In a sign of the depth of concern, President Macron said France was open to discussing extending the protection offered by its nuclear arsenal to its European partners, during an address to the nation on Wednesday.

That followed a call from Friedrich Merz, likely to be Germany’s next chancellor, to discuss increased nuclear sharing.

Europe was facing a “clear and present danger on a scale that none of us have seen in our adult lifetime”, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said, while European Council President António Costa said this was a “defining moment for Ukraine and European security”.

In a letter to European leaders, von der Leyen also said the continent had to “meet the moment” and “unleash our industrial and productive power and direct it to the goal of security”.

On Monday, von der Leyen announced an unprecedented defence package – dubbed ReArm Europe – and said that Europe was ready to “massively” boost its defence spending “with the speed and the ambition that is needed”.

Von der Leyen said the three proposals outlined in the ReArm Europe plan would both support Ukraine and “address the long-term need to take much more responsibility” for European security – likely referring to the fact many Europeans feel the continent can no longer automatically rely on the US to come to its aid.

According to von der Leyen, the plan could free up a total of €800bn ($860bn; £670bn) in defence expenditure.

Many European leaders have signalled their support for swift, decisive action in regards to the continent’s security.

Donald Tusk, Poland’s prime minister, said the Commission’s plan represented “a fundamental shift”, while Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said that the summit would give Europe the opportunity to show “whether it’s just a debate club or whether we can make decisions”.

But dissent from certain European leaders sympathetic to Moscow is expected.

Earlier this week, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico said the EU’s “peace through strength” approach was “unrealistic”.

And in a letter to Costa, Hungary’s Viktor Orban demanded that Ukraine not be mentioned in any written conclusions following the summit.

Orban – who has repeatedly attempted to block EU aid to Ukraine and has praised Trump for “standing bravely for peace” – said there was now a “strategic divide… between the majority of Europe and the USA”.

“One side insists on prolonging the war in Ukraine, while the other seeks an end to the conflict,” he added.

Yet Orban left the door open for a “greater probability for cooperation” with other leaders over issues of common security and defence.

While Thursday’s crisis summit is taking place in Brussels, UK Defence Secretary John Healey will be in Washington for discussions with his counterpart Pete Hegseth on the US decision to pause intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

Their bilateral meeting will focus on a possible peace plan while efforts continue to bridge a transatlantic rift over Kyiv’s future security.

Perhaps in a final bid to try and achieve unity ahead of the summit, Emmanuel Macron – who has positioned himself at the centre of the EU’s efforts to bridge the gap between Kyiv and Washington – invited Orban to have dinner in Paris on Wednesday evening.

The two leaders met immediately after the French president gave a sombre address to the nation in which he said that France and Europe needed to be ready if the US was no longer by their side.

“We have to be united and determined to protect ourselves,” Macron said. He added that the future of Europe could not be tied to Washington or Moscow, and said that while he “wanted to believe that the US will stay by our side, we have to be ready for this not to be the case”.

The French president plans to hold a meeting of European army chiefs in Paris next week.

Macron said that “decisive steps” would be taken in Brussels, leaving European countries “more ready to defend and protect themselves”.

“The moment calls for unprecedented decisions,” he concluded.

[BBC]

Trump did not specify what would constitute an “illegal” protest. Broadly speaking, the right to protest is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, also known as Fire, swiftly condemned Trump’s announcement.  “Colleges can and should respond to unlawful conduct, but the president does not have unilateral authority to revoke federal funds, even for colleges that allow ‘illegal’ protests,” the statement said.

The group added that the move will “cast an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

In a separate announcement, the US Department of Education, General Services Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services said they would conduct a “comprehensive review” of Columbia’s federal contracts amid an ongoing investigation into compliance with Title VI, a federal law that bans discrimination based on ethnicity or ancestry.

In a statement, the education department said that it is considering stop work orders for $51.4m (£40.19m) in contracts with the New York City-based university, and will review more than $5bn in grant commitments to the school.

“Americans have watched in horror for more than a year now, as Jewish students have been assaulted and harassed on elite university campuses – repeatedly overrun by antisemitic students and agitators,” Trump’s new Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, said in a statement.

McMahon added that “unlawful encampments and demonstrations have completely paralysed day-to-day campus operations, depriving Jewish students of learning opportunities to which they are entitled”.

In January, Trump signed an executive order that called for the removal of foreign students who participated in protests.

The order also directed government departments to make recommendations that could allow educational institutions to “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff” and, if warranted, remove them.

A White House fact sheet on the order specified that it seeks to “protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities”.

In April 2024, student protests against the war in Gaza drew national attention after students at Columbia were arrested at a student encampment set up on campus. Thousands of arrests were ultimately made at dozens of universities across the country.

At Columbia, the university authorised New York Police Department officers to swarm the campus, a controversial decision that led to the arrests of about 100 students who were occupying a university building.

Four months after protests rocked the campus, Columbia president Minouche Shafik resigned.

Earlier this week, a federal task force announced it would visit 10 prominent US universities that have been the scene of anti-semitic incidents.

[BBC]

What sets this new plan apart is it is not just about property development; its banners are politics and the rights of Palestinians.

In his opening remarks, Egypt’s President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi also called for a parallel plan alongside the physical reconstruction to move towards what is known as the two state solution – a Palestinian state alongside Israel. This is widely seen by Arab states, and many others, as the only lasting solution to this perpetual conflict, but it is firmly ruled out by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies.

This new plan proposes that Gaza would be run, temporarily, by a “Gaza management committee under the umbrella of the Palestinian government” comprised of qualified technocrats.

It glosses over the issue of what role, if any, Hamas, will play. There is a vague reference to the “obstacle” of militant groups and said this issue would be resolved if the causes of the conflict with Israel were removed.

Some Arab states are known to be calling for the complete dismantling of Hamas; others believe those decisions should be left up to the Palestinians. Hamas is said to have accepted it will not play a role in running Gaza but has made it clear that disarming is a red line.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has described President Trump’s plan as “visionary”, has repeatedly ruled out any future role for Hamas, but also for the Palestinian Authority.

The other sensitive issue of security was dealt with by calling on the UN Security Council to deploy international peacekeepers.

And a major international conference will be held next month to raise the huge sums of money necessary for this rebuilding project.

Wealthy Gulf states appear willing to foot some of the colossal bill. But no one is ready to invest unless they are absolutely convinced buildings won’t come crashing down in another war.

A fragile ceasefire which now seems to be on the brink of collapse will only amplify that hesitation.

This new Arab plan to rebuild Gaza would unfold in three phases including an initial period of about six months, called the early recovery stage, to start clearing the massive amounts of rubble as well as unexploded ordinance. Two subsequent stages would last several years.

During this time displaced Palestinians, said to number 1.5 million, would be housed in temporary containers. Photographs in the glossy brochure present them as well-built and designed housing units set in pretty landscaped areas.

President Trump continues to wonder aloud “Why wouldn’t they want to move?” His description of Gaza as a “demolition site” underlines how the territory lies in utter ruin. The UN says 90% of homes are damaged or destroyed.

All the basics of a life worth living, from schools and hospitals to sewage systems and electricity lines, are shredded.