BRUSSELS — In the 10 years since the Brussels terror attacks, the EU has tightened its security strategy but the internet is opening up new threats, according to the bloc’s counterterrorism coordinator.  Daesh is “mutating jihadism,” Bartjan Wegter told POLITICO in an interview on the eve of the anniversary of the terrorist attacks in Brussels, which pushed the bloc to bolster border protection and step up collaboration and information-sharing. The group has “calculated that it’s much more effective to radicalize people who are already inside the EU through online environments rather than to organize orchestrated attacks from outside our borders,” he said.  “And they’re very good at it.” Ten years ago, two terrorists from Daesh (also known as the so-called Islamic State) blew themselves up at Brussels Airport. Another explosion tore through a metro car at Maelbeek station, in the heart of Brussels’ EU district. Thirty-two people were killed, and hundreds more injured.  The attacks came just months after terrorists killed 130 people in attacks on a concert hall, a stadium, restaurants and bars in Paris, exposing gaps in information-sharing in the bloc’s free-travel area. The terrorists had moved between countries, planning the attacks in one and carrying them out in another, said Wegter, who is Dutch. “That’s where our vulnerabilities were.” Today, violent jihadism remains a threat and new large-scale attacks can’t be excluded. But the probability is “much, much lower today than it was 10 years ago,” said Wegter. In the aftermath of the attacks, the bloc changed its security strategy with a focus on prevention and a “security reflex” across every policy field, according to Wegter. It’s also stepping up police and judicial collaboration through Europol and Eurojust, and it’s putting in place databases — including the Schengen Information System — so countries could alert each other about high-risk individuals, as well as an entry/exit system to monitor who enters and leaves the free-travel area. But the bloc is facing a new type of threat, as security officials see a gradual increase in attempted terrorist attacks by lone actors. A lot of that is being cultivated online and increasingly, younger people are involved. “We’ve seen cases of children 12 years old. And, the radicalization process [is] also happening faster,” Wegter said. “Sometimes we’re talking about weeks or months.” In 2024, a third of all arrests connected to potential terror threats were of people aged between 12 and 20 years old, and France recorded a tripling of the number of minors radicalized between 2023 and 2024, said Wegter.  “Just put yourself in the shoes of law enforcement … You’re dealing with young people who spend most of their time online … Who may not have a criminal record. Who, if they are plotting attacks, may not be using registered weapons. It’s very hard to prevent.” Violent jihadism is just one of the threats EU security officials worry are being cultivated online. Wegter said there is also an emerging trend of a violent right-wing extremist narrative online — and to a lesser extent, violent left-wing extremism. There’s also what he called “nihilistic extremist violence,” a new phenomenon that can feature elements of different ideologies or a drive to overthrow the system, but which is fundamentally minors seeking an identity through violence. “What we see online, some of these images are so horrible that even law enforcement needs psychological support to see this kind of stuff,” said Wegter. Law enforcement’s ability to get access to encrypted data and information on people under investigation is crucial, he stressed, and he drew parallels with the steps the EU took to secure the Schengen free movement 10 years ago. “If you want to preserve the good things of the internet, we also need to make sure that we have … some key mechanisms to safeguard the internet also.”

Voter turnout in Italy’s referendum on judicial reform reached nearly 15 percent by noon on Sunday, signaling a stronger-than-expected start to a vote seen as a key test for Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Recent polling indicated that higher turnout could improve the chances of the “Yes” camp backed by Meloni’s government, while lower participation would make a “No” victory more likely. Government data put participation at 14.92 percent at midday. The early figure marks a stronger start than in comparable recent referendums, with turnout at noon standing at just 12.24 percent in the 2020 vote on cutting the number of MPs and 10.1 percent in the 2006 constitutional referendum. Regional data shows northern and central regions leading participation, with Emilia-Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Lombardy recording the highest turnout so far. Southern regions including Calabria, Basilicata and Sicily are trailing in turnout. At the heart of the vote is a deeply contested reform of the Italian judiciary. The most controversial element is a proposal to overhaul how members of the Superior Council of the Judiciary (CSM) — the body that governs judges’ careers — are selected. Instead of being elected, most members would be chosen by lottery under the proposal. Supporters of the reform argue the change would break the influence of internal factions within the judiciary and reduce politicization. Critics say it risks undermining merit and representation, potentially allowing underqualified and political candidates to oversee key decisions on appointments and discipline. Two further turnout updates are scheduled for 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. Sunday, with final results expected after polls close on Monday at 3 p.m. The referendum does not require a minimum turnout, meaning the reform will be approved or rejected based solely on the majority of votes cast.

Biotechnology is central to modern medicine and Europe’s long-term competitiveness. From cancer and cardiovascular disease to rare conditions, it is driving transformative advances for patients across Europe and beyond . 1         Yet innovation in Europe is increasingly shaped by regulatory fragmentation, procedural complexity and uneven implementation across  m ember s tates. As scientific progress accelerates, policy frameworks must evolve in parallel, supporting the full lifecycle of innovation from research and clinical development to manufacturing and patient access.  The proposed EU Biotech Act seeks to address these challenges. By streamlining regulatory procedures, strengthening coordination  and supporting scale-up and manufacturing, it aims to reinforce Europe’s position in a highly competitive global biotechnology landscape .2       Its success, however, will depend less on ambition than on delivery. Consistent implementation, proportionate oversight and continued global openness will determine whether the  a ct translates into faster patient access, sustained investment and long-term resilience.  Q: Why is biotechnology increasingly seen as a strategic pillar for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term growth?  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen:  Biotechnology sits at the intersection of health, industrial policy and economic competitiveness. The sector is one of Europe’s strongest strategic assets and a leading contributor to  research and development  growth . 3    At the same time, Europe’s position is under increasing pressure. Over the past two decades, the EU has lost approximately 25  percent of its global share of pharmaceutical investment to other regions, such as the  United States  and China.   The choices made today will shape Europe’s long-term strength in the sector, influencing not only competitiveness and growth, but also how quickly patients can benefit from new treatments.  > Europe stands at a pivotal moment in biotechnology. Our life sciences legacy > is strong, but maintaining global competitiveness requires evolution .” 4   > >  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Q: What does the EU Biotech Act aim to do  and why is it considered an important step forward for patients and Europe’s innovation ecosystem?  Marrache: The EU Biotech Act represents a timely opportunity to better support biotechnology products from the laboratory to the market. By streamlining medicines’ pathways and improving conditions for scale-up and investment, it can help strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem and accelerate patient access to breakthrough therapies. These measures will help anchor biotechnology as a strategic priority for Europe’s future  —  and one that can deliver earlier patient benefit  —  so long as we can make it work in practice.  Q: How does the EU Biotech Act address regulatory fragmentation, and where will effective delivery and coordination be most decisive? Marrache: Regulatory fragmentation has long challenged biotechnology development in Europe, particularly for multinational clinical trials and innovative products. The Biotech Act introduces faster, more coordinated trials, expanded regulatory sandboxes and new investment and industrial capacity instruments.   The proposed EU Health Biotechnology Support Network and a  u nion-level regulatory status repository would strengthen transparency and predictability. Together, these measures would support earlier regulatory dialogue, help de-risk development   and promote more consistent implementation across  m ember  s tates.   They also create an opportunity to address complexities surrounding combination products  —  spanning medicines, devices and diagnostics  —  where overlapping requirements and parallel assessments have added delays.5 This builds on related efforts, such as the COMBINE programme,6 which seeks to streamline the navigation of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation , 7 Clinical Trials Regulation8 and the Medical Device Regulation9 through a single, coordinated assessment process. Continued clarity and coordination will be essential to reduce duplication and accelerate development timelines .10 Q: What conditions will be most critical to support biotech scale-up, manufacturing  and long-term investment in Europe?  Marrache: Europe must strike the right balance between strategic autonomy and openness to global collaboration. Any new instruments under the Biotech Act mechanisms should remain open and supportive of all types of biotech investments, recogni z ing that biotech manufacturing operates through globally integrated and highly speciali z ed value chains.   Q: How can Europe ensure faster and more predictable pathways from scientific discovery to patient access, while maintaining high standards of safety and quality?   Marrache: Faster and more predictable patient access depends on strengthening end-to-end pathways across the lifecycle.  The Biotech Act will help ensure continuity of scientific and regulatory experti z e, from clinical development through post-authori z ation. It will also support stronger alignment with downstream processes, such as health technology assessments, which  are  critical to success.   Moreover, reducing unnecessary delays or duplication in approval processes can set clearer expectations, more predictable development timelines and earlier planning for scale-up.    Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Via Amgen. Finally, embedding a limited number of practical tools (procedural, digital or governance-based) and ensuring they are integrated within existing  European Medicines Agency and EU regulatory structures can help achieve faster patient access . 11 Q: What role can stronger regulatory coordination, data use and public - private collaboration play in strengthening Europe’s global position in biotechnology?  Marrache: To unlock biotechnology’s full potential, consistent implementation is essential. Fragmented approaches to secondary data use, divergent  m ember   state interpretations and uncertainty for data holders still limit access to high-quality datasets at scale. The Biotech Act introduces key building blocks to address this.   These include Biotechnology Data Quality Accelerators to improve interoperability, trusted testing environments for advanced innovation, and alignment with the EU AI Act ,12  European Health Data Space13 and wider EU data initiatives. It also foresees AI-specific provisions and clinical trial guidance to provide greater operational clarity.  Crucially, these structures must simplify rather than add further layers of complexity.   Addressing remaining barriers will reduce legal uncertainty for AI deployment, support innovation and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.  > These reforms will create a moderni z ed biotech ecosystem, healthier > societies, sustainable healthcare systems and faster patient access to the > latest breakthroughs in Europe .” 14 > > Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen.  Q: As technologies evolve and global competition intensifies, how can policymakers ensure the Biotech Act remains flexible and future-proof?  Marrache:  To remain future-proof, the Biotech Act must be designed to evolve alongside scientific progress, market dynamics and patient needs. Clear objectives, risk-based requirements, regular review mechanisms and timely updates to guidance will enhance regulatory agility without creating unnecessary rigidity or administrative burden.  Continuous stakeholder dialogue combined with horizon scanning will be essential to sustaining innovation, resilience and timely patient access over the long term. Preserving regulatory openness and international cooperation will be critical in avoiding fragmentation and maintaining Europe’s credibility as a global biotech hub.  Q: Looking ahead, what two or three priorities should policymakers focus on to ensure the EU Biotech Act delivers meaningful impact in practice?  Marrache: Looking ahead, policymakers should focus on three priorities for the Biotech Act:    First, implementation must deliver real regulatory efficiency, predictability and coordination in practice. Second, Europe must sustain an open and investment-friendly framework that reflects the global nature of biotechnology.  And third, policymakers should ensure a clear and coherent legal framework across the lifecycle of innovative medicines, providing certainty for the use of  artificial intelligence   —  as a key driver of innovation in health biotechnology.  In practical terms, the EU Biotech Act will be judged not by the number of new instruments it creates, but by whether it reduces complexity, increases predictability and shortens the path from scientific discovery to patient benefit. An open, innovation-friendly framework that is competitive at the global level will help sustain investment, strengthen resilient supply chains and deliver better outcomes for patients across Europe and beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/media/press-releases/2025/05/The_EU_Biotech_Act_Unlocking_Europes_Potential 2. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation to establish measures to strengthen the Union’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en 3. EFPIA, The pharmaceutical sector: A catalyst to foster Europe’s competitiveness, February 2026. Retrieved from https://www.efpia.eu/media/zkhfr3kp/10-actions-for-competitiveness-growth-and-security.pdf 4. The Parliament, Investing in healthy societies by boosting biotech competitiveness, November 2024. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/investing-in-healthy-societies-by-boosting-biotech-competitiveness#_ftn4 5. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   6. European Commission, combine programme, June 2023. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-topics-interest/combine-programme_en  7. European Commission. Medical Devices – In Vitro Diagnostics, March 2026. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-vitro-diagnostics_en 8. European Commission, Clinical trials – Regulation EU No 536/2014, January 2022. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/clinical-trials/clinical-trials-regulation-eu-no-5362014_en 9. European Commission, Simpler and more effective rules for medical devices – Commission proposal for a targeted revision of the medical devices regulations, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/new-regulations_en#mdr 10. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   11. AmCham, EU position on the Commission Proposal for an EU Biotech Act 12. European Commission, AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future, June 2024. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai 13. European Commission, European Health Data Space, March 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en 14. The Parliament, Why Europe needs a Biotech Act, October 2025. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/why-europe-needs-a-biotech-act -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Amgen Inc * The ultimate controlling entity is Amgen Inc * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on the EU Biotech Act. More information here.

BRUSSELS — Most Europeans believe the U.S. could pull the plug on technology that Europe heavily relies on, according to a new poll. Eighty-six percent of people think a sudden U.S. move to restrict Europe’s access to digital services is “plausible” and “should not be ruled out,” and 59 percent called it “already a real and concrete risk,” in a survey conducted by SWG and Polling Europe presented to European Parliament members this week. European governments are trying to reduce their dependency on U.S. technology for critical services like cloud, communications and AI. One fear driving the shift to use homegrown tech is that of a “kill switch”; the idea that U.S. President Donald Trump could force the hand of American tech providers to cease services in Europe. Those fears peaked when the International Criminal Court’s Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan lost access last year to his Microsoft-hosted email account after the U.S. imposed sanctions on him. “During the last year, everybody has really realized how important it is that we are not dependent on one country or one company when it comes to some very critical technologies,” the EU’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen told an audience in Brussels earlier this year, at an event organized by POLITICO. “In these times … dependencies, they can be weaponized against us,” Virkkunen said. The survey quizzed 5,079 respondents across all 27 EU member countries in January. For 55 percent of those interviewed, charting a “European path” has become a “central strategic issue.” The European Parliament and a series of national government institutions have already taken steps to move away from ubiquitous U.S. tech — though EU capitals have cautioned the transition won’t happen overnight. The European Commission is also finalizing a set of proposals due in late May to reduce reliance on foreign tech, including defining what qualifies as a sovereign provider and which critical sectors should rely exclusively on them to safeguard European data and day-to-day operations. The poll suggests U.S. efforts to debunk and dismiss the “kill switch” scenario haven’t convinced Europeans. U.S. National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross told an audience in Munich in February that the idea that Trump can pull the plug on the internet is not “a credible argument.” Microsoft President Brad Smith said in Brussels last year that the “kill switch” scenario was “exceedingly unlikely” to happen, but acknowledged it’s “a real concern of people across Europe.” He pledged to push back against any prospective orders to suspend operations in Europe. U.S. firms at the same time are rushing to assuage the concerns with safeguards, like air-gapped solutions that would prove resilient in the case of operational disruptions.

The FBI is buying up information that can be used to track people’s movement and location history, Director Kash Patel said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. It is the first confirmation that the agency is actively buying people’s data since former Director Christopher Wray said in 2023 that the FBI had purchased location data in the past but was not doing so at that time. “We do purchase commercially available information that’s consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us,” Patel told senators at the Intelligence Committee’s annual Worldwide Threats hearing. The U.S. Supreme Court has required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant for getting people’s location data from cell phone providers since 2018, but data brokers offer an alternative avenue by purchasing the information directly. Many lawmakers want to end the practice. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Government Surveillance Reform Act on March 13, which would require federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant to buy Americans’ personal information. “Doing that without a warrant is an outrageous end run around the Fourth Amendment, it’s particularly dangerous given the use of artificial intelligence to comb through massive amounts of private information,” Wyden said at Wednesday’s hearing. The bill has a House counterpart introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio). Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) defended the practice at the hearing. “The key words are commercially available. If any other person can buy it, and the FBI can buy it, and it helps them locate a depraved child molester or savage cartel leader, I would certainly hope the FBI is doing anything it can to keep Americans safe,” he said. Defense Intelligence Agency Director James Adams told senators at the hearing that his agency also purchases commercially available information.

LONDON — War in the Middle East has put Keir Starmer in a tight spot.  The U.K. government can’t afford to spend big on protecting voters from looming energy bill hikes. But politically, the British prime minister has little choice.  Starmer said Monday that his “first instinct” in responding to the Iran conflict — and the global energy price shock it has triggered — is protecting the household finances of ordinary voters.  “It’s moments like this that tell you what a government is about,” Starmer said, addressing yet another hastily-arranged Downing Street press conference.   “My answer is clear. Whatever the challenges that lie ahead, this government will always support working people.”  He was announcing £53 million in state support for low-income families already hit by a sharp rise in the cost of heating oil, a fuel that warms around one in 20 U.K. homes.    But much bigger, much pricier policy choices are coming down the track.    STRAITENED FINANCES A regulated cap on energy costs is keeping a lid on most people’s household bills. But the current cap expires in July — at which point, without intervention, bills could jump significantly. Wholesale gas prices, which significantly influence household bills, have nearly doubled since the crisis began. Starmer’s Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told The Mirror newspaper he would “keep looking at how we can do more” to protect consumers. The government must decide how big they go with any support package.  But the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank has already sounded the alarm over the government’s fiscal wiggle room. “The public finances are in a more strained position than they were [in 2022] at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, and a sustained increase in energy prices is likely to worsen them further,” the think tank said last week. Starmer sought to contrast the situation now with that faced by Liz Truss’s Conservative government in 2022, and her multi-billion pound energy bailout.  The policy reduced the energy bills of every family in the country. It also, coupled with sweeping tax cuts, led sterling to crash, borrowing costs to soar, and forced Truss out of her job days later.  His Labour government, Starmer said, had “brought stability back to our public finances, stability that I will never put at risk.”  Now he faces the challenge of meeting that pledge on stability, while standing by his cost-of-living guarantee to the British people.   TO TARGET To help people most exposed to rising bills, while avoiding Truss’s fate, the obvious option for Starmer is to make a targeted intervention on energy bills come July.  The heating oil policy follows this approach, aimed squarely at “people who need it most,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves said Monday. The Treasury is similarly looking at “targeted options” for any future energy support package, she told The Times at the weekend.  Starmer himself said on Monday “we’re not ruling anything out.” But the signals are that a universal offer like Truss’s — which ended up costing an eye-watering £23 billion — is unlikely.   Among Labour MPs, the penny is already dropping that not all households will benefit from government largesse.   “It’s right that the government steps in at a time of national crisis and supports those that are struggling,” Suffolk Coastal MP Jenny Riddell-Carpenter told the BBC on Monday. “But it’s complex,” she added. “There isn’t a limitless pot of money.”   And targeting the right people for help will not be straightforward. In 2022, government lacked the data required to know which households should be targeted, Reeves told MPs on the Treasury committee last week.    Work on this inside government is now “more advanced,” she insisted. But officials still lack the targeting data needed, said Ben Westerman, director of policy at the energy campaign group Electrify Britain.    Officials simply “haven’t moved on” with targeting data since the last energy crisis, Westerman said, adding: “That is a failure of governments plural to learn the lessons from last time.”   Energy companies, pushing ministers over the issue, have grown frustrated.   “Industry has called for government to provide the data so that we can target support [to] those who need it. And there’s just been little to no progress on this,” Caitlin Berridge-Dunn, head of external affairs at energy supplier Utilita, said.  NEW AND OLD IDEAS  One option, separate from bills, would be to maintain a longstanding, five pence per liter tax relief on gasoline and diesel, a fuel duty cut which expires in September. The oil price shock has driven up costs at the pump by more than eight pence per liter for gasoline and more than 18 pence for diesel. Another approach officials could opt for, according to Westerman, and reported in The Times Monday, is to expand the existing Warm Homes Discount, a one-off payment to reduce bills for the poorest households, as a vehicle for getting more support to people who need it most.  But that approach, he cautioned, would not catch the “squeezed middle” of households.   Another option is to repeat a trick Starmer and Reeves pulled off at last year’s budget — shifting green and other levies currently added to energy bills into general taxation.   Miliband hailed that move at the time — which saved around £150 on the average energy bills — as a way of “asking some of the wealthiest in our society” to subsidize everyone’s bills.  There is enthusiasm for the principle in Whitehall, even if no decisions have yet been made. A government official, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, said the £150 cut could be “the beginning of a big principled move” of the burden of energy costs from consumers onto tax.     A study by the industry group the MCS Foundation found that moving all such levies onto taxation could cut bills by up to £410 a year. But that, of course, would put taxpayers on the hook. MCS Foundation estimated it would cost £5.7 billion per year. The most important difference from the Truss era, argued Sam Alvis, a former Labour adviser and now a director of energy security and environment at the influential IPPR think tank, is that Starmer cannot hang around.  The government should be planning any intervention now and not allow prices to rise in July, he argued, avoiding a repeat of the last Conservative government’s mis-step, when it waited until the fall to act.  “I think the public tolerance for [energy bill] increases will be a lot lower than it was in 2022, when Liz Truss waited from February to September to react,” Alvis said. “I just don’t think we’ll have that same time.” 

BRUSSELS — European Union countries on Monday slapped new sanctions on hacking groups, including an Iranian group that targeted subscribers of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Capitals froze assets and banned doing business with Iranian company Emennet Pasargad, which in 2023 stole data of subscribers to the French magazine and advertised the data for sale on the dark web. Charlie Hebdo was targeted by terrorists in 2015 after publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. Microsoft in 2023 pinned the data theft on Emennet Pasargad, which happened after the magazine published cartoons mocking then-Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Capitals also sanctioned Chinese company Integrity Technology Group and Chinese firm Anxun Information Technology, also known as i-Soon, and its co-founders Chen Cheng and Wu Haibo, who are banned from entering the EU, the EU sanctions listing showed. According to the details of the sanctions, Anxun Information Technology targeted “critical infrastructure and critical state functions” of EU countries and sold classified information as part of so-called hack-for-hire services.  The United States Department of Justice in March 2025 indicted 12 people involved in i-Soon for cyberattacks the U.S. said it had carried out at the behest of Chinese security services. Chinese security services “paid handsomely” for the data the groups stole, the department said.  Integrity Technology Group, the other Chinese company, facilitated the activities of a Chinese state hacking group dubbed Flax Typhoon, which security officials say has targeted organizations in Taiwan for espionage purposes. Flax Typhoon used Integrity’s products and technology to hack into more than 65,000 devices in six EU member countries, the Council of the EU said on Monday. The U.S. Treasury Department also sanctioned Integrity in January 2025. The United Kingdom hit both Chinese companies with sanctions late last year. 

BUDAPEST — As Hungarians awoke to a sunny national day on March 15, a question overshadowed the celebrations: Who would draw the larger crowd to the streets of Budapest? Would it be incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, still a formidable force after 16 years of uninterrupted rule? Or Péter Magyar, a less prickly opposition wild card who is bidding to bring down Orbán’s government? With less than a month to go until the April 12 election — and with Magyar’s opposition Tisza party polling about 10 points ahead of Orbán’s Fidesz — the national day festivities offered both parties a final chance to show off their strength and sway public opinion as the campaign enters its final stretch. “Everything is ready for the biggest event ever,” Magyar had said the evening before. “This will be the day when size truly matters,” he added Sunday morning. Meanwhile, as followers started gathering after 9 a.m. to march for Orbán, the Fidesz-aligned Magyar Nemzet newspaper said that “the crowd is huge.” Small wonder, then, that the two sides disputed who had attracted the bigger crowd. The Fidesz “peace march” rally at Kossuth Square, next to the Hungarian Parliament building. | Max Griera/POLITICO Fidesz shared data from the Hungarian Tourism Agency, which reported that Orbán’s “peace march” had drawn 180,000 people to the opposition’s 150,000; the agency, which is controlled by the government, based its estimate on how many cell phones had been connected to antennas near the respective rallies. But people close to Tisza estimated for POLITICO that their party had mobilized 350,000 attendees. DEFENDING HUNGARY AGAINST BRUSSELS, KYIV Hungary’s March 15 national day commemorates its revolution and war of independence to escape the rule of Austria’s Habsburg monarchy from 1848-1849. Both parties used the occasion to drive home their campaign slogans and espouse patriotism and national identity. Orbán’s Fidesz has focused on the war in Ukraine and Iran, portraying itself as the party of security but avoiding domestic issues. Tisza has campaigned on a platform of complete regime change. The competing events both featured national anthems and folk songs, most prominently “Nemzeti Dal” by Sándor Petőfi — an iconic poem and a cornerstone of Hungarian literature that is widely credited with helping spark the Hungarian Revolution in 1848. And both Orbán and Magyar called on Hungarians to rise and defend the country just like they did in 1956 against the Soviet occupation — the former invoking Ukraine as the threat, the latter another Orbán government after 16 years of uninterrupted rule. Orbán addressed his supporters beside the parliament in Kossuth Square, where they had marched from the Buda quarter of the capital across the Danube River. “We will not be a Ukrainian colony,” was the motto on the placards protesters carried, a slogan that Orbán had echoed on social media the day before. Budapest is embroiled in a furious dispute with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over the cessation of Russian oil flows across Ukraine and a stalled €90 billion EU loan to fund Kyiv’s war effort. Orbán has framed his rival Magyar as a Brussels proxy who will do as the EU and Ukraine say. “I said no to the Soviets,” Orbán told the rally. “I said no to Brussels, to the war, and I’m standing before the vote now, together with you, saying no to the Ukrainians.” Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó took the stage to claim that Brussels, Kyiv and Berlin “want to bring Europe to war” and “want the money of Europeans to be given to the Ukrainians.” Near Kossuth Square, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Boulevard was at a standstill with dozens of buses still disgorging supporters from the countryside, who had been brought in to offset Budapest’s predominantly opposition voters. High school student Mikolt, 16, and her stay-at-home mother Daniela, 42, were arriving from the village of Eger in the northeast of the country. They said they supported Orbán because he is keeping Hungary out of the war in Ukraine and because he supports Christianity, the family and Hungarians. Tisza volunteers Balázs and Zsigmund on Andrássy Avenue before the march starts. | Max Griera/POLITICO Magyar is a “narcissist,” Daniela said, who “behaves like a wounded little child who no longer has any power” since leaving Fidesz in February 2024. “RUSSIANS GO HOME” A 20-minute walk away, the Tisza marchers were beginning to assemble. Volunteers Zsigmund and Balázs, both 18, agreed to talk with POLITICO, despite having received a caution from their team leader not to speak with media, as Orbán’s “propagandists” could use what they said against the party. Describing themselves as “patriots,” the two students are counting on Magyar to improve the country’s health care and education systems, which they said have been battered by years of misrule. “Orbán replaced skilled people with loyalists. Tisza has many professionals and they have a program, Fidesz hasn’t had a program for years,” Zsigmund said. For Balazs, who plans to study economics at a foreign university, the election is existential — he says he may not come back if Orbán wins. “I would prefer to come back, definitely, but let’s see what happens.” Once it gets going, the Tisza march fills the 2.5 kilometer-long Andrassy Avenue, heading for Heroes Square, where Magyar is due to speak at 17:00. On stage, the opposition leader promises to fix Hungary’s health care system, restore billions of euros in EU funding that has been frozen due to rule-of-law concerns regarding Orbán’s government, improve pensions and child support, boost the economy and fight corruption. Evoking Hungary’s “other” revolution — the 1956 uprising that killed 3,000 civilians — Magyar said Hungarians need to rise up again to regain their “freedom” and protect their rights. Framing the current government as an occupier that represses its “subjects,” he accused Orbán of allowing Russian agents in the country to meddle in the election. “Russians go home!” the crowd chanted, repeating: “It’s over!”

A blue wave may already be cresting. Democrats have flipped 28 Republican-held seats in state legislatures across the country over the past 14 months, a sign that the GOP is indeed at risk of losing control of the House, and maybe even the Senate, in the midterms. Democratic wins have come even in deep red states, including Texas, Arkansas and Mississippi, and often by margins that make Republican leaders uneasy. “I’m ringing the alarm bell,” said Brendan Steinhauser, a Texas GOP consultant who has run campaigns for Republicans in the state, including Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Dan Crenshaw. The results of these state-level elections reflect the immediate concerns of the electorate, provide a launching pad for the next generation of national leaders and could influence the future makeup of Congress through redistricting. They may also give both Republicans and Democrats a preview of the midterm battles to come. For Republicans, the results are a sign that they must do more to motivate low-propensity voters who helped carry President Donald Trump back to the White House, said a senior GOP campaign operative, who was granted anonymity because he didn’t have permission from the party to speak freely about the losses. “We’re the party of low propensity voters now,” said the operative. “How do we turn out these Republican voters in a midterm election?” One of the first signs that Democrats were building momentum came in August, when an Iowa Senate district swung more than 20 points to elect Democrat Catelin Drey. It was the second seat Democrats flipped in the state last year, and the moment that broke the Republican Senate supermajority in the General Assembly. Then in November, Democrats did it again: They flipped three of the six Republican-held districts in a Mississippi special election, again breaking a GOP Senate supermajority. “You are seeing people just vote for change,” said Brian Robinson, a GOP consultant in Georgia, where Republicans lost a seat in December. Robinson, an outside adviser for the state House GOP caucus, says Republicans are blamed for high prices because they’re in charge. “If it’s any one thing, it is [the] cost of living.” Robinson said, arguing that Trump will do something to reduce prices before the midterms. In recent weeks, the president has indeed taken steps, including by touting a pledge from tech companies to reduce energy costs associated with data centers and releasing 172 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Iran war, which has sent global oil prices skyrocketing, complicates that effort. After Democrats flipped 13 Virginia seats and five New Jersey seats in November, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee went back to reassess state races around the country. They expanded their 2026 target map to 42 chambers and invested $50 million in changing the makeup of state legislatures — the widest map and largest single-year budget DLCC has ever approved. Legislatures in Arizona and New Hampshire are now on the “flip” list, and the DLCC hopes to break or prevent GOP supermajorities in red states across the South and Midwest. Their success could give Democrats more state power over judicial nominees, protect the veto power of Democratic governors in states with GOP-led legislatures and hand Democrats greater influence over redistricting. Republicans, meanwhile, are waiting for the funding to hit. As of January, the RNC has just over $100 million and Trump’s MAGA Inc. PAC has $300 million. State Republicans say when that cash flows into midterm races, it will enable them to get low-propensity voters to vote. Turnout was a major point of discussion at an RNC conference call that Wisconsin GOP Chair Brian Schimming attended Tuesday, and he says Republicans will dedicate a lot of resources to motivate voters in November. “We’ve met with the White House more than once, and they keep track of the target states pretty closely,” said Schimming, adding he also expects Trump and Vice President JD Vance to stump in key Wisconsin congressional districts closer to the election. “They are big base motivators.” In the meantime, Democrats keep flipping state seats. The latest came Tuesday night, when Bobbi Boudman beat Republican Rep. Dale Fincher in a New Hampshire Senate seat that Trump won by 9 points. On March 24, voters will decide in a special election who represents the Florida state House seat that includes Mar-a-Lago. Democrat Emily Gregory, a small business owner who is running against Republican Jon Maples, a businessman, saw her total campaign earnings jump by nearly 75 percent between Jan. 9 and Feb. 12. In November, a national PAC connected Gregory with Drey, who flipped the Iowa seat in August. Drey advised Gregory to find the affordability issue that matters most to her district — the way energy costs resonate in New Jersey and property insurance does in Florida. “In this moment, we have all of the issues on our side. We have all of the momentum on our side,” Gregory recalled Drey telling her. “It’s just up to you as a candidate to get in front of every single voter you can and communicate that message.”

Anton, a 44-year-old Russian soldier who heads a workshop responsible for repairing and supplying drones, was at his kitchen table when he learned last month that Elon Musk’s SpaceX had cut off access to Starlink terminals used by Russian forces. He scrambled for alternatives, but none offered unlimited internet, data plans were restrictive, and coverage did not extend to the areas of Ukraine where his unit operated. It’s not only American tech executives who are narrowing communications options for Russians. Days later, Russian authorities began slowing down access nationwide to the messaging app Telegram, the service that frontline troops use to coordinate directly with one another and bypass slower chains of command. “All military work goes through Telegram — all communication,” Anton, whose name has been changed because he fears government reprisal, told POLITICO in voice messages sent via the app. “That would be like shooting the entire Russian army in the head.” Telegram would be joining a home screen’s worth of apps that have become useless to Russians. Kremlin policymakers have already blocked or limited access to WhatsApp, along with parent company Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Microsoft’s LinkedIn, Google’s YouTube, Apple’s FaceTime, Snapchat and X, which like SpaceX is owned by Musk. Encrypted messaging apps Signal and Discord, as well as Japanese-owned Viber, have been inaccessible since 2024. Last month, President Vladimir Putin signed a law requiring telecom operators to block cellular and fixed internet access at the request of the Federal Security Service. Shortly after it took effect on March 3, Moscow residents reported widespread problems with mobile internet, calls and text messages across all major operators for several days, with outages affecting mobile service and Wi-Fi even inside the State Duma. Those decisions have left Russians increasingly cut off from both the outside world and one another, complicating battlefield coordination and disrupting online communities that organize volunteer aid, fundraising and discussion of the war effort. Deepening digital isolation could turn Russia into something akin to “a large, nuclear-armed North Korea and a junior partner to China,” according to Alexander Gabuev, the Berlin-based director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. In April, the Kremlin is expected to escalate its campaign against Telegram — already one of Russia’s most popular messaging platforms, but now in the absence of other social-media options, a central hub for news, business and entertainment. It may block the platform altogether. That is likely to fuel an escalating struggle between state censorship and the tools people use to evade it, with Russia’s place in the world hanging in the balance. “It’s turned into a war,” said Mikhail Klimarev, executive director of the internet Protection Society, a digital rights group that monitors Russia’s censorship infrastructure. “A guerrilla war. They hunt down the VPNs they can see, they block them — and the ‘partisans’ run, build new bunkers, and come back.” THE APP THAT RUNS THE WAR On Feb. 4, SpaceX tightened the authentication system that Starlink terminals use to connect to its satellite network, introducing stricter verification for registered devices. The change effectively blocked many terminals operated by Russian units relying on unauthorized connections, cutting Starlink traffic inside Ukraine by roughly 75 percent, according to internet traffic analysis by Doug Madory, an analyst at the U.S. network monitoring firm Kentik. The move threw Russian operations into disarray, allowing Ukraine to make battlefield gains. Russia has turned to a workaround widely used before satellite internet was an option: laying fiber-optic lines, from rear areas toward frontline battlefield positions. Until then, Starlink terminals had allowed drone operators to stream live video through platforms such as Discord, which is officially blocked in Russia but still sometimes used by the Russian military via VPNs, to commanders at multiple levels. A battalion commander could watch an assault unfold in real time and issue corrections — “enemy ahead” or “turn left” — via radio or Telegram. What once required layers of approval could now happen in minutes. Satellite-connected messaging apps became the fastest way to transmit coordinates, imagery and targeting data. But on Feb. 10, Roskomnadzor, the Russian communications regulator, began slowing down Telegram for users across Russia, citing alleged violations of Russian law. Russian news outlet RBC reported, citing two sources, that authorities plan to shut down Telegram in early April — though not on the front line. In mid-February, Digital Development Minister Maksut Shadayev said the government did not yet intend to restrict Telegram at the front but hoped servicemen would gradually transition to other platforms. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said this week the company could avoid a full ban by complying with Russian legislation and maintaining what he described as “flexible contact” with authorities. Roskomnadzor has accused Telegram of failing to protect personal data, combat fraud and prevent its use by terrorists and criminals. Similar accusations have been directed at other foreign tech platforms. In 2022, a Russian court designated Meta an “extremist organization” after the company said it would temporarily allow posts calling for violence against Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine war — a decision authorities used to justify blocking Facebook and Instagram in Russia and increasing pressure on the company’s other services, including WhatsApp. Telegram founder Pavel Durov, a Russian-born entrepreneur now based in the United Arab Emirates, says the throttiling is being used as a pretext to push Russians toward a government-controlled messaging app designed for surveillance and political censorship. That app is MAX, which was launched in March 2025 and has been compared to China’s WeChat in its ambition to anchor a domestic digital ecosystem. Authorities are increasingly steering Russians toward MAX through employers, neighborhood chats and the government services portal Gosuslugi — where citizens retrieve documents, pay fines and book appointments — as well as through banks and retailers. The app’s developer, VK, reports rapid user growth, though those figures are difficult to independently verify. “They didn’t just leave people to fend for themselves — you could say they led them by the hand through that adaptation by offering alternatives,” said Levada Center pollster Denis Volkov, who has studied Russian attitudes toward technology use. The strategy, he said, has been to provide a Russian or state-backed alternative for the majority, while stopping short of fully criminalizing workarounds for more technologically savvy users who do not want to switch. Elena, a 38-year-old Yekaterinburg resident whose surname has been withheld because she fears government reprisal, said her daughter’s primary school moved official communication from WhatsApp to MAX without consulting parents. She keeps MAX installed on a separate tablet that remains mostly in a drawer — a version of what some Russians call a “MAXophone,” gadgets solely for that app, without any other data being left on those phones for the (very real) fear the government could access it. “It works badly. Messages are delayed. Notifications don’t come,” she said. “I don’t trust it … And this whole situation just makes people angry.” THE VPN ARMS RACE Unlike China’s centralized “Great Firewall,” which filters traffic at the country’s digital borders, Russia’s system operates internally. Internet providers are required to route traffic through state-installed deep packet inspection equipment capable of controlling and analyzing data flows in real time. “It’s not one wall,” Klimarev said. “It’s thousands of fences. You climb one, then there’s another.” The architecture allows authorities to slow services without formally banning them — a tactic used against YouTube before its web address was removed from government-run domain-name servers last month. Russian law explicitly provides government authority for blocking websites on grounds such as extremism, terrorism, illegal content or violations of data regulations, but it does not clearly define throttling — slowing traffic rather than blocking it outright — as a formal enforcement mechanism. “The slowdown isn’t described anywhere in legislation,” Klimarev said. “It’s pressure without procedure.” In September, Russia banned advertising for virtual private network services that citizens use to bypass government-imposed restrictions on certain apps or sites. By Klimarev’s estimate, roughly half of Russian internet users now know what a VPN is, and millions pay for one. Polling last year by the Levada Center, Russia’s only major independent pollster, suggests regular use is lower, finding about one-quarter of Russians said they have used VPN services. Russian courts can treat the use of anonymization tools as an aggravating factor in certain crimes — steps that signal growing pressure on circumvention technologies without formally outlawing them. In February, the Federal Antimonopoly Service opened what appears to be the first case against a media outlet for promoting a VPN after the regional publication Serditaya Chuvashiya advertised such a service on its Telegram channel. Surveys in recent years have shown that many Russians, particularly older citizens, support tighter internet regulation, often citing fraud, extremism and online safety. That sentiment gives authorities political space to tighten controls even when the restrictions are unpopular among more technologically savvy users. Even so, the slowdown of Telegram drew criticism from unlikely quarters, including Sergei Mironov, a longtime Kremlin ally and leader of the Just Russia party. In a statement posted on his Telegram channel on Feb. 11, he blasted the regulators behind the move as “idiots,” accusing them of undermining soldiers at the front. He said troops rely on the app to communicate with relatives and organize fundraising for the war effort, warning that restricting it could cost lives. While praising the state-backed messaging app MAX, he argued that Russians should be free to choose which platforms they use. Pro-war Telegram channels frame the government’s blocking techniques as sabotage of the war effort. Ivan Philippov, who tracks Russia’s influential military bloggers, said the reaction inside that ecosystem to news about Telegram has been visceral “rage.” Unlike Starlink, whose cutoff could be blamed on a foreign company, restrictions on Telegram are viewed as self-inflicted. Bloggers accuse regulators of undermining the war effort. Telegram is used not only for battlefield coordination but also for volunteer fundraising networks that provide basic logistics the state does not reliably cover — from transport vehicles and fuel to body armor, trench materials and even evacuation equipment. Telegram serves as the primary hub for donations and reporting back to supporters. “If you break Telegram inside Russia, you break fundraising,” Philippov said. “And without fundraising, a lot of units simply don’t function.” Few in that community trust MAX, citing technical flaws and privacy concerns. Because MAX operates under Russian data-retention laws and is integrated with state services, many assume their communications would be accessible to authorities. Philippov said the app’s prominent defenders are largely figures tied to state media or the presidential administration. “Among independent military bloggers, I haven’t seen a single person who supports it,” he said. Small groups of activists attempted to organize rallies in at least 11 Russian cities, including Moscow, Irkutsk and Novosibirsk, in defense of Telegram. Authorities rejected or obstructed most of the proposed demonstrations — in some cases citing pandemic-era restrictions, weather conditions or vague security concerns — and in several cases revoked previously issued permits. In Novosibirsk, police detained around 15 people ahead of a planned rally. Although a small number of protests were formally approved, no large-scale demonstrations ultimately took place. THE POWER TO PULL THE PLUG The new law signed last month allows Russia’s Federal Security Service to order telecom operators to block cellular and fixed internet access. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said subsequent shutdowns of service in Moscow were linked to security measures aimed at protecting critical infrastructure and countering drone threats, adding that such limitations would remain in place “for as long as necessary.” In practice, the disruptions rarely amount to a total communications blackout. Most target mobile internet rather than all services, while voice calls and SMS often continue to function. Some domestic websites and apps — including government portals or banking services — may remain accessible through “whitelists,” meaning authorities allow certain services to keep operating even while broader internet access is restricted. The restrictions are typically localized and temporary, affecting specific regions or parts of cities rather than the entire country. Internet disruptions have increasingly become a tool of control beyond individual platforms. Research by the independent outlet Meduza and the monitoring project Na Svyazi has documented dozens of regional internet shutdowns and mobile network restrictions across Russia, with disruptions occurring regularly since May 2025. The communications shutdown, and uncertainty around where it will go next, is affecting life for citizens of all kinds, from the elderly struggling to contact family members abroad to tech-savvy users who juggle SIM cards and secondary phones to stay connected. Demand has risen for dated communication devices — including walkie-talkies, pagers and landline phones — along with paper maps as mobile networks become less reliable, according to retailers interviewed by RBC. “It feels like we’re isolating ourselves,” said Dmitry, 35, who splits his time between Moscow and Dubai and whose surname has been withheld to protect his identity under fear of governmental reprisal. “Like building a sovereign grave.” Those who track Russian public opinion say the pattern is consistent: irritation followed by adaptation. When Instagram and YouTube were blocked or slowed in recent years, their audiences shrank rapidly as users migrated to alternative services rather than mobilizing against the restrictions. For now, Russia’s digital tightening resembles managed escalation rather than total isolation. Officials deny plans for a full shutdown, and even critics say a complete severing would cripple banking, logistics and foreign trade. “It’s possible,” Klimarev said. “But if they do that, the internet won’t be the main problem anymore.”