The Treasury Department on Wednesday announced that it will buy back more of its own bonds, a move that partially reversed a selloff in longer-term U.S. debt that is threatening to drive up politically important interest rates on mortgages and other consumer loans.

A number of factors have been pushing up yields on longer-term debt to their highest levels since 2007, such as concern that the conflict with Iran is showing little sign of resolution, growing competition for financing with borrowers that are building out artificial intelligence infrastructure and widening U.S. government deficits.

Treasury said it would “at least double” the size of its buybacks, in which the department reabsorbs older debt securities with a maturity of at least 10 years. The previous ceiling was $2 billion per operation, and that number will be at least $4 billion, effective Sept. 9 and through Nov. 4.

The move is the latest by Secretary Scott Bessent to affect U.S. Treasury yields. Earlier this month, the department conducted a joint intervention with Japan to boost the yen, which had been trading in July at its weakest level against the dollar in roughly four decades. Bessent warned in January that turmoil in Japanese government bonds was spilling into the Treasury market.

Treasury also recently signaled the possibility that it could decide to issue less longer-term debt in coming quarters.

BRUSSELS — EU countries will be able to fund small local media without asking Brussels for permission, according to a draft of the bloc’s revised state aid rulebook obtained by POLITICO.

Government subsidies to businesses are strictly disciplined by Brussels under state aid rules, but there are exceptions. These are spelled out in frameworks, with the master one, the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER), up for revision at the end of the year. 

The European Commission put out an initial draft for public consultation in February with a view to finalizing it by year’s end. The updated, 200-page draft gives a leg-up to local and independent journalism by allowing governments to fund small- and medium-sized outlets without formal vetting by Brussels.

“SMEs active in the press sector play an essential role in safeguarding media pluralism, cultural and linguistic diversity, democratic participation and citizens’ access to reliable information, particularly at local and regional level,” the Commission writes, highlighting structural challenges arising from the digital transformation of media markets.

To qualify for assistance, beneficiaries would need to fulfil at least one item in a Commission checklist that includes preserving media pluralism and diversity of opinion, transitioning to digital content while also preserving print editions. 

“The exemption covers aid pursuing cultural objectives — including linguistic diversity, the digitalization of press publications or the promotion of printed publications,” said Carole Maczkovics, of Counsel at Covington & Burling, of the press measures. 

Many European media outlets are struggling to stay viable, with print readership declining and publishers complaining that online platforms, such as search giant Google, are reducing referral traffic to their websites.

Broad scope

The GBER covers most sectors of the economy, from agriculture to transport, and is the target of intense lobbying from EU capitals, traditionally torn between big government spenders led by Germany and smaller member states, including the pro-free-trade Nordics, which complain that national subsidies distort the EU single market.

Countering the stereotype, Denmark was a leading advocate to extend GBER exemptions to the media. In a consultation response last year, the Danes said the state aid framework should be broadened to include private and public media providers “to promote harmonisation and simplify the general management of state aid in the media sector.”

The latest GBER draft focuses strongly on SMEs and innovation, as well as on the social dimension of state aid — as it expands on conditions for money that governments can put in training programs and the inclusion of disadvantaged workers. 

But it may not necessarily make things easier.

“Although the revision aims to simplify the State aid framework, it may ultimately make it more detailed and prescriptive,” warned Maczkovics. She added that the Commission’s gradual shift from broad aid categories to narrowly defined exemptions may sway EU countries to design measures that don’t quite fit the real needs of companies — for the sake of avoiding a notification.

Industry, for its part, is keeping a close eye on state aid exemptions, with airport lobby ACI Europe quick to react to the latest leak. 

“The revised GBER remains too restrictive for Europe’s smaller regional airports,” said Philippe Sacré, the association’s secretary general. He was referring to aid exemptions that would be restricted to airports handling over 500,000 passengers a year, according to the Commission’s draft. 

The Commission’s latest State aid Scoreboard shows that EU countries spent €168.2 billion in state aid in 2024, with Germany, France and Italy the top spenders. Capitals are increasingly taking advantage of block exemptions, with GBER representing close to 70 percent of all active exemption measures.

Tommaso Lecca contributed reporting.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa threw their weight behind the International Criminal Court Wednesday, after Washington sanctioned its president and another senior court official.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio sanctioned the ICC’s president, Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye on Tuesday, accusing the court of targeting officials from countries that reject its jurisdiction, given its pursuit of Israeli officials for alleged crimes in Gaza. While Israel and the U.S. don’t belong to the ICC, the court says it has jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in Palestinian territories.

In a joint statement posted on X, von der Leyen and Costa said they “stand firmly with the [ICC], President Tomoko Akane and the officials who uphold its mission.” The court helps deliver justice to victims of some of the world’s worst crimes, they noted, and its judges and officials must be able to work “independently and without external pressure.”

Commission Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera struck a similar tone, calling the sanctions “profoundly sad and unfair.” The EU stands with the court, its president and officials, she said.

The statements add to mounting pushback from other U.S. allies.

Germany similarly said it stood by Akane and the court on Wednesday, with Martin Giese — a deputy spokesperson for Germany’s foreign ministry — stating the ICC was “fulfilling its mandate exactly as intended” by holding perpetrators of the gravest crimes to account.

Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen posted on X Tuesday evening, saying the Netherlands “disapproves” of the sanctions and warning that international courts “must be able to freely carry out their mandates.” Berendsen has invited Akane to The Hague for talks on continued Dutch support.

Washington has been ramping up pressure on the court recently, with Rubio vowing to “systematically dismantle” the tribunal’s ability to act against Americans and other non-member countries.

The ICC itself decried the sanctions in a statement released Wednesday, calling the measures a “flagrant attack” on its independence. Targeting judges and prosecutors for carrying out their mandate “undermine[s] the rule of law,” the court warned.

“When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk.”

KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy fired Iryna Mudra as deputy head of his office Wednesday, hours after anti-corruption watchdogs searched her workplace as part of a sweeping probe into an alleged criminal organization.

“Iryna Romanivna Mudra is hereby dismissed from the post of Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said in a decree published Wednesday. The one-line order gave no reason for her removal.

The firing adds to a turbulent stretch for Zelenskyy. Former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov called Tuesday for wartime elections and denounced corruption and a systemic governance crisis, weeks after his ouster triggered prolonged street protests.

Earlier Wednesday, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau, or NABU, announced a new operation targeting an alleged criminal organization involving current and former lawmakers and senior officials in Zelenskyy’s office. The bureau said it was carrying out searches with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, or SAP.

The investigation, dubbed Operation Forrest Gump, alleges the group laundered around 150 million Ukrainian hryvnia, equivalent to roughly $3 million, through state-owned Sense Bank to fund bail for former Energy Minister German Galushchenko, a key figure in last year’s $100 million Midas corruption scandal.

NABU did not name Mudra directly in its video statement, referring only to a deputy head of the president’s administration, but searched her office.

Ukraine’s corruption watchdog released recordings in which a woman identified in the video only as a deputy head of the president’s office can be heard saying: “Fighting corruption is a wrong approach … Corruption has to be systemized and controlled.” NABU did not identify the woman by name.

Mudra did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

The staff of the tiny agency on the front lines of President Donald Trump’s trade wars has shrunk to its smallest size in two decades as its responsibilities balloon. Its work is suffering.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the agency has rolled out new tariffs across the globe, launched trade negotiations with dozens of countries and reopened the signature pact governing North American trade. And after the Supreme Court struck down many of his initial tariffs, it has begun four probes into countries’ unfair trade practices to provide legal justification for new duties — with more threatened. 

The trade agency is attempting to do all of this with a staff that has dwindled by about a fifth, which along with a hiring slowdown and an intensely compressed schedule is leading to often slapdash work, according to eleven former trade officials from the Trump and Biden administrations who spoke to POLITICO.

Some of the errors are embarrassing, including letters sent to foreign dignitaries announcing new tariffs that went out addressed to the wrong titles and genders, according to one former official.

Others could undermine the president’s drive to impose new duties on dozens of trading partners. A recent investigation into whether other countries’ inaction on forced labor is giving their exports an unfair advantage was rushed out in a matter of months when previous investigations have taken more than a year. An announcement of a second investigation lacked basic details like what policies are harming U.S. businesses. Tariff challengers have already seized on similar weaknesses in court.

“When you’re rushing like that, right, it’s kind of like crap in, crap out,” said one former Trump USTR official, who, like others interviewed by POLITICO, was granted anonymity to discuss the agency’s inner workings. USTR officials are getting “crushed” under the administration’s workload, the person said.

The brain drain at the agency, including the departures of senior officials responsible for leading trade talks with key allies, is continuing even as U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has pushed to expand the budget and stepped up hiring efforts.

A USTR spokesperson said that under Greer’s leadership, the agency has “delivered an unprecedented volume of work on behalf of the American people that is thorough and outcomes-based.”

Greer inherited an agency that was already shorthanded, and the Trump administration wasted no time in rolling out its new tariff-focused trade agenda. In the opening months of the administration, the president unveiled new tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, before rolling out sweeping new duties on almost every U.S. trading partner on April 2, 2025 — what the president dubbed “Liberation Day.”

But the Liberation Day rollout was filled with errors. In addition to slapping tariffs on an uninhabited island filled only with penguins, which was roundly mocked in the media, the administration sent letters informing countries of their new tariff rates that contained the wrong genders and titles for foreign officials, said the first former official. The calculation for assessing the tariff rates, which USTR eventually published on its website, showed a simple back-of-the-envelope formula based on countries’ trade surpluses with the U.S., an embarrassment for an agency that prides itself on its data-driven, reasoned trade analysis and deep technical knowledge.

The episode “made USTR look like a joke,” the former official said.

The Supreme Court in February struck down Trump’s Liberation Day tariff regime, leaving USTR to come up with alternative legal justifications for imposing sweeping duties. More serious than the embarrassing mistakes, former officials said, is that the agency has been rushing out the reports and announcements that are used to create those justifications, potentially handing tariff challengers legal ammunition.

A March announcement of a probe into countries’ manufacturing overcapacity did not initially identify any specific policies from trading partners that qualify as an unfair trade practice, said Ed Gresser, a former assistant USTR for trade policy and economics, who left the agency during the Biden administration. The omission could leave the probe more vulnerable to a legal challenge, he said.

Countries also pushed back against inaccurate information in that announcement. An initial version referred to Singapore — one of the investigation’s targets — as having a bilateral trade surplus with the U.S. of $27 billion in 2024. But that language was quietly removed from a later version after the Singaporean government pointed out publicly that it was, in fact, the U.S. that had a trade surplus of $27 billion with Singapore. USTR also quietly corrected the numbers it cited for both Indonesia and Cambodia’s trade surpluses with the U.S.

Tariff challengers are already filing court documents citing omissions in the USTR investigation into efforts to curb imports made with forced labor. The July report into countries’ forced labor practices, initiated under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and produced in just four months, lacked the depth featured in comparable reports from previous administrations, three former officials noted.

“It strikes me a lot more vulnerable to legal challenge than previous 301 reports have been,” said Gresser, who is now the vice president and director for trade at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Democratic attorneys general filed a suit earlier this month seeking to overturn the proposed duties tied to forced labor. “The USTR made no effort to link the scope of the tariffs to the scope of harm,” they wrote in their filing.

Burlap and Barrel, a vendor of imported spices that is also suing, noted that the USTR failed to provide a “reasoned, record-based explanation” for its tariff findings.

“You can tell they’re stretched,” said Peter Harrell, a former Biden administration economic official who is now a trade law professor at Georgetown Law. Officials are “not able to put in or do the level of detail that they’ve been able to do in the past.”

USTR’s staff of less than 300 people has always punched above its weight, almost all of the former officials noted. The Commerce and Treasury Departments, by comparison, count workforces of around 40,000 and 80,000 employees, respectively.

From 2023 to 2026, however, the number of USTR employees fell almost 20 percent, from 269 workers to 220, leaving it with the smallest workforce since 2005, according to data from the White House Office of Personnel Management.

The agency’s lowest staffing in more than 20 years continues a decline that began in the latter half of the Biden administration when the agency faced a staff exodus driven by frustration with the former president’s dormant trade agenda.

USTR’s in-house expertise has only continued to dwindle in the second Trump administration.

The agency’s most senior official responsible for North American trade, Daniel Watson, retired just days before the White House formally launched a review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on July 1. Meanwhile, Bryant Trick, the top trade official for Europe and the Middle East is also set to retire in the coming months at a time when U.S. talks with Europe over its digital trade practices, pharmaceutical pricing and implementation of a bilateral trade pact are in full swing.

Officials that left the agency during Trump’s second term did not agree on a single driving factor behind the recent departures. The first former USTR official cited their dismay over Trump’s ties to the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein as a reason for their own departure. Others noted there was a cohort of staff nearing retirement age.

“I don’t sense that one can point to a morale problem or something like that,” a second former official said.

Greer, who served as chief of staff to Trump’s first-term trade representative, Bob Lighthizer, is widely respected at the agency, former officials said, and built up goodwill among staff for his handling of the administration-wide effort to cut the size of the government last year. USTR was spared from those cuts, which several former officials attributed to Greer’s assertiveness on personnel matters.

There is money available for USTR to staff up. The agency received $88 million in fiscal 2026, which should accommodate 274 employees, according toUSTR’s budget documents.Greer is also asking for $95 million in fiscal 2027 to beef up trade enforcement activities. The agency says the funding increase would allow for 301 full-time employees.

But it hasn’t been easy to hire.

Since Trump returned to office, the private sector has scrambled to bring on trade experts to help companies navigate the more complex tariff landscape, offering higher salaries than candidates and sitting officials can earn in government.

“It is no surprise that the private sector is eager to hire the well-regarded experts at USTR during this period of historic change in U.S. trade policy,” the USTR spokesperson added in a statement.

Three of the former officials said it is common for jobs to sit vacant for more than a year. One said they have seen the recruitment process drag on for two years, as the Executive Office of the President, which handles USTR’s hiring, prioritizes recruitment in other executive offices.

Shifts in human resources policies under Trump have also hurt recruitment efforts, two of the former USTR officials said, citing, in particular, new limits on remote work.

A flexible working environment “is one of the ways that you compete with better salaries and more certainty in other sectors,” one of the people said.

USTR is supposed to be a “nimble” agency, the person stressed — particularly so under Trump, where trade negotiations, investigations and new tariffs are rolled out on shortened timelines and responding to fast-moving developments in bilateral trade relationships.

“They’re being asked to do a lot,” the person said, but the hiring “system is just not set up to be nimble or to get results on any quick timeline.”

Paroma Soni contributed to this report.

PARIS — Center-left MEP Raphaël Glucksmann will announce that he’s running in next year’s presidential election in France in the next few days, most likely with a prime-time TV interview on Sunday, according to three people close to him.

The trio, granted anonymity to speak candidly about Glucksmann’s plans, said he plans to take part in a closed primary being organized by the Socialist Party that currently includes Ségolène Royal, the Socialist presidential candidate in 2007 who lost to Nicolas Sarkozy, and MP Philippe Brun. Socialist Party leader Olivier Faure has also said he is considering running.

While a win would guarantee Glucksmann the support of the Socialists, the main center-left force in France, the party has been struggling to make inroads with voters and is beset by infighting.

Several high-profile Socialists, including former President François Hollande and former Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, have publicly hinted at plans to sit out their party’s primary and launch independent presidential bids.

However, polls show that Glucksmann, the leader of his own small political party, Place Publique, is the best-placed presidential hopeful on the center left after leading the Socialists and their allies to a strong third-place finish in the 2024 European elections.

Yet he and the rest of the field still lag significantly behind far-right front-runner Marine Le Pen, according to most surveys. France’s presidential election goes to a runoff if no candidate scores more than 50 percent of the vote, and if the polls hold, Le Pen is all but guaranteed to nab one of the final two spots.

To advance to the second round, Glucksmann will have to see off centrist and center-right rivals like Edouard Philippe and the firebrand anticapitalist Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

Mélenchon, who announced his plans to run in May, is currently polling slightly ahead of Glucksmann, but both are within striking distance of making the runoff.

The two are bitter rivals whose divisions are reminiscent of those across left-leaning parties in the Western world, including the U.S. Democratic Party.

Glucksmann hopes his centrist brand of politics can win over former Socialist voters who backed President Emmanuel Macron. Mélenchon’s hardline messaging is more targeted at low-propensity voters, including younger voters and those from working-class, multicultural communities in major French cities.

Glucksmann and Mélenchon disagree on issues ranging from France’s participation in NATO, — which Mélenchon opposes and Glucksmann supports — to pension reform.

Mélenchon has pledged to lower the minimum retirement age to 60 if elected president, while Glucksmann believes some workers should be required to work longer and that France should move toward a system where retirement age would be based on life expectancy and individual working conditions.

LONDON — Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government said the U.K. is willing to discuss American concerns over its digital services tax amid renewed pressure from the White House.

President Donald Trump in June threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on European countries with DSTs which target U.S. tech firms, and in an interview with The Times newspaper published on Monday, Trump’s top trade official Jamieson Greer said the threat was “not a bluff” and the president’s demands that foreign governments abandon such taxes were “quite serious.”

“We remain open to discussing U.S. concerns and working with partners internationally,” a U.K. government spokesperson said when asked about Greer’s comments.

“This tax is about making sure that businesses pay their fair share of U.K. tax based on the value they derive from U.K. activities,” the spokesperson said, adding that the U.K. is committed to removing it “once a global solution is in place.”

The DST raised over £1 billion last year, predominantly from American tech firms, and has repeatedly drawn Trump’s ire.

The U.K. government has so far resisted calls to abandon the tax, including during trade negotiations last year. A U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal signed by Trump and Burnham’s predecessor, Keir Starmer, did not mention the DST but said both sides would continue discussions to increase digital trade and address non-tariff barriers.

Greer added in his interview with The Times that the U.S. administration would not “set artificial timelines” and that relations with his British counterparts, including Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and the prime minister’s business adviser Varun Chandra, are positive.

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?

Antworten liefern immer mittwochs Pauline von Pezold von POLITICO und Frederik Schindler von WELT — unaufgeregt, aber kritisch.

Fragen und Feedback gern an insideafd@politico.eu.

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

A full three decades ago, as Bill Clinton turned 50 in the midst of his successful 1996 reelection campaign, he was sounding even then in an autumnal mood.

“I have more yesterdays than tomorrows” he used to say often that year, a wistfulness that caused those of us who covered him to puzzle. What’s with this misty nostalgia? It was literally true, unless he expected to live 100, that he probably had more yesterdays than tomorrows. But fifty is typically the point when people realize they are no longer exactly young. It is hardly an age that merits a self-conception as old. Clinton’s perspective, however, doubtless left him with an appreciation of the fragility of life. He never met his biological father — a traveling salesman who married five times and died at age 28 in a car accident, three months before the future president was born.

Yet Clinton himself has proved reasonably durable, especially for a man who had serious heart surgery at age 58. The 42nd president turns 80 today — at last at an age that amply justifies a more searching look back on life.

Rest assured that no one in 1996 was contemplating the possibility that the president 30 years later would be a man who is actually two months older than Clinton — much less that this man would be President Donald Trump, who at that time had already been famous as a real estate magnate and professional self-promoter for 15 years or so.

Above all, I think few people then were imagining that the country in 2026 would itself be feeling so old — or, at a minimum, so surly and so bereft of a unifying vision of the future. The very essence of the most powerful and divisive political movement since former President Ronald Reagan’s is expressly backward-looking — Make America Great Again.

Many of the habits that today infuse American politics — the ones that make it so remorseless and infused with indignation and disdain — were present in nascent form in Clinton’s presidency. At the time, those developments seemed exotic — there was scant notion that they represented a shabby new norm.

In the early days, this brand of contempt-driven politics often revolved around arguments about Bill Clinton’s public and private character. This was a theme of his 1992 election against George H.W. Bush, his 1996 election against Bob Dole, and it even shadowed the 2004 dedication of his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark.

I am hardly a Clinton intimate. I haven’t been in his company in a decade. At one time, however, I probably knew as much about his presidency — its animating ideas, its decisive moments, its distinctive personalities — as anyone who had not actually served in it. This came from six years covering his White House for the Washington Post, and another two working on a book that aimed to synthesize his years in office and take a preliminary cut at assessing their historical weight. In both journalistic and historical terms, much of this time was devoted to thinking about competing appraisals of Clinton’s character.

It is an argument without end in part because the positive and negative elements of Clinton’s character, the light and the shadows, seemingly flow from the same source: an intense need to win, to matter, to seduce, to prove himself in the world. Imagine if people around Bill Clinton in 1974, the year he ran unsuccessfully for Congress — Hillary Rodham, then a girlfriend but not yet a spouse, showed up in Arkansas to help — had been given a crystal ball to peer into the future. These people would not be surprised to learn that a future president was in their midst; His talent, ambition, and idealism were that obvious. Nor would they be surprised to learn how his campaigns and presidency would at various turns be nearly derailed. As early biographer David Maraniss documented, even then Clinton had a reputation for sexual vagrancy, and the patterns of heedlessness, deception, and hypocrisy such a lifestyle inevitably requires.

He’s been out of political office for more than a quarter-century — as long as he was ever in it, beginning with his first victory as Arkansas attorney general in 1976. By my lights, the years since he yielded the Oval Office to George W. Bush (who turned 80 last month) in January 2001 have abundantly ratified the proposition that the country could do worse — at key junctures plainly has done worse–than Clinton’s character or his record, the strengths and infirmities alike.

As he turns 80, and the country contemplates a post-Trump future two years from now, it seems to me there are at least four ways in which Clinton has prevailed in the great character argument woven throughout his life.

Responsibility

This is a place where my views have not changed much from what I thought at the time and what I think now. A paradox of Clinton’s presidency is that, however reckless he was in his personal life — culminating in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal and Republicans’ unsuccessful attempt to evict him from office through impeachment — he was supremely responsible in his use of power and his willingness to take sober risks for what he thought was right. Yes, he would over-agonize on hard choices — on issues from trade to welfare to war in the Balkans. But at the end of the day — sometimes it could be a very long day — on big subjects there was rarely much variance between what Clinton genuinely thought was the right decision and what he did.

A good many of his policies are out of favor now within his own party. But the political and policy landscape he was navigating was much different than today. Clinton was a thoroughly political creature, but he was not an unduly cynical one — he was willing frequently to risk his political self-interest on behalf of what he conceived of as the public interest.

Persuasion

One reason Bill Clinton and his brand of centrist politics can seem antiquated is that the past generation has been defined by a whole different emphasis: the politics of mobilization. Under this later school of politics, elections are won principally by sharpening divisions and elevating the moral stakes. The aim is not to win over skeptics through the power of reasoned argument. It is to convince your own side that the other side is so repugnant in its character and aims that they should rally behind you and turn out in the biggest possible numbers.

Clinton would in most of his campaigns give a nod to trying to explain what the other side believed, and why he believed his approach is better. “I think one of the ways you win elections is by talking straight with people and giving them permission to vote against you,” Clinton said a few years ago on a podcast. What he meant was that effective arguments don’t hector audiences or assert moral superiority, or the other side’s moral iniquity. They invite or even inspire people to think about an issue differently.

In short, the politics of mobilization harnesses the power of contempt; the politics of persuasion employs the language of respect. Mobilization politics tends to deal in ideological and cultural abstractions like free markets versus socialism, or “traditional values” versus sexual freedom — the kind of debates that are especially potent at pushing people to decide “which side are you on?” Persuasion politics is more likely to center on the concrete human dimensions of policy choices — here’s what an expansion of childcare tax credits might mean for you.

You could argue which brand of politics is more effective, and for the most part advocates of mobilization politics in recent years on left and right have been prevailing. But it’s hard to see how the politics of persuasion is not a more inspiring expression of American character, and also more likely to resolve serious long-term debates.

The fight for power

When Clinton opened his presidential library in Little Rock in 2004, the late Peter Jennings of ABC News in an interview baited Clinton about a recent survey of historians that rated his presidency reasonably well overall, but second to last (ahead only of Richard Nixon) in “moral authority.” Clinton said curtly that the historians were wrong, adding, “I don’t really care what they think.” Jennings replied: “Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply.”

Clinton then snapped: “You don’t want to go here, Peter. You don’t want to go here. Not after what you people did. And the way you — your network — what you did with [Whitewater prosecutor] Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea of what that’s like.”

The new library had an alcove about Clinton’s 1998 impeachment and subsequent acquittal called, “The Fight for Power.” The scandal, the exhibit argued, was simply the Republicans’ effort to overturn an election they lost.

At the time, I believed this was mostly Clinton’s tortured rationalization for his own mistakes. Events since then, however, have swung the historical argument irrefutably in his favor. In the 1990s we spent months and even years covering such inane issues as whether the newly elected Clinton acted properly to fire long-term employees of the office that booked White House charter flights and hotels for the media. Now, Trump asserts the right to eliminate cabinet departments and agencies without congressional approval — and the stories often get lost in the rush of other news. There is not a credible argument that says Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater land investments in the 1970s were a worthy subject for ethics inquiries and criminal probes but the Trump family’s crypto investments and overseas deals while the company founder is in the Oval Office are no big deal.

Clinton was right that the attacks on his character were often simply not on the level—but a proxy for other agendas.

Perseverance

In 2000, as Bill Clinton’s presidency was winding down and Hillary Clinton was waging a successful campaign for New York Senate, there was a political skull session at the White House involving a trusted roster of aides and strategists. As one of them described it to me later, Bill Clinton brought up the elephant in the room. Female voters in particular, he noted, wanted to understand why Hillary had stayed with Bill during the sex scandal. The mood was briefly awkward until Hillary Clinton said good-naturedly that she wanted to know the answer too.

“Because you’re a sticker!” the president replied, jabbing the air for emphasis.

Actually, it seems to me, both Clintons are. Across many decades, they have stayed married, and stayed in the fight over the issues they care about—amid plenty of victories and setbacks alike. That is a kind of character, too.

These days, Bill Clinton’s public appearances are fewer. At times he looks frail. His skeptics include many people in his own party. Yet, on his 80th birthday, the main question seems to be less about his character than the country’s: Is there a pathway to a destination in which more people believed with him that politics can illuminate the best and most generous and inspiring parts of national identity? Clinton may be getting old, but that idea should be made young again.

South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said Wednesday that Seoul received no warning of Donald Trump’s plan to slash joint military exercises, a move the U.S. president announced publicly and linked to South Korea’s refusal to help with his war in Iran.

“Neither our government nor U.S. officials knew what President Trump wrote on his Truth Social,” Cho told the National Assembly’s foreign affairs committee. “We were not notified in advance.”

Trump ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday to “substantially reduce” the annual exercises, calling them costly and “totally inappropriate and hostile” toward North Korea. He tied the move to Seoul’s refusal to assist his effort to strip Iran of its nuclear capabilities and highlighted his “very good relationship” with Pyongyang’s ruler Kim Jong Un.

Cho said Trump’s announcement caught Seoul by surprise, but added the eventual changes to the drills were being worked out jointly. Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back was in “close consultations” with Washington, he said. “Since our defense minister was involved in the discussions, I do not think it amounts to a unilateral notification.”

He also warned that the smaller drills should not delay the transfer of wartime operational control, or OPCON, to Seoul — a longtime plan that would put a South Korean general in command of the combined U.S.-South Korean forces during a conflict.

The drills have anchored the U.S.-South Korean alliance for more than 70 years, born from the aftermath of the Korean War, which ended in 1953 with an armistice agreement but no peace treaty. North Korea, which routinely condemns the drills as rehearsals for an invasion, launched another round of ballistic missile tests last week after this year’s exercises were announced.

The rollback is already taking effect. South Korea said Wednesday that this year’s exercise will end on Aug. 21 rather than Aug. 27 after a U.S. request, cutting six days from the schedule.

France will expel two Iranian diplomats after Tehran’s security services detained and interrogated two French Embassy staffers last month, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot announced Tuesday evening.

The row dates back to July 19, when two French Embassy employees in Tehran — one of them the cultural attaché — were questioned for several hours and “beaten,” according to Barrot. Paris accused Iranian security services of carrying out a “premeditated and deliberate” act of intimidation in “flagrant violation” of diplomatic protections, summoning Iran’s chargé d’affaires two days later.

“It is precisely because France stands alongside the Iranian people” that the July 19 incident was especially outrageous, Barrot wrote on X Tuesday. The two French diplomats were “scandalously and deliberately assaulted,” he said, calling their treatment “intolerable.”

Tehran disputes that account. Iran’s foreign ministry says the French diplomats violated the Vienna Convention through activities it considers interference in Iranian affairs and has since declared both persona non grata, barring them from returning to Iran after they left the country.

French foreign ministry spokesperson Pascal Confavreux hit back Tuesday, accusing Tehran of making “completely false accusations” against the French diplomats and of “fabricating an interference case” to justify its actions.

President Donald Trump paused a 50 percent tariff on Canadian goods hours before it was scheduled to kick in, saying the two countries had reached a preliminary deal.

In a post on social media late Tuesday, Trump announced that he would delay the duties, set to go into effect at midnight on Wednesday, for three days “based on the fact that Canada and the U.S.A., subject to the finalization of documents, have a DEAL!”

The president teased that the agreement could include resurrecting the Keystone XL Pipeline, a long-stalled pipeline extension intended to pump crude oil from Alberta, Canada to the Midwest of the United States.

Paul Dallison writes Declassified, a weekly satirical column.

It’s official: Members of the European Parliament are not the most dangerous creatures in Europe!

French MEP Manon Aubry wrote on social media on Monday that she was in hospital after being bitten by a viper. Aubry didn’t say where the snake attack took place, but she was smiling in her post, despite what she said were “complications related to the poisoning.”

The leftist MEP is far from the only politician to have been attacked by an animal, however. Here are a few more (no animals were harmed in the writing of this article):

Snakebitten

The chances of being bitten by a snake in Europe are slim — there are “fewer than 300 such cases in France each year,” according to Aubry — but it’s more common when you venture further afield.

Last year, Inna Gardiner, a politician from Jersey — the largest of the Channel Islands — was bitten by a Malayan Pit Viper during a holiday in Thailand. And West Virginia politician Doug Skaff was bitten twice by venomous snakes in 2024 while removing campaign signs (and he hadn’t even won the election he was competing in).

In a rare case of “man attacks snake,” U.S. Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. was filmed earlier this year picking up a pair of snakes in the home of Mehmet Oz, a former TV doctor who now heads up the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Cheryl cheerleads the removal of a pair of Black Racers from Dr Oz’s patio,” Kennedy captioned a social media post of the incident, referencing his wife, actress Cheryl Hines. A woman in the footage can be heard speaking for all of us by simply saying: “Why?”

This is the same RFK Jr. who cut the head off a dead whale and strapped it to the roof of the family minivan; who dumped a dead bear cub carcass in Central Park; and who cut off the penis of a road-killed raccoon.

Something to sink your teeth into

During a visit to Chişinău in 2023, Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen was bitten by a rescue dog belonging to Moldovan President Maia Sandu. Sandu had brought her dog, named Codruț, to a photo op with Van der Bellen and Slovenian President Nataša Pirc Musar. Van der Bellen reached down to pet Codruț, but the dog lunged at him and snapped at his right hand. Sandu apologized and explained Codruț had become overwhelmed (presumably as it’s such a big fan of Austrian politics).

Sandro Garibaldi, a member of the regional council in Liguria for the League, was bitten on the hand by a wolf earlier this year. Garibaldi had interrupted the wolf in the process of killing some sheep. It’s not clear if the wolf in question was the same one that killed European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s pet pony, Dolly.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel wasn’t bitten by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dog when she visited his home in Sochi back in 2007; she was just scared by it. However, she was pecked by an Australian rainbow lorikeet during a visit to a bird park in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in 2021, causing her to scream in a similar fashion to when she used to see Silvio Berlusconi at European Council summits.

Back in Covid times, Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro — who had dismissed the seriousness of the epidemic and criticized containment measures ordered by local governors, but also tested positive for the disease — was taking a walk while under quarantine at the presidential palace when he was bitten on the hand by a rhea. “This rhea represents us,” posted Margarida Salomão of the Workers’ Party.

In 2009, then-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was bitten on the hand by a groundhog. Rumors that Bloomberg is being bitten on the hand continuously were unconfirmed at the time of going to press.

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was attacked by an ostrich at a safari park in Texas last year. Johnson’s wife, Carrie, posted a clip of the incident on Instagram in which he can be heard saying: “Cripes! Oh, fucking hell.”

On a more serious note, Greece’s King Alexander died after a monkey attacked him back in 1920. The king was walking in the grounds of a castle outside Athens when a Barbary macaque attacked his dog. Another monkey then bit the king, and the wounds soon became infected and turned septic. Three weeks later, he died aged 27.

In the White Ouch

It’s almost mandatory to be attacked by an animal if you are the president of the United States. In 1979, Jimmy Carter was out fishing when he came across a swamp rabbit. The story went that the rabbit was “berserk,” “enraged,” “making strange hissing noises and gnashing its teeth.” Then-Press Secretary Jody Powell said it was “intent upon climbing into the presidential boat.”

Every year at Thanksgiving, the president pardons a turkey, and in 2001, the turkey thanked George W. Bush by lunging toward his crotch — attacking him below the 49th parallel, if you will.

In 2015, when still a presidential candidate, Donald Trump was photographed by Time magazine with a bald eagle called Uncle Sam, which clearly did not care for the billionaire and tried to bite him. Trump has yet to start a war with eagles.

Andrew Jackson, the seventh U.S. president, was not attacked by an animal, as far as we know. But he did have a parrot called Poll that was rather foulmouthed and was removed from Jackson’s funeral service for spouting profanities at the mourners.

BRUSSELS — Europe’s seas are overheating and climate change is to blame, researchers said Wednesday, warning that marine heat waves are threatening ecosystems and coastal communities. 

The Atlantic and the Mediterranean are far hotter than normal, with some parts of the oceans around Europe reaching 6 degrees Celsius above average this week.

The culprit is climate change, scientists from the World Weather Attribution consortium said in a study released Wednesday. They found global warming is the driver behind this year’s high ocean temperatures.

The report lands during a summer marked by record-breaking heat waves on land, droughts and fires — all worsened by climate change, according to the same scientists. In the sea, the soaring temperatures harm marine species, boost jellyfish populations and increase the risk of destructive storms later in the year.

“This summer, we’ve seen some really exceptional ocean temperatures around Europe,” said Catherine Gregory, a climate scientist at the University of Bern who contributed to the study.

“By July, the average temperature of the entire Mediterranean Sea was just over 27C, which was the highest July value on record,” she added. “We’ve had a buoy reading to the west of Mallorca measuring more than 33C in open water … and we’ve seen similarly extreme conditions in the North Atlantic.” 

The scientists used peer-reviewed methods to analyze four regions: The Eastern and Western Mediterranean; the Atlantic around the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Peninsula; and the seas around Ireland and western Britain. 

“We find it’s the most extreme July marine heat wave conditions in the record for the Western Mediterranean, the Celtic region, and for the Bay of Biscay-Iberian Peninsula region,” said Gregory. 

The scientists concluded climate change made both Mediterranean regions 2C warmer while heating the Iberian waters by 1.4C and the Irish seas by 1.3C. 

Global warming has also vastly expanded marine heat waves, the researchers found when comparing this year’s conditions to a simulated world without climate change. This year, 90 percent of the Bay of Biscay experienced hot temperatures and 80 percent of the Western Mediterranean; without global warming, only 40 percent of each region would have been affected.

The difference is even more dramatic in the Eastern Mediterranean, where 70 percent of the seas experienced marine heat waves this year, a figure plunging to 9 percent in a world without climate change. Around Ireland, the extent drops from 80 percent to 30 percent. 

Oceans absorb the vast majority of the excess heat produced by burning fossil fuels. The warming waters push some species to relocate in search of cooler seas, while those that cannot move — such as corals or seagrasses — are at risk of mass die-offs. 

“We have what we call winners and losers. So a lot of species wane in abundance or completely disappear while others bloom and proliferate,” said John Bruno, an ecologist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and one of the study’s co-authors. 

In the United Kingdom, for example, fishermen have found octopuses spreading north in the warming waters, decimating the shellfish catch with their voracious appetite for crabs. In France, jellyfish — which thrive in warmer waters — are clogging up nuclear power stations. 

Beyond the impact on ecosystems and the fishing industry, marine heat waves increase the extreme weather threat to coastal communities. The scientists noted that warm oceans supercharge the dangerous combination of heat and humidity along the shores, while also building up moisture that can fuel storms, such as the deadly 2024 floods in Valencia. 

“We find that when we have very warm sea surface temperatures, they provide added energy to storms,” said Gregory. “And then we also have the added impact of additional stress during land heat waves as well.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Canberra Playbook newsletter.

ESSENTIALS

• One Nation is framing our next big debates (echoes of Trump)
• The major parties are chalking up legislative wins (echoes of Biden)
• Sen. James Paterson swings big in our Playbook Interview
• Can Canberra find an Australian way on AI and data centers?

DRIVING THE DAY

One Nation is setting the terms for the next round of polarizing debates, as the major parties close in on major legislative achievements: gambling ad reform and NDIS cost reform.

Consider this: Pauline Hanson’s dig at Labor’s rigid superannuation access rules, and a claim that Labor plans to raid super funds, has created endless on-air and coffee line chat — and a wedge into housing policy debates. Razor-sharp communications are getting the sort of cut-through Tim Wilson has been dreaming of on those two issues.

Barnaby Joyce then used a Radio National interview Tuesday to cast all government politicians as liars and used his assertion as proof that voters will be fleeced in new ways by Labor.

Joyce was already dominating the attention of non-Canberrans at that point by promising to cut cigarette packet prices from $46 to $21. That tees up a debate on the massive unintended consequences of government tobacco policy: a huge illegal market.

To sideline the Coalition, Labor made One Nation the focus of its House Question Time on Monday, and then Tyron Whitten teamed up with the Coalition in Senate Question Time to pile onto Labor’s handling of veterans.

Whether it was Labor and Liberal squeezed on the airwaves, the Coalition squeezed in the chamber, or the Nationals just forgotten about: One Nation has been hogging the attention and and deciding what comes next.

LABOR’S PR DISASTER: With gambling and NDIS legislation now agreed, that opens the way for more Coalition and One Nation attacks on Veterans’ Affairs Minister Matt Keogh.

Taylor’s tactics team is this morning focusing on how to press that advantage against Labor.

Keogh’s vulnerability here: After Keogh initially argued he didn’t have time to meet visiting veterans angry that Labor’s new price cap on health support ($5,000 annually) discriminated against those with long travel distances for care, he did meet them. But former pilot Tim Nelson said of the eventual meeting: “He walked into the room, refused to shake our hand, sat down with his arms crossed and rolled his eyes.” Keogh rejected that characterization.

THREE CHEERS: Anthony Albanese has a trio of problems off his plate, after his first leader-to-leader negotiations with Angus Taylor. NDIS has passed the Senate, and contentious gambling reforms and news media bargaining updates will pass the Senate by tonight with support from the Coalition. Press Gallery veteran Michelle Grattan has you covered.

GOOD ENOUGH: Liberal MP Simon Kennedy pushed his party to go further on restricting gambling ads but is satisfied with the dealmaking. “Is it perfect? No. Is it far better than what the PM wanted three weeks ago? Yes,” he told Playbook.

Kennedy said the Coalition and Greens forcing a Senate inquiry, which heard gambling companies were offering cocaine and sex workers as inducements, was key. “The PM capitulated to the gambling lobby, but misread the room and had to capitulate to the Australian public,” Kennedy said.

LESS TO GIVE: Labor didn’t have to bend as much for a win on its NDIS reforms, fast-tracking a fix to its budget’s so-called widow’s tax — which it was going to do anyway. “It took me a millisecond to say: ‘Yup, we’re up for that’,” the PM said. Big win for Jenny McAllister.

WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING ON IMMIGRATION? The Cabinet is silent. The Minister’s office only wants to give off-record non-answers. And it wasn’t raised in Labor caucus, according to our sources in the room.

What if? A figure from One Nation or the Coalition self-destructs on immigration because Labor is leaving them the space to do it this week? It worked last week: Sen. Andrew Bragg blew up his colleagues at the Press Club, and we all would have paid much less attention if Tony Burke had just given his own Press Club speech on the topic, as planned.

BY THE NUMBERS

AUSTRALIA’S ILLEGAL TOBACCO MARKET 

Pauline Hanson wants cheaper legal cigarettes to stamp out black market trade, and she upped the ante this week, moving from a 50 percent excise cut to a 75 percent cut.

PUFF SITUATION: More than 50 percent of nicotine consumed in Australia is now illegal, and the black market is burning a $3.3 billion hole in tax revenue every year. Everyone (except Labor) agrees we’re in our own Prohibition-era. As Barnaby put it to ABC: “If you keep on putting up the price of cigarettes, you’re gonna get more mafia.”

The illegal market is now so entrenched, a simple price cut might not nudge people back to legal safety. After all, no one’s come for them so far.

Fiddling while your primary vote burns: While One Nation throws out new numbers at the drop of a press release, the Coalition is doing a monthslong policy review. A separate Senate inquiry will hand down its report on Aug. 28.

I said it first: The Coalition’s point person on tobacco, Mary Aldred, told Playbook it’s her idea. “I’ll always welcome new support for my long-term calls on sharp cuts.”

THE PLAYBOOK INTERVIEW

JAMES PATERSON — SHADOW MINISTER FOR DEFENSE

Do you feel Senate Estimates is working institutionally?

So many officials either came ill-prepared to answer questions [in July] — which I find very hard to believe — or would deliberately try not to answer questions. I have zero tolerance for that.

If they continually obstruct the Senate’s scrutiny function, then it will become a very unpleasant, uncomfortable environment for everyone.

Pat Conroy says AUKUS is on track and that Britain is scaling up. The House of Commons is worried. Which assessments do you trust? 

We should be optimistic and positive, but realistic. What I don’t want to see is fatalism. These are solvable problems. We’ve got time to get this right: as long as we are honest and realistic about it now.

The U.K. is designing and then building its own AUKUS-class subs before we build ours, so the risk in the project is front-loaded onto them.

They have a very powerful incentive to get this right because it’s their own national security. The prime minister has appointed John Healey — the former defense secretary — as the chancellor. That shows to me that they’re putting defense and national security at the heart of their economic agenda.

What contingencies do we need to be thinking about?

Two windows of capability gaps: Between the Collins-class submarines and the Virginia-class submarines in the early 2030s; between Virginias and SSN AUKUS [in the early 2040s].

For the first capability gap we really need to investigate alternatives. I put the B-21 stealth bomber on the agenda for examination.

We also don’t know what capabilities drones will have in 15 years. 

That’s right. It’s rapidly evolving, even in the course of weeks and months.

If you became defense minister, is there anything you’d want to subject to an independent review? Anything now?

The new statutory defense committee which has been established; I think the core business of that community should be review of delivery of AUKUS.

Where do you see the most promise in Australia’s defense industries? 

[AUKUS] Pillar 2 is a military technology free trade agreement. It is supposed to get rid of, if not all, then at least most of the barriers to intellectual property, capital and humans moving between the three AUKUS nations. If Australia and the United States and the U.K. can’t work together in a single spot on this, then no other group of countries in the world can.

The government is working to be the Pacific’s partner of choice. Do you have any red lines or limits? 

[Solomon Islands] Prime Minister Wale, in his [push for a] Pacific-wide multilateral agreement on security and policing, I think if that window of opportunity opens, we must seize it.

We need to remember that for Australia’s national interest to succeed we have to succeed in blocking the PRC from establishing military or policing arrangements every time they try. For the PRC’s national interest to succeed, they only have to succeed once.

Read the full interview with Paterson here.

CANBERRA MEETS WORLD

AI, THE AUSTRALIAN WAY

Canberra doesn’t want to be your AI landlord, Ryan Heath writes in a piece also featured today in POLITICO Forecast.

Instead, it’s trying to pull off a feat that’s eluding national and local governments around the world: Attract AI investment, but on its own terms.

That includes investors paying their own way on energy, training the locals, providing compute access and not hogging all the very precious water.

To avoid the nasty data center debate unfolding in the United States, the vibe is: move quickly while resisting the idea that speed should settle every question.

Ahead of 2027 legislation this middle road has an overarching goal: protect household electricity prices, and bring Australia into more of the AI supply chain.

The hope is that social license buys more time to deal with the labor market disruptions that AI use accelerates.

Nicolette Boele’s research among 750 constituents found “over 80 per cent were not confident the government will effectively regulate data centers.” The biggest concerns: water and energy impacts.

South Australia’s Labor premier, Peter Malinauskas, is alert to the danger: that’s why he announced a Royal Commission into the impacts of AI, Aug. 11.

Andrew Charlton, Albo’s AI whisperer, wants more than data centers, and is taking lessons from Australia’s mining boom missed opportunities.

The TL;DR: Unlike in mining, we don’t own a choke point. And if we just supply the land, power and buildings while foreign firms retain ownership of the intellectual property, models and customer relationships, much of the value will flow offshore.

As Charlton put it in an ANU speech Aug. 18: “Unless we take timely action, Australia is on course to be a large and permanent importer of intelligence.”

TOKYO-CANBERRA DEAL: Japan is set to test hypersonic missiles and other advanced weapons on Australian soil as both nations push to increase military cooperation, amid China competitive threat, reported Andrew Greene.

QUESTION TIME

RED CARD: Incensed by the gambling deal, Greens Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young lost her questions in QT. Hanson-Young asked Penny Wong what her late colleague Peta Murphy would say about the deal — Murphy chaired an inquiry calling for a total gambling ad ban.

Clippable content: Hanson-Young’s question violated Senate rules, but with politics now dominated by viral moments, she got what she came for.

QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE: The Hanson-Young incident brings into focus an important question: What should QT be for?

Hanson-Young asked a pertinent question, and was penalized for it. That sits in a world where fake questions that we euphemistically call Dorothy Dixers are allowed. Ministers routinely get away with dodging reasonable questions, and others think it’s OK to deliver outbursts designed with the intention of getting kicked out.

That’s a form of QT which isn’t going to survive contact with an angry public that’s already telling politicians the two-party system is over.

Does QT need reform to avoid being written out of the national conversation?

Send us your thoughts: WhatsApp on 0494 380 487 or email canberraplaybook@politico.com.

Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen lashed out at the Trump administration on Tuesday after Washington sanctioned two senior officials at the International Criminal Court over probes targeting alleged Israeli crimes in Gaza.

Earlier in the day, Washington had upped the ante in its campaign against the international tribunal by sanctioning ICC President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye.

“The Netherlands disapproves of the latest sanctions against officials and staff of the International Criminal Court,” Berendsen wrote on X. “International courts and tribunals must be able to freely carry out their mandates.” He added that the Netherlands “fully” backed the court and had invited Akane for talks to discuss its continued support.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused the court of threatening American sovereignty, saying the administration was acting to protect its citizens from a “sham” institution and would never allow Americans to be “transported beyond seas to be tried for pretend offenses.”

Tuesday’s sanctions are part of a campaign Washington launched last month to cripple the ICC. The U.S. has already sanctioned at least 11 ICC officials and has urged the court’s 125 member states to withdraw from the organization.

The Hague-based ICC, established in 2002, prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Its pursuit of charges against senior Israeli politicians on such grounds, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against whom it has issued an arrest warrant, has been a particular sore point for the U.S.

The court issued a statement on Tuesday pushing back against Washington, warning that measures punishing judges, prosecutors and staff for carrying out their mandate “undermine the rule of law” and put the international legal order at risk.

Netanyahu, who is wanted by the court for allegedly using starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza, applauded Washington’s move, branding the ICC a “kangaroo court” and praising Rubio for making clear that its officials would “face consequences.”

President Donald Trump dropped a political bombshell on the Korean peninsula this week.

But security officials say the president’s threats to curtail a major military exercise with South Korea will do little to undermine the detente between Seoul and Pyongyang.

Trump’s declaration Sunday that he would instruct the Pentagon to cut back on annual drills sent Seoul’s leaders scrambling to repair the damage. But the president appears more focused on pushing for investment from the country than trying to upend defenses against North Korea’s nuclear threat. And that means security on the world’s most militarized border hasn’t significantly changed.

The U.S. has more than 28,000 troops stationed on the peninsula, along with thick layers of air defenses. It has worked hand in glove with the Korean military for decades, a powerful joint force that works closely at every level. The border between a nuclear-armed North Korea and the U.S. ally to its south is a case study in mutually assured destruction. And top commanders in Seoul and Washington remain in tight contact.

“I don’t think this is cataclysmic,” said Sydney Seiler, former national intelligence officer for North Korea at the National Intelligence Council.

Defense officials were tight-lipped about what Trump’s announcement would mean in terms of concrete changes to military exercises. The Pentagon would only say that it is “is actively working on executing the commander-in-chief’s directive.”

Trump’s order, and his praise of dictator North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s “unthreatening and respectful” behavior, came days after the secretive nation launched its second ballistic missile test in a week. It flew over 430 miles before landing just outside Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Some American lawmakers said the optics were horrible, particularly Trump’s seeming desire to appease a totalitarian regime.

“Kim Jong Un has won a propaganda victory and South Korea, one of our strongest allies, has been punished for no reason beyond Trump’s ego,” said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “China and Russia are watching how easily this president abandons America’s allies, and they will remember it the next time they test us.”

The order affects a major exercise, Ulchi Freedom Shield, a staple of the alliance since it was first held in 1976. The drills this year were scheduled to begin Monday and encompass 14 different exercises over 11 days, ranging from cyber warfare to defending against drone attacks and GPS jamming. Officials are especially worried that North Korea received Russian technologies and know-how about electronic jamming after it sent tens of thousands of troops to help Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“The alliance will manage through, [although] this is clearly a rough patch,” said Victor Cha, a former National Security Council official during the George W. Bush administration and now Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Trump’s criticism of South Korea is particularly surprising because it’s a departure from comments by top Pentagon officials, who have repeatedly praised Seoul for increasing defense spending.

Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby called South Korea “a model ally” in a January speech in Seoul, and lauded its commitment to the alliance. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also praised the relationship several times this year, including when his South Korean counterpart visited the Pentagon in May.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung on Tuesday sought to soothe concerns over a rift. He said in a Cabinet meeting that “a strong alliance makes the foundation of security stronger, and strengthening our own capabilities increases our value and necessity as an ally.”

Many officials remain puzzled about why Trump would abruptly curtail an annual exercise that has taken place reliably for 50 years. There’s some precedent. He had railed against expensive exercises in South Korea during his first term and the Pentagon did scale back some large joint operations. But Ulchi Freedom Shield is a cornerstone of the military-to-military relationship.

The effort — a combination of a tabletop, virtual event and physical exercises — will continue in some form. But U.S. officials indicated that military leadership is trying to find ways to modify the event to meet the president’s demands. And the announcement underscores that American support remains at the whim of an unpredictable president.

Some of the president’s motivation is likely financial. South Korea pledged last year to invest $350 billion in the U.S., but Trump officials believe its government is slow-walking its commitment, POLITICO has reported.

“The thing about Trump is it’s all very transactional,” said Cha. “So if they announce a first tranche of investments, he’ll be fine, right?”

But Asian allies are closely watching whether the distancing from traditional backers will continue, particularly movement of some critical American military assets out of the Pacific region. The USS George Washington aircraft carrier left port in Tokyo this month and is heading west. It will presumably go to the Middle East and replace the beleaguered USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, which is on the ninth month of an extended deployment.

The Pentagon relocated some elements of the THAAD missile defense system earlier this year from South Korea as part of a wider shift to the Middle East.

Lawmakers are also watching warily. Congress voted last year to restrict the Pentagon from reducing troop levels on the Korean peninsula below 28,500 unless the Pentagon certifies doing so is in the national interest and conducted after consultation with South Korea and other allies.

Lawmakers appear poised to extend those restrictions again in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.

“Reduced training hurts American preparedness too,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). “If we have moral clarity, then we’d treat [South Korea] as our ally and know North Korea is a dictatorship and slave labor state. … The president is wrong here.”

Conor O’Brien and Leo Shane contributed to this report.

Mykhailo Fedorov has called for elections in Ukraine despite Russia’s ongoing invasion, after his firing as defense minister sparked nationwide protests against President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The president has been under increasing pressure at home following the controversial government reshuffle last month in which he pushed out Fedorov, a popular minister credited with inspiring battlefield innovations.

“People cannot endlessly live in a state where they do not understand why certain decisions are made,” Fedorov said in a video address Tuesday night, alluding to the reshuffle.

“We must not let [Russian President Vladimir] Putin decide when Ukrainians can choose their government,” he said.

Ukraine’s constitution does not allow for it to hold elections while it is under martial law, the state of play since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022.

Election challenges

Even if Ukraine can find a legal route to new elections, they would likely take place under the specter of war.

Russia is bombarding Kyiv almost daily with missiles and drones, grinding out gains on the battlefield in eastern and southern Ukraine and preparing for a winter onslaught to seize more territory.

Holding elections in these circumstances would be “complex,” Fedorov said. He spoke about the importance of securing voting rights for members of the military, Ukrainians abroad and people in frontline regions.

Russia looms over Ukraine not just militarily but electorally. Moscow has a long record of trying to influence democratic outcomes around the world and would likely view elections in Ukraine as a potential avenue to victory in the war of aggression Putin escalated in 2022.

Putin and Russia-friendly politicians have long sought to portray Zelenskyy’s rule as illegitimate. The Ukrainian president was elected by a landslide in 2019 but has not faced a public vote since Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine more than four years ago.

Although Zelenskyy has faced pressure from international leaders to hold elections — including U.S. President Donald Trump — he has steadfastly maintained that they cannot take place during wartime. In February, he offered elections in exchange for a ceasefire. Putin, however, kept the war going.

The Ukrainian leader has been a figurehead for his country since the full-scale invasion, but his initial popularity has begun to visibly wane in the past year, amid allegations of corruption and complaints about the transparency of his government.

“People do not demand that the state never make mistakes,” Fedorov said. “But they have a right to the truth.”

Even before the controversial reshuffle, Zelenskyy was beginning to seem more isolated, having lost members of his inner circle including his trusted chief of staff Andriy Yermak, who was arrested on corruption charges in May, which he has denied.

The president — who has received near-unconditional backing from establishment politicians in Europe — would be able to point toward the progress he has made toward EU membership if he is pushed into an election campaign. Membership of the bloc is seen as crucial to Ukraine’s postwar future.

But whether Zelenskyy would even contest an election is another matter.  

This article has been updated.

President Donald Trump is waiting for Iran to cave to his economic pressure. Tehran may be willing to wait even longer.

Even as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promises a level of economic isolation “never seen before,” former Trump administration officials, U.S. ambassadors and other Middle East experts are skeptical that tightening the economic vise will force Iran to relinquish its desire to toll ships passing through the State of Hormuz and make the other concessions Trump is demanding to bring an end to the war.

“It’s an attrition campaign, and I am sure Treasury tweaks this or that to fill gaps or expand coverage of sanctions,” said James Jeffrey, a former ambassador who served in the Middle East during three presidential administrations, including Trump’s first term. “But, it’s hard to believe [there will be] something decisive after 20 years of U.S. sanctions and Iranian experience of going around them.”

It’s an acknowledgement that underscores the asymmetry of the situation. The Trump administration is staring down a consequential midterm election amid an unpopular war that has sent oil prices back up to roughly $90 a barrel and helped push long-term borrowing costs to their highest level in nearly two decades as hope dims that a peace deal is near.

Iran’s leaders, meanwhile, see the conflict as existential, giving Tehran reason to absorb the extraordinary economic pain rather than accept terms it believes could imperil the regime — especially as U.S. inflation remains elevated and treasuries sell off.

The yield on 30-year U.S. government bonds, a figure Trump has in the past been attuned to, jumped on Tuesday to its highest level since just before the global financial crisis.

The increase in the yield to its highest level in nearly two decades isn’t solely because of the six-month war; global fuel shortages and broader instability have kept energy prices higher for longer, increasing the threat of persistent inflation. And that’s heaped even more risk on global bond markets that have repeatedly blanched at Trump-related shocks.

“We are in a situation where we’re spending more and more to finance more and more,” said Julia Coronado, founder of MacroPolicy Perspectives. And the war has created “a riskier world full of more frictions, full of more supply shocks.”

Iran’s outsized incentive to muscle through the pain is partly why some former administration officials doubt that the naval blockade, while unprecedented in its scale in the modern era or whatever new strategies Bessent may unveil, will change Iran’s calculus.

“I think the economic pressure would need to hit them in new ways we haven’t seen so far to change the mindset of the regime,” said one former Trump administration official, granted anonymity to candidly assess the impact of the U.S.’s economic pressure campaign.

The administration has yet to indicate what further action it plans to take, but options include going after major Chinese banks that facilitate Iran’s oil trade, expand secondary sanctions on countries doing business with Iran and confiscating Iranian assets under U.S. jurisdiction instead of just freezing them.

Iranian leaders publicly mocked U.S. efforts to sanction them into submission.

“Americans think squeezing Iran harder will win concessions that were never part of the agreement,” Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, posted on X Tuesday.

“Bessent and [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth are way out of their league,” he wrote. “Stop waiting for the clown crew to pull a rabbit out of their hat and clean up the mess you made.”

White House aides, however, continue to contend that the leverage is on its side.

“The crushing sanctions and one of the most successful blockades that have crippled Iran’s economy and has left Iran completely broke,” said one administration official, granted anonymity to share the U.S.’s thinking. “There are many levers the president can crank harder in the weeks and months ahead.”

In the half-year since the Iran war began, the president has deployed an array of pressure tactics to choke Iran economically, including physically preventing the country from selling its most important export — oil — as part of an ongoing naval blockade of Iranian ports. The administration has also sanctioned foreign buyers of Iranian oil, targeted the country’s shadow fleet of ships that ferries it and sought to cut the country off from the financial networks it uses to move money.

That economic pressure has sent Iran’s economy, which was already troubled before the war, into a deeper tailspin. Now, Iran is grappling with year-over-year inflation of 88 percent, long lines and rationing at gas pumps and food prices that have more than doubled.

But those who have worked on previous Iran negotiations say that’s far from enough to get the regime to cave, especially after six months of U.S. bombing that has killed, by Tehran’s own measure, more than 3,000 Iranians.

“It’s undeniable that there is economic pressure. The question is whether there is a breaking point, and I would say for a regime that is fighting for its life and has never hesitated to transfer economic pain to its population, there is no breaking point,” said Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group’s Iran project director, who helped work to bridge differences between Iran and world powers during negotiations over the 2015 nuclear agreement.

Yet Trump continued to project patience on Tuesday, signaling that he was prepared to let the pressure campaign play out.

“There are no talks or conversations going on, or scheduled, with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Naval Blockade remains in full force and effect. The Hormuz Strait is open and operating. All water mines have been removed or detonated. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

A senior White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the situation in Iran, insisted that Iran will cave long before the pain in the U.S. or world markets become intolerable.

“Ultimately we want a deal, but in the interim, the Iranian economy is tanking … people are lining up for gas, just for a half gallon of gas. And there’s a lot of civil unrest going on in Iran, that’s not being played on the news for whatever reason,” the official said late last week. “We’re fine if that’s the route they want to take.”

Still, there are signs inside the White House that the economic impacts are a growing concern. Vice President JD Vance last week said on Fox News that the administration’s first goal in the Iran war was to “keep oil and gas cheap for Americans all over the country.” The president, meanwhile, has repeatedly insisted voters will bear the pain of higher gas prices for an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The voters have a more dyspeptic view. A Reuters/Ipsos survey released this week showed Trump’s approval rating at 33 percent, the lowest level of his presidency. Roughly 80 percent of Americans — 87 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of Republicans — think U.S. involvement in Iran “will go on for an extended period of time,” the poll found.

But some former Trump administration officials, however, are holding out hope that patience will be rewarded and that the administration’s economic pressure campaign will work, in part because they see the other options on the table, including putting U.S. boots on the ground in Iran, as politically untenable.

Fred Fleitz, Trump’s former National Security Council chief of staff and vice chair of the American First Policy Institute’s American Security, predicted that the U.S. could be “dealing with a different Iran” in 30 to 60 days.

“I think patience is the best approach,” Fleitz said. “I don’t believe that a large-scale military attack right now is going to make a difference in changing the regime’s position, and I strongly oppose the idea of seizing Kharg Island or sending in American troops. The American people don’t want that. That would really bog us down in a quagmire.”

Several independent U.S. oil producers are expected to sign production contracts with Venezuela’s state-run oil company in the coming days, according to three industry representatives familiar with the plans — a step forward for the Trump administration’s efforts to boost production in the beleaguered South American nation.

A signing ceremony involving several smaller U.S. producers and the Petróleos de Venezuela had been set for Tuesday evening in Houston, according to the people, who were granted anonymity because details of the event have not been made public. Venezuela’s oil minister is scheduled to attend, as is the head of exploration for PDVSA, one of the people said. The ceremony could be pushed back until Wednesday morning, another of the people added.

The White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, is not expected to be formally involved with Tuesday’s ceremony, but it comes after top administration officials traveled to Caracas in late April to secure memorandums of understanding that laid the groundwork for formal production deals in the country that holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves.

It marks a sign of progress after the Trump administration’s effort to push new oil development in Venezuela, which began after the U.S. raid that captured former leader Nicolás Maduro in January, had slowed in recent months. Despite a boost from higher crude prices, negotiations have bogged down around key details like dispute resolution, while authorities in Caracas dealt with a devastating pair of June earthquakes that killed thousands.

Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodríguez last month unveiled new regulations offering more favorable fiscal terms to international oil companies.

The signings come after the Trump administration renewed pressure on Rodríguez to have PDVSA sign contracts with American companies, an industry source familiar with the negotiations. Those efforts included outreach from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss how increased oil revenue could help the country after a devastating earthquake earlier this summer, this person said.

“There’s a renewed acknowledgement from Delcy that increased oil production is the pathway to rebuilding after the earthquakes and accomplishing what her government wants to do for the people who are suffering because of the earthquakes,” this person said.

David Goldwyn, head of the international energy consulting firm Goldwyn Global Strategies, said investment from independent oil producers and expanded production from existing fields are likely to be Venezuela’s “primary source of new oil growth for the next couple of years.”

“While the supermajors bide their time until they see how the politics sort out, and whether they can cherry pick the best assets, independents can derisk their projects in a short period of time,” Goldwyn said.

But those investments are only likely to add up to 300,000 barrels a day to the country’s oil production over the next year, far from the increase of millions of barrels the authorities in Caracas and Washington would like to see, Goldwyn said.

“Incremental production is all we will see until the framework improves, electricity is restored, and the political picture becomes clearer,” he said.