The European Commission has warned that Donald Trump’s latest restrictions on foreign aid are dangerous and threaten global health — while saying the EU can’t fill the funding gap alone. The Trump administration revealed further conditions on foreign aid last week, which seek to restrict NGOs, governments and agencies in receipt of U.S. funding from promoting not only abortion but also “gender ideology” and “discriminatory equity ideology.” The measures come as lower-income countries face catastrophic health impacts after many donors, led by the U.S., dramatically cut funding last year, leaving them with little choice but to accept conditional funds. The policies have appalled health experts who say they are an unprecedented attack on sovereignty and confirm the weaponization of aid under Trump, whose administration is seeking more direct influence over global health programs. Europe has also criticized the expanded policy, stepping up its response compared with more restrained positions to the Trump administration’s other diverging health policies. “Limiting international assistance through restrictive funding conditions undermines joint efforts for human rights, global health, peace and stability. It makes funding more unpredictable and increases the vulnerability of those already most at risk,” European Commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper told POLITICO. “Ultimately, this risks our goal of saving lives,” Hipper said. The EU would assess the implications for the programs it funds and will remain a “credible, reliable, principled and predictable partner,” but Europe “cannot fill the gap left by others,” Hipper added. The new policy is the widest expansion of the Mexico City Policy — which international groups have called the ‘global gag rule’ because of the restrictions it imposes — that the U.S. has ever imposed. U.S. Vice President JD Vance said last week the Trump administration was “expanding this policy to protect life, to combat [diversity, equity and inclusion] and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children.” He said it would increase the reach of the Mexico City Policy, which has traditionally only applied to abortion advocacy, threefold. It’s the latest policy that underlines the Trump administration’s explicitly strings-attached foreign aid agenda. The U.S. has rolled out a series of bilateral deals with 14 African countries, requiring them to guarantee the U.S. access to pathogen samples and data in exchange for health funding — much of which the U.S. had withdrawn last year through USAID cuts. It has also offered to restore funding to global vaccine program GAVI, but only if the organization stops using a common mercury-based preservative that Trump’s top health officials have linked to autism, without evidence. The latest policy is part of a “much larger project by the Trump administration to advance this radical anti-rights agenda,” Beirne Roose-Snyder, a senior policy fellow at the Council for Global Equality, told reporters this week. Desirée Cormier Smith, a former U.S. diplomat, said she hoped governments in the EU and elsewhere would “push back” and deliver a bracing message to the Trump administration: “We refuse to leave all of our people behind. You’re not going to export your domestic culture wars and the division that plagues the U.S. to our own countries.” The new rules, which come into effect Feb. 26, will also increase pressure on European governments over their own levels of global health funding. Major donors such as France, Germany and the Netherlands have trimmed their own contributions, as part of the global crunch in aid spending. Lisa Goerlitz, head of the Brussels office at global health NGO DSW, said Europe must keep foreign aid spending at levels needed “to allow a credible transition towards domestic resources and new financing mechanisms”. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, meanwhile, said the EU faced a “clear test of its leadership and credibility on equality and human rights.” Claudia Chiappa contributed reporting.

Vice President JD Vance on Friday said the United States will stop funding any organization working on diversity and transgender issues abroad. Vance called the policy, which has been widely expected, “a historic expansion of the Mexico City Policy,” which prevents foreign groups receiving U.S. global health funding from providing or promoting abortion, even if those programs are paid for with other sources of financing. President Donald Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy last year, following a tradition for Republican presidents that Ronald Reagan started in 1984. Democratic presidents have repeatedly rescinded the policy. “Now we’re expanding this policy to protect life, to combat [diversity, equity and inclusion] and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children,” Vance told people attending the March for Life in Washington, an annual gathering of anti-abortion activists on the National Mall. The rule covers non-military U.S. foreign assistance, making the Mexico City Policy “about three times as big as it was before, and we’re proud of it because we believe in fighting for life,” Vance said. That means that any organizations receiving U.S. non-military funding will not be able to work on abortion, DEI and issues related to transgender people, even if that work is done with other funding sources. POLITICO reported in October that the Trump administration was developing the policy. The State Department made the rule change Friday afternoon. Vance accused the Biden administration of “exporting abortion and radical gender ideology all around the world.” The Trump administration has used that argument to massively reduce foreign aid since it took office a year ago. Vance said the Trump administration believes that every country in the world has the duty to protect life. “It’s our job to promote families and human flourishing,” he said, adding that the administration “turned off the tap for NGOs whose sole purpose is to dissuade people from having kids.” Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Africa Subcommittee, called the new aid restrictions “the best and most comprehensive iteration” of the Mexico City Policy since Reagan. Smith, who opposes abortion, was also speaking at the March for Life. But domestic and international groups deplored the expanded policy, noting that it would make women and girls in some parts of the world more vulnerable. “History shows that the Mexico City policy not only diminishes access to essential services for women and girls, but also breaks down networks of organizations working on women’s rights, and silences civil society,” the International Crisis Group, which works to prevent conflicts, said in a statement. “This expansion will amplify those effects and is set to compound the global regression on gender equality that we have seen accelerate in the last year,” the group added. The expanded Mexico City Policy, which international groups have called the ‘global gag rule’ because of the restrictions it imposes, will limit how humanitarian groups and other organizations “can engage in advocacy, information dissemination and education related to reducing maternal mortality, sexual and reproductive health, and reducing stigma and inequalities anywhere in the world, with any funding they receive,” said Defend Public Health, a network of volunteers fighting against the Trump administration’s health policies. “This would effectively coerce them into denying that transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people exist,” the group said. Alice Miranda Ollstein contributed to this report.

The German government rejected claims by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Berlin prosecuted doctors and patients for refusing Covid-19 vaccinations or mask mandates. “The statements made by the U.S. Secretary of Health are completely unfounded, factually incorrect, and must be rejected,” German Health Minister Nina Warken said in a statement late Saturday. “I can happily explain this to him personally,” she said. “At no time during the coronavirus pandemic was there any obligation for doctors to carry out vaccines against Covid-19,” Warken added. “Anyone who did not wish to offer vaccines for medical, ethical or personal reasons were not criminally liable and did not have to fear penalties,” she said. Warken added that “criminal prosecution took place only in cases of fraud and forgery of documents, such as the issuing of false vaccine certificates” or exemption certificates for masks.  “Doctors [in Germany] decide independently and autonomously on the treatment of patients,” the minister stressed, adding that “patients are also free to decide which treatment they wish to receive.” Kennedy said in a video post on Saturday that he had written to Warken after receiving reports that Germany was restricting “people’s abilities to act on their own convictions” in medical decisions. He claimed that “more than a thousand German physicians and thousands of their patients” faced prosecution for issuing exemptions from mask-wearing or Covid-19 vaccination requirements during the pandemic. Kennedy did not provide specific examples or identify the reports he cited, but he said Germany was “targeting physicians who put their patients first” and was “punishing citizens for making their own medical choices.” He accused Berlin of undermining the doctor–patient relationship and replacing it with “a dangerous system that makes physicians enforcers of state policies.” Former German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach also pushed back on the claims, telling Kennedy on X to “take care of health problems in his own country.”

The billionaire Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, has become the world’s leading global health philanthropist, but his overture to the late, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein continues to haunt him, most recently with the release of photos Friday featuring him in the American financier’s entourage. Gates appears in two images Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released, the first batch in what’s expected to be 95,000 photos. The committee is reviewing documents from the Epstein estate as part of its ongoing investigation. Epstein does not appear in the two pictures Gates is in. In one, Gates is standing next to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew. In 2019, Mountbatten-Windsor was accused in a civil lawsuit of sexually assaulting Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers, but he denied the allegations. Mountbatten-Windsor has faced backlash for his friendship with Epstein, but has not been charged with a crime in either the U.K. or the U.S. A second picture shows a younger Gates next to a man who appears to be one of Epstein’s longtime pilots. Representatives for Gates and his global health philanthropy, the Gates Foundation, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Gates has said he had several dinners with Epstein, who promised to get his wealthy connections to donate money to global health. When that didn’t happen, Gates cut off the dinners, Gates told PBS NewsHour in 2021. “Those meetings were a mistake,” Gates said. Gates’ former wife, Melinda French Gates, has said she didn’t like her then-husband meeting with Epstein and suggested those meetings contributed to the couple’s 2021 divorce. French Gates told CBS in a 2022 interview she met Epstein once, “because I wanted to see who this man was. I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door. He was abhorrent, he was evil personified. I had nightmares about it afterwards.” When Bill Gates was asked in a January 2023 interview with ABC Australia whether French Gates had warned him against ties with Epstein, because “Epstein had a way of sexually compromising people,” as the anchor put it, Bill Gates replied: “No! I had dinner with him, and that’s all.” An interview with Gates POLITICO published Friday was conducted before the release of the photos.

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. 

Pediatric respiratory diseases are among the most common and serious health challenges we face worldwide. From examples such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) to pertussis (also known as whooping cough), these infections can cause significant illness, hospitalizations, and with some, possible long-term consequences.[1],[2] Worldwide, RSV causes approximately 3.6 million hospitalizations and 100,000 deaths each year in children under five years of age.[3] Yet, many of these infections may be prevented, if we continue to prioritize and strengthen immunization. Immunization is not just a scientific achievement; it’s a public health imperative. And in this new era, Sanofi is at the forefront, driving innovation and access to pediatric immunization, especially when it comes to respiratory disease prevention. Our commitment is global, our ambition bold: to help protect people everywhere against preventable illnesses, with the confidence that every child, every parent, every person, and every healthcare professional deserves. > Immunization is not just a scientific achievement; it’s a public health > imperative. RSV, a leading cause of infant hospitalizations globally, exemplifies both the challenge and the opportunity.[4],[5],[6],[7] With an estimated 12.9 million lower respiratory infections and 2.2 million hospitalizations annually among infants under one year of age,3 the burden is immense. For decades, RSV lacked preventive options for the broad infant population. Some countries in Europe are a good illustration of what is possible when prevention is prioritized. For example, in Galicia, Spain, implementation of a universal program offered to the broad infant population led to notable reductions in RSV-related hospitalization compared with previous seasons.[8] The lesson is clear: when prevention is prioritized like it matters, delivered equitably and integrated into routine care, the impact is quickly seen. This principle applies to other childhood respiratory diseases. Hexavalent combination vaccinations have helped to revolutionize pediatric immunization by combining protection against six diseases into one vaccine. One of these is pertussis, which is especially dangerous for children who haven’t received all their vaccinations yet, and have a four-fold higher risk of contracting whooping cough.[9]  For younger infants pertussis is high risk, with over 40 percent of infants under six months of age requiring hospitalization.[10] These data demonstrate how delayed or missed vaccine doses can leave children vulnerable. By combining vaccines into a single shot, immunization uptake can be improved, increasing acceptance with efficient and equitable delivery and helping reduce disease burden at scale.[11],[12] > Some countries in Europe are a good illustration of what is possible when > prevention is prioritized. For example, in Galicia, Spain, implementation of a > universal program offered to the broad infant population led to notable > reductions in RSV-related hospitalization compared with previous seasons. Good uptake is crucial for protecting children. Where programs are fragmented, under-resourced or underfunded, equity gaps worsen along familiar lines – income, access and information. The recent resurgence of some preventable diseases is not just a warning; it’s a call to action.[13],[14],[15] Sustaining protection against respiratory diseases in children, increasing vaccination coverage rates, and embracing innovation to help protect against more diseases must be a collective priority.[11],[12] We must not let misinformation or complacency erode public trust in immunization. The evidence is clear: prevention works. Today, we have a unique opportunity to showcase that impact and redefine the future of respiratory health in children. > We must not let misinformation or complacency erode public trust in > immunization. The evidence is clear: prevention works. The science is sound. The approach for protecting infants against respiratory infections is clear. Our children deserve nothing less. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Glaser EL, et al. Impact of Respiratory Syncytial Virus on Child, Caregiver, and Society. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2022;226(Supplement_2):S236-S241 [2] Kardos P, et al. Understanding the impact of adult pertussis and its complications. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2024. [3] Li Y, Wang X, Blau DM, et al. Global, regional, and national disease burden estimates of acute lower respiratory infections due to respiratory syncytial virus in children younger than 5 years in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2022;399:2047-2064. [4] Leader S, Kohlhase K. Respiratory syncytial virus-coded pediatric hospitalizations, 1997 to 1999. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 2002;21(7):629-32. [5] McLaurin KK, Farr AM, Wade SW, Diakun DR, Stewart DL. Respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization outcomes and costs of full-term and preterm infants. Journal of Perinatology: official journal of the California Perinatal Association. 2016;36(11):990-6. [6] Rha B, et al. Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Associated Hospitalizations Among Young Children: 2015-2016. Pediatrics. 2020;146:e20193611. [7] Arriola CS, et al. Estimated Burden of Community-Onset Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Associated Hospitalizations Among Children Aged <2 Years in the United States, 2014-15. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2020;9:587-595. [8] Ares-Gómez S, et al. NIRSE-GAL Study Group. Effectiveness and impact of universal prophylaxis with nirsevimab in infants against hospitalisation for respiratory syncytial virus in Galicia, Spain: initial results of a population-based longitudinal study. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2024; 24: 817-828. [9] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019 Final Pertussis Surveillance Report. Accessed 4 March 2025 [10] Glanz, J. M., et al. (2013) Association between undervaccination with diphtheria, tetanus toxoids, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine and risk of pertussis infection in children 3 to 36 months of age. JAMA Pediatr. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.2353 [11] Fatima M, Hong KJ. Innovations, Challenges, and Future Prospects for Combination Vaccines Against Human Infections. Vaccines (Basel). 2025 Mar 21;13(4):335. doi: 10.3390/vaccines13040335. PMID: 40333234; PMCID: PMC12031483. [12] Maman K, Zöllner Y, Greco D, Duru G, Sendyona S, Remy V. The value of childhood combination vaccines: From beliefs to evidence. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(9):2132-41. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1044180. PMID: 26075806; PMCID: PMC4635899. [13] Liu J, Lu G, Qiao J. Global resurgence of pertussis in infants BMJ 2025; 391 :r2169 doi:10.1136/bmj.r2169 [14] Jenco M. AAP, CHA call for emergency declaration to address surge of pediatric illnesses. AAP News. 2022 [15] Wang, S., Zhang, S., & Liu, J. (2025). Resurgence of pertussis: Epidemiological trends, contributing factors, challenges, and recommendations for vaccination and surveillance. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2025.2513729 MAT-GLB-2506084 

Today, as the world reaches a critical juncture in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, the EU must choose: match scientific breakthroughs with political will and investment or retreat, putting two decades of hard-won progress at risk. Having saved over 70 million lives, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (the Global Fund) has proven what smart, sustained investment can achieve.  But the impact of its work — the lives protected, the life expectancy prolonged, the systems strengthened, the innovations deployed — is now under threat due to declining international funding.  > The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the > Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. Declining international funding, climate change, conflict and drug resistance are reversing decades of progress. HIV prevention is hampered by rising criminalization and attacks on key populations, with 1.3 million new infections in 2024 — far above targets. TB remains the deadliest infectious disease, worsened by spreading multidrug resistance, even in Europe. Malaria faces growing resistance to insecticides and drugs, as well as the impacts of extreme weather. Without urgent action and sustained investment, these threats could result in a dangerous resurgence of all three diseases. The stakes could not be higher  The Global Fund’s latest results reveal extraordinary progress. In 2024 alone: * 25.6 million people received lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, yet 630,000 still died of AIDS-related causes; * 7.4 million people were treated for TB, with innovations like AI-powered diagnostics reaching frontline workers in Ukraine; and * malaria deaths, primarily among African children under five, have been halved over two decades, with 2.2 billion mosquito nets distributed and ten countries eliminating malaria since 2020. Yet one child still dies every minute from this treatable disease.  What makes this moment unprecedented is not just the scale of the challenge, but the scale of the opportunity. Thanks to extraordinary scientific breakthroughs, we now have the tools to turn the tide:  * lenacapavir, a long-acting antiretroviral, offers new hope for the possibility of HIV-free generations; * dual active ingredient mosquito nets combine physical protection with intelligent vector control, transforming malaria prevention; and  * AI-driven TB screening and diagnostics are revolutionizing early detection and treatment, even in the most fragile settings. Some of these breakthroughs reflect Europe’s continued research and development and the private sector’s leadership in global health. BASF’s dual-active-ingredient mosquito nets, recently distributed by the millions in Nigeria, are redefining malaria prevention by combining physical protection with intelligent vector control. Delft Imaging’s ultra-portable digital X-ray devices are enabling TB screening in remote and fragile settings, while Siemens Healthineers is helping deploy cutting-edge AI software to support TB triage and diagnosis.  But they must be deployed widely and equitably to reach those who need them most. That is precisely what the Global Fund enables: equitable access to cutting-edge solutions, delivered through community-led systems that reach those most often left behind. A defining moment for EU Leadership The EU has a unique chance to turn this crisis into an opportunity. The upcoming G20 summit and the Global Fund’s replenishment are pivotal moments.  President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Síkela can send a clear, unequivocal signal: Europe will not stop at “almost”. It will lead until the world is free of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.  The Global Fund is a unique partnership that combines financial resources with technical expertise, community engagement and inclusive governance. It reaches those often left behind — those criminalized, marginalized or excluded from health systems.  > Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has > ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments > deliver impact, even in crisis. Its model of country ownership and transparency aligns with Africa’s agenda for health sovereignty and with the EU’s commitment to equity and human rights. Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments deliver impact, even in crisis. The cost of inaction Some may point to constraints in the Multiannual Financial Framework. But history shows that the EU has consistently stepped up, even in difficult fiscal times. The instruments exist. What’s needed now is leadership to use them. Failure to act would unravel decades of progress. Resurgent epidemics would claim lives, destabilize economies and undermine global health security. The cost of inaction far exceeds the price of investment. For the EU, the risks are strategic as well as moral. Stepping back now would erode the EU’s credibility as champion of human rights and global responsibility. It would send the wrong message, at precisely the wrong time.  Ukraine demonstrates what is at stake: with Global Fund support, millions continue to receive HIV and TB services despite war. Cutting funding now would risk lives not only in Africa and Asia, but also in Europe’s own neighborhood. A call to action Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for us, is a resounding no. We therefore urge the European Commission to announce a bold, multi-year financial commitment to the Global Fund at the G20.  This pledge would reaffirm the EU’s values and inspire other Team Europe partners to follow suit. It would also support ongoing reforms to further enhance the Global Fund’s efficiency, transparency and inclusivity. > Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can > the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for > us, is a resounding no. This is more than a funding decision. It is a moment to define the kind of world we choose to build: one where preventable diseases no longer claim lives, where health equity is a reality and where solidarity triumphs over short-termism. Now is the time to reaffirm Europe’s leadership. To prove that when it comes to global health, we will never stop until the fight is won.

Estonia’s social affairs minister lambasted the World Health Organization’s Europe chief for meeting with Russia’s foreign minister when the former Soviet country has frequently attacked Ukraine’s health facilities. Karmen Joller, who is also a doctor, said she is “profoundly dismayed” at WHO’s Hans Kluge meeting with Sergey Lavrov, given that Russia has “systematically violated international humanitarian law,” including more than 1,700 attacks on health care facilities, she posted on X. While she noted that Kluge pressed Lavrov on the “urgent need to ensure full respect for international humanitarian principles — including the obligation of all parties to refrain from attacks on health care facilities,” she questioned: “But does anyone genuinely believe that Russia is unaware of these obligations — or that its repeated violations are anything but deliberate?” According to Joller, Kluge’s Russia visit “risks legitimizing a regime that deliberately targets the very values WHO is meant to defend.” Joller was reacting to a post from Kluge, who is regional director of WHO Europe, pictured shaking hands with Lavrov alongside a list of the topics they had discussed: from the pandemic deal to HIV prevention, as well as the obligation not to attack health care facilities. In a separate post Kluge shared that he’d also chaired a meeting on HIV in Moscow, alongside the country’s Deputy Health Minister Andrey Plutnitskiy. Kluge defended his visit to Russia, telling POLITICO the objective of his mission was, “among other things, to advocate for the protection of health care facilities and the upholding of humanitarian principles in all contexts.” He told Russian officials that health care facilities and workers must never be targets. Kluge also said WHO remains “deeply committed to supporting Ukraine’s health system and its people,” and has visited the country five times since the 2022 full-scale Russian invasion, speaking frankly about the devastating attacks on health. With Russia accounting for more than 50 percent of all new HIV cases in the WHO European region, Kluge said it was his “duty” to stand up for the most marginalized — including the LGBTQI community, sex workers, migrants, people who use drugs, and the homeless — in chairing the HIV meeting. Open and constructive engagement with all 53 European member countries “is the only path to securing regional health security and, ultimately, to protecting lives,” Kluge said. “My visit to the Russian Federation was guided by this imperative.”

Margot Wallström is a former vice president of the European Commission and former foreign minister of Sweden. Jytte Guteland is member of the Swedish parliament and former lead negotiator on EU climate law in the European Parliament. Mats Engström is a former deputy state secretary at the Swedish Ministry for the Environment. The chemical industry is vital to Europe’s economy and employs millions of workers across the bloc. However, too many hazardous substances remain on the market, threatening humans and nature alike. For example, the use of a group of chemicals known as PFAS — or “forever chemicals” — has contaminated thousands of sites and can now be measured in our bloodstreams. It is, therefore, worrying that after 18 years in force, the flagship of Europe’s chemicals legislation — the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) — is becoming endangered. What the European Commission has promised is to “simplify” REACH. But the proposal presented to member country experts seems more akin to deregulation and a lowering of ambitions. For instance, if put into action, the goal of phasing out substances of very high concern would be severely diluted. The main reason behind this revision is an intense lobbying campaign for European “competitiveness.” But this approach is too narrow and short-sighted. And while the intention of simplification may be good, undermining vital legislation will harm people, the environment and the economy — not to mention citizens’ confidence in the EU. Among the authors of this article, one of us proposed and negotiated REACH in the early 2000s, and another was the European Parliament’s lead negotiator on the EU’s climate law. In both cases, we witnessed intense lobbying to slow progress, with industry pressure to weaken REACH described as “the largest ever lobbying campaign in Europe.” The situation today seems widely similar in terms rolling back legislation. According to the EU Transparency Register, industry lobbying on REACH and PFAS has been very intense in recent years. However, there’s no evidence that regulation is the main cause of the chemical industry’s current problems — not to mention that substituting the most hazardous substances would provide a competitive advantage in future global markets. It would also help other industries, such as textiles, furniture and recycling, and several companies in these sectors have already called for a stronger REACH rather than a watered-down one. More crucially, though, what the Commission is indicating would cause harm. It would limit the authorization procedure for substances of very high concern — for example, by excluding those with widespread uses — which would result in more such substances remaining on the market and increasing risks. The Commission is also reversing its position on the 2020 Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. This is particularly evident in its weakened approach to the rapid phaseout of substances with well-established generic risks, such as neurotoxicity, or are persistent in the environment (“forever chemicals”). Essentially, this new approach would reduce regulatory incentive to replace these substances. But we know from experience that voluntary approaches fail to deliver results, with the burden of regulation increasingly falling on national authorities — something that could lead to fragmentation of the internal market. Take the debate on PFAS, which are endocrine disruptors and possible carcinogens. Two of us writing this piece had blood tests done a few years ago, and as expected, the results showed widespread PFAS variants at levels typical of individuals of a similar age. Other potentially dangerous chemicals, such as polychlorinated alkanes, were also present. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has promoted the “One Health approach” — which links human well-being to that of animals, plants and the wider environment. | Ronald Wittek/EFE via EPA These levels are remarkably high, and their presence is frightening because there are many gaps in research on the effects they might have. Moreover, it’s almost impossible for individuals to do anything about this, as we’re constantly exposed to these chemicals from so many different sources, including drinking water and food. This is why we need legislation and standards. So far, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has promoted the “One Health approach” — which links human well-being to that of animals, plants and the wider environment — in a very positive way. But we also need an ambitious policy on hazardous substances that is guided by the precautionary principle. Instead, this potential weakening of chemicals legislation is yet another example of how “simplification” often means deregulation. It also makes the commitment to “stay the course on the Green Deal” in the new Commission’s policy guidelines increasingly meaningless. The Commission’s own estimates show that the cost of cleaning up PFAS contamination across the bloc will be between €5 billion and €100 billion per year — that’s just one example of the human and economic cost of inaction when it comes to hazardous substances. As such, Europe’s competitiveness and its citizens would truly benefit from stronger chemicals regulations. In order to achieve that, we must first close the information gap, while the EU accelerates its phaseout of the most harmful substances and ensures regulation is properly enforced in all member countries. To restore the ambition of the EU’s chemicals policy and actually protect both its people and the environment, we need urgent improvements to REACH. Only then can the EU deliver on its commitments to a toxic-free environment.

Countries have adopted a new agreement Tuesdayto protect the world from future pandemics at the World Health Organization’s annual assembly in Geneva. WHO member countries adopted the agreement by consensus, despite warnings from Slovakia it would seek a vote on the treaty. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO director-general, said the world would be safer thanks to this deal and be better protected from future pandemic threats. “The agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action,” Tedros said. “It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during COVID-19.” The pandemic agreement won’t be open for signature and ratification until after further talks on the details of a new system for sharing pathogen data, medicines and vaccines. But Tuesday’s decision completes a turnaround given that the fraught negotiation at times looked destined to end in failure. A decision on the pathogen access and benefit-sharing (PABS) system is due by next year’s assembly, expected to be held in May 2026, according to a resolution approved Monday night. The core of the agreement is a set of commitments to expand surveillance of health threats, strengthen prevention measures and share more drugs and vaccines in a crisis. Its provisions fall short of what developing countries pushed for at the outset of talks, but diplomats have hailed it as a stepping stone to more equitable global health rules. “Consider this agreement a foundation from which to build, starting today,” said Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand and co-chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response. “Many gaps remain in finance, equitable access to medical countermeasures and in understanding evolving risks,” Clark said. “Don’t wait to get started. Dangerous pathogens are looming, and they certainly will not wait.” A new working group established to negotiate the details of the PABS system will meet by July 15. This article has been updated with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ comment.