LONDON — A mutated influenza strain is spreading early in Europe this winter, but some experts warn talk of a “superflu” is misleading, erodes public trust and distracts from the underlying problems of the National Health Service. The new strain has triggered dramatic headlines in the U.K., where health leaders are warning of a “worst-case scenario” for the country’s NHS. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described it as a “tidal wave of flu tearing through our hospitals” and labelled it a “challenge unlike any [the NHS] has seen since the pandemic.” While hospital admissions have been rising sharply due to the early arrival of flu season, there is currently no evidence that this season’s variant is more deadly or transmissible, experts at the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) told POLITICO. Neither does the data suggest hospital admissions will peak higher than previous years — although this is possible — just that they’re a few weeks early. But some experts in the U.K. have criticized the government’s “superflu” narrative, suggesting it’s being used as leverage in talks on doctor pay and conditions ahead of a looming strike. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wrote in The Guardian Friday it was “beyond belief” doctors would consider striking in these “potentially dire” circumstances, citing “a superflu epidemic.” The British Medical Association (BMA), the union representing resident doctors due to go on strike Wednesday, claimed it was “irresponsible to portray the current winter flu crisis as unprecedented” given that rates of infection and hospitalization were “comparable to most years,” a spokesperson told POLITICO. Mathematician Christina Pagel, a professor at University College London, said the “superflu” line was based on the “highly misleading use of statistics” and had more to do with the impending doctors’ strike than real trends. When contacted by POLITICO, the U.K. government stood by its health leaders’ warnings of the current flu season, in which they described it as an “unprecedented wave of super flu.” They said staff were being “pushed to the limit.” The government also pointed to stats showing the NHS is under pressure. A DHSC spokesperson told POLITICO the government had offered the BMA an extended mandate so they could strike in January instead, but the union rejected it. The BMA told POLITICO the extension included “several restrictive conditions.” THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST The government and NHS bosses have warned the heavy burden on hospitals in December could set the health system up for a very severe winter. NHS statistics published last week show an average of 2,660 patients in hospital with flu per day, a record for this time of year, while the Health Foundation has said the NHS could face “major pressures” if cases continue to climb rapidly in the weeks ahead. Yet, while NHS staff are stretched, Pagel and others argue this year is largely consistent with previous severe flu seasons. However, without being clear about this with the public, some experts are concerned the government’s messaging could do more harm than good. “One of the real issues we have with governments everywhere is trust,” Martin McKee, professor of public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told POLITICO. While NHS staff are stretched, experts argue this year is largely consistent with previous severe flu seasons. | Geography Photos/Getty Images “The difficulty is we’ve seen them do all sorts of things for all sorts of motives. That then becomes a problem whenever they are saying something accurate,” McKee said, adding that the government should be more careful in its flu messaging given the declining trust in science. POLITICO put these concerns over trust in science to DHSC, but the department did not respond by the time of publication. A spokesperson for government-sponsored NHS England told POLITICO: “The NHS is not misleading the public — this is the earliest flu season we have seen in recent years with the latest data showing the numbers of patients in hospital with flu is extremely high for this time of year.” The NHS is struggling as it often does in winter, with a spike in delayed discharges — people who are ready to leave hospital but have nowhere to go — posing an extra challenge for hospitals, The Guardian reported Sunday. Hospital admissions for flu per 100,000 rose 23 percent in last week’s data, compared to 69 percent the previous week, but this doesn’t rule out another surge in the weeks ahead. McKee said the NHS was paying the price for chronic underinvestment. “We almost seem surprised that it’s arrived,” he said of the current flu wave, citing a “massive shortage” in beds, IT equipment and scanners.  WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY There is no reason to think the current flu strain (H3N2 sub-clade K) causes more severe disease than other types of flu, Hans Kluge, head of the World Health Organization’s Europe office, told POLITICO. Nor is there any solid evidence that it is more transmissible, said Edoardo Colzani, a flu expert at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. It’s possible the lower level of immunity to this strain could lead to more cases “but this is still speculative at this stage,” Colzani said. “The epidemiological situation at the moment [in the EU] does not seem worse than in previous years apart from the fact that it is two-to-three weeks earlier,” Colzani said. Kluge said it was “about 4 weeks earlier than usual,” which “is not out of the ordinary” and trending similar to the 2022–2023 influenza season. There were some concerns the available flu vaccine might not be a “perfect match” for the current strain, Kluge said, but early data from the U.K. suggests it provides “meaningful protection” and may prevent severe disease and death, especially among vulnerable groups. “We [could] end up having a much bigger wave than usual but we have no evidence,” Pagel said, adding she thought it was “most likely” to peak “in a couple of weeks.” But the available data can’t tell us whether it will be a normal wave that starts and ends early, or an especially bad season, she added.  “We don’t know when it will turn the corner but the actual shape of the wave doesn’t look that different from previous years,” McKee said. The NHS has previously warned of the risk of a “long and drawn-out flu season” due to the early start. According to the WHO, some countries in the southern hemisphere had unusually long flu seasons this year.  “Based on previous trends, this season is expected to peak in late December or early January,” Kluge said. The advice from EU and U.K. authorities remains the same — get a flu vaccine as soon as possible, especially for those in a vulnerable group.

When the Franco-German summit concluded in Berlin, Europe’s leaders issued a declaration with a clear ambition: strengthen Europe’s digital sovereignty in an open, collaborative way. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s call for “Europe’s Independence Moment” captures the urgency, but independence isn’t declared — it’s designed. The pandemic exposed this truth. When Covid-19 struck, Europe initially scrambled for vaccines and facemasks, hampered by fragmented responses and overreliance on a few external suppliers. That vulnerability must never be repeated. True sovereignty rests on three pillars: diversity, resilience and autonomy. > True sovereignty rests on three pillars: diversity, resilience and autonomy. Diversity doesn’t mean pulling every factory back to Europe or building walls around markets. Many industries depend on expertise and resources beyond our borders. The answer is optionality, never putting all our eggs in one basket. Europe must enable choice and work with trusted partners to build capabilities. This risk-based approach ensures we’re not hostage to single suppliers or overexposed to nations that don’t share our values. Look at the energy crisis after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Europe’s heavy reliance on Russian oil and gas left economies vulnerable. The solution wasn’t isolation, it was diversification: boosting domestic production from alternative energy sources while sourcing from multiple markets. Optionality is power. It lets Europe pivot when shocks hit, whether in energy, technology, or raw materials. Resilience is the art of prediction. Every system inevitably has vulnerabilities. The key is pre-empting, planning, testing and knowing how to recover quickly. Just as banks undergo stress tests, Europe needs similar rigor across physical and digital infrastructure. That also means promoting interoperability between networks, redundant connectivity links (including space and subsea cables), stockpiling critical components, and contingency plans. Resilience isn’t theoretical. It’s operational readiness. Finally, Europe must exercise authority through robust frameworks, such as authorization schemes, local licensing and governance rooted in EU law. The question is how and where to apply this control. On sensitive data, for example, sovereignty means ensuring it’s held in Europe under European jurisdiction, without replacing every underlying technology component. Sovereign solutions shouldn’t shut out global players. Instead, they should guarantee that critical decisions and compliance remain under European authority. Autonomy is empowerment, limiting external interference or denial of service while keeping systems secure and accountable. But let’s be clear: Europe cannot replicate world-leading technologies, platforms or critical components overnight. While we have the talent, innovation and leading industries, Europe has fallen significantly behind in a range of key emerging technologies. > While we have the talent, innovation and leading industries, Europe has fallen > significantly behind in a range of key emerging technologies. For example, building fully European alternatives in cloud and AI would take decades and billions of euros, and even then, we’d struggle to match Silicon Valley or Shenzhen. Worse, turning inward with protectionist policies would only weaken the foundations that we now seek to strengthen. “Old wines in new bottles” — import substitution, isolationism, picking winners — won’t deliver competitiveness or security. Contrast that with the much-debated US Inflation Reduction Act. Its incentives and subsidies were open to EU companies, provided they invest locally, develop local talent and build within the US market. It’s not about flags, it’s about pragmatism: attracting global investments, creating jobs and driving innovation-led growth. So what’s the practical path? Europe must embrace ‘sovereignty done right’, weaving diversity, resilience and autonomy into the fabric of its policies. That means risk-based safeguards, strategic partnerships and investment in European capabilities while staying open to global innovation. Trusted European operators can play a key role: managing encryption, access control and critical operations within EU jurisdiction, while enabling managed access to global technologies. To avoid ‘sovereignty washing’, eligibility should be based on rigorous, transparent assessments, not blanket bans. The Berlin summit’s new working group should start with a common EU-wide framework defining levels of data, operational and technological sovereignty. Providers claiming sovereign services can use this framework to transparently demonstrate which levels they meet. Europe’s sovereignty will not come from closing doors. Sovereignty done right will come from opening the right ones, on Europe’s terms. Independence should be dynamic, not defensive — empowering innovation, securing prosperity and protecting freedoms. > Europe’s sovereignty will not come from closing doors. Sovereignty done right > will come from opening the right ones, on Europe’s terms. That’s how Europe can build resilience, competitiveness and true strategic autonomy in a vibrant global digital ecosystem.

Rick Pazdur, the FDA’s top drug regulator, told staff Tuesday he submitted his resignation to the agency, an abrupt departure weeks after he was convinced by Commissioner Marty Makary to take the post to help bring stability to an agency reeling from months of upheaval, according to four people familiar with the decision granted anonymity to discuss the move. The decision — which comes days after top vaccine regulator Vinay Prasad said the agency would ratchet up regulatory requirements for new vaccines — is almost certain to raise new questions about Makary’s leadership of the FDA. Pazdur in recent weeks clashed with Makary over the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program, according to media reports. That program — which aims to speed final review of drugs that address health priorities, pose a transformative innovative impact, address an unmet medical need, help onshoring efforts or increase affordability — was also criticized by Pazdur’s predecessor, George Tidmarsh. FDA experts have worried the involvement of political appointees in the process of choosing which firms receive a voucher could raise questions about the program’s integrity. STAT first reported the news of Pazdur’s decision to retire. It is unclear if the decision is final — one person familiar with the decision said the longtime cancer drug regulator has 30 days to change his decision. “We respect Dr. Pazdur’s decision to retire and honor his 26 years of distinguished service at the FDA,” an FDA spokesperson said in a statement. “As the founding director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, he leaves a legacy of cross-center regulatory innovation that strengthened the agency and advanced care for countless patients. His leadership, vision, and dedication will continue to shape the FDA for years to come.” The White House and Pazdur did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Pazdur, a 26-year agency veteran, initially rebuffed efforts by Makary to convince him to assume leadership of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research — but ultimately agreed to take the job after being assured he would be given autonomy in the role free from political influence and the ability to rehire staff.

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 

As Europe redefines its life sciences and biotech agenda, one truth stands out: the strength of our innovation lies in its interconnection between human and animal health, science and society, and policy and practice. This spirit of collaboration guided the recent “Innovation for Animal Health: Advancing Europe’s Life Sciences Agenda” policy breakfast in Brussels, where leading voices from EU politics, science and industry came together to discuss how Europe can turn its scientific excellence into a truly competitive and connected life sciences ecosystem. Jeannette Ferran Astorga / Via Zoetis Europe’s role in life sciences will depend on its ability to see innovation holistically. At Zoetis we firmly believe that animal health innovation must be part of that equation, as this strengthens resilience, drives sustainability, and connects directly to the wellbeing of people. Innovation without barriers Some of humanity’s greatest challenges continue to emerge at the intersection of human, animal and environmental health, sometimes with severe economic impact. The recent outbreaks of diseases like avian influenza, African swine fever and bluetongue virus act as reminders of this. By enhancing the health and welfare of animals, the animal health industry and veterinarians are strengthening farmers’ livelihoods, supporting thriving communities and safeguarding global food security. This is also contributing to protecting wildlife and ecosystems. Meanwhile, companion animals are members of approximately half of European households. Here, we have seen how dogs and cats have become part of the family, with owners now investing a lot more to keep their pets healthy and able to live to an old age. Because of the deepening bonds with our pets and their increased longevity, the demand for new treatment alternatives is rising continuously, stimulating new research and innovative solutions making their way into veterinary practices. Zoonotic diseases that can be transferred between animals and humans, like rabies, Lyme disease, Covid-19 and constantly new emerging infectious diseases, make the rapid development of veterinary solutions a necessity. Throughout the world, life sciences are an engine of growth and a foundation of health, resilience and sustainability. Europe’s next chapter in this field will also be written by those who can bridge human and animal health, transforming science into solutions that deliver both economic and societal value. The same breakthroughs that protect our pets and livestock underpin the EU’s ambitions on antimicrobial resistance, food security and sustainable agriculture. Ensuring these innovations can reach the market efficiently is therefore not a niche issue, it is central to Europe’s strategic growth and competitiveness. This was echoed at the policy event by Dr. Wiebke Jansen, Policy Lead at the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) when she noted that ‘innovation is not abstract. As soon as a product is available, it changes the lives of animals, their veterinarians and the communities we serve. With the many unmet needs we still face in animal health, having access to new innovation is an extremely relevant question from the veterinary perspective.’ Enabling innovation through smart regulation To realize the promise of Europe’s life sciences and biotech agenda, the EU must ensure that regulation keeps pace with scientific discovery. The European Commission’s Omnibus Simplification Package offers a valuable opportunity to create a more innovation-friendly environment, one where time and resources can be focused on developing solutions for animal and human health, not on navigating overlapping reporting requirements or dealing with an ever increasing regulatory burden. > In animal health, biotechnology is already transforming what’s possible — for > example, monoclonal antibodies that help control certain chronic conditions or > diseases with unprecedented precision. Reviewing legislative frameworks, developing the Union Product Database as a true one-stop hub or introducing digital tools such as electronic product information (e-leaflets) in all member states, for instance, would help scientists and regulators alike to work more efficiently, thereby enhancing the availability of animal health solutions. This is not about loosening standards; it is about creating the right conditions for innovation to thrive responsibly and efficiently. Science that serves society Europe’s leadership in life sciences depends on its ability to turn cutting-edge research into real-world impact, for example through bringing new products to patients faster. In animal health, biotechnology is already transforming what’s possible — for example, monoclonal antibodies that help control certain chronic conditions or diseases with unprecedented precision. Relieving itching caused by atopic dermatitis or alleviating the pain associated with osteoarthritis significantly increases the quality of life of cats and dogs — and their owners. In addition, diagnostics and next-generation vaccines prevent outbreaks before they start or spread further. Maintaining a proportionate, benefit–risk for veterinary medicines allows innovation to progress safely while ensuring accelerated access to new treatments. Supporting science-based decision-making and investing in the European Medicines Agency’s capacity to deliver efficient, predictable processes will help Europe remain a trusted partner in global health innovation. Continuum of Care / Via Zoetis A One Health vision for the next decade Europe is not short of ambition. The EU Biotech Act and the Life Sciences Strategy both aim to turn innovation into a driver of growth and wellbeing. But to truly unlock their potential, they must include animal health in their vision. The experience of the veterinary medicines sector shows that innovation does not stop at species’ borders; advances in immunology, monoclonal antibodies and the use of artificial intelligence benefit both animals and humans. A One Health perspective, where veterinary and human health research reinforce each other, will help Europe to play a positive role in an increasingly competitive global landscape. The next five years will be decisive. By fostering proportionate, science-based adaptive regulation, investing in digital and institutional capacity, and embracing a One Health approach to innovation, Europe can become a genuine world leader in life sciences — for people and the animals that are essential to our lives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Zoetis Belgium S.A. * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on the EU End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR), circular plastics, chemical recycling, and industrial competitiveness in Europe. More information here.

Liz Truss looks out of place. In her neat pink jacket and white blouse, the former U.K. prime minister, who served a brief but eventful 49 days in the role back in 2022, strikes a contrast to the hoopla around her in the packed ballroom. Truss has come to Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia this October evening for the yearly “CEO summit,” drawing corporate figures, conservative influencers and donors for a night of fiery speeches about the triumphs of the MAGA movement — seasoned with the university’s Christian conservative tradition of mixing politics with prayer. Truss rises somberly as the crowd is enjoined to repent, soul-search and double down on tithe payments to the Baptist mega-church originally founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell. From the stage at the front of the room, she nods along to the heady mixture of God and politics, waiting to start a talk about the so-called “deep state” — which, she claims, includes the Bank of England and the U.K. Treasury. She announces that she is “on a mission” to transform the U.K., and when someone cries a noisy “amen,” that throws her for a moment before she resumes. If the juxtaposition between the ex-prime minister and fire-and-brimstone MAGA evangelicals seems unlikely — Truss later tells me she is still a stalwart of the Church of England, which is much more establishment than evangelical, even if she thinks it has gone a bit “woke” on social issues like trans rights — her presence here nonetheless represents an increasingly popular trend. A transatlantic “Magafication” movement is luring traditional conservatives from the U.K. to identify with the provocative style of U.S. President Donald Trump — and to try their hands at imitating him on his home turf, participating in rousing conservative speaking events across the U.S. For some, like Truss, these events are a lucrative, mood-enhancing chance to establish a new identity after the stinging defeat of the Tory party at the last general election in July 2024. For her more charismatic predecessor Boris Johnson, they are a chance to hear the roar of the crowd that more sedate speaking gigs with hedge funds and law firms can’t deliver. For Nigel Farage, from the ultraconservative Reform UK party, they are a chance to re-forge British politics in the image of Trump — a benediction and a bro-mance all in one. Whether it’s connecting with voters on either side of the Atlantic, however, is a less certain proposition. Most of the students going about their early evening outside the hall don’t seem to know who Truss is. “They kind of told us she was the leader in the U.K.,” muses one business studies major, “but I never heard of her.” Just a few weeks earlier, it was Johnson — the premier who rose on the wings of Brexit and preceded Truss in a carousel of Tory leaders after the Leave vote — who spoke on campus at the new-term convocation, following a sequence of Christian rock numbers.  “We’re in a congregation, folks, convocation — I mean, we’ve been convoked,” Johnson riffed. The ruffle-haired charm and Old Etonian levity were a preamble to a speech about the Christian university as a “bastion of freedom” and a paean to the memory of Charlie Kirk, the murdered conservative activist, whom Johnson hailed as “a martyr to our inalienable right as human beings to say what is in our hearts.” Later, he zoned in on the need to keep supporting Ukraine and lambasted the authoritarianism of Russian President Vladimir Putin — to a muted response from the audience. It’s not exactly a popular take here; there are no follow-up questions on the topic. And at the CEO event, none of the speakers mention Ukraine or the U.S. role in its future at all. Much like the isolationism Johnson encountered, the British MAGA trail is a sign of the times. Trump’s twofold electoral success is attractive to some U.K. conservatives who feel there must be something in the president’s iconoclasm they can bottle and take home. And unlike tight-lipped debate forums in the U.K., such events give them a chance to be noisy and outspoken, to paint arguments in bold and provocative colors. In other words, to be Brits on tour — but also more like Trump. And, for added appeal, these tours are a lucrative field for former inhabitants of 10 Downing Street. One person who has previously worked at the Washington Speakers Bureau, one of the main hubs for booking A-list speakers, said that the fee for a former premier is around $200,000 for a substantial speech, plus private plane travel and commercial flights for a support team. That is a level of luxury unparalleled at home. Well known figures like Johnson and David (Lord) Cameron, the British premier from 2010 to 2016, can aim even higher if travel is complicated. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having “former prime minister” in front of your name in writing may open a lot of doors, but these politicians nonetheless have to tailor their resumes to appeal to American audiences.” Political CVs are duly bowdlerized to appeal to the target market of U.S. institutions and interests. Johnson’s profile at the Harry Walker agency in Washington, for instance, stresses his interest in deregulation and claims that he “successfully delivered Brexit — taking back control of U.K. law, marking the biggest constitutional change for half a century and enabling the United Kingdom to generate the fastest vaccine approval in the world.” This sequence of events and superlatives is debatable at best. Failures are routinely airbrushed out — Johnson’s premiership crashed in a mess of mismanagement during the pandemic and party divisions unleashed by the Brexit vote and his controversial handling of the aftermath, including the temporary dissolution of parliament to push through his legislation. But for characters whose legacy at home is either polarizing (like Johnson) or more likely to elicit a sly British eye roll outside a small fan base (Truss), there is also a degree of absolution on the American performance circuit that feels refreshing, in the same way that U.K. Indie bands stubbornly try to conquer America. Neither of the former Conservative leaders however, have as much to gain or lose by speaking at Trump-adjacent events as Farage, the leader of Britain’s Reform party — an “anti-woke,” Euro-skeptic, immigration-hostile party that is leading in the polls and attempting to expand its handful of lawmakers in the House of Commons into a party in contention for the next government. Farage has the closest access to Trump — a status previously enjoyed by Johnson, who last met Trump at the Republican National Convention in 2024 to discuss Ukraine. Proximity to Trump is the ultimate blessing, but it’s far harder to secure out of office than in it. Johnson endorsed Trump’s comeback at CPAC in February 2024 and wrote a column in support of Trump’s attack on the BBC for splicing footage of the January 6 uprising, which was deemed to be misleading and led to the abrupt departure of the broadcaster’s director general. Johnson was at Trump’s inauguration along with Truss (no other former U.K. politician was asked), but the invitations appear to have dropped off since chummy relations in Trump world can be ephemeral. Farage, by contrast, is a frequent visitor at both Mar-a-Lago and the White House. On November 7, he joined Trump at a fundraising auction for military veterans and has arranged to donate the prize of a walk with a centenarian veteran on Omaha beach, commemorating the D-Day landing site for U.S. forces. “I see him often,” he told me of his visits to Trump. Farage’s relationship with Trump could prove advantageous to him if he and his party claim greater power at home. He’d have the ear of the president, perhaps even the ability to sway Trump into a more sympathetic stance toward the U.K., even as the Americans embrace a more isolationist foreign policy. For now, Farage is certainly the most in-demand Brit on the MAGA circuit. He was the main speaker at the $500-a-head Republican party dinner in Tallahassee, Florida in March. Guests paid around $25,000 for a VIP ticket, which included having a photograph taken with the Reform UK leader. For the leader of a party that has a skimpy presence in parliament and faces the challenge of keeping its surge momentum and newsworthiness intact on a long road to the next election, being in the Trump limelight is a vote of confidence and a sign that he is taken seriously across the pond. The quid pro quo is performative loyalty — Farage, by turns genial and threatening in his manner, has echoed the president’s rancorous tone toward public broadcasters and media critics of MAGA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All of this transatlantic networking has threatened to ensnare the British visiting troupe in ethical quagmires about how their lucrative American freelancing relates to duties and strictures at home. Farage has attracted envious attention among his peers in parliament for earning around $1.5 million a year in addition to his MP salary, but he was forced to apologize recently for failing to declare the March dinner appearance and any fees associated with it in the official registry. So far, he’s revealed only that the trip was “remunerated in three separate installments over the course of two months,” without naming the funder.  Even Farage’s friendship with Trump — the envy of his compatriots on the MAGA trail — could present vulnerabilities among the U.K. electorate. Farage’s base of Reform voters largely supports Trumpian stances on immigration and diversity, and they love Trump’s personality. But beyond core Reform voters, the president does not enjoy broad support in the U.K. Recent polling shows only 16 percent of British people like the president. That’s a challenge for the Reform UK leader, whose party polls at just under 30 percent support in the U.K.; he needs to reach Trump-skeptical voters beyond his base in order to claim power. On top of those liabilities, avid Christian nationalism of the kind Truss encountered at the Liberty event presents a cultural problem for British politicians. Mixing ideology with religious fervor is awkward back home where church-going is largely regarded as a private matter, even if there are signs of more evangelical commitment among influential Christian Conservatives like Paul Marshall, a hedge-funder who recently acquired The Spectator, the house publication of well-heeled Tories, expanding its digital reach into America. Hardline evangelical stances could undermine support for campaigners like Farage, says Tim Bale, an expert on elections and political trends at Queen Mary College, University of London. Farage “probably needs to be careful of getting into things like anti-abortion arguments or even term limits on abortion. That does not play in the U.K.,” he told me. Duly, on their U.S. pilgrimages, both Truss and Johnson side-step direct engagement with the religiosity of their hosts. Johnson, who once joked that his own Anglican faith “comes and goes like Classic FM in the Chiltern hills,” basks in his reputation as a cheerful libertine with an array of past wives and mistresses. He fathered one child by an affair, and a scandal arising from allegations that he paid for an abortion during another affair got him sacked from his party’s front bench in 2004. (Johnson married his current wife, with whom he has four children, in 2021.) Religion isn’t the only subject that makes British MAGA-philes modulate their tone toward Trump. Johnson spoke of Trump’s “boisterous and irreverent” treatment of journalists, but dismissed it as minor compared to the attacks on the fourth estate in Moscow. Despite her previous support for Ukraine as Johnson’s foreign secretary, Truss awkwardly ducked questions on the Westminster Insider interview podcast when I pressed her about whether the administration should send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, which Trump opposes. “I’d have to know about the facts on the ground,” she said. But Farage, Johnson and Truss are betting that the benefits of being a transatlantic Trump acolyte well outweigh the risks. And there might be more to it than personal vanity tours and cushy earnings. The sense of grievances unheard or unaddressed that first elevated Trump to power have echoes across the Atlantic: worries about national decline, a feeling that traditional parties have lost touch with voters and a capacity for making Barnum-style entertainment out of the business of politics. It is a long way from being interrupted by the Speaker of the House of Commons shouting, “Order, order!”- Whether it is a flattering transatlantic afterlife for fallen leaders or a precursor to pitch for power at Westminster for Farage (who tells me that, like Trump, he is “building an unstoppable movement”) the MAGA circuit is the place to be — even if it’s not where everybody knows your name. It is also about embodying something these political pilgrims reckon their rivals fail to grasp: namely, the way one man’s MAGA movement has redefined Conservatism and opened up space for imitators in Europe to identify with more than their own election flops — and for newcomers to seek to remake their own political landscape. After all, if it happened to America, it might turn out to be a bankable export.

This article is the product of a POLITICO Working Group presented by Sanofi. BRUSSELS — The EU wants to arrange purchases of the newest medicines for countries that currently don’t have access to them — but some in the pharmaceutical sector are not happy about it. The European Commission’s plan to use joint procurement to provide access to innovative drugs across the bloc risks overuse of this process and could drown out competition, according to David Elvira, global corporate public policy head at Sanofi. Draft legislation drawn up to fix Europe’s chronic drug shortages contains plans to expand the circumstances under which joint procurement could be used. That includes critical medicines with vulnerable supply chains, such as those with single-country dependencies, as well as novel therapies unavailable in three or more EU countries. The latter are known as medicines of common interest in the draft Critical Medicines Act. While joint procurement of widely used, critical, and often very cheap generic drugs was expected to be included in the legislation, the use of it for new, branded, and often expensive treatments — such as cell and gene therapies and cancer drugs — came as a surprise to many in the sector. The concern is that “we opened the window of the risk with this medical product of common interest,” said Elvira. “Because if the definition (of a medical product of common interest) is blurry, non-detailed, and we don’t know exactly what we want to solve with this, then we will start to have some overuse of the panacea of the joint procurement as the solution,” he said during a closed-door working group on the topic organized by POLITICO. One politician also warned against overusing the tool, noting that many root causes need to be addressed to prevent drug shortages. “Joint procurement is not a solution for all the (drug shortage) problems that we are facing,” Socialists and Democrats MEP Nicolás González Casares said. It can be useful to “give a boost for the market in order to obtain vaccines,” or to tackle shortages in some cases. But it “cannot solve all the problems,” he added. Joint procurement as an EU tool for improving access to medicines only really “found its destiny” during the Covid-19 pandemic, said Olivier Girard, head of medical countermeasures at the European Commission’s Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA). During that time, the bloc purchased lifesaving vaccines for European countries. Since then, it has become a more common tool in the EU’s public health arsenal, helping countries procure vaccines for bird flu, mpox and pandemic influenza. IMPROVING ACCESS IN SMALLER COUNTRIES For countries, particularly smaller ones with limited market size and weaker buying power, joint procurement could help to improve access to critical and innovative medicines. “Joint procurement for medicinal products are particularly in our interest as a small country,” said an official from an EU country with a small market size, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “And joint procurement is not just a part of the solution for shortages, but [also] access to innovation — equal access to innovation to all member states.” Thanks to the EU-wide rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, citizens and the capitals also know the EU can deliver in this area. “There is a strong case to support the development of the joint procurement,” Girard at HERA said. “We have built trust and we have demonstrated that we could deliver, so let us think how the model could evolve and be developed — only where there is added value for the member states.” But the pharmaceutical industry argues that any changes should be made cautiously and with clear guidelines for everyone involved. The sector wants safeguards to support companies’ participation and to prevent market monopolies, which it argues could develop if a drugmaker wins a contract for a large volume of medicines across the bloc. “If there is no potential competition in the way we are implementing these joint procurements for the future, and you are excluding players in the future, that will not be sustainable and that will create future concerns,” Elvira said. GENERIC DRUGS SECTOR ALSO SOUNDS ALARM Most critical medicines are generics, and the generics industry also has warnings for the negotiators. Adrian van den Hoven, director general of the sector lobby group Medicines for Europe, pointed to a few problems with the tool, including poor planning, countries’ lack of commitment to buy jointly procured medicines and different packaging requirements across countries. Legislators should also ensure that there is no conflict with national procurements, he said. “We have experience of member states doing both the European procurement, or the joint procurement, and the national procurement at the same time to see which one — we assume — delivers the better price,” he said. “But then that leaves the suppliers on the hook with a commitment to supply for both. And this is really something to avoid.” The solution? The Commission and countries should consider incentives such as multi-award contracts, a minimum binding commitment from countries to buy, and criteria that go beyond price, to ensure adequate forecasting for companies and to secure a more sustainable supply. Ultimately, it’s all about finding the right balance, said Claudia Louati, head of policy at the European Patients’ Forum. “[Joint procurement] works for member states, it works for companies, it works for the whole ecosystem,” Louati said. “Let’s not miss this opportunity, and let’s try to make it right… We don’t want it to just be in legislation and not actually be implemented and being used.” This article is the product of a POLITICO Working Group presented by Sanofi and was produced with full editorial independence by POLITICO reporters and editors. Learn more about editorial content presented by outside advertisers.

BRUSSELS — One of the EU’s top courts is being asked to examine whether the European Parliament breached its legal obligations by denying lawmakers the chance to investigate the bloc’s handling of vaccine contracts. According to a legal file, seen by POLITICO, the General Court has received a motion prepared by MEPs from right-wing and far-right parties that argues a decision by political group leaders on Sept. 3 to not allow a vote on the establishment of an investigative committee was unlawful. The challenge is bring brought by lawmakers from the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations and Patriots factions, as well as by the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group, which in April called on colleagues to support an inquiry into “allegations of corruption, money-laundering, abuse of power, undue interference in legislative processes.” “More than 180 Members demanded an inquiry into how the EU handled billions in vaccine contracts and related dealings,” said ESN chief whip and Alternative for Germany politician Christine Anderson, who is named on the lawsuit. “The Parliament’s leadership has no right to silence that request.” Court documents show the application was lodged on Oct. 31. The Parliament has until Nov. 20 to respond to the lawmakers’ request for an expedited ruling — if the ordinary procedure is followed, the issue could be under consideration for years. The Parliament’s press service said it doesn’t comment on lodged or ongoing judicial cases. Speaking on Monday, Patriots MEP Marieke Ehlers accused the Conference of Presidents — a meeting of political group chairs — of having blocked the establishment of the inquiry by not allowing a parliament-wide vote. “It’s not up to the group leaders to block an initiative that has its origin in giving individual members a particular right,” she said. Parliamentarians have the power to establish Committees of Inquiry on Transparency and Accountability if they can collect enough signatures. The three MEPs behind the lawsuit argue parliamentary leaders violated the rules by killing off the proposal behind closed doors and failing to refer it to a full plenary vote. The Parliament president and centrist groups currently submit any request for an inquiry committee to the conference of presidents before sending it to a plenary vote. That interpretation of the rules is being challenged by the right-wing lawmakers. “The next step is now we are positioning the court to annul the decision and to prompt the President of the Parliament to put it up to a vote in the [plenary],” ESN’s Anderson told POLITICO.  Inquiry committees are convened to look into allegations of wrongdoing by the EU’s institutions, including the powerful European Commission, which has faced bruising condemnation over its refusal to disclose correspondence with vaccine-maker Pfizer in recent months. ECR lawmaker Charlie Weimers said “this is not a political issue for the court to consider, but rather a procedural, legal one where rules quite obviously were not followed … we are rather optimistic that this will go our way.” Daniel Freund, a Green MEP who is typically outspoken against far-right initiatives, said the lawmakers “might have a point that, legally speaking, it should have probably been decided in plenary.” “I’m not advocating that we now let the Patriots pester us with one committee after another,” Freund said. However, he cautioned that committees of inquiry are meant to be a tool by the opposition to scrutinize governance, and said the fact that the Parliament requires a majority of groups to support it in plenary defeats its purpose.

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s gone all-in on digital identification for Brits. But while many MPs in the prime minister’s governing Labour Party back the idea in theory, there are plenty despairing at a botched communications strategy which they believe has set the wide-ranging policy up for a fall. Under Starmer’s plans, digital ID will be required for right-to-work checks by 2029. Ministers insist the ID — a second attempt to land ID cards for Brits after a botched first go under Tony Blair — won’t track people’s location, spending habits or online activity.  Yet Labour MPs feel a more sellable emphasis on improving people’s experience of public services has gotten lost. Instead, Starmer’s government — with populist right-winger Nigel Farage breathing down its neck — has attempted to link the plan to a migration crackdown. “It’s a no-brainer,” said Labour MP Allison Gardner, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for digital identity. “It absolutely will make people’s lives easier, more secure [and] give them more control over their data. We need to explain it better to people, so that they understand that this is for them, and it’s not being done to them.” HARD SELL  A consultation on the plans will be launched by the end of 2025, before legislation next year. The government’s huge majority means it’s highly likely to become law — but there’s a potentially bumpy road ahead. Two decades after Blair’s New Labour first proposed plastic identity cards, Starmer wants to finish the job, pitching a plan to make digital ID mandatory for right-to-work checks as a way to deter irregular migration. Yet the sweeping change, announced on the eve of Labour conference, didn’t get a mention in Starmer’s setpiece speech — and notably didn’t appear in the party’s election manifesto. “The announcement hasn’t been handled well,” admitted a pro-digital ID Labour MP granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Our argument for it keeps changing but none of it is full-throated enough.” The messaging has shifted since the initial push, too. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” That was only after a drop in poll ratings for the idea. A petition against it has meanwhile racked up close to three million signatures. The shapeshifting rhetoric — painting digital ID first as a necessary inconvenience before calling it vital for state efficiency — caused some heads to spin. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” | Andy Rain/EPA “The government communication … has not learned from the mistakes made when digital ID was proposed 20 years ago,” said a second Labour MP, who thought the focus on immigration meant ministers weren’t “talking about the benefits it brings ordinary British citizens.”  Red flags have also been also waved over compulsory right-to-work checks, given only the very wealthiest Brits never need to work — making it de facto mandatory. “There’s been a kneejerk reaction, particularly to the word mandatory, which I think British people have naturally reacted against,” admitted Gardner, who argues voters should have a choice about using the scheme. “It’s a little bit of a bandwagon people have latched on to, to actually derail the entire concept.”  Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration”  but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” Analysis by the New Britain Project think tank, shared with POLITICO, shows that Google searches for digital ID were elevated for around three weeks after the announcement compared to the typical one day spike for most policies. Interest dwarfed other decisions too, with peak search traffic for digital ID 20 to 50 times higher than any other flagship policy terms in the last year. Nigel Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration” but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” | Neil Hall/EPA Longstanding Labour MP Fabian Hamilton highlights the dilemma of digital ID: “Nobody likes compulsion, and it will only work if everybody has to have it.” Despite Kendall expressing optimism about a digital key unlocking “better, more joined-up and effective public services,” Hamilton argues that prioritizing migration in the messaging is too simplistic. “I’m sorry to say that the legal migration is tilting the head at a certain part of the electorate that are very concerned about illegal migration and the tabloids,” he argues. NO SILVER BULLET  Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. Right-to-work checks already exist in the U.K., with employees required to show documentation like a letter with their national insurance number. “It may be helpful, but obviously it won’t affect fundamental factors [driving people to the U.K.] of family links or English language,” warns former Home Office Permanent Secretary Philip Rutnam. He believes the most challenging part of the scheme will be “establishing the status of many people beyond doubt” given some residents may not have formal ID. “There are millions of people whose status it may bring into question,” Rutnam says. “Their status may not be what they have understood it to be.” Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. | Tolga Akmen/EPA That’s sparked fears among some in Westminster of another Windrush scandal. That debacle saw some people who emigrated to Britain as part of a post-Second World War rebuilding effort later denied rights and, in the most extreme cases, deported under a scattershot Home Office clampdown.  “We need to be very, very careful,” warns former U.K. Border Force Director-General Tony Smith. Smith says digital ID is “not a panacea,” and warns illegal working is likely to remain because unscrupulous employers won’t suddenly become law-abiding. TECH TROUBLES The British government’s ability to handle such a vast amount of sensitive data securely is also far from certain. Kendall has stressed that the data behind digital ID won’t be centralized and says individuals will be able to see who has accessed their information. That’s not enough for skeptics.  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. “The track record’s not been great,” Smith warns. “You are trying to turn round a huge tanker in the ocean here, and I do worry that we haven’t perhaps got the necessary gear.”  Rutnam agrees digital ID will be a “very demanding administrative exercise” that politicians need to understand is “complex and inherently risky.”  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. | Andy Rain/EPA Perhaps more damning for digital ID’s support among the Labour faithful is anxiety about future governments using the information malevolently. “Faith in our institutions of government and of the state is at an all-time low,” says Hamilton, citing a “bizarre situation” where some Brits lump digital ID in with Covid-19 vaccines as a government conspiracy. One Labour MP vehemently opposed to digital ID says ministers are so far failing to consider “what happens when we’re gone” and warns any safeguards “can be unpicked” by subsequent administrations. Starmer has spoken about digital ID as a positive alternative to rifling through drawers looking for “three bills when you want to get your kids into school or apply for this or apply for that.” “F*ck you,” the anonymous Labour MP above said in response. “I can’t believe that. Is that the best you’ve got for giving away fundamental rights?” Still, Gardner is pleading for colleagues not to block this modern innovation: “We are at risk of throwing a very, very good baby out with the bathwater if we resist this and just keep ourselves in the dark ages.” Emilio Casalicchio and Dan Bloom contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — An adviser to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lauded Europe’s data on Covid-19 vaccines in front of European Parliament lawmakers on Wednesday. Robert W. Malone, one of RFK Jr.’s newly selected vaccine advisers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the United States can’t gather and analyze data as well as Europe does it, name-checking the Nordics and the U.K. especially for their systems. “One of the consequences is we can’t do, frankly, as good a job as you can do in epidemiology, which may be part of the reason why in some nation states, we’re getting better data on the Covid harms from Europe, the U.K., than we’re getting from the United States,” Malone said. That’s because, among other things, “we don’t have socialized medicine the same way you do, and we have barriers to ensure patient confidentiality,” he told right-wing MEPs gathered in the Parliament to launch the Make Europe Healthy Again (MEHA) movement with the Patriots for Europe group. Under RFK Jr., the U.S. has tried to reign in who can receive Covid-19 shots, which until recently were offered to everyone over 6 months of age at least once a year.   Europe diverged from American Covid-19 shot recommendations during the pandemic, restricting eligibility to those who would be at greatest risk from catching the virus as well as weighing the possible side effects. Younger men and teenagers, for example, appeared more susceptible to a rare heart condition after vaccination. RFK Jr., who has campaigned against the use of certain vaccines, has cited Europe’s approach to Covid-19 vaccination in his attempts to restrict who in the U.S. should receive it. He has also pushed for pregnant women to avoid using paracetamol (Tylenol), linking its use to increasing rates of autism in the U.S., under his Make America Health Again (MAHA) campaign.