Sunday, October 26, 2025

  

Independent leftwing candidate Catherine Connolly wins Irish presidential elections

Catherine Connolly speaks after being after being elected as the new President of Ireland at Dublin Castle, Ireland, Saturday, Oct. 25, 2025.
Copyright Peter Morrison/Copyright 2025 The AP. All rights reserved.

By Euronews with AP
Published on 

Connolly, 68, is a fluent Irish speaker from Galway in the west of Ireland, and has promised to be a voice for all the people of Ireland and for peace.

Left-wing independent candidate Catherine Connolly will become the 10th president of Ireland after winning elections by a landslide victory.

Official results showed strong voter support for Connolly as president, a largely ceremonial role in Ireland. She won 63% of first-preference votes once spoiled votes were excluded, compared to 29% of her rival Heather Humphreys, of the centre-right party Fine Gael.

Connolly, 68, said Saturday evening at Dublin Castle that she would champion diversity and be a voice for peace and one that “builds on our policy of neutrality.”

“I would be an inclusive president for all of you, and I regard it as an absolute honour," she said.

Humphreys conceded she had lost earlier Saturday before vote counting had finished.

Connolly, a former barrister who has served as a lawmaker since 2016, has been outspoken in criticizing Israel over the war in Gaza. She has also warned against the European Union's growing “militarization" following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Ireland has a tradition of military neutrality, but her critics have said she risks alienating the country's allies.

Connolly will succeed Michael D. Higgins, who has been president since 2011, having served the maximum two seven-year terms. She will be Ireland’s 10th president and the third woman to hold the post.

The politician has garnered the backing of a range of left-leaning parties, including Sinn Féin, the Labour Party and the Social Democrats.

Prime Minister Micheál Martin on Saturday congratulated Connolly on her “very comprehensive election victory." He said he was looking forward to working with the new president as “Ireland continues to play a significant role on the global stage, and as we look forward to hosting the EU presidency in the second half of 2026."

Irish presidents represent the country on the world stage, host visiting heads of state and play an important constitutional role, but they do not have executive powers such as shaping laws or policies.

Nonetheless, parties on the left celebrated the results as a significant shift in Irish politics.

“We have seen a real appetite for the change that Catherine represents,” said Labour Party leader Ivana Bacik. “We believe this really does mean a new sort of politics is possible, that we can now realize the ambition that I talked about a year ago: The real prospect of a center-left-led government after the next general election.”

Counting gets under way after Friday's voting in the Irish presidential election at the RDS, Dublin, Ireland, Saturday, Oct. 25, 2025.
Counting gets under way after Friday's voting in the Irish presidential election at the RDS, Dublin, Ireland, Saturday, Oct. 25, 2025. Peter Morrison/Copyright 2025 The AP. All rights reserved.

Connolly and Humphreys were the only contenders after Jim Gavin, the candidate for Martin’s Fianna Fail party, quit the race three weeks before the election over a long-ago financial dispute.

Martin, who heads Ireland’s government, had personally backed Gavin as a presidential candidate. Though Gavin had stopped campaigning, his name remained on the ballot paper because of his late withdrawal from the race. He won 7% of first preference votes.

Others — including musician Bob Geldof and the former mixed martial arts champion Conor McGregor — had indicated they wished to run for president but failed to receive enough backing for a nomination.

The electoral commission said Saturday that there was a “significantly higher than normal” number of spoiled ballots, and that there will “clearly be a need for deeper and further reflection” about voter dissatisfaction.

Simon Harris, the deputy premier, said the spoiled ballots showed “the number of people in Ireland now who are clearly feeling disaffected or disconnected with politics." He said officials will be looking at the possibility of changing the threshold needed to secure a nomination in future presidential elections.

About 46% of the 3.6 million eligible voters turned out to vote. There were nearly 214,000 invalid ballots nationwide, representing a tenfold increase on the last presidential election in 2018.



Ireland Elects Hard-Left EU Critic Catherine Connolly As Next President

Ireland's Catherine Connolly. Photo Credit: Catherine Connolly, X

By 

By Maria Simon Arboleas


(EurActiv) — Early results from Ireland’s presidential election point to a clear victory for independent Catherine Connolly, a staunch defender of military neutrality and outspoken critic of EU policy.

Connolly, a 68-year-old barrister and member of Ireland’s parliament since 2016, is far ahead of her centre-right rival Heather Humphreys, from the governing party Fine Gael party.

With around half the votes counted, Connolly was above 60%, with Humphreys trailing at just below 30%.

The presidential role, which is mostly ceremonial, has been held by left-wing Michael D Higgins since 2011.

Connolly had the backing of several Irish left-wing parties, notable among which was Sinn Féin, which sits with The Left in the European Parliament.


Still, the two-horse presidential race has been marred by a very low turnout, with half of voters not showing up. The limited choice sparked discontent over the nomination process and led to a historically high rate of spoilt votes.

A third candidate, centrist Jim Gavin, quit the race weeks ago after reports he owed rent to a former tenant, yet his name remained on the ballot paper and still drew some votes.

The count began on Saturday morning and the final result is expected later in the evening.

Humphreys conceded in the afternoon, wishing her competitor all the best.

Prime Minister Micheál Martin was quick to congratulate Connolly. “It is clear she will be the next President of Ireland,” he posted on social media, expressing “no doubt” she would serve the country well.

Martin also pointed to Dublin’s upcoming EU presidency in the second half of 2026 and said he would cooperate with Connolly “as Ireland continues to play a significant role on the global stage.”

Meanwhile, Sinn Féin’s leader Mary Lou McDonald went further and said Connolly’s win was a victory for “equality, fairness, young people and reunification.”

A controversial, committed European

Connolly has long described the EU as neoliberal and undemocratic and has opposed Ireland’s ratification of several EU treaties.

Still, she insists that she is “a committed European”.

The president-elect mostly targets what she calls the EU’s growing militarisation, denouncing the “military-industrial complex in Germany” and even drawing parallels with the 1930s.

She said there were “many things to be worried about with Frau von der Leyen” and accused the Commissioner of standing “shoulder to shoulder” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While she “utterly condemned” Hamas as a terrorist organisation, Connolly drew criticism after saying that the group is still part of Palestinian civil society.

Asked about Russia’s war against Ukraine, Connolly called for a peace agreement and backed the EU’s sanctions against Moscow.

In her new role, Connolly will be tasked with hosting other heads of state and confirming that legislation complies with the Irish constitution.

Still, some predict her strong left-wing views on foreign policy, social justice and housing could cause friction with the conservative leaning coalition government.


Catherine Connolly wins: An historic victory for the left in Ireland

Sunday 26 October 2025, by Paul Murphy


Catherine Connolly’s resounding victory in the Presidential election in Ireland is a watershed moment. It is the first time that the left has won a majority of votes in a national election. This was not a narrow victory either; Catherine won the largest percentage and largest total vote of any Presidential candidate in history.

The combined forces of the political and media establishment threw everything they could at Connolly to try to stop the momentum behind her campaign. “Smear the bejaysus out of her”, as Ivan Yates [1] suggested, was the strategy deployed. Her trip to Syria, her employment of a Republican convicted of a gun crime, her comments in opposition to US, French and British imperialism, as well as her previous work as a barrister, were all endlessly scrutinised and picked over.

The red thread running through the majority of the smears was the fact that she is out of touch with the political and media establishment in her defence of neutrality and opposition to aligning more and more openly with NATO. While Fine Gael’s Heather Humphreys pointedly refused to criticise what she termed “our allies” and their arming of genocide, Catherine Connolly openly criticised US funding of Israeli war crimes and the drive for rearmament in Europe, to the horror of most political commentators.

Despite this, her campaign, backed by all the ‘left’ parties and a movement from below, continued to gain support in successive polls and handily beat the establishment candidate. There will be attempts to minimise the extent of the victory by pointing to the calamities that struck the establishment parties - from the dropping out of the preferred Fine Gael candidate, Mairead McGuinness, due to illness, and the dramatic withdrawal of Fianna Fáil’s candidate mid-contest, to the unconvincing media performances of Heather Humphreys. But these calamities were mostly an expression of the declining social bases of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

The fact that Fianna Fáil, the historically largest party in the state, could not find a credible candidate within its own ranks and the leadership felt compelled to go with a celebrity candidate in order to stop the corrupt former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, from being nominated, is itself instructive. That Jim Gavin was undone by a scandal of being a landlord who robbed money from a tenant was poetic justice for Fianna Fáil.

Similarly, the fact that Heather Humphreys proved to be such a poor candidate exemplifies f how deeply out of touch Fine Gael is with the majority of people. They were convinced that Humphreys would prove a popular figure with a down-to-earth manner. In practice, she appeared uncomfortable with any questioning that went beyond soundbites. Despite her previous position as a Minister, she had never been faced with much challenging questioning. Might Mairead McGuinness have been a better candidate for FG? She would have been a more capable debater, undoubtedly. But in that case, the debate would have focused more on the direction of the European Union, and her close relationship with Israel-supporting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the majority are still with Connolly.
Why did she win?

We should not forget that mainstream journalists largely missed the boat. They were busy telling us over and over how this presidential election was “dull” and “uninspiring”, while a movement was rapidly developing behind Connolly. For those who think real politics only takes place within the four walls of Leinster House, this was a boring campaign. But out in the real world, Catherine was motivating 1,500 young people to attend a fundraising gig at Vicar St., which was sold out in less than an hour, and rallies and meetings across the country were packed out on every occasion.

Much ink will now be spilt to avoid the most basic and simple conclusion: she won because the majority of people agree with her values, the values of the left, rather than those of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. A big majority support neutrality, support the right to housing, and aspire towards a more equal and just society. They’re horrified by the genocide in Gaza and want a president who is unambiguous about Palestinian freedom. Connolly’s message of a movement working to build what she termed ‘a new Republic’ resonated deeply.

Young people were the energy and vitality of the campaign. In the final Red C poll, she polled 57% amongst 18-34 year olds compared to Humphreys’ 17%. Amongst 35-54 year olds, she had 49%, and for over 55s, she was at 43%. The Irish Times interviewed 35 first-time voters, 29 were voting for Connolly, five were spoiling their vote, with only one voting for Humphreys! She also polled higher amongst women than men, and that was evident on the ground. Many in the campaign remarked on the similarities to the Repeal campaign for abortion rights - with young women as a driving force. Young people rejected the conservative parties and voted for someone who offered hope and an alternative.

The smear campaign was utterly ineffective and ultimately counterproductive for FG for a number of reasons. One is that Connolly never wavered in the face of the attacks. She didn’t give an inch and made no apologies for her criticisms of European rearmament, nor for hiring a convict. The notion that her outspokenness would work against her made no sense considering our current, much-beloved President, Michael D. Higgins, is also a critic of US imperialism and government policy. The nature of the Presidency itself also created a terrain more favourable for the left. The President’s lack of real power means people were free to vote for the progressive values they aspire to, without the establishment being able to credibly threaten dire economic implications.

Catherine’s personal qualities also came to the fore in the campaign. ‘Authentic’ was the word that many ordinary people used to describe her. All the videos of her playing with kids and adults alike, from the keepie uppies and dribbling a basketball, to clips of her dancing a ceili and playing the piano, revealed a human side to her that people found immensely appealing.

Another reason Catherine won by such a large margin is that a movement was energised around her. There is no precedent in recent history for a Presidential campaign to become a movement in this way. While Michael D. Higgins has proven to be an effective President, his 2018 campaign was actually supported by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, while he won in 2011 as a result of the collapse of support for Sean Gallagher after the final debate. The closest is the victory of Mary Robinson in 1990, backed by a coalition of Labour, the Workers Party and the Greens.

This was an insurgent, oppositional campaign organised by capable activists from the independent and party left. Over 15,000 people volunteered - the vast majority of whom were not members of any political party. Over half of those donated or became active in the campaign. This energy, combined with smart digital organising and social media messaging, meant that the Connolly campaign was far more effective than the Fine Gael campaign at meeting and discussing with voters. In every constituency, there was a significant amount of organised canvassing, on a level for a Presidential election that certainly hasn’t been seen in decades.
Spoil the vote?

With the ultra-conservative Catholic right narrowly failing to get sufficient nominations from TDs or Senators to get on the ballot paper, the far-right ran an active ‘Spoil The Vote’ campaign. This is again a first for Irish politics.

The over 12% they scored in spoils is another warning - the far-right have their claws and influence in working class communities. Yet, experience of canvassing more hard-pressed working class areas proves that this is not a lost battle, but one to be engaged with. Most of those considering spoiling their ballot were open to being convinced that the best protest was to defeat the political establishment. Deep community organising and trying to mobilise people in action on issues like the cost of living crisis will be essential in order not to cede these communities to the far-right.

Although the far-right wasn’t directly on the ballot, their rise and the increase in racist attacks and reactionary sentiment were undoubtedly a factor in the campaign. Many rightly saw supporting Connolly as a way of opposing the rightward political turn, which Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have both leaned into. Her victory is part of a counter-current to the rise of the far-right.

Connolly also stood out as a long-time campaigner for investment in the Gaeltacht and support for the Irish language. That she learned to speak fluent Irish well into her 40s underscored her commitment to the language and Gaeltacht communities. So, we should see her campaign as part of a new revival of the Irish language, seen in the popularity of Kneecap and other artists. This is part of forming a progressive identity of what it is to be Irish today, relating to our anti-colonial history, and in opposition to the narrow white nationalism of the far-right, who misuse the tricolour.
Socialist left - a key backbone of the campaign

The socialist left, in particular People Before Profit and independent left activists, were a crucial part of the Connolly campaign. Many of the key activists playing central roles nationally were veterans of previous successful left-led campaigns.

The decision of People Before Profit to throw itself into this campaign, despite the limitations of the position of Presidency, was vindicated by the dynamism of the campaign, the result and the opportunities that open up now. While the level of activism on the ground was less than what might have been possible with a longer campaign, it nonetheless represents a crucial victory after a challenging general election and opens new opportunities.

Independent activists who may have been previously sceptical about PBP have noted the constructive and non-sectarian approach taken by PBP. They should consider joining PBP to work together to build it into a mass pluralist and ecosocialist party.

Those sections of the socialist left who gave grudging endorsements for Catherine while criticising PBP’s engagement in the campaign will hopefully reflect on what happened and what they stood aside from. A left-right polarisation took place, and the left won. Thousands of new activists were mobilised for the first time and gained organising experience. Momentum that had slipped to the right has been regained by the left.
Other parties in the Connolly camp

The Connolly campaign also had a dynamic within the other parties that supported her. The Social Democrats were with PBP from the beginning in supporting Catherine Connolly. They helped to create a momentum amongst the left, which effectively left Labour and the Greens with a choice between supporting Connolly or not having any candidate. Social Democrat party members enthusiastically engaged at a local and national level.

Sinn Féin came on board the campaign relatively late, after considering running its own candidate. They qualitatively added to the campaign at a central and local level, working constructively, while also using it as an opportunity to re-popularise Mary Lou McDonald as a future alternative Taoiseach. This was the first serious attempt to implement the strategy of a “progressive left republican bloc which respects the independence and autonomy of cooperating political parties”, first floated after the last general election by the Sinn Féin national chairperson, Declan Kearney.

By any standard, it has been a success, not just with the victory of Catherine Connolly, but with a 5% jump in the polls for Sinn Féin. Working with others has proven effective at boosting support for SF. For Sinn Féin members and the leadership, the key question is whether they are now willing to rule out coalition with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and put all their energy into a campaign for a left government.

For the Labour Party and the Greens, Connolly’s campaign was polarising. It exposed and undermined their most right-wing sections. Former Labour leader Alan Kelly was wheeled out almost weekly by the media to declare his opposition to Catherine Connolly and his support for Fine Gael. The media reported wider disquiet amongst the parliamentary party, although it did not publicly materialise. With Connolly having won so decisively, Kelly’s position is now weakened.

The same happened in the Green Party, with former TD Brian Leddin, resigning from the party in opposition to supporting Catherine Connolly, mostly it seems because of her opposition to war and imperialism. A smattering of others followed him out the door.

The diminishing of opposition to left co-operation in Labour and the Greens should make it easier for their leaderships to pursue this further if they wish. A major obstacle there, though, is that up until now, the progressive alliance proposed by both Labour and the Greens (overwhelmingly directed at the Social Democrats) has been to maximise the negotiating leverage of these parties in a future coalition with either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. That is not what those involved in the Connolly campaign are looking for - they rightly want to clear FF and FG out.
What next?

For the thousands of people who actively engaged in the Catherine Connolly campaign and for many more who passively supported it, the big question is: what next? Nobody believes that winning the Presidency is enough to change the country, given the very limited powers associated with it. Catherine Connolly will represent our values in the Presidency well and will prove to be a thorn in the side of the political establishment. Undoubtedly, the columns from commentators tut-tutting about the President overstepping the limits of the role, which became so common under Michael D. Higgins, will continue.

But people understand that to effect the change we need, we need to win much more than the Presidency. The big lesson is that if the left unites and seeks to mobilise people, it can win. The dynamic of unity can create confidence and enthuse others to get involved. The question of a Left government once again comes increasingly centre stage.

However, any attempt to develop an initiative which focuses only on the next general election is doomed to failure by allowing the energy and activism to dissipate. Playing the role of responsible government in waiting between 2020 and 2024 proved calamitous for Sinn Féin,

People who are suffering under the impact of repeated hikes in energy and grocery prices cannot wait. Those who are facing eviction or massive rent hikes under the government’s new plans cannot wait. Those who want meaningful action for Palestine and defence of our neutrality cannot wait. Joint initiatives must be organised, together with unions and social movements - to defend the Triple Lock; to demand the full implementation of the Occupied Territories Bill before Christmas; to end the cost of living crisis through price controls and an end to profiteering; and to implement an eviction ban alongside meaningful rent controls and public house building.

However, defensive struggles alone are insufficient. We need to raise people’s sights for the possibility of a Left government for the first time in the history of the state. People Before Profit is proposing to other parties and individuals the organisation of a major conference of the Left in the New Year to discuss how left co-operation can be deepened with a view to presenting a clear choice in the next general election: Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and those who would prop them up, versus a Left government.

All of this poses complicated questions to the socialist left. We understand that the capitalist system, where profit dominates, simply cannot deliver what people demand and need - the right to a home and a good life, a world without war and oppression, the right to a sustainable and liveable future for our children. We therefore will only enter a government that commits to a people-power strategy of mobilising from below to overcome the opposition of the powerful capitalist class and deliver ecosocialist change. That is far from the programme of the other major parties supporting Connolly.

Nonetheless, we actively want the rule of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to end. We want a left government, even on a programme far weaker than the ecosocialist one we would advocate. We want this government and the approach of reforming capitalism to be tested before the masses. We are therefore open to participating in this dynamic towards a left government, including committing to vote to allow this government to be formed, despite the very significant limitations of the likely programme. The key condition for us is that we retain our right to independence, to put forward our own ecosocialist position, and continue strengthening our connections with communities to mobilise the power of people from below.

In 1843, Karl Marx provided useful guidance for socialists approaching complicated situations:

”we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.”

Significant numbers of people are now anxious to take the next steps after the Connolly campaign to work towards getting rid of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and electing a left government. We should be right there, alongside them, organising and taking steps together, while using it as an opportunity to win people to the argument put forward by James Connolly in 1897:

“If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain.”

To win a truly new Republic, it will not be enough to replace the government or even to write a new Constitution. A socialist Republic with working people and the oppressed in power is needed.

25 October 2025

Source: Rupture.


Attached documentscatherine-connolly-wins-an-historic-victory-for-the-left-in_a9234.pdf (PDF - 929.5 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9234]

Footnotes


[1] Former Fine Gael MP, now a political commentator.



Paul Murphy is a member of RISE in Ireland. He was re-elected to the Irish parliament in 2019, having been first elected in 2014. He was previously an MEP for the Socialist Party (2011-14).



International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.


A President for all of Ireland – the Irish left finally unites

As the left in Ireland unites to support Catherine Connolly’s campaign for the Irish presidency, we reproduce Joseph Healy’s report at Anti-capitalist Resistance.

Some weeks ago, I went to a Zoom call organised by RISE and People Before Profit, an Irish left-wing political party. I was the only one on the call not in Ireland, but did introduce myself as a member of the large Irish diaspora, many of whom were forced to leave the country over the last 5 decades because of the actions of the Fianna Fail-Fine Gael duopoly who have ruled Ireland for the last century. The meeting was called about the Irish presidential election and the support of several Left parties for the radical candidate, Catherine Connolly.

Much was made of the fact that the President, while being the head of state, does not hold much political power but the fact remains that the outgoing President, the leftwing poet, Michael D Higgins (who is hugely popular and has served two seven year terms) became an outspoken critic of Israel and a critical voice on the government’s disastrous housing policy. Higgins has been attacked on a number of occasions by the press allied with the government parties, proving himself a real thorn in their side. The meeting made the point that for them, the central issue was Irish neutrality, which is being heavily debated at present and that Connolly is the Pro Neutrality candidate. This is in the light of the government’s desperate efforts to push Ireland away from its traditional stance of neutrality to being closer to NATO and possible future involvement in the war in Ukraine.

I raised the issue at the meeting about what would happen if Sinn Féin (the largest Leftwing party) put forward a candidate, thus splitting the Left vote. The People Before Profit T.D (MP) Paul Murphy, who was chairing the meeting, suggested that this would be no major threat to Connolly’s chances as it was a PR election and there would be transfers between the two. Connolly had been backed by most of the parties of the Left apart from People Before Profit – the Social Democrats, the Irish Labour Party and later the Greens. The other main argument at the meeting was that Connolly winning the presidency would be a major victory for the Left and one in the eye for the right-wing Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael government and a stepping stone towards the Left winning the next general election. I also raised the fact that many Irish citizens (those living in the North of Ireland and abroad) are disenfranchised in this election and that the Irish government had promised after the last presidential election (7 years ago) that it would be the last election where these groups would be excluded.

Government candidates

Shortly after this, the two government parties selected their candidates. Fine Gael chose the experienced politician and ex minister, Heather Humphries, about whom more later. Fianna Fail went for the populist choice of Jim Gavin, the former manager of the Dublin Gaelic football team and someone with no political background whatsoever. He has already shown himself to be out of his depth in the first presidential debate but unsurprisingly is ahead in the polls among older men, many of whom have an abiding interest in football. Gavin was also an air force officer and thus carries a macho aura as a sports figure and soldier.

Humphreys hails from the border county of Monaghan and is unusual in being a Protestant. However, two Irish presidents, including the first President (Douglas Hyde) were Protestants and it has never been an issue. Much more problematic is her role in the earlier Fine Gael government, where she pushed for a very harsh policy on benefits for disabled people, which became very controversial.

The proposals in the green paper included a tiered allowance which would link the level of payments to a determination on capacity to work and the nature of the disability. Disability activists said the plans were a “degrading and humiliating” value judgment that would give the impression that some people were falsifying the extent of their impairment or illness. Her Green Paper on disability benefits was described as a “cut and paste” of a “very discredited austerity measure” in the UK called the workplace capacity assessment.

These are the calibre of candidates which the government parties are putting up against Catherine Connolly.

Radical change

The situation changed radically last week in Connolly’s favour when Sinn Féin announced that instead of standing a candidate themselves, which they have usually done, they were giving their full support to Connolly. This was further enhanced last weekend when she appeared at a Sinn Féin conference to rapturous applause and stated that she had always supported a united Ireland. So, for the first time in decades, the entire Irish Left is united behind one candidate, and this has transformed the election. It has also led to a bitter attack on Connolly by the government-aligned press and much of the Irish media, particularly on the issue of Palestine.

Connolly has a long political pedigree, having originally been a Labour TD for Galway but later standing as an Independent. For this and several other reasons, she is despised by the right-wing section of the Labour Party, who were outvoted in giving her the party’s backing. Connolly held the position of Leas Ceann Comhairle (Deputy Speaker) of the Dáil, a position which earned her a lot of respect. She is also unique in being the only candidate who speaks fluent Irish. This could become significant in the election campaign with a strong and growing Irish language movement, and as the Irish historian Diarmaid Ferriter recently pointed out, the President is expected to carry out some duties in the Irish language, which is the official first language of the state and to have a good knowledge of it. Connolly uses this to her advantage, often beginning and ending her speeches in Irish and used it effectively in the first presidential debate with the other candidates, where they were left looking speechless!

The nomination process for candidates in the Irish presidential election is quite Byzantine and means that a candidate must either be nominated by a select number of TDs or by several local authorities. With the government parties controlling most local authorities, it has proven impossible for any independent candidates (other than Connolly) to stand this time, and this election has the smallest number of candidates (three) in many years of presidential elections. The Far Right had hoped that Conor McGregor, the Irish boxer and Trump adjacent pub owner, would be their candidate, but he failed to get nominated. Another ultra-conservative candidate also failed to be nominated.

Polls

Opinion polls suggest that at present Humphreys is the favourite, but Connolly leads among youth and many women. There is a feeling that the supporters of the Far Right may well abstain in this election, though they are a relatively small demographic. The main attacks on Connolly so far have been over Gaza and, in particular, her criticism of Starmer’s view that Hamas can play no role in the governing of Gaza. Connolly, quite rightly, stated that it was not the right of a British Prime Minister or anyone else to tell a colonised people who should be their government. The right-wing media and government parties predictably, in tones of shock and horror, accused her of being a Hamas apologist, but she stood her ground. In Ireland, where the Israeli embassy closed because of the pro-Palestine stance of the Irish people and identification with a group who are also victims of British imperialism, this may well stand Connolly in good stead.

Connolly has already performed well in the first televised debate, but political minefields lie ahead, particularly her defence of Irish neutrality, where the war in Ukraine will be used against her and the government candidates will likely argue for more involvement with NATO. This is particularly likely to come from Gavin with his military background. However, with a young, enthusiastic team of supporters and the combined forces of Sinn Féin, PBP and other parties, she stands a good chance of upsetting the applecart and following in the footsteps of poet politician Michael D Higgins.

A victory for Connolly would be a huge shot in the arm for the parties of the Left and progressive forces in Ireland. She is also likely to be the Irish President who would argue most forcefully for the ending of partition and the reunification, after a century of British occupation, of Ireland.



Local resistance to corporate takeover in London'



OCTOBER 19, 2025

Mike Phipps reviews Neoliberalism and Urban Regeneration: London’s Communities Finding a Voice and Fighting Back, by Roger Green and Keith Popple, published by Bristol University Press.

“For far too long urban communities and neighbourhoods have been reimagined by corporate power,” write the authors in the Introduction of this book. This has “brought into sharp relief the city as a commodity where class, power and politics are interwoven to dominate the urban landscape.”

The pattern is predictable: massive office blocks and high-density housing that is unaffordable to most people – lucrative for the developers, dismal for the community.

The impact of global neoliberalism on London has been to exile not just the poorest, but substantial sections of the middle class to the outer suburbs, while large swathes of inner London are increasingly the preserve of the super-wealthiest, with little evidence of any ‘trickle-down effect’. One third of Central London’s luxury flats are bought by overseas buyers.

The influence of foreign money is felt in other ways. Evgeny Lebedev, whose fortune derives from his father, a Russian banker and former senior KGB officer, used his London newspaper, the Evening Standard, to promote Boris Johnson’s bid to become Mayor in 2008. One of the Mayor’s powers is to override local authorities who are holding up planning applications, often on grounds that they don’t serve local interests.

The alliance between local politicians and corporate developers has seen the displacement of long-standing diverse communities and genuinely affordable rented social housing being absent from new developments. To minimise local opposition, running down housing estates is often the precursor to their destruction: tens of thousands of council homes have been lost in the name of regeneration. The needs of children in particular are being sidelined in the quest for profitable development.

This key case study of this book is Deptford, a diverse working class area of Southeast London, where most people live in rented accommodation, with nearly 50% in council housing. Despite local misgivings, Mayor Boris Johnson approved a commercial development of luxury flats. It was the start of an aggressive period of gentrification, which began squeezing out the local community.

Resisting this was the Voice4Deptford campaign, the central case study of the book. The group mobilised in the local community to push for an alternative vision to that of the developers. After eleven years of campaigning, it has had a significant impact, while also exposing the limitations of local democracy in the face of global capitalism.

There is a long history of local resistance to corporate development in poorer parts of London. One of the better known is the Coin Street Action Group in Waterloo, which  successfully fought off plans to build to build hotels and office blocks on a Thames-side site over a number of years. In the 1980s, the Group bought and redeveloped a 13-acre site as a community amenity, with a housing cooperative and a range of facilities. But there have been many other campaigns, discussed here, united by their common goals of resisting social cleansing and corporate takeover.

There are a lot of suggestions here about how to organise in your community against the anti-social side of capitalism. You might be left wondering, however, what local government is for. All over London – and beyond – Labour councils, elected with the votes of working class communities they are supposed to serve, collude with developers to displace them. This contempt for democratic accountability has to be challenged inside the Party at all levels.


Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.

Brexit will harm UK economy ‘for the foreseeable future’, says Bank of England chief
20 October, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

'The answer is that for the foreseeable future it is negative.'



In yet more evidence of the harmful impact of Brexit, the head of the Bank of England has warned that the decision to leave the EU will damage the UK economy “for the foreseeable future”.

In a speech in Washington on Saturday, Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey said “making an economy less open restricts growth over the long term”.

He said: “For nearly a decade, I have been very careful to say that I take no position per se on Brexit, which was a decision by the people of the UK, and it is our job as public officials to implement it.

“But, I quite often get asked a second question: what’s the impact on economic growth? And as a public official, I have to answer that question.

“And the answer is that for the foreseeable future it is negative.”

He went on to add that over the longer term “there will be – because trade adjusts – some at least partial rebalancing”, saying: “Making an economy less open restricts growth over the long term.”

His comments come after Chancellor Rachel Reeves last week acknowledged the disastrous economic impact Brexit has had on the UK economy, ahead of the budget next month.

Reeves said that Brexit is partly to blame for the estimated £50bn blackhole in the economy that she is likely going to have to address at her autumn budget.

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

 The Race to Recycle Renewable Energy

  • Massive waste from old wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries threatens the green transition’s sustainability goals.

  • Companies are developing innovative recycling solutions, from reusing turbine blades to recovering metals from old solar panels and batteries.

  • Expanding recycling capacity and enforcing stronger waste regulations are vital to creating a circular, low-carbon energy economy.

With the renewable energy sector growing rapidly on a global scale, as many governments pursue a green transition, the need to recycle more components has become evident. Finding innovative ways to recycle renewable energy equipment could help significantly cut costs and reduce waste, further supporting the sector’s green ambitions. There is great potential for a range of components to be reused and recycled, from solar panels to wind turbines and electric vehicle (EV) batteries. However, greater research and investment must be contributed to the sector to improve practices and make recycling options more accessible.  As interest and investment in renewable energy increase, we are seeing more technological advancements across the sector. Wind turbines have become bigger and more powerful, while solar panels have been getting cheaper and more efficient. This means that old technologies are becoming outdated more quickly, leading to their replacement. Once a renewable energy component reaches the end of its lifecycle, it is normally removed and replaced by something bigger, stronger, and better. What is done with these old components varies massively from country to country. 

Often, old turbine blades or photovoltaic (PV) panels are stockpiled for long periods of time as companies decide what to do with them. Waste from the renewable energy sector is significant, with Europe expected to dismantle around 14,000 wind turbines by the end of the decade. This would result in between 40,000 and 60,000 tonnes of blade waste, according to WindEurope. Meanwhile, in the United States, wind turbine blade waste could reach anywhere between 200,000 to 370,000 tonnes a year by 2050. 

Greater innovation in recycling could help reduce waste and cut costs by putting old components to good use. However, recycling old renewable energy parts is not always so simple. Steel and other materials that can be easily recycled account for around 85 to 90 percent of the makeup of a wind turbine, but the glass fibre or carbon fibre blades are much more complicated to recycle. The difficulties in recycling have not put operators off, with more innovative solutions being seen year on year. In a bid to become more sustainable, after years of discarding old blades and other components, several wind firms have pledged to invest in recycling operations to prevent old components from going to landfill. 

In Scotland, old blades from the Hagshaw Hill windfarm are being recycled to provide a hybrid polymer to be used to produce precast concrete alternatives or replace virgin plastics. Meanwhile, Spanish energy firm Iberdrola aims to transform 10,000 tonnes of blade waste annually at its blade recycling facility on the Iberian Peninsula. It will use glass fibres and resins from the turbines to produce new blades to be used across a range of sectors, from aerospace to construction. 

Related: Spain’s Clean Energy Dilemma

In the solar energy sector, various innovations are being seen. For example, in Brisbane, Australia, solar panels are being transformed into silver and copper. Operators are removing aluminium and wires from PVs that can no longer produce energy to grind them up into plastic, glass, silicon, silver, and copper. Pan Pacific Recycling is now processing around 30,000 panels a year and hopes to eventually increase its annual capacity to 240,000 panels

Global solar panel waste is currently far higher than the recycling capacity for this waste, meaning that greater investment is needed in the sector to expand capacity and improve sustainability by preventing old solar panels from going to landfill. In addition, experts suggest that many of the solar panels being replaced with more efficient models are still capable of producing energy and could be reused in a different context rather than discarded. Several startups, such as Australian Second Life Solar, are working to encourage the reuse of old solar panels in alternative settings to provide clean energy and prevent unnecessary waste. 

Some of the greatest advancements have been seen in EV battery recycling, as companies worldwide strive to improve their critical mineral supply chains. The lithium supply used for EV battery production is finite, meaning that once supplies are depleted, we will no longer be able to produce this type of battery. However, extracting the lithium from old EV batteries could allow EV makers to reuse the critical mineral, rather than relying wholly on mining projects for their lithium supply. Other minerals that can be extracted from these batteries include nickel, cobalt, and graphite. 

Various companies from different regions of the world are now investing in expanding and improving recycling practices, although the industry’s recycling capacity still falls far behind the production of new wind turbine blades and solar panels, suggesting that greater funding is needed to accelerate the global component recycling capacity. In addition, governments could encourage companies to invest in recycling activities by introducing stricter rules and regulations on renewable energy waste, thereby helping the industry to become more sustainable. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com


Can U.S. Hydropower Compete in a New Energy Era?

  • Over 450 U.S. hydro plants need relicensing within a decade, demanding billions in upgrades to meet environmental and safety standards.

  • Falling costs of gas, wind, and solar power are undercutting hydropower’s competitiveness despite its reliability.

  • New federal incentives and major private deals, such as Google’s $3 billion partnership with Brookfield, could help rejuvenate the aging sector.

The United States has long used hydropower, which is now the country’s largest source of renewable energy, for electricity production. Hydropower contributed 27 percent of total U.S. utility-scale renewable electricity generation and 5.86 percent of total utility-scale electricity production in 2024. The U.S. first started developing its hydropower fleet in the late 1800s, long before other renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. 

Hydropower plants produce electricity using the elevation difference created by a dam or diversion structure. Water flows in one side and exits at a lower point, spinning a turbine, which runs a generator to produce electricity. However, of the more than 90,000 dams in the United States, fewer than 3 percent produce power, with the others being used for recreation, farm ponds, flood control, water supply, and irrigation.

While there is huge potential for hydropower in the United States, many of the existing facilities are getting older and more expensive to maintain. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that was launched under the Biden administration provides $753.6 million to the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) for hydropower, but significantly more funding would be required to expand rather than solely maintain the country’s hydropower capacity.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects hydropower generation to rise by 7.5 percent in 2025, after falling by 241 billion kilowatt-hours (BkWh) in 2024, to its lowest generation since 2010. Generation is expected to reach 259.1 BkWh this year, to contribute around 6 percent of U.S. electricity production. Approximately half of the hydropower generating capacity in the U.S. is in the western states of Washington, Oregon, and California.

Energy experts suggest that now may be a make-or-break moment for hydropower, as several existing facilities require high quantities of funding to extend their lifespans. Almost 450 hydroelectric plants, which contribute over 16 GW of electricity in total, are due to be relicensed across the U.S. over the next 10 years. This accounts for around 40 percent of non-federal hydropower.

However, the introduction of stricter requirements will require millions of dollars to be spent on upgrades to qualify for a new operating permit for existing facilities, which is forcing many companies to close operations. Many of these plants have been providing vast quantities of stable, clean electricity for decades. However, the falling costs associated with natural gas, wind, and solar power have made it increasingly difficult for hydropower to compete.

Most dams in the U.S. have an average age of 65 years, meaning they were built without the same consideration for the environment that is now expected for hydropower development. Upgrading old facilities to enable the unobstructed passage for fish and other wildlife, as well as meeting other environmental standards, would be extremely expensive for operators. In addition, many of these facilities require significant investment to fix or replace turbines and other hardware that have atrophied over time.

Another barrier to relicensing is the lack of clear oversight for the sector. No single agency has full authority over hydropower. This can make the bureaucratic process for a new license extremely complex, as various agencies may have different standards and expectations for operators. At present, it takes an average of eight years to relicense an existing hydropower facility, which is far longer than for other energy sources.

In January, the Biden administration’s Treasury Department expanded a renewable energy rule to include hydropower, which treats facilities as new if operators reinvest a minimum of 80 percent of the facility’s market value into infrastructure upgrades, making them eligible for larger federal write-offs. Only one hydropower facility has used the federal investment tax credit to date, as, until recently, there was a lack of clear guidance on how to apply the tax credit.

While President Trump has been highly critical of many renewable energy sources, hydropower is one of the few clean energies that Trump appears to support. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act preserves the sector’s access to key federal tax credits for the next eight years, which could help reassure investors.

There have been some positive signs for the hydropower sector in recent months, with the signing of a $3 billion hydropower deal between Google and Brookfield Asset Management in July. Google hopes the project will provide up to 3 GW of hydropower for its data centres. The move includes 20-year power purchase agreements for two hydropower facilities in Pennsylvania. The two sites are expected to be upgraded and relicensed as part of the arrangement, and Google aims to eventually expand the deal beyond the two initial sites to other parts of the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, the company said.

“This collaboration with Brookfield is a significant step forward, ensuring clean energy supply in the PJM region where we operate,” Google’s head of data centre energy, Amanda Peterson Corio, said in a statement.

To enable hydropower plants to continue providing a significant proportion of the United States’ clean electricity, significant funding must be contributed to the sector to make facilities eligible for relicensing. Many plants require millions of dollars in upgrades, which most operators simply cannot afford. Meanwhile, the falling cost of gas, solar, and wind power has made hydropower less competitive in recent years, despite its long history in the U.S. and significant contribution to the country’s clean energy mix. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

 

Column: Critical minerals, decarbonization and government de-risking dominate mining wish list


Stock image.

Critical minerals, and especially rare earths, as well as the ongoing need to decarbonize and a bigger role for governments are the three top areas of concern for the global mining industry.

Those are the key takeaways from this week’s IMARC event in Sydney, which brings together more than 10,000 industry participants in what is one of the world’s biggest mining conferences.

Events such as IMARC are useful for companies to network and generate business deals, but they also provide platforms for participants, ranging from miners to buyers to governments and suppliers, to express their concerns and where they see the industry heading.

Three broad themes emerged from this year’s event.

1. Critical minerals and rare earths are the main buzz

Part of IMARC’s huge convention floor is given over to what resembles a farmer’s market, but instead of selling organic vegetables and artisan cheese, the stalls are touting mining projects.

The companies represented at the booths tend to be junior explorers seeking to raise capital from investors in order to advance their projects.

This year’s event was dominated by companies developing critical mineral mines, with several rare earths projects, as well as some speciality minerals and more conventional energy transition metals such as lithium.

The investor marketplace is a good indicator of where the hot money is going chasing the next big thing in mining.

Some five years ago, gold was the flavour of IMARC, while about 10 years ago it was battery metals such as cobalt, nickel and lithium.

While not all of the projects on display will progress to actual mines, some will and this means that supply outside of China of these critical minerals is likely to increase in coming years.

2. Decarbonization still matters, but must make economic sense.

A major theme of the extensive agenda of presentations and panels at IMARC was the imperative to decarbonize mining operations.

In some ways this may be seen as a bit of a surprise given the return to power of climate change denier Donald Trump in the United States, and the rising influence of far-right parties in some European countries.

Indeed, one panelist who is a director of a junior mining company said many companies that he was aware of had scaled back their decarbonization efforts to just the bare minimum required by law.

But that wasn’t the common position, with most mining companies keen to promote green credentials and what they are doing to transition operations to net-zero carbon emissions.

However, there was also a shift in emphasis, with mining service companies working in the decarbonization space emphasizing the main benefit of switching is lower operational costs, with the reduction in emissions a welcome side benefit.

This focus on cost-savings may actually work in favour of accelerating decarbonization, as there isn’t a miner out there that doesn’t want to save money.

3. Governments have a major role to play in mining

IMARC started this week just hours after Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed an agreement to provide investment in critical mineral mining and processing.

The deal will see up to $8.5 billion invested in a variety of projects to boost the supply of critical minerals, with a common theme of reducing reliance on China’s dominance of the sector.

In effect, what the two governments are doing is de-risking investment in the mining supply chain, and while the agreement was widely welcomed at IMARC, the view was very much that this is a first step and much more needs to be done.

Building a supply chain outside China will be expensive and the refined metals produced are likely to be more costly than what can be sourced from China.

The basic question that Western governments and companies that use these metals have to answer is how much are they prepared to pay for a supply chain outside of Beijing’s influence?

How that question is answered is likely to shape the future of investment in mining and processing in coming years.

A final thought from IMARC is sometimes what is not in evidence is as important as what is visible.

Notable for their absence this year were anti-mining environmental protests. In past years IMARC has attracted noisy but peaceful demonstrations by activists opposed to the industry.

Their absence this year is being taken as a sign that environmentalists have recognized that the energy transition depends on mining, and that bogeyman status has now been transferred to the oil and gas industry.

(The views expressed here are those of the author, Clyde Russell, a columnist for Reuters.)

(Editing by Lincoln Feast)

Global race for rare earths comes to Kenya’s Mrima Hill


By AFP
October 25, 2025


Locals are divided on how to benefit from interest in Mrima Hill's minerals
 - Copyright AFP Jim WATSON


Mary KULUNDU

Division and suspicion have gripped five villages near Kenya’s coast as global powers from the United States to China eye a forest that is rich in rare earths — minerals vital to high-tech and low-carbon industries.

The US government under President Donald Trump has made securing critical minerals central to its diplomacy in Africa, including through a peace deal in the resource-rich Democratic Republic of Congo this year.

Mrima Hill — a forest of around 390 acres near Kenya’s Indian Ocean coastline — could be another target.

It sits quietly on huge rare-earth deposits that Cortec Mining Kenya, a subsidiary of UK and Canada-based Pacific Wildcat Resources, estimated in 2013 were worth $62.4 billion, including large stores of niobium, used to strengthen steel.

US official Marc Dillard visited the hill in June when he was serving as the interim ambassador to Kenya.

Other foreigners also attempted to visit in recent months, including Chinese nationals who were turned away, according to Juma Koja, a guard for the Mrima Hill community.

An Australian consortium of mining firms RareX and Iluka Resources announced a bid this year to mine rare earths on the site, and locals say land speculators are flocking to the area.

– Buried riches –

The interest is worrying the community, mostly of the Digo ethnic group, who fear they will be evicted or denied a share in future mining windfalls.

The lush forest is home to their sacred shrines and has long supported farming and livelihoods, though today more than half the population lives in extreme poverty, according to government data.

AFP was initially barred access to the forest.

“People come here with big cars… but we turn them away,” said Koja.

His stance stems from past encounters with prospective investors — a process he says was not transparent.

“I do not want my people to be exploited,” he said.

Kenya revoked a mining licence in 2013 that had been granted to Cortec Mining Kenya, citing environmental and licensing irregularities.

Cortec claimed in court that the licence was revoked after it refused to pay a bribe to then–mining minister Najib Balala, an allegation he denied. The company lost multiple legal efforts over the revocation.

In 2019, Kenya imposed a temporary ban on new mining licences over concerns about corruption and environmental degradation.

But it now sees a major opportunity, particularly as China — the biggest source of rare earths — increasingly limits its exports.

Kenya’s mining ministry announced “bold reforms” this year, including tax breaks and improved licensing transparency, aimed at attracting investors and boosting the sector from 0.8 percent of GDP to 10 percent by 2030.

Daniel Weru Ichang’i, a retired economic geology professor at the University of Nairobi, said Kenya had a long way to go, especially in gathering reliable data on its resources.

“There’s a romantic view that mining is an easy area, and one can get rich quickly… We need to sober up,” he told AFP.

“Corruption makes this area, which is very high-risk, less attractive to invest in.”

Competition between the West and China is driving up prices, but if the country wants to profit, it “must stick to the law, and individual interests must be subjugated to that of the nation,” he said.

– ‘Mrima is our life’ –

On Mrima Hill, locals worry for their livelihoods, sacred shrines, medicinal plants, and the forest they have known all their lives.

“This Mrima is our life… Where will we be taken?” said Mohammed Riko, 64, vice chairman of the Mrima Hill Community Forest Association.

Koja is concerned about the loss of unique indigenous trees like the giant orchid, already a problem before mining has even started.

“In my heart I am crying. This Mrima has endangered species that we are losing,” he said.

But others, like Domitilla Mueni, treasurer of the Mrima Hill association, see an opportunity.

She has been developing her land — planting trees, farming — in order to push up the value when mining companies come to buy.

“Why should we die poor while we have minerals?” she said.
PRISON NATION U$A

Former Prisoner’s New Book Offers Rare Look Into Nation’s Most Secretive Prison


Having survived the most restrictive supermax prison in the country on a trumped-up charge, Anarchist political prisoner Eric King tells what he saw.
October 18, 2025

The prison known as ADX (administrative maximum) in Florence, Colorado, on February 13, 2019. It has been dubbed the "Alcatraz of the Rockies" because of its remote location and harsh security measures.
JASON CONNOLLY / AFP via Getty Images

Eric King has seen what hell looks like during his time in federal custody. While incarcerated, he was increasingly targeted for his anarchist political beliefs, often denied family visits, and restricted from receiving mail. In 2018, at FCI Florence, a lieutenant took him to a mop closet, where he was pushed and punched. King defended himself, after which he was slammed to the floor, stomped, handcuffed to a bed post, suffocated, and tortured. Unfairly charged with assaulting a government officer, he fought the case in court and won a “not guilty” verdict. According to the Pew Research Center, 90 percent of federal trials end in plea deals, 8 percent get tossed, 2 percent go to trial, and King’s case was one of 0.4 percent of cases that win. However, the government retaliated, and he was transferred to ADX Florence — the most restrictive supermax prison in the country.

When talking to King about ADX, or the Administrative Maximum Facility, he describes his experience as being entombed or buried. “These cells had held Tom Manning and Ray Luc. They held Mutulu Shakur and Oscar López Rivera. Now I joined my elders in maintaining my resistance while buried in the Rockies,” he writes in his newest book, A Clean Hell: Anarchy and Abolition in America’s Most Notorious Dungeon. “All the bucking, protesting, resisting, fighting, starving, struggling, had all led to this. When they can’t handle your presence, they bury it.”

In this exclusive interview with Truthout, King discusses his new book, anarchism, mutual aid, supporting political prisoners, prison abolition, and more. The interview that follows has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Zane McNeill: Can you start by introducing yourself and explaining why you wrote this book — who the audience is, what you hoped to accomplish, and maybe say a bit about your last book?

Eric King: My name is Eric King, an ex–political prisoner. I wrote this book because I saw a major gap in the abolitionist movement’s narrative. There are books from the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s, but nothing from my generation that I could relate to — especially about federal prison. Almost no one writes about it.

“I think people should care that there are human beings who have lived alone in a cell for over two decades — people we’ve never heard of and who will never be released.”

The two experiences I had are things very few people go through. First, ADX. Almost no one knows much about it. Inside, I’d get letters asking me to check out someone’s website or if they could send me clothes, which showed me people don’t understand — this prison is kept a secret, and it works. The second is trial. Many people — folks from Palestine, Cop City, people facing state repression, maybe soon just for being queer — are going to trial. There’s a romanticized idea of what trial is, but the reality is soul-sucking and brutal. That’s why so many take plea deals. I felt both of these narratives were missing.

Also, I think people should care that there are human beings who have lived alone in a cell for over two decades — people we’ve never heard of and who will never be released. One reason I wrote this book is to honor them.

Related Story

Incarcerated Anti-Fascists Report Targeted Beatings by Guards
Avowed anti-fascist Eric King has been severely beaten, locked up in solitary and denied legal access.  By Ella Fassler , Truthout  March 27, 2020

Why do you think it’s important for people to understand what ADX is like and how it affects those inside?

ADX matters to me because the government has built a narrative around it, and the public has accepted it without question. We’ve seen this before — other supermax prisons became almost mythical, like Alcatraz. People turn them into fiction and forget that real people suffered there, that there was real resistance, like the Battle of Alcatraz when prisoners fought the Marines.

Book cover for A Clean Hell: Anarchy and Abolition in America’s Most Notorious Dungeon.Courtesy: PM Press

When I was in lower custody levels, you’d hear all kinds of wild stories about ADX — nonsense about it spinning underground — but you also knew it held the most infamous prisoners in the world, aside from state serial killers. Then I’d talk to friends outside, and they didn’t know anything about it. If people in the abolitionist movement don’t know, what chance does the general public have? Things won’t change if no one’s talking about it.

The government says it imprisons the “the worst of the worst,” and people agree without knowing what it’s really like — not hearing another human voice for a month, or having a guard refuse to sell you stamps so you can write your family, your only line of communication, and there’s nothing you can do because you’re behind two doors. They want you to hurt yourself, to fall apart, because that makes you easier to control.

You’ve spent a lot of time learning from past movements — studying FBI targeting of anarchists, Black Panthers, and understanding the history of political prisoners. In the book, you also discuss prison uprisings and how prisons evolved to prevent them and isolate people. Can you talk about that?

When we study the Black Panthers in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s, what they went through isn’t exactly what I went through, but I can learn from how they maintained themselves, how they survived, how they fought back. The ways we resist can’t always be the same either. There was a time when the BOP [Federal Bureau of Prisons] had [dozens of] political prisoners spread among [a handful] of prisons, and they made a difference. We don’t have that now. We’re more isolated, with less solidarity inside, less communication with the outside, and more monitoring. So, we have to take their lessons and adapt them to our current reality.

I’ve drawn strength from people like Kuwasi Balagoon, Bill Dunn, and David Gilbert — people who maintained their ethics inside — but also from my own trial and error. It’s hard. I’ve learned what works and what doesn’t. Telling a guard that you know their address will get you messed up. Throwing something in a guard’s face will get you messed up. Laughing at a lieutenant when he’s trying to fight you will get you messed up. You have to find ways to feel powerful and resist without putting yourself in unnecessary danger.

We don’t “win” by getting hurt — there are no political prisoner points for suffering more. We win when we make it out alive with our ethics and personalities intact. In my mind, all our revolts and rebellions should aim for that: undermine the prison, but strengthen yourself. Give yourself the chance to survive and make it out.

You were an anarchist before prison and already had a political education. Once inside, did you continue that?

That’s another misconception people have about prison, based on older revolutionaries. Back then, it was easier in some ways because there was so much social consciousness — movements like Black liberation were huge, and they empowered people inside in ways we can’t fully understand today.

The racial dynamics were also different. Ed Mead of the George Jackson Brigade could sit and eat with Native Americans [in prison]. If you tried that today, you’d be killed — you wouldn’t make it off the yard, maybe not even out of the chow hall. You can’t do the same things now. So, when people talk about “revolutionizing” others in prison today, that’s just not real — the administration will pull you off the yard.


“One of the reasons I was sent to ADX was for ‘recruiting antifa,’ which in reality meant giving anti-fascist and anti-racist books to people.”

One of the reasons I was sent to ADX was for “recruiting antifa,” which in reality meant giving anti-fascist and anti-racist books to people. I encouraged folks to read — not just to have an opinion, but an informed one. I’d reach people through solidarity. If someone didn’t have money on their books, I’d point out that the white supremacists weren’t sending them canteen money — meanwhile, my friends did, and I’d happily buy them a bad coffee. That opens the door to talking about mutual aid, which leads to talking about anti-racism, because we have to be there for everybody.

What should young political activists understand about the risks, vulnerabilities, and lack of guaranteed movement support if they are imprisoned?

The movement doesn’t always show up for you — a lot of people get forgotten. If it hadn’t been for Denver Anarchist Black Cross, no one would’ve ever heard my name. It took that one group to really fight for me.

And here’s the ugly truth: They almost have to vouch for you, make you “worthy” to others. They have to make you relevant so people want to write to you. It’s not enough that you’re a human being suffering — people want to know your niche.
Eric King squats in the ADX Florence K-B Unit rec yard while incarcerated at the supermax prison in 2022.Courtesy of Eric King

Sure, there are pockets — Inland Empire, Reno, Los Angeles ABCF [chapter of the Anarchist Black Cross Federation], Salt Lake City, Portland, Blue Ridge, Bloomington, Chicago, and, of course, Eugene, where Josh Davidson, a supporter who became a dear friend of mine, lives — but if you don’t have people having your back, you’re alone. The Angola 3 didn’t have support for the first 20 years of their time in solitary. We look at them as heroes now, but at the time, no one cared. You talk to people like Kojo Bomani Sababu and the older Black Panthers [and] it’s the same story.

We need to do better. Maybe it’s because we’re swamped: We have access to every struggle, so we spread ourselves too thin and forget those left behind.

You’ve faced people who wanted to kill you, yet your anarchism still centers mutual aid, resistance, and collective care. How do you hold onto that?

It’s a delicate balance, because I needed people. Even though I was abused by parts of the movement and saw how brutal people can be — guards, prisoners, even supporters — I also saw the beauty. Writing a letter is a purposeful act; someone has to choose to do it. I had people who chose to write to me for nine years, who made sure every month I had coffee, books, or magazines. They refused to let me be buried.

From my perspective, getting out of prison and having opportunities but not using them to help others would feel like abuse. Sure, you can get out and just focus on yourself — you’ve been through enough — but for me, every person is someone I could connect with or encourage to help others.

Anarchism is putting your love forward, keeping your arms open. If I don’t do that, I turn grim. For me, a love of life is a love of people and of doing good. You should want to help people. If you don’t, and you’re an able-bodied, mentally capable person, you need to check yourself — because if you can help and you won’t, you’re probably a piece of shit.

Disclosure: McNeill assisted with King’s civil rights complaint during his incarceration at ADX.


Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.

ALASKA IS A COUNTRY

Typhoon-devastated Alaska facing hardships more severe than most Americans will ever comprehend


A Coast Guard helicopter flies over flooded homes in Kipnuk, Alaska, on Oct. 12, 2025. U.S. Coast Guard Rick Thoman, University of Alaska Fairbanks


October 15, 2025 | 

Remnants of a powerful typhoon swept into Western Alaska’s Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta on Oct. 12, 2025, producing a storm surge that flooded villages as far as 60 miles up the river. The water pushed homes off their foundations and set some afloat with people inside, officials said. More than 50 people had to be rescued in Kipnuk and Kwigillingok, hundreds were displaced in the region, and at least one person died.

Typhoon Halong was an unusual storm, likely fueled by the Pacific’s near-record warm surface temperatures this fall. Its timing means recovery will be even more difficult than usual for these hard-hit communities, as Alaska meteorologist Rick Thoman of the University Alaska Fairbanks explains.

Disasters in remote Alaska are not like disasters anywhere in the lower 48 states, he explains. While East Coast homeowners recovering from a nor’easter that flooded parts of New Jersey and other states the same weekend can run to Home Depot for supplies or drive to a hotel if their home floods, none of that exists in remote Native villages.

What made this storm unusual?

Halong was an ex-typhoon, similar to Merbok in 2022, by the time it reached the delta. A week earlier, it had been a powerful typhoon east of Japan. The jet stream picked it up and carried it to the northeast, which is pretty common, and weather models did a pretty good job in forecasting its track into the Bering Sea.

But as the storm approached Alaska, everything went sideways.

The weather model forecasts changed, reflecting a faster-moving storm, and Halong shifted to a very unusual track, moving between Saint Lawrence Island and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta coast.

Unlike Merbok, which was very well forecast by the global models, this one’s final track and intensity weren’t clear until the storm was within 36 hours of crossing into Alaska waters. That’s too late for evacuations in many places.

Did the loss of weather balloon data canceled in 2025 affect the forecast?


That’s a question for future research, but here’s what we know for sure: There have not been any upper-air weather balloon observations at Saint Paul Island in the Bering Sea since late August or at Kotzebue since February. Bethel and Cold Bay are limited to one per day instead of two. At Nome, there were no weather balloons for two full days as the storm was moving toward the Bering Sea.

Did any of this cause the forecast to be off? We don’t know because we don’t have the data, but it seems likely that that had some effect on the model performance.

Why is the delta region so vulnerable in a storm like Halong?


The land in this part of western Alaska is very flat, so major storms can drive the ocean into the delta, and the water spreads out.

Most of the land there is very close to sea level, in some places less than 10 feet above the high tide line. Permafrost is also thawing, land is subsiding, and sea-level rise is adding to the risk. For many people, there is literally nowhere to go. Even Bethel, the region’s largest town, about 60 miles up the Kuskokwim River, saw flooding from Halong.

These are very remote communities with no roads to cities. The only way to access them is by boat or plane. Right now, they have a lot of people with nowhere to live, and winter is closing in. Native residents of Kipnuk discuss the challenges of permafrost loss and climate change in their village. Alaska Institute for Justice.



These villages are also small. They don’t have extra housing or the resources to rapidly recover. The region was already recovering from major flooding in summer 2024. Kipnuk’s tribe was able to get federal disaster aid, but that aid was approved only in early January 2025.

What are these communities facing in terms of recovery?

People are going to have really difficult decisions to make. Do they leave the community for the winter and hope to rebuild next summer?

There likely isn’t much available housing in the region, with the flooding so widespread on top of a housing shortage. Do displaced people go to Anchorage? Cities are expensive.

There is no easy answer.

It’s logistically complicated to rebuild in places like Kipnuk. You can’t just get on the phone and call up your local building contractor.

Almost all of the supplies have to come in by barge – plywood to nails to windows – and that isn’t going to happen in winter. You can’t truck it in – there are no roads. Planes can only fly in small amounts – the runways are short and not built for cargo planes.

The National Guard might be able to help fly in supplies. But then you still need to have people who can do the construction and other repair work.

Everything is 100 times more complicated when it comes to building in remote communities. Even if national or state help is approved, it would be next summer before most homes could be rebuilt.

Is climate change playing a role in storms like these?

That will be another question for future research, but sea-surface temperature in most of the North Pacific that Typhoon Halong passed over before reaching the Aleutian Islands has been much warmer than normal. Warm water fuels storms.

Halong also brought lots of very warm air northward with it. East of the track on Oct. 11, Unalaska reached 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius), an all-time high there for October.

Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist, University of Alaska Fairbanks

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.