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

PARIS — How do you celebrate a major anniversary of the world’s most significant climate treaty while deprioritizing the fight against climate change?   That’s the quandary in Paris heading into Friday, when the landmark Paris Agreement turns 10.   With budgets strapped and the fight against climate change losing political momentum, the only major celebration planned by the French government consists of a reception inside the Ministry of Ecological Transition hosted by the minister, Monique Barbut, according to the invitation card seen by POLITICO.  Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu won’t be there, and it’s unclear if President Emmanuel Macron will attend.  Lecornu will be talking about health care in the region of Eure, where he’s from. Macron’s plans for Friday are not yet public, but the day before he’ll address the “consequences of misinformation on climate change” as part of a nationwide tour to speak with French citizens about technology and misinformation.  According to two ministerial advisers, the Elysée Palace had initially planned to organize an event, details of which were not released, but it was canceled at the last minute. When contacted about the plans, the Elysée did not respond.  Even if Macron ends up attending the ministerial event, the muted nature of the celebration is both a symptom of the political backlash against Europe’s green push and a metaphor for the Paris Agreement’s increasingly imperiled legacy — sometimes at the hands of France itself, which had been supposed to act as guarantor of the accord.  “France wants to be the guardian of the Paris Agreement, [but] it also needs to implement it,” said Lorelei Limousin, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace. “That means really putting the resources in place, particularly financial resources, to move away from fossil fuels, both in France and internationally.”  PARIS AGREEMENT’S BIRTHDAY PLANNER  Before being appointed to government, Barbut was Macron’s special climate envoy and had been tasked with organizing the treaty’s celebration. She told POLITICO in June that she hoped to use the annual Paris Peace Forum to celebrate the anniversary, then bring together hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists in late November and welcome them at the Elysée.   Those events, which have already come and gone, were supposed to be followed by a grand finale on Friday.   According to one of the ministerial advisers previously cited, the moratorium on government communications spending introduced in October by the prime minister threw a wrench in those plans.   “We’d like to do something more festive, but the problem is that we have no money,” the adviser said.   Environmentalists say the muted plans point to a government that remains mired in crisis and shows little interest in prioritizing climate change. Lecornu is laser-focused on getting a budget passed before the end of the year, whereas Macron’s packed agenda sees him hopscotching across the globe to tackle geopolitical crises and touring France to talk about his push to regulate social media.  Anne Bringault, program director at the Climate Action Network, accused the government of trying to minimize the anniversary of the treaty “on the sly” because there “is no political support” for a celebration. Some hope the government will use the occasion to present an update of its climate roadmap, the national low-carbon strategy, which is more than two years overdue.  They also still hope that Lecornu will change his plans and show up to mark the occasion. Apart from his trip to his fiefdom in the Eure, the prime minister’s schedule shows no appointments. His office told POLITICO that Lecornu has no plans to change his schedule for the time being.  As for Macron, it’s still unclear what he’ll be doing on Friday. This story is adapted from an article published by POLITICO in French.

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

BRUSSELS — The weakness of the European Commission’s proposal to tackle foreign interference in elections shows an ominous deference to U.S. interests, critics have said. The so-called Democracy Shield, one of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s key campaign promises, was announced Wednesday to an underwhelming reception. “The Commission’s communication is uninspiring and lacks determination. While it would be acceptable in peacetime, in the current geopolitical situation it is dangerously insufficient,” said Helmut Brandstätter, an Austrian liberal member of the European Parliament. The initiative touches on the enforcement of EU digital rules that put the onus on social media platforms to tackle misinformation on their networks. “Some of the weakest language” is to be found on these areas — as “expected given the pressure exerted by the new U.S. administration, but it’s a dangerous precedent for the EU,” said Emma Quaedvlieg, policy manager at the European Partnership for Democracy, a civil society group. Several platforms are being investigated under the EU’s powerful Digital Services Act, but no final decisions have been issued. That includes X, whose powerful billionaire owner Elon Musk took the opportunity to slam the bloc in a jab at von der Leyen on Wednesday. The proposal makes clear the extent of the disinformation campaigns plaguing elections. Yet many of the Commission’s fixes remain optional, including the flagship item: a hub to exchange expertise on foreign interference and misinformation called the European Centre for Democratic Resilience, as POLITICO reported ahead of the announcement. The Commission hasn’t figured out the structure of the center, and a senior Commission official said it hasn’t been decided which part of the EU’s institutions will be responsible for it, a key sticking point in discussions. Swedish conservative MEP Tomas Tobé said the proposal “is a timely and thorough overview” of where the EU must act, but that the Commission should “go a few steps further in its ambition when it comes to actual reforms.” Tobé, from von der Leyen’s political family, is spearheading the European Parliament’s report on the plans. “It seems to me much more a series of ‘titles’ of chapters still to be written than concrete answers,” said French liberal lawmaker Sandro Gozi. German Greens MEP Alexandra Geese disagrees. In her view, Wednesday’s plan includes a “clear call to tackle systemic risks to society and democracy” through existing rules. | Martin Bertrand and Hans Lucas/Getty Images The strategy also addresses Europe’s flailing media sector. The document comes with “somewhat of a large list” of things to do and “is failing to prioritise the game-changing solutions,” Thibaut Bruttin, director general of Reporters Without Borders, told POLITICO. German Greens MEP Alexandra Geese disagrees. In her view, Wednesday’s plan includes a “clear call to tackle systemic risks to society and democracy” through existing rules. It serves as a call from Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath — who spearheaded the initiative — to Commission Executive Vice President for Tech Henna Virkkunen to enforce digital rules, Geese said. If “McGrath calls for enforcement … Virkkunen finally needs to take action.”

Laurence Tubiana is the CEO of the European Climate Foundation, France’s climate change ambassador, and COP30 special envoy for Europe. Manuel Pulgar-Vidal the World Wildlife Fund’s global climate and energy lead and was COP20 president. Anne Hidalgo is the mayor of Paris. Eduardo Paes is the mayor of Rio de Janeiro. In April, former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair wrote that our net zero policies are “doomed to fail.” This narrative — that the world is losing faith in climate action — has gained a lot of traction. But it is simply not true. Across the world, strong and stable majorities continue to back ambitious climate policies. In most countries, more than 80 percent of citizens support action, and according to research published in “Nature Climate Change,” 69 percent of people globally say they’re willing to contribute 1 percent of their income to help tackle the climate crisis. The problem isn’t a collapse in public support — it is the growing disconnect between people and politics, which is being fueled by powerful interests, misinformation and the manipulation of legitimate anxieties. Fossil fuel lobbies are working overtime to delay the green transition by sowing confusion and polarization. But this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference COP30, taking place in Belém, Brazil, is our chance to change this. It is an opportunity to be remembered not just for new pledges or targets but for rebooting the relationship between citizens and the climate regime, a chance to truly be the “People’s COP.” To that end, a new proposal, supported by the Brazilian Presidency and detailed in a policy paper sets out a vision for embedding citizen participation directly into the U.N. process — a Citizens’ Track. It calls for a dedicated space where ordinary people can be heard, where they can share how they’re organizing, what solutions they’re building to address the climate crisis, and what a sustainable future means to them. There are a number of reasons why this must happen: First, citizens are crucial for implementation. They provide the political mandate as well as the practical muscle. Communities have the power to accelerate or obstruct new renewable projects, support or resist the mining of transition minerals, object to or defend policy options, and make daily choices that determine whether the transition succeeds. But framing citizens as critical partners isn’t just pragmatic, it also defines the kind of transition we want to build — one of economic empowerment and social justice. A people-led approach cultivates a vision of more democracy not less, more agency not less, more protection not less. This kind of participation can be a deliberate counterweight to the forces of homogenization and alienation, which have hollowed out trust in globalization, and ground the transition in diversity, creativity and shared responsibility. This is not an anti-business agenda — it’s one that balances relationships between citizens, governments and finance, ensuring decisions are made with people and not for them. Second, participation builds fairness and resilience. A space at the multilateral level dedicated to advancing the peoples’ agenda offers a structured way to confront the questions that often fuel the political backlash against climate and environmental regulations: Who pays? Who benefits? Who’s left behind? More importantly, what can be done to resolve these trade-offs? When such concerns are ignored, resentment grows. The farmers’ protests across Europe, for instance, have been targeting the perceived unfairness of climate policies — not their goals. Elsewhere, communities are worried about the everyday realities of employment, growing costs and cultural change. A Citizens’ Track would allow these anxieties to surface, be heard and then addressed through dialogue and cooperation rather than division. Finally, participation also restores connection and hope. For too long, the climate movement has warned of catastrophe without offering a compelling vision of the future. A Citizens’ Track could fill that void, offering a modern, technology-enabled framework for deliberation and for reconnecting politics and people in an age of polarization. The farmers’ protests across Europe, for instance, have been targeting the perceived unfairness of climate policies — not their goals. | Mustafa Yalcin/Getty Images In an era dominated by algorithms that amplify outrage, a citizens’ process could invite reflection, reason and shared imagination. Everyone wants to know the truth. Everyone wants to live in a world of stronger communities. No one wants to inhabit a reality defined by manipulation, cynicism and emotional violence. A Citizens’ Track points to a different future, where disagreement is met with respect, rather than hostility. This is a vision that builds on a quiet revolution that’s already underway. More than 11,000 participatory budgeting initiatives have been implemented worldwide in the last three decades, allowing communities to decide how public resources are spent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has tracked over 700 citizens’ assemblies and mini-publics, and found that participation has accelerated sharply in the last decade, with digital platforms enabling tens of millions of people to deliberate key issues. From Kerala, India’s People’s Plan of decentralized government to participatory ward committees in South Africa and Paris’ permanent citizens assembly, citizen’s voices are being institutionalized in local, regional or national governance all over the world. And now is the time to elevate this approach to the multilateral level. Initiatives like these form already a distributed movement, an informal ecosystem of participation shaping the future one action at a time — but they remain disconnected. By opening a dedicated space that aggregates these discreet citizen and community efforts, COP30 could inject renewed energy into the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. A decade ago, the Lima–Paris Action Agenda opened the door for cities, businesses and civil society to contribute to global progress. Today, the next step is clear. We cannot let governments off the hook on climate. Nor can we wait for them. This is the future a Citizens’ Track can deliver — and the legacy Belém must leave behind.

President Donald Trump’s deep cuts to foreign aid and plans to quit the UN body that coordinates efforts to combat disease are already splintering a global approach to public health strained by a once-in-a-century pandemic. Picking up the pieces is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ job. Facing the loss of his biggest funder when the U.S. officially withdraws in January — America’s contribution was $640 million in 2023, the most recent year for which data is available — the World Health Organization’s director-general is trying to appeal to Trump. He’s fundraising and has launched the largest downsizing in the body’s history. He’s also warning the world that retreating from health cooperation right after a pandemic swept the globe doesn’t make any sense. He says the sudden aid cuts this year have cost lives. “If donors or others also see that what they give is no charity and it’s a security for everybody, I think we’ll be in a better situation,” Tedros told POLITICO. At the same time, he’s also found a silver lining that sounds like something he and Trump could agree on: America’s aid cuts are pushing countries that have depended on U.S. funding to become more self-reliant. The first African head of the WHO, Tedros has led the organization since 2017, including through the turmoil of Covid, two mpox outbreaks and yearslong negotiations on an international agreement aimed at improving the world’s response when the next pandemic comes. This year he’s had to reorganize the WHO leadership and let go of some 600 people out of roughly 10,000 employees after losing U.S. funding. Tedros outlined for POLITICO his efforts to address Trump’s complaints of “inappropriate political influence” at the WHO and “onerous payments,” and explained how he’s engaging Trump officials to get the administration to reconsider its withdrawal. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. How does the world move forward after the funding cuts and U.S. withdrawal? Solidarity is important, because unless we support each other, viruses could get an advantage. It’s not charity. By investing in it, countries are protecting themselves. On top of that, though, self reliance is also important, and each and every country should invest in health. If countries take ownership, I see a better future. Covid-19 has killed more people than any war in recent memory. We have to protect ourselves from a common enemy that can strike any time. It’s a matter of when, not if. Trump, Republicans and many global health experts say some countries have become dependent on the U.S. and the cuts will force them to become self-reliant. So were the cuts a good thing? It’s a good thing and it’s a bad thing. It’s a bad thing because people are dying. It’s a good thing for the long term, because countries are now waking up and saying: ‘OK, I have to mobilize domestic resources, and I have to cover the expenses for the health system.’ Of course, there is the immediate impact. If there was a transition, it would have been better to avoid the impact of the service cuts now in terms of morbidity or mortality. How have you engaged with the Trump administration and how did that go? We have done that formally, informally, because we think informal is more effective. And we ask for meetings, but for reasons they don’t tell us, it hasn’t happened yet. I’m not saying the door is closed. We’re in touch with [Health Secretary] Bobby Kennedy. He helped us in evacuating kids from Gaza. The president supported it. There are some kids who came here and many to other countries, especially kids with cancer. I would like to thank the president for the peace deal and also for helping kids with cancer in the evacuation. We have already reached more than 300 kids. Kennedy has said the WHO needs “radical reform.” Have you talked to him about what reforms he wants? We don’t know what kind of reform they want, but the U.S. says other countries should pay and they want to pay less. We agree. The WHO wants the U.S. and other major donors to pay less because we want the burden to be shared. We started the finance reform in 2017. In 2022, our member states, including the U.S., agreed to increase the assessed contributions by 50 percent. The largest increase in the past was 3 percent. And that helps the WHO prevent shocks like these in the future, and also to be more independent. And that, I think, is what the U.S. also wants, for the WHO to be independent. So if that’s what they want, then we’re doing it. So is this a good reason to leave? No. Trump administration officials have accused the WHO of being too close to China and helping it cover up the origins of Covid. Have you had conversations with Kennedy or other Trump officials about it? It’s outright wrong. I don’t know if people know that China is not happy with the position that we have on Covid’s origins, because our position is that all hypotheses are on the table, including spillover and lab leak. This position is very similar to the United States’. Based on science and evidence, actually, that’s the conclusion you can have. But when people don’t want to see what exactly are the facts and are interested in spreading misinformation and disinformation, what can you do? Are you worried other countries could follow the U.S. out of the WHO? I’m not worried that much. There are good reasons to stay, even for the U.S.

When voters went to the polls to elect Ireland’s next president, some of them may have been surprised to see Catherine Connolly’s name on the ballot. Just days before, a deepfake video showing the eventual winner withdrawing from the race had circulated, imitating Connolly and multiple journalists within its fake reality. In the Netherlands, two far-right members of parliament were found to be behind a Facebook page promoting deepfake images of their left-wing rival ahead of Sunday’s tight election, prompting apologies and recrimination. This was the week that artificial intelligence hit two European electoral campaigns in a major way and exposed significant gaps in ongoing efforts to curb undue influence on voters. There are concerns about what that means for European politics and for its voters, as politicians and regulators wake up to the arrival of AI-generated text and video content that has been part of U.S. political life for some time. “The normalisation of such practices is worrying,” said Hannes Cools, assistant professor on the human factor in new technologies at the University of Amsterdam. The Dutch election “is one of the first elections in Europe where we see that [the technology] has become an integral part in electoral campaigns in various ways,” said Claes de Vreese, a professor of artificial intelligence and society at the University of Amsterdam. SHOCK JOCK In a study of some 20,000 election-related posts in the Netherlands, researchers from the University of Amsterdam and the University of Mainz found that over 400 posts were AI-generated. The party of far-right leader Geert Wilders, the Party for Freedom (PVV), came out on top in its use of AI. More than a quarter of the AI posts (120 in total) could be traced back to PVV-linked accounts. Wilders kicked off the PVV’s campaign with an AI-generated video depicting a fictional future Netherlands living under Sharia law. Dutch weekly De Groene Amsterdammer reported that the video was made with OpenAI’s video generator Sora.  When asked about the dominance of extremist or fringe parties in the use of AI, researcher Fabio Votta said, “There’s still a normative aspect of using AI.” “For the far-right, a lot of their modus is norm-breaking and shocking. They don’t fear the reputation hit.” Yet Wilders took the rare step on Monday of apologizing to Frans Timmermans, a former European Commission heavyweight and the leader of the GreenLabor-Left ticket, after it emerged through the Dutch press that two PVV members of parliament were behind a Facebook page spreading incendiary, AI-generated depictions of him.  In one of the images, shown by Dutch daily De Volkskrant, Timmermans could be seen being led away by police in handcuffs. In another, he had his hands on a pile of money. The party of far-right leader Geert Wilders, the Party for Freedom, came out on top in its use of AI. | Laurens Van Putten/EPA In Ireland, the fake video that saw Connolly announce her withdrawal from the presidential election was branded by the candidate as a “disgraceful attempt to mislead voters and undermine our democracy.” Through a fake bulletin of Irish national broadcaster RTÉ, the video saw a deepfake version of Connolly declaring: “It is with great regret that I announce the withdrawal of my candidacy and the ending of my campaign,” with deepfake versions of two well-known TV presenters validating the news and discussing the impact. Both Meta and Google-owned YouTube removed the Connolly video from their platforms without specifying how long it had been online. The Irish left-wing independent candidate won the election convincingly with 63 percent of the vote. Depicting fictional events or attacking or discrediting other candidates are only two ways in which AI-generated content is being deployed to sway minds.  Researchers also warn against a third, arguably more direct, method in which AI could influence election outcomes: users asking AI chatbots who to vote for. With a large majority of voters typically undecided until the final days of the election, the Dutch data protection authority on Oct. 21 warned voters not to ask AI chatbots for voting advice, since these give a “highly distorted and polarized image of the Dutch political landscape.”  “Chatbots are full of mistakes,” said de Vreese, adding that “they attribute various party positions to the wrong parties, and they also seem to have a kind of a suction effect” in a specific political direction. An experiment showed that chatbots favored the GreenLeft-Labour ticket for voters on the left, while voters on the right were mainly directed to the far-right PVV.  “People with a low literacy are particularly vulnerable to AI-generated disinformation,” said Cools. DISCLAIMER Regulators in Brussels have made election integrity, AI risks and online disinformation major priorities, a patchwork of ongoing efforts left them watching as the elections played out. As the technology to generate AI content and the platforms to distribute them is mostly U.S.-based, all eyes are on Brussels for a bloc-wide response. The EU’s powerful Digital Services Act puts some responsibility on platforms to tackle risks to elections, and both Meta and Google have recognized generative AI as a major risk factor — likely contributing to their decision to take down the Connolly video. But the requirements are driven mainly by concerns about misinformation, rather than by efforts to regulate how European political parties use generative AI to spread their messages.  Labeling is also a big part of the response, as required by a separate EU law specific to artificial intelligence. Researchers at the University of Amsterdam flagged that a majority of the posts they tracked for the Dutch election lacked an AI-labeling disclaimer. For those who did, it was the platform that added it, not the political parties. More laws that could deal with the matter are on their way. The European Commission is drafting guidance for so-called high-risk AI systems that can pose a risk to people’s fundamental rights, which will enter into force in August 2026 at the earliest. “These guidelines will include a section on AI systems intended to influence election outcomes or referendums,” said Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier.  Developers of the most complex AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT or Google’s Gemini, have already had to comply with a series of obligations since August, including mitigating “systemic risks” to democratic processes.  Next month, Brussels will unveil another proposal, meant to support EU countries in upholding the fairness and integrity of election campaigns against foreign manipulation and interference. That is not expected to contain any binding legal requirements. Eliza Gkritsi contributed reporting.

PARIS — Vladimir Putin’s shadow loomed large inside Paris’ bright, light-wood-lined modern courthouse on the second day of the trial of four Bulgarian men accused of conspiring to tag red handprints on the Paris Holocaust memorial in a suspected Russian hybrid war operation. The proceedings, which last until Friday, have pulled back the curtain on what appears to be a modus operandi for Putin’s spooks, even if the Russian leader was not mentioned by name. “We are not fooled, we know where this comes from” the prosecutor leading the case said — even if the four suspects were not, as she explained, “the best Russian spies on Earth.” Confidential background notes from the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Intérieure, France’s domestic intelligence agency, partly cited in court and seen by POLITICO, alleged that two of the suspects “received instructions in Russian from unknown individuals via the encrypted messaging app Telegram.” The fact that the group came all the way from Bulgaria for the tagging “confirms intelligence according to which they are part of a broader operation to destabilize public opinion,” the confidential notes read. And the French government’s disinformation experts have traced amplification of the read hands news reports by thousands of fake accounts linked to Russia. According to background intelligence notes read out in court, the red hands stunt follows the blueprint of typical hybrid war operations, where individuals are hired and paid to “accomplish a mission at the behest of an intelligence service” even if these so-called “proxies” do not know who is ultimately pulling the strings. “The hiring of these proxies takes place within a specific hierarchy, with an intelligence officer at the top, with an intermediary usually based in a satellite country, himself in touch with Russian speaking individuals hired via social media and Telegram for paid missions,” according to the readout. Russian proxies are also suspected in nine other similar cases currently being investigated by French judges that seemed designed to exploit and deepen societal fissures within the country. DIVISION OF LABOR The note seen by POLITICO accused Nikolay Ivanov, 42, and Mircho Angelov, 27, of being “main organizers” and receiving marching orders via Telegram, with Ivanov seen as the likely ringleader, “with higher hierarchical rank.” Angelov, who remains at large, has been presented by the rest of the group as the operation’s main organizer on the ground, handing over instructions as to where to paint red hands during a two-night raid which culminated in the defacing of the Shoah Memorial in the French capital’s old Jewish neighborhood. Ivanov, a slim man who in court wore a sweatshirt, wasn’t in Paris for the raid but admitted to paying hotel nights and bus tickets for the group — he said he did it as a service to Angelov. Ivanov was born in the eastern Ukrainian Donbas region before the fall of the Soviet Union, spent several years in Russia and was a member of a pro-Russian paramilitary group, according to background research cited in court. He had in the past “regular contacts with a pro-Russian activist arrested by Ukrainian services in 2014 and a former high-ranking member of a Russian intelligence service,” the judge said in court. The proceedings, which last until Friday, have pulled back the curtain on what appears to be a modus operandi for Putin’s spooks, even if the Russian leader was not mentioned by name. | Contributor/Getty Images Ivanov denied being pro-Russian and said he had no detailed knowledge of the red hands operation when he booked travel on behalf of the group. “I’m a pacifist,” he said. PAID WORK The other two suspects, Georgi Filipov, 36, and Kiril Milushev, 28, were casual acquaintances of Angelov, whom they said offered them money in exchange for their participation in an operation “for peace.” Milushev said he initially accepted the offer to travel to Paris for recreational purposes and was only enrolled to film the operation once on the ground. Filipov, who like Angelov bears large neo-Nazi tattoos on his chest, admitted to tagging the Holocaust memorial with Angelov and dropping coffins near the Eiffel Tower in a subsequent operation, but said he only accepted for financial reasons as he was strapped for cash and needed to pay child support — he received €1,000 for the tagging operation. Shortly after the Paris trip, three members of the group traveled to Germany and Switzerland, where they are suspected of having participated in other hybrid war operations, knowingly or not. In France, the men are only formally accused for their role in defacing the monument and suspected antisemitic motives. All three men accepted responsibility for the first charge but denied the latter. France only recently beefed up its legal arsenal against foreign interference and created ad hoc, tougher penalties for violence “committed at the behest of a foreign power.” Those laws were adopted last year after the government began officially pointing to Russia as the orchestrator of a series of high-profile stunts designed to sow chaos in France. The prosecutor nonetheless called for the judges to take into account the hostile intent and organized character of the operation when asking them to hand four-year prison sentences to Ivanov and Angelov, and two-year sentences to Filipov and Milushev.

PARIS — Suspected Russian proxies standing trial for defacing the Paris Holocaust Museum with red paint last year later traveled to Germany and Switzerland, where French investigators suspect they might have been involved in other provocative acts. Four Bulgarian men went on trial in a Paris court on Wednesday, accused of participating in tagging the museum and dozens of other Parisian buildings with red hand impressions. The prosecution suspects the May 2024 raid was part of Moscow’s undeclared but multi-faceted hybrid war on the continent. Of the four suspects, Mircho Angelov, 27, is on the run, while Nikolay Ivanov, 42, was arrested in Croatia last year and was extradited. Police investigation documents cited in court alleged they had “received instructions in Russian via Telegram.” According to information provided by the Bulgarian authorities, also cited in court, Angelov and a third suspect, Kiril Milushev, 28, traveled to Germany shortly after the Paris operation. The French prosecutor noted that the Munich grave of Stepan Bandera, a nationalist Ukrainian politician active in the 1930s and 1940s, had been tagged around the same time. Citing intelligence shared by a foreign country, he asked whether the Paris raid suspects had been involved. Milushev dismissed the theory as “absurd.” Dressed in a white shirt and sporting a light beard, he admitted to having visited Germany with Angelov but said they had gone there to buy a second-hand car. Milushev also admitted to traveling to Switzerland with Ivanov, who didn’t deny the trip. The latter didn’t visit Paris but paid for hotel rooms for the three others and for their flights back to Sofia after the Holocaust Museum was defaced. The Swiss trip came ahead of a high-level Ukraine summit in the country. “We were meant to put [up] stickers [for peace] but we didn’t do it,” Milushev said. Ivanov acknowledged paying for the Paris trip of the other three suspects, but said he had done so as a favor to Angelov, who later paid him back. But according to the judge, intelligence shared by a foreign country points to Ivanov as a likely “hiring party for proxies” involved in Russian hybrid war operations. Ivanov said he had only wanted to help Angelov and described himself as “a pacifist.” The fourth suspect, Georgi Filipov, 36, is also being investigated in another case of suspected Russian interference, in which coffins bearing the words “French soldiers of Ukraine” were left near the Eiffel Tower. In court, Filipov admitted to having transported the coffins but said he had been unaware of how they would be used. He also expressed regret for the defacing of the Holocaust Museum. The trial, which continues Thursday and Friday, offers a rare window into Russia’s suspected hybrid war operations across Europe and the links between the multiple cases of possible foreign interference that are currently under investigation.

BRUSSELS — Montenegro wants the EU’s help in fighting Russian disinformation as the Balkan nation moves toward membership of the bloc. The small country, which has set an ambitious goal to join the EU by 2028, is increasingly a target for disinformation from those hoping to disrupt its membership bid, Montenegrin President Jakov Milatović told POLITICO in an exclusive interview in Brussels. “I’m very much hoping that in the future we would be getting bigger support from the EU to really fight disinformation and misinformation,” Milatović said, adding he had pitched the idea to EU policymakers and member countries. Moldova, another EU candidate country, has been a favorite target of the Kremlin’s meddling, including vote-buying and disinformation. That led the EU to deploy last month its new cyber reserve — a team of private-sector cybersecurity experts — to Chişinǎu and allocate millions in funding for a hub to fight disinformation. Milatović, who was in Brussels to meet with European Council President António Costa, said “malign influence from third countries” could pose a risk to Montenegro’s accession, and urged the EU to be proactive in countering such threats. “Sometimes, I feel that pro-European politicians in the region of the Western Balkans are a bit left alone by the partners in the EU,” he said, adding that he encountered disinformation “on a daily basis.” ‘END OF THE RACE’ Montenegro applied to join the EU in 2008 and was granted candidate status in 2010. It has closed seven of 33 accession chapters since then and is on track to close five more by December, a senior Montenegrin diplomat confirmed to POLITICO. With a population of 600,000, the tiny Adriatic nation has sought to position itself as the obvious next member of the 27-nation bloc. But it faces potential obstacles, including pro-Serb parties in its parliament, tensions with neighboring Croatia and skepticism in some corners of the EU about enlargement. Tellingly, the issue is not even on the agenda of next week’s European Council summit. French President Emmanuel Macron called in 2023 for the EU to reform itself before letting in new members. But Milatović said that behind closed doors, Macron had come around to the idea of Montenegro’s membership. “I believe that two years ago, before President Macron started speaking with me, he had … one opinion,” Milatović said. “After so many discussions that I had with him,” however, Macron was now “optimistic … about Montenegro’s position in the EU.” “And I believe this is the case also with all the other EU leaders,” Milatović added. “Montenegro is now perceived as a front-runner. But … I do want to see the end of the race, in a sense.” Another potential sticking point is the country’s reliance on Russian tourists and investors. Montenegro has yet to introduce visas for Russians, who can enter the country visa-free for 30 days, and Russians remain the largest foreign investors. “What we are trying to do is sort of postpone it [visas] as much as we can, so that we still keep our tourism sector alive,” Milatović said, adding he was “absolutely” concerned by the influx of Russian cash. “We are a bit in a vacuum now because … we don’t have full access to EU funds.” That said, Montenegro will align its visa regime with the EU “very soon,” he said. Ultimately, while much of the onus is on Podgorica to unite its political forces and deliver promised reforms, the EU also needs to prove “enlargement is alive” and “reforms pay off,” Milatović warned. “The last country that entered was Croatia more than 10 years ago. And in the meantime, the United Kingdom left,” Milatović said. “So this is why I believe that now is the time to revive the process, to also revive a bit the idea of the EU as a club that still has a gravity toward it.”