It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Monday, March 09, 2026
Aaja Chemnitz, Greenland politician standing up to Trump
Aaja Chemnitz has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for her role in de-escalating tensions with the US - Copyright AFP Florent VERGNES
Florent VERGNES
In the streets of Nuuk, Aaja Chemnitz normally goes almost unnoticed. But in recent days, locals have been stopping the Greenland MP to congratulate her on her Nobel Peace Prize nomination — though some fear it could rekindle Washington’s interest in the Arctic island.
Norwegian lawmaker Lars Haltbrekken announced on March 4 that he had nominated Chemnitz, along with US Senator Lisa Murkowski, for the prestigious prize for their role in de-escalating tensions between the US, Denmark and Greenland over President Donald Trump’s threats to take over the Danish autonomous territory.
It was not known whether he submitted the nomination ahead of the January 31 deadline for the 2026 prize, to be announced on October 9.
Chemnitz, 48, who represents Greenland in the Danish parliament as a member of the left-green IA party, was instrumental in bringing a group of US senators to Copenhagen and Greenland earlier this year to try to mend relations shattered by Trump’s threats.
Since returning to the White House just over a year ago, Trump has insisted Washington needs control of Greenland for national security.
Murkowski, a Republican senator from Alaska, has visited the Arctic island several times.
During her latest visit in early February, she said the US and Denmark needed to “rebuild the trust” that had been “eroded and degraded” in just “a few sentences and words”.
– Strong Arctic women –
Chemnitz met with AFP for an interview at the Nuuk cultural centre, where exhibits highlighted Inuit culture and the role of women in Greenlandic society in honour of International Women’s Day on March 8.
“If you take all the strong women out of the Arctic, it would just collapse. We have so many strong women here in the Arctic and in Greenland,” she said.
“A female collaboration on peace is quite beautiful,” Chemnitz said, “especially when we know we have an American president who is also interested in the same prize”.
On a wall behind her hung pictures drawn by children of Greenland’s red-and-white flag, some peppered with insults directed at Trump.
In January, at the height of Greenland tensions, Trump linked his threats against the island to his failure to win last year’s Nobel.
“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace,” he wrote in a message to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store.
Norway’s government has repeatedly stressed that it does not award the Nobel Peace Prize, an independent Nobel committee does.
Chemnitz said she and Murkowski would do their best to walk away with the honour.
“I can assure you, if we have just the slightest chance of getting the prize, we won’t give it away to anybody else.”
– ‘A catastrophe’ –
While the pair will face competition for the prize — in 2025, there were 338 candidates — some in Greenland fear the nomination will rekindle tensions with Washington at a time when discretion has been Denmark’s and Greenland’s diplomatic strategy in recent weeks.
“That would be a catastrophe. He’s going to be so furious,” Aqqaluk Lynge, a founder of IA, said of Trump.
“Just give him the Nobel Peace Prize and he’ll leave us alone!”
While Trump climbed down in January from his threat to take over Greenland by force, Lynge worried about the US leader’s unpredictable leadership style.
“We can’t rule out any possibility. It’s simple: the security we used to have in the West is over now.”
Asked about the risk of an angry reaction from the White House, Chemnitz retorted that “as an American president, you have more important things to focus on.”
She expects the US interest in Greenland to continue “like a wave”, ebbing and flowing.
“It’s going to be very important in the lows that we make sure that we have a good collaboration between Greenland and Denmark, so we don’t encourage the US” to seize on the “challenges between Greenland and Denmark”.
After more than 10 years as one of the two Greenland MPs in Denmark’s parliament, Chemnitz will not stand for re-election in Denmark’s March 24 legislative elections.
But, she stressed, “I’m sure I’m going to play a role” in the future of Greenland.
Live Nation has reached a tentative settlement with the Justice Department in the antitrust case brought against the US entertainment giant - Copyright AFP/File Giuseppe CACACE
Live Nation reached a tentative settlement with the US Justice Department on Monday in the federal antitrust case brought against the entertainment giant, a senior official said.
The settlement, which still requires the approval of a judge, comes just days after the start of an antitrust trial against Live Nation in New York.
The case was initiated under then-president Joe Biden when the Justice Department labeled Live Nation a monopolist that controlled virtually all live entertainment in the United States.
The settlement requires Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, to open up the ticketing platform to competitors and to allow other concert promotors to stage events at certain Live Nation venues, the official said.
Live Nation will also divest up to 13 amphitheaters and pay $280 million in damages to the nearly 40 states that were parties to the antitrust lawsuit against the California-based company.
New York and a number of other states declined to join the settlement, however, and said Monday that their litigation would continue.
“For years, Live Nation has made enormous profits by exploiting its illegal monopoly and raising costs for shows,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said.
“The settlement recently announced with the US Department of Justice fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers,” James said in a statement.
“We will keep fighting this case without the federal government so that we can secure justice for all those harmed by Live Nation’s monopoly.”
Live Nation is a behemoth in its industry: in 2025 it organized more than 55,000 events worldwide, drawing 159 million attendees.
Beyond promotion, it holds stakes in 460 venues and, since 2010, has controlled Ticketmaster, the world’s leading ticket seller.
The Justice Department had accused Live Nation of abusing its dominant position to pressure artists and venues into signing with it, stifle competition, and impose excessive fees on fans.
The Trump administration’s decision to press forward with the case against Live Nation had surprised many observers, who had interpreted last month’s resignation of Justice Department competition chief Gail Slater as a sign the case would be dropped.
‘While No One’s Looking,’ Trump DOJ Settles Antitrust Case With Live Nation-Ticketmaster
“This settlement is the clearest sign yet that this administration serves big business, not the people.”
The Ticketmaster logo appears on a smartphone screen in the Apple app store on on March 6, 2026. (Photo by Thomas Fuller/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Trump Justice Department on Monday reportedly reached a tentative deal with Live Nation—the owner of Ticketmaster—to settle a Biden-era antitrustlawsuit that aimed to break up the company, accusing it of illegally monopolizing the live entertainment industry.
News of the settlement, which would not require a breakup of Live Nation, came days after the trial began, with a lawyer for the Trump Justice Department’s decimated antitrust division saying last week that the company abuses its market power and earns its massive profits “through illegal action.” The antitrust division’s counsel in the case, David Dahlquist, was apparently not made aware of the settlement until he appeared in court Monday morning.
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said it is “highly unorthodox for the Justice Department’s lead litigator to be left out of the loop on the settlement and highly prejudicial to the jury’s deliberations.”
“According to every observer, this trial was already going well for the Justice Department and states,” said Hepner. “They had just won summary judgment and a jury had already heard evidence of Live Nation’s longstanding pattern of retaliation against venues who had attempted to open the market to competition. State AGs are once again left to clean up the mess left by this Administration’s incompetence.”
Under the settlement, which must be approved by a judge, Live Nation “would pay a fine of up to $280 million and divest itself of at least 13 amphitheaters across the country as it opens up its ticketing processes so that competitors can share in the sale of tickets,” the Associated Press reported.
The National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), a trade group representing thousands of independent live entertainment venues, festivals, and promoters, noted in a statement that the reported $280 million settlement amount “is the equivalent of four days of [Live Nation’s] 2025 revenue, which means they could potentially make it back by this Friday.”
“The reported settlement does not appear to include any specific and explicit protections for fans, artists, or independent venues and festivals,” said Stephen Parker, NIVA’s executive director. “Reported details also indicate that ticket resale platforms could be further empowered through new requirements for Ticketmaster to host their listings, which would likely exacerbate the price gouging potential for predatory resellers and the platforms that serve them.”
“If these facts are true,” Parker added, “NIVA views this as a failure of the justice system.”
The antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation was filed in 2024 after a nearly two-year investigation launched amid mounting public outrage aimed at Ticketmaster, spurred in part by its botched presale of Taylor Swift concert tickets in 2022. Then-President Joe Biden’s Justice Department filed the complaint in partnership with 30 state attorneys general, most of whom vowed Monday to continue the fight without the Trump administration’s support.
“For years, Live Nation has made enormous profits by exploiting its illegal monopoly and raising costs for shows,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “My office has led a bipartisan group of attorneys general in suing Live Nation for taking advantage of fans, venues, and artists, and we are committed to holding Live Nation accountable.”
The settlement deal comes weeks after Gail Slater, the former head of the Justice Department’s antitrust arm, was pushed out by DOJ leadership. Prior to Slater’s removal, Live Nation executives and lobbyists had reportedly been negotiating the terms of a possible settlement with senior Justice Department officials outside of the antitrust office, heightening corruption concerns.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, said in a statement that “this settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist that tinkers around the edges of the real problem: Live Nation’s monopoly.”
“Instead of breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, Live Nation will now get to continue forcing the vast majority of live venues to use Ticketmaster,” said Peterson-Cassin. “Following the ousting of Gail Slater and the gutting of the government’s antitrust enforcement capabilities, this settlement is the clearest sign yet that this administration serves big business, not the people.”
European space technology investment needs a new perspective
By Dr. Tim Sandle SCIENCE EDITOR DIGITAL JOURNAL March 8, 2026
The International Space Station will be guided back to Earth in 2030, marking the end of its three-decade mission - Copyright AFP/File Chanakarn Laosarakham
Market data suggests ‘SpaceTech’ investment has rebounded strongly. However, there is a disproportion among the leading centres. Europe remains behind the U.S. and China as funding within the European Union remains fragmented and concentrated in early-stage rounds.
Digital Journal has heard from Daiva Rakauskaitė, a woman in venture capital with over 30 years of experience. She currently operates Aneli Capital. Rakauskaitė explains what Europe needs to do to narrow the gap, including accelerating capital deployment and strengthening growth-stage funding. She also looks at the SpaceTech areas which look most attractive for Central and Eastern European start-ups.
Opportunities for European start-ups in the space sector
Growing defence spending, Europe’s push for greater strategic resilience amid shifting U.S. policy, and increasing demand for commercial space applications are creating new opportunities for European start-ups. However, European companies still face many challenges, including funding, that could further increase the gap between Europe and the U.S. and China, Rakauskaitė observes.
Last year, space technology startups raised $12.4 billion in venture capital funding, 48% more than in 2024. This is according to estimates by Seraphim Space. The total surpassed the 2021 peak of $10.9bn and marked a full recovery from the previous pullback.
The lion’s share of last year’s investments, 60%, were raised by the U.S. companies, which increased overall funding by 130% year over year. Meanwhile, funding in Europe grew by 25%, primarily driven by increased defence spending and renewed focus on resilience, but the deal count fell by 15%.
Lagging behind
The latest McKinsey space report notes that in recent years, the European space sector has lagged behind the U.S. and China, primarily due to fragmented governmental funding and subscale private investments. Other issues, such as talent shortages and difficulties scaling production, also affected European space companies.
According to Rakauskaitė the current pace of investment in Europe needs to accelerate for the continent to remain competitive.
“As competition with the US and China intensifies, the coming years will be decisive for turning political ambition into industrial scale. Europe must speed up capital deployment and strengthen growth-stage funding and commercialization. Helping more startups enter and scale would narrow the gap, boost competitiveness, and drive innovation. Rising defence spending and expanding market demand point in the right direction, creating strong momentum for new technologies and major opportunities for European startups,” Rakauskaitė says.
According to Rakauskaitė, key areas of focus for European space startups include satellites in low Earth orbit and medium Earth orbit used for Earth observation, intelligence, and secure communications.
Manufacturing satellite systems is a particularly good niche for CEE startups, which already have established players such as NanoAvionics in Lithuania and SatRev in Poland. Rakauskaitė stresses that the CEE region has not only experience, but also lots of hidden talent that could pave the way for a stronger European space industry.
One of the issues regarding funding European startups, according to the McKinsey report, is that private investment in European space is focused primarily on earlier-stage projects, and close to 70% of investments in space industry companies are below €10 million.
“Based on these statistics, I would expect an increase in later-stage investments in SpaceTech companies over the next 2–3 years, as more commercial solutions are brought to market. More active participation of EU pension fund capital in the venture capital ecosystem is also likely during this period,” Rakauskaitė clarifies.
Currently, pension funds in Europe have massive assets – around €3 trillion – only a fraction of which actively participate in the European VC ecosystem, whereas in the US, such practice is much more common.
However, Rakauskaitė also emphasizes that, beyond increasing funding, it should be accepted as natural that a portion of these investments will not yield returns. Therefore, it is equally important to accelerate the commercialization of early-stage companies to maximize the impact of those that do succeed.
“Way too often, startups spend too much in the development phase. While for space companies pathways to commercialization are limited in the early days, they should still look for ways to find small revenue streams – whether through dual-use applications, data services, pilot contracts with defence institutions. Early commercial validation not only strengthens resilience, but it also makes companies significantly more attractive to later-stage investors and strategic buyers,” Rakauskaitė concludes.
Why young people are facing a systemic mind health crisis
By Dr. Tim Sandle SCIENCE EDITOR DIGITAL JOURNAL March 8, 2026
A new study of one million people finds more than 40% of young adults worldwide face a “mind health” crisis that makes daily life a constant struggle. Some scientists suggest there are key denominators that can account for this trend, with ultra-processed food and smartphones as key culprits.
This is based on findings from Global Mind Health, a 2025 report that flips the script from the early 2000s, when 18-34-year-olds led all age groups in mental well-being. Now they are four times more likely than adults over 55 to report “clinically significant” mental challenges. Canada: With an average MHQ of 96 for those aged 55+ but only 32 for those aged 18-34 (65 out of 84).
A new analysis of data collected from some one million people in 84 countries reveals that 41% of the world’s Internet-enabled young adults (ages 18-34) now face a “mind health crisis” that substantially impairs their ability to navigate a constellation of cognitive, emotional, social and physical challenges and live a fully productive life.
The findings emerged from the Global Mind Health in 2025 report, which was released by Sapien Labs, a Washington, DC-area non-profit. The report is authored by experts in neuroscience, psychology and computational science. Their study, which is based on data gathered through online surveys conducted across Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas, documents a curious and concerning decline in the mental health of younger generations.
U.S.: With an average MHQ of 100 for those aged 55+ but only 36 for those aged 18-34 (58 out of 84). U.S. has the highest ultra-processed food consumption.
2000: Young people are the most content
The report notes that as of the early 2000s, this age group enjoyed “the greatest well-being of all age groups.” But now the opposite appears to be the case. For example, the Global Mind Health in 2025 report found that compared to adults over 55, today’s younger adults are four times more likely to suffer from “mental health challenges of clinical significance that substantially impact to their ability to function productively in their daily life.” The study identifies four primary reasons for their struggles: smartphone adoption in childhood; increased consumption of ultra-processed foods; deteriorating family bonds; and diminished spirituality — ranking countries on each of these factors.
Mind health, according to the World Health Organisation, refers to a state of emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It plays a crucial role in how individuals think, feel, and act, influencing their ability to cope with stress, relate to others, and make choices. Zeitgeist reveals a shift – today’s young people are the most vulnerable
“The mind health crisis appears to be a progressive slide from generation to generation and goes far beyond rising rates of depression and anxiety in young adults,” said Tara Thiagarajan, Ph.D., lead author of the report. “The Global Mind Project asked respondents to assess a wide range of capacities that are essential for navigating life’s daily challenges as well as problems spanning major mental health disorders. We found that alongside struggles with depression and anxiety, young adults often experience challenges on many other fronts, from emotional control to handling relationships with others to their ability to focus.”
While noting that there are many causes of the decline, the report highlights four key factors:Today’s young adults are the first generation that has been using smartphones since childhood; They are more likely to consume ultra-processed foods; They often report fraying family ties;
A growing number of them lack spiritual connections.
Each area has been associated to varying degrees with an increased risk of mental health challenges and overall erosion of coping capacity.
UK: With an average MHQ of 78 for those aged 55+ but only 20 for those aged 18-34 (81 out of 84, 4th worst in the world). UK has among the highest ultra-processed food consumption.
Sapien Labs used the data gathered via the online surveys to produce a Mind Health Quotient or “MHQ” score to serve as an assessment of an individual’s “mind health” — with mind health defined as the full complement of emotional, social, cognitive and physical capacities that are key to managing and thriving in life, work and relationships.
Wealth and mind health – an inverse correlation?
There were notable geographic disparities in the findings that point to a potential inverse correlation between wealth and mind health (this occurs when two variables move in opposite directions — as one increases, the other decreases).
The data revealed that 18-34-year-olds in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the lowest per capita income of any region in the world, scored far better than their peers in the U.S., Canada, Europe, India, Japan and Australia, all of which were near the bottom of the rankings. The data also showed that young adults in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa ranked higher in the four key contributors to mind health. For example, they were more likely to report strong spiritual connections and less likely to have a smartphone in childhood. However, in all countries, the Internet-enabled young adults still fared worse than older adults.
Previous Sapien Labs research revealed that the gap between generations developed prior to 2020, with the mind health of young adults ages 18-34 dropping precipitously over the COVID-19 pandemic years of 2020 and 2021, while older generations experienced a relatively miniscule decline. Over the past five years, this gap has not significantly changed. Dr. Thiagarajan said policymakers should be focused on the economic impacts caused by a large number of young people entering the workforce with compromised mind health.
According to Thiagarajan: “In the U.S., spending on mental health research and care has risen dramatically, by billions of dollars, as it has across western countries. And while important, it’s not moving the needle,” she said. “We need to stop chasing the symptoms and instead begin tackling the broader problems that erode the productivity and well-being of young adults around the world. For example, policy interventions that limit smartphone access in childhood and consumption of ultra-processed foods help safeguard the mind health of the youngest generations — without them, the global economy will flounder for the next several decades.”
Drop in family ties
The report notes that smartphones and ultra-processed foods, along with diminished spirituality and deteriorating family ties, together account for the majority of the mind health challenges that emerged from the survey data. It points to evidence to account for each of these influences. For example:Smartphones: Among those aged 18-24, the younger they were when they acquired their first smartphone in childhood, the more likely they are to have struggles as adults. Ultra-processed foods: Mind health declines systematically with consumption of these products; after controlling for other factors, they are estimated to contribute 15-30% of the mental health burden. Spirituality: Defined as a sense or feeling of connection to a higher power, among the 18-34 age group, those with spirituality ratings of 7 or higher (out of 9) typically have MHQ scores 20 points or more higher than those with ratings below 3.
Family bonds: Those with poor family relationships are almost four times more likely to have mind health scores in the distressed or struggling ranges compared to those who are close to many family members.
The report points to specific policy actions that can reduce their harms, particularly harms caused by early adoption of smartphones and increased consumption of ultra-processed foods. For issues linked to smartphones, the report calls for wider adoption of policies that ban their use during school hours and establish minimum age requirements for using social media. For ultra-processed foods, the report calls for new investments in research that can uncover the risks associated with the many different types of colors, flavors, preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives found in these products — and provide evidence to support regulations that can reduce their use.
“While the report is not the first to connect these influences to mental health challenges, the breadth and depth of the Global Minds data stands out for revealing the scale of the problems they are causing,” Thiagarajan adds. “Because when you see evidence that almost half of all young adults globally — the heart of the workforce — are struggling with an array of mental health challenges, that means we are facing a crisis that can undermine the health of entire economies and societies. It’s a clear signal that we need to act to address the root causes.”
Trump's Claude ban: The first salvo battle over who controls AI
Issued on 09/03/2026 - FRANCE24
PLAY 06:43 min
A struggle to control artificial intelligence is playing out just as the United States increasingly deploys the technology in conflicts from Venezuela to Iran.
In its interventions in Venezuela and Iran, the United States military has reportedly used Anthropic's Claude chatbot to analyse battlefield data. At the same time, a monumental argument has broken out over the future capabilities of the game-changing technology.
Donald Trump's administration has ripped up its partnership with Anthropic and banned defence contractors from using Claude, after Anthropic insisted it should not be used for fully autonomous weapons or for mass surveillance of US citizens. These are not current uses, but the Pentagon notably sees ruling them out as an obstacle to keeping up with China.
For Samuel Hammond, Chief Economist at the Foundation for American Innovation, the ban is counterproductive.
"Designating Anthropic a supply chain risk is usually reserved for adversaries," he said, "for Chinese companies seeking to attack our systems".
It's the first time such a sanction has ever been applied to an American company. And now, the Trump administration has drafted strict rules for AI companies to obey in future government contracts, according to the Financial Times.
Hammond argues that Anthropic's market success contradicts the depiction of the company as radical "leftwing nut jobs" by President Trump.
"There's misinformation going on within the Department of Defense, within elements of the White House that believe Anthropic is a very left-wing company with extreme views," said Hammond, "When, in fact, they are currently the number one download on the App Store."
Anthropic has threatened to sue the Pentagon, while also trying to contain the fallout and defend its values.
When asked whether right-wing libertarian think tanks such as his had helped boost support for Trump, paving the way for him to wield power in this way, Hammond said, "This feels like a betrayal, both of their stated mission [in AI policy] and of broad libertarian values. It's not a libertarian value to seek to destroy a particular company."
"Who is the ultimate arbiter of how these tools are used? ... This is a longer-term process that we're going to have to work out through the democratic process."
Watch this week's Tech 24 for more on what happens when a power-hungry government is confronted with the possibility that someone else might want to call the shots on the most useful and promising technology of the age.
The Pentagon took the unprcedented action of blacklisting Anthropic over its refusal to give unlimited control of its AI technology - Copyright AFP Brendan SMIALOWSKI
Anthropic filed suit Monday against the Trump administration, alleging the US government retaliated against the AI company for refusing to let its Claude AI model be used for autonomous lethal warfare and mass surveillance of Americans.
In the 48-page complaint, filed in federal court in San Francisco, Anthropic seeks to have its designation as a national security supply-chain risk declared unlawful and blocked.
In its lawsuit, Anthropic said it was founded on the belief that its AI should be “used in a way that maximizes positive outcomes for humanity” and should “be the safest and the most responsible.”
“Anthropic brings this suit because the federal government has retaliated against it for expressing that principle,” the lawsuit says.
Anthropic is the first US company ever to have been publicly punished with such a designation, a label typically reserved for organizations from foreign adversary countries, such as Chinese tech giant Huawei.
The label not only blocks use of the company’s technology by the Pentagon, but also requires all defense vendors and contractors to certify that they do not use Anthropic’s models in their work with the department.
“The consequences of this case are enormous,” the lawsuit states, with the government “seeking to destroy the economic value created by one of the world’s fastest-growing private companies.”
The suit names more than a dozen federal agencies and cabinet officials as defendants.
The dispute erupted after Anthropic infuriated Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth by insisting its technology should not be used for mass surveillance or fully autonomous weapons systems.
President Donald Trump subsequently ordered every federal agency to cease all use of Anthropic’s technology.
Hours later, Hegseth designated Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security” and ordered that no military contractor, supplier or partner “may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic,” while allowing a six-month transition period for the Pentagon itself.
The row erupted days before the US military strike on Iran. Claude is the Pentagon’s most widely deployed frontier AI model and the only such model currently operating on the Defense Department’s classified systems.
In its lawsuit, Anthropic argues the actions taken against it violate the First Amendment by punishing the company for protected speech on AI safety policy, exceed the Pentagon’s statutory authority, and deprive it of due process under the Fifth Amendment.
“The Constitution does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech,” the complaint states.
Founded in 2021 by siblings Dario and Daniela Amodei, both former staffers at ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, Anthropic has positioned itself as a safety-focused alternative in the AI race.
Trump admin sued as company claims 'extreme punishment' for defying president
U.S. President Donald Trump, with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at his side, looks on as he speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One on a flight from Dover, Delaware, to Miami, Florida, U.S., March 7, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
The Trump administration was hit with a major lawsuit on Monday by AI developer Anthropic after it enacted an “extreme punishment” on the company over its refusal to allow its AI system to be used for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, NBC News reported.
“This is a necessary step to protect our business, our customers, and our partners,” an Anthropic spokesperson told NBC News. “We will continue to pursue every path toward resolution, including dialogue with the government.”
Last month, Axios reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was getting “close” to cutting ties with Anthropic and classifying the company as a supply chain risk, a classification that would bar any business working with the federal government from maintaining ties with Anthropic.
The issue, Axios reported, was Anthropic's insistence that its AI technology wasn’t “used to spy on Americans en masse, or to develop weapons that fire with no human involvement.”
That insistence was apparently too much for the Trump administration, which ultimately cut ties with the company earlier this month and made good on its pledge to classify the company as a supply chain risk.
Now, Anthropic is hitting back with a lawsuit over what it described as the Trump administration’s “unlawful campaign of retaliation.” The lawsuit, filed in California, accuses the Trump administration of violating its First Amendment rights, Politico reported, and of acting unlawfully in designating it as a supply chain risk.
ECOCIDE
Venezuela: 'At night, the east of the country is brighter than Caracas because of gas flaring'
‘If this gas was used or sold, we’d have more money’
Issued on: 09/03/2026
Venezuela continues to burn natural gas produced as a byproduct of oil extraction in a process called gas flaring, which wastes a valuable resource and also has negative consequences for the environment and poses health risks. We spoke to people in Venezuela with knowledge of gas flaring and its effects in the northeast of the country, where the practice is particularly prominent.
"When you look at [satellite] images taken at night, the east of Venezuela is brighter than Caracas,” said one of our Observers, who previously worked in the oil sector.
"The gas that is burning there,” says our Observer.
In other words, the light that can be seen from the sky is the result of gas flaring, which involves burning the natural gas emitted during oil extraction. The gas, a valuable resource, is wasted in this process.
Our team also examined satellite images taken during the day and was able to spot at least 40 chimneys with flames coming out of them in Monagas state in 2025. These chimneys are actually the flares used in gas flaring.
According to a report from the World Bank, Venezuela is ranked as number 5 in the list of top gas-flaring countries in the world based on the total volume of gas burned, behind Russia, Iran, Iraq and the United States. However, if you consider the intensity of gas flaring – meaning the volume of gas flaring per barrel of oil extracted – Venezuela comes just second after Syria.
‘If this gas was used or sold, we’d have more money’
The high levels of gas flaring are mainly due to a lack of investment in equipment, says Gilberto Morillo, an energy consultant in Venezuela who previously worked for the public oil company PDVSA. He left in 2003, after an unprecedented wave of layoffs.
“When gas is produced alongside oil, you need specialised equipment if you want to capture it, store it, clean it, separate the liquid from the gas, etc. If you are able to gather it effectively, this gas can be used in many different ways. It can be used in industry or as domestic gas. It can also be injected into oil wells to increase their pressure or sold.
After 2003, PDVSA started to lose money and decline in a technical sense. The company didn’t invest in infrastructure to capture the gas. And if the gas isn’t captured and treated, then it needs to be burned [Editor’s note: otherwise, there is a risk of explosion]. Currently, I would say that about 50 percent of gas emitted during oil extraction is burned. That’s my own estimate because very little information is released by PDVSA and Venezuela’s oil ministry, but, in any case – that’s a huge amount of gas. Before, when I was working there, the percentage burned was closer to 10 percent [Editor’s note: a number that we were not able to independently verify].
Burning gas has economic consequences. If it were used or sold, we’d have more money.”
According to an investigation into PDVSA published in 2020 by the platform Connectas, the company loses "millions of dollars" when it burns the gas or releases it into the atmosphere without burning it – a practice more common in the west of the country.
Our Observer’s estimate that 50 percent of that gas is burned is close to the estimate made by an expert at Columbia University cited by the New York Times in this article.
‘Gas flaring produces CO2, which contributes to global warming’
Aside from financial losses, gas flaring also has consequences for health and the environment. In 2024, gas flaring generated the equivalent of 389 million tons of CO2, according to the report by the World Bank.
Fernando Morales is a professor and environmental expert at Venezuela’s Simon Bolivar University.
“In the east of the country, the wells produce a large amount of associated gas. Enormous volumes of gas are constantly being burned there, when, in theory, gas should only be burned in an emergency situation. This produces CO2, which leads to global warming.
At a local level, the burning of gas isn’t clean – it generates soot and polycyclic aromatic [hydrocarbons], [air pollutants] like benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene and anthracene, which are really harmful if breathed in. They have a similar effect to the fumes released by a badly maintained diesel vehicle. Benzo(a)pyrene, in particular, is linked to lung cancer in cases of chronic exposure. Other components, while not known carcinogens, can also lead to other lung diseases or irritation."
A former resident of Maturín (the capital of Monagas state) who now lives abroad spoke to our team on condition of anonymity. They said they knew people who had experienced “cancer, breathing difficulty and eye irritation”, which she linked to the pollution generated by oil infrastructure.
In the investigation published in 2020 by Connectas, the president of the college of medicine in Anzoategui, a state that borders Monagas, said that there was a higher rate of respiratory illness in cities where the oil industry was in operation. ‘At night, there is a yellow light in the sky from the flares’
Flares are also linked to "light, sound and thermal pollution", says Carlos Piccinoni, another Maturín resident.
“In the day, you can only see the flames. But at night, there is a yellow light in the sky, which comes from flares located 30 kilometres from here. We notice it especially if there is a power cut in town. What we see is like a controlled fire in the sky. When you are close to it, you can almost drive without headlights on because there is so much light in the sky.
It’s also noisy for those who live nearby. The flares make a particular sound, something similar to a blowtorch. It’s like the sound of a gas burner, but one with a diameter of two metres. The heat is also very strong. I think it is probably about 10 degrees hotter nearby."
Piccinoni says that local people have faced domestic gas shortages in the past and that gas is expensive. Our team spoke to a former resident of Maturín, who now lives in Caracas:
“In 2017, we spent nine months without gas. At the time, I had neighbours who paid as much as $100 for a single cylinder of gas. And during that time, from my window, I could see the gas flares burning gas all day.” Renewing the oil sector?
Both Gilberto Morillo and Fernando Morales say these measures should result in the oil sector receiving more money, which could allow it to modernise its infrastructures and increase production, as well as reduce flaring.
"If all the investments come in, then my colleagues and I estimate that we could be producing three million barrels of oil per day in eight or nine years,” Morillo says – a number that would be three times the current amount produced.
Leftist bloc dominates Colombia's divided congress in legislative polls
Colombia on Sunday voted in legislative elections that delivered a divided congress but saw President Gustavo Petro's leftist coalition expected to maintain dominance in both the lower chamber and the senate. The country will hold a presidential vote in May in which Petro cannot run for re-election against a resurgent right.
Election officials count marked ballots for congressional elections and party primaries to select the presidential candidate in Bogotá, Colombia, on March 8, 2026.
Preliminary results in Colombia's legislative elections on Sunday showed President Gustavo Petro's left-wing bloc maintaining its status as a dominant force, but with congress continuing to be divided.
The results offered a glimmer of hope that Petro's party may contend against the resurgent right in the May 31 presidential vote, which is projected to head to a runoff in June.
Petro, Colombia's first leftist president, is barred by law from running for re-election and had been eying to push through reforms ahead of his term running out.
While the makeup of the lower chamber remained uncertain, Petro's leftist coalition was expected to be among the biggest, while in the Senate it was expected to be the largest.
With Congress remaining to be divided, the next president will need to form coalitions to pass legislation.
Colombia's decades of brutal internecine fighting and the presence of still-powerful cocaine mafias have cast a long shadow over the campaign.
More than 60 political figures and community leaders were killed this election cycle, including a presidential candidate who was assassinated in broad daylight in the capital, Bogota.
Rebels also detonated a pipe bomb in a major city, and a third of the country was deemed unsafe for campaigning.
The most recent Congress approved some of Petro's reforms, but as its term neared an end it rejected others, like overhauling the health care system or changing the tax code to bring in more revenue.
Petro hit back at frequent rallies in which he denounced the legislature, which has lost respect among many Colombians in recent years because of corruption scandals.
Colombia is also trying to emerge from 50 years of fighting spawned by a volatile mix of leftist rebels, paramilitaries and drug lords. Much of the violence has been fueled by the cocaine trade.
"For anything to change in this country there would need to be a miracle," said Marta Sandoval, a 39-year-old chef.
Damaris Pavon, a 37-year-old political scientist, praised Congress for standing up to Petro.
"Thanks to the Congress we have, for better or worse, they did not approve several reforms which were terrible for the country," Pavon said. Former guerrilla
Against this febrile backdrop lies a battle for the political soul of the country.
Petro, a former guerrilla, became Colombia's first-ever leftist leader in 2022.
He was catapulted to the presidency by a broad progressive coalition that has since been riven by infighting and has struggled to govern.
Prone to social media outbursts, grandiloquent speeches and public spats, Petro has burned through more than 60 ministers in four years.
He is constitutionally barred from running again, but his allies hope to bolster their numbers in the legislature and continue reforms after he leaves office in August.
Petro has also proposed creating a constituent assembly that would rewrite the constitution.
He hopes that the new basic law would remake the judiciary, which his allies see as tilted to the right, and give the president more power to rule by decree. Familiar face
But conservative voters hope for a political revival after years in the doldrums, a trend seen in other Latin American countries.
Powerful former president Alvaro Uribe ran for a Senate seat, hoping to rally those who backed his hardline security policies during his 2002-2010 presidency.
However, preliminary results showed Sunday that his party had not reached the threshold to win a seat.
Despite a 2016 peace accord, dissident armed groups are expanding and rearming under Petro's stalled "total peace" negotiations.
The vote Sunday was the first election since 2016 in which former guerrilla fighters are not guaranteed seats, and the defense ministry announced a deployment of security forces to ensure "safe" elections.
Campaigns have leaned on TikTok personalities, singers and AI-generated content to cut through a crowded field.
Two activists have even put forward an AI candidate known as "Gaitana" for one of the seats reserved for Indigenous communities.
Represented by a blue-skinned woman wearing feather ornaments, Gaitana describes herself as an environmentalist and animal rights defender.
(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
Supporters urge Australia to offer asylum to Iranian women's football team
Australia is coming under pressure to offer asylum to the Iranian women's football team as the squad prepares to fly home after losing its Asian cup match on Sunday. The Iranian team refused to sing their national anthem ahead of a match against South Korea, raising fears that the players will be targeted by the authorities if they return to Iran.
Iranian players refused to sing ahead of an Asian Cup tournament match in Australia last week – a gesture widely seen as an act of defiance against the Islamic republic.
US-based Reza Pahlavi lent his voice to a growing chorus calling for Australia to offer the women asylum, joining politicians, human rights activists, and even "Harry Potter" author JK Rowling.
"The members of the Iranian Women's National Football Team are under significant pressure and ongoing threat from the Islamic Republic," said Pahlavi, the son of the last shah of Iran.
"I call on the Australian government to ensure their safety and give them any and all needed support," he said on social media.
Pahlavi, who has not returned to Iran since before the 1979 Islamic revolution that ousted the monarchy, has billed himself as the man to lead a democratic transition to a secular Iran as the theocratic regime fights to survive.
Iranian players refused to sing as their anthem was played ahead of a game against South Korea two days after the US and Israel began a war against the country.
In response, a presenter on Iranian state television branded the side "wartime traitors".
Crowds banged drums and shouted "regime change for Iran" as they gathered outside the Gold Coast stadium where the side played their last match over the weekend.
They then surrounded the Iranian team bus, chanting "let them go" and "save our girls".
On Monday, an AFP journalist saw members of the team speaking on the phones from their balcony of their hotel.
Canberra has so far declined to comment on whether it could offer the players asylum.
Asked about their case on Sunday, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia "stands in solidarity" with the people of Iran.
A spokesperson for Australia's Home Affairs department told AFP it "cannot comment on the circumstances of individuals".
Amnesty International campaigner Zaki Haidari said they faced persecution, or worse, if they were sent home.
"Some of these team members probably have had their families already threatened," Haidari said.
"Them going back... who knows what sort of punishment they will receive?"
Despite being heavily monitored, the side would have a "small window of opportunity" to seek asylum at the airport, he said.
Author J.K. Rowling said "please, protect these young women" in a post on social media.
Iran's embassy in Australia did not respond to a request for comment.
(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
Refugees, migrants in Lebanon find rare sanctuary from Israeli strikes in Beirut church
When Israeli strikes began pummelling Beirut’s southern suburbs early on Monday, Sudanese refugee Ridina Muhammad and her family had no choice but to flee home on foot, eventually reaching the only shelter that would accept them: a church.
Issued on: 07/03/2026 - RFI
Othman Yahyeh Dawood, 41, and his son Mohammed, 10 months, are from Sennar, Sudan, and live as refugees at the displaced migrant workers shelter in St. Joseph Church, in Beirut, Lebanon, following the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, here on 6 March, 2026. REUTERS - Claudia Greco
Eight months pregnant, Muhammad, 32, walked with her husband and three children for hours in the dark streets until they found a car to take them to the St. Joseph Tabaris Parish, which has opened its doors to refugees and migrants.
They are among 300,000 people displaced across Lebanon this week by heavy Israeli strikes, launched in response to a rocket and drone attackinto Israel by the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah.
Just 100,000 of the displaced are in government shelters. Others are staying with relatives or sleeping in the streets. But migrants and refugees say government shelters were never an option for them, saying they were turned away during the last war between Hezbollah and Israel.
Muhammad’s oldest daughter, now seven, stopped speaking after the 2024 war.
This time, they are even more vulnerable: their home was destroyed in this week’s strikes and Muhammad is due to give birth at the end of the month.
“I don't know if there's a doctor or not, but I'm really scared about it because I haven't prepared any clothes for the baby, nor arranged a hospital, and I don't know where to go,” she told Reuters as her younger daughter leaned against her pregnant belly.
Muhammad said she was registered with the United Nations’ refugee agency (UNHCR) but had not received support.
“Us, as refugees, why did we register with the UN, if they are not helping us in the most difficult times?” she said.
Dalal Harb, a spokesperson for UNHCR Lebanon, said the agency had mobilized but reaching everyone immediately was extremely challenging given the scale and speed of displacement. The UNHCR operation in Lebanon is currently only around 14 percent funded, she said.
These refugees and displaced migrant workers are sheltered in St. Joseph Church, following an escalation between Hezbollah and Israel amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Beirut, Lebanon, on 6 March, 2026. REUTERS - Claudia Greco
The Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), which helped the church host displaced in 2024, is doing so again.
Michael Petro, JRS’ Emergency Shelter Director, said the church was full within the first day of strikes, with 140 people from South Sudan, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and other countries sheltering there.
“There are many, many more people coming than there were in 2024, and we have fewer and fewer places to put them,” he said.
Petro said he was told weeks ago that government shelters would be open to migrants if war erupted.
But when the strikes began and even Lebanese struggled to find shelter, the policy seemed to change, he said.
“We're hearing from hotlines up to government officials and ministries that migrants are not welcome,” Petro said.
Lebanon’s Minister for Social Affairs Haneen Sayyed did not respond to a request for comment. On Thursday, Sayyed said Beirut shelters were full.
When Israeli strikes began, Othman Yahyeh Dawood, a 41-year-old Sudanese man, put his two young sons on his motorcycle.
Othman Yahyeh Dawood, 41, with his son Mohammed, 10 months, from Sennar, Sudan, sits in St. Joseph Church, in Beirut, Lebanon, as photographed on 6 March, 2026. REUTERS - Claudia Greco
They drove 75 kilometres from the southern Lebanese town of Nabatieh to St. Joseph’s, where they had sheltered in 2024.
“I know the area is safe and there are people who will welcome us,” he said.
“We don't know where to go; there's war there (in the south), war here (in Beirut), war in Sudan, and nowhere else to go,” he said.
(Reuters)
UK Migrant charities and refugees slam Labour for throwing ‘human rights under the bus’ with temporary refugee status Olivia Barber
6 March, 2026 Left Foot Forward
Refugee groups have said the policy is "divisive and scapegoating" and will trap people fleeing war in "a state of insecurity and fear"
Refugees and charities that support refugees have slammed the government’s decision to make refugee status temporary, saying that the policy throws “human rights under the bus”.
This means that if a person is granted refugee status, their designation as a refugee will be reassessed every two and a half years. If their home country is then deemed to be “safe”, they would be asked to return home or deported.
Yavuz (not his real name), who came to the UK as an asylum seeker but now has settled status and works for migrant charity Praxis, told Left Foot Forward: “People are fleeing from war and conflict, persecution and ill-treatment, these are not things that can change in 30 months.”
Yavuz added: “I don’t think the Home Office will have the capacity to understand if things are safe or not in different countries, which may actually result in misjudgements and people may be sent back prematurely and to the fear and horror of what’s happening in their home country.”
Highlighting the backlog of over 64,000 cases at the Home Office, Yavuz added: “they are creating something that they don’t have capacity to review every 30 months”.
He also criticised Labour’s decision to require refugees to wait 20 years to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain.
He said that people fleeing war and persecution are “looking for stability and safety”, and that by requiring refugees to wait 20 years to settle “this is literally telling people you don’t deserve to live here, you don’t deserve to live a good life”.
Yavuz said that this will also negatively affect refugees’ ability to integrate and feel a sense of belonging in the UK.
Minnie Rahman, CEO of Praxis, said: “Scrapping permanent status will trap refugees in a state of insecurity and fear. Doing so says some people deserve fewer rights – and that inequality is lawful. This is inhumane cruelty.
“If the Government wants to foster cohesion and cut poverty, people need to be able to settle here simply, quickly and affordably. Allowing people to have secure futures enables them to reach their full potential, benefitting everyone – not just refugees.”
In a statement, Women for Refugee Women said they were “deeply alarmed” by the government’s decision. A spokesperson for the charity said: “For the women we support – many of whom have survived war, rape and trafficking – repeated reviews create a climate of permanent fear and insecurity.”
They added: “Already we know from Denmark – where this policy is borrowed from – women will be disproportionately harmed, particularly single mothers, trapping them and their children in cycles of poverty and harm. This is a shameful approach for a Government committed to tackling violence against women and girls.”
The charity said: “This divisive and scapegoating policy is designed to make the Government look ‘tough’ on immigration, but it is real people’s lives at stake. We urge the Government to uphold a system that provides genuine protection for those seeking safety in the UK – not institutionalise insecurity for those who have already endured profound harm.”
Yazan Miri, a spokesperson for the Joint Council of the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), said: “As many countries around the world make amendments to their asylum legislations to provide protection to more people at risk including those fleeing climate violence and environmental disasters, this government decides to throw human rights under the bus and make the UK a backward-moving country.
Miri added that “The government’s designation of a “safe country” is inadequate and lacks the comprehensive assessment of the risks for people seeking safety”.
Shabana Mahmood’s attack on migrant rights continues. Following her announcement to double – and in some cases, triple – the length of time that migrants have to wait before getting settled status, the Home Secretary has now opened several new fronts.
Refugees targeted
The first is the decision that all new refugees entering the UK will be told that their right to stay is only temporary, to be reviewed every thirty months. The copying of Denmark’s draconian system has been widely criticised, not least by the Law Society of England and Wales’s President, Mark Evans. He said: “The changes stand in tension with Article 34 of the refugee convention, under which the UK has agreed to facilitate as far as possible the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees.”
Sophie McCann, of Médecins Sans Frontières UK, called the decision “cruel”, adding: “Embedding prolonged uncertainty and fear within the asylum system will create further psychological harm and inhibit refugees’ – including our patients’ – ability to heal from their experiences and rebuild their lives with dignity.”
Daniel Sohege, Director of the human rights advocacy and support organisation Stand For All, commented: “Leaving people in limbo, without any guarantee of security, creates the additional issue of placing them in more precarious positions. It is already shown that this increases the risks of both people becoming undocumented and of people being exploited, particularly by human traffickers. This would create a result from this policy which is entirely at odds with this government’s claim that they are focused on reducing the number of undocumented migrants and tackling exploitation and human trafficking.”
The policy is also at odds with the government’s claim to be focused on reducing division and increasing integration. Many Labour local authorities, particularly in urban areas with a high proportion of residents born overseas, are keen to tell a positive story about inclusivity and integration. Sheila Chapman, who is Islington Council’s Executive Member for Equalities, Communities and Inclusion called the announcement “really unwelcome.”
She added: “Making refugee protection temporary will make our work harder. It creates divides in our community as refugees are presented with yet another barrier to integration. For those who are not able to move on to work or study visas, the threat of deportation will loom over their lives and the lives of their dependents.
“We know firsthand the benefit that refugees have brought for generations. They become our neighbours, our classmates, our friends and family, and we do not agree that they should be made to leave.”
She has written to Shabana Mahmood, urging her to reconsider. Backbench Labour MP are also unhappy.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP said: “Those fleeing disaster and conflict deserve certainty and dignity, not repeated questioning of their right to feel safe. Progressive, humane policies strengthen communities. Division does not. We can choose compassion, and we should.”
Imran Hussain MP tweeted: “Making refugee status temporary and subject to review every 30 months is deeply misguided. It undermines the post war refugee protections Britain helped build and will fuel more insecurity and hostility towards people seeking safety. These changes must stop before we slide further down a dangerous path.”
And former Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott MP questioned: “After Labour’s drubbing in Gorton, this is the response??? My party implementing policies that used to get you thrown out of the Tory party.” Many others are also asking why Labour is aping the policies of Reform UK – particularly after the latter’s comprehensive drubbing in the Gorton and Denton byelection last week.
Study visas restricted
Midweek, the Home Secretary announced a new crackdown on issuing study visas, saying they would no longer be made available to people from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan from this month. Skilled work visas to Afghans will also be stopped. All the countries targeted are in the midst of civil wars, with very high levels of civilian casualties and human rights abuses.
The University and College Union responded: “This attack on international students isn’t really about reducing asylum claims, it’s about aping Reform to try and win back votes. The Greens’ destruction of Labour in the Gorton and Denton by-election should have been a wakeup call – these tactics aren’t just immoral; they’re political suicide.”
National Union of Students president Amira Campbell said the move was “deeply immoral”. She said: “The ambition of the next generation is not paused during conflict. Which is why it is even more important that students from countries facing conflict or humanitarian disasters can come to the UK, access our world-leading education system and share their experiences with other students on campus.”
New restrictions
Then on Thursday, the Home Secretary, in a flagship speech, announced new measures, including a requirement that to be granted permanent settlement, immigrants must attain a higher standard of English language.
Echoing Reform UK, she said the current system was “out of control”. But Sile Reynolds, Head of Asylum Advocacy at Freedom from Torture, warned that Shabana Mahmood’s plans to remove accommodation and financial support from some asylum seekers will leave people homeless.
The Refugee Council agreed, saying the plans could lead to an uptick in rough sleeping, shifting costs to local councils and the NHS. Imran Hussain, its director of external affairs, said speeding up slow decision-making was a “far more effective” way to reduce costs.
The plans triggered an immediate backlash from Labour MPs. Tony Vaughan, the Labour MP for Folkestone and Hythe, organised a letter that he said had been signed by 100 of his party colleagues, saying the proposals undermined the government’s commitment to integration and social cohesion.
Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow, who said: “There’s no ‘fairness’ in repeatedly spending money on asking victims of trafficking and civil war if they are still in that category.” Sarah Owen, a leader of the Tribune group of centre-left Labour MPs, said: “The idea of deporting children mimics Trump’s ICE detention of children.”
These latest attacks follow last month’s proposal to make migrants wait longer before being allowed Indefinite Leave to Remain, which large numbers of Labour backbenchers outspokenly criticised in Parliament.
Corbyn broadside
Islington North Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn told the Home Secretary: “The premise of the proposals is fundamentally unfair and unjust, and it is deeply disturbing that these rules are being pushed through via secondary legislation without Parliamentary scrutiny. It is therefore no surprise that little attention has been paid to safeguarding those most vulnerable to exploitative employees, people with caring responsibilities, individuals trapped in abusive relationships, and children.”
He called the proposals “fundamentally unjust. They are set to apply retroactively, affecting many already living and working in the country, some of whom are mere months away from qualifying for settlement.” He added: “The criteria for reducing and increasing the qualifying period favour one group of people only: those on high income. In practice this means that following a decade of austerity, wage stagnation and a cost-of-living crisis, the vast majority of applicants will face a harder life and at worst, be susceptible to exploitation.”
He said the proposals were inconsistent with the government’s own rhetoric: “In 2024, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care emphasised the need for carers to be ‘respected as professionals’. Yet it is carers who are having their minimum qualifying period extended from 5 to 15 years, leaving them vulnerable to predatory relationships as they rely entirely on individual company sponsorships. This callous treatment of migrants will likely achieve the goal of a decrease in legal migration. However, at a time when 111,000 posts remain unfilled in the care sector, it would be a hollow victory with devastating consequences for the vulnerable and elderly.”,
He said the prolonged temporary status migrants would now face would hit children particularly and could prevent them from feeling truly integrated as they continually are forced to rely on visa extensions. This would put vulnerable children at risk of social and cultural alienation.
He concluded: “People who migrate and make this country their home make enormous social and economic contributions to society. In the current climate of rising anti-immigrant sentiment pushed by far-right-racism, it is alarming to see this government amplify, through these changes, the false assumption that migrants are a burden to society.”
Rogue employers
The latest targeting of migrants comes at a time when Home Office action against rogue employers has hit an all-time high. The Government has revoked a record 1,516 sponsor licences from businesses in October to December 2025, with new data revealing exploitation of sponsored workers goes far beyond the care sector. Penalising exploitative employers is no bad thing – but the current approach also hits those who work for them, who lose their jobs and visas and end up destitute.
Work Rights Centre analysis of official immigration statistics finds that the Home Office revoked a record number of licences from businesses in 2025, totalling 3,100 revocations. This is the highest number of revocations in any year since records began in 2012.
Chief executive of the Work Rights Centre, Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol said: “We welcome increased action to hold exploitative employers accountable, but this should not come at the cost of migrant workers being left out in the cold. Every licence revocation means all migrant workers sponsored by that employer will lose their income and risk losing their immigration status.
“Migrant workers must not be punished for the crimes of their employers. This is not only unjust, but creates a disincentive for all workers to report exploitation, giving unscrupulous employers free rein to exploit as they please.
“Ministers have not done enough to support migrant workers who have fallen victim to unscrupulous employers and the UK’s broken immigration system. They were abandoned as collateral damage in the Home Office’s crackdown on rogue employers, many of which should never have been given a licence to sponsor migrant workers in the first place.
‘Labour’s lesson from Denmark: immigration alone won’t save you’
Sofie Pultz 6th March, 2026
Photo: Nick N A/Shutterstock
Labour has its eyes on Denmark. The story told by the Home Office is that the Danish Social Democrats owe their success to getting tough on migration. While that was part of the story when Mette Frederiksen first took office in 2019, it was never the full story.
As a Dane, the current political situation in the UK feels like slight deja-vu. While Denmark is, of course, very different, there are still lessons from the Danish Social Democrats that Labour might want to take note of – and oversimplifications of the Danish story that they should avoid.
Frederiksen is credited for writing the playbook for how left-wing parties can adopt right-wing immigration policies and combine them with social democratic welfare policies to fight off the populist right. Her 2019 election win was seen as proof; the populist right party, the Danish People’s Party, that had won more than 21 percent of the vote in the 2015 election, was halved.
However, the Social Democrats got more votes in 2015 than they did in 2019, and only ten percent of the Danish People’s Party’s voters went to the Social Democrats – most of the voters the Danish People’s Party lost went to other right-wing parties. Instead, Frederiksen was able to get a majority behind her because the smaller left-wing parties did significantly better in 2019 than 2015.
‘Trying to stop the drift to the right by focusing too much on one voter group can result in a stronger drift to the left’
Similar to Labour, the Danish Social Democrats have relied on a ‘hero-voter’ approach. In a multi-party system, they knew they could not be a party for everyone, so they made intentional choices of who they are for, who they are not for, and who they are against.
They identified their base voter as primarily pensioners and working-class people in provincial towns. They built everything around that group, combining tough immigration policies with retirement age reform and increased minimum wage for care workers, nurses and prison guards as flagship political wins. In doing so, they were prepared to sacrifice the young, university-educated metropolitan vote, knowing it would flow to other parties.
The consequences of this strategy, however, have been significant. In last year’s council election, they lost the mayoral seat in Copenhagen for the first time in more than 100 years. The current polls also predict that they will lose 19 percent of their 2022 voters to other left-wing parties.
The Social Democrats learned the hard way that trying to stop the drift of voters to the right by focusing too much on one voter group, might result in a stronger drift to the left.
‘The grocery cheque’
Realising this, Frederiksen’s 2026 campaign is bearing signs of ‘course correcting’; her priorities and announcement are clear returns to ‘traditional’ social democratic policies with broad appeal.
While Denmark has a strong economy, the cost of living is still the primary concern of voters in this election. Frederiksen therefore called the election right after the Danish Parliament passed what has been dubbed “the grocery cheque”: a one-off cash transfer of between £117 and £586 for more than a third of the population.
As a policy, it is easy to explain, easy to feel, and easy to remember. It shows that the Government takes voters’ concerns seriously and it is immediately felt in people’s pockets.
Recent IPPR research has argued that cost-of-living interventions should be a priority for this government in the UK. These interventions do not need to be large to be effective; but the longer the list, the more convincing the case becomes that the Government is doing everything within its power to ease the pressure on working people.
‘Danish wealth tax communicated whose side the government is on’
The clearest example of Frederiksen’s ‘course correction’, however, came in her election announcement speech: Frederiksen wants to introduce a wealth tax on the wealthiest 0.5 percent of the population, with the money ringfenced for reducing class sizes in primary schools.
This is a near perfect Social Democratic policy; it raises money on the principle that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest load, spends it on something universally valued, and communicates something clear about whose side the government is on: the 99.5 percent.
Labour might consider introducing similar broad-appeal policies to address voters’ concern with the growing inequality in the UK. Polling by IPPR and Persuasion UK from November 2025 shows that there would be public support for a ‘narrow’ wealth tax if it was clear that it would benefit the wider public.
‘Adopting a simplified Danish playbook is unlikely to be a silver bullet’
Frederiksen has been an impressive Prime Minister. But her story is about more than ‘getting tough on migration’. It is also a story about the consequences of getting too caught up in the ‘hero voter’ strategy. Denmark’s multiparty system kept her in power, but she has realised that she cannot afford to overlook her wider voter base.
Adopting a simplified idea of the Danish Social Democratic playbook is therefore also unlikely to be a silver bullet for Labour, especially if it largely just focuses on ‘getting tough on immigration’.
Sofie Pultz
Sofie Pultz is a researcher in IPPR’s international policy programme, specialising in the global south. Before joining IPPR, she worked with a major international NGO on development and climate finance projects.
