Iran’s foreign minister Sunday said Iran has no intention of meeting President Donald Trump’s demand for “unconditonal surrender,” warning that his country is prepared to “continue fighting” amid growing military action. Speaking with NBC’s Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press,” Abbas Araghchi also said the U.S. and Israel owe Iran an explanation for the joint attack that killed Iran’s supreme leader earlier this month. “They have to explain why they started this aggression before we come to the point to even consider a ceasefire,” Araghchi said. “Of course, nobody wants to continue this war. This is not our war of our choice. This is imposed on us by the United States, by Israelis.” The Trump administration’s rationale for the war has repeatedly changed over the last week; at one point, Trump said Iran had missiles capable of reaching America. Araghchi on Sunday said the claim was “misinformation.” On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt unveiled a list of four goals the administration hopes to achieve with Operation Epic Fury. Trump on Friday vowed to continue military action until Iran issues an “unconditional surrender,” an echo of his demands to Tehran during the 12-day war last June — four days before the U.S. struck multiple Iranian nuclear sites. Still, Araghchi said, the phrase didn’t work last year and it won’t work this time. “We never gave up. We never surrendered,” Araghchi said. “We continue to resist as long as it takes. We continue to defend ourselves, and we are defending our territory, our people and our dignity, and our dignity is not for sale.” Despite accepting the ceasefire last year, Araghchi said it “didn’t bring about peace.” And this time, he said, is different. “Now this year, they again started to attack us. They are killing our people. They are killing, you know, girl students,” he said, referring to reports that a strike in southern Iran killed more than 165 people at a girls’ school. Though Leavitt this week said the Pentagon is “investigating” the strike on the school, Trump on Saturday forcefully asserted Iran was responsible for the attack. But Araghchi vehemently denied Tehran’s forces are responsible for the strike. “It is our school. These are our students, our girls, and they are attacked by an American jet fighter and they have been killed. Why Iran is responsible?” When Welker pressed Araghchi on what evidence he had that American forces were responsible for the attack, the foreign minister quickly clapped back, “If it was not U.S., then who else? Maybe Israelis. But it is obvious, who else is attacking us?” It is unclear how long the war will last, though the White House has said it could be anywhere from five to six weeks. More than 1,000 people have been killed in Iran since fighting began, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Araghchi said when an end comes to the war, it must be a permanent end, instead of another intermission in the fighting. “There should be a permanent end of the war, and unless we get to that, I think we need to continue fighting for the sake of our people and our security,” he said.

BRUSSELS — Right-wing lawmakers told former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton that he deserved to be sanctioned by the United States during a fiery hearing in the European Parliament on Wednesday. Breton spoke to the Parliament’s internal market committee alongside three civil society representatives who were in December banned from traveling to the U.S. because of their work on the EU’s digital laws. Most of the lawmakers expressed warm support from Breton, who worked with them on passing the EU’s Digital Services Act that the Donald Trump administration is going after. Yet there was notable dissent from lawmakers on the right and far-right as the debate split along political lines. Polish right-wing lawmaker Piotr Müller told the hearing that Breton’s actions during his time in office were reminiscent of Soviet-style censorship. Lawmakers on the left meanwhile suggested the EU Commission should suspend access for American government representatives to its premises, a move that would severely restrict contacts with Washington. Wednesday’s hearing comes amid an ongoing fight between Washington and Brussels over the EU’s digital rules. The White House and its allies claim the DSA is a censorship regime that also affects U.S. citizens and restricts free speech. The Commission says it censors neither Europeans nor Americans, and argues instead that the EU protects all users online and promotes free expression by blocking illegal and harmful content and misinformation. Referring to a letter Breton sent X owner Elon Musk in 2024, Müller said that Breton’s decision to threaten Musk over a planned live interview with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump was “a clear case in point when political instruments are used to actually hamper the freedom of speech.” Müller, who represents the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, said ahead of the hearing that the letter amounted to “a blatant attempt to interfere” in the U.S. elections. “Actions have consequences and this episode inevitably shaped perceptions in Washington,” he told POLITICO. While Breton said at the time that the interview could include misinformation that would spread in the EU, and that the Commission could block X as a result, some within the Commission said he was overreaching to gain attention. Breton resigned a few weeks later, after Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asked for his candidacy for another term to be withdrawn. Multiple lawmakers stood by the French former commissioner at Wednesday’s hearing and called on the Commission to show stronger support. French member of The Left, Leila Chaibi, asked the EU executive to suspend access badges of members of the U.S. mission to the EU and the American Chamber of Commerce. Other MEPs said the attack on Breton was an attack on the whole institution. French liberal MEP Sandro Gozi noted the Trump administration could have banned as many as 565 officials from entering the U.S., based on the number of MEPs that voted for the DSA and the number of EU commissioners in office. “We are all guilty. I plead guilty here to have defended our values, our democracy, by approving our digital legislation,” Gozi said. Breton, addressing lawmakers via video link, said he wasn’t the “mastermind” behind the EU’s digital laws but part of a “tremendous team” that was working “together to protect our fellow citizens.” Breton told POLITICO in an interview last month that the travel ban was “unjustified” and reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of how Europe regulates free speech. The Commission said it was standing by Breton. “The Commission has adopted a decision granting [Breton] financial assistance to seek legal advice and assistance to challenge the decision taken by the U.S. administration,” spokesperson Ricardo Cardoso said in an emailed statement.

NATO countries’ restrained response to hybrid attacks is at odds with public opinion, new polling shows: Broad swaths of the public in key allied countries say actions such as cyberattacks on hospitals should be considered acts of war. The POLITICO Poll, conducted in the United States, Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, showed a majority of people agreed that a cyberattack that shuts down hospitals or power grids constitutes an act of war. Canadians felt the strongest about the issue, with 73 percent agreeing. Respondents from all five countries also rallied behind the idea that sabotaging undersea cables or energy pipelines — which has occurred more frequently in recent years — should be considered be an act of war. The online survey was conducted from Feb. 6 to 9 by the independent London-based polling company Public First. State-backed hackers — often linked to Russia — have increasingly targeted critical sectors in recent years. But NATO allies are struggling to respond effectively. In 2024, a Russia-based ransomware gang conducted a massive cyberattack on U.S.-based medical bill clearinghouse, Change Healthcare, which exposed sensitive data on more than 190 million people. The U.K.’s National Health Service confirmed last year that a cyberattack on its systems, also committed by a Russian hacking group, contributed to a patient’s death. And in 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation accused Iranian government-backed hackers of attempting to infiltrate the Boston Children’s Hospital computer network. While these actions have not been officially labeled as acts of war, global governments are taking attacks on critical systems more seriously. NATO in 2014 said that a foreign cyberattack could trigger the alliance’s mutual defense clause, Article 5, effectively calling for multilateral action in response to hacks. But a NATO official said in 2022 that it’s unclear how severe a cyberattack would have to be to trigger a response, which could include “diplomatic and economic sanctions, cyber measures or even conventional forces, depending on the nature of the attack.” Security services in Europe have also more firmly called out the Kremlin for orchestrating digital attacks in the West, most recently targeting Poland’s energy infrastructure. But views on Russia as a global threat vary greatly between Europe and North America. A majority of respondents in Germany, France and the U.K. said Russia represents the biggest threat to peace, while fewer in the U.S. (39 percent) and Canada (29 percent) agreed. While the people surveyed in these five countries overwhelmingly considered major cyberattacks by adversaries against public infrastructure as acts of war, they felt less strongly about smaller-scale acts of digital sabotage. Less than half of the respondents across all five countries said that hacking and leaking the private conversations of political leaders should be considered an act of war. Even fewer considered spreading misinformation to influence an election to be an act of war. Still, there is a clear understanding that governments need to incorporate cyber capabilities and AI into their defense strategies. A plurality of respondents from all countries said that cyber, AI and traditional military power all matter equally. At least a third of respondents in each country agreed that cybersecurity and defense against cyber attacks should be among their countries’ highest priorities for defense spending. “Just being resilient alone, you can’t absorb all threats,” Dag Baehr, Vice President of Germany’s federal intelligence service (BND), said at the Munich Cyber Security Conference last week. “You need to be active in defending.” U.S. officials are pushing for more offensive military responses to cyberattacks, particularly following the massive 2024 hack of global telecommunications networks by the China-linked hacking group Salt Typhoon. The White House is due to release a new national cyber strategy in the coming weeks that would encourage the U.S. to be less “reactive” in cyberspace. National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross told an audience at the Munich Security Conference last week that a “mindset change” was needed to make it harder for attackers to succeed. In recent months, the Trump administration has become more vocal about using its cyber strength to attack, revealing that U.S. cyber forces helped turn off the lights in Caracas during the January strikes that resulted in the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency were also involved in last year’s U.S. missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and reportedly helped to disable Iranian air defense systems. In Germany, the government is preparing an overhaul of its intelligence and cybersecurity powers to strike back against foreign hackers and spies.

Donald Trump has aborted his threat to take Greenland by force but online the war is just getting started. The United States president in January shocked Europe with threats of tariffs to support his right to own Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Danish kingdom. While the intensity of those threats has subsided for now, Danish and European officials say the small island remains vulnerable to the power wielded by the U.S. administration online. With a population of under 60,000, the tiniest drop of misinformation can spread quickly and significantly affect public opinion — especially when the false narrative is coming not from anonymous Russian troll farms but from the most powerful politician in the Western world. “Greenland is a target of influence campaigns of various kinds,” Denmark’s Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard told POLITICO, with one goal of such campaigns “to create division in the relationship between Denmark and Greenland.” In the last year disinformation has increased in Greenland, said Thomas Hedin, editor-in-chief of Danish fact-checker TjekDet. While the influx has lacked any “structured campaign,” including from Russia, Hedin cited as an example of disinformation the idea that the U.S. could buy Greenland — a message repeated by Trump but that is impossible under the Danish constitution, Hedin said. The fact that Greenland is not part of the EU means that the bloc’s social media law — which obliges platforms to consider and mitigate threats of misinformation to civic discourse — does not apply to Greenland, Denmark’s digital ministry told POLITICO.  While polls show that Greenlandic people still favor integration with Europe, German Greens lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky said the EU needs to prepare for a “new type of hybrid confrontation” over the island. “It’s no more combatting Russian trolls trying to hack the system. If pointed at the EU and Greenland, the disinformation campaigns on U.S. platforms become the system,” he said. RIPE FOR EXPLOITATION The relationship between Denmark and Greenland is particularly ripe for exploitation, said Signe Ravn-Højgaard, co-founder and CEO of Denmark-based Digital Infrastructure Think Tank, who conducted an analysis on the misinformation landscape in Greenland.   With a population the size of a Brussels municipality, news travels fast in Greenland and there are few media outlets that can debunk information. Most people rely on Facebook, said Ravn-Højgaard. With only a few shares, a fake news story can reach the entire population.   “It’s completely different from how it is in Denmark,” she said. If in a city of 20,000 people, 5,000 people believe something false, “it’s not a danger to the democracy of Denmark.” But in Greenland, “that would firstly, quickly spread to everyone, and secondly, it’s a large percentage of the population,” she said.   Organized foreign interference campaigns haven’t appeared in Greenland yet, according to two researchers that POLITICO spoke to, but misinformation has been spreading. Two members of the Greenlandic government, Fisheries Minister Peter Borg and Labour Minister Aqqaluaq Egede, pleaded with the public to “stand in unity” on social media in the face of threats from the U.S.   EU lawmakers have also sounded the alarm. Greens lawmaker Alexandra Geese said to “expect influence operations using state-of-the-art propaganda campaigns as well as hate and harassment campaigns against political figures in Greenland and Denmark.” TRANSPARENCY While Denmark said it has no legal obligation to enforce the bloc’s platform law, the Digital Services Act, on Greenland territory, several lawmakers say that should change. Geese said that the EU should enforce the law, “making sure algorithms respect users’ choices rather than acting in the interest of the same tech oligarchs who are investing in Greenland’s minerals.” That’s despite the fact that the EU has struggled to show tangible results elsewhere so far. The European Commission hasn’t concluded any of its investigations on risks to elections and civic discourse despite having probes open on four platforms including Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, TikTok and X. As well as getting platforms to make changes to their systems, the DSA could also help bring transparency to the online ecosystem. The law requires platforms to be transparent about paid ads and data — something Greenland is lacking, said Ravn-Højgaard. Ravn-Højgaard cited paid ads that ran on Facebook ahead of the territory’s election in March 2025, which were not available on the platform’s transparency database. Lagodinsky said the EU should set up an “ad hoc expert group explicitly focused on Greenland.” Brussels should also increase support to fact-checking networks and civil society organizations, he said, similar to the support offered in countries like Moldova and Ukraine.

OTTAWA — A federal court has overturned a Liberal government order to shut down TikTok Canada’s business operations, ordering Industry Minister Mélanie Joly to take another look at the app that more than 14 million Canadians use. On Wednesday, a federal court judge quashed the Liberal government’s order that would have shuttered the tech company’s Canadian offices over national security concerns. The order to shut down TikTok Canada has been set aside, effective immediately. “We welcome the decision to set aside the order to shut down TikTok Canada, and look forward to working with the Minister towards a resolution that’s in the best interest of the more than 14 million Canadians using TikTok,” said Danielle Morgan, a spokesperson for TikTok Canada. “Keeping TikTok’s Canadian team in place will enable a path forward that continues to support millions of dollars of investment in Canada and hundreds of local jobs.” Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The Liberal government ordered TikTok to wind up its business operations in Canada in 2024 under then-Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne. TikTok Canada challenged the decision in court. Canada, along with other Western governments, has expressed concerns the Beijing-based company, ByteDance, which currently owns TikTok, could put sensitive data in the hands of China’s government or be used as a misinformation tool. Chinese law says the government in Beijing can order companies to help it gather intelligence. The windup would not have banned the app in Canada, but would have led to hundreds of job losses and investments. TikTok Canada says it’s committed to engaging with the government to reach a resolution that they say is in the best interest of Canadians. The Prime Minister’s Office would not say if Carney raised concerns about the popular video app when he met Chinese President Xi Jinping last week.

LONDON — If there’s one thing Keir Starmer has mastered in office, it’s changing his mind. The PM has been pushed by his backbenchers toward a flurry of about-turns since entering Downing Street just 18 months ago.  Starmer’s vast parliamentary majority hasn’t stopped him feeling the pressure — and has meant mischievous MPs are less worried their antics will topple the government.  POLITICO recaps 7 occasions MPs mounted objections to the government’s agenda — and forced the PM into a spin. Expect this list to get a few more updates… PUB BUSINESS RATES  Getting on the wrong side of your local watering hole is never a good idea. Many Labour MPs realized that the hard way. Chancellor Rachel Reeves used her budget last year to slash a pandemic-era discount on business rates — taxes levied on firms — from 75 percent to 40 percent. Cue uproar from publicans. Labour MPs were barred from numerous boozers in protest at a sharp bill increase afflicting an already struggling hospitality sector. A £300 million lifeline for pubs, watering down some of the changes, is now being prepped. At least Treasury officials should now have a few more places to drown their sorrows. Time to U-turn: 43 days (Nov. 26, 2025 — Jan. 8, 2026). FARMERS’ INHERITANCE TAX  Part of Labour’s electoral success came from winning dozens of rural constituencies. But Britain’s farmers soon fell out of love with the government.  Reeves’ first budget slapped inheritance tax on farming estates worth more than £1 million from April 2026. Farmers drive tractors near Westminster ahead of a protest against inheritance tax rules on Nov. 19, 2024. | Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images Aimed at closing loopholes wealthy individuals use to avoid coughing up to the exchequer, the decision generated uproar from opposition parties (calling the measure the “family farm tax”) and farmers themselves, who drove tractors around Westminster playing “Baby Shark.”  Campaigners including TV presenter and newfound farmer Jeremy Clarkson joined the fight by highlighting that many farmers are asset rich but cash poor — so can’t fund increased inheritance taxes without flogging off their estates altogether. A mounting rebellion by rural Labour MPs (including Cumbria’s Markus Campbell-Savours, who lost the whip for voting against the budget resolution on inheritance tax) saw the government sneak out a threshold hike to £2.5 million just two days before Christmas, lowering the number of affected estates from 375 to 185. Why ever could that have been?  Time to U-turn: 419 days (Oct. 30, 2024 — Dec. 23, 2025). WINTER FUEL PAYMENTS  Labour’s election honeymoon ended abruptly just three and a half weeks into power after Reeves made an economic move no chancellor before her dared to take.  Reeves significantly tightened eligibility for winter fuel payments, a previously universal benefit helping the older generation with heating costs in the colder months.  Given pensioners are the cohort most likely to vote, the policy was seen as a big electoral gamble. It wasn’t previewed in Labour’s manifesto and made many newly elected MPs angsty.  After a battering in the subsequent local elections, the government swiftly confirmed all pensioners earning up to £35,000 would now be eligible for the cash. That’s one way of trying to bag the grey vote. Time until U-turn: 315 days (July 29, 2024 — June 9, 2025).  WELFARE REFORM Labour wanted to rein in Britain’s spiraling welfare bill, which never fully recovered from the Covid-19 pandemic.  The government vowed to save around £5 billion by tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a benefit helping people in and out of work with long term health issues. It also said other health related benefits would be cut. However, Labour MPs worried about the impact on the most vulnerable (and nervously eyeing their inboxes) weren’t impressed. More than 100 signed an amendment that would have torpedoed the proposed reforms.  The government vowed to save around £5 billion by tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payment. | Vuk Valcic via SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images In an initial concession, the government said existing PIP claimants wouldn’t be affected by any eligibility cuts. It wasn’t enough: Welfare Minister Stephen Timms was forced to confirm in the House of Commons during an actual, ongoing welfare debate that eligibility changes for future claimants would be delayed until a review was completed.  What started as £5 billion of savings didn’t reduce welfare costs whatsoever.  Time to U-turn: 101 days (Mar. 18, 2025 — June 27, 2025).  GROOMING GANGS INQUIRY  The widescale abuse of girls across Britain over decades reentered the political spotlight in early 2025 after numerous tweets from X owner Elon Musk. It led to calls for a specific national inquiry into the scandal. Starmer initially rejected this request, pointing to recommendations left unimplemented from a previous inquiry into child sexual abuse and arguing for a local approach. Starmer accused those critical of his stance (aka Musk) of spreading “lies and misinformation” and “amplifying what the far-right is saying.” Yet less than six months later, a rapid review from crossbench peer Louise Casey called for … a national inquiry. Starmer soon confirmed one would happen. Time to U-turn: 159 days (Jan. 6, 2025 — June 14, 2025).  ‘ISLAND OF STRANGERS’ Immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.K. — especially with Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage breathing down Starmer’s neck. The PM tried reflecting this in a speech last May, warning that Britain risked becoming an “island of strangers” without government action to curb migration. That triggered some of Starmer’s own MPs, who drew parallels with the notorious 1968 “rivers of blood” speech by politician Enoch Powell. The PM conceded he’d put a foot wrong month later, giving an Observer interview where he claimed to not be aware of the Powell connection. “I deeply regret using” the term, he said. Time to U-turn: 46 days (May 12, 2025 — June 27, 2025).  Immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.K. — especially with Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage breathing down Starmer’s neck. | Tolga Akmen/EPA TWO-CHILD BENEFIT CAP  Here’s the U-turn that took the longest to arrive — but left Labour MPs the happiest. Introduced by the previous Conservative government, a two-child welfare cap meant parents could only claim social security payments such as Universal Credit or tax credits for their first two children. Many Labour MPs saw it as a relic of the Tory austerity era. Yet just weeks into government, seven Labour MPs lost the whip for backing an amendment calling for it to be scrapped, highlighting Reeves’ preference for fiscal caution over easy wins.  A year and a half later, that disappeared out the window. Reeves embracing its removal in her budget last fall as a child poverty-busty measure got plenty of cheers from Labour MPs — though the cap’s continued popularity with some voters may open up a fresh vulnerability. Time until U-turn: 491 days (July 23, 2024 — Nov. 26, 2025).

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.”