The EU’s antifraud watchdog said it has passed on to prosecutors allegations of potential corruption at the European Economic and Social Committee, a Brussels-based body that advises the EU on proposed legislation and policy. OLAF, the antifraud office, received a report from whistleblowers earlier this year saying there was a conflict of interest in the management of funds at the EESC, which is financed by the EU. It has now passed the case to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. OLAF’s press office told POLITICO it had sent the case to EPPO but added that it could not comment further. The EPPO did not immediately respond to a request for comment. “The EESC was informed by OLAF yesterday that this case has been transmitted to the EPPO,” an EESC spokesperson told POLITICO. “Under these circumstances, the EESC cannot comment further except to re-confirm that when these matters first arose, the EESC president immediately and proactively referred the allegations to OLAF. The EESC will continue to respect fully the independence of this process.” Séamus Boland of Ireland was elected president in October 2025. “The EESC and its senior leadership take this matter very seriously and remain fully committed to integrity, transparency and accountability,” the spokesperson added. The EPPO has significantly stronger enforcement powers than OLAF. Whereas OLAF conducts administrative investigations, the EPPO investigates crimes against the financial interests of the EU, and can search private homes or seize evidence. OLAF has also been investigating a report that EESC executives tried to smoke out a staff whistleblower who raised the alarm about the funding concerns, the EU Ombudsman told POLITICO. Anonymous letters, seen by POLITICO, say that IT workers at the EESC were asked by senior managers to identify which staffers had connected to the OLAF website in previous weeks. The EESC said those anonymous letters contained “serious personal threats” and added that they were not made through the EESC’s “robust formal whistleblower process.”

LONDON — Keir Starmer will strive for “maximum transparency” when releasing files on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the U.S., a senior U.K. minister said Wednesday. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the prime minister wants to release as much information into the public domain about how Mandelson was appointed, his correspondence with ministers and his subsequent sacking last September over the former Labour peer’s friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “The prime minister’s going for maximum transparency here,” Streeting, a former friend of Mandelson, told Sky, though added the PM is “obviously drawing a line” by “not releasing information where it might compromise our national security and our security services, or where there may be information in there that might undermine international relations with other countries.” The opposition Conservatives have put forward a humble address — a parliamentary message to King Charles that was favored by Starmer during his time as leader of the opposition — calling for “all papers” relating to Mandelson’s appointment last year to be published. These include “due diligence which was passed to Number 10,” conflict of interest forms over his work in Russia and China, and correspondence (including electronic communications) between Mandelson, ministers and the PM’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney — who encouraged Starmer to send the then Labour peer to Washington. The government has published an amendment to the address accepting the Tories’ request, with the caveat that it will exclude “papers prejudicial to U.K. national security or international relations.” U.K. lawmakers will debate the substance of what should be released this afternoon. “What we’ve seen in recent days also is a prime minister acting rapidly to make sure that Peter Mandelson is stripped of all of the titles and privileges that were conferred on him through public service,” Streeting told the BBC, calling his behavior “so jaw-droppingly stupid and outrageous.” The Metropolitan Police confirmed Tuesday evening that Mandelson is under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office after it appeared he leaked sensitive government discussions at the height of the financial crisis to the late financier. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. And in a Times Newspaper interview that was conducted before the most recent batch of Epstein files were released, Mandelson attempted to explain his historic association with the disgraced financier. “I don’t know what his motives were — probably mixed — but he provided guidance to help me navigate out of the world of politics and into the world of commerce and finance,” Mandelson told the newspaper. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. Mandelson also resigned from the House of Lords and left Labour following the latest tranche of correspondence in the Epstein Files.

A group of researchers is suing Elon Musk’s X to gain access to data on Hungary’s upcoming elections to assess the risk of interference, they told POLITICO. Hungary is set to hold a highly contentious election in April as populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán faces the toughest challenge yet to his 16-year grip on power. The lawsuit by Democracy Reporting International (DRI) comes after the civil society group, in November, applied for access to X data to study risks to the Hungarian election, including from disinformation. After X rejected their request, the researchers took the case to the Berlin Regional Court, which said it is not competent to rule on the case. DRI — with the support of the Society for Civil Rights and law firm Hausfeld — is now appealing to a higher Berlin court, which has set a hearing date of Feb. 17. Sites including X are obliged to grant researchers access to data under the European Union’s regulatory framework for social media platforms, the Digital Services Act, to allow external scrutiny of how platforms handle major online risks, including election interference. The European Commission fined X €40 million for failing to provide data access in December, as part of a €120 million levy for non-compliance with transparency obligations. The lawsuit is the latest legal challenge to X after the researchers went down a similar path last year to demand access to data related to the German elections in February 2025. A three-month legal drama, which saw a judge on the case dismissed after X successfully claimed they had a conflict of interest, ended with the court throwing out the case. The platform said that was a “comprehensive victory” because “X’s unwavering commitment to protecting user data and defending its fundamental right to due process has prevailed.” The researchers also claimed a win: The court threw the case out on the basis of a lack of urgency, as the elections were well in the past, said DRI. The groups say the ruling sets a legal precedent for civil society groups to take platforms to court where the researchers are located, rather than in the platforms’ legal jurisdictions (which, in X’s case, would be Ireland). X did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment on Monday.

ABOARD THE PRIME MINISTER’S PLANE TO BEIJING — Keir Starmer rejected his Canadian counterpart’s call for mid-sized countries to band together in the face of unpredictable global powers — and insisted his “common sense” British approach will do just fine. The British prime minister arrives in China Wednesday for a trip aimed at rebooting the U.K.’s relationship with the Asian superpower. He’s the latest Western leader to make the visit — which will include a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping — after trips by Carney and France’s Emmanuel Macron. Carney used a searing speech at the World Economic Forum last week to warn of the “rupture” caused by “great powers” acting in their own self-interest. While he did not namecheck Donald Trump’s administration, the speech riled the U.S. president, who insisted: “Canada lives because of the United States.” The Canadian PM had called for middle powers to work together to “build something bigger, better, stronger, more just.” Starmer was pressed on those remarks on board his flight to China Tuesday. Asked whether he agreed that the old global order is dead — and whether smaller powers need to team up to push back at the U.S. and China, Starmer defended his own policy of trying to build bridges with Trump, Xi and the European Union all at once. “I’m a pragmatist, a British pragmatist applying common sense, and therefore I’m pleased that we have a good relationship with the U.S. on defense, security, intelligence and on trade and prosperity,” he says. “It’s very important that we maintain that good relationship.” He added: “Equally, we are moving forward with a better relationship with the EU. We had a very good summit last year with 10 strands of agreement. “We’ll have another summit this year with the EU, which I hope will be iterative, as well as following through on what we’ve already agreed. “And I’ve consistently said I’m not choosing between the U.S. and Europe. I’m really glad that the UK has got good relations with both.” Starmer’s government — which faces pressure from opposition parties back home as it re-engages with China — has stressed that it wants to cooperate, compete with and challenge Beijing when necessary, as it bids to build economic ties to aid the sputtering U.K. economy. “Obviously, China is the second biggest economy in the world, one of our biggest trading partners,” the British PM — who is flying with an entourage of British CEOs and business reps — said Tuesday. “And under the last government, we veered from the golden age to the ice age. And what I want to do is follow through on the approach I’ve set out a number of times now … which is a comprehensive and consistent approach to China. “I do think there are opportunities, but obviously we will never compromise national security in taking those opportunities.”

Czech President Petr Pavel on Tuesday accused Foreign Minister Petr Macinka of blackmail in an extraordinary dispute over the government’s controversial pick for environment minister. The rift between Pavel and Macinka points to a deeper divide in Czech politics, pitting Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’s anti-establishment, right-wing coalition government against a staunchly pro-Western president and former NATO general committed to the alliance and the EU. “He can have peace if I get [right-wing populist Filip] Turek at the Environment Ministry. If not, I’ll burn bridges in a way that will end up in political science textbooks as an extreme case of cohabitation,” Macinka wrote in a text message to Pavel’s adviser, adding that he has the support of the populist prime minister and the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD), the other coalition partner. Macinka added that the president will be “surprised by the consequences” if he “does nothing, or at least refuses to enter into negotiations over Turek,” adding that “he is ready to brutally fight with the president for Turek.” Pavel, who holds veto power over ministerial appointments, blocked Turek from becoming environment minister over his embroilment in various scandals. “I consider the foreign minister’s words in the text messages to be an attempt at blackmail. I regard that as unacceptable and, under our democratic conditions, absolutely intolerable,” Pavel said in a press conference Tuesday. Pavel, who published the text messages addressed to his adviser, said he will contact the police, which confirmed it has received the report. Speaking at a press conference Tuesday, Macinka rejected claims of blackmail, accused the president of overstepping constitutional limits by vetoing Turek and threatened Pavel’s participation in July’s NATO summit. ‘HOSTAGE TO PERSONAL ANIMOSITIES’ Turek, honorary president of the right-wing populist Motorists for Themselves party from which Macinka also hails, has been investigated for sexual assault, racist, sexist, and homophobic Facebook posts, and an image of him making a Nazi salute, all of which he denies. Petr Macinka rejected claims of blackmail, accused the president of overstepping constitutional limits by vetoing Turek and threatened Petr Pavel’s participation in July’s NATO summit. | Martin Divisek/EPA “If he really has the support of the Prime Minister … then Petr Macinka’s statements are not only an illustration of the new government’s approach to power-sharing in our constitutional order, but also proof that the fundamental issues of our foreign and security policy have become hostage to personal animosities and interests,” the president said Tuesday. Pavel previously noted that strong pro-NATO and pro-EU stances, along with safeguarding the country’s democratic institutions and respecting the constitution, will be key factors in his decision-making regarding the proposed Cabinet. Babiš said in a post on X that Macinka’s words were “unfortunate” but refuted claims about blackmail. “It was in a private communication with his adviser, so it definitely isn’t blackmail,” Babiš said. Pavel’s office did not respond to a request for comment. Macinka’s office said the minister will speak at a press conference later. Jakob Weizman contributed to this report.

Europe’s populist worries will intensify when right-wing billionaire Andrej Babiš becomes Czech prime minister today. Czech President Petr Pavel is set to appoint Babiš to the position after resolving longstanding conflict-of-interest issues related to the PM-elect’s conglomerate, Agrofert. Babiš and his future government have sparked fears in Brussels, where his opponents worry that alliances he could form at the European level may tilt Central Europe in an anti-establishment direction. Combined with Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, Babiš has the potential to jam up the legislative machinery in Brussels as it works on key files. Babiš regularly speaks of reviving the so-called Visegrád Four group, something both Orbán and Fico hope for, after it became largely dormant following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A new Visegrád grouping would likely count three rather than the four members it had after being founded as a cultural and political alliance in the 1990s. Poland’s current center-right prime minister, Donald Tusk, is staunchly pro-Ukraine and is thus unlikely to enter any entente with Orbán. Polish President Karol Nawrocki of the right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party, though, has been talking up the prospects for Visegrád. Babiš’ government — his Patriots for Europe-aligned ANO party is in a coalition with the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy and right-wing Motorists for Themselves parties — is also likely to fight against EU-level pro-environment initiatives. That could cause issues for climate files like ETS2, the Emissions Trading System for road and buildings, and Brussels’ bid to ban combustion engines. Czech President Petr Pavel is set to appoint Andrej Babiš to the position after resolving longstanding conflict-of-interest issues related to the PM-elect’s conglomerate, Agrofert. | Martin Divisek/EPA Following his decisive victory in the Czech election Oct. 3-4, however, Babiš has toned down his previous remarks about canceling the Czech ammunition initiative in support of Ukraine, raising questions about whether the campaign rhetoric will translate into actual policy reversals. The extent to which Czechia becomes another EU disrupter might become clearer later this week as Babiš travels to Brussels to take part in the European Council — assuming the rest of his cabinet is appointed by then.

Czech right-wing billionaire Andrej Babiš will be the new prime minister in Prague after announcing Thursday evening that he would dispose of a potential conflict of interest. Babiš’ ANO party won the Czech parliamentary election in October and formed a coalition with the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy and right-wing Motorists for Themselves parties. But the proposed prime minister and coalition ministers must be green-lit by Czech President Petr Pavel before taking office. Babiš has been entangled in legal woes, both at home and abroad, concerning his agriculture business empire Agrofert, which is a major recipient of EU subsidies. “Of course, I could have left politics after winning the election and had a comfortable life, or ANO could have appointed someone else as prime minister,” Babiš said Thursday night in a video address to voters. “But I am convinced that you would perceive it as a betrayal,” he added. “That is why I have decided to irrevocably give up the Agrofert company, with which I will no longer have anything to do, I will never own it, I will not have any economic relations with it, and I will not be in any contact with it.” Babiš’ ascension to the Czech premiership further tilts Central Europe in an anti-establishment direction, as the populist tycoon joins Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico as potential thorns in Brussels’ side on key EU files. In stepping back from Agrofert, however, Babiš made clear the importance of retaking the prime ministerial role. The holding’s shares will now be managed through a trust structure by an independent administrator. “This step, which goes far beyond the requirements of the law, was not easy for me. I have been building my company for almost half my life and I am very sorry that I will also have to step down as chairman of the Agrofert Foundation,” Babiš said. “My children will only get Agrofert after my death,” he added. In response, Pavel announced that he would appoint Babiš as prime minister on Dec. 9. Andrej Babiš has been entangled in legal woes, both at home and abroad, concerning his agriculture business empire Agrofert, which is a major recipient of EU subsidies. | Gabriel Kuchta/Getty Images “I appreciate the clear and understandable manner in which Andrej Babiš has fulfilled our agreement and publicly announced how he will resolve his conflict of interest,” Pavel said. Pavel previously noted that strong pro-NATO and pro-EU stances, along with safeguarding the country’s democratic institutions, will be key factors in his decision-making regarding the proposed Cabinet. Czech conflict of interest law bars officials (or their close relatives) from owning or controlling a business that would create a conflict with their governing function. This doesn’t mean ministers can’t own businesses, just that they must prioritize the public interest over their own. Similar rules exist at the EU level. When he was prime minister the first time round, from 2017 to 2021, Babiš placed Agrofert — which consists of more than 250 companies — in trust funds, but the Czech courts as well as the European Commission in 2021 concluded that he still retained influence over them and was therefore in violation of EU conflict-of-interest rules.

A message from Brussels to Google: Would you break yourself up, please? The search giant faces an early November deadline to say how it intends to comply with a European Commission decision in September, which found that it had illegally maintained its grip on the infrastructure that powers online advertising. With a €2.95 billion fine in the rearview mirror, the Commission and Google find themselves in an unprecedented standoff as Brussels contemplates the once unthinkable: a structural sell-off of part of a U.S. company, preferably voluntary, but potentially forced if necessary. The situation is “very unusual,” said Anne Witt, a professor in competition law at EDHEC Business School in Lille, France. “Structural remedies are almost unprecedented at the EU level,” Witt added. “It’s really the sledgehammer.” In its September decision, the Commission took the “unusual and unprecedented step,” per Witt, to ask Google to design its own remedy — while signaling, if cautiously, that anything short of a sale of parts of its advertising technology business would fall foul of the EU antitrust enforcer. “It appears that the only way for Google to end its conflict of interest effectively is with a structural remedy, such as selling some part of its Adtech business,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief, said at the time. As the clock counts down to the deadline for Google to tell the Commission what it intends to do, the possibility of a Brussels-ordered breakup of an American tech champion is unlikely to go unnoticed in Washington, even as the Donald Trump administration pursues its own case against the search giant. (Google accounts for 90 percent of the revenues of Alphabet, the $3.3 trillion technology holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California.) Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s competition chief. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Google has said that it will appeal the Commission’s decision, which in its view requires changes that would hurt thousands of European businesses. “There’s nothing anticompetitive in providing services for ad buyers and sellers, and there are more alternatives to our services than ever before,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, its vice president and global head of regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post in September. PARALLEL PROBES The proposal for a voluntary break up of Google marks the culmination of a decade of EU antitrust enforcement in digital markets in which “behavioral” fixes achieved little, and a unique alignment in both timing and substance between the U.S. and the EU of their parallel probes into the firm’s ad tech empire. “It would have been unthinkable 10 years ago that there would be a case in the U.S.  and a sister case in Europe that had a breakup as a potential outcome,” said Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Tech Institute, which is advocating for a break-up. The Commission formally launched the investigation into Google’s ad tech stack in 2021, following a drumbeat of complaints from news organizations that had seen Google take control of the high-frequency exchanges where publishers and advertisers agree on the price and placement of online ads.  Google’s control of the exchanges, as well as infrastructure used by both sides of the market, was like allowing Goldman Sachs or Citibank to own the New York Stock Exchange, declared the U.S. Department of Justice in its lawsuit in 2023. It also created a situation in which cash-strapped news organizations on both sides of the Atlantic saw Google eating an increasing share of revenues from online advertising — and ultimately posing a threat to journalism itself. “This is not just any competition law case — this is about the future of journalism,” said Alexandra Geese, a German Green member of the European Parliament. “Publishers don’t have the revenue because they don’t get traffic on their websites, and then Google’s algorithm decides what information we see,” she said. The plight of publishers proved hefty on the other side of the Atlantic too. In April, the federal judge overseeing the U.S. government’s case against Google ruled that the search giant had illegally maintained its monopoly over parts of the ad tech market.   A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges. | Nurphoto via Getty Images The Virginia district court held a two-week trial on remedies in September. The Trump administration has advocated a sale of the exchanges and an unwinding of Google’s 2008 merger with DoubleClick, through which it came to dominate the online ad market. Judge Leonie Brinkema will hear the government’s closing arguments on Nov. 17 and is expected to issue her verdict in the coming months. STARS ALIGN Viewed by Google’s critics, it’s the ideal set of circumstances for the Commission to push for a muscular structural remedy. “If you cannot go for structural remedies now, when the U.S. is on the same page, then you’re unlikely to ever do it,” said Crider. The route to a breakup may, however, be both legally and politically more challenging. Despite the technical alignment, and a disenchantment with the impact that past fines and behavioral remedies have had, the Commission still faces a “big hurdle” when it comes to the legal test, should it not be satisfied with Google’s remedy offer, said Witt. The U.S. legal system is more conducive to ordering breakups, both as a matter of law — judges have a wide scope to remedy a harm to the market — and in tradition, said Witt, noting that the U.S. government’s lawsuits to break up Google and Meta are rooted in precedents that don’t exist in Europe. Caught in the middle is Google, which should file its proposed remedies within 60 days of being served notice of the Commission decision that was announced on Sept. 5. A spokesperson for the company said that the firm disagrees with the Commission’s charges, and therefore with the notion that structural remedies are necessary. The firm is expected to lodge its appeal in the coming days. While Google has floated asset sales to the Commission over the course of the antitrust investigation, only to be rebuffed by Brussels, the firm does not intend to divest the entirety of its ad tech stack, according to a person familiar with the matter who was granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case. Ultimately, what happens in Brussels may depend on what happens in the U.S. case. While a court-ordered divestiture of a chunk of Google’s ad tech business is conceivable, U.S. judges have shown themselves to be skeptical of structural remedies in recent months, said Lazar Radic, an assistant law professor at IE University in Madrid, who is affiliated with the big tech-friendly International Center for Law and Economics. “Behavioral alternatives are still on the table,” said Radic, of the U.S. case. The Commission will likely want to align itself with the U.S. should the Virginia court side with the Department of Justice, said Damien Geradin, legal counsel to the European Publishers Council — of which POLITICO parent Axel Springer is a member — that brought forward the case. Conversely, if the court opts for a weaker remedy than is being proposed, the Commission will be obliged to go further, he said. “This is the case where some structural remedies will be needed. I don’t think the [European Commission] can settle for less,” said Geradin.

PARIS — After interviewing top politicians four nights a week on primetime TV, Léa Salamé will go home to one — in a major test case of France’s tolerance for relationships between journalists and the politicians they cover. From Monday, 45-year-old Salamé will host one of France’s most prestigious news shows, grilling the country’s leaders in the 8 p.m. slot on the public broadcaster. This new role has brought renewed scrutiny of her relationship with Socialist and Democrat MEP Raphaël Glucksmann, a likely presidential candidate in 2027. The two have been together for a decade. In June, Salamé was tapped to replace Anne-Sophie Lapix to turn around the fortunes of 20 Heures, which regularly trails its main competitor, private broadcaster TF1’s newscast at the same time. With the couple at the peak of their respective careers, their partnership will be squarely in the public eye over any potential conflicts of interest. Plenty of French politicians have married members of the media, but a French president and a star anchor living under the roof of the Elysée Palace would be a first. “Running a news program means offering an interpretation of events and society with a hierarchy of information and political interviews. I wonder how this mix will work in the interest of public service,” Aymeric Caron, a former Salamé colleague-turned-politician, said in an interview with the gossip magazine Gala. A PLAN … FOR NOW Before her appointment, Salamé and Glucksmann had built a seemingly stable firewall between their personal and professional lives. He led the center-left Socialist Party’s list in the past two European elections while she co-hosted public radio France Inter’s morning news show, which under her stewardship gained more than a million new listeners despite an overall drop in radio audiences. When it came time for Glucksmann to campaign, Salamé recused herself from coverage of the contest. She has said she would do the same if Glucksmann ran for president, and her new boss, France Télévisions chief executive Delphine Ernotte, has publicly backed that plan. “When he was campaigning for the European elections, she took a back seat. The great Léa Salamé cannot be summed up solely by her partner,” Ernotte told the popular TV program “Quotidien.” Glucksmann’s presidential ambitions are an open secret. The Europhile leader — generally perceived as one of the most centrist figures on the French left — has repeatedly refused in interviews to rule out a 2027 run. Polling shows Glucksmann is a long-shot — while Salamé is already established at the top in her field — but the contest is still more than a year away. With President Emmanuel Macron constitutionally barred from running and his far-right rival Marine Le Pen facing legal troubles that could prevent her from mounting a fourth bid for the presidency, the field is open. French journalists and TV hosts Lea Salame (L) and Gilles Bouleau pose prior to moderating a live televised debate on April 20, 2022 ahead of the second round of France’s presidential election. | POOL photo by Ludovic Marin/EPA At a press conference in June, Glucksmann brushed off accusations that Salamé faced a conflict of interest in her new post and leaned into his partner’s work as an active supporter of female empowerment. “We’re in 2025 — I wouldn’t have imagined telling her she should give up something that is important to her career. Things are transparent, very clear,” he said. “If there’s a candidacy in a national election, the question will be raised and dealt with transparently to avoid any conflict of interest.” Salamé struck a similar tone in an interview with La Tribune du Dimanche that same month. “My relationship is no secret, but we keep our activities very separate. From Emmanuel Macron to Marine Le Pen, Bruno Retailleau, Édouard Philippe and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, I never felt in their eyes that they saw me as ‘the wife,'” she said. The French political class has largely stayed silent when it comes to the pair. This is, after all, a country where adultery scandals rarely cause lasting political damage. A journalist–politician partnership can seem tame by comparison. It’s also far from the first case of its kind. Salamé’s former cohost Thomas Sotto temporarily stepped away from reporting on politics during the 2022 presidential campaign following reports he was in a relationship with Mayada Boulos, the communications chief for the prime minister at the time, Jean Castex. In the 1990s, former Prime Minister Alain Juppé and former Economy Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn were both married to journalists. Isabelle Juppé had covered her husband’s own political party for La Croix but left journalism during her husband’s premiership. Strauss-Kahn’s wife, the prominent journalist Anne Sinclair, paused her television show on TF1 while retaining a leadership role with the channel. She then returned to reporting but avoided French political coverage until after her separation from Strauss-Kahn. More recently, Le Monde’s Ivanne Trippenbach changed her beat from politics when her partner Rayan Nezzar became an adviser to then-Prime Minister Gabriel Attal. Such a move by Salamé does not appear imminent. By not formally declaring his intention to run for president, Glucksmann has effectively allowed the couple to present any conflict of interest as hypothetical, at least for now. That, of course, is only part of the story. He will be an active force in center-left politics, whatever happens in the presidential contest. When French lawmakers return to work next month to debate Prime Minister François Bayrou’s austere budget and prepare for key municipal elections next year, Glucksmann will be working to raise the impact of his his center-left Place Publique party, just as Salamé presents the biggest stories of the day.

BRUSSELS ― The European Parliament is to take steps to shield lawmakers from being named by Belgian police publicly during criminal investigations following criticism their reputations are being dragged through the mud for no reason. After several high-profile probes that MEPs say have damaged the standing of the bloc’s institutions, Parliament President Roberta Metsola has sparked a revamp of the rules so that Belgium and other national authorities must pass a higher bar when requesting immunity waivers. They will have to provide more information ― notably the allegations they are facing ― before the Parliament can take up an immunity-waiver request for consideration.   “We will act where there is conjecture,” Metsola told reporters in Brussels on Thursday. “We will stand up for MEPs and the dignity of the institution. I will not accept the targeting and tarnishing of MEPs without a solid basis.” One of the most egregious recent examples saw MEP Giusi Princi named in Parliament because Belgian authorities wanted immunity to be lifted so that she could be investigated over allegations of corruption connected to Chinese tech firm Huawei. The request was withdrawn shortly afterwards. “The Parliament, at several levels, is keen to convey the message to Belgian authorities that they need to act up and be more professional,” said a high-ranking Parliament official, granted anonymity to speak about sensitive matters. “Their mistakes and carelessness can extremely damage the reputation of members and EU institutions.” Under the plans, which Metsola conveyed to political group leaders, she could ask the requesting authorities to provide a minimum of information before a public announcement is made on the immunity-waiver requests received. Currently, any request must be announced in the full plenary session of Parliament no matter its content. Lawmakers in the Parliament also point to Belgium’s inability to convict anyone connected to the Qatargate cash-for-influence scandal which broke out in 2022.  The judge leading the case, Michel Claise, resigned in June 2023 over accusations of conflict of interest, and the defendants have challenged the legality of the proceedings, which the courts are currently examining, according to a spokesperson for the Belgian prosecutor.  “If proceedings begin soon and convictions follow, then the process has worked,” said Green MEP Daniel Freund. “But if no one is convicted, if key evidence is ruled inadmissible, or if procedural errors derail the case, then we do have a serious problem.”