Minnesota Democrats are once again calling on federal law enforcement to leave Minneapolis after reports of yet another shooting made the rounds Saturday. “Minnesota has had it. This is sickening,” Governor Tim Walz said in a post on X, noting he’d spoken with President Donald Trump. “The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.” A likely candidate to succeed Walz echoed his words. “To the Trump administration and the Republicans in Congress who have stood silent: Get ICE out of our state NOW,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) wrote on X, adding that details are scarce. The City of Minneapolis confirmed that a shooting involving federal law enforcement had occurred early on Saturday. The Associated Press reported that the 51-year-old victim had died, but POLITICO has not independently confirmed. A Department of Homeland Security official told POLITICO that the person who was shot, whom the DHS official described as a “suspect,” was in possession of a firearm and two magazines. The situation is still evolving, the official said. The individual’s condition is currently unknown. Minneapolis Police Department officials are on the scene, keeping more than 100 observers and protesters blocked off from the agents, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. An ambulance left the scene after CPR was seen being performed on the man, the Tribune reported. Minneapolis has become a national flashpoint for outrage over Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement after the Department of Homeland Security deployed thousands of federal immigration agents to the city in December. The scale and visibility of federal law enforcement’s operation — paired with federal agents operating with limited cooperation with local officials — have alarmed city and state leaders in Minnesota, who say the tactics resemble a show of force aimed at a politically hostile region rather than routine immigration enforcement. The tension came to a head earlier this month after the killing of 37-year-old Renee Good in her car during an immigration operation. The shooting has since triggered sustained protests and national scrutiny. In the aftermath of the shooting, federal authorities limited state officials’ access to the federal probe. They later subpoenaed Walz as part of a Justice Department probe into the state’s response to White House immigration enforcement. The governor called it a “partisan distraction” and “political theater.” Trump and Vice President JD Vance have attacked Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration agents and by criticizing the federal enforcement, with Vance initially arguing that the agent who shot Good was protected by “absolute immunity.” On Thursday, he took a different tone. “I didn’t say, and I don’t think any other official within the Trump administration said that officers who engage in wrongdoing would enjoy immunity,” the vice president said in Minneapolis. “That’s absurd. What I did say, is that when federal law enforcement officers violate the law, that is typically something that federal officials would look into.” Now, in the aftermath of Saturday’s shooting, the city is again reeling amid reports of more violence. “Holy shit, ICE just killed someone else in Minneapolis,” Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic Party and a Minnesota native, wrote on X. “What the actual fuck is going on in this country.” The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Eric Bazail-Eimil contributed to this report.

Its been a bad stretch of polling for President Donald Trump. In recent weeks, a string of new polls has found Trump losing ground with key constituencies, especially the young, non-white and low-propensity voters who swung decisively in his direction in 2024. The uptick in support for Trump among those non-traditional Republican voters helped fuel chatter of an enduring “realignment” in the American electorate — but the durability of that realignment is now coming into doubt with those same groups cooling on Trump. Surveying the findings of the most recent New York Times-Siena poll, polling analyst Nate Cohn bluntly declared that “the second Trump coalition has unraveled.” Is it time to touch up the obituaries for the Trumpian realignment? To find out, I spoke with conservative pollster and strategist Patrick Ruffini, whose 2024 book “Party of the People” was widely credited with predicting the contours of Trump’s electoral realignment. Ruffini cautioned against prematurely eulogizing the GOP’s new coalition, noting that the erosion of support has so far not extended to the constituencies that have served as the primary drivers of the Trumpian realignment — particularly white working-class voters and working-class Latinos and Asian Americans. But he also acknowledged that the findings of the recent polls should raise alarms for Republicans ahead of 2026 and especially 2028. His advice to Trump for reversing the trend: a relentless focus on “affordability,” which the White House has so far struggled to muster, and which remains the key issue dragging down the president. “I think that is undeniable,” he said. “It’s the number one issue among the swing voter electorate.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Based on your own polling, do you agree that “the second Trump coalition has unraveled?” It really depends on how you define the Trump coalition. The coalition that has really reshaped American politics over the last decade has been a coalition that saw voters who are aligned with a more populist view of America come into the Republican Party — in many cases, after voting for Barack Obama twice. Those shifts have proven to be pretty durable, especially among white working-class voters but also among conservative Hispanic voters and conservative Asian American voters. You have another group of voters who is younger and disconnected from politics — a group that had been really one of the core groups for Barack Obama and the Democrats back in the 2010s. They didn’t always vote, but there was really no hope or prospect for Republicans winning that group or being very competitive with that group. That happens for the first time in 2024, when that specific combination of young, minority, male voters really comes into play in a big way. But that shift right has proven to be a little bit less durable — and maybe a lot less durable — because of the nature of who those voters are. They’re not really connected to one political party, and they’re inherently non-partisan. So what you’re seeing is less of a shift among people who reliably vote in midterms, and what we are seeing is more of a shift among those infrequent voters. The question then becomes are these voters going to show up in 2026? How big of a problem is it for Republicans if they don’t? How alarmed should Republicans be by the current trends? I think they’re right to focus on affordability. You’ve seen that as an intentional effort by the White House, including what seems like embracing some Democratic policy proposals that also are in some ways an end-run around traditional Republican and conservative economics — things like a 10 percent cap on credit card interest. What’s the evidence that cost of living is the thing that’s primarily eroding Republican support among that group of voters you described? I think that is undeniable. It’s the number one issue among the swing voter electorate. However you want to define the swing voter electorate in 2024, cost of living was far and away the number one issue among the Biden-to-Trump voters in 2024. It is still the number one issue. And that’s because of demographically who they are. The profile of the voter who swung in ‘24 was not just minority, but young, low-income, who tends to be less college-educated, less married and more exposed to affordability concerns. So I think that’s obviously their north star right now. The core Democratic voter is concerned about the erosion of norms and democracy. The core Republican voter is concerned about immigration and border security. But this swing vote is very, very much concerned about the cost of living. Is there any evidence that things like Trump’s immigration crackdown or his foreign policy adventurism are contributing at all to the erosion of support among this group? I have to laugh at the idea of foreign policy being decisive for a large segment of voters. I think you could probably say that, to the extent that Trump had some non-intervention rhetoric, there might be some backlash among some of the podcast bros, or among the Tucker Carlson universe. But that is practically a non-entity when it comes to the actual electorate and especially this group that is floating between the two political parties. Maybe there’s a dissident faction on the right that is particularly focused on this, but what really matters is this cost-of-living issue, which people don’t view as having been solved by Trump coming into office. The White House would say — and Vance said recently — that it takes a while to turn the Titanic around. Which is not the most reassuring metaphor, but sure. Exactly, but nonetheless. I think a lot of these things are very interesting bait for media, but they are not necessarily what is really driving the voters who are disconnected from these narratives. What about his immigration agenda? Does that seem to be having any specific effect? I do think there’s probably some aspect of this that might be challenging with Latinos, but I think it’s very easy to fall back into the 2010 pattern of saying Latino voters are inordinately primarily focused on immigration, which has proven incorrect time after time after time. So, yes, I would say the ICE actions are probably a bit negative, but I think Latino voters primarily share the same concerns as other voters in the electorate. They’re primarily focused on cost of living, jobs and health care. How would Trump’s first year in office have looked different if he had been really laser-focused on consolidating the gains that Republicans saw among these voters in 2024? What would he have done that he didn’t do, and what shouldn’t he have done that he did do? I would first concede that the focus on affordability needed to be, like, a Day 1 concern. I will also concede how hard it is to move this group that is very, very disaffected from traditional politics and doesn’t trust or believe the promises made by politicians — even one as seemingly authentic as Trump. I go back to 2018. While in some ways you would kill for the economic perceptions that you had in 2018, that didn’t seem to help them much in the midterms. The other problem with a laser focus on affordability on Day 1 is that I don’t think it clearly aligns with what the policy demanders on the right are actually asking for. If you ask, “What is MAGA economic policy?”, for many, MAGA economic policy is tariffs — and in many ways, tariffs run up against an impulse to do something about affordability. Now, to date, we haven’t really seen that actually play out. We haven’t really seen an increase in the inflation rate, which is good. But there’s an opportunity cost to focusing on certain issues over this focus on affordability. I think the challenge is that I don’t think either party has a pre-baked agenda that is all about reducing costs. They certainly had a pre-baked agenda around immigration, and they do have a pre-baked agenda around tariffs. What else has stopped the administration from effectively consolidating this part of the 2024 coalition? It’s a very hard-to-reach group. In 2024, Trump’s team had the insight to really put him front-and-center in these non-political arenas, whether it was going to UFC matches or appearing on Joe Rogan. I think it’s very easy for any administration to come into office and pivot towards the policy demanders on the right, and I think that we’ve seen a pivot in that direction, at least on the policy. So I would say they should be doing more of that 2024 strategy of actually going into spaces where non-political voters live and talking to them. Is it possible to turn negative perception around among this group? Or is it a one-way ratchet, where once you’ve lost their support, it’s very hard to get it back? I don’t think it’s impossible. We are seeing some improvement in the economic perception numbers, but we also saw how hard it is to sustain that. I think the mindset of the average voter is just that they’re in a far different place post-Covid than they were pre-Covid. There’s just been a huge negative bias in the economy since Covid, so I think any thought that, “Oh, it would be easy that Trump gets elected, and that’s going to be the thing that restores optimism” was wrong. I think he’s taken really decisive action, and he has solved a lot of problems, but the big nut to crack is, How do you break people out of this post-Covid economic pessimism? The more critical case that could be made against Trump’s approach to economic policy is not just that he’s failed to address the cost-of-living crisis, but that he’s actively done things that run contrary to any stated vision of economic populism. The tax cuts are the major one, which included some populist components tacked on, but which was essentially a massively regressive tax cut. Do you think that has contributed to the sour feeling among this cohort at all? I think we know very clearly when red lines are crossed and when different policies really get voters writ large to sit up and take notice. For instance, it was only when you had SNAP benefits really being cut off that Congress had any impetus to actually solve the shutdown. I don’t think people are quite as tuned in to the distributional effects of tax policy. The White House would say that there were very popular parts of this proposal, like the Trump accounts and no tax on tips, that didn’t get coverage — and our polling has shown that people have barely actually heard about those things compared to some of the Democratic lines of attack. So I think that the tax policy debate is relatively overrated, because it simply doesn’t matter as much to voters as much as the cultural issues or the general sense that life is not as affordable as it was. Assuming these trends continue and this cohort of sort of young, low-propensity voters continues to shift away from Trump, what does the picture look like for Republicans in 2026 and 2028? I would say 2026 is perhaps a false indicator. In the midterms, you’re really talking about an electorate that is going to be much older, much whiter, much more college-educated. I think you really have to have a presidential campaign to test how these voters are going to behave. And presidential campaigns are also a choice between Republicans and Democrats. I think certainly Republicans would want to make it into a Republican-versus-Democrat choice, because polling is very clear that voters do not trust the Democrats either on these issues. It’s clear that a lot of these voters have actually moved away from the Democratic Party — they just haven’t necessarily moved into the Republican Party. Thinking big picture, does this erosion of support change or alter your view of the “realignment” in any respect? I’ve always said that we are headed towards a future where these groups are up for grabs, and whichever party captures them has the advantage. That’s different from the politics of the Obama era, where we were talking about an emerging Democratic majority driven by a generational shift and by the rise of non-white voters in the electorate. The most recent New York Times poll has Democrats ahead among Latino voters by 16 points, which is certainly different than 2024, when Trump lost them by just single digits, but that is a far cry from where we were in 2016 and 2018. So I think in many respects, that version of it is coming true. But if 2024 was a best-case scenario for the right, and 2026 is a worst-case scenario, we really have to wait till 2028 to see where this all shakes out.

BERLIN — As Europe’s traditional Franco-German engine splutters, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is increasingly looking to team up with hard-right Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as his co-pilot in steering the EU. The two are set to meet at a summit in the opulent Villa Doria Pamphilj in Rome on Friday to double down on their budding alliance. They are both right-wing Atlanticists who want to cool tensions with U.S. President Donald Trump. And they both have their frustrations with French President Emmanuel Macron. In years past, Germany would traditionally have turned to France at decisive moments to map out blueprints for the EU, so it’s significant that Merz is now aligning with Meloni in his attempt to drive forward core European priorities on trade and industry. In part, Merz’s gravitation toward Meloni is driven by annoyance with France. Berlin is irritated that Paris sought to undermine the landmark Mercosur trade deal with South America, which the Germans have long wanted in order to promote industrial exports. Germany is also considering pulling out of a €100 billion joint fighter-jet program over disputes with the French. Against that backdrop, the alignment with Rome has a compelling logic. During Friday’s meeting, Merz and Meloni are expected to sign up to cooperation on defense, according to diplomats involved in the preparations. It’s not clear what that involves, but Germany’s Rheinmetall and Italy’s Leonardo already have a joint venture to build tanks and other military vehicles. Perhaps most ambitiously, Italy and Germany are also teaming up to draft a new game plan to revive EU industry and expand exports in a joint position paper for the Feb. 12 European Council summit. Berlin and Rome style themselves as the “two main industrial European nations” and have condemned delays to the Mercosur agreement. That language will grate in Paris. IN FOR THE LONG HAUL For Giangiacomo Calovini, a lawmaker from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, who heads the parliament’s Italian-German friendship group, the Merz-Meloni alliance makes sense given Macron’s impending departure from the European stage after next year’s French election. “[Our] two countries have stable governments, especially if compared with France’s,” he said. “It is clear that Meloni and Merz still probably have a long path ahead of them, during which they can work together.” Safeguarding the relationship with Trump is crucial to both leaders, and both Merz and Meloni have sought to avoid transatlantic blow-ups. They have been supported in their firefighting by their foreign ministers, Johann Wadephul and Antonio Tajani. “Giorgia Meloni and Friedrich Merz have represented the European wing most open to dialogue with President Trump,” said Pietro Benassi, former Italian ambassador to Berlin and the EU. “The somewhat surreal acceleration [of events] driven by the American president is confirming a convergence in the positions of Italy and Germany, rather than between Italy and France, or France and Germany.” In contrast to the softly-softly approach in Rome and Berlin, Calovini accused Macron of unhelpfully “contradictory” behavior toward Trump. “He acts as the one who wants to challenge the United States of America but then sends texts — that Trump has inelegantly published — in which he begs Trump to have dinner,” he complained. GOOD CHEMISTRY Officials in Berlin now privately gush over the growing cooperation with Meloni, describing the relationship with Rome as dependable. “Italy is reliable,” said one senior German government official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. It’s not an adjective authorities in Berlin have often used to describe their French counterparts of late. “France is more verbal, but Italy is much more pragmatic,” said Axel Schäfer, a senior lawmaker in Germany’s Social Democratic Party long focused on German-Italian relations. An Italian official also praised the “good chemistry” between Merz and Meloni personally. That forms a marked contrast with the notoriously strained relations between Meloni and Macron, who have frequently clashed. In their effort to draw closer, Merz and Meloni have at times resorted to hyperbole. During his inaugural visit to Rome as chancellor last year, Merz said there was “practically complete agreement between our two countries on all European policy issues.” Meloni returned the sentiment. “It is simply impossible to cast doubt on the relations between Italy and Germany,” she said at the time. MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE That is overegging it. The two leaders, in fact, have considerable differences. Meloni refused to support an ultimately doomed plan, pushed by Merz, to use frozen Russian assets to finance military aid for Ukraine. Meloni also briefly withheld support for the Mercosur trade deal in order to win concessions for Italian farmers before ultimately backing it. Critically, Rome and Berlin are likely to prove very awkward allies when it comes to public finances. Italy has long pushed for looser European fiscal policy — and been a natural ally of France on this point — while Germany has served as the continent’s iron disciplinarian on spending. But even here there has been some convergence, with Meloni cutting Italy’s spending and Merz presiding over a historic expansion in debt-fueled outlays on infrastructure and defense. Fundamentally, much of the growing alliance between Merz and Meloni is a product of shifts undertaken for their own domestic political survival. Meloni has dragged her nationalist Brothers of Italy party to the center, particularly on foreign policy matters. At the same time, the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Germany has forced Merz to shift his conservative party sharply to the right on migration.     This ideological merging has allowed for a warming of relations. As Merz has sought partners on the European level to drastically reduce the inflow of asylum seekers coming to Europe, to reduce regulation and to push for more trade — and provide a counterbalance to Macron — Meloni has become an increasingly important figure for the chancellor. Still, Stefano Stefanini, a former senior Italian diplomat and NATO representative, said there would always be limits to the relationship. “It’s very tactical,” he said. “There’s no coordinated strategy. There are a number of issues on which Meloni and Merz find themselves on the same side.” Stefanini also noted that spending commitments — particularly on military projects — would be an area where Rome would once again find itself in a more natural alliance with France. “On defense spending Italy and France are closer, because Germany has the fiscal capacity to spend by itself, while Italy and France need to get as much financial support as they can from the EU,” he said. Despite such differences, Meloni has seized her opening to get closer to Merz. “Meloni has understood that, as there is some tension in the France-Germany relationship, she could infiltrate and get closer to Germany,” said Marc Lazar, an expert on Franco-Italian relations who teaches at the Luiss University in Rome and at Sciences Po in Paris.

BERLIN — German Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil has assailed U.S. President Donald Trump for his rhetoric on Greenland and actions in Venezuela, saying the situation is worse than politicians like to admit. The comments lay bare divisions inside Germany’s governing coalition over how to handle Washington as transatlantic tensions mount. They also mark a divergence between Klingbeil’s approach and that of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has taken a far more cautious approach to Trump to avoid a rupture with Washington. “The transatlantic alliance is undergoing much more profound upheaval than we may have been willing to admit until now,” Klingbeil said Wednesday in view of Trump’s assertion that the U.S. needs control over Greenland as well as the U.S. administration’s decision to deploy its military to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. “The transatlantic relationship that we have known until now is disintegrating,” he added. Merz, by contrast, has said with regard to Greenland that the U.S. president has legitimate security concerns that NATO should address in order to achieve a “mutually acceptable solution.” And while other EU governments strongly criticized the Trump administration following the capture of Maduro, Merz was more restrained, calling the matter legally “complex.” Behind Klingbeil’s more strident criticism of Trump lies a clear political calculus. The vice chancellor — who also serves as finance minister — is a leader of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which governs in coalition with Merz’s conservative bloc and has seen its popularity stagnate. Attacking Trump more forcefully may be one way for the party to improve its fortunes. Polls show most Germans strongly oppose Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his rhetoric on Greenland, and views of the U.S. government more generally are at a nadir. | Pool Photo by Shawn Thew via EPA Polls show most Germans strongly oppose Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his rhetoric on Greenland, and views of the U.S. government more generally are at a nadir. Only 15 percent of Germans consider the U.S. to be a trustworthy partner, according to the benchmark ARD Deutschlandtrend survey released last week, a record low. This underscores the political risk for Merz as he seeks to avoid direct confrontation with an American president deeply unpopular with the German electorate. But Merz has calculated that keeping open channels of communication with the U.S. president is far more critical. Klingbeil, on the other hand, is less encumbered by international diplomacy. “The Trump administration has made it clear that it wants to dominate the Western hemisphere,” he said on Wednesday. “One could sit here and say, ‘Yes, what the US has done in Latin America is not pretty. Yes, there are also threats against Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, but what does that actually have to do with us?’ But then we look at President Trump’s statements today about Greenland. Then we look at what the Trump administration has written in its new national security strategy with regard to Europe. “All the certainties we could rely on in Europe are under pressure,” Klingbeil added.

Thousands rallied in the Albanian capital of Tirana on Monday as the opposition demanded Prime Minister Edi Rama’s resignation over corruption charges against his deputy, Belinda Balluku, whose parliamentary immunity has so far blocked her arrest. The political crisis in the Balkan nation has been building for weeks since anti-corruption prosecutors accused Balluku of interfering in major state contracts. It reached its tipping point Monday night after Molotov cocktails were hurled at Rama’s office. Four protesters were arrested during clashes and seven more put under investigation. Two police officers were injured, and one protester accidentally set himself on fire, local media reported. The protest, organized by veteran opposition leader Sali Berisha and his Democratic Party, followed scenes of chaos in Albania’s parliament last week, when police intervened after lawmakers brawled and set off flares inside the chamber. “We do not condone any form of violence — especially violence exercised by those in power. There is no more blatant form of violence than the extortion and systematic looting carried out by Edi Rama and his ministers against the Albanian people,” Berisha told POLITICO Tuesday via his spokesperson, saying the protests were intended to “stop this violence.” Prosecutors and opposition lawmakers are pushing to lift Balluku’s immunity so that anti-corruption prosecutors can arrest and try her. Rama and his ruling Socialist Party have so far stalled the vote, saying they will wait for a Constitutional Court ruling that is expected in January. Balluku is accused, along with several other officials and private companies, of manipulating public tenders to favor specific companies on major infrastructure projects, including Tirana’s Greater Ring Road and the Llogara Tunnel. She has called the allegations against her “insinuations,” “half-truths” and “lies,” and agreed to cooperate with the judicial process fully. Balluku is also minister of infrastructure, overseeing some of the country’s largest public projects. Rama has also defended Balluku amid the corruption charges, accusing the anti-corruption agency, known as SPAK, of normalizing pre-trial arrests, saying they amount to “arrests without trial” and fall short of European democratic standards. The prime minister told POLITICO in an interview Wednesday that it was “normal” for SPAK to make errors as it is a “newborn institution with a newborn independent power” that has made “plenty of mistakes.” When asked for a statement Tuesday about the protests’ violent turn, Rama refused to comment. He said he did not want to impugn his political opponents, “because in the end they are not enemies to be exposed to the world, but just desperate fellow Albanians, to be confronted and dealt with within the bounds of our own domestic political life.” Berisha hit back, accusing Rama of stealing elections and telling him it was time to go. “He has no legitimacy to remain in government for even one more day,” Berisha told POLITICO. Rama was reelected in May for a fourth term.

BRUSSELS ― Belgian police raided the EU’s foreign service and the College of Europe on Tuesday in a bombshell corruption probe — and detained two of the EU’s most powerful officials. Federica Mogherini, who once served as the EU’s top diplomat, and Stefano Sannino, a director-general in the European Commission, were questioned over allegations of fraud in the establishment of a training academy for diplomats. Mogherini was born in Rome, the daughter of a film set designer. She was elected to the Italian parliament in 2008 as an MP with the center-left Democratic Party and became Italy’s foreign minister in 2014, an appointment that, at the time, took many by surprise. The 52-year-old’s tenure was short-lived, as she was made the EU’s high representative — the foreign policy chief — the same year, a position she held until 2019. Her time in the job is perhaps most notable for her work on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. At the end of her five-year term, she became the rector of the Bruges-based College of Europe, a position she’s been in ever since. But her appointment was mired in claims of cronyism, as professors and EU officials argued that she was not qualified for the post, did not meet the criteria and applied after the deadline. She has also served as the director of the EU Diplomatic Academy, a program for junior diplomats across EU countries that is run by the College of Europe, since August 2022. It’s the academy that is at the center of the probe. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) said it has “strong suspicions” that rules around “fair competition” were breached when the EEAS awarded the tender to set up the academy. Sannino, a career diplomat from Naples with a packed CV including various roles in Rome and Brussels, has served as director-general of DG Enlargement, permanent representative of Italy to the EU, Italian ambassador to Spain and Andorra and secretary-general of the European External Action Service (EEAS). He has championed LGBTQ+ rights and is married to Catalan political adviser Santiago Mondragón. He started his current role as director-general of DG MENA, the EU’s department for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf, in February. He has lectured at the College of Europe and at the diplomatic academy. None of the people questioned has been charged. An investigative judge has 48 hours to decide on further action.

NEW YORK — Zohran Mamdani capped a sharp-elbowed campaign for New York City mayor Tuesday night with a historic win, cementing the democratic socialist as both a rising star and a divisive figure in the Democratic Party. For Republicans and President Donald Trump, the results hand-deliver an ideal foil heading into midterm elections next year as they seek to paint their adversaries as out-of-touch leftists. Come Jan. 1, Mamdani will become the city’s first Muslim mayor and the second in modern history after David Dinkins to identify as a democratic socialist. With his win, he vanquished former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who lost to Mamdani in the June Democratic primary and ran an increasingly bitter and negative general election campaign as an independent.

Former United States Vice President Kamala Harris suggested she may run again for U.S. president. The Democratic Party presidential hopeful, who lost to Republican Donald Trump in 2024, told the BBC in an interview to be aired Sunday that she is “not done” with politics. “I have lived my entire career as a life of service and it’s in my bones,” she said. Asked whether she could be the first woman in charge in the White House one day, Harris replied: “possibly,” hinting that she could make another presidential bid. But she added that she has not made a decision yet about whether to run again for president. The next American presidential election is in 2028. “There are many ways to serve,” Harris said, “but I have not decided yet what I will do in the future.” Harris dismissed polls suggesting that she would be an outsider in the presidential race with little chance of winning the Democratic ticket. “If I listened to polls, I would have not run for my first office, or my second office — and I certainly wouldn’t be sitting here,” she said.

AMSTERDAM — Socialist lawmakers expect the center-right European People’s Party to try to keep the European Parliament presidency despite a power-sharing agreement signed after the 2024 EU election. Under the 2024 power-sharing arrangement, the top Parliament job would be shared — the first half of the term for the EPP, second half for the Socialists. But Socialist lawmakers now doubt that the center-right EPP — which holds the highest representation in the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament — will let them take the job, according to nine MEPs, aides and senior officials who were granted anonymity to speak candidly with POLITICO. That is because the Socialists also have the top post at the European Council with Portugal’s former Prime MinisterAntonio Costa, and it is unlikely the EPP would let the Social Democrats — which have lost political weight across countries in recent years — lead two out of the three EU policymaking institutions, the lawmakers said. The lawmakers also said it is likely the EPP will try to have incumbent Parliament President Roberta Metsola reelected for a third term — a first in the parliament’s history — especially after she refused to go back to Maltese politics as the leader of her Nationalist Party. Publicly, however, the Socialists are holding their ground. The president of the Party of European Socialists (PES) Stefan Löfven said Friday night that his political family will not support a third term for Metsola. “If you and I make a deal, you expect me to keep it … if they still want a decent working environment in Brussels, they need to stick to the deal,” Löfven told POLITICO ahead of the Socialist leaders dinner on Friday night during the PES congress. MIDTERM RESHUFFLE He added that the 2024 deal also includes a second term for European Council President Antonio Costa, Portugal’s former Socialist prime minister — though EPP officials contest that it was not explicitly part of the agreement, opening the door to use Costa’s reelection as leverage to keep control of the Parliament president position. Ahead of the 2027 midterm reshuffle, where all top jobs within the Parliament are up for grabs, Socialist lawmakers make it a given that Spain’s Iratxe García will remain as the chair of the Socialists and Democrats group in the chamber. “If Metsola stays on, Iratxe will stay on, for consistency,” said one MEP. “I don’t see Iratxe being challenged,” said a second lawmaker, who added that García can only be ousted if the Italians turn against her — which is unlikely given both Italy and Spain traditionally stick together. “Otherwise if they are united, any challenger would need to first match their votes together, which is a lot,”  this person said. The Italians and Spaniards hold 41 out of 136 seats. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and García are meeting with Italian Democratic Party leader Elly Schlein on Saturday, as part of a busy agenda with many bilateral meetings.  “Oh, so that’s the agenda for the meeting?” Schlein laughed when asked by POLITICO whether she would support García as she walked into the room. The Italians, who are the largest national delegation within the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), are unlikely to claim the presidency as they are very divided and there is no clear candidate among their ranks for the job. Instead, they are expected to keep group Secretary-General Fabrizia Panzetti for another term as part of a power-sharing agreement among the national party leaders. “They are trying not to open the debate and just keep everything as it is,” said a third MEP. “I wish there would be a change, not necessarily about Iratxe, but we should have an open debate internally, and not just between leaders,” this person added. While everyone assumes publicly that García will stay on — as long as Sánchez stays in power — some leaders remain tight-lipped on whether they will support her. “Iratxe has done a good job,” Swedish Social Democratic leader Magdalena Andersson — who is topping the polls one year away from national elections — told POLITICO. But “no, it has not been decided” if the Swedish delegation will support her, Andersson said. The EPP did not reply to a request for comment in time of publication.

LONDON — It was March when Gretchen Whitmer bumped into Morgan McSweeney in London while on a trade visit to the U.K. Whitmer, the Democratic governor of Michigan and potential hopeful in the 2028 U.S. presidential election, and McSweeney, the chief of staff to embattled British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, discussed Labour’s landslide victory in its 2024 general election campaign, said a person who recalled the encounter. There, Starmer’s chief of staff accepted an eye-catching gift from Whitmer — a £90 “Michigan Wood” pen. The encounter was a small glimpse of the ties that remain between the U.K. prime minister’s aides and the U.S. Democratic Party, still licking its wounds after a resounding election defeat by Donald Trump and the Republicans. It was also indicative of something else: McSweeney’s personal desire to build a coalition and playbook for center-left parties to win and govern worldwide, with Starmer at its heart, including and going beyond just the U.S. Democrats. That desire was undimmed in recent months, according to four people with knowledge of the conversations, despite Starmer and McSweeney firefighting crises (and falling poll ratings) in office. Labour’s engagement with the Democrats has faded to the background since Trump’s reelection last November, not least because of Starmer’s efforts to charm the president — Trump’s gilded state visit to Britain starts on Sept. 16 — and the fact the Democrats have no candidate to charm. But that may change soon. The Starmer-friendly think tanks IPPR and Labour Together and U.S.-based Center for American Progress (CAP) will take a “Global Progress Action Summit” — previously held in Canada — to London for the first time on Sept. 26. Events planned so far include the newly minted justice secretary and deputy prime minister, formerly the foreign secretary, David Lammy — a friend of Barack Obama — in conversation with past (and perhaps future) Democratic hopeful, Pete Buttigieg. High-profile further speakers are expected to follow. McSweeney has been a key figure behind the scenes in recent months shaping thinking around the conference, said the four people referenced above, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. That’s despite him battling political turmoil at home — which in the past fortnight has included the departures in disgrace of Starmer’s deputy, Angela Rayner, and his ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson, and a reshuffle of both his Cabinet and No. 10 staff. A second, private day at the conference is planned for staff, where Labour government aides can swap notes with counterparts from nations such as Australia and Spain, whose socialist government’s proposals to tackle a housing crisis are being watched closely in No. 10. One of the four people said: “Morgan sees Keir as being a leader among global progressives.” Another said: “We’re trying to write kind of a blueprint or playbook of what it means to be a center-left government in the era that we’re now in” — one where neither left-wing populism, nor a return to the shared “Third Way” politics of former leaders Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, are the answer. In Britain, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has a huge poll lead and is promising to deport hundreds of thousands of people. Public disillusionment with establishment parties — and Starmer, the process-driven former lawyer — is high. No. 10 aides are looking at artificial intelligence and social media’s impact on society, an aging population, a public sector in need of reform, growing Chinese might and public unease at mass migration — problems plaguing governments everywhere — and believe “deliverism” is the way forward. It might not work. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer speaks during the 69th Annual Fight For Freedom Fund Dinner on May 19, 2024. | Monica Morgan/Getty Images So how close really can Labour and the Democrats get right now — and can they teach each other more than just how to lose ground? POLITICO talked to more than a dozen politicians and strategists, several on condition of anonymity, in a bid to find the answer. THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE The first difficulty with meeting the Democrats is obvious. Who are you supposed to meet? The party structure is different to Labour, which almost always has a leader. A senior figure in a U.K. think tank said: “It’s not like you can speak to the equivalent of Keir Starmer in opposition and start to build relationships.” Labour MP Emily Thornberry, the chair of Britain’s cross-party foreign affairs committee of MPs which went to Capitol Hill over the summer, said: “I wasn’t, for example, being taken to see Democrats and being told, ‘Oh, this is a rising star, we think that this guy or this woman is worth cultivating, because we think that they are future leaders.’ “No, it was all about who we think are the movers and shakers on the Hill. Or who we think might be — we haven’t even worked it out yet.” Enter, then, an army of center-left think tanks to fill the void. The CAP, Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and Third Way all have regular contact with U.K. counterparts about Democratic renewal. “Britain has proven a useful place for them to have those conversations that they can’t have easily in the U.S.,” argued the senior think tank figure quoted above. Others involved in this transatlantic dialogue include the U.S.-based Open Markets Institute, the former home of Biden antitrust guru Lina Khan, and the Sunrise Movement, as well as the U.K.-based Future Governance Forum, backed by a roster of Starmer donors, and the Labour Climate and Environment Forum. Claire Ainsley, a former aide to Starmer who is now the director of the PPI’s project on center-left renewal, said: “Looking at who’s going to be the next candidate is actually only one part of the equation. The other part of it is which faction, if you like, is going to get their candidate to emerge?” With Bill Clinton in the 1990s, she argued, “you build the platform and the candidate emerges. It wasn’t as if Clinton came with all these ideas — you had to build a platform.” But this becomes a battle of competing ideologies too, with different think tanks lobbying for the kind of center left they want to see. BUILDING A NETWORK Third Way, the D.C.-based Democrat-friendly think tank, talks to people “both in and adjacent to No. 10” and “a variety of folks in government,” said Senior Vice President Josh Freed — though most conversations are informal and not at the level of elected officials. Likewise, Labour’s recent former General Secretary David Evans, now an adviser to PPI, has been to the U.S. with Ainsley to speak to Democratic strategists, including at a Denver summit in April. The pair are due to attend a similar behind-closed-doors “retreat” in Las Vegas on Sept. 13, where speakers will include Obama’s former chief of staff (and potential presidential hopeful) Rahm Emanuel. In Britain, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has a huge poll lead and is promising to deport hundreds of thousands of people. Public disillusionment with establishment parties — and Starmer, the process-driven former lawyer — is high. | Lia Toby/Getty Images The PPI has its eye on talented governors such as Whitmer, Colorado’s Jared Polis, Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, newcomers such as North Carolina’s Josh Stein and former governors such as Rhode Island’s Gina Raimondo, who also served in Joe Biden’s cabinet as a commerce secretary. Shapiro and Whitmer in particular, argued PPI President Will Marshall, embody an “impatience with government bureausclerosis” — a battle occupying Labour in the U.K. Friendly think tanks like to hail Shapiro for fixing a key interstate in just 12 days after it collapsed. In the U.K., PPI is interested in center-left ministers such as Lammy, Wes Streeting, Bridget Phillipson, John Healey, Ellie Reeves, Alison McGovern, Torsten Bell, Kirsty McNeill and Lucy Rigby, along with new junior ministers such as Kanishka Narayan and Mike Tapp. Democratic former Congressman Tim Ryan — who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2020 as well as against the now-Vice President JD Vance in a 2022 Ohio Senate race — came to the U.K. in July, facilitated by the PPI, and held briefings with Labour MPs and peers. Ainsley and Deborah Mattinson, a pollster and former Starmer adviser who works with the PPI, presented research on swing voters who are becoming disillusioned with center-left parties. Ryan also met Starmer at a pre-arranged encounter during an event in parliament and the two spoke about politics, said one person who was there. Marshall said the PPI-Labour relationship “withered” in the years the hard-left Jeremy Corbyn led Labour, but the history goes back to 1989, when he met Patricia Hewitt, a center-left think tanker in the political wilderness, who would become a Cabinet minister under Tony Blair. THE GOVERNMENT CAN HELP Labour isn’t in the wilderness this time — at least not yet — and has the levers of government to help. The U.K. Embassy and consuls general will play a role in building links between the government — in a non-party-political way — and potential Democratic runners and riders. Diplomats will keep tabs on rising stars and gather contact details for their teams, and this will likely kick up a gear when the picture becomes clearer after the U.S. midterm elections in November 2026. This, of course, is true of Republican rising stars too. “We do have the advantage of the machinery of the Foreign Office network to deal with that,” said one former Labour adviser. There are always two tracks, the adviser added — cross-party, pragmatic relationships with U.S. administration figures come first, “but clearly, you also have your political family that you are part of, and the alliances that you have as fellow progressive political leaders.” Such fellow leaders could include California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose pugilistic and Trump-mimicking social media style has made waves with Democrats, or JB Pritzker, the Illinois governor whose deep pockets as the heir of a hotel fortune could allow him to self-fund a presidential candidacy. These tracks can sometimes appear to overlap. Starmer gave the job of ambassador to Washington D.C. — usually reserved for a civil servant — to Peter Mandelson, a close ally of McSweeney and long-time operator on the center left (although he was also quick to cultivate relationships with Trump’s MAGA right). Mandelson was due to be briefed on this month’s summit before he was sacked on Thursday over revelations about his friendship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Likewise, Emily Thornberry’s choice of meetings in Washington this summer was guided by diplomatic officials, and the embassy would sometimes have someone taking notes in the room. But Trump and the Republicans are by far the priority, at least for now. Labour officials are still scarred by a row during the 2024 U.S. election, in which Trump’s campaign accused Labour of “blatant foreign interference” after activists went to volunteer for Kamala Harris’ campaign. | Jeff Kowalsky/AFP Thornberry recalled of her visit: “The impression I got was that reengaging with however the Democrats emerge is on the back burner, waiting for things to happen — because the pressing issue is trying to understand what the hell is going on under the Trump regime. So that’s the priority.” Thornberry recalled a surprising bond between MPs and some Republicans, because many of them had links to the U.S. military. “For these guys who’ve actually been under fire with Brits, they have a very different relationship with Britain than Democrats, who see us as, you know, their liberal friends from across the pond — but they have lots of liberal friends across the pond,” she said. DON’T WAKE THE BEAST Bonding too closely with Democrats is fraught with danger. Labour officials are still scarred by a row during the 2024 U.S. election, in which Trump’s campaign accused Labour of “blatant foreign interference” after activists went to volunteer for Kamala Harris’ campaign. Many Labour activists privately saw it as the weaponization of the sort of routine campaigning that would usually pass without comment. The row erupted after Labour’s Head of Operations Sofia Patel told would-be volunteers: “We will sort your housing.” One Labour volunteer who went to the U.S. said: “It was a foolish, ill-advised LinkedIn post, and it wasn’t even properly true, because many of us were just organizing ourselves into groups — former staffers, current staffers, who were warm and interested — it wasn’t all organized by the party. Lots of us had just got ourselves into a group, booked ourselves into an Airbnb and a hotel and booked the same flights.” People paid their own way and many avoided posting on social media, the volunteer said. The danger hasn’t passed. While Starmer is seeking to define himself as a friend of Trump, many Democrats define themselves by resisting him. Formal contacts with Democratic politicians are rare for Starmer and his aides these days, though the PM met with House and Senate Minority Leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer at the NATO summit in July. Mike Williams, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said Starmer’s government is focused on making sure the “U.K. is in a decent place with regards to Trump.” JUST KEEP TALKING The conversations continue regardless. Organizers behind this month’s London summit are hoping for representatives from most center-left governments in Europe and others from further afield. McSweeney has relationships with people in progressive think tanks in the U.S. and other countries, is close to former Biden and Obama officials and attended the Democratic National Convention last year alongside Matthew Doyle, Starmer’s then-director of communications. One former Labour staffer argued, however, that party HQ actually cultivated stronger links with the Australian Labor Party (ALP) than it did with the Democrats before Britain’s 2024 election. Labour hired Aussie strategist David Nelson to help run its general election campaign last year, alongside a second, more junior former Australian Labor staffer. Evans and Ainsley of the Progressive Policy Institute went to Australia to meet the ALP this past June. “Politically, we’re more similar to Australia than anywhere else in Europe,” the former Labour staffer added. “Their electorate behaves more like ours.” Despite all his domestic woes, Starmer’s allies believe he can still lead the pack. “There is a method and a recipe that worked for the center left, and it worked to get Labour into power … It is having a clear leader, vision and program to change the lives of working people for the better,” Ainsley said. She added: “Where center-left governments drift from that as their priority, it’s where they come unstuck.” But Keir Starmer is now drifting in the polls, and his critics have also accused him of a lack of vision. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images At the Denver summit in April, PPI’s Marshall said Democrats were asking Evans “ ‘How did you all win? What did you do? How did you win back those Red Wall constituencies in the July election last year?’ ” But Starmer is now drifting in the polls, and his critics have also accused him of a lack of vision. The conversations now are not just about how to win — but how to rebuild. “Conceivably, we learn the most from failure,” said Williams of CAP. “I think there’s a lot to learn.” Some failures unite most center-left strategists — like needing to focus on voters’ wallets rather than distant economic indicators. Marshall said part of his conversations with British MPs in early 2024 were “reality therapy about the Biden administration and Bidenomics.” Until Biden’s crushing defeat, he said, many center-left politicians including in Britain were looking to his strategy as the answer. Other issues, such as migration and gender politics, are thornier. Williams argued: “Do I think that we’re learning the right lessons yet? No. The folks [in the U.S.] who are pushing this whiplash back to the center and saying that we need to be tough on immigration, we need to push back on transgender rights — I think they’re dead wrong.” And for Freed of Third Way, Starmer would benefit from pushing the bureaucratic part of his personality aside. “Far be it for me to give advice to someone who successfully won an election and is leading a government,” he said. “But I think the thing that we’re seeing in general is that this is not a moment for buttoned-up, cautious, precise leaders. That this is not the moment to only go on controlled interviews where you know the questions and it’s only going to be 15 minutes. It’s not the moment where you’re unwilling to share insights and glimpses of yourself, of who you are, of the passions you care about.” Freed then put it more directly: “The blunt challenge of the moment is, this is like two owners of football clubs talking to each other. The Democrats just got relegated. The other [party, Labour], let’s be blunt, looks like [it] might be relegated — they’re in a relegation battle at the very least.” For football fan Keir Starmer, it’s a battle that may define his legacy. Shia Kapos contributed reporting.