Nick Adams, the social media influencer who describes himself as President Donald Trump’s “favorite author,” has a new job in the Trump administration. Adams wrote on social media on Tuesday that Trump tapped him to serve as “special presidential envoy for American tourism, exceptionalism, and values.” The new role comes after his nomination for the post of U.S. ambassador to Malaysia reportedly fell apart in recent months. The Australian-American — who gained national attention for his dogged defense of the president on X, as well as regularly describing himself as an “Alpha Male” with a well-documented love of the Hooters restaurant chain — began the role last week, according to a staff page on the State Department’s website. “I look forward to serving as America’s brand Ambassador, bringing the message of America’s excellence to the entire world,” he said in a post on X. “With America 250, the FIFA World Cup, and the Olympics coming up, the world needs to be reminded of all we have to offer. I will be a tireless spokesman for American greatness, at home and abroad.” A spokesperson for the State Department confirmed receiving a request for comment about Adams’ new role, but did not immediately provide a response. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

European countries should not rush into social media bans for children, human rights adviser Michael O’Flaherty told POLITICO. The comments come as many EU countries push to restrict minors’ access to social media, citing mental health concerns. In France, the parliament’s upper house is this week debating restrictions that President Emmanuel Macron has said will be in place as soon as September. Such bans are neither “proportionate nor necessary,” said O’Flaherty, the commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, the continent’s top human rights body, adding that there “are other ways to address the curse of abusive material online.” The debate on how to protect children from the harms of social media “goes straight to bans without looking at all the other options that could be in play,” he told POLITICO. Restricting access to social media presents “issues of human rights, because a child has a right to receive information just like anybody else.” O’Flaherty’s concerns come amid live discussions on the merits and effectiveness of bans in Europe. Australia became the first country in the world to ban minors under 16 from creating accounts on social media platforms like Instagram in late 2025, and Brazil moved forward with its own measures last week. Now France, Denmark, Spain and Greece are among the EU countries heading toward bans, albeit on different timelines. Proponents argue that age-related restrictions setting a minimum age for the most addictive social media platforms are vital to protect children’s physical and mental health. Critics say that bans are ineffective and are detrimental to privacy because they require users to verify themselves online. O’Flaherty argued that — while children’s rights to access information could be curtailed if that overall limited their risks — any restrictions need to be proportionate and necessary. That must follow a serious effort by the EU to tackle illegal and harmful content on social media, he said, which hasn’t happened yet. “We haven’t remotely tried hard enough yet to ensure effective oversight of the platforms.” The human rights chief praised the EU’s digital laws as world-leading, including the Digital Services Act, which seeks to protect kids from systemic risks on online platforms — but said it wasn’t being policed strongly enough. “We have a very piecemeal enforcement of the Digital Services Act and the other relevant rulebook right across Europe. It’s very much dependent on the goodwill and the capacity of the different governments to be serious about it,” he said. Governments have “an uneven record” in that regard, he said. The European Commission, in charge of enforcing the DSA on large social media platforms, is considering its own measures. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images EU countries must make sure they have exhausted all other solutions before heading for the extreme measures of bans, he said. “I don’t see much sign of that effort.” Still, Denmark, Spain and Greece are among the EU countries heading toward bans, although they are on vastly different timelines. The European Commission, in charge of enforcing the DSA on large social media platforms, is considering its own measures. Countries like Greece have called on the Commission to go forth with an EU-wide ban to avoid fragmentation across the bloc. President Ursula von der Leyen has convened a panel of experts to advise her on next steps, which is expected to give its results by the summer.

ROME — Italian right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s crushing defeat in Monday’s referendum on judicial reform has shattered her aura of political invincibility, and her opponents now reckon she can be toppled in a general election expected next year. The failed referendum is the the first major misstep of her premiership, and comes just as she seemed in complete control in Rome and Brussels, leading Italy’s most stable administration in years. Her loss is immediately energizing Italy’s fragmented opposition, making the country’s torpid politics suddenly look competitive again. Meloni’s bid to overhaul the judiciary — which she accused of being politicized and of left-wing bias — was roundly rejected, with 54 percent voting “no” to her reforms. An unexpectedly high turnout of 59 percent is also likely to alarm Meloni, underscoring how the vote snowballed into a broader vote of confidence in her and her government. She lost heavily in Italy’s three biggest cities: In the provinces of Rome, the “no” vote was 57 percent, Milan 54 percent and Naples 71 percent. In Naples, about 50 prosecutors and judges gathered to open champagne and sing Bella Ciao, the World War II anti-fascist partisan anthem. Activists, students and trade unionists spontaneously marched to Rome’s Piazza del Popolo chanting “resign, resign.”  In a video posted on social media, Meloni put a brave face on the result. “The Italians have decided and we will respect that decision,” she said. She admitted feeling some “bitterness for the lost opportunity … but we will go on as we always have with responsibility, determination and respect for Italy and its people.” In truth, however, the referendum will be widely viewed as a sign that she is politically vulnerable, after all. It knocks her off course just as she was setting her sights on major electoral reforms that would further cement her grip on power. One of her main goals has been to shift to a fixed-term prime ministership, which would be elected by direct suffrage rather than being hostage to rotating governments. Those ambitions look far more fragile now. The opposition groups that have struggled to dent Meloni’s dominance immediately scented blood. After months on the defensive, they pointed to Monday’s result as proof that the prime minister can be beaten and that a coordinated campaign can mobilize voters against her. Matteo Renzi, former prime minister and leader of the centrist Italia Viva party, predicted Meloni would now be a “lame duck,” telling reporters that “even her own followers will now start to doubt her.” When he lost a referendum in 2016 he resigned as prime minister. “Let’s see what Meloni will do after this clamorous defeat,” he said.  Elly Schlein, leader of the opposition Democratic Party, said: “We will beat [Meloni] in the next general election, I’m sure of that. I think that from today’s vote, from this extraordinary democratic participation, an unexpected participation in some ways, a clear political message is being sent to Meloni and this government, who must now listen to the country and its real priorities.”  Former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, leader of the populist 5Star Movement heralded “a new spring and a new political season.” Angelo Bonelli , leader of the Greens and Left Alliance, told reporters the result was “an important signal for us because it shows that there is a majority in the country opposed to the government.” ‘PARALLEL MAFIA’ The referendum itself centered on changes to how judges and prosecutors are governed and disciplined, including separating their career paths and reshaping their oversight bodies. The government framed the reforms as a long-overdue opportunity to fix a system where politicized legal “factions” impede the government’s ability to implement core policies on issues such as migration and security. Justice Minister Carlo Nordio called prosecutors a “parallel mafia,” while his chief of staff compared parts of the judiciary to “an execution squad.”   A voter is given a ballot at a polling station in Rome, Italy, on March 22, 2026. | Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu via Getty Images Meloni’s opponents viewed the defeated reforms differently, casting them as an attempt to weaken a fiercely independent judiciary and concentrate power. That framing helped turn a technical vote into a broader political contest, one that opposition parties were able to rally around. It was a clash with a long and bitter political history. The Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) investigations of the 1990s, which wiped out an entire political class, left a legacy of mistrust between politicians and the judiciary. The right, in particular, accused judges of running a left-wing vendetta against them. Under Meloni’s rule that tension has repeatedly resurfaced, with her government clashing with courts, saying judges are thwarting initiatives to fight migration and criminality. Meloni herself stepped late into the campaign, after initially keeping some distance, betting that her personal involvement could shift the outcome. She called the referendum an “historic opportunity to change Italy.” In combative form this month, she had called on Italians not squander their opportunity to shake up the judges. If they let things continue as they are now, she warned: “We will find ourselves with even more powerful factions, even more negligent judges, even more surreal sentences, immigrants, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers being freed and putting your security at risk.” It was to no avail, and Meloni was hardly helped by the timing of the vote. Her ally U.S. President Donald Trump is highly unpopular in Italy and the war in Iran has triggered intense fears among Italians that they will have to pay more for power and fuel. The main upshot is that Italy’s political clock is ticking again. REGAINING THE INITIATIVE For Meloni, the temptation will be to regain the initiative quickly. That could even mean trying to press for early elections before economic pressures mount and key EU recovery funds wind down later this year. The logic of holding elections before economic conditions deteriorate further would be to prevent a slow bleeding away of support, said Roberto D’Alimonte, professor of political science at the Luiss University in Rome. But Italy’s President Sergio Mattarella has the ultimate say about when to dissolve parliament and parliamentarians, whose pensions depend on the legislature lasting until February, could help him prevent elections by forming alternative majorities. D’Alimonte said Meloni’s “standing is now damaged.” “There is no doubt she comes out of this much weaker. The defeat changes the perception of her. She has lost her clout with voters and to some extent in Europe. Until now she was a winner and now she has shown she can lose,” he added. She must now weigh whether to identify scapegoats who can take the fall — potentially Justice Minister Nordio, a technocrat with no political support base of his own.  Meloni is expected to move quickly to regain control of the agenda. She is due to travel to Algeria on Wednesday to advance energy cooperation, a trip that may also serve to pivot the political conversation back to economic and foreign policy aims. But the immediate impact of the vote is clear: A prime minister who entered the referendum from a position of strength but now faces a more uncertain political landscape, against an opposition newly convinced she can be beaten.

What makes a tree important? Is it the ability to withstand storms, wars and human greed through the centuries? The people that rest in its shade, the lovers who carve their names, the playing children creating eternal memories? Or is it just what country it grows in? The organizers of the European Tree of the Year contest, a relatively niche event on the Brussels social calendar, have been grappling with these questions for years. The competition, which started in 2002 as a national event in Czechia before expanding to Europe in 2011, has over the years crowned an Estonian oak that stood in the middle of a football pitch; a lone pine that survived a flood in a Czech village; and a 500-year-old Romanian lime tree that is part of local folk legend. The contest’s last four winners, however, all grew in Poland. “From the beginning, the competition was not about the beauty of the trees, but about the stories and the communities. [But] the last four years, it became difficult because it turned into a competition between nations,” said Petr Skřivánek, who runs the event on behalf of the Environmental Partnership Association, a Czech NGO. Poland’s recent success is largely due to Make Life Harder, the country’s most popular Instagram meme account, which has been promoting the contest to its 1.7 million followers since 2021. The enthusiastic response has been both a blessing and a curse. “It’s really good because it can really attract visitors. But any time the website is down, I know it’s because they posted a link to it,” Skřivánek said. His routine as the overwhelmed website administrator is itself the subject of memes from the account. “You don’t only vote for the tree that you like, but you have to vote for another tree — so you don’t just express support on a national level,” said Michal Wiezik, a Renew MEP who has been an ambassador for the contest since 2019. “But the Polish were able to crack the system.” Things took a nastier turn last year, when a whiff of online hooliganism arrived to disturb the sylvan community. MEP Michal Wiezik attends a European Parliament meeting in Brussels on Jan. 27, 2025. | Martin Bertrand/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images La Revuelta, a comedy talk show on Spain’s La 1 public broadcaster, launched a campaign to support their nation’s champion, the Pine of Juan Molinera. The program identified a Polish tree — Heart of the Dalkowskie Hills —  as its main competition. During the segment, as comedian Lalachus sang a cover of Eros Ramazzotti’s La cosa más bella (“The most beautiful thing”) in praise of the Spanish contestant, another comic held up signs saying “The Polish tree smells like armpits” and “The tree from Poland, what a load of shit.” Make Life Harder shared the clips on Instagram, unleashing a bitter feud on social media. (Neither Make Life Harder, RTVE nor Lalachus replied to requests for comment from POLITICO.) The tension ultimately spread to the European Parliament, which hosted the awards ceremony. “The atmosphere was not good in the venue. And on the stream, it was not nice either,” Skřivánek said. Spain finished third; Poland won. “I hope this was the first year and the last year when this competition became a space for spreading hate and being aggressive to others,” said Anna Gomułka in accepting the award for Heart of the Dalkowskie Hills. “We felt we had to defend our honor. At some point, voting became an expression of patriotism,” Gomułka wrote in an email to POLITICO. To avoid such tensions in future and to make the online vote more suspenseful, the organizers are now using a system of “tree points” in which trees from smaller countries get more points for each vote than trees from larger countries. As a result of the changes, the 2026 competition “was really less nationalist compared to previous years,” Skřivánek said. This year’s winner will be named Tuesday during a ceremony in Brussels.

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.”

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on Sunday said a media report alleging Hungary’s foreign minister regularly called his Russian counterpart to brief him during EU summits “shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.” “We’ve had our suspicions about that for a long time,” Tusk posted on social media network X. “That’s one reason why I take the floor only when strictly necessary and say just as much as necessary.” The Washington Post in a story published Saturday quoted an anonymous European security official as saying that Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó made regular phone calls during breaks at EU summits to provide his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, with “live reports on what’s been discussed” and possible solutions. POLITICO has not independently verified the story. Szijjártó denied the claims in a post on X on Sunday, calling it “fake news.” Szijjártó was responding to a X post by Poland’s Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Radosław Sikorski that referenced the Washington Post claim. “This would explain a lot, Peter. @FM_Szijjarto,” Sikorski wrote. “Fake news as always,” Szijjártó responded to Sikorski. “You are telling lies in order to support Tisza Party to have a pro-war puppet government in Hungary. You will not have it!” The Post’s story also said that Russia’s foreign intelligence service (SVR) had proposed staging an assassination attempt against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to boost plummeting public support ahead of next month’s parliamentary election in that country. It cited an “an internal report for the SVR obtained and authenticated by a European intelligence service and reviewed by The Washington Post.” Orbán goes head to head in the polls next month with conservative opposition leader Péter Magyar, for the Tisza Party, who has emerged as a serious challenger. Szijjártó extended his defense against the allegations in a post on Facebook. Hungarians can “see clearly that this fake news, these lies that are part of Ukrainian propaganda, are not created for anything else, except to support the Tisza Party in the Hungarian election and to influence the outcome of the elections,” Szijjártó said on Facebook. Magyar weighed into the controversy on the campaign trail. “The fact that the Hungarian foreign minister, a good friend of Sergei Lavrov, reports to the Russians almost every minute about every EU meeting is pure treason,” Magyar said in the Hungarian village of Nyúl, as reported by Hungarian outlet Telex. “This man has betrayed not only his country, but Europe.”

Iranian missiles late Saturday hit two southern Israeli towns close to a nuclear facility in what Tehran said was retaliation for Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear site at Natanz. More than 160 people were injured in the strikes, which hit the towns of Dimona and Arad near Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center, according to the Israeli health ministry. The attack came as U.S. President Donald Trump warned that the United States will “obliterate” energy plants in Iran if the government in Tehran doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz, giving the country a 48-hour deadline to comply. Tehran warned in reply that any strike on its energy facilities would prompt retaliatory attacks on U.S. and Israeli energy and infrastructure facilities. Iranian state TV said Saturday’s strikes by Tehran were a response to an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility earlier in the day, according to the BBC. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran’s parliament, said the fact that ballistic missiles evaded Israeli defenses and struck near the nuclear research site appears to signal “a new phase” in the war. “If Israel is unable to intercept missiles in the heavily protected Dimona area, it is, operationally, a sign of entering a new phase of the conflict,” he posted on social media network X. “Israel’s skies are defenseless.” He added that the “time has come to implement the next pre-planned schemes,” without providing further details. Israeli military spokesman Effie Defrin said the strikes did not represent a new threat. “The air defense systems operated but did not intercept the missile. We will investigate the incident and learn from it,” he wrote on X. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it had been a “very difficult evening,” and vowed to “continue to strike our enemies on all fronts.” The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was aware of the strikes near the nuclear research center and has not received any indication of damage to the facility, nor any information from regional states indicating that abnormal radiation levels have been detected.

U.S. President Donald Trump warned late Saturday that the United States will “obliterate” energy plants in Iran if the government doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz, giving the country a 48-hour deadline to comply. “If Iran doesn’t fully open, without threat, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 hours from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various power plants, starting with the biggest one first,” Trump said in a post on Trust Social. Iran warned in reply that any strike on its energy facilities would prompt attacks on U.S. and Israeli energy and infrastructure facilities — specifically information technology and desalination operations — in the region, the Associated Press reported, citing a statement by an Iranian military spokesperson carried by state media and semiofficial outlets. The warnings of escalation in the Mideast conflict come after the British government on Saturday confirmed that Tehran launched an unsuccessful attack on Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean. Media reports said Iran fired two ballistic missiles at the base but missed. Meanwhile, Israel claimed that Iran has missiles with a range of about 4,000 kilometers, capable of hitting London, Paris and Berlin. “The Iranian terrorist regime poses a global threat. Now, with missiles that can reach London, Paris or Berlin,” the Israel Defense Forces said in a post on X. Iran’s targeting of the base on Diego Garcia occurred before Britain on Friday confirmed that U.S. use of its bases includes defensive operations against “missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz,” a permission that includes the Indian Ocean island.

U.S. sanctions on some Iranian oil will be temporarily lifted to allow the sale of shipments already in transit, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Friday. The partial pause on sanctions is intended to help ease what the Trump administration sees as a short-term shock to the global market as a result of the attack on Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel three weeks ago. Bessent said in a social media post that the U.S. is granting a short-term authorization to allow the sale of about 140 million barrels of Iranian oil in transit. “In essence, we will be using the Iranian barrels against Tehran to keep the price down as we continue Operation Epic Fury,” he said. Oil prices have spiked to more than $100 per barrel since the U.S. launched airstrikes on Iran last month, triggering a rise in gas prices. Israeli strikes on Iran’s vast offshore gas field and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical trade passage that facilitates a significant share of the world’s oil and natural gas trade, have helped drive the increases. The sales have been authorized for 30 days, according to a copy of the general license issued by the Treasury Department on Friday. The announcement marks a partial reversal of the longstanding aggressive economic pressure campaign by the U.S. intended to weaken Iran’s economy, though Bessent said the country would have “difficulty accessing any revenue generated” from the sales. “The United States will continue to maintain maximum pressure on Iran and its ability to access the international financial system,” he added. Trump appeared to acknowledge he was aware that entering a war with Iran could cause oil prices to spike, even as he touted the success of the U.S. military operation and the strength of the economy. “I expected it worse actually,” he told reporters at the White House on Friday. “I thought that oil prices would go much higher.” Bessent said he’s confident the suspension of sanctions on Iran will benefit the U.S. economy in the long run. “Any short-term disruption now will ultimately translate into longer-term economic gains for Americans — because there is no prosperity without security,” he said. Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in response that the easing of sanctions gives the Iranian government “a financial lifeline” as Americans “continue to feel the impact” of the war. “To say the president has no plan is an understatement,” Shaheen said.

When German historian Rainer Zitelmann reposted a photo of Adolf Hitler to warn against appeasing Russian President Vladimir Putin, he didn’t expect it to trigger a police probe. According to police, the problem was the image itself: Hitler was shown wearing a swastika armband — a banned symbol under Germany’s criminal code, which prohibits the public display of Nazi and other extremist insignia. Zitelmann was informed in February that authorities were examining the case. Zitelmann’s is just one of several recent investigations into online speech, which have raised questions about how far German authorities are going in enforcing strict speech laws — and whether efforts to curb extremism are colliding with satire and political criticism. Zitelmann said he posted the image as a warning, not an endorsement. Like Hitler, Putin cannot be trusted when he says he has no further territorial ambitions. “I’m usually against Hitler analogies,” he said. “They’re often inaccurate and used to discredit political opponents.”  But, he added, ”the parallels practically impose themselves.” A week earlier, a journalist found himself in a similar situation for mocking the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.  In a podcast, Jan Fleischhauer suggested the party’s youth wing, known as “Generation Germany,” might be better named “Generation Germany awake” — a reference to a banned Nazi slogan. Fleischhauer’s case comes after police had searched conservative commentator Norbert Bolz’s home in October for using the same slogan to mock a left-wing newspaper that had called for the AfD to be banned. “A good translation for ‘woke’: Germany awake!” Bolz had written. Fleischhauer reacted to his investigation with humor. “Maybe [the complaint was filed] … by an AfD supporter who was annoyed that I made fun of the AfD youth wing,” he said.  But, he warned, such cases risk chilling free speech. Jan Fleischhauer at the 69th Frankfurt Book Fair in Frankfurt am Main in October 2017. | Frank May/picture alliance via Getty Images “I come from the 1968 generation,” Fleischhauer said. “I thought the path of free speech had been cleared once and for all by the ’68 movement. But as we can see, all of that can be rolled back.” TRADEOFF The cases highlight a tension at the heart of Germany’s postwar legal order: how to guard against extremism without restricting free expression. After World War II, lawmakers — encouraged by the occupying Allied powers — moved swiftly to ban symbols of the country’s Nazi past, seeking to prevent fascism from reasserting itself. Critics now argue authorities are going too far. Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy leader of the pro-business Free Democrats, wants the law scrapped or narrowed. “If one wants to keep it, it would have to be limited strictly to explicit endorsement of National Socialist ideology,” he said. “At the moment, it has become vague and ill-defined. The legislature urgently needs to change that.” But others warn that loosening the rules could embolden extremists.  Lena Gumnior speaks to MPs in the plenary chamber of the German Bundestag on May 16, 2025. | Katharina Kausche/picture alliance via Getty Images “The point is not to allow governments to suppress political expression, but rather to protect the principles of our liberal constitution,” said Lena Gumnior, a Green lawmaker. “It is about strictly prohibiting the use of unconstitutional symbols, particularly those associated with National Socialism, in order to protect our democracy.” A separate provision of Germany’s criminal code — which designates it an offense to insult or belittle a politician — also sparked controversy recently. In January, a retiree came under investigation after posting a Facebook comment about Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s visit to his town: “Pinocchio is coming,” he wrote, adding a long-nose “lying” emoji.  That case drew the attention of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, prompting a a post by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has taken a strong stance against European laws that regulate online speech. “Most Germans I’ve talked to don’t want their laws applied this way,” she wrote. “When you’re regulating speech at scale, on platforms based in America (whose American users, especially, deserve First Amendment protection), this creates problems worth solving.” German authorities have dropped the probes into Fleischhauer and the Pinocchio emoji. The investigation into Zitelmann was still open as of Friday. For Matthias Cornils, a law professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, the outcome matters more than the investigations themselves. “Courts often reject criminal liability, even in quite harsh cases,” he said. “The strong constitutional protection of freedom of expression, developed over decades, remains intact.”