标签： Europe

BERLIN – German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has announced a sweeping overhaul of top government and party leadership posts on Friday, a desperate gambit to revitalize his flagging, deeply unpopular administration ahead of pivotal September regional elections that could see the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) claim its first ever state governorship.

Merz, who took office less than 15 months ago on promises of sweeping economic reform and a recovery for Germany – the largest economy in Europe – after years of prolonged stagnation, has watched his agenda stall. His centrist grand coalition, an unlikely partnership between his center-right Union bloc and long-time rival center-left Social Democrats, has failed to convince voters of its ability to deliver tangible progress, dragging the chancellor’s approval ratings to historic lows. Against this backdrop of widespread public discontent, the far-right AfD has steadily climbed in polling, emerging as a serious contender in the upcoming regional votes.

The trigger for the reshuffle came last week, when senior Union ally Jens Spahn was forced to resign from his post as leader of the party’s parliamentary group – one of the most powerful positions in the governing coalition – over a damaging credibility scandal. It was revealed that Spahn and his husband had used a commercial surrogate in the United States to welcome a child, a practice that is illegal in Germany and explicitly opposed by Merz’s party, a position Spahn himself had publicly defended for years. The revelation sparked widespread accusations of political hypocrisy, creating an unwanted distraction for the coalition just as it was attempting to roll out its new reform agenda.

To fill Spahn’s vacant role, Merz has tapped his current chief of staff, Thorsten Frei, a seasoned party operative who previously served as the Union’s parliamentary chief whip during the bloc’s time in opposition, a post political analysts widely consider a better fit for his skill set. Taking Frei’s place as chancellery chief – a critical role responsible for coordinating the daily functions of the federal government – will be current Health Minister Nina Warken, a move that makes her the first woman to ever hold the position. Merz praised Warken for her recent success shepherding the government’s first major reform, a bill to curb soaring costs in Germany’s public health insurance system, through parliament, noting she has already proven she can “push through reforms against resistance.” He added that Warken is also well-versed in core security policy issues, a key priority for the chancellery.

Warken’s spot at the Health Ministry will go to Carsten Linnemann, current general secretary of Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and a staunch conservative who has not previously held national government office. Merz argued that Linnemann’s steadfast commitment to the administration’s reform agenda makes him the right pick to continue overhauling German health policy. The chancellor confirmed that additional cabinet changes are still in the works, but declined to share specific details, saying final decisions would take “a few days yet, and perhaps more time.” He did not address widespread media reports that Transport Minister Patrick Schnieder is also set to be replaced, a change that comes after the coalition’s multi-billion euro infrastructure upgrade fund has failed to resolve persistent public frustration over systemic issues like unreliable national railway service.

Merz framed the personnel shakeup as a deliberate step to refocus the government on its reform mandate. “The personnel changes follow a clear line,” he said. “We want a government that works with great vigor and pleasure and also represents the personal diversity of our society and politics. We are a reform government and want to continue showing that.”

Political analysts say the reshuffle is a clear response to the high-stakes electoral calendar this fall. Three critical regional elections will be held in September, with the first taking place on September 6 in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt, where the AfD is currently polling strongly enough to win a parliamentary majority that would give it full control of a state government for the first time in the party’s history. For months, the coalition has been dogged by public anger over internal infighting, but in recent weeks Merz’s government has laid out an ambitious slate of potentially controversial policy changes, including a gradual increase in the retirement age to overhaul the country’s strained pension system, income tax cuts for low- and middle-income households, and widespread deregulation to cut bureaucratic red tape. Last week, Merz insisted that “the government has found its rhythm, despite some criticism,” adding that “we have delivered, and we have recognized the dimension of the tasks we face.”

Uwe Jun, a professor of political science at the University of Trier, told public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that the reshuffle is intentionally designed to project competence and action ahead of the elections. “Friedrich Merz wants to show that this coalition is capable of acting, that he as chancellor is capable of acting,” Jun explained. “He wants to put it on a faster and stronger path now.”

WASHINGTON — Just hours before a set of temporary trade tariffs imposed by the Trump administration expired at midnight Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump moved forward with a new slate of permanent double-digit tariffs targeting imports from 60 global trading partners, advancing his protectionist trade agenda after a major Supreme Court defeat erased his earlier sweeping tariff policy earlier this year.

The new measures set import taxes ranging from 10% to 12.5% on goods covering 99% of U.S. inbound imports, with the administration justifying the move by accusing the affected nations of failing to sufficiently enforce their own bans on imports produced through forced labor. “The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement announcing the new tariffs.

The timing of the rollout is no coincidence: the temporary 10% global tariffs Trump put in place after the Supreme Court’s February ruling striking down his earlier broad tariffs are set to expire at 12:01 a.m. ET Friday. That February decision blocked the tariffs Trump had imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the president had invoked to declare the U.S.’s longstanding trade deficit a national emergency, breaking with decades of bipartisan U.S. policy that prioritized lower tariffs and expanded global trade. After the Supreme Court ruled IEEPA did not grant the president authority to impose broad tariffs in this context, the administration was forced to issue refunds to U.S. importers that had paid the levies.

In response, Trump enacted temporary tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, but that legal authority only allows for 150 days of temporary measures — a deadline that expires this week. To replace the expiring levies, the Trump administration is turning to a more legally durable authority: Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the president to impose import tariffs and other trade sanctions against nations found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” trade practices. Trump previously used this same section to impose large-scale tariffs on Chinese imports during his first term, and those levies survived multiple legal challenges in U.S. courts.

The new forced labor tariffs were first proposed last month. A senior anonymous administration official confirmed Thursday that some nations have already strengthened their forced labor enforcement rules in response to the proposal, qualifying them for lower tariff rates. For example, India’s originally proposed 12.5% tariff was adjusted down to 10% after policy changes. The new tariffs also include key carveouts: oil and gas, fertilizer, and all goods eligible for duty-free status under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the North American trade deal Trump negotiated during his first term, are fully exempt.

The policy has drawn immediate pushback from both domestic political opponents and affected trading nations. U.S. Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, called the forced labor justification a cynical pretext for a protectionist agenda. “Forced labor is a real and pervasive problem in our supply chains and demands serious enforcement. It should never be cheapened into a pretext for a tariff policy built on dubious legal theories and personal grievances,” Neal said.

Brazil, which faces the full 12.5% tariff under the new policy, called the U.S. move “arbitrary and unjustified” in an official statement. The Brazilian government announced it will activate its reciprocity law to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods and file a formal complaint against the U.S. with the World Trade Organization, accusing Washington of “manipulate an issue of great importance to human rights and the struggles of workers worldwide in order to accuse 59 countries and the European Union of unfair practices.” Chile, also facing a 12.5% rate, pushed back against the designation, noting the country has “solid labor institutions, a robust regulatory framework and a firm commitment to the prevention and eradication of forced labor,” adding the tariff application is “inconsistent with these standards, as well as with the technical, political, and legal background presented throughout the investigation process.”

Economically, the new tariffs carry political risk for the Trump administration ahead of November’s midterm elections. Tariffs are ultimately paid by U.S. importing companies, which typically pass the added costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices — a major concern at a time when American households are already grappling with persistently high cost of living.

While many human rights and labor experts share skepticism about the Trump administration’s underlying motivation for the tariffs, most acknowledge the measures have already spurred meaningful global policy changes to address forced labor, a widespread global human rights crisis that affects an estimated 27.6 million people worldwide as of 2021, per data from the U.N.’s International Labour Organization (ILO).

Martina Vandenberg, founder and president of The Human Trafficking Legal Center, said her organization has long supported forced labor import bans as a useful tool to curb global exploitation, even if they are not a standalone solution. “It’s possible to be extremely critical of tariffs, as we are, and to be very concerned about blanket tariffs used as bludgeons against countries. And yet I think it’s undeniable that there is a significant response in terms of the adoption of import bans,” Vandenberg said. She and her organization have called for a phased implementation of tariffs, however, to give nations time to build robust, enforceable enforcement mechanisms rather than just symbolic policy changes.

Kenya Davis, a partner at law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, noted that prior to these tariffs, the 2021 Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act — which bans imports of any goods linked to forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region — was the most significant U.S. legislation targeting forced labor. While the effectiveness of that law remains debated, Davis said it successfully drew global attention to the crisis, and the new tariffs could serve a similar awareness-building purpose. Still, Davis cautioned that without a transparent comprehensive approach that includes technical assistance for nations building enforcement systems, enthusiasm for the new tariffs should be muted.

Isabelle Glimcher, a senior research scientist focused on global labor at the NYU Stern Center for Human Rights, pointed to one key structural flaw in the policy: the tariffs penalize countries for failing to ban forced-labor imports, rather than addressing forced labor in domestic production that ends up exported to the U.S. Even so, Glimcher confirmed that the threat of tariffs has already pushed nations including India to adopt new forced labor import bans, with the European Union also moving forward with its own forced labor regulations set to take effect in 2026. “Not all of these things are necessarily or wholly attributable to the Section 301 investigations, but does seem like countries are responding and starting to take all of this seriously,” Glimcher said.

Looking ahead, additional Section 301 tariffs could be on the horizon. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has already launched an investigation into whether 16 countries accounting for 70% of U.S. imports have engaged in overproduction that suppresses global prices and disadvantages U.S. companies, though that probe is not yet complete.

In a surprising turn that carries notable political implications for U.S. political discourse, controversial pro-Donald Trump commentator Laura Loomer has held a face-to-face meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, just days after she publicly reversed her long-stated position that downplayed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

A high-stakes power struggle between Ukraine’s recently removed defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov and President Volodymyr Zelensky has yet to be resolved, days after Fedorov’s dismissal sparked widespread public unrest across the country. Fedorov, a 35-year-old reformer widely credited for overhauling Ukraine’s military capabilities amid the ongoing war with Russia, has rejected a proposed alternative cabinet position from Zelensky, and is demanding his former post as defense minister be restored.

In an official statement released to journalists this week, Fedorov confirmed he turned down Zelensky’s offer of deputy prime minister for military innovation. The ousted minister argued that only three state positions directly shape the trajectory of Ukraine’s war effort: the presidency, the defense minister role, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. No other post, he insisted, would give him the authority needed to continue advancing the strategic plan his team developed to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

Fedorov was appointed defense minister in January 2025, and quickly emerged as a popular figure for his data-driven military reforms, anti-corruption initiatives, and the widely successful Army of Drones program that has transformed Ukraine’s strike capabilities against Russian targets. In his statement, he outlined that his six-month tenure has already shifted battlefield momentum in Ukraine’s favor, opening a rare window of opportunity to force Russia into negotiated peace through military strength. “I have never sought any personal post or status,” Fedorov emphasized. “I only want the opportunity to really influence the outcome and bring Ukraine’s victory closer.”

Zelensky’s decision to remove Fedorov from his post last week triggered mass street demonstrations across Ukraine. Public pressure later forced Zelensky to dismiss commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, a 60-year-old veteran officer who had publicly clashed with Fedorov over the need for radical military reform. Syrskyi, who led the successful 2022 defense of Kyiv during the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, had grown increasingly unpopular among many Ukrainians who viewed his Soviet-era command style as incompatible with modern, innovation-driven warfare. He was replaced by the younger, highly regarded Mykhailo Drapatyi.

However, protesters have rejected this step as insufficient, vowing to continue demonstrating until Fedorov is reinstated. While the public broadly welcomed Syrskyi’s removal, widespread frustration remains over Zelensky’s original decision to oust the popular defense minister. Fedorov has already been replaced in the role by Yevhenii Khmara, a former senior official with Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU).

It remains unclear whether the standoff can still be resolved through negotiation. Presidential adviser Dmytro Lytvyn confirmed that discussions between Fedorov and Zelensky’s team are still ongoing, noting that “it would be inappropriate to disclose details at this stage.”

Political observers note that the current impasse highlights growing divisions within Ukraine’s wartime leadership over military strategy and reform. While Fedorov and his supporters credit his reforms for Ukraine’s recent battlefield gains, some analysts push back, noting that current advances like deep drone strikes into Russia were rooted in planning developed more than a year ago during Syrskyi’s tenure. Even so, polling and public protests make clear that Fedorov retains broad popular support, with many Ukrainians viewing him as indispensable to the country’s war effort. The unresolved battle of wills between Zelensky and Fedorov leaves a major leadership gap at a critical moment when Ukraine is capitalizing on newfound battlefield momentum, creating uncertainty for the country’s wartime leadership.

Diplomats from 125 member nations of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will convene at United Nations headquarters in New York this Friday for an unprecedented vote that will determine whether Karim Khan, the court’s embattled chief prosecutor, is permanently removed from his post. The two-year-long scandal surrounding Khan has thrown the already strained 24-year-old global tribunal into deeper crisis, at a moment when the institution faces coordinated external attacks designed to undermine its legitimacy.

The core of the controversy stems from sexual misconduct allegations brought against the 56-year-old British barrister by a female former aide, which were first detailed in a series of reports by The Associated Press. Khan has repeatedly and vehemently denied all claims against him. In June, the ICC’s oversight executive committee concluded in a formal ruling, documented in materials reviewed by AP, that Khan had committed “serious breach of duty and serious misconduct” by engaging in a gradually escalating sexual relationship with the subordinate and subsequently attempting to interfere with her ability to file official complaints. Khan rejects the validity of these findings entirely.

The upcoming special session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the ICC’s governing body, will close with a secret majority vote on the removal resolution, a historic first for the court. Khan will not attend the closed-door proceedings: the United States imposed sanctions on him during the Trump administration over the ICC’s Gaza war investigation, barring him from entering the country. His legal team has decried his absence as a fundamental violation of procedural fairness. “We know of no court or tribunal in any proper and fair legal system that bars a person facing the gravest professional sanction from being heard,” lawyers Tayab Ali and Sareta Ashraph wrote in a letter to the ASP obtained by AP. Khan also remains suspended from practicing law in his home country of the United Kingdom, where the British Bar Standards Board has launched its own independent investigation into the allegations.

To date, the Netherlands—the ICC’s host nation—is the only country to publicly confirm its position. Foreign minister Tom Berendsen confirmed in a letter to Dutch parliament that the country will vote in favor of removing Khan. The overall outcome of the vote remains uncertain, as most member states have not publicly disclosed their voting intentions.

The controversy around Khan has become deeply intertwined with the ICC’s high-stakes investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the ongoing Gaza conflict. In 2024, the court issued historic arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of crimes against humanity, triggering fierce backlash from Western allies of Israel, including the United States which had already levied sanctions against Khan over the probe earlier.

Iva Vukusic, an international courts researcher at Utrecht University who has closely followed the disciplinary process, told AP that political considerations have become inextricably tied to the removal vote. “Political considerations have been folded into this, especially as it is the first time a prosecutor has pursued warrants against a western ally,” Vukusic explained.

The drawn-out saga has exposed deep internal divisions within the ICC at a time when the institution already faces existential pressure. Earlier this month, the United States—one of the ICC’s most longstanding critics—launched an explicit campaign to dismantle the court entirely. Inside the institution, leadership splintering has worsened amid the scandal. In April, a cohort of prosecutor’s office staff sent an open letter to the ASP warning that Khan’s return to office would be untenable, noting his “leadership has been materially diminished.” On the other side, a coalition of Palestinian human rights organizations issued a public statement last week raising alarms that the disciplinary process has been tainted by “unwarranted political interference” that risks undermining the Gaza investigation.

Khan’s office is currently being managed on an interim basis by his two deputy prosecutors. If the removal resolution passes, member states will launch a new process to elect a permanent replacement. Analysts warn that regardless of the vote’s outcome, the ICC will emerge from the crisis significantly weakened. Vukusic noted that “the court is going to walk away bruised and battered and wounded and less able to face the greater threats” already aligned against it.