Friday, October 23, 2026

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

ICYMI: Trump’s Full Speech to Globalist World Economic Forum in Davos.

President Donald J. Trump made a virtual appearance at the globalist World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland on Thursday, drawing battle lines by emphasizing national sovereignty, rejecting its climate agenda, and threatening the European Union (EU) on trade.

READ:

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much, Klaus [Schwab]. And hello to everyone in beautiful Davos.

This has been a truly historic week in the United States. Three days ago, I took the oath of office, and we began the golden age of America. The recent presidential election was won by millions of votes and all seven — every one of them — all seven swing states. It was a massive mandate from the American people like hasn’t been seen in many years. And some of the political pundits, even some of my so-called enemies, said it was the most consequential election victory in 129 years. That’s quite nice.

What the world has witnessed in the past 72 hours is nothing less than a revolution of common sense. Our country will soon be stronger, wealthier, and more united than ever before, and the entire planet will be more peaceful and prosperous as a result of this incredible momentum and what we’re doing and going to do.

My administration is acting with unprecedented speed to fix the disasters we’ve inherited from a totally inept group of people and to solve every single crisis facing our country.

This begins with confronting the economic chaos caused by the failed policies of the last administration. Over the past four years, our government racked up $8 trillion in wasteful deficit spending and inflicted nation-wrecking energy restrictions, crippling regulations, and hidden taxes like never before. The result is the worst inflation crisis in modern history and sky-high interest rates for our citizens and even throughout the world. Food prices and the price of almost every other thing known to mankind went through the roof.

President Biden totally lost control of what was going on in our country but, in particular, with our high-inflation economy and at our border. Because of these ruinous policies, total government spending this year is $1.5 trillion higher than was projected to occur when I left office just four years ago. Likewise, the cost of servicing the debt is more than 230 percent higher than was projected in 2020.

The inflation rate we are inheriting remains 50 percent higher than the historic target. It was the highest inflation probably in the history of our country. That’s why, from the moment I took office, I’ve taken rapid action to reverse each and every one of these radical left policies that created this calamity — in particular, with immigration, crime, and inflation.

On day one, I signed an executive order directing every member of my Cabinet to marshal all powers at their disposal to defeat inflation and reduce the cost of daily life. I imposed a federal hiring freeze, a federal regulation freeze, a foreign aid freeze, and I created the new Department of Government Efficiency.

I terminated the ridiculous and incredibly wasteful Green New Deal — I call it the “Green New Scam”; withdrew from the one-sided Paris Climate Accord; and ended the insane and costly electric vehicle mandate. We’re going to let people buy the car they want to buy.

I declared a national em- — energy emergency — and it’s so important — national energy emergency to unlock the liquid gold under our feet and pave the way for rapid approvals of new energy infrastructure. The United States has the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we’re going to use it.

Not only will this reduce the cost of virtually all goods and services, it will make the United States a manufacturing superpower and the world capital of artificial intelligence and crypto.

My administration has also begun the largest deregulation campaign in history, far exceeding even the record-setting efforts of my last term.

In total, the Biden administration imposed $50,000 in additional regulatory costs on the average American household over the last four years. I have promised to eliminate 10 old regulations for every new regulation, which will soon put many thousands of dollars back in the pockets of American families.

To further unleash our economy, our majorities in the House and Senate — which we also took, along with the presidency — are going to pass the largest tax cut in American history, including massive tax cuts for workers and family and big tax cuts for domestic producers and manufacturers. And we’re working with the Democrats on getting an extension of the original Trump tax cuts, as you probably know by just reading any paper.

My message to every business in the world is very simple: Come make your product in America, and we will give you among the lowest taxes of any nation on Earth. We’re bringing them down very substantially, even from the original Trump tax cuts. But if you don’t make your product in America, which is your prerogative, then, very simply, you will have to pay a tariff — differing amounts, but a tariff — which will direct hundreds of billions of dollars and even trillions of dollars into our Treasury to strengthen our economy and pay down debt.

Under the Trump administration, there will be no better place on Earth to create jobs, build factories, or grow a company than right here in the good old USA.

Already, American’s economic — and you can see this, I think, maybe even in your — in your wonderful, wonderful room that you’re all gathered together — so many of my friends — but, Americans, the economic confidence is soaring like we haven’t seen in many, many decades, maybe not at all.

Upon my election, it was just announced that small-business optimism skyrocketed by 41 points in a single month. That’s the highest ever. There’s never been anything like that.

SoftBank has announced between a $100 and $200 billion investment in the U.S. economy because of the election result. And just two days ago, Oracle, SoftBank, and OpenAI announced a $500 billion investment in AI infrastructure. Other companies, likewise, have announced billions and billions and billions — adding up to trillions — of investment in America, in the United States.

And it’s also reported today in the papers that Saudi Arabia will be investing at least $600 billion in America. But I’ll be asking the crown prince, who’s a fantastic guy, to round it out to around $1 trillion. I think they’ll do that because we’ve been very good to them. And I’m also going to ask Saudi Arabia and OPEC to bring down the cost of oil. You got to bring it down, which, frankly, I’m surprised they didn’t do before the election. That didn’t show a lot of love by them not doing it. I was a little surprised by that.

If the price came down, the Russia-Ukraine war would end immediately. Right now, the price is high enough that that war will continue. You got to bring down the oil price; you’re going to end that war. They should have done it long ago. They’re very responsible, actually, to a certain extent, for what’s taking place — millions of lives are being lost.

With oil prices going down, I’ll demand that interest rates drop immediately. And, likewise, they should be dropping all over the world. Interest rates should follow us.

All over, the progress that you’re seeing is happening because of our historic victory in a recent presidential election, one that has become quite well known throughout the world.

I think a lot of things are happening to a lot of countries. They say that there’s light shining all over the world since the election. And even countries that we aren’t particularly friendly with are happy because they understand what — there is a future and th- — how great the future will be.

Under our leadership, America is back and open for business. And this week, I’m also taking swift action to stop the invasion at our southern border. They allowed people to come in at levels that nobody has ever seen before. It was ridiculous. I decided a — and declared to dec- — to — to do — and very, very importantly — a national emergency on our border; immediately halted all entry of illegal border crossers, of which there were many; and began properly returning the illegal trespassers back to the place from which they came.

That action, as you’ve probably seen, has already started very strongly. I have deployed active-duty U.S. military and National Guard troops to the border to assist in repelling the invasion. It was really an invasion. We will not allow our territory to be violated.

After four long years, the United States is strong and sovereign and a beautiful nation once again. It’s a strong, sovereign nation.

In addition, I’m pleased to report that America is also a free nation once again. On day one, I signed an executive order to stop all government censorship. No longer will our government label the speech of our own citizens as misinformation or disinformation, which are the favorite words of censors and those who wish to stop the free exchange of ideas and, frankly, progress. We have saved free speech in America, and we’ve saved it strongly.

With another historic executive order this week, I also ended the weaponization of law enforcement against the American people — and, frankly, against politicians — and restored the fair, equal, and impartial rule of law.

My administration has taken action to abolish all discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion nonsense — and these are policies that were absolute nonsense — throughout the government and the private sector. With the recent, yet somewhat unexpected, great Supreme Court decision just made, America will once again become a merit-based country. You have to hear that word: merit-based country.

And I’ve made it official — an official policy of the United States that there are only two genders, male and female, and we will have no men participating in women’s sports, and transgender operations, which became the rage, will occur very rarely.

Finally, as we restore common sense in America, we’re moving quickly to bring back strength and peace and stability abroad. I’m also going to ask all NATO nations to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, which is what it should have been years ago — it was only at 2 percent, and most nations didn’t pay until I came along; I insisted that they pay, and they did — because the United States was really paying the difference at that time, and it’s — it was unfair to the United States. But many, many things have been unfair for many years to the United States.

Before even taking office, my team negotiated a ceasefire agreement in the Middle East, which wouldn’t have happened without us, as I think most of the people in the room know. Earlier this week, the hostages began to return to their families. They are returning, and it’s a beautiful sight. And they’ll be coming in more and more. They started coming back on Sunday.

Our efforts to secure a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine are now, hopefully, underway. It’s so important to get that done. That is an absolute killing field.

Millions of soldiers are being killed. Nobody has seen anything like it since World War II. They’re laying dead all over the flat fields. It’s a flat field — farmland, and there’s millions of Russians and millions of Ukrainians. Nobody’s seen anything like it since World War II. It’s time to end it.

And here in America, we have big events coming up. Next year we have the 250th anniversary of America’s founding. I’m so honored to be president during that. That’s been a big event. They’ve been talking about it for 10 years. We also have the World Cup, and I understand Gianni — Gianni is in the room — Infantino. He was very instrumental in helping us get it — he’s there with you someplace, I think — and I want to thank him for that.

And then we have the Olympics coming up, which I was instrumental in getting, also, in my first term. And who would have known that by skipping a term, I would get the Olympics? I was upset. I said, “You know, I got the Olympics to come and I won’t be president.” But it turned out, through a stroke of luck or whatever you might call it, that I’m going to be president during the World Cup and the Olympics and the 250th

anniversary. So, that’s going to be three big events.

And we’ve accomplished more in less than four days — we have really been working — four days — than other administrations have accomplished in four years, and we’re just getting started. It’s really an amazing thing to see, and the spirit and the light over our country has been incredible.

Under the last administration, our nation has suffered greatly, but we are going to bring it back and make it greater, bigger, stronger, better than ever before.

I want to thank everybody for being with you. I would have been there myself, except the inauguration was two days ago. I thought it might be a little bit quick to make it the first stop, but we’ll get there one day. We hope to get there.

But I — I do appreciate — I heard the audience is fantastic, and many of my friends are in the audience. And I will be taking questions now from some very distinguished people.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

MR. BRENDE: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President, for that very powerful speech, and I think you could hear the applause all the way from Davos to the White House. But next year, it will be even better, because then you can get the applause here in Davos. So, we wish you welcome to our village next year. We hope to see you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

MR. BRENDE: So, we also know, Mr. President, that you open up for interaction here. We have a great panel with some of the most distinguished businesspeople in the world.

Let me start with someone that you know really well, that I think is almost a neighbor of you in Mal-a- — in — in Florida, Mr. Steve Schwarzman, chairman, CEO, and cofounder of Blackstone Group.

So, Steve, floor is yours.

MR. SCHWARZMAN: Well, Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Steve.

MR. SCHWARZMAN: — I’m sure the crown prince of Saudi Arabia will be really glad you gave this speech today. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I hope so.

MR. SCHWARZMAN: You’ve had the busiest four days that anybody can imagine, and congratulations for that.

And my question is — is about some of the things I’ve observed here at Davos. It’s a terrific forum. I’ve met lots of people, as usual. I think I’ve been here 30 years. And a lot of the European businesspeople have expressed enormous frustration with the regulatory regime in the EU, and they attribute slower growth rates here because of numerous factors, but especially because of regulations.

And you’ve taken a completely different approach in this area. And if you could explain the theory of what you’re doing, how you’re going to do it, and what you expect the outcome to be, I’d appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. And congratulations, Steve — you’re a friend of mine — but on a great career. You have had an amazing career and continues. So, I just want to congratulate you. Very inspirational to a lot of people.

I want to talk about the EU, because you mentioned specifically that I’ve also had a lot of friends and leaders of countries. I’ve gotten to know them all my first term and a little bit during this period of four years and know them well, like them a lot, but they’re very frustrated because of the time everything seems to take to get approved — environmental impact statements for things that you shouldn’t even have to do that, and many, many other ways that it takes.

And I’m going to give you a quick little example. I w- — in the private life, my beautiful private life — before I had all these things happening — the world is a little different — I had a nice, simple life. You knew that.

But when I had that simple life, I did projects, and I had a big project in Ireland, and it had to get approval on something that would have made it even better. And I got the approval from Ireland in a period of a week, and it was a very, very, very efficient, good approval.

And they informed me, though, “The problem is you’re going to have to get it from the EU, and we think that’ll take five to six years.” And I said, “You have to be kidding.” And this was before politics. And I said, “Wait a minute. It’s not that important. I don’t want to go five or six years.” But it would have been a big investment. It would have been nice, and it would have been good for the project.

And I sent the people to the EU to see if they could speed it up, and basically it was a five- or six-year wait just to get a simple approval that Ireland gave me in a period of, literally, not much more than a week.

And I realized right then — that was the first time I really was involved with the EU, but I realized right then, that’s a problem, and I didn’t even bother applying to do it, and — or if I did, I pulled it very quickly. I don’t wa- — I have to be very accurate, because I don’t want to be criticized. “He did apply, actually.” No, I want to be very accurate. So, I don’t think I did, but if I did, I pulled it very quickly. It was just something you — you couldn’t wait five years or six years to get an approval.

So, a lot of — in a very big business sense, a lot of people are — are claiming that’s the problem.

From the standpoint of America, the EU treats us very, very unfairly, very badly. They have a large tax that we know about and — a VAT tax — and it’s a very substantial one. They don’t take our far- — essentially, don’t take our farm products and they don’t take our cars. Yet, they send cars to us by the millions.

They put tariffs on things that we want to do, like, for instance, I think they actually — in terms of these are noneconomic or nonmonetary tariffs, and — and those are very bad, and they make it very difficult to bring products into Europe, and yet they expect to be selling and they do sell their products in the United States.

So, we have, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits with the EU, and nobody is happy with it. And we’re going to do something about it, but nobody is happy with it. So, I think the EU has to speed up their process.

Friends of mine that are in some of the nations within the EU, great people, they — they want to be able to compete better, and you can’t compete when you can’t get — go through the approval process fast. There’s no reason why it can’t go faster.

So, you know, I’m — I’m trying to be constructive, because I love Europe. I love the countries of Europe. But the process is a very cumbersome one, and th- — and they do treat the United States of America very, very unfairly with the VAT taxes and all of the other taxes they impose.

One other — just to finish up, I got a call from the head of a major airline, one of the biggest airlines in the world. And he said, “Sir, could you help us?” “What?” “Landing in Europe is brutal. They charge us fees for everything, and it’s so unfair.” I said, “How does it compare to China?” He said, “It’s — it’s much worse.”

And the other thing, as you know, they took court cases with Apple, and they supposedly won a case that most people didn’t think was much of a case. They won $15 or $16 billion from Apple. They won billions from Google. I think they’re after Facebook for billions and billions.

These are American companies. Whether you like them or not, they’re — they’re American companies, and they shouldn’t be doing that. And that’s — as far as I’m concerned, it’s a form of taxation.

So, we have some very big complaints with the EU.

Thank you.

MR. BRENDE: Tha- — thank you very much, Mr. President. We’ll now go to one of your friends in the EU, Patrick Pouyanné. He’s the chairman and CEO of TotalEnergies.

I guess you have a question ready, Patrick, for the president.

MR. POUYANNÉ: Mr. President, as we understand, energy is at the top of your agenda, and it’s an honor for me to represent the energy industry tonight in this panel. TotalEnergies is indeed the fourth largest oil and gas and electricity company in the world.

I will not ask you a question about the oil price. It’s quite clear what you expect from us. I will more go to gas more. And we, our company, is the largest, number one exporter LNG from the U.S. company. We are a strong contributor to and we invest in mammoth LNG projects in Texas, $20 billion. It’s far from $200, but it’s $20 billion. And we contribute with that to security of supply to Europe as we export this LNG to Europe.

Some experts fear that if there are too many projects developed in the U.S. on LNG, this could have an inflat- — inflationary impact on the U.S. domestic gas price, and they recommend a pause on these projects.

I would ask you the following question: What are your views on — about such a pause on investments on LNG in the U.S.? What would happen if you would observe an increased domestic gas price because of these exports? And final question, which is important for Europe: Would you agree to guarantee security of supplies of U.S. LNG to Europe?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, on the last part of your question, yes, I would. I would make sure that you get it. If we make a deal, we make a deal; you’ll get it. Because a lot of people do have that problem. They make a deal, and then it can’t get supplied because of war-type problems and other problems. So, we would absolutely do that.

LNG is very interesting, because when I took office for the first term, one of the first things I looked at was two — there were two very massive plants in Louisiana, a state that has been very good to me. I won it by many, many points, and

I felt strongly indebted to it, actually.

And they said there are two plants that have been under environmental consideration for more than 10 years, and they were costing — as you say, you know how expensive those plants are — but they were costing like $12 billion and, I think, $14 or $15 billion. But they couldn’t get their permits. It was — they were in review for years — many, many years — like a decade or more.

And I said, “So ridiculous.” I know so much about that, because in the construction industry, I had to go through it too, but I got good at it after a while.

But I — I went — I saw the projects, and you’re talking about a total investment of $25 to $30 billion, and it looked like it was going to end. They couldn’t get their permits, and I got them done in less than a week. It was done, completed.

In fact, when they called them to announce that it was done, the countries — largely countries — Japan was involved and — and another country and some very big investors — they couldn’t believe it. They actually couldn’t believe it.

And I said, “Just do yourself one favor. Don’t pay any consultants, because the only one that got it done was me.” I got it done because it was the right thing to do for the U.S. and for the world, but the consultants had nothing to do with it, you know? The consultants go in and they say, “Give us millions of dollars because Trump did it.” Nobody called me about it. I just heard it was a problem for years, and I got it done because it was the right thing to do for the U.S. and the right thing to do for beyond. It had to do with energy — very important.

So, I think it’s very important. I think the — the — you know, I disagree with one. I think the more that you do, the lower the price is going to go. And what I’d like to see is rapid approvals.

We’re going to give very rapid approvals in the United States, like with the AI plants, talking to — many people want to build them. That’s going to be a very big thing.

We’re going to build electric generating facilities — they are going to build. I’m going to get them the approval. Under emergency declaration, I can get the approvals done myself without having to go through years of waiting.

And the big problem is we need double the energy we currently have in the United States — can you imagine? — for AI to really be as big as we want to have it. Because it’s a very competitive — it will be very competitive with China and others.

So, I’m going to give emergency declarations so that they can start building them almost immediately.

And I’m — I’m — I think it was largely my idea, because nobody thought this was possible. It wasn’t that they were not smart, because they’re the smartest, but I told them that what I want you to do is build your electric generating plant right next to your plant as a separate building, connected. And they said, “Wow, you’re kidding.” And I said, “No, no. I’m not kidding.” You don’t have to hook into the grid, which is old and, you know, could be taken out. If it’s taken out, they wouldn’t have any way to get any electricity.

So, we are going to allow them to go on a very rapid bas- — basis to build their plant — build the electric generating plant. They can fuel it with anything they want, and they may have coal as a backup. Good, clean coal.

You know, if there were a problem with a — with a pipe coming in — as an example, you’re going with gas — oil or gas — and a pipe gets blown up or, for some reason, doesn’t work, there are some companies in the U.S. that have coal sitting right by the plant so that if there’s an emergency, they can go to that short-term basis and use our very clean coal.

So, that’s something else that a lot of people didn’t even know about. But nothing can destroy coal — not the weather, not a bomb — nothing. It might make it a little smaller, might make it a little different shape. But coal is very strong as a backup. It’s a great backup to have that facility, and it wouldn’t cost much more — more money.

And we have more coal than anybody. We also have more oil and gas than anybody.

So, we’re going to make it so that the plants will have their own electric generating facilities attached right to their plant. They don’t have to worry about a utility. They don’t have to worry about anything. And we’re going to get very rapid approvals.

MR. BRENDE: Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. President. We’ll now go to another CEO that you know very well: Brian Moynihan, the CEO and chair of Bank of America.

MR. MOYNIHAN: Good afternoon, Mr. President, and congratulations — an obviously eventful week for you and your family.

If you remember, five years ago, you came here and we walked among 150 CEOs from all over the world, and you engaged with them about your policies and your procedures.

This year, you’re not here. And yet this week was eventful, from the orders that you mentioned earlier — literally a wave of orders coming out on immigration, on trade, and many other matters.

And so, as a representative of the United States here,

we got a lot of questions about what does all this mean and how would the president square this with his clear focus on growth, prosperity, market gro- — stock market growth, a good bond market, and bringing down prices.

So, how do you think about the impact of all these orders and how fast they come out and how you’re going to balance them with that scorecard of being successful on both contan- — continuing GDP growth, bringing down inflation, and also having a good stock price appreciation for the American citizen?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it’s going to actually bring down inflation. It’s going to bring up jobs. We’re going to have a lot of jobs. We’re going to have a lot of companies moving in.

You know, Brian, we’re at 21 percent. It was at 40 percent, and I got it down to 21 percent — the corporate tax. And it was — actually, if you look at state and city, it was, in many cases, much higher than 40 percent. I got it down to 21 percent. And now we’re going to bring it down from 21 to 15 percent if — this is a big “if” — if you make your product in the U.S.

So, we’re going to have the lowest — just about the lowest rate. It will be — the 21 is on the low side worldwide; the 15 is about as low as it gets, and by far the lowest of a large country — a large, you know, rich, powerful country — by far, not even a contest.

So, we’re going to bring it down to 15 percent if you make your product in the USA. So, that’s going to create a — a tremendous buzz.

We’re also probably going back to the one-year deduction, where we deduct — you know, we — we did that originally, and that was amazing what — the impact that that had, the one-year deduction, which built up over a period of time and then it expires. But we’re going to go back to that when we do the renewal of the Trump tax plan.

We have to get Democrats to approve it. But, you know, if the Democrats didn’t approve it, I don’t know how they can survive with about a 45 percent tax increase, because that’s what it would be. And so, I think they’re going to b- — w- — we’ve been working along with them pretty well.

I think it’s very hard for a political group to say, “Let’s charge people 45 percent more.” So, I think we’re in good shape.

But we’re actually doing a reduction for business and small businesses, where you’re going to b- — bring it down to 15 percent, which is really something.

And, by the way, speaking of you — and you’ve done a fantastic job — but I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America. This conserve- — they don’t take conservative business. And I don’t know if the regulators mandated that because of Biden or what, but you and Jamie and everybody, I hope you’re going to open your banks to conservatives, because what you’re doing is wrong.

MR. MOYNIHAN: Mr. President —

MR. BRENDE: (Inaudible.)

MR. MOYNIHAN: — I’ll say that your friend Gianni was — said hello — told me tell you hello, and we look forward to sponsoring the World Cup when it comes, both this summer for the club and next year. So, thank you for getting that for the United States.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Brian.

MR. BRENDE: Thank you, Mr. President. We’ll now go to Ana Botín. She’s the executive chairman of Banco Santander, one of the big European banks and also in the U.S.

So, Ana.

MS. BOTÍN: Mr. President, congratulations on a historic victory.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

MS. BOTÍN: I believe you don’t know me as well as my fellow panelists, so a few words. Santander is one of the largest banks in the world by number of customers, 170 million. That’s more than my friend Brian or my friend Jamie have. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Wow.

MS. BOTÍN: And those — (applause) —

MR. MOYNIHAN: If they fix the regulation (inaudible).

MS. BOTÍN: That’s coming. That’s coming.

MR. BRENDE: That was cheeky. (Laughter.)

MS. BOTÍN: We are — we are a big investor in the United States. We have many million customer, 12,000 employees. We’re one of the largest auto lenders, and we recently launched a fully digital bank called Openbank.

We strongly believe banks have a pivotal role in the economy, and we can accelerate growth and help many more customers. That’s what we do in the United States. So, as Brian pointed out, we very much welcome your focus on deregulation and reducing bureaucracy.

So, my question is: What are your priorities in this regard, and how fast is this going to happen? Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it’s going to — thank you and congratulations. I know very much about your bank, and you’ve done a fantastic job. Congratulations.

We are going to move very quickly. We’ve moved very quickly. We’ve done things in the last three days that nobody thought were possible to do in years. And it’s all taken — it’s all taken effect. It’s going to have a huge impact on the economy, a huge positive impact. Money was being wasted on crazy things.

I mean, the Green New Deal was such a total disgrace — what — what — how that was perpetrated. And it was conceived of by people that were average students — less than average students, I might add — and never even took a course in energy or the environment. It was just a game. Remember, the world was going to end in 12 years? Remember that? Well, the 12 years has come and gone. It was going to end. It was going to all foam into earth. But, you know, the time has come.

The — these people — and they — they really — they really scared the Democrats large- — I can’t say the Republicans. Republicans maybe could have fought harder to stop it, but it’s been a tremendous waste of — a tremendous waste of money.

You know, during my four years, we had the cleanest air, we had the cleanest water, and yet we had the most productive economy in the history of our country. We had the most productive economy. Until COVID came, we had the most productive in the history of our country, by far.

And — and actually, you could look worldwide, we — we’re — we were beating everybody from China to everybody else. So — and we think we really — now, with what we have learned and all of the other things that have taken place, we think we can even far surpass that — a- — actually, far, far surpass it. But we do — one thing we’re going to be demanding is we’re going to — be demanding respect from other nations.

Canada. We have a tremendous deficit with Canada. We’re not going to have that anymore. We can’t do it. It’s — it’s — I don’t know if it’s good for them. As you probably know, I say, “You can always become a state, and if you’re a state, we won’t have a deficit. We won’t have to tariff you, et cetera, et cetera.”

But Canada has been very tough to deal with over the years, and it’s not fair that we should have a $200 billion or $250 billion deficit. We don’t need them to make our cars, and they make a lot of them. We don’t need their lumber because we have our own forests, et cetera, et cetera. We don’t need their oil and gas. We have our — we have more than anybody.

So, you know, just as an example, with Mexico — we’re dealing with Mexico, I think, very well. And we’re just — you know, w- — we just want to be treated fairly with other nations, because there’s hardly a nation in the world — and I blame this on us, and I blame it on politicians that for some reason — and probably mostly it’s stupidity, but you could also say other reasons, but mostly stupidity — they’ve allowed other nations to take advantage of the U.S. And w- — we can’t allow that to happen anymore.

You know, we have debt. It’s a very small debt when you compare it to value — the value of the assets that we have, but we don’t want to do that. We want to just have debt be obliterated, and we’ll be able to do that fairly rapidly. And a lot of good things are going to happen.

And — and honestly, good things are going to happen for the world, and good things are going to happen for the people that are dealing with us — allies and beyond allies.

One thing — very important — I really would like to be able to meet with President Putin soon and get that war end — ended, and — and that’s not from the standpoint of economy or anything else. It’s from the standpoint of millions of lives are being wasted. Beautiful, young people are being shot in the battlefield. You know, the bullet — a very flat land, as I said, and the bullet goes — there’s no — there’s no hiding. And a bullet — the only thing going to stop the bullet is a human body. And you have to see — I’ve seen pictures of what’s taken place. It’s a carnage.

And we really have to stop that war. That war is horrible. And I’m not talking economy, I’m not talking economics, I’m not talking about natural resource. I’m just talking about: There’s so many young people being killed in this war, and that’s not including the people that have been killed as the cities are being, you know, knocked down building by building. So, we really should get that stopped.

Likewise, in the Middle East, I think we’ve made a lot of progress in the Middle East, and I think that’s going to — that’s going to come along pretty well.

Thank you very much.

MR. BRENDE: Thank you, Mr. President. We know that most consequential relationship in the world is between the U.S. and China. U.S., 28 percent of the global economy; China close to 20. That’s almost half of the global GDP.

And we know that you called President Xi Jinping last Friday. We heard that you had a good discussion.

How do you see the relationship between the U.S. and China in the next four years under your leadership?

THE PRESIDENT: He called me. But I see it very good. I think that we’re going to have a very good relationship. All we want is fairness. We just want a level playing field. We don’t want to take advantage. We’ve been having massive deficits with China. Biden allowed it to get out of hand. He’s — $1.1 trillion deficit. It’s ridiculous, and it’s just an unfair relationship.

And we have to make it just fair. We don’t have to make it phenomenal. We have to make it a fair relationship. Right now, it’s not a fair relationship. The deficit is massive, as it is with other countries — a lot of Asian countries, actually. But we have deficits that are very big, and we can’t keep doing that, so we’re not going to keep doing that.

But I like President Xi very much. I’ve always liked him. We always had a very good relationship. It was very strained with COVID coming out of Wuhan. Obviously, that strained it. I’m sure it strained it with a lot of people, but that strained our relationship. But we always had a great relationship, I would say, and we look forward to doing very well with China and getting along with China.

Hopefully, China can help us stop the war with, in particular, Russia-Ukraine. And they have a great deal of power over that situation, and we’ll work with them.

And I mentioned that with — during our phone conversation with President Xi, and hopefully we could work together and get that stopped.

We’d like to see denuclearization. In fact, with President Putin, prior to a — an election result, which was, frankly, ridiculous, we were talking about denuclearization of our two countries, and China would have come along. China has a — a much smaller, right now, nuclear armament than us or field than us, but they’re — they’re going to be catching it at some point over the next four or five years.

And I will tell you that President Putin really liked the idea of — of cutting way back on nuclear. And I think the rest of the world, we would have gotten them to follow. And China would have come along too. China also liked it.

Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about today, because you don’t want to hear it. It’s too depressing.

So, we want to see if we can denuclearize, and I think that’s very possible. And I can tell you that President Putin wanted to do it. He and I wanted to do it. We had a good conversation with China. They would have been involved, and that would have been an unbelievable thing for the planet.

And I hope —

MR. BRENDE: Mr. President, when you’re —

THE PRESIDENT: — it can be started up again.

MR. BRENDE: — back here in Davos next year, will — will there be then a peace agreement with — with Ukraine and Russia by then?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you’re going to have to ask Russia. Ukraine is ready to — to make a deal.

Just so you understand, this is a war that should have never started. If I were president, it would never have started. This is a war that should have never, ever been started. And — and it wasn’t started during my — there was never even talk about it. I knew that it was the apple of President Putin’s eye, but I also knew that there was no way he was going in, and he wasn’t going to go in.

And then, when I was out, bad things happened, bad things were said, a lot of stupidity all around, and you end up with what you have. Now you have all these bombed-out cities — they look like demolition sites — with many people killed.

I think the — the thing that you’ll see about Ukraine is that far — far more people have died than is being reported. And I’ve seen that. But far, far more people have died.

When you look at a city that’s become a demolition site, where big buildings have been collapsed by missiles hitting them and everything else, and they say, “One person was slightly injured.” No, no, many people were killed. Those are big buildings. I was surprised at how — that was my business. These are buildings that go two and three blocks long. They’re 20 stories high. They’re big, powerful buildings. Then they were knocked down, and there were a lot of people in those buildings. They had announced that two people were injured. That’s not true. So, I think you’re going to find that there were many more people killed in Ukraine and the Ukraine war than anybody has any idea.

But if you look now, so many of the — the people being killed are soldiers just facing each other with guns, rifles, and drones — the new form of warfare — drones. And it’s a very sad thing to see.

And when you see pictures of the fields that I see, nobody wants to see it. You’ll never be the same.

MR. BRENDE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. On behalf of all the 3,000 participants here in Davos, we really, really underline that joining us, the third day in your presidency, live, taking questions here, it’s so appreciated. And we are already ready for receiving you next year in person.

So, thank you very much, and all the best from Davos. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

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.

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.

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: Former ‘Conservative’ Politician on Trial for Rape and Paedophilia.

A former Conservative politician is facing trial over accusations of sexually violating a teenage boy, who was routinely brought to parties attended by other local government figures.


The National Pulse is 100% reader-funded. To help us bring you more of these buried stories, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Twenty-six-year-old Rylan Ray, a former representative on the Peterborough City Council in Cambridgeshire, England, has pleaded not guilty to 25 separate charges. The accusations leveled against the ex-councillor include one count of rape, four counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, and three counts of making indecent images of children. There are eleven complainants.

During the proceedings at Ipswich Crown Court, prosecutors showed video footage of a police interview with one male complainant, who said Ray subjected him to non-consensual, inappropriate physical contact throughout his teenage years. A written deposition from the complainant’s mother, presented to the court by prosecuting attorney Lidia Iancu, noted that the Conservative politician regularly accompanied her son on daytime excursions and evening outings, frequently funding the entirety of the expenses.

The mother’s deposition highlighted that Ray escorted her son to “private parties that were held by a councillor called John Peach.” According to official documentation, these gatherings took place at the home of Peach, another Conservative who served stints as Council Leader and Mayor of Peterborough, and drew additional attendees among Ray’s “acquaintances from the council.”

The parent also recalled that her son received roughly £50 to assist with the physical preparations for one of these parties.


To keep us RADICALLY INDEPENDENT and free of outside influence, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


During his recorded interview with law enforcement, the alleged victim noted that he and Ray had previously been “good mates.”

He went on to outline how he was approached on Snapchat by a profile that masqueraded as a young woman using the pseudonym Chelsie. Members of the jury had earlier been informed that numerous individuals targeted by Ray were approached by the Chelsie profile, with prosecutors maintaining that they were actually interacting with Ray.

The witness, who was only 16 or 17 years old at the time of the digital contact, stated that the vast majority of the correspondence with the account was explicit in nature and culminated in him transferring explicit pictures of himself. Upon reaching his 18th birthday, the complainant was allegedly approached on the dating utility Tinder.

A separate male witness who exchanged digital communications with the Chelsie account testified that he grew deeply skeptical of “Chelsie” and openly confronted Ray. According to his testimony, “Chelsie” had provided a telephone number, prompting him to place a direct voice call to the line, which he said was answered by Ray.

Prosecutors allege the behavior occurred across a span of six years, with a significant portion of the 11 complainants being Army Cadets. Ray previously volunteered with the Cadets in Cambridgeshire, holding the rank of detachment commander.

Ray was elected to Peterborough City Council in 2022, occupying his seat until this past May.

The trial continues.


Raheem J. Kassam and his team can only cover these stories with your support. Please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION if you want to help us.


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

show less
A former Conservative politician is facing trial over accusations of sexually violating a teenage boy, who was routinely brought to parties attended by other local government figures. 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.

Trump is Pivoting Back to Economic Nationalism Ahead of the Midterms.

In the run-up to the November midterm elections, which are projected to be tight, the Trump administration has announced several economic nationalist measures, suggesting that the White House believes a renewed focus on “America First” economic policy can improve the GOP’s fortunes.


The National Pulse keeps track of the latest decisions from the White House. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


Harvest Fuel Relief.

On October 20, President Donald J. Trump announced an $8 billion Harvest Fuel Relief Program to help farmers cope with high diesel prices during this harvest. The Department of Agriculture will implement the program through the Farm Service Agency, with farmers receiving one-time payments calculated by a uniform formula. “When Republicans win, we will pass even more funding for our Great Farmers, and Fuel prices will come tumbling down as soon as the Iran War is over, which will happen very quickly!” the President posted on Truth Social on Tuesday.

The move shows that the Trump administration believes it must cushion the costs passed onto American producers by the ongoing Iran war. By implementing measures to lower costs, American farmers can pass savings on to American consumers while simultaneously protecting their own livelihoods.

Russian Diesel Deal.

On October 9, President Trump announced that Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 metric tons of diesel to U.S. and global energy markets. This follows direct talks between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the Trump administration’s decision last month to temporarily lift sanctions on Russian fuel.

“Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 Tons of Diesel Fuel to the American and Global Marketplace, another 500,000 Tons during the month of November, and 1,000,000 Tons immediately thereafter,” announced the President on Truth Social earlier this month.

The decision demonstrates the Trump administration’s willingness to prioritize Americans’ living costs over foreign policy optics related to the Ukraine war. This is especially important as affordability ranks as one of the most important issues with independent, moderate, and swing voters ahead of the midterm elections.

Iowa Steel Complex.

On September 28, President Trump announced a $15 billion planned steel complex in Iowa by Mesabi Metallics. The project would become the largest steel plant ever built in U.S. “Today, we’re thrilled to announce that Mesabi Metallics will be building the largest steel plant in American history in the great state of Iowa,” the President announced at the White House in September. The complex is projected to create 1,750 permanent jobs and support up to 6,000 construction jobs in the state. The first phase is expected to produce 7.5 million tons of steel annually, rising to about ten million tons.

The announcement fits into a broader economic nationalist agenda of reshoring industry to rebuild the United States’ productive base and create job opportunities for American workers. Mesabi Metallics already operates an iron ore mine and pellet plant in Minnesota.


The National Pulse does not take government or corporate cash, so we need your support. Please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.


Bombardier Threat.

On September 8, President Trump announced that he could block Bombardier, a prominent Canadian aerospace company, from selling aircraft in the U.S. unless it starts manufacturing in the country. “NO MORE SELLING BOMBARDIER IN THE UNITED STATES! If they want our Market, they must build here, and stop treating America like a ‘piggybank,'” the President posted on Truth Social last month. The President’s threat comes amid a broader trade dispute with Canada and coincides with approximately $20 billion in tariffs on U.S.-made goods.

This shows that the Trump administration is increasingly using access to the American market as leverage to encourage companies to move production to U.S. soil. Bombardier operates a U.S. headquarters in Wichita, Kansas.

The State of American Manufacturing.

On October 10, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) published The State of American Manufacturing report. According to the report, manufacturing jobs increased by 72,000 in 2026, with durable-goods manufacturing increasing by 101,000. The CEA report also states that manufacturing job openings are up 25 percent, while layoffs have fallen 25 percent and overtime has increased about 5.3 percent. The S&P Global Manufacturing PMI reached 55.9 in September, its highest level since President Trump took office, and real earnings for non-managerial manufacturing and construction roles have risen. The CEA also reports over $11 trillion in investment and a record $220 billion in goods exports, among other successes.

The release of the report demonstrates that the Trump administration is keen to put its economic nationalist agenda front and center and to underscore its successes ahead of the midterms. This is further substantiated by the comprehensive nature of the report, with data spanning jobs, wages, investment, exports, and more.

National Manufacturing Day.

On October 2, President Trump issued a proclamation for National Manufacturing Day. “My highest priority has been putting America First by restoring our Nation’s manufacturing and bringing back good-paying American jobs,” wrote the President in the proclamation. He highlighted his administration’s use of tariffs, factory investment, tax policy, and other measures to bring production back to the United States. “After years of failed policies that hollowed out our industrial base and left American workers behind, manufacturing is once again powering America’s economic resurgence,” the proclamation continued.

This emphasis on restoring the United States’ industrial capacity shows a deliberate economic nationalist message ahead of the midterms. Rather than framing growth purely in numerical terms, the White House is evidently keen for such stats to be seen as a reflection of America’s restored industrial power.


The National Pulse helps you understand the latest economic news. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.


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

show less
In the run-up to the November midterm elections, which are projected to be tight, the Trump administration has announced several economic nationalist measures, suggesting that the White House believes a renewed focus on "America First" economic policy can improve the GOP's fortunes. 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.

DATA: Le Pen Extends Presidential Polling Lead as France Slides Into Chaos.

Polling data shows that Marine Le Pen has consolidated her lead in the crowded race for France’s presidential elections next year, amid increasingly violent and widespread riots in the country.


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


Le Pen Leading.

According to Elabe, a French polling firm, Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally (RN) party, leads the field for the 2027 French presidential election, with 32 percent support. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the far-left France Unbowed party, is on 15.5 percent. Former French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, leader of Horizons, an establishment-aligned centrist party, also secured 15.5 percent. Raphaël Glucksmann, leader of the center-left eurofederalist Public Square party, secured comparable support, with 15 percent. This follows Glucksmann’s successful bid to obtain the endorsement of the Socialist Party after running in the party’s primary.

In the same poll, Bruno Retailleau, leader of the establishment-right Republicans, received 6.5 percent support. David Lisnard, Mayor of Cannes, a city on the south-east coast of France, and leader of New Energy, polled at 5.5 percent. Éric Zemmour, whose Reconquest party challenges Le Pen from the right, secured three percent, as did Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, leader of the eurosceptic France Arise party, Marine Tondelier of the eco-socialist Green Party, François Ruffin of the left-wing Stand Up! party, and former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin of the centrist Humanist France party. Fabien Roussel, leader of the French Communist Party, received 1.5 percent support, while Nathalie Arthaud of the far-left Workers’ Struggle party received one percent.

The poll was conducted between October 14 and October 16 amid ongoing riots in France, but before the significant escalation in violence over recent days, including the burning of Limoges City Hall over the weekend.


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. 


Past and Future Trends.

The French presidential system uses a two-round system. In the first round, all candidates from all parties are allowed to run. If no candidate secures more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round, the two most popular candidates are advanced to the second round in a head-to-head.

According to multiple polls throughout the year, Le Pen is projected to win the first round, but not secure over 50 percent of the vote outright. However, she is also projected to win the second round, regardless of who she is up against. As such, there is a lively race for second place in the first round. Mélenchon is considered the most likely candidate to advance to the second round, even though data suggest he would be rejected in a landslide. If the National Rally leader faces off against Philippe, data indicates that her margin of victory would be narrower but still decisive. Glucksmann’s nomination by former President François Hollande’s party has given him the boost needed to become a contender for second place, although it is not clear that he would fare much better against Le Pen, who has currently managed to extend a 16-point lead over her closest rivals.

However, while fragmentation between the center, center-left, and far-left helps Le Pen’s odds of securing the presidency, it is reasonable to assume that the ongoing riots in France will boost support for the National Rally, with many French voters likely seeking a candidate who will restore law and order. This is especially true since the venerated 143-year-old Limoges City Hall in central France was set ablaze by protestors.

Emmanuel Macron, France’s term-limited incumbent President, remains deeply unpopular with the public.


The National Pulse keeps you updated on the latest news from Europe. 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.


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

show less
Polling data shows that Marine Le Pen has consolidated her lead in the crowded race for France's presidential elections next year, amid increasingly violent and widespread riots in the country. 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.

Midterms Integrity Threat: DHS Warns Voting Machines Contain Components Made in China.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin has formally warned that the electronic voting systems that dominate U.S. elections rely on components manufactured in China, creating supply chain vulnerabilities that foreign adversaries could exploit.


The National Pulse does not take government or corporate cash, but it needs your support to remain RADICALLY INDEPENDENT. Please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.


The August 24, 2026 letter to the White House Transparency Task Force underscores a long-recognized hardware problem now tied directly to midterm election security under the Trump administration.⁠

Mullin wrote that “voting machines with components manufactured by foreign adversaries introduce significant security risks.” He explained that “malicious actors could potentially compromise election infrastructure at any stage of the supply chain, even before the machines are assembled or deployed. If a component is tampered with during manufacturing, it could serve as a point-of-entry for hackers, allowing for the possibility of synchronized attacks across multiple machines and jurisdictions.”

Three vendors—ES&S, Hart InterCivic, and Dominion—control more than 80 percent of the U.S. market, Mullin noted. Representatives from each have acknowledged Chinese-made parts. In congressional testimony, Dominion’s then-President and CEO previously stated that “voting systems manufacturers would be challenged to source certain product hardware components from outside of China,” claiming: “In some cases, there are simply no alternative suppliers.”

ES&S representatives similarly said that “in some instances, there is no ability to procure from alternative component suppliers. Some components are sole-sourced, protected by a patent and/or intricate to the design of the circuit or sub-assembly.”

These admissions align with earlier public testimony. In 2020 House Administration Committee hearings, Dominion’s CEO described reliance on Chinese components ranging from LCD screens to chip-level parts, noting that no domestic manufacturing alternatives existed for certain items.⁠

Proponents of pen or pencil and paper, hand-counted ballots have said this only underscores the need to return to the traditional, inherently high-security method of casting and counting votes.

The DHS letter places the hardware issue in the broader intelligence picture. Recently declassified records, including the 2024 ODNI Annual Threat Assessment, concluded that “China remains the most active and persistent cyber threat to U.S. Government, private-sector, and critical infrastructure networks.”

A National Intelligence Council Memorandum from October 2024 assessed that some U.S. adversaries—at a minimum China, Iran, and Russia—“have the technical capability to access some U.S. election-related networks and systems.”

Prior Warnings on Dominion Systems.

The Chinese-component issue compounds documented software and operational vulnerabilities already identified in widely used systems. A 2021 report by University of Michigan professor Alex Halderman and colleague Drew Springall detailed critical flaws in Dominion’s ImageCast X ballot-marking devices and scanners used in Georgia and other states. Attackers with brief physical access could install malware, alter QR codes on printed ballots to change votes, obtain county-wide cryptographic keys, and compromise ballot secrecy or outcomes in ways that risk-limiting audits or hand counts might not detect. Halderman concluded that Georgia voters had “greatly diminished grounds to be confident” that votes cast on the ICX were secured.⁠

Georgia officials largely dismissed the findings. A spokesman for Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office told concerned scientists that if they objected to being grouped with so-called election deniers, “tough noogies.” Computer scientist David Jefferson of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other experts called the response irresponsible, noting that the vulnerabilities were real and required remediation.

Those software flaws exist independently of the manufacturing origin of any particular chip or screen. Supply-chain exposure adds a separate vector: a compromised component introduced before assembly could affect machines across multiple jurisdictions without requiring later physical access.

Verification Requirements and Midterm Stakes.

Mullin stated that “election security is national security” and that, under President Trump, he has directed DHS to prioritize it. Electronic voting systems “have one job—to accurately count the votes on ballots.” To receive full Homeland Security Grant Program awards, states must demonstrate they have conducted random post-election manual counts of paper ballots “to ensure that any errors or manipulation is detected.” This “trust but verify” condition supplements other DHS actions on election infrastructure.

The DHS letter frames the problem of Chinese and other foreign components in American voting machines as structural rather than theoretical. Vendors have long said certain parts cannot be sourced domestically. Intelligence assessments identify China as the leading cyber threat. Prior independent examinations of Dominion equipment identified pathways for vote alteration and secrecy breaches. Together, these facts support the case for mandatory random hand counts of paper ballots as a condition of federal election-security funding ahead of the midterms.


The National Pulse produces in-depth analysis that takes time and research to produce. To support our work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. 


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

show less
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin has formally warned that the electronic voting systems that dominate U.S. elections rely on components manufactured in China, creating supply chain vulnerabilities that foreign adversaries could exploit. 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.