Es war eine Chaoswoche für den Kanzler Friedrich Merz. Das Rentenpaket entwickelt sich zur weiteren Zerreißprobe für die Koalition. Der neue Arbeitsminister Alexander Schweitzer macht es für den Kanzler nicht einfacher. Warum der SPD-Pragmatiker plötzlich auf Konfrontation geht und wie diese Machtkämpfe die Regierungsarbeit lähmen, steht im Zentrum der Analyse.
Gleichzeitig brodelt es an der SPD-Spitze. Gordon Buchsteiner und Rasmus Buchsteiner analysieren das personelle Vakuum der Sozialdemokraten und diskutieren, ob Hubertus Heil in die Bresche springen könnte. Zudem wird beleuchtet, welche Rolle die Ministerpräsidentinnen wie Manuela Schwesig und Anke Rehlinger im Hintergrund spielen.
Während die SPD mit sich selbst ringt, läuft der Deutschlandtag der Jungen Union in Bonn. Friedrich Merz positioniert sich in der Rentenfrage mit dem Versprechen stabiler Beiträge. Ob und wie das verfängt, diskutieren Repinski und Buchsteiner ebenfalls.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit 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.
**(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von YouTube: Die Auffindbarkeit von Qualitätsjournalismus ist entscheidend für eine lebendige Medienlandschaft. 79 % der Medienunternehmen, die YouTube nutzen, an, dass digitale Videoplattformen ein wichtiger Vertriebskanal sind, so Oxford Economics. Und 81 % der Medienunternehmen mit YouTube-Kanal erreichen darüber weltweit neue Zielgruppen. Hier klicken und mehr erfahren.**
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: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
The JPMorgan Chase data center in Orangeburg, New York, on October 14, 2026. | Kena Betancur/Getty Images
Lately, AI data centers are public enemy No. 1. The concerns are legion: how much water and electricity they consume, the noise they generate, the sprawling buildings they bring to communities, and the technology they’re powering that may or may not take all of our jobs and usher in the robot apocalypse.
Earlier this year, Gallup found that 71 percent of Americans oppose building data centers that support AI in their communities. And the backlash is bipartisan: Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents opposed local construction.
Even in Texas, where data center development has been booming, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has hit the brakes. In September, he directed state regulators to halt permits for data centers pending audits examining their effects on the power grid and water resources.
But while many data center projects have run aground, others are still getting built — and the companies behind them are employing experts like Nicole Thomas to smooth the way.
Thomas is the senior vice president of media and community engagement at JSA, a marketing and public relations firm that represents data center companies. She spoke with Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram about how the industry is responding to public opposition — and why she argues that these facilities can still be good neighbors.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
You’ve been at this for 21 years. Obviously, 21 years ago, data centers were not the hot-button issue they are today. When did you notice the shift?
I’d say about two years ago. I came into this industry myself about four and a half years ago. I come from a state transportation background where community engagement is just paramount. When you’re putting a new traffic intersection up, they expect you to interact with the public.
When I got to this industry, I said, “Oh, what’s your community engagement like?” And they said, “We don’t even have any community engagements in this industry.” And they weren’t wrong. Because 21 years ago, [data centers] were just like infrastructure. It was like building a warehouse for your computers. And so it was very similar to the way that you would build a Costco.
You would just go in, request a zoning permit, the zoning board would say, “Yeah, that works. Stamp, boom.” And you build your data center. And as a matter of fact, it was very secretive before, because data, and having that data in the wrong hands, has a lot of [cybersecurity] implications. About two years ago is when we started noticing the mainstream journalists coming around asking questions about data centers. And that’s, to me, when it started.
It still feels secretive, I think, to a lot of people, and that’s why people are mad. If you read about this data center that was proposed in Utah by Mr. Wonderful, Kevin O’Leary, it caught a lot of people off guard. Seventy percent of Americans, at the moment, do not want them in their backyards. How do you go about trying to change that 70 percent’s minds?
First and foremost, I think education is really important. And so one of the things that we did notice very early on because of the previously secretive nature of data centers, there wasn’t a lot of education out there about what they even are. And so that’s something we need to change. We need to make the connection between [phones] and data centers so that people understand what a data center means to their life on a daily basis.
Every app on your cellphone requires a data center to save your information in there. When you put your password into anything, you are interacting with a data center, which will verify your password and then let you into that app. Not to mention all of the information about you that you store in that app is then stored in a data center so that it can be recalled at any time.
We could not be having this call without digital infrastructure. It doesn’t work that way. We can’t have email without digital infrastructure. And that stat about 70 percent of people not wanting the data center in their backyard — I’d be interested in seeing the stat of how many people actually live near a data center and don’t realize it.
Because there are nondescript data centers doing work quietly in your neighborhood that have been there for decades and you don’t even know it. And so in some ways I feel, and I think the industry does as a whole, but I won’t speak for them, that the pushback on data centers is somewhat related to the pushback on AI, because people can’t control AI.
You even have Sam Altman telling us that AI will destroy society. So you have this concern about AI and you don’t know how to control it, but you can push back on data centers. And so it becomes the physical manifestation of AI are these data centers that people are trying to get overturned or get to not be in their neighborhoods.
It’s understandable. I’m a citizen too. You’re a citizen, and if things come into my neighborhood, I want to know about them. I have questions. There’s a big data center that just came to my community not long ago and their community engagement was horrible, absolutely horrible.
Can I ask where you are?
I’m in Indiana and I won’t say which hyperscaler it is, but a hyperscaler came into — I would say, not my neighborhood, into my city. They’re definitely not in my backyard, but they’re in my city. And so we took them to task because their community engagement was basically non-existent.
Wait, you work in data center PR, but you took a data center in your community to task for not being transparent enough?
Yeah, absolutely.
Which side are you on?
I’m on the side of responsible development.
We’ve all kind of accepted that we need a cloud for X, Y, and Z. And that it’s worth it so I can take lots of photos. I think everyone’s cool with that.
But the issue here is that people aren’t necessarily cool with AI, but we’re barreling forward anyway. How do you separate this essential need we have from AI, which people don’t necessarily feel is essential to their lives?
I think it goes back to education. Educating consumers on the difference between data centers: a small data center, a medium data center, a large data center. Educating them on why data centers exist and how they interact with data centers on a daily basis multiple times.
I hear you. But again, I feel like the issue here is not the data centers my cellphone needs, but instead is the data centers these AI companies need and these AI companies who the public doesn’t necessarily trust because they keep telling us that they’re going to kill us, and who the public is wary of because they don’t want their jobs being replaced by AI.
There’s all sorts of reasons that people are skeptical of new technology. So how do you specifically respond to that fear and to those people?
I think it’s, again, understanding the actual data center that’s being built in your community. Is it a 5-megawatt data center? That’s never going to house AI. That’s not enough power to house AI. Is it a one-gigawatt data center like Mr. Wonderful in Utah? That’s different.
But I think that AI is probably going to be something that is a lightning rod in the American public for a very long time. There are going to be people who are going to be anti-AI and pro-AI, and there’s going to be some people in the middle. I think it’s just, again, for us, it’s education, educating the community.
Have you ever been part of a project that a community rejected and you guys just packed up and said, “Okay, we’ll go find another community?”
Yeah. We have some clients who have had pushback from residents and they have said, “Let’s do a one-on-one community meeting where people can come in and ask us questions.”
And after the questions were answered, the community leaves and says, “Okay, this isn’t as bad as I thought it was.” Or we have a community that says, “No, we now have a moratorium and we’re pushing all data centers away.“
Sometimes they’ll wait for their client — my client is a developer and they’ve got clients that they’re developing for. If that client will wait, then maybe it is something that we’ll try to work out with the community. But oftentimes, they’ll just say, there’s communities who are literally raising their hand saying, “We’ll take a data center. We’ll take one. We’ll take two. Bring it here.”
So there are communities who recognize the benefits of data centers. And there are going to be other communities who say, “No, we don’t want this.” And then in five, six, eight years, they’re going to be like, “Wow, that county has a lot of tax dollars. They have a lot of really cool stuff. Why don’t we have that?” And the answer will be data centers.
I don’t think this ends anytime soon though, right? I counsel my clients that we could still be here in three to five years, really trying to help the American public understand the benefit of data centers. But it’s going to take a lot of education across the industry, and once we get those seeds planted, I’m a firm believer that they grow into educated community members who make educated decisions to bring community-minded data centers to their community.
It’s been a packed agenda at the European Council summit, with little sign of progress on key issues. EU leaders continued to argue over the bloc’s long-term budget, with energy supply and security taking up much of the discussion … including questions over strategic gas reserves and the future of the Emissions Trading System.
The war in Ukraine looms large over the summit. Earlier this week, President Trump alarmed European leaders and horrified Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by announcing a deal to release Russian diesel onto the U.S. market, apparently in an attempt to lower fuel costs for American consumers.
Host Sarah Wheaton unpacks developments late into the night with colleagues who have been reporting on the summit. She’s joined by Chief EU Correspondent Zoya Sheftalovich, Chief Political Correspondent in Europe and the U.K. Tim Ross and Gregorio Sorgi, financial services reporter.
Friedrich Merz reist morgen zum Deutschlandtag der Jungen Union nach Bonn und trifft auf eine Parteijugend, die nach dem Rentenstreit des Vorjahres weiter voller Frust steckt. Die vielleicht nicht jungen, aber jüngeren Mitglieder um Johannes Winkel wollen endlich Reformen. Ob der Parteichef die Basis befrieden kann, ordnet Rasmus Buchsteiner von Bonn aus ein.
Im 200-Sekunden-Interview skizziert die Parlamentarische Geschäftsführerin der Unions-Fraktion, Catarina dos Santos-Wintz,, wie ein zukunftsfestes Gesamtpaket ihrer Meinung nach aussehen muss und warum die Junge Union und die Junge Gruppe der Fraktion beim Thema Generationengerechtigkeit keine faulen Kompromisse mehr akzeptiert.
Auf dem EU-Gipfel in Brüssel ringen die Staats- und Regierungschefs derweil um die wirtschaftliche Zukunft Europas. Hans von der Burchard analysiert das Treffen, sowie den neuen handelspolitischen Härtetest mit China. Zudem zeigt sich, wie dramatisch die Finanzierungslücke bei der Ukraine-Hilfe angesichts bröckelnder US-Unterstützung wirklich ist.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit 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.
**(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von YouTube: Die Auffindbarkeit von Qualitätsjournalismus ist entscheidend für eine lebendige Medienlandschaft. 79 % der Medienunternehmen, die YouTube nutzen, an, dass digitale Videoplattformen ein wichtiger Vertriebskanal sind, so Oxford Economics. Und 81 % der Medienunternehmen mit YouTube-Kanal erreichen darüber weltweit neue Zielgruppen. Hier klicken und mehr erfahren.**
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: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
Die Berliner Landespolitik manövriert sich erst in eine Sackgasse und will nun doch daraus rausfinden. Wegen des Streits um antisemitische Strömungen in der Linkspartei stehen die Sondierungsgespräche mit SPD und Grünen auf der Kippe, werden aber heute fortgesetzt. Wie sich das rot-grün-rote Bündnis gegen den Widerstand von SPD und Grünen im Bund retten will, zeigt Maximilian Stascheit auf.
Auch die Bundes-SPD kämpft mit schlechten Umfragewerten und internem Frust vor dem anstehenden Parteitag im Dezember. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview erklärt der nordrhein-westfälische SPD-Fraktionschef Jochen Ott, warum seine Partei eine neue Vision braucht und wie der Weg aus der Krise aussehen soll.
Beim EU-Gipfel in Brüssel steht Europa derweil vor einem massiven Realitätscheck in der Ukraine-Politik. Die US-Unterstützung bröckelt spürbar. POLITICO-Experte Hans von der Burchard ordnet ein, welche Forderungen Wolodymyr Selenskyj morgen mitbringt und warum der Streit um den EU-Haushalt weitere Hilfen zu blockieren droht.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit 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: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
**(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von YouTube: Die Auffindbarkeit von Qualitätsjournalismus ist entscheidend für eine lebendige Medienlandschaft. 79 % der Medienunternehmen, die YouTube nutzen, an, dass digitale Videoplattformen ein wichtiger Vertriebskanal sind, so Oxford Economics. Und 81 % der Medienunternehmen mit YouTube-Kanal erreichen darüber weltweit neue Zielgruppen. Hier klicken und mehr erfahren.**
The election could deliver a major victory for Democrats. What would that tell us about Trump’s hold on the country—and the Party hoping to succeed him?
For some couples, surrogacy is a miracle: an opportunity to have a child even if they’re unable to conceive one naturally. But it’s also big business. Not only is surrogacy expensive — think six figures — but it’s also largely unregulated. And that last part is becoming a bigger problem.
Just last week, a California couple was arrested on child abuse charges after it was revealed that they had over 20 children from different surrogate mothers living in a large mansion in Arcadia, a city near Los Angeles. Many of the surrogates are currently fighting for custody through the courts of the children they carried.
The Arcadia case, however, is only the most recent example of how surrogacy can go wrong. Every case is different, but every one illuminates how opaque — and often ripe for abuse or legal issues — the American surrogacy industry is.
Emi Nietfeld is a reporter at Washington Sun who writes about surrogacy, IVF, and how we build families. She spoke with Today, Explained co-host Noel King about what’s kept lawmakers from regulating the surrogacy industry, the recent high-profile cases bringing these problems to light, and why more regulation doesn’t necessarily offer a straightforward fix.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
The United States does not regulate the surrogacy industry seemingly at all. What is going on? Why not?
The lack of federal regulation is both political and financial. Politically, this goes all the way back to the start of IVF. Anti-abortion Republicans were not comfortable with the idea of creating and destroying embryos during IVF, and so they fought against efforts to regulate it.
People on the left were worried that limiting what kinds of technology you could access would lead to the government controlling who could have families. You still see these arguments today. People who think that IVF is murder don’t want to have any surrogacy. And people on the left don’t want the government saying who can and cannot have a family.
One of the issues raised by the New Yorker story is that there are surrogacy agencies that connect parents and potential surrogates. And it makes you wonder who gets to do that? Who can own and operate a surrogacy agency in the US today?
Anyone.
Oh. Oh no.
Only one state, New York, requires a special license. And everywhere else it’s easier to open an agency than a hot dog stand or a nail salon. This has resulted in the rise of so-called pop-up agencies where businesses come onto the scene, and nobody really knows who owns them or who’s running them. That has led to many people who aren’t experienced, who sign up with these agencies, then feeling like they weren’t prepared or that they were deceived in entering the agreement.
Have we ever tried in the past to regulate this better? Have there been efforts made?
In the 1980s, there was the case of Baby M. That was called traditional surrogacy where Mary Beth Whitehead was the surrogate, but it was also her egg. So the child she delivered was genetically related to her. After she gave birth, she changed her mind. She kidnapped the child, went on the run for several months, and it was a national crisis where this was all over the news.
Ultimately, a judge in New Jersey ruled that the surrogacy arrangement was unenforceable. Commercial surrogacy arrangements became illegal in New Jersey, and they stayed illegal in New York until 2020.
Part of why regulation looks the way it does is because in 1995, Congress passed a piece of legislation saying that there would be no federal funding for embryo research, which means no federal funding for IVF. That left all of the research, development, innovation up to the free market. And so while that could be seen as an attempt to regulate IVF, it actually meant that those things would no longer be under the government’s purview.
In the US, we’ve seen over the past few years some really high-profile cases that are making lawmakers reckon with the fact that we do not have laws around this. Tell me about some of those cases.
There’s the Mark surrogacy case in California, which is both a really unique case and also illustrates some of the fears around Chinese intended parents coming to the United States to have their kids. This is part of larger geopolitical tensions between the US and China, which are playing out in the surrogacy industry.
There’s the case of Xu Bo, the Chinese video gaming billionaire who is rumored to have more than 100 children via surrogacy in America. His story taps into fears of birth tourism and people from other countries, especially China, coming to the United States to do surrogacy so that their kids are American citizens.
Republican lawmakers are talking a lot about the idea that people could come from enemy countries, have American citizens, and raise them with the intent that they might one day become spies or president of the United States and be double actors.
In Texas, there’s the case of McKenna West, where she learned at 20 weeks’ gestation that the baby was very sick. The intended parents asked her to get an abortion. She refused to do so. McKenna went to Texas and began fighting for custody to keep the baby while the parents objected. They wanted the baby, and she petitioned the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
And finally, there’s the case of Kyla Simpson in Florida, whom I wrote about for New York Magazine, and she gave birth for a single dad in China who wasn’t there for the birth. He hadn’t applied for a visa to come to the United States, and when he did apply, he was rejected. Kyla Simpson tried to adopt the kids and is now fighting for custody in a case that’s still working its way through the Florida courts.
These examples are extraordinary, and they point to just chaos. But how common are they? Are they outliers? Is this going on all the time?
Most of the time things go right. In the academic papers around surrogacy, surrogates are usually happy with their experience. Attorneys and surrogates tell me that it’s absolutely beautiful to hand people the baby that they’ve been working hard for. The issue is that when things do go wrong, there’s often not a lot of recourse or there’s a really big legal mess that parents and surrogates have to go through.
I wonder if there is a case against more regulation. As disastrous as some of these examples are, you said that most of the time, it does go right. And it seems like we could get into tricky territory if we start saying who can and can’t have a kid.
Surrogacy is already really time-consuming. It often takes several years, and it’s expensive, usually costing between $150,000 to $250,000 for a single pregnancy. Regulation tends to make things more expensive and take longer. A lot of people fear that if you introduce more requirements and more burdens, surrogacy will become even more out of reach to people.
There’s also the fear of government overreach. If you ask the government how many kids a gay couple should have, the answer might be zero. And that libertarian streak is driving a lot of opposition to things that most people might consider common sense.
For example, there’s a lot of talk around whether intended parents should go through background checks before they have kids via surrogacy. Right now, no state in America requires intended parents to go through a criminal background check before having a kid. Critics of regulation say heteros don’t need a background check to have sex in the back of a car and make a baby the old-fashioned way, so it’s unfair to require that from people who need to do surrogacy to have a family.
Most people can agree that surrogacy could be better regulated, but like many things in our country, it’s almost impossible right now because of politics.
Ein verschnupfter und heiser Kanzler im Angriffsmodus – wohl auch heute bei der Regierungserklärung am Nachmittag im Bundestag. Beim Arbeitgebertag gestern hat der Regierungschef Merz gut ausgeteilt und seinen neuen Arbeits- und Sozialminister Alexander Schweitzer öffentlich unter Druck gesetzt. Die Rentenreform soll im Eiltempo durchs Kabinett, doch in der SPD brodelt es gewaltig. Die Analyse von Rasmus Buchsteiner zeigt, warum der Kanzler jetzt auf diese harte Tour setzt und ob die Koalition da mitzieht.
Im 200-Sekunden-Interview fordert der Chef der Jungen Union, Johannes Winkel, erneut ein schnelles Ende der politischen Hängepartie. Er macht klar, an welchen konkreten Punkten der Rentenreform sich Schweitzer nun messen lassen muss und warum reine Strukturdebatten nicht mehr ausreichen.
Eine Hufeisen-Allianz formiert sich derweil in Sachsen-Anhalt: AfD und BSW machen bei der Russland-Politik gemeinsame Sache und wollen die CDU in die Enge treiben. POLITICO-Expertin Pauline von Pezold von „Inside AfD“ ordnet ein, wie die Alternative schnell wortbrüchig werden könnte, wenn es um die Neutralität des Parlaments-Präsidiums geht und wie die CDU-Fraktion im Landtag den Ministerpräsidenten-Kandidaten Ulrich Siegmund in ein Dilemma drängen könnte.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit 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: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
**(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von YouTube: Die Auffindbarkeit von Qualitätsjournalismus ist entscheidend für eine lebendige Medienlandschaft. 79 % der Medienunternehmen, die YouTube nutzen, an, dass digitale Videoplattformen ein wichtiger Vertriebskanal sind, so Oxford Economics. Und 81 % der Medienunternehmen mit YouTube-Kanal erreichen darüber weltweit neue Zielgruppen. Hier klicken und mehr erfahren.**
Der überraschende Rücktritt erschüttert die Koalition: SPD-Arbeitsministerin Bärbel Bas gibt ihren Rückzug von allen Ämtern bekannt. Ausgerechnet kurz vor dem wichtigen Arbeitgebertag heute. POLITICO-Chefkorrespondent Rasmus Buchsteiner ordnet zusammen mit Maximilian Stascheit ein, wie diese Personalie das zerrüttete Regierungsbündnis belastet und warum mit der eiligen Ernennung von Alexander Schweitzer die Proporzregeln der SPD über Bord geworfen werden.
Währenddessen läuft in der Berliner Landespolitik weiter der Richtungsstreit. Die Linksfraktion im Abgeordnetenhaus streitet nach wie vor über den Umgang mit Antisemitismus und israelfeindlichen Protesten. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview stellt sich der Co-Vorsitzende im Bund, Luigi Pantisano, den Fragen zu offenen Briefen, fragwürdigen Demo-Aufrufen von Mitgliedern und erklärt, wieso er keine drohende Spaltung der Partei sieht.
Nach eigentlich viel zu langer Vakanz besetzt die Bundesregierung den Posten der Antisemitismusbeauftragten neu. Rixa Fürsen beleuchtet die Hintergründe der Personalie Katharina von Schnurbein und erklärt die Erleichterung bei vielen Beteiligten, weil die erfahrene Expertin aus Brüssel nach gescheiterten Anläufen mit anderen Kandidaten nun diese drängende Aufgabe übernimmt.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit 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: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
**(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von YouTube: Die Auffindbarkeit von Qualitätsjournalismus ist entscheidend für eine lebendige Medienlandschaft. 79 % der Medienunternehmen, die YouTube nutzen, an, dass digitale Videoplattformen ein wichtiger Vertriebskanal sind, so Oxford Economics. Und 81 % der Medienunternehmen mit YouTube-Kanal erreichen darüber weltweit neue Zielgruppen. Hier klicken und mehr erfahren.**
Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican candidate for governor of Ohio, at a campaign event in Vandalia, Ohio, on October 3, 2026. | Jessica Phelps/Bloomberg via Getty Images
In early October, Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican candidate for governor of Ohio, went for a classic “politician on the stump” move: He picked up a kid. Or at least he tried to. Ramaswamy fumbled the boy a bit, producing a clip that quickly went viral on social media.
The next day, Ramaswamy posted a picture of himself with his son in his arms on social media. It was a cute retort. But many of the responses were ugly — racist attacks against Ramaswamy that drew on anti-Indian stereotypes.
It was the latest example of a broader shift on the right, where Indian Americans and Indian immigrants have become a conspicuous target of online conservative anger.
“The people who had negative stereotypes about Indians in their mind said, ‘Hey, look, the guy can’t even pick up a kid…he can’t even act like a normal American family man,’” freelance journalist Zaid Jilani told Today, Explained co-host Noel King.
Jilani, who recently wrote about the surge in anti-Indian racism for Vox, joined the podcast for a conversation about how he sees the bigotry as rooted in status envy, how Indian Americans and Indian immigrants are responding, and his surprisingly hopeful outlook for the future.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
American racism is very interesting, always has been. And there is a type that says, immigrants are dirty, they come here, they’re uneducated, they leach off the government, they’re taking our resources.
The stereotype of Indian immigrants to America and Indian Americans is people who go to college, people who often have advanced degrees, people who often live in nice neighborhoods, make good money, are family-values people.
Why do you think these values that seem as if they mesh with what Republicans want are so triggering to people these days? Is it just yes, but they’re brown?
I think that is a component of it. I spoke to one Indian American advocate who told me that Indians and South Asians more broadly are visible minorities, right? If you think about other minorities who are highly successful, that’s not always the case.
For instance, I think that Jewish Americans have been known since the late 20th century as being a successful minority group, but they’re not necessarily highly visible. You can’t always identify someone. If [Texas Railroad Commissioner candidate] Bo French saw a bunch of white people in the stadium with the Longhorns, I’m not sure he would be picking out who’s Protestant, who’s Catholic, who’s Jewish. But with Indian Americans, they are highly visible.
That being said, I think you have to think about where Indian Americans are in society and the kind of feelings that can create among everyone else. If you look, for instance, at Silicon Valley, the major tech companies, Microsoft, Google — the head of [Microsoft’s] Xbox division is an Indian American woman now.
You have a group of people who I think are in many ways a very micro minority — we’re talking about 1 percent to 2 percent of the United States — visibly rising into so many positions that I think a lot of people have typically associated with white folks. White people generally run the Fortune 500, white folks run the universities, white folks are the most successful doctors and engineers. And that was true for the 20th century.
But when you start seeing a much larger influx of Asian immigrants, starting with liberalization of immigration laws in the ’60s, but also when there was a rapid growth of the technology sector in the early 2000s, you start to understand a little bit more where the resentment comes from because it’s more, I would say, analogically similar to antisemitism than it is to the racism that Mexican Americans face or the racism that Black Americans face.
“It’s a much larger anti-globalization backlash on the right, not only when it comes to things like immigration, but also trade and tariffs and restrictions like that.”
It’s not that Indian Americans are necessarily being stereotyped as antisocial, criminal, coming here illegally, so on and so forth. It’s more that they’re being seen as a status threat to a lot of particularly middle-class Americans, people who want their kids to rise to the top of their school, who want their kids to have the corner office. They want their kids to be able to get the most prestigious positions.
I think in the minds of a lot of these people, not only now does their kid have to compete with all the other normal white kids in their community, they have to compete against the entire world. It’s a much larger anti-globalization backlash on the right, not only when it comes to things like immigration, but also trade and tariffs and restrictions like that.
When you talked to Indian Americans for this piece, what did you hear from them that surprised you?
Probably the most surprising thing was how much pragmatism they responded to all of this with. Nine times out of 10, when you have stories about racism, the victims of racism are outraged — understandably and justifiably outraged. Nobody wants to be mistreated. Nobody wants to be denigrated. They certainly don’t want to see restrictions on the right to immigration, or other things to limit their numbers, which is the end point of a lot of this.
At the same time, I think a lot of the people I spoke to were very upfront. They’re like, “Hey, look, we have found a lot of success in America. We got the golden ticket to be able to come here, for our kids to study here, to be able to really seek these opportunities, but we understand what’s happening in the economy. We understand there’s a lot of people who are struggling and then they see us rising to the top of all these organizations. They see us with our kind of well-ensconced place in the economy. And I think it’s important for us not to flaunt our success that much.” At least a couple people said something to that respect. They almost empathize with the people who were hating on them.
It struck me as such a classic immigrant pragmatism that you see from the first or second wave of immigrants: people who realize that they are newcomers to a society or maybe their parents were newcomers to a society, and that there is a certain level of grappling they have to do with, “Hey, how can we continue to have success? How can we continue to grind and resist this racism, but also not rub it in people’s faces that we’re doing well because the more they do that, the tougher it can be?”
A number brought up Vivek Ramaswamy in the sense that Vivek happened to go on social media and talk about what he felt like were deficiencies in American culture when it comes to studying, when it comes to working hard.
I think that in bringing that up, they were saying that that wasn’t particularly helpful because whatever positive aspects there may be to Indian immigrant culture, we shouldn’t talk about them in ways that denigrate other people because that’s obviously going to rub people the wrong way.
You’re making the point that some of the surge in anti-Indian racism on the right is about status anxiety. I was listening to this podcast that Chris Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman did. These are two influential right-wing activists. They called it “The Indian Question” — a lot of people’s eyebrows shot up — and they seem to be making the argument that it is about status anxiety.
They also were making less coherent arguments about how it’s un-American to study for the spelling bee, which is what South Asian kids do, and that white kids are more American because they play football, then they go to a party and get drunk, and then they get 1,500 on the SAT.
I’m not saying any of this makes sense. I’m saying it was fascinating. I’m assuming you watched that exchange. What did you make of that?
There’s a certain level of coping mechanism being deployed there in the sense that they are trying to explain the success of Indian Americans as a deficiency: “Maybe they’re getting to the top schools, but that’s because they’re shut in all day studying.”
But it’s not really true that Indian Americans are necessarily cloistered into unhealthy habits. They’re actually finding success across society. For instance, I’ve tutored kids for five, six years. I just really enjoy working with kids. And something you’ll find with a lot of the Indian American kids, they are actually getting increasingly well-rounded.
Part of that is because you have to, to have success, to get college admissions and so on and so forth. They almost always play sports. They’re involved in extracurriculars. You’re seeing a lot more Indian Americans go into the arts, into cultural fields, into Hollywood. I think that’s actually a very normal path for immigrants.
I think the first or second wave of immigrants has to be very pragmatic. They have to keep their heads down. They have to grind, study, and their parents encourage them to do the same thing. Indian American parents are always like, “You got to be a doctor. You got to be an engineer. Don’t be foolish and try to be a journalist or go to Hollywood.”
But as they establish themselves, as they build nest eggs, they have a little more breathing room, and so they can do different things. I know that Christopher Rufo, for instance, is an Italian American, and I believe I read one time that he even speaks Italian at home because he really values that culture so much and he wants to raise his kids in that. The first wave of Italian immigrants were no different than that. They cloistered into a few sectors where they felt they could find success that was necessary for their integration into the economy and to get their footing. But now we don’t think of Italian Americans as stereotyped into just a few parts of the country or a few parts of society — we barely notice, unless maybe you notice from someone’s name that there even are Italian Americans.
What they’re describing about Indian Americans is very normal. It’s actually very normal for first waves of immigrants to cluster in a few areas and then they spread themselves out as they’re able to get that a little bit of breathing room and room to ground to stand on.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks to the press on the steps of the US Capitol on September 30, 2026. | Finn Gomez/Getty Images
Barring a catastrophic midterm polling miss, Democrats are on track to win a majority in the House of Representatives next month. Come the new Congress in January, that will mean a new House speaker — and if all goes to plan, that will be current House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
If elected, Jeffries, from New York, will be the first Black speaker of the House. Though Jeffries has been in Congress for nearly 14 years now — and many of those years have been spent in Democratic leadership — he also remains something of an enigma.
The New Yorker’s Jason Zengerle profiled Jeffries back in May. He spoke with Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram about who Jeffries really is, his path to what would be a historic speakership, and what he really stands for.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
In your profile of potential future Speaker of the House Hakeem Jeffries, you start with a story that people might find surprising. And I was wondering if you could tell us said story.
[Jeffries] was in Florida, raising money, which is one of his central responsibilities as a minority leader. And he was being driven to a Democratic donor’s house in Palm Beach. And while he was being driven there, he got an alert on his phone letting him know that Donald Trump had posted a message to Truth Social in which he rehashed a bunch of the 2020 election conspiracies. More significantly, [Trump] had included a depiction of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as apes.
Jeffries has this reputation for being a very calm, deliberate, not angry person, oftentimes to his detriment. I think a lot of Democratic partisans wish he would be more angry. But the way he told me the story, he was legitimately pissed off. And he realized that he needed to respond in some way. And he didn’t think that a tweet would be sufficient.
He wanted to do an Instagram post, and he looked into his aide’s iPhone, and he said, “Fuck Donald Trump.” And as soon as he was done recording the video, I think he started to have second thoughts. And they sent the video up to Washington for a social media team to edit, and he told them, “Let’s bleep out the word fuck.” And for him, it was a smashing social media success.
I was in his office in the Capitol six days later, and he was telling me this story and basking in some of the reflected glory and talking about all the social media love and talking about the real-world love. But then he kind of paused, and he said something like, “You know, but I still haven’t heard from my mom, and I’m a little worried about that.” Which I thought captured him pretty well.
“I don’t think you’re going to see a new Hakeem Jeffries if he’s speaker. I think he’s going to, especially rhetorically, perform the same way he has before.”
Why did you want to start your profile of him with that story? What does it tell us about who this individual is?
I thought it captured the dilemma he faces in some ways, just in the sense that he is this very deliberate, calculated political figure, very conventional. And he is operating in a political space these days that doesn’t really reward or appreciate that approach.
Oftentimes that approach is not successful. I think he’s trying to adapt to the new rules of the road, and he’s kind of doing it in fits and starts, and sometimes he’s more successful than others. But I still think, even when he is successful, he has some qualms about it.
How long has Hakeem Jeffries wanted to be speaker of the House?
When he got to Congress, in 2012, he definitely wanted to become a player. He wanted to be in leadership, chair a committee, whatever. He was someone who had his eye on that.
But at the same time, the Congressional Black Caucus had started to think a little bit differently about what they could achieve in Congress. For a long time, they wanted their members to get chairmanships and things like that, or maybe be majority whip. But by the time Jeffries got there, they started to think that we could actually get a speaker. And his arrival kind of coincided with this realization on the part of the CBC. And I think a lot of CBC members viewed Jeffries as a potential future speaker, and they started to groom him for that.
Pretty soon after that, Nancy Pelosi started to think of him as someone who would be a good member of her leadership team. And I think by 2018, that’s when it really became apparent that he was going to be someone who could potentially be speaker.
What does he actually stand for as the most powerful Democrat in the House?
I think, quite intentionally, he doesn’t stand for anything. I think that in some ways has been key to his success. He has managed for the most part to avoid being kind of pigeonholed or put anywhere on the ideological spectrum. He is very critical of the far left of the party, especially the DSA. He views the DSA as college-educated young white people who are coming to Brooklyn and displacing older Black working-class people.
I was talking to this former Democratic congressional aide and basically asking this person the question you’re asking me: What does he stand for? And this person was trying to explain it and finally just was sort of exasperated, and he said he’s intentionally trying not to stand for anything. He’s sort of like hotel art. He just is, and it’s satisfactory.
We don’t have a lot of case studies for how he manages his caucus because they haven’t been in power. But I think maybe one of the most telling examples was the shutdown, because Democrats were, in a way, the power brokers there. Tell us how Hakeem Jeffries managed that.
That was probably his greatest success as minority leader. When Trump took office for the second time, especially for those first few months, I think all of the congressional Democrats, and Jeffries especially, were really on their heels. They could not figure out how to deal with this guy and what they were going to do to stop him. Jeffries was even complaining that he didn’t have any leverage. But then he eventually realized that a shutdown would be at least a little bit of leverage.
The real question was, what was the shutdown going to be about? And there were a lot of Democratic members of Congress who wanted it to be about authoritarianism or corruption. They wanted it to be at all these different issues. And Jeffries was really insistent that we need to make this about one issue, and we need to make it about healthcare.
The Democrats were the ones who caused the shutdown. And normally, the way shutdowns have worked in the past, it’s the party that causes the shutdown that gets the heat from the public. But this time around, I think because Democrats were so consistent in saying that this is about healthcare, and Republicans were so scattered in their own messaging and their own explanations of what was going on, Democrats’ polling numbers went up, Trump’s and Republicans’ went down, and that was a real victory for Jeffries.
Did that whole incident put Jeffries on the president’s radar in a way that he wasn’t?
It comes, and it goes. For a long time, he wouldn’t mention Jeffries at all.
I guess the way to tell if Trump is thinking about you is if he posts about you on Truth Social, and he started to post about Jeffries a lot — all the usual kind of insults he lobs, especially at Black politicians, that Jeffries was low IQ and a thug. But yeah, he does seem to be paying a little bit more to Jeffries now than he was before.
And do we think Jeffries is ready to go toe to toe with the president of the United States if that’s what voters decide he’s to do this November?
In his mind, he’s ready. And I think in his own stilted, rehearsed, steady fashion, he will go toe to toe with Donald Trump. He will talk about affordability, and he’ll talk about corruption, and he’ll talk about the “so-called president.”
I don’t think it will necessarily be satisfying for a lot of Democratic voters out there and Democratic partisans, but I don’t think you’re going to see a new Hakeem Jeffries if he’s speaker. I think he’s going to, especially rhetorically, perform the same way he has before. But I think it’s going to take him a little while to figure out how to do the job.
Germany has rejected Ireland’s proposal for the EU’s next seven-year budget, despite €159 billion in cuts. And it’s not alone: Governments are divided over where the cuts should fall, while the European Parliament is threatening to block the deal.
Zoya Sheftalovich and Nick Vinocur unpack the backlash and what it means for this week’s EU leaders’ summit.
Plus, Zoya interviews Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner about Europe’s efforts to curb irregular migration and plans to tighten restrictions on Russian visitors and former soldiers.
And why the influencers expected at this week’s EU summit won’t be showing up after all.
Questions? Comments? Let us know on our WhatsApp here or at +32 491 05 06 29.
Donald Trump verkündet eine „Energie-Waffenruhe“ zwischen der Ukraine und Russland an. Fraglich allerdings ist, was die beiden Länder davon wirklich wissen. Um den heimischen Druck durch steigende Ölpreise abzufedern, lockert Trump zuvor die Sanktionen gegen Russland. Weil er dafür von Wolodymyr Selenskyj kritisiert wird, fordert er, die Ukraine brauche einen neuen Präsidenten. Währenddessen ringen die EU-Außenminister in Luxemburg um ein neues Sanktionspaket gegen Russland. Hans von der Burchard ordnet zusammen mit Rixa Fürsen ein, wie Europa die russische Schattenflotte stoppen will und welche Konsequenzen der Drohnenangriff von Leipzig wirklich hat.
Im Konrad-Adenauer-Haus herrscht derweil Krisenstimmung bei herbstlichem Wetter. Angesichts verheerender Umfragewerte sucht die CDU-Spitze nach einem Ausweg aus dem Tief. Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert die Strategie des CDU-Präsidiums, das sich in Klausur befindet, und wie Parteichef Friedrich Merz in seiner Position stabilisiert werden soll.
Im 200-Sekunden-Interview warnt Dennis Radtke, Vorsitzender der Christlich-Demokratischen Arbeitnehmerschaft (CDA), vor einer inhaltlichen Schieflage seiner Partei. Er fordert echte Strukturreformen bei Rente und Gesundheit statt reiner Sparprogramme und erklärt, warum die Union dringend Antworten auf die alltäglichen Sorgen der Menschen finden muss.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit 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: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
This week on my podcast, I read Swapping money for expertise, a recent essay from my Pluralistic blog about the political economy of “AI” based on theory-free inference.
The need to understand and describe a thing before you could apply “AI” to it is a bottleneck, because it requires programmers to understand how a thing works before they can incorporate it into an “AI” system. Lots of programmers know how to play chess, but far fewer understand the human pancreas, planetary weather systems, or patterns of mineral deposition in the Earth’s crust.
For programmers to apply machine learning to these domains, they need to collaborate with experts who do understand them, who furthermore expect to be paid for this work. The need for expert input into this kind of “AI” represents a significant increase in the wage-bill paid by the programmer’s employer: it means they have to pay for programmers and experts.
Even worse: this kind of “AI” can’t be applied to systems we don’t understand. We can observe far more causal relationships – instances in which A reliably causes B – in the universe than we can explain. There are lots of examples of us operationalizing these observations without understanding them. If you get sick today, your doctor might well prescribe one of the many medicines whose method of action is either incompletely understood or not understood at all. We know that molecule A reliably treats pathology B, but not why, and while that why is the subject of ongoing research, it’s not necessary that the why be known before the molecule can be given to ailing patients.
Fast jede Nacht überzieht Russland die Ukraine mit Drohnen- und Raketenangriffen, um die Zivilbevölkerung zu zermürben. Doch abseits des Terrors aus der Luft kommt Moskau militärisch kaum voran. Die wahre Strategie des Kremls zielt längst auf ein anderes Schlachtfeld: die politische Erschöpfung Europas und der USA.
Im Gespräch mit POLITICO-Reporterin Rixa Fürsen teilt Nico Lange, Direktor des Instituts für Risikoanalysen und Internationale Sicherheit (IRIS), seine aktuellen Eindrücke aus dem Kriegsgebiet. Er analysiert, warum Putin trotz militärischer Stagnation auf einen politischen Sieg hofft und wie die deutsche Furcht vor Eskalation diesen Plan unfreiwillig begünstigt.
Die Folge offenbart die konkreten Konsequenzen westlicher Zögerlichkeit – von verweigerten Waffensystemen bis zum passiven Umgang mit der russischen Schattenflotte in der Ostsee. Ein ungeschönter Blick auf die strategischen Fehler der Bundesregierung und die reale Gefahr, dass mangelnde Entschlossenheit den Krieg am Ende für ganz Europa gefährlicher macht.
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit 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: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
CNN and Politico have been banned from traveling with the press pool on Trump trips. | Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images
On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship.” More than a year and a half later, his administration is instead busy using government power to go after speech it dislikes.
Last year, Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr urged broadcasters to take action against Jimmy Kimmel over his comments following Charlie Kirk’s killing, and in September, Kimmel said the FCC again intervened to stop Kimmel’s late-night show from airing an interview with James Talarico, Democratic Senate candidate for Texas.
Also last month, Trump barred three news outlets — CNN, MS NOW, and Politico — from the White House over their coverage. That ban was quickly blocked by a federal judge, but both CNN and Politico have since been banned from traveling with the press pool on Trump trips.
Outside of the White House, the fight over free speech is also raging on college campuses. In states like Texas, Republican lawmakers have restricted when students can protest and given governor-appointed university boards more say over what gets taught. In 2025, 15 states passed laws that restrict what can be taught or weaken protections for free expression on college campuses.
To break down what all of this means for the state of free speech in the US — and the future of our First Amendment rights — Today, Explained co-host Noel King spoke with Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
How would you describe the kind of status of free speech on campus these days?
The status of free speech is in great peril, both on and off campus. I’ve been doing this for 25 years, and it’s about as bad as I’ve ever seen it.
When it comes to the Charlie Kirk backlash cases, we saw about 90 of them. It’s a remarkably high number. We saw an ex-cop go to jail for 37 days just for forwarding a Trump meme in response to a request to go to a candlelight vigil for Charlie Kirk. It’s not good.
If you look at the last two years, we’ve done so many episodes about free speech concerns. There was Jimmy Kimmel; there’s CNN being banned from the White House.
It really does seem like we’re at a moment where so many different types of people claim that their speech is being restricted in so many different types of ways. What is happening in the country?
My worry is I’m very much a small-L liberal. I come from an old ACLU background. That’s where I interned in law school. I went to law school to do First Amendment law. I hyper-specialize in it. This is my passion.
For most of my 25-year career, you could rely on a civil libertarian aspect of the left and a libertarian aspect of the right that would often agree on almost nothing except for things like freedom of speech. And right now, I think we’ve become all culture war all the time, and we have more of a progressive left and more of a populist right.
The only way that you show you believe in freedom of speech is by saying, “I hate that guy, but I think you should have freedom of speech.” If you’re saying, “I think my side should have freedom of speech,” that’s just self-interest. That doesn’t even count.
All the worst people in history wanted free speech for their side. So I’m afraid we’re losing — or maybe even, I hate to say this dramatically, but maybe even have lost it as a shared value as a society.
Well, that’s quite grim.
Yeah. I’m feeling a little grim.
The Trump administration came into office with a promise. And I remember it sounding something like this: “The woke left went too far. They canceled people. They restricted speech. They got out of control. President Trump is going to come back in, and we are going to restore sanity to the country. And as part of sanity, that will include your right to freely express yourself.”
How do you square the promise versus what we’ve seen?
I think Trump is constantly frustrating everyone around him by being Trump. I think there probably were people in the administration who were like, “Yeah, we’re going to be pro-free speech.” And then Trump decides to declare — I mean, I think the recent White House press pool case is hysterical in a lot of ways because he had to get his team to give a sort of constitutional justification for why he was kicking out the press pool. But on Truth Social, he’s like, “It’s because of their viewpoint,” which is, by the way, something you can’t do under the Constitution.
“I’m hopeful for the long-term future of free speech, but in the short term, I’m worried.”
His instincts are very authoritarian. They’re very top-down. So maybe there were people in the administration who, in their heart of hearts, are good on free speech, but Trump isn’t. And it’s the reason why when it came to the new administration, there were a lot of people on the right, but also people on the sort of heterodox left who were like, “Oh, this is going to be good for free speech.”
I was like, “Don’t kid yourself, guys. This is going to be bad.” Although I will say, it’s even worse than I was expecting.
President Trump at some point will be out of office. And what happens then? What do you think? Is there an optimistic scenario where we’re like, “Okay, we’re kind of tired of this crap. Let’s just go back to the way it was in the ’90s”?
It has been cyclical, to a degree. American society gets out of whack, and usually one of the things that does bring us together is that we were lucky enough to have…I’ll just say it, we have a brilliant Constitution. It is unusually clever about human nature, and the Constitution itself — you can have whatever opinion you want about the founders, but it is something to be proud of. And a lot of times those values kind of bring us back together.
That’s my hope. But another thing I will say about Trump: He has played havoc with my ability to predict anything. So what it’s going to look like over the event horizon of 2028, I hope it will be better, and we will fight like hell to make sure it’s better here at FIRE, but will it be better? I’m not sure, and it definitely won’t be better if we think of free speech as something that belongs to my side, not yours.
One of the reasons why I do have hope for free speech in the long term is that free speech works really well. It’s how you know what your fellow citizens think. It’s how you get ideas out there. It’s how you actually be your authentic self.
Societies that actually have freedom of speech are always going to have advantages, real and serious advantages, over ones that don’t. So I’m hopeful for the long-term future of free speech, but in the short term, I’m worried.
50.000 bedrohte Stellen bei Volkswagen stehen als Symbol für eine tiefe Wirtschaftskrise in Niedersachsen und der gesamten Republik. Wie lässt sich der industrielle Kern des Landes retten, bevor die internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit endgültig wegbricht? Der niedersächsische SPD-Ministerpräsident Olaf Lies liefert in der Talk-Reihe „Let’s find common ground“ von POLITICO die Bestandsaufnahme einer Industrie am Scheideweg.
Im Gespräch mit Gordon Repinski in Hannover warnt Lies vor dem fatalen Druck der Berliner Koalition, in der Krise nur noch auf Umfragewerte zu schielen. Er erklärt, warum das europäische Lieferkettengesetz jetzt zwingend ausgesetzt werden muss und weshalb der ständige Streit um kurzfristige Erfolge das Vertrauen in die demokratische Mitte zermürbt.
Gleichzeitig wächst der Druck von allen Seiten: Die chinesische Übermacht auf dem Elektroauto-Markt zwingt Europa zu einer strategischen Neuausrichtung jenseits von reinen Strafzöllen. Zudem zeigt der Blick auf den parlamentarischen Umgang mit AfD-Politikern wie Ulrich Siegmund, wie fragil die demokratische Normalität in den Landesparlamenten bereits geworden ist.
📍 Location: THE GUEST – fine events // Helmkehof
Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Rixa Fürsen, Maximilian Stascheit 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: Christoph Eck-Schmidt, Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna
Login
