Europe prides itself on being a world leader in animal protection, with legal frameworks requiring member states to pay regard to animal welfare standards when designing and implementing policies. However, under REACH — Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) — the EU’s cornerstone regulation on chemical safety, hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a ‘last resort’. With REACH’s first major revamp in almost 20 years forthcoming, lawmakers now face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to drive a genuine transformation of chemical regulation.  When REACH was introduced nearly a quarter of a century ago, it outlined a bold vision to protect people and the environment from dangerous chemicals, while simultaneously driving a transition toward modern, animal-free testing approaches. In practice, however, companies are still required to generate extensive toxicity data to bring both new chemicals and chemicals with long histories of safe use onto the market. This has resulted in a flood of animal tests that could too often be dispensed, especially when animal-free methods are just as protective (if not more) of human health and the environment.  > Hundreds of thousands of animals are subjected to painful tests every year, > despite the legal requirement that animal testing should be used only as a > ‘last resort’. Despite the last resort requirement, some of the cruelest tests in the books are still expressly required under REACH. For example, ‘lethal dose’ animal tests were developed back in 1927 — the same year as the first solo transatlantic flight — and remain part of the toolbox when regulators demand ‘acute toxicity’ data, despite the availability of animal-free methods. Yet while the aviation industry has advanced significantly over the last century, chemical safety regulations remain stuck in the past.   Today’s science offers fully viable replacement approaches for evaluating oral, skin and fish lethality to irritation, sensitization, aquatic bioconcentration and more. It is time for the European Commission and member states to urgently revise REACH information requirements to align with the proven capabilities of animal-free science.   But this is only the first step. A 2023 review projected that animal testing under REACH will rise in the coming years in the absence of significant reform. With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally bring chemical safety into the 21st century by removing regulatory obstacles that slow the adoption of advanced animal-free science.   If REACH continues to treat animal testing as the default option, it risks eroding its credibility and the values it claims to uphold. However, animal-free science won’t be achieved by stitching together one-for-one replacements for legacy animal tests. A truly modern, European relevant chemicals framework demands deeper shifts in how we think, generate evidence and make safety decisions. Only by embracing next-generation assessment paradigms that leverage both exposure science and innovative approaches to the evaluation of a chemical’s biological activity can we unlock the full power of state-of the-art non-animal approaches and leave the old toolbox behind.  > With the forthcoming revision of the REACH legal text, lawmakers face a > choice: lock Europe into decades of archaic testing requirements or finally > bring chemical safety into the 21st century. The recent endorsement of One Substance, One Assessment regulations aims to drive collaboration across the sector while reducing duplicate testing on animals, helping to ensure transparency and improve data sharing. This is a step in the right direction, and provides the framework to help industry, regulators and other interest-holders to work together and chart a new path forward for chemical safety.   The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public trust. In 2021, the European Parliament urged the Commission to develop an EU plan to replace animal testing with modern scientific innovation. But momentum has since stalled. In the meantime, more than 1.2 million citizens have backed a European Citizens’ Initiative calling for chemical safety laws that protect people and the environment without adding new animal testing requirements; a clear indication that both science and society are eager for change.   > The EU has already demonstrated in the cosmetics sector that phasing out > animal testing is not only possible but can spark innovation and build public > trust. Jay Ingram, managing director, chemicals, Humane World for Animals (founding member of AFSA Collaboration) states: “Citizens are rightfully concerned about the safety of chemicals that they are exposed to on a daily basis, and are equally invested in phasing out animal testing. Trust and credibility must be built in the systems, structures, and people that are in place to achieve both of those goals.”  The REACH revision can both strengthen health and environmental safeguards while delivering a meaningful, measurable reduction in animal use year on year.  Policymakers need not choose between keeping Europe safe and embracing kinder science; they can and should take advantage of the upcoming REACH revision as an opportunity to do both.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Humane World for Animals * The ultimate controlling entity is Humane World for Animals More information here.

Europe’s chemical industry has reached a breaking point. The warning lights are no longer blinking — they are blazing. Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out before our eyes. Consider the energy situation: this year European gas prices have stood at 2.9 times higher than in the United States. What began as a temporary shock is now a structural disadvantage. High energy costs are becoming Europe’s new normal, with no sign of relief. This is not sustainable for an energy-intensive sector that competes globally every day. Without effective infrastructure and targeted energy-cost relief — including direct support, tax credits and compensation for indirect costs from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) — we are effectively asking European companies and their workers to compete with their hands tied behind their backs. > Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire > industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out > before our eyes. The impact is already visible. This year, EU27 chemical production fell by a further 2.5 percent, and the sector is now operating 9.5 percent below pre-crisis capacity. These are not just numbers, they are factories scaling down, investments postponed and skilled workers leaving sites. This is what industrial decline looks like in real time. We are losing track of the number of closures and job losses across Europe, and this is accelerating at an alarming pace. And the world is not standing still. In the first eight months of 2025, EU27 chemicals exports dropped by €3.5 billion, while imports rose by €3.2 billion. The volume trends mirror this: exports are down, imports are up. Our trade surplus shrank to €25 billion, losing €6.6 billion in just one year. Meanwhile, global distortions are intensifying. Imports, especially from China, continue to increase, and new tariff policies from the United States are likely to divert even more products toward Europe, while making EU exports less competitive. Yet again, in 2025, most EU trade defense cases involved chemical products. In this challenging environment, EU trade policy needs to step up: we need fast, decisive action against unfair practices to protect European production against international trade distortions. And we need more free trade agreements to access growth market and secure input materials. “Open but not naïve” must become more than a slogan. It must shape policy. > Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in > the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported > products meet those same standards. Europe is also struggling to enforce its own rules at the borders and online. Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported products meet those same standards. This weak enforcement undermines competitiveness and safety, while allowing products that would fail EU scrutiny to enter the single market unchecked. If Europe wants global leadership on climate, biodiversity and international chemicals management, credibility starts at home. Regulatory uncertainty adds to the pressure. The Chemical Industry Action Plan recognizes what industry has long stressed: clarity, coherence and predictability are essential for investment. Clear, harmonized rules are not a luxury — they are prerequisites for maintaining any industrial presence in Europe. This is where REACH must be seen for what it is: the world’s most comprehensive piece of legislation governing chemicals. Yet the real issues lie in implementation. We therefore call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text. Industry is facing too many headwinds already. Simplification can be achieved without weakening standards, but this requires a clear political choice. We call on European policymakers to restore the investment and profitability of our industry for Europe. Only then will the transition to climate neutrality, circularity, and safe and sustainable chemicals be possible, while keeping our industrial base in Europe. > Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular > future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. In this context, the ETS must urgently evolve. With enabling conditions still missing, like a market for low-carbon products, energy and carbon infrastructures, access to cost-competitive low-carbon energy sources, ETS costs risk incentivizing closures rather than investment in decarbonization. This may reduce emissions inside the EU, but it does not decarbonize European consumption because production shifts abroad. This is what is known as carbon leakage, and this is not how EU climate policy intends to reach climate neutrality. The system needs urgent repair to avoid serious consequences for Europe’s industrial fabric and strategic autonomy, with no climate benefit. These shortcomings must be addressed well before 2030, including a way to neutralize ETS costs while industry works toward decarbonization. Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. Europe must ensure that chemical recycling, carbon capture and utilization, and bio-based feedstocks are not only invented here, but also fully scaled here. Complex permitting, fragmented rules and insufficient funding are slowing us down while other regions race ahead. Decarbonization cannot be built on imported technology — it must be built on a strong EU industrial presence. Critically, we must stimulate markets for sustainable products that come with an unavoidable ‘green premium’. If Europe wants low-carbon and circular materials, then fiscal, financial and regulatory policy recipes must support their uptake — with minimum recycled or bio-based content, new value chain mobilizing schemes and the right dose of ‘European preference’. If we create these markets but fail to ensure that European producers capture a fair share, we will simply create new opportunities for imports rather than European jobs. > If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and > beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. The Critical Chemicals Alliance offers a path forward. Its primary goal will be to tackle key issues facing the chemical sector, such as risks of closures and trade challenges, and to support modernization and investments in critical productions. It will ultimately enable the chemical industry to remain resilient in the face of geopolitical threats, reinforcing Europe’s strategic autonomy. But let us be honest: time is no longer on our side. Europe’s chemical industry is the foundation of countless supply chains — from clean energy to semiconductors, from health to mobility. If we allow this foundation to erode, every other strategic ambition becomes more fragile. If you weren’t already alarmed — you should be. This is a wake-up call. Not for tomorrow, for now. Energy support, enforceable rules, smart regulation, strategic trade policies and demand-driven sustainability are not optional. They are the conditions for survival. If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  * The ultimate controlling entity is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  More information here.

The leaders of France and Germany issued a joint call Friday for cuts to EU water pollution and chemical safety rules, in a bid to help European industry.   In a joint statement adopted at the 25th Franco-German Council of Ministers in Toulon, France, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz backed calls for a revision of REACH — the EU’s chemical legal framework — that’s focused on “reducing burdens” by “streamlining procedures.”  It comes months before the European Commission is due to present its long-delayed revision of REACH. The EU executive has signaled that the revision’s primary aim would be to simplify rules and speed up procedures for industry — to the dismay of civil society groups.  The two governments also pushed for an easing of financial constraints for Europe’s struggling chemicals industry. Merz and Macron pushed for an easing of recently-revised urban wastewater rules, which require cosmetics and pharmaceuticals companies to bear the bulk of the costs of cleaning up micropollutants in urban wastewater from the end of 2028. The Commission has already committed to producing an updated study on impacts of the extended producer responsibility scheme, following strong industry pushback.   The statement from the EU’s two biggest economies sends a strong message to Brussels to push ahead with its drive to cut red tape. “To unleash our companies’ full potential of growth and productivity it is … urgent to substantially ease the complexity and simplify the European Union’s regulatory environment,” the document states.  MATERIALS RECYCLING FOCUS  The two leaders repeated calls for better rules to facilitate the recycling and reuse of critical raw materials (CRM), as EU countries scramble to reduce dependency on Chinese minerals essential in defense and the energy transition.   Paris and Berlin committed to “work together on the design of the CRM aspects of the Circular Economy Act and coordinate their efforts” in the hope of “reaping the benefits” of the policy proposal, the draft reads.   The Circular Economy Act is expected in 2026 and aims to facilitate the transfer of materials waste between EU countries to boost recycling and reuse across European industries.   Back in 2023, the two EU countries had already pledged further cooperation on critical raw materials alongside Italy, including by setting up working groups for new extraction, processing and recycling projects.   Giorgio Leali contributed reporting.

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.

BRUSSELS — Europe’s favorite bottle of red or white may come with an unwanted ingredient: toxic chemicals that don’t break down naturally. A new investigation has found widespread contamination in European wines with trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) — a persistent byproduct of PFAS, the group of industrial chemicals widely known as “forever chemicals.” None of the wines produced in the past few years across 10 EU countries came back clean. In some bottles, levels were found to be 100 times higher than what is typically measured in drinking water. The study, published on Wednesday by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe, adds fresh urgency to calls for a rapid phase-out of pesticides containing PFAS, a family of human-made chemicals designed to withstand heat, water and oil, and to resist breaking down in the environment. Wine production is among the heaviest users of pesticides in European agriculture, particularly fungicides, making vineyards a likely hotspot for chemical accumulation. Grapes are especially vulnerable to fungal diseases, requiring frequent spraying throughout the growing season, including with some products that contain PFAS compounds. Researchers found that while TFA was undetectable in wines harvested before 1988, contamination levels have steadily increased since then — reaching up to 320 micrograms per liter in bottles from the last three vintages, a level more than 3,000 times the EU’s legal limit for pesticide residues in groundwater. The study’s authors link this rise to the growing use of PFAS-based pesticides and newer fluorinated refrigerants over the past decade. “This is a red flag that should not be ignored,” said Helmut Burtscher-Schaden of Austrian NGO Global 2000, who led the research. “The massive accumulation of TFA in plants means we are likely ingesting far more of this forever chemical through our food than previously assumed.” The report, titled Message from the Bottle, analyzed 49 wines, including both conventional and organic products. While organic wines tended to have lower TFA concentrations, none were free of contamination. Wines from Austria showed particularly high levels, though researchers emphasized that the problem spans the continent. “This is not a local issue, it’s a global one,” warned Michael Müller, professor of pharmaceutical and medicinal chemistry at the University of Freiburg, who conducted an independent study that confirmed similar results. “There are no more uncontaminated wines left. Even organic farming cannot fully shield against this pollution because TFA is now ubiquitous in the environment.” The findings highlight the growing scrutiny on PFAS — a broad class of fluorinated compounds used in products from non-stick cookware to firefighting foams and agricultural pesticides. These substances are prized for their durability but have been shown to accumulate in the environment and in living organisms, with links to cancer, liver damage and reproductive harm. While the risks of long-chain PFAS have long been recognized, TFA had until recently been considered relatively benign by both regulators and manufacturers. That view is now being challenged. A 2021 industry-funded study under the EU’s REACH chemicals regulation linked TFA exposure to severe malformations in rabbit fetuses, prompting regulators to propose classifying TFA as “toxic to reproduction.” “This makes it all the more urgent to act,” said Salomé Roynel, policy officer at PAN Europe. She pointed out that under current EU pesticide rules, metabolites that pose risks to reproductive health should not be detectable in groundwater above 0.1 micrograms per liter — a limit TFA regularly exceeds in both water and, now, food. The timing of the report adds political pressure just weeks before EU member states are due to vote on whether to ban flutolanil, a PFAS pesticide identified as a significant TFA emitter. Campaigners argue that the EU must go further, pushing for a group-wide ban on all PFAS pesticides. Wine production is among the heaviest users of pesticides in European agriculture, particularly fungicides, making vineyards a likely hotspot for chemical accumulation. | Philippe Lopez/AFP via Getty Images “The vote on flutolanil is a first test of whether policymakers take this threat seriously,” Roynel said. “But ultimately, we need to eliminate the entire category of these chemicals from agriculture.” Industry groups are likely to push back, arguing that PFAS-based pesticides remain crucial for crop protection. But Müller counters that claim, saying alternatives are available: “There are substitutes. The idea that these chemicals are essential is simply not true.” With the EU’s broader PFAS restrictions currently under discussion, the wine study injects fresh urgency into debates over how to tackle chemical pollution and protect Europe’s food supply. “The more we delay, the worse the contamination becomes,” said Burtscher-Schaden. “And because we’re dealing with a forever chemical, every year of inaction locks in the damage for generations to come.” The European Commission declined to comment on the report. This story has been updated with a no comment from the European Commission.

Over the past couple of years there has been a growing focus on PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) — a group of more than 10,000 synthetic chemicals that are widely used in consumer and industrial products. Their chemical stability and resistance to oil and water has made them incredibly useful across many industries, including the pharmaceutical sector, where they are critical to medicines and medical devices, manufacturing and packaging. Following a joint REACH restriction proposal by five EU member states in 2023, this broad group of chemicals has been under the spotlight due to environment and health concerns, potentially concluding in a widespread ban on all PFAS by 2027. The research-based pharmaceutical industry supports regulating PFAS of concern, substituting them or minimizing their use while protecting patients’ access to medicines. > The research-based pharmaceutical industry supports regulating PFAS of > concern, substituting them or minimizing their use while protecting patients’ > access to medicines. There is also broad consensus within the pharmaceutical sector that environmental legislation is important in mitigating environmental impacts and climate change, and companies are working on numerous initiatives to achieve this. €50 million project launched Our industry is actively searching for alternatives. As part of the Innovative Health Initiative (IHI) — a public-private partnership initiative for health research and innovation between the EU and Europe’s life science industries — a call was launched for a project on PFAS exposure, emissions and end-of-life management in the health care sector.  The initiative will see at least €48 million — half of which are in-kind contributions from the industry and half EU funding for public partners — committed to explore which PFAS are currently used in the pharma and medtech sectors, identify opportunities to phase out PFAS of concern and find alternatives that maintain at least the same level of patient safety and product performance. From the industry side, the initiative is led by Belgian based pharma company, UCB, and involving 26 pharmaceutical and medtech companies. Further proposal considerations will look at the improved usage of PFAS materials and minimize environmental exposure, map the types and applications of PFAS throughout the supply chain, and develop a database of alternatives. The call is open until April, 23 for consortia to apply for the funding. Large companies that would like to contribute in-kind and join the existing industry consortium should contact EFPIA. via EFPIA The IHI call is important. Currently no evidence exists of technically suitable and readily available alternatives that can substitute PFAS active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). No single ‘drop in’ replacement exists, given that each API is not only treating a certain medical condition, but also has individual properties like efficacy, side-effects, incompatibilities and drug interactions. Understanding PFAS and its uses in medicines PFAS is a broad non-specific term relating to thousands of molecules. Not all PFAS present the same risks to the environment or health. The industry relies on certain PFAS for safe manufacturing, distribution and use of medicinal products. Packaging, drug application devices and processing machinery, or items to extend a medicine’s shelf life or protect sterility, are just a few examples of what would fall under a blanket ban. For example, high-performance fluoropolymers — especially polychlorotrifluoroethylene and ethylene tetrafluoroethylene — are vital to the containment, storage and delivery of injectable medicinal products. They help to form protective barriers, ensuring quality and safety and preventing degradation and deterioration. They also facilitate sterilization according to required Good Manufacturing Practices standards of fully coated stoppers due to the smooth hard surface. The unique properties of fluoropolymers provide resistance to biological, chemical and physical degradation. The impact on medicines and vaccines development It is with this in mind that the industry is urging caution on a blanket ban on PFAS. Without a derogation for medicines, 98% of the market authorizations of new medicines would need to be amended, which in turn could see around 70% of critical medicines in EU member states at risk of short supply. An EFPIA survey of 40 pharmaceutical companies found that at least 93% of APIs manufacturing relies on PFAS. via EFPIA If the ban applies as proposed, a wide range of medicines will become in short supply or unavailable, with impact on patient health anticipated both within and outside of the European Economic Area (EEA). Manufacturing and product development will have to be relocated outside of the EEA, impacting the economy and strategic autonomy of Europe. Additionally, banning PFAS within the EU while importing PFAS-containing products from elsewhere would be inconsistent and undermine the policy’s credibility. via EFPIA Protecting patient care is a joint responsibility. While European lawmakers will need to make difficult decisions, changes to environmental legislation need to work for Europe and for all patients while being realistically deliverable over the long and short term. > If the ban applies as proposed, a wide range of medicines will become in short > supply or unavailable, with impact on patient health anticipated both within > and outside of the European Economic Area. The way forward Our industry wants to see legislation that is proportionate, effective and safe with a transitional period of time-limited or unlimited derogations for low risk PFAS while protecting patients’ access to medicines. There is currently no like-for-like replacement for PFAS, and making changes to medicines in this highly regulated sector requires new approvals. Any alternatives must be analyzed for their superior environmental performance and must not compromise patient safety. When a viable and scalable alternative is identified, implementation will require time and collaboration among partners in the value chain — including regulators, as any changes in manufacturing necessitate new regulatory approvals. To make a regulation fit for purpose, EFPIA is proposing three recommendations: 1. Time limited derogations until suitable alternative solutions are commonly agreed and qualified. 2. The development of partnerships throughout supply chains to better manage PFAS emissions. 3. Global health authorities expedite approvals of suitable fluorine-free alternatives. Pharmaceutical companies are among the most active in the world in developing policies to mitigate climate change and improve public health. They often aim higher than the compliance targets set within the various EU legislative requirements as part of the EU Green Deal initiatives, including under the zero pollution, circular economy and climate action plans. From the climate emergency to clean water, there are projects underway to minimize the environmental impacts of our supply chain, manufacturing and products. As the EU navigates the complexities of PFAS regulation, we must champion policies that simultaneously uphold environmental goals and ensure uninterrupted access to medicines.

It’s been a hell of a ride for Ursula von der Leyen’s first team atop the European Commission from 2019-2024.  Those five years were dominated by one war on Europe’s doorstep and another in the Middle East, an ongoing energy crisis and a response to a global pandemic, as the Commission attempted to deliver on climate promises, advances on artificial intelligence and even a cure for cancer. In a note to staff, von der Leyen praised the outgoing Commission for fulfilling a promise to be “bold and ambitious” in meeting the aspirations of EU citizens and tackling the challenges ahead. They exceeded that promise, she added.  How do those internal compliments match up with what was promised and ultimately delivered?  Here’s POLITICO’s report card on the outgoing Commission. See who flunked and who passed the five-year policy test.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Von der leyen Dombrovskis Vestager Borrell Jourová Kyriakides Šefčovič Hoekstra Wojciechowski Gentiloni McGuinness Dalli Schmit Ivanova Várhelyi Urpilainen Vălean Sinkevičius Simson Breton Schinas Šuica Lenarčič Ferreira Hahn Johansson Reynders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- URSULA VON DER LEYEN, PRESIDENT Verdict: Von der Leyen went from an unknown and an unexpected choice to helm the EU executive, to one of its most powerful leaders in recent history during her first term. She used the pandemic and the fallout of Russia’s war on Ukraine to tighten her grip on Europe’s decision-making process and to elevate her own public image beyond the corridors of Brussels institutions. While also criticized, her centralized decision-making helped Europe react quickly to crises. For her second term, as the war in Ukraine continues with no end in sight, she’ll have to steer the bloc through a second Donald Trump presidency while ensuring a more competitive EU versus the U.S. and China and delivering on the bloc’s climate targets. Grade: B- Back to the top VALDIS DOMBROVSKIS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR AN ECONOMY THAT WORKS FOR PEOPLE AND EUROPEAN COMMISSIONER FOR TRADE Verdict: The former Latvian premier could be living proof of the adage that the length of a job’s title is inversely proportional to its influence. Handed a broad remit covering the economy and trade, Dombrovskis lacked the power to make a difference as the EU faced major headwinds. First the pandemic, and then Russia’s war on Ukraine not only ravaged growth but led to a cost-of-living crisis. Meanwhile, an increasingly hostile geopolitical climate put free-trade deals out of reach as protectionism took hold. Still, Dombrovskis kept his composure — and famed poker face — through the ups and downs of his term. That dependable showing has now landed him another impossible task in von der Leyen’s second cabinet: simplifying the EU’s rampant bureaucracy. Grade: C+ Back to the top MARGRETHE VESTAGER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR A EUROPE FIT FOR A DIGITAL AGE Verdict: Vestager started her second term as antitrust chief with a fearsome reputation for fining big tech. Armed with a larger role ruling over tech policy, she pushed through landmark digital rules to rein in tech giants that have forced them to change their businesses. State aid proved more of a challenge during the pandemic, as governments lobbied for and against softer rules to allow more subsidies. One blot on her reign was Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, who called himself the “digital enforcer” and often sniped with her over key projects such as trying to unlock funding for chips. Grade: A- Back to the top JOSEP BORRELL, VICE PRESIDENT AND HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY Verdict: The Spanish socialist was dealt a tough hand as the EU’s top diplomatic envoy. Halfway through his term, two wars broke out that would come to dominate his time in office. Borrell’s staunch backing for Ukraine earned broad support among EU capitals, but his statements on Israel made him an adversary of the conservative European People’s Party (EPP), the EU’s most powerful political group. Critics argue that Borrell has little to show for his advocacy on the Middle East, while other areas such as the Western Balkans suffered neglect. Such critiques, combined with Borrell’s propensity for gaffes, make for a mixed report. Grade: C Back to the top VĚRA JOUROVÁ, VICE PRESIDENT FOR VALUES AND TRANSPARENCY Verdict: The Czech politician was at the center of two major battles, one offline and one online. Offline, she fronted the European Commission’s tussle with Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary over the rule of law. Online she led Brussels’ fight against disinformation and foreign interference and in support of media freedom across the bloc. A staunch liberal and a feisty commissioner, Jourová was known to shake the tree in interviews, terming Elon Musk a “promoter of evil” and in June calling out the Italian government of Giorgia Meloni for its handling of media freedom. In Brussels she maintained friendly relations with her peers and kept her complicated relationship with Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders mostly out of the public arena. Grade: B+ Vera Jourova. | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images Back to the top STELLA KYRIAKIDES, HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Verdict: At first glance, Kyriakides pushed through more EU health policy than her predecessors, including new legislation to assess medicines, to finance the drugs regulator and to integrate EU health data, as well as starting a mammoth overhaul of pharma rules. She also led quick revisions of rules governing drugs and disease agencies amid the Covid pandemic and led initiatives on mental health and cancer. Health officials and experts praised her work, which included confronting Big Pharma, but lamented that her EU public health legacy wasn’t more substantial, as illustrated by the surge in vaccine hesitancy and the lack of progress on tobacco legislation.  Grade: A- Back to the top MAROŠ ŠEFČOVIČ, VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE EUROPEAN GREEN DEAL, INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS AND FORESIGHT Verdict: After 15 years on the European Commission, Šefčovič is now as much a part of the Berlaymont as stale breakfast-meeting croissants. This term he applied his experience to a dazzling array of messy briefs. From EU-U.K. relations to the only slightly less fraught interactions among EU institutions, von der Leyen believed Šefčovič’s callused hands were impervious to thorns. She turned to him to replace Frans Timmermans just as the consensus around the Green Deal broke down; on climate issues, meanwhile, he mostly took a back seat to Wopke Hoekstra (see below), but did help von der Leyen by taking on important listening tours with farmers and discontented industry groups. He’ll be back for a fourth term, nabbing the coveted trade portfolio. Grade: B Back to the top WOPKE HOEKSTRA, CLIMATE ACTION Verdict: Green groups were deeply skeptical that the Dutchman taking on the climate brief for the last year of the first von der Leyen Commission would prove a fellow traveler. His CV, after all, listed stints at Shell and McKinsey before he joined the Dutch government. But Hoekstra flipped the script and proved an able, at times even passionate defender of the EU’s climate goals. His penchant for carbon pricing is well known, and helped him not only keep his job but also expand it to include a taxation sidebar. Grade: A- Back to the top JANUSZ WOJCIECHOWSKI, AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Verdict: Poland’s farm chief has been called one of the worst commissioners in EU history. He tried, but ultimately the 70-year-old politician didn’t have the negotiating chops to reform the bloc’s broken agrifood system. As the sole hard-right commissioner, Wojciechowski was isolated early on, a status that was only worsened by his micromanaging boss, Frans Timmermans, who was a backseat driver during the green transition for agriculture. The disgruntled Pole ended up traveling home often, contradicting his colleagues and increasingly pandering to farmer lobbies. He dreams of being remembered in Brussels; he’ll be lucky if he’s forgotten. Grade: D- Back to the top PAOLO GENTILONI, ECONOMY Verdict: The former Italian prime minister’s oversight of the EU economy came during an extraordinary period that included an unprecedented pandemic, the Ukraine war and a subsequent inflation crisis that tore through the bloc. These unique circumstances produced some radical political steps from the bloc’s executive, including the suspension and reform of the European Commission’s fiscal-rule regime and the creation of an €800 billion cash pot to help national economies recover from the multiple crises. While that bold response forestalled a broader economic crisis, it was not uncontroversial. Independent watchdogs said they were unable assess the impact of the new EU funds, while growth remains modest. On other matters, such as taxation, Gentiloni’s term was far less ambitious in its goals and centered more on international deals, given previous failures to convince governments to back more radical domestic amendments. Grade: B+ Back to the top MAIREAD MCGUINNESS, FINANCIAL SERVICES, FINANCIAL STABILITY AND CAPITAL MARKETS UNION Verdict: McGuinness became a commissioner unexpectedly in 2020 after Phil Hogan resigned over the “Golfgate” scandal, as Ireland was downgraded from the powerful trade portfolio to financial services. But the former journalist and MEP made it work: She oversaw the release of new finance legislation, from banking and markets rules to clearing and green finance, focusing on policies that chimed with the public. She was hamstrung by industry lobbying, especially on making investing easier and cheaper for regular people, where a massive pre-emptive lobbying effort killed off the most ambitious parts of her proposals before the Commission had a chance to publish them. Known as energetic and personable, McGuiness connected with people, but often found herself in the crosshairs of more powerful EU figures on control of sanctions oversight and the digital euro.  Grade: B Back to the top HELENA DALLI, EQUALITY  Verdict: A member of the Malta Labour Party, Dalli became Europe’s first equality commissioner in 2019, delivering significant contributions during her mandate. She pushed for major directives such as the European Disability Rights Strategy and a directive to ensure equal pay transparency for men and women. In April, the largest European women’s rights network applauded her landmark directive on combating violence against women, while another equality group highlighted Dalli’s failure to criminalize forced sterilization as a missed opportunity. Her achievements drew little fanfare, however, and Dalli’s obscure public presence and minimal visibility may ultimately have proven her greatest weakness.  Grade: B+ Back to the top NICOLAS SCHMIT, JOBS AND SOCIAL RIGHTS Verdict: To his fans, Schmit was a knowledgeable commissioner whose experience as Luxembourg’s minister for employment coupled with his knowledge of Brussels politics helped him deliver. His achievements included the minimum wage directive, which was aimed at improving wages and collective bargaining across the bloc, and the hard-fought platform workers directive, meant to improve the working rights of users of digital labor platforms such as Uber and Deliveroo. To his detractors, however, he was a von der Leyen yes-man — even when challenging her as Commission president — who didn’t fight hard enough as a member of the College of Commissioners to push for more stringent regulations on social rights.  Grade: B Back to the top ILIANA IVANOVA, INNOVATION, RESEARCH, CULTURE, EDUCATION AND YOUTH Verdict: Admittedly, a year is not a lot of time in which to leave your mark as a European commissioner, especially when you’ve been handed the innovation portfolio. The Bulgarian, who filled in for compatriot Mariya Gabriel as commissioner in September 2023, highlighted the challenges that plague researchers and startups, such as critical technology leaking to China or difficulties in tapping growth funding — and did so in a more media-savvy way than her predecessor. But in arriving so late in the mandate she was unable to differentiate herself by attaching her name to a major rulebook, or by claiming credit for any research, innovation or startup success. She now returns to her previous job — underlining her status as a placeholder.  Grade: D+ Back to the top OLIVÉR VÁRHELYI, NEIGHBOURHOOD AND ENLARGEMENT Verdict: Just like Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán in the European Council, Várhelyi was the black sheep on the Commission. His enlargement portfolio rose to the top of the political agenda after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but he was widely seen as too partial in reviewing the efforts of Ukraine and other countries to join the bloc. The former Hungarian ambassador to the EU also triggered a major controversy when he announced a freeze on aid to the Palestinian territories in the wake of Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7 last year. He was immediately overruled by EU foreign affairs chief Borrell and, later, by von der Leyen.  Grade: F Olivér Várhelyi. | John Thys/AFP via Getty Images Back to the top JUTTA URPILAINEN, INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS Verdict: The Finn cemented the EU’s new approach to third countries via the flagship Global Gateway initiative, which mobilized up to €300 billion in public and private funds to finance infrastructure projects abroad, thereby offering those nations an alternative to China’s strategic largesse in its Belt and Road Initiative. But there were doubts whether Urpilainen had the political clout to defend Europe’s response to geopolitical competition within and outside the bloc. The supporters of Global Gateway have high hopes that upcoming Czech Commissioner Jozef Síkela will be an upgrade for the department overseeing Global Gateway. Grade: C- Back to the top ADINA VĂLEAN, TRANSPORT Verdict: An MEP since 2007, Vălean is in her element in the European Parliament. As a transport commissioner, however, she seemed out of sync, at times even bored with the legislation she was tasked with defending. Lawmakers and diplomats complained she lacked vision for transport, with one official singling her out as the most absentee commissioner within the EU executive even as her department churned out a long list of legislative texts. The commissioner won praise from some for her Covid certificates, which rebooted travel, and for the “green lanes” allowing trucks to circulate when countries shut their borders in futile attempts to halt the spread of Covid. And when Russia invaded Ukraine and halted its sea trade, the “solidarity lanes” that bolstered Ukrainian land exports were a key part of the EU’s response to the war. Grade: C- Back to the top VIRGINIJUS SINKEVIČIUS, ENVIRONMENT, OCEANS AND FISHERIES Verdict: The youngest-ever commissioner performed well in what turned out to be a relatively difficult portfolio, in which he had to balance economic interests with environmental protection. Lithuania’s former economy minister fought to get the contentious Green Deal legislation through, including new rules to prevent imports of products driving global deforestation; legislation to cut packaging waste or make consumer goods greener; air pollution limits; and attempts to boost the restoration of the natural environment. He was a strong advocate of the Green Deal, but failed to push through the much-awaited revision of the EU’s chemicals framework regulation (REACH) or set sweeping new rules, as promised, to decrease microplastic pollution. Overall, though, whatever you think of the Green Deal, his was a massive political achievement.  Grade: A- Back to the top KADRI SIMSON, ENERGY Verdict: Simson had a tough term with Russia’s war in Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis. But her biggest struggle was to establish herself in a Commission where key parts of her role were hoovered up by von der Leyen, ex-Green Deal chief Timmermans and Šefčovič. Her advocacy of greater support for Ukraine’s beleaguered energy grid in the face of Russian attacks deserves credit, and she was able to chart a course through stacks of complex legislation without any major crises. But quiet competence is rarely enough to stand out in a crowded field.  Grade: C Back to the top THIERRY BRETON, INTERNAL MARKET AND SERVICES Verdict: In charge of a huge portfolio spanning tech and industrial policy, the French commissioner vowed to use his experience as a tech chief executive to get things done for the EU. That formula worked for a time, with Breton coordinating EU medical supply production early in the Covid pandemic and helping to deliver the AI Act, the world’s first binding regulation on artificial intelligence. But Breton’s aggressive approach to EU politics and his repeated challenges to von der Leyen worked against him in the end, leading to his early exit from the Commission. Grade: C+ Back to the top MARGARITIS SCHINAS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROMOTING OUR EUROPEAN WAY OF LIFE Verdict: The Greek politician’s job was primarily focused on a new package of rules on how the bloc would manage migration. Schinas duly delivered the package, which had been under discussion for nearly a decade. In the final months of his term, however, 15 EU capitals demanded further changes to the bloc’s rules on migration, suggesting that the Migration Pact was not all it was cracked up to be. On other aspects of his job, namely upholding justice and core values, Schinas let other commissioners take the lead.  Grade: B- Back to the top DUBRAVKA ŠUICA, DEMOCRACY AND DEMOGRAPHY Verdict: Šuica had one of the Commission’s more loosely defined portfolios, with a focus on improving EU democracy. A key deliverable was organizing the Conference on the Future of Europe — a series of debates geared at making the EU feel more democratic, which the Croatian politician delivered in 2022. While the bloc is implementing much of the low-hanging fruit from the conference, it has balked at larger changes, such as plans to scrap unanimous decision-making in foreign policy. While her first term at the Commission was low-key, Šuica won von der Leyen’s confidence to earn a second term in the Berlaymont. Grade: B+ Back to the top JANEZ LENARČIČ, HUMANITARIAN AID AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT Verdict: Slovenia was tasked with improving the EU’s response to emergencies such as natural disasters and promoting humanitarian law. Lenarčič was an early pick to serve on von der Leyen’s Covid response team, where he was overshadowed by commissioners with more power — namely Breton and von der Leyen herself. On humanitarian law, Lenarčič established himself as a key critic of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. On crisis management, however, he failed to make much of an impact, not least during the recent deadly floods in Valencia, Spain. Grade: B Back to the top ELISA FERREIRA, COHESION AND REFORMS Verdict: The Portuguese socialist was in charge of EU spending in poorer regions at a time when the program was overshadowed by the bloc’s €800 billion post-pandemic recovery fund, which largely neglected the local impact of investments. Ferreira’s influence was diminished by von der Leyen’s disinterest in regional policy and, more generally, by multiple crises that shifted attention elsewhere. The EU’s cohesion budget was used to fund medical equipment during the Covid crisis and assistance to Ukrainian refugees — undermining its core task of reducing inequalities across regions. While Ferreira passionately defended regional funding against growing criticism, she failed to articulate a vision of how to structure this policy in the future. Grade: C Back to the top JOHANNES HAHN, BUDGET Verdict: The experienced Austrian politician played a role in the EU’s most politically sensitive decisions, including funding to Ukraine, post-Covid financing and withholding EU cash to Hungary over its democratic backsliding. Hahn got the job done in most cases, even though von der Leyen frequently stole the limelight. In his five years, however, he achieved little progress on the introduction of EU-wide taxes to repay the bloc’s Covid debt, largely due to national resistance. In his final months in power he became reticent and arguably gave senior officials in his department too much freedom to float radical ideas that were politically toxic. With the EU’s new budget looming, Hahn’s Polish successor Piotr Serafin is likely to wield comparatively greater power. Grade: C Back to the top YLVA JOHANSSON, HOME AFFAIRS  Verdict: The blunt Swedish politician found a niche in what could be called both a broad and a narrow remit by focusing much of her attention on Europe’s approach to tech. A high-profile commissioner, Johansson called for tech companies to better screen their platforms for terrorism and child pornography, and urged Europol to process content and as a transformed digital agency. She struggled to oversee migration, a portfolio guarded closely by national governments, but stood strong in holding them to account for their policies, including slamming Greece for reportedly forcing migrants onto an emergency raft and abandoning them in the Aegean Sea in 2023. Grade: A- Back to the top DIDIER REYNDERS, JUSTICE Verdict: A Belgian political veteran, Reynders played his Berlaymont role in overseeing the EU’s high-profile legal stand-off with Hungary over the rule of law without — crucially — upstaging his boss. Known in his home country as Mr. Teflon for his ability to shake off political scandals, Reynders’ success as commissioner meant he steered clear of political live wires, as seen in his muted responses to national spyware scandals. One failure: Reynders emerges from the job without having lined up another high-profile gig, having lost — for the second time — his bid to lead the Council of Europe in the summer. Grade: C Back to the top Max Griera, Sejla Ahmatovic, Barbara Moens, Nicholas Vinocur, Alessandro Ford, Douglas Busvine, Kathryn Carlson, Pieter Haeck, Gregorio Sorgi, Izabella Kaminska, Giovanna Faggionato, Helen Collis, Louise Guillot, Laurens Cerulus, and Aoife White contributed reporting. 

LONDON — Will Benjamin Netanyahu be arrested if he sets foot in the U.K.? The British government can’t quite say. The International Criminal Court warrant for the Israeli PM’s apprehension has thrown a fresh headache at Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer — and is just the latest example of the tightrope he’s walking on the Middle East. When it came to office in a July landslide, Starmer’s government — which had faced pressure in the election from pro-Gaza independent candidates — swiftly dropped objections from his Tory predecessors to the ICC’s move. It banned some arms exports to Israel. And it restored funding to the UNRWA, the U.N. refugee agency heavily criticised by Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas. Yet in his stance on those issues, some pro-Palestinian critics on the left of Labour say Starmer has only revealed the sharp limits of British influence over Israel. At the same time, pro-Israel figures in the Labour tribe are concerned at what looks like wavering from a key ally at a time of pain. “We’ve taken the wrong direction,” said Leslie Turnberg, a member of the House of Lords and the Labour Friends of Israel group. “I fear that the signals that have been given do not sound very helpful. I think they’re perverse.” ‘PROPER PROCESS’ In its response to the ICC’s warrant, issued Thursday and already dividing Western governments, Starmer’s administration tried to walk a fine line. The prime minister’s spokesperson said Thursday that the ICC is the “primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern,” and confirmed Britain would “comply with its legal obligations.” But there is, the spokesperson added, “no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas and Hezbollah, which are terrorist organizations.” No. 10 Downing Street has stressed that it would be down to a domestic court to approve the warrant and then up to police to arrest Netanyahu if Britain is to comply with its international treaty obligations. On Friday morning, Starmer’s top interior minister, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, refused to get into the details. Asked directly if the Israeli leader would be arrested if he set foot in Britain, the Home Secretary told Times Radio: “International criminal court investigations rarely become a matter for the British legal or law enforcement processes or for the British government.” She added: “If they ever do, there are proper processes that need to be followed and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment in advance on any of those as home secretary.” A Palestinian man carries the bodies of two young victims inside the Kamal Adwan hospital following an Israeli strike that hit an area near the medical establishment in Beit Layia in the northern Gaza Strip early on November 21, 2024. | AFP via Getty Images Starmer’s critics on the left already want him to go much further. Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader who was booted out of the party and now sits as an independent MP, said ministers must “immediately endorse” the ICC’s decision as a “bare minimum.” He fired off a letter to the government Friday asking whether Starmer is “on the side of Israeli impunity or international law?” CRITICAL FRIEND  It’s a familiar challenge to Starmer, who has tried to keep a party which has sharply divided views on the war in Gaza on side — and see off the electoral threat of independent, pro-Palestinian election candidates. In the background, Labour remains deeply sensitive to accusations of antisemitism that came to the fore during Corbyn’s time as leader. In its most notable Middle East move since Labour took office, 30 arms export licenses between the U.K. and Israel were suspended amid concerns such weapons could be used to break international humanitarian law in Gaza. Though the U.K. supplies comparatively few arms when put against the United States, the decision had instant diplomatic consequences. Netanyahu went public to claim Britain had sent a “horrible message to Hamas” and “undermined” Israel’s security. Some in the Labour tribe, who have longed for Britain to flex its muscles as a grinding war with a huge civilian toll continues in Gaza, were pleased with the change in tone from the top. “There has been a good shift in the right direction,” said one Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “They have been able to demonstrate that shift: that actually the Conservative government’s position and … Labour’s positions are not the same.”  In opposition, Starmer felt fury from his own side after slowly coming out in favor of an Israel-Gaza cease-fire. Just days after Oct. 7, Starmer enraged some Labour activists with an interview in which he said Israel “has the right” to withhold water and aid from Gaza. “The starting position of the party was in the wrong place,” the Labour MP quoted above said. “Giving this particular Israeli government a blank check was the wrong thing to do, and we’ve seen how that has been abused.”  ELECTORAL THREAT Labour’s stance on the war in Gaza also animated voters in July’s election. On an otherwise highly successful night, the party lost five seats to independent candidates who made support for the Palestinian people a bedrock of their campaign. Among the high-profile defeats of the night was Jonathan Ashworth, who was being lined up for a Cabinet job by Starmer. Incoming Health Secretary Wes Streeting, facing a pro-Gaza challenge, clung on by fewer than 1,000 votes. “There’s no doubt that there was a reaction,” said the Labour MP. “There are many people who did not like our position and it wasn’t just Muslims. I myself had that experience from non-Muslims telling me to get off their property.” Richard Johnson, a politics professor at Queen Mary University of London, said Labour is “aware that it has been perceived in opposition, at least, to be neglectful of the concerns of Muslim voters.” In opposition, Starmer felt fury from his own side after slowly coming out in favor of an Israel-Gaza cease-fire. | POOL photo by Benjamin Cremel/Getty Images “They have a desire to try and win back those seats and the countervailing influence of a pro-Israel position in the Labour Party is not nearly as strong as it once was,” he argued. Four of the five seats — Blackburn, Dewsbury and Batley, Birmingham Perry Barr and Leicester South — that now have pro-Gaza independent candidates are in the top 20 U.K. constituencies with the highest proportion of Muslims, according to the 2021 census. ICC IS ‘EXTREME’ For their part, the opposition Conservatives have been quick to frame Labour’s policy changes as a cowardly response to election losses. Boris Johnson, the former Conservative prime minister, accused Labour of “abandoning Israel.” On Thursday the Conservatives, who originally objected to the ICC’s move earlier this year, called on Labour to “condemn and challenge” a “deeply concerning and provocative” decision by the top court. In the Labour tribe itself, the new government’s changing tone on Israel has fuelled disagreement from supporters of the country. Turnberg, of Labour Friends of Israel, said the ICC’s position on Netanyahu is “extreme and quite outside the balance of reasonableness.” He said Labour’s “distasteful and unhelpful” policy shifts since the election could have been affected by the new caucus of pro-Gaza independent MPs, which includes Corbyn, and Labour’s hopes of neutralizing a further electoral threat. For others, Starmer has still not gone far enough — and there could be pain to come on the issue at local elections. More than 100 Muslim Labour councilors wrote to Starmer last month calling for a complete halt in arms sales to Israel. “Council elections will be used as regular referendums on the government,” Johnson, of Queen Mary University, predicts. Some observers point to the couched, legalistic language the U.K. government has used to justify its Israel shifts so far — pointing to process rather than directly criticising Israel. Christopher Phillips, an associate fellow at the Chatham House think tank, said this is unsurprising given Starmer and his Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s backgrounds as lawyers. “They have repeatedly said they are supporters of maintaining and upholding the standards of international law,” he said. But there’s a political convenience to it as well. “It allows them to take action that’s critical of Israel while simultaneously trying to limit the fallout and the diplomatic relationship with Israel,” Phillips said. Matt Honeycombe-Foster contributed to this report

ALBANY, Georgia — The pews were filling up inside Mount Zion Baptist Church, where former President Bill Clinton was set to launch his rural campaign swing for Vice President Kamala Harris in this Democratic stronghold bordering a sea of rural red Georgia. In the back, Joseph Parker said he was thrilled the Arkansan was coming. But it had been nearly a quarter-century since Clinton left office and, Parker said, “Things were really different then.” This year, he said he’s voting for former President Donald Trump, the first time the 72-year-old has cast a ballot for a Republican presidential candidate. “Trump’s a man of his word. What he says he’s gonna do, he does,” Parker said, after initial reluctance to reveal his preference. “And everything is so high now — groceries high, clothes, everything, gas. And four years ago, it wasn’t that high. And so people see the difference in Kamala Harris and Trump, and they want some of what they had four years ago. And I do, too.” In the final weeks of the campaign, Democrats are working to shore up the coalition that helped turn Georgia in their favor in the presidential election four years ago and in two Senate races in 2021. But in a state where President Joe Biden narrowly won in 2020, drawing 88 percent of the Black vote, months of public polling showing some Black men moving toward Trump is part of the reason the former president appears stronger in Georgia than this time four years ago. Overwhelmingly, the audience at Mount Zion on Sunday was behind the goal of pushing Harris to the Oval Office, cheering at times as Clinton spoke; the church’s pastor, the Rev. Daniel Simmons, even instructed those who came forward for the altar call to listen to Clinton’s speech before going into another room to receive spiritual counseling. Clinton’s trip this past weekend was confined to the rural part of the Peach State. The last Democratic presidential candidate to win Georgia before Biden — and by margins almost as narrow — Clinton said he told the Harris campaign, “Send me to the country.” But it isn’t just in rural Georgia that Harris has work to do. Back in the cities, too, Democrats are trying to build support among voters of color, as a small faction of them shift toward Trump. As part of what it describes as its largest operation in Georgia yet, the campaign has been hosting events like “Brothas and Brews” in Atlanta last week, while gathering Black farmers recently in Byromville. Just after taking over the ticket, Harris held a large rally in Atlanta with prominent Black entertainers Megan Thee Stallion and Quavo. But for all the support Harris has in this state, Trump is still cutting into her margins — even with some voters who express reservations about him. Arthur Beauford, a 28-year-old from Marietta, said he decided to vote for the first time this election — for Trump, despite his family members still being “Democrat, all the way.” Beauford said it’s not just him, that he keeps hearing similar remarks from other young Black men nearly every time he is at the gym: Comments about Trump being “funny.” “Entertaining.” Even “brave,” Beauford said, noting it’s not uncommon to hear his peers talking about an unspecified “they” who are out to get the former president. “I’m not necessarily the biggest fan of Trump,” Beauford said, “but I’ll definitely take Trump over Harris,” adding that he was impressed by Trump’s business experience, while suggesting that Harris, a former prosecutor, California attorney general and senator, wasn’t qualified and “just seems to have been given everything” in her career. Samuel Kem, a 25-year-old Black voter from Kennesaw, cast his ballot for Biden in 2020, in large part because of what he said was news coverage suggesting Trump didn’t lead well during the pandemic. But Kem, who graduated last year from the Savannah College of Art and Design in Atlanta, said he now lives with his family due to the high cost of living and also changed his mind on “migration issues” over the last four years. “I wouldn’t say he’s perfect or anything,” Kem said of Trump, adding that he thinks Trump should do more on climate change. “He will get the job done. He’s very talented in, like, diplomatic relations with other countries with mutual respect.” Republicans are working to turn out more new Trump voters. Walking through a residential neighborhood in Lilburn this week, several women from the Faith & Freedom Coalition moved from door to door following instructions on an app the organization uses for its massive nationwide field operation. Among the conservative Christian organization’s paid door knockers was 47-year-old Fabienne Durocher, a member of the Haitian community who moved to Lawrenceville three years ago after living in New York. In the last election, Durocher supported Biden. “I’m going to tell you the truth. I didn’t like him. But now, I like him,” Durocher said of Trump. “I don’t like when Democrats are talking about abortion. I don’t want that. So I said, for that, I’m going to change my mind. I’m going to vote for Trump.” Durocher is among the Creole-speaking door knockers whom the Faith & Freedom Coalition has employed this election, and they’ve translated door-handle voting guides into the language in an effort to not just reach African American voters, but Haitian Americans as well. Asked about Trump’s recent false accusations about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating neighbors’ household pets, Durocher said, “I keep seeing that on the TV, I don’t know if it is true. But I really don’t like when they’re talking bad about Trump.” Howard Franklin, a Democratic strategist in Georgia, said Trump’s “wealth and his celebrity and his willingness to at least speak unlike a politician, unvarnished — I don’t think it would do Democrats any good to deny there’s some appeal there.” But Franklin said he is banking on what history has shown, that Georgia’s Black voters like himself “tend to come home and vote with the Democratic Party.” He said that while the Democrats’ minority outreach “used to be all barber shops and beauty salons,” they’re now deploying prominent surrogates to speak to small business owners about issues like economic opportunity. So what, exactly, changed in Georgia since 2020, when mid-October polling averages showed Biden with a narrow lead over Trump, and voter surveys now show Trump with a slim edge over Harris? “Let’s just boil it down to good old fashioned buyer’s remorse,” said Jason Shepherd, the former chair of the Cobb County Republican Party. “People have been hit in the wallet. All the sudden, all those mean tweets and crazy comments from Trump just don’t seem as important as a positive balance on your bank account.” There were real concerns in 2020, Shepherd said, with the then-incumbent’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic — not just from his musing about injecting bleach, but his rebuke of Georgia’s popular governor, Brian Kemp, for reopening the state for business sooner than Trump wanted. Then Trump railed against early voting measures, so much so, Shepherd recalled, that the Cobb County GOP office received calls at the end of the early voting period from people who said they didn’t cast their ballots early because Trump had advised them to vote on Election Day, but who then couldn’t vote for one Covid reason or another. “What should I do?” they’d ask the county party. And those were just the ones who bothered to track down the number for the Cobb GOP, Shepherd said, speculating that there were many more in similar positions. The county shifted leftward, from supporting Hillary Clinton by 2 points in 2016 to Biden by 14 points in 2020. Across the state, 24,000 Georgia Republican primary voters cast ballots in the spring of 2020 but didn’t vote in the November election, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced soon after the election — saying Trump’s rhetoric on voting by mail cost him the election. Now, the fear of the pandemic has lifted for most people. And while Trump still criticizes early voting, both he and nearly all swing state GOP officials are urging Republicans to vote as early as possible. And beyond the mechanics of the election, there have been signs for two years here that Republicans could make gains with voters who used to be reliably Democratic. Kemp, who is more popular in the state than Trump, more than doubled his support with Black voters in the 2022 election, going from receiving 5 percent in his first gubernatorial bid in 2018 to 12 percent of the Black vote four years later, according to surveys conducted by the Associated Press. “This race is between college educated and non-college educated. And in the Black community, this race is between working-class and what I call the bourgeois college-educated class,” said Shelley Wynter, a Black conservative radio host in Atlanta. “If you went to college, an HBCU, were part of the Divine Nine, you’re all in for Kamala Harris.” But for those in the Black community who aren’t steeped in those kinds of legacy institutions, Wynter continued, there’s some degree of openness toward Trump this time around. By Ralph Reed’s telling, Georgia going into the 2020 election “was genuinely a jump ball” after Democrats had made the state competitive in 2018. But in the four years that have passed since November 2020, Reed, the founder of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, former leader of the Christian Coalition and past Georgia GOP chair, said the state has ever so slightly tipped back toward Republicans. “Probably 51-49. Maybe 50.5-49.5,” Reed said. “When you’re talking about a state where 30 percent of the electorate is African American and another 4 percent are minorities other than Hispanic, it’s a big deal if you move that even a little bit,” Reed said. “The thing we don’t know: Is that actually going to be the outcome on Election Day?” One well-connected Republican strategist in the state, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that polling in the state in past cycles has been “too young and too male.” “They are not the reliable Georgia voters. On Election Day, our Black population is always more female, and older,” the strategist said. At a Sunday afternoon fish fry attended by local Democratic activists in Peach County, most of whom were Black, Clinton stood mouth agape and grinning. He propped his arm on the shoulder of 77-year-old Calvin Smyre, who after 48 years in the Georgia House was the longest serving member of the state Legislature and a fixture in southwest Georgia politics. He borrowed a pen from Smyre to tweak his notes. They listened as a pair of brothers spoke, Warren and Howard James, “lifetime Black farmers” from Macon County. “I don’t know if we can make it without Georgia,” Clinton, standing in the grass, said to the crowd huddled under two shade trees. “But I’ll tell you this. They have one heck of a hill to climb if we do win Georgia, and it won’t hurt Mr. Trump to climb a few more hills. I’ll even pray for him — but not to get to the top before we do.”

Kamala Harris ventured into enemy territory Wednesday, trying to reach voters who get their news through the filter of Fox News. But first, she had to get a word in edgewise.  The half-hour interview with anchor Bret Baier was contentious from the start and stayed that way throughout. He recycled Republican talking points into accusations and frequently interrupted the vice president — the two talking over each other at times.  “I would like that we would have a conversation that is grounded in the full assessment of the facts,” Harris said at one point when Baier apologized for speaking over her.  The interview reflected an attempt by the vice president to reach some of the more conservative voters she may need in what polls show is a close race against Donald Trump. Whether she succeeded remains to be seen.  Baier started with immigration, echoing Trump campaign talking points that seek to blame the Biden administration, and the vice president by extension, for the large number of illegal border crossings that have subsided in recent months.  Harris pivoted to the border security bill that failed in Congress after Trump pressured members to oppose the measure — or she tried to at least.  “We’ve had a broken immigration system, transcending, by the way, Donald Trump’s administration, even before,” she said. “Let’s all be honest about that. I have no pride in saying that this is a perfect immigration system. I’ve been clear,” Harris said.  Baier asked how she would be different from Biden. She said she would bring in a fresh perspective, using that to talk about the Republicans who are supporting her candidacy because of their disapproval of Trump.  “Let me be very clear, my presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency,” Harris said. “I, for example, am someone who has not spent the majority of my career in Washington, D.C. I invite ideas, whether it be from the Republicans who are supporting me, who were just on stage with me minutes ago.” Harris also tried to steer the conversation to Trump’s threats in recent appearances to use the military to go after his critics — something they weren’t likely to hear about on Baier’s network.  “This is a democracy,” she said. “And in a democracy, the president of the United States should be willing to be able to handle criticism without saying he would lock people up for doing it.”