Although the conference was set up in good faith by Macron, there was a major issue with who he invited. The French President summoned the Spaniards, Germans, Brits, Poles, Nordics and the Dutch. Also invited were Mark Rutte (NATO), Ursula Von Der Leyen (European Commission) and Antonio Costa (European Council). However, the meeting did not include Czechia and Romania, two countries which have been large contributors for aid to Ukraine since the beginning of the invasion.

British PM Keir Starmer insisted his country wanted to continue to help Ukraine, claiming he would be ready to send UK troops on Ukrainian soil. He was not alone, as Polish PM Donald Tusk also said he wanted his country to strengthen their military. However, Tusk ruled out sending Polish troops to Ukraine, creating a division in the meeting. Host Macron insisted the US, Ukraine and Europe must “work together” to achieve peace, through a tweet on Twitter. The meeting left most participants with the feeling of something unachieved, believing the EU and NATO must further discuss what concrete measures will be taken. The Munich Conference is still fresh, with the United States insisting on meeting the Russian delegation. JD Vance and General Kellogg both said the meeting would happen without any European representation.

Similarly to Paris, the Riyadh conference did not advance the case much further. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reacted strongly to the announcement of the Riyadh meeting, acting surprised: “We did not expect it. We will not recognize any decision and will not travel to Riyadh”. He insisted no advance can be achieved without his country’s participation. Zelenskyy repeated he would not meet with the Russian delegation: “You know it used to be sort of not good to speak to the aggressor during the war”.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hit back at Zelenskyy’s comments, saying he does not “understand why Europeans need to be at a deal about Ukraine”. Russian spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Putin is ready to end the war and negotiate with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but only if “necessary”. However, he questioned the Ukrainian’s “legitimacy” in such scenarios. One of the major takeaways by the end of the meeting was that the US and Russian delegates agreed to: “address irritants to our bilateral relationship with the objective of taking steps necessary to normalize the operation of our respective diplomatic missions”. Lavrov also said that “any deployment of NATO forces in Ukraine” would be unacceptable, calling it “one of Biden’s worst mistakes”. He added that “this would have never happened under President Trump”. When asked about Zelenskyy’s refusal to recognize any outcome from the Riyadh summit, Lavrov declined to comment.

Meanwhile, the US National Security Adviser said that “there will be some discussions on territory”, but refused to elaborate what that practically meant.

US State Secretary Marco Rubio followed by insisting that “President Trump is the only leader who can make it [peace] happen”, citing “concessions need to be made by both sides”. However, Rubio stirred controversy as he insisted Europe would need to remove sanctions pointed at Russia since the invasion, once the war will be over. The famous encounter between Trump and Putin is soon expected to take place, but there is no official date set until now. He also insisted that the US would continue to talk with European countries, but that they might not meet the Russian delegates or at least not directly.

US National Security Advisor Michael Waltz insisted it is “unacceptable” that a third of their NATO Allies have not met the 2% GDP minimum. At the same time, US officials emphasized the need for Europe to lead security guarantees for Ukraine.

European leaders did not take the news well, as EU economy and trade commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis made it clear that Europeans are planning to continue to impose sanctions: “The EU will need to take issues related to [the] EU’s security more in its own hands. That also concerns sanctions policy. As you know, the work continues on preparing the 16th sanctions package”. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the current situation “worse than the cold war” in front of the Danish Parliament, as she requested her country increase their defence spending amid worries Russia could invade more countries after Ukraine.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy reacted quickly by postponing his trip to Saudi Arabia, now scheduled for March 10th, angry that his country was not represented in Riyadh: Talks “are taking place between representatives of Russia and representatives of the United States of America. About Ukraine – about Ukraine again – and without Ukraine”. As he is currently in Ankara (Turkey), he also argued the country would be an ideal place for peace talks.

Ukrainian officials located in Kyiv also reacted, calling Moscow’s peace claims “absurd while killing Ukrainians”, as millions of Ukrainians were told to seek shelter in the Ukrainian capital as sirens warned of ballistic missiles hitting Kyiv. Polish President Andrzej Duda met Ukraine US envoy Kellogg, assuring Poles that “US troops will not be reduced on the Eastern border”.

France announced it will host another meeting with more partners on Wednesday, including Canada, Norway, Sweden, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belgium, Czechia, Romania, Greece and Finland.

As the war enters another year, Ukrainians like Serhyi find themselves caught between immediate military needs and long-term aspirations. The recent changes in American politics have sparked both hope and concern. Despite his environmental concerns, Serhyi admits that “For now, Trump may be better for Ukraine.” I was first surprised, but I understood the frustration coming from the lack of speed in Biden’s decision-making. According to soldiers Serhyi spoke with, the 2022 Ukrainian counter-offensive could have ended the war if the US had provided necessary resources sooner. “We could have ended the war two years ago,” he reflects melancholically.

The timing of peace remains uncertain. While there has been much speculation in the Ukrainian government about peace in May or October 2025 as a potential end to the war, Serhyi remains cautious: “I do not know when the war will end.”
His vision is clear: “Russia could start a new invasion within the next ten years. We have to be ready.”

Living between cultures has given Serhyi unique insight into Ukraine’s transformation. “In Luhansk, we’re in the middle between Ukraine and Russia. We lived the Russian lifestyle, being depressed,” he recalls. “Coming to Central Ukraine, I saw the difference. Ukrainians want a normal, educated civilization.”

The conversation turns to internal challenges. Ukraine faces the complex task of reform during wartime, particularly regarding Russian influence. “Some pro-Russian parties should be blocked, as well as some content in the Russian language,” Serhyi argues, noting people’s “short memories” after the 2014 Euromaidan. Despite these challenges, he sees progress: “Ukraine is on the right path, coming closer to European standards of education. I think Ukraine should also follow Europe’s Green Deal.”

Corruption remains a pressing concern, particularly around President Zelenskyy’s administration. “We have a huge lack of anti-corruption measures. We need more transparency in education and businesses,” Serhyi acknowledges. The case of Oleh Tatarov, a controversial figure in Zelenskyy’s staff charged with bribery, exemplifies these challenges. “People generally want such people out,” says Serhyi, though he maintains that “it is more about his surroundings being corrupt, more than Zelenskyy himself.”

The conversation shifts to energy dependency, as the Baltic countries recently disconnected from Russian gas. Drawing lessons from history, Serhyi criticizes former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policies: “she forced Germany to depend on Russian gas.” He acknowledges Ukraine’s own past mistakes: “We did not realize at the time. Ukraine is partially to blame, brainwashed by Russian propaganda. We gave our weapons away to Russia, and resisted involvement from NATO.”

The impact of Russian propaganda remains a crucial concern. “I understand people who believe Ukrainians may be Nazis, the propaganda was huge,” Serhyi admits, speaking from experience. “I understand, as I was a victim of that propaganda.” He mentioned that we should think critically, noting similar scenarios in Moldova, Chechnya, and Georgia.

At the same time, Serhyi believes that Putin’s legacy has become worse since the invasion. “I don’t think Russia will manage to steal Ukrainian culture, despite his attempts to. People used to relate Ukraine to the USSR, and think it is part of Russia. Now, people know the difference. The invasion provoked an opposite movement, of people understanding how to fight against Russian propaganda”. For Ukrainians like Serhyi, the path forward requires balancing multiple priorities: maintaining independence, implementing reforms, and building a distinctly Ukrainian future. Despite frustrations over corruption and international support, they remain committed to their European path while confronting the realities of their past decisions.

These orders represent some of his policy priorities, which his campaign relied on. They will be implemented as law, though some may face legal challenges.

Here is a rundown of the most important changes he has made so far.

Immigration

Birth-right Citizenship

Among the several immigration-focused orders, this was the most controversial. It aims to deny the right to citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, starting 30 days from the day it was signed. The 14th Amendment of the US constitution has been protecting this right, making Trump’s order challenging to implement.

National emergency at southern border

Trump signed a directive declaring a state of emergency at the southern border, aiming to implement stricter immigration policies as well as to resume building physical barriers along the US-Mexico border.

Deportation

Trump issued a directive that ends the “catch and release” policy, which used to allow immigrants awaiting their hearings to live temporarily in the US.

Terrorism

Another directive was signed in order to now classify drug cartels as terrorist groups. Migrant gangs like the Salvadoran MS-13 and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua will be added to the list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, which lists groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda. 

Gender and diversity

Gender

An order issued declares that the US will only recognise two sexes: male and female. This order will affect policies protecting transgender individuals as it addresses the idea of gender ideology, stating that “Gender ideology replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true”. Through this, protections for transgender people serving time in federal prisons are removed.

DEI

Through this directive, Trump aims to stop “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) programmes, which includes federal grants and federal contracts.

Re-namings

One of Trump’s first orders aims to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America” and to rename Alaska’s Mount Denali, the highest mountain peak in North America, to Mount McKinley. This reverses President Obama’s directive that changed the name from McKinley to Denali in accordance with the name native tribes had given it.

Pardons for January 6 Capitol attackers

Trump granted clemency to nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6th 2021 attack on the Capitol. He also commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, two seditionist far-right groups.

Leaving the World Health Organisation

Trump signed a directive that initiates the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organisation (WHO). He accused the WHO of mishandling the Covid-19 pandemic and claimed that “World Health ripped us off”. The US is one of the biggest financial backers of the organisation,  contributing around 18% of its overall funding.

TikTok ban

The president ordered a directive delaying the federal TikTok ban by 75 days, saying “I guess I have a warm spot for TikTok that I didn’t have originally”.  This comes after he issued an executive order in 2020 to bar app stores from making TikTok available to download in order to push for American ownership of the company.

Government

Federal workforce

This directive reclassifies thousands of federal workers as political hires, stripping them of their civil service protection. He also ended remote work policies for federal workers and froze federal hiring with the exception of  “military personnel of the armed forces or to positions related to immigration enforcement, national security, or public safety”.

Department of Government Efficiency 

Elon Musk’s new Department of Government Efficiency was signed in through an executive order and aims to improve governmental spending.

Censorship

Trump also signed a directive that orders “the restoration of freedom of speech and preventing government censorship”.

Climate and the Environment

Paris Agreement

Trump signed an order to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, a treaty aiming to manage and mitigate the climate crisis. He also pulled out of the agreement in 2017, but the change was not finalised until 2020 due to United Nations regulations. In 2021, Biden re-entered the agreement. This time, the withdrawal could only take a year.

Green New Deal

Another executive order aims to end Biden’s Green New Deal, a series of measures that would regulate the fossil fuel industry and limit pollution.

Electric vehicle targets

Trump also signed a directive that revoked an order signed by President Biden that aimed to make half of all vehicles sold by 2030 electric. He stated that “The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity”.

National Energy Emergency

Trump declared a state of national energy emergency in an effort to boost US energy and fossil fuel infrastructure and production.

Another directive called “Unleashing Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential” will open up the Alaskan wilderness to more oil and gas drilling.

Economy

Tariffs

Although not yet signed, Trump promised to bring a directive that imposes 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico starting 1 Feb.

Inflation

Trump signed a federal directive aiming to address the cost of living crisis. Through this, he hopes to lower the cost of housing, groceries and fuel, though the directive did not outline a plan for these changes.

Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records on May 30 by the Manhattan Criminal Court. The falsified records were “to cover up a hush money payment to porn star Storym Dnaiels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.”

On Jan. 9, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4, denying Trump’s request to delay the hush money sentencing. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett along with the Democrat justices joined in on the decision to ensure the sentencing followed as scheduled.

Trump joined the sentencing via videoconference from his residence in Mar-a-Lago, FL. He described the case as a “witch hunt” and “fake”, emphasized his innocence, and expressed the proceedings as politically motivated.

On Friday, Trump said, “After spending tens of millions of dollars, wasting over six years of obsessive work that should have been spent on protecting New Yorkers from violent, rampant crime that is destroying the City and State, coordinating with the Biden/Harris department of injustice in lawless weaponization, and bringing completely baseless, illegal, and fake charges against your 45th and 47th president, me, I was given an unconditional discharge,” according to Politico.

On Friday, Merchan told the president-elect “that it was the office of the presidency – and not the occupant – that was afforded extraordinary legal protections requiring him to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge without any punishment.”

Even though Trump received unconditional discharge, exempting him from typical sentencing results such paying a fine or performing community service – because the felonies are on his criminal record, certain rights as a US citizen can be affected. 

Trump remains with his right to vote because he is registered in Florida which allows for convicted felons to vote once they have completed their sentence. He was charged in New York, but similarly the state restores a person’s right to vote after a person is released from serving.

Per federal law, Trump will not be able to possess a firearm as a convicted felon. 

Trump will be admitted to New York’s crime database because New York requires every convicted felon to provide a DNA sample. These are collected some time after sentencing.

Although some states have laws prohibiting a person with a criminal record from running for state and local office, there is no federal law that prevents someone convicted of a crime from running and then holding office. This makes it possible for Trump to move forward with being elected for a second term.

Some countries like Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom reserve the right to prohibit visits by convicted felons, but also people sometimes have their passports revoked and requests denied. Because of Trump’s status as a former and re-elected president, he holds a diplomatic passport and will keep his other passports which will allow him to continue travels outside the US.

Outside of office, his business endeavors are not projected to be harmed by the felon status being that his company has stated the properties and business are all owned through corporate entities. Though, it is suggested that liquor licenses at certain establishments of his could be revoked.

Since Trump was tried in a state court having violated state law, he would not be able to pardon himself. Presidential pardons pertain to federal crimes, so only the New York governor has the authority to pardon Trump’s conviction.

Trump’s legal team has hinted at plans to appeal the conviction after his inauguration to New York’s Appellate Division then the New York State Court of Appeals. 

Despite Trump’s felony conviction, Merchan’s sentencing will allow for Trump to be inaugurated for his second presidential term on Jan. 20. 

Specifically, three Republican representatives caused Johnson’s re-election to be narrower than initially anticipated. Texas Representative Keith Self, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie and South Carolina Representative Ralph Norman – all hard-right conservatives – held out the vote initially. 

Johnson is said to have spoken with Self and Norman in private. When the second vote was conducted, both representatives then voted in favor of Johnson.

Although there were Republican holdouts within the House, President-elect Donald Trump supported Johnson’s re-election and stated it was an “unprecedented vote of confidence in Congress” and that “America will be greater than ever before.”

Political analysts speculate that Trump’s presidential win bolstered the ability for Johnson to get re-elected. 

Johnson is known for his conservative views, and is eager to manage these views even in a narrow Republican-leaning House majority. Given the current political environment, it is likely that his leadership will continue to reflect and promote right-leaning policies, particularly in areas like fiscal conservatism, immigration reform, and opposition to the legislative priorities previously pushed through during the Biden administration.

As a staunch pro-life advocate, he has worked to restrict abortion access, opposing efforts to codify abortion rights and advocating for constitutional amendments to protect the unborn. Additionally, his opposition to same-sex marriage aligns with his efforts in going against bills that would have expanded protections for LGBTQ+ rights.

In terms of fiscal policy, Johnson has been advocating for cuts to federal spending and stronger fiscal discipline. He stated in a social media post, “The American people have demanded an end to the status quo, and a return to fiscal sanity … if we don’t follow through on our campaign promise for fiscal responsibility, we don’t deserve to hold power.” He has intentions to work closely with the Department of Efficiency, “review existing audits of federal spending,” and conduct head-on reviews of government agencies’ spending.

Johnson is also expected to prioritize border security, with Johnson advocating for stronger enforcement against illegal immigration and emphasizing the need for a physical border wall. 

As speaker, Johnson faces the challenge of leading a divided House. Although Republicans hold a majority, the narrowness of his re-election underscores the internal friction within his party, particularly between moderates and hard-right. 

The bill was originally 1,527 pages but was shortened to 118 pages by the time of passage. The House passed the bill 366-34 followed by the Senate vote 85-11. 

The reasons for the prolonged showdown include partisan divisions; with Democrats prioritizing social programs and Republicans proposing spending reductions, tensions within the Republican party on compromising with Democrats, last minute budget proposals – specifically proposed by president elect Donald Trump, disagreements on whether to include policies to address to the debt ceiling, and continuous disputes on issues like energy and immigration.

According to the New York Post, “Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk objected Thursday to what they called a bloated initial funding package.”

Some of the specific approved provisions in the budget include: not reauthorizing the U.S. State Department’s Global Engagement Centre since it “has been accused of pushing online censorship”, allocating $100 billion in disaster relief funds, and $10 billion in aid to farmers’ agricultural efforts. 

Congress chose to delay addressing the debt ceiling and to temporarily continue funding federal programs, as these issues are sources of heated debates both between and within the Democratic and Republican parties. The bill package included an extension until March 14, 2025 to allow Congress to provide a more comprehensive budget agreement. 

Nearly a million federal workers faced the prospect of unpaid furloughs during the holiday season, while essential services, like military operations and air traffic control, would have continued with workers unpaid. 

Ultimately, lawmakers struck a last-minute deal to keep the government open, avoiding a shutdown just hours before the deadline. This agreement reflected bipartisan compromise but left lingering questions about how Congress will address similar funding challenges in the future, particularly regarding long-term budget reforms and the debt ceiling – as the U.S. approaches a highly contentious second Trump administration.

At the core of Trump’s foreign policy approach is his belief that EU and NATO allies, along with trade partners, have been “taking advantage” of the U.S. by failing to contribute their fair share to defence or balance trade. This stance has raised concerns among European NATO members, particularly as they confront their greatest security threat since World War II: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a crisis that threatens the European cohesion and stability built since 1945.

Known for his blunt and provocative style, Trump recently suggested he might allow Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” if NATO members don’t meet their defence spending commitments. Is there a deeper message behind these words, or do they signal a drastic shift in U.S. policy toward Europe? As Donald Tusk put it, is “the era of geopolitical outsourcing really over?”

Trump has long criticised NATO’s European allies for failing to meet the alliance’s defence spending target of 2% of GDP, arguing that many rely on American military protection while neglecting their own defence responsibilities. This concern has been a consistent theme for Trump and his supporters. Yet, with Europe facing unprecedented security challenges, including Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, European leaders are left wondering: will Trump set aside his grievances to support NATO in these critical times, or will Europe be left to fend for itself?

Former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul recently remarked, “Trump fundamentally does not care about Ukraine. But fundamentally does care about his personal relationship with Putin,” suggesting that Trump’s comments about letting Russia “do whatever the hell they want” may not be empty rhetoric. For European NATO members, this raises serious fears about the U.S.’s willingness to uphold NATO’s founding principle, Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.

Trump’s stance challenges this commitment, weakening NATO’s deterrent power and raising concerns about Europe’s security, especially as the continent relies heavily on American support. This could leave Eastern European nations, particularly Poland and the Baltic states, feeling vulnerable and uncertain about their defence in these precarious times.

In response to Trump’s conditional stance on NATO support, European leaders are increasingly calling for “strategic autonomy,” the ability for Europe to defend itself independently of American military support. While this concept isn’t new, the prospect of a Trump presidency, alongside the ongoing Russian threat, has accelerated Europe’s push for self-reliance. 

This path is not without challenges, as Europe’s diverse defence budgets, priorities, and capabilities make coordination and investment complex. Nevertheless, the EU has begun investing in joint defence initiatives and strengthening its military infrastructure, laying the groundwork for a more self-sufficient Europe in the face of uncertain transatlantic ties.

Trump’s “America First” stance extends to trade, where he argues that the U.S. has been economically exploited by allies and trade partners. Trump has long criticised the EU for what he perceives as an unfair trade imbalance, claiming that European nations benefit disproportionately from trade with the U.S. while offering little in return. Trump is expected to push for tariffs of 10-20% on European imports, targeting industries that are central to export-heavy economies like Germany’s. 

His fixation on trade imbalances defined his first term, using tariffs as a tool to pressure partners, including the EU, to revisit trade terms. European leaders fear that this approach could resurface, risking significant economic fallout and pushing the EU to diversify its trade relationships. Seeking to reduce its reliance on U.S. markets, Europe may look to strengthen ties with emerging economies like India and China shift that could introduce new layers of geopolitical complexity, especially as U.S.-China relations will likely edge closer to a breaking point during Trump’s second term.

The European Union may ultimately choose to ride out the next four years, viewing America’s shift under Trump as a temporary phase led by a “once-in-a-generation” firebrand president rather than a reflection of the U.S. as a whole. Rather than making drastic changes to military or trade policies, which could be costly and geopolitically fraught, Europe might opt to “bite their lips and get on with it,” hoping for more stability from a future administration.

However, given the significant security challenges Europe now faces including Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine this passive approach may come with its risks. If Europe decides to wait it out rather than actively preparing for potential shifts in U.S. policy, the continent may find itself unprepared should American support waver further. For Ukraine, this could mean limited NATO involvement and a slower path to sustained support, while Russia may interpret Europe’s inaction as a sign of weakness, potentially emboldening its moves in the region.

Trump’s return to the White House poses complex challenges for the European Union, from defence commitments and strategic autonomy to trade relations. While some European leaders may prefer to wait out the next four years, hoping this is a temporary shift, the risks of relying on such an uncertain strategy are significant. 

The need for a more self-reliant Europe, especially in defence and trade, has never been more urgent. As Europe faces its greatest security threat since World War II and growing economic pressures, the question remains whether it can afford to wait for stability or if this is the moment to redefine its role on the global stage. The decisions Europe makes now will have lasting consequences not only for its own security but also for the future of NATO, U.S.-EU relations, and the balance of power with Russia.