Monday, October 26, 2026

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

READ IN FULL: RFK’s Stunning ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Address to the Nation.

Sixteen months ago, in April 2023, I launched my campaign for President of the United States. I began this journey as a Democrat. The party of my father and my uncle, the party which I pledged my own allegiance to long before I was old enough to vote.

I attended my first Democratic convention at the age of six in 1960. And back then, the Democrats were the champions of the Constitution and of civil rights. The Democrats stood against authoritarianism, against censorship, against colonialism, against imperialism, and against unjust wars. We were the party of labor, of the working class. The Democrats were the party of government transparency and the champion of the environment. Our party was the bulwark against big money interests and corporate power. True to its name, it was the party of democracy.

As you know, I left that party in October because it had departed so dramatically from the core values that I grew up with. It had become the party of war, censorship, corruption, big pharma, big tech, big AG, and big money.

When it abandoned democracy by canceling the primary to conceal the cognitive decline of the sitting president, I left the party to run as an independent. The mainstream of American politics and journalism derided my decision. Conventional wisdom said that it would be impossible even to get on the ballot as an independent because each state imposes an insurmountable tangle of arbitrary rules for collecting signatures. I would need over a million signatures, something no presidential candidate in history had ever achieved. And then I’d need a team of attorneys and millions of dollars to handle all the legal challenges from the DNC. The naysayers told us we were climbing a glass version of Mt. Impossible.

So the first thing I want to tell you is that we proved them wrong. We did it because, beneath the radar of mainstream media organs, we inspired a massive independent political movement. More than a hundred thousand volunteers sprang into action, hopeful that they could reverse our nation’s decline. Many worked ten-hour days, sometimes in blizzards and blazing heat, sacrificing family time, personal commitments, and sleep, month after month, energized by a shared vision of a nation healed of its divisions. They set up tables at churches and farmers markets and campaigned door to door. In Utah and New Hampshire volunteers collected signatures in snowstorms convincing each supporter to stop in the frigid cold, to take off their gloves and to sign legibly during a heat wave in Nevada. A tall athletic volunteer cheerfully told me that he lost 25 lbs collecting signatures in 117-degree heat. To finance this effort, young Americans donated their lunch money and senior citizens gave up part of their Social Security checks. Our 50-state organization collected those million signatures and more.

No presidential campaign in American political history has ever done that. And so I want to thank all of those dedicated volunteers and congratulate the campaign staff who coordinated this enormous logistical feat. Your accomplishments were regarded as impossible. You carried me up that glass mountain. You pulled off a miracle. You achieved what all the pundits said could never be done. You have my deepest gratitude, and I’m never going to forget that. Not just for what you did for my campaign but for the sacrifices you made because you love our country. You showed everyone that democracy is still possible here. It continues to survive in the breadth of the idealistic human energies that still thrive beneath a canvass of neglect and of official and institutional corruption.

Today, I’m here to tell you that I will not allow your efforts to go to waste. I’m here to tell you that I will leverage your tremendous accomplishments to serve the ideals that we share: the ideals of peace, of prosperity, of freedom, of health, all the ideals that motivated my campaign. I’m here today to describe the path forward you’ve opened with your commitment and with your hard labors.

In an honest system, I believe that I would have won the election. In the system that my father and uncle thrived in. A system with open debates, with fair primaries and with a truly independent media untainted by government propaganda and censorship, and a system of nonpartisan courts and election boards, everything would be different. After all, the polls consistently showed me beating each of the other candidates, both in favorability and in head-to-head matchups. But I’m sorry to say that while democracy may still be alive, at the grassroots, it has become little more than a slogan for our political institutions, for our media, and for our government, and most sadly at all, for me, for the Democratic Party.

In the name of saving democracy, the Democratic Party set itself to dismantle it. Lacking confidence that its candidate could win a fair election at the voting booth, the DNC waged continual legal warfare against both President Trump and myself. Each time that our volunteers turned in those towering boxes of the signatures needed to get on the ballot, the DNC dragged us into court, state after state, attempting to erase their work and to subvert the will of the voters who had signed those petitions. It deployed DNC-aligned judges to throw me and other candidates off the ballot and to throw President Trump in jail. It ran a sham primary that was rigged to prevent any serious challenge to President Biden. Then, when a predictably awful debate performance precipitated a palace coup against President Biden, the same shadowy DNC operatives appointed his successor, also without an election. They installed a candidate who was so unpopular with voters that she dropped out in 2020 without winning a single delegate.

My uncle and my father both relished debate. They prided themselves on their capacity to go toe to toe with any opponent in a battle of ideas. They would be astonished to learn of a Democratic Party presidential nominee who, like Vice President Harris, has not appeared in a single interview or an unscripted encounter with voters for 35 days. This is profoundly undemocratic. How are people to judge when they don’t know whom they are choosing? And how can this look to the rest of the world?

My father and my uncle were always conscious of America’s image abroad because of our nation’s role as the template for democracy, a role model for democratic processes, and the leader of the free world. Instead of showing us her substance and character, the DNC and its media organs engineered a surge of popularity for Vice President Harris based on nothing. No policies, no interviews, no debates, only smoke and mirrors and balloons in a highly-produced circus. There, in Chicago, a string of Democratic speakers mentioned Donald Trump 147 times just on the first day. Who needs a policy when you have Trump to hate? In contrast, at the RNC convention, President Biden was mentioned only twice in four days.

I do interviews every day. Many of you have interviewed me. Anybody who asks gets to interview me. Some days, I do as many as 10. President Trump, who actually was nominated and won an election, also does interviews daily. How did the Democratic Party choose a candidate that has never done an interview or debate during the entire election cycle? We know the answers. It did it by weaponizing government agencies. It did it, abandoning democracy. It did it by suing the opposition and by disenfranchising American voters.

What most alarms me isn’t how the Democratic Party conducts its internal affairs or runs its candidates. What alarms me is the resort to censorship, media control, and weaponization of federal agencies. When a U.S. president colludes with, or outright coerces, media companies to censor political speech, it’s an attack on our most sacred right of free expression. And that’s the very right upon which all of our other constitutional rights rest.

President Biden mocked Vladimir Putin’s 88 percent landslide in the Russian elections, observing that Putin and his party controlled the Russian press and that Putin prevented serious opponents from appearing on the ballot. But here in America, the DNC also prevented opponents from appearing on the ballot. And our television networks expose themselves as Democratic Party organs. Over the course of more than a year in a campaign where my poll numbers reached at times in the high twenties, the DNC-allied mainstream media networks maintained a near-perfect embargo on interviews with me. During his ten-month presidential campaign in 1992, Ross Perot gave 34 interviews on mainstream networks. In contrast, during the sixteen months since I declared, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN combined gave only two live interviews from me. Those networks instead, they ran a continuous deluge, hit pieces with inaccurate, often vile pejoratives and defamatory smears. Some of those same networks then colluded with the DNC to keep me off the debate stage.

Representatives of those networks are in this room right now, and I’ll just take a moment to ask you to consider the many ways that your institutions have abdicated this really sacred responsibility. It’s the duty of a free press to safeguard democracy and to challenge always the party in power. Instead of maintaining that posture of fierce skepticism toward authority, your institutions and media made themselves government mouthpieces and stenographers for the organs of power. You didn’t alone cause the devolution of American democracy, but you could have prevented it.

The Democratic Party’s censorship of social media was even more of a naked exercise of executive power. This week, a federal judge, Terry Doughty, upheld my injunction against President Biden, calling the White House’s censorship project: “The most egregious violation of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.” His previous 155-page decision details how, just 37 hours after he took the oath of office swearing to uphold the Constitution, President Biden and his White House opened up a portal and invited the CIA, the FBI, CISA, which is a censorship agency, the center of the censorship-industrial complex, DHS, the IRS and other agencies to censor me and other political dissidents on social media.

Even today, users who try to post my campaign videos to Facebook and YouTube get messages that this content violates community standards. Two days after Judge Doughty rendered his decision, this week, Facebook was still attaching warning labels to an online petition calling on ABC to include me in the upcoming debate. They said that violates their community standards.

The mainstream media was once the guardian of the First Amendment and democratic principles but has since joined this systemic attack on democracy. Also, the media justifies their censorship on the grounds of combating misinformation, but governments and oppressors don’t censor lies; they don’t fear lies. They fear the truth, and that’s what they censor.

I don’t want any of this to sound like a personal complaint because it’s not. For me, it’s all part of a journey, and it’s a journey I signed up for. But I need to make these observations because I think they’re critical for us doing the thing we need to do as citizens in a democracy to assess where we are in this country and what our democracy still looks like, and the assumptions about U.S. leadership around the globe. Are we really still a role model for democracy in this country? Or have we made it a kind of joke?

Here’s the good news: although mainstream outlets denied me a critical platform, it didn’t shut down my ideas, which have especially flourished among young voters and independent voters, thanks to the alternative media.

Many months ago, I promised the American people that I would withdraw from the race if I became a spoiler and altered the outcome of the election, but I had no chance of winning. In my heart, I no longer believe that I have a realistic path to electoral victory in the face of this relentless, systematic censorship and media control. So I cannot in good conscience ask my staff and volunteers to keep working their long hours or ask my donors to keep giving, when I cannot honestly tell them that I have a real path to the White House. Furthermore, our polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues: censorship, war, and chronic disease.

I want everyone to know that I am not terminating my campaign. I am simply suspending it and not ending it. My name will remain on the ballot in most states. If you live in a blue state, you can vote for me without harming or helping President Trump or Vice President Harris. In red states, the same will apply. I encourage you to vote for me. And if enough of you do vote for me, and neither of the major party candidates win 270 votes, which is quite possible; in fact, today our polling shows them tying at 269, I could conceivably still end up in the White House in a contention election. But in about ten battleground states, where my presence would be a spoiler, I’m going to remove my name, and I’ve already started that process and urge voters not to vote for me.

It’s with a sense of victory and not defeat that I’m suspending my campaign activities. Not only did we do the impossible by collecting a million signatures, we changed the national political conversation forever. Chronic disease, free speech, government corruption, and breaking our addiction to war have moved to the center of politics. And so I can say to all those who have worked so hard for the last year and a half, thank you for a job well done.

Three great causes drove me to enter this race in the first place, primarily. And these are the principal causes that persuaded me to leave the Democratic Party and run as an independent and now to throw my support to President Trump. The causes were free speech, the war in Ukraine, and the war on our children.

I’ve already described some of my personal experiences and struggles with the government’s censorship-industrial complex. I want to say a word about the Ukraine war. The military-industrial complex has provided us with that familiar comic book justification like they do on every war. And this one is a noble effort to stop a supervillain, Vladimir Putin, from invading the Ukraine and to thwart his Hitler-like march across Europe.

In fact, tiny Ukraine is a proxy in a geopolitical struggle initiated by the ambitions of the US neocons for American global hegemony. I’m not excusing Putin for invading Ukraine. He had other options, but the war is Russia’s predictable response to the reckless neocon project of extending NATO to encircle Russia: a hostile act. The credulous media rarely explain to Americans that we unilaterally walked away from two intermediate nuclear weapons treaties with Russia and then put nuclear missile systems in Romania and Poland. This is a hostile, hostile act. And the Biden White House repeatedly spurned Russia’s offer to settle this war peacefully.

The Ukraine war began in 2014, when U.S. agencies overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and installed a handpicked pro-Western government. They launched a deadly civil war against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. In 2019, America walked away from a peace treaty, the Minsk Agreement, that had been negotiated between Russia and Ukraine by European nations. And then in April of 2022, we wanted the war. In April 2022, President Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force President Zelenskyy to tear up a peace agreement that he and the Russians had already signed. The Russians were withdrawing troops from Kiev, Donbas, and Luhansk. And that peace agreement would have brought peace to the region and would have allowed Donbas and Luhansk to remain part of Ukraine.

President Biden stated that month that his objective in the war was regime change in Russia. His defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, simultaneously explained that America’s purpose in the war was to exhaust the Russian army and to degrade its capacity to fight anywhere else in the world. These objectives, of course, had nothing to do with what they were telling Americans about protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Ukraine is a victim in this war, and it is a victim of the West… both Russia and the West. Since then, we have forced Zelenskyy to tear up the agreement. We’ve squandered the flower of Ukrainian youth. As many as 600,000 Ukrainian kids and over 100,000 Russian kids, all of whom we should be mourning, have died. And Ukraine’s infrastructure is destroyed.

War has been a disaster for our country, as well. We have squandered nearly $200 billion already. And these are badly needed dollars in our suffering communities all over our country. The Nord Stream pipeline sabotage and the sanctions have destroyed Europe’s industrial base, which form the bulwark of U.S. national security. A strong Germany with a strong industry is a much, much stronger deterrent to Russia than a Germany that is de-industrialized and turned into just an extension of a U.S. military base.

We’ve pushed Russia into a disastrous alliance with China and Iran. We are closer to the brink of nuclear exchange than at any time since 1962. And the neocons in the White House don’t seem to care at all. Our moral authority and our economy are in shambles, and the war gave rise to the emergence of BRICS, which now threatens to replace the dollar as a global reserve currency.

This is a first-class calamity for our country. Judging by the bellicose, belligerent speech last night in Chicago, we can assume that President Harris will be an enthusiastic advocate for this and other neocon military adventures. President Trump says he will reopen negotiations with President Putin and end the war overnight as soon as he becomes President. This alone would justify my support for his campaign.

Last summer, it looked like no candidate was willing to negotiate a quick end to the Ukraine war, to tackle the chronic disease epidemic, to protect free speech and our constitutional freedoms, to clean corporate influence out of our government, or defy the neocons and their agenda of endless military adventurism. But now, one of the two candidates has adopted these issues as his own, to the point where he has asked to enlist me in his administration. I’m speaking, of course, of Donald Trump.

Less than two hours after President Trump narrowly escaped assassination, Calley Means called me on my cell phone. I was in Las Vegas. Calley is arguably the leading advocate for food safety, for soil regeneration, and for ending the chronic disease epidemic that is destroying America’s health and ruining our economy. Calley has exposed the insidious corruption at the FDA, the NIH, the HHS, and the USDA that has caused the epidemic.

Calley had been working on and off for my campaign and advising me on subjects since the beginning. Those subjects have been my primary focus for the last 20 years. I was delighted when Calley told me that he had also been advising President Trump. He told me that President Trump was anxious to talk to me about chronic disease and other subjects and to explore avenues of cooperation. Then he asked if I would take a call from the president.

President Trump telephoned me a few minutes later, and I met with him the following day. A few weeks later, I met again with President Trump and his family members and close advisers in Florida. And in a series of long, intense discussions, I was surprised to discover that we are aligned on many key issues. And in those meetings he suggested that we join forces as a unity party.

We talked about Abraham Lincoln’s team of rivals. That arrangement would allow us to disagree publicly and privately and fiercely, if need be, on issues over which we differ and also work together on the existential issues upon which we are in concordance. I was a ferocious critic of many of the policies during his first administration, and there are still issues and approaches upon which we continue to have very serious differences. But we are aligned with each other on other key issues, like ending of forever wars, ending the childhood disease epidemics, securing the border, protecting freedom of speech, unraveling the corporate capture of our regulatory agencies, and getting the U.S. intelligence agencies out of the business of propagandizing and censoring and surveilling Americans and interfering with our elections. Following my first discussion with President Trump, I tried unsuccessfully to open similar discussions with Vice President Harris. Vice President Harris declined to meet or even to speak with me.

Suspending my candidacy is a heart-rending decision for me. But I am convinced that it is the best hope for ending the Ukraine war, for ending the chronic disease epidemic that is eroding our nation’s vitality from the inside, and for finally protecting free speech. I feel a moral obligation to use this opportunity to save millions of American children, above all things.

In case some of you don’t realize how dire the condition is or children’s health and chronic diseases in general. I would urge you to view Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Calley Means and his sister, Doctor Casey Means, who was the top graduate of her class at Stanford Medical School. This is an issue that affects all of us far more directly and urgently than any culture war issue as well as all the other issues that we obsess over that are tearing apart our country. This is the most important issue. Therefore, it has the potential to bring us together. So, let me share a little bit about why I believe it’s so urgent.

Today, we spend more on healthcare than any country on Earth, twice what they pay in Europe. And yet, we have the worst health outcomes of any nation in the world. We’re about 79th in health outcomes, behind Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Mongolia, and other countries. Nobody has a chronic disease burden like we have. During the COVID epidemic, we had the highest body count of any country in the world. We had 16 percent of the COVID deaths even though we only have 4.2 percent of the world’s population.

The CDC says that’s because we are the sickest people on earth. We have the highest chronic disease rate on earth, and the average American who died from COVID had, on average, 3.8 chronic diseases. So these were people who had immune system collapse, who had mitochondrial dysfunction. And no other country has anything like this. Two-thirds of American adults and children suffer from chronic health issues. Fifty years ago, that number was less than one percent. So we’ve gone from one percent to 66 percent. In America, 74 percent of Americans are now overweight or obese, including 50 percent of our children. One hundred and twenty years ago, when somebody was obese, they were sent to the circus. There were case reports about them. Obesity is almost unknown. In Japan, the childhood obesity rate is three percent compared to our 50 percent.

Here, half of Americans have prediabetes or type two diabetes. When my uncle was president, when I was a boy, juvenile diabetes was effectively nonexistent. A typical pediatrician would see one case of diabetes during his entire 40 or 50-year career. Today, one out of every three kids who walks to his office is diabetic or prediabetic, and the mitochondrial disorder that causes diabetes is also causing Alzheimer’s, which is now classified as diabetes. And it’s costing this country more than our military budget every year. There’s been an explosion of neurological illnesses that I never saw as a kid. ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, Tourette’s syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, Asperger’s, autism. In the year 2000, the autism rate was one in 1,500. Now, autism rates in kids are one in 36, according to the CDC. Nobody’s talking about how one in every 22 kids in California has autism, and this is a crisis that 77 percent of our kids are too disabled to serve in the United States military.

What is happening to our country, and why isn’t this in the headlines every single day? There’s nobody else in the world that is experiencing it. This is only happening in America. And by the way, there has been no change in diagnosis, which the industry sometimes likes to say to say there has been no change in screening. This is a change in incidence. In my generation, 70-year-old men, the odds and rate are about one in 10,000. And in my kids’ generation, one in 34… I repeat, in California, one in 22. Why are we letting this happen? Why are we allowing this to happen to our children? These are the most precious assets that we have in this country. How can we let this happen to them?

About 18 percent of American teens have fatty liver disease. That’s like one out of every five. That disease, when I was a kid, only affected late-stage alcoholics who were elderly. Cancer rates are skyrocketing in the young and the old. Young adult cancers are up 79 percent, and one in four American women is on antidepressant medication, 40 percent of teens have a mental health diagnosis, 15 percent of high schoolers are on Adderall, and half a million children are on SSRIs.

So, what’s causing this suffering? I’ll name two culprits. First and the worst is ultra-processed foods. Seventy percent of American children’s diet is ultra-processed, which means industrially manufactured in a factory.  These foods consist primarily of processed sugar, ultra-processed grains, and seed oils. Laboratory scientists, many of whom formerly worked for the cigarette industry, which purchased all the big food companies in the 1970s and ‘80s, deployed thousands of scientists to invent new chemicals to make the food more addictive. And these ingredients didn’t exist a hundred years ago, humans aren’t biologically adapted to eat them. Hundreds of these chemicals are now banned in Europe. But they are ubiquitous in American processed foods.

The second culprit is toxic chemicals in our food, our medicine, and our environment. Pesticides, food additives, pharmaceutical drugs, and toxic waste permeate every cell of our bodies. This assault on our children’s cells and hormones is unrelenting. And to name just one problem: many of these chemicals increase estrogen. Because young children are ingesting so many of these hormone disruptors, America’s puberty rate is now occurring at age 10 to 13, which is six years earlier than girls were reaching puberty in 1900. Our country has the earliest puberty rates of any continent on the earth. And no, this isn’t because of better nutrition. This is not normal. Breast cancer is also estrogen-driven and now strikes one in 8 women. We are mass poisoning all of our children and our adults.

Considering the grievous human cause of this tragic epidemic of chronic disease, it seems almost crass to mention the damage it does to our economy. But I’ll say: it is crippling the nation’s finances. When my uncle was president, our country spent $0 on chronic disease. Today, government healthcare spending is almost all for chronic disease, and it’s double the military budget, and it is the fastest growing budget item in the federal budget. Chronic disease costs more to the economy as a whole, at least four trillion dollars, five times our military budget. And that’s a 20 percent drag on everything we do, and everything we aspire to. Poor and minority communities suffer disproportionately. People worry about DEI or about bigotry of any kind. This dwarfs anything. We are poisoning the poor; we are systematically poisoning minorities across this country.

Industry lobbyists have made sure that most of the food stamp lunch program, about 70 percent of food stamps, and 70 or 77 percent of school lunches are processed foods. There’s no vegetables. There’s nothing that you would want to eat. We are just poisoning the poor citizens. And that’s why they have the highest chronic disease burden of any demographic in our country and the highest in the world. The same food industry lobbied to make sure that nearly all agricultural subsidies go to commodity crops that are the feedstock of the processed food industry. These policies are destroying small farms and they’re destroying our soils.

We give about eight times as much in subsidies to tobacco than we do to fruits and vegetables. It makes no sense if we want a healthy country. The good news is that we can change all this, and we can change it very, very quickly. America can get healthy again. To do that, we need to do three things: first, we need to root out the corruption in our health agencies. Second, we need to change the incentives in our healthcare system. And third, we need to inspire Americans to get healthy again.

Eighty percent of NIH grants go to people who have conflicts of interest. These are the people… virtually everybody who Joe Biden just appointed to a new panel at the NIH to decide food recommendations, they’re all people who are from the industry, they are all people who are from the processed food companies. They’re deciding what Americans hear is healthy: the recommendations on the food pyramid, what goes to our school lunch programs, what goes to the food stamp programs; they’re all corrupted and conflicted individuals.

These agencies, the FDA, the USDA, CDC, all of them are controlled by giant for-profit corporations. Seventy-five percent of the FDA funding doesn’t come from taxpayers. It comes from pharma. And pharma executives and consultants and lobbyists cycle in and out of these agencies. With President Trump’s backing, I’m going to change that. We’re going to staff these agencies with honest scientists and doctors who are free from industry funding. We’re going to make sure the decisions of consumers, doctors, and patients are informed by unbiased science. A sick child is the best thing for the pharmaceutical industry. When American children or adults are sick with a chronic condition, they’re put on medication for their entire life.

Imagine what happens when Medicare starts paying for Ozempic, which costs $1,500 a month, and that’s being recommended for children as young as six over a condition, obesity, that is completely preventable and barely even existed a hundred years ago. Since 74 percent of Americans are obese, the cost if all of them took their Ozempic prescription is $3 trillion a year. This is a drug that has made Novo Nordisk the biggest company in Europe – it’s a Danish company, and the Danish government does not recommend it. It recommends a change in diet to treat obesity, and exercise. In our country, the recommendation now is for Ozempic to children as young as age six. Novo Nordisk is the biggest company in Europe, and virtually its entire value is based upon its projections of what Ozempic is going to sell to America.

And we have the food lobbyist… We have a bill in front of Congress today that is backed by the White House, backed by Vice President Harris, and President Biden to allow this to happen. This $3 trillion cause is going to bankrupt our country. For a fraction of that amount, we could buy organic food for every American family, three meals a day, and eliminate diabetes altogether.

We’re going to bring healthy food back to school lunches. We’re going to stop subsidizing the worst foods with our agricultural subsidies. We’re going to get toxic chemicals out of our food. We’re going to reform the entire food system. And for that, we need new leadership in Washington because, unfortunately, both the Democrats and the Republican parties are in cahoots with the big food producers, Big Pharma and Big AG, which are among the DNC’s major donors.

Vice President Harris has expressed no interest in addressing this issue. Four more years of Democratic rule will complete the consolidation of corporate and Neocon power, and our children will be the ones who suffer most. I got involved with chronic disease 20 years ago, not because I chose or wanted to. It was essentially thrust upon me; it was an issue that should have been central to the environmental movement. I was an essential leader at the time. But it was widely ignored by all the institutions, including the NGOs, who should have been protecting our kids against toxins. It was an orphaned issue, and I have a weakness for orphans. I watched generations of children get sicker and sicker. I had 11 siblings and I have 7 kids myself. I was conscious of what was happening in their classrooms and to their friends. And I watched sick kids, these damaged kids in that generation, almost all of them were damaged and nobody in power seemed to care or to even notice.

For 19 years, I prayed every morning that God would put me in a position to end this calamity. The chronic disease crisis was one of the primary reasons for my running for president, along with ending the censorship and the Ukraine war. It’s the reason I’ve made the heart-wrenching decision to suspend my campaign and to support President Trump. This decision is agonizing for me because of the difficulties it causes my wife, and my children, and my friends, but I have the certainty that this is what I’ve meant to do, and that certainty gives me internal peace, even in storms.

If I’m given the chance to fix the chronic disease crisis and reform our food production, I promise that within two years, we will watch the chronic disease burden lift dramatically. We will make Americans healthy again. Within four years, America will be a healthy country. We will be stronger, more resilient, more optimistic and happier. I won’t fail in doing this.

Ultimately, the future, however it happens, is in God’s hands and in the hands of American voters and in those of President Trump. If President Trump is elected and honors his word, the vast burden of chronic disease that now demoralizes and bankrupts the country will disappear. This is a spiritual journey for me. I reached my decision through deep prayer, through hard-nosed logic, and I asked myself what choices must I make to maximize my chances to save America’s children and restore national health.

I felt that if I refused this opportunity, I would not be able to look myself in the mirror, knowing that I could have saved the lives of countless children and reversed this country’s chronic disease epidemic. I’m 70 years old. I may have a decade to be effective. I can’t imagine that a President Harris would allow me or anyone to solve these dire problems.

After eight years of a President Harris, any opportunity for me to fix the problem will be out of my reach forever. President Trump has told me that he wants this to be his legacy. I’m choosing to believe that this time, he will follow through. His son, his biggest donors, his closest friends, all support this objective. My joining the Trump campaign will be a difficult sacrifice for my wife and children, but worthwhile if there’s even a small chance of saving these kids.

Ultimately, the only thing that will save our country and our children is if we choose to love our kids more than we hate each other. That’s why I launched my campaign: to unify America. My dad and uncle made such an enduring mark on the character of our nation, not so much because of any particular policies that they promoted, but because they were able to inspire profound love for our country and to fortify our sense of ourselves as a national community held together by ideals.

They were able to put their love into the intentions and hearts of ordinary Americans and to unify a national populist movement of Americans – blacks and whites, Hispanics, urban and rural Americans. They inspired affection, love, and high hopes, and a culture of kindness that continued to radiate among Americans from their memory.

That’s the spirit on which I ran my campaign and that I intend to bring into the campaign of President Trump. Instead of vitriol and polarization, I will appeal to the values and goals that we could achieve if only we weren’t at each other’s throats. The most unifying theme for all Americans is that we all love our children. If we all unite around that issue now, we can finally give them the protection, the health, and the future that they deserve. Thank you all very much.

By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
More From The Pulse

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Same Old Tories: Top ‘Conservative’ is Woke on Borders, Diversity, and Identity.

Sir James Cleverly, the Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Braintree and frontrunner for his party’s 2028 London mayoral nomination, stepped down from Kemi Badenoch’s Shadow Cabinet in late August 2026 to focus on the City Hall contest. A former Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary during the Conservatives’ most recent stretch in government (2010–2024), he now positions himself as an alternative to Lord Sadiq Khan, the Labour Party incumbent. However, a closer look at his views and record reveals a center-left politician more at ease with open borders and a multicultural redefinition of Britishness than with traditional conservative priorities such as immigration enforcement and maintaining national cohesion.


The National Pulse is 100% reader-funded. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. 


Open Borders in the Guise of ‘Free Market Labor Movements.’

Despite the party’s center-right branding, Cleverly has long advocated positions that treat mass migration primarily as an economic boon. He has written approvingly of a future defined by “free market labor movements”—that is, open borders for foreign workers, prioritizing employer demand over domestic wage pressures or community capacity.

He did advocate for the shift towards open borders to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, due to the social upheaval it would cause, but still predicted that “At some point in the future we will look back at our current (fairly) protectionist policies on free market labour movements with the same disbelief that we look back on the corn laws.”

As Home Secretary, Cleverly presided over the tail-end of the Boriswave influx. While he claimed that the unprecedented post-COVID migration spike his party engineered had been a “fatal mistake,” his earlier enthusiasm for liberal international labor markets puts him firmly in the camp of Conservatives whose public, restrictive position on immigration did not match his record.

Woke on Identity: Redefining Britishness as Defined by Foreign Foods and Imports.

Cleverly has a distinctly woke-left view of national identity. In one article, he described Britishness exclusively in terms of consuming foreign goods: “Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.”

Cleverly’s view elevates the enjoyment of foreign goods, cuisine, and media as the essence of Britishness. It echoes the broader progressive insistence that diversity is the defining feature of modern Britain, rather than national traditions or the national language, institutions, and history. Critics see it as the opposite of a coherent civic or cultural identity, replacing nationhood with a cosmopolitan marketplace.

Labeling Immigration Skeptics ‘Extremist and Racist.’

The son of an immigrant from Sierra Leone, Cleverly has repeatedly insisted that Britain’s social cohesion and sense of identity “is not being watered down by immigration.” Those who argue otherwise, he has maintained, are “extremist and racist.”

He has extended this claim across centuries of arrivals: “We have managed to stay British through immigration from the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Jews, Irish, West Indians, West Africans, East Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, etc., etc., etc. Britishness evolved, but it did not diminish.”

Notably, the “immigration” of the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans generally involved the violent overthrow of the existing political, social, and sometimes cultural order, suggesting that their arrival did indeed fundamentally alter the national character.

Party Context Under Badenoch.

Cleverly’s outlook sits comfortably within the current Conservative leadership. Party leader Kemi Badenoch has described herself as a “first-generation immigrant,” being born in London but raised in Nigeria. Like Cleverly, Badenoch publicly strikes a restrictionist posture on immigration, but her record in government includes lobbying to have limits on foreign students and migrant workers removed, which helped create the Boriswave.

Longstanding Hostility to Trump and America First.

Cleverly’s liberal instincts on migration and identity pair with strong disdain for President Donald J. Trump and the America First movement. In 2015, he publicly urged Republicans not to nominate Trump, writing on Twitter (now X): “Dear Republican colleagues, please, please, please don’t choose Donald Trump as the front man for American Right-of-Centre politics. Please.”

After Trump’s 2016 election and 2017 inauguration, Cleverly denounced the administration’s policies on immigration and Syrian refugees as “indefensible, unworkable and almost certainly unconstitutional.” By contrast, he later spoke warmly of meeting then-President Joe Biden in 2024, calling the Democrat “a great friend to the UK” despite his open hostility to Britain in general and the English in particular.


To help The National Pulse expose the gap between politicians’ public and private positions, please support our work: JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. 


Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
Sir James Cleverly, the Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Braintree and frontrunner for his party’s 2028 London mayoral nomination, stepped down from Kemi Badenoch's Shadow Cabinet in late August 2026 to focus on the City Hall contest. A former Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary during the Conservatives’ most recent stretch in government (2010–2024), he now positions himself as an alternative to Lord Sadiq Khan, the Labour Party incumbent. However, a closer look at his views and record reveals a center-left politician more at ease with open borders and a multicultural redefinition of Britishness than with traditional conservative priorities such as immigration enforcement and maintaining national cohesion. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

USAID’s Legacy: How American Taxpayers Funded Regime Change and Leftist Activism.

A Biden-era grant to a Serbian political organization is raising fresh questions about the legacy of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the foreign aid organization targeted for dismantling by President Donald J. Trump.


The National Pulse gives you deep dives into the issues that matter. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.


For decades, USAID presented itself as being engaged in altruistic operations like humanitarian assistance and economic development. However, its real, deeper history involved financing political opposition movements and so-called “color revolutions,” partisan media operations, voter-mobilization campaigns, and progressive ideological initiatives worldwide.

From the campaigns to topple former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević in 2000 to covert social media operations in Cuba, USAID’s political activities have frequently flown under the radar compared to more prominent humanitarian spending on things like food and medical aid.

The agency’s involvement in foreign politics is not simply a matter of speculation. Congressional documents, official USAID records, and various investigations have proven its role in promoting political transitions, cultivating activists, and advancing the preferred policies of agencies like the CIA and the Deep State overseas.

Serbia: American Money and a New Political Crisis.

The Center for Research, Transparency, and Accountability (CRTA), a Serbian NGO involved in election monitoring and public advocacy, has received $832,432.47 under a Biden-era USAID grant, with approximately $2.8 million yet to be given, meaning that despite massive cuts to USAID under the second Trump administration, money is still flowing to its political programs.

The award, established in 2023, supposedly for election integrity activities, was expanded on January 17, 2025, just three days before President Trump’s second inauguration.

The revelations come as Serbia prepares for parliamentary elections on October 25, with student-led protests presenting a serious challenge to the political establishment associated with former President Aleksandar Vučić. CRTA has publicized the protesters’ demands, while Vučić has accused foreign-backed NGOs of attempting to destabilize his government.

USAID’s Cold War Origins and CIA Connections.

USAID was established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, consolidating America’s foreign development programs into an agency intended to promote economic growth and stability overseas. The agency was created amid the Cold War and was largely used as a tool of “soft power” to influence regimes away from the USSR.

Its activities sometimes overlapped with American intelligence objectives. Accounts of Cold War operations in Southeast Asia describe the CIA’s use of USAID-related arrangements, including testimony concerning USAID cover in Laos. Some have even described USAID as a “cover” for CIA activity.

USAID’s political functions were also openly acknowledged. A Congressional Research Service examination of the agency’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) detailed its involvement in politically sensitive transitions, including support for opposition organizations in Serbia in the 1990s.

How Washington Helped Overthrow Serbia’s Milošević.

The most striking historical parallel to the current Serbian controversy is the American-financed campaign against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević in 2000. A Washington Post investigation published in December 2000 documented approximately $41 million in American appropriations during 1999 and 2000, much of which supported the political infrastructure opposing Milošević.

The campaign included political consultants, opinion polling, opposition training, election monitoring, and mass-produced propaganda. American taxpayers financed 2.5 million stickers bearing the Serbian slogan “Gotov je,” meaning “He’s finished,” as well as 5,000 cans of spray paint used by activists to spread anti-Milošević messages.

The International Republican Institute also trained leaders of Otpor, the student resistance movement that became central to Milošević’s downfall. American-funded consultants helped opposition groups develop messaging and mobilization strategies.

Popular culture was another weapon. A separate Washington Post report revealed that American assistance reached Serbian heavy-metal bands participating in voter-registration concerts under the banner of “Rock the Vote.”

A subsequent USAID evaluation documented the political importance of the agency’s Serbian activities. According to a Congressional Research Service summary, OTI spent approximately $8.68 million on 631 grants in Serbia and Montenegro between 1997 and October 2000.

Cuba: USAID’s Secret Social Media Network.

During the Obama administration, USAID secretly financed a Twitter-like communications network in Cuba called ZunZuneo. The platform used intermediaries and offshore arrangements to conceal its American government financing.

The service initially distributed material about sports, music, and entertainment, attracting Cuban users who were unaware of USAID’s involvement. Internal documents described ambitions to introduce political messaging and encourage mobilization against the Castro government. The operation even exploited interest surrounding a major concert by Colombian singer Juanes to test its messaging capabilities.

A subsequent USAID Inspector General investigation confirmed that implementers had deliberately concealed the American government’s role, including through offshore corporate arrangements. USAID disputed allegations that the project constituted a covert regime-change operation, arguing that discretion was necessary to protect participants and circumvent Cuban censorship.

Despite USAID’s statements, the operation revealed yet another time the agency had meddled in the political affairs of another country under the guise of being simply dedicated to humanitarian ventures.

Millions for LGBT Activism and Progressive Causes.

Beyond attempts to influence foreign governments, USAID also became an important international financier of progressive social ideologies across the globe, much of which was revealed when President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) looked into USAID’s activities in 2025.

Under former President Barack Obama, the agency expanded its involvement in LGBT advocacy through partnerships with organizations including the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Institute, and the Swedish Federation for LGBT Rights. According to USAID’s own partnership report, the LGBT Global Development Partnership represented an $18 million, four-year public-private initiative spanning 15 countries.

Its objectives included strengthening LGBT civil society organizations, training activists to participate in democratic processes, and conducting research intended to influence policy.

A Williams Institute analysis reported that USAID’s dedicated LGBT programming increased from approximately $6 million in 2021 to $25 million in 2024 under President Joe Biden. The agency also supported initiatives in Asia and Latin America addressing LGBT legal rights, discrimination, and political participation.

A 2015 Obama White House fact sheet disclosed approximately $3.3 million in USAID spending on stand-alone LGBT programs during fiscal year 2014, alongside $113 million in broader health and human-rights programs relevant to LGBT populations. Critics have questioned why American taxpayers were financing overseas social advocacy and political organizing, particularly in countries with different cultural and religious traditions.

Trump’s Crackdown—and the Political Networks Left Behind.

President Trump’s effort to dismantle USAID’s massive institutional structure represented a major challenge to Washington’s traditional foreign-aid establishment. For supporters of the America First agenda, the agency’s record raised a fundamental question: Why should American taxpayers finance political activism, foreign NGOs, and ideological initiatives overseas?

The historical record provides considerable evidence that USAID supported more than humanitarian assistance. In Serbia, its funding helped opposition activists defeat an incumbent government. In Cuba, it financed a communications network whose American sponsorship was deliberately concealed. Elsewhere, it supported organizations seeking changes to social policies and political participation.

The renewed controversy in Serbia suggests that dismantling an agency’s bureaucracy has not necessarily eliminated the infrastructure it created, nor stopped all of its funding.


To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep putting out the best quality analysis and news, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Image by Gary Bembridge.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
A Biden-era grant to a Serbian political organization is raising fresh questions about the legacy of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the foreign aid organization targeted for dismantling by President Donald J. Trump. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Sleaze Watch: Liberal Democrat Suspended for Filming Schoolchildren.

A left-wing Liberal Democrat politician in England has been suspended after recording minors outside a primary (elementary) school and flatly refusing official requests to delete the footage from social media.


The National Pulse covers the stories the corporate media leaves buried. To help support our work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Adrian Chapmanlaw, an elected official serving on the Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) Council in Dorset, England, was stripped of his party affiliation as an internal inquiry gets underway.

The disciplinary action follows administrators at Manorside Academy lodging a formal objection regarding a clip shared to Chapmanlaw’s “Dorset Safer Roads” social media page. While the politician insisted the recording was intended to document driving infractions on the restricted lines near the school, the published media displayed parents and children uncensored.

Leadership at Manorside Academy repeatedly urged the councillor to delete the broadcast because the faces of vulnerable youngsters and guardians were clearly visible. Chapmanlaw refused. According to school officials, leaving unedited recordings of parents and children visible to the public severely jeopardized student security and inflicted unnecessary panic on local families.

The Liberal Democrats’ local leader, Millie Earl, stated: “As a council group, we take safeguarding concerns raised by our partners very seriously. I have therefore suspended Councillor Chapmanlaw from the Liberal Democrat Group until the council’s standards procedure has been concluded. In line with our Standing Orders, we will then consider what further action should be taken.”


The National Pulse brings you local, national, and international news without corporate or government influence. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Chapmanlaw responded on the same Facebook page where he displayed his recordings by portraying himself as a victim. “This is what happens when you take a stand and try to make a difference. Kids die outside of schools, I am merely trying to protect them using the legal systems available to me,” he insisted.

He accused his political allies of abandoning him, writing: “People try to tear you down. Even people who are supposed to be your friends will throw you under the bus rather than support.”

Dismissing the school’s concerns, he added: “The complaint is complete cow excrement. There was no ‘safeguarding issue’ anybody with eyes can see that. I find this action completely disgusting, I am currently considering my options.”


The National Pulse keeps is 100% reader-funded. To keep the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team RADICALLY INDEPENDENT, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
A left-wing Liberal Democrat politician in England has been suspended after recording minors outside a primary (elementary) school and flatly refusing official requests to delete the footage from social media. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

RETRACTED: Restore’s Scottish Polling ‘Breakthrough’ Disappears After Kassam Exposes Flaw in Methodology.

A methodological error in the latest FindOutNow/Electoral Calculus Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (MRP) projections left Restore Britain’s constituency vote shares untouched under tactical voting scenarios, even as other parties’ shares were reallocated. The result temporarily showed the Elon Musk-backed, Conservative-allied Reform splinter party leading the “parties on the right” in 21 Scottish seats. After the error was identified by Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, that figure fell to zero.


The National Pulse examines the data beyond the headlines. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Restore Britain founder Rupert Lowe boasted on Thursday morning that the poll had the party ahead of both Reform and the Conservatives in more Scottish constituencies. He cited figures of Restore Britain 21, Conservatives 13, Reform 12, and 11 ties, writing, “This is remarkable. Restore Britain is now the second largest party in Scotland, and the largest party on the right – bigger than both Reform and the Tories.”

Those numbers did not survive scrutiny.

The Flaw Kassam Identified.

Raheem Kassam examined the tactical-voting tables and found that Restore’s share remained fixed at its pre-tactical level in every constituency, while other parties’ shares changed according to the modeled reallocation of voters who said they would switch. As Kassam put it: “I found that although the tactical-voting calculations appeared to affect support for other parties, they actually incorrectly left Restore’s share in every constituency exactly as it was prior to tactical voting.”

In a Labour–Scottish National Party (SNP) contest, for instance, the model reduced Reform’s share by shifting some of its supporters to the two main parties. Restore voters who had also indicated a willingness to vote tactically were not treated the same way. Their share stayed constant, producing an artificial relative gain for Lowe’s party.

Kassam tested this on Midlothian. Baseline figures showed SNP 31.96 percent, Labour 29.73 percent, Reform 15.62 percent, and Restore 8.92 percent. Under the flawed tactical adjustment, Reform fell to 8.15 percent while Restore remained at 8.92 percent. Once the reallocation was applied correctly, Restore dropped to 5.28 percent—below Reform.

Kassam contacted Electoral Calculus chief executive Martin Baxter the same morning. Baxter replied that there was “a problem with the re-allocation of Restore votes.” Corrected figures were published within hours.

Corrected Scottish and National Results.

Across all 57 Scottish constituencies, the three-party comparison among Restore Britain, Reform, and the Conservatives reversed. The original tally of 21 (Restore), 13 (Conservatives), 12 (Reform), and 11 ties became zero (Restore), 13 (Conservatives), 44 (Reform), and zero ties. Reform, not Restore, now leads the right-of-center pack in the large majority of Scottish seats under the tactical scenario.

Nationally, the correction also shifted seat projections under the tactical-voting model. Reform’s projected total rose from 83 to 108 seats. Labour’s fell from 287 to 263. Restore’s national tactical-voting vote share was revised from eight percent to six percent, placing it below the far-left Greens. Electoral Calculus’s updated page, reposted with corrections on October 22, 2026, confirms the six percent figure and the 108-seat Reform projection under first-past-the-post with tactical voting.

The same error had underpinned Lowe’s separate claim that the poll showed Restore matching the Greens on a “record 8%.” That national figure no longer holds under the corrected tactical scenario.

Why the Numbers Mattered—and Why They Did Not Hold.

MRP models produce constituency-level estimates precisely so that small absolute shifts can change relative rankings. Leaving one party’s share static while others declined created the appearance that Restore was gaining ground against Reform and the Conservatives in Scotland. Once the reallocation was applied consistently, those relative gains disappeared.

The corrected pattern is consistent with broader findings in the same poll: anti-Reform tactical voting is measurable, and right-of-center support remains fragmented. Restore continues to register a non-trivial national share, but the specific claim that it had overtaken both Reform and the Conservatives as the leading right-wing option across more Scottish seats than either did not survive the methodological fix.

“The incident obviously raises questions. If this can happen in a needle-in-a-haystack example in an MRP like this, and be seized upon by a party leader, what other polling errors have occurred in the past that have never been spotted?” Kassam asked, adding: “The other question that springs to my mind is didn’t Rupert Lowe, or anyone who runs his accounts check this before they posted 5 times about it on X, and multiple times on Facebook?”

It was good, he continued, that “Electoral Calculus were so swift and honest in correcting the error,” but noted that “hundreds of thousands of voters” had already been exposed to Lowe’s false claims, potentially lending weight to Restore’s largely narrative that it is achieving genuine momentum as a right-wing force. The evidence suggests that this is largely unsupported, and that voters concerned about mass migration and related issues would be advised to consolidate behind Reform, with Restore being a vehicle mainly to help Labour and the Conservatives retain their grip on British politics, rather than a future party of government, or even opposition.


Deep dive analysis like this takes time and research. To support our work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.


Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
A methodological error in the latest FindOutNow/Electoral Calculus Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (MRP) projections left Restore Britain’s constituency vote shares untouched under tactical voting scenarios, even as other parties’ shares were reallocated. The result temporarily showed the Elon Musk-backed, Conservative-allied Reform splinter party leading the “parties on the right” in 21 Scottish seats. After the error was identified by Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, that figure fell to zero. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

How Britain’s ‘Conservatives’ Blocked Fracking and Killed North Sea Oil and Gas.

On Wednesday, the British government approved Jackdaw, a natural gas production project in the North Sea. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the notionally center-right Conservatives (Tories), said it was the right move, contradicting 14 years of Tory government.


The National Pulse keeps you updated on the latest political news from Britain. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Badenoch vs Farage.

The Jackdaw gas project is a natural gas development in the central North Sea, approximately 150 miles off the coast of Aberdeen, a city in north-east Scotland. The project was originally approved under the Conservatives in 2022, but they allowed it to be delayed by lawfare over whether its environmental assessment properly accounted for carbon emissions from burning the gas. According to government projections, the project could generate £2.9 billion for the country’s economy, create jobs, and lower energy costs.

Following the Labour government’s decision to finally approve Jackdaw, Badenoch posted on X (formerly Twitter): “Finally. Labour spent 2 years faffing about to make a decision which Conservatives had already approved 2 years ago. If they’d done this in the summer we’d have had that gas heating British homes this Christmas. An unnecessary waste of time and money by a party that puts its own interest above the country’s.”

In response, Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage posted: “Kemi Badenoch is arguing for more North Sea oil and gas. Has she forgotten that the Tories taxed the industry to destruction?”


The National Pulse does not rely on government or corporate cash, so we need your support. Please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. 


The Tories’ Record on Tax.

Conservative-led governments between 2010 and 2024 made several major decisions that increased the tax burden on North Sea oil and gas.

In 2011, then-Chancellor George Osborne imposed a major tax hike on North Sea oil and gas production in his March budget. Specifically, Osborne increased the North Sea supplementary charge from 20 percent to 32 percent. He also restricted tax relief for decommissioning costs. However, between 2014 and 2016, following the Conservatives’ tax hike, the price of oil collapsed. In response, the Conservative-led government was forced to incrementally reverse the 2011 increase. The charge was cut from 32 percent to 30 percent in 2014. The charge was then cut to 20 percent in 2015 and then to ten percent in 2016. This coincided with a cut to Petroleum Revenue Tax, which decreased from 50 percent to 35 percent in March 2015.

However, in May 2022, then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak introduced the Energy Profits Levy, a 25 percent tax on profits from North Sea oil and gas production. The levy was imposed on top of an official 40 percent tax rate, taking the combined rate of tax to 65 percent. The levy was subsequently increased to 35 percent in January 2023, raising the official rate to 75 percent. The increase coincided with a cut in investment allowance from 80 percent to 29 percent. In July 2024, the Conservative government announced plans to abolish the investment allowance altogether. This heavily discouraged investment in new projects and production.

At present, North Sea oil and gas producers face a 30 percent ring-fence corporation tax rate, distinct from the standard corporate tax rate. While the ring-fence corporation tax rate was imposed in 2002, during the Labour government of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Conservatives’ interventions significantly compounded this tax burden. Altogether, high taxes and burdensome regulations have contributed to closures and significant job losses.

The Tories’ Record on Net Zero.

The Conservatives’ record of heavily taxing North Sea oil and gas production is deeply entwined with the party’s advocacy of Net Zero.

In June 2019, then-Prime Minister Theresa May’s government changed the legally binding 2050 emissions target from an 80 percent reduction to net zero emissions, making Net Zero a central long-term framework for policy formulation and placing severe restrictions on oil and gas projects. The initial 80 percent target was introduced by former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2008.

In November 2019, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an immediate moratorium on fracking. The Conservatives’ December 2019 general election manifesto committed to maintaining the moratorium, which was temporarily lifted under then-Prime Minister Liz Truss in September 2022 but reimposed by her successor, Rishi Sunak, the month after.

Roughly a year he announced his fracking moratorium, Johnson’s government announced a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2030. This coincided with plans to increase heat-pump installations to 600,000 a year by 2028 in a push to support low-carbon heating, reflecting the Tories’ push to incrementally eliminate natural gas businesses.

Significantly, successive British governments’ decisions to fund Net Zero through energy bills has made electricity around four times more expensive than natural gas per unit, according to a recent report from Energy UK.


The National Pulse strives to set the record straight. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.


Image via UK Government.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
On Wednesday, the British government approved Jackdaw, a natural gas production project in the North Sea. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the notionally center-right Conservatives (Tories), said it was the right move, contradicting 14 years of Tory government. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

CREEP: Top Telegraph Writer Calls Kemi ‘Mummy.’

Telegraph sketch writer and podcast host Tim Stanley has spent nearly two years referring to Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch as “mummy,” repeatedly casting himself and other male journalists as little boys who enjoy testing how far they can push her before she “gives us a smack.” The pattern began the day she won the leadership and has continued into late 2026.


To help The National Pulse hold the corporate media to account, please JOIN PULSE+ or MAKE A DONATION today.


Origins.

On November 2, 2024, the day Badenoch was elected Conservative Party leader, Stanley published a column titled “‘Mummy won and I’m very happy’ – she’ll give this country the kick up the backside it needs.” It opened with the line “Mummy won!” and portrayed the result as the arrival of a firm, disciplinary hand.⁠

Three days later, he followed with a piece headlined “Mummy is in charge of the Tories now,” describing how she assembled her Shadow Cabinet.⁠

‘Little Boys Seeing How Far We Can Wind Up Mummy.’

In the November 2024 piece, he addressed claims that Badenoch was too confrontational and aggressive with the media by writing: “Kemi is too confrontational, said a few, too aggressive with the media. They don’t realise that most male journalists rather like that, that we’re still little boys seeing how far we can wind up mummy before she gives us a smack.”

He added: “Never mind ‘do the Tories need her?’, the country needs her. We are wet, self-indulgent and, in my case, wearing week-old underwear. This woman can give us all a good kick up the backside.”

Stanley—who is only around two years younger than Badenoch—has continued to lean into the same imagery throughout Badenoch’s tenure as leader, describing the Conservative Party as a collection of noisy children who need a firm maternal figure to keep them in line, and likening Badenoch’s recent party conference speech delivery to a stern warning delivered to misbehaving kids in the back of a car.


Deep dives like this take time to assemble. If you want to support our work, please JOIN PULSE+ or MAKE A DONATION today.


The ‘Joke’ That Never Ended.

On October 8, 2025, Stanley wrote that “Mummy is moving to where the voters really are.” Further examples from later columns include a December 2025 sketch in which he described Badenoch confronting the Labour frontbench over budget briefings in the House of Commons, writing: “Which frontbencher told the press the Budget was a ‘disaster’? asked Mummy. ‘Was it you? Or you? I think it was you!'”

Covering the October 2026 Conservative conference, he wrote, “Mummy will protect us. Mummy knows what’s what. But while she’s writing her conference speech, dictated to a CCHQ eunuch as she swims in a marble bath filled with milk, Kemi has to delegate to weaker men.”

Reviewing her speech the next day, he added, “Mummy was then present, and one felt an immediate duty to behave better. Blue dress, flashing eyes, she has mastered the art of appearing emotional while holding it tightly beneath the surface.”

Stanley, as one of Badenoch’s leading boosters in Britain’s establishment press, may well be doing more harm to the tainted Conservative Party brand than good, as a grown man repeatedly describing a senior female politician as his “mummy” and positioning himself among the “little boys” who enjoy her leadership style as maternal discipline.


The National Pulse is 100% reader-funded. If you value exclusive reporting and analysis from Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN PULSE+ or MAKE A DONATION today.


Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
Telegraph sketch writer and podcast host Tim Stanley has spent nearly two years referring to Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch as “mummy,” repeatedly casting himself and other male journalists as little boys who enjoy testing how far they can push her before she "gives us a smack." The pattern began the day she won the leadership and has continued into late 2026. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

The BBC Put a Hamas-Supporting Illegal Immigrant Ex-Con in Charge of ‘Responsible AI.’

The BBC has placed an Algerian-born former illegal immigrant, who served time in prison for immigration deception and publicly defended Hamas rocket attacks as legitimate resistance, in a senior position overseeing its use of artificial intelligence (AI). The revelation comes amid growing scrutiny of the backgrounds and political sympathies of those employed by Britain’s publicly funded institutions, as pro-Palestinian activism has become increasingly influential.


The National Pulse brings the details of the latest stories from around the world. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.


Hicham Yezza, the BBC’s Principal Data Scientist for Responsible AI, was sentenced to nine months in prison in 2009 after falsely claiming he had permission to remain in Britain. His visa had expired in 2003, but he continued living in the country as an illegal immigrant for more than five years, subsequently deceiving immigration authorities about his status.

The sentencing judge described Yezza’s actions as a deliberate and prolonged manipulation of Britain’s immigration controls.

Despite his criminal history, Yezza avoided deportation, successfully appealed against removal in 2010, and subsequently obtained British citizenship. He joined BBC Monitoring in 2021 before assuming his current AI position in July 2025. The broadcaster now employs him to help determine how AI systems should handle news and information, including the development of benchmarks for assessing AI performance in public-service media.

Immigration Offender to BBC AI Adviser.

Yezza’s immigration conviction was not his first encounter with British authorities. In 2008, police arrested him after discovering an al-Qaeda training manual on his computer at the University of Nottingham. The document had been sent to him by a postgraduate researcher studying Islamist terrorism. Both men were later released without terrorism charges. However, Yezza’s subsequent political statements have raised additional questions about his suitability for a role at a broadcaster legally obliged to maintain impartiality.

Yezza described Israel in 2018 as an apartheid state established through ethnic cleansing. In 2021, he characterized Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel as acts of Palestinian resistance. Yezza also founded the pro-Palestinian publication Ceasefire, which he edited before joining the BBC.

The broadcaster has defended his employment, claiming that his prior activities were unrelated to his work at the corporation and that he had not violated its social media policies while employed there. While this may be true, Yezza’s background is causing concern amid widespread instances of pro-Palestine bias at the BBC.

The BBC Has Fired Others For Challenging Its Ideology.

The broadcaster has previously disciplined employees over views that seem to counter its woke left ideology, including criticism of its coverage of Hamas and opposition to gender-neutral language.

In 2024, veteran BBC Radio Lancashire journalist Sean McGinty was dismissed following disputes involving his criticism of the broadcaster’s Israel-Hamas coverage and comments on transgender issues. McGinty, who had worked for the corporation for more than two decades, subsequently lost an employment tribunal case. The BBC cited misconduct and breaches of editorial policies.

Meanwhile, BBC News presenter Martine Croxall was found to have breached impartiality guidelines after visibly pulling a face while reading the phrase “pregnant people” during a 2025 broadcast. The BBC upheld complaints, ruling that her reaction suggested a personal opinion on a controversial issue, heedless of the fact that “pregnant people” is itself an ideologically loaded term.

Britain’s Public Institutions Have Faced Similar Scandals.

The BBC controversy is not the first time a British public institution has faced criticism over employing individuals with serious criminal backgrounds. In 2017, London’s Southwark Council admitted that it had employed a woman previously convicted under the Terrorism Act.

The woman, identified as Ms. Girma, worked as a customer service officer despite her prior conviction. According to the council’s official statement, she had initially disclosed a conviction without specifying its nature, and the authority did not bother to investigate it any further.

Her employment was terminated when the full details emerged. The council acknowledged failures in its recruitment procedures and commissioned further scrutiny of its vetting arrangements.

British Charities Are Also Being Infiltrated.

Britain’s charitable sector has also faced serious questions about its ability to prevent extremist activity. A Charity Commission investigation into Brighton Mosque and Muslim Community Centre uncovered major failures after a former trustee delivered a speech encouraging violent jihad at the mosque in November 2020.

The former trustee, who had previously served as the mosque’s imam, was convicted of encouraging terrorism in April 2022 and received a custodial sentence. The regulator found that trustees had failed to protect the charity from extremist abuse despite being aware of the risks associated with the individual.

The Charity Commission subsequently intervened, appointing new trustees and disqualifying former trustee Dr. Karim Aboutayab for four years and six months over separate governance failures.

The case revealed how inadequate oversight can enable extremist activity within organizations operating under Britain’s regulated charitable framework. Unlike Yezza, whose terrorism-related arrest resulted in no charges, the Brighton case involved a criminal conviction for encouraging terrorism.

Hamas-Support Is Infecting Britain’s Establishment Parties.

Controversies involving rhetoric sympathetic to Hamas and Islamist extremism have also reached Britain’s mainstream political parties.

In October 2024, Liberal Democrat councilor Leena Sarah Farhat was suspended after sharing a social media post that appeared to celebrate Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks against Israel. Farhat, who had also stood as a parliamentary candidate, reposted a message praising the attacks as an anti-colonial uprising. She subsequently apologized, describing her decision to share the message as a mistake.

The Labour Party faced a separate scandal during the February 2024 Rochdale by-election when its candidate, Azhar Ali, claimed Israel had deliberately allowed the October 7 attacks to provide justification for invading Gaza. Labour initially defended Ali before withdrawing its support following additional revelations about his comments concerning Jewish media figures.

Britain’s Institutions Are Not Unbiased.

The BBC’s decision to employ Yezza reveals that the broadcaster will not only tolerate but will also defend employees with immigration fraud convictions and historic support for the actions of terrorist groups, if they are on board with the BBC’s leftist ideology.

Those who have spoken out about leftist ideologies have been disciplined or even fired in recent years, showing that the broadcaster is hardly impartial, despite its own claims to the contrary.


To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team inform you of the latest global developments, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Image by Sebastiandoe5.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
The BBC has placed an Algerian-born former illegal immigrant, who served time in prison for immigration deception and publicly defended Hamas rocket attacks as legitimate resistance, in a senior position overseeing its use of artificial intelligence (AI). The revelation comes amid growing scrutiny of the backgrounds and political sympathies of those employed by Britain's publicly funded institutions, as pro-Palestinian activism has become increasingly influential. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

EU’s Brexit Negotiator Says Rejoining Means Accepting Free Migration. Here’s What That Would Mean:

Earlier this month, Michel Barnier, the European Union’s former Brexit negotiator, said that Britain must accept freedom of movement to rejoin the bloc.


The National Pulse tracks Britain’s relationship with the European Union. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Barnier’s Warning.

Barnier said that the United Kingdom would have to accept Freedom of Movement if it sought to return to the European Union’s Single Market, a borderless economic and migration area encompassing all EU member states as well as non-EU countries Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, with Switzerland replicating much of it through sector-by-sector bilateral trade agreements.

While Barnier said the 27-country bloc was open to rebuilding closer ties with the former member state, particularly in defense and foreign policy, and praised British support for Ukraine, he stressed that Britain could not pick and choose the parts of the European single market it wanted. He emphasized that the EU’s “Four Freedoms”—free movement of services, goods, capital, and people—were “indivisible.”

“There will be no marché unique à la carte, Single Market à la carte—no cherry picking,” he said in an interview with LBC.

The former French prime minister’s comments follow British Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s decision to seek closer co-operation with the EU. The Prime Minister has also signaled the possibility of reversing Brexit, the United Kingdom’s 2016 democratic decision to leave the EU, which took effect in 2020. “We could go all the way” in terms of rejoining, the Prime Minister said at the time, alleging that Brexit had done “more harm than good.”

Barnier’s comments also coincide with a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), a George Soros-funded left-wing think tank with close ties to the Prime Minister’s inner circle in Number 10 Downing Street, as well as an agreement between Britain and the EU to hold a so-called “reset” summit in late November.


The National Pulse does not rely on government or corporate cash, so we need your support. Please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. 


What Does This Mean?

According to a new analysis conducted by The National Pulse last month, rejoining the EU, or its Single Market on Norway-style terms, could have significant ramifications for the United Kingdom. Specifically, the analysis compares net migration projections of staying outside the EU versus rejoining the bloc.

In the low scenario, Britain is projected to receive an additional 19,000 net migrants per year by the fifth year after rejoining the EU. In the middle scenario, Britain is projected to receive an additional 82,000 net migrants annually by the fifth year, with a cumulative increase to roughly 714,000 over ten years. In the high scenario, Britain is projected to receive an extra 200,000 net migrants per year by the fifth year, resulting in roughly 1.76 million additional migrants over a decade.

The Soros Org Report.

The recently published IPPR report anticipates the need for the British government to “develop a new political language about Europe, reflected by the government in its communications strategy,” and the need to rejoin the bloc “either through a referendum or a clear manifesto commitment” to secure democratic consent. It advises that the British government’s communication strategy “should stress how today’s Europe meets British goals on issues from migration to security” and demonstrate “how a common effort increases our sovereign autonomy and allows us better control of our own fortunes.”

“Britain’s assumptions about its place in the world no longer hold, upturned by Russian aggression, American unreliability and Chinese coercion. Increasingly, it is size and scale that determines autonomy and sovereignty; who can act against pressures, and who must absorb them,” claims the report’s summary.

Consequently, any campaign aimed at ensuring the United Kingdom remains outside the EU will need to account for the fact that the battle-lines of the 2016 referendum will not necessarily re-emerge. Instead, a hypothetical re-join campaign is likely to reframe EU membership as a form of risk mitigation and lean into the idea of “autonomy,” echoing French President Emmanuel Macron’s advocacy of so-called “strategic autonomy.” This posits that European integration is necessary to develop the capabilities and scale, especially in areas like defense and technology, in order to reduce European nations’ reliance on (and vulnerability to) the United States, China, and Russia.


The National Pulse strives to keep you informed. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.


Image via the Jacques Delors Institute.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
Earlier this month, Michel Barnier, the European Union's former Brexit negotiator, said that Britain must accept freedom of movement to rejoin the bloc. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Italy’s ‘Maranza’ Menace: The Migrant-Background Youth Gangs Terrorizing Milan.

Violent youth gangs associated with Italy’s second-generation immigrant communities have turned the streets of Milan into scenes of chaos, looting, and destruction, prompting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to announce sweeping new law-and-order measures. The disturbances, which erupted over the weekend of October 17–18, saw thousands of young people descend on the northern Italian city’s historic city center, attacking police officers, smashing storefronts, and ransacking businesses.


The National Pulse is here to keep you as informed as possible. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.


According to Italian news agency ANSA, the violence caused damage initially estimated at more than half a billion euros, approximately $580 million, although the figure is just an estimate so far.

Police deployed tear gas and water cannons as masked rioters hurled stones, bottles, and concrete blocks at officers. Disturbances were also reported in other major Italian cities, such as Bologna, Brescia, Bergamo, and Turin, fueling fears that the unrest may spread across northern Italy.

Children As Young As  11 Involved in the Violence.

According to police-sourced figures, authorities brought 271 individuals to police headquarters, including 220 minors and 60 foreign nationals. Of those, 32 were formally arrested, including 23 minors and 13 foreign nationals. Fourteen police officers were reported injured in Sunday’s violence.

Italian media reporting described children as young as 10 and 11 wearing masks, carrying clubs, and riding scooters through the streets while participating in the disorder. A report identified the growing influence of the so-called Maranza phenomenon, a youth subculture associated with aggressive street behavior, intimidation, and criminal activity.

The term has become particularly prominent in Milan, where groups of teenagers, including many from North African and Eastern European immigrant backgrounds, have attracted growing attention from police.

The New Migrant Generation Hates the West.

Parents gathered outside Milan police stations after discovering their children had been detained following the violence. One Tunisian father, who described working tirelessly to support his family, said he was ashamed and disappointed over his son’s alleged involvement. Others reportedly discovered their children had traveled into central Milan only after being told by police.

The riots initially developed around demonstrations against rising living costs, largely inspired by the French riots going on at the same time. However, footage circulating on social media apps like TikTok and Instagram reportedly encouraged teenagers from surrounding suburbs to join the disorder.

Some participants appeared more interested in filming themselves looting shops and confronting police than advancing any sort of political movement. Italian authorities also identified far-left activists among the demonstrators, something also seen during the mass riots in France.

Meloni Sends the Army In.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni responded to the rioting on October 20, approving an emergency security decree intended to restore order and strengthen penalties against violent offenders. The government authorized the deployment of an additional 500 soldiers to Milan through the end of 2026.

The measures also introduce a new criminal offense for violent participation in demonstrations, carrying penalties of up to five years in prison and fines reaching approximately $22,500. Parents could be made financially responsible for damage caused by their minor children, while prosecutors would receive expanded powers to pursue criminal cases involving offenders aged 14 and older.

Meloni described the involvement of so many children in the violence as disturbing, warning against allowing images of young rioters stealing and destroying property to inspire further copycat attacks. The crackdown builds on previous security legislation introduced by Meloni’s government, including 2023 measures targeting juvenile crime.

Migrant Riots Are Spreading Across Europe.

The violence in Milan has similarities to the mass riots in France, which saw leftist agitators and migrant background youth loot and burn cities across the country, including burning down the historic city hall in the city of Limoges.

The violence may be a key test for Meloni, who has often touted her tough-on-crime policies and claimed to be opposed to mass migration. The allegations that many of those involved are second or third-generation migrants reveal the utter failure of integration policies in the country, a fact Meloni will have to address.

With social media playing a large part in the riots, it remains to be seen if Meloni, like many other European leaders, will make moves to restrict access to platforms like Instagram and TikTok for young people.


To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team deliver you the latest news and analysis, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
Violent youth gangs associated with Italy's second-generation immigrant communities have turned the streets of Milan into scenes of chaos, looting, and destruction, prompting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to announce sweeping new law-and-order measures. The disturbances, which erupted over the weekend of October 17–18, saw thousands of young people descend on the northern Italian city's historic city center, attacking police officers, smashing storefronts, and ransacking businesses. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Energy Industry Exposes Britain’s Net Zero Catastrophe as Prices Soar.

Net zero is making electricity prohibitively expensive, according to a new report from Britain’s energy industry, raising new questions about the severe economic consequences of the green agenda and the role of the Conservative and Labour governments who have implemented it.


The National Pulse gives you original analysis of trends across the globe. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.


A report published this week by Energy UK reveals that electricity has been approximately four times more expensive than natural gas per unit, with government-imposed policy costs contributing to the enormous disparity.

The findings come as British manufacturers struggle with some of the highest electricity prices in the Western world, while Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, are promising to dismantle the country’s net zero agenda and deliver substantial reductions in household energy bills.

British governments have spent years encouraging households and businesses to abandon gas in favor of electricity, while imposing costs that make electricity considerably more expensive, amid a cost-of-living crisis.

The Hidden Costs of Britain’s Net Zero Agenda.

Energy UK’s October 20 report, Sparking Change: How to Make Clean Heat Cheaper and Accelerate Electrification, acknowledges that Britain’s approach to financing decarbonization and social programs through electricity bills has made electricity artificially expensive compared with gas.

These costs include the Renewables Obligation, a subsidy scheme supporting renewable electricity generators, as well as other government programs financed through household and commercial energy bills.

Carbon pricing policies, including the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, impose an additional cost on electricity generated from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, substantial investment in the electricity network and the costs of balancing intermittent renewable generation contribute to the overall price of power.

Energy UK’s findings reveal that government policy has helped create a system in which electricity is considerably more expensive than the fuel consumers are being encouraged to switch to for the sake of the environment.

The report estimates that transferring remaining domestic electricity policy costs to general taxation would require approximately $3.34 billion annually in additional government spending. Combined with changes to gas standing charges, the reforms could reduce the electricity-to-gas price ratio from approximately four-to-one to three-to-one.

British Industry Is Being Crushed.

Energy UK reports that non-domestic electricity prices in Great Britain are around 50 percent higher than the median among G7 economies, crippling British business competitiveness on the global stage.

Energy-intensive manufacturers, including steelmakers, chemical producers, and heavy industrial businesses, are in the worst position, as they depend on low energy prices to keep their own costs down. Other countries are in much better positions, like France, which benefits from an extensive nuclear power industry, while American manufacturers enjoy access to comparatively cheap natural gas and electricity.

Britain, meanwhile, has pursued increasingly inane and self-harming decarbonization targets while maintaining a system in which wholesale electricity prices frequently reflect the cost of gas-fired generation.

An October report examining British steelmakers highlighted an electricity cost disadvantage of nearly $40 per megawatt-hour compared with French competitors. For companies consuming enormous quantities of electricity, such differences can translate into millions of dollars in additional annual operating expenses.

Major British Industrialist’s Warning of Impending Doom.

The growing industrial crisis was highlighted in September when billionaire industrialist Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s chemical giant INEOS announced it was suspending operations at three chemical plants in Hull. The company blamed high European natural gas prices, which have made chemical production increasingly uncompetitive against manufacturers in the United States and China.

The three plants collectively employ almost 4,000 people and produce chemicals used in pharmaceuticals, clothing, cosmetics, detergents, and construction materials. Ratcliffe warned that European manufacturers were being undermined by a combination of high energy prices and carbon taxation.

He claimed that European natural gas prices had reached approximately 12 times those in the United States and eight times those in China. The industrialist’s warning illustrates a wider danger facing Britain: businesses may relocate production overseas rather than continue operating under an increasingly expensive domestic energy system.

Closures can destroy skilled manufacturing jobs and weaken Britain’s industrial supply chains without even having much of an impact on global emissions, particularly when production shifts to countries with more carbon-intensive industries. The INEOS decision provides a clear example of what happens when environmental targets take precedence over industrial competitiveness.

Reform UK Promises to Scrap Net Zero and Cut Energy Bills.

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is proposing a radically different approach to Britain’s energy crisis, promising to reverse the net zero policies pursued by successive Conservative and Labour governments. Under its official energy platform, Reform pledges to cut average household energy bills by approximately $334 annually within its first 100 days in government.

The party intends to achieve this by removing government-imposed policy costs from energy bills, transferring renewable subsidy obligations to the Treasury, and pursuing the renegotiation or termination of contracts it considers unfair to consumers.

Unlike Labour, which remains committed to the Green agenda, no matter the cost to Britons, Reform argues that the immediate priority should be reducing costs for households and businesses. The party has also pledged to scrap net zero policies it believes are undermining Britain’s economic competitiveness, while supporting nuclear generation and expanding domestic energy production.

Its proposals would mark a massive departure from the climate policies maintained by the Conservatives during their 14 years in government and subsequently embraced by Labour.

Reform deputy leader Richard Tice has made the party’s energy commitments a personal political test. In an October 1 speech in Doncaster, Tice pledged to resign if a Reform government failed to reduce average annual household energy bills by approximately $334 within its first 100 days.

Tice also accused Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband of failing to deliver promised energy savings when he served as Energy Secretary from 2024 to 2026, arguing that Britain’s green agenda had become an obstacle to economic prosperity.

Reform UK advocates increasing domestic oil and gas production, reducing dependence on foreign energy suppliers, and supporting nuclear power as a reliable source of electricity. It also favors reversing policies that discourage investment in Britain’s remaining fossil fuel resources.

For energy-intensive manufacturers, these measures could potentially reduce regulatory costs and improve confidence in long-term domestic energy supplies. Reform’s platform represents one of the only direct challenges to the assumption that Britain’s energy future must be organized primarily around achieving net zero, which is shared by nearly all of the establishment political parties in the country.

Britain’s Energy Future Requires Major Changes.

Energy UK’s latest findings are a late admission that net-zero policies are harming regular people. Even an organization committed to expanding clean electricity acknowledges that government policy costs have contributed to making electricity artificially expensive.

Its proposed solution is to restructure those costs and accelerate electrification. Reform UK, by contrast, wants to dismantle substantial parts of the net zero framework itself.

The Conservative governments that established and expanded Britain’s net zero commitments, and the Labour government now pursuing them, are finally starting to realize that their Green Agenda dreams are hurting their voters, but they still show no sign of changing course

For Farage and Reform UK, the situation is simple: cheaper energy, domestic production, and industrial competitiveness should take precedence over dubiously effective climate goals that are damaging people’s lives in the name of ideology.


To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team provide you with more of the original reporting and analysis you deserve, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Image by Gary Bembridge.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
Net zero is making electricity prohibitively expensive, according to a new report from Britain's energy industry, raising new questions about the severe economic consequences of the green agenda and the role of the Conservative and Labour governments who have implemented it. show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.