Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die SPD ringt sichtbar mit ihrem Führungsanspruch. Parteichefin und Arbeitsministerin Bärbel Bas schließt eine Kanzlerkandidatur 2029 für sich schon mal aus und löst damit Zweifel an Ambition, Rollenverständnis und strategischer Orientierung der Sozialdemokratie aus. Gordon Repinski analysiert, warum diese Aussage keine persönliche Zurückhaltung  ist und was sie über den aktuellen Zustand der SPD sagt. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview stellt sich der Parlamentarische Geschäftsführer der SPD-Fraktion Dirk Wiese den Fragen nach Richtung und Selbstverständnis seiner Partei. Es geht um Bürgergeld, Reformen, Sanktionen, Rentenfragen, die Energiepreise und um darum, ob die SPD noch auf Sieg spielt oder sich mit Verwaltung begnügt. Danach der Blick nach Sachsen-Anhalt. Beim IHK-Neujahrsempfang in Halle sendet Kanzler Friedrich Merz wirtschaftspolitische Signale, die in der Koalition noch für Diskussionen sorgen werden. Rasmus Buchsteiner ordnet ein, warum Merz dort über längeres Arbeiten, Steuerpolitik und das Heizungsgesetz spricht und wie groß die Nervosität der CDU mit Blick auf die starke AfD ist. Und: Donald Trumps Ansprüche auf Grönland lösen weitere Sorgen aus in Dänemark, aber auch für unerwartete wirtschaftliche Effekte mit einer ironischen Note. Den Spaziergang mit Ulrich Siegmund findet ihr zum Nachhören hier und das 200-Sekunden-Interview mit Sven Schulze zum Unvereinbarkeitsbeschluss hier. Die Machthaber-Folge, in der wir Giorgia Meloni porträtiert haben, gibt es hier.  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. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

LONDON — Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is set to take up a role in making decisions on Gaza’s future, according to three people familiar with the plans. The ex-leader is being lined up for a seat on an executive committee attached to the larger “Board of Peace,” the body that will oversee the transitional governance of Gaza under the deal negotiated with U.S. President Donald Trump last year for a truce in the war that followed the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. Blair had been discussed as a candidate to serve on the Board of Peace, but POLITICO has learned he is instead in line for a place on the executive committee, while the larger Board of Peace effort will be led by Bulgarian diplomat Nikolay Mladenov. The FT reported that the executive committee will also include U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The White House, Witkoff and Kushner did not immediately reply to questions. The Board of Peace is now expected to consist of the heads of state of at least nine countries, according to one person familiar with the matter: the U.S., U.K., Italy, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Jordan. The Sunday Times reported this past weekend that Keir Starmer had been offered a place on the board, but U.K. officials said Wednesday that no formal invite for the British PM has yet been received, and no decision has been made about his future role. Starmer’s spokesman told reporters: “Engagement with the U.S. to support the implementation of the 20-point peace plan continues. The board of peace is one element of the plan. Conversations about the exact shape of that are ongoing.” Witkoff posted on X: “Today, on behalf of President Trump, we are announcing the launch of Phase Two of the President’s 20-Point Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” When he announced his 20-point peace plan, Trump said he himself would chair the Board of Peace. The only other potential member he named was Blair, who was closely involved in drafting the U.S.-led deal. Since then, British officials have stressed that while Blair had played a valuable role he had not been put forward as a broker by the U.K. government, and that the E3 group of Britain, France and Germany would seek their own representatives on the board. Middle Eastern leaders had reportedly voiced concerns about the involvement of Blair because of his role in the invasion of Iraq. The FT reported that the executive committee will also include U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA The executive committee is separate from the Palestinian-led committee responsible for managing reconstruction, security and political transition. On Wednesday, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey announced in a joint statement that Ali Shaath, a former Palestinian Authority official, had been chosen to head the Palestinian technocratic committee charged with administering the Gaza Strip. Nahal Toosi, Dan Bloom and Emilio Casalicchio contributed reporting.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Donald Trump kündigt  Strafzölle gegen alle Staaten an, die weiterhin Handel mit dem Iran treiben. Für Deutschland und Europa stellt sich damit erneut die Frage, wie politisch motivierte Zölle die Wirtschaftsbeziehungen verändern und welche Risiken für Unternehmen entstehen. Rixa Fürsen ordnet die wirtschaftlichen Folgen gemeinsam mit Romanus Otte von “PRO Industrie & Handel” ein. Er erklärt, warum selbst ein inzwischen kleines Handelsvolumen mit dem Iran politisch relevant bleibt und weshalb Trumps Zollpolitik vor allem Unsicherheit erzeugt. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Armin Laschet über die Lage im Iran und die Chancen eines Regimewandels.  Danach richtet sich der Blick auf die Innenpolitik. In der Regierungsbefragung ist heute unter anderem Innenminister Alexander Dobrindt. Es geht um den Schutz kritischer Infrastruktur nach dem Stromausfall in Berlin, um linksextreme Gewalt und um die Frage, wie wehrhaft Deutschland gegen Sabotage und hybride Bedrohungen ist. Rasmus Buchsteiner erklärt, warum das entsprechende Gesetz erneut ins Stocken geraten ist und welche Konsequenzen nun diskutiert werden. Und: ein kurzer Blick auf eine politische Verwechslung, die im Berliner Politikbetrieb immer wieder für Erheiterungen sorgt. 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. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol , Mathias Sanchez Luna

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Zurück im Bundestag, zurück auf Fraktionsebene: SPD und Union starten mit zwei Pressekonferenzen in das politische Jahr. Beide liefern sehr unterschiedliche Antworten auf die wirtschaftliche Lage. Auslöser ist das neue SPD-Konzept zur Erbschaftsteuer, das Fragen von Gerechtigkeit, Wachstum und Timing aufwirft. Während die SPD eine Reform noch in diesem Jahr anpeilt, warnt die Union vor einem wachstumsfeindlichen Signal.  Rixa Fürsen und Rasmus Buchsteiner ordnen ein, warum es um mehr geht als eine einzelne Steuer: um Profilbildung zum Jahresauftakt, die Arbeitsweise der Koalition, das ausstehende Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und die Frage, wie konfliktfähig Schwarz-Rot 2026 wirklich 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. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music In Sachsen-Anhalt stellen sich der CDU-Vorstand, die Fraktion aber auch die Koalitionspartner SPD und FDP hinter die Entscheidung von Ministerpräsident Reiner Haseloff, sich Ende Januar zurückzuziehen.  Damit macht er den Weg frei für Wirtschaftsminister und CDU-Spitzenkandidat Sven Schulze. Der Wechsel kommt wenige Monate vor der Landtagswahl und soll verhindern, dass die AfD stärkste Kraft wird und damit der erste Ministerpräsident der Alternative ins Amt kommt. Rixa Fürsen bespricht mit Nikolaus Doll von der WELT, warum dieser Schritt so spät erfolgt und welche Chancen Schulze jetzt noch hat. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview erklärt Sepp Müller, Vorsitzender der CDU Landesgruppe Sachsen-Anhalt im Bundestag, warum die Union trotz deutlichem Rückstand an einen Wahlsieg glaubt und weshalb Koalitionen mit AfD oder Linken ausgeschlossen bleiben. Auf Bundesebene stellt die SPD heute ihr Konzept für eine Reform der Erbschaftsteuer vor. Jasper Bennink ordnet ein, was der geplante “Lebensfreibetrag” bedeutet, wie groß bzw. klein die erwarteten Mehreinnahmen sind und wie aus dem SPD-Vorhaben ein Regierungsvorhaben werden könnte. 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. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

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.”

Josep Borrell is the former high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and former vice-president of the European Commission. In too many corners of the world — including our own — democracy is losing oxygen. Disinformation is poisoning debate, authoritarian leaders are staging “elections” without real choice, and citizens are losing faith that their vote counts. Even as recently as the Jan. 3 U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, we have seen opposition leaders who are internationally recognized as having the democratic support of their people be sidelined. None of this is new. Having devoted much of his work to critiquing the absolute concentration of power in dictatorial figures, the long-exiled Paraguayan writer Augusto Roa Bastos found that when democracy loses ground, gradually and inexorably a singular and unquestionable end takes its place: power. And it shapes the leader as a supreme being, one who needs no higher democratic processes to curb their will. This is the true peril of the backsliding we’re witnessing in the world today. A few decades ago, the tide of democracy seemed unstoppable, bringing freedom and prosperity to an ever-greater number of countries. And as that democratic wave spread, so too did the practice of sending impartial international observers to elections as a way of supporting democratic development. In both boosting voter confidence and assuring the international community of democratic progress, election observation has been one of the EU’s quiet success stories for decades. However, as international development budgets shrink, some are questioning whether this practice still matters. I believe this is a grave mistake. Today, attacks on the integrity of electoral processes, the subtle — or brazen — manipulation of votes and narratives, and the absolute answers given to complex problems are allowing Roa Basto’s concept of power to infiltrate our democratic societies. And as the foundations of pluralism continue to erode, autocrats and autocratic practices are rising unchecked. By contrast, ensuring competitive, transparent and fair elections is the antidote to authoritarianism. To that end, the bloc has so far deployed missions to observe more than 200 elections in 75 countries. And determining EU cooperation and support for those countries based on the conclusions of these missions has, in turn, incentivized them to strengthen democratic practices. The impact is tangible. Our 2023 mission in Guatemala, for example, which was undertaken alongside the Organization of American States and other observer groups, supported the credibility of the country’s presidential election and helped scupper malicious attempts to undermine the result. And yet, many now argue that in a world of hybrid regimes, cyber threats and political polarization, international observers can do little to restore confidence in flawed processes — and that other areas, such as defense, should take priority. In both boosting voter confidence and assuring the international community of democratic progress, election observation has been one of the EU’s quiet success stories for decades. | Robert Ghement/EPA I don’t agree. Now, more than ever, is the time to stick up for democracy — the most fundamental of EU values. As many of the independent citizen observer groups we view as partners lose crucial funding, it is vital we continue to send missions. In fact, cutting back support would be a false economy, amounting to silence precisely when truth and transparency are being drowned out. I myself observed elections as chair of the European Parliament’s Development Committee. I saw firsthand how EU observation has developed well beyond spotting overt ballot stuffing to detecting the subtleties of unfair candidate exclusions, tampering with the tabulation of results behind closed doors and, more recently, the impact of online manipulation and disinformation. In my capacity as high representative I also decided to send observation missions to controversial countries, including Venezuela. Despite opposition from some, our presence there during the 2021 local elections was greatly appreciated by the opposition. Our findings sparked national and international discussions over electoral conditions, democratic standards and necessary changes. And when the time comes for new elections once more — as it surely must — the presence of impartial international observers will be critical to restoring the confidence of Venezuelans in the electoral process. At the same time, election observation is being actively threatened by powers like Russia, which promote narratives opposed to electoral observations carried out by the organizations that endorse the Declaration of Principles on International Election Observation (DoP) — a landmark document that set the global standard for impartial monitoring. A few years ago, for instance, a Russian parliamentary commission sharply criticized our observation efforts, pushing for the creation of alternative monitoring bodies that, quite evidently, fuel disinformation and legitimize authoritarian regimes — something that has also happened in Azerbaijan and Belarus. When a credible international observation mission publishes a measured and facts-based assessment, it becomes a reference point for citizens and institutions alike. It provides an anchor for dialogue, a benchmark against which all actors can measure their conduct. Above all, it signals to citizens that the international community is watching — not to interfere but to support their right to a meaningful choice. Of course, observation must evolve as well. We now monitor not only ballot boxes but also algorithms, online narratives and the influence of artificial intelligence. We are strengthening post-electoral follow-up and developing new tools to verify data and detect manipulation, exploring the ways in which AI can be a force for good. In line with this, last month I lent my support to the DoP’s endorsers — including the EU, the United Nations, the African Union, the Organization of American States and dozens of international organizations and NGOs — as they met at the U.N. in Geneva to mark the declaration’s 20th anniversary, and to reaffirm their commitment to strengthen election observation in the face of new threats and critical funding challenges. Just days later we learned of the detention of Dr. Sarah Bireete, a leading non-partisan citizen observer, ahead of the Jan. 15 elections in Uganda. These recent events are a wake-up call to renew this purpose. Election observation is only worthwhile if we’re willing to defend the principle of democracy itself. As someone born into a dictatorship, I know all too well that democratic freedoms cannot be taken for granted. In a world of contested truths and ever-greater power plays, democracy needs both witnesses and champions. The EU, I hope, will continue to be among them.

Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. 2026 is here, and Europe is under siege. External pressure from Russia is mounting in Ukraine, China is undermining the EU’s industrial base, and the U.S. — now effectively threatening to annex the territory of a NATO ally — is undermining the EU’s multilateral rule book, which appears increasingly outdated in a far more transactional and less cooperative world. And none of this shows signs of slowing down. In fact, in the year ahead, the steady erosion of the norms Europe has come to rely on will only be compounded by the bloc’s weak leadership — especially in the so-called “E3” nations of Germany, France and the U.K. Looking forward, the greatest existential risks for Europe will flow from the transatlantic relationship. For the bloc’s leaders, keeping the U.S. invested in the war in Ukraine was the key goal for 2025. And the best possible outcome for 2026 will be a continuation of the ad-hoc diplomacy and transactionalism that has defined the last 12 months. However, if new threats emerge in this relationship — especially regarding Greenland — this balancing act may be impossible. The year also starts with no sign of any concessions from Russia when it comes to its ceasefire demands, or any willingness to accept the terms of the 20-point U.S.-EU-Ukraine plan. This is because Russian President Vladimir Putin is calculating that Ukraine’s military situation will further deteriorate, forcing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to capitulate to territorial demands. I believe Putin is wrong — that backed by Europe, Zelenskyy will continue to resist U.S. pressure on territorial concessions, and instead, increasingly target Russian energy production and exports in addition to resisting along the frontline. Of course, this means Russian aerial attacks against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure will also increase in kind. Nonetheless, Europe’s growing military spending, purchase of U.S. weapons, financing for Kyiv and sanctions against Russia — which also target sources of energy revenue — could help maintain last year’s status quo. But this is perhaps the best case scenario. Activists protest outside Downing street against the recent policies of Donald Trump. | Guy Smallman/Getty Images Meanwhile, European leaders will be forced to publicly ignore Washington’s support for far-right parties, which was clearly spelled out in the new U.S. national security strategy, while privately doing all they can to counter any antiestablishment backlash at the polls. Specifically, the upcoming election in Hungary will be a bellwether for whether the MAGA movement can tip the balance for its ideological affiliates in Europe, as populist, euroskeptic Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is currently poised to lose for the first time in 15 years. Orbán, for his part, has been frantically campaigning to boost voter support, signaling that he and his inner circle actually view defeat as a possibility. His charismatic rival Péter Magyar, who shares his conservative-nationalist political origins but lacks any taint of corruption poses a real challenge, as does the country’s stagnating economy and rising prices. While traditional electoral strategies — financial giveaways, smear campaigns and war fearmongering — have so far proven ineffective for Orbán, a military spillover from Ukraine that directly affects Hungary could reignite voter fears and shift the dynamic. To top it all off, these challenges will be compounded by the E3’s weakness. The hollowing out of Europe’s political center has already been a decade in the making. But France, Germany and the U.K. each entered 2026 with weak, unpopular governments besieged by the populist right and left, as well as a U.S. administration rooting for their collapse. While none face scheduled general elections, all three risk paralysis at best and destabilization at worst. And at least one leader — namely, Britain’s Keir Starmer — could fall because of an internal party revolt. The year’s pivotal event in the U.K. will be the midterm elections in May. As it stands, the Labour Party faces the humiliation of coming third in the Welsh parliament, failing to oust the Scottish National Party in the Scottish parliament and losing seats to both the Greens and ReformUK in English local elections. Labour MPs already expect a formal challenge to Starmer as party leader, and his chances of surviving seem slight. France, meanwhile, entered 2026 without a budget for the second consecutive year. The good news for President Emmanuel Macron is that his Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s minority government will probably achieve a budget deal targeting a modest deficit reduction by late February or March. And with the presidential election only 16 months away and local elections due to be held in March, the opposition’s appetite for a snap parliamentary election has abated. However, this is the best he can hope for, as a splintered National Assembly will sustain a mood of slow-motion crisis until the 2027 race. Finally, while Germany’s economy looks like it will slightly recover this year, it still won’t overcome its structural malaise. Largely consumed by ideological divisions, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government will struggle to implement far-reaching reforms. And with the five upcoming state elections expected to see increased vote shares for the far-right Alternative for Germany party, pressure on the government in Berlin will only mount A historic truth — one often forgotten in the quiet times — will reassert itself in 2026: that liberty, stability, prosperity and peace in Europe are always brittle. The holiday from history, provided by Pax Americana and exceptional post-World War II cooperation and integration, has officially come to an end. Moving forward, Europe’s relevance in the new global order will be defined by its response to Russia’s increased hybrid aggression, its influence on diplomacy regarding the Ukraine war and its ability to improve competitiveness, all while managing an increasingly ascendant far right and addressing the existential threats to its economy and security posed by Russia, China and the U.S. This is what will decide whether Europe can survive.

President Donald Trump’s promise to revive the Venezuelan oil industry drew praise from U.S. energy executives on Friday — but no firm commitments to invest the vast sums of money needed to bring the country’s oil output back from the doldrums. The lack of firm pledges from the heads of the companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips that Trump summoned to the White House raised doubts about the president’s claim that U.S. oil producers were ready to spend $100 billion or more to rebuild Venezuela’s crude oil infrastructure. The country boasts the world’s largest oil reserves, but its production has cratered since the regime pushed most of those companies out decades ago. Exxon CEO Darren Woods offered the starkest assessment, telling Trump in the live-streamed meeting in the East Room that Venezuela is “uninvestable” under current conditions. He said major changes were needed before his company would return to the country, and that big questions remain about what return Exxon could expect from any investments. “If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” Woods told Trump. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.” Still, Woods said he was confident the U.S. can help make those changes, and said he expected Exxon could put a technical team on the ground in Venezuela soon to assess the state of its oil infrastructure. Harold Hamm, a fracking executive and major Trump ally, expressed more enthusiasm but still fell short of making any commitments. “It excites me as an explorationist,” Hamm, whose experience has centered on oil production inside the U.S., said of the opportunity to invest in Venezuela. “It is a very exciting country and a lot of reserves — it’s got its challenges and the industry knows how to handle that.” Still, Energy Secretary Chris Wright pointed reporters after the meeting to a statement from Chevron — the only major U.S. oil company still operating in Venezuela — that it was ready to raise its output as a concrete sign the industry was willing to put more money into the country. Chevron currently produces about 240,000 barrels a day there with its partner, the Venezuelan state-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA. Mark Nelson, Chevron’s vice chairman, told the gathering the company sees “a path forward” to increase production from its existing operations by 50 percent over the next 18 to 24 months. He did not commit to a dollar figure, however. Wright indicated that the $100 billion figure cited by Trump on Thursday was an estimate for the cost of reconstructing Venezuela’s dilapidated oil sector — rather than a firm spending commitment made by producing companies. “If you look at what’s a positive trajectory for Venezuela’s oil industry in the next decade, that’s probably going to take about $100 billion investment,” said Wright, who later told Bloomberg Television he is likely to travel to Venezuela “before too long.” Most of the nearly two dozen companies in attendance at Friday’s meeting expressed tepid support for the administration’s plan, though others indicated they were eager to jump back quickly. Wael Sawan, the CEO of the European energy giant Shell, said the company had been pushed out in Venezuela’s nationalization program in the 1970s, giving up 1 million barrels per day of oil production. Now it was seeking U.S. permits to go back, he said. “We are ready to go and looking forward to the investment in support of the Venezuelan people,” he said. Jeffery Hildebrand, CEO of independent oil and gas producer Hilcorp Energy and a major Trump donor, said his company was “fully committed and ready to go to rebuild the infrastructure in Venezuela.” Trump said during the meeting that companies that invest in Venezuela would be assured “total safety, total security,” without the U.S. government spending taxpayer dollars or putting boots on the ground. He indicated that Venezuela would provide security for the U.S. companies, and that the companies would bring their own protection as well. “These are tough people. They go into areas that you wouldn’t want to go. They go into areas that if they invited me, I’d say, ‘No, thanks. I’ll see you back in Palm Beach,’” Trump said of the oil companies. Before the executives spoke, Trump insisted that oil executives are lining up to take the administration up on the opportunity. “If you don’t want to go in, just let me know,” he said. “There are 25 people not here today willing to take your place.” Following the public meeting, the companies stayed for further discussions with administration officials behind closed doors. The president also dismissed speculation that the administration may offer financial guarantees to back up what he acknowledged would be a risky investment. “I hope I don’t have to give a backstop,” he said. “These are the biggest companies in the world sitting around this table — they know the risks.” Trump also laughed off the billions that Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are owed for the assets seized by the Venezuelan regime decades ago. “Nice write-off,” he quipped. “You’ll get a lot of your money back,” Trump told ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance. “We’re going to start with an even plate, though — we’re not going to look at what people lost in the past because that was their fault.” ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said in a statement that Lance “appreciates today’s valuable opportunity to engage with President Trump in a discussion about preparing Venezuela to be investment ready.” The White House at the last minute shifted the meeting from a closed-door session in the Cabinet Room to a live-televised spectacle in the East Room. “Everybody wants to be there,” the president wrote of the oil executives on social media just ahead of the meeting. POLITICO reported on Thursday that the White House had scrambled to invite additional companies to the meeting because of skepticism from the top oil majors about reentering the country. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged in an appearance Thursday that “big oil companies who move slowly … are not interested,” but said the administration’s “phones are ringing off the hook” with calls from smaller players. Bethany Williams, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, called Friday’s meeting “a constructive, initial conversation that highlighted both the energy potential and the challenges presented in Venezuela, including the importance of rule of law, security, and stable governance.” Venezuela — even with strongman Nicolás Maduro in custody in New York — remains under the rule of the same socialist government that appropriated the rigs, pipelines and property of foreign oil companies two decades ago. Questions remain about who would guarantee the companies’ workers’ safety, particularly since Trump has publicly ruled out sending in troops. Kevin Book, a managing director at the energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners, noted that few CEOs in the meeting outright rejected the notion of returning to or investing in Venezuela, instead couching any sort of presence on several conditions. Some of those might be nearer term, such as security guarantees. Others, like reestablishing legal stability in Venezuela, appear more distant. “They need to understand the risk and they need to understand the return,” Book said. “What it sounded like most of the companies were saying … is that they want to understand the risk and the return and then they’ll look at the investment.” Evanan Romero, a Houston-based oil consultant involved in the Trump administration’s effort to bring U.S. oil producers back to Venezuela, said international oil companies will not return to the country under the same laws and government that expropriated their assets decades earlier. “The main contribution that [interim president] Delcy [Rodríguez] and her government can do is make a bonfire of those laws and put it on fire in the Venezuelan Bolivar Square,” Romero said. “With those, we cannot do any reconstruction of the oil industry.” Zack Colman and Irie Sentner contributed to this report.

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.”