Developed and funded by AbbVie in collaboration with the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition) and based on an interview with Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, chief executive officer of the Coalition, and Frances Reid, programme director of the Coalition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Late diagnoses, burdensome treatments and disease recurrence are realities for many women with ovarian cancer.1,2,3,4,5 Their stories are evidence of systemic challenges impacting care that policymakers have the power to combat. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition (the Coalition), the only global ovarian cancer patient advocacy organization, is driving evidence generation to inform tangible policy reforms that could reduce the socioeconomic burden of this disease on individuals and wider societies.6 Ovarian cancer is one of the deadliest cancers affecting women in Europe, yet it remains overlooked.7,8 While other areas of women’s health benefit from policy frameworks and public awareness, ovarian cancer continues to sit in the margins, creating real human consequences. In 2022, Europe recorded the highest rates of ovarian cancer incidence and mortality worldwide.8 Only 40 percent of women in Europe remain alive five years after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, with advanced-stage diagnoses often having poorer outcomes.8 Despite this, ovarian cancer remains absent from many national cancer plans and there is still no unified European policy framework to address it.  In partnership with European patient groups, the Coalition is convening a series of workshops for ovarian cancer survivors to share their experiences. Alongside leading clinicians and advocates, the Coalition is leveraging these testimonies to develop policy recommendations to inform national and European cancer strategies. Christel Paganoni-Bruijns, the Coalition’s chief executive officer, and Frances Reid, programme director and Every Woman Study lead, share their insights into the challenges women with ovarian cancer face and how policy changes can offer improved support. The hidden emotional and physical cost  There are education and awareness gaps that can impede diagnosis and prioritization. Many women believe that cervical cancer screening (otherwise known as the Pap smear) can detect ovarian cancer.9 Another widespread misconception is that ovarian cancer has no symptoms until very advanced stages.10 However, the Coalition’s Every Woman Study (2021) found that nine in 10 women do experience symptoms, even during the early stages.11  “These misconceptions cause real harm. They delay diagnosis, they delay action and they stop women from being heard,” Reid comments.  The ovarian cancer journey can be distressingly complex. Women frequently undergo major surgery, multiple rounds of treatment and long recovery periods.4,12,13 Even after treatment ends, the fear of recurrence can cast a shadow over daily life.  Ovarian cancer often strikes when many women are still working, caring for children, supporting aging parents and contributing to their communities in a variety of ways. 14,15 When they fall ill, the consequences ripple outwards. Some partners have to reduce their working hours or leave employment entirely to care for their loved ones.16 Families may take on emotional strain and financial pressure that can carry lasting impacts.17,18  Reid says: “These women are mothers, daughters, employees, carers, community anchors. When they are affected, the impact is not only personal — it is economic, social and predictable.” The Coalition’s socioeconomic burden study explored the cost to health services, the impact of informal caregiving, productive time lost by patients traveling to and receiving care, and longer-term productivity impacts.17 It found that the majority of the socioeconomic impact of ovarian cancer does not come from health service costs, but from the value of lives lost.17 Across the 11 countries examined, ill-health from ovarian cancer led to lost labor productivity equivalent to 2.5 million days of work.17 In the U.K. alone, productivity losses amounted to over US$52 million per year.17 In 2026, the Coalition will look further into the socioeconomic impact across high-income countries across Europe. Despite this measurable burden, ovarian cancer remains under-prioritized in health planning and funding decisions. Why women still struggle to get the care they need  Across Europe, many women face delays at various stages along their journey, some due to policy and system design choices. For example, without screening methods for early detection, diagnosis relies heavily on recognizing symptoms and receiving timely referrals.1,19,20 Yet many women often struggle to access specialists or face long waits for investigations.2,11,21   While Europe benefits from world-class innovation in ovarian cancer research, access to that innovation can be inconsistent. Recently published data from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) found that average time to availability for oncology products in Europe continues to increase, with 2024 data showing time from approval to access was 33 days slower than in 2023 and 66 days slower than in 2022.22 In 2024, it took an average of 586 days — or ~19 months — for patients to access new therapies after approval, with significant variation between countries.22 Delays in treatment impact prognosis and survival for patients with ovarian cancer.23 The challenges in care also extend to psychological and emotional support. The Every Woman Study found that only 28 percent of women were offered mental health support, despite the known vulnerabilities throughout treatment, recovery and recurrence.12   Paganoni-Bruijns and Reid reinforce that through the Coalition’s work, they have often found that “women feel unseen and unheard. They see progress in other cancers and ask: why not us?” What a better future looks like A better future starts with addressing ovarian cancer as part of a holistic vision and plan for women’s health. Europe has the foundational frameworks, infrastructure and clinical expertise to lead the way. What is needed now is political attention and policy alignment that includes ovarian cancer as part of these broader programs.  Paganoni-Bruijns comments: “We cannot keep treating gynecological cancers as if they exist in separate boxes. Women experience their health as one reality, so policies must reflect that.”  Existing structures in breast and cervical cancer offer valuable lessons. Across Europe, millions of women already move through screening programs, health promotion initiatives and established diagnostic pathways.24 These systems could be used to increase awareness of ovarian cancer symptoms, improve referral routes and access to specialist care, and support earlier detection. Increased investment in genetic and biomarker testing, as well as emerging early detection research, can be accelerated by aligning with these established programs. The Coalition is partnering with global experts to translate these lessons into the first-ever evidence-based framework for ovarian cancer mortality rate reduction, however, policy action at the regional and national level must keep pace.  The EU-funded DISARM project is a promising example of the progress underway to help Europe ‘disarm’ the threat of ovarian cancer. DISARM is a coordinated, multi-country effort to strengthen ovarian cancer risk assessment, validate affordable early-detection tools and understand how these innovations can be implemented within real-world health systems. Crucially, it is designed both to generate evidence and to address feasibility, uptake and system readiness, the factors that, together, determine whether innovation actually reaches patients.   As Paganoni-Bruijns explains, “DISARM shows what progress looks like when science, policy and patient experience are designed to work together. It is not about a single breakthrough or ‘quick fix’, but about building the conditions for earlier detection — through better risk assessment, validated tools and systems that are ready to use them.”  Yet projects like DISARM, while essential, cannot carry the burden alone. Without a cohesive European or global World Health Organization framework for ovarian cancer, progress remains fragmented, uneven and vulnerable to delay. Europe has often set the pace for global cancer policy and ovarian cancer should be no exception. By recognizing ovarian cancer as a priority within European women’s health, policymakers can be part of setting the global standard for a new era of coordinated and patient-centered care. Paganoni-Bruijns shares the Coalition’s call-to-action: “The systems exist. The evidence exists. We know that we need to include ovarian cancer in national cancer plans, improve diagnostic pathways, strengthen genetic testing and commit to EU-level monitoring. What is missing is prioritization. With leadership and accountability, ovarian cancer does not have to remain one of Europe’s deadliest cancers.” The stakes are rising and the window for meaningful action is narrowing. But with focused leadership, Europe can change the trajectory of ovarian cancer. Women across the continent deserve earlier diagnoses, access to innovation and the chance to live not just longer, but better. To understand why action on ovarian cancer cannot wait, listen to the Coalition’s Changing the Ovarian Cancer Story podcast series, or visit the Coalition’s website. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1 Rampes S, et al. Early diagnosis of symptomatic ovarian cancer in primary care in the UK: opportunities and challenges. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2022;23:e52. 2 Funston G, et al. Detecting ovarian cancer in primary care: can we do better? Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72:312-313.  3 Tookman L, et al. Diagnosis, treatment and burden in advanced ovarian cancer: a UK real-world survey of healthcare professionals and patients. Future Oncol. 2024;20:1657-1673.  4 National Cancer Institute. Ovarian Epithelial, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Treatment (PDQ) – Health Professional Version. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/ovarian/hp/ovarian-epithelial-treatment-pdq [Last accessed: January 2026]. 5 Beesley et al. Evaluating patient-reported symptoms and late adverse effects following completion of first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer using the MOST (Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns). Gynecologic Oncology 164 (2022):437-445.  6 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. About the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Available at: https://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-us/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 7 Manzano A, Košir U, Hofmarcher T. Bridging the gap in women’s cancers care: a global policy report on disparities, innovations and solutions. IHE Report 2025:12. The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE); 2025. 8 ENGAGe. Ovarian Cancer. Available at: https://engage.esgo.org/gynaecological-cancers/ovarian-cancer/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  9 Target Ovarian Cancer. Driving change through knowledge – updated NHS cervical screening guide. Available at: https://targetovariancancer.org.uk/news/driving-change-through-knowledge-updated-nhs-cervical-screening-guide [Last accessed: January 2026]. 10 Goff BA, et al. Frequency of Symptoms of Ovarian Cancer in Women Presenting to Primary Care Clinics. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705–2712.  11 Reid F, et al. The World Ovarian Cancer Coalition Every Woman Study: identifying challenges and opportunities to improve survival and quality of life. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:238-244.  12 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Treatment. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/treatment/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  13 Cancer Research UK. Recovering from ovarian cancer surgery. Available at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/ovarian-cancer/treatment/surgery/recovering-from-surgery [Last accessed: January 2026]. 14 National Health Service (NHS). Ovarian cancer. Causes. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ovarian-cancer/causes/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  15 American Cancer Society. Ovarian Cancer Risk Factors. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/ovarian-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html [Last accessed: January 2026].  16 Shukla S, et al. VOCAL (Views of Ovarian Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers – How Maintenance Therapy Affects Their Lives) Study: Cancer-Related Burden and Quality of Life of Caregivers [Poster]. Presented at: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Europe; 2022 Nov 6–9; Vienna, Austria. 17 Hutchinson B, et al. Socioeconomic Burden of Ovarian Cancer in 11 Countries. JCO Glob Oncol. 2025;11:e2400313. 18 Petricone-Westwood D, et al.An Investigation of the Effect of Attachment on Distress among Partners of Patients with Ovarian Cancer and Their Relationship with the Cancer Care Providers. Current Oncology. 2021;28(4):2950–2960.  19 World Ovarian Cancer Coalition. Ovarian Cancer Testing & Detection. Available at: http://worldovariancancercoalition.org/about-ovarian-cancer/detection-testing/ [Last accessed: January 2026]. 20 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12/resources/suspected-cancer-recognition-and-referral-pdf-1837268071621 [Last accessed: January 2026]. 21 Menon U, et al. Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP). Br J Cancer. 2022;127:844-854.  22 European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). New data shows no shift in access to medicines for millions of Europeans. Available at: https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/new-data-shows-no-shift-in-access-to-medicines-for-millions-of-europeans/ [Last accessed: January 2026].  23 Zhao J, et al. Impact of Treatment Delay on the Prognosis of Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A Population-based Study Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. J Cancer. 2024;15:473-483.  24 European Commission. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf [Last accessed: January 2026].  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALL-ONCOC-250039 v1.0  February 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is AbbVie * The ultimate controlling entity is AbbVie More information here.

BRUSSELS — Senior European Commission officials hardly ever get the sack. On Thursday, one did. That was the twist in a tale that up until that moment had been classically Brussels. The protagonist: A little-known bureaucrat who had spent two decades working in the EU civil service. The allegations: Taking expensive gifts that aroused suspicions over conflicts of interest. “After nearly 22 years at the Commission, I am obviously disappointed,” Henrik Hololei told POLITICO only hours after he was informed of the decision. “But I’m happy that this long process has finally come to a conclusion.” While commissioners, the EU’s 27 political appointees, have been known to fall on their swords, there are few precedents for the dismissal of such a high-ranking civil servant, two senior officials familiar with the inner workings of the Commission said. Neither of the officials, who have several decades of EU experience between them, could remember any previous examples. Like other people interviewed for this article, they were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about Hololei and his downfall. The “long process” Hololei described totaled three years. It was in 2023 that POLITICO first revealed that the Estonian, who was then the EU’s top transport official, had accepted free flights from Qatar at the same time as negotiating a transport deal with the Gulf state that was beneficial to the country’s airline.   It couldn’t have come at a more inauspicious time. The initial reports emerged just a few months after the so-called Qatargate corruption scandal in the European Parliament, named after one of the countries linked to allegedly offering cash and gifts in return for favors. Hololei was not involved in that affair, but it added fuel to the argument from politicians and transparency campaigners that the EU needed to clean up its act. He resigned from his job within a month but didn’t leave the Commission. Soon after, he became special adviser in its international partnership division. The following year, French newspaper Libération reported additional allegations, including that he exchanged confidential details of the Qatar aviation deal in return for gifts for himself and others, including stays in a five-star hotel in Doha. This led to a probe by the EU’s Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which in turn led to the Commission’s investigation. On Thursday, the Commission announced that a senior official had breached the EU institution’s rules. These concerned conflicts of interest, gift acceptance and disclosures, according to three officials with knowledge of the investigation. They later confirmed the person in question was Hololei. ‘A LEGEND’ By his own admission, Hololei is a colorful character. Belying the clichéd image of a faceless bureaucrat, he’s known to do business over a drink or two. Michael O’Leary, the outspoken CEO of Irish airline Ryanair, who shared the occasional tipple with him, told POLITICO in 2023 that Hololei was “terrific.” His colleagues are just as glowing. On Thursday, a lower-ranking official who worked with him at the Commission described him as a “legend,” while a former transport lobbyist recalled seeing selfies of him holding up beers with industry representatives. “The feeling is they’re making an example of him,” said a person who works in the aviation field and met him during the course of his work. “He was undoubtedly passionate and determined to make EU transport better. He was a guy who just enjoyed the position he had. He was a people person.” Hololei talks to Czech Transport Minister Martin Kupka at the European Transport Ministerial Meeting in Prague in 2022. Colleagues and industry figures might mourn the departure of a gregarious, engaging figure, | Martin Divisek/EPA What ultimately led to his dismissal was an investigation by IDOC, the Commission’s internal disciplinary body, the result of which is not public.  IDOC’s conclusions were shared with a disciplinary committee made up of staffers who have equal or superior rank to Hololei — a relatively small pool given his seniority. Following a series of interviews with Hololei, the committee sent its recommendation to the College of Commissioners for a final vote. That decision was taken in the past few days.  ‘LONG OVERDUE’ While colleagues and those in the industry might mourn the departure of a gregarious, engaging figure, European propriety campaigners are less sympathetic. “It’s almost three years to the day since revelations of Mr. Hololei’s impropriety broke,” said Shari Hinds, senior policy officer at Transparency International, an accountability-focused NGO. “Though long overdue, it is encouraging that the European Commission finally appears to be dealing out consequences proportionate to the gravity of these ethics violations.” Hololei, 55, who had taken a pay cut when he moved to the role of hors classe adviser from DG MOVE, as the transport department is known, will receive his pension from the Commission when he reaches retirement age. He has three months to lodge a complaint against the decision with the Commission. “Good to see there is an actual reaction,” said Daniel Freund, a Green member of the European Parliament, who campaigns on issues of accountability in the EU institutions. “So far, so good.” ‘MUCH MISSED’ A decade in Estonian politics — where he largely focused on European affairs — preceded his time at the Commission, starting in the cabinet of then-Estonian Commissioner Siim Kallas, the father of current EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, before moving into transport. It was in that role he became a “very much-loved boss,” according to the person who worked with him. “Even now he is still very much missed in DG MOVE. He was a good person to be around.” In the comments Hololei gave to POLITICO on Thursday afternoon, he was as gracious as so often described by those who know him. But in the end, the personality traits that endeared him to so many he worked with, in the Commission and in industry, weren’t enough to save his job.

President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation campaign is starting to make some Republicans uneasy. As midterms approach, GOP lawmakers, candidates, strategists and people close to the White House are warning that the administration’s mass deportations policy — and the wall-to-wall coverage of enforcement operations, arrests of U.S. citizens and clashes between protesters and federal officials — could cost them their razor-thin House majority. The administration’s forceful approach across the U.S. risks repelling the swing voters who fueled Trump’s return to the White House but are increasingly wary of how the president is implementing a central campaign promise. Further complicating the issue is that Republicans are split on the best way to address the eroding support, with some in the party viewing it as a messaging problem, while others argue that the administration’s policy itself is driving voters’ concerns. “If we don’t change our approach, it will have a negative effect on the midterms, for sure,” said Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), who recently decided not to seek reelection. A new POLITICO poll underscores those worries: Nearly half of all Americans — 49 percent — say Trump’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, including 1 in 5 voters who backed the president in 2024. In a sign of growing discomfort among the president’s base, more than 1 in 3 Trump voters say that while they support the goals of his mass deportation campaign, they disapprove of the way he is implementing it. The president ran on removing the millions of immigrants living in the country illegally, while connecting former President Joe Biden’s border crisis to the violent crime plaguing U.S. cities. The White House has pressured immigration officials to fulfill the president’s goal, an effort that requires targeting immigrants well beyond violent criminals. But Americans broadly do not support such a sweeping approach. In the poll, 38 percent of Americans said the federal government should prioritize deporting immigrants who have committed serious crimes, while 21 percent said the administration should only deport serious criminals. The poll was conducted from Jan. 16 to 19, after an ICE agent killed Renee Good in Minneapolis. There was another federal officer-involved shooting on Saturday in Minneapolis, though details remain scarce. “ICE should focus on the bad hombres. The bad hombres, that’s it, not the cleaning ladies,” said Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.). “One thing is the gardeners, another thing is the gangsters. One thing is the cooks, the other thing is the coyotes.” The White House, so far, has maintained its heavy enforcement presence in Minneapolis, betting that the issue is messaging, not its policies. The president said this week that his administration needs to do more to highlight the criminals they’ve arrested during the Minnesota crackdown. A person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Republicans have to keep the focus on criminal arrests, public safety and the Trump administration’s success in securing the southern border, which are more popular with voters across the board. Otherwise, the person worried, the GOP is losing support with moderate Republicans, independents, Latinos and young voters. “Do I think we have to be a little bit smarter about it? I don’t think there’s any question about it,” the person said of the party’s messaging. “The reason why crime is down across the country, especially in these Democratic states and these blue cities, is because of one thing — the only thing that changed is President Trump’s policies.” Most Trump voters do support his mass deportations campaign, with 55 percent saying the actions, including his widespread deployment of ICE agents across the U.S. are “about right,” the POLITICO Poll with Public First finds. But there is a notable split between Trump’s strongest 2024 voters and those who are more malleable: Among the 2024 Trump voters who do not identify as MAGA, a more moderate group of Trump supporters, 29 percent say his campaign is too aggressive. Seventeen percent of these voters say it is not aggressive enough. And a 43 percent plurality of non-MAGA Trump voters say they support the goals of Trump’s deportation agenda but not how he is implementing it, compared to 28 percent of MAGA Trump voters — his strongest supporters — who say the same. The poll results suggest Americans are uneasy with the Trump administration’s approach, and that even many Trump voters who support increased immigration enforcement oppose the president’s sprawling deportation campaign. “They are going to be worried about, OK, is ICE using excessive force? Are they going after, you know, moms and dads that have a clean record?” said Brendan Steinhauser, a GOP strategist in Texas. “I don’t think that plays well with independents and moderates. I don’t think it plays well with center-right Republicans. It does seem to play well with a smaller subset of the Republican Party. But I don’t think that’s where, nationally, the people who swing elections are on this.” Some battleground Republicans, worried immigration enforcement could become a political albatross in an already tough election year, are trying to walk a tightrope of showing support for ICE in general while also calling for restraint in their actions. “ICE exists to carry out laws passed by Congress, and in that sense, its role is absolutely necessary, but at the same time, enforcement must be professional and targeted and humane,” said Republican candidate Trinh Ha, a Vietnamese immigrant running in Washington’s eighth district, a seat currently held by Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier. “What’s happening right now underscores why enforcement must always be paired with restraint and accountability.” A White House spokesperson said the president’s mass deportations agenda was a central campaign promise and argued that the administration’s enforcement — and its message — has and will continue to focus on the “worst of the worst,” including people with convictions for assault, rape and murder. The official said the administration won’t allow criminals to remain free in cities where “Democrats don’t cooperate with us,” adding that there “wouldn’t be a need for as much of an ICE presence if we had cooperation.” The president has expressed concerns about how ICE is being perceived. He posted Tuesday on Truth Social that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE needed to do more to highlight the “murderers and other criminals” they’re detaining, arguing that it would help boost Americans’ support of ICE. He then took to the podium during a White House press briefing and spent the first 10 minutes sifting through photos of immigrants who had committed crimes. “Because Minnesota is so much in the fray, and I say to my people all the time — and they’re so busy doing other things — ‘they don’t say it like they should,’” Trump said. “They are apprehending murderers and drug dealers, a lot of bad people. … I say why don’t you talk about that? Because people don’t know.” Vice President JD Vance traveled to Minneapolis on Thursday, where he said he wanted to “lower the temperature.” Flanked by immigration agents, Vance empathized with community members’ concerns, while blaming state and local officials’ lack of cooperation and far-left agitators for fueling chaos in the city. “We want to be able to enforce the immigration laws on the one hand, while on the other hand, we want to make sure the people in Minneapolis are able to go about their day,” he said. It remains to be seen whether the administration’s message will be enough to tame the concerns coursing through the party. While many Republicans remain confident that they are still most trusted on immigration and border security — and that Democrats will ultimately be seen as too extreme in their response — others warn that Trump’s base won’t be the voters who swing races in 2026. Immigration still ranks far below economic concerns for voters, according to The POLITICO Poll. When asked to select the top three issues facing the country, just 21 percent cited illegal immigration, compared with half who said the cost of living. But as the White House continues to make immigration a policy priority, crucial swaths of swing voters and soft Trump supporters are expressing discomfort with some of the administration’s tactics. “I’d reframe the ‘raids’ narrative,” said Buzz Jacobs, a Republican strategist and White House immigration policy director for former President George W. Bush. “The reality is that most enforcement activity is routine and never becomes a headline.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is exposing a dangerous weak link in EU law that allows populist governments to shield their allies from jail, Poland’s Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek warned in an interview with POLITICO. Żurek’s concerns focus on the Hungarian government’s decision last month to grant asylum to Zbigniew Ziobro, a justice minister in Warsaw’s former nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) administration. Budapest’s foreign ministry argued that criminal investigations against Ziobro in Poland — into alleged misuse of public funds and deployment of Pegasus spyware against political opponents — amount to political persecution. Żurek, from the liberal, pro-EU government of Donald Tusk, retorted this use of political asylum now poses a massive challenge to the EU’s ability to enforce rule of law. If Hungary’s approach goes unanswered, he warned, others will bypass the courts across the 27-country bloc to protect their political allies. “This is a dangerous precedent for the entire European Union,” Żurek said. “If the EU accepts this, everyone will start citing it … justice will become a political tool.” “An asylum decision is a political decision — not a ruling by an independent court,” he added. “That is what is most worrying, because it circumvents the rules of the European arrest warrant.” Ziobro fled to Hungary after losing parliamentary immunity in November. A Polish court is expected to decide in February whether to order Ziobro’s arrest. Under normal EU practice, such a ruling would trigger swift extradition. But in Orbán’s Hungary, there is a high risk it will hit a dead end. A LOOPHOLE ALREADY IN USE This is not Poland’s first run-in with this loophole. Ziobro’s case follows that of his former deputy, Marcin Romanowski, who was granted asylum by Hungary in 2024 and remains there despite a valid arrest warrant. EU institutions have so far failed to take any step to force Budapest to hand him over. The case exposes a structural flaw in the EU’s justice system, which depends on mutual trust between member states to enforce each other’s court decisions. That reliance means European arrest warrants work only if governments choose to enforce them. And when one refuses, the EU has no clear, effective way to make it comply. At the end of December, Budapest hard-wired that loophole into law by barring courts from applying European arrest warrants once asylum has been granted. Żurek claims that populist governments such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, pictured, are using an EU legal loophole to protect political allies. | Janos Kummer/Getty Images Hungarian officials have defended the decision as necessary to protect Polish politicians from what they describe as political persecution. Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said Hungary had granted asylum to Polish citizens because “democracy and the rule of law are in crisis” in Poland. Ziobro himself embraced that suggestion. In a statement published from Budapest, he said he had accepted asylum because he was resisting “political banditry” and a “creeping dictatorship” in Poland under Prime Minister Tusk. He thanked Orbán for what he called Hungary’s “courageous leadership” and said he would remain abroad until “genuine guarantees of the rule of law” are restored. Żurek said it matters who is exploiting the loophole. Orbán, he said, is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “closest ally inside the European Union” and a leader prepared to show how far EU law can be pushed without consequence. He said the European Commission should take Hungary to the Court of Justice of the EU, the bloc’s highest court. Only a binding ruling, he added, could stop governments from using asylum as a shield against criminal accountability. The Commission has yet to act. Spokesperson Markus Lammert said last week that EU law presumes all member countries are safe from political persecution, meaning EU citizens should not need asylum elsewhere in the bloc. Poland, he added, does not meet the threshold for an exception to that rule. THE DANGER OF WAITING IT OUT The timing is sensitive as Hungary heads toward an April election. Opposition leader Péter Magyar, a former Orbán ally turned critic, has campaigned on a pledge to ease tensions with Brussels. But Żurek said Poland’s own experience shows why betting on political change would be a mistake for EU institutions. Years of rule-of-law clashes under PiS left damage that has proved hard to undo even after Tusk returned to power in 2023. Despite the change in government, Poland remains locked in an institutional conflict with President Karol Nawrocki, a nationalist ally of PiS whose veto powers have blocked key reforms. Earlier this month, Nawrocki vetoed legislation implementing the EU’s Digital Services Act, attacking the law using rhetoric echoing U.S. President Donald Trump’s criticism of the tech regulation as censorship. “If EU structures react too slowly, this disease can become fatal for democracy,” Żurek said. Zbigniew Ziobro, a former justice minister in Warsaw who is facing a criminal investigation in Poland, was granted asylum in Hungary. | Art Service/EPA From France’s Marine Le Pen and Austria’s Herbert Kickl to the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, hardline European politicians have long portrayed legal accountability as political persecution. Today this framing also lifts heavily from Trump’s playbook, Żurek said, recasting courts, prosecutors and regulators as partisan enemies to make defying judicial decisions politically acceptable. “These politicians present themselves as conservatives,” he said. “In reality, they are populists and nationalists — and that is extremely dangerous for Europe.” The consequences are already visible inside Poland’s justice system. “I hear prosecutors say in private: ‘I can bring charges today — and become a target of revenge in a few years,’” Żurek said. “Even final convictions can be wiped out by presidential pardons. That sense of futility is deeply destructive. People are simply afraid.”

STRASBOURG ― European trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič faced an almost empty European Parliament on Monday evening to defend the European Commission’s signing of the Mercosur trade deal. Many backers of the motion of no-confidence in the Commission over the issue failed to turn up, suggesting that the trend of calling them ― this was an unprecedented fourth in seven months ― has run out of steam. Supporters of the motion argued that the Mercosur trade deal will open the door to unfair competition from south American countries, with European farmers subject to higher environmental standards than their peers. “The safeguard clauses from the Commission are simply empty promises which don’t actually provide proper protection for European farmers“ said the Patriots first vice president Kinga Gal, Hungarian Prime Minster Viktor Orbán’s right-hand in the European Parliament. She added that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s failure to attend the debate “shows contempt for the thousands of farmers protesting in the streets and several millions of voters who are represented by the Patriots.” But it was the Patriots own far-right lawmakers and other signatories of the motion who also didn’t turn up. Out of more than 110 lawmakers who signed the motion, less than a quarter attended. “Looking in this room, apparently it was not important enough to actually change some dinner plans and to be at the debate,” said Jeroen Lenaerts, chief whip of EPP ― von der Leyen’s center-right political family. The no-confidence motion, backed by the Patriots for Europe group and lawmakers from the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), will now be put to a vote on Thursday, though it is widely expected to fail. Three similar motions have already been defeated over the past seven months, dampening lawmakers’ interest in Monday’s debate. The low threshold of 72 out 720 lawmakers required to trigger a motion of censure debate and vote has prompted repeated attempts. “This motion is not about accountability, it is about headlines,” said Lenaerts. Some lawmakers are calling to change the threshold and make it more difficult to launch a motion of censure. Others describe that as censorship. The Parliament’s centrist and left-wing factions — including the center-right EPP, the center-left Socialists and Democrats, and the liberal Renew group — boycotted the debate with only 10 of their lawmakers attending the debate. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola also skipped chairing the debate, instead sending one of her deputies, vice president Katarina Barley. These moves followed the Commission’s decision not to send either President Ursula von der Leyen, nor the full college of 26 Commissioners to stand beside her, as has been the case on previous occasions. “How many times do we need to vote on hopeless censure motions until the extremists are satisfied or accept the democratic will?,” asked Billy Kelleher, representing the Renew Europe group. Only one political group leader showed up to the debate. It was not Jordan Bardella, Patriots for Europe chair, who first announced the motion on X, but the von der Leyen’s party chief, EPP’s Manfred Weber.

The first American pope is on a collision course with U.S. President Donald Trump. The latest fault line between the Vatican and the White House emerged on Sunday. Shortly after Trump suggested his administration could “run” Venezuela, the Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of the “country’s sovereignty.” For MAGA-aligned conservatives, this is now part of an unwelcome pattern. While Leo is less combative in tone toward Trump than his predecessor Francis, his priorities are rekindling familiar battles in the culture war with the U.S. administration on topics such as immigration and deportations, LGBTQ+ rights and climate change. As the leader of a global community of 1.4 billion Catholics, Leo has a rare position of influence to challenge Trump’s policies, and the U.S. president has to tread with uncustomary caution in confronting him. Trump traditionally relishes blasting his critics with invective but has been unusually restrained in response to Leo’s criticism, in part because he counts a large number of Catholics among his core electorate. “[Leo] is not looking for a fight like Francis, who sometimes enjoyed a fight,” said Chris White, author of “Pope Leo XIV: Inside the Conclave and the Dawn of a New Papacy.” “But while different in style, he is clearly a continuation of Francis in substance. Initially there was a wait-and-see approach, but for many MAGA Catholics, Leo challenges core beliefs.” In recent months, migration has become the main combat zone between the liberal pope and U.S. conservatives. Leo called on his senior clergy to speak out on the need to protect vulnerable migrants, and U.S. bishops denounced the “dehumanizing rhetoric and violence” leveled at people targeted by Trump’s deportation policies. Leo later went public with an appeal that migrants in the U.S. be treated “humanely” and “with dignity.” Leo’s support emboldened Florida bishops to call for a Christmas reprieve from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. “Don’t be the Grinch that stole Christmas,” said Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami. As if evidence were needed of America’s polarization on this topic, however, the Department of Homeland Security described their arrests as a “Christmas gift to Americans.” Leo also conspicuously removed Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Trump’s preferred candidate for pope and a favorite on the conservative Fox News channel, from a key post as archbishop of New York, replacing him with a bishop known for pro-migrant views. This cuts to the heart of the moral dilemma for a divided U.S. Catholic community. For Trump, Catholics are hardly a sideshow as they constitute 22 percent of his electorate, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center. While the pope appeals to liberal causes, however, many MAGA Catholics take a far stricter line on topics such as migration, sexuality and climate change. To his critics from the conservative Catholic MAGA camp, such as Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon, the pope is anathema. U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV appeared at the Angelus window overlooking St. Peter’s Square to deliver an address calling for the safeguarding of Venezuela’s “sovereignty.” | Stefano Costantino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Last year the pope blessed a chunk of ice from Greenland and criticized political leaders who ignore climate change. He said supporters of the death penalty could not credibly claim to be pro-life, and argued that Christians and Muslims could be friends. He has also signaled a more tolerant posture toward LGBTQ+ Catholics, permitting an LGBTQ+ pilgrimage to St Peter’s Basilica. Small wonder, then, that Trump confidante and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer branded Leo the “woke Marxist pope.” Trump-aligned Catholic conservatives have denounced him as “secularist,” “globalist” and even “apostate.” Far-right pundit Jack Posobiec has called him “anti-Trump.” “Some popes are a blessing. Some popes are a penance,” Posobiec wrote on X. PONTIFF FROM CHICAGO There were early hopes that Leo might build bridges with U.S. hardliners. He’s an American, after all: He wears an Apple watch and follows baseball, and American Catholics can hardly dismiss him as as foreign. The Argentine Francis, by contrast, was often portrayed by critics as anti-American and shaped by the politics of poorer nations. Leo can’t be waved away so easily. Early in his papacy, Leo also showed signs he was keen to steady the church after years of internal conflict, and threw some bones to conservatives such as allowing a Latin Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica and wearing more ornate papal vestments. But the traditionalists were not reassured. Benjamin Harnwell, the Vatican correspondent for the MAGA-aligned War Room podcast, said conservatives were immediately skeptical of Leo. “From day one, we have been telling our base to be wary: Do not be deceived,” he said. Leo, Harnwell added, is “fully signed up to Francis’ agenda … but [is] more strategic and intelligent.” After the conclave that appointed Leo, former Trump strategist Bannon told POLITICO that Leo’s election was “the worst choice for MAGA Catholics” and “an anti-Trump vote by the globalists of the Curia.” Trump had a long-running feud with Francis, who condemned the U.S. president’s border wall and criticized his migration policies. Francis appeared to enjoy that sparring, but Leo is a very different character. More retiring by nature, he shies away from confrontation. But his resolve in defending what he sees as non-negotiable moral principles, particularly the protection of the weak, is increasingly colliding with the core assumptions of Trumpism. Trump loomed large during the conclave, with an AI-generated video depicting himself as pope. The gesture was seen by some Vatican insiders as a “mafia-style” warning to elect someone who would not criticize him, Vatican-watcher Elisabetta Piqué wrote in a new book “The Election of Pope Leo XIV: The Last Surprise of Pope Francis.” NOT PERSONAL Leo was not chosen expressly as an anti-Trump figure, according to a Vatican official. Rather, his nationality was likely seen by some cardinals as “reassuring,” suggesting he would be accountable and transparent in governance and finances. But while Leo does not seem to be actively seeking a confrontation with Trump, the world views of the two men seem incompatible. “He will avoid personalizing,” said the same Vatican official. “He will state church teaching, not in reaction to Trump, but as things he would say anyway.” Despite the attacks on Leo from his allies, Trump himself has also appeared wary of a direct showdown. When asked about the pope in a POLITICO interview, Trump was more keen to discuss meeting the pontiff’s brother in Florida, whom he described as “serious MAGA.” When pressed on whether he would meet the pope himself, he finally replied: “Sure, I will. Why not?” The potential for conflict will come into sharper focus as Leo hosts a summit called an extraordinary consistory this week, the first of its kind since 2014, which is expected to provide a blueprint for the future direction of the church. His first publication on social issues, such as inequality and migration, is also expected in the next few months. “He will use [the summit] to talk about what he sees as the future,” said a diplomat posted to the Vatican. “It will give his collaborators a sense of where he is going. He could use it as a sounding board, or ask them to suggest solutions.” It’s safe to assume Leo won’t be unveiling a MAGA-aligned agenda. The ultimate balance of power may also favor the pope. Trump must contend with elections and political clocks; Leo, elected for life, does not. At 70, and as a tennis player in good health, Leo appears positioned to shape Catholic politics well after Trump’s moment has passed. “He is not in a hurry,” the Vatican official said. “Time is on his side.”

Thirty-six million Europeans — including more than one million in the Nordics[1] — live with a rare disease.[2] For patients and their families, this is not just a medical challenge; it is a human rights issue. Diagnostic delays mean years of worsening health and needless suffering. Where treatments exist, access is far from guaranteed. Meanwhile, breakthroughs in genomics, AI and targeted therapies are transforming what is possible in health care. But without streamlined systems, innovations risk piling up at the gates of regulators, leaving patients waiting. Even the Nordics, which have some of the strongest health systems in the world, struggle to provide fair and consistent access for rare-disease patients. Expectations should be higher. THE BURDEN OF DELAY The toll of rare diseases is profound. People living with them report health-related quality-of-life scores 32 percent lower than those without. Economically, the annual cost per patient in Europe — including caregivers — is around €121,900.[3] > Across Europe, the average time for diagnosis is six to eight years, and > patients continue to face long waits and uneven access to medications. In Sweden, the figure is slightly lower at €118,000, but this is still six times higher than for patients without a rare disease. Most of this burden (65 percent) is direct medical costs, although non-medical expenses and lost productivity also weigh heavily. Caregivers, for instance, lose almost 10 times more work hours than peers supporting patients without a rare disease.[4] This burden can be reduced. European patients with access to an approved medicine face average annual costs of €107,000.[5] Yet delays remain the norm. Across Europe, the average time for diagnosis is six to eight years, and patients continue to face long waits and uneven access to medications. With health innovation accelerating, each new therapy risks compounding inequity unless access pathways are modernized. PROGRESS AND REMAINING BARRIERS Patients today have a better chance than ever of receiving a diagnosis — and in some cases, life-changing therapies. The Nordics in particular are leaders in integrated research and clinical models, building world-class diagnostics and centers of excellence. > Without reform, patients risk being left behind. But advances are not reaching everyone who needs them. Systemic barriers persist: * Disparities across Europe: Less than 10 percent of rare-disease patients have access to an approved treatment.[6] According to the Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator (2025), there are stark differences in access to new orphan medicines (or drugs that target rare diseases).[7] Of the 66 orphan medicines approved between 2020 and 2023, the average number available across Europe was 28. Among the Nordics, only Denmark exceeded this with 34. * Fragmented decision-making: Lengthy health technology assessments, regional variation and shifting political priorities often delay or restrict access. Across Europe, patients wait a median of 531 days from marketing authorization to actual availability. For many orphan drugs, the wait is even longer. In some countries, such as Norway and Poland, reimbursement decisions take more than two years, leaving patients without treatment while the burden of disease grows.[8] * Funding gaps: Despite more therapies on the market and greater technology to develop them, orphan medicines account for just 6.6 percent of pharmaceutical budgets and 1.2 percent of health budgets in Europe. Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway and Finland — spend a smaller share than peers such as France or Belgium. This reflects policy choices, not financial capacity.[9] If Europe struggles with access today, it risks being overwhelmed tomorrow. Rare-disease patients — already facing some of the longest delays — cannot afford for systems to fall farther behind. EASING THE BOTTLENECKS Policymakers, clinicians and patient advocates across the Nordics agree: the science is moving faster than the systems built to deliver it. Without reform, patients risk being left behind just as innovation is finally catching up to their needs. So what’s required? * Governance and reforms: Across the Nordics, rare-disease policy remains fragmented and time-limited. National strategies often expire before implementation, and responsibilities are divided among ministries, agencies and regional authorities. Experts stress that governments must move beyond pilot projects to create permanent frameworks — with ring-fenced funding, transparent accountability and clear leadership within ministries of health — to ensure sustained progress. * Patient organizations: Patient groups remain a driving force behind awareness, diagnosis and access, yet most operate on short-term or volunteer-based funding. Advocates argue that stable, structural support — including inclusion in formal policy processes and predictable financing — is critical to ensure patient perspectives shape decision-making on access, research and care pathways. * Health care pathways: Ann Nordgren, chair of the Rare Disease Fund and professor at Karolinska Institutet, notes that although Sweden has built a strong foundation — including Centers for Rare Diseases, Advanced Therapy (ATMP) and Precision Medicine Centers, and membership in all European Reference Networks — front-line capacity remains underfunded. “Government and hospital managements are not providing  resources to enable health care professionals to work hands-on with diagnostics, care and education,” she explains. “This is a big problem.” She adds that comprehensive rare-disease centers, where paid patient representatives collaborate directly with clinicians and researchers, would help bridge the gap between care and lived experience. * Research and diagnostics: Nordgren also points to the need for better long-term investment in genomic medicine and data infrastructure. Sweden is a leader in diagnostics through Genomic Medicine Sweden and SciLifeLab, but funding for advanced genomic testing, especially for adults, remains limited. “Many rare diseases still lack sufficient funding for basic and translational research,” she says, leading to delays in identifying genetic causes and developing targeted therapies. She argues for a national health care data platform integrating electronic records, omics (biological) data and patient-reported outcomes — built with semantic standards such as openEHR and SNOMED CT — to enable secure sharing, AI-driven discovery and patient access to their own data DELIVERING BREAKTHROUGHS Breakthroughs are coming. The question is whether Europe will be ready to deliver them equitably and at speed, or whether patients will continue to wait while therapies sit on the shelf. There is reason for optimism. The Nordic region has the talent, infrastructure and tradition of fairness to set the European benchmark on rare-disease care. But leadership requires urgency, and collaboration across the EU will be essential to ensure solutions are shared and implemented across borders. The need for action is clear: * Establish long-term governance and funding for rare-disease infrastructure. * Provide stable, structural support for patient organizations. * Create clearer, better-coordinated care pathways. * Invest more in research, diagnostics and equitable access to innovative treatments. Early access is not only fair — it is cost-saving. Patients treated earlier incur lower indirect and non-medical costs over time.[10] Inaction, by contrast, compounds the burden for patients, families and health systems alike. Science will forge ahead. The task now is to sustain momentum and reform systems so that no rare-disease patient in the Nordics, or anywhere in Europe, is left waiting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] https://nordicrarediseasesummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/25.02-Nordic-Roadmap-for-Rare-Diseases.pdf [2] https://nordicrarediseasesummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/25.02-Nordic-Roadmap-for-Rare-Diseases.pdf [3] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [4] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [5] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [6] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/a-competitive-and-innovationled-europe-starts-with-rare-diseases? [7] https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/library/publications/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024.pdf [8] https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/library/publications/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024.pdf [9] https://copenhageneconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Copenhagen-Economics_Spending-on-OMPs-across-Europe.pdf [10] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Alexion Pharmaceuticals * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor: AstraZeneca plc * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around rare disease governance, funding, and equitable access to diagnosis and treatment across Europe More information here.

LONDON — The U.K. government is “dragging its heels” on whether to classify China as a major threat to Britain’s national security, the parliament’s intelligence watchdog warned on Monday. Lawmakers on the Intelligence and Security Committee — which has access to classified briefings as part of its work overseeing Britain’s intelligence services — said they are “concerned” by apparent inaction over whether to designate Beijing as a top-level threat when it comes to influencing Britain. Ministers have been under pressure to put China on the “enhanced tier” of Britain’s Foreign Influence Registration Scheme — a tool to protect the economy and society from covert hostile activity. Both Iran and Russia have been placed on the top tier, which adds a new layer of restrictions and accountability to their activities in Britain. The government has so far resisted calls to add China to that list, even though Beijing has been accused of conducting state-threat activities in the U.K. such as industrial espionage, cyber-attacks and spying on politicians.  In its annual report the Committee said British intelligence agency MI5 had previously told them that measures like the registration scheme would “have proportionately more effect against … Chinese activity.” The Committee said “hostile activity by Russian, Iranian and Chinese state-linked actors is multi-faceted and complex,” adding that the threat of “state-sponsored assassination, attacks and abductions” of perceived dissidents has “remained at a higher level than we have seen in previous years.”  It added that while there are “a number of difficult trade-offs involved” when dealing with Beijing, it has “previously found that the Government has been reluctant to prioritise security considerations when it comes to China.” “The Government should swiftly come to a decision on whether to add China to the Enhanced Tier of the [Foreign Influence Registration Scheme],” the Committee said, demanding that it be provided a “full account” to “ensure that security concerns have not been overlooked in favour of economic considerations.” The pressure comes as U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares to visit China in January — the first British leader to visit the country since Theresa May in 2018.  A government spokesperson said: “National security is the first duty of this government. We value the [Intelligence and Security Committee]’s independent oversight and the thoroughness of their scrutiny. “This report underscores the vital, complex work our agencies undertake daily to protect the UK. “This Government is taking a consistent, long term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in UK and global interests. We will cooperate where we can and challenge where we must.”

LONDON — The British government is working to give its trade chief new powers to move faster in imposing higher tariffs on imports, as it faces pressure from Brussels and Washington to combat Chinese industrial overcapacity. Under new rules drawn up by British officials, Trade Secretary Peter Kyle will have the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) to launch investigations and give ministers options to set higher duty levels to protect domestic businesses. The trade watchdog will be required to set out the results of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations within a year, better monitor trade distortions and streamline processes for businesses to prompt trade probes. The U.K. is in negotiations with the U.S. and the EU to forge a steel alliance to counter Chinese overcapacity as the bloc works to introduce its own updated safeguards regime. The EU is the U.K.’s largest market and Brussels is creating a new steel protection regime that is set to slash Britain’s tariff-free export quotas and place 50 percent duties on any in excess. The government said its directive to the TRA will align the U.K. with similar powers in the EU and Australia, and follow World Trade Organization rules. It is set out in a Strategic Steer to the watchdog and will be introduced as part of the finance bill due to be wrapped up in the spring. “We are strengthening the U.K.’s system for tackling unfair trade to give our producers and manufacturers — especially SMEs who have less capacity and capability — the backing they need to grow and compete,” Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said in a statement. “By streamlining processes and aligning our framework with international peers, we are ensuring U.K. industry has the tools to protect jobs, attract investment and thrive in a changing global economy,” Kyle added. These moves come after the government said on Wednesday that its Steel Strategy, which plots the future of the industry in Britain and new trade protections for the sector, will be delayed until next year. The Trump administration has been concerned about the U.K.’s steps to counter China’s steel overcapacity and refused to lower further a 25 percent tariff carve-out for Britain’s steel and aluminum exports from the White House’s 50 percent global duties on the metals. Trade Secretary Kyle discussed lowering the Trump administration’s tariffs on U.K. steel with senior U.S. Cabinet members in Washington on Wednesday.  “We are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU safeguard,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant told parliament Thursday, after meeting with EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Wednesday for negotiations. “We will do everything we can to make sure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the U.K.,” Bryant said. The TRA has also launched a new public-facing Import Trends Monitor tool to help firms detect surges in imports that could harm their business and provide evidence that could prompt an investigation by the watchdog. “We welcome the government’s strategic steer, which marks a significant milestone in our shared goal to make the U.K.’s trade remedies regime more agile, accessible and assertive, as well as providing greater accountability,” said the TRA’s Co-Chief Executives Jessica Blakely and Carmen Suarez. Sophie Inge and Jon Stone contributed reporting.