MADRID — Spain’s conservatives hope a trio of impending regional elections will collapse the government of Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, the EU’s only remaining heavyweight national leader from the center left. First up this Sunday is the northeastern region of Aragón, dubbed the “Spanish Ohio” thanks to its track record as a barometer of the national mood. The center-right People’s Party (PP) appears to be heading for victory, but a surging far right is likely to make the biggest gains. Aragón will be followed by two more elections in PP-held regions — Castilla y León in March and Andalusia in June. For the conservatives, the goal is to seize on the corruption scandals in the Socialist party, which have severely weakened Sánchez, to confirm the PP’s regional dominance and dial up pressure on the government in Madrid. Speaking to supporters on the campaign trail in the town of Calatayud, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, leader of the PP, called on Aragón’s voters “to be the spokespeople of all Spaniards on Sunday at the ballot box.” “Friends, vote to stop the lies, to stop the corruption, to stop the arrogance and to stop the discredit into which national politics has fallen,” he said. Oriol Bartomeus, a political scientist at Barcelona’s Autonomous University, said the key across these regional elections was to build momentum at the national level. “The [PP’s] intention is to convert all these elections into a national story,” he said. “If the PP wins and the Socialists suffer a bad defeat, that will be used to say that Sánchez must step down because his party is in freefall.” PILING ON THE PRESSURE Sánchez’s coalition is already on the ropes following a storm of scandals. Probes into a kickback scheme implicating two former senior Socialists, as well as sexual harassment allegations concerning other figures in the party, have been hogging headlines in recent months. An ongoing investigation into the business dealings of Sánchez’s wife and the upcoming trial of his brother on charges of influence peddling have given the opposition further ammunition. Meanwhile, two January train crashes that killed a combined 47 people and triggered rail chaos in some parts of Spain have added to the government’s woes. A ballot held in the western region of Extremadura in December handed the PP electoral momentum: The party made modest gains while the Socialists lost 10 of their 28 seats. The Aragón election is a snap ballot called by regional president Jorge Azcón amid a parliamentary impasse that followed a decision by the far-right Vox to withdraw support for the conservatives. “Friends, vote to stop the lies, to stop the corruption, to stop the arrogance and to stop the discredit into which national politics has fallen,” Alberto Núñez Feijóo said. | ZIPI/EPA Polls suggest Aragón is heading for a similar result to Extremadura, with the PP clearly ahead and possibly making slight gains. The Socialists, meanwhile, are left hoping to avoid their worst-ever result in the region. Polls have the PP on track to win about 28 seats in the 67-seat assembly, with Vox taking 12 to 14 and the Socialists 17 or 18. In every general election since the country’s return to democracy in 1977, the winning party in Aragón has been the national overall victor, earning it the “Spanish Ohio” nickname — although analysts say its capital Zaragoza and the province that surrounds it currently provide a more reliable measure of the national vote. With a surface area slightly greater than that of Switzerland, the region borders Catalonia to the east and France to the north, encompassing vast rural areas. But it has also developed a reputation as a technological hub, and Zaragoza is Spain’s fifth-largest city. WARNINGS ABOUT VOX The Socialists have also given the election a national dimension by deploying the former minister of education, training and sport, Pilar Alegría, as their candidate. The warning from the Socialists is that Vox — which triggered the regional election in a clash with the PP over the acceptance of unaccompanied migrant children — could still ultimately agree to form a majority with the PP after extracting concessions. The Aragón election is a snap ballot called by regional president Jorge Azcón amid a parliamentary impasse that followed a decision by the far-right Vox to withdraw support for the conservatives. | Chema Moya/EPA Prime Minister Sánchez has campaigned alongside Alegría, urging voters to mobilize against the prospect of a consolidated PP-Vox majority, which he casts as part of an international radical right-wing tide. “The question we have to ask ourselves here in Aragón is: What you don’t want for the rest of the world, do you want that for Europe, for Spain and for Aragón?” the prime minister said at a campaign rally in the city of Teruel. He condemned the “misogyny and hate” of Vox, which he warned could form part of a coalition with the PP if they secured a majority. Tomás Guitarte, the leading candidate for Aragón Exists, which seeks to represent voters in rural areas, said such debates have distracted from more pressing concerns. “Sixty percent of the population of Aragón lives in two percent of its territory, while the rest are suffering serious problems related to depopulation,” he told POLITICO.  “They should be talking about this but instead the national leaders come here and turn the campaign into a national debate, focused on what concerns them in Madrid more than the real concerns of Aragón,” he said. Guitarte also pointed to housing as a serious concern for voters. Describing itself as cutting across party lines, Aragón Existe presents itself as a potential coalition partner for the PP, which is unlikely to secure an outright majority. However, Vox is likely to be the PP’s only viable partner and the one set to make the most substantial gains. The national conservative party has been courting the region’s farming sector with attacks on EU agricultural policy while condemning the central government’s willingness to welcome migrants. Polls show Vox could come close to doubling its seven seats, echoing its strong performance in national polls. The Socialists have also given the election a national dimension by deploying the former minister of education, training and sport, Pilar Alegría, as their candidate. | Mariscal/EPA Bartomeus said the PP was struggling to fend off the electoral threat posed by Vox, which divides the right. “The more Vox’s support increases, the worse the PP will perform,” he said. “The PP doesn’t go up substantially because part of its voter base is going to Vox.” Political analysts don’t generally believe the Aragón result alone could force Sánchez to bring forward the general election, scheduled for 2027. But the cumulative effect of defeats there, in Castilla y León and, above all, in the former Socialist stronghold of Andalusia could make it very hard for Sánchez to hang on.

Donald Trump has aborted his threat to take Greenland by force but online the war is just getting started. The United States president in January shocked Europe with threats of tariffs to support his right to own Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Danish kingdom. While the intensity of those threats has subsided for now, Danish and European officials say the small island remains vulnerable to the power wielded by the U.S. administration online. With a population of under 60,000, the tiniest drop of misinformation can spread quickly and significantly affect public opinion — especially when the false narrative is coming not from anonymous Russian troll farms but from the most powerful politician in the Western world. “Greenland is a target of influence campaigns of various kinds,” Denmark’s Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard told POLITICO, with one goal of such campaigns “to create division in the relationship between Denmark and Greenland.” In the last year disinformation has increased in Greenland, said Thomas Hedin, editor-in-chief of Danish fact-checker TjekDet. While the influx has lacked any “structured campaign,” including from Russia, Hedin cited as an example of disinformation the idea that the U.S. could buy Greenland — a message repeated by Trump but that is impossible under the Danish constitution, Hedin said. The fact that Greenland is not part of the EU means that the bloc’s social media law — which obliges platforms to consider and mitigate threats of misinformation to civic discourse — does not apply to Greenland, Denmark’s digital ministry told POLITICO.  While polls show that Greenlandic people still favor integration with Europe, German Greens lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky said the EU needs to prepare for a “new type of hybrid confrontation” over the island. “It’s no more combatting Russian trolls trying to hack the system. If pointed at the EU and Greenland, the disinformation campaigns on U.S. platforms become the system,” he said. RIPE FOR EXPLOITATION The relationship between Denmark and Greenland is particularly ripe for exploitation, said Signe Ravn-Højgaard, co-founder and CEO of Denmark-based Digital Infrastructure Think Tank, who conducted an analysis on the misinformation landscape in Greenland.   With a population the size of a Brussels municipality, news travels fast in Greenland and there are few media outlets that can debunk information. Most people rely on Facebook, said Ravn-Højgaard. With only a few shares, a fake news story can reach the entire population.   “It’s completely different from how it is in Denmark,” she said. If in a city of 20,000 people, 5,000 people believe something false, “it’s not a danger to the democracy of Denmark.” But in Greenland, “that would firstly, quickly spread to everyone, and secondly, it’s a large percentage of the population,” she said.   Organized foreign interference campaigns haven’t appeared in Greenland yet, according to two researchers that POLITICO spoke to, but misinformation has been spreading. Two members of the Greenlandic government, Fisheries Minister Peter Borg and Labour Minister Aqqaluaq Egede, pleaded with the public to “stand in unity” on social media in the face of threats from the U.S.   EU lawmakers have also sounded the alarm. Greens lawmaker Alexandra Geese said to “expect influence operations using state-of-the-art propaganda campaigns as well as hate and harassment campaigns against political figures in Greenland and Denmark.” TRANSPARENCY While Denmark said it has no legal obligation to enforce the bloc’s platform law, the Digital Services Act, on Greenland territory, several lawmakers say that should change. Geese said that the EU should enforce the law, “making sure algorithms respect users’ choices rather than acting in the interest of the same tech oligarchs who are investing in Greenland’s minerals.” That’s despite the fact that the EU has struggled to show tangible results elsewhere so far. The European Commission hasn’t concluded any of its investigations on risks to elections and civic discourse despite having probes open on four platforms including Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, TikTok and X. As well as getting platforms to make changes to their systems, the DSA could also help bring transparency to the online ecosystem. The law requires platforms to be transparent about paid ads and data — something Greenland is lacking, said Ravn-Højgaard. Ravn-Højgaard cited paid ads that ran on Facebook ahead of the territory’s election in March 2025, which were not available on the platform’s transparency database. Lagodinsky said the EU should set up an “ad hoc expert group explicitly focused on Greenland.” Brussels should also increase support to fact-checking networks and civil society organizations, he said, similar to the support offered in countries like Moldova and Ukraine.

5 TIMES THE WINTER OLYMPICS GOT SUPER POLITICAL Invasions, nuclear crises and Nazi propaganda: The Games have seen it all. By SEBASTIAN STARCEVIC Illustration by Natália Delgado /POLITICO The Winter Olympics return to Europe this week, with Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo set to host the world’s greatest athletes against the snowy backdrop of the Italian Alps. But beyond the ice rinks and ski runs, the Games have long doubled as a stage for global alliances, heated political rivalries and diplomatic crises.  “An event like the Olympics is inherently political because it is effectively a competition between nations,” said Madrid’s IE Assistant Professor Andrew Bertoli, who studies the intersection of sport and politics. “So the Games can effectively become an arena where nations compete for prestige, respect and soft power.” If history is any guide, this time won’t be any different. From invasions to the Nazis to nuclear crises, here are five times politics and the Winter Olympics collided. 1980: AMERICA’S “MIRACLE ON ICE” One of the most iconic moments in Olympic history came about amid a resurgence in Cold War tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The USSR had invaded Afghanistan only months earlier, and Washington’s rhetoric toward Moscow had hardened, with Ronald Reagan storming to the presidency a month prior on an aggressive anti-Soviet platform. At the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York, that superpower rivalry was on full display on the ice. The U.S. men’s ice hockey team — made up largely of college players and amateurs — faced off against the Soviet squad, a battle-hardened, gold medal-winning machine. The Americans weren’t supposed to stand a chance. Then the impossible happened. In a stunning upset, the U.S. team skated to a 4-3 victory, a win that helped them clinch the gold medal. As the final seconds ticked away, ABC broadcaster Al Michaels famously cried, “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!” The impact echoed far beyond the rink. For many Americans, the victory was a morale boost in a period marked by geopolitical anxiety and division. Reagan later said it was proof “nice guys in a tough world can finish first.” The miracle’s legacy has endured well into the 21st century, with U.S. President Donald Trump awarding members of the hockey team the Congressional Gold Medal in December last year. 2014: RUSSIA INVADES CRIMEA AFTER SOCHI Four days. That’s how long Moscow waited after hosting the Winter Olympics in the Russian resort city of Sochi before sending troops into Crimea, occupying and annexing the Ukrainian peninsula. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had fled to Moscow days earlier, ousted by protesters demanding democracy and closer integration with the EU. As demonstrators filled Kyiv’s Independence Square, their clashes with government forces played on television screens around the world alongside highlights from the Games, in which Russia dominated the medal tally. Vladimir Putin poses with Russian athletes while visiting the Coastal Cluster Olympic Village ahead of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. | Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images No sooner was the Olympic flame extinguished in Sochi on Feb. 23 than on Feb. 27 trucks and tanks rolled into Crimea. Soldiers in unmarked uniforms set up roadblocks, stormed Crimean government buildings and raised the Russian flag high above them. Later that year, Moscow would face allegations of a state-sponsored doping program and many of its athletes were ultimately stripped of their gold medals. 2022: RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE … AGAIN There’s a theme here. Russian President Vladimir Putin made an appearance at the opening ceremony of Beijing’s Winter Games in 2022, meeting on the sidelines with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and declaring a “no limits” partnership. Four days after the end of the Games, on Feb. 24, Putin announced a “special military operation,” declaring war on Ukraine. Within minutes, Russian troops flooded into Ukraine, and missiles rained down on Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities across the country. According to U.S. intelligence, The New York Times reported, Chinese officials asked the Kremlin to delay launching its attack until after the Games had wrapped up. Beijing denied it had advance knowledge of the invasion. 2018: KOREAN UNITY ON DISPLAY As South Korea prepared to host the Winter Games in its mountainous Pyeongchang region, just a few hundred kilometers over the border, the North Koreans were conducting nuclear missile tests, sparking global alarm and leading U.S. President Donald Trump to threaten to strike the country. The IOC said it was “closely monitoring” the situation amid concerns about whether the Games could be held safely on the peninsula. South Korean Vice Unification Minister Chun Hae-Sung, shakes hands with the head of North Korean delegation Jon Jong-Su after their meeting on January 17, 2018 in Panmunjom, South Korea. | South Korean Unification Ministry via Getty Images But then in his New Year’s address, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un signaled openness to participating in the Winter Olympics. In the end, North Korean athletes not only participated in the Games, but at the opening ceremony they marched with their South Korean counterparts under a single flag, that of a unified Korea. Pyongyang and Seoul also joined forces in women’s ice hockey, sending a single team to compete — another rare show of unity that helped restart diplomatic talks between the capitals, though tensions ultimately resumed after the Games and continue to this day. 1936: HITLER INVADES THE RHINELAND Much has been said about the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, in which the Nazi regime barred Jewish athletes from participating and used the Games to spread propaganda. But a few months earlier Germany also hosted the Winter Olympics in the town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, allowing the Nazis to project an image of a peaceful, prosperous Germany and restore its global standing nearly two decades after World War I. A famous photograph from the event even shows Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels signing autographs for the Canadian figure skating team. Weeks after the Games ended, Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, a major violation of the Treaty of Versailles that was met with little pushback from France and Britain, and which some historians argue emboldened the Nazis to eventually invade Poland, triggering World War II.

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.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Keine Brandmauer in München: Nach zwei Jahren sind drei AfD-Politiker wieder auf die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz eingeladen. MSC-Chef Wolfgang Ischinger setzt auf Dialog statt Ausgrenzung, auch wenn die Entscheidung für Kritik bei den Grünen und Sicherheitsbedenken in der Union sorgt. Pauline von Pezold und Gordon Repinski analysieren die Hintergründe der Einladung und das juristische Tauziehen hinter den Kulissen.  Wahlkampf-Check Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: In Schwerin zeichnet sich ein Zweikampf zwischen SPD und AfD ab, während die CDU in Umfragen bei 13 Prozent stagniert. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview bezieht CDU-Spitzenkandidat Daniel Peters Stellung: Wie viel „Politikwechsel“ ist mit ihm machbar und wo zieht er die Linie gegenüber der AfD?  Eskalation im Iran: Während das Regime in Teheran mit äußerster Brutalität gegen die eigene Bevölkerung vorgeht und die Armeen der EU-Staaten als Terrororganisationen einstuft, stellt sich die Frage nach der Rolle des Westens. Nahost-Experte Daniel-Dylan Böhmer, Korrespondent für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik von  WELT, ordnet ein, warum ein US-Militärschlag unter Donald Trump aktuell unwahrscheinlich bleibt und welche Vermittler jetzt gefragt sind. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

LISBON — To stop the explosive growth of the ultranationalist Chega party, Portugal’s leading conservatives are doing the previously unthinkable: endorsing the center-left candidate for president. Last week, Portugal’s prominent center-right politicians are publicly backing António José Seguro — a former secretary general of the Socialist Party — in the runoff presidential election on Feb. 8. The conservative endorsement is a collective rejection of the opposing candidate, far-right Chega leader André Ventura, who was the runner-up in the first round of voting in January. Although current polls indicate Ventura has no real possibility of winning the second round, the conservatives publicly backing Seguro say they’re doing so to underscore the center-right’s commitment to democratic values. Those who have spoken out include former President and Prime Minister Aníbal Cavaco Silva, former Deputy Prime Minister Paulo Portas, as well as former European Commissioner for Research and current Lisbon Mayor Carlos Moedas. Thousands of electors have also signed an open letter of support for Seguro, which was issued by a group of self-declared “non-socialist” public figures. Ventura secured nearly a quarter of the ballots in the first round of voting, and his performance highlights Chega’s remarkable ascent. By campaigning against minority groups such as the Roma community, increased immigration and denouncing government corruption, the ultranationalist group has gone from having just one lawmaker in parliament to being the country’s leading opposition party in just six years. “We have to draw a red line between liberal and illiberal forces,” said political consultant Henrique Burnay, a signatory of the open letter backing Seguro. “And my center-right democratic and liberal values have no connection with the positions the radical right defends.” André Ventura secured nearly a quarter of the ballots in the first round of voting, and his performance highlights Chega’s remarkable ascent. | Zed Jameson/Anadolu via Getty Images This is a clear choice between “a candidate for whom I may not feel enthusiasm, and one who is bent on polarizing the public, unilaterally deciding who are good or bad citizens, and who earnestly worries me,” he said. Luís Marques Mendes, who ran an unsuccessful presidential campaign on behalf of the governing center-right Social Democratic Party, said he would also commit his vote to Seguro because “he is the only candidate who comes close to the values I have always defended: defense of democracy, guaranteeing space for moderation, respect for the purpose of representing all Portuguese people.” PRIME MINISTER UNDER PRESSURE The avalanche of conservative support for Seguro is a source of discomfort for Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, who is declining to endorse either candidate in the presidential runoff. During a session of the Portuguese parliament, lawmakers lambasted the center-right leader for failing to choose between “a democrat” and someone who wants to “end the democratic regime.” The country’s political analysts interpret the prime minister’s refusal to back Seguro as a tactical decision aimed at not alienating the most conservative wing of his party, which would consider any support for a former socialist leader unacceptable. João Cotrim de Figueiredo, one of the most prominent figures in the economically liberal Liberal Initiative party, was similarly criticized for not explicitly backing the center-left candidate. Last week, however, he tacitly admitted he would vote for Seguro by declaring he’d neither cast a ballot for Ventura nor abstain from voting — a pragmatic approach, as his party’s voter base is made up of right-leaning young men who could defect to Chega. The avalanche of conservative support for António José Seguro is now a source of discomfort for Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, who is declining to endorse either candidate in the presidential runoff. | Rita Franca/LightRocket via Getty Images According to António Costa Pinto, a political scientist at the University of Lisbon’s Institute of Social Sciences, the center-right’s decision to mobilize against Ventura makes sense because of the power accorded to the president, who can veto laws, appoint members of key state and judicial bodies, and dissolve parliament. “In the unlikely scenario that Ventura secured the presidency, there is little doubt that he would use it to do everything to give his party control of the government … and pose a serious threat to the institutional functioning of Portuguese democracy,” he said. But, Costa Pinto explained, the conservatives’ decision to publicly back Seguro could end up paradoxically benefiting Ventura, as he will likely use their endorsements to reaffirm his claim that the country’s center-right and center-left parties are virtually identical mainstream entities. “This allows Ventura to reinforce his image as an anti-establishment leader who represents the people and fights the elites,” he said. “As long as he obtains between 35 and 40 percent of the vote when the runoff is held — which is to say, more than the 32 percent Prime Minister Luís Montenegro secured in last year’s parliamentary elections — he’ll also be able to claim he’s the true leader of the Portuguese right.”

As January comes to a close, it should not just become a harrowing memory. The past four weeks are a harbinger of what is to come under President Donald Trump, as the administration showed exactly the future it is building: One in which the laws are ignored, American life is cheap, and elections are hijacked by FBI raids. This month, Americans have witnessed a lurch toward authoritarianism that cannot be ignored. If January 2026 was any indication, the march toward dictatorship isn’t linear, it’s exponential.  > The Trump administration has reached a point where they believe they can > simply shoot you for opposing its agenda. On January 3, the United States captured Nicolás Maduro, the president of Venezuela, and brought him to the US to stand trial. This was illegal. It doesn’t matter that Maduro was a dictator himself; his capture was a show of lawless force. The US is now overseeing the sale of Venezuelan oil, the Qatari bank account that holds the proceeds, and the dispersal of some of that money to Venezuela. Fresh off this literal coup, Trump began saber-rattling about taking Greenland, threatening Europe that he would even take it by force. Trump backed down after Europe rebuffed him, but it’s unlikely that his desire to appear big and strong by taking territory or invading other nations is over. Trump has not shied away from siccing an army on his own people. In Minneapolis, Trump’s immigration forces encountered organized and increasing resistance from protesters in the Twin Cities. In response, the government escalated their tactics. Thus far, armed federal agents have killed two American citizens, demonstrating that the price of opposing this administration can be your life. On January 7, Renée Good told Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer Jonathan Ross, “I’m not mad at you.” Seconds later, he shot her three times, and followed that by calling her a “fucking bitch.” Outrage and a general strike across the Twin Cities followed. But the Trump administration didn’t back down. His Justice Department attempted to investigate Good, presumably to back up their smear that the mother of three with stuffies in her glove compartment was a domestic terrorist. As the protests continued, the administration grew bolder. On January 24, a group of masked Customs and Border Protection agents shot Alex Pretti in what looked like a state-sanctioned execution from a distant totalitarian country. Pretti is on his knees, surrounded by officers, holding his phone, helpless, when he is shot in the back. At least nine more shots pierced his motionless body as it lay alone on the street. The Trump administration has reached a point where they believe they can simply shoot you for opposing its agenda. Then they set about smearing Pretti, an ICU nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, as a domestic terrorist.  The backlash was predictably fierce. When multiple Senate Democrats began announcing they would not back a DHS funding bill without reforms to ICE, the administration showed a smidge of contrition. It moved CBP commander and Nazi impersonator Greg Bovino, who defended Pretti’s murder with such brazen lies that he proved to be a liability, out of Minneapolis. Nearly a week after his killing, the administration announced it would launch a civil rights investigation into the CBP agents who shot Pretti. This is likely a PR stunt, to be run by the same Justice Department that has contorted the law to harass and smear the president’s opponents. There is no evidence that this administration has any desire to rein in or punish its immigration officers, and Americans should not be fooled by a few days of conciliatory talk. The administration is barreling full steam ahead.  For months now, ICE, CBP, and their leadership have played fast and loose with federal court orders. Bovino, for example, repeatedly lied to Sara Ellis, a Chicago-based federal judge—and she called him out for it. Notably, that was not the conduct that Bovino’s superiors had a problem with. Now, ICE appears to be disappearing people from Minnesota and refusing judicial orders to either defend the disappearances or return the people they have apprehended. On January 28, Patrick Schiltz, Minnesota’s chief federal district judge, issued an extraordinary order calling out ICE’s refusal to follow court orders. “Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases” in his state alone, he wrote. “The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges.” The violated orders are all habeas petitions, meaning the government has been asked to explain its arrest of an individual or to free that person, but it has simply refused. Schiltz continued: “This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” ICE, he continued, “is not a law unto itself.” But that’s exactly how this administration is determined to act. This week, I decided to look into how the Trump administration was ignoring Minnesotans’ Constitutional rights; the violations are innumerable, mounting to thousands per day. Federal agents are behaving like the First and Fourth amendments, in particular, do not apply to them; that witnessing and documenting their actions is a crime rather than a right; and that they can seize anyone they want—violently if they feel like it—rather than observe constitutional restraints on searches and seizures. The administration is not stopping at arresting protestors. On Thursday night, it arrested two journalists, prominent former CNN anchor Don Lemon and, on Friday morning, independent journalist Georgia Fort, who had both documented a protest at a church in St. Paul. Notably, both journalists are Black. “The nature of oppression in America is that they workshop it first on Black, Latino, Asian & Native people,” Sherrilyn Ifill, the former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, posted on Bluesky of Lemon and Fort’s arrests. “But it is always, in the end, coming for everyone.” As if these facts weren’t alarming enough, the DOJ’s obsession with going after the two journalists led it on an unprecedented quest to convince federal judges to issue arrest warrants that the judges found frivolous. First, the government requested eight arrest warrants related to the protest. After a federal magistrate judge in Minnesota declined to issue warrants for Lemon, Fort, and three others, the DOJ asked the chief judge, Schiltz, to issue them. He refused, and the government went to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to force Schiltz to issue the warrants. The Eighth Circuit declined. Presumably, the government decided to get an indictment from a grand jury instead, but the source of authority for the arrests remained unclear as of Friday afternoon. President Trump’s second administration has inspired a resurgence of interest in the idea of the “dual state,” a framework for authoritarianism created by German Jewish lawyer Ernst Fraenkel to explain how life for many people in Nazi Germany appeared normal even as authoritarianism took hold. Fraenkel theorized that society had been bifurcated into a normative state, in which the rule of law appears intact, and a prerogative state, in which the state ignores the law to take on its enemies or further its aims. In the 1930s, most Germans could go about their lives assuming the general laws would apply, but the targets of the state, such as the Jews, saw their rights stripped away. At bottom, however, the dual state is only a useful mirage. It lulls people into complacency because their lives continue apace, but at any moment, they can be sucked into the prerogative state where they are at the mercy of the state.  University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq, who is at work on a book about the dual state, has pointed out several examples from Fraenkel’s time as a lawyer in Nazi Germany that may seem eerily familiar to Americans in January 2026. In one, Fraenkel won a financial settlement for his client against the regime, only to discover that the money had been deposited in the government’s coffers. In another, a man was acquitted in court, only for a Gestapo officer to seize him anyway.  Over the last month, the contours of such a dual state have emerged again and again. When ICE detains people and then refuses to comply with judges’ orders—which happened at least 96 times this month, as Judge Schiltz documented—it is signaling that the targets of its raids have been taken not just into detention but into the prerogative state, where the rule of law cannot not reach them. When the government arrested Lemon and Fort even though multiple judges believed the charges were frivolous and refused to issue warrants, it refused to take no for an answer. Then there’s Juan Espinoza Martinez, who was acquitted by a federal jury of bogus charges that he ordered a hit on Bovino. Rather than let him go home, ICE picked up Espinoza Martinez, a Dreamer who has lived in the US since he was five years old. As of a few days ago, his family didn’t know where he was.  The bedrock of a democracy is the people’s ability to pick its leaders. On Wednesday, the FBI raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, seizing ballots from the 2020 elections. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was present at the scene, despite having no domestic law enforcement authority. She has been investigating the 2020 election, in which Trump lost to former President Joe Biden, to prove it was corrupt. But it would be naive to think that Trump’s obsession with his 2020 loss, and Wednesday’s raid, is just about the past. The administration is normalizing FBI raids on state and local election infrastructure. As election law expert Rick Hasen of the UCLA School of Law warned in Slate, the Fulton raid may be a “test run for messing with election administrators and the counting of ballots in the midterm elections in 2026.” The appearance of Gabbard at the raid is in line, Hasen points out, with election denier Cleta Mitchell’s suggestion that Trump could “declare a ‘national sovereignty crisis’ in a bid to take over the midterm elections.” Mitchell was on the famous 2020 call in which Trump demanded that the Georgia secretary of state “find” him the votes to win the state; this is not her first time trying to illegally overturn an election in Georgia. Trump attempted a chaotic and violent coup on January 6, 2021; it would be illogical to assume that he and his movement would relinquish power again. It is fitting that January was also the month that the world took a look at Donald Trump’s America and saw it for what it is: A bully that cannot be appeased any longer. Through his illegal attack on Venezuela, open designs on Greenland, not to mention murders on the seas and punitive and arbitrary tariffs, Trump has alienated longstanding allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called on nations to turn away from the post-World War II world order in which the United States is viewed as a leader and protector. “We are in the midst of a rupture,” he warned. America’s role at the head of international finance is also at stake, including Trump’s attempts to take over the Federal Reserve and US monetary policy, making the American dollar a risky bet for investors. The world is seeing Trump’s destruction of his own country for what it is; Americans should too. January 2026 has given us a frightening look into a future if the Trump administration continues its plans apace. ICE is buying up warehouses to convert into mass detention camps, and deploying dystopian tech tools to identify and track protestors as well as immigrants. ICE and CBP, the president’s violent paramilitary forces, have advertised their a willingness to break the law, to violate people’s rights, to ignore judges’ orders, and now to execute their critics. When they shot a defenseless man in the back in broad daylight, they showed who they were, and where they plan to go next. We’ve been warned.

SHANGHAI — As Keir Starmer arrived for the first visit by a British prime minister to China for eight years, he stood next to a TV game show-style wheel of fortune. The arrow pointed at “rise high,” next to “get rich immediately” and “everything will go smoothly.” Not one option on the wheel was negative. Sadly for the U.K. prime minister, reality does not match the wheel — but he gave it a good go. After an almost decade-long British chill toward China, Starmer reveled in three hours of talks and lunch with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, where he called for a “more sophisticated” relationship and won effusive praise in return. Britain boasted it had secured visa-free travel for British citizens to China for up to 30 days and a cut in Chinese tariffs on Scotch whisky. Xi even said the warming would help “world peace.” His wins so far (many details of which remain vague) are only a tiny sliver of the range of opportunities he claimed Chinese engagement could bring — and do not even touch on the controversies, given Beijing’s record on aggressive trade practices, human rights, espionage, cyber sabotage and transnational repression. But the vibes on the ground are clear — Starmer is loving it, and wants to go much further. POLITICO picks out five takeaways from following the entourage. 1) THERE’S NO TURNING BACK NOW Britain is now rolling inevitably toward greater engagement in a way that will be hard to reverse. Labour’s warming to China has been in train since the party was in opposition, inspired by the U.S. Democrats and Australian Labor, and the lead-up to this meeting took more than a year. No. 10 has bought into China’s reliance on protocol and iterative engagement. Xi is said to have been significantly warmer toward Starmer this week (their second meeting) than the first time they met at the G20 in Rome. Officials say it takes a long time to warm him up. There is no doubt China’s readout of the meeting was deliberately friendlier to Labour than the Conservatives. One person on the last leader-level visit to China, by Conservative PM Theresa May in 2018, recalled that the meetings were “intellectually grueling” because Xi used consecutive translation, speaking for long periods before May could reply. This time officials say he used simultaneous translation. It will not end here — because Starmer can’t afford for it to. Many of the dozen or so deals announced this week are only commitments to investigate options for future cooperation, so Britain will need to now push them into reality, with an array of dialogues planned in the future along with a visit by Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper. As Business Secretary Peter Kyle told a Thursday night reception at the British Embassy: “This trip is just the start.” 2) BRITAIN’S STILL ON THE EASY WINS Deals on whisky tariffs and visa-free travel were top of the No. 10 list but — as standalone wins without national security implications — they were the lowest-hanging fruit. The two sides agreed to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement, which would make it easier for lawyers and accountants to use their professional qualifications across the two countries. In return, investment decisions in China were announced by firms including AstraZeneca and Octopus Energy. But many of the other deals are only the start of a dialogue. One U.K. official called them “jam tomorrow deals.” And Luke de Pulford, of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China campaign group, argued that despite Britain having a slight trade surplus in services “it’s tiny compared to the whole.” He added: “This trip to China seems to be based upon the notion that China is part of the solution to our economic woes. It’s not rooted in any evidence. China hasn’t done foreign direct investment in any serious way since 2017. It’s dropped off a cliff.” Then there are areas — particularly wind farms — where officials are more edgy and which weren’t discussed by Starmer and Xi. One industry figure dismissed concerns that China could install “kill switches” in key infrastructure — shutting down a wind turbine would be the equivalent of a windless day — but concerns are real. A second U.K. official said Britain had effectively categorized areas of the economy into three buckets — “slam dunks” to engage with China, “slam dunks” to block China, and everything in between. “We’ve been really clear [with China] about which sectors are accessible,” they said, which had helped smooth the path. Then there are the litany of non-trade areas where China will be reluctant to engage: being challenged on Xi’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the treatment of the Uyghur people and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai. Britain is still awaiting approval of a major revamp of its embassy in Beijing, which will be expensive with U.K. contractors, materials and tech, all security-cleared, being brought in. 3) STARMER AND HIS TEAM WERE GENUINELY LOVING IT After such a build-up and so much controversy, Starmer has … been having a great time. The prime minister has struggled to peel the smile off his face and told business delegates they were “making history.” Privately, several people around him enthused about the novelty of it all (many have never visited China and Starmer has not done so since before he went into politics). One said they were looking forward to seeing how Xi operates: “He’s very enigmatic.” Briefing journalists in a small ante-room in the Forbidden City, Starmer enthused about Xi’s love of football and Shakespeare. And talking to business leaders, he repeated the president’s line about blind men finding an elephant: “One touches the leg and thinks it’s a pillow, another feels the belly and thinks it’s a wall. Too often this reflects how China is seen.” So into the spirit was Starmer that he even ticked off Kyle for not bowing deeply enough. At the signing ceremony for a string of business deals, Kyle had seen his counterpart bend halfway to the floor — and responded with a polite nod of the head. The vibes were energetic. Britain’s new ambassador to Beijing, Peter Wilson, flitted around ceaselessly and sat along from Starmer in seat 1E. The PM’s No. 10 business adviser, Varun Chandra, jumped from CEO to CEO at the British embassy. The whole delegation was on burner phones and laptops (even leaving Apple Watches at home) but the security fears soon faded to the background for U.K. officials. CEOs on the trip queued up to tell journalists that Starmer was making the right choice. “We risk a technological gulf if we don’t engage,” said one. There is one problem. Carry on like this, and Starmer will struggle to maintain his line that he is not re-entering a “golden era” — like the one controversially pushed by the Tories under David Cameron in the early 2010s — after all. 4) BUSINESS WAS EVERYTHING The trip was a tale of two groups of CEOs. The creatives and arts bosses gave the stardust and human connection that such a controversial visit needed — but business investment was the meat. In his opening speech Starmer name-checked three people: Business Secretary Peter Kyle, City Minister Lucy Rigby and No. 10 business adviser Varun Chandra. It even came through in the seating plan on the chartered British Airways plane, with financial services CEOs in the pricey seats while creatives were in economy — although this was because they were all paying their own way. Everyone knew the bargain. One arts CEO confessed that, while their industry made money too, they knew they were not the uppermost priority. Starmer’s aides insist they are delighted with what they managed to bag from Xi on Thursday, and believe it is at the top end of the expectations they had on the way out. But that will mean the focus back home on the final “big number” of investment that No. 10 produces — and the questions about whether it is worth all the political energy — are even more acute. 5) STARMER’S STILL WALKING A TIGHTROPE British CEOs were taken to see a collection of priceless Ming vases. It was a good metaphor. Starmer and the No. 10 operation were more reticent even than usual on Thursday, refusing to give on-the-record comment about several basic details of what he raised in his meeting with Xi. Journalists were told that he raised the case of democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, but not whether he called directly for his release. The readout of the meeting from Communist China was more extensive (and poetic) than that from No. 10. Likewise, journalists were given no advance heads-up of deals on tariffs and visas, even in the few hours between the bilateral and the announcements, while the details and protocol were nailed down. There was good reason for the reticence. Not only was Starmer cautious not to offend his hosts; he also did not want to enrage U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened Canada with new tariffs after PM Mark Carney’s visit to Beijing this month. Even with No. 10 briefing the U.S. on the trip’s objectives beforehand, and Starmer giving a pre-flight interview saying he wouldn’t choose between Xi and Trump, the president called Britain’s engagement “very dangerous” on Friday. And then there’s the EU. The longer Trump’s provocations go on, the more some of Starmer’s more Europhile allies will want him to side not with the U.S. or China, but Brussels. “There’s this huge blind spot in the middle of Europe,” complained one European diplomat. “The U.K. had the advantage of being the Trump whisperer, but that’s gone now.” Starmer leaves China hoping he can whisper to Trump, Xi and Ursula von der Leyen all at the same time.

BEIJING — Britain on Thursday opened the door to an inward visit by Xi Jinping after the Chinese president hailed a thawing of relations between the two nations. Downing Street repeatedly declined to rule out the prospect of welcoming Xi in future after saying that Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s current visit to China would not be a “one-and-done summit.” Asked about the prospect of an inward visit — which would be the first for 11 years — Starmer’s official spokesperson told reporters: “I think the prime minister has been clear that a reset relationship with China, that it’s no longer in an ice age, is beneficial to British people and British business. “I’m not going to get ahead of future engagements. We’ll set those out in the normal way.” Xi paid a full state visit to the U.K. in 2015 and visited a traditional pub with then-Prime Minister David Cameron, during what is now seen as a “golden era” of British-Chinese relations. Critics of China’s stance on human rights and espionage see the trip as one of the worst foreign policy misjudgments of the Cameron era. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, said: “We should not roll out the red carpet for a state that conducts daily espionage in our country, flouts international trading rules and aids Putin in his senseless war on Ukraine. We need a dialogue with China, we do not need to kowtow to them.” Any state visit invitation would be in the name of King Charles III and be issued by Buckingham Palace. There is no suggestion that a full state visit is being considered at present. Xi did not leave mainland China for more than two years during the Covid-19 pandemic. Starmer and Xi met Thursday in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People and the two nations agreed to look at the “feasibility” of a partnership in the services sector. Britain said it had signed an agreement for China to waive visa rules for British citizens visiting for less than 30 days for business or tourism, bringing the U.K. into line with nations including France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan. The two nations also promised to co-operate on conformity assessments, exports, sports, tackling organized crime, vocational training and food safety, though further details were not immediately available. Starmer also hailed “really good progress” on lowering Chinese whisky tariffs. One official familiar with the talks stressed that Starmer had also raised more difficult issues including the ongoing detention of British-Hong Kong democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, and China’s position on the war in Ukraine — but declined to be drawn on the specifics of the pair’s conversation. The talks steered clear of more difficult topics such as wind farm technology, where critics fear co-operation would leave Britain vulnerable to Chinese influence. Asked if Starmer had come back empty handed, his spokesperson said: “I don’t accept that at all. I think this is a historic trip where you’ve seen for the first time in eight years a PM set foot on Chinese soil, have a meeting at the highest level with the president of the second largest economy in the world. “You should also note that this isn’t a question of a one-and-done summit with China. It is a resetting of a relationship that has been on ice for eight years.”

Women’s tennis has an Alexander Lukashenko problem. The Belarusian autocrat’s ongoing, public celebration of compatriot Aryna Sabalenka — the world No. 1 — has sparked fury in Kyiv, ahead of her crucial Australian Open semifinal against Ukrainian Elina Svitolina. “No matter how much international sports officials and global sports bureaucrats insist that sport is ‘outside politics,’ for regimes like those of Lukashenko and Putin this has never been true,” Heorhii Tykhyi, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s foreign ministry, told POLITICO. “For them, sport is not merely political — it is one of the key instruments of state policy, and more specifically, of state propaganda, including the propaganda of war.” The Ukrainian criticism has put Sabalenka — winner of four grand slams, the most prestigious tournaments on the tennis calendar — and her relationship with the Lukashenko regime back in the spotlight. Belarus, like its close ally Russia, has used sports as a soft power asset on the world stage, even as the West ostracizes Minsk over its support for Moscow’s all-out war on Ukraine. Sabalenka, whose visibility as the world’s best female tennis player has made her a central figure in Belarusian propaganda, faces Svitolina in Melbourne on Thursday morning, in a match that has added geopolitical significance while Russia’s full-scale invasion rages on. A representative for Sabalenka did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment about the nature of her relationship with authorities in Minsk. At a press conference following a previous match with Svitolina at the French Open in 2023, Sabalenka told POLITICO that she did not support Lukashenko “right now” or Russia’s war in Ukraine. “To those who argue otherwise or repeat the mantra that ‘sport is outside politics,’ I would like to remind them: sport may be outside politics, but it is certainly not outside the war being waged in Europe today,” Tykhyi, the Ukrainian foreign ministry spokesperson, said. “A war that has already killed or injured more than 600 Ukrainian athletes or coaches. Hundreds of Ukrainian sports facilities have been destroyed or damaged, forcing athletes to train under constant threat and in conditions of severe infrastructural deprivation.” “And yet, despite all of this, Ukrainian athletes continue to demonstrate extraordinary resilience and strength of spirit, preparing for and competing in international events even under these circumstances,” the spokesperson added. Sabalenka, who was born in Minsk and now resides in Miami, has links to the Belarusian authorities that date back years.   She met Lukashenko in 2017, shortly after beginning her rise to the top of world tennis. In 2020, during massive anti-government protests over a rigged national election, she signed a pro-Lukashenko letter and — unlike other athletes who later retracted their endorsement — never withdrew her signature. That year, with thousands of protesters jailed and many facing torture at the hands of Belarusian authorities, she celebrated the New Year with Lukashenko, drawing howls of protest from Belarusian dissidents. After Sabalenka’s victory over Ukraine’s Marta Kostyuk in Brisbane earlier this month, Lukashenko’s official website congratulated her on the win, as it did after she won in Miami and New York last year. Lukashenko also mentioned her in his address to the Belarusian People and the National Assembly in 2023. She has even become a tangential character in the U.S. government’s ongoing diplomatic overtures to Minsk. In 2025, U.S. envoy John Coale handed Lukashenko a letter from President Donald Trump acknowledging Sabalenka’s “tremendous win at the US Open” and that she “represents the very best of your country.” Coupled with her new role as an ambassador for iconic fashion house Gucci — which posted “Welcome to the Gucci family, Aryna” in its promotional material on social media — and worldwide popularity with tennis fans, Sabalenka is giving heartburn to Ukraine’s sports establishment. Earlier this month, Ukrainian player Oleksandra Oliynykova criticized the global community for celebrating Sabalenka. “A supporter of a bloody dictator becomes an ambassador for a top brand. What is wrong with this world?” she asked.