A prestigious private school full of rich kids is facing backlash after its huntsman admitted to an illegal wildlife murder. Done footage captured the controversial hunt as Stowe Beagles were seen tracking and ripping apart a European Brown Hare. It then shows members of the elite Buckinghamshire boarding school congratulating each other on the kill.

We, the public, only have until 18 June to back a total ban on the trail hunting — that’s when the government consultation closes. It is our last chance to close this legal loophole for good and stop these senseless killings.

Blood sports for posh schoolboys

The damning evidence led to a criminal conviction at Northampton Magistrates’ Court on 4 June 2026. Philip Kennedy, huntsman of the Stowe Beagles, pled guilty to hunting a wild mammal with dogs at Crockwell Farm in Northamptonshire.

Kennedy was fined a pathetic £258 and ordered to pay a £103 victim surcharge and £585 in costs. That’s nothing considering the UK Hunting Act 2004 banned hare hunting with hounds over 20 years ago.

Yet the Stowe Beagles still operates as an OFFICIAL extracurricular activity in the school’s games department. Footage shows the pack chasing a hare into a fence line before ripping the poor creature apart. Three members then arrive at the murder scene, shaking hands in celebration. Some members are believed to be schoolboys according to animal rights activists.

So what the hell is going on? Are we teaching rich kids that breaking the law is something to applaud? One rule for the rich, and another for the rest of us it seems.

Ilegal hunt activities are being normalised

Stowe School is not the only educational institution that maintains active hunts. Eton College and Radley College both have kennels for their own packs of hounds. Ampleforth and Marlborough Colleges also maintain strong links with local hunt groups.

Wealthy children assist huntsmen as whippers-in and occupy leadership roles on hunt committees. A Horse & Hound article notes that these school hunt packs are training the next generation of foxhound masters.

For generations, ‘young gentlemen’ (and now some ladies) have followed the well-worn path of masterships from school beagles to college beagles before taking a pack of foxhounds.

The Stowe and Royal Agricultural College Beagles have produced the greatest number of masters and huntsmen of foxhounds over the past 50 years

Advertisement

Kennedy has worked at the Buckinghamshire boarding school since 2003, but his profile has been scrubbed from their website. Kennedy supervised the supposed transition from hunting live animals to legal trail hunting. What the recent conviction proves is that Stowe School has been running illegal hunts. This pisses all over existing legislation.

School hunts send the message that the wealthy are above the law, because their education is paid for in ridiculous sums of cash. And what’s a £1,000 in fines to people paying £50k in school fees yearly… pocket change. If issued to one of us, a fine like that would mean not eating for a month.

Activists slam the school over safeguarding

Following the conviction, Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA) chair Simon Russell sent an open letter to Stowe School head Anthony Wallersteiner. His letter states that clear video evidence is proof of a premeditated act in front of schoolboys. Russell wrote that the celebratory handshakes shared between the murderers suggest illegal hare hunting is routine at Stowe.

Russell warns the school of corporate liability under Section 10 of the Hunting Act 2004. This means that school officers face prosecution if illegal hunts occur with their consent or connivance. Russell framed the incident as a severe safeguarding failure that desensitises kids to suffering and murder.

The letter cites the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. This protects kids from violence inflicted on animals. But the Stowe Beagles are always travelling to remote locations. They have previously visited the notorious Coniston Hounds, a pack that has been caught abusing foxes. Exposing these rich kids to deliberate animal abuse is a massive safeguarding risk… so why is the school silent on Kennedy’s conviction? Normalising suffering and death to children just means they will grow up to become less empathetic adults.

The HSA is demanding that school governors disband the hunt immediately and face an inspection. Will these elitist educational institutions finally act? Or will they continue to show kids that killing cute fluffy creatures and breaking the law is a privilege the ruling class is entitled to?

Featured images via the Hunt Saboteurs Association

By Antifabot

Source link

Charities and campaigners have warned that Keir Starmer’s plan to ban under-16s from social media will isolate disabled and LGBTQ+ children.

This week, Labour prime minister announced new legislation to stop children from accessing apps like Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, X and YouTube. The ban will take effect in Spring 2027 and restrict livestreams and ‘stranger communication’ for children, including on gaming sites.

The ban won’t help any kids

There are already concerns that, without regulating the tech companies, this will do very little to protect children from the dangers of the internet and punish them instead. The Canary’s Maddison Wheeldon argues that:

There is every chance this amounts to little more than virtue-signalling: a tokenistic gesture to “protect children” while changing sweet naff all about the very systems causing great harm in the first place.

Girl’s rights charity Plan International UK has also warned that the ban won’t keep girls safe. This is because it fails to tackle the underlying causes of misogyny online.

Morgan Griffith-David from Plan International UK told the Canary:

Banning children does nothing to tackle the dangerous misogyny and sexism that has become so rampant across social media.

Harmful gender norms are being constantly reinforced by social media algorithms and addictive features driven by profit, not safety – and blocking access for children lets tech companies off the hook by not forcing them to address these issues.

Social media plan will harm disabled kids

Starmer’s mission to end violence against women and girls has always felt like a rehabilitation tactic. In December, he went on Loose Women to talk about it. This happened to be the same week that the abhorrent treatment of pro-Palestine prisoners on hunger strike came to light.

This now seems like a last-ditch attempt to stop his own party turning against him. But by blanket banning social media instead of making it safer, the prime minister will isolate kids from marginalised communities.

In particular, disabled or LGBTQ+ young people will be affected. Many don’t have an in-person community and have found friends on social media.

For many disabled people who can’t leave the house, social media is where they find their community. Disability charities for young people have spoken out against the ban, stressing that it would take away lifelines.

Julie Davis, CEO of the Royal Society for Blind Children, told BBC News:

We are mindful that this ban risks cutting off vital routes to connection for children who are already too often excluded. We are actively looking at ways to counter the impact this could have.

Others, expressed the need for better safeguards before taking away disabled kids community. Simon Want, Head of Policy and Influencing at the National Deaf Children’s society told BBC News:

We want to see action that keeps children safe from harm while still allowing deaf young people to stay connected, express themselves and access support. This means working closely with families, experts and deaf young people themselves to get the balance right.

As disabled and queer campaigner Charli Clement pointed out, marginalised kids only flock to social media because third spaces in the UK — such as youth groups and libraries — have been ‘decimated’ by successive governments.

Clement said on instagram:

Third spaces in the UK have been decimated to a point that social media is the pseudo third space for most young people. This particularly applies to marginalised young people who are meeting their community and understanding themselves through the digital space.

They continued:

There’s no longer a youth club, there’s no longer a youth centre, there isn’t a place to just go and play basketball with your friends. Joining a group chat or going on snapchat or watching videos with your friends is what is replacing third spaces. If you take away that, where are they supposed to go?

Essentially, Starmer’s internet ban won’t help anyone. Yet, while there are no third spaces and no actual regulation of social media, all it will do is harm marginalised kids.

Featured image via Rendy Novantino / Unsplash

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link

Only the Green Party has responded to a Makerfield public ownership pledge launched today, explaining which local public services they would take back if elected. Andy Burnham has not clarified his position, despite his critique of privatisation in recent weeks.

Campaign group We Own It asked the six main Makerfield candidates for their positions on public ownership of water, energy and buses, as well as a local BlackRock deal with Greater Manchester Pension Fund to buy up GP surgeries.

Nearly 10,000 emails have been sent to the candidates over the weekend to put pressure on them to reveal their policies. This follows on from a previous letter seeking candidates’ views on support for Palestinian people.

The campaigners point out that in 2025 United Utilities dumped sewage into waterways in Makerfield for over 3,000 hours. The electricity distribution company Electricity North West is rated only 1.9 on Trustpilot and has slowed down grid connections.

In 2025 the local gas distribution company Cadent Gas paid out £38 per household in dividends to its shareholders. These include Australian asset management firm Macquarie and the Chinese sovereign wealth fund.

Cat Hobbs, director of We Own It, said:

It’s really shocking that Andy Burnham has spent the last few weeks attacking 40 years of Thatcherite privatisation but won’t take a clear position on the local water and energy companies ripping off the people of Makerfield.

Voters deserve to know if he will stand up for them or for a handful of shareholders around the world. Keir Starmer promised public ownership and then betrayed voters. Burnham can’t fool us twice.

Water and energy are profitable assets with a revenue stream so it’s a great deal for the public purse to bring them into public hands. United Utilities and the North West energy grid are monopolies – there is no market. So we need accountability as citizens, and profits reinvested instead of leaking out.

Advertisement

Public ownership is not unaffordable

The campaigners say public ownership is affordable because the cost of compensating shareholders is decided in court and can include factors like lack of investment and the public interest.

Drawing on a report from the Public Services International Research Unit, they argue that the compensation for Electricity North West could be recovered in less than 6 years. Meanwhile, Cadent Gas shareholders have injected so little into the company that it would only take 4 hours for public ownership to pay for itself. United Utilities is a profitable asset and public ownership would mean that a third of our bills wouldn’t need to be spent on dividends and expensive debt.

The water and energy companies all have a 25 year notice period on their licences, and the campaigners argue this should be reduced.

The pledge also includes a policy to end the BlackRock deal with Greater Manchester Pension Fund that enables the private equity giant to buy up GP surgeries.

The campaigners point out that the public control of the BeeNetwork is not the same as public ownership, and they are demanding both. The pledge includes a demand to set up a publicly owned bus company in Greater Manchester, like Lothian Buses or Reading Buses, so that all profits can be reinvested back into the network.

Green Party candidate Sarah Wakefield said:

The people of Makerfield deserve clean rivers, and a system which puts their needs before the needs of shareholders.

She also said:

The Green Party has always supported public ownership of utilities.

And Wakefield said she is “right behind” taking back the grid, especially:

in the context of the current affordability crisis and rising energy prices.

The only We Own It demand Wakefield hasn’t signed up to is the call for a publicly owned bus company. She only promises:

effective public control over all of Manchester’s buses, trams and railways.

Hobbs pointed out:

Public control and public ownership are not the same thing. It’s brilliant that Burnham introduced the BeeNetwork but in addition to control of the networks he could set up a publicly owned bus company for Greater Manchester like the very successful Reading Buses and Lothian Buses.

And he should be standing up against BlackRock by saying no to them buying up GP surgeries through a Greater Manchester Pension Fund deal.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Source link

The War on Terror claimed countless Iraqi lives and left social systems irreparably fractured.

The lasting injury is the subject of anthropologist Kali Rubaii’s debut book, Resurgency: Outlasting the War on Terror.

Few studies have captured in such depth the ways Anbaris react, respond and heal from “war-induced social and ecological collapse”.

Rubaii’s journey began in Fallujah a decade prior, supporting local hospitals through transnational solidarity work. She returned in subsequent years. Moreover, she came to form close relations with displaced Anbari farmers.

War on Terror: After the guns go, there is silence

The portrait of Fallujah isn’t the city caricatured as the launchpad of Al-Qaeda, or where the corpses of Blackwater contractors were paraded. If anything, Anbar is the black sheep of Iraqi society — a closed world exoticised and vilified — facing distrust even from countrymen who have internalised these views.

Rubaii’s study is therefore a corrective to the view of Anbar as contumacious. She centres Anbari farmers as they navigate life, war and death, and explores the changing face of imperialist violence after guns and warplanes have fallen silent.

This is what Rubaii terms resurgency, “political potential for recovery from shock”. It is a way of strategising, innovating and outlasting these conditions.

The inverse — counter-resurgency — is the invisible hand of the War on Terror as it rummages through people’s lives. From governance, employment and food practices to homemaking, reproductive health and general livability, it punitively “warps one’s dreams, aspirations, and sense of possibility,” Rubaii says.

Furthermore, it adopts a “let-live-less-than-lethal” approach that leaves its mark on existing and unborn generations. This extends into reproductive life itself.

Worse than death

What might that look like? You have land dispossession, privatisation of Iraq’s once highly localised seed market, excessive agrochemicals use, uranium contamination, birth defects, wartime displacement, corporate capture, and a military–cement industrial complex (the list goes on). The takeaway is that even after the War on Terror juggernaut retreats, its tremors are still felt far and wide.

Resistance in this context (if we can describe it as such) is neither romanticised nor a single-dimension strategy. The author admits it may be imperfect as she explains to the Canary:

For me, the argument that life goes on after war, and that people are resilient and resurgent, is so deeply discounting of how life is made to go on.

She adds:

It is often the work of depoliticised or even made subaltern actors who are doing the ongoingness, the outlasting of Empire.

This is backed up by years of fieldwork. The book’s colourful cast of Iraqi interlocutors demonstrate how Anbaris have consistently risen up even when forced back to zero.

“People do what they have to do to survive, and they do it with intention. It is not special, but it is political,”  she notes in the conclusion.

The book shows how many Anbaris have come to accept, “There are so many things worse than death”. For a province denied justice, it is a painful truth to swallow. This is set against the evidence of damage readers are confronted by.

This land is ours

The discomfort is important for Rubaii, who reminds us that Anbar is more than “a place one returns to die”.

The displaced farmers we meet throughout the book risked everything to return to their orchards and farms during heightened periods of conflict. They defied sectarian militias and deathly checkpoints to tend to their plants, trees and harvest.

This act of “subversive return” is “as politically agentive as a protest,” Rubaii argues. Indeed, such actions “lay the groundwork for future grassroots resistance”. The benefits aren’t necessarily apparent and may take decades to materialise.

Rubaii pens stories that bear witness to the weight of complex trauma Anbaris carry. Despite that, they have been actively forging:

…a politics of social and ecological resurgency that embraces undesirable outcomes as a core feature of outlasting the War on Terror.

How does it look? In some instances, farmers experimented with alternative methods for fertilising date trees in chemically saturated farmlands. Meanwhile, others risked procreating.

In Fallujah, the capacity to give birth has been fatally undermined by uranium-induced birth defects — a silent tragedy, particularly for “a community where having children is highly valued,” Rubaii reminds us.

It is a silent scream the world has yet to heed. We find ourselves breaking into tears as we discuss the unspeakable horrors would-be mothers continue to face.

Flipping the script

Rubaii’s pictorial writing style distinguishes her scholarship. I relished every sensory detail she carefully tracks: the taste of metal, sulphurous air, dirty water, parched rivers and the mustard haze of sandstorms are all palpable. As is the sensation of sticky soot and dust coating lungs and the sight of treacherous highways, cratered, rerouted, and militarised.

While the book’s chain of events is neither tightly connected nor linear, the scattered order is intentional. This is no cookie-cutter story about Iraq. Instead, the book mirrors the constant shuttling  between “home” and precarious places of refuge.

There is an almost Orwellian quality to her writing, particularly in the way she turns militaristic “weapons-grade” terminology, such as “the wolf, the sheep, and the sheepdog” on its head.

She explains:

Metaphors have been used to typecast places like Anbar and the people in it as a sort of enemy of others. One of them is this idea that counterinsurgency is understanding that the insurgent is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This justifies, her words “killing innocent people in the name of presuming that they might be combatants”.

“That’s kind of the frame,” she says.

But I actually was understanding this beyond the scope of a combat framework and thinking, if you’re really thinking about occupying indigenous land and what the relationships are between wolves and sheep and sheep dogs, you know, of course the wolf is in fact the indigenous animal, the noble creature.

Rubaii’s engaging storytelling — animated by the book’s dramatis personae — gives it an edge not always found in academia. The book owes its depth to the diverse cast of Anbari farmers and families, many of whom serve as gatekeepers.

Acknowledging the privilege of access, Rubaii inhabits every aspect of their lives. She writes about drinking dirty water, contracting cholera, eating radioactive dates and milk kinship. She is clear-eyed that her personal health and safety cannot be considered “exceptional” in the context of this radical approach.

Commenting on the motivations behind these choices, Rubaii writes:

I want a critique of empire that approaches Iraq as more than simply a case study. For many ethnographers, we do not choose places or topics as such. They choose us. Being both American and part of the extensive, multigenerational Iraqi diaspora compounded these complexities.

Featured image via Rasheed Hussein/ UNHCR

By Nazli Tarzi

Source link

Source link

The Labour politicians looking to replace Keir Starmer have been talking about expanding drilling in the North Sea: among said politicians is Wes Streeting. In response, Green Party deputy Rachel Millward has described his plan as “environmentally reckless and economically illiterate”.

Reckless Streeting

As we reported, Streeting said the following about drilling in the North Sea:

Yes. I think that’s probably where Ed [Miliband] will get to. When he makes a decision, I’d be surprised if that wasn’t the case.

The granting of those licences will not necessarily translate into cheaper bills, but it will translate into higher tax receipts

The reason he’s saying this is simple; it’s because Reform is saying the same thing. The reason Reform is saying it is also simple; it’s because the party takes fistfulls of cash from the fossil fuel industry.

Speaking on Streeting’s plan, Millward said:

Rosebank alone contains enough fossil fuel to produce over 200 million tonnes of CO2 if burned – more than the combined annual emissions of 28 low-income countries.

Opening up these oilfields will do nothing to improve energy security or bring down bills either, because any oil and gas extracted will be sold at global prices on the world market.

To be completely fair to Streeting, he did admit that wrecking our Net Zero targets wouldn’t benefit ordinary Britons. To be less fair to him, why do it then?

Renewable technology is better than ever and continuing to improve; why not double down on that to drive down energy costs while simultaneously making some money?

Oh yeah, because Reform said we need to cling to the past, and Labour has no vision for the future.

Pathetic.

And although we’ve always said Streeting was the oiliest Labour politician, we didn’t mean it so literally.

Featured image via The Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

A few seconds of television coverage during the 2026 FIFA World Cup turned into an issue that sparked widespread controversy in sporting and media circles. Australian VAR official Sean Evans was seen making a controversial hand gesture ahead of the match between Germany and Curaçao. As the Canary previously reported, Evans was seen to have:

briefly formed an “OK” gesture with his right hand near his leg, a symbol that has been co‑opted by white extremist groups. 

The gesture was quick, but it was enough to trigger immediate concern from FIFA’s anti‑discrimination unit, which monitors all matches for offensive behaviour. The monitor formally requested that Evans be stood down from further involvement in the tournament pending review. 

However, FIFA have now claimed that after investigation they do not believe Evans contravened guidelines.

FIFA clear VAR official

FIFA’s Independent Disciplinary Committee stated that:

Fifa’s independent disciplinary committee can confirm that, after looking into the matter involving support video assistant referee Shaun Evans, it has found no evidence of breaches of the Fifa disciplinary code

Evans also issued his first comment on the matter, confirming that the gesture was not deliberate and was not intended to convey any message or political or ideological affiliation, explaining that what happened was an “involuntary and unconscious movement”, and that other footage showed him repeating the gesture whilst holding a pen during the match.

Although the referee has been officially cleared, the case has sparked widespread debate about the sensitivity of symbols and gestures at major sporting events, after the organisation “FARE” called for his exclusion from the tournament, arguing that the gesture resembled a symbol used by far-right groups in some Western countries.

This incident brings to the fore the challenges facing world football in the fight against racism, as the battle is no longer limited to chants and behaviour in the stands, but now also encompasses symbols and gestures that may carry political or ideological connotations in the eyes of large sections of society.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Gavin Newsom is the Democrat governor of California and since Donald Trump returned to the White House, he’s made a reputation for himself by aping the posting style of the president. And now, he’s accusing Trump of using lawfare tactics to intimidate him:

Trump makes Newsom a target. Newsom sees a launchpad. https://t.co/MWAwpzOf5M

— POLITICO (@politico) June 16, 2026

Trump and Newsom battle

The following is an example of Newsom ridiculing Trump by mimicking his posting style:

DONALD “TACO” TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, “MISSED” THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS,” THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!). BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR…

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) August 12, 2025

In response, Trump branded him ‘Gavin Newscum’:

Gavin Newscum admitted that he has learning disabilities, dyslexia. Everything about him is dumb.

Speaking about the current situation, Newsom said:

In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the door of family, friends and former employees. Not because they found crime, because they’re simply trying to find one.

To be fair, this is exactly what a criminal would say. At the same time, it’s undeniable that Trump has weaponised his Justice Department in the past, as the Guardian reported in November 2025:

Donald Trump’s intense pressure on the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to charge key foes with crimes based on dubious evidence and his ongoing investigations of other political enemies is hurting the rule of law in the US and violating departmental policies, which scholars and ex-prosecutors say may help scuttle some charges.

While it’s confirmed that there are multiple investigations into Newsom, a source speaking to the BBC denied Trump was involved. They also said the cases:

all originated out of California, working through whistleblowers and government sources

If this is accurate, then these people will have to go on the record. And if the allegations have merit, they must have evidence to back them up. If so, this will be a problem for Newsom. If not, it’s going to give weight to his argument that Trump is a uniquely corrupt force in US politics.

The BBC added:

Federal prosecutors in the state capital of Sacramento were handling the investigations, one of which pertained to Newsom’s wife’s taxes, and another related to Newsom’s former chief of staff, the individual said.

The source did not specify which chief of staff, and Newsom did not say which current or former aides were under scrutiny.

Newsom hits back

As noted above, Newsom is making the most of the attention that this situation is generating:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom slammed Donald Trump, claiming the president is using his office to enrich himself. pic.twitter.com/kmGKj1ufjN

— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) June 15, 2026

In the above clip, Newsom says:

Donald Trump is selling the presidency. He’s running the largest cash heist in American political history, trading foreign tariff relief for approval of his golf courses, day trading behind the Resolute Desk, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in personal profit. And he’s doing it openly.

He’s doing it on camera. He did it last night on the White House lawn. He’s doing it through cryptocurrencies. He’s doing it through the receipt of a $400 million private jet from a foreign government that he plans to keep when he leaves office.

His personal fortune has skyrocketed by $4 billion since making his return to office.

This is the behavior of a regime, not a republic.

Newsom certainly talks a good game, but his record isn’t great either. Issues with the Democrat include:

• Siding with billionaires to block wealth taxes.
• Selling out workers.
• Backtracking on promises to introduce a universal health system.
• Giving crypto billionaires “free reign”.
• Cracking down on homeless camps without ensuring these people have somewhere else to go.

Expectations

It’s undeniable that Newsom is better than Trump, but that’s the problem, isn’t it? Democrats are going to use Trump’s wretchedness to excuse their own. Because as long as they’re a bit better than Trump, that lets them off the hook from actually changing anything.

At the same time, if this is another case of Trumpian lawfare, then people should oppose it. They just shouldn’t oppose it thinking Newsom is an antidote to the problems which allowed a man like Trump to become president in the first place.

Featured image via Gage Skidmore (Flickr) / UK Government (Flickr)

By Willem Moore

Source link

Washington will soon enter a new chapter after voters pick the capital’s first new mayor in a dozen years and its first new Congressional delegate since 1991. And no matter who wins Tuesday’s primaries, they’ll be on a collision course with President Donald Trump.

The frontrunners in both races have hinged their campaigns on opposition to Trump, who since returning to office has chipped away at Washington’s autonomy and sought to remake parts of the city in his image. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has led the city since taking office in 2015, has taken a pragmatic approach to working with the president in an apparent effort to avoid further furor. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton has represented the District since 1991 and condemned Trump’s actions in strongly worded statements, but the 89-year-old has dodged the spotlight amid questions about her acuity and ability to serve.

The candidates running to replace them say that’s far from enough.

In interviews with POLITICO, those leading candidates emphasized that they hoped to find common ground with the Trump administration and coordinate where possible, especially on projects that could jumpstart Washington’s sluggish economy. But they all drew a red line at Trump’s extraordinary law enforcement actions, including sending in the National Guard indefinitely and surging federal immigration agents in coordination with local police.

“Washington, D.C., residents want and deserve a mayor who’s going to stand up and fight back, and that’s what I’m bringing,” said Kenyan McDuffie, a relatively moderate, pro-business former D.C. Council member who is polling second in the mayor’s race. He has pledged to end coordination between the Metropolitan Police Department and ICE on his first day in office.

Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. council member who is polling more than 10 points ahead of McDuffie, has taken an even more adversarial posture against the president. She told POLITICO she would “actively tell our employees to resist” if Trump again federalized the MPD, adding that she would work with D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb “to defend D.C.”

Trump is already making known his displeasure — particularly with Lewis George, a democratic socialist whose platform and campaign are reminiscent of those of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Asked last week about the possibility of Lewis George winning the primary, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office: “I wouldn’t like it.”

“Maybe we’ll take back Washington, run it on a federal basis,” he continued. “We won’t put up with it. We’re not gonna lose our businesses.”

Lewis George’s campaign almost immediately cut Trump’s comments into an ad. “Look, we’re not going to get ICE off our streets by fearing this president,” she said in response. “We’re not going to protect our rights, or Home Rule, by complying in advance. Threatening Home Rule because you don’t like how residents are voting is an attack on democracy itself. The people of D.C. elect their mayor, and they want someone who’s gonna stand up to Donald Trump.”

There’s a similar sentiment among the leading delegate candidates.

Robert White, a city council member and one of two frontrunners in the delegate race, described Trump’s surge of federal agents and National Guard troops to the city as “lawlessness” and “the opposite of public safety.” He said he would seek to build a coalition in Congress to “push back in every way.”

Brooke Pinto, a fellow council member and the other delegate frontrunner who has centered public safety in her campaign, said the administration’s use of National Guard troops and ICE agents have not helped the city. “While I am very committed to advancing public safety in the District of Columbia, what we’re seeing from the Trump administration undermines those efforts,” she said.

That type of messaging is politically savvy in a city with an electorate that heavily supported Kamala Harris in 2024 and whose lives have been directly impacted by the president’s grip over Washington — from the troop surge to his sweeping cuts to government programs and razing of the federal workforce, which have severely contracted the District’s economy. That’s not to mention his efforts to splash his name and face across federal buildings, and mounting moves to beautify portions of the city and stand up ambitious architectural projects.

“When politicians try to interfere with our local public safety, when they are sweeping up unhoused residents, cutting jobs, when they are pushing policies that negatively affect our local economy and driving up overall costs of everything from gas to housing, I’m going to fight back,” McDuffie said.

But it sets the candidates — whoever wins — in explicit opposition to Trump, who has consistently sought to bring his enemies to heel whenever he gets the chance. The president has several levers at his disposal if he chooses to retaliate against Washington, from another federal law enforcement surge to using his influence over Congress to weaken D.C. Home Rule. The city also depends on the federal government for high-profile projects that would improve public spaces and bring jobs to the District, including upgrades to Union Station and the redevelopment of the RFK Stadium campus.

Asked how the White House is preparing for a potentially more adversarial mayor and delegate, a spokesperson referred POLITICO back to Trump’s Oval Office comments.

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.

Source link