One of Britain’s largest trade unions, which is a major funder and founder of the left-wing Labour Party, is demanding that employers train British workers before importing foreign labor, in a potentially significant challenge to the country’s longstanding reliance on mass immigration.

The National Pulse brings you the latest research and analysis every week. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Gary Smith, general secretary of the GMB union, has called for restrictions on companies sponsoring overseas workers unless they can demonstrate substantial investment in training the domestic workforce. Smith singled out Britain’s shipbuilding industry, where major defense contractors, including BAE Systems and Babcock, have recruited hundreds of migrant workers from countries such as the Philippines and South Africa to do jobs as welders, electricians, and fitters.

Although Smith says he supports immigration in principle, he argues that employers should not be allowed to use foreign recruitment as an alternative to paying competitive wages and developing British talent.

Britain Imports Workers While Domestic Training Falls Behind.

According to research, nearly three million foreign workers joined the British workforce between 2014 and 2026, accounting for approximately four-fifths of the overall increase in employment during that period. Of the approximately 3.7 million additional workers, around 2.5 million were non-EU nationals, while 408,000 came from EU countries. Employment among British nationals increased by approximately 734,000.

Department for Education statistics that apprenticeship starts in England declined from approximately 509,000 in 2015/16 to around 339,000 in 2023/24, a reduction of roughly one-third. Starts did recover to approximately 353,500 in 2024/25, but remained substantially below their 2015/16 level.

This means that employers often report shortages of skilled tradesmen, as the country trains fewer apprentices than it did a decade ago. Smith’s proposed approach would require companies to demonstrate that they are investing in British workers before turning to overseas recruitment.

Studies Show Mass Immigration Depresses Workers’ Wages.

A 2015 Bank of England working paper by Stephen Nickell and Jumana Saleheen found that immigration had a small negative effect on average British wages, with the largest impact concentrated among semi-skilled and unskilled service workers. Their research estimated that a 10-percentage-point increase in the immigrant share relative to native workers in those occupations was associated with approximately a 2 percent reduction in wages.

Similarly, a 2013 study by economists Christian Dustmann, Tommaso Frattini, and Ian Preston found that immigration reduced wages among native British workers below the 20th percentile of the earnings distribution. The research identified the greatest negative effects among lower-paid workers, although it also found modest positive effects among higher-paid workers.

American research has produced comparable findings, where in a 2003 paper published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Harvard economist George Borjas estimated that a ten percent immigration-induced increase in labor supply could reduce the wages of competing workers by approximately three to four percent.

The studies demonstrate that mass immigration can impose measurable costs on particular groups of workers, especially those facing direct labor-market competition.

For employers, recruiting from a larger international labor pool can provide an alternative to increasing wages or financing expensive training programs. For workers competing in affected occupations, this means they may have to compete with people willing to work for less and many who are, on paper, already trained.

Trump’s Economic Nationalism Model for Prosperity.

The debate in Britain is one that has already been had in the United States, and nearly a decade ago, saw President Donald J. Trump enact a populist-nationalist economic policy. Trump entered the White House in January 2017, promising to revive American manufacturing, protect domestic industries, restrict certain forms of immigration, and encourage companies to invest in American workers.

His administration pursued these objectives through the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, deregulation, and restrictions on employment-based immigration.

The American economy recorded several notable improvements during the three years preceding the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate fell from 4.7 percent when Trump entered office to just 3.5 percent in February 2020, matching the lowest level since 1969.

Manufacturing employment also increased during the first two years of his presidency, with hundreds of thousands of industrial jobs added before the sector began weakening in 2019. American workers experienced real wage gains during the expansion, while unemployment among Black and Hispanic Americans reached historically low levels.

Household incomes also rose substantially. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that real median household income increased by 6.8 percent between 2018 and 2019, reaching $68,703 in its original published estimate. Meanwhile, the official poverty rate declined to 10.5 percent in 2019, the lowest recorded since the Census Bureau began publishing such statistics in 1959. Around 4.2 million fewer Americans were living in poverty in 2019 than in 2018.

The period provides a key example of what a populist-nationalist economic policy can accomplish in just a few short years.

Could Economic Nationalism Unite Britain’s Left and Right?

Trade unions historically emerged to defend domestic workers against low wages, poor conditions, and employers’ ability to weaken collective bargaining. Those objectives can overlap with economic-nationalist demands for tighter labor immigration rules, stronger apprenticeships, and greater investment in domestic industries.

Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, has made reducing immigration a central political priority. Smith’s proposals approach the issue from a different direction, focusing on employers’ responsibilities to train workers and maintain competitive wages.

GMB, a founder of the Labor Party in the 1920s, is unlikely to begin supporting Farage and Reform UK, but Smith’s comments indicate that they may force Labour itself to start adopting a more nationalist economic stance.

The resulting debate within the Labour Party could prove particularly significant in industrial communities where traditional Labor loyalties coexist with growing support for immigration restrictions, and could potentially fracture Labour.

Putting British Workers First.

It is clear that Britain needs skilled welders, electricians, engineers, construction workers, and shipbuilders. What is not clear is whether it is sustainable to keep importing workers, rather than training them at home. The evidence from wage research demonstrates that immigration can create downward pressure on earnings in particular occupations. Britain’s apprenticeship figures reveal a lack of commitment from companies and government to really invest in skilled labor, making the shortages worse.

The challenge for politicians in Britain in the coming years will be how to address these deep-seated issues. While foreign labor may boost corporations’ bottom lines, most voters are British.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep delivering top-quality news and analysis, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Alecsandra Dragoi / Home Office.

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

Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage wants to prosecute so-called charities and activists who facilitate illegal immigration into Britain, becoming the first major British politician to promise actions against the multimillion-dollar industry operating around them.

The National Pulse is dedicated to bringing you original reporting and analysis every week. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team in their work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Speaking to U.S. commentator Benny Johnson, Farage accused NGOs and taxpayer-supported organizations of “aiding and abetting criminality,” arguing that organizations assisting migrants should face criminal consequences when their activities facilitate unlawful entry. His comments follow Reform’s increasingly aggressive approach toward organizations operating around the English Channel, particularly Care4Calais, which aids asylum seekers in northern France who are looking to enter Britain illegally.

The NGO-asylum seeker complex is a booming industry, but who funds it, and how many activists have not only blurred the lines between helping asylum seekers but have been caught outright helping people-smugglers?

Calais: The Multimillion-Dollar Operation on Britain’s Doorstep.

The French port city of Calais has become a major gathering point for migrants attempting to reach Britain for well over a decade, both by stowing away in trucks and, in recent years, by boat, with numerous charities and activist organizations providing food, clothing, shelter, and legal assistance to them.

Among the most prominent is Care4Calais, which operates across Britain, France, and Belgium. According to the British Charity Commission, Care4Calais reported approximately $2.59 million in income and $2.39 million in expenditure during the financial year ending September 2024. It reported 25 employees and approximately 800 volunteers.

The organization provides legal referrals and practical assistance to asylum seekers, while campaigning for Britain to open its borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come. Reform Shadow Home Secretary Zia Yusuf has accused the charity of operating a “criminal racket” and warned that its workers could face prosecution under a future Reform government.

The party has also targeted Vodafone for providing free cell phone SIM cards through Care4Calais. The charity reported distributing 2,221 cards, prompting Yusuf to demand that the telecommunications company terminate the arrangement. However, Vodafone maintained that the cards were provided through a regulated charitable program for use within Britain.

The scale of the Care4Calais operation shows just a small section of the massive infrastructure supporting asylum seekers and illegal migrants across Europe.

Greece: NGOs Tried for Migrant Smuggling.

NGO workers and volunteers have been directly accused of helping people-smugglers in recent years. In 2018, Greek authorities arrested volunteers associated with Emergency Response Centre International (ERCI), a so-called rescue organization operating on the island of Lesbos.

Among those arrested were Syrian migrant Sarah Mardini and German volunteer Seán Binder. Prosecutors alleged that members of the organization had participated in a criminal network facilitating illegal migrant arrivals, alongside accusations involving money laundering and other offenses.

The case attracted international attention and highlighted the increasingly contentious relationship between border authorities and civilian “rescue” organizations. However, after years of legal proceedings, a Greek court acquitted all 24 defendants in January 2026.

Undercover footage in 2018 showed that another charity operating in Greece was allegedly coaching migrants to lie in their applications in order to have a better chance at a successful claim. A member of the NGO Advocates Abroad stated, “We teach them… how to keep their private trauma private because all this acting is a shield. I tell them this is acting, all of this is acting, it’s all acting as though this is theater. So for them to get through they must act their part in the theatre, and that is the refugee in trauma because these EASO officers are so f**king stupid, all they know is written on the paper.”

Italy: Migrant Taxi Ships and Allegations of Cooperation With Smugglers.

Similar controversies have emerged in the Mediterranean, where privately operated rescue vessels have repeatedly clashed with Italian authorities. In 2017, Italian investigators seized the Iuventa, a rescue ship operated by German humanitarian organization Jugend Rettet, following allegations that its crew had improperly coordinated with migrant smugglers operating from Libya.

Prosecutors investigated whether rescue operations had facilitated unauthorized crossings rather than simply responding to emergencies. The case became a flashpoint in the European immigration debate, particularly as Italian governments sought to restrict civilian rescue operations. The prosecution ultimately collapsed, with the criminal case against the crew dismissed in 2024 after prosecutors decided to drop it.

Other organizations, including Sea-Watch, Sea-Eye, and SOS Méditerranée, continue to operate migrant taxi services in the Mediterranean, supported by charitable donations, often from governments and foundations, as well as international fundraising.

Their operations have drawn criticism from politicians who argue that predictable rescue arrangements may encourage dangerous crossings. Fabrice Leggeri, former head of the European Union border agency Frontex, has criticized the NGOs, saying migrants treated them like taxis.

In at least one case, a people-smuggler claimed to an undercover Italian journalist that he worked with the NGOs and was in contact with them.

Soros, Tides, and Caritas: Who Finances the Network?

Beyond the individual organizations lies a much larger international funding infrastructure supporting refugee assistance, migration advocacy, and humanitarian operations. The Open Society Foundations (OSF), established by billionaire George Soros, finances “civil society” and human-rights initiatives internationally, including projects concerning migrants and refugees. From 2016 to 2023, Open Society spent about $90 million on NGOs headquartered in Brussels, including groups that push for open borders and aid for asylum seekers.

The American Tides Foundation likewise distributes substantial charitable funding across advocacy and humanitarian causes. These institutions have attracted scrutiny from conservative politicians concerned about the influence of wealthy private foundations over immigration policy. In 2024 alone, Tides distributed over $442 million in grants to various charities, mostly in the United States. In Europe, Tides has contributed to migrant NGOs in Britain and elsewhere.

Another major institution is Caritas, the international Catholic humanitarian network. According to its 2024 annual report, Caritas International Belgium recorded approximately $55.8 million in annual income and expenditure, including $44.9 million in government funding. Its expenditure included approximately $19.3 million for asylum-seeker reception and $8 million for voluntary-return activities.

These figures demonstrate the substantial financial scale of organized migrant assistance in Europe, an industry worth possibly hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Question Farage Wants Answered.

While providing food, clothing, medical treatment, or legal representation is not inherently criminal, knowingly arranging unlawful transport, coordinating with smugglers, or providing operational assistance to criminal trafficking networks raises fundamentally different legal questions.

Farage wants the British government to investigate and prosecute organizations that cross that boundary, as past governments have not even bothered to investigate their activities. Effective border enforcement requires scrutiny of the entire ecosystem surrounding illegal migration, including well-funded charities and activist organizations.

If Farage can establish that NGOs are knowingly assisting people-smuggling operations, prosecutions could become a significant new weapon in Britain’s border-control strategy. Dismantling the migrant-NGO complex would be a major blow to open borders advocates and a major step toward Britain regaining actual control of its borders.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep delivering you RADICALLY INDEPENDENT news and analysis, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

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

Marine Le Pen is looking to become the next President of France in 2027, and polling for next year’s presidential elections makes her the heavy favorite to win. A Le Pen victory would be an earthquake in Europe and could have dramatic consequences for the European Union.

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 likely confrontation between a future President Le Pen and Brussels, the EU’s main seat of power, could fundamentally reshape the bloc, as France is one of the largest and most powerful countries in the bloc, by population, economy, and military power.

In an interview with the Financial Times published on Wednesday, Le Pen outlined her plans to challenge the EU’s budget and institutional authority if she wins the 2027 presidential election. Her proposals include substantially cutting France’s financial contributions to Brussels and moving to limit the powers of the European Commission, the EU’s unelected executive.

The new statements are a break from her previous support for leaving the euro currency and holding a referendum on France’s EU membership. Rather than following the example of Brexit, Le Pen wants to challenge the EU from within at least over the short term, using France’s massive economic and political influence over the bloc to force concessions from its elites.

With nationalist and populist-right parties wielding increasing influence across Europe, a Le Pen presidency could unite what has historically been a fractured collection of Eurosceptic parties across the EU into a powerful lobby capable of obstructing the EU’s centralizing ambitions.

An Alternative to ‘Frexit.’

Le Pen’s opposition to European integration stretches back decades. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, built her National Rally (RN) party’s predecessor, Front National, into one of Europe’s most prominent nationalist movements, opposing the erosion of French sovereignty and the transfer of political authority to EU institutions. Marine Le Pen initially embraced a similarly confrontational approach. During her 2017 presidential campaign against Emmanuel Macron, she advocated abandoning the euro and renegotiating France’s relationship with the EU, with the possibility of a referendum on membership.

However, her defeat to Macron, partly attributed to public concerns over the economic consequences of leaving the single currency, prompted a strategic rethink. By the 2022 presidential election, Le Pen had backed away from Frexit, switching to advocating for a Europe of sovereign nations in which national governments would reclaim powers over immigration, borders, and economic policy from the EU.

The fundamental objective remained unchanged: reducing the authority of Brussels and restoring decision-making powers to national capitals.

Le Pen’s Long War.

Le Pen’s relationship with European institutions has been defined by confrontation, culminating in legal proceedings that threatened to derail her presidential ambitions. The issue centered on allegations that Le Pen and other officials in her party improperly used European Parliament funds intended for parliamentary assistants to finance political party operations.

French prosecutors pursued criminal proceedings. In March 2025, a French court convicted Le Pen of misappropriation of public funds and imposed a five-year ban on her holding elected office, initially threatening to exclude her from the 2027 presidential election.

Le Pen denounced the ruling as politically motivated, arguing that the French judiciary was effectively being used to prevent voters from electing one of the country’s most prominent opposition figures. Even some liberal commentators expressed misgivings about the ruling, noting that most establishment parties used their European Parliament funds in the same way without sanctions.

On July 7, 2026, a French appeals court upheld her conviction, but reduced the timeline of her electoral ban, leaving her eligible to contest the 2027 election. The court also imposed a sentence involving electronic monitoring, subject to further legal proceedings.

How France Could Grind the EU to a Halt.

Le Pen’s greatest weapon against Brussels is France’s position as one of the EU’s largest economies and biggest financial contributors. The EU depends on agreement between its member states for some of its most consequential decisions. According to the Council of the European Union, unanimity is required for the bloc’s long-term budget, its system of financing, EU enlargement, certain foreign policy decisions, and changes to important areas of taxation. France also possesses an effective veto over several major EU initiatives.

Brussels is also currently negotiating its 2028–2034 financial framework, with European governments divided over spending priorities and the proposed size of the budget. Le Pen reportedly wants to substantially reduce France’s EU contributions. She has also challenged efforts to finalize the next long-term budget before French voters go to the polls.

However, France cannot legally reduce its existing contributions on its own. Any major long-term restructuring of the EU’s financing arrangements would require negotiations with other member states. A Le Pen presidency could, however, withhold agreement on future financial frameworks, potentially forcing Brussels into difficult negotiations over its spending priorities and institutional powers.

A Populist-Nationalist Alliance?

Le Pen may find a growing number of allies who support her plans to regain national sovereignty from the EU. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has had her disagreements with Le Pen, particularly regarding Russia’s war with Ukraine, as Le Pen has called for an end to France’s financing of Ukraine while Meloni is a staunch supporter of President Volodymyr Zelensky. However, the Italian premier has expressed support for reforming the EU and giving more sovereignty to member states.

Meanwhile, Poland’s 2027 parliamentary election could potentially return the Eurosceptic Law and Justice (PiS) party to government, reopening the disputes over sovereignty and judicial authority with Brussels that characterized its previous administration. Other populist-right movements in Austria, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic could provide additional allies, depending on electoral outcomes and coalition arrangements.

Under the EU’s qualified majority voting (QMV) rules, legislation normally requires support from at least 15 of the 27 EU member states, representing 65 percent of the bloc’s population. A blocking minority must generally contain at least four governments representing more than 35 percent of the population. France, Italy, and Poland, joined by another substantial member state or a wider coalition, could therefore frustrate legislation that does not require unanimity.

The Historical Record.

The EU establishment has previously demonstrated its willingness to confront and push back against the involvement of populist parties in member state governments. In 2000, Austria faced coordinated diplomatic measures from the then-14 other EU member states after Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party (FPOe) entered a governing coalition with the center-right People’s Party.

The measures included restrictions on bilateral political contacts and diplomatic cooperation. Although they were imposed by national governments rather than by EU institutions, they established a precedent for European leaders seeking to isolate an elected government over ideological differences.

More recently, Brussels has employed financial and legal mechanisms against Hungary and Poland. Under former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Hungary faced the suspension of billions of euros in EU funding over various disputes over immigration and other issues. Poland’s former Law and Justice government similarly clashed with the European Commission over judicial reforms, culminating in Article 7 proceedings and disputes over European funding.

However, confronting France would present an entirely different challenge, with it being an EU founder member with a substantially larger population and economy than those three countries, and more political leverage than Italy.

The Best Hope for a Return to Sovereignty.

The European Commission’s core powers are established in EU treaties. Fundamentally reducing those powers technically requires treaty amendments and ratification by member states. A populist-nationalist coalition would also need to move beyond simply blocking legislation toward agreeing on an alternative institutional framework.

The emergence of a powerful bloc of Eurosceptic governments could fundamentally change how the EU operates, even without formally dismantling its institutions. Le Pen’s emerging strategy presents Brussels with a significant challenge: a founding member too big to bully and sanction.

For decades, European integration has largely proceeded on the assumption that national governments would gradually surrender more and more authority to Brussels. A Le Pen presidency could test whether that process can be reversed, and whether the European Union can survive politically if one of its most powerful members decides that national sovereignty must come first.

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

Image by Rémi Noyon.

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