More stories

  • in

    Starmer praises Biden’s ‘remarkable’ career after US election withdrawal

    Sir Keir Starmer says he respects Joe Biden’s decision to pull out of the US presidential election, describing the 81-year-old’s political career as “remarkable”.The UK prime minister said: “I respect President Biden’s decision and I look forward to us working together during the remainder of his presidency.“I know that, as he has done throughout his remarkable career, President Biden will have made his decision based on what he believes is in the best interests of the American people.”Starmer was among a number of British politicians who responded to Biden’s announcement on Sunday evening, which came after weeks of pressure to quit due to concerns about his mental acuity and ability to beat Republican nominee Donald Trump.Rishi Sunak praised Biden’s “love for America and dedication to service”.Writing on X, Sunak, who served as prime minister until the UK general election earlier this month, said: “Working with Joe Biden, I saw first-hand his love for America and dedication to service.“Our partnership has led to significant achievements, including [military pact] Aukus, steadfast support for Israel and joint efforts in defending our people from Houthi threats. I wish him all the best.”Boris Johnson, who was prime minister when Biden won the 2020 US election, paid tribute to the president’s “bravery”.He wrote on X: “I salute Joe Biden for the bravery of his decision and also for all he has done as president.“He has been a staunch Atlanticist and friend to Britain throughout his career and it was a privilege to work with him.”Scotland’s first minister John Swinney commended Biden for his “selfless” decision.In a post on X, he wrote that Biden had “served the people of the USA with devotion and total commitment”.“Now, in a typically selfless act, he steps aside to do what he thinks is right for his people.“He came to Scotland for Cop26 and made a powerful contribution. He has our best wishes for the future.”Green party co-leader Carla Denyer said Biden’s decision to withdraw from the presidential race was “a true sign of leadership”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionShe said: “We wish President Biden well and thank him for his many years of public service.“This cannot have been an easy decision for him. But to take a decision that is personally difficult, but that is in the public interest, is a true sign of leadership.”She added: “The foundations of our democracy are under threat and this presidential election is a pivotal moment. All elected representatives must be able to undertake their democratic duties without facing the threats of violence.“Equally, showing respect for democratic results is perhaps the most fundamental cornerstone of our democratic foundations. All leaders must now not just abide by our democratic principles but cherish and protect them at every turn.“It is abundantly clear that President Trump has no interest in this grave responsibility. My hope is that the Democratic party can find a suitable candidate that can take on this responsibility.“It’s not hyperbole to say that the future of democracy relies on it.”Former foreign secretary James Cleverly thanked Biden for being “a great friend to the UK”.In a post on X, he said: “It was a pleasure meeting President Biden as foreign secretary on his visits to the UK, especially at the signing of the book of condolence for Her Late Majesty.“Thank you for being a great friend to the UK as our two governments defended freedom and democracy around the world.” More

  • in

    David Lammy faces a world in turmoil: five key concerns for foreign secretary

    UkraineMore than two years after Russia invaded Ukraine, the conflict drags on. Ukrainian forces are depleted and they need foreign weapons. Support for Ukraine crosses most party lines in Europe, but if Donald Trump wins the US election and cuts or limits the flow of arms, Europe may struggle to fill the gap. Lammy will want to shore up public support, bolster European collaboration, and map out what resources the continent can collectively offer Ukraine if the US steps back.GazaLabour’s stance on Gaza cost it several seats, and Lammy will face scrutiny on issues including arms sales to Israel. Labour is committed to recognising Palestinian statehood “as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution”, but has not given a timeline. Starmer is unlikely to want to risk alienating the Biden administration by making unilateral moves in the run-up to the election.US presidential electionView image in fullscreenOne of the UK’s main diplomatic roles has been as Washington’s ally in forums like the UN, and an interlocutor between the US and Europe. But US politics are in turmoil, with Joe Biden’s bid for a second term hanging in the balance. Lammy will have to prepare for the possibility of working with a Trump administration.EuropeStarmer say he wants to keep Brexit out of politics but his commitment to growth means forming an economic relationship with the UK’s biggest trading partner. Ties to Europe will be particularly important if Trump win. A meeting of the European Political Community, held at Blenheim Palace later this month, will be a key first step to building a shared vision for the continent.Climate changeDespite heavy criticism for watering down commitments to clean energy, Labour has laid out ambitious plans to lead global efforts on climate change, building on British diplomatic reach and technological expertise. The potential loss of progressive allies in France or the US could make a British role important globally. But as the impact of a warming world become increasingly evident, Labour may open itself up to charges of hypocrisy if domestic policies don’t measure up. More

  • in

    Rees-Mogg tells young Tories he wants to ‘build a wall in the English Channel’

    Jacob Rees-Mogg has said he wants to “build a wall in the English Channel” in a leaked recording, in which he heaped praise on Donald Trump and the hardline Republican response to immigration.Speaking to young Conservative activists, Rees-Mogg doubled down on his backing for the former US president, saying he took the right approach by building a border wall.“If I were American I’d want the border closed, I’d be all in favour of building a wall. I’d want to build a wall in the middle of the English Channel,” the former cabinet minister said.Rees-Mogg is fighting a strong Labour challenge in his North East Somerset and Hanham constituency against Dan Norris, the mayor of the West of England, who was previously MP in the seat until he was defeated by Rees-Mogg in 2010.Rees-Mogg, a popular figure among Tory party members, is likely to be influential in the Conservative leadership race if he retains his seat. Support for Trump’s White House bid is a sharp divider within the party between the right and the centrist One Nation group. Those who have given public backing to the former president, who has been convicted on 34 felony counts, include the Conservative former prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who said Trump’s return would be a “big win for the world”, and the former MPs Andrea Jenkyns and Jake Berry.In January 2024, Jenkyns said: “We’d be a safer place if Trump came back.”; Berry told ITV the US should “bring him back”.Speaking before a pub crawl in March organised by a Young Conservative group, Rees-Mogg said: “Every so often, I slightly peek over the parapet, like that image from the second world war of the man looking over the wall, and say if I were an American, I would vote for Donald Trump and it’s always the most unpopular thing I ever say in British politics, but I’m afraid it’s true. I would definitely vote for Donald Trump against Joe Biden.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn the recording, Rees-Mogg claimed Biden “doesn’t like Britain” and said that was his biggest concern going into the election. “That’s … much more important for me than whether somebody closes the border between the US and Mexico … I want Trump to succeed as he looks like the candidate. And one does to some degree worry about the mental acuity of President Biden.”The Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, has also been a champion of Trump, appearing at multiple rallies in the US and suggesting he wants to mirror the Republican candidate’s success in mounting a takeover of the right.At a rally on Sunday, Farage said he would “make Britain great again” in an echo of the former US president’s slogan. He has previously said Trump “learned a lot” from the provocative speeches he himself made during his years in Brussels.Rees-Mogg did not respond to a request for comment. More

  • in

    At last, Julian Assange is free. But it may have come at a high price for press freedom | Trevor Timm

    Julian Assange is on the verge of being set free after the WikiLeaks founder and US authorities have agreed to a surprising plea deal. While it should be a relief to anyone who cares about press freedom that Assange will not be coming to the US to face trial, the Biden administration should be ashamed at how this case has played out.Assange is flying from the UK to a US territory in the Pacific Ocean to make a brief court appearance today, and soon after, he may officially be a free man in his native Australia.The deal is undoubtedly good for Assange, who has been holed up in Belmarsh prison suffering from serious medical problems for the past five years, and stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years prior to that. It’s good for the Biden administration, which avoids the embarrassment of potentially losing its extradition case in the UK high court, but more importantly avoids the Assange case becoming a polarising issue in the election.But is the deal good for press freedom? Not so much. Don’t get me wrong: there’s no doubt the worst fate was avoided and every journalist breathed a sigh of relief that this result did not occur via a court decision. A plea deal does not create an official precedent that a conviction and appeals court ruling would – something that could have potentially binded other courts to rule against journalists in future cases.But it’s hard not to be shaken by the charge the US justice department forced Assange to plea to in order to get his freedom: a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, which according to the law, amounts to “receiving and obtaining” secret documents, and “willfully communicating” them “to persons not entitled to receive them”. (In Assange’s case, that means the public). That is a “crime” that journalists at mainstream outlets all over the US commit virtually every day.A court won’t readily be able to cite DoJ v Assange in future rulings, but that doesn’t mean this guilty plea won’t embolden future federal prosecutors with an axe to grind against the press. They will see this case as a success. And it doesn’t mean the legal arms of news outlets won’t now be worried a case can be brought against their own journalists for ordinary journalistic conduct that was once assuredly protected by the first amendment.Just imagine what an attorney general in a second Trump administration will think, knowing they’ve already got one guilty plea from a publisher under the Espionage Act. Trump, after all, has been out on the campaign trail repeatedly opining about how he would like to see journalists – who he sees as “enemies of the people” – in jail. Why the Biden administration would hand him any ammo is beyond belief.So if the Biden administration is looking for plaudits for ending this case, they should get exactly none. They could have dropped this case three years ago when they took control of the DoJ. Every major civil liberties and human rights group in the country repeatedly implored them to. They could have just dropped the case today, with Assange spending the same amount of time in prison, but they felt the need to again emphasise in court documents that they believe obtaining and publishing secret government documents is a crime.Of course, some will say, “oh, Assange got what he deserved,” or “he’s no journalist, why should I care,” as people do whenever you bring up the inconvenient fact that prosecuting Assange will affect countless other journalists. Assange made himself the permanent enemy of millions of Democratic voters after publishing leaked emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign in the run-up to the 2016 election, and many people can’t see past that. But it’s worth repeating that this case had nothing at all to do with 2016. And whether you think Assange is a “journalist” or not, the DoJ wanted him convicted under the Espionage Act for acts of journalism, which would leave many reporters, including at the Guardian, exposed to the same.Now we can only hope this case is an aberration and not a harbinger of things to come.
    Trevor Timm is executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation More

  • in

    Donald Trump fundraiser in London ‘already has $2m’ day before event

    A Donald Trump fundraiser in London, where his eldest son will be the star guest, has already clocked up $2m (£1.57m) in donations before it takes place on Wednesday, according to organisers.The event is being hosted by the actor and singer Holly Valance, who has become an increasingly influential figure on Britain’s radical right since meeting the former president in the US in the company of Nigel Farage.Farage will take a break from campaigning in the general election to attend the event along with American Republicans, including people who served in the last Trump White House and some tipped for roles if he wins again.They include Richard Grenell – a former acting director of US national intelligence who served as the US ambassador to Germany – who has been playing a role as a roving international envoy for Trump.The event is billed as a reception and dinner with Donald Trump Jr and his fiancee, Kimberly Guilfoyle, a lawyer and former Fox News host.View image in fullscreenOther hosts include Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets NFL team who was Trump’s ambassador to the UK, along with George Glass, the US ambassador to Portugal under Trump, and Duke Buchan, his ambassador to Spain.Scott Bessent, a prominent Trump fundraiser who is tipped as a potential treasury secretary, is also expected to attend.While Trump himself is on the US presidential campaign trail, he may make a virtual appearance, or at least send a recorded video message similar to the one that was played at Farage’s 60th birthday in April.The event is expected to take place at a private residence in Chelsea or Knightsbridge, with about 100 people attending.Invites bearing a Trump logo list a number of different categories under which attenders can make donation, such as “host committee” ($100,000 a couple) and “dinner” ($50,000). A photo opportunity will cost $25,000, while simple attendance is $10,000.Some of the donations already raised are understood to be in excess of $100,000. Valance, who is married to the billionaire property tycoon Nick Candy, qualifies to make donations to Trump as a US green card holder.Valance and Candy have been publicly associated with Trump and Farage since at least April 2022, when Farage tweeted a picture of the four of them after a dinner at the former president’s Palm Beach resort, Mar-a-Lago.Since then, reports have gone as far as suggesting that she was under consideration as a Conservative candidate to run in the London mayoral elections, and more recently as a candidate for Farage’s Reform UK party in the general election.She attended the launch earlier this year of the Popular Conservatism – or “PopCon” – movement, co-founded by the former prime minister Liz Truss. The former Tory leader will not be attending the Trump fundraiser.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionValance told GB News after the event: “I would say that everyone starts as a lefty and then wakes up at some point after you start either making money, working, trying to run a business, trying to buy a home, and then realise what crap ideas they all are, and then you go to the right.”Earlier this month she was among those who claimed credit for encouraging Farage to run again, saying she had been “whispering in his ear for a long, long time, saying ‘c’mon’”.Greg Swenson, a spokesperson for Republicans Overseas UK, a campaign group for Trump’s party, said the former president’s trial and conviction in New York had “energised” supporters in Britain and the US.“We’ve already noticed that people who were writing cheques for $100 are now writing for $1,000. The question is what it means for the independents and those who are undecided,” he added.While super-wealthy donors will be gathering for the Trump event, London-based supporters and would-be supporters of his Democratic opponent will be gathering for a £40-a-head comedy event.Kristin Kaplan Wolfe, the chair of Democrats Abroad UK, said: “While Republicans eat their $100,000 a couple dinner with Donald Trump Jr here in London, our UK volunteers will be helping Americans register to vote so we devour them at the ballot box in November.“We invite all Republicans living in the UK who can’t stomach the idea of dinner with Donald Trump Jr to join our big tent party and help defeat Donald Trump Sr at the ballot box in November.” More

  • in

    Deepfakes are here and can be dangerous, but ignore the alarmists – they won’t harm our elections | Ciaran Martin

    Sixteen days before the Brexit referendum, and only two days before the deadline to apply to cast a ballot, the IT system for voter registrations collapsed. The remain and leave campaigns were forced to agree a 48-hour registration extension. Around the same time, evidence was beginning to emerge of a major Russian “hack-and-leak” operation targeting the US presidential election. Inevitably, questions arose as to whether the Russians had successfully disrupted the Brexit vote.The truth was more embarrassingly simple. A comprehensive technical investigation, supported by the National Cyber Security Centre – which I headed at the time – set out in detail what had happened. A TV debate on Brexit had generated unexpected interest. Applications spiked to double those projected. The website couldn’t cope and crashed. There was no sign of any hostile activity.But this conclusive evidence did not stop a parliamentary committee, a year later, saying that it did “not rule out the possibility that there was foreign interference” in the incident. No evidence was provided for this remarkable assertion. What actually happened was a serious failure of state infrastructure, but it was not a hostile act.This story matters because it has become too easy – even fashionable – to cast the integrity of elections into doubt. “Russia caused Brexit” is nothing more than a trope that provides easy comfort to the losing side. There was, and is, no evidence of any successful cyber operations or other digital interference in the UK’s 2016 vote.But Brexit is far from the only example of such electoral alarmism. In its famous report on Russia in 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee correctly said that the first detected attempt by Russia to interfere in British politics occurred in the context of the Scottish referendum campaign in 2014.However, the committee did not add that the quality of such efforts was risible, and the impact of them was zero. Russia has been waging such campaigns against the UK and other western democracies for years. Thankfully, though, it hasn’t been very good at it. At least so far.Over the course of the past decade, there are only two instances where digital interference can credibly be seen to have severely affected a democratic election anywhere in the world. The US in 2016 is undoubtedly one. The other is Slovakia last year, when an audio deepfake seemed to have an impact on the polls late on.The incident in Slovakia fuelled part of a new wave of hysteria about electoral integrity. Now the panic is all about deepfakes. But we risk making exactly the same mistake with deepfakes as we did with cyber-attacks on elections: confusing activity and intent with impact, and what might be technically possible with what is realistically achievable.So far, it has proved remarkably hard to fool huge swathes of voters with deepfakes. Many of them, including much of China’s information operations, are poor in quality. Even some of the better ones – like a recent Russian fake of Ukrainian TV purporting to show Kyiv admitting it was behind the Moscow terror attacks – look impressive, but are so wholly implausible in substance they are not believed by anyone. Moreover, a co-ordinated response by a country to a deepfake can blunt its impact: think of the impressive British response to the attempt to smear Sadiq Khan last November, when the government security minister lined up behind the Labour mayor of London in exhorting the British media and public to pay no attention to a deepfake audio being circulated.This was in marked contrast to events in Slovakia, where gaps in Meta’s removal policy, and the country’s electoral reporting restrictions, made it much harder to circulate the message that the controversial audio was fake. If a deepfake does cut through in next month’s British election, what matters is how swiftly and comprehensively it is debunked.None of this is to be complacent about the reality that hostile states are trying to interfere in British politics. They are. And with fast-developing tech and techniques, the threat picture can change. “Micro” operations, such as a localised attempt to use AI to persuade voters in New Hampshire to stay at home during the primaries, are one such area of concern. In the course of the UK campaign, one of my main worries would be about targeted local disinformation and deepfake campaigns in individual contests. It is important that the government focuses resources and capabilities on blunting these operations.But saying that hostile states are succeeding in interfering in our elections, or that they are likely to, without providing any tangible evidence is not a neutral act. In fact, it’s really dangerous. If enough supposedly credible voices loudly cast aspersions on the integrity of elections, at least some voters will start to believe them. And if that happens, we will have done the adversaries’ job for them.There is a final reason why we should be cautious about the “something-must-be-done” tendency where the risk of electoral interference is concerned. State intervention in these matters is not some cost-free, blindingly obvious solution that the government is too complacent to use. If false information is so great a problem that it requires government action, that requires, in effect, creating an arbiter of truth. To which arm of the state would we wish to assign this task?
    Ciaran Martin is a professor at the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford, and a former chief executive of the National Cyber Security Centre More

  • in

    US Declaration of Independence document bore arms of English king

    It is a founding document of the United States and inspired the Declaration of Independence and the purge of English power from the American colonies.But, ironically, George Mason’s seminal Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 was written on paper watermarked with the arms of the king of England, a British expert has discovered.As one of the most significant documents in American history, the Virginia declaration is held in a secure vault at the Library of Congress (LoC) in Washington, DC. Dr Ian Christie-Miller, a former visiting research fellow at London University and a specialist in paper analysis, has discovered a watermark that shows the Hanover crown and the emblem of King George III, under whose rule the American colonies were lost.He told the Observer: “The value of watermark research has been widely known but ignored for years. The evidence has been sitting there unnoticed until now.”Christie-Miller made the discovery while researching his forthcoming philosophy book, Conscience – The Restoration. “It is ironic that paper bearing the arms of the king was used by George Mason for his first draft declaration, which was to lead to the overthrow of English power in the American colonies. Apparently he had few qualms of conscience in using that watermarked paper.”View image in fullscreenThe US war of independence led to Britain’s 13 American colonies throwing off British rule to establish the sovereign United States of America.British attempts to impose unpopular taxes had contributed to growing tensions between the Crown and colonists, who resorted to armed rebellion. The king opposed their bid for independence, although he was not directly responsible for policies such as the Stamp Act of 1765, which was passed by the British parliament.Mason drafted his call for American independence from Britain in 1776. It was amended by Thomas Ludwell Lee, and the Virginia Convention and Thomas Jefferson drew heavily on it for the Declaration of Independence.Dr Peter Thompson, associate professor of American history at Oxford University, said: “The paper may have had to be compliant with the Stamp Act – which deepens the irony.View image in fullscreen“I wonder, if Mason had had a choice and there had been some alternative supply of paper, whether he would still have chosen stamped paper, so as to make a point of complying with the law, even though he didn’t agree with it.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe LoC catalogue description notes: “This uniquely influential document was also used by James Madison in drawing up the Bill of Rights, 1789, and the Marquis de Lafayette in drafting the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, 1789.”Mason wrote: “All men are born equally free and independant [sic], and have certain inherent natural rights … among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing [sic] and obtaining Happiness and Safety.”These beliefs did not extend to enslaved people, however, as Mason owned more than 100 enslaved people at the time, despite condemning slavery as “disgraceful to mankind”.The LoC said: “We’re always happy to help scholars with their research, but … we can’t comment on their finished work.” More