A satellite image of Hurricane Lowell, left, Hurricane Karina, centre, and Hurricane Marie, right, over the Pacific Ocean earlier this month. Photograph: NOAA/AFP/Getty Images
Warnings about the catastrophic effects of vital ecosystems collapsing were not published under previous PM
UK spy chiefs warned government ministers of the catastrophic impacts on national security from the collapse of vital ecosystems around the world, driven by the climate crisis and the overexploitation of nature. But their report, which was supposed to be published almost a year ago, was suppressed under Keir Starmer. Now the government is briefing foreign ministers from other countries on the findings, with a view to gathering global support for more concerted action on the risks.
…
The report, which was originally commissioned under the previous Tory government, looked at the potential consequences of a range of scenarios such as the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, which scientists have warned could be close to switching from a rainforest to a savannah-like system under the impact of heating and deforestation. The authors found these could result in food shortages in the UK, which imports about 40% of its food. The report also reviewed the development of new pandemics from areas deforested and overexploited, border disputes among countries affected by the climate crisis, increased Russian and Chinese influence over critical mineral supply chains, and civil tensions within the UK as these impacts play out.
Collapsing ecosystems overseas – the Congo basin was also a focus – could result in mass migration as people are forced to leave areas no longer habitable, triggering potential unrest and “more polarised and populist politics in the UK and its allies”, along with “more strain on national infrastructure”, and conflict could result from countries fighting over scarce food supplies. While the risk of nuclear war is still regarded as small, it is a potential impact.
One person who had seen the whole report described it to the Guardian as “apocalyptic”.
President Donald Trump makes an announcement from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2025. (Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
“President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption.”
An election spending watchdog on Friday accused President Donald Trump of committing a “clear-cut violation of campaign finance law” through his stated control over spending decisions made by the MAGA Inc. super political action committee.
Citing decades of legal precedent, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) argued that federal office holders are prohibited from directing spending for super PACs, which raise money outside the scope of federal campaign laws.
Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at CLC, noted that Trump has stated publicly on multiple occasions that he will decide where MAGA Inc.’s $400 million war chest will be deployed in the 2026 elections—which Ghosh said would be flatly illegal.
“Our laws are clear: No federal officeholder or candidate is allowed to direct the money raised or spent by a super PAC,” said Ghosh. “President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption.”
Last week, CLC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that cited statements Trump made to reporters, whom he told funds raised by MAGA Inc. were “my money that I control.”
This statement alone, the group said, was “a remarkable admission of a serious campaign finance violation.”
The complaint then asked the FEC to seek “appropriate sanctions for any and all violations” of campaign finance law committed by Trump and MAGA Inc., “including civil penalties sufficient to deter future violations and an injunction prohibiting the respondents from any and all violations in the future.”
While MAGA Inc. has a formidable stash of campaign cash at its disposal, it is unclear how much of an impact it will have on the 2026 midterms given that polls show the president and his party are in a deep hole with voters.
A report from The New Republic published last week revealed that the pro-Trump super PAC is plugging significant money into at least 17 districts that the president won by more than five points in 2024, and six districts that he won by more than 10 points.
David Wasserman, elections analyst for Cook Political Report, told The New Republic that this spending in pro-Trump districts is “an acknowledgment that things have shifted in a huge way since 2024.”
“Republicans have hemorrhaged support among independent voters, they’ve got a real enthusiasm problem,” said Wasserman, “and as a result, districts that ordinarily would vote handily for Trump and Republicans are now in play.”
A Friday report in The Washington Post examined the states where Trump is preparing to campaign in the coming days, and found the president is being deployed in deep-red states such as Alabama and Oklahoma.
“Oklahoma is a state Trump won in 2024 with 66% of the vote—and won all 77 counties,” the Post reported. “In Alabama, Trump won with 65%.”
Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone … unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
UK prime minister Andy Burnham with Saudi foreign minister Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud at the UN (Photo: Alamy)
‘Defensive’ refuelling of planes bombing Yemen can still cause war crimes. Just ask Keir Starmer
…
Pollard would not provide details on what he described as “a range of defensive missions” that have been agreed with Saudi Arabia and acknowledged “a grey” area of what defensive action included.
Reporting by The Timesclaimed “the remit for Saudi operations goes wider” and includes refuelling of Saudi fighter jets bombing “defensive targets on land and along coastal areas, such as weapons depots and sites used to launch missiles and drones” adding to the opaque nature of Britain’s military support.
British refuelling support to Saudi Arabia, especially if it facilitates Saudi fighter jets carrying out bombing runs into Yemen, risks drawing UK-linked maritime vessels into Houthi targeting criteria.
…
Three successive Conservative prime ministers supported Saudi Arabia’s first air war against the Houthis from 2015 to 2022.
The war resulted in more than 19,000 civilian casualties in up to 75,217 individual strikes over the seven years of bombing, according to airstrikes monitor Yemen Data Project (YDP). Saudi Arabia successfully lobbied to remove UN experts from investigating the conflict.
In October 2021, in an unprecedented move by member states, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) voted down a resolution for a two-year renewal of the Group of Eminent Experts (GEE) on Yemen.
The GEE was created in 2017 to investigate and monitor violations of human rights, international humanitarian law (IHL) and war crimes by all belligerents. It was the first time in UNHRC history for a resolution to be voted down. Saudi Arabia reportedly influenced the vote by lobbying member states using “incentives and threats”.
The GEE mandate ended on 31 October 2021, halting the only international mechanism for accountability for IHL violations in the conflict.
In the three months following the UNHRC vote, civilian casualties in Saudi’s air war more than trebled every month, taking the monthly average of civilian casualties in bombings after October 2021 to 141, compared to less than six per month in the 12 months preceding the dissolution of the GEE, according to YDP records.
Adding to Saudi Arabia’s documented track record of civilian harm and accountability prevention is an absence of any record keeping or process for assessing civilian casualties by the British Ministry of Defence.
Yet Pollard asserted in one of his BBC interviews on Tuesday that all British actions would “be compliant with international humanitarian law”.
