The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

My heart was in my throat as I watched the video emerging late Tuesday. A disturbed, angry man had just rushed Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar during a town hall in Minneapolis and assaulted her. He sprayed her in the chest with vinegar from a syringe, then was tackled by security and arrested. Omar reacted defiantly, kept her cool and carried on with the event. She was quickly hailed for her fortitude. All I could think was, thank God she’s not dead. Initial media coverage referred to the attack by 55-year-old suspect Anthony Kazmierczak as “bizarre,” but it is worse than that. In more than a decade of reporting on violence prevention, I’ve studied many stalking cases and assassinations and the recognizable behaviors that precede them: the stewing grievances and desperation, the preparation, the final moment of action. The next assailant will just as easily have a knife or a gun. In this era of surging political violence, even worse yet was the reaction from the president of the United States. ABC News correspondent Rachel Scott asked Donald Trump on Tuesday night if he’d seen the video. His response was to disparage Omar as “a fraud” and suggest the attack was staged: “She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her.” (There is zero evidence of that, and the perpetrator appears to have shared Trump’s acrimonious views of Omar.) America has felt on a precipice this cold January. Minneapolis has been ground zero, culminating with the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by masked men carrying out Trump’s mass deportation operations. Minnesotans have mounted an inspired campaign of mutual aid and constitutionally protected protest. A growing majority of Americans are with them.  > Trump’s rhetoric may sound ignorant and unhinged, but more importantly, it is > calculated. But Trump continues to direct contempt and rage at immigrants in so-called blue cities—and at Omar, long a top target of his vitriol. Last November, he responded to an unrelated terrorist attack on National Guard soldiers in the nation’s capital by railing against “hundreds of thousands of Somalians” in Minnesota, claiming they “are ripping off our country and ripping apart that once great state.” Days later, he called Omar, who is Somali American, and her community “garbage” during a live-broadcast cabinet meeting. As Trump declared they should “go back to where they came from,” many in the room applauded and Vice President JD Vance pounded the table enthusiastically. Trump was at it again in the very hours before Kazmierczak assaulted Omar. During a speech in Iowa on Tuesday, Trump said Omar exemplified immigrants who “hate our country.” Those who want to stay here, he said, “have to show that they’re not going to blow up our shopping centers, blow up our farms, kill people.” That may sound ignorant and unhinged, and it is those things—but more importantly, it is calculated. Trump made anti-immigrant demagoguery the core of his 2024 reelection campaign, and he has exploited political violence throughout his first year back in office, as I documented recently. He does so, political historian Matt Dallek told me, to rile up his base and further justify his extreme policies, including the violent and lawless actions of ICE: “The narrative he creates says to all his supporters that what he’s doing is ‘destroying the enemy within,’ that he’s taking care of the scourge that he promised to address. I think it’s a mistake to discount just how powerful that can be.” Powerful politically—and unpredictable as to where and when it will unleash more violence. That also has been a hallmark of Trump’s political career: stochastic terrorism, a tactic of incitement that allows room for deniability but makes violent attacks more likely. We don’t yet know much about Kazmierczak’s motive. (As of late Wednesday, the FBI had taken over the investigation, and it was unclear whether Kazmierczak yet had any legal representation.) But we do know, according to media reporting and interviews with his brother, that he was a right-wing Trump supporter with a long history of mental health problems and “a hatred of the Somali community.” Minnesota was the site of another grim example last summer, when a pro-Trump extremist hunted two Democratic state lawmakers at their homes, fatally shooting former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and wounding Sen. John Hoffman and his wife. Trump’s response to that horror was no less appalling. A new report from the US Capitol Police, released coincidentally on Tuesday, shows that threats against members of Congress have continued to soar. In 2025, the agency’s threat assessment section investigated nearly 15,000 “concerning statements, behaviors, and communications” targeting federal lawmakers, a more than 50 percent increase from the prior year. > GOP lawmakers “know how much worse his rhetoric has made things,” said a > federal law enforcement source. Omar has long faced a deluge of threats and has sometimes been assigned a 24-hour security detail from the Capitol Police, according to the New York Times. That added protection is at the discretion of the House speaker, but for the past year Republican Speaker Mike Johnson has not offered it to Omar, the Times reported. After the attack on Tuesday, Omar made a formal request for extra protection and Johnson agreed, the Times noted. A federal law enforcement source familiar with Capitol Police operations told me that, as a matter of close protection, the attack on Omar was a catastrophic failure with an “extremely lucky” outcome. Even though Omar reportedly will now have additional security, the Capitol Police have been heavily strained on this front. Moreover, lawmakers from Trump’s party “know how much worse his rhetoric has made things,” said the source, who has direct knowledge of conversations in which some lawmakers have admitted that “they can’t or won’t go against” Trump, because they fear for their political standing or the safety of their families. Several Republicans who have quit Congress in recent years have cited such reasons, including former Trump devotee Marjorie Taylor Greene. The role of politics or ideology in an attack is often murky, the source emphasized. But the danger manifest again on Tuesday remains high, especially with Republican leaders cowing to Trump’s unrelenting politics of fear and contempt. “What does that mean for those individuals out there who are brittle, are in a tough place in life and have a lot of anger?” the source said. “Silence in the face of this can also be taken as permission.”

Editor’s note: This article first appeared in Ms. Magazine. The brutality we are witnessing in Minnesota, at the hands of thousands of poorly trained, heavily armed and trigger-happy men who have full reign to hunt and harass anyone who is non-white, is nothing short of state-sponsored terror. It is a horrific illustration of what unfettered power does in the hands of leadership that celebrates and demands violence, especially from men.  Make no mistake: The thousands of new recruits to ICE, driven by a $100 million “wartime recruitment” push, were selected with violence in mind. Recruitment ads targeted male-dominated places and spaces where violence is either required or valorized: gun shows, military bases and local law enforcement, along with UFC fight attendees and people who spent time browsing for tactical gear and weapons. > Recruitment ads make it clear that ICE is the place to scratch the violent > itch. The content of those ads makes it clear that ICE is the place to scratch the violent itch. Recruitment posters and slogans focus on ideas of national defense and sacred duty, positioning immigrants as an existential threat by imploring applicants to “defend the homeland” against an incursion of “foreign invaders.” Veterans get a special nod with phrasing like “your nation calls once more.” The work of detaining immigrants is depicted as an epic, heroic quest, with frontier imagery and cowboy-hat clad horsemen alongside language like “one homeland, one people, one heritage.” The ads also dehumanize and fearmonger with racist dog whistles, warning that “the enemies are at the gates” or telling applicants to join ICE to “destroy the flood.” One DHS ad uses the phrase “we’ll have our home again,” which is a lyric from a white supremacist song. Much of this rhetoric evokes the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which mobilized white supremacist terrorist attacks in El Paso, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo in recent years with false claims of an orchestrated effort by Jews and feminists to promote immigration, reduce white birthrates, and eliminate white majority societies. It’s not only the homeland that’s being defended in this framing. It’s also the nation’s white women, who the administration has continually depicted as the victims of unfettered crime at the hands of undocumented immigrants. This is why we see Trump administration officials constantly invoking the names of a handful of young white women, like Laken Riley or Jocelyn Nungaray, who were killed by immigrants—even though thousands more women have died at the hands of their lovers, partners or strangers who are citizens. Last week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt railed in response to a journalist’s question about ICE, describing the “brave men and women of ICE” as “doing everything in their power to remove those heinous individuals and make our communities safer.”  False crime statistics about sexual violence have always mobilized white supremacist violence from the extremist fringe, from the KKK’s campaign of racial terror, to recent mass shootings. During his attack, the terrorist who killed nine Black worshippers in 2015 in a Charleston church told his victims he was doing this because “y’all are raping our women.” Now, we are seeing those same false claims mobilize state-sponsored violence. The administration is recruiting, training and deploying federal agents who believe they are on some sort of noble, patriotic and manly quest, flying on horseback across the open land to rescue white women and restore the nation to its righteous place. > Protection isn’t the only way that gendered narratives mobilize violence. What > we are seeing in Minnesota is also about punishment. But protection isn’t the only way that gendered narratives mobilize violence. What we are seeing in Minnesota is also about punishment. Replacement conspiracies frame women—especially feminists—as the problem, arguing they are conspiring to have fewer babies, promote abortion, reduce white birth rates and accelerate demographic change. Women who refuse to submit to male authority, refuse God-given heterosexual relationships or reject their ‘natural’ roles as reproducers of the nation are seen as the enemy.  This is why, after an ICE agent shot Renee Nicole Good in the face after she dared to protest his authority, he lobbed the phrase “fucking bitch” as she was dying. In the days following Good’s killing, a local protester reported that another ICE agent sneered at her, “Have you not learned? This is why we killed that lesbian bitch.” Another woman was warned to stop obstructing agents because “that’s why that lesbian bitch is dead.” This is how men who cannot tolerate a woman’s disrespect put her in her place: with violence or the threat of it. The shootings of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent and Alex Pretti by CBP agents—coming on the heels of numerous deaths of ICE detainees in recent months—are a predictable outcome of the institutional norms and social hierarchies the administration is valorizing.  As thousands of amped up men are deployed in the streets and taught there are no consequences for killing anyone who refuses to submit to their authority, we should anticipate more violence to come. After all: The violence is the point. Cynthia Miller-Idriss is a scholar at American University, where she is the founding director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL). She is the author of several books including, Man Up: The New Misogyny and the Rise of Violent Extremism.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will not attend the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in February, a spokesperson for the event confirmed Friday. “Several weeks ago, invitations were extended to individual government representatives from Iran. In light of recent developments, the Munich Security Conference will not uphold these invitations,” the spokesperson told POLITICO.  Araghchi this week described the anti-government demonstrations in Iran — in which thousands of protesters have been killed in a wave of repression driven by the Tehran regime — as “violent riots.”   It remains unclear whether Iranian opposition representatives will be invited to Munich instead, as has been the case in recent years with figures from Russian civil society. “As a matter of principle, we do not publish invitation or participant lists prior to the start of the conference. The invitation process is only concluded once the conference begins,” the MSC spokesperson added. The Munich Security Conference will take place Feb. 14-16 at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof. Chris Lunday contributed to this report.

THE RISE AND FALL OF NATIONALISM STUDIES What the demise of a small department in an embattled university says about the future of Europe and the world.  By EMILY SCHULTHEIS in Vienna Illustration by Karolis Strautniekas for POLITICO In early 2022, just days after Russia invaded Ukraine, around two dozen students in the nationalism studies program at Central European University gathered in a classroom on the top floor of its glassy, modernist main building in Vienna. I was one of them.   The news of Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine felt urgent and close by. As we quietly nibbled sandwiches and sat in a circle of chairs facing the center of the room, a small group of professors went around the room, asking one student after another, particularly those from Ukraine and Russia, how they were reacting to the invasion. Ukraine had spent three decades creating a nation out of what had previously been one province in a vast superpower. Now Russia, the remaining heart of the former Soviet Union, seemed to be trying to rebuild the empire at the core of its own nationalist narrative by clawing it back with military force.  What was clear to me, and to everyone else in the room, was that the conflict playing out a few hundred miles away wasn’t just about whether NATO wanted to expand toward Russia or Ukraine wanted to join the European Union. It was a real-life case study in what we were studying: nationalism, the idea of the “nation,” the feelings it evokes in people and the way those feelings can be used and abused by those in power. Looking at the situation through a nationalism lens, we could see that one nation’s identity as an empire was pitted against another nation’s identity as an independent culture and ethnicity — and that the two national identities were fundamentally incompatible, regardless of the specific grievances being alleged.   In other words, we had an insight into the conflict that would take others years to grasp.  A few months later, I graduated from CEU with my degree in nationalism studies, and since then I’ve watched as political leaders across Europe and the globe increasingly wield nationalist narratives to win elections, justify war and chip away at democratic institutions. But even as nationalism seems ever more central to international politics, the university’s nationalism studies program is on the verge of extinction. When classes began on CEU’s Vienna campus earlier this fall, just seven students (plus three exchange students) remained in the program that had three dozen students a few years ago. Next year, there will be none at all.   The developments come on the heels of turmoil not just for the Nationalism Studies program, but for CEU itself, which was founded by billionaire philanthropist George Soros in the early 1990s. As part of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s protracted campaign against Soros, CEU was forced out of its longtime home in Budapest and announced it would relocate all its degree programs to Vienna in 2019 — a challenging and costly process that continues to put the university’s finances under strain, and one that in some ways foreshadowed the pressure U.S. President Donald Trump has put on American universities since returning to the White House earlier this year.  The Central European University’s campus in Vienna in 2020. Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images The reasons for the nationalism studies department’s closure are financial, administrative and, CEU leaders insist, not in any way an indication the university believes nationalism is unimportant. To the contrary, they argue, the study of nationalism is so imbued in all CEU programs that a standalone degree is hardly necessary.   So will anything be lost if this small but scrappy program disappears? As nationalism becomes the ascendant political force across the globe and real life provides countless examples for students of the phenomenon, I can’t help but feel that studying the world through the lens of the “nation” — what it means, who gets to belong to it and what can be done in its name — is more important than ever.   Covering far-right parties across Europe for nearly a decade, I’ve seen firsthand how nationalist narratives lie at the core of their populist appeals to voters. Their aim is to redefine who counts as the “us” of a national community and who is relegated to the outsider “them”: to make pronouncements about who belongs and who doesn’t; who is a true patriot and who isn’t; who deserves to live in a given country and who doesn’t.  When politicians from the Alternative for Germany party or the Austrian Freedom Party talk about protecting the Heimat (“homeland”) from refugees and foreigners, or U.S. Vice President JD Vance tells  Western democracies (as he did in Munich earlier this year) that their biggest security risk is a “threat from within,” they’re talking about a particular view of national identity they believe is under attack from increasing migration and multiculturalism. Naming those things, and understanding why they’re so effective with voters and supporters, is crucial for understanding the state of global politics.  The timing and symbolism of the demise of CEU’s nationalism studies program is unfortunate, Rogers Brubaker, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles who helped establish the program in the 1990s, told me this summer.  The program “started at a moment of heightened nationalism and is ending at a moment of heightened nationalism,” he said. “Not because people think we shouldn’t study this stuff, but for other reasons.”  FIRST STEPS In the years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Central Europe became emblematic of the hope for a new, democratic future across the world — there was a belief that 1989 represented the “end of history” and a break with the nationalist wars and tensions that had dominated the 20th century.   It was in that environment in 1991 that Soros, who was born and raised in Budapest before emigrating to the United Kingdom after World War II, decided to found CEU, a university dedicated to the liberal democratic ideals and rigorous education he believed in and wanted to offer to students from the region who had previously lacked access to them.  The nationalism studies program began as a small center on the university’s Prague campus in 1992 led by the British-Czech scholar Ernest Gellner. Gellner was a key figure in the field, which explored the emergence of the modern nation-states that define the geographical borders of our world today. Gellner and others puzzled over why the concept of the “nation,” a political entity made up of people with a shared history, culture or language, arose in a world that had previously been dominated by feudal societies, city-states and diffuse, monarch-led empires.  In seminar rooms in Vienna, we learned about the concept of nations as “imagined communities,” a theory developed by Benedict Anderson in the 1980s — a shared identity that allows millions of disparate people to feel connected despite not knowing each other personally. Creating those communities based on shared traditions and national myths — the basis for a nation — became increasingly possible during the Industrial Revolution and the advent of mass media. Political leaders, who saw the value a unified population could have for consolidating power, helped facilitate this process and brought about the proliferation of the modern nation-state.  Nowhere was that creation of a national myth and shared traditions and values more powerful than in the United States, where a population without a common history came together in the late 18th century under a new American identity to overthrow British rule and found their own country. Many of the Americans in the program, like me, hadn’t recognized the nationalistic purpose of many of the traditions we grew up with, from the pledge of allegiance to the ubiquity of American flags.  But nationalism, in addition to being a powerful force in nation-building, has a dark side. Scholars in the field have also looked at how nationalism, when taken to extremes, led to fascism, totalitarianism and the conflicts that shaped geopolitics throughout the 20th century. In 1930s Germany, the belief in an ethnic German nation that extended far beyond the geographical boundaries of 1930s Germany — and the Nazis’ assertion that Jews were not and could not be part of that German nation — plunged the world into war and served as the rationale for the Holocaust.  Students at the Central European University’s library in Budapest in 2019. | Chris McGrath/Getty Images These were some of the big questions and developments Gellner hoped to explore with his center in Prague. After his death in 1995, other scholars of nationalism came together to establish a full-time degree program at CEU’s Budapest campus to honor his work and his memory. “The idea wasn’t that we were only going to study these classic works which are looking at these macro-historical, great transformations,” Brubaker, one of those involved at the time, told me in his office in Los Angeles this summer. “We have transformations happening right now … and so it seemed like a very much alive question and a crucial question.”  Rather than looking at nationalism as a historical phenomenon, the program wanted to help students understand what present-day nationalism looked like. The fierce conflicts that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, which pitted the predominantly Orthodox Christian Serbs against Muslims and Catholics in Bosnia and Croatia in a years-long war that left tens of thousands dead, served as a reminder to those studying the phenomenon that it was constantly evolving and showing up in new places and contexts.  “There was this hope that after the fall of the Iron Curtain, nationalism would not be a big thing,” said Szabolcs Pogonyi, current director of the Nationalism Studies Program, who joined the department a few years after its founding. With more and more countries democratizing and more and more economies globalizing, some thought that the era of nation-on-nation conflict was on the wane. “Then you had nationalist wars raging very close to us in Yugoslavia … and since then, we also see that it’s not going to go away.”  The resurgence of populist far-right parties in recent years, particularly as a backlash to increasing migration, is the latest iteration of nationalism. Arguing they are the only ones capable of protecting national identities under threat from new arrivals, they have tapped into insecurity and discontent in countries across the West to win elections and play an increasingly prominent role in setting the political agenda.  CLOSED CHAPTER In the years since its founding, CEU’s nationalism studies program has taught around 600 students from 60 countries around the globe. Where other attempts to establish nationalism studies programs have waxed and waned, including at the University of Edinburgh, CEU’s program endured. And even when CEU became the target of a nationalist leader itself, with Orbán ejecting it from Hungary in 2019, the program found a new home on CEU’s new campus in Vienna.  But last fall, department faculty got word that the university’s Senate was planning to discontinue the program and would stop it from accepting new students after the 2024-25 academic year. Those who had already matriculated for the program’s one- and two-year master’s programs could continue, but no new students would be allowed to join.  A banner in Budapest tunnel in 2017, as CEU students and teachers protested against government legislation. | Attila Kisbenedek/AFP via Getty Images University administrators insist that they are not bowing to political pressure and say the decision was the result of declining application numbers in recent years. That, combined with the department’s small size — it has just three full-time faculty members and has relied on visiting professors to teach many of its courses — made it untenable financially at a time when the university was searching for ways to tighten its belt. (One other small program, they note, Cultural Heritage Studies, met a similar fate.)  “We are a private university,” Eva Fodor, a member of CEU’s senior leadership team who serves as pro-rector for teaching and learning, told me. “We have to consider the attractiveness of our programs to students.”  That argument was unconvincing to those involved in or close to the program, who argue nationalism studies was a drop in the bucket of the university’s broader financial struggles and remains symbolically important even if it’s small.  “This is an extremely small program, and not an expensive one compared to the magnitude of the challenges the CEU faces,” Brubaker said. “I think the decision was taken because a small entity is easier to abolish than a large entity for political reasons — low-hanging fruit, a symbolic thing to be able to tell to the trustees, ‘Look, we abolished a program.’ These are not compelling intellectual reasons.”  The program may live on, in diminished form, even if the Nationalism Studies Department no longer exists: CEU’s History Department is considering hosting a version of degree, if it gets approval from the CEU Senate.  In an interview, Fodor pushed back strongly against the idea that shutting down the Nationalism Studies Department is an indication CEU no longer believes the study of nationalism is important. To the contrary, she told me, nationalism is so integral to the ethos of CEU that it hardly needs its own department.   “Every single department at CEU is teaching courses on nationalism,” she said. “By suspending the program, we are not actually eliminating the study of nationalism.”  GLOBAL TIES Even if the program’s impending demise isn’t directly due to the rise of nationalism, the development could hardly come at a worse time for those hoping to better make sense of nationalist successes around Europe and the world.  Four years ago, when I started my master’s program at CEU, my goal was exactly that: to better understand why nationalism was on the rise in Europe and elsewhere. While covering the rise of far-right populist movements across Europe as a journalist based in Berlin, I discovered the program when I wrote a story about the university’s move to Vienna and decided to apply.  Studying nationalism from a theoretical perspective — whether it was understanding how national identities are formed, what processes contribute to ethnic prejudice, or the ways citizenship policy can be wielded — turned out to be helpful when I went back to being a reporter.   Writing about the global ties between nationalist, far-right political parties, I understood the ways these parties learned from each other’s messaging and framed outside influences (whether via migration or alleged efforts to sway national elections) as an attack on national sovereignty. In exploring the political activism of Los Angeles’ Iranian American diaspora, I drew on what I’d learned about the complicated relationships political diasporas can have with their home countries and the ways that identity impacts their civic involvement in their new countries. And when I covered the victims of racist violence in Germany, it was with an understanding I’d gotten at CEU about how ethnic prejudices are formed (and reinforced) by the way we’re socialized.  After graduation, my colleagues returned to their respective countries, which these days read like a list of successes for nationalist political parties. One went home to Romania, where a hard-right nationalist came within striking distance of winning the presidency earlier this year; another returned to Serbia, home of the right-wing leader Aleksandar Vučić. I went back to Germany, where the far-right Alternative for Germany party is leading the national polls; some remained in Austria, where the far-right Freedom Party came in first with 29 percent of the vote last year and nearly installed the first far-right chancellor since the end of World War II. My former classmates are now journalists, election observers, academics and political activists, all of whom approach their work armed with the knowledge of how these parties operate and appeal to their local electorates.  A master’s class at Central European University in Budapest in 2019. | Chris McGrath/Getty Images “Nationalism studies provides the understanding of these complex developments. One should understand what’s happening, why it’s happening and what such developments might lead to,” said Ruth Wodak, a professor of linguistics and expert on far-right rhetoric who has taught as a guest lecturer in CEU’s program (and served as my thesis adviser). Ethnically based nationalism “can lead to polarized societies, and sometimes, polarized societies can also become dangerous and violent.”  Those still involved in the nationalism studies program say they’re choosing to view this moment as a potential opportunity for the program to adapt: To an era when interest in studying humanities and social sciences is losing out to more professionally focused degrees, disciplines are increasingly intertwined and nationalism has evolved again to propel a new generation of illiberal leaders like Trump, Orbán and others into office.   “What would it look like if we were to establish this department today?” asked Michael Miller, a professor in the department who teaches (among others) its course on diaspora studies, when we spoke this summer. “Of course, we would deal with questions of identity, national identity and ethnic identity, but also questions of migration and diaspora in general, and the role of the state, the role of non-state bodies.”   “In the optimistic reading of this, it’s a blessing in disguise, because it gives us a chance to revitalize this field of study,” he added.   But it’s not yet clear whether that will happen. CEU’s Senate is in the process of considering whether to accept a proposal from the department’s faculty on reestablishing the program in CEU’s History department.  Studying nationalism means understanding the ways in which far-right nationalist parties’ fundamental pitches to voters play on deep-seated questions of identity, and the interplay between how someone views themself and how they fit within a broader group.   And that will remain relevant no matter what.   “If the study of nationalism … is broadly interpreted to refer to any way of invoking national community whether or not you use the word ‘nation,’” Brubaker told me, “then it is ubiquitous. Not only in political rhetoric, but also in the feelings and speech of ordinary citizens.” 

Elon Musk took to his social media site on Friday to decry New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s pick to lead the city’s fire department, claiming that she couldn’t do the job. The commissioner-to-be, Lillian Bonsignore, is a 31-year FDNY veteran who led the department’s emergency medical services during the Covid-19 pandemic. She will be the second woman to hold the position and the first openly gay person to lead the department.  That was enough for Musk to weigh in. “People will die because of this,” he wrote, adding, “Proven experience matters when lives are at stake.” As Gothamist reported, before her retirement in 2022, Bonsignore was both the highest-ranking uniformed woman in FDNY history and the first woman to achieve a four-star rank. At the press conference announcing her appointment, Mamdani praised Bonsignore, saying that “her record speaks for itself,” before detailing her career in the city that spanned from before 9/11 through the worst of the pandemic.  “I know the job,” Bonsignore said this week. “I know what the firefighters need, and I can translate that to this administration that is willing to listen. I know what EMS needs. I have been EMS for 30-plus years.” Musk is the richest person on the planet and a rabid opponent of diversity, equity, and inclusion measures, or DEI. He appeared to be claiming that the new head of the FDNY was a diversity hire. He’s written: “Time for DEI to DIE,” “DEI has caused people to DIE,” “DEI is a Civil Rights Act violation,”  “DEI kills art,” “DEI puts the lives of your loved ones at risk,” and “DEI is just another word for racism,” amongst his other previous observations about these efforts. > DEI kills art https://t.co/LG9lmDSHjF > > — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 19, 2024 This isn’t the first time Musk, who is not a resident of New York, has weighed in on Mamdani or his campaign.  A day before the mayoral election in November, Musk endorsed Mamdani’s leading opponent in the race, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo had resigned in disgrace after the state’s attorney general reported that he had sexually harassed nearly a dozen women. (A later DOJ investigation put that number at 13.) In Musk’s endorsement post, he called the soon-to-be-mayor-elect “Mumdumi.” Then, on the morning of Election Day, Musk shared a false claim that because Mamdani was listed under both the “Democratic” and “Working Families” party lines on the NYC ballot, the election was a “scam!” But in New York, candidates can appear more than once on a ballot if they are nominated by multiple political parties. Musk also pointed to the layout of the ballot as a problem, since Cuomo’s name appeared in a lower spot on the ballot than Mamdani’s. He failed to mention that this took place because the former governor lost in the Democratic primary and chose to run as an independent later in the election season.  > The New York City ballot form is a scam! > > – No ID is required > – Other mayoral candidates appear twice > – Cuomo’s name is last in bottom right pic.twitter.com/676VODWFRI > > — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 4, 2025 Despite his recent interest in the FDNY’s leadership, Musk’s work during his time with the federal government imperiled some of NYC’s firefighters. His DOGE team threatened cancer research funding for firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center attacks and were exposed to toxins. Back in February, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, tried to cancel a $257,000 contract for 9/11-related cancer research. At the time, according to CBS News, “FDNY confirmed researchers working on the career firefighter health study received notice of the CDC contract termination.” Days later, after public backlash, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention restored the contract.   As he spoke about the FDNY during his commissioner announcement, Mamdani called the first responders, “the heroes of our five boroughs,” who “save lives at a moment’s notice.” “They deserve a leader who cares about their work,” he continued, referring to Bonsignore, adding, “because she did it herself.”

Sometime this week in an undisclosed location, two powerful figures sat down for tense negotiations, hoping to end a cold war that had, in recent days, turned very hot. The talks were not a success, with one participant dubbing some of what the other side presented as “fake and gay.” Tensions, it’s fair to say, continued unabated. In this case, the combatants were Turning Point USA CEO Erika Kirk and far-right one-woman chaos machine Candace Owens. They met to discuss Owens’ relentless trafficking of conspiracy theories about the murder of Kirk’s husband, TPUSA founder and leader Charlie. Owens, a former TPUSA communications director and close friend of the slain leader, has continued her descent into gutter antisemitism by suggesting that his assassination was orchestrated by the Israeli state, as well as suggesting that Egyptian military planes and France also may have been involved, before eventually tweeting that it’s “likely” that “the same people who killed JFK killed Charlie.” Turning Point staff have also merited her suspicion, and she tweeted last week, “I now can say with full confidence that I believe Charlie Kirk was betrayed by the leadership of Turning Point USA and some of the very people who eulogized him on stage.”   As The Bulwark’s Will Sommer wrote, all this conspiratorial churn has put Owens in the midst of an all-out war with virtually everyone else in right-wing media. Right-wing podcaster and diehard beanie-wearer Tim Pool, who is not known for consistently breaking ranks with right-wing extremists, spoke loudly for the group when he dubbed her a “fucking evil scumbag” and a “degenerate cunt.” After Erika Kirk’s four-hour meeting with Owens to try to tamp down her wild accusations, Kirk emerged describing it as being “very productive.” As CNN reported, she even brought in a lawyer to explain to Owens how the investigation of her husband’s death worked. Suspicious as ever, Owens emerged, dismissing a police affidavit outlining evidence in the Kirk shooting “fake and gay.”  Their war will likely continue, but it’s just one of dozens of feuds, internecine wars, and petty beefs rivening MAGA from top-to-bottom. As far-right British political activist Raheem Kaseem told Axios, the result of it all is a “cacophony of grifters.” The broad Trump coalition is ending its first year back in power more divided than ever. From the White House to the conspiracy media-verse, at what should be their moment of greatest strength, MAGA simply cannot stop both constant covert sniping and the occasional outright brawl. > From the White House to the conspiracy media-verse, at what should be their > moment of greatest strength, MAGA simply cannot stop both constant covert > sniping and the occasional outright brawl. Aside from the ongoing Candace Owens situation—a phrase that will surely become part of the national conversation in the years ahead —TPUSA also saw some robust infighting at their big AmericaFest gathering, where Politico reports that headline speakers Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro threw bitchy little digs at one another from onstage and off. “If you host a Hitler apologist, Nazi-loving, anti-American piece of refuse like Nick Fuentes, you ought to own it,” Shapiro said, a continuation of a particularly bleak piece of infighting on the right about how much antisemitism in the movement is too much. Outside the malodorous confines of AmericaFest, the public squabbles and unseemly jockeying for position go all the way to the top. Chaos erupted this week after Vanity Fair published an explosive article featuring quotes from White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, who has, for reasons even she can’t seem to explain, been speaking to reporter Chris Whipple for eleven sit-down interviews. In those chats, which she fit in while managing various crises created by her boss, she called Vice President JD Vance “a conspiracy theorist,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi “completely whiffed” the handling of the Epstein files controversy, and said Trump himself has “an alcoholic’s personality,” an analysis the president, who famously doesn’t drink, told the New York Post he agreed with.  Wiles has responded by calling the article “a hit piece”—without exactly disputing any of its contents—and the White House has made a show of supporting her in public, even as the Washington Post reports they were taken by surprise by the splashy story. According to some reporting, Wiles may have thought she was speaking to Whipple for a book. Meanwhile, top administration officials cannot clearly explain why they posed for a photo to accompany the article, nor what they thought Vanity Fair was going to publish. The president’s most relentless loyalty enforcer, Laura Loomer has ended her extremely busy year of ferreting out perceived dissenters and getting people fired whom she deemed insufficiently loyal to the MAGA cause by tattling on them to the president and tweeting angrily about their ostensible betrayals. In Washington, the term “Loomered” has come to mean not just fired, but thoroughly exiled from both the government and the movement. (“Another LOOMERED SCALP!” she exulted on Twitter/X last week, celebrating the fact that the White House has withdrawn their selection for deputy NSA director.) Loomering is the most targeted of MAGA infighting, as opposed to the more chaotic, impulsive set of feuds and implosions that are more commonly on display. In the ultimate conflict between giants that you’ve probably already forgotten about, Donald Trump and Elon Musk declared their friendship to be null and void earlier this year, and the current status of their bromance remains uncertain. Although Musk did recently reappear at a formal White House dinner to celebrate Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. (No one in the U.S. government is feuding with bin Salman, despite his reported approval of the brutal execution of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018; some things apparently aren’t serious enough to merit a squabble.) Meanwhile, one of Donald Trump’s strongest foot-soldiers, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) announced that she’ll be stepping down in January, after Trump dubbed her a “traitor” and a “lunatic.” Her unforgiveable transgression was that she objected to the administration’s handling of the Epstein files. “Loyalty should be a two-way street,” Greene declared in her resignation announcement. And elsewhere in the Trump administration, the FBI’s deputy director Dan Bongino is also stepping down, having made it clear that he hopes to return to a far more comfortable job as a right-wing talking head attacking the Deep State instead of working for it. Bongino spent much of his tenure feuding with Bondi over the handling of the Epstein files, when he wasn’t complaining about how hard it is to be required to go to an office.  Bongino and his boss, Kash Patel also found time to feud with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), who accused them of trying to ferret out and punish a whistleblower at the FBI. Massie—who has been unusually independent for a GOP member of Congress (which is not saying much, and should not be interpreted as praise, but still)—has said that the whistleblower has been trying to make a disclosure regarding the bureau’s ongoing investigation into pipe bombs that were placed at the Republican and Democratic national headquarters on January 5, 2021. A suspect in the case was arrested on December 4; Massie has made it clear that he believes the FBI arrested the wrong person, tweeting that his FBI source has no confidence that the suspect is “capable or motivated” of having committed the crime. Massie is one of several House Republicans who have baselessly suggested the pipe bombings were an inside job. As evidence, Massie shared a now-retracted story by The Blaze accusing a Capitol Police officer of being the bomber.  Outside the Trump administration and in the wilds of right-wing influencers, Charlie Kirk’s death has been the catalyst for a brushfire of altercations, far beyond the confines of the one between his widow and Owens. His absence has opened up a power vacuum that other far-right figures have been unsubtly jockeying to fill. Longtime Kirk nemesis Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist and vile weirdo, is attempting to expand his own influence, sitting down for a friendly interview in October with Tucker Carlson that immediately incited a broad and ongoing MAGA civil war. After the Heritage Foundation’s President Kevin Roberts defended the interview, the staff and board of the organization revolted; two more board members quit this week. As evidenced in the Shapiro-Carlson smackdown at AmericaFest, the hard feelings over Fuentes’ presence in the movement have not abated. Needless to say, that’s not all. In September, Owen Shroyer, one of the top hosts on the conspiracy network Infowars, left the company due to disagreements with founder Alex Jones. Shroyer, who previously served two months in prison on misdemeanor trespassing charges after being on the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021, said he argued with Jones about whether Shroyer was “too anti-Trump” and “too negative.” But despite the acrimony, Shroyer said he will always respect the Infowars founder. Jones did not agree, and has been posting wounded tweets for months, accusing Shroyer of just “mailing it in” when he’s not calling him an “evil agent.” Similarly, multiple staff members working for MAGA gossip blogger Jessica Reed Kraus, a.k.a. Houseinhabit, quit earlier this year and have been trading social media barbs with her ever since. (The drama that has frankly been both too boring and convoluted even for me to consider covering, but according to one former staffer named Emilie Hagen, it allegedly involves disagreements over how Kraus covered and befriended disgraced former New York magazine writer Olivia Nuzzi, who was involved inher own extremely serious public feud recently.)   The names, allegations, fights, and feuds pile up; alliances shift, re-form, and then immediately collapse. And yet, somehow, MAGA staggers on, laying waste to the American political structure and doing horrifying real-world harm: children have died of cholera in South Sudan after devastating USAID cuts. Whooping cough and measles cases have surged in the United States amidst RFK Jr.’s continued campaign to install his friends and ideological fellow-travelers in positions of power at HHS. The siege on immigrants and Americans of color continues, with ICE and DHS presiding over a viciously, gleefully cruel set of mass deportations and various forms of broad-scale discrimination and psychological torture, with an assist from the Supreme Court. MAGA’s constant infighting is as hilarious as it is pointless—and yet, unlike their friendships, the true and lasting damage this exhausting group of people have wrought shows no signs of ending. 

Four days after a shooting at Brown University killed two students and wounded nine others, neither the shooter’s identity nor motive is known. But that hasn’t stopped internet sleuths from insisting that they know who did it. Now, powerful influencers are amplifying their claims. Almost as soon as the shooting happened, conservative influencers were quick to blame the shooting on “leftist activists”—but as the days wore on and the details were still sparse, they latched on to a more specific narrative. By Tuesday evening, social media accounts began noting that Brown University had scrubbed the pages on its website that had referred to a third-year student who used they/them pronouns and was involved in pro-Palestine organizing on campus. It wasn’t long before internet sleuths went to work, even deploying AI gait monitors to attempt to match the grainy footage that exists of the shooter with the student in question. Early Wednesday morning, an account with the handle @MadeleineCaseTweets claimed in a widely circulated tweet that the shooter’s physical attributes closely matched those of a third-year student at the university. The account, which has 27,000 followers, also noted that the third-year student was involved in “activism” and included a photo of the student speaking into a bullhorn and wearing a keffiyeh, a checkered scarf often used as a symbol of solidarity with Palestine. Those claims only added fuel to unconfirmed rumors already circulating that the shooter shouted “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” before opening fire. It didn’t take long for a who’s who of powerful conservative influencers, including far-right activist Laura Loomer, podcasters Benny Johnson and Tim Pool, “Pizzagate” conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec, and feminist-icon-turned-Covid-conspiracist Naomi Wolfe, to take the narrative and run with it. “In the video below, notice how he holds his hands behind his back in the surveillance video released by Providence, Rhode Island, police yesterday,” wrote Loomer. “This is common in Middle East culture, and witnesses said it sounded like the shooter was speaking Arabic, in addition to screaming Allahu Akbar!” Other accounts on X have taken the rumors further still, calling the university itself “extremist” and baselessly suggesting that a professor of Palestinian Studies was also involved in the attack. In a press conference on Tuesday, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said there were “lots of reasons” that a university would take a page offline. He strongly rebuked the internet sleuths and influencers who were spreading rumors. “It’s easy to jump from someone saying words that were spoken, to what those words are, to a particular name, that reflects a motive targeting a particular person,” he said. “That’s a really dangerous road to go down.” In a statement, Brown University echoed those concerns, noting, “Accusations, speculation, and conspiracies we’re seeing on social media and in some news reports are irresponsible, harmful, and in some cases dangerous for the safety of individuals in our community.”

BERLIN — U.S. President Donald Trump’s overtures to the European far right have never been more overt, but the EU’s biggest far-right parties are split over whether that is a blessing or a curse.  While Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has welcomed Trump’s moral support, viewing it as a way to win domestic legitimacy and end its political ostracization, France’s National Rally has kept its distance — viewing American backing as a potential liability. The differing reactions from the two parties, which lead the polls in the EU’s biggest economies, stem less from varying ideologies than from distinct domestic political calculations. AfD leaders in Germany celebrated the Trump administration’s recent attacks on Europe’s mainstream political leaders and approval of “patriotic European parties” that seek to fight Europe’s so-called “civilizational erasure.” “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy — which, in parts, sounds like it could have been a manifesto of a far-right European party — warning that Europe may be “unrecognizable” in two decades due to migration and a loss of national identities. “The AfD has always fought for sovereignty, remigration, and peace — precisely the priorities that Trump is now implementing,” added Bystron, who will be among a group of politicians in his party traveling to Washington this week to meet with MAGA Republicans. One of the AfD’s national leaders, Alice Weidel, also celebrated Trump’s security strategy. “That’s why we need the AfD!” Weidel said in a post after the document was released. By contrast, National Rally leaders in France were generally silent. Thierry Mariani, a member of the party’s national board, explained Trump hardly seemed like an ideal ally. “Trump treats us like a colony — with his rhetoric, which isn’t a big deal, but especially economically and politically,” he told POLITICO. The party’s national leaders, Mariani added, see “the risk of this attitude from someone who now has nothing to fear, since he cannot be re-elected, and who is always excessive and at times ridiculous.”  AFD’S AMERICAN DREAM It’s no coincidence that Bystron is part of a delegation of AfD politicians set to meet members of Trump’s MAGA camp in Washington this week. Bystron has been among the AfD politicians increasingly looking to build ties to the Trump administration to win support for what they frame as a struggle against political persecution and censorship at home. This is an argument members of the Trump administration clearly sympathize with. When Germany’s domestic intelligence agency declared the AfD to be extremist earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the move “tyranny in disguise.” During the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President JD Vance urged mainstream politicians in Europe to knock down the “firewalls” that shut out far-right parties from government. “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy. | Britta Pedersen/Picture Alliance via Getty Images AfD leaders have therefore made a simple calculation: Trump’s support may lend the party a sheen of acceptability that will help it appeal to more voters while, at the same time, making it politically harder for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives to refuse to govern in coalition with their party. This explains why AfD polticians will be in the U.S. this week seeking political legitimacy. On Friday evening, Markus Frohnmaier, deputy leader of the AfD parlimentary group, will be an “honored guest” at a New York Young Republican Club gala, which has called for a “new civic order” in Germany. NATIONAL RALLY SEES ‘NOTHING TO GAIN’ In France, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally has distanced itself from the AfD and Trump as part of a wider effort to present itself as more palatable to mainstream voters ahead of a presidential election in 2027 the party believes it has a good chance of winning. As part of the effort to clean up its image, Le Pen pushed for the AfD to be ejected from the Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament last year following a series of scandals that made it something of a pariah. At the same time, National Rally leaders have calculated that Trump can’t help them at home because he is deeply unpopular nationally. Even the party’s supporters view the American president negatively. An Odoxa poll released after the 2024 American presidential election found that 56 percent of National Rally voters held a negative view of Trump. In the same survey, 85 percent of voters from all parties described Trump as “aggressive,” and 78 percent as “racist.”  Jean-Yves Camus, a political scientist and leading expert on French and international far-right movements, highlighted the ideological gaps separating Le Pen from Trump — notably her support for a welfare state and social safety nets, as well as her limited interest in social conservatism and religion.  “Trumpism is a distinctly American phenomenon that cannot be transplanted to France,” Camus said. “Marine Le Pen, who is working on normalization, has no interest in being linked with Trump. And since she is often accused of serving foreign powers — mostly Russia — she has nothing to gain from being branded ‘Trump’s agent in France.’” 

LISBON — Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission should continue to enforce its digital rules with an iron fist despite the outcry from U.S. officials and big tech moguls, co-chair of the Greens in the European Parliament Bas Eickhout told POLITICO. As Green politicians from across Europe gather in the Portuguese capital for their annual congress, U.S. top officials are blasting the EU for imposing a penalty on social media platform X for breaching its transparency obligations under the EU’s Digital Services Act, the bloc’s content moderation rule book. “They should just implement the law, which means they need to be tougher,” Eickhout told POLITICO on the sidelines of the event. He argued that the fine of €120 million is “nothing” for billionaire Elon Musk and that the EU executive should go further. The Commission needs to “make clear that we should be proud of our policies … we are the only ones fighting American Big Tech,” he said, adding that tech companies are “killing freedom of speech in Europe.” The Greens have in the past denounced Meta and X over their content moderation policies, arguing these platforms amplify “disinformation” and “extremism” and interfere in European electoral processes. Meta and X did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication. Meta has “introduced changes to our content reporting options, appeals process and data access tools since the DSA came into force and are confident that these solutions match what is required under the law in the EU,” a Meta spokesperson said at the end of October. Tech mogul Musk said his response to the penalty would target the EU officials who imposed it. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the fine is “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” and accused the move of “censorship.” “It’s not good when our former allies in Washington are now working hand in glove with Big Tech,” blasted European Green Party chair Ciarán Cuffe at the opening of the congress in Lisbon. Eickhout, whose party GreenLeft-Labor alliance is in negotiations to enter government in the Netherlands, said “we should pick on this battle and stand strong.” The Commission’s decision to fine X under the EU’s Digital Services Act is over transparency concerns. The Commission said the design of X’s blue checkmark is “deceptive,” after it was changed from user verification into a paid feature. The EU’s executive also said X’s advertising library lacks transparency and that it fails to provide access to public data for researchers as required by the law.  Eickhout lamented that European governments are slow in condemning the U.S. moves against the EU, and argued that with its recent national security strategy, the Americans have made clear their objective is to divide Europe from within by fueling far-right parties. “Some of the leaders like [French President Emmanuel] Macron are still desperately trying to say that that the United States are our ally,” Eickhout said. “I want to see urgency on how Europe is going to take its own path and not rely on the U.S. anymore, because it’s clear we cannot.”