Hear this story

Editor’s note: This page reflects the news from ICE protests in Los Angeles on Monday, June 9. For the latest news on the LA protests, read USA TODAY’s live coverage for Tuesday, June 10.

LOS ANGELES − A tense standoff between California and the federal government escalated Monday, with federal officials preparing to send in 700 Marines to assist the National Guard and state officials saying they will sue the Trump administration’s decision to “trample over” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s authority.

Newsom shot back at Trump over the move to send in Marines: “U.S. Marines have served honorably across multiple wars in defense of democracy. They are heroes. They shouldn’t be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President.”

The addition of active-duty troops marks a significant escalation. It comes as California officials say they will sue the Trump administration, challenging the decision to federalize the National Guard and send its members onto city streets amid increasingly hostile protests over Trump’s immigration policies, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday.

In addition to the Marines, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell announced on Monday that 2,000 National Guardsmen would be deployed to Los Angeles. The mobilization of additional troops comes after Trump authorized 2,000 guardsmen to be deployed to the city.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the Marines are being sent “due to increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings, approximately 700 active-duty… are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order.”

“We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers – even if Gavin Newsom will not,” Hegseth said.

Trump said the troop deployment in Los Angeles is expected to last 60 days, according to California’s adjutant general.

California governor says ‘Trump wants chaos’

Amid moves from the Trump administration to deploy as many as 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is firing back with all tools in his arsenal, including 800 additional officers, a lawsuit and invectives warning Trump is acting like a “dictator.”

“Los Angeles: don’t take Trump’s bait. Trump wants chaos and he’s instigated violence,” Newsom said in a post on X. “Stay peaceful. Stay focused. Don’t give him the excuse he’s looking for.”

Newsom’s move to rally support comes after Trump ordered National Guardsmen to Los Angeles without the governor’s consent and after the president even suggested Newsom should be arrested.

“This isn’t about public safety. It’s about stroking a dangerous President’s ego,” Newsom said in another post. “This is Reckless. Pointless. And Disrespectful to our troops.”

The California governor has called out Trump’s moves to intervene in the city while also drawing a firm line with protestors: “Foolish agitators who take advantage of Trump’s chaos will be held accountable.”

Trump and Newsom have often clashed, but the showdown over Los Angeles marks a new low in their heated relationship. In a lawsuit, Newsom says the Trump administration is violating California’s sovereignty.

“One of the cornerstones of our Nation and our democracy is that our people are governed by civil, not military, rule,” the lawsuit says. Trump “used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the State of California.”

Read more about their feud here.

Marines heading to Los Angeles

A photojournalist for the Desert Sun, part of the USA TODAY Network, spotted a convoy of Marines heading for Los Angeles Monday evening.

Five buses and six to 10 armed vehicles passed Park Boulevard near Joshua Tree while heading west on Highway 62 — the main route from Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles — shortly after 7 p.m. At the nearby crosswalk, about 20 protestors were gathered demonstrating against the recent immigrations raids.

The movement of troops to the city comes just hours after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced 700 Marines would be “deployed to Los Angeles to restore order.”

California state officials have fired back that federal troops are escalating the tension between law enforcement and protestors.

Protests into the night

Several crowds of demonstrators circled downtown Los Angeles, including City Hall and several federal buildings as helicopters paced the crowds from above. By 7 p.m. local time, the crowds numbered at least several hundred, snaking its way past cars and graffiti calling for ICE to be abolished.Car horns and sirens maintained a constant background symphony as protesters walked. Police officers periodically fired tear gas or pepper balls as a crowd sometimes moved too close to a protected building or someone threw a water bottle at them.Unlike the previous evening, local authorities appeared to have the area under firm control, although no one stopped people with spray paint from defacing public buildings.There was no visible sign of federal troops.

Lawsuit filed, alleges ‘unnecessary, unlawful’ actions by Trump

At a news conference Monday, Bonta announced details of the lawsuit against the administration, calling Trump’s move “unnecessary, counterproductive and most importantly unlawful.” Bonta said Trump’s order abused the federal government’s authority and “trampled over” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s sovereignty.

Trump said the guard would restore order amid mounting violent clashes between police and protesters angry at his aggressive pursuit of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. illegally. On Monday, U.S. Northern Command confirmed 700 Marines would also be sent into the city.

The president pledged in a social media post to “liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion, and put an end to these Migrant riots. Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free.”

In a social media post, Newsom blamed Trump for the increase in unrest after three days of protests, saying “we’re suing him.”

“Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,” Newsom said in a statement.

Police on Monday were urging businesses and residents to report any “vandalism, damage or looting” for documentation after some of the protests Sunday deteriorated into destructive clashes between officers and protesters. Some vehicles were set ablaze, protesters blocked the 101 Freeway, and a group of them converged on an overpass and threw objects down at police, video footage showed.

Authorities declared several of the demonstrations Sunday “unlawful assemblies,” sweeping in with flash-bangs and tear gas grenades to disperse hundreds of protesters. Police in riot gear were joined by hundreds of the California National Guard troops.

Newsom calls in 800 police officers

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Monday that he would have an additional 800 state and local law enforcement officers deploy to Los Angeles.

Newsom said the additional officers are being called in order to handle the protests stemming from the face-offs between protestors and national guardsmen that were sent in “illegally,” according to the governor’s office.

“Chaos is exactly what Trump wanted, now we are sending in hundreds more law enforcement to pick up the pieces,” Newsom said. “State and local leaders stand together, coordinated and resolute to ensure the safety of the Los Angeles region.”

Karen Bass, LA’s mayor, backed Newsom: “While Washington choreographed these chaotic events, the LAPD and local law enforcement continue to effectively respond.”

700 Marines sent to LA

The Pentagon is sending 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests over immigration sweeps by the Trump administration, according to U.S. Northern Command spokesperson Col Kelly Frushour.

Frushour said the troops belong to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment and are based at Twentynine Palms, about 140 miles east of Los Angeles. The California-based Marines will join the 2,100 federalized National Guard troops “protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area,” Frushour added.

Marines heading to Los Angeles are from an infantry battalion whose typical mission is close combat with enemy forces. But for this mission, Frushour said, the activated Marines and Guardsmen “have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.”

The Marines will be moving out within hours, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The Marines had been on standby since Saturday, according to U.S. Northern Command, which is in charge of the operation that also includes California National Guardsmen. Like the Guard troops, the Marines will be used to protect federal property.

The addition of active-duty troops is a significant escalation in the administration’s ongoing efforts to round up those who have violated immigration laws. There are thousands of active-duty troops assisting at the southern border but none inside a major U.S. city.

Read more here.

– Tom Vanden Brook, Davis Winkie

Gov. Newsom files lawsuit against Trump over California ‘sovereignty’

California Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit on Monday against President Donald Trump over the president’s move to deploy members of the California National Guard without Newsom’s consent. The process is called federalizing the National Guard.

The Office of the California Attorney General shared a copy of the lawsuit with USA TODAY late Monday afternoon local time.

“One of the cornerstones of our Nation and our democracy is that our people are governed by civil, not military, rule,” the lawsuit says. Trump “used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the State of California.”

Trump authorized 2,000 National Guardsmen on June 7 to deploy to Los Angeles and on June 9 Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered another 2,000 to the city, according to the lawsuit.

50 arrests, 600 non-lethal bullets fired: LAPD

Officials at the Los Angeles Police Department announced that they had arrested 50 people over Saturday and Sunday in downtown areas that “escalated into significant acts of violence, vandalism, and looting.”

LAPD said 29 people were arrested Saturday evening for failing to follow orders to disperse. 21 people were arrested Sunday on charges from attempted murder with a Molotov cocktail to assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, LAPD said.

Authorities said officers used tear gas on the “hostile crowd” as well as over 600 rounds of non-lethal bullets. Among those hit was an Australian journalist covering the protests.

At least five officers received minor injuries, according to LAPD. Five police horses also “were targeted and sustained minor injuries.”

Police said protest groups used handheld radios “to coordinate and evade law enforcement.”

LAPD said its Professional Standards Bureau will investigate excessive use of force allegations.

Watch officer fires non-lethal bullet at journalist

An Australian journalist was shot with a rubber bullet by an officer while covering protests in Los Angeles over the weekend, according to her media outlet.

Lauren Tomasi, a U.S. national correspondent for Australia’s 9News, was shot in the leg by a rubber bullet while reporting on the immigration raids and ensuing protests in Los Angeles on Sunday, June 8, the network reported.

Video captured by 9News shows a nearby armed police officer aiming a weapon at Tomasi before firing, striking the back of her left leg. Tomasi is heard yelling out in pain as the camera pans away.

Tomasi is sore but otherwise unharmed from the incident, 9News reported.

– Greta Cross

Why burning EVs like Waymos isn’t a good idea

Multiple Waymo self-driving robotaxis were set on fire in Los Angeles during the protests. Other cars were also put to the torch but the Waymos have garnered special interest, partially because they’re something new on the scene and partially because as electric vehicles, they raise different and specific concerns if their batteries burn.

Electric vehicle fires can burn hotter and more intensely than gasoline-fueled cars, if their batteries catch fire.

The fires also release different emissions than traditional gasoline-powered vehicle fires, including gases such as hydrogen fluoride, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and metal-based particulates.

EV fires are also more difficult to put out than ones in gasoline-powered cars and require different firefighting techniques, which firefighters are trained on.

– Elizabeth Weise

Glendale scraps deal with ICE

The City of Glendale, about 9 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles, announced it would be terminating its contract with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold federal immigration detainees at the local police facility, city officials said in a news release Sunday night. ICE’s agreement with Glendale had been in place since 2007, according to the release.

“(The) City recognizes that public perception of the ICE contract—no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good—has become divisive,” the statement said.

On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security responded to the announcement on X, saying ”Glendale’s politicians stand with criminal illegal aliens, including gang members, rapists, and murderers over American citizens.”

“It is deeply disturbing that sanctuary politicians in Glendale, California, would terminate an agreement to hold ICE detainees and violent criminals — which the city has had with DHS for more than 15 years — just as violent rioters are looting and defacing Los Angeles and assaulting federal law enforcement,” DHS said.

– Victoria Valenzuela

Celebs speak out on LA protests

Several stars have taken to social media to share information and resources, and to criticize the federal response to what they called peaceful demonstrations in Los Angeles.

On June 8, Billie Eilish’s brother and collaborator, Finneas, posted on his Instagram story about the protests, cursing at ICE and sharing that he attended a protest and was immediately met with force.

“Tear gassed almost immediately at the very peaceful protest downtown ‒ they’re inciting this,” wrote the songwriter, an LA native.

-Taijuan Moorman

California to sue Trump administration over National Guard deployment

Bonta, the California attorney general, confirmed June 9 that the state plans to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its “unlawful” decision to deploy National Guard troops in Los Angeles against Newsom’s wishes.

Bonta said that by the time the first few hundred troops arrived in Los Angles “the protests had mostly dissipated and streets were mostly quiet and calm.” After the troops were deployed, Bonta said the situation escalated and unrest grew, “causing highways to close and putting people in danger.”

The order violated the 10th Amendment and failed to meet the criteria required to invoke the law, according to the attorney general. Bonta said the move marks the first time a president has invoked this statute since President Richard Nixon ordered the National Guard to deliver mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike.

“They unlawfully invoked a law that’s intended to prevent an invasion by a foreign nation or a rebellion or local and state law enforcement make it so that the laws of the United States cannot be executed,” Bonta said. “Those are the only three triggers that would provide for the invocation of the National Guard, and none of them were present here.”

When asked about Trump’s suggestion that Newsom should be arrested, Bonta defended the governor’s actions and downplayed the possibility.

“It is the president and the Trump administration that is consistently and frequently, blatantly and brazenly violating the law, not Governor Newsom,” Bonta said. “So it’s a seems to be more of bluster and threat.”

San Francisco joins in protests

In San Francisco, three separate protests against immigration arrests were scheduled for Monday, June 9.

The first took place at noon at the California State Building, a few blocks from City Hall. It was called by the Service Employees International Union, whose California president, David Huerta, was arrested Friday in the Los Angeles protests. Attendees were urged to wear their union colors.

A second protest was scheduled to be held at San Francisco City Hall at 4 p.m. local time and was organized by multiple local progressive groups.

Finally, at 6 p.m. a protest was scheduled to be held at the 24th street BART subway plaza in San Francisco’s Mission District, which is the heart of the city’s Hispanic community.

The protests in San Francisco come as several Waymo self-driving taxis were attacked and burned in Los Angeles during protests on Saturday, June 7. The city in Northern California is home to the largest number of the self-driving cars, where they are a common sight on roadways.

Waymo told USA TODAY while the company was still operating and serving riders in San Francisco, out of an abundance of caution it was limiting trips in certain areas where protesters may be gathering.

– Elizabeth Weise

LA day laborers don’t fear ICE raids

While national attention focused on Los Angeles, it was business as usual for virtually everyone in the city.

Outside the Home Depot in the Paramount neighborhood, a small group of day laborers in paint-stained pants sat on buckets waiting for work. Several said ICE had detained people across Alondra Boulevard on June 7, sparking unrest.

They said that although they lacked papers to remain legally in the United States, they weren’t worried about being deported if ICE agents returned. Mexican-born Jose Luis Valencia, 54, said if it’s his time to go back to his home country, he’ll go.

“We’re not thieves,” he said. “We’re just looking for jobs.”

LA resident says city is still ‘very peaceful’ amid protests

Longtime LA resident Ira Long, 67, said the reporting of the unrest has been overblown. Long, a pastor at the Alondra Church of Christ in Compton, said he still remembers when the National Guard was called out in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots.

“That was a really, really terrible time. Right now I don’t feel any of that tension or anxiety,” said Long, a retired special education teacher. “But people are uneasy, and there’s a real sense of loss because we have lost people who were a part of this community.”

Speaking as church volunteers prepared to distribute food to community members about a half mile from where weekend protests erupted, Long said he wants the rest of the country to know Los Angeles is a good, safe city.

“This is a very loving community,” he said. “It’s never been totally out of control. It has its challenges, its issues. But there are also amazing and fantastic families who make this a great place to live. It’s very peaceful. And right now it’s pretty cool.”

Immigration enforcement protesters rally outside Justice Department

Dozens of protesters rallied outside the Justice Department’s headquarters in Washington to criticize Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles, where Trump deployed the National Guard.

“Enough of these mass ICE raids who are sweeping up innocent people,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said June 9. “Enough of the undermining of due process.”

The Service Employees International Union organized the protest after the union’s California president, David Huerta, was arrested in the Los Angeles protests. Bill Essayli, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, told KNBC, Huerta allegedly obstructed law enforcement vehicles from getting into a facility where they were conducting a search warrant, citing video of the arrest.

“They tried to move him and then he got into a physical altercation with one of our agents and he resisted and he had to be pepper sprayed and subdued,” Essayli said.

Participants at the Justice Department protest held signs that said, “Free David. End ICE Raids” and “Justice for David Huerta Now.”

The rally was one of more than a dozen scheduled in cities across the U.S. to demand Huerta’s release and an end to workplace immigration raids, the Los Angeles Times reported.

− Bart Jansen

‘I would’: Trump says he’d arrest Newsom

Amid the mounting legal clash between the federal government and the state of California, Trump suggested that his border czar Tom Homan should arrest Newsom.

“I would do it … I think it’s great,” Trump said when asked if Homan should arrest the governor, who has challenged the administration’s mobilization of National Guard troops to crack down on violent protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles.

Arresting Newsom, who responded to Homan’s threat by daring the feds to arrest him in a June 8 social media post, would represent a major escalation of the state’s widening rift with the Trump administration.

− Davis Winkie

Newsom warns that Trump could try federalizing Guard ‘in any state’

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell called the outbreak of violence “disgusting” and said it had grown worse Saturday. He said he does not believe the same people who were genuinely protesting immigration policy were involved in the violence.

Newsom warned that violent protesters would be arrested and prosecuted. He also kept up his social media attack on Trump, saying California “didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved” and that unrest is “exactly” what Trump wanted.

“Let’s get this straight: 1) Local law enforcement didn’t need help. 2) Trump sent troops anyway — to manufacture chaos and violence. 3) Trump succeeded,” Newsom wrote. “4) Now things are destabilized and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump’s mess.”

Families of detainees plead for release of loved ones

Family members of several people detained last week in an ICE sweep pleaded for the release of their loved ones at a press conference Monday. Elaina Jung Hee Vermeulen, with the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, said she attempted on Sunday to meet with some of the detained warehouse workers.

“Instead of allowing me to meet with community members, they jumped onto trucks in riot gear,” she said. Vermeulen urged local leaders to protect the rights of working class immigrants and said ICE must be banned from entering workplaces.

“Every single person who is here, who is figintg for a better life for their family, deserves to have their rights protected,” she said.

Noem explains reversal on federalizing National Guard

As South Dakota governor in February 2024, Kristi Noem threatened then-President Joe Biden when Democrats said he should federalize the National Guard in Texas to disrupt that state governor’s anti-immigration efforts.

If he did, Noem warned, Biden would be mounting a “direct attack on states’ rights,” and sparking a “war” between Washington and Republican-led state governments, she said in a Feb. 6, 2024 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity.

On June 8, Noem − now Trump’s Homeland Security secretary − cheered Trump for doing the same thing to the Democratic governor of the state of California.

On CBS News’ Face the Nation Sunday, Noem explained her reversal by saying, “Governor Newsom has proven that he makes bad decisions.” Read more here.

− Josh Meyer

‘Trump didn’t start’ riots: California sheriff rips Harris’ comments

A California sheriff running for governor isn’t pleased with former Vice President Kamala Harris’ reaction to the explosive protests. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said in a June 8 post on X that Trump is “not out there lighting cars on fire, hurling projectiles at law enforcement or blocking freeways.”

The sheriff, whose county is just north of San Diego and the fourth-most populous county in the state, was responding to Harris’ earlier statement where she said the deployment of the National Guard was “meant to provoke chaos.”

Harris, who is mulling a bid for California governor next year, put much of the blame on the Trump administration’s ICE raids and a “cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division.”

Bianco, who is also running for governor in 2026, is a long-standing Trump supporter who gained a bit of attention in 2021 for vowing not to enforce COVID-19 vaccine mandates in his office.

He said Sunday the former VP’s comments were “an embarrassment.”

“The Democrats and their ‘leaders’ own this,” Bianco added.

− Phillip M. Bailey

Latinas for Trump co-founder blasts Trump immigration policy

Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, who co-founded the group Latinas for Trump, criticized his administration’s recent immigration enforcement actions as “unacceptable and inhumane” in a post on X.

Her remarks come as federal agents have arrested immigrants in courthouses across the U.S., including Florida, stripping them of due process protections, as NBC News reported.

“I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings − in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims − all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal,” she wrote in her post, referring to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.

She said she stands with Florida Republican Rep. María Elvira Salazar, who wrote in a statement June 6 that “anyone with a pending asylum case, status-adjustment petition, or similar claim deserves to go through the legal process.”

− Sudiksha Kochi

Border czar denies threatening to arrest Newsom

Trump border czar Tom Homan on Monday denied ever calling for the arrest of Newsom. Homan told Fox News that he was asked if Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass could be arrested and Homan responded that, if they commit a crime, they could be arrested.

“There was no discussion about arresting Newsom,” Homan said.

Newsom had addressed the issue on social media, saying that “Trump’s border czar is threatening to arrest me for speaking out. Come and get me, tough guy. I don’t give a damn. It won’t stop me from standing up for California.”

Protesters flee tear gas grenades

At 8 p.m. local time on Sunday, authorities declared the protest to be an unlawful assembly and moved in aggressively with flash-bangs and tear gas grenades.

That sent hundreds of people running, their eyes streaming with tears. Helicopters clattered overhead as protesters fled the area to the honking of car horns and periodic cheers.

According to preliminary information, police said at least 10 people have been arrested and three officers were injured during protests on Sunday. California Highway Patrol arrested 17 people on the 101 Freeway, police said. On Saturday, police arrested 29 people.

Recent ICE sweeps sparked protests in Los Angeles

The protests began Friday after Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps in the area resulted in more than 40 arrests. Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, defended the raids and said those arrested by ICE included a Vietnamese man convicted of second-degree murder, an Ecuadoran man convicted of possession of five kilograms of cocaine, and a Filipino man convicted of sexual offenses.

“These rioters in Los Angeles are fighting to keep rapists, murderers and other violent criminals loose on Los Angeles streets,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “Instead of rioting, they should be thanking ICE officers every single day who wake up and make our communities safer.”

60 arrested after San Francisco protest

Protests against immigration enforcement policies were not limited to the Los Angeles area. In San Francisco, a demonstration that drew hundreds ended with violence and about 60 arrests, police said.

“Individuals in the group became violent and began to commit crimes ranging from assault to felony vandalism and causing property damage,” San Francisco police said in a statement. An unlawful assembly was declared and many left the scene while others vandalized buildings and police cars. Two officers suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

“Individuals are always free to exercise their First Amendment rights in San Francisco but violence especially against SFPD officers – will never be tolerated,” the statement said.

Videos show Waymo cars on fire amid LA protests; service reportedly suspended

Los Angeles protesters set fire to Waymo self-driving cars

Photos and videos show several Waymo self-driving cars being torched during the protests. The LAPD said one street had been closed indefinitely after “multiple autonomous vehicles” had been set on fire.

Footage shared on social media captured several of Waymo driverless taxis engulfed in flames in the June 8 protests. Others were vandalized with messages against Trump and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, videos show.

Waymo suspended service in downtown Los Angeles and “will not be serving any rides in the protest area until it is deemed safe,” a company spokesperson told NBC News.

− Melina Khan

Earlier, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju on Thursday tabled the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday, hours after its passage in the Lok Sabha.

The lower house passed the contentious bill early Thursday following a 12-hour debate. The ruling NDA defended the legislation as beneficial for minorities, while the opposition called it “anti-Muslim.”

The Bill was passed after all amendments moved by the opposition members were rejected by voice votes. A division of votes saw 288 members in favour and 232 against.

Here are the key reactions from the debate in RS

Intitiating the debate on the bill, the minister said, “We consulted with state governments, minority commissions, and Waqf boards before introducing this bill in Parliament.

A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was formed, consisting of representatives from both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha Despite some concerns regarding the JPC’s consultations, the bill was passed in the Lok Sabha yesterday after extensive discussions.”

Rijiju highlighted the vast scale of Waqf properties in India.

“As of today, there are 8.72 lakh Waqf properties. In 2006, the Sachar Committee estimated the earnings from 4.9 lakh Waqf properties at Rs 12,000 crore. One can only imagine the income these properties must be generating now,” he said.

He also urged the Congress and its allies to support the Waqf Amendment Bill. “I would like to appeal to the Congress and other parties to come forward and support this bill,” he said.

Addressing concerns raised by the Opposition, Rijiju emphasized that the bill does not intend to target any religious group. He stated that the proposed amendments aim to enhance transparency and efficiency in the management of Waqf properties while ensuring legal recourse for affected parties.

The minister also announced that the bill would be renamed as the UMEED (Unified Waqf Management Empowerment Efficiency and Development) Bill. He reiterated that the Waqf board would have an oversight role rather than direct control over Waqf properties, countering allegations that the bill seeks to curtail minority rights.

The Opposition, led by the Congress and its allies, has strongly opposed the bill, alleging that it could lead to the government taking control of historic religious properties. Opposition leaders argued that provisions requiring validation of land ownership could be used to dispossess Waqf institutions of their assets. Meanwhile, Rijiju urged all parties to support the bill, highlighting that it addresses longstanding governance issues left unresolved by previous governments.

Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain slams Waqf bill, calls it anti-Muslim and unconstitutional

Congress leader Syed Naseer Hussain called the bill anti-Muslim and accused the BJP of using it to stoke communal tensions. Initiating the discussion, he alleged that the ruling party was misleading the country and forcing the bill through Parliament without incorporating any recommendations from the Opposition members in the Joint Parliamentary Committee. He argued that the bill seeks to treat Muslims as second-grade citizens and questioned whether the government intends to spy on Waqf institutions or undermine their autonomy. He also criticized the demand for proof of Waqf properties, stating that age-old religious sites exist as Waqf by user, just like temples and gurudwaras, and asked how the government expects proof for such historic places.

Hussain accused the BJP of running a misinformation campaign for the past six months to justify the bill. He said the ruling party first engages in communal polarization and then accuses the Opposition of doing the same. He claimed that the government is looking for excuses to create disputes and provoke riots for electoral gains. Asking whether the government does not trust the Muslim community to run its own institutions, he said this legislation is unfair and targeted specifically at them.

Was Pakistan’s military gambit across the Durand Line a clever maneuver or a spectacular miscalculation? The question hangs heavy over the volatile and still-contested Afghan-Pakistani border as a dangerous cycle of escalation unfolds. In December 2024, Pakistan launched airstrikes in Afghanistan’s Khost and Paktika provinces, targeting suspected Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan strongholds. The ruling Afghan Taliban’s aggressive rhetoric — threatening retaliation — was followed by border skirmishes as Taliban forces fired across the Durand line. The Tehrik-e-Taliban answered with a brazen escalation of its own: the abduction of several Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission civilian workers, raising the stakes in a dangerous cycle of action and reaction. Pakistan’s cross-border strikes — its second operation in 2024 — raised widespread concerns about Pakistan’s pivot to a more aggressive posture, deteriorating Pakistani-Taliban relations, and the potential for outbreak of war. Why would Pakistan risk such military escalation at this precarious moment — amid overlapping political, socioeconomic, and security crises — and how should we interpret its seemingly contradictory pattern of alternating between negotiations, military action, and diplomatic overtures?

What Went Wrong?

The Taliban’s return to power was welcomed by Pakistani leaders. As Pakistan’s closest strategic ally, the Taliban benefitted from Islamabad’s material and logistical support along with sanctuaries during its two-decade struggle against the Western-backed Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. One might think, as Pakistani leadership did, that the Afghan Taliban would return the favor by being responsive to Pakistan’s security concerns about cross-border militant attacks. This expectation, however, proved to be mistaken. Post-2021, the Afghan Taliban’s reluctance to get involved was on full display, when they framed the problem as an internal security matter for Pakistan. The Taliban’s support for the Tehrik-e-Taliban, which was founded in 2007, is rooted not only in their shared Pashtun identity and ideology, but crucially in their years of joint battlefield experience in Afghanistan. For years, Tehrik-e-Taliban militants served as a force multiplier for the Afghan Taliban, participating in combat operations against Afghan government forces, lending manpower, tactical expertise, and logistical assistance. This alliance has created a security conundrum for Pakistan: its Afghan ally now shelters its most lethal domestic threat. This is a rich irony, given Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban in large part to provide itself with “strategic depth.”

A New Bargaining Position

Recognizing that both the Taliban and Tehrik-e-Taliban’s strategic calculus has fundamentally shifted after the U.S. withdrawal — with the Taliban asserting greater autonomy and the Tehrik-e-Taliban exploiting its Afghan sanctuary — Pakistan has recalibrated its bargaining position aligned with its new geopolitical realities. Pakistan’s airstrikes constitute a form of strategic signaling, aimed at both the Tehrik-e-Taliban and Afghan Taliban, within a broader framework of hybrid coercion that combines military force with economic and diplomatic pressure. By employing calculated, costly signaling that risks retaliation, Pakistan seeks to probe strategic boundaries, extract information about resolve from elicited responses, and redefine the bargaining landscape.

However, both the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban have countered Pakistani coercion with their own sources of leverage, limiting its effectiveness. Pakistan’s inability to extract meaningful concessions has introduced a cycle of retaliatory violence, heightening the risk of miscalculations between distrustful parties. The real risk here is that a protracted conflict between an intransigent Taliban, violent Tehrik-e-Taliban, and the Pakistani state will inflict severe socioeconomic and human costs on Pakistan, triggering cascading effects — from deeper political instability to a surge in militancy and illicit cross-border activities. This could plunge Pakistan deeper into its crises, with destabilizing spillover effects for the broader region. For the United States and regional actors, understanding Pakistan’s evolving strategy is critical — especially as Washington considers counter-terrorism engagement with either the Taliban or Pakistan. While the success of Pakistan’s approach depends on sustaining pressure without depleting resources or triggering escalation, any international intervention could significantly reshape these actors’ strategic calculations.

Why Strike Now?

The precipitating trigger for the December strikes appeared to be a Tehrik-e-Taliban attack that killed 16 Pakistani soldiers. However, the broader strategic context is critical to understanding these developments. The December strikes occurred during what has been Pakistan’s bloodiest year in over a decade, compounded by severe political instability, protests, and economic woes. In 2024 alone, Pakistan recorded 685 security personnel and over 900 civilian fatalities, underscoring the country’s ongoing battle against a three-pronged militant threat: the increasingly aggressive Tehrik-e-Taliban, Baloch insurgents, and the relatively weakened yet operational Islamic State Khorasan Province.

This deteriorating security environment coincides with a crisis of economic stability and institutional legitimacy. The Pakistani army is facing unprecedented levels of public discontent. Widely perceived as expanding its economic dominance while simultaneously clashing with Imran Khan — who remains behind bars — the military is also accused of suppressing civilians and journalists, and engaging in censorship under the guise of counter-terrorism. This erosion of legitimacy further complicates Pakistan’s dealings with the Afghan Taliban and Tehrik-e-Taliban, as both parties are acutely aware of Pakistan’s vulnerabilities, creating a conundrum: Pakistan must counter this perception of fragility and assert its authority — but doing so without further escalation presents a delicate and complex challenge.

In any strategic multi-party negotiation, the “bargaining range” refers to the spectrum of terms each party is willing to accept in a deal — or agreements that are perceived as preferable to the costs of war. However, in reality, this range is often opaque and fraught with complexities, as parties conceal hidden agendas, harbor misperceptions, or operate with deep mistrust. These challenges make negotiated agreements not only difficult but also inherently fragile. In the post-2021 era, Pakistan’s kinetic actions serve to relay its resolve through credible threats — positioning itself to bargain from a position of strength subsequently.

Pakistan’s Hybrid Coercion

Pakistan’s approach to dealing with the Taliban and the Tehrik-e-Taliban has shifted to combine kinetic and non-kinetic tools designed to achieve two interconnected objectives: degrading Tehrik-e-Taliban’s capabilities while raising the costs for the Afghan Taliban’s continued support of the group. This strategy is reminiscent of hybrid coercion, where states combine military, economic, and diplomatic instruments to manipulate adversaries’ cost-benefit calculations. Unlike “maximum pressure” campaigns that apply overwhelming force across all domains, hybrid coercion represents a more adaptive and deliberately ambiguous approach, coercing opponents into concessions while avoiding outright conflict.

Precision Strikes as Coercive Signaling

Pakistan’s targeted airstrikes in Afghanistan exemplify the use of limited force to compel change in both Tehrik-e-Taliban and the Afghan Taliban’s behavior through the threat of punishment while avoiding full-scale conflict. Beyond their tactical impact on Tehrik-e-Taliban’s infrastructure, the December airstrikes embodied strategic signaling. To the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani strikes relayed information about the consequences of continued support for Tehrik-e-Taliban. Demonstration of Pakistan’s willingness to act unilaterally pressures the Taliban to reassess their tolerance for Tehrik-e-Taliban’s activities — with their response revealing the depth of their commitment to protecting the group or willingness to risk Pakistani angst. To the Tehrik-e-Taliban, the strikes constituted a credible threat, reinforcing Pakistan’s determination and capability to counter the group — with the Tehrik-e-Taliban’s retaliation choices indicating their threshold for absorbing costs. To domestic audiences, these strikes serve as a reassurance of the military’s commitment to safeguarding national security and civilians, buffering the government and army’s legitimacy.

Leveraging Structural Economic Dependence

Pakistan’s control of critical border crossings (e.g., Torkham and Chaman) provides asymmetric leverage, with about 40 percent of Afghanistan’s customs revenue flowing through these nodes — a crucial source of Taliban funding. By weaponizing these economic dependencies through new bank guarantees, import restrictions, and tariffs, the Pakistani state has sought to leverage economic statecraft to undermine the Taliban’s revenue, thereby increasing the costs of the their intransigence. The 10 percent duty on Afghan transit goods directly impacts the Taliban’s revenue, but has also triggered protests among Afghan traders, creating another source of pressure point for the Taliban.

Diplomatic Engagement and Pressure

Pakistan pursues a dual-track approach of engaging the Taliban diplomatically while simultaneously naming and shaming their support for the Tehrik-e-Taliban in international forums. In August 2024, Pakistan’s former special representative to Afghanistan, Asif Durrani, publicly stated that the Taliban “will have to come clean about their image as ideological cousins of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. This is the minimum for a durable [bilateral] relationship that [they] can do,” he stressed. Yet alongside this, the Pakistanis have always circled back to negotiations, working through traditional back channels.

Border Management and Migration Statecraft

States often manipulate cross-border flows for political goals, also referred to as “migration statecraft.” Pakistan’s tighter controls and forced repatriation of thousands of Afghan refugees is designed pressure the Taliban indirectly, again raising the costs of supporting the Tehrik-e-Taliban. Other measures have included enhanced surveillance to monitor cross-border activities, stricter travel documentation requirements, along with a serving of accusations that elements of the Afghan diaspora are actively involved in anti-Pakistan activities.

While Pakistan’s actions have drawn international scrutiny with respect to the treatment of Afghans and widespread abuse, these efforts collectively signal a clear message to the Taliban: cooperation comes with benefits, but non-compliance has tangible consequences. The effectiveness of these tools ultimately depends on how both the Afghan Taliban and Tehrik-e-Taliban interpret and respond to them. As discussed below, their reactions reveal complex calculations shaped by their own capabilities, constraints, and strategic priorities in the post-2021 environment.

The Afghan Taliban’s Calculated Ambiguity

The Taliban’s reactions to Pakistan’s hybrid coercion strategy reveal a complex calculus shaped by competing domestic and international imperatives. Their responses have ranged from denial and aggressive rhetoric, including cross-border shelling, to attempts at pacifying Pakistan through facilitating negotiations and relocating Tehrik-e-Taliban members away from the border. The recent decision to relocate the group’s operatives to Ghazni province illustrates this calculated ambiguity — a symbolic gesture aimed at appeasing Pakistan without fundamentally severing ties with the Tehrik-e-Taliban. At the same time, the Taliban continue to accuse Pakistan of sponsoring anti-Taliban elements.

This apparent inconsistency reflects the Taliban’s broader strategy of maximizing leverage while minimizing risks. Despite their triumphant stance following the U.S. withdrawal, the Afghan government’s collapse, and growing international engagement — including overtures from China, India, and Russia — the Taliban remain wary of escalation with Pakistan. However, the Taliban also possess their own hybrid coercion tools. Their control over trade routes, ties to militant networks, and emerging economic relationships — particularly with China — enable them to push back against coercion while maintaining strategic ambiguity.

Their responses to the Pakistan-Tehrik-e-Taliban conflict relay specific signals to multiple audiences. To Pakistan, the Afghan Taliban seek to signal a willingness to cooperate without conceding too much, asserting their autonomy and independence. To internal factions and allies like the Tehrik-e-Taliban, they send a message that while symbolic gestures may be made to placate external powers, the ideological alignment and objectives of the movement remain intact. To regional powers, they aim to signal their potential as an economic partner and a desire for investment, while subtly asserting that they are no longer beholden to Pakistani influence.

However, the Taliban’s bargaining position has key vulnerabilities. While no longer reliant on Pakistani sanctuaries, they remain vulnerable to Pakistan’s ability to impose substantial economic and political costs — at least in the short term until they find alternative economic partners. This vulnerability was laid bare in March 2024, when a senior Taliban official reportedly stated, “Depending on a country that has been heavily involved in Afghanistan’s affairs in such a critical area was not the right thing for Afghanistan.”

Additionally, the Taliban face significant internal constraints: any decisive crackdown on the Tehrik-e-Taliban risks alienating key factions within their own movement, potentially driving disaffected fighters into the arms of their domestic rival, Islamic State Khorasan. Ultimately, the Taliban’s cautious balancing act between appeasing Pakistan and maintaining ties with the Tehrik-e-Taliban reflects their recognition that mismanaging either relationship could undermine their domestic authority and international legitimacy. Ironically, Pakistan now finds itself on the receiving end of the same strategic ambiguity it once employed — tolerating or supporting select militant groups while claiming plausible deniability. Pakistan must now navigate a Taliban that is employing similar tactics to preserve its own strategic flexibility.

The Tehrik-e-Taliban’s Strategic Calculus: Maximizing Leverage through Violence

Understanding the Tehrik-e-Taliban’s strategic calculations provides the final piece in this bargaining dynamic. The group’s behavior provides insights into its intent, priorities, and self-perception as a key player in the region. Despite decades of pressure, the group has not only endured but expanded its influence, positioning itself as a resilient and formidable adversary. Its ability to rebuild its foundation, consolidate power through mergers with other militant factions has reinforced its image as a unified and enduring force. Through a deliberate strategy of alternating between extreme violence, short-lived ceasefires, and negotiations, the group continuously tests the resolve and limitations of the Pakistani state.

The Tehrik-e-Taliban employs multiple tactics to reinforce its bargaining position. By maintaining hardline demands — such as reversing the merger of Federally Administered Tribal Areas into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or refusal to disarm — the group signals its confidence in achieving long-term goals through violence rather than concessions. This stance is also indicative of the Tehrik-e-Taliban’s belief that a prolonged conflict is less damaging to the group than acquiescing to Pakistan’s terms. The Tehrik-e-Taliban’s rigid approach to negotiations serves multiple purposes: the group projects strength to its adversaries, maintains cohesion among rank-and-file members, and demonstrates to potential supporters that it remains committed to its ideological and territorial ambitions. While engaging in talks allows the group to portray itself as a rational actor, its maximalist demands and unwillingness to offer meaningful concessions suggest negotiations serve primarily tactical purposes. The Tehrik-e-Taliban’s lack of genuine compromise likely stems from fundamental commitment problems — the group may doubt the Pakistani military’s willingness to credibly guarantee future promises, particularly given the history of broken agreements between the two sides. While the Tehrik-e-Taliban is frequently blamed for breaching past peace agreements, its leaders have also accused the Pakistani government and military of failing to uphold certain commitments, leading to mutual distrust.

Ultimately, the Tehrik-e-Taliban exploits opportunities for dialogue to consolidate strength and secure short-term gains like prisoner releases or operational reprieves, without making substantive concessions. The group’s ideological rigidity also relays unwavering resolve to its followers, mitigating the chance of defections to other groups such as the Islamic State or splintering. Meanwhile, its expanding campaign of violence against Pakistani security personnel and military-run businesses serve as costly signals — risking retaliation to demonstrate the group’s capabilities and Pakistan’s vulnerabilities. However, the Tehrik-e-Taliban’s reliance on violence as its primary bargaining tool also exposes its key vulnerabilities. Most immediately, the group remains in part dependent on cross-border sanctuaries in Afghanistan, making it susceptible to shifts in Taliban support under international pressure. The group’s increasingly lethal tactics, especially the use of suicide attacks, risk triggering widespread local backlash and alienating local populations. While the group attempts to justify collateral damage as unintentional, mounting civilian deaths could alienate tribal communities and undermine its narrative of fighting for Islamic governance. And finally, its strategy of launching highly provocative attacks on Pakistan’s security forces could trigger a more aggressive Pakistani response that could elicit international backing. While the group has proven resilient, its heavy reliance on violence and maximalist demands may ultimately prove self-defeating. The Tehrik-e-Taliban’s calculation that it can sustain a war of attrition against the Pakistani state while maintaining cross-border havens, local support, and organizational cohesion remains untested.

Strategic Implications and Risks

While Pakistan’s hybrid coercion strategy aims to reshape both the Afghan Taliban and Tehrik-e-Taliban’s behavior, it introduces significant risks. Most critically, signaling resolve through military force could lead to miscalculations on either side, leading to disproportionate retaliation, further escalation of tensions, and a persistent cycle of tit-for-tat violence. The Taliban’s continued resistance to Pakistan’s coercion is likely to result in another protracted and costly conflict between the Tehrik-e-Taliban and Pakistan, which could entail devastating costs like previous counter-terrorism campaigns. Prolonged military engagements not only impose significant economic and human costs, fueling domestic unrest, but they are likely to embolden other militant groups beyond the Tehrik-e-Taliban — such as Baloch separatists, the Islamic State, or sectarian outfits. Additionally, increased conflict along the border could drive a surge in illicit activities, including arms trafficking and cross-border militancy, further influencing security dynamics.

Pakistan faces three key challenges that render its hybrid coercion strategy high-risk and potentially ineffective. First, escalating military action risks prompting the Taliban to defect from their current posture of cautious engagement with Pakistan and realign with regional powers such as India, Russia, and Iran, further undermining Pakistan’s leverage. Second, increased Tehrik-e-Taliban attacks in response to Pakistani pressure could trigger domestic blowback, exacerbate domestic instability, and deepen the domestic population’s grievances with the state. Third, Pakistan’s coercion strategy assumes the Taliban will prioritize economic interests over ideological and tribal bonds with the Tehrik-e-Taliban — an assumption that remains untested and could prove costly if wrong.

For the United States, understanding Pakistan’s strategic evolution is critical within the context of a Taliban-governed Afghanistan and an emboldened Tehrik-e-Taliban. Through escalation, Pakistan is attempting to reposition itself against two actors whose strategic calculus has shifted fundamentally after the U.S. withdrawal. Pakistan’s strategy is not to pursue total war, but to make it costlier for the Taliban to support the Tehrik-e-Taliban and demonstrate sufficient resolve to extract better terms in subsequent negotiations. The success of Pakistan’s approach, however, is contingent upon its ability to sustain pressure without overextending its resources and managing escalation risks. This precarious balance suggests that any external intervention — whether through direct support to Pakistan or counter-terrorism engagement with the Taliban — could significantly alter these actors’ strategic calculations and behavior. Any shift in U.S. policy should carefully weigh the risk of reinforcing adversarial alignments or inadvertently deepening Pakistan’s security dilemma, which could further entrench instability than mitigate it.

Amira Jadoon, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at Clemson University, specializing in international security, counter-terrorism strategies and political violence. She has published extensively on militant groups survival strategies in South and Central Asia and is the author of the book The Islamic State in Afghanistan and Pakistan: Strategic Alliances and Rivalries (Lynne Rienner, 2023).

Image: Colin Cooke via Wikimedia Commons

Summary Prime ministers and presidents gathered in Brussels

Agree defence spending plan, support for Ukraine

Defence push driven by fears of Russia, worries about Trump

Ukrainian president attended summit

BRUSSELS, March 6 (Reuters) – European leaders on Thursday backed plans to spend more on defence and continue to stand by Ukraine in a world upended by Donald Trump ‘s reversal of U.S. policies.

The European Union’s defence summit in Brussels took place amid fears that Russia, emboldened by its war in Ukraine , may attack an EU country next and that Europe can no longer rely on the U.S. to come to its aid.

Sign up here.

“Today we have shown that the European Union is rising to the challenge, building the Europe of defence and standing with Ukraine shoulder to shoulder,” the chairman of the meeting Antonio Costa told reporters.

EU leaders hailed the European Commission’s proposals this week to give them fiscal flexibility on defence spending, and to jointly borrow up to 150 billion euros ($160 billion) to lend to EU governments to spend on their militaries.

In a joint statement agreed by all 27 member states, the leaders called on their ministers to examine these proposals in detail urgently.

“Europe must take up this challenge, this arms race. And it must win it,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said at a special defence summit in Brussels.

“Europe as a whole is truly capable of winning any military, financial, economic confrontation with Russia – we are simply stronger,” Tusk said.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who on Wednesday had told French voters that Russia was a threat to France and Europe, said all this was just a first step.

“Whatever happens in Ukraine, we need to build autonomous defence capacities in Europe,” he said after the EU summit.

SUPPORTING UKRAINE

The EU leaders also voiced support for Ukraine, but that statement was agreed without Hungary’s nationalist leader Viktor Orban, a Trump ally , who is also cultivating ties with Moscow.

In their statement, the 26 other EU leaders stressed that there can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine, and vowed to continue to give it aid, according to a recent draft.

Item 1 of 12 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen speak to the media as they attend a European Union leaders special summit to discuss Ukraine and European defence, in Brussels, Belgium March 6, 2025. REUTERS/Stephanie Lecocq [1/12] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen speak to the media as they attend a European Union leaders special summit to discuss Ukraine and European defence, in Brussels, Belgium March 6, 2025…. Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab Read more

“We are here to defend Ukraine,” Costa said as he and European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen, both smiling broadly, warmly welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to the summit, in sharp contrast with the clash between Trump and Zelenskiy in the Oval Office last week.

But decades of reliance on U.S. protection, divergences on funding and on how France’s nuclear deterrence could be used for Europe showed how difficult it would be for the EU to fill the void left by Washington after it froze military aid to Ukraine.

Washington provided more than 40% of military aid to Ukraine last year, according to NATO, some of which Europe could not easily replace. Some leaders still held out hope, in public at least, that Washington could be coaxed back into the fold.

“We must ensure, with cool and wise heads, that U.S. support is also guaranteed in the coming months and years, because Ukraine is also dependent on their support for its defence,” Germany’s outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz said.

Macron said that leaders backed Zelenskiy’s call for them to support the idea of a truce between Russian and Ukrainian forces in the air and at sea. Zelenskiy told EU leaders such a truce would be a chance to test Moscow’s will to end its three-year invasion.

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE?

In a sign of the gravity of the moment, Macron has said that France was open to discussing extending the protection offered by its nuclear arsenal to its European partners.

This was met with cautiously positive reactions . Some, like Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nauseda, said such a “nuclear umbrella would serve as really very serious deterrence toward Russia.” Poland said the idea was worth discussing while some, like the Czechs, stressed the need to keep the U.S. involved.

Trump has said Europe must take more responsibility for its security. On Thursday he cast doubt on his willingness to defend Washington’s NATO allies, saying that he would not do so if they are not paying enough for their own defense.

His decision to shift from staunch U.S. support for Ukraine to a more conciliatory stance towards Moscow has deeply alarmed Europeans who see Russia as the biggest threat.

Underlining the level of concern, the parties aiming to form Germany’s next government on Tuesday agreed to lift constitutional limits on borrowing to fund defence spending.

Elsewhere in Europe, Norway will more than double its financial pledge to Ukraine this year while also hiking its own defence spending, the prime minister said.

($1 = 0.9271 euros)

Reporting by Andrew Gray, Lili Bayer, Michel Rose, Andreas Rinke, Jan Strupczewski; Additional reporting by Tiffany Vermeylen, Jason Hovet, Alan Charlish, Charlotte Van Campenhout, Makini Brice, Dominique Vidalon; Writing by Ingrid Melander; Editing by Peter Graff, Jan Strupczewski and Andrea Ricci

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Share X

Facebook

Linkedin

Email

Link Purchase Licensing Rights

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled an unprecedented $840 billion plan to increase EU defense spending on March 4 as the continent continues to grapple with the dramatic changes taking place in the international security landscape amid US President Donald Trump’s new foreign policy agenda. “Europe is ready to massively boost its defense spending,” she stated in Brussels, noting that this was necessary to back Ukraine against ongoing Russian aggression and also “to address the long-term need to take on much more responsibility for our own European security.”

EU leaders are expected to discuss the proposed package at an emergency meeting later this week, marking the latest in a flurry of recent summits held to bolster European security and expand support for Ukraine. This sense of urgency reflects mounting alarm in European capitals as the Trump administration signals its intention to reduce the United States commitment to Europe and announces a pause in military assistance to Ukraine. With faith in transatlantic unity now rapidly evaporating, Europe is waking up to a new geopolitical reality and recognizing that it must now be prepared to defend itself.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Throughout Europe, there is an acute awareness that the continent is not yet fully prepared to meet the threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s revanchist Russia. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the largest war in Europe since World War II, is currently in its fourth year. Meanwhile, the Kremlin continues to escalate its broader hybrid war against the West. There are now growing concerns that unless Russia can be stopped in Ukraine, Moscow will seek to exploit uncertainly over the US position in order to expand its campaign against a vulnerable Europe.

In this fast-evolving geopolitical environment, European leaders must find the political resolve to translate recent statements of intent into the kind of bold policies necessary to safeguard the continent’s security. This will also require considerable powers of persuasion in order to convince complacent European audiences that security is now a priority. The good news is that on paper at least, Europe possesses the resources to assert its strength and stand alone against Russia.

The economic disparity between the European Union and Russia is particularly striking. In 2024, the combined GDP of EU member states reached $19 trillion, dwarfing Russia’s approximately $2 trillion economy. According to IMF data from February 2025, Russia does not even rank among the world’s top ten economies, trailing behind the United States, China, Germany, Japan, India, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, and Brazil. Although the Russian economy has withstood sanctions imposed in response to the invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing war has left it overextended.

In terms of population, the EU’s 449 million citizens significantly outnumber Russia’s 145 million. Moreover, Russia’s longstanding demographic crisis has worsened in recent years. Up to one million Russians are believed to have emigrated since 2022, representing the largest exodus since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Estimated Russian battlefield losses in Ukraine numbering hundreds of thousands are further undermining the country’s already deteriorating demographic outlook.

Europe holds a significant edge over Russia in military spending. In 2024, EU nations collectively spent $457 billion on defense compared to Russia’s $146 billion defense budget. While Russia has moved its economy to a wartime footing and is set to continue increasing military spending, many European countries have recently committed to boosting their own defense budgets. There has long been reluctance among some NATO members to meet the alliance’s two percent target, but French President Emmanuel Macron and others are now calling on Europeans to dramatically increase annual defense spending to over three percent of GDP.

While Russia retains a strategic advantage in nuclear capabilities, the UK and France possess nuclear arsenals that can provide Europe with a credible deterrent. Europe has been steadily boosting military output since 2022, with share prices in European weapons producers surging to new highs in recent days in expectation of further investment in the continent’s defense industries. In terms of conventional military strength, the balance of power is more nuanced. Europe, including the UK, fields around 1.47 million active duty military personnel, according to Bruegel and SIPRI data from 2024. In comparison, Russia is reportedly working to expand its active duty force to 1.5 million troops.

In the realm of economic warfare, Russia faces significant constraints. Russian energy exports to Europe were once a key Kremlin tool but this leverage has significantly diminished since the onset of the Ukraine invasion. Instead, the United States has emerged as a key exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), enabling European countries to diversify away from Russia. While Russian energy exports to Europe continue, the continent increasingly relies on US, Norwegian, and Algerian gas.

Given the overall balance of power between Europe and Russia, European leaders have ample reason to adopt a more resolute stance. By leveraging its economic strength, demographic advantage, and military potential, Europe can confidently counter Putin’s imperial ambitions and provide Ukraine with the support it needs to resist Russia’s invasion. The onus now is on European leaders to transform these strategic advantages into effective policies and actions. With sufficient political will, Europe can defend itself and back Ukraine against Russia.

Agnia Grigas is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and the author of The New Geopolitics of Natural Gas, Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire and other books.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East. Learn more

Follow us on social media

and support our work support our work

Image: Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Czech Republic’s Prime Minister Petr Fiala, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof, Romania’s Interim President Ilie Bolojan, Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Hakan Fidan, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte attend the European leaders’ summit to discuss European security and Ukraine, at Lancaster House in London, Britain. March 2, 2025. (NTB/Javad Parsa/via REUTERS)