The billionaire Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, has become the world’s leading global health philanthropist, but his overture to the late, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein continues to haunt him, most recently with the release of photos Friday featuring him in the American financier’s entourage. Gates appears in two images Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released, the first batch in what’s expected to be 95,000 photos. The committee is reviewing documents from the Epstein estate as part of its ongoing investigation. Epstein does not appear in the two pictures Gates is in. In one, Gates is standing next to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew. In 2019, Mountbatten-Windsor was accused in a civil lawsuit of sexually assaulting Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers, but he denied the allegations. Mountbatten-Windsor has faced backlash for his friendship with Epstein, but has not been charged with a crime in either the U.K. or the U.S. A second picture shows a younger Gates next to a man who appears to be one of Epstein’s longtime pilots. Representatives for Gates and his global health philanthropy, the Gates Foundation, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Gates has said he had several dinners with Epstein, who promised to get his wealthy connections to donate money to global health. When that didn’t happen, Gates cut off the dinners, Gates told PBS NewsHour in 2021. “Those meetings were a mistake,” Gates said. Gates’ former wife, Melinda French Gates, has said she didn’t like her then-husband meeting with Epstein and suggested those meetings contributed to the couple’s 2021 divorce. French Gates told CBS in a 2022 interview she met Epstein once, “because I wanted to see who this man was. I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door. He was abhorrent, he was evil personified. I had nightmares about it afterwards.” When Bill Gates was asked in a January 2023 interview with ABC Australia whether French Gates had warned him against ties with Epstein, because “Epstein had a way of sexually compromising people,” as the anchor put it, Bill Gates replied: “No! I had dinner with him, and that’s all.” An interview with Gates POLITICO published Friday was conducted before the release of the photos.

The World Health Organization has recommended the use of novel weight-loss drugs to curb soaring obesity rates, and urged pharma companies to lower their prices and expand production so that lower-income countries can also benefit. The WHO’s new treatment guideline includes a conditional recommendation to use the so-called GLP-1s — such as Wegovy, Ozempic and Mounjaro — as part of a wider approach that includes healthy diet, exercise and support from doctors. The WHO described its recommendation as “conditional” due to limited data on the long-term efficacy and safety of GLP-1s. The recommendation excludes pregnant women. While GLP-1s are a now well-established treatment in high-income countries, the WHO warns they could reach fewer than 10 percent of people who could benefit by 2030. Among the countries with the highest rates of obesity are those in the Middle East, Latin America and Pacific islands. Meanwhile, Wegovy was only available in around 15 countries as of the start of this year. The WHO wants pharma companies to consider tiered pricing (lower prices in lower-income countries) and voluntary licensing of patents and technology to allow other producers around the word to manufacture GLP-1s, to help expand access to these drugs. Jeremy Farrar, an assistant director general at the WHO, told POLITICO the guidelines would also give an “amber and green light” to generic drugmakers to produce cheaper versions of GLP-1s when the patents expire. Francesca Celletti, a senior adviser on obesity at the WHO, told POLITICO “decisive action” was needed to expand access to GLP-1s, citing the example of antiretroviral HIV drugs earlier this century. “We all thought it was impossible … and then the price went down,” she said.  Key patents on semaglutide, the ingredient in Novo Nordisk’s diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, will lift in some countries next year, including India, Brazil and China. Indian generics giant Dr. Reddy’s plans to launch a generic semaglutide-based weight-loss drug in 87 countries in 2026, its CEO Erez Israeli said earlier this year, reported Reuters. “U.S. and Europe will open later … (and) all the other Western markets will be open between 2029 to 2033,” Israeli told reporters after the release of quarterly earnings in July. Prices should fall once generics are on the market, but that isn’t the only barrier. Injectable drugs, for example, need cold chain storage. And health systems need to be equipped to roll out the drug once it’s affordable, Celletti said. 

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

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

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.

Today, as the world reaches a critical juncture in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, the EU must choose: match scientific breakthroughs with political will and investment or retreat, putting two decades of hard-won progress at risk. Having saved over 70 million lives, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (the Global Fund) has proven what smart, sustained investment can achieve.  But the impact of its work — the lives protected, the life expectancy prolonged, the systems strengthened, the innovations deployed — is now under threat due to declining international funding.  > The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the > Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. Declining international funding, climate change, conflict and drug resistance are reversing decades of progress. HIV prevention is hampered by rising criminalization and attacks on key populations, with 1.3 million new infections in 2024 — far above targets. TB remains the deadliest infectious disease, worsened by spreading multidrug resistance, even in Europe. Malaria faces growing resistance to insecticides and drugs, as well as the impacts of extreme weather. Without urgent action and sustained investment, these threats could result in a dangerous resurgence of all three diseases. The stakes could not be higher  The Global Fund’s latest results reveal extraordinary progress. In 2024 alone: * 25.6 million people received lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, yet 630,000 still died of AIDS-related causes; * 7.4 million people were treated for TB, with innovations like AI-powered diagnostics reaching frontline workers in Ukraine; and * malaria deaths, primarily among African children under five, have been halved over two decades, with 2.2 billion mosquito nets distributed and ten countries eliminating malaria since 2020. Yet one child still dies every minute from this treatable disease.  What makes this moment unprecedented is not just the scale of the challenge, but the scale of the opportunity. Thanks to extraordinary scientific breakthroughs, we now have the tools to turn the tide:  * lenacapavir, a long-acting antiretroviral, offers new hope for the possibility of HIV-free generations; * dual active ingredient mosquito nets combine physical protection with intelligent vector control, transforming malaria prevention; and  * AI-driven TB screening and diagnostics are revolutionizing early detection and treatment, even in the most fragile settings. Some of these breakthroughs reflect Europe’s continued research and development and the private sector’s leadership in global health. BASF’s dual-active-ingredient mosquito nets, recently distributed by the millions in Nigeria, are redefining malaria prevention by combining physical protection with intelligent vector control. Delft Imaging’s ultra-portable digital X-ray devices are enabling TB screening in remote and fragile settings, while Siemens Healthineers is helping deploy cutting-edge AI software to support TB triage and diagnosis.  But they must be deployed widely and equitably to reach those who need them most. That is precisely what the Global Fund enables: equitable access to cutting-edge solutions, delivered through community-led systems that reach those most often left behind. A defining moment for EU Leadership The EU has a unique chance to turn this crisis into an opportunity. The upcoming G20 summit and the Global Fund’s replenishment are pivotal moments.  President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Síkela can send a clear, unequivocal signal: Europe will not stop at “almost”. It will lead until the world is free of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.  The Global Fund is a unique partnership that combines financial resources with technical expertise, community engagement and inclusive governance. It reaches those often left behind — those criminalized, marginalized or excluded from health systems.  > Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has > ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments > deliver impact, even in crisis. Its model of country ownership and transparency aligns with Africa’s agenda for health sovereignty and with the EU’s commitment to equity and human rights. Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments deliver impact, even in crisis. The cost of inaction Some may point to constraints in the Multiannual Financial Framework. But history shows that the EU has consistently stepped up, even in difficult fiscal times. The instruments exist. What’s needed now is leadership to use them. Failure to act would unravel decades of progress. Resurgent epidemics would claim lives, destabilize economies and undermine global health security. The cost of inaction far exceeds the price of investment. For the EU, the risks are strategic as well as moral. Stepping back now would erode the EU’s credibility as champion of human rights and global responsibility. It would send the wrong message, at precisely the wrong time.  Ukraine demonstrates what is at stake: with Global Fund support, millions continue to receive HIV and TB services despite war. Cutting funding now would risk lives not only in Africa and Asia, but also in Europe’s own neighborhood. A call to action Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for us, is a resounding no. We therefore urge the European Commission to announce a bold, multi-year financial commitment to the Global Fund at the G20.  This pledge would reaffirm the EU’s values and inspire other Team Europe partners to follow suit. It would also support ongoing reforms to further enhance the Global Fund’s efficiency, transparency and inclusivity. > Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can > the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for > us, is a resounding no. This is more than a funding decision. It is a moment to define the kind of world we choose to build: one where preventable diseases no longer claim lives, where health equity is a reality and where solidarity triumphs over short-termism. Now is the time to reaffirm Europe’s leadership. To prove that when it comes to global health, we will never stop until the fight is won.

A government shutdown is now inevitable. Senators rejected dueling spending stopgap bills on Tuesday, including a House-passed continuing resolution that was the final off-ramp to avoid a government shutdown set to start at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. There’s no sign of any further breakthrough that could avert a shutdown before midnight — and even if there was, it would be impossible for lawmakers to act on it: With hours still to go before the deadline, the Senate adjourned until Wednesday morning. Speaker Mike Johnson sent his members home until Monday in a bid to pressure the Senate to swallow what the House already passed: a seven-week punt. Minutes after the failed vote on that bill Tuesday, the White House budget office issued a memo directing agencies to “execute their plans for an orderly shutdown” at midnight. Faced with the impasse, lawmakers and the White House spent Tuesday trading barbs over who was to blame for the first government closure since 2019. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said ahead of the vote that Democrats would “have the same leverage on Nov. 21,” when the House-passed measure expires: “This is a short-term CR, this is the same thing we do all the time, it funds the government until Nov. 21.” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, however, quickly retorted that Thune “did not come to me one time to say, ‘Is this bill acceptable? What do you want in the bill?’ They call it bipartisan. It is not. That is not how you negotiate. That is not how you pass appropriations bills.” Just as party leaders were unable to find a mutually agreeable off-ramp ahead of the shutdown, they aren’t anywhere close to an agreement on how to get out of it. Senate Republicans believe they have the upper hand because they are asking for Democrats to vote on a “clean” short-term punt — similar to proposals Democrats have supported in the past. They were encouraged Tuesday when the House-passed bill failed on the Senate floor in an 55-45 vote Tuesday — with three Democrats voting for it. That was a better showing for the GOP than in a prior vote 11 days ago, when Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman was the only Democrat to join with Republicans. This time Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto and Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, joined him. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was the only Republican voting no. “We should be working on bipartisan solutions to address the global health care crisis, but that doesn’t mean we should be swapping harm from one group of Americans to another,” Cortez-Masto told reporters amid the vote. Republicans pointed to the uptick in Democrats voting for the GOP bill as a sign that “cracks” are already emerging within Schumer’s ranks. “We’re happy to see that Democrats are already starting to break from him and we’re going to continue to offer a clean CR on the floor,” Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming told reporters after the vote. Trump is warning he will make the shutdown particularly painful for Democrats, with GOP lawmakers expecting blue states to be hardest hit given the flexibility the administration has in determining what federal agencies and programs are essential. “We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them — like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like,” Trump warned Tuesday in the Oval Office. The president even suggested that medical programs and benefits could be casualties of the shutdown. “We can cut large numbers of people out,” Trump said, even though programs like Medicaid and Medicare are funded permanently and can continue operating during a shutdown. White House Budget Chief Chief Russ Vought has also threatened to engage in mass layoffs of federal workers during a shutdown, in addition to the usual temporary furloughs. He wrote in a memo Tuesday night that it is not clear how long Democrats “will maintain their untenable posture making the duration of the shutdown difficult to predict.” Responding to a letter from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), the Congressional Budget Office estimated Tuesday that about 750,000 employees could be furloughed each day and that the total daily cost of their compensation would be roughly $400 million. The nonpartisan scorekeeper previously estimated that about $3 billion in lost real GDP would never be recovered after the record 35-day government shutdown that ended in 2019. House Democrats returned to Washington Monday to draw a contrast with the House GOP’s absence. Democratic leaders are planning a full-bore messaging campaign through the week with multiple daily news conferences and events, focused on their demand for a bipartisan negotiation over health care. Before voting down the House-passed stopgap Tuesday evening, the Senate again defeated a counterproposal from Democrats that would fund the government through Oct. 31 and reverse $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid from the GOP tax and spending megabill, while also permanently extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire. The Democrats’ bill would also restrict the president’s authority to withhold congressionally approved funding — a key fault line for many Democrats, who are not inclined to ink any spending deal with Republicans if Trump can simply not adhere to it. While Senate Republicans have signaled support for negotiating on the ACA credits — a few of them have even endorsed a one-year extension — they believe any deal has to wait until after the government reopens. This is the second time in a matter of weeks that both short-term funding bills have been voted on by the Senate, and failed. Senate Democrats used a closed-door lunch on Tuesday to discuss what would come next after the dueling stopgap bills failed. Thune said he expected to hold yet another vote Wednesday on the GOP bill to continue putting pressure on Democrats to blink. “At some point, they’re just going to need to keep voting it down,” he told reporters. “There are ways to trigger those votes. And we’ll keep looking for those opportunities. So they’ll get the opportunity to vote.” Cassandra Dumay and Calen Razor contributed to this report.  

Women’s rights protestors have demanded the EU explore “all legal and diplomatic avenues” to prevent America from burning $10 million worth of contraceptives stored in Belgium due to changes in U.S. aid programs. The protesters rallied in front of the U.S. embassy in Brussels on Thursday to urge EU institutions to step in and stop what they called a “reckless, harmful and cruel action.” The contraceptives, owned by the defunded U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) program and currently stored in two warehouses in Belgium, are set to be incinerated due to the reinstatement of a U.S. policy that prohibits sending aid to organizations that provide abortion services. Local and international organizations are calling on governments and EU officials to intervene, saying the destruction will result in thousands of women and girls losing access to life-saving care. “We call on the European Union to stand up for its values and commitments to women’s freedom everywhere,” Micah Grzywnowicz told the crowd of protesters holding placards and banners across from the embassy. “This is the moment for the European Commission to show leadership: Rally member states, mediate with the U.S., and explore all legal and diplomatic avenues to stop essential supplies from being wasted,” said Grzywnowicz, who is regional director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) European network. While protestors want the EU to act, the European Commission said only Belgium can intervene in the destruction of medicines on its territory. The local government says it’s doing everything it can to find a diplomatic solution, but protestors argue it’s a political performance by the U.S. Between 80 and 100 people showed up to protest on the cloudy morning. They held pictures of birth-control pills on fire, a banner spelling “Reproductive freedom for all,” and numerous signs reading “you have blood on your hands,” “700 mothers dead,” and “161,000 unplanned births.” They stood just across the street from the U.S. embassy, on Boulevard du Régent, chanting “Shame, shame, shame. Trump is to blame.” “We are here to say no, we disagree with these political decisions that impact our bodies and our lives and our people in our partner organizations and countries,” Grzywnowicz told POLITICO. “And we are not going anywhere, so we will keep on looking and watching and protesting against those moves.” The protest was organized by sexual health and reproductive rights NGO IPPF, Flemish center of expertise for sexual health Sensoa, 11.11.11, and the Fédération Laïque de Centres de Planning Familial. While the message for the U.S. is to stop its plan to destroy the stocks, the one for the EU is to step up. “The EU always portrays itself as a champion for sexual, reproductive health and rights. So we would like them to show that now on this topic as well,” Heleen Heysse, from Sensoa, told POLITICO. “On the other hand, we also want them to look at all avenues that they can find on EU policy to save the stocks.” BLAME GAME Calls for the EU to get involved have been mounting for weeks. Earlier this summer a group of MEPs wrote to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asking her to intervene. A Commission spokesperson told POLITICO on Thursday that preventing the destruction of the contraceptives on the territory of a member country is a national competency. But “should a solution be found to make these commodities available, the Commission stands ready to explore ways together with partners to ensure that the supplies reach the intended beneficiaries,” they added. Several international organizations, including the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the IPPF, have offered to purchase the contraceptives at no additional costs for the U.S. On the other hand, the destruction of the products would cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $167,000, according to news reports. But the U.S. rejected the offer, said Grzywnowicz. A spokesperson from USAID told POLITICO that the supplies were still with customs and under review. That was confirmed by a spokesperson for Flemish Minister Jo Brouns, who told POLITICO that the products were still located in the two warehouses in Geel and Kallo. “Looking at the actions of the Trump administration, it’s not about [a] technicality or not knowing what to do with the supplies,” Grzywnowicz said. “It is about [a] political agenda and wanting to control our bodies.” Under Flemish legislation, medicines or medical supplies that are still in good condition may not be incinerated, the spokesperson added. “Such incineration can only take place if an “exemption from the incineration ban” is granted by the minister for the environment and a double levy on waste incineration is paid,” the spokesperson said, adding that “no such exemption has been requested or granted to date.”  “Together with his federal colleague, Minister Jo Brouns is doing everything possible to find a diplomatic solution for these goods,” the spokesperson said. Heysse called on the EU to stand with Belgium and show its support. Belgium on its own is “less powerful than if the whole EU throws their weight behind us,” she said. The U.S. government is also coming under growing pressure to abandon its plans. Last week, over 70 international organizations sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the administration to “immediately halt plans to destroy these contraceptive supplies.” A U.S. State Department spokesperson previously said that the stored products had been purchased under former President Joe Biden’s administration and could be “potentially … abortifacients” — substances that can induce an abortion. This could violate the so-called Mexico City Policy, he added. The Mexico City Policy forbids U.S. aid from being sent to abortion providers and was reinstated by President Donald Trump in January. Lists obtained by news outlets show that the stock does not include pills for medical abortions. Nonetheless, the policy prevents any support of any organizations that promote abortion, meaning other services such as providing contraceptives have also been impacted. About 77 percent of the products, which are mostly long-acting contraceptives such as birth control pills, IUDs and hormonal implants, were earmarked for five African countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Mali, the IPPF said. Destroying these contraceptives would deny more than 1.4 million women and girls access to life-saving care. Tanzania would be the country most impacted, the NGO added, as the products account for nearly one-third of the country’s total annual contraceptive needs. In total, activists say, the destruction of the stockpile could result in over 360,000 unintended pregnancies, 161,000 unplanned births, 110,000 unsafe abortions and 718 preventable maternal deaths. Trump moved to dismantle USAID shortly after his January inauguration, scrapping over 80 percent of its programs. Leaders of international health NGOs previously urged the EU to step up to protect lifesaving health initiatives over what they see as a “moment of reckoning” amid Washington’s cuts to foreign aid.

U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced plans Tuesday to cancel $500 million in vaccine development projects. In a statement from his office, the longtime vaccine critic said all projects to be halted use mRNA technology. “After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses,” Kennedy said in a video posted on social platform X, referring to Covid-19 and flu mRNA vaccines. The secretary has long been suspicious of the mRNA vaccine platform. The planned cancellation of contracts includes work with Emory University and Tiba Biotech. Proposals from Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, CSL Seqirus, Gritstone and others will also be rejected, according to HHS. Rick Bright, who led HHS’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, from 2016 to 2020 — and criticized the Trump administration’s early Covid response — slammed the decision, calling it a “huge strategic misstep.” “This decision signals a dangerous complacency,” Bright said in a text. “Disinvesting from mRNA strips us of one of the fastest tools we have to contain the next pandemic, natural or deliberate. Pulling back from proven medical countermeasure platforms at a time of escalating global bio‑risks deeply compromises national security.” HHS said the cancellations impact 22 projects worth nearly $500 million — however, some contracts in their final stage will be “allowed to run their course to preserve prior taxpayer investment.” The federal health department said it is instructing the Global Health Investment Corporation — which helps manage BARDA’s technological investments — to cease mRNA-based equity investments. However, HHS said other mRNA technologies “within the department are not impacted by this announcement.” HHS said future BARDA vaccine investments will focus on technologies such as whole-virus vaccines and other new immunization platforms.