LONDON — Nigel Farage wants to use Britain’s next election to hammer the government on law and order. That’s got ministers scrambling to mount a fightback. The Reform UK leader — who has already made a running on the hot-button issue of immigration — has warned that parts of Britain are facing “societal collapse.”  His right-wing populist party has been pushing the slogan “Britain is Lawless” — and now the U.K. government is planning a series of announcements to prove Farage wrong. It’s a tough ask for a government that’s trailing Farage in the polls and is presiding over public services in a state of disarray. In the coming weeks, ministers will pitch a blueprint for a major police reform as one answer to tackling street crime. Labour MPs are already sending out leaflets to constituents highlighting details of their named neighborhood police officer. The government is “making sure our streets are policed, which is something the previous government just failed to do,” Policing Minister Sarah Jones argues on this week’s POLITICO Westminster Insider podcast. Jones said the shake-up will “make sure the police are doing the things that we need them to be doing.” Farage’s claims of lawlessness can prompt an exasperated response from ministers and officials who point to statistics. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Prime Minister Keir Starmer has meanwhile put Shabana Mahmood, who dealt directly with shoplifters while working in her parents’ corner shop, in charge of delivering the message as home secretary. “I think she is absolutely the right person for this job, and I hope she’s really, really tough on it, because of her own background with her mum and dad running a shop,” said Labour peer and former political adviser Ayesha Hazarika. PERCEPTIONS MATTER Farage’s claims of lawlessness can prompt an exasperated response from ministers and officials who point to statistics, such as the Crime Survey of England and Wales, which suggest crime has broadly been falling for decades. In September, London Mayor Sadiq Khan hit back at politicians “spreading misinformation” about safety in London, highlighting data showing a fall in violent crime in the capital. That came after U.S. President Donald Trump, an ally of Farage, said “crime in London is through the roof.” But MPs — and ministers too — caution against being dismissive of voters’ lived experience. The narrative that crime is going down in London “infuriates my constituents,” said Margaret Mullane, the Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham, part of Greater London.  “It’s the personal experience, isn’t it? So if you hear that, you’ll think: Well that’s not my experience when I’m going in and out of work, or I’m popping up to Tesco, not that late in the evening, and I don’t feel safe.” Hazarika, who has spoken about the issue in the House of Lords, said: “I think it is a real issue, and I do think it’s contributing to people really feeling like the country is broken when they see so much antisocial behavior.” Hazarika’s parliamentary interventions have been informed by her own experience in Brixton, where she is part of a community group called Action on Anti-Social Behavior. The group was set up because of local concerns that included rife drug-taking, people defecating in public, violence against shopworkers and brazen shoplifting.  While rejecting Farage’s “lawless” characterization, Jones accepts there is work to be done. “It is undoubtedly the case that there is a bit of a mismatch on some of the perceptions versus the reality, but I think if you walk through the streets and you see rubbish in the streets, you can smell cannabis, you talk to a shopkeeper who’s just had somebody steal something, your bike gets stolen and the police don’t come and talk to you about it, of course that’s not right, and we need to fix all of those things,” she said.  DELIVERING ON THE PROMISE “There will be a steady drumbeat of stuff coming up,” said one government official involved in discussions about the strategy, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “We’ve got to make a really persuasive case about the work that is going on to combat [street crime].”  Reform UK can “whinge all they want,” the official said. “We’re focused on governing and getting our heads down and really trying to solve this problem, as opposed to shouting from the sidelines.” The upcoming announcements are likely to be focused on police reform — not on big spending. | George Wood/Getty Images But the upcoming announcements are likely to be focused on police reform — not on big spending. Police chiefs warned in June that their funding settlement from the Treasury would not be enough to fund the government’s ambitions. Instead, there’s been reallocation. The government has already announced plans to ax directly elected police and crime commissioners — who have spent the past decade setting budgets, appointing chief constables and producing policing plans, but with limited democratic take-up. That role will be transferred to existing mayors or council leaders in a bid to “cut the cost of unnecessary bureaucracy” and invest back in the front lines. Alastair Greig, research analyst for the Organised Crime and Policing Team (OCP) at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, said it was important to recognize the “prioritization and the policy decisions that are involved if police decide to really meaningfully crack down on this street crime.“ “People that are pushing the narrative of British lawlessness and pointing to these low-level crimes need to be aware that if their proposals are acted on, then we may well see increases in other forms of serious and violent crime,” he warned. Still, ministers believe reordering police priorities can really start to alter public perceptions. “By reforming policing so that our police can focus on those physical crimes, respond to people, not necessarily always solve the crime, but keep people informed, tell them what they’re doing and let them know, then I think people will start to feel safer,” Jones argued. With Farage breathing down their necks, ministers need all the help they can get.

BRUSSELS — The EU is flipping its script on artificial intelligence amid a global race to win cash and influence. The European Commission is on Wednesday expected to postpone the implementation of landmark AI restrictions by at least a year as part of sweeping changes to digital rules aimed at staying competitive with the U.S. and China. For years EU policymakers focused on making regulations to ensure the technology can be trusted. Now, in a year that saw major advances in artificial intelligence and Donald Trump reenter office, the EU is letting go of its dream of being the global leader on regulating AI. The Artificial Intelligence Act, which took years to negotiate, is not even fully in place yet. Throughout 2025 a growing chorus of national governments and executives from tech companies and industry lobby groups have called for a delay of a part of the law, putting the issue at the center of a wider fight in Brussels over how the EU should balance regulation and innovation. Wednesday’s proposal will see industry voices win out, with the announcement made under the same Commission president that heralded the original law as a “historic moment” to make people safer. While the EU executive will present the proposal as a technical adjustment that will ultimately make the EU’s regulation more effective — on the basis that changes will help industry to comply — it follows an intense lobbying effort by the Trump administration in Washington and from corporate lobbies in Brussels against the bloc’s digital rules. “A part of the message that Europe is giving to the rest of the world is that it is open to pressure from tech companies and other nations,” said Natali Helberger, a professor of law and digital technology at the University of Amsterdam. “I would say this harms the credibility.” Under the plans expected Wednesday, a series of AI practices that are classified as high risk — for example using artificial intelligence in recruitment, to assess people’s suitability to get loans or to score exams — won’t face obligations for at least a year longer than planned. A big part of the justification for the decision has been concerns that the regulations will prevent Europe from being competitive at a time when it needs to level up. Tech lobbies have slammed the foreseen timeline as “unworkable.” “If we only could take the foot off the brake and give innovation a bit more chance, I think that’s all we need,” Germany’s Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger said Tuesday when asked about the Commission’s upcoming proposal. The plans are prompting pushback from civil society. “The Commission seems intent on destroying fundamental rights safeguards and setting us up for months, if not years of infighting and legal uncertainty without any tangible gains for EU competitiveness,” said Daniel Leufer, senior policy analyst at AccessNow. Other changes expected Wednesday would exempt more companies from certain rules altogether, and would also give industry a grace period on new rules for watermarking visual content made by AI. TOO AMBITIOUS? The bloc’s AI rulebook was adopted in August 2024 but the rules were always intended to take effect gradually. Some AI practices that carry an “unacceptable risk” such as predictive policing or social scoring have been forbidden since February. The most complex AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT, have also had to play by a separate set of rules since August. The rules that the EU executive is now pressing pause on — those that pose a risk to people’s health, safety or fundamental rights — were slated to take effect in August next year. Countries and companies argued a delay was necessary due to a delay in the technical standards, designed to help companies comply with the requirements. Standardization bodies missed the deadline to deliver on them twice, and now the standards won’t be ready until 2026. The timeline to come up with standards was a “bit ambitious from the start,” a representative from the standardization bodies told POLITICO in September. By branding it as a technical delay due to the lack of guidance, some in favor of a pause are choosing not to label it as a retreat, but instead to suggest a little more time is needed to get things right. “Many companies would welcome this,” said Wildberger. “But equally important is that we use the time to get certain things right. It’s not just: we postpone it. No, we have some work to do.” Germany and France came out publicly in favor of a one-year pause on Tuesday. Sweden, Poland, the Czech Republic and Denmark all called for a pause or a grace period before. Countries had a stake in delaying the process. “It is also motivated by the fact that so far, a lot of member states haven’t assigned and equipped their national regulatory authorities that must enforce the AI Act,” said Helberger. Hitting pause “will give them more time to get their act together at the national level,” she said. Wednesday’s proposal will need approval from EU countries and by the European Parliament before becoming final. There’s a hard deadline of August 2026 when the rules were set to apply. Within Parliament, even critics of the pause have privately conceded defeat and are now focused on keeping the delay as short as possible and avoiding further pushback. “Unfortunately, a pause now seems inevitable given the delay in developing the standards,” Irish Renew lawmaker Michael McNamara said last week after POLITICO first reported that the rules would be delayed by at least a year. McNamara warned that there should be “no further delays,” because “if there were, it would undermine regulation and rule of law beyond just the AI Act.” Mathieu Pollet contributed to this report.

The European Union’s law enforcement agency wants to speed up how it gets its hands on artificial intelligence tools to fight serious crime, a top official said. Criminals are having “the time of their life” with “their malicious deployment of AI,” but police authorities at the bloc’s Europol agency are weighed down by legal checks when trying to use the new technology, Deputy Executive Director Jürgen Ebner told POLITICO. Authorities have to run through data protection and fundamental rights assessments under EU law. Those checks can delay the use of AI by up to eight months, Ebner said. Speeding up the process could make the difference in time sensitive situations where there is a “threat to life,” he added. Europe’s police agency has built out its tech capabilities in past years, ranging from big data crunching to decrypting communication between criminals. Authorities are keen to fight fire with fire in a world where AI is rapidly boosting cybercrime. But academics and activists have repeatedly voiced concerns about giving authorities free rein to use AI tech without guardrails. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to more than double Europol’s staff and turn it into a powerhouse to fight criminal groups “navigating constantly between the physical and digital worlds.” The Commission’s latest work program said this will come in the form of a legislative proposal to strengthen Europol in the second quarter of 2026.  Speaking in Malta at a recent gathering of data protection specialists from across Europe’s police forces, Ebner said it is an “absolute essential” for there to be a fast-tracked procedure to allow law enforcement to deploy AI tools in “emergency” situations without having to follow a “very complex compliance procedure.” Assessing data protection and fundamental rights impacts of an AI tool is required under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and AI Act. Ebner said these processes can take six to eight months.  The top cop clarified that a faster emergency process would not bypass AI tool red lines around profiling or live facial recognition. Law enforcement authorities already have several exemptions under the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). Under the rules, the use of real-time facial recognition in public spaces is prohibited for law enforcers, but EU countries can still permit exceptions, especially for the most serious crimes. Lawmakers and digital rights groups have expressed concerns about these carve-outs, which were secured by EU countries during the law’s negotiation. DIGITAL POLICING POWERS Ebner, who oversees governance matters at Europol, said “almost all investigations” now have an online dimension.   The investments in tech and innovation to keep pace with criminals is putting a “massive burden on law enforcement agencies,” he said. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to more than double Europol’s staff and turn it into a powerhouse to fight criminal groups. | Wagner Meier/Getty Images The Europol official has been in discussions with Europe’s police chiefs about the EU agency’s upcoming expansion. He said they “would like to see Europol doing more in the innovation field, in technology, in co-operation with private parties.”  “Artificial intelligence is extremely costly. Legal decryption platforms are costly. The same is to be foreseen already for quantum computing,” Ebner said. Europol can help bolster Europe’s digital defenses, for instance by seconding analysts with technological expertise to national police investigations, he said. Europol’s central mission has been to help national police investigate cross-border serious crimes through information sharing. But EU countries have previously been reluctant to cede too much actual policing power to the EU level authority.  Taking control of law enforcement away from EU countries is “out of the scope” of any discussions about strengthening Europol, Ebner said. “We don’t think it’s necessary that Europol should have the power to arrest people and to do house searches. That makes no sense, that [has] no added value,” he said.   Pieter Haeck contributed reporting.

LONDON — The U.K. government will propose a ban on so-called “nudification” apps in its upcoming Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy amid pressure from campaigners to address deepfake-based sexual abuse, according to two people familiar with the plans. Nudification apps use artificial intelligence technology to create fake nude images of people from images.   There is already some nudification legislation in the works in the U.K. The Crime and Policing Bill due to enter committee stage in the Lords next week would make it an offense to either supply or use an app to create deepfaked nude images of children — but it stops short of banning nudification apps wholesale.   Campaigners have long argued that the issue of nudification apps more broadly needs addressing. The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee recommended in a report in March that both the creation and use of nudification apps should be criminalized. The government responded at the time saying it was “actively looking at options” — but said the complexity of the issue warranted “careful consideration.”   The Children’s Commissioner has also called for a total ban, warning such tools disproportionately target girls and young women and contribute “to a culture of misogyny both online and offline” and that the creation of harmful content is “easier than ever” thanks to generative AI.   The Tackling VAWG Strategy was due to be published by the summer but is now not expected until the new year, one of the people cited above — and granted anonymity to discuss sensitive discussions — said. Speaking in the Commons on Wednesday, Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips blamed the delay on needing to make the strategy “as good as it can be.” A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are committed to tackling violence against women and girls in all of its forms.  “We are going further than before to deliver a cross-government transformative approach to halve violence against women and girls. Our new VAWG strategy, which will be published as soon as possible, will set out the strategic direction and concrete actions to deliver on the government’s ambition to halve VAWG in a decade,” they added. 

A Russian fighter jet and a refueling aircraft briefly crossed into Lithuanian airspace from the Kaliningrad region on Thursday evening, the Lithuanian Armed Forces said.  Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nausėda condemned what he described as “a cruel violation of international law and territorial sovereignty of Lithuania.”  “We have to react to this,” he said on X, posting from Brussels. The intrusion came as EU leaders in Brussels were discussing ways to strengthen the bloc’s security at Thursday’s European Council. For Lithuania, which has seen a growing number of airspace violations in recent months — from fighter jets and drones to balloons — air defense remains a top priority. The planes — which were likely conducting mid-air refueling training — penetrated about 700 meters into Lithuanian territory near the south-western town Kybartai and remained there for roughly 18 seconds before turning back. In response, two Spanish Air Force jets deployed under NATO’s Baltic Air policing mission were scrambled to intercept and subsequently began patrolling the area. The situation “is fully under control,” Lithuania’s Prime Minister Inga Ruginienė said in a Facebook post, adding that Lithuania’s response to the threat was appropriate. “This incident once again demonstrates that Russia acts as a terrorist state, disregarding international law and the security of its neighbors,” she said, adding that “together with our allies, we will guard and defend every inch of our country.”

LONDON — Three men were arrested Thursday on suspicion of assisting Russia’s foreign intelligence service. The Metropolitan Police arrested the men — aged 48, 45 and 44 — at addresses in west and central London. Searches are ongoing at those addresses as well as another west London address. The capital’s police force said the alleged offenses related to Russia. Counter Terrorism Policing London Commander Dominic Murphy said: “We’re seeing an increasing number of who we would describe as ‘proxies’ being recruited by foreign intelligence services and these arrests are directly related to our ongoing to efforts to disrupt this type of activity. “Anyone who might be contacted by and tempted into carrying out criminal activity on behalf of a foreign state here in the U.K. should think again.”  Murphy added: “This kind of activity will be investigated and anyone found to be involved can expect to be prosecuted and there are potentially very serious consequences for those who are convicted.”  Moscow was put on the enhanced tier of the U.K.’s Foreign Influence Registration Scheme in July, meaning anyone working for the Russian state needs to declare their activity or risk jail. Three men were convicted earlier this year after an arson attack at a warehouse containing aid for Ukraine.

LONDON — The Scottish government doesn’t want to pay the bill for Donald Trump and JD Vance’s summer trips — and London doesn’t want to stump up the cash either. Scotland’s Finance Secretary Shona Robison, who represents the independence-supporting Scottish National Party, wants to recoup around £20 million in policing and security costs from the London-based Treasury for the U.S. president’s trip to his Scottish golf courses in July, according to the BBC. Robison also wants Whitehall to pay £6 million for policing Vance’s holiday in Ayrshire in August. However, the British government insists Scotland must pick up the tab as they were private visits rather than official government business. In a letter to Chief Secretary to the Treasury James Murray, Robison said: “There is a clear previous precedent, where the U.K. government has supported policing costs for visits to devolved nations by foreign dignitaries.” The Treasury says it will only foot the bill when it has issued a formal invitation to the visiting leaders. Yet Robison insisted Trump’s trip was “diplomatically significant” and not covering the cost would “strain devolved budgets [and] set a troubling precedent for future high-profile visits.” During his July visit, Trump met Prime Minister Keir Starmer, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Scottish First Minister John Swinney. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “These were private visits by the president and vice president to Scotland, not official U.K. government business. The Scottish government are responsible for policing costs in Scotland as per agreed devolved funding arrangements.” Officials in Edinburgh disagree. “The visits imposed substantial operational and financial burdens on Scottish public services,” Scottish Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee said. “These visits were significant in terms of U.K. government international relations, with the prime minister formally meeting the president during his visit in two separate locations in Scotland. The costs cannot be deemed solely a matter for the Scottish government.”

MANCHESTER — A senior Conservative has called for U.S.-style political appointees to shake up the Home Office and push through the opposition party’s sweeping deportation plans. Speaking at the POLITICO Pub at Conservative Party conference in Manchester on Monday, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said that “a few dozen” politically-minded staff, who aren’t bound by U.K. civil service impartiality strictures, could make a “big difference to ministers’ abilities to get things done.” The former immigration minister lamented that the Home Office — in charge of immigration and policing — has only around ten politically-appointed ministers or special advisors running a department of some 50,000 career officials. And some civil servants come into the job, he said, “ from a perspective of wanting to give asylum to people. “So it did, at times, feel like a bit of a struggle,” he said. Philp stressed that many civil servants work diligently and other parts of the Home Office were more helpful. But he added: “I think more political appointees, particularly at the top, actually would help and people being appointed from outside the public sector who can bring a bit of dynamism to bear.” Pressed on how many might be needed to push through ministers’ plans, Philp said: “In America, it’s thousands, isn’t it? When the American administration changes over, there are I think 5,000 or 10,000 people in the federal government who switch over. I wouldn’t suggest anything on that scale. “But in a department like the Home Office … I could imagine a few dozen people coming into a big department would make quite a big difference to ministers’ ability to get things done.” On Sunday, the Conservatives unveiled a new borders plan which included a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement-style deportations force to remove 750,000 migrants. It comes after Nigel Farage’s Reform UK — currently hammering the Tories in the polls — proposed scrapping civil service neutrality in order to have a department of immigration staffed only by people who agree with the party’s policies.

Three Russian fighter jets flew into Estonian airspace on Friday in a serious escalation on NATO’s eastern border, people familiar with the incursion told POLITICO. The MiG-31 aircraft — heavy interceptors capable of carrying Russia’s Kinzhal hypersonic missile — crossed about five nautical miles inside Estonian territory and headed toward the capital, Tallinn, according to people briefed on the situation. The jets circled for about 12 minutes before NATO scrambled Italian F-35s to repel them. This story is being updated.

Elon Musk called for the “dissolution of parliament” and change of government in the U.K. during a far-right rally in London on Saturday. The Tesla and X owner issued the rallying cry to an audience of thousands via a video link as part of a “unite the kingdom” demonstration that was organized by far-right activist Tommy Robinson — real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. “Violence is coming,” Musk said, railing against what he called the woke mindset. “You either fight back or you die,” he told the crowd. Musk’s comments are the latest in a war of words with the British government. He has been a vocal critic of the U.K.’s Online Safety Act, which he says threatens free speech, and has attacked Downing Street’s handling of grooming gangs. “I really think that there’s got to be a change of government in Britain,” Musk said Saturday. “We don’t have another four years, or whenever the next election is — it’s too long. There’s got to be a dissolution of parliament and a new vote held.” This isn’t the first time Musk has talked about violence in Britain. Last year, he said “civil war is inevitable” after riots broke out over claims from far-right groups that a Muslim asylum seeker was responsible for the stabbing of three children. The disinformation campaign fueled anger against immigrants living in Britain. Musk has also turned on U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of “two-tier policing” that punished right-wing protesters more than those from the left. The claim has been debunked but is still used by conspiracy theorists and populist politicians, such as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. The attacks against Starmer’s government continued during Saturday’s appearance at “unite the kingdom” rally, which drew more than 110,000 people onto London’s streets. The Guardian described the rally as the largest nationalist event in decades.  “Something’s got to be done,” Musk said.