You really know you’ve made it as an A-list music star when the NFL invites you to perform during the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
In the past few years alone, massive names as varied as The Weeknd, Jennifer Lopez, Usher, Kendrick Lamar and, of course, Rihanna have all wowed with their performances – but there have been a fair few shocking moments along the way.
This year, the honour falls to music superstar Bad Bunny, fresh from his Album Of The Year win at the 2026 Grammys, and the world is sure to be watching to see what he pulls out of the bag on one of the world’s most-watched music events.
Indeed, as history has proved time and time again, the Super Bowl Halftime Show hasn’t always been just about the music – with plenty of shocking and headline-grabbing moments taking place at the annual sports event.
Advertisement
As we get ready for what could easily become one of the year’s biggest nights in music, here are 18 more of the biggest Super Bowl shockers from years gone by…
18. Blackout Bowl (2013)
Jamie Squire via Getty Images
This shocking moment didn’t come during Beyoncé’s Halftime Show but shortly after it, with the football game that followed (snooze…) having to suspend play for a full 34 minutes due to a power outage.
Evidently, the power of the Queen Bey is so strong, it can even plunge an entire stadium into darkness. Bow down, bitches indeed.
Usher’s jam-packed set included powerful vocals, surprise A-list guests and impressive choreo.
Looking back, though, we think this impromptu shirtless moment is probably what we think of most when we reflect on the Burn singer’s Super Bowl appearance…
She’s not always the first person you think of when it comes to great live performers, but Katy Perry proved a massive point when she really brought it at the Super Bowl.
Over the course of her Halftime Show, Katy entered atop a giant lion, floated through the air while singing Firework, introduced Missy Elliott and convincingly rocked out to I Kissed A Girl with Lenny Kravitz.
Advertisement
And yet… the next day all anyone seemed to want to talk about was the “Left Shark” incident, when one of her dancers lost their way in the middle of a routine, while dressed as a shark.
It’s a pity, really, because Katy’s was one of the most impressive and elaborate Super Bowl shows of the 2010s.
If nothing else, the 2022 Halftime Show will be remembered for the epic level of stars that took part, with singer Mary J Blige and rappers Kendrick Lamar, Eminem and 50 Cent among those sharing the stage in a celebration of hip-hop music throughout the years.
There were some big headline-grabbing moments, too – not least when 50 Cent recreated his upside down entrance from his In Da Club music video, and Eminem made a show of solidarity by taking the knee in the middle of the performance.
Diana Ross’ Super Bowl performance was jam-packed with hits, dating back from the music legend’s days in the Supremes right through to her solo success.
Arguably the most iconic moment of the lot came right at the end, though, when she left the field in a helicopter. There’s travelling in style, and then there’s this…
Nobody would question that Prince is one of the greatest live performers in pop history, but he really cemented this at the 2007 Super Bowl. As well as covering tracks by Queen, Foo Fighters and Bob Dylan, he effortlessly performed his own songs Let’s Go Crazy and Baby I’m A Star.
He closed the show with a version of his signature hit, Purple Rain, made all the more significant by the literal downpour that accompanied it – the real shocker being that Prince still managed to retain his cool throughout. What a man.
Before it was so commonplace for huge musicians to perform at the Halftime Show, organisers used to think a little more outside the box. That’s why in 1991, they handed over the reins to the Walt Disney Company.
Disney’s show is not one that’s looked back on particularly fondly, with a wave of local child performers sharing the stage with the company’s iconic characters (as well as New Kids On The Block, for some reason), while also somehow shoehorning in a tribute to those fighting in the Gulf war, and a message from then-president George Bush.
Advertisement
Fortunately for everyone involved, this was also the year Whitney Houston blew everyone away with her rendition of the National Anthem, which is what most of us remember about the Super Bowl that year.
Known for making a statement in some way or another whenever she performs live, we were curious to see how Lady Gaga would kick things off when given the massive platform of the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
Advertisement
And really, what better way is there to make an entrance than a pre-recorded patriotic tune sung from the top of a stadium, before leaping off it to perform your hits on the field below?
After a great run of successive mega-stars performing at the Super Bowl , beginning with Madonna and ending with Lady Gaga, the stakes were high when it was announced that Justin Timberlake would be taking the stage for the first time since 2004.
Advertisement
Regrettably, his performance didn’t quite live up to expectations, with many criticising his unusual fashion choices, as well as the decision not to invite Janet Jackson to perform with him following their ill-fated performance more than a decade earlier (more on that later, unsurprisingly).
In 2020, the NFL lined up two legendary artists to share top billing with Jennifer Lopez and Shakira teaming up for the Halftime Show.
Advertisement
The pair’s performance was packed full of memorable moments, with Shakira showing off her famous belly-dancing skills, crowd-surfing and paid homage to both her Colombian and Lebanese heritage.
Meanwhile, J-Lo sneaked in a cameo appearance from her teenager Emme, and turned her hit Let’s Get Loud into a unifying (and surprisingly effective) protest anthem.
However, some more conservative critics took issue with the star when she showed off some of the pole-dancing skills she’d honed while making the film Hustlers. There’s clearly just no pleasing some people…
Given that The Weeknd’s Halftime Show performance came pretty much slap-bang in the middle of the pandemic, there was a big question mark over exactly how he would be able to pull it all off.
True to form, he managed just fine.
Embodying the “lounge lizard” character that he took on while promoting his After Hours album, the singer put an unusually eerie spin on the Super Bowl Halftime Show, at one point getting lost in a creepy maze before heading out onto the pitch, where he was met by an army of identically-dressed backing dancers in facial bandages.
Kendrick Lamar during a memorable moment in his 2025 Super Bowl routine
It’s tough to know quite where to start with Kendrick Lamar’s performance from 2025.
One of the best showman of his generation, it says something that above all of that, what we best remember Kendrick holding court at the centre of it all.
Having been away from the stage for a number of years, the world was waiting with baited breath for Rihanna’s Super Bowl performance, which she’d previously teased would include a mysterious surprise guest.
What no one could have anticipated, though, was that Rih was talking about her unborn child, not least because she’d welcomed her son RZA only a few months earlier.
Reports claimed that the chart-topping star even managed to conceal her pregnancy from almost everyone involved in putting the performance together – which made it almost using the Super Bowl Halftime Performance as her way of announcing to the world she had another baby on the way all the more surprising.
Advertisement
She has since welcomed a second son, Riot, with her partner, fellow musician A$AP Rocky.
It had been one of the worst kept secrets in music, but we still did a little squeal when the other two members of Destiny’s Child popped up during Beyoncé’s Super Bowl performance (and what a pop up it was, we could happily watch Michelle Williams finding her feet after shooting up from the floor for a good two hours without getting bored).
Advertisement
The trio whizzed through Bootylicious and Independent Women before joining Beyoncé for Single Ladies, complete with the video’s original choreo.
Madonna was the main event during the 2012 Halftime Show, but it was M.I.A. who wound up generating the most headlines.
Advertisement
Upon finding out that her pre-recorded vocals would be cutting out the word “shit” as she appeared during Give Me All Your Luvin’, the British rapper decided to take matters into her own hands, or rather fingers, by flipping off the camera at the end of her part of the performance.
Although the incident only lasted a split second, it had big repercussions for M.I.A., who wound up facing a lawsuit for millions of dollars from the NFL over the unplanned incident.
Beyoncé had already begun addressing social issues, specifically feminism, on her self-titled album at the end of 2013, but she cranked things up a good few notches when she kicked off the Lemonade era.
This stage of her career began with a guest spot during Coldplay’s Super Bowl show, where her first ever live performance of Formation wound up creating a buzz thanks to its allusions to Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and the Black Lives Matter movement.
Beyoncé’s fans lapped it up, and her empowering Super Bowl performance built anticipation for when Lemonade arrived a few months later, following similar themes.
“Play at the Super Bowl,” they told Janet Jackson. “Invite Justin Timberlake along,” they told Janet Jackson. “This will give your career a massive boost,” they told Janet Jackson.
The story goes that Justin went to tear off the front of Janet’s outfit at the end of their performance, but also wound up ripping her lace bra too, exposing her breast, which was covered by a nipple shield.
Although the so-called “wardrobe malfunction” didn’t even last a full second, it had the power to bring Janet’s career to a temporary halt, and while she’s certainly enjoyed success since, we can’t help but wonder how far the talented and unique star could have gone had this scandal not defined her for so many years.
Advertisement
In more recent years, Janet and Justin’s Super Bowl performance has been used as an example of gender double standards in the entertainment industry.
Janet had her performance at the 2004 Grammys – which took place just seven days after the Super Bowl – unceremoniously dropped in the fallout. Justin, meanwhile, not only performed during the show but took home Album Of The Year, even cracking a joke about the Super Bowl during his acceptance speech.
Jeff Kravitz via Getty Images
In early 2018, Justin disclosed that he and Janet were on good terms despite the scandal, but sadly those “good terms” didn’t extend to an invitation to join him on stage, which is unfortunate, because that would certainly have livened up what was ultimately a fairly poorly-received performance.
Three years later, Justin publicly apologised to both Janet and his ex-girlfriend Britney Spears, stating (in a since-deleted Instagram post): “I care for and respect these women and I know I failed”.
Advertisement
He added: “The industry is flawed. It sets men, especially white men, up for success. It’s designed this way. As a man in a privileged position I have to be vocal about this. Because of my ignorance, I didn’t recognise it for all that it was while it was happening in my own life but I do not want to ever benefit from others being pulled down again.”
The Canary recently reported that Israeli occupation forces (IOF) tortured a young boy in al Maghazi refugee camp, in the Deir al Balah governorate of Central Gaza. This happened in front of his father, 25 year old Osama Abu Nassar, to pressure him into making a confession.
“Israel” destroyed Abu Nassar’s livelihood causing him to suffer mental health issues
But since the incident, which happened on 19 March 2026, there has been no news of Abu Nassar’s whereabouts. Concerns are growing for his safety, and are made worse by the fact that he is suffering from mental health issues. Until quite recently, he made an income by using his horse to transport people’s belongings. But the Israeli occupation killed his horse and, for the past two years, Abu Nassar has found himself unemployed, with no means of supporting his family. This has caused him a great deal of psychological trauma, and he has become mentally unstable.
Freelance video and photojournalist, Salma Kaddoumi, visited Abu Nassar’s family. She spoke with the Canary and told us:
Abu Nassar’s home is around 300 metres from the “Yellow Line”, East of al Maghazi Refugee Camp. When he and his one and a half year old son Jawad went to buy some food, Abu Nassar soon found himself trapped by the IOF.
Israeli occupation soldiers opened fire, shooting him in the shoulder, while a quadcopter drone hovered above and ordered him via loudspeaker to place his child on the ground and keep walking towards the IOF near the yellow line.
Advertisement
Kaddoumi says Abu Nassar was then stripped of his clothes and the soldiers took his son and began torturing him in front of his father. The child was detained for around 10 hours, inside the yellow line. The International Committee of the Red Cross called the family to tell them they had received their son.
The baby was then taken to hospital. According to the medical reports from Dr Bissan Ahmed, of al Aqsa Hospital, in Deir al Balla, the boy had been abused, and had cigarette burns on both legs.
Concerns grow for Abu Nassar who is wounded and has been abducted by the IOF
Abu Nassar remains in detention in an unknown location. His family are extremely worried and have been searching extensively for him. Since October 7, 2023, the fate of many thousands of Palestinian political prisoners like him remain unclear. And they have no access to legal representation, or International Committee of the Red Cross visits. They are forcibly disappeared, with “Israel” Occupation forces, the police and Prison Services all refusing to disclose any information whatsoever on their whereabouts.
Under Trump’s 20 point plan for Gaza, as part of the so called Gaza “ceasefire” agreement in October 2025, the first stage of the IOF withdrawal from Gaza was beyond a boundary known as the ‘yellow line’. This ‘line’ demarcates the more than 58 percent of the Gaza Strip currently under Israeli occupation control, and recent reports suggest the Israeli occupationcontinues to move the line deeper into Gaza. Many Palestinian homes and 60 percent of Gaza’s fertile agricultural land are beyond the yellow line but, as Palestinians are prohibited from entering the area, are completely out of reach to them.
The yellow line is a new border line, serving as a forward defensive line for our communities and a line of operational activity.
Since the so called Gaza “ceasefire”, on 10 October, 2025, as of 25 March, more than 650 Palestinians have been killed by “Israel”. It is now thought that the number of Palestinians killed by “Israel” is far higher than previously thought. According to independent research in medical journals, there were more than 75,000 “violent deaths” in Gaza between 7 October 2023 and January 2025, and the death toll continues to rise.
Royal Mail bosses have serious questions to answer from MPs at the Business and Trade Select Committee hearing, says the Trades Union Congress (TUC).
Postal workers’ union the CWU said bosses must prioritise working conditions to deliver a quality service. And TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said Royal Mail bosses “must get their house in order” and “must answer for the chaos” in the postal service. He was speaking ahead of a Business and Trade Select Committee hearing on 24 March.
Bosses at the 500-year-old institution appeared in front of MPs to explain the crisis in the service. Problems include failures to meet delivery targets and widespread service delays.
Crisis at Royal Mail
The hearing comes after a report by the committee earlier in March highlighted the “service failures” at Royal Mail. 219 million letters arrived late in a year and the company failed to meet quality targets.
Advertisement
The report found just 74.9% of first-class post arrived on time between April 2025 and January 2026, well below the target of 93%.
The CWU says the company is facing a “recruitment crisis” due to its decision to impose “gig economy standards” on recruits who joined the service since 2022.
The CWU says that since 2022, 27,000 new entrants have left the Royal Mail, with 50% leaving within the first year.
The union is currently in intense negotiations with the company over the Royal Mail’s decision to introduce the Optimised Delivery Model. This moves second-class mail to alternate-weekday delivery while keeping first-class deliveries six days a week and reducing delivery route numbers in a bid to save money.
Advertisement
But after dozens of offices piloted the model, the CWU says members are describing it as a “car-crash” strategy. Instead of being guided by workers’ ability to deliver a quality service in their working hours, the union says work cannot be completed in time. Instead, the postal worker comes back the next day with all the work from the previous day still to complete.
TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:
The Royal Mail is one of our most treasured national institutions. But with staff overworked and underpaid, is it any wonder the company is in crisis?
Royal Mail bosses must answer for the chaos in the postal service. They need to get their house in order. That starts with listening to the workers who know better than anyone how to get the service back on its feet.
Royal Mail and EP Group have made excuse after excuse over why Royal Mail’s service has been consistently poor over the past few years.
Now it is time for the truth. The job of a postal worker has been devalued and shareholder profit has been prioritised over service to the public – this is what is creating the crisis.
The CWU welcomes the opportunity to speak for postal workers before the Select Committee. But parliament must begin thinking seriously about the situation Royal Mail is in, and take real action to prevent this great institution from sliding even further into managed decline.
As part of Labour’s nakedly discriminatory immigration ‘reforms’, the government is planning to expand ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) to settled migrants. Worse still, they have no real idea of how many children this ruinous policy will plunge into poverty.
In November 2025, the UK government published “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement: A statement on earned settlement”. It lays out changes that will make the UK immigration system yet-more hostile, with proposals including:
Making permanent residency less available to people.
Increasing the amount of time most people spend in the immigration system before they may apply for permanent residence.
Reducing that wait if they have a higher level of English proficiency, if they are high earners, if they hold senior positions in a public service, or if they have undertaken ‘extensive’ volunteering.
Increasing that time for people who arrive on a visitor visa, breach immigration rules, or have ever received public funds.
Completely removing the option of permanent residency for anyone who has ever received a criminal conviction, has outstanding litigation, or has NHS, tax, or other government debts.
It’s currently the case that most migrants who are in the UK on a limited visa are subject to a ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) condition. However, as the government revealed in the ‘Fairer Pathway’ document, it’s now looking to expand NRPF to settled migrants, too:
The government believes that the development of an earned settlement system should include a reassessment of the benefits accruing to settlement and where the accrual of those benefits might in future sit in the journey to settlement and citizenship respectively. Under this option, new migrants granted settlement would continue to be unable to access specified benefits in line with existing visa conditions. This would have the effect of shifting the default position on access to benefits to citizenship rather than settlement.
The inquiry highlighted that migrants can apply for fee waivers under certain conditions, including:
Advertisement
being destitute, or at imminent risk thereof,
reasons relating to a child’s welfare, or
if they’re facing exceptional circumstances affecting their income.
It also included summaries of some relevant responses, including Anna Skehan, a solicitor at Islington Law Centre, who:
told [the government] that circumstances that might lead to an application to access public funds might include an injury or illness, a mental health crisis, or a relationship breaking down due to domestic abuse.
That is to say, the Home Office plans to penalise migrants for needing state support for disability, poverty, domestic abuse.
Likewise, the NRPF Network — an organisation that provides advice to local authorities on NRPF – highlighted to the committee that:
applying for access to benefits through a change of conditions is typically “a last resort”. The NRPF Network argued that penalising people for accessing public funds would increase risks of poverty, abuse and exploitation.
Labour — no idea of the impact
Now, a DWP minister has essentially admitted that the government has no real clue about the number/proportion of children in poverty living in households subject to NRPF.
Crossbench peer John Bird wrote in asking the government:
Advertisement
what estimate they have made of the number and proportion of children in (1) poverty, and (2) deep poverty, living in households subject to no recourse to public funds; and what assessment they have made of the impact of the Child Poverty Strategy on those numbers.
In response, DWP Minister of State Maeve Sherlock listed resources available for children from NRPF families. However, she notably failed to give any figures at all. Rather, she stated that:
We are continuing our work to develop our understanding of NRPF and its impacts. This includes work with the Home Office to develop questions on NRPF for inclusion in the Family Resources survey 2026/2027, a household survey undertaken annually to explore living standards in the UK. This will provide greater insight into how families with the NRPF condition are living in the UK and will help to inform future policy-making.
Sherlock’s statement here almost directly echoed Labour’s recent policy paper ‘Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty’, published 13 March. It stated that NRPF families could access free school meals, and some free childcare schemes. Likewise, it also mentioned developing questions — and gave no figures whatsoever.
So, not only is the government planning to expand NRPF, it made its proposals and ran the consultation before gathering any formal data to understand the impact of NRPF on child poverty. Worse still, it hasn’t yet worked out how to even assess this consequence of NRPF.
Immigrant kids don’t count
In the foreword to the ‘Our Children’ policy paper, Keir Starmer boasts that:
Advertisement
The recent story of child poverty in Britain is simple. The last Labour Government reduced it by around 600,000 children. Yet since 2010 it has risen by 900,000 and now around 4.5 million children are in poverty. That is a staggering indictment of the previous Government’s policies. The statistics alone are shocking enough but think about the individual human cost. […]
The answer, in both first principles and evidence, is a resounding no. And so this child poverty strategy sets out a different path for Britain.
Starmer and his Labour Party talk a big game about tackling child poverty. However, they’re currently barreling towards an expansion of NRPF which will inevitably entrench poverty for the children of marginalised migrant and refugee families.
They haven’t studied the impact this will have, because they simply don’t care. Starmer’s Labour considers immigrants as collateral damage in their doomed bid to appeal to the far right. All child poverty is abhorrent, but for Labour, immigrant children clearly don’t count.
Iran’s military spokesperson has openly mocked US president Donald Trump over supposed peace talks. Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaghari said Trump was negotiating with himself in a video statement published on 25 March:
The one claiming to be a global superpower would have already gotten out of this mess if it could. Don’t dress up your defeat as an agreement. Your era of empty promises has come to an end.
Have your internal conflicts reached the point where you are negotiating with yourselves?
Zolfaghari’s burn came as Iran rejected a US peace plan and published their own list of demands for any negotiations:
Per a report from the Wall Street Journal, Iran has responded to the Trump administration’s proposal for a ceasefire with demands that far surpass the characterization of maximalist. Iran has demanded the closure of all U.S. bases in the Gulf region, a new Strait of Hormuz… pic.twitter.com/XAQAzkUTsD
An Iranian official said the US proposals were “extremely maximalist and unreasonable”. The country also said the fact the US was still deploying troops to the region despite making a lot of noise about diplomacy was suspicious.
Abas Aslani, a fellow at the Centre for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, told Al Jazeera:
Washington’s decision to deploy additional forces to the region sends a signal that the strategy they are pursuing militarily does not align with the tone of their positions in terms of the negotiations.
The leadership of the US 82nd Airborne division have been ordered to the Middle East. The Interceptreported on 25 March:
The deployment includes the division’s “headquarters element,” support staff, and some personnel who manage logistics, planning, and command operations.
Open source reporting suggests dozens of transport aircraft used to ferry troops and cargo have been flying out of airfields used by America’s most elite commandos, including the Army’s Delta Force and the Navy’s SEAL Team 6.
A flight-tracking account notes 35 C-17s flying out of airfields including those used by Delta Force (Bragg), SEAL Team 6 (Oceana), two of the three Ranger battalions (HAAF and JBLM), and the 160th SOAR.Looks a lot like staging JSOC in case it’s ordered to do the uranium recovery mission in Iran.
Al Jazeerareported that up to 50,000 US troops are in the Middle East already:
That includes 200 combat aircraft, as well as two aircraft carriers. In addition to that, we know the 82nd Airborne, composed of 1,000 additional troops, is the latest to supplement that.
As well, two Marine Expeditionary Units, consisting of 5,000 Marines and sailors, are also heading to the region. So again, what we see is the US speaking out of both sides of its mouth, for lack of a better comparison.
Iran’s parliamentary speaker posted on X that Iran was well aware of US plans to occupy coastal islands militarily:
Advertisement
Based on some data, Iran’s enemies, with the support of one of the regional countries, are preparing to occupy one of the Iranian islands. All enemy movements are under the full surveillance of our armed forces. If they step out of line, all the vital infrastructure of that regional country will, without restriction, become the target of relentless attacks.
براساس برخی دادهها، دشمنان ایران با پشتیبانی یکی از کشورهای منطقه، در حال تدارک عملیات اشغال یکی از جزایر ایرانی هستند. تمام تحرکات دشمن تحت اشراف نیروهای مسلح ماست. اگر قدم از قدم بردارند، تمام زیرساختهای حیاتی آن کشور منطقهای بدون محدودیت، هدف حملات بیامان قرار خواهد گرفت.
— محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) March 25, 2026
Trump has been mocked by Iranian-linked X accounts in recent days:
The US-Israel attacked Iran first on 28 February without provocation. The country was offering unprecedented concessions in negotiations at the time. The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran. And the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, has said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
The deeply pro-Israel New York Times (NYT) has a long history of appallingly biased reporting of Israel’s crimes. It continues to be called out and exposed, but the X social media platform is finally catching up.
As one of many examples of its bias, the paper carried the notorious — and completely untrue — “Screams without words” atrocity propaganda piece. The article was written by an Israeli military propagandist with “no journalism experience” and made claims of rape and mutilation on 7 October 2023. The author had even admitted to one of its interviewees that it was “for Israel advocacy”.
New York Times doesn’t care about facts
Yet despite the complete debunking of all Israel’s atrocity propaganda and the outrage of victims’ families, the piece remains online. The only ‘correction’ the NYT has ever made to it is an amendment to the age of one of the discredited ‘witnesses’. It’s now well known that there is no evidence that any rapes were perpetrated during the raid, but this goes unacknowledged by the paper.
Fast-forward to 2026 and Israel’s invasion of Lebanon as part of its non-stop war crimes. That crime has displaced more than a million people. Israel has bombed family homes and razed entire apartment buildings to the ground. But to the NYT, it’s not an invasion at all. It’s:
Advertisement
expend[ing] the territory it controls in Lebanon, suggesting it might remain there beyond the fighting.
Israel has violently displaced the Lebanese population up to and even beyond the Litani river and has destroyed the bridges across it, but noooo, not an invasion. But self-evidently it is – and at last the paper’s nonsense got a ‘community note’ pointing this out:
Of course, the NYT’s bias is not limited to one article, nor is the pro-Israel bias limited to the New York Times. UK ‘mainstream’ media is no better and the lack of proper free speech laws in the UK has seen gross misrepresentation of war crimes. Many ‘MSM’ have capitulated completely to Israel and its lobby and actively participate in Israel’s whitewashing propaganda. It has been exploited by the Starmer government to wage war on pro-Palestinian speech and objective journalism, too.
So much so that academic publisher Taylor and Francis has described this bias, higher than ever since the beginning of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, as an “ethical collapse”.
Advertisement
Nazi media bosses who promoted Germany’s Holocaust of Jews, Roma and others were tried at Nuremberg for their collusion in genocide and executed. One ‘community note’ may be a a tiny satisfaction, but trials at the Hague are the outcome demanded by justice.
Civil servant Philip Rycroft has put together a report “ringing the alarm bell” about “covert foreign influence campaigns” in UK politics. And the government has responded with an immediate crackdown on all cryptocurrency transactions in particular, which could cause big problems for Reform UK.
In 2025, Reform leader Nigel Farage promised a “crypto revolution”, saying the party would start to accept crypto donations. Reform has already received at least £12m from cryptocurrency investor Christopher Harborne alone. Harborne, who lives in Thailand, has long backed the British right, from the Tories to the Brexit Party.
exploiting a very obvious and gaping loophole in the political finance system
That’s because this situation has allowed Farage to:
hide who and where he is getting his dirty money from
Responding to Rycroft’s report, Housing, Communities and Local Government secretary Steve Reed said:
we will introduce an amendment to the representation of the people bill to place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency… This moratorium will remain in place until the Electoral Commission and this parliament are satisfied there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure full confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way.
An important point in Rycroft’s report was that it’s not just traditional global foes pushing for influence, but also traditional “allies like the United States“.
In this context, Electoral Reform Society director Jess Garland has encouraged the government to take even stronger action by introducing:
a cap on how much all donors can give to a party, not just those based abroad
The public strongly supports this, she said, and it:
Advertisement
would help prevent our politics from being swamped with massive donations, which now frequently reach into the multiple millions.
This is true for Reform, Labour, the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, Labour Together — which Reed himself once directed — has itself received millions of pounds to exert massive influence over the Labour Party and its current cabinet.
As Unlock Democracy chief executive Tom Brake said:
Big money distorts politics regardless of its origin. A fixed cap is needed across the board to prevent large donations, whether from overseas voters or domestic sources, from buying influence.
Transparency International UK’s policy director Duncan Hames, meanwhile, stressed that:
A meaningful annual cap on donations is the most robust safeguard against both foreign interference and the outsized influence of big money in our politics.
We agree. And while we doubt Keir Starmer’s Labour will risk cutting its own funding stream off by doing so, it’s something we absolutely should be pushing for.
Attacks on Latin American drug cartels are “just the beginning” Joseph Humire, the acting assistant secretary of war for homeland defense and Americas security affairs, told members of the House Armed Services Committee last week.
An attack on Cuba is also on the cards. Humire’s meeting came a day after Trump said:
I do believe I’ll be the honor of — having the honor of taking Cuba. Whether I free it, take it, I think I can do anything I want with it.
You can read our reporting on the Cuba blockade and US aggression here.
The build-up to the 3 January attack on Venezuela was characterised by unlawful drone strikes on alleged ‘narco-terrorist’ boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. This pattern has continued. The last strike was on 19 March, bringing the death toll to 157 across 44 strikes since 2 September 2025.
Latin America: Total Extermination
Humire told the House Armed Services Committee:
Advertisement
that the Department of War supported “bilateral kinetic actions against cartel targets along the Colombia-Ecuador border” — Pentagon-speak for March 3 strikes on unnamed “Designated Terrorist Organizations”.
“The joint effort, named ‘Operation Total Extermination,’ is the start of a military offensive by Ecuador against transnational criminal organizations with the support of the U.S”.
The American commander for operations in the so-called Southcom region, General Francis Donovan, said the strikes were only a small part of what the US had planned:
What we’re moving for right now might be an extension of Southern Spear, but really a counter-cartel campaign process that puts total systemic friction across this network. I believe these kinetic [boat] strikes are just one small part of that.
As in Iran, the US appears to have issues with targeting or telling the truth – likely both.
Blew up a dairy farm
In early March US officials released a video of a bombed location in Ecuador. They bragged that it showed how their strikes at sea had now shifted into strikes against cartels on land.
Advertisement
This is utterly extraordinary.
If Hegseth et al got this wrong, think what else is happening with the drug boat strikes and much more.
The U.S. Said It Helped Bomb a Drug Camp. It Was a Dairy Farm.
The New York Times(NYT) has since reported that the strike hit a dairy farm:
The military strike appears to have destroyed a cattle and dairy farm, not a drug trafficking compound, according to interviews with the farm’s owner, four of its workers, human rights lawyers and residents and leaders in San Martín, the remote farming village in northern Ecuador where the strike took place.
The US and the Ecuadorian military are working together on ‘counter-cartel’ operations. As the Canaryreported on 9 March, the country’s president is a Trump-style politician:
Workers arriving at the farm on 3 March told the NYT:
Ecuadorean soldiers arrived by helicopter on March 3, doused several shelters and sheds with gasoline and ignited them after interrogating workers and beating four of them with the butts of their guns.
Three of the workers, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation by the government, said the soldiers later choked and subjected them to electrical shocks before letting them go.
Three days later, on 6 March, the Ecuadorian – not US – military allegedly bombed the site from a helicopter:
Ecuadorean helicopters returned to the farm three days later, on March 6, and appeared to drop explosives on the farm’s smoldering remains.
At this point, Ecuadorian forces recorded the footage that was later shown by American officials. Other buildings, including nearby abandoned houses, were reportedly burned too.
Advertisement
Trump has become bogged down in a war with Iran. Yet this is a major diversion from the 2025 National Security Strategy, which had a major focus on hemispheric control. But while the news cycle focuses on the more explosive war with Iran – with its deep implications for the global energy economy – the US dirty war is still exacting a heavy toll in Latin America.
Deutsche Bank has warned in a new report that the rise of the petroyuan poses a clear challenge to the U.S. currency. The petrodollar system, built on a 1974 agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, faces a “perfect storm” from the ongoing war on Iran initiated by the US/UK/Israel, the bank said.
The bank said that the foundations of the “security-for-oil-pricing arrangement” between the US and the GCC states have been shaken.
The current conflict has arguably shaken some core foundations of the petrodollar regime: the security-for-oil-pricing arrangement. US military assets and bases in the Gulf have come under attack in the war.
Oil infrastructure in the Gulf has also been hit. And the US ability to provide the maritime security to ensure the global flow of oil has been challenged with the closure of Hormuz. The US security umbrella has been fundamentally tested.
The legacy of this conflict for the dollar could be the ways in which it tests the foundations of the petrodollar regime.
Advertisement
The dollar has not strengthened much in this crisis because of rising US fiscal risk from military spending and the sell-off of US Treasuries by Asia and the Middle East to defend their currencies, the report said.
“The conflict could be the catalyst for erosion in petrodollar dominance and the beginnings of the petroyuan,” the bank said, pointing out reports that Iran is allowing the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz if oil payments are made in yuan. China, a long-time partner of Iran, is also the nation’s biggest oil customer.
Just as the 1973 oil embargo led to diversification away from Gulf oil and reserve-building in places like Canada and the North Sea, a similar effect may happen this time. Europe, Asia, and many parts of the Global South will be the ones this time, looking at ways to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Reduced global oil trade would also create more room for the pricing of goods and services to shift away from the dollar, the report said.
MPs are considering yet another inquiry into the carers’ allowance scandal Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). This time, it’s over the fact that the department is continuing to chase unpaid carers for discredited repayment bills.
Only, there’s a glaring issue here, isn’t there? There’s not a number of inquiries we can run, or an amount of faux outrage that MPs can show that will fix this problem.
MPs have ensured that the department will hound recipients at every opportunity – whether or not it’s even remotely valid. And now they’re feigning shock when the DWP is… hounding carers as if they’re thieves?
Advertisement
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
DWP: ‘difficult to find any justifiable reasons’
Back in November 2025, disability rights expert Liz Sayce published her damning review of carer’s allowance overpayments at the DWP. As a consequence, the government admitted that the rules it uses to average carers’ earnings failed to follow social security law. As a result, hundreds of carers had been convicted of benefit fraud.
However, Commons work and pensions select committee chair Debbie Abrahams has recently called out a “torrent of missteps” in the DWP’s actions since the review. In particular, the department has massively delayed its plans to repay the tens of thousands of carers it previously slapped with bogus overpayment bills.
Worse still, the Guardian published an investigation last week revealing that the DWP is still sending out repayment bills to carers. It knows those repayments were calculated using unlawful guidance – it simply doesn’t give a shit.
It’s difficult to find any justifiable reasons why the new guidance was not used to assess these alleged overpayments.
Likewise, Carers UK chief executive Helen Walker said that:
Carers need to see clear, proactive communication about the timeline for the reassessment process. We have heard from carers who say that they are living with significant uncertainty.
‘Not serious in its public commitment’
As such, Abrahams has fired off a letter to social security minister and all-round wet wipe Stephen Timms. She called out the DWP’s management culture, and said the failure to offer carers redress “with due care” would lead the public to:
conclude that [it] is not serious in its public commitment to do so, which is extremely damaging to the existing issues of trust with the department.
As such, its quite unsurprising that MPs are ‘actively considering’ a fresh inquiry into the DWP’s treatment of unpaid carers. Of course, we can already tell them what they’ll find, but they won’t bloody like it.
And, speak of the devil – in reaction to the news, a DWP spokesperson said:
We’ve accepted the vast majority of the Sayce review’s recommendations and have already made changes – hiring extra staff, updating internal guidance, and making letters clearer.
Note the language they’re using here. The “making letters clearer” implies that carers are failing to understand. They’re not – they’re being slapped with illegal repayment bills.
Similarly, the ‘updating internal guidance’ clearly isn’t happening. It’s been four months since they were told their guidance was unlawful, and they’re still using it.
Advertisement
Repeatedly, successive governments have tasked the DWP with reducing benefits payments and rooting out largely imaginary ‘fraud’. They don’t get to feign shock that the DWP is hounding innocent people. That’s the department’s whole job – the same disgraceful job the government tasked them with.
Former Tory prisons minister Crispin Blunt has pleaded guilty to possessing recreational quantities of crystal meth, cannabis and the sedative GBL. The plea was entered at Westminster magistrates’ court this morning, 25 March 2026. The drugs were found during a police investigation into rape allegations in 2023, but that investigation was dropped for lack of evidence.
During a raid on his Surrey home in October 2023, Blunt pointed out the drugs to police. Meth was valued at £200-250 was on a cabinet next to his bed, a separate mix of b while £200 worth of GBL was in a laptop bag. A small amount of cannabis valued at £10 or less was also listed.
The irony of a prisons minister convicted of drugs is obvious. However, Blunt is one of the more ‘mixed bag’ Tories. Under Boris Johnson in October 2020, Blunt voted to keep poor UK children hungry by rejecting footballer Marcus Rashford’s call to extend free school meals through school holidays. But in 2019 he rebelled to help Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour humiliate Theresa May. He has also condemned Israeli interference in UK politics and serves as a director of the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians.
In 2016, Blunt admitted in a Commons speech to using amyl nitrate ‘poppers’ and opposed the government’s plan to ban them.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login