Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

When Reform UK announced it would accept cryptocurrency donations through a payment processor called Radom, the decision was presented by the party as a breakthrough in the modernisation of political fundraising. But a Byline Times investigation reveals that Radom's origins lie deep within the same Silicon Valley networks that have bankrolled and built the technological infrastructure for President Donald Trump's political movement in the United States.

The company's leadership emerged from corporations and venture capital firms deeply connected to some of Trump's most prominent tech-world supporters. They include Peter Thiel, the billionaire who became MAGA's chief evangelist in Silicon Valley with over a dozen allies in Trump's second administration, and Larry Ellison, Oracle's controlling shareholder described by a Trump advisor as a "shadow president" behind Trump himself. Byline Times can also confirm that Amazon, a major pro-Trump donor controlled by Jeff Bezos, provided seed-funding to Radom.

Radom had already exerted its influence in the UK Parliament years before Farage's announcement, through an All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) whose secretariat was run by an organisation advertising close relationships with pro-Trump tech giants including Oracle, Google and Microsoft.

Byline Times can reveal that the APPG's secretariat had not only received funding from Oracle, but at the time was dominated by Conservative Party politicians – including current Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch.

From Oracle to Radom: Silicon Valley's Republican Vanguard

Radom's founder and chief executive, Christopher Wilson, cut his teeth as a software engineer at Oracle, the technology giant controlled by Larry Ellison. Wilson worked at Oracle's Greater Dublin office from 2015 to 2017.

Oracle is not merely another Silicon Valley firm. Under Ellison's stewardship, it has become synonymous with a particular strain of pro-Trump, anti-regulatory conservatism rare among major tech companies.

Ellison has hosted fundraisers for Trump, donated substantial sums to Republican Party causes, and positioned himself as one of the President's most prominent backers. A decade ago, senior Oracle executives were hobnobbing with people in Trump's orbit shortly before the 2016 election. Oracle CEO Safra Catz and chief lobbyist Ken Glueck went on to join the Trump administration's transition teams.

Wilson's tenure at Oracle does not necessarily mean he shares Ellison's politics. But it situates Radom's technical leadership within a corporate environment closely entangled with Trump-aligned networks and narratives throughout the MAGA era.

EXCLUSIVE

Nigel Farage Paid by Trump Crypto Adviser Who Worked With Russia Operative Paul Manafort

The Reform UK leader received payment from David Bailey, who collaborated with the convicted fraudster behind the Trump-Russia influence scandal

Nafeez Ahmed

The Thiel Connection

The Trump network connections deepen when examining Radom's other co-founder. Mariel Yonnadam, the company's former chief technology officer from 2022 until 2025, previously worked as a front-end engineer from 2018 to 2019 at Faire, a San Francisco-based marketplace that has become one of Silicon Valley's most highly valued 'unicorn' start-ups.

Faire's meteoric rise was powered by a roster of venture capital investors that reads like a who's who of Trump-aligned tech finance. Among the most significant are Founders Fund, co-founded by Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist who spoke at the 2016 Republican National Convention, joined Trump's presidential transition team, and has since incubated numerous hard-right political projects whilst providing intellectual scaffolding for tech nationalism. Another is Sequoia Capital, which in recent years has become increasingly associated with powerful Trump-supporting partne...

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If things were going well for Keir Starmer then he would have nothing to fear, and indeed much to benefit, from the return of a political big beast to Westminster like Andy Burnham.

If the Prime Minister had a clear plan for the country then the return of a rival, even one as determined to become Prime Minister as Burnham, would barely ruffle the feathers of those cooped up in Downing Street.

Previous Prime Ministers have acted differently.

When Boris Johnson, as London Mayor, announced his own return to Westminster, there was no attempt by David Cameron to block him from doing so, despite Johnson's own plans to become "world king" being well established.

Instead Cameron actively encouraged him to come back and then sought to use his talents in Government for the benefit of his own party and leadership.

Johnson proved to be an irritant, but he never seriously threatened Cameron's leadership for the simple reason that the then Prime Minister was in a position of strength.

Andy Burnham: These Dangerous, Alienating Times Call for Radical Change of Our Politics

From imposter syndrome and proportional representation, to fixing the fundamentals and the 'incestuous' Westminster media-political class – Labour's Greater Manchester Mayor believes the right can be defeated at the ballot box if bold changes to connect with the public and their day-to-day lives are made now

Hardeep Matharu

Of course Johnson did arguably end up playing a part in Cameron's downfall, backing the Brexit campaign which ultimately toppled him.

But that failure, just like the decision to accept Johnson back to Westminster, was ultimately in Cameron's hands. Had Cameron fought a better campaign, or even opted to remain in Downing Street post-referendum, then he could have remained as Prime Minister for years more to come.

The same cannot be now said of Starmer. His decision to block Burnham from becoming a an MP has been taken, not from a position of strength, but from a position of potentially irreversible weakness.

By blocking the Greater Manchester Mayor, he has made it all but impossible for Labour to cling on to their previously safe seat in Gorton and Denton, with Nigel Farage's Reform, or even potentially the Greens, poised to take it instead.

Either of these outcomes would severely weaken the Prime Minister's position and bring the point at which Labour MPs move against him to a head.

An Alternative Path

It didn't have to be this way. Had Starmer instead welcomed Burnham's return and then gone on to win the Gorton by-election together, then both the Prime Minister and the Labour party would have emerged in a stronger position.

He could then have offered Burnham a seat in the Cabinet, just as Cameron did with Johnson, and sought to hold him to his word of wanting to help the Government succeed. Had Burnham either refused, or then used his new position to undermine that Government then it would have been Burnham, rather than Starmer, whose position would have been weakened.

Of course such a path would have carried risks, but those risks could have been manageable. Instead the Prime Minister has chosen a path that looks all but certain to end in disaster for his Premiership

It may sound simplistic to the point of absurdity, but in politics winning comes from winning. It does not come from losing. If Labour loses the Gorton by-election, after blocking the man most likely to have won it, then no amount of Downing Street shenanigans are going to save Starmer from a concerted attempt to remove him as leader. The Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, may feel that he has won a battle, but he now faces losing the wider war as a result.

These considerations may not worry those in Downing Street too much. Over the last few years it has become clear that the overwhelming priority of those around the Prime Minister is to pursu...

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Prince Harry and Elizabeth Hurley, each giving evidence at the Royal Courts of Justice earlier this week, have alleged that the Mail tore apart relationships, drove its targets to paranoia, and made life miserable for anyone caught in its crosshairs.

The publisher did so, they claim, by illegally spying on them, publishing their secrets, and invading the privacy of their families, partners and closest friends.

It was a bruising opening week for the Mail, whose publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited, is defending itself against litigation brought by Prince Harry, Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Elizabeth Hurley.

The claims allege widespread illegality at the publisher, arguing that the Mail's prolific use of private investigators known to use unlawful methods demonstrates that the publisher was illegally spying on its targets.

The claimants argue that private information about the lives of the claimants was obtained by listening in on voicemail messages and even live phone calls, and published in the newspaper – all to sell more papers and make the publisher more money.

The Mail's defence is that there is no direct evidence of illegality, arguing that journalists got hold of private information through friends and other associates of the claimants.

They also argue that the claims have been brought too late, and should have been brought years ago – despite the Mail's own heated denials of wrongdoing at the Leveson Inquiry – into the culture, practices and ethics of the press following the exposure of the phone-hacking scandal in 2011-12 – and since.

BREAKING

Daily Mail Trial: British People Say Press Standards Haven't Improved Since Phone Hacking Scandal

As the Daily Mail goes on trial for alleged lawbreaking, a new poll finds seven-in-ten voters demand independent regulation of the press

Byline Times Team

The Wider Picture

The summary of the claimants' case, published on Monday, threatens to suck other senior figures in the press into the litigation.

The current editor of The Sun, Victoria Newton, is alleged to have been a "habitual" user of unlawfully accessed information, while the editor of the Mail on Sunday, David Dillon, is alleged to have commissioned private investigators for criminal activity.

The findings in the case could have implications for the online and print news media more broadly. If it is found that yet another newspaper engaged in illegal behaviour, calls for the second part of the Leveson Inquiry are likely to intensify.

Hacked Off even came up once or twice during the course of evidence given by both Hurley and Prince Harry, with the Duke of Sussex generously praising the campaign for its "fantastic work".

"Hacking of my voicemails, landline tapping, blagging, obtaining itemised phone bills, hardwire tapping, and obtaining private flight information for my former girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, amongst other criminal methods… was deliberately undertaken with the purpose of publishing articles about me in the Mail newspapers because it made them money."

Witness Statement of Prince Harry

On Wednesday Prince Harry took to the witness stand and his witness statement, setting out his allegations in his own words, was published.

An object of relentless fascination to the press throughout the 2000s was Harry's romantic life. In his statement, he highlights an article entitled 'Harry's Older Woman', a piece which covered his relationship with a former girlfriend. He was 18 at the time.

At best, this was obsessive coverage of a teenager's relationship. But Harry alleges that it was published as a direct result of phone hacking or "blagging" – the use of impersonation to get someone's personal information. In other words, Harry's claim is that the Mail was actively and illegally spying on the private communications of a teenager and...

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

British people believe standards in the UK press have not improved since the phone hacking scandal 15 years ago, with seven-in-ten voters demanding the industry be independently regulated for the first time, according to a new poll.

The survey conducted by pollsters Opinium for the Press Justice Project charity, found that 54% of those surveyed said press standards either haven't improved or have got worse over the past decade, with a further 71% saying the press should now be regulated by a body independent from the industry and politicians.

Voters want publications to be more accountable for inaccurate reporting. Seventy three percent of those surveyed said they believed press corrections should be published with the same size and prominence as the original misleading reporting.

Support for reforming the press could be found across supporters of all parties, according to the poll, including voters for Nigel Farage's Reform UK.

Of all the potential options for reforming the press, the most popular was for newspapers and their websites to be regulated by an independent statutory regulator, like Ofcom.

'A Victim All Over Again': The Mail Trial and the Murders of Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan

Peter Jukes looks at how an ongoing High Court case plunges us back over thirty years to two murders in south-east London and to a nexus of corrupt police officers and private investigators

Peter Jukes

According to the poll, readers of the Metro (45%) the Daily Mail (38%), the Daily Express (37%), The Sun (35%), the Daily Telegraph (33%) and The Times (31%) all backed independent statutory regulation as their favoured option.

None of these papers are currently independently regulated.

Stephen Kinsella OBE, chair of the Press Justice Project, said: "Newspaper publishers often say they have 'cleaned up their act' since the appalling practices revealed by the phone hacking scandal, and argue there is no need for reform of press regulation.

"Every week, we at the Press Justice Project hear from people affected by wrongdoing in the press, which proves otherwise. These results show that the wider public shares our concerns. There is a clear public demand for independent press regulation that provides effective remedies when newspapers fail to uphold ethical standards.

"Press wrongdoing continues to affect people from all walks of life. Almost 15 years on from the phone hacking scandal, there is still an urgent need to protect the public from press abuse. The Press Justice Project shares the public's support for legislation that encourages industry compliance with independent and effective press regulation, in the interests of the victims of press wrongdoing we were established to assist."

EXCLUSIVE

Daily Mail High Court Trial Casts Shadow Over Lord Rothermere's Telegraph Bid

Allegations that the Mail engaged in phone hacking, landline tapping, burglaries, and the theft of medical records are threatening to derail its £500 million takeover of the Telegraph

Dan Evans

The findings come in the same week a High Court trial opened into alleged lawbreaking at the Daily Mail, including allegations of phone hacking, landline tapping, burglaries, and the theft of medical records.

More than 400 potential victims have been identified by the claimants' lawyers, after evidence was uncovered suggesting they were hacked and blagged by the Mail titles.

The claimants allege phone hacking and other unlawful practices stretching back decades.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY – £44.75 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY – £4.50 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism....

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

You did not dream the last fortnight: that really just happened. Fresh from illegally abducting a foreign head of state, the President of the United States turned his attention to seizing part of the territory of a close NATO ally while declaring economic war on those European allies who dared to object.

The Greenland fiasco not only represented the lowest point in UK-US relations in 70 years, it quite literally threatened to blow apart Europe's post-war geopolitical and security architecture.

Thankfully, Donald Trump has now – at last – confirmed that he will not invade Greenland. He also walked back his threats to impose fresh, punitive tariffs on the UK and other allies.

But these feel like temporary reprieves. Trump's presidency has three years to run and more instability surely awaits. The old world, with its reassuring alliances and certainties, no longer exists.

The new world brings fresh and urgent demands for the continent of Europe – in particular, the European country that, ten years ago, chose to leave the only trade bloc capable of rivalling the United States.

Engage, for one moment, in a small thought experiment. Imagine that we had not left the EU. That in 2016, we narrowly voted to remain, and then stumbled through the following ten years with our economic and geopolitical framework essentially unchanged.

Why Is the Government Really Refusing to Investigate Russian Interference in Brexit?

Keir Starmer's decision to exclude Russian interference in the 2016 EU referendum from his inquiry into foreign interference in our elections should ring alarm bells, argues Sergei Cristo

Sergei Cristo

Imagine the last decade of geopolitical turbulence, but where we were neither obsessing about tearing ourselves from our regional bloc, nor finding our way once we had.

Would Theresa May have debased herself to invite Trump on his first state visit to the UK, all for the comprehensive trade deal to mitigate Brexit's damage – a deal which never came? Would the UK's global voice and reputation have been stronger or weaker? Did our economy – pummelled by so many events out of our control – need the additional voluntary hit or not?

Imagine just the last year. Would Keir Starmer have had to prostrate himself before the new American king, offering an unprecedented second state visit, if the UK were not so weakened on the global stage by Brexit? Would Trump have still been able to get everything he wanted – pomp, prestige and royalty – without offering anything except, as it subsequently transpired, political and economic threats and personal insults.

Now imagine the last two weeks. When Trump issued his threats of tariffs for the crime of upholding Denmark's territorial integrity and Greenland's self-determination, all Starmer could do was protest the move and appeal to Trump's better nature. Compare that with the muscular responses of France and Germany, who resolved to respond in kind. They knew they could plausibly do so thanks to the power of the EU behind and alongside them. The UK could only act in isolation. Given the vast power imbalance against the US, that meant, in practice, failing to act at all.

Never has the UK been so exposed. Even in 2016, in a more benign global environment, Brexit was a catastrophic error. Ten years later, it looks incalculably more damaging. Both Britain and the EU are weaker at a time they need collective strength more than ever. Brexit's only beneficiaries have been Russia, China and, as it turns out, an actively hostile United States.

Brexit Failures

Who, apart from Nigel Farage, would be advocating for Brexit right now if we were still in the EU? The verdict of voters would be overwhelming.

The power of the EU was something the UK considered to be a threat instead of what it was: an opportunity.

The bloc enables free nation states to pool some of their sovereignty a...

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Head North by two Scousers, Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram, is the most original, interesting and important book by serving Labour politicians that I've read.

It was published in 2024 to a pitiful number of mainly patronising reviews in the London media – all of which missed the larger point of its call for a new constitution that enshrines a Basic Law, includes PR, and empowers Members of Parliament. A failure that perhaps confirms the authors' assertion that London has lost the plot and does not grasp how intolerable our system of government has become for the country as a whole.

Of the two, Burnham is well-known as a high-flying Labour politician, who entered Parliament in 2001, and rose swiftly to become a senior Cabinet member under Gordon Brown. When he tried to become Labour leader in 2015, he lost out to Jeremy Corbyn. A year later, he left Westminster altogether to become the first Mayor of Greater Manchester.

Rotheram is less well-known nationally, but his rise from being a bricklayer to becoming a Labour MP and then Mayor of Liverpool is also impressive.

The book opens with the two of them shaking hands in 2016 and pledging their joint determination to leave the House of Commons and seek election to the twin cities of England's north-west – where the novelty of elected mayors was about to become a reality for the first time.

The first half of the book is a dialogue between the two of them as they share the experience of their personal journeys close to the heart of power. Again and again, they are shocked to the point of being traumatised by the cold indifference of the centre to the legitimate needs of their communities.

From Hillsborough to COVID, they draw two personal conclusions from 20 years.

First, in a crisis "you have to speak to the soul of the place you are in".

Second, that the UK has "an unaccountable state that tries to divide and rule and foist decisions taken by a small cabal on millions". It prioritises private vested interests over the public interest while "Whitehall does not regard all people and places as equal".

Andy Burnham: These Dangerous, Alienating Times Call for Radical Change of Our Politics

From imposter syndrome and proportional representation, to fixing the fundamentals and the 'incestuous' Westminster media-political class – Labour's Greater Manchester Mayor believes the right can be defeated at the ballot box if bold changes to connect with the public and their day-to-day lives are made now

Hardeep Matharu

The way they share their account of experiencing the built-in failures of the British state is comparable to Rory Stewart's Politics on The Edge.

Stewart's is a more sustained blow-by-blow account of his journey, in his case through the ruins of the Conservative tradition. It culminates in his attempt to become Prime Minister and his humiliation. Whereas Burnham's takes off after his Westminster ambitions are crushed.

The second half of Head North sets out the way in which Burnham and Rotheram believe the country has to change.

They conclude by demanding a written constitution. They spell out the need for a proportional voting system; empowering Members of Parliament by the removal of the whipping system; a senate of the nations and regions to replace the House of Lords; full devolution; two equal paths in education; a Grenfell law for those in public housing; a Hillsborough law to impose a duty of candour on all public servants; and ecological sustainability.

Missing from their list of constitutional demands is the need for a justice system that works for regular people – something, however, that emerges vividly in their account.

Many others have proclaimed the need for systematic constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, going back to Charter 88 and beyond. Burnham's and Rotheram's call is unique in that it emerges from, and is rooted in, their ...

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Britain's biggest middle-market newspaper stands accused of phone hacking, landline tapping, burglaries, and the theft of medical records in a nine-week High Court trial which began on Monday.

But in a week that on Wednesday saw Prince Harry become emotional in the witness box as he talked about the impact of media intrusion on his wife Meghan, tensions are rising not just between the Mail and its critics, but between the publisher and its own bankers.

NatWest, the Mail's long-standing lender and the principal funder of the Telegraph bid, has the power to pull the plug if internal auditors conclude the legal risks are too great. And City scrutiny has intensified as allegations of industrial-scale criminality inside the Mail's newsrooms are tested in court.

Against this backdrop, the Mail on January 8 publicly attacked its financial backer with a story headlined "NatWest Dirty Money Farce". The two-page article recycled a five-year-old case in which Britain's fourth-largest bank paid a record £264.8 million fine for accepting criminal proceeds.

EXCLUSIVE

'Trump Has Already Rigged the 2028 Presidential Election': US Defence Insider

Regardless of how people vote, the chances of a Democrat Government coming to power in 2029 is now virtually nil, argues Brynn Tannehill

Brynn Tannehill

NatWest, however, is not the only party to the Telegraph deal facing allegations of serious wrongdoing. In the ongoing litigation brought by Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence—whose son Stephen was murdered in a racist attack—more than £3 million in payments from the Mail to private investigators have been disclosed over the past three years.

Mr Justice Matthew Nicklin's verdict now hangs over Lord Rothermere's biggest ever newspaper acquisition.

His company, Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), has agreed to assume the debts of Telegraph Media Group's current investor, RedBird IMI, paying £400 million up front and a further £100 million within two years.

The deal must still pass detailed due diligence by City lawyers and accountants who are acutely sensitive to allegations of criminal activity while the impact of the proposed takeover on competition and the public interest will be investigated.

City public relations expert Brian Basham said: 'The timing of this deal, which comes in the middle of a nine-week trial for phone hacking, couldn't be worse.

'NatWest will not like this. The reputational damage to their client, of being on the news every night for months, about unlawful intrusion, is a risk.'

Mr Basham, who previously gave evidence in a phone hacking trial against the Mirror after warning its then chief executive of a cover-up, added: 'But it will the liability of future claims which the bank will be very worried about.'

City insiders say NatWest is weighing whether the Mail could survive a "contingent liability" running to as much as £1 billion if hundreds of additional claims are launched. The estimate is based on the scale of payouts made by Rupert Murdoch's companies following the News of the World hacking scandal.

Shares analyst Paul Scott has reviewed DMGT's accounts and concluded that a £1 billion hit 'would probably either bankrupt DMGT, or at least stretch it to the limit.'

DMGT has secured a funding package with NatWest, its preferred lender, and has finalised the terms of the transaction. But the City remains wary as the litigation approaches, set to begin in just over a week.

The case has already cost the Mail around £30 million, despite involving only seven "test" claims at the Royal Courts of Justice. Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), DMGT's main newspaper subsidiary, is defending actions brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Simon Hughes, and Sadie Frost.

EXCLUSIVE

'That Phone Could Hold the Truth': Levi Davis Family Say...

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Home Office has been accused of treating asylum seekers like "lab rats" after moving to "warehouse" the first batch of migrants into a military barracks, despite opposition from campaigners and local politicians.

Twenty-seven men have been moved into the Crowborough military barracks, as part of the Government's plans to move migrants from hotels to military sites.

The site in East Sussex has a capacity of 500 bed spaces, allocated for single adult males, who will be housed there for up to three months while their claims are processed. If their asylum application is rejected, the department say they will be removed from the country.

The plans have already triggered anti-migrant protests in the local area, prompting fears about an increase in far-right activity.

Conservative MP for Sussex Weald Nusrat Ghani has warned of the "grave impact" of moving the men onto the site.

In a letter to Immigration Minister Alex Norris on Wednesday, seen by Byline Times, Ghani stated that there was "clear evidence that the site is not an empty army barracks, but a functioning and much used and loved training camp". Crowborough is currently used as a training facility for the local Royal Air Force Cadets and for fire, police and other public service agencies.

She added that the site was "unable to be signed off as safe, legal and compliant, and one of the reasons was the cost and displacement of services and the Cadets". Despite asking yesterday for a detailed assessment of how the Home Office intended to "square that circle", the first migrants were moved to Crowborough this morning.

Wealden District Council leader James Partridge has also voiced opposition to the plans, saying it was the "wrong decision". Protests have taken place around the site on a weekly basis since last October when the plans were first announced. "Despite our strong objections, the minister [Alex Norris] has not listened to us," Partridge said.

The latest move marks the start of the Government's plans to 'warehouse' asylum seekers in former military camps in an attempt to close hotels by the end of this parliament. More than 200 hotels remain in use, at a cost of more than £5.7 million per day. The Home Office has consistently said that hotels are a "pull factor" for small boat crossings.

Campaigners have described the use of former military sites to accommodate asylum seekers as a "sleeper issue", with the potential for protests starting at a local level to become more widespread.

"It's like they're using asylum seekers as lab rats," said Lou Calvey, Director of Asylum Matters. "The Government should be building policy in the interests of people in local communities – a fiscally-responsible policy – but they're not even doing that. When are they going to wake up? We know these sites are incredibly damaging and this will only mean more community tensions and problems."

EXCLUSIVE

'They've Ruined Christmas': Nigerian Student Blocked By Home Office From Visiting UK Family for Holidays

British academic and his Nigerian wife repeatedly stopped from hosting family members, including at their own wedding, due to visa restrictions brought in by Keir Starmer's Government

Nicola Kelly

A report from the National Audit Office last year found that military barracks were projected to cost £46 million more than hotels over the next decade. A leaked forecast from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) warned that the expected cost to house asylum seekers has tripled from £4.5 billion to £15.3 billion for contracts from 2019-2029.

In a statement released this morning, the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said that opening Crowborough camp was "just the start".

"I will bring forward site after site until every asylum hotel is closed and returned to local communities," Mahmood said.

In October, the Government announced it would also open Cameron barracks ...

Brynn Tannehill has worked for years for one of the largest US Government defence contractors in the country.

Writing pseudonymously for Byline Times, in November 2024 she predicted the astonishingly rapid militarisation of the homeland that Donald Trump would pursue; and in February 2025 she accurately forecast some of the most shocking turns of the Trump administration – including how serious it is about annexing places like Venezuela and Greenland.

Now she casts her eye on what pivotal presidential elections will hold in 2028 – and warns that Democrats are dangerously unprepared for what's coming.

The outcome of the election has already been determined: Democrats just don't realise it yet.

Donald Trump's first year in office has largely been an exercise in consolidating all power in the executive branch, and then wielding this power to punish his enemies, whether they are recalcitrant blue state governors, people who have angered him (like James Comey and Letitia James), and unpopular minorities (immigrants and transgender people), or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The Legal Coup

So far, the Project 2025 Heritage Foundation and Claremont Institute plan to codify the 'Unitary Executive theory' into law has been successful. Until recently, the Unitary Executive Theory was a fringe constitutional doctrine asserting the President holds sole authority over the entire executive branch, derived from Article II's vesting of "the executive Power" in one person, meaning Congress can't limit presidential control over executive officials or agencies. The US Supreme Court has now mostly embraced this idea, and has consistently removed Congressional oversight powers, or even the power to dictate where and how funds are spent.

The other two branches have yielded power willingly; the Republican controlled Congress has handed over the power of the purse to the executive branch, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has nearly universally accepted Department of Justice (DOJ) arguments that the executive branch cannot be countermanded via injunctions. SCOTUS also granted near-blanket immunity to the President to commit crimes while in office, so long as they are a part of "official acts."

The Republican Party is increasingly behaving like a party that believes it will never face a competitive election again, which I believe is exactly what is happening. The administration increasingly doubles down on unpopular policies and positions, including defending young Republican leaders who got caught admiring Hitler and looking forward to gassing and burning the bodies of their political opponents.

Trump is deep underwater in opinion polls across most of his signature issues, including tariffs, the economy, and immigration. Yet Republican leadership seems to assume they have the capability to decide Presidential elections in perpetuity, regardless of how people vote.

Trump's Greenland Delusion Runs Aground in Davos

For all his attempted bullying, taunts and threats, Trump's delusional Davos speech revealed a man who is far weaker than he appears, argues Alexandra Hall Hall

Alexandra Hall Hall

This doesn't apply to the 2026 mid-terms, but they do not matter anyway: SCOTUS has largely allowed the executive branch to bypass Congress, nor will the executive branch cooperate with a democratic Congress, and all the mechanisms to enforce actions by Congress are controlled by the executive branch anyway, such as the Department of Justice. At this point, the only election that matters is for President, and the results are already being determined by the incumbent party.

When you run a step-by-step analysis of what it takes to decide who is President, it rapidly becomes obvious that a great many things must happen for the process to evade subversion. Republicans have set things up such that it is nearly impossible for everything to go the way it was intended, and instead the process of selecting a President is almost guaranteed to be suc...

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Trump is a narcissistic, psychopathic bully. But a weak one.

I started listening to Trump's speech at Davos with anger and outrage. But as he went on and on, I slowly felt a growing sense of relief. I realised that all his bullying, taunts and threats reflected weakness. He sounded like a needy, spoilt child frustrated that he could not get his own way.

His deranged tendencies were on full display with repeated hints at all the damage he could cause to those who did not bend to his will – like a mafia boss threatening to cut off a former partner's fingers if he did not cooperate. "I really like you, actually. I don't want to hurt you. It's a shame. I tried my best to be nice. But, I gotta do what I gotta do."

His neediness was on full display with his repeated mentions of how much everyone loves him, and appreciates his achievements. Only someone unsure of his popularity needs to keep claiming he has lots of friends.

His childishness was on full display with his petty taunts and jibes at other global figures – such as French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Premier Mark Carney, California Gavin Newsom, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell, even as he simultaneously claimed that they were "great guys, actually" and that he liked them.

Mark Carney's Speech Showed America and Britain the Sort of Global Leadership They Have Now Abandoned

The Canadian Prime Minister's powerful response to the growing threat from Donald Trump has put other world leaders to shame, argues Simon Nixon

Simon Nixon

His vanity was on full display with his repeated boasts about how brilliant he was, and how great America had become under his leadership.

His insecurity was on full display with his continued need to lash out at defeated foes, such as Joe Biden. A truly self-confident person would not need to repeatedly big up his own alleged achievements in office, rather than letting them speak for themselves.

His self-delusion was on full display with his claims that he really cares about Europe and NATO, respects the people of Greenland and Denmark, and is only trying to do what's best for them. A genuine friend does not bully and threaten allies.

His dishonesty was on full display with his claim that he is only motivated to end the war in Ukraine because he is concerned about how many young men and women are dying there, when what he has actually been doing since returning to office is trying to extort Ukraine's natural wealth and force it into an unjust peace deal.

His bullying tendency was on full display with his repeated reminders of the strength of the US military and economy. Trump is not a man to "speak softly and carry a big stick" – but a schoolyard bully who inadvertently reveals weakness by over-emphasising his physical attributes. "Yah, boo, I'm bigger than you. I could beat you up if I wanted to."

His greed, and cavalier disregard for the fate of the planet, was on full display with his attacks on Europe for pursuing its "scam" green agenda, exhortations on the UK to do more more to extract oil from the North Sea, and boasts about how much oil the US was going to pick up from Venezuela.

His whiny tendency was on full display with his complaints about how NATO has treated the US "unfairly" and that he personally never gets enough credit for his achievements – such as allegedly ending eight wars – an obvious reflection of his continued frustration at not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

His ignorance, or is it deteriorating mental health, was on full display with his repeated reference to Iceland, when he meant Greenland, and his false claims that the US "gave back" Greenland to Denmark.

A Year of Living Dangerously in Trump's America

I no longer feel safe to speak or act freely in a country where people are being arbitrarily detained and killed and where the truth is becoming whatever Donald Trump says it is, repor...