EU PARLIAMENT’S MOST TOXIC DUO BRINGS TROUBLE FOR VON DER LEYEN Social Democrat chief Iratxe García and center-right boss Manfred Weber’s dire relationship is Brussels’ worst-kept secret. By MAX GRIERA in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO A confrontation six years ago poisoned a relationship at the heart of the EU that remains toxic to this day. Manfred Weber, the powerful German head of the center-right European People’s Party, the largest political family in Europe, knew something was wrong when Iratxe García walked into his office shortly after the 2019 EU election. García, a Spanish MEP who leads the center-left Socialists and Democrats group in the Parliament, was accompanied by Romanian former liberal chief Dacian Cioloș. The pair told Weber that they wouldn’t support his bid to become president of the European Commission, despite the Parliament’s longstanding position that the head of the party receiving the most votes in the election should get the job. While Cioloș is long gone from the EU political scene, García and Weber remain in post — and the animosity between them has only grown, especially now that the EPP is aligning with the far right to pass legislation.  García’s move killed Weber’s Commission ambitions, souring relations between the two and threatening Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen’s ability to deliver her second-term agenda, as she needs the support of senior MEPs to pass legislation. The pair are like “two toxic exes who had a good relationship, but Weber cheated on García with the far right, and this makes it hard for the Socialists,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group in the Parliament. Today, the dire relationship between Weber and García is the talk of the town. For decades, the EPP and S&D — the two largest political families in Europe — have worked hand in hand to provide stable majorities in the Parliament, including backing a second term for von der Leyen at a time of unprecedented crises facing the bloc. Now that stability is in doubt. POLITICO spoke to 12 officials and lawmakers who are or have been close to the pair. Some say the problem is personal, while others blame politics and argue that anyone in their position would have the same relationship issues. “Weber and García have become a problem for von der Leyen,” said a senior Commission official, granted anonymity to speak freely, as were others in this piece. That’s because disagreements between their two groups could lead to less predictable voting in the Parliament, as happened in November with the simplification bill on green reporting rules for businesses, when the EPP sided with the far right rather than with the centrists. Tensions have also spilled toward von der Leyen herself, with García accusing her of “buying into Trump’s agenda” by pushing deregulation. Center-left MEPs have urged the Commission president to rein in Weber over his cooperation with the far right. RELATIONSHIP TAKES A DOWNTURN Verbal attacks in the Parliament’s hemicycle, tensions over Spanish politics, opposing views on the EU’s green ambitions and migration policy, and the fact that the EPP is voting for laws with the far right have eroded what started as a promising relationship. Weber “will never get over the big treason when Iratxe backstabbed him on the Commission presidency,” said a senior EPP MEP. “Everyone needs to stay calm and keep emotions out of it,” said a senior Socialist MEP, noting that many lawmakers, including commissioners, often express concern about the emotional undertones of the relationship. Manfred Weber “will never get over the big treason when Iratxe backstabbed him on the Commission presidency,” said a senior EPP MEP. | Filip Singer/EPA Publicly, both insist relations are just fine. “I really appreciate the strong leadership of Iratxe, she’s a tough representative,” Weber told POLITICO, describing the relationship as in a “great state.” “I can confirm that we have good and regular talks to each other, but we also see our different political positioning,” he added. García also played down the perceived friction, saying the pair have a “working relationship” and “try to understand each other,” while stressing that despite their differences, it is “much more normalized than you might think from the outside.” The reality, according to MEPs and staffers close to the pair, is that six years of working side by side have eroded trust. Weber sees García as incapable of delivering on her promises due to the S&D’s internal divisions and weakness, as it has lost power and influence across Europe; García views Weber as power-hungry and willing to empower the far right at the expense of the center. PERSONAL ATTACKS In her September 2025 State of the Union address, von der Leyen tried to bridge the widening rifts between the EPP and the Socialists by giving policy wins to both sides and calling for unity. But her efforts came to nothing as Weber and García exchanged personal attacks on the hemicycle floor, each blaming the other for the instability of the pro-European coalition. Weber accused Garcia and the Socialists of “harming the European agenda.” During her remarks, the S&D chief shot back: “You know who is responsible for the fact that this pro-European alliance … does not work in this Parliament? It has a name and surname. It is called Manfred Weber.” The exchange reflected a relationship under strain, as the EPP pushed deregulation, weaker green rules, and a crackdown on migration backed by far-right votes after the 2024 election shifted the Parliament to the right. Sidelined by that new math, the Socialists have increasingly felt alienated and have hardened their attacks on von der Leyen for embracing a right-wing deregulation agenda, and on Weber for empowering the far right in general. “The only way for Iratxe to survive is to be more aggressive with EPP and with Manfred,” said a former centrist lawmaker, who argued that García is leaning on rhetoric to rally her base as concrete wins are in such short supply. For his part, Weber is unapologetic about sidelining traditional centrist allies, arguing that the end — tackling policy issues the far right has weaponized against the EU, notably migration and overregulation — justifies the means. “He could not be Commission president so he has been pushing to be a power broker from the Parliament, which means he needs to show he can push for whatever EPP wants, which includes using the far right,” a second senior EPP MEP said of Weber. BETRAYAL Weber and García started their collaboration after the election in 2019, when the latter was chosen as the group leader of S&D after serving as an MEP since 2004 and chair of the committee on women’s rights between 2014 and 2019. For the first two years they were united in their goals of delivering on the Green Deal and addressing the Covid-19 pandemic, but the relationship began to deteriorate in the second half of the term. In a mid-term reshuffle of the Parliament’s top posts, Weber struck a backroom deal with the liberals of Renew and The Left to keep the powerful position of the Parliament’s secretary-general in the hands of the EPP. García had wanted the job for S&D because the previous secretary-general was from the EPP, as is Roberta Metsola, who was about to become the Parliament’s president. Ursula von der Leyen tried to bridge the widening rifts between the EPP and the Socialists by giving policy wins to both sides and calling for unity. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “This was a moment of tension because she really thought she would get it … she took it very personally,” said the senior Socialist MEP. “Her position in the group was also affected by that; she got a lot of criticism.” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s reelection in 2023 further strained relations. Weber has for years been betting on the fall of Sánchez, backing Spain’s EPP-aligned opposition (the People’s Party, or PP) and giving them free rein in the Parliament to attack the Spanish Socialist Party, knowing that the EPP would be boosted with an EPP party in power in Madrid. “He does everything the People’s Party wants,” said a liberal Parliament official, who added that “every time Spain is on the agenda, it becomes a nightmare, everyone screaming.” The most recent example came in November, when the EPP sided with far-right groups to cancel a parliamentary visit to Italy to monitor the rule of law in the country, while approving one to Spain — sparking an outcry from García, whom EPP MEPs frame as Sánchez’s lieutenant in Brussels. “It generates a toxic dynamic,” echoed the first senior EPP MEP. BREAKING POINT The Spanish issue came to the fore during the 2024 hearings for commissioners, when MEPs grill prospective office-holders to see if they are up to the task. Under pressure from his Spanish peers, Weber and the EPP went in hard on Sánchez’s deputy Teresa Ribera, blaming her for deadly floods in Valencia in October 2024. While the EPP wanted to take down Ribera, the Socialists hoped to make life difficult for Italy’s Raffaele Fitto, who was put forward by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. While Fitto is not from the EPP (he’s from the European Conservatives and Reformists), his nomination was supported by Weber. In the end, the S&D went easier on Fitto in order to save Ribera from further attacks. After weeks of tensions — with both Weber and García visibly furious and blasting each other in briefings to the press — both Ribera and Fitto were confirmed as commissioners. The struggle highlighted that the old alliance between the EPP and the S&D was cracking, with Weber snubbing García and instead teaming up with the far right.   While they still meet to coordinate parliamentary business — often alongside Renew leader Valérie Hayer and von der Leyen — the partnership is far less effective than before. “It’s very clear they’re no longer running Parliament the way they used to,” said The Left’s Aubry. The breakdown has injected instability into the Parliament, with the once well-oiled duo no longer pre-cooking decisions, making outcomes more unpredictable. Aubry said meetings of group leaders used to take place with a deal already struck — “political theater,” as she put it. “Now we walk in and don’t know where we’ll end up,” Aubry added. “While they get along personally, the results of that cooperation are not that good,” said the second EPP MEP, adding that the alliance between the EPP and the S&D has “not really delivered.” LOOKING AHEAD TO YET MORE BATTLES The next reshuffle of top Parliament jobs is in 2027, and Weber and García are already haggling over who will get to nominate the next Parliament president. The EPP is expected to try to push for Metsola getting a third term, but the Socialists claim it’s their turn per a power-sharing agreement after the 2024 election. Officials from the EPP deny such an agreement exists while officials from Renew and the S&D say it does, although no one could show POLITICO any documentation. The EPP is expected to try to push for Roberta Metsola getting a third term, but the Socialists claim it’s their turn per a power-sharing agreement after the 2024 election. | Ronald Wittek/EPA That’s a major headache for García. The S&D’s Italian and German delegations are itching to get leadership positions, and if the Parliament presidency is off the table they could try to replace her as party chief. With tensions simmering, one Parliament official close to the pair half-joked that García and Weber should settle things over an after-work drink — but it seems the détente will have to wait. “I’d definitely go for a drink,” Weber said with a nervous laugh before noting that both are “so busy” it probably won’t happen. García, also laughing, was even less committal: “I’ve become a real homebody. I don’t go out for drinks anymore.”

LONDON — If there’s one thing Keir Starmer has mastered in office, it’s changing his mind. The PM has been pushed by his backbenchers toward a flurry of about-turns since entering Downing Street just 18 months ago.  Starmer’s vast parliamentary majority hasn’t stopped him feeling the pressure — and has meant mischievous MPs are less worried their antics will topple the government.  POLITICO recaps 7 occasions MPs mounted objections to the government’s agenda — and forced the PM into a spin. Expect this list to get a few more updates… PUB BUSINESS RATES  Getting on the wrong side of your local watering hole is never a good idea. Many Labour MPs realized that the hard way. Chancellor Rachel Reeves used her budget last year to slash a pandemic-era discount on business rates — taxes levied on firms — from 75 percent to 40 percent. Cue uproar from publicans. Labour MPs were barred from numerous boozers in protest at a sharp bill increase afflicting an already struggling hospitality sector. A £300 million lifeline for pubs, watering down some of the changes, is now being prepped. At least Treasury officials should now have a few more places to drown their sorrows. Time to U-turn: 43 days (Nov. 26, 2025 — Jan. 8, 2026). FARMERS’ INHERITANCE TAX  Part of Labour’s electoral success came from winning dozens of rural constituencies. But Britain’s farmers soon fell out of love with the government.  Reeves’ first budget slapped inheritance tax on farming estates worth more than £1 million from April 2026. Farmers drive tractors near Westminster ahead of a protest against inheritance tax rules on Nov. 19, 2024. | Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images Aimed at closing loopholes wealthy individuals use to avoid coughing up to the exchequer, the decision generated uproar from opposition parties (calling the measure the “family farm tax”) and farmers themselves, who drove tractors around Westminster playing “Baby Shark.”  Campaigners including TV presenter and newfound farmer Jeremy Clarkson joined the fight by highlighting that many farmers are asset rich but cash poor — so can’t fund increased inheritance taxes without flogging off their estates altogether. A mounting rebellion by rural Labour MPs (including Cumbria’s Markus Campbell-Savours, who lost the whip for voting against the budget resolution on inheritance tax) saw the government sneak out a threshold hike to £2.5 million just two days before Christmas, lowering the number of affected estates from 375 to 185. Why ever could that have been?  Time to U-turn: 419 days (Oct. 30, 2024 — Dec. 23, 2025). WINTER FUEL PAYMENTS  Labour’s election honeymoon ended abruptly just three and a half weeks into power after Reeves made an economic move no chancellor before her dared to take.  Reeves significantly tightened eligibility for winter fuel payments, a previously universal benefit helping the older generation with heating costs in the colder months.  Given pensioners are the cohort most likely to vote, the policy was seen as a big electoral gamble. It wasn’t previewed in Labour’s manifesto and made many newly elected MPs angsty.  After a battering in the subsequent local elections, the government swiftly confirmed all pensioners earning up to £35,000 would now be eligible for the cash. That’s one way of trying to bag the grey vote. Time until U-turn: 315 days (July 29, 2024 — June 9, 2025).  WELFARE REFORM Labour wanted to rein in Britain’s spiraling welfare bill, which never fully recovered from the Covid-19 pandemic.  The government vowed to save around £5 billion by tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a benefit helping people in and out of work with long term health issues. It also said other health related benefits would be cut. However, Labour MPs worried about the impact on the most vulnerable (and nervously eyeing their inboxes) weren’t impressed. More than 100 signed an amendment that would have torpedoed the proposed reforms.  The government vowed to save around £5 billion by tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payment. | Vuk Valcic via SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images In an initial concession, the government said existing PIP claimants wouldn’t be affected by any eligibility cuts. It wasn’t enough: Welfare Minister Stephen Timms was forced to confirm in the House of Commons during an actual, ongoing welfare debate that eligibility changes for future claimants would be delayed until a review was completed.  What started as £5 billion of savings didn’t reduce welfare costs whatsoever.  Time to U-turn: 101 days (Mar. 18, 2025 — June 27, 2025).  GROOMING GANGS INQUIRY  The widescale abuse of girls across Britain over decades reentered the political spotlight in early 2025 after numerous tweets from X owner Elon Musk. It led to calls for a specific national inquiry into the scandal. Starmer initially rejected this request, pointing to recommendations left unimplemented from a previous inquiry into child sexual abuse and arguing for a local approach. Starmer accused those critical of his stance (aka Musk) of spreading “lies and misinformation” and “amplifying what the far-right is saying.” Yet less than six months later, a rapid review from crossbench peer Louise Casey called for … a national inquiry. Starmer soon confirmed one would happen. Time to U-turn: 159 days (Jan. 6, 2025 — June 14, 2025).  ‘ISLAND OF STRANGERS’ Immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.K. — especially with Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage breathing down Starmer’s neck. The PM tried reflecting this in a speech last May, warning that Britain risked becoming an “island of strangers” without government action to curb migration. That triggered some of Starmer’s own MPs, who drew parallels with the notorious 1968 “rivers of blood” speech by politician Enoch Powell. The PM conceded he’d put a foot wrong month later, giving an Observer interview where he claimed to not be aware of the Powell connection. “I deeply regret using” the term, he said. Time to U-turn: 46 days (May 12, 2025 — June 27, 2025).  Immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.K. — especially with Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage breathing down Starmer’s neck. | Tolga Akmen/EPA TWO-CHILD BENEFIT CAP  Here’s the U-turn that took the longest to arrive — but left Labour MPs the happiest. Introduced by the previous Conservative government, a two-child welfare cap meant parents could only claim social security payments such as Universal Credit or tax credits for their first two children. Many Labour MPs saw it as a relic of the Tory austerity era. Yet just weeks into government, seven Labour MPs lost the whip for backing an amendment calling for it to be scrapped, highlighting Reeves’ preference for fiscal caution over easy wins.  A year and a half later, that disappeared out the window. Reeves embracing its removal in her budget last fall as a child poverty-busty measure got plenty of cheers from Labour MPs — though the cap’s continued popularity with some voters may open up a fresh vulnerability. Time until U-turn: 491 days (July 23, 2024 — Nov. 26, 2025).

The first American pope is on a collision course with U.S. President Donald Trump. The latest fault line between the Vatican and the White House emerged on Sunday. Shortly after Trump suggested his administration could “run” Venezuela, the Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of the “country’s sovereignty.” For MAGA-aligned conservatives, this is now part of an unwelcome pattern. While Leo is less combative in tone toward Trump than his predecessor Francis, his priorities are rekindling familiar battles in the culture war with the U.S. administration on topics such as immigration and deportations, LGBTQ+ rights and climate change. As the leader of a global community of 1.4 billion Catholics, Leo has a rare position of influence to challenge Trump’s policies, and the U.S. president has to tread with uncustomary caution in confronting him. Trump traditionally relishes blasting his critics with invective but has been unusually restrained in response to Leo’s criticism, in part because he counts a large number of Catholics among his core electorate. “[Leo] is not looking for a fight like Francis, who sometimes enjoyed a fight,” said Chris White, author of “Pope Leo XIV: Inside the Conclave and the Dawn of a New Papacy.” “But while different in style, he is clearly a continuation of Francis in substance. Initially there was a wait-and-see approach, but for many MAGA Catholics, Leo challenges core beliefs.” In recent months, migration has become the main combat zone between the liberal pope and U.S. conservatives. Leo called on his senior clergy to speak out on the need to protect vulnerable migrants, and U.S. bishops denounced the “dehumanizing rhetoric and violence” leveled at people targeted by Trump’s deportation policies. Leo later went public with an appeal that migrants in the U.S. be treated “humanely” and “with dignity.” Leo’s support emboldened Florida bishops to call for a Christmas reprieve from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. “Don’t be the Grinch that stole Christmas,” said Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami. As if evidence were needed of America’s polarization on this topic, however, the Department of Homeland Security described their arrests as a “Christmas gift to Americans.” Leo also conspicuously removed Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Trump’s preferred candidate for pope and a favorite on the conservative Fox News channel, from a key post as archbishop of New York, replacing him with a bishop known for pro-migrant views. This cuts to the heart of the moral dilemma for a divided U.S. Catholic community. For Trump, Catholics are hardly a sideshow as they constitute 22 percent of his electorate, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center. While the pope appeals to liberal causes, however, many MAGA Catholics take a far stricter line on topics such as migration, sexuality and climate change. To his critics from the conservative Catholic MAGA camp, such as Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon, the pope is anathema. U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of Venezuela’s “sovereignty.” | Stefano Costantino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Last year the pope blessed a chunk of ice from Greenland and criticized political leaders who ignore climate change. He said supporters of the death penalty could not credibly claim to be pro-life, and argued that Christians and Muslims could be friends. He has also signaled a more tolerant posture toward LGBTQ+ Catholics, permitting an LGBTQ+ pilgrimage to St Peter’s Basilica. Small wonder, then, that Trump confidante and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer branded Leo the “woke Marxist pope.” Trump-aligned Catholic conservatives have denounced him as “secularist,” “globalist” and even “apostate.” Far-right pundit Jack Posobiec has called him “anti-Trump.” “Some popes are a blessing. Some popes are a penance,” Posobiec wrote on X. PONTIFF FROM CHICAGO There were early hopes that Leo might build bridges with U.S. hardliners. He’s an American, after all: He wears an Apple watch and follows baseball, and American Catholics can hardly dismiss him as as foreign. The Argentine Francis, by contrast, was often portrayed by critics as anti-American and shaped by the politics of poorer nations. Leo can’t be waved away so easily. Early in his papacy, Leo also showed signs he was keen to steady the church after years of internal conflict, and threw some bones to conservatives such as allowing a Latin Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica and wearing more ornate papal vestments. But the traditionalists were not reassured. Benjamin Harnwell, the Vatican correspondent for the MAGA-aligned War Room podcast, said conservatives were immediately skeptical of Leo. “From day one, we have been telling our base to be wary: Do not be deceived,” he said. Leo, Harnwell added, is “fully signed up to Francis’ agenda … but [is] more strategic and intelligent.” After the conclave that appointed Leo, former Trump strategist Bannon told POLITICO that Leo’s election was “the worst choice for MAGA Catholics” and “an anti-Trump vote by the globalists of the Curia.” Trump had a long-running feud with Francis, who condemned the U.S. president’s border wall and criticized his migration policies. Francis appeared to enjoy that sparring, but Leo is a very different character. More retiring by nature, he shies away from confrontation. But his resolve in defending what he sees as non-negotiable moral principles, particularly the protection of the weak, is increasingly colliding with the core assumptions of Trumpism. Trump loomed large during the conclave, with an AI-generated video depicting himself as pope. The gesture was seen by some Vatican insiders as a “mafia-style” warning to elect someone who would not criticize him, Vatican-watcher Elisabetta Piqué wrote in a new book “The Election of Pope Leo XIV: The Last Surprise of Pope Francis.” NOT PERSONAL Leo was not chosen expressly as an anti-Trump figure, according to a Vatican official. Rather, his nationality was likely seen by some cardinals as “reassuring,” suggesting he would be accountable and transparent in governance and finances. But while Leo does not seem to be actively seeking a confrontation with Trump, the world views of the two men seem incompatible. “He will avoid personalizing,” said the same Vatican official. “He will state church teaching, not in reaction to Trump, but as things he would say anyway.” Despite the attacks on Leo from his allies, Trump himself has also appeared wary of a direct showdown. When asked about the pope in a POLITICO interview, Trump was more keen to discuss meeting the pontiff’s brother in Florida, whom he described as “serious MAGA.” When pressed on whether he would meet the pope himself, he finally replied: “Sure, I will. Why not?” The potential for conflict will come into sharper focus as Leo hosts a summit called an extraordinary consistory this week, the first of its kind since 2014, which is expected to provide a blueprint for the future direction of the church. His first publication on social issues, such as inequality and migration, is also expected in the next few months. “He will use [the summit] to talk about what he sees as the future,” said a diplomat posted to the Vatican. “It will give his collaborators a sense of where he is going. He could use it as a sounding board, or ask them to suggest solutions.” It’s safe to assume Leo won’t be unveiling a MAGA-aligned agenda. The ultimate balance of power may also favor the pope. Trump must contend with elections and political clocks; Leo, elected for life, does not. At 70, and as a tennis player in good health, Leo appears positioned to shape Catholic politics well after Trump’s moment has passed. “He is not in a hurry,” the Vatican official said. “Time is on his side.”

LONDON — They’re young, full of ideas — and about to be given the vote. Britain’s government has committed to lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years — a major extension of the electorate that could have big implications for the outcome of the next race, expected by 2029. It means Brits who are just 12 today are in line to vote in the next general election, which is expected to be a fierce battle between incumbent Keir Starmer and his right-wing challenger Nigel Farage. But what do these young people actually think? In a bid to start pinning down the views of this cohort, POLITICO commissioned pollster More in Common to hold an in-depth focus group, grilling eight youngsters from across the country on everything from social media disinformation to what they would do inside No. 10 Downing Street. To protect those taking part in the study, all names used below are pseudonymous. The group all showed an interest in politics, and had strong views on major topics such as immigration and climate change — but the majority were unaware they would get the chance to vote in 2029.  In a bid to prepare the country for the change, the Electoral Commission has recommended that the school curriculum be reformed to ensure compulsory teaching on democracy and government from an early age. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER There are few better introductions to the weird world of British politics than prime minister’s questions, the weekly House of Commons clash between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Conservative opponent Kemi Badenoch. Our group of 12-13-year-olds was shown a clip of the clash and asked to rate what they saw. They came away distinctly unimpressed. Hanh, 13, from Surrey, said the pair seemed like children winding each other up. “It seems really disrespectful in how they’re talking to each other,” she commented. “It sounds like they’re actually kids bickering … They were just going at each other, which didn’t seem very professional in my opinion.” Sarah, 13, from Trowbridge in the west of England, said the leading politicians were “acting like a pack of wild animals.” | Clive Brunskill/Getty Images Sarah, 13, from Trowbridge in the west of England, said the leading politicians were “acting like a pack of wild animals.” In the clip, the Commons backbenches roar as Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch quips about Starmer’s MPs wanting a new leader for Christmas. In turn, the PM dismisses the Conservative chief’s performance as a “Muppet’s Christmas Carol.” Twelve-year-old Holly, from Lincolnshire, said the pair were being “really aggressive and really harsh on each other, which was definitely rude.” And she said of the PM: “It weren’t really working out for Keir Starmer.” None of the children knew who Badenoch was, but all knew Starmer — even if they didn’t have particularly high opinions of the prime minister, who is tanking in the polls and struggling to get his administration off the ground. Twelve-year-old Alex said the “promises” Starmer had made were just “lies” to get him into No. 10. Sophie, a 12-year-old from Worcester in the West Midlands, was equally withering, saying she thought the PM is doing a “bad job.” “He keeps making all these promises, but he’s probably not even doing any of them,” she added. “He just wants to show off and try to be cool, but he’s not being cool because he’s breaking all the promises. He just wants all the money and the job to make him look really good.” Sarah said: “I think that it’s quite hard to keep all of those promises, and he’s definitely bitten off more than he can chew with the fact that he’s only made those statements because he wants to be voted for and he wants to be in charge.”  While some of the young people referenced broken promises by Starmer, none offered specifics. THE FARAGE FACTOR Although they didn’t know Badenoch as leader of the opposition, the whole room nodded when asked if they knew who Nigel Farage was. Although they didn’t know Badenoch as leader of the opposition, the whole room nodded when asked if they knew who Nigel Farage was. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images “He’s the leader of the Reform party,” said Alex, whose favorite subject is computing. “He promises lots of things and the opposite of what Starmer wants. Instead of helping immigrants, he wants to kick them out. He wants to lower taxes, wants to stop benefits.” Alex added: “I like him.” Sarah was much less taken. “I’ve heard that he’s the leader of the far right, or he’s part of the far right. I think he’s quite a racist man.” Farage has faced accusations in recent weeks of making racist remarks in his school days. The Reform UK leader replied that he had “never directly racially abused anybody.” Other participants said they’d only heard Farage’s name before. When asked who they would back if they were voting tomorrow, most children shrugged and looked bewildered. Only two of the group could name who they wanted to vote for — both Alex and Sam backed Farage. POLICY WORRIES Politicians have long tried to reach Britain’s youngsters through questionable TikTok videos and cringe memes — but there was much more going on in the minds of this group than simply staring at phones. Climate change, mental health and homelessness were dominant themes of the conversation. Climate change is “dangerous because the polar bears will die,” warned Chris, 13, from Manchester. Sophie, who enjoys horse riding, is worried about habitats being destroyed and animals having to find new homes as a result of climate change, while Sarah is concerned about rising sea levels. Thirteen-year-old Ravi from Liverpool said his main focus was homelessness. “I know [the government is] building houses, but maybe speed the process up and get homeless people off the streets as quick as they can because it’s not nice seeing them on the streets begging,” he said. Sam agreed, saying if he personally made it into No.10, he would make sure “everyone has food, water, all basic survival stuff.” Sarah’s main ask was for better mental health care amid a strained National Health Service. “The NHS is quite busy dealing with mental health, anxiety and things like that,” she said. “Maybe we should try and make an improvement with that so everyone gets a voice and everyone’s heard.” IMMIGRATION DIVISIONS When the conversation moved to the hot-button topic of immigration, views were more sharply divided. Imagining what he’d do in government, Alex said he’d focus on “lowering taxes and stopping illegal immigrants from coming over.” “Because we’re paying France billions just to stop them, but they’re not doing anything,” he said. “And also it’s spending all the tax money on them to give them home meals, stuff like that.” In July, Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron unveiled a “one in, one out” pilot program to tackle illegal migration, although it’s enjoyed limited success so far and has generated some embarrassing headlines for the British government. Hanh said she’d been taught at school that it’s important to show empathy, but noted some people are angry about taxes going to support asylum seekers. Chris and Sarah both said asylum seekers are fleeing war, and seemed uneasy at the thought of drawing a hard line. Holly said she wants “racism” — which she believes is tied to conversations about immigration — to end. “I often hear a lot of racism [at school] and prejudice-type stuff … I often hear the N word. People don’t understand how bad that word is and how it can affect people,” she said. “They [migrants] have moved away from something to get safer, and then they get more hate.” Hanh said she is seeing more anti-immigration messages on social media, such as “why are you in my country, get out,” she said. “Then that’s being dragged into school by students who are seeing this … it’s coming into school environment, which is not good for learning.” NEWS SNOOZE Look away now, journalists: The group largely agreed that the news is boring. Some listen in when their parents have the television or radio on, but all said they get most of their news from social media or the odd push alert. Asked why they think the news is so dull, Hanh — who plays field hockey and enjoys art at school — said: “It just looks really boring to look at, there are no cool pictures or any funny things or fun colors. It just doesn’t look like something I’d be interested in.” She said she prefers social media: “With TikTok, you can interact with stuff and look at comments and see other people’s views, [but with the news] you just see evidence and you see all these facts. Sometimes it can be about really disturbing stuff like murder and stuff like that. If it’s going to pop up with that, I don’t really want to watch that.” These children aren’t alone in pointing to social media as their preferred source of news. A 2025 report by communications watchdog Ofcom found that 57 percent of 12-15-year-olds consume news on social media, with TikTok being the most commonly used platform, followed by YouTube and then Instagram. Sophie isn’t convinced that the news is for her. “Sometimes if my parents put it on the TV and it’s about something that’s really bad that’s happened, then I’ll definitely look at it,” she said. “But otherwise, I think it would probably be more for older people because they would like to watch basically whatever’s on the TV because they can’t really be bothered to change the channel.”

LONDON — Westminster discourse was blessed with a host of new words and phrases during a tumultuous 2025 — and some of them even made sense. Keir Starmer got to fight with tech bro Elon Musk, schmooze Donald Trump, endure frustration from his MPs over Labour’s dreadful polling, reshuffle his government, and preside over a stagnant economy — all while working out a “vision” some 18 months into office. As 2026 screams into view, POLITICO has looked back over the year and picked out all the weird phrases we’d rather forget. 1. Coalition of the willing: The body of nations that sprang up to support Ukraine as U.S. backing looked dicey. Defined by their “vital,” “urgent” and “pivotal” meetings, but often challenged by an unwilling dude across the pond. 2. Smorgasbord: Sweden’s given us IKEA, ABBA — and now the best way to explain an unsatisfying mix of tax rises. Thanks, chancellor! 3. AI Opportunities Action Plan: Never has a government announcement contained so many nouns. 4. AI MP: Why bother with constituency casework when ChatGPT’s around? Labour MP Mark Sewards bagged some help from LLMs … with mixed results. 5. “Beautiful accent”: Trump’s verdict on Starmer’s voice as the unlikely bromance blossomed. 6. Rent license: Everyone pretended to know about housing law as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faced scrutiny for not having one of these when renting out the family home. 7. Rod fishing license: One for the real hardcore license fans. Then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy faced questions for fishing with U.S. Vice President JD Vance without the right paperwork. In a totally unconnected event, he was reshuffled to the justice department shortly after. 8. Board of Peace: Tony Blair was on the list of people to preside over a post-war Gaza … until he very much wasn’t. 9. Golden economic rule: The Conservatives’ shiny and instantly forgettable plan to restore credibility in managing the public finances. Perhaps the No. 1 rule should have been keeping Liz Truss out of No. 10?   10. Lawyer brain: Starmer was frequently accused of acting like a lawyer, not a leader. At least he had a fixed term back when he was chief prosecutor. 11. Liberation Day: Trump’s big old chart slapped global tariffs on allies and sent Whitehall into a tailspin … before a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) retreat on some of them. 12. The Andrew formerly known as Prince: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had to settle for a hyphenated surname after outrage about his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 13. Raise the colors: Politicians spent the summer showing how much they loved flags as Brits — including organized far-right groups — plastered the Union Jack on every lamppost and roundabout in sight. 14. Lucy Listens: Lucy Powell decided the best way to recover from getting sacked from government was to run for Labour deputy leader, win, and hear endlessly from irate Labour members. 15. Joe Marler: Health Secretary Wes Streeting compared himself to a rugby player from the Celebrity Traitors after he was accused of plotting to oust Starmer. Hanging out in a Scottish castle could be quite cushy if the running-for-PM thing doesn’t work out. 16. Driving the DLR: Starmer’s premiership was compared to steering the, er, driverless part of Transport for London. 17. Double Contributions Convention: National insurance became exciting for a brief second amid a row about the India trade deal. Let’s never make that mistake again. 18. Disruptors: What Starmer wants from his ministers. Alas, they slightly misinterpreted the memo and enjoyed disrupting his leadership instead of the Whitehall status quo. 19. Build Baby Build: Housing Secretary Steve Reed not only mimicked Trump’s words but also donned a red baseball cap. The merch was a treat at Labour conference, but it was all a bit cringe.  20. Trigger Me Timbers: Leaks from this imaginatively-named Labour WhatsApp group saw two MPs suspended for vile language. Remember, assume everything in a group is public.  21. Humphrey: Obviously the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in the classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  21. Humphrey: Obviously, the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  | David Zorrakino/Europa Press via Getty Images 22. Right to Try: A phrase describing a new guarantee for people entering work — and which might double up as a stirring campaign slogan for the PM. 23. Patriotic renewal: Get those flags out again as No. 10 presses the jargon button to describe what this whole government thing is about. 24. Thatcher Fest: The celebrations marking the centenary of the Iron Lady’s birth knew no bounds. 25. One in, one out: Britain and France struck a treaty for small boat crossings — until one returned migrant recrossed the English Channel to Blighty.   26. Zacktavist: A new generation of Greens got behind “eco-populist” leader Zack Polanksi — and could treat themselves to a mug with his face on for £7 a pop. 27. Yantar: Russia made its meddling against Britain known by deploying a spy ship into territorial waters … although it failed to remain incognito.   28. Two up, two down: Chancellor Rachel Reeves mooted increasing income tax by 2p and cutting national insurance by 2p … before (probably) realizing it would mark the end of her time in the Treasury. 29. Island of strangers: The PM channeled Reform with a speech on migration featuring this phrase. It was compared to former Tory MP Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech … and Starmer later retracted the whole thing. 30. Bob Vylan: A previously obscure rap duo was thrust into the spotlight after calling for “death, death to the IDF” [Israel Defence Forces] at Glastonbury. The BBC came under fire, because of course it did. 31. Persistent knobheadery: That’s one way for a Labour source to justify suspending the whip from four MPs. 32. Sexist boys’ club: Setting up a political party is harder than it looks. Who’d have thought it? Ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana’s tough words for her fellow independent MPs as the flailing Your Party launched meant some of them left anyway. All’s fair in love and war.   33. F**king suck it up: Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tough decisions in these colorful terms. Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tricky decisions in these colorful terms. | Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images 34. Three Pads Rayner: Angela Rayner’s tenure as deputy PM and, erm, housing secretary came to an abrupt end after she failed to pay the correct amount of property tax — but not before earning this moniker. 35. Further and faster: How did the government react to its local elections shellacking? By vowing to carry on in exactly the same way, albeit more intensely. 36. Phase Two: Starmer’s much-hyped fall reset of his government was followed by one calamity after another. Not too late for Phase Three! 37. Danish model: Ministers decided migration could be solved by copying Copenhagen. Anything for a trip to the continent.   38. The Liz Truss Show: Britain’s shortest-serving former prime minister used extra time on her hands to woo MAGAland with yet another political podcast. Cannot be unseen.   39. I rise to speak: MPs deploying this phrase gave an instant red flag that they may, just may, have used AI to help write their speeches.  40. Judge Plus: Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s assurance that her assisted dying bill still had plenty of legal safeguards, despite a High Court judge getting dropped from the process.   41. Pride in Place: After Boris Johnson’s “leveling up” (RIP), Labour tries a similar approach in all but name. 42. Waste Files: Elon Musk inspired a host of U.K. DOGE copycats keen to slash complex government budgets from their armchairs. 43. Project Chainsaw: No, Starmer isn’t suddenly a Javier Milei fan, but his government wanted to reshape the state — with some bandying about this subtle, civil service-spooking nickname. 44. Global headwinds: The ultimate euphemism for how the orange-colored elephant in the room changed everything.   45. Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention: Want Britain closer to the EU? Choose a trade agreement guaranteed to send even the most ardent Europhile to sleep. President Trump’s trade wars caused global headwinds throughout the year. | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images 46. Headphone dodgers: A nuisance to everyone, the Lib Dems went full throttle by pledging to fine the public transport irritants £1,000. It’s a wonder the party isn’t leading the polls. 47. StormShroud drones: All wars create an opportunity for futuristic tech that hopefully does what it says on the tin. 48. Return hubs: Ministers insist migration definitely isn’t getting outsourced to other countries by mooting third-party “processing” … something Albania won’t even take part in. See also: Deport Now, Appeal Later.  49. Far-right bandwagon: Starmer’s row with Musk reached a crescendo with the PM’s phrase lobbed at some proponents of an inquiry into grooming gangs operating in the U.K. 50. Impossible trilemma: Ahead of the budget, a top think tank warned that Reeves faced the unenviable task of meeting fiscal targets while sticking to spending promises and not raising taxes. No pressure. 51. Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister: Darren Jones’ prefect vibes were rewarded with a brand spanking new gig in the pre-shuffle right at the start of Phase Two. 52. Growth people feel in their pockets: One No. 10 press officer may have collected their P45 after publishing *that* press release. 53. Mainstream: This totally normal, nothing-to-see-here, soft-left Labour group definitely isn’t a vehicle for Andy Burnham’s return to Westminster.   54. Plastic patriots/plastic progressives: The synthetic material really got a kicking from Labour, who deployed the terms to slam Reform and the Greens respectively. Let’s hope voters have reusable bags. 55. Quint: Five lucky people (Starmer, Reeves, Lammy, Jones and Pat McFadden) who apparently decide how government operates. Great job, guys! 56. Hard bastard: The PM’s best effort to show he was “tough enough,” Ed Miliband-style. We all know how that ended.    57. Global Progress Action Summit: Progressives met in a desperate attempt to figure out how to avoid a trouncing from populists. More updates as we get them. 58. Contribution: Reeves’ framing of higher taxes, carefully sidestepping the fact that taxes aren’t optional. 59. Maintenance department: Deffo-not-future Labour leadership contender Wes Streeting’s description of how the party presents itself publicly. Stirring stuff. 60. Terminator: Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood earned an Arnie-inspired new nickname as she tried to show Labour is really, really tough on migration, honest. 61. Reverse Midas Touch: Anything the PM touches, including ID cards, is hit by this tragic affliction, according to his critics. 62. V levels: The natural successor to A and T level educational qualifications. Just a matter of time before there’s one for each letter of the alphabet. 63. Culturally coherent: Tory rising star Katie Lam’s justification for deporting legal migrants got her into some hot water. 64. 24/7 circus of sh*t: One former Tory aide’s pithy description of the Home Office. Who are the clowns? 65. Six seven: Nobody over the age of 11 understands this meme — yet the PM unleashed havoc in a classroom by joining in. 66. Civilizational erasure: America’s dystopian portrayal of what Europe is facing probably won’t feature in many tourist brochures. 67. Turning renewal into reality: Starmer’s ambition for next year in his final Cabinet meeting of 2025. Bookmark that one.

Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party, will not rule out further votes with far-right parties in the European Parliament. “What matters to me is that we do not have any structured collaboration with radical right parties in the European Parliament,” the German politician told the Funke Media Group. “But we will not allow ourselves to be stopped by anyone when it comes to halting illegal migration and securing our prosperity.” Weber’s remarks land amid an intensifying debate in Brussels over whether the long-standing cordon sanitaire around the far right is fraying in practice, even as mainstream parties continue to deny formal cooperation. That debate was triggered after the EPP broke with its traditional centrist partners and relied on far-right backing to push through rollbacks of EU green rules, including cuts to corporate sustainability and deforestation legislation, a moment far-right lawmakers openly described as a breakthrough. Far-right groups have since made clear they intend to cash in. Leaders from the Patriots and ECR groups said they are pressing for tougher migration policies, deregulation for industry and the reversal of the EU’s planned 2035 ban on combustion-engine cars, signaling that future votes would come at a political price. Centrist lawmakers, meanwhile, say they feel boxed in. Socialists, liberals and Greens accuse the EPP of leaning right when convenient, while insisting the old governing coalition still exists on paper — a dynamic one senior lawmaker described as an “abusive marriage.” Weber has rejected claims that the EPP is dismantling its refusal of cooperating with the far right. “The firewall stands. We know who our enemies are,” he said. He insisted that any organized cooperation would have to meet strict conditions, naming three red lines: being “pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine and pro-rule of law.” Far-right parties failing those tests, he said, could not be partners. Pressed on whether the EPP would actively seek far-right votes to overturn the phase-out of combustion-engine cars, Weber sought to redirect attention to the political center. His “invitation,” he said, was aimed at centrist forces, thanking Social Democrats for “very positive first signals.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Ein Tag der doppelten Bewährungsprobe für Kanzler Friedrich Merz: Erst stellt er sich im Bundestag den Fragen zu Migration, Pflege und innerer Sicherheit, dann folgt die Regierungserklärung zum EU-Gipfel in Brüssel. Merz spricht von einem Epochenbruch und davon, dass Deutschland und Europa kein Spielball von Großmächten sein dürfen. Im Zentrum stehen die Ukraine, die Nutzung russischer Vermögen, das Mercosur-Abkommen und die Frage, wie geschlossen Europa in einer Welt der Machtverschiebungen auftritt.  Gemeinsam mit Hans von der Burchard, ordnet Rixa Fürsen ein, wie stark Merz wirklich in den Gipfel geht, wo die größten Risiken liegen und warum dieser Auftritt auch ein Ausblick auf die Prioritäten für 2026 ist. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

A group of 19 EU countries is pushing the European Commission to take a tougher line on migration beyond the bloc’s borders, arguing that last week’s EU deal on asylum and returns has changed the political weather in Brussels. In particular, they want the Commission to increase cooperation with non-EU countries to tackle what they see as unacceptably high levels of migration into the bloc. “The conclusion of the negotiations on the recent legislative proposals … is an important step,” the ministers of home and foreign affairs of the signatory countries write in a joint letter seen exclusively by POLITICO, adding that “the further development of a coherent EU strategy on the external dimension of migration, including new and innovative solutions, is paramount.” The reference to recent proposals refers to the package agreed on Dec. 8, which includes sweeping new rules to reform how the EU deals with migration, including setting up asylum processing centers in non-EU countries. Governments want the EU executive to put even more weight on the external dimension of migration by cooperating with countries of origin and countries they travel through to stop them reaching the EU. That means accelerating what they called “innovative solutions,” a catch-all term for measures such as so-called return hubs and new partnerships with non-EU countries, which supporters say could make EU migration policy more effective. The appeal is set to feature prominently at this week’s informal “migration breakfast” ahead of Thursday’s EU summit. The breakfasts, launched in June 2024 by Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen and the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof, have become highly influential on the narrative around migration in Brussels. In their letter, the ministers call for expanding the use of “new and innovative solutions” to counter irregular migration and for stronger cooperation among EU agencies, international organizations, and EU countries. While the letter avoids naming specific models, it references tools already embedded in EU law, such as “safe third country arrangements and return hubs,” and calls for their operationalization through partnerships along migration routes. The model of “return hubs,” to which individuals whose asylum claims have been rejected can be sent, has been championed by Italy. The country has built and operates — in a different legal context — two such facilities in Albania, which are expected to serve as the first concrete implementation of this model from mid-2026. Money is a central concern. The signatories argue that the innovative solutions will remain theoretical without clearer funding pathways. “The efficient use of financial resources is necessary for the establishment and operationalisation of innovative forms of cooperation,” the letter states, urging the Commission to issue guidelines on how existing and future EU funds can be mobilized. The ministers also want EU agencies to be more deeply involved, including a possible expansion of the role of the border agency Frontex. They call on the Commission and agencies to explore “necessary legislative and policy changes,” including, “where relevant, revision of the mandate and competences of Frontex, to ensure effective support and sufficient capacity” in cooperation with third countries. Beyond institutions and funding, the letter makes a clear political ask for a single EU voice. “A common narrative and joint diplomatic outreach by Member States and the EEAS … is necessary,” the ministers write, urging Brussels to hard-wire migration into summits and dialogues with partner countries.

BERLIN — U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to restore “European greatness” by bolstering the continent’s nationalist parties is already being put into action. Trump administration officials and European far-right leaders from Paris to Washington have taken part in a flurry of meetings in the days since the release of the U.S. National Security Strategy, underscoring that the U.S. president’s desire to bolster “patriotic European parties” is not an abstract vision but rather a manual for change that is being pursued from the ground up. Last week, U.S. Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers met with far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party politician Markus Frohnmaier in Washington. Frohnmaier said the two discussed the recently released National Security Strategy, which asserted that Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to migration and the loss of national identity, a message that AfD politicians embrace. “Washington is looking for a strong German partner who is willing to take on responsibility,” Frohnmaier wrote in an online post following the meeting. “Germany should re-establish itself as a capable leading power through a decisive shift in migration policy and the independent organization of European security.” Frohnmaier was one of about 20 AfD politicians who travelled to Washington and New York last week to meet with sympathizers and Trump administration officials. AfD leaders have increasingly sought to forge links with MAGA Republicans, viewing the Trump administration’s backing as a way to secure domestic legitimacy and end their political ostracization. Frohnmaier, the deputy chair of the AfD’s parliamentary group, was also an “honored guest” at the annual gala of the the New York Young Republican Club on Saturday. The New York City-based group has openly backed the AfD, declaring “AfD über alles” (AfD above all) — an adaptation of a nationalist phrase associated with Germany’s Nazi past. “The alliance between American and German patriots is the nightmare of the liberal elites, and it is the hope of the free world,” Frohnmaier said in a speech during the event. The recent meetings are a continuation of ongoing outreach efforts between Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement and ideologically aligned European parties. British Reform leader Nigel Farage, a longtime Trump ally, stopped off at the Oval Office during a U.S. visit in September. In November Trump political adviser Alex Brusewitz met with AfD leaders in Berlin, where he proclaimed that the MAGA movement in the U.S. had common cause with the German party. AfD leaders have increasingly sought to forge links with MAGA Republicans. | Jan-Philipp Strobel/Getty Images Trump has also long expressed support for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, although he told POLITICO’s Dasha Burns in an interview last week for a special edition of “The Conversation” that he had not promised an Argentina-style bailout to boost Orbán’s election chances next year. In Paris, U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner met with French far-right leaders Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella days after the publication of the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy. Kushner said he “appreciated the chance” to learn about the far-right leaders’ “economic and social agenda and their views on what lies ahead for France.” As the father of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and diplomatic adviser, the elder Kushner has a direct line to the White House. In his POLITICO interview last week Trump said he could move to endorse political candidates aligned with his own vision for Europe. Kushner has also met the heads of at least two other French parties in recent weeks, but a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in France suggested the meetings weren’t part of a coordinated effort to support the far right in Europe: “As a matter of standard practice, the U.S. Mission in France engages regularly with a broad range of political parties and leaders, and we will continue to do so.” Yet unlike Germany’s AfD leaders, Le Pen and Bardella — as well as other politicians in their far-right National Rally — have been reluctant to fully embrace Trump given his unpopularity in France, even among many members of their own party. As for the AfD, its outreach to willing partners in the U.S. is set to continue. Frohnmaier said he would invite U.S. lawmakers to a Berlin congress in February aimed at deepening ties with MAGA Republicans. Pauline von Pezold contributed to this report.

Mathias Döpfner is chair and CEO of Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. America and Europe have been transmitting on different wavelengths for some time now. And that is dangerous — especially for Europe. The European reactions to the new U.S. National Security Strategy paper and to Donald Trump’s recent criticism of the Old Continent were, once again, reflexively offended and incapable of accepting criticism: How dare he, what an improper intrusion! But such reactions do not help; they do harm. Two points are lost in these sour responses. First: Most Americans criticize Europe because the continent matters to them. Many of those challenging Europe — even JD Vance or Trump, even Elon Musk or Sam Altman — emphasize this repeatedly. The new U.S. National Security Strategy, scandalized above all by those who have not read it, states explicitly: “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” And Trump says repeatedly, literally or in essence, in his interview with POLITICO: “I want to see a strong Europe.” The transatlantic drift is also a rupture of political language. Trump very often simply says what he thinks — sharply contrasting with many European politicians who are increasingly afraid to say what they believe is right. People sense the castration of thought through a language of evasions. And they turn away. Or toward the rabble-rousers. My impression is that our difficult American friends genuinely want exactly what they say they want: a strong Europe, a reliable and effective partner. But we do not hear it — or refuse to hear it. We hear only the criticism and dismiss it. Criticism is almost always a sign of involvement, of passion. We should worry far more if no criticism arrived. That would signal indifference — and therefore irrelevance. (By the way: Whether we like the critics is of secondary importance.) Responding with hauteur is simply not in our interest. It would be wiser — as Kaja Kallas rightly emphasized — to conduct a dialogue that includes self-criticism, a conversation about strengths, weaknesses and shared interests, and to back words with action on both sides. Which brings us to the second point: Unfortunately, much of the criticism is accurate. Anyone who sees politics as more than a self-absorbed administration of the status quo must concede that for decades Europe has delivered far too little — or nothing at all. Not in terms of above-average growth and prosperity, nor in terms of affordable energy. Europe does not deliver on deregulation or debureaucratization; it does not deliver on digitalization or innovation driven by artificial intelligence. And above all: Europe does not deliver on a responsible and successful migration policy. The world that wishes Europe well looked to the new German government with great hope. Capital flows on the scale of trillions waited for the first positive signals to invest in Germany and Europe. For it seemed almost certain that the world’s third-largest economy would, under a sensible, business-minded and transatlantic chancellor, finally steer a faltering Europe back onto the right path. The disappointment was all the more painful. Aside from the interior minister, the digital minister and the economics minister, the new government delivers in most areas the opposite of what had been promised before the election. The chancellor likes to blame the vice chancellor. The vice chancellor blames his own party. And all together they prefer to blame the Americans and their president. Instead of a European fresh start, we see continued agony and decline. Germany still suffers from its National Socialist trauma and believes that if it remains pleasantly average and certainly not excellent, everyone will love it. France is now paying the price for its colonial legacy in Africa and finds itself — all the way up to a president driven by political opportunism — in the chokehold of Islamist and antisemitic networks. In Britain, the prime minister is pursuing a similar course of cultural and economic submission. And Spain is governed by socialist fantasists who seem to take real pleasure in self-enfeeblement and whose “genocide in Gaza” rhetoric mainly mobilizes bored, well-heeled daughters of the upper middle class. Hope comes from Finland and Denmark, from the Baltic states and Poland, and — surprisingly — from Italy. There, the anti-democratic threats from Russia, China and Iran are assessed more realistically. Above all, there is a healthy drive to be better and more successful than others. From a far weaker starting point, there is an ambition for excellence. What Europe needs is less wounded pride and more patriotism defined by achievement. Unity and decisive action in defending Ukraine would be an obvious example — not merely talking about European sovereignty but demonstrating it, even in friendly dissent with the Americans. (And who knows, that might ultimately prompt a surprising shift in Washington’s Russia policy.) That, coupled with economic growth through real and far-reaching reforms, would be a start. After which Europe must tackle the most important task: a fundamental reversal of a migration policy rooted in cultural self-hatred that tolerates far too many newcomers who want a different society, who hold different values, and who do not respect our legal order. If all of this fails, American criticism will be vindicated by history. The excuses for why a European renewal is supposedly impossible or unnecessary are merely signs of weak leadership. The converse is also true: where there is political will, there is a way. And this way begins in Europe — with the spirit of renewal of a well-understood “Europe First” (what else?) — and leads to America. Europe needs America. America needs Europe. And perhaps both needed the deep crisis in the transatlantic relationship to recognize this with full clarity. As surprising as it may sound, at this very moment there is a real opportunity for a renaissance of a transatlantic community of shared interests. Precisely because the situation is so deadlocked. And precisely because pressure is rising on both sides of the Atlantic to do things differently. A trade war between Europe and America strengthens our shared adversaries. The opposite would be sensible: a New Deal between the EU and the U.S. Tariff-free trade as a stimulus for growth in the world’s largest and third-largest economies — and as the foundation for a shared policy of interests and, inevitably, a joint security policy of the free world. This is the historic opportunity that Friedrich Merz could now negotiate with Donald Trump. As Churchill said: “Never waste a good crisis!”