World
2024: Top 10 defining moments in the European Parliament
From crucial votes on nature and migration, to powerful speeches and hard debates: the year saw drama and upheaval in the Eurochamber
2024 was a year of change for the European Parliament, shaken up by the elections in July.
Beyond the vote, which significantly modified its composition and balance of powers, here are some moments to remember from this year.
1. Farmers’ protests reach Parliament
The beginning of 2025 was marked by massive protests of farmers across Europe, from Germany and France to Poland and Spain.
Among their targets were the EU’s commercial deal with Mercosur countries – at that time negotiations were still ongoing – and some European environmental policies affecting the agrifood sector.
On 1 February, a thousand farmers from several countries arrived in Brussels. After a night procession on their tractors, they occupied the square in front of the European Parliament for an entire day, burning hay, spreading manure and damaging the square.
2. ‘Stop being boring to defeat Putin’
One of the most powerful and evocative interventions in the European Parliament was Yulia Navalnaya’s in February. She took the floor in the hemicycle in Strasbourg days after her husband, Alexei Navalny, died under suspicious circumstances while imprisoned in Russia.
Navalnaya paid tribute to the opposition leader’s courage and attacked Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, receiving a general standing ovation from MEPs.
“If you really want to defeat Putin, you have to become an innovator. You have to stop being boring,” Navalnaya told MEPs.
“You cannot defeat him by thinking he is a man of principle who has morals and rules. He is not like that. And Alexei realised that a long time ago. You are not dealing with a politician but with a bloody monster.”
3. The final battle on Nature Restoration Law
The Nature Restoration Law, a proposal to gradually rehabilitate the EU’s land and sea areas degraded by climate change and human activity was one of the most contentious issues in the European Parliament in the final part of the legislature.
European People’s Party (EPP) began a full-throttle campaign to bring down the law, arguing it would imperil food production, increase retail prices and devastate the traditional livelihoods of farmers.
EPP talking points were backed by right-wing forces, but fully contested by progressive MEPs, environmental organisations, legal scholars and even multinationals, who said restoring nature was indispensable to maintain a prosperous economy and sustainable supply chains.
The EPP even pressed on with a controversial social media push, going as far as claiming the legislation would turn the city of Rovaniemi, where Santa Claus lives, into a forest.
In February, the Parliament eventually approved a watered-down version of the law with 329 votes in favour and 275 against. It entails the restoration of at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and of all ecosystems in need by 2050.
4. The long-sought vote on the major migration policy reform
In April 2024, the European Parliament approved the wide-reaching reform of the European Union’s migration and asylum policy almost four years after the European Commission had proposed it.
The “Pact on migration and asylum” was supported by the three major Parliament groups: European People’s Party (EPP), Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe, albeit with some dissidents.
The right-wing parties, the Greens/EFA and the Left group voted against. The latter even protested outside Parliament before the vote, staging a “funeral for the right to asylum” that it claimed the new rules would usher in.
New rules foresee a solidarity mechanism to share the burdens of welcoming asylum seekers, through a redistribution among the member states which can be replaced with financial contributions. But they also entail stricter border controls and faster procedures for examining asylum requests and carrying out the repatriation of migrants. The Pact will be fully in force from mid-2026.
5. The Parliament backs abortion as an EU fundamental right
Even symbolic votes could cause hard clashes in the European Parliament. In April, the Chamber approved a resolution to include the right to abortion in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
As the topic is very divisive, the Parliament split. The resolution was approved with 336 votes in favour, 163 against, and 39 abstentions. The right-wing groups Identity and Democracy and European Conservatives and Reformists voted against, as did the majority of the centre-right conservative European People’s Party, the largest group of the Parliament.
However, the vote did not have a binding effect. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU requires the unanimous agreement of all member states to be changed. The rules for terminating pregnancy also fall within health legislation, which is the exclusive competence of EU countries.
6. The final rush before the European elections
Members of the European Parliament often run to the last available moment to approve important pieces of legislation. In its last session before the elections, the EP held 89 votes on legislative files, plus seven non-legislative resolutions, marking a record for the entire legislature.
Among them, there were the right-to-repair directive, a regulation to prohibit products made with forced labour on the Union market, new rules for digital platform workers, a bill on packaging reduction, and the first-ever European law against gender-based violence.
7. The ‘Venezuela majority’ in Europe
After the vote, the new European Parliament soon revealed its changed balance of powers, even if in a mostly symbolic vote. In September, the Strasbourg hemicycle voted to recognise Venezuela’s exiled presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia as the “legitimate and democratically elected president”.
The resolution, which carried no legal weight, was backed by the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), the right-wing nationalist European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the newly formed far-right Patriots for Europe, marking the first time in the new legislature that mainstream conservatives joined ranks with the more right-wing groups.
This alliance was renamed the “Venezuela majority”, following the subject of the vote, and resurfaced during the decision to award González and Venezuela’s opposition leader María Corina Machado the Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.
8. Von der Leyen vs Orbán: showdown in the Parliament
The first October plenary session saw a fiery debate pitching European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen against Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán, who took the stage in the European Parliament a few months after a controversial visit to Moscow made while Hungary occupied the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU.
The war in Ukraine was one of the bones of contention, with the Hungarian leader claiming that the EU had adopted a mistaken policy on the war and the Commission president launching a personal attack on him without mentioning his name: “There are still some who blame this war not on the invader but on the invaded.”
9. The unpopular approval of the European Commission
At the end of November, the European Parliament definitively approved the College of Commissioners led by Ursula von der Leyen. But while the vote on the Commission’s President herself in July was a success for von der Leyen, she could barely celebrate the approval of the College.
In November, only 370 MEPs voted in favour, representing 54% of all votes cast and 51% of the total number of members, 719.
Several defections came from among the centre-right European People’s Party, the centre-left Socialists and Democrats and the liberal Renew Europe, lowering support for the Commission, which was “saved” by the votes of part of the European Conservatives and Reformists and the Greens/EFA group.
Indeed, for one reason or another, only one in two lawmakers has endorsed the new College of Commissioners.
10. Weirdness and oddities in the Eurochamber
2024 also witnessed some surreal moments during the debates in the Parliament: a dog barking in the hemicycle, an Irish MEP insulting an Italian football club, and a Slovak MEP releasing a dove as a gesture of peace.
World
Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Pope Leo XIV said Saturday that remarks he made this week in which he said the “world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants” were not directed at President Donald Trump, a report said.
The pope, speaking onboard a flight to Angola during his 10-day tour of Africa, said reporting about his comments “has not been accurate in all its aspects” and his speech “was prepared two weeks ago, well before the president ever commented on myself and on the message of peace that I am promoting,” according to Reuters.
The news outlet cited the pope as saying his comments were not aimed at Trump.
“As it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate the president, which is not in my interest at all,” the pope reportedly said.
’60 MINUTES’ ACCUSED OF USING LEFT-LEANING CARDINALS TO BAIT TRUMP INTO FEUD WITH VATICAN
Pope Leo XIV answers journalists’ questions during his flight from Yaoundé, Cameroon, to Luanda, Angola, Saturday, April 18, 2026. (Luca Zennaro/Pool Photo via AP)
Vice President JD Vance later took to X to thank the pope for clearing the record.
“While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict — and yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen — the reality is often much more complicated,” Vance wrote. “Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day.
“The President — and the entire administration — work to apply those moral principles in a messy world,” he continued. “He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we’ll be in his.”
The vice president’s comments came days after he told Fox News’ Bret Baier on “Special Report” that it would be best for the Vatican to “stick to matters of morality.”
“Let the President of the United States stick to dictating American public policy,” Vance said Tuesday.
Trump last Sunday accused Pope Leo XIV of being “terrible” on foreign policy after the pontiff criticized the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.
“He talks about ‘fear’ of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon.”
POPE LEO SLAMS THOSE WHO ‘MANIPULATE RELIGION’ FOR MILITARY OR POLITICAL GAIN, TRUMP RESPONDS
Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump (Simone Risoluti/Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images; Salwan Georges/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
During a speech in Cameroon on Thursday, the pope said, “We must make a decisive change of course — a true conversion — that will lead us in the opposite direction, onto a sustainable path rich in human fraternity.
“The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants, yet it is held together by a multitude of supportive brothers and sisters.
Pope Leo XIV speaks as he meets with the community of Bamenda at Saint Joseph’s Cathedral in Bamenda on the fourth day of an 11-day apostolic journey to Africa April 16, 2026. (Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.”
Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.
Fox News Digital’s Landon Mion contributed to this report.
World
Bulgaria votes in eighth election in five years
Bulgarians headed to the polls Sunday for the eighth time in five years, with anti-corruption candidate and former president Rumen Radev’s bloc tipped to win.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The European Union’s poorest member has been through a spate of governments since 2021, when large anti-graft rallies brought an end to the conservative government of long-time leader Boyko Borissov.
Eurostat data shows Bulgaria consistently ranks last in the EU by GDP per capita. In 2025, Bulgaria (along with Greece) was at 68% of the EU average.
Radev, who has advocated for renewing ties with Russia and opposes military aid to Ukraine, was president for nine years in the Balkan nation of 6.5 million people.
He stepped down in January to lead newly formed centre-left grouping Progressive Bulgaria, with opinion polls before Sunday’s vote suggesting the bloc could gain 35% of the vote.
The former air force general has said he wants to rid the country of its “oligarchic governance model”, and backed anti-corruption protests in late 2025 that brought down the latest conservative-backed government.
“I’m voting for change,” Decho Kostadinov, 57, told reporters after casting his ballot at a polling station in the capital, Sofia, adding corrupt politicians “should leave — they should take whatever they’ve stolen and get out of Bulgaria”.
Polls are forecasting a surge in voter participation, with more than 3.3 million Bulgarians expected to cast ballots according to the Bulgarian News Agency.
Voting will close at 1700 GMT, with exit polls expected immediately afterwards. Preliminary results are expected on Monday.
‘Preserve what we have’
Borissov’s pro-European GERB party is likely to come second, according to opinion polls, with around 20%, ahead of the liberal PP-DB.
“I’m voting to preserve what we have. We are a democratic country, we live well,” said Elena, an accountant of about 60, who did not give her full name, after casting her vote in Sofia.
Front-runner Radev has slammed the EU’s green energy policy, which he considers naive “in a world without rules”.
He also opposes any Bulgarian efforts to send arms to help Ukraine fight back Russia’s 2022 invasion, though he has said he would not use his country’s veto to block Brussels’ decisions.
Pushing for renewed ties with Russia, Radev denounced a 10-year defence agreement between Bulgaria and Ukraine signed last month – drawing fresh accusations from opponents of being too soft on Moscow.
The ex-president also stoked outrage online for screening images at his final campaign rally of his meetings with world leaders including Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
“We need to close ranks,” he told around 10,000 cheering supporters at the rally, presenting his party as a non-corrupt “alternative to the perverse cartel of old-style parties”.
Borissov, who headed the country virtually uninterrupted for close to a decade, has dismissed suggestions that Radev brings something “new”.
At a rally of his party earlier this week, he insisted GERB had “fulfilled the dreams of the 1990s” with such achievements as the country joining the eurozone this year.
‘No one to vote for’
Radev is aiming for an absolute majority in the 240-seat parliament.
A lack of trust in politics has affected voter turnout, which slumped to 39% in the last election in 2024.
But with Radev rallying voters, high turnout is expected this time, according to analyst Boryana Dimitrova from the Alpha Research polling institute.
Miglena Boyadjieva, a taxi driver of about 55, said she always votes, but the “problem is that there is no one to vote for”.
“You vote for one person and get others. The system has to change,” she told reporters.
Political parties have called on Bulgarians to show up for the polls, also to curb the impact of vote buying.
In recent weeks, police have seized more than one million euros in raids against vote buying in stepped-up operations.
They have also detained hundreds of people, including local councillors and mayors.
World
How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran
A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.
Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s
Carries 110 pounds of explosives
One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.
Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.
Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.
Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.
In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.
Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.
Air-based strikes
In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.
A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Two to three interceptors fired per drone
These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.
The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.
Anti-drone defense systems
One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.
A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.
When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.
Ship-based anti-missile defenses
Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.
Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.
“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.
Ground-based anti-missile defenses
The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Patriot missile defense system
Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.
But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.
Ground-based guns
Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.
A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar
Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds
Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.
Interceptor drones
There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.
A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Merops system: Surveyor drone
Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.
The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.
Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.
The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.
Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.
“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”
-
Rhode Island6 minutes agoPulled funding creates a bike path to nowhere. Let’s hope RI fixes it.
-
South-Carolina12 minutes agoMid-amateur from South Carolina wins Terra Cotta Invitational in Florida
-
South Dakota18 minutes agoNature: Prairie chickens in South Dakota
-
Tennessee24 minutes agoTennessee baseball vs Ole Miss score, live updates, start time, Game 3
-
Texas30 minutes agoTexas needs at least $174 billion to avoid water crisis, state says
-
Utah36 minutes agoMultiple earthquakes detected near Kanosh
-
Vermont42 minutes agoWrong-way driver stopped on I-89, charged with DUI
-
Virginia48 minutes agoParachutist Slams into Jumbotron at Virginia Tech Spring Game