Kari Lake was illegally empowered to run the U.S. Agency for Global Media — the federal agency that oversees Voice of America — and her actions in that role were illegitimate, a federal judge ruled Saturday. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth concluded that Lake was ineligible to serve as USAGM’s acting CEO when she was formally elevated to the position on July 31 in an “acting capacity” and without Senate confirmation. She relinquished that position on Nov. 19. Lamberth said any actions Lake took in that four-month timeframe must be treated as “void,” including an Aug. 29 reduction in USAGM’s workforce. Lamberth also invalidated actions Lake took when the agency’s previous acting CEO, Victor Morales, delegated nearly the entirety of his responsibilities to her, concluding that this was also an illegal end-run around the Senate’s advice and consent role. “The Court finds that these expansive delegations were an unlawful effort to transform Lake into the CEO of U.S. Agency for Global Media in all but name,” the judge wrote. In a statement to POLITICO, Lake said she “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and that the government will appeal. “The American people gave President Trump a mandate to cut bloated bureaucracy, eliminate waste, and restore accountability to government,” she added. “An activist judge is trying to stand in the way of those efforts at USAGM.” Lake specifically called out Lamberth, saying he has a “pattern of activist rulings — and this case is no different.” In a statement, Patsy Widakuswara, Kate Neeper and Jessica Jerreat, the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Lake, said they were “vindicated and deeply grateful.” “The judge’s ruling that Kari Lake’s actions shall have no force or effect is a powerful step toward undoing the damage she has inflicted on this American institution that we love,” they said. “Even as we work through what this ruling means for colleagues harmed by her actions, it brings renewed hope and momentum to the next phase of our fight: restoring VOA’s global operations and ensuring we continue to produce journalism, not propaganda.” At the heart of the fight is the federal Vacancies Reform Act, which limits the way agencies can appoint temporary leaders while awaiting permanent nominees to be confirmed. Lake, Lamberth concluded, did not fit any of the criteria required to assume the acting CEO position. Though Lake claimed that as Morales’ deputy — or “first assistant” — she was eligible to assume the acting CEO position once he was removed from it, Lamberth said this would essentially negate the Senate’s role in confirming powerful appointees. Lamberth leaned heavily on the ruling by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that similarly invalidated the appointment of Alina Habba, President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey. “Adopting Lake’s position would require the Court to find that the President can fill a first assistantship at any time during a vacancy in a Senate-confirmed office and then … elevate the first assistant to serve as the acting officer,” Lamberth said, agreeing with other courts that instead only the person occupying the deputy role at the time the vacancy occurs is eligible to take on the acting role. “Because Lake was not first assistant at the time of the vacancy, she lacks authority to serve as the acting CEO,” Lamberth wrote.

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s far-right groups are seeking a public debate over what they claim is national election interference by Brussels, in the wake of a divisive report from the U.S. Congress. It marks the latest escalation of a fight over the EU’s social media regulations and the limits of online speech. The EU institutions and political groups to the center and left claim the bloc’s laws to regulate online hate speech and illegal content are protecting people, whereas groups to the right say these laws are politically biased and hinder free expression. A U.S. committee in February released a report alleging that the Commission was using its regulations, including the Digital Services Act, to meddle in national elections. The Commission has repeatedly denied these allegations. In a note Wednesday, the Patriots for Europe group said it was formally requesting a plenary debate “on the European Commission’s interference in national elections across Europe” following the report by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee — citing evidence from the report that “the Commission intervened around national elections, pressuring platforms to police lawful political speech during campaign periods.” The Commission maintains that it doesn’t interfere in national elections and that its work is to support EU countries in tackling misinformation. The hard-right European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations backed the proposal for a debate but it didn’t get enough support for it to be added to the Parliament’s agenda next week. The Patriots are instead considering using their right to hold a so-called topical debate on the matter in April, Belgian far-right lawmaker Tom Vandendriessche told POLITICO. That would be part of a “step-by-step-plan” to keep the topic high on the political agenda, he said. Hungarian lawmaker Kinga Gál, a vice president of the Patriots, said on X she confronted the European Commission’s Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen on Wednesday on the findings but received “no substantive answer.” “They do everything to sweep this matter under the rug. We, the Patriots, will not let this happen,” Gál said. “The refusal to permit a simple debate at the next plenary speaks volumes. Institutions with nothing to hide do not fear questions. We will make sure those questions are asked and answered,” Polish far-right MEP Stanisław Tyszka told POLITICO.

As European health systems grapple with how to deliver increasingly advanced therapies, rare disease patients in Sweden still face everyday challenges — from securing a diagnosis to accessing appropriate care. Although rights are strong on paper, families often find themselves stitching together services across a decentralized system. Ågrenska is a national competence center in Sweden working to bridge those gaps. It supports people with rare diagnoses and their families in navigating health and social services. “But there’s a limit to what one organization can do,” says Zozan Sewger Kvist, Ågrenska’s CEO. POLITICO Studio spoke with her about where the Swedish system falls short and what must change across Europe to ensure patients are not left behind. POLITICO Studio: From Ågrenska’s experience working with families of rare disease patients across Sweden, where does the system most often break down? Zozan Sewger Kvist: For 25 years the families have been telling us the same thing: the system doesn’t connect. Zozan Sewger Kvist, CEO, Ågrenska The breakdown is most evident in health care, especially when transitioning from pediatric to adult care. But it also happens when patients are transitioning between schools, social services and medical teams. No one is looking at their care from a holistic point of view. Families become their own project managers. They are the ones booking appointments, chasing referrals, explaining the diagnosis again and again. It’s a heavy burden. That’s largely why our organization exists. We provide families with the knowledge, networks and tools to navigate the system and understand their rights. But there’s a limit to what one organization can do. In a perfect world, these functions would already be embedded within public care. > Without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether > families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. PS: Access to rare disease care varies widely within many European countries and Sweden is no exception. In practical terms, what do those regional disparities look like? ZSK: Swedish families have the same rights across the country, but regional priorities differ. That leads to unequal access in practice. For example, areas with university hospitals tend to have stronger specialist networks and rehabilitation services. In more rural parts of the country, especially in the north, it is harder to attract expertise, and families feel that gap directly. In practical terms, that can mean something as basic as access to rehabilitation. In some regions, children receive coordinated physiotherapy, speech therapy and follow-up. In others, families struggle to access rehabilitation at all. And that’s a big issue because a lot of Sweden’s health care runs through rehabilitation — without it, referrals to other services and treatments can stall. PS: Would a comprehensive national rare disease strategy meaningfully change outcomes across regions? ZSK: The problem is compliance, not regulation. Sweden has strong rules but regions have almost full freedom to organize care, which makes consistency difficult. As it stands, without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. A national rare disease strategy would not solve everything but it would set expectations such as what the minimum level of care should look like, what coordination should include and how outcomes are followed up. A draft national strategy was developed in 2024, and there was real momentum. Patient organizations, health care experts and the government were all involved. Everyone was optimistic the framework would provide guidance and accountability. After some delays, work on the national strategy has resumed, so hopefully we will see it implemented soon. > Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They > describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to > connect the dots. PS: Families often describe a long and fragmented path to diagnosis. Where does that journey tend to go wrong, and what would shorten it most? ZSK: Coordinated multidisciplinary teams would make the biggest difference — teams that can look at the whole condition, not just one symptom at a time. The challenge is that rare diseases often affect multiple organ systems. Several specialists may be involved, but they do not always work together, and it may not be clear who is taking responsibility for the whole case. When no one holds that overview, delays multiply. Sweden also lacks a fully integrated national health record system, so specialists may be looking at different pieces of the same case without seeing the full picture. Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to connect the dots. PS: Sweden participates in the European Reference Networks, yet you’ve suggested they’re underused. What’s missing in how Sweden leverages that expertise? ZSK: The ERNs are a strong, established framework for connecting specialists across borders. Swedish experts participate, but we are not using that structure to its full potential. Participation often appears project-based rather than long-term. Neighboring countries such as Norway, Denmark and Finland are more proactive in leveraging these collaborations. I would like to see Sweden invest more in turning these networks into durable partnerships that support clinical practice — not just research initiatives. > Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. > Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should > be managing. PS: Sweden often falls behind other EU countries in terms of access to orphan medicines (drugs that treat rare diseases). What needs to change in Sweden’s approach to ensure patients aren’t left behind? ZSK: Families are very aware of how access compares across Europe. They follow these discussions closely, and when a treatment is available in one country but not another, it is difficult for them to understand why. In Sweden, reimbursement decisions often come down to cost-effectiveness calculations. That makes access an ethical as well as an economic question. But for a family, it is hard to accept that a few additional years of life or stability are weighed against a financial threshold. Some families choose to cross borders for treatment. But that can be quite a complex, expensive process, depending on the kind of treatment. I think greater transparency and clearer communication about the criteria and long-term impact — not only the immediate cost — would make difficult outcomes easier to understand. PS: You’ve worked with families for decades. Have things materially improved — and what worries you most if reforms stall? ZSK: Unfortunately, I cannot say that things have materially improved. When I look back at the challenges families described 15 or 20 years ago, many of them are still the same. There have been some positive developments. Digital access means families are more informed and can connect more easily with others in similar situations. That has strengthened their voice. But structurally, many of the underlying gaps remain. Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should be managing. 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.

When David stepped onto the battlefield, he did not oppose order. He opposed imbalance. He did not reject authority. He rejected disproportionate power concentrated in the hands of a giant. Today, many European taxpayers feel cast in a comparable role. Across the European Union, a growing number of citizens sense that the balance between Brussels and the member states is shifting in ways that were neither clearly articulated nor democratically legitimized. What was conceived as a union of sovereign nations cooperating for peace and prosperity increasingly resembles a polity acquiring its own fiscal architecture — one that reaches directly into the pockets of Europeans. The StopEUTaxes campaign was born from this concern. It is not anti-European. It is not nostalgic. It is not isolationist. It is constitutional. Via Taxpayers Europe At the heart of the European project lies subsidiarity — the principle enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to citizens. Taxation has always been among the most sovereign of competencies. It reflects national political choices, social contracts and economic priorities. It binds voters to governments through accountability. The current debate over new EU ‘own resources’ challenges that settlement. Since 2020, the European Union has entered new terrain. Joint borrowing under the NextGenerationEU program marked an extraordinary response to extraordinary circumstances. The pandemic demanded speed and scale. Member states agreed to mutualized debt to stabilize the single market and avoid fragmentation. But extraordinary measures risk becoming precedents. To repay common debt, the European Commission has proposed expanding EU-level revenue streams — carbon border adjustment mechanisms, digital levies, emissions trading revenues and other instruments framed as technical necessities. From the European Commission’s perspective, these are pragmatic tools to sustain shared projects without increasing national contributions. Yet the constitutional implications are far from technical. Once the union acquires permanent fiscal instruments independent of national treasuries, the nature of the EU changes. A supranational entity financed directly at EU level no longer depends solely on member-state transfers. It gains structural autonomy. Over time, fiscal capacity drives political capacity. The question is not whether these specific levies are justified. The question is whether Europeans have collectively decided to transform the union into something closer to a federal fiscal authority. That debate has not truly taken place. Under President Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission has demonstrated ambition and managerial resolve. The Green Deal, industrial policy initiatives, capital markets integration, digital regulation and geopolitical positioning have given Brussels a new assertiveness. In moments of crisis, this decisiveness has reassured markets and partners alike. But strength without clearly defined limits generates anxiety. To critics, the cumulative effect of regulatory expansion, centralized borrowing and proposals for permanent ‘own resources’ signals a steady rebalancing of power toward the center. The European Union was never intended to become the United States of Europe through incremental fiscal evolution. It was constructed as a union of member states cooperating within defined competences. Taxation is not merely a revenue mechanism. It is the foundation of democratic accountability. National parliaments debate budgets, justify expenditures and face voters. When fiscal authority migrates upward, accountability chains grow longer and more opaque. Supporters of EU-level taxation argue that shared challenges require shared resources. Climate transition, defense coordination, industrial competitiveness and geopolitical resilience demand investment beyond the scale of individual member states. Fragmentation, they warn, would weaken Europe in a world of continental powers. There is merit in acknowledging those pressures. Yet, integration must follow consent, not precede it. The current trajectory risks creating fiscal facts before a political mandate is secured. Joint debt was justified as temporary. ‘Own resources’ were presented as targeted. Yet the logic of institutional development suggests permanence. Once established, revenue streams rarely disappear. This is where the David and Goliath metaphor resonates. The giant is not a person. It is a system — a structure that grows by incremental extension of competences. The David is not anti-European protest. It is the taxpayer who expects clarity about who taxes, who spends and who is accountable. European integration has historically advanced through treaty change, ratified by national parliaments. If the Union is to evolve into a fiscal entity with autonomous revenue capacity, that evolution deserves explicit political authorization. It should not occur through regulatory layering and budgetary creativity. President von der Leyen herself is no despot. She has navigated war, pandemic recovery and economic disruption with discipline. But leadership in times of crisis must also include restraint in times of normalization. The credibility of the European project depends not only on effectiveness, but also on constitutional integrity. There is a broader economic dimension as well. Europe faces stagnating productivity, deindustrialization pressures and rising budget deficits at national level. Households are experiencing the lingering effects of inflation and high energy costs. In such an environment, proposals for new EU-level revenue instruments — however rationalized — risk deepening the perception of distance between institutions and citizens. Political legitimacy is not measured solely in treaty articles. It is measured in trust. If taxpayers conclude that Brussels acquires fiscal powers without transparent consent, trust erodes. And when trust erodes, integration becomes fragile. The StopEUTaxes campaign is therefore less about any single levy than about drawing a constitutional line. It argues that the union should recommit to subsidiarity — not as rhetoric, but as operational principle. Shared challenges should be addressed through coordination, not quiet centralization. Fiscal sovereignty should remain anchored in member states unless explicitly transferred through democratic mandate. Europe does not need confrontation between capitals and Brussels. It needs clarity. The union’s founding promise was cooperation among sovereign democracies, not the gradual absorption of their core competences. If a federal fiscal Europe is the destination, that case should be made openly to voters across all member states. Until then, prudence is not obstructionism. It is constitutional responsibility. David’s victory was not about dismantling order. It was about restoring balance. In today’s Europe, the call from taxpayers is similar: pause, reflect and ensure that the architecture of integration remains anchored in democratic consent rather than institutional momentum. The future of Europe depends not only on ambition, but on proportionality. And proportionality begins with recognizing that power — especially the power to tax — must always be matched by clear and direct accountability. That is not resistance to Europe. It is defense of the Europe that was promised. Via Taxpayers Europe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Taxpayers Europe * This political advertisement advocates for limiting the European Union’s fiscal autonomy, opposing the expansion of EU “own resources,” and reinforcing national control over taxation; by addressing joint borrowing under NextGenerationEU, EU revenue instruments such as carbon border mechanisms and digital levies, and the broader constitutional balance between Brussels and member states, it seeks to influence policymakers and public debate on EU fiscal governance and sovereignty, bringing it within the scope of the TTPA. More information here.

BRUSSELS — EU countries are threatening legal action over the amount of power being given to the European Parliament, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO. The letter, the final wording of which will be approved by EU countries on Wednesday, takes issue with an agreement struck between the Parliament and the Commission last year that grants the legislature a greater say in the decision-making process. The Council, representing the national capitals, and the Parliament, composed of lawmakers directly elected by citizens, together shape laws proposed by the Commission, the executive branch of the EU. Often treated as the junior partner, the Parliament has over the years pushed to expand its influence over the legislative process — striking deals with the Commission and forcefully defending its role in court whenever it believes it has been unfairly sidelined. “The Council has repeatedly expressed its strong reservations” about the deal, says the draft letter, as well as “its compatibility with the principles laid down in the Treaties.” The countries are particularly annoyed about a Commission promise to ensure Council and Parliament get “equal treatment” in the legislative process. “This is not the case,” the letter says, as “clearly demonstrated” by the EU’s founding treaties, which give the Council more power than the Parliament. The countries are particularly annoyed about a Commission promise to ensure Council and Parliament get “equal treatment” in the legislative process. | Frederick Florin/AFP via Getty Images Another problem for EU countries is MEPs getting greater influence over international agreements, especially in light of the trade deal with the South American Mercosur group, which the Parliament delayed after capitals had struck a deal 25 years in the making. If the Parliament and Commission do not amend the “problematic” sections of the agreement, “the Council reserves its right to take any appropriate actions to defend its prerogatives, including by bringing the matter to the Court,” a reference to the Court of Justice of the EU, the bloc’s highest judicial body. The Commission did not respond to a request for comment. HEATED RIVALRY In September, Parliament President Roberta Metsola and Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen sealed a so-called framework agreement on the nature of their institutions’ relationship after nine months of arduous negotiations. The text is due to be ratified by the Parliament plenary on March 9-12 and signed off on by the Commission after that. The Parliament’s lead negotiator on the agreement with the Commission, German conservative Sven Simon, who chairs the constitutional affairs committee, pushed back against claims of a power grab. “I am confident in our assessment of competences and institutional balance, and I see no cause for concern whatsoever regarding any potential proceedings before the Court of Justice,” Simon, who is also a professor of EU law at Marburg University, told POLITICO. He added it is “regrettable” that countries appear “increasingly preoccupied with institutional defensiveness, national reflexes and procedural minutiae, rather than focusing on our shared responsibility to move Europe forward decisively.” The Commission-Parliament deal is on the agenda of a meeting of EU ambassadors on Wednesday, said a spokesperson for Cyprus, which holds the rotating Council presidency. “The aim is for the Council to approve a letter to be sent to the Parliament and the Commission, and to hold a discussion on this topic,” they said. “The Council has expressed concerns with regard to the revised framework agreement in connection to its prerogatives and the institutional balance established by the Treaties.” WHAT KEEPS COUNCIL UP AT NIGHT The letter from the Council pushes back against parts of the agreement that would allow the Parliament to be present during international negotiations. The treaties “do not grant the Parliament a right of consultation during the negotiations stage, but only a right of information which does not include, nor justify, the participation of members of Parliament in coordination meetings,” the letter reads. Countries also don’t like a clause that would require the Commission to get approval from Parliament before temporarily putting trade deals into effect while they are still being ratified. Under the treaties, only the Council has a say in allowing a trade deal to be applied on a temporary basis. Included in the deal between Commission and Parliament is the former’s promise to provide a detailed justification if it uses Article 122 of the treaties, which allows the Commission and the Council to bypass the Parliament in emergencies. For example, Article 122 was used when setting up the loans-for-arms program SAFE to boost defence. The Council says this would “interfere with the Council’s prerogatives and therefore alter the institutional balance.” While the treaties grant only the Commission the power to propose or amend legislation, Parliament has increasingly pushed the Commission to draft laws at the request of MEPs. Under the new deal, the Commission pledges to provide a detailed justification if it does not follow through with a Parliament request to draft a law, and it vows to give lawmakers technical and financial support in designing pilot projects to test proposed laws. Countries argue this creates an imbalance at the heart of EU lawmaking, as it risks the Commission straying from its role as a neutral broker, giving Parliament “a more favorable position” over the Council when it comes to initiating laws. MEP Simon dismissed the countries’ concerns, saying the new text follows EU law and simply “strengthens democratic accountability.” “This is not a matter of institutional rivalry, but of making the Union more capable, more transparent and more responsive to citizens,” he added.

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s ill-fated decision to pick Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the U.S. — despite known links to Jeffrey Epstein — has thrown his government into turmoil. And it’s prompting intense scrutiny of a system designed to stop precisely that outcome. As the U.K. prime minister faces continued blowback for appointing Mandelson to the diplomatic post, POLITICO spoke to seven national security experts, current and former officials and MPs familiar with the security vetting system that governs sensitive roles. They say the Mandelson case — in which the veteran politician was given the job despite his ties to late convicted sex offender Epstein — highlights a slew of long-running problems with a set-up meant to ensure candidates for key posts are free from the kind of risks that have now blown up in Starmer’s face. In reality, they say, the process suffers from political pressure, a lack of robust due diligence, a reliance on trust, and stretched resources. Some were granted anonymity to speak candidly about this sensitive issue.  A security official who has undergone the same process as Mandelson — known as Developed Vetting (DV) — said: “If the process was done properly — and he still passed — then everyone who has been through DV needs re-vetting. Because, if Mandelson can pass, anyone can.” For his part, Mandelson — who did not respond to a request for comment for this piece — has said he “deeply regrets” his continued association with Epstein and the “lies” that the “monster” told him. He has said none of the Epstein emails released by the U.S. Department of Justice “indicate wrongdoing or misdemeanor on my part.” He has apologized “unequivocally” for his association with Epstein and “to the women and girls that suffered.” A QUESTION OF TIMING A full DV check is supposed to be a grueling affair, gatekeeping the most senior and sensitive Whitehall jobs. Candidates must actively declare any potential security risks they are aware of. They are routinely subjected to a deeply-personal interview on every aspect of their life, including those which could potentially make them a blackmail target.  Self-declaration forms are filled in, candidates are interviewed, and referees are quizzed to cross-examine the information provided. DV covers everything from a candidate’s foreign travel to their pornography habits. It presses them on any drug taking or affairs, and can probe their entire financial history. Criminal records must be declared and are scrutinized. “The process requires a vast amount of information, including a full travel history, where you’ve been and with whom, and any foreign associates,” the security official quoted at the beginning of this piece said. “It’s intrusive by design. Any normal person would feel uncomfortable, let alone someone with a history.” DV is carried out by United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV), a body in the Cabinet Office. The questions it asks and the information it collects are confidential and shared only with UKSV and the Foreign Office’s own security team. The prime minister does not have access to its findings. A full DV check is supposed to be a grueling affair, gatekeeping the most senior and sensitive Whitehall jobs. | Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images But Mandelson’s appointment has raised questions over both the sequencing and scope of this vetting. The pick for the U.S. ambassador job was announced to much fanfare in December 2024 — before DV had taken place.  Ahead of the announcement, No.10 Downing Street instead asked the Cabinet Office’s internal Proprietary and Ethics Team (PET) to run a more limited “due diligence” check on the ambassadorial choice, alongside five other candidates then under consideration by the government.  The vast majority of the information the Cabinet Office relied on for the exercise was in the public domain. A summary was then handed to Downing Street, who proceeded with the appointment, after No.10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney emailed three further questions to Mandelson on his relationship with Epstein. Only then did developed vetting begin. Matthew Savill had a long career working in Whitehall and vetting before joining the RUSI security think tank — and is among those raising alarm bells about the sequencing of this process in Mandelson’s case.  “There is a huge question over how Mandelson was appointed and publicly announced before vetting,” he said. “There is no way that that doesn’t slightly tip the balance towards acceptance. If you’re going to hold up the appointment or deny them the clearance, it becomes an issue.”  At the time Mandelson was announced for the job, the fact of his association with Epstein was public knowledge — although the full extent of his longer-term ties to the disgraced financier had yet to be made public in the U.S. Department of Justice’s release of the Epstein Files. “None of us knew the depths and the darkness of that relationship,” Starmer said earlier this month in a speech apologizing to Epstein’s victims for appointing Mandelson. The pick for the U.S. ambassador job was announced to much fanfare in December 2024 — before DV had taken place. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Emily Thornberry, chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, grilled Foreign Office boss Olly Robbins about the process last November, weeks after Mandelson had been fired as ambassador over the publication of correspondence between him and Epstein.  Robbins acknowledged that Mandelson — a veteran Labour politician who had held multiple government posts under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown — had “jumped the queue” for vetting, with a process done “faster than some people’s clearances will have been.” But he said: “That was not because the process was different; it was because we advanced him up the queue.” Robbins — who was Mandelson’s line manager — told the committee that he had a conversation with Mandelson about his “conflicts of interests” during the process, and the contents of that “needs to be between us.” Thornberry remains unconvinced that enough time was granted to allow full developed vetting to take place — and fears political timescales were at play. “It all had to be sorted out and tickety-boo by the swearing in with the president [Trump] at the beginning of January,” she tells POLITICO. “So there was very little time — and there was Christmas in between. Normally, as I understand it, DV takes months. Keir Starmer’s ill-fated decision to pick Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the U.S. has thrown his government into turmoil. | Zeynep Demir/Anadolu via Getty Images “What we did get out of our inquiry was that he wasn’t given a panel interview the way that a non-political appointee would do, and so therefore any questions asked of him seem to have been done pretty informally by [Starmer’s then-Chief of Staff] Morgan McSweeney — which is pretty low-level accountability.” The Cabinet Office declined to comment on the record for this piece. TOOLS FOR THE JOB Others are questioning whether the DV process is robust enough to account for a candidate who may give misleading answers.  Starmer has accused Mandelson of lying to him “repeatedly” about the extent of his ties to Epstein — and that, say those familiar with the vetting process, shows one of its fundamental weaknesses: a reliance on trust over hard information. One former government special advisor who has been through DV said that the interview they faced was “like going to the GP and they ask how many units [of alcohol per week] you have. Nobody fully tells the truth, and I guess they can only go by what you provide them with, unless they can get good data.” In contrast with some U.S. counterparts, British officials remain wary of leaning on polygraph tests to weigh the veracity of answers given in interviews. Instead, the DV process relies on the strength of the intelligence that feeds into it — and the honesty of the person subject to the checks. “There is no lie detector — which the U.K. has been pretty skeptical about in comparison to the U.S. which uses them a lot. If you lie and there’s something that only you know about, which your references don’t, then you might get through vetting,” Savill said. There is only a limited role in the process for Britain’s Intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6.  There is only a limited role in the process for Britain’s Intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6. | Mike Kemp/In Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images Savill said there are two places where spooks might feed into vetting: a “box check,” in which UKSV runs a candidate and their family’s details against security service records, “to see if they turn up in some capacity;” and during the due diligence check by the Proprietary and Ethics Team (PET) in the Cabinet Office. “This is a point at which you might consult the agencies in the background,” Savill said. Political party whips can also feed into this process.  But, he warned, “questions around political figures that have national security implications are radioactive in the intelligence community.” Britain’s Wilson Doctrine — the convention that MPs’ and Lords’ communications should not be intercepted by the intelligence services — continues to place “pretty significant constraints on how intelligence and politics interact.” PET did not consult the security services during its due diligence process for Mandelson. The Cabinet Office declined to comment on security matters relating to Mandelson’s appointment or any engagement with the intelligence community. There is also some consternation among security experts that Mandelson’s known Russian connections were not viewed as a sufficient risk to stop his clearance. The former Labour politician had a long-standing relationship with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. “I know people who haven’t even gotten their parliamentary clearance because they’ve travelled to Russia once for work, or they’ve had a parent who’s been born in that region but has no links there whatsoever,” the former special advisor quoted above said. “That’s the level of paranoia there is, and about Russia in particular.” Carve-outs for areas of acute sensitivity are possible under the vetting process. Mandelson’s clearance would likely have seen him inducted into STRAP, a high-level, U.K. security clearance allowing access to top-level intelligence material. Obtaining this clearance involves looking at the foreign exposure of an individual — and can result in a subject being denied access to certain pieces of intelligence if deemed a risk. The former Labour politician had a long-standing relationship with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. | Getty Images Savill noted that given that the U.S.-U.K. relationship is “so key,” its ambassador is expected to have access to a vast swathe of intelligence and “it would be really difficult to do his job without this.” ‘FAILED TO GET A GRIP’ UKSV itself continues to feel political heat over its performance — and major questions about the resourcing of DV checks persist.  Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee reported in 2023 that ministers had repeatedly complained to UKSV over delays in granting clearances. “The Cabinet Office has failed to get a grip of vetting services since it took over responsibility in 2020,” the watchdog said. “It has not assessed the impact across government that delays to vetting can have when staff are unable to progress work because they do not have the appropriate level of security clearance.” Savill argues that “national security vetting has largely been a car crash for the past decade.” He cites a combination of short-staffing, botched IT upgrades and a lack of capacity for what can be expensive and intrusive work into people’s backgrounds. “It raises the question if DV is fit for the modern era for people who are attempting to evade scrutiny,” Savill added.   At the same time, Savill said there can be quite “a high bar to get over when denying a DV” clearance to a candidate, which leads to emphasis on what’s known as “aftercare” — regular checks on a person’s circumstances to keep an eye on issues identified during vetting. “There has been criticism that DV lets a lot of people through the gate and then it puts a lot of emphasis on checking up on them afterwards,” he said. “The problem is the presumption is towards giving a DV — it is a bit like a trial, the presumption is towards innocence.” SHAKE-UP STARTS Earlier this month, the British government folded to political pressure and agreed to release vast swathes of internal documentation relating to Mandelson’s appointment — but the work to overhaul vetting is only just beginning. Emily Thornberry, chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, grilled Foreign Office boss Olly Robbins about the process last November, weeks after Mandelson had been fired as ambassador. | Nicola Tree/Getty Images Starmer’s administration has promised to publish Mandelson’s due diligence report, a conflict of interest form he had to fill out, and information provided to UKSV by the Foreign Office. But it is unlikely that the information contained in Mandelson’s DV process will ever see the light of day. Further documents deemed to be “prejudicial to U.K. national security or international relations” will be referred to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), while an ongoing police investigation into misconduct in public office allegations against Mandelson — who appears to have forwarded on government policy advice to Epstein while serving in Gordon Brown’s government — leaves some elements in limbo. Officers have not yet interviewed Mandelson and he has denied wrongdoing. In a bid to get back on the front foot after days of damaging headlines, the government has signaled that it’s open to a shake-up of vetting. Morgan McSweeney — Starmer’s chief of staff, who was forced to resign over the scandal — called for the process to be “fundamentally overhauled” in his parting statement.  Darren Jones, the minister who leads the Cabinet Office, vowed last week that the government would tighten the process for appointments like Mandelson’s. It will, Jones said, include assurances that “where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.” “This cannot simply be a gesture but a safeguard for the future,” he said. In the meantime, the questions about this particular appointment — and how seriously the vetting process was taken by the politicians calling the shots — continue to mount. “What is extraordinary is that I cannot see how a vetting team could have given him a positive outcome of that process,” a former senior British security official said of Mandelson’s appointment:   “Whatever Starmer and [former No.10 chief of staff Morgan] McSweeney think of him and his abilities — that’s not the issue. The issue is whether you lack integrity and/or are a security risk.”

LONDON — Keir Starmer apologized Thursday to the victims of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for choosing Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington. The prime minister has faced heavy criticism after documents in the most recently released Epstein files appear to show the late financier was leaked sensitive government policy discussions by Mandelson, who was the U.K. business secretary and a senior member of the government at the time. The British prime minister, who sacked Mandelson as ambassador last September over the extent of his friendship with the late sex offender, directly addressed Epstein’s victims during a visit to the seaside town of Hastings on the south coast of England. “I am sorry,” Starmer said. “Sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him and sorry that even now you’re forced to watch this story unfold in public once again.”  The PM said his government will “not allow the powerful to treat justice as optional,” and will do everything in its power to “ensure accountability is delivered.”  He spoke against a backdrop of anger from some Labour MPs who are infuriated the PM appointed Mandelson and want Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, who they see as having been instrumental to that decision, to leave No 10. Veteran Labour MP Karl Turner told Times Radio that Starmer should “get rid of those advisers who frankly have given terrible advice.” Keeping Morgan in post puts Starmer “up against it in a way that he doesn’t need to be,” Turner said. But government ministers insist McSweeney’s position is safe. “The person at fault here is not the prime minister or his team,” Communities Secretary Steve Reed, a close ally of the No. 10 chief of staff, told Sky News. “It is Peter Mandelson who lied, manipulated and deceived everybody.” 

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.”