Twice-yearly HIV prevention shot & Project 2025 ideas in practice - News (Feb 23, 2026)

We’ll start with health and science, where Zimbabwe is moving early on a prevention tool that many public-health experts have been waiting for: lenacapavir, a long-acting HIV prevention injection taken only twice a year. The rollout began Thursday near Harare, and Zimbabwe is among the first countries to bring it into real-world clinics, not just clinical trials. The early program is donor-supported and part of a broader launch across 10 African countries backed by PEPFAR and the Global Fund. In Zimbabwe, it’s being provided free for key populations—among them sex workers, adolescent girls and young women, gay men, and pregnant and breastfeeding women. Officials are framing it as a practical fix for a very human problem: sticking with daily prevention pills in the face of stigma, unpredictable schedules, and, for some people, alcohol use.

One patient voice in today’s reporting makes that point vividly. A 27-year-old sex worker, Constance Mukoloka, described how daily PrEP pills can be both a burden and a giveaway—clients sometimes see a pill bottle and assume it’s HIV treatment, then leave. A shot that lasts six months is less visible, easier to manage, and, in theory, easier to keep private. Zimbabwe already offers a full menu of prevention options—daily oral PrEP, condoms, vaginal rings, and shorter-acting injectables. Lenacapavir doesn’t replace those tools, and clinicians are stressing it shouldn’t. But it could widen the path for people who want protection without a daily reminder on their bedside table. The bigger challenge, as advocates warn, is money and supply. Zimbabwe expects about 46,000 people across 24 sites to benefit early on, but expansion hinges on donor doses and limited government funding. Even with Gilead pledging to sell at no profit, high costs and fragile, aid-dependent health systems—especially under tightening foreign-aid budgets—could limit how fast this scales.

Now to U.S. politics and policy, where a long campaign flashpoint is showing up in governing reality. Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation’s 900-page conservative blueprint—was a major issue in the 2024 race, and Donald Trump publicly distanced himself from it before the election. But the BBC now reports that many of the plan’s ideas have effectively moved into practice during Trump’s first year back in office. Liberal groups tracking the administration argue that about half of the document has been implemented—one analysis puts it at 53%, another at 51%. The blueprint’s core “Mandate for Leadership” lays out tactics to expand presidential authority, reshape the federal workforce, and advance a hardline social agenda—often with detailed instructions on how to do it through staffing, regulation, and agency structure. The reporting points to actions aligned with those goals: aggressive federal staffing cuts driven by the Department of Government Efficiency—often shortened to “Doge”—the move to place USAID under the State Department, the halting of billions in foreign aid, the end of federal DEI programs, expanded immigration enforcement, and efforts to end federal funding for NPR and PBS.

On immigration, the overlap is especially direct. The blueprint proposed steps like removing protected enforcement zones near places such as schools and churches, increasing workplace sweeps, and expanding detention capacity. According to the BBC, those measures have now been implemented alongside broader efforts to seal the border. Another element in the story: personnel. Several people connected to Project 2025 are now in senior roles, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FCC chair Brendan Carr, “border tsar” Tom Homan, SEC chair Paul Atkins, trade adviser Peter Navarro, and budget chief Russell Vought, who wrote a chapter on reworking the bureaucracy. Still, the plan isn’t fully adopted. Items that remain unimplemented include moves around abortion pills, adding a citizenship question to the census, and certain proposals related to Europe troop posture and school policies. Critics warn that increasing executive power can cut both ways—potentially empowering future administrations with very different priorities.

Staying in Washington—trade policy is moving fast. President Trump says he will impose a 15% global tariff on imports into the United States, escalating his response to a Supreme Court decision that struck down his previous sweeping tariffs. Here’s the timeline: on Friday, Trump announced a replacement 10% levy on all goods entering the country. On Saturday, he posted that he would raise the rate to 15%, the maximum allowed under a rarely used provision—Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. That authority is time-limited: the tariff can run for about five months, after which the administration must seek congressional approval to keep it going. It’s not yet clear if the 15% rate begins on the same date the earlier 10% plan was set to start—Tuesday, February 24th. The Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling said Trump exceeded his authority by using the 1977 IEEPA emergency law to impose last year’s global tariffs. The government has already collected at least $130 billion in tariffs under IEEPA, and while importers may seek refunds, the Court didn’t decide whether repayments are required—setting up years of litigation, if both sides dig in.

For U.S. allies and trading partners, the new approach adds fresh uncertainty. A White House official indicated that countries with prior tariff arrangements—like the UK and Australia—would now face the Section 122 global rate rather than negotiated rates, though some UK sector deals were said not to be affected. The tariff plan also comes with carve-outs: critical minerals, metals, and pharmaceuticals are among listed exemptions, while separate tariffs on steel, aluminium, lumber, and auto parts stay in place under other statutes. Reaction is mixed—manufacturing voices worry the court ruling undercuts jobs, while farm and business groups warn of blowback and push for clarity on refunds and rules.

Let’s turn to Europe and security, with the war in Ukraine approaching a grim milestone. Russia’s full-scale invasion began on February 24th, 2022—four years ago tomorrow—and it’s entering a fifth year with no clear end. A new Center for Strategic and International Studies estimate puts Russia’s casualties—killed, wounded, or missing—at about 1.2 million from February 2022 through December 2025, including up to 325,000 deaths. Ukraine’s military casualties are estimated at 500,000 to 600,000, including up to 140,000 deaths, though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has cited 55,000 dead with many missing. Civilian harm is also mounting. The UN has recorded at least 12,600 civilian deaths and more than 40,600 injuries since the invasion began, and says 2025 was the deadliest year for civilians since 2022, with casualties up sharply compared with 2024. The World Health Organization has logged more than 2,300 attacks affecting medical care in Ukraine since the war began, including strikes on facilities and medical transport.

What’s especially stark is the tradeoff between losses and territory. Russia occupies about 20% of Ukraine, but gained less than 1% of additional territory over the past year—suggesting enormous costs for minimal frontline movement. Aid patterns are shifting, too. The Kiel Institute says foreign military aid to Ukraine dropped 21% last year compared with the 2022–2024 average after President Trump halted U.S.-funded shipments, though European countries increased their military support by 67% to compensate. Humanitarian and financial aid also dipped. Into that backdrop comes a political intervention from former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. In a BBC interview, Johnson argues that the UK and European allies should deploy noncombat troops to Ukraine immediately—stationed in quieter regions—to signal long-term commitment, rather than waiting for a ceasefire. The UK Ministry of Defence responded that planning remains focused on deployments only after hostilities end, reflecting ongoing escalation concerns. Russia has previously said foreign troops would be legitimate targets, a warning that makes any shift in posture highly sensitive.

Next, the Middle East, where diplomacy and internal unrest are colliding. The U.S. and Iran are expected to hold another round of nuclear talks in Geneva this week, with Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi saying negotiators will probably meet Thursday and that a “fast deal” is possible. The thrust of Iran’s reported position is familiar but consequential: Tehran wants to retain the right to enrich uranium for peaceful use under tougher IAEA verification, dilute its highly enriched stockpile, and allow fuller access to bombed sites—if it gets sanctions relief in return. At the same time, Washington has redeployed significant military assets to the region, and Araghchi is warning that Iran would defend itself if attacked. Domestically, Iran is dealing with renewed student protests, with reports of clashes, disputed death tolls from prior unrest, and a refusal to admit a UN-led fact-finding mission. Deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi is due to address the UN Human Rights Council—an appearance that could trigger diplomatic friction, including walkouts. The story also suggests internal power dynamics are shifting, with Araghchi and Ali Larijani gaining influence while Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian are portrayed as increasingly sidelined.

Now to the global economy, starting with a strategic resources link-up: Brazil and India have signed a new, non-binding memorandum of understanding on rare earths and other critical minerals. The agreement sets a framework for cooperation—investment, exploration, mining, and even AI applications tied to these materials. Brazil holds the world’s second-largest reserves of rare earth minerals, which feed into smartphones, electric vehicles, solar panels, and jet engines—basically, the hardware backbone of modern industry. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is presenting the deal as part of a broader push into renewables, critical minerals, and deeper ties between major “global south” economies. The backdrop here is strategic autonomy. Analysts say Brazil and India want to diversify relationships and reduce dependence on both China and the United States. Lula’s large delegation—11 ministers and a big business contingent—underscores that this isn’t just symbolism; it’s an attempt to line up trade, financing, and supply chains before the next round of tougher negotiations with larger partners.

That theme—diversifying, but also being pulled by gravity—shows up in new German trade figures. Germany’s Federal Statistical Office says China has overtaken the U.S. as Germany’s top trading partner again. Total trade with China reached €251 billion in 2025, up 2.2% year-on-year. Germany imported around €170.6 billion from China, more than double its exports to China, which were €81.3 billion. Trade with the U.S. totaled €240 billion and fell about 5%, with Trump’s controversial tariffs cited as a potential factor. All of this lands as Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, prepares for his first visit to Beijing since taking office. He’s expected to discuss Ukraine, human rights, and trade, while also meeting business leaders—reflecting Germany’s balancing act: the EU is trying to curb Chinese industrial overcapacity, yet Germany’s auto industry is deeply embedded in Chinese sales and production.

Finally, technology and markets—where a new flavor of artificial intelligence is causing real whiplash. “Agentic” AI tools, designed to carry out tasks autonomously, are moving beyond chatbot-style prompting and into multi-step work: writing software, handling workflows, even giving specialized advice. Strategists describe this as an inflection point, with predictions that millions of AI agents could soon take on work traditionally done by people. That expectation is already rippling through markets. Investors have started treating AI agents as a threat to enterprise software companies, especially those selling workflow tools, and some shares—names like Monday.com and Salesforce—have seen sharp drops in a matter of days amid fears of replacement. Not everyone buys the worst-case scenario. Some analysts argue the market reaction is overheated and that replacing major software and cybersecurity firms wholesale is unlikely in the near term. Still, the arms race is intensifying, with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and others pouring huge sums into infrastructure and new models. Even if the economic impact takes years to settle—much like the early internet—the question for businesses is becoming less “should we test this?” and more “how fast can we adapt without breaking what already works?”