As to why students are increasingly turning to Reform, the answer is clear: degrees no longer ensure employment after graduation, and young people, noting that Reform are one of the few parties speaking up about it, are realising that Nigel Farage may just have the solution. Speaking to young supporters of Reform, there seems to be a consensus among them that universities have become breeding grounds for left-wing ideologies, rather than educational institutions, thus meaning that the majority of degrees, including what Farage has termed “-ology” subjects, are useless in regards to obtaining well-paid jobs.

One Politics student at Birmingham University told us that they believe “there are many pointless degrees out there that ultimately lead to nothing more than debt”, questioning “whether some courses are setting students up for the real world”.

Similarly, Jayden Palmer, a Reform UK candidate and influencer, also revealed to us that he believes universities have “tilted so heavily toward ideological courses while ignoring whether they actually prepare students for the real economy”. It is clear that these students feel they have been left behind by the educational system, their futures left unsupported by universities. But, is this really why students have flocked to Farage’s party?

Perhaps the real reason lies within the demographics of Students for Reform. The national leadership is overtly male, run by Jack Eccles, supported by Honorary President Matt Goodwin, who has expressed some questionable rhetoric on women over the course of his career. Most Reform society leaders are also male, although few do have female members as executives, although sparse amounts attend events. There is clear reasoning behind this – young, white, male students feel as though they’ve been forgotten, left disadvantaged by diversity and inclusivity schemes, and thus have turned to Reform for support.

Samuel Hussey, a prospective Reform UK candidate and social media influencer, stated that “young men have nothing to believe in”, arguing that “if you’re a white working-middle class man this country, almost every aspect of society is against you” as a result of “years of radical woke madness,” adding that young men are rejecting the “new social expectations that place us under everybody else”. He then digressed that “young men need a future they can believe in” and that they “want and deserve to feel proud again”. Clearly, students believe that Reform will enable them to escape from the “New Woke Order”, if that exists, and access greater support.

Whilst there is evidence to suggest that working class, white boys have been left behind by state education, how Reform would challenge that is questionable. Universities increasingly offer greater access schemes for minority groups, such as BAME students and transgender students, yet do not offer support which academically performs the worst – working-class men. Considering that Reform have committed to lower funding to universities, it is unlikely that any new support schemes for male students would emerge.

Referring to Farage’s rhetoric around students issues, Brandon Morley, Co-President of Birmingham University Reform Society, said that there are wider grievances among young people and he would take “a more hardline stance” on immigration, believing that Reform hasn’t gone far enough. So whilst Reform may be attracting youth members based on their commitment to reversing inclusivity schemes, some right-wing students do not feel as though Reform is focusing fully on them.

As a result of this, many students, who previously supported Reform, have defected to Restore Britain, with a number of related societies popping up across the country, often replacing Reform societies. A spokesperson for the Restore Britain Society at York St John said that many in their generation feel misled by institutions and are seeking alternatives, thus have left Reform in the hope that Rupert Lowe will be willing to go further. The question is now, can Reform maintain their student base, or will they lose it to Restore, or even the Conservatives, as they begin to advance in the polls.

However, it would be fallacious to pretend Reform is welcome on campuses. Speaking exclusively to Politics UK, a member of the York Reform Executive Committee described incidents where individuals shout “fascist” or cough/spit/throw drinks at them, implying that “unsympathetic staff often leak our locations to left-wing groups”.

A spokesperson for St. Andrews Reform Society said that they receive “the most mockery and bitterness online”, as compared to other political societies. Earlier this year, Reform students at St. Andrews were confronted by left-wing protestors, which led to Suella Braverman releasing a statement condemning both the university and the students for “political violence”.

In another incident, whilst speaking at a PPE society event at Warwick, George Finch, the 19-year-old Reform Leader of Warwickshire Council, faced an attempted assault by a left-wing protestor, who, after shouting and running at Finch, attempted to throw his shoe. After the event, Finch stated that “you have to be brave nowadays to go to our educational establishments, adding that universities are “poisonous” environments that treat those with his views as “the enemy” and arguing that events are disrupted through “violence and intimidation” which “shut down legitimate avenues of debate”.

Although Jack Eccles, the President of Students for Reform, and the National Leadership responded to the incident at St. Andrews, a Reform member at the University of Birmingham stated that Eccles provided no support after they informed him they had received violent threats and felt unsafe on campus for being openly Reform.

Several Reform societies are tipped to defect to Restore Britain, as a Young Restorers organisation is in the early stags of development, stating that the Party and student national leadership alike have done far too much to little to support students.

Students for Reform, although currently unstable, has the potential to be transformed into a movement that could tip support to Farage in the next general election. It is clear that young voters are turning to the right, feeling left behind by state education, however, which party they will commit to is not yet certain. After all, Restore is on the rise, with dozens of young Restore Britain influencers appearing across Instagram and Tiktok, and the Conservative Party is once again polling highly among men aged 18-25. If Reform can provide stability to their student wing, perhaps the Teal Revolution will continue to spread across universities. Time will tell whether it is really “Time for Reform”.

Featured Image Credit: Gage Skidmore

Richard Tice

First, Richard Tice, whom has already been promised Deputy Prime Minister, has been designed lead of a new department of business, energy and industry. This role merges several departments, thus Tice shall presumably be replacing Ed Miliband, the current Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Minister, and Peter Kyle, the current Secretary of State for Business and Trade. But why has Tice, who is high up in the Reform ranks, been assigned such an insignificant role within the Shadow Cabinet?

Prior to joining Reform, Tice was a business tycoon and multi-millionaire, owning several financial companies, therefore has the most extensive, and also perhaps most legitimate, business experience within the Cabinet. However, Tice has previously criticised scientists for arraigning fuel dependence as the cause of climate change, although admits that UK infrastructure needs to be adapted to roll back the frontiers on global warning. If Reform manages to form a future government, Tice has confirmed they’d cut minimum wage and fight the war on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) hirings within industry.

Zia Yusuf

Next, Zia Yusuf, the former Chairman of Reform, was announced as shadow Home Secretary, pledging to reduce both legal and illegal migration. Previously, Yusuf has been vocal about immigration legislation, criticising Labour for their rhetoric around the Border Security, Immigration and Asylum Seekers Act, stating that Shabana Mahmood, although ideologically in line with Yusuf, would never be able to achieve her border control goals, for fear of being deemed racist by Labour backbenchers. In this role, Yusuf will presumably be Reform’s spokesperson against Mahmood.

Perhaps Yusuf’s appointment is the most controversial, considering he is neither an MP nor an elected politician by any means, yet his association within Reform is simply a result of enormous donations to the Party. Yusuf stood down as Chairman in June 2025, stating that he no longer believed working to get Reform in government was the best use of his time. However, critics have argued that his resignation was a misognistic attack against Reform MP Sarah Pochin – hours prior to his resignation, Pochin utilised her maiden speech in Parliament to call for a ban on the burka, rhetoric that other, notably male, Reform politicians had expressed. However, Yusuf had never publicly expressed criticism of the Party until Pochin arrived on the scene. Sarah Pochin is Reform first and only elected, not defected, female MP.

Yusuf has also been accused of anti-semitism against newly defected Reform MP Robert Jenrick and his wife, after Yusuf was found to have liked an X post that referred to Jenrick as a “Zionist traitor.”

Robert Jenrick

Regarding Robert Jenrick, he has been announced as Reform’s Shadow Chancellor, a position that Jenrick has been supposedly vying to get, after rumours that both Tice and Yusuf were keen to take the job. Jenrick has served in Government under four Conservative Prime Ministers, and up until recently, he served in Kemi Badenoch’s Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Secretary of State for Justice. Whether promoting such a prominent ex-Conservative to Reform’s top team will be beneficial for the Party is yet to be seen, although Jenrick arguably has had considerable success in previous roles. Jenrick is one of the most popular members of Reform for his hard stances on immigration, in particular, whilst resigning for his position as the Minister for Immigration under Rishi Sunak, he stated that the Rwanda Act was not harsh enough, although Jenrick’s experience in the Treasury is quite lacking.

In his first address as Shadow Chancellor, Jenrick pledged to reinstate the two-child cap on benefits, limit access to welfare to British nationals only, require clinical diagnoses for those claiming to suffer from mental illnesses to access disability benefits, whilst also pledging to conduct a mass tax code review, one of which hasn’t been conducted since Nigel Lawson‘s tenure as Chancellor under Thatcher. This implies that Reform are poised to implement austere governing, a sharp contrast from their earlier economics.

Indeed, these policies seem rather Thatcherite in nature, which could be beneficial for Britain, if executed with care. However, Reform’s plans regarding tax reform remain vague, thus Jenrick, although impressive rhetorically, still has much to prove.

Suella Braverman

Finally, Suella Braverman, former Conservative Home Secretary under Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, has been appointed as Head of Education, Skills and Equalities, a rather considerable demotion. In this role, Braverman has declared a “war on woke ideology” within schools, deeming educational reform to be her top priority. She has stated that gender transitioning will be banned within the classroom, repealing Labour’s current transgender guidance within schools.

Braverman also pledged to repeal the Equality Act of 2010, which currently protects nine characteristics from discrimination in the workplace and in general. Her reasoning for this is based upon the claim that “white, working class boys” have the lowest rates of educational success, suggesting that inclusivity in schools has enabled those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds to excel disproportionately. The truth of this is debatable, although it is possible that not all individuals who benefit from diversity schemes have been disadvantaged as compared to those who are unable to access social mobility schemes.

In addition, Braverman has promised Reform will attempt to ensure 50% of young people go into trades rather than university, a direct reversal of Tony Blair’s attempts to get 50% or more into universities. Unlike Jenrick, Braverman has not been successful in government, in particular regarding immigration, failing to pass the same Rwanda Act that Jenrick resigned over. Perhaps under Reform, Braverman may excel, although previous data proves otherwise.

Overall, Farage’s appointments within the Shadow Cabinet reveal much about the future of Reform. No longer does Farage want to appear as populist opposition, or as a party of protest. Whether Reform can transform themselves into a party of policy formulation and serious scrutiny is imperative for them to consolidate their base and appear as a government-in-waiting. If, as Jenrick has repeatedly declared, Britain is indeed broken, can this Shadow Cabinet fix it? Will the present of two significant ex-Conservative ministers prevent cohesion and collaboration? This all remains to be seen, although one thing is clear,. Reform UK is changing, and with it, the state of British politics.

Unfortunately for Nigel Farage, the odds of a general election happening soon are close to none, since Keir Starmer managed to fight his way back from the edge of resignation, after support from his parliamentary party.

The Rally made clear early on that this was not intended to be a conventional political event. Jeremy Kyle, acting as Master of Ceremonies, opened proceedings by gesturing towards the press seats and remarking “Oh, there’s the press. There they are,” before adding, “Don’t fall up the stairs, idiot.” This rhetoric mimics Donald Trump’s attacks on the so-called “fake media”, albeit without any of Trump’s likability.

Richard Tice

Richard Tice was introduced first, positioned as Reform’s managerial antidote to political failure. He framed the Party’s rise as an “entrepreneurial political start-up”, claiming Reform had gone from “literally… 1 per cent to “almost a thousand” councillors in under five years, relying almost entirely on the language of efficiency, promising to “cut wasteful government spending” and strip out regulatory “dither and delay.”

Birmingham, repeatedly cited as proof of Labour incompetence, was described as a city that could be “sorted, saved, and fixed by Reform”, though without any explanation as to how this would occur beyond the assertion that the Party would simply do better. Whether they actually would is debatable, considering other counties under Reform control in the Midlands, notably Warwickshire and Worcester, have not truly benefitted from Reform leadership. In fact, fiscal issues have arguably worsened.

Robert Jenrick

Immediately after, Robert Jenrick marked a shift from attempting to convince the masses with managerial rhetoric to decreeing Reform as the party of moral necessity. He implied his defection from the Conservative Party was the result of the Tory Shadow Cabinet being unwilling to admit that “Britain is broken”, recounting a meeting in which senior Conservatives rejected outright the phrase that has since become his war cry.

Further, he contrasted this with his own experience speaking to voters facing rising bills, stagnant wages, immigration pressures and failing public services, attempting to portray a dichotomy between how the Conservative Party views the state of Britain, compared to how the general public believe it to be. Reform, he suggested, is prepared to acknowledge the decline where other deny it, a framing that conveniently avoided any scrutiny of Jenrick’s own previous role in the governments that are now being held responsible for that decline.

Interestingly, Jenrick wasn’t attempting to appeal to Reformers, but instead, to current Conservatives, pleading with them to defect as he did. Loyalty to party, Jenrick argued, must give way to loyalty to country. He promised that Reform would “arrest our decline, stop the boats, secure our borders, raise living standards, fix our public services and restore pride.” The breadth of the ambition was striking, not least because it was delivered without reference to timelines, trade-offs or institutional constraints.

Speaking after the event to Jenrick, when asked about the emotional toll of defecting, the MP reaffirmed that leaving the Conservative Party had been difficult for him, but that fixing the country mattered more than party loyalty. Interesting, considering Reform believes loyalty to the movement to be core values for members.

Other Speakers

Lee Anderson followed, leaning fully into performative populism. Casting Reform members as the “people’s army”, he claimed that the majority had never previously belonged to a political party, presenting Reform less as an ideological project and more as an emotional outlet for accumulated frustration. His contribution relied heavily on ridicule and nicknames aimed at Labour figures, reinforcing the sense that Reform’s primary offer is cultural alignment rather than administrative competence.

After that, Andrew Rosindell described his move to Reform as liberation from a Conservative Party that had become overly managed and restrictive. Reform, he argued, allowed him to speak freely and honestly, likening the experience to “a bird being freed from a cage.”

Another Conservative defector, Danny Kruger attempted to supply Reform with institutional credibility, speaking of drafted legislation, civil service reform and readiness for government. He argued that the state had become obstructive, that intentional law had displaced parliamentary sovereignty, and that withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights was essential. It was the closest the rally came to administrative detail, though the solutions proposed relied more on confrontation with institutions than engagement with them.

Law and order dominated Sarah Pochin‘s intervention. Presenting herself as an outsider rather than a career politician, she promised an immediate national inquiry into grooming gangs and described the justice system as politicisied and failing victims. When asked whether a Reform government would act instantly, she replied, “Absolutely guarantee it”, a certainty delivered without any accompanying explanation of scope, legal process or parliamentary support. Although, Pochin did say how far elitism has penetrated politics, in particular, the fact that many MPs within Westminster come from “Cambridge, Oxford, Eton”, particularly ironic considering a majority of Reform MPs had attended private school, three of whom later went on to study at Oxbridge.

Suella Braverman completed the sequences by directing her criticism squarely at her former party. She accused the Conservatives of delusion, betrayal and cowardice, insisting they had never intended to leave the ECHR despite repeated promises. Drawing on her experience as Home Secretary, she argued that the convention had prevented deportations and undermined border control, presenting Reform as the only party with the resolve to act where others had failed.

And yet, Braverman remained a Conservative MP for almost two years prior to the Rwanda failure, despite Reform already growing in the polls at that point.

Nigel Farage

And then, at long last, it was time for the main event. Introduced by a barrage of pyrotechnics, Nigel Farage appeared on stage to a cacophony of cheers, once again appearing MAGA in nature. Farage’s keynote speech leaned heavily into cultural grievance, most notably in his outright dismissal of working from home, which he labelled “a load of nonsense.” He insisted that people are more productive when physically present with colleagues, framing remote work as symptomatic of a broader collapse in discipline rather than a response to technological or economic change.

This argument was less about productivity and more about signalling, positioning Reform against what Farage clearly views as a post-pandemic culture of flexibility, accommodation, and personal comfort. He then extended this line of attack by likening working from home to welfare dependency and what he described as an overtolerance of “mild anxiety”, arguing Britain requires an “attitudinal change” away from work-life balance and back towards hard work.

As with much of the rally, the point was not to offer policy, but to allocate blame, recasting structural economic issues as individual moral failure. It was an easy applause line, but one that reduced complex changes in how people work to little more than a lecture about character. A rather ironic one, considering that those in attendance clearly weren’t putting work first, as attending a rally at midday on a Monday isn’t something the majority of workers would be able to do. In fact, the only individuals truly working at the rally were the press, whom had been so cruelly ridiculed just hours before.

Following Farage’s keynote speech, a press conference was staged in front of the crowd, with journalists required to identify their outlet before asking questions, which lead to cheers from the crowd after GB News was introduced, and boos for the BBC. During the exchange, a reporter from the Daily Mirror asked about past comments made by Jenrick regarding demographic change in Birmingham, specifically whether integration should be by “the number of white people” in an area. Farage reframed the issue in terms of language and community before blaming “excessive levels of immigration” for social division. The press conference was brought to an abrupt end immediately afterwards, with no further questions taken.

Farage closed the rally by rejecting the charge that Reform remains a “one-man band”. Announcing that applications for general election candidates had opened earlier that afternoon, he declared the party on a “general election war footing” and promised the imminent unveiling of a shadow cabinet.

Rally Theatrics

Finally, the parliamentary team was brought onto the stage together, presented as evidence of growing depth and seriousness, even as most of the substance remained deferred to a later date. After that, they decided to shoot Reform Football Club shirts into the crowd from t-shirt cannons.

The rally concluded much as it began: loudly, theatrically, and with confidence undimmed by contradiction. Reform UK left Birmingham presenting itself as a government-in-waiting, buoyed by spectacle, certainty, and the underlying assumption that acknowledging Britain’s problems is equivalent to having the solutions. Speaking after to Reform supporters and politicians, the atmosphere was obvious – Reform isn’t just political.

Reform has become the identity of some individuals, becoming the party of supposed morality, rather than solely policy. In reality, all the rally managed to prove is that Reform isn’t yet prepared to fix Britain’s broken systems. Perhaps decreeing the Conservatives as the party who broke Britain, whilst platforming former Conservative Party members as the future of Britain, doesn’t instil confidence in, blindside or convince voters.

In the same period, over 15,200 illegal migrants were removed by force, a 45 per cent increase from what the Conservative government achieved in the 19 months prior. As well as this, in line with increased powers granted to law enforcement in the Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Act 2025, deportations of foreign national offenders, including murderers and rapists, have increased by 32 per cent, with over 8,700 deported since Starmer’s government came into power.

Despite these record-breaking figures, Mahmood has committed to further removals and deportations in order to restore law and order to Britain’s borders, stating that the government “must go further to remove those that have no right to be in this country.” Mahmood further vowed to “do whatever it takes to restore order and control.” As a result of this, the government will issue further visa sanctions if countries deemed to be safe refuse to take back illegal migrants or foreign nationals.

Further, new legislation is due to be introduced this year to prevent illegal migrants from using Article 8 of the ECHR to prevent their removal, creating a “one stop shop” to replace the broken appeals system, so that once an illegal migrant loses a single appeal, they will be forced to leave the country.

In response to these proposals, the Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, James Timpson, stated that the Government is “serious about fixing the broken prison system”, committing to “stopping foreign criminals from clogging up our jails.” As well as this, Timpson stated that removals of foreign offenders from British prisons are “up more than forty per cent”, and that the new legislation would only increase the speed of intervention.

The Sentencing Act will amend the law so that foreign nationals no longer need spend a minimum portion of their sentence in British prisons, instead allowing for immediate deportation. This will also apply to those already in custody once it is in force.

The Home Office has stated the purpose of these changes are to remove incentives for migrants to come to the UK illegally, in order to secure Britain’s borders. Prior to new legislation, illegal migrants and foreign criminals have utilised Article 8 of the ECHR, which preserves the “right to respect for his private and family life” to prevent removal, a practice which the Government is keen to end.

In regards to appeals, the Government has pledged that a single route of appeal will be introduced, whilst cases deemed to have very little chance of success will be fast-tracked to expedite the removal process. If the appeal is lost, the individual will be expected to immediately leave the country, and if they do not, they shall be forcibly removed.

In order to improve value for the taxpayer, asylum costs will be scaled back, beginning this week, as migrants living in hotels shall be banned from using expensive taxis for medical appointments. Already over £74 million has been recouped from wasteful hotel contracts, as just under 200 migrant hotels remain open, whereas under the Conservative Party, 400 hotels running at the cost of £9 million a day were in use.

In addition, the Government has committed to housing people in more basic accommodation such as military sites, instead of hotels, to further deter migrants from illegally coming to Britain. It is hoped that reforming the system will disrupt organised immigration crime, prevent human trafficking gangs, and tackle illegal working.

The Home Office has reported that 2025 was the highest year on record for illegal working enforcement activity, after 9,000 arrests and 12,800 raids were carried out across the UK, which is a 60 per cent and 58 per cent rise respectively from 2024. This week, new measures took force to criminalise online posts advertising small boat crossing services and ban foreign sex offenders from refugee protections on account of their crimes, to protect British citizens. Legislation brought into force this week shall now enable enforcement to tackle criminal gangs selling fake immigration documents or help crossing the channel, through the classification of these actions as criminal offences.

Over the last 19 months, the Government have utilised the Borders Security, Immigration and Asylum Act to cut the number of people waiting on initial decisions for asylum claims by 39 per cent, to enable border security to be tightened and taxes to be allocated to improving the lives of taxpayers, rather than funding expensive migrants hotels. However, enforced removals have significantly increased as compared to voluntary removals, the former up 45 per cent as compared to 27 per cent, indicating that the Government still have a long way to go with implementing genuine reform.

Featured Image: James Whatling/Parsons Media for the Home Office

Beginning in September 2025, the US House Oversight Committee, as part of their initial release of files regarding the Epstein cover-up, released a letter from Mandelson to Epstein, in which he referred to Epstein as his “best pal”. As well as this, an email was released, revealing Mandelson’s support after Epstein was convicted in 2008 for soliciting a minor. After these were released, Mandelson resigned as British Ambassador.

The latest tranche of Epstein files published in the United States reiterates that Peter Mandelson knew Epstein, and it has set out, in documentary form, what the relationship involved, and what information Epstein received from him, who was a senior minister during the Gordon Brown years. In addition, the files released by the US Department of Justice last week include emails which highlight the closeness of the relationship, and which suggest Mandelson shared government documents with Epstein, as well as revealing payments from Epstein to Mandelson and his partner.

Further, in 2009, Mandelson sent Epstein a government memo concerning potential UK asset sales and changes to taxation policy, and in 2010, he gave Epstein advance notice of a European Union bailout package worth approximately €500 billion during the Eurozone debt crisis. In effect, the documents are being interpreted as showing market-sensitive government information being passed to a man who, by that stage, was a convicted sex offender.

To begin, Mandelson should never have given out state secrets to someone with clear self-interest within the matters, for it breaches not only ministerial responsibility, but also loyalty to the state. As an MP, Mandelson effectively betrayed those who voted for him for financial gain, and managed to escape any consequences for it at the time.

During PMQs, this interpretation was echoed by Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch, who has used this situation to attack Starmer’s current administration. During recent Commons debates on the DofJ releases, it was stated that the files appear to show Mandelson received £50,000 from Epstein, and that several years later Epstein was provided with advance knowledge of bailout plans, internal resignations, and pressure on the Chancellor.

Alongside the alleged disclosures, the financial dimension has become central to the scandal, for the files record payments connected to Epstein and Mandelson’s partner during his time in office, although he has set stated that he does not recall receiving such payments. The issue, however, is not only the question of legality, but the fact that the financial relationship is now part of the public record, and is being treated as political material regardless of whether criminal wrongdoing is established.

As well as this, the files have also revived scrutiny of his continued association with Epstein after his conviction, and whether this relationship was fully disclosed prior to Mandelson’s appointment as British Ambassador to the United States. It is now accepted that his ties to Epstein were known at the time of his appointment, and that assurances were given regarding the nature and extent of that relationship, assurances which have since been withdrawn.

What has transformed the affair from scandal to crisis is that it has now entered the criminal process. The Metropolitan Police are assessing material relating to Mandelson’s conduct while in office, including the alleged sharing of confidential government information. While no charges have been brought, the existence of an active police investigation has intensified pressure on the government and limited its ability to contain the fallout.

Altogether, the Epstein files indicate three central things. First, that Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein long after his conviction. Second, that Epstein recorded financial payments connected to Mandelson and his partner. Third, that Epstein appears to have received sensitive government information during 2009 and 2010, including material relating to UK assets, taxation, and European bailout plans. It is this cumulative picture, rather than any single document, that has pushed the scandal beyond questions of judgement and into a crisis of governance. Whether Keir Starmer can come back from this will be seen over the coming weeks.

Featured Image: Financial Times

Whether Starmer will resign is not certain. So far, criticism from both sides of the Commons has been expressed; Labour MPs calling for Starmer to resign, and opposition leaders demanding a vote of no confidence be held. Leader of the Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, stated that it’s a matter of “when, not if” Starmer resigns, however has not yet tabled a vote of no confidence in the government. This is perhaps because if Starmer’s administration wins a simple majority, they cannot be challenged again for a year. Resignation therefore is the most likely scenario for Starmer’s premiership to end, as support from inside his party begins to dwindle.

Then again, Starmer has another option to get out of this scandal and prolong his time as Prime Minister. As did Johnson, could utilise Morgan McSweeney, Chief of Downing Street staff, as a scapegoat, and fire him to arraign blame on McSweeney for the Mandelson situation. Supposing Starmer decides to follow the Tory playbook, his premiership stands a very slim chance of surviving. If it does not, then who is currently tipped to replace him?

Angela Rayner

Coming in first is Angela Rayner, former Deputy Prime Minister and Labour Leader. Popular amongst working class voters for her background, Rayner could possibly boost polling numbers for the party, if she were to succeed Starmer as Leader. Then again, Rayner was previously embroiled in a scandal herself, over failing to pay enough tax on a flat owned by her, ironic considering at the time of misconduct she was also serving as Housing Secretary. Whether the Labour Party and electorate alike will want to choose Rayner in light of this is questionable, but, if the Tory playbook is once again to be consulted, Sunak was elected Conservative Leader in similar circumstances, after the Partygate scandals, thus perhaps Rayner should have hope.

Wes Streeting

Next in line is West Streeting, Health Secretary and long-rumoured opposition to Starmer. Streeting has previously been accused of plotting against Starmer to become Prime Minister, and compared to Rayner, has no notable public scandals marring his name. As well as this, Streeting has been fairly successful as Health Secretary, cutting waiting lists for the NHS and investing in AI technology to improve diagnostics, thus proving competence. Then again, Streeting isn’t popular with the furthest left wing of the party, considering his policy blocking the NHS from prescribing hormone blockers to minors. On the contrary, those of that persuasion have by mass exodus left the Labour Party for the Greens, and so Streeting, as a centrist, could thrive within the role.

Ed Miliband

Surprinsingly, Ed Miliband’s odds to replace Starmer have increased exponentially, after Ian Duncan Smith, former Conservative Leader, stated on GB News that Miliband, current Environment Secretary, could become the next Prime Minister. After all, Miliband is extremely popular among Labour members, and has previously served as Labour Leader in opposition to David Cameron, thus has leadership experience. Nonetheless, Miliband has been criticised, most notably by Tony Blair, for the lack of credibility in Labour’s energy policy, and so unlike Streeting, doesn’t have proven policy competence in government. If Miliband can’t be successful in an area such as the environment, how can he possibly be expected to excel as Prime Minister?

Andy Burnham

To mention Andy Burnham seems redundant, considering he cannot currently become Prime Minister as he does not sit in Parliament, and yet Burnham is still favoured to become the next Labour leader. As the hugely popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham has managed to maintain high approval ratings – something that he could perhaps aid nationally, if he were to succeed. However, this is not only unlikely, but impossible, especially after he was blocked from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election, which will now likely be won by the Greens or Reform UK, a huge blow for the Labour Party and the two-party system either way.

Shabana Mahmood

Last, but perhaps not least, is Shabana Mahmood, current Home Secretary, who has become known for her harsh stances on immigration. In 2025, Mahmood published the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act, which enhanced powers to reduce the numbers of illegal migrants entering the UK, notably including Section 52, which enables the government to immediately deport immigrants who commit crimes during their stay in the UK, without trial and without sentencing. Mahmood is extremely popular with the right wing, and considering how high Reform are polling, perhaps Mahmood may bring the Labour Party back to glory, or rather competence. Farage himself implied that Mahmood’s rhetoric suggested she was auditioning to join Reform. Then again, Mahmood’s ideological convictions may prove to be an obstacle to her becoming Labour Leader, for historically the Labour Party has succeeded a a centrist party, not a right-wing one, thus deeming her odds to be rather slim.

Starmer’s end may not be nearing, however, considering the current atmosphere he is facing, it is likely a resignation may come in the next few weeks. A premiership unsuccessful and unstable in every aspect, perhaps it is time for the Starmer era to come to a close. Whether Streeting or Rayner will ascend the Labour throne is yet to be seen, although one thing is certain. The Labour Party must change, and must rid itself of its connections to Epstein.

Featured Image by Simon Dawson / No. 10 Downing Street

Originally elected in December 2019 as a Conservative MP for Fareham, Braverman’s time in Parliament has certainly been controversial. Her defection to Reform UK on the 26th January 2026 marks the most high-profile parliamentary defection in the party’s history, a move that unfortunately attracted negative attention both for its symbolism and for what it implies regarding the Conservative Party’s continuing difficulty retaining those further right within the party, especially after Jenrick’s earlier defection in January.

Braverman’s background however is starkly divergent from the caricature often drawn by her critics. Born in Harrow, she trained as a barrister after graduating from reading Law at Cambridge, and built much of her early career in public law, later serving as Attorney General under Boris Johnson before her appointment as Home Secretary. Prior to her rise within frontline politics, she cultivated a reputation grounded in constitutional law and legal orthodoxy, enabling her to utilise that experience to provide institutional credibility to her positions on crime, borders, and the rule of law. Although, as Home Secretary, Braverman failed to rectify the issue of illegal immigration, in part due to weak policy, in part due to the Supreme Court consistently blocking her from pursuing legislation such as the Rwanda Act due to clauses being in contradiction to the ECHR and HRA.

Whilst still a Tory, Braverman became openly critical of the party’s record, arguing that it had abandoned both electoral promises and ideological clarity, thus preluding her eventual and highly anticipated defection to Reform. Interestingly, despite being the daughter of immigrants herself, Braverman has consistently adopted one of the hardest lines on immigration in modern British politics, not unlike that of Enoch Powell, as critics have consistently implied. As Home Secretary, she argued that multiculturalism had “failed” and repeatedly called for radical reductions in legal and illegal migration alike, placing her in direct conflict with both the liberal wing of her own party and the metropolitan political establishment. These positions, while condemned by left-wing opponents as inflammatory, further entrenched her reputation among supporters as a politician willing to prioritise public safety over reputation, quite admirable indeed.

This defection is unlike any previous. Perhaps Jenrick was well-known and prominent within the Shadow Cabinet, but he never served in one of the highest offices in Britain, as Braverman has done. It could easily be argued that Braverman was one of the most disastrous Home Secretaries of the 21st century, considering both her deranged rhetoric and liability to implement it into legislation. It’s undeniable to the Reform UK party that she is somewhat of a liability, but a helpful one at that. Perhaps after Labour’s disastrous time in government, Conservative failures will be forgotten about, and Braverman’s tainted past won’t impede Reform from manipulating her prior record into one of competence and coherence, if that’s by any means possible.

For the Conservative Party, her defection isn’t fully fatal. After all, Braverman was quietly in the backbenches under Badenoch’s tenure of leader, much dissimilar to Jenrick’s prominence within the current state of the party. Her defection was expected, as her husband previously admitted his commitment to voting Reform in the next general election, and in light of much praise from Jenrick at a speech made at a Reform event after his defection. Disappointingly, Conservative rhetoric after her defection was rather offensive, citing her mental health as the cause behind her defection, a reaction that could be perceived as derogatory. Shortly after, the Conservatives retracted this statement, but their attack certainly seems to be misplaced and odd. After Jenrick’s defection, no comments of such nature were made, perhaps implying that the Conservative Party does still have some misogyny rooted within, unfortunately.

Ultimately, Suella Braverman is an interesting attempt by Reform UK to become not just the party of protest voters, but also experienced politicians with undeniable authority on national policy. Her move from senior Conservative minister to Reform’s eighth MP reflects both the party’s strategic ambitions at a parliamentary level and the accelerating fragmentation of the Conservative right, therefore implying that Reform has become the party of the hard right, filling a hole that Thatcher left after New Labour came into power, forcing centrism into the policy of both major parties.

Whether her defection marks the beginning of Reform’s transformation into a governing-credible party or merely another flashpoint in its insurgent trajectory remains to be seen. For a party keen to transcend its outsider status, Braverman represents both an opportunity, and a risk. Whether Reform will benefit from elevating its most polarising defector yet is uncertain, but it is a gamble Nigel Farage has clearly decided is worth taking.

Picture credit: Reform UK

The Golden Era

Relations between China and Britain have been volatile for over a decade. The relationship first began to degrade under Theresa May’s leadership, ending the so-called “Golden Era” that had emerged following the transfer of Hong Kong’s sovereignty to Chinese control in 1997. After becoming Prime Minister, May reviewed but ultimately approved Chinese involvement in the Hinkley Point C nuclear project in September 2016, with £6 billion invested by the state-owned China General Nuclear (CGN), though this funding eventually ended in May 2025.

Constructive engagement continued under May through formal mechanisms such as the UK–China Economic & Financial Dialogue, which last met in 2019. During this period, cooperation focused primarily on trade, finance, and infrastructure, with relatively limited public confrontation over security or human rights.

Image: Prime Minister Theresa May visiting China – Number 10

The Beginning of the Deterioration: Hong Kong and Huawei 

A decisive shift occurred in 2020. In January, the UK initially allowed Huawei a restricted role in its 5G network, but by July, the government reversed this decision, banning new Huawei equipment and mandating the removal of existing kits by 2027. That same month, following the imposition of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the UK suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extended its arms embargo to the territory. This marked a clear deterioration in relations, positioning China as a strategic concern rather than a primarily economic partner.

Tensions deepened further in 2021 when the UK opened the British National (Overseas) visa route for eligible Hong Kong residents in January. In March, the UK imposed sanctions on Chinese officials and entities linked to human rights abuses in Xinjiang under its Global Human Rights sanctions regime, a move coordinated with allies as 39 countries signed a joint statement at the UN. China responded by sanctioning UK parliamentarians and institutions, including Iain Duncan Smith and Tom Tugendhat, for criticising their human rights record. Throughout this period, the UK also increased its security signalling in the Indo-Pacific through naval deployments, which met significant opposition from China.

A Long-Term Strategic Challenge 

In 2022, the UK hardened its position on Chinese involvement in critical infrastructure, in stark contrast to previous Conservative policy under May and Cameron. The government moved to remove China General Nuclear from the Sizewell C nuclear project, increasing direct UK state involvement instead. This was designed to enable the British economy to benefit directly rather than allowing potentially malicious Chinese corporations access to infrastructure planning.

In October, relations were further strained by a violent incident at the Chinese consulate in Manchester involving Hong Kong protesters, in which several officials and protesters were involved in an altercation after protesters entered the site. Although then-PM Liz Truss expressed “deep concerns,” little was done at the time to fully resolve the diplomatic fallout.

Image: Prime Minister Boris Johnson visits Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station – No 10 / Simon Dawson

By 2023, the UK explicitly defined China as a long-term strategic challenge, particularly concerning cyber espionage. In March, TikTok was banned from government devices on security grounds to prevent the platform’s owners from accessing government data. Later in May, the Integrated Review Refresh described China as an “epoch-defining” challenge to the international order, while maintaining that limited cooperation remained necessary for trade relations. The same year also saw controversy over alleged Chinese “overseas police stations” in the UK, prompting the publication of a major Intelligence and Security Committee report on China. This reinforced that the relationship between the two nations had shifted its focus toward security rather than fiscal cooperation.

Era of Renewal 

Following the change of government in 2024, the UK initiated a cross-government “China audit” to reassess its approach, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer attempting to stabilise relations after years of decline. In January 2025, the UK and China restarted the Economic & Financial Dialogue for the first time since 2019, implying that economic cooperation had returned to the forefront of British-Sino negotiations.

Image: Former Foreign Secretary David Lammy – Ben Dance / FCDO

In June 2025, Foreign Secretary David Lammy presented the findings of the China audit to Parliament. He described China as the UK’s most complex bilateral relationship, stressing that while China remains a threat to British security, an economic relationship is crucial to the functioning of the British economy. Despite this re-engagement, security concerns persisted; in December 2025, the Foreign Office and several British companies were subjected to hacking by Chinese-linked actors.

The past decade indicates that relations between the United Kingdom and China have moved through a clear trajectory: from economic cooperation to confrontation driven by security and human rights, followed by a cautious attempt at managed re-engagement. Whether the “super-embassy” will truly benefit Britain is yet to be seen, though this new direction in foreign policy appears to be a calculated step for Britain amidst the current context of shifting global relations.

Featured Image via Department of Business and Trade

The Executive Agenda

Trump’s megalomaniacal presidential style for his second term was established hours post-inauguration. This was indicated by his exploitation of executive authority, as Trump chose to sign multiple executive orders, in particular to tackle illegal immigration, attempting to end birthright citizenship and close the border with Mexico. Neither of these attempts was successful, representing a rare triumph for democratic procedure in MAGA America. By choosing to bypass Congress, Trump arguably attempted to transform America into a quasi-authoritarian state not dissimilar to Putin’s Russia, showing absolutely no respect for the will of the people. Unfortunately, although his executive orders largely failed, Trump continued to manipulate, or rather, at least in the latter half of the year, force, the MAGA agenda upon America.

Legislative Victories and Internal Conflict

Power. Money. Corruption. These are the words best associated with the individuals involved in shaping Trump’s second presidency, the most controversial of those being Elon Musk. From a gesture suspiciously similar to a Nazi salute to prejudiced rhetoric on X, Musk fully encapsulated Trump’s vision for America. And yet, their relationship eventually deteriorated over disagreements regarding Trump’s self-proclaimed “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Image: President Donald Trump participates in a press conference with departing DOGE adviser Elon Musk – The White House / Molly Riley

Arguably, Trump’s most significant legislative victory came on the 4th of July with the signing of H.R. 1, enacted as Public Law 119-21 and commonly referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” despite significant public opposition. Although heralded by Trump as a crowning domestic achievement, the act quickly came to symbolise the inherent dichotomies present at the core of his second presidency.

Framed as an exercise in fiscal discipline and national renewal, the legislation instead unsustainably increased federal spending while simultaneously threatening millions of Americans with the loss of healthcare coverage through sweeping Medicaid cuts. This policy very clearly was not for the people of America, but a means to enable Trump to test the constraints of his power.

Foreign Policy and Global Branding

As the year progressed, it became clear that this performative impulse extended far beyond domestic policy. Trump’s approach to foreign affairs throughout 2025 and into early 2026 oscillated between narcissistic bravado and strategic incoherence. In particular, his rhetoric toward NATO allies grew increasingly subversive, as he repeatedly asserted that the United States had funded collective defence for far too long while receiving little in return. Although not entirely inaccurate in its diagnosis, such assertions were catastrophically timed.

Image: President Trump delivers remarks alongside Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and CMMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz during a Rural Health Transformation Event in the East Room of the White House – The White House / Molly Riley

To threaten foreign aid commitments as war continued to ravage Ukraine was not merely diplomatically reckless, but morally indefensible, especially in the wake of Trump’s fallacious assertions that he alone could end the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. This was exacerbated during the now-infamous Oval Office meeting with President Zelenskyy, in which Trump, alongside Vice President J.D. Vance, publicly demeaned Ukraine’s leader, undermining Western unity and emboldening Russian aggression.

Rather than brokering peace, Trump once again appeared to be more interested in the needs of the powerful and wealthy, in this case, Putin, reinforcing fears that Ukraine had become collateral damage in Trump’s pursuit of a personal legacy. Whether Trump was right to try and forge deeper links with Putin is debatable, considering that a Russo-American alliance could potentially be beneficial for world peace and the global economy, but in the context of the current conflict, Trump cannot be absolved of moral misconduct.

Military Intervention and the “Peace” Project

This same narcissistic egocentrism underpinned Trump’s decision in early 2026 to authorise direct US military action in Venezuela, culminating in the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his removal to the United States. This was an unprecedented escalation that shattered diplomatic norms and reinforced perceptions of American imperial overreach. However, regarding Venezuelan political corruption and the lack of human rights protections, Trump’s intervention was beneficial for the Venezuelan people, although it was not fully altruistic in nature. After all, under the MAGA agenda, profit comes first and individual liberty second.

Image: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach – The White House / Molly Riley

For example, Trump attempted interventions in South Asia and supposedly brokered peace accords in Central Africa, yet conflict persisted and deals rapidly unravelled, further implying that Trump’s attempts at procuring world peace were purely superficial, an act of grandiose self-glorification. Nowhere was this more evident than in Gaza, where Trump’s proposals for the Israel-Palestine conflict, which remained firmly aligned with Netanyahu, were devoid of any meaningful commitment to Palestinian self-determination. In particular, the now-scrapped suggestion to place Tony Blair in charge of a neutral Gaza administration underscored Trump’s profound detachment from regional realities, considering the hatred for Tony Blair in the Middle East. Peace, once again, was reduced to branding.

Even the awarding of the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize functioned less as a recognition of diplomatic success and more as a grotesque consolidation of Trump’s self-mythologising project. Then again, the FIFA prize was solely created to stroke Trump’s ego, acting as a proxy for the Nobel Peace Prize that Trump failed to win despite his consistent claims it should be awarded to him.

Domestic Tension and the Epstein Scandal

Domestically, the same coercive logic prevailed. Immigration enforcement intensified relentlessly, with ICE empowered to expand raids, detentions, and deportations throughout the year. This campaign reached a new level of controversy following the fatal shooting of a civilian during an ICE operation, an incident that crystallised fears that enforcement under Trump had become not merely punitive, but dangerously unaccountable.

Rather than recalibrate, Trump framed criticism as betrayal, doubling down on enforcement as proof of strength while portraying the victim as an enemy to American security and a traitor to her nation. In regard to immigration policy, Trump’s rhetoric and policy alike have not been dissimilar to previous totalitarian regimes across the globe and throughout history, posing the question of whether Trump has become the greatest threat to Western liberal democracy.

Image: President Donald Trump enters the East Room for an event honouring the 2025 Stanley Cup champion Florida Panthers – The White House / Molly Riley

Outside of domestic policy, the resurfacing of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal became one of the most politically corrosive episodes of Trump’s first year back in office. Demands for the release of Epstein-related files intensified throughout late 2025, placing the administration under sustained pressure, not from Democrats, but from within Trump’s own ideological base. This peaked when Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly accused the administration of deliberate obstruction before announcing her resignation from Congress effective January 2026.

Repeated failures by the Department of Justice to meet statutory disclosure deadlines, followed by inconsistent explanations regarding the handling of newly uncovered material, only deepened public distrust, especially considering how released files seemed to feature a substantial collection of images of Trump. Perhaps breaking promises here was beneficial for America, for the scandal exposed fractures within the MAGA coalition itself, revealing the limits of Trump’s authority over a movement increasingly willing to turn inward when denied accountability. The MAGA agenda may not be immortal and indestructible.

Conclusion

One year on from Trump’s second inauguration, America has certainly been transformed by Trump, but certainly not for the better. He has not delivered stability, peace, or democracy; instead, he has normalised chaos as a governing strategy for self-aggrandisement, thus entrenching division both at home and abroad. As America enters the second year of Trump’s second presidency, it does so more polarised, more isolated, and more precarious than it was twelve months earlier. The question is no longer what Trump has achieved, but how much damage remains to be done.

Featured Image via The White House / Andrea Hanks

Originally elected in May 2022 as a Conservative councillor for Lancaster Gate on Westminster City Council, Cunningham’s time in elected office has so far been brief but eventful. Her defection to Reform UK in 2025 made her the party’s first sitting councillor in a London borough, a move that attracted attention both for its symbolism and for what it implied regarding the Conservatives’ continuing difficulty retaining those further right within the party.

Cunningham’s background, however, is divergent from the typical profile of populist politicians. Born in Paddington, she trained as a lawyer and spent much of her professional life working as a senior prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service, not dissimilar from Keir Starmer. Prior to her entry into local government, she built a career largely outside of electoral politics, combining legal work with entrepreneurial projects and advocacy around women’s issues, enabling her to utilise that experience to provide evidence of her credentials on crime and public safety.

Her political alignment with the Conservatives proved to be increasingly uneasy. Whilst still a Tory, Cunningham became openly critical of the party’s record on law and order, immigration, and taxation, arguing that it had drifted too far from the concerns of ordinary voters, thus preluding her inevitable defection to Reform.

Interestingly, Cunningham is a practicing Muslim, yet has consistently been critical about British policy regarding immigrants from Muslim-dominated countries, stating in a post on X that the government should “ban visas to Pakistan until abusers are taken back”. This comment was in response to Sadiq Khan’s denial that grooming gangs currently operate at the levels Reform UK has suggested, further demonstrating Cunningham’s commitment to appearing as the candidate to protect women and girls.

Earlier last year, at the Reform Conference, Cunningham spoke at the women for Reform panel, citing there that she had left the Conservative party as a result of their inability to hold perpetrators of child sexual exploitation accountable.

Since joining Reform UK, Cunningham has positioned herself as one of the party’s most outspoken voices on crime, frequently attacking London’s political establishment and Mayor Sadiq Khan in particular. Her rhetoric, which depicts the capital as increasingly unsafe and poorly governed, has been welcomed by Reform supporters but criticised by opponents as simply populist fearmongering, a sentiment that has been consistently levelled at Reform for their hard-right stances.

Ultimately, Laila Cunningham is best understood as part of Reform UK’s broader attempt to cultivate figures with institutional credibility as well as insurgent appeal. Her move from prosecutor to councillor to Reform standard-bearer reflects both the party’s strategic ambitions in London and the continuing fragmentation of the Conservative right, therefore implying that Reform has essentially replaced the Conservative party as the party of justice and national security.

Whether her rise marks the beginning of a durable political career or merely another episode in Reform’s ongoing experiment with high-profile defectors remains to be seen. For a party keen to shed the image of a protest vehicle for disaffected Conservatives, Cunningham represents both an opportunity, and a test. Whether Reform will benefit from placing another Tory defect in the political spotlight again is questionable, but is a risk that Farage is clearly willing to take.

Featured image: Reform UK

The Megalomaniacal Turn in Diplomacy

American foreign policy has always been somewhat contentious, from Cold War tensions to Bush’s ill-fated War on Terror. Yet, during Trump’s second administration, it has become increasingly controversial and potentially self-destructive, perhaps due to the fact a megalomaniacal narcissist has come to occupy the highest office in America.

Trump’s rhetoric from the beginning of his presidency has been subversive, suggesting that the US has funded NATO and other allied countries far too long, getting little in return. Although Trump isn’t completely inaccurate in his assessment of the stark disparities in international defence contributions, his assertion could not have come at a worse time. Deciding to review major foreign aid commitments, at a time in which war continues to ravage Ukraine, is not just politically insane, it is cruelly inhumane.

The Ukrainian Conflict and Performative Self-Praise

Arguably, the Ukrainian issue has defined Trump’s attempt to navigate foreign policy. From the very outset, Trump declared he would end the Russo-Ukrainian conflict quickly to undermine Biden and his relative failings. This promise has turned out to be impossible to fulfill. In fact, to refer to the preliminary stages of negotiation as an attempt to restore peace would be absolutely ludicrous, considering the events of Trump and Zelenskyy’s televised meeting at the Oval Office in February.

Image: President Trump greets Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the West Wing Lobby entrance of the White House – The White House / Juliana Luz

Not only did Trump refer to Zelenskyyy as a dictator for attempting to guarantee Ukrainian security, but notably both Trump and VP J.D. Vance demeaned Zelenskyy for over ten minutes, resulting in international condemnation. Trump’s attempts at peace-making should not be seen as altruistic. Instead, they are simply performative, poised to ensure Trump’s legacy is as impressive as possible.

Courting the “Beast in the East”

It would be impossible to consider American relations with Ukraine without considering Russia, or rather, the Beast in the East, whom Trump seems eager to please. Trump’s relationship with Putin implies a new age of super-power co-operation under a masterplan to transform global politics. After all, Putin has managed to do what Trump and his followers dream of: maintaining power long enough to assert complete control over the country and the manner in which state control is ensured.

Trump’s actions aren’t completely nonsensical in theory; if America was to improve relations with Russia, Trump may be able to reduce the risk of direct NATO-Russian confrontation. However, modern technology means the concept of mutually assured destruction is completely useless, implying Putin could still be pushed toward his nuclear arsenal. Increasingly, the USA is becoming less significant in world affairs, losing influence to China. It seems Trump’s attempts to prostrate himself at the feet of Russian supremacy are in vain.

Transactional Peace: From South Asia to the Congo

Trump’s desire to be viewed as the “greatest President of all time” led to a series of performative interventions across the globe. He claimed credit for halting an air war between India and Pakistan in May, a move that prompted the Pakistani government to endorse him for the Nobel Prize even as India remained sceptical of his “diplomatic and trade crisis” tactics.

Image: President Trump, President Paul Kagame of the Republic of Rwanda and President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo, following the signing of the Washington Peace Accords – The White House / Daniel Torok

Similarly, he mediated the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord in October to briefly halt border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia, and the Washington Accords in June to end conflict between the DRC and Rwanda. While these were celebrated as milestones, they were often transparently transactional; the DRC deal, for example, was heavily tied to securing American access to critical minerals, proving that Trump’s “peace” is often a byproduct of American economic interests. The Thailand and Cambodia deal has since collapsed in December, however, recent efforts have eased fighting whilst the DRC and Rwanda have also blamed each other for carrying out military operations.

The Israel-Palestine Failure and the Nobel Pursuit

Trump’s peace proposal for the Israel-Palestine conflict further proves his pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize. Remaining firmly on the side of Netanyahu, his proposals have been questionable, most notably the scrapped decision to place Tony Blair in charge of governing a neutral Gaza. Blair is despised in the Middle East for his actions during the War on Terror, proving Trump has very little grasp on how to ensure actual peace.

FIFA: The Consolidation of the “Peace President”

Perhaps the most surreal moment of the year occurred on December 5th, during the draw for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. After being overlooked for the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, Trump was presented with the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize by Gianni Infantino.

Image: President Trump accepts the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize from FIFA President Gianni Infantino – The White House / Daniel Torok

The award, a golden trophy of hands holding the world, was widely viewed as a consolation prize. Accepting it at the Kennedy Center, Trump claimed he had “saved millions and millions of lives” in places like the Congo and South Asia. This bizarre fusion of sport and statecraft served as the ultimate validation of Trump’s manufactured cohesion, positioning him as a global unifier even as his policies continued to alienate traditional allies.

Throughout 2025, Trump’s attempts at foreign policy have been controversial and ineffective. In attempting to portray himself as a global peace-broker, Trump has prevented actual progress in major conflicts, ensuring that fighting will continue into 2026. The world shall have to wait with bated breath to determine whether Trump can truly bring in a new age of peace or if he has merely accelerated global instability.

Featured Image via The White House / Daniel Torok

The Return of President Trump 

Trump’s second presidency officially began on the 20th January, after becoming the second president to be elected twice to the role non-consecutively. However, it did not come without controversy as only ten days prior, Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge after his earlier conviction in May 2024 for 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels to force her in to silence about their previous sexual relations ahead of the 2016 elections. Thus, Trump also became the first convicted felon to fulfil the mantle of US President.

Additionally, Trump’s return was preceded by Joe Biden issuing last-minute preemptive pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and the House January 6 Committee staff to shield them from potential “politically motivated prosecution” under the new administration.

The Transition to a Trump Administration 

Within hours of his inauguration on January 20, 2025, Trump bypassed congressional deliberation to govern via unilateral executive action. He immediately signed several high-impact executive orders, most notably Executive Order 14158, which established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to overhaul federal staffing, contracts, and technology. He also moved to fulfil campaign promises on illegal immigration by attempting to end birth right citizenship and close the Mexican border; however, both initiatives were stalled by persistent judicial and legislative challenges throughout the year.

Image: President Trump holds a cabinet meeting – The White House / Molly Riley

The early months of 2025 were further defined by a cabinet selection process that prioritised ideological loyalty over governing experience. Although the Senate began confirmations in late January, the results highlighted a deeply divided government. Nominees were pushed through by the narrowest of margins, exemplified by Kash Patel’s 51-49 confirmation as FBI Director and Pam Bondi’s 52-46 vote for Attorney General, foreshadowing a year of institutional friction and fractured governance.

The Rise and Fall of Elon Musk’s Political Career 

A central drama of 2025 was the rapid deterioration of the relationship between Trump and tech oligarch Elon Musk. During the January 20th inauguration, Musk ignited international controversy with a hand gesture that critics widely interpreted as a Nazi salute. Although Musk dismissed the gesture as a “dirty trick” and a misunderstood expression of enthusiasm, the damage to his public image was immediate. This incident marked the beginning of Musk’s decline as a political emblem for the new administration.

Image: President Donald Trump participates in a press conference with Former DOGE adviser Elon Musk

Over the following months, friction between Musk and the White House intensified. On May 28, 2025, Musk abruptly announced his departure from his government role with DOGE, citing fundamental disagreements over fiscal policy and Trump’s signature “One Big Beautiful Bill.” This public rupture brought a swift end to one of the most unconventional partnerships in American history. While some saw it as proof that Musk’s influence was overstated, others speculated that Trump orchestrated the split to reassert his own authority and silence rumors that he was being controlled by Musk’s profit-driven agenda.

Trump’s Major Victories: The Big Beautiful Bill and War on Immigration

Trump’s defining legislative achievement arrived on Independence Day with the signing of H.R. 1, officially Public Law 119-21 but famously dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB). This sweeping legislation restructured federal tax policy, shifted spending priorities, and raised the debt limit to secure the administration’s domestic core. However, the victory was polarising; a June 2025 poll revealed 55% public opposition, fuelled by projections that 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance due to deep Medicaid cuts. Even Elon Musk broke ranks to label the bill a “disgusting abomination,” arguing that its heavy spending betrayed Trump’s promise to reduce state intervention.

Image: President Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on the South Lawn of the White House – The White House / Molly Riley

Parallel to this fiscal overhaul, the administration intensified its crackdown on immigration. Throughout 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ramped up operations to unprecedented levels, with year-end data showing detention numbers exceeding 68,000 individuals and hundreds of thousands of removals. While the administration touted these figures as a fulfilment of campaign promises, critics condemned the surge, characterising ICE as an oppressive tool designed to forcibly remove those who did not fit the administration’s narrow vision of American identity.

The Budget Impasse 

Institutional dysfunction came to a head in the autumn. On 1 October, failure to pass FY2026 legislation triggered a partial federal government shutdown. This failure is innately damning towards Trump’s administration, for FY2026 is essentially a budget for the next year, that decides whether or not Trump is able to go ahead with his agenda for his next year of presidency. After weeks of failed negotiations and rejected stopgap measures, the shutdown eventually ended on 12 November 2025, following the passage

and signing of a temporary funding agreement. Whether congressional co-operation will last is yet to be seen, thus marking 2026 as crucial for restoring bi-partisan relations. 

The Story of the Year 

In 2025, the long-promised disclosure of the Jeffrey Epstein files revealed a harrowing intersection of elitist corruption and a systemic corrosion of accountability. The documents prove Epstein utilised poverty and desperation to exploit children, luring vulnerable girls with false promises of educational funding in a “horrific caricature of social mobility.” Far from being a “lone predator,” Epstein operated within a system that required the confidence that accountability would never arrive. This corruption is past partisan lines, infiltrating all of American politics; to reduce the case to the pathology of one dead man is to offer “closure to power, not justice to victims.”

The most disturbing revelation is the “sheer mundanity” of the material evidence. Inventories of sleeping aids, anti-fungals, and children’s cough syrup reveal a functional medical supplies closet, “curated to manage the physical consequences of exploitation.” This existed openly, protected not by secrecy, but by an assumption of impunity. Furthermore, the role of ordinary commercial infrastructure like Amazon in facilitating this abuse raises deeply uncomfortable questions about the “banality of corporatism,” where ethics are sacrificed for a price.

Image: President Donald Trump and First Lady Melanie Trump view a 4th of July fireworks display over the National Mall from the Blue Room Balcony – The White House / Daniel Torok

The DOJ’s decision to delay and release censored files suggests an attempt to manage the truth as a liability, potentially shielding figures like Trump and Clinton from inevitable accountability. “Transparency deferred is transparency denied,” reinforcing the reality that justice remains conditional. The files also hint at transnational implications; references to “MOSCOW GIRLS” and photo sets from St. Petersburg suggest intersections with foreign interests, including Vladimir Putin, which should be treated as a matter of national security rather than a failing of democracy.

The files also expose the “ideological contours” of Epstein’s worldview, including explicit racial bias and a stated “distaste for ‘dark girls,'” underscores how victims were commodified according to prejudice. As the year draws to a close, the promised clarity has been replaced by partial truths administered to preserve institutional credibility. 2025 has revealed that American politics is “corrupted so innately” that any true change feels meaningless, as democratic justice has arguably been destroyed.

In summary, 2025 has been a year of systemic erosion, where the mechanisms of the state were recalibrated to serve personal loyalty and elite protection over public accountability. Between the dismantling of the social safety net via the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and the strategic suppression of the full Epstein files, the administration has replaced transparent democracy with a “banality of corporatism.” America enters 2026 not as a nation restored, but as one waiting to see if its foundational justice can survive another year of intentional corrosion.

Featured Image via The White House / Daniel Torok