Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on Saturday accepted the resignation of his national security adviser, Miroslav Lajčák, following revelations that Lajčák exchanged messages with convicted sex offended Jeffrey Epstein. The messages were included in Friday’s release by the U.S. Justice Department of investigative materials related to Epstein.  Fico, announcing the decision in a video statement on Facebook, praised Lajčák as “a great diplomat” and said Slovakia was losing “an incredible source of experience in diplomacy and foreign policy.” Lajčák served as Slovak foreign minister in multiple Fico governments between 2009 and 2020. The U.S. Justice Department on Friday released more than three million pages of documents in the Epstein files. The documents, which reference several prominent figures, such as Steve Bannon, Elon Musk and world leaders, also include exchanges between Lajčák and Epstein. In the newly released files, Epstein bantered with Lajčák about women while discussing Lajčák’s meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lajčák initially denied any wrongdoing, describing the communications as informal and light-hearted, and later offered his resignation to prevent political costs from falling on the prime minister, according to reports in Slovak media. “Not because I did anything criminal or unethical, but so that he does not bear political costs for something unrelated to his decisions,” Lajčák was quoted as saying. The opposition has united in calling for him to resign. The coalition Slovak National Party has also joined this stance, saying that Lajčák represents a security risk, according to local media. Lajčák did not immediately respond to a request for comment by POLITICO.  In his video address, the prime minister also criticized media coverage of the case, calling it “hypocritical” and overstated.

President Donald Trump rose to power on his immigration agenda. Now, it’s threatening to box him in. After months of aggressive enforcement actions meant to telegraph strength on one of the Republican Party’s signature issues, the White House has had to backtrack in the face of Americans’ backlash to its approach — particularly after two protesters were killed by federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis. But the calculus that forced the Trump administration to change course is a double-edged sword: If the administration appears to ease up on its maximalist stance against illegal immigration, it risks leaving its hardcore MAGA base disenchanted at a moment when Republicans can’t afford to lose support. And if it doesn’t, it risks alienating moderate Republicans, independents, young voters and Latinos who support the administration’s immigration enforcement in theory but dislike how it’s being executed. “I worry because if we lose the agenda, we’re done — and people don’t fully appreciate how big of an issue this is,” said Sean Spicer, Trump’s former press secretary. “When you have a two-seat majority in the House or a two- or three-seat majority in the Senate, you’re on a razor’s edge. To not acknowledge that is ridiculous.” For Trump, a midterms rout means the last two years of his administration will be eaten up by Democratic stonewalling, investigations and likely impeachment inquiries, rather than his own agenda — a situation the administration desperately wants to avoid. The result is a rare moment of vulnerability on Trump’s strongest issue, one that has exposed fault lines inside the Republican Party, sharpened Democratic attacks, and forced the White House into a defensive crouch it never expected to take. Some Trump allies insist the GOP shouldn’t be scared of their best issue, blaming Democrats for putting them on the back foot. “This has been President Trump’s area of greatest success,” said Trump pollster John McLaughlin. “You’re looking at the Republicans be defensive on something they shouldn’t be defensive about.” A recent POLITICO poll underscores the administration’s delicate balancing act: 1 in 5 voters who backed the president in 2024 say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, and more than 1 in 3 Trump voters say that while they support the goals of his mass deportation campaign, they disapprove of the way he is implementing it. The administration this week struggled to manage the political fallout from demonstrator Alex Pretti’s killing, where even typically loyal Republicans criticized the president and others called for the ousting of his top officials, namely Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The White House softened its hardline rhetoric, and Trump shifted his personnel in charge of Minneapolis operations, sending border czar Tom Homan to the state to deescalate tensions on the ground. A subdued Homan told reporters Thursday that he had “productive” conversations with state and local Democrats and that federal agents’ operations would be more targeted moving forward. He vowed to stick by the administration’s mission, but said he hopes to reduce Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence in the city if federal officials get access to state jails. The president “doesn’t want to be dealing with clashes between protesters and federal agents on the ground in Minnesota,” said one person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If Trump was more invested in the outcome of this, he would have sent in the National Guard. He would declare martial law. He would be more aggressive.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, in a statement, said that the administration is always looking for “the most effective way” to implement what it sees as a mandate from voters to carry out mass deportations. “Our focus remains the same: prioritizing violent criminal illegal aliens while also enforcing the law — anyone who is in the country illegally is eligible to be deported,” she said, adding that includes “the President’s continued calls for local Democrat leaders to work with the Administration to remove illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from their communities.” Some Trump allies, fearful the aggressive tactics will isolate crucial swing voters in November, have argued that Republicans have to keep the focus on criminal arrests, public safety and the Trump administration’s success in securing the southern border, which are more popular with voters across the board. But immigration hawks in the Republican Party have grown increasingly apoplectic over the administration’s moves this week, including an apparent openness to compromise with Democrats on policies to boost the oversight of federal immigration officers. They argue the administration is paying too much attention to cable news coverage and donor anxiety and not enough to the voters who propelled Trump back into office. “The upshot of the lame duck second Trump term was supposed to be that he was going to get things done regardless of the pressure from consultants, pollsters and left-wing Republicans. That doesn’t seem to be happening and it’s disappointing,” said Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, a conservative group. “I’m dumbfounded that CNN coverage seems to have more influence over the White House’s immigration enforcement agenda than the base that stood by Trump through everything over the last decade.” Even so, some of the more hardline elements of the president’s base acknowledge that the splashy optics of the administration’s immigration enforcement actions have introduced a vulnerability. “The big muscular show of force — you invite too much confrontation,” said a second person close to the White House, also granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Let’s try to be quieter about it but deport just as many people. Be a little sneakier. Don’t have the flexing and the machismo part of it. There’s a certain element of that that’s cool but as much as we can, why can’t we be stealthy and pop up all over Minnesota?” “We were almost provoking the reaction,” the person added. “I’m all for the smartest tactics as long as the end result is as many deportations as possible.” But the person warned that any perception of backtracking could depress a base already uneasy about the economy. “Our base is generally not wealthy and they’re not doing well,” the person said. “They’re struggling. If you take away immigration — if they don’t believe he means it — holy cow, that’s not good.”

Remigijus Žemaitaitis, leader of Lithuania’s populist Dawn of Nemunas ruling coalition party, has been found guilty of incitement to hatred against Jews and downplaying the Holocaust in a decision by the Vilnius Regional Court. In a Thursday ruling the court said his public statements had “mocked Jewish people, denigrated them, and encouraged hatred toward the Jewish community.” Žemaitaitis was fined €5,000 — a fraction of what the prosecutor had requested — and is at risk of being stripped of his seat in parliament. “This is a politicized decision,” Žemaitaitis said, while indicating he will appeal. The court considered several social media posts in which Žemaitaitis blamed Jews for the “destruction of our nation” and for “contributing to the torture, deportation, and killing of Lithuanians.” After Israeli authorities demolished a Palestinian school on May 7, 2023, Žemaitaitis wrote: “After such events, it is no wonder that statements like this emerge: ‘A Jew climbed the ladder and accidentally fell. Take, children, a stick and kill that little Jew.'” His lawyer, Egidija Belevičienė, told local media that while her client’s remarks “may have been inappropriate and may have shocked some people, they did not reach the level of danger for which a person is punished with a criminal penalty that necessarily results in a criminal record.” Lithuania’s ruling Social Democrats, who share a coalition with Žemaitaitis, have yet to respond to the ruling, noting that it “is not yet final.” In a Thursday social media post the party said any form of antisemitism, hate speech or Holocaust denial “is unacceptable to us and incompatible with our values.” Still, Žemaitaitis’ record of antisemitic comments was known to the Social Democrats when they formed a coalition with his party last November. He had resigned his seat in parliament the previous April after the country’s Constitutional Court ruled he had violated the constitution by making antisemitic statements on social media. “The Social Democrats were not bothered last year … nor are they bothered now,” said Simonas Kairys, deputy leader of the Liberal Movement opposition party. Laurynas Kasčiūnas, chair of the opposition Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats, accused the Social Democrats of suffering from Stockholm syndrome. “They have been taken hostage by Žemaitaitis, and they’re beginning to like it,” he said. The country’s political opposition is calling on the Social Democrats to sever ties with Žemaitaitis — and is threatening to kick him out of the country’s parliament if they won’t. “The Social Democrats could simply tell Žemaitaitis ‘goodbye,’” Kasčiūnas said. If they fail to cut ties after the court’s ruling becomes final, he added, “an impeachment initiative will emerge in the Seimas.” Žemaitaitis has made a name for himself recently for more than antisemitism. In November he tabled a draft law to simplify the process of firing the head of the country’s LRT public broadcaster, sparking public outrage that the government was preparing to install a political flunky in the post. A street protest is scheduled for Dec. 9; as of Thursday over 124,000 people had signed an online petition against the draft law in a country of 2.8 million.

BRUSSELS — Intelligence agencies across Europe are burying decades of distrust and starting to build a shared intelligence operation to counter Russian aggression — a move accelerated by the new American capriciousness in supporting its traditional allies. In the past year, many national capitals have embedded intelligence officials in their Brussels representation offices. The European Union’s in-house intelligence unit has started briefing top-level officials. And the bloc is toying with the idea to build up stronger, CIA-style powers — long considered unthinkable. The push for deeper intelligence cooperation accelerated sharply after the Trump administration abruptly halted the sharing of battlefield intelligence with Kyiv last March. Donald Trump “deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing the services of Europe together,” said one Western intelligence official, who was granted anonymity to disclose details of how they cooperated with American counterparts. POLITICO spoke with seven intelligence and security officials who described how the rupture in transatlantic trust is driving Europe’s spy agencies to move faster — and closer — than ever before. It’s all part of a bigger reconsideration of practices. European intelligence services have also started reviewing more closely how they share information with U.S. counterparts. The Dutch military and civil intelligence services told local paper De Volkskrant on Saturday they’d stopped sharing certain information with their U.S. counterparts, citing political interference and human rights concerns. Officials fear that transatlantic forums, including the defense alliance NATO, will become less reliable platforms to share intelligence. “There is a sense that there could be less commitment on the part of the United States in the months to come in sharing the intelligence they have — both inside NATO and at large,” said Antonio Missiroli, the former Assistant-Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges at NATO. Security services are still overcoming decades-old trust issues. New revelations that Hungarian intelligence officials disguised as diplomats tried to infiltrate the EU institutions show how governments within the EU still keep close watch over each other. To cope with the distrust, some leading spy agencies are pushing to set up groups of trusted countries instead of running things through Brussels. CLUB DE BERNE Unlike tight-knit spy alliances like the Five Eyes, European Union member countries have long struggled to forge strong partnerships on intelligence sharing. National security remains firmly in the hands of national capitals, with Brussels playing only a coordinating role. One way European services have communicated traditionally is through a secretive network known as the Club de Berne, created nearly 50 years ago in the Swiss city it is named after. The club has no headquarters, no secretariat and meets only twice a year. In recent years, the group has coordinated its meetings to roughly align with the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union. But the Club is hardly a mirror image of the EU. Malta has never joined, Bulgaria only recently signed on, and Austria was suspended for a time over concerns it was too soft on Moscow before being readmitted in 2022. Non-EU countries such as Switzerland, Norway and the U.K. are also members. Donald Trump “deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing the services of Europe together,” said one Western intelligence official, who was granted anonymity to disclose details of how they cooperated with American counterparts. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images “Club de Berne is an information sharing architecture a bit like Europol. It’s designed to share a certain kind of information for a particular function,” said Philip Davies, director of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies in London. “But it’s fairly bounded and the information that’s being shared is potentially quite anodyne because you’re not plugging into secure systems and [there are] national caveats.” Major European Union intelligence players — France, the Netherlands, Germany, and until 2019, the U.K. — saw little value in sharing sensitive information with all EU countries, fearing it could fall into the wrong hands. Eastern European services, like Bulgaria’s, were believed to be filled with Russian moles, said Missiroli. One Bulgarian security official argued that was no longer the case, with the old guard largely retired. But while it offered some mode of collaboration, the Club de Berne also left Brussels’ EU-level officials largely in the dark. “The problem with talking about European intelligence sharing is that European intelligence sharing is not the same thing as EU intelligence sharing,” said Davies. CALLING ON THE EU Recent geopolitical shifts have forced the European Union to rethink its approach. Former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö called last year for the EU to create a CIA-style agency, coordinated from Brussels, in a landmark preparedness report at the request of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Niinistö laid out the idea of a “fully fledged intelligence cooperation service at the EU level that can serve both the strategic and operational needs,” while adding that “an anti-sabotage network” is needed to protect infrastructure. If there is such a thing as a collective EU intelligence agency, the European Union’s in-house Intelligence and Situation Centre (INTCEN) at the European External Action Service (EEAS) is the closest to it. The center conducts analysis based on the voluntary contributions by EU countries. Spies from national agencies do secondments at the center, which helps building up ties with national intelligence. Croatian intelligence chief Daniel Markić took over the helm of INTCEN in September 2024 on a mission to beef up information-sharing with the agency and get direct intelligence to EU leaders like von der Leyen and foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. Together with its military counterpart — the EU Military Staff Intelligence Directorate — the two services form the Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity (SIAC), which produces shared intelligence assessments for EU decision-makers. In April, SIAC held its annual meeting in Brussels, this time drawing top officials of the European agencies to attend, along with Kallas.  Spy chiefs at that meeting underlined a growing push for Europe to build its own independent intelligence capabilities. But some also worried that overemphasizing the need for autonomy could further weaken ties with the U.S., creating the very gaps Europe is trying to avoid. TRUST ISSUES Slowly but surely, Brussels is building up its own intelligence community. For instance, intelligence liaison officers now exist in most permanent representations of EU member countries in Brussels. The Belgian Security Services (VSSE), which are officially tasked with overseeing spying activities around the EU institutions in Brussels, have also briefed members of the European Parliament on tactics used to coerce lawmakers into foreign espionage. Still, one European intelligence source told POLITICO that while cooperation between EU countries was now “at its best in modern history,” agencies still work first and foremost for their own national governments. That is a key stumbling block. According to Robert Gorelick, the retired head of mission of the U.S. CIA in Italy, “The reason that an EU-wide intelligence service couldn’t exist is that there is too much variety in how national agencies work.” What’s worse, he added: “There are too many countries — 27 — for there to be such trust in sharing.” Some countries have leaned toward setting up smaller ad hoc groups. After the U.S. paused its intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March, a Coalition of the Willing led by France and the United Kingdom met in Paris and agreed to expand Kyiv’s access to European-operated intelligence, surveillance technology and satellite data. The Netherlands is looking at beefing up cooperation with other European services, like the United Kingdom, Poland, France, Germany and the Nordics — including sharing raw data. “That has been scaled up enormously,” Erik Akerboom, the head of the Dutch civil intelligence service, told De Volkskrant. Yet there is still a long way to go to build enough trust between 27 EU members with differing national priorities. In October, it was revealed that Hungarian intelligence officials disguised as diplomats tried to infiltrate EU institutions while Olivér Várhelyi (now a European commissioner) was Hungary’s ambassador to the bloc, and place Orbán cronies in key positions. Niinistö, who wrote the EU’s preparedness report last year, told POLITICO in an interview this month that a full-fledged EU intelligence agency was still “a question of the future.” He added: “It comes to the word trust when we talk about preparedness, because without trusting we can’t cooperate very much.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted Sunday that U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities were not intended to bring about regime change in Tehran, but laid out no plans for avoiding a deeper escalation should the country retaliate and said officials didn’t yet know the full extent of the damage. The Pentagon chief and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine, in a Sunday morning press conference, said the three nuclear sites sustained “severe damage,” but that it was too soon to assess whether Iran still possessed nuclear capabilities. “This mission was not, has not been about regime change,” Hegseth said. The effort, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, involved a series of strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities. It was launched to “neutralize” Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, Hegseth said, after what he described as months of “stonewalling” by the regime on negotiations. The mission began late Friday with seven B-2 Spirit bombers departing the continental U.S. for an 18-hour flight, backed by more than 125 aircraft and a guided missile submarine. It marked the first use of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb, which hit the heavily fortified Fordo nuclear facility buried deep beneath a cluster of mountains. The strikes lasted 25 minutes, the officials said. The mission, which involved U.S. bombers flying from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to the Middle East, was the longest B-2 bomber mission since 2001. President Donald Trump, in his message to the nation on Saturday evening, proclaimed the attacks a “spectacular military success.” Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated,” he said. Caine on Sunday warned a final damage assessment would take time. He noted the three nuclear sites sustained “extremely severe damage and destruction” from the strike, but stopped short of saying they had been completely destroyed. Hegseth added the operation was targeted and precise, and downplayed the possibility of a protracted regional war. “Anything can happen in conflict; we acknowledge that,” he said. “But the scope of this was intentionally limited. That’s the message that we’re sending.” U.S. officials and lawmakers are concerned that Tehran or its proxies could retaliate by targeting U.S. forces in the Middle East. More than 40,000 U.S. troops and Defense Department civilians are stationed in the region. Caine did not specify what added steps the administration is taking to protect military personnel, but said U.S. Central Command had “elevated force protection measures,” particularly in Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf. “Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice,” he said. “We will defend ourselves.” Hegseth and Caine underscored the highly secretive nature of the operation. B2 bombers headed west into the Pacific in the early hours of Saturday morning as a decoy, Caine said, while the planes that carried out the strike traveled to the Middle East. Caine said he was “particularly proud” of the security and secrecy around the plans, noting that it was of “great concern” to the president. Hesgeth has faced questions about his handling of sensitive materialsince he shared plans about a pending U.S. strike against Yemen’s Houthi fighters in a Signal chat, which inadvertently included a journalist. The Pentagon chief told reporters on Sunday that lawmakers were notified of the airstrike “after the planes were safely out,” which he said complies with the administration’s obligations under the War Powers Act. While recent U.S. intelligence assessments concluded Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, Hegseth defended Trump’s “bold action.” “The president made it very clear he’s looked at all of this, all of the intelligence, all the information, and came to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat,” Hegseth said. GOP hawks, such as Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), in the lead up to the strikes, urged Trump to seize the moment. Influential MAGA figures such as Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, meanwhile, strongly criticized any U.S. involvement in Iran — warning that it contradicted Trump’s “America First” approach. While many of the skeptics in Trump’s orbit fell in line behind the attacks after Trump’s announcement Saturday, some GOP opponents of military intervention questioned their legality. “This is not Constitutional,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said Saturday in a post on the social media platform X. Massie and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), along with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), had been leading parallel war powers resolutions that would bar the president from launching military action against Iran without explicit congressional approval. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called Trump’s move “absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.” “The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,” she said on X. “He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.” Paul McLeary contributed to this report.

The Trump administration acknowledged late Monday that it had inadvertently deported a man to El Salvador last month despite a court’s determination that he had a legitimate fear of persecution in his home country. “This removal was an error,” a top Immigration and Customs Enforcement official wrote in a statement to a federal judge. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran, was on one of three deportation flights to his home country on March 15 amid a frantic legal fight over President Donald Trump’s decision to invoke war powers to hasten the deportation of more than 100 Venezuela nationals to El Salvador. In addition to the Venezuelans subject to Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act were other deportees with purported gang ties. Trump’s use of centuries-old war powers to speed deportations — invoked just three times in American history — has provoked a fierce legal and political battle over the president’s authority. A federal judge has barred further removals under the Alien Enemies Act while proceedings play out in court. That decision triggered Trump to call for the impeachment of judges who have ruled against his administration. The judge, James Boasberg, is also weighing whether the Trump administration defied his order by deporting some Venezuelans to El Salvador after he demanded the March 15 flights be halted or turned around. Abrego Garcia was deemed by an immigration judge in 2019 to be a likely member of the MS-13 gang — a decision Abrego Garcia sharply contested and that the government credited to information gleaned from a confidential informant. But the court also agreed at the time that he should not be deported to El Salvador, finding that his fear of being persecuted or tortured was credible. As a result of that determination, Abrego Garcia was released from custody and has been living in Maryland with his wife, a U.S. citizen, and child. He was arrested by ICE on March 12 and sent to El Salvador on March 15, where his wife recognized him in a video showing the shackled and shaven prisoners being arrayed by Salvadoran authorities. The Trump administration now says there’s nothing it can do to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to U.S. custody. The Justice Department is urging a federal judge to reject a petition by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys to seek his return to United States custody, saying the Trump administration has no power to force El Salvador to facilitate that demand — and that the courts have no authority to issue such an order. The case is before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, an Obama appointee based in Maryland. The administration contends that despite the “good faith” error, Abrego Garcia is unlikely to face torture in El Salvador in part because the U.S. government made a broader assessment of El Salvador’s intentions when it deported the larger groups of migrants. “This court should defer to the government’s determination that Abrego Garcia will not likely be tortured or killed in El Salvador,” Justice Department attorneys wrote. “Although the government erred in removing Abrego Garcia specifically to El Salvador, the government would not have removed any alien to El Salvador … if it believed that doing so would violate the United States’ obligations” under an international anti-torture treaty. After the error began generating news coverage, Vice President JD Vance responded to a demand for explanation from Pod Save America’s Jon Favreau, a former Obama administration official, who described Abrego Garcia as “an innocent father from Maryland.” Vance mocked Favreau, saying he must not have read the court documents because Abrego Garcia was a “convicted MS-13 gang member.” The court documents, however, do not describe Abrego Garcia as a convicted gang member. Rather, a judge in 2019 denied him release from detention over a government informant’s claim that Abrego Garcia was a member of that gang. That decision was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

A Pentagon lawyer also submitted a written declaration that the Defense Department was seeking to preserve the records as well but did not suggest it had recovered any. The administration suggested that the Atlantic’s publication of the full exchange, save for the deletion of the name of a CIA officer, had ensured that the messages would be preserved. Boasberg’s order came in response to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by pro-transparency group American Oversight, claiming that the messages were in danger of being deleted in violation of the Federal Records Act and that Trump administration officials appeared to be using the ephemeral messaging app to evade federal recordkeeping requirements. Richer did not concede Thursday that the messages were legally required to be preserved, saying government lawyers “have not fully evaluated that issue.” Federal law does not require that every email or app message sent or received by a federal employee be saved, even if it pertains to official business. In an unusual preface to the hearing, Boasberg responded to a social media post early Thursday in which President Donald Trump suggested without evidence that Boasberg had improperly taken control of the politically sensitive case. Trump called it “disgraceful” that the judge, an appointee of President Barack Obama, has been assigned several civil cases of interest to the White House in recent weeks. In addition to the Signal case, Boasberg is presiding over the case involving Trump’s efforts to swiftly deport people using the Alien Enemies Act. “Boasberg … seems to be grabbing the ‘Trump Cases’ all to himself,” Trump wrote. ”Is there still such a thing as the ‘wheel,’ where the Judges are chosen fairly, and at random?” Boasberg said obliquely he’d “come to understand that some questions have been raised” about how the court assigns cases. He said that in almost all instances cases are assigned randomly, in various categories, “to assure a more even distribution of cases” for the 15 active judges who serve on the court. Clerks use an electronic deck of cards in each of the various categories to determine which judge gets a newly filed case. “That’s how it works and that’s how all cases have continued to be assigned in this court,” said Boasberg, who has served as chief judge of the court since 2023. There has been a flood of litigation related to actions taken by the administration and Trump himself since he took office in January. More than 70 of the notable cases have been filed in D.C. federal court, and nearly all of that court’s judges now have one or more of the Trump-related cases. Trump and his allies have been in the midst of a public campaign of attacks against Boasberg, calling for his impeachment over his recent decision — which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals left in place Wednesday — barring the administration from carrying out deportations under Trump’s assertion of war powers. In that case, Justice Department lawyers have argued the government was not bound by an oral order that he issued, only a follow-up docket entry. Boasberg appeared to allude to that Thursday as he assured Richer she didn’t need to jot down every word of what he said about his order regarding the Signal messages. “Don’t worry, it’ll be in writing,” the judge said.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission and South Korea agreed a digital trade deal on Monday that will slot into their existing free-trade agreement, with EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič calling it “nothing short of a major milestone.” The deal amounts to a vote of confidence from Seoul in how the EU regulates tech and e-commerce, and comes as U.S. President Donald Trump appears likely to launch a trade war on Brussels. One target that Trump’s political allies and U.S. Big Tech have in their sights is the bloc’s digital rulebook, which they view as an unfair market barrier. “Politically, it’s an important signal,” a Commission source said ahead of the announcement, referring to the EU’s push to diversify its foreign trade as the $1.7 trillion transatlantic commercial relationship with America deteriorates. “There might be more like-minded countries for the EU to work with than you would have thought,” added the source, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. The EU has racked up accords in recent months, including with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries and with Mexico — and wants to do a free-trade deal with India this year. Šefčovič announced the agreement in Brussels after meeting with Korean Trade Minister Cheong In-kyo. In comments to reporters, he emphasized the importance of the digital deal as efforts to head off a transatlantic trade escalation stall. Although the European Union’s “doors are open,” the United States “does not seem to be engaging to make a deal” to avoid a tariff war ahead of the planned reimposition of U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum on Wednesday. “We jointly identified the few areas that would allow us to move forward by fostering a mutual benefit. But in the end, one hand cannot clap,” Šefčovič said. The trade commissioner also placed a call with his Thai counterpart on Monday, ahead of a round of negotiations on a trade deal later this month. And he namechecked ongoing talks with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and partners in the Middle East to deepen commercial ties. DIGITAL DEALINGS Digital trade deals cover data flows, security around personal data, and business-enabling technologies such as digital contracts. In the Commission’s words, the Korean deal will “build consumer trust; ensure predictability and legal certainty for businesses, as well as trusted data flows; while removing and preventing the emergence of unjustified barriers to digital trade.” President Yoon Suk-yeol was impeached in December and arrested in January after controversially declaring martial law last year. | Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images It’s significant in light of the political crisis in South Korea. President Yoon Suk-yeol was impeached in December and arrested in January after controversially declaring martial law last year. Yoon awaits judgment after a court completed hearings last month. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who was seen as attempting to obstruct Yoon’s impeachment, was impeached himself, leaving Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok in charge of the presidency and the prime minister’s office. Šefčovič and Cheong met in Brussels on Monday for the annual EU-Korea Trade Committee that oversees implementation of the broader trade agreement, which dates back to 2011. The two sides began discussing the deal in the fall of 2023, right after the EU announced it had reached such an agreement with Japan. Digital issues were not included in the trade negotiations with Japan and Korea because the EU at the time was working on its landmark GDPR privacy legislation. Šefčovič also said the EU wants to close a similar deal with Singapore in the next few months. The EU has already made similar data rules part of agreements with trade partners such as New Zealand and the U.K. This story has been updated.

LONDON — Nigel Farage said Thursday that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is “not a dictator,” in a sign of disagreement with his close ally Donald Trump. The U.S. president said Wednesday that Ukrainian leader Zelenskyy was a “dictator without elections” who duped the U.S. into supporting Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale military invasion. Asked about Trump’s comments, right-wing Reform UK leader Farage stressed Zelenskyy was democratically elected — but should go to the polls soon. “Let’s be clear, Zelenskyy is not a dictator but it’s only right and proper that Ukrainians have a timeline for elections,” Farage told conservative channel GB News. Farage spoke from Washington, D.C., where he’ll be talking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, which runs until Saturday. Pressed on Trump’s remarks, Farage said: “You should always take everything Donald Trump says seriously. You shouldn’t always take things that Donald Trump says absolutely literally.” He citied the “bad blood” between Trump and Ukraine over the U.S. president’s first impeachment in late 2019. The House of Representatives impeached Trump for allegedly withholding U.S. military aid from Ukraine to pressure its leaders to investigate his Democratic rivals, including Joe Biden who ultimately won the 2020 U.S. election. The Senate eventually acquitted Trump. Farage did not break entirely with Trump, noting that the U.K. held the 1945 general election during World War II as Britain was still at war with Japan: “No bombs had been dropped. The nuclear bomb had not been dropped. There were British soldiers dying in large numbers every single day in Japanese camps.” He added: “I’m not suggesting Ukraine has an election tomorrow, but once we see the shape of a peace deal, then of course, there should be an election.” The Reform UK leader has taken a skeptical approach to Britain’s Tory and then Labour governments backing Ukraine for as long as it took to beat Russia. He has argued the war needs “concessions on both sides,” dismissed the idea of Ukraine winning the conflict as “for the birds” and questioned Britain’s decision to allow Ukraine to fire its long-range missiles inside Russia.  However, Farage — who won election to the U.K. parliament last July for the first time — said  Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO, putting him at odds with Trump.

Kyiv’s backers reacted with shock and outrage to U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement that he had spoken with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and would “start negotiations immediately” with him about the Ukraine war. U.S. Senator Adam Schiff, a long-time Trump critic who was the lead prosecutor in the Republican’s first impeachment trial, called the president “a great dealmaker all right — for the Kremlin.” “Today, President Trump called our enemy, Russia, before calling our ally, Ukraine,” Schiff said on social media. “Meanwhile, his Secretary of Defense, ruled out a future for Ukraine in NATO and a restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty over its own lands. Let’s not mince words about what this represents: a surrender of Ukraine’s interests and our own, even before negotiations begin.” Trump said he expects to see Putin in Saudi Arabia in the “not too distant future” for their first meeting since his inauguration last month. The EU’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas released a late-night statement on behalf of the Weimar + group of nations, which includes France, Poland, Germany, Spain, Italy and the U.K., reacting to Trump’s pronouncements. “Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity are unconditional” as peace talks begin, the statement posted by Kallas said. “Our priority must now be strengthening Ukraine and providing robust security guarantees.” Marko Mihkelson, chair of the Estonian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, cautioned: “Today might go down in history as a dark day for Europe,” adding that it’s time for European leaders to “take our fate into our own hands.” The pushback came after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Ukraine to give up hopes of recapturing all the territory occupied by Russia, labeling a return to its pre-2014 borders an “illusory goal.” Trump reiterated Hegseth’s remarks Wednesday, telling reporters in the White House that Kyiv getting all its land back was “unlikely.” But he did add: “Some of it will come back. I think some of it will come back, yeah.” Former British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly hit out at Trump’s negotiation strategy. “Starting a negotiation by setting out what one side should give up is not a strong move,” the MP said. “Giving the impression that invasion pays off is not a strong move. Regimes are watching closely.” For his part, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy put on a brave face about his conversations with both Trump and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who visited Kyiv to discuss a Ukraine-U.S. economic partnership Wednesday. “Together with the U.S., we are charting our next steps to stop Russian aggression and ensure a lasting, reliable peace. As President Trump said, let’s get it done,” Zelenskyy said, adding that the two leaders agreed to remain in contact and plan future meetings. But later in the day, Trump declined to say whether Kyiv should have an equal role in the peace process. “It’s an interesting question,” he told a reporter. “I think they [Ukraine] have to make peace. That was not a good war to go into.” His remarks triggered criticism on both sides of the Atlantic, with Kyiv’s backers slamming the U.S. president for seemingly blaming Ukraine for Russia’s full-scale invasion of its territory. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called for “a just peace” and for Ukraine and Europe to be at the table with the U.S. for any negotiations. “All we need is peace. A JUST PEACE. Ukraine, Europe and the United States should work on this together. TOGETHER,” he wrote. Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur called Ukraine the “scrimmage line for Liberty on the continent of Europe” and said Zelenskyy “must lead any negotiations on behalf of his nation.” Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, whose Viktor Orbán-led government has long been friendly with the Kremlin, was more positive about Trump’s call with Putin. “We have lived in the shadow of war for three years, and for three years we have hoped that the war would end,” he wrote on social media. “Today, with the phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, we have come a big step closer to fulfilling that hope.” Canadian Liberal candidate for prime minister and long-time Russia-watcher Chrystia Freeland, said Ottawa “stands steadfast with Ukraine.” “It is in the interest of all democracies to support them,” she said on social media. “Ukraine must become a full NATO member.”