The White House recalibrated its approach to immigration in the wake of the backlash against the death of two Americans at the hands of federal officials in Minneapolis, shifting leadership and softening its rhetoric. Yet three months later, Americans’ views of President Donald Trump’s deportations campaign remain broadly negative.

New results from The POLITICO Poll show that even as the spotlight has moved away from Trump’s mass deportations campaign and onto issues such as the economy and the war in Iran, public opinion has hardly changed, underscoring how difficult it will be for the administration to reset the immigration narrative.

In the poll conducted April 11 to April 14, half of Americans — including one quarter of his 2024 voters — said Trump’s mass deportations campaign, including his widespread deployment of ICE agents, is too aggressive. Roughly a quarter said his immigration posture is about right, while 11 percent say it is not aggressive enough.

The findings offer a warning for the Trump administration — and the GOP — as Republicans look to regain ground on immigration ahead of the midterms.

The once dominant advantage Republicans and Trump held over Democrats on immigration is imperiled, a casualty of the president’s robust enforcement efforts, aggressive crackdowns hundreds of miles from the southern border and images of federal officials detaining children.

The political vulnerability is especially acute among Hispanic voters, a crucial bloc that helped Republicans up and down the ballot in 2024.

While Trump won 46 percent of the Latino vote, the highest share of any GOP presidential candidate in modern history, a majority of Latino voters now disapprove of the president’s handling of immigration (67 percent) and the economy (66 percent),according to a recent poll commissioned by Third Way and UnidosUS.

“The extent of the bottom falling out on Latino voter support for Trump is pretty staggering,” said Lanae Erickson, senior vice president at Third Way. “I think we realized it had softened, but it has really just absolutely eroded any gains that he and his party had made through 2024.”

The April POLITICO Poll similarly found broad dissatisfaction, with 37 percent of Americans opposing Trump’s mass deportations campaign and its implementation — a figure largely unchanged from January despite intense public attention on enforcement operations and clashes between protesters and federal officials at the time.

A majority also continue to view the increased presence of ICE agents negatively, with 51 percent saying it makes cities more dangerous, similar to the 52 percent who said the same in January, even as the administration ended its immigration surge in Minneapolis and has avoided flashy ICE deployments to other cities in the months since.

The lack of improvement in public sentiment comes despite the administration’s efforts to alter its approach after widespread backlash to the killings of Alex Pretti and Renée Good in Minnesota earlier this year. Trump last month ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, replacing her with former Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, and officials have moved away from high-profile raids, in addition to toning down “mass deportations” in public messaging.

White House aides and allies have instead emphasized arrests, public safety and the president’s success in securing the southern border, as Republicans seek to remind voters why they preferred the GOP on immigration for so long. The shift comes amid a broader fight over immigration enforcement funding, with Republicans now looking to steer billions more to ICE and Border Patrol through the budget reconciliation process after failing to reach a deal with Democrats on policy changes.

The White House maintains its strategy is working. Spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the president was elected to “secure the border and deport criminal illegal aliens, and that he “has done both.”

“The totally secure border means there have been zero releases of illegal aliens for 11 straight months, and the administration remains focused on removing the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens to secure American communities,” she said. “These commonsense policies are supported by countless Americans.”

But if the polling is the rock, Trump’s base is the hard place. Those who backed Trump in 2024 are much more likely to support his immigration posture. Two-thirds of these respondents say Trump’s mass deportations campaign is either about right or not aggressive enough — levels of support significantly higher than among those who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris or did not vote.

And there are further divides between those Trump 2024 voters who identify as ‘MAGA’ and those who do not. A strong majority of self-identifying MAGA Trump voters — 82 percent — say his deportation campaign is either about right or not aggressive enough, while 58 percent of non-MAGA Trump voters say the same.

The White House’s messaging pivot on immigration has already drawn ire from some Trump allies. The Mass Deportation Coalition, a group of former Trump administration officials and immigration restrictionist groups, released a white paper earlier this month urging the administration to get to 1 million removals this year. This week, the group spent five figures on ads at bus stops across Washington.

“Mass deportation is broadly supported, both by Trump voters and just everyday Americans,” said Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, which commissioned polling last month that suggested deportations are popular among U.S. voters. “When we continue to call out that it’s not happening, it could happen, and it should happen, we think ultimately we’re going to win.”

But at the same time, the crackdown is taking a toll on the Latino voters key to Trump’s 2024 coalition. In South Texas, the construction industry faces a labor shortage as workers are deported — or worried they might be. Across the heartland, farmers entering planting season fret about a lack of workers. In urban centers, businesses in Latino-heavy areas have seen a dropoff in sales, as some people are too scared to shop or dine.

The dropoff was so severe in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge that the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce started GoFundMe fundraisers for small businesses that were on the verge of closing, said Ramiro Cavazos, president and CEO of the USHCC. Some of the businesses closed after sales plummeted 70 percent, he said.

“It’s hard to recover from the sales that they lost, and there’s nobody there to help repair or restore them, due to the fears,” Cavazos said. “Customers have stopped coming into their regular places to visit, for fear of being picked up illegally, not because they themselves might not be legal.”

Irayda Flores, a seafood wholesaler in Arizona, estimated that 80 to 90 percent of Hispanic-owned small businesses have been affected adversely by the immigration enforcement, either due to workforce issues or a dropoff in sales.

“I was not expecting these results from the Republican side, from this new administration,” Flores said.

The dwindling support among Hispanic voters opens the door for Democrats to capitalize in this fall’s midterms, said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, vice president at UnidosUS. “The president and his party are taking a big eraser to the support they had gotten from Latino voters,” she said. “To put it in World Cup terms, [Republicans] are scoring an own goal. And now we’ll see what the opposing team does.”

Source link

The Green party has suspended well-known Brighton-based Jewish anti-Zionist Tony Greenstein, in response to complaints from Israel lobbyists.

Greenstein is one of the UK’s most fearlessly outspoken anti-genocide activists. Panicked by the Green surge, the lobby has been targeting him for some time and trying to pressure the party into taking action against opponents of Israel’s genocide. So far, Greens leader Zack Polanski has treated the pressure with the contempt it deserves, but the party bureaucracy — at best — has caved in to the smears of Israel’s supporters against Greenstein.

Greenstein was a critic of the Greens for allowing their conference to be filibustered out of passing a key resolution rightly declaring Zionist to be inherently racist. He then warned that Israel’s supporters were about to try to start something similar to the ‘Labour antisemitism’ scam. Now, the party has told him that he has been suspended by a vote of the party’s regional council — shamefully, by a vote of 11 to 1:

Even more shamefully, the notification does not inform Greenstein of the nature of any complaint against him, though it’s clear it was triggered by complaints from local Zionists. Instead, the grounds for the suspension treat historic smears against Greenstein as if they were already judged factual:

Basis of the decision

Documented history of antisemitism, including court decisions and recent terrorism charges.

Greenstein’s supposed “recent terrorism charges” consist of state action for his comments opposing Israel’s genocide and supporting the Palestinians’ legally-watertight right to resist its illegal occupation. It would take a party official maybe a minute to establish that through a simple web search.

Green Party falls for the same destructive trap

Greenstein has sent a detailed response to the party challenging its decision and the false assumptions on which it is based, and reminding it how the antisemitism scam destroyed the Labour party. And, in typically uncompromising fashion he told the party functionaries that, even after two and a half years of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, “The racist press barked and you jumped”:

Accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ in the GP have begun to mushroom. The same Corbyn playbook is being rolled out. with the active connivance of Zionist members of the GP who counterpose their Jewish identity to the genocide in Gaza and war on Lebanon and Iran.

It will be interesting to see if Zack Polanski reacts as Jeremy Corbyn did and appease the Zionists until he too falls victim. These are early days but the signs are not promising. Council candidates are being targeted on the basis of their social media posts, not for anything they have done or said

Advertisement

I am not surprised that you have suspended a prominent Jewish anti-Zionist. The only surprise is that you capitulated so soon and that you have done it on the basis of lies and disinformation.

Why was I not informed of the allegations and asked for a response? This is what occurred in the Labour Party where, if you were Jewish, you were 5 times more likely to be expelled than if you were not Jewish. Zionists. like anti-Semites. equate being Jewish with being Zionist. Anti-Zionist Jews pose a problem because they are living proof that this is a lie.

This campaign began. as it did against Corbyn, with the racist Jewish Chronicle on March 27: ‘Notorious antisemite’ Tony Greenstein joins the Green Party. It was followed by The Telegraph on April 8 ‘Greens open door to anti-Zionist who said Israel was ‘Hitler’s bastard offspring”

The difference between what happened under Corbyn and my suspension today is the small matter of the extermination of 200.000 Palestinians in Gaza. The racist press barked and you jumped.

Advertisement

Subsequently, in an exchange of emails with the party’s ‘complaints and governance officer, Greenstein pointed out why it was clear that, far from being an issue raised by the local Green party as the regional party office had stated, it had been driven by local Zionist lobbyists:

I have just been assured by the local Brighton Party chair that he had no involvement in my suspension. In other words that the complaint came from an individual or individuals.

The form you sent me therefore which says that the origin of the complaint is the local party is highly misleading and dishonest.

I want to know who made this complaint and a copy of the complaint.

Furthermore I am formally submitting a Subject Access Request for all information held on me by the Green Party.

Advertisement

I look forward to hearing from you.

The situation continues to develop.

Greenstein told Skwawkbox:

I have been suspended by the Green party as part of their ‘no fault suspensions’. This is clearly an abuse of process and a political suspension. It is part of the wave of attacks being made by the media, Telegraph etc. against Black and Asian Green candidates.

What we are seeing is an onslaught by defenders of Israel’s genocide against those seen as responsible for the Zionism is Racism motion. It is somewhat ironic that the first scalp is that of a Jewish Anti-Zionist. The allegations are laughable. They mention a ‘Documented history of antisemitism, including court decisions’. This is simply a gross lie.

Advertisement

The reference to terrorism is even more outrageous but what it does is show that the civil liberties commitment of Green Zionists is no different from that of Labour and Tory Zionists.

The Starmer government is using the allegation of ‘terrorism’ against supporters of the Palestinians and here are Green racists adding their support.

Whoever has made this allegation should be expelled from the Green Party as they clearly don’t belong there.

Polanski needs to take the party machine by the proverbial scruff of the neck. Years of genocide have completely exposed Zionism as not just racist but murderous and innately dishonest. There was never any excuse for Labour under Corbyn to fall for the antisemitism scam. There is absolutely none whatever for the Greens, who have the benefit of hindsight, to even humour it for a second.

Antisemitism allegations against Jewish members of the community are a disgrace.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

The post Is Restore a threat to Reform? | Gawain Towler appeared first on spiked.

Source link

4 min read21 min

A Labour backbencher has called for the pension triple lock to be reformed to help fund a rise in defence spending.

Advertisement

Graeme Downie, who was elected as the Labour MP for Dunfermline and Dollar in 2024, wrote in The House this weekend that the government should be brave enough to ask older people who “benefited financially from peace” to make a greater contribution to future national security. 

“If there is to be a true whole of society approach to defence, and younger people could be expected to die, what are older people willing to sacrifice?” he wrote.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer is under pressure to expedite plans to raise defence spending amid warnings that international conflicts pose an increasing threat to the UK.

As things stand, the government is committed to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2027, with the target of reaching 3 per cent in the next parliament.

Advertisement

Starmer has recently indicated that he is willing to go further, but is facing growing calls, including from senior Labour figures, to detail how he will boost Britain’s military and defences in the face of Russian aggression and other threats.

This week, Lord George Robertson, the former Labour defence secretary whom Starmer asked to carry out the Strategic Defence Review, accused the government of “corrosive complacency” and was particularly critical of “non-military experts” in the Treasury for not giving the Ministry of Defence the money it needs.

There have been calls for the Labour government to reduce welfare spending as a way of raising defence spending.

Advertisement

Downie agrees that welfare should be looked at as a way of raising additional funding for national security, but said the focus should be on changes to the pensions triple lock.

Under current policy, pensions are guaranteed to rise by the highest of inflation, average earnings and 2.5 per cent.

The triple lock has enjoyed cross-party support for many years, partly because older people are seen as a key voter group.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves this week said Labour was “not changing” its triple lock policy, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK recently said that it would keep the guarantee in place following suggestions that it would be willing to reform the policy if elected to government.

Advertisement

However, there are warnings that factors like people living longer, falling birth rates and high inflation levels mean the policy is unsustainable in the long term. There is also an argument that to maintain the triple lock in its current form would be unfair, given the financial challenges faced by younger generations.

“If ‘tough’ choices are needed, then we must not duck from the most difficult,” wrote Downie.

“We must be brave enough to ask those who benefited financially from peace to contribute to the future security of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

The Labour MP wrote that not increasing defence spending is not an option for the UK in an increasingly dangerous world, but the government “must be creative in finding routes” to greater funding, arguing that further borrowing or tax rises are not the answer.

He added that it would be unwise to focus on welfare cuts that impact young people, as the health and skills of young people will be “vital” to improving Britain’s defensive capabilities.

Advertisement

“History teaches us that armies don’t win wars, economies do, and poverty harms our economy by reducing the numbers for a capable workforce as well as fighting soldiers,” he said.

The Labour MP wrote that welfare reductions like reinstating the two-child cap would raise around £3bn a year by 2029-2030, “barely touching the sides of what is needed” while “harming people in poverty”, while the OBR estimates that the pension triple lock will cost upwards of £15bn more per year by this point than when it was created.

“If that means reforming, not abolishing, sacred cows such as the pensions triple lock while still protecting pensioners living in poverty, or accessing wealth built up in housing or other assets accumulated during these years of peace, then surely that is a sacrifice worth it for our future freedom?”

 

Advertisement

Source link

5 min read15 min

We must be brave enough to ask those who benefited financially from peace to contribute to the future security of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Advertisement

President Herbert Hoover said: “Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.”

Speaking at a defence conference in Madrid recently, I set out my reasons for why I think the UK is already a front-line nation in a conflict with Russia and why we must do a better job of speaking with the public to help them understand the nature of that conflict and what we must do to prepare for it.

One question put to me has been playing on my mind: Why should young people fight, risking their lives, for older people who have created a system where wealth and power are concentrated in the upper age brackets? After all, young people have endured four ‘once in a generation’ crises and do not have the advantages and opportunities enjoyed by previous generations, and yet are often looked down on with disdain.

In other words, if there is to be a true whole of society approach to defence, and younger people could be expected to die, what are older people willing to sacrifice?

Advertisement

This question is even more pertinent when you consider experience in Ukraine suggests the major looming conflict is one where the technology, data, computing and the creative skills of young people will be vital to success on the battlefield. Drone warfare, rapid software adaptation, remote control munitions, complex and high-tech data management of receptors and information, and the increased use of AI. War is, indeed, a young person’s game.

Not increasing defence and security spending is not an option, but we must be creative in finding routes to do so. The government must balance the realities of the UK’s fiscal position, which limits the potential to borrow, and the truth that we cannot ask individuals or businesses to fund the kind of investment needed on their own via additional taxes.  

Those realities have led to a discussion in the UK focussed on the need to cut public expenditure and transfer that to defence. Specifically, the debate has almost immediately been framed by what, in my view, is a false choice of welfare or defence, that we should take from those who have least, most of them younger.  

Advertisement

History teaches us that armies don’t win wars, economies do, and poverty harms our economy by reducing the numbers for a capable workforce as well as fighting soldiers.

If ‘tough’ choices are needed, then we must not duck from the most difficult

One of the lessons of the build-up to World War I, and one of the justifications used by David Lloyd George for his ‘war budget’ of 1909, was that the health of the nation was not sufficient to fight and win the looming war. Similarly, the health of the nation was a key concern in the build-up to World War 2. This is a lesson we will have been shown to have forgotten if we attack welfare in the false belief that such a choice will help us win the next war.

Advertisement

To deter Russia and our other adversaries, we must show we are serious about building a population, economy and armed forces that can deter and resist their aggression. It is widely said that Europe wasted the peace dividend. If that is the case, then some of the conversation now, and any package of measures proposed, must include asking those people who benefited financially from peace to sacrifice a portion of that to pay for the future security of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

If that means reforming, not abolishing, sacred cows such as the pensions triple lock while still protecting pensioners living in poverty, or accessing wealth built up in housing or other assets accumulated during these years of peace, then surely that is a sacrifice worth it for our future freedom?

The cost of reaching the required 3 per cent of GDP on defence would be an estimated £17.3bn by 2029-2030. Reinstating the two-child cap, as has been proposed by the Conservatives, would only raise £3bn a year by the same point, barely touching the sides of what is needed, while harming people in poverty and making our country less prepared for war. 

Meanwhile, the OBR estimates that in 2029-30, the pension triple lock will cost upwards of £15bn more per year than estimated when it was established. If ‘tough’ choices are needed, then we must not duck from the most difficult.

Advertisement

I do not think this whole amount could or should be realised. We must still look after pensioners and ensure fair rises in the state pension, but at the very least, these choices must be part of a conversation.

If they are not, if we continue with a dichotomy of ‘defence or welfare’, not only will we fail to build a society that can deter and defeat our enemies, but we risk that the people we need to help us win will be unwilling to fight at all.

 

Graeme Downie is the Labour MP for Dunfermline & Dollar

Advertisement

Source link

In a development that puts FIFA in a difficult position ahead of the 2026 World Cup, three senior officials from the Palestinian Football Association were barred from entering Canada after their visa applications to attend the FIFA Congress, scheduled to be held in Vancouver on April 30, were rejected.

The decision includes the president of the Palestinian Football Association, Jibril Rajoub, along with the secretary-general and the head of the legal department. This has prompted the association to request FIFA’s intervention with the Canadian authorities.

The FIFA Congress is not merely an administrative meeting; it represents the only official platform where national associations have the right to directly influence global football policies. Therefore, the absence of any association from it effectively constitutes exclusion from the decision-making process.

FIFA can’t keep ignoring Palestine

According to the Guardian, the Palestinian delegation was not only seeking to attend but also intended to raise a sensitive issue concerning the participation of Israeli clubs in competitions held in areas Palestinians consider occupied territory in the West Bank.

Last March, FIFA issued a report concluding that “no action should be taken,” justifying this by stating that the legal status of the West Bank is “complex and unresolved.” This decision sparked widespread criticism.

The Palestinian Football Association was expected to respond to this decision within the FIFA Congress, with the possibility of later escalating the issue to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Legitimate Questions

According to the source, Canadian authorities maintain that visa applications are reviewed individually according to immigration standards, without discrimination.

However, the timing of the decision, and the nature of the issue that was to be raised, open the door to broader questions regarding the world’s reaction to Israel’s genocide in Palestine.

The absence of the Palestinian delegation raises important questions about the deliberate attempt to reduce pressure on the issue of Israeli clubs and FIFA’s apparent indifference despite being aware of the repercussions of the absence of one of its members.

Did someone intervene?

In this context, a growing belief emerges in media and human rights circles that Israel may be the primary beneficiary of the absence of a Palestinian proposal, reinforcing suspicions about the possibility of indirect political pressure.

FIFA, for its part, may also benefit from avoiding the reopening of a thorny issue it had previously chosen to close.

Between benefit and decision, the scope of doubt and questions widens: was there covert intervention—direct or indirect—to ensure this issue never reached the discussion stage?

This question has yet to receive a definitive answer, but for those of us who have seen widespread suppression, censorship, and erasure of everything involving Palestine, the answer is obvious.

FIFA under scrutiny

This incident comes at a time when the challenges facing the 2026 World Cup are increasing. This tournament will be held for the first time in three countries with 48 participating teams. However, there remain serious questions over US president Donald Trump’s campaign of using a militia – ICE – to terrorise, detain, and deport people.

Despite FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s assurances that “everyone will be welcome,” reality reveals a gap between rhetoric and implementation.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

In a functioning democracy, Keir Starmer’s position would today be untenable over his “weirdly rushed” appointments of disgraced friend-of-Epstein Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US and as his top adviser. An investigation has uncovered the fact that Mandelson failed the vetting procedure for his short-lived ambassadorial role from which he was removed for his closeness to Israeli spy and serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

However, the Foreign Office overruled the security decision because Keir Starmer had already announced the appointment. Since then, the Starmer regime has engaged in a rolling cover-up to try to save Starmer’s job. Starmer’s Israel-linked chief of staff – and Mandelson protégé – Morgan McSweeney was also sacrificed in the attempt to protect his boss.

Mandelson was always clinging to power

Starmer’s decision to suspend national security rules to protect Mandelson was already exposed in March 2026. But the latest revelations show that the government knew full well that Mandelson had failed vetting and was unsuitable for the role – yet steamrolled the vetting to install Mandelson anyway, then lied repeatedly about it.

Mandelson had repeatedly leaked privileged and highly lucrative information to his paedophile pal.

Mandelson was denied clearance in late January 2025 after the completion of enhanced ‘developed vetting’ by security officials. Rather than wait until vetting was completed, Starmer had already announced his appointment as the UK’s ambassador to the US. To save Starmer’s blushes, the Foreign Office overrode the vetting outcome.

The government published a 147-page batch of files relating to Mandelson’s appointment. However, the release – controlled by a Starmer lackey – left out any mention of Mandelson failing vetting.

This was no doubt linked to the fact that in February 2026, Starmer said Mandelson had passed the vetting process, claiming the “intensive exercise gave him clearance”:

For God’s sake man, go!

As the Guardian noted, the scandal is nowhere near finished unfolding:

Further files linked to Mandelson are due to be released, but The Guardian reported that top UK officials have been considering withholding the documents which would show the Labour peer failed security vetting.

However, leading figures in other parties are already demanding his resignation for lying to Parliament and the public. Green MP Sian Berry said:

Keir Starmer has lied and lied again over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and he must resign. Starmer told Parliament ‘due process’ had been followed. This report makes clear that was untrue.

Tory and Lib Dem leaders Kemi Badenoch and Ed Davey were, typically, more wishy-washy. Both said that ‘if’ Starmer has lied he must resign. That he lied is now beyond even the most stubborn doubt. If he fails to step down, it can only be yet another sign of how fundamentally untrustworthy the man who never saw a promise he wouldn’t break really and obviously is.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Fresh from praying for “overwhelming violence” on Iran, ‘Christian’ (I know, right) bloodthirsty US ‘secretary of war’ Pete Hegseth has quoted a ‘Bible verse’ to an audience of military personnel. Except it wasn’t a Bible verse – it was a fake one lifted almost word for word from the ultra-violent film Pulp Fiction.

And one enterprising soul even overlaid one on top of the other to demonstrate it:

Wow this is embarrassing!

Pete Hegseth quoted a fake Bible verse from Pulp Fiction at a Pentagon speech and prayer session yesterday.

The prayer was an adaptation of the monologue delivered by Samuel L. Jackson’s character. In the movie, the character falsely attributes it to… pic.twitter.com/G4OJc9BdQC

Advertisement

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) April 16, 2026

Hegseth told his audience that a US air force pilot had given him the ‘biblical’ quotation, supposedly based on the book of Ezekiel.

Nah. He still thought it was an actual scripture. Try as he might, he just isn’t selling the disastrous US-Israel attack on Iran as a ‘holy war.’

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

140 writers have stated they will not “be hostages in ideological war” as they quit the esteemed French publishing house Grasset. Their principled stand comes in protest at its super-rich owner, Vincent Bolloré, who regularly promotes reactionary and far-right propaganda through the billionaire’s media empire.

Similar to the Murdoch monopoly in the UK, Bolloré owns much of the media in France and regularly uses them to push far-right hateful rhetoric to the wider public. Having bought France’s biggest publishers Hachette Livre in 2023, his hateful reach is only becoming more entrenched in French society.

This latest acquisition, however, has given rise to widespread resistance, with the authors stating:

We refuse to be hostages in an ideological war that seeks to impose authoritarianism everywhere in culture and the media.

We don’t want our ideas, our work, to be his property.

Advertisement

More than 100 writers have quit the historic French publishing house, Grasset, in protest at its billionaire conservative owner, Vincent Bolloré, whose media empire has been accused of promoting reactionary and far-right ideas. https://t.co/0P9RPV4d2K #France

— Francisco Taveira (@jftaveira1993) April 16, 2026

Grasset face storm

The revolt exploded after Bolloré abruptly sacked long-time Grasset boss Olivier Nora, triggering an immediate backlash across France’s literary world. By Wednesday night, 140 authors had pledged to walk away from the prestigious publisher.

They declared in a blistering open letter:

We are Grasset authors. We have published with Grasset. We have books coming out with Grasset. But we will not sign our next books with Grasset – and we are 140.

For these writers, Nora wasn’t just an editor – he was the last line of defence. In their letter, they argue that his removal marks a direct attack on editorial independence and creative freedom.

Subsequently, their message is uncompromising: they refuse to become “hostages in an ideological war” or allow their work to be controlled by an owner they fundamentally oppose.

And in a rare show of unity across a deeply divided literary scene, they’ve made their demand clear: without Nora, they walk.

Nevertheless, this letter suggests this demand may just be the start. They intend on pursuing legal action to regain their rights to their work prior to the far-right takeover. This is likely to be expensive for Bolloré, as Grasset has been the home of a number of highly successful authors such as Vanessa Springora’s bestselling book “Consent”.

Some have even been more provocative in their protest, with journalist David Dufresne tearing up his contract with the publishing house on French TV.

Doing so, he declared:

Bolloré is trading in commerce and ideology, not literature or essays.

Le journaliste David Dufresne déchire en direct son contrat le liant à Grasset et Bolloréhttps://t.co/hLw8ifp9zj

— Le HuffPost (@LeHuffPost) April 16, 2026

The French ‘Murdoch’ empire

Bolloré strikes many similarities with the corrosive impact we see on our own society in the bile-spilling far-right Murdoch-owned press. Just like Murdoch, the French billionaire is widening is influence on their democracy, using his extensive reach through TV, radio and even a Sunday paper Le Journal Du Dimanche. In another deja vu, he is most often seen providing platforms for the far-right.

This isn’t even his first acquisition into the world of literature, in 2023 he took over France’s largest publishing and distribution conglomerate, Hachette Livre.

Looking to TV, he owns the most-watched news channel CNews, which has been criticised by the left as fueling the rise of the far-right. In fact, a legal investigation is currently open into racism on the channel, an allegation which the channel obviously denied.

Unsurprising really, we have seen the same political maneuvering from billionaires through the media in the UK. Whether it is GBNews or TalkTV, the far-right are drastically extending their sphere of influence across Western democracies.

Beautifully, this protest from these authors, in a great sacrifice to their own success, includes writers from the left and right.

Author Colombe Schneck defiantly commented:

We can’t let all the publishing houses of the Hachette group become far right.

That concern is likely to come back to bite us here in the UK, as Hachette also own the second biggest publishing outfit in the UK – Hodder & Stoughton. Similarly, they are the third biggest in the US. This ability for Bolloré to extend his views across continents is a danger we must all heed and a danger that these authors are bringing to the forefront of public debate. After all, his views have been deemed “very close to the most radical far right” by French former minister Pap Ndiaye.

This only works to help fascism defeat us at the ballot box and it is stacking the deck against ordinary people.

The far-right have their claws in and they mean business

The far right and their vast wealth are increasingly working to bring in hostile, fascist governments across the West. This example today, whilst across the channel in France, has every potential to meter its abusive influence on our own democracy in the UK. Therefore, this righteous protest yesterday is uniting people across the left and right and offers a warning we all must heed.

It also draws critical attention to the reach of this divisive and malign intentioned billionaire in the UK, and the potential that he has already been using his empirical influence in the UK to further the aims of the far right in our own communities.

Yet this teaches us a powerful lesson: together, we can make it very expensive for the super-rich when we take our business elsewhere.

Let’s hope British authors in Hodder & Stoughton soon follow suit!

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

TV veteran Eamonn Holmes has thanked his supporters for their well wishes after suffering a stroke.

Last week, it was reported that the former This Morning was recovering in hospital following a stroke.

A representative for GB News, where Eamonn is the host of the daily breakfast show, told HuffPost UK on Saturday: “Eamonn was taken ill last week and it was later confirmed he had suffered a stroke. He is currently responding well to treatment.

“Eamonn has asked for privacy as he focuses on getting better. His colleagues and everyone at GB News wish him a speedy recovery and look forward to welcoming him back to the People’s Channel when he is ready to return.”

Advertisement

On Sunday, Eamonn shared his first social media post since his stroke, posting a picture of his two granddaughters holding a sign with the message “get well soom” on Instagram.

“As my beautiful granddaughters put it so well – I will do my best to get well SOOM,” he joked. “Thank you for all of your many many good wishes, they give me strength.”

David Fisher/Shutterstock

His son Declan also said (as reported by The Independent): “What happened came as a real shock, but dad is doing okay given the circumstances and we’re taking it one step at a time.

“I just wanted to share a quick message to say we hugely appreciate all the messages, it means a lot to us as a family. For now, we’re focused on him and keeping things steady around him.

Advertisement

“We’d really value a bit of privacy as we navigate it, and what lies ahead, but thank-you again for the support as it means so much to dad and the rest of the family.”

Outside of This Morning and GB News, Eamonn is known for his work on the likes of ITV’s GMTV and Sky News’ Sunrise.

In recent history, he has spoken candidly about his health issues, undergoing a double hip replacement in 2016 and spinal surgery due to chronic pain in 2022.

Source link