A senior FIFA official warned he was prepared to lose his job over Gianni Infantino’s controversial World Cup plan. Weeks later, he has.

He knew the risk

FIFA has ended its working relationship with Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour, weeks after he publicly criticised Infantino over plans to sell a stake in the World Cup’s commercial rights to outside investors.

FIFA confirmed that Lamour’s contract ended on 17 August, thanking him for his two years with the organisation but declining to comment further.

Lamour had made clear that he knew his criticism could cost him his job.

Speaking to the Associated Press on 31 July, he said the proposal “should not go ahead” and that football’s leaders needed to “ask the right questions and make the right decisions”.

Then came the bluntest part:

And if that means I lose my job, then so be it.

Within weeks, Lamour was gone.

The straw that broke Infantino

The dispute centred on a proposal to create a FIFA subsidiary valued at around $20bn, which would control the commercial rights to the federation’s major tournaments, including the World Cup.

Under the plan, up to 20% of the subsidiary could have been sold to outside investors.

The proposal triggered opposition both inside and outside FIFA, with critics questioning whether investors from outside football should have a stake in the commercial rights to its biggest tournaments.

Lamour was not the only senior figure to object. Hours before his comments, Carlos Cordero, a chief adviser to Infantino, resigned over the proposal, calling it “a bad deal for football”.

Infantino’s FIFA headache

FIFA subsequently backed away from the plan amid the growing backlash. But the controversy has continued to reverberate inside the organisation.

Lamour’s departure now adds another remarkable twist to a proposal that was supposed to be a major financial move for FIFA.

Lamour joined FIFA as Chief Operating Officer in 2024 after spending years at UEFA, where he had served as Deputy General Secretary.

His exit also raises an obvious question about how much room senior FIFA officials have to challenge Infantino when they disagree with his plans.

Lamour effectively predicted the consequences himself. He said he would accept losing his job if that was the price of speaking out.

Weeks later, FIFA confirmed that his time at the organisation was over.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Premier League clubs have already spent £2.14bn this summer, widening the financial gulf with Europe.

Premier League spending through the roof

Premier League clubs have continued their record-breaking spending this summer, splashing around £2.14bn so far and closing in on the record set in 2025.

According to BBC figures, clubs would need to spend roughly another £1bn to match last summer’s total. With more than two weeks still remaining before the transfer window closes, however, another record remains within reach.

The scale of the spending is striking. The league has already surpassed the totals for several entire transfer windows, including £1.98bn in 2024, £1.94bn in 2022, £1.32bn in 2020 and £1.13bn in 2021.

Only the summers of 2023 and 2025 have seen more spending, at around £2.36bn and a record figure respectively.

With clubs still strengthening their squads, the £2.36bn mark could soon be within touching distance.

The money stays in England

The spending boom isn’t limited to players arriving from abroad. Premier League clubs have also been throwing huge sums at each other, with almost £785m spent on domestic transfers so far.

That offers another indication of the league’s financial muscle—clubs have enough money not only to shop abroad but to pay extraordinary fees for players already competing in England.

Morgan Rogers’ move from Aston Villa to Chelsea leads the domestic spending list at £117m, followed by Elliot Anderson’s £116m transfer from Nottingham Forest to Manchester City.

Sandro Tonali’s move from Newcastle United to Tottenham Hotspur cost £100m, while Matheus Fernandes joined Tottenham from West Ham for £85m. Bruno Guimarães’ move from Newcastle to Arsenal completes the top five at £75m.

Europe is struggling to keep up

The figures underline just how wide the financial gap between the Premier League and Europe’s other major leagues has become.

BBC described the difference as “as clear as day”, with Premier League spending now approaching the combined total spent by clubs in the other four major European leagues.

The disparity reflects the enormous commercial and broadcast revenues flowing through English football, giving Premier League clubs the financial muscle to keep spending even as transfer fees continue to soar.

With the window entering its final stages, the question is no longer whether Premier League clubs can spend at extraordinary levels. It’s whether they can break yet another record — and widen the gap with the rest of Europe even further.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

On Monday 17 August, Reform UK announced a suite of new policies designed to target and punish sick, disabled, and unemployed people. The party’s plan to target unemployed people is based on the idea that there’s a significant number of voters who are just ‘layabouts’. In reality, most of the people who don’t work can’t work, and the rest are facing a particularly tough market – as the latest job vacancies show:

all while every single major party says it’s going to cut benefits for people that “refuse to work” https://t.co/TsAZeBlXwb

— mike ☭ (@__mike91) August 18, 2026

On the attack (and ignoring the job vacancies chaos)

Reform’s Making Welfare Work policy would completely abolish Personal Independence Payments (PIP). As we reported, this is an odd move for Reform to make, given that many Reform voters are PIP claimants. It’s one thing to pretend the system is full of ‘scroungers’ and to promise a crackdown; it’s quite another to directly target every PIP claimant in the country.

I canvassed a disabled voter in Crook recently who told me she was voting Reform because the first time she applied for PIP it was rejected. "I had to fight damn hard for my PIP" she told me, "but foreigners get it for nothing".

I hope people like her become better informed. https://t.co/l5emWDM0QD

— Sam Rushworth MP (@SamJRushworth) August 16, 2026

Predictably, Reform’s policy is likely to result in a massive increase in child poverty. PIP payments help sick and disabled people juggle part-time work with their ongoing health issues. Removing PIP might push some people into full-time work, but it will also force many into full-time unemployment.

The new policy will mandate that anyone who’s on Universal Credit for 12 months will have to complete 20 hours of community work a year. As the Standard reported:

Robert Jenrick, the party’s Treasury spokesperson, said the long-term unemployed would have to work 20 hours a week scrubbing high streets, carrying out minor repairs and “beautifying neglected places”.

The scheme would be run by local councils and those who do not accept work placements will have their funding cut.

This really betrays two things:

• It’s entirely possible to just create job vacancies – including jobs which benefit the local area.
• For whatever reason, some voters will only get behind such a move if there’s an element of punishment to it.

And all this is especially bad when you factor in the current unavailability of jobs.

THIS IS INSANE

There are now 2.5 unemployed people for every job opening in the UK. https://t.co/dAkoigaAgb pic.twitter.com/tKpis4jAmE

— Bull Theory (@BullTheoryio) August 18, 2026

Job hunt

As the BBC reported, the number of job vacancies:

has fallen to its lowest level in more than five years as smaller businesses cut back on recruitment, official figures indicate.

Vacancy numbers fell over the May-to-July period to 707,000, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), which said small firms were citing labour and operating costs as reasons for scaling back hiring.

Energy costs have risen since the Iran war began, and companies have also said that increases in National Insurance and the minimum wage have made it more expensive to employ staff.

While it’s essential that the minimum wage rises to meet the cost of living, it can cause issues in a Cost-of-Living Crisis. The problem is that even with wages going up a bit, most people are still feeling the pinch. When that happens, people spend less; when people spend less, businesses attract fewer customers; when businesses attract fewer customers, they employ fewer people.

It’s a vicious circle, in other words. And it’s not one we’re going to get out of by punishing people who are out of work.

Reform says it will save £50bn a year by abolishing PIP. That’s £50bn which was being sent to PIP claimants who were in turn spending it on food, clothes, and essentials. Now ask yourself this: will pulling £50bn out of the economy be good for businesses who are already struggling, or will it be an absolute disaster?

Job seekers vs job vacancies

The BBC article carries the following interview with a job seeker:

Aaron Diangienda told BBC Newsbeat he has been looking for a role for more than a year.

“I’ve been trying my best, just making sure that I am finding the correct stuff to suit me and keeping on going with [the job hunt]”, he says.

Advertisement

Under Reform, Diangienda would have been put on the scheme to carry out labour for benefits – i.e. he’d be working for less than the minimum wage. Would that really help him find work?

Another job seeker said this:

For Jasmine Walker, it’s been a case of applying for jobs “literally anywhere and everywhere”.

The 24-year-old says she has been looking for marketing jobs since she graduated from university in July, and estimates she has applied for more than 300 roles so far.

“It’s a bit frustrating because you’re researching and practising how to make your CV and applications pristine, and yet you still can’t get anywhere with that,” says Walker.

Advertisement

Imagine if applying for 100+ jobs wasn’t enough, and suddenly you had to work 20 hours a week just to maintain your benefits – benefits which already failed to ensure any quality of life.

You can be mad about how things are, but you can’t pretend Reform’s plan will fix anything.

Farage wants 300k unemployed scrubbing the streets for free or starve. Call it community service. It’s the workhouse rebranded. Class war from the top. Always.

20 hours unpaid labour a week or lose your benefits. That’s Reform’s big idea. Taxpayers get paid. Claimants get…

Advertisement

— Spirit Of Attlee (@SpiritOfAttlee) August 17, 2026

Costly

Another thing to note is that Reform’s plan is going to create whole new layers of bureaucracy and enforcement for local councils. Who’s going to pay for all this? Because the policy isn’t going to generate cash as far as we’ve been told. And this is supposed to be part of a plan to save money.

It’s almost like Reform hasn’t thought this one through.

Featured image via PA

By Willem Moore

Source link

If there’s one thing pretty much everyone agrees with, it’s that British politicians haven’t been doing much long-term planning. A clear example of this is the following from Lib Dems MP Layla Moran:

It is hard to overstate the selfishness and short-sightedness of NIMBYism.

Here’s Lib Dem MP Layla Moran objecting to plans for a mega reservoir in her constituency in 2022.

Her constituency is now officially in drought because we lack enough places to store water. https://t.co/HiMXkIG4Le

Advertisement

— James Hanson (@jhansonradio) August 18, 2026

NIMBYism = Lib Dems-ism

The acronym ‘NIMBY’ stands for ‘not in my backyard’. It’s a descriptor for people who want things to be built and developed, just so long as they’re not built and developed near them.

In Britain, NIMBYs have incredible power to prevent projects moving ahead during the planning process. On the one hand, having the ability to object to local mega projects is a good thing – especially when it comes to AI data centres. On the other hand, China has built “29,800 miles of high-speed train lines — about 70 per cent of the global total” – in the time it took us to half build HS1.

In the clip above, the Lib Dems Moran says:

Well, the main thing is that the water companies haven’t adequately, in my view, reassured and shown that this is absolutely necessary. You know, to put it into context, this is an enormous reservoir… 25 metres high, made of concrete. That’s three double-decker buses, one on top of the other. It’s pretty much the footprint of Abingdon itself. It’s enormous.

And there’s two things that they haven’t done. The first is proven that their population projections are correct. There are big discrepancies internationally, in what the ONS… say, and what they say they’re going to be. And we think that’s a big problem.

But the second is the environmental impact itself. We fully appreciate that we need to do something with our water supply. Absolutely. The question is, is this monstrous design the right thing? I don’t think they’ve made the case.

After the summer we’ve had, you’re no doubt salivating at the thought of that enormous reservoir. Although climate change has indeed accelerated, we knew that summers like this were coming in 2022 when Moran said the above. The Lib Dems have form too, with Nick Clegg having shot down carbon-free nuclear projects in 2010 because they wouldn’t come online until 2021:

Nick Clegg opposing nuclear energy investment in 2010, when interest rates were at record lows because it would simply take too long to materialise

pic.twitter.com/zxC26skevv https://t.co/iqbGl1EtXH

— camilo (@AscendedYield) June 26, 2025

Short termism

At this point, it really is up to us to punish politicians for this sort of short-term thinking. We need to renationalise key utilities; we need to improve and expand our national infrastructure, and we need to double down on renewables and nuclear. It’s going to take some time to make these things happen, but we’ll be kicking ourselves ten years from now if we don’t.

Featured image via Mark Pack

By Willem Moore

Source link

Hard-right, anti-migrant party Reform UK recently revealed its plans to “overhaul” Britain’s benefits system. As if anyone could be surprised, the plans were not exactly original: it’s neoliberal austerity, reheated. So far, not so shocking — although the actual plans understandably alarmed disability rights campaigners and affordability advocates alike. What should be more shocking is how the BBC handled the ordeal.

Just heard BBC news lead with Reform policy proposal. How is that editorial decision justified three years out from an election for a party that is a) not the official opposition b) has eight seats in parliament c) is no longer leading the polls? Free publicity as usual.

— Barry Malone (@malonebarry) August 16, 2026

Overly eager to air Reform’s latest press conference, the BBC displayed an empty podium for the better part of an hour. Meanwhile, pundits discussed — in hypotheticals — what might be announced any moment.

They then dedicated many minutes of airtime to both the live coverage and to further discussion after. Then, many of Reform’s supposedly costed assessments were reported as fact without much critical dissection.

Why on Earth would the BBC tweet about this story as if these supposed savings are a statement of fact, and not some wild ill thought out claim on behalf of Reform? The article itself isn’t particularly critical either https://t.co/M6Axn37oRn

— Razor Marone (@Streettough) August 16, 2026

Richard Sambrook, a former director of BBC News, has underscored the disgraceful coverage:

BBC’s coverage of Reform’s welfare plans is frankly bizarre. Headlines in Ten, leading on some radio networks. Reform are not even the official opposition and the plans have less credibility than Count Binface. Will BBC News do the same for Lib Dem and Greens policy two years out?

Any objective editorial assessment of Reform currently should surely focus on its corruption allegations. Namely, its party leadership is mired in money laundering investigations and the undeclared £5m “gift”. When discussing “fitness for government,” major public interest stories like that surely come first.

To quote one X user, Bruce McD:

Inchoate and inoperable policy announcements should be treated as the trifling diversion they [are].

Polanski slams BBC Reform-friendly hypocrisy after Newsnight ambush

BBC serves pro-Reform whoppers

Canary readers will be well aware that it’s not the first time the BBC has done party-political broadcasts ad hoc, not advertised as such, for Reform UK. Its Newsnight presenters recently ambushed Green Party leader Zack Polanski, loathed by Reform and its (especially Nazi) supporters, live on-air. As I wrote at the time:

Newsnight rightly drew sharp criticism after one of their journalists, Nicholas Watt interrupted the broadcast to read out live reactions to the show from Reform UK. Watt simply read out text messages from unnamed, inflammatory Reform figures. This took up over three minutes of the show’s 30-minute run-time.

During those three minutes, Polanski was filmed live on air, forced to sit and listen. Meanwhile, the BBC’s Watt proudly showed off to the nation that he gets DMs from Nigel Farage.

Advertisement

Innocent onlookers might be forgiven for thinking this kind of behaviour is more fitting to GB News than Reform. Though it hardly needed proving, media analysis by Alan Rusbridger exposed centi-millionaire funded GB News as essentially a propaganda outfit for the party. But this is the BBC — it’s different, no?

Although the BBC has historically always served as an extension of the British establishment, more is required to explain its pro-Reform stance. Unfortunately, the BBC’s editorial “turn” is actually quite easily explicable.

Reform’s man on the inside

It’s a man called John McAndrew. According to the BBC’s own website:

prior to that he was most recently the launch editor of The Andrew Neil Show at Channel 4. Before this he spent a year as Editorial Director and Director of News and Programmes at GB News

Gosh, it’s almost as if BBC’s Director of News is a former GB News editorial director…

Isn’t it.

Advertisement

Reform UK & Farage already have GB News to spew their propaganda. For a publicly funded broadcaster to assist them is completely unacceptable.#BBCNews #JohnMcAndrew pic.twitter.com/4iES6xScIx

— @mikiclemfandango.bsky.social (@MikiB007) August 17, 2026

Featured image via X / the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

So-called ‘Israel’s’ i24 News, which spread genocide-boosting fictions about beheaded babies post-7 October 2023, has released footage of a man attacking their ‘journalists’ in Belfast. Since then, dishonest media and politicians have sought to falsely conflate the anti-Zionist attack with antisemitism, offering zero evidence for the presence of the latter.

Yet this should have all been avoided by the British government imposing proper sanctions on the settler-colony, including barring entry for all ‘Israeli’ media outlets.

The attack occurred earlier in August, when an ‘Israeli’ cameraman and reporter were preying on people in Belfast’s cathedral quarter, an area packed with pubs and music venues. i24 News claims:

…i24NEWS reporter Jonathan Roe and photographer Nadav Abs were filming a documentary series examining the rise of antisemitism in Europe.

Their reporter Yonatan Raveh told the Jerusalem Post:

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Nigel Farage is notorious for hardly ever showing up to Parliament. He’s also controversial for the £5m ‘gift’ which he received for unclear reasons. Despite this, he’s now decided Britain has a problematic ‘something for nothing’ culture:

Farage should be forced to prove a full 40 hour working week as MP for Clacton. https://t.co/LEkYV2L7SM

— Sam (@SamCKx) August 18, 2026

Absenteeism from Farage

As we’ve covered, Reform’s plan to make long-term unemployed people do free community service is just performative cruelty. It’s also not going to realise any of the benefits they claim to have in mind.

Farage, of course, is a particularly odd person to be calling out ‘something for nothing culture’. Since he was first elected as an MP in 2024:

• There have been 575 votes.
• Farage bothered to show up for 173.
• This means his attendance rate is 30%.

A 30% attendance rate is like if you only showed up to work 1.5 days a week. Sounds a lot like ‘something for nothing’ Britain to us.

Notoriously, Farage also decided he wouldn’t attend GP surgeries in his Clacton constituency. Farage claimed the Speaker’s Office advised him not to for safety reasons; the Speaker’s Office would later deny telling him such a thing. As Sky News reported in September 2024:

The MP had said he is not holding in-person surgeries in his constituency over fears the public will “flow through the door with knives in their pockets”.

Farage really does have a low opinion of Britons, doesn’t he? Clearly, he thinks we’re all violent layabouts, and yet he’s also notorious for swanning off to the US at every opportunity to hang out with Donald Trump – the world’s most notorious violent layabout. Trump is so lazy, in fact, that there’s a website dedicated to tracking his presidential golf trips. According to that site, Trump is nearly as workshy as Farage:

Donald Trump has golfed 125 days out of 577 days since returning to office (21.7% of the presidency spent golfing).

In terms of violence, Trump’s pointless war on Iran is set to make us all poorer, and that will of course lead to fewer jobs. Maybe Farage should be having a word with his mate instead of insulting the British public?

Pushback

Reform politicians are already facing significant pushback relating to the Making Welfare Work policy, which is set to abolish Personal Independence Payments (PIP):

You can see the exact moment that Reform politician Laila Cunningham realises that she's going to spend the next few years defending a policy that will hurt vulnerable people https://t.co/okm21FuK1L

— Larry the Cat (@Number10cat) August 17, 2026

Advertisement

Robert Jenrick and Jeremy Kyle resorted to telling lies to quiet down the critics. As Mukhtar reported:

A Reform supporter called in and said that his family would not vote for Reform because his wife is on PIP. She has been through hell trying to get it, and he isn’t willing to take the risk of her losing it under a Reform government.

Jeremy Kyle then interrupted him and falsely claimed that hundreds of thousands of people are fraudulently claiming PIP.

This is a lie. PIP has one of the lowest fraud rates among benefits, at around 0.2%.

Advertisement

This is the full clip and obviously Robert Jenrick also lies. https://t.co/iApvlJxgLC pic.twitter.com/PzFKEevRuo

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) August 18, 2026

Reform is also facing pushback from its own councillors:

BREAKING

Reform councillor quits Reform saying that Reform’s new welfare policies will cost lives pic.twitter.com/5Wa9If4iaX

— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) August 18, 2026

As we’ve reported in the past, many Reform councillors have complained that they lack independence. Apparently, they have to tow the party line, even if it’s bad for the local area. Several councillors have quit over this. And Reform’s Making Welfare Work policy could be another issue that forces Reform councillors to quit or defect.

Downhill

Reform has mostly targeted its wrath on migrants; now, it’s seeking to broaden the attacks to more clearly include sick, disabled, and unemployed people. As we’ve reported, this means Reform is attacking people who may have otherwise considered voting for them. And it’s unclear why they think this is a good idea.

Our current theory is that they haven’t thought it through. No doubt because workshy Farage couldn’t be bothered turning up to the planning sessions.

Featured image via Justin Tallis

By Willem Moore

Source link

Source link

Republicans are struggling to reverse the damage President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda has done with voters.

With less than 90 days until the midterm election, the Trump administration has sought to keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials out of the headlines, pulling back on the high-profile, flashy raids in blue cities and minimizing public clashes with community members and protesters.

But new results from The POLITICO Poll show that half of Americans, including nearly a quarter of Trump’s 2024 voters, still say the president’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive. That’s virtually unchanged from polling numbers in January and April, amid mounting political outrage over federal agents killing two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

Non-MAGA Trump voters are twice as likely as self-identified MAGA voters to say the president’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive — 31 percent compared with 15 percent, according to the new poll, which was conducted Aug. 8 to Aug. 12.

The persistence of that negative voter sentiment underscores a vulnerability for Republicans heading into November, as the party grapples with its message and policy approach on an issue the GOP once dominated. Immigration was a reliable winner for Republicans, with the party rallying voters around border security and public safety. Now, they’re struggling not only to convince persuadable voters, but also hold together their own coalition as it splinters over deportations.

“Voters really did want border security, but they did not want to see abuelita taken away because she’s been here for 40 years but without documentation,” said Arizona-based GOP strategist Barrett Marson.

The poll, conducted by London-based polling firm Public First, found a notable share of Americans believe the administration has shifted how it is conducting deportations following the fatal shootings, but that has not been enough to reverse Americans’ views of the administration’s deportation strategy.

A 56 percent majority of Americans say there has been at least a small shift in the way the Trump administration has been conducting its deportation campaign. But a plurality of those respondents, 44 percent, say the shifts have made no difference in how much they trust the administration on immigration. Thirty percent say the shifts make them less willing to trust the administration on immigration.

Among the 71 percent of Trump voters who said they’ve observed at least a small shift from the administration, nearly half, 48 percent, say those shifts make “no difference” in how much they trust the administration on immigration. Nineteen percent said the shifts make them less likely to trust the administration, while 29 percent said they’d be more likely.

Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster in Washington, said that even with the lower-profile approach, the administration’s goal of increasing arrest and deportation numbers remains. That conflicts with what many voters broadly support: targeting immigrants in the country illegally who have committed crimes.

The lack of a change in voter sentiment is “not that surprising at all,” Ayres said. “It’s a lot easier just to go into an airport and find somebody who had overstayed a visa, had applied for an extension … and throw them into handcuffs and put them in a detention center. That’s the easy way to get the numbers up, and a great way to thoroughly antagonize public opinion.”

Another Republican strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the landscape, said Trump “ran on border security, and he’s following through.”

“But the visuals of wins are unfortunately overshadowed by the visuals of chaos,” the strategist said. “There’s no question that the wall to wall coverage of the chaos that follows ICE makes voters squeamish.”

The White House pointed to polling from this spring that showed that 80 percent of Americans support deporting unauthorized immigrants who have committed crimes, as well as a Department of Homeland Security press release that highlighted arrests of immigrants who had been accused of sexual assault of a child, forcible sexual abuse and drug posession.

“Americans sent President Trump back to the White House with a clear mandate to deport criminal illegal aliens. Every single day the Trump Administration is delivering on his promise to the American people to remove murderers, pedophiles, rapists, and gang members from American communities,” said White House spokesperson Lauren Bis. “Americans are grateful to the President for removing these criminals from their neighborhoods and for Making America Safe Again.”

The GOP’s stronghold on immigration as a campaign issue eroded soon after the president’s return to the White House. Soon, robust enforcement efforts led to viral images of arrests inside courthouses, at airports and on neighborhood streets. The backlash brewed for months, and peaked this year amid the killings of Alex Pretti and Renée Good in Minnesota.

The White House moved quickly to contain the political fallout, sidelining then-Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino and deploying border czar Tom Homan to ease tensions. The administration has since sought to avoid controversy on immigration ahead of the midterms, emphasized criminal arrests and changed leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. Since Markwayne Mullin took the reins in March, he has reversed contentious policies, including a plan to turn massive warehouses into detention facilities.

Still, some Republicans are particularly worried that the hardline immigration stance was hurting the party with key voting blocs, such as young voters, moderate Republicans and Latino voters. The president won 46 percent of the Latino vote in 2024, the highest share of any GOP presidential candidate in modern history, but these voters have grown increasingly concerned with Trump’s deportations policy.

Democrats, meanwhile, are highlighting the Trump administration’s aggressive tactics on the trail, betting that more voters are repulsed than grateful for the increased presence of ICE and other federal agents in their communities. Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who won the Democratic primary for Senate last week, used her victory speech to rail against her opponent, GOP nominee Michele Tafoya.

“Michele Tafoya was all in with Trump when ICE was terrorizing our neighbors,” she said.

Republicans, for their part, are fractured over the path forward, as immigration hawks battle with wary moderates who are pushing for a targeted focus on criminals.

Not only are non-MAGA voters more likely than MAGA voters to say Trump’s mass deportations campaign is too aggressive, there’s also a stark divide in how each faction supports the goals and implementation of his immigration agenda, The POLITICO Poll found. Nearly two-thirds of MAGA Trump voters — 64 percent — say they support both the goals and implementation of his deportations campaign, compared to just 35 percent of non-MAGA Trump voters.

The president’s MAGA supporters and immigration hardliners have argued that the administration is going soft on the president’s mass deportation vow, potentially turning off the far right base at a time when the party can’t risk a lull in turnout.

The split flared up last month when Mullin temporarily paused some ICE vehicle stops — a tactic the agency was using to increase arrest statistics — after two ICE-involved shootings during vehicle stops in Texas and Maine. While some Republicans welcomed Mullin’s response, the president’s MAGA supporters portrayed it as weak.

“We are being betrayed in real time,” conservative commentator Tomi Lahren said on X at the time. “If you want Trump voters to stay home in November, keep this up Markwayne and co.”

The president, after online pushback, reversed the DHS order.

Source link

Source link