BRUSSELS — The EU’s centrist powers need to move to the right to reflect the new political reality, according to Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party. The EPP caused uproar in Brussels last year when it voted alongside the far right rather than with its traditional allies, the socialists and liberals. Weber’s remarks are the strongest signal yet that he wants to repair bridges with the other two parties that have ruled the EU for decades. However, he made clear that those same allies must be willing to adapt, in an exclusive interview with POLITICO, reflecting on 2025 and looking forward to 2026. The S&D and Renew were furious at the perceived betrayal, saying the EPP had gone too far by voting with the far right and smashed the firewall meant to keep the far right away from decision-making. But Weber was adamant he had done nothing wrong, saying: “I want to stop populism and anti-Europeans,” and adding that he’s happy to work alongside the centrist parties, but they need to listen to voters. The outcome of the 2024 EU election, which changed Parliament’s arithmetic in favor of right-wing and far-right parties, “has to be reflected” and “translated” into policy to show that Brussels is listening to its citizens, Weber said. There are more challenges to come for the old coalition — a deregulation package targeting environmental rules, a reversal of the ban on combustion engines, and a bill to boost deportations of migrants. “We can solve problems in the center when it is about the questions of migration, the big fear and uncertainty for a lot of people who are afraid to lose jobs … we have to take this seriously.” According to Weber, the way to fight Euroskeptic and populist parties is by tackling the issues they campaign on: “Please also consider … what we have to do to take away the campaign issues from the populists, that is what is at stake,” he added in the interview, which took place in late December. In his logic, if citizens are worried about migration, the EU should deport more people who are in Europe illegally; if people see green policy as hampering economic growth, Brussels should scrap environmental reporting requirements; and if thousands of jobs are being lost in the car sector, Brussels should give industry more leeway in the transition to electric vehicle production.   “My invitation goes really to the socialists and liberals and others: Please come back to this approach.“ MEET ME HALFWAY Weber — who has been an MEP since 2004, leader of the EPP group in the Parliament since 2014 and leader of the Europe-wide EPP since 2022 — said the center-right is “delivering via successes” and that he “will not be stopped by anyone” in implementing the party program. He argued that when the EPP has voted alongside the far right — to dilute an anti-deforestation bill, to pass green reporting requirements for businesses, and to ease rules to deport migrants to third countries — these were not “radical positions” and reflected the views of national governments and the European Commission. The votes are “not a kind of radicalization.” He said half of the liberal Renew Europe group voted in favor of slashing green reporting requirements for businesses and the EPP has voted with the S&D on “more than 85 percent of all votes in the European Parliament,” on issues ranging from housing to climate, including on a 2040 carbon reduction target, which he said should remain in place, even though parts of his group want to scrap it. Manfred Weber has called for the centrists to work with the Brothers of Italy, the party of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, which is to the right of the EPP. | Ettore Ferrari/EPA “The EPP delivered on this, we are committed to the 2040 targets … It was also not easy in my party, I have to be honest.” MAKING FRIENDS WITH MELONI Since the start of the 2024 EU election campaign, Weber has called for the centrists to work with the Brothers of Italy, the party of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, which is to the right of the EPP. This has angered Socialists and liberals, who argue that Meloni is a far-right populist who should be excluded from EU decision-making. When Commission President Ursula von der Leyen granted Italy an executive vice-presidency in her second team, Meloni nominated Raffaele Fitto for the role, prompting an unsuccessful bid by Socialists and Liberals to block his appointment. The EPP defended Fitto’s candidacy, citing Meloni’s pragmatism and reliability at the EU level. Fitto is now executive vice-president for cohesion and reforms. Weber said time has proven him right. A year-and-a-half after the election, “I think nobody can really say that Raffaele Fitto is a right extreme populist … he’s a very serious colleague.” He blamed his centrist allies for focusing on rhetoric and “ideological debate” instead of looking at the “reality on the ground” and understanding Europe’s new right-wing political reality. Meloni is “behaving,” Weber said, and “she’s ready to find compromises.”

Faced with a barrage of American threats to grab Greenland, Denmark’s foreign minister and his Greenlandic counterpart flew to Washington for — they hoped — sympathetic talks with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. But their plan for a soothing diplomatic chat escalated into a tense White House head-to-head with the EU’s nemesis, JD Vance. Over the past year the U.S. vice president has earned a reputation for animosity toward the old continent, and many governments in Europe fear his hardline influence over President Donald Trump when it comes to seizing territory from a longstanding ally. Among the 10 ministers and officials who spoke anonymously to POLITICO for this article, none regarded Vance as an ally — either in the Greenland talks or for the transatlantic relationship in general.  “Vance hates us,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to give a candid view, like others quoted in this article. The announcement that the vice president would be helming the Washington talks on Greenland alarmed the European side. “He’s the tough guy,” the same diplomat said. “The fact that he’s there says a lot and I think it’s negative for the outcome.”  Trump says he wants “ownership” of Greenland for reasons of U.S. national security and will get it either by negotiation or, if necessary, perhaps through military means. At stake is much more than simply the fate of an island of 57,000 inhabitants, or even the future of the Arctic.  The bellicose rhetoric from the White House has dismayed America’s NATO allies and provoked warnings from Denmark that such a move would destroy the post-war Western alliance. Others say it is already terminal for the international order on which transatlantic relations rely.  In the event, the talks in Washington on Wednesday went as well as could be expected, officials said after: The Americans were blunt, but there was no declaration of war. Nor did the occasion descend into a public humiliation of the sort Vance unleashed against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a White House visit last year. The two sides clearly argued their cases with some force but resolved to keep talking. A high-level working group will explore whether any compromise can be reached between the Danes and Greenlanders, and Trump.  ‘FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT’ The discussion “wasn’t so successful that we reached a conclusion where our American colleagues said, ‘Sorry, it was totally a misunderstanding, we gave up on our ambitions,’” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen quipped to reporters after what he described as a “frank” exchange with Vance and Rubio. “There’s clearly a disagreement.”  “The president has this wish of conquering over Greenland,” Rasmussen added. “For us, ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark, or the right of self determination of the Greenlandic people, are of course totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. And we agree to disagree.” Talks in future must, he said, respect the “red lines” set by Greenland and Denmark. It is hoped that the working group will help lower “the temperature” on the issue when it begins its work in the coming weeks, Rasmussen added.  While Donald Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, JD Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. | Aaron Schwartz/EPA The small win, for the Danes, is that the question of Greenland has — for now — moved from wild social media images of the island dressed in the American flag to a proper diplomatic channel, giving everyone time to calm down.  If it holds, that would be something. A stream of X posts from Trump’s allies — alongside uncompromising statements from the president himself — have left European officials aghast. In one that the White House posted this week, Trump can be seen peering out of his Oval Office window at a scene depicting the icy map of Greenland.  Behind him, looking on, is Vance. “It was terrible,” the first diplomat cited above told POLITICO.  NO FRIEND Few Europeans will forget Vance’s attacks on Zelenskyy in last February’s Oval Office showdown. Vance also left Europeans shocked and horrified when he savaged them for refusing to work with the far right, and complained bitterly how much he resented America paying for European security.  By contrast, Rubio is often described as “solid” by European officials, and is generally seen as someone who is more aligned with the priorities of the European mainstream especially on security and the war in Ukraine.  At the time of writing, Vance had not given his account in public of Wednesday’s talks on Greenland. In response to a request for comment, Vance’s deputy press secretary pointed to previous remarks in which the vice president had said “I love Europe” and European people — but also said European leaders had been “asleep at the wheel” and that the Trump administration was frustrated that they had failed to address issues including migration and investment in defense. One EU official, speaking after the meeting, suggested it was actually a good thing Vance was involved because he “calls the shots” and holds sway with Trump.  Elsewhere, however, the skepticism remains deep — and turns to alarm at the prospect that when Trump’s second term ends, it could be Vance who takes over in the White House.  While Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. That would be a risk not just for Greenland but also for NATO and Ukraine. Some EU diplomats see Trump’s territorial ambitions as part of a pattern that includes Vance’s attacks and the new White House national security strategy, which sets out to redirect European democracy toward the ends of Trump’s MAGA movement. When it comes to the dispute over Greenland, many in Brussels and European capitals are pessimistic. Even Rasmussen, the Danish foreign minister, didn’t pretend a deal was in sight and confessed one may never come. “Trump doesn’t want to invest in something he doesn’t own,” one EU diplomat said. The U.S. has wide access to Greenland for military deployments under existing agreements, and could easily invest in further economic development, according to the Danes and their allies.  “It’s not clear what there is to negotiate because the Americans can already have whatever they want,” another diplomat said. “The only thing that Denmark cannot give is to say Greenland can become American.”  It may not be a question of what Greenland can give, if in the end the president and his eager deputy decide simply to take it.  Victor Goury-Laffont and Nicholas Vinocur contributed reporting.

A Milan criminal court on Wednesday acquitted Italian fashion influencer and businesswoman Chiara Ferragni of aggravated fraud in the so-called Pandorogate scandal. The case, one of Italy’s most high-profile celebrity trials, centered on allegations of misleading advertising linked to the promotion of the sweet pandoro Christmas bread — luxury sugar-dusted brioches — in 2022 and Easter eggs sold in 2021 and 2022. Prosecutors, who had requested a 20-month prison sentence, argued that consumers had been led to believe their purchases would support charitable causes, when donations had in fact already been made and were not tied to sales. Ferragni denied any wrongdoing throughout the proceedings. Judge Ilio Mannucci rejected the aggravating circumstance cited by prosecutors, reclassifying the charge as simple fraud, according to ANSA. Under Italian law, that requires a formal complaint to proceed. But because the consumer group Codacons had withdrawn its complaint last year after reaching a compensation agreement with Ferragni, the judge dismissed the case. The ruling also applies to her co-defendants, including her former close aide Fabio Damato, and Cerealitalia Chairman Francesco Cannillo. “We are all very moved,” Ferragni said outside the Milan courtroom after the verdict. “I thank everyone, my lawyers and my followers.” The scandal began in late 2023, when Ferragni partnered with confectioner Balocco to market a limited-edition pandoro to support cancer research. But Balocco had already donated a fixed €50,000 months earlier, while Ferragni’s companies earned more than €1 million from the campaign. The competition authorities fined Ferragni and Balocco more than €1.4 million, and last year, Milan prosecutors charged Ferragni with aggravated fraud for allegedly generating false expectations among buyers. Ferragni and her then-husband and rapper Fedez used to be Italy’s most politically influential Instagram couple, championing progressive causes, campaigning for LGBTQ+ rights and positioning themselves against the country’s traditionalist Catholic mainstream, often drawing sharp criticism from Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and the Italian right. Since the scandal erupted in December 2023, however, that cultural and political empire has unraveled: the couple divorced, Ferragni retreated from public life, and Fedez reemerged in increasingly right-leaning political circles. Wednesday’s acquittal closes a legal chapter that had sparked intense political and media scrutiny, triggered regulatory fines and fueled a broader debate in Italy over influencer marketing, charity and consumer protection.

PARIS — Marine Le Pen conceded Tuesday that she may have unwittingly broken the law on the tense first day of an appeals trial that will determine whether she can stand in France’s presidential election next year. The surprising comments from the longtime face of the French far right signal a major shift in strategy as she attempts to get a French court to overturn a five-year ban on running for office after she, her party — the National Rally — and several other codefendants were found guilty of embezzling European Parliament funds. The case has loomed large over Le Pen’s political future and its outcome will likely determine whether she or her protégé Jordan Bardella will represent the far-right party in the 2027 presidential race. Both are polling as front-runners in the contest. Le Pen had for months protested innocence and framed the case against her as politically motivated, but her comments and stoic behavior Tuesday differed markedly from the combative face she wore at the start of the initial trial in 2024. When the judge asked Le Pen why she was appealing, she insisted that any criminal act they may have committed had not been intentional — a departure from her impassioned claims of innocence throughout the initial trial. “I would like to say to the court right now that if a crime has been committed … so be it, but I want the court to know that we never felt like we had committed even the slightest offense,” she said. Le Pen dodged questions from reporters as she arrived and left court. She also declined to talk informally with the press during recesses, as became customary in the first trial. In a rare pre-trial statement, Le Pen told reporters Monday that her “only line of defense for this appeal will be the same as it was during the initial trial: telling the truth.” “The case will be reset and judged by new magistrates. I hope to be better heard and to convince them of my innocence,” she said.

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.”

The downfall of Italy’s most politically influential Instagram couple — in a fraud scandal over sales of sweet pandoro Christmas bread — is gripping the nation, and there have been walk-on roles for Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her deputy, Matteo Salvini. Chiara Ferragni, once the face of Italian fashion on social media and a darling of the left, faces a potential jail term this week, over the so-called “Pandorogate” scandal. She is accused of misleading consumers in 2023 by promoting sales of luxury sugar-dusted brioches, whose inflated prices were supposed to support sick children. Her trial began in a Milan courtroom in late November, with a verdict expected on Jan. 14. Prosecutors have requested a 20-month prison sentence. Ferragni strongly denies any wrongdoing. “Everything we have done, we have done in good faith, none of us has profited,” she told the courtroom on Nov. 25. Her ex-husband, rapper-turned-activist Federico Lucia, known as Fedez, was not charged in the scandal, but their marriage has collapsed under public scrutiny and he has made an eye-catching lurch to engaging the political right. Before the trial even began, the case was political. The glamorous couple had been famous for taking on progressive causes, pitting themselves against the more traditionalist Catholic mainstream. They tackled discrimination, campaigned for LGBTQ+ rights and raised funds for intensive-care units during the Covid pandemic. As soon as the scandal broke, conservative Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was quick to single out Ferragni as the wrong kind of role model. “The real role models … are not influencers who make loads of money promoting expensive panettoni that are supposedly for charity,” Meloni said from the stage at the 2023 Atreju gathering of Italy’s far right. Chiara Ferragni and her husband Federico Leonardo Lucia, during the 76th Venice Film Festival on September 4, 2019 at Venice Lido. | Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images Months later, in 2024, Meloni introduced a bill — now dubbed the Ferragni law — that directly targets influencers suspected of misleading their fan base with glitzy marketing promotions. The proposed legislation is not the legal basis for Ferragni’s prosecution, which falls under existing consumer protection and fraud laws, but it was widely interpreted as a political response to the scandal bearing her name. By contrast, Meloni’s deputy, Salvini from the League party, came to Ferragni’s defense, saying he was “shocked” by the “malice and rancor” directed at the influencer and her family. Indeed, a bond now seems to be building between Fedez and Salvini in the aftermath of Pandoro-gate. Once a progressive provocateur and outspoken critic of Italy’s far right, Fedez has more recently appeared alongside right-wing figures, invited League hardliner Roberto Vannacci onto his podcast and attended the youth congress of the conservative Forza Italia party. In his memoir, he even praises Salvini for being among the few public figures who checked in regularly during the difficult period following his divorce. “He was the only one who showed me true empathy. And this despite the fact that we had very different ideas and we said all sorts about each other in the past,” he wrote. POLITICO reached out to both Ferragni’s company Chiara Ferragni Brand and her lawyers as well as to Fedez’s PR agency for comments, but received no response. MILLENNIAL EMPIRE Before the courtroom drama, Ferragni, 38, and Fedez, 36, spent a decade assembling something unique in Italian public life: A millennial empire that blended fashion, entrepreneurship, activism and entertainment into a single, highly lucrative influence machine. Ferragni, a former law student, launched the blog The Blonde Salad with her then-partner in 2009. By 2016, it had evolved into a lifestyle magazine and e-commerce platform, selling Ferragni-designed stilettos, luggage and sweatshirts with her well-known sardonic eye logo embroidered across the chest. Luxury houses took notice. She moved from the blogsphere to the front rows of fashion weeks, securing lucrative partnerships and becoming a Harvard Business School case study. Fedez’s path was different. He was a master “at intercepting the cultural changes in Italy,” said Francesco Oggiano, a journalist and expert in digital and political communication. Already established as a rapper in the early 2010s, Fedez reinvented himself as a political firebrand. He publicly challenged Meloni, wrote the official song for the populist Five Star Movement in 2014 and used televised appearances at the Sanremo song contest to criticize right-wing politicians. He was loud, combative, and comfortable mixing his celebrity with activism. Ferragni moved from the blogsphere to the front rows of fashion weeks, securing lucrative partnerships and becoming a Harvard Business School case study. | Donato Fasano/Getty Images When Ferragni and Fedez met in 2016, their relationship quickly became a shared brand. Their 2018 wedding was a sponsorship-saturated media event. Their home life played out as a meticulously crafted and very glitzy reality show followed by millions. And it worked. “Italy has always been an orphan of royal couples,” Oggiano explained. The country “deluded itself that [Ferragni and Fedez] were the perfect couple” and helped build their myth by following their every move. They threw their weight behind the Zan bill, a proposed law to protect people from violence and discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and disabilities that never saw the light of day. They also used their platform to amplify the Malika case, in support of a young woman kicked out of her home by her family for loving another woman; and raised millions for intensive-care units during the Covid pandemic. The duo became a kind of soft-power project, offering an outlet for a millennial Italy opposed to traditional nationalist and Catholic frameworks. They weren’t politicians, but their influence rivaled that of politicians grappling with a changing media landscape. SUGARY SCANDAL The couple’s progressive politics made “Pandorogate” a spectacular fall from grace. In late 2023, Ferragni partnered with confectioner Balocco to market a pink-boxed, limited-edition pandoro to support Turin’s Regina Margherita children’s hospital. The message was simple: Buy the pandoro to support cancer research. But the arrangement was not tied to sales. As journalist Selvaggia Lucarelli first revealed, Balocco had already donated a fixed €50,000 months earlier, while Ferragni received a commercial fee for the campaign. Even the hospital initially misunderstood how the promotion worked. Italy’s Competition Authority (AGCM) later confirmed those findings, concluding that packaging, press releases and social-media posts created the misleading impression that consumers were directly supporting the charity. In reality, no share of sales was donated, while Ferragni’s companies earned more than €1 million from the campaign. Chiara Ferragni, charged for aggravated fraud in a case linked to a Pandoro charity initiative, leaves the courthouse of Milan after a preliminary hearing, in Milan on November 4, 2025. | Piero Cruciatii/AFP via Getty Images The competition authorities fined Ferragni and Balocco more than €1 million for misleading commercial practices, and saying companies linked to Ferragni profited from the scheme. Consumer groups urged prosecutors to investigate potential fraud and to consider freezing her companies’ accounts. By 2025, the controversy had shifted to criminal proceedings. Milan prosecutors incorporated the AGCM’s conclusions into their case, charging Ferragni with aggravated fraud for allegedly generating false expectations among buyers. To her political enemies, Pandorogate was a case of philanthropy being treated as a marketing accessory. The attorney general stated in the decree that decided the trial would be held in Milan that Ferragni “used” charity “to strengthen her image.” BUBBLE REPUTATION The scandal didn’t just damage the couple’s commercial brand. It also tarnished the progressive picture they created of themselves. “Fedez was always better at controlling the narrative,” said Oggiano, which may help explain why he has managed to remain relevant in Italy’s media landscape. After the divorce, Fedez took control of the public discourse yet again by writing an autobiography. In it, he describes how, already struggling after cancer surgery, he cycled through hospitalizations, panic attacks, heavy medication and periods of erratic behavior, finding support in unlikely places, not least Salvini. A public repositioning followed. Fedez launched a new podcast, where he often hosts some of Italy’s most outspoken right-wing figures, from politicians to other artists and influencers. He calls it “dialogue,” while his critics call it a political shift. His audience has changed too: More male, more skeptical and increasingly drawn to a Joe Rogan-style environment that prizes unfiltered chatter over ideological clarity. Ferragni chose silence instead. Legal troubles, reputational collapse and the withdrawal of brand partners are now pushing her largely out of public view. Their demise removes one of the few high-visibility counterweights to a nationalist government that is now mastering digital communication. What remains of their legacy? At a national level, when it comes to marketing campaigns, “brands are definitely more careful,” Oggiano said. Ferragni now faces a legal battle and a steep climb back to public trust. Fedez has traded activism for opinion-driven entertainment on his podcast. Their shared brand of entrepreneurial optimism and progressive advocacy has evaporated. She paid a heavier price than Fedez, but both careers were always built on a trade-off. As Oggiano puts it: “You have to choose between attention and reputation. Some people choose reputation above all else, and the moment there’s even the slightest scandal, everything collapses.”

PARIS — A court appeal begins on Tuesday that will determine whether Marine Le Pen or her protégé Jordan Bardella will head into next year’s presidential election as favorite from the far-right National Rally party. While Le Pen has been a decisive force in making the anti-immigration party the front-runner for the presidency in 2027, she is currently unable to succeed Emmanuel Macron herself thanks to a five-year election ban imposed over her conviction last year for embezzling European Parliament funds. She is now appealing that decision in a case that is expected to last one month, although a verdict is not due until the summer. Le Pen looks set to fight her appeal on technical legal objections and an argument that the ban is disproportionate, rather than going out all-guns blazing and insisting she is the victim of a political hit job. If she does overcome the very steep hurdles required to win her case, she will still have to deal with the political reality that the French electorate are leaning more toward Bardella. The party’s supposed Plan B is starting to have the air of a Plan A. A poll from Ipsos in December showed the 30-year-old overtaking Le Pen as the French politician with the highest share of positive opinions. And a survey from pollster Odoxa conducted in November showed Bardella would win both rounds of the presidential contest.  The National Rally continues to insist that Le Pen is their top choice, but getting her on the ballot will likely require her to win her fast-tracked appeal by setting aside her personal grievances and perhaps even showing a measure of uncustomary contrition to ensure this trial does not end the way the embezzlement case did.  Le Pen is not famous for being low-key and eating humble pie. Shortly after her conviction, she said her movement would follow the example of civil rights’ icon Martin Luther King and vowed: “We will never give in to this violation of democracy.” That’s not the playbook she intends to deploy now. Her lawyers will pursue a less politicized strategy to win round the judges, according to three far-right politicians with direct knowledge of the case, who were granted anonymity to discuss it freely.  “We’ll be heading in with a certain amount of humility, and we’ll try not to be in the mindset that this is a political trial,” said one of trio, a French elected official who is one of the codefendants appealing their conviction.  LINE BY LINE Le Pen and 24 other codefendants stood trial in late 2024 on charges they illicitly used funds from the European Parliament to pay party employees by having them hired as parliamentary assistants. But those assistants, the prosecution argued, rarely if ever worked on actual parliamentary business.  The National Rally’s apparent defense strategy back then was to paint the trial as politicized, potentially winning in the court of public opinion and living with the consequences of a guilty verdict.  The attorneys representing the defendants could did little to rebut several pieces of particularly damning evidence, including the fact that one assistant sent a message to Le Pen asking if he could be introduced to the MEP he had supposedly been working with for months.  Given how severely the defense miscalculated the first time around, lawyers for many of the 14 codefendants in court this week will pursue more traditional appeals, going through the preliminary ruling “line by line” to identify potential rebuttals or procedural hiccups, the trio with direct knowledge of the case explained.   A survey from pollster Odoxa conducted in November showed Bardella would win both rounds of the presidential contest.  | Telmo Pinto/NurPhoto via Getty Images Defense lawyers also plan to tailor their individual arguments more precisely to each client to avoid feeding the sentiment that decisions taken at the highest levels of the National Rally leadership are imposed on the whole party. The prosecution during the initial trial successfully argued that National Rally bigwigs hand-picked assistants at party headquarters to serve the leadership rather than MEPs.  Le Pen’s lawyers will also argue that her punishment — barring a front-running presidential candidate from standing in a nationwide election — was disproportionate to the crime for which she was convicted.  The appeals’ court ruling will have seismic consequences for French politics and Europe ahead of one of the continent’s most important elections. The path toward the presidency will be nearly impossible for Le Pen if her election ban is upheld. Le Pen has indicated in past interviews that she would throw in the towel if she received the same election ban, given that she wouldn’t have enough time to appeal again to a higher court.   Should Bardella replace her and win, the consequences for the French judicial system could be profound. One of the codefendants floated the possibility of a response along the lines of what U.S. President Donald Trump did to those who prosecuted him before his reelection.   “The lingering sense of injustice will remain and can eventually evolve into a quest for revenge,” the codefendant said.

Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. 2026 is here, and Europe is under siege. External pressure from Russia is mounting in Ukraine, China is undermining the EU’s industrial base, and the U.S. — now effectively threatening to annex the territory of a NATO ally — is undermining the EU’s multilateral rule book, which appears increasingly outdated in a far more transactional and less cooperative world. And none of this shows signs of slowing down. In fact, in the year ahead, the steady erosion of the norms Europe has come to rely on will only be compounded by the bloc’s weak leadership — especially in the so-called “E3” nations of Germany, France and the U.K. Looking forward, the greatest existential risks for Europe will flow from the transatlantic relationship. For the bloc’s leaders, keeping the U.S. invested in the war in Ukraine was the key goal for 2025. And the best possible outcome for 2026 will be a continuation of the ad-hoc diplomacy and transactionalism that has defined the last 12 months. However, if new threats emerge in this relationship — especially regarding Greenland — this balancing act may be impossible. The year also starts with no sign of any concessions from Russia when it comes to its ceasefire demands, or any willingness to accept the terms of the 20-point U.S.-EU-Ukraine plan. This is because Russian President Vladimir Putin is calculating that Ukraine’s military situation will further deteriorate, forcing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to capitulate to territorial demands. I believe Putin is wrong — that backed by Europe, Zelenskyy will continue to resist U.S. pressure on territorial concessions, and instead, increasingly target Russian energy production and exports in addition to resisting along the frontline. Of course, this means Russian aerial attacks against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure will also increase in kind. Nonetheless, Europe’s growing military spending, purchase of U.S. weapons, financing for Kyiv and sanctions against Russia — which also target sources of energy revenue — could help maintain last year’s status quo. But this is perhaps the best case scenario. Activists protest outside Downing street against the recent policies of Donald Trump. | Guy Smallman/Getty Images Meanwhile, European leaders will be forced to publicly ignore Washington’s support for far-right parties, which was clearly spelled out in the new U.S. national security strategy, while privately doing all they can to counter any antiestablishment backlash at the polls. Specifically, the upcoming election in Hungary will be a bellwether for whether the MAGA movement can tip the balance for its ideological affiliates in Europe, as populist, euroskeptic Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is currently poised to lose for the first time in 15 years. Orbán, for his part, has been frantically campaigning to boost voter support, signaling that he and his inner circle actually view defeat as a possibility. His charismatic rival Péter Magyar, who shares his conservative-nationalist political origins but lacks any taint of corruption poses a real challenge, as does the country’s stagnating economy and rising prices. While traditional electoral strategies — financial giveaways, smear campaigns and war fearmongering — have so far proven ineffective for Orbán, a military spillover from Ukraine that directly affects Hungary could reignite voter fears and shift the dynamic. To top it all off, these challenges will be compounded by the E3’s weakness. The hollowing out of Europe’s political center has already been a decade in the making. But France, Germany and the U.K. each entered 2026 with weak, unpopular governments besieged by the populist right and left, as well as a U.S. administration rooting for their collapse. While none face scheduled general elections, all three risk paralysis at best and destabilization at worst. And at least one leader — namely, Britain’s Keir Starmer — could fall because of an internal party revolt. The year’s pivotal event in the U.K. will be the midterm elections in May. As it stands, the Labour Party faces the humiliation of coming third in the Welsh parliament, failing to oust the Scottish National Party in the Scottish parliament and losing seats to both the Greens and ReformUK in English local elections. Labour MPs already expect a formal challenge to Starmer as party leader, and his chances of surviving seem slight. France, meanwhile, entered 2026 without a budget for the second consecutive year. The good news for President Emmanuel Macron is that his Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s minority government will probably achieve a budget deal targeting a modest deficit reduction by late February or March. And with the presidential election only 16 months away and local elections due to be held in March, the opposition’s appetite for a snap parliamentary election has abated. However, this is the best he can hope for, as a splintered National Assembly will sustain a mood of slow-motion crisis until the 2027 race. Finally, while Germany’s economy looks like it will slightly recover this year, it still won’t overcome its structural malaise. Largely consumed by ideological divisions, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government will struggle to implement far-reaching reforms. And with the five upcoming state elections expected to see increased vote shares for the far-right Alternative for Germany party, pressure on the government in Berlin will only mount A historic truth — one often forgotten in the quiet times — will reassert itself in 2026: that liberty, stability, prosperity and peace in Europe are always brittle. The holiday from history, provided by Pax Americana and exceptional post-World War II cooperation and integration, has officially come to an end. Moving forward, Europe’s relevance in the new global order will be defined by its response to Russia’s increased hybrid aggression, its influence on diplomacy regarding the Ukraine war and its ability to improve competitiveness, all while managing an increasingly ascendant far right and addressing the existential threats to its economy and security posed by Russia, China and the U.S. This is what will decide whether Europe can survive.

French far-right chief Marine Le Pen was one of the few politicians to attend movie legend Brigitte Bardot’s funeral on Wednesday. Le Pen was spotted by French media arriving at a Catholic church in Saint-Tropez, southern France, where Bardot spent most of her later years before she died on Dec. 28. The politician described her attendance as a “private and amicable” gesture to express her “affection, gratitude, and admiration” for the former actress and singer, who died aged 91. Bardot rose to prominence as a star of French New Wave classics by cult filmmakers such as Jean-Luc Godard in the 1950s and 1960s. Politically, she began backing Le Pen during her first presidential run in 2012, and her fourth and final husband, Bernard d’Ormale, was a former adviser to Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie. While Bardot was widely known for her advocacy for animal rights, she also made headlines on several occasions for racist, Islamophobic and homophobic remarks — which earned her five separate criminal sentences for “incitement to hatred.” While conservative and far-right figures flooded social media with glorifying homages after Bardot died — one of Le Pen’s allies, Éric Ciotti, even called for a national tribute, though Bardot’s own family opposed the gesture — reactions on the left were more nuanced, or absent. French President Emmanuel Macron did not mention Bardot’s incendiary remarks in his eulogy — paying tribute instead to a “legend of the century.”

PARIS — A senior French judge warned Tuesday against “unacceptable” foreign interference after the U.S. reportedly considered sanctioning members of France’s judiciary. “If such facts were true or were to materialize, they would constitute unacceptable and intolerable interference in our country’s internal affairs,” Peimane Ghaleh-Marzban, president of the Paris court that handled a contentious case involving far-right chief Marine Le Pen, said in an inaugural speech to new magistrates, according to AFP. His comments come after German news outlet Der Spiegel reported that the U.S. State Department considered imposing sanctions on the judges who sentenced Le Pen to a five-year election ban last spring over embezzlement of EU funds, preventing her from running in the presidential election planned for 2027. Le Pen, who denies all charges, will face an appeal trial from next week, with a decision expected ahead of the summer. U.S. President Donald Trump had slammed the earlier verdict as “another example of European leftists using lawfare to silence free speech” and added “free Marine Le Pen” in a post on Truth Social. The Trump administration recently pledged to support “patriotic European parties” that seek to fight Europe’s “civilizational erasure” in its controversial National Security Strategy. The U.S. in recent months sanctioned 11 judges from the International Criminal Court, including a French magistrate who green-lighted an ICC arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes in Gaza. The U.S. Embassy in Paris did not immediately respond to a request for comment.