LONDON — Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s carefully built relationship with Donald Trump could be torpedoed by the disclosure of Peter Mandelson’s communications as ambassador, U.K. officials fear. Starmer will have to publish documents relating to the ex-Labour peer’s appointment as ambassador after demands from MPs across the political spectrum for greater transparency about the process. While it is not yet known exactly what will be published, the files may include messages from Mandelson to officials at No.10 Downing Street and the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office.  Two senior Whitehall officials, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, told POLITICO they are concerned about what the former envoy — known for his ruthlessness and candor — may have said about Trump to his colleagues, and how they responded to him. One of the officials said there is “lots which could be damaging” and “he [Mandelson] used to download his thoughts in real time.” They point out that parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which will sift through the documents before publication, will only be looking for matters that could jeopardize national security, rather than cause embarrassment or rifts. In a further sign of the shockwaves going through the diplomatic establishment, FCDO permanent secretary Oliver Robbins wrote to all departmental staff Wednesday night to reassure them over the “anxiety” caused by the whole affair. He asked civil servants approached about communications that may be disclosed to refer all requests to his office. In the message, obtained by POLITICO, Robbins said, referencing the PM’s earlier expression of regret for appointing Mandelson: “I am also sorry about this episode, which I know will have affected staff particularly in our U.S. team but also across the workforce. “I want to acknowledge that anxiety and reassure you that my recommendations as head of the diplomatic service to the foreign secretary for the many roles in our department carrying enormous trust and leadership responsibility are guided by my deep concern to preserve and enhance our service’s reputation for merit, professionalism and integrity.” NATIONAL SECURITY EXCEPTIONS The ISC has specified that papers which are national security related should be sent to them unredacted, and the government should provide an explanation as to exactly why pieces of information are prejudicial. “We believe the motion is clear that those papers which the government is required to provide to the ISC must be disclosed, unredacted, to the ISC,” the committee said in a letter to the PM and cabinet secretary. “The government may not decline to disclose any in scope material altogether” Kevan Jones, chair of the committee, told the BBC that the panel would put “as much as possible in the public domain.” One of Mandelson’s predecessors as ambassador, Kim Darroch, was forced to resign in 2019 over his criticism of Trump’s “dysfunctional” administration, made in confidential diplomatic cables that were made public.  But both senior officials cited above made it clear that Mandelson may not have always used cables for his musings on Trump, instead often using email and texts. Mandelson, one of the architects of New Labour who helped bring Tony Blair to power in 1997, returned to high office last year when he was named as the British ambassador to Washington despite his known links to the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.  He was forced out of that role in September after it was reported he had continued a closer relationship with Epstein after the late financier’s conviction than was previously publicly known.  Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has not commented on the police investigation, but has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. The scandal was reopened Monday when emails released as part of the Epstein files appeared to show Mandelson leaking internal government discussions in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.  Police are now investigating allegations of misconduct in public office against him, which they have warned may limit some of the information which is made available.  

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš is facing new accusations that he never fully severed ties with his agricultural empire, after publicly promising to do so in order to avoid major conflicts of interest in both Prague and Brussels. On taking up the Czech premiership in December, Babiš pledged to cut all links with his company Agrofert, one of Central Europe’s largest agri-food and chemicals groups. President Petr Pavel required him to take that step before approving his government, and Babiš insisted his children would only take Agrofert stakes after his death. The commitment was meant to address long-standing conflict-of-interest concerns. During Babiš’s previous term, EU and national auditors found the company had improperly received at least €208 million in EU and national agricultural subsidies, triggering payment suspensions and repayment demands. At the EU level, the stakes are heightened by the fact that as prime minister, Babiš is now helping to negotiate the bloc’s next long-term budget, including farm spending from which Agrofert has previously benefited. Babiš’s pledges of a total rupture with Agrofert are now coming into question, even though the prime minister insists he has done much more than the law required. A leaked legal document that purports to map out his new relationship with the company describes a trust structure that removes him from day-to-day decision-making only while he remains in office, and that transfers decision-making powers to a family-run governance mechanism once his political career ends. The 18-page document, dated Dec. 17, was first reported by Czech outlet Seznam Zprávy. POLITICO has seen a copy. The document says the trust is meant to ensure “independent administration during the period in which the [establisher of the trust] holds the office of a member of the Government.” Once that period ends — whether through Babiš’s departure from office or, eventually, his death — the business would automatically transition to “family administration” Opposition lawmakers seized on the document as evidence that Babiš would still have strong personal and family interests tied to Agrofert during his lifetime, potentially motivating his decisions on both the domestic and EU levels. “The news about Andrej Babiš’s unresolved conflict of interest is really just the proverbial cherry on top,” Pirate party parliamentary leader Olga Richterová said in a legislative debate in Prague on Tuesday. “It is becoming clear that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. The old practices used when Agrofert was previously parked in trust funds appear set to be applied again in a very similar way.” Danuše Nerudová, a European Parliament lawmaker from the Mayors and Independents party, told POLITICO the arrangement preserves a personal incentive to protect family business interests. “His companies benefited improperly from EU agricultural subsidies in the past,” she said. “That incentive does not disappear simply because the structure is renamed.” Given the implications for the EU budget, the European Commission said it was monitoring developments and underlined its rule that “anybody nominated in a member state to be involved in budget implementation … shall not take any action which may bring their own interests into conflict with those of the union.” POLITICO requested comment from Babiš’s office, but did not receive a response before publication. Danuše Nerudová told POLITICO the arrangement preserves a personal incentive to protect family business interests. | Martin Divisek/EPA Babiš responded to the Seznam Zprávy story in another newspaper. He did not deny the authenticity of the document and its reference to a continued family interest, but claimed he was doing nothing wrong. “What I said earlier clearly applies. I did much more than the law required of me. The shares of the company that I built for almost 30 years will never be returned to me,” he told the Deník N newspaper. POLITICAL DEBATE IN PRAGUE When Babiš made his pledge to keep out of Agrofert last year, his language was definitive. “I have decided to irrevocably give up the Agrofert company,” Babiš said in December. “I will never own it, I will not have any economic relations with it, and I will not be in any contact with it.” He added: “My children will only get Agrofert after my death.” Babiš reiterated his defense this week, telling Czech news agency ČTK that the Agrofert shares would never return to him and that he would not benefit from them for the rest of his life. He said the arrangement complied with both Czech and European law, and accused critics of trying to deprive him of his property. The prime minister has previously insisted any conflict would be resolved once the trust takes effect. He missed a self-imposed early-January deadline to complete the share transfer, saying he was still awaiting approval from financial authorities in two EU countries. David Kotora, executive director of Transparency International Czech Republic, said the trust “is currently an inactive shell” because the share transfer has not taken place. Once activated, he said, it would still fail EU standards. “This structure clearly cannot withstand European regulations concerning conflicts of interest in the redistribution of public funds,” Kotora said. During the parliamentary session on Tuesday, Babiš dismissed the renewed scrutiny as a “festival of hypocrisy.” “This is not a spontaneous defense of democracy. It’s political theater,” he said, stressing that Agrofert is not receiving any subsidies until the trust is in effect. “You invented the conflict of interest because you’re incapable of beating me.” Lawmakers from Babiš’s ANO party have rallied behind him, rejecting assessments of unresolved conflicts of interest. In a joint statement to POLITICO, MEPs Ondřej Knotek and Klára Dostálová said the prime minister had taken steps “well beyond what is required by Czech and European law.” He has relinquished ownership and control of Agrofert permanently, they said, and would not benefit from the company for the rest of his life. “If someone finds this insufficient,” they added, “it is no longer about the essence of the matter, but about an effort to constantly question it.” Economist Petr Bartoň, a regulatory and public policy expert, noted Czech conflict-of-interest rules were never designed for politicians with business empires on the scale of Agrofert. “The law does not aim to permanently separate politicians from their assets,” Bartoň said. “It aims to manage conflicts while they are in office.” Promises to go further, he added, may have political value but “no legal force.” Ketrin Jochecová contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — The World Economic Forum is investigating its president and CEO, Børge Brende, after his relationship with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein came to light in newly released documents.  Brende, a former Norwegian foreign minister, dined with Epstein three times in 2018 and 2019, and the two exchanged texts and emails.  As recently as November, Brende denied having any contact with Epstein — but has now admitted to knowing him after their relationship came to light in the latest document release by the U.S. Justice Department. Epstein was a wealthy U.S. financier who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor for prostitution and was later arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019 before dying in jail. The WEF confirmed to POLITICO that Brende had taken part “in three business dinners with Jeffrey Epstein, along with subsequent email and SMS communications.” It has opened an independent review into the relationship, which it said Brende requested and is cooperating with.  Brende said he had been “completely unaware of Epstein’s past and criminal activities” and would have declined any invitations or communication had he known.  “I recognize that I could have conducted a more thorough investigation into Epstein’s history, and I regret not doing so,” he said.  The first dinner, with diplomats and business leaders at Epstein’s New York townhouse, took place in 2018. Ahead of the meeting the two exchanged views on the future of Davos, with Epstein saying the elite gathering in Switzerland “can really replace the UN.” The pair also dined together in June 2019, weeks before Epstein was arrested. Epstein also offered to use his connection with Brende to lobby for his friends to be invited to Davos. In a separate email exchange in 2018 with former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Epstein offered to “inquire” with his “good friend,” Brende, after Summers complained of not being invited to Davos that year.  Epstein also offered to introduce tech billionaire Peter Thiel to Brende.  Thiel and Summers did not respond to requests for comment.   Brende has steered the WEF through a turbulent period after its founder Klaus Schwab resigned in April 2025 amid whistleblower allegations over his management of the forum. A WEF probe found “no evidence of material wrongdoing.” The organization has yet to appoint a new permanent chair, with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink serving as interim co-chair. The WEF confirmed that Brende will continue as president and CEO during the investigation “without involvement in the review process.” The decision to open the investigation “underscores the Forum’s commitment to transparency and maintaining its integrity. Our aim is to handle this matter thoughtfully and efficiently,” the WEF said.

Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has only four months to save his premiership. After the U.K. parliament’s return from Christmas recess, Starmer marked his first 18 months in Downing Street with a speech touting his Labour party’s efforts to ease the cost-of-living crisis. But behind the scenes, anxiety is growing that voters won’t feel any meaningful relief before the decisive regional and local elections on May 7, which could seal the prime minister’s political fate. And the outlook is bleak: After placing third in the Welsh Parliament elections behind Plaid Cymru and far-right leader Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, failing to unseat the Scottish National Party in Scotland, and bleeding support to both the Greens and Reform UK in English council contests, Labour risks humiliation across the U.K. And national polling only underscores the danger, with Reform UK now averaging close to 30 percent, and Labour languishing in the teens alongside the Greens and the Conservatives. Still, Starmer’s advisers privately argue that “less bad than expected” results might be enough to save him. But many Labour MPs expect a leadership challenge regardless, as it would require only 81 out of 404 MPs to initiate one — and Starmer is hardly popular with the wider party. Then there’s the unfolding scandal over Labour stalwart and former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson. Mandelson was appointed by Starmer before being removed from his position in September once the extent of his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein became clear. Under mounting pressure, Starmer has been strong in his criticism and push for transparency — but that may not be enough, as Mandelson’s now under investigation for misconduct while in public office. A challenge may not come immediately, or even right after polling day in May. But the sense that Starmer’s authority is waning is unmistakable. For one, the prime minister is already preparing his defense. A King’s speech designed to reset the agenda ,outlining proposals on special education needs and digital ID, is now penciled in for mid-May. A cabinet reshuffle may follow, and some in Labour believe Starmer might even sacrifice his chancellor if he thinks it would placate restive backbenchers. He’s also expected to recall former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to the cabinet, hoping her return could blunt any leadership ambitions. Labour’s traditions may offer Starmer only limited protection.While the party prides itself on avoiding the “regicide” that’s plagued the rival Conservatives, this instinct will weaken if electoral defeat looms. Labour MPs may dread a destabilizing leadership contest, but many have already concluded Starmer won’t lead them into the next general election. And privately, some ministers believe it’s no longer a question of if the prime minister falls, but when. Their concerns are understandable: Energized by new leadership, the Greens are siphoning some progressive voters, while Reform UK is eroding Labour’s traditional working-class base. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have stabilized enough under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership to reduce the likelihood of another revolt — a development that leaves Starmer more exposed. So, if a contest is triggered, he’s unlikely to survive it. Party members — roughly 250,000-strong — tend to favor the soft left. And that dynamic would advantage Rayner, should she stand. Last week’s events in Greater Manchester only further crystallized this perception of Starmer’s weakness. His decision to block Mayor Andy Burnham from contesting a parliamentary by-election was a lose-lose proposition: Either deny Burnham a Westminster platform and risk a party backlash, or enable a future leadership challenger. And Starmer chose the former, provoking fury while reinforcing the perception that he’s defensive and frail. Then came news of Mandelson. Starmer was elected on the promise of ending the chaos of government sleaze, and this saga will only foment questions about his judgement when appointing Mandelson ambassador. And the prime minister may well end up having to sacrifice his beloved advisor Morgan McSweeney, who lobbied for Mandelson to be picked for the plum Washington post. Labour MPs may dread a destabilizing leadership contest, but many have already concluded Starmer won’t lead them into the next general election. | Lukas Coch/EPA Meanwhile, foreign policy — the one area where Starmer’s performance has proven more assured — is offering Number 10 no relief either. U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has distracted him from and sometimes undermined his domestic agenda, particularly in the case of tariffs. And the latest crisis over Greenland was no exception. Managing relations with the U.S. under Trump has forced Starmer into awkward contortions, attempting to respond to provocations while trying to preserve his strategy of staying close to both Washington and Brussels, where his government is trying to reset relations. As it stands, the debate inside Labour over whether to pivot toward the EU is intensifying, and there’s now growing support within the party for a customs union with the bloc. But Starmer’s preference for incremental sector-by-sector alignment risks satisfying no one, viewed in Brussels as cherry-picking and at home as timid. Even loyalists concede a damaging story has taken hold: A prime minister unable to impose a vision or discipline, haunted by his early decisions, buffeted by U-turns and trapped by his own party. Starmer wanted to avoid a Tory-style drama. Instead, he’s now heading one of Labour’s own — slower, quieter but no less brutal. And four months isn’t long to change the narrative, especially when so many in his own party have already turned the page.

BRUSSELS — Disgraced British politician Peter Mandelson is facing demands to be stripped of his pension as a former European commissioner if investigators found he broke EU rules over his contact with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  Mandelson served as a European commissioner between 2004 and 2008 and is now at the center of a spiraling scandal in Britain. Newly released files showed how Mandelson, who was a senior British minister at the time, helped provide Epstein, then a financier, with information about a €500 billion bailout to save the euro in 2010.  The European Commission is looking into whether Mandelson broke its rules, which apply even after commissioners have left office, though ethics campaigners have called for a full fraud inquiry by independent investigators. Mandelson should lose the commissioner’s pension to which he is entitled if he’s found to have breached the rules, the campaigners said.  “Given the severity of allegations concerning Peter Mandelson’s deplorable relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the European Commission and European Anti-Fraud Office must pursue an immediate investigation to establish any potential misconduct both during and beyond his tenure as European Commissioner,” Nick Aiossa, director at Transparency International, a leading anti-corruption campaign group, told POLITICO. “Should it do so, Mandelson must be stripped of his Commissioner’s pension.” Daniel Freund, a Green MEP from Germany, condemned the lack of action and investigations against “the most powerful people on earth” over their links to the disgraced financier. “That EU commissioners were somehow involved with this universe is just outrageous,” he told POLITICO. “Taking away the pension would be justified if he broke any EU rules.” Mandelson, 72, was entitled to an inflation-linked pension reportedly worth £31,000 a year when he turned 65 for his four years as a European commissioner. This is on top of other any pensions from his time as an elected politician in the U.K. and in other roles. Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. In a statement, the EU’s anti-fraud office, known as OLAF, said: “We cannot provide details regarding cases which OLAF may or may not be treating. This is to protect the confidentiality of any possible investigations and of possible ensuing judicial proceedings, as well as to ensure respect for personal data and procedural rights.” In London, Britain’s Health Secretary Wes Streeting said Mandelson should lose the severance payment he was entitled to when his career as U.K. ambassador to the United States ended over the Epstein scandal. Speaking to Times Radio, Streeting also suggested Mandelson could potentially be stripped of related pension entitlements. The opposition Reform UK party said Mandelson should lose the pension he’s entitled to receive as a former government minister. Noah Keate contributed to this report.

LONDON — Keir Starmer will strive for “maximum transparency” when releasing files on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the U.S., a senior U.K. minister said Wednesday. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the prime minister wants to release as much information into the public domain about how Mandelson was appointed, his correspondence with ministers and his subsequent sacking last September over the former Labour peer’s friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “The prime minister’s going for maximum transparency here,” Streeting, a former friend of Mandelson, told Sky, though added the PM is “obviously drawing a line” by “not releasing information where it might compromise our national security and our security services, or where there may be information in there that might undermine international relations with other countries.” The opposition Conservatives have put forward a humble address — a parliamentary message to King Charles that was favored by Starmer during his time as leader of the opposition — calling for “all papers” relating to Mandelson’s appointment last year to be published. These include “due diligence which was passed to Number 10,” conflict of interest forms over his work in Russia and China, and correspondence (including electronic communications) between Mandelson, ministers and the PM’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney — who encouraged Starmer to send the then Labour peer to Washington. The government has published an amendment to the address accepting the Tories’ request, with the caveat that it will exclude “papers prejudicial to U.K. national security or international relations.” U.K. lawmakers will debate the substance of what should be released this afternoon. “What we’ve seen in recent days also is a prime minister acting rapidly to make sure that Peter Mandelson is stripped of all of the titles and privileges that were conferred on him through public service,” Streeting told the BBC, calling his behavior “so jaw-droppingly stupid and outrageous.” The Metropolitan Police confirmed Tuesday evening that Mandelson is under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office after it appeared he leaked sensitive government discussions at the height of the financial crisis to the late financier. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. And in a Times Newspaper interview that was conducted before the most recent batch of Epstein files were released, Mandelson attempted to explain his historic association with the disgraced financier. “I don’t know what his motives were — probably mixed — but he provided guidance to help me navigate out of the world of politics and into the world of commerce and finance,” Mandelson told the newspaper. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. Mandelson also resigned from the House of Lords and left Labour following the latest tranche of correspondence in the Epstein Files.

BRUSSELS — The European Union is pressing ahead with talks to grant United States border authorities unprecedented access to Europeans’ data, despite growing concerns about American surveillance. The European Commission is brokering a deal to exchange information about travelers, including fingerprints and law enforcement records, so the U.S. can determine if they “pose a risk to public security or public order,” according to official documents. Commission officials flew to Washington last week for the first round of negotiations, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Trump administration’s request for deeper access comes after the U.S. border agency in December proposed reviewing five years of social media history. Talks are happening as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service is under heavy scrutiny for its use of surveillance technology against protesters in cities such as Minneapolis. The negotiations should be “put on hold” until the security and privacy of citizens in the EU and U.S. can be guaranteed, liberal European Parliament member Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle said in an interview. Romain Lanneau, a legal researcher with surveillance watchdog Statewatch, said police databases in Europe could contain information on anyone from protesters to journalists who might be considered a “threat,” and that — under the deal being discussed — this information would be at the fingertips of U.S. border authorities who could refuse those people entry to the United States or even detain them. European regulators are “very cautiously looking at what’s happening in the United States,” Wojciech Wiewiórowski, the EU’s in-house data protection supervisor, told POLITICO. Europe “has to be careful” about how it allows the data of Europeans to flow to the U.S., he said.  Hermida-van der Walle in January co-signed a letter by six prominent lawmakers calling on the Commission to stand down given the “current geopolitical context,” despite Washington’s admonition that failure to reach a deal will mean Europeans lose access to its visa waiver program. UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS The U.S. is seeking access to information including biometric data such as fingerprints that is stored on national databases in European countries, according to an explanatory note sent to national experts. The data would be used to “address irregular migration and to prevent, detect, and combat serious crime and terrorist offences,” the note said. In an earlier opinion on the deal, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) — a watchdog that advises the Commission on privacy policies — noted the deal would be the first of its kind to enable “large-scale sharing of personal data … for the purpose of border and immigration control” with a non-EU country. The Commission would negotiate a framework deal that would serve as a template for bilateral agreements called Enhanced Border Security Partnerships (EBSPs), which national governments agree with Washington. EU countries in December signed off on the Commission’s request to start talks with the U.S. Washington is pressuring its EU counterparts by imposing a deadline for the bilateral deals to be agreed by the end of 2026. If countries fail to reach a deal with the U.S. they risk being cut from the latter’s visa waiver program. The U.S has made it mandatory for all countries that are part of the visa waiver program to have an EBSP in place. “The pressure which the United States is extorting on our member states, the threats that if you don’t agree with this we will cancel your access to the visa waiver program, that is an element of blackmail that we cannot let go,” Hermida-van der Walle said. The EDPS watchdog has cautioned that the scope of data sharing should be as narrow as possible, with clear justifications for every query; transparency around how the data is used; and judicial redress available in the U.S. for any person. Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert emphasised at a recent press briefing that the framework being negotiated will involve “clear and robust safeguards on data protection,” and will ensure “a non-systematic nature of the information exchange and that the exchange is limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve the objectives of this cooperation.”  US PRIVACY UNDER PRESSURE Access to the data is the latest issue putting pressure on a troubled relationship between the U.S. and the EU on data privacy. Since whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed U.S. mass surveillance practices affecting Europeans, the EU has tightened controls on how Washington handles Europeans’ data. Since the return of Donald Trump as president last year, officials and rights groups have deplored a move by the U.S. administration to gut a key privacy watchdog tasked with overseeing privacy safeguards in place to protect Europeans. The Trump administration has also been ramping up mass surveillance of citizens by federal agencies like ICE, including through contracts with Israeli spyware company Paragon, surveillance giant Palantir and other firms. Capgemini, a prominent French IT firm, on Sunday said it was selling off its American activities after it faced political backlash from the French government that its software was being used by ICE authorities. Civil rights groups, lawmakers and other watchdogs fear the new EU-U.S. data sharing deals would add to backsliding on privacy rights.    “The current initiatives are being presented as toward counter-terrorism, but a lot of them are actually adopted for the chilling effect [on political activism],” Statewatch’s Lanneau said. Hermida-van der Walle, the liberal lawmaker, warned: “If people have to go to the United States, if it’s not a choice but something that they have do, there is a risk of self-censoring.”  “This comes from an administration who claims to be the biggest defender of free speech. What they’re doing with their actions is curtailing the possibility of people to express themselves freely, because otherwise they might not get access into the country,” she said.

A group of researchers is suing Elon Musk’s X to gain access to data on Hungary’s upcoming elections to assess the risk of interference, they told POLITICO. Hungary is set to hold a highly contentious election in April as populist nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán faces the toughest challenge yet to his 16-year grip on power. The lawsuit by Democracy Reporting International (DRI) comes after the civil society group, in November, applied for access to X data to study risks to the Hungarian election, including from disinformation. After X rejected their request, the researchers took the case to the Berlin Regional Court, which said it is not competent to rule on the case. DRI — with the support of the Society for Civil Rights and law firm Hausfeld — is now appealing to a higher Berlin court, which has set a hearing date of Feb. 17. Sites including X are obliged to grant researchers access to data under the European Union’s regulatory framework for social media platforms, the Digital Services Act, to allow external scrutiny of how platforms handle major online risks, including election interference. The European Commission fined X €40 million for failing to provide data access in December, as part of a €120 million levy for non-compliance with transparency obligations. The lawsuit is the latest legal challenge to X after the researchers went down a similar path last year to demand access to data related to the German elections in February 2025. A three-month legal drama, which saw a judge on the case dismissed after X successfully claimed they had a conflict of interest, ended with the court throwing out the case. The platform said that was a “comprehensive victory” because “X’s unwavering commitment to protecting user data and defending its fundamental right to due process has prevailed.” The researchers also claimed a win: The court threw the case out on the basis of a lack of urgency, as the elections were well in the past, said DRI. The groups say the ruling sets a legal precedent for civil society groups to take platforms to court where the researchers are located, rather than in the platforms’ legal jurisdictions (which, in X’s case, would be Ireland). X did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment on Monday.

The Department of Justice is releasing more than three million pages of materials related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, deputy attorney general Todd Blanche announced Friday. The files fulfill the DOJ’s obligations under the law Congress passed last year to compel the release, Blache said. It includes 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. “Today’s release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people and compliance with the act,” he said. “The Department has engaged in an unprecedented and extensive effort to do so.” The tranche comes more than a month after the Trump administration blew past the Dec. 19 statutory deadline for DOJ to make public all of the materials in its possession related to the federal Epstein investigation. Administration officials have maintained it has taken this long to properly vet the documents, though they released some files late last year — including photos depicting former President Bill Clinton. The former president has not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has called for the files to be released. Blanche, at a press conference Friday announcing the development, outlined the redactions in the materials, which included images of any women besides Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator now serving 20 years in prison for her part in the scheme. He cautioned that mistakes were “inevitable,” and potential victims could reach out to the department to rectify them

BRUSSELS — Several EU lawmakers have declared they have a side income but didn’t reveal how much extra money those gigs bring in. According to the MEPs’ code of conduct, lawmakers are supposed to declare any money they make outside of the European Parliament if it’s over €5,000 a year. MEPs earn €8,088 a month after tax and insurance contributions are deducted. The actual provision in the code of conduct says: “If [a remunerated activity undertaken alongside the exercise of the member’s office] generates income, Members shall indicate for each separate item the respective amount of that income and, where relevant, its periodicity.” However, Transparency International shared with POLITICO’s EU Influence newsletter the names of 14 MEPs who had not listed that income. The information was verified by POLITICO and all 14 MEPs were contacted. Raphaël Kergueno, senior policy officer at Transparency International, said: “Without proper monitoring of MEPs’ declarations, and sanctioning for breaches to the code of conduct, EU citizens are left relying on MEPs’ promises alone. The results of this speak for themselves.” Those on the list include Alvise Pérez, a Spanish far-right lawmaker who moonlights as a corruption-hating influencer. He wrote in a declaration to the Parliament last year that the “exact generated income” from his influencing would be updated at the end of each year. However, the amount that he earned since being voted in as an MEP in 2024 has not been revealed — although his records show he was getting €20,000 per month from the side job in the months running up to the election. His team said: “All income received has been duly declared in accordance with the applicable rules.” Then there’s Mario Mantovani, an Italian MEP for the European Conservatives and Reformists, who has had three consulting roles in addition to his parliamentary post; Transparency International says he promised to declare the sums by the end of 2024. He has yet to do so (and didn’t respond to a request for comment) but we know from his records that he was regularly pulling in six-figure sums annually from these roles before this term began. Meanwhile, Michał Wawrykiewicz, a long-time EU lawyer from the European People’s Party who has had clients in the retail, property, telecoms and rail sectors, said he didn’t think he had to declare the earnings with the European Parliament because he had already done so with the Polish parliament. He told POLITICO he had “misunderstood” the rules and added: “I inquired about this with my assistant several times” and “despite her very broad experience in the EP,” she was unaware that he also was supposed to submit declarations to the European Parliament. He said it was “in no way intentional.” Far-right Czech lawmaker Jana Nagyová said she had been “wrongly informed” by her office about income declarations. She added that she did have some side income from regional politics: around €150 per month for being elected to a local parliament and approximately €300 a month from a regional parliament, although the latter stopped last January.  A few of the lawmakers sent info after POLITICO got in touch. Sibylle Berg, a German non-aligned lawmaker, was an author and playwright before joining the European Parliament. Her office sent a document that said she makes €120,000 per year outside of her work as a parliamentarian. “We value transparency and believe that publication obligations support public scrutiny,” said her head of office, Dustin Hoffmann. Greens lawmaker Lena Schilling, who made some extra money via the book she published in 2024 and who flagged her potential earnings to the Parliament ahead of its release, said she hadn’t declared it because it fell below the €5,000 threshold. Her office added that they would update the register nevertheless and also sent over a breakdown of her earnings. Esteban González Pons, a Spanish EPP parliamentarian, said he had published two books in 2025 but wouldn’t be able to confirm the royalties earned until May.  Those who didn’t respond to a request for comment include Domenico Lucano, a lawmaker for The Left group, who flagged that he had done some work for a film production company; and Vladimir Prebilič, a Greens lawmaker who lectures in Ljubljana. Also not responding were Katri Kulmuni, a Renew lawmaker who has various municipal roles in Finland (as well as being a paid board member of a Christian foundation) and Pekka Toveri, a Finnish EPP lawmaker who lists himself as the CEO of his own company. François Kalfon, a French S&D parliamentarian, said he had “not received any remuneration or income from any professional activity,” and that “all necessary steps” had been taken to ensure “full compliance” with the Parliament’s rules on transparency and financial declarations. In Kalfon’s declaration it says “dividends for 2024 not yet defined”. Riho Terras, an Estonian EPP lawmaker who had flagged some potential dividends, told POLITICO: “Everything has been declared.” Socialists and Democrats MEP Elisabeth Grossmann was on the Transparency International list but told POLITICO that she hadn’t worked as a lecturer in Vienna since being elected and hadn’t updated her parliamentary records. Max Griera contributed to this article.