Germany updates: Friedrich Merz in Finland for Nordic summit
Conservative German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is traveling to the Turku in southwestern Finland in order to meet with the prime ministers of the Nordic countries.
Finland shares a 1,340-kilometer border with Russia and has warned of Moscow's military build-up.
Health Minister Nina Warken is calling for Germany to impose tighter restrictions on the online prescription of medicinal cannabis.
Meanwhile, Greens parliamentary leader Katharina Dröge called a plan by Merz's government to abolish a 3-year accelerated path to German citizenship "senseless."
Follow this blog for a roundup of top news stories from Germany on Monday, May 26:
Guten Tag and welcome to our coverage of developments in Germany on Monday, May 26, 2025.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz is set to travel to Finland to meet with the leaders of the Nordic countries as Berlin seeks to take on a leadership role within the NATO military alliance.
Health Minister Nina Warken is calling for restrictions on the online prescription of medical marijuana amid increaing cannabis use in the country.
Meanwhile, the opposition Green Party has critized Merz's plans to abolish the 3-year accelerated path to citizenship for "exceptionally well-integrated" migrants.
This blog will provide you the latest news, analysis, multimedia content and DW on-the-ground reporting in regards to events in Germany. Stay tuned for more!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Robby's Radar: Elon Musk should join the Libertarian Party
I have an idea for Elon Musk: join the Libertarian Party! Actually, don't just join it — take it over! Let me explain. Musk and President Trump seem to have entered some kind of détente following their big blowup last week. The world's richest man is no longer tweeting constantly about Trump being on the Epstein client list, or about how he feels betrayed over the big beautiful bill, which will massively increase the deficit despite Republican promises to finally cut government spending. In fact, he's spent the last several days tweeting about the Los Angeles riots and the importance of emerging AI technology. Trump, for his part, is refusing to engage Elon with particular hostility. Trump recently told reporters that he would be keeping the Tesla he bought from Musk, that he would continue using Starlink, Musk's internet service, and that he wished Elon well. I try not to make political predictions, but it actually would not surprise me in the least if Trump and Elon makeup — or at the very least, if the Republican Party maintains a friendly enough connection to Elon so that the tech billionaire remains a financial backer of, say, Vice President JD Vance when he inevitably runs for president. But here's an alternative idea I'd like to plan in Musk's head, as he is currently party shopping. As a Libertarian Party member, and voter, I would be thrilled to welcome Elon into the party — and I suspect I wouldn't be alone. After all, the Libertarian Party is a natural fit for Elon, whose politics mostly seem to align with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, the two most libertarian members of Congress in the Republican Party. Elon wants low taxes, lower spending, low regulation, and thinks the federal government's priorities should reflect that: Cut the deficit first, get our fiscal house in order, and worry about the other stuff later. He also wants government regulations to be friendly to technological growth, is particularly motivated to prevent censorship on social media, and thinks the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic was authoritarian. These are all textbook libertarian issues. What's more, the current trajectory of the Libertarian Party makes it ideal for some new leadership. For years, the party has been the nation's third or fourth largest, alongside the Green Party. In the 2016 election, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson received 4.5 million votes and about 3 percent of the national vote, a record at the time. In 2020, the Libertarian nominee received about 1 percent of the national vote. In both of those elections, it finished ahead of the Green Party. Behind the scenes, however, the party has gone through something for a transformation over the last two cycles. Johnson, the 2016 nominee, was perceived by some within the Libertarian Party as too liberal and mainstream — not based enough to attract contrarians and dissidents to the party. In response, a faction calling itself the Mises Caucus formed and attempted to take control of the party. In 2022, they succeeded. Their strategy was podcast-focused: Find people who listen to Joe Rogan and like-minded independent thinkers and draw them to the Libertarian Party. The strategy had a certain amount of merit. The party ended up flirting with Robert F Kennedy Jr., and found itself having significant audience overlap with him. But eventually, Kennedy made a quasi-endorsement of Trump and essentially withdrew from the presidential race. Meanwhile, at the Libertarian National Convention, delegates bucked the Mises Caucus and picked their least preferred candidate, Chase Oliver. In response, the Mises Caucus leadership barely tolerated the Libertarian candidate, hindering his campaign in numerous ways. The party's chairwoman, Angela McArdle, the highest-ranking Mises Caucus official, subsequently resigned from the party. The new chair is not a member of this faction and is trying to chart a more neutral course and reunite the party, though the Mises Caucus has vowed to retake control. So that's where we are now: The Libertarian Party could use some new people, some new leadership, and probably a new infusion of cash. If Elon Musk really wants to make Republicans sorry that they failed to live up to his expectations and cut government spending — but quite rationally believes that Democrats will never ever, ever do better — he might find he has the most in common with the ticket that gets my vote every year. Robbie Soave is co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising' and a senior editor for Reason Magazine. This column is an edited transcription of his daily commentary. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
American Service Members Are Getting Real Sharing Their Thoughts On The Marines Being Sent Into LA
As the protests in Los Angeles against ICE continue, the Trump administration announced it would be sending in 2,000 additional National Guard soldiers as well as 700 active duty Marines. According to Reuters, they will "protect federal personnel and property" as the administration carries out "even more operations to round up suspected immigration violators." Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the president did not have the legal authority to call in the National Guard, as well as requested a temporary restraining order to stop the use of the National Guard and active Marines "for law enforcement purposes." This is the first time that active duty military members have been called up to assist with law enforcement since 1992, and unsurprisingly, many of them (as well as veterans) have thoughts on the topic. NotSlayerOfDemons asked, "Those in the American Armed Forces, how do you feel about troops being used to quell unrest in-country?" and service members, both active and former, did not hold back in these 28 responses: 1."Former Army. Unrest is when the citizens are trying to send a message to the government. Using troops against your citizens is the government's way of not listening." —cobra7 2."Marine here. (Once a Marine, always.) Iraq vet. I definitely do not agree with using the Marines. Hopefully, they used MPs with riot training, but using infantry to do police work is not smart. It's like trying to use a trained attack dog to herd sheep. What do you think those teenagers are going to do when someone starts throwing rocks at them?" —Nevada_Lawyer 3."USAF veteran. We swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to any regime, party, or person." —chiksahlube 4."Trump is creating his Reichstag fire. Take the time to look this up if you aren't familiar with it." —RuralMNGuy (The Reichstag fire was a fire that burned down the Reichstag building, which housed the German parliament, in 1933. The origins of the fire remain unclear, but it became propaganda for Hitler's Nazi government, and he used it to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree, restricting free speech, freedom of the press, and allowing him to begin arresting members of the opposition parties.) 5."As a Marine vet, this fucking sucks. These kids are 18–22 years old and don't know shit about what the Constitution allows or what the Posse Comitatus Act is. They are taught enough not to harm an unarmed civilian, but decades of training for combating guerrilla warfare makes people jumpy. If protesters start throwing Molotov cocktails, or god forbid shooting, then shit gets real for these kids quick. I am afraid that if anything happens, it's going to put a black eye on the Corps that will never be forgotten by the American public." —Maikudono 6."As a vet, I will say it comes across as totalitarian. There is no reason to use active duty military against your own citizens. There's a great quote from Battlestar Galactica: 'The police and the military have always been separate for a reason. One serves and protects the people, the other fights enemies of the state. When the military does both, the enemies of the state tend to become the people.'" —Ok-Student7803 7."Army veteran and a SoCal native of 30 years here. Glad to see the president not allowing California to burn to the ground. Everyone knows the governor wasn't going to intervene." —ChinMuscle 8."Man, that makes me think of the saying 'When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' That's the really scary part of having the military do the policing, isn't it?" —kkeiper1103 Related: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week 9."Telling soldiers to stand on the street with weapons drawn doesn't quell unrest. It provokes unrest." —timf3d 10."Honorably discharged Army veteran here (Gulf War era). I can say that I and my fellow vet friends think that these troop deployments are fucking terrible. Horrifying, actually." —PSadair 11."This is what the National Guard is for. Putting active duty military personnel on the streets of America to play policeman is a mistake." —RC10B5M 12."I served in the Marines, and I'm glad I don't have to sit there and think, 'Question the legality of this and get an NJP [Non-Judicial Punishment], or go and potentially be put in a situation where they'll have me on trial in The Hague in a few years…'" "Sooner or later, for everyone, the uniform comes off, and those guys are going to have a hell of a time integrating back into civilian society, even if they end up doing nothing while there." —Bureaucratic_Dick 13."I'm not active, but former military. I think it's wrong. It's an overreach on presidential power. Plus, it's hard enough getting the everyday American to support our troops these days without deploying them to attack our own civilians." —crash218579 Related: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It 14."Retired Marine here. There are units in the military trained for this. Active duty infantry units are not those units. They can say all they want that they are trained in de-escalation, but in reality, it's maybe one to two days of training a year and maybe some rapid last-minute refreshers as soon as they found out they were getting sent to LA. The bulk of their training and instincts are to destroy the enemy. This will not go well." —RonWill79 15."Former Army here — it's complete bullshit. Let law enforcement enforce the law, let the military do military operations. To be honest, they were waiting for any reason to do this because they want to 'send a message,' but the message that's sent isn't what they think it is. I feel sorry for those soldiers sleeping on the hard floor with no plan of provisions for water/food, not abroad in a war zone, but in downtown fucking LA." —mcstevied 16."Former Marine, from Los Angeles, from immigrant parents. Fuck this administration. I hope those troops remember their oath to the US Constitution and to the people of the nation. I'm so disappointed with this whole situation." —Tacos_and_Yut 17."I think following the orders of a 34-count felon who is responsible for attacking the Capitol of the USA is reprehensible. I sincerely regret my service to the USA and wish I could take it back. It will not happen again." —TheDwellingHeart 18."I don't support violent protests. I also don't support Marines being used to quell said protests. Marines are a tool you use to destroy an area or group of people, not to peacefully resolve it. The guard makes more sense here, but the best answer is just keeping it at the police level." —Well__shit 19."GWOT [Global War on Terrorism] veteran here. This shit is absolutely wack. The United States has used the National Guard MANY times throughout its history, albeit for civil unrest or not. The National Guard does an impeccable job at this, and to hear the National Guard is being utilized isn't too concerning." "The VERY large, stomach-churning moment is the president giving the green light to utilize 2/7 out of Twentynine Palms. These are not 'peacekeepers.' Their motto is fucking literally 'First to Fight.' They have a long history of intense combat operations from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and GWOT. This is a highly decorated combat unit within the US military's arsenal. Pitting young, war-fighting men against the people they thought they were protecting is going to be a disastrous clusterfuck." —NSTalley 20."I support the National Guard being used to protect federal buildings and to quell riots and obstruction to the enforcement of federal law." —Bravelakes 21."Served in the Navy from '09–'13. The bulk of these guys have never deployed, which is a badge of honor. Young, untested 18–22 year olds with guns seems like a really bad idea to me." —anthonyajh 22."As a veteran I am pissed that I spent four years defending this country only to have some idiots vote for and support a Christo-fascist government and despite all evidence still believe this is going to be a 'good' thing." —MediocreDecking 23."Retired Navy here and also a former Marine. Sending an infantry battalion (2/7) to assist the LAPD and the National Guard is the wrong move. There are whole-ass battalions of military police who are specifically trained for this scenario. Why weren't they sent? Every active duty/veteran I know is against this." —Baker_Kat68 24."It's a complicated issue. Most service members take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously, which includes the rights of Americans to protest. Using the military for domestic unrest should be an absolute last resort, not the go-to option. We're trained to engage enemies, not fellow citizens." "Many of us feel deep discomfort at the idea of turning our training inward. Peace, order, and public safety are crucial, but so is trust between the people and their government! And nothing erodes that faster than boots on home soil in situations that call for dialogue, not force." —Emotional_Ticket_357 25."Marine here, many of the brothers and sisters I served with came from immigrant families and communities in LA or ones just like them. I'm sure there's a few Marines who are on board with this crap, but many are really struggling with this, I can guarantee you." —skamatiks671 26."Nobody likes the idea that this administration is attempting to politicize the military. It's awkward for us. The way the Secretary of Defense talks is vile, unprofessional, and embarrassing. Recruiting and retention will plummet." —220solitusma 27."It's an accident waiting to happen." —kozmo30 finally, "Real take, most of them don't particularly care and just want to do their job and go home, regardless of the situation. Marines are people and lean slightly right — so you do have people who are giddy about 'enforcing order' — but nobody wants to be dressed up in full kit in LA summer heat." —HerrArado What do you think? Let us know in the comments. Comments have been edited for length and clarity. Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife Also in In the News: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It' Also in In the News: This Senator's Clap Back Fully Gagged An MSNBC Anchor, And The Clip Is Going Viral
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Britain should stay close to US to ward off Russian threat, says defence chief
Britain should stay close to the US to stand up to the threat from Russia, the Chief of the Defence Staff has said. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin's comments came after Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, told The Telegraph that people in Britain had 'better learn to speak Russian' if the Government did not drastically increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. Sir Tony, the head of the British military, appeared before the Commons defence select committee on Tuesday, where he was asked if he agreed with Mr Rutte's comments. He said such a scenario could be avoided by sticking close to America and strengthening Nato, telling MPs: 'We all accept that we are in this era of change. 'The piece that I think is so true and consistent for the UK is this security construct which is extraordinary and we should celebrate. 'We are a nuclear power. We are the world's largest and most powerful military alliance and we have as our principal ally the world's most powerful country on the planet. That's what keeps us safe. 'That's what we need to bind to, that's what we are doing, and that's what we need to strengthen so that we don't have the concerns that we are all going to be speaking Russian.' Sir Tony's remarks came as Rachel Reeves prepared to deliver her spending review, in which the Chancellor will set out the details of departmental spending, on Wednesday. However, Sir Tony, who steps down as CDS this autumn and will be replaced by Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, refused to say whether he supported an uplift in defence spending to 3 per cent and beyond. Sir Tony also acknowledged the changing relationship between America and the UK, now that Donald Trump has asked the UK to shoulder more of the burden in Europe. Asked if the US withdrew, either entirely or partly, its contribution to Nato, would Europe be strong enough to 'match' Russia, Sir Tony said it was. However, he also insisted that 'America is sticking with Nato'. 'America is going to continue to provide all of us in Europe with the nuclear security guarantee,' he said, while cautioning that the US has other priorities, from homeland security to the Indo-Pacific. 'We no longer have that guarantee in terms of conventional American help for the security of Europe,' Sir Tony said. 'That is a significant change and that's why you are seeing Europe responding.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
