In dieser Episode sprechen Pauline von Pezold und Frederik Schindler dem Spitzenkandidaten der AfD für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Leif-Erik Holm. Im Vorfeld der Landtagswahlen am 20. September geht es mit Holm um seine Ambitionen auf das Amt des Ministerpräsidenten und sein Vorhaben, notfalls durch eine Kooperation mit der CDU oder Tolerierungsmodelle an die Macht zu kommen. Obwohl er sich gleichzeitig die „Altparteien“ auf den „Müllhaufen der Geschichte“ wünscht.
Zudem konfrontieren die beiden Holm mit seiner energiepolitischen Kernforderung nach einer Rückkehr zu russischem Gas. Sie haken nach, wie sich diese Strategie mit den Importverboten der EU und dem Angriffskrieg Russlands gegen die Ukraine vereinbaren lässt und ob die AfD damit nicht sehenden Auges neue energie- und sicherheitspolitische Abhängigkeiten für Deutschland in Kauf nimmt.
Ein weiterer kritischer Fokus des Interviews liegt auf dem Personal des Landesverbandes. Schindler und von Pezold befragen Holm zum neuen Generalsekretär seiner Partei sowie Vorstandsmitgliedern der Parteijugend Generation Deutschland, die teils eine Vergangenheit in der rechtsextremen NPD haben.
„Inside AfD“ ist der POLITICO-Podcast über die umstrittenste Partei des Landes. Trotz Radikalisierung und Beobachtung durch den Verfassungsschutz wächst die AfD weiter. Wie ist das möglich? Was treibt ihre Anhänger, Strategen und Gegner an? Wie funktioniert das Innenleben der Partei? Und was bedeutet ihr Aufstieg für das politische System Deutschlands?
POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
ATHENS — Greece’s attempt to lure top scientists back to their homeland after the trauma of the financial crisis has stalled after an ambitious program to reverse the brain drain descended into fiasco.
A group of professors who hoped to bring back young researchers through a much-advertised program financed with EU funds are now feeling betrayed, having been left waiting for years only to find out the program won’t happen.
To rub salt into the wound, no one from the government bothered to inform them that the scheme was dead, they said.
“All this ‘brain gain’ talk isn’t just a joke; it’s a massive step backward,” Aristides Hatzis, a professor at the University of Athens, said. “During the financial crisis, there was only one area where there was money invested: research, as the EU prioritized this. Now there’s nothing; it’s at the very bottom of the list of priorities — a complete abandonment.”
An estimated 500,000 people moved abroad during Greece’s financial crisis, which began in 2008, shrinking the country’s economy by a quarter and driving unemployment to 28 percent. Greece had experienced mass migration before, including in the decades after World War II, but this time it was many citizens with high levels of education and skills who emigrated.
“Brain Regain,” an initiative by the ruling conservative New Democracy government to reverse the mass exodus of scientists and professionals, comprises several schemes, such as offering a 50 percent income tax exemption for seven years, and is expanding to include high-skilled public sector roles.
And overall, the situation has improved since the crisis era.
According to the survey OECD Diaspora Review Greece, from 2021 onward, there has been a steady increase in the number of citizens returning to Greece, with 2023 marking a milestone year when — for the first time since the start of the crisis — more people returned than left. Specifically, during the two-year period of 2023–2024, 69,000 Greeks left their country while 98,000 returned.
But when it comes to scientists, there is still a major problem.
Star-crossed project
The current fury of many researchers and scientists hinges on a Greek government project called “Trust your Stars” — an €80 million research funding program backed by funds from EU’s post-Covid recovery fund, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).
Research teams were called to submit their proposals, with 145 out of a total 1,241 submissions selected. Thirteen months later, after several complaints regarding the delay, the selected list of projects was finally published on July 22, 2025.
Then, it all started to unravel.
A man walks outside the headquarters of bank of Greece during a demonstation against government’s austerity measures in central Athens. | Aris Messinis/AFP via Getty Images
Those not selected for funding reacted fiercely, with some 203 submitted objections and calls for reevaluation. Scientists raised their concerns over the evaluation process itself, and some even submitted complaints to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
In January 2026, Greece’s development ministry then issued a statement, saying payments of some €40 million had already been made, and that the remaining half of the program’s budget was earmarked for completion by Dec. 31, 2029. But complaints only escalated, with some of those selected for funding sending formal legal notices to the education ministry, seeking details about where the money had been spent since the program had not yet started.
Then, the final bombshell dropped: Trust your Stars was not going to receive the EU funds anymore.
In a statement published in May, Greece’s education ministry said the country’s finance ministry had decided to “remove the project during the review of Greece’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan.” It was later revealed that on the day the list of selected proposals was officially published, the government also delisted the program — but no one informed the applicants for 10 months.
“It was ultimately not possible to implement the project ‘Trust your Stars’ within the time frame set out by the RRF,” said an official from the education ministry. “For this reason, the project was removed, as part of a review of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan by the Council of the European Union.”
“As regards the funds linked to the actions in question, these were redirected to finance other actions undertaken by the RRF and the Education Ministry. Consequently, under no circumstances was there any loss of resources from the RRF,” added the official.
Shattered hopes
On July 15, Greece’s finance ministry issued a statement, saying it was trying to secure funds “to settle any outstanding financial obligations arising from legal commitments entered into at the time of the revocation of the program.”
While the statement rekindled hopes that a solution would be found, Hatzis argues that it was just a legal trick and that the education ministry has no legal commitment since no contracts were signed following the initial announcement of accepted proposals.
“What happened violates a fundamental principle, one that is sacrosanct in states governed by the rule of law: ‘reliance,’ the citizen’s legitimate trust in the state,” he said. “There may be no contractual liability, since we did not sign an agreement, but there is a political, moral and even legal obligation. Many young people turned down other offers or did not take up jobs elsewhere because they hoped they would be paid through the program.”
Hatzis added that with its handling of the situation, the government had managed to turn the entire scientific community against it — both those who had been successful and those who had not.
“If you’re a young scientist and you’re abroad, stay there! If you’re a young scientist and you’re thinking of moving abroad, go for it. Don’t wait a minute!” he wrote in a lengthy social media post.
Pantelis Kammas, an associate professor at the Athens University of Economics and Business who was co-leading one of the teams that had a successful proposal, said the program was a chronicle of a death foretold.
“The perception within the scientific community was that this was EU money and that it could be handed out hastily through nontransparent procedures. There was a sense of mistrust because this was a one-off emergency program,” said Kammas. “The ministry lacked an organized framework for evaluation, the academic community’s objections were based on these well-known shortcomings, and media that seek to oppose the government jumped on that. This was the perfect storm, so the government decided to backtrack and cancel the program.”
Petros Bouras-Vallianatos, an associate professor of the history of science at the University of Athens, said he had gathered a team of 25 young scientists to come to Greece from countries like the U.K. and Germany for a study of medicines used during the Byzantine period, which could serve as inspiration for new pharmaceutical formulations. Fortunately, they had not already traveled by the time the project was canceled.
“The most offensive thing is that the government never bothered to meet us or give us a reasonable explanation about what happened,” he said, noting the government’s handling created even greater problems with the scientific community than those that already existed.
Bouras-Vallianatos himself returned to Greece in 2022 after a 15-year career in Edinburgh, and has not regretted the decision, as he wanted to raise his children in his homeland. However, he added that while many others wanted to return to Greece, the conditions for doing so were not in place. Some of them do but only for sentimental, personal reasons, he said.
“There has been no serious policy by the Greek state to get its scientists back.”
According to preliminary statistics, research spending in Greece has declined, dropping to €1.27 billion — or 0.51 percent of GDP — in 2025, from €1.30 billion in 2024.
“Funding and low salaries is a big issue,” continued Bouras-Vallianatos. “An independent body should be set up, which would allocate funds for research and adheres to international standards in terms of evaluation. We are a small country; we all know each other, so a large proportion of the evaluators should be foreigners.”
RIGA — Latvian Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs wants Brussels to hand over €7 billion to help cover the military and economic costs of confronting Russia, as pressure grows over the price of the country’s hard line on Moscow.
The cash, which Riga wants to come on top of other funds earmarked for the country, would amount to almost half of Latvia’s projected €15.1 billion defense bill over the seven-year budget period.
The demand comes at a sensitive moment. Latvia has been one of Europe’s staunchest supporters of Ukraine, sharply increasing defense spending since Moscow’s full-scale invasion, even as sanctions and the collapse of bilateral trade have cut deeply into economic links that once ran eastward. But ahead of an Oct. 3 national election, parties arguing that Riga should demand more in return for sanctions and military support are gaining ground.
The European Commission has proposed substantially increasing EU-level defense funding in the 2028-2034 budget, including a €125.2 billion security, defense industry and space pot in the European Competitiveness Fund. That money is designed to finance projects across the bloc rather than provide Latvia with a pre-agreed €7 billion allocation, and the entire budget remains subject to negotiations between EU governments and the European Parliament.
Kulbergs argues that Latvia deserves special consideration because it is borrowing to provide security for countries much farther from the front line. “We are getting our budget deficit to the maximum […] and from that debt we’re paying […] the defense of the whole [of] Europe,” the prime minister said at the government chancellery.
Much of Latvia’s military spending ultimately flows back to richer Western European economies, Kulbergs added, pointing to arms purchases from Germany, France, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands. “We fuel their economies,” he added.
Election pressure
A sharper version of the same argument is emerging on the campaign trail.
Ainārs Šlesers, a veteran populist businessman whose party sits with the far-right Patriots for Europe group in Brussels, says Latvia should demand compensation when it backs EU sanctions on Russia. Šlesers condemns Moscow’s invasion and says support for Ukraine should continue, but argues that Latvia cannot absorb the costs indefinitely.
“We are losing money … we are talking about how to support Ukraine, but we are a victim,” he told POLITICO at his Riga campaign headquarters.
When EU sanctions come up for renewal, Šlesers said Latvia should “get in return support.” Asked whether that could mean withholding Riga’s backing for sanctions, he stopped short of threatening a veto but did not rule it out. “I don’t want to talk about [a] veto [now],” he said. “I guess that we […] will find a peaceful solution.”
Šlesers, who has business ties with Russian oligarchs, said the country needs to eventually restore economic ties with Moscow, and advocated for a quick end to the war. “There are things which we cannot replace because if it’s your neighboring country and you’re connected historically […] we need to find the right model.”
He argued that whether to hand over territory to Russia should be “a decision by Ukraine” but argued that other countries have lost territory to Russia after conflicts, including Latvia, “to reach [a] peace agreement.”
Kulbergs’ center-right party currently leads the polls, but coalition arithmetic could determine how far Latvia’s Russia policy shifts after October.
The far-right, pro-Russia Sovereign Power party, polling second, wants to restore ties with Moscow but is considered off-limits by mainstream parties. Šlesers, polling third, is a more plausible coalition partner — and Kulbergs has left the door open to governing with him.
The center-left Progressives, polling fourth and also hoping to enter government with Kulbergs, warn that bringing Šlesers into the coalition would gradually soften Riga’s line on Russia.
“I’m 100 percent sure Latvia’s foreign policy towards Russia is going to soften over time,” the party’s prime ministerial candidate Andris Šuvajevs told POLITICO outside parliament. He pointed to possible sanctions exemptions for Russian business interests and ministers “speaking in a more friendly tone towards Russia.”
Tough on Russia
Ahead of a new sanctions package due in the fall, Kulbergs called for a total EU visa ban on Russians. EU countries granted more than 630,000 visas to Russian citizens in 2025.
In the last sanctions package, France and Italy resisted a blanket ban on Russian combatants, arguing this issue should be covered by EU visa rules rather than as part of sanctions, while northern and eastern countries pushed for tougher restrictions. The eventual deal created the legal and political basis for barring Russian combatants and ex-combatants who took part in the war — leaving it up to EU countries to decide when the ban would take effect.
“Are we nuts?” said Kulbergs on the delay. “We allow Russian military soldiers to be given visas, the ones killing [Ukrainians] on the field.”
He also urged EU countries to revisit sending Russia’s €210 billion in sovereign assets frozen in Europe to Ukraine, dismissing concerns Moscow could challenge the move after the war.
He called any Kremlin outreach “a useless exercise,” arguing there’s no sign President Vladimir Putin is ready to negotiate and that talks would merely give Russia “breathing time” to make its “next move.”
Despite Latvia severing ties with its eastern neighbor, and Kulbergs’ hawkish position on relations with Moscow, he said “we have to be open” to reestablishing ties once Russia pays reparations to Ukraine and those responsible for war crimes face justice, pointing to postwar Germany as the example to follow. “Do we isolate Germany because of that? No, it’s acceptance of guilt, acceptance of wrongdoing, punishment, and retribution,” he said.
After a ceasefire, Kulbergs concluded, “the insecurity of the border will only rise” as the real threat will be a wave of migration as hundreds of thousands of “screwed up” soldiers return from the battlefield seeking a better life and other citizens flee as Moscow’s war economy crumbles.
Dave Brat, Australia’s freshly confirmed U.S. ambassador, didn’t need to learn another language to qualify for his new gig. But he’s coming into the job fluent in a niche dialect that could give him a big advantage.
“He can speak Trump,” James Braid, President Donald Trump’s director of legislative affairs, said in a recent interview. “He can understand Trump, and he’s recognized as a longtime Trump ally. And I think that will really help him facilitate Aussie-United States relations.”
This dynamic could be key as Brat gets to work in Canberra, where political leaders have been rattled by the Trump administration’s aggressive trade agenda resulting in the implementation of a 12.5 percent tariff on Australian goods.
A longtime economist and academic, Brat is an avowed free trade advocate, which could quell some nerves on the ground. But Brat has also defended the Trump administration’s tariff regime as a kind of reset of the U.S. economic relationship with the world, telling a local news outlet in his home state of Virginia last year that “these tariffs are an attempt to bring some balance.”
At the same time, he has the ear of the White House, having earned Trump’s trust and respect long ago as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2014 to 2019. There, Brat was a member of the House Freedom Caucus — a contingent of conservative hard-liners known for taking uncompromising positions on federal spending — and in 2016 he embraced then-presidential candidate Trump as other more establishment Republicans turned their noses.
“The president hasn’t forgotten that,” said Braid, who was policy director of the Freedom Caucus during that period.
The Freedom Caucus was, as it is now, perpetually at war with party leadership on Capitol Hill, but the group harnessed Brat’s affable disposition and deft touch in high-stakes policy negotiations. He was obsessed with making sure that the group’s goals would be understood both by negotiators across the table and the public — something his former colleagues expect him to bring to the international stage.
Justin Ouimette, a former longtime executive director of the House Freedom Caucus, said in an interview that Brat’s approach has always been, “here’s the message and here’s where it is coming from” — a tactic that “tends to lower the temperature.”
“He was one of those guys that’s typically dispatched to disagree without being disagreeable,” Braid agreed. “Brat is really effective at stating a position, being firm while also collaborating to reach an outcome, and so that that experience will serve him well in his new diplomatic post.”
There’s hope among some in Washington that Brat’s views on trade, coupled with his ties to the Trump administration, could help soothe existing tensions and result in a positive working relationship between the U.S. and Australia. That optimism is shared by Virginia’s two Democratic U.S. senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, who supported Brat’s nomination.
“He will be very focused on commerce, trade, and economic opportunity. You know, things that are good for the U.S. and good for the Australian economies,” said Kaine, who as governor once relied on Brat’s contributions to a bipartisan economic advisory panel to build the state’s budget.
“He’ll be very mindful of the commercial relationship, and I think that’s something that will be viewed positively by the Aussies,” Kaine added.
He noted that Virginia’s massive naval base would now have an advocate in Brat amid the continued implementation of AUKUS, a trilateral security pact among Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. in 2021 aimed at helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
Warner was less effusive, saying he has “disagreed with Dave on a lot of issues,” but acknowledged he also was “a smart guy” he supported for the ambassadorship.
Brat also has long been vocal about the competitive threats to the U.S. posed by China, a concern shared by Australia in its diplomatic engagement with the Pacific region. Ouimette speculated that “his clear-mindedness and alignment with the administration on that particular issue weighed in his favor” as the White House was making its ambassador selection.
There are still some unknowns, however, including whether Brat will be living in Canberra full time and how he’ll handle staffing issues at the U.S. Embassy.
“I understand that Mission Australia’s current staffing and facilities are insufficient to meet the demands of our expanding Alliance activities,” Brat said in a written response to U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, as part of his confirmation proceedings. “Our investment in diplomatic infrastructure reflects our commitment to this vital partnership.”
Brat’s arrival heads a wave of new senior appointments at the embassy including Robert T. Koepcke as deputy chief of mission and Jonathan A. Habjan as counselor for political affairs.
A slew of new military postings at the embassy includes Col. Richard Bush as defense attaché; Col. Pete Roongsang as Army attaché; and Col. Kabir Rao as chief of MILGROUP, which manages security cooperation, foreign military sales and defense relations with the Australian Armed Forces.
Brat also hasn’t spoken publicly or at length about how or why he was recommended for this particular posting, though he said during his confirmation hearing that he “loved the Australian people I have met in my life and appreciate their decency, wit and sense of humor” — as well as being a “tennis fanatic” eager to engage in “sports diplomacy across the board.”
Australian Prime Anthony Albanese is also a keen tennis player, known to invite dignitaries and journalists to play on the court at his official Canberra residence, The Lodge.
“I’m very much looking forward to having a hit of tennis with David Brat,” Albanese told POLITICO, adding that he believes Brat’s appointment will “bolster” the existing alliance.
Brat did not respond to POLITICO’s requests for interviews.
But Braid made clear that sending Brat to Australia is not a vanity posting or just a favor for a longtime Trump loyalist, calling Brat “a serious lawmaker with serious chops.” He conceded that while Brat “comes from a political tradition that may be a little bit unfamiliar to the Australians,” he brings relationships and experiences to the table a career foreign service officer could not.
PARIS — French firefighting unions are calling for a nationwide protest next month after accusing the government of failing to adequately support them during a summer of unprecedented heat.
“We are asking for the necessary resources to protect French citizens,” said Xavier Boy, a spokesperson representing several firefighters’ unions.
The strike will take place Sept. 29. Firefighters are allowed to walk out on the job but must maintain minimum staffing levels to respond to emergencies.
Boy said the unions’ most pressing demands include legislation to “modernize” France’s civil security framework, “massive” recruitment of professional firefighters and increased funding to protect firefighters’ health and safety.
He also called for “investments to match the risks France faces today and will face tomorrow” given Europe is the planet’s fastest-warming continent.
Boy and other firefighting representatives on Thursday — when they held a smaller-scale strike — met with French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez to discuss their concerns. They said they left unsatisfied and disappointed, accusing the minister of equivocating and spewing “political blah blah.”
Nuñez told reporters later Thursday that a bill to improve civil security would be presented to the unions on Sept. 8. The minister said the resources granted to firefighters would “evolve” in next year’s budget, but he refused to commit to a specific increase.
Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu has also tasked seven parliamentarians with producing a report on how to improve firefighting in France and asked them to submit policy proposals by Sept. 21.
France’s current firefighting system relies heavily on volunteers. As of 2024, just under 80 percent of the country’s firefighters were volunteers, while fewer than 20 percent, mostly in urban areas, were professionals.
Wer regiert die Welt – und was treibt sie an? In unserem regelmäßigen Machthaber-Spezial geht es um die mächtigsten und umstrittensten Politikerinnen und Politiker unserer Zeit. Wir zeigen, wie sie denken, entscheiden – und was das für uns bedeutet. Eine Politikerin oder Politiker, ein Blick hinter die Kulissen der Macht.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.
POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
Russ Vought’s Power Play Sows Legal Chaos for Administration
Last month, the New York Times reported that the administration confessed, in federal court, to having blocked grants in October 2025 for clean energy projects in blue states simply because they voted against president Trump.
TPM discovered that the administration has in fact conceded this point in court multiple times.
Our story, by Emine Yücel and Josh Kovensky, does a few things. First, it notes that a negotiations tactic deployed by Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought during the government shutdown last year — declaring that he was withholding grant funding to blue states in an effort to exert leverage over Democrats in Congress — has backfired, with the administration’s lawyers forced to make damaging admissions before judges and, in two cases, ultimately losing their case and being ordered to restore the grants.
Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left's climate agenda is being cancelled. More info to come from @ENERGY.
The projects are in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA
Second, we know that the Trump administration regularly withholds funds to blue states, sometimes mustering an excuse about why it’s doing so — vague claims of “fraud,” perhaps. But while talk is cheap, our story shows that in court, DOJ lawyers were not able to muster a fig leaf for these October 2025 grant denials. They were, simply, political.
Third, our story shows that these concessions were made as part of an effort by administration lawyers to avoid discovery, which raises the question of why the administration was willing to go to these lengths to avoid discovery. What emails were sent, and what discussions were had, within the White House as these grants were withheld that lawyers hoped to keep out of the record?
There are big elements of this story still to come.
First, the Trump administration has proposed a new rule to make it so that political appointees have final review over grants, and that grants can be more easily terminated, making standard the kind of control the administration has exercised over federal funding since the days of DOGE — and continuing through the example of the October 2025 grants that formed the core of Emine and Josh’s story. This assault on the separation of powers and federalism has led to urgent warnings, particularly from the scientific community, where researchers say it could decimate the U.S.’s advantage.
As Emine wrote earlier this week, the Senate has for now proposed a temporary halt to this rule, which Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the appropriations committee and in a tight reelection fight in Maine, is touting as her work. Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the committee, said Republicans would not support a more fulsome ban on the rule. A fight over this legislation, which is part of a Senate effort to fund the government through December, will ensue when members return in September.
We may also get some insight into what the administration was hiding as it sought to avoid discovery. This could come from the continuing, ongoing lawsuits in this space, from other litigation, from congressional oversight by a future Democrat-controlled legislature, or another avenue.
In the meantime, there is a nascent effort in the House to impeach Vought over his October 2025 decision to withhold these grants.
Trump Comes for Birthright Citizenship Again
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller (L) smiles as US President Donald Trump holds signed executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 6, 2026. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images)
Trump is taking another run at restricting birthright citizenship through executive order.
He signed EOs Thursday specifically targeting the children of parents deemed to be an “alien enemy” — a concept that has become a favorite of this administration — and purporting to end “birth tourism.”
Targeting alien enemies plays on an idea that the administration has sought to get great mileage out of: that immigrants within the U.S. are actually representatives of an invading army.
This justification was core to early administration efforts to render Venezuelan men to a Salvadoran prison camp, and to its attempts to send the National Guard and the military into American cities. Both encountered skepticism at the Supreme Court.
The “birth tourism” thing loomed large during Supreme Court oral arguments for Trump’s last executive order on birthright citizenship. Justice Samuel Alito in particular latched onto it. Despite the insistence of right-wing media that there is a booming industry of foreigners coming to the U.S. to have their kids, the Washington Post notes data showing that “in 2024, fewer than 10,000 babies were born in the U.S. to people with foreign addresses, out of 3.6 million total live births.”
Tabs
Trump has ordered a leak probe into reports that munitions were running low amid the Iran War, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Will Sommer has a fascinating look in the Bulwark at a group of right-wingers who feel burned by the Trump administration and who are mulling establishing a third party. They include Tucker Carlson, former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Thomas Massie, and former counterterrorism official Joe Kent. Carlson seems perhaps the most invested in the project, and recently gave a long speech describing the ideas such a party should push.
Man of the Hour
WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 03: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) walks through the U.S. Capitol on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. The House will take up budget legislation today that would end the partial government shutdown while lawmakers negotiate over Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy and funding for the Department of Homeland Security. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
Anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, scandal-plagued and performative pro-Trump representative Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) lost his primary fight last night to former state agriculture commissioner Charlie Hatcher. Hatcher won roughly 53% of the vote.
Are We at War?
Yes. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who gets it, accused Trump in a speech yesterday of “gaslighting” Americans on this topic. “The essential gaslight,” he said, “is that the war is about to end. Don’t worry. Yet it appears that there is no end.”
LONDON — Andy Burnham entered Downing Street with a promise to give hard-pressed voters “breathing space” on the cost of living. Now he must show he can deliver.
At the top of his list is finding a way to reduce stubbornly high energy bills — even as the Iran-U.S. war forces up prices and ministers are under pressure to cut their own departmental budgets. The new prime minister knows any intervention must make a real impact for voters if he is to turn Labour’s fortunes around.
“You need to make an emotional connection with people,” said one senior government official, granted anonymity to talk candidly about Whitehall thinking.
Britain’s new prime minister has already made one bid to show voters he is serious about tackling the problem: Removing VAT from household electricity bills, something he announced on his first day in No. 10.
The move will knock less than £4 off the average monthly bill, ends after one year, and comes with a price tag of £850 million. Downing Street said it will be paid for through so-far unspecified Whitehall savings.
But Burnham and his new Energy Secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, promised that the intervention is just a start. Cutting VAT is a “down payment” ahead of the winter, Fahnbulleh said.
Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh arrives at 10 Downing Street for Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s first cabinet meeting, on July 21, 2026 in London, England. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
That means ministers have just weeks before Burnham’s first budget this fall to figure out what, if anything, can really ease the burden — and how to pay for it.
Salami slicing
“The fiscal space is going to be a challenge, and that is the case for any government,” said Sam Alvis, associate director for environment, energy security, and nature at the Labour-aligned Institute for Public Policy Research think tank.
That’s because any intervention to bring down energy bills will have to be funded from already under-pressure Whitehall departments.
“This government is going to have a look at the budget. Whether it chooses to do some priorities differently — that is an open question,” Alvis said.
One option for Burnham is to slice more charges from electricity bills, as he did with VAT. But any savings could be quickly wiped out if, as expected, the Middle East crisis pushes up wholesale gas prices.
Forecasters at Cornwall Insight predict that average annual household bills will rise by two percent this fall, even after the VAT intervention.
That leaves Burnham facing the same problems as the man he replaced, Keir Starmer.
Starmer cut £150 off yearly bills last November by shifting some so-called green levies, used to fund a clean energy scheme, onto general taxation. By the summer, that cut had been swallowed up by higher prices driven by the Strait of Hormuz crisis.
Nonetheless, Alvis said, this approach remains Burnham’s most realistic option.
“We are now in a bit of a scenario of salami slicing, where you’re aggregating lots and lots of smaller bits,” he said. “There’s no one big thing that you can do that’s going to take over £100 off bills. So, it’s about accumulating all those things that you think you could possibly do in one go, so it becomes sizable and noticeable.”
Decisions, decisions
One of those options, proposed by the think tank Nesta and reportedly being considered by Burnham, involves shifting further green levies from electricity bills onto tax.
It identified another £42 of savings from a yearly bill, costing the Treasury £1.7 billion per year for a decade.
Every small cut helps consumers, insists Andrew Sissons, Nesta’s director of sustainable futures. The think tank has also proposed knocking £22 a year off bills by shifting the standing charge on gas — currently a fixed daily fee — onto the unit rate, which changes depending on how much energy a home uses. That would take a year to implement and would not cost the government a penny, Nesta says.
But such moves must be accompanied by larger interventions if voters are to feel the benefit, he added.
“The amount you’d need to cut people’s energy bills … for it to feel like a real difference is quite substantial,” he said. The government, he argued, should aim for a “big package.”
If the government aims for larger changes, they would come with even greater costs.
Nesta has suggested a one-off move to wipe out electricity debt, removing some bailout costs currently funded through bills, taking total annual bill savings to £130. But the Treasury would have to find £2.7 billion to fund that.
“[We] shouldn’t ignore the fact that there are fiscal trade-offs. But if the government wants to prioritize energy bills, then this is the kind of step it needs to take,” Sissons added, pointing to their proposed levy change alongside the VAT cut.
Things take time
Net-zero policies will, ministers hope, bring down bills for good. But large-scale changes take years to implement.
“Realistically, the only way to deeply, deeply help people is to get them solar panels, is to get them an EV [electric vehicle], potentially heat pumps in some houses as well,” said Alvis.
This is another reason to opt for “salami slicing”, he said: To “alter the balance of electricity and gas prices, so that those clean technologies stack up and save people even more money.”
Alex Bevan, a research fellow at the Future Governance Forum, agreed that big savings attached to the shift to green energy were still a way off.
“There aren’t quick workarounds on whichever form of energy you choose to generate and deploy,” he said. But government must nonetheless “lock in the benefits [of clean energy],” he argued.
The same official quoted above stressed that no decision had yet been made on how the government would intervene on bills. Asked whether the government favored a series of small policies or one big intervention, they said: “It doesn’t have to be binary. … It doesn’t have to be one or the other.”
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “The energy secretary’s focus is bringing bills down for good. We will tackle the cost of living to make life’s essentials affordable again and bring back hope.”
For now, Alvis insisted, Burnham has one thing going for him: He can operate in the knowledge voters accept international issues are pushing up costs.
“The political point I would make is: By doing your best effort, you give yourself the space to have a conversation with the public,” he said.
Many EU-funded health projects are on hold amid a dispute between the European Commission and capitals over support for NGOs.
At least seven countries, led by France, Spain and Belgium have twice blocked the Commission’s 2026 EU health budget proposal because they say it doesn’t contain sufficient funding for health NGOs. These organizations represent patients, doctors and public health workers in EU health policy debates, typically in opposition to sectors like tobacco, alcohol and, sometimes, the pharmaceutical industry.
The standoff means public tenders and grant applications for EU health projects — such as training more experts to assess medicines, beefing up health security and creating artificial intelligence platforms to monitor brain health — can’t yet go ahead.
“Various stakeholders have expressed frustration over the delay” as they are already putting together consortiums to bid for projects included in the draft budget, a spokesperson for Public Health Sweden told POLITICO.
The delay also has major implications for the EU’s health crisis response.
The Commission’s Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority published its work plan in June for the coming year, which includes the expansion of ‘ever-warm’ vaccine production facilities and the creation of a new European Diagnostics Hub to develop cutting-edge technologies — all of which is on hold until the money can flow, unless covered by funds under the 2025 budget.
European Commission spokesperson Eva Hrncirova declined to comment on the potential disruption to the EU’s health program, but told POLITICO the executive would “reflect” on the way forward.
Root cause
The standoff stems from the Commission’s decision to ax operating grants for NGOs, confirmed in July 2025. These had been in place in Europe since the early 1990s to enable civil society to participate in policymaking on a more equal footing with profit-driven entities.
The Commission told POLITICO the grants were cut to reflect diminished funds for EU4Health after the budget fell from €5.8 billion to €4.6 billion in 2025 to reallocate funds for Ukraine. Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi also previously claimed behind closed doors that NGO operating grants were “illegal.”
When countries voted on the Commission’s second proposal last week — which offered €1.3 million in NGO operating grants, having omitted them altogether from its original plan — at least 14 countries voted in favor of the plan, citing the urgent need for a budget.
“The Public Health Agency of Sweden voted yes and we seconded the criticism that came from the other countries on funding for civil society, but saw that further delays in the work programme were not preferable,” the spokesperson for the Swedish public health authority said in a written comment.
But countries standing firm with NGOs worry that ending support for their day-to-day functions will weaken democratic policymaking and leave lobbying as a preserve of private interests. Some NGOs have already shuttered operations in Brussels over the lack of funds.
Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi previously claimed behind closed doors that NGO operating grants were “illegal.” | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images
Spain and France have been the most vocal in their criticism, forming a blocking minority on the EU4Health Programme Committee that signs off on the budget, alongside Czechia, the Netherlands, Lithuania and Malta. Others, including Ireland and Luxembourg, abstained to signal their displeasure with the removal of NGO funds.
NGOs play “a vital role in representing patients’ interests and ensuring a balanced policy debate alongside well-resourced industry stakeholders,” a spokesperson for Malta’s ministry of health told POLITICO.
A joint statement read out on behalf of Belgium, Czechia, France, Luxembourg, Spain and the Netherlands at the July 31 meeting, and seen by POLITICO, called for “more adequate level of funding for operating grants while safeguarding other low-budget but high-impact actions from further reductions.”
They argue the Commission is at fault for the impasse and ignored multiple warnings from countries that they would not accept the defunding of civil society groups.
“Several Member States have raised the same concerns for two years, but these have not been adequately reflected. At the same time, the delay increases pressure from stakeholders to approve the programme regardless of those concerns, because important public-health actions and considerable expert work are involved,” a spokesperson for Luxembourg’s Ministry of Health and Social Security, which abstained in support of NGOs, said in a written comment.
‘Symbolic’ offering
The blocking countries didn’t put a figure on how much they wanted for NGOs, but pointed out the €1.3 million on offer was one-seventh what it was in 2023 and 2024, before the grants were scrapped.
Cyprus was among the countries ready to accept the latest proposal, with the country’s ministry of health telling POLITICO it “viewed positively the efforts made to address concerns regarding NGO funding and welcomed the allocation of dedicated funding.”
But Milka Sokolović, director general of the European Public Health Alliance, said the Commission should ensure the grants “provide meaningful support rather than a symbolic contribution.”
“Budget constraints are real, but so is the need to sustain the organizations that bring expertise, accountability and public engagement to Europe’s health ambitions,” Sokolović said.
The Commission has also angered countries with how late in the year it is seeking approval for the work program, combined with what they see as insufficient consultation in the run-up to the vote.
The Luxembourg ministry spokesperson said the Commission “traditionally” prepared the work program a year in advance. “This gave authorities and potential beneficiaries a reasonable indication of forthcoming priorities and call dates. For both the 2025 and 2026 programs, however, the first drafts reached Member States much later, reducing predictability for all concerned.”
Speaking for the Commission, Hrncirova said countries had been consulted. “In line with the EU4Health regulations and its procedures for the preparation, member states are consulted at several stages with several meetings. This has happened,” she said.
The Commission hasn’t yet scheduled another meeting to try to get a budget over the line. “We are now awaiting the invitation to the next EU4Health Programme Committee for the, hopefully, final meeting for the 2026 work programme,” the spokesperson for the Public Health Agency of Sweden said.
“At this stage, the matter is in the hands of the European Commission,” the Maltese spokesperson added.
Malta leads fight against EU bid to tax Big Gambling
The tiny Mediterranean island is clashing against the European Parliament and former football legend to oppose the levy.
By GREGORIO SORGI in Paceville, Malta
Photo–Illustration by Natália Delgado/POLITICO
Brussels is bracing for an unusual fight between the EU’s smallest country and a British ex-footballing legend.
Peter Shilton, the England goalkeeper who conceded the “Hand of God” goal from Diego Armando Maradona in 1986, has started a new life as an anti-gambling advocate after overcoming a decades-long addiction.
Despite being a diehard Brexit supporter, he’s become the poster boy of the European Parliament’s push to tax online betting in a bid to raise some much-needed funds to finance the bloc’s next €2 trillion budget.
But the campaign has run into strong opposition from Malta. The tiny island in the Mediterranean Sea, with a population of just over half a million people, is home to a burgeoning betting sector. It says that higher taxes will cripple its gambling industry, boost illegal operators and drive firms outside the bloc.
But Shilton, who lost more than £1 million in betting on horse racing over 45 years and now runs his own gambling addiction charity, dismisses the arguments by Malta and the gambling lobbies as “window dressing.” He’s in favor of higher taxes as he wants to shrink advertising revenue that is used to lure in new gamblers.
“Deep down they’re after everybody’s money. Simple as that,” he told POLITICO during a visit to Brussels in June.
Former England goalkeeper Peter Shilton lost more than £1 million in betting on horse racing over 45 years and now runs his own gambling addiction charity. | David Cannon/Allsport/Getty Images
The topic has split the EU’s 27 governments, pitting gambling-heavy Southern European countries against their more supportive Western European peers, led by France. Capitals are already fighting even though the Commission hasn’t yet issued a formal proposal for the possible tax, which would ultimately need to be unanimously approved by governments.
It’s one of numerous budget battle lines being drawn, with Ireland — which is steering the talks as chair of the rotating Council presidency — set to restart negotiations to facilitate an overall deal on the EU budget before the end of the year.
That’s no mean feat given Dublin’s task to mesh competing spending priorities into a single budget — financing everything from farmers’ subsidies to foreign aid — that is acceptable for each of the EU’s 27 governments.
National capitals will have to unanimously approve new EU-wide taxes — known as own resources — to pay for soaring defense spending and post-Covid debt repayments if they want to avoid drastically increasing national contributions to Brussels.
Supporters of the gambling levy point to the fact that it would rake in over €13 billion throughout the next budget cycle and — for some, more importantly — address a serious public health issue. An estimated 80 million adults globally have experienced a gambling addiction, according to experts.
“We look on it [gambling] as an illness. It’s something that’s inborn in you and that can be ignited,” Shilton said.
Malta’s game plan
Malta has invested heavily in the gambling industry — including lotteries, betting and casinos increasingly operating online — which now accounts for around 12 percent of its gross domestic product.
These firms have relocated to Malta because of its light-touch licensing regime, business-friendly tax regime and balmy weather.
The country is “as dependent on the online gambling industry as Germany is on cars,” said an EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak freely.
While gambling firms need local authorization to operate in most other European countries, securing the Maltese license is crucial to access banking services and gain a foothold in the EU market.
Malta-based firms dominated the German and Austrian online gambling markets before national regulators cracked down. This has prompted the Maltese government to refuse to recognize some court rulings and sanctions issued by other EU countries against its gambling firms.
Betting lobbies say they oppose higher gambling rates on the grounds that they will fuel appetite for the illegal market. | Photo illustration by Graeme Robertson/Getty Images
Given its influence, it is hardly surprising that the gambling industry has found a friendly ear among Malta’s politicians in Brussels.
The Maltese president of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, last year gave the opening speech at an international gambling conference in Rome that also featured Italian Foreign Affairs Minister Antonio Tajani.
“I’m more than a little proud that it started in my island home of Malta,” she said, referring to SiGMA, a Maltese events company that focuses on online gambling founded by Eman Pulis, a university friend of Metsola.
Betting lobbies say they oppose higher gambling rates on the grounds that they will fuel appetite for the illegal market, away from the grasp of EU rules.
“A higher tax would lead to worse odds for the customers … and it is relevant because access to the illegal markets in Europe is, obviously, one click away,” said secretary general of the European Gaming and Betting Association, Maarten Haijer.
Nicola Matteucci, an economist at the Università Politecnica delle Marche in Italy who has undertaken extensive research on the gambling sector, argued there is a “point where prices exceed a certain level and the demand [for gambling] diminishes. But it’s not as immediate as suggested by the industry.”
Matteucci said that most gamblers will be undeterred by slightly higher taxes and worse odds as they are not fully rational consumers.
Anti-gambling groups reason instead that higher taxes will reduce the sector’s spending on commercials, preventing would-be punters from getting sucked in to gambling in the first place.
“Higher taxes will therefore mean less gambling advertising overall and many people would regard that as a public benefit,” said Derek Webb, the founder of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling advocacy group.
Club Med joins Malta
Malta has joined forces with fellow Mediterranean countries — Italy, Portugal and Spain — to challenge the mooted tax which was first proposed by the Parliament’s socialist lawmaker Victor Negrescu, said four diplomats with knowledge of the discussions.
According to the European Commission’s estimates, seen by POLITICO, a 3 percent tax on the net turnover of the online gambling sector would generate an estimated €1.9 billion per year.
With its big online gambling market, Spain is expected to be among the biggest financial losers, should the tax go ahead. It is estimated to be on the hook for €414 million per year, almost a quarter of the total amount. That compares to a projected bill of €165 million per year for Malta— a disproportionality high amount for such a small country.
Portugal is also reluctant to back the levy. It fears that higher taxes would eat into revenue brought in by state-run betting and lotteries that is currently channeled to the charity Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa‘s healthcare and youth support programs, said a Portuguese official.
Meanwhile, given the relatively low uptake of online gambling, Italy’s misgivings have surprised anti-betting advocates. Rome is expected to pay a mere 7 percent of the proposed new levy — a significantly lower proportion than its regular EU budget contributions.
However, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party has previously been receptive to the gambling industry. Last year its MPs passed a resolution encouraging the reversal of a ban on professional football clubs advertising gambling firms.
Wer regiert die Welt – und was treibt sie an? In unserem regelmäßigen Machthaber-Spezial geht es um die mächtigsten und umstrittensten Politikerinnen und Politiker unserer Zeit. Wir zeigen, wie sie denken, entscheiden – und was das für uns bedeutet. Eine Politikerin oder Politiker, ein Blick hinter die Kulissen der Macht.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig.
Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.
Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
Do you ever look around at the ingredients available to you, the energy you have to give to the cooking process — or, as I recently explained to a medium-sized child shortly before I got uninvited from future family events, the amount of fudge you have left to give from your, uh, bucket of fudge — and decided to boil spaghetti, toss it with garlicky olive oil, and call it dinner?
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is a busy man. When he isn’t working out with fellow Cabinet members and denying promotions to Black and female officers, he’s making videos ordering the troops to take testosterone tests to prove they are manly enough to serve their country. He’s fighting the culture war morning, noon and night. When he can find the extra time, he’s also running the Pentagon as it wages war in Iran, commits murder on the high seas in the Caribbean and prepares to invade Cuba — and possibly Mali and Greenland. Hegseth has a lot on his plate.
That includes demanding a $454 billion increase in the 2027 Pentagon budget, which brings the total request to nearly $1.5 trillion — a 44% increase from the previous year. Hegseth has called this a “generational investment” that comes out roughly to all of U.S. military spending in World War II. You might think that it’s because of Donald Trump’s war in Iran and all the munitions the military is going through, but you would be wrong because, like most wars, it is paid for separately from the Pentagon budget through emergency supplemental requests.
During a combative appearance on Tuesday before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Hegseth asked for another $67 billion in supplemental funding for the rest of the budget year. But the shock of that request paled in comparison to another number. Hegseth estimated that the Iran war has cost $37.5 billion so far, far higher than the $30 billion figure the Pentagon only recently gave to lawmakers.
That number is astounding on its own, but according to most sources and experts, it significantly lowballs the war’s true cost, which continues to mount. NBC News reported that, according to internal estimates by the Defense Department peg the amount at $80 billion to $100 billion.
It’s not unusual for administrations of both parties to bulk up the Pentagon budget, although the Republicans have always been the most passionate about it. But this is beyond the wildest dreams of Pentagons past. With all the cuts the Trump administration has made to everything else in the government, you’d think they would be a little less greedy. But that’s not how they roll. In Trump’s first term, military spending was profligate, and this time it’s a free-for-all.
Hegseth is basically asking for an unlimited supply of money to finance an extremely unpopular war and such “generational investments” like the “Trump-class battleships,” otherwise known as the Golden Fleet. We needn’t worry that they are being irresponsible, though. They are committed to rooting out “woke” wherever they find it, and that will surely save a few bucks somewhere down the road.
When the senators asked him why the Pentagon needed all this extra money, Hegseth fell back on the Trump administration’s catch-all explanation: “Joe Biden did it.”
When the senators asked him why the Pentagon needed all this extra money, Hegseth fell back on the Trump administration’s catch-all explanation: “Joe Biden did it.” In this the secretary was correct. Biden requested military funding for Ukraine through emergency supplemental requests. But the Trump administration has created an unprecedented innovation. In partnership with MAGA allies on Capitol Hill, they are trying to get it passed through the reconciliation process, which cannot be filibustered but is subject to ruling by the Senate parliamentarian, who can strip the provision if it is determined to be non-budgetary.
The U.S. is running through its supplies of expensive precision-guided munitions and air-defense interceptors at record pace in the Iran war, and there are concerns that reduced inventories are going to affect readiness in case the country is drawn into a war it didn’t choose. Hegseth, though, would not cop to that, insisting instead that all was well — and that the Pentagon just needed more cash to fix up the depleted military Biden left them.
House Republicans have proven more pliant. On Wednesday, by a margin of 216 to 212, they passed a $1.15 trillion defense bill to cover some of what the White House is requesting, adding some juicy extras for artificial intelligence and other tech-bro projects led by the private-equity types who are running much of the Pentagon these days. According to Guardian, one of them, former Uber executive Emil Michael, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for research and engineering who is an aggressive promoter of AI, made a profit of up to $24 million by selling a private investment he held in xAI, Elon Musk’s AI company, earlier this year. (In March 2025, Michael declared the value of his stake at between $500,000 and $1 million.) Since the company isn’t public, no one is quite sure how he came to own the shares or who he sold them to, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the defense department entered into two separate contracts with xAI before Michael sold his shares.
He’s not the only one who appears to be milking the military-industrial complex. The Washington Post reported that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the president’s eldest sons, have a portfolio of tech companies that are raking in billions from the Pentagon. These are not businesses with which the Trumps have any experience, and the partnerships and investments have all been initiated since their father became president the second time. Don Jr. has said publicly that he works with Hegseth to steer more contracts to drone manufacturers, of which he is a beneficiary. Both brothers are heavily involved with firms that have contracts all over the Pentagon. They insist, though, there’s no conflict of interest and no one in the department has even considered favoritism.
As usual, Hegseth behaved like a teenage bully during the Senate hearing. He argued with senators, blamed Biden and insisted that America has won the war in Iran while simultaneously requesting many more billions to win it. Since the GOP is attempting to push this supplemental package through using reconciliation, they won’t need Democrats to pass it, so one can probably expect that he’ll get what he wants. The firehose of money flowing to the Pentagon and all the insiders who are making massive bank from it isn’t going to dry up any time soon.
Hegseth ended the week with a gratuitous gesture to his commander in chief, who spent a good part of his time explaining that the 18 deaths in the Iran war are nothing compared to all the deaths in previous wars. To make Trump feel better, Hegseth removed from the tally four troops who were killed in renewed fighting, bringing the official death toll back down to 14. Military officials told the New York Times that “one reason behind the change was . . . because their deaths occurred after President Trump declared a cease-fire in the war in April.”
Nonetheless, Trump attended the dignified transfer of the four fallen soldiers’ remains and concocted a story to burnish his war lust. “All of them said very strongly, ‘We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.’”
My strongest opinion on Thanksgiving sides is that whenever possible, they should come in a casserole dish (or its chic French cousin, a gratin). I don’t mean that your sides should be limited to things that swim in cream, cheese, butter, or a happy combination of all three — although one dish in this category is highly welcome on my table — I simply mean that sides like this, that is baked in dishes with walls, tend to excel at holding up to resting times, reheat well, and stay warm longer.
Unless you’re living your life better than me (probably!), I bet it’s been way too long since you last had a baked potato for dinner — or, as they’re more charmingly called across the pond, “jacket potato.” And it’s a crime because they’re so cozy and uncomplicated to make, we could fix this right now.
Do you have a big, neglected cabbage in your fridge awaiting the right inspiration? I had a feeling you did. The way I figure it, the sidewalks are currently covered in pink and white petal confetti, the ramps are here, and the asparagus is close, thus I’m crossing my fingers that this can be our last hurrah with heavy winter vegetables until at least November. We’re going to make it a good one.
Login
