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.

Children and teens can’t stop scrolling — and it’s hurting their health. The time young people spend on social media networks has more than doubled since 2010 to around three hours a day. More than 1 in 10 teenagers showed signs of problematic and addictive social media use in 2022 — including struggling to control their use and experiencing withdrawal, according to the World Health Organization. “Everybody knows it’s addictive,” said Hanna Kuźmitowicz, a Polish high school student who worked with the Polish presidency of the EU on this topic. “I know the dangers, the benefits,” she told POLITICO. “I still use it.” At the urging of public health experts, European governments are considering new ways to keep youth off their phones through age verification policies, public awareness campaigns and even social media bans. Countries have the freedom to set their own restrictions, and they’re running with it. President Emmanuel Macron is calling for an outright ban on under-15s in France, while Denmark, Greece, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and others have rallied around new restrictions. Meanwhile, tech companies are rolling out measures like age-specific content restrictions, disabling certain features and their own privacy features — though some argue these are not enough and the right way forward remains undecided. PASSING THE BUCK Some experts argue that social media isn’t all bad and can offer benefits to young people. “Certain sorts of technology [were] actually quite good for their friendship formation and friendship closeness,” said Jessica Piotrowski, chair of the University of Amsterdam’s School of Communication Research and an adviser to YouTube on the protection of minors, echoing various studies. However, growing evidence links it to decreased well-being, including depression and sleep disorders, along with higher levels of substance use — things that can no longer be ignored. “There needs to be regulation” and “some kind of reckoning for the tech companies that you are harming teens and children, and something has to be done,” said Kadri Soova, director of Mental Health Europe. The time young people spend on social media networks has more than doubled since 2010 to around three hours a day. | Loung Thai Linh/EPA She also believes it’s important to have dialogue with tech companies rather than be enemies. “But if there is no self-regulation, or the terms of regulation are not deep enough, then there needs to be rules.” Numerous scandals over the past few years have shown that tech companies have not always taken a safety-first approach for their underage users. In 2021, former Meta (then Facebook) employee Frances Haugen leaked internal documents that revealed the company was aware of the harm being done to teens’ mental health and did little to stop it. Health experts argue that existing regulatory tools are not enough. They want more action from tech companies, which they say design their platforms to be addictive. Theo Compernolle, a neuropsychiatrist and former professor at the Free University of Amsterdam who advocates a social media ban for children, said regulation must focus on the companies; otherwise, “It’s like fighting a drug while not doing anything about the producers.” Social media, like gambling, tobacco and alcohol, “depends upon the denial of harms,” said Mark Petticrew, a professor of public health at London’s School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It’s no different from any other type of addiction, he added. Health ministers in June adopted conclusions at the Council of the EU calling on countries to consider preventive policies to regulate young people’s access to digital technologies. These include screen-free zones and digital limits within schools and urging digital platform designers to “take more responsibility.” LANDMARK LAW? One of the most significant pieces of legislation on online platforms is the European Union’s Digital Services Act. It calls on social media to set up “appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security of minors.” Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok, are under investigation for breaches of the DSA’s rules for minors.  Since the landmark law only gave vague responsibilities to platforms, the EU executive drew up a set of highly contested guidelines to narrow down what platforms should do. They include not using minors’ browsing habits to suggest content, turning off the streaks and read receipts features in messaging applications, setting privacy and security by default in settings, and considering shutting off some features like camera access. The guidelines are not binding, and if minors lie about their age or their parents circumvent the controls, they have no effect. That has led to a shift in the debate toward how platforms can verify the age of users. SCRAP OVER AGE CHECKS Under Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation, children under 13 cannot consent to having their data processed for online services. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram say only children over 13 can join in their terms of service, but regulators have woken up to the fact that merely ticking a box doesn’t work. As many as 94 percent of Danish kids have social media accounts before they turn 13, according to a report by local nonprofit Børns Vilkår quoted by a government-commissioned study.  Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok, are under investigation for breaches of the DSA’s rules for minors. | John Mabanglo/EPA The policy debate has shifted toward mandating measures to check the age of users to ensure that any other measures are effective. Some argue this is the platform’s responsibility, but operators like Meta and TikTok contend that Google and Apple, which develop device operating systems, should be responsible for age verification measures. Meta’s director of public policy, products and monetization, Helen Charles, said that new legislation should target age verification and parental approval at the operating system and app store level. That “will be easier on parents” in a “privacy protective way,” she said.  But Google and Apple don’t think it should be just up to them. “We think it’s a shared responsibility … There’s no single bullet or silver bullet to say: This one company, solve it for everyone,” said Vinay Goel, director of age assurance at Google. “Developers are best situated to know what is potentially risky.” THE BAN DEBATE There’s doubt, even among the staunchest supporters of strict action and teenagers themselves, that a ban would be effective. “Well-enforced age verification, parental tools and digital literacy programs,” for example, might achieve better outcomes than bans, said WHO Health Security Director Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat. Others, including Kuźmitowicz, are concerned that there are always ways to circumvent bans and restrictions, rendering them ineffective. Meanwhile, health ministers believe there is currently insufficient evidence to support a total ban. “How do you enforce that?” said Cyprus’ Health Minister Michael Damianos. The “bigger issue” is making sure policies work in practice. A social media ban “is really and truly walking into the unknown. Such a policy is not backed by evidence,” said Malta’s Health Minister Jo Etienne Abela. “But on the other hand … we know there is a problem, should lack of evidence cripple us and freeze us, and we do nothing about it?” Giedre Peseckyte contributed to this report.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer signalled that the U.K. will play a role in providing airdropped aid to the Gaza Strip as he faces growing pressure to recognize Palestinian statehood. Israel said on Friday that it will allow airdrops of food and supplies from foreign countries into Gaza in the coming days. “News that Israel will allow countries to airdrop aid into Gaza has come far too late — but we will do everything we can to get aid in via this route,” Starmer wrote in an opinion piece for British newspaper the Mirror. “The images of starvation and desperation in Gaza are utterly horrifying,” he said. “We are already working urgently with the Jordanian authorities to get British aid on to planes and into Gaza,” he wrote. The head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said earlier this week that Gaza is suffering from a “man-made” mass starvation because of an aid blockade into the territory. The United Nations World Food Program has warned that almost one in three people in the Gaza Strip are going for days without eating. Airdrops to Gaza have been criticized for being dangerous and inefficient.  Starmer has been facing growing calls to recognize Palestinian statehood. A third of British MPs, including some of his own Cabinet ministers, have signed a letter calling for the U.K. to recognize a Palestinian state. The prime minister said that “recognition of a Palestinian state has to be one of those steps” to achieve peace in the region, although “it must be part of a wider plan that ultimately results in a two-state solution and lasting security for Palestinians and Israelis.” French President Emmanuel Macron said this week that France intends to recognize a Palestinian state in September at the U.N. General Assembly.