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.

British Conservative (Tory) Party leader Kemi Badenoch has been rebuked by the White House after she attacked Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage over recent comments about the Chagos Islands, with a senior official accusing her of spreading “fake news” and undermining the British-American alliance. The rebuke is a major public embarrassment for the gaffe-prone party leader, who has a long history of peddling half-truths and outright deceptions.

The National Pulse brings you in-depth analysis from around the world. To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep you informed, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

The Chagos Debacle.

The Chagos row began after Farage said in an interview that, if he was Prime Minister, he would have offered President Trump guaranteed use of the Diego Garcia base—the strategically vital joint British-American facility in the British Indian Ocean Territory, or Chagos Islands—in “perpetuity,” while pressing the American leader to stop counter-signaling Britain on the Falkland Islands, a British territory in the South Atlantic claimed by Argentina. Badenoch responded by calling the remarks “humiliating” for Britain and declaring that “giving away British territory in return for someone keeping quiet is not a deal.”

A senior White House official pushed back sharply. “At no point did anyone in the administration construe Nigel’s comments as suggesting that he was giving away the Chagos Islands. He was obviously referring to the use of the Diego Garcia military base, which is critical to countering threats from China and Iran,” the official said. “Anyone claiming otherwise is peddling fake news and undermining the Anglo-American relationship, including, apparently, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch.”

A second US official adds:

“At no point did anyone in the administration construe Nigel’s comments as suggesting that he was giving away the Chagos Islands.

“He was obviously referring to the use of the Diego Garcia military base, which is critical to countering threats from…

— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) October 14, 2026

Currently, Britain’s incumbent Labour Party government is attempting to surrender the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a China-aligned state with no real claim to the archipelago, in deference to a non-binding ruling of the United Nations’ International Court of Justice. The deal would involve Britain paying Mauritius to maintain a lease on Diego Garcia, which it currently owns outright for free, but security on the base would still be undermined by the possibility of Mauritius allowing China or another power to establish a presence on one of the archipelago’s other islands. Significantly, the negotiations to surrender the islands were initiated by Badenoch’s Conservatives.

Badenoch’s misrepresentation of Farage, who has doggedly opposed transferring the islands to Mauritian sovereignty and was instrumental in prompting the U.S. to intervene against the deal, fits a broader pattern: she has repeatedly faced accusations of exaggeration, selective memory, and inconsistency on her personal story, her record in government, and her current policies.

Championing DEI.

As Equalities Minister when the Conservatives were still in government, Badenoch led the so-called ‘Inclusive Britain’ framework that included work on ethnicity pay gaps in the National Health Service (NHS) and other diversity-related measures, such as pushing for increased racial diversity in the judiciary and law enforcement. She now claims to be a sharp critic of DEI schemes in opposition.

Farage has called her “totally disingenuous” on the subject, arguing that she should be judged by what happened under her ministerial watch rather than her current rhetoric.

The European Convention on Human Rights.

Badenoch previously insisted that leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which binds Britain to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, would not be a “silver bullet” for immigration control. She now claims she would leave the ECHR, which is regularly used to block the deportation of illegal migrants and foreign criminals on highly dubious human rights grounds, but critics have stressed that the Conservatives had 14 years in government from 2010 to 2024 to do so, and that the promise is likely false, similar to its broken promises to substantially reduce immigration.

More broadly, her time in previous Conservative governments ties her to the party’s record of overseeing unprecedented mass migration, which she now claims ministers “didn’t notice,”  corporation tax increases, net zero energy policies, and incomplete delivery of Brexit.

🚨 Statement from Misley Mandarin, First Minister of the Chagossian Government. pic.twitter.com/iSm47N8zDg

— Reform UK (@reformparty_uk) October 14, 2026

The National Pulse relies on the support of readers like you to remain free from corporate influence. To keep us RADICALLY INDEPENDENT, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. 

Hypocrisy on Identity.

At the Conservatives’ recent annual party conference, Badenoch took aim at Reform figures, including former colleague Suella Braverman, for suggesting English people have an ethnic identity. She mischaracterized this as a “debate whether my mixed-race children are English” and framed such discussions as divisive, racist identity politics.

Yet Badenoch has previously been explicit about her own pride in her ethnic identity. “I find it interesting that everybody defines me as being Nigerian. I identify less with the country than with the specific ethnicity [Yoruba]. That’s what I really am.” She added that she has “nothing in common with the people from the north of the country… those were our ethnic enemies.”

Critics, including Nigerians, have noted the double standard of resisting any suggestion of an English ethnic identity while asserting an exclusive Yoruba ethnic identity.

Exaggerated Childhood Hardship.

Badenoch has described a difficult upbringing in Nigeria marked by fear, corruption, and material hardship, including claims of limited access to clean water and other struggles. Nigerian officials, media, and people familiar with her family have pushed back. Her father was a family doctor who owned a private clinic serving wealthier clients; her mother held a prominent academic role; and she attended the elite private International School Lagos.

Nigerian officials have publicly accused her of being “someone who has obviously lied about everything she said about her upbringing in Nigeria,” with the Nigerian Vice President personally rebuking her for “denigrating her nation of origin.”

Badenoch has also faced criticism for a profile on her website claiming she was “a bright child, excelling at maths and English, who loved beating boys in her class at chess, at seven winning a national girls’ chess tournament.” It was subsequently revealed that she was one of only two girls who competed.

Born In a Muslim Country? 

While attempting to appeal to Muslim voters in April, Badenoch stated on LBC Radio, “My grandmother was a Muslim. I was born in a country that was 50 percent Muslim. I said Muslim prayers on Friday because that’s what happened there when I was at school. I have good friends who are Muslim.”

Badenoch was referring to Nigeria, where she was raised. Officially, however, she was born in London, not Nigeria, in 1980, after her mother flew there specifically to give birth. Because of this, Badenoch was entitled to birthright citizenship in the United Kingdom, even though her parents took her back to Nigeria shortly afterward. She did not return to Britain until she was 16. Significantly, the rules governing birthright citizenship were tightened shortly after she was born, meaning she would not have been eligible for citizenship today.

The Stanford Fantasy.

Badenoch has long claimed that at age 16 she received an offer and partial scholarship to study medicine or “pre-med” at Stanford University on the basis of strong SAT scores, but her family could not afford it. Former Stanford admissions staff, including the officer responsible for international admissions and financial aid at the time, have described this as implausible or even impossible.

Stanford does not offer an undergraduate pre-med degree. Admissions were not made on test scores alone, and partial scholarships of the kind described were not standard practice. Nevertheless, Badenoch has stood by her recollection, while insisting she cannot prove it because she no longer has the paperwork.

Melonigate.

Prior to the public takedown by the Trump administration for her misleading comments about Farage and the Chagos Islands, the most significant foreign policy disaster of Badenoch’s tenure centered on Italy, and an apparently invented conversation between the Conservative leader and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

 The Times, Britain’s de facto newspaper of record, reported in August that Meloni had advised Badenoch not to countenance an electoral pact with Reform, urging her to “be your own woman and stand your ground. Shortly afterward, however, sources close to Meloni told The National Pulse that no such discussion took place, with Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party stating publicly that she never suggested that Badenoch should not consider allying with Farage.

The incident became a major scandal for The Times, which had to gut the story with extensive stealth edits, but did not indicate the changes in an editor’s note or issue a correction or contraction. If the false claim came from Badenoch’s team, it likely substantially burned the Conservatives’ credibility with the paper.

Is Walter Kemi “crashing out?”

Between her scholarship claims, her reverse ferret on immigration and net zero, her falling out with VP Vance, and now her retraction of this Meloni story, it appears so.

My appearance on GB News tonight: pic.twitter.com/W6Pj7YYJIM

— Raheem J. Kassam (@RaheemKassam) August 26, 2026

The National Pulse brings you deep dives that take time and research to put together. 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.

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveal a dramatic decline in the number of young American teenagers identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, raising questions about whether a cultural phenomenon that expanded rapidly over the past two decades has reached a turning point.

The National Pulse brings you the latest research on current events. 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 the research, the proportion of ninth-grade girls identifying as lesbian or bisexual fell from 30 percent in 2021 to just 17 percent in 2025, an overall decline of 43 percent. The percentage identifying specifically as bisexual was cut in half, falling from 26 percent to 13 percent over the same period. Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University who analyzed the CDC figures, described the decline as a “free fall.”

The figures emerge amid other developments challenging assumptions about younger generations across the West, including increased support for populist-right parties among sections of Europe’s youth and an unexpected surge in young people converting to Catholicism in colleges across the country, suggesting that the progressive cultural consensus that shaped much of the 2010s has begun to lose its influence over the next generation.

LGBT Ideology Became Mainstream.

By the early 21st century, the LGBT movement had achieved several major legal victories in the U.S., culminating in the 2015 Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriage nationwide. The following decade saw LGBT ideology become increasingly promoted in schools, universities, major corporations, entertainment, and political institutions. Pride campaigns exploded into the mainstream, while discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation became commonplace, especially among young people.

According to Gallup’s historical polling, just 3.5 percent of American adults identified as LGBT in 2012. That figure rose to 7.1 percent in 2021 and reached 9.3 percent in 2024. Among Generation Z adults, the numbers were enormous, with 23.1 percent identifying as LGBT in 2024.

The Post-Pandemic Reversal.

The CDC data examined by Professor Twenge indicate that the most dramatic changes have occurred among younger teenage girls, particularly those identifying as bisexual. The proportion of ninth-grade girls identifying as lesbian or bisexual declined by 13 percent between 2021 and 2025. Among high school girls overall, the proportion identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual declined from approximately 27 percent in 2021 to 22 percent in 2025.

The pattern was notably different among boys, whose identification rates have remained mostly the same. Older teenage girls also experienced much smaller changes, with their identification rates remaining above pre-pandemic levels. The findings raise questions about the massive growth in bisexual identification among teenage girls during and immediately following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conservatives have pointed to changing political attitudes and opposition to progressive gender policies as possible explanations. Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, responded to the figures by crediting changes under President Donald J. Trump’s administration.

Meanwhile, Gallup reported that adult LGBT identification declined slightly to nine percent in 2025, compared with 9.3 percent in 2024.

The Battle Over Gender Ideology in Schools.

Many young people are shaped by their education, and the ongoing battles by parents and lawmakers over gender ideology may also be playing a part in the decline of young people identifying as LGBT.

Conservative parents and advocacy organizations have challenged school policies permitting students to adopt different names or pronouns without parental notification, the inclusion of gender identity concepts in classroom materials, and the participation of transgender students in sex-segregated sports.

These disputes have increasingly shaped state legislation, school-board elections, and national education policy. In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”.

The order directed federal agencies to develop strategies for eliminating federal support for certain gender identity and DEI-related programs in schools, while strengthening enforcement of existing parental rights protections. It specifically addressed school policies involving the social transition of minors without parental involvement.

The Trump administration subsequently directed the Department of Education to ensure federal education funding complied with its interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law and policies concerning gender identity.

The Decline of Woke.

The latest teenage identification figures do not establish that homosexuality is declining or that LGBT identities are disappearing from American society. Gallup’s adult figures remain more than twice their 2012 level, while the sharpest teenage decline is concentrated among younger girls rather than appearing uniformly across all demographic groups.

However, the changing figures coincide with a significant transformation in the institutional environment surrounding progressive social policies.

Major corporations that once enthusiastically embraced gender ideology and woke DEI initiatives are retreating from some of those commitments. Public schools face mounting disputes over gender ideology and parental authority. The Trump administration has made reversing progressive identity-based policies a central feature of its domestic agenda.

The figures suggest that the rapid growth in sexual-identity labeling among younger teenagers during the early 2020s was not necessarily permanent and may have just been a passing trend.

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

Image by Silar.

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