Source link

Source link

The post There is nothing ‘pro-choice’ about assisted dying appeared first on spiked.

Source link

Source link

British banking giant Standard Chartered could cut more than 7,500 jobs and replace them with AI and automation. More broadly, analysis from Morgan Stanley has found that UK companies that had used AI for a least a year had net losses of 8% of jobs over only the last 12 months. This was the highest level among countries analysed.

Where’s the left’s vision?

AI and automation is actually an opportunity for progression. But the left needs an alternative vision for how the technology is implemented.

Speaking of the job losses, the CEO of Standard Chartered, which is Asia focused, said:

It’s not cost-cutting. It’s replacing in some cases lower-value human capital ​with the financial capital and the investment capital we’re putting in

“Lower-value human capital” is quite the way to view workers. But the chief executive does make the point that, with AI and automation, capital will essentially become labour. If one has the investment to automate, one has the labour.

Replacing menial jobs with AI and automation can be progress. It could liberate people, enabling them to be creative, establish skills they never had the time for, study, participate democratically and socialise.

But people need some kind of citizens’ dividend from robotic labour in order to survive with less hours or no job.

Study suggests AI netting job losses

In its analysis, Morgan Stanley found that the UK experienced the worst rate of net AI job losses in 2025, compared to other countries. Japan was second with net losses of 7%, then Germany and Australia with net losses of 4%.

So far, UK companies had an average productivity increase of 11.5%.

The research suggests that AI is not actually creating jobs at the same pace as it is replacing them. And the left needs a modern vision for the technology.

Featured image via Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

By James Wright

Source link

Israel and Somaliland have agreed to open embassies in Jerusalem and Hargeisa. Israel’s influence in the strategic Horn of Africa is growing. And there have been warnings Israel might ethnically cleanse Palestinians out of Palestine and into the country.

Israel was one of the first countries to recognise Somaliland, a breakaway territory of Somalia, in the early 1990s. UN members railed against the move, but the US defended Israel while not recognising Somaliland itself.

Middle East Eye reported on 19 May:

Somaliland is opening an embassy in Jerusalem, and Israel will reciprocate by opening one in the breakaway region of Somalia, in the latest sign that the two are deepening their ties.

The breakaway country’s ambassador to Israel Mohamed Hagi said:

I am pleased to announce that the Republic of Somaliland’s embassy will be located in Jerusalem – the embassy will be opened soon.

Israel will also establish its embassy in Hargeisa, reflecting growing friendship, mutual respect, and strategic cooperation between our two peoples.

Somaliland borders Somalia, Ethiopia and Djibouti. The latter is home to a major US colonial base and the US has an entire task force devoted to the Horn of Africa.

Israel’s 1991 recognition of breakaway country also caused concerns among other countries in the region:

The move elicited a particularly strong response from Arab and Muslim states that are wary of Israel gaining a foothold in the strategic Horn of Africa through an unrecognised state.

MEE said:

In return for Israeli recognition, Somaliland said it would sign up to the Abraham Accords, the US-led agreements in which Morocco, Bahrain, and the UAE established full diplomatic ties with Israel in 2020 and 2021. Sudan’s agreement to normalise remains unratified amid its civil war.

Adding:

Somaliland is a strategic node in a wider struggle for influence playing out in the region. The unrecognised state is 30km south of the Bab el-Mandab Strait, the narrow waterway that connects the Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea.

And there are fears that Israel could remove Palestinians from their land, depositing them in Somaliland. Responsible Statecraft wrote on 7 January 2026:

Somali officials have made particularly attention-grabbing claims, alleging that Somaliland is now set to host an Israeli military base and perhaps even camps for Palestinians forcibly displaced from Gaza.

MEE‘s Turkey bureau chief Ragip Soylu said at the time:

NEW: Somaliland agreed three conditions to be recognised by Israel:

1- the resettlement of Palestinians in Somaliland.

2- An Israeli military base on the Gulf of Aden coast.

3- Somaliland’s inclusion to the Abraham Accords.

— Somali President HSM

Advertisement

pic.twitter.com/8Z85hEYHLp

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) December 31, 2025

The former colonial power in the region, Britain, also has some things to answer for:

During the colonial period, British authorities governed Somaliland as a separate entity from the rest of the territory that would one day become Somalia, which Italy controlled at the time. Somaliland even briefly existed as an independent state in 1960, garnering recognition from roughly 30 other countries.

But days after its foundation, Somaliland realigned with Somalia, starting a chain of events which led to civil war and a genocide of some 50,000 Somaliland citizens.

Somaliland is, among other things, a node in the imperial architecture of the region and a one-time colonial possession of the western powers. Israel’s influence appears to follow a similar pattern of outside interference. Only 30 miles from the narrow strait where Red Sea trade flows into the Gulf of Aden, Somaliland’s strategic value is clearly attractive to regional and world powers.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

West Bank — As part of its ongoing genocidal campaign against Palestinians, the Israeli occupation passed the Death Penalty Law on 30 March.

Death by hanging, but only for Palestinians

This mandates death by hanging for so-called “terrorism related” offences, and applies only to Palestinians and to crimes committed after the legislation was passed.

Five human rights organisations, together with several Arab members of the Israeli Knesset, are challenging this law before the Supreme Court. They claim it is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and incompatible with international law.

Miriam Azem, International Advocacy Coordinator at Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, tells the Canary:

Adalah petitioned immediately to the Supreme Court. Part of our main argument is that the Knesset, which has no sovereignty and authority over the occupied territory, cannot legislate over the occupied population in the West Bank.

The Israeli occupation’s West Bank military commander, Avi Bluth, who recently boasted “We are killing like we haven’t since 1967,” issued a military order on 17 May. This brought the law into effect in the occupied West Bank, but went significantly further than the Death Penalty Law passed in March.

Military order increases opportunities for “Israel” to kill Palestinians in West Bank

Bluth has expanded the definition of crimes eligible for execution, shifted the burden of proof to the defendant and created a wider, more arbitrary, and more extreme death penalty regime in the West Bank military court system than even the law itself.

“Acts of terrorism” now include killings carried out “with the aim of negating the existence of the State of Israel or the authority of the military commander in the area”.

Adalah, along with other human rights organisations, has now sent an urgent letter to the relevant Israeli authorities, demanding the immediate cancellation of the military order. Azem says:

Almost any resistance to occupation in the occupied West Bank could be considered by an Israeli court as undermining the sovereignty in the West Bank. This is an incredibly broad and vague definition that doesn’t comply with any criminal standards. It is very unclear phrasing, and having that in a criminal code is illegal and egregious. Having that in a criminal code that allows for the death penalty is just completely outrageous.

West Bank — The occupation’s death penalty law for Palestinians is illegal

The military order also introduces legal presumptions that spare the prosecution from having to prove the elements that elevate an intentional killing to a death penalty offence: if a weapon was used, or if the accused belongs to what the Israeli occupation deems an “unlawful association”, those elements are taken as given.

According to Azem, the Death Penalty Law is illegal for several reasons. Firstly, it is illegal to apply “Israeli” law in the occupied territory. Secondly, the military commander in the West Bank, under international humanitarian law, is obliged to prioritise the benefit of the occupied population, which this type of legislation does not do. In addition, this law enters a military court system which lacks fair trials, and uses secret evidence and arbitrary detention. It also relies on confessions obtained through psychological and physical torture. She argues:

The military system in the West Bank is so fundamentally unjust. Because it enters such a system, any death penalty to be rendered from such a process is inherently unlawful under international law. It is quasi mandatory, extremely vague, and targets only one population group — it has very clear apartheid characteristics. It really violates international law on so many different grounds. Adalah demands its immediate cancellation, and if this doesn’t happen we will go to court.

New military tribunal has authority to impose death penalty on 7 October 2023 Resistance fighters

The Knesset also passed, 93-0, new legislation on 11 May establishing a special military tribunal in Jerusalem to prosecute Palestinians from Gaza accused of 7 October 2023 attacks. Mass trials are permitted, the tribunal has the authority to impose the death penalty, and its proceedings will be livestreamed for all to see.

As national security minister Ben-Gvir claims “The death penalty law for [Palestinian] detainees applies to 80% of them”, there are growing fears that the Israeli occupation will target as many Palestinian detainees as possible.

Numerous UN General Assembly resolutions and international legal bodies recognise the right of peoples to self-determination and to struggle against foreign domination and colonial rule. This includes Palestinians, who are legally entitled to resist military occupation.

Featured image via Erik Marmor/Getty Images

By Charlie Jaay

Source link

DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 51

CROWD CONTROL: State Democrats are aligned on reining in ICE — but there’s sharp disagreements over whether the measures will meaningfully impact the NYPD.

Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers passed a package of measures this afternoon that seek to curtail federal immigration enforcement agents’ operations in New York.

“Tom Homan can shove it,” Brooklyn state Sen. Andrew Gounardes said at a press conference this morning, referring to the Trump administration’s border czar.

The package aims to restrict the ability of police departments like the NYPD to control crowds while federal officers conduct immigration enforcement actions.

“If ICE or DHS ask a local police department to facilitate their operations — lock down the street, clear out traffic, cordon off an area, put up, ‘do not cross signs,’… those types of actions would no longer be allowed,” Gounardes said of the immigration package.

Also in the agreement: banning masks for federal and local law enforcement and creating a list of “sensitive locations” that ICE won’t be able to enter without a judicial warrant.

The slew of anti-ICE measures are just the latest effort by Democrats in blue states like New York to push back against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration tactics.

But the push to prohibit local police departments from cooperating with federal immigration authorities is likely to prove messy on the ground — as evidenced by a recent fracas in Brooklyn.

A host of elected allies of Zohran Mamdani pointed fingers at the mayor and police commissioner Jessica Tisch earlier this month when the NYPD took steps to control a crowd of anti-ICE protesters who tried to obstruct federal officers that detained an undocumented man and transported him to Wyckoff Heights Medical Center.

The NYPD says officers were doing their job by responding to 911 calls about disorderly protesters — and they also say these new measures wouldn’t have had any effect on how they operated that evening in front of Wykoff. During those efforts, eight people were arrested due to scuffles with cops and attempts to block the federal officers’ exits. Videos depict a chaotic scene, with the NYPD seen throwing a protester to the ground.

But protesters say the NYPD’s efforts to control the crowd made it so the city’s cops, directly or indirectly, were supporting ICE and clearing a path for their movements.

Brooklyn state Sen. Julia Salazar, a key backer of the immigration measures, insists the new language from the state would’ve stopped the NYPD from interfering with anti-ICE protesters outside the Brooklyn hospital that day.

“Someone was quite violently taken into ICE custody by ICE agents,” Salazar said, recounting the incident. “Then they were taken to Wyckoff Heights Medical Center in Bushwick, and the police officers from the NYPD facilitated the entry and exit of those officers — which would be prohibited going forward.”

An NYPD spokesperson told Playbook the “legislation will not impact the NYPD because we do not engage in civil immigration enforcement, period.”

The actual language of the bill would bar any “informal agreement” with federal immigration authorities “under which an officer or employee may engage in or assist immigration enforcement, or otherwise may perform a function of an immigration officer.” The dispute over its actual effect prompts questions about the role of local cops to ensure order in the face of anti-ICE demonstrations, especially after similar protests turned deadly in Minnesota.

Mamdani’s spokesperson Dora Pekec said city policy already prohibits coordination between the NYPD and ICE and that “the Mayor supports this piece of legislation and has made clear that he believes ICE has no role in promoting public safety here in New York City.”

Tomorrow Mamdani will release a report – resulting from a February executive order – examining all city interactions with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

At a May 12 event hosted by the Association for a Better New York, Tisch slammed critics who said the NYPD was colluding with ICE at Wyckoff.

“NYPD officers, in the middle of the night, amid chaos outside of their control, did their job professionally and skillfully and made sure events did not spiral into a calamity,” she said. “The critics of the NYPD’s actions — those who would have us stand aside and call cops doing their jobs collusion – have lost sight of the lives at stake.”

The Wyckoff incident prompted rare public criticism of the Mamdani administration from left-leaning lawmakers who held an emergency press conference and wrote a letter decrying the NYPD’s actions that evening.

“They provided security for ICE,” City Council member Sandy Nurse, who represents the area, said of the incident.

In a statement, Hochul spokesperson Jen Goodman said the new law “would not ban local law enforcement from actions like crowd control in the interest of protecting New Yorkers.” — Jason Beeferman

FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

POLL-A-PALOOZA: We’ve got the latest snapshots of the city’s most competitive primaries in a trio of surveys from Emerson College Polling for PIX 11 — rare outside polling in these races.

The biggest gap: Former City Comptroller Brad Lander, who’s challenging Rep. Dan Goldman, is leading by a whopping 34 points. The survey has Lander with 57 percent support, compared to the incumbent’s 23 percent. One in five likely Democratic primary voters are undecided.

Goldman’s campaign was quick to dispute the results: “This poll is not remotely close to an accurate read of this race,” campaign manager Simone Kanter wrote on X. “The data we’ve seen shows a dead heat after messaging.”

He went on to argue that the survey oversampled college-educated voters and young people, writing that the poll “is assuming an electorate that looks exactly like the once-in-a-generation turnout Mamdani mobilized when he was on the ballot.” (Mamdani has endorsed Lander in the race, which will be a test of the mayor’s political muscle.)

Emily Minster, a spokesperson for Lander’s campaign, said they are “taking nothing for granted.”

A recent internal poll from a pro-Goldman super PAC found the incumbent trailing Lander by 5 points. Goldman has been up on the air for weeks; Lander began advertising today.

The polls showed far tighter races in the other primaries for NY-07 and NY-12, which are being vacated by retiring Reps. Nydia Velázquez and Jerry Nadler, respectively.

In NY-07, state Assemblymember Claire Valdez has 23 percent support, followed by Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso with 21 percent. City Council member Julie Won comes in at 13 percent and public defender Vichal Kumar at 1 percent.

Valdez leads among Hispanic voters and is running about even with Won among Asian voters.

An eye-popping 43 percent of respondents are undecided — giving the campaigns a major opportunity to grow their support.

The race for NY-10 is competitive between state Assemblymembers Micah Lasher and Alex Bores, who come in at 22 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg has 11 percent, while anti-Trump commentator George Conway has 10 percent and public health practitioner Nina Schwalbe has 3 percent. Around a third of respondents are undecided.

Recent surveys — nearly all of which have been internal polls — also showed a tight race, with Lasher and Bores toward the front of the pack. Earlier this year, Schlossberg had a slight lead in polls. Heavy outside spending has occurred in recent weeks in favor of Lasher, as well as groups both spending for and against Bores.

Mamdani has a strong approval rating in all three districts: 78 percent approve of him in the 7th, 79 percent in the 10th and 66 percent in the 12th.

The polls were conducted May 16-17 among likely Democratic primary voters. In the 7th, there were 350 respondents and a margin of error of plus-or-minus 5.2 percentage points. In the 10th, there were 450 respondents and a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.6 percentage points. In the 12th, there were 425 respondents and a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.8 percentage points. — Madison Fernandez

NOT THERE: Democrats are feeling good heading into this year’s midterms. But good enough to not donate to battleground Rep. Laura Gillen?

Oath, a donor platform that measures which Democrats it would be most effective to support, shared new recommendations for which candidates should make the cut, our colleagues in D.C. reported this morning. Among those who fall into the do-not-donate category is Gillen, whose Long Island seat that she narrowly flipped in 2024 is widely considered a crucial 2026 contest for control of the House. In a memo, Oath rationalized that Gillen’s seat is “moving into safe Democratic territory” and “does not have a Republican opponent who even raised $100,000.”

However, it’s unclear how much Hempstead Receiver of Taxes Jeanine Driscoll, local Republicans’ candidate of choice, has raised. She entered the race in April — after the second fundraising quarter began — and has not filed a financial report with the Federal Election Commission. Driscoll’s primary opponent, Air Force veteran Marvin Williams, has raised close to $90,000 — most of which was self-funded.

Also adding uncertainty to upcoming elections is a pending case in the Supreme Court that could open the floodgates to massive political spending from the national parties and benefit Republicans.

“Laura Gillen is running in a fiercely competitive Frontline seat,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Riya Vashi said in a statement. “The DCCC is committed to ensuring Laura has the resources and support she needs to win this November.” — Madison Fernandez

From the Capitol

THE WHEELS ON THE BUS: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has spent months working with other agencies planning for “nightmare scenarios” involving waylaid trains and buses during the World Cup, its executive director said Thursday.

Those plans could come in handy given the history of heat-related problems in the region and a pair of fires that disrupted service in and out of Penn Station in the past week.

New Jersey Transit’s backup plan for waylaid trains is a fleet of buses to carry fans. But those buses also break down in the heat and will need to get through the Port Authority’s tunnels to reach MetLife Stadium where eight World Cup matches will be played. So the Port Authority is working on a backup plan for the backup plan, including freeing up lanes in the Lincoln Tunnel that normally go in one direction to go in another.

“It’s going to be July, it’s going to be hot, on any given day we have bus break downs because the engine gets too hot,” Port Authority head Kathryn Garcia told reporters following a board meeting today. “We need to be able to be very flexible.”

Port Authority Chair Kevin O’Toole said during the hottest day last week he was behind a bus that broke down in the Lincoln Tunnel. Within five minutes a tow truck was there and another bus came to pick up the passengers.

“We are going to anticipate certain breakdowns and hopefully we can do our best to accommodate the public,” he said. — Ry Rivard

FROM CITY HALL

NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE: Mamdani announced a deal today to provide 1,000 World Cup tickets to New Yorkers at $50 a pop.

The mayor unveiled his discount ticket scheme this morning at a beer garden in Harlem, rattling off teams, players and moments from World Cups of yore before getting to the meat of his announcement.

“We’re so excited, frankly, because we know that there are so many New Yorkers who thought that there was no way they could afford to go to this tournament, and now there is that glimpse of an opportunity,” the mayor said.

But New Jersey Democrats were having none of it. They attacked FIFA – soccer’s global governing body – for the discounted tickets, which are only available to New York residents, even though the matches are being played in the Garden State.

“This publicity stunt does nothing to address the cost of tickets,” New Jersey Democratic Reps. Nellie Pou and Frank Pallone said in a joint statement.

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s spokesperson, Stephen Sigmund, said “FIFA not caring about costs for New Jersey residents isn’t new.”

FIFA said the agreement was between the local host committee and the mayor’s office, and that FIFA was only involved in ensuring the tickets went to fans who genuinely planned to attend rather than sell tickets.

New York and New Jersey officials have repeatedly sparred over how to run the upcoming tournament, despite being co-hosts. Most of that dust up to date has been over dueling bus and train services to get fans to matches. — Ry Rivard and Joe Anuta 

In Other News

— SUITED UP: Mamdani’s top lawyer, Ramzi Kaseem, brings a history of suing the NYPD and defending high-profile civil liberties cases to City Hall. (The New York Times)

— ICED OUT: A Manhattan parking garage removed federal vehicles after protesters alleged they were being used by immigration enforcement agents. (Gothamist)

— SHEIK UP: The Mamdani administration distanced itself from the views of an Islamic leader who has cast doubts on basic facts about the Holocaust. The mayor has met with the controversial figure at least three times since January 2025. (Washington Free Beacon)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

Source link

Independents are the main opposition to Labour in the London borough of Newham, and have just accused the local Greens of entering “into an unholy alliance” with Labour. The Newham Greens, which will now chair the council, have denied this and said “all 3 groups” will be “power sharing” in the borough.

Newham Independents “refused to work” with Labour

One of the candidates for Newham Independents Party who defeated Labour in the Little Ilford ward was Tahir Mirza. And he spoke to the Canary about what happened at the annual council meeting on 20 May.

Mirza suggested that the tanking of Labour’s vote in Newham in the election was a result of the serious concern local people had about the party’s performance and direction of travel under Keir Starmer in particular. He said that, with Labour too small to run the council, the ruling party had to seek an understanding with its opponents:

But obviously we refused to work with them, because we got a vote from the people on the basis that we are not going to be Labour version 2. We have different pledges, and people voted against Labour. They voted for us and the Greens.

He added:

We have only one aim – to serve our voters, to serve our residents. They’ve been suffering for a long, long time – 60 years of Labour rule. Labour had never seen any kind of opposition in this borough. But this is the first time ever. So they are desperate. But we are firm in our own stand. We cannot ally with Labour.

A deal had been on the table between independents and Greens, Mirza explained, but:

there was a last-minute deal [the Greens] struck with Labour, or maybe Labour struck the deal with the Greens when they saw that we were not going to the Labour camp. I’m afraid, they choose to shake hands with those people who’ve got blood on their hands.

He’s not sure what happened, but said:

There must be something deep behind the closed door, which we don’t know of. I think only time will tell. We’ll see how it goes.

Independents and Greens had previously had a “brilliant working relationship” before the election, he asserted, but:

the trust deficit now is being built up between us

Newham Greens claim they’re breaking Labour’s ‘stage management’ of meetings

A Green statement insisted that:

The committee allocations sees all 3 groups power sharing representing the democracy of the election…

Power sharing requires that someone is prepared to put their personal desires aside to set a better precedent, the green group have done this.

It highlighted in particular the hope that Labour will now release the information about where the council invests money. Green councillor and new pensions committee chair Ibrahim Alom stressed that:

Residents have a right to know how the council invests their money… I do not believe our pension fund should be invested in companies complicit in genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, or climate destruction, and I am committed to pushing for a more ethical and transparent approach to investment.

Fellow Green councillor Joe Hudson-Small, meanwhile, said:

Greens have chair of council – for the first time in history our meetings won’t be stage-managed by Labour – we will treat all councillors equally and guard against executive overreach. NIP [Newham Independents Party] have chair of overview and scrutiny, probably the most powerful role besides the Labour mayor

He added:

Together Greens and NIP chair all the scrutiny committees. We also chair pensions and most other committees – and between Greens and NIP, we have a majority on every single committee.

And he denied that Labour getting “vice chair of council” meant embracing an alliance with the party.

Labour only remains on the council by the skin of its teeth

The local election was clearly a direct face-off between the Greens and Newham Independents to see who was in the best position to defeat Labour.

In some places, Independents were stronger, and in others Greens were. The former ended up with 24 councillors, and the latter with 16. Newham Greens’ consistent claim to be “Newham’s second party” was wrong by quite some way, even if the party was aiming for second place.

The division to the left of Labour, meanwhile, often allowed the ruling party to come up through the middle.

For example, there were numerous wards in Newham where Labour would not have won any councillors if there had been an agreement between Independents and Greens. A joint mayoral candidate, meanwhile, would have overwhelmingly defeated Labour. In reality, Labour was very lucky to win 26 councillors and the mayoral race.

At a time where a far-right party has just dominated the local elections, the time for testing the waters is clearly over. Our putrid electoral system means opponents of Reform, Labour, and the Tories must come together and cooperate, even if that’s only with the aim of changing this system. If they don’t, genocide–backing fascists will win.

Featured image via GreenPartyNewham

By Ed Sykes

Source link

After World War Two, US authorities changed the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defence. In September 2025, the Donald Trump administration changed it back. As elsewhere, President Trump abandoned propaganda niceties as he made brute realities explicit.

The US state is a war machine, ruthlessly enforcing global capitalism while leaving endless death and destruction in its wake. At the helm sits FOX host-turned-Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, an unrepentant bigot adorned with far-right Crusader tattoos and notorious for his chants to “Kill All Muslims.” Hegseth was recruited to the military back when Matt Kennard was first warning about the radicalisation of enlisted privates.

US — ‘The message to service members was clear: you have free rein to commit war crimes’

That such a character now commands the world’s most powerful military is neither a fluke nor an aberration. It shows how thoroughly Trumpism has obliterated the firewalls of acceptability and normalized the extreme. The extremist growths Kennard documented a decade ago have metastasized and taken over our governing institutions, as the likes of Hegseth and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller now occupy the highest political echelons.

Weeks after the Pentagon got its new name, Hegseth instructed senior commanders at the Marines training base in Quantico that they should no longer follow the US military’s “stupid” rules of engagement but instead pursue “maximum lethality” by taking the gloves off. When considered alongside Trump’s first-term pardons for so many convicted war criminals, the message to service members was clear: you have free rein to commit war crimes.

‘Trump declared war on the “organised left”’

Trump’s presidential predecessor, Joe Biden, had timidly called for “evaluat[ing]” counter-extremism policy after so many veterans and military personnel had been documented participating in the anti-democratic riots of January 6, 2023. Trump issued all participants with a blanket pardon. Then, after the September 2025 assassination of the far-right campaigner Charlie Kirk, Trump declared war on the “organized left” while declaring that he “couldn’t care less” about right-wing extremists, who, he alleged, are only considered radical “because they don’t want to see crime.”

At Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, the prospective defense secretary said he was determined to refocus away from alleged “extremism” in the ranks and insinuated that any attempt to address dangerous ideologies within the military was a liberal witch hunt. Such rhetoric didn’t just stoke racism, zealotry, and violence — it was an open invitation for neo-Nazis to enlist in the American Empire’s New Crusades. In his first directives as defence secretary, Hegseth targeted Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, banned trans service members, and imposed new constraints to purge Black troops: all measures designed to enthuse and recruit from a reactionary base.

US — ‘The bipartisan neoliberal order that incubated the far right’

As Kennard shows, it was the bipartisan neoliberal order that incubated the far right; the failures of Tony Blair and Barack Obama paved the way for figures like Trump and Nigel Farage. Matt Kennard’s decades-long investigations into US empire and its criminal collaborators anticipated the present slide toward global authoritarianism — where genocide is the policy and opposition to it the crime; where unchecked corporate power pillages and pollutes every last drop of the planet’s precious resources; and where 60 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck even as $1.5 trillion in tax dollars are robbed by the Pentagon every year.

‘We haven’t the luxury of remaining atomised’

Trump 2.0 is ratcheting up the brazen corruption, naked colonialism, and overt militarization of society. Each news cycle brings more eviscerations of environmental protections and civil rights. As political censorship tightens, it is unclear whether the first amendment still protects adversarial journalism or whether the feds will soon come knocking at my door. Matt has reason to worry, too. His colleagues in the UK have been raided for airing the same truths he publishes regularly.

From Latin America to Palestine, Matt’s crucial reporting has proven the grim thesis that the imperial status quo means death for far too many, and that the lunatics steering it are driving off a cliff. This book is a prescient warning we may be too late to heed. As wars rage and the Earth bakes, we haven’t the luxury of remaining atomized in our discrete causes or identities. We must come together to construct a shared internationalist vision for a habitable future, built for the many and scaled to win.

This is Abby Martin’s foreword to Matt Kennard’s book Irregular Army: How the US Military Recruited
Neo-Nazis, Gang Members, and Criminals. We are republishing it with Kennard’s permission.

Featured image via Orbooks

By The Canary

Source link