Israel reopened the Rafah crossing from Gaza to Egypt on Sunday in a limited capacity after two years, allowing only foot traffic, as violence continued across the Gaza Strip. The move comes amid fresh bloodshed in the enclave, with Gaza’s civil defense agency reporting dozens killed in Israeli strikes on Saturday. The Israel Defense Forces said it was responding to ceasefire violations. Around 80,000 Palestinians who left Gaza during Israel’s war on the enclave are seeking to return through the crossing from Egypt, a Palestinian official told Al Jazeera. At the same time, Israel announced it was terminating the operations of Doctors Without Borders in Gaza, accusing the group of failing to submit lists of its Palestinian staff — a requirement Israeli authorities say applies to all aid organizations in the territory. Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism alleged that two employees had ties to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, accusations the medical charity has strongly denied. The ministry said the group must halt its work and leave Gaza by Feb. 28. The tightly controlled reopening of Rafah — alongside the expulsion of a major humanitarian actor — is likely to intensify scrutiny of Israel’s handling of civilian access and aid as the conflict drags on.

The world has been rewired. The post-war order is fragmenting, public pessimism has reached crisis levels, and the gap between elite and public opinion is wider than ever. The FGS Global Radar 2026 — drawing on 175 interviews with senior leaders and polling nearly 20,000 people across 27 democracies — maps the new terrain. For leaders gathering in Davos this week, understanding it is critical. Via FGS Global Previous Radar reports were defined by volatility and uncertainty. These remain constants. But in 2026, the shape of the world is now more clearly defined — and the question for leaders is whether they can see it clearly enough to navigate it. A rewired world The multilateral consensus in place since World War II — guided by international institutions and liberal democracies — is being rewritten. Those institutions are weakening, with strongman leaders increasingly calling the shots within their own spheres of influence. > The post-war rules-based order is fragmenting into spheres of influence, with > transactional relationships and strongman leadership supplanting shared > values. As one expert put it: “The post-war rules-based order is fragmenting into spheres of influence, with transactional relationships and strongman leadership supplanting shared values.” The United States and China are now in fierce, direct competition for dominance — across trade, technology and an emerging space race. Gray zone conflict will be common. The rest of the world is having to align accordingly, navigating constantly shifting sands. For those gathering in Davos, the implications are stark. We are shifting from “What are our shared principles?” to “What can you do for me?” As another expert observed: “America doesn’t have anyone’s back anymore.” Our polling finds that seven in 10 people want their country to be more assertive of national interests, even if this creates friction with others. Nationalist sentiment is ascending. And Europe? “If Trump and Xi are talking, Europe isn’t even at the table.” The elite-public divide This year’s Radar report reveals something leaders at Davos must confront directly: a profound and widening gap between elite opinion and public sentiment. Ideas widely favored by leaders — letting artificial intelligence flourish, cutting spending, incentivizing entrepreneurs — are roundly opposed by voters. More troubling still, the public is susceptible to populist claims that difficult trade-offs don’t need to be made. In our poll, most people agreed: “There are clear and easy solutions to the big challenges facing the country, if only we had better political leaders.” > We are shifting from ‘What are our shared principles?’ to ‘What can you do for > me?’ We are living in a K-shaped world. The winners are high-income earners and technology industries. Those on lower incomes and in traditional sectors are struggling. Most people across the 27 countries polled expect to be worse off next year; only those on high incomes believe they will be better off. The cost of living remains the most important issue across generations and political affiliations. This feeds directly into attitudes on tax. Large majorities want more of the burden borne by business and the wealthy. Sixty-four percent support a wealth tax. These are not fringe positions — they are mainstream sentiment across developed democracies. The generational divide compounds the problem. Fifty-four percent of 18-34 year olds believe too much support goes to the elderly. Fifty percent of over-55s think too much goes to the young. Each generation feels the other is getting a better deal. And across all age groups, 73 percent believe life will be harder for the next generation. Pessimism at crisis levels Public confidence has been eroding for years. But the mood has now intensified to a crisis point. Across all 27 countries polled, 76 percent say their country feels divided. Sixty-eight percent believe their political system is failing and needs fundamental reform. Sixty-two percent feel their national identity is disappearing. > Pessimism on this scale, replicated across democracies, isn’t normal — and may > not be sustainable. To be clear: pessimism on this scale, replicated across democracies, isn’t normal — and may not be sustainable. It is fueling political instability and populism. Systems and governments that appear analog in a digital world, and fail to deliver better outcomes, will increasingly be challenged. Trust in traditional institutions continues to collapse. Sixty-one percent believe mainstream media have their own agenda and cannot be trusted. The hierarchy of trust is stark: medical doctors at 85 percent, big business at 41 percent, ChatGPT at 34 percent and politicians at just 22 percent. Perhaps most striking: 47 percent of people report feeling disconnected from society. When presented with the Matrix dilemma — a choice between blissful ignorance and complex reality — a quarter chose ignorance. Among Gen Z, it rises to over a third. Disengagement is becoming a generational norm. Europe’s pivotal moment For European leaders, the report offers both warning and opportunity. Our polling finds overwhelming support — 70-80 percent — in every EU country for major reform and stronger control of national borders. The Draghi and Letta reports are seen as offering the most coherent reform roadmap in years, but implementation is stuck at just 11 percent. As one expert noted: “Things are bad — but not so bad people are willing to be pushed through a pain barrier.” That may not remain true for long. What leaders must do The Radar concludes with a clear message: in a rewired world, long-term strategy matters more than ever. “If you haven’t got a strategy, you’re lost,” said one leader we interviewed. But strategy alone is not enough. The next most cited quality was agility — the ability to move fast and adapt. One compelling analogy: leaders need satellite navigation. Be clear on your destination, but flexible on how you get there. “You need a North Star, but like a GPS, you’re going to have to re-route — roadworks, delays, traffic jams.” Authenticity emerged as essential. “Authenticity by definition is infinitely durable. You are what you are.” And finally, storytelling: “Social media divides us, hates complexity, kills concentration. Nothing sticks. Leaders must repeat their message relentlessly.” Strategy. Agility. Authenticity. Storytelling. These are what 2026 demands. Download the full FGS Global Radar 2026 report here: https://fgsglobal.com/radar.

President Donald Trump has told his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to consider aligning the U.S. vaccination schedule with those in Europe, where many countries recommend fewer vaccines. Kennedy has taken up the charge with gusto and is considering advising parents to follow Denmark’s childhood schedule rather than America’s. Many who specialize in vaccination and public health say that would be a mistake. While wealthy European countries do health care comparatively well, they say, there are lots of reasons Americans are recommended more shots than Europeans, ranging from different levels of access to health care to different levels of disease. “If [Kennedy] would like to get us universal health care, then maybe we can have a conversation about having the schedule adjusted,” Demetre Daskalakis, who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases before resigning in protest in August, told POLITICO. Children, especially those who live in poor and rural areas, would be at greater risk for severe disease and death if the U.S. were to drop shots from its schedule, Daskalakis said. Denmark, for instance, advises immunizing against only 10 of the 18 diseases American children were historically recommended immunizations against. It excludes shots for potentially serious infections, including hepatitis A and B, meningitis and respiratory syncytial virus. Under Kennedy, the government has already changed its hepatitis B vaccine recommendations for newborns this year, even as critics warned the new advice could lead to more chronic infections, liver problems and cancer. The health department points out that the new guidance on hepatitis B — that mothers who test negative for the virus may skip giving their newborn a shot in the hospital — now align more closely with most countries in Europe. Public health experts and others critical of the move say slimmer European vaccine schedules are a cost-saving measure and a privilege afforded to healthier societies, not a tactic to protect kids from vaccine injuries. Kennedy’s interest in modeling the U.S. vaccine schedule after Europe, they point out, is underpinned by his belief that some childhood vaccines are unsafe and that American kids get too many too young. Kennedy’s safety concerns don’t align with the rationale underpinning the approach in Europe, where the consensus is that childhood vaccines are safe. Wealthy European countries in many cases eschew vaccines based on a risk-benefit calculus that doesn’t hold in America. European kids often don’t get certain shots because it would prevent a very small number of cases — like hepatitis B — or because the disease is rarely serious for them, such as Covid-19 and chickenpox. But since the U.S. doesn’t have universal access to care, vaccinating provides more return on investment, experts say. “We just have a tradition to wait a little bit” before adding vaccines to government programs, said Johanna Rubin, a pediatrician and vaccine expert for Sweden’s health agency. Swedish children are advised to get vaccines for 11 diseases before they turn 18. Rubin cited the need to verify the shots’ efficacy and the high cost of new vaccines as reasons Sweden moves slowly to add to its schedule. “It has to go through the health economical model,” she said. VACCINE SAFETY’S NOT THE ISSUE Martin Kulldorff, a Swedish native and former Harvard Medical School professor who led Kennedy’s vaccine advisory panel until this month, pointed to that country’s approach to vaccination and public health in an interview with POLITICO earlier this year. Before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this month dropped its recommendation that children of mothers who test negative for hepatitis B receive a vaccine within a day of birth, Kulldorff cited Sweden’s policy. “In Sweden, the recommendation is that you only do that if the mother has the infection. That’s the case in most European countries,” he said. “You could have a discussion whether one or the other is more reasonable.” The U.S. policy, as of Dec. 16, more closely resembles Sweden’s, with hepatitis B-negative mothers no longer urged to vaccinate their newborns against the virus at birth. But Sweden’s public health agency recommends that all infants be vaccinated, and the country’s regional governments subsidize those doses, which are administered as combination shots targeting six diseases starting at 3 months. Public health experts warn that even children of hepatitis B-negative mothers could catch the virus from others via contact with caregivers who are positive or shared household items. The prevalence of chronic hepatitis B in the U.S. is 6.1 percent compared to 0.3 percent in Sweden, according to the Coalition for Global Hepatitis Elimination, a Georgia-based nonprofit which receives funding from pharmaceutical companies, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, among others. Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said the U.S. has taken a more comprehensive approach to vaccination, in part because its population is sicker than that of some Western European countries, and the impact of contracting a disease could be more detrimental. Osterholm pointed to the Covid pandemic as an example. By May 2022, the U.S. had seen more than 1 million people die. Other high-income countries — though much smaller — had more success controlling mortality, he said. “People tried to attribute [the disparity] to social, political issues, but no, it was because [peer nations] had so many more people who were actually in low-risk categories for serious illness,” Osterholm said. Kennedy and his advisers also cited European views on Covid vaccination in the spring when the CDC dropped its universal recommendation, instead advising individuals to talk to their providers about whether to get the shot. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, linked the deaths of 10 children to Covid vaccination without providing more detailed information about the data behind his assertion. European countries years ago stopped recommending repeat Covid vaccination for children and other groups not considered at risk of becoming severely sick. Covid shots have been linked to rare heart conditions, primarily among young men. European vaccine experts say Covid boosters were not recommended routinely for healthy children in many countries — not because of safety concerns, but because it’s more cost-effective to give them to high-risk groups, such as elderly people or those with health conditions that Covid could make severely sick and put in the hospital. In the U.K., Covid-related hospitalizations and deaths declined significantly after the pandemic, and now are “mostly in the most frail in the population, which has led to more restricted use of the vaccines following the cost-effectiveness principles,” said Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group in the United Kingdom, which works on developing vaccines and was behind AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 shot. Pollard led the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, which advises the U.K. government, for 12 years before stepping down in September. In the U.S., more moves to follow Europe are likely. At a meeting of Kennedy’s vaccine advisers earlier this month, Tracy Beth Høeg, now acting as the FDA’s top drug regulator, pointed to Denmark’s pediatric schedule, which vaccinates for 10 diseases, while questioning whether healthy American children should be subject to more vaccines than their Danish counterparts. Danish kids typically don’t get shots for chickenpox, the flu, hepatitis A and B, meningitis, respiratory syncytial virus and rotavirus, like American children do, though parents can privately pay for at least some of those vaccines. The country offers free Covid and flu vaccines to high-risk kids. After the vaccine advisory meeting wrapped, Trump said he was on board, directing Kennedy to “fast track” a review of the U.S. vaccine schedule and potentially align it with other developed nations. He cited Denmark, Germany and Japan as countries that recommend fewer shots. Last week, Kennedy came within hours of publicly promoting Denmark’s childhood vaccine schedule as an option for American parents. The announcement was canceled at the last minute after the HHS Office of the General Counsel said it would invite a lawsuit the administration could lose, a senior department official told POLITICO. The notion that the U.S. would drop its vaccine schedule in favor of a European one struck health experts there as odd. Each country’s schedule is based on “the local situation, so the local epidemiology, structure of health care services, available resources, and inevitably, there’s a little bit of political aspect to it as well,” said Erika Duffell, a principal expert on communicable disease prevention and control at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, an EU agency that monitors vaccine schedules across 30 European countries. Vaccine safety isn’t the issue, she said. For example, even though most Europeans don’t get a hepatitis B shot within 24 hours of birth, the previous U.S. recommendation, “there is a consensus that the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine has been confirmed through decades of research” and continuous monitoring, she said. European nations like Denmark and the U.K. have kept new cases of hepatitis B low. Denmark recorded no cases of mother-to-child transmission in 2023, and Britain’s rate of such spread is less than 0.1 percent — though the latter does routinely recommend vaccinating low-risk infants beginning at 2 months of age. European experts point to high levels of testing of pregnant women for hepatitis B and most women having access to prenatal care as the reasons for success in keeping cases low while not vaccinating all newborns. The major differences between the U.S. and the U.K. in their approach to hepatitis B vaccination are lower infection rates and high screening uptake in Britain, plus “a national health system which is able to identify and deliver vaccines to almost all affected pregnancies selectively,” Pollard said. The CDC, when explaining the change in the universal birth dose recommendation, argued the U.S. has the ability to identify nearly all hepatitis B infections during pregnancy because of ”high reliability of prenatal hepatitis B screening,” which some European experts doubt. “If we change a program, we need to prepare the public, we need to prepare the parents and the health care providers, and say where the evidence comes from,” said Pierre Van Damme, the director of the Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination at the University of Antwerp in Belgium. He suggested that, if there was convincing evidence, U.S. health authorities could have run a pilot study before changing the recommendation to evaluate screening and the availability of testing at birth in one U.S. state, for example. WHERE EUROPEANS HAVE MORE DISEASE In some cases, European vaccination policies have, despite universal health care, led to more disease. France, Germany and Italy moved from recommending to requiring measles vaccination over the last decade after outbreaks on the continent. The U.S., until recently, had all but eradicated measles through a universal recommendation and school requirements. That’s starting to change. The U.S. is at risk of losing its “measles-elimination” status due to around 2,000 cases this year that originated in a Texas religious community where vaccine uptake is low. The 30 countries in the European Union and the European Economic Area, which have a population of some 450 million people combined, reported more than 35,000 measles cases last year, concentrated in Romania, Austria, Belgium and Ireland. Europe’s comparatively high rate is linked to lower vaccination coverage than the level needed to prevent outbreaks: Only four of the 30 countries reached the 95-percent threshold for the second measles dose in 2024, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Kennedy touted the U.S.’s lower measles rate as a successful effort at containing the sometimes-deadly disease, but experts say the country could soon see a resurgence of infectious diseases due to the vaccine skepticism that grew during the pandemic and that they say Kennedy has fomented. Among kindergarteners, measles vaccine coverage is down 2.7 percentage points as of the 2024-2025 school year, from a peak of 95.2 percent prior to the pandemic, according to CDC data. That drop occurred before Kennedy became health secretary. Kennedy and his advisers blame it on distrust engendered by Covid vaccine mandates imposed by states and President Joe Biden. But Kennedy led an anti-vaccine movement for years before joining the Trump administration, linking shots to autism and other conditions despite scientific evidence to the contrary, and he has continued to question vaccine safety as secretary. In some EU nations, vaccines aren’t compulsory for school entry. Swedish law guarantees the right to education and promotes close consultation between providers and patients. Some governments fear mandates could push away vaccine-hesitant parents who want to talk the recommended shots over with their doctor before giving the vaccines to their children, Rubin explained. In the U.S., states, which have the authority to implement vaccine mandates for school entry, rely on the CDC’s guidance to decide which to require. Vaccine skeptics have pushed the agency to relax some of its recommendations with an eye toward making it easier for American parents to opt out of routine shots. Scandinavian nations maintain high vaccine uptake without mandates thanks to “high trust” in public health systems, Rubin said. In Sweden, she added, nurses typically vaccinate young children at local clinics and provide care for them until they reach school age, which helps build trust among parents. CHICKENPOX Another example of where the U.S. and Europe differ is the chickenpox vaccine. The U.S. was the first country to begin universal vaccination against the common childhood illness in 1995; meanwhile, 13 EU nations broadly recommend the shot. Denmark doesn’t officially track chickenpox — the vaccine isn’t included on its schedule — but estimates 60,000 cases annually in its population of 6 million. The vastly larger U.S. sees fewer than 150,000 cases per year, according to the CDC. Many European countries perceive chickenpox as a benign disease, Van Damme said. “If you have a limited budget for prevention, you will spend usually the money in other preventative interventions, other vaccines than varicella,” he said, referring to the scientific term for chickenpox. But there’s another risk if countries decide to recommend chickenpox vaccination, he explained. If the vaccination level is low, people remain susceptible to the disease, which poses serious risks to unborn babies. If it’s contracted in early pregnancy, chickenpox could trigger congenital varicella syndrome, a rare disorder that causes birth defects. If children aren’t vaccinated against chickenpox, almost all would get the disease by age 10, Van Damme explained. If countries opt for vaccination, they have to ensure robust uptake: vaccinate virtually all children by 10, or risk having big pockets of unvaccinated kids who could contract higher-risk infections later. Europe’s stance toward chickenpox could change soon. Several countries are calculating that widely offering chickenpox vaccines would provide both public health and economic benefits. Britain is adding the shot to its childhood schedule next month. Sweden is expected to green-light it as part of its national program in the coming months. While the public doesn’t see it as a serious disease, pediatricians who see serious cases of chickenpox are advocating for the vaccine, Rubin told POLITICO. “It is very contagious,” she said. “It fulfills all our criteria.” The U.K. change comes after its vaccine advisory committee reviewed new data on disease burden and cost-effectiveness — including a 2022 CDC study of the U.S. program’s first 25 years that also examined the vaccine’s impact on shingles, a painful rash that can occur when the chickenpox virus reactivates years later. Scientists had theorized for years that limiting the virus’ circulation among children could increase the incidence of shingles in older adults by eliminating the “booster” effect of natural exposure, but the U.S. study found that real-world evidence didn’t support that hypothesis.

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: The year that was. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch’s last hurrah of 2025 saw everyone’s favorite duo row about the turkey Labour’s record over the last 12 months — and who caused the nightmare before Christmas. Pull the other one: Badenoch wished everyone a festive break in the season of goodwill — but then the gloves came off. She raised the PM’s own frustration at pulling levers but struggling to get change (Labour’s favorite word). “Does he blame himself or the levers?” Cutting. Starmer used the free airtime to rattle through his achievements, stressing “I’ve got a whole list … I could go on for a very long time.” Comparisons to Santa write themselves. Jobbing off:  “The Prime Minister promised economic growth, but the only thing that’s grown is his list of broken promises,” Badenoch hit back. This list analogy was really gaining momentum. She lambasted rising unemployment under Labour, yet the PM was able to point to lower inactivity under his watch and, of course, mentioned the boost of falling inflation this morning. Backhanded compliment: Starmer, no doubt desperate for a rest, used the imminent break to “congratulate” Badenoch for breaking a record on the number of Tories defecting to Reform UK. “The question is who’s next,” he mused, enjoying the chance to focus on the Conservatives’ threat to their right, rather than Labour’s troubles to its left. Clucking their tongues: Outraged at her Shadow Cabinet getting called non-entities, Badenoch kept the seasonal attacks going by labeling the Cabinet a “bunch of turkeys.” She said Starmer was no longer a caretaker PM but the “undertaker prime minister.” Bruising stuff. Last orders: Amid all the metaphorical tinsel and bells of holly, Starmer adopted a lawyerly tone on Labour’s support for pubs (even though many greasy spoons have banned Labour MPs) and condemned ongoing industrial action by resident doctors. But the Tory leader went out on (possibly) a new low by arguing Starmer “doesn’t have the baubles” to ban medical staff from striking and said all Labour MPs want “is a new leader.” Grab the mince pies: The prime minister’s speechwriters clearly did their homework with Starmer, not a natural on the humor front, comparing the Tories to “The Muppets Christmas Carol” and joking that all the defections meant Badenoch would be “left Home Alone.” Penalty shootout: Hold the homepage — PMQs actually delivered a news line. The PM confirmed the government issued a licence to transfer to Ukraine £2.5 billion of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich’s cash from his sale of Chelsea football club. Starmer told Abramovich to “pay up now,” or he’d be taken to court. Teal bauble: The end-of-year vibes allowed Starmer to deploy a festive jibe of advice to Reform UK: “If mysterious men from the East appear bearing gifts, this time, report it to the police!” Labour just won’t let ex-Reform UK Leader in Wales Nathan Gill’s conviction for pro-Russian bribery go. Even Nigel Farage, sat up above in the VIP public gallery, had a chuckle, admitting “that’s quite funny” to nearby hacks. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Tipton and Wednesbury MP Antonia Bance commended the government’s efforts to support the West Midlands by striking the U.S. trade deal, ripping into Reform. The PM just couldn’t resist another attack line against his party’s main opponent. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 8/10. Badenoch 5/10. The final PMQs exchange was never going to be a serious exchange, given the opportunity to make Christmas gags. The Tory leader followed a scattergun approach, highlighting the various broken promises, but none landed a blow. The PM, doubtless relieved to bag a few weeks away from the interrogation, brushed them off and used his pre-scripted lines to deliver a solid concluding performance.

The World Health Organization has recommended the use of novel weight-loss drugs to curb soaring obesity rates, and urged pharma companies to lower their prices and expand production so that lower-income countries can also benefit. The WHO’s new treatment guideline includes a conditional recommendation to use the so-called GLP-1s — such as Wegovy, Ozempic and Mounjaro — as part of a wider approach that includes healthy diet, exercise and support from doctors. The WHO described its recommendation as “conditional” due to limited data on the long-term efficacy and safety of GLP-1s. The recommendation excludes pregnant women. While GLP-1s are a now well-established treatment in high-income countries, the WHO warns they could reach fewer than 10 percent of people who could benefit by 2030. Among the countries with the highest rates of obesity are those in the Middle East, Latin America and Pacific islands. Meanwhile, Wegovy was only available in around 15 countries as of the start of this year. The WHO wants pharma companies to consider tiered pricing (lower prices in lower-income countries) and voluntary licensing of patents and technology to allow other producers around the word to manufacture GLP-1s, to help expand access to these drugs. Jeremy Farrar, an assistant director general at the WHO, told POLITICO the guidelines would also give an “amber and green light” to generic drugmakers to produce cheaper versions of GLP-1s when the patents expire. Francesca Celletti, a senior adviser on obesity at the WHO, told POLITICO “decisive action” was needed to expand access to GLP-1s, citing the example of antiretroviral HIV drugs earlier this century. “We all thought it was impossible … and then the price went down,” she said.  Key patents on semaglutide, the ingredient in Novo Nordisk’s diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, will lift in some countries next year, including India, Brazil and China. Indian generics giant Dr. Reddy’s plans to launch a generic semaglutide-based weight-loss drug in 87 countries in 2026, its CEO Erez Israeli said earlier this year, reported Reuters. “U.S. and Europe will open later … (and) all the other Western markets will be open between 2029 to 2033,” Israeli told reporters after the release of quarterly earnings in July. Prices should fall once generics are on the market, but that isn’t the only barrier. Injectable drugs, for example, need cold chain storage. And health systems need to be equipped to roll out the drug once it’s affordable, Celletti said. 

On Wednesday evening, Emily Cleary, a 47-year-old journalist and public relations consultant from Buckinghamshire in the U.K., was sitting watching TV with her 12-year-old son when she got a BBC alert that Charlie Kirk had been shot. She’d never heard of him, but she soon gathered from the coverage that he was associated with President Donald Trump. “You might have seen him, Mummy,” her son insisted. “He’s the man on TikTok with the round face who shouts all the time.” He began filling her in on a long, detailed list of Kirk’s views. “He thinks that if a 10-year-old gets pregnant she should be forced to keep it,” he explained. In the U.S., Kirk was a well-known figure on both sides of the political spectrum thanks to his proximity to the Trump family and profiles in outlets such as POLITICO Magazine and The New York Times Magazine. On the other side of the Atlantic, a schism appeared this week between those perplexed at why Prime Minister Keir Starmer was making statements about a seemingly obscure American podcaster, and those who already viewed him as a celebrity. Debates about the activist’s legacy sprung up in online spaces not usually known for politics, such as Facebook groups intended for sharing Love Island memes or soccer fan communities on X, with some people saying they will “miss his straight talking.” Parents of teens were surprised to find themselves being educated by their children on an issue of apparent international political importance. To some, this was all the more bewildering given the U.K. offshoot of Kirk’s Turning Point was widely mocked as a huge failure when it tried launching at British universities. But Emily’s son learned about Kirk somewhere else: TikTok’s “for you” page. “He hadn’t just seen a few videos, he was very knowledgeable about everything he believed,” she said, adding that her son “didn’t agree with Kirk but thought he seemed like a nice guy.” “It really unnerved me that he knew more about this person’s ideas than I did.” Kirk first rose to prominence in the U.S. when he cofounded Turning Point USA in 2012. It aimed to challenge what it saw as the dominance of liberal culture on American campuses, establishing a network of conservative activists at schools across the country. Kirk built Turning Point into a massive grassroots operation that has chapters on more than 800 campuses, and some journalists have attributed Trump’s 2024 reelection in part to the group’s voter outreach in Arizona and Wisconsin. But across the pond, Turning Point UK stumbled. Formed in 2019, it initially drew praise from figures on the right of the U.K.’s then-ruling Conservative party, such as former member of parliament Jacob Rees-Mogg and current shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel. However, the official launch on Feb. 1 of that year quickly descended into farce: Its X account was unverified, leading student activists from around the country to set up hundreds of satirical accounts. Media post-mortems concluded the organization failed to capture the mood of U.K. politics. The British hard right tends to fall into two categories: the aristocratic eccentricity of Rees-Mogg, or rough-and-ready street-based movements led by figures such as former soccer hooligan (and Elon Musk favorite) Tommy Robinson. Turning Point USA — known for its highly-produced events full of strobe lights, pyrotechnics and thundering music — was too earnest, too flashy, too American. And although U.K. universities tend to be left-leaning, Kirk’s claim that colleges are “islands of totalitarianism” that curtail free speech didn’t seem to resonate with U.K. students like it did with some in the U.S. “For those interested in opposing group think or campus censorship, organisations and publications already exist [such as] the magazine Spiked Online,” journalist Benedict Spence wrote at the time, adding that “if conservatives are to win round young voters of the future, they will have to do so by policy.” Turning Point UK distanced itself from its previous leadership and mostly moved away from campuses, attempting to reinvent itself as a street-based group. However, five years later in early 2024, Kirk launched his TikTok account and quickly achieved a new level of viral fame on both sides of the Atlantic. Clips of his “Debate Me” events, in which he took on primarily liberal students’ arguments on college campuses, exploded on the platform. This also coincided with a shift in the landscape of the British right toward Kirk’s provocative and extremely online style of politics. Discontent had been swelling around the country as the economic damage of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic began to bite, and far-right movements distrustful of politicians and legacy media gained traction online. While some of Kirk’s favorite topics — such as his staunch opposition to abortion and support of gun rights — have never resonated with Brits, others have converged. Transgender rights moved from a fringe issue to a mainstream talking point, while debates over immigration became so tense they erupted in a series of far-right race riots in August 2024, largely organized and driven by social media. In this political and digital environment, inflammatory culture-war rhetoric found new purchase — and Kirk was a bona fide culture warrior. He called for “a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor,” posted on X last week that “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America” and regularly promoted the racist “great replacement” conspiracy theory, which asserts that elites are engaged in a plot to diminish the voting and cultural power of white Americans via immigration policy. “The American Democrat Party hates this country. They want to see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white,” he said on his podcast in 2024. Harry Phillips, a 26-year-old truck driver from Kent, just south of London, began turning to influencers for his news during the pandemic, saying he didn’t trust mainstream outlets to truthfully report information such as the Covid-19 death toll. He first came across Kirk’s TikTok videos in the run-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. “I really liked that he was willing to have his beliefs challenged, and that he didn’t do it in an aggressive manner,” he said. “I don’t agree with everything, such as his views on abortion. But I do agree with his stance that there are only two genders, and that gender ideology is being pushed on kids at school.” Through Kirk, Phillips said he discovered other U.S. figures such as far-right influencer Candace Owens and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, whom he now follows on X, as well as more liberal debaters such as TikToker Dean Withers. “America’s such a powerful country, I think we should all keep an eye on what happens there because it can have a knock-on effect here,” he said. University students in the U.K. may not have been concerned about free speech in 2019, but Phillips definitely is. “I believe we’re being very censored by our government in the U.K.,” he said, citing concerns over the numbers of people reportedly arrested for social media posts. He also said Kirk was not just popular with other people his age, but older members of his family too — all of whom are distraught over his death. In May 2025, six years after the original Turning Point U.K. failed to take off, Kirk found his way back to U.K. campuses via the debate societies of elite universities like Oxford and Cambridge. He wasn’t the first far-right provocateur to visit these clubs, which have existed since the 19th century — conservative media mogul Ben Shapiro took part in a Cambridge debate in November 2023. Oxford Union’s most recent president, Anita Okunde, told British GQ these events were an attempt to make the societies, which were widely considered stuffy and stuck-up, “culturally relevant to young people.” Kirk’s hour-long video, “Charlie Kirk vs 400 Cambridge Students and a Professor,” has 2.1 million views on YouTube and has spawned multiple shorter clips, disseminated by his media machine across multiple platforms. Clips from the same debates also exist within a parallel left-wing ecosystem, re-branded with titles such as “Feminist Cambridge Student OBLITERATES Charlie Kirk.” Although Kirk has been lauded in some sections of the media for being open to debate, these videos don’t appear designed to change anyone’s opinion. Both sides have their views reinforced, taking whatever message they prefer to hear. Karen, a British mother in her late 50s who lives on a farm outside the city of Nottingham, said clips of Kirk getting “owned” by progressives are extremely popular with her 17-year-old daughter and her friends. “I had no idea who he was until she reminded me she had shown me some videos before,” said Karen, whose surname POLITICO Magazine is withholding to protect her daughter’s identity from online harassment. “I think he’s a bit too American for them,” she said. “He’s too in-your-face, and they think some of his opinions are just rage-baiting.” The U.K. political landscape is currently in turmoil, with Farage’s Reform U.K. leading the polls at 31 percent while Starmer’s center-left Labour lags behind at 21 percent. Given the unrest at home, it may seem unusual that so many people are heavily engaged with events thousands of miles away in Washington. Social media algorithms play a role pushing content, as do Farage and Robinson’s close relationships with figures such as Trump, Musk and Vice President JD Vance. In any case, young people in the U.K. are as clued into American politics as ever. Cleary’s 12-year-old son’s description of Kirk wasn’t the first time he surprised her with his knowledge of U.S. politics, either: He recently filled her in on Florida’s decision to end vaccine mandates for schoolchildren. “I’m happy that he is inquisitive and he definitely questions things,” she said. However, she wonders if this consumption of politics via social media will shape the way he and his peers view the world for the rest of their lives. “He even says to me, ‘No one my age will ever vote Labour because they’re no good at TikTok,’” she said. “And he says he doesn’t like Reform, but that they made really good social media videos.”

In an AI-first era, where AI is becoming an integral part of everything we do, its applications spanning across different sectors and facilitating various parts of our daily routines, healthcare should be no exception. In an ideal world, this is what healthcare should look like: a patient goes to an app to book an appointment, AI directs them to the doctor with the best expertise, knows which equipment is available, and which location makes most sense, and puts the appointment in their respective diaries. The complexity with healthcare is that this isn’t just a system, but three interconnected worlds that must work together seamlessly. Patients rightly want care when and where they need it. Clinicians want to ensure their expert resource is directed as impactfully and efficiently as possible. And medical assets, from MRI scanners to life-saving medications, must be available when and where required. This is where investing in technology becomes key. The good news is that the AI revolution in healthcare is already beginning, and the early results are encouraging. Some GP practices have cut waiting times by 73 percent using smart triaging systems, reducing waits from 11 to three days. AI can help tackle the dreaded ‘8am rush’ when phone lines jam with appointment requests. In the same study, GP practices using these systems reduced phone-based contacts from 88 percent to 18 percent and saw a 30 percent drop in missed appointments — potentially saving £350 million annually from reduced non-attendance. Through ServiceNow’s work with NHS Trusts, we’ve identified five areas where change can make an immediate difference, as outlined in ServiceNow’s NHS Digital Transformation white paper: * improving the staff experience; * joining up corporate services; * protecting against cyber threats; * streamlining patient journeys; and * harnessing AI. The reward for getting this right? We could see £35 billion in productivity savings by 2030. That’s money that could be reinvested directly into patient care. Better staff systems could save £750 million annually — not through cuts, but by giving critical NHS workers back the 29 million hours currently lost to bureaucracy. Right now, it takes up to 120 days to get a new NHS employee properly started. In some trusts we have cut that to 25-40 days. Imagine the impact if this was rolled out across the whole NHS. When you’re trying to grow the workforce from 1.5 to 2.4 million people by 2036, every day matters. Joining up corporate services could save another £1.6 billion each year. This is especially urgent given that Integrated Care Systems are facing combined deficits and have been told to slash running costs by 50 percent. The NHS 10 Year Health Plan for England talks about rebuilding the NHS in working-class communities; areas that currently get 10 percent less funding per person. Digital transformation isn’t just about efficiency; it’s about equity. When systems work properly, everyone benefits, but the biggest gains go to those who currently struggle most to access care. The problem is these parts barely speak to each other. The white paper reveals just how costly this disconnection has become: 13.5 million hours wasted annually due to inadequate IT, a 7.5 million case waiting list, and nearly £3 billion spent each year compensating for care failures. Behind every statistic is a person. Someone facing a delayed diagnosis, a cancelled operation or simply not receiving the care they deserve. This fragmentation isn’t just inefficient, it has a direct effect on patients and clinicians too. We’re spending £15.5 billion annually, 6.5 percent of the entire NHS budget, on corporate services that don’t talk to each other. Nurses are spending over a quarter of their time on paperwork instead of caring for patients. GP practices are drowning in 240 million calls annually from frustrated patients who can’t get through. We have a patchwork of systems where crucial information gets lost in translation.  When it takes 20 separate manual processes just to say goodbye to a leaving employee, you know there’s room for improvement. In addition to internal challenges, there’s the cyber threat affecting the NHS. Healthcare cyberattacks doubled between 2022 and 2023. A single ransomware attack forced over 10,000 patients to have their appointments cancelled at just two trusts. Without proper digital defenses and monitoring, we’re one attack away from regional healthcare paralysis. But here’s the thing, AI is only as good as the systems it connects to. That’s where we need to be honest about the infrastructure challenge. You can’t build tomorrow’s healthcare on yesterday’s technology. We need systems that talk to each other, share information securely and put the right information in the right hands at the right moment. The truth is, the NHS can’t do this transformation alone. The scale is too big, the timeline too tight and the technical challenges too complex. It’s about partnership — because the best outcomes happen when public sector insight combines with private sector innovation and speed. We need genuine partnerships focused on outcomes, not just products. At ServiceNow, we’ve seen what’s possible when this approach works: connected systems, freed-up time and better patient experiences. We’re at a crossroads, and the path we choose in the next two to three years will determine the NHS our children inherit. We can keep tinkering around the edges, managing decline through small improvements or we can be bold and build the digital foundation that healthcare needs. This isn’t a distant dream; it’s an immediate opportunity. Patients have waited long enough. NHS staff have endured enough frustration with systems that make their jobs harder, not easier. The cost of inaction isn’t just measured in pounds, it’s measured in lives. The technology exists, the knowledge is there and the legal framework is in place. What we need now is to act on what we already know works for this transformation to happen.

Donald Trump this spring dubbed himself the “fertilization president.” But some conservative family policy advocates say he’s done little so far to publicly back that up and are pushing to get the White House in the remaining months of the year to prioritize family policy — and help Americans make more babies. A top priority is a pronatalist or family policy summit that spotlights the U.S.’s declining fertility rate. Other asks, which typically run through the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, include loosening regulations on day cares and child car seats, further increasing the child tax credit and requiring insurers to cover birth as well as pre- and post-natal care at no out-of-pocket cost. While the Trump administration has advanced a handful of policies explicitly billed as “pro-family,” some conservative advocates are dismayed that the president has not done more on one of his campaign’s most animating issues. The lack of movement threatens to dampen enthusiasm among parts of the Republican Party’s big tent coalition, including New Right populists, who worry about the erosion of the U.S. workforce, and techno-natalists, who advocate using reproductive technology to boost population growth, as the GOP stares down a challenging midterm election. “I think there are people, including the [vice president] and people in the White House, who really want to push pro-family stuff,” said Tim Carney, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who recently wrote “Family Unfriendly,” a book that has become popular in conservative circles. But “it hasn’t risen to the forefront of the actual decision-making tree in the White House, the people who can put some velocity on things.” “It’s all nascent,” Carney added, but “it is going to be something that Republicans want to talk about in the midterms.” White House aides acknowledge advocates’ restlessness, but argue that even as it has yet to take action on the suite of explicitly pro-family proposals advocates want, they have taken a whole-of-government approach to family policy. Privately, the White House is deliberating its next moves now that the GOP’s tax and policy bill passed. It’s taking a two-pronged approach: addressing financial pressures and infertility issues that prevent people from having children; and helping couples raise kids in alignment with their values. That latter bucket includes bolstering school choice and parental rights, promoting kin- and faith-based child care, and other actions that can help with the costs of raising children, including health care and housing. “You saw what we were able to accomplish in 200 days. It was a lot. Just wait for the next three-and-a-half years,” said a White House official, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy. “There’s a lot of opportunity to accomplish a lot through pure administrative action, through the bully pulpit and, of course, if we need to, through working with Congress.” The official couldn’t rule out a family policy event hosted by the White House in the future. “Look, the president loves to convene stakeholders and thought leaders and policy leaders,” the official added. While they understand the White House has had its attention fixed on other issues, like foreign policy, immigration, and trade, pronatalists are anxious for the administration to do something about the declining birth rate. They see it as, quite literally, an existential crisis. “Demographic collapse has become the global warming of the New Right,” said Malcolm Collins, who along with his wife Simone, are two of the most outspoken techno-natalists and have pitched the White House on several policies. “And this is true, not just for me, but for many individuals within the administration, and many individuals within the think tanks that are informing the administration.” The Trump administration has advanced a handful of policies that conservatives argue will support families and, they hope, encourage people to have children. The president’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill made permanent the child tax credit first passed as part of Trump’s first-term Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, increased the rate and adjusted it for inflation on an ongoing basis. The legislation also established a one-time $1,000 so-called baby bonus for children born in 2025 through 2028. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy instructed his agency to give preference in competitive grants to communities with higher-than-average birth and marriage rates. Critics of the administration note that the megalaw will make it harder for people to keep their Medicaid insurance, the president’s proposed 2026 budget eliminates childcare subsidies for parents in college, and Trump’s CDC eliminated a research team responsible for collecting national data on IVF success rates. But family policy advocates say on the whole they see progress, though not nearly enough to reverse the trend of declining birth rates. “From my conversations with folks in the administration, there is definitely interest in doing something visible on the family stuff. They feel like they’re going down the list — homelessness, crime, obviously immigration — of different things and families’ time will come,” said Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center who focuses on family policy. The U.S. birth rate has been declining since the Baby Boom ended in the early 1960s, falling from 3.65 births per woman in 1960 to 1.599 in 2024, according to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. There are similar trends across high-income nations, in part the result of easier access to contraception, changing societal values favoring careers over having children and high costs of living. The issue came to the fore during the campaign when Trump promised government-funded in vitro fertilization in an effort to allay concerns over his anti-abortion stance. A few months later, then-Sen. JD Vance doubled down on controversial comments about the country being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies” and argued for more babies in the U.S. Elon Musk, perhaps the most prominent pronatalist, was Trump’s biggest financial booster during the campaign and a key adviser in the early days of the administration. There is no agreed-upon solution to the problem of a declining birth rate. Hungary is held up as a model by pronatalists for its family friendly policies but its birth rate remains low, despite exempting women with four or more children from paying income tax, among other incentives. The birth rate also remains low in Nordic countries like Sweden, Norway and Finland that have generous paid parental leave and heavily subsidized childcare. Still, advocates in the U.S. have a list for the Trump administration they believe will make a difference, arguing that even if they fail to increase the birth rate, they would support families. Some policies that pronatalists hope the Trump administration will pursue are more typically associated with the left, such as expanding child tax credits, which Trump did in the GOP megalaw, and reducing the costs of child care. But others have a home in the libertarian wing of the GOP, such as cutting regulations on day care and curbing car seat rules. Some of these proposals, pronatalists acknowledge, come with more risk but would overall result in more births. For decades, social conservatives led the GOP’s charge on families, arguing in support of policies that promote two-parent, heterosexual families. But declining birth rates, coupled with a broadening of the GOP coalition, has broadened the lens to focus on increasing the birth rate, a new pronatalist tinge. In an effort to keep their nascent and fragile coalition unified, neither social conservatives nor the techno-natalists are pushing policies at the extremes — like banning IVF or creating genetically modified super soldiers. That helps explain why the president has not taken action on one of his most concrete promises, making IVF free, despite receiving a report on it in May. A second White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said expanding IVF access for families remains “a key priority,” but declined to offer specifics on the status of any policy moves. “This issue is a winner for the Republican Party, it’s a winner for women, it’s a pro-life issue,” said Kaylen Silverberg, a fertility doctor in Texas who has consulted with the White House on IVF. “This will result in more babies, period.” But social conservatives are morally opposed to IVF both because of a belief life begins at conception and because they don’t think that science should interfere with the natural act of procreation. The proposal would also be quite costly. Instead, they want the White House to support something called reproductive restorative medicine, which can include supplements and hormone therapy, that they say will help women naturally improve their fertility. “The point of President Trump’s campaign pledge was to help couples with infertility have children. There’s a way to do that that’s cheaper, faster, less painful and more preferable to couples,” said Katelyn Shelton, a visiting fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Bioethics, Technology and Human Flourishing Program who worked at the Department of Health and Human Services during the first Trump administration. While most of the family policy conversation has been concentrated on the right, it’s also starting to grow on the left, alongside the so-called “abundance” movement focused on reducing government bureaucracy. Both the National Conservative Conference and the Abundance Conference this week in Washington hosted panels on family policy. Reducing barriers to building housing is “good for families,” said Leah Libresco Sargeant, a senior policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, a think tank that describes itself as supporting free markets and effective government, who co-moderated the Abundance Conference’s family policy panel. “That’s not kind of a family centered policy per se, [but] it’s a good policy that’s good for families.” Ultimately, many conservative family policy advocates argue there is only so much government can do to address what they see as a fundamentally cultural and religious problem. It’s a posture that the GOP’s historically small-government contingent takes as it pushes back on their new populist bedfellows. “I do not think that the problem of people not having enough kids is a problem of economics. I think that is very often a line that is used in order to promote a larger government populism,” said conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. “This is a predominantly religious problem, it’s a cultural problem.” Pronatalists have a lot of hope in the future of the GOP in part because of Vance, the administration’s most prominent and ideologically committed proponent of family policies, to carry the mantle, either during Trump’s presidency or as part of his own 2028 presidential bid. They love that Vance brings his children on official trips and is open about carving out time during the day to spend with them. “Our political leaders are inherently cultural leaders,” Carney said. “Bringing his kids with him to Europe and at the inauguration — where the little one, she was sucking on her fingers, so they had put Band-Aids on some of them so she wasn’t sucking all of them at once — all of those things that show a loving family and that kind of stuff, I think that can be culturally really productive.”

A day after senators of both parties rebuked his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for restricting access to Covid vaccines at a congressional hearing, President Donald Trump praised them, along with some other shots, during an Oval Office event. “A lot of people think that Covid is amazing,” Trump said, referencing the vaccine, not the disease. “You know, there are many people that believe strongly in that.” Trump also said he thought the polio shot was amazing and that “you have to be very careful when you say that some people don’t have to be vaccinated.” Trump was responding to a question from a reporter about Florida officials’ announcement this week that they would be lifting all vaccination requirements in the state, including for schoolchildren. Trump said: “You have vaccines that work. They just pure and simple work. They’re not controversial at all. And I think those vaccines should be used. Otherwise some people are going to catch it and they endanger other people.” Kennedy has long maintained that parents should have the right to refuse vaccinations required by schools, and he has only approved new Covid vaccines for people older than 65 and those with underlying health conditions. Others may no longer get the shots at pharmacies without a prescription depending on the state where they live. Senators at a Finance Committee hearing Thursday, including Republican Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, John Barrasso of Wyoming, both doctors, questioned Kennedy sharply about the changes to vaccine policy. Barrasso cited polling that he said showed the vast majority of Americans supported most vaccines, while Cassidy praised Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, which helped bring the Covid shots to market in record time. Kennedy struggled to explain how he could both be so critical of Covid shots — he once said they were the “deadliest vaccine ever made” – and at the same time agree with Cassidy that Trump deserved credit for helping to develop them. Trump’s endorsement of vaccination also comes two weeks before a government vaccine panel, which Kennedy has stacked with members who share his skepticism of the shots, will meet to consider revisions to the childhood vaccine schedule. Among other issues, the panel is considering whether to change guidance that newborns receive Hepatitis B vaccines. Kennedy has argued against that practice. Though the disease is usually transmitted through sex or infected needles, mothers can pass it to their babies. Kennedy ran a group, Children’s Health Defense, that questions vaccine safety and was involved with litigation against vaccine makers before he dropped out of the 2024 presidential race and endorsed Trump. He’s long believed that an increase in childhood immunizations is connected to rising autism cases, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Trump named him health secretary shortly after he won the election. Still, in the immediate aftermath of the Senate hearing Thursday, Trump backed Kennedy, saying his health secretary means well and that he appreciated that Kennedy had a different take on health issues than others. Trump also didn’t sound alarmed when Kennedy pulled $500 million in funding for research on the mRNA technology that undergirded the Covid shots last month, saying at the time that Operation Warp Speed was “a long time ago and we’re on to other things.” On Monday, Trump asked drug companies to justify the success of their Covid vaccines with more efficacy data. Moderna, Novavax and Pfizer responded quickly with evidence they said demonstrated the shots saved lives. Trump also supported Kennedy last week by firing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez. Kennedy had picked Monarez for the job and she’d been in it only a month. Monarez said Kennedy pushed her out because she refused to agree in advance to support changes to vaccine guidance recommended by Kennedy’s handpicked vaccine advisory panel. The CDC director ultimately decides what shots to recommend and to whom. Kennedy denied that was why he dismissed her at the Thursday hearing and said Monarez had told him she wasn’t trustworthy. Monarez’s lawyers said that was not true.