The Italian government is satisfied with new funding promised by Brussels to European farmers and is signaling that it may cast its decisive vote in favor of the EU’s huge trade deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc. Ahead of Friday’s vote by EU member countries, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Rome was happy with the European Commission’s efforts to make the deal more palatable. Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida also said the accord represented an opportunity — especially for food exporters. “Italy has never changed its position: We have always supported the conclusion of the agreement,” Tajani said on Wednesday evening. Yet they stopped short of saying outright that Italy would vote in favor of the deal. Instead, within sight of the finish line, Rome is pressing to tighten additional safeguards to shield the EU farm market from being destabilized by any potential influx of South American produce. Rome’s endorsement of the accord, which has been a quarter century in the making and would create a free-trade zone spanning more than 700 million people, is crucial. A qualified majority of 15 of the EU’s 27 countries representing 65 percent of the bloc’s population is needed. Italy, with its large population, effectively holds the casting vote. France and Poland are still holding out against a pro-Mercosur majority led by Germany — but they lack the numbers to stall the deal. If it goes through, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen could fly to Paraguay to sign the accord as soon as next week. The bloc’s other members are Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. ‘AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY’ Italy praised a raft of additional measures proposed by the Commission — including farm market safeguards and fresh budget promises on agriculture funding — as “the most comprehensive system of protections ever included in a free trade agreement signed by the EU.” Tajani, who as deputy prime minister oversees trade policy, has long taken a pro-Mercosur position. He said the deal would help the EU diversify its trade relationships and boost “the strategic autonomy and economic sovereignty of Italy and our continent.” Even Lollobrigida, who has sympathized in the past with farmers’ concerns on the deal, is striking a more positive tone. At a meeting hosted by the Commission in Brussels on Wednesday, Lollobrigida described Mercosur as “an excellent opportunity.” The minister, who is close to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and is from her Brothers of Italy party, also said its provisions on so-called geographical indications would help Italy promote its world-famous delicacies in South America. It would mean no more ‘Parmesão,’” he said, referring to Italian-sounding knockoffs of the famed hard cheese. ONE MORE THING … Lollobrigida said Italy could back the deal if the farm market safeguards are tightened. The EU institutions agreed in December to require the Commission to investigate surges in imports of beef or poultry from Mercosur if volumes rise by 8 percent from the average, or if those imports undercut comparable EU products by a similar margin. Even Francesco Lollobrigida, who has sympathized in the past with farmers’ concerns on the deal, is striking a more positive tone. | Fabio Cimaglia/EPA “We want to go from 8 percent to 5 percent. And we believe that the conditions are there to also reach this goal,” Lollobrigida told Italian daily IlSole24Ore in an interview on Thursday. Meloni pulled the emergency brake at a pre-Christmas EU summit, forcing the Commission to delay the final vote on the deal while it worked on ways to address her concerns around EU farm funding. In response Von der Leyen proposed this week to offer earlier access to up to €45 billion in agricultural funding under the bloc’s next long-term budget. Giorgio Leali reported from Paris and Gerardo Fortuna from Brussels.

Mark T. Kimmitt is a retired U.S. Army brigadier general and has also served as the U.S. assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs. Twenty-two years ago, I found myself in a small conference room, which was hastily organized to conduct a ceremony passing sovereignty from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to the newly appointed interim government of Iraq. Held with little pomp and circumstance, the event was carried out two days prior to its originally announced date, as there were security concerns that insurgents would attempt an attack. This was hardly an auspicious start for Iraq’s democratic transition. And subsequent decades demonstrated the fragility of the decisions that had led to that very ceremony. Years later, U.S. President Donald Trump has now pronounced that America “will run Venezuela,” implying that the U.S. has similar sovereign control over the country. But one can only hope this administration is careful to avoid similar minefields. Going forward, any U.S. strategy needs to be driven by the philosophical just as much as the practical. And unlike two decades ago, the U.S. must approach the mission in Venezuela with a lighter hand, a shorter timeline, a healthy dose of humility and lower expectations. A lighter hand would recognize the major criticisms that followed the fall of the Saddam regime in Iraq. In retrospect, the decision to disband the Iraqi military under the argument that it was a tool of oppression became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hundreds of thousands of young, well-armed fighting age men found themselves out of work, unable to support their families and ready to conduct a counterrevolution.  A lighter hand would also be careful to avoid a meat-axe approach to eliminating existing governmental structures. Just because mid- and upper-level bureaucrats voiced support for now-ousted President Nicolás Maduro doesn’t necessarily mean they should be fired. Despite their ideological convictions, they are still experts on managing the thousands of non-ideological activities required of public administration. While generally maintaining both military and government structures, however, there must be no absolution for the individuals who committed crimes, human rights abuses or significant corruption. And Venezuela’s authorities must be required to bring these perpetrators to justice. To be clear, a lighter hand doesn’t mean totally hands-off. So far, the Trump administration seems to want to shape events in Venezuela from a distance, but it remains unclear whether it will continue to do so or be able to do so — especially if the country plunges into anarchy. And if the U.S. is drawn further in, then Iraq holds lessons. A major error in the months following combat operations In Iraq was a breakdown of law and order. Lawlessness was pervasive, looting was endemic and public order nearly evaporated, only for militias step in until coalition troops were given the mission to restore peace. But by then, it may have been too late, as the delay led to subsequent civil war and the institutionalization of extra-governmental militias that exist to this day. So, while the U.S. wishes to avoid boots on the ground, a breakdown in public order, or a brutal crackdown by illegal factions, may well necessitate the introduction of some outside police or paramilitary forces to regulate the situation. However, they won’t be seen as liberators, and their presence must be minimal and time-limited. The U.S. must also be careful to avoid imposing any significant political or cultural changes. Venezuela is a country with a long history, and a heritage recognizing the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist efforts of Simón Bolívar and others. There is no need to pull down his statues, erase Venezuela’s legacy or attempt to turn the country into an analog of America. Just because mid- and upper-level bureaucrats voiced support for now-ousted President Nicolás Maduro doesn’t necessarily mean they should be fired. | Jesus Vargas/Getty Images This is a country that has survived eras of strongmen, dictators like Juan Vicente Gómez, democratic presidents like Rómulo Betancourt and socialist movements under Maduro and former President Hugo Chávez. No matter how askance Americans may look at “warm collectivism,” if that is a freely and fairly decided choice by Venezuelans, the U.S. must be broadly accepting of it. After all, few other oil-rich nations around the world look like America. So, why must Venezuela be the exception? Furthermore, the Trump administration needs to be explicit about a conditions-based timeline — one perhaps shorter than needed. Mission outcomes need not be perfect, as perfection is the enemy of good enough. It will be important for post-Maduro efforts to be seen as legitimate by the Venezuelan people as well as the international community, and an extended period of external control would diminish mission legitimacy. Plus, any prolonged claim of indirect sovereignty by the U.S. would be used by opponents of the new status quo. For example, a small contingent of U.S. forces is still fueling a rationale for resistance by Iran-backed militias in Iraq, justifying their existence as defenders of the Iraqi people from foreign occupation. One could expect these same arguments to be embedded in outreaches by China, Russia and Iran to counter U.S. influence. Lastly, the U.S. must be humble in its approach and clear in its intentions. Messaging will be key in persuading the people of Venezuela that the U.S. is a force for good, an agent for change and committed to returning the national patrimony to its rightful owners. These messages must also emphasize that acrimony between Venezuela and the U.S. didn’t come about from ideological disputes with the country’s citizens, but from a series of dictators that ruined the richest nation in South America, impoverished its people and engaged in activities resulting in the deaths of thousands of North Americans. The Trump administration has wrested sovereignty from the government of Venezuela — at least indirectly so far. This is a burden, a responsibility and an opportunity. There are now clear paths to restore the country to its pre-Chávez and pre-Maduro prosperity, and Washington should carefully consider each of them. The military operation conducted on the night of Jan. 3 was a model of precision, discipline and limited objectives that no other military in the world could pull off. Yet, that operation was built on a foundation of previous military failures and mistakes like the Bay of Pigs in 1961, the Son Tay raid to rescue U.S. prisoners of war in Hanoi in 1970, Desert One in Iran in 1980, and any number of smaller, more classified operations that went wrong but were never made public. While this next mission — restoring sovereignty and wealth to the people of Venezuela — may be less dangerous, it will certainly be more complex. Like the foundational military missions that, with all their shortcomings and missteps, informed the success of bringing Maduro to justice, the task of restoring Venezuela to its previous prosperity comes with a similarly checkered history in post-combat stabilization. And one would hope the administration draws upon lessons from that history to accomplish it.

BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is determined to travel to South America next week to sign the EU’s long-delayed trade pact with the Mercosur bloc, but she’s having to make last-minute pledges to Europe’s farmers in order to board that flight. EU countries are set to make a pivotal decision on Friday on whether the contentious deal with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — which has been more than a quarter of a century in the making — will finally get over the line. It’s still not certain that von der Leyen can secure the majority she needs on Friday; everything boils down to whether Italy, the key swing voter, will support the accord. To secure Rome’s backing, von der Leyen on Tuesday rolled out some extra budget promises on farm funding. The target was clear: Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose refusal to back the Mercosur agreement forced von der Leyen to cancel her planned signing trip in December. At its heart, the Mercosur agreement is a drive by Europe’s big manufacturers to sell more cars, machinery and chemicals in Latin America, while the agri powerhouses of the southern hemisphere will secure greater access to sell food to Europe — a prospect that terrifies EU farmers. While Germany and Spain have long led the charge for a deal, France and Poland are dead-set against. That leaves Italy as the key member country poised to cast the deciding vote. Von der Leyen’s letter on Tuesday was carefully choreographed political theater. Writing to the EU Council presidency and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, she offered earlier access to up to €45 billion in agricultural funding under the bloc’s next long-term budget, while reaffirming €293.7 billion in farm spending after 2027. POLITICO was the first to report on Monday that the declaration was in the works. She insisted the measures in her letter would “provide the farmers and rural communities with an unprecedented level of support, in some respects even higher than in the current budget cycle.” The money isn’t new — it’s being brought forward from an existing pot in the EU’s next long-term budget — but governments can now lock it in for farmers early, before it is reassigned during later budget negotiations. Von der Leyen framed the move as offering stability and crisis readiness, giving Meloni a tangible win she can parade to her powerful farm lobby. WILL MELONI BACK MERCOSUR? The big question is whether Italy will view von der Leyen’s promises as going far enough ahead of the crunch meeting on Friday. Early signs suggested Rome might be softening. Meloni issued a statement saying the farm funding pledge was “a positive and significant step forward in the negotiations leading to the new EU budget,” but conspicuously avoided making a direct link to Mercosur. (French President Emmanuel Macron also welcomed von der Leyen’s letter, but there’s no prospect of Paris backing Mercosur on Friday.) taly’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose refusal to back the Mercosur agreement forced Ursula von der Leyen to cancel her planned signing trip in December. | Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Nicola Procaccini, a close Meloni ally in the European Parliament, told POLITICO: “We are moving in the right direction to enable Italy to sign Mercosur.” Right direction, but not yet at the destination? The government in Rome would not comment on whether it was about to back the deal. Germany, the EU’s industrial kingpin, is keen to secure a Mercosur agreement to boost its exports, but is still wary as to whether sufficient support exists to finalize an accord on Friday. A German official cautioned everything was still to play for. “A qualified majority is emerging, but it’s not a done deal yet. Until we have the result, there’s no reason to sit back and relax,” the official said. Optimism is growing regarding Rome in the pro-Mercosur camp, however. After all, the pact is widely viewed as strongly in the interests not only of Italy’s engineering companies, but also of its high-end wine and food producers, which are big exporters to South America. Additional curveballs are being thrown by Romania and Czechia, said one EU diplomat, who expressed concern they could turn against the deal on Friday, reducing any majority to very tight margins. The diplomat said they believed Italy would back the deal, however. FINAL STRETCH? The maneuvering is set to continue on Wednesday, when agriculture ministers descend on Brussels for what the Commission is billing as a “political meeting” after December’s farm protests. Officially, Mercosur isn’t on the agenda. Unofficially, however, it’s expected to be omnipresent — in the corridors, in the side meetings, and in the questions ministers choose not to answer. Farm ministers don’t approve trade deals, but the optics matter. Von der Leyen needs momentum — and cover — ahead of Friday’s vote. France — the country most hostile to the deal — will be vocal. On Wednesday, French Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard is expected to open yet another offensive — this time for a lower trigger on emergency safeguards related to the deal. This would reopen a compromise already struck between EU governments, the Parliament and the Commission. It’s a familiar tactic: Keep pushing. “France is still not satisfied with the proposals made by the Commission,” a French agriculture ministry official told reporters on Tuesday, while acknowledging that there has been some improvement. “Paris’ strategy for this week is still to continue to look for a blocking minority.” “Italy has its own strategy, we have ours,” added the official, who was granted anonymity in line with the rules for French government briefings. France’s allies, notably Poland, are equally blunt. Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski said the priority was simply “to block this agreement.” If that failed, Warsaw would seek maximum safeguards and compensation. That means it’s all coming down to the wire on Friday. A second failure to dispatch von der Leyen to finalize the agreement would be deeply embarrassing, and would only stoke Berlin’s anger at other EU countries thwarting the deal. For now, it’s still unclear whether von der Leyen will board that plane. Bartosz Brzeziński reported from Brussels, Giorgio Leali reported from Paris, and Nette Nöstlinger reported from Berlin.

Denmark was outraged on Sunday after a rightwing podcaster in the U.S. pivoted from Washington’s Venezuela operation directly to Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory that U.S. President Donald Trump has coveted. Katie Miller, a former U.S. administration official-turned-podcaster and wife of Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, posted an image on X late Saturday showing a map of Greenland in the colors of the Stars and Stripes with a one-word caption: “SOON.” > SOON pic.twitter.com/XU6VmZxph3 > > — Katie Miller (@KatieMiller) January 3, 2026 Trump’s repeated threats to annex the mineral-rich territory have angered the Danes. And there was a quick response to Miller’s provocation. “We expect full respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark,” Copenhagen’s ambassador to the U.S., Jesper Møller Sørensen, said in a post on X that included Miller’s posting, in what he termed a “friendly reminder” of the longstanding defense ties between the two countries. Trump last month named a special envoy to Greenland, sparking a new diplomatic frenzy in Europe. The U.S. “has to have Greenland for national security,” Trump said at a press conference announcing the appointment of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as his envoy to Greenland. U.S. Vice President JD Vance last March did not rule out using military action to bring Greenland under American control, but said it wouldn’t be necessary if Greenlanders chose to break from Denmark and “cut a deal” with Washington. An American military incursion in Venezuela early Saturday captured President Nicolas Maduro and flew him out of the country. Hours later, Trump said the U.S. will “run” Venezuela until a leadership transition is able to take place.

Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado emerged from hiding in Venezuela to collect her award in Oslo. The Venezuelan opposition leader fled her home country by fishing boat to the Caribbean island of Curaçao, then flew by private plane to Norway via the U.S., according to the Wall Street Journal. In a video she posted Thursday around 2 a.m., Machado greeted a cheering crowd from the balcony of Oslo’s Grand Hotel, the venue that annually hosts the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. Machado missed Wednesday’s event, where her daughter accepted the prize on her behalf. It was Machado’s first public appearance since January, after spending months in hiding in her home country. After arriving in Oslo, Machado met Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. In a joint press conference Thursday morning, Støre praised the Nobel prize winner: “I would like to salute you … for your struggle. It has cost you, your family and your people a lot.” “I am very hopeful Venezuela will be free. We will turn the country into a beacon of hope and opportunity of democracy,” said Machado, who was seeing her family for the first time in 16 months. In 2023, she was disqualified from running for Venezuelan president against authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro — prompting her to back candidate Edmundo González, who lost to Maduro in an election that observers described as flawed. González later fled the country for Spain. Machado recently praised Donald Trump for his stance against Venezuela’s authoritarian government, after the U.S. president said Maduro’s days in office were numbered. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Machado for her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”

President Donald Trump ratcheted up his threats against Colombia on Wednesday, telling reporters Colombian President Gustavo Petro is “next” in the White House’s regional campaign against drug trafficking. While initially, Trump told reporters “I haven’t really thought too much about” Petro, his comments quickly swerved into serious saber-rattling against the Colombian leader. “Colombia is producing a lot of drugs,” Trump said. “So he better wise up or he’ll be next. He’ll be next soon. I hope he’s listening, he’s going to be next.” Trump’s comments mark a sharp escalation of Trump’s threats against the Colombian leader. In a conversation with POLITICO earlier this week, the U.S. president floated expanding his anti-drug trafficking military operation — which have so far been focused on Venezuela — to Mexico and Colombia. Trump has overseen a slate of strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean since September and launched a massive buildup of military power off the coast of Venezuela in an attempt to pressure the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, to leave office. Tensions between Trump and Petro escalated this fall amid the U.S.’s aggressive campaign against drug trafficking in the region. The Trump administration decertified Colombia as a drug control partner and revoked Petro’s visa in September, slashing aid to the country and bashing its leader as an “illegal drug dealer” the following month. Though Trump has made clear he wants Petro out of office, he could get his wish without having to follow through on his threats. The Colombian leader is term-limited — and the country is set to head to the polls for its presidential election in May. The Colombian embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

LONDON — Keir Starmer loves to play the climate leader. But only when his political advisers (and the powerful Chancellor Rachel Reeves) tell him he’s allowed. The green-minded U.K. prime minister flies into the COP30 summit in Brazil Thursday, armed with undeniable climate credentials. His government is pressing ahead with a 2050 net zero target, even as right-wing political rivals at home run away from it. It is about to hand 20-year contracts, laden with financial guarantees, to companies developing offshore wind farms. Just by attending COP, Starmer has shown he’s willing to publicly back the faltering global climate cause, despite furious attacks on the green agenda by close ally Donald Trump. But his claim to global leadership comes with a catch. Action on climate change is also tied to the political agenda back home, where Starmer and Reeves insist they are focused on bringing down bills and driving economic growth. As the prime minister flies in and out of Brazil this week, those key themes dominate. In a speech on Tuesday, Reeves pledged to “bear down” on the national debt and focus on the cost of living — even it requires “hard choices” elsewhere. Climate is no exception. SHY GREEN It was Starmer’s “personal decision” to go to Brazil, U.K. Climate Minister Katie White told a pre-COP event in London on Tuesday. It was reported in the run-up to the summit that he would skip Brazil, amid concerns among his top political aides about the optics of a jaunt to South America to talk climate while voters — disillusioned with Starmer and Labour — struggle with the cost of living at home and brace for tax rises expected in the budget. In the end, Starmer opted to go. But the absence of a full traveling press delegation, the norm at previous COPs, means his visit will generate less media coverage. (Government officials insisted the decision not to take a full press pack was purely logistical.) Starmer, while not an expert, is instinctively supportive of climate action, said one government official. But not so much so, countered a Labour MP, that he has “his own ideas about things.” “He wants to do the right thing, but would be steered as to whether that’s talking about forests or clean power or whatever. I suspect [No 10 Chief of Staff] Morgan McSweeney didn’t want him to go,” said the MP, granted anonymity to give a frank assessment of their leader. JOBS AT HOME GOOD, TREES ABROAD BAD The COP30 leaders’ event is taking place in Belém, the Amazon port city near the edge of the world’s greatest rainforest. But in a symbol of how domestic messaging trumps all else, Starmer will use that global platform to talk about a somewhat less exotic port: Great Yarmouth in East Anglia. It’s one of three U.K. locations — along with Greater Manchester and Belfast — where new, private sector clean energy deals are being announced, securing a modest 600 jobs. The COP30 leaders’ event is taking place in Belém, the Amazon port city near the edge of the world’s greatest rainforest. | Mauro Pimentel/AFP via Getty Images If COP’s Brazilian hosts were hoping for a grander global climate vision, they are about to be disappointed. The U.K. won’t be stumping up any taxpayer money for a global fund to support poorer countries to protect their tropical rainforests — key carbon sinks that, left standing, can help slow the rate of climate change. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) is supposed to be the centerpiece of the summit for Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, but Lula has not been able to rely on even his close, left-wing ally Starmer — with whom he likes to chat about football — to weigh in with a financial contribution to match Brazil’s $1 billion. The U.K. played a role in establishing the concept of the TFFF. An energy department spokesperson said the government remained “incredibly supportive” of the scheme. But, with Reeves warning this week that her budget would deal with “the world as we find it, not the world as I would wish it to be,” her Treasury officials won a Whitehall battle over the U.K.’s financial backing for the scheme. Ministers say only that they will try to drum up private sector investment. ‘KEIR, SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE’ The decision neatly captures the Starmer approach to climate action. If it suits the domestic economic and political agenda, great. If not then, then there is no guarantee of No. 10 and Treasury support. Taxpayer-funded international aid spending, a vital part of the U.K.’s global climate offer, has been slashed. At the same time, despite stretching emissions goals, one of the world’s busiest airports, Heathrow, will be expanded — because of its potential benefits for growth. Ministers are looking at watering down a pledge to ban new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, amid a sclerotic economy. The Treasury is considering easing the tax burden on fossil fuel companies. The bipolar approach risks bringing Starmer and Reeves into conflict with the U.K.’s energetic, committedly green Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who will lead the country’s delegation to the COP30 conference and the formal United Nations negotiation. “On all of this, there is Ed on one side, Rachel on the other, and Keir somewhere in the middle,” said the government official. Starmer largely subcontracts his climate and energy policy to Miliband, said an industry figure who frequently interacts with government. Many MPs wish Starmer would act more like Miliband and embrace his green record more exuberantly. They point to the recent surge in support for the Green Party, which is making some in Labour nearly as nervous as the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK to their right. OUTFLANKED In that context, it was a “no-brainer” for Starmer to go to COP and appear “visibly committed to climate action,” said Steve Akehurst from the political research firm Persuasion UK. “In so far as there is any real backlash to net zero in the U.K., it does not exist inside the Labour electoral coalition,” he said. The Greens are now “competing strongly for those votes.” A second Labour MP put it bluntly. “Starmer is so politically weak that to not attend would open up yet another front on his already collapsed centre-left flank,” they said. Before getting on the plane to Brazil, Starmer met sixth-form students at 10 Downing Street to talk about the summit and the environment. There was a flash of the green, idealistic Starmer that some say lurks beneath the political triangulation. He took the opportunity to remind the teenagers of the “obligation we undoubtedly have to safeguard the planet for generations to come.” “But also,” he added, it’s about safeguarding “hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country.” Additional reporting by Abby Wallace.

Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. U.S. President Donald Trump loves the 19th century. His heroes are former presidents William McKinley who “made our country very rich through tariffs,” Teddy Roosevelt who “did many great things” like the Panama Canal, and James Monroe who established the policy rejecting “the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs.” These aren’t just some throw-away lines from Trump’s speeches. They signify a much deeper and broader break from established modern national security thinking. Trump is now the first U.S. president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to believe the principal threats to the U.S. aren’t in far-away regions or stem from far-away powers — rather, they’re right here at home. For him, the biggest threats to America today are the immigrants flooding across the country’s borders and the drugs killing tens of thousands from overdoses. And to that end, his real goal is to dominate the entire Western hemisphere — from the North Pole to the South Pole — using America’s superior military and economic power to defeat all “enemies,” both foreign and domestic. Of course, at the top of Trump’s list of threats to the U.S. is immigration. He campaigned incessantly on the idea that his predecessors had failed to seal the southern border, and promised to deport every immigrant without legal status — some 11 million in all — from the U.S. Those efforts started on the first day, with the Trump administration deploying troops to the southern border to interdict anyone seeking to cross illegally. It also instituted a dragnet to sweep people off the streets — whether in churches, near schools, on farmlands, inside factories, at court houses or in hospitals. Even U.S. citizens have been caught up in this massive deportation effort. No one is safe. The resulting shift is also expectedly dramatic: Refugee admissions have halted, with those promised passage stuck in third countries. In the coming year, the only allotment for refugees will be white South Africans, who Trump has depicted as genocide victims. Illegal crossings are down to a trickle, while large numbers of immigrants — legal as well as illegal — are returning home. And 2025 will likely be the first time in nearly a century where net migration into the U.S. will be negative. For Trump, immigrants aren’t the only threat to the homeland, though. Drugs are too. That’s why on Feb. 1, the U.S. leader imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China because of fentanyl shipments — though Canada is hardly a significant source of the deadly narcotic. Still, all these tariffs remain in place. Then, in August, he called in the military, signing a directive that authorizes it to take on drug cartels, which he designated as foreign terrorist organizations. “Latin America’s got a lot of cartels and they’ve got a lot of drugs flowing,” he later explained. “So, you know, we want to protect our country. We have to protect our country.” And that was just the beginning. Over the past two months, the Pentagon has deployed a massive array of naval and air power, and some 10,000 troops for drug interdiction. Over the past five weeks, the U.S. military has also been directed to attack small vessels crossing the Caribbean and the Pacific that were suspected to be running drugs. To date, 16 vessels have been attacked, killing over 60 people. For Donal Trump, immigrants aren’t the only threat to the homeland, though. Drugs are too. | oe Raedle/Getty Images When asked for the legal justification of targeting vessels in international waters that posed no imminent threat to the U.S., Trump dismissed the need: “I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re going to kill them. You know, they’re going to be, like, dead.” But now the U.S. leader has set his sights on bigger fish. Late last month, the Pentagon ordered a carrier battle group, Gerald R. Ford, into the Caribbean. Once that carrier and its accompanying ships arrive at their destination later this week, the U.S. will have deployed one-seventh of its Navy — the largest such deployment in the region since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. If the target is just drug-runners in open waters, clearly this is overkill — but they aren’t. The real reason for deploying such overwhelming firepower is for Trump to intimidate the leaders and regimes he doesn’t like, if not actually force them from office. Drugs are just the excuse to enable such action. The most obvious target is Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, who blatantly stole an election to retain power last year. The White House has declared Maduro “an illegitimate leader heading an illegitimate regime,” and Trump has made clear that “there will be land action in Venezuela soon.” However, Maduro isn’t the only one Trump has his eye on. After Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the U.S. of killing innocent fishermen, Trump cut off all aid to the country and accused Petro of being “an illegal drug leader,” which potentially sets the stage for the U.S. to go after another regime. All this firepower and rhetoric is meant to underscore one point: To Trump, the entire Western hemisphere is America’s. Leaders he doesn’t like, he will remove from power. Countries that take action he doesn’t approve of — whether jailing those convicted of trying to overthrow a government like in Brazil, or running ads against his tariffs as in Canada — will be punished economically. Greenland will be part of the U.S., as will the Panama Canal, and Canada will become the 51st state. Overall, Trump’s focus on dominating the Western hemisphere represents a profound shift from nearly a century’s-long focus on warding off overseas threats to protect Americans at home. And like it or not, for Trump, security in the second quarter of the 21st century lies in concepts and ideas first developed in the last quarter of the 19th century.

Argentinian President Javier Milei’s party scored a decisive win in Sunday’s legislative elections, sparking celebrations from U.S. President Donald Trump. With more than 99 percent of the ballots counted, according to local media, Milei’s austerity-pushing Freedom Advances party pulled in almost 41 percent of the vote, leaving leftist rivals trailing and giving the maverick president more sway in Argentina’s Congress. The vote was closely watched in Washington, where the White House has moved in recent weeks to prop up the Argentinian economy, which has been roiled by market uncertainty over Milei’s radical policies slashing government spending. “Congratulations to President Javier Milei on his Landslide Victory in Argentina. He is doing a wonderful job! Our confidence in him was justified by the People of Argentina,” Trump said on Truth Social in praise of the libertarian leader. In early October, Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. support — in the form of a $20 billion currency swap and a program to purchase Argentinian pesos, leading some to describe it as a bailout — was delivered because “Argentina’s reform agenda is of systemic importance, and a strong, stable Argentina which helps anchor a prosperous Western Hemisphere is in the strategic interest of the United States. Their success should be a bipartisan priority.” The mega-billions gamble, which Bessent argued over domestic objections was in line with Trump’s America First agenda, paid off Sunday. Trump followed up on his initial congratulations by reposting a message on Truth Social that indicated Milei’s success was, in part, due to his close relationship with the U.S. president. He then added: “BIG WIN in Argentina for Javier Milei, a wonderful Trump Endorsed Candidate! He’s making us all look good. Congratulations Javier!” “Argentines showed that they don’t want to return to the model of failure,” Milei told a crowd of supporters in Buenos Aires after his clear victory.

TOULON, France — French President Emmanuel Macron wants his lawmakers to take a more Teutonic approach to governance. With just a hint of jealousy in his tone as he stood beside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Macron urged opposition lawmakers planning to torpedo France’s minority government next month to instead compromise. “On the other side of the Rhine, it appears that a conservative party and a socialist party are managing to work together,” Macron told reporters during a press conference on Friday after ministers from both France and Germany met in the southern French city of Toulon. “That happens not so far from us, and it works, so I think it’s possible.” Opponents of French Prime Minister François Bayrou look near certain to bring down his minority government early next month over his plans to slash the budget by nearly €44 billion. Since snap elections last summer delivered a hung parliament, Macron has tried but failed to convince lawmakers to engage in the type of compromise and coalition-building exercises common in parliamentary democracies like Italy and Germany, but rare in France. When asked if Bayrou’s likely ouster would lead to another dissolution of parliament and fresh elections, Macron said he would not engage in “fictional politics.” He also ruled out resigning. MORE SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE Macron and Merz committed to ramp up support for Ukraine at Friday’s talks, where massive Russian strikes this week have cast further doubt on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s purported desire for peace. Macron announced that leaders of the “coalition of the willing,” a group of Western countries working on security guarantees for Ukraine in case of a ceasefire with Russia, would speak by phone with U.S. President Donald Trump this weekend and meet with each other next week. The French president also said that if a meeting between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy doesn’t happen by Monday as requested by the U.S. president, it will “mean that President Putin has played President Trump.” Speaking with the press on Thursday, Merz expressed his doubt about the likelihood of such an encounter, saying it was “obviously not going to come to a meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Putin.” In Toulon, the two governments presented nearly 30 common projects and eight road maps outlining common priorities for European policies spanning from energy to financial services. They also announced a bilateral summit on digital sovereignty in Berlin on Nov. 18, and another on space in France next year. Paris and Berlin also boosted their cooperation on defense matters, launching a “strategic dialogue” on nuclear deterrence and a common project on an “early warning system,” which would provide information about ballistic missile launches to NATO allies. However, they found no common position on the EU’s trade deal with South America’s Mercosur countries, which France opposes and Germany strongly supports. The two countries also did not make major progress on their paralyzed flagship fighter jet program, the Future Combat Air System.