The New York Times 2025-02-24 12:11:45


Pinned

Jim Tankersley

Reporting from Berlin

Here are the latest developments.

Germans voted for a change of leadership on Sunday, handing the most votes in a parliamentary election to centrist conservatives, with the far right in second, and rebuking the nation’s left-leaning government for its handling of the economy and immigration.

The results almost certainly mean the country’s next chancellor will be Friedrich Merz, leader of the Christian Democrats. Returns posted early Monday morning indicated that he had a path to governing Germany with only one coalition partner, the relatively stable scenario that his party had hoped for.

“We have won it,” Mr. Merz told supporters in Berlin on Sunday evening, promising to swiftly form a parliamentary majority to govern the country and restore strong German leadership in Europe.

The election, which was held seven months ahead of schedule after the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s unpopular and long-troubled three-party coalition, will now become an essential part of the European response to President Trump’s new world order. It drew the highest voter turnout in decades.

Mr. Merz, 69, has promised to crack down on migrants and slash taxes and business regulations in a bid to kick-start economic growth. He also vowed to bring a more assertive foreign policy to help Ukraine and stronger leadership in Europe at a moment when the new Trump administration has sowed anxiety by scrambling traditional alliances and embracing Russia.

A businessman who has never served as a government minister, Mr. Merz was once seen as a potentially better counterpart for the American president than Mr. Scholz, but in the campaign’s final days he mused about whether the United States would remain a democracy under Mr. Trump. He strongly condemned what Germans saw as meddling by Trump administration officials on behalf of the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD.

“My top priority, for me, will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that we can gradually achieve real independence from the U.S.A.,” Mr. Merz said in a televised round-table after polls closed. “I would never have thought I’d be saying something like this on TV, but after last week’s comments from Donald Trump, it’s clear that this administration is largely indifferent to Europe’s fate, or at least to this part of it.”

Returns showed that Mr. Merz’s Christian Democrats and their sister party, the Christian Social Union, won just under 29 percent of the vote combined. It was a low share historically for the top party in a German election, and the second-lowest showing ever for Mr. Merz’s party in a chancellor election.

Both are signs of the multiplying fissures in the nation’s politics and the weaknesses of the centrist mainstream parties that have governed Germany for decades.

There was great suspense on Sunday evening about the coalition Mr. Merz would be able to assemble, but he was clearly hoping for a rerun of the centrist governments that ran Germany for much of former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 16-year tenure: the Christian Democrats in the lead, with the Social Democrats as a lone junior partner.

Near-final returns posted early on Monday morning suggested he might have squeaked it out — barely. They indicated that the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, a pro-Russia splinter from the old German left, had fallen just short of the 5 percent support it needed to get into Parliament. That apparent failure — by a margin of less than 14,000 votes — would mean that only five parties would make it into the next Parliament. In that scenario, Mr. Merz’s party and the Social Democrats could form a majority with no other partners.

Had another small party made it into Parliament, Mr. Merz would have been forced to find a third coalition partner. That could have led to another potentially unwieldy and unstable government for Germany, reconfigured but with some of the same vulnerabilities as the one that recently collapsed.

Mr. Merz has promised never to join with the second-place finisher, the AfD, which routinely flirts with Nazi slogans and whose members have diminished the Holocaust and have been linked to plots to overthrow the government. But the returns showed that the AfD is a growing force in German politics, even if it fell short of its ambitions in this election.

The AfD doubled its vote share from four years ago, largely by appealing to voters upset by the millions of refugees who entered the country over the last decade from the Middle East, Afghanistan, Ukraine and elsewhere. In the former East Germany, it finished first.

Its vote share appeared to fall short of its high mark of support in the polls from a year ago, however. Many analysts had been expecting a stronger showing, after a sequence of events that elevated the party and its signature issue.

The AfD received public support from Vice President JD Vance and the billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk. It sought to make political gains out of a series of deadly attacks committed by migrants in recent months, including in the final days of the campaign.

But that boon never materialized. Reaction to the recent attacks and the support from Trump officials may have even mobilized a late burst of support to Die Linke, the party of Germany’s far left, which campaigned on a pro-immigration platform, some voters suggested in interviews on Sunday.

For all of that movement, the most likely coalition partner for Mr. Merz appears to be the one analysts have predicted for months: Mr. Scholz’s center-left Social Democrats, even though they experienced a steep drop in support from four years ago.

Interviews and early returns suggested voters were angry at Mr. Scholz’s government over high grocery prices and inadequate wage growth, and polls suggested economic and migration issues topped voters’ minds.

Many voters, even those who backed the Christian Democrats, said they were not enthusiastic about Mr. Merz personally. But they hoped that he could forge a strong government to solve problems at home and abroad and keep Germany’s far right at bay.

“The biggest risk for Germany at the moment is that we will have an unstable majority,” said Felix Saalfeld, 32, a doctor in the eastern city of Dresden who voted for Mr. Merz’s Christian Democrats. “That’s why it’s best if the C.D.U./C.S.U. gets a lot of votes and we can somehow form a coalition with as few people as possible, even if it’s not my party.”

Mr. Merz will seek to lead Europe in trade and security conflicts with the Trump administration, which has rapidly been reshuffling the United States’ global alliances. He is also likely to face a daunting task in trying to reinvigorate a slumping economy that has not grown, in real terms, for half a decade.

Voters said they would look to the next government to stoke growth and cushion the pain of post-pandemic inflation.

“Everything is getting more expensive, and at the same time, wages are not rising,” said Rojin Yilmaz, 20, a trainee at Allianz in Aschaffenburg, a city where an immigrant with mental illness killed a toddler and an adult last month. Mr. Yilmaz voted for Die Linke.

In interviews in Dresden, a bastion of support for the AfD, some voters said they had lost faith in mainstream parties to address immigration and other issues.

“I voted for the AfD,” said Andreas Mühlbach, 70. “It is the only alternative that is able to change things here.”

With support for the AfD on the rise, Martin Milner, 59, an educator and musician in Potsdam who split his ticket between the Greens and Die Linke, said he hopes Germany’s defensive democracy holds fast against the right-wing threat.

“I’m hoping that this system will show itself to be resilient enough,” Mr. Milner said, “that it can manage the problems we have without drifting to one extreme or the other.”

Reporting was contributed by Christopher F. Schuetze, Melissa Eddy and Tatiana Firsova from Berlin; Sam Gurwitt from Aschaffenburg; Adam Sella from Potsdam; and Catherine Odom from Dresden.

The votes are cast. What happens now?

Now that the votes are cast, the real work in Berlin can begin.

While reconstituting parliament is relatively easy and must be done in the next three weeks, no party is expected to get enough votes to govern alone and outright. That means Germany is likely headed for a coalition government — and the process of building one could take months.

The party with the most votes on Sunday will have to find partners. Depending on how many small parties enter parliament and how well the big ones do, the next government could need two or three parties to get together.

In the coming days, Germany’s president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, will invite the leader of the winning party — widely expected to be Friedrich Merz, from the Christian Democrats, or C.D.U. — to Bellevue Palace to ask him to try to form a government. That will involve talking with other parties to try to find the partners to get a majority — 316 seats — in parliament.

In reality, the leaders of parties have already been thinking about all that for some time, and certain options, like involving the hard-right Alternative for Germany, are unlikely. But the initial talks are important to show that all options are — theoretically, at least — on the table.

Next, parties that are open to a coalition will come together for pre-coalition talks. Held with just a few leaders from each party, those talks can be thought of as a really boring first date, where the parties check whether they might fit together. And sometimes, they don’t: In 2017, the leader of the liberal Free Democrats surprisingly broke off talks with Angela Merkel’s C.D.U. and Ms. Merkel had to start searching for a coalition partner all over again.

Once the parties agree that they can see a future together, they move on to formal coalition talks.

Those are the most complex part of the negotiations, and typically take the longest. Parties get together to agree on specific laws they hope to pass during their tenure and to divvy up ministerial posts. Just because party functionaries put so much time and effort into these discussions, however, does not mean that the coalition always ends in agreement.

As neighboring Austria showed when its conservative-far-right coalition talks surprisingly ended in January, the most likely outcome of such a failure would be to go talk with other parties again.

Once the coalition agreement is drafted, and the ministries set, parties may have to go back to their base to get approval. Only then do parties sign the agreement and return to parliament to elect the chancellor, who then names his ministers.

Until then, Olaf Scholz and his ministers will remain on as the caretaker government.

How long all of that would take remains to be seen; in the past, it has varied greatly from government to government. In 2017, it took 171 days. Ms. Merkel remained chancellor for 73 days after the 2021 election before being replaced by Mr. Scholz.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

‘The lesser evil’: Some Merz voters aren’t excited about him.

Friedrich Merz is likely to be Germany’s next chancellor. But many voters do not seem that excited about that prospect — even some who backed him on Sunday.

Mr. Merz’s Christian Democrats appear to have won the election, according to exit polls, though with a relatively low share of the vote by historical standards. In Dresden and Potsdam on Sunday, few voters expressed much enthusiasm for the candidacy of Mr. Merz, a conservative businessman who has never been a minister.

“He hasn’t achieved anything, and for me he isn’t sympathetic,” said Sigrid Müller, 60, of Potsdam, who voted for the Christian Democrats out of concern for the nation’s faltering economy. “But he’s the lesser evil, the least evil.”

Sten Hornig, a longtime Christian Democrat voter in Dresden, also said he voted more for the party as a whole than for Mr. Merz specifically.

Some voters criticized Mr. Merz for attempting to pass a measure last month to tighten some immigration controls, and in the process, breaking a taboo against working in Parliament with parties deemed extreme. Mr. Merz knew his measure could only pass with votes from the hard-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, a party he has repeatedly vowed not to include in government even though it was expected to finish second in Sunday’s vote.

Chris Buschmann, a Dresden voter who identified himself as left-leaning but wouldn’t say which party he voted for, said he did not like Mr. Merz personally. “I would be OK if he was like he was four years ago, but recent events and recent speeches, he is kind of leaning always more to the right,” he said.

Mr. Merz, though, doesn’t necessarily appeal to supporters of the hard right. Anja Zeumer, an AfD voter from Dresden, called Mr. Merz a “traitor.” Ms. Zeumer cast her ballot on Sunday with her neighbor Andreas Mühlbacher, who also voted for the AfD and who called Mr. Merz “a warmonger” who was “unsuitable for the job.”

Karen Kramp, a Potsdam resident, said she voted for the Christian Democrats because she thought they were best suited to improve Germany’s lagging infrastructure and schools. “I have grandchildren in fourth grade and they aren’t studying German because there are no teachers,” she said.

But, she added, she is no fan of Mr. Merz. Ms. Kramp said she simply hoped that Germany’s likely next chancellor would bring a collaborative approach to his governing, “not the chaos we have today.”

Projections show the Left party getting 8.6 percent of the vote — a huge surge given that they were polling at just 3 percent months ago. The Left’s top candidate, Heidi Reichinneck, said that her party “did everything right” during the campaign by prioritizing direct communication with the voters. “More than 90,000 party members went from door to door” to talk about “affordable, lower taxes” and other communal issues, she said.

Here’s why the far right is unlikely to join Germany’s next government.

Germany’s next government will almost certainly be a coalition of multiple political parties, to form a majority in Parliament. But one party will almost certainly be excluded from that coalition, no matter how well it ultimately performs: the hard-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD.

While early exit polls on Sunday showed the AfD in second place, largely on the strength of its opposition to mass migration and its pledge to deport some migrants, every other mainstream German party refuses to invite it into government. That blockade is known in Germany as the “firewall,” and it is a direct result of the country’s post-World War II efforts to suppress parties and voices labeled extreme.

Rival parties cite a wide array of evidence for calling the AfD extreme and for keeping it behind the firewall. Some parts of the AfD have been classified as extremist by German intelligence. Some of its members have been convicted of violating German law against the use of Nazi slogans, and others have been arrested for trying to overthrow the federal government. Recently, an AfD volunteer greeted fellow election canvassers, in front of a New York Times reporter, with a Nazi salute.

To date, Germany has been the most successful major European power at shutting its hard-right party out of power, along with France, where a group of rival parties engaged in strategic voting last summer to deny the hard-right National Rally a parliamentary majority.

Other such firewalls in Europe have fallen or come under pressure in recent years, including in the Netherlands, Hungary and Italy. Earlier this month, U.S. Vice President JD Vance urged all Europeans — including Germans — to work with hard-right parties that he cast as legitimate avatars of public anxiety over immigration. “There is no room for firewalls,” Mr. Vance said in Munich.

Germany’s political parties have promised to maintain the AfD firewall after the election — a pledge reiterated on Sunday night by Friedrich Merz, who is poised to become the next chancellor, after exit polls showed his party in the lead.

But if the AfD has an even stronger than expected showing — well above 20 percent — it could be harder for parties to work around it and may raise new questions about how long the blockade can last.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Merz slammed what he called “interference from Washington” in the election by Elon Musk and Vice President Vance, saying it was no worse than interference from Moscow. “We are so massively under pressure, my absolute priority is unity in Europe,” he said in the debate.

Germany’s smaller parties could have an outsize effect on who’s in the governing coalition.

In a race where the main winners and losers were clear from the moment voting closed and the first exit polls were available, the thrill of the evening for some was watching to see if Germany’s smaller parties could eke out enough votes to enter Parliament.

Supporters of both the liberal Free Democrats, or F.D.P., and the left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, or B.S.W., were glued to their screens as results were posted, waiting to see if their parties cleared the required bar of winning 5 percent of the vote to win seats. It could take hours to know for sure.

Just three months ago, the Free Democrats were not only in Parliament, but were part of the governing coalition, too. Their leader, Christian Lindner, was finance minister, one of the most important posts in any German government. But after he goaded Mr. Scholz into kicking him out of the coalition in November, therefore precipitating the government collapse, his party never really recovered in the polls. Some voters blamed him for the end of the government, while others blamed him for being part of the government in the first place.

On Sunday night as votes trickled in, Mr. Lindner seemed close to conceding — both the race and his leadership of the Free Democrats. “Whatever happens, the flag of the F.D.P. will fly again tomorrow,” he told supporters. Later, during a live debate on public television, he added that if his party does not make it into Parliament, “then my leadership is over.”

Ms. Wagenknecht founded her party, the B.S.W., last year. She subsequently enjoyed a string of successes in the European election and state elections that raised expectations the party would easily make it into Parliament. But that looked increasingly uncertain in recent months, in part because her message never really extended beyond a pro-Russia, anti-migrant platform.

On Sunday night, Ms. Wagenknecht promised supporters that the party would survive even if it does not make it into Parliament.

But the success or failure of the smaller parties — at least in parliamentary terms — will probably have bigger ramifications.

If they do not make it into Parliament, Friedrich Merz of the conservative Christian Democrats would probably have the seats to form a government with the Social Democrats. If the parties do make it in, Mr. Merz could be forced to form a coalition with two partners — a prospect most Germans were hoping to avoid.

Scholz will stay on as chancellor during any coalition negotiations, and Merz asked for his cooperation during that time. “We have to ensure that we are capable of acting internationally,” Merz said during the televised debate.

Things got heated when Merz reiterated that he would not form a coalition with the AfD. “This so-called Alternative for Germany is not interested in real solutions — his party only exists because there are unresolved issues in Germany,” he said.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

While the final results are not yet known, heads of the leading parties are debating in a round-table broadcast live on public television that is known as the “elephant round” given the weight of its participants. The debate can help indicate which parties might be willing to work together to form a government.

It’s worth noting that Merz is smiling. Scholz is not.

Christian Lindner said that if his party does not make it into Parliament, he will quit his post and leave politics. “I see how the results are developing,” Lindner said, in a change of tune from his earlier defiance. If the party is out, he said, “Then my leadership is over.”

Immigration was a central concern heading into the vote.

Germany’s election was all about the economy, until a Saudi Arabian man rammed an S.U.V. into a crowded Christmas market in December, killing six and injuring scores of others. That attack catapulted the issue of immigration to the top of voters’ concerns ahead of Sunday’s vote for a new Parliament.

A series of attacks by immigrants to Germany in the ensuing weeks — most recently the stabbing Friday night of a Spanish tourist visiting Berlin’s central memorial honoring the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust — ensured the issue remained at the forefront of voters’ minds, dominating debates and the political discourse.

Even though the assaults did not appear to have affected the outcome of Sunday’s elections, they stirred emotion and, for some, created a sense that the country, despite having one of the world’s lowest murder rates, according to the United Nations, was no longer safe. The government had lost control, said Gerald Knaus, a migration expert who has advised the German government and serves as chairman of the European Stability Initiative.

“What makes these attacks so explosive is that they created the feeling that the state has failed in a way,” by not being able to control migration, as Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his government had repeatedly promised to do, Mr. Knaus said.

Migration had already been at the forefront of the campaign for the hard-right party Alternative for Germany, or AfD, but it capitalized on the issue, saying that it was the only party that could ensure the system would change. The party had been polling around 20 percent; while early exit polls showed it slightly underperformed with 19.5 percent, it will still become the second largest in Parliament.

But the conservative Christian Democrats, who maintained a lead in the polls hovering just below 30 percent, provoked outrage when they relied on the AfD to try to get a proposal through Parliament that called for controls on all German borders, denying entry to migrants without papers and deporting immigrants who commit crimes.

The move raised public doubts about whether the Christian Democrats’ leader, Friedrich Merz, was fit to be chancellor, although he vowed he would never form a coalition government with the AfD. Still, Mr. Merz’s party and its sister party netted 29 percent of the vote in Sunday’s election according to early exit polls, which are historically quite accurate in Germany, putting him on track to be the country’s next leader.

Since 2022, Germany has taken in 1.2 million Ukrainians who have fled Russia’s invasion of their country. In addition, Germany has taken in 850,000 people applying for asylum, mostly from Syria and Afghanistan, since 2021. Nearly half of the country’s cities and towns, responsible for housing, educating and integrating the new arrivals, say they are overwhelmed, according to a study by the Institute for Democratic Development and Social Integration.

Christian Lindner, the leader of the liberal Free Democrats who many credit with blowing up the previous coalition, has refused to concede defeat. His party is teetering just below the 5-percent threshold needed to win seats in Parliament, according to exit polls.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

At 83.5 percent voter participation, according to early exit polls, this election appears to have seen the highest turnout since reunification 35 years ago.

Protesters have gathered outside the AfD election party venue. Abraham Sow, a 19-year-old whose family comes from Sierra Leone, was there with friends. “If the AfD comes to power, Germany will go down,”he said.

While early exit polls show the AfD getting around 20 percent of the vote, that will still disappoint some in the party who had hoped their vote share would have gotten a boost after Elon Musk’s endorsement and recent random attacks by migrants.

In a city shaken by a killing, voters on all sides were upset.

Voters from across Germany’s political spectrum in Aschaffenburg seemed to agree about one thing on Sunday, saying they were unhappy with how their quaint city featured in election debates.

A series of seemingly unrelated high-profile killings carried out last year by immigrants has changed the debate in the snap parliamentary election, refocusing what had been an economy-themed campaign toward the contentious issue of migration. One of those attacks took place in Aschaffenburg.

On Jan. 22, a mentally ill former asylum seeker from Afghanistan killed two people in a park in the city, including a 2-year-old. A week later, the opposition leader and Christian Democrat Friedrich Merz, the favorite to become the next chancellor, cited the killings when he broke a longstanding taboo to vote with the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, in favor of tightening immigration controls.

That decision drew protests from liberal Germans — including by voters in Aschaffenburg on Sunday.

“It was instantly exploited and twisted, and in a way that is against my personal opinion about immigration,” said Vera Henzel, 32, who voted for the Green Party on Sunday. “The parties, and politicians, essentially used the crime for their own purposes.”

Voters from more conservative parties also said they were unhappy with how their town had been used in political discourse — but for different reasons.

Mario Saubert, a 44-year-old machine operator, lamented how people used the attack to repeat “the usual” warnings about the rise of the far right in Germany.

“You don’t want to imagine it, I mean, a small child was killed. People were horrified,” Mr. Saubert said after voting for the Bavarian Christian Social Union, which works together with Merz’s Christian Democrats. “But at the same time, it became all about ‘don’t exploit, we have to stop the shift to the right,’ which was totally inappropriate in the moment, I think.”

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

“It’s best if the CDU/CSU gets a lot of votes and we can somehow form a coalition with as few people as possible, even if it’s not my party.”

Felix Saalfeld, 32, referring to the Christian Democrats and their sister party, the Christian Social Union.

Who is the man poised to be Germany’s next chancellor?

Friedrich Merz, the man favored by early exit polls to be Germany’s next chancellor after elections on Sunday, is a conservative businessman who has never been a minister and was forced out of government years ago in a power struggle with Angela Merkel.

The leader of the conservative Christian Democratic Union, Mr. Merz earned his fortune working in the private sector before returning to politics at 63.

That business background appealed to many Germans amid the political turbulence caused in part by stagnation in one of Europe’s largest economies.

Mr. Merz, now 69, was born and still lives in the Sauerland, a district of western Germany known for hills, heavy food and picturesque nature. It was from there that he was first elected into the European Parliament in 1989 and then the German Parliament in 1994.

While he comes from the same party as Ms. Merkel, the former chancellor, Mr. Merz — a pugnacious old-school politician — is in many ways her opposite.

He rose through the ranks to lead the Christian Democrats’ parliamentary group, but was ousted by a rising star in the party — Ms. Merkel. It was then that Mr. Merz pivoted from politics and started a lucrative law career.

He got rich working as a lawyer and a lobbyist. When Ms. Merkel was getting ready to retire, Mr. Merz got back into politics. In 2018, when he returned to the political stage, Mr. Merz promised he could stem the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, known as the AfD, by moving his party further right on key issues like migration and crime.

Mr. Merz re-entered Parliament in 2021 and — after two failed attempts — won the party leadership in 2022.

As party leader, however, he made a number of gaffes — like claiming in September 2023 that refugees were having their teeth redone at taxpayers’ expense while regular German patients were unable to get appointments. (The head of the German Dental Association denied this.) And his insistence that he is just a regular member of the middle class — despite significant personal means — has been mocked by some Germans who see him as being divorced from the economic reality many members of the middle class face.

Still, Mr. Merz managed to coalesce his party around him and shift it to a more traditional conservative posture after Ms. Merkel’s long tenure took the party further to the left. His business experience is considered a strength, as he promises to restore growth to the German economy.

As chancellor, as a conservative and committed trans-Atlanticist, Mr. Merz would be considered a better match for President Trump than the current Social Democratic chancellor, Olaf Scholz. Mr. Merz is also expected to lead a foreign policy more aligned with Mr. Trump’s ideas about Europe’s taking responsibility for its own defense.

Still, Mr. Merz — who is known to be assertive and direct, if a bit awkward — pushed back strongly against Mr. Trump’s latest comments siding with Russia about Ukraine, as well as what was seen as interference in Germany’s election by Vice President JD Vance when he criticized Europe for sidelining far-right voters and their parties.

Boldness is characteristic of Mr. Merz, analysts say, and reflects a conviction that Germany must be more forcefully engaged in European and global affairs. Mr. Scholz has often been criticized for his tentativeness and caution, even from within his own coalition.

Just last month, Mr. Merz showed his willingness to act brashly when he presented a migration measure and then a bill in Parliament that he knew he could pass only with the hard-right AfD, despite earlier promises never to work with them. The political maneuver did not go well: It prompted hundreds of thousands of Germans to take to the streets in protest, dissent within his party and a rare public rebuke from Ms. Merkel.

Mr. Merz has vowed to carve out a more prominent German role inside the European Union and NATO, to pursue better relations with France and Poland, and to take a tougher stance against China, which he has described as a full member of the “axis of autocracies.”

He has also promised more forthright support for Ukraine’s battle against Russia — saying, for instance, that he would provide Ukraine with Germany’s long-range cruise missile, the Taurus. And Mr. Merz has pledged that Germany will meet and surpass the current NATO target of 2 percent of gross domestic product being spent on the military for the long term.

In a recent foreign-policy speech at the Körber Foundation, Mr. Merz, a former member of the European Parliament, promised to provide German leadership in Europe, which has not been a priority for Mr. Scholz, and to establish a national security council in the chancellery.

Merz would likely face a difficult road if tasked with forging a governing coalition. But he promised swift talks to restore strong German leadership in Europe. “The outside world is not waiting for us,” he told supporters. “And it is also not waiting for lengthy coalition talks and negotiations. We must now be able to act quickly again so that we can do the right thing.”

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Chancellor Olaf Scholz told a watch party that his party, the Social Democrats, had suffered a loss. “It is bitter,” he told a crowd of hundreds gathered at his party’s headquarters after the early exit polls came out.

Friedrich Merz of the conservative Christian Democrats, who the early exit polls predict will be the next chancellor, has thanked his supporters in Berlin. “We have won it,” he said.

Sighs and groans were audible at the Social Democrats’ watch party when Merz appeared on TV to proclaim victory. The results are not yet final, and the Social Democrats could still make it into government as a junior partner.

Alice Weidel, the AfD’s candidate for chancellor, has thanked her supporters at an election watch event, saying, “I must say one thing: our hand will always be extended for participation in a government.”Germany’s other parties have vowed never to partner with the AfD.

In order for a party to make it into the German parliament, it must receive 5 percent of the national vote. Right now, two parties are hovering right around that line in the exit polls: the pro-business Free Democrats and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, a new party rooted in the extreme left.

Early exit polls are pointing to the highest voter turnout in decades, with Germans responding to the sense of urgency that surrounded the elections at a time when democracy is under pressure.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

If exit polls are correct, the results could be a disappointment for the hard-right AfD, which was endorsed by Elon Musk, President Trump’s key advisor. Recent pre-election polls had suggested that they would win more than 20 percent.

The mood at the Social Democrats’ election watch party is subdued, as early exit polls suggest that Olaf Scholz would likely be ousted, after having served only three years as chancellor.

According to the early exit polls, the Christian Democrats are leading with 29 percent of the vote. The Social Democrats have 16 percent and the AfD 19.5 percent, lower than what was predicted, the exit polls show.

Polls have closed in Germany.

We already have early exit polls, which are historically quite accurate in Germany. They suggest that Friedrich Merz, the candidate for the conservative Christian Democrats, is in line to be Germany’s next chancellor.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

“For me it was also very important that the Greens took a clear stance on Ukraine, which many of the smaller parties have not done.”

Andreas Sickenberger, 64, a retiree who voted for the Greens.

At an election watch party for the AfD, guests were welcomed with champagne and a buffet of sandwiches, grilled meat, potato salad and beer. The AfD has been in second place in pre-election polls, but no other German party will invite it into government.

“He’s like the AfD 10 years ago, just saying a lot of populism.”

Niklas Adams, right, said of Friedrich Merz from the conservative Christian Democrats, who is expected to be Germany’s next chancellor.

U.S. meddling in the campaign alarmed some voters but was welcomed by others.

Interference by Trump administration officials in the German campaign put off some left-leaning voters but was welcomed by others supporting the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, according to a smattering of interviews at polling stations.

Several voters in the eastern city of Dresden took note of a speech by Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference this month, when he told European leaders to stop shunning parties deemed “extreme.”

Chris Buschmann, who said he is left-leaning but declined to say how he voted, said hearing Mr. Vance made him “anxious.” Mr. Buschmann, 27, said he is worried about the rise of right-wing populism both in Germany and around the world. He worries, he said, about “history repeating itself,” referring to Germany’s Nazi past.

Tim Adams, an engineer who split his ticket between the Green Party and Die Linke, the German left party, criticized attempts by the billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk to influence the German election. Mr. Musk has endorsed the AfD and praised the party’s co-chair, Alice Weidel. Last month, he spoke at an AfD rally, telling the audience that Germany has “too much of a focus on past guilt.”

Those interventions have been “very bad for our politics,” Mr. Adams said.

Others voiced support for President Trump and his administration. Andreas Mühlbach and Anja Zeumer, both of whom voted for the AfD, said they welcomed the new American president.

In Aschaffenburg, Peter Kraus, a retired painter, said he voted for the AfD “with great joy” — and on the recommendation of Mr. Vance and Mr. Musk.

“When the American vice president says it, and Elon Musk, yeah, they have exactly my opinion,” Mr. Kraus said. “And I’m not as well-educated as those two.”

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

“They have the best election program and have the best perspective for the future. For a young person this is the best vote. ”

Sarah Henser, 24, a student, after voting for the Greens party.

“I voted for the AfD. It is the only alternative that is able to change things here.”

Andreas Mühlbach, 70, referring to the far-right Alternative for Germany.

Zelensky Pushes Back Against U.S. Mineral Deal and Announces European Summit

You have been granted access, use your keyboard to continue reading.
Want to stay updated on what’s happening in Russia and Ukraine? , and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.

President Volodymyr Zelensky pushed back on Sunday against demands from the Trump administration for billions in Ukrainian natural resources and for holding peace talks that exclude Ukraine, while announcing plans for a major summit of European leaders on Monday.

The Ukrainian leader’s efforts to shore up European support while pressing ahead on negotiations with the United States came despite ominous messages from President Trump in recent days belittling Mr. Zelensky and issuing threats if Ukraine does not soon agree to a minerals deal.

Mr. Zelensky suggested that in assailing Ukraine, Mr. Trump had chosen the wrong adversary.

“Peace through force, but toward Russia, not in the other direction,” Mr. Zelensky said of how he would like to see American efforts to end the war.

Mr. Zelensky, speaking at a news conference in Kyiv, said that he was willing to step down if it meant peace in Ukraine. His remark came days after Mr. Trump questioned his legitimacy and called him a “dictator without elections,” echoing a Kremlin talking point.

It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Zelensky is seriously considering the option of stepping down or was merely responding to the latest jabs from Washington and Moscow. He added that he would trade his departure for Ukraine’s entry into NATO — perhaps a tongue-in-cheek offer, since both Mr. Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia solidly oppose Ukraine’s joining the military alliance.

“If peace for Ukraine requires me to step down, I’m ready,” Mr. Zelensky said on the eve of the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion. “Another scenario: I could trade my position for NATO membership, if that’s what it takes,” he added.

The Ukrainian leader said that more than 30 countries would participate in meetings on Monday, either in person in Kyiv or virtually, as a kind of coalition of support for Ukraine’s war effort. The gathering, he said, will focus on military aid and security guarantees to enforce any potential cease-fire.

Mr. Zelensky has said he will not accept any agreement negotiated between the United States and Russia without Ukraine’s participation.

“This is how we see this negotiation table: Ukraine as part of Europe, Europe, the United States and Russia. That’s approximately how we envision it,” he said.

Frustration over the drawn-out negotiations has fueled an escalating dispute between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump, especially after the American leader questioned Mr. Zelensky’s political legitimacy and falsely claimed that Ukraine had started the war with Russia.

Mr. Zelensky has been advised by European allies to tone down his confrontation with the American president. But on Sunday, he did not back away from his earlier comments and repeated his assertion that Mr. Trump is living in a disinformation bubble.

Mr. Zelensky’s pushback on Sunday could further anger Mr. Trump, who is pressing for a minerals deal and a peace agreement on terms he wants to dictate.

For now, Mr. Zelensky said, Ukraine and the United States remain locked in negotiations over a deal to trade Ukraine’s minerals and other natural resources for American aid. Mr. Zelensky said he was still not ready to sign the United States’ latest proposal, which would require Ukraine to pay the United States $500 billion using revenues from its natural resources.

“I am not signing something that 10 generations of Ukrainians will have to repay,” Mr. Zelensky said, noting that negotiations would continue. Drawing on Ukraine’s revenue from natural resources, he said, it might take 250 years to pay $500 billion, which he called an unrealistic sum.

At the same time, Mr. Zelensky said he may ultimately have little choice but to sign the deal. “If we are forced and we cannot do without it, then we should probably go for it,” he said.

On Saturday evening, Mr. Trump ramped up pressure on Ukraine to sign the minerals deal, which has now been under negotiation for more than 10 days. Several draft agreements have already been rejected by the Ukrainian side because they did not contain specific U.S. security guarantees that would protect Kyiv against further Russian aggression.

“I think we’re pretty close to a deal, and we better be close to a deal,” Mr. Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday evening, noting that he wanted payback for past American military and financial assistance to Ukraine. He also said, “We’re asking for rare earth and oil — anything we can get.”

On Friday, the United States proposed a new draft agreement, obtained by The New York Times, which still lacked security guarantees for Ukraine and included even tougher financial terms. The new draft reiterated a U.S. demand that Ukraine relinquish half of its revenues from natural resource extraction, including minerals, gas and oil, as well as earnings from ports and other infrastructure.

Under the proposed terms, those revenues would be directed to a fund in which the United States would hold 100 percent financial interest, and Ukraine should contribute to the fund until it reaches $500 billion. That sum is more than twice the value of Ukraine’s economic output in 2021, before the war.

Mr. Zelensky said the sum was disproportionate with the value of U.S. aid to Ukraine so far — about $120 billion, according to the Kiel Institute, a German research institute — and he would not “acknowledge” that Ukraine owed the U.S. $500 billion, “no matter what anyone says.”

Mr. Zelensky also highlighted another sticking point in the proposed deal: that Ukraine would be required to repay the United States twice the value of future American aid.

“The agreement states that for every dollar of aid, Ukraine must return $2,” Mr. Zelensky said on Sunday. “Simply put, it’s a 100 percent loan. I have to repay the principal plus another 100 percent on top.”

The agreement does not commit the United States to security guarantees for Ukraine, or promise further military support for Kyiv. The word “security” was even deleted from a formulation contained in a previous version of the deal, dated Feb. 14 and reviewed by The Times, which stated that both countries aimed to achieve “lasting peace and security in Ukraine.”

Instead, the agreement says that a portion of the revenues collected by the fund would be reinvested into Ukraine’s reconstruction. It also states that the United States intends to provide long-term financial support for Ukraine’s economic development, although no figure is specified.

This potential commitment aligns with an argument in the White House that the mere presence of American economic interests in Ukraine would deter future Russian aggression.

“This economic partnership would lay the foundations for a durable peace by sending a clear signal to the American people, the people of Ukraine and the government of Russia about the importance of Ukraine’s future sovereignty and success to the U.S.,” Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury secretary, wrote in a Saturday opinion piece for The Financial Times.

But Mr. Zelensky pointed out on Sunday that the presence of American companies in eastern Ukraine before the war had not deterred Russia from attacking and occupying those territories. “Clearly, this isn’t a 100 percent guarantee that Russians won’t go where they’ve already been,” he said on Sunday.

While Ukraine continues to negotiate, Moscow shows no signs of easing its attacks, with Russia launching a huge Russian drone assault on Ukrainian cities overnight. The Ukrainian Air Force said Russia had launched 267 drones, calling it a record since the war began three years ago. That claim could not be independently confirmed.

Pope Francis Suffering From Kidney Failure in Addition to Pneumonia

You have been granted access, use your keyboard to continue reading.

Pope Francis is suffering from “initial, mild kidney failure” in addition to the serious respiratory illness that has left the 88-year-old pontiff in critical condition in a Rome hospital, the Vatican said on Sunday.

Describing a “complex” clinical picture, the Vatican said that the kidney ailment was “at present under control,” and that there had been no repeat of the respiratory crisis that the pope had experienced on Saturday.

The pope was “alert and well oriented,” the Vatican said, and he attended Mass in his suite along with the medical staff caring for him.

Blood tests indicated the early stages of kidney failure, the Vatican said, but also showed that Francis’ anemia had improved. He was still receiving high flows of supplemental oxygen, it said.

Because of the “complexity of the clinical picture,” and because it would take time for the drug therapies to “provide some feedback,” his doctors said that the situation remained critical.

Prayers for Francis poured in from around the world, as concerns mounted about his health.

In his homily on Sunday at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan called for those present to “pray with and for” Francis. He also said what no one at the Vatican has publicly admitted: that Francis might not recover.

“We of the Catholic family, and so many of our friends and neighbors find ourselves this morning at the bedside of a dying father,” Cardinal Dolan said. “As our Holy Father, Pope Francis is in very, very fragile health and probably close to death.”

On Saturday, the Vatican had said that Francis had had a long “asthmatic respiratory crisis” that required “high flows of oxygen.” He also had a blood transfusion, but was alert, according to the Vatican, which is issuing bulletins in consultation with the medical staff at the hospital as well as the pope’s doctor at the Vatican.

Francis was admitted to the Policlinico Agostino Gemelli on Feb. 14 with a complex respiratory tract infection that developed into pneumonia in both lungs. Doctors said the calibration of his treatment was especially complex because of his age, and pre-existing lung disease.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, doctors had for the first time described Francis’ condition as critical, adding that his situation could change day by day. Sergio Alfieri, a surgeon who is on Francis’ medical team, has said that the pope had told him that he was aware of his own fragility and that his health was precarious. “He told us both doors are open,” he said.

The Vatican said Sunday that Francis was using oxygen, was conscious and apparently experiencing discomfort associated with his trouble breathing.

The pope’s already full schedule had intensified since the beginning in December of the 2025 Jubilee, a year of faith, penance and forgiveness of sins that takes place every quarter century. But the hospital stay has meant the pope has had to cancel all imminent engagements.

At a Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica for deacons on Sunday, Archbishop Rino Fisichella called for “stronger and more intense” prayers “for the Lord to assist him in his time of trial and illness.”

In a written message instead of the Sunday Angelus prayer he normally delivers in St. Peter’s Square, Francis said he was continuing “confidently” with his “necessary treatment” in the hospital, adding, “and rest is also part of the therapy!” He thanked his doctors and those who have sent him messages of support, and asked people to pray for him.

Many were. At noon — the traditional time of the Angelus prayer — dozens of faithful gathered in the square in front of the Gemelli hospital. Some prayed silently or lit votive candles to place at the foot of a statue of St. John Paul II, another former patient of the hospital, alongside colorful balloons with “get well” wishes for Francis. Others recited the rosary.

Massimo Chiarucci and Sonia Salaro came to Rome from Latina, some 70 kilometers away, to pray that he recover.

“He’s like a grandfather, someone dear to us, that’s part of our lives,” said Ms. Salaro, a housewife. “We brought our prayers because he has to get better, he still has a lot to do, there’s a need for his intercession,” said Mr. Chiarucci, a surveyor.

Silvana Serrani, a resident of Rome who is originally from Buenos Aires, where Francis was once an archbishop, said the pontiff has always put the poor first. “He was always a very simple man,” she said. “Let’s hope he gets better.”

For days now, prayer vigils have also been held around the world. A Mass to pray for Francis’ recovery was scheduled for later Sunday at the Basilica of St. John Lateran that was being presided over by Cardinal Baldassare Reina, vicar general of the Diocese of Rome. At the Gemelli, the preceding vicar general of Rome, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, said he was one of many praying for Francis, “to ask for help to the Lord in this moment.”

“We hope the pope can feel the strong embrace of all those who love him, there are so many,” Cardinal De Donatis said. “And we wish him to continue his service.”

Jason Horowitz contributed reporting from Rome, and Dave Sanders from New York.

This Christian Convert Fled Iran, and Ran Into Trump’s Deportation Policy

You have been granted access, use your keyboard to continue reading.

Listen to this article · 6:59 min Learn more

She first entered a church on a visit to Turkey. She remembers feeling a sense of calm so overpowering that she purchased a small Bible. She wrapped it in her clothes and smuggled it back to her hometown, Isfahan, in central Iran.

Artemis Ghasemzadeh’s conversion from Islam to Christianity evolved over a few years starting in 2019, through an Iranian network of underground churches and secret online classes. Three years ago, she was baptized and, in her words, “reborn.”

Converting was colossally risky. While Christians born into the faith are free to practice, Iran’s Shariah laws state that abandoning Islam for another religion is considered blasphemy, punishable by death. Some members of her Bible-study group were arrested.

So in December, Ms. Ghasemzadeh set out for the United States.

“I wanted to live freely, to live without fear, to live without someone wanting to kill me,” Ms. Ghasemzadeh, 27, said in a series of phone interviews.

Her journey has landed her in a migrant detention camp on the outskirts of the Darién jungle in Panama. She and nine other Iranian Christian converts, three of them children, are among dozens detained at the Saint Vincente camp. Their fate remains uncertain.

People fleeing violent religious persecution are normally eligible for asylum. But they have been caught in the Trump administration’s deportation push as the president tries to fulfill a campaign pledge to close the southern border.

“We don’t deserve this. We are in a place where we feel helpless,” Ms. Ghasemzadeh said. “I am waiting for our voices to be heard, for someone to help us.”

Panama, which is separately under pressure from the Trump administration over control of the Panama Canal, has become a landing place for migrants who otherwise would have languished in detention in the United States — or potentially been released.

Panamanian officials have said that United Nations agencies are helping the migrants return to their countries or seek asylum in other nations, including Panama.

Ms. Ghasemzadeh grew up in an upper-middle class family in Isfahan. Her businessman father was religiously conservative and strict with her and her three siblings. She did not tell him about her conversion.

Christianity appealed to her, she said, because its message sounded more peaceful and its rules less stringent than the version of Islam she had experienced in Iran.

The church applied extreme precautions to its underground gatherings, Ms. Ghasemzadeh said. Parishioners received one-time passwords to log into virtual meetings. In-person sermons and classes were hosted at different locations. Ms. Ghasemzadeh said she cherished her Christian community. Her older brother, Shahin, 32, also converted.

In 2022, a women-led uprising swept across Iran, set off by the death of Mahsa Amini in custody of the morality police on allegations of violating the hijab rule. Ms. Ghasemzadeh said she protested nearly every day, chanting, “Women, Life, Freedom.”

Like many women in Iran who have stopped wearing the hijab in an act of defiance, she let her long, dark hair flow in public. The government sent her text messages, summoning her before a judge, she said. She did not show up. If convicted of violating the hijab law, women can be fined.

In late December, Ms. Ghasemzadeh and her brother Shahin departed Iran, bound for the United States. She knew about Mr. Trump’s promise to crack down on migrants but said she believed that he was targeting only criminals.

They went to Abu Dhabi, then South Korea and arrived in Mexico City. There, they asked around at a hotel and found a smuggler. He charged them each $3,000 and ferried them to Tijuana.

There, near the border wall in the middle of the night, the smuggler pointed to a ladder.

“Go,” she remembers the smuggler saying. “Climb the wall and go, quick.”

When her feet touched American soil, she burst into tears. “It’s over,” she said she told her brother. “We are finally here.”

The euphoria was short-lived. Minutes later, border agents surrounded them. They were transported to a detention facility and separated. She has not seen nor spoken to her brother since, she said. Her mother told her that he was taken to a facility in Texas, where he remains.

Ms. Ghasemzadeh said she repeatedly told the authorities that she was a Christian convert from Iran seeking asylum.

A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said that “not a single one of these aliens asserted fear of returning to their home country at any point during processing or custody.” Ms. Ghasemzadeh said that she was never interviewed about her asylum claim.

“They kept saying now is not the time, tomorrow morning,” she said.

She was shackled and put on a military plane to Panama on Feb. 12. The plane’s engine roared so loudly that her ears rang. The turbulence made her nauseous.

It was her 27th birthday.

Ms. Ghasemzadeh met nine other Iranians on the plane, all Christian converts, who remarkably shared a similar story. The group has since banded together.

For about a week, they were held inside a hotel under the watch of armed guards. The New York Times has been in daily contact with her since she arrived in Panama.

Ms. Ghasemzadeh, who, like many Iranians of her generation, is digitally savvy, made a video describing their plight and shared it with Persian news channels outside Iran. It went viral.

After she and others refused to sign documents that would pave the way for their repatriation, they were put on buses and sent to the jungle camp.

Ali Herschi, an Iranian-American human rights lawyer in Washington, represents the Iranians pro bono. Mr. Herschi said his priority was to stop Panama from deporting them to Iran. Then, he said, “appealing with American authorities to reverse course and allow the group re-entry to the U.S. on humanitarian grounds.”

The jungle camp, Ms. Ghasemzadeh said, looks like a large fenced cage. The sleeping area was muggy and the migrants did not have blankets. They were given one bottle of water and told to refill it from the bathroom faucet, she said.

Her arm was swollen and red from mosquito bites, and one of the children in their group, Sam, 11, had fallen and injured his ankle. Medical staff told the Iranian parents the camp did not have an X-ray machine to determine if bones were broken, she said.

Panama has said the migrants have everything they need.

Every night Ms. Ghasemzadeh scribbles Christian quotes in a small notebook. On one page, she wrote to Jesus in Persian: “I am certain you can hear my voice from up there. So please help.” Next to it she drew a tiny red heart.

You have been granted access, use your keyboard to continue reading.

Israel announced on Sunday that it was expanding its weekslong military operation against armed Palestinian groups in the occupied West Bank and had deployed tanks in the territory’s north for the first time in two decades.

Adding to the escalating tensions, the country’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said that tens of thousands of Palestinian residents who have left the centers of militancy targeted by the Israeli operation and are displaced within the West Bank will not be allowed to return to their homes.

Israel’s actions came after bombs exploded on three buses on Thursday night in different parking depots in Tel Aviv’s suburbs. At least one other explosive device was discovered and dismantled. The police are still investigating, but they said the devices resembled improvised bombs made in the West Bank.

The buses had emptied of passengers before the explosions, which caused no injuries. But the blasts jarred Israelis, recalling the deadly bus bombings of the mid-1990s and early 2000s, and the country was put on a terrorism alert.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately called for “a massive operation” in the West Bank, after weeks of what the Israeli military describes as a campaign to root out militant groups and prevent terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Israel has shifted its attention to the centers of militancy in the northern West Bank as its campaign against Hamas in Gaza has wound down.

Speaking at the military’s officers’ training school on Sunday, Mr. Netanyahu said that troops would remain in the West Bank “as long as needed” and that sending tanks in for the first time in decades meant one thing: “We are fighting terrorism with all means and everywhere.”

On Friday, both Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Katz, the defense minister, made rare visits to an area known as the Tulkarem refugee camp, one of the crowded neighborhoods where refugees who fled or were expelled during the 1948 war that surrounded Israel’s creation and their descendants were housed.

The area, one of the focuses of Israel’s offensive, is nominally under the control of the Palestinian Authority, a body that exerts limited power in parts of the West Bank.

The Israeli military operation across several West Bank cities has displaced roughly 40,000 Palestinians from their homes, in what experts say is the biggest displacement of civilians in the territory since the Arab-Israeli war of 1967.

The military denies that there have been any forced evacuations in the West Bank. A military spokesman, Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, said recently that in some cases people had been ordered to leave specific buildings close to militant hide-outs, but that people were generally allowed to move around unimpeded.

Roughly 3,000 people have been able to return to al-Faraa camp, near Tubas. But Palestinians have said they fear a veiled Israeli attempt to permanently displace Palestinians from their homes and exert greater control over areas administered by the Palestinian Authority.

Mr. Katz said in a statement on Sunday that 40,000 Palestinians had left two refugee camp areas in Tulkarem and a third one in Jenin, and that they were now “empty of residents.” Mr. Katz added that UNWRA, the main United Nations agency providing assistance in the camps, was no longer functioning there.

“I have instructed the military to prepare for a long stay over the coming year in the purged camps and not to allow residents to return and terrorism to grow back,” he added.

The Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on Sunday saying it considered Mr. Katz’s statements, along with the deployment of tanks and what it described as the intimidation of unarmed civilians, to be “a dangerous escalation.” It said Israel was trying to entrench a policy of forced displacement in the West Bank.

The ministry called for international intervention to curb what it described as Israel’s “unchecked aggression,” and “to compel Israel to halt its assault on our people and their fundamental right to remain on their land.”

The official Palestinian news agency, Wafa, reported on Sunday that 27 people had been killed during the Israeli campaign in Jenin, which began more than a month ago, and that more than 100 homes had been demolished. Israel, it said, had destroyed streets and electricity and water lines on Sunday in Qabatiya, south of Jenin.

Asked how long the residents might be kept from their homes, a spokesman for Mr. Katz, Adir Dahan, said everything was “subject to the security situation.”

The Israeli military declined to comment on that issue and directed questions to the defense ministry.

But the military said in a statement that it was expanding offensive activity to other towns in the Jenin area of the northern West Bank and that a tank division would operate in Jenin. The military said its forces had apprehended 26 terrorism suspects over the weekend and confiscated three guns and other weapons.

The Israeli military says it rips up roads to expose explosive devices planted beneath the surface.

Fatima AbdulKarim contributed reporting from Ramallah, in the West Bank, and Gabby Sobelman and Johnatan Reiss from Israel.

You have been granted access, use your keyboard to continue reading.
Want to stay updated on what’s happening in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip? , and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.

Israel and Hamas on Sunday accused each other of violating the already fragile Gaza cease-fire deal after Israel delayed the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners who were supposed to be exchanged for hostages.

The office of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said the prisoners would not be freed until the release of further hostages “has been assured,” and Hamas committed to letting them go without “humiliating ceremonies.”

The growing tensions come after a week of mutual recriminations and strained nerves on both sides. The delay raised more questions about the future of the cease-fire for Gaza, with a temporary, six-week truce set to expire on March 1.

There is no clarity yet about a possible extension, or even whether serious negotiations have begun. Some members of Israel’s right-wing government are pressing for a resumption of the fighting after the initial phase of the cease-fire, which has provided a brief lull in the devastating war set off by the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

On Saturday, Hamas released six Israeli hostages, the last living captives set to be freed in the first phase of the cease-fire. Earlier it had handed over the remains of four hostages, including those of Shiri Bibas and her two young children, who were all taken alive during the 2023 assault.

Israel was supposed to release 620 Palestinian prisoners and detainees in return, the largest group of detainees to be let go since the cease-fire in Gaza began last month, but it delayed the move, citing what Mr. Netanyahu’s office described as Hamas’s “cynical exploitation” of the hostages for propaganda purposes.

Late Saturday, dozens of Palestinian families, their faces somber, left a venue in Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank where some prisoners were supposed to appear, after waiting there for hours in the hope of reuniting with their loved ones. Many families said they had received no official communication regarding the delayed release, relying instead on media reports and word of mouth.

Hamas has been releasing hostages in performative ceremonies aimed at showing that it is still in control of Gaza, a practice that many Israeli officials have condemned. On Saturday, five of the six living hostages were paraded on a stage, flanked by masked gunmen, prompting outrage in Israel. One hostage was seen on a stage kissing the heads of masked gunmen, as if in gratitude. His relatives later said he had been instructed to do so by a Hamas cameraman.

Anger was further inflamed when Hamas published a propaganda video footage on Saturday night showing two other Israeli hostages who had been forced to watch three of their fellow captives being released.

Repeatedly putting their shorn heads in their hands, the pair pleaded on camera for their freedom. Rights groups and international law experts say that a hostage video is, by definition, made under duress, and the statements in it are usually coerced. Israeli officials have called past Hamas videos a form of “psychological warfare,” and experts say their production can constitute a war crime.

In a statement Sunday, Mr. Netanyahu’s office accused Hamas of violating its agreement with Israel and said the prisoner releases would be postponed “until the release of the next hostages has been assured, and without the humiliating ceremonies.” On Thursday, Hamas is supposed to hand over the bodies of four more dead Israelis under the terms of the initial phase of the cease-fire.

Izzat Al-Rishq, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, said in a subsequent statement on Sunday that Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to delay the prisoner releases “reflects a deliberate attempt to disrupt the agreement.” Mr. Al-Rishq also accused Israel of humiliating Palestinian prisoners and detainees during the release process, mistreating them “until the very last moments” and banning their families from holding celebrations.

Dozens of the prisoners slated to be released are serving life sentences for deadly attacks in Israel, while others had not been formally charged.

The recriminations came after an already turbulent week. On Thursday, Hamas returned four bodies it said were those of hostages who had died in captivity, among them that of Ms. Bibas. But forensic testing by Israel determined that the body was not hers. Late Friday, Hamas transferred another set of remains, which Israeli officials confirmed early Saturday as those of Ms. Bibas. The kidnapping and deaths of Ms. Bibas and her young children have become a symbol of Israeli grief and anguish.

Adding to the uproar, the Israeli authorities rejected Hamas’s assertions that Ms. Bibas’s young sons, Ariel, who was 4 when he was abducted, and Kfir, who was not even 9 months old, were killed in Israeli airstrikes, saying that an autopsy had shown that their captors had killed them “with their bare hands” then tried to make it look like they had died in a bombardment.

Dr. Chen Kugel, Israel’s chief pathologist, said on Saturday night that there was no evidence that Ms. Bibas, who was 32, had been killed in a bombing. He did not elaborate or present evidence for the assertion.

Hamas on Saturday accused Israel of lying regarding the fate of the Bibas family, without explaining the discrepancies. Israel’s military has said Ms. Bibas and her sons were held captive by a smaller armed group in Gaza, the Mujahedeen Brigades.

About 60 hostages remain in Gaza, about half of them already assumed to be dead, according to the Israeli government.

The Hamas propaganda video of the two captives begging for their release unleashed a maelstrom of emotions in Israel, including a glimmer of hope for their families.

“I saw my son for the first time in 16 months,” Ilan Gilboa-Dalal, the father of Guy Gilboa-Dalal, one of the two hostages in the video, told Kan, Israel’s public broadcaster. “I heard his voice for the first time. For me, that gives me a bit of air, knowing that he’s OK,” he said.

On the other hand, he added, there was “nothing more cruel” than forcing his son and his friend, Evyatar David, the second hostage in the car, to watch the release ceremony.

Galia David, the mother of Evyatar, told Army Radio: “The consolation in that is that Evyatar and Guy are alive. But I could see through his eyes into his soul, and he is agonized.”

The two hostages in the car and the three on the stage were all abducted from a music festival, the Tribe of Nova, near the border with Gaza during the October 2023 attack.

Fatima AbdulKarim contributed reporting from Ramallah, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, and Gabby Sobelman from Rehovot, Israel.

You have been granted access, use your keyboard to continue reading.

When the leaders of France and Britain meet President Trump at the White House this week, they can draw on a well-worn playbook for dealing with their mercurial host. But it is not clear that the old tricks will be enough to meet the new challenge.

After a week in which Mr. Trump branded President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine as a dictator, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain are no longer merely navigating a norm-busting president with a distaste for multilateral institutions and decorous diplomacy.

They are also trying to salvage a trans-Atlantic alliance that has suffered a mortal blow.

Mr. Trump’s hostile statements, coupled with his overture to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to go over Europe’s head to strike a peace settlement in Ukraine, have left some Europeans wondering whether the alliance that protected the continent for more than seven decades is already defunct.

So inviting Mr. Trump to a French military parade, as Mr. Macron did on Bastille Day 2017, or to a lavish banquet at Buckingham Palace, as Queen Elizabeth II of Britain did in June 2019, might not be sufficient to get things back on track.

“This is the moment of truth,” former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia said in an interview. “They simply have to have the steel to stand up to Trump and tell him what they think, namely, that siding with Putin against Ukraine is a devastating blow to America’s prestige and standing in the world.”

Mr. Turnbull, who had his own clashes with Mr. Trump over refugees early in the president’s first term, said that efforts to charm or cajole him on an issue this fundamental would probably go nowhere. “If the price of getting along with Trump is abandoning your allies, that is too high a price to pay,” Mr. Turnbull said.

A critical problem, said diplomats who dealt with Mr. Trump in his first term, is that he is not the same leader he was then.

“When Trump arrived in 2017, he knew nothing and nobody,” said Gérard Araud, who was France’s ambassador to Washington and accompanied Mr. Macron to multiple meetings with Mr. Trump. “Now he thinks he knows everything, he’s more radical on the substance, and he is surrounded by yes-men.”

That will make it harder for the European leaders to move Mr. Trump off his erroneous claim that the United States, in giving billions of dollars of military support to Ukraine, was essentially the victim of a con job by an unpopular, undemocratic Ukrainian leader. Nor will it be easy, diplomats say, to warn Mr. Trump of the dangers of giving too much away to Mr. Putin in a negotiation.

That doesn’t mean the leaders won’t try.

Mr. Macron, who arrives at the White House on Monday, said during a live broadcast on social media last week, “I’m going to say to him, basically: ‘You can’t be weak against President Putin. It’s not you, it’s not your trademark, it’s not in your interest.’”

Mr. Starmer, who will be in Washington on Thursday, has not publicly shared his strategy for dealing with Mr. Trump. But British diplomats said they expected him to emphasize Britain’s willingness to do more to provide for Europe’s defense by contributing troops to a Ukraine peacekeeping force. Mr. Starmer made the troop commitment last week, but said it would work only if the United States acted as a “backstop.”

“Trump doesn’t do gratitude,” said Kim Darroch, who served as Britain’s ambassador to Washington during much of Mr. Trump’s first term. “But you will at least get some recognition that you are the most forward-leaning of the European countries about buying into his idea of a peace deal.”

British officials said Mr. Starmer would tell Mr. Trump that Britain was considering additional military aid to Ukraine and planned to increase spending on its own defense. Mr. Darroch said Mr. Starmer should pledge to boost Britain’s military spending to 2.5 percent of economic output by a specific date. (Mr. Starmer has promised to reach that threshold but has not set a deadline.)

The prime minister, Mr. Darroch said, should also press Mr. Trump to describe the peace deal he is seeking with Russia and what pressure he plans to put on Mr. Putin to achieve it. While Britain is expected to announce additional sanctions against Russia before Mr. Starmer goes to Washington, Mr. Trump has signaled a willingness to end Russia’s economic and diplomatic isolation.

Mr. Starmer showed some daylight between him and Mr. Trump after the president’s condemnation of Mr. Zelensky, telling the Ukrainian prime minister by phone that he was a “democratically elected leader” within his rights to “suspend elections during wartime as the U.K. did during World War II.”

On Saturday, Mr. Starmer and Mr. Zelensky spoke again, with Mr. Starmer discussing his upcoming meeting with Mr. Trump and reiterating that “Ukraine must be at the heart of any negotiations to end the war,” according to a readout of the call issued by 10 Downing Street.

Having made his point, Mr. Darroch said, Mr. Starmer should avoid getting drawn into a debate with Mr. Trump over Mr. Zelensky. Instead, he said, the prime minister should play to Mr. Trump’s vision of himself as peacemaker.

Mr. Araud agreed, saying: “It would be a mistake for the Europeans to argue with Trump about who started the war, or whether Zelensky is a dictator. That is a non-starter for a Trumpian approach.”

Mr. Araud said he expected Mr. Macron to press Mr. Trump for security assurances in return for Europe’s assembling a deterrent force. France and Britain are trying to persuade Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and the Baltic countries to join such a force.

Other French officials said they worried that Mr. Trump would insist on putting a cease-fire in place in Ukraine within weeks, with a goal of celebrating it with Mr. Putin in Red Square in Moscow on Victory Day, which commemorates the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, on May 9. He would be the first president to visit Russia in more than a decade — striking evidence of Mr. Putin’s diplomatic rehabilitation.

With little time to prevent that, French officials said they were scrambling to limit the damage. Among their deepest fears is that Mr. Trump will try to force an election in Ukraine, which would open the door to Russia-backed candidates, online smear campaigns and other forms of election interference.

Some experts argue that the leaders should appeal to Mr. Trump’s other priorities, notably America’s competition with China. Conceding too much to Mr. Putin, they said, could embolden China in its designs against Taiwan. It would also give China an incentive to draw closer to Russia in a coalition against the United States.

“If you make peace or impose peace in Europe and on Ukraine, on terms favorable to Russia, that actually makes it harder for you to deal with China,” said Nigel Gould-Davies, a former British ambassador to Belarus who is a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategy, a research organization in London.

But Mr. Gould-Davies and other analysts said that drawing Mr. Trump into a discussion of grand strategy had its limits. “For Trump, even more than most leaders, the personal is the political,” he said.

On Friday, Mr. Trump described Mr. Macron as a friend, but complained that neither he nor Mr. Starmer had “done anything” to end the war.

Mr. Starmer and Mr. Macron have both worked to cultivate Mr. Trump. Mr. Starmer did not get to know him until a dinner at Trump Tower in New York last September, but the two seemed to get along. “I like him a lot,” Mr. Trump said recently. “He’s liberal, which is a bit different from me, but I think he’s a very good person.”

Mr. Macron’s relationship with Mr. Trump goes further back and has weathered more bumps. After a honeymoon period marked by Mr. Trump’s attendance at the French military parade, the two leaders clashed over Mr. Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal.

Mr. Macron continues to reach out. In December, he invited Mr. Trump to attend the reopening of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris. He also scrambled to get on the president’s calendar in Washington before Mr. Starmer, whose Washington trip has been in the works for a few weeks.

None of that guarantees that his diplomatic efforts will work this time. During a state visit to Washington in 2018, Mr. Araud recalled, Mr. Macron mistakenly believed he had talked Mr. Trump into not withdrawing from the Iran deal.

“There is this element of unpredictability and unreliability,” Mr. Araud said. “Whatever he says on Day 1 doesn’t mean anything on Day 2.”

Catherine Porter contributed reporting from Paris.

You have been granted access, use your keyboard to continue reading.

The Rapid Support Forces, the paramilitary group fighting Sudan’s military in the country’s calamitous civil war, signed a political charter with its allies late Saturday that aimed to establish a parallel Sudanese government in areas under their control.

The paramilitaries said the agreement, which was signed in Nairobi, the Kenyan capital, would pave the way for peace after nearly two years of a war that has killed thousands of people and set off a devastating famine. Critics called it an audacious gambit by a group that the United States has accused of genocide, and warned that the charter could further splinter Sudan.

The charter’s signatories included the deputy leader of the S.P.L.M.-N., a secular-minded rebel group that stayed out of the war until last week. Now it is firmly aligned with the Rapid Support Forces, more often referred to as the R.S.F.

The most immediate effect, though, was diplomatic. Triumphant appearances by R.S.F. leaders — many of them accused of war crimes and under American sanctions — in Kenya’s capital this past week set off a bitter public row between the two countries. Sudan’s military-led government accused Kenya of “disgraceful” behavior that it said was “tantamount to an act of hostility” and withdrew its ambassador from Nairobi in protest.

Kenya’s Foreign Ministry said it sought only to provide “a platform for key stakeholders” from Sudan, and to halt “the tragic slide of Sudan into anarchy.” Still, many in Kenya condemned the talks as a political blunder by President William Ruto, and called on him to reverse course.

The Kenyan chapter of the International Commission of Jurists said Mr. Ruto was “complicit in mass atrocities against the Sudanese people.” One Kenyan newspaper denounced the R.S.F.’s leader, Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan, as “The Butcher” on its front page.

After holding a lavish political event in Kenya’s main convention center on Tuesday, the signing ceremony on Saturday occurred behind closed doors. A video supplied by an R.S.F. official showed the group’s deputy leader, Abdul Rahim Dagalo, holding aloft a copy of the charter in a hall filled with mostly turbaned delegates, some of whom pumped their fists in the air.

An Arabic-language version of the charter, a 16-page document, seen by The New York Times, called for a “secular, democratic and decentralized state” in Sudan that would respect the religious and ethnic identity of all citizens.

But many Sudanese question the R.S.F.’s ability, or even desire, to govern in such a manner. R.S.F. fighters have a reputation for brutality and abuses, rather than sound administration, in areas they control. The group has not announced a timeline for the formation of its breakaway government.

Sudan’s de facto leader, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, has also promised to form a new and more inclusive administration based in the wartime capital, Port Sudan.

Some critics accused Mr. Ruto of bowing to pressure from the United Arab Emirates, the R.S.F.’s main foreign backer and an increasingly influential force across Africa. In Kenya, Mr. Ruto has assiduously courted the Emirates as funding from China and Western investors has dried up.

A $1.5 billion loan from the Emirates, which Kenya hopes will alleviate its crushing debt, has been under negotiation for over four months. The loan is expected to be finalized later this week, Bloomberg reported on Friday.

The Trump administration has not yet commented on the R.S.F.-led political initiative in Kenya. The State Department did not mention Sudan in a statement that followed a call between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Mr. Ruto on Friday.

Mr. Rubio, though, criticized Emirati support for what he termed the R.S.F. “genocide” during his confirmation hearing in January. In recent days, senior Republicans expressed disquiet at the sight of accused war criminals parading through the capital of a major American ally.

Kenya “is helping the RSF legitimize their genocidal rule in #Sudan under the guise of peacemaking,” Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote on social media.

The triumphant scene in the R.S.F. video contrasted with the group’s fortunes on the battlefield, where it has suffered a series of recent defeats. The military has recaptured swaths of the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, in recent months, and pushed the paramilitaries out of a key breadbasket region in central Sudan.

Still, the R.S.F. retains control over a significant portion Sudan, Africa’s third largest country. Its troops are pressing in hard on the besieged, famine-stricken city of El Fasher, an urban area in the western region Darfur.

The undiminished support of the United Arab Emirates remains a potent source of military strength for the paramilitaries, American officials say. They also appear to have at least tacit support from several of Sudan’s neighbors including Chad, South Sudan, Ethiopia — and now, perhaps, Kenya.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *