WARSAW — Poland’s political crisis deepened on Tuesday as nationalist President Karol Nawrocki launched a bitter attack on pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk amid a furor over the politicization of judges at the country’s Constitutional Tribunal.

In increasingly heated exchanges, Nawrocki accused Tusk of using the court dispute for an illegal power grab, while Tusk defended his actions as vital to preserving the rule of law in the EU’s sixth-largest economy.

The long-running but highly charged judicial dispute dates back more than a decade and centers on the political appointment of judges at the top court by the previous administration of the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party that was in power until 2023.

Tusk’s government and the European Commission have insisted the court must be overhauled to conform with EU norms on impartiality, and on Friday suspended the court’s president and his deputy.

On Tuesday, eight judges elected by the current ruling majority led by Tusk convened the court and declared they had sufficient numbers to resume its long-stalled work.

Hitting back, Nawrocki used the televised opening of a National Security Council meeting, attended by Tusk and other political leaders, to attack the prime minister. Tusk was not given a chance to respond while the cameras were on.

“Full responsibility for every police officer outside the tribunal, for all the illegal actions, including suspending judges and issuing unlawful orders, lies with one man who is present in this room — Prime Minister Donald Tusk,” Nawrocki said, referring to Friday’s confrontations in front of the tribunal.

“I expect [the prime minister] to rein in his government’s ambitions and put an end to the illegal actions of his representatives inside the Constitutional Tribunal,” Nawrocki added.

Earlier, Tusk had accused Nawrocki of escalating the conflict and called on him to end his opposition to the judges elected by parliament.

“The president has a chance, and I hope he takes it, to stop attacking lawfully elected tribunal judges and allow them to work,” Tusk said before a Cabinet meeting.

Tusk also accused Moscow of exploiting Poland’s political turmoil and urged politicians not to become “useful idiots” as the squabble over the court’s fate intensifies.

As the National Security Council meeting ended, Tusk reiterated his main points on the tribunal but adopted a more conciliatory tone, offering Nawrocki a one-on-one meeting to “think about how to reduce tension.”

But he also said he was pleased that the “situation was stabilizing,” alluding to the fait accompli of the tribunal having resumed work. 

The feud over the tribunal is hardening Poland’s political divisions ahead of the 2027 parliamentary election, bringing a previously divided array of factions on the nationalist right into closer alignment against Tusk. For the prime minister, the crisis also serves as an opportunity to consolidate the voter base ahead of the election.

The eight judges elected by the current parliamentary majority held a general assembly Tuesday afternoon under Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, the judge who assumed control of the court Friday. Nawrocki and the right-wing camp do not recognize her authority.

The president also keeps refusing to swear in five of the eight judges. Instead, they took their oaths in the parliament in a ceremony that Nawrocki contends was null and void.

The eight voted to recognize themselves as a quorum, arguing that only 12 of the court’s 15 judges were eligible to participate after Korwin-Piotrowska temporarily suspended PiS-linked Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski and his deputy Bartłomiej Sochański. A third PiS-era appointee, Jarosław Wyrembak, occupied an improperly filled seat.

That reduced the required two-thirds quorum from 10 to eight, although Święczkowski and his political allies rejected his suspension and the quorum calculation.

The judges unanimously approved the tribunal’s draft budget for 2027 and drew names for disciplinary panels to consider proceedings against Święczkowski and Sochański.

WARSAW — The battle over who rules Poland is being fought in front of a cream-colored palace in central Warsaw — surrounded by police and protesters — that houses the country’s top constitutional court.

Liberal, pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk wants to roll back changes to the Constitutional Tribunal made by the previous nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party government, while President Karol Nawrocki is fighting — even physically — to keep the PiS-aligned judges in charge.

The government insists the court must be overhauled to restore rule of law and conform with EU norms on impartiality, while Nawrocki’s supporters accuse Tusk of backing a coup.

The clash comes to a head on Tuesday, when the eight judges backed by Tusk’s ruling parliamentary coalition plan to hold a meeting to approve the tribunal’s budget and consider disciplinary proceedings against its president, Bogdan Święczkowski, and his deputy, Bartłomiej Sochański.

They need a quorum of 10 of the court’s 15 judges to be present — meaning they need to peel away at least two justices chosen under the previous PiS government that ruled from 2015 to 2023.

The fight over the control of the tribunal is helping bring right-wing opposition parties together ahead of next year’s parliamentary election.

The crowd outside the tribunal protesting against Tusk’s government included PiS co-founder Jarosław Kaczyński alongside Grzegorz Braun, an extreme-right Polexit campaigner and antisemite whom Kaczyński had previously ruled out governing with. This time round, they took a selfie. Other right-wing leaders at the rally included former Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and libertarian Sławomir Mentzen.

“There are plenty of differences between our programs. But ending Prime Minister Tusk’s government is the fundamental common goal,” Anna Bryłka, vice president of Mentzen’s Confederation party, told POLITICO.

Tusk’s Civic Coalition leads POLITICO’s Poll of Polls, but its smaller partners might not make it into the next parliament, opening the way for PiS and other right-wing parties, provided their leaders are able to work together.

The scale of the crisis could also galvanize Tusk’s supporters, who have been disappointed by the government’s failure to move rapidly to restore the rule of law.

“These elections will be crucial for Polish democracy. If a [right-wing] coalition came to power, they would eliminate independent institutions that could hold them to account, and take Poland out of the European Union, something they have openly discussed,” Borys Budka, a Civic Coalition member of the European Parliament and a former justice minister, told POLITICO.

Kaczyński last week raised the possibility of a Polexit.

“The crisis does provide an opportunity for both sides to sort of rally around one or the other,” said Ben Stanley, a political scientist with Warsaw’s SWPS University.

Troubled tribunal

The crisis dates back over a decade.

In October 2015, the Civic Platform-led parliamentary majority elected five Constitutional Tribunal judges — three to fill existing vacancies and two for seats coming open after a parliamentary election set for December. It was an attempt to do an end-run around PiS, which was leading in the polls and which won the election.

Although the tribunal later ruled that the two extra judges were improperly chosen, the new PiS majority went much further by declaring all five selections void, electing five replacements and having them sworn in by PiS-aligned President Andrzej Duda.

The legitimacy of the three new justices chosen to replace the properly elected ones was called into question.

“An independent Constitutional Tribunal is an obstacle to authoritarian rule. That is why Kaczyński began dismantling the judiciary in 2015 by targeting the tribunal first. If he returned to power, he would do exactly the same thing,” Budka said.

Over the following eight years, PiS reshaped the court through contested judicial appointments, leadership changes and procedural restrictions. In December 2025, the EU’s top court ruled that the tribunal did not meet the standards of an independent and impartial court because of irregularities in appointments made a decade earlier.

Tusk returned to power in 2023 promising to restore the rule of law, but his efforts were thwarted by Duda and Nawrocki, who won the presidency in 2025 with PiS’s backing. 

The immediate crisis stems from Nawrocki’s decision to pick and choose which of the eight judges appointed by the parliament he would swear in — which critics say is blatant violation of the constitution.

Święczkowski, the tribunal’s president, refused to let the new judges into the court’s building.

On Friday, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, citing her status as the judge with the longest service, suspended Święczkowski and his deputy Sochański.

Nawrocki reacted by abandoning an official trip to Senegal and turning his flight around over Spain on Friday to return to Warsaw. He arrived at the tribunal at 1 a.m. on Saturday. Footage showed him forcing his way in past Korwin-Piotrowska. The president’s camp insists it was Korwin-Piotrowska and other judges who had made unlawful physical contact with the president.

Święczkowski, who vows to come to the Tribunal’s gates daily to demand to be let in, insists he remains president and rejects the authority of the judges seeking control.

“Resolving the conflict is simple and possible without constitutional changes,” Tusk wrote Monday. He said Nawrocki should recognize judges lawfully elected by parliament, as required by the constitution, and allow them to take up their duties at the tribunal.

Tusk also accused Nawrocki of choosing a confrontation that could cost Poland dearly. He added that the democratic state would not yield to violence, regardless of “how powerful the external forces” supporting PiS and the far right might be.

The right hopes to use the crisis to oust Tusk.

“The solution is very simple. You resign, the president calls a new election and the people decide … You will not intimidate us, and we will not back down,” PiS deputy leader Przemysław Czarnek responded.

Zbigniew Bogucki, the head of Nawrocki’s chancellery, on Monday called the conflict “a battle for Poland’s democracy.”

Stanley, the political scientist, said the tussle over the control of the tribunal may only temporarily unite right-wing parties.

“There’s a narrative that has started to emerge that this is now the moment when everyone gets behind Nawrocki and PiS but there’s a lot of time to go until the next election,” he said. “And these are parties which are in many respects even more ideologically heterogeneous than the current governing coalition parties.”

BRUSSELS — NATO countries are bracing for a worst-case scenario in the U.S. midterm elections Tuesday.

European allies fear a Republican loss could spur President Donald Trump to dramatically step up his attacks on the alliance, according to five NATO diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely on the sensitive issue.

Their worry is that if he is restrained by Congress on domestic policy, Trump, as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, may seek to cement his legacy on foreign affairs, where he has a freer hand. That could mean pulling thousands more troops out of Europe, three of the diplomats said.

“Usually what happens to lame duck presidents is a mix of venting frustrations and adventurism in foreign policy,” said one senior European defense official. And attacking NATO “seems to be a consistent part of [the] Trump worldview.”

White House Assistant Press Secretary Olivia Wales told POLITICO that “President Trump has done more for NATO than anyone else,” citing his successes in securing agreements by allies to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, bolster U.S. military presence in Greenland, and efforts to end Russia’s all-out war in Ukraine.

Yet he “remains firm that our NATO allies should have been there for the United States” over the war in Iran, she said, adding: “The President will never settle for the West’s managed decline and will continue to unapologetically advance our interests at home and abroad.”

Democrats are widely expected to win the House of Representatives and potentially flip the Senate, while Trump’s personal approval ratings have fallen to his lowest on record.

The worries underscore growing transatlantic tensions after a U.S. cutoff of Starlink satellite services for Ukraine and a fresh rapprochement between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin weeks before the midterms. Further attacks would deal a fresh blow to NATO, just as Russia steps up its sabotage campaign and so-called hybrid war across Europe.

“He could be very pissed off,” said one of the NATO diplomats. If so, “he’ll be very harsh.”

Forces, money and Ukraine

At the heart of the concerns is an upcoming review of U.S. forces in Europe, expected by December. If Trump is blocked from legislating domestically, he may seek to significantly increase the scope of that pullback to rally his MAGA base, three of the diplomats said. 

The president could also decide to tie continued American presence on the continent to Europe accepting a U.S.-backed peace deal in Ukraine, said Oana Lungescu, a former NATO official and distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank.

“There is a risk that all these things — the U.S. force posture review, Ukraine, European security order … somehow are treated as part of a much bigger deal with Putin,” she said, “creating a very dangerous situation for security in Europe.”

Trump could also move to cut U.S. contributions to the alliance’s common funding, limit the NATO-backed PURL arms-buying scheme for Ukraine, as well as deepen ties still further with Russia, the diplomats said.

A major electoral defeat for the Republicans could also spell big changes at the Pentagon, which would have knock-on effects for any plans currently being hatched in the building.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has become a deeply unpopular figure in Congress, given his refusal to provide regular briefings about budgets and operations to lawmakers, especially Democrats.

That unpopularity has led to speculation that Hegseth could be out after an electoral blowout for Trump, partially because a Democrat-led Congress would slap Hegseth with probes into his firing of dozens of generals and admirals with no cause, and the faltering war with Iran. Those hearings and investigations would hamstring Hegseth and his team, and could prove embarrassing for the administration.

If Hegseth does move on, there would be a transition period in the Pentagon which could push any decisions about moving U.S. troops out of Europe back by weeks or months.

In theory, a Democrat majority in the House and Senate would restrain Trump’s maneuverability even on foreign and defense issues, even if U.S. law currently imposes a minimum limit of 76,000 on troop presence in Europe. 

But “it is doubtful that at least the troop floors would stand up to legal scrutiny and in any case Trump has been very willing to ignore the courts,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at the Defense Priorities think tank. “The Trump administration has regularly ignored funding guidance from Congress, spending money on activities the legislative branch has not authorized.”

If Trump decides to impose a more sprawling drawdown, Europe will have “the most trouble” replacing assets including electronic warfare capabilities, air defense systems, intelligence and reconnaissance support, aerial refueling, and some types of logistics, she said.

Other allies are more skeptical Trump would hammer NATO. “We have had speculations all the time about Trump … coming out of the NATO; this has not happened so far,” Montenegrin Defense Minister Dragan Krapović told POLITICO. “Congress is the one making the decision, the final decision about less troops in Europe.”

But “to make assumptions with a high probability of success needs an object of study that makes rational decisions,” said a sixth NATO diplomat. “I don’t think we are there with the current POTUS.”

NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense did not respond to requests for comment by POLITICO.

MONTREAL, Canada — The European Union and Canada have agreed to build the closest possible relationship. Over the next six months, they will have to define what that means — and whether Canada can become the EU’s first, and perhaps only, associate member.

A summit in Montreal last week highlighted the urgency behind the budding relationship. Both sides say their partnership is positive and not directed against any country. But it is also driven by mutual need: to shore up supply chains, pool expertise and reduce reliance on the United States and China.

Mark Carney told POLITICO in an interview straight after the summit that the two sides should not be tailoring their partnership to cope with the potential reactions of other powers. “We’re not adjusting [based on] what the U.S. might think, what China might think, what … Russia might think,” he said. The goal, the Canadian prime minister explained, is to help both sides “withstand shocks” and prevent rivals from exploiting critical dependencies.

The test of that plan comes in six months, when the European Commission will meet with the Canadian government to see what progress has been made. One diplomat involved in the talks, granted anonymity to speak freely, said the meeting, which will be held in March before next year’s EU-Canada summit in Brussels, should make clear how far the relationship can develop and whether Ottawa is really on track for associate membership.

In the months ahead, there will be plenty of issues that could distract EU leaders. Governments must negotiate the bloc’s next seven-year budget, amid deep divisions over its size and spending priorities. Plus, a series of elections in some of the EU’s biggest countries, including Spain, France, Italy and Poland, will make concentrating on Canada a tall order.

Deal first, definition later

The joint declaration signed in Montreal commits both sides to defining the concept of “associate membership” by their 2027 summit. In the meantime, they have a slate of agreements and work plans to put into practice.

That includes a digital trade agreement and a competition deal signed in Montreal, plus Canada’s participation in the EU’s high-performance computing partnership. They also agreed on a new framework for cooperation between EU border force Frontex and the Canada Border Services Agency. Ottawa said it intends to join the EU’s Ukraine Support Loan facility.

The declaration sets out further work on critical raw materials and energy, including a feasibility study into long-term liquefied natural gas exports to Europe and exploring ways to jointly stockpile strategic resources. It also calls for cooperation on subsea cables, artificial intelligence and research, closer financial links, Arctic security, and disaster response. Canada and the EU will begin talks on deeper Canadian participation in Erasmus+, the EU’s education and youth program.

The summit also saw the launch of the Alliance for the Future, a broader partnership plan that could eventually include Japan, South Korea and Australia. It aims to build resilient supply chains and coordinate on economic security, so partner nations do not inadvertently harm one another with trade measures as they respond to Chinese overcapacity and U.S. tariffs.

But that could be easier said than done, with both Europe and Canada keen to avoid breaching World Trade Organization rules with their arrangements.

That concern is already visible in the debate over “Buy Canadian” and the EU’s proposed “Made in Europe” rules, both of which seek to favor homegrown suppliers. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in Montreal that Brussels intends to ensure Canada is not disadvantaged by the EU’s Industrial Accelerator Act — proposed legislation encouraging European businesses to go greener through subsidies and payment schemes. The ball is now in Carney’s court to offer similar assurances to European businesses under Buy Canadian.

Semantics breakdown

The summit’s biggest political snag came down to two words.

Von der Leyen opened the door to Canada becoming the EU’s first “associate member” in her State of the Union speech in September. But Germany blocked the term from being included in the joint declaration, saying the concept is vague and undefined. Other EU capitals said they also wanted to know what the arrangement would entail before fully committing to it.

The wrangle over the label overshadowed the substance of the summit and visibly frustrated both Carney and the European contingent. Asked about Germany’s objections, Carney told POLITICO it was “a very internal European issue.”

The dispute highlights Ottawa’s challenge: even if the Canadian government and the Commission agree on a plan, any formal arrangement must navigate 27 EU governments with their own concerns, pet industries and foibles.

The real reason for Berlin’s opposition remains unclear, with one EU diplomat describing the kerfuffle as an “embarrassment.”

One theory among senior EU officials and diplomats is that Germany was smarting because it wanted the term to be used for Ukraine earlier this year — only for other EU countries and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself to reject the idea.

The Le Pen test

The EU-Canada partnership is meant to rest on shared, centrist values. But what happens if political shifts in the EU’s two largest countries change what underpins the friendship?

The French presidential election in April could bring Marine Le Pen to power, while the Alternative for Germany has made gains in successive regional elections.

Carney told POLITICO he would work with whichever leaders voters choose, while drawing a line between cooperation and agreement. “My responsibility is to work with, whether it’s provincial premiers or leaders of other countries, in the best interest of Canada,” he said. But he added that “working with and having agreement on are two different things.”

Carney said democratic outcomes could change Europe’s priorities, but argued that cooperation could still deepen.

The six-month stocktake will show whether that confidence holds.

The European Commission has reiterated that Poland’s parliament must have the right to appoint new judges, lending support to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in an escalating confrontation over the country’s Constitutional Tribunal.

The dispute pits Tusk’s government against President Karol Nawrocki over efforts to reverse judicial changes introduced by the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) government between 2015 and 2023, which drew condemnation from European courts over concerns about judicial independence.

Nawrocki, elected with PiS backing in 2025, has refused to swear in some Tribunal judges elected by the current parliamentary majority, while the court’s PiS-linked leadership has prevented them from working.

The Commission said it was closely monitoring developments and, in a carefully worded statement to POLITICO, appeared to show support for Tusk’s position.

“The Polish Constitutional Tribunal needs to be able to function in accordance with the Polish constitution and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU,” Commissioner for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law Michael McGrath said.

“This matters for every Polish citizen, and it is for the Polish authorities to ensure that,” McGrath added, stating that “the Venice Commission has been clear that appointing the new judges lies within the power of the Sejm [Poland’s lower house of parliament].”

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk vowed Saturday night not to back down on the dispute. “In some matters there can be no compromise,” Tusk said in an address to the nation, comparing calls for reconciliation to a thief demanding to keep half the contents of a stolen handbag.

“We have waited too long for the treasure of an independent, democratic Poland to be frightened into retreat,” Tusk said.

The prime minister also targeted Nawrocki, who turned his plane around mid-flight en route to Senegal and returned to Warsaw, where he pushed his way into the Tribunal shortly after midnight Saturday, confronting judges challenging its leadership.

“In a state governed by the rule of law, a politician cannot enter a court or tribunal and give orders or intimidate judges, even if he is the president,” Tusk said.

He pledged to ensure the Tribunal could operate independently and safely.

In his statement to POLITICO, McGrath stopped short of endorsing Friday’s suspension of Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski and his deputy Bartłomiej Sochański, a move that triggered the latest spat.

Judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, taking charge of the Tribunal, suspended Święczkowski and Sochański after they blocked judges elected by the Tusk-led parliamentary majority from work for months. 

Nawrocki denounced the move as an unlawful takeover and held talks with parliamentary leaders Saturday, boycotted by Tusk’s Civic Coalition and its government ally, the New Left.

Korwin-Piotrowska has convened an assembly of Tribunal judges for Tuesday, potentially setting up another confrontation over who controls the court.

Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report.

WARSAW — Polish President Karol Nawrocki forced his way into the Constitutional Tribunal in Warsaw shortly after midnight on Saturday, in the latest escalation of the rule-of-law tussle between the PiS-allied president and Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

A video published overnight showed Nawrocki pushing through people gathered at the court’s entrance, including Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, the judge whose disputed nomination as the court’s acting president triggered the crisis on Friday.

Another judge of the top court, Maciej Berek, accused the president of physically confronting Korwin-Piotrowska. Presidential aide Rafał Leśkiewicz claimed it was the judges, whom he called “usurpers,” who had obstructed and manhandled Nawrocki.

Inside, Nawrocki told Korwin-Piotrowska and other judges that were recently elected by Tusk’s parliamentary majority: “You are not judges [of the Tribunal].”

The confrontation marked a dramatic escalation in the struggle between Nawrocki and Tusk’s government over how to reverse judicial changes introduced under the former nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) government.

Korwin-Piotrowska suspended the court’s president Bogdan Święczkowski and his deputy Bartłomiej Sochański — both named by PiS and seen as loyalists — claiming authority to take over the court’s management. Święczkowski rejected the move.

In a statement issued around 5 a.m., Nawrocki accused the government of “forcibly seizing a constitutional institution”, demanded that police leave the court grounds and summoned emergency consultations with parliamentary parties for Saturday, citing a “threat to Poland’s internal security.”

Police remain deployed outside the tribunal, where PiS supporters had staged an anti-government protest camp for weeks.

The broader dispute stems from Tusk’s efforts to reverse controversial moves by former PiS governments to fill the court with judges aligned with the nationalist party. These efforts have met stiff resistance from PiS and Nawrocki, who refused to swear in some judges elected by the Tusk-led parliamentary majority.

The judges subsequently took oaths in parliament, in a ceremony Nawrocki considers null and void, while Święczkowski barred them from hearing cases.

Poland’s constitutional court descended into turmoil Friday evening as judges barred from hearing cases moved to oust the institution’s nationalist-linked leadership, sparking accusations of a coup and tense protests.

Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, a judge with the court, ordered its president Bogdan Święczkowski and his deputy to be suspended for a month and announced she was taking charge. Święczkowski rejected her authority, accusing those involved of a “coup d’état,” while his deputy was turned away at the building’s gates.

The showdown marks an escalation in Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s struggle to undo the judicial overhaul carried out by the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) former government. During its eight years in power, PiS filled the Constitutional Tribunal with its appointees, including Święczkowski and his deputy, placing it at the heart of Poland’s confrontation with Brussels over the rule of law.

Outside the tribunal, protesters clashed with police, who said objects had been thrown at officers and three people detained after climbing over the court’s fence. Police said they had deployed to maintain security following warnings of threats to judges and staff, but had not entered the building.

PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński took part in the protest and tried to force his way into the court building. He accused Tusk of staging a “coup” against the court and turning Poland into a “police state,” and demanded presidential intervention.

President Karol Nawrocki, a PiS ally and rival of Tusk, interrupted his official trip to Senegal, declaring, “At a moment like this, the president must be in Poland.”

Tusk was defiant. “Restoring the rule of law is our duty,” he wrote on X. “After years of PiS lawlessness, it’s a difficult, sometimes painful process that requires decisive action. There is no other way.”

The tribunal, which can strike down legislation, helped impose a near-total abortion ban under PiS and challenged the supremacy of EU law. Last December, the EU’s top court ruled that it failed to meet European standards of judicial independence.

But efforts to change the court’s makeup have met resistance. Nawrocki refused to swear in five judges elected by Tusk’s parliamentary majority. They took their oaths in parliament instead, but Święczkowski barred them from hearing cases.

Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek blamed the turmoil on Święczkowski, who he accused of turning the institution into his “private fiefdom” and preventing newly elected judges from doing their jobs.

“And now the judges have spoken,” Żurek told POLITICO.

Żurek, who also serves as Poland’s prosecutor general, said he submitted five requests to lift the immunity of Święczkowski and his deputy, backed by 50 volumes of case files. He defended Korwin-Piotrowska’s move as a decision by a legally appointed judge, insisting that the government had nothing to do with it.

Night falls in the European capital. Everything’s quiet, but the nightmares are about to begin.

Viktor Orbán’s ghost haunts the Schuman roundabout; ash from the bonfire of red tape covers the Justus Lipsius building; Ursula von der Leyen’s chief of staff, Björn Seibert, chases after staffers demanding to know what “associate membership” for Canada actually means; and MEPs tremble at the prospect of construction workers uncovering the skeletons of political intrigues past during renovations.

Scared? You should be.

Here’s our guide to who is terrified of whom in the Brussels bubble. 

Everyone is scared of Marine Le Pen

The person haunting EU diplomats, officials and lawmakers is French presidential front-runner Marine Le Pen. Will she really halve Paris’ contribution to the EU budget, as promised? Will she pull Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni away from the Brussels mainstream? And will she demand von der Leyen’s head?

The bubble had warmed (slightly) to the idea of Jordan Bardella in the Élysée Palace, after his years leading the National Rally’s European operation revealed a certain pragmatism toward Brussels — only for those hopes to be shattered when a Paris appeals court cleared Le Pen to be a candidate for the presidency.

The next ECB chief is scared of Jean-Luc Mélenchon

The European Central Bank president is the euro’s last line of defense against unorthodox national economic decisions — but that could be tested by French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who is on course to reach the runoff after vowing to set billions of euros of French debt “on fire.” His incendiary plan calls on the Frankfurt-based ECB to waive interest payments on a vast tranche of French bonds — an unorthodox, perhaps impossible, maneuver that critics warn could even see France kicked out of the euro.

Now that we know Christine Lagarde will step down as ECB president in February, what France’s presidential candidates want to do about its monumental debt pile will haunt the race for her successor, with Dutchman Klaas Knot and Spaniard Pablo Hernández de Cos as the two frontrunners.

Lobbyists are scared of ChatGPT

The number of amendments lawmakers have filed has exploded since generative AI arrived, with key EU laws now facing thousands of proposed text changes. Parliament officials don’t think it’s a coincidence, with some pointing to amendments written in suspiciously bot-like language, and others saying sometimes amendments cite legislation that does not even exist.

The growing pile of amendments is haunting lobbyists, parliamentary assistants and officials forced to track and sort through it all — along with the fear that AI could eventually replace them. Spare a thought, too, for the MEPs who may have to vote through the amendments one by one, with hands raised in plenary. 

Commission officials are scared of Austria’s Europe minister

Well-heeled Commission officials (and their families) are spooked by Austria’s Europe Minister Claudia Bauer, who has been leading a push to slash the Commission’s administration expenditure — which pays eurocrats’ salaries and offices — in the next seven-year budget. The campaign, backed by most EU capitals, resulted in an 8% cut to the admin budget in the latest budget proposal.

Bauer is so feared that EU officials joke they reduce their delegations’ size whenever they travel to Austria.

Jessika Roswall is scared of Stéphane Séjourné and Valdis Dombrovskis

Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall and her department have reason to fear industry boss Stéphane Séjourné, who is taking the lead on the upcoming Circular Economy Act, despite Roswall’s official title of Commissioner “for a Competitive Circular Economy.” Making matters spookier, Roswall’s environment department now shares the Breydel building with Séjourné’s internal market and industry department, setting the stage for some chilling corridor encounters as Roswall pushes for greater environmental protection while Séjourné prioritizes industrial growth.

Roswall is also under pressure from EU simplification chief Valdis Dombrovskis to cut red tape on several environmental laws. The Latvian commissioner, who oversees the omnibus packages, wants a deal before year-end. Meanwhile, the center-right European People’s Party continues to press the Commission to reopen laws on birds, habitats, and water — the EU’s oldest nature protection laws — so they can be simplified too.

Alexander Stubb is afraid of Kaja Kallas and António Costa

Kaja Kallas has not publicly addressed the call that Finnish President Alexander Stubb made to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, but the EU’s top diplomat has made clear she dislikes such outreach. Still, if Putin offered serious talks and concessions, Kallas would be the obvious person to answer: as coordinating EU foreign and security policy is her job. “Of course I will talk if such an opportunity presents itself,” she told Estonian media in September when asked about speaking with Putin or his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Also reaching for the phone: António Costa. EU diplomats note that the European Council president represents the bloc at the leaders’ level abroad. That institutional turf war may explain why Stubb stressed that he and Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Støre spoke only for their own countries — not for Europe.

Manfred Weber is scared of his own group …

What keeps the leader of the European People’s Party — Europe’s largest political family — up at night? Divisions within his own ranks. So far, Weber has kept a tight ship and wants to reunite his troops ahead of the 2029 EU election, which he is casting as a battle against the far right. But that may prove tricky as the EPP’s national delegations increasingly clash over whether to work with the far right or isolate them.

… and the group is scared of Ouarda Bensouag

Central to Weber’s strategy is Ouarda Bensouag, the group’s secretary-general and his chief of staff. One of his most trusted lieutenants, she has a reputation as a smart but ruthless operator who EPP staffers fear when crossing paths in the Parliament’s labyrinthine hallways.

No one is scared of the Parliament … but they should be

Parliament’s attempts to spook capitals over the next long-term budget have been borderline tragic so far: It keeps threatening to kill the budget, but nobody seems to care or believe it will.

They should care. When it comes time to pass the budget, 361 of 720 votes will be needed, and the margin could be razor-thin in a fragmented chamber that’s hostile to plans to pool farm and regional funds. The louder MEPs protest — and the longer the Council ignores them — the more determined they become to prove the threat is real.

By Max Griera, Gregorio Sorgi, Kathryn Carlson, Nick Vinocur, Jakob Weizman, Fiona McNally and Eliza Gkritsi

MONTREAL, Canada — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday she aims to bring EU-Canada relations to the “highest level possible,” touting potential associate member status in the bloc for Ottawa despite capitals having rejected the term a day earlier.

Von der Leyen’s overture comes on the eve of a landmark EU-Canada summit in Montreal where she and Prime Minister Mark Carney are due to announce plans for deeper cooperation against a backdrop of rising autocracy globally and unpredictable relations with U.S. President Donald Trump.

“Canada cannot become a full-fledged member of the EU because of geography, but we both want to bring our relationship to the highest level possible,” von der Leyen said in a speech hosted by the C.D. Howe Institute. “This is why we are discussing the idea of Canada becoming the first associate member of the European Union.”

No sooner had von der Leyen finished speaking than German Chancellor Friedrich Merz issued a statement saying that the EU and Canada were establishing an “Alliance for the Future” — without mentioning the associate member status. Germany has led the opposition to using the term, according to EU diplomats.

“We are fighting each other about a few words which von der Leyen pulled out of thin air,” one of those EU diplomats told POLITICO on Wednesday. “It’s a bit silly while we should have ambition and focus on other things. This is not our proudest moment.”

In a speech hours later on the sidelines of the summit, European Council President António Costa sought to bridge the divide by playing down the importance of the term.

“Tomorrow, the European Union and Canada will launch an Alliance for the Future of Europe,” he said in a nod to Merz’s statement and using the term preferred by Carney to describe the relationship.

“President von der Leyen has even put forward the bold idea of making Canada an ‘associate member’ of the European Union,” he said, noting “I share her ambition.”

“Whether that ends up being the term or not, one thing is clear: our partnership will be the closest, deepest and most unique of its kind,” he added.

The Commission president said in her speech that talks about associate membership would focus on deeper cooperation across AI, climate and energy policy, as well as bolstering shared work between the European Commission and the Canadian government as well as “Parliament to Parliament” and “Court to Court,” a reference to the European Court of Justice and Canada’s Supreme Court.

Such a status, she said, would be open “only to our closest partners outside of Europe, who are ready to open a new frontier together — and to chart the course together, to think beyond the terms of our partnership today, toward the most ambitious vision we can build.”

Von der Leyen’s use of the term associate membership — which she first mentioned in September — is likely to rub some EU capitals the wrong way after a group of countries led by Germany objected to including a reference to the term in a joint EU-Canada statement that was seen by POLITICO and is due to be published on Friday.

After days of talks, EU countries opted for softer language to describe the two sides’ future relations, including the “Alliance for the Future” — the term used by the Canadian side — as well as an “even closer association … short of full membership.”

EU diplomats have told POLITICO that while capitals support the broader aim of closer ties with Canada, they are wary of offering a status that has never been proposed before and whose legal contours remain undefined. Berlin had previously floated associate member status for Ukraine, including specific privileges such as observer status in the European Commission, but that effort was rejected.

Reacting to reports that EU countries would drop the “associate member” term, Carney said on Tuesday: “The good news is it doesn’t matter about specific names or nomenclature. What matters is the difference that it will make to the lives of Canadians … and Canada as a whole becoming a more independent, more sovereign nation, so we can live our lives as we choose.”

Both Carney and von der Leyen have cast this week’s summit as part of a broader effort to deepen ties at a time when both Ottawa and Brussels have clashed with the Trump administration, with von der Leyen warning in her speech about “deeper decay in the international order.”

“Alliances and assumptions that have enabled our prosperity and security are changing rapidly, and each nation or region is looking at how to secure its own interests and its own independence,” she said. “We can no longer let ourselves be shackled by the limits of the old-world order.”

This story has been updated. Camille Gijs contributed reporting from Brussels.

To read the full Q&A with Laura Codruța Kövesi, click here.

ATHENS — Ursula von der Leyen has not yet provided an in-person statement to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for its investigation into the procurement of coronavirus vaccines, according to an individual involved in the effort who was granted anonymity to speak freely.

In 2024, EPPO took over the Belgian-led probe into alleged criminal wrongdoing in connection with vaccine negotiations between the European Commission chief and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. Prosecutors have been investigating von der Leyen for “interference in public functions, destruction of SMS, corruption and conflict of interest,” according to legal documents seen by POLITICO.

Asked to respond to the assertion that von der Leyen has failed to provide a statement on the so-called Pfizergate affair, Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said: “The Commission has demonstrably cooperated extensively with EPPO to clarify facts and assess events.”

“This was always done on behalf of and with the full support of the President. The President has always been, and continues to be, very cooperative in answering to any open questions — within the limits of her duties and her availability as President of the Commission.”

In an interview with POLITICO, EPPO chief prosecutor Laura Codruța Kövesi, who wraps up her seven-year tenure on Friday, said she has on multiple occasions dealt with EU officials who refused to answer summons from her office. “Some politicians think that they are above the law,” she said. “If you are called in for a statement, you have to come.”

She added: “I will not be shy to tell you that especially when important people are involved in the investigation — be it high-profile politicians or rich people who are connected to the political class, we have difficulties in exercising our competence.”

When asked whether von der Leyen was one of the officials in question, Kövesi said she wouldn’t comment on specific investigations.

Killing EPPO softly

EPPO, set up in 2017 and operational since 2021, is tasked with rooting out crimes involving EU funds. As head of the organization, Kövesi said she has faced repeated attacks and attempts to undermine the institution and its work.

“As I leave my office, I think of this famous Danish TV show, Borgen. There is a very famous saying there: ‘In Brussels, no one can hear you scream,’ and unfortunately, this is true,” she said, in a nod to the Ridley Scott blockbuster Alien. “I am concerned that the EPPO is going to be killed softly because it’s doing its job.”

Kövesi cited three main factors undermining the institution’s work: chronic underfunding, delays in the revision of the organization’s legal framework and the complexity of its bureaucratic architecture, which she said leads to “endless discussion about how to complicate the life of the prosecutors.”

Asked what she would do differently if she could start over again, the chief prosecutor said she “would do the same things, but maybe the others should change their behavior,” adding that the biggest challenge her successor, German prosecutor Andrés Ritter, will face is keeping EPPO “independent and credible.”

Greece’s ‘blatant’ intimidation

Kövesi said that during her tenure, “the most blatant attempt” to intimidate EPPO prosecutors was in Greece, which was hit by a farm funding scandal last year — leading to the resignation of ministers and deputy ministers. The cases of four MPs from the ruling New Democracy party are currently being heard in court. They all plead innocent.

Last May, EPPO sent a formal complaint to the Commission regarding moves by the Greek government to block EU prosecutors from investigating Greek lawmakers. It also complained about the Greek Supreme Judicial Council’s refusal to renew the mandate of European-delegated prosecutors for five years at EPPO’s request. Kövesi warned that this could result in EU funding cuts for Greece under Article 16 of the EPPO Regulation.

The cooperation between EPPO and the Greek government has been difficult, with Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis hinting at a political agenda by EPPO by complaining of “selective leaks.”

“All the noise was created to blame EPPO that we play politics instead of discussing what happened in reality,” said Kövesi. “Some politicians speak about an independent and efficient judiciary, until you touch them and until you go close to their inner circle. In that moment, the prosecutors are abusive, they have a political agenda, they are not needed.”

Some Greek government officials have suggested that Greece could simply opt out of the EU institution, but Kövesi said this is “almost impossible.”

The chief prosecutor also raised concerns about the impact of budgetary restrictions on EPPO’s work elsewhere in the bloc. The organization is currently setting up its operations in Hungary, which officially became a participating member of EPPO in August 2026 — but Kövesi is skeptical about how successful it will be.

“We explained exactly what we need to do our job, but the Commission proposed half of [the budget] we need,” she said, adding that EPPO’s “credibility is at stake” in countries like Poland, where “expectations were huge” but the organization has not been able to deliver on its promises.

EPPO is also investigating the alleged misuse of more than €4 million by the Identity and Democracy group, a defunct political grouping in the European Parliament whose debts Patriots for Europe could be forced to repay. The latter group includes France’s far-right National Rally, led by Marine Le Pen, the frontrunner ahead of France’s 2027 presidential elections.

“If you ask EPPO to abstain and to not do anything because there are elections in Europe, we will not work at all,” said Kövesi.

Mari Eccles contributed to this report.

BERLIN — As she was climbing the ranks of far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) a decade ago, Alice Weidel privately denounced one of her party’s most influential figures for using racist arguments and Nazi-era language, and sought to have him expelled.

Years later, she praised his leadership, said a bid to ban him from the party was “exaggerated” and that he was suitable for a federal cabinet position.

That striking reversal emerges from a massive leak of internal AfD communications, including emails in which Weidel condemned Björn Höcke, the party’s leader in the eastern state of Thuringia, and warned that extremists were driving away mainstream conservative voters.

The revelations come from more than 420,000 emails and roughly 48,000 documents released by hackers this week, providing a rare glimpse inside Germany’s largest far-right party. An anonymous spokesperson for the hackers told Die Zeit the attack was not “politically” motivated “in the sense that [they] support another party,” but that they published the allegedly stolen material to promote “transparency and public accountability.”

The AfD confirmed the breach, saying hackers had attacked a hosting provider in late September. It condemned the leak as “an attack on the German party system and therefore on democracy itself.”

WELT, which, like POLITICO, is part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, examined emails from one of Weidel’s accounts between 2015 and 2017, when she was a relatively junior figure in the party’s leadership.

Asked by WELT to explain the contrast between her warnings at the time and her present position, Weidel declined to comment through a spokesperson.

A spokesperson for Höcke did not respond to a request for comment sent by POLITICO on Saturday.

‘Deeply problematic’

The messages seen by WELT show a politician deeply alarmed by the growing influence of Höcke, who championed an ethnically defined German nationalism drawing on ideas associated with the Nazi era.

In October 2015, Weidel warned colleagues that the party’s proximity to Pegida, an anti-Islam street movement, and the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (now known as The Homeland) was alienating the conservative voters it needed to attract.

“In the west we are losing the mainstream conservative electorate completely through our proximity to Pegida, and to the NPD in the east,” she wrote.

Weidel also strongly pushed back on a speech from Höcke that same year, where he contrasted a “life-affirming African expansionary type” with a “self-negating European placeholder type,”

“This is deeply problematic, because the reasoning here is racial. It is fundamentally wrong,” she wrote to the AfD’s federal executive board. “And please, spare me the usual ‘that’s-not-how-it-was-meant.’ I can’t hear it any more.”

In another message, she warned that extremists were deliberately blurring the boundary between the AfD and neo-Nazi politics, driving mainstream conservatives away “in horror.”

She also feared that Höcke’s rhetoric could bring the party under scrutiny by Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, its domestic intelligence service monitoring threats to the constitutional order.

“Höcke’s statements alone, and the use of the term Volksgemeinschaft” — the Nazi-era concept of an ethnic national community — “are enough to land the AfD in that report,” she wrote, referring to the intelligence service’s annual assessment. “Some in our party seem in a hurry to drive the AfD, deliberately or not, into oblivion.”

In May 2025, the agency classified the AfD as a “confirmed right-wing extremist organisation”, citing, among other things, an exclusionary concept of the German nation. The classification, which grants authorities broader surveillance powers, was provisionally suspended by a court in Cologne last February.

‘Wake up, for once’

The leak also features emails about a speech Höcke gave in January 2017 to the AfD’s youth wing, attacking Germany’s culture of Holocaust remembrance.

Höcke described Berlin’s Holocaust memorial as a “memorial of shame,” criticized the country’s efforts to confront its Nazi past and demanded a “180-degree turn in the politics of memory.”

Weidel herself brought a motion to expel him from the AfD.

The motion, obtained by WELT, accused Höcke of using “vocabulary from Adolf Hitler” and endorsing the “Führerprinzip” — the Nazi doctrine of absolute leadership authority. It described him as displaying an “affinity in essence with National Socialism.”

In an internal message, Weidel urged colleagues to recognize the implications of Höcke’s language. “Wake up, for once,” she wrote, warning of the “explosive force of the double meanings” in his speech.

As Weidel prepared to seek the party’s nomination as lead candidate for the 2017 federal election, the leaked correspondence shows that she blocked the recording of her own motion against Höcke in the minutes of a party leadership meeting, arguing that further controversy would damage the party.

Höcke subsequently acknowledged that his speech had been a mistake and asked the leadership to withdraw the move against him.

Weidel publicly welcomed his letter as a “positive signal” and called for an end to the infighting.

Within weeks, she had secured her nomination as the AfD’s lead candidate. Asked whether she would campaign alongside Höcke, she replied: “Yes, of course. We are two parts of one party.”

Indeed, the emails suggest that Weidel’s private misgivings had not entirely disappeared. In May 2017, she condemned an AfD election poster featuring a pregnant woman and the slogan “‘New Germans?’ We’ll make our own” as “an NPD poster,” in a reference to the neo-Nazi party.

Today, Weidel no longer publicly criticizes Höcke. She has praised his leadership in Thuringia and even suggested him for a federal cabinet position.

“We get along very well and we got to know each other over the years,” she told BILD in a 2025 interview. When she was asked whether Höcke was suitable for a federal cabinet position, she simply replied: “Yes.”

When asked in February 2025 about the 2017 expulsion proceedings against him that were backed by Weidel, Höcke called it “old news.”

“We got to know each other and came to appreciate each other. Alice Weidel was the right lead candidate and did a top job,” Höcke told WELT at the time.

The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network harnesses the resources of the company’s newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, The Telegraph, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms: online, print, TV and audio.

THE HAGUE — The European Commission should act “as soon as possible” to give clear guidance on U.S. sanctions against the International Criminal Court, its top administrative official told POLITICO in an interview.

Osvaldo Zavala Giler, who oversees the day-to-day functioning of the Hague-based court as the institution’s registrar, said his job became “preparing for sanctions” as the White House imposed an escalating regime of restrictions against it.

The Trump administration targeted prosecutors and judges from the court first in February 2025 before announcing blanket sanctions on Oct. 9 this year. The EU has repeatedly backed the Court against Washington, but it has resisted calls to activate a mechanism that would forbid firms from complying with U.S. laws.

That has agonized senior figures in The Hague. Zavala Giler said the Commission’s “lack of clarity” left private companies and NGOs in the dark over whether they should comply with sanctions decided by Washington — and what risks they face if they don’t.

Zavala Giler’s call to the Commission adds to pressure from EU lawmakers for a swift response after the Oct. 9 announcement. Kallas told the European Parliament on Tuesday that Brussels would use the next few months “to open dialogue” on the issue. The new sanctions are set to take effect in April next year.

“What I would hope is that the space for dialogue is not interpreted as a space for waiting to protect the court,” Zavala Giler said, who spoke from his glass office on the eve of a visit to the Court’s headquarters by the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas.

Damocles sword

Anticipating sweeping sanctions, the Court spent six months abandoning U.S. tech providers and moving to an open-source software environment, and 20 months to make its financial transactions dollar-proof. That move has been a huge undertaking for Zavala Giler’s team, he said.

The Court initially deepened its reliance on U.S. technology after it was hit by a massive cyber attack in 2023, but what seemed a solution at that time became a problem in the face of sanctions. Even though the current regime includes a carveout for telecommunications, there is no guarantee it will remain the case.

“It becomes a sort of Damocles sword on top of our head that could be revoked at any time,” Zavala Giler said. “I cannot count on U.S. tech companies anymore.”

U.S. platforms operate as entire ecosystems, offering all-encompassing solutions under a single contract. To do without them, “you need to start creating your own architecture and systems that need to speak to each other,” the registrar said.

Financial autonomy was equally hard to achieve. The Court mapped all its suppliers’ transactions to ensure there was no U.S. nexus, meaning that no U.S. person, bank or currency is involved in a payment. “We made all of our staff members have European bank accounts. It was a very detailed process that we had to do, person by person, company by company, making sure that the contracts were in euros,” the registrar said.

The Court also went from working with tens of banks to only “a few,” since only a handful of institutions are comfortable with dollar-proof payments.

Chilling effect

That situation is likely to worsen without clear guidance from EU countries and the Commission. As Zavala Giler put it, “if the International Criminal Court cannot transact in Europe, in euros within the SEPA zone with no U.S. nexus, then there is a bigger question about European financial sovereignty.”

The Court has long called the EU to use a legislative shield — known as blocking statute — that would forbid EU firms from complying with U.S. sanctions. The request was backed by dozens of lawmakers at the European Parliament, which incidentally awarded the court its human rights Sakharov Prize on Thursday.

The blocking statute “becomes an instrument to reassert the minimum space that should not be affected by unilateral extraterritorial sanctions … that minimum space should be, at the very least, the eurozone,” Zavala Giler said. Even without it, the court needs “the reassurances that, at least within the eurozone, [it] can continue to operate,” he added.

So far, however, the Commission has taken a cautious approach, choosing dialogue with the U.S. as a way of “buying time,” as a EU diplomat put it to POLITICO.

In a balancing act, EU heads of state and government backed Brussels’ diplomatic effort at their summit last week, while also committing to do whatever is needed to support the Court.

“I hope that now that the European Council has opened this door, the Commission will feel more comfortable in taking an extra step. And at the very least, providing some kind of clear guidance,” Zavala Giler said.

As an intermediate step, the registrar suggested the use of “comfort letters” reassuring firms that they should not comply with the U.S. measures.

Zavala Giler stressed that sanctions were not only a matter to address for banks and tech operators, as the current uncertainty has already affected NGOs working with the Court. NGOs play a critical role in supporting the work of the Court, for instance “to provide reparations for victims in Uganda” or “to assist the work of the court in providing assistance to victims in Ukraine.”

“This has created an enormous chilling effect,” he said. “They don’t know if they have the legal protections or not, to continue supporting the work of the court.”

The registrar’s office overlooks the moat circling the court’s six towers across the compound’s 46,000 square meters. In one of these buildings, the trial of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte over alleged crimes against humanity is due to begin next month. Reporters who will cover the proceeds won’t be allowed to use their phones — only paper and pen.

It is Zavala Giler’s job to oversee this huge institution, which relies on secure communications, cross-border funding for investigations and the contribution of many NGOs.

“This court has for victims the promise of the never again,” Zavala Giler said.

U.S. President Donald Trump has the world’s war crimes court in his crosshairs.

By sanctioning the entire International Criminal Court, his administration is threatening its ability to function. Europe has rushed to the court’s defense — but can it actually protect it from American financial power? And how far is the European Union willing to go to confront Washington when it still relies so heavily on the U.S. for its own security?

Host Sarah Wheaton is joined by European Parliament lawmaker Dirk Gotink and Atlantic Council sanctions expert Lize de Kruijf to discuss Europe’s options, its dependence on the U.S. dollar and American technology and whether the EU can stand up for international justice.

If you have any questions or comments, send us a message on our WhatsApp here or at +32 491 05 06 29.

MADRID — The Spanish government has won a significant victory in a long-running legal dispute with international investors over its decision more than a decade ago to scrap renewable energy subsidies.

This week, a Belgian court overturned a ruling that ordered the Spanish government to pay investors nearly €76 million.

It was a major win for Spain, which has been fighting attempts to freeze its assets around the world from clean energy investors who claim they are owed at least €2 billion in subsidies.

The dispute dates back to 2013, in the middle of the European debt crisis, when cash-strapped Spain, then under a new conservative government, decided to remove subsidies for renewable energy. Investors who had poured money into Spanish renewables said this was a breach, as they had invested on the understanding they would receive the subsidies.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ruled that Spain must pay the money, but the European Commission has told Spain doing so would constitute unlawful state aid.

The standoff has played out all over the world, with investors attempting to freeze Spanish assets in multiple jurisdictions. In June, U.S. investment fund Blasket Renewable Investments LLC issued subpoenas demanding documents from Adidas, Hilton Hotels, and other entities involved in Spain’s Football World Cup participation to help with its bid to freeze Spanish assets.

In the end, the team went back home with its assets intact, along with the World Cup.

Spain also has cases going on in courts in Australia, Germany and the U.S.

In 2023, a British court ordered an embargo on an international school in London owned by the Spanish state. The Belgian court’s original decision was one of the few examples where investors were successful, and the decision this week to overturn it will set a precedent for other challenges.

The case

Spain’s defense persuaded a Belgian court to lift an embargo imposed in 2025 on state-owned air-navigation company Enaire for €75.76 million, according to documents seen by POLITICO.

The case was also brought by Blasket, which bought the dispute from an investment fund called RREEF. The European Commission intervened in support of Spain.

RREEF, which was originally linked to Deutsche Bank, invested in Spanish wind and solar power under a 2007 regulatory framework that guaranteed subsidies for renewable energy. In 2013, amid the economic crisis, the government of then-Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, of the conservative People’s Party, cut those subsidies to reduce electricity costs.

International investors turned to arbitration, arguing that the Energy Charter Treaty, an international agreement signed in the 1990s, guaranteed them fair and predictable treatment. The funds sought more than €10 billion in compensation, according to sources at Spain’s Environment Ministry.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, part of the World Bank, which handled most of the arbitration cases, ruled against Spain, though it reduced the amount sought in many cases. The total awards came to about €2 billion. In its 2019 ruling, the tribunal ordered Spain to pay RREEF €59.6 million, plus interest and costs.

Most of the claims, including RREEF’s, were sold to Blasket, which began seeking to enforce the awards. The funds have searched for Spanish assets that could be seized to satisfy the claims.

Spain says it cannot pay because the European Commission has determined that doing so would constitute unlawful state aid. The funds invested through companies based in Luxembourg, and the EU’s top court ruled that the Energy Charter Treaty did not apply to disputes between EU investors and EU member states; EU law governed instead.

In August 2026, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against Spain over a €23 million payment on an award involving a Japanese company, which was not based in the EU.

On June 17, 2025, Blasket secured a Belgian court order freezing €75.76 million belonging to Enaire, the state-owned company that manages air navigation in Spain. Enaire receives payments from Eurocontrol, the Brussels-based European organization that collects air-navigation charges from airlines and distributes the proceeds.

That arrangement made it possible to freeze Spanish public funds in Belgium. After a legal dispute, Spain deposited €75,759,538 on May 4, 2026.

The freeze was a high-profile win for investors pursuing Spain. They have secured other attachments in the United Kingdom and are engaged in ongoing U.S. court disputes over enforcement of the awards.

Spain appealed, and the European Commission intervened on its behalf. The Belgian state also argued that the attachment breached EU law. The Belgian court has now ruled in Spain’s favor, lifting the freeze and ordering Blasket to pay the legal costs.

That leaves Spain in a stronger position against international investors seeking to enforce the awards — at least within the EU.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s influential competition regulators have taken on some of the planet’s most powerful companies, from Google to Gazprom. But they are steering clear of opening a case against the world soccer governing body, FIFA. 

A complaint lodged by the European Leagues professional soccer association in October 2024 accused FIFA of abusing its dominant position by imposing its international match calendar on other sporting stakeholders. It argued that FIFA’s dual role as a governing body and the organizer of its own competitions creates a conflict of interest, through which it enriches itself. The leagues broadened the complaint last month to cover the women’s game — but the Commission has yet to open formal proceedings.

Brussels has left the European Leagues complaint in the “freezer,” one senior EU official with knowledge of the file told POLITICO. 

The episode underscores the Directorate-General for Competition’s long-running reluctance to open investigations into sports federations, which current and former European officials say is due to sport’s special status in EU law — the treaties recognize its social and educational role — but also a deliberate policy choice to swerve potentially controversial cases in an emotionally charged sector.

Now, pressure is building against the competition department over the languishing European Leagues complaint, after a cross-party group of EU lawmakers urged the Commission to use its antitrust powers to rein in FIFA. 

In a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, obtained by POLITICO and copied to competition chief Teresa Ribera, MEPs called for action. Bruno Gonçalves and Hannes Heide (both from the Socialists and Democrats) and Bogdan Zdrojewski (from the conservative European People’s Party) asked the Commission to take formal action, including in relation to the complaint lodged by the European Leagues, which represents 53 men’s and women’s professional football leagues across the continent.

The MEPs say the governing body’s application of the calendar “raises concerns about FIFA’s use of regulatory powers to advance FIFA’s own commercial interests,” and that those powers “must be exercised through transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate procedures, with effective safeguards against conflicts of interest.” The EU’s top court set that test for sports bodies in its landmark 2023 Super League ruling.

“FIFA is both referee and promoter of the show,” Gonçalves told POLITICO. “We have to make sure the referee doesn’t put business before people.”

Representatives for the European Leagues pressed their case in a meeting with Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera’s Cabinet in late April, but their overtures have so far been fruitless.

“The thinking has always been, on the one hand, that sports has a special status, so it is not a market comparable to others that normally are scrutinized by the competition directorate,” said one former senior EU official, who was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive file in order to protect relationships. 

“But also, sports cases get very political and the Commission feels that member states tend to take the side of the federations so it’s hesitant to pick this fight up,” the former official added.

The Vestager principles

Over the last 15 years, Brussels has opened blockbuster investigations into Gazprom’s behavior in Central and Eastern European gas markets; whether Google illegitimately hindered the development and market access of rival mobile operating systems; and Apple’s rules for app developers.

But the Commission’s caution on sports is long-standing. 

When then-competition chief Margrethe Vestager ordered the International Skating Union in 2017 to drop rules threatening speed skaters with lifetime bans for joining money-spinning rival events, she said the decision didn’t mean the Commission was “trying to be the referee in every dispute about sport.”

Many disputes, from doping penalties to deciding the precise scheduling of games, have “little or nothing at all to do with competition rules,” Vestager said at the time. National courts and competition authorities, she added, are “usually well placed to deal with competition disputes involving a sport federation.”

Those principles have since come to guide how the Commission’s competition department decides which sports disputes to take on. There is no shortage of candidates, with controversies in sports including tennis, padel and sailing, as well as soccer.

Any investigation would test recent case law. A pair of July rulings on FIFA’s agent rules went largely the governing body’s way. In those cases, the Court of Justice of the European Union accepted that federations can impose restrictions if they pursue legitimate aims proportionately.

Ben Van Rompuy, a competition law professor at Leiden University who helped bring the original ISU complaint, said there would likely be “little appetite” in Brussels to take up the leagues’ case.

When the ISU complaint reached the Commission, courts had said little about how competition law applied to sport. Since then, “we’ve had an abundance of such guidance,” and “national enforcement in front of the courts seems to work,” Van Rompuy said. That leaves less reason for the Commission to step in. The leagues have also sued in a Brussels court, which suggests “they themselves believe that the national courts could protect their rights.”

Measured against the Commission’s own criteria for prioritizing complaints, the case looks weak, Van Rompuy said. Its impact on the EU’s internal market is “extremely limited,” he added.

FIFA declined to comment on the European Leagues complaint and the EU lawmakers’ letter.

Commission spokesperson Ricardo Cardoso said international sports bodies have “a primary responsibility” for organizing global events, and that sport is mainly a matter for national governments, with the EU playing a supporting role.

When sports organizations act as undertakings, the EU legal term for entities carrying out economic activity, they are subject to the rules of competition, Cardoso said. He added that the Commission constantly monitors markets for possible breaches, and that “if any complaint is filed, the Commission will assess according to standard practice.”

Public and political criticism of FIFA has reached fever pitch over the last 12 months due to the governing body’s cozy relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration and an ultimately aborted plot this summer to sell off parts of the World Cup tournament to private investors.

According to the letter from EU lawmakers, FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s commercial sell-off scheme “exposed serious shortcomings in transparency, accountability and institutional decision-making.”

he world is starting to understand that there is no way to fully and lastingly protect itself from President Donald Trump.

The man just can’t let things go — and he’ll get creative to get what he wants.

The latest blowup over Ukraine is emblematic of Trump’s wily persistence, and it suggests a challenging two years lie ahead for the international set even if Democrats gain some power in the midterm elections.

Not that long ago, Trump seemed to have patched up ties with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Kyiv made gains against Russia. Trump signed legislation last month that was championed by his late friend, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to impose heavy new sanctions and tariffs to punish Russia for its war on Ukraine.

This month, the original Trump — the one who fawns over Russian leader Vladimir Putin and despises Zelenskyy — roared back. He waived many of the legislation’s penalties on Russia, moved to buy Russian diesel and signaled he’s more interested in doing business with Moscow than seeking justice for Kyiv. Ukrainians suspect the U.S. has pressured them by throttling its satellite connections and intelligence-sharing. (The Trump administration disputes much of this.)

“Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” Trump said Monday as he welcomed the idea of an arms control summit with Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping that might include talks about Ukraine.

The lesson, foreign officials and others steeped in diplomacy tell me, is that you cannot truly change Trump’s mind or stop his overall trajectory. Even if Trump seems briefly chastened or stages a tactical retreat, he will eventually return in new, often-surprising modes to push his original views and goals. He will try to exhaust you into submission.

Imagine how startling it is to be Ukrainian these days as Trump pressures you to make concessions to Russia by blaming you for a global energy crisis he caused by launching a war on Iran. Or what it’s like for officials across European capitals trying to craft a response, knowing there’s never an end to the process.

“There is no immunity to Donald Trump. He makes a deal in order to make a better deal the next day,” one senior European official mused, having been granted anonymity because the topic involves sensitive diplomacy.

It’s hard to blame world leaders who think they’ve learned to manage Trump only to be bewildered by a sudden left hook on his part. Foreign policy is often driven by hope when you lack good options. And Trumpology is a confounding, but still a relatively new, subfield.

Besides, Trump’s messaging is inconsistent, incoherent and nonstrategic — characteristics that can obscure his single-minded pursuit of his goals. So the global actors dealing with him — whether it’s the Gulf Arab states who shower him with gifts or the Canadians furious over his trade and territorial threats — sometimes think they’ve come to terms with him only to find they’re fighting on a newly configured plane.

A Supreme Court ruling that gutted many of Trump’s tariffs earlier this year was good news in many capitals. But since then, the so-called Tariff Man has moved to impose the import taxes under pretexts not considered by the court, including turning to accusations involving forced labor.

The White House doesn’t dispute Trump’s aggressive tactics.

“There is no greater fighter for America First interests than President Trump — and he is willing to look anyone in the eye to deliver wins on behalf of the United States,” spokesperson Anna Kelly told me in a statement.

The Greenland saga shows the limits of trying to mollify Trump.

In his first term, Trump wanted to buy the frozen island. The idea was shelved amid global laughter, but authorities in Greenland and Denmark made it clear to Trump that they welcomed more U.S. investment in the Danish territory.

In his second term, Trump huffed and puffed about an all-out U.S. takeover of Greenland, only to agree in September to an expanded U.S. military footprint that he could have gotten anyway under existing, decades-old diplomatic accords without all the drama. The whole affair has led to lingering anger in Europe about what Canada’s leader called a “rupture” in the global order — but many European officials hoped that the saga had faded away.

Yet, it’s far from certain that Trump has given up on possessing Greenland. Just days ago, he touted on social media plans to start oil, gas and mineral exploration in “our new and beautiful Greenland.”

The use of “our” is more than a little suggestive.

Defying Trump, too, can get you only so far.

Brazilians effectively told Trump to take a hike when he used tariffs and sanctions to punish the country for charging its former president, Jair Bolsonaro, in a coup attempt.

A few months later, as Bolsonaro was about to start his prison sentence, Trump seemed to admit defeat in his effort to help his political ally. “That’s too bad,” he said in November 2025, with little emotion. (“Brazil Defied Trump and Won,” The New York Times declared.)

But Trump wasn’t done with Brazil. He and his team have pursued efforts to undercut the current Brazilian government while quietly backing Bolsonaro’s son, Flávio, in his efforts to win the presidency this year. The runoff election is on Sunday, and it’s tight.

World leaders are doing what they can to make their countries Trump-resistant, if not all-out Trump-proof.

That has meant everything from diversifying their sources of trade and security alliances to joining Trump on ventures that, on the surface at least, can be helpful to them. (Then there are the many countries, especially in Africa, that diplomats privately tell me are happy to be off Trump’s radar.)

My takeaway from watching all of this, though, is that it’s not enough to stay one step ahead of Trump. You have to stay several steps ahead, and you have to be wildly imaginative about the lengths to which Trump and his devoted aides are willing to go to complicate your life.

The second Trump administration is filled with people who have turned to unique, bizarre and clever interpretations of law and reality to push his agenda. It’s not always clear who is behind which move, but it’s hard to imagine Trump isn’t fine with most of what’s happening.

It’s why a teenager is being held in immigration detention for the actions of his grandmother decades ago. It’s why Congress can scream and shout about its spending orders yet Trump ignores it.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said other nations should not hope that the Republican Party will shed Trump’s worldview, including his disdain for allies, once Trump’s out of power.

“I would love for our allies to know that we have consistent common adversaries that we’re going to work together to fight. I just don’t know that you can make that guarantee,” Murphy, a frequent Trump critic, told me. “That’s painful to say, but given the state of the Republican Party right now, it’s true.”

I understand why Ukraine and the European Union are trying to diversify their sources of intelligence and military industrial bases as Trump keeps chasing love from Russia.

Despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claims, the reality is that the United States can no longer be trusted for such security assistance.

But it’s not enough to find new intelligence partners or weapons manufacturers. You have to ask bigger questions, like, “What are the untapped streams of intelligence that no one knows are out there? What’s a potential weapon no one has considered? How can I acquire what I need before Trump stops me?”

Governments need to have plans — now — for scenarios that seem completely crazy. Better to be wrong than unprepared.

Still, even if you do all of that … “I don’t think it’s possible to stay two or three steps ahead of Trump,” said Charles Kupchan, a former senior national security official during the Obama administration who apparently enjoys raining on parades.

“He acts on impulse,” argued Kupchan, who has a new book out on the crumbling world order. “We need to try to limit the damage he’s causing and ride him out.”

A Democratic win in November’s midterms — one or both chambers of Congress — is unlikely to do much to rein in Trump’s actions abroad during his final years, current and former U.S. and foreign officials tell me.

He still has the veto and has been willing to ignore congressional demands. There’s also the fact that presidents have significantly more power to act in unilateral ways overseas than they do domestically.

Ukraine, the European Union, the world — all will be dealing with a politically wounded Trump who’s likely to double down on what he feels he must have.

“He’s going to be angrier,” Murphy predicted.

In a throwaway comment this week, Donald Trump made clear that he does not regard the war in Ukraine as a conflict with fault on both sides. “Russia frankly has been fine on Ukraine,” the U.S. president said. “They have not been doing that much.”

To residents of Kyiv — who have endured weeks of intensifying bombardment — and Ukraine’s allies across Europe, the remark confirmed a growing impression that the U.S. is taking Russia leader Vladimir Putin’s side in the war.

“American negotiators have been trying to push Ukraine into surrender for already almost two years,” the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas told the European Parliament on Tuesday. The reason Ukraine hasn’t “surrendered on Putin’s terms” so far is because Europe has been providing so much support, she added. 

As they scratch their heads for explanations for Trump’s latest turn against Ukraine, some European officials and diplomats think it comes down to the president’s personal preferences, as much as his country’s political aims.

“I do think it’s a personal thing,” said former British Cabinet minister David Lidington, now distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a leading security think tank in London. “Trump is self-centered — his personal predilections for dictators and autocrats, his desire to give opportunities to U.S. businesses … are very important parts of his motivation.”

In private, EU officials agree. “Trump doesn’t like [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy. He just doesn’t like him,” said one government official who has observed both men closely. “That makes it harder to get the U.S. to help on peace. Everything is a rational business deal with Trump, until it’s not.” 

A diplomat from an EU country — granted anonymity, like others in this report, to discuss sensitive matters — said the inconsistent Trump could change his mind again and reverse recent moves against Ukraine. The U.S. president has chopped and changed on many issues, “except one thing,” the diplomat said. “He seems to be supportive of the Russians.”

“He’s been critical of Ukraine, the EU, NATO, but hardly ever said anything critical about Putin. It is striking. We have to deal with an administration that seems to be more pro-Russian than anything else,” the diplomat said.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mounting losses

For Ukraine and its European allies, the idea that nothing can or will change Trump’s feelings about Zelenskyy is a bleak one. After four-and-a-half years of war, Kyiv is running low on funding, air defenses and — amid swelling support for Europe’s populist right — facing a potential loss of political support in the months ahead. 

Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff met the Ukrainian president and the leaders of Norway and Finland for talks in Oslo on Tuesday, and will head to St. Petersburg to discuss peace proposals with the Russian leadership on Wednesday as the White House pushes hard for a ceasefire. One option Putin will be offered is a three-way leaders’ summit with Trump and Zelenskyy.

Previous efforts to get the Russian president to attend such a meeting have failed, however, and EU diplomats do not believe Putin is showing any genuine desire for a ceasefire. That is partly what makes Trump’s hostility toward Zelenskyy so problematic.

“There is a clear consensus across Europe that Putin does not want peace,” a second EU diplomat said. “He will need to be forced into peace.”

But instead of making demands of Putin, Trump has ratcheted up his pressure on Zelenskyy, even amid escalating Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities this month. Ukraine’s leader is feeling the strain, as he told his EU counterparts in private meetings in Brussels last week, according to the first diplomat.

In a succession of highly critical comments in recent days, Trump has said Zelenskyy “doesn’t care” and “doesn’t want to end this war;” and should be replaced as leader or as Ukraine’s negotiator. “President Putin would like to see a settlement,” Trump said. “President Zelenskyy could have solved this war, or he could have made a deal, many times.” 

The Oval Office beating

Trump’s animosity may date back to an incident during his first term in 2019, when he urged the Ukrainian leader to help with an investigation into Joe Biden, who eventually defeated Trump in the following presidential election, Lidington said. A succession of hostile encounters in the years since — including in the Oval Office in February 2025 — have reinforced the impression, he said. 

“It was clear that in the infamous meeting in the White House that Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance had planned that public beating-up of Zelenskyy and it struck me then that there was a strong personal element to this,” said Lidington.

“I think there’s another element, which is that if you look at the people Trump tries to court, it tends to be autocratic strongman — and it is ‘man’ — leaders,” Lidington said.

He recalled attending a dinner with world leaders in 2018 to mark the centenary of the end of World War I in Paris. French President Emmanuel Macron and the German chancellor at the time, Angela Merkel, were playing joint hosts “at the top table,” but Trump was not interested in making small talk with either of them, Lidington said.

“It was pretty obvious from the body language that Trump was impatient with them and one of the people he really wanted to talk to was [Turkish leader Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan and other people who were a bit more in that strongman image that he likes to portray himself,” he observed.

‘Strange stories’

A senior official from a European country familiar with the Ukraine talks said Trump’s motives were partly political, partly about calculating what would be profitable and partly about personalities.

“They are currently in an election cycle and need someone to blame for rising prices,” the official said. “In general, Trump tends to like various types of people and leaders. He actually has a fondness for successful and cheerful people.”

In recent days, Zelenskyy has warned his country is suffering more civilian casualties because the U.S. has cut back on support, including Starlink and Starshield services that help Ukraine defend itself against Russian attacks and plan operations. “We still have no explanation for this, just different strange stories,” Zelenskyy told U.S. congressmen on Monday.  

This month, the advanced warnings of incoming Russian missile attacks from U.S. partners have failed to come through as normal. Ukraine is also running low on Patriot missile interceptors, he said. 

The Pentagon has not issued an official comment on the Ukrainian complaints. The U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said 328 civilians were killed and more than 2,000 wounded across Ukraine last month, an 85% increase compared to September 2025. The U.N. said that the first two weeks of October were among the deadliest for civilians in Ukraine in years, driven by increased missile and drone strikes.

The first EU diplomat quoted above said many European governments were irritated that Trump had cut them out of his conversations with Putin so far. “There is probably much more dialogue between the Americans and the Russians than we might know,” the diplomat said. 

Tuesday’s meeting with Witkoff in Norway raised the possibility that direct engagement with Putin might be back on the cards, for Zelenskyy at least. 

“Today was a good day for peace,” Finland’s President Alexander Stubb said after attending the talks in Oslo. “On a substantive and technical level we have actually made a lot of progress under the radar in the past week or so,” Stubb said.

The process is now going in the right direction again, he added. “Hopefully, we don’t do any backtracking.”