LONDON — Green Party leader Zack Polanski is open to forming a discrete non-aggression pact with Labour in order to stop right-winger Nigel Farage from ever entering Downing Street, according to two senior Green officials. Polanski, the leader of the “eco-populist” outfit that is helping squeeze the incumbent Labour government’s progressive vote, has been keen to make the case that his radical politics can halt Farage — whose insurgent Reform UK is riding high in the polls — in his tracks. But the recently elected party chief, who has overseen a big boost to Green polling with his punchy defenses of leftist causes on social media and television, has told allies he “couldn’t live with myself” if he contributed to Farage’s victory, according to a second senior Green official, granted anonymity like others in this piece to speak about internal thinking. Such a move would stop short of a formal Green-Labour deal, instead tapping into tactical voting. Green officials are discussing the prospect of informal, local prioritizations of resources so the best-placed progressive challenger can win, as seen in elections past with Labour and the centrist Liberal Democrats. At the same time, Green advisers are keen to lean into the deep divisions within Labour about whether Starmer should be replaced with another leader to prevent electoral oblivion. Starmer appears deeply unpopular with Green supporters. One YouGov study has him rated just as unfavorably as Conservative chief Badenoch with backers of Polanski’s party. The first Green official argued there is “no advantage in working electorally with Labour under Starmer.” Instead, they’re eyeing up — even expecting — a change in Labour leadership. Polanski has talked up Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Labour mayor who is seen as one potential challenger to Starmer.  LABOUR: WE ARE NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT THAT As the party in power, Labour — which has ramped up its attacks on the Greens in recent weeks — is keen to tamp down talk of working together. Asked about the Greens, a senior U.K. government adviser said: “We are not even thinking about that. We need to focus on being a viable government.”  They expect Polanski’s polling to plummet once there’s more scrutiny of his politics, including his criticism of NATO, as well as his more colorful comments. Back in 2013, as a hypnotherapist, Polanski suggested to a reporter he could enlarge breasts with his mind. “The hypnotist thing goes down in focus groups like a bucket of cold sick,” the government adviser added. There’s skepticism that a non-aggression deal could work anyway, not least because the Greens will be vying for the kind of urban heartlands Labour can’t afford to back down from. Neither party “has an incentive to go soft on one another,” as a result, Luke Tryl, a director at the More in Common think tank, said. “I really doubt they’re going to forgo taking more seats off us in London or Bristol in the greater interest of the left,” said a Labour MP with a keen eye on the polling. “They’re trying to replace us — they’re not trying to be our little friends.” The Labour MP instead argued that voters typically make their minds up in the lead-up to elections as to how best to stop a certain outcome, whether that’s due to past polling or activities on the ground. Zack Polanski has been keen to make the case that his radical politics can halt Nigel Farage — whose insurgent Reform UK is riding high in the polls — in his tracks. | Lesley Martin/Getty Images That can well work against Labour, as seen in the Caerphilly by-election in October. The constituency of the devolved Welsh administration had been Labour since its inception in 1999 — but no more. Voters determined to stop Farage decided it was the center-left Welsh nationalists of Plaid Cymru that represented the best party to coalesce around. Reform’s success was thwarted — but Labour’s vote plummeted in what were once party heartlands.  “There’s no doubt the Greens risk doing to Labour what Farage did to the Conservatives,” said Tryl of More in Common, who pointed out that the Greens may not even win many seats as a result of the fracturing (party officials internally speak of winning only 50 MPs as being a huge ask).   “Labour’s hope instead will have to be that enough disgruntled progressives hold their nose and opt for PM Starmer over the threat of PM Farage.” Labour and the Greens are not the only parties dealing with talk of a pact, despite a likely four-year wait for Britain’s next general election. Ever since 1918, it’s been either the Conservatives or Labour who’ve formed the British government, with Westminster’s first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system across 650 constituencies meaning new parties rarely get a look in. But the general election in July last year suggested this could be coming apart. Farage has already been forced to deny a report that he views an electoral deal with establishment Conservatives as the “inevitable” route to power. His stated aim is to replace the right-wing party entirely. Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch is publicly pretty firm that she won’t buddy up with Reform either. “I am the custodian of an institution that has existed for nigh on 200 years,” she said in February. “I can’t just treat it like it’s a toy and have pacts and mergers.” Robert Jenrick, the right-winger who’s widely tipped as her successor, has been more circumspect, however. That appears to be focusing minds on the left. Farage may be polling the highest — but there’s still a significant portion of the public horrified by the prospect of him entering No.10. A YouGov study on tactical voting suggested that Labour would be able to count on a boost in support from Liberal Democrat and Green voters to stave off the threat of Farage. Outwardly, Polanski is a vocal critic of Labour under Starmer and wants to usurp the party as the main vehicle for left-wing politics. The Green leader is aiming to win over not just progressives, but also disenchanted Reform-leaning voters, with his support for wider public ownership, higher taxes on the wealthy, and opposition to controversial measures like scaling back jury trials and introducing mandatory digital IDs. But privately, Polanski is more open to doing deals because in his mind, “at the general election, stopping Farage is the most important objective,” as the first senior Green adviser put it. “We expect to be the main challengers to Reform, but of course we are open to discussing what options exist to help in that central mission of stopping Farage,” they said.

FORGET THE FAR RIGHT. THE KIDS WANT A ‘UNITED STATES OF EUROPE.’  On social media, the upcoming generation is expressing more European solidarity than the continent has seen in decades. By NICHOLAS VINCOUR Illustration by Joanne Joo for POLITICO A futuristic EU soldier stands guard, laser blaster at the ready. European fighter jets zoom through the sky over thumping Eurodance beats. An imaginary map shows a vastly enlarged EU, swallowing everything from Greenland to the Caucasus.  Welcome to the wild world of pro-Europe online propaganda, where the EU isn’t a fractious club of 27 countries but a juiced-up superpower on par with China or the United States, only wiser and more cultured.  This type of content, which re-imagines the EU as a pan-European empire, a European Federation or the United States of Europe — take your pick — has flooded social media platforms over the past two years, garnering billions of views collectively on X, TikTok and Instagram as the EU has reeled from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a U.S.-EU trade deal decried as “humiliation” for Brussels in many parts of Europe. In the face of withering attacks from U.S. President Donald Trump, who called European leaders “weak” in an interview with POLITICO, as well as anti-EU tirades from X owner Elon Musk, such pro-EU memes are flowing thicker and faster than ever. Its mainstays are Soviet-style propaganda posters featuring the EU’s ring of stars emblem, video montages with soaring drone shots of European monuments and memes where the EU’s strengths — from its laid-back work culture to rich cultural heritage — are favorably compared to other parts of the world, namely Donald Trump’s America.  Scrolling through these posts, it can be tempting to shrug off the entire trend as meaningless “AI slopaganda” (AI-generated content does loom large). Indeed the hyper-confident Europe envisioned by accounts with names like “European propagandist” or “Ave Europa” bears little resemblance to the actual EU, where leaders remain divided over everything from how to finance Ukraine’s war next year to what reforms should be undertaken to reverse a long trend of economic decline.  But for the people behind these accounts, the point isn’t to stick too closely to the day-to-day reality of EU politics. It’s to generate a sense of agency, vision and possibility at a time when bullying from Trump, expansionism from Russia and competition between U.S. and China have left young Europeans feeling powerless. POLITICO reached out to 11 of the users behind the accounts and learned that they were real people with widely differing political views ranging from left-wing to the hard-right, and used different terms to describe where they stood on Europe. Some called their beliefs “Eurofed,” short for European federalist. Others described themselves as pan-European imperialist, emphasizing the notion of a European “civilization” to defend rather than any existing political setup.   One thing they all had in common: They were under the age of 35. “People are looking to escape powerlessness… to regain action and sovereignty and act on things,” said Christelle Savall, president of the Young Federalists Association Europe, a non-profit advocacy group that has existed since 1972 but has recently seen a surge in membership  For years, Europe’s dominant political narrative has been that the far right is ascendant and the only question is how much further it will rise and how much more it will corrode the eighty-year-old project that grew out of the ashes of World War II to become the European Union. These online warriors believe that is flat-out wrong and that the future lies with a stronger Europe, a view reflected in a growing swell of opinion in the real world. Just as the MAGA online movement mirrored and fueled the rise of Trump before the 2016 presidential election, Europe’s online glowup is reflected in polls showing support for the EU at an all-time high.   Strong majorities of Europeans across all age groups now favor more deeply integrated security and defense, according to the 2025 Eurobarometer survey. Another poll across nine European countries showed that most Germans — 69 percent — favor the creation of an EU army, a prospect often scoffed at by sitting leaders as a pipe dream.  And there are hints that, far from existing in an online vacuum, this youth-driven burst in pro-EU feelings can also help to win elections. Rob Jettens, the 38-year-old centrist who recently won the most votes in Dutch elections, is one of the gang as far as some young federalists are concerned. A pan-European party called Volt Europa, which defines itself as centrist or center-left, has grown its footprint significantly since its launch in 2017, including a foothold in the European Parliament.  “The center right Eurofed group is more and more turning from an online phenomenon to a real-life movement… They try to create something akin to a centrist to right-wing alternative to Volt,” wrote the holder of the X account European Challenges, who described himself as a 25–35-year-old STEM graduate in high-tech. I agreed to grant him anonymity due to concern about being “doxxed” or harassed by other social media users and not wanting users to focus on his nationality, which would be evident from his name.  For Joseph de Weck, a foreign policy analyst and author of a biography on French President Emmanuel Macron, this surge in youthful patriotism is being missed by leaders and many media outlets who are obsessively focused on the far-right. “It’s a fundamental mistake… Public opinion has changed,” he said.   The reality, he argues, is that Europe’s far-right itself is no longer, for the most part, anti-European but merely critical of certain policies emanating from Brussels, like its push for net zero carbon emissions. The big political fight in coming years won’t be over whether to dismantle the European Union, he argues, but over which version of a more federalist bloc will prevail. “No one is putting into question the existence of the EU anymore, but they fundamentally disagree [on] what they should do,” he added.  A FRAGILE UNION  The idea that Europe — ground zero for two world wars — should abolish national borders and form up into a unified polity isn’t new. In 1849, speaking to the International Peace Congress in Paris, French author Victor Hugo predicted that “a day will come when you France, you Russia, you Italy, you England, you Germany, you all, nations of the continent, without losing your distinct qualities and your glorious individuality will be merged closely within a superior unit and you will form the European brotherhood.”   That idea was forgotten at the outset of a 20th century marked by savage nationalism. But it reemerged forcefully in the aftermath of World War II, when a group of European countries formed the European Economic Community in 1957. Six years later, in a speech to the Irish Dáil, former U.S. President John F. Kennedy called for a “United States of Europe,” urging leaders to form a “political federation of Europe, not as a rival to the United States but as a partner.”  In subsequent decades the European Union, which was formally created in 1992, massively expanded its membership to 28 countries and more than 500 million citizens, and even after Brexit it has 27 countries and 450 million citizens. The union made the huge leap of abolishing border controls between some countries in 1995, introduced a single currency, the euro, in 1999, and over time created the Schengen free travel zone.   But that’s about as far as things got. Kennedy’s vision of a “United States of Europe” ran headlong into the nationalism of leaders like France’s Charles de Gaulle, who famously poured cold water on the prospect of a European federalism. “States, once created, have their own existence that cannot be dissolved. They are irreversibly individual,” he wrote in his “Memoir of Hope” published in 1970.  A group of young girls sit in the European Parliament chamber in Brussels. | Michael Currie/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images While endorsing expansion, European leaders have consistently resisted taking any steps that would turn the EU into a real federation — namely an integrated army and a fiscal transfer union where tax resources are seamlessly redistributed. Even after the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw EU capitals centralize aspects of health policy in Brussels, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which has led to some centralization of defense policy, the mood that now prevails among Europe’s leaders is one of “euro-realism” — code for, don’t try anything crazy, it will only help the far-right.   Even Macron, who swept to power in 2017 in France with a staunchly pro-European campaign, seems to have given in to the prevailing mood.  Mario Draghi, a former Italian prime minister and ex-central bank chief whom many federalists hold up as their mascot, has acknowledged as much. Given widespread reluctance to rock the boat, he argued in an October speech that Europe should embrace “pragmatic federalism,” i.e. coalitions of like-minded countries acting in concert on specific areas of interest instead of any big leaps forward.  Czechia’s outgoing foreign minister, Jan Lipavsky, described the current attitude among EU leaders as “not idealistic” in a recent POLITICO interview. A few days later, Belgium’s defense minister brushed off the idea of a European army. “Anyone who believes in a European army is selling castles in the air,” he told local outlet Humo.  REDDIT SUB-GROUP BATTLES   Yet it so happens that castles in the air — i.e. big jumps forward — is exactly what Europe’s young boosters want, and they’re tired of hearing that they’re too idealistic. “A direct election of the commission president… is absolutely necessary. As long as that doesn’t happen, the EU will not get more trust,” the European Challenges account holder wrote to me in a DM.  Savall says young Europeans yearn for politicians who can articulate a strategic view of where Europe is headed, rather than fighting out the domestic political battle of the day. “There’s long-term [vision], but no one is selling it,” she said, noting that membership in her group grew 6 percent in 2024 to 10,000. In October, with other pro-federalist groups, it relaunched the Action Committee for a United States of Europe which had been dormant for decades. A key driver for new adherents was the EU-U.S. trade deal inked by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, Scotland, which was widely panned as a humiliation for the bloc. “It was disappointing because Europe’s power was its trade mandate. Soft power was commerce,” said Savall.  Other pro-federalist or pan-European groups report a similar jump in membership. Membership in Ave Europa, a federalist group founded in March of this year which describes itself as “center-right”, has gained 400–500 members since its launch. Board member Nikodem Skrobisz wrote that the tense Oval Office meeting last February between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump, in which Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated their guest, had spurred the group’s launch. “A wave of Europatriotism swept the continent in defiance to the Trumpist attempts to humiliate our continent,” he wrote in a message to me. “The subsequent trade and tariff disputes further demonstrated that Europe can no longer rely on others to defend its interests; and with every MAGA attack against Europe, we saw a new wave of recruits boost our ranks.”   Not all pro-Europeans share the same roadmap, however. “I think the term ‘European federalism’ is just misplaced for this day and age… Europe will probably head towards greater centralization and will more closely resemble a confederation of some sorts,” said Alex Asgari, a Czech-American 25-year-old lobbyist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked as a Republican aide in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Indeed, federalists are far from being a politically homogenous group. Several meme warriors told me that there is an ideological battle ongoing in the dank recesses of federalist Reddit subgroups and chatrooms between broadly centrist people who believe in boosting the power of existing Brussels institutions, and far-right people who hate Brussels but nonetheless want Europe to assert itself on the world stage. The big divider is identity politics and migration policy: far-right groups tend to envision Europe as a culturally and ethnically homogenous “empire” — read, white and Christian, preferably Catholic — that keeps foreigners out.  “I limit potential membership to countries that have a Latin-European model of social life… only a Civilisationally homogeneous state has the right to function stably,” said the user of an account named Sacrum Imperium, a 30-year-old law student whom I agreed not to identify by name because they said expressing political views in public could be detrimental to their career. The user also voiced skepticism about Brussels, advocating limited competences for EU institutions. “The optimal division of competences… should provide for tasks at European level only those that are necessary and cannot be carried out at national level,” they added.  EUROPE OR BUST   For de Weck, the point is not that these young Europeans don’t see eye to eye, but that their frame of reference is Europe — not the domestic political debate of France, Germany or any other EU member country. This marks a profound shift compared to 2016, when Britain’s vote to leave the European Union was widely seen as heralding other EU exits, and euroskeptic politicians ranging from France’s Marine Le Pen to Austria’s Sebastian Kurk and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders dominated headlines.  Indeed, a big factor linking pro-Europe online users is their youth. With all reporting their age as under 35, these Europeans may or may not have witnessed the last big surge of euro-idealism around the turn of the century, when the euro currency was introduced in several countries and the overtly pro-EU movie “The Spanish Apartment” (L’Auberge Espagnole” originally) promoted Europe’s Erasmus student program as an ideal way to find love. But they have all been through what came after this period of optimism: terrorism, a surge in migration, the rise of far-right parties across Europe and, more recently, Russia’s aggressive expansionism and the collapse of a U.S.-led post-World War II order.   A giant EU flag is unfurled during Europe Day celebrations in Milan in May. | Emanuele Cremaschi/Getty Images Such upheavals, combined with other problems — like grinding economic decline and an ageing population — have painted Europe as a victim, or at least a losing party, in the minds of many youths. It’s a feeling that these people are rebelling against — and one that may well fuel the rise of a new generation of much more Europe-minded, if not overtly federalist, politicians in coming years.  For now, it’s still populists and their favorite rivals, centrists such as France’s Macron, who continue to occupy headlines. In the past decade hard-right leaders have won elections, becoming prime ministers in Austria and Italy, or political kingmakers, as was the case with Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders in 2023. The prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, has been in power since 2010, positioning himself as an arch-opponent of Brussels-based EU institutions.  But the reality is that, unlike in 2016 when Europe feared a wave of Brexit-style “-exits,” none of these leaders now advocates pulling their country out of the bloc. In a recent chat with POLITICO, Orbán’s political director said that despite virulent criticism of the EU as currently configured, Budapest still sees its place firmly within the EU. “We want to be inside. We are part of the club,” said the aide, Balasz Orbán (no relation). Similarly, Czechia’s populist incoming prime minister Andrej Babiš, though no fan of Brussels, has gone so far as to rule out a referendum on his country’s membership in the EU or NATO in his government manifesto.  Could this be the first hint of a tectonic shift in European politics? Ave Europa, the group founded in March, plans to run candidates in the next EU elections. Volt Europa, a pan-European, federalist party, won five seats in the most recent European Parliament elections, and now has 30 national chapters both inside and outside the EU. To grow much bigger, such parties would benefit from a change to the European Parliament’s rules that would allow candidates to compete for a number of EU-wide seats in transnational campaigns, versus the current system whereby campaigns are nationally bound — a change that Savall of the Young Federalists points to as her group’s “No. 1” policy priority.  But to become a reality, it would have to be embraced by the EU’s current leaders, who haven’t shown much interest in recent years. The United States of Europe may not become a reality in the next few months, or even years. But its online cheerleaders are determined to bring that horizon closer — one “EU soldier” meme at a time. 

LONDON — Britain’s Trade Secretary Peter Kyle told POLITICO he is “not in the business of criticizing other countries” amid President Trump’s plan to require tourists to the United States to hand over their social media data. According to a proposal by the Trump administration published Wednesday, visitors to the U.S. — including from Britain — would have to submit five years of social media activity before being allowed through the border. The plans, which come shortly before hundreds of thousands of football fans are expected to travel to the U.S. to watch their teams compete in the World Cup this summer, have generated concern among some European politicians. “Every country takes very seriously the way that it protects its borders and makes sure that it has a grip on people who come into the country that are aligned with its own values and principles,” Kyle said when asked if he was worried about the plans. “I’m not in a business of criticizing other countries in the way that they do it, because we are certainly taking it very seriously for our own country.” Kyle spoke to POLITICO in California as part of a visit to advance trade talks and drum up investment alongside U.K. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall. Both Kendall and Kyle previously expressed criticism of Trump on social media before entering government. Kendall said “the American government is rightly passionate about freedom of speech and will follow its own values and principles there.”

U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to require tourists to hand over their social media data ahead of next year’s World Cup generated outrage on Wednesday.  An elected European official, human rights groups and fan organizations condemned the move and urged the world football governing body, FIFA, to pressure the Trump administration to reverse course.   Visitors to the U.S. — including those from visa-free countries such as France, Germany and Britain — would have to submit five years of social media activity before being allowed through the border, according to a proposal by the Trump administration published Wednesday.  The new rules, which would also require travelers to provide emails, phone numbers and addresses used in the last five years, would come into effect early next year — shortly before hundreds of thousands of football fans are expected to travel to the U.S. to watch their teams compete in the World Cup, which begins in June. The U.S. is co-hosting the tournament with Mexico and Canada.  “President Trump’s plan to screen visitors to the U.S. based on their past five-year social media history is outrageous,” Irish Member of the European Parliament Barry Andrews of the centrist Renew group said in a statement.   “Even the worst authoritarian states in the world do not have such an official policy,” he added. “The plans would of course seriously damage the U.S. tourist industry as millions of Europeans would no longer feel safe … including football fans due to attend next year’s World Cup.”  The Trump administration has stepped up social media surveillance at the border, vetting profiles and denying tourists entry or revoking visas over political posts, prompting rights groups to make accusations of censorship and overreach.  Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch — which has repeatedly warned FIFA about its interactions with the Trump administration — called the new entry requirements “an outrageous demand that violates fundamental free speech and free expression rights.”  “This policy expressly violates [football governing body] FIFA’s human rights policies, and FIFA needs to pressure the Trump administration to reverse it immediately,” she added. “The World Cup is not an opportunity for the U.S. to exclude and harass fans and journalists whose opinions Trump officials don’t like.”  FIFA directed POLITICO to the U.S. State Department when asked for comment. The State Department and Customs and Border Protection, the agency that authored the proposal, did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s requests for comment.   The prospect of turning over years of social media data to American authorities also sparked fury from football supporters, who turned their fire on FIFA.  Fan organizations condemned the move and urged FIFA to pressure the Trump administration to reverse course. | Mustafa Yalcin/Getty Images “Freedom of expression and the right to privacy are universal human rights. No football fan surrenders those rights just because they cross a border,” said Ronan Evain, executive director at Football Supporters Europe, a representative group for fans. “This policy introduces a chilling atmosphere of surveillance that directly contradicts the welcoming, open spirit the World Cup is meant to embody, and it must be withdrawn immediately. “This is a World Cup without rules. Or at least the rules change every day. It’s urgent that FIFA clarifies the security doctrine of the tournament, so that supporters can make an informed decision whether to travel or stay home,” he added.  Aaron Pellish contributed to this report. 

PARIS — How do you celebrate a major anniversary of the world’s most significant climate treaty while deprioritizing the fight against climate change?   That’s the quandary in Paris heading into Friday, when the landmark Paris Agreement turns 10.   With budgets strapped and the fight against climate change losing political momentum, the only major celebration planned by the French government consists of a reception inside the Ministry of Ecological Transition hosted by the minister, Monique Barbut, according to the invitation card seen by POLITICO.  Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu won’t be there, and it’s unclear if President Emmanuel Macron will attend.  Lecornu will be talking about health care in the region of Eure, where he’s from. Macron’s plans for Friday are not yet public, but the day before he’ll address the “consequences of misinformation on climate change” as part of a nationwide tour to speak with French citizens about technology and misinformation.  According to two ministerial advisers, the Elysée Palace had initially planned to organize an event, details of which were not released, but it was canceled at the last minute. When contacted about the plans, the Elysée did not respond.  Even if Macron ends up attending the ministerial event, the muted nature of the celebration is both a symptom of the political backlash against Europe’s green push and a metaphor for the Paris Agreement’s increasingly imperiled legacy — sometimes at the hands of France itself, which had been supposed to act as guarantor of the accord.  “France wants to be the guardian of the Paris Agreement, [but] it also needs to implement it,” said Lorelei Limousin, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace. “That means really putting the resources in place, particularly financial resources, to move away from fossil fuels, both in France and internationally.”  PARIS AGREEMENT’S BIRTHDAY PLANNER  Before being appointed to government, Barbut was Macron’s special climate envoy and had been tasked with organizing the treaty’s celebration. She told POLITICO in June that she hoped to use the annual Paris Peace Forum to celebrate the anniversary, then bring together hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists in late November and welcome them at the Elysée.   Those events, which have already come and gone, were supposed to be followed by a grand finale on Friday.   According to one of the ministerial advisers previously cited, the moratorium on government communications spending introduced in October by the prime minister threw a wrench in those plans.   “We’d like to do something more festive, but the problem is that we have no money,” the adviser said.   Environmentalists say the muted plans point to a government that remains mired in crisis and shows little interest in prioritizing climate change. Lecornu is laser-focused on getting a budget passed before the end of the year, whereas Macron’s packed agenda sees him hopscotching across the globe to tackle geopolitical crises and touring France to talk about his push to regulate social media.  Anne Bringault, program director at the Climate Action Network, accused the government of trying to minimize the anniversary of the treaty “on the sly” because there “is no political support” for a celebration. Some hope the government will use the occasion to present an update of its climate roadmap, the national low-carbon strategy, which is more than two years overdue.  They also still hope that Lecornu will change his plans and show up to mark the occasion. Apart from his trip to his fiefdom in the Eure, the prime minister’s schedule shows no appointments. His office told POLITICO that Lecornu has no plans to change his schedule for the time being.  As for Macron, it’s still unclear what he’ll be doing on Friday. This story is adapted from an article published by POLITICO in French.

BERLIN — U.S. President Donald Trump’s overtures to the European far right have never been more overt, but the EU’s biggest far-right parties are split over whether that is a blessing or a curse.  While Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has welcomed Trump’s moral support, viewing it as a way to win domestic legitimacy and end its political ostracization, France’s National Rally has kept its distance — viewing American backing as a potential liability. The differing reactions from the two parties, which lead the polls in the EU’s biggest economies, stem less from varying ideologies than from distinct domestic political calculations. AfD leaders in Germany celebrated the Trump administration’s recent attacks on Europe’s mainstream political leaders and approval of “patriotic European parties” that seek to fight Europe’s so-called “civilizational erasure.” “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy — which, in parts, sounds like it could have been a manifesto of a far-right European party — warning that Europe may be “unrecognizable” in two decades due to migration and a loss of national identities. “The AfD has always fought for sovereignty, remigration, and peace — precisely the priorities that Trump is now implementing,” added Bystron, who will be among a group of politicians in his party traveling to Washington this week to meet with MAGA Republicans. One of the AfD’s national leaders, Alice Weidel, also celebrated Trump’s security strategy. “That’s why we need the AfD!” Weidel said in a post after the document was released. By contrast, National Rally leaders in France were generally silent. Thierry Mariani, a member of the party’s national board, explained Trump hardly seemed like an ideal ally. “Trump treats us like a colony — with his rhetoric, which isn’t a big deal, but especially economically and politically,” he told POLITICO. The party’s national leaders, Mariani added, see “the risk of this attitude from someone who now has nothing to fear, since he cannot be re-elected, and who is always excessive and at times ridiculous.”  AFD’S AMERICAN DREAM It’s no coincidence that Bystron is part of a delegation of AfD politicians set to meet members of Trump’s MAGA camp in Washington this week. Bystron has been among the AfD politicians increasingly looking to build ties to the Trump administration to win support for what they frame as a struggle against political persecution and censorship at home. This is an argument members of the Trump administration clearly sympathize with. When Germany’s domestic intelligence agency declared the AfD to be extremist earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the move “tyranny in disguise.” During the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President JD Vance urged mainstream politicians in Europe to knock down the “firewalls” that shut out far-right parties from government. “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy. | Britta Pedersen/Picture Alliance via Getty Images AfD leaders have therefore made a simple calculation: Trump’s support may lend the party a sheen of acceptability that will help it appeal to more voters while, at the same time, making it politically harder for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives to refuse to govern in coalition with their party. This explains why AfD polticians will be in the U.S. this week seeking political legitimacy. On Friday evening, Markus Frohnmaier, deputy leader of the AfD parlimentary group, will be an “honored guest” at a New York Young Republican Club gala, which has called for a “new civic order” in Germany. NATIONAL RALLY SEES ‘NOTHING TO GAIN’ In France, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally has distanced itself from the AfD and Trump as part of a wider effort to present itself as more palatable to mainstream voters ahead of a presidential election in 2027 the party believes it has a good chance of winning. As part of the effort to clean up its image, Le Pen pushed for the AfD to be ejected from the Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament last year following a series of scandals that made it something of a pariah. At the same time, National Rally leaders have calculated that Trump can’t help them at home because he is deeply unpopular nationally. Even the party’s supporters view the American president negatively. An Odoxa poll released after the 2024 American presidential election found that 56 percent of National Rally voters held a negative view of Trump. In the same survey, 85 percent of voters from all parties described Trump as “aggressive,” and 78 percent as “racist.”  Jean-Yves Camus, a political scientist and leading expert on French and international far-right movements, highlighted the ideological gaps separating Le Pen from Trump — notably her support for a welfare state and social safety nets, as well as her limited interest in social conservatism and religion.  “Trumpism is a distinctly American phenomenon that cannot be transplanted to France,” Camus said. “Marine Le Pen, who is working on normalization, has no interest in being linked with Trump. And since she is often accused of serving foreign powers — mostly Russia — she has nothing to gain from being branded ‘Trump’s agent in France.’” 

LONDON — Australia hopes its teenage social media ban will create a domino effect around the world. Britain isn’t so sure.  As a new law banning under-16s from signing up to platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok comes into force today, U.K. lawmakers ten thousand miles away are watching closely, but not jumping in. “There are no current plans to implement a smartphone or social media ban for children. It’s important we protect children while letting them benefit safely from the digital world, without cutting off essential services or isolating the most vulnerable,” a No.10 spokesperson said Tuesday. Regulators are tied up implementing the U.K.’s complex Online Safety Act, and there is little domestic pressure on the ruling Labour Party to act from its main political opponents.  While England’s children’s commissioner and some MPs are supportive of a ban, neither the poll-topping Reform UK or opposition Conservative Party are pushing to mirror moves down under.  “We believe that bans are ineffective,” a Reform UK spokesperson said.  Even the usually Big Tech skeptic lobby groups have their doubts about the Australian model — despite strong public support to replicate the move in the U.K. Chris Sherwood, chief executive of the NSPCC, which has led the charge in pushing for tough regulation of social media companies over the last decade, said: “We must not punish young people for the failure of tech companies to create safe experiences online.  “Services must be accountable for knowing what content is being pushed out on their platforms and ensuring that young people can enjoy social media safely.” Andy Burrows, who leads the Molly Rose Foundation campaign group, argues the Australian approach is flawed and will push children to higher-risk platforms not included in the ban.  His charity was set up in 2018 in the name of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017 while suffering from “depression and the negative effects of online content,” a coroner’s inquest concluded.  Regulators are tied up implementing the U.K.’s complex Online Safety Act, and there is little domestic pressure on the ruling Labour Party to act from its main political opponents. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images “The quickest and most effective response to better protect children online is to strengthen regulation that directly addresses product safety and design risks rather than an overarching ban that comes with a slew of unintended consequences,” Burrows said.  “We need evidence-based approaches, not knee-jerk responses.” AUSSIE RULES Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, an American tasked with policing the world’s first social media account ban for teenagers, acknowledges Australia’s legislation is the “most novel, complex piece of legislation” she has ever seen. But insists: “We cannot control the ocean, but we can police the sharks.” She told a conference in Sydney this month she expects others to follow Australia’s lead. “I’ve always referred to this as the first domino,” she says.  “Parents shouldn’t have to fight billion-dollar companies to keep their kids safe online — the responsibility belongs with the platforms,” Inman Grant told Australia’s Happy Families podcast.  But the move does come with diplomatic peril. Inman Grant has not escaped the attention of the White House, which is pressuring countries to overturn tech regulations it views as unfairly targeting American companies.  U.S. congressman and Trump ally Jim Jordan has asked Inman Grant to testify before the Judiciary Committee he chairs, accusing her of being a “zealot for global [content] takedowns.” She hit back last week, describing the request as an example of territorial overreach.  The social media account ban for under-16s is the latest in a line of Australian laws that have upset U.S. tech companies. It was the first to bring in a news media bargaining code to force Google and Facebook to negotiate with publishers, and was the first major economy to rule out changing laws to let AI companies train on copyrighted material without permission. The U.K. has also upset the White House with its existing online safety measures, and the Trump administration said earlier this year it is monitoring freedom of speech concerns in the U.K. Australia is used to facing down the Big Tech lobby, explains Daniel Stone, who advised the ruling Labor Government on tech policy. “Julie has the benefit of knowing the [political] cabinet is fully supportive of her position,” he said. “It defines what’s permissible across the whole system.”  The social media account ban for under-16s is the latest in a line of Australian laws that have upset U.S. tech companies. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images “If there is a lesson for the U.K., it is that you don’t have a strong regulator unless you have a strong political leader with a clear and consistent agenda,” Stone adds.  “Australia has its anxieties, too, about pushing U.S. tech companies, but they carry themselves with confidence,” said Stone. “You have to approach Trump from a position of strength.”  Rebecca Razavi, a former Australian diplomat, regulator and visiting fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, agrees. “The thinking is, we’re a mid-sized economy and there’s this asymmetry with tech platforms dominating, and there’s actually a need to put things in place using an Australian approach to regulation,” she said.  Other countries, including Brazil, Malaysia and some European countries are moving in a similar direction. Last month the European Parliament called for a continent-wide age restriction on social media.  SLOW DOWN Others are biding their time.  The speed at which Australia’s social media ban was approved by parliament means that many of its pitfalls have not been explored, Razavi cautioned.  The legislation passed through parliament last December in 19 days with cross-party and wide public support. “It was really fast,” she said. “There was a feeling that this is something that parents care about. There’s also a deep frustration that the tech companies are just taking too long to make the reforms that are needed.”  But she added: “Some issues, such as how it works in practice, with age verification and data privacy are only being addressed now.”  Lizzie O’Shea, a human rights lawyer and founder of campaign group Digital Rights Watch, agreed. “There was very little time for consultation and engagement,” she said. “There has then subsequently been a lot of concerns about implementation. I worry about experimenting on particularly vulnerable people.”  For now, Britain and the world is watching to see if Australia’s new way to police social media delivers, or becomes an unworkable knee-jerk reaction. 

The EU wanted to set the record straight Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump said Europe is a “decaying” group of countries ruled by “weak” leaders. Trump slammed Europe as poorly governed and failing to regulate migration in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns that aired Tuesday in a special episode of The Conversation podcast.  “I think they’re weak,” the Republican said, referring to the continent’s presidents and prime ministers, adding, “I think they don’t know what to do. Europe doesn’t know what to do.”  Asked by POLITICO to respond to Trump’s withering assessment, the European Commission’s Chief Spokesperson Paula Pinho mounted a spirited defense of Europe’s leaders.   “We are very pleased and grateful to have excellent leaders, starting with the leader in this house, president of the European Commission von der Leyen, who we are really proud of, who can lead us in the many challenges that the world is facing,” Pinho said.   Pinho also lauded the “many other leaders at the head of the 27 member states that are part of this European project, of this peace project, who are leading the EU with all the challenges that it is facing, from trade to war in our neighborhood.”  She added, “So let me use the opportunity to reiterate what is the sense of many of the millions of citizens in the EU: We are proud of our leaders.”  Europe has repeatedly come under attack from the Trump administration in recent days, with a U.S. national security manifesto suggesting the continent is in civilizational decline, and top officials lambasting the bloc for censorship after the Commission fined Elon Musk’s social media platform X €120 million for breaching transparency rules. 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission said it will “make sure” it receives money owed by Elon Musk’s X after the company was fined €120 million for failing to meet transparency rules. The Commission on Friday said X has breached transparency and deceptive design obligations under the EU’s platforms regulation, the Digital Services Act, and issued the €120 million penalty. The decision set off a cascade of accusations of censorship from U.S. officials, Musk and his supporters, with some suggesting the company should refuse to pay the fine. “X will have to pay that fine. The €120 million will have to be paid. We will make sure that we get this money,” Commission Spokesperson Thomas Regnier told reporters during a daily press briefing, when asked how the EU can ensure that X pays the penalty. He noted X still has the opportunity to challenge the decision in court. “There are procedural steps to take into account, and any decision taken by the Commission can be challenged in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union,” he said. Speaking to POLITICO after the briefing, Regnier called for patience: “Let’s not jump the gun. We have just taken a decision and issued a fine to X. The company now has to pay the fine and [has] 90 days to get back to us.” X has repeatedly gone to court to challenge regulatory decisions it disagrees with. The company has not yet said whether it will appeal Friday’s decision. X has yet to issue an official company response, with its Global Government Affairs account, which voices the company’s views on regulatory matters, reposting U.S. officials’ views. Musk on Saturday threatened action against both the EU and unnamed individuals. “The ‘EU’ imposed this crazy fine not just on [X], but also on me personally, which is even more insane!” he wrote on X. “Therefore, it would seem appropriate to apply our response not just to the EU, but also to the individuals who took this action against me.” The company hasn’t replied to POLITICO’s repeated requests for comment. Regnier also justified the Commission’s continued use of X as a platform for corporate communications, despite the severity of anti-EU comments posted by Musk over the weekend and the platform’s decision to suspend the Commission’s account for paid advertising. The EU executive uses 15 social media platforms and hasn’t made a decision to suspend its use of X, Regnier said. All these platforms are ways to “get in touch to citizens, stakeholders, to do some outreach work, to precisely speak about what we are doing in the EU,” he said. Statements comparing the EU to Nazi Germany are “part of the freedom of speech that we very much praise in the EU,” which “allows even for the craziest statements that you can imagine,” Chief Spokesperson Paula Pinho said. The Commission stopped “using paid advertising or any paid services for X” in 2023 and its regular account remains open, Regnier said. The Commission did not respond to questions as to whether it has heard from U.S. officials directly on the matter since the fine was announced. Regnier said the EU executive remains in touch with the company and that X was informed ahead of the announcement.

Europe’s far-right firebrands are rushing to hitch their fortunes to Washington’s new crusade against Brussels. Senior U.S. government officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have launched a raft of criticism against what they call EU “censorship” and an “attack” of U.S. tech companies following a €120 million fine from the European Commission on social media platform X. The fine is for breaching EU transparency obligations under the Digital Services Act, the bloc’s content moderation rule book. “The Commission’s attack on X says it all,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on X on Saturday. “When the Brusselian overlords cannot win the debate, they reach for the fines. Europe needs free speech, not unelected bureaucrats deciding what we can read or say,” he said. “Hats off to Elon Musk for holding the line,” Orbán added. Tech mogul Musk said his response to the penalty would target the EU officials who imposed it.  “The European Commission appreciates censorship & chat control of its citizens. They want to silence critical voices by restricting freedom of speech,” echoed far-right Alternative for Germany leader Alice Weidel. Three right-wing to far-right parties in the EU are pushing to stop and backtrack the integration process of European countries — the European Conservatives and Reformists, the Patriots for Europe, and the Europe of Sovereign Nations. Together they hold 191 out of 720 seats in the European Parliament. The parties’ lawmakers are calling for a range of proposals — from shifting competences from the European to the national level, to dismantling the EU altogether. They defend the primacy of national interests over common European cooperation. Since Donald Trump’s reelection, they have portrayed themselves as the key transatlantic link, mirroring the U.S. president’s political campaigning in Europe, such as pushing for a “Make Europe Great Again” movement. The fresh U.S. criticism of EU institutions has come in handy to amplify their political agendas. “Patriots for Europe will fight to dismantle this censorship regime,” the party said on X. The ECR group — political home to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — issued a statement questioning the enforcement of the DSA following the U.S. criticism. “A digital law that lacks legal certainty risks becoming an instrument of political discretion,” ECR co-chairman Nicola Procaccini said on Saturday after the U.S. backlash. The group supported the DSA when it passed through the Parliament, having said in the past the law would “protect freedom of expression, increase trust in online services and contribute to an open digital economy in Europe.”