Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has pledged that his party will review and potentially revoke citizenship granted to migrants under a revised immigration framework announced by Labour Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, specifically targeting those who impose a net fiscal burden on the country. This places Reform firmly to the right of Elon Musk-backed Reform splinter party Restore Britain, whose leader, Rupert Lowe, has insisted that “we can’t be unfair or illegal towards” migrants who have been encouraged to settle in Britain by prior governments.

Please JOIN PULSE+ or MAKE A DONATION to help The National Pulse bring you more high-quality news and analysis every week. 

Just to be clear, Reform UK policy is now well to the right of Rupert Lowe, who says it’s “unfair” and “illegal” to remove Boriswavers.

He’s using LITERALLY the same language as Angela Rayner and Shabana Mahmood.

Well Rupert, guess what? We don’t care. Millions must go! 🤭 https://t.co/L5kLQ4v33t

— Raheem J. Kassam (@RaheemKassam) November 3, 2026

Mahmood’s Shift, Farage’s Counter.

On Monday, Mahmood abandoned various previously announced restrictions on migrants being granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) after just five years in Britain, following sustained pressure from Labor’s left. Significantly, migrants granted ILR can gain citizenship after just one year. The revised approach looks set to retain the current ILR pathway for many migrants, while opening additional pathways for migrants who entered Britain illegally to secure citizenship.

Responding that evening, Farage said a Reform government would scrutinize every citizenship awarded under these arrangements and withdraw it from anyone found to be a net economic liability. “Normal countries don’t give out work visas, allow you to bring dependents, automatically give you Indefinite Leave to Remain, and then one year later citizenship. We are uniquely stupid in doing this, and we’ve been uniquely stupid in doing this for far too many years,” he said.

“Our position is very, very clear: Anybody under this scheme that’s been opened today, and I believe today is just the opening of the door, anybody that goes through to ILR and citizenship under this scheme, we will review each and every single one of those citizenships, if they are granted. This goes against the grain of everything that British citizenship is supposed to have meant over the centuries, and we will go through each and every one and analyze whether they’re of benefit to the British economy.”

Reform Versus Restore.

Reform believes radical action is needed on grants of ILR and citizenship due to the unprecedented scale of the migrant influx under Conservative former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his immediate successors, who allowed over four million people to flood into the country from the end of the COVID-19 pandemic to 2024. Many of the initial “Boriswave” migrants have now been in the country long enough to receive ILR and citizenship.

Farage’s pledge to denaturalize many of these migrants contrasts with the publicly stated position of Restore leader and Conservative Party ally Rupert Lowe, who argues that the Boriswave migrants have “come here in good faith, and we cannot treat them in a way which is not either legal or fair.”

Reform has projected that the Boriswave will leave taxpayers £622.5 billion ($849 billion) worse off by 2085. Farage has committed to ending Indefinite Leave to Remain altogether and replacing it with renewable five-year work visas. Separately, the party intends to bar all non-citizens from welfare payments, which migrants with ILR can currently access.

Watch LIVE as I lay out my plans to reverse the Boriswave. https://t.co/zXg9LdiSxS

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) November 2, 2026

To help keep Raheem J. Kassam and his team RADICALLY INDEPENDENT, please JOIN PULSE+ or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

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

President Donald J. Trump’s administration is reportedly preparing an aggressive strategy to preserve his political agenda if Democrats capture Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections, potentially setting the stage for a major confrontation.

To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Rather than surrendering Trump’s legislative agenda to congressional opposition, the White House is examining how existing presidential powers could be used to continue implementing his policies on immigration, trade, deregulation, and foreign affairs.

Senior administration officials have been developing contingency plans involving executive orders, federal regulations, and existing statutory authorities.

For decades, presidents of both parties have increasingly relied on executive authority to overcome congressional resistance. A Democratic victory in the November 3 midterms could accelerate that trend, bringing not only inevitable conflict but potentially expanding the authority of the presidency itself.

Immigration Enforcement With or Without Congress.

Immigration enforcement could become one of the administration’s most important tools for maintaining its political agenda under a divided government. The President already possesses substantial authority to direct federal immigration agencies, establish enforcement priorities, and oversee deportations under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The White House is reportedly considering tighter restrictions on visas for international students and temporary foreign workers. These measures could allow Trump to advance elements of his immigration agenda without seeking new legislation, although particular changes would remain subject to existing immigration statutes and judicial review.

The administration could also continue directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to prioritize the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.

There is precedent for using executive discretion to reshape immigration policy. Former President Barack Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012 through a Department of Homeland Security memorandum, providing temporary protection from deportation to certain illegal immigrants brought into the United States as children.

Trump could employ executive discretion toward substantially different objectives. However, a Democratic-controlled Congress could attempt to constrain his deportation operations through appropriations and oversight, particularly when additional detention facilities, personnel, or enforcement resources require new funding.

Tariffs and Economic Nationalism.

Although the Constitution grants Congress authority over foreign commerce, lawmakers have delegated substantial tariff powers to the executive branch through legislation such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

These provisions allow presidents to take trade actions under specified circumstances, including threats to national security and certain unfair foreign trade practices.

The administration is examining tariffs on imported critical minerals and wind turbines. Such measures could complement Trump’s efforts to protect American manufacturing, encourage domestic production, and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains.

However, presidential tariff authority does have its limits. In February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize Trump to impose tariffs under that statute. Other tariff authorities remain available, but their procedural requirements and statutory limitations must be observed, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.

Even if Democrats control Congress, they would not automatically gain the ability to dismantle Trump’s tariff policies. Doing so could require legislation, successful legal challenges, or changes in administration policy.

Dismantling Federal Regulations.

Federal agencies possess authority to revise or repeal regulations within the limits established by Congress. This gives an administration opportunities to change environmental policy, energy regulation, federal contracting practices, and other areas without passing new laws.

Trump could continue efforts to reverse Biden-era regulations, reduce compliance burdens on businesses, and redirect enforcement priorities toward his administration’s objectives.

However, major regulatory changes generally must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies to follow established procedures.

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo also ended the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts frequently deferred to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This means that future court battles are likely.

Foreign Policy.

Foreign policy could offer Trump considerable freedom to pursue his priorities regardless of the congressional election results. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President serves as Commander in Chief, conducts much of the nation’s diplomacy, and exercises significant authority over international relations, although Congress retains important powers over military appropriations, declarations of war, sanctions legislation, and other aspects of foreign policy.

Trump could continue negotiating with foreign governments, adjusting diplomatic relationships, pressing NATO allies over defense spending, and pursuing agreements involving Ukraine, Russia, China, and Iran.

Previous presidents have exercised substantial diplomatic authority without obtaining new congressional legislation. For instance, Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement was concluded as a political commitment rather than a treaty requiring approval from two-thirds of the Senate, as explained in a Congressional Research Service examination of the agreement.

Congress Still Holds the Power of the Purse.

Despite the administration’s preparations, a Democratic Congress could create substantial difficulties for Trump’s final two years.

The Constitution gives Congress control over federal appropriations. Under Article I, Section 9, federal money cannot be drawn from the Treasury without appropriations authorized by law. Democrats could use future spending negotiations to challenge administration priorities, restrict funding for particular initiatives, and demand concessions.

However, the White House is reportedly preparing for precisely this scenario. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought is examining how existing appropriations could sustain administration priorities. He is also considering changes to federal grant rules that would give political appointees greater influence over funding decisions.

A Democrat-controlled House could, in repsonse, launch investigations, issue subpoenas, and potentially initiate impeachment proceedings. Democrat control of the Senate would create additional obstacles by allowing lawmakers to reject judicial nominees and senior administration appointments.

White House lawyers have reportedly already been preparing political appointees to respond to congressional investigations and examining whether executive privilege could protect certain communications from disclosure.

Trump, meanwhile, has indicated that he is prepared to use his veto power against Democrat legislation. “I guess I’ll become Mr. Veto,” the President said in remarks reported by Reuters, before suggesting that negotiations with Democrats could eventually produce agreements.

Overriding a presidential veto requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers, a threshold that the Democrats will be unlikely to meet.

An Ongoing Showdown.

The November 3 midterms could produce an unusual political outcome: Democrats gaining control of Congress while Trump continues implementing substantial elements of his agenda through executive authority. The ultimate limits of Trump’s strategy would depend on the courts, congressional appropriations, and the willingness of lawmakers to challenge the White House.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team give you the best analysis on what is going on in Washington, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

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

Britain’s increasingly powerful online regulator has won a major legal victory against three of the world’s social media giants, strengthening its authority to demand extensive information about how online platforms monitor, restrict, and remove content.

To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

London’s High Court rejected a legal challenge brought by Meta, TikTok, and Elon Musk’s X, ruling in favor of the country’s communications regulator Ofcom and its sweeping information requests under Britain’s controversial Online Safety Act.

The regulator is demanding detailed statistics on deleted posts, content subject to reduced visibility, users’ exposure to what it terms harmful material, and how companies handle moderation complaints.

The tech companies argued that the requests were disproportionate, with lawyers warning that complying could cost millions of dollars and require months of work. However, Lord Justice Singh and Mrs. Justice Collins Rice ruled in Ofcom’s favor.

The decision is a major victory for Britain’s increasingly authoritarian regulatory establishment, which already has the authority to impose penalties of up to 10 percent of qualifying global turnover for serious breaches.

Britain’s Internet Thought Police.

The foundations of Britain’s online regulatory regime were established under the Conservative government of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. The Online Safety Act 2023 granted Ofcom extensive new powers to oversee internet services, including social media platforms, search engines, and websites that host user-generated content.

The legislation was claimed to be a means of protecting children from pornography, preventing access to illegal material, and making technology companies more accountable. However, its practical enforcement has been far broader, including censoring a speech in Parliament about grooming gangs.

Companies must assess risks, implement safety measures, maintain appropriate systems for moderating content, and provide information demonstrating their compliance. Ofcom can investigate suspected violations, impose financial penalties, and, in serious circumstances, seek court orders that could result in services being blocked in Britain.

This structure creates powerful chilling effects on speech, with technology companies incentivized to preemptively remove what could be deemed questionable material rather than risk expensive investigations and penalties, leading to censorship.

Political commentary is also under scrutiny, where controversial but lawful opinions may be caught by overly cautious platforms and censored just in case they may violate the legislation.

The Cases.

In March 2026, the regulator announced penalties totaling £520,000 ($696,800) against the American discussion website 4chan. The penalties included £450,000 ($603,000) for allegedly inadequate age-assurance measures intended to prevent children from accessing pornography, £50,000 ($67,000) for failing to conduct an adequate illegal-content risk assessment, and £20,000 ($26,800) for failing to explain protections against illegal material in the website’s terms of service. Ofcom also penalized AVS Group, imposing a £1 million ($1.34 million) fine for failures involving age verification and another £50,000 ($67,000) for failing to comply with an information request.

The attempts to censor companies based in the United States have not gone without legal pushback. American-based websites 4chan and Kiwi Farms challenged Britain’s regulatory efforts in the United States, arguing that attempts to enforce British speech regulations against American businesses violate the First Amendment.

Britain’s Legacy of Hate Speech Arrests.

The dispute comes against the backdrop of Britain’s existing criminal laws governing online communications. Police have long possessed powers under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to investigate certain threatening, grossly offensive, or otherwise illegal communications.

These powers have been applied to social media posts, political disputes, and simple offensive comments. The Online Safety Act introduced additional criminal communications offenses, including provisions concerning threatening messages and knowingly false communications intended to cause harm.

These offenses are, of course, separate from Ofcom’s regulatory powers over technology companies. An Ofcom information request does not authorize police to arrest someone for expressing an unpopular opinion.

Still, the combination of criminal speech laws and extensive platform regulation has intensified debate about Britain’s commitment to freedom of expression. The country risks normalizing government involvement in online communication at both the individual and institutional levels.

Trump Admin Defends Online Speech as Others Censor It.

Britain’s regulatory direction stands in total contrast to President Donald J. Trump’s approach to government involvement in online speech. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed the executive order Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.

The order told federal authorities to refrain from unconstitutional interference with Americans’ protected expression and instructed the attorney general to investigate alleged censorship activities during the Biden regime.

The initiative reflected longstanding allegations that federal agencies under Biden had pressured technology companies to suppress political viewpoints, particularly during disputes over COVID-19, elections, and other subjects.

America’s First Amendment provides constitutional protections against government restrictions on expression, while Britain has no such provision, giving America a unique bulwark against attempts at internet censorship.

The contrast has increased tensions between Washington and London, particularly when British regulators attempt to enforce domestic requirements against American technology companies, with Vice President JD Vance voicing his concerns directly to former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer last year.

The Future of Online Speech in Britain is Bleak.

Ofcom claims that its information-gathering powers are necessary to hold technology companies accountable and protect internet users, particularly children. However, the expansion of regulatory authority is just another example of the British state trying to control what is being said online.

A system that threatens companies with substantial financial penalties may encourage excessive moderation, even without regulators explicitly demanding the removal of lawful political content, producing a preemptive censorship regime.

As London grants its regulators increasingly powerful tools for monitoring the Internet, the distinction between protecting users and controlling speech is becoming an increasingly important topic for Britons. If the situation remains on its current trajectory, the outlook is bleak.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team bring you the full picture of what is happening, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street.

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

Alastair Campbell, former Director of Communications to Tony Blair—and one of the key figures who sold the Iraq War to the British public—told Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf that he has more chance of captaining the Sri Lankan cricket team than of becoming Home Secretary. The comment came after Yusuf called Campbell a “war criminal” to his face on the BBC’s Question Time show.

However, the same corporate media outlets that devoted days of coverage and an anonymous Times leader to Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, calling Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch a “Nigerian scammer” have shown almost no interest.

The National Pulse brings you in-depth news and analysis free of corporate influence. To keep it that way, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION. We are 100% reader-funded.

Will the Times’s leader column focus on this? Will @lewis_goodall?

Will there be days of establishing teeth gnashing over this “Sri Lankan Strategy” deployed on the BBC by a literal war criminal?

Or does the establishment only do all that when a brown man gets too lairy? 🤔 pic.twitter.com/Ve1u3lgXfd

— Raheem J. Kassam (@RaheemKassam) October 30, 2026

Yusuf Confronts Campbell on Iraq.

On Question Time, Yusuf challenged Campbell over his role in the run-up to the invasion. He referenced the notorious claims in the British government’s “dodgy dossier,” which Campbell helped present, that Iraq could strike British territory with weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

“You deceived the British people because you and your old boss Tony Blair wanted to go to war with Iraq, and as a direct result of your deception, almost 180 British troops are dead; 600,000 Iraqi civilians are dead… When you described yourself as a ‘national treasure’ recently, they would more aptly describe you as a war criminal, and if there were any justice in this country, frankly, you and your old boss Tony would be on trial,” Yusuf said.

Campbell later replied on X to a post from Yusuf in which he had shared a clip of the exchange: “I have heard it from far better people than you and they were wrong too. What I enjoyed was seeing you running away from an argument about Brexit because you would rather talk about anything else… You’ve [g]ot nice suits and nice shoes but you’ve got more chance captaining the Sri Lankan cricket team than you have of becoming Home Secretary.”

Yusuf was born in Lanarkshire, England, in 1986 to Sri Lankan Muslim parents who emigrated to Britain earlier in the 1980s. Both worked in the National Health Service (NHS), his father as a pediatrician and his mother as a nurse.

Alastair Campbell did not appear to enjoy being called a war criminal to his face:

The truth hurts. pic.twitter.com/IkFcpnK0kt

— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) October 29, 2026

The Coverage of Kassam’s Badenoch Posts.

Raheem Kassam described Kemi Badenoch as a “Nigerian scammer” on the basis of her long history of misleading people about her past and record. The Times ran an anonymous leader on the posts. LBC’s Lewis Goodall covered them. Conservative figures who pose as opponents of woke racism accusations and political correctness called for Farage and Reform to disown Kassam.

He responded by naming the authors behind The Times‘ “leader” editorials and noting both that Badenoch is a Nigerian citizen and that “Nigerian” is not a race. In a December 2024 Spectator interview, Badenoch herself said she identifies “less with [Nigeria] than with the specific ethnicity [Yoruba],” adding: “That’s what I really am. I have nothing in common with the people from the north of the country… those were our ethnic enemies, and yet you end up being lumped in with those people.”

Nigerian media criticized Badenoch for describing swathes of people in the country where she was raised as her “ethnic enemies,” but the British media has largely ignored the comments, with none of the sustained, manufactured outrage or demands for condemnation directed at Kassam.

The Standard Changes With the Target.

Campbell is a longstanding fixture of the establishment commentariat who co-hosts a podcast with liberal former Conservative politician Rory Stewart. The Times, LBC, and far-left Hope Not Hate actvist turned Mail on Sunday columnist Dan Hodges treating Kassam’s criticism of Badenoch as requiring days of coverage while ignoring Campbell’s reference to Yusuf’s Sri Lankan parentage amounts to a clear double standard.

The Times editorial today is about… me!

So let’s focus on these ANONYMISED “leader” columns and who exactly writes them, because they don’t have bylines on them. Because they are COWARDS.

So I’m gonna tell you the industry’s little secrets that they don’t want you to know…… pic.twitter.com/IquFSnNnCI

— Raheem J. Kassam (@RaheemKassam) October 28, 2026

To keep Raheem J. Kassam and his team RADICALLY INDEPENDENT, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION. 

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