Sprawling defense legislation set for a vote as soon as this week would place new restrictions on reducing troop levels in Europe, a bipartisan rebuke of Trump administration moves that lawmakers fear would limit U.S. commitments on the continent. A just-released compromise version of the National Defense Authorization Act — which puts Congress’ stamp on Pentagon programs and policy each year — has been in the works for months. The measure stands in stark contrast to President Donald Trump’s new national security strategy, which sharply criticizes European allies and suggests the continent is in cultural decline. Lawmakers also endorsed a slight increase in the Pentagon budget with a price tag that is $8 billion more than Trump requested. And it would repeal decades-old Middle East war powers, a small win for lawmakers who’ve been fighting to reclaim a sliver of Congress’ war-declaring prerogatives. The final bill is the result of weeks of negotiations between House and Senate leadership in both parties, heads of the Armed Services panels and the White House. The measure had been slowed in recent days by talks on issues unrelated to defense, including a major Senate-backed housing package and greater scrutiny of U.S. investment in China. The defense bill typically passes with broad bipartisan support. Speaker Mike Johnson will likely need to win back some Democrats who opposed the House GOP’s hard-right initial bill in September. And the speaker will have to contend with fellow Republicans upset that their priorities weren’t included. But both House and Senate-passed defense bills reflected bipartisan concerns that the Trump administration would seek to significantly reduce the U.S. military footprint in Europe. Both measures included language that imposes requirements the Pentagon must meet before trimming military personnel levels on the continent below certain thresholds. Republicans, led by Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), broke with the Trump administration, arguing that troop reductions — such as a recent decision to remove a rotational Army brigade from Romania — would invite aggression from Russia. The final bill blocks the Pentagon from reducing the number of troops permanently stationed or deployed to Europe below 76,000 for longer than 45 days until Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the head of U.S. European Command certify to Congress that doing so is in U.S. national security interests and that NATO allies were consulted. They would also need to provide assessments of that decision’s impact. The legislation applies the same conditions to restrict the U.S. from vacating the role of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, a role that the U.S. officer who leads European Command chief has held simultaneously for decades. Negotiators included similar limitations on reducing the number of troops on the Korean Peninsula below 28,500, a provision originally approved by the Senate. Lawmakers agreed to a slight increase to the bill’s budget topline, reflecting some momentum on Capitol Hill for more military spending. The final agreement recommends an $8 billion hike to Trump’s $893 billion flat national defense budget, for a total of roughly $901 billion for the Pentagon, nuclear weapons development and other national security programs. The House-passed defense bill matched Trump’s budget request while the Senate bill proposed a $32 billion boost. Republicans separately approved a $150 billion multi-year boost for the Pentagon through their party-line tax cut and spending megabill earlier this year. Regardless of the signal the topline budget agreement sends, the defense policy bill does not allocate any money to the Pentagon. Lawmakers must still pass annual defense spending legislation to fund Pentagon programs. House Armed Services ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) described the agreement as a “placeholder” that would allow lawmakers to finish the NDAA, while congressional appropriators continue their talks on a separate full-year Pentagon funding measure. A House Republican leadership aide who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss details of the bill ahead of its release, said the revised topline is a “fiscally responsible increase that meets our defense needs.” The bill also would repeal a pair of old laws that authorize military action in the Middle East, including 2002 legislation that preceded the invasion of Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War. Those repeals were included in both the House and Senate defense bills as bipartisan support for scrubbing the old laws — which critics contend could be abused by a president — overcame opposition from some top Republicans. Repealing those decades-old measures is a win for critics of expansive presidential war powers, who argued the measures aren’t needed anymore. They point to the potential for abuses — citing Trump’s use of the 2002 Iraq authorization to partly justify a strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq in 2020. A second House GOP leadership aide said the repeal of the two Iraq authorizations won’t impact Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief. But the repeal is ultimately a minor win for lawmakers seeking to reclaim congressional power. The 2001 post-9/11 authorization that undergirds much of the U.S. counterterrorism operations around the world remains on the books. And the bill is silent on Trump’s ongoing campaign against alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean. Many lawmakers — including some Republicans — have questioned the administration’s legal justification for the lethal strikes. The final bill also doesn’t include an expansion of coverage for in-vitro fertilization and other fertility services for military families under the Tricare health system. The provision, backed by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) and others, was included in both Senate and House bills before it was dropped. Johnson reportedly was seeking to remove the provision, which similarly was left out of last year’s bill.

The Kremlin hit back Thursday at a European aerospace chief in a feud over tactical nuclear weapons.  The board chair of Airbus, René Obermann, called Wednesday on Europe to develop tactical nuclear weapons to deter Russia’s arsenal in Kaliningrad, sparking a response from Moscow, which is no stranger to nuclear saber-rattling. “Kaliningrad is an integral part of Russia,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told journalists, adding, “of course, Russia will do everything necessary to provide its security, stability, and predictability today, and tomorrow.” Responding to Obermann, Peskov said: “Unfortunately, some allow such provocative statements, and call for further steps … to escalate tension.” Russia’s heavily militarized semi-exclave of Kaliningrad is located on the Baltic Sea, bordered by Lithuania and Poland, and is home to 1 million residents. According to a German Council on Foreign Relations memo, Russia deploys “numerous nuclear weapons” in the Kaliningrad region.  Moscow has engaged in veiled nuclear threats against the West since it launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, while both the U.S. and Russia have recently considered plans for further nuclear weapons testing.

BERLIN — European nations should develop a joint tactical nuclear deterrent to counter Russia’s expanding arsenal, Airbus board chair René Obermann said Wednesday, breaking one of Europe’s biggest defense taboos. Speaking at the Berlin Security Conference, Obermann said Europe’s current posture leaves a dangerous gap below the strategic threshold, pointing to what he described as “500-plus tactical nuclear warheads” deployed by Russia along NATO’s eastern flank and in Belarus. “What do you think would be our answer to a limited Russian tactical strike with limited effects?” he asked the audience of defense officials, military officers and industry executives. “I don’t have the answer — but I’m sure you do.” Tactical nuclear weapons have smaller explosive yields, typically ranging from 1 to 50 kilotons, and are supposed to be used in battlefield situations. Larger strategic weapons have yields above 100 kt and are designed to flatten cities. Obermann argued that Germany, France, the U.K. and “other willing European member states” should agree on a “common and staged nuclear deterrence program,” explicitly including the tactical level — a space traditionally avoided in public debate by European leaders. France and the U.K. maintain independent nuclear arsenals, but there is no shared European doctrine on how to deter or respond to a limited nuclear strike. France is estimated to have about 290 warheads and the U.K. has about 225 warheads — none of them are tactical. Germany participates in NATO’s nuclear-sharing mission but does not possess its own weapons. Russia has about 5,580 nuclear weapons, the world’s largest arsenal. Obermann warned that Europe risks misunderstanding Moscow’s strategy if it focuses only on high-end strategic forces while ignoring Russia’s large tactical stockpile. A credible response, he said, would send “a massive sign of deterrence.” His call could stir debate across Europe’s capitals, where nuclear policy remains politically sensitive and largely siloed at the national level. It also highlights how Russia’s war in Ukraine — and Moscow’s repeated nuclear signaling — is forcing European officials and industry leaders to confront questions once considered politically untouchable. The growing threat posed by Russia — German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned over the weekend that Moscow could attack a NATO member as soon as 2028 — and the worry that the U.S. under Donald Trump is no longer a reliant security partner is prompting European countries to take a hard look at nuclear options. Earlier this year, Poland said it will look at gaining access to nuclear weapons. Obermann’s remarks come as European governments step up spending, modernize their militaries and navigate questions about long-term U.S. security guarantees. CORRECTION: This article has been updated to reflect that neither France nor the U.K. have tactical nuclear weapons.

PARIS — The British defense secretary has insisted Donald Trump is capable of persuading Vladimir Putin to enter peace talks on Ukraine even as negotiations continue to stall. Asked by POLITICO if a ceasefire in Ukraine would be more difficult to achieve than that in Gaza, John Healey said a comparison could not be drawn between the two — with one exception. “President Trump is the figure that can bring Putin to the table, that can potentially deliver an end to the fighting,” he said, speaking on a flight from Norway to Paris as he traveled to meet the new French defense minister. Trump played a key role in brokering the shaky ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Healey stressed that the work of the coalition of the willing — allies of Ukraine pledged to offer security in the event of a ceasefire — was being “regularly refreshed so that we can genuinely feel we’re ready at the point of peace, whenever that comes, to step in and help secure that.” The headquarters of the coalition is now up and running in Paris, and includes senior British military personnel. Healey made his comments following a meeting of the Joint Expeditionary Force in Bodø where they signed a new partnership with Ukraine. Putin has not budged since a planned meeting with Trump in Hungary was canceled, and the U.S. president decided to sanction Russia’s two largest oil companies. Tensions have only grown between the U.S. and Russia since, with both sides threatening to resume nuclear weapons testing. At his recent meeting with Xi Jinping, Trump said China and the U.S. are working together on ending the war in Ukraine, but “sometimes, you have to let them fight.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered top officials to come up with proposals for the potential resumption of nuclear testing for the first time since the end of the Cold War more than three decades ago. Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump instructed the Pentagon to “immediately” start testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with nuclear testing programs in other nations. Putin, speaking at Russia’s Security Council, told the country’s foreign and defense ministers, its special services and the relevant civilian agencies to study the matter and “submit coordinated proposals on the possible commencement of work to prepare for nuclear weapons testing.” Defense Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin at the meeting that it would be “appropriate to immediately begin preparations for full-scale nuclear tests.” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later clarified that “the president did not give the order to begin preparations for the test” but merely ordered a feasibility study. Russia announced last week that it had successfully tested a nuclear-powered torpedo, dubbed Poseidon, that was capable of damaging entire coastal regions as well as a new cruise missile named the Burevestnik, prompting Trump to respond. The U.S. today launched an intercontinental ballistic missile, Minuteman III, in a routine test. The Cold War was characterized by an intense nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the superpowers competed for superiority by stockpiling and developing nuclear weapons. It ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the signing of nuclear treaties such as START, which aimed to reduce and control nuclear arsenals. The Soviet Union conducted its last test in 1990 and the U.S. in 1992. Defense Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin at the meeting that it would be “appropriate to immediately begin preparations for full-scale nuclear tests.” | Contributor/Getty Images A report this year by the SIPRI think tank warned that the global stockpile of nuclear weapons is increasing, with all nine nuclear-armed states — the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea — upgrading existing weapons and adding new versions to their stockpiles.

Belgium’s defense minister is officially beefing with Russia’s former president over nuclear war — in an Instagram post set to “Calm Down” by Selena Gomez.  Yes, that’s the world we’re living in. Theo Francken, the Belgian defense chief, vowed earlier this week that NATO “will flatten Moscow” if the Kremlin ever attacks Brussels in an interview with Belgian news website HUMO.  That triggered a ferocious response from Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current deputy chairman of its Security Council, who is prone to outbursts on social media.   Medvedev called Francken an “imbecile” and warned the Kremlin’s Poseidon nuclear super-weapon had been tested this week, calling it a “true doomsday weapon.” In response to an X user who suggested using Belgium as a testing ground, Medvedev added, “Then Belgium will disappear.”  On Thursday morning Francken hit back at Medvedev in an Instagram post, saying, “Russia’s bully-in-chief never stops threatening and insulting.”  “NATO is not at war with the Russian Federation, and certainly doesn’t want to be … But the ‘strike back’ principle of our alliance has been undisputed for 76 years,” he said. “That’s what I meant in the HUMO interview, and I don’t retract a word of it.”  The post was set to American pop singer Selena Gomez’s 2023 hit song “Calm Down,” apparently a plea from Francken to the Kremlin to chill. The song was first released by Nigerian singer Rema in 2022 and remixed with Gomez in 2023. 

President Donald Trump said he’s restarting U.S. nuclear missile testing on Wednesday hours before meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, further escalating the stakes of the high-profile summit between the two leaders. Trump wrote in a social media post he instructed the Pentagon to “immediately” begin testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with nuclear testing programs in other nations, specifically noting the nuclear stockpiles of Russia and China. “The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country. This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my First Term in office,” Trump wrote. “Russia is second, and China is a distant third, but will be even within 5 years.” “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” he continued. “That process will begin immediately.” When asked during his official greeting with Xi about the decision, Trump paused and replied: “Thank you very much everybody.” The tests would likely be seen by foreign adversaries as a proclamation of U.S. military force. The U.S. has not conducted a nuclear test since 1992. Trump’s statement comes shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Wednesday that Russia successfully tested a nuclear torpedo capable of damaging entire coastal regions. Trump’s statement amplifies the significance of his meeting with Xi in South Korea, already a high-stakes affair as the two nations circle another potential trade dispute that could send shockwaves through the market.

The U.S. administration is reportedly weighing a meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the coming weeks, according to CNN. This would be the fourth time two leaders meet, and the first in Trump’s second term. “I’d like to meet [Kim Jong Un] this year,” Trump said in August as he welcomed South Korea’s new president, Lee Jae Myung, to the White House for the first time. Trump will travel to Asia later this month to attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Malaysia and an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea. He is also expected to stop in Japan. But officials have yet to do “any of the serious logistical planning,” CNN reported, as they are more focused on arranging a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping as trade tensions flare up between Beijing and Washington. Kim has also said he’d be open to meeting with Trump again. “Personally, I still have good memories of U.S. President Trump,” Kim said last month. “If the U.S. drops its hollow obsession with denuclearization and wants to pursue peaceful coexistence with North Korea based on the recognition of reality, there is no reason for us not to sit down with the U.S.,” he said.

The Trump administration is planning to furlough the vast majority of the civilian staff at a key agency that helps manage the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, according to a notice obtained by POLITICO. The National Nuclear Security Administration, which falls under the Energy Department, will exhaust its available funding on Saturday, according to the notice NNSA sent to lawmakers. As a result, approximately 1,400 employees will be furloughed, the notice states, while about 375 will remain on the job for work that has been exempted from the shutdown. In all, about 80 percent of the agency’s personnel won’t report to work on Monday. The agency doesn’t directly operate U.S. nuclear weapons, which falls to the Pentagon. But it is a key component of America’s nuclear capabilities by maintaining and modernizing warheads, overseeing Navy nuclear propulsion and managing nonproliferation programs. Republicans on Friday warned there could be consequences because of the furloughs, though the memo to lawmakers states the Energy Department and NNSA “are looking at all options to ensure continuity of our critical national security missions.” House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), alongside House GOP leaders, said at a news conference Friday that “another consequence” of Senate Democrats blocking the Republican-backed funding stopgap was staff reductions at the National Nuclear Security Administration. “We were just informed last night that the National Nuclear Security Administration, the group that manages our nuclear stockpile, that the carryover funding they’ve been using is about to run out,” said Rogers. “They will have to lay off 80 percent of their employees. These are not employees that you want to go home. They’re managing and handling a very important strategic asset for us. They need to be at work and being paid.” A House Armed Services spokesperson clarified, however, that the panel was told those staff were being temporarily furloughed and not completely laid off. Rogers and other top Republicans, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, cited the nuclear workforce furloughs as just one of the looming national security consequences of the shutdown and blamed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for keeping agencies shuttered. Though the Republicans praised President Donald Trump for shifting Pentagon funding to ensure troops didn’t miss a paycheck this week, Rogers noted defense civilian workers are still going unpaid and other major national security functions will be impacted as the shutdown drags on. “People are about to start missing paychecks,” said Rogers in an interview after the GOP press conference. “That’s when it gets painful.” The Energy Department in a statement confirmed that approximately 1,400 NNSA employees will be furloughed as of Monday while “nearly 400″ will continue working. The NNSA’s Office of Secure Transportation — which oversees the safe transportation of U.S. nuclear materials, such as weapons, components, enriched uranium or plutonium — is funded through Oct. 27. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a spokesperson said, will travel to the NNSA’s Nevada National Security Site on Monday to highlight the shutdown’s impact on the U.S. nuclear enterprise. Energy Department officials have been sounding alarms that the shutdown would result in halting some nuclear security programs and staff furloughs. Wright said in an interview Thursday on Bloomberg TV that furloughs at the NNSA could occur as soon as Friday, saying the agency won’t be able to pay those workers by “Monday at the latest.” Kelsey Tamborrino contributed to this report.

PARIS — Don’t freak out just yet, but maybe start packing emergency supplies. Brussels’ fear of a founding member of the European Union swinging to the far right was abruptly reactivated this week as France’s snowballing political crisis gathered more momentum, leading one of French President Emmanuel Macron’s historic allies to join the chorus of opponents calling on him to step down. The French president is under extraordinary pressure after his prime minister’s latest attempt at forming a functioning government collapsed in just 14 hours and with new elections in the coming months, if not weeks, looking more and more likely. At both the presidential and parliamentary levels, victory for Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is now distinctly possible, meaning a Euroskeptic, far-right figure might soon speak for France in the EU’s core institutions, adding to a growing chorus of populist, right-wing voices. “We have a continent that has experienced war, lockdown, a kind of light dictatorship in Budapest, we are used to continuing to function with a lot of shocks” said a European Commission official, who like others quoted in this story was granted anonymity to speak candidly. But “Le Pen is different,” he reckoned, referring to a widely shared assessment in Brussels that a radical change in French leadership would have far-reaching consequences for the EU. While the far right has been urging Macron to call new parliamentary elections, this week’s events also raise the prospect of earlier presidential elections if Macron is at some point forced to step down — something he has always strongly ruled out, vowing to stick around until the end of his term in 2027. If the National Rally accessed executive power in France it would significantly add to the EU’s headaches, already personified around the Council table by Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, and likely soon to be joined by Andrej Babiš after his recent electoral triumph in the Czech Republic. The renewed populist surge threatens to derail the bloc’s policies in critical sectors, with concerns particularly acute on Russia and defense policy. Orbán and Fico have both stood in the way of the EU’s efforts to impose sanctions on Moscow since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Babiš has vowed to scrap the ammunition initiative for Ukraine, to challenge NATO’s plans to boost military spending, and to confront the Commission over the Green Deal — which is also in Le Pen’s crosshairs. Marine Le Pen’s protégé Jordan Bardella will be in a position to claim the premiership and appoint a far-right government. | Romeo Boetzle/Getty Images The French far-right leader has consistently spoken out against ramping up aid to Kyiv, accusing Macron of warmongering when, for instance, he pushed against the grain of European thinking and suggested putting boots on the ground in Ukraine. While France has not been Kyiv’s biggest financial contributor for military aid, Macron’s rhetorical “leadership” on Ukraine has been a major driver of support for the embattled country and for building up Europe’s defenses, a senior official in an EU government said. Once he’s gone, “that would be completely at risk — we know that Le Pen wouldn’t continue on the same lines.” The National Rally has vehemently opposed Macron’s vision when it comes to possibly sharing France’s nuclear umbrella or pooling military resources as war expands on the continent. Asked recently on TV channel LCI whether French nuclear weapons could one day be stationed in Germany or Poland, Le Pen had a cutting response: “Then what next?”   She also reiterated past pledges to leave NATO’s integrated military command, albeit vowing to keep collaborating with allies, including the United States, on key military missions.  The worst-case scenario for Europhiles might, of course, never materialize. For all its bullish rhetoric, the National Rally has yet to prove that it can break through electoral barriers that have consistently constrained it. In France’s peculiar two-round electoral system, parties must effectively be supported by more than 50 percent of voters in the runoff to win. That threshold has been particularly hard for Le Pen and her troops to surpass, with voters of different political persuasions motivated until now to unite behind mainstream candidates to keep the far right out — albeit with a shrinking margin. Nonetheless, National Rally has made extraordinary gains and is now the lower chamber’s largest political group, controlling along with its allies roughly a quarter of seats. It had just a handful in 2017 when Macron was first elected. Even in the current political mess, winning an absolute majority is a stretch, says Mathieu Gallard from polling institute Ipsos. But the bitterly divided political landscape means the so-called Republican front, in which other parties gang up against the far right between the two rounds to keep it at bay, looks seriously weakened. At both the presidential and parliamentary levels, victory for Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is now distinctly possible. | Jean-Philippe Ksiazek/Getty Images The National Rally is currently polling at around 33 percent (a level similar to what it got in last year’s legislative elections) for a potential future parliamentary vote, according to Opinionway, with the moderate left bloc estimated at 18 percent to 24 percent and Macron’s centrist camp trailing third with 14 percent to 16 percent. If Le Pen’s party wins an absolute majority in a snap parliamentary election, or comes close, her protégé Jordan Bardella will be in a position to claim the premiership and appoint a far-right government. That means the National Rally would preside over France’s position in the Council of the EU, where representatives from governments negotiate laws jointly with the European Parliament. THE FAR RIGHT IN BRUSSELS While everyone in Brussels has the presidential election on their minds, people “are completely underestimating what a general confrontation would look like” in the Council, the same Commission official quoted above said, with France working to block legislation coming out of the Commission across a wide range of sectors.  A future far-right France would still be in a minority, at least for now. “On cars, for example, they will only have the Hungarians on their side. They will lose. On Mercosur, they will lose,” the official said, referring to a draft trade agreement between the EU and the Mercosur group of South American countries that awaits possible signature on Dec. 5.  The big question looming over Europe is whether the continent’s multiple brands of right-wing populism can at some point coalesce to form a blocking minority, grinding the EU’s machinery to a halt.  Gallard from Ipsos said such a scenario was unlikely in the short term, despite far-right parties polling high in upcoming elections, such as the Dutch vote in late October.  “When you look at other countries, you have situations that are actually quite contrasted,” he said. “For example, in the Netherlands, at first glance, [Geert Wilders’] Party for Freedom is leading in the polls, but it will likely be significantly lower than in the last election.” Populist nationalists are also likely to be key players in elections next year in Sweden and Hungary, where Viktor Orbán is gunning for reelection. In Germany’s election in February this year, voters gave the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) its best-ever national result with 21 percent of the vote, making it the country’s second-largest party. “The most strategic way to view it is to understand that every country will more or less have its ‘populist chapter’ moment,” said Grégoire Roos, program director for Europe and Russia at the Chatham House think tank in London. “The one thing we can hope for is that these chapters don’t all happen at the same time.”