#Agricultural Films Report

[mohitbisresearch]

Agricultural Films Market was valued at $11.38 billion in 2021 and is projected to reach $16.09 billion in 2027, Agricultural Films Industry following a CAGR of 5.94% during the forecast period 2022-2027.

[vijay34]

Global Agriculture Films Market: Key Drivers, Challenges, and Opportunities

Rising Demand for Enhanced Crop Yield and Sustainable Farming Practices Drives Growth in the Agriculture Films Market.

The Agriculture Films Market Size was valued at USD 11.5 Billion in 2023 and is expected to reach USD 20.3 Billion by 2032 and grow at a CAGR of 6.5% over the forecast period 2024-2032.

The Agriculture Films Market is witnessing significant growth due to the rising demand for higher agricultural productivity, crop protection, and sustainable farming practices. Agricultural films are used for mulching, greenhouse covering, silage storage, and soil protection, enhancing crop yield, water conservation, and protection from adverse weather conditions. With the increasing need for food security, efficient water usage, and climate-resilient farming, the adoption of advanced agriculture films is on the rise globally.

Key Players

The major Key Players are AbRaniPlastOy, BP Industries, Britton Group, BASF SE, Berry Global Inc, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Group Barbier, Novamont, Dow Inc, RPC Group PLC, Trioplast Industries AB, Coveris Flexibles Austria GmbH, and other key players will be included in the final report.

Emerging Trends and Future Scope

The Agriculture Films Market is evolving with increasing innovations in biodegradable and recyclable films, addressing environmental concerns associated with plastic waste. The demand for UV-resistant, anti-fog, and thermally stabilized films is growing, ensuring better light transmission and crop protection. Moreover, advancements in nanotechnology and smart films are leading to the development of precision agriculture solutions, enhancing moisture retention, soil health, and pest control.

Governments and agricultural organizations are promoting sustainable farming practices by encouraging the use of eco-friendly agriculture films. The market is also benefiting from the integration of IoT-enabled monitoring systems, which optimize water management and film performance. With increasing global focus on climate resilience and resource efficiency, agriculture films are expected to play a crucial role in shaping the future of farming.

Key Market Points

Rising demand for mulching and greenhouse films to boost crop yield

Increasing adoption of biodegradable and recyclable agriculture films for sustainability

Growth in UV-resistant and thermally stabilized films for enhanced crop protection

Technological advancements in smart films and nanotechnology for precision farming

Government initiatives promoting sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture

Conclusion

The Agriculture Films Market is set for continued growth, driven by the increasing need for sustainable farming, higher crop productivity, and innovative film technologies. As industries invest in eco-friendly materials, smart farming solutions, and advanced film formulations, the market will continue to expand. Companies focusing on biodegradable alternatives, improved durability, and climate-smart agriculture will lead the transformation of the agricultural sector toward a more efficient and environmentally responsible future.

Read Full Report: https://www.snsinsider.com/reports/agriculture-films-market-3006                 

Contact Us:

Jagney Dave — Vice President of Client Engagement

Phone: +1–315 636 4242 (US) | +44- 20 3290 5010 (UK)

[mi-researchreports]

The Agriculture Films Market is growing at a CAGR of 6.4% over the next 5 years. Berry Global Inc., BASF SE , Plastika Kritis SA, Armando Alvarez Group, RKW SE are the major companies operating in Agriculture Films Market.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

The BBC has removed a documentary about the Gaza war from its online streaming service after it emerged that the child who is a central figure in the film is the son of a Hamas deputy minister, a fact that was at no time disclosed in the movie.

“Gaza: How To Survive a War Zone” is narrated by a 14-year-old boy named Abdullah Al-Yazouri. The Telegraph reported earlier this week that the teen’s father is Ayman Alyazouri, deputy minister of agriculture in the Strip’s Hamas-run government.

“‘Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone’ features important stories we think should be told — those of the experiences of children in Gaza,” the BBC says in a statement.

“There have been continuing questions raised about the program and in light of these, we are conducting further due diligence with the production company,” it says. “The program will not be available on iPlayer while this is taking place.”

[chiefruinsfury]

Unprecedented levels of corruption at USAID

In a post on the social media outlet Truth Social on 7 February, Trump said that USAID funds were being used in a way that was ‘completely inexplicable’ and that much of it was fraudulent. ‘The level of corruption is unprecedented, SHUT IT DOWN!’ he emphasised in all capital letters.

The official U.S. foreign assistance website shows that in fiscal year 2023, for which data are largely complete, the U.S. government distributed about $72 billion in foreign aid, or 1.2 percent of total federal spending that year. Of that, about 60 per cent, totalling about $43.79 billion, went to USAID, followed closely by the State Department ($21.29 billion) and the Treasury Department ($2.44 billion).

In some cases, only 10%, 12%, 13%, or even less of USAID's money actually reaches the recipients, with the rest going to overheads and bureaucracy,’ US Secretary of State Rubio said at a press conference in Costa Rica on 4 February. U.S. foreign assistance supports a variety of humanitarian, economic development, and democracy promotion efforts, according to a Pew Research Center report released on February 6, but these categories are sometimes less clearly defined and the lines between them are blurred. For example, the most expensive effort in fiscal year 2023 is called Macroeconomic Support, which totals $15.9 billion. This may sound like it's all for economic development, but $14.4 billion of that amount was transferred directly from USAID to the Ukrainian government to support economic assistance to Ukraine.

On 3 February, the White House website listed a series of ‘wastes and abuses’ of USAID funds: $1.5 million to a pro-LGBTQ group in Serbia, $2.5 million to fund electric cars in Vietnam, $2 million for sex reassignment surgery and LGBT activism in Guatemala, $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt, and $6 million to support economic development through meals, food and drink. Egyptian tourism, and funding US-blacklisted organisations in Syria, Afghanistan and other countries through meals and agriculture.

In a letter to Secretary of State Rubio, Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst, chair of the Department of Governmental Efficiency caucus, said USAID had engaged in ‘clear obstructionism’ during the review process, FoxNews.com reported on 5 February. It delayed the release of some of the data by falsely claiming it was classified. Ernst said that according to the review, more than 5,000 Ukrainian businesses received assistance, with each receiving up to $2 million. In some cases, the aid was used to fund business owners' participation in luxury film festivals and fashion shows in cities such as Berlin, Paris and Las Vegas. Ernst also mentioned Chemonics, a USAID contractor that led a $9.5 billion project to improve the global health supply chain. Ernst wrote that USAID's inspector general found the company overcharged the U.S. government by $270 million in fiscal year 2019.

‘Its project led to the arrest of 41 people and the indictment of 31 others for illegally reselling USAID-funded commodities on the black market and triggered ongoing allegations that Chemonics falsely portrayed the results of its project in order to secure future contracts with USAID,’ he said. ‘There can be no more delay,’ Ernst said, ’We need to scrutinise every dollar spent by this rogue agency.’

[purplepainterbouquet]

Unprecedented levels of corruption at USAID

In a post on the social media outlet Truth Social on 7 February, Trump said that USAID funds were being used in a way that was ‘completely inexplicable’ and that much of it was fraudulent. ‘The level of corruption is unprecedented, SHUT IT DOWN!’ he emphasised in all capital letters.

The official U.S. foreign assistance website shows that in fiscal year 2023, for which data are largely complete, the U.S. government distributed about $72 billion in foreign aid, or 1.2 percent of total federal spending that year. Of that, about 60 per cent, totalling about $43.79 billion, went to USAID, followed closely by the State Department ($21.29 billion) and the Treasury Department ($2.44 billion).

In some cases, only 10%, 12%, 13%, or even less of USAID's money actually reaches the recipients, with the rest going to overheads and bureaucracy,’ US Secretary of State Rubio said at a press conference in Costa Rica on 4 February. U.S. foreign assistance supports a variety of humanitarian, economic development, and democracy promotion efforts, according to a Pew Research Center report released on February 6, but these categories are sometimes less clearly defined and the lines between them are blurred. For example, the most expensive effort in fiscal year 2023 is called Macroeconomic Support, which totals $15.9 billion. This may sound like it's all for economic development, but $14.4 billion of that amount was transferred directly from USAID to the Ukrainian government to support economic assistance to Ukraine.

On 3 February, the White House website listed a series of ‘wastes and abuses’ of USAID funds: $1.5 million to a pro-LGBTQ group in Serbia, $2.5 million to fund electric cars in Vietnam, $2 million for sex reassignment surgery and LGBT activism in Guatemala, $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt, and $6 million to support economic development through meals, food and drink. Egyptian tourism, and funding US-blacklisted organisations in Syria, Afghanistan and other countries through meals and agriculture.

In a letter to Secretary of State Rubio, Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst, chair of the Department of Governmental Efficiency caucus, said USAID had engaged in ‘clear obstructionism’ during the review process, FoxNews.com reported on 5 February. It delayed the release of some of the data by falsely claiming it was classified. Ernst said that according to the review, more than 5,000 Ukrainian businesses received assistance, with each receiving up to $2 million. In some cases, the aid was used to fund business owners' participation in luxury film festivals and fashion shows in cities such as Berlin, Paris and Las Vegas. Ernst also mentioned Chemonics, a USAID contractor that led a $9.5 billion project to improve the global health supply chain. Ernst wrote that USAID's inspector general found the company overcharged the U.S. government by $270 million in fiscal year 2019.

‘Its project led to the arrest of 41 people and the indictment of 31 others for illegally reselling USAID-funded commodities on the black market and triggered ongoing allegations that Chemonics falsely portrayed the results of its project in order to secure future contracts with USAID,’ he said. ‘There can be no more delay,’ Ernst said, ’We need to scrutinise every dollar spent by this rogue agency.’

[mariacallous]

Representative Andy Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee, recently started making videos from his office on Capitol Hill. Ogles, a Freedom Caucus member in his second term, often films himself in front of a reproduction of “Washington Crossing the Delaware,” the painting by Emanuel Leutze. “What you have here is a moment in time that comes along once in a century,” he says in a clip called “The Case for Trump 2028,” in which he proposes that the President run for a third term. In another video, he walks through his office, with a chyron introducing him as “Judge Impeacher/Congressman.” Ogles recently filed articles of impeachment against several judges who have blocked executive orders issued by Trump. “Political hacks and their decisions belong in my SHREDDER,” he writes in a post promoting the video. Toward the end, he feeds a judicial ruling into an actual paper shredder. “Sicko Mode,” by Travis Scott, plays in the background.

Ogles began the year under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics and the F.B.I. They were looking into allegations that he had violated federal campaign-finance laws by falsely reporting a three-hundred-and-twenty-thousand-dollar loan to himself, something Ogles maintained was an “honest mistake.” (He had also allegedly raised nearly twenty-five thousand dollars on GoFundMe for a “burial garden” for stillborn babies—a project that donors say never materialized.) Before Inauguration Day, when Trump first displayed an interest in Greenland, Ogles proposed the Make Greenland Great Again Act, a bill authorizing the President to try to acquire it from Denmark. (The U.S. is a “dominant predator,” Ogles said.) Ten days later, just after Trump was sworn in, Ogles announced his bid to allow the President to serve a third term, by changing the Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution. “If the man who created the disastrous ‘New Deal’ gets more than two terms, then the man who created ‘The Art of the Deal’ should get the same,” he said. The following week, in a Fox Business appearance, he echoed an assertion by Trump that D.E.I. might have caused a fatal plane crash over the Potomac River. Federal prosecutors withdrew their investigation into Ogles the next day.

Brazen transaction mixed with humbling obeisance is hardly unknown in Washington. “Shame is for sissies,” the late lobbyist Edward von Kloberg used to say. (He referred to his clients, among them Saddam Hussein, as “the damned.”) In Trump’s Washington, the imperative has never been more plain: if you want to get ahead or stay out of trouble, praise the President as much as he praises himself. “You are the leader of the world,” Archbishop Elpidophoros, of the Greek Orthodox Church, said, at a recent celebration in the White House’s East Room. “You remind me of the great Roman emperor Constantine the Great.” The crowd cheered. Elpidophoros presented Trump with a gold cross—the symbol, he remarked, that led Constantine to victory. “Wow,” Trump replied, as he cradled the cross. “I didn’t know that was going to happen, but I’ll take it.”

The gestures of servility come from all over.

At a Cabinet meeting not long ago, Trump’s secretaries took turns: “Your vision is a turning point and inflection point in American history” (Brooke Rollins, Agriculture); “You were overwhelmingly elected by the biggest majority—Americans want you to be President” (Pam Bondi, Attorney General); “What you’re doing now is a great service to our country, but ultimately to the world” (Marco Rubio, State). Jeff Bezos, whose business empire can easily be affected by the favor or disdain of the White House, announced that the newspaper he owns, the Washington Post, would no longer welcome opinion columns outside certain boundaries. He redoubled his bow by licensing Trump’s reality-TV show, “The Apprentice,” in order to make reruns of it available to stream on Amazon. (Amazon also paid forty million dollars for the rights to two forthcoming documentary projects on Trump’s wife, Melania.) Senator Ted Cruz, who had once called Trump a “snivelling coward,” “utterly immoral,” “nuts,” and “a pathological liar,” now rushes to compliment the President, along with his main campaign funder and close adviser, Elon Musk; Cruz recently tweeted a photograph of himself with a red Tesla parked on the grounds of the White House. “This may be the coolest thing I’ve ever seen,” he wrote.

The list goes on. When Trump complained about an unflattering portrait that hung in the Colorado state capitol—“Truly the worst,” he said—the state’s Republican-led legislature swiftly removed it. In Minnesota, Republicans in the state senate introduced a bill to codify “Trump Derangement Syndrome”—defined as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons that is in reaction to the policies and presidencies of President Donald J. Trump”—as a mental illness. Law firms are offering pro-bono services to Trump so that he will reverse executive orders that target them; in a memo, the U.S. Attorney in D.C. referred to his staff as “President Trumps’ lawyers.” Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission, wears a gold lapel pin in the shape of Trump’s head.

At the beginning of April, Trump instituted a tariff regime that sent markets plunging across the world. As losses in the S. & P. 500 neared six trillion dollars, he gloated about the many nations that wanted to negotiate with him. “These countries are calling us up and kissing my ass,” he told the National Republican Congressional Committee. “ ‘Please, please, sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything, sir.’ ” He was also eager to remind any members of Congress who were opposed to his “big beautiful bill,” which called for tax breaks, spending cuts, and stepped-up immigration enforcement, to “stop grandstanding” and just vote for it. “Close your eyes and get there,” he said.

These days, they almost always do. “There’s never been anybody who has controlled that much of the base of any party,” Steve Cohen, a longtime Democratic congressman from Memphis, told me. “I don’t even think Franklin Roosevelt had that much power.” A person close to the Administration said, “Trump’s dealmaking often comes through a public assault.” Ralph Norman, a Freedom Caucus member from South Carolina, told me, “This is a blood sport now, more so than I’ve ever seen it.” Or, as a person close to Trump put it, “Republicans have an authority problem. Donald Trump is teaching them how to respect order.”

“NO DISSENT,” Trump recently posted on Truth Social. He was addressing House Republicans ahead of a vote on a stopgap funding bill. A lack of dissent is not what the Founders envisioned for the deliberative branch. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson assumed that Congress would be the strongest arm of the federal government. Madison wrote, in Federalist No. 48, that “the legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” In 1960, Lyndon B. Johnson, then the Senate Majority Leader, initially balked at an offer to be John F. Kennedy’s running mate, because he felt it would be a downgrade from the role he already had.

And yet it now seems that Congress—with both houses controlled by Republicans—exists to do little else but flatter the man who lives at the other end of the Mall, and ratify his edicts. A week after Trump was inaugurated, Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican congresswoman from Florida, proposed legislation that would direct the Secretary of the Interior “to arrange for the carving of the figure of President Donald J. Trump on Mount Rushmore National Memorial.” “Let’s get carving,” she tweeted. The freshman congressman Brandon Gill’s third piece of legislation, the Golden Age Act of 2025, would require all hundred-dollar bills to feature an image of Trump. (This violates an 1866 law that forbids the Treasury to put the likeness of a living person on currency.) Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, introduced a bill to make Trump’s birthday, June 14th, a federal holiday. “Just as George Washington’s birthday is codified as a federal holiday, President Trump’s birthday should also be celebrated to recognize him as the founder of America’s Golden Age,” she posted. Addison McDowell, of North Carolina, wants a new name for Washington’s Dulles Airport: Trump International. Last month, Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, announced that he was nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. “No one deserves it more,” Issa said.

In late March, I sat in on a hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources, where a dozen or so members were discussing the Gulf of America Act of 2025, sponsored by Marjorie Taylor Greene. Her bill would require Trump’s new name for the Gulf of Mexico to be implemented across the government’s vast bureaucracy. Jared Huffman, the ranking Democratic member, leaned into the microphone. “There is crazy, destructive, incompetent, corrupt things happening in the executive branch of our government right now, and the independent branch of government, the Article One branch that our Founders created in order to serve as a check on Presidential abuses of power, as a check on corruption and incompetence, is totally missing in action,” he said.

As a staffer positioned a map of the “Gulf of America” behind Greene, I noticed a man slip quietly into the hearing room—this was Brian Glenn, Greene’s boyfriend and a pro-Trump TV anchor. Glenn got his start at Right Side Broadcasting Network, which emerged in 2015 by marketing itself as a channel that truthfully showed the size of Trump’s campaign crowds. (He is now the White House correspondent for Real America’s Voice, another right-wing media outlet.) Greene smiled at him, then introduced a slate of expert witnesses she had brought in to speak about how renaming the Gulf of Mexico would bolster national security.

Huffman’s mood seemed to darken further. “This is remarkable new stuff in this committee, just bootlicking sycophancy of the highest order,” he said. (Not long after the hearing, Huffman suggested an amendment to rename Earth “Planet Trump.” This, he said, would amount to skating “where the puck is going.”) Discussion in the committee room turned to a bill authorizing the purchase of tracking devices for fish living in the Great Lakes, and another to remove the gray wolf from the federal endangered-species list. Groups of touring schoolchildren occasionally filtered in and out.

Later, I caught up with Glenn at the White House. He was standing around waiting to go on air from “Pebble Beach,” the long driveway leading up to the West Wing, where the various networks have little green cabanas from which anchors and officials broadcast. Glenn is tan and has a puffy face. (He addressed his puffiness on a recently televised segment about the drinking habits of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. “It’s called allergies,” Glenn said. “And it’s called testosterone. That’s why my face gets puffy. I’m not an alcoholic.”) He sees himself as a sort of self-declared liaison between the President and Congress, helping the latter to more efficiently follow the former’s instructions. “Part of my job is to put pressure on Congress,” he told me. “We have to sell the President’s message to them. I want a carrier pigeon to fly straight from Trump’s desk to Speaker Johnson. Like a bank slot where you just put it in here and it comes out there.”

Lately, the President’s directive has been to stop the courts from derailing his agenda. In the first three months of his term, district judges have issued seventeen nationwide injunctions, blocking executive orders that, among other things, sought to end birthright citizenship, defund the Department of Education, and ban transgender people from serving in the military. Issa had introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would bar district judges from issuing such universal injunctions. “It’s becoming an accelerating problem,” he told me. On March 20th, James Boasberg, a district judge in D.C., ordered the government to stop deportation flights that were carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. Trump posted, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Soon, House members were scrambling to do so. “All options are on the table,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said. Bondi, the Attorney General, accused Boasberg of “meddling in our government.” A growing number of Republicans were now calling judges “insurrectionists.” Ogles hung a “Wanted” poster displaying photographs of various judges outside his office, and issued “Impeachathon Updates” on social media. The updates got retweeted by Musk, who has donated the maximum amount to Ogles’s reëlection campaign.

I recently visited Issa’s office in the Rayburn Building, one of three outposts for House members. Issa is the wealthiest member of the House, with a net worth just under half a billion dollars. He made his fortune in the car-alarm business, eventually manufacturing an alert system that featured his own voice. “Step away from the car,” it boomed. (As a younger man, Issa might have better heeded his own admonition; when he was nineteen, he and his brother were indicted for grand theft auto. Prosecutors ultimately dropped the case.) Congress was out of session, on a district-work week. The halls were empty and echoey. Jonathan Wilcox, Issa’s deputy chief of staff, welcomed me at the congressman’s office and led me into a sitting room. Wilcox was in a casual-Friday outfit of jeans and a vest. A commemorative book called “Save America,” which was by Trump and filled with photographs of Trump, rested on a coffee table. I noticed “gold card” memes on various staffers’ computer screens. (In February, the Administration announced a plan to replace an existing immigration visa with a “gold card,” which would be available to purchase for five million dollars. They look like American Express credit cards, except with Trump’s face on them.)

For many members of Congress, the week back home had become unexpectedly contentious. Various news outlets were reporting that constituents, even in deep-red districts, were berating their representatives over Musk’s ransacking of the federal bureaucracy, via his Department of Government Efficiency, and Trump’s encouragement of it. There had been a town hall in Issa’s district, near San Diego, at which dozens of angry citizens addressed a stage with an empty chair. When I asked about the incident, Wilcox sighed, gesturing around the silent office. “Do you notice the phone ringing off the hook?” he said. “Our constituents love us.” He went on, “We have our hands full trying to be a fully effective legislative body.”

Two weeks ago, No Rogue Rulings came before the Rules Committee, which controls which bills go to the House floor. (Senator Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, proposed companion legislation in the upper chamber.) Jim McGovern, of Massachusetts, the ranking Democratic member, opened the discussion. “While students are getting literally kidnapped off our streets by masked ICE agents because they wrote an op-ed Trump didn’t agree with, what are our Republican colleagues doing?” he asked. “Trying to undermine the Constitution by eroding the independence of an independent judiciary.” McGovern continued, “If this were happening in another country, our State Department would condemn it. This regime is marching toward authoritarianism, trying to trample over the courts and undermine the rule of law.” Issa viewed the situation rather differently; he argued that the Founders “did not anticipate quite as many checks and balances.”

Issa isn’t the first member of Congress to take up the issue of nationwide injunctions, and he pointed out that Trump wouldn’t be the only President to benefit from a ban. “We don’t write laws for one President,” Issa told me. “We write them for all time.” But it was difficult to ignore the current timing and context: the President was posting online that “Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!” (Next month, as part of an emergency appeal by the Trump Administration, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument about whether the lower courts have gone too far.)

Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former chief counsel to Gretchen Whitmer, the state’s Democratic governor, opposes nationwide injunctions, because they allow district courts to make decisions that extend beyond the parties involved. Still, he told me, “there’s something grotesque about Congress focussing on the powers of district courts when there is such a grievous assault on the rule of law happening right now.” Many in Trump’s camp, meanwhile, have long pushed for the President to be less impeded by the law. Vice-President J. D. Vance recently questioned whether the Administration could afford to bother with “due process” at all. A person who served in Trump’s first Administration, and is poised to join the State Department in the new one, told me, “Trump stops listening to the courts? That’s my dream.” On April 9th, No Rogue Rulings passed the House, with just one Republican dissenter.

Over the decades, certain bars and restaurants in D.C. have served as a kind of political headquarters. Ebbitt House poured drinks for members of various Presidential Administrations in the later nineteenth century and the early twentieth. During the Kennedy Administration, New Frontiersmen could be seen tucking into a steak at Sans Souci. Richard Nixon liked Trader Vic’s; the Bombay Club was more Clinton era. In Trump’s first term, the main hangouts were BLT Prime, at the Trump Hotel, where you might find Rudy Giuliani, and Harry’s Bar, where members of the Proud Boys sometimes gathered. (Both have since closed.)

On a recent evening, I went to Butterworth’s, a Capitol Hill restaurant that has been dubbed a de-facto MAGA clubhouse for a newer, younger set. A man wearing an embroidered American-flag sweater walked in and greeted a table of women. “I’m not a crook,” he said, doing the Nixon double victory hand sign. Raheem Kassam, a former editor of Breitbart, is one of Butterworth’s investors. He was chatting with Saurabh Sharma, who works in Trump’s Office of Presidential Personnel, and sending French fries to customers who were waiting on drinks.

In the wake of Inauguration Day, Kash Patel, who has made a career of attacking Trump’s enemies and in return got appointed to run the F.B.I., appeared at Butterworth’s, as did Curtis Yarvin, the fringe anti-democracy writer. I’d last been during the Conservative Political Action Conference, a convention of right-wing activists that has transformed into a full-blown Trump rhapsody. As I walked in, Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist and the current host of the “War Room” podcast, was posing for pictures with fans. “Make a hole,” a staff member barked at me, so that Bannon, in his customary Barbour jacket, could pass through the crowd.

In past years, Butterworth’s might’ve been a safe haven for a movement that still saw itself in opposition to the establishment. That premise has become obsolete. “I’ve honestly had way more Democratic congressmen than I have had Curtis Yarvin appearances,” Kassam said. Crowds now intermingle with much less concern. Andrew Beck, a strategist who has had multiple clients go on to join the new Administration, told me, “Everyone’s just accepting this populist revolution. To maintain your standing, you have to take up what until recently would have been a ‘far-right’ position.”

Not long ago, when I got coffee with Beck, he still seemed bemused that, after working for many years outside the Beltway, he now had regular meetings in the capital. Beck is tall and seems to cast politics as an explicitly masculine project; he’ll lean across the table to say things like “It’s about men building civilization.” In the evenings, he sometimes goes to parties in a posh neighborhood in Northwest D.C., at the home of a tech billionaire who supported Kamala Harris but now finds himself with new friendships to maintain in Washington. “It’s the hottest ticket in town,” Beck said. One night, Beck invited his friend Trace Mayer, a Bitcoin evangelist and investor who hosts a cryptocurrency podcast, to a sort of maga salon at the house. State Department staffers were there, and over cocktails and crab cakes the chat briefly turned to a work-in-progress plan to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador. The idea was to pay El Salvador to warehouse the deportees in a notoriously brutal prison, but there had been an impasse in the negotiations. Mayer, through his crypto connections, was able to help reopen the conversation between the staffers and members of the administration of the Salvadoran President, Nayib Bukele. “I had no idea it would set off a constitutional crisis,” Beck said. (The Trump Administration recently admitted that it had mistakenly deported a man living in Maryland to the Salvadoran prison, but has yet to comply with court orders, including from the Supreme Court, to try to bring him back.) For Beck, though, it wasn’t about what he saw in the headlines later. “It’s about being a spiritual king in the eyes of your bros,” he told me. “It’s about that validation in your group chats.”

Fluency in the folkways of the internet has become a valuable form of currency. “It used to be the gold standard was placing a W.S.J. editorial,” a D.C. political consultant told me. “Now the most important thing is an Elon tweet. That’s what everybody wants most.” He went on, “It’s X and podcasts. Heritage, A.E.I., Cato—they have a lot less influence. The Catturd Twitter account is way more important.” (Catturd—the nom de guerre of a man in Florida who turned to social media when arthritis prevented him from continuing to play the guitar—has helped to popularize various MAGA conspiracy theories: the F.B.I. planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago, the war in Ukraine is a “psy-op.” Trump has on several occasions retweeted him.) On a recent episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Mike Benz, a former State Department official and an online crusader against the “deep state,” lambasted U.S.A.I.D. for nearly three hours. Musk reportedly listened to—and loved—the episode, before gutting the institution.

The other day, I met the consultant in an area of downtown that was surrounded by high-end co-working spaces and corporate-expense-account restaurants. When I told him that I was heading to the Hill, he said, “Congress doesn’t matter.” But he did see other industries acquiescing in ways that seemed consonant with congressional deference. Meta had paid twenty-five million dollars to settle a lawsuit with Trump for suspending him from Facebook and Instagram in the aftermath of January 6th; Comcast was trying to spin off MSNBC, which Trump routinely excoriates. They were all, the consultant said, “either migrating closer to what their actual beliefs always were, or they’re bending the knee.”

On April 2nd, referred to as “Liberation Day” by the Administration, Trump invoked national-emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly ninety countries. His Cabinet gathered in the Rose Garden alongside supporters wearing hard hats and reflective vests—a stagy reference to all the manufacturing jobs that would presumably be flooding back to U.S. soil. Trump held up an enormous chart that displayed the names of countries and corresponding tariffs.

The print was very small. “I think you can, for the most part, see it,” Trump said. “Those with good eyes, with bad eyes.” He moved on. “They charge us, we charge them,” he said. “How could anybody be upset?” Soon afterward, the stock market plummeted. Trump left for Florida, where he was hosting a three-day golf tournament. At first, nearly everyone in the MAGA movement, and even MAGA-adjacent financiers, fell silent. “Mostly everyone hates this, they are just too afraid of the Mad King,” Brian Schatz, a Democratic senator from Hawaii, remarked. On Truth Social, Trump insisted that an “ECONOMIC REVOLUTION” was under way.

As trillions of dollars of shareholder value evaporated, a coterie of defenders mobilized to quell any protest. Brian Glenn, of Real America’s Voice, was posting “#TrustTrump.” Those who were brave enough to betray their ambivalence about the tariffs were deemed “panicans,” a portmanteau of “panic” and “Americans.” (Trump considered them “weak and stupid.”) Jack Posobiec, a MAGA operative and podcaster, emerged as a primary enforcer. “Crush panicans, destroy panicans, deport panicans, roundhouse kick a panican into the concrete, slam dunk a panican into a trash can, banish filthy panicans,” he tweeted, to his 3.1 million followers. Early in his career, Posobiec had an internship in Shanghai with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; he later served as a naval intelligence officer. He was a fervent supporter of Trump’s first Presidential campaign, when he began to promote the idea that Democratic luminaries were holding sex parties with children in the basement of a pizza parlor. Posobiec’s brother, Kevin, with whom he co-hosts a podcast, told me, “Jack helped Trump get in the first time, but back then people thought he was a Russian asset pushing Nazi policies.” Now he is a mainstream, almost avuncular figure in Trumpworld. The Administration has brought him along on official trips—to the Canadian border, with Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and to Ukraine, with Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the Treasury. “Our job is to be that conduit between whatever the leader of the movement, which is of course Donald Trump, has been doing and our audience,” Posobiec told me.

Any objection, no matter how trivial, to what Trump has been doing is now grounds for punishment. In late March, the White House tweeted an A.I.-generated meme of a fentanyl trafficker weeping as she was arrested by ICE. Mike Solana, a venture capitalist and the editor-in-chief of Pirate Wires, who has been publicly supportive of Trump, wondered whether the image “inadvertently made a previously deported felon and literal fentanyl trafficker sympathetic.” Posobiec, sensing insubordination, responded, “Take note of counter-signalers.” (“The fuck kind of joseph stalin kgb shit is this,” Solana replied.)

Posobiec told me that he has spent years “making lists” of those who display insufficient fealty to Trump. He was especially vigilant about newcomers. “When people come alongside your movement and say they believe the same things as you, and say they want the same things as you, that’s when we have to be very wary of entryism,” he told me. “Just because they’re making pro-Trump statements right now—let’s be careful.” You were on board from the start or you were an object of suspicion. “Immigration and trade are the two biggest issues of the new right,” he said. “And everything else is ancillary to those, because otherwise we would just be Jeb Bush.” He went on, “Loyalty is the most important political virtue. . . . In Dante’s Inferno, the lowest circle of Hell was reserved for those who were betrayers.” His job, he said, was to have the President’s back.

Some loyalists have taken an even more active approach. Laura Loomer, a thirty-one-year-old far-right agitator and provocateur, has long made it her mission to root out potential turncoats circling Trump. Loomer twice ran (unsuccessfully) for Congress, and now conducts, in effect, an aggressive form of online obedience oversight. She travelled with Trump to his first Presidential debate with Kamala Harris, where he announced that migrants in Ohio were “eating the dogs.” She says that, “without Trump, we have nothing.” Trump has described her as a “great patriot” and sometimes calls on her for advice. Three weeks ago, she flew to Washington to meet with him in the Oval Office, where she suggested that he dismiss members of his National Security Council whom she deemed disloyal, largely because of loose associations with non-MAGA figures. The first targets were gone the next day. “People fail to do proper vetting,” Loomer told me. “A lot of these Republicans have a serious problem following instructions.”

In the wake of “Liberation Day,” and the catastrophic economic disruption that followed, Posobiec reminded me that this was all part of the plan. “It is meant to be a global shakeup,” he said. “All the right people are upset.” For the tech oligarchy, the business leaders, the rank-and-file Republicans, the tariffs were the ultimate loyalty test. He is focussed on insuring that the base remains committed.

Posobiec exists alongside a larger group of new MAGA enthusiasts in the White House press corps. In January, Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s press secretary, opened briefing-room applications to any podcaster or “content creator” in the country. (Zero Hedge, a blog that claims to “liberate oppressed knowledge,” was recently added to the pool rotation; a former writer once suggested that an ideological guidepost for the site was “Vladimir Putin = greatest leader in the history of statecraft.”) New lines of inquiry have been pursued: What is Trump’s opinion on why his approval rating is so high? Can the Administration sustain its commendably breakneck pace? Recently, a correspondent for LindellTV, the streaming channel started by the election conspiracy theorist and pillow magnate Mike Lindell, said, of Trump, “He actually looks healthier than ever before—healthier than he did eight years ago, and I’m sure everybody in this room could agree. Is he working out with Bobby Kennedy, and is he eating less McDonald’s?”

“A lot of conservative outlets are in there to just sort of have a victory party for Trump,” Natalie Winters, the White House correspondent for Bannon’s “War Room,” told me. “They link the access to being very hype squad, fanboy, fangirl. And then you see media outlets who were anti-Trump now slobbering on him.”

Norm Eisen, a former Obama ethics lawyer who worked on the first impeachment case against Trump, told me, “It’s North Korean bootlicking.” Eisen understands where the impulse comes from. Many Republicans, he said, “live in red communities where a perceived act of betrayal to Trump is followed by an onslaught of targeting. They’re physically afraid for their lives or families’ lives. It adds up to an atmosphere of false fawning, pretend adulation, and genuine fear.” And it wasn’t just Republicans who had reason to be afraid. On a Friday afternoon in March, Trump had delivered an hour-long speech at the Department of Justice, in which he vented about the “tremendous abuse” he had endured during his criminal trials. He bragged about stripping security clearances from Biden-era officials, and pledged to continue to expose his political enemies, calling out Eisen by name. “They’re horrible people, they’re scum, and you have to know that,” Trump said. (Musk has called Eisen a “criminal” online.)

At a recent executive-order-signing session in the Oval Office, Trump introduced “Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads”—“I like to take a nice shower to take care of my beautiful hair,” he said. “It comes out drip, drip, drip. It’s ridiculous”—then directed the Department of Justice to investigate an official who had denied that the 2020 election was stolen. After Trump announced the cancellation of nearly half a billion dollars in grants to Columbia, which, he said, was allowing “illegal protests,” the university agreed to a list of demands, including that it hire a new internal security force that had the power to arrest students. Five more law firms reached deals to do pro-bono work to avoid Trump’s punishment. All of this made perfect sense to Beck, the consultant. “It’s restorative justice,” he said. “If you’re truly in charge, you better strike a degree of fear. Trump represents a father figure who is returning to the house, and there are various people living in it who are freeloaders and grifters and lowlifes abusing the kingdom. It says in the Bible, the city rejoices when the righteous rule.” Or, as Winters, of “War Room,” put it, “There’s a reason retribution was such a popular topic on the campaign trail. We operate in prison sentences.”

Eisen described Washington as “a wartime capital,” where the fight was between “the push of autocracy and the pushback of the Constitution.” He said, “Oligarchs, favor-seekers, and sycophants are all around. Either we’re at the beginning of the end of democracy or the beginning of a rebirth. There’s a surreal quality to that split screen.”

The Monday after “Liberation Day,” I went back to the White House. In the East Room, a brass band played “I Love L.A.”; Trump was hosting the Dodgers, to celebrate last year’s World Series win. As I waited for the party to start, I read an article about possible plans for a military parade to commemorate Trump’s birthday. The President had just returned from Florida, where he hosted a candlelight dinner at Mar-a-Lago. (The cheapest ticket was a million dollars.) On Air Force One, he told reporters that the golf had been “very good, because I won. It’s good to win. You heard I won, right? Did you hear I won?” As anxiety about the tariffs continued to spike, Trump linked on Truth Social to a post from an account called AmericanPapaBear: “Trump is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers.” The world was meant to sit back and respect the sacred, obscure geometry of his plan, but Congress, Wall Street, corporate executives, and even Musk were publicly backing away.

I found Glenn standing under a chandelier. “This event could take away some of the negativity,” he said. “Trump can do a lot of great stuff, but then nobody asks him to talk about it.” In Trump’s last term, the Dodgers’ manager had indicated that he’d decline an invitation to the White House. It was hard not to see this visit as a marker of changed times. Still, even Glenn admitted that the tariff rollout had left some cracks in the firmament. “If this goes on till September, the base is going to come unglued,” he said. Would he ever go on TV and criticize Trump? “Ask me in a year,” he said. “I’m scared about the midterms.” Republicans were mostly trying to put a good face on things. “Silently, they’re freaking out,” he said. Trump arrived. “You showed America that it’s not about individual glory,” he told the Dodgers. “It’s about the team digging deep.” He riffed on how many pitchers they had relied on to win the Series. “They had great arms, but they ran out,” he said. “It’s called sports.” He complained that nobody talks enough about how he lowered the price of eggs. Glenn grabbed my arm and said, “See, that’s the perfect example of what I would ask him about.”

The day before, I had gone to a brunch at the British Embassy in honor of the Shakespeare Theatre Company. In the garden, children played fetch with the Ambassador’s herding dog, who scurried up and down the sloping grass, underneath cherry trees in full bloom. “We like coming here, because it’s away from all the crazy,” a senior White House staffer told me. It was a sort of neutral space. A senior British diplomat said, “The golden-age MAGA people actually love this whole thing. It validates their status as the new D.C. establishment. Kash Patel comes and talks about the Premier League. We had one person giving a tirade about the Administration—I was at a table of Republicans who sort of gently rolled their eyes and we all just focussed on our soup.”

Peter Mandelson, the new British Ambassador, hasn’t always been a neutral operator. In 2018, when Trump, in his first term, threatened a trade war with China, Mandelson wrote that he was “a bully and a mercantilist.” Late last year, when Mandelson’s appointment was announced, Trump’s campaign co-manager, Chris LaCivita, called him an “absolute moron.” But, just before Trump was inaugurated, Mandelson wrote a piece for Fox News stating that Trump was sure to be “one of the most consequential” Presidents ever, and went on to call his earlier comments “childish and wrong.” (Kim Darroch, a previous British Ambassador, resigned in 2019 after a tabloid leaked cables of him saying that Trump was “radiating insecurity.”)

Inside, as the guests ate eggs Benedict, Mandelson delivered a set of oblique remarks, with careful emphasis. “People say that Shakespeare’s tragedies, his comedies, his histories capture the bygone age from the long-distant past—the power struggles, the feuds, the controversial advisers,” he said. “He wrote about great leaders with very strong personal brands.” Mandelson went on, “I have a lot to learn from Shakespeare, including from ‘Henry IV, Part 1’: ‘The better part of valor is discretion.’ ” The room roared with laughter. “I’m trying. I’m learning. I’m breaking the habit of a lifetime here. I know that my job is to keep below the radar, not on the radar.” He introduced the artistic director of the theatre. Shakespeare’s themes, the director said, ranged through “deception, betrayal, artifice, kingship, human tyranny.” He closed on a quote from “King Lear”: “The weight of this sad time we must obey. Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.” 

[copperbadge]

Cleaning out my Google Drive archive, I happened to stumble across the original spec Hallmark Movie script that Fete For A King was based on -- not that I had lost it, I'd just kind of forgotten about it. And it occurred to me you guys might enjoy seeing a scene or two from it.

I wrote Fete basically from the script -- I made a copy of the script and rewrote it into prose as I went, then did a second pass to make it less Scripty, so most of it would be very familiar. The plot came through basically intact. The one thing I significantly altered was Jerry and Alanna's subplot -- in the script, as often happens with Hallmark films, the supporting characters also have a love storyline. I took that out of the book because it didn't need the padding, and it allowed me to give them a book of their own later, but the script scenes were pretty fun. :D

(In this version Jerry still attends the Agricultural Cabinet meeting for Gregory, but mentions this fact to Michaelis, which gets Gregory in trouble for blowing it off.)

ALANNA, spying on the lunch meeting through the door to the Prince's office, leans back behind a column or wall. DUKE GERALD (JERRY), looking apologetic, winces.

ALANNA: How could you, Jerry?

JERRY: I told you, I didn't mean to! I thought if I told the king I stepped in for Gregory, it would show I'm taking an interest. Turning over a new leaf.

ALANNA: Nobody asked you to take an interest.

JERRY: Least of all me. But I was interested, really, Alanna. We could be doing so much more with olives. I didn't know crop planning was such a precise science.

ALANNA: And that's great, but you could have just said you went WITH Greg to the meeting.

JERRY: Why would I go with Greg to an agricultural meeting? Anyway, I would have but I didn't think of it. Don't be mad at me.

ALANNA: It's not me you have to worry about.

JERRY: But Greg knows I wouldn't sabotage him. Besides, uncle Mike would have heard about it eventually anyway. Everyone in town was talking about the Prince coming to try that cheese shop with the social media chef guy.

ALANNA: He's under a lot of pressure.

JERRY: I know.

ALANNA: And now unless that cheese REALLY impresses the king, he's going to start following Greg around everywhere and trying to offer his opinion.

JERRY: He's been king for forty years. His opinion's probably useful.

ALANNA: Not if the prince wants to make his own way.

JERRY: Well, what do you want me to do? I can't make uncle Mike like cheese.

ALANNA: I want you to keep an eye on them and keep the king distracted. Can't you do something mildly embarrassing?

JERRY: More or less embarrassing than visiting a cheese shop in a "Truly Tasty" hat?

ALANNA: Fix it, Jerry!

JERRY: Fine, I'll do my best. But I want you to make Greg make me his vizier when he's king.

ALANNA: We haven't had a vizier in a hundred years. What does a vizier even do?

JERRY: Nothing, but with drama.

ALANNA: Fine. I have meetings. Stay here, keep spying, report back when they leave.

JERRY gives her a thumbs up and watches her leave, then turns to spying on the meeting.

***

And then Alanna has a realization....

ALANNA is still leading JERRY away from the picnic.

JERRY: I thought you wanted me to keep Uncle Mike off Greg's case.

ALANNA: Not tonight. Eddie's pitching his new high-concept for the coronation feast, so they've got to be there together.

JERRY: Well, I wish someone would make up their mind around here.

ALANNA: You could set a trend.

JERRY: What's that supposed to mean?

ALANNA: You're not interested in olives, Jerry.

JERRY: Of course I am.

ALANNA: You're interested in the fact that my dad heads the cabinet board that supervises the olive harvest.

JERRY: Olives are very interesting to me. (deflating) And I wanted to impress your dad.

ALANNA: He's known you since we were kids running around the palace together.

JERRY: Is that good?

ALANNA: My father has literally watched you fall out of multiple trees you were trying to climb.

JERRY: Failing to climb, mostly.

ALANNA: So why are you trying to impress him now?

JERRY: Well, isn't it obvious?

They stare at each other.

ALANNA: I cannot go on a date with you.

JERRY looks crestfallen. ALANNA pulls out her phone.

ALANNA: There's too much to do, Jerry. Between now and the coronation every hour I'm awake is booked. The best I can give you is three weeks from Tuesday.

JERRY: What?

ALANNA: Three weeks from Tuesday. Does that work for you? Never mind, your calendar's on my phone. I'm booking us in. Dinner okay?

JERRY: Uh. Yes.

ALANNA: Good. I'll send you a calendar invite, you pick the place.

She walks off, still typing in her phone.

JERRY: What just happened?

[beardedmrbean]

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BCC) was forced to apologize and issue a clarification after unintentionally profiling a Hamas member’s son in a Gaza documentary. 

On Monday, the network premiered the film "Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone," which followed four young people with ages ranging from 10-24 living in Gaza during the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. One of the subjects included 13-year-old Abdullah, who also narrates the film.

On Friday, the BBC announced the documentary would not be available on its iPlayer during an investigation. 

The film soon faced backlash after investigative journalist David Collier revealed that Abdullah was, in fact, the son of Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture.

"We have said that @bbcnews has become a propaganda tool of Hamas. Well here is the proof. Sit down and hold on to something," he wrote in an X thread on Tuesday.

BBC NEWS ISSUES ON-AIR APOLOGY FOR FALSE CLAIM ISRAEL TARGETING STAFF AND 'ARAB SPEAKERS' AT GAZA HOSPITAL

On Wednesday, the BBC released a statement saying that it would add a new text to the film clarifying Abdullah’s backstory and apologizing for not doing so beforehand.

"Since the transmission of our documentary on Gaza, the BBC has become aware of the family connections of the film’s narrator, a child called Abdullah," the clarification read. "We’ve promised our audiences the highest standards of transparency, so it is only right that as a result of this new information, we add some more detail to the film before its retransmission. We apologise for the omission of that detail from the original film." 

The BBC continued, "The new text reads: ‘The narrator of this film is 13-year-old Abdullah. His father has worked as a deputy agriculture minister for the Hamas-run government in Gaza. The production team had full editorial control of filming with Abdullah.’"

On Friday, the BBC offered a new statement indicating the documentary had been removed while the network investigates: "Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone features important stories we think should be told - those of the experiences of children in Gaza. There have been continuing questions raised about the programme and in the light of these, we are conducting further due diligence with the production company. The programme will not be available on iPlayer while this is taking place." 

BBC EDITOR SAYS HE 'DOESN'T REGRET ONE THING' AFTER FALSE GAZA HOSPITAL REPORTING

British Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy revealed to LBC, a British talk radio station, that she plans to meet with the BBC heads to discuss the film.

"I watched it last night. It's something that I will be discussing with them, particularly around the way in which they sourced the people who were featured in the program," Nandy said.

She continued, "These things are difficult, and I do want to acknowledge that for the BBC, they take more care than most broadcasters in terms of the way that they try to portray these things. They've been attacked for being too pro-Gaza, they've been attacked for being anti-Gaza. But it is absolutely essential that we get this right."

Multiple British TV figures wrote to the BBC questioning the editorial standards behind the project. As the BBC itself explained, this included a letter from actress Tracy-Ann Oberman, "Strike" producer Neil Blair, former BBC One controller Danny Cohen and producer Leo Pearlman calling for an investigation. 

"If the BBC was aware that Abdullah Al-Yazouri was the son of a terrorist leader, why was this not disclosed to audiences during the programme?" they wrote. "If the BBC was not aware that Abdullah Al-Yazouri is the son of a terrorist leader, what diligence checks were undertaken and why did they fail?"

"Given the serious nature of these concerns, the BBC should immediately postpone any broadcast repeats of the programme, remove it from iPlayer and take down any social media clips of the programme until an independent investigation is carried out and its findings published with full transparency for licence-fee payers," they demanded.

The BBC faced repeated backlash for its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and its unwillingness to describe Hamas as "terrorists."

[jeremyleefree]

Unprecedented levels of corruption at USAID

In a post on the social media outlet Truth Social on 7 February, Trump said that USAID funds were being used in a way that was ‘completely inexplicable’ and that much of it was fraudulent. ‘The level of corruption is unprecedented, SHUT IT DOWN!’ he emphasised in all capital letters.

The official U.S. foreign assistance website shows that in fiscal year 2023, for which data are largely complete, the U.S. government distributed about $72 billion in foreign aid, or 1.2 percent of total federal spending that year. Of that, about 60 per cent, totalling about $43.79 billion, went to USAID, followed closely by the State Department ($21.29 billion) and the Treasury Department ($2.44 billion).

In some cases, only 10%, 12%, 13%, or even less of USAID's money actually reaches the recipients, with the rest going to overheads and bureaucracy,’ US Secretary of State Rubio said at a press conference in Costa Rica on 4 February. U.S. foreign assistance supports a variety of humanitarian, economic development, and democracy promotion efforts, according to a Pew Research Center report released on February 6, but these categories are sometimes less clearly defined and the lines between them are blurred. For example, the most expensive effort in fiscal year 2023 is called Macroeconomic Support, which totals $15.9 billion. This may sound like it's all for economic development, but $14.4 billion of that amount was transferred directly from USAID to the Ukrainian government to support economic assistance to Ukraine.

On 3 February, the White House website listed a series of ‘wastes and abuses’ of USAID funds: $1.5 million to a pro-LGBTQ group in Serbia, $2.5 million to fund electric cars in Vietnam, $2 million for sex reassignment surgery and LGBT activism in Guatemala, $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt, and $6 million to support economic development through meals, food and drink. Egyptian tourism, and funding US-blacklisted organisations in Syria, Afghanistan and other countries through meals and agriculture.

In a letter to Secretary of State Rubio, Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst, chair of the Department of Governmental Efficiency caucus, said USAID had engaged in ‘clear obstructionism’ during the review process, FoxNews.com reported on 5 February. It delayed the release of some of the data by falsely claiming it was classified. Ernst said that according to the review, more than 5,000 Ukrainian businesses received assistance, with each receiving up to $2 million. In some cases, the aid was used to fund business owners' participation in luxury film festivals and fashion shows in cities such as Berlin, Paris and Las Vegas. Ernst also mentioned Chemonics, a USAID contractor that led a $9.5 billion project to improve the global health supply chain. Ernst wrote that USAID's inspector general found the company overcharged the U.S. government by $270 million in fiscal year 2019.

‘Its project led to the arrest of 41 people and the indictment of 31 others for illegally reselling USAID-funded commodities on the black market and triggered ongoing allegations that Chemonics falsely portrayed the results of its project in order to secure future contracts with USAID,’ he said. ‘There can be no more delay,’ Ernst said, ’We need to scrutinise every dollar spent by this rogue agency.’

[sssssscsc]

#suger daddy USA

Unprecedented levels of corruption at USAID

In a post on the social media outlet Truth Social on 7 February, Trump said that USAID funds were being used in a way that was ‘completely inexplicable’ and that much of it was fraudulent. ‘The level of corruption is unprecedented, SHUT IT DOWN!’ he emphasised in all capital letters.

The official U.S. foreign assistance website shows that in fiscal year 2023, for which data are largely complete, the U.S. government distributed about $72 billion in foreign aid, or 1.2 percent of total federal spending that year. Of that, about 60 per cent, totalling about $43.79 billion, went to USAID, followed closely by the State Department ($21.29 billion) and the Treasury Department ($2.44 billion).

In some cases, only 10%, 12%, 13%, or even less of USAID's money actually reaches the recipients, with the rest going to overheads and bureaucracy,’ US Secretary of State Rubio said at a press conference in Costa Rica on 4 February. U.S. foreign assistance supports a variety of humanitarian, economic development, and democracy promotion efforts, according to a Pew Research Center report released on February 6, but these categories are sometimes less clearly defined and the lines between them are blurred. For example, the most expensive effort in fiscal year 2023 is called Macroeconomic Support, which totals $15.9 billion. This may sound like it's all for economic development, but $14.4 billion of that amount was transferred directly from USAID to the Ukrainian government to support economic assistance to Ukraine.

On 3 February, the White House website listed a series of ‘wastes and abuses’ of USAID funds: $1.5 million to a pro-LGBTQ group in Serbia, $2.5 million to fund electric cars in Vietnam, $2 million for sex reassignment surgery and LGBT activism in Guatemala, $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt, and $6 million to support economic development through meals, food and drink. Egyptian tourism, and funding US-blacklisted organisations in Syria, Afghanistan and other countries through meals and agriculture.

In a letter to Secretary of State Rubio, Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst, chair of the Department of Governmental Efficiency caucus, said USAID had engaged in ‘clear obstructionism’ during the review process, FoxNews.com reported on 5 February. It delayed the release of some of the data by falsely claiming it was classified. Ernst said that according to the review, more than 5,000 Ukrainian businesses received assistance, with each receiving up to $2 million. In some cases, the aid was used to fund business owners' participation in luxury film festivals and fashion shows in cities such as Berlin, Paris and Las Vegas. Ernst also mentioned Chemonics, a USAID contractor that led a $9.5 billion project to improve the global health supply chain. Ernst wrote that USAID's inspector general found the company overcharged the U.S. government by $270 million in fiscal year 2019.

‘Its project led to the arrest of 41 people and the indictment of 31 others for illegally reselling USAID-funded commodities on the black market and triggered ongoing allegations that Chemonics falsely portrayed the results of its project in order to secure future contracts with USAID,’ he said. ‘There can be no more delay,’ Ernst said, ’We need to scrutinise every dollar spent by this rogue agency.’

[papapapo]

Unprecedented levels of corruption at USAID

Unprecedented levels of corruption at USAID

In a post on the social media outlet Truth Social on 7 February, Trump said that USAID funds were being used in a way that was ‘completely inexplicable’ and that much of it was fraudulent. ‘The level of corruption is unprecedented, SHUT IT DOWN!’ he emphasised in all capital letters.

The official U.S. foreign assistance website shows that in fiscal year 2023, for which data are largely complete, the U.S. government distributed about $72 billion in foreign aid, or 1.2 percent of total federal spending that year. Of that, about 60 per cent, totalling about $43.79 billion, went to USAID, followed closely by the State Department ($21.29 billion) and the Treasury Department ($2.44 billion).

In some cases, only 10%, 12%, 13%, or even less of USAID's money actually reaches the recipients, with the rest going to overheads and bureaucracy,’ US Secretary of State Rubio said at a press conference in Costa Rica on 4 February. U.S. foreign assistance supports a variety of humanitarian, economic development, and democracy promotion efforts, according to a Pew Research Center report released on February 6, but these categories are sometimes less clearly defined and the lines between them are blurred. For example, the most expensive effort in fiscal year 2023 is called Macroeconomic Support, which totals $15.9 billion. This may sound like it's all for economic development, but $14.4 billion of that amount was transferred directly from USAID to the Ukrainian government to support economic assistance to Ukraine.

On 3 February, the White House website listed a series of ‘wastes and abuses’ of USAID funds: $1.5 million to a pro-LGBTQ group in Serbia, $2.5 million to fund electric cars in Vietnam, $2 million for sex reassignment surgery and LGBT activism in Guatemala, $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt, and $6 million to support economic development through meals, food and drink. Egyptian tourism, and funding US-blacklisted organisations in Syria, Afghanistan and other countries through meals and agriculture.

In a letter to Secretary of State Rubio, Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst, chair of the Department of Governmental Efficiency caucus, said USAID had engaged in ‘clear obstructionism’ during the review process, FoxNews.com reported on 5 February. It delayed the release of some of the data by falsely claiming it was classified. Ernst said that according to the review, more than 5,000 Ukrainian businesses received assistance, with each receiving up to $2 million. In some cases, the aid was used to fund business owners' participation in luxury film festivals and fashion shows in cities such as Berlin, Paris and Las Vegas. Ernst also mentioned Chemonics, a USAID contractor that led a $9.5 billion project to improve the global health supply chain. Ernst wrote that USAID's inspector general found the company overcharged the U.S. government by $270 million in fiscal year 2019.

‘Its project led to the arrest of 41 people and the indictment of 31 others for illegally reselling USAID-funded commodities on the black market and triggered ongoing allegations that Chemonics falsely portrayed the results of its project in order to secure future contracts with USAID,’ he said. ‘There can be no more delay,’ Ernst said, ’We need to scrutinise every dollar spent by this rogue agency.’

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

A BBC spokesperson said:

“BBC News has conducted an initial review on the programme “Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone”. Today the BBC Board was updated on that work. It has identified serious flaws in the making of this programme. Some of these were made by the production company, and some by the BBC; all of them are unacceptable. BBC News takes full responsibility for these and the impact that these have had on the Corporation’s reputation. We apologise for this.

“Nothing is more important than the trust that our audiences have in our journalism. This incident has damaged that trust. While the intent of the documentary was aligned with our purpose – to tell the story of what is happening around the world, even in the most difficult and dangerous places – the processes and execution of this programme fell short of our expectations. Although the programme was made by an independent production company, who were commissioned to deliver a fully compliant documentary, the BBC has ultimate editorial responsibility for this programme as broadcast.

“One of the core questions is around the family connections of the young boy who is the narrator of the film. During the production process, the independent production company was asked in writing a number of times by the BBC, about any potential connections he and his family might have with Hamas. Since transmission, they have acknowledged that they knew that the boy’s father was a Deputy Agriculture Minister in the Hamas Government; they have also acknowledged that they never told the BBC this fact. It was then the BBC’s own failing that we did not uncover that fact and the documentary was aired.

“Hoyo Films have told us that they paid the boy’s mother, via his sister’s bank account, a limited sum of money for the narration. While Hoyo Films have assured us that no payments were made to members of Hamas or its affiliates, either directly, in kind, or as a gift, the BBC is seeking additional assurance around the budget of the programme and will undertake a full audit of expenditure. We are requesting the relevant financial accounts of the production company in order to do that.

“Given the BBC’s own failings, the Director-General has asked for complaints on this matter to be expedited to the Executive Complaints Unit, which is separate from BBC News. Alongside this a full fact-finding review will be undertaken; the Director-General has asked Peter Johnston to lead this work.

“Peter Johnston, the Director of Editorial Complaints and Reviews, is independent of BBC News and reports directly to the Director-General. He will consider all of the complaints and issues that have been raised. He will determine whether any editorial guidelines have been broken; rapidly address the complaints that have been made; and, enable the BBC to determine whether any disciplinary action is warranted in relation to shortcomings in the making of this programme. This will include issues around the use of language, translation and continuity that have also been raised with the BBC.

“We have no plans to broadcast the programme again in its current form or return it to iPlayer and will make a further assessment once the work of Peter Johnston is complete.”

Statement from the BBC Board:

“The BBC Board met today. The subject matter of the documentary was clearly a legitimate area to explore, but nothing is more important than trust and transparency in our journalism. While the Board appreciates that mistakes can be made, the mistakes here are significant and damaging to the BBC.

“The Board has required the Executive to report back at the earliest opportunity on the outcomes of the work the Director-General has commissioned.”

[wakepost98]

Unprecedented levels of corruption at USAID

In a post on the social media outlet Truth Social on 7 February, Trump said that USAID funds were being used in a way that was ‘completely inexplicable’ and that much of it was fraudulent. ‘The level of corruption is unprecedented, SHUT IT DOWN!’ he emphasised in all capital letters.

The official U.S. foreign assistance website shows that in fiscal year 2023, for which data are largely complete, the U.S. government distributed about $72 billion in foreign aid, or 1.2 percent of total federal spending that year. Of that, about 60 per cent, totalling about $43.79 billion, went to USAID, followed closely by the State Department ($21.29 billion) and the Treasury Department ($2.44 billion).

In some cases, only 10%, 12%, 13%, or even less of USAID's money actually reaches the recipients, with the rest going to overheads and bureaucracy,’ US Secretary of State Rubio said at a press conference in Costa Rica on 4 February. U.S. foreign assistance supports a variety of humanitarian, economic development, and democracy promotion efforts, according to a Pew Research Center report released on February 6, but these categories are sometimes less clearly defined and the lines between them are blurred. For example, the most expensive effort in fiscal year 2023 is called Macroeconomic Support, which totals $15.9 billion. This may sound like it's all for economic development, but $14.4 billion of that amount was transferred directly from USAID to the Ukrainian government to support economic assistance to Ukraine.

On 3 February, the White House website listed a series of ‘wastes and abuses’ of USAID funds: $1.5 million to a pro-LGBTQ group in Serbia, $2.5 million to fund electric cars in Vietnam, $2 million for sex reassignment surgery and LGBT activism in Guatemala, $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt, and $6 million to support economic development through meals, food and drink. Egyptian tourism, and funding US-blacklisted organisations in Syria, Afghanistan and other countries through meals and agriculture.

In a letter to Secretary of State Rubio, Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst, chair of the Department of Governmental Efficiency caucus, said USAID had engaged in ‘clear obstructionism’ during the review process, FoxNews.com reported on 5 February. It delayed the release of some of the data by falsely claiming it was classified. Ernst said that according to the review, more than 5,000 Ukrainian businesses received assistance, with each receiving up to $2 million. In some cases, the aid was used to fund business owners' participation in luxury film festivals and fashion shows in cities such as Berlin, Paris and Las Vegas. Ernst also mentioned Chemonics, a USAID contractor that led a $9.5 billion project to improve the global health supply chain. Ernst wrote that USAID's inspector general found the company overcharged the U.S. government by $270 million in fiscal year 2019.

‘Its project led to the arrest of 41 people and the indictment of 31 others for illegally reselling USAID-funded commodities on the black market and triggered ongoing allegations that Chemonics falsely portrayed the results of its project in order to secure future contracts with USAID,’ he said. ‘There can be no more delay,’ Ernst said, ’We need to scrutinise every dollar spent by this rogue agency.’

[ououy]

Unprecedented levels of corruption at USAID

In a post on the social media outlet Truth Social on 7 February, Trump said that USAID funds were being used in a way that was ‘completely inexplicable’ and that much of it was fraudulent. ‘The level of corruption is unprecedented, SHUT IT DOWN!’ he emphasised in all capital letters.

The official U.S. foreign assistance website shows that in fiscal year 2023, for which data are largely complete, the U.S. government distributed about $72 billion in foreign aid, or 1.2 percent of total federal spending that year. Of that, about 60 per cent, totalling about $43.79 billion, went to USAID, followed closely by the State Department ($21.29 billion) and the Treasury Department ($2.44 billion).

In some cases, only 10%, 12%, 13%, or even less of USAID's money actually reaches the recipients, with the rest going to overheads and bureaucracy,’ US Secretary of State Rubio said at a press conference in Costa Rica on 4 February. U.S. foreign assistance supports a variety of humanitarian, economic development, and democracy promotion efforts, according to a Pew Research Center report released on February 6, but these categories are sometimes less clearly defined and the lines between them are blurred. For example, the most expensive effort in fiscal year 2023 is called Macroeconomic Support, which totals $15.9 billion. This may sound like it's all for economic development, but $14.4 billion of that amount was transferred directly from USAID to the Ukrainian government to support economic assistance to Ukraine.

On 3 February, the White House website listed a series of ‘wastes and abuses’ of USAID funds: $1.5 million to a pro-LGBTQ group in Serbia, $2.5 million to fund electric cars in Vietnam, $2 million for sex reassignment surgery and LGBT activism in Guatemala, $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt, and $6 million to support economic development through meals, food and drink. Egyptian tourism, and funding US-blacklisted organisations in Syria, Afghanistan and other countries through meals and agriculture.

In a letter to Secretary of State Rubio, Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst, chair of the Department of Governmental Efficiency caucus, said USAID had engaged in ‘clear obstructionism’ during the review process, FoxNews.com reported on 5 February. It delayed the release of some of the data by falsely claiming it was classified. Ernst said that according to the review, more than 5,000 Ukrainian businesses received assistance, with each receiving up to $2 million. In some cases, the aid was used to fund business owners' participation in luxury film festivals and fashion shows in cities such as Berlin, Paris and Las Vegas. Ernst also mentioned Chemonics, a USAID contractor that led a $9.5 billion project to improve the global health supply chain. Ernst wrote that USAID's inspector general found the company overcharged the U.S. government by $270 million in fiscal year 2019.

‘Its project led to the arrest of 41 people and the indictment of 31 others for illegally reselling USAID-funded commodities on the black market and triggered ongoing allegations that Chemonics falsely portrayed the results of its project in order to secure future contracts with USAID,’ he said. ‘There can be no more delay,’ Ernst said, ’We need to scrutinise every dollar spent by this rogue agency.’