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

In the latest instalment of the poorly-written melodrama that is Starmer’s Labour, the PM has warned Andy Burnham that a leadership challenge would “throw the country into chaos”.

However, speaking on ITV’s This Morning, he also stated that:

If there is a challenge, I will fight. I’m not going to walk away from this.

We won a landslide victory just two years ago with a clear mandate to change the country, that’s a five-year mandate.

‘I always said that would take time’ says Starmer

Following devastating losses across England, Wales and Scotland in May’s elections, the Labour leader has faced renewed calls to step down.

Polster YouGov is currently reporting that 61% of respondents dislike Starmer, versus just 19% in favour. Likewise, as of 18 May, 71% of the public felt that the PM was doing a bad job.

However, Starmer seems undeterred, insisting that he intends to remain in his position for the long-haul:

What we did was offer change. I always said that would take time.

Do I understand that people are frustrated and say ‘I haven’t seen enough change yet?’ Yes, of course I do.

We need to complete on the work that we are doing, but… if you’ve waited best part of 20 years for your living standards to improve, you want that to happen more quickly. I completely understand that.

Advertisement

All eyes on Makerfield

Andy Burnham is currently the mayor of Greater Manchester. However, his best route toward a potential bid for the leadership of Labour is to become a member of Parliament. As such, a great deal hinges on the upcoming by-election in Makerfield, Greater Manchester.

The constituency’s former minister, Josh Simons, quit his seat in order to clear a shot for Burnham. The leadership hopeful’s most prominent rival for the seat is Reform UK’s Robert Kenyon, who has faced repeated controversy over his friendships with fascists and deeply bigoted outbursts.

In order to mount a leadership challenge, Burnham would then need the backing of 81 other Labour MPs. Rivals who have already signalled their intent to oppose him include ex-health minister Wes Streeting and former armed forces minister Al Carns, both of whom have already quit their positions.

As reported in Murdoch rag the Sun back in May, a senior Labour source stated that Burnham was considering a snap election, should he be victorious:

Andy considering an early general election. They are wargaming it.

But Labour MPs would absolutely hate it. They are worried about losing their seats.

If Andy becomes PM I expect he will have to promise the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) that he will not call a snap election.

They will want him to sign the pledge in blood.

However, the Manchester mayor’s team have since signaled that the rumours are false.

While some in his campaign were initially in favour of holding off until after Labour’s September conference, the resignations last week of John Healey as defence secretary and Al Carns as armed forces minister over military funding persuaded them to act more quickly, The Times reported.

‘Change the story’, Burnham

Regarding the by-election, which will take place on Thursday 18 June, Burnham sounded hopeful:

I kind of feel as we go into the final stretch that the voters of this constituency could be about to write a new script for British politics, and how good is that?

Change the story.

It’s becoming more and more divided, isn’t it?

Advertisement

And we can see what’s happening.

We don’t want to end up like the United States of America, where people don’t talk to each other in the street if they vote different ways.

Just three days ahead of the crucial date, the Labour candidate is currently leading across most polls. However, and as we at the Canary keep pointing out, for all Burnham’s talk of ‘change’, he still seems extremely woolly on little details like what exactly he’ll change, how he’ll change it, and when he expects to be done changing it.

Now where have we heard that one before?

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

The Oxford Union Society (OUS) is set to go ahead with its postponed debate featuring notorious racists Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Jacob Rees-Mogg. And, that’s in spite of urging to the contrary from community leaders and campaign groups.

The OSU, though independent from the University of Oxford, draws much of its membership from the university. On 17 June, it’s set to debate the motion:

This House Believes the West is right to be Suspicious of Islam

The debate was originally scheduled for 28 May. However, it was postponed after public outcry over Robinson’s presence, in particular.

Tommy Robinson is just the tip of the racist iceberg

Because obviously the motion itself wouldn’t result in enough Islamophobic sentiment in its own right, the invited guest speakers supporting the motion will be Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Jonathan Sacerdoti.

The Canary has written enough on Robinson’s repeated criminal violence, white-supremacist agitation and low-down grifting to fill several books. However, his most recent racist provocations resulted in rioting and arson attacks across Belfast, Southampton, and elsewhere.

Laurence Fox was once better known for playing Inspector Morse’s sidekick’s sidekick on telly. Nowadays, the putative ‘free speech champion’ seems to spend his days spewing bigoted filth online, making unsuccessful libel claims, and failing to become London’s mayor.

Sacerdoti is a journalist with bylines in the Spectator, Daily Mail, and Jewish Chronicle, among others. He’s previously appeared at the OUS to argue against the motion that Israel is an apartheid state.

…And the opposition?

Their opponents will be Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Doward, and Abdullah al Andalusi. And yes, you read that right – Rees-Mogg is somehow on the ‘against’ side.

Noted Victorian cosplayer and Tory politician Rees-Mogg managed to lose his once-safe parliamentary seat in 2024. Nowadays, he makes his money presenting for far-right GB News. Oh, and he’s also a trustee of the charity that safeguards the OUS, if you’re wondering why he’s actually here.

Meanwhile, both Doward and al Andalusi are both new ones on us. Doward is a Muslim revert who runs the podcast Speaker’s Corner, which “shines a light” on issues affecting Muslims.

Regarding al Andalusi, also a revert, anti-fascist investigative outlet Searchlight stated that:

Rees-Mogg’s fellow opposition speakers are two Muslim converts. One is Abdullah al-Andalusi, whose former name was Mouloud Farid. Under that name he managed to pass security vetting more than a decade ago and worked for almost two years (until July 2014) for HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.

Though a very marginal figure in the Muslim community, he has managed to persuade some media outlets to give him publicity and an opportunity for fundraising.

Advertisement

Andalusi was reported in the mid-2010s to be “closely associated with the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir”, which has been banned as a terrorist organisation since 2024.

The OSU were always going to be scraping the barrel to find any Muslim leaders or anti-Islamophobia campaigners to dignify this debate with their presence. However, the choices of Rees-Mogg and al Andalusi really do seem intended to fan the flames of racial hatred.

The city stands opposed

Given the presence of walking incitement-to-riot Robinson in particular, the community opposition to the debate has been fierce.

Susan Brown – Labour leader of Oxford City Council – has called for the OSU to foot the bill for the massive amount of security that the city is having to put in place. She stated that:

Whilst we are committed to free speech and open debate, that must be balanced against ensuring all our residents can live free from hatred, intimidation and harm. […]

This will cause considerable disruption for local residents and businesses, and comes at a substantial cost.

The Oxford Union must meet the full costs of staging their event, rather than leaving Oxford’s taxpayers to pick up the bill.

Meanwhile, Ian McKendrick – campaign group Oxford Stand Up To Racism’s vice chairman – called out the OSU’s invitation to Robinson. He stated that the extreme-right leader had been whipping up “violent race riots” and:

radicalising tragedies to stir up hate and inspire fear.

We cannot stay silent and watch our country descend into chaos and division. Oxford must present a united front and say no to racism, no to fascism.

Advertisement

The Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, and Imam Monawar Hussain penned a joint letter calling for the OUS to withdraw its invitations. The pair, who together chair the Oxfordshire and Thames Valley Faith and Civic Leaders Forums, wrote that the debate society’s leaders have a:

duty of care to the many thousands of Muslims, Jews and others of different faiths in the city.

Those who have issued this invitation need to be mindful not only of the University of Oxford but of the city in which they live and study as students – a city which has a long tradition of hospitality to migrants and the poorest sections of society.

We make a strong appeal in these weeks and months of global tension that this invitation should be reconsidered and withdrawn for the sake of this city and its peace.

Dangerous disregard

Whilst the debate society styles itself as a champion of ‘free speech’, and its president Arwa Elrayess touts her Palestinian origins, this debate is nothing more than a low-down publicity grab. Worse still, it comes at a very real cost to the people of Oxford around them.

Elrayess posted a statement voicing her delight that the OSU would:

continue to uphold the central principle of free speech that this Society was built upon.

The OSU has shown a dangerous disregard for the safety of the inhabitants of the city around them. And of course, that applies twofold for the people of colour who will inevitably bear the brunt of attacks by Robinson’s white-supremacist followers.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

Source link

Keir Starmer’s government has been doing its best to make an example of Palestine Action activists. And showing real unity with Labour on the topic of Israel’s settler colonial genocide, prominent Tories have jumped to defend the dangerous crackdown on protest rights.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and shadow home secretary Chris Philp are both very close to the Israel lobby and have been vocal in their smears against Palestine Action. As a judge handed down draconian ‘terrorism’ sentences on four anti-genocide activists, Badenoch blamed “these thugs” for injuring a police officer.

She suggested that police officers who had gone to help an Israeli weapons factory had somehow been:

risking their lives to protect us

Despite overwhelming expert consensus, Badenoch has previously denied Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Palestine Action

In reality, the events at the weapons factory saw one activist unintentionally inflict a minor injury on a police officer:

No, they didn’t.

One of them, Sam Corner, was found to have injured Sgt Evans without intent.

There was no such accusation against any of the others.

Advertisement

Kemi Badenoch committed contempt of court on live television during their trial. https://t.co/5d7TNB4Fel

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) June 13, 2026

Philp also twisted the facts into a suggestion that “these violent thugs” had somehow gone out to attack police officers. He also talked about them “smashing up property“, as if it was random property and not a factory supplying weapons to a genocidal apartheid state.

3 of the 4 people didn’t attack the police officer and all of the 4 were cleared of violent intent. So the only disgrace here is the lie you’re telling to justify a clear miscarriage of justice & the use of anti-terror laws to justify your government’s complicity in a genocide. https://t.co/8WNKMNoM19

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) June 13, 2026

Philp recently sought to ‘understand the reasons‘ behind the racist pogroms in Belfast.

Shadow housing secretary James Cleverly used similar lines of attack.

They were acquitted on all charges until the State forced a rigged retrial that lied to the jury.

This wasn't justice. It was the death of it in Britain. https://t.co/8I1AkvWiWD

— Marl Karx (@BareLeft) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

Right to protest under attack

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has called government efforts to use Palestine Action as an example to deter opposition to genocide:

A truly dangerous attack on the right to protest.

He believes it’s “deeply authoritarian” and:

should worry all of us

As suffragettes faced imprisonment for their direct action in the past, Palestine Action is walking a similar path. And as journalist John McEvoy reported:

Being in court yesterday felt akin to witnessing a colonial crime: punishing activists with terrorism offences in order to set a precedent that taking direct action to stop a UK-backed genocide will not be tolerated.

The government thinks it needs to set an example. One reason for this is that, as late academic David Graeber said:

Nothing annoys forces of authority more than trying to bow out of the disciplinary game entirely and saying that we could just do things on our own. Direct action is a matter of acting as if you were already free.

The suffragettes did that. Palestine Action has done that. And no matter what Labour or Tory genocide apologists say or do, opponents of injustice will never stop fighting injustice.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

In 2025, Elon Musk was causing havoc in the US via his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). As critics said at the time, Musk wasn’t making cuts in a sensible and practical fashion; he was just pointing at programmes on a spreadsheet and saying ‘cut that‘. Now, the impacts of his time in government are becoming more and more apparent:

> save $15M a year by cutting a screwworm monitoring program

> screwworm outbreak almost immediately

> $1B to combat it

Advertisement

Government efficiency https://t.co/EHeY9if26V

— Luke Miani (@LukeMiani) June 15, 2026

Musk is a failing worm

Musk was supposedly in position to reduce the national debt. As reported, his failure in this regard was complete:

WOW! You can really see where DOGE began its work! https://t.co/5QGSDDn3XB

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) December 23, 2025

Here’s what one of the young men Musk employed to carry out DOGE cuts said:

I personally was pretty surprised, actually, at how efficient the government was. This isn’t to say that it can’t be made more efficient — elimination of paper, elimination of faxing — but these aren’t necessarily fraud, waste and abuse.

If you have any degree of familiarity with how Musk conducts himself, you’ll be unsurprised to learn the self-proclaimed ‘free speech absolutist‘ fired this guy for his comments.

Getting to the screwworm issue, Forbes reported that Musk cut funding for a monitoring programme. Making things worse, the cut came:

days before the U.S. ended a temporary suspension of cattle imports from Mexico, meaning livestock was allowed to cross the border without any of the monitoring previously funded by the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID)

Screwworm is once again present in American livestock. In the long-term, this could decimate the American herd; in the short-term, it’s going to make it hard to impossible for the US to export beef.

The cost of Musk

Reporting on the successful 1960s programme to eradicate screwworm, Forbes wrote:

The eradication was the result of multiple sterile fly programs across the south that cost roughly $42 million in the mid 1960s, the equivalent of about $452 million today.

There have been outbreaks since, but there hasn’t been a significant problem in decades. USDA estimates show that if the US suffers an outbreak similar to what it saw in 1976, it could cost as much as $1.8bn.

To try and prevent a future outbreak:

The USDA is spending $750 million on a new Texas facility capable of producing roughly 300 million sterile screwworms per week, but it won’t be operational until at least 2027

In other words, it’s going to cost the US close to a billion even if there isn’t a significant outbreak.

The DOGE legacy

Speaking on Musk’s time in office, the House Committee on the Budget reported:

DOGE’s Mass Firings Result in Gutted Services and Higher Costs.

The committee added:

President Trump and Elon Musk are slashing essential services that millions of Americans depend on through mass firings of government employees. Through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), they have illegally fired tens of thousands of employees through prohibited personnel actions.

These cuts threaten services that Americans rely upon, such as the delivery of Social Security benefits, access to classrooms for students with disabilities, and help processing tax refunds. Additionally, these cuts to the federal workforce will likely make the deficit worse, not better, thanks to decreased oversight and increased tax dodging.

From a UK perspective, it’s worth being aware of the failure of DOGE, because Reform UK is looking to repeat it. And as you might have already guessed, this means cuts to public services combined with infinite money for flags:

£75,000 for 164 flags.

This is how Reform will spend your money. pic.twitter.com/McUmY1sPYl

— BladeoftheSun (@BladeoftheS) October 24, 2025

Featured image via Benjamin Fanjoy (Getty Images) / Brandon Bell (Getty Images) 

By Willem Moore

Source link