BRUSSELS ― Welcome to the real start of Ursula von der Leyen’s second term as European Commission president. On Thursday, the German politician easily defeated a vote of no-confidence brought by far-right politicians, convincing a comfortable majority of EU lawmakers (among those present) to reject the motion and keep her in office. The center-right European People’s Party “has shown again today that we are the stability factor for the EU project,” Manfred Weber, von der Leyen’s main conservative ally in Parliament, crowed after the vote. And yet the victory comes at considerable cost for the Commission president. Not only was she forced into publicly defending her actions in the so-called Pfizergate scandal, she also had to grant considerable concessions to the Socialists and Democrats group — her purported allies — to fend off a threat that their lawmakers would abstain in Thursday’s vote. “I think that she [von der Leyen] finally understood what is happening in Parliament,” trumpeted MEP René Repasi, head of the German SPD delegation in Parliament. Other groups are watching — and drawing conclusions. One is that it’s surprisingly easy to bring a vote of no confidence that has the potential to bring down the European Union’s most powerful institution: only 72 votes are needed. The other is that one doesn’t necessarily need to go as far as bringing down the Commission president. A well-formulated threat to inflict political damage and impede her wider agenda will do the job nicely. There was nothing, in theory, to stop parties from engaging in this sort of power play prior to Thursday’s vote. But the spectacle of seeing von der Leyen so vulnerable has unleashed something in her rivals and allies alike, emboldening them to criticize her in ways they would not have done before and normalizing a form of power politics that’s more common in national parliaments than it is in Brussels. In that sense, Thursday was a milestone: the true political start of von der Leyen’s second term in power. “The Commission must stop rolling back the Green Deal under the fallacy of cutting red tape and deliver on promises made,” Bas Eickhout, president of the Greens/EFA Group, warned. WHO WILL MOVE AGAINST HER NEXT? The motion of no-confidence came from a branch of the populist right, including some lawmakers who lean toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, and was thus easy to dismiss by all mainstream parties. But the next one may well come from a Left-Green bloc furious over the fact that von der Leyen is unwinding much of her green agenda. With a combined 99 seats in Parliament, they would have no trouble meeting the threshold to bring a no-confidence vote. Even so, the most serious threat to von der Leyen comes from members of the coalition that helped her win power in 2019 and 2024, namely the liberal Renew and S&D groups. Neither of these groups — which both lost considerable ground in the last election — has an interest in toppling von der Leyen as she remains their best hope of getting at least some of their policy wishes into law. But they will have learned that quiet, behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Commission may not be the best way to get what they want. If anything, the lesson from the past few weeks is that the opposite is true: Those who shout loudest and threaten the most effectively get their way. Once learned, that lesson may prove impossible to unlearn for a typically meek European Parliament. Max Griera and Sarah Wheaton contributed reporting.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music As Catholics gather in Rome to mourn Pope Francis, those hoping to succeed him are preparing to engage in one of the world’s oldest and most intriguing electoral contests. This week’s guest knows the inner workings of the Vatican and the key players involved as cardinals gather for the next conclave. Host Anne McElvoy talks to Francis Campbell, who served as Britain’s ambassador to the Holy See from 2005 to 2011. Campbell became ambassador not long after the death of Pope John Paul II and a few months into Benedict’s pontificate, which preceded that of Francis. He believes that the cardinals may opt for a break from the past, rather than for a continuity candidate. Brought up in Northern Ireland, Campbell was the first Catholic to represent the U.K. in the Vatican. He was a foreign policy adviser to former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who converted to Catholicism after he left office. Campbell is now vice-chancellor of the University of Notre Dame Australia.  

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music In a dramatic twist, President Trump announced an abrupt reversal of the tariff policy that had spooked the markets and threatened to upend world trade. While many trading partners have been given a temporary reprieve, Washington’s tit for tat with Beijing has reached new heights. Where does it leave the credibility of the Trump administration? Host Anne McElvoy talks to Jason Furman, former U.S. President Barack Obama’s top economic adviser and chair of his Council of Economic Advisers. He’s currently the Aetna Professor of the Practice of Economic Policy jointly at Harvard Kennedy School and the Department of Economics at Harvard University. She’s also joined by Nahal Toosi, POLITICO’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, who has been closely following the machinations of Trump’s new tariff regime. 

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music United States President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” of tariffs on foreign imports has roiled the markets and caused upset across the Atlantic. But is there anything opposition Democrats can do to curtail an all-powerful president? Host Anne McElvoy talks to Sen. Mark Kelly, former NASA astronaut and naval officer, who is one of the few prominent Democrats taking the fight to the Trump administration with gusto. Kelly’s criticism of the president’s approach to Ukraine turned into an ugly spat with Elon Musk, who called him a “traitor.” The politician from Arizona sits on the Senate’s influential Armed Services and Intelligence committees, where he’s been probing senior officials in the administration about leaked Signal messages detailing a recent U.S. combat mission. They discuss “Signalgate,” the impact of tariffs on the American and global economy, and how the Democrats can recover from last year’s election defeat.

LONDON — Keir Starmer has enjoyed mixed fortunes since becoming prime minister. But on matters of war and peace he may have just picked a winner. When Starmer chose Jonathan Powell as the latest U.K. national security adviser — effectively the PM’s top lieutenant on foreign policy — his credentials were obvious. As Tony Blair’s chief of staff from 1997 to 2007, Powell played a key role for the then-prime minister in hammering out the Good Friday Agreement, which helped establish peace after decades of violence in Northern Ireland. Powell’s skills as a negotiator have already been put to the test for Starmer. In the past week, he has helped draw up a ceasefire proposal put forward by the U.S. and Ukraine — the existence of which is a remarkable turnaround after the disastrous Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Alongside Starmer, Powell has worked hard to ensure that lines of communication were kept open in the wake of that public meltdown. Just last weekend, and on the eve of Saudi-hosted talks between the U.S. and Ukraine, Powell traveled to Kyiv to draft the agreement with Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. He returns to Washington, D.C. on Friday with European colleagues to meet Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, in a bid to sustain momentum. It is still much too soon for real optimism among Ukraine’s allies, with Russian President Vladimir Putin slapping heavy conditions on any Russian acceptance of the deal Thursday evening. But for now, Starmer and his top foreign policy brain have placed themselves firmly at the heart of a push for a peace that aims to leave Ukraine — and Europe — feeling less abandoned. THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE Those who know Powell say the crucial role he has played in the past few days strongly echoes his approach to the seemingly intractable decades-long conflict in Northern Ireland. Unlike Blair, when Powell first met the late Irish Republican leader Martin McGuinness, he refused to shake his hand. Powell’s own father, Air Vice-Marshal John Frederick Powell, was once hit by an Irish Republican Army bullet in an ambush — and his brother was a target for the IRA when he worked as an adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  Those who know Jonathan Powell say the crucial role he has played in the past few days strongly echoes his approach to the seemingly intractable decades-long conflict in Northern Ireland. | David Ramos/Getty Images Yet Powell became convinced through his experience of dealing with McGuinness and others that it was necessary to speak to people deemed terrorists — and the sooner the better, in order to do everything possible to avert loss of life. Richard English, director of the Mitchell Institute at Queen’s University Belfast, where Powell is an honorary professor, said his “preparedness to build relationships with the government’s former enemies was vital.” He added: “His experience has led him to argue that dialogue and engagement are often left too late.” After leaving government, Powell founded his own NGO specializing in conflict mediation. He was later tapped by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron to act as the U.K.’s envoy to Libya following the 1969 to 2011 reign of Muammar Gaddafi, a bruising experience, where getting peace negotiations off the ground proved far harder in the absence of a stable government and with dwindling international attention. “It hasn’t got a lot better since I started so I’m glad I’m not being paid by results,” he bluntly told the Guardian in 2015. “The only thing I know from working round the world is that it always takes longer than you think.” Powell has written about the importance of physically traveling to meet interlocutors on their turf as a way of building trust — an approach visible in his own recent travels but also in the U.K.’s wider bid to maintain a steady drumbeat of high-level visits to the U.S. Shortly after Starmer’s trip to the White House, Defense Secretary John Healey went to meet his American counterpart Pete Hegseth. Powell followed Friday, and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds is expected in the U.S. next week.  Peter Ricketts, who served as Cameron’s national security adviser, described Powell as “that critical international link” between the U.S. and the U.K., who as NSA has a White House phone on his desk “for secure communications with the U.S. national security adviser at any hour of the day or night.” The details of the plan that Powell thrashed out with Yermak again bore some hallmarks of his most famous success — including “confidence-building” measures, an approach that underpinned talks in the Northern Ireland peace process. He has also tried to persuade the U.S. that it cannot trust Russia — and that it is in Trump’s interests, not just Ukraine’s, to prevent Putin from gaining the upper hand, one person close to the talks said. SOFTLY, SOFTLY Britain’s international reputation has taken some knocks in the years that followed its exit from the EU. But Powell — a son of the establishment who spent his formative years at the Foreign Office — has been given an opportunity to show that the country can still handle finely-tuned diplomacy.  Powell told POLITICO’s Power Play podcast after Starmer was elected last year that the new PM would seek to convey the message that “Britain is back.” Jonathan Powell told POLITICO’s Power Play podcast after Keir Starmer was elected last year that the new PM would seek to convey the message that “Britain is back.” | Pool photo by Oli Scarff via Getty Images Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s powerful chief of staff, was instrumental in Powell’s return to Downing Street. McSweeney had sought advice from others who had performed the No. 10 chief of staff role before — and was so impressed by Powell that he decided he could be a vital source of wisdom for the government, especially on foreign affairs. Not long after, Starmer appointed Powell as his national security adviser. McSweeney himself doesn’t have much foreign policy experience, leaving yet more room for Powell to expand his authority in No. 10. “He’s playing a crucial role at the center, but a very low-profile one,” Ricketts noted of the man often seen lurking in the background in photographs of the British PM. “It’s not something a foreign secretary could do, for example, because it’s providing under-the-radar, intensive and close support to the Ukrainians.” English described Powell as a man with “extraordinary patience” and a “calm preparedness.” Emily Thornberry, Labour MP and chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, likewise told the BBC “he brings a depth of understanding and a calm” to the role. Even critics of Starmer’s overall approach are coming around to the security chief. A senior government adviser, granted anonymity like others in this piece because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the decision to appoint Powell was a clear win, even though they had been critical of Starmer’s judgment in some areas. They described the national security adviser as “ a proper grown up” and “a heavy hitter — he’s bigger than any of us in almost all of our specialisms.” SEEKING SUPERMAN Placing so much faith in one person, however, comes with its own risks, and not everyone finds Powell quite so charming. One former colleague who traveled with Powell said he could be “blunt” and “awkward in an English kind of way.” At times Powell can appear to have one foot in the past, the same person said. He has even been known to accidentally refer to the current prime minister as “Tony” — proving that old habits die hard. There is also the accusation that Starmer is relying too heavily on a single adviser for diplomatic firepower — with little in the way of back-up.  Powell is effectively doing what was previously two different jobs, working as the PM’s national security adviser and the No. 10 foreign policy adviser at the same time. One person with knowledge of the arrangement said: “It’s impossible for Jonathan Powell to do both of those jobs. You would have to be Superman to do both of those jobs at the same time.” And while Powell enjoys significant power at the heart of government, he is not exposed to scrutiny in the same way as Starmer or any of his ministers. POLITICO reported last week that the government will not allow Powell to give evidence to parliament’s Joint National Security Strategy Committee.  Committee chairman Matt Western complained that parliament’s ability to ask questions of the government’s strategy is being “stifled” as a result. Powell may be relieved not to be hauled in front of a committee at this delicate juncture. But the ultimate test of his endeavors remains: Will Russia move? And will the apparent rapprochement between Trump and Ukraine hold? The early signs have been mixed. It will now be a nervous wait for Powell as U.S. and Russian representatives meet to discuss a plan in which the U.K.’s national security adviser has himself been so instrumental. Dan Bloom and Tim Ross contributed reporting.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music The United States-Ukraine plan for a temporary ceasefire has turned up the heat on Russian President Vladimir Putin. What are Donald Trump’s next moves if Putin either refuses to accept the deal or places unacceptable demands on Ukraine and its allies? Host Anne McElvoy talks to Kurt Volker, who has a particular insight into Trump’s thinking on Ukraine. Volker was the U.S. special representative during his first administration and America’s ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush. They discuss how any ensuing negotiations might play out and whether a meaningful peace deal can be achieved.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Will Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s olive branch to Donald Trump be enough to secure Ukraine’s future — and his own? After his bruising encounter with the U.S. president in the Oval Office, Zelenskyy issued an eleventh-hour missive and said he was ready to sign the minerals deal and “work fast to end the war.” Host Anne McElvoy speaks with one of the most senior politicians in Ukraine, Oleksandr Merezhko, Foreign Affairs Parliamentary Committee chair and staunch Zelenskyy ally, who argues that Trump is “being used by Putin” in his attempts to force a deal and call for fresh elections in Ukraine. She is also joined by POLITICO Europe’s Opinion Editor Jamie Dettmer from Kyiv on the fast-moving realpolitik being played between Ukraine, the U.S. and European capitals.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music The French president and British prime minister have been to the White House to urge President Donald Trump not to abandon Kyiv as negotiations with Russia loom. Trump’s attacks on Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration’s approach to the Western alliance have caused consternation among European capitals. This week, host Anne McElvoy talks to Dan Crenshaw, a Republican congressman representing the Second Congressional District in Texas and an ally of President Trump. A former Navy SEAL, Crenshaw served in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he lost an eye to a bomb blast in the province of Helmand. He was in London to attend the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference, where right-wing thinkers from Europe and the U.S. gathered. They discuss Trump’s position on Ukraine, Russia and the Western alliance as well as transgender rights in the U.S. military. Crenshaw argues that Europe needs to mount a more aggressive defense posture or “shut up” about the need for American support.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music President Donald Trump’s quick-fire approach to ending Russia’s war against Ukraine has left European allies worried they are being sidelined by the United States administration, as Washington and Moscow conduct direct negotiations. It has also caused a crisis in European capitals about the future of NATO, created in the wake of World War II to uphold security in Europe and protect it from a Russian threat. Now, it’s America that looks as if it’s turning its back on NATO and Europe — in search of a grand bargain with Moscow. Host Anne McElvoy talks with John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who also served as national security adviser under Trump, and Sanna Marin, Finland’s prime minister from 2019 to 2023, who led the country to its NATO accession.

A former national security adviser to Donald Trump warned that the U.S. president’s proposed deal to end the war in Ukraine “comes pretty close to surrender” to Vladimir Putin’s objectives — and cautioned that the process could lead to the U.S exiting NATO. John Bolton, who served under Trump for seventeen months  from 2018 to 2019 in his first term in the White House before  leaving in a rift over foreign policy, told POLITICO’s Power Play podcast that the result of any such agreement would be to weaken both Ukraine and Europe’s security. Speaking to Power Play host Anne McElvoy, Bolton predicted that that a hasty end to the war in Ukraine could swiftly open the door to the U.S exiting NATO. “I thought Trump would withdraw from NATO and he hasn’t done that yet, but you can hear the music begin to play,” Bolton said. “There’d be a cease-fire in place, a militarized zone would be created, negotiations would begin, Ukraine would agree not to join NATO — which is a settlement that really, they could have written in the Kremlin.” PEACEKEEPERS WARNING As European leaders scrambled this week to respond to proposals to end the war without the involvement of Ukraine, and as President Trump doubled down on criticism of the Ukrainian leadership, Bolton told the podcast that leaders including U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer were at risk of making the wrong decisions by accepting a Trump-Putin deal was likely to proceed and planning for its aftermath. Asked how he viewed Starmer’s pledge to be “ready and willing” to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine to police a cease-fire, Bolton was dismissive. “I’m against deploying a peacekeeping force,” he said. “Experience with the United Nations has demonstrated that once you deploy a peacekeeping force, it can become a permanent part of the landscape, and in this case amount to a de facto partition of Ukraine that could become de jure after a period of time.” Bolton asked: “What exactly is the role of the force to be? Is it to enforce a cease-fire, in which case the rules of engagement would have to authorize the peacekeepers to use force to keep the cease-fire from breaking down? “Or is it a U.N. kind of peace force, where violators get waved at by the peacekeepers as they go merrily on their way? These are critical differences, and at least I haven’t heard any discussion among the Europeans which of the two they have in mind.” The former national security adviser argued that Europe would do better to back Ukraine strongly by replenishing weapons and support, rather than engaging in planning for future scenarios agreed between Trump and Putin. “There’s no absolute obligation to have negotiations with a cease-fire,” he said. “So unless you’re prepared to give up on any possibility of Ukraine getting its territory back, the idea that you’re going to freeze the existing lines of control is potentially very dangerous.” DITCH THE EUROPE TALKS — AND COURT RUBIO President Macron sought to define a unified European position in talks on the Trump-Putin plan earlier this week. But Bolton voiced doubts about the ability of Europeans to act as a collective block on the emerging U.S.-Russia alignment. He said: “NATO had a common position up until February. 11 when the Putin-Trump phone conversation took place. Now, I don’t know where the U.S. is with regard to the position that NATO formally took as an institution. “But I think major European states can speak on their own. Individual states speak from a position of power. They have military force. They make decisions to provide Ukraine with military assistance, including lethal assistance. The European Union doesn’t do that.” Asked if anything might change Trump’s mind after a week in which the president hardened his support for a deal and dismissed Ukrainian objections, Bolton suggested European leaders should court U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to mitigate damage and prevent a rout in Ukraine turning into an American exit from NATO. “He doesn’t do policy in the sense people normally understand that term,” said Bolton of the “chaotic” Trump. “And therefore, working with different members, talking to Marco Rubio, talking to (National Security Advisor) Mike Waltz, as opposed to talking to (Secretary of Defense) Pete Hegseth could make a difference.” The current scenario, Bolton said, would test Rubio’s previously stated commitment to keeping the U.S. in the Atlantic security alliance, pointedly adding: “Well maybe he’s not Marco Rubio anymore.” Bolton pointed out that Rubio and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine had previously introduced legislation meant to stop a president from withdrawing from NATO without majority support in both houses of Congress. “It showed Rubio as a defender of NATO,” Bolton recalled. “And it was in the context, clearly, of concern about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “So maybe he doesn’t believe that anymore: I don’t know. But it seems to me it’s a proposition worth testing.”