LONDON — Westminster discourse was blessed with a host of new words and phrases during a tumultuous 2025 — and some of them even made sense. Keir Starmer got to fight with tech bro Elon Musk, schmooze Donald Trump, endure frustration from his MPs over Labour’s dreadful polling, reshuffle his government, and preside over a stagnant economy — all while working out a “vision” some 18 months into office. As 2026 screams into view, POLITICO has looked back over the year and picked out all the weird phrases we’d rather forget. 1. Coalition of the willing: The body of nations that sprang up to support Ukraine as U.S. backing looked dicey. Defined by their “vital,” “urgent” and “pivotal” meetings, but often challenged by an unwilling dude across the pond. 2. Smorgasbord: Sweden’s given us IKEA, ABBA — and now the best way to explain an unsatisfying mix of tax rises. Thanks, chancellor! 3. AI Opportunities Action Plan: Never has a government announcement contained so many nouns. 4. AI MP: Why bother with constituency casework when ChatGPT’s around? Labour MP Mark Sewards bagged some help from LLMs … with mixed results. 5. “Beautiful accent”: Trump’s verdict on Starmer’s voice as the unlikely bromance blossomed. 6. Rent license: Everyone pretended to know about housing law as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faced scrutiny for not having one of these when renting out the family home. 7. Rod fishing license: One for the real hardcore license fans. Then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy faced questions for fishing with U.S. Vice President JD Vance without the right paperwork. In a totally unconnected event, he was reshuffled to the justice department shortly after. 8. Board of Peace: Tony Blair was on the list of people to preside over a post-war Gaza … until he very much wasn’t. 9. Golden economic rule: The Conservatives’ shiny and instantly forgettable plan to restore credibility in managing the public finances. Perhaps the No. 1 rule should have been keeping Liz Truss out of No. 10?   10. Lawyer brain: Starmer was frequently accused of acting like a lawyer, not a leader. At least he had a fixed term back when he was chief prosecutor. 11. Liberation Day: Trump’s big old chart slapped global tariffs on allies and sent Whitehall into a tailspin … before a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) retreat on some of them. 12. The Andrew formerly known as Prince: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had to settle for a hyphenated surname after outrage about his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 13. Raise the colors: Politicians spent the summer showing how much they loved flags as Brits — including organized far-right groups — plastered the Union Jack on every lamppost and roundabout in sight. 14. Lucy Listens: Lucy Powell decided the best way to recover from getting sacked from government was to run for Labour deputy leader, win, and hear endlessly from irate Labour members. 15. Joe Marler: Health Secretary Wes Streeting compared himself to a rugby player from the Celebrity Traitors after he was accused of plotting to oust Starmer. Hanging out in a Scottish castle could be quite cushy if the running-for-PM thing doesn’t work out. 16. Driving the DLR: Starmer’s premiership was compared to steering the, er, driverless part of Transport for London. 17. Double Contributions Convention: National insurance became exciting for a brief second amid a row about the India trade deal. Let’s never make that mistake again. 18. Disruptors: What Starmer wants from his ministers. Alas, they slightly misinterpreted the memo and enjoyed disrupting his leadership instead of the Whitehall status quo. 19. Build Baby Build: Housing Secretary Steve Reed not only mimicked Trump’s words but also donned a red baseball cap. The merch was a treat at Labour conference, but it was all a bit cringe.  20. Trigger Me Timbers: Leaks from this imaginatively-named Labour WhatsApp group saw two MPs suspended for vile language. Remember, assume everything in a group is public.  21. Humphrey: Obviously the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in the classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  21. Humphrey: Obviously, the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  | David Zorrakino/Europa Press via Getty Images 22. Right to Try: A phrase describing a new guarantee for people entering work — and which might double up as a stirring campaign slogan for the PM. 23. Patriotic renewal: Get those flags out again as No. 10 presses the jargon button to describe what this whole government thing is about. 24. Thatcher Fest: The celebrations marking the centenary of the Iron Lady’s birth knew no bounds. 25. One in, one out: Britain and France struck a treaty for small boat crossings — until one returned migrant recrossed the English Channel to Blighty.   26. Zacktavist: A new generation of Greens got behind “eco-populist” leader Zack Polanksi — and could treat themselves to a mug with his face on for £7 a pop. 27. Yantar: Russia made its meddling against Britain known by deploying a spy ship into territorial waters … although it failed to remain incognito.   28. Two up, two down: Chancellor Rachel Reeves mooted increasing income tax by 2p and cutting national insurance by 2p … before (probably) realizing it would mark the end of her time in the Treasury. 29. Island of strangers: The PM channeled Reform with a speech on migration featuring this phrase. It was compared to former Tory MP Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech … and Starmer later retracted the whole thing. 30. Bob Vylan: A previously obscure rap duo was thrust into the spotlight after calling for “death, death to the IDF” [Israel Defence Forces] at Glastonbury. The BBC came under fire, because of course it did. 31. Persistent knobheadery: That’s one way for a Labour source to justify suspending the whip from four MPs. 32. Sexist boys’ club: Setting up a political party is harder than it looks. Who’d have thought it? Ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana’s tough words for her fellow independent MPs as the flailing Your Party launched meant some of them left anyway. All’s fair in love and war.   33. F**king suck it up: Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tough decisions in these colorful terms. Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tricky decisions in these colorful terms. | Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images 34. Three Pads Rayner: Angela Rayner’s tenure as deputy PM and, erm, housing secretary came to an abrupt end after she failed to pay the correct amount of property tax — but not before earning this moniker. 35. Further and faster: How did the government react to its local elections shellacking? By vowing to carry on in exactly the same way, albeit more intensely. 36. Phase Two: Starmer’s much-hyped fall reset of his government was followed by one calamity after another. Not too late for Phase Three! 37. Danish model: Ministers decided migration could be solved by copying Copenhagen. Anything for a trip to the continent.   38. The Liz Truss Show: Britain’s shortest-serving former prime minister used extra time on her hands to woo MAGAland with yet another political podcast. Cannot be unseen.   39. I rise to speak: MPs deploying this phrase gave an instant red flag that they may, just may, have used AI to help write their speeches.  40. Judge Plus: Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s assurance that her assisted dying bill still had plenty of legal safeguards, despite a High Court judge getting dropped from the process.   41. Pride in Place: After Boris Johnson’s “leveling up” (RIP), Labour tries a similar approach in all but name. 42. Waste Files: Elon Musk inspired a host of U.K. DOGE copycats keen to slash complex government budgets from their armchairs. 43. Project Chainsaw: No, Starmer isn’t suddenly a Javier Milei fan, but his government wanted to reshape the state — with some bandying about this subtle, civil service-spooking nickname. 44. Global headwinds: The ultimate euphemism for how the orange-colored elephant in the room changed everything.   45. Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention: Want Britain closer to the EU? Choose a trade agreement guaranteed to send even the most ardent Europhile to sleep. President Trump’s trade wars caused global headwinds throughout the year. | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images 46. Headphone dodgers: A nuisance to everyone, the Lib Dems went full throttle by pledging to fine the public transport irritants £1,000. It’s a wonder the party isn’t leading the polls. 47. StormShroud drones: All wars create an opportunity for futuristic tech that hopefully does what it says on the tin. 48. Return hubs: Ministers insist migration definitely isn’t getting outsourced to other countries by mooting third-party “processing” … something Albania won’t even take part in. See also: Deport Now, Appeal Later.  49. Far-right bandwagon: Starmer’s row with Musk reached a crescendo with the PM’s phrase lobbed at some proponents of an inquiry into grooming gangs operating in the U.K. 50. Impossible trilemma: Ahead of the budget, a top think tank warned that Reeves faced the unenviable task of meeting fiscal targets while sticking to spending promises and not raising taxes. No pressure. 51. Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister: Darren Jones’ prefect vibes were rewarded with a brand spanking new gig in the pre-shuffle right at the start of Phase Two. 52. Growth people feel in their pockets: One No. 10 press officer may have collected their P45 after publishing *that* press release. 53. Mainstream: This totally normal, nothing-to-see-here, soft-left Labour group definitely isn’t a vehicle for Andy Burnham’s return to Westminster.   54. Plastic patriots/plastic progressives: The synthetic material really got a kicking from Labour, who deployed the terms to slam Reform and the Greens respectively. Let’s hope voters have reusable bags. 55. Quint: Five lucky people (Starmer, Reeves, Lammy, Jones and Pat McFadden) who apparently decide how government operates. Great job, guys! 56. Hard bastard: The PM’s best effort to show he was “tough enough,” Ed Miliband-style. We all know how that ended.    57. Global Progress Action Summit: Progressives met in a desperate attempt to figure out how to avoid a trouncing from populists. More updates as we get them. 58. Contribution: Reeves’ framing of higher taxes, carefully sidestepping the fact that taxes aren’t optional. 59. Maintenance department: Deffo-not-future Labour leadership contender Wes Streeting’s description of how the party presents itself publicly. Stirring stuff. 60. Terminator: Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood earned an Arnie-inspired new nickname as she tried to show Labour is really, really tough on migration, honest. 61. Reverse Midas Touch: Anything the PM touches, including ID cards, is hit by this tragic affliction, according to his critics. 62. V levels: The natural successor to A and T level educational qualifications. Just a matter of time before there’s one for each letter of the alphabet. 63. Culturally coherent: Tory rising star Katie Lam’s justification for deporting legal migrants got her into some hot water. 64. 24/7 circus of sh*t: One former Tory aide’s pithy description of the Home Office. Who are the clowns? 65. Six seven: Nobody over the age of 11 understands this meme — yet the PM unleashed havoc in a classroom by joining in. 66. Civilizational erasure: America’s dystopian portrayal of what Europe is facing probably won’t feature in many tourist brochures. 67. Turning renewal into reality: Starmer’s ambition for next year in his final Cabinet meeting of 2025. Bookmark that one.

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the author of the award-winning “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. It was hardly the kind of peace and cheer one hopes to see leading up to Christmas. But on Dec. 7, the second Sunday of Advent, a collection of telecoms masts in Sweden were the site of a strange scene, as a foreign citizen turned up and began taking photographs. The case became widely known two days later, when the CEO of Teracom, a state-owned Swedish telecom and data services provider, posted an unusual update on LinkedIn: Company employees and contracted security had helped detain a foreign citizen, CEO Johan Petersson reported. They had spotted the foreigner taking pictures of a group of Teracom masts, which are sensitive installations clearly marked with “no trespassing” signs. After being alerted by the employees, police had arrested the intruder. “Fast, resolute and completely in line with the operative capabilities required to protect Sweden’s critical infrastructure,” Petersson wrote. But his post didn’t end there: “Teracom continually experiences similar events,” he noted. “We don’t just deliver robust nets — we take full responsibility for keeping them secure and accessible around the clock. This is total defense in practice.” That’s a lot of troubling news in one message: a foreign citizen intruding into an area closed to the public to take photos of crucial communications masts, and the fact that this isn’t a unique occurrence. Indeed, earlier this year, Swedish authorities announced they had discovered a string of some 30 cases of sabotage against telecoms and data masts in the country. How many more potential saboteurs haven’t been caught? It’s a frightening question and, naturally, one we don’t have an answer to. It’s not just communications masts that are being targeted. In the past couple years, there have been fires set in shopping malls and warehouses in big cities. There have been suspicious drone sightings near defense manufacturing sites and, infamously, airports. Between January and Nov. 19 of this year, there were more than 1,072 incidents involving 1,955 drones in Europe, and as a group of German journalism students have established, some of those drones were launched from Russian-linked ships. And of course, there has been suspicious damage to undersea cables and pipelines in the Baltic Sea and off the coast of Taiwan. I’ve written before in this publication that Russia’s goal with such subversive operations may be to bleed our companies dry, and that China seems to be pursuing the same objective vis-à-vis certain countries. But when it comes to critical national infrastructure — in which I could include institutions like supermarkets — we need them to work no matter what. Imagine going a day or two or three without being able to buy food, and you’ll see what I mean. The upside to Teracom’s most recent scare was that the company was prepared and ultimately lost no money. Because its staff and security guards were alert, the company prevented any damage to their masts and operations. In fact, with the perpetrator arrested — whether prosecutors will decide to charge him remains to be seen — Teracom’s staff may well have averted possible damage to other businesses too. Moving forward, companies would do well to train their staff to be similarly alert when it comes to saboteurs and reconnaissance operators in different guises. We can’t know exactly what kind of subversive activities will be directed against our societies, but companies can teach their employees what to look for. If someone suddenly starts taking pictures of something only a saboteur would be interested in, that’s a red flag. Indeed, boards could also start requiring company staff to become more vigilant. If alertness can make the difference between relatively smooth sailing and considerable losses — or intense tangling with insurers — in these geopolitically turbulent times, few boards would ignore it. And being able to demonstrate such preparedness is something companies could highlight in speeches, media interviews and, naturally, their annual reports. Insurers, in turn, could start requiring such training for these very reasons. After serious cyberattacks first took off, insurers paid out on their policies for a long time, until they realized they should start obliging the organizations they insure to demonstrate serious protections in order to qualify for insurance. Insurers may soon decide to introduce such conditions for coverage of physical attacks too. Even without pressure from boards or insurers, considering the risk of sabotage directed at companies, it would be positively negligent not to train one’s staff accordingly. Meanwhile, some governments have understandably introduced resilience requirements for companies that operate crucial national infrastructure. Under Finland’s CER Act, for instance, “critical entities must carry out a risk assessment, draw up a resilience plan and take any necessary measures.” The social contract in liberal democracies is that we willingly give up some of our power to those we elect to govern us. These representatives are ultimately in charge of the state apparatus, and in exchange, we pay taxes and obey the law. But that social contract doesn’t completely absolve us from our responsibility toward the greater good. That’s why an increasing number of European countries are obliging 19-year-olds to do military service. When crises approach, we all still have a part to play. Helping spot incidents and alerting the authorities is everyone’s responsibility. Because the current geopolitical turbulence has followed such a long period of harmony, it’s hard to crank up the gears of societal responsibility again. And truthfully, in some countries, those gears never worked particularly well to begin with. But for companies, however, stepping up to the plate isn’t just a matter of doing the right thing — it’s a matter of helping themselves. Back in the day, the saying went that what was good for Volvo was good for Sweden, and what was good for General Motors was good for the U.S. Today, when companies do the right thing for their home countries, they similarly benefit too. Now, let’s get those alertness courses going.

The Bank of England is set to cut interest rates on Thursday, after lower-than-expected inflation figures and signs of a weakening jobs market. Headline inflation slowed to 3.2 percent in November, from 3.6 in October, the Office for National Statistics said on Wednesday. That was the lowest since March and a much clearer drop than predicted by analysts, who had forecast a rate of 3.5 percent. “A cut tomorrow should be a no-brainer, with another to follow in February,” Peel Hunt chief economist Kallum Pickering said via social media, pointing to “No growth since summer, a labor market that is rapidly cooling, and a big downside surprise to inflation across the board in November.” The news comes only a day after labor market data from the ONS showed the unemployment rate rising to its highest level in over four years in October. The economy has struggled for growth in the second half of this year, after a sugar rush in the first quarter in which exporters rushed to get their goods to the U.S. before President Donald Trump could impose trade tariffs. The hangover from that — and the lingering uncertainty over the global economic outlook caused by Trump’s trade policy — has been severe. But at the same time, an unwelcome rise in inflation has stopped the Bank of England from cutting interest rates more quickly to support the economy. A raft of hikes in government- controlled prices such as energy bills and rail fares meant that inflation was rising for much of the year, leading it to peak at 3.8 percent in September. That was also partly due to companies passing on increases in labor costs due to a 6.7 percent hike in the National Living Wage and an increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions. Panmure Liberum chief economist Simon French said the wide range of goods and services now showing softening price trends showed that demand is now so weak that companies are having to absorb those price increases themselves instead. The government will be particularly relieved to have seen politically sensitive food prices, which have been a constant bugbear for the last couple of years, making the biggest contribution to the slowdown in inflation in November. Prices for clothing and footwear and for discretionary services such as restaurants and hotels also fell slightly. “As Christmas gifts go, this is a most welcome one,” said Danni Hewson, head of financial analysis at AJ Bell. “It’s the time of year when people put a few more things in their supermarket trolley, so news that food and alcohol inflation has fallen will be a boon for cash-strapped families.” The Bank has consistently said that inflation would fall once those factors passed out of the annual calculations, given that the underlying weakness of the economy. However, with the worst bout of inflation in half a century still fresh in everyone’s minds, it has been forced to keep the pace of policy easing “gradual and cautious”. Peel Hunt’s Pickering said that the scale of the slowdown could be enough to have some members of the Monetary Policy Committee voting for a half-point cut in the Bank Rate to 3.5 percent on Thursday. However, the consensus remains for a quarter-point cut to 3.75 percent. The pound still fell over half a cent against the dollar in response to the numbers, as traders penciled in more scope for easing next year, while the government’s borrowing costs in the bond market also fell.

This article is also available in French and German. President Donald Trump denounced Europe as a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people in an interview with POLITICO, belittling the traditional U.S. allies for failing to control migration and end the Russia-Ukraine war, and signaling that he would endorse European political candidates aligned with his own vision for the continent. The broadside attack against European political leadership represents the president’s most virulent denunciation to date of these Western democracies, threatening a decisive rupture with countries like France and Germany that already have deeply strained relations with the Trump administration. “I think they’re weak,” Trump said of Europe’s political leaders. “But I also think that they want to be so politically correct.” “I think they don’t know what to do,” he added. “Europe doesn’t know what to do.” Trump matched that blunt, even abrasive, candor on European affairs with a sequence of stark pronouncements on matters closer to home: He said he would make support for immediately slashing interest rates a litmus test in his choice of a new Federal Reserve chair. He said he could extend anti-drug military operations to Mexico and Colombia. And Trump urged conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, both in their 70s, to stay on the bench. Trump’s comments about Europe come at an especially precarious moment in the negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, as European leaders express intensifying alarm that Trump may abandon Ukraine and its continental allies to Russian aggression. In the interview, Trump offered no reassurance to Europeans on that score and declared that Russia was obviously in a stronger position than Ukraine. Trump spoke on Monday at the White House with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of The Conversation. POLITICO on Tuesday named Trump the most influential figure shaping European politics in the year ahead, a recognition previously conferred on leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Trump’s confident commentary on Europe presented a sharp contrast with some of his remarks on domestic matters in the interview. The president and his party have faced a series of electoral setbacks and spiraling dysfunction in Congress this fall as voters rebel against the high cost of living. Trump has struggled to deliver a message to meet that new reality: In the interview, he graded the economy’s performance as an “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” insisted that prices were falling across the board and declined to outline a specific remedy for imminent spikes in health care premiums. Even amid growing turbulence at home, however, Trump remains a singular figure in international politics. In recent days, European capitals have shuddered with dismay at the release of Trump’s new National Security Strategy document, a highly provocative manifesto that cast the Trump administration in opposition to the mainstream European political establishment and vowed to “cultivate resistance” to the European status quo on immigration and other politically volatile issues. In the interview, Trump amplified that worldview, describing cities like London and Paris as creaking under the burden of migration from the Middle East and Africa. Without a change in border policy, Trump said, some European states “will not be viable countries any longer.” Using highly incendiary language, Trump singled out London’s left-wing mayor, Sadiq Khan, the son of Pakistani immigrants and the city’s first Muslim mayor, as a “disaster” and blamed his election on immigration: “He gets elected because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.” The president of the European Council, António Costa, on Monday rebuked the Trump administration for the national security document and urged the White House to respect Europe’s sovereignty and right to self-government. “Allies do not threaten to interfere in the democratic life or the domestic political choices of these allies,” Costa said. “They respect them.” Speaking with POLITICO, Trump flouted those boundaries and said he would continue to back favorite candidates in European elections, even at the risk of offending local sensitivities. “I’d endorse,” Trump said. “I’ve endorsed people, but I’ve endorsed people that a lot of Europeans don’t like. I’ve endorsed Viktor Orbán,” the hard-right Hungarian prime minister Trump said he admired for his border-control policies. It was the Russia-Ukraine war, rather than electoral politics, that Trump appeared most immediately focused on. He claimed on Monday that he had offered a new draft of a peace plan that some Ukrainian officials liked, but that Zelenskyy himself had not reviewed yet. “It would be nice if he would read it,” Trump said. Zelenskyy met with leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom on Monday and continued to voice opposition to ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of a peace deal. The president said he put little stock in the role of European leaders in seeking to end the war: “They talk, but they don’t produce, and the war just keeps going on and on.” In a fresh challenge to Zelenskyy, who appears politically weakened in Ukraine due to a corruption scandal, Trump renewed his call for Ukraine to hold new elections. “They haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said. “You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.” Latin America Even as he said he is pursuing a peace agenda overseas, Trump said he might further broaden the military actions his administration has taken in Latin America against targets it claims are linked to the drug trade. Trump has deployed a massive military force to the Caribbean to strike alleged drug runners and pressure the authoritarian regime in Venezuela. In the interview, Trump repeatedly declined to rule out putting American troops into Venezuela as part of an effort to bring down the strongman ruler Nicolás Maduro, whom Trump blames for exporting drugs and dangerous people to the United States. Some leaders on the American right have warned Trump that a ground invasion of Venezuela would be a red line for conservatives who voted for him in part to end foreign wars. “I don’t want to rule in or out. I don’t talk about it,” Trump said of deploying ground troops, adding: “I don’t want to talk to you about military strategy.” But the president said he would consider using force against targets in other countries where the drug trade is highly active, including Mexico and Colombia. “Sure, I would,” he said. Trump scarcely defended some of his most controversial actions in Latin America, including his recent pardon of the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a decades-long sentence in an American prison after being convicted in a massive drug-trafficking conspiracy. Trump said he knew “very little” about Hernández except that he’d been told by “very good people” that the former Honduran president had been targeted unfairly by political opponents. “They asked me to do it and I said, I’ll do it,” Trump acknowledged, without naming the people who sought the pardon for Hernández. HEALTH CARE AND THE ECONOMY Asked to grade the economy under his watch, Trump rated it an overwhelming success: “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.” To the extent voters are frustrated about prices, Trump said the Biden administration was at fault: “I inherited a mess. I inherited a total mess.” The president is facing a forbidding political environment because of voters’ struggles with affordability, with about half of voters overall and nearly 4 in 10 people who voted for Trump in 2024 saying in a recent POLITICO Poll that the cost of living was as bad as it had ever been in their lives. Trump said he could make additional changes to tariff policy to help lower the price of some goods, as he has already done, but he insisted overall that the trend on costs was in the right direction. “Prices are all coming down,” Trump said, adding: “Everything is coming down.” Prices rose 3 percent over the 12 months ending in September, according to the most recent Consumer Price Index. Trump’s political struggles are shadowing his upcoming decision on a nominee to chair the Federal Reserve, a post that will shape the economic environment for the balance of Trump’s term. Asked if he was making support for slashing interest rates a litmus test for his Fed nominee, Trump answered with a quick “yes.” The most immediate threat to the cost of living for many Americans is the expiration of enhanced health insurance subsidies for Obamacare exchange plans that were enacted by Democrats under former President Joe Biden and are set to expire at the end of this year. Health insurance premiums are expected to spike in 2026, and medical charities are already experiencing a marked rise in requests for aid even before subsidies expire. Trump has been largely absent from health policy negotiations in Washington, while Democrats and some Republicans supportive of a compromise on subsidies have run into a wall of opposition on the right. Reaching a deal — and marshaling support from enough Republicans to pass it — would likely require direct intervention from the president. Yet asked if he would support a temporary extension of Obamacare subsidies while he works out a large-scale plan with lawmakers, Trump was noncommittal. “I don’t know. I’m gonna have to see,” he said, pivoting to an attack on Democrats for being too generous with insurance companies in the Affordable Care Act. A cloud of uncertainty surrounds the administration’s intentions on health care policy. In late November, the White House planned to unveil a proposal to temporarily extend Obamacare subsidies only to postpone the announcement. Trump has promised on and off for years to unveil a comprehensive plan for replacing Obamacare but has never done so. That did not change in the interview. “I want to give the people better health insurance for less money,” Trump said. “The people will get the money, and they’re going to buy the health insurance that they want.” Reminded that Americans are currently buying holiday gifts and drawing up household budgets for 2026 amid uncertainty around premiums, Trump shot back: “Don’t be dramatic. Don’t be dramatic.” SUPREME COURT Large swaths of Trump’s domestic agenda currently sit before the Supreme Court, with a generally sympathetic 6-3 conservative majority that has nevertheless thrown up some obstacles to the most brazen versions of executive power Trump has attempted to wield. Trump spoke with POLITICO several days after the high court agreed to hear arguments concerning the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, the automatic conferral of citizenship on people born in the United States. Trump is attempting to roll back that right and said it would be “devastating” if the court blocked him from doing so. If the court rules in his favor, Trump said, he had not yet considered whether he would try to strip citizenship from people who were born as citizens under current law. Trump broke with some members of his party who have been hoping that the court’s two oldest conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, might consider retiring before the midterm elections so that Trump can nominate another conservative while Republicans are guaranteed to control the Senate. The president said he’d rather Alito, 75, and Thomas, 77, the court’s most reliable conservative jurists, remain in place: “I hope they stay,” he said, “’cause I think they’re fantastic.”

PARIS — Foreign pensioners who dream of spending their retirement under the sun in the French Riviera might have to reconsider their plans if their free health care gets axed. France wants non-European Union pensioners who are currently benefitting from the public health care system to start paying for it. It’s a move that would particularly affect American retirees, who have flocked to one of Europe’s most generous welfare states not only for its food, scenery and culture, but also, in some cases, for its world-class free health care. “It is a matter of fairness,” François Gernigon, the lawmaker who put forward the proposal, told POLITICO. “If you are a French citizen and you move to the U.S., you don’t have reciprocity, you don’t benefit from free social security.” Under French law, non-working citizens from outside the EU who have a long-stay visa and can prove they have sufficient pension or capital revenue (more than €23,000 annually) as well as private health care insurance can, after three months, obtain a carte vitale, which gives them free access to public health care. At that point, they can annul their previous private health insurance and benefit from the French one. It’s become a popular choice for U.S. retirees in recent years. But a majority of French lawmakers wants to put an end to that situation and make them pay a minimum contribution. France wants non-European Union pensioners who are currently benefitting from the public health care system to start paying for it. | Stephane de Sakutin/AFP via Getty Images That idea already passed in two branches of the parliament this month during budgetary discussions, and could see the light as soon as next year as the government has also backed it. Gernigon said that even U.S. expats have told him they don’t find the current situation normal and that they are ready to contribute more. Under the latest version of the proposal, as modified by the French Senate, only non-EU citizens who are not paying taxes or contributing to other welfare programs in France would be required to pay the new minimum contribution. Lawmakers have not fixed the contribution amount as it will be up to the government to do it later. For Gernigon, the value could vary depending on the level of health care coverage, but it would still be cheaper than private insurance in the U.S. or abroad which, he said, costs around €300 to €500 per month. The debate comes as France struggles to cut spending and bring down its budget deficit to 5 percent of gross domestic product next year. Gernigon said he had not yet evaluated how much revenue these new contributions would raise, but acknowledged that his main goal is fairness rather than fixing France’s budget problems. “This is not what is going to fill the hole in the social security budget,” he said.

Hours after witnessing his party’s worst electoral drubbing in at least six years, President Donald Trump hosted Senate Republicans at the White House and demanded they ditch their chamber’s supermajority rules. “If you don’t terminate the filibuster, you’ll be in bad shape,” he told them over breakfast in the State Dining Room. It was classic Trump dominance theater, like many other occasions this year where he successfully muscled recalcitrant Republicans to confirm controversial nominees, support divisive policies and enact sweeping domestic policy legislation. But upon returning to the Capitol, the senators made it very clear: They planned to blow Trump off. One GOP senator, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, laughed out loud when asked about the anti-filibuster push. Welcome to the dawn of Trump’s lame duck era. Don’t expect an immediate stampede away from the president, according to interviews with GOP lawmakers and aides Wednesday — he remains overwhelmingly popular with GOP voters and is the party’s most dominant leader in a generation. Trump’s top political aide signaled Monday that the White House is not worried about a messy “family conversation” about the filibuster. But with Tuesday’s stunning election losses crystallizing the risks to downballot Republicans in 2026 and beyond, there are growing signs that lawmakers are contending with the facts of their political lives: He’ll be gone in just over three years, while they’ll still be around. The danger for the president is that if Trump can’t run roughshod over the thin GOP congressional majorities, it would leave him few legislative options given his scant interest in compromising with Democrats. One Republican already liberated from reelection concerns openly vocalized frustrations Wednesday as Trump pushed for the end of the filibuster — something many in the GOP fear would backfire soon enough once Democrats regain power. Retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Democrats’ victory margins Tuesday “a red flag to the GOP” and blasted Trump’s refusal to engage with the other party. “He has zero ability to work across the aisle,” he added. “He needs to face reality and learn how to talk to Democrats he can reason with.” Other House Republicans more quietly aired frustration with Trump’s approach to the record 37-day shutdown, which headed into the end of the congressional workweek with no clear end in sight. Many are privately signaling they’re prepared to break with Trump if he doesn’t allow Republicans to negotiate on an extension of the Obamacare insurance subsidies Democrats are demanding. Others blamed the president and his top budget aide, Russ Vought, for favoring hardball moves such as canceling blue-state transportation projects and firing federal employees that only served to cause Democrats to dig in further. One irate senior House Republican granted anonymity to speak candidly blamed Trump and Vought for spurring the shutdown with their unprecedented move to unilaterally rescind congressional funding over the summer through a so-called pocket rescission. “That decision is why we’re in this mess,” the Republican said. Democrats who on Wednesday finally found a bounce in their step after a year of infighting said it was no secret why Republicans were finally standing up to Trump over the filibuster after folding so many times before. “Last night’s results look like a recipe for them to lose the House and the Senate next fall,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “And they’re going to hand us a 50-vote majority gift-wrapped when we show up Day 1?” Trump on Wednesday night moved to buck up his faithful. “OUR MOVEMENT IS FAR FROM OVER — IN FACT, OUR FIGHT HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN!” he wrote in a Truth Social post with an upbeat video. That followed a day on defense, where GOP leaders conspicuously split with Trump on the reasons for the stunning Republican losses. Both Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune played down the Democratic victories, casting them as expected losses in blue states — never mind that the margins in New Jersey and Virginia far outstripped expectations and that Democrats also won big in Georgia, Mississippi and Pennsylvania. Trump, on the other hand, told senators at the breakfast that the shutdown played a “big role” in the GOP losses. Asked about that assessment, Johnson replied, “I don’t think the loss last night was any reflection about Republicans at all.” What GOP lawmakers do know is that there is a dramatic difference in their party’s performance in elections where Trump appears on the ballot versus the midterm and off-year contests where he’s not — no matter how many rallies he does or endorsements he doles out. They also know, third-term musings of questionable constitutionality aside, Trump will never run for office again — which had many acknowledging that, if not fully reckoning with, the fact it might not be a great idea to hew so closely to Trump’s agenda. “Trump drives turnout, and if he’s not on the ballot, the turnout is way down,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. Cornyn questioned whether the Tuesday elections “prove very much” and was one of the few GOP senators who said Wednesday he was newly open to considering changes to the filibuster after meeting with Trump. He could be considered the exception who proves the rule: Cornyn needs to stay in Trump’s good graces amid a fierce primary battle for reelection next year. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said voter dropoff in non-Trump years is “an issue for Republicans” and suggested the party should consider changing the filibuster to “do things that benefit the American public … secure the border, repair the damage done by Obamacare, transition to a system that works, secure elections.” But with Thune making clear the Senate’s rules aren’t changing — “I just know where the math is on this issue,” the majority leader said — Johnson put the focus on GOP voter behavior. “People need to understand: If you want to keep Trump’s agenda moving forward, you’ve got to come out in midterms,” he added. Discussion has ramped up among senators about not only changing the filibuster but also trying to pass a new party-line reconciliation bill under the budget rules the GOP used to enact their megabill this summer. The suggestion came up at the White House breakfast, according to senators. But there are huge obstacles to going down that road. The GOP still has a super-tight margin in the House, four senators can kill any party-line effort, Senate rules restrict what initiatives can be passed under budget rules and Republicans are far from united on what they would want to do with a reconciliation bill in the first place. James Blair, political director for Trump’s 2024 campaign and the RNC who now serves as a deputy White House chief of staff, rejected the notion that lawmakers will treat Trump as a lame duck in an interview for POLITICO’s “The Conversation.” “I don’t think Republicans are going to do that at all,” he said. “The president, you know, sort of has his way of communicating, but the senators have their way, and it’s a family at the end of the day.” Some GOP senators, he added, “have long relationships, and they hope somehow the Democrat fever will break one day. And I think the president’s view is, it’s not breaking.” Dasha Burns, Mia McCarthy and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the author of the award-winning “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. Over the past two years, state-linked Russian hackers have repeatedly attacked Liverpool City Council — and it’s not because the Kremlin harbors a particular dislike toward the port city in northern England. Rather, these attacks are part of a strategy to hit cities, governments and businesses with large financial losses, and they strike far beyond cyberspace. In the Gulf of Finland, for example, the damage caused to undersea cables by the Eagle S shadow vessel in December incurred costs adding up to tens of millions of euros — and that’s just one incident. Russia has attacked shopping malls, airports, logistics companies and airlines, and these disruptions have all had one thing in common: They have a great cost to the targeted companies and their insurers. One can’t help but feel sorry for Liverpool City Council. In addition to looking after the city’s half-million or so residents, it also has to keep fighting Russia’s cyber gangs who, according to a recent report, have been attacking ceaselessly: “We have experienced many attacks from this group and their allies using their Distributed Botnet over the last two years,” the report noted, referring to the hacktivist group NoName057(16), which has been linked to the Russian state. “[Denial of Service attacks] for monetary or political reasons is a widespread risk for any company with a web presence or that relies on internet-based systems.” Indeed. Over the past decades, state-linked Russian hackers have targeted all manner of European municipalities, government agencies and businesses. This includes the 2017 NotPetya attack, which brought down “four hospitals in Kiev alone, six power companies, two airports, more than 22 Ukrainian banks, ATMs and card payment systems in retailers and transport, and practically every federal agency,” as well as a string of multinationals, causing staggering losses of around $10 billion. More recently, Russia has taken to targeting organizations and businesses in other ways as well. There have been arson attacks, including one involving Poland’s largest shopping mall that Prime Minister Donald Tusk subsequently said was definitively “ordered by Russian special services.” There have been parcel bombs delivered to DHL; fast-growing drone activity reported around European defense manufacturing facilities; and a string of suspicious incidents damaging or severing undersea cables and even a pipeline. The costly list goes on: Due to drone incursions into restricted airspace, Danish and German airports have been forced to temporarily close, diverting or cancelling dozens of flights. Russia’s GPS jamming and spoofing are affecting a large percentage of commercial flights all around the Baltic Sea. In the Red Sea, Houthi attacks are causing most ships owned by or flagged in Western countries to redirect along the much longer Cape of Good Hope route, which adds costs. The Houthis are not Russia, but Russia (and China) could easily aid Western efforts to stop these attacks — yet they don’t. They simply enjoy the enormous privilege of having their vessels sail through unassailed. The organizations and companies hit by Russia have so far managed to avert calamitous harm. But these attacks are so dangerous and reckless that people will, sooner or later, lose their lives. There have been arson attacks, including one involving Poland’s largest shopping mall that Prime Minister Donald Tusk subsequently said was definitively “ordered by Russian special services.” | Aleksander Kalka/Getty Images What’s more, their targets will continue losing a lot of money. The repairs of a subsea data cable alone typically costs up to a couple million euros. The owners of EstLink 2 — the undersea power cable hit by the Eagle S— incurred losses of nearly €60 million. Closing an airport for several hours is also incredibly expensive, as is cancelling or diverting flights. To be sure, most companies have insurance to cover them against cyber attacks or similar harm, but insurance is only viable if the harm is occasional. If it becomes systematic, underwriters can no longer afford to take on the risk — or they have to significantly increase their premiums. And there’s the kicker: An interested actor can make disruption systematic. That is, in fact, what Russia is doing. It is draining our resources, making it increasingly costly to be a business based in a Western country, or even a city council or government authority, for that matter. This is terrifying — and not just for the companies that may be hit. But while Russia appears far beyond the reach of any possible efforts to convince it to listen to its better angels, we can still put up a steely front. The armed forces put up the literal steel, of course, but businesses and civilian organizations can practice and prepare for any attacks that Russia, or other hostile countries, could decide to launch against them. Such preparation would limit the possible harm such attacks can lead to. It begs the question, if an attack causes minimal disruption, then what’s the point of instigating it in the first place? That’s why government-led gray-zone exercises that involve the private sector are so important. I’ve been proposing them for several years now, and for every month that passes, they become even more essential. Like the military, we shouldn’t just conduct these exercises — we should tell the whole world we’re doing so too. Demonstrating we’re ready could help dissuade sinister actors who believe they can empty our coffers. And it has a side benefit too: It helps companies show their customers and investors that they can, indeed, weather whatever Russia may dream up.

LONDON — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stood by his chief finance minister after she admitted breaking housing rules when renting out her family home. Chancellor Rachel Reeves issued an apology late Wednesday night after an investigation by the Daily Mail newspaper found she’d failed to obtain a rental license when putting her home on the market after moving into Number 11 Downing Street with her family. The opposition Conservatives are calling for Reeves to quit, but Starmer said Wednesday that while “it is regrettable that the appropriate licence was not sought sooner,” he was “satisfied that this matter can be drawn to a close following your apology.” The timing of the row is particularly awkward for the prime minister, who recently lost his deputy Angela Rayner over a housing tax scandal. His government is also about to preside over a tricky budget that could see it junk a key economic pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT. In the exchange of letters, sent to the media just after 11 p.m. Wednesday, Reeves said there were “selective licensing requirements” in the Dulwich Wood ward of Southwark council where her home was located. “Regrettably, we were not aware that a licence was necessary, and so we did not obtain the licence before letting the property out.” The chancellor added: “This was an inadvertent mistake. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we took immediate action and applied for the licence.” Reeves said she had contacted the U.K.’s ethics watchdogs — Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards Laurie Magnus and Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Daniel Greenberg — to probe the matter. Writing back, Starmer said Magnus believed “further investigation is not necessary” as the Ministerial Code — which governs behavior of government reps in the U.K. — says “an apology is a sufficient resolution” in certain circumstances. But the opposition Tories, already seeking to pressure Reeves as the budget looms, leapt on the row. Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch said the PM “must launch a full investigation” and “show he has the backbone to act” if Reeves broke the law. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride doubled down Thursday morning, telling Sky News it wasn’t “good enough simply to try and brush it under the carpet” and saying Starmer needed to “accept that her position is not tenable.”

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: The economy. Though it’s one of the most important issues in politics, Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch’s finance-focused grilling of Prime Minister Keir Starmer was a curious choice, considering that the Home Office is facing disaster after disaster. Nevertheless: Rachel Reeves’ budget is under a month away, so speculation about what the chancellor will pull out of her red box is at fever pitch. The Tory leader asked if the PM “stood by” his promises not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT? These, of course, were in Labour’s landslide election-winning manifesto just last year. Watch and wait: The PM, you won’t be surprised to read, skirted around the query, stressing the government would “lay out their plans” next month. “Well, well, well, what a fascinating answer,” Badenoch cried after leaping to her feet. She asked the same question in July and, back then, got a one-word answer in the affirmative. “What’s changed in the past four months?” Expectation management: Quite reasonably, Starmer said that “no prime minister or chancellor will ever set out their plans in advance.” But the PM laid the groundwork for Reeves’ pledge possibly being breached — and blaming the Tories. The economic figures, he said, “are now coming through and they confirm that the Tories did even more damage to the economy than we previously thought.” Expect this claim to be repeated. Lightbulb moment: Badenoch mentioned a number of the policies she announced at Conservative conference earlier this month. “We have some ideas for him,” she said about improving the economy, to cries of horror from Labour backbenchers, calling for the abolition of stamp duty.  “Why didn’t they do it then in 14 years in office?,” Starmer shot back, briefly forgetting he was meant to be answering the questions. Broken record: When the economy’s the topic of the day, familiar lines come out to play. The PM condemned the Tories’ record on austerity, their “botched Brexit deal,” and, you’ve guessed it, Liz Truss’ mini-budget. “We’ll take no advice or lectures on the economy,” the PM cried. “They won’t be trusted on the economy for generations to come.” The originality here is exceptional. Cross-party consensus: Badenoch ensured she wasn’t left out, claiming the last government reduced inflation and improved growth. “The truth is they have no ideas,” the Tory leader crowed, as she called for the parties to work together on welfare spending. Starmer didn’t accept that definite request in good faith, stressing that the Tories broke the economy and “they have not changed a bit.” Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney MP Nick Smith slammed off-road bikers running riot under the Tories and asked the PM to praise Labour’s support for the police. Starmer did exactly that. The men and women in blue have never been so grateful. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 7/10. Badenoch 6/10. The Tory leader’s economic focus in a week when a man deported to France returned across the English Channel and a sex offender due for deportation was mistakenly released from jail for 48 hours remains an odd decision. Despite the government’s numerous economic challenges, the carnage over the U.K.’s border presented an open goal for the Tories. Though the Tory leader forced Starmer not to repeat his previous economic pledges, she wasn’t able to capitalize on that weakness — meaning no clear winner emerged.

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s gone all-in on digital identification for Brits. But while many MPs in the prime minister’s governing Labour Party back the idea in theory, there are plenty despairing at a botched communications strategy which they believe has set the wide-ranging policy up for a fall. Under Starmer’s plans, digital ID will be required for right-to-work checks by 2029. Ministers insist the ID — a second attempt to land ID cards for Brits after a botched first go under Tony Blair — won’t track people’s location, spending habits or online activity.  Yet Labour MPs feel a more sellable emphasis on improving people’s experience of public services has gotten lost. Instead, Starmer’s government — with populist right-winger Nigel Farage breathing down its neck — has attempted to link the plan to a migration crackdown. “It’s a no-brainer,” said Labour MP Allison Gardner, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for digital identity. “It absolutely will make people’s lives easier, more secure [and] give them more control over their data. We need to explain it better to people, so that they understand that this is for them, and it’s not being done to them.” HARD SELL  A consultation on the plans will be launched by the end of 2025, before legislation next year. The government’s huge majority means it’s highly likely to become law — but there’s a potentially bumpy road ahead. Two decades after Blair’s New Labour first proposed plastic identity cards, Starmer wants to finish the job, pitching a plan to make digital ID mandatory for right-to-work checks as a way to deter irregular migration. Yet the sweeping change, announced on the eve of Labour conference, didn’t get a mention in Starmer’s setpiece speech — and notably didn’t appear in the party’s election manifesto. “The announcement hasn’t been handled well,” admitted a pro-digital ID Labour MP granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Our argument for it keeps changing but none of it is full-throated enough.” The messaging has shifted since the initial push, too. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” That was only after a drop in poll ratings for the idea. A petition against it has meanwhile racked up close to three million signatures. The shapeshifting rhetoric — painting digital ID first as a necessary inconvenience before calling it vital for state efficiency — caused some heads to spin. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” | Andy Rain/EPA “The government communication … has not learned from the mistakes made when digital ID was proposed 20 years ago,” said a second Labour MP, who thought the focus on immigration meant ministers weren’t “talking about the benefits it brings ordinary British citizens.”  Red flags have also been also waved over compulsory right-to-work checks, given only the very wealthiest Brits never need to work — making it de facto mandatory. “There’s been a kneejerk reaction, particularly to the word mandatory, which I think British people have naturally reacted against,” admitted Gardner, who argues voters should have a choice about using the scheme. “It’s a little bit of a bandwagon people have latched on to, to actually derail the entire concept.”  Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration”  but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” Analysis by the New Britain Project think tank, shared with POLITICO, shows that Google searches for digital ID were elevated for around three weeks after the announcement compared to the typical one day spike for most policies. Interest dwarfed other decisions too, with peak search traffic for digital ID 20 to 50 times higher than any other flagship policy terms in the last year. Nigel Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration” but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” | Neil Hall/EPA Longstanding Labour MP Fabian Hamilton highlights the dilemma of digital ID: “Nobody likes compulsion, and it will only work if everybody has to have it.” Despite Kendall expressing optimism about a digital key unlocking “better, more joined-up and effective public services,” Hamilton argues that prioritizing migration in the messaging is too simplistic. “I’m sorry to say that the legal migration is tilting the head at a certain part of the electorate that are very concerned about illegal migration and the tabloids,” he argues. NO SILVER BULLET  Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. Right-to-work checks already exist in the U.K., with employees required to show documentation like a letter with their national insurance number. “It may be helpful, but obviously it won’t affect fundamental factors [driving people to the U.K.] of family links or English language,” warns former Home Office Permanent Secretary Philip Rutnam. He believes the most challenging part of the scheme will be “establishing the status of many people beyond doubt” given some residents may not have formal ID. “There are millions of people whose status it may bring into question,” Rutnam says. “Their status may not be what they have understood it to be.” Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. | Tolga Akmen/EPA That’s sparked fears among some in Westminster of another Windrush scandal. That debacle saw some people who emigrated to Britain as part of a post-Second World War rebuilding effort later denied rights and, in the most extreme cases, deported under a scattershot Home Office clampdown.  “We need to be very, very careful,” warns former U.K. Border Force Director-General Tony Smith. Smith says digital ID is “not a panacea,” and warns illegal working is likely to remain because unscrupulous employers won’t suddenly become law-abiding. TECH TROUBLES The British government’s ability to handle such a vast amount of sensitive data securely is also far from certain. Kendall has stressed that the data behind digital ID won’t be centralized and says individuals will be able to see who has accessed their information. That’s not enough for skeptics.  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. “The track record’s not been great,” Smith warns. “You are trying to turn round a huge tanker in the ocean here, and I do worry that we haven’t perhaps got the necessary gear.”  Rutnam agrees digital ID will be a “very demanding administrative exercise” that politicians need to understand is “complex and inherently risky.”  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. | Andy Rain/EPA Perhaps more damning for digital ID’s support among the Labour faithful is anxiety about future governments using the information malevolently. “Faith in our institutions of government and of the state is at an all-time low,” says Hamilton, citing a “bizarre situation” where some Brits lump digital ID in with Covid-19 vaccines as a government conspiracy. One Labour MP vehemently opposed to digital ID says ministers are so far failing to consider “what happens when we’re gone” and warns any safeguards “can be unpicked” by subsequent administrations. Starmer has spoken about digital ID as a positive alternative to rifling through drawers looking for “three bills when you want to get your kids into school or apply for this or apply for that.” “F*ck you,” the anonymous Labour MP above said in response. “I can’t believe that. Is that the best you’ve got for giving away fundamental rights?” Still, Gardner is pleading for colleagues not to block this modern innovation: “We are at risk of throwing a very, very good baby out with the bathwater if we resist this and just keep ourselves in the dark ages.” Emilio Casalicchio and Dan Bloom contributed to this report.