The left-wing alliance Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) wants to take over as prime minister following its victory in the French parliamentary elections. The leader of the Socialist Party, Olivier Faure, declared on Tuesday that he was “ready to take on this office”. From the point of view of his allies, Faure could calm the situation as a moderate politician, while at the same time the experienced MP enjoys the respect of the other partners in the alliance.
The left-wing alliance is urging President Emmanuel Macron to nominate a new head of government from its ranks. The president should turn to the NFP “immediately” and give it the mandate to govern, the alliance demands in a statement. The NFP parties want to govern alone despite not having an absolute majority and are currently negotiating at full speed as to who they will propose as prime minister. On Tuesday, representatives of La France Insoumise (LFI) once again claimed the post for the far-left party, which has slightly more MPs than the Socialists within the alliance. However, its leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon is not acceptable to the other parties; LFI MP Clémence Guetté is being discussed as an alternative.
In an interview on France 2, former Prime Minister Édouard Philippe called for forming a center-right bloc. Former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin also urged the Gaullist Les Républicains (LR) to work together with Macron’s camp. Together, the centrist blocs would have 222 MPs, 40 more than the left-wing alliance. “It’s LR or LFI”, warned Raffarin with a view to the far left. However, the Republicans must first find themselves in view of the split before the election. Among other things, a new formation under a different name is being discussed.
One week before the constituent session, the European Parliament is sorting itself out: On Tuesday, the political groups largely agreed on the distribution of the most important posts. These include, in particular, the 14 vice-presidential posts and the chairmanship of the 20 committees. The committee chairs have a lot of power, they set the agenda and have a leading role in the trilogues with the Council and the Commission.
Two candidates from Germany have been chosen as Vice-Presidents. Sabine Verheyen (CDU) will succeed Rainer Wieland (CDU), who has been EP Vice-President since 2009 and did not make the leap into the European Parliament. The politician from North Rhine-Westphalia narrowly prevailed in an internal vote against Andreas Schwab from Baden-Württemberg. The CDU MEPs from NRW insisted on doing better this time than those from Baden-Württemberg, who have recently held many leading positions.
Katarina Barley is standing again for the Social Democrats; the SPD politician was already Vice-President in the last legislative period. It is not yet clear whether Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP) wants to become Vice-President. She would prefer to chair the Defense Committee if it were to become a full committee and receive powers from the Industry Committee. But it did not look like that yesterday: Negotiations on upgrading the Defense Committee (SEDE) had failed, Parliament was told.
Bernd Lange has good prospects of once again becoming Chairman of the Trade Committee when it comes to appointing the heads of the committees. The SPD MEP has already chaired the INTA for ten years. In contrast, the EPP group will probably have to step down in the new legislative period.
So far, it has chaired four committees. Only David McAllister, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET), is reportedly allowed to continue. The Agriculture Committee (AGRI), previously chaired by Norbert Lins, will reportedly go to the national-conservative ECR group, as will the Budget Committee (BUDG). The EPP group may also be given the chairmanship of the Constitutional Committee (AFCO) and the Audit Committee (CONT). This will not be decided until next week.
Initially, it was said that the committees with legislative competence should have priority for the EPP, which drew a total of six full committees and one subcommittee in the allocation according to the D’Hondt procedure. The Environment Committee, for example, will decide on the reversal of the end of the combustion engine ban, while the Industry and Agriculture Committees will deal with central political issues of the Union. In the end, the German Christian Democrats were mainly left with the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is prestigious but irrelevant to legislative work.
The chairmanship of the influential Industry Committee (ITRE) was secured by the Polish EPP delegation. LIBE, which is responsible for home affairs and justice policy, goes to the Spanish Partido Popular. The ECR had initially claimed the committee responsible for asylum policy, among other things, but swapped the post with the EPP for the chairmanship of the AGRI, as was reported in Parliament.
The second-largest group of the Social Democrats has drawn five committees. The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) will probably once again be chaired by French MEP Aurore Lalucq. The Committee on the Environment and Health (ENVI), which was important in the last legislature, is also to go to the Italian Social Democrats, although it is not yet clear to whom. However, contrary to recent expectations, the portfolio of the ENVI will remain the same as before. There will be no separate full committee for the topics of health and food safety. Instead, they will remain within the ENVI’s remit.
Despite losing seats after the European elections, the Greens could gain influence in the EP. They will have a Vice-President in the EU Parliament and two committee chairs. This means that it has already paid off for them to be part of the Von der Leyen coalition in the future the last legislature, they had Anna Cavazzini as Chair of the Internal Market Committee (IMCO) and Heidi Hautala from Finland as EP Vice-President.
Cavazzini is to retain his position as head of IMCO. A vote will be held in the parliamentary group today. The Greens will also get the chairmanship of the Human Rights Committee (DROI). A Frenchman is to be given the job. It is therefore also clear that Michael Bloss has a good chance of becoming head of the German Green Group, as Cavazzini will get her preferred post and Sergey Lagodinsky is already serving as Group Vice-Chair.
The Renew Group retains the chairmanship of the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) and the Development Committee (DEVE). The Liberals also took the chair of the Defense Committee, which will probably remain a subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Left Group, on the other hand, withdrew the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL). This is to be chaired by former Finnish Education Minister Li Andersson, who was elected to the European Parliament in June with a record result.
In the D’Hondt distribution, the new far-right group “Patriots for Europe” has also drawn two committees, the Transport Committee (TRAN) and the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT). However, the other parliamentary groups once again want to create a cordon sanitaire around the right-wingers, so the two committee chairs will probably be allocated to other groups.
Mr. Thimm, can a re-elected President Trump simply withdraw from NATO?
The short answer to the question is yes.
No one can stop him?
You have to distinguish between the legal situation and practice. The President is the leader in foreign policy. He is the diplomat-in-chief, i.e. the top diplomat, and he is the commander-in-chief, i.e. the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. And this attribution of roles gives him the initiative and the decisive power. Congress can influence foreign policy through the budget, through the financing of diplomatic activities, and through the ratification of treaties. As a rule, the consent of Congress is required to join treaties. But to withdraw from treaties, it is de facto not required.
In the past, there have been efforts in Congress to introduce a law that would rule out a withdrawal from NATO because it was anticipated that Trump might get a second term in office. Has that had any effect?
I interpret this primarily as a political signal that Congress would not agree if Trump were to terminate the NATO treaty. After all, this was a bipartisan legislative initiative. Here, too, the legal status of such a law is unclear. We also know from Donald Trump that he sometimes doesn’t take the law very seriously. And: the law would have to be reviewed by the courts. That would take a long time. Whether it would then be enforced in practice, even if Congress were to be vindicated in court, would be another question entirely.
The political damage would then already have been done. So he wouldn’t necessarily have to leave?
I wouldn’t rule it out completely, but I don’t think it’s likely. I see the greater danger in the fact that it undermines the credibility of the alliance, that it calls into question the mutual assistance clause, Article 5 of the NATO treaty. That it calls into question the US nuclear deterrent for NATO members – including Germany. This creates uncertainty and gives others – Russia, for example – the chance to test how far the USA’s support extends.
He has already done that.
Exactly, he has actually already said that those who do not meet their voluntary commitment to spend two percent of their gross domestic product on defense cannot rely on the USA. He has recently qualified this somewhat and claimed that he only said this for tactical reasons in order to get the NATO allies to stick to their voluntary commitment. But I’m not so sure about that.
Wouldn’t there be resistance if he questioned this alliance, including from the Republicans?
The Republicans have recently proven to be extremely flexible and have simply adopted many of Trump’s positions that they did not previously hold at all. So the whole attitude towards Russia in the Republican Party has only changed radically because of Trump. From a party that was actually always hardline towards Russia and criticized the Democrats for being too understanding. To a party that suddenly has a lot of understanding for Putin’s Russia. But I believe that leaving Nato would also go too far for many Republicans. It would provoke very clear resistance across party lines. From the foreign and security policy establishment and also from the military.
Normally, the American military is not prone to rebellion.
The generals are well aware that NATO is not just an altruistic gift to the allies, but a very important asset for the USA. NATO is a power booster that increases the influence of the USA both militarily and diplomatically in the world. The American bases in Europe serve as a base for the entire Middle East and Africa and are not easily dispensable. I actually believe that as Commander-in-Chief he could order this and the military would then carry out the order. So the rebellion would happen in advance.
It is considered certain that the then Chief of Staff Mark Milley made secret arrangements to restrict Trump’s access to nuclear weapons during the storming of the Capitol in January 2021. Would the military leadership intervene in the event of a NATO withdrawal?
Not in the sense of refusing to obey orders, as the primacy of politics applies. But the whole of Washington would then be mobilized to cry out against it! That’s why I actually believe that this formal withdrawal would not take place. But as I said, anything less than that could cause damage before anyone could do anything about it.
Johannes Thimm is Deputy Head of the Americas Research Group at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). His research focuses on the USA, transatlantic relations, and the United Nations.
Lieutenant General Wolfgang Wien will not be traveling to Washington for the major NATO summit to mark the 75th anniversary of the alliance. But the preparations and follow-up are also his responsibility. He has been Germany’s highest military representative to NATO and the EU in Brussels since October 2023.
Together with the representatives of the 31 other alliance partners, he works in the NATO Military Committee in Brussels to prepare and implement the political decisions made at summits such as the one in Washington in military terms. He works with the other nations to ensure that all resources are available. The defense plans that NATO drew up and adapted in response to the Russian war of aggression two years ago are to be put into practice. Wien knows the reality. “In Germany, there are no queues of soldiers outside the barracks“, he says – and other nations are in a similar situation.
To underline the urgency for this to change, he outlines the current geopolitical situation: Russia, China and a possible second term for Donald Trump – all of these are challenges for the alliance that, in his view, require significantly more investment in defense. Wolfgang Wien is not trying to gloss over the situation.
Trump is a challenge – he himself was in Brussels during Trump’s first term in office, but regardless of the outcome of the election, many sides expect the USA to withdraw forces in Europe. The war against Russia is a war at eye level. That means “dying and death and destruction”. With every sentence it becomes clearer: this is a soldier speaking, not a politician, and one who sees the big picture.
Like Russia, he also describes China as a systemic competitor against which Western values must be defended. And here, too, he does not attempt to disguise the reality. “I don’t hope that there will be a military conflict in Asia, but there are signs that everything is heading in that direction.”
Wolfgang Wien itself has been deployed abroad three times. Back then it was about crisis management, today it is about alliance defense. He describes the deployment in Afghanistan in particular as a “fulfilling time”. Even if the entire mission was certainly not a success in retrospect, the activities of the Multinational Battlegroup, which he set up and led as commander at the time, did bear fruit. A children’s hospital that he built with his troops is still standing today. What makes him most proud, however, is that he was able to bring all the men home alive (there were no women on the mission at the time). He thought to himself several times: “If this goes wrong tomorrow, you’ll write a letter to your wife.”
Wien began his career in the armored infantry. Coincidences brought him close to the then Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen as office manager of State Secretary Gerd Hoofe, until he finally became Vice President of the BND and then Germany’s highest-ranking soldier at NATO. He also explains this with “luck”. In the right place at the right time.
If you listen to him closely, you can sense that this also required a great deal of leadership, people skills, discipline and sacrifice. This doesn’t always seem to have been easy for him, especially concerning his family. Of course, you sometimes ask yourself whether you have done everything right, whether you have set the right priorities.
His presence at the NATO summit is definitely not a priority for him. That’s the place for political decision-makers, for big symbols. Nevertheless, he is very clear about the goals of the summit. Right at the top: to demonstrate unity. That is task enough with 32 nations with completely different interests. Putting the words of a final political declaration into practice will then be up to the capitals and to him and his colleagues in Brussels. Wilhelmine Preußen
The left-wing alliance Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) wants to take over as prime minister following its victory in the French parliamentary elections. The leader of the Socialist Party, Olivier Faure, declared on Tuesday that he was “ready to take on this office”. From the point of view of his allies, Faure could calm the situation as a moderate politician, while at the same time the experienced MP enjoys the respect of the other partners in the alliance.
The left-wing alliance is urging President Emmanuel Macron to nominate a new head of government from its ranks. The president should turn to the NFP “immediately” and give it the mandate to govern, the alliance demands in a statement. The NFP parties want to govern alone despite not having an absolute majority and are currently negotiating at full speed as to who they will propose as prime minister. On Tuesday, representatives of La France Insoumise (LFI) once again claimed the post for the far-left party, which has slightly more MPs than the Socialists within the alliance. However, its leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon is not acceptable to the other parties; LFI MP Clémence Guetté is being discussed as an alternative.
In an interview on France 2, former Prime Minister Édouard Philippe called for forming a center-right bloc. Former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin also urged the Gaullist Les Républicains (LR) to work together with Macron’s camp. Together, the centrist blocs would have 222 MPs, 40 more than the left-wing alliance. “It’s LR or LFI”, warned Raffarin with a view to the far left. However, the Republicans must first find themselves in view of the split before the election. Among other things, a new formation under a different name is being discussed.
One week before the constituent session, the European Parliament is sorting itself out: On Tuesday, the political groups largely agreed on the distribution of the most important posts. These include, in particular, the 14 vice-presidential posts and the chairmanship of the 20 committees. The committee chairs have a lot of power, they set the agenda and have a leading role in the trilogues with the Council and the Commission.
Two candidates from Germany have been chosen as Vice-Presidents. Sabine Verheyen (CDU) will succeed Rainer Wieland (CDU), who has been EP Vice-President since 2009 and did not make the leap into the European Parliament. The politician from North Rhine-Westphalia narrowly prevailed in an internal vote against Andreas Schwab from Baden-Württemberg. The CDU MEPs from NRW insisted on doing better this time than those from Baden-Württemberg, who have recently held many leading positions.
Katarina Barley is standing again for the Social Democrats; the SPD politician was already Vice-President in the last legislative period. It is not yet clear whether Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP) wants to become Vice-President. She would prefer to chair the Defense Committee if it were to become a full committee and receive powers from the Industry Committee. But it did not look like that yesterday: Negotiations on upgrading the Defense Committee (SEDE) had failed, Parliament was told.
Bernd Lange has good prospects of once again becoming Chairman of the Trade Committee when it comes to appointing the heads of the committees. The SPD MEP has already chaired the INTA for ten years. In contrast, the EPP group will probably have to step down in the new legislative period.
So far, it has chaired four committees. Only David McAllister, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET), is reportedly allowed to continue. The Agriculture Committee (AGRI), previously chaired by Norbert Lins, will reportedly go to the national-conservative ECR group, as will the Budget Committee (BUDG). The EPP group may also be given the chairmanship of the Constitutional Committee (AFCO) and the Audit Committee (CONT). This will not be decided until next week.
Initially, it was said that the committees with legislative competence should have priority for the EPP, which drew a total of six full committees and one subcommittee in the allocation according to the D’Hondt procedure. The Environment Committee, for example, will decide on the reversal of the end of the combustion engine ban, while the Industry and Agriculture Committees will deal with central political issues of the Union. In the end, the German Christian Democrats were mainly left with the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is prestigious but irrelevant to legislative work.
The chairmanship of the influential Industry Committee (ITRE) was secured by the Polish EPP delegation. LIBE, which is responsible for home affairs and justice policy, goes to the Spanish Partido Popular. The ECR had initially claimed the committee responsible for asylum policy, among other things, but swapped the post with the EPP for the chairmanship of the AGRI, as was reported in Parliament.
The second-largest group of the Social Democrats has drawn five committees. The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) will probably once again be chaired by French MEP Aurore Lalucq. The Committee on the Environment and Health (ENVI), which was important in the last legislature, is also to go to the Italian Social Democrats, although it is not yet clear to whom. However, contrary to recent expectations, the portfolio of the ENVI will remain the same as before. There will be no separate full committee for the topics of health and food safety. Instead, they will remain within the ENVI’s remit.
Despite losing seats after the European elections, the Greens could gain influence in the EP. They will have a Vice-President in the EU Parliament and two committee chairs. This means that it has already paid off for them to be part of the Von der Leyen coalition in the future the last legislature, they had Anna Cavazzini as Chair of the Internal Market Committee (IMCO) and Heidi Hautala from Finland as EP Vice-President.
Cavazzini is to retain his position as head of IMCO. A vote will be held in the parliamentary group today. The Greens will also get the chairmanship of the Human Rights Committee (DROI). A Frenchman is to be given the job. It is therefore also clear that Michael Bloss has a good chance of becoming head of the German Green Group, as Cavazzini will get her preferred post and Sergey Lagodinsky is already serving as Group Vice-Chair.
The Renew Group retains the chairmanship of the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) and the Development Committee (DEVE). The Liberals also took the chair of the Defense Committee, which will probably remain a subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Left Group, on the other hand, withdrew the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL). This is to be chaired by former Finnish Education Minister Li Andersson, who was elected to the European Parliament in June with a record result.
In the D’Hondt distribution, the new far-right group “Patriots for Europe” has also drawn two committees, the Transport Committee (TRAN) and the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT). However, the other parliamentary groups once again want to create a cordon sanitaire around the right-wingers, so the two committee chairs will probably be allocated to other groups.
Mr. Thimm, can a re-elected President Trump simply withdraw from NATO?
The short answer to the question is yes.
No one can stop him?
You have to distinguish between the legal situation and practice. The President is the leader in foreign policy. He is the diplomat-in-chief, i.e. the top diplomat, and he is the commander-in-chief, i.e. the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. And this attribution of roles gives him the initiative and the decisive power. Congress can influence foreign policy through the budget, through the financing of diplomatic activities, and through the ratification of treaties. As a rule, the consent of Congress is required to join treaties. But to withdraw from treaties, it is de facto not required.
In the past, there have been efforts in Congress to introduce a law that would rule out a withdrawal from NATO because it was anticipated that Trump might get a second term in office. Has that had any effect?
I interpret this primarily as a political signal that Congress would not agree if Trump were to terminate the NATO treaty. After all, this was a bipartisan legislative initiative. Here, too, the legal status of such a law is unclear. We also know from Donald Trump that he sometimes doesn’t take the law very seriously. And: the law would have to be reviewed by the courts. That would take a long time. Whether it would then be enforced in practice, even if Congress were to be vindicated in court, would be another question entirely.
The political damage would then already have been done. So he wouldn’t necessarily have to leave?
I wouldn’t rule it out completely, but I don’t think it’s likely. I see the greater danger in the fact that it undermines the credibility of the alliance, that it calls into question the mutual assistance clause, Article 5 of the NATO treaty. That it calls into question the US nuclear deterrent for NATO members – including Germany. This creates uncertainty and gives others – Russia, for example – the chance to test how far the USA’s support extends.
He has already done that.
Exactly, he has actually already said that those who do not meet their voluntary commitment to spend two percent of their gross domestic product on defense cannot rely on the USA. He has recently qualified this somewhat and claimed that he only said this for tactical reasons in order to get the NATO allies to stick to their voluntary commitment. But I’m not so sure about that.
Wouldn’t there be resistance if he questioned this alliance, including from the Republicans?
The Republicans have recently proven to be extremely flexible and have simply adopted many of Trump’s positions that they did not previously hold at all. So the whole attitude towards Russia in the Republican Party has only changed radically because of Trump. From a party that was actually always hardline towards Russia and criticized the Democrats for being too understanding. To a party that suddenly has a lot of understanding for Putin’s Russia. But I believe that leaving Nato would also go too far for many Republicans. It would provoke very clear resistance across party lines. From the foreign and security policy establishment and also from the military.
Normally, the American military is not prone to rebellion.
The generals are well aware that NATO is not just an altruistic gift to the allies, but a very important asset for the USA. NATO is a power booster that increases the influence of the USA both militarily and diplomatically in the world. The American bases in Europe serve as a base for the entire Middle East and Africa and are not easily dispensable. I actually believe that as Commander-in-Chief he could order this and the military would then carry out the order. So the rebellion would happen in advance.
It is considered certain that the then Chief of Staff Mark Milley made secret arrangements to restrict Trump’s access to nuclear weapons during the storming of the Capitol in January 2021. Would the military leadership intervene in the event of a NATO withdrawal?
Not in the sense of refusing to obey orders, as the primacy of politics applies. But the whole of Washington would then be mobilized to cry out against it! That’s why I actually believe that this formal withdrawal would not take place. But as I said, anything less than that could cause damage before anyone could do anything about it.
Johannes Thimm is Deputy Head of the Americas Research Group at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). His research focuses on the USA, transatlantic relations, and the United Nations.
Lieutenant General Wolfgang Wien will not be traveling to Washington for the major NATO summit to mark the 75th anniversary of the alliance. But the preparations and follow-up are also his responsibility. He has been Germany’s highest military representative to NATO and the EU in Brussels since October 2023.
Together with the representatives of the 31 other alliance partners, he works in the NATO Military Committee in Brussels to prepare and implement the political decisions made at summits such as the one in Washington in military terms. He works with the other nations to ensure that all resources are available. The defense plans that NATO drew up and adapted in response to the Russian war of aggression two years ago are to be put into practice. Wien knows the reality. “In Germany, there are no queues of soldiers outside the barracks“, he says – and other nations are in a similar situation.
To underline the urgency for this to change, he outlines the current geopolitical situation: Russia, China and a possible second term for Donald Trump – all of these are challenges for the alliance that, in his view, require significantly more investment in defense. Wolfgang Wien is not trying to gloss over the situation.
Trump is a challenge – he himself was in Brussels during Trump’s first term in office, but regardless of the outcome of the election, many sides expect the USA to withdraw forces in Europe. The war against Russia is a war at eye level. That means “dying and death and destruction”. With every sentence it becomes clearer: this is a soldier speaking, not a politician, and one who sees the big picture.
Like Russia, he also describes China as a systemic competitor against which Western values must be defended. And here, too, he does not attempt to disguise the reality. “I don’t hope that there will be a military conflict in Asia, but there are signs that everything is heading in that direction.”
Wolfgang Wien itself has been deployed abroad three times. Back then it was about crisis management, today it is about alliance defense. He describes the deployment in Afghanistan in particular as a “fulfilling time”. Even if the entire mission was certainly not a success in retrospect, the activities of the Multinational Battlegroup, which he set up and led as commander at the time, did bear fruit. A children’s hospital that he built with his troops is still standing today. What makes him most proud, however, is that he was able to bring all the men home alive (there were no women on the mission at the time). He thought to himself several times: “If this goes wrong tomorrow, you’ll write a letter to your wife.”
Wien began his career in the armored infantry. Coincidences brought him close to the then Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen as office manager of State Secretary Gerd Hoofe, until he finally became Vice President of the BND and then Germany’s highest-ranking soldier at NATO. He also explains this with “luck”. In the right place at the right time.
If you listen to him closely, you can sense that this also required a great deal of leadership, people skills, discipline and sacrifice. This doesn’t always seem to have been easy for him, especially concerning his family. Of course, you sometimes ask yourself whether you have done everything right, whether you have set the right priorities.
His presence at the NATO summit is definitely not a priority for him. That’s the place for political decision-makers, for big symbols. Nevertheless, he is very clear about the goals of the summit. Right at the top: to demonstrate unity. That is task enough with 32 nations with completely different interests. Putting the words of a final political declaration into practice will then be up to the capitals and to him and his colleagues in Brussels. Wilhelmine Preußen
