Get set for this year’s most consequential election in the EU. Hungary’s campaign stepped up a gear this week, with populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán facing the toughest challenge yet to his 15-year grip on power. The long-suffering opposition hopes that Péter Magyar — conservative leader of the opposition Tisza party, which is running 12 points ahead in the polls — can overturn what Orbán himself styles as Hungary’s “illiberal democracy.” For many Hungarians, the election is a referendum on Orbán’s model. Under his leadership the government, led by Orbán’s Fidesz party, has tightened its grip on the media and state companies — sparking accusations of cronyism — while weakening judicial independence and passing legislation that sent Hungary plunging down transparency rankings. It now sits at the bottom of the World Justice Project’s rule-of-law index for EU countries. The 62-year-old Orbán is the EU leader closest to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and proves a continual obstacle to efforts by Brussels to build a united front against the Kremlin. He has repeatedly clashed with the EU on topics ranging from LGBTQ+ rights to migration. Predicting the end of the liberal multilateral order, Orbán kicked off the year by saying the EU would “fall apart on its own.” But can Magyar — whose surname literally means “Hungarian” — really topple his former ally? And even if he does, how far could he realistically guide Hungary back toward liberal democracy with Orbán’s state architecture still in place? POLITICO breaks down the five key questions as Hungary heads toward the seismic April 12 vote. 1. WHY SHOULD I CARE? Hungary may be relatively small, with a population of 9.6 million, but under Orbán’s leadership it has become one of the EU’s biggest headaches. He has long weaponized Budapest’s veto in Brussels to block Russia-related sanctions, tie up financial aid to Ukraine and repeatedly stall urgent EU decisions. He is also a key — and sometimes leading — member of a group of right-wing populists in EU capitals, who unite on topics such as opposition to migration and skepticism toward arming Ukraine. Without Orbán, Czechia’s Andrej Babiš and Slovakia’s Robert Fico would cut far more isolated figures at summits of the European Council. Brussels has often resorted to elaborate workarounds to bypass Hungary’s obstructionism, and Orbán’s persistent defiance has led to calls to ditch the unanimity rule that has been in place for decades. “You have heard me 20 times regret, if not more, the attitude of Viktor Orbán, who, every time we had to move forward to help Ukraine … has used his veto to do more blackmail,” EU liberal party chief Valérie Hayer told journalists Tuesday. 2. WHAT ARE THE MAIN BATTLEGROUNDS? Magyar accuses Orbán and Fidesz of nepotism and corruption — of weakening the country’s economy by favoring oligarchs — and of missing out on EU funds by antagonizing Brussels. Orbán wants to frame his arch-nemesis Magyar as a puppet controlled by Brussels. Hungary’s campaign stepped up a gear this week, with populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán facing the toughest challenge yet to his 15-year grip on power. | Zoltán Fischer/Hungarian PM Communication/EPA In the past year, Fidesz has launched public debates aiming to divide Magyar’s base — which spans green and left-wing voters to disenchanted former Orbán loyalists — on subjects such as the LGBTQ+ Pride ban. Tisza’s strategy has been to avoid positioning itself on controversial issues, in an effort to garner an absolute majority that will grant the party power to reform electoral law, which they say Orbán rigged to his benefit, and enable constitutional changes. Tisza’s No. 2, Zoltán Tarr, told POLITICO he expected Orbán’s government to deploy “all possible dirty tricks.” “State propaganda smears, AI-generated fakes, doctored videos, potential staged incidents, blackmail, and exploiting the rigged electoral system. They will mobilize everything because they have so much to lose,” Tarr said. Speaking at Fidesz’s party congress on Saturday, Orbán lambasted Tisza as a pro-EU stooge. “If you vote for Tisza or DK [the social-democratic Democratic Coalition], you are voting against your own future. Tisza and DK will carry out Brussels’ demands without batting an eyelid. Do not forget that Tisza’s boss is Herr Weber, Europe’s biggest warmonger,” Orbán said, referring to the German chief of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber. 3. HOW AND WHEN DOES THE ELECTION TAKE PLACE? The national elections will take place on Sunday, April 12. Voters will choose a new 199-seat National Assembly under Hungary’s mixed electoral system, with 106 MPs elected in single-member constituencies and 93 from national party lists. The long-suffering opposition hopes that Péter Magyar — conservative leader of the Tisza party — can overturn what Orbán himself styles as Hungary’s “illiberal democracy.” | Noémi Bruzák/EPA POLITICO’s Poll of Polls shows Tisza leading with 49 percent support ahead of Fidesz at 37 percent — with Orbán’s party having been trailing for almost a year now. Although the official campaign period begins Feb. 21, the race has effectively been in full swing for months. Other notable parties in the race are the Democratic Coalition (DK); the far-right Mi Hazánk (Our Homeland) movement; and the satirical Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog Party (MKKP), largely created to mock Orbán’s policies. But these are fighting for survival as they may not meet the threshold of support for winning seats in parliament — meaning the Hungarian legislature could be exclusively controlled by two right-wing parties.  4. CAN THE ELECTION BE FREE AND FAIR? Challengers to the ruling party face a system designed to favor Fidesz. In 2011 Orbán’s government redrew electoral districts and overhauled the voting system to maximize its chances of winning seats. “There is no direct interference with the act of voting itself, yet the broader competitive environment — both in terms of institutional rules and access to resources — tilts heavily in favor of the governing parties,” said political analyst Márton Bene at the TK Institute of Political Science in Budapest. In addition to controlling roughly 80 percent of the media market, the government allows ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries (who tend to favor Fidesz) to vote by mail, whereas those living abroad who have kept their Hungarian addresses must travel to embassies to cast their ballots. “One side enjoys access to the full resources of the state, while the challenger receives no public campaign funding and has virtually no presence in state-controlled media,” said political scientist Rudolf Metz from the TK Institute, adding that this imbalance is partially offset in the digital sphere. But even the unfair conditions don’t preclude a Magyar victory, Bene says, as long as the integrity of the voting process is preserved. 5. HOW MUCH WOULD A MAGYAR WIN REALLY CHANGE? The Brussels establishment is praying for Magyar to win, hoping a Tisza government will deepen ties with the EU. Centrist chief Hayer said her party supported “any candidate who will carry pro-European values, who will be able to beat” the incumbent Hungarian prime minister. Conservative boss Weber quickly welcomed Tisza into the center-right family to secure influence in Budapest and to give them resources to develop their electoral platform. He has repeatedly framed Magyar as the man who will save Hungary from Orbán. While viewed as a potential bridge-builder for the strained Brussels-Budapest relationship, Magyar is by no means an unwavering EU cheerleader. He has been noncommittal about Brussels, considering that any rapprochement could be used by Orbán against him. In an interview with POLITICO in October 2024 he said “we certainly don’t believe in a European superstate.” Conservative boss Manfred Weber quickly welcomed Tisza into the center-right family to secure influence in Budapest and give them resources to develop their electoral platform. Filip Singer/EPA On the domestic front, Tarr — Tisza’s No. 2 — told POLITICO the party wants to “keep [the] border fence, oppose mandatory migration quotas and accelerated Ukraine accession, pursue peace, fight Russian propaganda, strengthen V4 [Hungary, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia] and Central Europe without being Europe’s bad boy.” That echoes the prognosis of political scientist Metz, who said a victory by Magyar “would not mean a radical U-turn or a return to some idealized past.” “Hungary’s role as the EU’s permanent disruptor would probably fade, not because national interests disappear, but because they would be pursued through negotiation and institutional engagement rather than constant veto politics and symbolic conflict,” Metz added. Analysts also cautioned that change at home could be slow. Zoltán Vasali of Milton Friedman University said dismantling the current system would be “legally and institutionally challenging.” “Core constitutional bodies will retain their mandates beyond the upcoming elections, and key positions remain held by individuals aligned with the current government, limiting near-term change,” Vasali said. The scale of a Magyar victory could be decisive. A two-thirds parliamentary supermajority, which would allow the new government to change the constitution, Metz said, would be “a game-changer.” “It would give a Magyar government the legal capacity to restore core elements of the rule of law, rebuild checks and balances, and introduce safeguards such as term limits for key offices,” he said. Kinga Gál, Fidesz’s leader in the European Parliament, did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Nationalist leaders lined up to endorse Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in a campaign video released this week as the election race begins in earnest. The nearly two-minute clip, posted by Orbán, rolls out support from a who’s who of European and international conservatives, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, her deputy Matteo Salvini, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Alice Weidel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The coordinated show of support comes as Orbán heads into what is likely to be his most competitive election in more than a decade. Hungary’s President Tamás Sulyok confirmed Tuesday that the country will go to the polls on April 12. After nearly 20 years at the helm, Orbán faces mounting criticism at home and abroad over democratic backsliding, curbs on media freedom, and the erosion of the rule of law. His Fidesz party, which has governed since 2010, is now trailing the opposition Tisza Party, led by former Orbán ally Péter Magyar. “Together we stand for a Europe that respects national sovereignty, is proud of its cultural and religious roots,” Meloni said in the video, as she endorsed Hungary’s incumbent leader. “Security cannot be taken for granted, it must be won. And I think Viktor Orbán has all those qualities. He has the tenacity, the courage, the wisdom to protect his country,” Netanyahu added. Also featured are Spain’s Vox chief Santiago Abascal, Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ) leader Herbert Kickl, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, and Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, all key figures in the conservative, populist and far-right political sphere. Argentine President Javier Milei also appears in the video. POLITICO’s Poll of Polls puts Magyar’s Tisza on 49 percent, well ahead of Fidesz on 37 percent. Magyar has built momentum by campaigning on pledges to strengthen judicial independence, clamp down on corruption and offer voters a clear break from Orbán’s rule. In Brussels, Orbán has frequently clashed with EU institutions and other member states over issues including support for Ukraine, sanctions on Russia and LGBTQ+ rights, making him a polarizing figure within the bloc. The campaign video, featuring a slate of foreign leaders, positions his re-election bid in a broader international context, tying Hungary’s vote to themes of national sovereignty and political alignment beyond the country’s borders. POLITICO was able to confirm the video’s authenticity via representatives for Weidel and Salvini. Ketrin Jochecová, Nette Nöstlinger and Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report.

The head of the U.S. oil industry’s top lobbying group said Tuesday that American producers are prepared to be a “stabilizing force” in Iran if the regime there falls — even as they remain skeptical about returning to Venezuela after the capture of leader Nicolás Maduro. “This is good news for the Iranian people — they’re taking freedom into their own hands,” American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said of the mass protests that have embroiled Iran in recent days. President Donald Trump is said to be weighing his options for potential actions against the Iranian government in response to its violent crackdown on the protests. “Our industry is committed to being a stabilizing force in Iran if they decide to overturn the regime,” Sommers told reporters following API’s annual State of American Energy event in Washington. “It’s an important oil play in the world, about the sixth-largest producer now — they could absolutely do more,” he said of the country. Iran’s oil industry, despite being ravaged by years of U.S. sanctions, is still considered to be structurally sound, unlike that of Venezuela’s. In order for companies to return to Venezuela, on the other hand, they will need long-term investment certainty, operational security and rule of law — all of which will take significant time, Sommers said. “If they get those three big things right, I think there will be investment going to Venezuela,” he said. Background: Experts who spoke earlier from the stage at API’s event also underscored the differences between Iran and Venezuela, whose oil infrastructure has deteriorated under years of neglect from the socialist regime. “Iran was able to add production under the weight of the most aggressive sanctions the U.S. could possibly deploy,” said Kevin Book, managing director at the energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners. “Imagine what they could do with Western engineering.” Bob McNally, a former national security and energy adviser to President George W. Bush who now leads the energy and geopolitics consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, said the prospects for growing Iran’s oil production are “completely different” from Venezuela’s. “You can imagine our industry going back there — we would get a lot more oil, a lot sooner than we will out of Venezuela,” McNally said. “That’s more conventional oil right near infrastructure, and gas as well.” No equity stakes: Sommers told reporters that API would oppose any efforts by the Trump administration to take a stake in oil companies that invest in Venezuela. The administration has taken direct equity stakes in a range of U.S. companies in a bid to boost the growth of sectors it sees as a geopolitical priority, such as semiconductor manufacturing and critical minerals. “We would be opposed to the United States government taking a stake in any American oil and gas companies, period,” Sommers said. “We’d have to know a little bit more about what the administration is proposing in terms of stake in [Venezuelan state-owned oil company] PdVSA, but we’re not for the nationalization of oil companies or for there to be a national oil company in the United States.”

A clash between Poland’s right-wing president and its centrist ruling coalition over the European Union’s flagship social media law is putting the country further at risk of multimillion euro fines from Brussels. President Karol Nawrocki is holding up a bill that would implement the EU’s Digital Services Act, a tech law that allows regulators to police how social media firms moderate content. Nawrocki, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, said in a statement that the law would “give control of content on the internet to officials subordinate to the government, not to independent courts.” The government coalition led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Nawrocki’s rival, warned this further exposed them to the risk of EU fines as high as €9.5 million. Deputy Digital Minister Dariusz Standerski said in a TV interview that, “since the president decided to veto this law, I’m assuming he is also willing to have these costs [of a potential fine] charged to the budget of the President’s Office.” Nawrocki’s refusal to sign the bill brings back bad memories of Warsaw’s years-long clash with Brussels over the rule of law, a conflict that began when Nawrocki’s Law and Justice party rose to power in 2015 and started reforming the country’s courts and regulators. The EU imposed €320 million in penalties on Poland from 2021-2023. Warsaw was already in a fight with the Commission over its slow implementation of the tech rulebook since 2024, when the EU executive put Poland on notice for delaying the law’s implementation and for not designating a responsible authority. In May last year Brussels took Warsaw to court over the issue. If the EU imposes new fines over the rollout of digital rules, it would “reignite debates reminiscent of the rule-of-law mechanism and frozen funds disputes,” said Jakub Szymik, founder of Warsaw-based non-profit watchdog group CEE Digital Democracy Watch. Failure to implement the tech law could in the long run even lead to fines and penalties accruing over time, as happened when Warsaw refused to reform its courts during the earlier rule of law crisis. The European Commission said in a statement that it “will not comment on national legislative procedures.” It added that “implementing the [Digital Services Act] into national law is essential to allow users in Poland to benefit from the same DSA rights.” “This is why we have an ongoing infringement procedure against Poland” for its “failure to designate and empower” a responsible authority, the statement said. Under the tech platforms law, countries were supposed to designate a national authority to oversee the rules by February 2024. Poland is the only EU country that hasn’t moved to at least formally agree on which regulator that should be. The European Commission is the chief regulator for a group of very large online platforms, including Elon Musk’s X, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Google’s YouTube, Chinese-owned TikTok and Shein and others. But national governments have the power to enforce the law on smaller platforms and certify third parties for dispute resolution, among other things. National laws allow users to exercise their rights to appeal to online platforms and challenge decisions. When blocking the bill last Friday, Nawrocki said a new version could be ready within two months. But that was “very unlikely … given that work on the current version has been ongoing for nearly two years and no concrete alternative has been presented” by the president, said Szymik, the NGO official. The Digital Services Act has become a flashpoint in the political fight between Brussels and Washington over how to police online platforms. The EU imposed its first-ever fine under the law on X in December, prompting the U.S. administration to sanction former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other Europeans. Nawrocki last week likened the law to “the construction of the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s novel 1984,” a criticism that echoed claims by Trump and his top MAGA officials that the law censored conservatives and right-wingers. Bartosz Brzeziński contributed reporting.

EU PARLIAMENT’S MOST TOXIC DUO BRINGS TROUBLE FOR VON DER LEYEN Social Democrat chief Iratxe García and center-right boss Manfred Weber’s dire relationship is Brussels’ worst-kept secret. By MAX GRIERA in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO A confrontation six years ago poisoned a relationship at the heart of the EU that remains toxic to this day. Manfred Weber, the powerful German head of the center-right European People’s Party, the largest political family in Europe, knew something was wrong when Iratxe García walked into his office shortly after the 2019 EU election. García, a Spanish MEP who leads the center-left Socialists and Democrats group in the Parliament, was accompanied by Romanian former liberal chief Dacian Cioloș. The pair told Weber that they wouldn’t support his bid to become president of the European Commission, despite the Parliament’s longstanding position that the head of the party receiving the most votes in the election should get the job. While Cioloș is long gone from the EU political scene, García and Weber remain in post — and the animosity between them has only grown, especially now that the EPP is aligning with the far right to pass legislation.  García’s move killed Weber’s Commission ambitions, souring relations between the two and threatening Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen’s ability to deliver her second-term agenda, as she needs the support of senior MEPs to pass legislation. The pair are like “two toxic exes who had a good relationship, but Weber cheated on García with the far right, and this makes it hard for the Socialists,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group in the Parliament. Today, the dire relationship between Weber and García is the talk of the town. For decades, the EPP and S&D — the two largest political families in Europe — have worked hand in hand to provide stable majorities in the Parliament, including backing a second term for von der Leyen at a time of unprecedented crises facing the bloc. Now that stability is in doubt. POLITICO spoke to 12 officials and lawmakers who are or have been close to the pair. Some say the problem is personal, while others blame politics and argue that anyone in their position would have the same relationship issues. “Weber and García have become a problem for von der Leyen,” said a senior Commission official, granted anonymity to speak freely, as were others in this piece. That’s because disagreements between their two groups could lead to less predictable voting in the Parliament, as happened in November with the simplification bill on green reporting rules for businesses, when the EPP sided with the far right rather than with the centrists. Tensions have also spilled toward von der Leyen herself, with García accusing her of “buying into Trump’s agenda” by pushing deregulation. Center-left MEPs have urged the Commission president to rein in Weber over his cooperation with the far right. RELATIONSHIP TAKES A DOWNTURN Verbal attacks in the Parliament’s hemicycle, tensions over Spanish politics, opposing views on the EU’s green ambitions and migration policy, and the fact that the EPP is voting for laws with the far right have eroded what started as a promising relationship. Weber “will never get over the big treason when Iratxe backstabbed him on the Commission presidency,” said a senior EPP MEP. “Everyone needs to stay calm and keep emotions out of it,” said a senior Socialist MEP, noting that many lawmakers, including commissioners, often express concern about the emotional undertones of the relationship. Manfred Weber “will never get over the big treason when Iratxe backstabbed him on the Commission presidency,” said a senior EPP MEP. | Filip Singer/EPA Publicly, both insist relations are just fine. “I really appreciate the strong leadership of Iratxe, she’s a tough representative,” Weber told POLITICO, describing the relationship as in a “great state.” “I can confirm that we have good and regular talks to each other, but we also see our different political positioning,” he added. García also played down the perceived friction, saying the pair have a “working relationship” and “try to understand each other,” while stressing that despite their differences, it is “much more normalized than you might think from the outside.” The reality, according to MEPs and staffers close to the pair, is that six years of working side by side have eroded trust. Weber sees García as incapable of delivering on her promises due to the S&D’s internal divisions and weakness, as it has lost power and influence across Europe; García views Weber as power-hungry and willing to empower the far right at the expense of the center. PERSONAL ATTACKS In her September 2025 State of the Union address, von der Leyen tried to bridge the widening rifts between the EPP and the Socialists by giving policy wins to both sides and calling for unity. But her efforts came to nothing as Weber and García exchanged personal attacks on the hemicycle floor, each blaming the other for the instability of the pro-European coalition. Weber accused Garcia and the Socialists of “harming the European agenda.” During her remarks, the S&D chief shot back: “You know who is responsible for the fact that this pro-European alliance … does not work in this Parliament? It has a name and surname. It is called Manfred Weber.” The exchange reflected a relationship under strain, as the EPP pushed deregulation, weaker green rules, and a crackdown on migration backed by far-right votes after the 2024 election shifted the Parliament to the right. Sidelined by that new math, the Socialists have increasingly felt alienated and have hardened their attacks on von der Leyen for embracing a right-wing deregulation agenda, and on Weber for empowering the far right in general. “The only way for Iratxe to survive is to be more aggressive with EPP and with Manfred,” said a former centrist lawmaker, who argued that García is leaning on rhetoric to rally her base as concrete wins are in such short supply. For his part, Weber is unapologetic about sidelining traditional centrist allies, arguing that the end — tackling policy issues the far right has weaponized against the EU, notably migration and overregulation — justifies the means. “He could not be Commission president so he has been pushing to be a power broker from the Parliament, which means he needs to show he can push for whatever EPP wants, which includes using the far right,” a second senior EPP MEP said of Weber. BETRAYAL Weber and García started their collaboration after the election in 2019, when the latter was chosen as the group leader of S&D after serving as an MEP since 2004 and chair of the committee on women’s rights between 2014 and 2019. For the first two years they were united in their goals of delivering on the Green Deal and addressing the Covid-19 pandemic, but the relationship began to deteriorate in the second half of the term. In a mid-term reshuffle of the Parliament’s top posts, Weber struck a backroom deal with the liberals of Renew and The Left to keep the powerful position of the Parliament’s secretary-general in the hands of the EPP. García had wanted the job for S&D because the previous secretary-general was from the EPP, as is Roberta Metsola, who was about to become the Parliament’s president. Ursula von der Leyen tried to bridge the widening rifts between the EPP and the Socialists by giving policy wins to both sides and calling for unity. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “This was a moment of tension because she really thought she would get it … she took it very personally,” said the senior Socialist MEP. “Her position in the group was also affected by that; she got a lot of criticism.” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s reelection in 2023 further strained relations. Weber has for years been betting on the fall of Sánchez, backing Spain’s EPP-aligned opposition (the People’s Party, or PP) and giving them free rein in the Parliament to attack the Spanish Socialist Party, knowing that the EPP would be boosted with an EPP party in power in Madrid. “He does everything the People’s Party wants,” said a liberal Parliament official, who added that “every time Spain is on the agenda, it becomes a nightmare, everyone screaming.” The most recent example came in November, when the EPP sided with far-right groups to cancel a parliamentary visit to Italy to monitor the rule of law in the country, while approving one to Spain — sparking an outcry from García, whom EPP MEPs frame as Sánchez’s lieutenant in Brussels. “It generates a toxic dynamic,” echoed the first senior EPP MEP. BREAKING POINT The Spanish issue came to the fore during the 2024 hearings for commissioners, when MEPs grill prospective office-holders to see if they are up to the task. Under pressure from his Spanish peers, Weber and the EPP went in hard on Sánchez’s deputy Teresa Ribera, blaming her for deadly floods in Valencia in October 2024. While the EPP wanted to take down Ribera, the Socialists hoped to make life difficult for Italy’s Raffaele Fitto, who was put forward by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. While Fitto is not from the EPP (he’s from the European Conservatives and Reformists), his nomination was supported by Weber. In the end, the S&D went easier on Fitto in order to save Ribera from further attacks. After weeks of tensions — with both Weber and García visibly furious and blasting each other in briefings to the press — both Ribera and Fitto were confirmed as commissioners. The struggle highlighted that the old alliance between the EPP and the S&D was cracking, with Weber snubbing García and instead teaming up with the far right.   While they still meet to coordinate parliamentary business — often alongside Renew leader Valérie Hayer and von der Leyen — the partnership is far less effective than before. “It’s very clear they’re no longer running Parliament the way they used to,” said The Left’s Aubry. The breakdown has injected instability into the Parliament, with the once well-oiled duo no longer pre-cooking decisions, making outcomes more unpredictable. Aubry said meetings of group leaders used to take place with a deal already struck — “political theater,” as she put it. “Now we walk in and don’t know where we’ll end up,” Aubry added. “While they get along personally, the results of that cooperation are not that good,” said the second EPP MEP, adding that the alliance between the EPP and the S&D has “not really delivered.” LOOKING AHEAD TO YET MORE BATTLES The next reshuffle of top Parliament jobs is in 2027, and Weber and García are already haggling over who will get to nominate the next Parliament president. The EPP is expected to try to push for Metsola getting a third term, but the Socialists claim it’s their turn per a power-sharing agreement after the 2024 election. Officials from the EPP deny such an agreement exists while officials from Renew and the S&D say it does, although no one could show POLITICO any documentation. The EPP is expected to try to push for Roberta Metsola getting a third term, but the Socialists claim it’s their turn per a power-sharing agreement after the 2024 election. | Ronald Wittek/EPA That’s a major headache for García. The S&D’s Italian and German delegations are itching to get leadership positions, and if the Parliament presidency is off the table they could try to replace her as party chief. With tensions simmering, one Parliament official close to the pair half-joked that García and Weber should settle things over an after-work drink — but it seems the détente will have to wait. “I’d definitely go for a drink,” Weber said with a nervous laugh before noting that both are “so busy” it probably won’t happen. García, also laughing, was even less committal: “I’ve become a real homebody. I don’t go out for drinks anymore.”

President Donald Trump’s promise to revive the Venezuelan oil industry drew praise from U.S. energy executives on Friday — but no firm commitments to invest the vast sums of money needed to bring the country’s oil output back from the doldrums. The lack of firm pledges from the heads of the companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips that Trump summoned to the White House raised doubts about the president’s claim that U.S. oil producers were ready to spend $100 billion or more to rebuild Venezuela’s crude oil infrastructure. The country boasts the world’s largest oil reserves, but its production has cratered since the regime pushed most of those companies out decades ago. Exxon CEO Darren Woods offered the starkest assessment, telling Trump in the live-streamed meeting in the East Room that Venezuela is “uninvestable” under current conditions. He said major changes were needed before his company would return to the country, and that big questions remain about what return Exxon could expect from any investments. “If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” Woods told Trump. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.” Still, Woods said he was confident the U.S. can help make those changes, and said he expected Exxon could put a technical team on the ground in Venezuela soon to assess the state of its oil infrastructure. Harold Hamm, a fracking executive and major Trump ally, expressed more enthusiasm but still fell short of making any commitments. “It excites me as an explorationist,” Hamm, whose experience has centered on oil production inside the U.S., said of the opportunity to invest in Venezuela. “It is a very exciting country and a lot of reserves — it’s got its challenges and the industry knows how to handle that.” Still, Energy Secretary Chris Wright pointed reporters after the meeting to a statement from Chevron — the only major U.S. oil company still operating in Venezuela — that it was ready to raise its output as a concrete sign the industry was willing to put more money into the country. Chevron currently produces about 240,000 barrels a day there with its partner, the Venezuelan state-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA. Mark Nelson, Chevron’s vice chairman, told the gathering the company sees “a path forward” to increase production from its existing operations by 50 percent over the next 18 to 24 months. He did not commit to a dollar figure, however. Wright indicated that the $100 billion figure cited by Trump on Thursday was an estimate for the cost of reconstructing Venezuela’s dilapidated oil sector — rather than a firm spending commitment made by producing companies. “If you look at what’s a positive trajectory for Venezuela’s oil industry in the next decade, that’s probably going to take about $100 billion investment,” said Wright, who later told Bloomberg Television he is likely to travel to Venezuela “before too long.” Most of the nearly two dozen companies in attendance at Friday’s meeting expressed tepid support for the administration’s plan, though others indicated they were eager to jump back quickly. Wael Sawan, the CEO of the European energy giant Shell, said the company had been pushed out in Venezuela’s nationalization program in the 1970s, giving up 1 million barrels per day of oil production. Now it was seeking U.S. permits to go back, he said. “We are ready to go and looking forward to the investment in support of the Venezuelan people,” he said. Jeffery Hildebrand, CEO of independent oil and gas producer Hilcorp Energy and a major Trump donor, said his company was “fully committed and ready to go to rebuild the infrastructure in Venezuela.” Trump said during the meeting that companies that invest in Venezuela would be assured “total safety, total security,” without the U.S. government spending taxpayer dollars or putting boots on the ground. He indicated that Venezuela would provide security for the U.S. companies, and that the companies would bring their own protection as well. “These are tough people. They go into areas that you wouldn’t want to go. They go into areas that if they invited me, I’d say, ‘No, thanks. I’ll see you back in Palm Beach,’” Trump said of the oil companies. Before the executives spoke, Trump insisted that oil executives are lining up to take the administration up on the opportunity. “If you don’t want to go in, just let me know,” he said. “There are 25 people not here today willing to take your place.” Following the public meeting, the companies stayed for further discussions with administration officials behind closed doors. The president also dismissed speculation that the administration may offer financial guarantees to back up what he acknowledged would be a risky investment. “I hope I don’t have to give a backstop,” he said. “These are the biggest companies in the world sitting around this table — they know the risks.” Trump also laughed off the billions that Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are owed for the assets seized by the Venezuelan regime decades ago. “Nice write-off,” he quipped. “You’ll get a lot of your money back,” Trump told ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance. “We’re going to start with an even plate, though — we’re not going to look at what people lost in the past because that was their fault.” ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said in a statement that Lance “appreciates today’s valuable opportunity to engage with President Trump in a discussion about preparing Venezuela to be investment ready.” The White House at the last minute shifted the meeting from a closed-door session in the Cabinet Room to a live-televised spectacle in the East Room. “Everybody wants to be there,” the president wrote of the oil executives on social media just ahead of the meeting. POLITICO reported on Thursday that the White House had scrambled to invite additional companies to the meeting because of skepticism from the top oil majors about reentering the country. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged in an appearance Thursday that “big oil companies who move slowly … are not interested,” but said the administration’s “phones are ringing off the hook” with calls from smaller players. Bethany Williams, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, called Friday’s meeting “a constructive, initial conversation that highlighted both the energy potential and the challenges presented in Venezuela, including the importance of rule of law, security, and stable governance.” Venezuela — even with strongman Nicolás Maduro in custody in New York — remains under the rule of the same socialist government that appropriated the rigs, pipelines and property of foreign oil companies two decades ago. Questions remain about who would guarantee the companies’ workers’ safety, particularly since Trump has publicly ruled out sending in troops. Kevin Book, a managing director at the energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners, noted that few CEOs in the meeting outright rejected the notion of returning to or investing in Venezuela, instead couching any sort of presence on several conditions. Some of those might be nearer term, such as security guarantees. Others, like reestablishing legal stability in Venezuela, appear more distant. “They need to understand the risk and they need to understand the return,” Book said. “What it sounded like most of the companies were saying … is that they want to understand the risk and the return and then they’ll look at the investment.” Evanan Romero, a Houston-based oil consultant involved in the Trump administration’s effort to bring U.S. oil producers back to Venezuela, said international oil companies will not return to the country under the same laws and government that expropriated their assets decades earlier. “The main contribution that [interim president] Delcy [Rodríguez] and her government can do is make a bonfire of those laws and put it on fire in the Venezuelan Bolivar Square,” Romero said. “With those, we cannot do any reconstruction of the oil industry.” Zack Colman and Irie Sentner contributed to this report.

Just as Cyprus’ government should be concentrating on its presidency of the Council of the EU, it has to firefight controversy at home over a video circulating online that alleges top-level corruption. The furor centers on a mysterious video posted on X with a montage of senior figures filmed apparently describing ways to bypass campaign spending caps with cash donations, and seemingly discussing a scheme allowing businesspeople to access the president and first lady. One segment made reference to helping Russians avoid EU sanctions. The government denies the allegations made in the video and calls it “hybrid activity” aimed at harming “the image of the government and the country.” The government does not say the video is a fake, but insists the comments have been spliced together misleadingly. The footage appears to have been shot using hidden cameras in private meetings. Unconvinced, opposition parties are now calling for further action. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides hit back hard against the suggestion of illicit campaign funding in remarks to local media on Friday. “I would like to publicly call on anyone who has evidence of direct or indirect financial gains during the election campaign or during my time as President of the Republic to submit it immediately to the competent state authorities,” he said. “I will not give anyone, absolutely anyone, the right to accuse me of corruption.” In relation to the reference to payments made by businesses, he said companies “must also offer social benefits within the framework of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for the state, I want to repeat, for the state. And they do so in the areas of health, welfare, defense, and many other areas.” The contentious video was posted on Thursday afternoon on social media platform X on an account under the name “Emily Thompson,” who is described as an “independent researcher, analyst and lecturer focused mainly on American domestic and foreign policies.” It was not immediately possible to find public and verifiable information confirming the real identity of the person behind the account. The video includes footage of former Energy Minister George Lakkotrypis and the director of the president’s office, Charalambos Charalambous. In the recordings, Lakkotrypis is presented as a point of contact for people seeking access to Christodoulides. He appears to walk his interlocutor through the process on payments above the €1 million campaign limit. In a written statement, Lakkotrypis said it is “self-evident” from the video that remarks attributed to him were edited in order to distort the context of the discussions, with the aim of harming Cyprus and himself personally. He added that he filed a complaint with the police. The police have launched an investigation into the video, after Lakkotrypis’ complaint, its spokesman Vyron Vyronos told the Cyprus News Agency. The video then shows Charalambous, Christodoulides’ brother-in-law, who explains gaining access to the presidential palace. “We are the main, the two, contacts here at the palace, next to the president,” he says, adding that interested parties could approach the president with a proposal and money that could be directed toward social contributions. There was no official statement from Charalambous. The video alleges that social contributions made by companies through a fund run by the first lady are being misused to win preferential treatment from the presidency. Concern over this fund is not new. The Cypriot parliament last year voted through legislation that called for the publication of the names of the donors to that fund. The president vetoed that move, however, and took the matter to court, arguing that publicly disclosing the list of donors would be a personal data breach. The court ruled in favor of the president and the names were not revealed. Stefanos Stefanou, leader of the main opposition AKEL party, said the video raised “serious political, ethical, and institutional issues” which compromised the president and his entourage politically and personally. He called on the president to dismiss Charalambous, abolish the social support fund and — after the donors have been made public — transfer its responsibilities to another institution. AKEL also submitted a bill on Friday to abolish the fund within the next three months and called for the first lady to resign as head of the fund. AKEL also requested that the allegations from the video be discussed in the parliament’s institutions’ committee. Another opposition party, Democratic Rally, said: “What is revealed in the video is shocking and extremely serious … Society is watching in shock and demanding clear and convincing answers from the government. Answers that have not yet been given.” Cyprus has parliamentary elections in May and the next presidential election is in 2028.

House Speaker Mike Johnson will travel to London later this month to address the United Kingdom’s Parliament, becoming the first sitting U.S. speaker to do so. Johnson announced his invitation on Wednesday, saying he was “honored and humbled” to accept the invite from Sir Lindsay Hoyle, speaker of the U.K. House of Commons, ahead of America’s 250th anniversary of independence. “The U.S. and the UK have stood together as pillars of peace and security across generations,” Johnson said in a statement. “We forged this important friendship in the great wars of the 20th century, but the true source of our strength comes from our shared commitment to individual freedom, human dignity, and the rule of law, which together form the exceptional, joint heritage of the English-speaking world.” Johnson’s address on Jan. 20 will be one of many ceremonial events the U.S. has planned to commemorate this year’s anniversary around the country. “As America begins its Semiquincentennial celebration, I will be happy to visit one of the great shrines of democracy itself, where the principles that launched the long struggle for American liberty were debated and refined,” Johnson added. Though Johnson will be the first sitting speaker to address Parliament, Hoyle said he was pleased to continue a tradition from 50 years ago, when his predecessor invited then-Speaker Carl Albert to London to mark the 200th anniversary. Doing so, Hoyle added, continues to “acknowledge the enduring close relationship between our parliaments and people.” “Our UK Parliament is sited just miles away from where the cross-Atlantic relationship began more than 400 years ago,” Hoyle said in a statement distributed by Johnson’s office. “The courage of the Founding Fathers, who set sail on the Mayflower for the New World, built a bridge and connections across the Atlantic, which continues until today.” POLITICO London Playbook previously reported that Johnson was expected to visit Parliament.

The main rival to Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is incarcerated in a high-security prison just outside Istanbul, but that’s not stopping him from vowing to win the presidency from his cell. In written replies to questions from POLITICO, the democratically elected Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu struck a defiant tone from the notorious Silivri jail, and insisted he was still the legitimate electoral candidate who could end Erdoğan’s 25-year dominance of Turkish politics. The popular mayor’s arrest last March triggered massive nationwide protests and international condemnation. Turkey’s opposition views his imprisonment as a politically motivated maneuver by Erdoğan, an Islamist populist strongman, to remove his most effective secular opponent in the NATO nation of 88 million people. The 55-year-old, who faces a potential jail term of more than 2,300 years, replied via his lawyers and political advisers to a series of questions sent by POLITICO. The rare remarks signal İmamoğlu is confident in the groundswell of his support and is determined to remain a political force from behind bars. “What we are living through today is not a genuine legal process; it is a strategy of political siege,” he wrote. “President Erdoğan’s aim is not only to shape the next election. It is to erase my candidacy now and in the future, and to push me completely out of politics. The reason is clear: They know that in a free and fair election, I can defeat President Erdoğan at the ballot box, and they are trying to prevent that.” POLITICAL TIDE TURNS The sweeping crackdown against İmamoğlu — along with many other mayors from the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) — came amid signs that the country’s political tide was shifting dramatically to the secularists. The Islamists were defeated by an unexpectedly high margin in municipal elections in 2024, and the authorities moved to charge İmamoğlu on multiple counts, just as he was about to be nominated as the CHP’s official presidential candidate. Despite his detention, more than 15 million Turks still voted in a CHP primary to name him as the official challenger — a highly symbolic public outpouring, as he was the only candidate. İmamoğlu and members of his team were charged with corruption, extortion, bribery, money laundering and even espionage. The sheer scale of the case revealed its weakness, İmamoğlu explained. He complained of “1,300 inspections at Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality that produced no concrete findings; a 3,900-page indictment based largely on rumors and witnesses whose credibility is contested; a demand for prison sentences totaling up to 2,352 years; and a maximum trial duration set at 4,600 days.” The next election isn’t expected until 2028, but İmamoğlu is still seen as posing a particular risk. He has defeated Erdoğan’s party allies in Istanbul mayoral elections three times; crucially, his party won in traditionalist, religious quarters of Turkey’s biggest city, which the Islamists had long seen as their political bastions. Erdoğan himself used the mayoral office in Istanbul as a springboard to win national power years ago. FIGUREHEAD BEHIND BARS Despite his incarceration, İmamoğlu continues to campaign online through platforms like X, Instagram and TikTok, with help from his team. According to Soner Çağaptay, İmamoğlu has little chance of being allowed to take on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in a free and fair race. | Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images But can a candidate really run a serious presidential campaign from prison, while Erdoğan controls all the vital levers of state? İmamoğlu’s main campaign account on X, which has nearly 10 million followers, was blocked in Turkey in May. The incarcerated mayor fully acknowledges the limits imposed on him but insists a campaign without his physical presence or podium speeches can succeed. “What defines a campaign is its ideas, its values, and the shared will of citizens. We have all of these on our side … Everyone is aware that my arrest is unjust. Even a significant portion of Justice and Development Party (AK Party) voters consider my detention unfair and see it as a grave blow to justice,” he wrote. He also stressed the importance of the CHP primary in demonstrating the swell of popular support for him beyond the traditional party base. “The presidential primary on March 23, 2025 demonstrated this clearly. Although I was detained, around 15.5 million citizens voted to support my candidacy. Only 2 million of that number were CHP members; the other 13.5 million came from every segment of society,” he explained. “The campaign launched by my party to demand trial without detention and early elections has gathered 25.1 million signatures. All of this reflects a demand that transcends party lines: a demand for justice, merit, and dignity.” Yet the legal fate of his candidacy now rests with a judiciary that has a poor record of independence. Last February, Istanbul’s chief prosecutor’s office opened an investigation alleging that İmamoğlu’s diploma from Istanbul University had been forged; one day before his arrest, the university annulled the diploma. Under Turkey’s constitution, presidential candidates must be over 40 and hold a university degree. Another hearing is expected later this month. According to Soner Çağaptay, an expert on Turkey at the Washington Institute think tank, İmamoğlu has little chance of being allowed to take on Erdoğan in a free and fair race, as the president will use the advantages of incumbency and state institutions to block his candidacy, stigmatize him and weaken support for the CHP. “Even though İmamoğlu can declare his candidacy virtually from a jail cell, there is no way this will be legally allowed — because for Erdoğan this would be a mortal political threat if this were a free and fairly contested race,” he said. FOREIGN POLICY FLOP In his responses, İmamoğlu took aim at Erdoğan’s “aggressive” foreign policy and his close relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump, linking both to the erosion of rights at home. İmamoğlu took aim at Erdoğan’s close relationship with Donald Trump. | Pool photo by Evan Vucci via Getty Images “It is clear that President Trump’s presidency has opened a turbulent era … Diplomacy has increasingly shifted from institutions to leader-to-leader dealings, squeezed between rapid bargains and gestures that rarely lead anywhere,” he wrote. He argued Erdoğan was seeking the legitimacy he had lost domestically in Washington, but questioned whether Ankara was really getting what it wanted. “We must ask what the concrete gains of this alleged success are. Despite claims that relations with Washington are improving, Türkiye still has not returned to the F-35 [U.S. stealth fighter] program and [associated] sanctions have not been lifted,” he wrote. “Our neighbor Greece continues, in violation of agreements, to militarize the Aegean islands. The alliance among Greece, Israel, and Southern Cyprus against Türkiye strengthens and extends steadily. Israel is pursuing provocative policies towards Kurds in various regional countries. The Gaza peace plan, struck with a ‘real-estate-dealer mentality,’ has still not ended Palestinians’ suffering and hunger. What is the government doing in response?” he asked. İmamoğlu also insisted that Erdoğan’s security-driven policy had narrowed the space for democratic politics at home. “Fundamental rights are restricted, pressure is placed on elected officials, and media and civil society are silenced, justified by ‘security’ and geopolitical importance. Over time, the idea that freedoms can be pushed aside ‘for stability’ becomes normalized.” If elected president, İmamoğlu said, rebuilding ties with Europe would be one of his top priorities, alongside fulfilling the democratic criteria to be a candidate EU member. “As the CHP, our goal of full EU membership remains intact. In the short term, we will work to modernize the Customs Union to include services, agriculture, public procurement and digital trade, and to align with European standards,” he wrote. MISSING THE CITY İmamoğlu said he is maintaining a strict routine in prison despite the bleak short-term prospects. He writes, reads and follows the news as closely as possible — not only for personal resilience, but out of a sense of public duty. “That responsibility does not end at the prison gate … I am treated within the official framework, but I believe detention should never be normalized in a democracy. Especially when it is used as a tool of political containment. The issue is not the conditions, but the principle: Detention and prolonged legal uncertainty must not become instruments of politics.” What he misses most is his family; his wife Dilek, his children, parents and friends. A large share of visitation requests are rejected without justification. “I also miss the ordinary rhythm of the city, walking freely in the street, direct contact with people, and sharing unplanned moments,” he wrote. He added that he keeps up his strength, knowing he is still part of a democratic movement larger than his personal circumstances. “That is what truly determines everything, not the walls around me.”

President Donald Trump’s Cabinet officials are scheduling their first formal calls with oil company CEOs to press them to revive Venezuela’s flagging oil production, four people familiar with the conversations told POLITICO. Calls that Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are planning with chief executives represent some of the first official outreach that the administration has made to the U.S. companies after months of informal discussions with people in the sector, these people said — days after President Donald Trump told reporters that “our very large United States oil companies” will “spend billions of dollars” in Venezuela. However, the companies’ executives remain wary of entering a socialist-ruled country that was plunged into political upheaval after U.S. forces took strongman Nicolás Maduro into custody over the weekend, following decades of neglect in its nationalized oil fields, according to market analysts and industry officials. Industry officials are also discussing what types of incentives would be needed to get them to return to the country, according to two industry officials familiar with the plans who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. Those could include having the U.S. government signing contracts guaranteeing payment and security or forming public-private joint ventures. Even if they don’t yet have fully formed ideas for what would get them to invest in Venezuela, Trump’s insistence is difficult to ignore, said one former administration agency head who was granted anonymity to discuss the evolving matters. “Most companies have been thinking about this for a while. All of the big folks are probably thinking about it — and very, very, very hard,” the person said. “It’s a pretty powerful thing when the president of the United States says, ‘I need you to do this.’” Publicly, the White House expressed confidence. “All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure, which was destroyed by the illegitimate Maduro regime,” spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. “American oil companies will do an incredible job for the people of Venezuela and will represent the United States well.” One person said the administration also “hopes” the American Petroleum Institute, the powerful trade association representing oil companies working in the United States, would form a task force to advise the White House on how best to revive Venezuelan oil production. “In nearly all cases, these calls are the first outreach from the administration on Venezuela,” the person said. API is “closely watching developments involving Venezuela and any potential implications for global energy markets,” group spokesperson Justin Prendergast said in response to questions. “Events like this underscore the importance of strong U.S. energy leadership. Globally, energy companies make investment decisions based on stability, the rule of law, market forces and long-term operational considerations,” Prendergast said. Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had spoken to U.S. oil companies “before and after” the military operation that seized Maduro and brought him to New York, where the former Venezuelan leader made his first court appearance on Monday. “And they want to go in, and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela, and they’re going to represent us well,” Trump continued. Industry executives on Monday told Reuters no such outreach had occurred to oil majors Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, all of which have experience working in Venezuela’s oil fields. Bringing Venezuela’s oil production — now around 1 million barrels a day — back to its glory-days’ height of 3 million barrels a day would require at least $183 billion and more than a decade of effort, industry analyst firm Rystad Energy said Monday. While the Venezuelan government might supply some of that money, international companies would need to spend $35 billion in the next few years to reach that goal. “Rystad Energy believes that around $53 billion of oil and gas upstream and infrastructure investment is needed over the next 15 years just to keep Venezuela’s crude oil production flat at 1.1 million” barrels a day, the firm said in a client note. “Going beyond 1.4 million [barrels a day] is possible but would require a stable investment of $8 [billion]-$9 billion per year from 2026 to 2040, on top of ‘hold-flat’ capital requirements.” ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said in a statement that it would be “premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,” but said the company is monitoring the “potential implications for global energy supply and stability” from the events in Venezuela. ConocoPhillips is continuing its efforts to collect more than $10 billion in compensation it was awarded in arbitration for the Venezuelan government’s seizure of the company’s assets in 2007, Nuss said. Exxon Mobil and Chevron did not respond to requests for comment. Oil field services companies Halliburton and Baker Hughes did not respond for comment, and SLB declined to comment. The only company to publicly indicate interest in Venezuela has been Continental Resources, a firm led by Trump ally and informal energy adviser Harold Hamm. Hamm told the Financial Times on Sunday that “with improved regulatory and governmental stability we would definitely consider future investment.” Continental, which played a key role in developing oil fracking technology, has never operated outside the United States — though it announced on Monday a deal in which it would buy assets in Argentina. People in the oil industry have said a major concern is that Venezuela is not stable enough to guarantee the safety of any workers and equipment they might send there. Companies are asking that the U.S. government contract directly with them before they commit to entering the country. “We need some boots-on-the-ground security and some financial security. That’s on top of the list,” said a second industry executive familiar with the talks who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Trump’s decision to allow Maduro’s second-in-command, acting President Delcy Rodríguez, and other members of the regime to remain in charge of the country’s government has also made industry executives wary of taking on the job, this person added. Rodríguez and her family had been part of the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chávez in the mid-2000s when the regime seized the assets of foreign oil companies. Colombia, Canada, the EU and the United States have levied sanctions against her after accusing her of undermining the Venezuelan elections. “Who’s running the game here?” the second industry executive said. “If she’s going to be in charge — plus the guys who have been there all along — what guarantee can you give us that stuff is going to change? Those three issues — physical, financial and political security — have to be settled before anyone goes in.” Longtime Republican foreign policy hand Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela during his first term, said the president is “exaggerating” the likelihood that companies will return to the country, given the risk and capital required. “The president seems to suggest that he will make the decision, but that is not right — the boards of these companies will make the decisions,” said Abrams, who is now senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I expect that you’ll see all of them now say, ‘This is fantastic, it’s a great opportunity, and we have a team ready to go to Venezuela,’ but that’s politics,” he added. “That doesn’t mean they’re going to invest.”