As temperatures rise, the number of male births is decreasing, study finds

Copyright Cleared/Canva

By Marta Iraola Iribarren

Published on 09/03/2026 - EURONEWS

As temperatures rise due to climate change, heat above 20°C leads to fewer male births, according to a new study.

When temperatures rise above 20°C, fewer baby boys are born compared to girls, a new study has found

Researchers at the University of Oxford found that heat exposure can increase prenatal mortality in early pregnancy, particularly among males.

For many years, human sex ratios at birth – the ratio of male to female offspring – were thought to be constant, genetically determined, and invariant to social or environmental shocks, the authors wrote.

However, the results published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) show that extreme heat may play a role in the number of boys and girls that are born worldwide.

The researchers analysed data from more than five million births in 33 sub-Saharan countries and India. They found that ambient heat can increase prenatal mortality in early pregnancy, particularly among males, in both world regions.

“We show that temperature fundamentally shapes human reproduction by influencing who is born and who is not born,” said Abdel Ghany, co-author of the study.

He noted that the findings indicate that temperature has measurable consequences for foetal survival and family planning behaviour, with implications for population composition and gender balance.

“Understanding these processes is essential for anticipating how the environment affects societies in a warming climate,” he added.

The 20°C threshold

The study identified 20°C as the temperature at which the sight in ratios occurs, although hotter days do not proportionally amplify the effect.

Previous research has found that gestational heat exposure threatens the maternal body’s ability to thermoregulate, increasing the risk of pregnancy loss. If the mother is dehydrated, the baby may not get enough blood, oxygen, or nutrients.

Related

• Why is Turkey recording Europe’s steepest fertility decline over the past decade?

Not only a biological response

Heat exposure not only harms maternal health but also influences family planning behaviour.

High temperatures could impact abortion access through mobility disruptions or by increasing financial uncertainty and reducing income generation, the authors noted.

The study highlights that the effects of heat are not evenly distributed, the authors wrote.

Women with fewer resources and those living in more vulnerable settings are more strongly affected, raising concerns about widening health inequalities under climate change.

In Europe, countries are experiencing rising temperatures, with more than 100 days of heat season in regions such as Albania, Greece, Portugal, and Spain.

2024 saw the second-highest number of heat stress days and tropical nights, when the temperature didn't fall from 20°C on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

As global temperatures are expected to rise, the researchers call for further studies on environmental factors to protect maternal health and improve access to healthcare, to reduce long-term impacts on reproduction and population dynamics.

Related

Climate change impact on fertility

Studies have documented the impact of climate health on both male and female fertility.

In 2024, many European countries reported their lowest birth rates in several decades. While experts say 2.1 children per woman are needed to keep the population's size stable, several countries present numbers consistently below 1.5.

A recent systematic review by researchers at the Catholic University of Chile found that increased climate-related events and natural disasters are severely disrupting reproductive processes ranging from conception to care, including reproductive intentions, pregnancy, birth, fertility, and parenting.

 

Ariane 64: Europe enters the era of mega-constellations with Amazon Leo satellites

By Monica Pinna

Published on 06/03/2026 - EURONEWS

On 12 February 2026, the French company Arianespace successfully launched 32 Amazon LEO satellites with its Ariane 64 mega-rocket from the European spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana. The satellites were placed into low Earth orbit with a launch that went far beyond a simple mission.

Ariane’s day starts early. Ours too: we are a group of around thirty international journalists invited to attend the maiden launch of Ariane 64, the most powerful European rocket. We arrive about a hundred metres from the launch pad shortly after three o’clock in the morning to watch the structure surrounding the rocket being moved

Shortly afterwards, the area is evacuated in preparation for the launch. It’s a slow and delicate process.

Philippe Clar, Director of Space Transport Programmes at ArianeGroup, explains:

“In Europe, 13,000 people from 13 countries have been working on this launch vehicle. 600 European companies have supplied the various components of the rocket. ArianeGroup, as prime contractor and designer, has done everything possible to ensure that things run smoothly. But, there is always a small amount of uncertainty, and that is what keeps us excited every time. In the world of launch vehicles, that’s what we live for.”

Europe has come a long way to reach this launch. The Ariane family of European rockets began in 1979 with Ariane 1. Since then, this project has continued to evolve. The development of Ariane 6 began in 2014. It has two versions: Ariane 62, with two boosters – or auxiliary thrusters – and 64, with four boosters. Arianespace selects the version best suited to the mission. On 12 February 2026, the launch of 32 Amazon LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellites required the maximum power of Ariane 64.

The rocket carried the heaviest payload ever transported by the European launch vehicle into space: nearly 20 tonnes, almost double the payload capacity of the two-booster version, Ariane 62.

David Cavaillolès, Chief Executive Officer of Arianespace, explains:

“This is a major step forward for us. Arianespace was founded 45 years ago, and the vision of my predecessors was to take an institutional launch vehicle, Ariane 1, and bring it to the commercial market.”

Challenge met. After years of waiting, Arianespace has secured its largest private contract with Amazon: 18 launches. The American e-commerce giant plans to deploy more than 3,000 satellites in the coming years. This is a group of satellites - a ‘constellation’ - which work to provide fast internet connectivity to underserved areas. Amazon Leo is in direct competition with Elon Musk’s Starlink.

The hours pass, the excitement builds. I head to the Toucan Station to watch the launch. Only eight kilometres from the launch pad, the closest one authorised. At 1:45 p.m. local time, Ariane 64 takes off. The launch is a success.

“With the success of Ariane 64’s maiden flight,” says Arianespace Chief Executive Officer David Cavaillolès, “the European heavy-lift launch vehicle has demonstrated its ability to accomplish the most complex missions, such as the deployment of large-scale constellations.”

Ariane 5 was decommissioned in 2023 after 27 years of loyal service. The delays accumulated by Ariane 6 left Europe without autonomous launch capacity and dependent on foreign providers for over a year.

The successful launches of Ariane 62 last year, followed by Ariane 64, mark Europe’s return to full autonomy in space access and a step towards greater space sovereignty.

For mere spectators like me, this launch sparked cries of joy, followed by a respectful silence, charged with emotion. This trail of fire in the sky remains etched in my memory, like a striking image of humanity’s ability to go beyond its own limits.

Who is Mojtaba Khamenei, the influential insider now leading Iran?

For decades, Mojtaba Khamenei operated in the shadows, building influence inside Iran’s clerical and security circles without ever holding an official post. Chosen as Iran’s supreme leader, the 56-year-old cleric now steps into the most powerful role in the country after his father was killed in US-Israeli air strikes.


Issued on: 09/03/2026 - RFI

A woman poses with a picture of Iran's new Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei during a rally in central Tehran on Monday 9 March 2026. AFP - ATTA KENARE

Iran’s Assembly of Experts, the clerical body responsible for appointing the country’s supreme leader, elected Mojtaba Khamenei on Sunday during a secret meeting in the holy city of Qom, local media reported.

His name had recently been raised by US President Donald Trump in an interview with the American news site Axios. Trump warned that if Mojtaba Khamenei became supreme leader, “he would be killed like his father”.

Mojtaba Khamenei's wife – the daughter of hardline politician and former parliament speaker Gholamali Haddadadel – was among those killed on 28 February, the first day of the US-Israeli offensive.

For years he had been seen as a possible successor to his father, Ali Khamenei. His prospects appeared to grow after the death of another potential contender, former president Ebrahim Raisi, who was killed in a helicopter crash in 2024.

Why Iran's 'beheaded' power structure may outlive Ali Khamenei

Years building influence

The younger Khamenei spent decades cultivating close ties with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and strengthening his influence within Iran’s clerical establishment.

He has consistently opposed supporters of dialogue with Western countries during efforts to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“He has strong constituency and support within the IRGC, in particular amongst the younger radical generations,” Kasra Aarabi, of the US-based organisation United Against Nuclear Iran, which monitors the activities of the Revolutionary Guard, told Reuters.

Khamenei's rise has also drawn criticism from within Iran’s political system. Some opponents argue that he does not have the religious qualifications required to become supreme leader.

Others say his appointment goes against the intentions of the founders of the Iran, who sought to break with the dynastic traditions of the former monarchy of the shahs.

Between Tehran's agents and opposition exiles, France caught in Iran's shadow war

Shaped by revolution

Born in 1969 in the city of Mashhad, Mojtaba Khamenei grew up as his father joined Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s movement against the shah.

He later fought in the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988 and studied theology in the seminaries of Qom, the centre of Shia religious learning.

He holds the clerical title of hodjatoleslam, a rank below ayatollah in the Shia hierarchy, and wears the black turban of a sayyed – indicating direct descent from the Prophet Muhammad.

Mojtaba Khamenei has never held an official position within the government. While he has occasionally appeared at rallies supporting the regime, he has rarely spoken publicly.

Since 2019 Khamenei has been under sanctions imposed by the US Treasury Department, which said he represented the supreme leader “in an official capacity even though he was never elected or appointed to a government position”, apart from working in his father’s office.

The US also said he had been given certain powers by his father and maintained close ties with the commander of the Quds Force – the Revolutionary Guards unit responsible for operations abroad – and with the volunteer Basij militia.

It said those links were used “to advance his father’s regional destabilisation goals and domestic oppression”.

How the war in Iran is testing Europe’s US military base network

Power and wealth

The new supreme leader heads a financial empire stretching “from shipping in the Persian Gulf to Swiss bank accounts, British luxury real estate and a major Western intelligence service”, an investigation by the US media outlet Bloomberg reported earlier this year.

He is also often seen as having played a role in the rise of ultra-conservative former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was elected in 2005. Khamenei supported Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election four years later, which triggered a wave of protests.

In 2022 he became a frequent target of demonstrators during the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protest movement that erupted after the death in custody of student Mahsa Amini, who had been arrested by Iran’s morality police for allegedly violating the country’s strict dress code.

His wife, the daughter of hardline politician and former parliament speaker Gholamali Haddadadel, was killed on 28 February in US-Israeli air strikes, along with several members of her family.

ANALYSIS

Khamenei replaces Khamenei: Iran defies Trump, signals continuity

Iran’s choice of Mojtaba Khamenei to replace his slain father, Ali Khamenei, as supreme leader signals the entrenchment of hardline cleric power and a continued resistance amid the US-Israeli military onslaught. It also underscores US President Donald Trump’s policy failure to detail the goals of the war.


Issued on: 09/03/2026 -

FRANCE24
By: Leela JACINTO

A woman poses with a picture of Iran's new Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei and his late father Ali Khamenei at a rally in in central Tehran on March 9, 2026. © Atta Kenaré, AFP

After more than a week of massive US and Israeli bombardments, around 1,200 reported Iranian deaths, seven fallen US soldiers, damaged infrastructure, skyrocketing oil prices, blocked ships and grounded flights, Iran got the new leader that everyone expected for years.

Mojtaba Khamenei, the 56-year-old son of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been named Iran’s new supreme leader as the Islamic regime faces an existential crisis. The message from the Assembly of Experts, the body empowered to appoint the new leader, was clear to Iran and the world. The Velayat-e-Faqih, the Shiite political doctrine underpinning Iran’s Islamic Republic, would continue, the resistance would not be cowed, and the change that many Iranians longed for was nowhere near.

Khamenei was appointed the new leader barely a week after Iranian authorities confirmed the death of his 86-year-old father in the initial round of US-Israeli strikes. Amid rumours about the logistical difficulties of holding a vote and speculation over whether the war could strengthen a reformist voice, the decision was swift and unambiguous.

Trump trying to gauge whether new ayatollah is 'a leader he can work with'

Imagen de archivo de Mojtaba Jamenei, durante su participación en el mitin anual de las milicias Quds. Teherán, 31 de mayo de 2019. AP - Vahid Salemi
10:58

“The message is very clear. It's a message of resoluteness sent by the Iranian government,” said FRANCE 24’s Siavosh Ghazi, reporting from Tehran the morning after the announcement. “The members of the Assembly of Experts have stated that he is continuing his father’s legacy…In effect, the result of the war that was started by [US President] Donald Trump and [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu is to replace an 86-year-old with a 56-year-old. So, nothing changes, and the message is: We will stay the course – and continue to resist the Americans and the Israelis.”

To prove the point, Iranian state media followed up the announcement, which was broadcast Monday around 1am local time, with a report of a new attack on Israel. “Iran fired a first wave of missiles under Ayatollah Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei toward [the Palestinian] occupied territories,” declared state radio stations while state TV aired a photograph of a projectile bearing the slogan, "At Your Command, Sayyid Mojtaba", using an Islamic honorific.

Iran’s oil-rich Gulf neighbours also received a business-as-usual message hours later, with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar reporting new explosions and attacks on Monday. The Asian markets, opening for a new week of trading, reflected the economic strains of Iran’s blockage of the Strait of Hormuz through which a fifth of the world's oil is transported. Oil prices soared to a historic high of $120 per barrel on Monday morning before falling in a whiplash trading session.

‘Going full dynasty’

Nearly half a century after the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Pahlavi monarchy, the appointment of another Khamenei as leader of the republic was a statement of defiance. During Ali Khamenei’s final years, experts examining likely succession candidates noted the difficulty of choosing his son for a regime that “prides itself on overturning thousands of years of monarchical rule”.

But in the end, the dynastic transfer of power passed without a hitch. “This is not surprising in the sense that all revolutions tend to replace what they destroyed with something very similar,” said Rouzbeh Parsi, a history professor at Sweden’s Lund University. “So, in that sense, going full dynasty is not necessarily surprising. There's also an element of this in Shia theology, where the notion of sacredness and the notion of charisma and leadership goes in succession within the family.”

Iran goes 'full dynasty' © France 24
04:59  

While his father was in office, Mojtaba Khamenei did not have an official government position. But his years of work at the supreme leader’s Beyt office as a sort of aide-de-camp, personal assistant and confidant to his father put him at the centre of political, economic and, most importantly, security networks in Iran.

Iran’s supreme leader is the ultimate authority over all branches of government and head of a security establishment that includes the army, navy, intelligence institutions and, above all, the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), a parallel armed force that includes allied organisations such as the Basij militia.

The IRGC also wields economic clout, accounting for nearly 25% of the Iranian economy, according to some estimates.

Khamenei was believed to be his octogenarian father’s right-hand man for several years, fueling speculation that the son was effectively managing the day-to-day running of the state.
Security links, economic assets, religious credentials

Born in 1969 in the city of Mashhad, Khamenei fought in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war with an IRGC division, several of whom ascended to powerful intelligence positions within the force, cementing his links within an organisation that grew to become the country’s most influential institution.

After his father became supreme leader in 1989, he had access to the billions of dollars and business assets spread across Iran's many bonyads, or foundations funded from state industries and other wealth once held by the former shah.

During his father’s rule, Khamenei used his proximity to the leadership to amass his own power, according to US and Israeli sources. US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks in the late 2000s suggested that he served as his father’s “principal gatekeeper” and had been forming his own power base within the country.

At a time of crisis, Khamenei’s familiarity with the ropes of administration and knowledge of the shadowy workings of the IRGC – also known as “the Guards” – was viewed as an asset, according to experts.

Khamenei also takes over the position of the Islamic Republic’s spiritual leader with the required religious credentials, unlike his father, who was a midlevel cleric when he replaced Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic republic in 1989.

Khamenei’s clerical studies include instruction in a respected seminary in the holy city of Qom. It was followed by more than a decade of teaching dars-e kharej — the highest level of seminary instruction in Shiite Islamic jurisprudence. He reached the clerical rank of ayatollah in 2022, according to the Qom seminary’s news agency.

This puts him in a secure position in Iran’s power circles, according to experts. “We have to remember that his father needed a decade or so to shore up his own credibility and his own ability to run the system. Now, Mojtaba comes with stronger cards in terms of his connections, but also a weaker position in that he's going to be more dependent on those groups, most likely the Revolutionary Guards,” said Parsi.
‘Replacing the Taliban with the Taliban’

The second of Ali Khamenei’s six children, the new supreme leader was believed to be extremely close to his father. The 56-year-old cleric takes over the post a week after his father, his mother Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh, his wife Zahra Adel and one of his sons was killed in the US-Israeli strikes, according to the Iranian government.

The loss is unlikely to see him leaning towards a diplomatic solution to end the current conflict. It also dashes hopes of a reformist faction taking over or influencing the office of the supreme leader.

“I think for the moment, they're all united in that they see an existential threat in the Israeli and American war, and that this is something they need to deal with first,” said Parsi.

Iran’s proxies in the region, including the Houthis in Yemen and Lebanon’s Hezbollah have also fallen in line, pledging allegiance to the new leader.

Across the Persian Gulf, Iranian attacks on the oil-rich Gulf monarchies in retaliation for the US-Israeli strikes have also strengthened the Islamic regime’s ability to disrupt global oil shipments, which in turn determine the power balance in the region, according to some experts.

“What Iran has done is increase the pressure on the Americans, that the whole global system, that the Americans, in a sense, underwrite,” said Parsi. “The Iranians are able to influence what is happening and are making it very difficult for the Americans to contain this conflict to just one country, so the rest of the world would go about their business. That is not the way things are going. The fact that the Americans don't seem to have a clear strategy of what they want with this war, just makes it easier for the Iranians to, in a sense, play this game.”

Last week, Trump declared that he wanted a say in the appointment of Iran’s new leader. That was not to be. As supreme leader, Khamenei, like his father, is now high in the sights of US-Israeli decapitation strikes. But the Islamic regime has delivered its message of continuity no matter the decimation of top personnel.

For some experts, Iran’s appointment of a newer version of an old leader underscores the failure of the US in the region, which was in stark focus during the 2021 Taliban takeover in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Several Iran experts took to social media on Monday to elaborate the point. “The U.S. spent 20 years and trillions of dollars replacing the Taliban with the Taliban,” said Iranian political analyst Ali Alizadeh on X. “Trump replaced Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei in just 9 days. The most efficient U.S. president ever,” he noted wryly.

 

Trafigura inks 10-year lithium deal with Smackover

Cecilia Jamasmie | March 9, 2026 | 

LANXESS demonstration plant near El Dorado, Arkansas. (Image courtesy of Standard Lithium.)

Commodities trader Trafigura has signed a binding take-or-pay agreement with Smackover Lithium to purchase battery-grade lithium carbonate from the South West Arkansas (SWA) project in the US.

Smackover Lithium, a joint venture between Standard Lithium (TSX-V, NYSE: SLI) and Norway’s Equinor (NYSE: EQNR), will supply Trafigura with 8,000 tonnes a year of lithium carbonate over a ten-year period, totalling 80,000 tonnes.

The SWA project targets initial production of 22,500 tonnes a year of battery-grade lithium carbonate in its first pahse, with potential for future expansion. The Trafigura agreement covers more than 40% of that targeted volume.

Smackover Lithium aims to make a final investment decision this year and start production in 2028.

The project will use direct lithium extraction technology to recover lithium from brine resources in the Smackover Formation in southern Arkansas.

Trafigura said the agreement supports the development of domestic supply of a critical mineral widely used in battery manufacturing and emerging technologies.

“We are pleased to have signed this offtake agreement with Smackover Lithium, further strengthening our North American critical minerals footprint,” said Gonzalo De Olazaval, Trafigura’s head of metals and minerals.

“The SWA project is expected to provide a reliable source of battery-grade lithium carbonate produced in the United States, enhancing domestic supply chains. We look forward to collaborating with Smackover Lithium on this strategic project and delivering this material to customers across North America and globally.”

Demand-supply gap

Standard Lithium chief executive officer David Park said the agreement marks a key step as the project advances toward development.

“The execution of the offtake agreement is the culmination of months of collaboration and negotiation and represents an important step toward a final investment decision and construction,” Park said.

The agreement comes as analysts warn the lithium market could tighten sooner than expected as demand from electric vehicles and energy storage accelerates.

Wood Mackenzie research director Allan Pedersen said demand could exceed 13 million tonnes by 2050 under an accelerated energy transition scenario, more than double base-case projections, with supply deficits emerging as early as 2028 unless the industry invests up to $276 billion in new capacity.

 

California lithium company to go public in $4.7 billion SPAC deal

Reuters | March 9, 2026

Credit: Controlled Thermal Resources

California lithium and power developer Controlled Thermal Resources will go public on the Nasdaq through a $4.7 billion merger with blank-check firm Plum Acquisition Corp IV, the companies said on Monday.

The listing has been CTR’s goal since at least 2021 and is part of a plan to attract investment from US President Donald Trump’s administration.

The deal will bring in $300 million for CTR, funds that will be used to develop its Hell’s Kitchen lithium and geothermal power project, located in the Salton Sea region, roughly 160 miles (258 km) southeast of Los Angeles.

Deals by special purpose acquisition companies (SPAC) have bounced back on Wall Street after years of muted activity, with companies turning to the alternative route to list. SPACs are shell firms that raise money through an IPO to merge with a private business and take it public.

The deal is expected to close in the second half and the combined company is expected to be listed on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “CTRH.”

CTR plans to extract superhot brines from deep beneath the Salton Sea and use the heat to generate steam for electricity production. Lithium will then be extracted from the brine before being reinjected back underground using so-far unproven direct lithium extraction technology.

CTR plans to use that technology developed by privately held Aquatech, which counts private equity firm Cerberus as a minority investor.

CTR’s project, which was added to a fast-track permitting list by the Trump administration, is expected to produce 50 megawatts of power by 2028 and 25,000 metric tons per year of lithium by 2029.

Energy-intensive data centers, which are vital physical infrastructure for artificial intelligence, are driving US power demand to record highs.

CTR aims to also produce zinc, manganese and potash from the Salton Sea brine.

“We have focused on diversification. We wanted to get away from just lithium,” CEO Rod Colwell told Reuters. Colwell and his family will remain the company’s largest shareholders once the listing is complete.

CTR signed lithium supply deals with General Motors and Stellantis several years ago. Those remain in place, but the volumes for the contracts may change, Colwell said, although he declined to provide details.

CTR’s faced a lawsuit from Earthworks over concerns about water use. A state court ruled last year against the environmental group, which is appealing.

Hall Chadwick advised CTR while Cohen & Company Capital Markets was Plum IV’s adviser.

(By Arasu Kannagi Basil and Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli, Sriraj Kalluvila and Deepa Babington)

Why $100 Oil Isn’t Going to Spark a New Shale Boom

By Dan Doyle - Mar 09, 2026

• U.S. shale producers remain cautious despite oil prices surging above $100, with operators and service companies largely ignoring the war-driven rally and avoiding new drilling commitments.
• 
  
• Industry players view the current price spike as temporary, expecting prices to fall once geopolitical tensions ease unless a prolonged conflict significantly alters the global supply-demand balance.
• 
  
• Capital discipline and investor control dominate the sector, meaning extra revenue is more likely to go to shareholder distributions or hedging rather than new rigs or large drilling programs.

When oil hit $55 per barrel in late 2025, the drilling and completions side of the industry surrendered. A few months later, war breaks out in Iran, and WTI climbs past $100. That’s a marker at which meaningful drilling should occur. Yet, that’s not what I’m hearing. Rising oil prices are all over the press and inside politics, but they’re not in the conversations I’m having with E&Ps and the service side.

On Day Nine of “Epic Fury,” I was talking with a chemical supplier (I am the owner of a frac company in Appalachia and an E&P in the Powder), and the war never came up. Nor did it with another operator I was talking to, nor with our frac-side operations manager, our drill-side ops manager, our CFO, controller, landman, or our office manager. No one—that I know—is carrying on much about the recent jump in prices, let alone cheering them on. Outside of thinking we'd better hedge, the response has mostly been a few words, a few shrugs, a “let’s take it while we can,” attitude. Our collective reaction would surprise outsiders, but it seems normal to me. A muted response seems rational, even grounded, after years of enduring the whipsaw of ups and downs. It’s also normal to assume that when the war comes to an end, we will be left with a supply and demand picture that may have changed somewhat due to oil installation attacks, but maybe not enough to be supportive of a renewed push to pick up rigs that were just laid down.

Geopolitical risk is as common to drilling as is the risk of dry holes and mechanical failures. War premiums matter, for sure, but not enough to build a developmental program on. In April 2020, we got through the pandemic and an abysmal frac market, plus a storage crisis when WTI hit negative $37 per barrel. Two years later, in March 2022, oil hit a decade high of $130 when Russia invaded Ukraine. Over the next nine months, North America added 100 rigs until early 2023, when the count rolled over in a downhill trend that has yet to be broken.

Dan Doyle is the author of “Of Roughnecks & Riches: A Startup in the Great American Fracking Boom,” a firsthand account of building a company during America’s shale revolution.

Maybe if oil were touching $120, there’d be more chatter. Or more importantly, if oil were to linger in the high $70’s for months on end, we’d see it, but with empty frac schedules and stacked rigs, it’s going to take something constructive, something along the lines of certainty. The quick bucks from war will dissipate, and everyone knows it. I wouldn’t be surprised either if the Trump Administration were to cap prices, like the old days of oil and airline ticket prices.

So far, nothing has changed for us. There’s been no uptick in RFPs, nor are operators calling and asking for room on our frac schedule. It’s because even missile strikes aren’t shaking off the lethargy in oil right now. It gets like that on our service side when there’s little activity. You wait and see. You don’t burn calories. Maybe later, but not now.

My view is that two catalysts need to occur before the phone really starts ringing. One is a change in the supply-demand balance, and the second is a prolonged war, with the inevitability being that they are one and the same. That is, the only thing right now that will change the supply-demand balance is a prolonged war. But that would take time, and my guess is there won’t be much mid-term voter stomach to see a bombing campaign carry on…and on.

The extra dollars flowing in after nine days of war may just go to the completion of a few DUCs. Maybe, but the more likely outcome will be distributions to stakeholders rather than service companies. Capital providers likely aren’t going to free up allocations any time soon. The forward-looking price strip hasn’t adjusted much either.

Like many others looking for something better, I attended NAPE this year, a kind of walking marketplace where money meets prospects. My E&P company didn’t set up a booth, but a lot of friends hocking deals did. What to me was glaringly obvious was the haves-and-haves-not undercurrent among the attendees. Prospect holders were the homely kids at a high school dance—relinquished to the dusty corners of the gym. The cool kids were the ones with the money, the PE firms with those big booths stuffed full of couches and padded chairs, alongside banks, packagers, brokers, and private capital providers. And then there were those talking about family office connections, the unicorns I’m constantly hearing about, but never seeing. I’m sure deals were being made, or will be made, based on introductions and planned meetings, but what I was hearing in terms of deal structure was the Golden Rule. He or she with the gold rules. If oil were sustained at $90, the script would flip, and prospect holders would be the ones with the couches, chairs, and coffee bars. But for now, they’re not. Even with escalating oil prices, the shorts will be waiting for the last missile to drop and will immediately cut the legs out from underneath us when it does. Unless durable supply comes off through damaged oil facilities or sabotage—like the Kuwaiti oil fires set by fleeing Iraqis in the 1991 Gulf War—the market will once again find its way to pricing the marginal barrel, last said to be in the $50’s. But hopefully not. That’s too low, too much of an accelerant for the oscillating sine curve of ups and downs. It’s nothing to build a company on. The same can be said of oil in the $90’s. It’s too high. For that reason, and the Golden Rule, E&Ps will remain cautious and service companies will suffer—until market forces eat away surplus barrels on demand, and not war.

By Dan Doyle - find Dan on X: @dandoyleoil

THE EPSTEIN CLASS

Trump joins the global Jewish conspiracy

(official White House photo)

John Stoehr

March 09, 2026

COMMON DREAMS

It bears repeating that Donald Trump’s rationale for war against Iran keeps shifting because Trump himself does not believe his own rationales. The goal of this war has little to do with Iran. It has to do with creating conditions in which an old, depleted and unpopular president looks big, tough and loved on American TV.

But there may be a reason outside the president’s fear of defeat in this year’s congressional elections. While he believes that he benefits from the perception of being a war president, it looks like the decision to become one wasn’t entirely his to make.

Early reporting on the war suggested that Israel was going to attack Iran without or without Trump, and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was lobbying him to join the effort. USA Today reported yesterday that Netanyahu decided in November of last year to order a long-planned operation to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Marco Rubio confirmed that reporting on Monday: "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

Just so I have this straight in my mind: Trump did not attack Iran in order to stop it from having nukes; in order to stop it from being a global leader in state-sponsored terrorism; in order to liberate the Iranian people; or in order to manifest world peace.

No, the president launched an illegal and unjustified war with Iran because America’s ally, Israel, put him in a no-win situation in which, as one source told the Post over the weekend, “the only debate that seemed to be remaining was whether the US would launch in concert with Israel or if the US would wait until Iran retaliated on US military targets in the region and then engage.”

Trump could have condemned Netanyahu after the fact, but apparently the appeal of being a war president was too great.

If I were the commander-in-chief of the world’s mightiest military, and if I allowed a foreign head of state to lead me around by the nose, I would also come up with a couple dozen reasons for going to war with Iran, no matter how unconvincing those reasons may be, because I would be highly motivated to draw attention away from the view that I’m not entirely in charge.

I mean, Trump can’t even take credit for Khamenei’s death. Pete Hegseth told reporters the Israeli strikes killed him Saturday. The only “credit” he can claim is having followed Netanyahu’s lead.

That it appears the decision to attack Iran was Netanyahu’s more than it was Trump’s is going to be a problem, most immediately because of the outcry in the Congress. If Trump was not acting in self-defense, and clearly he was not, then this war against Iran is a war of choice, which requires the consent of the Congress. Trump is going to be forced to explain himself, thus risking being held accountable for the spike in goods and oil prices, Tuesday’s sell-off on Wall Street and general chaos in the Middle East.

(According to journalist Steve Herman, the State Department told Americans to “immediately leave 16 countries and territories: Bahrain, Egypt, Gaza, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE, West Bank and Yemen.” NBC News reported that the mandatory orders are coming despite many airports in the region being shuttered. In Qatar, Americans who can’t get out were advised that “should not rely on the US government for assisted departure or evacuation.”)

The White House’s best rationale for war seems to be that the US was forced to attack Iran, because Iran was forced to defend itself against Israel’s attack. Such a rationale is not going to fly with most of the Congress, including many maga Republicans. That’s why Trump lied Tuesday. He said Netanyahu didn’t force my hand. I forced his. According to Kaitlan Collins, he said “it was his opinion that Iran was going to attack first if the US didn't.”

For the lie to work, however, he needs the full faith of maga. He needs the base to trust him enough to play along. To do that, he must affirm his dominance. If supporters believe he’s Netanyahu’s puppet, however, such displays of dominance will seem empty and hollow to his own people, thus creating problems much bigger than abstract debates in the Congress over war powers.

To understand the problem he has created for himself, bear in mind the true nature of America First, which has been largely sanitized by the Washington press corps. It is not rooted in high-minded principles like freedom and national sovereignty. It is rooted in conspiracy theory and antisemitism, which are often provided a veneer of respectability by rightwing intellectuals and gullible reporters. Peel away the noble-sounding language, however, about nation-builders “intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” as Trump said last year, and what you find at the center of America First is an unshakeable belief in a global Jewish conspiracy against America.

This belief in a global Jewish conspiracy against America was the foundation beneath the push to release the Epstein files during Trump’s 2024 campaign. The belief took on a slightly different form, but the animus was the same. Trump was supposed to have been the hero sent by God to fulfill a prophecy to save America from a secret cabal of powerful Jews who sex-trafficked young girls to untouchable elites. In maga lore, Jeffrey Epstein came to represent this shadowy, malevolent syndicate. Once reelected, Trump was supposed to bring them all to justice. When he didn’t, he triggered a crisis of faith that can be registered in recent polling that lumps him in with the rest of the “wealthy elites” who act with impunity for the law – the so-called “Epstein class.”

The Times reported Tuesday on the growing uproar within the maga movement over the possibility that Netanyahu said “jump” and Trump asked “how high?” Some of the most invested maga personalities, men like Jack Posobiec, told the Times that divisions can be overcome and lingering doubts will only be relevant to future candidates to lead the maga movement.

If supporters believed Trump betrayed principles, Posobiec might be right, as they don’t really care about principles. Supporters could shift from anti-war to pro-war as seamlessly as Trump does. But what Posobiec is ignoring, because it’s in his interest to ignore it, is that America First is not rooted in high-minded principles. It’s rooted in Jew-hate. Supporters are not going to warm up to the appearance of an American president seeming to take orders from the leader of a Jewish state. Instead, they might see Trump doing to believers in America First what he has done to supporters who demanded the release of the Epstein files.

Again, this is why the president lied Tuesday. In an attempt to assert dominance, he said he was the one to force Netanyahu’s hand, not the other way around. That might have worked – the base might have trusted him enough to play along with the lie – but for his already established betrayal in the Epstein case. With Iran, he has now compounded maga’s crisis of faith. He must contend with the growing suspicion that instead of destroying the global Jewish conspiracy against America, he has joined it.

'Clearly there’s a coverup': Evidence mounts against Epstein’s suicide

Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein are seen in this image released by the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., U.S., on December 19, 2025. (U.S. Justice Department/Handout)

Adam Lynch 

March 09, 2026 

ALTERNET

No matter how many times President Donald Trump “starts illegal wars and engages in military strikes, it will never be enough to make people forget that he was best friends with the world’s most notorious pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein,” argued Left Hook publisher Wajahat Ali.

Ali joined forces with television producer and Epstein documentary creator Zev Shalev and Blue Amp Media editor Ellie Leonard as they discussed new information posted in the Miami Herald incriminating prison guards in covering up the alleged murder of convicted sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Both the New York Medical Examiner and the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Epstein died by suicide, but a forensic pathologist hired by Epstein’s estate to attend the autopsy, has said he Epstein’s injuries look more similar to strangulation than suicide.


However, new information from the Herald by Epstein researcher Julie K. Brown suggests prison guards discussed covering up Epstein’s death, according to FBI conversation with a fellow inmate.

“An inmate housed at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York told the FBI he overheard guards talking about covering up Jeffrey Epstein’s death on the morning he died,” reports the Herald. “The federal government’s online Epstein library contains a five-page handwritten report of an FBI interview with an inmate who awoke the morning of Aug. 10, 2019 to the loud commotion in the Special Housing Unit, or SHU, where he and Epstein were jailed.”

“… [C]learly there's a cover up. Clearly the DOJ has been covering up for the president of the United States,” said Shalev. “That is a scandal of huge, mammoth proportions. … We can't have that. We can't have a president of the United States facing allegations, multiple allegations of raping young girls and then still being a sitting president as the DOJ covers up for him. I mean, it's just unacceptable. It's untenable for any regime.”

Shalev told Ali that the circumstances under which Epstein died had far too many holes not to draw suspicion.

“How did [the guard Tova Noel] have time … to do all these searches, but then didn't have time to do the regular 30-minute checks on the prisoner that she was meant to do because she had fallen asleep? I mean, one of these things doesn't add up. Either the guards fell asleep or they were so distracted doing searches, but their job is to do regular check-ins on the prisoner, and they didn't do that. For… a whole night.”

“And then she gets this mysterious $5,000 check or whatever it is — payment that she gets. No one knows where she's from. She's just a prison guard.

The Herald reported a five-page handwritten report in the federal government’s online Epstein library, consisting of an FBI interview with an inmate who awoke the morning of Aug. 10, 2019 to a loud commotion in the Special Housing Unit where he and Epstein were held.

“Breathe! Breathe!” he recalled officers shouting about 6:30 a.m., according to the Herald, followed by an officer saying: “Dudes, you killed that dude.”

The inmate then heard a female guard reply “If he is dead, we’re going to cover it up and he’s going to have an alibi -- my officers,” according to the FBI notes. The inmate claimed the whole wing overheard the exchange.

Later, after learning Epstein had died, inmate claimed other inmates said “Miss Noel killed Jeffrey.”

“It's not common for her to get these $5,000 infusions of cash. And obviously the whole thing stinks,” said Shalev. “I mean, with the circumstantial evidence it’s hard to see how he committed suicide there. It's hard to see.”

Bombshell investigation verifies key details in 13-year-old Trump accuser's story

Alexander Willis
March 9, 2026 



Donald Trump holds a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Key details in the account of a woman who’s accused President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her when she was a minor were verified Sunday in an explosive investigation conducted by The Post and Courier.

The woman first came forward to the FBI following the 2019 arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, and was interviewed by the agency four separate times. A Justice Department source told the Miami Herald that the woman was found credible by the agency, the outlet reported.

In her interviews with the FBI, the woman accused Epstein and at least two other associates, including Trump, of sexual assault when she was 13. She accused Trump of sexually assaulting her, pulling her hair and punching her in the head sometime in the mid-1980s.

While details of her specific allegations against Trump were not further verified by The Post and Courier, other details she provided the FBI were, giving further credence to her account.

Details verified by The Post and Courier include the fact that her mother had rented a home to Epstein in South Carolina. The outlet also verified details of another associate of Epstein’s that she accused of sexually assaulting her, an Ohio businessman that she said was "affiliated with a Cincinnati-based college,” and whom the outlet confirmed was a member of a for-profit school.

The woman also accused Epstein of possessing nude photographs of her as a minor and extorting her mother for money to keep them secret, which she said led her mother to begin stealing money. The Post and Courier confirmed that the mother had been charged with stealing $22,000 from the real estate firm she worked for.

The woman’s identity was verified by The Post and Courier by cross referencing details of her account with various public records and old news clippings, though the outlet declined to name her, and both she and her attorney declined to comment on the report.

Due to the sheer volume of Epstein-related materials released by the DOJ, many of the documents contain unverified, uncorroborated allegations that do not constitute evidence, and do not establish wrongdoing. Trump is not facing any criminal charges or investigations related to the allegation.

A dark web of influence: Brexit, the hard-right and why the Epstein mentions matter

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead

7 March, 2026 

Right-Wing Watch

Left Foot Forward

If Epstein’s networks helped broker access or funding for political movements, it’s a matter of public concern. These aren’t insinuations, but a matter of accountability, and in the unresolved story of Brexit, accountability remains in short supply.

When the latest tranche of documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein was released earlier this year, much of the British reaction focused on familiar establishment names, notably Peter Mandelson and former Prince Andrew. Given the seriousness of the allegations surrounding them, that scrutiny is understandable.

But the spotlight has been too narrow.

Buried within the correspondence and contact lists are connections that reach into Britain’s hard-right networks and intersect with the political forces that drove Brexit. Yet, these connections have largely been overlooked or ignored by mainstream media.

Epstein was not merely a disgraced financier cultivating proximity to power, he was enthusiastic about Britain’s departure from the EU and celebrated the nationalist turn in Western politics.

Inclusion in Epstein’s files does not, in itself, imply wrongdoing. Yet the context of those mentions, the political projects being discussed, the money being courted, and the alliances being enriched, is a matter of public interest.

If the disclosures are to mean anything beyond lurid scandal, they must prompt a broader examination of how wealth, influence and political power intervene in modern Britain.

Brexit as “just the beginning”

Among the material are emails in which Epstein discusses Brexit with tech billionaire Peter Thiel. In one exchange, Epstein describes Britain’s vote to leave the European Union as “just the beginning,” heralding a “return to tribalism,” a “counter to globalisation,” and the forging of “amazing new alliances.”

Such remarks suggest that Brexit was viewed in certain elite circles not merely as a domestic democratic event, but as part of a broader ideological realignment across the West.

Thiel’s footprint in the UK has grown steadily in recent years. As Left Foot Forwardreported in 2022, his data analytics firm Palantir Technologies secured multiple UK government contracts during the pandemic and has undertaken extensive work with the Ministry of Defence, including a £10 million contract in March 2022 for data integration and management.

A report by Byline Times described a “Thiel network” seeking to influence debates around free speech in academia, and part of a broader effort to normalise anti-liberal ideas among British intellectuals and policymakers.

Some figures linked to these debates, including right-wing commentator Douglas Murray and a British Anglican priest and life peer Nigel Biggar, who regularly rages against ‘woke’ culture, have also been associated with initiatives such as the Free Speech Union, founded by perennial culture warrior, Toby Young.

Thiel’s influence also extends through his Thiel Fellowship programme, which has backed entrepreneurs including Christian Owens, founder of the UK payments “unicorn” Paddle.

None of this proves a coordinated “Thiel–Epstein Brexit plot,” but it does point to something subtler, and arguably more consequential. As the New World observed in an analysis about the Epstein files and the Brexit connection, “while millions voted Leave to strike back at a remote elite, parts of that same elite were calmly gaming out how the resulting disorder might be useful to them.”

That tension alone warrants scrutiny.

Nigel Farage and Steve Bannon



The Reform UK leader appears dozens of times in the Epstein files, though many references reportedly stem from duplicated email chains or attached news articles. Farage has denied ever meeting or speaking with Epstein.

Yet the context in which his name arises is important.

Steve Bannon, a former White House chief strategist to Donald Trump, described brilliantly by the New World’s Steve Anglesey as “the sweaty MAGA insider/outsider who once fancied himself a Brexit architect and dreamed of setting up a pan-European far right movement that would ultimately destroy the EU,” appears in thousands of exchanges with Epstein. In one message, Bannon boasts about his relationship with Farage. In another, he writes: “I’ve gotten pulled into the Brexit thing this morning with Nigel, Boris and Rees Mogg.”

The correspondence shows Bannon attempting to tap Epstein for support and funding to bolster far-right movements in Europe. He discussed raising money for figures such as Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini and France’s Marine Le Pen, showing the transnational nature of these networks.

Again, mention does not equal misconduct, but when a financier later exposed as a serial abuser is simultaneously being courted as a potential backer of nationalist political movements, the public is entitled to ask questions about access, influence and intent.

Tommy Robinson and the “backbone of England”

The files also contain references to UK far-right activist, Tommy Robinson.

Bannon has never shied away from sharing his support for Robinson. At the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference, when on stage with Liz Truss, he described the founder of the English Defence League as a “hero” and Truss appeared to agree with him. “That is correct,” she said.

When Robinson was released from prison in 2018, Epstein messaged Bannon: “Tommy Robinson. !! good work.” Bannon responded: “Thanks.”

In July 2019, after Epstein shared an article reporting Robinson’s contempt of court conviction for live-streaming defendants in a child sexual exploitation trial, Bannon replied by calling Robinson the “backbone of England.”

The significance here is not that Robinson appears in correspondence, but that discussions around him sit within a wider ecosystem, that is wealthy financiers, American political strategists and European nationalist figures exchanging messages about funding, media and mobilisation.

Nick Candy, Reform UK and transatlantic links

Nick Candy, luxury property mogul and now treasurer of Reform UK, is also mentioned numerous times in the files, in discussions that appear to concern the potential sale of Epstein’s New York mansion.

In 2024, Candy left the Conservative Party to join Reform. He later attended a strategy meeting at Trump’s Florida residence alongside Farage and tech billionaire Elon Musk. All three men appear within the tranche of documents released by the Department of Justice.

Some messages reference Candy in connection with Ghislaine Maxwell, though the full context of those exchanges remain partially redacted – we’ll come on to redaction shortly.

The files also reveal previously underreported contact between Musk and Epstein in 2012 and 2013, including discussions about a possible visit to Epstein’s private island. The visit does not appear to have taken place.
Like Bannon, Musk has actively involved himself in European politics. He has repeatedly got into spats with politicians including Keir Starmer.

“Civil war is inevitable” … “Britain is going full Stalin”… “The people of Britain have had enough of a tyrannical police state,” are just some of his comments on X in recent years.

And he’s used his own platform X to amplify voices on the right and far-right online, including sending a heart emoji to Tommy Robinson, who said Musk had funded his defence for a charge related to counter-terrorism law.

“A HUGE THANK YOU to @elonmusk today. Legend,” Robinson wrote.

It bears repeating, appearing in Epstein’s files does not establish criminality. Guilt by association is not journalism, nor is it justice.

But context is not smearing, it’s scrutiny. Examining who communicated with whom, how often, and in what capacity is a legitimate part of understanding how power operates.

There’s also the question of redaction. Many of the documents released have been heavily blacked out, names, photographs, email addresses and other identifying details obscured. In sensitive criminal cases, redaction is both necessary and appropriate, particularly to protect victims.

In some instances in the Epstein files, the reasons are obvious. Yet, as the Conversation has observed, “the absence of any reason for the redaction has simply added fuel to the fire, with spectators filling in the blanks themselves.” When transparency is partial and unexplained, it can deepen suspicion rather than resolve it.

The public release of the Epstein files was presented as a milestone for transparency. Instead, it has prompted further questions: about how sensitive material was handled, about the criteria used to withhold information, and about the extent of Epstein’s connections to powerful political figures, including figures on the far-right in the UK. If Epstein’s networks provided introductions, cross-border access, or even financial pathways into political movements, that is a matter of legitimate public interest.

More broadly, the scandal raises structural concerns. What channels enable wealthy outsiders to cultivate influence across government, academia and media? How rigorously are those relationships scrutinised? And what safeguards exist to ensure political outcomes are not quietly shaped by individuals whose interests diverge sharply from the public good?

These are not questions of insinuation, but of accountability, and in the unresolved story of Brexit, accountability remains in short supply.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Misogyny, Epstein and Reform’s cultural agenda

Claire Jones 

6 March, 2026

From Epstein’s web to Reform’s proposed raft of policy ideas, creeping misogyny now risks redefining women’s rights in Britain  

Pampered by the press as ‘the next government in waiting’, Reform continues to poll strongly. We’re familiar with how the party fosters racism through its hostile rhetoric and flagship immigration stance, but its ubiquitous misogyny receives less attention. A Reform win at the next general election will be partly because enough people either didn’t know, or didn’t care, about its views on females. For International Women’s Day, I’d like to explore these views through the lens of the Epstein files.

The octopus

The web of Epstein’s influence, in all its vast complexity, is now coming into full view, like a multi-armed, gigantic octopus being lifted from the seabed. We’re seeing Epstein the enabler, matchmaker, wheel-oiler, and co-ordinator extraordinaire in a multidimensional kleptocratic network of corporate, political, cultural and sexual interest.

You’d need a 3-D modeller to trace the complex inter-connections he orchestrated between climate denialists, fossil fuel industries, political lobbyists (Brexit, the Kremlin) the tech broligarchy, racists, eugenicists, Israeli intelligence, and more, all whilst supplying a deadly pipeline of women and child victims to the depraved subculture he cultivated. It’s all coalescing into one repulsive integrated whole.

Network participation is layered like an onion with peripheral involvement shading into roles that have varying degrees of knowledge and whistle blowing capacity on Epstein’s darkest activities. We may never know all the players or precisely which layers Epstein’s UK friends occupied. But only the outer layer is free of guilt by association of colluding with a monster.

Creeping patriarchy

The island of Little Saint James was the black heart of Epstein’s misogyny, but the objectification and dehumanisation of females there was driven by a culture of extreme patriarchy – the presumed superiority and dominance by males over females. Patriarchal attitudes are tightly embedded in far-right thinking and are central to viewpoints such as Christo-fascism where they fuse with Christianity, authoritarianism and white, right-wing nationalism.

This regressive ideology lurks in Project 2025, in the Christian nationalism of JD Vance, Stephen Miller and in far-right parties across central and eastern Europe. It calls for a return to a traditional Christian heterosexual, patriarchal family model in which the primary responsibilities of females are homemaking, procreation and subservience to the male family head. For ‘guidance’, listen to pastor Dale Partridge’s homily on, amongst other things, why a women’s vote must never cancel her husband’s.

Handmaids UK

Extreme patriarchy is also spreading its tentacles in the UK via organisations such as Jordan Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC). Linked to the right-wing think tank Legatum, ARC emphasises traditional gender roles and women’s duties as breeders.

Patriarchy is very much alive and kicking within Reform. Its intrepidly retrograde Christian nationalist policy creators, James Orr, Danny Kruger and Matthew Goodwin, are currently defining Reform’s cultural agenda in patriarchal terms straight from the wider Christo-fascist comfort zones they share.

Orr opposes abortion in all cases and pushes the pro-natalist policy of families having more children “to boost birth rates”. Kruger, also a keen pro-natalist, personally supports the reversal of no-fault divorce. He wants a ‘reset to sexual culture’ and challenges the rights of pregnant women to ‘absolute bodily autonomy’. Goodwin wants a “biological reality check” for girls and tax increases for childless couples.

Securing the property

Goodwin recently opined that the “sexual exploitation of women and girls is because of open borders”. This devious but false claim uses a supposed threat to females s to attack the liberal left, but arguably, also suggests unspoken proprietorship – we must ‘protect our women and girls’ to end foreign interference with our property.

In an equally stunning patriarchal vein, Farage, who endorsed Andrew Tate as an “important voice”, describes men as ‘more willing than women to sacrifice family life for career’, and objects to the 24 week abortion limit as “ludicrous”.

To enshrine women’s demotion to second class citizens, Reform has pledged to drop the 2010 Equalities Act which provides legal recourse for maternity leave, sexual assault, domestic abuse and employment discrimination. Reform also plans to ditch the ECHR thus thwarting its use by women as another court of appeal. You can hear the sound of doors closing.

All these narratives call for controls on women’s mental, physical and developmental freedom and autonomy and constitute a clear attack on women’s rights.

‘But’, the Reform curious wail, ‘we want change – migrants and Labour must be punished and removed. So, we’ll take the US route and ignore Reform’s misogyny as non-serious, or too unpopular to survive’. Left-leaning progressives join the dismissive fray, insisting that culturally, Britain has moved on from this hopelessly backward-facing misogyny.

Yet Reform is unashamedly pushing back with their patriarchal narratives. Why?

One reason is sheer manospheric arrogance combined with the belligerence of a party looking set for power – the macho ‘just try stopping us’ mindset.

Another is that Reform’s ideas are still camouflaged. ‘Resetting sexual culture’ could mean any number of abuses of women’s rights once Reform is in power, but, for now, can be trained on DEI and LGBTQ issues which reverberate with the right-wing electorate. Similarly, ‘reversing no-fault divorce’ is just Kruger’s “personal view” – for now. Farage’s abortion concerns only imply the need for minor tweaking – for now. And pro-natalism links nicely with great replacement anxieties whilst sounding mildly patriotic – heroic Brits can keep non-whites at bay by breeding more.

The ambiguity of Reform’s statements provides space for moderation whilst simultaneously positioning the party for much more full-throated future iterations of misogynist ideas. Orr’s advice that Reform should “hold its cards close to its chest” and keep certain operations under wraps before entering government reminds us that the party’s position isn’t static.

Human shields

Reform can challenge accusations of misogyny by pointing to women in its senior party roles. But this defence has no more clout than Trump trying to deny his own blatant misogyny but listing the fawning Barbie doll chatbots in his administration. Arguably, women in Reform are serving, like Reform’s non-white cabinet members, as useful pre-election human shields for a party that’s essentially riddled with racist and misogynistic elements.

The misogynist attitudes driving Reform are reason alone for women across the political spectrum to heed what supporting Reform might mean for them, and to recognise what a dangerous backward step it would be.

But we should also recognise that Reform’s misogyny sets a cultural tone of readiness for Epsteinian abuse by providing a direct pathway from regressive, patriarchal policies to sexual exploitation.

Epstein’s network reveals how the corrupting influence of power is a gateway drug for depravity. With excess power, whether as elites or via the privileges of patriarchy, players disengage from norms and stray further afield. Favours, financial rewards and the secrecy of illicit deals create useful bonds for kompromat and further corruption.

Epstein’s network is a forum for experimentation and risk taking, both financially and morally. ‘Getting away with it’ by stepping beyond legal red lines is a self-substantiating way for the patriarchal order to continually reassert control, dominance and virility. The Trump regime’s coercion of leaders and nations, like the abuses on Epstein’s island, are all ways of exercising the same male supremacist drive across different spheres. Epstein’s sex traffickers and guests parallel Trump’s sadistic geopolitical harassment of Greenland and Volodymyr Zelenskyy – ‘you will suffer (more) if you disobey’.

Life support machines

Reform policy is being forged against a transnational backdrop of extreme patriarchy. This framework is the quiet kick-off for Epstein’s darker world.

The research is clear that patriarchal conceptions of women’s role are intimately linked with sexual abuse. Patriarchal values are ingrained in power dynamics, gender hierarchy, and societal norms which drive gender-based iniquities and contribute to the perpetuation of sexual violence (Murnen et al, 2002; Spencer et al, 2023; Trottier et al, 2019).

The Epstein files are strewn with heinous crimes against females, including “sexual slavery, reproductive violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and femicide”. It’s a world in which, as Virginia Giuffre’s memoir testifies, women and children are discardable commodities and legitimacy is given to ‘those who get high on making others suffer’.

The determination of Reform’s policy setters to weaken the infrastructure underpinning women’s equality and rights over their own bodies, once realised, risks dehumanising and corralling women back into their historical dual roles of procreation and sexual pleasure. Projects like pronatalism come together with Epstein in the perception of females as essentially abusable life support machines for babies and vaginas.

I’m not, for a moment, implying that Kruger and co indulge in Epsteinean depravity. But I am asserting that he, along with Goodwin, Farage and other Reform policy creators, are re-positioning society in ways that orientate male thinking towards a future of increased sexual abuse.

Pushback vs forward movement

We should be as deeply alarmed by Reform’s misogynist elements as we are by its racist tendencies, climate denialism and attacks on workers. Women are directly affected because Reform potentially poses an acute, existential threat directly to them.

Epstein was not an aberration. Both he and Reform’s policy makers are hitching a ride with a far more ancient, long-standing misogynistic mindset spanning human history. Reform is part of a clamour across the global far right to push back against threats to white male supremacy. If Reform wins power, regressive misogyny risks being normalised again, encouraging chauvinist males to push boundaries ever further, taking advantage of new norms and tolerance levels.

The issue is not about whether parliament would retain the power of veto over the roll out of Reform’s misogynist policies. It’s about how dangerous it is even to give these ideas any traction in the first place by letting Reform win power. These are not battles that 21st century Britain, as a supposed beacon of human rights, should be having. Women must come together on International Women’s Day and beyond to halt this menace.

This article was first published on the Bearly Politics Substack on 4 March 2026