her on the ballot will likely require her to win her fast-tracked appeal by setting aside her personal grievances and perhaps even showing a measure of uncustomary contrition to ensure this trial does not end the way the embezzlement case did.  Le Pen is not famous for being low-key and eating humble pie. Shortly after her conviction, she said her movement would follow the example of civil rights’ icon Martin Luther King and vowed: “We will never give in to this violation of democracy.” That’s not the playbook she intends to deploy now. Her lawyers will pursue a less politicized strategy to win round the judges, according to three far-right politicians with direct knowledge of the case, who were granted anonymity to discuss it freely.  “We’ll be heading in with a certain amount of humility, and we’ll try not to be in the mindset that this is a political trial,” said one of trio, a French elected official who is one of the codefendants appealing their conviction.  LINE BY LINE Le Pen and 24 other codefendants stood trial in late 2024 on charges they illicitly used funds from the European Parliament to pay party employees by having them hired as parliamentary assistants. But those assistants, the prosecution argued, rarely if ever worked on actual parliamentary business.  The National Rally’s apparent defense strategy back then was to paint the trial as politicized, potentially winning in the court of public opinion and living with the consequences of a guilty verdict.  The attorneys representing the defendants could did little to rebut several pieces of particularly damning evidence, including the fact that one assistant sent a message to Le Pen asking if he could be introduced to the MEP he had supposedly been working with for months.  Given how severely the defense miscalculated the first time around, lawyers for many of the 14 codefendants in court this week will pursue more traditional appeals, going through the preliminary ruling “line by line” to identify potential rebuttals or procedural hiccups, the trio with direct knowledge of the case explained.   A survey from pollster Odoxa conducted in November showed Bardella would win both rounds of the presidential contest.  | Telmo Pinto/NurPhoto via Getty Images Defense lawyers also plan to tailor their individual arguments more precisely to each client to avoid feeding the sentiment that decisions taken at the highest levels of the National Rally leadership are imposed on the whole party. The prosecution during the initial trial successfully argued that National Rally bigwigs hand-picked assistants at party headquarters to serve the leadership rather than MEPs.  Le Pen’s lawyers will also argue that her punishment — barring a front-running presidential candidate from standing in a nationwide election — was disproportionate to the crime for which she was convicted.  The appeals’ court ruling will have seismic consequences for French politics and Europe ahead of one of the continent’s most important elections. The path toward the presidency will be nearly impossible for Le Pen if her election ban is upheld. Le Pen has indicated in past interviews that she would throw in the towel if she received the same election ban, given that she wouldn’t have enough time to appeal again to a higher court.   Should Bardella replace her and win, the consequences for the French judicial system could be profound. One of the codefendants floated the possibility of a response along the lines of what U.S. President Donald Trump did to those who prosecuted him before his reelection.   “The lingering sense of injustice will remain and can eventually evolve into a quest for revenge,” the codefendant said.

President Donald Trump’s promise to revive the Venezuelan oil industry drew praise from U.S. energy executives on Friday — but no firm commitments to invest the vast sums of money needed to bring the country’s oil output back from the doldrums. The lack of firm pledges from the heads of the companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips that Trump summoned to the White House raised doubts about the president’s claim that U.S. oil producers were ready to spend $100 billion or more to rebuild Venezuela’s crude oil infrastructure. The country boasts the world’s largest oil reserves, but its production has cratered since the regime pushed most of those companies out decades ago. Exxon CEO Darren Woods offered the starkest assessment, telling Trump in the live-streamed meeting in the East Room that Venezuela is “uninvestable” under current conditions. He said major changes were needed before his company would return to the country, and that big questions remain about what return Exxon could expect from any investments. “If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” Woods told Trump. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.” Still, Woods said he was confident the U.S. can help make those changes, and said he expected Exxon could put a technical team on the ground in Venezuela soon to assess the state of its oil infrastructure. Harold Hamm, a fracking executive and major Trump ally, expressed more enthusiasm but still fell short of making any commitments. “It excites me as an explorationist,” Hamm, whose experience has centered on oil production inside the U.S., said of the opportunity to invest in Venezuela. “It is a very exciting country and a lot of reserves — it’s got its challenges and the industry knows how to handle that.” Still, Energy Secretary Chris Wright pointed reporters after the meeting to a statement from Chevron — the only major U.S. oil company still operating in Venezuela — that it was ready to raise its output as a concrete sign the industry was willing to put more money into the country. Chevron currently produces about 240,000 barrels a day there with its partner, the Venezuelan state-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA. Mark Nelson, Chevron’s vice chairman, told the gathering the company sees “a path forward” to increase production from its existing operations by 50 percent over the next 18 to 24 months. He did not commit to a dollar figure, however. Wright indicated that the $100 billion figure cited by Trump on Thursday was an estimate for the cost of reconstructing Venezuela’s dilapidated oil sector — rather than a firm spending commitment made by producing companies. “If you look at what’s a positive trajectory for Venezuela’s oil industry in the next decade, that’s probably going to take about $100 billion investment,” said Wright, who later told Bloomberg Television he is likely to travel to Venezuela “before too long.” Most of the nearly two dozen companies in attendance at Friday’s meeting expressed tepid support for the administration’s plan, though others indicated they were eager to jump back quickly. Wael Sawan, the CEO of the European energy giant Shell, said the company had been pushed out in Venezuela’s nationalization program in the 1970s, giving up 1 million barrels per day of oil production. Now it was seeking U.S. permits to go back, he said. “We are ready to go and looking forward to the investment in support of the Venezuelan people,” he said. Jeffery Hildebrand, CEO of independent oil and gas producer Hilcorp Energy and a major Trump donor, said his company was “fully committed and ready to go to rebuild the infrastructure in Venezuela.” Trump said during the meeting that companies that invest in Venezuela would be assured “total safety, total security,” without the U.S. government spending taxpayer dollars or putting boots on the ground. He indicated that Venezuela would provide security for the U.S. companies, and that the companies would bring their own protection as well. “These are tough people. They go into areas that you wouldn’t want to go. They go into areas that if they invited me, I’d say, ‘No, thanks. I’ll see you back in Palm Beach,’” Trump said of the oil companies. Before the executives spoke, Trump insisted that oil executives are lining up to take the administration up on the opportunity. “If you don’t want to go in, just let me know,” he said. “There are 25 people not here today willing to take your place.” Following the public meeting, the companies stayed for further discussions with administration officials behind closed doors. The president also dismissed speculation that the administration may offer financial guarantees to back up what he acknowledged would be a risky investment. “I hope I don’t have to give a backstop,” he said. “These are the biggest companies in the world sitting around this table — they know the risks.” Trump also laughed off the billions that Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are owed for the assets seized by the Venezuelan regime decades ago. “Nice write-off,” he quipped. “You’ll get a lot of your money back,” Trump told ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance. “We’re going to start with an even plate, though — we’re not going to look at what people lost in the past because that was their fault.” ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said in a statement that Lance “appreciates today’s valuable opportunity to engage with President Trump in a discussion about preparing Venezuela to be investment ready.” The White House at the last minute shifted the meeting from a closed-door session in the Cabinet Room to a live-televised spectacle in the East Room. “Everybody wants to be there,” the president wrote of the oil executives on social media just ahead of the meeting. POLITICO reported on Thursday that the White House had scrambled to invite additional companies to the meeting because of skepticism from the top oil majors about reentering the country. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged in an appearance Thursday that “big oil companies who move slowly … are not interested,” but said the administration’s “phones are ringing off the hook” with calls from smaller players. Bethany Williams, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, called Friday’s meeting “a constructive, initial conversation that highlighted both the energy potential and the challenges presented in Venezuela, including the importance of rule of law, security, and stable governance.” Venezuela — even with strongman Nicolás Maduro in custody in New York — remains under the rule of the same socialist government that appropriated the rigs, pipelines and property of foreign oil companies two decades ago. Questions remain about who would guarantee the companies’ workers’ safety, particularly since Trump has publicly ruled out sending in troops. Kevin Book, a managing director at the energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners, noted that few CEOs in the meeting outright rejected the notion of returning to or investing in Venezuela, instead couching any sort of presence on several conditions. Some of those might be nearer term, such as security guarantees. Others, like reestablishing legal stability in Venezuela, appear more distant. “They need to understand the risk and they need to understand the return,” Book said. “What it sounded like most of the companies were saying … is that they want to understand the risk and the return and then they’ll look at the investment.” Evanan Romero, a Houston-based oil consultant involved in the Trump administration’s effort to bring U.S. oil producers back to Venezuela, said international oil companies will not return to the country under the same laws and government that expropriated their assets decades earlier. “The main contribution that [interim president] Delcy [Rodríguez] and her government can do is make a bonfire of those laws and put it on fire in the Venezuelan Bolivar Square,” Romero said. “With those, we cannot do any reconstruction of the oil industry.” Zack Colman and Irie Sentner contributed to this report.

The first American pope is on a collision course with U.S. President Donald Trump. The latest fault line between the Vatican and the White House emerged on Sunday. Shortly after Trump suggested his administration could “run” Venezuela, the Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of the “country’s sovereignty.” For MAGA-aligned conservatives, this is now part of an unwelcome pattern. While Leo is less combative in tone toward Trump than his predecessor Francis, his priorities are rekindling familiar battles in the culture war with the U.S. administration on topics such as immigration and deportations, LGBTQ+ rights and climate change. As the leader of a global community of 1.4 billion Catholics, Leo has a rare position of influence to challenge Trump’s policies, and the U.S. president has to tread with uncustomary caution in confronting him. Trump traditionally relishes blasting his critics with invective but has been unusually restrained in response to Leo’s criticism, in part because he counts a large number of Catholics among his core electorate. “[Leo] is not looking for a fight like Francis, who sometimes enjoyed a fight,” said Chris White, author of “Pope Leo XIV: Inside the Conclave and the Dawn of a New Papacy.” “But while different in style, he is clearly a continuation of Francis in substance. Initially there was a wait-and-see approach, but for many MAGA Catholics, Leo challenges core beliefs.” In recent months, migration has become the main combat zone between the liberal pope and U.S. conservatives. Leo called on his senior clergy to speak out on the need to protect vulnerable migrants, and U.S. bishops denounced the “dehumanizing rhetoric and violence” leveled at people targeted by Trump’s deportation policies. Leo later went public with an appeal that migrants in the U.S. be treated “humanely” and “with dignity.” Leo’s support emboldened Florida bishops to call for a Christmas reprieve from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. “Don’t be the Grinch that stole Christmas,” said Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami. As if evidence were needed of America’s polarization on this topic, however, the Department of Homeland Security described their arrests as a “Christmas gift to Americans.” Leo also conspicuously removed Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Trump’s preferred candidate for pope and a favorite on the conservative Fox News channel, from a key post as archbishop of New York, replacing him with a bishop known for pro-migrant views. This cuts to the heart of the moral dilemma for a divided U.S. Catholic community. For Trump, Catholics are hardly a sideshow as they constitute 22 percent of his electorate, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center. While the pope appeals to liberal causes, however, many MAGA Catholics take a far stricter line on topics such as migration, sexuality and climate change. To his critics from the conservative Catholic MAGA camp, such as Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon, the pope is anathema. U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of Venezuela’s “sovereignty.” | Stefano Costantino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Last year the pope blessed a chunk of ice from Greenland and criticized political leaders who ignore climate change. He said supporters of the death penalty could not credibly claim to be pro-life, and argued that Christians and Muslims could be friends. He has also signaled a more tolerant posture toward LGBTQ+ Catholics, permitting an LGBTQ+ pilgrimage to St Peter’s Basilica. Small wonder, then, that Trump confidante and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer branded Leo the “woke Marxist pope.” Trump-aligned Catholic conservatives have denounced him as “secularist,” “globalist” and even “apostate.” Far-right pundit Jack Posobiec has called him “anti-Trump.” “Some popes are a blessing. Some popes are a penance,” Posobiec wrote on X. PONTIFF FROM CHICAGO There were early hopes that Leo might build bridges with U.S. hardliners. He’s an American, after all: He wears an Apple watch and follows baseball, and American Catholics can hardly dismiss him as as foreign. The Argentine Francis, by contrast, was often portrayed by critics as anti-American and shaped by the politics of poorer nations. Leo can’t be waved away so easily. Early in his papacy, Leo also showed signs he was keen to steady the church after years of internal conflict, and threw some bones to conservatives such as allowing a Latin Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica and wearing more ornate papal vestments. But the traditionalists were not reassured. Benjamin Harnwell, the Vatican correspondent for the MAGA-aligned War Room podcast, said conservatives were immediately skeptical of Leo. “From day one, we have been telling our base to be wary: Do not be deceived,” he said. Leo, Harnwell added, is “fully signed up to Francis’ agenda … but [is] more strategic and intelligent.” After the conclave that appointed Leo, former Trump strategist Bannon told POLITICO that Leo’s election was “the worst choice for MAGA Catholics” and “an anti-Trump vote by the globalists of the Curia.” Trump had a long-running feud with Francis, who condemned the U.S. president’s border wall and criticized his migration policies. Francis appeared to enjoy that sparring, but Leo is a very different character. More retiring by nature, he shies away from confrontation. But his resolve in defending what he sees as non-negotiable moral principles, particularly the protection of the weak, is increasingly colliding with the core assumptions of Trumpism. Trump loomed large during the conclave, with an AI-generated video depicting himself as pope. The gesture was seen by some Vatican insiders as a “mafia-style” warning to elect someone who would not criticize him, Vatican-watcher Elisabetta Piqué wrote in a new book “The Election of Pope Leo XIV: The Last Surprise of Pope Francis.” NOT PERSONAL Leo was not chosen expressly as an anti-Trump figure, according to a Vatican official. Rather, his nationality was likely seen by some cardinals as “reassuring,” suggesting he would be accountable and transparent in governance and finances. But while Leo does not seem to be actively seeking a confrontation with Trump, the world views of the two men seem incompatible. “He will avoid personalizing,” said the same Vatican official. “He will state church teaching, not in reaction to Trump, but as things he would say anyway.” Despite the attacks on Leo from his allies, Trump himself has also appeared wary of a direct showdown. When asked about the pope in a POLITICO interview, Trump was more keen to discuss meeting the pontiff’s brother in Florida, whom he described as “serious MAGA.” When pressed on whether he would meet the pope himself, he finally replied: “Sure, I will. Why not?” The potential for conflict will come into sharper focus as Leo hosts a summit called an extraordinary consistory this week, the first of its kind since 2014, which is expected to provide a blueprint for the future direction of the church. His first publication on social issues, such as inequality and migration, is also expected in the next few months. “He will use [the summit] to talk about what he sees as the future,” said a diplomat posted to the Vatican. “It will give his collaborators a sense of where he is going. He could use it as a sounding board, or ask them to suggest solutions.” It’s safe to assume Leo won’t be unveiling a MAGA-aligned agenda. The ultimate balance of power may also favor the pope. Trump must contend with elections and political clocks; Leo, elected for life, does not. At 70, and as a tennis player in good health, Leo appears positioned to shape Catholic politics well after Trump’s moment has passed. “He is not in a hurry,” the Vatican official said. “Time is on his side.”

13 BOOKS TO HELP YOU SURVIVE 2026  Required reading for an age of upheaval. Illustration by Eiko Ojala for POLITICO Trying to predict 2026 is impossible, but one thing’s certain: Politics never sits still. Elections reshuffle governments, wars redraw old lines, pandemics upend daily life and the democratic nervous system keeps twitching.  In moments like these, it helps to step back — and read. But what? With all the political analysis out there, choosing the right book can feel like one more campaign to navigate. That’s where we come in.  POLITICO’s editors and reporters on both sides of the Atlantic have built the perfect imaginary bookshelf: Titles that don’t just explain politics, but help you make sense of it.  Advertisement Whether you’re a political biography devotee or a dystopian-fiction aficionado, there’s something here for you. From “Our Dear Friends in Moscow,” which peers inside Russia’s moral corrosion through the lives of those who chose obedience over freedom, to Suetonius’ timeless “Lives of the Twelve Caesars,” proving vanity, vice and ambition never go out of style.  Together, these books chart the forces reshaping Western democracies: anxiety, surveillance, ambition and the uneasy romance between principle and power. You might not find comfort here — but you will find clarity, and a little company, in the chaos.  “THE LIVES OF THE TWELVE CAESARS,” BY SUETONIUS The historian of ancient Rome’s early imperial era, who chronicled 12 successive Roman rulers from Julius Caesar to Domitian, would surely have been fascinated by our current crop of larger-than-life rulers — including Trump, Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. Take away our technology and advances in medical science and we can read about our era in the most important work of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus — his full, gloriously Latin name. Here is caprice and malice, vanity and cruelty, whim and tyrannical ambition. The Victorians were so scandalized by the sex lives of the Roman emperors that editions of the collective biography were bowdlerized. Sad. Of course, direct comparisons with our contemporary rulers would be untoward. Maybe. But what Suetonius does brilliantly is to plot the personal and political. That derives from his conviction, as English-language translator Tom Holland puts it, that “there is no foible so minor, so intimate that it cannot provide the measure of a man.” — Jamie Dettmer, opinion editor and columnist Advertisement “1929,” BY ANDREW ROSS SORKIN Wildly overvalued companies, barely hidden economy weaknesses, great egos, buckets of hubris … if 2026 turns into the white-knuckle ride for global markets that some predict, we may as well understand what’s about to happen. In “1929,” Andrew Ross Sorkin revisits the Wall Street crash that saw the collapse of overhyped stock values, just as ordinary folk pumped their savings into supposedly never-failing investments: A depressing tale of how quickly things can go wrong. That catastrophe didn’t just destroy wealth; it reshaped politics. The Great Depression that followed saw the rise of populist politicians who went on to dominate Europe, leaving unspeakable scars all over the continent. Sorkin, New York Times journalist of “Too Big To Fail” fame, uses “1929” as a cautionary tale to warn against what happens when institutions and politicians fail the countries they are supposed to support. He knows his onions, and his warning is clear: When markets wobble, democracies do too. — Russell Hargrave, U.K.‘s energy and climate editor “THE ORDER OF THE DAY” (ORIGINAL TITLE: ORIGINAL TITLE: “L’ORDRE DU JOUR”), BY ÉRIC VUILLARD Why wasn’t Hitler’s rise stopped? It’s the question that inevitably haunts readers of Éric Vuillard’s “The Order of the Day” — just as it makes us glance uneasily at our own times. In this brief book, Vuillard retraces the lead-up to World War II through four anecdotes — each one a missed chance to resist Hitler’s ascent. We witness Hermann Göring’s secret meeting with German industrialists; the humiliating visit of Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg to Hitler’s mountain retreat; a casual tennis chat between British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and German Ambassador Joachim von Ribbentrop as Nazi troops march into Austria; and the shambolic state of the German army during that very annexation. Through these vignettes, Vuillard exposes the impotence of laws, diplomacy and polite conventions when faced with bluff, deceit and greed. His warning resonates chillingly today: “We never fall twice into the same abyss, but we always fall the same way — in a mixture of ridicule and dread.” — Matthieu Verrier, editor Advertisement “ON THE ABOLITION OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES,” BY SIMONE WEIL “Political parties are organizations that are publicly and officially designed for the purpose of killing in all souls the sense of truth and of justice.” So proclaimed Simone Weil in her bracing 1943 treatise, “On the Abolition of All Political Parties.” Published after her death at the age of 34, the essay was a response to the infighting among exiled French politicians as Adolf Hitler’s armies rampaged the continent. Weil shared the instincts of the American founders in her abhorrence of political “factions,” the prerogatives of which can violate a man’s conscience and “submit his thinking to the authority of the party.” Eighty years later, her thesis still holds true: “The force that impels thought is no longer the open, unconditional desire for truth, but merely a desire to conform with pre-established teachings.” — James Kirchick, Axel Springer Global Reporter and author of “The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues and the Coming Dark Age,” and “Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington.“ “RADICAL SHOCK: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE COMPETENT” (ORIGINAL TITLE: “RADICAL CHOC: ASCESA E CADUTA DEI COMPETENTI”), BY RAFFAELE ALBERTO VENTURA One of the great innovations of the past century was the rise of vast bureaucratic machines composed of a new social class: the technocrats, or experts. It’s what Trump and other right-wing populists refer to as the “deep state.” To understand where the technostructure is heading, in his 2020 book “Radical Shock: The Rise and Fall of the Competent,” Raffaele Alberto Ventura first looks back. He recalls how, in the late 1960s, economist John Kenneth Galbraith warned that the U.S. administrative apparatus had grown larger than many socialist countries. He also cites sociologist Max Weber, who argued that “real power” resides within the administration itself — not in parliamentary speeches or political declarations. Today, predictably, experts are under attack. Ventura quotes Galbraith’s warning that “we are becoming the servants … of the machine we created to serve us.” So, when German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticizes the European Commission for excessive regulation, it might not be populist theater, but rather the start of a reckoning with the political legitimacy of experts in modern democracies. — Jacopo Barigazzi, defense correspondent Advertisement “OUR DEAR FRIENDS IN MOSCOW: THE INSIDE STORY OF A BROKEN GENERATION,” BY ANDREI SOLDATOV AND IRINA BOROGAN Most books about Russia on Western shelves focus on Vladimir Putin as the sole architect of the country’s democratic decline. Russians themselves often appear as a faceless mass — either inherently submissive or hopelessly passive. “Our Dear Friends in Moscow: The Inside Story of a Broken Generation” breaks that mold. Written by two leading experts on Russia’s security services, this book takes a more intimate route. Through the stories of former friends and colleagues, the authors trace how people who once shared their liberal convictions gradually turned into champions of Putin’s nationalist imperialism. Few accounts combine such a close-up view of top-down repression with an understanding of personal choice. That makes this an essential read not only for grasping how Russia became what it is today — and what it may remain after Putin leaves the stage — but also for Europeans who care about safeguarding their countries’ democratic values, both individually and institutionally. — Eva Hartog, foreign affairs reporter Advertisement “HENRY KISSINGER: AN INTIMATE PORTRAIT OF THE MASTER OF REALPOLITIK,” BY JÉRÉMIE GALLON Can we still learn from Henry Kissinger? French writer and former diplomat Jérémie Gallon definitely thinks so. His “Henry Kissinger: An Intimate Portrait of the Master of Realpolitik” takes a fresh approach to one of the most controversial figures in modern diplomacy. Structured around unexpected themes — from Kissinger’s sense of humor to his sense of style — the book paints a nuanced picture that looks beyond moral judgment or mythmaking. Though it may not delight hardcore historians, Gallon doesn’t gloss over the darker chapters of Kissinger’s record and his involvement in controversial episodes of U.S. foreign policy, either. He finds there is much to learn from this titan of U.S. diplomacy, especially in a time when diplomatic relations around the world are strained by wars, shifting alliances and the uneasy balance between ideals and realpolitik. — Nicholas Vinocur, chief foreign affairs correspondent “THERE IS NOTHING FOR YOU HERE,” BY FIONA HILL Long before Fiona Hill became a household name by testifying during Donald Trump’s first impeachment, she was the daughter of a former coal miner from a down-on-its-luck town in Northeast England. During the televised hearings, her working class accent riveted viewers in the U.K. and beyond, since very few people with Hill’s roots are able to escape the region’s multigenerational poverty, much less become a top adviser to a U.S. president. Hill uses this semi-autobiographical book to describe this collapse of economic opportunity in the three countries she knows best — the U.K., the U.S. and Russia — how it has fueled illiberalism, and what can be done to reverse this erosion of opportunity and democracy. “These left-behind people deserve better,” Hill writes. “As long as they feel there is no hope for them, there will be no hope for the rest of us. There will be nothing for us, anywhere.” — Maura Reynolds, POLITICO Magazine deputy editor for ideas Advertisement “I WAS JACK MORTIMER” (ORIGINAL TITLE: “ICH WAR JACK MORTIMER”), BY ALEXANDER LERNET-HOLENIA In an age where our entire lives unfold within WhatsApp chats, and our browser histories or artificial intelligence queries could become public without our consent, we rarely stop and think about the traces we leave behind. In politics in particular, a leak can topple a government faster than an election. And technology has made transparency unavoidable and weaponized, driving some people (and leaders) into a state of constant doubt and hypervigilance: We begin to think like detectives about our own actions, imagining how everything might be used against us. That paranoia — at once personal and political — is distilled in a lesser-known noir by Alexander Lernet-Holenia, set in the elegant decay of 1930s Vienna: “I Was Jack Mortimer.” A taxi driver picks up an impeccably dressed passenger, only to realize the man is dead. His frantic attempt not to seem guilty becomes a monologue of self-incrimination: A parable for the digital panopticon we inhabit today, where the mere act of existing feels like evidence. — Gerardo Fortuna, Brussels Playbook author “EVERYBODY LIES: BIG DATA, NEW DATA, AND WHAT THE INTERNET CAN TELL US ABOUT WHO WE REALLY ARE: BY SETH STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ Aren’t we all just a bunch of liars? We hide uncomfortable truths from family and friends and keep quiet about unpopular opinions — to pollsters, too. There’s one place where we’re astonishingly honest, however, and that’s a Google search bar. Search engines know everything from our darkest fears to our most embarrassing questions, and that vast amount of intel is what data scientist Seth Stephens-Davidowitz dug into to reveal the quiet trends people don’t want to say out loud. Eight years have passed since “Everybody lies” first published — Trump was U.S. president, go figure! — yet it feels more relevant than ever. At a time when misinformation is rampant and the easiest way to reach a voter is through their phone, digital flair can equal real-life political wins. Stephens-Davidowitz’s book goes beyond a keyboard warrior’s anonymity and the echo chambers on social media to teach us something about who we are. And remind us that the internet is the world’s most powerful database, for better or worse, if we care to look. — Hanne Cokelaere, data journalist Advertisement THE “ROBOT” SERIES, BY ISAAC ASIMOV The advent of AI makes Isaac Asimov’s “Robot” series feel as relevant today as when he wrote it last century. The series — a mix of short stories and novels — explores how humanity manages the rise of the robots, the more advanced of which embodied AI. Asimov’s robots were, in theory, governed by laws designed to prevent them from harming humans. Yet, there seemed to be a few loopholes in how those laws were applied. People could definitely get hurt. In Asimov’s tales, humanity has already settled other planets, and people reacted differently to robots depending on where they were. Earthlings were suspicious of interacting with robots. Other planets were less so, to the point where some of the people lived happily with robots but could barely tolerate other humans. Should AI be governed by similar laws? Is it even possible to contain it that way? And on a continent such as Europe, with so many different cultures and countries, will there be differences in how each integrates AI into their lives? Asimov probably would have enjoyed writing some sequels in today’s day and age. — Nahal Toosi, senior foreign affairs correspondent “PERFECTION” (ORIGINAL TITLE: “LE PERFEZIONI”), BY VINCENZO LATRONICO Outside the walls of their sleek Berlin apartment, the world is changing. But for expat couple Anna and Tom, a day-to-day life of aspiration, remote work and precarious comfort goes on much the same. Originally published in Italian, Vincenzo Latronico’s “Perfection” has attracted both praise and criticism for its portrait of a generation: Is it a fair social commentary or a self-absorbed attack on Europe’s young middle class? Either way, the novel paints the picture of an increasingly insubstantial existence where old ties and communities have broken down, and the social and political classes have offered nothing to replace them. Without much by way of purpose, Latronico reveals the political vacuum at the heart of Europe’s urban elite: Anna and Tom don’t just struggle with how to contribute to a better world, he writes — “they couldn’t even imagine it.” — Gabriel Gavin, reporter Advertisement “THE EMPTY HOUSE” (ORIGINAL TITLE: “LA MAISON VIDE”), BY LAURENT MAUVIGNIER What if the European Union were a big, empty house, full of memories of the good old days and convictions that belong to another era? In “La Maison vide” — winner of France’s most prestigious literary prize, the Goncourt — Laurent Mauvignier reimagines the lives of his relatives in the family home in Touraine. He traces their story over the past century, through echoes of Émile Zola’s novels and fading photographs, uncovering uncomfortable truths and once-firm beliefs that now seem far less certain. “La Maison vide” invites us to reflect on what we’ve inherited: What strengthens us and what might be best left behind. It’s an exercise our (more or less) beloved institutions, often accused of rigidity and nostalgia, should try themselves. Who knows, they might discover that “clunky bureaucratic machinery syndrome” doesn’t actually run in the family. — Alexandre Léchenet, France energy and climate editor

LONDON — To mark the festive season POLITICO’s London Playbook asked a host of key players in Westminster to share the best — and worst — Christmas presents they’ve ever received. Here’s what came back. Lucy Powell, deputy Labour leader: As a kid, probably my Girls World (no-one under age of 45 would understand) was my best.  As an adult, we only do Secret Santas now and we write a list for that.  But recently my (lovely) husband bought me the same present he bought me the year before … John Swinney, Scottish first minister: Best gift? Steve Clarke’s early Christmas gift to the nation with a 4-2 win over Denmark to secure a World Cup spot next year. Ed Davey, Lib Dem leader: When my wife got me my first set of base layers, I at last understood why my lovely mum had always asked for Damart. Mel Stride, Conservative Shadow Chancellor: My best present was a pedal car when I was around 5. I can still remember it being unveiled on the kitchen table. It seemed huge and high up and loaded with the promise of long drives and adventure. I loved that car. Beth Rigby, Sky News political editor: Best? An Arsenal Christmas bauble. Worst? A Tottenham Hotspur mug. An Arsenal Christmas bauble. | Julian Finney/Getty Images Richard Hermer, attorney general: Best present? Mr Muscle drain cleaner for all those governmental blockages. Worst present? Media coverage last year that referred to me as a Londoner, rather than as being from Wales. James Heale, Spectator deputy pol-ed: My best Christmas book was receiving a copy of Alan Clark’s diaries as a schoolboy. Sadly, most Tory backbenchers live much less exciting lives these days. Douglas Alexander, Scotland Secretary: The ‘best’ present was my son — who was born much earlier than expected … and so arrived in December. The ‘worst’ gift was the year there weren’t any presents at all … as the Manse [a house provided for church ministers] was burgled during the Christmas Eve service my dad was taking. Wendy Chamberlain, Lib Dem chief whip: My husband bought me a keyboard and rather than wrap it he put a card with a pound note inside it on the tree and wrapped a packet of Quavers for under the tree. These were my clues. I ended up pretty frustrated and confused, particularly given that I’ve never played a musical instrument … Natalie Bennett, Green Party peer and former leader: Worst? Call it a cautionary tale for older relatives: when I was 10 (1976), my grandmother was trying to be “down with the kids” and gave me the latest Abba cassette. But youth taste in suburban Sydney had already moved on and I was careful not to tell any of my peers because Abba was by then deeply uncool. My best was when my then-partner Jim got an artist to draw a picture of my former Battersea staffie [Staffordshire Bull Terrier] Beanie. The artist captured her energy and enthusiasm beautifully. Luke Tryl, More in Common pollster: I don’t think anything can beat getting Mighty Max Skull mountain age 5 or 6. It’s all been disappointment since then. Katie White, DESNZ Minister: My best gift might actually be a gift this year, after I spotted what looked very much like a confirmation order from a generous gift giver. If my hopes are right, it’s the viral, now TikTok-famous Yorkshire pecorino. The worst, and possibly least romantic, gift I’ve ever received was a poached egg pan from Woolworths. Stephen Flynn, SNP’s (follicly-challenged) Westminster leader: The mother bought me caffeine shampoo last year or the year before.

KYIV — For Ukrainians, the shattered eastern city of Pokrovsk — where troops are locked in battle with the Russians this Christmas — conjures up associations with one of their country’s most enduring cultural legacies: the Carol of the Bells. Western audiences may know the haunting, repeated melody from the Hollywood film Home Alone and the TV series Ted Lasso, but there are more poignant and political resonances for Ukrainians this winter as Pokrovsk is so closely connected with the carol’s composer, Mykola Leontovych. Leontovych did not — as widely believed — compose the carol in Pokrovsk but the city played a crucial role in the development of both his music and the patriotic Ukrainian politics that led to his persecution by the Russians and ultimately his murder by Soviet agents in 1921. Leontovych was based in Pokrovsk in the first decade of the 20th century, teaching at a music school and running a railway workers’ choir. He drew inspiration there from distinctively Ukrainian folk traditions, and he would later base the Carol of the Bells on a seasonal chant called Shchedryk. (Pokrovsk is dubbed the hometown of Shchedryk.) “Leontovych came to Pokrovsk with only the bag on his back, but it was there that he developed as a composer, and caught the attention of gendarmes as he stood up for the rights of workers. He even sang the Marseillaise with the local choir that he ran,” said Larysa Semenko, author of the book “Our Silent Genius, Leontovych.” Semenko was also quick to point out that the Ukrainian political dimension to the Carol of the Bells was nothing new. “It was never just a Christmas song, but a Ukrainian cultural message to the world, a greeting card of the nation’s deep-rooted spirituality and resilience in the face of threat. The same threat our nation is fighting today,” she said. SONG OF AN INDEPENDENT UKRAINE Leontovych is widely seen as a hero who took on Russia with his music a century ago, just as Ukrainians today are turning to guns, shells and drones to preserve their national identity from devastation by Moscow. As soon as Leontovych’s version of Shchedryk premiered in Kyiv in 1916, it was spotted as a potential hit by the leaders of the Ukrainian National Republic, the country’s short-lived attempt to break free from Moscow after World War I. The new government decided to send a national choir on tour across Europe with Leontovych’s choral songs in 1919 to promote recognition of the Ukrainian National Republic. The world did not recognize the new nation, but Shchedryk won it a place in global culture. “Even before the translation, it was a hit. In Paris, in Prague, all around Europe, princes and kings were fascinated to find out such a rich and old culture existed on their continent,” Semenko said. Before the European tour, the singers from the Ukrainian choir had to evacuate to the West of Ukraine as Bolsheviks overran Kyiv. After their European success, they went to Canada and the United States, already as the Ukrainian National Chorus, bringing Shchedryk to the North America in 1922. As soon as Leontovych’s version of Shchedryk premiered in Kyiv in 1916, it was spotted as a potential hit by the leaders of the Ukrainian National Republic. | Kostiantyn Liberov/Libkos/Getty Images “Shchedryk, which was a hit and always played as an encore, enchanted Europe and America, and helped Ukrainians to declare their nation and state to the world, said Anatoliy Paladiychuk, researcher and author of the project “Kamianets Notes and Wings of Shchedryk.” In 1936, the American composer Peter J. Wilhousky wrote English lyrics, adapting Shchedryk into the version familiar in West as the Carol of the Bells for an NBC radio performance. Leontovych did not live to see this worldwide success. Under the pretext that they were fighting bandits, the Soviet secret service killed him in January 1921 in his parents’ house in the western region of Vinnytsia. Ukrainians only learned the truth about his death after the opening of Soviet archives in the 1990s. “Just like they do in occupied territories of Ukraine now, Russian authorities saw a threat in Ukrainian culture. That was the start of great terror against Ukrainian freedom fighters, politicians, and educators. Leontovych was one of many who were killed,” Semenko said. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF Almost 105 years after Leontovych’s death, Russia is once again trying to snuff out Ukrainian nationhood. While fighting has raged over Pokrovsk for more than 18 months, Moscow now claims it has occupied it. The Ukrainian army insists its forces are back in parts of Pokrovsk after withdrawal in November. Kyiv also says small groups of Russian soldiers are infiltrating to pose for pictures with flags for propaganda purposes, but don’t fully control the ruins. The Ukrainian army insists its forces are back in parts of Pokrovsk after withdrawal in November. | Ukrinform/NurPhoto via Getty Images “Our active operations in the Pokrovsko-Myrnoрrad agglomeration area continue. In Pokrovsk itself, in the past few weeks, we were able to regain control of about 16 square kilometers in the northern part of the city,” Ukrainian Army Commander Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi said in a post on Telegram. Syrskyi vowed Ukraine would continue to fight for Pokrovsk and bolster its forces in the ruined city against hundreds of thousands of Kremlin soldiers. American historian Timothy Snyder — a leading expert on Ukraine — also drew on the Carol of the Bells to stress the continuity between Russian colonialism a century ago and President Vladimir Putin’s onslaught against the country. “Ukrainian culture is very significant in our world, but our awareness of it is minimal: the assassination of Leontovych and the transformation of Shchedryk is just one minor example of this colonial history, one that is continued during Russia’s present invasion of Ukraine,” Snyder said in a post on Substack on Dec 14.

PARIS — French lawmakers tasked with finding a compromise on the 2026 state budget failed to strike a compromise, all but ensuring France will enter the new year without having finalized its fiscal plans for the next 12 months.   Seven lawmakers from each of France’s two legislative chambers had sat down Friday in a joint committee in search of consensus, but it quickly became clear there was no deal to be had.  Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu in a statement confirmed France would now end the year without a proper state budget and would meet with lawmakers Monday to forge a path forward. Lecornu had warned in November that failing to pass a budget before the end of the year was a “danger” for the French economy. Markets have been eyeing France with concern out of fear it has become too ungovernable to balance the books.  “I regret the lack of willingness on the part of certain parliamentarians to reach an agreement, as we had unfortunately feared for the past few days,” Lecornu said. Lawmakers will now move to pass a stopgap measure that rolls over the 2025 budget into next year and then get back to work on finalizing a 2026 budget in the new year. While that temporary solution will prevent a U.S.-style shutdown, it does nothing to bring down a budget deficit that this year is projected to come in at 5.4 percent of gross domestic product.  Lecornu said in October that the 2026 budget deficit must not exceed 5 percent of GDP.