The UK can be a global leader in regulatory science innovation and animal protection. To achieve this, the government must ensure that its Strategy to Replace Animals in Science delivers real, measurable progress and establishes the foundations for fundamental change.

In 2026, Cruelty Free International (CFI) will be pushing ministers to deliver the commitments it has set for this year, in full and on time, while asking them to plan to go much further in the longer term.

We will provide clear, factual analysis of progress made and key milestones reached, identify gaps where ambition or detail falls short, and hold the government to account for timely delivery on their commitments. Through rigorous scrutiny and constructive advocacy, we will demonstrate the need for a programme of change that not only delivers the strategy as written but also lays the groundwork for advancing beyond it.

The strategy could be a landmark moment, but only if it is delivered in full and on time

• The publication of the UK strategy signals a turning point in how we approach science, innovation and public health.
• It offers genuine potential to accelerate the phase-out of animal testing and to modernise the science – bringing forward ethical, innovative and human-relevant methods and ultimately delivering better outcomes.
• This can only be achieved through sustained implementation and delivery, appropriate resourcing, expert oversight and proper accountability.

Analysing what the strategy actually commits the government to deliver

• CFI is thoroughly analysing the key commitments, setting out what it promises, what it enables, what the impact will be, what is required to deliver it, and how it could be made even more impactful.
• Crucially, our analysis aims to highlight both the opportunities and shortcomings of the strategy, to demonstrate that we can and should be optimistic while ensuring that we hold the strategy to the highest scrutiny, and never stop demanding greater ambition until every experiment on animals has ended.

Accountability to drive public trust and scientific progress

• Without transparent reporting and accountability, the strategy will remain a list of aspirations rather than a roadmap for action with clear and concrete deliverables driven by targets, milestones and robust timeframes.
• The strategy must not gather dust on the shelf. It must be a living and active document that is a tool for driving change.
• We will push the government to deliver on its commitment to set up clear and impartial accountability processes of its own, but will also take responsibility for holding them accountable in a positive, constructive yet challenging way. This will include pushing for stronger mechanisms for transparent monitoring, and asking for clear and enforceable milestones, confirmed targets, and independent assessment of progress.
• Responsible ministers must be held accountable for making every effort to meet targets and, where possible, to push beyond them. We will make the case for clear ministerial duties to drive action from the government.
• There should also be a regular and transparent process for updating timelines, targets, and milestones.
• A key element of accountability is the inclusion of civil society organisations to draw in their trusted expertise and encourage public confidence. Systems and processes for accountability must therefore include transparent mechanisms for involving key stakeholders such as civil society organisations and NGOs.

The UK must be more ambitious if it wants to lead internationally

• The strategy should be a baseline from which to build UK leadership on the international stage and not a ceiling for ambition.
• With ambitious and potentially far-reaching commitments in the United States and the European Union, the UK risks falling behind international peers unless it accelerates innovation in human-relevant science and takes bold steps to accelerate the uptake of non-animal approaches throughout the sciences.

2026 deadlines in the Strategy

Actions that must be started in the first half of 2026:

• Publish areas of research interest for non-animal methods
• Quantify annually the inclusion of second species testing in clinical trial applications
• Initiate provision of ministerial leadership on the development and adoption of non-animal methods
• Initiate formal involvement of DSIT in the direct commissioning and receipt of advice from the Animals in Science Committee
• Enable better advice on non-animal methods
• Restart the survey on public attitudes to animal research
• Establish KPIs with which to assess the delivery of this strategy

Measures the government must deliver by the end of 2026:

• Create a Preclinical Translational Models Hub
• Establish the UK as a global leader in the science and regulatory application of non-animal methods
• Increase the visibility of available non-animal methods to facilitate their uptake
• Accelerate uptake of non-animal methods through reform of animals in science regulation
• Establish a UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (UKCVAM)
• Prepare specific projects to help secure international acceptance of new test methods, after UKCVAM is established
• Publish regulatory agency-accepted non-animal methods and priorities for future development and validation
• Establish a programme to support the upskilling of regulatory assessors
• Establish data‑sharing frameworks to support equitable access to public and private data sources
• Enhance data curation and quality control, and develop regulatory frameworks for data use
• Develop mechanisms to enable regulators to provide pre‑submission feedback

Work that must begin once 2026 funding is released by the government and research funders:

• Increase investment in the development of non-animal methods
• Enable funders to thoroughly scrutinise the apparent need for animal research in funding decisions
• Provide foundational training for early-career researchers in non-animal methods
• Expand challenge‑led innovation for non-animal methods
• Increase investment in data‑driven biology

We welcome the strategy’s ambition in setting a framework of commitments to guide action in the short to medium term, some of which will require urgent work and rapid delivery. It represents a strong start for the government, and an approach that could put the UK in a leadership position if words are matched by actions. Now it must deliver. In many ways, the real work starts here and must continue well beyond these first deadlines.

For more detail or to support our work, visit www.crueltyfreeinternational.org or email [email protected].

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) have again engaged in shocking intimidation tactics clearly designed to deter peaceful pro-Palestine activism. On Friday February 27, police abducted a Belfast campaigner from his home. Two officers entered BDS Belfast activist Damian Quinn’s house without showing evidence of a warrant. This is likely illegal, given the alleged offence they were citing was merely contempt of court.

The police’s outrageous disregard for the law only got worse from there, as Quinn described in a video posted to the BDS Belfast Instagram page. After the cops handcuffed him, the activist described how they:

…brought me out to this unmarked car and told me that I was being driven to Musgrave Police Station.

We got to Musgrave Police Station and parked in an empty car park within the station itself. The two policemen got out of the car, came around to my side of the car, opened the door and stood and continued to talk with each other. This lasted over about 40 odd minutes.

He continued:

At one stage it seemed like the two police officers were in disagreement with each other over my detention because one of them had said he needs to be detained, the other had said no.

PSNI incompetence or malice?

Quinn said that soon after that:

…a policewoman…came over to me and proceeded to tell me that she was not authorising my detention because there’s a voluntary route that I can take to speak with my solicitor and come back down at a later date.

The police then drove the 33 year old home. When removing the cuffs before doing this, they warned Quinn not to try anything, otherwise they’d have to intervene with force. The suggestion that a peaceful activist being taken home would suddenly become violent is absurd, and clearly amounts to another pathetic attempt at intimidation.

So to summarise: cops entered – probably illegally – a peaceful activist’s home, dragged him in cuffs to an unmarked car, then kept him captive for over an hour outside in the late February cold. They were then told by a superior that the whole arrest was unnecessary, and returned him home. All for a minor alleged offence the PSNI claim was committed four months ago.

The abduction may be an attempt to intimidate six (previously nine) activists being prosecuted for road protests in 2025. All witnesses in those cases are PSNI officers.

According to the activist:

Cardin Solicitors Limited have been instructed to consider a civil action for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment of myself.

Pattern of criminalising peaceful activism

Quinn’s supposed transgression seemingly relates to “images or video” allegedly taken by the 33 year old in the corridor of a court building in October 2025. BDS Belfast members have appeared in court multiple times due to the prosecution service launching numerous frivolous attempts to criminalise their activists. No guilty verdicts have ever been returned by magistrates.

The group are a local pro-Palestine direct action collective. They have a particular focus on getting ‘Israeli’ products removed from supermarkets. Videos on their social media pages show their activists entering supermarkets, removing Zionist items from shelves and covering them with ‘Boycott Israeli apartheid’ stickers.

In his video, Quinn highlighted many other cases of state repression of Palestine activists:

We’ve seen Mothers Against Genocide in Dublin go through strip searching for just sitting outside the Dáil and blocking the gates…We’ve seen QUB [Queen’s University Belfast] students get dragged through courts for protesting complicit companies at their careers fairs, as well as the war criminal Hillary Clinton when she arrived to Queen’s University Belfast.

And even two days ago, we’ve seen a BDS Belfast activist arrested for storming the stage of a Google Engage conference, where he highlighted the complicity of Google and the disgraceful, disgraceful decision that the ‘Israelis’ were at that conference in Dublin.

He nonetheless urged activists not to be disheartened, but rather be encouraged by the legal wins obtained by the likes of Palestine Action and BDS Belfast.

“Boycott ‘Israel’, free Palestine”

Speaking to the Canary, Quinn said that during his abduction, he:

…thought about police mistreatment and abuse of other comrades across Ireland, Britain, Europe and elsewhere across the world.

He said it was part of:

…a pattern of mistreatment of fellow activists as they stand against a live streamed genocide, with our government, institutions and companies you spend money in everyday, supporting and facilitating this economy of genocide.

What we go through as activists pales in comparison to what our brothers and sisters are experiencing in Palestine as they endure a barbaric, horrifying occupation, apartheid and genocide.

Everyone must do what they can – join solidarity groups, follow the BDS movement, boycott ‘Israel’, and free Palestine.

Featured image via the Canary

How Did This Conflict Start?

What Is ‘Operation Epic Fury’?

How Deadly Have The Strikes Been So Far?

How Is Lebanon Involved?

What About The Rest Of The Middle East?

How Is The UK Involved?

How Could This Conflict Be Felt Around The World?

What Happens Next?

Taoiseach Micheál Martin has acknowledged he will be spending almost €1 million on a war room. He didn’t describe it that way, of course, instead referring to:

…secure meeting facilities to allow continued engagement with international partners.

He did, however, accept that the room, designed to be surveillance proof, would be key for meetings of the nations backing Ukraine in the war against Russia. Martin revealed a further clue to the purpose of the project by saying it is “NATO proof”. In other words, up to the standards required by the NATO war machine.

Most of the Irish population would like the country to be NATO proof, but in entirely the opposite meaning of the way in which Martin used the term. I.e. – proofed from co-option by the belligerent and expansionist alliance.

Martin unilaterally rips up neutrality in alignment with NATO

That prospect seems a long way off, as the war room is just another grim step in a week full of moves towards integration in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. On Tuesday, Martin released an unprecedented statement, declaring that Ireland is:

…proud to stand with Ukraine, politically, economically, militarily and diplomatically.

The most notable word there is obviously “militarily”. With the Triple Lock in place, Martin has no authority to make such a pledge. Ireland can only deploy troops if the cabinet, Dáil and UN security council all give approval. The warmongering government of Martin is eager to scrap this policy, however.

The day after, defence minister Helen McEntee announced the country’s first ever Maritime Security Strategy. She said:

Every day, we see an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation highlighting the vulnerabilities of our critical maritime infrastructure and our ability to monitor and protect our waters.

She also declared Ireland will be:

cooperating closely with our near neighbours on new initiatives and exploring the opportunity for Ireland to host or partner in a regional cable monitoring hub for the EU in the North Atlantic.

US Big Tech pushing Ireland into militarism

The emphasis on cable protection illustrates how Ireland’s role as a hub for largely US Big Tech infrastructure is also pushing it into increased militarism. As reported previously by the Canary, the US and others are placing increased pressure on Ireland to beef up its armed forces to defend these assets.

There are signs of obvious mission creep here, however, as McEntee also referenced:

…emerging and changing threats in terms of hybrid threats, hybrid warfare and shadow fleets.

“Shadow fleets” refers to vessels ferrying cargo to Russia, often under a fake flag. If NATO powers expect the Irish navy to police this, it will inevitably mark a step towards integration in the alliance.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, who is Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Defence, pointed out that cooperation could be:

…on a bi-lateral basis – between Ireland and France, between Ireland and Britain – not with NATO.

Instead, the strategy seeks increase ties with the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). All 10 members of the JEF – Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Britain – are part of NATO. The JEF itself is not formally connected to NATO.

The Irish Times reports that Ireland will be:

…part of “JEF+”, a new concept to allow allied nations to take part in individual exercises and operations as they see fit.

“When did we sign up for that, Taoiseach?”

People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy tore into the policy, saying:

It’s part and parcel of an agenda of militarisation and dismantling neutrality…It is a shameful abandonment of any independent foreign policy. Instead committing us to deep military cooperation with the old colonial powers of Britain and France. Advocating further integration with NATO and using huge amounts of public money to defend the infrastructure of big tech companies.

The strategy refers to, I quote, “our responsibilities and commitments to support the security and defence of Europe.” When did we sign up for that, Taoiseach? That sounds awfully like a mutual defence pact when the protocol associated with the Lisbon Treaty explicitly stated no common defence involved.

Again and again and again the document refers positively to NATO. It says, I quote, Ireland can play a positive role in supporting greater EU-NATO cooperation. Action 4.6 is foster relations with NATO in the maritime security space. Action 4.8 pursue opportunities to participate in joint expeditionary force activities. The JEF is 10 NATO countries led by Britain. Is that one of the reasons you want to abolish the triple lock?

Advertisement

He also referenced a recent major arms deal with French genocidaires Thales:

No money for SNAs [Special Needs Assistants] until people power force you back. No money for electricity credits. What is there money for? The arms industry. To develop an Irish arms industry and to give to the French arms industry.

The French media is reporting that we will be spending public money a billion euros on armoured vehicles, tanks and a howitzer. Thales, who supplied weapons to Israel for the slaughter of Palestinians, will be the main recipient.

Sleazy arms deal shows the rot has taken hold

The Ditch reported on how a firm – KNDS, partner of Thales – set to benefit from that €800 million deal was part of a lobbying group that hid those efforts from scrutiny.

It amounts to one more grubby footnote in an ugly march toward European rearmament that will ultimately make the world less, not more, secure. It fills the coffers of the military-industrial complex, whose profits lie in death and destruction. With greater wealth, their ability to push governments in that direction increases.

The Irish population strongly backs neutrality, partial though it may always have been. That voice must now be heard louder than ever to pull Ireland back from the clutches of the NATO death cult.

Featured image via the Canary

January 2025: Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump signs the executive order withdrawing from the WHO | Image by: Associated Press / Alamy

5 min read23 min

The removal of the stars and stripes from outside of the World Health Organization’s headquarters in January was an emblematic start to the year – but it may not be the last member flag to be lowered at the WHO’s Geneva base.

For although the USA finally completed its withdrawal from the WHO on 22 January – after Donald Trump signed an executive order to leave at the start of his second presidency in January 2025 – Maga is not the only movement hostile to the WHO.

An international campaign-group co-founded and chaired by Nigel Farage, Action on World Health (AWH), is due to report in late spring on its core mission of “reforming or replacing the WHO” – and its findings could be influential in shaping Reform UK health policy.

Writing in The Telegraph back in May 2024, the same month he launched AWH, Farage threatened to leave the WHO if it did not reform, describing comparisons between the EU and the organisation as “stark”: “The WHO is a failing, expensive, unelected, unaccountable, supranational body that wants more and more powers to run roughshod over nation state democracies and free citizens.”

A particular point of contention for critics of the WHO in recent years has been the process of drafting the Pandemic Agreement (formally adopted by WHO in May last year), the original version of which Farage condemned as “signing away our sovereignty”.

There has also been ideological resistance among the WHO’s opponents to any moves that advocate ‘nanny-state’ regulations on food, alcohol and tobacco – and also to programmes that support the provision of abortion. Like Trump, the AWH has also accused the WHO of “supporting the Chinese Communist Party cover up of Covid-19”.

Farage is not alone in his party in his view of the organisation. Speaking to The House, Reform UK MP and the party’s head of preparing for government Danny Kruger agrees with his party leader, stating that there is a “fundamental problem” with the WHO, “in the degree to which it is in the thrall not just to big pharma but to the countries with some very bad records on health, with China being the main one”.

Referring to the pandemic treaty, Kruger adds: “I was very opposed to the new regulations that were passed last year… The treaty that was agreed gave much greater power to the WHO to impose responses to major outbreaks, pandemics, and such like, onto countries.”

The original draft, he says, was “horrendous” – particularly the “proposals to mandate all sorts of particular responses, from lockdowns to masks and vaccinations and everything, all from the WHO, rather than member state governments”.

The treaty that was agreed gave much greater power to the WHO to impose responses to major outbreaks

Advertisement

The Department of Health and Social Care counters that the organisation plays a “crucial” role in the global health system, with a spokesperson saying: “The UK is committed to working with the WHO to tackle the world’s health issues, and to ensure it is equipped to meet today’s global health challenges.

“Our membership of the WHO helps to protect the UK’s heath security by sharing crucial information and acting on all health-related threats and emergencies, as well as by supporting other countries in improving their health systems.”

Although Kruger concedes that “there were some improvements” to the treaty in response to “pushback”, the MP says he remains anxious about the WHO’s agenda.

“I worry about the whole trend of a global health agency. Yes, we need global data and collaboration, but fundamentally it must be governments that take responsibility for introducing major interventions,” he says. “So, I’d rather the WHO got back to fighting malaria, rather than bossing everyone around when there’s a pandemic.”

Labour member of the Health Select Committee and public health doctor Beccy Cooper argues that “a Reform-led government would be a risk to the public health of this country, just as their views on vaccinations have shown”.

“Taking us out of the WHO would be catastrophic because we need to be able to identify emerging threats before they become the next pandemic,” she says. “We need the WHO to collect, analyse and disseminate data to all countries in real time. Similarly, the threat of antimicrobial resistance is a biosecurity issue that no amount of investment in guns and tanks will prevent from reaching our shores.”

Since Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO, China has only strengthened its influence within the 194-member-state organisation, with it now set to replace the USA as the largest member state contributor. (The UK was the fourth largest member contributor in the WHO’s accounts for 2024 and 2025.)

But Cooper contends a “properly resourced, right-sized” WHO that leads on key issues and brings together health leaders to shape global responses to the emerging health threats of the day is a “valuable resource” that the UK should not leave: “The UK should now show leadership in this space and support the WHO to transition into an organisation fit for the 21st century.”

Meanwhile, whether Farage will still support remaining within a reformed WHO now that the USA has left – or advocate following Trump in exiting the organisation – may become clearer once the AWH report is published.

If Farage remains unconvinced of the WHO’s will to change direction, and his party wins a majority at the next general election, then, in the words of the Reform leader, “a second Brexit will be on the cards”. 

Additional reporting by Sienna Rodgers

Donald Trump raised eyebrows for the way in which he boasted about US forces wiping out Iranian ships.

Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Sunday:

“I have just been informed that we have destroyed and sunk 9 Iranian Naval Ships, some of them relatively large and important. We are going after the rest — They will soon be floating at the bottom of the sea, also!”

Critics quickly seized on the phrasing, noting how sunken vessels generally don’t float.

The boast came as the US military continued to escalate its major combat operations in the country, which began on Saturday.

Three US troops have been killed and five others seriously wounded in the operation. Trump has acknowledged that there could be further casualties in the conflict, which he has suggested may last up to a month.

This is sadly barely scratching the surface of women’s healthcare downfalls

It’s worse for women who aren’t white

Help and support: